return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By pstaud hotmail.com
(another from Soren) Re: Simplifications
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: (another from Soren) Re: Simplifications
By Gary goodwinter.com
The Abstract Nature of Modern Economic Life
By sgroth efn.org
Re: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By sgroth efn.org
Re: Simplifications
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Simplifications
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: Simplifications
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Simplifications
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By feetapparel hotmail.com
An academe trapped in Steiner land
By argeiphontes hotmail.com
Re: An academe trapped in Steiner land
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: An academe trapped in Steiner land
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: An academe trapped in Steiner land
By snell gv.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:48:28 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
Percedol opines that racism is a tenet of all esotericism:
)It's a tenet of all esotericism. Just think of Plato.
Since the concept of race did not exist in Plato's time, your example is
obviously erroneous. But I'll agree that a very large proportion of modern
esotericist movements have incorporated racist beliefs. That's one reason
why charlatans like Evola are all the rage in esoteric circles today. People
drawn to esotericism are very often politically clueless, and are either
unaware that many of their "teachers" were racists and fascists, or simply
don't care.
) ) Whether or not these basic concepts impinge on your
) ) private
) ) image of "anthroposophy", Percedol, they are integral parts of
) ) anthroposophy
) ) as it actually exists in the real world.
)
)P:
)This is the limit of your analysis of A.
I didn't really offer an analysis of anthroposophy in the paragraph you
quoted. All I offered was a straightforward description of anthroposophy's
racial theory. (Whether this description is accurate, by the way, has
nothing to do with Percedolosophy; it has only to do with anthroposophy as
it actually exists in the real world.) I think it would be great if we could
move on to a critical analysis of anthroposophy's racial theory, but the
necessary first step is to get the description right. This is the step that
seems to keep tripping you up.
)Anyone has the possibility to connect to the higher self.
)Not in the future, but in this life.
)And this is not just my personal view.
I imagine there are indeed others who share this view, and maybe even
project this view onto anthroposophy. Since you and they are mistaken
regarding anthroposophy, as a matter of mere description, such views are of
no consequence here. Anthroposophy is an entity that exists outside of your
mind, Percedol. Recognizing this fact is a prerequisite of meaningful
discussion.
)You may keep going with your criticism towards A. but this is where it
)fails completely.
Which criticism? The only criticism I offered in the post you are supposedly
responding to was that too many anthroposophists are ignorant of the history
of the Aryan myth. If you think that criticism is wide of the mark, then
you've got a lot of explaining to do regarding your last several posts, all
of which display a remarkable naivete about Aryanism. But if you prefer, we
can leave my criticism aside and focus instead on getting an adequate
picture of anthroposophy's racial doctrines. That will mean returning to
Steiner's texts, not to your personal beliefs.
)It will good for everybody to know, if someone will have to deal with
)your attacks.
I didn't attack you in that post. I didn't even attack anthroposophy. I am
not an enemy of anthroposophy, I am a critic of its racial theories, its
ethnic teachings, and its esoteric politics. But all of that is jumping
ahead a step; we still haven't clarified the logically prior question of
just what anthroposophy's racial theories are. We need to know that before
we can decide whether we are in agreement or disagreement with them. And on
that score, I think you have managed to confuse yourself rather thoroughly.
Here's how you can tell:
Go back and re-read my last post, the one you think you've just responded
to. You will see that I didn't offer any criticism of anthroposophy's
racism; I merely pointed it out and summarized it for your benefit. So far
all you have done is observed that your own private version of
"anthroposophy" differs from the version represented by Steiner's published
works, and complained that the standard of racism that I have invoked is
somehow too broad. Your first point is irrelevant, and your second point is
self-defeating.
It seems to me that you have simply mixed up the task of description with
the task of evaluation, and that this confusion accounts for two prominent
aspects of your posts: your continual insistence that real anthroposophy is
whatever you say it is, regardless of what the rest of us can see in black
and white on the pages of Steiner's books; and your constant irritation at
my recapitulation of anthroposophical race doctrine. In other words, you not
only conflate your own evaluations and descriptions, you conflate mine as
well. I can't help out much on the first score, but as for the second,
perhaps I can try to explain one more time how I approach this subject.
It is certainly true that I strongly dislike anthroposophy's racial
doctrines, but that issue is entirely separate from the job of describing
them accurately. There are lots of people in the world who do not share my
negative attitude toward racist thinking. When encountering a historical
figure like Steiner, both racists and non-racists have to first figure out
what he said about race before we can evaluate what he said and assess it
either critically or affirmatively. To call anthroposophy racist only counts
as criticism for those who are opposed to racism. It is obviously not a
criticism for racists themselves. That's why so many non-anthroposophical
racists are fans of Steiner. Although they dismiss many other elements of
anthroposophy, they enthusiastically welcome his racial teachings. Surely
even you can recognize that such people have no motive for misrepresenting
anthroposophical race theory.
)Thank you,
)good-bye!
You mean you're leaving just at the point where the argument starts to make
sense? Why, that's never happended before.......
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get McAfee virus scanning and cleaning of incoming attachments. Get Hotmail
Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:53:11 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Cc: sgroth efn.org
Subject: (another from Soren) Re: Simplifications
Hello critics,
I got another post from Soren, below; he says he is still unable to post
directly to the list. I'll reply later today.
Peter S.
) Hi Still not able to post to the list :-(
)
)Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)))use of word "race" as descriptive term related to evolution as Steiner
)))and (according to the information you provided) Mitrinovic approaches it
)))is false.
))
))- I certainly agree that the
))
))I'm glad we agree on that. Thanks for making it clear in your posts to the
))list.
))
)))What Steiner is concerned, I find that he didn't present
)))antroposophy as a timeless "box" - that the movement in some ways have
)))become a box and have difficulties overcoming and reevaluating the
)))founding father is a "follower"problem I somehow find Steiner himself
)))tried to adress.
)))So I see no reason to reject that Steiner in cases use the term race in
)))characterising things, which in itself can contain some truth, but
)))becomes false in relation to race, as biological determination.
))
))
))I can't see your logic on this point. If it is false, isn't that reason
))enough to reject it?
)
)Well, of course, especially if you're not interested in a within
)antroposophy perspective. For antroposophy to just reject lots of what
)Steiner said won't do - it has to be reevaluated - to sort out what is
)the truth behind and where this truth becomes incorrect by the process
)of relating a clairvoyant picture to the terms of our sense-perceptible
)world, to cloth non-verbal communication into words...
)
))Though eurocentrism in itself is nothing I
))
)))endorse, I do find a point in seperating ideas contain within this
)))concept, from those that is purely based on biological racethinking.
))
))
))But the whole point is that people like Steiner and Mitrinovic did *not*
))separate these concepts. If we want to understand their work on its own
))terms, we can't wish away that crucial fact. Steiner tied spirituality and
))biology tightly together. Contemporary anthroposophy has yet to untie
))them. What's taking you all so long?
)
)Childdisease ?? :-)
)
)"The concept of race in a proper sense was only useful at the old
)Atlantis. Therefore we have, as we count with a real evolution of
)humanity, not used the concept of race for the post-Atlantean time. We
)don't speak of an Indian race and so on, as it isn't proper any more. We
)speak of an Old Indian cultural epoch, of an Old Persian cultural epoch
)and so on.
)It would have completely no sense if we were to speak of that we in our
)time were preparing for a sixth 'race'. If we in our time still see
)remains of the old Atlantean differences, remaining old group soulness,
)so that you still can speak of a differentiation into races -/ what is
)preparing itself for the sixth epoch consists specifically in getting
)rid of and leaving behind that which is 'racial character'. That is the
)important thing. /
)/Therefore it is necessary, that that movement that is called the
)anthroposophical movement, [...] in its basic character takes up
)especially this task of getting rid of that which related to 'racial
)character' and to unite people of all races, of all nations and in this
)way bridging this differentiation, these differences, this abyss, that
)exists between different groups of people. Because that which are old
)racial points of view has a physical character, and that which will
)develop into the future has a spiritual character. /
)That is the reason it is so urgently necessary that our anthroposophical
)movement is a spiritual movement, that looks at that which is spiritual
)and overcomes specifically that which is based on physical differences
)out of the force of this spirituality.
)It is completely understandable that every movement has its child
)diseases and that one at the beginning of the theosophical movement
)described what it is about as if the evolution of the Earth so to speak
)was diferrentiated into seven epochs - they were called 'main races' and
)that every 'root race' was differentiated into seven 'sub-races', and
)that everything would repeat itself that way for ever, so that you for
)ever could speak of seven 'races' and seven 'sub-races'.
)/But/ /one has to overcome this child disease and become clear about
)that the concept of race ceases to have any meaning/importance
)specifically in our time'. Something else is preparing itself -
)something that in the most eminent sense has to do with the human
)individuality - the ever more increasing individualisation of man. What
)it is about is that this development of the individuality is supported
)in the right way, and the anthroposophical movement has to support this
)development of individuality in man in the right way.''/
)4 December 1909, in: The deeper secrets of the development of humanity
)in the light of the gospels (GA 117)
)
)I find the left-rigth crossover interesting, especially as I think the
)term left-rigth isn't a fulfilling description. Who says that rascism
)per definition is rigthwing, and humanism per definition leftwing -
)Much of the left-rigth crossover is attempts to create dynamic middle,
)which in radicalism then tend to find more activism on the rigth end of
)the scale, as the leftwing has been stuck with a dogmatic materialism.
)The radical left thus alienated large groups who in classposition and in
)economic conditions would agree to socialisation of economy, but ie was
)adherents of a religion. In stead of religion being a dividing factor
)within the working class, I find that it was the dogmatic claim of
)anti-spirituality and atheism from the radical left, that scared large
)groups of potentially progressive people away - fascism and nazism then
)skillfully exploited radical social ideas.
)
)
)
)
_________________________________________________________________
Instant message in style with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE!
http://msnmessenger-download.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:03:40 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
Peter S. wrote to Percedol(s):
But if you prefer, we
) can leave my criticism aside and focus instead on getting an adequate
) picture of anthroposophy's racial doctrines. That will mean returning to
) Steiner's texts, not to your personal beliefs.
I think this is an important point. I often witness this *Anthro according
to my values* behaviour - as opposed to Anthro according to what Steiner
actually taught. For example: Years ago I was hosting an old friend for a
few days and I took him to our Waldorf school with the kids. As we wandered
around the halls my friend was very quiet. Finally he asked me just what
our family was doing in this school? Nothing like honest friends....(g) I
started espousing the virtues of Waldorf education and when I came my bit
about Waldorf being a "school concerned with environmental issues," my
friend laughed. Turns out he knew more about Waldorf than I did - even
though I thought I *got it.*
I had invented much of what I considered to be the Waldorf Way - including
the *environmental angle.* I also clung to the few *feel good* Steiner
quotes that helped me justify our existence in such a school. Of course, I
conveniently ignored the bulk of evidence pointing to the real *impulse*
behind Waldorf - as well as the clear message Rudolf Steiner taught his
followers. This is a movement based on clairvoyance, reincarnation and
racial/spiritual hierarchy. This movement is on a mission and has very
little to do with (in my case) environmental issues or social change based
on *human* values and needs.
It's an interesting phenomenon - this mixing of personal beliefs with
anthroposophical beliefs. It is not easy to deal with Anthroposophy while
actually learning about it - especially the racial doctrines. One way is to
simply deny the existence of anything we do not want to believe. Parents
are well advised to learn *everything you need to know about Anthroposophy
but were afraid to ask* BEFORE becoming involved in a Waldorf school. Hint:
You will not get this information from your local Waldorf School. You
*might* get a watered down version according to what someone thinks you
*want* to hear. Shame.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:55:01 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
CC: (sgroth efn.org)
Subject: Re: (another from Soren) Re: Simplifications
His account had hard-bounced again at Topica. I've reset it to active.
...Gary
on 9/30/03 2:53 PM, Peter Staudenmaier at pstaud hotmail.com wrote:
) Hello critics,
)
) I got another post from Soren, below; he says he is still unable to post
) directly to the list. I'll reply later today.
)
) Peter S.
)
)
)) Hi Still not able to post to the list :-(
))
)) Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
))
)))) use of word "race" as descriptive term related to evolution as Steiner
)))) and (according to the information you provided) Mitrinovic approaches it
)))) is false.
)))
))) - I certainly agree that the
)))
))) I'm glad we agree on that. Thanks for making it clear in your posts to the
))) list.
)))
)))) What Steiner is concerned, I find that he didn't present
)))) antroposophy as a timeless "box" - that the movement in some ways have
)))) become a box and have difficulties overcoming and reevaluating the
)))) founding father is a "follower"problem I somehow find Steiner himself
)))) tried to adress.
)))) So I see no reason to reject that Steiner in cases use the term race in
)))) characterising things, which in itself can contain some truth, but
)))) becomes false in relation to race, as biological determination.
)))
)))
))) I can't see your logic on this point. If it is false, isn't that reason
))) enough to reject it?
))
)) Well, of course, especially if you're not interested in a within
)) antroposophy perspective. For antroposophy to just reject lots of what
)) Steiner said won't do - it has to be reevaluated - to sort out what is
)) the truth behind and where this truth becomes incorrect by the process
)) of relating a clairvoyant picture to the terms of our sense-perceptible
)) world, to cloth non-verbal communication into words...
))
))) Though eurocentrism in itself is nothing I
)))
)))) endorse, I do find a point in seperating ideas contain within this
)))) concept, from those that is purely based on biological racethinking.
)))
)))
))) But the whole point is that people like Steiner and Mitrinovic did *not*
))) separate these concepts. If we want to understand their work on its own
))) terms, we can't wish away that crucial fact. Steiner tied spirituality and
))) biology tightly together. Contemporary anthroposophy has yet to untie
))) them. What's taking you all so long?
))
)) Childdisease ?? :-)
))
)) "The concept of race in a proper sense was only useful at the old
)) Atlantis. Therefore we have, as we count with a real evolution of
)) humanity, not used the concept of race for the post-Atlantean time. We
)) don't speak of an Indian race and so on, as it isn't proper any more. We
)) speak of an Old Indian cultural epoch, of an Old Persian cultural epoch
)) and so on.
)) It would have completely no sense if we were to speak of that we in our
)) time were preparing for a sixth 'race'. If we in our time still see
)) remains of the old Atlantean differences, remaining old group soulness,
)) so that you still can speak of a differentiation into races -/ what is
)) preparing itself for the sixth epoch consists specifically in getting
)) rid of and leaving behind that which is 'racial character'. That is the
)) important thing. /
)) /Therefore it is necessary, that that movement that is called the
)) anthroposophical movement, [...] in its basic character takes up
)) especially this task of getting rid of that which related to 'racial
)) character' and to unite people of all races, of all nations and in this
)) way bridging this differentiation, these differences, this abyss, that
)) exists between different groups of people. Because that which are old
)) racial points of view has a physical character, and that which will
)) develop into the future has a spiritual character. /
)) That is the reason it is so urgently necessary that our anthroposophical
)) movement is a spiritual movement, that looks at that which is spiritual
)) and overcomes specifically that which is based on physical differences
)) out of the force of this spirituality.
)) It is completely understandable that every movement has its child
)) diseases and that one at the beginning of the theosophical movement
)) described what it is about as if the evolution of the Earth so to speak
)) was diferrentiated into seven epochs - they were called 'main races' and
)) that every 'root race' was differentiated into seven 'sub-races', and
)) that everything would repeat itself that way for ever, so that you for
)) ever could speak of seven 'races' and seven 'sub-races'.
)) /But/ /one has to overcome this child disease and become clear about
)) that the concept of race ceases to have any meaning/importance
)) specifically in our time'. Something else is preparing itself -
)) something that in the most eminent sense has to do with the human
)) individuality - the ever more increasing individualisation of man. What
)) it is about is that this development of the individuality is supported
)) in the right way, and the anthroposophical movement has to support this
)) development of individuality in man in the right way.''/
)) 4 December 1909, in: The deeper secrets of the development of humanity
)) in the light of the gospels (GA 117)
))
)) I find the left-rigth crossover interesting, especially as I think the
)) term left-rigth isn't a fulfilling description. Who says that rascism
)) per definition is rigthwing, and humanism per definition leftwing -
)) Much of the left-rigth crossover is attempts to create dynamic middle,
)) which in radicalism then tend to find more activism on the rigth end of
)) the scale, as the leftwing has been stuck with a dogmatic materialism.
)) The radical left thus alienated large groups who in classposition and in
)) economic conditions would agree to socialisation of economy, but ie was
)) adherents of a religion. In stead of religion being a dividing factor
)) within the working class, I find that it was the dogmatic claim of
)) anti-spirituality and atheism from the radical left, that scared large
)) groups of potentially progressive people away - fascism and nazism then
)) skillfully exploited radical social ideas.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:19:38 -0700
From: Soren (sgroth efn.org)
Subject: The Abstract Nature of Modern Economic Life
--- In ecosocialism y..., S?ren Groth (sgroth b...) wrote:
It is often stated as "proof" for the height of civilisation presented
by the economic and political elite, that the more prosperity and military
force a nation has, the more civilised it is, the extend of democracy,
the quality of the civilisation is hardly ever measured - and it is to
some extend true.. The economic development in western civilisation was
necessary to seperate the individual as an independant being... from
1810 the money-market became a market of it's own, the significance of
this being the rise of democracy as a motive force which then became
extended to wider groups of individuals, than white male's with certain
amount of property ...
So when we speak about economy, it is turned around, it's not the
economic growth, the quantitative side that is important, this a
progress philosophy based on the real economic life, that became
"mercantile materialism", and as economy develops into more and more
abstract nature has become a "pro-capitalist materialism", which Marx in
full consequence make into an abstraction of everything .. Marx's
abstraction in theory was a result of an abstract economy,
that is dehumanising all participants into tools for economic development,
rather than economy being a tool for humanity's development.
This development of abstract economy served a purpose, and when we see
the purpose, it becomes clear to us, then we can turn it around, it is
not the development of economics that has produced education, health
care, education and so on, it is the need for these things to be
manifested as a spiritual life for free individuals, that has worked
through the abstract economic life... When this is realised, the
humanist values, become the consciouss purpose of the unconsciouss
processes in economic development... the "invisible" hand of God in
economic life becomes consciouss (this of course is the total opposite
of Marx, but also of modern pro-capitalist economic theories, that see
the economic development as the goal, and the humanist values as
necessary means to continue economic growth - both basically
materialist, the latter just with a dynamic, a nut in the shell).
As long as the spiritual life superconscioussly worked through the
economic life, it of course easily gave rise to the abstract idea that
it is the economic life that determine the spiritual life. And from
the 14th century onwards the spiritual life for a majority of people
was something they had no access to - the ones with piles of bread
told the hungry "man don't live by bread alone" .. this is what people
experienced, as the economy develops and more skills is needed, people
experienced they were given education only because it was necessary,
but they also became aware of the ideals of the spiritual life..
however these ideals didn't presented themselves as rights for the
majority, but as priveleges of an elite... the spiritual, economic and
political elite didn't represented rights for all individuals, but
priveleges for a few ... Marx twist this around 180 degrees and reject
the ideals (the nut), and keep the shell: economy explains everything -
Steiner don't throw the baby out with the bathing water, but want to
make the ideals into rights for everyone - to have access to a free
spiritual life, which then consciously make economy a tool for
satisfying basic human needs - and qualitative, rather than quantitative
wants
The whole point is a history about the value of money as they work in
economics... from basically being just means of exchange based on real
stuff, they became connected to value in gold, and since the seventies
they are totally freed from any material value, actually.... you know
the expression immaterial assets...
But still we think about money, our consciousness about money is that
the value is like an exchange of a sack of flour for a sack of onions...
most people wee money this way, as real material assets based on real
material things ... Of the transfers on the international money-market
4% is based on a market of production-distribution-consumtion of goods
and services - the rest is immaterial transfers .... the value of money
today is solely based on one thing - TRUST
As this value becomes consciouss the free will that now mainly works in
economic life, unconscioussly in the body, can be taken to a "higher"
level, and work consciously from the spiritual life.. the "invisible"
hand of God in the market, instead becomes the consiouss hands of
humanity, free initiatives instead of free enterprise.
This also meaning that our humanist values can manifest as a leading
motive force, a qualitative value that replaces the quantitative values
in economic life, which today usurupate's the political sphere and
spiritual
life
)From being economic transfers money can become transfers of trust,
capital invested as a visible hand where we trust it will benefit our
will,
both for production, but also regarding human rights and environmental
quality
Well most of this is splendidly illustrated in
The Abstract Nature of Modern Economic Life
http://www.associative-economics.com/links/articles/AbstractNature.html
No need to say that the abstraction is several times bigger than then
Steiner used to label different politico-economic impulses
anglo-american, french, german aso .. and that was the reality then,
when the companies was mainly national enterprises, today it is
ofcourse meaningless to put national labels on economic enterprise,
and in Social Threefolding this is excactly what Steiner's at, economy
isn't a "national" issue, in a healthy economic life there is local
and international economy ... and here's the point, as economy becomes
globalised, and the consciousness is there, what purpose does that
serve, it must be followed by the ideals of western civilisation as
rights not privileges - the spiritual goal of globalisation isn't
further abstraction and invisible workings of Gods hand - it is the
spread of the humanist ideals... the longer it is done as a privelege
for those God rewards (according to the mercantile-materialist progress
teology),
the more the working of Gods hand hits back in terror, warfare, clash
of civilisations... the conditions of late 19th century in western
european national economies is now manifest on a global
scale, and instead of abstract marxism and moderate socialism, we see
reactions rooted in less abstract forces - only vital ideals as living
realities rooted in a radical humanist view - humanity as a middle
between the material and spiritual worlds, in consciouss interaction
with the ecosphere, each other and the "beyond" can rightly call itself
a high level of civilisation .. if the western world fail to take this
step, it'll become an empty shell of high ideals exercising more and
more barbarism ...
S?ren
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/threefolding
And that's Steiners point when he says that the transition to the sixth
cultural epoch will be a battle between the "white" and the "coloured"
world. Yes if Western Civilisation fail to be permeated by the
christ-impulse, and instead continue seing itself as privileged, split
into dreaming idealism (luciferian theology), and raw materialism,
(ahrimanic mechanisation) - then there will be fierce reactions from the
"coloured world" - The spiritual answer is not HATE and WAR - It's LOVE
and COMMUNITY
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:22:59 -0700
From: Soren (sgroth efn.org)
Subject: Re: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) Hi Soren,
)
) thanks again for your replies. Regarding Rigby's book about
) Mitrinovic, you wrote:
)
)) The book is not published by some obscure new age publisher, but the
)) University of Columbia
)
)
) Yes, it's from Columbia's excellent series of East European
) monographs. I'm not sure why this seemed notable to you, since I
) didn't impugn Rigby's publishers in any way; what I said is that his
) study of Mitrinovic is strongly positive
And my point being that according to Columbia it is critical. I think
you have some good points, which is worth looking into, but that you
tend to be so eager to make your point, that you interpretate and become
polemic instead of argumentative. Previously we had the thing about
List, where you claim that Steiner says nice things about his novel,
while the actual quote just says, that Steiner know List wrote that
book, when I read the qoute, it can actually be so that Steiner haven't
even read the novel, he just knows that List wrote it ..... Same above,
from your description of the above mentioned book, it sounds like it is
written by a follower of Mitrinovic, while it is a independent study
published by a academeic publisher. I don't understand the necessity to
make it into a "strongly positive" study, as if that makes the points
about Mitrinovic more compromising. I find them more valid if being just
objective and unprejudiced.
) You also wrote:
)
)) Thank you for some of the background information - I however find you
)) make some simplified conclusions,
)
)
) I don't know how to convince you that my conclusions are in fact not
) simple at all, unless you are willing to look into the material more
) carefully and more thoroughly. One of the problems with our whole
) exchange is that I keep pointing out the complex and multifaceted
) nature of the topics we've touched upon, from Steiner's deeply
) conflicted politics to the context of early twentieth century racial
) ideology, whereas you keep insisting that "the central theme in
) antroposophy" is unambiguously progressive.
Yes I find individual anarchism unambigously progressive - "anarchism"
in the sense non-totalitarian. There's a dynamic in I-consciousness -
and I find it progressive that each individual have a freedom to sort
out, how to stand between the shadows of the past and the seeds of the
future. I find it progressive that Steiner points out that ideals is
seeds for the future, but that without the inner work of dealing with
the shadows of the past, it easily becomes dreaming idealism. And again
I also see that at times Steiner is not living up to the ideal, that's
the point about "followers", that antroposophy should not become
"steinerism" When Steiner isn't progressive and fail to deal with the
shadows of the past in his own sentient soul, then antroposophy need to
be able to evaluate this. There's several occassions where Steiner
adress this problem himself - truth shall prevail within antroposophy,
not the believed correctness of Rudolf Steiner.
I find your definition of fascism/nazism to be very wide, focusing on
some similarities in a variety of themes, but omitting differences in
characteristics that was cebtral to the political fascist massmovements
in the 20-30ties. The tedency to classify non-hierarchical
non-totalitarian movements with some similarities to fascism/nazism as
being fascist is more polemic than academic - especially as the terms
fascism/nazism by most people isn't perceived as objective descriptive
terms for a specifik ideology. From another angle communism is used in a
similar way - If I express a saying "from each by ability, to each by
need", a principle which can be found ie among early christians, then it
is easily connected to Marxism-Leninism, and I'm responsible for Stalins
deathcamps.
When it comes to social credit, and the relation between speculative
financial capital, and working capital, Steiner as far as I've seen did
not make an anti-semitic connection, he doesn't classify speculative
capitalism as specifik "jewish", which as you're rigth Douglas did. See
ie "The Abstract Nature of Modern Economic Life", and even my next post
on that theme
) Perhaps I misunderstood you. In the post in question you wrote: "in
) refering to people Steiner was inspiring and befriended with, there's
) more substance to claim connections to more radical persons." If that
) wasn't the point you were trying to make with the stuff about
) Mitrinovic, then what were you getting at? Hamsun and the Ordre
) Nouveau, to choose two examples, were arguably "radical" in the
) fascist sense, but that fact obviously supports my interpretation, not
) yours. I must ask again: how would this make Steiner look better? You
) don't really think that the politics of people like Knut Hamsun were
) admirable, do you?
Nope, and you make a line of connections there that I've not pointed
out. As far as I know Hamsun wasn't the least inspired by Steiner,
probably not Mitrinovic either. The connection I mainly referred to was
Kandinsky and spirituality in art, which gave birth to abstract painting
- A project like New Age had a very liberal editorial policy, in a
magazine like that you'll of course find both "nice" and "bad" guys - My
point was also that several indisputably progressive socialists had no
problem with the term Aryan at that point (1914) - your claim that the
term was used solely in a rascist context is not correct. The term
became rascist in naziideology when connected to the caucasian race,
especially in belief that the aryan culturebearers all were
germanic-nordic (there's a british tradition according to which Jesus
was blond and blueyed - angloisraelism) - In Steiners cultureepochs, you
find both caucasian as non-caucasian culturebearing cultures, and no
claims that the leaders were if a specifically "white race" -
The myths about culture bearers exist in all cultures, and the term
Mana/Manu have even worldwide spreading - Steiner is too focused on the
classical historical periods, and miss a perspective including
civilisational development without historical records. What is important
however is that both Steiner and ie Mitrinovic point out that the kind
of spiritual leadership through ie Manu leading a people ( basically
what Hitler was supposed to be for Germany, a Fuhrer) has seized to be
the way the spiritual beings guide humanity - See ie the quote in my
last post.
) -
Soren
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 00:43:30 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Cc: sgroth efn.org
Subject: Re: Simplifications
Hi Soren,
you can check out the last few days' worth of discussion on the list here:
http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read
Both Percedol and Walden replied to your last post.
In your latest you write:
))I can't see your logic on this point. If it is false, isn't that reason
))enough to reject it?
)
)Well, of course, especially if you're not interested in a within
)antroposophy perspective.
Hmmm... maybe that's a good reason to try to get an outside perspective?
)For antroposophy to just reject lots of what
)Steiner said won't do - it has to be reevaluated - to sort out what is
)the truth behind and where this truth becomes incorrect
So far that sounds good to me; this is what I was getting at with my point
that excising the racist assumptions from anthroposophy will leave big
holes, and that those holes will need to get filled in somehow.
)by the process
)of relating a clairvoyant picture to the terms of our sense-perceptible
)world, to cloth non-verbal communication into words...
That part I'm not so sure about. I suppose it's not really my business,
since I'm not an anthroposophist, but it might be more promising to leave
the whole clairvoyance business behind and treat Steiner's teachings as
spiritual values to be appraised on their own merits, rather than insisting
on their origins in some supernatural capacity of the movement's founder.
Alternatively, some contemporary anthroposophist might have to claim
clairvoyant authenticity for a reworking and correction of the racial
doctrines. But I'll gladly leave that up to folks who believe in
clairvoyance.
))But the whole point is that people like Steiner and Mitrinovic did *not*
))separate these concepts. If we want to understand their work on its own
))terms, we can't wish away that crucial fact. Steiner tied spirituality and
))biology tightly together. Contemporary anthroposophy has yet to untie
))them. What's taking you all so long?
)
)Childdisease ?? :-)
I think that's probably a partly accurate diagnosis. One of the reasons that
anthroposophy remains afflicted with some childhood diseases is that it
hasn't really grown up yet, hasn't matured as a spiritual movement; it still
jealously guards its esoteric character. My hunch is that the racist
elements won't get dealt with in a satisfactory way until anthroposophy
moves from esoteric to exoteric.
You then quoted a long passage from GA 117. We've dicussed this passage
several times before; for examples, see here;
http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1710090394
http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1706440796
http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1705775676
http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1704218686
I've always been puzzled by the fact that this passage is so popular among
anthroposophists eager to prove that Steiner's racism wasn't really such a
big deal. The lecture is one of several occasions where Steiner distances
himself from the cyclical aspects of the standard Theosophical scheme of
root-races, which repeat endlessly. This notion contradicted Steiner's
version of progressive evolution, so he abandoned the cyclical variant in
favor of a linear variant.
Many readers seem to think the passage says that race no longer has meaning
today. That reading is mistaken; what Steiner actually says in this lecture
is that "the first overcoming, the full overcoming of the race concept" will
not occur until "the sixth cultural epoch", which is thousands of years in
the future. He is very, very explicit about this: "dass der sechste
Kulturzeitraum gerade die erste Ueberwindung, voellige ueberwindung des
Rassenbegriffes ist" (p. 165). Somehow the folks who like to quote this
passage always seem to leave that part out...
But more important than this is the point of Steiner's prediction that race
will fade away many centuries from now. Why is that claim significant in the
context of this lecture? Because it shores up his peculiar conception of the
Universal Human as a kind of human existence that is shorn of all racial and
ethnic particularity, in order once again to denigrate the group whom
Steiner considered to be the paragon of anachronistic particularity and
"group-soulness", namely the Jews. (Indeed, this trope runs throughout the
book as a whole; GA 117 is one of two primary texts that other
anthroposophists typically refer to when they want to stress the
blood-based, hereditary "mission" of the ancient Hebrews; see, for instance,
Jesaiah Ben-Aharon's dreadful book on the Third Reich, The Spiritual Event
of the Twentieth Century, p. 65.) If you've read the full lecture, Soren,
this cannot possibly have escaped your attention.
From the beginning of the lecture he hammers away at this theme, comparing
the ostensibly unindividuated Jews to animal species that are similarly
trapped in group-soulness (that part is just two paragraphs before where
your chosen passage begins), and repeating the comparison near the end of
the lecture: those peoples who remain stuck in group-soulness are basically
just "higher animals", not real humans (p. 164). All of this is quite
consistent with Steiner's teachings that the very existence of 'racial'
differences is an unfortunate detour from the proper course of cosmic
evolution. In order to interpret this lecture as an admonishment against
racism, one would have to accept that premise and look forward to the day
when racism disappears because racial and ethnic diversity themselves have
been eliminated. May I suggest that this is not, in fact, the right way to
support the development of individuality?
)I find the left-rigth crossover interesting, especially as I think the
)term left-rigth isn't a fulfilling description. Who says that rascism
)per definition is rigthwing,
)and humanism per definition leftwing -
I don't know who says this, but they're off the mark. Racism is not at all
restricted to the right end of the spectrum, and there are any number of
leftists who pride themselves on their antihumanism.
)Much of the left-rigth crossover is attempts to create dynamic middle,
)which in radicalism then tend to find more activism on the rigth end of
)the scale, as the leftwing has been stuck with a dogmatic materialism.
I think that is something of a caricature, but I don't see how it might be
relevant to our discussion.
)In stead of religion being a dividing factor
)within the working class, I find that it was the dogmatic claim of
)anti-spirituality and atheism from the radical left, that scared large
)groups of potentially progressive people away
Maybe. But atheism and anti-spirituality are two different things. Anyway,
what does this have to do with our topic?
)- fascism and nazism then
)skillfully exploited radical social ideas.
Yes, they did, and they had a lot of help from people who weren't paying
very close attention to the political implications of their esoteric
doctrines. That is a grave mistake that shouldn't be repeated.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Help protect your PC. Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:37:54 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
Percedol:
"As above, so below.
We are in a world of effects, not in a world of causes.
You can find this in any esoteric view. Not just A."
Yes, you're right, I realize it is not only anthroposophy ("A"), but
many esoteric traditions that proclaim "As above, so below" and the
physical as a reflection of the spiritual. I think it is a shame that
people attracted to all things mystical and New Age do not take a closer
look at this concept, because it is primitive and vengeful and
regressive (not to mention simplistic), yet somehow it is mistaken for
enlightenment. At least the major religions - to which I do not
subscribe - allow for more sophisticated contemplation of the big
questions like "why bad things happen" or "why does God allow suffering"
etc. I see karma as a spiritual version of "an eye for an eye."
I see a component of threat and judgment right below the pretty surface
of most New Age stuff, not to mention garden-variety charlatanism and
parlor stunts, and as long as we're on "materialism" again, a lot of
this snake oil has turned into pretty big bucks for some people hasn't
it? I can't seem to go anywhere these days without somebody trying to
sell me homeopathy, "flower essences" etc. whether for myself, my family
or even my dog. Tiny, expensive bottles of tinctures and creams that
contain no active ingredients.
Sorry, veering somewhat OT.
Percedol:
"It would be an unjust world, in my view, if it were all just casual."
And in your mind, karma is justice? Karma, to me, is more like admitting
there is no justice.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 11:02:08 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Simplifications
Peter S. (to Percedol):
"You then quoted a long passage from GA 117." (snip)
"I've always been puzzled by the fact that this passage is so popular
among
anthroposophists eager to prove that Steiner's racism wasn't really such
a
big deal. The lecture is one of several occasions where Steiner
distances
himself from the cyclical aspects of the standard Theosophical scheme of
root-races, which repeat endlessly. This notion contradicted Steiner's
version of progressive evolution, so he abandoned the cyclical variant
in
favor of a linear variant.
Many readers seem to think the passage says that race no longer has
meaning
today. That reading is mistaken; what Steiner actually says in this
lecture
is that "the first overcoming, the full overcoming of the race concept"
will
not occur until "the sixth cultural epoch", which is thousands of years
in
the future."
Here is another piece of this. Thousands of years may be too optimistic.
Steiner told an audience on 5 June 1907 in Munich:
"Then, inasmuch as we evolve from the fifth into the sixth *and then
into the seventh* [Diana's emphasis] epoch, the ancient connections of
race and blood will be increasingly lost. Humanity will become freer of
physical ties in order to form groups from the aspect of the spirit. It
was a bad habit in theosophy to speak of races as if they would always
remain. The concept of race will lose its meaning in the near future,
which means over the next few thousand years."
Hold tight now - not only is "near future" the "next few thousand years"
at best, but at this point footnote 34 states, "The extant notes here
say 'millions of years.'" (Rosicrucian Wisdom: An Introduction, Fourteen
Lectures by Rudolf Steiner, Forest Row, East Sussex: Rudolf Steiner
Press, 2000, reprinted 2001)
There you have it from Rudolf Steiner Press in 2001, folks: the "Sixth
Epoch" that they are looking forward to may be not quite soon enough;
the editors of official anthroposophic publications are aware that
Steiner may have meant "millions" of years from now till racial
distinctions no longer matter.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:40:14 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
Hi again Soren, you wrote:
)And my point being that according to Columbia it is critical.
You must have misunderstood a phrase in Columbia's marketing blurb. A
"critical biography" is simply a biography that is assembled with the tools
of scholarship, based on background research as well as on interviews; the
chief standard is that the biographer must analyze, and not merely narrate,
the chronology and events recounted. The phrase does NOT mean that the
biographer takes a critical attitude toward her or his subject; a solid
majority of "critical biographies" are sympathetic toward their subject. You
certainly needn't take my word on this; there are a number of studies of
biography as a genre. Any of them will explain what I just explained.
)I think you have some good points, which is worth looking into, but that
)you tend to be so eager to make your point, that you interpretate and
)become polemic instead of argumentative.
Polemic is a form of argument, and a venerable one at that. What do you hold
against it? And what exactly do you think is wrong with the act of
interpretation??
)Previously we had the thing about List, where you claim that Steiner says
)nice things about his novel, while the actual quote just says, that Steiner
)know List wrote that book, when I read the qoute, it can actually be so
)that Steiner haven't even read the novel, he just knows that List wrote it
That is a foolish example; you seem to have forgotten your own
"interpretation" of this quote. You said that Steiner's references to List
constituted warnings against esoteric racism and German chauvinism. I showed
you that this is an untenable reading of the passages in question. Now you
have retreated from that uncareful claim and are quibbling instead about
Steiner's take on List's early novel Carnuntum.
But even at this petty level, I still have no idea why you disagree that
Steiner is favorable toward the novel. His exact words about List are "der
ich gekannt habe, als er noch ein verstaendiger Mensch war und seinen Roman
"Carnuntum" geschrieben hatte, in dem Anfang der achtziger Jahre" (GA 176 p.
94). As I pointed out to you previously, Carnuntum was actually published in
1888 (not "at the beginning of the 80's" as Steiner says); Steiner was
either confused about the date, or he had in fact known List well enough in
the early 80's to have been privy to the latter's unpublished writings. In
either case, Steiner's quoted reference to List in this period is clearly
positive -- keep in mind that Steiner couldn't even bring himself to call
someone like Landauer "ein verstaendiger Mensch" -- and certainly suggests
familiarity with List's novel.
It is possible that Steiner never read the novel, but then why did he bring
it up? By the way, Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (who is a fan of Steiner, not a
critic) describes Lists's novel as "attractive to German nationalists in
Austria." (Occult Roots of Nazism p. 36) He adds that "Carnuntum helped to
establish List as a familiar figure in the Austrian Pan-German movement" (p.
37). Throughout the 1880's, Steiner was an active member of the pan-German
movement in Austria. I must ask one more time what basis you think you have
for your understanding of this quote.
)Same above, from your description of the above mentioned book, it sounds
)like it is written by a follower of Mitrinovic, while it is a independent
)study published by a academeic publisher.
What an extraordinarily naive claim. You don't really think that academic
publishers refuse to print sympathetic biographies, do you?? The book *is*
written by "a follower of Mitrinovic", and Rigby certainly doesn't
equivocate about this. He declares in his Introduction that "the origins of
this book" lie in his friendly relationship with Mitrinovic's heirs (p. 4),
who sought Rigby out precisely because of his ideological compatibility with
their project; and he goes out of his way to emphasize his own strong
admiration for the man and his ideas. Rigby's stance toward Mitrinovic is
wholly positive; he includes the standard caveats about how his subject
didn't have "all the answers" and offers a few demurrals about Mitrinovic's
writing style, but that's about it. Why on earth do you find this difficult
to believe? It is absolutely standard fare with biographies.
)I don't understand the necessity to make it into a "strongly positive"
)study,
Could you try to keep in mind that I have read the book and you haven't? I
didn't make it into a strongly positive study, Andrew Rigby made it into a
strongly positive study. Would you like me to send you photocopies?
)as if that makes the points about Mitrinovic more compromising. I find them
)more valid if being just objective and unprejudiced.
I think that is a gullible viewpoint in general, but in any case it is
completely out of place in this instance. When assessing empirical claims
about a historical figure contained in a secondary source, it is important
to take into account whether the source is friendly. If you genuinely
disagree with that maxim, perhaps you could explain why.
))I don't know how to convince you that my conclusions are in fact not
))simple at all, unless you are willing to look into the material more
))carefully and more thoroughly. One of the problems with our whole exchange
))is that I keep pointing out the complex and multifaceted nature of the
))topics we've touched upon, from Steiner's deeply conflicted politics to
))the context of early twentieth century racial ideology, whereas you keep
))insisting that "the central theme in antroposophy" is unambiguously
))progressive.
)
)Yes I find individual anarchism unambigously progressive
But Steiner was only an individualist anarchist for a few years in the
1890's, and left this orientation behind when he turned to Theosophy after
1900. It therefore has nothing to do with the central theme in
anthroposophy.
)"anarchism" in the sense non-totalitarian. There's a dynamic in
)I-consciousness - and I find it progressive that each individual have a
)freedom to sort out, how to stand between the shadows of the past and the
)seeds of the future. I find it progressive that Steiner points out that
)ideals is seeds for the future, but that without the inner work of dealing
)with the shadows of the past, it easily becomes dreaming idealism.
I don't really see what is specifically progressive about any of that (are
there conservatives who would dispute these platitudes?), but in any case it
still has precious little bearing on the central theme in anthroposophy, as
far as I can tell.
)And again I also see that at times Steiner is not living up to the ideal,
)that's the point about "followers", that antroposophy should not become
)"steinerism"
There is no such thing as Steinerism. Steiner changed his mind too many
times on too many crucial topics. "Steinerism" would be an even more
incoherent mess than anthroposophy.
)When Steiner isn't progressive and fail to deal with the shadows of the
)past in his own sentient soul, then antroposophy need to be able to
)evaluate this.
Okay, sounds great. How do you propose to do so?
)There's several occassions where Steiner adress this problem himself -
)truth shall prevail within antroposophy, not the believed correctness of
)Rudolf Steiner.
So far the "truths" that have prevailed within anthroposophy regarding race
have been, shall we say, rather discouraging. How come?
)I find your definition of fascism/nazism to be very wide
In that case you aren't paying attention. There is a major long-running
debate going on among historians of fascism about whether to adopt a broad
or a narrow definition, and I am in the 'narrow' camp (well, actually, I'm
in one of the two 'narrow' camps). The New York Times ran a very good
article on the topic just a couple weeks ago; it is a live issue for anyone
working in this field. I get asked to give talks and radio interviews on
exactly this question from time to time (in fact my last major article was
an encyclopedia entry on "fascism"), and every time I emphasize that the
concept of fascism has a fairly restricted meaning and that it is a big
mistake to apply it to other authoritarian rightists, or for that matter to
radical fundamentalists or mere nationalists. Much of the time a good chunk
of my audience vehemently disagrees with me on this. I have no idea how I
managed to give you the contrary impression -- indeed since I haven't
offered any definition of fascism or Nazism here, I don't really know what
you're talking about -- but my actual stance is not at all what you take it
to be.
)focusing on some similarities in a variety of themes, but omitting
)differences in characteristics that was cebtral to the political fascist
)massmovements in the 20-30ties.
Could you be more specific? I might agree or I might not, but at this
abstract level it's hard to tell. In the course of our exchange I have only
identified a few figures as fascists and fascist sympathizers -- Evola,
Rosenberg, Hamsun, Ordre Nouveau, Action Francaise, Hilaire Belloc, Cecil
Chesterton, Wyndham Lewis, Ezra Pound. Every single one of those figures
were indeed fascists or fascist sympathizers, very explicitly and
emphatically so. If you doubt that description, you simply need to look up
some basic historical information about them. A good place to start, from
historians whose perspective is significantly different from my own, would
be Ernst Nolte's classic book Three Faces of Fascism, and more recently
Roger Eatwell's book Fascism: A History.
)The tedency to classify non-hierarchical non-totalitarian movements with
)some similarities to fascism/nazism as being fascist is more polemic than
)academic
Now there's an odd juxtaposition. Much of academic writing is in the
polemical mode. But more to the point, I don't engage in the kind of
classification you just described, and I agree that it is erroneous. How did
you get the idea that I have this sort of indiscriminate notion of fascism?
)especially as the terms fascism/nazism by most people isn't perceived as
)objective descriptive terms for a specifik ideology.
Yes, that's one reason why I stick to the 'narrow' definition.
)From another angle communism is used in a similar way - If I express a
)saying "from each by ability, to each by need", a principle which can be
)found ie among early christians, then it is easily connected to
)Marxism-Leninism, and I'm responsible for Stalins deathcamps.
That would be a fallacious argument, to say the least.
)When it comes to social credit, and the relation between speculative
)financial capital, and working capital, Steiner as far as I've seen did not
)make an anti-semitic connection, he doesn't classify speculative capitalism
)as specifik "jewish", which as you're rigth Douglas did.
I'm glad to see you finally agreeing about Douglas. As for Steiner, he
didn't make the connection you mention, his followers did, and not only the
ones who joined the Social Credit movement. In fact Ludwig Thieben, who had
no interest in Social Credit as far as I've been able to discern, was
probably the worst anthroposophist offender in linking Jews to the negative
aspects of capitalism; he stressed "the large role that the Jews play in
banking and in the stock market" as an example of the "corrosive influence
of the Jewish spirit" and the "undoubtedly negative influence of the Jewish
essence" on modern life (Thieben, Das Raetsel des Judentums pp. 173-4).
))Perhaps I misunderstood you. In the post in question you wrote: "in
))refering to people Steiner was inspiring and befriended with, there's more
))substance to claim connections to more radical persons." If that wasn't
))the point you were trying to make with the stuff about Mitrinovic, then
))what were you getting at? Hamsun and the Ordre Nouveau, to choose two
))examples, were arguably "radical" in the fascist sense, but that fact
))obviously supports my interpretation, not yours. I must ask again: how
))would this make Steiner look better? You don't really think that the
))politics of people like Knut Hamsun were admirable, do you?
)
)Nope, and you make a line of connections there that I've not pointed out.
Umm... then who did point them out? It was you, wasn't it, who presented
that list of names in an attempt to show that "in refering to people Steiner
was inspiring and befriended with, there's more substance to claim
connections to more radical persons" and that "the word Aryan had another
context in prenazi Europe than afterward"? What exactly *were* you trying to
say in that post?
)As far as I know Hamsun wasn't the least inspired by Steiner, probably not
)Mitrinovic either.
Soren, I didn't pick out those names as somehow relevant to anthroposophy.
You did. Remember?
)A project like New Age had a very liberal editorial policy, in a magazine
)like that you'll of course find both "nice" and "bad" guys
You think it was merely a matter of course that British magazines promoted
racism and antisemitism and had a large coterie of pro-fascist writers on
their mastheads?
)My point was also that several indisputably progressive socialists had no
)problem with the term Aryan at that point (1914) - your claim that the term
)was used solely in a rascist context is not correct.
That is a prize-winning piece of illogic. You think that the willingness of
a handful of indisputably progressive socialists to collaborate with
infamous racists like Houston Stewart Chamberlain somehow relieves the Aryan
myth of its racist meaning??? Could you maybe re-read that sentence of
yours? In the early decades of the 20th century, far too many progressive
socialists were enthusiastic backers of eugenics. Margaret Sanger is
probably the best-known example, but there were dozens of others, I'm sorry
to say. According to your topsy-turvy logic, this shameful fact would mean
that eugenics was just fine and dandy until those nasty Nazis got their
hands on it. That doesn't make the slightest bit of historical sense, Soren.
You brought up figures like Mitrinovic and Orage in order to support your
naive hunch that Aryanism was not necessarliy a racist doctrine before the
Nazi era. I showed you that both Mitrinovic and Orage held profoundly racist
views and made them very public at the time, well before the Nazis came to
power. But you nevertheless continue to hold irrationally to your initial
guess. What on earth for? I can sort of understand why someone like Percedol
wants to keep his head in the sand regarding the actual background of the
Aryan myth, but why would you want to join him? Over the past two weeks I've
given you all sorts of sources to find out more about Aryanism in the
pre-Nazi context. Surely you can get down to a library one of these days.
)The term became rascist in naziideology when connected to the caucasian
)race,
No, Soren. The term "Aryan race" did not become racist in Nazi ideology. It
was already racist for decades before the founding of the Nazi party. Please
take a moment to learn something about this history. By the way, Steiner
himself connected the Aryans to the Caucasian race: "This applies more or
less to the Aryans, to the peoples of Asia Minor and Europe whom we regard
as members of the Caucasian race." (Steiner, Mission of the Folk Souls p.
106)
)especially in belief that the aryan culturebearers all were germanic-nordic
The Nazis did not believe that. For the Nazi racial theorists, Nordic and
Aryan were two distinct terms.
)In Steiners cultureepochs, you find both caucasian as non-caucasian
)culturebearing cultures and no claims that the leaders were if a
)specifically "white race"
I already explained to you that Alfred Rosenberg, the head Nazi ideologist,
shared a nearly identical conception of the Aryan sub-groups. Why are you
ignoring these facts? You think I make this stuff up? Steiner's version of
Aryan sub-groups is Indians, Persians, Egyptian-Chaldeans, Greeks & Romans,
and Nordic-Germanic. Rosenberg's version of Aryan sub-groups is Indians,
Persians, Greeks & Romans, and Nordic-Germanic. Notice any similiarities?
For numerous examples, see Alfred Rosenberg, Race and Race History,
particularly part I (pages 33-99). Rosenberg and Steiner were hardly alone.
According to Arthur de Gobineau, the Aryan race comprised Indians, Persians,
Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese, and Germans. See Gobineau: Selected Political
Writings, particularly pages 141-144. Allow me to point out that Gobineau,
who is often designated "the father of racism", died in 1882, forty years
before the emergence of Nazism. You might also want to consider the fact
that both Richard Wagner and Houston Stewart Chamberlain held similar views
on the make-up of the Aryans. The Aryan myth has always encompassed people
who today aren't usually considered "white". The Nazis were not pioneers in
this regard.
)The myths about culture bearers exist in all cultures
Sure. And in some cultures, these myths take on a racist form. That is the
case with the Aryan myth within European culture of the 19th and 20th
centuries. I take it you missed my recent exchange with Percedol on this
question; I recommend taking a look at it and possibly consulting one of the
scholarly sources I mentioned. You might be surprised by what you find.
Happy October to everybody,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
High-speed Internet access as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local
service providers in your area). Click here. https://broadband.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 03:53:43 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Percedol:
) "As above, so below.
) We are in a world of effects, not in a world of causes.
) You can find this in any esoteric view. Not just A."
)
)
) Yes, you're right, I realize it is not only anthroposophy ("A"), but
) many esoteric traditions that proclaim "As above, so below" and the
) physical as a reflection of the spiritual.
P:
Also Plato, I think, meant this with the myth of the cave.
And the 'as above, so below' is from hermeticism, so all of alchemy is
there.
I think it is a shame that
) people attracted to all things mystical and New Age do not take a closer
) look at this concept, because it is primitive and vengeful and
) regressive (not to mention simplistic), yet somehow it is mistaken for
) enlightenment.
P:
It's not all mystical. There is alchemy and magic, etc. And some people
know well what's there.
At least the major religions - to which I do not
) subscribe - allow for more sophisticated contemplation of the big
) questions like "why bad things happen" or "why does God allow suffering"
) etc. I see karma as a spiritual version of "an eye for an eye."
P:
But they don't give an answer. They say we cannot know divine's plan.
Karma helps man to find his way to back to the spiritual.
) I see a component of threat and judgment right below the pretty surface
) of most New Age stuff, not to mention garden-variety charlatanism and
) parlor stunts, and as long as we're on "materialism" again, a lot of
) this snake oil has turned into pretty big bucks for some people hasn't
) it?
P:
I think so. I am not a fan of New Age.
I can't seem to go anywhere these days without somebody trying to
) sell me homeopathy, "flower essences" etc. whether for myself, my family
) or even my dog. Tiny, expensive bottles of tinctures and creams that
) contain no active ingredients.
P:
In my experience homeopathy works.
) P:
)
) "It would be an unjust world, in my view, if it were all just casual."
)
) And in your mind, karma is justice? Karma, to me, is more like admitting
) there is no justice.
) Diana
P:
If you prefer that things happen by chance and that many actions just go
without balance. But then there is an umbalance.
Even in our society illegal actions are prosecuted.
But many are not.
Every action calls for a reaction to balace that action.
Without karma there would be no balance.
Of course for a materialist the problem of balance does not exist.
Different people different views.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:13:03 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Simplifications
Diana wrote:
) There you have it from Rudolf Steiner Press in 2001, folks: the "Sixth
) Epoch" that they are looking forward to may be not quite soon enough;
) the editors of official anthroposophic publications are aware that
) Steiner may have meant "millions" of years from now till racial
) distinctions no longer matter.
Walden:
And when did the races begin? The date is not clear to me (a very long time
ago in a galaxy far, far...?) but the events surrounding the event are
clear. Spiritual *Science* tells us:
"The third principal condition of the development of mankind presents itself
as the one in which the `races' first came into being. This event was
brought about by the separation of the moon from the earth. This separation
was accompanied by the originating of the two sexes. This stage of the
development of mankind has been repeatedly referred to in the descriptions
from the `Akasha Chronicle'. When the earth, still united with the moon,
split off from the sun, a male and female sex did not as yet exist within
mankind. Each human being combined the two sexes within its still highly
refined body."
Steiner, An Esoteric Cosmology pp. 223-224
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:26:54 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Simplifications
Soren wrote:
)- fascism and nazism then
)skillfully exploited radical social ideas.
Peter replied:
) Yes, they did, and they had a lot of help from people who weren't paying
) very close attention to the political implications of their esoteric
) doctrines. That is a grave mistake that shouldn't be repeated.
Agreed. A very important point. I just returned from a lecture about
genocide and indigenous people. I was constantly reminded of that which
grew out of Europe not that many years ago. Political implications
(human/environmental/community...) must be respected more than esoteric
doctrines, don't you think?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 07:45:21 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
Percedol wrote:
)In my experience homeopathy works.
)
Peter F responds:
The trouble is that your experience is not reliable. Not just yours,
everybody's self reporting of their personal experience is unreliable. There
are a host of reasons. Here are some.
1. Some people lie.
2. Some people lie to themselves (eg addicts of various sorts).
3. Some people don't understand what their own experience was. There have
been many experiments demonstrating that people are subject to suggestion
about recently observed events. One classic involves asking people to
examine a video of a car accident and asking them immediately after "where
did the green car come from?". They will then report that there was a green
car in the video even though there was not. Unscrupulous people (dare I say
like Steiner) take adantage of this.
This is why I and other scientists don't rely on your personal experience to
decide if homeopathy works or not. Appropriate testing protocols are devised
which attempt to remove the effects of self delusion and dishonesty. When
these tests are applied to homeopathy, the effectiveness is either non
existent or, at best, very much less than that claimed by the practitioners.
This lack of effectiveness combined with the clear contradiction between the
basic philosophy of homeopathy and what is well tested and well understood
about the atomic and chemical nature of matter leads to the clear result
that homeopathy does not work.
I don't expect this to change your mind. However I thnk you should recognise
as I have suggested before that you might as well write random letters as
"In my experience homeopathy works" for all that it contributes to the
discussion.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 07:47:22 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
While I'm responding, Percedol has not yet replied to my claim that it is
dishonest for him to claim that Steiner's methods have been verified.
Peter F.
_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 02:13:09 +0000
From: (argeiphontes hotmail.com)
Subject: An academe trapped in Steiner land
Greetings,
I'm Maria, and this is my first time here. I finally broke down this
evening and decided that I would check out the PLANS website. I had
avoided it for a long time, because I didn't want to be jaded before I
even gave Waldorf Education a chance. Alas, the time has come, the
Walrus said, to talk of many things. Of Steiner, and sheep, and
wax-in-ears, and Christians who think they are kings, and why the sea is
*not* boiling hot, and pigs still don't have wings.
First, a little bit of my biography. I just finished getting a Master's
degree in Classics. Like many others who become interested in Waldorf
education, I was looking for a change. While getting my Master's
degree, I taught Latin, Greek Mythology, Greek Literature and other
classes as a teaching associate. I was frustrated at the lack of
training I received. Other than a few 'meetings' and some
inter-departmental 'education' courses that were barely more than red
tape, I was offered nothing in the way of pedigogical training. In
fact, at Ohio State where I got my degree, neither Masters nor PhD
students in Classics receive any teacher training to speak of. How
could this be, I thought, that PhD candidates receive a piece of paper
that qualifies them to teach at the University level, and yet they have
never be taught to teach?
I was so frustrated with the system that I quit. I decided to do
something totally else. Up popped Waldorf Education. Sounded great.
Education that focuses on the individual. A system of learning that
encourages children to be creative. People who actually give a crap
about their students. Great! Sign me up. Sunbridge College offered me
a place in their Foundation Studies program for relatively little money
(compared to the major universities). I jumped on board, with little
knowledge of what lay ahead. All I really knew about Waldorf Education
was that the colors were pretty and some of my good friends had sent
their children there.
Now, before I get too far, I should say this. I am a very spiritual
person. I don't have a problem with a spiritual educational system, so
long as it admits to being what it is. I don't have a problem with
belief in karma or reincarnation or fairies or gnomes or even angels per
se. I do, however, have a problem with modernist, eurocentric,
colonialist, racist, fascist doctrine being taught in school, in the
year 2003, in the guise of an alternative/ hippie/granola/organic form
of education.
I cannot understand how this is not obvious to everyone who comes in
contact with anthroposophy or Waldorf education. Have they been
sleeping for the past 100 years?? Newsflash: WE LIVE IN A POSTMODERN
WORLD!! Is it just the fact that I have been overeducated that these
things are so blatantly obvious to me, but completely obscured to the
rest of the people at this school? Not even public elementary schools
still teach that Ancient Greece and the Renaissance were utopian
paradises! Worship of antiquity went out with Freud and the
behavioralists! I am at a loss. All those classes taught on Greek
Mythology in the universities, all the work modern scholars have done,
and the only thing that trickles down to anthroposophists is some warmed
over Jungian pseudo-interpretive nonsense!
In my experience, most people who walk around calling themselves
anthroposophists have had little or no training in modern thought. They
are bleeding-heart moms who read Chicken Soup for the Pathetic Christian
Soul, who want to over-protect their kids by sending them to a [rich,
white] school where the colors are all soft and the toys are made of
wood and not [the horror!] plastic. They are old bastards who are
clinging to this last bastion of modernism, where they can still claim
their British and German divine-right-of-kings. They are former hippies
and stoners who forgot the reason why they were part of the
counter-culture in the first place, and think Steiner is 'far out' but
don't read very far into it. Or question it. Or wonder why there are
no Steiner books in 'normal' bookstores, or mention of him in books
about philosophy and religion, or even history. Oh, I forgot: it's
because he's 'misunderstood'. Right.
The worst thing about it is that they all PRETEND to be terribly open
minded about the whole thing. "Steiner wanted us to think for
ourselves, Steiner didn't want us to worship him, Steiner wanted us to
find our own path." Okay. So that's why he talks about "the right way"
to think, and "the right way" to come to spiritual knowledge. Right.
The sad thing is, Steiner's work is very interesting from a historical
point of view. I would even be willing to admit that Steiner might have
had some good ideas. But this whole nightmare of anthroposophy is
totally and utterly ridiculous. I feel like I have gone back in time,
and these people are going to start WWII all over again.
So, friends, you must help me make it through this program! I've
already paid for the Foundation year, and I have a work-study job here
so I can't throw in the towel yet. Sitting through some of these
classes is terribly painful. Being the sole voice of postmodern reason
is excruciating. Throw me a line! Am I just judgemental or crazy, or
is this really what's going on here?
Yours in gratitude for this group,
Maria
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 05:15:26 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: An academe trapped in Steiner land
G'day Maria,
I'll throw in my tuppence worth. Walk away. Forget the upfront payment.
Anything you have put in already is wasted. If you continue you are wasting
valuable time you could be using to do something worthwhile. My own view is
that it has been amply demonstrated by the critics and perhaps more so by
the defenders of the faith that Steiner has nothing to offer in any field of
any value. This understates my position. I believe it is possible to show
that Steiner was a deliberate fraud from his own writings and recorded
lectures.
We could have a nice argument about the teaching role at universities but it
is off topic.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 22:56:27 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: An academe trapped in Steiner land
Hi Maria and welcome.
Nice entrance. Reminded me of John Cleese arriving at the castle wedding in
The Holy Grail (anyone remember *that* scene?).
Your observations are vivid, interesting and probably quite accurate on many
counts. Slightly judgemental - but that's fine with me. I spoke with
someone a while ago who was astounded at what he *learned* during his
Waldorf training. He jumped in for many of the reasons you cite - but he
left the seminary when reality smacked him. As for:
"So, friends, you must help me make it through this program! I've
already paid for the Foundation year, and I have a work-study job here
so I can't throw in the towel yet. Sitting through some of these
classes is terribly painful. Being the sole voice of postmodern reason
is excruciating. Throw me a line! Am I just judgemental or crazy, or
is this really what's going on here?"
You're asking the Waldorf Critics to help you make it through the terribly
painful anthro classes? Whoa. You got suckered like many before you. I am
curious, though - why the wait before checking out PLANS? Or did you not
ask for a course outline or look at books you are required to read prior to
hopping into the pot? Or were you blinded by the light...? Maybe you can
just treat it as a life experience - a study in human/gnome nature. But
here's a reminder: The folks at school will know you dumped on them and
their *training.* This list is monitored. Maybe your post will be a breath
of fresh air for the folks at Sunbridge and who knows... maybe the "bleeding
heart moms" and the "old bastards" have a sense of humor? Good luck.
Well written post, btw. I try to empathize but I have to chuckle. I hope
you're OK with that. I especially liked:
"They are former hippies
and stoners who forgot the reason why they were part of the
counter-culture in the first place, and think Steiner is 'far out' but
don't read very far into it. Or question it. Or wonder why there are
no Steiner books in 'normal' bookstores, or mention of him in books
about philosophy and religion, or even history. Oh, I forgot: it's
because he's 'misunderstood'. Right."
Again, welcome to a place where "freedom" means more than meditating on
Steiner's racial doctrines...and where honesty is valued. And as they
say... thanks for sharing.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 00:06:01 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: An academe trapped in Steiner land
On Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 07:13 PM, argeiphontes hotmail.com
wrote:
) Greetings,
)
) I'm Maria, and this is my first time here. I finally broke down this
) evening and decided that I would check out the PLANS website. I had
) avoided it for a long time, because I didn't want to be jaded before I
) even gave Waldorf Education a chance. Alas, the time has come, the
) Walrus said, to talk of many things.
Didn't the walrus say "speak of many things?" (Just pulling your chain.
Welcome to the Waldorf meanies. :+)
) Of Steiner, and sheep, and
) wax-in-ears, and Christians who think they are kings, and why the sea is
) *not* boiling hot, and pigs still don't have wings.
Just for the record, pigs do have wings at my house, but then again,
we're jewelers with artistic license. We also have 'Stinkin Badges' if
truth be told.
)
) First, a little bit of my biography. I just finished getting a Master's
) degree in Classics. Like many others who become interested in Waldorf
) education, I was looking for a change. While getting my Master's
) degree, I taught Latin, Greek Mythology, Greek Literature and other
) classes as a teaching associate. I was frustrated at the lack of
) training I received. Other than a few 'meetings' and some
) inter-departmental 'education' courses that were barely more than red
) tape, I was offered nothing in the way of pedigogical training. In
) fact, at Ohio State where I got my degree, neither Masters nor PhD
) students in Classics receive any teacher training to speak of. How
) could this be, I thought, that PhD candidates receive a piece of paper
) that qualifies them to teach at the University level, and yet they have
) never be taught to teach?
Yikes! The state of education in general is frightening.
)
) I was so frustrated with the system that I quit. I decided to do
) something totally else. Up popped Waldorf Education. Sounded great.
) Education that focuses on the individual.
Well, that *is* what they say. Unfortunately the reality of Waldorf is
this: Steiner is the *only* individual focused on.
) A system of learning that
) encourages children to be creative. People who actually give a crap
) about their students. Great! Sign me up.
Yes, I'm right there with you. The sales pitch is great! Every time I
hear it, I want to sign my kids up all over again.
) Sunbridge College offered me
) a place in their Foundation Studies program for relatively little money
) (compared to the major universities). I jumped on board, with little
) knowledge of what lay ahead. All I really knew about Waldorf Education
) was that the colors were pretty and some of my good friends had sent
) their children there.
Yes. I call this 'Waldorf window dressings'. (Who wouldn't want what
they sell?)
)
) Now, before I get too far, I should say this. I am a very spiritual
) person. I don't have a problem with a spiritual educational system, so
) long as it admits to being what it is. I don't have a problem with
) belief in karma or reincarnation or fairies or gnomes or even angels per
) se. I do, however, have a problem with modernist, eurocentric,
) colonialist, racist, fascist doctrine being taught in school, in the
) year 2003, in the guise of an alternative/ hippie/granola/organic form
) of education.
Is this the long explanation for esoteric?
)
) I cannot understand how this is not obvious to everyone who comes in
) contact with anthroposophy or Waldorf education. Have they been
) sleeping for the past 100 years?? Newsflash: WE LIVE IN A POSTMODERN
) WORLD!!
Shhh! Haven't you heard the joke?
Many people die every day. Tours of Heaven are standard. Well, the tour
guide is explaining the ropes of Heaven to the New Comers:
"On the left, we have the Baptists gathering Hall. To the right is the
Methodists. Immediately down the hall is the Catholics." The tour
continues through several Religious Denominations . . . , when the tour
guide announces, "To the right after the hall is the Anthroposophists.
Notice how the door is closed? Well, we must be very quiet when we pass
that door because they think they are the only ones here."
) Is it just the fact that I have been overeducated that these
) things are so blatantly obvious to me, but completely obscured to the
) rest of the people at this school? Not even public elementary schools
) still teach that Ancient Greece and the Renaissance were utopian
) paradises! Worship of antiquity went out with Freud and the
) behavioralists! I am at a loss. All those classes taught on Greek
) Mythology in the universities, all the work modern scholars have done,
) and the only thing that trickles down to anthroposophists is some warmed
) over Jungian pseudo-interpretive nonsense!
So we have a Waldorf teacher flunk out on our hands. I am so sorry, but
this reinforces my idea that teachers are the most duped of all.
) In my experience, most people who walk around calling themselves
) anthroposophists have had little or no training in modern thought. They
) are bleeding-heart moms who read Chicken Soup for the Pathetic Christian
) Soul, who want to over-protect their kids by sending them to a [rich,
) white] school where the colors are all soft and the toys are made of
) wood and not [the horror!] plastic. They are old bastards who are
) clinging to this last bastion of modernism, where they can still claim
) their British and German divine-right-of-kings. They are former hippies
) and stoners who forgot the reason why they were part of the
) counter-culture in the first place, and think Steiner is 'far out' but
) don't read very far into it. Or question it. Or wonder why there are
) no Steiner books in 'normal' bookstores, or mention of him in books
) about philosophy and religion, or even history. Oh, I forgot: it's
) because he's 'misunderstood'. Right.
Well, after listening to your rant, all I can say is: Welcome back to
Normal! Doesn't it feel terrible to think you finally fell for a scam?
(There are so many out there.)
)
) The worst thing about it is that they all PRETEND to be terribly open
) minded about the whole thing. "Steiner wanted us to think for
) ourselves, Steiner didn't want us to worship him, Steiner wanted us to
) find our own path." Okay. So that's why he talks about "the right way"
) to think, and "the right way" to come to spiritual knowledge. Right.
) The sad thing is, Steiner's work is very interesting from a historical
) point of view. I would even be willing to admit that Steiner might have
) had some good ideas. But this whole nightmare of anthroposophy is
) totally and utterly ridiculous. I feel like I have gone back in time,
) and these people are going to start WWII all over again.
Hon, from where I sit, Steiner needed medication. (I have a few
suggestions for what he should have tried.)
)
) So, friends, you must help me make it through this program! I've
) already paid for the Foundation year, and I have a work-study job here
) so I can't throw in the towel yet. Sitting through some of these
) classes is terribly painful. Being the sole voice of postmodern reason
) is excruciating. Throw me a line! Am I just judgemental or crazy, or
) is this really what's going on here?
)
Well, if misery likes company, you will find it here. I can compete
dollar for dollar with your tuition, to the money I gave to our school.
These guys are very good. Comfort yourself with the idea that you were
duped by the best. I hope you become a bell ringer for full disclosure.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1151
-- Topica Digest --
Re: An academe trapped in Steiner land
By owenapp suscom-maine.net
Re: An academe trapped in Steiner land
By snell gv.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:41:44 -0400
From: "Owen Appraisal" (owenapp suscom-maine.net)
Subject: Re: An academe trapped in Steiner land
) Greetings,
)
) I'm Maria, and this is my first time here. I finally broke down this
) evening and decided that I would check out the PLANS website. I had
) avoided it for a long time, because I didn't want to be jaded before I
) even gave Waldorf Education a chance. Alas, the time has come, the
) Walrus said, to talk of many things. Of Steiner, and sheep, and
) wax-in-ears, and Christians who think they are kings, and why the sea is
) *not* boiling hot, and pigs still don't have wings.
Greetings Maria. Your post both amuses and saddens me. Laughter really is
the best medicine however, and our family uses it often to try and deal with
the 2 1/2 years of our son's education we wasted during our Waldorf daze. I
do remember the overwhelming sense of sadness I felt when I first read the
PLANS website though, and experience it every time a new list member comes
on and has the courage to post. It is its own form of mental and spiritual
awakening, and remains the first step back to reality.
) First, a little bit of my biography. I just finished getting a Master's
) degree in Classics. Like many others who become interested in Waldorf
) education, I was looking for a change. While getting my Master's
) degree, I taught Latin, Greek Mythology, Greek Literature and other
) classes as a teaching associate. I was frustrated at the lack of
) training I received. Other than a few 'meetings' and some
) inter-departmental 'education' courses that were barely more than red
) tape, I was offered nothing in the way of pedigogical training. In
) fact, at Ohio State where I got my degree, neither Masters nor PhD
) students in Classics receive any teacher training to speak of. How
) could this be, I thought, that PhD candidates receive a piece of paper
) that qualifies them to teach at the University level, and yet they have
) never be taught to teach?
I have never met anyone so completely unqualified to teach as our son's
former Waldorf class teacher who had an undergraduate degree from a
prestigious Ivy League School, as well as a law degree.
) So, friends, you must help me make it through this program! I've
) already paid for the Foundation year, and I have a work-study job here
) so I can't throw in the towel yet. Sitting through some of these
) classes is terribly painful. Being the sole voice of postmodern reason
) is excruciating. Throw me a line! Am I just judgemental or crazy, or
) is this really what's going on here?
In an attempt to truly be your friend. All I can say is run, don't walk,
away from it all. If you do not "believe", you will be labeled as a pariah.
Some will try to save you from yourself, but if you continue to question
their absolute truths, they will attempt to burn you at the stake. We stuck
around for awhile trying to make some changes from within - didn't work and
they got back at us through our son by getting all of his friends to turn
against him. The last day of school, only one of his classmates even said
goodbye to him. Too sad. Best of luck, Jane.
) Yours in gratitude for this group,
)
) Maria
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:50:28 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: An academe trapped in Steiner land
On Friday, October 3, 2003, at 05:41 AM, Owen Appraisal wrote:
) I have never met anyone so completely unqualified to teach as our son's
) former Waldorf class teacher who had an undergraduate degree from a
) prestigious Ivy League School, as well as a law degree.
I remember one classroom in particular was woeful. Kids copied grossly
misspelled
words into their main lesson books right off the chalk board! Parents
who just dropped off their kids likely excused their child's
misspellings, thinking it was just their kid, but the kids were actually
being taught to misspell!
)
)) So, friends, you must help me make it through this program! I've
)) already paid for the Foundation year, and I have a work-study job here
)) so I can't throw in the towel yet. Sitting through some of these
)) classes is terribly painful. Being the sole voice of postmodern reason
)) is excruciating. Throw me a line! Am I just judgemental or crazy, or
)) is this really what's going on here?
)
) In an attempt to truly be your friend. All I can say is run, don't
) walk,
) away from it all. If you do not "believe", you will be labeled as a
) pariah.
If you can tolerate it, take great notes for us! We've always wondered
how they manage to obtain compliance. I have two examples of how they
bend minds to the group. I participated in a group wet on wet painting
exercise with faculty and other Anthros involved with the school. Two of
us weren't "enlightened," we'd never painted a wet on wet picture. The
paint was the consistency of water and the paper was wet. All nine of us
sat in a circle with, for me, a daunting task. Each side of my painting
must "match" the person's painting sitting at my sides.
Everyone but the two of us had lots of practice with the medium.
Controlling paint the consistency of water on very wet paper is no easy
task, as each drop of paint seemed to run on the paper under it's own
control.
On top of this problem, we had the pressure to make both sides match.
Mind you, the only two of us who had never worked with this media was
seated with wet on wet professional artists on both sides.
The process was intimidating by itself, but what happened later was just
plain looney.
The end results of this collective "exercise" was placed on the wall in
the office, sides touching, in the correct order in which we sat. The
effect was one long painting.
The two of us that took part in this "exercise" with no skills - well,
our paintings didn't *exactly* match up with the adjoining paintings on
each side, but from my prospective, they looked pretty darn good. They
*almost* matched.
The fact that our paintings didn't match was the subject of the next
meeting. We were told that we weren't cooperating with the rest of the
group. Our paintings were clear evidence!
Well, I guess they were right in the end, but we told them they were
being rediculous. The only thing our paintings suggested was that we
were inexperienced with the media. We defended ourselves well and that
was that, we thought. Until my buddy went home to his wife, who was mad
at him! Seems she'd received a call saying that he wasn't cooperating as
part of the group. I guess the Faculty felt she could get him to change.
Anyway, I'm wondering if this was a sampling of how they bend minds to
the will of the group, eventually sucking out critical thinking. . .
The other example involved a teacher who participated in a story telling
"exercise."
The teacher trainer started a story, and each person must continue on
with the story in turn. It seems this teacher got too creative when it
was her turn as she threw a twist in the story. She was accused of not
sticking with the theme...
Debra
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1152
-- Topica Digest --
Steiner ad nauseam
By argeiphontes hotmail.com
RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: An academe trapped in Steiner land
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: An academe trapped in Steiner land
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: Steiner ad nauseam
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 02:11:04 +0000
From: Maria (argeiphontes hotmail.com)
Subject: Steiner ad nauseam
Hello again,
Nice to hear from all of you. Please feel free to laugh all you want:
I'm not offended. I know all of you think of sitting through another
semester of Waldorf training as the 7th level of Hell, but I've suffered
worse. You never sat through 3 hours of Fritz Graf's Latin Survey.
*That* was the 7th level of Hell. This is merely a disappointment and
an inconvenience.
I didn't check out the PLANS site earlier because I have a
history of throwing the baby out with the bath water when it
comes to new things, and I didn't want to come in already full
of judgement and bias. Truth be told, I didn't read into Steiner
much before coming, because I had a feeling I wouldn't like it
and didn't want to become too jaded too fast. Sometimes I
find that I can be prejudiced against things that might be good
for me spiritually because of my overly intellectual nature. Alas,
with anthroposophy this was *not* the case. My intellect in fact
saved me from becoming too involved in something which I now
consider to be very backward, to say the least.
But then, this seems to be the way I need to learn things.
I wasn't sure whether I wanted to get a PhD in Classics or
not until I spent 4 years trying to do it. I quit after the
Masters knowing FOR SURE that I did not want the PhD.
Now I know FOR SURE I don't want to be a Waldorf teacher,
whereas before I was still toying with the idea.
That's very interesting that you say Sunbridge monitors this
list. I wonder who it is that does the monitoring. Because,
despite my comments about burnt-out stoners and old bastards,
the staff at Sunbridge are not bad people (and I'm not saying this
just because you told me they watch this list!) I think most of
them are probably really shocked that people like us react so
negatively to their wonderful little school. I believe that some
of you have experienced serious cult-like behavior at Waldorf,
but I haven't found that to be the case at Sunbridge. More
misguided than seriously screwed up. Don't get me wrong:
they have all swallowed Steiner hook, line, and sinker, no
doubt about it. They present Steiner in a way that we would
consider to be biased: i.e. out of context, not addressing
the modernism, racism and anti-semitism, etc. But they
think of themselves as being unbiased and objective. They
say over and over again, "Steiner didn't want people to take
his word for it; Steiner didn't preach dogma; he wanted each
person to come to 'the truth' [i.e. the absolute truth about
the spiritual world which only he was able to see] in their own way."
They don't realize that what they are saying is contradictory because
they have never been taught anything except modernist drivel. They
think they are doing something good. I would say they 'mean well,' but
we all know what that is worth. All modernists 'meant well'. Hitler
'meant well'. He thought of his work as euthanasia. Anthroposophists
think of themselves as
saving the world. Unfortunately for them and for us, the
paint which they are using to make all their pretty pictures
is tainted with the blood of the millions of victims of modernist,
eurocentric, racist thinking.
I've raised these subjects in classes, and I am going to
continue to raise them. Most of the time the answers I
get are "give it a chance" or "it's hatred and nationalism
that are the real problems" or something along those lines.
I am not afraid of being labeled a pariah or burned at
the stake for disagreeing with Steiner. Someone needs
to speak up about it. Might as well be me. I'm always
'the one who corrects the teacher all the time' anyway.
And, truth be told, there are aspects of Sbridge that I do like (I know
you're all thinking: oh no! They're reeling her in!). No, it's nothing
like that. Just that I enjoy singing and playing the recorder, I enjoy
gardening, I enjoy dancing, I enjoy handwork and I enjoy eating organic.
Even painting is cool when it's not too dogmatic. None of these things
are owned by anthroposophists, and I can enjoy them despite the fact
that they are being presented in an anthroposophic context. I have no
fear of being sucked in by Modernists: I pretty much have a 24 hr
on-call Modernist BS Detector. It comes from years of postmodernist
education, and from growing up with Republican parents. So no worries
there.
Besides, I haven't got anything else to do. If I quit Sbridge,
my student loans come due, and then I'm really screwed.
At any rate, I'm sure you'll be hearing more from me...
Maria
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 04:20:54 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
Peter Farrell wrote:
)
) Percedol wrote:
) )In my experience homeopathy works.
) )
)
) Peter F responds:
) The trouble is that your experience is not reliable. Not just yours,
) everybody's self reporting of their personal experience is unreliable.
) There
) are a host of reasons. Here are some.
) 1. Some people lie.
) 2. Some people lie to themselves (eg addicts of various sorts).
) 3. Some people don't understand what their own experience was. There
) have
) been many experiments demonstrating that people are subject to
) suggestion
) about recently observed events. One classic involves asking people to
) examine a video of a car accident and asking them immediately after
) "where
) did the green car come from?". They will then report that there was a
) green
) car in the video even though there was not. Unscrupulous people (dare I
) say
) like Steiner) take adantage of this.
)
) This is why I and other scientists
P:
May I ask you (if DD doesnt' feel this is too personal) what is your
field of study?
don't rely on your personal experience to
) decide if homeopathy works or not. Appropriate testing protocols are
) devised
) which attempt to remove the effects of self delusion and dishonesty.
) When
) these tests are applied to homeopathy, the effectiveness is either non
) existent or, at best, very much less than that claimed by the
) practitioners.
) This lack of effectiveness combined with the clear contradiction between
) the
) basic philosophy of homeopathy and what is well tested and well
) understood
) about the atomic and chemical nature of matter leads to the clear result
)
) that homeopathy does not work.
P:
It works for me so I'll keep using it until it works.
)
) I don't expect this to change your mind. However I thnk you should
) recognise
) as I have suggested before that you might as well write random letters
) as
) "In my experience homeopathy works" for all that it contributes to the
) discussion.
P:
Instead of writing random letters I say that I solved problems with
homeopathy and it is not a fact of changing my mind about it, but a
matter of healing. Or should I say, I got healed so I should not use it
again?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 04:28:02 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
Peter Farrell wrote:
)
) While I'm responding, Percedol has not yet replied to my claim that it
) is
) dishonest for him to claim that Steiner's methods have been verified.
) Peter F.
P:
Several A. who contributed articles for the group of UR and their
students over the following decades verifed the method.
They wrote about it in books and articles and someone gave thousands of
lectures (out of personal experience) as well. But this is poorly known
by A. outside Italy.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 04:49:44 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: An academe trapped in Steiner land
argeiphontes hotmail.com wrote:
)
) Greetings,
)
) I'm Maria,
I do, however, have a problem with modernist, eurocentric,
) colonialist, racist, fascist doctrine being taught in school, in the
) year 2003, in the guise of an alternative/ hippie/granola/organic form
) of education.
P:
The word 'hippie' - that is very negative to me- is quite scary about
W-schools. What is 'hippie' in W-schools in your experience?
) In my experience, most people who walk around calling themselves
) anthroposophists have had little or no training in modern thought.
P:
What do you define as 'modern thought' ?
They
) are bleeding-heart moms who read Chicken Soup for the Pathetic Christian
)
) Soul,
P:
They would probably need a more Kshattryia attitude rather than too
mystical-devotional.
Or wonder why there are
) no Steiner books in 'normal' bookstores, or mention of him in books
) about philosophy and religion, or even history.
P:
Why do you say that? You can find RS books at Borders.
In Italy almost every bookstore has RS books.
Oh, I forgot: it's
) because he's 'misunderstood'. Right.
P:
At least in Italy his figure was set aside probably because of the
Church influence.
)
) The worst thing about it is that they all PRETEND to be terribly open
) minded about the whole thing. "Steiner wanted us to think for
) ourselves, Steiner didn't want us to worship him, Steiner wanted us to
) find our own path." Okay. So that's why he talks about "the right way"
)
) to think,
P:
I don't recall of a right way to think, but rather indications to
experience thinking before it becomes cerebral.
and "the right way" to come to spiritual knowledge.
P:
Which is through pre-cerebral thought, instead of letting oneself
abandon to medianic paths like yoga, or similar.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 04:59:22 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: An academe trapped in Steiner land
Peter Farrell wrote:
I believe it is possible to show
) that Steiner was a deliberate fraud from his own writings and recorded
) lectures.
P:
It is good to see that maybe someone will follow the discipline to
disprove it. Unfortunately for you, that person would find that it
works!
(I am aware that you meant that through a work like that of PS one could
show...
Look, the guy (PS) is not even able to see that PoF gives the whole
spiritual science discipline. He thinks it was a former unrelated phase
of the author. If this is the kind of people who should debunk A. you
are in trouble.)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:10:12 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Steiner ad nauseam
Maria wrote:
) That's very interesting that you say Sunbridge monitors this
) list. I wonder who it is that does the monitoring. Because,
) despite my comments about burnt-out stoners and old bastards,
) the staff at Sunbridge are not bad people (and I'm not saying this
) just because you told me they watch this list!) I think most of
) them are probably really shocked that people like us react so
) negatively to their wonderful little school. I believe that some
) of you have experienced serious cult-like behavior at Waldorf,
) but I haven't found that to be the case at Sunbridge. More
) misguided than seriously screwed up. Don't get me wrong:
) they have all swallowed Steiner hook, line, and sinker, no
) doubt about it. They present Steiner in a way that we would
) consider to be biased: i.e. out of context, not addressing
) the modernism, racism and anti-semitism, etc. But they
) think of themselves as being unbiased and objective.
And therein lies the problem, IMO. And the major hurdle in what might
actually be a very healthy approach to education. Problem is that Waldorf
is currently the only game in town. A misguided monopoly, of sorts.
Disingenuous. That is the issue. Many people have experienced cult-like
behaviour at Waldorf schools - in my case, the behaviour had nothing to do
with "bad people," however one might define such people. There was,
however, a very odd and very real sense of denial. I wonder if you have
experienced that denial at *your* school? I would have a hard time
listening to anything about Steiner or his "indications" now that I have an
understanding of the so-called philosophy. Have you asked about root races,
the mission of Anthroposophy/Waldorf, Eurythmy, etc? Have you asked those
learned teachers of teachers for an explanation of Steiner's racist
doctrine? Perhaps they could enlighten you as to what exactly *they* think
Steiner was going on about...?
They
) say over and over again, "Steiner didn't want people to take
) his word for it; Steiner didn't preach dogma; he wanted each
) person to come to 'the truth' [i.e. the absolute truth about
) the spiritual world which only he was able to see] in their own way."
) They don't realize that what they are saying is contradictory because
) they have never been taught anything except modernist drivel. They
) think they are doing something good. I would say they 'mean well,' but
) we all know what that is worth. All modernists 'meant well'. Hitler
) 'meant well'. He thought of his work as euthanasia. Anthroposophists
) think of themselves as
) saving the world. Unfortunately for them and for us, the
) paint which they are using to make all their pretty pictures
) is tainted with the blood of the millions of victims of modernist,
) eurocentric, racist thinking.
)
) I've raised these subjects in classes, and I am going to
) continue to raise them. Most of the time the answers I
) get are "give it a chance" or "it's hatred and nationalism
) that are the real problems" or something along those lines.
HHhhmm... Those are not "answers." You have every right to raise these
issues and you deserve better than "give it chance." I would not spend much
time with someone who refused to take my issues/questions seriously. Nor
would I accept deflection techniques as an adequate response. "Ya, but look
at all those other non-Waldorf schools... it's all the materialists who
cause the real problems..." Deal with the issues. They seem to have a hard
time answering simple questions. I remembering asking questions and being
answered by a smile and something about "Anthroposohpy not being for
everyone." But I suspect you have already experienced this phenomenon.
) I am not afraid of being labeled a pariah or burned at
) the stake for disagreeing with Steiner. Someone needs
) to speak up about it. Might as well be me. I'm always
) 'the one who corrects the teacher all the time' anyway.
In this case is it really a question of "correcting" a teacher or more of a
desire to understand what the hell he/she is talking about?
"Atlantis...Jupiter...Vulcan??? Negroes are what?! What was that about
savages?! Etc."
) And, truth be told, there are aspects of Sbridge that I do like (I know
) you're all thinking: oh no! They're reeling her in!). No, it's nothing
) like that. Just that I enjoy singing and playing the recorder, I enjoy
) gardening, I enjoy dancing, I enjoy handwork and I enjoy eating organic.
) Even painting is cool when it's not too dogmatic.
)None of these things are owned by anthroposophists, and I can enjoy them
despite the fact
) that they are being presented in an anthroposophic context.
Are they being presented in an anthroposophic context? Are the "things"
really the same things you believe them to be? Most folks enjoy these
things - if that is what they are. If your "dancing" has anything to with
Eurythmy, it is more than a dance. It is occultism. If you enjoy occult
ritual while moving - go for it. Singing and recorder -I wonder....
Organic (we eat mostly organic) food is good news. If *that* is what is
happening at Sunbridge I am delighted. Or is it biodynamic gardening?
There is a difference. Painting? Wonderful. Watercolour? Oil? Mountain
scenes or still life or.... wet on wet, by any chance? Anything slightly
out of the ordinary in the *way in which you are taught to paint?* Any
special techniques, for example? Do tell.
) Besides, I haven't got anything else to do. If I quit Sbridge,
) my student loans come due, and then I'm really screwed.
Your choice. Stay real. And stay connected to the list. Invite others to
shine the light. Let's do some real learning here (g)
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1153
-- Topica Digest --
RE: An academe trapped in Steiner land
By argeiphontes hotmail.com
Intro and basic question
By slichte iGlide.net
RE: Intro and basic question
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Steiner ad nauseam
By argeiphontes hotmail.com
RE: Intro and basic question
By argeiphontes hotmail.com
modernism and post-modernism
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Steiner ad nauseam
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Steiner schools in UK
By stationwduk yahoo.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 18:37:55 +0000
From: Maria (argeiphontes hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: An academe trapped in Steiner land
Hi, Percedol. As in "La Dolina di Percedol"? Lei di dov'e?
Percedol wrote:
) The word 'hippie' - that is very negative to me- is quite scary about
) W-schools. What is 'hippie' in W-schools in your experience?
When you say 'that is very negative to me' do you mean you are offended
by the term, or that you don't like hippies? I take it you mean the
latter, since you say that it scares you that Waldorf schools have
hippie qualities. I don't have a problem with hippies. It's Waldorf I
have a problem with. What I was saying was that I felt like Waldorf
mascarades itself as something that might appeal to hippies, Green Party
members, earthy/crunchy organic people, etc, because it's different, and
there is an emphasis on environmentalism and the arts. The truth is,
however, that what Waldorf stands for (modernism, eurocentrism, etc) is
the antithesis of what hippie groups like the Peace Corps and Greenpeace
are all about (post-colonialism, multiculturalism, etc).
There are some people in the hippie/greenpeace community, however, who
do have something in common with anthroposophists, and this may be part
of where your fear stems from (if I may be so bold). Some hippies (not
all of them) preach a kind of grand narrative, about how we can acheive
world peace through [anarchy, total break up of the government, the
proletariat rising up, etc]. Again, I DO NOT think this is true for
everyone in the movement, and a lot of the paranoia about it stems from
smear campaigns of conservatives against liberals. Nevertheless, grand
narratives are part of the modernist regime, and whether you are buying
into the anthroposophical grand narrative, or the Marxist grand
narrative, or the Anarchist grand narrative, they are all equally
flawed. In that sense, anthroposophists do have something negative in
common with hippies, but only the ones who preach grand narratives.
Most hippies you will find are much more laid back. They do their own
thing and encourage others to do the same.
M:
) ) In my experience, most people who walk around calling themselves
) ) anthroposophists have had little or no training in modern thought.
)
) P:
) What do you define as 'modern thought' ?
Sorry to confuse the terms. I didn't mean anything to do with
modernism. I guess I really meant 'post-modern theory'. But even
post-modernism is out of date now. Basically I was implying that
anthroposophists are so busy trying to interpret Steiner that they've
completely missed the advances in the last 100 years in religion,
philosophy, child development, world politics, etc.
) P:
) They would probably need a more Kshattryia attitude rather than
) too mystical-devotional.
Kshattriya is one of the 4 Indian castes, isn't it, the warrior caste?
Did you mean to imply that anthroposophists are rigid in their beliefs?
I agree with you.
)Maria:
) Or wonder why there are
) ) no Steiner books in 'normal' bookstores, or mention of him in
)) books about philosophy and religion, or even history.
)
) P:
) Why do you say that? You can find RS books at Borders.
) In Italy almost every bookstore has RS books.
In Italy, everything is closed for a week at Easter and it's illegal to
send pictures of women in bikinis through the Vatican mail. The Pope is
still worshipped like a demigod. Never mind post-modernism: fascism is
still a legitimate political party over there! Mussolini was a hero
because he made the trains run on time! And if you are saying that the
Church wanted to discredit Steiner, well, that would be the first time
the Church and I agreed on something.
True, Borders has Steiner books. What I was getting at, however, was
that if you take a course at a 'normal' college on philosophy or
religion or even modernism, Steiner is rarely given more than a
footnote. They want to hold him up as this 'great misunderstood
clairvoyant' when it's clear to everyone else that he was just another
modernist quack.
))M:
))Okay. So that's why he talks about "the right way" to think,
)
) P:
) I don't recall of a right way to think, but rather indications to
) experience thinking before it becomes cerebral.
He says a lot about 'right thinking' in 'Practical Training and
Thought'. He may have been talking about pre-cerebral thought, but he
calls it 'richtig'. This is why I find modernist texts to be so
difficult to digest. If only anthroposophists were better at breaking
it down, getting past the modernism, being real about what he actually
said... there is probably some good stuff in there somewhere. I mean,
if 500 monkeys could eventually come up with Hamlet, some of Steiners
books must be worth something (like a good doorstop, or a target at the
firing range... hahaha)
)M:
) and "the right way" to come to spiritual knowledge.
) P:
) Which is through pre-cerebral thought, instead of letting oneself
) abandon to medianic paths like yoga, or similar.
I don't have a problem with medianic paths per se. The ancient Greek
concepts of 'enthusiasmos' [the god within] or 'ekstasis' [standing
outside of yourself] have been valid avenues for spirituality for a very
long time. Steiner and his modernists want to take every valid spirtual
experience and boil it down into something you can do while sitting in
your leather armchair, smoking your pipe and reading the Frankfurter
Allgemeine. I beg to differ.
Good questions...
-M
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 13:32:29 -0600
From: "Sonya Lichte" (slichte iGlide.net)
Subject: Intro and basic question
Hello,
I am new to this list - have been lurking the last few days. I have a
decision to make regarding my children and would love some input from the
members of this list.
I homeschool my 3 kids. I belong to a homeschool group in the area.
Several "key" people in the group are using a waldorf curriculum. My kids
have been invited to join in w/ two other families for circle time two
mornings a week. If I did this, I would consider this time as an art /
music / creative play suppliment to my regular curriculum.
This would be an great situation for many reasons: regular interaction w/
other kids, time for me to work on my own (I would probably stay one day of
the week and just drop the kids off the other day) , and a chance for my
kids to do art and music -- I was skipped over when these talents were
passed out.
I have attended a few of these circle times - and didn't find anything
offensive. In fact, on the surface, it was charming. THEN, I did a little
looking around on the internet and was SHOCKED at what I discovered to be
some of the underlying beliefs of a waldorf curriculum.
For those of you that have experienced waldorf in one way or another, I
would love to get some feedback about this situation. I am extremely
uninformed about waldorf. My only experience has been attending one or two
circle times, and what I "skimmed" on the net. Do these underlying beliefs
come out overtly to the children through circle time? other activities? I
have noticed a few of you mention that you have experienced cult-like
behavior. Would you mind providing an example? What is the deal with
wet-on-wet painting? My primary question is... would I be putting my
children at risk by taking them to circle time .... and leaving them there
w/ out me once a week?
Sonya
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 17:20:51 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Intro and basic question
Sonya wrote:
"For those of you that have experienced waldorf in one way or another, I
would love to get some feedback about this situation. I am extremely
uninformed about waldorf. My only experience has been attending one or
two
circle times, and what I "skimmed" on the net. Do these underlying
beliefs
come out overtly to the children through circle time? other activities?
I
have noticed a few of you mention that you have experienced cult-like
behavior. Would you mind providing an example? What is the deal with
wet-on-wet painting? My primary question is... would I be putting my
children at risk by taking them to circle time .... and leaving them
there
w/ out me once a week?"
The short answer, Sonya, in my opinion is no, you would not be putting
them at risk by taking them to this circle time once a week, or
whatever. They are almost certainly a bunch of nice people, probably
just as nice as they seem, and in fact, homeschoolers doing Waldorf
frequently have little idea what "Waldorf" means inside school walls.
Some of them may have *left* Waldorf schools disillusioned and are
trying to do Waldorf their way. They are probably just a bunch of nice
moms, and most if not all of them probably have little more idea than
you do who Rudolf Steiner was.
However, we don't really like to advise you to join a Waldorf play
group, because we don't like to see you get hooked into Waldorf. These
groups are great PR for Waldorf and end up recruiting people to the
movement. It would make the most sense to fully inform yourself about
Rudolf Steiner's occult theories and the pro's and con's of Waldorf
education - Waldorf is based on Steiner's theories - read the PLANS web
site, but also talk to as many people as you can who have had experience
at *real* Waldorf schools, and then - even more important - check out
your other educational options for your kids in your local area very
carefully - *before* investing much of your own time and energy - and
letting your children make friends, which will tie you in - in this
group.
*Not* out of fear of witchcraft or evil influences - it is just common
sense to make a long-term plan based on the most information you can
get.
No - nothing "occult" or sinister or weird is likely to be coming to the
kids attending a Waldorf homeschool group circle. They are probably
telling nursery rhymes and doing yarn crafts and having a healthy snack.
This is fine. When this leads you to enroll for the 12-year program - or
even to put your child in a first grade classroom that has no books, the
norm for a Waldorf first grade - you need to understand what this system
is: its origins in late 19th century spiritualism and how that magical,
anti-intellectual worldview defines Waldorf today; its reliance on
German childrearing principles from a century ago - what its proponents
say about Waldorf versus what its critics say about it.
Another drawback I would see, besides getting drawn in socially with
Waldorf people and ending up sending your kids to the local Waldorf
school, if there is one, is that there may be an emphasis on *avoiding*
reading and writing to or with your kids, or exploring your children's
interest in reading and writing. Dogmatic Waldorf teachers don't believe
kids younger than 7 should even *see* printed materials - literally -
and will strongly discourage you from even teaching your kids the
alphabet. For some kids, this does a real disservice. Again, the
homeschool group likely is a more diverse group of people, and you may
not encounter these extreme views. (If you do, just ignore this stuff,
at least until you've decided for yourself whether "early reading" is
good or bad - depends mainly on what your own kids need.)
My .02.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 22:39:56 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
Percedol asked:
)May I ask you (if DD doesnt' feel this is too personal) what is your
)field of study?
)
I am a physicist in a Dpertment of Electrical Engineering.
Percedol wrote:
)It works for me so I'll keep using it until it works.
Peter F responds:
Heroin addicts and alcoholics say similar things. It's called self delusion.
_________________________________________________________________
E-mail just got a whole lot better. New ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 22:41:54 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
Percedol:
)Several A. who contributed articles for the group of UR and their
)students over the following decades verifed the method.
)They wrote about it in books and articles and someone gave thousands of
)lectures (out of personal experience) as well. But this is poorly known
)by A. outside Italy.
Peter F responds:
I think what you are claiming is that they have reported that they verified
it.
_________________________________________________________________
E-mail just got a whole lot better. New ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 03:48:58 +0000
From: anonymous (argeiphontes hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner ad nauseam
(FYI I changed myself to 'anonymous' for the hell of it, even though the
pt is probably moot by now...)
walden wrote:
) I wonder if you have
) experienced that denial at *your* school?
Well, that's a good question. If you mean denial as in denial of the
past 100 years of history in general, well, yeah, all anthroposophists
are guilty of that. Clinical denial, though, implies knowledge of the
thing being denied: for example, I am allergic to dairy, and I know that
for a fact, but I still decide to go into denial every once in a while
and eat ice cream. I don't think that's quite what's going on at
Sbridge, although I imagine other Waldorf institutions do engage in
active denial of that sort. The denial here is more passive. The
teachers here are very specialized: eurythmists do eurythmy all day,
they don't teach classes on Steiner's philosophy. Music teachers do
music, gardeners do gardening. They have read 'what Steiner says' about
their subject, probably a long time ago, and come to terms with it for
themselves. That's as far as it goes. My questions, as I've said, are
usually glazed over or chalked up to my 'cholericness'. People have
said to me, "If you go to a university to study Jung, you don't then
say, 'well, what about Freud?'" I suppose this is because the field of
Comparative Studies came about in the last 100 years, and we all know
who missed out on that section of history.
) Have you asked about root races,
) the mission of Anthroposophy/Waldorf, Eurythmy, etc?
No, I want to read more about that root races theory on the PLANS site,
to give me some really good ammunition in class. I did tell that story
about the little girl who was told to paint Eve with blonde hair instead
of black, and that was chalked up to 'one bad teacher'. I imagine their
answer to 'the mission of anthroposophy' would be something flakey like,
"It's different for every anthroposophist."
w:
) [they say] "...look at all those other non-Waldorf schools... it's all
) the )materialists who cause the real problems..."
I even made that argument to myself, when I was still thinking about
becoming a Waldorf teacher. I thought, well, I disagree with 80% of
what goes on in public education anyway, so I might as well do this
Waldorf thing, even if I disagree with some if it. But it's even worse
than public school: they may be full of red tape and BS learning, but at
least they're SECULAR for chrissakes.
w:
) I remembering asking questions and being
) answered by a smile and something about "Anthroposohpy not being )for
) everyone." But I suspect you have already experienced this )phenomenon.
Oh yes. And it's a bit rich to be patronized by a group who can't find
their own ass with two hands and a flashlight, pardon my French.
Honestly.
) is it really a question of "correcting" a teacher or more of a
) desire to understand what the hell he/she is talking about?
) "Atlantis...Jupiter...Vulcan??? Negroes are what?!
Yes! That's exactly it! One of the teachers last week passed out this
crazy chart with all of Steiner's supposed 'epochs' on it. It included
Atlantean and Lemurian epochs, and my personal favorite, the
'Greco-Roman epoch,' which lasted from 747 BCE - 1413 CE. First of all,
I don't know where the hell he got the date 747. The mythical founding
of Rome was 753 BCE. Someone needs to read his Livy properly. Second
of all, on a good day you can stretch late antiquity to the 4rd century
CE, MAYBE to the 5th C. The 15th C was no more 'Greco-Roman' than the
20th C. Not to mention what was going on in China, India, and the rest
of the non-West at the time. (fume!) So I'm looking at this chart and
trying my best not to snigger, while our teacher is going on about
Atlantis and how, "These things might be far away from our present
consciousness, and I once thought so too, but then I found out something
else." She then proceeded to explain about Goddess figurines found in
Malta and Crete. She passed around pretty pictures, everyone ooh-ed and
ahh-ed, and that was the end of the lecture. Meanwhile, I'm sitting
here going... "I'm sorry, I must be crazy, but what exactly was the
connection between Goddess figurines and Atlantis? How does this defend
Steiner's ridiculous epoch chart? What the hell was the point of this?"
) Are they being presented in an anthroposophic context? Are
) the "things"
) really the same things you believe them to be?
Well, recorder and singing are pretty straight forward. We don't do
anything particularly anthroposophical, except for that fact that she
doesn't pass out music, because it's too 'linear'. We're doing part of
the Messiah for the Christmas concert (ah, Xtians) and my father happens
to be a big Messiah guy, and so I got a copy of the score to use in
class. She told me she prefers us to sing without the score even if we
do read music, because otherwise we focus too much on the page and not
on our singing. I'm okay with that, except for the fact that last time
we had like 3 rehersals before we were supposed to sing in front of the
whole school, and it would be a hell of a lot easier with music than
without, but whatever.
) If your "dancing" has anything to with
) Eurythmy, it is more than a dance. It is occultism. If you enjoy
) )occult ritual while moving - go for it.
I do, actually. I'm just not sure whether I want to be doing ritual
that has some fascist goal at the end of it. Matching sounds and chords
with movements and energies: well, okay, I may disagree with the symbols
being 'universal', but whatever. Eurhythmy doesn't bother me so much,
although it's funny: my friends in the group who do dance hate
eurhythmy. And the ones who have studied speech hate Speech. And I who
have studied philosophy hate the philosophy. So, it seems that
everything in anthroposophy is fine unless you actually *know* something
about that subject, in which case it turns out to be total bullshit.
How fascinating.
) Organic (we eat mostly organic) food is good news. If *that* is )what
) is happening at Sunbridge I am delighted. Or is it biodynamic
) gardening?
Biodynamic gardening does go on, but the organic food comes from the
co-op or the person who does food on campus. True, they get some of
their greens, etc from the farm. I haven't noticed anything
particularly harmful about biodynamic agriculture yet, except that a
friend of mine told me they are pro-dairy, which is annoying. At least
in Steiner's agriculture lectures he is talking to farmers who wont
believe what he says unless he offers some kind of scientific proof for
it. He may have spiritually intuited to put cow manure in a cow horn
and bury it for a year and then use it for fertilizer, but the reason it
works is because there are bacteria, etc in the cow horn that break down
the manure. That at least I can take hold of (literally: I never
thought I'd find myself scooping cowshit in class, but there's
anthroposophy for you). ;P
) There is a difference. Painting? Wonderful. Watercolour? )scenes
) or still life or.... wet on wet, by any chance?
Yep, you got it. Painting is kind of annoying. She wants us to do it
her way all the time. Although I told a friend of mine what we were
doing, and she said it was more Goethe than Steiner, which I suppose is
good. When the teacher starts talking about how the colors all
correspond to different ages, and the whole ontogeny/phylogeny argument,
I just tune out.
I'd better quit, this is such a long post...
'anonymous' ;)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 04:00:15 +0000
From: anonymous (argeiphontes hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Intro and basic question
I agree with Diana. A small group probably wont have a terribly harmful
effect, but don't be surprised if you do get some 'strange' advice, as
to not letting your children read, or use black crayons, or whatever. I
really liked your explaination here, D:
) you need to understand what this system
) is: its origins in late 19th century spiritualism and how that )magical,
) anti-intellectual worldview defines Waldorf today; its )reliance on
) German childrearing principles from a century ago -
That is exactly what it is! Although I would replace 'magical' with
'superstitious'. The whole idea of rearing children in a magickal way
appeals to us Pagans, and that's NOT AT ALL what Steiner is about.
Basically, go with caution when it comes to Waldorf!
-a
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 23:25:32 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: modernism and post-modernism
Maria, you've written that Anthroposophy expresses "modernism," and
that current thought is "post modernism." I've always associated
post-modernism with a recent pathological philosophy, dominant in
some universities, that denies the possibility of objectivity and
considers everything "just a story." When I've argued about the
philosophy of science with Anthroposophists, I've heard post-modern
arguments. So I'm a bit confused about either your analysis or your
terminology.
Could you clarify for me what you mean by "modernism" and "post-modernism"?
Thanks, Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 07:06:38 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner ad nauseam
Anonymous wrote:
)I do, actually. I'm just not sure whether I want to be doing ritual
)that has some fascist goal at the end of it. Matching sounds and chords
)with movements and energies: well, okay, I may disagree with the symbols
)being 'universal', but whatever. Eurhythmy doesn't bother me so much,
)although it's funny: my friends in the group who do dance hate
)eurhythmy. And the ones who have studied speech hate Speech. And I who
)have studied philosophy hate the philosophy. So, it seems that
)everything in anthroposophy is fine unless you actually *know* something
)about that subject, in which case it turns out to be total bullshit.
)How fascinating.
Peter F responds:
This reminds me of a book or article (can't find the reference just now)
about a physicist/astronomer who was talking to a Biblical scholar/ancient
historian about Velikovsky. The physicist thought the scince was complete
bullshit while the historical evidence seemed reasonably researched, while
the historian had the opposite view.
This comes back to a question I have asked before. Was Steiner actually
write about anything that could be independently verified in any of his
millions of recorded words. I think Dan offered a rather trivial example.
See you, Peter.
_________________________________________________________________
E-mail just got a whole lot better. New ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 10:23:49 +0000
From: (stationwduk yahoo.co.uk)
Subject: Steiner schools in UK
Hi. I'm new to this. I have a son with serious behaviour problems who
cannot attend a mainstream school. Schools that specialize in EBD
(emotionally and behaviourally disabled), which I am told is where he
needs to be placed, are frequently described in the guides to "special
needs" schools as Rudolph Steiner schools or as following Steiner
principles.
Having been reading postings on this site I am very concerned about what
I might be putting my son into. He has had so many problems already and
his self-esteem is very low. He is also left-handed, which appears to
be a problem for these people. My son needs a residential placement,
which means that I would not be there to talk to him every night and get
a good picture of how he is doing. He also therapy and I am concerned
about the school's using their own psychiatrists. Of course I would ask
these questions of the school, but now I am afraid to rely on their
truthfulness.
Is there any advice for me as to how to approach any potential school
interviews and how to clarify what they tell me? My son really does
need intensive help and if this type of school can help him, then I can
overlook some things that would otherwise bother me, but I don't want to
expose him to practices that might confuse him and make him even worse.
Thank you for any help and advice you can provide.
Pat
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1154
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Steiner ad nauseam
By pstaud hotmail.com
debunking and delusion
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Enchanted Garden
By audreyallison hotmail.com
RE: modernism and post-modernism
By argeiphontes hotmail.com
Re: modernism and post-modernism
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: debunking and delusion
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Enchanted Garden
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Steiner schools in UK
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 09:53:08 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner ad nauseam
Hello 'Anonymous', welcome to the list. While I can't fully agree with your
characterization of Steiner as a modernist, I have very much enjoyed your
posts. The last few have been particularly informative. This was one of my
favorite bits:
)Eurhythmy doesn't bother me so much,
)although it's funny: my friends in the group who do dance hate
)eurhythmy. And the ones who have studied speech hate Speech. And I who
)have studied philosophy hate the philosophy. So, it seems that
)everything in anthroposophy is fine unless you actually *know* something
)about that subject, in which case it turns out to be total bullshit.
)How fascinating.
That sounds quite similar to my own experience. If you think you can make it
through a whole year in the program, perhaps you could play an important
role in challenging anthroposophist complacency and detecting some of the
pseudo-knowledge passed off as truth. At the very least, it might be of
service to some of the other students. If you have time and inclination, and
if it seems appropriate to share this information publically, I invite you
to tell us more about the history curriculum and the ways in which the
scheme of cultural epochs is presented. In Steiner's work, this scheme is
integrally bound up with the root race theory, and it would be very helpful
to know more about how that theme is incorporated into contemporary Waldorf
pedagogy. Thanks,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Instant message during games with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE!
http://msnmessenger-download.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 10:32:01 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: debunking and delusion
Percedol's latest adds a new element to the litany of anthroposophist
misperceptions of "the critics":
)Peter Farrell wrote:
) I believe it is possible to show
) ) that Steiner was a deliberate fraud from his own writings and recorded
) ) lectures.
)
)P:
)It is good to see that maybe someone will follow the discipline to
)disprove it. Unfortunately for you, that person would find that it
)works!
)(I am aware that you meant that through a work like that of PS one could
)show...
I don't know whether this is indeed what Peter F. meant, but my work does
not reveal Steiner to have been a deliberate fraud. What my work does is
situate Steiner in his historical and ideological context and critically
examine the political implications of his esoteric doctrine. My conclusion
thus far is that for the most part, Steiner sincerely believed the stuff
that he taught.
)Look, the guy (PS) is not even able to see that PoF gives the whole
)spiritual science discipline. He thinks it was a former unrelated phase
)of the author. If this is the kind of people who should debunk A. you
)are in trouble.)
I am not trying to debunk anthroposophy, any more than I am trying to attack
anthroposophy as a whole (which was Percedol's most recent attempt to
explain why a non-anthroposophist would study anthroposophy). Each of these
evasions of critique adds a new layer to what Peter F. aptly described as
anthroposophist self-delusion. In the topsy-turvy worldview of
anthroposophists like Percedol, the very existence of external analysis and
criticism counts as yet another sinister Ahrimanic deception designed to
distract good spiritual people from the wonders of Steiner's occult Truths.
In my view, debunking specific aspects of Steiner's system (say,
anthroposophical medicine) is a fine undertaking, but it isn't my role.
People who believe they are practicing a discipline called spiritual science
are probably immune to debunking, while people whose critical faculties are
still in working order will eventually realize on their own that enormous
swaths of anthroposophy fail on both spiritual and scientific grounds.
None of my articles tries to debunk anthroposophy as such; instead they
explore the historical blindspots that are apparently endemic to
anthroposophy. Percedol's paragraph above is a delightfully telling case in
point: he is convinced that Steiner's book The Philosophy of Freedom, which
was written and published at least a decade prior to the invention of
anthroposophy (or possibly two decades, depending on how strictly we define
"anthroposophy"), somehow contains "the whole spiritual science discipline".
When asked to provide a single quote from the text that might support this
remarkable reading, Percedol is suddenly struck dumb.
In the time that Percedol has been on the list, anthroposophists and critics
of anthroposophy have discussed this very issue in depth on three separate
occasions. Each one of those exchanges made clear that the topic has nothing
to do with debunking anthroposophy, since the would-be debunkers hold that
the book in question is irrelevant to anthroposophy. Nevertheless, the
simplest statements about this book and its contents continue to strike fear
in the hearts of anthroposophical true believers, who consider mundane
things like chronology and biographical facts an affront to their
spirituality.
Those who view Steiner as a timeless figure who stands outside of history
can only make sense of historical treatments of Steiner by dismissing them
as attacks on anthroposophy (even when the "attacks" do not involve
Steiner's anthroposophical phase in any way), produced by "materialists"
motivated by "an aversion to the spirit." It seems to me that this sort of
willful ignorance largely accounts for the difficulties that arise nearly
every time anthroposophists try to respond to independent inquiry. Not a few
anthroposophists have managed to recast an obstinate resistance to knowledge
and self-examination as the pinnacle of Higher Knowledge and Self-awareness.
In the face of this extreme level of delusion, it probably isn't surprising
that the mere mention of factual accuracy, evidence, and verification brings
dialogue to a grinding halt.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Instant message with integrated webcam using MSN Messenger 6.0. Try it now
FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 10:18:06 -0700
From: "Audrey Allison" (audreyallison hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Enchanted Garden
What is the enchanted garden?
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 01:08:17 +0000
From: anonymous (argeiphontes hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: modernism and post-modernism
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Could you clarify for me what you mean by "modernism" and
) "post-modernism"?
Sure. [opens can of worms!] (kidding) I am aware that some people use
the terms differently than I do. That's interesting that you've thought
of anthros as postmodernists (and therefore full of it) whereas I see
them as modernist (and therefore full of it).
Just to preface, my definitions (or rather, 'tenative distinctions') of
modernism and postmodernism come from the Religious Studies classes
(that is, classes in the *academic* study of religion) that I took with
Lindsay Jones, who teaches at Ohio State and is the current editor of
(Mircea Eliade's) Encyclopedia of Religion.
Modernists and structuralists:
-have a tendency to view the world (and culture) as a unified whole
-see things as unchanging and search for invariant structures
-are preoccupied with the abstract, general and universal
-have confidence that everyone and everything in the past, present and
future are basically the same
-believe in universal truths and trans-historical patterns
-inclined to perceive profound similarities and superficial differences
-have confidence in the orderly, systematic nature of reality
-believe it is the role of scholars to look past surface differences in
order to reveal deeper structures and reveal the coherent, unified
scheme (which is 'truth')
-believe they can be/are completely objective, value free and
non-normative in their observations
-are implicated in a colonialist tendency to impose their 'universal'
standards onto everyone else, even if they don't admit it, and thereby
(unconsciously) squashing diversity
-believe that people everywhere have a natural drive toward meaning,
order, and an urge to understand the world
-i.e. people everywhere are essentially intellectual, rational, logical,
and if they just 'think about things in the right way' they will
eventually come to "The Universal Truth" (tm)
Postmodernists/Post-structuralists:
-have a tendency to view the world as diverse, like a collage
-are dubious that culture/reality is organized according to some
Universal Truth or structure
-are preoccupied with that which is concrete, specific, or unique
-tend to highlight ways that people/events are idiosyncratic, variable,
tentative, ever-changing
-have a (skeptical) sense that all reality/truth, ideas and knowledge
are conditioned by history, and by special interest groups, and
therefore all 'truths' are subject to change
-are inclined to perceive profound differences and superficial
similarities
-have a (skeptical) appeciation of the fragmentary, partial,
non-systematic nature of reality and culture
-believe that the role of the scholar is to 'contextualize' ideas once
thought to be universal, and reveal the (somewhat disturbing) reality
that culture has no coherent, unified scheme
-have a commitment to exposing the fact that all ideas are (inescapably)
political insofar as they support the special interests of one group at
the expense of others
-are committed to exposing the fact that continued confidence in
universal schemes ('totalizing') is harmful to minorities/minority
positions
-have a deliberate tendency to appreciate and applaud diversity
-inclined to suspect that people (everwhere/anywhere) do *not* have a
(natural) drive toward order/faith in reason: i.e. people may be largely
emotional, 'mystical', illogical, and self-interested.
So... (I'm sure that's more than you asked for!) to answer your
question, yes, postmodernists deny the possibility of objectivity,
but not in the sense that they don't believe in science or rationality.
At least, I don't think of it that way. I'm not really a postmodernist
(no one ever admits that they are, I suppose). Or rather, I'm more of a
constructive as opposed to a deconstructive PMdnst. I don't feel like
life is hopeless and has no meaning at all and blah blah blah. I do,
however, believe that all truths are subject to change and all ideas are
political in some way. Not in the sense that they relate to politics,
but because they all arise from some agenda or other. I do think there
is a value in looking at things 'objectively,' but it is important to
remember that you can't just erase your life and pretend that you are
coming from 'zero point of view' (in RS they call that 'bracketing',
i.e. you can't [bracket] your life experience).
Your life experience colors your POV, no matter what. That's what they
mean by the 'impossibility' of ('pure') objectivity.
So yes, I accuse anthros of being modernist, because Steiner was a
modernist (that's the modernist time period, folks!), and because all of
their tenets fit into the modernist scheme. They believe the world is a
unified system, and hold up Steiner as the 'clairvoyant' who could see
it all. They are constantly pointing out structures that they believe
are invariant in the Universe, mostly made up by Steiner. They are
completely confident that everyone, everywhere is alike, and that if
they could just 'see the light', everyone in the world would be an
anthroposophist. They are always pointing out 'universal truths' and
'fundamental structures'. They constantly highlight similarities in
cultures, and ignore (HUGE!) differences. Mythology is all full of
'archetypes' which are 'the same' across time and space. History
(UNIVERSAL history) can be charted into neat little epochs, all figured
out by Steiner. Steiner knew the deep structures, Steiner knew the
fundamental building blocks, Steiner knew the coherent, unified themes
of the Universe. And how did Steiner find these things? Why, through
strictly academic, objective, value-free observations, of course!!
Anyone could follow his doctrines and find these absolute truths
themselves! Do you think anthroposophists are going to admit that they
are imposing their own 'universal' standards onto everyone else, and are
ignoring not only the past 100 years, but all the diversity in the
entire world as well? No, of course not! They're modernists to the
core, why would they admit that? They believe that people everywhere
are searching for meaning, and that all they need to do is read Steiner,
think about it in the right way, and they'll FIND it!! Universal Truth!
AMAZING!
One more note before I go. Lindsay Jones used to say that
'postmodernism is post-Marxism', and you can see what he means when you
think about this idea of the "Quest for Meaning" (tm). Marx opened the
eyes of the world (even during the time of the modernists!) when he said
that most people aren't looking for meaning, damn it, they are looking
for relief from poverty. They are looking for help and community and an
end to struggle. Anthroposophists are so busy trying to instill meaning
into their little white kids in their nice suburban schools with their
$500 toys made of all organic wood and wool that they've forgotten that
20 miles away in NYC kids are starving in the streets. Oh, but that's
just because of materialism and plastic. Right. Never mind.
Thanks for the question: so good to be in a place where people actually
THINK! ;)
-'anonymous'
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 21:17:50 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: modernism and post-modernism
'anonymous' wrote: (snip)
) One more note before I go. Lindsay Jones used to say that
) 'postmodernism is post-Marxism', and you can see what he means when you
) think about this idea of the "Quest for Meaning" (tm). Marx opened the
) eyes of the world (even during the time of the modernists!) when he said
) that most people aren't looking for meaning, damn it, they are looking
) for relief from poverty. They are looking for help and community and an
) end to struggle. Anthroposophists are so busy trying to instill meaning
) into their little white kids in their nice suburban schools with their
) $500 toys made of all organic wood and wool that they've forgotten that
) 20 miles away in NYC kids are starving in the streets. Oh, but that's
) just because of materialism and plastic. Right. Never mind.
How can the anthroposophist system of education possibly attract anything
*but* a certain clientele (above) when those behind the system refuse to
deal with the issues of racial hierarchy so fundamental to the *impulse* at
the foundation of that system? You raise a valid point and one I wrestled
with during my own Waldorf Daze. Sure, there are exceptions but the main
thrust of the movement is white and eurocentric. This is their version of
karma... and you don't interfere with karma! Until they *deal* with the
issues of root races and the very real mission according to He whose Photo
Hangs Proudly in Waldorf faculty rooms... not much will change. I actually
believed that "social renewal" meant "social renewal" for everyone Silly
me.
) Thanks for the question: so good to be in a place where people actually
) THINK! ;)
Not only that but here you are allowed to *say* what you think without fear
of reprisal from someone further up the Steinerian Spiral of spiritual
insight. Intimidation stifles discussion. Nice to have you aboard, anon.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 05:28:42 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: debunking and delusion
Peter S replied to Percedol:
)Percedol's latest adds a new element to the litany of anthroposophist
)misperceptions of "the critics":
)
)
) Peter Farrell wrote:
)I believe it is possible to show
) that Steiner was a deliberate fraud from his own writings and recorded
)lectures.
)
)P:
)It is good to see that maybe someone will follow the discipline to
)disprove it. Unfortunately for you, that person would find that it
)works!
)(I am aware that you meant that through a work like that of PS one could
)show...
)
)I don't know whether this is indeed what Peter F. meant, but my work does
)not reveal Steiner to have been a deliberate fraud. What my work does is
)situate Steiner in his historical and ideological context and critically
)examine the political implications of his esoteric doctrine. My conclusion
)thus far is that for the most part, Steiner sincerely believed the stuff
)that he taught.
)
Peter F responds:
It is not what I meant. It may be possible for Peter S to demonstrate that
Steiner was a deliberate fraud. I don't know. I think it is very difficult
to read Steiner's lecture on relativity in "From elephants to Einstein" with
any knowledge of relativity and scince in general and not come to the
conclusion that Steiner was wilfully misleading those present at the
lecture. The clear assertion of the lecture was that scientists who
supported the theory of relativity had somehow not realised that one could
tell whether one had travelled or not by how tired one was at the end of the
journey. Steiner knew this to be wrong. It is quite clear from his writings
in the warmth course that he was not ignorant of thermodynamics (that should
not be read as any kind of acceptance of his theories of heat and
temperature), and that he knew this was the subject that dealt with the work
done in order to travel among other things, and further he knew that
scientists including Einstein were not ignorant of this subject and had
considered the work required for travel as part of the theory. I can only
conclude that Steiner wished to mislead those present at the lecture, and
that he felt he could do so due to their level of education in the sciences.
The only other interpretation that is tenable in my view is that the lecture
was a standup comedy routine.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
E-mail just got a whole lot better. New ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 23:19:30 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Enchanted Garden
Audrey Allison, you asked,
)What is the enchanted garden?
Do you mean the ritual often called the Advent Spiral? Where children
walk a spiral path carrying candles?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 23:30:45 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner schools in UK
Pat, you wrote,
)Hi. I'm new to this. I have a son with serious behaviour problems who
)cannot attend a mainstream school. Schools that specialize in EBD
)(emotionally and behaviourally disabled), which I am told is where he
)needs to be placed, are frequently described in the guides to "special
)needs" schools as Rudolph Steiner schools or as following Steiner
)principles.
Interesting. Our San Francisco Waldorf Scool told us they often had
to counter people's impressions that Waldorf schools were for
children with difficulties. Sounds like in the U.K. they do
specialize in this area.
)Having been reading postings on this site I am very concerned about what
)I might be putting my son into. He has had so many problems already and
)his self-esteem is very low. He is also left-handed, which appears to
)be a problem for these people. My son needs a residential placement,
)which means that I would not be there to talk to him every night and get
)a good picture of how he is doing. He also therapy and I am concerned
)about the school's using their own psychiatrists. Of course I would ask
)these questions of the school, but now I am afraid to rely on their
)truthfulness.
You're the only one who can evaluate what alternatives are available
to you; it may be that the Waldorf schools are the best place for
your son, but I encourage you to research every other possibility.
Anthroposophy has their own system of psychology based on their "true
knowledge of the nature of man," and it's wacky. Im sure they'd have
him doing a lot of "curative eurythmy."
)Is there any advice for me as to how to approach any potential school
)interviews and how to clarify what they tell me? My son really does
)need intensive help and if this type of school can help him, then I can
)overlook some things that would otherwise bother me, but I don't want to
)expose him to practices that might confuse him and make him even worse.
In my opinion practitioners of Anthroposophic therapies are
well-meaning but incompetent. Given their long history of deception,
I wouldn't trust them to give you straight information about their
programs.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1155
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Enchanted Garden
By audreyallison hotmail.com
Re: Enchanted Garden
By antigonabaires hotmail.com
Bible school
By argeiphontes hotmail.com
anthroposophy
By houseoftwyman charter.net
Re: Enchanted Garden
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 08:15:41 -0700
From: "Audrey Allison" (audreyallison hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Enchanted Garden
No ... this event is October 24 and it involves preschoolers .... it's not
the lantern walk either. It must be something specific to this school.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 14:47:09 -0300
From: (antigonabaires hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Enchanted Garden
"It must be something specific to this school."
I don't think there is anything specific to a particular school. They don't
enjoy that kind of freedom.
We do have something called "the enchanted garden" (el bosque encantado,
they call it; I forgot to say I'm writing from Argentina). It's part of the
fall fair every year, and it consists of a kind of dark labyrinth through
which the child has to walk (usually guided by a teacher). Older children
love it because it's really spooky, but younger children get very scared. At
the end of the labyrinth there is a light and a lady dresses in white, sort
of a fairy or something, who gives them a little gift, like a candle or a
dwarf.
Greetings from the far South,
Agustina
----- Original Message -----
From: "Audrey Allison" (audreyallison hotmail.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: Enchanted Garden
) No ... this event is October 24 and it involves preschoolers .... it's not
) the lantern walk either. It must be something specific to this school.
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
) http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 02:01:24 +0000
From: anonymous (argeiphontes hotmail.com)
Subject: Bible school
Today was one of the worst days here at Sbridge.
This morning we started off with a new teacher for our morning class. I
suspected the worst when she told us each to bring a bible to class.
Like we all have one. The class began innocently enough: we had some
dialogue about how people feel about the bible. She listed both good
and bad experiences people had on the board, including statements such
as, "The bible has done a lot of harm, caused a lot of wars, created a
lot of distrust," etc. People looked at me as if I would say something,
but I waited to see where the conversation was going. I bet you can
guess.
She made some passing comment about how if you were going to teach in a
Waldorf school, we would have to 'get rid of our baggage' about the
bible. Then she erased the board, and immediately began a lecture about
Steiner's view on the Universal Truths contained within the bible.
Namely, how his creation story fit in with Genesis, etc. At this point,
I did raise my hand. I said something like, "Excuse me, but I don't
understand. My problem with [most interpretations of] the bible is that
it imposes its supposedly universal concepts onto the whole world, which
I consider to be racist, colonialist, and imperialist, to say the least.
How is it that Steiner is doing anything different from that? How is
this relevant to the conversation we just had?"
She completely blew off my question. "We don't have time to get into
that, we only have 4 days to do the whole bible. You just have to be
open to it." I sat there for about 5 minutes and then walked out. I
even tried to talk to her about it afterwards, and she said the same
thing to me, "You have to be more open minded". When I tried to explain
to her that I wasn't, in fact, close minded, but I only object to
information I consider to be racist, etc, she blew me off again, "We
don't have time to get into this now."
Well, guess what, you bible-thumping anthroposophical nitwit, I don't
have time for your class, either. Guess who is taking the next 4
mornings off.
-anonymous and pissed off
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:42:04 -0700
From: "Shannon Twyman" (houseoftwyman charter.net)
Subject: anthroposophy
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0037_01C38D1B.D92A5750
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
No matter how many definitions I find I still cannot come to an
understanding of what anthroposophy is and how it influences how
students learn at Waldorf schools. Can someone please help me.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 23:27:15 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Enchanted Garden
Hi Agustina,
You wrote: (snip)
Older children
) love it because it's really spooky, but younger children get very scared.
At
) the end of the labyrinth there is a light and a lady dresses in white,
sort
) of a fairy or something, who gives them a little gift, like a candle or a
) dwarf.
Interesting. But a "dwarf??!" I imagine the smiling Waldorf teacher gently
passing out mini "Gimli" look-alike dolls from Lord of the Rings (g)
Did you mean a "gnome?" A faceless gnome, of course....
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1156
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Enchanted Garden
By antigonabaires hotmail.com
Re: Bible school
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Steiner ad nauseam
By antigonabaires hotmail.com
Steiner schools in UK
By stationwduk yahoo.co.uk
Re: anthroposophy
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 14:15:46 -0300
From: (antigonabaires hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Enchanted Garden
Hi there.
Walden wrote:
"Interesting. But a "dwarf??!" I imagine the smiling Waldorf teacher
gently
) passing out mini "Gimli" look-alike dolls from Lord of the Rings (g)
) Did you mean a "gnome?" A faceless gnome, of course...."
Funny that you point that out. Yes, I should have said "gnome". However,
teachers here call them dwarfs ("enanos"). At first it sounded wierd to me
too, but I got used to it. Anyway, since dwarfs, gnomes and similar beings
are not a usual part of Argentina's popular culture, we don't care much
which word is being used.
Greetings form the far South,
Agustina
----- Original Message -----
From: "walden" (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 3:27 AM
Subject: Re: Enchanted Garden
) Hi Agustina,
)
) You wrote: (snip)
) Older children
) ) love it because it's really spooky, but younger children get very
scared.
) At
) ) the end of the labyrinth there is a light and a lady dresses in white,
) sort
) ) of a fairy or something, who gives them a little gift, like a candle or
a
) ) dwarf.
)
) Interesting. But a "dwarf??!" I imagine the smiling Waldorf teacher
gently
) passing out mini "Gimli" look-alike dolls from Lord of the Rings (g)
) Did you mean a "gnome?" A faceless gnome, of course....
)
) -Walden
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 10:42:55 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Bible school
anon wrote: (snip)
When I tried to explain
) to her that I wasn't, in fact, close minded, but I only object to
) information I consider to be racist, etc, she blew me off again, "We
) don't have time to get into this now."
Wait til you get deeper into your *training.* Ask for comments on a myriad
of Steiner quotes (below, for example) and see how much time the teachers
have for a response. I sincerely hope your questions will be taken
seriously. If not, you could simply *open your mind* and pretend it's all
just fine. Karma. Follow the yellow brick road....
-Walden
"[V]arious types of human beings would have appeared one after the other.
However, Lucifer and Ahriman...fought against this harmonious tendency of
development in the evolution of humanity...Thus, forms that should have
disappeared remained. Instead of racial diversities developing
consecutively, older racial forms remained unchanged and newer ones began to
evolve at the same time. Instead of the intended consecutive development of
races, there was a coexistence of races. That is how it came about that
physically different races inhabited the earth and are still there in our
time although evolution should really have proceeded as I have described
it." (Steiner, 1916, UH pp. 74-75)
"[T]he ancient Greeks dreamed of a uniform, perfect, beautiful type of human
being that should have developed. This development did not occur because
Lucifer and Ahriman preserved older racial forms that had developed, so that
there was a coexistence of races rather than a succession." (Steiner, 1916,
UH p. 76)
"The most characteristic sign of the time is the belief that when a group of
individuals have set up some trashy proposition as a general program--such
as the unity of all men regardless of race, nation or color, and so
forth--something has been accomplished. Nothing has been accomplished except
to throw sand into people's eyes. Something real is attained only when we
note the differences and realize what world conditions are." (Steiner, 1920,
Spiritual Science as a Foundation for Social Forms p. 122)
"Even the savage is affected by nature, but the laws of nature reveal
themselves only to the thoughts fructified by intuition of the more highly
developed man." (Steiner, 1922, Theosophy: An Introduction to the
Supersensible Knowledge of the World and the Destination of Man. p. 31)
"You see, when we really study science and history, we must conclude that if
people become increasingly strong, they will also become increasingly
stupid. If the blonds and blue-eyed people die out, the human race will
become increasingly dense if men do not arrive at a form of intelligence
that is independent of blondness. Blond hair actually bestows intelligence.
... It is indeed true that the more the fair individuals die out the more
will the instinctive wisdom of humans vanish." (Steiner, 1922, Health and
Illness: Volume I. p. 86)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 14:46:10 -0300
From: (antigonabaires hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner ad nauseam
anonymous wrote:
"a
friend of mine told me they are pro-dairy, which is annoying"
Did your friend also tell you why they are pro-diary?
I don't know what Saint Steiner may have said about dairy, I just know what
one of the teachers told me about it. My daughter hadn't tried any diary
until she started kindergarten at the local Waldorf school. I asked one of
the teachers if there was any chance my daughter could have her oatmeal
cooked with water instead of milk. She said it was her duty as a Waldorf
teacher to feed the right food to the children. Food is considered to be a
vehicle for vital forces, and milk is the only food that will allow children
assume the earth (these were her exact words, whatever they mean). She then
explained how cows process their food through their seven stomachs ("weren't
they four?", I thought, but she immediately pointed out how meaningful that
number of stomachs was). So, she concluded, if I didn't give my child any
milk, since she was such a "spiritual" person, she would have no real
contact with the earth and may eventually become a fanatic, a Bin Laden
(sic).
Soy is absolutely forbidden, as well as lentils and any kind of beans. My
daughters teacher asked my please to stop giving her a tofu sandwich (which
used to be my child's favorite) as a morning snack.
So, talking about annoying...
Greetings from the far South.
Agustina
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 19:23:24 +0000
From: Pat (stationwduk yahoo.co.uk)
Subject: Steiner schools in UK
Thank you, Dan Dugan, for your response to my question. Based on what
I've read here and your response, I don't think I can in good conscience
even consider putting my son in these people's hands. I am actively
exploring alternatives and, hopefully, I'll be able to find an
appropriate school that can help my son.
I really appreciate your taking the time to help.
Pat
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 17:06:03 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: anthroposophy
Hi Shannon,
You wrote:
) No matter how many definitions I find I still cannot come to an
understanding of what anthroposophy is and how it influences how students
learn at Waldorf schools. Can someone please help me.
I can try but the definition seems to mean different things to different
people. There is plenty of information at:
www.waldorfcritics.org as well as various Anthroposophy sites like
http://www.elib.com/Steiner/index.php
In my experience, anthroposophy is a clearly defined system of religious
thought born out of Theosophy and coupled with the occult beliefs of Rudolf
Steiner. Many people call it a "cult" or "new religious movement" or
"cult-like." It as to do with a new spiritual (according to Steiner) order
and finds it's way into Waldorf schools because anthroposophy is the
foundation - the raison d'etre - of these schools. There is so much
available on the Internet and I would urge you to look around - especially
at the Anthroposophy sites. You might find it odd that Waldorf school web
sites describe anthroposophy and Steiner completely differently than do
sites dealing specifically with anthroposophy! Curious, huh? I'll include
a quote that might answer part of your question (below) and wish you well
in your research.
-Walden
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."
(the first Waldorf School was created for the workers of the cigarette
factory in Stuttgart)
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1157
-- Topica Digest --
Narrow-Wide
By sgroth efn.org
Re: Narrow-Wide
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 11:51:57 -0700
From: Soren (sgroth efn.org)
Subject: Narrow-Wide
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) There is a major long-running debate going on among historians of
) fascism about whether to adopt a broad or a narrow definition, and I
) am in the 'narrow' camp (well, actually, I'm in one of the two
) 'narrow' camps). The New York Times ran a very good article on the
) topic just a couple weeks ago; it is a live issue for anyone working
) in this field. I get asked to give talks and radio interviews on
) exactly this question from time to time (in fact my last major article
) was an encyclopedia entry on "fascism"), and every time I emphasize
) that the concept of fascism has a fairly restricted meaning and that
) it is a big mistake to apply it to other authoritarian rightists, or
) for that matter to radical fundamentalists or mere nationalists. Much
) of the time a good chunk of my audience vehemently disagrees with me
) on this.
I'd be glad to hear more about the different "camps" on this issue - In
a recent Adbuster I found a definition by Stanley Payne, I found pretty
precise.
Soren http://www.freewebs.com/tcfactory
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 23:26:45 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Narrow-Wide
Hi Soren,
I'm guessing that the Adbusters article you mean is the piece by Anis
Shivani in the current issue ("Is America Becoming Fascist?"). That piece is
a good example of the position I argue against. For anyone interested, the
article can be found here:
http://adbusters.org/magazine/49/articles/is_america_becoming_fascis.html
I think Shivani's use of Payne is legitimate and accurate; I just disagree
with the conclusions he draws from Payne's definition. Payne is one of the
leading scholars in the field; he and I are not only in the same 'camp' on
this issue, we live in the same city (he teaches at the University of
Wisconsin). Although Payne and I are pretty much at opposite ends of the
political spectrum, I think his work on fascism is of very high quality. I
particularly recommend two of his books: Fascism: Comparison and Definition
(that's the one Shivani draws on), and A History of Fascism 1914-1945.
The main "narrow" camp of historians of fascism agree that there are some
generic characteristics that different fascist movements and regimes shared,
and that these characteristics need to be taken seriously when deciding
whether to apply the term "fascist" to a given political formation. There is
a minority tendency which holds that Italian Fascism was the only truly
fascist movement; Renzo de Felice was probably the most prominent proponent
of this view. But most historians of fascism, from Payne to Mosse to Laqueur
to Nolte to Griffin to Eatwell, include Nazism and a number of other fascist
organizations under the general heading of fascism. Perhaps the finest
statement of this position (which I share) is George Mosse's seminal article
"Toward a General Theory of Fascism", which can be found in his book The
Fascist Revolution. A more recent variant is the excellent short book by
Mark Neocleous, titled simply Fascism.
There are many significant disagreements within this broad consensus, but
most of the historians I have mentioned would reject the currently popular
broad conceptions of fascism, including those invoked by Shivani. But there
have always been scholars who allowed a looser use of the concept, and a
number of talented and respected historians today are becoming more willing
to apply the term in broader ways; Robert Paxton, an expert on French
fascism, is one example. The New York Times article that I mentioned last
week explores this topic; you can read it here:
http://www4.fosters.com/tech/Weekly_files/092303/tech_09.23.03f.asp
My own position remains fairly strict; I think it is a bad idea, both
historically and politically, to employ the term "fascism" in imprecise
ways. The first substantial piece that I published on the topic begins with
the following warning: "In our zeal to condemn the status quo, radicals
often carelessly toss about epithets like "fascist" and "ecofascist," thus
contributing to a sort of conceptual inflation that in no way furthers
effective social critique." I have not changed my mind on the question
since then. If you would like a nice concise definition of fascism that is
close to the one I rely on, I recommend this four-paragraph summary "What is
fascism?" by Matthew Lyons:
http://www.publiceye.org/eyes/whatfasc.html
I hope this helps clarify what is at stake in our discussions of
anthroposophy's affiliations with the far right. I do not use the term
"fascism" lightly, and my work on anthroposophy distinguishes between proper
and improper extrapolations from this history. Under the narrow
understanding of classical fascism, a large segment of the anthroposophist
leadership openly sympathized with, collaborated with, or joined the
triumphant fascist parties of the 1920's and 1930's. From Wachsmuth to
Hemleben to Bartsch to Scaligero to Haverbeck, not to mention Maikowski and
Klein and Martinoli and Ohlendorf and Seifert and Lippert and on and on --
too many anthroposophists became fascists or admirers of fascism or willing
accomplices of fascism. These are not marginal figures, and this is hardly a
full list, and the only definition of "fascism" involved is the one that
includes Mussolini's and Hitler's regimes. Anthroposophists have still not
come to terms with this aspect of their history. I am beginning to wonder if
that will ever change.
Peter Staudenmaier
)From: Soren Groth Petersen (sgroth efn.org)
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Narrow-Wide
)
)Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)) There is a major long-running debate going on among historians of
))fascism about whether to adopt a broad or a narrow definition, and I am in
))the 'narrow' camp (well, actually, I'm in one of the two 'narrow' camps).
))The New York Times ran a very good article on the topic just a couple
))weeks ago; it is a live issue for anyone working in this field. I get
))asked to give talks and radio interviews on exactly this question from
))time to time (in fact my last major article was an encyclopedia entry on
))"fascism"), and every time I emphasize that the concept of fascism has a
))fairly restricted meaning and that it is a big mistake to apply it to
))other authoritarian rightists, or for that matter to radical
))fundamentalists or mere nationalists. Much of the time a good chunk of my
))audience vehemently disagrees with me on this.
)
)I'd be glad to hear more about the different "camps" on this issue - In a
)recent Adbuster I found a definition by Stanley Payne, I found pretty
)precise.
)
) Soren http://www.freewebs.com/tcfactory
_________________________________________________________________
Get 10MB of e-mail storage! Sign up for Hotmail Extra Storage.
http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1158
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Steiner schools in UK
By ldpavia hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:59:12 -0500
From: "Lawrence Pavia" (ldpavia hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner schools in UK
Dear Pat,
This is strictly my opinion, but I would investigate other educational
alternatives that might exist in your general area. You need an objective
third party assessment. While there are special needs children in many
Waldorf schools that do okay, there can be problems in many instances. A
lot of it depends on how dogmatic the faculty is re: treatment. A special
needs child suddenly bursting out in a fit of energized anger and injuring a
classmate, an incident to which the school covers up via. expert "damage
control" is hardly the kind of thing any parent would want to experience!
On the other hand, Waldorf classes I have seen do tend to instill a caring
sense of community among the pupils in a given class. So much of it depends
on the school! The best advice: Delve before you Dive! Ask the tough
questions. Observe classes. Get to know the would-be teacher(s). This
left-handed thing? Some of the world's greatest inventors and artists
were/are left-handed. Is that wrong? I don't think so. Be aware that
Waldorf education comes out of an early twentieth century factory setting.
In factories, everyone had to be the same -- mass production. Little room
for a left-handed or otherise unique person. You will need to pick out the
good Waldorf things and stay away from the not-so-good.
Once more, there are other alternatives... Montessori, Sudbury, free-play
oriented schools, etc. Most of these have websites you can find with a good
search engine.
Best of Luck!
-ld
)From: stationwduk yahoo.co.uk
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Steiner schools in UK
)Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 10:23:49 +0000
)
)Hi. I'm new to this. I have a son with serious behaviour problems who
)cannot attend a mainstream school. Schools that specialize in EBD
)(emotionally and behaviourally disabled), which I am told is where he
)needs to be placed, are frequently described in the guides to "special
)needs" schools as Rudolph Steiner schools or as following Steiner
)principles.
)
)Having been reading postings on this site I am very concerned about what
)I might be putting my son into. He has had so many problems already and
)his self-esteem is very low. He is also left-handed, which appears to
)be a problem for these people. My son needs a residential placement,
)which means that I would not be there to talk to him every night and get
)a good picture of how he is doing. He also therapy and I am concerned
)about the school's using their own psychiatrists. Of course I would ask
)these questions of the school, but now I am afraid to rely on their
)truthfulness.
)
)Is there any advice for me as to how to approach any potential school
)interviews and how to clarify what they tell me? My son really does
)need intensive help and if this type of school can help him, then I can
)overlook some things that would otherwise bother me, but I don't want to
)expose him to practices that might confuse him and make him even worse.
)
)Thank you for any help and advice you can provide.
)
)Pat
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
)New threads are always welcome.
)
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive larger attachments with Hotmail Extra Storage.
http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1159
-- Topica Digest --
RE: S and the Nazis
By dkimble mystrotv.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 13:11:08 -0600
From: "Dave Kimble" (dkimble mystrotv.com)
Subject: RE: S and the Nazis
To me it all comes back to this, from the NIV:
Ephesians 2:8-10
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from
yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can
boast.
And you, who have been anointed with God's grace by the color of your
skin, are given the responsibility to help and mentor those of different
origins that seek that same grace.
Now the first reaction of most people (even most Christians) to this
quotation should be to run to a Bible and look that passage up (where
you will see the first sentence, but not the second).
However, if the second sentence *were* there, the appropriate response
from Christians would be: "Wow, I guess Paul was a bit of a racist. I
need to remember that as I read the rest of his writings.", not, "Well,
we don't really understand what Paul meant in the context of his time.
Paul said these other mitigating things..."
History has given us such dramatic examples of the destructive power of
racism. Is there any other idea that gives such license to perpetrate
so much malevolence? As such, it has no place in any respectable
contemporary doctrine.
It's also interesting to me that writings on race superiority always
include the writer in the superior group.
Dave
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1160
-- Topica Digest --
toy shop in Waldorf school
By dan dandugan.com
Re: toy shop in Waldorf school
By ldpavia hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:37:02 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: toy shop in Waldorf school
From the Durham Herald-Sun:
http://www.herald-sun.com/orange/10-401781.html
)Woodland Shop links with curriculum
)
)BY CAROLYN NORTON : The Herald-Sun
)cnorton heraldsun.com
)Oct 12, 2003 : 9:23 pm ET
)
)CHAPEL HILL -- Stepping into the Woodland Shop on the Emerson
)Waldorf School campus, you won't find the latest video game, or a
)talking, walking stuffed animal.
)
)But you will find wooden toy kitchen sets, blocks, bridges and silk
)pieces to make castle scenes and natural fiber dolls.
)
)The shop sells wooden blocks, in curved shapes rather than squares
)and rectangles. It has picture books with moral content and wooden
)mobiles painted with watercolors. The shop sells science kits and
)games, and wooden airplanes and helicopters.
)
)"The overall theme is to offer products that can engage a child's
)imagination," said Kelly Calegar, who has managed the shop for six
)years. "They have a different experience than if they saw a brightly
)colored plastic toy. Using natural fibers brings life to their
)play." (snip)
This is such romantic nonsense. I know what, as a seven-year-old, I
would have called a wooden helicopter: a baby toy.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 21:40:07 -0500
From: "Lawrence Pavia" (ldpavia hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: toy shop in Waldorf school
Actually, a wooden helicopter seems rather progressive! Besides, what else
are they going to use trees for?
)From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: toy shop in Waldorf school
)Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 11:37:02 -0700
)
)From the Durham Herald-Sun:
)
)http://www.herald-sun.com/orange/10-401781.html
)
))Woodland Shop links with curriculum
))
))BY CAROLYN NORTON : The Herald-Sun
))cnorton heraldsun.com
))Oct 12, 2003 : 9:23 pm ET
))
))CHAPEL HILL -- Stepping into the Woodland Shop on the Emerson Waldorf
))School campus, you won't find the latest video game, or a talking, walking
))stuffed animal.
))
))But you will find wooden toy kitchen sets, blocks, bridges and silk pieces
))to make castle scenes and natural fiber dolls.
))
))The shop sells wooden blocks, in curved shapes rather than squares and
))rectangles. It has picture books with moral content and wooden mobiles
))painted with watercolors. The shop sells science kits and games, and
))wooden airplanes and helicopters.
))
))"The overall theme is to offer products that can engage a child's
))imagination," said Kelly Calegar, who has managed the shop for six years.
))"They have a different experience than if they saw a brightly colored
))plastic toy. Using natural fibers brings life to their play." (snip)
)
)This is such romantic nonsense. I know what, as a seven-year-old, I would
)have called a wooden helicopter: a baby toy.
)
)-Dan Dugan
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
)New threads are always welcome.
)
_________________________________________________________________
Fretting that your Hotmail account may expire because you forgot to sign in
enough? Get Hotmail Extra Storage today!
http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1161
-- Topica Digest --
AWSNA response to Milstone's 11/02 National Post article
By dan dandugan.com
Re: AWSNA response to Milstone's 11/02 National Post article
By momof2gals mindspring.com
tidbit from Ahearn's thesis
By dan dandugan.com
RE: modernism and post-modernism
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:17:44 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: AWSNA response to Milstone's 11/02 National Post article
On Nov. 17, 2002, the Canadian paper The National Post published an
article about Waldorf by Carol Milstone. It was posted here. A copy
can be found at:
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/archives/00001213.html#link
A friend found the following unpublished letter to the editor in
which the leader of the Association of Waldorf Schools of North
America responds to Milstone's article:
-Dan Dugan
***
Dear Editor,
The National Post article on Waldorf Education by Carol
Milstone is an unfortunate example of one-sided and poorly researched
journalism. My Canadian colleagues tell me that you are a
well-respected, politically moderate news outlet. Ms. Milstone's
misstatements and sensationalistic half-truths regarding Waldorf
education left me wondering about that.
The Association of Waldorf Schools of North America is an
organization of 169 independent Waldorf schools and teacher training
colleges continent-wide. We accredit, support, and advocate for
schools in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. We hold the North American
trademark for Waldorf and Rudolf Steiner schools and speak officially
for Waldorf education.
Waldorf education is not a "chain" of schools but over 900
independent, self-run schools worldwide. Waldorf schools thrive in
many cultures on every continent. Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy
inspire the underlying principles in Waldorf education. This means
that a climate recognizing the spiritual - as well as the material -
nature of the human being and of the world is encouraged.
Waldorf education and anthroposophy do not reject modern
medicine or modern anything. Steiner did, however, reject one-sided
belief systems of all kinds. His message was - think for yourself
and think beyond what can be simply measured and quantified. He was
not alone in this point of view considering the development of
psychology and quantum physics, for example, among Steiner's
contemporaries early in the last century.
Gnomes figured heavily in Ms. Milstone's piece. Of course it
is not a question of "belief" in gnomes, but folklore and, dare I
say, fairy tales use such imaginative beings to convey unseen forces
in nature. Young children understand a complex world through
concrete imaginations. With older children it is different.
Abstract ideas and theories can be understood. In kindergarten and
first grade, fairy and folk tales are told. After that age, they are
inappropriate. Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings show people still
appreciate these images.
Waldorf schools use: textbooks, computers, mirrors and black
crayons, and many other "modern" objects. Since Waldorf education is
based on a finely focused developmental psychology, it becomes only a
question of when something is introduced or used, not if. Reading is
taught from the very early years (kindergarten, even.) The approach
is to present multi-faceted, content rich literature in an
interdisciplinary approach. The final "decoding" ability appears
later. The ultimate result is that there is a life-long love of
reading instilled in the student that grows out of the high quality
content she has experienced.
Rudolf Steiner as a racist is a favorite charge of the
critics. Steiner said (not wrote) some things that have since been
taken out of context and used to impugn Waldorf schools. In fact,
Steiner's world-view is centrally based on the universal brotherhood
of all human beings and the transcendence of the narrow bounds of
race, nation, and clan. Jefferson and Lincoln made some extremely
patronizing and derogatory statements about African-Americans. We
still honor the good they were responsible for and acknowledge how
social consciousness has progressed in our time.
Waldorf schools are not racist. Examples to the contrary
abound. Waldorf schools in South Africa illegally defied segregation
before the end of Apartheid. Waldorf teachers are doing good work
from the slums of Sa? Paulo, Brazil to a kibbutz in Israel. A
Waldorf sports program brings together Bosnian and Serbian, Israeli
and Palestinian, and Irish Catholic and Protestant children. My own
experience at the Washington (DC) Waldorf School includes proactive
inclusion to underserved and minority populations. Waldorf schools
are committed to doing even more.
Milstone and the National Post presented slanted information
and opinion. It mocked educators whose goal is to preserve the
wholesome world of childhood and to provide students with capacities
to meet the world with clear thinking and social awareness. Tens of
thousands of whole and healthy Waldorf school graduates over the last
seventy-three years attest to this.
Your source was a group whose sole purpose is to slander and
destroy Waldorf education. Ms. Milstone did not contact our office.
Everyone - including our critics - is entitled to his or her opinion
and point of view. And us? For any information or insight on the
subject of Waldorf education, please feel free to call on me and on
the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America.
Donald Bufano
Chairman - Association of Waldorf Schools of North America
http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:MBuLAeuCgnYJ:www.spiritworking.org/press/mediarelationswebcontent/KeyMedia%2520Messages/Letters%2520to%2520the%2520Editor/NationalPost2002Bufano.doc+national+post+waldorf+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 17:28:47 -0400
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: AWSNA response to Milstone's 11/02 National Post article
Reading taught in kindergarten? Yeah, sure.
Lisa
) From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:17:44 -0700
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: AWSNA response to Milstone's 11/02 National Post article
)
) On Nov. 17, 2002, the Canadian paper The National Post published an
) article about Waldorf by Carol Milstone. It was posted here. A copy
) can be found at:
)
) http://www.religionnewsblog.com/archives/00001213.html#link
)
) A friend found the following unpublished letter to the editor in
) which the leader of the Association of Waldorf Schools of North
) America responds to Milstone's article:
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
) ***
)
) Dear Editor,
)
) The National Post article on Waldorf Education by Carol
) Milstone is an unfortunate example of one-sided and poorly researched
) journalism. My Canadian colleagues tell me that you are a
) well-respected, politically moderate news outlet. Ms. Milstone's
) misstatements and sensationalistic half-truths regarding Waldorf
) education left me wondering about that.
)
) The Association of Waldorf Schools of North America is an
) organization of 169 independent Waldorf schools and teacher training
) colleges continent-wide. We accredit, support, and advocate for
) schools in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. We hold the North American
) trademark for Waldorf and Rudolf Steiner schools and speak officially
) for Waldorf education.
)
) Waldorf education is not a "chain" of schools but over 900
) independent, self-run schools worldwide. Waldorf schools thrive in
) many cultures on every continent. Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy
) inspire the underlying principles in Waldorf education. This means
) that a climate recognizing the spiritual - as well as the material -
) nature of the human being and of the world is encouraged.
)
) Waldorf education and anthroposophy do not reject modern
) medicine or modern anything. Steiner did, however, reject one-sided
) belief systems of all kinds. His message was - think for yourself
) and think beyond what can be simply measured and quantified. He was
) not alone in this point of view considering the development of
) psychology and quantum physics, for example, among Steiner's
) contemporaries early in the last century.
)
) Gnomes figured heavily in Ms. Milstone's piece. Of course it
) is not a question of "belief" in gnomes, but folklore and, dare I
) say, fairy tales use such imaginative beings to convey unseen forces
) in nature. Young children understand a complex world through
) concrete imaginations. With older children it is different.
) Abstract ideas and theories can be understood. In kindergarten and
) first grade, fairy and folk tales are told. After that age, they are
) inappropriate. Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings show people still
) appreciate these images.
)
) Waldorf schools use: textbooks, computers, mirrors and black
) crayons, and many other "modern" objects. Since Waldorf education is
) based on a finely focused developmental psychology, it becomes only a
) question of when something is introduced or used, not if. Reading is
) taught from the very early years (kindergarten, even.) The approach
) is to present multi-faceted, content rich literature in an
) interdisciplinary approach. The final "decoding" ability appears
) later. The ultimate result is that there is a life-long love of
) reading instilled in the student that grows out of the high quality
) content she has experienced.
)
) Rudolf Steiner as a racist is a favorite charge of the
) critics. Steiner said (not wrote) some things that have since been
) taken out of context and used to impugn Waldorf schools. In fact,
) Steiner's world-view is centrally based on the universal brotherhood
) of all human beings and the transcendence of the narrow bounds of
) race, nation, and clan. Jefferson and Lincoln made some extremely
) patronizing and derogatory statements about African-Americans. We
) still honor the good they were responsible for and acknowledge how
) social consciousness has progressed in our time.
)
) Waldorf schools are not racist. Examples to the contrary
) abound. Waldorf schools in South Africa illegally defied segregation
) before the end of Apartheid. Waldorf teachers are doing good work
) from the slums of Sa? Paulo, Brazil to a kibbutz in Israel. A
) Waldorf sports program brings together Bosnian and Serbian, Israeli
) and Palestinian, and Irish Catholic and Protestant children. My own
) experience at the Washington (DC) Waldorf School includes proactive
) inclusion to underserved and minority populations. Waldorf schools
) are committed to doing even more.
)
) Milstone and the National Post presented slanted information
) and opinion. It mocked educators whose goal is to preserve the
) wholesome world of childhood and to provide students with capacities
) to meet the world with clear thinking and social awareness. Tens of
) thousands of whole and healthy Waldorf school graduates over the last
) seventy-three years attest to this.
)
) Your source was a group whose sole purpose is to slander and
) destroy Waldorf education. Ms. Milstone did not contact our office.
) Everyone - including our critics - is entitled to his or her opinion
) and point of view. And us? For any information or insight on the
) subject of Waldorf education, please feel free to call on me and on
) the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America.
)
) Donald Bufano
) Chairman - Association of Waldorf Schools of North America
)
) http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:MBuLAeuCgnYJ:www.spiritworking.org/press/m
)
ediarelationswebcontent/KeyMedia%2520Messages/Letters%2520to%2520the%2520Edito
) r/NationalPost2002Bufano.doc+national+post+waldorf+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:52:49 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: tidbit from Ahearn's thesis
A friend has obtained a copy of Ahearn's thesis, the original from
which he edited down his book "Sun at Midnight."
THE ANTHROPOSOPHICAL MOVEMENT IN THE UK: IT'S *GNOSIS* AND THE
THOUGHT WORLD AND IDENTITY OF ITS MEMBERS. Ph.D thesis by Geoffrey
Ahern B.A. (Oxon) London School of Economics, 1981.
British Library Thesis Service, DX200960
The following tidbit speaks volumes about the Anthroposophical
attitude towards intellectual endeavors:
-Dan Dugan
***
Appendix 2 to the thesis is a non-attributed response G.A. had to a
request:
Dear Geoffrey Ahern, 23rd september 1980
Sorry not to have answered your letter before. My first reaction was
that you were attempting the impossible - and not very desirable! -
thing, so I delayed making a response. Then came various holidays.
Now, reconsidering it, I find I am back at the same position. If you
were trying a book, it would be different, but a Ph.d thesis with its
necessary intellectual approach, no! Or if you were dealing with a
specific aspect or practical application of Rudolf Steiner's work.
But to take 'Anthroposophy' as a whole is, to my mind, at once to
doom your project to failure. You are like a sculptor trying to work
with a rainbow (not merely ice or sand on the shore, which can be
formed if given no permanence), a material which *cannot* be used for
the purpose you intend. Also, what is your motive if you are
absolutely honest with yourself?
Is it a head thing or a heart thing? How much self interest is there
in it?* Again, why choose such a vast and awe-inspiring subject as
Man's Awareness of his Humanity, which, as no doubt you have
discovered by now, was Rudolf Steiner's description of Anthroposophy
in his later years (Awakening to Community, Stuttgart 1923). It is
like choosing The World or Life. Even if your attempt may have come
to life during your various interviews and researches and while you
have struggled to get them down on paper, the final result I fear can
only be a kind of spectre or corpse. However, I imagine the groves of
Acadame have little inspirational force these days and I expect your
efforts will soon be locked away in a cupboard for few to see!
What might be interesting now would for you to write a book, or
novel...on How I was Changed by trying to write a Ph.d
on 'Anthroposophy'. But wait about seven years first!
Yours sincerely
*For your motive will alter the quality of what you produce.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:22:53 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: modernism and post-modernism
Dan Dugan wrote:
) ) Could you clarify for me what you mean by "modernism" and
)) "post-modernism"?
and anonymous responded,
)Sure. [opens can of worms!] (kidding) I am aware that some people use
)the terms differently than I do. That's interesting that you've thought
)of anthros as postmodernists (and therefore full of it) whereas I see
)them as modernist (and therefore full of it).
Thanks for taking it on, so thoughtfully. There is a lesson about
labelling in this.
)Just to preface, my definitions (or rather, 'tenative distinctions') of
)modernism and postmodernism come from the Religious Studies classes
)(that is, classes in the *academic* study of religion) that I took with
)Lindsay Jones, who teaches at Ohio State and is the current editor of
)(Mircea Eliade's) Encyclopedia of Religion.
)
)Modernists and structuralists:
)
)-have a tendency to view the world (and culture) as a unified whole
)-see things as unchanging and search for invariant structures
)-are preoccupied with the abstract, general and universal
)-have confidence that everyone and everything in the past, present and
)future are basically the same
)-believe in universal truths and trans-historical patterns
)-inclined to perceive profound similarities and superficial differences
)-have confidence in the orderly, systematic nature of reality
)-believe it is the role of scholars to look past surface differences in
)order to reveal deeper structures and reveal the coherent, unified
)scheme (which is 'truth')
)-believe they can be/are completely objective, value free and
)non-normative in their observations
)-are implicated in a colonialist tendency to impose their 'universal'
)standards onto everyone else, even if they don't admit it, and thereby
)(unconsciously) squashing diversity
)-believe that people everywhere have a natural drive toward meaning,
)order, and an urge to understand the world
)-i.e. people everywhere are essentially intellectual, rational, logical,
)and if they just 'think about things in the right way' they will
)eventually come to "The Universal Truth" (tm)
This sounds to me a bit like a postmodernist's caricature of
rationalism mixed with a dose of holism. It largely fits me, though.
I certainly "have confidence in the orderly, systematic nature of
reality"; otherwise my engineering work would be futile! Only a
fanatic would believe that they could be "completely objective, value
free and non-normative in their observations," but I do hold that
objectivity is not only a desirable goal, but is achievable in many
situations.
)Postmodernists/Post-structuralists:
)
)-have a tendency to view the world as diverse, like a collage
)-are dubious that culture/reality is organized according to some
)Universal Truth or structure
)-are preoccupied with that which is concrete, specific, or unique
)-tend to highlight ways that people/events are idiosyncratic, variable,
)tentative, ever-changing
)-have a (skeptical) sense that all reality/truth, ideas and knowledge
)are conditioned by history, and by special interest groups, and
)therefore all 'truths' are subject to change
)-are inclined to perceive profound differences and superficial
)similarities
)-have a (skeptical) appeciation of the fragmentary, partial,
)non-systematic nature of reality and culture
)-believe that the role of the scholar is to 'contextualize' ideas once
)thought to be universal, and reveal the (somewhat disturbing) reality
)that culture has no coherent, unified scheme
)-have a commitment to exposing the fact that all ideas are (inescapably)
)political insofar as they support the special interests of one group at
)the expense of others
)-are committed to exposing the fact that continued confidence in
)universal schemes ('totalizing') is harmful to minorities/minority
)positions
)-have a deliberate tendency to appreciate and applaud diversity
)-inclined to suspect that people (everwhere/anywhere) do *not* have a
)(natural) drive toward order/faith in reason: i.e. people may be largely
)emotional, 'mystical', illogical, and self-interested.
Clearly a postmodern polemic. There's a problem throwing culture and
reality together in item 2 above. "Reality" is certainly "oganized
according to some Universal Truth or structure." Physics isn't, as
they say, "just a story." The postmodernist is cast as the noble
crusader against the racist colonialist. Nobility is as nobility
does. Postmodernism talks a good line, but what do they accomplish
for the oppressed of the world?
)So... (I'm sure that's more than you asked for!) to answer your
)question, yes, postmodernists deny the possibility of objectivity,
)but not in the sense that they don't believe in science or rationality.
)At least, I don't think of it that way. I'm not really a postmodernist
)(no one ever admits that they are, I suppose).
To the contrary, there are many postmodern writers who revel in
denying the authority of the scientific tradition and the value of
rationality. And that is where the movement gives support to
Anthroposophical pseudoscience, which detests the scientific method
and avoids rationality. I recommend reading "Higher Superstition" by
Gross and Levitt as an antidote to postmodern academia.
)Or rather, I'm more of a
)constructive as opposed to a deconstructive PMdnst. I don't feel like
)life is hopeless and has no meaning at all and blah blah blah. I do,
)however, believe that all truths are subject to change
A basis of traditional scientific thought, not necessarily postmodernism.
)and all ideas are
)political in some way. Not in the sense that they relate to politics,
)but because they all arise from some agenda or other.
The valuable contribution of postmodernism, IMHO.
)I do think there
)is a value in looking at things 'objectively,' but it is important to
)remember that you can't just erase your life and pretend that you are
)coming from 'zero point of view' (in RS they call that 'bracketing',
)i.e. you can't [bracket] your life experience).
)Your life experience colors your POV, no matter what. That's what they
)mean by the 'impossibility' of ('pure') objectivity.
Of course.
)So yes, I accuse anthros of being modernist, because Steiner was a
)modernist (that's the modernist time period, folks!), and because all of
)their tenets fit into the modernist scheme. They believe the world is a
)unified system, and hold up Steiner as the 'clairvoyant' who could see
)it all. They are constantly pointing out structures that they believe
)are invariant in the Universe, mostly made up by Steiner.
So far so good.
)They are
)completely confident that everyone, everywhere is alike, and that if
)they could just 'see the light', everyone in the world would be an
)anthroposophist.
Not quite. They believe all the souls ("I"s) are alike, but at
different stages of evolution.
)They are always pointing out 'universal truths' and
)'fundamental structures'. They constantly highlight similarities in
)cultures, and ignore (HUGE!) differences.
To the contrary, Steiner was always pointing out cultural differences.
)Mythology is all full of
)'archetypes' which are 'the same' across time and space. History
)(UNIVERSAL history) can be charted into neat little epochs, all figured
)out by Steiner. Steiner knew the deep structures, Steiner knew the
)fundamental building blocks, Steiner knew the coherent, unified themes
)of the Universe. And how did Steiner find these things? Why, through
)strictly academic, objective, value-free observations, of course!!
)Anyone could follow his doctrines and find these absolute truths
)themselves!
Yep!
)Do you think anthroposophists are going to admit that they
)are imposing their own 'universal' standards onto everyone else, and are
)ignoring not only the past 100 years, but all the diversity in the
)entire world as well? No, of course not! They're modernists to the
)core, why would they admit that? They believe that people everywhere
)are searching for meaning, and that all they need to do is read Steiner,
)think about it in the right way, and they'll FIND it!! Universal Truth!
)AMAZING!
OK...but I'm not so sure about the modernist connection.
)One more note before I go. Lindsay Jones used to say that
)'postmodernism is post-Marxism', and you can see what he means when you
)think about this idea of the "Quest for Meaning" (tm). Marx opened the
)eyes of the world (even during the time of the modernists!) when he said
)that most people aren't looking for meaning, damn it, they are looking
)for relief from poverty.
My communist sister says Marxism is the only political philosophy
founded on compassion. I agree; however 1) the theory is nonsense
(see Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies") and 2) it's
impractical.
)They are looking for help and community and an
)end to struggle. Anthroposophists are so busy trying to instill meaning
)into their little white kids in their nice suburban schools with their
)$500 toys made of all organic wood and wool that they've forgotten that
)20 miles away in NYC kids are starving in the streets. Oh, but that's
)just because of materialism and plastic. Right. Never mind.
They also have their outreach activities, to which they give a lot of
publicity. The Milwaukee Public Waldorf School and Harriet Tubman
Charter School in San Diego, mostly African-American kids; the
bragging about token integration in South African Waldorf schools
during apartheid.
)Thanks for the question: so good to be in a place where people actually
)THINK! ;)
I wouldn't count on it, but you obviously do!
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1162
-- Topica Digest --
new book by Todd Oppenheimer mentions PLANS
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:39:17 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: new book by Todd Oppenheimer mentions PLANS
I got a call this morning from Alex Paul, a writer in Denver, who's
writing a response to a new book by Todd Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer's
new book is "The Flickering Mind: The False Promise of Technology in
the Classroom and How Learning Can Be Saved."
Alex Paul says that my name and PLANS are in it, unflatteringly. He's
going to fax me the pages later today.
Reviews posted on Amazon:
From Publishers Weekly
Are computers the "ultimate innovation" that will lead us into a
21st-century educational utopia? Or are they merely distractions,
part of a long line of technological advances that are incompatible
with proven traditions of learning? Oppenheimer's book, titled after
a metaphor for the short attention spans of today's students, locates
the waning educational computing craze in the historical context of
an ed-tech trajectory that has brought visions of accelerated
academic achievement followed by disappointment. Like B.F. Skinner's
teaching machines of the 1950s, computer-based learning promises more
than it can deliver, says journalist Oppenheimer. He visited elite
public schools, under-resourced schools, high-tech schools and even a
school for juvenile offenders, and has interviewed many experts. He
draws compelling portraits of excellent schools in which computers
play a peripheral role, arguing that the tried-and-true methods of
progressive education-inquiry, exploration, hands-on learning and
focused discussion-do more to develop students' intellectual
capacities than technological gadgetry does. His well-researched and
intelligible argument also takes aim at such current obsessions as
standardized testing. Oppenheimer doesn't advocate removing computers
from the classroom, but argues for a hard look at what can and can't
be accomplished with the enormous investments they require ($90
billion just during the 1990s). Policy makers and teachers might be
better off, he writes, remembering the basics: good teaching, small
classes, critical thinking, meaningful work and the human touch.
There's one reader review: Reviewer: Scott Bake from New York, New York
In a disorganized and poorly-written book, Oppenheimer attempts to
resurrect discredited whole language discovery learning with a new
twist: he finds support for his position in the racist-Aryan eugenic
teachings of Rudolf Steiner. I find Oppenheimer's support of Steiner
repugnant. If that's the direction American eduction is headed, we
are in serious trouble.
I've ordered a copy.
-Dan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1163
-- Topica Digest --
Georg Schmid's scale of cult-like behavior
By dan dandugan.com
Steiners views on homosexuality
By dkimble mystrotv.com
Re: Steiners views on homosexuality
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Georg Schmid's scale of cult-like behavior
By kahunaviking yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 10:29:14 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Georg Schmid's scale of cult-like behavior
A friend sent me this very interesting scale. Where do you place
Anthroposophy on it?
Has anyone here ever been in contact with Schmid?
-Dan
***
Prof. Georg Schmid has developed a model used by the Commission in
the form of a "sect thermometer" which graphically presents the
stages of sectarianism:
Stage 1: The feeling of being something special is normal for any
human community, for state churches, political parties, sport
associations, etc.
Stage 2: Man and wife a not only something special, but better than
the others - that is also normal: but if I were to find that my state
church or political party were not better than the others, I would no
longer be a part of them. The others also belong to a community which
they believe to be better than the others.
Stage 3: I belong to the best group of all which all others should
emulate: there is a sense of mission and a missionary pressure
towards recruitment for one's own group. Not the state churches as
organizations, but probably the currents within them could be counted
as part of this: the non-denominational churches demonstrate
extensive recruitment operation and emphasize membership in step 3,
for instance with their Christ testimonials, in that everybody should
believe in Christ the way they do.
Stage 4: (Fundamentalism step): one has sole salvation and has divine
truth (even if not exclusive). The teaching is perfect and comes from
heaven. He who teaches and believes as I do also stands in the truth
- he who teaches or believes differently is being ruined by his own
or demonic thoughts. He who does not cooperate "is lost."
Fundamentalists worship their teachings; fully developed sects have
even deified the group itself. [...] The state churches are no longer
in this category, but once were (large communities can also deviate
into the high sect stages). Sect step 4 is reached by many people,
including psychological groups. [...]
Stage 5: "We alone can make people happy and are the only ones in
heaven": Other people are objects of missionary work or thoroughly
worthy of damnation; people who do not believe are to be avoided.
Their non-belief is demonic.
Stage 6: The group tries to ban non-believers from their field of
vision - it begins with the separation from the world: only the sect
has the right to life on earth (key word: persecution complex); not
everybody has a right to it, for those people destruction is certain:
they will burn anyway - so why not help them along a little bit? The
"divorce" from other people manifests an inquisitional manner of
thinking in the form of psychic inquisition. [...] Anybody who leaves
a group which is in this stage is seen (even by relatives) as non
existent - the people in the village look the other way when they
pass him by.
Stage 7: The delusions of the sect turn into persecution complex when
operating externally and, at the same time, into megalomania
internally ("If I think a thing is, then it is"). [...] Without
criticism, megalomania develops almost automatically. Anyone who
takes note of the delusion becomes (thanks to the persecution
complex) an arch enemy. The persecution complex develops from the
ever-growing unawareness of the outside world. The sect begins to
demonize any criticism from the outside world; the consequence is
Stage 8: A trigger leads to a catastrophe by which the group, but not
the world, perishes. Megalomania and persecution complex meet and
collectively run amok.
Central criteria for the tendency to go in the direction of the
dynamic are internal discussion and open debates: these are
guaranteed and stay with the group in the lower stages; if they are
eradicated, it drives the group upward. The connection between the
possibility of having internal discussion and the the degree of
sectarianism is easily recognizable.
Dr. Schmid Georg, Information Center of the Evangelical German-Swiss
Churches, Greifensee
Georg Otto Schmid, 2000,
(Also on Scientology at
http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/Co$/Theology/schmid.htm?FACTNet)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:51:12 -0600
From: "Dave Kimble" (dkimble mystrotv.com)
Subject: Steiners views on homosexuality
In light of the recent study out of UCLA showing that sexuality and
gender identity are part of our brain's hard-wiring and are determined
before birth, it occurred to me that I don't remember any discussion
about Steiner's views on homosexuality.
Did he address the issue?
Thanks,
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 17:59:38 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Steiners views on homosexuality
Dave Kimble, you wrote,
)In light of the recent study out of UCLA showing that sexuality and
)gender identity are part of our brain's hard-wiring and are determined
)before birth, it occurred to me that I don't remember any discussion
)about Steiner's views on homosexuality.
)
)Did he address the issue?
This seems to relate:
"Now there is a law that what is repressed on the one side through
being dulled, comes out on the other, and the consequence is that the
egoistic impulse then shoots into the sensual desires. The kind of
love that is only in its proper place in the -spiritual- world shoots
out from there into the -sensual- impulses, passions, and desires;
hence these sensual impulses become perverse. The perversion of the
sensual impulses and all their horrible abnormalities, are the
opposites of that which in the spiritual world would be lofty
virtues, were man to use in the spiritual world the forces thus
poured out into the physical world. At this point we must reflect
that that which finds expression in the sense world as loathesome
impulses, could, if it were used in the spiritual world, accomplish
therein something of the most sublime character. This is of immense
significance.
"Thus you already see how in this domain the sublime is changed into
the horrible when the boundary between the physical sense-world and
the supersensible worlds is not properly observed and valued."
[Steiner, "The Secrets of the Threshold," August 25, 1913, Munich.
Trans. Richard Lewis in -Love, Marriage, Sex In the Light of
Spiritual Science: Volume III, p. 111]
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 20:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Vince Wingo (kahunaviking yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Georg Schmid's scale of cult-like behavior
--0-1321076998-1067054163=:38626
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Do the Waldorf teachers and/or administration receive training in
standard brainwashing techniques like Commitment and Consistency?
Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote: A friend sent me this very
interesting scale. Where do you place
Anthroposophy on it?
Has anyone here ever been in contact with Schmid?
-Dan
***
Prof. Georg Schmid has developed a model used by the Commission in
the form of a "sect thermometer" which graphically presents the
stages of sectarianism:
Stage 1: The feeling of being something special is normal for any
human community, for state churches, political parties, sport
associations, etc.
Stage 2: Man and wife a not only something special, but better than
the others - that is also normal: but if I were to find that my state
church or political party were not better than the others, I would no
longer be a part of them. The others also belong to a community which
they believe to be better than the others.
Stage 3: I belong to the best group of all which all others should
emulate: there is a sense of mission and a missionary pressure
towards recruitment for one's own group. Not the state churches as
organizations, but probably the currents within them could be counted
as part of this: the non-denominational churches demonstrate
extensive recruitment operation and emphasize membership in step 3,
for instance with their Christ testimonials, in that everybody should
believe in Christ the way they do.
Stage 4: (Fundamentalism step): one has sole salvation and has divine
truth (even if not exclusive). The teaching is perfect and comes from
heaven. He who teaches and believes as I do also stands in the truth
- he who teaches or believes differently is being ruined by his own
or demonic thoughts. He who does not cooperate "is lost."
Fundamentalists worship their teachings; fully developed sects have
even deified the group itself. [...] The state churches are no longer
in this category, but once were (large communities can also deviate
into the high sect stages). Sect step 4 is reached by many people,
including psychological groups. [...]
Stage 5: "We alone can make people happy and are the only ones in
heaven": Other people are objects of missionary work or thoroughly
worthy of damnation; people who do not believe are to be avoided.
Their non-belief is demonic.
Stage 6: The group tries to ban non-believers from their field of
vision - it begins with the separation from the world: only the sect
has the right to life on earth (key word: persecution complex); not
everybody has a right to it, for those people destruction is certain:
they will burn anyway - so why not help them along a little bit? The
"divorce" from other people manifests an inquisitional manner of
thinking in the form of psychic inquisition. [...] Anybody who leaves
a group which is in this stage is seen (even by relatives) as non
existent - the people in the village look the other way when they
pass him by.
Stage 7: The delusions of the sect turn into persecution complex when
operating externally and, at the same time, into megalomania
internally ("If I think a thing is, then it is"). [...] Without
criticism, megalomania develops almost automatically. Anyone who
takes note of the delusion becomes (thanks to the persecution
complex) an arch enemy. The persecution complex develops from the
ever-growing unawareness of the outside world. The sect begins to
demonize any criticism from the outside world; the consequence is
Stage 8: A trigger leads to a catastrophe by which the group, but not
the world, perishes. Megalomania and persecution complex meet and
collectively run amok.
Central criteria for the tendency to go in the direction of the
dynamic are internal discussion and open debates: these are
guaranteed and stay with the group in the lower stages; if they are
eradicated, it drives the group upward. The connection between the
possibility of having internal discussion and the the degree of
sectarianism is easily recognizable.
Dr. Schmid Georg, Information Center of the Evangelical German-Swiss
Churches, Greifensee
Georg Otto Schmid, 2000,
(Also on Scientology at
http://www.ezlink.com/~perry/Co$/Theology/schmid.htm?FACTNet)
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
Rev. James Vinson Wingo, DD
Huna International
www.secretscience.com
Join the World's Largest Inter-Active
Huna Conversation ...
The Huna Ohana
Talk to Huna-Minded People Accross the Globe! Enter email address [input]
... then click on Logo
[input]
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1164
-- Topica Digest --
Re: anthroposophy
By dan dandugan.com
Re: anthroposophy
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Steiners views on homosexuality
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 23:05:15 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: anthroposophy
Shannon Twyman, you asked,
)No matter how many definitions I find I still cannot come to an
)understanding of what anthroposophy is and how it influences how
)students learn at Waldorf schools. Can someone please help me.
Anthroposophy is slippery. It's a sect of occultism, so obscurity
comes with the territory. When the question was asked in a meeting at
Debra Snell's school, a teacher said "to define Anthroposophy would
be to kill it." Definitions from outside of Anthroposophy are more
clear:
"A philosophy based on the teachings of Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925)
which maintains that, by virtue of a prescribed method of
self-discipline, cognitional experience of the spiritual world can be
achieved." [The Random House Dictionary of the English Language,
1966, p. 63. (also 1997 unabridged)]
"The Christian and occultist movement associated with Rudolf Steiner
(1861-1925) stressing the cultivation of spiritual nature and the way
to gain spiritual awareness of a higher world. Steiner founded a
large number of schools where methods of liberal education are
practiced." [Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (1994, p.19)]
"an?thro?pos?o?phy [?nthr p?ssfee ] noun; PHILOSOPHY spiritual
philosophy: a religious philosophy developed by Rudolf Steiner from
theosophy, holding that spiritual development should be humanity's
foremost concern." [Encarta? World English Dictionary [North American
Edition] ? & (P) 1999-2000 Microsoft Corporation. 1/29/01]
Anthroposophy is remarkable among occultist sects by having many
activities that interface with the "outside" world; schools, farms,
hospitals. In this way it's comparable to the Masonic sect Shrine
with their hospitals, but in Anthroposophy, they have their own quack
medical system. Shrine hospitals practice conventional scientific
medicine, but Anthroposophical physicians practice according to the
teachings of Rudolf Steiner.
Anthroposophy influences Waldorf students in three ways. First, the
magical world-view of Anthroposophy pervades everything that is done
in Waldorf. Waldorf tries to maintain the magical world-view of early
childhood all the way to adulthood. Second, Waldorf students practice
Anthroposophical religion. They say Anthroposophical prayers daily,
and participate in Anthroposophical religious festivals several times
a year. Activities that appear to be artistic like wet-on-wet
watercolor painting and Eurythmy, are Anthroposophical
spiritual-therapeutic exercises. Third, Waldorf students are taught
specifically Anthroposophical content in regular lessons, though this
is vehemently denied. Anthroposophical beliefs show up obviously in
science lessons, and in the framework of ancient history in the fifth
and sixth grades, which is the sequence of the sub-races of the Aryan
root race.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 00:02:47 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: anthroposophy
Dan Dugan wrote:
"Anthroposophy influences Waldorf students in three ways. First, the
magical world-view of Anthroposophy pervades everything that is done
in Waldorf. Waldorf tries to maintain the magical world-view of early
childhood all the way to adulthood. Second, Waldorf students practice
Anthroposophical religion. They say Anthroposophical prayers daily,
and participate in Anthroposophical religious festivals several times
a year. Activities that appear to be artistic like wet-on-wet
watercolor painting and Eurythmy, are Anthroposophical
spiritual-therapeutic exercises. Third, Waldorf students are taught
specifically Anthroposophical content in regular lessons, though this
is vehemently denied. Anthroposophical beliefs show up obviously in
science lessons, and in the framework of ancient history in the fifth
and sixth grades, which is the sequence of the sub-races of the Aryan
root race."
And what amazes and fascinates me is that the majority of those who pull the
Waldorf strings *still* refuse to acknowledge this Anthroposophy - Waldorf
connection. Why not simply promote the schools as they really are? Why
would people who believe in a certain view of the world (solar system,
universe - complete with reasons for events past present and future) wish to
keep such *knowledge* hidden from others willing to pay and spend time
learning about this knowledge? Tell like it really is. This would
alleviate needless confusion for parents and students and probably aid those
slightly disingenuous Waldorf promoters into a more meaningful incarnation
next time around. Assuming, of course, there is such a thing. Fascinating
creatures, us humans.
-Steve Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 00:13:20 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Steiners views on homosexuality
Dave wrote:
) In light of the recent study out of UCLA showing that sexuality and
) gender identity are part of our brain's hard-wiring and are determined
) before birth, it occurred to me that I don't remember any discussion
) about Steiner's views on homosexuality.
)
) Did he address the issue?
)
) Thanks,
This topic came up some time ago (years, I believe) at the SJU list. You
might want to check their archives. Be warned, however, that should you
choose to ask the question there, do so in a manner in which you shed a
favorable light on Steiner, Waldorf and Anthroposophy or run the risk of
leaving quickly - without your question being answered. Don't take it
personally, though. You certainly would not be the first.
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1165
-- Topica Digest --
Re: new book by Todd Oppenheimer mentions PLANS
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 22:44:29 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: new book by Todd Oppenheimer mentions PLANS
Dan wrote:
) I got a call this morning from Alex Paul, a writer in Denver, who's
) writing a response to a new book by Todd Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer's
) new book is "The Flickering Mind: The False Promise of Technology in
) the Classroom and How Learning Can Be Saved."
) Alex Paul says that my name and PLANS are in it, unflatteringly. He's
) going to fax me the pages later today. (snip)
) There's one reader review: Reviewer: Scott Bake from New York, New York
) In a disorganized and poorly-written book, Oppenheimer attempts to
) resurrect discredited whole language discovery learning with a new
) twist: he finds support for his position in the racist-Aryan eugenic
) teachings of Rudolf Steiner. I find Oppenheimer's support of Steiner
) repugnant. If that's the direction American eduction is headed, we
) are in serious trouble.
I find it interesting that people can let themselves be tricked into
believing... if computers (television, etc.) are not conducive to a well
rounded education in the primary grades, it naturally follows that Waldorf
is the answer. I tend to agree that computer usage is over emphasized in
schools, communication (verbal and written) should be encouraged as should
critical thinking skills. I think the arts *are* undervalued in schools.
But because this approach might be lacking in mainstream public education,
should I simply espouse the virtues of Waldorf education because I do not
find computers and I see the kids painting there - without *really* putting
effort into understanding this very alternative approach?
I think Oppenheimer still has to answer for his poorly researched article in
Atlantic Monthly some years ago. It was nothing more than a PR job for
Waldorf. And it worked. Had me fooled... for while. The Waldorf promo
folks still use his name to lure families into the fold. I would be
interested in what he has to say about Waldorf (and critics) in this new
book - are you able to paste some snippets to the list? I will not spend
any money on this book if it is anything like his Atlantic Monthly piece.
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1166
-- Topica Digest --
TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR CHALLENGE TO RELIGION IN PUBLIC WALDORF
SCHOOLS
By dan dandugan.com
[NNA] Government set to fund Steiner school in Britain
By dan dandugan.com
CNN: Homeless gnomes gather dust in France
By gary goodwinter.com
RE: [NNA] Government set to fund Steiner school in Britain
By jaquesdm msn.com
TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR CHALLENGE TO RELIGION IN PUBLIC WALDORF
SCHOOLS
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:39:38 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Cc: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR CHALLENGE TO RELIGION IN PUBLIC WALDORF
SCHOOLS
PEOPLE FOR LEGAL AND NONSECTARIAN SCHOOLS, INC. (PLANS)
http://www.waldorfcritics.org
Debra Snell, President
12562 Rough and Ready Highway
Grass Valley, CA 95945
(530) 273-1005 president waldorfcritics.org
Lisa Ercolano, Vice President
220 Gaywood Road
Baltimore, MD 21212-1709
(410) 377-4204 vicepresident waldorfcritics.org
Dan Dugan, Secretary
290 Napoleon St. Studio E
San Francisco, CA 94124
(415) 821-9776 secretary waldorfcritics.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, OCTOBER 27, 2003
TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR CHALLENGE TO RELIGION IN PUBLIC WALDORF SCHOOLS
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., United States District Judge, Eastern District
of California, has set the date of September 27, 2004, for the trial
of PLANS, Inc. v. Sacramento City Unified School District and Twin
Ridges Elementary School District. Judge Damrell re-scheduled the
trial after PLANS won approval of their right to sue from the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals.
Because of the long time involved (the lawsuit is now five years
old), Judge Damrell reopened discovery so that both sides can submit
new evidence.
BACKGROUND
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 endorses 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 six
"Waldorf-inspired" charter schools.
During the original discovery phase of the litigation, PLANS revealed
internal documents that described, in the words of the
Anthroposophists themselves, the true nature of Waldorf education.
For example, the Sacramento City Unified School District identified a
book "Lighting Fires: Deepening Education Through Meditation" (by
Jorgen Smit, Hawthorn Press 1992) as one of its resource materials
for "training or instruction in Waldorf teaching methods or Waldorf
curriculum." Smit wrote:
"[O]ne can only make the transition from the spiritual realm of being
to the physical realm of matter through the realm of the
etheric...Hence the special significance of the awakening of
consciousness in the etheric!" (pp. 22-23)
"Christ is found within, in each human individual, but at the same
time as the cosmic Christ on a wider scale, in the other person and
the whole of humanity. He cannot be found only in one place. He works
in from out of the periphery and at the same time in the depths of
the heart." (p. 40)
In May, 2001, Judge Damrell dismissed PLANS' lawsuit against two
school districts based on lack of standing. PLANS appealed the
decision, and in February, 2003, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
confirmed PLANS' right to sue the school districts as taxpayers.
REACTIONS
Debra Snell, president of PLANS, said: "Religious Waldorf programs
claim the right to be independent from the public school system,
while operating on public funds. They've managed to get away with it
by simply denying the transparently obvious. When sponsoring school
boards refuse to act responsibly, the next step is a lawsuit. Charter
laws should be amended so that sponsoring school boards have the same
oversight over charters as they have over regular public schools."
Dan Dugan, Secretary of PLANS, said: "I'm delighted that we've
finally finished with the technicalities. Now we can focus on
presenting the religious nature of Waldorf education before a judge."
WHAT IS PLANS?
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 former 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.
-30-
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:08:15 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: [NNA] Government set to fund Steiner school in Britain
Copyright 2003 News Network Anthroposophy Limited. All rights reserved.
The following material may be republished without the prior consent
of News Network Anthroposophy. News Network Anthroposophy does,
however, require acknowledgement of the source and, if provided, the
author of the material.
+ + + + +
NNA-N E W S
Government set to fund Steiner school in Britain
London, 28 October (NNA) - After three years of negotiation, the
first publicly funded Steiner school is set to become reality in
England.
This go-ahead by the Department of Education and Skills in London
follows what were described by those involved as "very good
discussions" and takes place with support at the highest levels of
government. The search is now on for a suitable existing school or
site on which a school could be built.
The Steiner school negotiators expressed their great satisfaction
with the outcome of the discussions and emphasised the very positive
attitude of ministers. The conditions under which the school will
operate in terms of school structure, curriculum, teacher training
and the levels of capital funding had been largely agreed in a very
acceptable way, they said.
As part of the agreement, the Department will fund ninety percent of
capital requirements for setting up the school. Given the scale of
the project - the figure might be as high as several million pounds -
that could still leave the school to find a sizeable sum and it is
hoped that there will be a generous response to any fund-raising
campaign.
In a separate element, the national curriculum applied in
state-funded schools will be "disapplied", leaving teaching of the
Steiner curriculum unaffected.
Although it was initially planned that the first publicly funded
Steiner school would be set up as a pilot project, the fact that
agreement on most of the outstanding issues has been reached means
that it has now turned from a pilot project into a fully-fledged
scheme. It is hoped that a final decision as to where this
school will be sited will be taken in a matter of weeks.
In a further step, the Government intends to commission comparative
research into the Steiner curriculum, its distinctive features with
regard to the mainstream curriculum and how the latter could benefit
from the Steiner curriculum. Such research is not necessarily
restricted to universities, but suitably qualified other bodies or
consultancies in Britain or from other parts of Europe are also
eligible to submit proposals.
It is expected that this direct-funded Steiner school will encourage
local education authorities to follow suit by demonstrating that
funding for Steiner schools need not be at the cost of other
state-funded schools.
Although the plans currently only apply to England and not to
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland because of their separate
education legislation, it is hoped that there will be similar
developments north and west of the border too.
ENDS
+ + + + +
Item reference number: N031028-01EN
Date: 28 October 2003
More NNA reports at: http://www.nna-news.org/content/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:49:56 -0500
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: CNN: Homeless gnomes gather dust in France
I think I know of a few Waldorf schools who may be interested....
...Gary
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/28/offbeat.gnomes.reut/index.html
Homeless gnomes gather dust in France
Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Posted: 10:40 AM EST (1540 GMT)
PARIS, France (Reuters) -- A French police station has been stuck with a
room of homeless garden gnomes, victims of a wave of gnome abductions, after
a new bid to trace their owners failed.
Only a trickle of people showed up for Monday's "gnome return day" at the
police station in Saint-Die-des-Vosges, near the eastern city of Strasbourg,
and only one person was reunited with a stolen gnome, police said.
About 75 kidnapped gnomes were recovered in 2001 after a group called the
Garden Gnome Liberation Front released them, leaving them on the steps of
the Saint-Die-des-Vosges cathedral.
Police have yet to reunite 43 of the gnomes with their owners.
"In wanting to set them free, the Liberation Front has virtually imprisoned
them," policeman Sylvain Brucker told Reuters, adding the local prosecutor
could decide to sell the kitsch garden ornaments in a police auction.
"Perhaps there are people with gardens who would like to adopt them," he
said.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:45:30 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: [NNA] Government set to fund Steiner school in Britain
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) Copyright 2003 News Network Anthroposophy Limited. All rights reserved.
)
) The following material may be republished without the prior consent
) of News Network Anthroposophy. News Network Anthroposophy does,
) however, require acknowledgement of the source and, if provided, the
) author of the material.
)
) + + + + +
)
) NNA-N E W S
)
) Government set to fund Steiner school in Britain
It comes as no surprise to note that NNA made no mention of the Steiner
schools case for funding also collapsed in Britain, namely in Scotland.
)
) London, 28 October (NNA) - After three years of negotiation, the
) first publicly funded Steiner school is set to become reality in
) England.
)
Earlier this year the Steiner schools petition to the Scottish
Parliament lapsed.
)This go-ahead by the Department of Education and Skills in London
) follows what were described by those involved as "very good
) discussions" and takes place with support at the highest levels of
) government. The search is now on for a suitable existing school or
) site on which a school could be built.
)
The petition was raised following a recommendation by the Convention of
Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) that the case for inclusion in public
funding arrangements had not been made.
)The Steiner school negotiators expressed their great satisfaction
) with the outcome of the discussions and emphasised the very positive
) attitude of ministers. The conditions under which the school will
) operate in terms of school structure, curriculum, teacher training
) and the levels of capital funding had been largely agreed in a very
) acceptable way, they said.
COSLA simply asked very basic questions such as "Holistic eh? And what
parts of our children do you claim we ignore?"
) As part of the agreement, the Department will fund ninety percent of
) capital requirements for setting up the school. Given the scale of
) the project - the figure might be as high as several million pounds -
) that could still leave the school to find a sizeable sum and it is
) hoped that there will be a generous response to any fund-raising
) campaign.
)
) In a separate element, the national curriculum applied in
) state-funded schools will be "disapplied", leaving teaching of the
) Steiner curriculum unaffected.
)
) Although it was initially planned that the first publicly funded
) Steiner school would be set up as a pilot project, the fact that
) agreement on most of the outstanding issues has been reached means
) that it has now turned from a pilot project into a fully-fledged
) scheme. It is hoped that a final decision as to where this
) school will be sited will be taken in a matter of weeks.
)
) In a further step, the Government intends to commission comparative
) research into the Steiner curriculum, its distinctive features with
) regard to the mainstream curriculum and how the latter could benefit
) from the Steiner curriculum. Such research is not necessarily
) restricted to universities, but suitably qualified other bodies or
) consultancies in Britain or from other parts of Europe are also
) eligible to submit proposals.
)
) It is expected that this direct-funded Steiner school will encourage
) local education authorities to follow suit by demonstrating that
) funding for Steiner schools need not be at the cost of other
) state-funded schools.
)
At the Petions Committe stage, Steiner Schools declined to take part in
the continuing national debate on curriculum. Don't suppose this could
have been because debate with other professionals might have
highlighted the cultish aspects?
) Although the plans currently only apply to England and not to
) Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland because of their separate
) education legislation, it is hoped that there will be similar
) developments north and west of the border too.
)
Er...who hopes? People I talk to hope that Scotland is more inclined to
follow the Belgian model, i.e. keep them out of public funding on the
grounds of cult.(Cue once again anthro accusations of being "Too
Scottish, anti-German, closed minded etc...lets see if anyone can come
up with one I havent heard yet)
ENDS
One hopes so.
) + + + + +
)
) Item reference number: N031028-01EN
)
) Date: 28 October 2003
)
) More NNA reports at: http://www.nna-news.org/content/
Davy
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:57:49 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR CHALLENGE TO RELIGION IN PUBLIC WALDORF
SCHOOLS
PEOPLE FOR LEGAL AND NONSECTARIAN SCHOOLS, INC. (PLANS)
http://www.waldorfcritics.org
Debra Snell, President
12562 Rough and Ready Highway
Grass Valley, CA 95945
(530) 273-1005 president waldorfcritics.org
Lisa Ercolano, Vice President
220 Gaywood Road
Baltimore, MD 21212-1709
(410) 377-4204 vicepresident waldorfcritics.org
Dan Dugan, Secretary
290 Napoleon St. Studio E
San Francisco, CA 94124
(415) 821-9776 secretary waldorfcritics.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, OCTOBER 27, 2003
TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR CHALLENGE TO RELIGION IN PUBLIC WALDORF SCHOOLS
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., United States District Judge, Eastern District
of California, has set the date of September 27, 2004, for the trial
of PLANS, Inc. v. Sacramento City Unified School District and Twin
Ridges Elementary School District. Judge Damrell re-scheduled the
trial after PLANS won approval of their right to sue from the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals.
Because of the long time involved (the lawsuit is now five years
old), Judge Damrell reopened discovery so that both sides can submit
new evidence.
BACKGROUND
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 endorses 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 six
"Waldorf-inspired" charter schools.
During the original discovery phase of the litigation, PLANS revealed
internal documents that described, in the words of the
Anthroposophists themselves, the true nature of Waldorf education.
For example, the Sacramento City Unified School District identified a
book "Lighting Fires: Deepening Education Through Meditation" (by
Jorgen Smit, Hawthorn Press 1992) as one of its resource materials
for "training or instruction in Waldorf teaching methods or Waldorf
curriculum." Smit wrote:
"[O]ne can only make the transition from the spiritual realm of being
to the physical realm of matter through the realm of the
etheric...Hence the special significance of the awakening of
consciousness in the etheric!" (pp. 22-23)
"Christ is found within, in each human individual, but at the same
time as the cosmic Christ on a wider scale, in the other person and
the whole of humanity. He cannot be found only in one place. He works
in from out of the periphery and at the same time in the depths of
the heart." (p. 40)
In May, 2001, Judge Damrell dismissed PLANS' lawsuit against two
school districts based on lack of standing. PLANS appealed the
decision, and in February, 2003, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
confirmed PLANS' right to sue the school districts as taxpayers.
REACTIONS
Debra Snell, president of PLANS, said: "Religious Waldorf programs
claim the right to be independent from the public school system,
while operating on public funds. They've managed to get away with it
by simply denying the transparently obvious. When sponsoring school
boards refuse to act responsibly, the next step is a lawsuit. Charter
laws should be amended so that sponsoring school boards have the same
oversight over charters as they have over regular public schools."
Dan Dugan, Secretary of PLANS, said: "I'm delighted that we've
finally finished with the technicalities. Now we can focus on
presenting the religious nature of Waldorf education before a judge."
WHAT IS PLANS?
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 former 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.
-30-
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1167
-- Topica Digest --
RE: CNN: Homeless gnomes gather dust in France
By franksmith vdolores.com.ar
Re: anthroposophy
By houseoftwyman charter.net
Re: anthroposophy
By nmfoss hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:11:58 +0000
From: Frank Thomas Smith (franksmith vdolores.com.ar)
Subject: RE: CNN: Homeless gnomes gather dust in France
Gary Bonhiver wrote:
)
) I think I know of a few Waldorf schools who may be interested....
)
) ...Gary
)
)
) http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/28/offbeat.gnomes.reut/index.html
)
)
) Homeless gnomes gather dust in France
)
Hey, Gary, my digestion was bothing me again and I thought a trip to the
WC might help, so I checked out the recent messages to see if there was
anything new in the way of laxatives. Nah, all the same old stuff -
except your mail. But you don't have to go all the way to France if you
want a free gnome (besides, they only speak French). Just ask me and
I'll see you get one. Yes, I'm farther away than France, but I have
contacts near you. Be warned, however, that he/she/it probably won't be
as friendly as you desire.
Your old pal,
Frank
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:42:16 -0800
From: "Shannon Twyman" (houseoftwyman charter.net)
Subject: Re: anthroposophy
Dan,
Thank you so much for your response. My child is in K at a Waldorf school.
I have been having trouble with her teacher and maybe you or others can help
me. I taught K in public school for 6 years but I now stay home. My child
is hearing impaired, but is corrected with hearing aids. Due to her loss
she experienced some social delays, which also manifested themselves
emotionally. Last year when she entered K, I tried to discuss this with her
teacher and she basically blew me off. I think she thought I was an
over-reactive parent and she said if there were any problems we would work
on them during my daughters second year in K. Well, here we are in year
two. I really like the Waldorf method and I share some of it's core
beliefs, but not all. Last week over dinner my daughter told me that
another child (a very nice, but active and bossy little girl) had kicked her
in the head at indoor playtime. She told me that she screamed and cried in
the classroom while the teacher held ice on it. I tried to get to the
bottom of it, but communicating with a five year old (also hearing impaired)
is difficult. I suddenly became very angry. As a teacher myself I would
have written a note or called the parents so they would not have to hear
this directly from the child. None of the other moms thought I was being
resonable, that I was over-reacting. Does this sound typical of what goes
on in Waldorf schools? What do you think my rights as a parent should be?
What should I do? I would appreciate everyone's feedback on this.
Shannon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Dugan" (dan dandugan.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: anthroposophy
Shannon Twyman, you asked,
)No matter how many definitions I find I still cannot come to an
)understanding of what anthroposophy is and how it influences how
)students learn at Waldorf schools. Can someone please help me.
Anthroposophy is slippery. It's a sect of occultism, so obscurity
comes with the territory. When the question was asked in a meeting at
Debra Snell's school, a teacher said "to define Anthroposophy would
be to kill it." Definitions from outside of Anthroposophy are more
clear:
"A philosophy based on the teachings of Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925)
which maintains that, by virtue of a prescribed method of
self-discipline, cognitional experience of the spiritual world can be
achieved." [The Random House Dictionary of the English Language,
1966, p. 63. (also 1997 unabridged)]
"The Christian and occultist movement associated with Rudolf Steiner
(1861-1925) stressing the cultivation of spiritual nature and the way
to gain spiritual awareness of a higher world. Steiner founded a
large number of schools where methods of liberal education are
practiced." [Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (1994, p.19)]
"an?thro?pos?o?phy [?nthr p?ssfee ] noun; PHILOSOPHY spiritual
philosophy: a religious philosophy developed by Rudolf Steiner from
theosophy, holding that spiritual development should be humanity's
foremost concern." [Encarta? World English Dictionary [North American
Edition] ? & (P) 1999-2000 Microsoft Corporation. 1/29/01]
Anthroposophy is remarkable among occultist sects by having many
activities that interface with the "outside" world; schools, farms,
hospitals. In this way it's comparable to the Masonic sect Shrine
with their hospitals, but in Anthroposophy, they have their own quack
medical system. Shrine hospitals practice conventional scientific
medicine, but Anthroposophical physicians practice according to the
teachings of Rudolf Steiner.
Anthroposophy influences Waldorf students in three ways. First, the
magical world-view of Anthroposophy pervades everything that is done
in Waldorf. Waldorf tries to maintain the magical world-view of early
childhood all the way to adulthood. Second, Waldorf students practice
Anthroposophical religion. They say Anthroposophical prayers daily,
and participate in Anthroposophical religious festivals several times
a year. Activities that appear to be artistic like wet-on-wet
watercolor painting and Eurythmy, are Anthroposophical
spiritual-therapeutic exercises. Third, Waldorf students are taught
specifically Anthroposophical content in regular lessons, though this
is vehemently denied. Anthroposophical beliefs show up obviously in
science lessons, and in the framework of ancient history in the fifth
and sixth grades, which is the sequence of the sub-races of the Aryan
root race.
-Dan Dugan
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:00:54 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: anthroposophy
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_089C_01C39E46.9925DA80
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hello Shannon,
My name is Nicole Foss and I'm a former Waldorf parent. My daughter
is also hearing impaired, although she's quite a bit older than yours
(she's 12) and didn't start in Waldorf until she was already in grade
4. She wears a digital hearing aid in the one ear that has a useful
amount of hearing left to be aided (hearing aids were free in England
and they're not here, which was a bit of a shock).
I put my children in Waldorf after we moved from England to Canada
because, among other reasons, I didn't think she'd cope very well in
a large public school class. At that point, she was already a long
way behind in anything to do with language (her reading, writing,
spelling grammar were all strongly affected), partly because of
funding problems for special education in the UK. I didn't want her
to have to cope with a prescriptive curriculum and standardized
testing in an environment where I felt she would be made to feel like
a failure.
In some ways she thrived at Waldorf. She never felt like a failure as
there were no tests to fail. She discovered all manner of crafts in
handwork class and has proven to be naturally gifted in that
department. Her teacher (who was as far as I know the only one there
who was both a graduate and a provincially qualified teacher) was
wonderful and she learned a wide range of interesting things (she
particularly enjoyed Greek and Roman history) in the 3 years she was
there. However, had she stayed in Waldorf until the end of grade 8, I
think it's quite likely that she would have found high school almost
impossible. Her reading is now very good (I don't really feel this
was because of the school), but her writing skills were falling
further and further behind her peers as Waldorf kids seem to do much
less writing, particularly much less independent analytical written
work, than would be expected in public school. They also don't do
much homework, so she wasn't learning to organize her time and take
responsibility for deadlines as would be expected in high school. Our
Waldorf school offers something which it calls a special needs class,
which she attended during times when other were doing music or
foreign languages (she was excused from these). The Waldorf idea of
special needs was not, however, what one might expect. It was
primarily a craft class, which she loved, but which was not
addressing her glaring academic deficits. In her last year there, an
assistant in the special needs class did do some extra grammar work
with her because I specifically requested it, but for some reason she
was taken out of math class for this and her math suffered as a
result.
She's now in grade 7 at a local academic private school which she
prefers to Waldorf, but she needs one-on-one tuition with the
resource teacher during the day for almost all her academic subjects.
This means she can't spend as much time as she would like with her
peers, and I'm still not convinced that she'll have time to catch up
before high school. Waldorf was good for her in some ways for a
while, but there was a price to pay.
Waldorf was much less good for my other two children. My son was
frequently in trouble because he was bored (he's gifted and needed
much more of a challenge, but Waldorf doesn't allow children to work
ahead). He's a year ahead now at his new school and is much happier.
My youngest is two grades behind where she should be because at 8
she's only just starting to read and write, and she's only got that
far because I've been teaching her at home. I also found Waldorf to
be the most unaccountable place I've ever encountered. We, and other
families, had to deal with many issues while the faculty closed ranks
against parents with legitimate concerns.
Nicole Foss
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1168
-- Topica Digest --
making friends
By susie canarydwarf.co.uk
Re: anthroposophy
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: making friends
By jaquesdm msn.com
Frank's digestion
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: anthroposophy
By nmfoss hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:00:57 -0000
From: "Susan Hindley" (susie canarydwarf.co.uk)
Subject: making friends
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C39EE5.DC032980
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hi
My daughter has been in a waldorf school for a few months now (in uk)
after being badly bullied at a state school.I have so far found
people very welcoming and it was like a breath of fresh air .My
daughter is really getting her confidence back and is happy to attend
school.She still hasn't found a particular friend and plays alone a
lot which upsets me but she said she is ok.I find a lot of children
go to each others house a lot and my daughter gets a little upset
when she never gets invited.I decided to try and invite kids back but
i find people come up with excuse's.Seems to me that the people there
seem to stick together and only really get involved with people they
know.
I am also finding that the teacher is beginning to want my daughter
to have extra lessons and the finance side is really adding up.(ie
form drawing and painting).
When i approach the teacher to ask how she is doing she always says
"fine" and that's all i get .Sometimes i want to know more but i
feel they don't want to say much.
Has anyone else experienced this sort of thing and in particular
about people being very clicky.
Hope to hear from someone soon
xx s
---
This email may contain copyright work. If you believe you are not the
intended recipient, please delete it and inform the sender.
Certified virus-free by Canary Dwarf.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 27/10/2003
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 08:06:26 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: anthroposophy
Hi, Shannon, and welcome to the Waldorf Critics list.
You say you share some of Waldorf's "core" beliefs. Does that mean you are
an Anthroposophist, or do you mean to say that you agree with the way
Waldorf purports to educate children? (Of course, they actually are one and
the same, though most of us who enrolled our children in Waldorf schools
don't know that. It took me more than four years to figure out that my child
was enrolled in an Anthroposophical parochial school. That's not surprising
when you consider that Waldorf schools usually fail to tell parents that!)
Are you familiar with/in agreement with the Anthroposophical tenet of karma?
If your child is in a Waldorf school, it is important that you understand
the role the belief in karma plays in the way your child is viewed.
Waldorf teachers believe, generally (I say "generally" because there
probably are some Waldorf teachers who do not subscribe to this, but many
do!) that the children who enroll in the school are "destined" to be there
vis a vis past life experiences and their purpose in this lifetime (You
probably know that Waldorf's belief system also involves reincarnation.)
They also believe karma is manifested in the child's physical appearance
and abilities, learning issues, etc. (Translation: Anthroposophists -- and
many Waldorf teachers are Anthroposophists -- would say that your daughter's
hearing impairment is part/a physical manifestation of her karma/destiny.)
They take a similar view of the children's interpersonal relationships; if
a child is victimized (bullied) by classmates, perhaps that child's "karma"
is to be a victim. (And vice versa -- if a child is a bully, perhaps that is
his or her karma). Waldorf teachers who believe this may be hesitant to
actually intervene, as that would be altering the child's "karma" which
would be, according to their beliefs, wrong. Those of us who have been on
this and other Waldorf related lists for years have seen numerous
discussions -- many of them quite upsetting -- about situations in which
Waldorf teachers have hesitated or failed to intervene in bullying
situations, presumably because of this core tenet of their belief system.
(In other words, if it happens, it is supposed to happen.)
One California mother sued her public school district because she claims
the adults at her son's Waldorf charter school stood back and allowed the
boy -- who is afflicted with a genetic neurological disorder -- to be
ruthlessly bullied by classmates. According to the mother, one of the adults
in charge basically said "Do you know how weird your son it?" when she asked
them to intervene.
I would be absolutely furious if I found out that my child had been kicked
in the head at school and the teacher had not bothered to let me know about
it! If I were you, I would ask the teacher very directly why she did not
send home a note/let me know about it, and I also would ask her very
directly for a conference. During that conference, I would ask her -- also
very directly -- for an explanation of the Anthroposphical view of karma and
how that plays out in the classroom day to day. (I also would ask her to
talk about my daughter's hearing impairment vis a vis karma.)
I hope this helps.
Lisa
) From: Shannon Twyman (houseoftwyman charter.net)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:42:16 -0800
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: Re: anthroposophy
)
) Dan,
) Thank you so much for your response. My child is in K at a Waldorf school.
) I have been having trouble with her teacher and maybe you or others can help
) me. I taught K in public school for 6 years but I now stay home. My child
) is hearing impaired, but is corrected with hearing aids. Due to her loss
) she experienced some social delays, which also manifested themselves
) emotionally. Last year when she entered K, I tried to discuss this with her
) teacher and she basically blew me off. I think she thought I was an
) over-reactive parent and she said if there were any problems we would work
) on them during my daughters second year in K. Well, here we are in year
) two. I really like the Waldorf method and I share some of it's core
) beliefs, but not all. Last week over dinner my daughter told me that
) another child (a very nice, but active and bossy little girl) had kicked her
) in the head at indoor playtime. She told me that she screamed and cried in
) the classroom while the teacher held ice on it. I tried to get to the
) bottom of it, but communicating with a five year old (also hearing impaired)
) is difficult. I suddenly became very angry. As a teacher myself I would
) have written a note or called the parents so they would not have to hear
) this directly from the child. None of the other moms thought I was being
) resonable, that I was over-reacting. Does this sound typical of what goes
) on in Waldorf schools? What do you think my rights as a parent should be?
) What should I do? I would appreciate everyone's feedback on this.
)
) Shannon
) ----- Original Message -----
) From: "Dan Dugan" (dan dandugan.com)
) To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
) Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 10:05 PM
) Subject: Re: anthroposophy
)
)
) Shannon Twyman, you asked,
)
)) No matter how many definitions I find I still cannot come to an
)) understanding of what anthroposophy is and how it influences how
)) students learn at Waldorf schools. Can someone please help me.
)
) Anthroposophy is slippery. It's a sect of occultism, so obscurity
) comes with the territory. When the question was asked in a meeting at
) Debra Snell's school, a teacher said "to define Anthroposophy would
) be to kill it." Definitions from outside of Anthroposophy are more
) clear:
)
) "A philosophy based on the teachings of Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925)
) which maintains that, by virtue of a prescribed method of
) self-discipline, cognitional experience of the spiritual world can be
) achieved." [The Random House Dictionary of the English Language,
) 1966, p. 63. (also 1997 unabridged)]
)
) "The Christian and occultist movement associated with Rudolf Steiner
) (1861-1925) stressing the cultivation of spiritual nature and the way
) to gain spiritual awareness of a higher world. Steiner founded a
) large number of schools where methods of liberal education are
) practiced." [Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (1994, p.19)]
)
) "an?thro?pos?o?phy [?nthr p?ssfee ] noun; PHILOSOPHY spiritual
) philosophy: a religious philosophy developed by Rudolf Steiner from
) theosophy, holding that spiritual development should be humanity's
) foremost concern." [Encarta? World English Dictionary [North American
) Edition] ? & (P) 1999-2000 Microsoft Corporation. 1/29/01]
)
) Anthroposophy is remarkable among occultist sects by having many
) activities that interface with the "outside" world; schools, farms,
) hospitals. In this way it's comparable to the Masonic sect Shrine
) with their hospitals, but in Anthroposophy, they have their own quack
) medical system. Shrine hospitals practice conventional scientific
) medicine, but Anthroposophical physicians practice according to the
) teachings of Rudolf Steiner.
)
) Anthroposophy influences Waldorf students in three ways. First, the
) magical world-view of Anthroposophy pervades everything that is done
) in Waldorf. Waldorf tries to maintain the magical world-view of early
) childhood all the way to adulthood. Second, Waldorf students practice
) Anthroposophical religion. They say Anthroposophical prayers daily,
) and participate in Anthroposophical religious festivals several times
) a year. Activities that appear to be artistic like wet-on-wet
) watercolor painting and Eurythmy, are Anthroposophical
) spiritual-therapeutic exercises. Third, Waldorf students are taught
) specifically Anthroposophical content in regular lessons, though this
) is vehemently denied. Anthroposophical beliefs show up obviously in
) science lessons, and in the framework of ancient history in the fifth
) and sixth grades, which is the sequence of the sub-races of the Aryan
) root race.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
) New threads are always welcome.
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:15:06 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: making friends
Susan Hindley wrote:
) Hi
) My daughter has been in a waldorf school for a few months now (in uk)
) after being badly bullied at a state school.I have so far found people
) very welcoming and it was like a breath of fresh air .My daughter is
) really getting her confidence back and is happy to attend school.She
) still hasn't found a particular friend and plays alone a lot which
) upsets me but she said she is ok.I find a lot of children go to each
) others house a lot and my daughter gets a little upset when she never
) gets invited.I decided to try and invite kids back but i find people
) come up with excuse's.Seems to me that the people there seem to stick
) together and only really get involved with people they know.
) I am also finding that the teacher is beginning to want my daughter to
) have extra lessons and the finance side is really adding up.(ie form
) drawing and painting).
) When i approach the teacher to ask how she is doing she always says
) "fine" and that's all i get .Sometimes i want to know more but i feel
) they don't want to say much.
) Has anyone else experienced this sort of thing and in particular about
) people being very clicky.
) Hope to hear from someone soon
) xx s
)
)Hello Susan,
Regretfully, your story is by no means unique. Most of us were at
first,really enamoured with all that Waldorf et al purported to be only
to discover later what it actually is.
You (and your daughter) are still in the being sized up state-
boundaries are being tested. If you keep mum and accept all the flannel
you are given, then you will do well. Dare to ask the NEXT question
however, and you might as well give up now!
Best wishes anyway.
Davy
) ---
) This email may contain copyright work. If you believe you are not the
) intended recipient, please delete it and inform the sender.
)
) Certified virus-free by Canary Dwarf.
) Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
) Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 27/10/2003
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 11:07:21 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Cc: franksmith vdolores.com.ar
Subject: Frank's digestion
In the continuing saga of Frank's battle with his bowels, we learn that he
merely finds the same old stuff during his occasional visits to this list:
)From: Frank Thomas Smith (franksmith vdolores.com.ar)
)Hey, Gary, my digestion was bothing me again and I thought a trip to the
)WC might help, so I checked out the recent messages to see if there was
)anything new in the way of laxatives. Nah, all the same old stuff -
Frank is a forgetful sort. He disappeared from the list just when it started
bringing him new and unfamiliar material. Last we heard from Frank, he
insisted that Rudolf Steiner never, ever taught that that the human species
is divided into lower races and higher races, that skin color is directly
tied to spiritual disposition, that history and social existence can only be
understood through racial characteristics, that humankind evolves by
successive incarnations in progressively higher racial forms, that souls
which fail to progress are relegated to a backward race, that souls which do
progress are elevated to an advanced race, that Europeans and especially
Germans belong to the most advanced race, that the white race is the
spiritually creative race of the future, that intelligence is correlated to
blonde hair and blue eyes, that black people belong in Africa and that their
presence in Europe is a disgrace, that indigenous peoples are stunted and
decadent and degenerated, and that the Jewish people has no reason to exist.
Frank wrote categorically that "Steiner did not hold any of these beliefs,
did not express them publicly, and did not teach them to his followers."
(post of 7/30/03)
Hoping to relieve some of Frank's intestinal distress, I helpfully provided
him with full quotations from Steiner's published works, complete with
citations, and posted them to the list. These quotations prove that each of
Frank's claims was obviously mistaken. I also followed my usual practice of
sending Frank a copy of the post directly (he has these bouts of
forgetfulness rather frequently, and I wouldn't want him to miss anything
exciting and new and potentially laxative). Frank, of course, never
responded, and mysteriously dropped off the list again at that very moment.
Since all of these Steiner passages are evidently new to Frank, I would like
to invite him again to comment on them. Here they are once more:
"In each root race various stages must also be gone through. There are
always seven of these. In the beginning of a period identified with a root
race, its principal characteristics are in a youthful condition; slowly they
attain maturity and finally enter a decline. The population of a root race
is thereby divided into seven sub-races. But one must not imagine that one
subrace immediately disappears when a new one develops. Each one may
maintain itself for a long time while others are developing beside it. Thus
there are always populations which show different stages of development
living beside each other on earth."
(Steiner, Cosmic Memory; full text available online:
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Books/GA011/CM/GA011_index.html )
"The ancestors of the Atlanteans lived in a region which has disappeared,
the main part of which lay south of contemporary Asia. In theosophical
writings they are called the Lemurians. After they had passed through
various stages of development the greatest part of them declined. These
became stunted men, whose descendants still inhabit certain parts of the
earth today as so-called savage tribes. Only a small part of Lemurian
humanity was capable of further development. From this part the Atlanteans
were formed." (ibid.)
"All of you were once Atlanteans, and these Atlantean bodies looked very
different, as I have already described. The same soul that was once in an
Atlantean body somewhere is now in your body. But not all bodies have been
prepared, in the way yours have been, by a small number of colonists who
long ago migrated from the West to the East. Those who remained behind, who
bound themselves up with their race, they degenerated, while the advanced
ones founded new civilizations. The last stragglers on the way to the east,
the Mongols, still retain something of the culture of the Atlanteans. In the
same way, the bodies of those people who do not develop themselves in a
progressive fashion will continue into the next era and will constitute the
Chinese of the future. There will once again be decadent peoples. After all,
the souls that inhabit Chinese bodies are those that will once again have to
incarnate in such races, because they had too strong an attraction to that
race."
(Steiner, Menschheitsentwickelung und Christus-Erkenntnis, GA 100, p. 187)
"Not all of the people living on the earth today stand at the same level of
development. Alongside those people that stand at a high stage of
civilization, there are primitive peoples that have lagged culturally far
behind. Even though new facts contradict it, contemporary natural science
promotes the view that the more highly developed peoples descend from the
peoples that have remained behind in evolution. This view is incompatible
with the results of spiritual research." (ibid. p. 243)
"...peoples and races are but steps leading to pure humanity. A race or a
nation stands so much the higher, the more perfectly its members express the
pure, ideal human type, the further they have worked their way from the
physical and perishable to the supersensible and imperishable. The evolution
of man through the incarnations in ever higher national and racial forms is
thus a process of liberation. Man must finally appear in harmonious
perfection."
(Steiner, Knowledge of Higher Worlds; full text available online:
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Books/GA010/English/GA010_index.html )
"One can only understand history and all of social life, including today's
social life, if one pays attention to people's racial characteristics. And
one can only understand all that is spiritual in the correct sense if one
first examines how this spiritual element operates within people precisely
through the color of their skin."
(Steiner, Vom Leben des Menschen und der Erde, GA 349, p. 52; this book was
published in an authorized English translation in 1999 by the Rudolf Steiner
Press, London, under the title From Limestone to Lucifer, but the English
translation omits the chapter on "Color and the Races of Humankind".)
"How could people fail to notice the profound differences, in terms of
spiritual culture, between the European and the Asian peoples. How could
they fail to notice this differentiation, which is tied to external skin
color!"
(Steiner, Die geistigen Hintergruende des Ersten Weltkrieges, GA 174b, p.
35)
"This carrying down, this thorough impregnation of the flesh by the spirit,
this is the characteristic of the mission of white humanity, the whole
mission of white humankind. People have white skin color because the spirit
works within the skin when it wants to descend to the physical plane. That
the external physical body will become a container for the spirit, that is
the task of our fifth cultural epoch, which has been prepared by the four
other cultural epochs. And our task must be to acquaint ourselves with those
cultural impulses that tend to introduce the spirit into the flesh and into
the ordinary. If we recognize this completely, then it will become clear to
us that where the spirit is still supposed to function as spirit, where in a
certain way the spirit is supposed to be retarded in its development --
because in our time its task is to descend into the flesh -- that where the
spirit is retarded, where it takes on a demonic character and does not fully
penetrate the flesh, then white skin color does not appear, because
atavistic powers are present that do not allow the spirit to achieve
complete harmony with the flesh." (ibid. p. 37)
"The race may fall behind; the community of people may remain backward, but
the souls progress beyond the several races. If we wish to form a true
conception of this we must say that all the souls now living in bodies in
civilized countries were formerly incarnated in Atlantean bodies. A few
developed there in the requisite manner, and did not remain in Atlantean
bodies. As they had developed further they could become the souls of the
bodies which had also progressed further. Only the souls which as souls had
remained backward had to take bodies which as bodies had remained at a lower
stage. If all the souls had progressed, the backward races would either have
decreased very much in population, or the bodies would be occupied by newly
incoming souls at a low stage of development. For there are always souls
which can inhabit backward bodies. No soul is bound to a backward body if it
does not bind itself to it. The relation between soul-development and
race-development is preserved to us in a wonderful myth. Let us imagine race
following race, civilization following civilization. The soul going through
its earth mission in the right way is incarnated in a certain race; it
strives upward in this race, and acquires the capacities of this race in
order next time to be incarnated in a higher one. Only the souls which sink
in the race and do not work out of the physical materiality, are held back
in the race by their own weight, as one might say. They appear a second time
in the same race and eventually a third time in bodies in similarly formed
races. Such souls hold back the bodies of the race."
(Steiner, The Apocalypse of St. John, p. 80)
"People who listen to the great leaders of humankind, and preserve their
soul with its eternal essence, reincarnate in an advanced race; in the same
way he who ignores the great teacher, who rejects the great leader of
humankind, will always reincarnate in the same race, because he was only
able to develop the one form. This is the deeper meaning of Ahasver, who
must always reappear in the same form because he rejected the hand of the
greatest leader, Christ. Thus each person has the opportunity to become
caught up in the essence of one incarnation, to push away the leader of
humankind, or instead to undergo the transformation into higher races,
toward ever higher perfection. Races would never become decadent, never
decline, if there weren't souls that are unable to move up and unwilling to
move up to a higher racial form. Look at the races that have survived from
earlier eras: they only exist because some souls could not climb higher."
(Steiner, Das Hereinwirken geistiger Wesenheiten in den Menschen, GA 102, p.
174)
"Look at the colours to be found in Asia, from the Negroes to the yellow
races. Hence you have bodies that are sheaths for every possible level of
soul, from the completely passive Negro soul entirely given up the outer
world of physical existence, to the other levels of passive souls in every
possible part of Asia. Various characteristics of the evolution of the
Asiatic and African peoples will now be comprehensible to you: they present
various combinations of surrender to the environment and the external
manifestation of ego-feeling. So fundamentally we have two groups of people
representing combinations: those on European soil, forming the root stock of
the white population, who had predominantly developed the feeling of
personality [...] On the other hand there are those peoples in Asia with
passive, self-effacing natures in whom just this passivity expresses itself
in the highest degree. This makes the people dreamy, and the etheric body
penetrates very deeply into the physical body. That is the fundamental
difference between the European and the Asiatic peoples."
(Steiner, The Being of Man and His Future Evolution, pp. 120-121)
"We here in Europe call ourselves the white race. If we go over to Asia, we
have mostly the yellow race. And if we go over to Africa, there we have the
black race. Those are also the original races. Everything else living in
these regions is based on migration. Thus when we ask which race belongs to
which part of the earth, we must say: the yellow race, the Mongols, the
Mongolian race belongs in Asia, the white race or the Caucasian race belongs
in Europe, and the black race or the Negro race belongs in Africa. The Negro
race does not belong in Europe, and it is of course a disgrace that this
race is now playing such a large role in Europe."
(Steiner, Vom Leben des Menschen und der Erde, pp. 52-53)
"The whites are the ones who actually develop humanity in themselves."
(ibid. p. 62)
"The white race is the race of the future, the spiritually creative race."
(ibid. p. 67)
"If the blonds and blue-eyed people die out, the human race will become
increasingly dense if men do not arrive at a form of intelligence that is
independent of blondness. Blond hair actually bestows intelligence."
(Steiner, Health and Illness, p. 86)
"The French are committing the terrible brutality of moving black people to
Europe, but it works, in an even worse way, back on France. It has an
enormous effect on the blood and the race and contributes considerably
toward French decadence. The French as a race are reverting."
(Steiner, Faculty Meetings With Rudolf Steiner, p. 559)
"Darwinism has made many errors in regard to the differentiation expressed
by the races actually existing on the Earth. The higher races have not
descended from the lower races; on the contrary, the latter represent the
degeneration of the higher races which have preceded them."
(Steiner, An Esoteric Cosmology, p. 23)
"It certainly cannot be denied that Jewry today still behaves as a closed
totality, and as such it has frequently intervened in the development of our
current state of affairs in a way that is anything but favorable to European
ideas of culture. But Jewry itself has long since outlived its time; it has
no more justification within the modern life of peoples, and the fact that
it continues to exist is a mistake of world history whose consequences are
unavoidable. We do not mean the forms of the Jewish religion alone, but
above all the spirit of Jewry, the Jewish way of thinking."
(Steiner, Gesammelte Aufs?tze zur Literatur, GA 32, p. 152)
"And one can say that since everything the Jews have done can now be done
consciously by all people, the best thing that the Jews could do would be to
disappear into the rest of humankind, to blend in with the rest of
humankind, so that Jewry as a people would simply cease to exist. That is
what would be ideal."
(Steiner, Die Geschichte der Menschheit und die Weltanschauungen der
Kulturv?lker, GA 353, p. 189; this book was published in an authorized
English translation in 1999 by the Rudolf Steiner Press, London, under the
title From Beetroot to Buddhism, but the English translation omits the
chapter on "The Essence of Jewry".)
"Today all aspects of the Jews are dominated by racial qualities. Above all
they marry among themselves. They see the racial qualities, not the
spiritual. And this is what must be said in reply to the question: has the
Jewish people fulfilled its mission within the evolution of human knowledge?
It has fulfilled it; for in earlier times one single people was needed to
bring about a certain monotheism. But today spiritual insight itself is
necessary. Therefore this mission has been fulfilled. And therefore this
Jewish mission as such, as a Jewish mission, is no longer necessary in
evolution; instead the only proper thing would be for the Jews to blend in
with the other peoples and disappear into the other peoples." (ibid. p.
190)
In case these new revelations don't quite do the trick, Frank, feel free to
ask for further samples of Rudolf Steiner's racial theories. There's lots
more where that came from.
Yours for healthy digestion,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Surf and talk on the phone at the same time with broadband Internet access.
Get high-speed for as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local service
providers in your area). https://broadband.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 14:04:24 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: anthroposophy
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_07BA_01C39EEE.B944BA40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hello again Shannon,
The karma aspect that Lisa mentioned is important to the way special
needs children fare at Waldorf. As Lisa said, disabilities are
evidence of karmic weakness according to Steiner (a concept I am not
at all comfortable with). Also, the practical results of a disability
seem to be treated as karmic and therefore not to be interfered with,
hence the remedial classes which do not address academic
difficulties. The impression I got was that if you can't do English,
never mind - it's your karma. You can always do basket-weaving or
something else instead. The fact that the disabled child could
succeed academically if they were given the appropriate help doesn't
seem to matter, nor does the fact that a certain degree of academic
competence in core subjects (particularly language) is necessary for
the child to avoid failing virtually every subject in high school. I
find this application of karma completely repugnant as it badly lets
down children with special needs who have academic potential but need
special help to achieve to that potential.
The other important aspect which relates specifically to hearing
impairment is the fact that Waldorf education in the early years is
almost entirely oral. My daughter struggled with this even in grade 4
(when she started at Waldorf) where there is less emphasis on oral
learning than for the younger children. She really can't follow
lessons delivered entirely orally very well, especially if they are
addressed to a group rather than just to her. Her vocabulary is quite
limited for her age as she can't pick up new vocabulary from ambient
conversation the way the rest of us take for granted, and, as a
result, she misses the gist of the lesson when it is put in terms she
doesn't understand. For her it was a bit like trying to sit through a
lesson given at speed in a foreign language (all spoken languages are
'foreign' to her), and it didn't help that she was the youngest in
the class as well (Waldorf children are meant to stay with their own
age group whether or not they are coping). She coped better as she
got older and there was more emphasis on written material, but even
now at 12 she can't write independently beyond about a grade 4 level.
It wasn't her teacher's fault as he worked very well with her and
always made sure she was sitting where she could read his lips (she
depends on this strategy a great deal in class). It was more of a
generic Waldorf issue in the sense that Waldorf is a
one-size-fits-all kind of approach in my opinion. The learning style
is oral in the early grades whether or not your child can follow what
is going on. My daughter was never able to commit oral learning to
memory the way Waldorf children were expected to do, and she
frequently found this disheartening. Personally, I think Waldorf
would have been a disaster for her if she had been there from the
beginning because of this huge emphasis on oral learning. As it was,
she had already learned to read (not well, but she had learned the
basics) in her English state school and her math was already solid
due to years of Kumon math.
Nicole Foss
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1169