return to WCA Archive Index
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n209 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Dan: What was the point? (Was re: computers)
002 - Kyle Kuns
>that list to this one? Please explain your intent and why you couldn't
>even ask me if it was OK. Your flagrant disrespect in this matter is
>offensive
Sorry you're offended. It's germane to the list; Val was a participant here
for a while. Postings to a list with hundreds of subscribers are
publications, not private mail. People generally are flattered when their
publications are circulated.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n209.2 ---------------
From: Kyle Kuns
Subject: Re: Dan: What was the point? (Was re: computers)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 13:33:59 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dan Dugan wrote:
>
> Kyle, you said,
>
>
> >that list to this one? Please explain your intent and why you couldn't
> >even ask me if it was OK. Your flagrant disrespect in this matter is
> >offensive
>
> Sorry you're offended. It's germane to the list; Val was a participant here
> for a while. Postings to a list with hundreds of subscribers are
> publications, not private mail. People generally are flattered when their
> publications are circulated.
>
Dan, you still didn't explain what the point was in cross posting my
message. Your claim that it's germane to the list doesn't mean
anything. You said nothing about the content, so, I still don't
understand why you put it on your list. If it was of such importance
that you couldn't even seek my permission, why haven't you discussed it
directly?
You aren't circulating my post, you're reproducing it for your use.
Circulation would imply that you purchased the rights to reproduce it.
You can't just take a book and reprint it just because the book exists
publicly or because the book refers to someone associated to you in some
way.
I'm not flattered, and, I don't think most people would be either.
That's one reason why we have copyright laws.
Kyle Kuns
anecar primenet.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n209.3 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: computers
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 17:05:40 -0500
Kyle Kuns writes:
> Lefty not only didn't chill out any responses to my post on the Waldorf
> List; he didn't make any comments on it. He just let the discussion go
> unmoderated. Your mischaracterization and lack of getting to the true
> facts gives a bad impression which is typical of much of the
> misinformation presented on this list.
Sorry. You're quite right. None of us could ascertain the true facts
'til you responded. I just "freaked" at seeing one more argument about
passing along messages to other lists. Every time that occurs, discussion
of anything related to education goes out the window. G'nite, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n209.4 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Dan: What was the point? (Was re: computers)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 00:17:12 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>
> Sorry you're offended. It's germane to the list; Val was a participant here
> for a while. Postings to a list with hundreds of subscribers are
> publications, not private mail. People generally are flattered when their
> publications are circulated.
>
Sorry Dan, I was getting some kind of respect for you, but apparently
you will never learn.
Publishing a message just because it is critical with Val is cheap
revenge and nothing else. You behaviour just illustrates what your
reaction is when someone dares to contradict you!
Just because something is said to hundereds of people does not put
the message into the public domain. The question is not private or
publication. Every author retains the copyright (and I believe this
means: the right to copy or _not_ to copy) of his works, private or
public. A newspaper article, even printed several million times,
still is copyrighted by the journalist and/or newspaper.
So your comment is no argument, just hot wind. Like ususal.
To put things where they belong: I will _not_ be flattered if you
reproduce _any_ of my posts _anywhere_ else then _I_ intended to!
_All_ my posts are copyrighted, _any_ reproduction/reuse, execpt in
direct replies, is _strictly_ forbidden.
If I _ever_ find some of my material misused/abused/reused by you,
my friend, believe me I will find a way to kick your "Hinterteil" into
orbit around mars...
A bon entendeur...
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n209.5 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: My email to Mr McKay
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:39:55 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Having had more time to reflect on Mr McKay's posting of my private
email, I would like to say the following:
I realise that anything I say to try to mitigate what I did will just
seem to be justification of the unjustifiable. I also realise that it
must be extremely difficult to interpret what I wrote in anything other
than the worst possible light.
I wrote the offensive post in a degree of anger at what I perceived to
be another distortion -- I now realise and accept that is no excuse for
what is essentially a shameful email.
I, too, would not like to see such attitudes in a Waldorf teacher. I
doubt that any assurance from me will carry much weight, but what I
write here or to anyone privately is written from me as an individual --
any failings are my personal ones. These failings are not
representative of Waldorf education in any way, neither does that sort
of thing enter my professional life. Most, if not all, Waldorf teachers
would be rightfully disgusted at what I wrote.
It was a shameful act and I apologise. It will not recur.
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n209.6 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: The (Final) Mysterious "EL"
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 06:54:47 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Well. I've been trying to keep this sort of thing off the list, but
since Mr McKay has insisted on making it public in a carefully edited
(for simply verifiable examples note, for example, how what are
obviously more recent "added notes" appear as quoted text; how the ">"s
don't "add up" -- others are, regrettably, not so easily verifiable)
post of private email:
mckay oro.net writes:
>Hello, everyone. The following is a reposting of things said to me both on
>this list and privately by Stephen Tonkin about my accidental misspelling
>of David Schlesinger's last name. The purpose of which is to show that 1)
>reprisals _do_ happen,
Exchange of harsh words is a _reprisal_?
>and 2) if a person thinks and acts like this
>towards someone else over such a simple mistake
Er-- no-- over deliberate distortions...
>and then can say: "... in
>your case, I just enjoy baiting dumb animals."
Oh well -- one of those throw-away sarcastic rejoinders which looks a
lot worse in email than it does when I say it aloud, but I should have
guessed would come back to haunt me --- c'est la vie. I'd have thought
that even Mr McKay would have realised that it was obviously intended as
such and that I don't _really_ enjoy baiting dumb animals and that I
don't even _really_ think Mr McKay is an animal.
However, I must admit it's somewhat embarrassing to have it published
and I begin to wish I hadn't written it. One day I will learn that my
peculiar brand of sarcastic wit just *doesn't* work by email (it's not
the first time it's got me into trouble)!
> and "Tell me, are you really
>as stupid as your posts suggest?",
That was inspired by such gems as:
> Besides I've always spelled my name correctly
followed a few lines later by:
> If you might notice, I also misspelled my own name (MdcKay) in
>>the original post
and confirmed by, in this post, the following protestation of innocence:
>I was totally unaware that I had misspelled Schlesinger. I thought I just
>didn't know what his name was by the way Mr. Schlesinger responded (see
>postings below). It wasn't until I received Mr. Tonkins private posts that
>I even began to get a clue.
However, my post was sent _after_ McKay had written:
> and the only difference is I have an extra "e" in_your_ name.
Now, this is either a "distortion", or Mr McKay received my post before
he wrote the post to which my post was a response...
There are other clever and not so clever distortions (less trivial in
substance, but not so demonstrable), but those make my point: Mr McKay
"changes" reality to whatever suits his argument.
It still seems that the choice of interpetation is either stupidity (the
more charitable assumption) or deliberate distortion of the truth to
whatever suits Mr McKay's arguments.
>then I start to wonder what and how this
>same person (who happens to be a Waldorf teacher), thinks and treats those
>students who aren't as "smart" as he thinks they should be. Does he loathe
>those students who don't fit his mold? Or more correctly, the "Waldorf
>Mold"?
Well, that's quite a leap of logic -- but the answer to those questions
is "No". I do, however, confess to bearing a thorough and unmitigated
contempt for _adults_ who _deliberately_ lie and distort. That contempt
does, as Mr McKay has revealed, lead me to making angry tirades which I
probably shouldn't...
> I
>have been attacked like this so many times over the years by Waldorf people
>who find the explanations of my experiences a threat to their beliefs,
No -- this "attack" was a consequence of being able to get hold of one
Mr McKay's distortions of the truth and _demonstrate_ that it was a
distortion. I thought that if I could show Mr McKay _privately_ that
his distortions were demonstrable, it might make him a little more
careful about publicly posting distortions. I made an error of
judgement in the way I did this, which I am beginning to regret.
He's said a lot of things on this list which seemed unlikely but aren't
refutable since we don't have the "other side" -- this was a clear-cut
case which demonstrated quite simply how Mr McKay has a propensity for
"economy with the actuality". He has unwittingly, in this airing of
dirty linen, given other clear examples of this "economy", of which I
have highlighted the two most obvious.
The demonstrable example was on an essentially trivial topic but it
does, I believe, illustrate the point: frankly, if someone is capable of
deliberate "inconsistencies" like the ones I've quoted, I do begin to
wonder what confidence we can have in other, more serious, allegations
where Mr McKay obviously has an axe to grind. I suppose we shall never
know.
>even when they witinessed those experiences but chose to look the other way
>or changed the facts around the incidents.
Now, in the light of the "inconsistencies" I posted above, that is
rather rich!
... and, apologies if I've disillusioned anyone who thought I was above
angry private email exchanges -- WARNING: There's worse to come if Mr
Kopp ever decides to go public with an occasion or three when I
foolishly allowed myself to lose my temper with him by email ... :-)
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n209.7 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: My email to Mr McKay
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:16:11 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Having had more time to reflect on Mr McKay's posting of my private
>email, I would like to say the following:
[Mea culpa snipped.]
>It was a shameful act and I apologise. It will not recur.
Does that go for all of us who receive such strongly-worded email from you?
What about your public attacks on people?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n209.8 ---------------
From: Steve Premo
Subject: A Motion
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 11:31:17 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I move that the following topics be moved off the list and into private e-mail:
(1) Who said what to whom;
(2) Whether -El should use a pseudonym;
(3) Whether the critics of the Waldorf-critics are more obnoxious than the
Waldorf-critics; and
(4) Whether posts from this list have been improperly posted elsewhere.
You guys can beat each other up all you want, I'm just tired of hearing
about it.
Do I hear a second?
-
Steve Premo "It's the job that's never started
Premo-Fine Family as takes longest to finish."
Santa Cruz, California -Hamfast "Gaffer" Gamgee
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n209.9 ---------------
From: Steve Premo
Subject: Anthroposophy in curriculum
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 11:42:47 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I'm going to set up a meeting with a teacher at my local Waldorf school to
discuss my concerns that Anthroposophy not make it into the curriculum.
My attitude, basically, is one of extreme skepticism about both the details
and the underlying assumptions of anthroposophy, other than very general
things, e.g., that we all have a spiritual nature which should be nurtured.
Even there, I don't know if what I mean by "spiritual" is the same thing
that Steiner meant.
I do like the teaching methods, though, because they seem to work, and the
school creates a good, nurturing environment for the kids.
I've gleaned a number of things that people (mainly on this list) have
claimed to have been taught, at one time or another, at a Waldorf school:
Insects are related to plants;
The elements are earth, water, fire and air;
The heart not a pump, or circulatory system is described, but the role of
the heart is not explained;
Planets influence growth of plants;
Plants are like a man upside down;
Goethean vs Newtonian color theory;
The body is made up of the nerve-sense system, the metabolic-muscular
system, and the rhythmic system;
There are 12 senses, corresponding to signs of the zodiac;
There are four kingdoms of nature, mineral, plant, animal, and man;
Species were specially created, rather than evolving from one another, and
spiritual beings were the creators;
Left-handedness is a condition that should be "corrected;"
The "ancients" had powers and knowledge lost to us, such as alchemy and the
ability to see things outside the physical realm;
Religious mythology is taught as ancient history, or the theosophical
framework for ancient history is taught as fact;
The ancient Egyptians moved the huge, heavy, stone Pyramid blocks with sound
power;
That there is a relationship between the dactylic hexameter of Greek
epic/heroic poetry, as in the Odyssey, and the so-called "Platonic Year" (a
hypothesis by Plato and others about the precession of the equinoxes over
26,000 years) and the number of breaths/hearbeats in a day.
Does anyone have any other examples of Anthroposophic concepts being taught
to the children? Please be specific.
Thanks for your help.
-
Steve Premo "It's the job that's never started
Premo-Fine Family as takes longest to finish."
Santa Cruz, California -Hamfast "Gaffer" Gamgee
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n209 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n210 --------------
001 - Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: My email to Mr McKay
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 11:54:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Michael Kopp wrote:
>
> What about your public attacks on people?
"Mr. Kettle, there's a message for you from Mr. Pot!"
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n210.2 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: A Motion
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 00:26:21 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>
> Do I hear a second?
>
Here it is: I second the motion!
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 032 / 857.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n210.3 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: My email to Mr McKay
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 00:26:21 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Michael:
> Does that go for all of us who receive such strongly-worded email from you?
>
> What about your public attacks on people?
>
Lefty:
>"Mr. Kettle, there's a message for you from Mr. Pot!"
Michael, Lefty and all other's,
is there any way we can STOP this nonsense and go back to more
serious issues?
Perhaps it is time we _all_ COOL DOWN seriously!
Blessings to all
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 032 / 857.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n210.4 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy in curriculum
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 17:35:25 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Does anyone have any other examples of Anthroposophic concepts being taught
>to the children? Please be specific.
Well, there was a discussion awhile back about science being taught to
kindergartners. If I recall correctly, some teachers chose to say gnomes
pushed plants out of the earth rather than attempting to explain basic
botany. But I got the impression the gnomes business was not being used
universally--just something some teachers chose to do.
The discussion went on for sometime and I don't think I can accurately
reconstruct it. I'm not even sure if we came to any conclusions.
Also there has been all that business about not using black in the early
elementary grades.
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n210.5 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: The (Final) Mysterious "EL"
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 13:48:48 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Stephen Tonkin, having made an unreserved apology for his insulting posts
to David McKay (when you're exposed this badly the best offence is an
unreserved apology) ... proceeds to mount the typical damage control
operation, designed to say "I'm starting to regret having called you all
those names, but however, it was all true and you're really a nasty boy and
I don't want to play with you anyway!":
>Well. I've been trying to keep this sort of thing off the list, but
>since Mr McKay has insisted on making it public in a carefully edited
>(for simply verifiable examples note, for example, how what are
>obviously more recent "added notes" appear as quoted text; how the ">"s
>don't "add up" -- others are, regrettably, not so easily verifiable)
>post of private email:
>
>mckay oro.net writes:
>
>>Hello, everyone. The following is a reposting of things said to me both on
>>this list and privately by Stephen Tonkin about my accidental misspelling
>>of David Schlesinger's last name. The purpose of which is to show that 1)
>>reprisals _do_ happen,
>
>Exchange of harsh words is a _reprisal_?
>
>>and 2) if a person thinks and acts like this
>>towards someone else over such a simple mistake
>
>Er-- no-- over deliberate distortions...
Here we go again: unprovable innuendo on both counts. Say often enough that
white is black and it will become so.
>>and then can say: "... in
>>your case, I just enjoy baiting dumb animals."
>
>Oh well -- one of those throw-away sarcastic rejoinders which looks a
>lot worse in email than it does when I say it aloud, but I should have
>guessed would come back to haunt me --- c'est la vie. I'd have thought
>that even Mr McKay would have realised that it was obviously intended as
>such and that I don't _really_ enjoy baiting dumb animals and that I
>don't even _really_ think Mr McKay is an animal.
Boy, Tonkin is a real relativist. "Snide prick" was oh, so horrible
(despite the fact that its use was highly relevant, descriptively accurate,
and those words have classical meanings that were used to make a point, not
belittle or denigrate, despite Tonkin's squeals of outrage).
I have a hard time thinking that Mr Precision Tonkin, who loves adding up
the crossed I's and dotted T's in people posts to prove them guilty of
"distortion", makes any comments that one can call "throw-away sarcastic
rejoinders" that one shouldn't really think he means.
He means them all right. And he does indeed enjoy baiting people, many of
them intelligent and concerned and able to spot things they don't like and
to say why they don't like them. To Tonkin, as in the above paragraph, they
are all "dumb".
>However, I must admit it's somewhat embarrassing to have it published
>and I begin to wish I hadn't written it. One day I will learn that my
>peculiar brand of sarcastic wit just *doesn't* work by email (it's not
>the first time it's got me into trouble)!
Excuse me? Maybe I had best take back what I said at the top about Tonkin
making an "unreserved apology".
SOMEWHAT embarrassing? BEGIN to WISH he hadn't written it?
>> and "Tell me, are you really
>>as stupid as your posts suggest?",
I don't know McKay. But, from what I've seen here, he's probably just an
average guy, like me and lots of other critics on this list who are not
capable of the mental gymnastics of Tonkin and the other defenders of the
faith.
He's obvously a lousy typist. Maybe he's dyslexic? Maybe Tonkin should
offer him pity and get him some training at a Waldorf school for the
intellectually handicapped? (Sarcasm mode off, for those with defective
detectors.)
Maybe Tonkin should just get lost. He promised once, but keeps breaking
that promise. One wonders what he gets out of his continued flannelling of
his own and others' blatant attacks on their critics, rather than their
ideas. Perhaps he's being paid well by the Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy
international cartel?*
[Snip.]
>It still seems that the choice of interpetation is either stupidity (the
>more charitable assumption) or deliberate distortion of the truth to
>whatever suits Mr McKay's arguments.
Maybe it's just what it seems to me: confusion in keeping up with the
tirade of abuse and the multiplicity of posts dissecting his every post for
concordance/ discordance so you can pick over his bones like a vulture. As
a debater he's probably not in your league, Tonkin. But as a former debater
and debate judge, I'd give him points for addressing the issues, instead of
abusing the opponent.
[Snip.]
>I do, however, confess to bearing a thorough and unmitigated
>contempt for _adults_ who _deliberately_ lie and distort. That contempt
>does, as Mr McKay has revealed, lead me to making angry tirades which I
>probably shouldn't...
You haven't proved any of these assertions about McKay, Tonkin. Your
tortured logic and sums do not prove guilty intent, nor do they prove lies
or distortions. You turn imperfection into malice. Nice trick, sunshine.
[Snip.]
>... and, apologies if I've disillusioned anyone who thought I was above
>angry private email exchanges --
Your apologies ring hollow, Tonkin. You're patronising. And I for one was
never, from day one of seeing your postings, under any illusions about what
you were (or are) capable of. You and your ilk (hit me with the archaic OED
again, Tonkin) are dangerous**, and I don't take you lightly, as I said
when I was anonymous.
>WARNING: There's worse to come if Mr
>Kopp ever decides to go public with an occasion or three when I
>foolishly allowed myself to lose my temper with him by email ... :-)
Well, judging by the probing that's going on by your crowd into my private
affairs, I'm not surprised that you've taken to issuing naked threats --
even if they are accompanied by supercilious smileys.
footnotes:
* Comment intended humourously, and based on a couple of "homourous" posts
from defenders about supposed underground organisations they belong to. I'm
not seriously alleging any such thing.
** See my new post,
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n210.6 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: A Motion
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 13:48:53 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>I move that the following topics be moved off the list and into private e-mail:
>
>(1) Who said what to whom;
>(2) Whether -El should use a pseudonym;
>(3) Whether the critics of the Waldorf-critics are more obnoxious than the
>Waldorf-critics; and
>(4) Whether posts from this list have been improperly posted elsewhere.
>
>You guys can beat each other up all you want, I'm just tired of hearing
>about it.
>
Yes, it is tiresome, and I'm as tired as anyone else,
But this is not a democracy, any more than the mailing lists run by the
defenders of the faith are.
If you can get them to abide by your motion (they're getting pretty heavy
just at the moment, aren't they?) then so will I.
But as long as the defenders sling muck here, and unless I'm censored by
the list owner, I will go on slinging it back.
Exposing the dangerous, nasty, _snide_ HOW of the defenders' arguments is
as important as rebutting the WHAT.
There'd be precious little substance of argument on this list otherwise --
the number of criticism NOT addressed by the defenders is legion. They'd
rather play the player than the ball.
People who don't like it, and don't want to know , should get a kill file.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n210.7 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: My email to Mr McKay
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 13:48:57 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Michael Kopp wrote:
>>
>> What about your public attacks on people?
>
>"Mr. Kettle, there's a message for you from Mr. Pot!"
Looking at the latest escalation of the personal attacks to the _threat_ level:
Stephen Tonkin in his smarmy and unctuous re-attack on McKay:
"WARNING: There's worse to come if Mr
Kopp ever decides to go public with an occasion or three when I
foolishly allowed myself to lose my temper with him by email ... :-)"
I'd be careful about the associations created by the name "Pot", if I were you.
My answer to you is the same as my answer to Tonkin:
Well, judging by the probing that's going on by your crowd into my private
affairs, I'm not surprised that you've taken to issuing naked threats --
even if they are accompanied by supercilious smileys.
On the other hand, if he's really trying to be humourous, it falls like a
lead balloon, given the context.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n210.8 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Why it's necessary to argue.
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 13:49:03 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
A while back I received the following email from one of the defenders of
the faith (whose anonymity I have protected here). It was somwhat less
on-the-nose than some others I have received from this person. But I wanted
to share with the list my answer to my antagonist.
I think it's instructive about what we're engaged in here, and why it's
necessary to fight -- at whatever level and with whatever weapons they
choose, as well as the better weapons of REASON -- those defenders who
attack critical thinking and thinkers.
My correspondent quoted thusly:
>>In message , Michael Kopp
>> lied:
>>>This will be my last communication with you.
And I replied to him:
[Snip personal sarcasm.]
>
>To be honest, ----, the reason I engage you and the other defenders of the
>faith is that I think you are dangerous adherents to a completely bizarre
>and nominally harmless philosophy that is part of the rising tide of
>irrationality that threatens to swamp the world and which endangers my
>children and others.
>
>You are probably a pleasant, decent and unmalaevolent person, who would be
>nice to know -- just as many of the parents, teachers and founders of my
>school are on a personal level.
>
>But you are dangerous because your philosophy and educational model
>rejects rationalism in favour of spiritualism, and because you are so
>rabid in your attacks on people like me.
>
>A hundred years ago spiritualism was a curiosity, a rage of the uneducated
>(and some notable eminences in the world of science, literature and arts).
>It was dismissed. It has arisen again. It must be dismissed again.
>
>If I had the time (or inclination) to study your faith deeply I could
>argue better and be less subject to minor errors that you and your friends
>can make into bigger issues than the substance of the argument itself.
>(The attack by one of you on my use of "ilk" is illustrative). But I
>don't, and don't want to.
>
>We do need, however, new Clarence Darrows to answer your William Jennings
>Bryans.
>
>My rationality tells me to reject anything that has to be taken on faith.
>I don't need to understand the nuances of your faith to reject it. The
>outline and basic precepts are enough.
>
>I would not prevent you from adhering to whatever you wished to. But, like
>others, I think there is an element of stealth and disguise in the spread
>of that faith into secular affairs.
>
>That, and the general faculty of critical reason that inhabits most of us
>(not to mention the nose for an oddity that infects journalists), is
>enough reason to engage you and your friends openly in a critique of your
>cherished way of life. It's called freedom of thought and expression, and
>it's how the light of reason has triumphed.
>
>That light is dimming. Post-Enlightenment, post-Modern, "new-age" (read
>old and failed mysticism being revived) thinking is not critical thinking,
>and it's dangerous. I hope I can do a small -- if imperfect -- part in
>keeping the light of reason bright.
>
>I wish you no personal ill. I don't necessarily trust you or your friends,
>however. At the moment, I am aware that at least one of you is probing my
>affairs in a very personal way. What will one of you do next? I am still
>wary for my kids' sake, and I still believe that's with good reason.
>
>I doubt that we will ever be able to dialogue in good faith. Part of the
>reason for that is that [the defenders] have learned defence mechanisms
>that are so subtly subversive and manipulative, and at the same time so
>goading (the outing of my anonymity is a case in point) that [the
>defenders] are perhaps not even conscious of them [themselves]. You employ
>them much as any creature does: reflexively.
>
>I don't think there's much point in ... arguing ... about the above,
>privately or publicly. I don't know why I'm telling you this; one does not
>usually open oneself to an enemy -- and I think you and your friends are
>an enemy of me and my way of life. You seem to have a lot more time for
>this than do I. I have to get on with dealing with my personal issues with
>my kids' educations. Maybe when that's decided, I'll have more time for
>you and your friends.
>
>See you on the list.
Footnotes for WC list readers: I've decided to make time now. And my
characterisation of the defenders as the "enemy" is perhaps unnecessarily
strong for my correspondent and his ilk; I do not think
Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy threatens the world. It has its good points,
as I've continued to admit and make use of. But it is a part of a larger
return to irrationality that DOES threaten our world, yours and mine.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n210.9 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: My email to Mr McKay
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 13:49:07 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Peter Schwab quotes:
>Michael:
>> Does that go for all of us who receive such strongly-worded email from you?
>>
>> What about your public attacks on people?
>>
>
>Lefty:
>>"Mr. Kettle, there's a message for you from Mr. Pot!"
And SCHWAB says:
>Michael, Lefty and all other's,
>
>is there any way we can STOP this nonsense and go back to more
>serious issues?
>
>Perhaps it is time we _all_ COOL DOWN seriously!
>
>Blessings to all
>
>+peter+
Probably not, given that the following type of gratuitous threats and
insults (thinkly veiled with supercilious smileys to make us think they're
a joke) are likely to continue from the defenders of the faith:
"... and, apologies if I've disillusioned anyone who thought I was above
angry private email exchanges -- WARNING: There's worse to come if Mr
Kopp ever decides to go public with an occasion or three when I
foolishly allowed myself to lose my temper with him by email ... :-)
--
Stephen Tonkin "
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n210.10 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: A Motion
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 14:18:16 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Steve Premo said:
>I move that the following topics be moved off the list and into private e-mail:
>
[Snip]
>(2) Whether -El should use a pseudonym;
[Snip, snip, snip]
Umm, I think that one already went West (I haven't even seen it in private
email for a while).
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n210 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n211 --------------
001 - Steve Premo - Re: A Motion
005 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Re: Nyaah, Nyaah, Nyaah! (was: Why It's Necessary to Argue)
006 - "Neil Faiman" - Query
008 - Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: A Motion
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 17:17:38 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 01:48 PM 11/21/96 +1200, Michael Kopp wrote:
>>I move that the following topics be moved off the list and into private
e-mail:
>>
>>(1) Who said what to whom;
>>(2) Whether -El should use a pseudonym;
>>(3) Whether the critics of the Waldorf-critics are more obnoxious than the
>>Waldorf-critics; and
>>(4) Whether posts from this list have been improperly posted elsewhere.
>
>If you can get them to abide by your motion (they're getting pretty heavy
>just at the moment, aren't they?) then so will I.
OK, Mr. Kopp will move it to email if Mr. Tonkin, et al., will do the same.
How about it, kids?
>But as long as the defenders sling muck here, and unless I'm censored by
>the list owner, I will go on slinging it back.
Dan did gently point out a while back that the list should be about
discussing Waldorf education and anthroposophy, rather than about
mud-slinging, although his point seemed to go right over some people's
heads. Sorry, I didn't keep the post and can't give an exact quote.
But his welcome message says:
>Please keep on the topic of Waldorf schools and Anthroposophy. Some people
>pay by the message and will be unhappy to receive off-topic mail.
> . . .
>The writers of messages bear all responsibility for their content. If
>something bothers you, say so publicly or in private mail to the writer.
>Dan Dugan provides this unmoderated list as a public forum, and will not
>censor messages or ban a subscriber unless repeated public complaints from
other
>subsribers are ineffective in controlling offensive postings.
Dan's not going to censor you, but he did invite people who are bothered by
off-topic postings to complain. Hopefully, that will help control it. Only
after repeated complaints will he act. So I'm acting.
A lot of off-topic mail has been generated, most of it boring, and much of
it obnoxious. It bothers me, and I'm saying so publicly.
As far as I can see, it makes everyone who participates in such stuff look
childish.
>People who don't like it, and don't want to know , should get a kill file.
I don't want to put you in a kill file, Michael, you have a lot of
interesting things to say when you stay on-topic.
-
Steve Premo "It's the job that's never started
Premo-Fine Family as takes longest to finish."
Santa Cruz, California -Hamfast "Gaffer" Gamgee
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n211.2 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com (Robert Flannery)
Subject: Re: The (Final) Mysterious "EL"
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 21:21:50 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Michael Kopp:
>Well, judging by the probing that's going on by your crowd into my private
>affairs, I'm not surprised that you've taken to issuing naked threats --
>even if they are accompanied by supercilious smileys.
I count three messages in two hours from you which allege "probing" by
"Tonkin's crowd". . .what are you talking about?
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n211.3 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com (Robert Flannery)
Subject: Nyaah, Nyaah, Nyaah! (was: Why It's Necessary to Argue)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 21:21:46 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Michael Kopp begins:
>I think it's instructive about what we're engaged in here, and why it's
>necessary to fight -- at whatever level and with whatever weapons they
>choose, as well as the better weapons of REASON -- those defenders who
>attack critical thinking and thinkers.
"The better weapons of REASON" are brandished as Kopp continues:
>I doubt that we will ever be able to dialogue in good faith. Part of the
>reason for that is that [the defenders] have learned defence mechanisms
>that are so subtly subversive and manipulative, and at the same time so
>goading (the outing of my anonymity is a case in point) that [the
>defenders] are perhaps not even conscious of them [themselves]. You employ
>them much as any creature does: reflexively.
One could just as easily argue that "the critics have learned mechanisms
that are so subtly subversive and manipulative and goading (the nasty
private email by Stephen Tonkin is a case in point) that the critics are
not even conscious of them themselves."
>>I don't think there's much point in ... arguing ... about the above,
>>privately or publicly.
This sentiment crops up a lot lately, but I see no sign of traffic
diminishing in the topics listed in Premo's motion.
>I do not think
>Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy threatens the world. It has its good points,
>as I've continued to admit and make use of. But it is a part of a larger
>return to irrationality that DOES threaten our world, yours and mine.
Yes, as long as both sides engage in "nyaah, nyaah, nyaah", we are part of
a larger return to irrationality.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n211.4 ---------------
From: {~_~}
Subject: Re: A Motion
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 18:40:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Michael Kopp wrote:
> People who don't like it, and don't want to know , should get a kill file.
Could you please instruct me how one might find such a file?
Thank You
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n211.5 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Nyaah, Nyaah, Nyaah! (was: Why It's Necessary to Argue)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 16:09:09 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Robert Flannery, quick off the mark to reply to Michael Kopp:
>Yes, as long as both sides engage in "nyaah, nyaah, nyaah", we are part of
>a larger return to irrationality.
Aahhh, but OUR side's "nyaah, nyaah, nyaah" is rational, where THEIR side's
is _irrational_.
Seriously, I think the difference is that the critics attack the
_substance_ of the faithful's position more cogently and more often than
the defenders manage of the critics. The critics play the ball, the
defenders play the man without actually addressing the ball, so the critics
have to come down to the defenders' level and play the man back. (That's
politics; and make no mistake, this discussion is about politics.)
My first impression of this list, which was confirmed over the six months
in which I "lurked" before contributing, was that the defenders preferred
manning the ramparts and pouring the boiling oil on the opponents instead
of countering their criticism with facts and reason, rather than denial,
attack, cant and belief.
That imbalance looks to continue.
You want a high-toned discussion? Get the defenders to forego playing the
man, and actually answer the criticisms without slanging at the critics.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n211.6 ---------------
From: "Neil Faiman"
Subject: Re: The (Final) Mysterious "EL"
Date: 20 Nov 96 22:39:53 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Michael Kopp states:
> Stephen Tonkin, having made an unreserved apology for his insulting
> posts
> to David McKay (when you're exposed this badly the best offence is an
> unreserved apology) ... proceeds to mount the typical damage control
> operation, [. . .]
and then quotes at considerable length from Stephen Tonkin's mail message
"The (Final) Mysterious 'EL'" to demonstrate the insincerity of Stephen's
apology.
I suppose that mail propagation delays account for Michael's error,
although a quick look at the mail headers would have corrected it.
Stephen's unreserved apology in "My email to Mr McKay" was sent out
approximately seven hours *after* his grudging remarks in "The (Final)
Mysterious 'EL'". This is borne out by Stephen's introductory sentence in
his apology: "Having had more time to reflect on Mr McKay's posting of my
private email, I would like to say the following:".
In short, Stephen's apology clearly antedates and supersedes his other
comments, and is obviously the product of his own recoognition of the
inadequacy of those comments.
Now that we have *all* been caught with our pants down once or twice, is it
too much to hope that we could all adopt Steve Premo's motion?
-Neil Faiman
p.s. Michael Kopp's same message also contains the following, which I
believe is a much more serious misunderstanding:
(quoting Tonkin):
> >WARNING: There's worse to come if Mr
> >Kopp ever decides to go public with an occasion or three when I
> >foolishly allowed myself to lose my temper with him by email ... :-)
(Kopp):
> Well, judging by the probing that's going on by your crowd into my
> private
> affairs, I'm not surprised that you've taken to issuing naked threats --
> even if they are accompanied by supercilious smileys.
It appears that Michael reads Stephen's comments as a threat of some sort
of retaliation if Michael commits the offense of publishing the mail he has
received from Setphen. If you reread Stephen's comment in context, I
believe that you will see that it is saying the exact opposite -- that its
meaning is a distinctly rueful "If you were shocked by the revelation of my
email to Mr McKay, be prepared for a worse shock if Mr Kopp ever chooses to
publish my mail to him." It isn't a threat: it's a tacit confession.
(Stephen, please correct me if I am wrong.) -nf
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n211.7 ---------------
From: {~_~}
Subject: Query
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 19:46:26 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Dear Michael Kopp,
Could you please explain to me what you mean by "defenders of the
faith"?
Who are these "defenders"?
and ...
Who are the people who label others on this list as the "defenders"?
Thank You
-El
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n211.8 ---------------
From: Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: My email to Mr McKay
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 21:56:14 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Michael Kopp wrote:
> >On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Michael Kopp wrote:
> >>
> >> What about your public attacks on people?
> >
> >"Mr. Kettle, there's a message for you from Mr. Pot!"
>
> Looking at the latest escalation of the personal attacks to the _threat_ level:
>
> Stephen Tonkin in his smarmy and unctuous re-attack on McKay:
>
> "WARNING: There's worse to come if Mr
> Kopp ever decides to go public with an occasion or three when I
> foolishly allowed myself to lose my temper with him by email ... :-)"
Threat? _Threat_?!
That wasn't a threat, Mr. Kopp. It was a rueful admission,
specifically that Stephen felt he had said things to you that he would
find at least as embarassing to have repeated as he did to Mr. McKay.
> I'd be careful about the associations created by the name "Pot", if I were you.
I have to admit, I'm at a complete loss as to what you are trying to
communicate, Mr. Kopp. Actually, that may not be such a great loss.
See, there's this expression that I think the vast bulk of
English-speaking people are familiar with: "the pot calling the kettle
black". It relates to hypocrisy, like, for instance, someone who has
been at the forefront of name-calling and insults berating someone
else about "public attacks".
> My answer to you is the same as my answer to Tonkin:
>
> Well, judging by the probing that's going on by your crowd into my private
> affairs, I'm not surprised that you've taken to issuing naked threats --
> even if they are accompanied by supercilious smileys.
What on earth are you talking about, Mr. Kopp? I certainly haven't
the least interest in your "private affairs", I assure you. And no
one "issued a naked threat". You're frankly starting to sound rather
paranoid.
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n211.9 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Warning:Tonkin's attack on McKay (delete is an option)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 22:33:43 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Michael Kopp says,
[snip]
>You want a high-toned discussion? Get the defenders to forego playing the
>man, and actually answer the criticisms without slanging at the critics.
Deby says,
Religious issues fall close to the heart if you are a defender. After all,
spiritual belief is _not_ science. Nothing can _ever_ be proven.
The visciouness and content of the defense concerns me. I am still looking
for more anthroposophists like El, who _allow_ people their differences,
without attacking the person. I have, for years, heard about
Anthroposophists like him, and finally have met one. Stephen Tonkin's
"debate" style is more the norm than the exception, in _my_ experience. It
is so ugly.
David McKay is a sincere and intellegent human being. He is also sensitive
to the all-to-familiar Anthroposophic attacks on his character. He recently
purchased a used computer that came with no instructions. He has _never_
used a computer, and has not typed much. So what. That does not make him
dumb. It may contribute to less articulate answers due to his typing
skills. Stephen Tonkin's mean spirited attack kept him awake at night. It
is similar to post-traumatic stress syndrom.
He has been visciously attacked at Twin Ridges School for stupid things One
incident I distinctly remember was the public and private attack made on
him because he did not not match his wet on wet painting to his partners as
instructed [during a school vision meeting]. No consideration was given
that he had _never_ painted using the wet on wet tecnique before, and his
partners on both sides were wet-on-wet painting teachers.(Where was _their_
responsibility to match _their_ partner ? They were given the same
instructions, and had the greater skill.)
But did they speak to him about it ? NO. They called his wife to tell her
he was not a team player, and questioned whether they should allow him to
continue the "priviledge" of participation. His wife got very angry at him,
and it caused _great_ family friction. These pictures, drawn by about 12
of us participating in the "vision" work, were hung, side by side in the
front office. Many parents commented on the beauty of these pictures hung
side by side. But each time, the secretary would point out how David's
picture "did not match". Luckily, most people disagreed, even after having
it pointed out by him. David had to insist his wife view his picture
herself before she let up on him. (When she saw it, she was angry with the
faculty person who called her to complain.)
This is _one_ example off the top of my head, and I hope I remembered it
correctly. It is not the worst I can think of that I witnessed happen to
David -and- other families who refused to check our critical thinking
skills at the door, but it is an adequate example of reprisal. Tonkin's
attack deeply affected him. I hope Tonkin's apology was sincere. I found
the attack sickening, and encouraged him to publically print it for
documentation purposes. It simply reinforces that reprisals do happen. And
our file is thicker than I ever hoped it would be.
Verifiable, Stephen asks ? Maybe not, but most people recognise the truth,
spoken from the heart.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n211.10 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: The (Final) Mysterious "EL"
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 05:07:58 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Neil Faiman writes
>If you reread Stephen's comment in context, I
>believe that you will see that it is saying the exact opposite -- that its
>meaning is a distinctly rueful "If you were shocked by the revelation of my
>email to Mr McKay, be prepared for a worse shock if Mr Kopp ever chooses to
>publish my mail to him." It isn't a threat: it's a tacit confession.
>(Stephen, please correct me if I am wrong.) -nf
You are correct -- that is *exactly* what I meant.
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n211 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n212 --------------
001 - "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Conclusions
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 12:33:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Dear Friends, Critics and "Defenders of the faith" ;-),
I believe it is time to settle down and to draw some conclusions on
the past discussions. This should help to remove misunderstandings
and bad feelings and to begin a new, hopefully more constructive
discussion.
I am sorry that Deby told us only now about what happened to David in
his school. To say it clearly: I do not endorse the behaviour of the
teacher's college and I am shocked by the story you told! What the
college did has imnsho nothing to do with anthroposophy or waldorf
education. I our teachers would start with nonsense like that, I
would get _very_ upset about it!
The teachers in your description lack all the moral and human
qualities which I believe to be the essence of anthroposophy and
which I want my children to aquire by attending a waldorf school.
Twin Ridges is definitly not a waldorf school according to my
definition.
We have diverging opinions in our school, and we do certainly not all
agree on a number of things. But we would never engage in this kind
of childish mobbing which seems to go on in Deby's and David's
school. I wish both of you that you will find the strenght to overcome
the bad feelings you got.
Experiences like those do naturally explain the often bitter tone used
by Deby and David. If I would have known earlier, I would have tried
to explain that what they experienced is not the kind of waldorf
education or anthroposophical philosophy I do defend, quite on the
contrary.
This is what Stephen tried to do all the time, speacking from his
perspective as a waldorf teacher. Unfortunately his good faith was
denied by a lot a waldorf critics, due to their bad experiences. I
do not think that he would endorse blindly what was going on at Twin
Ridges and what happened to David with the "wet-in-wet-mobbing".
Stephen is the prototype of a european waldorf teacher and I would be
delighted to have him teach my children (How about a move to the swiss
jura mountains, Stephen. We can offer the usual low wages of private
swiss waldorf schools and plenty of unpaied extra work hours :-)).
Dear friends, there _is_ a waldorf education which is different from
what you have experienced and there is more that an ocean seperating
an US-Waldorf-Charter-School from a Swiss Rudolf Steiner School or
from a Freie Waldorfschule in Germany.
Part of my mistake is that I failed to believe the stories you told
us. I discarded them as "typical waldorf-critics horror-stories". I
made the same error in the other way, I did not see that your school
was not comparable to ours. So I mistakenly juged your experiences
with my values and this did no good.
I believe that a lot of heat was generated by the fact that we are in
the middle a two contradictionary ways to see the world. One the one
side the defenders of the rationalistic, straight-scientific
approach, on the other side the defenders of the faith (I like the
definition) into a more human, moral and ,yes, _spiritual_ way.
Both parts may have their part of the truth. One certainly needs the
other to exist. The difficulty is to find a common ground to discuss.
Unfortunatly I feel that we travel on very parallel tracks and that
the crossings are rare and distant. In fact, the "rationalist's"
reasoning is often understood or mis-understood by the
"spiritualist" as being a personal attack. And vice-vesa.
The only thing we can agree upon today is that we quite often
disagree. But who is right or wrong only the future can tell. But, as
Voltaire said: "You need it all to make a world!"
If you allow me a very personal comment here, the "rationalist's"
dogmatic, strictly scientific view of the world frightens me. It's is
to me like "Brave new world" and "1984" revisited. I think you cannot
explain _everything_ with scientific reason. And not _all_ problems
can be solved with abstract scientific means.
As to Michael's use of language, I came to the conviction that he is
probably not so much after slinging insults that I believed in the
beginning. I now think he just uses the kind of language currentyl used
in New Zealand. So what I believed to be insults are probably just a
cultural difference between "up-over" and "down-under". Seen
under this angle it is possible to read his posts without risking a
heart attack. :-)
Blessings and peace to all of you
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 032 / 857.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n212.2 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Query
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 01:16:02 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
"Mysterious" ~_~ ("-El") writes:
>Dear Michael Kopp,
> Could you please explain to me what you mean by "defenders of the
>faith"?
>
>Who are these "defenders"?
The knee-jerk reactionaries who blindly support what I believe is an occult
religion-like movement which goes by the names
Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy.
It's another of my neologismic shorthandles, arrived at after my first one
(SteinDorfPops) was called religious bigotry by one or more of the offended
faithful.
>and ...
>
>Who are the people who label others on this list as the "defenders"?
Sorry, I don't understand this one. I'm the only one I know who uses the
term "defenders". Can you frame your question more clearly and fully,
please?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n212.3 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: The (Final) Mysterious "EL"
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 01:16:09 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Neil Faiman writes
>>If you reread Stephen's comment in context, I
>>believe that you will see that it is saying the exact opposite -- that its
>>meaning is a distinctly rueful "If you were shocked by the revelation of my
>>email to Mr McKay, be prepared for a worse shock if Mr Kopp ever chooses to
>>publish my mail to him." It isn't a threat: it's a tacit confession.
>>(Stephen, please correct me if I am wrong.) -nf
>
>You are correct -- that is *exactly* what I meant.
Given the possible error I made in reading the sequence of Tonkin's
messages (or the possible propagation problem I missed), I regret going on
at such length and seeming so paranoid. Read Neil Faiman's post about
querying my ISP, and my reply, and my reactions to Tonkins posts may seem
more reasonable. And consider that it really makes little difference to the
hurt caused McKay whether Tonkin apologised first, then attacked, or
attacked first and then apologised.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n212.4 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: My email to Mr McKay
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 01:16:12 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Lefty Redux (or whoever he is and however he spells his name -- can I query
his ISP?) jumps into the fray over Stephen Tonkin's treatment of David
Mckay and Michael Kopp:
>On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Michael Kopp wrote:
[Snip -- it's all in several other posts, why repeat it?]
>Threat? _Threat_?!
>
>That wasn't a threat, Mr. Kopp. It was a rueful admission,
>specifically that Stephen felt he had said things to you that he would
>find at least as embarassing to have repeated as he did to Mr. McKay.
See my other posts in response to Neil Faiman to see just how reasonable my
interpretation was under the circumstances.
>What on earth are you talking about, Mr. Kopp? I certainly haven't
>the least interest in your "private affairs", I assure you. And no
>one "issued a naked threat". You're frankly starting to sound rather
>paranoid.
See Neil Faiman's post relating his avowedly innocent querying of my ISP
and you may understand why it is often said that if one feels paranoid, it
usually means someone's out to get you.
I have expressed regret for jumping all over Tonkin when he apparently was
eating humble pie (in regard to _me_, no less, which made it seem even less
likely to be real), and I have accepted Neil Faiman's assurances that his
query to my ISP was innocent.
What more do you want, sunshine?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n212.5 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Conclusions
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 01:16:16 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Peter Schwab says:
>Dear Friends, Critics and "Defenders of the faith" ;-),
>
>I believe it is time to settle down and to draw some conclusions on
>the past discussions. This should help to remove misunderstandings
>and bad feelings and to begin a new, hopefully more constructive
>discussion.
[Snip.]
>I believe that a lot of heat was generated by the fact that we are in
>the middle a two contradictionary ways to see the world. One the one
>side the defenders of the rationalistic, straight-scientific
>approach, on the other side the defenders of the faith (I like the
>definition) into a more human, moral and ,yes, _spiritual_ way.
You imply that rationalism and science are less human and is less moral (we
can agree it is not spiritual). Why? What evidence?
[Snip.]
>If you allow me a very personal comment here, the "rationalist's"
>dogmatic, strictly scientific view of the world frightens me. It's is
>to me like "Brave new world" and "1984" revisited. I think you cannot
>explain _everything_ with scientific reason. And not _all_ problems
>can be solved with abstract scientific means.
1. Rationalism and science are not dogmatic; they are skeptical enquiry
requiring tangible proof.
2. I for one never said science "can" explain everything; what I have said
is that I think that all phenomena we perceive will in time be amenable to
scientific explanation. It may be a _very_ long time; we've only been at it
rationally for about 500 years, while we have about 20,000 years of
supersitition to overcome. In the meantime, I prefer to eschew belief
systems.
3. By all means we need to use our hearts and so far indefinable human
"spirit" (what makes us self-conscious in mind, not "spiritual") to solve
our problems. And one of them is that our ability to control our leaps of
intellect has been less than our ability to create things that can be
misused. (I must say it is very hard to imagine what possible proper use
there can have been for inventing the atomic bomb, which ruled my childhood
and 30 of my 40 years of adulthood.)
4. The two greatest mysteries of our existence -- the beginning of all, and
just where and what is the mind -- may never be solved by any means. As
Gertrude Stein once was reported to have said: "There ain't no answer.
There ain't never been any answer. There ain't never going to be any
answer. That's the answer." Of course, it's also reported that she said:
"What's the question?"
>As to Michael's use of language, I came to the conviction that he is
>probably not so much after slinging insults that I believed in the
>beginning. I now think he just uses the kind of language currentyl used
>in New Zealand. So what I believed to be insults are probably just a
>cultural difference between "up-over" and "down-under". Seen
>under this angle it is possible to read his posts without risking a
>heart attack. :-)
Well, I'd hate to think I caused anyone a heart attack. Now, apoplexy,
that's cool. You think Kiwi's are blunt, you should try the Aussies!
>Blessings and peace to all of you
>
>+peter+
Charmed, I'm sure. And rationality be with you, too, my friend.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n212.6 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: A Motion
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 05:35:33 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Steve Premo writes
>OK, Mr. Kopp will move it to email if Mr. Tonkin, et al., will do the same.
I do try -- but it comes back on the list...
Hauntedly,
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n212.7 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: My email to Mr McKay
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 13:58:18 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Dear Michael,
you said
>
> See Neil Faiman's post relating his avowedly innocent querying of my ISP
> and you may understand why it is often said that if one feels paranoid, it
> usually means someone's out to get you.
>
I cannot find such a message.
Did I miss something?
????
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 032 / 857.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n212.8 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Conclusions
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 14:24:40 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Dear Michael,
>
> You imply that rationalism and science are less human and is less moral (we
> can agree it is not spiritual). Why? What evidence?
>
Not "less", _different_. I did not intend to give any judgement of value
here. Rationalism and science are just as important, but not more
important that a spiritual, human and moral approach in the
anthroposophical sense. But this is my conception, your's may be
different.
>
> 1. Rationalism and science are not dogmatic; they are skeptical enquiry
> requiring tangible proof.
Agreed, but if you relying only on those makes ist "dogmatic". But
this is my opinion and I may be wrong, just as any human.
>
> 2. I for one never said science "can" explain everything; what I have said
> is that I think that all phenomena we perceive will in time be amenable to
> scientific explanation. It may be a _very_ long time; we've only been at it
> rationally for about 500 years, while we have about 20,000 years of
> supersitition to overcome. In the meantime, I prefer to eschew belief
> systems.
I think that science is a bit older than 500 years. And Sokrates,
Platon and Aristoteles, just to name a few, certainly deserve the
title of "scientific" in their time. And then think about the
non-european civilisations.
>
> 3. By all means we need to use our hearts and so far indefinable human
> "spirit" (what makes us self-conscious in mind, not "spiritual") to solve
> our problems. And one of them is that our ability to control our leaps of
> intellect has been less than our ability to create things that can be
> misused. (I must say it is very hard to imagine what possible proper use
> there can have been for inventing the atomic bomb, which ruled my childhood
> and 30 of my 40 years of adulthood.)
I think what you call "self-conscious in mind" comes pretty close to
Rudolf Steiner's spirituality in "Philosophy of Freedom". I hope this
does not scare you.
>
> 4. The two greatest mysteries of our existence -- the beginning of all, and
> just where and what is the mind -- may never be solved by any means. As
> Gertrude Stein once was reported to have said: "There ain't no answer.
> There ain't never been any answer. There ain't never going to be any
> answer. That's the answer." Of course, it's also reported that she said:
> "What's the question?"
"What's the question?" I like it, this is probably the question we
should ask far _more_ often that we did.
In the absence of any definitive answer, I feel all options and
theories are equally valid, including anthroposophy.
>
> Well, I'd hate to think I caused anyone a heart attack. Now, apoplexy,
> that's cool. You think Kiwi's are blunt, you should try the Aussies!
>
You mean, there can be _worse_????
>
> Charmed, I'm sure. And rationality be with you, too, my friend.
>
And I may even have use for it.
Have a nice day
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 032 / 857.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n212.9 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: My email to Mr McKay
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 03:18:35 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Dear Michael,
>
>you said
>>
>> See Neil Faiman's post relating his avowedly innocent querying of my ISP
>> and you may understand why it is often said that if one feels paranoid, it
>> usually means someone's out to get you.
>>
>
>I cannot find such a message.
>
>Did I miss something?
>
>????
No, I did. And my only excuse (poor one at that) is that it's the middle of
the night here in the Antipodes, and I haven't been looking closely at
every header in a large number of emails.
You won't find such a post from Neil Faiman because it was personal email to me.
I replied to that personal mail as if it were a list mail, thinking
everyone would see it. (I do not use the digest feature for this list, but
receive each post individually, because it is such an active list and
people post round the clock.) I didn't notice that the messsage, when sent,
did not go to the list but to that individual. (Wouldn't have done any good
-- you can't retrieve them!)
Then I wrote several other posts for the list, and mentioned the private
subject in them as if everyone knew the whole story. (The email was an
assurance that I was not being attacked, one that I accepted.) In view of
the current round of mea culpas, I did not think it unusual that the email
was revelatory of an act that I thought unacceptable. In fact, because the
author had previously been up-front with public apologies for other
actions, I thought it in character.
Now I've gone and done accidentally what Stephen Tonkin says I and others
(like David McKay) do on purpose, quote private emails. My apologies. (This
is not to condemn David Mckay; I thought he was right in what he did.) I
made a mistake.
Will everyone please leave this remark about Neil Faiman's post about his
actions to die, and not exacerbate my error by rubbing it in. Faiman will
be the only one who can tell that I mean this and it was an error, because
he will see that the tone of my letter to him -- which only he received --
reads like a public post, not a private letter.
Of course, he is free to give me permission to repost my letter to him here.
And I'll go get some uneasy sleep and try to read closer next time.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n212.10 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Conclusions
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 03:18:40 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Peter Schwab says:
>Dear Michael,
>
>>
>I think that science is a bit older than 500 years. And Sokrates,
>Platon and Aristoteles, just to name a few, certainly deserve the
>title of "scientific" in their time. And then think about the
>non-european civilisations.
Rationalist science is only as old as Galileo (favourite of Steiner
lessons). And the Greeks may have been scientists, yes, but rationalists,
I'd be less certain. All believed in gods.
>
>I think what you call "self-conscious in mind" comes pretty close to
>Rudolf Steiner's spirituality in "Philosophy of Freedom". I hope this
>does not scare you.
Well, I haven't read it, but I doubt that I would agree with anything that
equates what I'm talking about with something ethereally, mystically
spiritual. It does not scare me in the least, it's just not rational,
therefore not my cup of tea.
>
>>
>> 4. The two greatest mysteries of our existence -- the beginning of all, and
>> just where and what is the mind -- may never be solved by any means. As
>> Gertrude Stein once was reported to have said: "There ain't no answer.
>> There ain't never been any answer. There ain't never going to be any
>> answer. That's the answer." Of course, it's also reported that she said:
>> "What's the question?"
>
>"What's the question?" I like it, this is probably the question we
>should ask far _more_ often that we did.
>
>In the absence of any definitive answer, I feel all options and
>theories are equally valid, including anthroposophy.
Well, I've said I (and all other rationalist scientists) could be proved
wrong tomorrow by the appearance of some supernatural force or being that
gave evidence in front of our eyes that we were wrong (gosh, wouldn't that
make IT rationalist and scientific, too?). I could be struck down dead by
"God" for blasphemy. I just doubt it.
The difference is that science DOES provide definitive answers, in the form
of tangible evidence and repeatable experimental proof, whereas ALL other
belief systems may provide "answers" and "theories" that satisfy only
adherents and initiates and acolytes. Because Steiner (or anyone else) says
it is so, and because I am able to arrive at an inner belief in its
rightness, is not the same as skeptical, critical thought that demands
proof.
I also need to repeat that everyone is entitled to believe anything they want.
The issue here, once again, is not freedom of belief, but whether MY
children should be educated by one system or the other, and whether the
Steiner/Waldorf/ Anthroposophy system should be used in public schools, and
whether it has honestly represented itself to prospective parents.
Thanks for the cordial engagement.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n212 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n213 --------------
001 - Linda Hoffman
Subject: Re: Conclusions
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 14:56:58 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Peter,
>Stephen is the prototype of a european waldorf teacher and I would be
>delighted to have him teach my children (How about a move to the swiss
>jura mountains, Stephen. We can offer the usual low wages of private
>swiss waldorf schools and plenty of unpaied extra work hours :-)).
Sorry - if Stephen is emigrating, I have dibs on him for my children; I
asked years ago. He'd much prefer the US, anyway. (Except maybe the
chocolate, but I could order that by mail.) I'd let him use my telescope,
even.
Linda
********I go back to my old email addresses as of November 29, 1996.
and **************************
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n213.2 ---------------
From: Linda Hoffman
Subject: Re: Warning:Tonkin's attack on McKay (delete is an option)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 14:57:02 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hello!
>Deby says,
>Religious issues fall close to the heart if you are a defender.
If this was merely a religious issue, I don't think we'd see the hot blood
we are seeing. We are discussing something much more important (to most of
us) - our children.
This list seems to me to be geared to parents who have had bad experiences
in and are disillusioned with Waldorf education, which I don't think anyone
denies has its faults. (Anyone who has found a flawless form of education,
contact me directly - a substantial finder's fee will be arranged.)
However, I also do not think it surprising that parents whose chidren are
having excellent educational experiences in a Waldorf school would be
extremely offended by those who claim Waldorf is some sort of cult.
Since the discussion on this list tends to be of Waldorf as a values
choice, I don't see that the purposeless argument can possibly end. Who
does not want to defend the choices one has made for her/his children, in
either direction? I do not doubt that people have had genuinely awful
experiences at Waldorf schools, and I do not doubt that people have had
wonderful experiences. In the end, we each have to make our own choices,
based on our individual situations.
>After all,
>spiritual belief is _not_ science. Nothing can _ever_ be proven.
An excellent point, Deby. Nothing can _ever_ be proven, even though many
of us have spent much of our lives amassing evidence about one thing or
another. Aren't the limitations of science interesting and challenging?
Linda Hoffman
********I go back to my old email addresses as of November 29, 1996.
and **************************
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n213.3 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Reprinted with permission !!
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:47:45 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 07:41:51 -0800
>From: Phillip Folkler
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: snell oro.net
>Subject: Re: Intro, random thoughts
Phillip Folkler printed an introduction on the Waldorf list which was a
direct message to the critics. He kindly allowed me to re-print his message
to _this_ list. After all, it seems it was intended for _us_.
Deby
Phillip Folker writes WC a message at the end of his introduction to the
Waldorf list...
[snip]
For all of the lurking WE critics, get a life. WE is a PRIVATE
>> >school (99% anyway). So if you don't like it, find Anthroposphy to be
>> >"cultish"/a religion/or whatever, send your kids somewhere else and stop
>> >sending your local WE school $$. I have read many, many pages of
>> >sometimes vitupritive statements by those opposed to WE. Some under the
>> >guise of keeping public schools from becoming 'secratarian'... Hogwash.
>> >In those cases where the WE model has been considered for public schools,
>> >it would be voluntary -- so again -- don't send your kids there.
>> >(No kids, no public money.) Obviously, if you are considering private
>> >schooling (with tuition) for your kids, you already consider the public
>> >schools less than optimal. So if they start experimenting with other
>> >approaches, even if "wrong ones" to start with, perhaps they will find a
>> >better solution than the current one eventually. And even if they don't,
>> >they are already wasting our tax money anyway on some arguably
>> >secratarian beliefs anyway.
>> >
>> > If this has become too argumentative, I trust you will let me
>> >know, Lefty. In any case, this is all I have to say to the WE critics.
>> >Those who have criticisms to discuss, I am more than interested in what
>> >you have to say. (After all, nothing is perfect, not even WE.)
>> >
>> >Good luck to all,
>> >
>> >phil
>
>(Note added to first posting, responding to my request to repost)
>Feel Free. I must say, on rereading it, I wish I had done more than dash
>off a few thoughts and hit send... The grammar is a bit lacking, not to
>mention the spelling... But then, I went to public school. ;)
>
>By the by, I have read much on the web contra-WE, and I am NOT a WE "True
>Believer", though I am investigating WE for my kids. But enrollment would
>not be for 2 or 3 years for the oldest, so I have time to read Steiner,
>visit local schools several times, etc, ad nauseum.
>
>My iritation (ie get a life...) comes from the more general, actually. To
>many folks waste (IMNSHO) a lot of time and energy being "against"
>something, rather than "for" something. Sent your kids to a Waldorf
>School? You were a Waldorf "true believer"? Got disillusioned? Form an
>anti-Waldorf focus group... Wouldn't it be better to spend the time and
>$$ educating your children, planting a garden, or learning something new?
>It is not like WE is spitting out Nazis or illiterate boobs. It certainly
>doesn't do any worse than the public schools, and I'll bet you would find
>WE graduates do (statistically) significantly better on standardized
>tests... Though that would be because of their parents, again IMNSHO.
>
>Feel Free to post the rest of this as well. Might as well be hanged for a
>sheep as a lamb...
>
>Phil
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n213.4 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Warning:Tonkin's attack on McKay (delete is an option)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:45:46 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Linda Hoffman writes:
>Hello!
>
>>Deby says,
>
>>Religious issues fall close to the heart if you are a defender.
>
>If this was merely a religious issue, I don't think we'd see the hot blood
>we are seeing. We are discussing something much more important (to most of
>us) - our children.
>
>This list seems to me to be geared to parents who have had bad experiences
>in and are disillusioned with Waldorf education, which I don't think anyone
>denies has its faults. (Anyone who has found a flawless form of education,
>contact me directly - a substantial finder's fee will be arranged.)
>However, I also do not think it surprising that parents whose chidren are
>having excellent educational experiences in a Waldorf school would be
>extremely offended by those who claim Waldorf is some sort of cult.
I suggest these parents are either
1. not looking critically at either the education or its fundamental
philosophical premises, or
2. so taken in by the quasi-religious new-(old)-age philosophy that they
are true believers.
Either way, their children are being inculcated with a way of life, not
just educated.
>Since the discussion on this list tends to be of Waldorf as a values
>choice, I don't see that the purposeless argument can possibly end. Who
>does not want to defend the choices one has made for her/his children, in
>either direction? I do not doubt that people have had genuinely awful
>experiences at Waldorf schools, and I do not doubt that people have had
>wonderful experiences. In the end, we each have to make our own choices,
>based on our individual situations.
The argument is not purposeless. See my post (I'm sure you alread have, but
are proabably ignoring its point in favour of continued defence of the
faith) entitled "Why it's necessary to argue".
Who does not want to defend their choice of education? The person who has
applied critical rational thinking and demands proof, rather than accepting
that they can reach inner knowledge through mystical spiritual
"enlightenment".
Anyone who finds flaws must face those flaws head on. And it is instructive
to others who may not see them as clearly, or who will have to go through
the bad experiences themselves before applying critical thinking and coming
to the same conclusions.
I never said I have had the terrible experiences of David McKay or Deby
Snell, and I agreed that my children had derived some benefit from the
caring, humane atmosphere of our school. They have also, in empirical
terms, not done as well academically as they might have in another school
based on rationalist, rather than spiritualist, models. And, they have had
some of the spiritualist beliefs of the faith inculcated in them through
its inclusion in the curriculum when it isn't supposed to be, and because
they have not yet had developed fully in themselves the critical thinking
faculty which would ensure their continued rationality.
My argument is with the tenets of the system which where unknown to me
despite my questioning at the time of enrollment.
My problem is a familiar dilemma to those who only come to a full
realisation of the true nature of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy after their
children are socially and developmentally settled in the school: it isn't
easy to rip kids out of their millieu, and whatever one does -- stay or go
-- there will be undesirable consequences.
>
>>After all,
>>spiritual belief is _not_ science. Nothing can _ever_ be proven.
>
>An excellent point, Deby. Nothing can _ever_ be proven, even though many
>of us have spent much of our lives amassing evidence about one thing or
>another. Aren't the limitations of science interesting and challenging?
This is the patently wrong-headed and typically anti-science,
anti-rationalist, defender-of-the-faith view that critical thinkers are so
frustrated with when trying to engage in debate about the nature and
problems of a belief system.
Anthroposophy doesn't say nothing can ever be proven, but the opposite,
that one can achieve, through spiritual means, higher truths.
Science says this is what we have proven by evidence, but we're still
skeptical about it all, and we're willing to change our viewpoint when new
_evidence_ is available.
Given what I have said earlier about the nature of the questions we face, I
will continue to put my money on science to come closer, sooner, to the
answers, despite its supposed "limitations".
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n213.5 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Reprinted with permission !!
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 08:45:51 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Deby Snell quotes from the Waldorf list (with permission):
>>Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 07:41:51 -0800
>>From: Phillip Folkler
>>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>To: snell oro.net
>>Subject: Re: Intro, random thoughts
>
>Phillip Folkler printed an introduction on the Waldorf list which was a
>direct message to the critics. He kindly allowed me to re-print his message
>to _this_ list. After all, it seems it was intended for _us_.
>Deby
>
>Phillip Folker writes WC a message at the end of his introduction to the
>Waldorf list...
>[snip]
And Kopp further [snips] the usual uninformed, uncritical hogwash.
SNELL continues:
>>(Note added to first posting, responding to my request to repost)
>
>>Feel Free. I must say, on rereading it, I wish I had done more than dash
>>off a few thoughts and hit send... The grammar is a bit lacking, not to
>>mention the spelling... But then, I went to public school. ;)
>>
>>By the by, I have read much on the web contra-WE, and I am NOT a WE "True
>>Believer", though I am investigating WE for my kids. But enrollment would
>>not be for 2 or 3 years for the oldest, so I have time to read Steiner,
>>visit local schools several times, etc, ad nauseum.
I for one will wait with great interest the outcome of this person's
"investigations". Since he dismisses the critics out of hand as needing "a
life", I tend to doubt he will arrive at a negative conlusion about having
his children educated through his own `research'.
>>My iritation (ie get a life...) comes from the more general, actually. To
>>many folks waste (IMNSHO) a lot of time and energy being "against"
>>something, rather than "for" something.
Critical thinking requires choices, and sometimes those choices lead to
rejection. Relentless positivism is the bane of critical thinking. (It is,
by the way, one of the fundamental problems of the New Zealand society:
nobody wants to face the tough questions and say the emperor is naked.
They'd rather say what marvellous weavers there are in town.)
>>Sent your kids to a Waldorf
>>School? You were a Waldorf "true believer"? Got disillusioned? Form an
>>anti-Waldorf focus group... Wouldn't it be better to spend the time and
>>$$ educating your children, planting a garden, or learning something new?
>>It is not like WE is spitting out Nazis or illiterate boobs.
No, but it is inculcating a religion-like occult/mystical belief system
despite its denials.
>>It certainly
>>doesn't do any worse than the public schools, and I'll bet you would find
>>WE graduates do (statistically) significantly better on standardized
>>tests... Though that would be because of their parents, again IMNSHO.
Saying Steiner/Waldorf education doesn't do any worse than the public
schools (academically only in this argument, I assume) isn't saying much,
since the general level of public schools everywhere is pretty low. If
Steiner/Waldorf is only as good as most public schools, we're in trouble.
I have never seen such hard statistical evidence across a wide spectrum of
the population and locations (other than the general good reports about
Steiner/Waldorf schools by education reviews quoted by defenders like
Stephen Tonkin). In fact, in New Zealand, there is only anecdotal evidence,
and, until recently, Steiner kids often did not do the standardised state
tests.
I do know personally some children who needed remedial work before being
university-ready (because of the curriculum and teaching, not because of
any lack of work or ability on their part).
>>
>>Feel Free to post the rest of this as well. Might as well be hanged for a
>>sheep as a lamb...
No, but this person should not dismiss critics of the faith out of hand,
but should instead come to the critics list, which is the only place one
can truly apply critical thinking to the faith.
Attacking the critics (even before becoming a defender of the faith, no
less!) is not the way to make an informed decision about one's children's
education.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n213.6 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: The creation of a full disclosure document
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 11:56:09 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Sunday, Nov. 10th, Daniel Sakaly wrote a large document on "Informing
Parents/'Miranda rights'". He posted it on both the Waldorf list and the WC
list. While it received attention, I do not feel that he received the kind
of feedback he asked for.Since I am interested as well [in the creation of
such a document], I am going to repost his document in small portions in
hopes that each part can be looked at, commented on, and reconstructed to
create an accurate document for publication. I hope this is of interest to
all. Something along this nature is long overdue, in my opinion.
Deby Snell
=======================================================
"Informing new parents about Waldorf and Anthroposophy"(by Daniel Sakaly)
=======================================================
>>>"Anthroposophy is a philosophy of life and of man's spiritual role in the
>>evolution of the cosmos. Its core teachings are reincarnation and karma,
>>and it teaches the existence of higher worlds and higher beings who created
>>our world. It also teaches the relationship of humanity to these higher
>>worlds and beings. Christ, Lucifer and Ahriman three of the most important
>>of these spiritual beings. Anthroposophy teaches that the cosmos is in
>>constant evolution, and that humans have evolved and will continue to evolve
>>individually over many lives. Anthroposophy teaches that man existed as a
>>spiritual being before the beginning of the world, and that his evolution on
>>earth goes back to (and precedes) the lost continent of Atlantis; that his
>>evolution has continued up through the various races (red, black, brown,
>>yellow and white) of mankind, towards newer, higher forms of humanity still
>>to come. Although Anthroposophy believes that certain races are more
>>spiritually mature than others, it also teaches that most individual souls
>>reincarnate in the various races on their way to greater enlightenment, and
>>we therefore believe that there is no racism inherent in our philosophy.
>>People of all races are welcome to the school.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n213.7 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Conclusions
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 21:26:40 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
> Michael Kopp says:
>
>
> Rationalist science is only as old as Galileo (favourite of Steiner
> lessons). And the Greeks may have been scientists, yes, but rationalists,
> I'd be less certain. All believed in gods.
Galileo _did_ believe in God, he did only contradict the church dogma
that the sun turns around the earth.
Blaise Pascal, french philosopher, writer and mathematician believed
in God. He even came up with a mathematical sound prove that God
exists.
Albert Einstein believed in God. And the majority of the American
Astronautes did and do.
Don't you think that your assumption that to be a "rational"
scientist you must be an atheist is a bid one-sided?
> Well, I haven't read it, but I doubt that I would agree with anything that
> equates what I'm talking about with something ethereally, mystically
> spiritual. It does not scare me in the least, it's just not rational,
> therefore not my cup of tea.
Read it, you will find that it is not very "ethereally, mystically or
spiritual". Steiner said himself that this book is also intended for
those who do _not_ wish to engage in "spritual science". But it is
one of the cornerstones of anthroposophy and you could be surprised.
> Well, I've said I (and all other rationalist scientists) could be proved
> wrong tomorrow by the appearance of some supernatural force or being that
> gave evidence in front of our eyes that we were wrong (gosh, wouldn't that
> make IT rationalist and scientific, too?).
IT??? Or did you mean ET?
> I could be struck down dead by
> "God" for blasphemy. I just doubt it.
So do I.
> The difference is that science DOES provide definitive answers, in the form
> of tangible evidence and repeatable experimental proof, whereas ALL other
> belief systems may provide "answers" and "theories" that satisfy only
> adherents and initiates and acolytes. Because Steiner (or anyone else) says
> it is so, and because I am able to arrive at an inner belief in its
> rightness, is not the same as skeptical, critical thought that demands
> proof.
>From my school time I recall that science is full on "theories". Most
of them are valued as being "true until proven false". If science
would be as definitive as you whish it to be, all the money for
scientific research would be wasted. I think this is not so. Again,
think about Blaise Pascal. He proved _mathematically_ the existence
of God and no other mathematician has invalidated his logic until
today (at least I did not hear of any).
Science too, is a belive system. Sometimes.
> I also need to repeat that everyone is entitled to believe anything they want.
Thank you for the clear words.
> The issue here, once again, is not freedom of belief, but whether MY
> children should be educated by one system or the other, and whether the
> Steiner/Waldorf/ Anthroposophy system should be used in public schools, and
> whether it has honestly represented itself to prospective parents.
As I stated before, I believe that the only _real_ waldorf school is
the private funded one (in private funded I include the education
voucher system). Waldorf education in public schools is a touchy
matter.
As for the "honest presentation" you are the only one to judge, I did
not see you school's promotional material.
>
> Thanks for the cordial engagement.
>
You are welcome and I would be glad to continue the discussion on
this basis.
Best wishes from the cold (we had about 30cm of snow today, how about
attaching some southern hemishere sunshine to your next post?)
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 032 / 857.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n213.8 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Conclusions
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 20:34:14 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
>>Stephen is the prototype of a european waldorf teacher and I would be
>>delighted to have him teach my children (How about a move to the swiss
>>jura mountains, Stephen. We can offer the usual low wages of private
>>swiss waldorf schools and plenty of unpaied extra work hours :-)).
>
>Sorry - if Stephen is emigrating, I have dibs on him for my children; I
>asked years ago. He'd much prefer the US, anyway. (Except maybe the
>chocolate, but I could order that by mail.) I'd let him use my telescope,
>even.
Hey, you folk are going to risk giving DD a pump-attack if this list
becomes the standard medium for Waldorf teacher recruitment!
However, I'll wait and see what other (physiologically possible) offers
I get -- do I hear something from the Antipodes, perhaps? GDAR!
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n213.9 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com (Robert Flannery)
Subject: Re: Reprinted with permission !!
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 16:25:29 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Michael Kopp is describing his own editing of Philip Folker's post:
>And Kopp further [snips] the usual uninformed, uncritical hogwash.
Are you just being dismissive, or do you have some way of determining
Folker's level of investigation and discernment?
I actually like the new Michael Kopp I see emerging in the posts of the
last few days, but when you return to unfounded characterizations like "the
usual...." or gratuitous or flippant monikers like "sunshine" it gives me
pause to wonder how careful you are with the rest of what you say.
I think Linda Hoffman's last post is pretty timely, because you strike me
as a decent fellow who is really being torn up over what he worries might
be happening to his children. There's common ground here.
>Attacking the critics (even before becoming a defender of the faith, no
>less!) is not the way to make an informed decision about one's children's
>education.
I agree with this statement. Speaking for myself, I would go further and
say that every parent thinking about sending a child to a waldorf school
should spend time on the waldorf critic's list.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n213.10 ---------------
From: DanielSabsay earthlink.net (Daniel Sabsay)
Subject: Re: a sample of Anthroposophical science
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 13:19:47 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Quotes below were from a document on the anthropos-science list of
11/14/96 and posted here by Dan Dugan on 19 Nov 1996 >
>[some details from] An announcement about the forthcoming seminar organised
by Anthro-Tech Scotland
>[...snip...]
> In the early 80s a group formed with interests in 'moral technology'.
>[...snip...]
>In Switzerland and certain other European countries it is recognised
>that fields from electric power lines and appliances cause brain tumours,
>cancer and leukaemia.
Yes, and even in "Switzerland and certain other European countries",
responsible people, and unbiased science, have finally put this modern
chestnut to rest. You can scare most of the people most of the time, and
you can jerk the rest off with words like 'moral technology.'
>The group rejected power sources involving electricity or fossil fuels in
>favour of 'life-force' or 'etheric technology' approaches of the kind advocated
>by John Keeley and subsequently Rudolf Steiner.
This is baby talk by babies.
> In 1989 the group founded a research institute at Les Sciernes-d'Albeuve
>in Switzerland. Research in one laboratory has involved bacterial growth
>response to magnetic fields.
Note the use of the waffle-word "involved," and the absence of words like
_found_ or _discovered_. I've been wondering who's been doing this
high-quality research, and why it's been so productive. I'm sure we'll
hear from these giants again.
>and now, through the collaboration of Drs Philippe Gaston Besson and Judyth
>Sassoon, focuses on how environmental factors influence 'pre-bacterial
>formations
>in the blood'.
Sure, forget the really important stuff, and move on to still more
far-fetched ideas. This isn't even Goethean, it's plain disaffected
dreaming. These people will indulge themselves while others do the real
work of feeding, housing and educating the next generation. How "moral" is
this?
This "research" is less useful than watching Saturday-morning cartoons. It
ranks right up there with water (& alcohol) memory and peat-fiber bibs (for
sale at the Steiner Bookstore in California).
-----------------
Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n213 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n214 --------------
001 - Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Conclusions
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 19:20:13 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Peter Schwab writes
>> Well, I'd hate to think I caused anyone a heart attack. Now, apoplexy,
>> that's cool. You think Kiwi's are blunt, you should try the Aussies!
>>
>
>You mean, there can be _worse_????
Yeah -- Zimbabweans :-)
--
Stephen Tonkin (ex-pat Zimbabwean)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n214.2 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Conclusions
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 17:38:54 -0500
Peter Schwab writes of Pascal:
"He even came up with a mathematical sound pr[oof] that God
exists."
Peter, I agree with the rest of your message, but this is a bold and
dubious claim, and was unnecessary to make your point. Why did you
state (and repeat) it? In any case, I must deny that mathematical
proof can establish anything with an empirical element. Or perhaps
your personal "God" is mathematical logic. Then there's no
contradition, but only the weakest sense in which logic can be said to
prove itself.
Accepting claims like this would seem [1] to be a matter of
religious faith, and [2] to lead to the dualist worldview of sects
like Christian Science (material VERSUS spiritual). Cheers, --Lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n214.3 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Reprinted with permission !!
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 17:30:08 -0500
Michael Kopp writes:
> I do know personally some children who needed remedial work before being
> university-ready (because of the curriculum and teaching, not because of
> any lack of work or ability on their part).
So do I, though at the level of secondary school entrance. But that's
to judge an alternative education according to the criteria of the
most central "mainstream", which doesn't seem to me (though it well
may to you) the only useful way to look at it. The idea of school as
a smooth conveyor-belt to a well-paying job is not particularly
inspired! Complaints about the Educational Testing Service and
university entrance criteria aside, it seems entirely possible that a
well-rounded, thoughtful, and -intellectually skilled- person may not
be -specifically- prepared for a modern university.
But let's use the "standard" criteria for a moment: Are there -more-
ill-prepared students, and -worse-prepared- students (or even a lower
average on the SAT's) coming out of Waldorf programs than out of other
private schools of similar cost? Does anyone have numbers? Aren't
accumulated (average) test scores sometimes available on a
school-by-school basis? Would some Waldorf school like to publicize
theirs and draw comparisons to put these rumors to rest?
Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n214.4 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Warning:Tonkin's attack on McKay (delete is an option)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 17:50:40 -0500
Peter Schwab:
>An excellent point, Deby. Nothing can _ever_ be proven, even though many
>of us have spent much of our lives amassing evidence about one thing or
>another. Aren't the limitations of science interesting and challenging?
Michael Kopp:
This is the patently wrong-headed and typically anti-science,
anti-rationalist, defender-of-the-faith view that critical thinkers are so
frustrated with when trying to engage in debate about the nature and
problems of a belief system.
I don't see how you can take Peter's words as "anti-science". As far
as I can see he offers a fine picture of empirical investigation under
uncertainly. So I must respectfully disagree with your words, above.
Anthroposophy doesn't say nothing can ever be proven, but the opposite,
that one can achieve, through spiritual means, higher truths.
Thank you, Michael. THIS is what anthroposophists must defend,
discard, or absorb into a closed community (I really want to say a
church). I don't believe they can defend it to the satisfaction of
anyone outside the movement, nor can they discard it without
discarding the supposed justification for most of Rudolf Steiner's
ideas (beyond those explicable by rational science and simple common
sense, of course). Thus I see the tendency as toward the third: the
creation of a new religion based on Steiner texts. As long as
anthroposophical training, including a year's total immersion in
Steiner, is a requirement for Waldorf teaching, he impact of this
near-religion on those schools has to be immense.
Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n214.5 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Conclusions
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 12:09:04 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Stephen Tonkin goes all gooey over adulation from other defenders of the
faith and possible job offers:
>>>Stephen is the prototype of a european waldorf teacher and I would be
>>>delighted to have him teach my children (How about a move to the swiss
>>>jura mountains, Stephen. We can offer the usual low wages of private
>>>swiss waldorf schools and plenty of unpaied extra work hours :-)).
>>
>>Sorry - if Stephen is emigrating, I have dibs on him for my children; I
>>asked years ago. He'd much prefer the US, anyway. (Except maybe the
>>chocolate, but I could order that by mail.) I'd let him use my telescope,
>>even.
TONKIN replies:
>Hey, you folk are going to risk giving DD a pump-attack if this list
>becomes the standard medium for Waldorf teacher recruitment!
>
>However, I'll wait and see what other (physiologically possible) offers
>I get -- do I hear something from the Antipodes, perhaps? GDAR!
And, from another message, TONKIN also says:
Peter Schwab writes [it was actually Schwab quoting KOPP]
>> Well, I'd hate to think I caused anyone a heart attack. Now, apoplexy,
>> that's cool. You think Kiwi's are blunt, you should try the Aussies!
>>
>
>You mean, there can be _worse_????
and TONKIN says:
Yeah -- Zimbabweans :-)
KOPP says:
Well, Mr Tonkin, I won't necessarily agree with your characterisation of
Zimbabweans, for political reasons that will become apparent in a second,
but I think you're out of luck with our school: as I understgand it, we're
already over our quota with two.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n214.6 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Reprinted with permission !!
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 12:09:08 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Robert Flannery replies to Michael KOPP:
>Michael Kopp is describing his own editing of Philip Folker's post:
>
>>And Kopp further [snips] the usual uninformed, uncritical hogwash.
>
>Are you just being dismissive, or do you have some way of determining
>Folker's level of investigation and discernment?
Neither. I'm comparing his statements (which I _do_ find lacking in
investigation and discernment) with other, similar ones, which better
people than I have spent great amounts of time deconstructing and
demolishing as valid arguments. Having done that previously, they conclude
that such statements are "hogwash" (nice term). I just apply that shorthand
label to save having to do again the whole analysis of why the new
statement is hogwash.
>I actually like the new Michael Kopp I see emerging in the posts of the
>last few days, but when you return to unfounded characterizations like "the
>usual...." or gratuitous or flippant monikers like "sunshine" it gives me
>pause to wonder how careful you are with the rest of what you say.
I try to be extremely careful with any new statement. But this is
quick-response email discussion and debate, not scholarship. A statistical
analysis of the similarities in writings of the defenders of the faith
would, in my anecdotal view, show high correlation allowing
characterisations like "the usual" to be sustained.
As to "sunshine", well, I think flippant insult (not gratuitousness, but
calculatedness) still applies to the one main person left among the
defenders who has not had his hubris shaken or expressed some appreciation
for the views of critics. If and when he does, I'll resile.
>I think Linda Hoffman's last post is pretty timely, because you strike me
>as a decent fellow who is really being torn up over what he worries might
>be happening to his children. There's common ground here.
>
>>>Attacking the critics (even before becoming a defender of the faith, no
>>less!) is not the way to make an informed decision about one's children's
>>education.
>
>I agree with this statement. Speaking for myself, I would go further and
>say that every parent thinking about sending a child to a waldorf school
>should spend time on the waldorf critic's list.
I certainly agree with the last.
See Daniel Sakayly's post (which followed my answer to Stephen Tonkin's
invitation for people to say what they wished they had been told before
signing up) for what we should be discussing here, and Deby Snell's new
attempt to get us back on track.
Lets do it.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n214.7 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Conclusions
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 12:08:54 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Peter Schwab says:
>> Michael Kopp says:
>>
>>
>> Rationalist science is only as old as Galileo (favourite of Steiner
>> lessons). And the Greeks may have been scientists, yes, but rationalists,
>> I'd be less certain. All believed in gods.
>
>Galileo _did_ believe in God, he did only contradict the church dogma
>that the sun turns around the earth.
>
>Blaise Pascal, french philosopher, writer and mathematician believed
>in God. He even came up with a mathematical sound prove that God
>exists.
>
>Albert Einstein believed in God. And the majority of the American
>Astronautes did and do.
>
>Don't you think that your assumption that to be a "rational"
>scientist you must be an atheist is a bid one-sided?
I think you're making a big leap about my "assumptions". Plenty of
scientists believe in a god (some probably believe in more than one). A
very tiny number believe in ethereal spiritualism -- and their science
suffers. It is safe to say that most scientists divorce their religious
life -- if they have one -- from their professional science lives. I do
think that science and religion are mutually exclusive; how one practices
both at the same time eludes me.
>> Well, I haven't read it, but I doubt that I would agree with anything that
>> equates what I'm talking about with something ethereally, mystically
>> spiritual. It does not scare me in the least, it's just not rational,
>> therefore not my cup of tea.
>
>Read it, you will find that it is not very "ethereally, mystically or
>spiritual". Steiner said himself that this book is also intended for
>those who do _not_ wish to engage in "spritual science". But it is
>one of the cornerstones of anthroposophy and you could be surprised.
Well, if I have time to read these things. As I said before, I do not think
I need to in order to know that I am not interested in the belief system,
or any belief system. The argument for me is not whether I understand the
faith correctly and might be more enamoured of it if I did. The argument
for me is that I did not believe that my children would be subjected to a
belief system as pervasive in their education as this one seems to be.
"Spiritual Science" seems to me to be an oxymoron from the start, and
nothing that Steiner wrote for "the rest of us" is likely to change that
view.
>> Well, I've said I (and all other rationalist scientists) could be proved
>> wrong tomorrow by the appearance of some supernatural force or being that
>> gave evidence in front of our eyes that we were wrong (gosh, wouldn't that
>> make IT rationalist and scientific, too?).
>
>IT??? Or did you mean ET?
Either, but really, if there are ET's (and I think that's likely) they
probably are more advanced rational thinkers than we are, and should
therefore be welcomed here, rather than being more spiritual beings in tune
with the cosmic whatever.
>
>> I could be struck down dead by
>> "God" for blasphemy. I just doubt it.
>
>So do I.
>
>> The difference is that science DOES provide definitive answers, in the form
>> of tangible evidence and repeatable experimental proof, whereas ALL other
>> belief systems may provide "answers" and "theories" that satisfy only
>> adherents and initiates and acolytes. Because Steiner (or anyone else) says
>> it is so, and because I am able to arrive at an inner belief in its
>> rightness, is not the same as skeptical, critical thought that demands
>> proof.
>
>>From my school time I recall that science is full on "theories". Most
>of them are valued as being "true until proven false". If science
>would be as definitive as you whish it to be, all the money for
>scientific research would be wasted. I think this is not so. Again,
>think about Blaise Pascal. He proved _mathematically_ the existence
>of God and no other mathematician has invalidated his logic until
>today (at least I did not hear of any).
>
>Science too, is a belive system. Sometimes.
This is a frequently-heard criticism from those who prefer other systems of
thought. I don't agree. I do not "believe" in science; I accept those
findings that appear to be proven. I do not accept as fact theories that
have not yet been proven, and nor do I think science does. I look
skeptically at them until there is replicable evidence that can be accepted
by rational examiners.
>> I also need to repeat that everyone is entitled to believe anything they
>>want.
>
>Thank you for the clear words.
>
>> The issue here, once again, is not freedom of belief, but whether MY
>> children should be educated by one system or the other, and whether the
>> Steiner/Waldorf/ Anthroposophy system should be used in public schools, and
>> whether it has honestly represented itself to prospective parents.
>
>As I stated before, I believe that the only _real_ waldorf school is
>the private funded one (in private funded I include the education
>voucher system). Waldorf education in public schools is a touchy
>matter.
>
>As for the "honest presentation" you are the only one to judge, I did
>not see you school's promotional material.
I was speaking generally. I have never said anything about whether I
believe my school was honest or not. The issue is still very much alive,
and I am refraining from making _criticisms_ of my school publicly while we
are working on the issues privately. This does not mean I can't talk about
my observations of my school, and my opposing views to the defenders of the
faith.
[Snip felicitations.]
>Best wishes from the cold (we had about 30cm of snow today, how about
>attaching some southern hemishere sunshine to your next post?)
It's chilly and wet and windy here in Wellington today, sorry, no sunshine.
Global warming and the ozone hole seem to be changing our weather already.
But high summer doesn't start till just before Christmas -- thermal lag
behind the equinoxes, you know.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n214.8 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Reprinted with permission !!
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 12:52:45 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Lee Story writes:
>Michael Kopp writes:
> > I do know personally some children who needed remedial work before being
> > university-ready (because of the curriculum and teaching, not because of
> > any lack of work or ability on their part).
>
>So do I, though at the level of secondary school entrance. But that's
>to judge an alternative education according to the criteria of the
>most central "mainstream", which doesn't seem to me (though it well
>may to you) the only useful way to look at it.
No, it's to give a specific example based on apparent curriculum flaws. If
the curriculum is supposed to be standard worldwide (posited by defenders
here but debatable) then this indicates that, then the standard curriculum
is insufficient in this time and place. That's all I said. I called for
statistical analysis to settle the issue.
In fact, I'm not interested in "mainstream" (see below), (or hadn't you
noticed my iconoclastic tendencies?) excepting, perhaps, rationalistic
scientific practice.
The idea of school as
>a smooth conveyor-belt to a well-paying job is not particularly
>inspired! Complaints about the Educational Testing Service and
>university entrance criteria aside, it seems entirely possible that a
>well-rounded, thoughtful, and -intellectually skilled- person may not
>be -specifically- prepared for a modern university.
Agreed completely. But New Zealand _is_ on the conveyor belt, in a big-time
way. In fact it is destroying 75 years of educational progress and
leadership.
That's why I wanted something more humane for my kids, and why I'm so
worried about that it has turned out to be not just humane, but
spiritualist, which may be too high a price to pay for increased
"well-rounded, thoughtful, intellectually-skilled" kids, if they also
become inculcated with spiritualism.
Not only do I have to steer a course between competing cultures (the
Steiner/ Waldorf/Anthroposophical faith or the Kiwi good-old-boy,
she'll-be-right,-mate culture, neither of which are particularly attractive
... but I also now have to contend with a completely mechanistic
educational _market_ theory which will try to turn my kids into safe little
automata. Sheesh (Tonkin's trade mark? Sorry). What's a man to do?
>But let's use the "standard" criteria for a moment: Are there -more-
>ill-prepared students, and -worse-prepared- students (or even a lower
>average on the SAT's) coming out of Waldorf programs than out of other
>private schools of similar cost? Does anyone have numbers? Aren't
>accumulated (average) test scores sometimes available on a
>school-by-school basis? Would some Waldorf school like to publicize
>theirs and draw comparisons to put these rumors to rest?
Exactly what I called for.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n214.9 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com (Robert Flannery)
Subject: Re: Reprinted with permission !!
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 20:25:15 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I asked Michael Kopp:
>>Are you just being dismissive, or do you have some way of determining
>>Folker's level of investigation and discernment?
>Neither. I'm comparing his statements (which I _do_ find lacking in
>investigation and discernment) with other, similar ones, which better
>people than I have spent great amounts of time deconstructing and
>demolishing as valid arguments. Having done that previously, they conclude
>that such statements are "hogwash" (nice term). I just apply that shorthand
>label to save having to do again the whole analysis of why the new
>statement is hogwash.
Pardon me, but you said "neither", then contradicted yourself by saying you
_are_ able assess Folker's level of investigation and discernment (by
comparing it to previous posts).
You compare his statements with others that have been discredited
(referring to them as "arguments", at this point). I read Folker's post
again and see opinion about the validity of spending bandwith on the
critics. What's to judge?
Folker's just dismissive of the critics. You're dismissive of him. There's
nothing being argued here.
I bring this up as an example of a shorthand labelling which is substituted
for legitimate discussion.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n214.10 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com (Robert Flannery)
Subject: Re: Reprinted with permission !!
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 20:35:06 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Michael Kopp is answering a question about his use of gratuitous or
flippant monikers:
>As to "sunshine", well, I think flippant insult (not gratuitousness, but
>calculatedness) still applies to the one main person left among the
>defenders who has not had his hubris shaken or expressed some appreciation
>for the views of critics. If and when he does, I'll resile.
So, unless we are humbled or indicate our respect for you, name-calling is ok?
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n214 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n215 --------------
001 - {~_~} - Re: Query
002 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Re: Reprinted with permission !!
003 - "Neil Faiman"
Subject: Re: Query
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 17:58:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
The " formerly anonymous, but no long so" Michael Kopp writes:
On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Michael Kopp wrote:
> "Mysterious" ~_~ ("-El") writes:
>
> >Dear Michael Kopp,
> > Could you please explain to me what you mean by "defenders of the
> >faith"?
> >Who are these "defenders"?
> The knee-jerk reactionaries who blindly support what I believe is an occult
> religion-like movement which goes by the names
> Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy.
> It's another of my neologismic shorthandles, arrived at after my first one
> (SteinDorfPops) was called religious bigotry by one or more of the offended
> faithful.
And their names are?
> >and ...
> >Who are the people who label others on this list as the "defenders"?
> Sorry, I don't understand this one. I'm the only one I know who uses the
> term "defenders". Can you frame your question more clearly and fully,
> please?
Looking at my latest question above I guess you have answered this one,
unless you have something to add?
Thank You
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n215.2 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Reprinted with permission !!
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:36:34 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Robert Flannery complains:
>Michael Kopp is answering a question about his use of gratuitous or
>flippant monikers:
>
>>As to "sunshine", well, I think flippant insult (not gratuitousness, but
>>calculatedness) still applies to the one main person left among the
>>defenders who has not had his hubris shaken or expressed some appreciation
>>for the views of critics. If and when he does, I'll resile.
>
>So, unless we are humbled or indicate our respect for you, name-calling is ok?
Well, "sunshine" is hardly name calling, is it? It's only mildly
derogatory, and, in this case, the one who never doubts himself is
definitely consumed by the fires of fusion (according to my science, that
is -- his science says the sun is actually a black body, not a nuclear
fireball).
You make a big leap to suggest that he has to indicate respect for _me_.
That's hardly the same as saying I would like him to join the rest of the
world which admits uncertainty while it seeks knowledge. He could join the
critical discussion of ideas -- but he won't, because he's so sure of
himself.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n215.3 ---------------
From: "Neil Faiman"
Subject: What Neil Faiman said to Michael Kopp :-)
Date: 21 Nov 96 21:22:04 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Michael Kopp wrote:
> Will everyone please leave this remark about Neil Faiman's post about
> his
> actions to die, and not exacerbate my error by rubbing it in. Faiman will
> be the only one who can tell that I mean this and it was an error,
> because
> he will see that the tone of my letter to him -- which only he received -
> -
> reads like a public post, not a private letter.
I accept Mr Kopp's explanation and his apology without reservations. I
have made the same error, as I suspect that all of us have who contribute
to mailing lists, news groups and the like with any frequency.
I will append the bulk of my message to Mr Kopp below. (I have elided only
a few personal comments at the end.) I have no objections if Mr Kopp
wishes to post his reply to the list (although I hope that this can stand
as a conclusion to this misunderstanding, and, like Mr Kopp, hope that the
matter can be allowed to die). At Mr. Kopp's request, I will also append
the replies that I received to my two inquiries. (For those who want to
parse this mess: what follow are three quoted mail messages, delimited by
strings of colons. The first quoted message itself contains two other
quoted mail messages, which are set off from the primary message by strings
of equal signs.)
-Neil Faiman
: : : : : : : : Original message to Michael Kopp follows : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : :
Michael,
I read your comments in a couple of recent mail messages on the WC list to
the effect that "someone is probing into your personal affairs." I do not
know what you are referring to, of course; but I had the unsettling thought
that your ISP might have sent you a note along the lines of "We thought you
should know that someone is asking for personal details about you." If
that is the case, and is the substance of your concern, then you should be
aware that the inquirer was probably me.
During the long-running debate about the anonymity of "the mysterious El",
with the ancillary discussions about the nature of identity in a mailing
list, you defined anonymity as "inability to determine _real_ identity,"
implying that by this standard, El is anonymous and you are not. I became
curious as to how true this was; and in an attempt to test the proposition,
I simultaneously sent essentially identical messages to the postmasters at
El's and your ISPs. Here are the texts of the two messages:
=======================================================
Dear Sir (or Madam):
In connection with a discussion regarding mailing list confidentiality and
anonymity, I would very much appreciate it if you could tell me, if I were
to post the following inquiry to you, would you answer it?
The hypothetical inquiry is:
You have a user who sends mail messages from the address
mkopp actrix.gen.nz. Is the real name of this user "Michael Kopp"?
In what town is the residence of this user?
Please note that I am *not* requesting an answer to this inquiry. I have
no interest in the answer, but only in whether you *would* have answered it
if I were to ask.
Thank you,
Neil Faiman
=======================================================
Dear Sir (or Madam):
In connection with a discussion regarding mailing list confidentiality and
anonymity, I would very much appreciate it if you could tell me, if I were
to post the following inquiry to you, would you answer it?
The hypothetical inquiry is:
You have a user who sends mail messages from the address
allure netcom.com. What is the real name of this user?
In what town is the residence of this user?
Please note that I am *not* requesting an answer to this inquiry. I have
no interest in the answer, but only in whether you *would* have answered it
if I were to ask.
Thank you,
Neil Faiman
=======================================================
The reason for the query about "town of residence" was my belief that a
name alone was not likely to be sufficient to establish "real identity,"
even in a country as small as New Zealand.
The statements I made in those messages were absolutely true. I had (and
have) NO interest in knowing who you and EL are, or where either of you
live.
If this inquiry by me was, in fact, the source of your apprehensions, then
I regret that most deeply. Just as it was not my intent to probe into your
life in any way whatsoever, it was even more not my desire to cause you any
sort of emotional distress! I can well imagine the unease that must be
imparted by a belief that someone is attempting to acquire details of one's
private life for unknown reasons.
[ . . . ]
Sincerely,
Neil Faiman
:::::::::::::::::: Text of reply from actrix.gen.nz
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 17 Nov 1996, Neil Faiman wrote:
> Please note that I am *not* requesting an answer to this inquiry. I have
> no interest in the answer, but only in whether you *would* have answered
it
> if I were to ask.
Hi Niel,
Certainly I could confirm whether we had a customer of that name.
I would not be at liberty to disclose anything further than that without
the explicit permission of any user concerned.
- --
Josh Bailey (josh actrix.gen.nz)
Contract Consultant/Administration
Voice: +64 21 514 899 Fax: +64 4 801 5335
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBMo/Btc2FMRcNf8NBAQFRJgP+IWydsKOezA2LGWmOSJWFEegcb65sd187
yZ6Mk/S/0OMZAh+FNgp+uX+aXy4yKxNAwHAkpZcpWJ0R7rj451ev0qjv+VHsywb+
M7PVdNWJXETmSG62Mnb3bpZ+F3YG/VBnAnh7wU2EpTesvSEjjAA38f051NEIOS25
PsFBO7wHIDs=
=6u1k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
:::::::::::::::::: Text of reply from netcom.com
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Neil Faiman writes:
> From nc0145 corp.netcom.com Mon Nov 18 14:03:57 1996
> Received: from mail5.netcom.com (root mail5.netcom.com [192.100.81.141])
by office.corp.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom-Corp) with ESMTP id OAA13132 for
; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 14:03:56 -0800
> Received: from office4.corp.netcom.com (office4.corp.netcom.com
[199.35.110.148]) by mail5.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom)
> id OAA28039; Mon, 18 Nov 1996 14:03:54 -0800
> Received: (from nc0145 localhost) by office4.corp.netcom.com
(8.6.12/Netcom-Corp) id OAA23689 for support netcom.com; Mon, 18 Nov 1996
14:02:53 -0800
> Received: from mail5.netcom.com (root mail5.netcom.com [192.100.81.141])
by office.corp.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom-Corp) with ESMTP id RAA28764 for
; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 17:54:19 -0800
> Received: from office.corp.netcom.com (office.corp.netcom.com
[199.35.110.101]) by mail5.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom)
> id RAA26066; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 17:53:04 -0800
> Received: (from netmail localhost) by office.corp.netcom.com
(8.6.12/Netcom-Corp) id RAA28595 for support netcom.com; Sun, 17 Nov 1996
17:52:03 -0800
> Received: from mail6.netcom.com (root mail6.netcom.com [192.100.81.142])
by office.corp.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom-Corp) with ESMTP id RAA28591 for
; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 17:52:01 -0800
> Received: from verdi.jlc.net (root verdi.jlc.net [199.201.159.1]) by
mail6.netcom.com (8.6.13/Netcom)
> id RAA22379; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 17:52:00 -0800
> Received: from pm1-216.dialup.jlc.net (pm1-216.dialup.jlc.net
[199.201.159.216]) by verdi.jlc.net (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA20636 for
; Sun, 17 Nov 1996 20:57:10 -0500 (EST)
> Date: 17 Nov 96 20:51:41 -0500
> Subject: Subscriber inquiry
> From: "Neil Faiman"
> To: postmaster netcom.com
> X-Mailer: Cyberdog/1.2
> Message-Id:
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Sender: nc0145 corp.netcom.com
>
> Dear Sir (or Madam):
>
> In connection with a discussion regarding mailing list confidentiality
and
> anonymity, I would very much appreciate it if you could tell me, if I
were
> to post the following inquiry to you, would you answer it?
>
> The hypothetical inquiry is:
>
> You have a user who sends mail messages from the address
> allure netcom.com. What is the real name of this user?
> In what town is the residence of this user?
>
> Please note that I am *not* requesting an answer to this inquiry. I have
> no interest in the answer, but only in whether you *would* have answered
it
> if I were to ask.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Neil Faiman
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For a more immediate answer in the future, please see these two new
services:
Fax on Demand: 1-800-NETNET3 (1-800-638-6383)
On-Line Support: http://www.netcom.com/bin/webtech
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Faiman:
Because of Netcom's policy of holding our customer's records as private,
we cannot look up any kind of information about our customer for someone
else. So, to answer your question, no we would not answer it.
If you have any other questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to
contact us again.
- Leigh Ann
---------------------------------------------------------------------
_ _
|_|_ |_| Email Technical Support
_ |_|_ NETCOM On-Line Communication Services, Inc.
|_| _|_| http://www.netcom.com/bin/webtech
|_|
24-Hour Technical Support: (408) 881-1810
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n215.4 ---------------
From: "Neil Faiman"
Subject: Dismissing contrary observations
Date: 21 Nov 96 21:34:24 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In the string titled "Re: Warning:Tonkin's attack on McKay (delete is an
option)", Linda Hoffman observed:
> >However, I also do not think it surprising that parents whose chidren
> are
> >having excellent educational experiences in a Waldorf school would be
> >extremely offended by those who claim Waldorf is some sort of cult.
Michael Kopp commented on this:
> I suggest these parents are either
>
> 1. not looking critically at either the education or its fundamental
> philosophical premises, or
>
> 2. so taken in by the quasi-religious new-(old)-age philosophy that they
> are true believers.
There is a third possibility (which I would suggest is as likely as (1),
and much more likely than (2)): that these parents have looked critically
at the education and its fundamental philosophical premises, and have
observed that these premises, however questionable they might be in the
abstract, have manifested themselves in a first-class educational
experience for their children.
My impression is that Mr Kopp has taken a reasonable criticism of
anthroposophy; combined it with what would appear to me to be very limited
empirical data; and come to a basically theoretical conclusion that Waldorf
education is a fundamentally flawed educational system. Those of us whom
Mr Kopp characterized as "defenders of the faith" are troubled because his
claims are inconsistent with our personal experience.
I understand that to Mr Kopp we look like "defenders of the faith", but I
am afraid that from my side, this appellation feels like an attempt to
write off any facts that are not in acord with Mr Kopp's theories by
impugning the witnesses. Mr Kopp's two alternatives above fit this mold:
anyone who has not come to the same conclusions that he has about Waldorf
education is dismissed, a priori, as an uninformed or unreliable observer.
I believe that an informed critique of Waldorf education would be much more
successful if it accepted the objective observations of those who have
found that the system lives up to its promises, rather than attempting to
deny the validity of their observations.
> Either way, their children are being inculcated with a way of life, not
> just educated.
Here also, Mr Kopp's assertion is, in my experience (and that of the other
Waldorf parents of my acquaintance) categorically incorrect.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n215.5 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Conclusions
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 05:24:54 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Michael Kopp writes
>Well, Mr Tonkin, I won't necessarily agree with your characterisation of
>Zimbabweans, for political reasons that will become apparent in a second,
>but I think you're out of luck with our school: as I understgand it, we're
>already over our quota with two.
:-)
Yes, we do need to share ourselves around in fairness to those who
otherwise not benefit from out charm, wit and wisdom.
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n215.6 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: The (Final) Mysterious "EL"
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 06:12:14 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
I have depersonalised this to "X and Y", not for any nefarious reason,
but to attempt to escape the charge that I attack people, not issues.
This is an attempt to make it absolutely clear that, in this instance,
it is reasoning, logic, motives, etc., not people, which I am
questioning.
It may well be that some very simple explanations, which have not
previously occurred to me, are possible -- I'd appreciate enlightenment
on this.
Michael Kopp writes:
TONKIN
>>I do, however, confess to bearing a thorough and unmitigated
>>contempt for _adults_ who _deliberately_ lie and distort.
[snip]
>
KOPP
>You haven't proved any of these assertions
[snip personal identifier]
>, Tonkin. Your
>tortured logic and sums do not prove guilty intent, nor do they prove lies
>or distortions.
OK -- please give us your explanation, then, of how X makes the claim
that he was unaware of something until Y had informed him of it,
although X had posted, *before* Y informed him, that he was aware of it?
I'd also be interested to see your suggestions of X's possible motives
for making such a claim.
>You turn imperfection into malice.
If X tells Y that if Y commmits a certain act, it is because Y has
chosen to do so, do you not think it reasonable to assume that, if X
commits (or has committed) that act, X does so through choice and can
therefore be assumed to have acted deliberately?
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n215.7 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re: Conclusions
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 23:25:29 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Michael Kopp writes
>>Well, Mr Tonkin, I won't necessarily agree with your characterisation of
>>Zimbabweans, for political reasons that will become apparent in a second,
>>but I think you're out of luck with our school: as I understgand it, we're
>>already over our quota with two.
>
>:-)
>
>Yes, we do need to share ourselves around in fairness to those who
>otherwise not benefit from out charm, wit and wisdom.
>
>--
>Stephen Tonkin
Come on already ! Can't we have _one_ day without communication falling
into the lowest common denominator catagory ? If I wanted to listen to
sqabbeling, I can listen to my two kids. They are good for it at least once
a day. Let us be productive. Or arrange for a styrofoam sward fight, and
get it over with. (Is styrofoam Anthroposophically correct ?)
Happy trails,
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n215.8 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Conclusions
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 07:55:14 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
snell oro.net writes
>>Michael Kopp writes
>>>Well, Mr Tonkin, I won't necessarily agree with your characterisation of
>>>Zimbabweans, for political reasons that will become apparent in a second,
>>>but I think you're out of luck with our school: as I understgand it, we're
>>>already over our quota with two.
>>
>>:-)
>>
>>Yes, we do need to share ourselves around in fairness to those who
>>otherwise not benefit from out charm, wit and wisdom.
>>
>>--
>>Stephen Tonkin
>
>Come on already ! Can't we have _one_ day without communication falling
>into the lowest common denominator catagory ? If I wanted to listen to
>sqabbeling, I can listen to my two kids.
1) Note the ":-)", inserted for the benefit of those who may otherwise
have taken my comment seriously.
2) I assumed that Mr Kopp's response was written with a sense of humour,
mine was intended similarly. Whatever Mr Kopp and I disagree about, and
there is plenty, at least allow us to appreciate each other's sense of
humour (where we are able to and recognise it as humour), even if you
don't share it.
3) I neglected to add "astounding modesty" to the list of qualities for
which we Zimbabweans are so rightly revered by the rest of God's
creation.
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n215.9 ---------------
From: Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: Reprinted with permission !!
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 00:30:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Michael Kopp wrote:
>
> Robert Flannery complains:
>
> >So, unless we are humbled or indicate our respect for you, name-calling is ok?
>
> Well, "sunshine" is hardly name calling, is it?
Sure it is; it's just not very _creative_ name calling.
> It's only mildly derogatory, and, in this case, the one who never
> doubts himself is definitely consumed by the fires of fusion
> (according to my science, that is -- his science says the sun is
> actually a black body, not a nuclear fireball).
Really? And how, I wonder, did you determine that? Clairvoyance?
The Akashic Records?
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n215.10 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: A Motion
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 01:09:01 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>I move that the following topics be moved off the list and into private e-mail:
>
>(1) Who said what to whom;
>(2) Whether -El should use a pseudonym;
>(3) Whether the critics of the Waldorf-critics are more obnoxious than the
>Waldorf-critics; and
>(4) Whether posts from this list have been improperly posted elsewhere.
>
>You guys can beat each other up all you want, I'm just tired of hearing
>about it.
>
>Do I hear a second?
I second that motion, Steve.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n215 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n216 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - differences between European and US Waldorf
002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: The creation of a full disclosure document
003 - litvas icu.com (Robert Fl - Re: Reprinted with permission !!
004 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Re: The (Final) Mysterious "EL"
005 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Re: Reprinted with permission !!
006 - Linda Hoffman - Re: A Motion
009 - snell oro.net - Motion: All those who oppose ?
010 - slainson rmii.com (Suzann - Re: The creation of a full disclosure document
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n216.1 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: differences between European and US Waldorf
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 01:09:07 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Peter Schwab, you wrote,
>Dear friends, there _is_ a waldorf education which is different from
>what you have experienced and there is more that an ocean seperating
>an US-Waldorf-Charter-School from a Swiss Rudolf Steiner School or
>from a Freie Waldorfschule in Germany.
I've heard this said several times, but I have never understood just what
these differences are. They all read the same Steiner. The European and
American curriculum posters are the same except for the omission of
religion classes in the U.S. Apparently the racism is more explicit in the
Dutch anthropology classes than in the American. Could you give more detail
about the differences you perceive? Has anyone curriculum materials (course
list, reading list) from European Waldorf teacher training?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n216.2 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: The creation of a full disclosure document
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 01:09:15 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>>individually over many lives. Anthroposophy teaches that man existed as a
>>>spiritual being before the beginning of the world, and that his evolution on
>>>earth goes back to (and precedes) the lost continent of Atlantis; that his
>>>evolution has continued up through the various races (red, black, brown,
>>>yellow and white) of mankind, towards newer, higher forms of humanity still
>>>to come. Although Anthroposophy believes that certain races are more
>>>spiritually mature than others, it also teaches that most individual souls
>>>reincarnate in the various races on their way to greater enlightenment, and
>>>we therefore believe that there is no racism inherent in our philosophy.
>>>People of all races are welcome to the school.
I think this accurately points out both the "good" and bad aspects of
Anthroposophical racial theory. The "good" is that Anthroposophy never
bears any ill will towards any person. Unfortunately, Anthroposophists seem
to be unable to understand that patronizing races by talking about an
evolutionary sequence is also racism, even in the absence of ill-will. It's
-ignorant- rather than -malevolent- racism.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n216.3 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com (Robert Flannery)
Subject: Re: Reprinted with permission !!
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 05:40:03 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Robert Flannery complains:
>>So, unless we are humbled or indicate our respect for you, name-calling is ok?
Suddenly, asking a question becomes complaining.
>You make a big leap to suggest that he has to indicate respect for _me_.
Read in the context of the quote from you which preceded it, it should be
clear that the "you" refers to the plural, critics. The section in
question read "the one main person [Lefty] left among the defenders who has
not had his hubris shaken or expressed some appreciation for the _views of
critics_."[emphasis mine]
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n216.4 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: The (Final) Mysterious "EL"
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 00:28:30 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Stephen Tonkin tries a new tack in the race to educate Michael Kopp:
>I have depersonalised this to "X and Y", not for any nefarious reason,
>but to attempt to escape the charge that I attack people, not issues.
>This is an attempt to make it absolutely clear that, in this instance,
>it is reasoning, logic, motives, etc., not people, which I am
>questioning.
>
>It may well be that some very simple explanations, which have not
>previously occurred to me, are possible -- I'd appreciate enlightenment
>on this.
[Snip some tortured clipping from various posts?]
>If X tells Y that if Y commmits a certain act, it is because Y has
>chosen to do so, do you not think it reasonable to assume that, if X
>commits (or has committed) that act, X does so through choice and can
>therefore be assumed to have acted deliberately?
I thought mathematics was supposed to be notoriously unsound for proving
anything emperically? I was always terrible at algebra, I'm afraid.
I can't follow this logic, so I guess I'll have to resile.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n216.5 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Reprinted with permission !!
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 00:28:34 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Lefty Redux wants to know Kopp's sources of information:
>On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Michael Kopp wrote:
>>
>> Robert Flannery complains:
>>
>> >So, unless we are humbled or indicate our respect for you, name-calling
>>is ok?
>>
>> Well, "sunshine" is hardly name calling, is it?
>
>Sure it is; it's just not very _creative_ name calling.
>
>> It's only mildly derogatory, and, in this case, the one who never
>> doubts himself is definitely consumed by the fires of fusion
>> (according to my science, that is -- his science says the sun is
>> actually a black body, not a nuclear fireball).
>
>Really? And how, I wonder, did you determine that? Clairvoyance?
>The Akashic Records?
Camomile tea leaf readings and a dip into some Rudolf Steiner writings.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n216.6 ---------------
From: Linda Hoffman
Subject: Re: Warning:Tonkin's attack on McKay (delete is an option)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:51:08 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hello!
I wrote, and Michael Kopp responded:
>>Since the discussion on this list tends to be of Waldorf as a values
>>choice, I don't see that the purposeless argument can possibly end. Who
>>does not want to defend the choices one has made for her/his children, in
>>either direction? I do not doubt that people have had genuinely awful
>>experiences at Waldorf schools, and I do not doubt that people have had
>>wonderful experiences. In the end, we each have to make our own choices,
>>based on our individual situations.
>The argument is not purposeless. See my post (I'm sure you alread have, but
>are proabably ignoring its point in favour of continued defence of the
>faith) entitled "Why it's necessary to argue".
You are right Michael, that it is useful for us to share our experiences;
that's why we subscribe to mail lists. The arguments that I characterize
as purposeless are blanket statements like:
>I suggest these parents are either
>1. not looking critically at either the education or its fundamental
>philosophical premises, or
>2. so taken in by the quasi-religious new-(old)-age philosophy that they
>are true believers.
This is simply offensive to those who do not fit into either of these
categories. I know, both personally and through email, thoughtful and
intelligent people who have looked very carefully into Waldorf education
and its anthroposophical underpinnings, have chosen it for their children
(despite some reservations), and are very happy with the results. This
_is_ one of the possible outcomes of enrolling one's children in a Waldorf
school, and it is just as valid an experience as any of the unfortunate
outcomes that have been shared on this list. (Throwing out data points
just because they don't match one's hypothesis is bad science, Michael, or
so I was taught at MIT.)
>>>After all,
>>>spiritual belief is _not_ science. Nothing can _ever_ be proven.
>>An excellent point, Deby. Nothing can _ever_ be proven, even though many
>>of us have spent much of our lives amassing evidence about one thing or
>>another. Aren't the limitations of science interesting and challenging?
>This is the patently wrong-headed and typically anti-science,
>anti-rationalist, defender-of-the-faith view that critical thinkers are so
>frustrated with when trying to engage in debate about the nature and
>problems of a belief system.
ROTFL!!!! What faith am I defending? (Please don't tell my lab director
that I am anti-science; he might stop giving me a paycheck.)
I do not know of any controlled studies on various systems of education.
Moreover, I almost cannot imagine how such studies could be done; we all
have different ideas about what outcome indicates a superior educational
system, and moreover, I don't imagine most of us would care to have our
children randomly assigned to educational systems, as test subjects. In
the absence of such evidence (and the word _is_ evidence, not proof),
parents have to make choices for their children based on their own
observations and feelings. Generalized statements about Waldorf education
(at either extreme) will never lead to useful conversation here, as
different people have different opinions and experiences.
Linda Hoffman
********I go back to my old email addresses as of November 29, 1996.
and **************************
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n216.7 ---------------
From: Linda Hoffman
Subject: Re: Warning:Tonkin's attack on McKay (delete is an option)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:51:03 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hello!
>Peter Schwab:
>>An excellent point, Deby. Nothing can _ever_ be proven, even though many
>>of us have spent much of our lives amassing evidence about one thing or
>>another. Aren't the limitations of science interesting and challenging?
>Michael Kopp:
> This is the patently wrong-headed and typically anti-science,
> anti-rationalist, defender-of-the-faith view that critical thinkers are so
> frustrated with when trying to engage in debate about the nature and
> problems of a belief system.
>I don't see how you can take Peter's words as "anti-science". As far
>as I can see he offers a fine picture of empirical investigation under
>uncertainly. So I must respectfully disagree with your words, above.
Thank you, Lee, though I wrote that, not Peter. (You know how important I
consider a proper understanding of the nature of science to be.)
Linda Hoffman
********I go back to my old email addresses as of November 29, 1996.
and **************************
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n216.8 ---------------
From: {~_~}
Subject: Re: A Motion
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 09:14:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Dan Dugan wrote:
> >I move that the following topics be moved off the list and into
> >private e-mail:
> >(1) Who said what to whom;
> >(2) Whether -El should use a pseudonym;
> >(3) Whether the critics of the Waldorf-critics are more obnoxious than the
> >Waldorf-critics; and
> >(4) Whether posts from this list have been improperly posted elsewhere.
> >You guys can beat each other up all you want, I'm just tired of hearing
> >about it.
> >Do I hear a second?
> I second that motion, Steve.
> -Dan Dugan
I third it!
I may have to get an attorney soon.
I didn't expect this to be the Spanish Inquisition...
-El
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n216.9 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Motion: All those who oppose ?
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 10:17:44 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Because I suspect nearly _everyone_ will agree to this, maybe we should
move to the "all those opposing" phase. So, let's hear from _anyone_ who is
opposed.
Deby
>On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Dan Dugan wrote:
>> >I move that the following topics be moved off the list and into
>> >private e-mail:
>> >(1) Who said what to whom;
>> >(2) Whether -El should use a pseudonym;
>> >(3) Whether the critics of the Waldorf-critics are more obnoxious than the
>> >Waldorf-critics; and
>> >(4) Whether posts from this list have been improperly posted elsewhere.
>
>> >You guys can beat each other up all you want, I'm just tired of hearing
>> >about it.
>> >Do I hear a second?
>
>> I second that motion, Steve.
>> -Dan Dugan
>
>I third it!
>I may have to get an attorney soon.
>I didn't expect this to be the Spanish Inquisition...
>-El
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n216.10 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Re: The creation of a full disclosure document
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:18:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>I think this accurately points out both the "good" and bad aspects of
>Anthroposophical racial theory. The "good" is that Anthroposophy never
>bears any ill will towards any person. Unfortunately, Anthroposophists seem
>to be unable to understand that patronizing races by talking about an
>evolutionary sequence is also racism, even in the absence of ill-will. It's
>-ignorant- rather than -malevolent- racism.
And any theory that tries to suggest superiority or a higher degree of
evolution based on race has not held up when tested. It is my understanding
that differences among racial types are largely superficial and that there
are greater degrees of variation among individuals in each race than among
the races themselves.
In the latest issue of Fortune, a writer visited Deepak Chopra's retreat.
Ayureveduc medicine teaches, he says, that humans can be divided into three
types. He didn't care for that (nor do I). Here's what he said:
"More disturbing is the attempt to link intellecutual and physical
attributes. People with dominant vatas tend to be quick-thinking,
adventurous, and thin; pittas tend to be intelligent, strong-willed, and
have sensitive skin that sunburns easily; kaphas are forgiving, absorb new
material slowly, gain weight easily, and have thick, dark, wavy hair. It's
not hard to imagine an employer educated to make such linkages evaluating a
prospective hire thusly 'We need a quick learner, and this candidate is
overweight and has thick, dark hair. No way.'"
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n216 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n217 --------------
001 - snell oro.net - Creation of full disclosure
002 - {~_~} - Re: The creation of a full disclosure document
003 - Stephen Tonkin - Re: A Motion
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n217.1 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Creation of full disclosure
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 10:27:24 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Well. Since the last document had so little feedback, I wish to continue on
this thread. I am assuming (sorry, David) that the first paragraph was
either acceptable or there is apathy about it. I wish to move on to the
second.
Daniel Sakaly continues with the 'mission statement':
Anthropsophy was founded by Rudolf Steiner, whom we as Anthroposophists
revere as a great thinker, scientist and philosopher. We are convinced
(Tonkin sugested "we believe") that Dr. Steiner had the ability to see into
and investigate the higher spiritual (nonphysical) worlds. He taught a
spiritual discipline that [we believe] permits individuals to attain such
knowledge as well, and you yourself may be able tp do so if you diligently
apply yourself to practicing his method.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n217.2 ---------------
From: {~_~}
Subject: Re: The creation of a full disclosure document
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:09:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Dear Dan,
I would like to start this thread by taking this bit by bit.
On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Dan Dugan wrote:
> >>>individually over many lives. Anthroposophy teaches that man existed as a
> >>>spiritual being before the beginning of the world, and that his evolution on
> >>>earth goes back to (and precedes) the lost continent of Atlantis;
This statement is accurate, broad, but accurate I believe this is what
Dr. Steiner said.
but in this next statement....
> >>>that his
> >>>evolution has continued up through the various races (red, black, brown,
> >>>yellow and white)
This is not my take of what Dr. Steiner said, this statement is not
accurate.
Can you quote where he specifies races by "color of the skin" and
further, can you name the ancient peoples he was really talking about?
I think you are equating these ancient peoples with modern human beings.
Thus taking Dr. Steiners words out of context.
This should make for some very enlighten conversation.
Best,
-EL
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n217.3 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Warning:Tonkin's attack on McKay (delete is an option)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 18:24:14 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Michael Kopp writes, in response to Linda
Hoffman:
>This is the patently wrong-headed and typically anti-science,
>anti-rationalist, defender-of-the-faith view that critical thinkers are so
>frustrated with when trying to engage in debate about the nature and
>problems of a belief system.
I have, over the years, enjoyed a number of email conversations with
Linda -- as a consequence I find it more than a little difficult to
square this characterisation of her as a "defender of the faith" with
some of the deep and thoughtful criticisms of Waldorf Education she has
brought to those conversations.
What I know of her chosen profession (ie a scientist) makes it difficult
for me to regard her as "anti-science" in her views -- she has, I
believe, a great respect for science as well as a realism about it
which, I imagine, is born of an intimate acquaintance with it (do
correct me if I'm wrong, Linda). In fact, Linda's incisive critical
skills are among the most finely honed I have encountered, and that
includes those I enjoyed meeting during my own post-grad work in
university (also science).
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n217.4 ---------------
From: dsaykaly InterLink.NET (Daniel Saykaly)
Subject: Re: Platonic year
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 15:16:35 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dan,
I don't know the passage in Steiner, but you can find it in Roy Wilkinson's
"Nutrition, Health Anthropology for classes 7/8", put out by R.Steiner
College Press. Pages 20 & 21. "If the children have not already counted the
number of breaths they take in a minute, they should do it now. It is to be
hoped that they will arrive at 18 which is theaverage number of inhalations
and exhalations of the adult. With a little more arithmetic we find: 18
breaths per minute means 18 x 60 per hour = 1080. 1080 x 2 = 2160, the
number of breaths taken while the sun traverses one sign of the zodiac in
the daily rhythm. 1080 per hour means 1080 x 24 per day (of 24 hours) =
25920." Earlier he explains the Platonic year as 25920 years although his
idea of a year is a little unusual. ("In round figures we reckon the year to
be 360 days ....")
>Michael Kopp asked about the "cosmic year"
>
>"In the world cycle of events, there is a change of civilization
>approximately every two thousand years. This figure coincides with a
>twelfth part of the cosmic year. The cosmic or Platonic year lasts for
>25,920 earth years. There are twelve signs of the Zodiac, hence each
>cultural epoch takes place under the influence of one particular sign. The
>Egypto-Chaldean civilization developed under Taurus, the bull, hence the
>frequent reference to bull themes. When the Taurus period ended, Aries, the
>ram, became the dominating influence. This sign denotes intellect."
> [Wilkinson, Roy. Teaching History: The Ancient Civilizations; India;
>Persia; Egypt and Babylonia; The Fourth Cultural Epoch: Greece and Rome.
>Fair Oaks, CA: Rudolf Steiner College Press, 1992, p. 48.]
>
>There's a great Steiner passage where he talks about the relationship of
>breathing and heartbeat to the Platonic year. I remember reading it but I
>haven't indexed it. Could someone give me chapter and verse?
>
>Michael also asked about a numeric relationship between the Platonic year
>and dactylic hexameter of Greek epic/heroic poetry. This is new to me.
>Anybody know?
>
>How did Plato know about the precession of the equinoxes?
>
>-Dan Dugan
>
>
>
>
Daniel Saykaly
==========================================
INTERNET: dsaykaly interlink.net
==========================================
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n217.5 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: The (Final) Mysterious "EL"
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 12:29:33 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Post from Tonkin 21 Nov 1996:
[snip]
>Michael Kopp writes:
>
>TONKIN
>>>I do, however, confess to bearing a thorough and unmitigated
>>>contempt for _adults_ who _deliberately_ lie and distort.
>
>[snip]
>
>>
>KOPP
>>You haven't proved any of these assertions
>[snip personal identifier]
>>, Tonkin. Your
>>tortured logic and sums do not prove guilty intent, nor do they prove lies
>>or distortions.
>
>OK -- please give us your explanation, then, of how X makes the claim
>that he was unaware of something until Y had informed him of it,
>although X had posted, *before* Y informed him, that he was aware of it?
>I'd also be interested to see your suggestions of X's possible motives
>for making such a claim.
McKay says: To save Kopp from speculating on something he didn't create
I'll try and clear this question up for Tonkin. Tonkin is correct in the
fact that I had looked up the spelling of Mr. Schlesinger's name before he
(Tonkin) jumped in. _But_, because Mr. S. nor anyone else had given me a
clue to _why_ "David Sch_e_lesinger" was not his name, I was still not
sure even with the "_e_" removed that I had Mr. Schlesinger's name correct
or that was his name at all. When Tonkin continued his attack with;
"Shelesinger[tonkins misspell of my misspell] or Schlensinger *aren't* his
name. You know that, so why the hell do you persist in acting so innocent?"
, not ownly was I stunned by this attack, I became even more confused.
Tonkin never made any effort to correct an obvious and innocent misspelling
(which he did himself of my misspelling).
>>You turn imperfection into malice.
>
>If X tells Y that if Y commmits a certain act, it is because Y has
>chosen to do so, do you not think it reasonable to assume that, if X
>commits (or has committed) that act, X does so through choice and can
>therefore be assumed to have acted deliberately?
McKay says: This is hard to follow and some what confusing but I'll attempt
to answer this assumption. I'm not sure what I "committed" other than what
I have previously explained, and by that, NO, there was no deliberate act
as you suggest.
The unfortunate thing about all this is the fact that two posts were made
by Mr. Tonkin, and even though the second one was a reluctant(to me)
apology I'll accept it for what it is. It still leaves me wondering which
post rings most true to Mr. Tonkin. In other words, is he truely sorry or
is he just doing PR to try and salvage his reputation? I do truely hope
that the overall improvement of how people are treating each other since my
last post will continue and become the norm. We can agree to disagree, yet
maintain respect for each others views, thoughts, ideas and experiences.
Respectfully, David McKay
P.S. Stephen, what does ":-)" mean, I see a lot of abbreviations used on
this list and don't always know what they are. Is there a book or some
reference material available so that we could all speak in the same
language?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n217.6 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: A Motion
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 12:29:36 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>I move that the following topics be moved off the list and into private
>>e-mail:
>>
>>(1) Who said what to whom;
>>(2) Whether -El should use a pseudonym;
>>(3) Whether the critics of the Waldorf-critics are more obnoxious than the
>>Waldorf-critics; and
>>(4) Whether posts from this list have been improperly posted elsewhere.
>>
>>You guys can beat each other up all you want, I'm just tired of hearing
>>about it.
>>
>>Do I hear a second?
>
>I second that motion, Steve.
>
>-Dan Dugan
I move that this motion be adopted. (but who will enforce it and how)
David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n217.7 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Motion: All those who oppose ?
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 18:36:29 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
snell oro.net writes
>Because I suspect nearly _everyone_ will agree to this, maybe we should
>move to the "all those opposing" phase. So, let's hear from _anyone_ who is
>opposed.
I am not opposed to it.
However, I imagine that there *may* be opposition from those who
encourage people to publicly post things that have already been taken to
private email.
>
>
>>On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Dan Dugan wrote:
>>> >I move that the following topics be moved off the list and into
>>> >private e-mail:
>>> >(1) Who said what to whom;
>>> >(2) Whether -El should use a pseudonym;
>>> >(3) Whether the critics of the Waldorf-critics are more obnoxious than the
>>> >Waldorf-critics; and
>>> >(4) Whether posts from this list have been improperly posted elsewhere.
>>
>>> >You guys can beat each other up all you want, I'm just tired of hearing
>>> >about it.
>>> >Do I hear a second?
>>
>>> I second that motion, Steve.
>>> -Dan Dugan
>>
>>I third it!
>>I may have to get an attorney soon.
>>I didn't expect this to be the Spanish Inquisition...
>>-El
>
>
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n217.8 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: The creation of a full disclosure document
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 16:09:16 -0500
El writes:
> but in this next statement....
>
> > >>>that his
> > >>>evolution has continued up through the various races (red, black, brown,
> > >>>yellow and white)
>
> This is not my take of what Dr. Steiner said, this statement is not
> accurate.
> Can you quote where he specifies races by "color of the skin" and
> further, can you name the ancient peoples he was really talking about?
>
> I think you are equating these ancient peoples with modern human beings.
>From what I've read, I'd agree with El here. It seems to me that what
makes Steiner's ideas on history dubious is not a significant amount
of "racism" (whatever that is...it seems to be socially conditioned,
and changes with every generation---that is, "whose ox is gored"). The
fundamental problem is with notions like:
> >>>individually over many lives. Anthroposophy teaches that man existed as a
> >>>spiritual being before the beginning of the world, and that his evolution on
> >>>earth goes back to (and precedes) the lost continent of Atlantis;
about which which El says:
> This statement is accurate, broad, but accurate I believe this is what
> Dr. Steiner said.
I'd say the business about Atlantis, and also to some extent the
Theosophical view of "spiritual evolution", is a bunch of hokus-pokus
invented by Blavatsky and allies in the 19th Century, C.E. Steiner
offers it without the slightest evidence, as a result of meditative
searches of his own mind. I can't imagine NOT heading into a
conference with my child's teacher in a very, very bitter mood if I
found that such things were being taught as "history". Are they? Is
there in the schools this blurring between documented history and
revealed belief (or allegory, for those anthroposophists who don't
take this stuff literally)? Stephen? El? Could someone comment from
the Waldorf perspective? Shouldn't one try to keep these very
different pursuits separate (at least beyond the first grade or
two...the years when _mythology_ is explicitly taught, rather than
_history_)? Cheers, --Lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n217.9 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Platonic year
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 16:28:50 -0500
Daniel Saykaly writes:
> Dan,
>
> I don't know the passage in Steiner, but you can find it in Roy Wilkinson's
> "Nutrition, Health Anthropology for classes 7/8", put out by R.Steiner
> College Press. Pages 20 & 21. "If the children have not already counted the
> number of breaths they take in a minute, they should do it now. It is to be
> hoped that they will arrive at 18 which is theaverage number of inhalations
> and exhalations of the adult. With a little more arithmetic we find: 18
> breaths per minute means 18 x 60 per hour = 1080. 1080 x 2 = 2160, the
> number of breaths taken while the sun traverses one sign of the zodiac in
> the daily rhythm. 1080 per hour means 1080 x 24 per day (of 24 hours) =
> 25920." Earlier he explains the Platonic year as 25920 years although his
> idea of a year is a little unusual. ("In round figures we reckon the year to
> be 360 days ....")
A few teachers I've spoken with seem to (somewhat patronizingly) call
Wilkinson a nice old man, with all the implications of harmlessness
which that carries. If I may offer a dissenting voice: I've read
several of his pamphlets (at least one of which has been extensively
quoted here), and was horrified by almost every paragraph. He takes
the wilder and woolier superstitions which Steiner's words sometimes
seems to imply, and states them explicitly and pedantically, packaged
for consumption by Waldorf teachers. I shan't quote further, since
the above is an entirely sufficient example. Note: It is NOT
presented as an arithmetic exercise, where it might simply be good
imaginative fun.
If Wilkinson's general thrust, especially in the areas of science,
nutrition, etc., represents "education", I'd rather my kids received
plenty of ignorance.
Another grumpy old man, --Lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n217.10 ---------------
From: Lefty
Subject: Re: A Motion
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 14:02:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Steve Premo wrote:
>
>I move that the following topics be moved off the list and into private
>e-mail:
>
>(4) Whether posts from this list have been improperly posted elsewhere.
If Steve meant what he wrote here, i.e. posts from the waldorf-critics list
being reposted elsewhere, that's Mr. Dugan's lookout. If, however, this
was meant to include the sort of cross-posting that Mr. Dugan has indulged
in, taking messages from the WALDORF list and reposting them on
waldorf-critics without permission from, or notification to, the original
authors, I emphatically will _not_ keep the matter in private email.
Sorry for the inconvenience, but the easiest way for this to cease to be an
issue would be for Mr. Dugan to stop reposting material from WALDORF, or
for whichever subscriber or subscribers are passing postings along to him,
in violation of the list's charter, to stop doing so.
--
Lefty [gYon-Pa]
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n217 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n218 --------------
001 - "Peter Schwab" - Re: A Motion
009 - snell oro.net - Need help to descramble
010 - allure netcom.com - Re: Need help to descramble
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n218.1 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Warning:Tonkin's attack on McKay (delete is an option)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 00:19:29 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Lee Story said:
>
> I don't see how you can take Peter's words as "anti-science". As far
> as I can see he offers a fine picture of empirical investigation under
> uncertainly. So I must respectfully disagree with your words, above.
>
Thank you for the flowers, Lee. But they are unearned, it was not me
who fave this fine picture but Linda.
> [...] Thus I see the tendency as toward the third: the
> creation of a new religion based on Steiner texts.
No need to create one: There is an anthroposophical inspired
church, the Christian Community. Anthroposophy as such is _no_
religion and will never be.
> As long as
> anthroposophical training, including a year's total immersion in
> Steiner, is a requirement for Waldorf teaching, he impact of this
> near-religion on those schools has to be immense.
This requirement does definitly _not_ exist in Germany and
Switzerland. Most schools are happy when they can find qualified
teachers with some _interest_ in anthroposophy. In the meantime
employment offers fill pages of anthroposophic newspapers here in
Europe and most schools (not ours, unfortunatly :-( ) have waiting
lists for new pupils as long as both of my arms.
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 032 / 857.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n218.2 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Conclusions
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 00:19:29 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-printable
> Peter, I agree with the rest of your message, but this is a bold and
> dubious claim, and was unnecessary to make your point. Why did you
> state (and repeat) it? In any case, I must deny that mathematical
> proof can establish anything with an empirical element. Or perhaps
> your personal "God" is mathematical logic. Then there's no
> contradition, but only the weakest sense in which logic can be said to
> prove itself.
>
> Accepting claims like this would seem [1] to be a matter of
> religious faith, and [2] to lead to the dualist worldview of sects
> like Christian Science (material VERSUS spiritual). Cheers, --Lee
>
Sorry to contradict you, Lee, but I studied this part of Blaise
Pascal's works during high school. And it was no waldorf school, it
was the very public and state run "Gymnase Cantonal de Neuch=E2tel".
Blaise Pascal was introduced to us by _three_ teachers: in French
litterature for his writings, in philosophy for the philosophical
part and in mathematics for his way of scientific work.
I don not have the time to dig out my old school notes but of course
Pascal's proof for the existence of God is based on a couple of
axioms he put up as a basis. If you not accept those axioms, the
proof does not stand, just as with any other mathematical theory.
My point was to contradict the view that science has to be atheistic,
not more. Mentioning Pascal I just wanted to point out that
scientific means can be used in the "spritual" world with success.
What makes you so uneasy about this?
Blessings to you
+peter+
PS: Thanks for the orthography lesson (pro[ve]of).
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 032 / 857.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n218.3 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: differences between European and US Waldorf
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 00:19:29 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Dear Dan,
Please note that the following reflecs strictly my own view and does
not engage any fellow antroposoph. (They may even contradict me on
one point or the other...)
>
> I've heard this said several times, but I have never understood just what
> these differences are.
Learn German and read "Das Goetheanum", "Erziehungskunst", and
"Info3". Just for starters.
No waldorf/Steiner schools ins Switzerland recieve public funding.
Their only ressources are tutition money and fundraising. This makes
them _very_ receptive for partent's remarks and wishes, who paies
wants to have at least the illusion that he decides as well. Some
schools do very well, others (like ours) crawl at the edge of
financial disaster.
Germany is a different pair of shoes. All private schools, waldorf or
not, must obtain state approval prior to opening. The procedure to
get this approval is quite lenthy and complicated and a lot of
things, like curriculum, financial ressources, paedagigical model and
possible number of students, are very carefully examined.
Three years after getting the approval the school can obtain state
money. This contribution covers a conciderable part of the schools
needs. The counterpart is that the gouvenment has the right to have
its say on teacher's qualifications, curriculum and others. I is the
rule that teachers must have the state certification to be allowed to
teach at a waldorf school, just as at any public school. The
consequence is that waldorf teacher training in Germany is aimed at
obtaining the state certification just as well as the usual waldorf
training. This means that German waldorf teachers are mostly better
trained than the average as they have to get the "normal" and the
"anthroposophical" training.
The reality is, however, that there is a lack of trained waldorf
teachers. So lots of waldorf schools engage "normal" teachers (of
which there is an abundance) and give them a two weeks intensive
"waldorf-peadagogy" briefing. Difficult to "indoctrinate" under such
conditions.
No state requirtements for teacher training in Switzerland, I must
say "unfortunatly". But none of our teachers had to undergo something
as a "foundation year".
> They all read the same Steiner.
_You_ read a (maybe lousy) english/american translation. We read the
German original. This alone may make a difference.
Anthroposophy and as a consequence waldorf education is rooted in and
around the German-speaking middle-european civilisation. I very much
doubt I can be successfully be placed elsewhere whithout problems and
major adaptions. I think it is curiout that most people attracted by
the "critics" side seem to come from the US (Michael being a
noticable exception).
> The European and
> American curriculum posters are the same except for the omission of
> religion classes in the U.S.
I have never seen a curriculum poster in our school, I'll have to ask
if such a thing exist. Anyway, the waldorf curriculum is mostly a
framework, a skeletton. It is up to the individual teacher to add the
"meat". The curriculum as I understand it defines the goals to reach,
the teacher decided how to get there.
FWIW, I have not yet found any trace of your so called "weired
science" being taught in our school.
> Apparently the racism is more explicit in the
> Dutch anthropology classes than in the American.
As long as the Duch host the ugliest gangs of neo-nazies in Europe,
they should shut up accusing others to be "racists". The whole
discussion is a lot of humbug brought up mostly by former left-winged
ex-commies on the quest for a new occupation after the wall came down
and all their illusions went down the river.
There is no racism in antroposophy and waldorf education. Point.
What you percieve as racism is in my opinion the result of a failed
adaption of a middle-european single-cultural concept to the
north-american multi-cultural illusion of a society.
> Could you give more detail
> about the differences you perceive? Has anyone curriculum materials (course
> list, reading list) from European Waldorf teacher training?
>
I will see what I can get.
Best wishes
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 032 / 857.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n218.4 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Conclusions
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 00:19:28 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
> Hey, you folk are going to risk giving DD a pump-attack if this list
> becomes the standard medium for Waldorf teacher recruitment!
Well, it is perhaps not the intended effect, but then, there are
fringe benefits to everything.
Please not the following DISCLAIMER!
+peter+
DISCLAIMER: The text above is strictly SATIRICAL and not intended to
represent any real or imaginated thread for the life, health or
mental sanity of any person known as "waldorf critic". No person
commonly known as "defender of the faith" shall be made responsible
if the life, health or mental sanity of a "waldorf critic" gets
damaged. Reading posts of "defenders of the faith" is done by any
"waldorf critic" entirely on his own risk.
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 032 / 857.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n218.5 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Warning:Tonkin's attack on McKay (delete is an option)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 13:42:17 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Linda Hoffman (Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:51:08 +0000) says about Michael Kopp's views:
>You are right Michael, that it is useful for us to share our experiences;
>that's why we subscribe to mail lists. The arguments that I characterize
>as purposeless are blanket statements like:
>
>>I suggest these parents are either
>
>>1. not looking critically at either the education or its fundamental
>>philosophical premises, or
>
>>2. so taken in by the quasi-religious new-(old)-age philosophy that they
>>are true believers.
>
>This is simply offensive to those who do not fit into either of these
>categories. I know, both personally and through email, thoughtful and
>intelligent people who have looked very carefully into Waldorf education
>and its anthroposophical underpinnings, have chosen it for their children
>(despite some reservations), and are very happy with the results. This
>_is_ one of the possible outcomes of enrolling one's children in a Waldorf
>school, and it is just as valid an experience as any of the unfortunate
>outcomes that have been shared on this list. (Throwing out data points
>just because they don't match one's hypothesis is bad science, Michael, or
>so I was taught at MIT.)
But this is a debate, not a scientific experiment about Steiner/Waldorf/
Anthroposophy. I'm stating a view, not a fact. It is my summation of how
people must think in order to arrive at the positions they support. I said
it was a suggestion.
I don't believe it's a possible ourcome for one to _not_ fit into one of my
categories and still be very happy with the results of a Steiner/Waldorf
education.
People who you or themselves think are happy with such education would have
to tell me why they are happy despite reservations, and what it is that
they are happy with.
This would have to be in terms of a checklist of both three-Rs and the
"higher" education, using, say, Dan Saykaly's list of the faith's
attributes.
They would have to indicate the critical thinking they did before coming to
the conclusion they were "happy". They would have to disavow belief in the
faith.
They would have to say whether they think their kids have been inculcated
with "a way of life", as I called it elsewhere (to objections from the
faithful), and whether they approved of it.
All those questions satisfied, I could then decide whether they were
ignorant or fooling themselves and really did fit into one of the two
classes I mentioned; or whether there was a third class which I would have
to admit somehow. To me it doesn't seem possible.
As I said elsewhere, to me, rationalism and spiritualism are mutually exclusive.
>>>>After all,
>>>>spiritual belief is _not_ science. Nothing can _ever_ be proven.
>
>>>An excellent point, Deby. Nothing can _ever_ be proven, even though many
>>>of us have spent much of our lives amassing evidence about one thing or
>>>another. Aren't the limitations of science interesting and challenging?
>
>>This is the patently wrong-headed and typically anti-science,
>>anti-rationalist, defender-of-the-faith view that critical thinkers are so
>>frustrated with when trying to engage in debate about the nature and
>>problems of a belief system.
>
>ROTFL!!!! What faith am I defending? (Please don't tell my lab director
>that I am anti-science; he might stop giving me a paycheck.)
>
>I do not know of any controlled studies on various systems of education.
>Moreover, I almost cannot imagine how such studies could be done; we all
>have different ideas about what outcome indicates a superior educational
>system, and moreover, I don't imagine most of us would care to have our
>children randomly assigned to educational systems, as test subjects. In
>the absence of such evidence (and the word _is_ evidence, not proof),
>parents have to make choices for their children based on their own
>observations and feelings. Generalized statements about Waldorf education
>(at either extreme) will never lead to useful conversation here, as
>different people have different opinions and experiences.
>
> Linda Hoffman
>
I have made several specific statements of what I find unpalatable about my
own children's education by the Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical model.
I have listed the things I wished I had known about the faith before enrolling.
As with Dan Saykaly's expanded list of things to tell prospective parents
(now being repeated by Deby Snell) none of my specific criticisms has been
addressed and debated, other than being dismissed by the defenders as being
anomalous and certainly not in keeping with the education _they_ know.
As I said before, I find it very hard to believe my school is so aberrant;
I think it likely that there is either dissembling or obfuscation going on,
or simple avoidance. That is why my personal experience turns into
generalised criticisms. And I think that is fair, absent better argument or
evidence to the contrary.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n218.6 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: A Motion
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 13:42:22 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The mysterious "-El" writes:
>I may have to get an attorney soon.
>I didn't expect this to be the Spanish Inquisition...
>-El
Now that's really ironic. The guy (or gal) that everyone's willing to allow
to remain anonymous is afraid even in anonymity.
But it's not even reprisal it is afraid of; it's having its ideas too
closely examined.
It's not the _critics'_ questioning we should fear here; it's the modern
version of the Inquisition, mounted by a religion-like philosophical cult,
_against_ the critics.
It will attack anything that moves if it isn't a member or at least sympathiser.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n218.7 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: A Motion
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 13:42:29 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Lefty writes:
>Sorry for the inconvenience, but the easiest way for this to cease to be an
>issue would be for Mr. Dugan to stop reposting material from WALDORF, or
>for whichever subscriber or subscribers are passing postings along to him,
>in violation of the list's charter, to stop doing so.
Sounds like somebody or somebodies in ther secret club lent their decoder
ring to someone who hasn't taken the oath of silence, or the faith has some
disaffected members.
More likely, someone just believes in open discussion, instead of the
circumscribed version on Lefty's lists.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n218.8 ---------------
From: {~_~}
Subject: Re: A Motion
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 19:15:49 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Michael Kopp wrote:
> The mysterious "-El" writes:
>
> >I may have to get an attorney soon.
> >I didn't expect this to be the Spanish Inquisition...
> >-El
>
> Now that's really ironic. The guy (or gal) that everyone's willing to allow
> to remain anonymous is afraid even in anonymity.
> But it's not even reprisal it is afraid of; it's having its ideas too
> closely examined.
> It's not the _critics'_ questioning we should fear here; it's the modern
> version of the Inquisition, mounted by a religion-like philosophical cult,
> _against_ the critics.
> It will attack anything that moves if it isn't a member or at least
sympathiser.
My Comment about the Spanish Inquisition was a joke, obviously you did
not get it.
This need you have for retaliation and conflict, however, by calling me an
"it" speaks for your character or lack there of.
I see you will stoop to nothing until you are well fed. So to stop your
whining, (for the squeaky wheel does get the "eril") I will toss you a
tasty morsel and hope this satisfies. With great expectations I have faith
that this will allow us to move on and discuss, IMHO, something more
worthwhile within this genre.
Always My Best,
Eliza Dolittle
But you can call me El.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n218.9 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Need help to descramble
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 22:44:15 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
My son, in his 5th grade public Waldorf school, painted several wet-on-wet
style paintings which was to be assembled as a book. The book was never put
together, and I am sure they are not in order. I need help to put this poem
in the proper sequence, so I may finish the job.
I am hoping someone will recognise this poem, put it in the proper
sequence, or even tell me if it is all there. Thanks.
Deby
In the spring the sun sends forth warm rays
My journey has begun
My limbs reach out towards the sun
the sun embraces me
And every day I grow and grow
A butterfly keeps close watch
At the close of day the skys ablaze
with colors rich and warm
All winter long I sleep and dream
the cool dark earth is my bed
The gathering clouds forget me not
I'm blessed by April showers
With blossom bright I thank the sun
My dream has been fulfilled
(I wonder if all of the poem is there, as I have one more picture without
writing on the back)
Thanks for your help.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n218.10 ---------------
From: allure netcom.com
Subject: Re: Need help to descramble
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 23:23:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Dear Deby,
I do not know who wrote this beautiful poem, but taking into
consideration that your son was in the 5th grade at the time, it sounds
like botany and the growth of a flower. Perhaps this was done in the
spring, each teacher takes up botany differently, depending on the location
in which the school resides, or how that teacher wishes to proceed with
the lesson, classroom dynamics, etc. If the order of the book is very
important to you, perhaps you can write to the teacher and request an index.
Waldorf teachers I have known usually take great notes and save everything.
Right Stephen? ;)
Best to you,
-El
On Fri, 22 Nov 1996 snell oro.net wrote:
> My son, in his 5th grade public Waldorf school, painted several wet-on-wet
> style paintings which was to be assembled as a book. The book was never put
> together, and I am sure they are not in order. I need help to put this poem
> in the proper sequence, so I may finish the job.
> I am hoping someone will recognise this poem, put it in the proper
> sequence, or even tell me if it is all there. Thanks.
> Deby
> In the spring the sun sends forth warm rays
> My journey has begun
>
>
> My limbs reach out towards the sun
> the sun embraces me
>
> And every day I grow and grow
> A butterfly keeps close watch
>
> At the close of day the skys ablaze
> with colors rich and warm
>
> All winter long I sleep and dream
> the cool dark earth is my bed
>
> The gathering clouds forget me not
> I'm blessed by April showers
>
> With blossom bright I thank the sun
> My dream has been fulfilled
>
> (I wonder if all of the poem is there, as I have one more picture without
> writing on the back)
>
> Thanks for your help.
> Deby
>
>
>
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n218 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n219 --------------
001 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Re: A Motion
002 - Lefty Redux On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Michael Kopp wrote:
>> The mysterious "-El" writes:
>>
>> >I may have to get an attorney soon.
>> >I didn't expect this to be the Spanish Inquisition...
>> >-El
>>
>> Now that's really ironic. The guy (or gal) that everyone's willing to allow
>> to remain anonymous is afraid even in anonymity.
>> But it's not even reprisal it is afraid of; it's having its ideas too
>> closely examined.
>> It's not the _critics'_ questioning we should fear here; it's the modern
>> version of the Inquisition, mounted by a religion-like philosophical cult,
>> _against_ the critics.
>> It will attack anything that moves if it isn't a member or at least
>sympathiser.
>
>
>My Comment about the Spanish Inquisition was a joke, obviously you did
>not get it.
>This need you have for retaliation and conflict, however, by calling me an
>"it" speaks for your character or lack there of.
>
>I see you will stoop to nothing until you are well fed. So to stop your
>whining, (for the squeaky wheel does get the "eril") I will toss you a
>tasty morsel and hope this satisfies. With great expectations I have faith
>that this will allow us to move on and discuss, IMHO, something more
>worthwhile within this genre.
>
>Always My Best,
>Eliza Dolittle
>
>But you can call me El.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n219.2 ---------------
From: Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: A Motion
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 00:54:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Michael Kopp wrote:
>
> Lefty writes:
>
> >Sorry for the inconvenience, but the easiest way for this to cease to be an
> >issue would be for Mr. Dugan to stop reposting material from WALDORF, or
> >for whichever subscriber or subscribers are passing postings along to him,
> >in violation of the list's charter, to stop doing so.
>
> Sounds like somebody or somebodies in ther secret club lent their decoder
> ring to someone who hasn't taken the oath of silence, or the faith has some
> disaffected members.
Once again, I'm completely at a loss as to what you're implying here.
"Secret club"? "Oath of silence"? The most charitable interpretation
I can place upon this is that your desire for a nice hyperbolic turn
of phrase is so enthralling you that you've somehow completely
forgotten about the realities you were attempting to comment on. It's
a bad habit, Mr. Kopp. Try to speak plainly.
A few factual points: all subscribers to the Waldorf list receive a
copy of the charter when they are first added to the list, a charter
which was discussed for literally months among the subscribership of
the list before it was agreed upon. No one is forced to be a
subscriber, and certainly no one _should_ be a subscriber if they feel
they cannot, in good conscience, adhere to that charter.
When one joins a list where the rules and expectations are laid out so
clearly, it's clearly expected that one will play by those rules.
Anything less is duplicitous and utterly insensitive to the rights of
all the other subscribers, who have a reasonable expectation that
those rules will be followed. If you repost a person's mail without
their knowledge or consent, when without question you have implicitly
agreed that you won't, you are simply abusing their trust, which is
contemptible.
> More likely, someone just believes in open discussion, instead of the
> circumscribed version on Lefty's lists.
Then they should go right ahead and start their very own list.
Reposting someone else's writing, without so much as a notification,
much less a by your leave, to a venue in which they may not even be
participating is certainly not "open discussion" in any reasonable
sense of the phrase.
I would have thought, Mr. Kopp, that with your admiration for
democratic process, that you wouldn't be going to these kind of
lengths to rationalize such abuses.
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n219.3 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: A Motion
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 22:28:46 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Lefty continues to offer advice on the conduct of lists that aren't his
own, in ways he wouldn't permit others to do on his lists. Sheesh. Arrogant
pup, ain't he.
>On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Michael Kopp wrote:
>>
>> Lefty writes:
>>
>> >Sorry for the inconvenience, but the easiest way for this to cease to be an
>> >issue would be for Mr. Dugan to stop reposting material from WALDORF, or
>> >for whichever subscriber or subscribers are passing postings along to him,
>> >in violation of the list's charter, to stop doing so.
>>
>> Sounds like somebody or somebodies in ther secret club lent their decoder
>> ring to someone who hasn't taken the oath of silence, or the faith has some
>> disaffected members.
>
>Once again, I'm completely at a loss as to what you're implying here.
>"Secret club"? "Oath of silence"? The most charitable interpretation
>I can place upon this is that your desire for a nice hyperbolic turn
>of phrase is so enthralling you that you've somehow completely
>forgotten about the realities you were attempting to comment on. It's
>a bad habit, Mr. Kopp. Try to speak plainly.
Who cares if you're at a loss? Go tell your own kids about their bad
habits. Give advice to somebody else, sunshine. I'm certainly not listening
to you. I'm poking borax at your stuffed-shirt mentality.
>A few factual points: all subscribers to the Waldorf list receive a
>copy of the charter when they are first added to the list, a charter
>which was discussed for literally months among the subscribership of
>the list before it was agreed upon. No one is forced to be a
>subscriber, and certainly no one _should_ be a subscriber if they feel
>they cannot, in good conscience, adhere to that charter.
>
>When one joins a list where the rules and expectations are laid out so
>clearly, it's clearly expected that one will play by those rules.
>Anything less is duplicitous and utterly insensitive to the rights of
>all the other subscribers, who have a reasonable expectation that
>those rules will be followed. If you repost a person's mail without
>their knowledge or consent, when without question you have implicitly
>agreed that you won't, you are simply abusing their trust, which is
>contemptible.
Just who the hell do you think you're talking to here, sport? I haven't
quoted anything off any of your lists here or elsewhere (though I may have
made passing reference in paraphrase). You want to lecture Dan Dugan, do it
privately.
If I make "hyperbolic" fun of your pecadillos of censorship and "politess",
tough bikkies. If I defend the right of other people to quote off your
lists, I'm sure you'll find every copyright reference in your favour to
throw the book at my arguments. You're never wrong, are you?
>> More likely, someone just believes in open discussion, instead of the
>> circumscribed version on Lefty's lists.
>
>Then they should go right ahead and start their very own list.
>Reposting someone else's writing, without so much as a notification,
>much less a by your leave, to a venue in which they may not even be
>participating is certainly not "open discussion" in any reasonable
>sense of the phrase.
>
>I would have thought, Mr. Kopp, that with your admiration for
>democratic process, that you wouldn't be going to these kind of
>lengths to rationalize such abuses.
Sorry? One of democracy's endearing traits is that it is able to absorb all
sorts of "abuses", such as the free flow of what is sometimes very secret
or protected information. Democracy thrives on openness, and is not very
polite.
Reposting from any source strengthens that democracy, not weakens it.
We're not talking about literature here (and I'm not going to respond to
any of your heavy-handed views about copyright -- been there, done that,
and nobody seemed to want to hear what to me was a fairly interesting
compilation of thinking on the issue, especially in regard to new
electronic discourse).
Abuse me all you want, "Lefty Redux". Water off a duck's back.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n219.4 ---------------
From: Linda Hoffman
Subject: Re: Warning:Tonkin's attack on McKay (delete is an option)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 10:11:00 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hello!
Michael Kopp wrote:
>But this is a debate, not a scientific experiment about Steiner/Waldorf/
>Anthroposophy. I'm stating a view, not a fact. It is my summation of how
>people must think in order to arrive at the positions they support. I said
>it was a suggestion.
Silly me. When I was a girl, I was taught that it is good debating
technique to back up one's assertions with facts. I guess I should have
noticed that this is not the practice on this list. Sorry for the faux
pas!
>I have made several specific statements of what I find unpalatable about my
>own children's education by the Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical model.
>I have listed the things I wished I had known about the faith before enrolling.
And these are good points; I have made similar ones on the Waldorf list. I
don't think I've ever heard anyone say that information should be kept from
parents; I think the issue tends to be how actively are the schools to be
expected to educate the parents. I think this does vary quite a bit from
school to school.
>As with Dan Saykaly's expanded list of things to tell prospective parents
>(now being repeated by Deby Snell) none of my specific criticisms has been
>addressed and debated, other than being dismissed by the defenders as being
>anomalous and certainly not in keeping with the education _they_ know.
Perhaps it's just a case of who posts on this list? We don't have a
statistically valid sample here; we are self-selected. (Pardon me for
bringing scientific stuff back into the conversation; I can't help myself
sometimes.) I think it makes sense that the people most inclined to
"defend" Waldorf education are those who have had the best outcomes in
Waldorf schools, so it's not surprising that their experiences are quite
different from the experiences of the extremely disillusioned "critics".
(And of course it also makes sense that the people with the worst outcomes
would tend to be drawn to a "critics" list.)
____________________________________________________________________
Linda Hoffman
"anti-science, anti-rationalist, defender-of-the-faith"
********I go back to my old email addresses as of November 29, 1996.
and **************************
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n219.5 ---------------
From: Linda Hoffman
Subject: Re: A Motion
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 10:10:57 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hello!
>I third it!
>I may have to get an attorney soon.
>I didn't expect this to be the Spanish Inquisition...
>-El
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our three chief weapons are fear,
surprise, a ruthless disregard for the scientific method, and a complete
lack of a sense of humor!
____________________________________________________________________
Linda Hoffman
"anti-science, anti-rationalist, defender-of-the-faith"
********I go back to my old email addresses as of November 29, 1996.
and **************************
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n219.6 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: crap
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 09:29:33 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Another valued subscriber left the list today due to the excessive volume
of off-topic postings.
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n219.7 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: What is religion?
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 11:27:01 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Today's New York Times (11/23) had an article about religious education at
the university level. Here is an excerpt:
Professor Martin Marty, the historian of
Christianity at the University of Chicago, said he identified "six
marks," which taken together define a system of beliefs and
practices as being religious.
That system must center on a matter of deep meaning, or
"ultimate concern," he said, and also involve socialization
(believers tend to form communities), show a preference for
symbolic language over everyday speech, use ceremonies
(especially at birth, marriage and death), take a metaphysical
view of life (there is more to the world than what one sees) and
require behavioral adjustments (attending Sunday School or
shunning pork).
>From this description, I think a pretty good case could be made that
anthroposophy is a religion and that Waldorf is parochial education.
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n219.8 ---------------
From: dsaykaly InterLink.NET (Daniel Saykaly)
Subject: Re: The creation of a full disclosure document
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 13:36:05 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Please read: Rudolf Steiner 1910/1971: 75-6, as quoted in the Waldorf
Education Research Institute's Research Bulletin, Vol 1 No 2 June 1996, page
8 in which Steiner very clearly identifies Africa/Africans with the
childhood of mankind, ("The black or Negro race is substantially determined
by these childhood characteristics"); Asia with the adolescence of mankind,
("If we now cross over to Asia we find a point or center where the formative
forces of the earth impress permanently on man the particular
characteristics of later youth or adolescence and determine his racial
character. Such races are the yellow and brown races of our time"); and
Europe, which he associates with the mature nature of man ("Europe, a third
point or center is reached which permanently impresses upon man the
charteristics of his adult life. ..... These centers still exist today....
Since all men in their different incarnations pass through the various races
the claim that the European is superior to the black and yellow races has no
real validity."
... No real validity in the sense that there the soul, though less developed
in the "lower races" will continue to progress and eventually "graduate"
into a fine
Aryan body.... and beyond.
>Dear Dan,
> I would like to start this thread by taking this bit by bit.
>
>On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Dan Dugan wrote:
>> >>>individually over many lives. Anthroposophy teaches that man existed as a
>> >>>spiritual being before the beginning of the world, and that his
evolution on
>> >>>earth goes back to (and precedes) the lost continent of Atlantis;
>This statement is accurate, broad, but accurate I believe this is what
>Dr. Steiner said.
>
>but in this next statement....
>
>> >>>that his
>> >>>evolution has continued up through the various races (red, black, brown,
>> >>>yellow and white)
>
>This is not my take of what Dr. Steiner said, this statement is not
>accurate.
>Can you quote where he specifies races by "color of the skin" and
>further, can you name the ancient peoples he was really talking about?
>
>I think you are equating these ancient peoples with modern human beings.
>
>Thus taking Dr. Steiners words out of context.
>
>This should make for some very enlighten conversation.
>Best,
>-EL
>
>
Daniel Saykaly
==========================================
INTERNET: dsaykaly interlink.net
==========================================
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n219.9 ---------------
From: Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: A Motion
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 11:54:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Michael Kopp wrote:
>
> Lefty continues to offer advice on the conduct of lists that aren't his
> own, in ways he wouldn't permit others to do on his lists. Sheesh. Arrogant
> pup, ain't he.
Er, no, I'm not doing that at all, Mr. Kopp. I was commenting on the
conduct of some subscribers to the WALDORF list.
Some people say I'm arrogant, but I know better than that.
> >Once again, I'm completely at a loss as to what you're implying here.
> >"Secret club"? "Oath of silence"? The most charitable interpretation
> >I can place upon this is that your desire for a nice hyperbolic turn
> >of phrase is so enthralling you that you've somehow completely
> >forgotten about the realities you were attempting to comment on. It's
> >a bad habit, Mr. Kopp. Try to speak plainly.
>
> Who cares if you're at a loss? Go tell your own kids about their bad
> habits. Give advice to somebody else, sunshine. I'm certainly not listening
> to you. I'm poking borax at your stuffed-shirt mentality.
You know, when I try to separate out meaningful statements from
invective here, there's nothing left. Funny thing.
> >A few factual points: all subscribers to the Waldorf list receive a
> >copy of the charter when they are first added to the list, a charter
> >which was discussed for literally months among the subscribership of
> >the list before it was agreed upon. No one is forced to be a
> >subscriber, and certainly no one _should_ be a subscriber if they feel
> >they cannot, in good conscience, adhere to that charter.
> >
> >When one joins a list where the rules and expectations are laid out so
> >clearly, it's clearly expected that one will play by those rules.
> >Anything less is duplicitous and utterly insensitive to the rights of
> >all the other subscribers, who have a reasonable expectation that
> >those rules will be followed. If you repost a person's mail without
> >their knowledge or consent, when without question you have implicitly
> >agreed that you won't, you are simply abusing their trust, which is
> >contemptible.
>
> Just who the hell do you think you're talking to here, sport? I haven't
> quoted anything off any of your lists here or elsewhere (though I may have
> made passing reference in paraphrase). You want to lecture Dan Dugan, do it
> privately.
Who said you did, Mr. Kopp. That's a generic "you"; I think your
paranoia may be getting the better of you again.
> If I make "hyperbolic" fun of your pecadillos of censorship and "politess",
> tough bikkies. If I defend the right of other people to quote off your
> lists, I'm sure you'll find every copyright reference in your favour to
> throw the book at my arguments. You're never wrong, are you?
What "rights" do people have to flout a set of understandings that
they agreed to when they joined the list? And what of the rights of
the subscribers who have every reason to expect that those rules will
be followed?
> >> More likely, someone just believes in open discussion, instead of the
> >> circumscribed version on Lefty's lists.
> >
> >Then they should go right ahead and start their very own list.
> >Reposting someone else's writing, without so much as a notification,
> >much less a by your leave, to a venue in which they may not even be
> >participating is certainly not "open discussion" in any reasonable
> >sense of the phrase.
> >
> >I would have thought, Mr. Kopp, that with your admiration for
> >democratic process, that you wouldn't be going to these kind of
> >lengths to rationalize such abuses.
>
> Sorry? One of democracy's endearing traits is that it is able to absorb all
> sorts of "abuses", such as the free flow of what is sometimes very secret
> or protected information. Democracy thrives on openness, and is not very
> polite.
This isn't a question of "secret" or "protected" information, Mr. Kopp
(although I certainly don't think that betraying confidences has
anything to do with democracy either -- your mileage may vary, I
suppose). It's a question of simple courtesy. You may perhaps be
familiar with the concept.
> Reposting from any source strengthens that democracy, not weakens it.
THat's an interesting, if nonsensical, idea.
> We're not talking about literature here (and I'm not going to respond to
> any of your heavy-handed views about copyright -- been there, done that,
> and nobody seemed to want to hear what to me was a fairly interesting
> compilation of thinking on the issue, especially in regard to new
> electronic discourse).
As a matter of fact, and as you well know, I saw it and disposed of
it. It wasn't difficult, considering that your compilation was a
mixture of unsupported opinions and inapplicable positions. You made
no response, which I took to mean that you didn't have one.
> Abuse me all you want, "Lefty Redux". Water off a duck's back.
Beg pardon? Where have I abused you, Mr. Kopp? Oh, it must have been
when I derisively called you "sunshine". No, that was you. Oh, maybe
it was when I referred to your "stuffed shirt mentality". Wait, that
was you again. Maybe it was when I stuck out my tongue and yelled
"Tough bikkies!" No, wait, that was you, too. OK, I don't know what
you're talking about.
"Tough bikkies"?
__
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n219.10 ---------------
From: Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 12:08:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Suzanne Lainson wrote:
>
> From this description, I think a pretty good case could be made that
> anthroposophy is a religion and that Waldorf is parochial education.
With all due respect to Professor Marty, I think at least as good a
case could be made from that description that baseball is a religion
and that spring training in parochial education.
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n219 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n220 --------------
001 - snell oro.net - full disclosure #3
002 - snell oro.net - More crap
003 - allure netcom.com - Re: The creation of a full disclosure document
004 - snell oro.net - Re: What is religion?
005 - allure netcom.com - Re: A Motion
006 - amcbryan cix.compulink.co - Steiner and Montessori?
007 - slainson rmii.com (Suzann - Waldorf and history education
008 - slainson rmii.com (Suzann - Re: What is religion?
009 - slainson rmii.com (Suzann - Re: What is religion?
010 - "Neil Faiman" Another valued subscriber left the list today due to the excessive volume
>of off-topic postings.
>
>-Dan
What _can_ we do to stop this nonsense ? I truely want to get some work
done. It is difficult to have to sort out the valuable from the trash.
PLANS has much work to do, and it is a worthy effort. The distraction is so
frustrating. This list seems to be the place to collectively work on a
expose', but staying on task is not easy.
We were asked [at our last presentation] to work on such a document for
people stepping in to help us, yet we have had _little_ response
and help.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n220.3 ---------------
From: allure netcom.com
Subject: Re: The creation of a full disclosure document
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 12:29:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Dear Lee,
> about which which El says:
> > This statement is accurate, broad, but accurate I believe this is what
> > Dr. Steiner said.
>
> I'd say the business about Atlantis, and also to some extent the
> Theosophical view of "spiritual evolution", is a bunch of hokus-pokus
> invented by Blavatsky and allies in the 19th Century, C.E. Steiner
> offers it without the slightest evidence, as a result of meditative
> searches of his own mind.
This is a heavy topic and I could write pages on this alone, but I can't,
at least not now. I am still working on my own research concerning the
evolution of the human being and it is not yet complete.
> I can't imagine NOT heading into a
> conference with my child's teacher in a very, very bitter mood if I
> found that such things were being taught as "history". Are they? Is
> there in the schools this blurring between documented history and
> revealed belief (or allegory, for those anthroposophists who don't
> take this stuff literally)? Stephen? El? Could someone comment from
> the Waldorf perspective? Shouldn't one try to keep these very
> different pursuits separate (at least beyond the first grade or
> two...the years when _mythology_ is explicitly taught, rather than
> _history_)? Cheers, --Lee
It would be hard for me to speak for other teachers...
I can only give you my perspective and my own experiences.
Please allow me to start with the evolution of the curriculum, focusing
more to the needs of your question
In the 1st grade teaching is done through the fairy tales.
In the 2nd grade Fables and Legions, Native American.
In the 3rd grade The Life of the Hebrew peoples and Pioneer life.
In the 4th grade the story of Atlantis is taught by a few teachers, those
I have spoken to who have are mostly from Europe. The Norse Saga is taught
both in Europe and in the US along with local geography.
The story of Atlantis is so fascinating and IMHO really bridges the third
grade with the fourth grade so well.
But I believe it is seldom taught in the US.
I did ask a few teachers why they did not bring the Atlantis Saga to the
children. Some have told me because of the time element, we have a
shorter school year in the US. A few teachers told me they felt that the
Norse tale in and of itself covered enough of what they felt was needed to
bring to the children, (the glory and the twilight of the gods, a
realization that human beings were now left to fend for themselves, take
responsibility).
There were also some teachers who were not even aware of the Atlantis
stories.
The content of the curriculum is at the discretion of the teacher,
each teacher must decide what aspects to bring to the children.
What is important is that the teacher know why and what they are bringing
to the children.
In the 5th grade the cultures of Ancient India, Ancient Persia, Ancient
Mesopotamia, and Ancient Egypt.
In the 6th grade Greco/Roma history through the Middle ages.
In the 7th grade the Renaissance up through the Classical.
In the 8th grade the Revolutions, Industrial Age, through modern day living.
The curriculum is based on the developmental aspect of the child.
The consciousness of the child at a particular age.
The cultural history of the curriculum evolves with the developmental age of
the child, leading from the world of dreams to modern day technology.
The curriculum delves deeper and deeper as the child gains his or her
thinking capacities.
The teacher has a base to work with and finds what is appropriate for each
class.
If there is a rule of thumb in Waldorf Education it would be to me the
education of the hand, the heart, and the head.
The curriculum is not sectioned out in little pieces, but is approached
as a whole. Just like the living human being, each organ can not
function separately without it's connection to the body.
Every subject intertwins into the curriculum. Reading, spelling, science,
math, etc. As the children grow these topics/subjects become more
specialized more sophisticated.
The idea of moving from one subject to another with out
understanding or a connection to the whole is IMHO not part of the Waldorf
Curriculum. If this lesson doesn't go well I think the teacher should ask
themselves if they themselves are connecting to the whole of the subject.
The curriculum is art in progress, it is alive, the teachers must make it
alive to the children. They must work though and come to the
understanding of what and why they are teaching what the bring before the
children.
Without this aspect it is just another dead methodology.
Any subject can be brought to life, by anyone who brings enthusiasm and
and a great personal interest to it. Many of the subjects I enjoyed learning
as a child were by teachers who did just that.
I hope I have been able to lay a bit of a foundation to your question.
Like any living thing it is very intricate and takes a bit of time to
understand the fullness of it all.
Maybe I can build on other questions you have or perhaps others here
may want to add or express their experiences in working with Waldorf
Education.
Are you thinking of sending your children to a Waldorf School?
Please feel free to answer at your own discretion.
Best Always,
-El
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n220.4 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 12:31:10 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Suzanne Lainson wrote:
>>
>> From this description, I think a pretty good case could be made that
>> anthroposophy is a religion and that Waldorf is parochial education.
Lefty contributes (?),
>With all due respect to Professor Marty, I think at least as good a
>case could be made from that description that baseball is a religion
>and that spring training in parochial education.
Oh come on, Lefty. This argument definately falls into the lowest common
denomenator catagory. Let's bring the quality of discussion up a few
notches.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n220.5 ---------------
From: allure netcom.com
Subject: Re: A Motion
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 12:37:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Linda Hoffman wrote:
> Hello!
> >I third it!
> >I may have to get an attorney soon.
> >I didn't expect this to be the Spanish Inquisition...
> >-El
> Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our three chief weapons are fear,
> surprise, a ruthless disregard for the scientific method, and a complete
> lack of a sense of humor!
Ha!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n220.6 ---------------
From: amcbryan cix.compulink.co.uk (Arthur Mcbryan)
Subject: Steiner and Montessori?
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 96 20:43 GMT0
Is there any link between the pedagogies of Rudolph Steiner and Maria
Montessori?
Arthur
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n220.7 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Waldorf and history education
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 15:12:03 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>In the 5th grade the cultures of Ancient India, Ancient Persia, Ancient
>Mesopotamia, and Ancient Egypt.
>In the 6th grade Greco/Roma history through the Middle ages.
>In the 7th grade the Renaissance up through the Classical.
>In the 8th grade the Revolutions, Industrial Age, through modern day living.
I realize that every school system picks and chooses what social studies
they will teach. So no child gets a comprehensive look at everything. But
based on this, it would seem there is realitively little time devoted to
American or state history or American government which have been basics for
American education for decades.
During the last election, for example, most public school teachers use that
as a opportunity to teach how politics works and encourage students to
debate the issues and look more closely at the candidates.
Do Waldorf students not look at local history and government in depth until
high school?
Is there never an opportunity to discuss current events? Are children
discouraged from following the news (by television) until a certain age?
And if so, when are they encouraged to what the nightly news?
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n220.8 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 15:11:56 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>With all due respect to Professor Marty, I think at least as good a
>case could be made from that description that baseball is a religion
>and that spring training in parochial education.
Actually, a number of people (myself included) feel sports has become a
contemporary religion.
While I'm not interested in ancient myths, I am fascinated by athletes as
today's mythic heroes. And certainly when one hears an athlete thanking God
for his success on the playing field, the connections between sports and
religion seem closely linked. Further, many athletse have a sense of
personal destiny and strongly believe in participating in their own mythic
creations.
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n220.9 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 15:12:00 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Lefty contributes (?),
>>With all due respect to Professor Marty, I think at least as good a
>>case could be made from that description that baseball is a religion
>>and that spring training in parochial education.
>
>
>Oh come on, Lefty. This argument definately falls into the lowest common
>denomenator catagory. Let's bring the quality of discussion up a few
>notches.
As I mentioned in my last message, I don't disagree with Lefty on this. At
the same time, I posted the quote because I did want to stimulate a
discussion about how Waldorf/anthroposophy is perceived.
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n220.10 ---------------
From: "Neil Faiman"
Subject: Re: full disclosure #3
Date: 23 Nov 96 17:24:58 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
As I commented when Mr Saykaly posted this note on the Waldorf list, my
impression is that he has made an honest effort to put himself into the
minds of people with whom he fundamentally disagrees and to create a fair
representation of their viewpoint. Unfortunately, I don't think he has
succeeded. I will refrain here, as I did on the Waldorf list, from
attempting a point-by-point response to Mr Saykaly's essay. It would be
interminably lengthy, it would probably just end up sounding defensive, and
it would be basically misguided, since I think that Mr Saykaly's document
is so fundamentally flawed.
I want to emphasize that I dislike Mr Saykaly's document, not because I am
opposed to presenting prospective parents with an honest picture of Waldord
education, but because I am in favor of it. Mr Saykaly's document
describes a Waldorf school that most Waldorf parents would find
unrecognizable. Informing parents honestly about what a Waldorf School is
so that they won't feel deceived after they have enrolled is an admirable
goal. Creating a caricature that is so grotesque as to scare away parents
who would, in fact, have been happy with the school is not disclosure, but
deception.
Passages along the lines of "The school does not approve of genocide,
although it is possible that some of our teachers might be in favor of it",
or "Some people have claim that we encourage cannibalism. We don't
believe that this is true" have nothing to do with full disclosure. Real
disclosure is an honest representation of what the school *is* -- not a
weak-sounding denial of every illfounded criticism.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n220 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n221 --------------
001 - "Neil Faiman"
Subject: Words to live by
Date: 23 Nov 96 19:17:13 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Never attribute to malice
what can be accounted for by stupidity.
Never attribute to stupidity
what can be accounted for by ignorance.
Never attribute to ignorance
what can be accounted for by a momentary lapse of attention
... or by an honest difference of opinion.
----------------------------------------
So long, folks.
-Neil
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n221.2 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 18:55:50 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Today's New York Times (11/23) had an article about religious education at
>the university level.
In the court case, Malnak verses Yogi, the plaintifs claimed that teaching
SCI/TM was promoting religion in the schools. The plaintifs won the case I
have printed _one_ quote from the superior court, inregards to the case. I
think this case s the closest precident for a case against Anthroposophy in
the public schools.
I have also included a quote(s) from the San Diego School District's
Legal Counsel regarding Harriet Tubman Villiage Waldorf School. The school
board ignored them, so for what _that_ is worth, I have included it.
Deby
MALNAK verses YOGI:
"The teaching of isolated theories that might be thought to address
"ultimate" questions is not the teaching of such a "ruling science."
When these theories are combined into a comprehensive belief system,
however, the result may well become such a "ruling science" that overflows
into other academic deciplines as the guiding idea of the student's
pursuits. It is just such a "ruling science" that the establishment clause
guards against."
SAN DIEGO LEGAL COUNSEL:
[snip]
"Although the foregoing discussion of anthroposophy is brief, it is
sufficient to demonstrate its religious nature. Anthroposophy addresses
fundamental questions relating to man's existence and his place in the
universe and offers a belief system to answer these questions. The
Christian Community of Anthroposophy also observes practices associated
with traditional religions. Accordingly, we believe a court would, for
First Ammendment purposes, view Anthroposophy as a religion if it were to
be promoted in the public schools."
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n221.3 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: teacher training/Full Disclosure comment
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 20:36:52 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
As I re-read Daniel Sakaly's document, the _one_ thing that is missing is
the teacher training content. I was so blown away when I looked at the
teacher training course study for the Rudolf Steiner College. Most Waldorf
parents who I showed it to were alarmed, as well. I think something about
that needs to be included.
What I don't know, of course, is what the requirements are for Waldorf
teachers world-wide. I am _more_ concerned about the U.S.and public
funding, and feel it is important to disclose to parents what the term
teacher means, in Anthroposophical terms. (Our public charter does not even
require a B.A. degree to teach at the Waldorf school.) Rudolf Steiner
College does not require a B.A. to enter the teacher training program. How
about other anthroposophical colleges?
I think _this_ is a big eye-opener to unsuspecting parents. I do not wish
to over look it. Daniel, can you draft something ?
Thanks,
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n221.4 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Teacher Training
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 02:18:24 -0500
Deby--
You said that the omission of Waldorf teacher training requirements was an
oversight in Dan Saykaly's proposed disclosure statement and that "it is
important to disclose to parents what the term teacher means, in
Anthroposophical terms." I am not trying to dissuade you from pursuit of
that understanding, but I would like to suggest that your task would be
simpler if you focused on the credentials that teachers actually have, rather
than the broader topic of what the term "teacher" means in anthroposophical
terms. For all the insistence of the critics of anthroposophy that it is a
collection of true believers who regard Steiner as the one and only source of
truth, I can assure you that there is in fact a wide variety of opinion among
those who participate in Waldorf education and other initiatives related to
Steiner's philosophy. You are likely to be frustrated if you seek "official"
interpretation of what _any_ concept means in anthroposophical terms.
The AWSNA position statement that I supplied here a few days ago means that
your local charter school is not a Waldorf school. This in turn means that
the content of Waldorf teacher training is not immediately relevant to your
concern about the nature of your charter school. What remains relevant, of
course, is the credential requirements of your local charter and the
credentials actually possessed by the teachers in that local charter school.
If that charter does in fact require certification as a Waldorf teacher, but
no other credentials, I would think that your best point of attack would be
on the deficiencies in the charter's credential requirements rather than the
content of Waldorf teacher training. Unless you are intent upon changing the
charter so that it _excludes_ any teacher with Waldorf certification. Then I
suppose you do want to try to establish that Waldorf teaching training
renders anybody unfit for teaching.
As you may know, the Rudolf Steiner College offers courses in Waldorf methods
for public school teachers. My understanding is that these courses do not
have content identical to the College's teacher training and the course
completion certificates are different from usual Waldorf certification.
Thus, it would be possible for a charter to require certification in Waldorf
methods as an adjunct to more conventional credentials, without requiring the
same training process as certified Waldorf teachers receive.
I understand Dan Saykaly's proposed disclosure statement to apply to Waldorf
schools, not to public schools intent upon using Waldorf methods. (For the
latter it would be appropriate to have a disclosure statement relevant to the
school's charter, if it is a charter school.) While the content of Waldorf
teacher training is relevant in that context, again I think it is more
important for parents of prospective students to consider the credentials of
the faculty at the particular school they are considering. It would be a
good idea for a Waldorf school to have a faculty roster that briefly lists
credentials of each teacher and a more detailed CV for each teacher,
available on request. And of course, prospective parents should talk to
faculty members about not only their credentials but their own approach to
education, course content, etc.
I am the Treasurer of the Sacramento Waldorf School and was Board President
previously, but I really could not give you an overview of the credentials of
the faculty at that school. We tend to focus on performance rather than
credentials, but your raising of this topic has made me curious enough to
look into our faculty credential mix.
Again, I'm not trying to turn you aside from gathering as much information as
you want about Waldorf teacher training. I am only suggesting that the AWSNA
position relative to charter schools leaves you and others who are concerned
about the nature of your local charter school to deal with issues of
credential requirements, curriculum content, classroom conduct,
administrative process, etc. on their own terms--not in terms of linkage with
Waldorf educational institutions. If your local community wants a school
that uses Waldorf methods--or even a school that would be recognized by AWSNA
as Waldorf school--that is up to your local community to decide. AWSNA has
said that they will not try to make it happen. I believe this position of
AWSNA is appropriate to the intent of California's charter school
legislation, which is to allow more flexibility for alternative approaches in
the local community.
Best regards,
Rigby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n221.5 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Learning to Learn
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 02:31:02 -0500
The Association of Waldorf Schools in North America (AWSNA) recently
published a small book that should be of great interest to Waldorf critics
and advocates alike: "Learning to Learn, Interviews with Graduates of
Waldorf Schools." It contains statements from 27 Waldorf school graduates
representing a wide range of ages and professions. Each statement is
simple--three or four paragraphs and no more than a single page, and most are
accompanied by a photograph.
Here is a sampling:
A television actress: "The first time I understood the benefit of a Waldorf
education was my first week in college. Students around me were flipping out
because they were afraid of writing papers. At High Mowing we had at least
10 pages to write every night. It was such a big part of our education that
I was very confident in my writing. We had to analyze each scene of Goethe's
"Faust" every night at home. I decided to paint each scene then write the
analysis. I still have my "Faust" main lesson book with me. When I wrote
about it, I was able to expand my thinking and make it my own. That's what's
so wonderful about Waldorf education. You're exposed to all these different
ideas, but you're never given one view of it. You're encouraged to think as
an individual."
An attorney: "And we were encouraged to ask questions. This also fostered a
fascination for learning new things. There was a deep respect, a reverence
for the process behind the fact. We were encouraged to ask "Why?" not for
the sake of criticizing, or as an excuse not to perform, but as a heartfelt
attempt to understand. Even now, as an attorney, I tend to press a client,
more than other attorneys might, with "Why?" Why did you do this? Why do
you think he did that? Why do you wish to proceed this way? And that helps
us to understand the issues more quickly and more clearly."
A businesswoman, President of her own consulting company: "The true
comprehension of cause and effect leads you to explore things like the
relationship between math and music, philosophy and spirituality. Waldorf
nurtured, cultivated, individual thinking, and I think ultimately that gave
me the confidence to go out and pursue my dreams."
An engineer, working on a project to contain radioactive waste for hundreds
of thousands of years: "The most important aspect of Waldorf education is
that it teaches you how to think. Real problems in life or in work come up
all the time where you say, there's no way to solve that with the tools I've
been given. How do you picture a hundred thousand years from now? In a way,
mythology, and an understanding of how various cultures developed through
history is closer to that kind of thinking than analytical, scientific
thinking. Every day I have to attack problems where I have to think freely
to gain any foothold, and that's the kind of thinking that was cultivated in
the Waldorf schools."
A professor of English and women's studies: "I'm an English teacher and a
writer, but in the Waldorf schools, if I had a favorite subject it was
science, particularly in the 7th and 8th grades. We would do experimental
science, in physics, chemistry, mechanics. We had to participate in the
experiment. Then at night when we went home, we had to write in our main
lesson books exactly what we had done, a lab report essentially. I can't
tell you how much joy I had in trying to phrase this clearly and concisely
and to illustrate it as artistically as I could. I've never lost the
pleasure in striving for that. It was a real moment when art and science and
writing came together."
An author and photographer, one of the first women graduates of Harvard:
"Thanks to my Waldorf education, I knew how to write and I knew how to think
for myself. We weren't just taught facts to be tested with a mindless "yes"
or "no" answer that has no meaning. We were given history as a cumulative
body, like an organic being that grows from a beginning. Your understanding
grows as did humanity's, starting with the Old Testament, the Egyptian and
Norse myths, the Greeks' myths and civilization, the Roman legal system, and
so on to American history. It was really a balanced view of the way mankind
has dealt with the mysteries of experience and the wonders of nature."
An electrical engineer: "An important benefit of Waldorf education for me
was learning to learn instead of simply learning subjects. This has been
very important for me as someone who works in the ever-changing realm of
technology. To be successful, it is important to think fluidly, to be able
to constantly learn new concepts and develop new systems. Waldorf education
gave me the ability to understand fundamental principles, beyond simply
knowing techniques. This is especially true with the introduction to
computers. As a technologist, I do not feel that computers need to be
introduced early in a child's educational "career." In fact, I credit in
part my late exposure to computer technology, after having fully developed
the ability to reason, with my success in my chosen field."
An aircraft designer: "History, starting with mythology, was probably the
highlight of my elementary education. Stories, real stories, came alive,
were personalized. I remember walking through the woods in 5th or 6th grade
and thinking about the battle under Charlemagne. The way the teacher told
the story--I was sitting on the edge of my chair. Then we drew the picture
of this battle. It speaks to the emotional life of a child, and gives you
aspirations. It served for me to develop a desire to overcome impossible
odds and not give up. Honor, duty -- those qualities were taught by example,
through studying historical personalities. That's the sort of thing that
gives you a thirst for learning."
Is this scientific validation of Waldorf education? Of course not--it is
only anecdotal evidence from a few selected graduates. But it may help
clarify for skeptics why those of us who are WE advocates have taken that
role. Even a few such graduates each year justify the commitment, and with
640 Waldorf schools around the world my belief is that there are more than a
few.
"Learning to Learn" is available from the Anthroposophic Press, RR 4 Box 94
A1, Hudson NY 12532, telephone 518-851-2054.
Best regards,
Rigby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n221.6 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 23:38:09 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>Lefty contributes (?),
>>>With all due respect to Professor Marty, I think at least as good a
>>>case could be made from that description that baseball is a religion
>>>and that spring training in parochial education.
>>
>>
>>Oh come on, Lefty. This argument definately falls into the lowest common
>>denomenator catagory. Let's bring the quality of discussion up a few
>>notches.
>
>As I mentioned in my last message, I don't disagree with Lefty on this. At
>the same time, I posted the quote because I did want to stimulate a
>discussion about how Waldorf/anthroposophy is perceived.
>
>Suzanne
>
O.K., I will try to absorb Lefy's message with an open mind. It simply
resembled a smoke screen to divert our attention from your original
posting. But, I have been wrong before....Sorry, Lefty.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n221.7 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re: Teacher Training
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 23:52:20 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Rigby,
Thanks for your insight on this. I have difficulty with the fact that the
local Waldorf-inspired teachers tell perspective families [inquiring about
the school] that _there is no difference_ between the public Waldorf and
private Waldorf _except_ for the funding. You get the same curriculum for
your children, without the tuition. These parents wanted to know the
difference between public and private Waldorf schools, specifically what
part of public was brought into the school, and what part of Waldorf was
brought in. I suspect that the public Waldorf teachers in our district do
not _know_ any public methods because they are not familiar with them, so
they give a very _honest_ answer.
While ASWNA may _not_ wish to associate with the public schools, it does
not prevent Waldorf teachers from teaching _all_ of the same curriculum.
ASWNA perhaps may wish to look at that.( If it looks like a duck, walks
like a duck, and talks like a duck...)
Thanks Rigby,
Deby
>Deby--
You are likely to be frustrated if you seek "official"
>interpretation of what _any_ concept means in anthroposophical terms.
>
>The AWSNA position statement that I supplied here a few days ago means that
>your local charter school is not a Waldorf school. This in turn means that
>the content of Waldorf teacher training is not immediately relevant to your
>concern about the nature of your charter school. What remains relevant, of
>course, is the credential requirements of your local charter and the
>credentials actually possessed by the teachers in that local charter school.
> If that charter does in fact require certification as a Waldorf teacher, but
>no other credentials, I would think that your best point of attack would be
>on the deficiencies in the charter's credential requirements rather than the
>content of Waldorf teacher training. Unless you are intent upon changing the
>charter so that it _excludes_ any teacher with Waldorf certification. Then I
>suppose you do want to try to establish that Waldorf teaching training
>renders anybody unfit for teaching.
>
>As you may know, the Rudolf Steiner College offers courses in Waldorf methods
>for public school teachers. My understanding is that these courses do not
>have content identical to the College's teacher training and the course
>completion certificates are different from usual Waldorf certification.
> Thus, it would be possible for a charter to require certification in Waldorf
>methods as an adjunct to more conventional credentials, without requiring the
>same training process as certified Waldorf teachers receive.
>
>I understand Dan Saykaly's proposed disclosure statement to apply to Waldorf
>schools, not to public schools intent upon using Waldorf methods. (For the
>latter it would be appropriate to have a disclosure statement relevant to the
>school's charter, if it is a charter school.) While the content of Waldorf
>teacher training is relevant in that context, again I think it is more
>important for parents of prospective students to consider the credentials of
>the faculty at the particular school they are considering. It would be a
>good idea for a Waldorf school to have a faculty roster that briefly lists
>credentials of each teacher and a more detailed CV for each teacher,
>available on request. And of course, prospective parents should talk to
>faculty members about not only their credentials but their own approach to
>education, course content, etc.
>
>I am the Treasurer of the Sacramento Waldorf School and was Board President
>previously, but I really could not give you an overview of the credentials of
>the faculty at that school. We tend to focus on performance rather than
>credentials, but your raising of this topic has made me curious enough to
>look into our faculty credential mix.
>
>Again, I'm not trying to turn you aside from gathering as much information as
>you want about Waldorf teacher training. I am only suggesting that the AWSNA
>position relative to charter schools leaves you and others who are concerned
>about the nature of your local charter school to deal with issues of
>credential requirements, curriculum content, classroom conduct,
>administrative process, etc. on their own terms--not in terms of linkage with
>Waldorf educational institutions. If your local community wants a school
>that uses Waldorf methods--or even a school that would be recognized by AWSNA
>as Waldorf school--that is up to your local community to decide. AWSNA has
>said that they will not try to make it happen. I believe this position of
>AWSNA is appropriate to the intent of California's charter school
>legislation, which is to allow more flexibility for alternative approaches in
>the local community.
>
>
>Best regards,
>Rigby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n221.8 ---------------
From: amcbryan cix.compulink.co.uk (Arthur Mcbryan)
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 96 08:17 GMT0
In-Reply-To: <199611240255.SAA01752 lists1.best.com>
This brings to mind the SCP ((Spiritual Counterfeits Project) vs TM
(Transcendental Meditation)case... SCP proved that TM was a religious
system and therefore should not be included in public education, military
or whatever. TM tried to argue that it was a "Scientific Meditation
Technique", the Supreme Court judged TM a religious system.
Anyway it was many years ago and I guess you US folk have a much clearer
recollection of what happened.
Arthur
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n221.9 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: CAN files objection to sale of assets
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 00:24:58 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Ben Hyink, attorney for the Cult Awareness Network, Inc. (CAN), appeared in
Federal Bankruptcy Court in Chicago today to protest a sale of CAN assets
that occurred last week. The sale does not become final until the Federal
Court issues an order approving the transaction.
>
>The day before CAN filed "Debtor's Objection to Trustee's Motion for Entry
of an Order Authorizing Sale of Debtor's Property". CAN went into a Chapter
7 Bankruptcy in late June.
>
>Philip Martino, the court appointed trustee for CAN, had begun the process
of liquidating CAN's assets by selling CAN's physical assets, including
office furniture, and intangible assets such as certain intellectual
property rights. Some of these intangible assets included service mark and
trade mark rights to the "Cult Awareness Network" name and logo, licensing
agreements between CAN and its affiliate chapters concerning these rights,
and certain final judgements that CAN held against Scientologists for legal
cases the Scientologists had lost against CAN in the past.
>
>Appearing before Bankruptcy Judge Ronald Barliant, Martino asserted that
CAN did not have any standing in the bankruptcy case because CAN did not
have sufficient assets to cover its debts. He confirmed he had sold certain
assets at an auction to Steven Hayes, who he identified as a member of the
Church of Scientology, which he identified as a cult. He conceded there had
been disagreement between Hyink and Hayes as to what actually had been
purchased at the sale, but nevertheless felt the sale should be finalized by
the court.
>
>Hyink maintained that CAN, as a non-profit, has a constituency which
deserves to be represented in the bankruptcy proceedings, and that the sale
of the intangible assets was contrary to public policy and would have a
chilling effect on freedom of association and free speech in this country.
"The First Amendment," said Hyink, "should not be entitled to be purchased
though the bankruptcy court."
>
>Hyink outlined discrepancies between what a proposed order prepared by
Martino in conjunction with Hayes identified as the assets which were sold
at the auction and what he understood to have been sold. He also voiced
objections to the procedure by which the sale had occurred, including the
manner in which the notice was given to creditors of the impending sale.
>
>Hyink raised concerns that the sale of judgements held by CAN against
Scientologists in prior litigation could make it impossible for CAN's legal
case against the Church of Scientology International and the law firm of
Bowles and Moxon to proceed even if the Illinois Supreme Court rules that
the case can proceed. CAN filed a petition some time ago asking that lower
court decisions dismissing the case be overturned, and the Illinois Supreme
Court has agreed to hear CAN's appeal.
>
>Kendrick Moxon, a long-term Scientologist and the attorney for CAN creditor
Jason Scott, objected to Hyink's remarks concerning the sale of service mark
or trade mark rights involving the name "Cult Awareness Network," claiming
that the court had already heard objections raised by Cynthia Kisser, CAN's
former Executive Director, at a prior court proceeding, and that the
objections should not be raised again.
>
>Judge Barliant decided to take CAN's motion under advisement. He has given
all parties until November 12 to file any additional pleadings concerning
the motion, and has set a final ruling on the matter for November 21.
>
>
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n221.10 ---------------
From: allure netcom.com
Subject: Re: The creation of a full disclosure document
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 01:08:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Dear Lee,
I have made an error in the following post, I said...
> The story of Atlantis is so fascinating and IMHO really bridges the third
> grade with the fourth grade so well.
What I meant to say was...
The story of Atlantis is so fascinating and IMHO bridges the _fourth_
grade with the _fifth_ grade so well.
Please forgive my mistake...
Best Wishes,
-El
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n221 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n222 --------------
001 - "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 13:02:36 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Dear friends,
I am just a dumb European, so I have some problems to understand:
What is the reason for the almost allergical overreaction of
Americans if the slightest trace of religion turns up in public life?
Just wondering...
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 032 / 857.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n222.2 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 13:02:36 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
> SAN DIEGO LEGAL COUNSEL:
> [snip]
> "Although the foregoing discussion of anthroposophy is brief, it is
> sufficient to demonstrate its religious nature. Anthroposophy addresses
> fundamental questions relating to man's existence and his place in the
> universe and offers a belief system to answer these questions.
Personally I have found a lot more of questions than answers in
anthroposophy. How many studies in Dornach did the San Diego Leagal
Counsel take to come to this enlightening conclusion?
> The Christian Community of Anthroposophy also observes practices
> associated with traditional religions. Accordingly, we believe a
> court would, for First Ammendment purposes, view Anthroposophy as a
> religion if it were to be promoted in the public schools."
>
The Christian Community is a church build up on anthroposophical
concepts, it does in _no_ way represent anthroposophy as such.
Just to put things where they belong...
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 032 / 857.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n222.3 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Platonic year
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 20:52:35 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Daniel Saykaly writes
>Earlier he explains the Platonic year as 25920 years although his
>idea of a year is a little unusual. ("In round figures we reckon the year to
>be 360 days ....")
I haven't read Wilkinson's book, but could it perhaps be an allusion to
Plato, for whom the "ideal" year was 360 days? (for more info on Plato's
concept of "ideal" as it relates to astronomy, read Book VIII of
_Republic_ and, IIRC, _Timaeus_)
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n222.4 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Notes and records (was: Need help to descramble)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 14:15:10 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
allure netcom.com writes
>Waldorf teachers I have known usually take great notes and save everything.
>Right Stephen? ;)
I know many who do -- but I do so no longer. I did, but found that I
would rely on my prior notes too much instead of recreating the lesson
each time -- it tended to kill the lessons. I now make only very
cursory notes on content -- the bulk of my record-keeping is now
concerned with how individual pupils are progressing and what sort of
thing seems to work for each (and what doesn't work -- those who fail to
learn from history are, the saying goes, condemned to repeat it).
It does take longer reinventing the wheel each time, but if the only way
to keep the wheel alive is to reinvent it each time, that is what I'll
do. Teachers do not have a God-given right to bore their pupils and,
from me at least, an unfreshly prepared lesson tends towards the boring.
Some of the content *may* be the same the second and third times around
but, if that is the case, it is because I have made a conscious decision
that it should be so, not because I have blindly followed some plan that
worked for a different group of children. Of course, some of the nitty-
gritty has to be present all the time, but the *how* one presents it
will change.
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n222.5 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: The (Final) Mysterious "EL"
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 22:54:06 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
mckay oro.net writes
>The unfortunate thing about all this is the fact that two posts were made
>by Mr. Tonkin, and even though the second one was a reluctant(to me)
>apology I'll accept it for what it is. It still leaves me wondering which
>post rings most true to Mr. Tonkin. In other words, is he truely sorry or
>is he just doing PR to try and salvage his reputation?
OK -- I obviously haven't made myself clear.
What I apologised for was essentially allowing my anger/frustration with
a couple of people (specifically Messrs. McKay and Kopp) to lead me to
posting private emails to them which were, in any terms, unpleasant in
nature and which were intended to be inflammatory. It was wrong and I
said that it wouldn't recur. It won't. Period.
I have not apologised and do not apologise for pointing out
"inconsistencies" in what people write, although I would be delighted if
the opportunity to do so didn't recur either.
My reputation is irrelevant -- no amount of anything else will alter
the past.
Is that clear now?
Now, there seems to be a general request that we *stop* discussing "who
said what" on the list (see the thread: "A Motion"). You have indicated
that you agree with it.
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n222.6 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Creation of full disclosure
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 16:22:14 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
snell oro.net writes
>Well. Since the last document had so little feedback, I wish to continue on
>this thread. I am assuming (sorry, David) that the first paragraph was
>either acceptable or there is apathy about it. I wish to move on to the
>second.
>
>Daniel Sakaly continues with the 'mission statement':
[snip]
As I have said previously, I find Mr Saykaly's document to be flawed,
for a number of reasons, many of which I detailed.
I wonder what validity the authors of such a document assume it will
have. The fact that it is discussed on a list such as this does not
confer it with valididty. It is still, at best, opinion.
I wish to have no part in such a process.
Consequently, I wish to make it known that I do *not* give my permission
for anyone, whether a subscriber to this list or not, to publish
elsewhere anything I have written on this list, on any other list, or in
private email. This applies to anything I have written in any context
and to publication for any purpose.
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n222.7 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: CAN files objection to sale of assets
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 16:01:47 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dan Dugan writes
>>Ben Hyink, attorney for the Cult Awareness Network, Inc. (CAN), appeared in
>Federal Bankruptcy Court in Chicago today
In view of the comments from Mr Dugan about subscribers leaving as a
consequence of off-topic posts, I presume the post to which I am
responding has something to do with Waldorf Education.
Could someone enlighten me as to what the connection is?
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n222.8 ---------------
From: Steve Premo
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 10:59:48 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Peter,
At 01:02 PM 11/24/96 +0100, Peter Schwab wrote:
>What is the reason for the almost allergical overreaction of
>Americans if the slightest trace of religion turns up in public life?
Americans do not object to religion in public life, as long as it is not
government funded. Many private businesses will display nativity scenes at
Christmas, menoras (menorim?) at Hanukkah, etc.
But the United States Constitution prohibits the government from either
interfering with the exercise of religion, or showing a preference for any
religion (or for religion as opposed to atheism). The idea is that the
government has no business being involved in religion one way or the other,
lest an "official religion" be established or implied, and those of other
faiths, or of no faith, are no longer treated as equal by the government.
Steve Premo
Premo-Fine Family
Santa Cruz, California
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n222.9 ---------------
From: kamesan ricochet.net (Michael)
Subject: new member
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 11:17:32 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I am new to this maillist.
I have just completed the first 11 weeks at the Rudolf Steiner College San
Francisco Teachers Training. I am very new to Anthroposophy and Waldorf
Education: My first exposure was about one half year ago and I have yet to
observe a kindergarten, grade school, or high school class. I also have
been substitute teaching at public schools at the middle level (which I
enjoy) and high school mathematics and computers.
Are there guidelines to discussion in this maillist of which I should be
aware before I jump into the fray?
~~
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n222.10 ---------------
From: allure netcom.com
Subject: Re: Notes and records (was: Need help to descramble)
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 11:44:25 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996, Stephen Tonkin wrote:
> allure netcom.com writes
> >Waldorf teachers I have known usually take great notes and save everything.
> >Right Stephen? ;)
> I know many who do -- but I do so no longer. I did, but found that I
> would rely on my prior notes too much instead of recreating the lesson
> each time -- it tended to kill the lessons. I now make only very
> cursory notes on content -- the bulk of my record-keeping is now
> concerned with how individual pupils are progressing and what sort of
> thing seems to work for each (and what doesn't work -- those who fail to
> learn from history are, the saying goes, condemned to repeat it).
> It does take longer reinventing the wheel each time, but if the only way
> to keep the wheel alive is to reinvent it each time, that is what I'll
> do. Teachers do not have a God-given right to bore their pupils and,
> from me at least, an unfreshly prepared lesson tends towards the boring.
> Some of the content *may* be the same the second and third times around
> but, if that is the case, it is because I have made a conscious decision
> that it should be so, not because I have blindly followed some plan that
> worked for a different group of children. Of course, some of the nitty-
> gritty has to be present all the time, but the *how* one presents it
> will change.
Dear Stephen,
You are correct in keeping the lesson alive and fresh, there are
dangers in repeating a lesson verbatim from class to class with carefully
written notes.
Although I have never been the best at taking detailed notes (I have a
fine memory). I have taught some of the same subjects to the same age
children and have gained some benefit from my previous notes. Yet, I still
have the inner desire to expand upon what I bring to each particular
class, I always want to provide the children with a fresh approach full
of enthusiasm. We need to know that what works for one group of children
does not necessaryly work for another.
In the past I have used my lesson books to loan to other teachers
as one of the many possibilities to teaching a particular subject. I
offered them to parents who want to see my work and get the visuals of
some of my ideas and abilities. I collect articles on topics that I may
or may not teach because they are of interest to me, they inspire me,
and they provide a library of reference.
There is no one prescribed plan that all teachers must follow. We learn
best from experience and from the help of others.
These are just some of the unique and wonderful aspects of teaching in a
Waldorf School. To be open and to learn from every experience gets right
to the heart of a Waldorf Teacher.
I am always learning from you Stephen, thank you for your contributions.
Best Always,
-El
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n222 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n223 --------------
001 - allure netcom.com - Re: What is religion?
002 - snell oro.net - Cult awareness groups
003 - Lefty Redux Peter,
> At 01:02 PM 11/24/96 +0100, Peter Schwab wrote:
> >What is the reason for the almost allergical overreaction of
> >Americans if the slightest trace of religion turns up in public life?
> Americans do not object to religion in public life, as long as it is not
> government funded. Many private businesses will display nativity scenes at
> Christmas, menoras (menorim?) at Hanukkah, etc.
> But the United States Constitution prohibits the government from either
> interfering with the exercise of religion, or showing a preference for any
> religion (or for religion as opposed to atheism). The idea is that the
> government has no business being involved in religion one way or the other,
> lest an "official religion" be established or implied, and those of other
> faiths, or of no faith, are no longer treated as equal by the government.
This is a question I have been wanting to ask somewhere for a while now.
This seems like a good place.
Why does Congress start every morning session with a prayer given by a
Christian minister of God?
-El
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n223.2 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Cult awareness groups
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 12:58:50 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>In view of the comments from Mr Dugan about subscribers leaving as a
>consequence of off-topic posts, I presume the post to which I am
>responding has something to do with Waldorf Education.
>
>Could someone enlighten me as to what the connection is?
>
Stephen,
PLANS asserts that Anthroposophy is a cult-like religious sect of
Theosophy. In the U.S., most mind control "experts" are aware of, and
believe that Waldorf education fits their criteria of a cult. Therefore,
cult awareness groups are _indeed_ important. (Even though Anthroposophical
educational endeavors _are_ recognised by mind control experts, they fall
towards the bottom of _their_ priorities because there is not true harm
being done to people, i.e., no torchuring, maming, killing, etc., that
_does_ happen in other cults. However, there _is_ concern about Waldorf
moving into the public sector, and many groups are considering
re-evaluation of Anthroposophical education as a result.
I personally support organizations that _help_ people get out of cults. I
must clarify. I support groups that assist people who _want_ out of cults.
I do not support the "kidnapping" type of approach to "de-program".
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n223.3 ---------------
From: Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 13:15:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Sat, 23 Nov 1996 snell oro.net wrote:
>
> >>Lefty contributes (?),
> >>>With all due respect to Professor Marty, I think at least as good a
> >>>case could be made from that description that baseball is a religion
> >>>and that spring training in parochial education.
> >>
> >>
> >>Oh come on, Lefty. This argument definately falls into the lowest common
> >>denomenator catagory. Let's bring the quality of discussion up a few
> >>notches.
> >
> >As I mentioned in my last message, I don't disagree with Lefty on this. At
> >the same time, I posted the quote because I did want to stimulate a
> >discussion about how Waldorf/anthroposophy is perceived.
> >
> O.K., I will try to absorb Lefy's message with an open mind. It simply
> resembled a smoke screen to divert our attention from your original
> posting. But, I have been wrong before....Sorry, Lefty.
I accept your apology, but as it happens I was entirely serious.
Prof. Marty sets up several points, that something must satisfy to be
a "religion". I think they're both over-vague and over-broad. Let's
take a look.
> That system must center on a matter of deep meaning, or "ultimate
> concern
Deep meaning is where you find it. For a professional baseball
player, the pursuit of "championship" can certainly have deep meaning
and be a matter of "ultimate concern".
Or to pursue another example, musicianship can unquestionably exist in
pursuit of "deep meaning" and "ultimate concern". Many people place
music, and the development of the greatest possible ability in its
production at the very center of their lives.
> involve socialization (believers tend to form communities
Teams. Fan clubs.
Or orchestras and bands. Serious musicians virtually always exist
within a community of like-minded "believers".
> show a preference for symbolic language over everyday speech
This is pretty hazy. What's "symbolic language"? For that matter,
what's "everyday speech"? This simply sounds like "specialized
vocabulary", which is trivial to find in both baseball and music.
> use ceremonies (especially at birth, marriage and death)
Plenty of ceremony and ritual in baseball. Actually, baseball is
pretty much nothing but ceremony and ritual.
Lots of it in musicianship, too, from tuning up to the protocols of
jam sessions. If I play scales for half an hour every day, does that
constitute a ceremony? I do it pretty religiously, and on a flute I
promise you that it induces an altered state of consciousness.
> take a metaphysical view of life (there is more to the world than
> what one sees)
Again, baseball as a pursuit of an abstract ideal like "championship",
a sort of state of being, seems at least fairly metaphysical. The
Infield Fly Rule is _definitely_ metaphysical.
Musicianship, the pursuit of the performance of music as an ideal,
unqestionably sees _the music_ as an ideal which can only be
approximated by any particular performance.
> require behavioral adjustments (attending Sunday School or shunning
> pork).
Professional athleticism requires loads of 'em, as does serious
musicianship.
The point of all of this is that this sort of checklist sounds real
good until you try to actually apply it. It seems to me that all
sorts of things might constitute religions under these criteria.
Actually, it's kind of fun to look for examples. How about
jurisprudence? Bonsai tree cultivation? Chess?
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n223.4 ---------------
From: Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: Cult awareness groups
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 13:32:38 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Sun, 24 Nov 1996 snell oro.net wrote:
>
> PLANS asserts that Anthroposophy is a cult-like religious sect of
> Theosophy. In the U.S., most mind control "experts" are aware of, and
> believe that Waldorf education fits their criteria of a cult.
I'd like to see you justify this statement, Deby. Let's see a
definition of what a "cult" is (I asked for this many moons ago, and
never got a response), and show me how Waldorf education fits it. Can
you give me references as well on some of these "mind control
'experts'"?
> Therefore, cult awareness groups are _indeed_ important. (Even
> though Anthroposophical educational endeavors _are_ recognised by
> mind control experts, they fall towards the bottom of _their_
> priorities because there is not true harm being done to people,
> i.e., no torchuring, maming, killing, etc., that _does_ happen in
> other cults. However, there _is_ concern about Waldorf moving into
> the public sector, and many groups are considering re-evaluation of
> Anthroposophical education as a result.
This doesn't address what _this_ posting had to do with anything in
particular (except as possibly a word to the wise on issues of
copyright and Fair Use). CAN seems to have arguably been guilty of
copyright infringement. I am probably even less fond of the various
denizens of Scientology than the next person, but that doesn't mean
that they're not entitled to the same rights and protections as people
with whom I _do_ agree.
> I personally support organizations that _help_ people get out of cults. I
> must clarify. I support groups that assist people who _want_ out of cults.
> I do not support the "kidnapping" type of approach to "de-program".
Well, _that's_ a relief.
Waldorf schooling is a pretty easy cult to get out of. Don't pay your
tuition.
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n223.5 ---------------
From: kamesan ricochet.net (Michael)
Subject: Re: welcome
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 15:11:02 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>I noticed that you just left the Waldorf list.
I actually attempted to join the Steiner and Waldorf lists several days ago
but apparently failed. I retried successfully today.
> What moved you to join the critics list instead ?
My motivation is not yet crystal clear to me. But let me quote "The Lord"
from Carlyle MacIntyre's translation of Goethe's _Faust_ to suggest a
partial answer,
Man's active spirit easily falls asleep;
he's much too readily seduced by sloth.
Therefore, I gladly give him a companion
who prods and works and must, as a devil, act.
>Wecome, welcome, welcome.
Thanks!
~~
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n223.6 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 16:39:29 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>The point of all of this is that this sort of checklist sounds real
>good until you try to actually apply it. It seems to me that all
>sorts of things might constitute religions under these criteria.
I don't think all activities would fit the model as well as sports. I think
it isn't so much a problem that the model is too general, but that sports
really have taken on the trappings of religious activity.
There have been several books about sport/religion. While I thought the
movie Field of Dreams was not nearly as impressive as many, but it
certainly touched a religious feeling in its fans. "If you build it, they
will come."
I am a huge fan of the Olympics and I love all of those morality tales that
are told during the broadcast.
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n223.7 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Notes and records (was: Need help to descramble)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 01:05:59 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
allure netcom.com writes
>Although I have never been the best at taking detailed notes (I have a
>fine memory). I have taught some of the same subjects to the same age
>children and have gained some benefit from my previous notes.
I must confess that I do sometimes wish my notes had been more
comprehensive, particularly when it comes to helping less experienced
colleagues. I have a notoriously atrocious memory!
>Yet, I still
>have the inner desire to expand upon what I bring to each particular
>class, I always want to provide the children with a fresh approach full
>of enthusiasm. We need to know that what works for one group of children
>does not necessaryly work for another.
That is so important! It is finding the right balance between throwing
_everything_ over and sticking rigidly to a pattern that is, I think,
one of the more difficult aspects of teaching in a Waldorf school.
Going too far in either direction doesn't work -- the problem is that
the equilibrium point changes for different classes, different children,
different times...
>
>In the past I have used my lesson books to loan to other teachers
>as one of the many possibilities to teaching a particular subject. I
>offered them to parents who want to see my work and get the visuals of
>some of my ideas and abilities. I collect articles on topics that I may
>or may not teach because they are of interest to me, they inspire me,
>and they provide a library of reference.
Yes, I do similarly, but I need a better filing system for all this
stuff I have in boxes, drawers, in the "deep litter" system on the desk
in my study...
>
>There is no one prescribed plan that all teachers must follow. We learn
>best from experience and from the help of others.
>These are just some of the unique and wonderful aspects of teaching in a
>Waldorf School. To be open and to learn from every experience gets right
>to the heart of a Waldorf Teacher.
True. When I started out on this path, it came initially as a great
shock to me to discover that, despite the titles of several books, there
isn't a "Waldorf curriculum" in the sense that one normally understands
the word "curriculum". I think that this is both a weakness and a
strength of our education.
It is a weakness in that it *can* make it _very_ difficult for a
beginning teacher to come to grips with the task. The balance (as
mentioned above) between license and rigidity is not always easy to find
and there can, IMHO, be a tendency to seek refuge in the latter. I
think that is a phenomenon that is not limited to Waldorf education, or
even to education. The mentoring of new teachers is a task whose
importance I am just coming to realise.
It is a strength in that, once you have begun to come to terms with
them, Dr Steiner's indications offer the opportunity of a richness and
livliness of education which I have not encountered elsewhere (although
that doesn't mean that it doesn't occur elsewhere).
>I am always learning from you Stephen, thank you for your contributions.
Thanks and ditto.
However, I'm not being flippant when I say that I have learned more
about what is and isn't an appropriate approach from the various
children I have taught than from any other source -- they generally let
me know (one way or another) if I get it wrong. I'm sure you know what
I mean :-)
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n223.8 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 01:29:46 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Steve Premo writes
>But the United States Constitution prohibits the government from either
>interfering with the exercise of religion, or showing a preference for any
>religion (or for religion as opposed to atheism). The idea is that the
>government has no business being involved in religion one way or the other,
>lest an "official religion" be established or implied, and those of other
>faiths, or of no faith, are no longer treated as equal by the government.
This begs a couple of questions.
1) Would it not therefore be appropriate to equitably fund _all_
education, so as not to discriminate against those belief systems which
have been designated as religions? This would also obviate the need to
determine whether or not something was a religion.
2) Was I misinformed when I was told that the official oaths, etc for
some of your government positions specifically refer to God? This may,
I accept, be UK urban myth, but "for God and my country" and "in God we
trust" do seem to be associated with a degree of US officialdom.
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n223.9 ---------------
From: Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 17:57:06 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Sun, 24 Nov 1996, Suzanne Lainson wrote:
>
> >The point of all of this is that this sort of checklist sounds real
> >good until you try to actually apply it. It seems to me that all
> >sorts of things might constitute religions under these criteria.
>
> I don't think all activities would fit the model as well as sports. I think
> it isn't so much a problem that the model is too general, but that sports
> really have taken on the trappings of religious activity.
I'd have to say that baseball is _not_ a religion. Well, you may feel
differently, but I'd think that's very much a minority position. I
thought musicianship was an even easier case, and I believe that, for
instance, jurisprudence would be an easy one as well. This says to me
that Prof. Marty's rules are unreasonably broad.
> There have been several books about sport/religion. While I thought the
> movie Field of Dreams was not nearly as impressive as many, but it
> certainly touched a religious feeling in its fans. "If you build it, they
> will come."
As fine a writer as Mr. Kinsella is, and as reasonable an actor as
Mr. Costner is, I don't believe there's been any upsurge in people
building baseball diamonds in their backyards in the hopes of
attracting the spirits of Babe Ruth or Ty Cobb.
Do you feel then that public schools should not field baseball teams?
How about Waldorf-inspired charter schools?
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n223.10 ---------------
From: allure netcom.com
Subject: Re: Notes and records (was: Need help to descramble)
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 18:21:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> However, I'm not being flippant when I say that I have learned more
> about what is and isn't an appropriate approach from the various
> children I have taught than from any other source -- they generally let
> me know (one way or another) if I get it wrong. I'm sure you know what
> I mean :-)
Dear Stephen,
Boy do I ever.... working with todays 6th through 8th grader is a new
challenge. Children are far more sophisticated than when I was 12. The
problems these children, or maybe I should say young adults, have to
face are unbelievable comparatively. When I see them labor in the
sciences, arts, or creative writing I am in awe of what comes through.
I am glad they have the time to really engage in the work they are doing.
I find myself asking quite often, where do these gifts they bring come
from... Thank you for sharing your experiences with me, I always
appreciate what you bring.
Best Wishes,
-El
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n223 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n224 --------------
001 - allure netcom.com -
002 - Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 01:37:07 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lefty Redux writes
> It seems to me that all
>sorts of things might constitute religions under these criteria.
>Actually, it's kind of fun to look for examples. How about
>jurisprudence? Bonsai tree cultivation? Chess?
Certain disciplines of science satisfy most of them as well. eg:
>That system must center on a matter of deep meaning, or
> "ultimate concern," he said,
Cosmology? Particle physics?
> and also involve socialization
> (believers tend to form communities),
This applies to a hell of a lot of things other than religion.
> show a preference for
> symbolic language over everyday speech,
Particle physics? (eg colour, spin, strangeness)
>take a metaphysical
> view of life (there is more to the world than what one sees)
Particle physics? (certainly if one applies the bit in parentheses)
> and
> require behavioral adjustments (attending Sunday School or
> shunning pork).
Again, a hell of a lot of things fit this one.
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n224.3 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re:
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 18:59:24 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
help
Help what ?
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n224.4 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Cult awareness groups
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 00:34:39 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
snell oro.net writes
>
>>In view of the comments from Mr Dugan about subscribers leaving as a
>>consequence of off-topic posts, I presume the post to which I am
>>responding has something to do with Waldorf Education.
>>
>>Could someone enlighten me as to what the connection is?
>>
>
>
>Stephen,
>PLANS asserts that Anthroposophy is a cult-like religious sect of
>Theosophy. In the U.S., most mind control "experts" are aware of, and
>believe that Waldorf education fits their criteria of a cult. Therefore,
>cult awareness groups are _indeed_ important.
Oh.
Please could you define a cult, then.
Could you also please be clear as to whether an activity needs to meet
all the criteria you use as a definition in order to be regarded as a
cult.
I am somewhat alarmed to be told that I have unknowingly been a member
of a cult for so long.
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n224.5 ---------------
From: Rebecca Mast
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 22:12:03 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> This is a question I have been wanting to ask somewhere for a while now.
> This seems like a good place.
>
> Why does Congress start every morning session with a prayer given by a
> Christian minister of God?
> -El The same reason M.D.'s take their oath to the gods and goddesses, tradition.
Is congress really a good role model for aspects of children's lives? " Suzy and
Jonny, follow the role of congress. Pray before you fight with your friends over issues
like allowing more toxic dumping." I hope their behavior is not what anyone wants in
schools. It maybe true to suggest that congress does act like children on occasion.
--
Rebecca L. Mast
Websculpt - Web Page Design 24hr Voice/Fax:(616)456-6132
E-mail=mastr river.it.gvsu.edu URL=http://websculpt.com
P.O. Box 54 Grand Rapids, MI 49523-0054
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n224.6 ---------------
From: afrancke netcom.com (Andrew Francke)
Subject: Re: Cult awareness groups
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 19:45:57 -0800
snell oro.net writes
>PLANS asserts that Anthroposophy is a cult-like religious sect of
>Theosophy. In the U.S., most mind control "experts" are aware of, and
>believe that Waldorf education fits their criteria of a cult. Therefore,
>cult awareness groups are _indeed_ important.
It may be an interesting data point that when I was a freshman at the
Sacramento Waldorf School, there was a short-lived series of
extra-curricular monthly discussion groups for parents and students of
the high school. My parents and I attended the first meeting, the topic
of which was, as I recall, "cults." If memory serves, I believe the
discussion was led by an area representative of CAN (the Cult
Awareness Network). We were pitched on the dangers of est, the Rev.
Sun Myung Moon and others (though none of the ultra-deviant satanic
cults were covered nor were their perverse practices, to my
considerable disappointment). No mention was made of our own peril at
the hands of R.S. and his minions.
Andy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n224.7 ---------------
From: allure netcom.com
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 19:58:51 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> 1) Would it not therefore be appropriate to equitably fund _all_
> education, so as not to discriminate against those belief systems which
> have been designated as religions? This would also obviate the need to
> determine whether or not something was a religion.
> 2) Was I misinformed when I was told that the official oaths, etc for
> some of your government positions specifically refer to God? This may,
> I accept, be UK urban myth, but "for God and my country" and "in God we
> trust" do seem to be associated with a degree of US officialdom.
Dear Stephen,
Being from the States you'd think I'd know.
Even constitutional lawyers I have asked can not give me a straight answer
But, I would like to add a few more to your list of God and State.
1. Pray in the Halls of Congress: At every morning session.
2. *The Pledge of Allegiance: This is uttered every morning in many
public school some states require it.
3. **Boy and Girl Scouts, many troops are allowed to use public schools as
a meeting place.
4. During the presidential and other federal/state inaugurations the elected
official has always been asked to place his or her right hand on the Bible
and take the Oath under God and country.
5. In a court of law, the witness or defendant is asked to place their
right hand on the Bible and "swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help me God."
6. As far as I can remember when a president speaks to the Congress and
the American public, he has always ended his speech with "God Bless
America."
What dose this word God mean...
What are all these rituals for...
I am not trying to prove or disprove any one particular area concerning
the religious debate issue here, but I think there is a lot more to look at
than just Waldorf Education.
As far as the "Cult" issue goes, there are many kinds of cults, there is a
cult for Napoleon, cult for the Rocky Horror picture show, cult for those
agains cults, and a cult for those who are for cults... The list goes on and
on. Each individuals definition will vary, depending on the value judgment
each person makes.
I believe individuals, cults, organization, or corporation who willingly
cause mental or bodily harm to one or a group of people _IS_ rightly
against the law and should be punishable.
I clearly do not see Waldorf Education or any school that adopts this
type of approach as being such an institution.
Education is this country is in a sorry state, most here may agree. Many
states are looking for something that works, some way to improve this
dilemma, I think Waldorf Education has something valable to offer.
I think what the real issues are, the ones that are worthwhile allow
each child to be in a safe and caring environment, equally shared and
respected. Where each child is allowed to learn and express their
creativity and share their gifts with others.
Best To You All,
-El
*FYI
The Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and
to the republic for which it stands, one nations under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all. -Francis Bellamy
** Girl Scout Oath
On my honor I will try to do my duty, to God and my country, to
help other people at all times, and to obey the Girl Scout Laws.
** Boy Scout Oath
On my honor, I will do my best: To do my duty to God and my country, and
to obey the Scout Laws. To help other people at all times. To keep myself
physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n224.8 ---------------
From: Rebecca Mast
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 22:55:44 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Peter Schwab wrote:
>
> Dear friends,
>
> I am just a dumb European, so I have some problems to understand:
>
> What is the reason for the almost allergical overreaction of
> Americans if the slightest trace of religion turns up in public life?
>
> Just wondering...
>
> +peter+
Religion along with other "ism" are areas "we" Americans are sensitive too. As
you know the US is the "melting pot". To preserve the ablity to "melt" we have to
protect ourselves from one group (or "ism") dictating the pot. Many will argue that this
exisit, however, it is every Americans "job" to nurture the idealism and freedoms of
America.
Naturally, people are competivie and slightly ethnocentric. When people
perceive one group as anting to dominate the "pot" retellation is a condition response
(historically Americans have never liked to be controlled by any group).
You may argue, "who's controlling? Not _we_!" This is were the tax money thing
comes in. Americans do not want tax dollars going to anything that may someday be a
threat to the freedoms. Also, tax dollars many not be divided equally based on
religion.
I do not view these actions (not wanting tax doollars to support religion) as a
strick against my beliefs. I view it as protecting them. What if the religion the nation
supports is not mine? My children could get less funding to their school and community
needs. Separation of church and state has allowed many religions to live rather
peacefully for quiet a few years now.
You may ask, "What about the intent of the fore fathers?" I think their intent
was different for the fact that there are now a greater number of religions in the US. I
do not think there was many intra-religious families like there exsist now. These
numbers were abtain by protecting the freedom to practice any religion one chooses.
(Lucky for me, my family is multi religious.) If these rights are continues, I suspect
the US will even have more types down the road.
I agree with those of you who say, "If you do not like it, stop paying your
tuition." That is why Americans do not want tax dollars going to religious schools.
Practicing what I believe and trying not to force it on others,
Rebecca
--
Rebecca L. Mast
Websculpt - Web Page Design 24hr Voice/Fax:(616)456-6132
E-mail=mastr river.it.gvsu.edu URL=http://websculpt.com
P.O. Box 54 Grand Rapids, MI 49523-0054
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n224.9 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re:
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 20:06:42 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
help
Help what ?
Deby
_El,
Are you alright ? (I can't help myself. I am a _world class_ worrier.)
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n224.10 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and history education
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 17:14:36 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Suzanne Lainson talks about teaching of history, current events and
politics using the goggle box as a source of information:
>During the last election, for example, most public school teachers use that
>as a opportunity to teach how politics works and encourage students to
>debate the issues and look more closely at the candidates.
>
>Do Waldorf students not look at local history and government in depth until
>high school?
>
>Is there never an opportunity to discuss current events? Are children
>discouraged from following the news (by television) until a certain age?
>And if so, when are they encouraged to what the nightly news?
One of the criticisms of U.S. public education is that it inculcates the
prevailing political system's abuses as well as its basis in the
unaliaenable rights.
I think children, even children of pubertal age, are not capable of
understanding or discussing sociological or political problems in their own
society because the only way to do so is to become sophisticated without
wisdom gained of education, experience or insight.
Children today _are_ in fact highly sophisticated about the world around
them. This does not mean they are truly knowledgeable, literate, logical,
ethical, moral, or rational. This sophistication comes from the onslaught
of media. One cannot escape it or even filter it. My kids don't watch Tv
soaps, but they know all about them and the characters, because other kids
talk about them.
In this respect, I appreciate the Steiner/Waldorf concentration on the
classical educational fundamentals of human existence; that's one of the
reasons I enrolled, and it is one of the remaining arguments in its favour.
However, all education, all exposure to the real world, inculcates
_attitudes_ in children. So does all _parenting_. Children are not thinking
machines, to be filled with raw materials and suddenly switched on at some
magical point when they can deduce the answers to questions.
I think involving less than 16-year-olds in political discussion is to put
them into a false world. Replicating real political life amongs younger
kids, either as an exercise parallel to, say, an election, or having
children use the trappings of real political life in their own lives, as in
student councils, only perpetuates stereotypes without understanding. It
also leads to all the abuses of fellow humans which are prevalent in the
society at large.
I say this despite my fondness for A.S. Neill's Summerhill experiment,
which was run on a common democracy basis similar to a New England town
meeting government, with one vote for everybody, and direct voting on all
questions. That was one of the most fascinating, yet least attractive
aspects of Summerhill, for me. But it seemed to work well.
Finally, the role of Tv in educating children to current events. I abhor
it. And that's from a former Tv newsman. Tv is to real information as
military music is to real music or military food is to real food.
If the people who don't want their kids inculcated with public school
socio- political values allow their kids to watch the evening news, they
are stepping down the ladder of values yet another rung, to
lowest-common-denominator populism. Today's television news and current
affairs has no use in a democratic society's political life.
Edward R. Murrow and the other pioneers of broadcast journalism are
probably spinning in their graves.
I don't know what Steiner/Waldorf thinking is on when to encourage children
to watch Tv. From my point of view, the answer should be "never". That
should be left to the parents, and the parents should educate the children
to watch critically. That can't be done before the children have critical
faculties developed.
I don't share the Steiner/Waldorf view of child development that says this
is only possible in the last years. I have been teaching my children about
Tv since they were small. They still find it mesmerising, and will take any
opportunity to watch it when they can. They understand how faulty its image
of the world is while at the same time recognising that the real world is
every bit as bizarre as Tv. It is hard work.
But along with discouraging Tv, one must _encourage_ other forms: listening
to good radio, reading good newspapers and magazines and books, overhearing
adults discussing and debating issues of life. I am not advocating a
head-in-the-sand approach; one cannot shelter kids from life's realities.
But the role of parents and teachers is to guide children through the years
of uncertainty and confusion about their world.
Exposing them to the goggle box is not the answer. Forcing them into
discussions of and acting out current events is not the answer. Education
and provision of wisdom for them to soak up and use is the answer.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n224 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n225 --------------
001 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Teacher shop-talk relevance (Was Re: CAN, etc.; Notes & record
002 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Re:
003 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Re:
004 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Re: Cult awareness groups
005 - allure netcom.com - Re:
006 - allure netcom.com - Re:
007 - snell oro.net - My face is red
008 - mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Mich - Re: My face is red
009 - slainson rmii.com (Suzann - Re: What is religion?
010 - RigbyL aol.com - Cult awareness groups
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n225.1 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Teacher shop-talk relevance (Was Re: CAN, etc.; Notes & records etc.)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 17:14:41 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Stephen Tonkin, after learning his traffic cop role well from Lefty, and
never missing an opportunity, proceeds to try to manage Dan Dugan's list
for him:
>Dan Dugan writes
>>>Ben Hyink, attorney for the Cult Awareness Network, Inc. (CAN), appeared in
>>Federal Bankruptcy Court in Chicago today
>
>In view of the comments from Mr Dugan about subscribers leaving as a
>consequence of off-topic posts, I presume the post to which I am
>responding has something to do with Waldorf Education.
>
>Could someone enlighten me as to what the connection is?
And before Tonkin snaps back that it's an innocent question, the "In view
of..." off-topic posting and "I presume" makes it a very pointed
insinuation.
Then, a few messages later, Tonkin and the mysterious -El engage in a
little tete-a-tete about Waldorf teacher note-taking and lesson-preparation
styles:
"From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Notes and records (was: Need help to descramble)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 14:15:10 +0000
BestServHost: lists.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
allure netcom.com writes
>Waldorf teachers I have known usually take great notes and save everything.
>Right Stephen? ;)
I know many who do -- but I do so no longer. "
Etc. Etc.
Aside from the possible interest people on a _criticism_ list might have in
the subject for comparative or revelatory purposes, I fail to see the
relevance of this discussion to _criticism_.
This is staff-room shop-talk, and I would think by Tonkin's own apparent
criteria (and that of this and other lists) it belongs on the Steiner or
Waldorf lists.
It looks to me like the defenders of the faith, having weathered, by abject
apology, heavy fire for their unfairnesses, are now trying to take over the
_critics_ list for discussion of their affairs, rather than this list's
agenda.
Perhaps Tonkin would like to enlighten _me_ as to the connection between
teacher shop-talk and critictism?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n225.2 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re:
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 17:14:44 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The mysterious -El writes:
From: allure netcom.com
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 18:26:04 -0800 (PST)
BestServHost: lists.best.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
>help
Forget who you you are, "-El"?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n225.3 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re:
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 17:14:48 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Deby Snell writes, in answer to the mysterious "-El"'s plaintive cry in the
wilderness:
>help
>
>Help what ?
>Deby
No, Deby, help _who_. This is like Catch 22. The mysterious -El seems to
have forgotten who he or she is.
(It's actually a command to to the listserv to retrieve the "help" file for
the list, but -El sent it to the list instead of the listserv address. I'd
suggest _El go back and read the welcome mail s/he received from the
listserv when s/he subscribed -- it has the listserve address in it.)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n225.4 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Cult awareness groups
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 17:14:51 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Stephen Tonkin writes:
>I am somewhat alarmed to be told that I have unknowingly been a member
>of a cult for so long.
Aside from the fact that Tonkin is again misstating other people's posts
(no-one said he was a member of a cult, knowingly or unknowingly -- all
that was said was that PLANS and CAN and cult awareness people view
Steiner/Waldorf/ Anthroposophy as cult-like)...
If Tonkin wants to make that association himself, I'm sure we can find him
a deprogrammer.
Seriously, there is a never-the-twain-shall-meet gulf between the
definitions one side of this debate uses and those of the other side. I
have rarely seen the defenders of the faith agree with anyone else's
definitions.
That's another defining sign of a cult, and its defensiveness.
If we can't even agree on what plain language means -- or, more likely, if
one side obfuscates by questioning the other's language -- we'll never get
anywhere towards a _critical_ view of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthropsophy _from
the outside_.
(See Lefty's puerile, juvenile, ridiculous and dilatory likening of
religion definitions to baseball and a host of other human affairs for
obfuscation in action.)
Let's stick to the point for those of us _outside_ the group (whatever you
want to call it), which is to place it in perspective for _our_ lives, not
to _embrace_ it.
The defenders of the faith seem to me to be taking over this list and
insisting that people play their game. Not me.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n225.5 ---------------
From: allure netcom.com
Subject: Re:
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 20:53:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> help
> Help what ?
> Deby
> _El,
> Are you alright ? (I can't help myself. I am a _world class_ worrier.)
> Deby
Don't worry, be happy :)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n225.6 ---------------
From: allure netcom.com
Subject: Re:
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 21:02:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> >help
>
> Forget who you you are, "-El"?
Wow all this attention... (blush)
I was trying to get to the archives to find that letter I lost a few
weeks back and to see what my mail options are and how this thing works.
In essence IN-FOR-MA-TION
So like all the other programs I tried to use the universal code word for
assistance "help"
Care for a peanut?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n225.7 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: My face is red
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 21:21:06 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Deby Snell writes, in answer to the mysterious "-El"'s plaintive cry in the
>wilderness:
>
>>help
>
>>
>>Help what ?
>>Deby
>
>No, Deby, help _who_. This is like Catch 22. The mysterious -El seems to
>have forgotten who he or she is.
>
>
>(It's actually a command to to the listserv to retrieve the "help" file for
>the list, but -El sent it to the list instead of the listserv address. I'd
>suggest _El go back and read the welcome mail s/he received from the
>listserv when s/he subscribed -- it has the listserve address in it.)
Oh, how funny. I am just sitting here looking silly. I am so computer
illiterate, that I actually saw 'poor -El' sitting at the computer when
...a heart attack, or buggie monsters, or aliens ivading. Poor -El, takes
the time to scratch "help, Queue, and send." I am thinking, "My gosh, if
we had his real name and address, we could call someone." ..Sometimes I
amaze myself with the direction my mind takes. But what a laugh I had.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n225.8 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: My face is red
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 18:41:09 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Deby Snell (who does't look at all silly) imagines a grisly fate for the
mysterious "-El":
>>Deby Snell writes, in answer to the mysterious "-El"'s plaintive cry in the
>>wilderness:
>>
>>>help
>>
>>>
>>>Help what ?
>>>Deby
>>
>>No, Deby, help _who_. This is like Catch 22. The mysterious -El seems to
>>have forgotten who he or she is.
>>
>>
>>(It's actually a command to to the listserv to retrieve the "help" file for
>>the list, but -El sent it to the list instead of the listserv address. I'd
>>suggest _El go back and read the welcome mail s/he received from the
>>listserv when s/he subscribed -- it has the listserve address in it.)
>
>Oh, how funny. I am just sitting here looking silly. I am so computer
>illiterate, that I actually saw 'poor -El' sitting at the computer when
>...a heart attack, or buggie monsters, or aliens ivading. Poor -El, takes
>the time to scratch "help, Queue, and send." I am thinking, "My gosh, if
>we had his real name and address, we could call someone." ..Sometimes I
>amaze myself with the direction my mind takes. But what a laugh I had.
>Deby
Now that's rich: dying all alone at one's computer because one insisted on
anonymity. Or sending one's last, dying gasp to the Waldorf Critics list!
ROTFL (Don't die, "-El", or I'll feel guilty.)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n225.9 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 22:40:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>I'd have to say that baseball is _not_ a religion.
I'd say that for some people baseball does serve as a religion to them.
Baseball was not set up as a religion, but it has been turned into
something to that effect for those who are able to find the meaning of life
in a baseball game.
The sports/religion connection has been a popular topic with sports
sociologists.
In the past, heroes were often religious and military figures. In the
twentieth century, I think athletes have sometimes been elevated to hero
(role model) status.
>Do you feel then that public schools should not field baseball teams?
>How about Waldorf-inspired charter schools?
I'm a big sports fan and think the pluses of sports for children outweigh
the negatives. Sports can be (but aren't always) a learning experience.
But I also think it's good to discuss what happens when adults lose
perspective concerning children's sports. If sports are presented as
"truth", then they should not be included in schools.
The New York Times article said that defining religion is a difficult task.
Martin Marty's definition doesn't have to be the definitive one. Let's
hear what the rest of you think. Give us your definitions.
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n225.10 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Cult awareness groups
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 01:28:47 -0500
So, Andy--
The folks here would be most interested in hearing how you survived your
peril at the hands of R.S. and his minions, should you care to share a
critique of the experience.
Best regards,
Rigby
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n225 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n226 --------------
001 - mckay oro.net - Re: What is religion?
002 - snell oro.net - Re: Cult awareness groups
003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Steiner and Montessori?
004 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: teacher training/Full Disclosure comment
005 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: full disclosure #3
006 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: full disclosure #3
007 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Anthroposophy in curriculum
008 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Waldorf and Public Education
009 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - religion and teacher training
010 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Science as a Belief System
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n226.1 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 22:47:35 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Proofing that maybe other disciplines in life may also be considered a
religion by Prof. Marty's formula doesn't mean that Anthroposophy or other
religions are not. Yes, I've heard the expressions; taking it on like a
religion, or; being religious about ones work, etc. That doesn't make
baseball or playing music a religion.
David McKay
>On Sat, 23 Nov 1996 snell oro.net wrote:
>>
>> >>Lefty contributes (?),
>> >>>With all due respect to Professor Marty, I think at least as good a
>> >>>case could be made from that description that baseball is a religion
>> >>>and that spring training in parochial education.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Oh come on, Lefty. This argument definately falls into the lowest common
>> >>denomenator catagory. Let's bring the quality of discussion up a few
>> >>notches.
>> >
>> >As I mentioned in my last message, I don't disagree with Lefty on this. At
>> >the same time, I posted the quote because I did want to stimulate a
>> >discussion about how Waldorf/anthroposophy is perceived.
>> >
>> O.K., I will try to absorb Lefy's message with an open mind. It simply
>> resembled a smoke screen to divert our attention from your original
>> posting. But, I have been wrong before....Sorry, Lefty.
>
>I accept your apology, but as it happens I was entirely serious.
>Prof. Marty sets up several points, that something must satisfy to be
>a "religion". I think they're both over-vague and over-broad. Let's
>take a look.
>
>> That system must center on a matter of deep meaning, or "ultimate
>> concern
>
>Deep meaning is where you find it. For a professional baseball
>player, the pursuit of "championship" can certainly have deep meaning
>and be a matter of "ultimate concern".
>
>Or to pursue another example, musicianship can unquestionably exist in
>pursuit of "deep meaning" and "ultimate concern". Many people place
>music, and the development of the greatest possible ability in its
>production at the very center of their lives.
>
>> involve socialization (believers tend to form communities
>
>Teams. Fan clubs.
>
>Or orchestras and bands. Serious musicians virtually always exist
>within a community of like-minded "believers".
>
>> show a preference for symbolic language over everyday speech
>
>This is pretty hazy. What's "symbolic language"? For that matter,
>what's "everyday speech"? This simply sounds like "specialized
>vocabulary", which is trivial to find in both baseball and music.
>
>> use ceremonies (especially at birth, marriage and death)
>
>Plenty of ceremony and ritual in baseball. Actually, baseball is
>pretty much nothing but ceremony and ritual.
>
>Lots of it in musicianship, too, from tuning up to the protocols of
>jam sessions. If I play scales for half an hour every day, does that
>constitute a ceremony? I do it pretty religiously, and on a flute I
>promise you that it induces an altered state of consciousness.
>
>> take a metaphysical view of life (there is more to the world than
>> what one sees)
>
>Again, baseball as a pursuit of an abstract ideal like "championship",
>a sort of state of being, seems at least fairly metaphysical. The
>Infield Fly Rule is _definitely_ metaphysical.
>
>Musicianship, the pursuit of the performance of music as an ideal,
>unqestionably sees _the music_ as an ideal which can only be
>approximated by any particular performance.
>
>> require behavioral adjustments (attending Sunday School or shunning
>> pork).
>
>Professional athleticism requires loads of 'em, as does serious
>musicianship.
>
>The point of all of this is that this sort of checklist sounds real
>good until you try to actually apply it. It seems to me that all
>sorts of things might constitute religions under these criteria.
>Actually, it's kind of fun to look for examples. How about
>jurisprudence? Bonsai tree cultivation? Chess?
>
>--
>Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
>C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n226.2 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re: Cult awareness groups
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 23:11:16 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>On Sun, 24 Nov 1996 snell oro.net wrote:
>>
>> PLANS asserts that Anthroposophy is a cult-like religious sect of
>> Theosophy. In the U.S., most mind control "experts" are aware of, and
>> believe that Waldorf education fits their criteria of a cult.
>
>I'd like to see you justify this statement, Deby. Let's see a
>definition of what a "cult" is (I asked for this many moons ago, and
>never got a response), and show me how Waldorf education fits it. Can
>you give me references as well on some of these "mind control
>'experts'"?
Captive Minds, Captive Hearts (Madelein Landau Tobias and Jonja Lalic,
Hunter House Publishers, 1994 Pp.12-14)
"The following definition, adopted at a 1985 conference of scholars and
policymakers, has been accepted by many cult researchers."
"Cult: A group or movement exhibiting great or excessive devotion or
dedication to some person, idea, or thing, and employing unethical
manipulative or coercive techniques of persuasion and control, designed to
advance the goals of the group's leaders, to the actual or possible
detriment of members, their families, or the community."
Dr. Margaret Singer, a clinical psychologist who has been researching cults
and thought-reform programs since the 1950's, provides us with other
characteristics relevant to cult identification, some of which highlight
the role of the cult leader.
* Cults are authoritarian in their power structure.
* Cults tend to be totalitarian in their control of the behavior of their
members.
* Cult leaders are self appointed and claim to have a special mission
in life.
* Cult leaders center the veneration of members upon themselves.
* Cults appear to be innovative and exclusive.
I have letters of support from two mind control experts who support our
position that Waldorf should _not_ be in the public schools. I admit freely
that the definitions are not the greatest. There may be better ones. I
happen to have this book to quote from. Also, I know that getting agreement
on the term "cult" would be an impossible mission.
Happy Trails,
Deby
snell oro.net says,
>> Therefore, cult awareness groups are _indeed_ important. (Even
>> though Anthroposophical educational endeavors _are_ recognised by
>> mind control experts, they fall towards the bottom of _their_
>> priorities because there is not true harm being done to people,
>> i.e., no torchuring, maming, killing, etc., that _does_ happen in
>> other cults. However, there _is_ concern about Waldorf moving into
>> the public sector, and many groups are considering re-evaluation of
>>Anthroposophical education as a result.
>
Lefty says,
>This doesn't address what _this_ posting had to do with anything in
>particular (except as possibly a word to the wise on issues of
>copyright and Fair Use). CAN seems to have arguably been guilty of
>copyright infringement. I am probably even less fond of the various
>denizens of Scientology than the next person, but that doesn't mean
>that they're not entitled to the same rights and protections as people
>with whom I _do_ agree.
>
>Waldorf schooling is a pretty easy cult to get out of. Don't pay your
>tuition.
Well, if I chose to stop paying my taxes, there would be negitive
consequences to myself and family. I am opposed to the public funding of
Waldorf schools in any way, shape, or form.
I am not opposed to private Waldorf schools. I _wish_ they would spell out
clearly what the belief system is behind the education, but _that_ is a
different platform than I am on.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n226.3 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Steiner and Montessori?
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 01:04:29 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Arthur asked,
>Is there any link between the pedagogies of Rudolph Steiner and Maria
>Montessori?
There are similarities, in that they are both cult-like followings, but as
far as I know the groups are fiercely separate.
I read one of Maria Montessori's books to get a feel for her. She's
attempting to be "scientific" and borders on the "pseudo-" occasionally,
but her work is refreshingly free of the "revealed knowledge" burden that
Steiner carries.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n226.4 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: teacher training/Full Disclosure comment
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 01:04:48 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Deby, you wrote,
>As I re-read Daniel Sakaly's document, the _one_ thing that is missing is
>the teacher training content. I was so blown away when I looked at the
>teacher training course study for the Rudolf Steiner College. Most Waldorf
>parents who I showed it to were alarmed, as well. I think something about
>that needs to be included.
On the web page, currently I say:
"Waldorf teacher training is woefully inadequate. The first "foundation"
year is an Anthroposophical seminary program, consisting entirely of the
study of Rudolf Steiner's philosophy. In the second year Steiner's
"spiritual-scientific" principles are applied to education."
This language is too bald-faced to go with Saykaly's more diplomatic style.
It could say "Critics complain that Waldorf teacher training is woefully
inadequate." (We do.)
I, too, encourage Daniel Sakaly to make an attempt at this topic.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n226.5 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: full disclosure #3
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 01:04:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Deby posted,
>Daniel Sakaly continues,
>"Persons and reference books outside the Anthroposophic movement often refer
>to Dr. Steiner as a 'mystic' and as 'the founder of a religion or of a
>religious movement', but we see him rather as a spiritual scientist whose
>spiritual research into the higher worlds permitted him to become an
>authority on numerous important fields of human endeavor, including
>education, medicine, dance, art and agriculture. While mainstream
>authorities in our country may not accept his discoveries in these fields at
>this time, his teachings are finding a growing audience among persons
>seeking alternatives to mainstream medicine, education and agricultural
>techniques.
Unless there will be a footnote with a source, it would be better to omit
the single quote marks above. Then it's clear that it's a paraphrase, not a
quote.
In the last sentence I'd repeat all the areas of activity mentioned.
"Agricultural techniques" could become simply "agriculture."
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n226.6 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: full disclosure #3
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 01:04:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Neil Faiman, you said,
>I will refrain here, as I did on the Waldorf list, from
>attempting a point-by-point response to Mr Saykaly's essay. It would be
>interminably lengthy, it would probably just end up sounding defensive, and
>it would be basically misguided, since I think that Mr Saykaly's document
>is so fundamentally flawed.
If you won't go over it point by point, why are you wasting our time
talking about it?
>Creating a caricature that is so grotesque as to scare away parents
>who would, in fact, have been happy with the school is not disclosure, but
>deception.
The intention is to counter well-documented deception in the way Waldorf
education is presented. Some parents, and all public school boards,
-should- be scared away, for their benefit and for the benefit of the
Waldorf movement. The purpose of the draft was for correction. Please help.
>Passages along the lines of "The school does not approve of genocide,
>although it is possible that some of our teachers might be in favor of it",
>or "Some people have claim that we encourage cannibalism. We don't
>believe that this is true" have nothing to do with full disclosure. Real
>disclosure is an honest representation of what the school *is* -- not a
>weak-sounding denial of every illfounded criticism.
But Saykaly didn't say those things, did he? Come down off your high horse
and discuss the real issues.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n226.7 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy in curriculum
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 01:05:36 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Steve Premo, on Nov. 20 you said,
>I'm going to set up a meeting with a teacher at my local Waldorf school to
>discuss my concerns that Anthroposophy not make it into the curriculum.
>
>My attitude, basically, is one of extreme skepticism about both the details
>and the underlying assumptions of anthroposophy, other than very general
>things, e.g., that we all have a spiritual nature which should be nurtured.
>Even there, I don't know if what I mean by "spiritual" is the same thing
>that Steiner meant.
Steve, I think your mission has the probability of success of the
proverbial ice cube in hell. The teacher may 1) deny any Anthropsophical
content in the curriculum, as is the custom, leaving you nowhere, 2) assure
you that Anthroposophical principles are just another way of putting
Christian or scientific ideas, or 3) tell you that he/she is on a mission
from God (or saving the children, etc.) and if you don't like it you should
stop interfering and leave.
So what happened?
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n226.8 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and Public Education
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 01:05:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Stephen Tonkin, on Nov. 12 you posted:
>mckay oro.net writes
>> One blatant example is that in a "true/pure" Waldorf
>>school the teachers also are the administrators thru the college of
>>teachers. The problems with this is 1) they don't have addiquit training in
>>this discipline 2) they are to close and to involved to make objective
>>decisions 3) it takes away from their much needed time for lesson/class
>>prep, etc, etc.
TONKIN
>I don't know where you get this idea -- apart from the tiny ones, every
>Waldorf School I know has an administrator who is *not* a teacher. As
>for adequate training, many have previously been administrators in
>industrial, commercial or government concerns.
>
>I think you may be generalising from your particular experience.
Excuse me? Administrators take care of day-to-day office operations, they
don't make decisions. In Waldorf schools constituted after Steiner's
indications, ALL important decisions are made by the College of Teachers.
If it's not that way in your school, then -you- are the exception. Or are
you making a technical distinction between "administrators" and
"executives?"
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n226.9 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: religion and teacher training
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 01:05:41 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Peter Schwab, you posted,
LEE STORY (I think)
>> [...] Thus I see the tendency as toward the third: the
>> creation of a new religion based on Steiner texts.
PETER SCHWAB
>No need to create one: There is an anthroposophical inspired
>church, the Christian Community. Anthroposophy as such is _no_
>religion and will never be.
Only Anthroposophists believe this transparent fiction.
>> As long as
>> anthroposophical training, including a year's total immersion in
>> Steiner, is a requirement for Waldorf teaching, he impact of this
>> near-religion on those schools has to be immense.
>
>This requirement does definitly _not_ exist in Germany and
>Switzerland. Most schools are happy when they can find qualified
>teachers with some _interest_ in anthroposophy. In the meantime
>employment offers fill pages of anthroposophic newspapers here in
>Europe and most schools (not ours, unfortunatly :-( ) have waiting
>lists for new pupils as long as both of my arms.
The growth of the Waldorf movement has led to a lot of semi-trained
teachers being hired. But this shouldn't obscure what is -supposed- to
happen. Are you saying that Waldorf teacher training in Europe doesn't
include a "foundation year?"
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n226.10 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Science as a Belief System
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 01:05:18 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Lee Story quoted me and commented,
DUGAN
> > I agree on the vague and provisional nature of the photon. I'd like to
> > correct a detail of your understanding of color vision. [....]
>
> > Given this, reception of blue and yellow light mixed will not produce
> > green, but something like white.
STORY
>Thanks, Dan. I realized after posting it that since yellow and blue
>subtractively mix to green, I _had_ to be wrong, and possibly wrong in
>more than that detail: Are there different combinations of monochromatic
>light that mix to the same apparent color? I suspect that you can answer
>this easily. It seems relevant for distinguishing wavelength from the
>psychological phenomenon of color, without having to take a philosophical
>position about "perceptions" versus apparently-external "measurables."
> Ignorantly, --lee
Monochromatic light does not occur in nature, and color perception can be
fooled by it. Yes, the same sensations can be produced by different
combinations of monochromatic light. Viz. the strange color distortions
seen under the old bluish mercury vapor street lights. These don't produce
a continuous spectrum but a bunch of spectral lines, and they wreak havoc
with the visual system. (No harm, just confusion).
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n226 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n227 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Informing parents/"Miranda rights"
002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Roots of Civilization?
003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: differences between European and US Waldorf
004 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: What is the color of a photon?
005 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: What is religion?
006 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: The creation of a full disclosure document
007 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Baptist minister organizes against Waldorf charter
008 - afrancke netcom.com (Andr - Re: Cult awareness groups
009 - Lee Story USG >Although Anthroposophy believes that certain races are more
>>spiritually mature than others,
>
>I don't think it does -- historically this *may* have been the case, but
>I know no anthroposophists who believe this to be true today.
Strange, that I, who look at Anthroposophy from the sidelines, see them,
but you, living it, don't. For example:
"In an early version of the large report, we included an account of a
racially charged discussion brought to the school by visiting
representatives of the international Waldorf community. In a conversation
in an office at the school (for which no one from the school was present),
Steiner's racist speculations about Africans as close to the body and new
to the rational and spiritual heights achieved by whites on the
evolutionary ladder were cited as possibly relevant to the education of
African American children in Milwaukee. There, in a school using Steiner's
ideas in the best possible way, we were treated to a full display of what
we would have to worry about if we were to invoke Waldorf without
reservation as a model for American education."
[McDermott, Ray. "Racism and Waldorf Education." Research Bulletin.
Vol. 1 No. 2, June, 1996. Spring Valley, NY: Waldorf Education Research
Institute, p. 3.]
Later, you said:
>My experience of Catholic
>education is that there is far more Catholicism in it than there is
>anthroposophy in Waldorf Education.
Mine is the opposite, in 13 years of it, Catholicism was ever-present, and
clear, but Catholic issues were separate from the general education in most
areas (perhaps not in history). This is not the case with Anthroposophy in
Waldorf schools. The church has had longer to learn how to make peace with
the world.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n227.2 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Roots of Civilization?
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 01:05:05 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Rigby, 11/9/96 you wrote,
>Relative to the "roots of civilization" topic, Lee has stated very well the
>need for understanding the extent to which the contents of Steiner's
>indications are confirmed by expert analysis of evidence from anthropology.
> I think it is also important to understand whether we are dealing with a
>Blavatsky/Steiner creation, as Dan presents it, or whether their view of
>history is to be found in other, prior sources. In other words, to
>understand the evolution of the ideas, even if contemporary science would
>relegate many of them to the realm of mythology.
In his article on racism in Waldorf, Stanford Scholar Ray McDermott says:
"The pernicious, unilineal version of the evolution of consciousness
suggests that through history, in some significant ways, Europe makes
progress over Asia and Africa, Christianity makes progress over Judaism and
rational science makes progress over traditional ways of thinking. Each
advance has a price--white people, for example, get limited to rational at
the expense of more spiritual ways of knowing--but each is in its way a
step that promises a cumulative progress. Steiner's account of the mental
capacities and habits of different peoples around the world is insensitive.
His speculations are surprising in comparison to the riches evident in
other inquiries by German intellectuals interested in nonwestern ways of
thinking; easily available to Steiner, for example, were the writings of
Leibniz (1716/1994) on the mind of the Chinese, of von Humboldt (1831/1971)
on the thought and language of the Malays and of anthropologist Franz Boas
(1911) on racist accounts of primitive people. Anthroposophists unwilling
to acknowledge the oversight have missed the point of what is essential in
Steiner's educational thought."
[Ray MacDermott and Ida Oberman. "Racism and Waldorf Education."
*Research Bulletin*: Vol. 1, No. 2 (June, 1996) p. 5, Waldorf Education
Research Institute.]
According to McDermott, Steiner ignored the anthropological knowledge of
his day to cling to the Theosophical racial theories of history.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n227.3 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: differences between European and US Waldorf
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 01:05:49 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Peter Schwab, regarding the differences between Waldorf in Europe and the
US you posted:
DAN DUGAN
>> I've heard this said several times, but I have never understood just what
>> these differences are.
PETER SCHWAB
>Learn German and read "Das Goetheanum", "Erziehungskunst", and
>"Info3". Just for starters.
I take this to be a disrespectful or evasive answer. I asked you a simple,
and significant, question.
DAN DUGAN
>> They all read the same Steiner.
>
>_You_ read a (maybe lousy) english/american translation. We read the
>German original. This alone may make a difference.
This is a lame excuse. You are saying that the publications of the
Anthroposophic Press, the Mercury Press, Rudolf Steiner College, etc., can
not be trusted to represent Anthroposophy?
>Anthroposophy and as a consequence waldorf education is rooted in and
>around the German-speaking middle-european civilisation. I very much
>doubt I can be successfully be placed elsewhere without problems and
>major adaptions. I think it is curious that most people attracted by
>the "critics" side seem to come from the US (Michael being a
>noticable exception).
Maybe it's because U.S. teachers have more Anthroposophical training?
DAN DUGAN
>> The European and
>> American curriculum posters are the same except for the omission of
>> religion classes in the U.S.
PETER SCHWAB
>I have never seen a curriculum poster in our school, I'll have to ask
>if such a thing exist. Anyway, the waldorf curriculum is mostly a
>framework, a skeleton. It is up to the individual teacher to add the
>"meat". The curriculum as I understand it defines the goals to reach,
>the teacher decided how to get there.
Of course it's a framework. The one that hung in the office of the San
Francisco Waldorf School in 1988 was European in origin. When I tried to
buy one a few years later from Ark Toys and Books, I had to wait till their
new U.S. edition was ready.
>FWIW, I have not yet found any trace of your so called "weird
>science" being taught in our school.
Perhaps you can't see it. From the Anthroposophical world-view it's
"reality." Could I borrow some of your school's science lesson books?
DAN DUGAN
>> Apparently the racism is more explicit in the
>> Dutch anthropology classes than in the American.
>
>As long as the Duch host the ugliest gangs of neo-nazies in Europe,
>they should shut up accusing others to be "racists". The whole
>discussion is a lot of humbug brought up mostly by former left-winged
>ex-commies on the quest for a new occupation after the wall came down
>and all their illusions went down the river.
>
>There is no racism in anthroposophy and waldorf education. Point.
>
>What you percieve as racism is in my opinion the result of a failed
>adaption of a middle-european single-cultural concept to the
>north-american multi-cultural illusion of a society.
No point, just a denial. Please read the Steiner quotes and the McDermott
article on the PLANS web site.
>> Could you give more detail
>> about the differences you perceive? Has anyone curriculum materials (course
>> list, reading list) from European Waldorf teacher training?
>>
>
>I will see what I can get.
Thanks.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n227.4 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: What is the color of a photon?
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 01:05:12 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Rigby, on Nov. 10 you wrote,
>Dan Dugan, perhaps you know the answer to this subsidiary question:
> "Assuming that the human eye can detect a single photon, is it possible for
>human physiology to assign a color to that photon?" Your response to Lee's
>response to the original question was most interesting and valuable for
>understanding the physiology of color response, but I don't think you took a
>position on the original question. I sense from the information that you
>provided that the experience of color may depend to a large extent on what is
>going on in the complete visual field. You also made reference to color
>sensations produced by flickers, and it would seem like a single photon
>represents the ultimate flicker. Is there a one-to-one relationship between
>some physical characteristic of a photon (which would have to be its energy
>level, I suppose--a photon doesn't have much else going for it) and a color
>response?
I don't think so. There are actually four kinds of light detecting cells in
the eye, rods and three color varieties of cones. Rods detect low-level
light but no color.
>Dan, some time ago you described the basis of your knowledge of color
>phenomena--not just "book-learning" but extensive experimentation with stage
>lighting. What you described strikes me as a Goethean approach to learning.
> You entered into direct experience with the phenomena themselves rather than
>depending on predefined, codified knowledge; and your objective was not so
>much to derive a theory as to learn how to create sensorial experiences for
>your audience.
I always had the physics theory from an early age. Learning the aesthetics
was a different task that took longer, and, I might add, learning the
social skills to work in theater, especially professional theater with
union crews, took the longest.
>Also, in your response to Lee you said, "... reception of blue and yellow
>light mixed will not produce green, but something like white. This is because
>the blue stimulates the blue receptors, and the yellow stimulates both the
>red and green receptors. It's counter-intuitive, but there it is. Goethean
>science isn't likely to lead us to such knowledge, is it?"
>
>The Goethean approach to cognition and understanding is specially good at
>discoveries that are "counter-intuitive." In this context, I understand you
>to use "intuitive" to mean "what you might have expected based on inferences
>from what you know already." The Goethean approach emphasizes encountering
>phenomena without preconceived ideas. Obviously, "preconceived ideas" will
>shape your research agenda and help you decide what phenomena to observe, but
>in principle the observation process itself should be as free as possible
>from prejudice.
Fluff, Rigby. Goetheanism still doesn't explain additive color mixing.
Wilkinson's teaching manual illustrates the additive phenomenon, but only
says:
"In the mixing of colours on paper the tendency is to darken the light; in
projecting colours, darkness is lightened."
[Wilkinson, Roy. Teaching Physics for age groups 12/13/14. Forest Row,
Sussex, U.K., 1992, p. 22]
Nothing about wavelengths, or visual primaries. Institutionalized mis-education.
>Perhaps you meant that Goethe's color theory could not have led to
>understanding of the physiology of color response, but that's quite a
>different assertion. Would Newton's color theory (corpuscles moving at
>different speeds) have led to understanding of the physiology of color
>response? My guess is that the physiological research emerged in its own
>right, requiring as motivation only the recognition that color was not
>something inherent in light itself.
Newton's corpuscle hypothesis was incorrect and led nowhere, like Goethe's.
Physiological research did emerge on its own, and the key was the
realization that color blindness comes in distinct flavors that correspond
to defects in a system of three receptors.
>You also said, " It's important to make the distinction (and Goetheans often
>seem ignorant of this) between -subtractive- color mixing, as in paint mixing
>and color film, and - additive- color mixing, as occurs in stage lighting and
>video screens."
>
>I'm vague on this myself, but I don't think it has anything to do with the
>fact that I see value in the Goethean approach to science. If I applied the
>Goethean principles of observation to the phenomena I am quite sure that the
>distinction would become clear to me.
Tell me about it.
> The next time I find myself in a
>random sample of Goetheans (probably at a performance of Faust) I'll take a
>poll to see if this confusion is a common trait.
Could you make it double-blind?
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n227.5 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 01:04:15 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Suzanne quoted the NY Times:
> Professor Martin Marty, the historian of
> Christianity at the University of Chicago, said he
>identified "six
> marks," which taken together define a system of beliefs and
> practices as being religious.
>
> That system must center on a matter of deep meaning, or
> "ultimate concern," he said, and also involve socialization
> (believers tend to form communities), show a preference for
> symbolic language over everyday speech, use ceremonies
> (especially at birth, marriage and death), take a metaphysical
> view of life (there is more to the world than what one sees) and
> require behavioral adjustments (attending Sunday School or
> shunning pork).
>
>>From this description, I think a pretty good case could be made that
>anthroposophy is a religion and that Waldorf is parochial education.
I agree entirely. Anthroposophists simply choose to deny the reality of
their relationship to the rest of society. The brochure of the
Anthroposophical society says:
"The Anthroposophical Society in America is the national organ of the
General Anthroposophical Society, founded by Rudolf Steiner in 1923 as "an
association of people who would foster the life of the soul, both in the
individual and in human society, on the basis of a true knowledge of the
spiritual world."
[Anthroposophical Society in America, 1993, p. 29]
Having been raised in real "parochial" schools, that is, schools serving
the members of a church parish, I don't think that's an accurate term to
use. If the Waldorf schools served mainly the local Anthroposophists, then
they would be parochial (and honest). Since their mission is to preserve
and promulgate the Anthroposophical world-view in the world at large,
outside the already-committed Anthroposophical community, I like to call
them "missionary" schools. As missionaries go to the third world to raise
up the culture of the people there in both practical and spiritual ways, so
Waldorf schools reach into the general culture with the same good
intentions.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n227.6 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: The creation of a full disclosure document
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 01:04:35 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
El, you said,
>This is a heavy topic and I could write pages on this alone, but I can't,
>at least not now. I am still working on my own research concerning the
>evolution of the human being and it is not yet complete.
Whew. Let us know when you publish it.
>
>It would be hard for me to speak for other teachers...
>I can only give you my perspective and my own experiences.
>Please allow me to start with the evolution of the curriculum, focusing
>more to the needs of your question
>
>In the 1st grade teaching is done through the fairy tales.
>In the 2nd grade Fables and Leg[end]s, Native American [tales].
>In the 3rd grade The Life of the Hebrew peoples and Pioneer life.
>
>In the 4th grade the story of Atlantis is taught by a few teachers, those
>I have spoken to who have are mostly from Europe. The Norse Saga is taught
>both in Europe and in the US along with local geography.
>
>The story of Atlantis is so fascinating and IMHO really bridges the third
>grade with the fourth grade so well.
>But I believe it is seldom taught in the US.
Atlantis appears in a mural in the main hallway of the Penninsula Waldorf
School, (Los Altos, CA) but I haven't seen a U.S. lesson book on it. If
anyone has access to a copy of a European lesson book on the Atlantis Saga
block I'd love to borrow it.
I'm suspecting that the rationale for Old Testament stories in third grade
and Norse sagas in the fourth is to spiral the children through what
Steiner called the "Dionesian" and "Appolonian" cultural streams, the
ancient foundations of culture (as he saw it) before getting to the more
linear evolution through the post-atlantean cultural epochs given in fifth
and sixth grades. What do you think?
>What is important is that the teacher know why and what they are bringing
>to the children.
Of course, and in Waldorf schools this is provided by Anthroposophy and Steiner.
>In the 5th grade the cultures of Ancient India, Ancient Persia, Ancient
>Mesopotamia, and Ancient Egypt.
>In the 6th grade Greco/Roma history through the Middle ages.
Which is the Theosophical sequence of "sub-races" of the "Aryan root race"
to which I object.
>In the 7th grade the Renaissance up through the Classical.
>In the 8th grade the Revolutions, Industrial Age, through modern day living.
I like Steiner's idea of teaching revolutions at puberty.
>The curriculum is based on the developmental aspect of the child.
>The consciousness of the child at a particular age.
Only within the cult of Steiner. It is deceptive to use these common terms
to people who don't know Steiner.
>The cultural history of the curriculum evolves with the developmental age of
>the child, leading from the world of dreams to modern day technology.
This is in accordance with Steiner's myth of human evolution, in which the
ancient Greeks, for example, were still in the process of losing direct
communication with the spirit world. People outside the Steiner cult
disagree. We read ancient consciousness as remarkably identical to ours,
and see ancient societies to be just as co-evolving their technology as our
own is with ours. Agriculture, for example.
>The curriculum delves deeper and deeper as the child gains his or her
>thinking capacities.
We disagree profoundly on the timetable for this.
>The idea of moving from one subject to another with out
>understanding or a connection to the whole is IMHO not part of the Waldorf
>Curriculum....
Are you making a straw man here, El? Who does? Arguably lack of connections
may be a result of contemporary pedagogy, but it's regarded as an
unintentional fault.
>The curriculum is art in progress, it is alive, the teachers must make it
>alive to the children. They must work though and come to the
>understanding of what and why they are teaching what the bring before the
>children.
You're starting to blow smoke here, El. Good intentions help, but don't
validate untested theories.
>Without this aspect it is just another dead methodology.
Now you're calling those unenlightened by Steiner "dead methodology." Come
off it. If anything's "dead," it's Steiner's theories that have been
worshipped unchanged since the 1920's.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n227.7 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Baptist minister organizes against Waldorf charter
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 01:30:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Last week I spoke to a selected audience of 30 at the First Baptist Church
in Grass Valley, California, including ministers of five other churches.
Rev. James Morton, the pastor, had asked PLANS for more information. Morton
is dedicated to the principle of separation of church and state. A
committee was formed to work for de-funding of the Waldorf charter school
in neighboring Nevada City.
An interesting incident happened in conjunction with this. One of the
Waldorf charter school teachers is a member of the congregation. The
teacher's spouse brought a number of books to Pastor Morton to show the
innocence and values of Waldorf. Morton read them, and found plenty of
examples in them of exactly what he opposes!
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n227.8 ---------------
From: afrancke netcom.com (Andrew Francke)
Subject: Re: Cult awareness groups
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 04:59:27 -0800
I will prepare a "critique" in due time; I have to fly home for Thanksgiving
soon, so it may be a little while.
Andy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n227.9 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Conclusions
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 09:29:10 -0500
"Peter Schwab" writes:
[...]
> I don not have the time to dig out my old school notes but of course
> Pascal's proof for the existence of God is based on a couple of
> axioms he put up as a basis. If you not accept those axioms, the
> proof does not stand, just as with any other mathematical theory.
[...]
Thank you, Peter. That's just what I meant. Again: There is no truly
-mathematical- proof of the existence of God unless you first accept
(or simply admit) axioms which are logically equivalent to the conclusion.
Cheers, --Lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n227.10 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Warning:Tonkin's attack on McKay (delete is an option)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 09:46:01 -0500
Linda Hoffman writes:
> Silly me. When I was a girl, I was taught that it is good debating
> technique to back up one's assertions with facts. I guess I should have
> noticed that this is not the practice on this list.
Linda, now you're doing it too! Don't you detect something wrong with
your last statement (like unwarrented extrapolation from a somewhat
special case)? Cheers, --lee
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n227 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n228 --------------
001 - Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 10:03:02 -0500
Lefty Redux writes:
> With all due respect to Professor Marty, I think at least as good a
> case could be made from that description that baseball is a religion
> and that spring training in parochial education.
Lefty, you do a pretty lousy job of substantiating your claim that
Dr.Marty's listed characteristics of a "religion" are shared by
baseball as much as by anthroposophy. Dr.Marty's words interpolated
here:
That system must center on a matter of deep meaning, or
"ultimate concern,"
"Only a game"?
involve socialization
(believers tend to form communities)
Amateur & school baseball is usually open to all, or all the school's
students, on the basis of skill evaluations (tryouts); professional
baseball is a matter of selling one's services as an exhibitor of
sporting skill: the leagues could care less what the players' deep
beliefs are!
show a preference for
symbolic language over everyday speech
Symbolic language (sometimes metaphor or allegory) is quite different from
the argot of a trade (like baseball or computer programming...)
use ceremonies
(especially at birth, marriage and death)
I'm not aware that the baseball leagues intervene at these points in a
player's life.
take a metaphysical view of life (there is more to the
world than what one sees)
and...
require behavioral adjustments (attending Sunday School or
shunning pork). Again, I see no such requirements in
baseball. If you can play, usually no one insists that you have any
particular religious view, or ha follow any ritual beyond getting to
the game on time. Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n228.2 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: full disclosure #3
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 13:06:28 -0500
snell oro.net writes:
> This is paragraph #3 of Daniel Sakaly's full disclosure document. Please
> review this, make suggestions as to how it could be more accurate, and post
> back.
>
> My intention, (with Daniel Sakally's permission, of course) is to finalize
> this document in hopes of sending it to public school boards who are
> considering funding a Waldorf school in their district, or who currently
> sponsor such a school. It needs to be accurate for this purpose.
> Deby
>
>
> Daniel Sakaly continues,
> "Persons and reference books outside the Anthroposophic movement often refer
> to Dr. Steiner as a 'mystic' and as 'the founder of a religion or of a
> religious movement', but we see him rather as a spiritual scientist
This has a turn-of-the-century flavor (and a resonance of "Christian Science"
and such faith-healing-centered groups) to which anthroposophists might rightly
object as a misrepresentation.
> whose spiritual research into the higher worlds permitted him to
> become an authority on numerous important fields of human endeavor,
> including education, medicine, dance, art and agriculture.
This part seems better, though it doesn't credit Steiner's often very
good observational and reasoning skills. I don't think he said that
*all* his ideas came from his spiritual meditations/exercises. Thus
Steiner fans can again claim misrepresentation.
> While mainstream authorities in our country may not accept his
> discoveries in these fields at this time, his teachings are finding
> a growing audience among persons seeking alternatives to mainstream
> medicine, education and agricultural techniques.
Excellent.
Hope this helps. Cheers, --Lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n228.3 ---------------
From: Steve Premo
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 10:18:43 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 11:51 AM 11/24/96 -0800, allure netcom.com wrote:
>Why does Congress start every morning session with a prayer given by a
>Christian minister of God?
This has been done for a long time, and has (as far as I know) never been
challenged in court. If it were challenged, I suspect it would be prohibited.
-
Steve Premo "It's the job that's never started
Premo-Fine Family as takes longest to finish."
Santa Cruz, California -Hamfast "Gaffer" Gamgee
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n228.4 ---------------
From: Steve Premo
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 10:18:46 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 01:29 AM 11/25/96 +0000, Stephen Tonkin wrote:
>Steve Premo writes
>>But the United States Constitution prohibits the government from either
>>interfering with the exercise of religion, or showing a preference for any
>>religion (or for religion as opposed to atheism).
>
>This begs a couple of questions.
>
>1) Would it not therefore be appropriate to equitably fund _all_
>education, so as not to discriminate against those belief systems which
>have been designated as religions?
Perhaps. It's been a while since I've read up on this, but I believe there
have been cases in which the government has provided a service to all
schools, such as bus service, and the court upheld that.
If the government passed a voucher law, which would support all private
schools, religious and non-religious, I predict that such a law would be
challenged, but would be found constitutional. But a public school, open to
all students, must be religiously "neutral."
(It's a myth that prayer is prohibited in public schools. Students are not
prohibited from praying; it's only *officially organized* prayer that's
prohibited.)
>2) Was I misinformed when I was told that the official oaths, etc for
>some of your government positions specifically refer to God?
The constitution provides for "oath or affirmation." If someone does not
want to invoke a God in whom he or she does not believe, that person may
simply affirm that he or she will faithfully discharge the duties of the office.
>"for God and my country" and "in God we
>trust" do seem to be associated with a degree of US officialdom.
"For God and my country" I have never heard. "In God we trust" is on our
money. Again, I suspect that if it were challenged, it would be struck down.
Folks, I apologize for these off-topic posts about American constitutional
law. Or perhaps they aren't off-topic, since they relate to the issue of
whether Waldorf should be allowed to open public charter schools, and why a
public religious school would be unconstitutional.
In any event, as a research attorney, I can't pass up the opportunity to
discuss the law, and answer people's questions about it!
-
Steve Premo "It's the job that's never started
Premo-Fine Family as takes longest to finish."
Santa Cruz, California -Hamfast "Gaffer" Gamgee
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n228.5 ---------------
From: Steve Premo
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 10:18:48 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 07:58 PM 11/24/96 -0800, allure netcom.com wrote:
>5. In a court of law, the witness or defendant is asked to place their
>right hand on the Bible and "swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
>nothing but the truth, so help me God."
I've only seen this in the movies. In California, no bible is used, and the
words "so help me God" are not part of the oath.
-
Steve Premo "It's the job that's never started
Premo-Fine Family as takes longest to finish."
Santa Cruz, California -Hamfast "Gaffer" Gamgee
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n228.6 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 13:31:13 -0500
> Why does Congress start every morning session with a prayer given by a
> Christian minister of God?
> -El
Because Congress, as a part of the independence appropriate to its
legislative role, is not bound by its own rules. Another example:
police may not detain a congressman who is on the way to the Capitol
for a vote, even on a warrent for murder or other mayhem. Sometimes
these legal exclusions have peculiar and unfortunate results, but on
the whole I think they're justified.
Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n228.7 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 10:47:43 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Steve Premo writes
>>But the United States Constitution prohibits the government from either
>>interfering with the exercise of religion, or showing a preference for any
>>religion (or for religion as opposed to atheism). The idea is that the
>>government has no business being involved in religion one way or the other,
>>lest an "official religion" be established or implied, and those of other
>>faiths, or of no faith, are no longer treated as equal by the government.
Tonkin said:
>This begs a couple of questions.
>
>1) Would it not therefore be appropriate to equitably fund _all_
>education, so as not to discriminate against those belief systems which
>have been designated as religions? This would also obviate the need to
>determine whether or not something was a religion.
Mckay says: This sounds like a fair solution to a more complex problem,
that is; you would have to fund every type of religious belief; the KKK,
Neo Nazi's, and every other odd ball religion out there. This would
probably end up worse than or equal to complete lawlessness, or opening up
Pandoras Box. Is society ready for that?
>2) Was I misinformed when I was told that the official oaths, etc for
>some of your government positions specifically refer to God? This may,
>I accept, be UK urban myth, but "for God and my country" and "in God we
>trust" do seem to be associated with a degree of US officialdom.
McKay says: This is considered different than practising a specific
religion, maybe it's not. But you would have to change the Constitution or
amend it with new legislation. So I don't think this avenue is worth
pursuing for why the usages of "God" in our governments doings
makes the reason for having (or not having) the "separation of church and
state".
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n228.8 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject:
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 13:44:03 -0500
allure netcom.com writes:
> help
Wotsa matter, El?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n228.9 ---------------
From: Steve Premo
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy in curriculum
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 10:37:49 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 01:05 AM 11/25/96 -0700, Dan Dugan wrote:
>Steve Premo, on Nov. 20 you said,
>
>>I'm going to set up a meeting with a teacher at my local Waldorf school to
>>discuss my concerns that Anthroposophy not make it into the curriculum.
>
>So what happened?
I'll let y'all know after I set up the meeting. I haven't gotten around to
it yet.
-
Steve Premo "It's the job that's never started
Premo-Fine Family as takes longest to finish."
Santa Cruz, California -Hamfast "Gaffer" Gamgee
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n228.10 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 13:43:07 -0500
Stephen Tonkin writes:
> 1) Would it not therefore be appropriate to equitably fund _all_
> education, so as not to discriminate against those belief systems which
> have been designated as religions? This would also obviate the need to
> determine whether or not something was a religion.
Yes. This is (sort of) the way Canada has gone, and apparently Germany.
It has your last-mentioned HUGE advantage.
> 2) Was I misinformed when I was told that the official oaths, etc for
> some of your government positions specifically refer to God? This may,
> I accept, be UK urban myth, but "for God and my country" and "in God we
> trust" do seem to be associated with a degree of US officialdom.
"In God We Trust" is, as I vaguely remember, the official
U.S. "motto". It has nearly as ancient and honorable a history as
"Honi soit que mal e pense" (sp.?) in England. Yes it's probably
inconsistent with constitutional protections, but that's up to the
legislatures and courts to effectively decide. There are plenty of
other examples of government double-speak here, but they are mostly
incidental to how things work. I think that "For God and country" is
the motto of the boy scouts or some other group which has nothing to
do with government.
Cheers, --Lee
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n228 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n229 --------------
001 - Lefty - Re: What is religion?
002 - Stephen Tonkin - Re: What is religion?
006 - Stephen Tonkin - Re: Need help to descramble
010 - Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 10:59:52 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Lee Story writes
>
>Lefty, you do a pretty lousy job of substantiating your claim that
>Dr.Marty's listed characteristics of a "religion" are shared by
>baseball as much as by anthroposophy.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion. Let me point out that no one,
myself included, has made any effort to show that anthroposophy fits
Professor Marty's criteria.
I notice, in passing, that you didn't address the example of musicianship
at all.
>Dr.Marty's words interpolated here:
>
> That system must center on a matter of deep meaning, or
> "ultimate concern,"
>"Only a game"?
For some people, perhaps, but tell that to George Steinbrenner or Casey
Stengal. There's no shortage of lukewarm churchgoers, either.
> involve socialization
> (believers tend to form communities)
>Amateur & school baseball is usually open to all, or all the school's
>students, on the basis of skill evaluations (tryouts); professional
>baseball is a matter of selling one's services as an exhibitor of
>sporting skill: the leagues could care less what the players' deep
>beliefs are!
The statement says nothing about closed communities or deep beliefs. It
simply says "involve socialization" and "form communities".
> show a preference for
> symbolic language over everyday speech
>Symbolic language (sometimes metaphor or allegory) is quite different from
>the argot of a trade (like baseball or computer programming...)
Not all that different, really; when I talk about my computer's "memory" or
a "flip-flop", am I using argot or a metaphor? At any rate, it's not clear
what's being talked about here, as I pointed out. If I tell you that I got
browbeaten by my better half and now I'm bushed, is that "symbolic
language" or "everyday speech"?
> use ceremonies
> (especially at birth, marriage and death)
>I'm not aware that the baseball leagues intervene at these points in a
>player's life.
I'm not aware that lots of things widely termed "religions" do; Buddhism,
for instance, generally doesn't. And certainly, anthroposophy doesn't.
Lots of things that _aren't_ viewed as religions use ceremony extensively.
> take a metaphysical view of life (there is more to the
> world than what one sees)
>and...
> require behavioral adjustments (attending Sunday School or
> shunning pork).
>Again, I see no such requirements in
>baseball. If you can play, usually no one insists that you have any
>particular religious view, or ha follow any ritual beyond getting to
>the game on time.
I was speaking particularly of professional baseball, and if you think that
players are simply expected to "get to the game on time" and are not
strongly encouraged to keep regular habits, a strict diet, etc., you're
mistaken, I'm afraid. Some don't, but all are strongly encouraged to.
--
Lefty [gYon-Pa]
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n229.2 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Waldorf and Public Education
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 16:51:19 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dan Dugan writes
>Excuse me? Administrators take care of day-to-day office operations, they
>don't make decisions. In Waldorf schools constituted after Steiner's
>indications, ALL important decisions are made by the College of Teachers.
>If it's not that way in your school, then -you- are the exception. Or are
>you making a technical distinction between "administrators" and
>"executives?"
Maybe we aren't so carefully pigeon-holed as you guys -- our
administrator makes decisions. Our College of Teachers is responsible
for _Pedagogical_ decisions. We have no-one labelled as an "executive"
although executive decisions are frequently made -- by teachers,
administrator, Council chairman (a parent).
Decision-making is frequently delegated on a "horses for courses"
principle.
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n229.3 ---------------
From: Steve Premo
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 11:07:57 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 01:31 PM 11/25/96 -0500, Lee Story USG wrote:
>
>police may not detain a congressman who is on the way to the Capitol
>for a vote, even on a warrent for murder or other mayhem.
"Senators and representatives . . . shall in all cases, except treason,
felony and breach fo the peace, be privileged from arrest during their
attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and
returning from the same . . . ." U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 6.
As far as I know, there is no prohibition on arresting members of congress
for murder or mahem, as those are felonies.
-
Steve Premo "It's the job that's never started
Premo-Fine Family as takes longest to finish."
Santa Cruz, California -Hamfast "Gaffer" Gamgee
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n229.4 ---------------
From: allure netcom.com
Subject: Out of Context
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 11:29:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
EL:
> >The curriculum is art in progress, it is alive, the teachers must make it
> >alive to the children. They must work though and come to the
> >understanding of what and why they are teaching what the bring before the
> >children.
Dan:
> You're starting to blow smoke here, El. Good intentions help, but don't
> validate untested theories.
EL:
> >Without this aspect it is just another dead methodology.
Dan:
> Now you're calling those unenlightened by Steiner "dead methodology." Come
> off it. If anything's "dead," it's Steiner's theories that have been
> worshipped unchanged since the 1920's.
> -Dan Dugan
***************************************************************************
The context:
Header to Lee Story
The idea of moving from one subject to another with out
understanding or a connection to the whole is IMHO not part of the Waldorf
Curriculum. If this lesson doesn't go well I think the teacher should ask
themselves if they themselves are connecting to the whole of the subject.
The curriculum is art in progress, it is alive, the teachers must make it
alive to the children. They must work though and come to the
understanding of what and why they are teaching what the bring before the
children.
Without this aspect it is just another dead methodology.
Any subject can be brought to life, by anyone who brings enthusiasm and
and a great personal interest to it. Many of the subjects I enjoyed learning
as a child were by teachers who did just that.
I hope I have been able to lay a bit of a foundation to your question.
Like any living thing it is very intricate and takes a bit of time to
understand the fullness of it all.
Maybe I can build on other questions you have or perhaps others here
may want to add or express their experiences in working with Waldorf
Education.
Are you thinking of sending your children to a Waldorf School?
Please feel free to answer at your own discretion.
Best Always,
-El
***************************************************************************
Dear Dan,
You have taken many things I have said, including this last statement,
(which is a clear example) out of context. I have seen this done before
here. So what is the point of responding to your remarks, or questions.
If I thought it was a casual mistake that would be one thing, everybody
makes mistakes, but you seem to focus more on a negative thought process and
enjoy twisting and editing words which I think _intentionally_ misleads
people.
What is your reason for this?
Are you hoping to make a profit on attacking Waldorf Schools?
Is this your mission or pure entertainment?
What's in this for you and your family?
Are you bitter or angry about something in your life?
I know I have hesitated in even giving my name, because when I joined the
list and made one comment and then I was attacked for something I was
never part of.
I wrote to you about this and you suggested I run the letter on the list.
Are you kidding? When my first impression here was a direct attack.
I getting the feeling that the purpose of this list is to cause conflict
for the sake of conflict, if that is what this list is about then I
believe it is a waste of time.
As the list manager you seem to go out of your way to create it or let
it fester by others.
Maybe I should read the FAQ, I do not remember receiving one, perhaps I
misplaced it. Can someone send me a copy?
I get the feeling there is more bad-mouthing and miscommunication here
than any real communication about the issues of Waldorf Education.
Perhaps my expectations are too high.
Maybe I am wrong, are you new at running a list on the net?
Is this the kind of response you hope to get out of people here?
I'd like to understand.
Sincerely
-El
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n229.5 ---------------
From: Lefty
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 11:31:37 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
mckay oro.net writes
>
>Proofing that maybe other disciplines in life may also be considered a
>religion by Prof. Marty's formula doesn't mean that Anthroposophy or other
>religions are not.
No, but it doesn't prove that they are, either. If Prof. Marty's set of
criteria for deciding what it a religion can encompass things that clearly
_aren't_ religions, then it doesn't do what it purports to.
>Yes, I've heard the expressions; taking it on like a
>religion, or; being religious about ones work, etc. That doesn't make
>baseball or playing music a religion.
It doesn't make anthroposophy one, either. That's the point we're getting
at here.
Calling something a "cult-like religious sect" doesn't make it one, and so
far no one has demonstrated why anthroposophy should be considered as such
(other than by repeated assertion).
--
Lefty [gYon-Pa]
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n229.6 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Waldorf and history education
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 17:04:26 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Michael Kopp writes
>One of the criticisms of U.S. public education is that it inculcates the
>prevailing political system's abuses as well as its basis in the
>unaliaenable rights.
[large snip of well-argued points]
I know it is bad form to post "I agree" messages, but it is so rare for
me to agree with Mr Kopp that I am going indulge myself -- I agree with
the entire post.
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n229.7 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: differences between European and US Waldorf
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 14:19:43 -0500
Dan Dugan:
> > They all read the same Steiner.
and Peter Schwab replies:
> _You_ read a (maybe lousy) english/american translation. We read the
> German original. This alone may make a difference.
A little, Peter. Technical philosophical terms are variously
translated. The main effect of bad translation seems to be to turn
felicitous prose into a boring, infelicitous drone. But by the time
one has read Steiner's central books, even translated into Korean or
Swahili, I'm sure one has quite a good overview of his thought.
> > Apparently the racism is more explicit in the
> > Dutch anthropology classes than in the American.
>
> As long as the Duch host the ugliest gangs of neo-nazies in Europe,
> they should shut up accusing others to be "racists". The whole
> discussion is a lot of humbug brought up mostly by former left-winged
> ex-commies on the quest for a new occupation after the wall came down
> and all their illusions went down the river.
This in itself sounds nationalistic and chauvinistic, if not "racist".
Amsterdam may be the most delightfully open and anti-authoritarian
city in the world; that does not mean in the slightest that the Dutch
are happy about some of the unfortunate side-effects of political
freedom, like the gangs you mention!
> There is no racism in antroposophy and waldorf education. Point.
Would you please interpret for us the Steiner quotes about black, yellow,
and white "races" recently posted here? It seems to me there's
Eurocentrism and assertion of caucasian superiority in "spiritual
development" in Steiner's words and thus in anthroposophy, though
possibly not in Waldorf education.
> What you percieve as racism is in my opinion the result of a failed
> adaption of a middle-european single-cultural concept to the
> north-american multi-cultural illusion of a society.
Illusion? Do you lump us with the Dutch (q.v.)? --Lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n229.8 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: What is the color of a photon?
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 14:47:26 -0500
Dan Dugan writes:
> Fluff, Rigby. Goetheanism still doesn't explain additive color mixing.
> Wilkinson's teaching manual illustrates the additive phenomenon, but only
> says:
>
> "In the mixing of colours on paper the tendency is to darken the light; in
> projecting colours, darkness is lightened."
> [Wilkinson, Roy. Teaching Physics for age groups 12/13/14. Forest Row,
> Sussex, U.K., 1992, p. 22]
>
> Nothing about wavelengths, or visual primaries. Institutionalized mis-education.
Dan, I don't think it's fair to use Wilkinson's pamphlets as representative
of anthropop/Waldorf. Even though he's published by American anthroposophists,
I'll bet a lot of them would disown his views.
Okay, anthropops...now's your chance. Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n229.9 ---------------
From: Lefty
Subject: Re: Need help to descramble
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 12:03:53 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Deby Snell asks
>
>My son, in his 5th grade public Waldorf school, painted several wet-on-wet
>style paintings which was to be assembled as a book. The book was never put
>together, and I am sure they are not in order. I need help to put this poem
>in the proper sequence, so I may finish the job.
>
>I am hoping someone will recognise this poem, put it in the proper
>sequence, or even tell me if it is all there. Thanks.
Why don't you simply ask your son's former(?) teacher?
--
Lefty [gYon-Pa]
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n229.10 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Teacher shop-talk relevance (Was Re: CAN, etc.; Notes & records etc.)
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 20:18:11 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Michael Kopp writes
>Aside from the possible interest people on a _criticism_ list might have in
>the subject for comparative or revelatory purposes, I fail to see the
>relevance of this discussion to _criticism_.
>
>This is staff-room shop-talk, and I would think by Tonkin's own apparent
>criteria (and that of this and other lists) it belongs on the Steiner or
>Waldorf lists.
A slightly more vigilant perusal of my "shop-talk" may reveal a
reference to potential weaknesses in the non-prescriptive nature of our
curriculum indications. A truly vigilant critic may even have chosen to
leap on that as a self-confessed criticism. SHOCK! HORROR!
Hell, it's a sad day when the only coherent criticism of Waldorf
_education_ (as opposed to the stale "is it or isn't it a religion"
debate) on this list comes from those of us labelled as "defenders of
the faith".
It's certainly a lot closer to a criticism of Waldorf education than is
that post about CAN/Scientology.
Maybe El and I are just doing it because, as "defenders of the faith",
we need to have our daily fix of something to defend against. Then
again...
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n229 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n230 --------------
001 - Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 15:29:42 -0500
Lefty writes:
> Well, you're entitled to your opinion. Let me point out that no one,
> myself included, has made any effort to show that anthroposophy fits
> Professor Marty's criteria.
>
> I notice, in passing, that you didn't address the example of musicianship
> at all.
I hadn't gotten to that message at the time I replied.
In any case, it still seems to me that any religious organization can
and will be called a "cult" by deprecating nonbelievers.
Anthroposophy, basing itself in very large part on belief in Steiner's
ability to investigate "other worlds" (and the distant past of this
one) through meditative thought-exercises, and believing him when he
applies those claimed "insights" to everything from biblical criticism
to manure-spreading, seems to me at least on the borderline of an
"organized religion".
Just for the record, I'm really glad to see the so-called cults
win a few lately. I've seen no evidence that small religions, up to
and including the Satanist groups and the late Aleister Crowley's
"Thelemites", are any less desirable organizations than the huge ones.
Also, the list of characteristics that one of the Dans posted many
weeks ago (from the defunct "Cult Awareness Network", I think) was
even more problematical than Marty's.
So I agree with Lefty on most of this, except that I think
anthroposophy much more a religion than baseball :) Cheers, --Lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n230.2 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Cult awareness groups
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 16:32:54 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Michael Kopp writes
>Seriously, there is a never-the-twain-shall-meet gulf between the
>definitions one side of this debate uses and those of the other side. I
>have rarely seen the defenders of the faith agree with anyone else's
>definitions.
I am still waiting to see an "exclusive and inclusive" definition of a
cult. (ie a definition that, if its criteria are met, defines a cult;
and, if its criteria are not met, defines a non-cult). Until I see such
a definition, I can neither agree or disagree with it.
>
>That's another defining sign of a cult, and its defensiveness.
Possibly, but that does not mean that all defensiveness is a sign of a
cult. That is again the old "protestation of innocence is proof of
guilt" argument, which I assumed contibutors to this list were above.
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n230.3 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: The creation of a full disclosure document
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 15:54:11 -0500
I wrote:
> > Is
> > there in the schools this blurring between documented history and
> > revealed belief (or allegory, for those anthroposophists who don't
> > take this stuff literally)? Stephen? El? Could someone comment from
> > the Waldorf perspective? Shouldn't one try to keep these very
> > different pursuits separate (at least beyond the first grade or
> > two...the years when _mythology_ is explicitly taught, rather than
> > _history_)?
and El replied:
[....]
> In the 1st grade teaching is done through the fairy tales.
> In the 2nd grade Fables and Legions, Native American.
> In the 3rd grade The Life of the Hebrew peoples and Pioneer life.
> In the 4th grade the story of Atlantis is taught by a few teachers, those
> I have spoken to who have are mostly from Europe. The Norse Saga is taught
> both in Europe and in the US along with local geography.
[....]
> In the 5th grade the cultures of Ancient India, Ancient Persia, Ancient
> Mesopotamia, and Ancient Egypt.
> In the 6th grade Greco/Roma history through the Middle ages.
> In the 7th grade the Renaissance up through the Classical.
> In the 8th grade the Revolutions, Industrial Age, through modern day living.
Every national or regional group here except the Atlantans has some claim
to historical existence. Thus your list implies to me that "ancient
Atlantis" is treated as something of a factual validity which extends
beyond myth and allegory, or at least it seems that the children would
easily get that impression.
> The cultural history of the curriculum evolves with the developmental age of
> the child, leading from the world of dreams to modern day technology.
The assumption that the native Americans (to say nothing of the
ancient Hebrew or Greek civilizations) were in a "world of dreams", or
even much closer to such than 20th-Century Europe or America, seems
specious. (It also seems ridiculously culturally myopic.) Why do you
think this (-other- than because Dr.Steiner said so)?
> The curriculum is not sectioned out in little pieces, but is approached
> as a whole. Just like the living human being, each organ can not
> function separately without it's connection to the body.
>
> Every subject intertwins into the curriculum. Reading, spelling, science,
> math, etc. As the children grow these topics/subjects become more
> specialized more sophisticated.
>
> The idea of moving from one subject to another with out
> understanding or a connection to the whole is IMHO not part of the Waldorf
> Curriculum. If this lesson doesn't go well I think the teacher should ask
> themselves if they themselves are connecting to the whole of the subject.
All very good, and I have no complaint about it, but providing a
well-interconnected education doesn't imply abandoning the attempt to
separate political and cultural history from myth, allegory and moral
tale. It seems to me that education must contain at least as much
discrimination as holism, lest it disintegrate into platitudes...like
this sentence...
Cheers, -Lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n230.4 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Out of Context
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 16:15:48 -0500
allure netcom.com writes:
> EL:
> > >The curriculum is art in progress, it is alive, the teachers must make it
> > >alive to the children. They must work though and come to the
> > >understanding of what and why they are teaching what the bring before the
> > >children.
> Dan:
> > You're starting to blow smoke here, El. Good intentions help, but don't
> > validate untested theories.
> EL:
> > >Without this aspect it is just another dead methodology.
> Dan:
> > Now you're calling those unenlightened by Steiner "dead methodology." Come
> > off it. If anything's "dead," it's Steiner's theories that have been
> > worshipped unchanged since the 1920's.
> > -Dan Dugan
[....]
> Dear Dan,
> You have taken many things I have said, including this last statement,
> (which is a clear example) out of context.
[....]
> I getting the feeling that the purpose of this list is to cause conflict
> for the sake of conflict, if that is what this list is about then I
> believe it is a waste of time.
> As the list manager you seem to go out of your way to create it or let
> it fester by others.
Dan has not "managed" this list, at least that I can see. He's simply
provided it, and made his own comments as he has seen fit.
While Dan didn't provide the complete context of your remarks, it
seems clear to me that you believe it's the teacher's mission to make
the instruction "alive" in some sense which requires constant
reconceptualization and extemporaneous invention. This provides Dan
a perfectly legitimate lead-in to comment about how little Steiner's
"indications" have been revised or reinterpreted or superseded, and
to suggest that they may be "dead" according to your own metaphorical
use of "alive".
Besides all that, it seems to me very much justified (and funny) to
call some of Steiner's ideas "dead", since that's a near-
unintelligible perjorative that some anthropops---not least the
inimitable R.Wilkinson---love to throw at anything they disagree with
(and most especially those which are precise, empirically testable, or
mathematical).
So what's -really- getting your goat about Dan's claims here?? they
seem to boil down to (in his words):
[1] good intentions don's validate untested theories,
and
[2] [....] Steiner's theories that have been worshipped unchanged
since the 1920's
These seem reasonable, albeit unexceptional, responses [1] to the
smokescreen of "alive"-ness that you threw up, rather than explicitly
responding to my concern about the confusion of political history with
myth; and [2] to the "revealed" nature, and lack of evident recent
development of, anthroposophic doctrine.
Instead of talking to the issues, you rant about excessive "conflict".
(Repeat after me: "Difference of views is good, and conflict (NOT "for
its own sake" though) is excellent; Steiner's is only one possible
view, and may not be the best one...")
Cheers, --Lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n230.5 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Waldorf and history education
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 16:47:45 -0500
Michael Kopp writes:
> >Do Waldorf students not look at local history and government in depth until
> >high school?
> >
> >Is there never an opportunity to discuss current events? Are children
> >discouraged from following the news (by television) until a certain age?
> >And if so, when are they encouraged to what the nightly news?
>
> One of the criticisms of U.S. public education is that it inculcates the
> prevailing political system's abuses as well as its basis in the
> unalienable rights.
That's what I'd call "searching within the possible for truth and
equity". While I agree with your implication that a lot of political
indoctrination comes with state-controlled schooling (and thus I like
the idea of a comprehensive voucher system), the alternative of trying
to screen out current politics seems worse (as well as being a fool's
errand). I don't see any evidence at all for this:
> I think children, even children of pubertal age, are not capable of
> understanding or discussing sociological or political problems in their own
> society because the only way to do so is to become sophisticated without
> wisdom gained of education, experience or insight.
>
> Children today _are_ in fact highly sophisticated about the world around
> them. This does not mean they are truly knowledgeable, literate, logical,
> ethical, moral, or rational. This sophistication comes from the onslaught
> of media. One cannot escape it or even filter it. [....]
And so on... Well, I don't have a (working) television, but my kids
get plenty of chance to watch. My twelve-year-old is as logical as
most people, and at least as moral and rational. Literate no, but
that isn't our central subject here. And he's reading like crazy, and
-becoming- literate---surely it makes sense for him to discuss the
social ideas he reads about, while they're fresh in his mind! Except
perhaps for joining the army or making babies, I can't imagine -ever-
telling him he's "too young" for anything...certainly not for anything
intellectual. Too inexperienced to be President, sure, but not too
"young" to contemplate and discuss the President's duties! (I start
to get pissed off just thinking about this sort of cop-out.)
I think my impressions here conflict strongly with the usual
Waldorf approach...right El, Stephen, Neil,...?
> In this respect, I appreciate the Steiner/Waldorf concentration on the
> classical educational fundamentals of human existence; that's one of the
> reasons I enrolled, and it is one of the remaining arguments in its favour.
> I think involving less than 16-year-olds in political discussion is to put
> them into a false world.
It should be evident that I disagree with this. Listen to them quarreling
among themselves.
> Replicating real political life amongs younger kids, either as an
> exercise parallel to, say, an election, or having children use the
> trappings of real political life in their own lives, as in student
> councils, only perpetuates stereotypes without understanding.
It seems to me, as long as the children have opportunity to try out
-various- political schemes (direct democracy, representative
democracy, fixed terms of office, parliamentary systems,
dictatorships, royalty...) in meaningful situations (which means those
in which they have a stake and in which there is real conflict to be
dealt with), that this is "hands-on" learning, and feels very
"Waldorf" in its try-the-craft aspect. Besides, it just seems like a
good idea.
> It also leads to all the abuses of fellow humans which are
> prevalent in the society at large.
I assume you have some specific instances in mind when you speak of
"abuses", but without them it's not possible to follow your argument,
or to guess what it is that you consider "prevalent...". Sometimes I
think that anthropops consider hollering at each other a terrible "abuse".
(I know you don't :)
> I say this despite my fondness for A.S. Neill's Summerhill experiment,
> which was run on a common democracy basis similar to a New England town
> meeting government, with one vote for everybody, and direct voting on all
> questions. That was one of the most fascinating, yet least attractive
> aspects of Summerhill, for me. But it seemed to work well.
There's a big difference between this sort of responsibility and the "student
council" or "Boys' State" programs which are artificially controlled by
adults. The students could *sink* Summerhill (or the Sudbury Valley School
in Massachusetts, or several other such) if they wanted to: they have
*real* responsibility, and live up to it remarkably well.
> Finally, the role of Tv in educating children to current events. I abhor
> it. And that's from a former Tv newsman. Tv is to real information as
> military music is to real music or military food is to real food.
[....]
> Today's television news and current affairs has no use in a
> democratic society's political life.
I agree, except that the food during my stint in the U.S.Army wasn't
bad at all (except of course during basic training, but that's
intentional), and I think you underrate the classic marching band.
Neither of these is nearly as bland or inane as network television fare.
> Edward R. Murrow and the other pioneers of broadcast journalism are
> probably spinning in their graves.
Naw..."broadcast journalism" is pretty close to an oxymoron no matter who
is doing it. Maybe with less expensive and more distributed media like
the Web we'll see a whole new conception of "the news".
> I don't know what Steiner/Waldorf thinking is on when to encourage children
> to watch Tv. From my point of view, the answer should be "never".
How is the child to develop a critical faculty if she isn't exposed to
bad presentations and inane and one-sided argument? TV does have -some-
role to play :) Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n230.6 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and history education
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 16:15:26 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
It seems to me that today's news (whether obtained through TV, newspapers,
radio, magazines, or direct observation) is worthy of classroom discussion.
While the issue of values taught in the classroom is certainly a topic of
debate, I think that can be different that acknowledging the world around
you.
During the Vietnam years, for example, I think it would have been
unrealistic for a teacher to pretend that a war was not going on.
Particularly when some family members were participating in it (as was my
father).
Or what if a town's major employer is laying off workers and this is
affecting the children. A teacher could pretend it isn't happening or she
or he could take the events as an opportunity to discuss economics.
I remember in 1960 (when I was 11) I closely followed the Kennedy-Nixon
campaign and developed an interest in the presidency that continued on from
there.
I guess I believe relevancy is an important part of education for children
of all ages.
As for television news viewing. Yes, there is bias there--as there is in
all forms of news presentation. Children can be taught to analyze news
presentation (e.g., what is featured and what is left out). Ah, think of
the empowerment when ten year olds learn about propaganda. Consumers Report
publishes a magazine to children which teaches them about money issues and
particularly how to spot advertising hype.
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n230.7 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re: Need help to descramble
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 15:41:15 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Lefty asks (in reference to my son's poem I am trying to descramble)
>Why don't you simply ask your son's former(?) teacher?
My son's 5th grade teacher [at the public Waldorf school] _taught_ Waldorf
curriculum for _one_ year. She is not an Anthroposophist, and decided
Waldorf did not fit into her "best educational practice" philosophy. She
applied for, and received a new job in a different school, teaching 6th
grade. Seventeen families tried to follow her to her new school from the
Waldorf school, only fourteen families were accepted, due to class size
considerations. She took no Waldorf notes with her to her new school,and
can't remember.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n230.8 ---------------
From: allure netcom.com
Subject: Re: Out of Context
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 17:29:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
I sent this private to Lee, but after thinking about it I decided that I
should send it to the list.
Thank You
-El
On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, Lee Story USG wrote:
> > EL:
> > > >Without this aspect it is just another dead methodology.
> > Dan:
> > > Now you're calling those unenlightened by Steiner "dead methodology.
Lee:
> So what's -really- getting your goat about Dan's claims here?? they
> seem to boil down to (in his words):
I will tell you Lee...
************************************************************************
This is part of what I said:
The curriculum is art in progress, it is alive, the teachers must make it
alive to the children. They must work though and come to the
understanding of what and why they are teaching what the bring before the
children.
Without this aspect it is just another dead methodology.
Any subject can be brought to life, by anyone who brings enthusiasm and
and a great personal interest to it. Many of the subjects I enjoyed learning
as a child were by teachers who did just that.
************************************************************************
This is what Dan quoted and commented on.
Without this aspect it is just another dead methodology.
*************************************************************************
This is what he should have looked at and where he took my words out of
context.
Without this aspect it is just another dead methodology.
Any subject can be brought to life, by anyone who brings enthusiasm and
and a great personal interest to it. Many of the subjects I enjoyed learning
as a child were by teachers who did just that.
Do you need me to explain any further?
I would be happy to.
Regards,
-EL
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n230.9 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Cult awareness groups
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 17:47:01 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Lefty, you wrote,
>This doesn't address what _this_ posting had to do with anything in
>particular (except as possibly a word to the wise on issues of
>copyright and Fair Use). CAN seems to have arguably been guilty of
>copyright infringement. I am probably even less fond of the various
>denizens of Scientology than the next person, but that doesn't mean
>that they're not entitled to the same rights and protections as people
>with whom I _do_ agree.
You have copyright on the brain. The CAN cases have nothing to do with
copyright.
Here's what happened: Associates of Scientology filed 51 harrassing suits
against CAN all over the country. One alleging collusion in a deprogramming
incident (CAN wasn't even named in the criminal proceedings) succeeded,
though it is being appealed. There was a judgement of over a million
dollars which drove CAN out of business. Score one for sophisticated
fascists, one against truth and justice. A terrifying story.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n230.10 ---------------
From: Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: Cult awareness groups
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 19:17:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, Dan Dugan wrote:
>
> You have copyright on the brain.
Well, you keep reminding me of it, Dan.
> The CAN cases have nothing to do with copyright.
My mistake; it was FACTnet that had the copyright infringement lawsuit
brought against it.
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n230 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n231 --------------
001 - Stephen Tonkin
Subject: PLANS' "Hit Rate"
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 02:32:36 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dan Dugan,
On a number of previous occasions I have asked you to tell us precisely
how many Waldorf Schools your campaign has either forced to close or
prevented from opening. i.e. How successful, in _measurable_,
_quantifiable_ terms, has PLANS been?
Have I missed the answer, or have you been strangely reluctant to post
this information, which I am sure would be of interest to all?
Curiously,
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n231.2 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: A Woeful Tale
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 21:13:09 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
A reposting of this woeful tale to the Waldorf list was suggested to me by
Daniel Sakaly. Since it was requested that I put this story in writing by
the Rudolf Steiner Foundation for the purpose of other schools' learning
from "our" mistake, I did.
Hello,
I was asked by the Rudolf Steiner Foundation to put this story in writing
so that other schools could possibly learn from the mistakes that were made
at our private Waldorf school. I believe that documenting _everything_ that
happened could take a full year, and I am not willing to do that. However,
this forum seems to be a good place to document as many Waldorf schools are
part of this list.
I served on the board of directors of Mariposa Waldorf School in Nevada
County, CA. during its last breaths; one and one half years.
Several issues contributed to its closure, but I will attempt to address a
few of the major reasons, according to the consenses of the board, who
spent the year _after_ it closed being interviewed by our Federal and State
government.
The _major_ problems included:
1) Lack of enrollment of "full pay" tuition. (We operated 54% tuition
assistance, with those families paying $85.00 per month).
2.) Lack of teacher training in administrative issues, such as budgeting,
etc. Yet the faculty *demanded* that the school be faculty-led.
3.) lack of ability to communicate with parents in a way that encouraged
parental committment. No structure in place, i.e., no parent hand book, no
committee structure. When the board implimented a new committee structure
[at an all school meeting], only "selected"
members of the committee would be called [by teachers who headed the
committees] for the meetings.
Hurt feelings arose, and a deep apathy set in by the parent body.
4) Lack of honesty between the faculty and board. Administrator, faculty
and bookkeeper did not inform the board that federal and state payroll
taxes *had not been paid* until the school's bank accounts were levied, and
payroll checks bounced. The book keeper had not balanced the check book in
7 months. (This was discovered in the first 6 weeks of when *I* got on the
board.)
5) After the faculty consulted with AWSNA about the school's financial
problems [the spring *before* its closure], AWSNA recommended that the
school close. The faculty decided to expand instead. So....they chose not
to tell the parents that AWSNA recommended closure, instead they held a
lovely meeting for *all* the parents. We sang songs in rounds, listened to
a parable about a young struggling school that had experienced growing
pains similar to adolesence, but was moving into adulthood filled with
promise and ready to realize it's potential. The faculty, with the
assistance of the book keeper, painted a pretty financial picture for
parents, and convinced the unsuspecting parents that the school was on its
way out of financial ruin.
They asked parents 1.) To become board members ( I agreed) and 2.)to
guarantee loans from the Rudolf Steiner Foundation in New York totaling
$60,000. This money was to go toward the expansion of the school, a sure
way to continue our path toward finacial stability. Their rationale being
that more chilren could come to the over crowded school, thus create more
revenue. (Our family, three weeks into the school and _completely_
enamoured, and not yet on the board, co-signed for the second largest part
of "this much needed loan".)
By the time the $42,000.(that was all the school could come up with in the
way of guarantors) loan came, we used it to pay the IRS and State for back
payroll taxes. Meanwhile, we had taken over another building on the
property, had *no* money for remodeling the new building to make it fit for
classrooms, nor did we have money to _even_ run advertisements in the
newspaper to attract prospective families, and the classes that had moved
in to the *new and improved* expanded part of our school was "red
tagged" by the county when a parent complained about leaking sewage seeping
up in the bathtub.
Suddenly, when all of these "faculty led" problems began to arise, the
faculty stopped coming to board meetings, etc. The faculty went into a
"comatose" state. No ideas, just demands. ("WE want our paychecks.").
The board layed off the administrator in February to help save money, and
help us limp through to the end of the year. The administrator *refused* to
leave her position (with faculty support) and threatened to sue the board
*if* we looked through the school records that, by California non-profit
law, are to be opened for any member of the public.The board ran the
schoolfrom February to June of that year to insure our children could
complete the year. Because the board was told that the school was operating
25% tuition assistance, verses the 54% that we were *truely* at, and not
to mention the "fantasy budget" that
reflected only what the faculty wanted it to look like, in order for the
budget to be passed. I decided that either someone was embezzeling funds or
the budget was not accurate. (My husband and I went through every contract
in the school to determine what the *real* income was.
When the board asked for the faculty budget committee to give us an
accurate budget that reflected the true income, every single faculty member
on that committee resigned.
Needless to say, the Rudolf Steiner Institute that loaned us the money was
throughly angry when they learned that AWSNA had recommended closure of the
school, and the faculty went for a loan from them instead, with absolutely
_no_ mention of this fact. Ironically, every parent that co-signed for that
loan paid. The faculty that went in on the loan has yet to pay what they
committed. (Anne Stahl, from the RSI, called me a few months back to say
that the former administrator, now a teacher at the public Waldorf school,
put her on hold and *never* came back, when RSF contacted her to speak
about _her_ part of the loan) They were considering a law suit against that
teacher.
Well, there is *lots* more to this story, but to answer your question about
the new Public Waldorf School.....seven out of nine teachers at Twin Ridges
public Waldorf School were employed by Mariposa, in one capacity or
another.
To this day, only _one_ faculty member (that did not go on to work for Twin
Ridges) has asked about the $32,000. payroll taxes that the board got stuck
dealing with. (Our homes and businesses were at risk. The government
doesn't take kindly to people spending _their_ money)
Deby Snell, past Mariposa board member
P.S. I am now a member of the Waldorf Critics list.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n231.3 ---------------
From: Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: Need help to descramble
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 21:33:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 25 Nov 1996 snell oro.net wrote:
>
> Lefty asks (in reference to my son's poem I am trying to descramble)
> >Why don't you simply ask your son's former(?) teacher?
>
> My son's 5th grade teacher [at the public Waldorf school] _taught_ Waldorf
> curriculum for _one_ year. She is not an Anthroposophist, and decided
> Waldorf did not fit into her "best educational practice" philosophy. She
> applied for, and received a new job in a different school, teaching 6th
> grade. Seventeen families tried to follow her to her new school from the
> Waldorf school, only fourteen families were accepted, due to class size
> considerations. She took no Waldorf notes with her to her new school,and
> can't remember.
Well, surely some of these other families whose children were in your
son's class must have it, mustn't they?
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n231.4 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: News and Bias
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 22:34:24 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
It occurred to me that the concept of shielding children from the news
because it is biased doesn't acknowledge that much of what we know about
history comes from "news" that was biased.
All information about events is biased (it is, after all, based on human
observation and reports), so part of a child's education probably should
include learning how to evaluate what you read and hear.
Why should we assume that having children only study history and not
current events exposes them to less bias, politics, and selective
interpretation?
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n231.5 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and history education
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 19:14:30 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Stephen Tonkin quotes Michael Kopp and makes a startling admisssion:
>Michael Kopp writes
>>One of the criticisms of U.S. public education is that it inculcates the
>>prevailing political system's abuses as well as its basis in the
>>unaliaenable rights.
>
>[large snip of well-argued points]
>
>I know it is bad form to post "I agree" messages, but it is so rare for
>me to agree with Mr Kopp that I am going indulge myself -- I agree with
>the entire post.
>
>--
>Stephen Tonkin
It's okay, Stephen, you'll get over it. Just look again at some of the
things I've said I don't like about Anthroposophy in the curriculum, or
some of the wierd science or wierd history taught to my kids, and you'll
find plenty to disagree with that seemed to excite little rebuttal at the
time.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n231.6 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Teacher shop-talk relevance (Was Re: CAN, etc.; Notes & records etc.)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 19:14:33 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Stepehen Tonkin writes:
>Michael Kopp writes
>>Aside from the possible interest people on a _criticism_ list might have in
>>the subject for comparative or revelatory purposes, I fail to see the
>>relevance of this discussion to _criticism_.
>>
>>This is staff-room shop-talk, and I would think by Tonkin's own apparent
>>criteria (and that of this and other lists) it belongs on the Steiner or
>>Waldorf lists.
>
>A slightly more vigilant perusal of my "shop-talk" may reveal a
>reference to potential weaknesses in the non-prescriptive nature of our
>curriculum indications. A truly vigilant critic may even have chosen to
>leap on that as a self-confessed criticism. SHOCK! HORROR!
"SHOCK! HORROR!"???? YAAWWWNNNNN! You've been reading the Sun and Mirror
too much, Tonkin. (In fact, these days, one could say that of the Times,
too.)
"Potential" weaknesses? When I see a defender talking about a _real_
weakness I'll sit up and bark.
A truly vigilant critic may even have chosen to regard that minor internal
viewpoint as a raindrop in a sea of problems which critics perceive in
Steiner/ Waldorf/Anthroposopohical education, and not of any real substance
for debate.
A cynical skeptic might also regard it as a smoke screen: let's talk about
a few minor things we might see differently, to make it seem like we are
open to internal criticism and reform.
The Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical curriculum isn't going to change much
because of these views, and you know it. And there are many more serious
fundamental flaws in it, from the critics' viewpoint, which you won't
entertain.
>Hell, it's a sad day when the only coherent criticism of Waldorf
>_education_ (as opposed to the stale "is it or isn't it a religion"
>debate) on this list comes from those of us labelled as "defenders of
>the faith".
This is one of the fundamental flaws of the defenders of the faith: they
are not interested in what _others_ see as problems, because they don't
believe "outsiders" (non-indoctrinated in the mysteries of Anthroposophy)
can make "coherent" criticism.
This has been remarked on ad infinitum on this list, and never successfully
rebutted by the defenders, whose only retort is, "it's not like that", or
"you're exaggerating".
>It's certainly a lot closer to a criticism of Waldorf education than is
>that post about CAN/Scientology.
>
>Maybe El and I are just doing it because, as "defenders of the faith",
>we need to have our daily fix of something to defend against. Then
>again...
Then again, maybe you're doing it because it's an effective smoke screen,
and takes up bandwith making some people believe you're honest
self-assessors.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n231.7 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and history education
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 19:14:37 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Lee Story made some interesting comments about my post, below (not repeated)
>Michael Kopp writes:
> > >Do Waldorf students not look at local history and government in depth until
> > >high school?
> > >
> > >Is there never an opportunity to discuss current events? Are children
> > >discouraged from following the news (by television) until a certain age?
> > >And if so, when are they encouraged to what the nightly news?
> >
> > One of the criticisms of U.S. public education is that it inculcates the
> > prevailing political system's abuses as well as its basis in the
> > unalienable rights.
Etc. Etc.
The discussion is a really interesting one, but probably not particularly
relevant to the specific issues of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy that are
the topics of this list.
It could also be time-consuming.
Perhaps if people want to carry this thread on, we could do it off-list, by
including in our replies the addresses of people who wish to participate.
What say the list members?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n231.8 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re: Need help to descramble
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 23:34:18 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Lefty comments on Deby's attempt to descramble her son's uncompleted poem,
>Well, surely some of these other families whose children were in your
>son's class must have it, mustn't they?
Lefty,
Well, there you are, looking snide again. I published the _same_ request
for help on _your_ list. It is interesting that you choose to answer me on
_this_ list, verses your own. I actually thought this question fit into the
charter of your list. For your information, _none_ of the children finished
their books. If I get the information, I will pass it on to the other
families who also wish to assemble their children's poems/paintings. After
all, the kids _are_ proud of their hard work. It would be nice if it got
finished. If you can't help me, please don't waste my computer memory with
your mustn't we's.
Deby
>
>--
>Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
>C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n231.9 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re: Waldorf and history education
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 23:42:18 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Lee Story made some interesting comments about my post, below (not repeated)
>
>>Michael Kopp writes:
>> > >Do Waldorf students not look at local history and government in depth
>>until
>> > >high school?
>> > >
>> > >Is there never an opportunity to discuss current events? Are children
>> > >discouraged from following the news (by television) until a certain age?
>> > >And if so, when are they encouraged to what the nightly news?
>> >
>> > One of the criticisms of U.S. public education is that it inculcates the
>> > prevailing political system's abuses as well as its basis in the
>> > unalienable rights.
>
>Etc. Etc.
>
>The discussion is a really interesting one, but probably not particularly
>relevant to the specific issues of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy that are
>the topics of this list.
>
>It could also be time-consuming.
>
>Perhaps if people want to carry this thread on, we could do it off-list, by
>including in our replies the addresses of people who wish to participate.
>
>What say the list members?
Hey, why isn't this appropriate topic for the list ? I wanna hear it too !!
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n231.10 ---------------
From: Linda Hoffman
Subject: From Neil Faiman
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 07:31:15 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hello!
As you may have noticed, Neil unsubscribed from this list; he asked me to
pass along one final message:
Neil Faiman wrote:
>After I unsubscribed from the WC list, I realized that the timing of my
>departure could easily have been taken to suggest that I was the "valued
>contributor" whose departure Dan Dugan was lamenting this weekend. That
>would be a decidedly cheap trick on my part, since I didn't even decide to
>unsubscribe until after reading that message of Dan's.
Linda Hoffman
____________________________________________________________________
Linda Hoffman
"anti-science, anti-rationalist, defender-of-the-faith"
********I go back to my old email addresses as of November 29, 1996.
and **************************
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n231 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n232 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Teacher Training
002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Science as a Belief System
003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Notes and records (was: Need help to descramble)
004 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: What is religion?
005 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Creation of full disclosure
006 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - defining religion
007 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: 21st century science
008 - Lefty Redux The AWSNA position statement that I supplied here a few days ago means that
>your local charter school is not a Waldorf school. This in turn means that
>the content of Waldorf teacher training is not immediately relevant to your
>concern about the nature of your charter school.
Like hell it isn't! The Twin Ridges school brags that they are all
Waldorf-trained.
>I understand Dan Saykaly's proposed disclosure statement to apply to Waldorf
>schools, not to public schools intent upon using Waldorf methods. (For the
>latter it would be appropriate to have a disclosure statement relevant to the
>school's charter, if it is a charter school.)
In a public school or charter school it's important to disclose to the
parents the existence of violations of separation of church and state, for
a school that has them will always be in jeopardy of being closed by court
action, even if the school board chooses to look the other way.
>It would be a
>good idea for a Waldorf school to have a faculty roster that briefly lists
>credentials of each teacher and a more detailed CV for each teacher,
>available on request. And of course, prospective parents should talk to
>faculty members about not only their credentials but their own approach to
>education, course content, etc.
An excellent suggestion.
>I am the Treasurer of the Sacramento Waldorf School and was Board President
>previously, but I really could not give you an overview of the credentials of
>the faculty at that school.
I think this is an oversight on your part.
>We tend to focus on performance rather than
>credentials,
How is performance evaluated?
>but your raising of this topic has made me curious enough to
>look into our faculty credential mix.
Since you think that parents should know, will tell us what you find?
>Again, I'm not trying to turn you aside from gathering as much information as
>you want about Waldorf teacher training. I am only suggesting that the AWSNA
>position relative to charter schools leaves you and others who are concerned
>about the nature of your local charter school to deal with issues of
>credential requirements, curriculum content, classroom conduct,
>administrative process, etc. on their own terms--not in terms of linkage with
>Waldorf educational institutions. If your local community wants a school
>that uses Waldorf methods--or even a school that would be recognized by AWSNA
>as Waldorf school--that is up to your local community to decide. AWSNA has
>said that they will not try to make it happen. I believe this position of
>AWSNA is appropriate to the intent of California's charter school
>legislation, which is to allow more flexibility for alternative approaches in
>the local community.
Yes, I understand this may get AWSNA off the legal hook, but what's to be
done about egregious violators like San Diego and Twin Ridges? And if the
teachers are putting into practice what they have been taught at Rudolf
Steiner College, and they are violating the law, don't you think RSC should
take some responsibility?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n232.2 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Science as a Belief System
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 01:08:44 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Dan Dugan writes
>>Given this, reception of blue and yellow light mixed will not produce
>>green, but something like white. This is because the blue stimulates the
>>blue receptors, and the yellow stimulates both the red and green receptors.
>>It's counter-intuitive, but there it is.
>
>Is it counter-intuitive? I suppose this depends on your intuition and
>on what you actually observe.
>
>>Goethean science isn't likely to
>>lead us to such knowledge, is it?
>
>In fact, it leads directly to it -- simple *observation* of light mixing
>(as opposed to pigment mixing), as is done in many class 6 or 7 physics
>lessons, demonstrates this point about the distinction between the
>"light primaries" (RBG) and the "pigment primaries" (CMY). In the same
>lessons pupils also observe the appearance of different pigments under
>different coloured lights and through different coloured filters. If
>you know as much about lighting as you give the impression you do, you
>will realise just how much such simple *Goethean* empirical observation
>of the phenomena *can* reveal about colour perception.
This sounds good. May I borrow a couple of lesson books for this unit?
>>It's important to make the distinction (and Goetheans often seem ignorant
>>of this) between -subtractive- color mixing, as in paint mixing and color
>>film, and - additive- color mixing, as occurs in stage lighting and video
>>screens.
>
>It is a blatant (even if it is unintentional) misrepresentation of the
>truth to imply that Goethean science is ignorant of the differences
>between additive and subtractive colour mixing. If you doubt my word
>with respect to additive colour mixing (which appears to be the main
>thrust of this, presumably unintentional, misrepresentation), go and
>speak to anyone who lights eurythmy performances.
You are right that I make a point about the fact that the "primal
phenomenon" theory ignores additive mixing. I'm just going by 1) Goethe, 2)
Steiner, 3) Anthroposophical authors like Proskauer, 4) Wilkinson's
teaching handbook, 5) demonstration lessons I've attended.
Goethe arrogantly dismisses his scientific superior:
"[T]here was an additional evil. A great mathematician was possessed with
an entirely false notion on the physical origin of colours; yet, owing to
his great authority as a geometer, the mistakes which he committed as an
experimentalist long became sanctioned in the eyes of a world ever fettered
in prejudices."
[Goethe, 1840, #726]
And Steiner brings in the "folk soul."
"Since the 1880's I have tried to gain acceptance for Goethe's theory of
color in spite of the findings of modern physics. Why does nobody
understand that? The answer is that Central Europe has been imbued with the
materialistic principle that has come to us from the British folk soul.
Newton, whom Goethe has to oppose, has been victorious over everything
emanating from Goethe's spirit."
[Steiner, Rudolf. Christ in Relation to Lucifer and Ahriman. (1915)
Trans. Peter Mollenhauer, Ph.D. Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophic Press,
1978, p. 30]
"Goethe does not entertain such concepts as of the "subjective" phenomena
of colour and the "objective" wave-movements in outer space. What he
beholds spread out in space and going on in time is for him one, a single
undivided whole."
[Steiner, Rudolf. First Scientific Lecture-Course (Light-Course): Ten
Lectures given at Stuttgart 23rd December 1919 to 3rd January 1920. Forest
Row, East Sussex, U.K.: Steiner Schools Fellowship Publications, 1987, p.
3]
Steiner makes the big mistake here. If you don't understand the wave nature
of light, and the human color sensation mechanism, and how they interact,
you are, IMHO, in the dark. Looking "holistically" here means looking
ignorantly.
Steiner explains the color fringes when a beam of light passes through the
prism:
"Above, the dimming effect is deflected in the same sense as the light;
thus in a way they work together. The dimming and darkening ogets into the
light like a parasite and mingles with it. Down here on the contrary, the
dimming rays back into the light but is overwhelmed and as it were
suppressed by the latter. Here therefore, even in the battle between bright
and dim -- between the lightening and darkening -- the light predominates.
The consequences of this battle -- the consequences of the mutual
opposition of light and dark, and of the dark being irradiated by the
light, are in theis downward region the red or yellow colours. So therefore
we may say: Upward, the darkening runs into the light and there arise the
blue shades of colour; downward, the light outdoes and overwhelms the
darkness and there arise the yellow shades of colour."
[Ibid, pp. 21-22.]
This is utter muddled nonsense, trying to bend Goethe's "primal phenomenon"
to explain refraction. *We* know, don't we Steven, that the beam is white
in the middle because of the *additive* effect of the broadband light. In
these lectures Steiner is teaching the teachers of the Waldorf school.
>Alternatively, next time I take a class 6, come and sit in on some of my
>science lessons. We'll even do some practical work with stage-lighting
>so I'll teach you a bit about that, if you like (amongst other things, I
>have lit the English Shakespeare Company on one of their foreign tours
>in the early '80s and have designed and built low-cost but effective
>lighting systems for a number of impecunious venues, so I'm not a
>complete rabbit in this realm).
I'm pleased to meet a fellow lighting designer. I've done lighting design
for four Shakespeare plays, and sound design for maybe thirty Shakespeare
productions.
The fact that you and I know our physics doesn't correct the errors of
Steiner and so many of his followers. How can the physics teaching of all
those benighted other Waldorf teachers be brought into the 20th century,
when they are given Goethe, Steiner, Proskauer, and Wilkinson to study?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n232.3 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Notes and records (was: Need help to descramble)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 01:10:08 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Stephen Tonkin, you said,
>...When I started out on this path,...
If it's a path, it leads somewhere. Where do you think it leads you?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n232.4 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: What is religion?
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 01:10:02 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>I am a huge fan of the Olympics and I love all of those morality tales that
>are told during the broadcast.
I love the concept of the Olympics and hate the way the're done. The
nationalism. If I were philosopher-king I'd ban uniforms and national
flags.
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n232.5 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Creation of full disclosure
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 01:09:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Steven Tonkin, in the discussion of Dan Saykaly's disclosure document, you said,
>I wish to have no part in such a process.
>
>Consequently, I wish to make it known that I do *not* give my permission
>for anyone, whether a subscriber to this list or not, to publish
>elsewhere anything I have written on this list, on any other list, or in
>private email. This applies to anything I have written in any context
>and to publication for any purpose.
I hear you but your wish is in vain. This list is a public place and anyone
who pleases may quote what you say here.
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n232.6 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: defining religion
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 01:09:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Brant Abrahamson of Teachers Press submitted:
From: Teacherspr aol.com
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 08:37:51 -0500
To: dan dandugan.com
Subject: Definition of Religion
DEFINING RELIGION
Definitions of religion come in several categories. Substantive and
functional definitions are two that are commonly used.
In 1915 Emile Durkheim provided a substantive definition still used today.
He defined religion as "a unified system of beliefs and practices relative
to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden--beliefs and
practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all
those who adhere to them" (The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, page 62).
Writing in 1995 Lester Kurtz, author of Gods in the Global Village: The
World's Religions in Sociological Perspective , says that by "Deleting the
ethnocentric term 'Church' [Durkheim] gives us a still serviceable
definition that points to the four major sociological components. Religion,
then, consists of the beliefs, practices (rituals), the sacred, and the
community or social organization of people who are drawn together by a
religious tradition" (page 9). The definition I give to students focuses
upon the belief aspect of Durkheim's definition. Religion includes the idea
that:
a. There is a cosmic or divine universal order that includes an ethical
system.
b. These ethics--or moral code--can be known to humans at least to a
degree.
c. People have a duty to follow this moral order as they perceive it.
d. One's earthly life and/or fate after death is affected by degrees of
compliance.
e. A belief system is maintained through sacred stories, rituals and other
means.
This kind of definition can be contrasted to functional perspectives. For
instance, in his college text, Religion in Sociological Perspective, Keith
Roberts says, "I seek to explore anything that provides meaning and purpose
in the lives of people. I tend to ask how people are religious rather than
whether they are religious" (page 21). Nonetheless Roberts limits in a
substantive way what he calls religion. "I have suggested that a world view
and an ethical system are intrinsic aspects of religion. A feeling of awe or
sacredness is not considered religious in this text unless it includes a
cognitive pattern that helps people make sense out of life and that helps
explain the meaning of suffering, death and injustice" (page 22).
Our substantive Durkheim-like definition seems close to the usage found in
the First Amendment to the Constitution (that most high school pupils study).
It helps a teacher avoid becoming entangled in arguments as to whether
secular humanism is a religion or student suggestions that a sport such as
football can be "one's religion!" It corresponds to the assumptions of
those students who are "non-religious." At the same time one can unite
students regardless of their religious beliefs by stating that all have
secular beliefs--such as valuing democracy--that bring them together
regardless of how they view the divine.
Organizations that generally fulfill the definition are considered religious.
Others may be partly religious or almost completely secular. Theravada
Buddhism (now centered in Sri Lanka and mainland southeast Asia) is a
religion. The classic Buddhist statement includes the idea that life is
suffering rooted in desire. One eliminates suffering by overcoming desire
through right knowledge, aspiration, speech, behavior, livelihood, effort and
so forth. Determining how best to follow this "Eightfold Path" may be an
individual effort with no help from any god. Nonetheless, there is an
assumption of a divine moral order toward which humans should aspire, and
reaching Nirvana is a goal. The Unitarian/Universalist Church includes both
religious and secular people. Some view their ethics as rooted in a divine
moral order, others do not. Confucianism basically is a secular philosophy.
It provides a framework for a "well-ordered society" as does belief in
democracy.
The definition is Western-oriented, as one might expect. The whole attempt
to teach about world religion from an empathetic and critical thinking
standpoint is rooted in Western concepts of informal logic, objectivity and
non-ethnocentrism. Multi-cultural sensitivity is a Western movement. In a
broad sense, any secular/religious division of culture presumes a dualism
rooted in a Western way of looking at things.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n232.7 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: 21st century science
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 01:09:02 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
[My reply to a message received from the PLANS page. -dD-]
>I have reviewed your page, the Watchman Fellowship, etc., and read
>Peter Washington's book.
Thank you for reading the PLANS page. I hope you enjoyed "Madame
Blavatsky's Babboon" as much as I did.
>Believe it or not, there will be a 21st century
>science which may well begin with a reorienting of thought comparable to
>the quantum mechanics revolution at the start of the 20th. All
>scientific thought must change as it drops one paradigm and picks up
>another.
I think that's a pretty safe prediction, considering the progress science
has made in the 20th century.
>All your work seems distressingly unselfconscious and in denial
>of any need for growth and development in concepts.
This I don't understand. I intend to write about issues, not my own
personality. Is this attitude what you call "unselfconscious"? I criticize
the Waldorf movement for lack of "growth and development in concepts." If
you're saying that I can't grow until I believe Steiner, you will never be
satisfied. I feel I have experienced a lot of personal growth in my middle
age due to all the philosophical reading I've done in the eight years I've
been studying Waldorf.
>It is as
>"scientific" as Rush Limbaugh, uncritically accepting the conclusions of
>the moment. Science becomes mere "scientism" when it is reduced to a
>mere recitation of what experts say today without the slightest hint of
>questioning.
Now you've lost me completely. I'm assuming by "your work" you mean my own
writing? Or do you mean the whole assembly of the web page? I agree with
the bit about scientism, but I don't see what you're applying it to. I make
my own conclusions in my own writing.
>Peter Washington, by contrast, obviously saw no evil or
>charlatanry in Rudolf Steiner as opposed to fellows like Gurdjieff: he
>was willing to accept that Steiner might be real.
I kept trying to give Steiner the benefit of all doubts, but his system
just wouldn't hold up in the light of mine. There's also an interesting
"outside" profile of Steiner in Anthony Storr's "Feet of Clay." Storr rates
Steiner among the best of all the gurus he studies. IMHO he was a
benevolent megalomaniac who preached inspiring nonsense.
> An organization for
>freedom of thought and against mindless belief such as yours will not,
>and at the same time sends a Web surfer to the Watchman Fellowship?
I agree that the Watchman Fellowship is pretty extreme, but they're not
crazy. They are of interest in relationship to Waldorf because they have a
position on Waldorf education. Their mission is informing evangelical
Christians about cults in the U.S.A. They see Waldorf as a religious cult
activity, and advise their constituency to avoid it as a source of
spiritual error. This is completely consistent with their principles.
>Are
>you actually in favor of anything except the superiority of YOUR ideas?
In PLANS, our objectives are to inform the public about Waldorf as viewed
from outside the movement, to work actively to prevent the founding of
publicly funded Waldorf programs of any kind, and to attempt to de-fund
existing programs.
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
copy to waldorf-critics
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n232.8 ---------------
From: Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: Need help to descramble
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 01:28:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 25 Nov 1996 snell oro.net wrote:
>
> Lefty comments on Deby's attempt to descramble her son's uncompleted poem,
>
> >Well, surely some of these other families whose children were in your
> >son's class must have it, mustn't they?
>
> Well, there you are, looking snide again. I published the _same_ request
> for help on _your_ list. It is interesting that you choose to answer me on
> _this_ list, verses your own. I actually thought this question fit into the
> charter of your list.
I never said it didn't. But after all, you posted it to both lists;
is there some problem with responding here? What's so "interesting"
about it?
> For your information, _none_ of the children finished
> their books. If I get the information, I will pass it on to the other
> families who also wish to assemble their children's poems/paintings. After
> all, the kids _are_ proud of their hard work. It would be nice if it got
> finished. If you can't help me, please don't waste my computer memory with
> your mustn't we's.
Well, I guess I just must be insufficiently psychic today. I
certainly don't recall you ever mentioning that none of the children
finished this project, and I don't see how I could possibly have
guessed that. It seemed a pretty reasonable suggestion to me. I
honestly don't see why you're so defensive about this.
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n232.9 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: News and Bias
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 23:32:23 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
This is off-topic, and I said elsewhere I'd prefer to discuss it as a
side-list with people who are interested, but here goes anyway.
Suzanne Lainson talks about Michael Kopp's views of Tv news:
>It occurred to me that the concept of shielding children from the news
>because it is biased doesn't acknowledge that much of what we know about
>history comes from "news" that was biased.
Some was and is less so. The issue is not bias, but simply shonky,
infotainment- values, shallow, sensational, inaccurate reporting. I don't
subscribe to the belief that news organisations are in a conspiracty with
government and big business to control what we get. I simply think news has
become pabulum.
>All information about events is biased (it is, after all, based on human
>observation and reports), so part of a child's education probably should
>include learning how to evaluate what you read and hear.
Yes, of course. But the subject of media interpretation is one that
exercises minds at a more advanced thinking level than children have --
without conclusion.
Children should be exposed to other media; hopefully quality press. There
is no quality television of use to them. But Tv is so seductive that it is
difficult to teach media awareness and discrimination. Those younger
parents who have never known a "golden age" of journalism (the Edward R.
Murrow era in electronic journalism, from 1940 to the Walter Cronkite era
in the 1970s) will have nothing to compare todays dreck with -- and no
standards other than those of the dreck, which seems normal. How then to
teach kids critical Tv watching?
Better to simply give away Tv as a medium of informed communication.
>Why should we assume that having children only study history and not
>current events exposes them to less bias, politics, and selective
>interpretation?
No such assumption is made. In fact, in the
Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical education, there is an inherent bias in
teaching of history, at least, which is spiritualistic, to say the least.
Children cannot "study" current events, because they are _not_ _events_ in
their lives, unless they experience them personally. News on Tv is what
happens in soap operas and night-time drama programmes. There is no reality
to Tv news for children.
How can children "study" or discuss as a current events or civics topic
something as complex as an election in which everyone from president of the
U.S. to local dogcatcher is running in an electoral system that beggars
description and understanding by adults? How can children understand what
happens in the British (or New Zealand, even worse) Parliament, with
shouting and screaming of insults?
How can children understand the difference between the electoral college
and the tripartite checks and balances system, first-past-the-post
parliamentary elections where the majority party has total control of
everything, and mixed-member-proportional representation (MMP), where
coalition-forming is based on the same old horse-trading by a different
name, and the party with the least mandate is the kingmaker who can call
the political tune, in secret talks, changing that tune from what it was in
its election manifesto and promises to the voters.
And example is a "current events" or "civics" role-playing done in a local
Wellington school (and reported on Tv) around the time of our recent MMP
election (a historic change to government in New Zealand). The kids ran
candidates, had campaign managers, took a vote -- and the child who won was
the one who promised the most lollies for everyone.
Did those children learn anything about democracy, the responsible exercise
of the franchise, responsible citizenship through policy formulation and
party manifestoes, or about _critical_ thinking about media role in making
or breaking political parties and candidates and issues? Or did they simply
internalise and have burned into their brains the populist myths and
excesses of politics, which they will not escape in the future.
How can they be expected, without serious study of historical frameworks
and the mechanics of society, to benefit in any concrete way from this
nonsense?
Acting out myths and stories of the past is fine for _little_ children;
play-acting the real-life events around them without understanding is no
substitute for learning, and cannot teach anything real about them.
And the goggle-box is no sensible substitute for learning and reading.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n232.10 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and history education
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 23:32:27 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Deby Snell says a discussion of Tv and current events IS pertinent for this
list:
>>Lee Story made some interesting comments about my post, below (not repeated)
>>
>>>Michael Kopp writes:
>>> > >Do Waldorf students not look at local history and government in depth
>>>until
>>> > >high school?
>>> > >
>>> > >Is there never an opportunity to discuss current events? Are children
>>> > >discouraged from following the news (by television) until a certain age?
>>> > >And if so, when are they encouraged to what the nightly news?
>>> >
>>> > One of the criticisms of U.S. public education is that it inculcates the
>>> > prevailing political system's abuses as well as its basis in the
>>> > unalienable rights.
>>
>>Etc. Etc.
>>
>>The discussion is a really interesting one, but probably not particularly
>>relevant to the specific issues of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy that are
>>the topics of this list.
>>
>>It could also be time-consuming.
>>
>>Perhaps if people want to carry this thread on, we could do it off-list, by
>>including in our replies the addresses of people who wish to participate.
>>
>>What say the list members?
>
>
>Hey, why isn't this appropriate topic for the list ? I wanna hear it too !!
>Deby
Okay, see my reply to Suzanne Lainson's post, "Re: News and Bias", which
talks about both topics. I'll endeavour to go back and respond to Lee
separately, but may not have time for a few days.
Cheers,
Michael
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n232 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n233 --------------
001 - slainson rmii.com (Suzann - Re: News and Bias
002 - slainson rmii.com (Suzann - Citizenship Education
003 - mckay oro.net - Re: Waldorf and history education
004 - slainson rmii.com (Suzann - Religious/Political education
005 - Stephen Tonkin
>Children should be exposed to other media; hopefully quality press. There
>is no quality television of use to them.
This doesn't have to be the case. Just because news in on television does
not mean it is all superficial or has to be. Television is a communication
medium. I don't believe it is inherently bad.
>
>How can children understand the difference between the electoral college
>and the tripartite checks and balances system, first-past-the-post
>parliamentary elections where the majority party has total control of
>everything, and mixed-member-proportional representation (MMP), where
>coalition-forming is based on the same old horse-trading by a different
>name, and the party with the least mandate is the kingmaker who can call
>the political tune, in secret talks, changing that tune from what it was in
>its election manifesto and promises to the voters.
So you are saying that if a subject is complex or that adults don't
understand it, children shouldn't study it either. But that can apply to so
many topics. The issues behind the American Civil War or the situation in
Europe before World War I were complex, too. So politics is totally
off-limits until the age of 18?
And what of science or math? Many adults don't understand those topics
either. Are you just against teaching current politics to children or do
you have a certain complexity checklist that is apply to all subjects?
As for this being off-topic, well I would hope that it is more productive
than personal attacks. I have hoped all along we could discuss education
and explore the theories behind Waldorf without having to embrace them.
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n233.2 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Citizenship Education
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 10:48:40 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I remember reading somewhere that people must be taught to be good
citizens. I would assume that the justification for talking about voting
and issues to children in elementary school is to begin shaping them into
citizens who will vote.
Since the voting age is 18 in the US, you would want to start introducing
political concepts a number of years before that. If politics has
deteriotated into personalities rather than issues, I don't see that as
reason to prevent schools from exploring the topic.
Is it a good idea to shield children from politics because you don't like
the current system? Or would it be better to develop ways to help them
become better citizens and participants in the system. There have been a
number of examples of 18 to 22 year olds running for political office
(mayor, city council, university board of regents), winning, and doing a
good job.
An area where computors might be educational would be to run simulations
based on politics and political issues (e.g., What would happen if everyone
made this choice?).
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n233.3 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: Waldorf and history education
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 10:04:07 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Michael Kopp writes
>>One of the criticisms of U.S. public education is that it inculcates the
>>prevailing political system's abuses as well as its basis in the
>>unaliaenable rights.
>
>[large snip of well-argued points]
>
>I know it is bad form to post "I agree" messages, but it is so rare for
>me to agree with Mr Kopp that I am going indulge myself -- I agree with
>the entire post.
>
>--
>Stephen Tonkin
Miracles _do_ happen! ":-)"
David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n233.4 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Religious/Political education
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 11:03:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Another thought:
I would assume that Waldorf educators might argue that by giving students a
background in human development, they are preparing students to be able to
evaluate various of government.
What if both government and religion were taught not so much as an
evolutionary process but as a shopping list?
What if students were given examples and all the pluses and minuses of all
political, economic, and religious systems? I know we'd have an uproar in
US public schools because it is assumed that the American political system
is superior to what else is available and religious education should not be
taught other than as a historical/social phenomemon. In fact, many
conservatives consider it a requirement that American schools teach the
superiority of America.
But would Waldorf allow economics/government/religion to be taught as a
matter of choice, not evolution? How much cultural bias is imparted by
talking about the "evolution" of mankind?
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n233.5 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Notes and records (was: Need help to descramble)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 16:12:03 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dan Dugan writes
>Stephen Tonkin, you said,
>
>>...When I started out on this path,...
>
>If it's a path, it leads somewhere. Where do you think it leads you?
Well, since we're getting philosophical and taking metaphors literally:
Up a mountain -- unless it turns out to be circular...
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n233.6 ---------------
From: Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: Religious/Political education
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 10:25:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Suzanne Lainson wrote:
>
> What if students were given examples and all the pluses and minuses of all
> political, economic, and religious systems?
I don't see how it could possibly be done. First off, _all_ of them?
Religions ranging from Santeria to Bantu ancestor worship to
Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists? School would go on
for forty-five years, and you'd still never finish. Of course, once
you draw the line _anywhere_ your cultural biases have come into play.
I also don't see that anyone knows "all the pluses and minuses" of
_any_ political, religious or economic system, much less all of them.
I imagine my view of the pluses and minuses of Chinese Communism is
probably fairly different from Jiang Zemin's view.
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n233.7 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Re: Religious/Political education
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 11:41:39 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>I also don't see that anyone knows "all the pluses and minuses" of
>_any_ political, religious or economic system, much less all of them.
>I imagine my view of the pluses and minuses of Chinese Communism is
>probably fairly different from Jiang Zemin's view.
I guess this would be one of the primary reasons why even if one wanted to
give an unbiased overview, it would not be possible.
What I am hoping to explore is the extent to which educational systems deal
with biases in political/economic/religious issues. I guess I think that
it's pretty much the nature of the beast that there will be some biases.
Michael was so strongly against political education because of bias that I
wondered what an alternative might look like.
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n233.8 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Lefty's (mis)perceived tone
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 10:52:20 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>On Mon, 25 Nov 1996 snell oro.net wrote:
>>
>> Lefty comments on Deby's attempt to descramble her son's uncompleted poem,
>>
>> >Well, surely some of these other families whose children were in your
>> >son's class must have it, mustn't they?
>>
>> Well, there you are, looking snide again. I published the _same_ request
>> for help on _your_ list. It is interesting that you choose to answer me on
>> _this_ list, verses your own. I actually thought this question fit into the
>> charter of your list.
>
>I never said it didn't. But after all, you posted it to both lists;
>is there some problem with responding here? What's so "interesting"
>about it?
It is interesting that I have had many e-mails from your list, all of them
extremely helpful and sympathetic to my request. You seem to be questioning
the validity of my request.
Deby
>> For your information, _none_ of the children finished
>> their books. If I get the information, I will pass it on to the other
>> families who also wish to assemble their children's poems/paintings. After
>> all, the kids _are_ proud of their hard work. It would be nice if it got
>> finished. If you can't help me, please don't waste my computer memory with
>> your mustn't we's.
>
>Well, I guess I just must be insufficiently psychic today. I
>certainly don't recall you ever mentioning that none of the children
>finished this project, and I don't see how I could possibly have
>guessed that. It seemed a pretty reasonable suggestion to me. I
>honestly don't see why you're so defensive about this.
Perhaps you are right. I just may be touchy about it. I just do not see you
questioning the validity of other subscribers requests that fit into your
charter. Your 'mustn't we's and isn't it's' push my buttons. (you said,
"well, surely some of these other families whose children were in your
son's class must have it, mustn't they ?") I read them as a bullying and
baiting response. Perhaps _you_ don't mean them to be. Maybe *I* will have
to own that [to me] they seem bullying and baiting, but you may not be
placing the same empasis on the words that I do when I read them.
And, your memory is good. I did not mention that none of the children
finished their books. I did not think it necessary or relevant. One
person's desire seems enough.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n233.9 ---------------
From: Steve Premo
Subject: Re: Religious/Political education
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 10:57:19 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 10:25 AM 11/26/96 -0800, Lefty Redux wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Suzanne Lainson wrote:
>>
>> What if students were given examples and all the pluses and minuses of all
>> political, economic, and religious systems?
>
>I don't see how it could possibly be done. First off, _all_ of them?
> . . .
>I also don't see that anyone knows "all the pluses and minuses" of
>_any_ political, religious or economic system, much less all of them.
> . . .
True. One person's plus is another person's minus.
But the main characteristics of the major political, economic, and religious
systems could be outlined ("major" being the ones that affect large numbers
of people). So the kids could learn enough about different systems to at
least understand what the terms mean.
In politics, I'd include absolute monarchy (and dicatorship), true democracy
(as in ancient Greece), and republican government/representative democracy
(including parlimentary and congressional systems). Also, one party, two
party, and multiple party systems, with examples of each.
In economics, I'd include pre-monetary economics based on trade, capitalism,
socialism, and true communism (which has never been achieved, to my
knowledge, but remains an ultimate goal in some countries).
In religion, I'd include the "big five," i.e., Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam, including a historical perspective, with some
discussion of other, so-called "animist" or "primitive" religions in general
terms.
Maybe all this reflects some cultural bias, but at least the kids would know
what people are talking about when these systems are mentioned.
-
Steve Premo "It's the job that's never started
Premo-Fine Family as takes longest to finish."
Santa Cruz, California -Hamfast "Gaffer" Gamgee
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n233.10 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: Need help to descramble
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 11:16:18 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>On Mon, 25 Nov 1996 snell oro.net wrote:
>>
>> Lefty comments on Deby's attempt to descramble her son's uncompleted poem,
>>
>> >Well, surely some of these other families whose children were in your
>> >son's class must have it, mustn't they?
>> For your information, _none_ of the children finished
>> their books. If I get the information, I will pass it on to the other
>> families who also wish to assemble their children's poems/paintings. After
>> all, the kids _are_ proud of their hard work. It would be nice if it got
>> finished. If you can't help me, please don't waste my computer memory with
>> your mustn't we's.
Mr. Schlesinger said:
[snip]
>I honestly don't see why you're so defensive about this.
Mr. Schlesinger, It's your smug, smartalic adjuncts in your replys that
bring people to respond to you the way they do. Things like "Well,
surely..., mustn't they? and, mustn't we?" or "Er," and, ", isn't it now?",
"Sigh", "Yawn", etc. The overall tone in the body of your replys can be so
condesending if you don't like the other persons view, experience or
suggestions. Try a little tolerance and compasion for others who think
different than you do. I hope this helps you understand.
Sincerely, David McKay
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n233 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n234 --------------
001 - Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: Lefty's (mis)perceived tone
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 11:24:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 26 Nov 1996 snell oro.net wrote:
>
> >I never said it didn't. But after all, you posted it to both lists;
> >is there some problem with responding here? What's so "interesting"
> >about it?
>
> It is interesting that I have had many e-mails from your list, all of them
> extremely helpful and sympathetic to my request. You seem to be questioning
> the validity of my request.
Not at all. I simply suggested what _I_ would have done. It seemed a
lot more likely that someone who had done the same assignment would
have the information you were looking for, and you never gave the
slightest indication to suggest that you had done that.
> >Well, I guess I just must be insufficiently psychic today. I
> >certainly don't recall you ever mentioning that none of the children
> >finished this project, and I don't see how I could possibly have
> >guessed that. It seemed a pretty reasonable suggestion to me. I
> >honestly don't see why you're so defensive about this.
>
> Perhaps you are right. I just may be touchy about it. I just do not see you
> questioning the validity of other subscribers requests that fit into your
> charter. Your 'mustn't we's and isn't it's' push my buttons. (you said,
> "well, surely some of these other families whose children were in your
> son's class must have it, mustn't they ?") I read them as a bullying and
> baiting response. Perhaps _you_ don't mean them to be. Maybe *I* will have
> to own that [to me] they seem bullying and baiting, but you may not be
> placing the same empasis on the words that I do when I read them.
I _never_ "questioned the validity of your request", Deby, so whether
or not I question the validity of other people's postings seem
immaterial. I simply tried to help. I frankly am quite surprised
that you would respond in such a way. I certainly didn't "bait" or
"bully" you. I asked two questions, which I think, under the
circumstances, were quite reasonable. I can't be held responsible for
how you read things.
As should be abundantly clear, when I think something is inappropriate
on the WALDORF list, I state that clearly and I try to explain why. I
never made any such statement regarding your posting, nor is it clear
to me how I could question the validity of a posting on the WALDORF
list by posting a response on the waldorf-critics list, or why I would
do so.
> And, your memory is good. I did not mention that none of the children
> finished their books. I did not think it necessary or relevant. One
> person's desire seems enough.
I never said, or even remotely implied, that it wasn't. There was
simply no reason to assume that no one in the entire class, teacher
included, would have the slightest clue what order this poem was
supposed to go in. I can't for the life of me imagine how anyone
could be expected to have known that.
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n234.2 ---------------
From: Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: Need help to descramble
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 11:58:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 26 Nov 1996 mckay oro.net wrote:
>
> >I honestly don't see why you're so defensive about this.
>
> Mr. Schlesinger, It's your smug, smartalic adjuncts in your replys that
> bring people to respond to you the way they do. Things like "Well,
> surely..., mustn't they? and, mustn't we?" or "Er," and, ", isn't it now?",
> "Sigh", "Yawn", etc. The overall tone in the body of your replys can be so
> condesending if you don't like the other persons view, experience or
> suggestions. Try a little tolerance and compasion for others who think
> different than you do. I hope this helps you understand.
Well, I'm pretty impressed with the tolerance and compassion you
display for those who think differently that you do, Mr. McKay. But,
no, I don't understand. Ms. Snell seems to recognize that her
response was unmotivated and out of line. A pity you can't seem to
manage it.
By the way, I was _very_ impressed with your tolerance and compassion
when you advised me to "let all the blood out of my body and see what
happens".
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n234.3 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: Need help to descramble
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 13:07:52 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mr. Schlesinger:
>Well, I'm pretty impressed with the tolerance and compassion you
>display for those who think differently that you do, Mr. McKay. But,
>no, I don't understand. Ms. Snell seems to recognize that her
>response was unmotivated and out of line. A pity you can't seem to
>manage it.
McKay says: Ms. Snell was simply being _very_ courteous to you in offering
you a "gentlemans way out" which you so caricaturely blew. Instead you
responded with more lecturing of her. Again, like I said before, it's the
words you chose and how you use them that can come off some what pushy. Now
do you understand? Trying to help,
Respectfully, David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n234.4 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Trusting/Distrusting the System
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 14:12:48 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Here's another place we could examine Waldorf versus other educational
systems. At what point, if ever, do you introduce skepticism into
education?
As I understand it, Waldorf first fosters trust in the teacher before
introducing questioning of ideas.
I think on this list we probably have a pretty good range of degrees of
skepticism and when it should/should not be taught. Some feel children of
all ages can be taught to discern ideas and actually look for points to
question, Others, I assume (perhaps incorrectly), feel that children,
particularly young children, should be taught that certain ideas are a
given.
Maybe we can have some sharing of viewpoints here.
And we may cover some familiar ground in terms of the scientific method
versus personal observation versus intuition. Is the purpose of education
to dissect all ideas and learn for ourselves? Can we accept certain ideas
as a given? Whom should we trust and whom should we question? Should we
trust anyone? Are all institutions (e.g., the news media, government)
suspect?
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n234.5 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Waldorf and history education
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 21:44:00 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
mckay oro.net writes
>>I know it is bad form to post "I agree" messages, but it is so rare for
>>me to agree with Mr Kopp that I am going indulge myself -- I agree with
>>the entire post.
>
>Miracles _do_ happen! ":-)"
Indeed -- I was as surprised as Mr McKay obviously was by Mr Kopp's
post.
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n234.6 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Trusting/Distrusting the System
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 11:54:27 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Suzanne Lainson says:
>Whom should we trust and whom should we question? Should we
>trust anyone? Are all institutions (e.g., the news media, government)
>suspect?
All institutions -- all -- should be looked at with skepticism (including
science). This would perforce include educational systems, and particularly
educational system s based on singular world-views developed by one person.
As for trusting governments or media ... well, I'm as big a critic of media
(from inside it, where I was unpopular for "attacking my own") as I am of
the problems I see withing Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical education
(where I'm apparently _very_ unpopular for "attacking my own").
What's a person to do?
I'll go with my old friend Thomas Jefferson:
"If it were left to me, I would prefer a press without a government, to a
government without a press."
I would like that same style of questioning and debate and potential for
change to be available -- in fact embraced -- by my children's school
authorities.
The jury's still out on this in my personal case.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n234.7 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Teacher shop-talk relevance (Was Re: CAN, etc.; Notes & records etc.)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 21:51:59 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Michael Kopp writes
>You've been reading the Sun and Mirror
>too much, Tonkin.
One does not _read_ those hack-rags, Mr Kopp -- the words are merely
there in order to give the illusion of content behind the pictures.
Anyway, since August I haven't needed to waste my pittance on trashy
tabloids in order to get my daily fix of content-free fiction.
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n234.8 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Teacher shop-talk relevance (Was Re: CAN, etc.; Notes & records etc.)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 14:03:02 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Stephen Tonkin says:
>Michael Kopp writes
>>You've been reading the Sun and Mirror
>>too much, Tonkin.
>
>One does not _read_ those hack-rags, Mr Kopp -- the words are merely
>there in order to give the illusion of content behind the pictures.
>
>Anyway, since August I haven't needed to waste my pittance on trashy
>tabloids in order to get my daily fix of content-free fiction.
A new dimension in Tonkin's snideness: obliqueness. I actually thought for
a minute he meant he's been watching too much of the goggle-box. My
slowness is probably borne of a charming, if naive, belief in human nature
that says, "once-burned, twice-shy", and "human beings are capable of
learning from their mistakes". Obviously doesn't apply to Tonkin.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n234.9 ---------------
From: Rebecca Mast
Subject: Re: Citizenship Education
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 21:38:06 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Suzanne Lainson wrote:
>
> I remember reading somewhere that people must be taught to be good
> citizens. I would assume that the justification for talking about voting
> and issues to children in elementary school is to begin shaping them into
> citizens who will vote.
> I took my four year old with me when I voted. We discussed at the basic four
year old level what voting was and what the people elected do. Surprising to me, the
people running the booths let her "vote". She puched a ballet in a fake booth. She
beamed as she carried her ballet home. I know she has the basic understanding of
electing officials. She also got to feel the importance of voting. The next day she
wanted to know who won. Her interest in politics have increased sence this experience.
(Who knows maybe she will be "Madam President".)
With this basic concept down the rest of the complicated stuff will compound
later. Like other complicated topics, including religion, politics need to be introduced
at a young age in an appropriate level. As children age increasing the complexity can
occur. After watching her responce to voting, I believe this even more.
>
> -- Rebecca L. Mast
Websculpt - Web Page Design 24hr Voice/Fax:(616)456-6132
E-mail=mastr river.it.gvsu.edu URL=http://websculpt.com
P.O. Box 54 Grand Rapids, MI 49523-0054
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n234.10 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Citizenship Education
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 20:27:42 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Rebecca Mast wrote about her four-year-old "voting":
(and I've tidied up her line-ending word-wraps -- Rebecca, please reset
your mailer to a line length less than 80 characters, which is the longest
standard line most emailers will handle without wrapping them wrongly)
>I took my four year old with me when I voted. We discussed at the basic four
>year old level what voting was and what the people elected do. Surprising
>to >me, the people running the booths let her "vote". She puched a ballet
>in a >fake booth. She beamed as she carried her ballet home. I know she
>has the >basic understanding of electing officials. She also got to feel
>the importance >of voting. The next day she wanted to know who won. Her
>interest in politics >have increased sence this experience.(Who knows
>maybe she will be "Madam >President".)
>
>With this basic concept down the rest of the complicated stuff will compound
>later. Like other complicated topics, including religion, politics need to be
>introduced at a young age in an appropriate level. As children age increasing
>the complexity can occur. After watching her responce to voting, I believe
>this >even more.
Yes, children like to emulate adults. For instance, even without ever
seeing conflict represented for them, they appear to engage in playfights
with any available object.
That doesn't mean they should be allowed to emulate _all_ adult activities.
What about smoking, drinking, buying a car, getting married, etc.? Politics
would seem to me to be included. You have to learn at least some of the
rules of the game (Monopoly, Scrabble, Chess come to mind) before you can
have any idea at all what is going on or how to do it.
As to level of understanding, I do not wish to insult you about what you
believe your child "understood", but I do not believe it is possible for a
four-year-old child to understand the concept of "electing", or what an
"official" does.
As I said, I think this is false sophistication in our young, and it is
increasing throughout the population, up to and including teenagers, who
have better-developed thinking, reasoning and critical faculties.
High schools in this country have adopted a teaching unit on life
situations (birth, death, love, marriage, fidelity, treachery, friendship,
deceit, duplicity, personal manipulation, power, emotional conflict, etc.,
as nauseum) produced by the leading soap-opera company, using the soap as
the basis of what real-life situations are like, and using the solutions to
soap-opera problems as the basis for how real-life problems are or should
be solved.
This is pop psychology and sociology, not education and understanding, and
it leads to the false sophistication of teenagers wanting to do all the
things that adults do before they are ready for them in any but a
biological way.
I have no problem with taking kids to the polls, or to most other adult
activities (there are obvious limits -- no bingo or bullfighting or even
man-fighting, for that matter). I do have a problem with letting (or
encouraging) them to do the activities themselves, even in play.
I took my kids when I voted (I actually still voted when they were young),
and I even gave them an elementary explanation of what I was doing
(big-people choosing other people to help us run our lives, and keep us
safe and happy, like dad and mom do with the family -- well, I guess I was
a bit idealistically fanciful, almost like a fairy tale, but that's not the
point).
I did not let or encourage the kids to actually mark a ballot or help me
put it in the ballot box. When they asked, I said no, it was big-people's
work, something they only let us do after we're ready for it, kind of like
not driving a car until we were big enough and knew enough about cars,
driving and laws.
This was accepted without comment or problem. My kids always knew that they
would be allowed to do things they were ready to do, and that I was a good
judge of that (it's my job as a parent to do that) and that they got to do
lots of things when they could.
Civics lessons in school -- especially a Steiner school -- should be based
on the knowledge taught of the basic human condition. This teaching is
something the Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical method is supposed to be
good at, through its emphasis on classical mythology, history, literature
and drama. It is one of the reasons we enrolled. It is the only school
system I have ever seen with this emphasis on the classical human
understanding of ourselves. If it were not so loaded with mysticism,
spirituality and revealed occult wisdom as its foundation and background,
and if those things did not intrude so much into the foreground, I would be
more happy than I am. These are some of the things that need sorting out.
But I do not believe that civics as such are taught in my school, and
certainly not with role playing of elections and other human events. And I
agree with that. I think it will make my kids more critically able to learn
and judge about things like politics when the time comes, instead of simply
adopting the prevailing nationalistic views of whatever country they live
in, or becoming pseudo-sophisticated through exposure to the worst media
representations.
I will repeat: I do not see any redeeming features, especially for young
people, in any commercial Tv news or current events of today's style. When
the kids have developed their critical faculties they will be better able
to judge Tv. Until then, we avoid it at all costs, except for certain
documentary, nature, historical and dramatic presentations which are highly
selected.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n234 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n235 --------------
001 - slainson rmii.com (Suzann - Re: Citizenship Education
002 - Stephen Tonkin I will repeat: I do not see any redeeming features, especially for young
>people, in any commercial Tv news or current events of today's style. When
>the kids have developed their critical faculties they will be better able
>to judge Tv. Until then, we avoid it at all costs, except for certain
>documentary, nature, historical and dramatic presentations which are highly
>selected.
When, in your opinion, do children develop critical faculties? Do you go by
observation or by child development theorists? If so, which ones?
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n235.2 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Teacher shop-talk relevance (Was Re: CAN, etc.; Notes & records etc.)
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 14:13:01 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Michael Kopp writes
>Stephen Tonkin says:
>
>>Michael Kopp writes
>>>You've been reading the Sun and Mirror
>>>too much, Tonkin.
>>
>>One does not _read_ those hack-rags, Mr Kopp -- the words are merely
>>there in order to give the illusion of content behind the pictures.
>>
>>Anyway, since August I haven't needed to waste my pittance on trashy
>>tabloids in order to get my daily fix of content-free fiction.
>
>A new dimension in Tonkin's snideness: obliqueness. I actually thought for
>a minute he meant he's been watching too much of the goggle-box. My
>slowness is probably borne of a charming, if naive, belief in human nature
>that says, "once-burned, twice-shy", and "human beings are capable of
>learning from their mistakes". Obviously doesn't apply to Tonkin.
>
Mr Kopp, unless I completely misunderstand the above, you jumped
directly from one wrong interpretation of my obliquity to another
(although I can't, for the life of me, work out what the second one is
from your references to proverbs).
>
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n235.3 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Citizenship Education
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 08:23:54 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Suzanne Lainson quotes Michael Kopp:
>>I will repeat: I do not see any redeeming features, especially for young
>>people, in any commercial Tv news or current events of today's style. When
>>the kids have developed their critical faculties they will be better able
>>to judge Tv. Until then, we avoid it at all costs, except for certain
>>documentary, nature, historical and dramatic presentations which are highly
>>selected.
>
>When, in your opinion, do children develop critical faculties? Do you go by
>observation or by child development theorists? If so, which ones?
At varying ages. I decide by observation, not by any theories or theorists,
when I think the children have developed to a particular point. I tailor
and pace my own intellectual interactions with them on this basis.
I do not think that it is possible to learn critical reasoning by watching
dreck on Tv, just to have someone say to you, "this is dreck, because". I
think the classical methods of developing critical faculties, by thinking
appropriately about everything from bedtime stories to art in galleries, is
preferable. I think it preferable to expose children as much as possible to
_good_ influences (in the classical sense -- no populist "I know what's
good and what isn't") before asking them to make critical judgements about
the world.
Bit of an old fogey, am I?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n235.4 ---------------
From: mkopp actrix.gen.nz (Michael Kopp)
Subject: Re: Teacher shop-talk relevance (Was Re: CAN, etc.; Notes & records etc.)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 08:29:39 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Stephen Tonkin says:
>Michael Kopp writes
>>Stephen Tonkin says:
>>
>>>Michael Kopp writes
>>>>You've been reading the Sun and Mirror
>>>>too much, Tonkin.
>>>
>>>One does not _read_ those hack-rags, Mr Kopp -- the words are merely
>>>there in order to give the illusion of content behind the pictures.
>>>
>>>Anyway, since August I haven't needed to waste my pittance on trashy
>>>tabloids in order to get my daily fix of content-free fiction.
>>
>>A new dimension in Tonkin's snideness: obliqueness. I actually thought for
>>a minute he meant he's been watching too much of the goggle-box. My
>>slowness is probably borne of a charming, if naive, belief in human nature
>>that says, "once-burned, twice-shy", and "human beings are capable of
>>learning from their mistakes". Obviously doesn't apply to Tonkin.
>>
>Mr Kopp, unless I completely misunderstand the above, you jumped
>directly from one wrong interpretation of my obliquity to another
>(although I can't, for the life of me, work out what the second one is
>from your references to proverbs).
Well, you know the way to get better results: eschew obfuscation.
That is, don't be obliquitous (TM) (or snide).
And I think you're being disingenuous when you say you can't work out, from
my references to proverbs, what my second interpretation of your
"obliquity" is.
You know perfectly well what you were referring to: why not just say it,
instead of being snide and oblique?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n235.5 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Re: Citizenship Education
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 13:01:18 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I think it preferable to expose children as much as possible to
>_good_ influences (in the classical sense -- no populist "I know what's
>good and what isn't") before asking them to make critical judgements about
>the world.
>
>Bit of an old fogey, am I?
No, I'd just say that you have more in common with the Waldorf supporters
on this list than all the sniping back and forth would indicate.
I personally think that exposing children to the concept of government at
an early age is basically a good thing. Voting is a right that I take very
seriously and I think children can understand the concept of citizens
having the right to voice their opinions.
Maybe next we should explore whether or not pledging allegiance to the flag
(as in done in the US--I don't suppose it's standard practice around the
world) is appropriate or brain-washing.
I won't be responding to any of this for a day or two.
There's been so little discussion on "educational" matters here that I
think this list's primary purpose must be as an outlet for
frustration--both from ex-Waldorf parents who felt they had no forum for
their complaints and from Waldorf supporters who feel society
misunderstands them.
But at least there are enough occasional real discussions to make it worth
sticking around for.
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
For a free subscription to "Sports News You Can Use," send me an email.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n235.6 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re: Citizenship Education
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 13:58:53 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Suzanne Lainson adds,
[snip]
>There's been so little discussion on "educational" matters here that I
>think this list's primary purpose must be as an outlet for
>frustration--both from ex-Waldorf parents who felt they had no forum for
>their complaints and from Waldorf supporters who feel society
>misunderstands them.
>
>But at least there are enough occasional real discussions to make it worth
>sticking around for.
Perhaps if we changed the name from Waldorf Critics to Education Forum, you
would like it better ? Happy Thanksgiving.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n235.7 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re: Citizenship Education
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 13:58:47 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Suzanne Lainson quotes Michael Kopp:
>
>>>I will repeat: I do not see any redeeming features, especially for young
>>>people, in any commercial Tv news or current events of today's style. When
>>>the kids have developed their critical faculties they will be better able
>>>to judge Tv. Until then, we avoid it at all costs, except for certain
>>>documentary, nature, historical and dramatic presentations which are highly
>>>selected.
>>
>>When, in your opinion, do children develop critical faculties? Do you go by
>>observation or by child development theorists? If so, which ones?
>
>At varying ages. I decide by observation, not by any theories or theorists,
>when I think the children have developed to a particular point. I tailor
>and pace my own intellectual interactions with them on this basis.
>
>I do not think that it is possible to learn critical reasoning by watching
>dreck on Tv, just to have someone say to you, "this is dreck, because". I
>think the classical methods of developing critical faculties, by thinking
>appropriately about everything from bedtime stories to art in galleries, is
>preferable. I think it preferable to expose children as much as possible to
>_good_ influences (in the classical sense -- no populist "I know what's
>good and what isn't") before asking them to make critical judgements about
>the world.
>
>Bit of an old fogey, am I?
Michael,
I _can_ see why you were attracted to Waldorf. I feel similar to you.
Perhaps that is why the anger. They _almost_ got it right. But the stuff
that doesn't seem right is so alarming hidden. (Anthroposophy) I truely
believed and agreed with what they said about our sons' school, and didn't
look deeper [at first].
Dan D. is correct I think, when he says that Waldorf education appeals to
idealist parents.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n235.8 ---------------
From: Rebecca Mast
Subject: Re: Citizenship Education
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 21:57:26 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Michael Kopp wrote:
>
> (and I've tidied up her line-ending word-wraps -- Rebecca, please reset
> your mailer to a line length less than 80 characters, which is the longest
> standard line most emailers will handle without wrapping them wrongly)
>
>Oh thank you for tiding me up. I do not know what has happen since my other out-going e-mail seems fine. Could you please tell me how to fix this. I do
not know how to change my mailer. Sorry and thank-you.
Rebecca
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n235.9 ---------------
From: Rebecca Mast
Subject: Re: Citizenship Education
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 22:35:59 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Michael Kopp wrote:
>
> Yes, children like to emulate adults. For instance, even without ever
> seeing conflict represented for them, they appear to engage in playfights
> with any available object.
If they have never seen conflict represented, how are they emulating
adults?
> That doesn't mean they should be allowed to emulate _all_ adult activities.
> What about smoking, drinking, buying a car, getting married, etc.? Politics
> would seem to me to be included.
Yes, not _all_ adult activities should be emulated. First, voting in and of
itself is not a dangeruous or "bad habit" like smoking and drinking.
I do not expose my children to vices such as these. Personally, I feel
smoking and excesive drinking is people abuse. Voting and civic duties are
idealistically, not abusive to others. Civic duties are idealitically good
things "we" want to instill in our children. I would not be happy if my
adult child smoke, however, I would feel happy if she felt the need to be
a responcible individual in her society. How can you really compare these?
Second, you mention "getting married". When children play with "waldorf
inspired dolls" (my children have a few of these wounderful dolls) are
they not playing a form of "married" life. Many little girls and boys
play "mommy" and "daddy". Correct me if I am wrong, but are you not
suggesting children should not do this for "married" is to complex of a
topic? I feel very sorry for your children if you have never allowed them
to play with dolls and doll houses.
--
Rebecca L. Mast
Websculpt - Web Page Design 24hr Voice/Fax:(616)456-6132
E-mail=mastr river.it.gvsu.edu URL=http://websculpt.com
P.O. Box 54 Grand Rapids, MI 49523-0054
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n235.10 ---------------
From: Rebecca Mast
Subject: Re: citzenship Education
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 23:25:55 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Rebecca Mast wrote:
>
> Michael Kopp wrote:
> You have to learn at least some of the
> > rules of the game (Monopoly, Scrabble, Chess come to mind) before you can
> > have