return to WCA Archive Index
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n358 --------------
001 - snell oro.net - Re: Anthroposophy and Waldorf
002 - snell oro.net - Indoctrination has no place at a Waldorf school
003 - snell oro.net - Re: web visitors top 3000
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n358.1 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and Waldorf
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 00:35:53 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Val responded to my inquiry on the SJU Waldorf list from last December. He
has generously given me permission to repost. Since I have been kicked off
the Waldorf list, I'll repost it to the critic's list for comment.
Deby writes to the SJU Waldorf list in December of 96,
)) On this day, I entered a conversation with a member of our broader
)) community. This man has his Doctorate in Religion. He asked me if I thought
)) it was possible to remove Anthroposophy from Waldorf education. I do not
)) think that it is possible, but wish to get other opinions on it. Also, why
)) you can or can't remove Anthroposophy from Waldorf curriculum.
)
)A person who asks for the possibility of making Waldorf without A. shows a
)lack of knowledge of both. This lack of knowledge may lead to the false
)impression that A is a religion. Or that A is part of the curriculum,
)which is also false.
Val responds privately,
)In general, Anthroposophists _wait_ for people to ask questions about the
)spiritual world to start talking to them about A. Probably in a class very
)few students have these questions. Furthermore, a rule-of-thumb is that a
)person should be at least 21 years old to be able to face A. in a
)conceptual and not a mystical (that is, wrong) way.
)
)There is no A. in the Waldorf curriculum. A. is not taught in W schools.
)Sometimes, students in their grades 11 or 12 ask about it during classes
)on history, philosophy, etc. In this case, teachers may explain
)superficially some of the basics of A. But this has happened very seldom
)and, again, depends on the interest of mature students. More common is the
)curiosity on why they have had a different type of education and its
)foundations. In this case, superficial knowledge is given, without
)entering into the esotherics of A.
)
)Nevertheless, it is impossible to remove A. form WE. WE without A. becomes
)a dead technique. Teachers must constantly apply their A. knowledge about
)the unfolding human being in their everyday classes, to be able to
)improvise and get inspiration to produce a live teaching, adapted to their
)students' needs. It is also necessary to know A. to get a more wholistic
)view of the worlds' structure and the history of humanity, so that a more
)objective view of them is presented, without the common prejudices which
)pervade scientific or denominational religious thinking. For instance, in
)high school Darwinism should be introduced as a theory and not as a fact.
)In grade school, creationism should be introduced as an image, and not as
)a conceptual description, of real facts.
)
)Hope these few lines help you. If you think this may be useful to other
)people, you may forward them (and also to the W list) this mail.
)
)With love,
)Val.
)
)Valdemar W.Setzer Dept. of Computer Science, University of S\~ao Paulo, Brazil
) vwsetzer ime.usp.br http://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n358.2 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Indoctrination has no place at a Waldorf school
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 16:51:20 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In Saturday's Union (March 29, 1997), Magdaline Jaeckel wrote the following
statement in "other Voices" segment of the paper.
Indoctrination has no place at a Waldorf school:
"This is another response to Dr. James Morton's article in The Union in
which he expresses the opinion that Twin Ridges Alternative Charter School
is a religious school.
My husband and I have been student of Rudolf Steiner's anthroposophy for
over 40 years. One important point has always been made clear by Rudolf
Steiner to his students, in words and in writing, and that is:
Anthroposophy is not a religion. On the contrary, Steiner never promoted a
particular belief system; he had no doctrine, no rituals, and no mandatory
rules of behavior, which are the tenants of most religions, as you can read
in any encyclopedia.
Rudolf Steiner had some very fascinating and far-reaching ideas, but he
always warned his students to be skepical, to test evrything by their own
thinking, and to never look to him as absolute authority.
Rudolf Steiner's view of the human being is that he/she is made up of body,
soul, and spirit, and that one way the spirit manufests itself is
individual, clear thinking. Thinking, along with careful observation of the
world around us can lead us to an understanding of ourselves and of the
world.
Steiner had a deep understanding of the development of the child, and one
of his educational principals was to teach the child certain subjects just
at the right time in his/her development so that they could be absorbed
properly. He also promoted artistic activity in his school because he
believed that this would foster individual growth and development. This
idea is not unique in the field of education, but perhaps is not always
taken as seriously as in the Waldorf schools. Steiner in fact was of the
opinion that education is an art. His goal in education was to bring about
the expression of the unique gifts and talents slumbering in every child,
and ultimately help the child become an adult who can think for himself and
know his own gifts, to use them for the best of society as well as for his
own self-fullfillment.
It must be understood that a teacher who wants to teach in a Steiner school
has to have special training in addition to his/her traditional teacher
training. Steiner's ideas have to be learned and practiced before they can
be applied in the classroom. This has nothing to do with indoctrination,
however. Steiner always advised: "Think about what I have to say, then try
it out in practical situations and see if it works."
One more point: I beg to differ with Dr. Morton on the use of tales and
myths in the classroom. Great thinkers other than Steiner have found that
there is deep wisdom in these tales that teaches us about the human
condition. Just because the wisdom is told in the form of an imaginative
story it can be interpreted in their own way. The teacher does refrain from
interpretation, or finding a "moral". This is left to the individual child.
In this way it inspires thinking and inner search, not indoctrination.
I hope that I have been able to put anybody's mind to rest who is concerned
that the separation of church and school is endangered in a Waldorf school.
The effectiveness of Steiner's educational ideas has been proven in
hundreds of schools all over the world, and in many countries in Europe
they have been successfully integrated into the public schools. Interviews
have been conducted in this country with graduates from Waldorf schools who
have now successful careers in many different areas. They all express
appreciation for the benefits of their schooling. To quote just one of
these: "That's what is so wonderful about Waldorf education. You're exposed
to so many different ideas, but you are never given just one view of them.
You are encouraged to think as an individual."
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n358.3 ---------------
From: snell oro.net
Subject: Re: web visitors top 3000
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 21:52:46 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)Web Counter reports over 3000 visits to the PLANS web site since August, 1996.
)
)-dD-
)
)http://www.waldorfcritics.org
The web site has been responsible for several families choosing either to
get out of WE, or to stay away from WE. We have received several e-mails
from grateful families.
Deby
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n358 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n359 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Val Setzer's defense against charges of racism
002 - levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk - diversity
003 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: diversity
004 - TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.ed - Applewhite and Sagan
005 - Steve Premo (premo cruzio - Re: diversity
006 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Applewhite and Sagan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n359.1 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Val Setzer's defense against charges of racism
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 01:25:15 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On 3/4/97, Hope Seidman wrote to the SJU Waldorf list:
)I recently read an article on the net addressing the issue of racism
)inherent in the Waldorf philosophy. The question raised is, how can we
)teach/promote tolerance in the classroom when the philosophies were
)derived from a man who was alledgedly intolerant and racist. Any thoughts?
The articles I have posted on the PLANS web site do not accuse Steiner of
being intolerant, nor of bearing ill will toward any race. He is accused of
promoting an ignorant (both in his day and ours) and patronizing theory of
human evolution through successive races.
Val Setzer commented:
)1. If taken as a whole, Steiner's work (6,000 published lectures and
)dozens of books) is absolutely non-racist, in our present understanding of
)the word. For instance, Steiner said humanity's great mission is
)developing not wisdom, but unselfish love - which is obviously the
)opposite to racism.
This is Val's interpretation. Others who have read Steiner have other
opinions. Read Steiner for yourself. See "The Roots of Racism in Waldorf
Schools," on the PLANS web site.
)2. When Steiner gave his lectures and wrote his books, the word "racism"
)did not have its present connotations, which I think are due mainly to the
)tragedy of the Holocaust. So he was not as careful as we would be in
)choosing his wording, avoiding undesirable impressions. Thus, one may find
)some passages of his lectures, and in the transcripts of his discussions
)with the first W teachers, some isolated phrases that could give _today_
)and impression of racism. If they are understood under a deep knowledge of
)Anthroposophy, one notices immediately that he was not being racist at
)all, but was e.g. talking abut the influence different cultures could have
)upon each other. It is also necessary to be careful with the individual
)words; almost all the published lectures and all the discussions with
)teachers were based upon notes taken by some participants.
Yes, Steiner wasn't as careful as his apologists are today, because he
expected his audience to share his opinions about superior and inferior
races. "If they are understood under a deep knowledge of Anthroposophy," I
guess they could mean anything you want! Excuses about bad notes or
translations won't wash; we are reading the official translations from
Anthroposophic presses.
)3. I think Steiner was the first one to extensively characterize the
)spiritual element of our constitution which is being developed in this
)stage of human evolution, the "I." The individuality in a broad and high
)sense is due to this element; in some sense, it is the most important one
)in our present constitution. Well, according to Steiner's characterization,
)the individual "I", our true spiritual constituent, has no sex and no
)race. How could he have been a racist if he gave so much importance to a
))) ) human constituent which has no race?
(snip)
Easy. Val avoids the fact that according to Steiner's theory, the
individual soul "evolves" through higher and higher "races."
)4. Everybody may become a member of the Anthroposophical Society. In the
)by-laws established by Steiner himself, the only requirement is the
)recognition that the Goetheanum is a representative of the School of
)Spiritual Science. They explicitly eliminate any restriction on sex,
)religion, race and inner convictions.
Yes, Anthroposophy is internationalist, which was their principal point of
disagreement with the Nazis.
)5. Every WS is absolutely independent. Obviously, to be called "Waldorf"
)it is necessary to have more than just this word in its name. Even if the
)W spirit would be racist, which is absolutely not the case, much on the
)contrary (I mean that tolerance and understanding for individual
)characteristics has to be consciously exercised by teachers, who should
)consider their mission as a sacrifice, trying to develop each child
)according to what she needs, and not what the teacher finds as an abstract
)ideal - this is a consequence of the concept of the "I" existing behind
)each child), each particular school would be able to eliminate any trace
)of racism from its activities. Hope [Seidman], if you find any trace of
)racism in a
)W school, precisely in a W school, I think one should not call it
)"Waldorf."
(snip)
OK, so, Val, will you go on record to say that the Zutphen (Netherlands)
school which taught the block on cultural anthropology reported in De
Volkskrant 4 Feb. 1995 should be disenfranchised? (See article on PLANS web
site.)
)6. There is a positive side to the false allegations that W schools are
)racist. They show that we have acquired some importance in the world. If
)the W movement would be negligible, nobody would come with such falsities,
)trying to undermine our movement. A movement which is a physical
)implementation of unselfish love.
Or one could say that there is a negative side to the increasing popularity
of Waldorf education: exposure of the racism inherent in Anthroposophy.
Stanford researcher Ray MacDermott said "Whatever Steiner did say, whatever
he might say if he were alive today, if only a few Waldorf teachers can
nurture what might be a Steiner-derived anti-Semitic or anti-African
American prejudice, then Waldorf educators will have to critique themselves
before their pedagogy can be of systematic use across the country. The
offending texts must be identfied, criticized, explained if possible and
disowned if necessary." ["Racism and Waldorf Education" by Ray MacDermott
and Ida Oberman. Research Bulletin: Vol. 1, No. 2 (June, 1996) p. 3,
Waldorf Education Research Institute. - Available on PLANS web site.]
When I confronted teachers at our school with Steiner's racist writings, in
books for sale at the school, all they would say was that some passages are
"difficult."
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n359.2 ---------------
From: levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk)
Subject: diversity
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 12:34:35 +0100 (BST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
It astounds me that this doscussion list, in its quest to "criticise", is
so selective with its accessing of available ideas and knowledge. I am
sure anthroposophists and others are also guilty of the same
one-sidedness. Neverthless, it still holds that such a group as this ought
to try to arrive at the truth in a balanced and fair way.
There has been much discussion about Steiner as a racist. Currently there
is a large and growing field of study known as "Diversity" (see the work
of Roosevelt-Thomas "Beyond Race and Gender" for example). A diversity
perspective moves beyond the basic "equality" argument and explores the
idea of the positive recognition and celebration of difference - at both a
individual and group level. The diversity in our world should be something
to explore, tolerate and celebrate. Diversity is there to be seen in
nature , in culture, in our own thoughts. From an equality perspective
comes the need to eradicate difference. From a diversity perspective
arises the need to tolerate and celebrate different, firstly of race,
gender, ability, ideology and then at a deeper level where the basic unit
of analysis is one individual. What binds us as individuals into societies
or groups is our difference not some imposed standardised view of our
homogeneity. Steiner often referred to each human being as a "unique
species of one". His lectures and books are filled with a reverence for
the wonderful diversity of humanity and in nature. His notions of evolving
races, of different tasks for different peoples is part of an overall
world-view based on this love and respect for the sovereignty of each
individual. The diversity perspective is a difficult one as it implies
tolerance of racists. However, what Steiner's view brought to the world
(sadly lacking in any of your one-sided discussions and supposed exposes)
was a suggestion that celebration of diversity, that tolerance of
difference is a fundamental part of our nature, that racism or equalism
(in the totalitarian sense of enforced standardisation) goes against our
nature).
As a researcher and writer in this field, I find Steiner's ideas both
interesting and practical. It also is interesting to note that
organisations who practice diversity (and I am sure there are many
Waldorf Schools and well as many other organisations who are not
practising it), when interviewed by researchers such as myself, find the
concept of racism irrelevant. The only racism that seems to occur in these
organisations is where an individual advocates and celebrates to the
freedom of another to be different.
Perhaps you might like to access some of the key thinkers, writers and
practionners of today who work in communities from a diversity
perspective, who find that this approach is harmonising and healing, and
also to compare it to what Steiner aid on the subject.
Now, I suppose what will happen now is that this mail message will be
pulled apart, rudely and offensively replied to, half quoted, mis-quoted,
slices, mangled, mis-interpreted, re-interpreted, ignored all in the
pursuit of objective criticism. So be it.
With warm wishes for a genuine sense of balance and fair play!
Not an anthroposophist
Paul
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n359.3 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: diversity
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 11:45:30 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199704021136.DAA03354 lists1.best.com)
Long post by P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk, an apologia for Steiner racism and the
new-age emperor's clothes of the old racism, called "diversity", snipped
because it's not worth time arguing with.
This much is worth responding to:
)With warm wishes for a genuine sense of balance and fair play!
Sure, if we want to see it with the race-coloured glasses you wear, mate.
)Not an anthroposophist
)Paul
Not an anthroposophist, just a foolish denier of his own prejudices.
To demand "balance" about rubbish is to elevate it to the level of rational
thought deserving of consideration.
This is the same technique used to elevate creationist "science", which is
really religious poppycock, to the level of rational, emperical science.
Not for me, guv.
Michael Kopp
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n359.4 ---------------
From: TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu (tom mellett)
Subject: Applewhite and Sagan
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:11:44 -0600 (CST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Dan & other W. critiquers,
I've been unsubscribed for the last few months due to time
constraints, but I decided to resubscribe because I felt sure there had to
be some heated discussion going on about the cult suicide (like, could
Waldorfians be far behind the Heaven's Gate 39? ) Yet I've been on for two
whole days now and not a word about it! So I figured I ought to post
something I originally sent last week to a physics mailing list at the
Intuition Network.
Tom Mellett.
=============================
) I was haunted by the face and expression of the cult leader,
)Marshall Herff Applewhite. I kept asking myself: "Where have I seen this
)exact expression before, complete with that bug-eyed, wide-eyed look of
)complete submission to an over-simplified belief system?" (Or to put it
)more bluntly, a look of "believing one's own BS.")
) Finally, this morning, when I woke up, I had the answer. A picture
)flashed in my mind. It was that of Carl Sagan, probably on some Nova
)series, waxing wide-eyed and excitedly about the "billions and billions
)of_____________ (fill in the blank---he did all the time---be they cells,
)atoms, photons, etc.)
) In one sense, I admired both men for "having the courage of their
)convictions," but that may just be damning both with faint praise.
)Yet the juxtaposition of these two "looks" and the identical nature of the
)INNER conviction about something believed to exist behind the OUTER
)trappings of our physical universe made me realize that the lesson in this
)cult suicide may be really for those who subscribe to the prevailing
)scientific belief system , the "cult of scientism" that always seems to
)stake out the "higher moral ground" whenever it finds a good new excuse to
)launch another "jihad" against perceived pseudo-scientists.
) I was extremely disgusted to see Alan Hale, whose name is on the
)comet label, on television railing against the "ignorance and superstition"
)in our society. Does he not realize the self-created ignorance and
)superstition that lies at the basis of the sciences today? If those
)Heaven's Gate people had an over-simplified view of the universe, then
)where did they get it from? If we are going to point fingers of blame, I
)would point mine directly at the present "golem" of modern science, which
)because of its refusal to accept a new epistemology and in consequence a
)new ontology, is busy cementing a gigantic modern "super-symmetrical,
)super-structure of super-superstition" which is ardently represented by
)"priests," "archbishops" and assorted "defenders of the faith" like the late
)Carl Sagan, for example.
) We may scoff at the dead cultists who believed that there was some
)kind of UFO trailing behind the Comet Hale-Bopp, yet what about physicists
)who solemnly believe in and even worship the convenient fiction of quarks,
)which are alleged by group theoretical scripture to "trail behind" the
)nucleons, which in turn "trail behind" the atoms, which in turn "trail
)behind" the molecules, which in turn "trail behind" the everyday physical
)phenomena we see directly. It seems to me that the "Hale-Boppers" only had
)ONE veil or curtain between their "maya" illusion and reality, yet I have
)just delineated at least FOUR "nested" veils that physicists put between
)direct human perception of phenomena and what is believed to exist as
)"Ding an sich" behind these phenomena. How many more veils ( i.e. metaphors
)of metaphors) will it take before modern scientists realize that they are
)caught up in as much of an orgy of blind faith and starry-eyed dogmatism as
)any religious fanatic?
)
)
)Tom Mellett
)Department of Science Education (Physics)
)University of Texas at Austin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n359.5 ---------------
From: Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: diversity
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 22:08:51 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199704021136.DAA03354 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199704030036.QAA28131 lists1.best.com)
On 3 Apr 97 at 11:45, Michael Kopp wrote:
) Long post by P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk, an apologia for Steiner racism and the
) new-age emperor's clothes of the old racism, called "diversity", snipped
) because it's not worth time arguing with.
)
) Not an anthroposophist, just a foolish denier of his own prejudices.
Celebration of cultural differences is not prejudice. I'm something
of a xenophile, and enjoy interacting with those of different
backgrounds, and learning about their customs and habits.
But celebration of *racial* "differences" is another thing
altogether, and can easily be a shield for racism. Any time you
expect someone to have different abilities because of that person's
race, that is racial prejudice, even if you're "celebrating," say,
the other group's perceived racial athletic ability or sense of
rhythm.
) To demand "balance" about rubbish is to elevate it to the level of rational
) thought deserving of consideration.
)
) This is the same technique used to elevate creationist "science", which is
) really religious poppycock, to the level of rational, empirical science.
Yup. I noted in a post on another list that a gentleman made
reference to "Darwinism" which I found interesting. It was as if
he referred to the theory of evolution as an "ism" because
he considered it to be a doctrine rather than a scientific theory.
(It was in the context of asserting that traditional educational
theory is "Darwinist," in that it fosters competition, as if its goal
is to weed out the weak students, so that only the strong would
survive.)
But then, science is just another religion, isn't it?
Steve Premo
Premo/Fine Family
Santa Cruz, California
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n359.6 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Applewhite and Sagan
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 21:46:52 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199704030314.TAA28657 lists1.best.com)
On Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:11:44 -0600 (CST) Tom Mellett wrote a bunch of facile
tripe that wouldn't even pass a freshman English composition class, much
less a philosophy of science intro or survey course (I never saw so many ""
marks in all my life):
)Dear Dan & other W. critiquers,
)
) I've been unsubscribed for the last few months due to time
)constraints, but I decided to resubscribe because I felt sure there had to
)be some heated discussion going on about the cult suicide (like, could
)Waldorfians be far behind the Heaven's Gate 39? ) Yet I've been on for two
)whole days now and not a word about it! So I figured I ought to post
)something I originally sent last week to a physics mailing list at the
)Intuition Network.
)
)Tom Mellett.
)
)=============================
)
)) I was haunted by the face and expression of the cult leader,
))Marshall Herff Applewhite. I kept asking myself: "Where have I seen this
))exact expression before, complete with that bug-eyed, wide-eyed look of
))complete submission to an over-simplified belief system?" (Or to put it
))more bluntly, a look of "believing one's own BS.")
)) Finally, this morning, when I woke up, I had the answer. A picture
))flashed in my mind. It was that of Carl Sagan, probably on some Nova
))series, waxing wide-eyed and excitedly about the "billions and billions
))of_____________ (fill in the blank---he did all the time---be they cells,
))atoms, photons, etc.)
Actually, the poor, deluded, dangerous jerk looked more like Jean Luc
Piccard of Star Trek, a notably far-out rendition of science, but nowhere
near as compellingly patrician.
Is there some reason Sagan shouldn't have been enthusiastic about science?
At least his wild-eyed looks had some intelligence behind them.
Mellett, on the other hand, a pseudo-erudite, is so transparently anti-
intellectual and has such a big chip on his shoulder about something (maybe
he failed his philosophy of science survey course, before continuing on to
befuddle his advanced degree dissertation defence committee so thoroughly
they gave him the degree out of pity).
[snip]
The rest of Mellet's post is an almost unintelligible diatribe against the
science he is nominally a part of but can't seem to abide. Suffice to say
it's more of the same anti-science characterisation of science as a
religion; the same kind of revisionist thinking going on amonst the racists
who champion "scientific" recognition of differences between races as an
improvement in brotherly love.]
))
))Tom Mellett
))Department of Science Education (Physics)
))University of Texas at Austin
Seems like a serious problem for science if the people running science
education think like Mellett.
It appears that superstition can infect even those nominally innoculated
against it by reason and the scientific method.
Or have I got Mellett misplaced: is he NOT a scientist (just what ARE his
academic credentials for critiquing the scientific method) -- is he really
a member of the faculty of wicca or alchemy or creation sciences?
Please, do tell us, Mellet. And how DID you pass freshman comp with all
those ""??
Michael Kopp
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n359 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n360 --------------
001 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: diversity
002 - Steve Premo (premo cruzio - Re: Applewhite and Sagan
003 - TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.ed - Re: Applewhite and Sagan
004 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Applewhite and Sagan
005 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Val Setzer's defense against charges of racism
006 - dsaykaly InterLink.NET (D - Re: web visitors top 3000
007 - TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.ed - Re: Applewhite and Sagan
008 - dsaykaly InterLink.NET (D - Re: Responsibility & accountability
009 - dsaykaly InterLink.NET (D - Re: (anon) Thanks to the list!
010 - Steve Premo (premo cruzio - Re: Applewhite and Sagan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n360.1 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: diversity
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 97 14:29:19 +0100
Steve:
)I noted in a post on another list that a gentleman made
)reference to "Darwinism" which I found interesting. It was as if
)he referred to the theory of evolution as an "ism" because
)he considered it to be a doctrine rather than a scientific theory.
As the 'gentleman' in question, one might almost think I coined the
neologism 'Darwinism' - had it not already many years' respectable
service behind it.
The 'theory of evolution' was already common currency in medical and
scientific circles before Darwin set off on the Beagle in 1831 - and
whilst his name is now associated with it, he was by no means
responsible for it.
What Darwin did introduce into Biology was the notion of 'Natural
Selection' - in large part influenced by W. Paley's 'Natural
Theology; or evidences of the existence and Attributes of the Deity,
collected from the Appearances of Nature', which was published in
1802. Darwin had undoubtedly come across this work when he studied
Theology at Cambridge, and it gave him his first clues about
'remarkable and diverse ways in which organisms are adapted to their
environments'. Significantly, Paley was a Theologian whose 'project'
was to prove the existence of God from the evidence of the natural
world. So the essential tenet of 'Darwinism' - the original
contribution of Darwin himself - was borne of a theological
hypothesis long ere it became empirical science.
Secondly, one needs to consider the influence of Thomas Malthus
(coincidentally another clergyman) and the Whig free-market
philosophy on the development of Darwin's ideas [a theme that is
explored in great detail in Desmond & Moore's 'Darwin']. Darwin was
an enthusiastic believer in market capitalism, and himself a
shareowner (as well as being married into the Wedgwood family).
Natural Selection provided a conveniently 'natural' justification for
Whig political philosophy - which doesn't necessarily affect its
veracity, but certainly needs to be taken into account.
Consequently, if one is familiar with the context of Darwin's
thinking, one can see how his ideas do not reflect a purely empirical
methodology - but a complex mesh of social, cultural and historical
factors. No different, in fact, from the (now less creditable)
theories of his near-contemporaries Marx and Freud. 'Darwinism', as a
framework for explaining both the natural world and the mechanics of
society and the economy, codifies Darwin's ideas into a paradigm.
Unlike 'Marxism' and 'Freudianism', 'Darwinism' is once again a
popular device for explaining (and justifying) the mechanisms of our
social and commercial worlds - as these return to almost Malthusian
conditions.
Finally, one should not lose sight of the fact that Sir Frances
Galton, the notorious proponent of eugenics (and thus the progenitor
of Nazi racism), was Darwin's cousin - and that Darwin had endorsed
his controversial theory that mental attributes could be inherited
(thus paving the slippery road towards 'the Bell Curve').
James
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n360.2 ---------------
From: Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Applewhite and Sagan
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 08:19:33 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199704030314.TAA28657 lists1.best.com)
On 2 Apr 97 , tom mellett wrote:
) ) I was haunted by the face and expression of the cult leader,
) )Marshall Herff Applewhite. I kept asking myself: "Where have I seen this
) )exact expression before, complete with that bug-eyed, wide-eyed look of
) )complete submission to an over-simplified belief system?" (Or to put it
) )more bluntly, a look of "believing one's own BS.")
) ) Finally, this morning, when I woke up, I had the answer. A picture
) )flashed in my mind. It was that of Carl Sagan, probably on some Nova
) )series, waxing wide-eyed and excitedly about the "billions and billions
) )of_____________ (fill in the blank---he did all the time---be they cells,
) )atoms, photons, etc.)
This is a joke, right? You can't be serious.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n360.3 ---------------
From: TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu (tom mellett)
Subject: Re: Applewhite and Sagan
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 22:32:28 -0600 (CST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Michael,
My, oh, my! Michael! I figured I would press a button or two with
my posting, but I do believe I've lighted up your whole keyboard! Now,
take it easy and don't fall into any carpal-tunnel spasms as your fingers
trip over the keyboard. And take a few good deep breaths. (I wouldn't go
so far as to recommend yoga breathing since even Rudolf Steiner looks
askance at such atavistic Eastern spiritual practices. But if it prevents
you from having a heart attack, don't let a bit of ideology stand in your
way.)
)On Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:11:44 -0600 (CST) Tom Mellett wrote a bunch of facile
)tripe
Mmmmm! I haven't had a dish of "facile tripe" in a dog's age. But it's so
bland. Me being a native New Yorker, but now a naturalized Texan, I'd put
a lot of red-hot Picante sauce on it.
)that wouldn't even pass a freshman English composition class, much
)less a philosophy of science intro or survey course (I never saw so many ""
)marks in all my life)
I'm somewhat bewildered by the apparent causal connection you are
making between the "" marks and my failure to pass English Comp or
Phil/Sci.
Hmmm. Perhaps I'm being chauvinistic or ethno-centric here. Or is
it Northern-Hemispheric? I realize that you reside in New Zealand, so
perhaps I am misunderstanding your cultural norms. (They're not all
upside-down, are they?) But is it possible that you folks (or "blokes" is
it?) down under do not know the Northern hemispheric meaning of the ""
marks. If not, then let me explain. They are called quotation marks ands
they are used to enclose staements attributed verbatim to another author,
or else they are used in a more metaphorical sense to express a heightened
sense of irony. Could it be that you folks down under use the same marks,
but their location on the line is that of a subscript instead of a
superscript? That would make some kind of hemispheric sense, wouldn't it?
)Actually, the poor, deluded, dangerous jerk looked more like Jean Luc
)Piccard of Star Trek, a notably far-out rendition of science, but nowhere
)near as compellingly patrician.
I guess you haven't seen the photographs of Applewhite when he sang lead
roles in the Houston Opera Company in the 1960's. He more than matches
Patrick Stewart's PQ ("Patrician Quotient").
)
)Is there some reason Sagan shouldn't have been enthusiastic about science?
The point is that Sagan was just as enthusiastic about his belief in
science as Applewhite was enthusiastic about his belief in pseudo-science.
What's the difference?
)At least his wild-eyed looks had some intelligence behind them.
True, but if Sagan was more intelligent than Applewhite, then why
are both men dead? Carl should have known better than to let his
superstitious ideology get in the way of his own life, for Christ's sake.
I admire Carl for the courage of his convicitons, but he didn't have to go
so far as to "fall on his own sword" and die for the sake of maintaining
the narrow tenets of scientism.
Where he did not apply his intelligence was in his dogmatic
rejection of the POSSIBILITY that
a cure for his cancer might have been found in some alternative therapy.
I'm not claiming it WOULD have worked, but it COULD have worked; however,
Carl refused to allow even for the possibility and so he thus committed a
more subtle form of "ritual suicide" by only allowing chemo-therapy which
definitely did finish him off. God damn it, Michael, he had at least 25 of
his best years left and he could have had them, but noooo, he had the faith
of scientism to defend. And for that I admire him, so I can excuse his
lapse of intelligence.
)Mellett, on the other hand, a pseudo-erudite,
Excuse me, Michael, I must inform you that even at the age of 48, I still
have a full head of hair, and will not go bald unless I am forced to
undergo the same barbaric chemo-therapy that killed Carl Sagan at the young
age of 62. It was horrible seeing Carl on his last TV appearance a few days
before he died (Ted Koeppel's "Nightline.") with no hair. Don't you think
he had the most beautiful shock of black hair?
)is so transparently anti-intellectual
Whoops! The correct designation here, Michael, is "post-intellectual" (I
consider Marshall McLuhan to be the greatest prophet of the 20th century!
So I'm proud to wear the "p-i" label!
(Here's a syllogism for you: While it is true that all anti-intellectuals
are now post-intellectual, the converse does not hold. Not all
post-intellectuals are anti-intellectual).
) and has such a big chip on his shoulder about something
So kiss me! Like Dan Dugan, I'm Irish! And Irish-Catholic to boot! (No
pun intended.) Boy, the chips on Irish shoulders are veritable logs,
n'est-ce pas? I knock them off myself sometimes.
)(maybe
)he failed his philosophy of science survey course,
....maybe he never took a philosophy of science survey course.
)before continuing on to
)befuddle his advanced degree dissertation defence committee so thoroughly
)they gave him the degree out of pity).
So that's the reason! And here all this time I thought it was because I
had slept with the head of the committee! Thank you, Michael! I feel less
guilty now. You've given me a wonderful rationalization to take the
responsibility off me and put it on them. (By golly, you learn something
new every day! Now that's education!)
)The rest of Mellet's post is an almost unintelligible diatribe against the
)science he is nominally a part of but can't seem to abide.
Can I help it if I suffer from low self-esteem? But enough talk
about me. Let's talk about you.
I'm intrigued by your use of the word "nominally." You thus
resurrect an old Catholic bugbear. Those 700 year old Scholastic arguments
of "Nominalism versus Realism" are still raging today, and most of all,
where they should be, in small heretical pockets of various university
physics departments. But please don't broadcast this, Michael--- such
physicists need their anonymity, (unless of course they have tenure, but
even that is being attacked in the Texas legislature right now. But let's
not get into boring educational politics).
) Suffice to say
)it's more of the same anti-science characterisation of science as a
)religion;
You really need to read this wonderful book by Frank J. Tipler, a tenured
professor of physics at Tulane University in New Orleans, who uses
astrophysics and artificial intelligence to prove the existence of God---
and gets us all to the "omega point of heaven" in the last 10 E-23 seconds
of the universe's existence at "Big Crunch." Get a load of this very
religious title: "The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God, and
the Resurrection of the Dead." (N.Y. Doubleday 1994) (Lib.Cong. # QB 981
T57 1994). Here's a real physics professor teaching his students that the
"new physics" of the future must include the study of theology! Even
Waldorf teachers don't go that far!
)the same kind of revisionist thinking going on amonst the racists
)who champion "scientific" recognition of differences between races as an
)improvement in brotherly love.]
Oh, shucks, Michael, you disappoint me. Here I was hoping you'd
call me a Nazi. (I am fluent in German, you know) but instead you dissipate
your venom by spouting the bland "r-word" and not even at me directly, but
in a generalized spray.
But actually, you've inspired me to make a "gesture across the
races." I think I'll select a black person and go up to him and say: "Sir,
do you realize that Rudolf Steiner said that your child-like race
originally comes from the planet Mercury, while my stuffy middle-aged
Caucasian race comes from the planet Jupiter? Now just because our races
stem from different planets, with different rates of evolution, does that
mean we can't love each other like brothers now that we have outgrown our
racial roots ?" I'll keep you posted as to the results.
)))Tom Mellett
)))Department of Science Education (Physics)
)))University of Texas at Austin
)
)Seems like a serious problem for science if the people running science
)education think like Mellett.
Would you sleep better knowing that this academic "ivory tower" is really
more like a virtual bio-hazard facility where "educational viruses" like me
can be kept quietly quarantined and isolated from the public and private
schools of America? (Except for this Internet, heh, heh!!! I hear even
Charlie Manson is creating his own web page and that he is so hooked on the
Internet that he doesn't care any more about being paroled from prison. Now
that's rehabilitation!)
)It appears that superstition can infect even those nominally innoculated
)against it by reason and the scientific method.
(With apologies to the Beatles): "I am the Virus! Goo-goo-goo-joob!"
)Or have I got Mellett misplaced: is he NOT a scientist (just what ARE his
)academic credentials for critiquing the scientific method) -- is he really
)a member of the faculty of wicca or alchemy or creation sciences?
Ah, Michael, this is for me to know and you to find out. Didn't
someone characterize you on this list last year as a "pseudo-investigative
journalist?" ( or was it "wannabee?"--- isn't that an Australian mammal,
though?) Maybe you can dig up dirt on me and then I could incorporate it
into the novel I'm working on ---which, incidentally, involves a
protagonist (a graduate student in physics) who contacts the late Carl
Sagan after death and Carl tells him how right Rudolf Steiner was about
science, and how Carl wants to rectify the error of his Nominalist /
Positivist ways by being reincarnated as a child of parents who will send
him (or her) to a Waldorf School late in the 21st Century. My agent tells
me I need to have good opposition to ratchet up sales, so I smell a win-win
situation here, Michael. Whatever you dig up on me, I'll incorporate it
into my novel and then I could either give you credit in the front or else
use your real name as a character in the work. A deal?
)Please, do tell us, Mellet. And how DID you pass freshman comp with all
)those ""??
(I'll answer that, but first:
Please, do tell us, Kopp. And how DID you pass freshman spelling with all
)those extra "n's"??
))))))))......infect even those nominally innoculated......)))))))
You see, up above you spelled the word "inoculate" with two n's instead of
one. A precise scholar of the English language like yourself ought to know
that the word derives from the Latin "in oculo," meaning "in the eye." The
word "oculus" in Latin is a 2nd declension masculine noun which begins with
a vowel, so that any compounding prepositional prefixes do not need to
double the last letter of the prefix as you did.)
ANSWER:
Easy! I never took it! Back in 1966, when I was a freshman at America's
oldest engineering college, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New
York, I had to take a course in what was called "Rhetoric and Writing." I
hated it! Got a damn C in the course, ruining a perfect 4.00 GPA for me
since I aced all my "geek" courses in physics, calculus, etc. So what can
I say? Physics nurds and engineering geeks are not expected to be good
writers, right?
Tom Mellett.
P.S. Well, Michael, if you get too bored and antsy, might I suggest
that you start a Holy (sic) Crusade against that growing and dangerous race
of Pseudo-Scientists, Waldorfians and other assorted infidels. I'm sure you
could muster up some foot-soldiers from the various Skeptic Societies
around the country and then go on to orchestrate a master plan to establish
the "final solution to the pseudo-science problem," now, can't you? Carpe
diem, my man! Hit us while we're down! We just lost 39 in one fell swoop
in San Diego. Can the Waldorfians be far behind? Remember Waco! (The
Koresh Inferno was only 100 miles north of Austin. Great tourist site! If
you ever visit central Texas, call me up; I'll take you there.)
Just make sure your "candle in the dark" keeps burning!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n360.4 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Applewhite and Sagan
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:10:31 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Tom Mellett, you said,
))where did they get it from? If we are going to point fingers of blame, I
))would point mine directly at the present "golem" of modern science, which
))because of its refusal to accept a new epistemology and in consequence a
))new ontology, is busy cementing a gigantic modern "super-symmetrical,
))super-structure of super-superstition" which is ardently represented by
))"priests," "archbishops" and assorted "defenders of the faith" like the late
))Carl Sagan, for example.
I've always said that epistemology (what is reliable knowledge, and how can
it be obtained?) was at the root of our problems with Anthroposophy, so I'm
glad you agree with me. Just what is this "new epistemology" you propose?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n360.5 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Val Setzer's defense against charges of racism
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 01:10:26 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
VAL SETZER
)Hi, Dan,
)
)Thanks for the copy of your latest diatribes against Steiner and WE. I
)have immense pity on you.
)
)With love,
)Val.
)
)Valdemar W.Setzer Dept. of Computer Science, University of S\~ao Paulo, Brazil
) vwsetzer ime.usp.br http://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer
DAN DUGAN
Dear Val,
You can put your condescending "immense pity" where the sun don't shine. I
did ask you a direct question:
VAL SETZER
))Hope [Seidman], if you find any trace of
))racism in a
))W school, precisely in a W school, I think one should not call it
))"Waldorf."
DAN DUGAN
)OK, so, Val, will you go on record to say that the Zutphen (Netherlands)
)school which taught the block on cultural anthropology reported in De
)Volkskrant 4 Feb. 1995 should be disenfranchised? (See article on PLANS web
)site.)
DAN DUGAN
May I take it from your lack of response to the substance of my message
that by your standards, teaching things like "the black race belongs to the
night" is -not- racist because there is no ill-will in the statement? In
other words, we agree on malevolent racism, but not on what I call ignorant
racism?
Please explain your position.
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n360.6 ---------------
From: dsaykaly InterLink.NET (Daniel Saykaly)
Subject: Re: web visitors top 3000
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 10:05:44 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Congratulations Dan! Much continued success!
))Web Counter reports over 3000 visits to the PLANS web site since August, 1996.
))
))-dD-
))
))http://www.waldorfcritics.org
)
)The web site has been responsible for several families choosing either to
)get out of WE, or to stay away from WE. We have received several e-mails
)from grateful families.
)Deby
)
)
)
)
Daniel Saykaly
dsaykaly interlink.net
==============================================================================
IF YOU WRITE TO ME DIRECTLY, PLEASE PUT THE WORD "PERSONAL" IN _CAPS_ IN
THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR MESSAGE SO THAT IT'S EASY TO SPOT. THANKS!)
==============================================================================
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n360.7 ---------------
From: TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu (tom mellett)
Subject: Re: Applewhite and Sagan
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 09:41:03 -0600 (CST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
STEVE PREMO wrote:
)
)This is a joke, right? You can't be serious.
)
=======================
DAN DUGAN wrote:
I've always said that epistemology (what is reliable knowledge, and how can
it be obtained?) was at the root of our problems with Anthroposophy, so I'm
glad you agree with me. Just what is this "new epistemology" you propose?
=========================
Dear Steve & Dan,
First to answer Steve. No, it's no joke. I'm dead serious.
Now I may joke about and around the issue, but the issue itself is of
absolute serious concern to me. Surely I could have better restrained
myself emotionally in juxtaposing Applewhite and Sagan, but I let loose in
order to really juxtapose the underlying epistemological issues which lie
behind the men--- one man went by the "dogma of revelation" and the other
subscribed to "the dogma of experience." Steiner writes about this
difference in his book called _The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's
World View_, which was published in both Berlin and Stuttgart in 1886.
Now here comes a proposal I would like to make concerning
the discussion of these epistemological issues. I look upon the 3
newsgroups I'm involved with concerning Steiner to be like the
old-fashioned "One room schoolhouses." We have students and teachers of
various levels of knowledge about Steiner and Waldorf, both pro and con.
But there is also a "playground" outside where we take recess. Now my only
frustration with Dan's list here has been that we spend much too much time
on the playground, mud-wrestling with each other, and it is all great fun
and should continue, but, we need to carve out a "classroom" time and space
on space so we don't get so "punch-drunk" and exhausted all the time.
Therefore, I would like to see a specific thread, perhaps
identified by a symbol, maybe like (EPI) to stand for "epistemology." The
focus of the thread would be the works of Rudolf Steiner (ALL
philosophical) that were published up to the year 1893, when he published
his philosophical "magnum opus," _The Philosophy of Freedom_. For the
sake of this thread, I am willing to concede that somewhere in 1895, say,
Rudolf Steiner flipped out and started hallucinating. He became the editor
of the magazine "Lucifer-Gnosis"' and came out with books like _Knowledge
of Higher Worlds_, where he discusses ways to see auras around plants, etc.
Then he became General Secretary for the Theosophical Society in Germany in
1902, published _Christianity as Mystical fact _ in 1904, split with Annie
Besant and the Theosophists in 1907 and went his own way with anthroposophy
until his death in 1925.
So I thought of two basic "ground rules" for this thread,
and I mean ground rules specifically for my camp, the Waldorfians :
(1) No reference to any work of Rudolf Steiner published after
1893, unless it is entirely philosophical in content. That means: no
calling upon metaphysical entitites, e.g. angels, elemental beings, God,
Jesus, Lucifer, Ahriman, fairy tales, etc. in order to put forward an
argument for this thread.
(2) Waldorfians should read these books themselves before
commenting, but if that is not possible, then they should ask questions or
make comments germane (no pun intended) to the epistemological issues that
arise directly out of the reality we face today in 1997 and not just while
Steiner was living.
Since I'm familiar with these early works and know German as well,
I can comment on the earlyr historical end of the thread, which is a period
in Steiner's life roughly from 1882 to 1893, and also bring up problems
with translations of various words that are still troublesome today.
(For example, the German word "Geist" is almost always translated
as "spirit," but it can also mean "reason, mind, intellect." So, much of
what Anthropops think they mean when they say: "spiritual-this" and
"spirit-that" may actually refer at times to purely mundane intellectual
concerns and not indicate anything transcendant at all.)
On your side, Dan, I'd like to see all those issues brought back
from last year, like evolution, Goethe's and Newton's color theory,
anomalies in modern physics, etc. We were actually on numerous occasions
beginning to form this thread last year, especially when Lee Story and
Rigby Leighton were contributing, but it was always short-lived and in no
time at all, we were back to the usual mud-wrestling..
I think it should work because it still allows for the freedom of
"mud-wrestling" the WE issues, like charter schools, Steiner's racism,
etc., but simultaneously, we ought to have the epistemology class going on.
I don't propose that all of us have to sit in class and then all of us have
to go out for recess to mud-wrestle; rather, both activities should be open
to all at any given time. If we simply separate the "classroom" thread from
the "mud-wrestling" threads with just an (EPI) symbol, I think we could
make real progress with this epistemology issue.
Let me know what y'all think.
Tom.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n360.8 ---------------
From: dsaykaly InterLink.NET (Daniel Saykaly)
Subject: Re: Responsibility & accountability
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 11:31:10 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)wrensong monitor.net wrote,
)
)) The notion of "the angels watching" has been mentioned enough that
))I now believe it is probably a real part of the problem. It makes me want
))to ask what the angels are doing when children drown in pools, get hit by
))cars while riding bikes or get killed in wars or places like Auschwitz. The
))school might at least have given us a waiver to sign with our application
))that said, "I understand that my child's supervision will be undertaken
))almost soley by the angels. I therefore agree not to hold the teachers or
))school responsible for any injuries on the school property."
)
)This is rich. Do you think it should become part of our Waldorf disclosure
)document?
It certainly should! An extended version follows:
"Parents are advised that their children's safety and supervision throughout
their Waldorf education will be solely the responsibility of angelic
creatures specifically assigned to this work by the forces of cosmic
evolution. Parents agree that any accidents occurring on or near the school
grounds or while their children are on school outings will be, in the most
literal sense, Acts of God for which the school cannot be held accountable.
"Parents are also advised that due to the cosmic law of karma, their
children: (1) will benefit from any misfortunes befalling them (up to and
including death); and (2) deserve whatever happens to them due to their
actions in previous lifetimes.
"Parents are referred to "_______________" and "Reincarnation and Karma" to
read the wise insights of the great philosopher Rudolf Steiner concerning
these important subjects."
Daniel Saykaly
dsaykaly interlink.net
==============================================================================
IF YOU WRITE TO ME DIRECTLY, PLEASE PUT THE WORD "PERSONAL" IN _CAPS_ IN
THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR MESSAGE SO THAT IT'S EASY TO SPOT. THANKS!)
==============================================================================
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n360.9 ---------------
From: dsaykaly InterLink.NET (Daniel Saykaly)
Subject: Re: (anon) Thanks to the list!
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 11:47:16 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Score another one for your great work, Dan! Congratulations.
)[This message was received at waldorf-anon dandugan.com -dD-]
)
)I'm a current Waldorf parent (one child in children's garden at an East Coast
)school). I just wanted to let you know that your web page and critics list
)provided a valuable service to me in making a decision about whether to
)continue Waldorf education for my daughter. I've lurked for several months
)now on both your and Lefty's lists and based on that and my readings (Waldorf
)books, your articles on your WEB page, and other general books about children
)and education esp. E.D. Hirsch's new book) I've decided to pull my daughter
)out of Waldorf. The two main reasons are the religious aspect that underlies
)the curriculum (being a traditional Christian, my beliefs are inconsistent
)with anthroposophy) and my growing belief that later is not better when it
)comes to education. My daughter, with a summer birthday that makes her 6
)this August, would have spent another year in the children's garden. Work
)that out and she's not being taught to read until she's 7 and 8 years old.
) Way too late for a little girl who's chomping at the bit. Also, this being
)her first year in Waldorf, I took this year to investigate further the
)Steiner and anthroposophy angle and was more and more uncomfortable as I read
)about it. Your information was useful in that it tied together some loose
)ends that had been nagging like why they spend so much time on the
)Zoroastrian myths which are just a footnote in many mythology studies. Now I
)know! I also saw astrology charts in the 6th or 7th grade books and brushed
)it off at first, thinking they were merely explaining what people used to
)believe before they knew better.
)
)Anyway, that's my brief version of a very exhausting exploration of Waldorf
)education. Like you and others on this list, I was impressed by the warmth
)and caring that I saw when I first went in. (And I must admit that I still
)am impressed. I will also miss the beautiful home made crafts and the
)quality art materials!) But I see now that their "child development" theory
)and their curriculum stems from spiritual beliefs rather than scientific
)evidence.
)
)Thanks for a valuable service. You made my research process much easier than
)it would have been otherwise. Keep up the good work.
)
)
)
)
Daniel Saykaly
dsaykaly interlink.net
==============================================================================
IF YOU WRITE TO ME DIRECTLY, PLEASE PUT THE WORD "PERSONAL" IN _CAPS_ IN
THE SUBJECT LINE OF YOUR MESSAGE SO THAT IT'S EASY TO SPOT. THANKS!)
==============================================================================
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n360.10 ---------------
From: Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Applewhite and Sagan
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 08:36:45 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199704040433.UAA15639 lists1.best.com)
On 3 Apr 97 , tom mellett wrote:
) The point is that Sagan was just as enthusiastic about his belief in
) science as Applewhite was enthusiastic about his belief in pseudo-science.
) What's the difference?
This is rich! Applewhite was enthusiastic about his ideas, which were
totally wacko. Sagan is similarly enthusiastic about his ideas.
Therefore, his ideas are totally wacko.
I never thought of it that way before. Well, I'm sold! No more science
for me!
Nice troll, Tom. I got quite a chuckle out of it.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n360 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n361 --------------
001 - mckay oro.net - Re: Applewhite and Sagan
002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - admin: ad hominem noise
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n361.1 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: Applewhite and Sagan
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 12:19:07 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
tom mellett wrote:
)Dear Dan & other W. critiquers,
)
) I've been unsubscribed for the last few months due to time
)constraints,
You should have stayed unsubscribed if the content and bullshit you just
posted is what we have to look forward to!!!
)but I decided to resubscribe because I felt sure there had to
)be some heated discussion going on about the cult suicide (like, could
)Waldorfians be far behind the Heaven's Gate 39? ) Yet I've been on for two
)whole days now and not a word about it!
Maybe you shouldn't be so sure of your self after this!
)So I figured I ought to post
)something I originally sent last week to a physics mailing list at the
)Intuition Network.
Why??? Your post shows no signs of Intuition on your part, just BS.
David McKay
mellett's prattle:
)=============================
)
)) I was haunted by the face and expression of the cult leader,
))Marshall Herff Applewhite. I kept asking myself: "Where have I seen this
))exact expression before, complete with that bug-eyed, wide-eyed look of
))complete submission to an over-simplified belief system?" (Or to put it
))more bluntly, a look of "believing one's own BS.")
)) Finally, this morning, when I woke up, I had the answer. A picture
))flashed in my mind. It was that of Carl Sagan, probably on some Nova
))series, waxing wide-eyed and excitedly about the "billions and billions
))of_____________ (fill in the blank---he did all the time---be they cells,
))atoms, photons, etc.)
)) In one sense, I admired both men for "having the courage of their
))convictions," but that may just be damning both with faint praise.
))Yet the juxtaposition of these two "looks" and the identical nature of the
))INNER conviction about something believed to exist behind the OUTER
))trappings of our physical universe made me realize that the lesson in this
))cult suicide may be really for those who subscribe to the prevailing
))scientific belief system , the "cult of scientism" that always seems to
))stake out the "higher moral ground" whenever it finds a good new excuse to
))launch another "jihad" against perceived pseudo-scientists.
)) I was extremely disgusted to see Alan Hale, whose name is on the
))comet label, on television railing against the "ignorance and superstition"
))in our society. Does he not realize the self-created ignorance and
))superstition that lies at the basis of the sciences today? If those
))Heaven's Gate people had an over-simplified view of the universe, then
))where did they get it from? If we are going to point fingers of blame, I
))would point mine directly at the present "golem" of modern science, which
))because of its refusal to accept a new epistemology and in consequence a
))new ontology, is busy cementing a gigantic modern "super-symmetrical,
))super-structure of super-superstition" which is ardently represented by
))"priests," "archbishops" and assorted "defenders of the faith" like the late
))Carl Sagan, for example.
)) We may scoff at the dead cultists who believed that there was some
))kind of UFO trailing behind the Comet Hale-Bopp, yet what about physicists
))who solemnly believe in and even worship the convenient fiction of quarks,
))which are alleged by group theoretical scripture to "trail behind" the
))nucleons, which in turn "trail behind" the atoms, which in turn "trail
))behind" the molecules, which in turn "trail behind" the everyday physical
))phenomena we see directly. It seems to me that the "Hale-Boppers" only had
))ONE veil or curtain between their "maya" illusion and reality, yet I have
))just delineated at least FOUR "nested" veils that physicists put between
))direct human perception of phenomena and what is believed to exist as
))"Ding an sich" behind these phenomena. How many more veils ( i.e. metaphors
))of metaphors) will it take before modern scientists realize that they are
))caught up in as much of an orgy of blind faith and starry-eyed dogmatism as
))any religious fanatic?
))
))
))Tom Mellett
))Department of Science Education (Physics)
))University of Texas at Austin
I think this man has been ignored at his place of work/occupation for so
long that he's lost his senses, (or he's read to much Steiner!).
David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n361.2 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: admin: ad hominem noise
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 23:37:25 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)On Wed, 2 Apr 1997 21:11:44 -0600 (CST) Tom Mellett wrote a bunch of facile
)tripe that wouldn't even pass a freshman English composition class, much
)less a philosophy of science intro or survey course (I never saw so many ""
)marks in all my life):
Michael slings ad hominems, and Tom feels obligated to reply point by
point. Boring, both of you. There are real topics to discuss here. Please
don't make ad hominems, and if they are made of you, please just ignore
them.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n361 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n362 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Applewhite and Sagan
002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Applewhite and Sagan
003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - from Jorgen Wagner
004 - Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabs - Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
005 - levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk - Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
006 - levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk - Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
007 - Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabs - Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
008 - mckay oro.net - Re: Applewhite and Sagan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n362.1 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Applewhite and Sagan
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 00:07:12 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Tom Mellett, you wrote,
) Therefore, I would like to see a specific thread, perhaps
)identified by a symbol, maybe like (EPI) to stand for "epistemology." The
)focus of the thread would be the works of Rudolf Steiner (ALL
)philosophical) that were published up to the year 1893, when he published
)his philosophical "magnum opus," _The Philosophy of Freedom_. For the
)sake of this thread, I am willing to concede that somewhere in 1895, say,
)Rudolf Steiner flipped out and started hallucinating. He became the editor
)of the magazine "Lucifer-Gnosis"' and came out with books like _Knowledge
)of Higher Worlds_, where he discusses ways to see auras around plants, etc.
)Then he became General Secretary for the Theosophical Society in Germany in
)1902, published _Christianity as Mystical fact _ in 1904, split with Annie
)Besant and the Theosophists in 1907 and went his own way with anthroposophy
)until his death in 1925.
) So I thought of two basic "ground rules" for this thread,
)and I mean ground rules specifically for my camp, the Waldorfians :
)
) (1) No reference to any work of Rudolf Steiner published after
)1893, unless it is entirely philosophical in content. That means: no
)calling upon metaphysical entitites, e.g. angels, elemental beings, God,
)Jesus, Lucifer, Ahriman, fairy tales, etc. in order to put forward an
)argument for this thread.
Off-topic, Tom. Waldorf education is based on the whole body of Steiner's
work. A discussion limited to his early works might be suitable for the
Steiner list, but not the Waldorf list. It appears that you're learning (by
being banned on Anthropos-Science and warned on Lefty's) that in a
cult-like environment, a maverick believer is just as undesirable as an
unbeliever!
You seem to want to "save" Steiner by concentrating on his early
publications. I've read them too. I think the reason he doesn't have the
crazy stuff earlier is lack of confidence, i.e., he didn't have a personal
cult yet that was willing to accept his far-out proclamations; at that time
he was trying to build status in the "straight" world. As he went on he
gave up on that and instead developed a body of devotees who would swallow
anything from their master. More "secret knowledge" could be "revealed." In
my opinion Steiner didn't change, only his publication style.
Another point: if Steiner went crazy after 1895 ("I am willing to concede
that somewhere in 1895, say, Rudolf Steiner flipped out and started
hallucinating."), then you would agree that, since Waldorf education is
based Steiner's later work, that Waldorf is based on the teachings of a
madman?
) On your side, Dan, I'd like to see all those issues brought back
)from last year, like evolution, Goethe's and Newton's color theory,
)anomalies in modern physics, etc. We were actually on numerous occasions
)beginning to form this thread last year, especially when Lee Story and
)Rigby Leighton were contributing, but it was always short-lived and in no
)time at all, we were back to the usual mud-wrestling..
It's too bad Lee Story isn't subscribing at present, his takes on the
philosophical issues were always insightful and challenging. I hate the
trading of insults to which our subscribers sometimes descend. I'm sure the
issues of Newton vs Goethe, The Heart, and yes, epistemology, will
continue. They are Waldorf's Achilles heel.
Sinerely, Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n362.2 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Applewhite and Sagan
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 00:07:33 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Tom Mellett, you said,
) True, but if Sagan was more intelligent than Applewhite, then why
)are both men dead? Carl should have known better than to let his
)superstitious ideology get in the way of his own life, for Christ's sake.
)I admire Carl for the courage of his convicitons, but he didn't have to go
)so far as to "fall on his own sword" and die for the sake of maintaining
)the narrow tenets of scientism.
) Where he did not apply his intelligence was in his dogmatic
)rejection of the POSSIBILITY that
)a cure for his cancer might have been found in some alternative therapy.
)I'm not claiming it WOULD have worked, but it COULD have worked; however,
)Carl refused to allow even for the possibility and so he thus committed a
)more subtle form of "ritual suicide" by only allowing chemo-therapy which
)definitely did finish him off. God damn it, Michael, he had at least 25 of
)his best years left and he could have had them, but noooo, he had the faith
)of scientism to defend. And for that I admire him, so I can excuse his
)lapse of intelligence.
They're dead for quite different reasons, Tom. Carl Sagan died of an
incurable cancer. He tried the treatments which offered the best chances of
success, and died with dignity. He will be known forever as one of the
world's greatest science teachers.
Applewhite and his devotees died as the result of defective epistemology,
an epistemology very similar to Steiner's! They were unable to distinguish
fact from fantasy. A fatal philosophy infection. Applewhite will be known
for a brief time as a fool, and forgotten. To over-use the metaphor, he
can't hold a candle to Sagan. Your overblown rhetoric makes you look like a
nut yourself, Tom.
Susceptibility to cult belief systems has NOTHING to do with intelligence,
BTW. I'm sure Applewhite and his followers would have scored high on IQ
tests. Cults today are going for intelligent people because they have more
money. Gullibility is independent of intelligence.
Promotion of quack medicine was one of my original objections when I was a
parent at the San Francisco Waldorf school. Your statement "he didn't have
to go so far as to "fall on his own sword" and die for the sake of
maintaining the narrow tenets of scientism" displays an alarming ignorance
of medicine, Tom, especially for a college professor.
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n362.3 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: from Jorgen Wagner
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 00:06:49 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
-Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 19:24:27 +0100
-From: J=AFrgen Wagner ("desal inet.uni-c.dk" inet.uni-c.dk)
-Subject: Waldorf Schools
Dan Dugan
I have with interest read a good part of the files about the Waldorf
schools. Let me say from the start, that I mostly disagree with what I
have read. Another thing is that when I write "you" please take it as a
letter to the Sceptics.
=46or your information, both my wife and I have a degree as Master of
Science in Chemical Engineering from the Technical University of
Denmark.
I find it quite disturbing that the words "religion" and "occult" is
repeated again and again, almost like a mantra. Neither of these words
describes what I have experience in the 12 years my kids were in a
Waldorf school in Denmark and the more than 30 years I have known
Antroposophy. What I in Waldorf Schools have found (mostly) is a
down-to-earth attitude to the job of educating young human beings. I
have obviously seen some teachers who used antroposophy as a religion
rather than a tool and a philosophy, however that is in my opinion not
antroposophy in its true sense. Within the limits and short comings of
the school where my kids spent so many years of their lives, it worked
out quite well and I find the result satisfactory.
I also find it disturbing that none of the files I have seen are
concerned with the more scientific papers from Rudolf Steiner. Mr
Steiner has developed ideas which are being used in farming and in the
pharmaceutical industry. I am sure that a farmer or a medical doctor can
not survive for long if he tries to live in a dream world of religion.
I have a few point that I would like to make.
1 As you probably are aware Mr. Rudolf Steiner gave several
thousand papers. On that background I am not at all surprised that it is
possible to find some sentences or opinions, which can be found
disagreeable. Anybody saying or writing so much will inevitable step on
somebodies toes some-where and some- when.
2 Rudolf Steiner is, like you and I, a product of his time.
Steiner died 70 years ago and therefore he was influenced by opinions
and what was considered correct for more than 100 years ago. Take any
culture and you will find opinions or rules which you anno 1997 do not
like and find wrong.
Muslims of today still use the Sharia to cut off the right hand
of a thief
200 years ago slaves were traded as a natural thing in USA.
If you live in a time and culture where this is the norm then you write
about them. The critical comments in the papers I have seen are, from a
European point of view, very much a result of political correctness. If
the fact that "political incorrect" opinions have been printed should
mean, that the writer shall be forgotten, then we will have to scrap
most of the literature which we have inherited, including the Greek
philosophers, and you will be in agreement with Adolf Hitler, Maammar
Gaddafi and Josif Stalin.
3 There are many references to what is called "weird science".
And at first sight the "Antroposofical Science" may seem weird. However,
it is for me not more weird than the established science of today which
results in disaster after disaster. I can mention Three-mile-Island,
Tjernobyl, Thalido mide and Minamata (Japan, Hg poisoning). Maybe even
worse is the use of unknowing humans as guinea pigs all over the world
.e.g exposing soldiers to a nuclear explosion just to see what happens.
The science of today is inhuman by nature. The "weird science"
of Antroposophy is an attempt to make human science.
All these words to say, that if you see antroposophy as an other weird
religion you have every reason to be a sceptic. I find antroposofy to be
a new approach to reality and also a possibility which is difficult to
follow because it is necessary to abandon old and well known ways of
thinking.
Gentofte, April 5, 1997
Jorgen Wagner
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n362.4 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 97 03:21:21 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On Saturday, 5 April, Jorgen Wagner (desal inet.uni-c.dk) wrote
)I have with interest read a good part of the files about the Waldorf
)schools. Let me say from the start, that I mostly disagree with what I
)have read. Another thing is that when I write "you" please take it as a
)letter to the Sceptics.
OK, let me respond from a skeptical perspective. Anthroposophical
science is a bogus concept. There is only one science.
)For your information, both my wife and I have a degree as Master of
)Science in Chemical Engineering from the Technical University of
)Denmark.
This does not make either of you an expert on science in general, or
agricultural science in particular. Farmers have raised crops and
prospered for 1000's of years believing in supernatural powers and gods
of all sorts. While nature favored many, especially in times of bounty,
others were capriciously executed when conditions turned harsh. Thus,
it's not very impressive to point to a given group of farmers and allege
that because they are currently surviving, it proves the truth of (pick
your favorite) strange belief. It is likewise feeble to say that the
extinction of any particular group of farmers proves the falseness of
(pick your favorite "dangerous" agricultural practice).
Only open, replicable, controlled, randomized and double-blind (at the
least) experiment can cut the mustard as a standard of evidence.
Anything less is, well, religion. By these standards, the
homeopathy-based agricultural "science" of Biodynamic Agricultural is
demonstrably bogus.
)I find it quite disturbing that the words "religion" and "occult" is
)repeated again and again, almost like a mantra.
[snip stuff about 30 years of satisfaction with Antroposophy]
)
)I also find it disturbing that none of the files I have seen are
)concerned with the more scientific papers from Rudolf Steiner. Mr
)Steiner has developed ideas which are being used in farming and in the
)pharmaceutical industry. I am sure that a farmer or a medical doctor can
)not survive for long if he tries to live in a dream world of religion.
You may be sure, but this is not evidence. Homeopathy = quackery,
period.
)
)I have a few point that I would like to make.
)1 As you probably are aware Mr. Rudolf Steiner gave several
)thousand papers. On that background I am not at all surprised that it is
)possible to find some sentences or opinions, which can be found
)disagreeable. Anybody saying or writing so much will inevitable step on
)somebodies toes some-where and some- when.
)2 Rudolf Steiner is, like you and I, a product of his time.
)Steiner died 70 years ago and therefore he was influenced by opinions
)and what was considered correct for more than 100 years ago.
[... more politically correct/incorrect philosophy snipped]
)3 There are many references to what is called "weird science".
)And at first sight the "Antroposofical Science" may seem weird. However,
)it is for me not more weird than the established science of today which
)results in disaster after disaster.
Gee, modern science causes disasters, therefore (pick your favorite)
mystical science is therefore true. You know, homeopathy was around in
1918 when it claimed to cure just about everything. It was unable to
save the 25 million who died from the flu epidemic in those years.
Didn't do very well with polio and smallpox either.
)I can mention Three-mile-Island, Tjernobyl, Thalido mide and Minamata (Japan,
Hg poisoning).
Just because you can mention these disasters, it doesn't logically follow
that they were caused by your favorite whipping boy, science.
I would argue that population pressure leads to these disasters. Spills
of super-toxic substances are only significant when they overwhelm the
environmental systems. Nature already makes substances that are as toxic
as "science" can summon. Only political maturity and social wisdom can
ultimately keep human populations from outstripping the carrying capacity
of their environment.
Imaginary science, like a lot of Steiner's visions, is toxic to political
and social wisdom, and therefore not going to get my vote.
)Maybe even
)worse is the use of unknowing humans as guinea pigs all over the world
).e.g exposing soldiers to a nuclear explosion just to see what happens.
) The science of today is inhuman by nature.
Nonsense, humanity can be cruel regardless of the technology. The
natural urge to be fruitful and multiply leads to wars for available
resources.
)The "weird science" of Antroposophy is an attempt to make
)human science.
)
Sure, and now the "new reality" message:
)
)All these words to say, that if you see antroposophy as an other weird
)religion you have every reason to be a sceptic.
)I find antroposofy to be
)a new approach to reality and also a possibility which is difficult to
)follow because it is necessary to abandon old and well known ways of
)thinking.
Yup, scientist Rudolph saw all the homeopathic suff, but somehow missed
DNA. Sure makes me want to go back.
So, two masters in chemistry over 30 years ago. What have you guys done
to keep current with, say the chemistry of homeopathy?
)
)Gentofte, April 5, 1997
)Jorgen Wagner
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
http://home.earthlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss
Daniel Sabsay home.earthlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss
Macintosh Consultant Ignorance is the Ultimate Renewable Resource
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n362.5 ---------------
From: levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 12:57:18 +0100 (BST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
In-Reply-To: (199704071122.EAA03493 lists1.best.com)
Daniel writes:
"Only open, replicable, controlled, randomized and double-blind (at the
least) experiment can cut the mustard as a standard of evidence.
Anything less is, well, religion."
I assume that this statement is therefore a religious one.
Paul Levy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n362.6 ---------------
From: levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 12:59:32 +0100 (BST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
In-Reply-To: (199704071122.EAA03493 lists1.best.com)
Daniel writes:
"Only open, replicable, controlled, randomized and double-blind (at the
least) experiment can cut the mustard as a standard of evidence.
Anything less is, well, religion."
I assume this to be a religious statement.
Paul Levy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n362.7 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 97 20:21:31 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 4/7/97, Paul Levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk) wrote )
)Daniel [Sabsay] writes:
)
)"Only open, replicable, controlled, randomized and double-blind (at the
)least) experiment can cut the mustard as a standard of evidence.
)Anything less is, well, religion."
)
)I assume this to be a religious statement.
Assume what you like, but don't attempt to sell medical products or
services to the public based on this illusion.
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
http://home.earthlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss
Daniel Sabsay home.earthlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss
Macintosh Consultant Ignorance is the Ultimate Renewable Resource
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n362.8 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: Applewhite and Sagan
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 23:05:23 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
tom mellett answers:
)The point is that Sagan was just as enthusiastic about his belief in
)science as Applewhite was enthusiastic about his belief in pseudo-science.
)What's the difference?
Boy tom, don't let the department head at your college see the question
above! If you don't or can't see the difference between these two you've
got problems.
)Michael Kopp:
))At least his wild-eyed looks had some intelligence behind them.
)Tom:
) True, but if Sagan was more intelligent than Applewhite, then why
)are both men dead?
Lets see... Mr Sagan died of cancer that was not only not curable in him,
but thousands of other people also. Mr Applewhite committed suicide and
took 38 others with him because he was to chicken to do it alone ( he was
also dying of cancer).
Tom:
)Carl should have known better than to let his
)superstitious ideology get in the way of his own life, for Christ's sake.
)I admire Carl for the courage of his convicitons, but he didn't have to go
)so far as to "fall on his own sword" and die for the sake of maintaining
)the narrow tenets of scientism.
) Where he did not apply his intelligence was in his dogmatic
)rejection of the POSSIBILITY that
)a cure for his cancer might have been found in some alternative therapy.
)I'm not claiming it WOULD have worked, but it COULD have worked; however,
)Carl refused to allow even for the possibility and so he thus committed a
)more subtle form of "ritual suicide" by only allowing chemo-therapy which
)definitely did finish him off. God damn it, Michael, he had at least 25 of
)his best years left and he could have had them, but noooo, he had the faith
)of scientism to defend. And for that I admire him, so I can excuse his
)lapse of intelligence.
)
All the friends and aquaitences of mine that have died of cancer went the
"alternative" route. Believing in all kinds of mumbo jumbo crap (bless
their hearts) and rejecting main-stream treatments. NONE lived to show how
great their belief in "alternative" ways _worked_! On the other hand,
those friends and aquaitences that used some common sense and used the
main-stream methods are still alive! Too many of those very missed friends
were in their late twenties & early thirties, that's 15 to 20 years now
that I've carried some very sad memories of what I felt was misguided blind
faith by some _very_ intelligent and creative people.
Tom:
) Can I help it if I suffer from low self-esteem?
Tom, maybe you should confir with some proffesional help on this? In fact
after reading all the rest of your dribble that came after this last
proclamation about yourself, I'm sure you need to see LOTS of different
types of proffesionals. Hope you seek help soon.
David McKay
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n362 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n363 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Admin: ad hominems
002 - levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk - Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
003 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
004 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
005 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - (from Val Setzer) ...defense against charges of racism
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n363.1 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Admin: ad hominems
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 00:50:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
McKay wrote:
)Tom, maybe you should confir with some proffesional help on this? In fact
)after reading all the rest of your dribble that came after this last
)proclamation about yourself, I'm sure you need to see LOTS of different
)types of proffesionals. Hope you seek help soon.
David, please stop making *ad hominem* remarks. Tom, please ignore the above.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n363.2 ---------------
From: levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 10:38:51 +0100 (BST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
In-Reply-To: (199704080428.VAA23442 lists1.best.com)
My, my !
For someone who belieives in the scientific outline you sure are devoutly
religious !
Paul
On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Daniel Sabsay wrote:
) On 4/7/97, Paul Levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk) wrote )
)
) )Daniel [Sabsay] writes:
) )
) )"Only open, replicable, controlled, randomized and double-blind (at the
) )least) experiment can cut the mustard as a standard of evidence.
) )Anything less is, well, religion."
) )
) )I assume this to be a religious statement.
)
) Assume what you like, but don't attempt to sell medical products or
) services to the public based on this illusion.
)
) -- Daniel Sabsay, president
) East Bay Skeptics Society
) http://home.earthlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss
)
) Daniel Sabsay home.earthlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss
) Macintosh Consultant Ignorance is the Ultimate Renewable Resource
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n363.3 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 08:07:57 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199704090943.CAA02908 lists1.best.com)
O.K. Paul, it's early, but I can't understand what you have based your
assertion on. Please explain.
Deby
levy wrote:
)
) My, my !
) For someone who belieives in the scientific outline you sure are devoutly
) religious !
)
) Paul
)
)
On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Daniel Sabsay wrote:
)
) ) On 4/7/97, Paul Levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk) wrote )
) )
) ) )Daniel [Sabsay] writes:
) ) )
) ) )"Only open, replicable, controlled, randomized and double-blind (at the
) ) )least) experiment can cut the mustard as a standard of evidence.
) ) )Anything less is, well, religion."
) ) )
) ) )I assume this to be a religious statement.
) )
) ) Assume what you like, but don't attempt to sell medical products or
) ) services to the public based on this illusion.
) )
) ) -- Daniel Sabsay, president
) ) East Bay Skeptics Society
) ) http://home.earthlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss
) )
) ) Daniel Sabsay home.earthlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss
) ) Macintosh Consultant Ignorance is the Ultimate Renewable Resource
) )
) )
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n363.4 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 97 13:34:13 +0100
Daniel:
)Only open, replicable, controlled, randomized and double-blind (at
)the least) experiment can cut the mustard as a standard of evidence.
)Anything less is, well, religion.
Paul:
)I assume this to be a religious statement.
It is, of course, one of the central tenets of the religion of
scientism (a religion that I am discovering many scientists do not
subscribe to - but which is still popular with an extensive lay
community).
There are two observations worth making here. The first is that
although the data that come out of the experiment should ideally be
'open, replicable, controlled, randomized and double-blind' - the
whole experimental conception may have been deliberately contrived to
eliminate extraneous data that might point to an alternative
hypothesis, and to give the appearance that the results are an
inevitable conclusion of the hypothesis. Thus the wonderfully
theatrical presentation of Newton's 'experimentum crucis' - which
conveniently ignores the conditions that give rise to the 'spectrum
of darkness'. No doubt this explains why so many lay people are
'blinded by science' - but that some, at least, of the scientific
community aren't anything like so certain...
The second observation is that this principle excludes any hypothesis
that suggests that the natural world might not be replicable,
controlled and so thoroughly homogenous that the same conditions will
invariably give rise to the same results. It is, then, in this
respect a self-fulfilling prophesy.
James
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n363.5 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: (from Val Setzer) ...defense against charges of racism
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 23:49:35 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
-Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 17:53:58 -0300 (GMT-0300)
-From: "Valdemar W. Setzer" (vwsetzer ime.usp.br)
-To: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
-Subject: Re: Val Setzer's defense against charges of racism
Hi, Dan
PLEASE SEND THIS TO YOUR LIST IN ITS ENTIRETY (THAT IS, WITHOUT SNIPS)
On Fri, 4 Apr 1997, Dan Dugan wrote:
) You can put your condescending "immense pity" where the sun don't shine. I
) did ask you a direct question:
1. I know my English is quite poor, but did not know it was sooo poor. I
thought the Sun stood for a singular, not a collective noun, so I would
have expected a "doesn't," but as you are so sure of your positions, now I
am in doubt. It was certainly not a typo from your part, because two
letters are different. Please answer this doubt.
2. Sun shine. Wow, that's exactly what I think you are in urgent need of,
Dan! You need some of the spirit that accompaies physical light from the
sun. If you care to _seriously_ read some Steiner, forgetting for a moment
your apparent hatred and prejudices, you will learn what I mean with this.
) VAL SETZER
) ))Hope [Seidman], if you find any trace of
) ))racism in a
) ))W school, precisely in a W school, I think one should not call it
) ))"Waldorf."
)
) DAN DUGAN
) )OK, so, Val, will you go on record to say that the Zutphen (Netherlands)
) )school which taught the block on cultural anthropology reported in De
) )Volkskrant 4 Feb. 1995 should be disenfranchised? (See article on PLANS web
) )site.)
Dan, I think it makes no sense and it is a waste of time to hold a
discussion with a person (you) that has the cruelty of writing (to the
w-critics list)
)))Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 02:14:37 -0700
)))I do hold Steiner responsible for laying some of the
)))foundations upon which the holocaust was built, a
showing so much lack of understanding for what Anthroposophy and Nazism
are/was.
Nevertheless, you are asking direct questions to me. I think everybody
that asks me a question deserves an answer, independently on what I think
his moral standings or his spiritual masters are.
3. You question makes no sense. Waldorf schools are not part of a
franchising system. When I read your mail, I immediately thought of
MacDonald's, KFC, Pizza Hut and other American what-nots which have
populated the whole world. But then I remembered that you are not a
complete idiot and a complete ignorant of Waldorf Education, so there was
probably a misunderstanding of the English word form my part. So I went to
American Heritage (I have the 1970 edition), where I found (pp. 522 - with
a suggestive Franco picture on topF): 1. A priviledge or right granted a
person or a group by a government, a state, or sovereign etc. 2.
Authorization granted by a manufacturer or distributor or dealer to sell
his products. 3. The territory or limits within which some priviledge,
right or immunity my be exercised. 4. The deductible feature of an
insurance policy.
None of AH characterizations apply to Waldorf Schools. They are absolutely
free to do what they think is better for them. They don't need an
authorization to open or to continue to exist (in our contry, even the
right to use the name "Waldorf"). So I cannot answwer your question, I am
sorry. Probably you know about W schools even less than I thought from
your allegations against them.
4. What does Volkskrant stands for? A newspaper? I would not base my
knowledge on newspaper news. In our miserable capitalistic jungles, mass
communication media do not exist to inform or transmit knowledge, but to
sell subscribers, buyers and viewers to advertisers. For instance, today's
issue of the newspaper we subscribe, "O Estado de S\~ao Paulo", probably
the most serious in the country, has about 480 pages (I counted 120
sheets). Imagine how many of them transmit any useful knowledge (other
than aevrtisement to people that look for or are uncousniously
influenced by them).
5. I am not going to waste my time searching for additional information.
Send it to me if you wish me to read it. Moreover, I have been told that
PLANS is an organization where you are in its board, Dan. I think people
that work and live with you probably have the same problems as you have,
so I don't think I can guarantee that I am going to waste my time reading
their stuff.
) DAN DUGAN
) May I take it from your lack of response to the substance of my message
) that by your standards, teaching things like "the black race belongs to the
) night" is -not- racist because there is no ill-will in the statement? In
) other words, we agree on malevolent racism, but not on what I call ignorant
) racism?
6. My lack of response does not mean that I agree with any of your
statements! You are not allowed (by me) to think about my unexpressed
positions.
7. Who has taught "the black..."? A teacher? If so, have you or someone
else asked him if he really said those words, and what he intended to
express with them?
8. Why are you associating something inferior to the night? It is so
necessary to our lifes as is the day. In fact, it is more associated with
our inner spiritual activities, and not so much with our earthly,
professional or house chores. When I say "inferior" I am here supposing
that your reasonings about someone being racist involves some
(misterious?) values of superiority/inferiority. Should we maybe interpret
the phrase as being racist because it values the night more than the day,
and so it diminishes the value of the non-black skin-colored peoples? Or
maybe it refers to something that contains no judgement of value? Do you
think a phrase like "most of the best NBA athletes are Afro-americans" is
racist?
) Please explain your position.
Please answer everyone of my questions.
) Sincerely, Dan Dugan
With an even greater pitty on you,
Val.
Valdemar W.Setzer Dept. of Computer Science, University of S\~ao Paulo, Brazil
vwsetzer ime.usp.br http://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n363 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n364 --------------
001 - Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabs - Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
002 - levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk - Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
003 - e-train mindspring.com - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n363
004 - mckay oro.net - Re: Admin: ad hominems
005 - "Marc MERIEL" (marmeriel -
006 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n363
007 - Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabs - Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n364.1 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 97 20:24:38 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 4/10/97 James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk) wrote )
)There are two observations worth making here. The first is that
)although the data that come out of the experiment should ideally be
)'open, replicable, controlled, randomized and double-blind' - the
)whole experimental conception may have been deliberately contrived to
)eliminate extraneous data that might point to an alternative
)hypothesis, and to give the appearance that the results are an
)inevitable conclusion of the hypothesis. Thus the wonderfully
)theatrical presentation of Newton's 'experimentum crucis' - which
)conveniently ignores the conditions that give rise to the 'spectrum
)of darkness'. No doubt this explains why so many lay people are
)'blinded by science' - but that some, at least, of the scientific
)community aren't anything like so certain...
)
In your head, James.
)The second observation is that this principle excludes any hypothesis
)that suggests that the natural world might not be replicable,
)controlled and so thoroughly homogenous that the same conditions will
)invariably give rise to the same results. It is, then, in this
)respect a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Whining here about the blindness of "an extensive lay
community" is a waste of constructive energy.
Why don't you or Paul Levy, or anybody else in the Junior
Anthroposophical League show the world objective knowledge derived from
your "new approach to reality", and win $1,000,000 from the skeptics?
See our Website at the address below for details.
Better yet, show the science community you have a breakthrough, and win
the Nobel Prize.
-- Daniel sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
http://home.earthlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n364.2 ---------------
From: levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:42:48 +0100 (BST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
In-Reply-To: (199704110326.UAA17266 lists1.best.com)
The problem is (by your own definition) it would be one religion trying to
present its religious beliefs to another one, og which, I guess, (if I am
a junior anthroposophist WRONG! I am not an anthroposophist at all), you
are a junior priest of the religion known as the "skeptics".
Amen
On Thu, 10 Apr 1997, Daniel Sabsay wrote:
) On 4/10/97 James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk) wrote )
)
) )There are two observations worth making here. The first is that
) )although the data that come out of the experiment should ideally be
) )'open, replicable, controlled, randomized and double-blind' - the
) )whole experimental conception may have been deliberately contrived to
) )eliminate extraneous data that might point to an alternative
) )hypothesis, and to give the appearance that the results are an
) )inevitable conclusion of the hypothesis. Thus the wonderfully
) )theatrical presentation of Newton's 'experimentum crucis' - which
) )conveniently ignores the conditions that give rise to the 'spectrum
) )of darkness'. No doubt this explains why so many lay people are
) )'blinded by science' - but that some, at least, of the scientific
) )community aren't anything like so certain...
) )
) In your head, James.
)
) )The second observation is that this principle excludes any hypothesis
) )that suggests that the natural world might not be replicable,
) )controlled and so thoroughly homogenous that the same conditions will
) )invariably give rise to the same results. It is, then, in this
) )respect a self-fulfilling prophesy.
)
) Whining here about the blindness of "an extensive lay
) community" is a waste of constructive energy.
)
) Why don't you or Paul Levy, or anybody else in the Junior
) Anthroposophical League show the world objective knowledge derived from
) your "new approach to reality", and win $1,000,000 from the skeptics?
) See our Website at the address below for details.
)
) Better yet, show the science community you have a breakthrough, and win
) the Nobel Prize.
)
) -- Daniel sabsay, president
) East Bay Skeptics Society
) http://home.earthlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss/
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n364.3 ---------------
From: e-train mindspring.com
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n363
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:06:37 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)
)McKay wrote:
)
))Tom, maybe you should confir with some proffesional help on this? In fact
))after reading all the rest of your dribble that came after this last
))proclamation about yourself, I'm sure you need to see LOTS of different
))types of proffesionals. Hope you seek help soon.
)
)Then Dugan wrote:
)
)David, please stop making *ad hominem* remarks. Tom, please ignore the above.
)
)-Dan Dugan
)
)
)
)
May I suggest that David McKay be removed from this list. His comments are
often very hostile and IMHO he is the one who should seek therapy. He
appears to be an angry soul, who is making too many people upset.
Eric
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n364.4 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: Admin: ad hominems
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 1997 10:54:35 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dan, you left out Mr. Mellett's statement that prompted my response "Can I
help it if I suffer from low self-esteem?". For the sake of clarity I
would like to say that I respect your warning about *ad hominem's* and
there use on this discusion list. I would also like to clarify the
definition of ad hominem: "Appealing to prejudice rather than reason." My
statement to Mr Mellett was meant in all seriousness. I really felt he
was either "playing head games" or needed some proffesional help. There
was no prejudice to my statement, since my advice was the result of reading
Mr Mellett's postings and then coming to the conclusion that I did, and
that is, calling an Ace an Ace. I meant no insult to Mr Mellett, just a
friendly and honest observation. I also agree that he can ignore it if he
so chooses.
Respectfully, David McKay
)McKay wrote:
)
))Tom, maybe you should confir with some proffesional help on this? In fact
))after reading all the rest of your dribble that came after this last
))proclamation about yourself, I'm sure you need to see LOTS of different
))types of proffesionals. Hope you seek help soon.
)
)David, please stop making *ad hominem* remarks. Tom, please ignore the above.
)
)-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n364.5 ---------------
From: "Marc MERIEL" (marmeriel msn.com)
Subject:
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 97 20:47:23 UT
unsubscribe.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n364.6 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n363
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 09:53:59 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199704111310.GAA14472 lists1.best.com)
On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 09:06:37 -0400, another anonymous poster (the
mysterious el wasn't enough?) calling himself "Eric"
(e-train mindspring.com), said:
))
))McKay wrote:
))
)))Tom, maybe you should confir with some proffesional help on this? In fact
)))after reading all the rest of your dribble that came after this last
)))proclamation about yourself, I'm sure you need to see LOTS of different
)))types of proffesionals. Hope you seek help soon.
))
))Then Dugan wrote:
))
))David, please stop making *ad hominem* remarks. Tom, please ignore the above.
))
))-Dan Dugan
And the mysterious ERIC wrote:
)May I suggest that David McKay be removed from this list. His comments are
)often very hostile and IMHO he is the one who should seek therapy. He
)appears to be an angry soul, who is making too many people upset.
)
)Eric
Now KOPP says:
Get real. McKay has a right to be angry. If you read the archives of this
list, he has suffered a lot at the hands of Steindorfpopians, both off and
on this list.
This list is not only for genteel "discussion" of the subject.
It is for, among others, people who have been ripped off by Waldorf, in
order that they may express that anger and warn prospective entrants of the
dangers and excesses of Waldorf.
McKay making "too many people upset"? Who? The defenders of the faith of
SteinDorfPop? You? Oh, my. That's rich. I've withstood heaps worse acrimony
and vitriol from the defenders. Sauce for the goose, in my opinion.
And good on McKay.
And, I disagree with the list owner on what constitutes an ad hominem. I
don't think McKay's comments about Mellet are that far off the mark, and I
don't think he should be silenced.
The list owner has already been attacked privately with complaints by
Steindorfpops to his Internet service provider, unfairly, in my opinion,
and has gone a long way to accommodate everyone and still maintain the
rigour and vigour of this list.
The day Dan Dugan starts kicking people off the list for "ad hominems" as
gentle as David McKay's -- or acceding to trolls like yours, "Eric" -- is
the day I will know Dugan has lost his commitment to Internet free speech,
and his list has declined in worth.
That will be a sad day for all critical thinkers. I doubt that it will happen.
In the meantime, perhaps the mysterious Eric would like to tell us who he
really is? This appears to be only his second post to this list (I didn't
go all the way back in my brief search). The first one got him a MYOB
pasting from the chief defender of the faith (Stephen Tonkin).
Michael Kopp
Wellington New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n364.7 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 97 18:58:48 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 4/11/97 Paul Levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk) wrote )
)The problem is (by your own definition) it would be one religion trying to
)present its religious beliefs to another one, og which, I guess, (if I am
)a junior anthroposophist WRONG! I am not an anthroposophist at all), you
)are a junior priest of the religion known as the "skeptics".
)
)Amen
This is nonsense.
Institutions ordering medicine for gangrene or plague will choose
antibiotics, not homeopathic remedies. You do not need to believe in
quantum mechanics to feel the heat from a chain reaction. This is not a
religious issue, it is the heart of the concept of causality.
If you cannot demonstrate that a process has an expected outcome with
odds greater than chance, there is no reason for anyone (except your clan
of believers) to interpret this as causality. Airplanes run reliably,
even if you do not believe in the lessons learned by the engineers who
built according to nature's rules. Even devoutly religious terrorists
must use the chemistry & physics of bombs to bring down airplanes, not
their overwhelming emotion and feelings of rightousness.
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
http://home.earthlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss
Daniel Sabsay home.earthlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss
Macintosh Consultant Ignorance is the Ultimate Renewable Resource
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n364 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n365 --------------
001 - tom mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Truth and Certainty (a la Karl Popper)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n365.1 ---------------
From: tom mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Truth and Certainty (a la Karl Popper)
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 12:12:49 -0500 (CDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
When two tennis players are in a match, it is belaboring the
obvious to make the observation that they are playing on the same court.
So it is with any conflict. In looking at your conflict with WE, I ask
myself what "common ground" or "common boxing ring" you both share.
Otherwise you wouldn't even notice each other's existence.
It strikes me that my own problems with WE, as well as with
anything the followers of Steiner put forth today, is that they are stuck
in a time warp, as if the world ended in 1925 when Steiner died and that
they "freeze-dried" his legacy, preserving it like a wooly mammoth in an
ice block. (BTW, read the 4th of 12 essays in "Coming into Being"
(St.Martin's Press, NY, 1996) by William Irwin Thompson for a good send-up
of this aspect of Steiner's followers in regard to eurythmy (pp. 82-83)).
However, it also strikes me that your own epistemology concerning
science is also "freeze-dried" in 1925, since that is the year that de
Broglie formulated his idea of "matter waves," Heisenberg was bringing out
his "Uncertainty Principle," an in 1931, Kurt Goedel published his
Incompleteness Theorem. In short, your scientific world view is as
pre-quantum physics as is Steiner's and Waldorf. No wonder you can focus
so well on them!
Of course you are not alone in this. A survey of the college
science curriculm today shows that the same old quaint Industrial Age,
Victorian epistemology is at work. In short, the epistemology says that a
very accurate approximation to reality is as good as reality. As we
approach the 21st Century, modern science is discovering just how woefully
inadequate is this stance.
The problem is stated very well by one of your favorite
philosophers of science, Sir Karl Popper. It is the distinction he makes
between truth and certainty. I quote him from the book: _Mind in Nature_, a
compendium of lectures given by various scholars at the 17th Nobel
Conference held at Gustavus Adolphus College, MN in 1981. (Harper & Row,
S.F., 1981, Richard Q. Elvee, editor):
-------------------------------------------------------------
"... a testable and well-tested conjecture is, I suggest, the very
best kind of knowledge that we can have. Thus I suggest, even our best
knowledge is tentative knowledge, conjectural knowledge. This includes the
natural sciences: even scientific knowledge remains conjectural, although
it is the best knowledge we have. It is tentative knowledge that has been
severely criticized. It consists of testable, tentative conjectures.
"We cannot reach certainty: not even the best theories of the
natural sciences are certain. (They cannot even be said to be more probable
than improbable, if we take probability in any of the senses that satisfy
the laws of the calculus of probability.) All we can do is to criticize
them, and to test them, as severley as our ingenuity permits.
"This view of mine has often been misunderstood. Thus it has often
been said, wrongly, that I reject the concept of truth. I do not: I think
that truth is the aim of all our intellectual endeavors. "
(Pages 31-32)
---------------------------------------------------------------
And it is precisely this lack of distinction between truth and
certainty that charactertizes the 1920's time warp shared both by the
Waldorf critics and the Waldorfians. It is really not an argument over
truth vs. falsity; rather arguments rage over the issues of certainty of
knowledge in the pursuit of truth. I think we can all agree that everyone
on this List is one way or another dedicated to searching for truth. The
question is how do we deal with the inherent uncertainty in that search?
Later on, I might get into the issue of the Uncertainty Principle
and its effects on scientific attitudes today, but for this discussion, the
principle is best illustarted by analysing what you have called the "ad
hominem" arguments.
They fall into two neatly polar-opposite categories. If I were to
take all the "ad hominems" directed at me, they consider me as too
expanded, too "out there," too "spaced-out" or crazy in the sense of being
too manic. My mental state is too fluidic or gaseous, vaporous, impossible
to pin down, all over the place, implying that the directors of the remarks
believe themselves to be: "together, contracted, realistic, tightly bound
to practical,no-nonsense, day-to-day reality. ("What you get is what you
see!")
On the other side, the "ad hominems" directed at Dan Dugan are like
arrows being shot from on high. As a classic and recent example, I really
get a chuckle out of all the piles and piles of "immense pity" being dumped
on Dan (below) by Val Setzer (above). Thus Dan is viewed as being too
"contracted, too rigid in thinking, too dry, too focussed on the "trees"
and not the "forest," etc., too much in the "here and now." If anything,
Dan, you are seen as "spaced-in," "stuck in yourself," or wallowing in the
dark depressive side of the manic-depressive polarity. ("What you see is
what you get.")
Now I'd like to characterize the logic structure of the two kinds
of arguments. First, I'd like to point out the close relationship between
the concepts of "certainty-uncertainty" and "consistency-inconsistency." In
1931, the mathemetician Kurt Goedel proved that any fully self-consistent
system, e.g. artithmetic, is incomplete. That is to say, there exist
propositions and assertions that exist outside the consistent system and
hence are "undecidable" when proof or disproof of them is attempted.
The application of this Incompleteness Theorem is that you can
achieve full consistency at the cost of incompleteness; but if you posit
completeness, then you must deal with the necessary inconsistencies that
will plague your complete system. In other words, you cannot "eat your cake
and have it too."
This distinction expresses what Popper is saying above. Truth is
completeness; while certainty is consistency. Actually, I should more
accurately say it this way: Truth is the BELIEF in completeness
while certainty is the BELIEF in consistency.
I bring in the "B" word because that is exactly how all human
beings decide these "undecidable propositions." For example, let us take
the undecidable proposition of the existence of God. No one can logically
or scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God. Whichever side
you fall out on this issue, whether atheist or devout religious beliver,
the issue is finally decided by a leap of faith. It has to be, because the
proposition is undecidable within the system of logic that we use in our
culture.
Thus, Dan, you as an atheist have just as much certainty that
there is NO God, as a devout Muslim has certainty that there IS a God named
Allah. You both arrive at your respective positions by equal amounts of
BELIEF. And belief is a judgment that comes from our emotions and as such
it expresses itself in opposites. That is the nature of judgments, whether
they be "ad hominem" arguments or proofs and disproofs of the existence of
God.
Now to get back to the "ad hominems" on the List. My "leap of
faith" is a leap toward completeness. However, I know that if I claim
completeness for any system, be it Steiner's or modern physics or whatever,
I must acknowledge the existence of the inconsistencies that will, of
necessity, permeate my complete system. So I revel in these
inconsistencies. You might even say I worship them, since any leap of faith
is religious in nature. At least they don't bother me like they bother you.
On the other side, Dan, you worship at the altar of consistency and
certainty. Logical inconsistencies upset you. Thus you rightfully and
correctly point out the many inconsistencies of logic that Waldorfians
adhere to. So what! Inconsistencies "go with the territory" of system
completeness. In quantum physics today, logical inconsistencies are
ABSOLUTELY CENTRAL to the entire subject!!!
So it is no surprise that you would see Steiner and by your
syllogism, me, as crazy or mad, in the sense of me "being spaced out, way
out there." Completeness is like a giant balloon being ever blown up more
and more.
On the other hand, a belief in full consistency or "worship of
certainty" means that your "leap of faith" (actually more like a "falling
backwards" and down into yourself) demands that you stay within the
confines of yourself and trust only what you can prove or disprove within
the narrow limits of your very incomplete system. But you yourself, by
your belief, have created these limitations and self-imposed them. We all
do that, of course, but the problem arises when you believe that your fully
consistent system can also be simultaneously complete, and thus applicable
to others, e.g. Waldorfians. It can't be in reality, but you obviously
BELIEVE that it can be and should be!
(I just got a picture of you, Dan, as a "Carrie Nation type" of
abolitionist who bursts into the Waldorf Saloon and tries to drag out all
the drunken Waldorfian revelers. I agree with you that these silly drunks
ought to be sobered up, but why do you blame the "alcohol" (literally
spirits)? My point is that the alcohol can be drunk in moderation).
Anyway, let me end this long post for now with a few more Popper
quotes from the same book.
[Popper's emphasis throughout]
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The claim that truth is objective and absolute may sound arrogant;
and it would be arrogant if it were combined with the claim that we know
the truth; or that we possess a criterion of truth, that is to say, some
means by which we recognize a proposition that agrees with the facts. But
to say that truth is objective and absolute is far from arrogant when it is
combined with fallibilism, with the doctrine that the possibility of error
affects all, or almost all, our knowledge, and that it makes all our best
and most interesting knowledge conjectural." (Page 33)
"....TRUTH can never be known with CERTAINTY; and this means that
we have to distinguish sharply between truth and certainty: truth is
objective, and may be achieved. Certainty, or certain truth, cannot be
achieved at all. Thus the distinction between truth and certainty is of
decisive importance."
(Page 34)
"Even our best knowledge, the well-tested scientific knowledge of
the physical and biological sciences, is fallible: it is CONJECTURAL
KNOWLEDGE ." (Page 34)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n365 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n366 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - web hits
002 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Re: web hits
003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - teachers and Anthroposophy
004 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - left-handedness
005 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - new Waldorf charter in Sebastopol CA
006 - levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk - Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
007 - Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabs - Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
008 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: Truth and Certainty (here without Karl Popper)
009 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n363
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n366.1 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: web hits
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 17:35:17 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
When we established our web site in August, 1996, the hit rate was around 3
or 4 a day. Over the last month the rate averaged 23 per day. We're getting
more and more calls and emails. Our information is getting out there!
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n366.2 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Re: web hits
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 20:43:09 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199704140039.RAA20432 lists1.best.com)
)When we established our web site in August, 1996, the hit rate was around 3
)or 4 a day. Over the last month the rate averaged 23 per day. We're getting
)more and more calls and emails. Our information is getting out there!
)
)-Dan Dugan
Well deserved applause to you, Dan. I wish _we_ could get a grant from
someone. Perhaps we should start investigating. I'd like to advertise,
have money to travel for presentations, set up a few professional slide
shows so more people could present.....
Not to mention get paid a paultry sum for time...
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n366.3 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: teachers and Anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 02:01:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Gerry Palo wrote to the SJU Waldorf list, in part, (Re: A Teacher's View of
Anthroposophy, 4/12/97):
"There are to be sure Waldorf teachers, or shall we say
teachers in Waldorf schools, who want nothing to do with anthroposophy.
It is not a matter of judging an individual in this regard, but it has
become clear to me at least that very few if any can long bring to bear
the whole range of creativity and insight into the pedagogy and most
important in relationship to the children themselves in their work based
only on their grasp of the outer manifestations of Waldorf as method,
along with their own healthy instincts. So I too, were I in the position
of interviewing a candidate otherwise qualified who expressed disinterest
or disdain for anthroposophy, would find it difficult to recommend that he
be engaged. It is not a matter of what the person believes, this is never
the question, but whether the person is actively working with
anthroposophy. What each person believes and knows is their own affair,
but the active, continuing work out of anthroposophy is essential,
because it is anthroposophy that is the wellspring of all Waldorf
pedagogy."
This all-important foundation in Anthroposophical religion explains why
Waldorf promoters have to repeat their mantra over and over again,
"Anthroposophy is not taught in the schools." Constant repetition is
necessary to make this lie seem true.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n366.4 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: left-handedness
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 02:01:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
There's been a discussion of left-handedness on the SJU Waldorf list.
Here's a letter I wrote to a parent who said:
((Steiner also had some odd views about left-handedness, but these don't
appear to affect how left-handed children are taught in modern Waldorf
schools.))
Yes they do. Steiner taught that left-handedness is a defect that should
be corrected, and prescribed exercises for it.
"A teacher:-Asked whether children should be broken of left-handedness.
Dr. Steiner: As a rule, yes! Whilst they are young, somewhat before the
ninth year, left-handed children can be trained to do all their school work
with the right hand. This should be avoided only if it might be harmful,
which is seldom the case. The children do not consist of a simple additon
of forces but are far more complicated than that. If you try to bring
about symmetry between right and left and get the children to exercise both
hands equally, it can lead to weakmindedness in later life.
The phenomenon of left-handedness is decidedly karmic, in fact a karmic
weakness. To take an example: If in a previous incarnation a person has
overworked, and overstrained, himself not only physically or intellectually
but in his whole life of soul, he brings such a pronounced weakness into
his following incarnation that he is not capable of overcoming this
weakness that is now in the lower part of his being. (The part of man
arising from the life between death and a new life is, in the new
incarnation, concentrated particularly in the lower part of his
organisation, whereas what springs from the previous life appears more in
the head region.) Therefore, what is usually strong becomes weak, and to
compensate for this the left leg and left hand are called in to help. The
preponderance of the left hand leads to the right frontal convolutions of
the brain instead of the left being engaged in speech.
If we give way to this too much this weakness may persist into the
following (third) incarnation. If we do not give in to it the weakness
will be sorted out."
[Steiner "Conferences with Teachers-Volume 4" p. 29]
Audrey McAllen is the A. (I will abbreviate Anthroposophical hereafter)
expert on learning disabilities and therapy. In her book "The Extra
Lesson" she says "[C]areless handling or over-stimulation of the sensory
organism can cause what whould have been a normal right-sided dominance to
vary from one side of the body to the other. ...The decision for any
handedness change may only be made by the school doctor in consultation
with parents and carried out under his supervision." (p. 23).
There is a lengthy discussion of the A. approach to left-handedness in
Glockler and Goebel's "A Guide to Child Health," pp. 314-318:
"In Waldorf schools, left-handed children are encouraged to write with
their right hands. ... [I]n state schools children are mostly given a free
hand on the grounds that branding the children as left-handed and making
them change over leads to traumatic problems. ... [W]e see these symptoms
as the result of changeover methods based on compulsion and pressure,
aggravated by the timescale in which writing has to be learnt in most state
schools. ...
A further objection is that the speech organs will be impaired. It is
however an incorrect notion that the speech centre is developed in the half
of the brain opposite to the dominant hand. ...
There are three reasons for learning to write with the right hand ...
Strengthening the will: Learning to write with the right hand is...an
exercise of will for every child; but for the left-handed one it is
especially so...
Qualities of right and left: It is not a matter of indifference whether
it is the right or the left hand which is used for writing. ... Values of
right and left are expressed in the words "dexterity" from the Latin
dexter, a right hand, and "sinister" from the Latin for left hand. Many
more examples of this kind can be found in other languages and cultures.
We find a similar disparity when we study the human organism and the
distribution of those organs which are not in pairs, like liver, gall,
heart and spleen. ... [N]ot only are there cultural and linguistic values
given to left and right but related qualities are to be found in the bodily
functions. ...
Aspects of destiny: A left-handed person enters life with tasks and
qualities different from those of a right-handed person. In a lecture to
teachers, Rudolf Steiner describes how left-handedness of varying degrees
is the result of a former earth-life in which the individual has overtaxed
himself either physically or emotionally. The right side is weakened and
allows the left to seem stronger. ... If the left-handed child learns to
write with his right hand his left side will be relieved of the burden of
this activity which is not of its nature."
The "Bulletin of the Remedial Research Group" No. 7-Autumn 1987, from
Rudolf Steiner College, Fair Oaks, is mostly devoted to left-handedness.
(It contains a notice that it is not for public circulation-Waldorf
teachers only.) It has a long reprint from Glockler and Gobel and several
other articles. Some quotes: Robert M. Dudney, M.D., says "The increasing
occurrence of children preferring the left hand is a symptom of tendencies
to cultural decay. ... Some left-handers need no other remediation than
learning to write with their right hand. Others require remedial lessons
and or medical treatment."
At the May, 1987 Remedial Teachers Conference in the Netherlands, Else
Gottgens said: "One of the most vital things is that, on the first day in
Class One, the children are told that people all have a writing hand and a
drawing hand. With some people, they are the same hand, and with other
people, they are two different hands. Then, using one's authority, we say,
'The hand on that side,' pointing to our writing hand (right side of the
body) 'is our writing hand, and we shall *all* learn to write with that
hand, and we are going to start right now. ...' We introduce the straight
line and curved line, telling the children 'Later on, we shall find these
in writing.' When they first start to draw the straight line and curve, it
is good that they hold something beautiful in the left hand--a flower or a
crystal."
"Rudolf Steiner's Indication for Changing Lefthanded Children" is
reprinted, attributed to the Teachers' Conferences (without volume or
page). It is an exercise in which the child follows with his eyes the
teacher's finger tracing each arm up and down three times. This is typical
of Steiner's quack "therapy."
The Bulletin recommends a book: "The Problem of Lefthandedness: For
Medical-Therapeutic Eurythmy Work. Excerpts and Contributions, Compiled
and with an introduction by Gerda Hueck." Trans. R.E.M. Finser. Spring
Valley, NY: St. George Publications.
So I don't think you have been given the whole story. It is standard
policy for Waldorf staff to cover up on controversial issues, that is, in
areas in which they are at odds with the outside world. FJor n the
Conferences, Steiner instructs teachers to give dietary supplements that he
prescribes to students without telling parents, to avoid trouble.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n366.5 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: new Waldorf charter in Sebastopol CA
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 02:01:38 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
We have materials from:
Sebastopol Independent Charter School
P.O. Box 1170
Sebastopol, CA 95473
(707) 824 9700
They have leased a former bank building in Sebastopol, planning to open
there in September, 1997. Apparently the school has existed in some form
since 1995. There is a private Waldorf school in Sebastopol named Willow
Wood.
The disclosure to parents applying for admission explains the school thus:
"The Waldorf curriculum integrates academics with the arts. Waldorf
teachers strive to unfold a child's full potential as a capable, creative,
compassionate and free-thinking human being." That leaves a lot out,
doesn't it?
Though it is a public school, there is an admission fee of $200, and
families are expected to make a "minimum donation" of $100 per month. There
will not be a waiting list in first-come-first-served order. The school
will choose applicants they think "will be best served by the program
offered."
The school is operated by a non-profit board of directors, and run by a
college of teachers.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n366.6 ---------------
From: levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 13:36:23 +0100 (BST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
In-Reply-To: (199704120201.TAA14050 lists1.best.com)
Daniel
More religious doctrine from your interesting pen
You can keep shooting yourself in the scientific foot if you like - it
sounds nice when I read it - a bit like a prayer.
thanks
paul
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n366.7 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 97 10:55:07 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Paul Levy,
Perhaps you would care to share with us what constitutes more objective
(non-religious) ground for deciding what is true.
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
http://home.earthlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n366.8 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Truth and Certainty (here without Karl Popper)
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 97 13:05:47 +0100
Tom:
)So it is with any conflict. In looking at your conflict with WE, I
)ask myself what "common ground" or "common boxing ring" you both
)share. Otherwise you wouldn't even notice each other's existence.
Beautifully observed...
But it made me wonder what "common ground" you and I and many of the
others who find themselves caught up in discussions on this list -
the infamous 'fellow travellers' - have with the critics. Is it that
we incline more to a *new epistemology* - a post quantum world -
informed not only by Heisenberg and Godel but also possibly by Bohm
and Kuhn and the neo-Goetheans (Bortoft and Goodwin and Zajonc) -
whilst the critics incline more to the epistemology of Scientism?
I wonder this, because the ad-hominems that come my way assume that
I'm some sort of apologist for Anthroposophy - a true believer in the
unreasonable and pseudo-scientific - whereas in truth I'm as unlikely
to become a paid-up Anthroposophist as any of the East Bay Skeptics
(more unlikely, probably, since Social Psychology shows people to
commonly switch from one belief system to its opposite - but rarely
to switch from fixed beliefs to a state of comfortableness with
ambiguity...).
James
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n366.9 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n363
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 97 18:06:09 +0100
Michael:
)The day Dan Dugan starts kicking people off the list for "ad
)hominems" as gentle as David McKay's -- or acceding to trolls like
)yours, "Eric" -- is the day I will know Dugan has lost his
)commitment to Internet free speech, and his list has declined in
)worth.
To give Dan his credit, he realizes that people who don't know how to
debate with civility in a public place do more harm than good to his
cause. Few people are going to be impressed by the case against
Waldorf Education, when they see 'critics' behaving in a infantile
way - calling their opponents silly names.
The case can only be made by marshalling cogent arguments - and
presenting them eloquently, persuasively and with irrepressible
logic. Similarly, it can only be refuted in like terms. The point at
which this is no longer possible is the day when Dugan may as well
pack the list in.
James
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n366 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n367 --------------
001 - mckay oro.net - Re: teachers and Anthroposophy
002 - levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk - Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
003 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - What is Anthroposophy?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n367.1 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net
Subject: Re: teachers and Anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 18:11:12 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)Gerry Palo wrote to the SJU Waldorf list, in part, (Re: A Teacher's View of
)Anthroposophy, 4/12/97):
)
)"There are to be sure Waldorf teachers, or shall we say
)teachers in Waldorf schools, who want nothing to do with anthroposophy.
)It is not a matter of judging an individual in this regard, but it has
)become clear to me at least that very few if any can long bring to bear
)the whole range of creativity and insight into the pedagogy and most
)important in relationship to the children themselves in their work based
)only on their grasp of the outer manifestations of Waldorf as method,
)along with their own healthy instincts.
If that's not a "judgement", then what is it? More Waldorf double speak.
This idea that only deep belief and practice in Anthroposophy is going to
do the children any good *even* if a preson has "their own strong healthy
instincts" is so sactimonious, and pretentious. Notice that he gives NO
credit for any other teaching/educational knowledge that this person may
bring with him/her, I quess that stuff doesn't count in the Waldorf World.
)So I too, were I in the position
)of interviewing a candidate otherwise qualified who expressed disinterest
)or disdain for anthroposophy, would find it difficult to recommend that he
)be engaged. It is not a matter of what the person believes, this is never
)the question,
Talk about Double Talk! It _IS_ the question. Gerry has stated that if a
person doesn't "actively work with anthroposophy" (which also implies that
the person would need to
have a strong *belief* _in_ Anthroposophy).
)but whether the person is actively working with anthroposophy. What each
)person )believes and knows is their own affair,
How can someone "actively work with anthroposophy" without _believing_ and
_knowing_ what it is?! Gerry starts out qualifying this person as someone
"who want nothing to do with anthroposophy" and "who expressed disinterest
or distain for anthroposophy", so in other words this person
wouldn't/doesn't _believe_ in Anthroposophy, yet he continues to try and
make it sound like there is no prejudice about the person having other
believes in reference to being a Waldorf teacher.
)but the active, continuing work out of anthroposophy is essential,
)because it is anthroposophy that is the wellspring of all Waldorf
)pedagogy."
Do Waldorf/Anthroposophists have a market on *oxymorons* or what?! You
can't teach Waldorf education if you're not a devout Anthroposophist
because it wouldn't do the children any good, BUT, Anthroposophy isn't
taught in the curriculum ( a curriculum that relies heavily on _oral_
presentation!).
David McKay
)Dan D.:
)This all-important foundation in Anthroposophical religion explains why
)Waldorf promoters have to repeat their mantra over and over again,
)"Anthroposophy is not taught in the schools." Constant repetition is
)necessary to make this lie seem true.
)
)-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n367.2 ---------------
From: levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 10:08:53 +0100 (BST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
In-Reply-To: (199704141755.KAA00431 germany.it.earthlink.net)
On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Daniel Sabsay wrote:
))
) Perhaps you would care to share with us what constitutes more objective
) (non-religious) ground for deciding what is true.
)
Daniel:
My only offering can be an objective one: that anthroposophy is one of
several objective paths to truth. I also accept that science (in your
terms) is also an objective path to truth. However, I must qualify this by
pointing out that both of these sentences are (by your own definition)
subjective and therefore religious as will be any reply you send to this
note. Indeed, even if your reply or my sentence is validated to
statistical satisfaction by repeated experiement, any conclusions drawn
from such experiment unless the process of reaching the conclusion itself
is also scientifically validated (I guess by some form of brain research
which we yet await to be developed), any conclusions must also be seen as
religious. The fact that a lot of people like yourself may agree with your
own conclusions simply gives credence to the credo, and simply points to
the growing popularity of your "cult of emerging conclusions" of which I
recognise you (genuinely and with respect) as its potential high priest.
Now, let end it here. I recognise my own obstinacy, but it grew out my
(perhaps inadequate) pupilship of the lesson you tried to give me in
scientific method a few messages ago. I am afraid, dear scientist, I
cannot join your religion (though I will happily drink your tea and eat
your cakes), and I am hapy to try to catch you as you try to bite your own
teeth, that you try to leap over a wall that you haven't yet built, as you
try to lift yourself up by your own bootstraps. The comedy of it is only
outweighed by a genuine respect for the struggle of you and us all as we
try to find out useful things.
However, if you want or need the last word on this, I am happy to oblige.
I have always respected the clergy, whatever religion they belong to.
paul
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n367.3 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: What is Anthroposophy?
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 09:33:48 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
What is Anthroposophy ? In the words of Rudolf Steiner...
Anthroposophical ideas are vessels fashioned by love, and man's being is
spiritually summoned by the spiritual world to partake of their content.
Anthroposophy must bring the light of true humanness to shine out in
thoughts that bear love's imprint; knowledge is only the form in which man
reflects the possibility of receiving in his heart the light of the world
spirit that has come to dwell there and from that heart illumine human
thought. Since anthroposophy cannot really be grasped except by the power
of love, it is love-engendering when human beings take it in a way true to
its own nature. That is why a place where love reigned could be built in
Dornach in the very midst of raging hatreds. Words expressing
anthroposophical truths are not like words spoken elsewhere today; rightly
conceived, they are all really reverential pleas that the spirit make
itself known to men.
- from Awakening to Community, Lecture 1, Stuttgart, January 23, 1923
submitted by Deby Snell
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n367 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n368 --------------
001 - spike netshel.net -
002 - {~_~} (allure netcom.com) - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n366
003 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - What is Anthroposophy # 2 ?
004 - Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabs - Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner (+ Paul & James)
005 - levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk - Re: your mail
006 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Re: What is Anthroposophy # 2 ?
007 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Re:
008 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner (+ Paul & James)
009 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: What is Anthroposophy # 2 ?
010 - Steve Premo (premo cruzio - Re: What is Anthroposophy # 2 ?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n368.1 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject:
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:52:11 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Has anyone else noticed that these Anthroposophical folks mimic Steiner's
use of language? When I read their writings or listen to them speak many of
them sound much like a Steiner text. And yet they will tell us that their
educational techniques and beliefs are not based solely on Steiner's
teachings. It is apparent to me that Steiner is their "prophet." Why don't
they simply 'fess up? Their double-speak is maddening and, like all
messengers historically that know their message is not acceptable in its
entirety to the masses, they deny large parts of it. At the same time they
do all they can (dishonestly) to bring their beliefs to bear on our lives.
Kathy - "A victim of Waldorf creeping influence on publice education"
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n368.2 ---------------
From: {~_~} (allure netcom.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n366
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 22:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: (199704150101.SAA07777 lists1.best.com)
) Michael:
)
) )The day Dan Dugan starts kicking people off the list for "ad
) )hominems" as gentle as David McKay's -- or acceding to trolls like
) )yours, "Eric" -- is the day I will know Dugan has lost his
) )commitment to Internet free speech, and his list has declined in
) )worth.
Well then that day has come and gone. If I remember correctly
Lefty was kick off the list while he was expressing his "Internet free
speech" to the owners of this internet server.
Perhaps you would might like to change your byline from skeptic to selective
memory and logic.
*************************************
We've upped our standards. Up Yours!
-Pat Paulsen's campaign slogan
*************************************
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n368.3 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: What is Anthroposophy # 2 ?
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 23:32:35 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
What is Anthroposophy ? in the words of Rudolf Steiner
"Anthroposophy is a path of knowledge, to guide the Spiritual in the human
being to the Spiritual in the universe. It arises in man as a need of the
heart, of the life of feeling; and it can be justified only inasmuch as
it can satisfy this inner need. He alone can acknowledge Anthroposophy,
who finds it in what he himself in his own mpelled to seek. Hence only
they can be anthroposophists who feel certain questions on the nature of
man and the universe as an elemental need of life, just as one feels
hunger and thirst."
- from Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts (Letters to Members, 1924)
This certainly sounds like religion to me.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n368.4 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner (+ Paul & James)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 97 01:34:31 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 4/15/97 P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk (Paul Levy) wrote )
)On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Daniel Sabsay wrote:
)|
)| Perhaps you would care to share with us what constitutes more objective
)| (non-religious) ground for deciding what is true.
)|
)My only offering can be an objective one: that anthroposophy is one of
)several objective paths to truth. I also accept that science (in your
)terms) is also an objective path to truth. However, I must qualify this by
)pointing out that both of these sentences are (by your own definition)
)subjective and therefore religious as will be any reply you send to this
)note.
Wheew! What a claim.
For me, it all gets down to people's lives. Let's take homeopathy as a
concrete example. The underlying conceit that homeopathy does not need
to prove effacy for any medical claim is unconscienceable, no matter
whether for reasons of sanity, accountablity, responsibility, common
sense, or even science. Should we tell sailors that Scurvy can be cured
by vitimin C, or shall we tell them it's OK to use water memory of orange
peel "potentized" thirty powers of ten. (I know, supposedly it would take
a poison to effect a cure, but that is just more unproven rhetoric).
Science doesn't have all the answers, but a flat earth and a moon made of
green cheese are rulled out at some point, and we have a responsibility
to others to point out where the roadway edge has no guard rail.
As a private individual believe what you will, but the public
representation of homeopathy as a medicine is a crime against civilized
society. The parts of anthroposophical medicine built on this foundation
are a shame on all who allow it to continue.
)Indeed, even if your reply or my sentence is validated to
)statistical satisfaction by repeated experiement, any conclusions drawn
)from such experiment unless the process of reaching the conclusion itself
)is also scientifically validated (I guess by some form of brain research
)which we yet await to be developed), any conclusions must also be seen as
)religious.
Responsible health officials make decisions like this ALL THE TIME in a
multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-country context. Get real.
)The fact that a lot of people like yourself may agree with your
)own conclusions simply gives credence to the credo, and simply points to
)the growing popularity of your "cult of emerging conclusions" of which I
)recognise you (genuinely and with respect) as its potential high priest.
This is pure puffery, and without any logical antecedant or proof
whatsoever. Science has earned its stripes, and anthroposophy has not.
Every well-equipped chemistry lab proves daily, using photo- and
mass-spectrometers that Newton correctly observed the phenomenon of
diffracting white light into its constituent colored frequencies.
Truth is not served by running around to anthroposophical discussion
groups, and telling children or the naive tales about the meaning of
blackness seen thru a little plastic prizm held exactly so.
When you add to these two cornerstones of anthroposophy, the absurd
notion that the heart is not a pump, you have to ask yourself what you
might mean by reality, and why non-believers should trust this any of
this doctrine. Heavens Gate, here we come.
)
)Now, let end it here. I recognise my own obstinacy, but it grew out my
)(perhaps inadequate) pupilship of the lesson you tried to give me in
)scientific method a few messages ago.
Oh yes, I guess every feckless world-weary refugee from reality is
entitled to IMAGINE a comfortable arm-chair advisory role without ever
doing the actual work.
)I am afraid, dear scientist, I
)cannot join your religion (though I will happily drink your tea and eat
)your cakes), and I am hapy to try to catch you as you try to bite your own
)teeth, that you try to leap over a wall that you haven't yet built,
I can only guess what pioneers and brave souls you are disparaging here.
)as you
)try to lift yourself up by your own bootstraps. The comedy of it is only
)outweighed by a genuine respect for the struggle of you and us all as we
)try to find out useful things.
What a high sounding, but epistimologically-empty sentiment. Glad to
say, some of us don't think of this as a comedy.
)However, if you want or need the last word on this, [...]
Thanks, I shall. Be sure to visit our Web page (see signature), and be
sure to catch our next meeting: The speaker is author of a new book "Why
People Believe in Weird Things." that you can order through our Website.
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
http://home.earthlink.net/~daniesabsay/ebss
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n368.5 ---------------
From: levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: your mail
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 13:51:02 +0100 (BST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: (199704160409.VAA00856 lists1.best.com)
This is interesting. The letter below seems to be based on a style of
writing that is so like the text of a typical critic on this list. I
wonder if the writer is aware that she is using language which seems to be
part of a "style" shared by critics - negative, limited to selective facts
which fit their argument, generally unfriendly and, of course, negative,
as well as, of course, generalising from limited personal experience. I
assume it is because they are part of the critics cult. I do believe that
such cults should not receive public funding.
On Tue, 15 Apr 1997 spike netshel.net wrote:
) Has anyone else noticed that these Anthroposophical folks mimic Steiner's
) use of language? When I read their writings or listen to them speak many of
) them sound much like a Steiner text. And yet they will tell us that their
) educational techniques and beliefs are not based solely on Steiner's
) teachings. It is apparent to me that Steiner is their "prophet." Why don't
) they simply 'fess up? Their double-speak is maddening and, like all
) messengers historically that know their message is not acceptable in its
) entirety to the masses, they deny large parts of it. At the same time they
) do all they can (dishonestly) to bring their beliefs to bear on our lives.
) Kathy - "A victim of Waldorf creeping influence on publice education"
)
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n368.6 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophy # 2 ?
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:25:39 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199704160634.XAA01647 lists1.best.com)
)What is Anthroposophy ? in the words of Rudolf Steiner
)
)
)"Anthroposophy is a path of knowledge, to guide the Spiritual in the human
)being to the Spiritual in the universe. It arises in man as a need of the
)heart, of the life of feeling; and it can be justified only inasmuch as
)it can satisfy this inner need. He alone can acknowledge Anthroposophy,
)who finds it in what he himself in his own mpelled to seek. Hence only
)they can be anthroposophists who feel certain questions on the nature of
)man and the universe as an elemental need of life, just as one feels
)hunger and thirst."
)
)- from Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts (Letters to Members, 1924)
)
Steiner makes his religion sound as if only a select few can become
Anthroposophists.
He seems to be making his appeal to the lost souls of the world. Heaven's
Gate was even more elitist. Only 38 followers qualified.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n368.7 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Re:
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:34:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199704160409.VAA00856 lists1.best.com)
)Has anyone else noticed that these Anthroposophical folks mimic Steiner's
)use of language? When I read their writings or listen to them speak many of
)them sound much like a Steiner text. And yet they will tell us that their
)educational techniques and beliefs are not based solely on Steiner's
)teachings. It is apparent to me that Steiner is their "prophet." Why don't
)they simply 'fess up? Their double-speak is maddening and, like all
)messengers historically that know their message is not acceptable in its
)entirety to the masses, they deny large parts of it. At the same time they
)do all they can (dishonestly) to bring their beliefs to bear on our lives.
)Kathy - "A victim of Waldorf creeping influence on publice education"
Actually, I would _love_ to see the Steiner-Definers denounce some of
Steiner's teachings. At a community meeting moderated by Twin Ridges
Waldorf teachers, the Anthroposophical teachers _actually_ made a case for
the heart is not a pump !! That was the close to the final straw for the
only non-anthroposophical teacher in the group. It was the final straw for
many families that left the school.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n368.8 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner (+ Paul & James)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 97 16:13:53 +0100
Daniel:
)Science has earned its stripes, and anthroposophy has not.
)Every well-equipped chemistry lab proves daily, using photo- and
)mass-spectrometers that Newton correctly observed the phenomenon of
)diffracting white light into its constituent colored frequencies.
I don't think so. The orthodox scientific view supplanted Newton's
corpuscular theory of light with the wave theory about a hundred and
fifty years ago - and the wave theory with the quantum theory more
than fifty years ago. Or are you simply saying that his observations
- rather than his hypotheses - were correct? But we know from his own
notebooks that he introduced the notion that there are seven
constituent colours in the spectrum from his alchemical speculations
- and his 'Indigo' has proved notoriously elusive to subsequent
investigators.
If you want to apprise yourself of the history of the scientific
investigation of light, I'd refer you to Zajonc's 'Catching the
Light'. You might find his comments on Goethe and Steiner (which fill
a couple of chapters) surprising...
James
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n368.9 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophy # 2 ?
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 97 15:41:47 +0100
Deby:
)"Anthroposophy is a path of knowledge, to guide the Spiritual in the
)human being to the Spiritual in the universe. It arises in man as a
)need of the heart, of the life of feeling; and it can be justified
)only inasmuch as it can satisfy this inner need. He alone can
)acknowledge Anthroposophy, who finds it in what he himself in his
)own mpelled to seek. Hence only they can be anthroposophists who
)feel certain questions on the nature of man and the universe as an
)elemental need of life, just as one feels hunger and thirst."
)
)- from Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts (Letters to Members, 1924)
)
)This certainly sounds like religion to me.
Sounds more like Poetry to me. You ever read Coleridge, Wordsworth or
any of the other Romantic poets? P'raps you should...
James
(You might start with Coleridge's 'Biographia Literaria', from whose
description of poetry the above might almost have been plucked).
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n368.10 ---------------
From: Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophy # 2 ?
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:24:11 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199704160634.XAA01647 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199704161528.IAA19571 lists1.best.com)
On 16 Apr 97 , Deby Snell wrote:
) Steiner makes his religion sound as if only a select few can become
) Anthroposophists.
) He seems to be making his appeal to the lost souls of the world. Heaven's
) Gate was even more elitist. Only 38 followers qualified.
Let me see if I understand the point you are trying to make:
Applewhite, who was obviously nuts, only takes 38 followers.
Steiner implies that only a few can become his followers. Therefore, he
was also nuts.
That's as silly as Tom Mellett's post comparing Applewhite to Carl Sagan.
Hey, I've got one:
Applewhite was bald.
I'm nearly bald.
Therefore, I only have a few years left in which I can be taken seriously.
Incidentally, I would not assume that "only 38 followers qualified"
because Applewhite had convinced only 38 people to die with him. Maybe
that was all he could recruit.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n368 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n369 --------------
001 - Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabs - Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner (+ Paul & James)
002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: (from Val Setzer) ...defense against charges of racism
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n369.1 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner (+ Paul & James)
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 97 15:08:09 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Daniel:
)| Science has earned its stripes, and anthroposophy has not.
)| Every well-equipped chemistry lab proves daily, using photo- and
)| mass-spectrometers that Newton correctly observed the phenomenon of
)| diffracting white light into its constituent colored frequencies.
On 4/16/97 ancient urizen.demon.co.uk (James Souttar):
)I don't think so. The orthodox scientific view supplanted Newton's
)corpuscular theory of light with the wave theory about a hundred and
)fifty years ago - and the wave theory with the quantum theory more
)than fifty years ago. Or are you simply saying that his observations
)- rather than his hypotheses - were correct? But we know from his own
)notebooks that he introduced the notion that there are seven
)constituent colours in the spectrum from his alchemical speculations
)- and his 'Indigo' has proved notoriously elusive to subsequent
)investigators.
)
)If you want to apprise yourself of the history of the scientific
)investigation of light, I'd refer you to Zajonc's 'Catching the
)Light'. You might find his comments on Goethe and Steiner (which fill
)a couple of chapters) surprising...
Thank you for making my point. While Newton is fondly remembered for his
substantial contributions, his mistakes are simply left behind. As time
goes on, science accumulates corrections and builds consensus.
However, Steiner's MANY substantial mistakes and blind spots are
permanently woven into the very fabric of anthroposophy. Thus, as time
goes on, anthroposophy is progressively more useless as a trustworthy
guide to objective reality. Honoring Steiner by faithfully following the
tenets of anthroposophy is a religious act.
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
http://home.earthlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n369.2 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: (from Val Setzer) ...defense against charges of racism
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 02:21:48 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
DAN DUGAN
)) You can put your condescending "immense pity" where the sun don't shine.
VAL SETZER
)1. I know my English is quite poor, but did not know it was sooo poor. I
)thought the Sun stood for a singular, not a collective noun, so I would
)have expected a "doesn't," but as you are so sure of your positions, now I
)am in doubt. It was certainly not a typo from your part, because two
)letters are different. Please answer this doubt.
Sorry, Val, that expression was dialect, not standard English. I meant that
you should insert your attitude of pity toward me into your anus.
)2. Sun shine. Wow, that's exactly what I think you are in urgent need of,
)Dan! You need some of the spirit that accompaies physical light from the
)sun. If you care to _seriously_ read some Steiner, forgetting for a moment
)your apparent hatred and prejudices, you will learn what I mean with this.
I've read 40 of Steiner's books, seriously.
)) VAL SETZER
)) ))Hope [Seidman], if you find any trace of
)) ))racism in a
)) ))W school, precisely in a W school, I think one should not call it
)) ))"Waldorf."
))
)) DAN DUGAN
)) )OK, so, Val, will you go on record to say that the Zutphen (Netherlands)
)) )school which taught the block on cultural anthropology reported in De
)) )Volkskrant 4 Feb. 1995 should be disenfranchised? (See article on PLANS web
)) )site.)
)
)Dan, I think it makes no sense and it is a waste of time to hold a
)discussion with a person (you) that has the cruelty of writing (to the
)w-critics list)
)
))))Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 02:14:37 -0700
)
))))I do hold Steiner responsible for laying some of the
))))foundations upon which the holocaust was built, a
)
)showing so much lack of understanding for what Anthroposophy and Nazism
)are/was.
)
)Nevertheless, you are asking direct questions to me. I think everybody
)that asks me a question deserves an answer, independently on what I think
)his moral standings or his spiritual masters are.
Val, you demonstrate why I love dialogue with Anthroposophists! You make
the poverty of your foundation so obvious! Instead of dealing with a direct
challenge, you have tried to divert our attention in other directions.
Moral standing and spritual masters, indeed! I know who *your* spiritual
master is, Val, a madman, and I think your "moral standing" is
hypocritical.
I'm surprised you haven't heard of the Dutch newspaper articles about
racism in Waldorf. If you really haven't seen them, I can't make it much
easier for you than to post them on the web!
http://www.waldorfcritics.org
I know my assertion that Steiner helped lay the foundations of the
Holocaust drives you up the wall, but that has nothing to do with this
discussion. Fulminating about the unreliability of newspapers as sources of
information doesn't answer the question, either. The Dutch Waldorf teacher
taught Anthroposophical racial theory in the classroom. The lesson books
are in evidence. You said that any Waldorf school that was racist shouldn't
be called a Waldorf school. I asked you to put up or shut up: should, then,
this school be disenfranchised?
VAL SETZER
)3. You question makes no sense. Waldorf schools are not part of a
)franchising system. When I read your mail, I immediately thought of
)MacDonald's, KFC, Pizza Hut and other American what-nots which have
)populated the whole world. But then I remembered that you are not a
)complete idiot and a complete ignorant of Waldorf Education, so there was
)probably a misunderstanding of the English word form my part. So I went to
)American Heritage (I have the 1970 edition), where I found (pp. 522 - with
)a suggestive Franco picture on topF): 1. A priviledge or right granted a
)person or a group by a government, a state, or sovereign etc. 2.
)Authorization granted by a manufacturer or distributor or dealer to sell
)his products. 3. The territory or limits within which some priviledge,
)right or immunity my be exercised. 4. The deductible feature of an
)insurance policy.
)
)None of AH characterizations apply to Waldorf Schools. They are absolutely
)free to do what they think is better for them. They don't need an
)authorization to open or to continue to exist (in our contry, even the
)right to use the name "Waldorf"). So I cannot answwer your question, I am
)sorry. Probably you know about W schools even less than I thought from
)your allegations against them.
In the USA the AWSNA asserts franchise rights over the name Waldorf,
according to your dictionary definition (2) above.
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n369 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n370 --------------
001 - spike netshel.net - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n368
002 - Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabs - Free Speech redefined
003 - Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabs - Re: Truth and Certainty (here without Karl Popper)
004 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner (+ Paul & James)
005 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: Truth and Certainty (here without Karl Popper)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n370.1 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n368
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 19:04:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n368 --------------
)
) 001 - spike netshel.net -
) 002 - {~_~} (allure netcom.com) - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n366
) 003 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - What is Anthroposophy # 2 ?
) 004 - Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabs - Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner (+
)Paul & James)
) 005 - levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk - Re: your mail
) 006 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Re: What is Anthroposophy # 2 ?
) 007 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Re:
) 008 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner (+
)Paul & James)
) 009 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: What is Anthroposophy # 2 ?
) 010 - Steve Premo (premo cruzio - Re: What is Anthroposophy # 2 ?
)
)--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n368.1 ---------------
)
)From: spike netshel.net
)Subject:
)Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 20:52:11 -0700
)MIME-Version: 1.0
)Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)
)Has anyone else noticed that these Anthroposophical folks mimic Steiner's
)use of language? When I read their writings or listen to them speak many of
)them sound much like a Steiner text. And yet they will tell us that their
)educational techniques and beliefs are not based solely on Steiner's
)teachings. It is apparent to me that Steiner is their "prophet." Why don't
)they simply 'fess up? Their double-speak is maddening and, like all
)messengers historically that know their message is not acceptable in its
)entirety to the masses, they deny large parts of it. At the same time they
)do all they can (dishonestly) to bring their beliefs to bear on our lives.
)Kathy - "A victim of Waldorf creeping influence on publice education"
)
)
)
)
)--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n368.2 ---------------
)
)From: {~_~} (allure netcom.com)
)Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n366
)Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 22:38:31 -0700 (PDT)
)MIME-Version: 1.0
)Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
)In-Reply-To: (199704150101.SAA07777 lists1.best.com)
)
)) Michael:
))
)) )The day Dan Dugan starts kicking people off the list for "ad
)) )hominems" as gentle as David McKay's -- or acceding to trolls like
)) )yours, "Eric" -- is the day I will know Dugan has lost his
)) )commitment to Internet free speech, and his list has declined in
)) )worth.
)
)
)Well then that day has come and gone. If I remember correctly
)Lefty was kick off the list while he was expressing his "Internet free
)speech" to the owners of this internet server.
)Perhaps you would might like to change your byline from skeptic to selective
)memory and logic.
)
)
)
)*************************************
)We've upped our standards. Up Yours!
)-Pat Paulsen's campaign slogan
)*************************************
)
)
)--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n368.3 ---------------
)
)From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
)Subject: What is Anthroposophy # 2 ?
)Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 23:32:35 -0700
)MIME-Version: 1.0
)Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)
)What is Anthroposophy ? in the words of Rudolf Steiner
)
)
)"Anthroposophy is a path of knowledge, to guide the Spiritual in the human
)being to the Spiritual in the universe. It arises in man as a need of the
)heart, of the life of feeling; and it can be justified only inasmuch as
)it can satisfy this inner need. He alone can acknowledge Anthroposophy,
)who finds it in what he himself in his own mpelled to seek. Hence only
)they can be anthroposophists who feel certain questions on the nature of
)man and the universe as an elemental need of life, just as one feels
)hunger and thirst."
)
)- from Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts (Letters to Members, 1924)
)
)
)This certainly sounds like religion to me.
)Deby
)
)
)
)
)--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n368.4 ---------------
)
)From: Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabsay earthlink.net)
)Subject: Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner (+ Paul & James)
)Date: Wed, 16 Apr 97 01:34:31 -0700
)MIME-Version: 1.0
)Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
)
)On 4/15/97 P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk (Paul Levy) wrote )
))On Mon, 14 Apr 1997, Daniel Sabsay wrote:
))|
))| Perhaps you would care to share with us what constitutes more objective
))| (non-religious) ground for deciding what is true.
))|
))My only offering can be an objective one: that anthroposophy is one of
))several objective paths to truth. I also accept that science (in your
))terms) is also an objective path to truth. However, I must qualify this by
))pointing out that both of these sentences are (by your own definition)
))subjective and therefore religious as will be any reply you send to this
))note.
)
)Wheew! What a claim.
)
)For me, it all gets down to people's lives. Let's take homeopathy as a
)concrete example. The underlying conceit that homeopathy does not need
)to prove effacy for any medical claim is unconscienceable, no matter
)whether for reasons of sanity, accountablity, responsibility, common
)sense, or even science. Should we tell sailors that Scurvy can be cured
)by vitimin C, or shall we tell them it's OK to use water memory of orange
)peel "potentized" thirty powers of ten. (I know, supposedly it would take
)a poison to effect a cure, but that is just more unproven rhetoric).
)Science doesn't have all the answers, but a flat earth and a moon made of
)green cheese are rulled out at some point, and we have a responsibility
)to others to point out where the roadway edge has no guard rail.
)
)As a private individual believe what you will, but the public
)representation of homeopathy as a medicine is a crime against civilized
)society. The parts of anthroposophical medicine built on this foundation
)are a shame on all who allow it to continue.
)
))Indeed, even if your reply or my sentence is validated to
))statistical satisfaction by repeated experiement, any conclusions drawn
))from such experiment unless the process of reaching the conclusion itself
))is also scientifically validated (I guess by some form of brain research
))which we yet await to be developed), any conclusions must also be seen as
))religious.
)
)Responsible health officials make decisions like this ALL THE TIME in a
)multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-country context. Get real.
)
))The fact that a lot of people like yourself may agree with your
))own conclusions simply gives credence to the credo, and simply points to
))the growing popularity of your "cult of emerging conclusions" of which I
))recognise you (genuinely and with respect) as its potential high priest.
)
)This is pure puffery, and without any logical antecedant or proof
)whatsoever. Science has earned its stripes, and anthroposophy has not.
)Every well-equipped chemistry lab proves daily, using photo- and
)mass-spectrometers that Newton correctly observed the phenomenon of
)diffracting white light into its constituent colored frequencies.
)
)Truth is not served by running around to anthroposophical discussion
)groups, and telling children or the naive tales about the meaning of
)blackness seen thru a little plastic prizm held exactly so.
)
)When you add to these two cornerstones of anthroposophy, the absurd
)notion that the heart is not a pump, you have to ask yourself what you
)might mean by reality, and why non-believers should trust this any of
)this doctrine. Heavens Gate, here we come.
))
))Now, let end it here. I recognise my own obstinacy, but it grew out my
))(perhaps inadequate) pupilship of the lesson you tried to give me in
))scientific method a few messages ago.
)
)Oh yes, I guess every feckless world-weary refugee from reality is
)entitled to IMAGINE a comfortable arm-chair advisory role without ever
)doing the actual work.
)
))I am afraid, dear scientist, I
))cannot join your religion (though I will happily drink your tea and eat
))your cakes), and I am hapy to try to catch you as you try to bite your own
))teeth, that you try to leap over a wall that you haven't yet built,
)
)I can only guess what pioneers and brave souls you are disparaging here.
)
))as you
))try to lift yourself up by your own bootstraps. The comedy of it is only
))outweighed by a genuine respect for the struggle of you and us all as we
))try to find out useful things.
)
)What a high sounding, but epistimologically-empty sentiment. Glad to
)say, some of us don't think of this as a comedy.
)
))However, if you want or need the last word on this, [...]
)
)Thanks, I shall. Be sure to visit our Web page (see signature), and be
)sure to catch our next meeting: The speaker is author of a new book "Why
)People Believe in Weird Things." that you can order through our Website.
)
)-- Daniel Sabsay, president
) East Bay Skeptics Society
) http://home.earthlink.net/~daniesabsay/ebss
)
)
)
)--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n368.5 ---------------
)
)From: levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk)
)Subject: Re: your mail
)Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 13:51:02 +0100 (BST)
)MIME-Version: 1.0
)Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
)In-Reply-To: (199704160409.VAA00856 lists1.best.com)
I am the author of the note re: Anthroposophical folks mimic Steiner's use
of language." This is in reply to your note below. I find your reply quite
confusing. The way in which I write is simply my personal style of writing
- no more no less. I wrote this the first time I read this list and,
therefore, have not had time to "base my writing style" on that of a
"typical critic on this list." Yes, critics are simply that - critical. I
am making a critique of a writing and speaking style that seems to be
common among the anthroposophists I have had contact with. Surely you are
aware of this manner of speaking? What "selective fact" am I basing my
critique on??? I am basing it on the Anthroposophists whose lectures I have
attended, the Anthroposophical texts I have read, and the Steiner texts I
have read. I make no claim to be an expert in this regard. I am simply
asking if anyone else has noticed that Anthroposophists mimic Steiner's
speech patterns? I was hoping for an objective, intelligent response to my
question. I was surprised to find what seemed to be an attack of my note
and an accusation that I belong to a group you refer to as the "critics
cult." I also am not sure what you mean about "such cults" receiving
personal funding. What are you talking about? This is a strange reply.
Since I am very new to this list (only two days) I find myself shocked, and
perhaps enlightened, by the odd manner your response. How about an
objective reply?
)
)This is interesting. The letter below seems to be based on a style of
)writing that is so like the text of a typical critic on this list. I
)wonder if the writer is aware that she is using language which seems to be
)part of a "style" shared by critics - negative, limited to selective facts
)which fit their argument, generally unfriendly and, of course, negative,
)as well as, of course, generalising from limited personal experience. I
)assume it is because they are part of the critics cult. I do believe that
)such cults should not receive public funding.
)
)
)
)On Tue, 15 Apr 1997 spike netshel.net wrote:
)
)) Has anyone else noticed that these Anthroposophical folks mimic Steiner's
)) use of language? When I read their writings or listen to them speak many of
)) them sound much like a Steiner text. And yet they will tell us that their
)) educational techniques and beliefs are not based solely on Steiner's
)) teachings. It is apparent to me that Steiner is their "prophet." Why don't
)) they simply 'fess up? Their double-speak is maddening and, like all
)) messengers historically that know their message is not acceptable in its
)) entirety to the masses, they deny large parts of it. At the same time they
)) do all they can (dishonestly) to bring their beliefs to bear on our lives.
)) Kathy - "A victim of Waldorf creeping influence on publice education"
))
))
))
)
)
)
)--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n368.6 ---------------
)
)From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
)Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophy # 2 ?
)Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:25:39 -0700
)MIME-Version: 1.0
)Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)In-Reply-To: (199704160634.XAA01647 lists1.best.com)
)
))What is Anthroposophy ? in the words of Rudolf Steiner
))
))
))"Anthroposophy is a path of knowledge, to guide the Spiritual in the human
))being to the Spiritual in the universe. It arises in man as a need of the
))heart, of the life of feeling; and it can be justified only inasmuch as
))it can satisfy this inner need. He alone can acknowledge Anthroposophy,
))who finds it in what he himself in his own mpelled to seek. Hence only
))they can be anthroposophists who feel certain questions on the nature of
))man and the universe as an elemental need of life, just as one feels
))hunger and thirst."
))
))- from Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts (Letters to Members, 1924)
))
)
)Steiner makes his religion sound as if only a select few can become
)Anthroposophists.
)He seems to be making his appeal to the lost souls of the world. Heaven's
)Gate was even more elitist. Only 38 followers qualified.
)Deby
)
)
)
)
)
)
)--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n368.7 ---------------
)
)From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
)Subject: Re:
)Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 08:34:23 -0700
)MIME-Version: 1.0
)Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)In-Reply-To: (199704160409.VAA00856 lists1.best.com)
)
))Has anyone else noticed that these Anthroposophical folks mimic Steiner's
))use of language? When I read their writings or listen to them speak many of
))them sound much like a Steiner text. And yet they will tell us that their
))educational techniques and beliefs are not based solely on Steiner's
))teachings. It is apparent to me that Steiner is their "prophet." Why don't
))they simply 'fess up? Their double-speak is maddening and, like all
))messengers historically that know their message is not acceptable in its
))entirety to the masses, they deny large parts of it. At the same time they
))do all they can (dishonestly) to bring their beliefs to bear on our lives.
))Kathy - "A victim of Waldorf creeping influence on publice education"
)
)
)Actually, I would _love_ to see the Steiner-Definers denounce some of
)Steiner's teachings. At a community meeting moderated by Twin Ridges
)Waldorf teachers, the Anthroposophical teachers _actually_ made a case for
)the heart is not a pump !! That was the close to the final straw for the
)only non-anthroposophical teacher in the group. It was the final straw for
)many families that left the school.
)
)Deby
)
)
)
)
)
)--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n368.8 ---------------
)
)From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
)Subject: Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner (+ Paul & James)
)Date: Wed, 16 Apr 97 16:13:53 +0100
)
)Daniel:
)
))Science has earned its stripes, and anthroposophy has not.
)
))Every well-equipped chemistry lab proves daily, using photo- and
)
))mass-spectrometers that Newton correctly observed the phenomenon of
)
))diffracting white light into its constituent colored frequencies.
)
)I don't think so. The orthodox scientific view supplanted Newton's
)corpuscular theory of light with the wave theory about a hundred and
)fifty years ago - and the wave theory with the quantum theory more
)than fifty years ago. Or are you simply saying that his observations
)- rather than his hypotheses - were correct? But we know from his own
)notebooks that he introduced the notion that there are seven
)constituent colours in the spectrum from his alchemical speculations
)- and his 'Indigo' has proved notoriously elusive to subsequent
)investigators.
)
)If you want to apprise yourself of the history of the scientific
)investigation of light, I'd refer you to Zajonc's 'Catching the
)Light'. You might find his comments on Goethe and Steiner (which fill
)a couple of chapters) surprising...
)
)
)James
)
)
)--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n368.9 ---------------
)
)From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
)Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophy # 2 ?
)Date: Wed, 16 Apr 97 15:41:47 +0100
)
)Deby:
)
))"Anthroposophy is a path of knowledge, to guide the Spiritual in the
)
))human being to the Spiritual in the universe. It arises in man as a
)
))need of the heart, of the life of feeling; and it can be justified
)
))only inasmuch as it can satisfy this inner need. He alone can
)
))acknowledge Anthroposophy, who finds it in what he himself in his
)
))own mpelled to seek. Hence only they can be anthroposophists who
)
))feel certain questions on the nature of man and the universe as an
)
))elemental need of life, just as one feels hunger and thirst."
))
))- from Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts (Letters to Members, 1924)
))
))This certainly sounds like religion to me.
)
)Sounds more like Poetry to me. You ever read Coleridge, Wordsworth or
)any of the other Romantic poets? P'raps you should...
)
)
)James
)
)
)(You might start with Coleridge's 'Biographia Literaria', from whose
)description of poetry the above might almost have been plucked).
)
)
)--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n368.10 ---------------
)
)From: Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com)
)Subject: Re: What is Anthroposophy # 2 ?
)Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 10:24:11 +0000
)MIME-Version: 1.0
)Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
)Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
)References: (199704160634.XAA01647 lists1.best.com)
)In-Reply-To: (199704161528.IAA19571 lists1.best.com)
)
)On 16 Apr 97 , Deby Snell wrote:
)
)) Steiner makes his religion sound as if only a select few can become
)) Anthroposophists.
)) He seems to be making his appeal to the lost souls of the world. Heaven's
)) Gate was even more elitist. Only 38 followers qualified.
)
)Let me see if I understand the point you are trying to make:
)
)Applewhite, who was obviously nuts, only takes 38 followers.
)
)Steiner implies that only a few can become his followers. Therefore, he
)was also nuts.
)
)That's as silly as Tom Mellett's post comparing Applewhite to Carl Sagan.
)
)Hey, I've got one:
)
)Applewhite was bald.
)
)I'm nearly bald.
)
)Therefore, I only have a few years left in which I can be taken seriously.
)
)Incidentally, I would not assume that "only 38 followers qualified"
)because Applewhite had convinced only 38 people to die with him. Maybe
)that was all he could recruit.
)
)Steve Premo
)Santa Cruz, California
) http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
)
)
)--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n368 ---------------
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n370.2 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Free Speech redefined
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 97 00:52:40 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 4/15/97 allure netcom.com wrote )
)If I remember correctly Lefty was kick off the list while he was expressing
)his "Internet free speech" to the owners of this internet server.
)Perhaps you would might like to change your byline from skeptic to selective
)memory and logic.
"Expressing free speech to the OWNERS OF THIS ... SERVER" This is like
comparing a handbill on a phone pole to an arrest warrant.
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
http://home.earthhlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n370.3 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Truth and Certainty (here without Karl Popper)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 97 00:52:47 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 4/14/97 ancient urizen.demon.co.uk (James Souttar) wrote )
)But it made me wonder what "common ground" you and I and many of the
)others who find themselves caught up in discussions on this list -
)the infamous 'fellow travellers' - have with the critics. Is it that
)we incline more to a *new epistemology* - a post quantum world -
)informed not only by Heisenberg and Godel but also possibly by Bohm
)and Kuhn and the neo-Goetheans (Bortoft and Goodwin and Zajonc) -
)whilst the critics incline more to the epistemology of Scientism?
)
The term scientism is a biased and ignorant incantation used, in my
experience, only by people who have a sacred cow they need to protect
from the light of day.
)I wonder this, because the ad-hominems that come my way assume that
)I'm some sort of apologist for Anthroposophy - a true believer in the
)unreasonable and pseudo-scientific - whereas in truth I'm as unlikely
)to become a paid-up Anthroposophist as any of the East Bay Skeptics
)(more unlikely, probably, since Social Psychology shows people to
)commonly switch from one belief system to its opposite - but rarely
)to switch from fixed beliefs to a state of comfortableness with
)ambiguity...).
What have we here, a really deep thinker on subject of epistimiology?
Someone who never shrinks from real decisions such as what vaccine is
safe, or what are acceptable standards of, say, aircraft design? Kindly
share with us what "comfortable" ambiquity you are so proud of.
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
http://home.earthlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n370.4 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Science from Jorgen Wagner (+ Paul & James)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 97 15:47:19 +0100
Daniel:
)While Newton is fondly remembered for his substantial contributions,
)his mistakes are simply left behind. As time goes on, science
)accumulates corrections and builds consensus.
Curiously, science declines to take much interest in its own history
- the history and philosophy of science is routinely not part of the
teaching of scientific subjects in higher education, even as a
contextual subject. And many scientists show deplorable ignorance of
the history of their own disciplines - which is picked up and
amplified among their lay admirers.
A better understanding of the history and philosophy of science would
show that the view that 'science accumulates corrections and builds
consensus' is a highly selective interpretation of the historical
facts. In addition to 'corrections', science also accumulates errors
- the millenia long cul-de-sac of Ptolemaic astronomy is an excellent
example. Likewise, consensus ossifies into rigid paradigms that have
to be transcended by mavericks, who are prepared to brave ridicule,
before progress can resume.
Of course, there is a view that if science may have been something
less than objective in previous times, it is now free of distorting
prejudices. However, this view displays the most extraordinary
naivety of historical evidence and human nature - and it also blinds
those who hold it to the bizarre scientific prejudices of our time.
)However, Steiner's MANY substantial mistakes and blind spots are
)permanently woven into the very fabric of anthroposophy. Thus, as
)time goes on, anthroposophy is progressively more useless as a
)trustworthy guide to objective reality. Honoring Steiner by
)faithfully following the tenets of anthroposophy is a religious act.
Agreed.
Of course, we may not agree as to what 'Steiner's MANY substantial
mistakes and blind spots' are - but I'm sure you will agree that
history will eventually show Steiner, like Newton, Copernicus, Darwin
and almost every other notable figure in the history of science - to
have got much more wrong than he got right.
In large part, Anthroposophy is blighted by the view that Steiner was
an 'Initiate', someone whose every casual opinion was informed by a
certain and direct perception of truth. And some Anthroposophists
seem to hold an 'all or nothing' view - Steiner can't have got
anything wrong, or else all he said would have been nonsense.
As a non-Anthroposophist, I would argue that Steiner's genius
actually came from his almost unique ability to understand Goethe's
epistemology - and from his ability to revive and extend it for a
fin-de-siecle audience. And whilst the veil of scientism will, for
the time being, prevent you from agreeing with me, I think you will
find that a growing number of intelligent people (which seems to
include a number of eminent scientists) are finding in precisely this
Goethean method a rigorous way to understand the natural world that
is free from the inherently manipulative and abstract approach of
mathematical science.
Unfortunately, it appears as if Steiner couldn't resist passing off
Theosophical and Hermetic speculations as his own insights. In
looking at the man, one has to see this as part and parcel of his
make-up - just as astrology was part and parcel of the make-up of
Kepler, or alchemy Newton and Boyle. But in looking at the relevance
of his ideas at the end of the twentieth century, we can tease out
from the body of his work what now appear to us as genuine and
extraordinary insights - and leave behind the less convincing
borrowings.
James
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n370.5 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Truth and Certainty (here without Karl Popper)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 97 16:05:05 +0100
Daniel:
)The term scientism is a biased and ignorant incantation used, in my
)experience, only by people who have a sacred cow they need to
)protect from the light of day.
If it's good enough for Neil Postman, it's certainly good enough for
me (the only 'sacred cows' I've come across in his work are the ones
that he has exposed in American Society). But if it is a 'a biased
and ignorant incantation', it is no worse than the word 'cult' -
which seems to be a mainstay of the skeptics' vocabulary.
James
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n370 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n371 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - concerns about waldorf schools
002 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: concerns about waldorf schools
003 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Truth and Certainty (here without Karl Popper)
004 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n368
005 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Town Meeting
006 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - more details on Dutch debate
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n371.1 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: concerns about waldorf schools
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 00:30:09 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Eddie van der Meer wrote to PLANS,
VAN DER MEER
"I' m a parent from Boxmeer , Holland.
"Both my children are on a Waldorf school. I've read some of the articles
youv'e put on your site. They give a rather negative image of the waldorf
schooling system. I have to add that in a sense it is kind of "closed up".
Currently I'm working on a project to open up the shell that surrounds
Waldorf education, even in Holland. This closed character is, in my
opinion, caused by fundamentalism within the whole of the antroposofic
movement."
DUGAN
We agree about the fundamentalism. However, I don't think it's possible to
have the "reform Waldorf" that you seek.
VAN DER MEER
"What I want to ask you is to give me sound reasons whi you think that
Waldorf school should be catagorised with sect like organisations."
DUGAN
In my view, the only reason that Anthroposophy and Waldorf schools are
-not- commonly known as a cult-like religious sect is their own insistent
statements to the contrary. Historically, Anthroposophy results from a
sectarian doctrinal dispute within Theosophy, after which Steiner split off
the German section to form his own cult.
You have already become aware of the "closed" nature of the system, i.e.
only referring to works of Steiner or other Anthroposophical authors. Some
other cult-like characteristics are:
Clinging to rejected knowledge. (Alchemy, Newton was wrong, the heart is
not a pump.)
"Reification" of doctrinal jargon. (For example, "the temperaments," "the
festivals," or "the elements" will be talked about in a way that implies
the listener's agreement with the concept without the possibility of
discussion.)
Redefinition of common terms. (Freedom, child development.)
Withholding of central doctrines from new recruits. (Lucifer and Ahriman,
the First Class.)
Suppression of dissent. ("Waldorf is non-sectarian" but "If you disagree
with Anthroposophy, you can leave." Dissenters are demonized as "enemies.")
Exclusivity. (Steiner claimed his revelation was the only true source of
cosmic knowledge, and that other traditions were fragmentary or incorrect.)
Separation. (The outside world (other schools) is characterized as damaging.)
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n371.2 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: concerns about waldorf schools
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 97 12:23:59 +0100
Dan:
)We agree about the fundamentalism. However, I don't think it's
)possible to have the "reform Waldorf" that you seek.
Fundamentalism is a characteristic of almost every body of ideas,
where the original impetus and inspiration has gone. Some poeple will
always seek to preserve and intensify the original message - seeing
any development as a threatening innovation. Undoubtedly, this comes
about from the psychological make-up of those individuals - and a
fundamental weakness in the way that people associate together.
Anthroposophy may be a victim of fundamentalism, but you would be
hard put to make a convincing case that the fundamentalism derives
from Anthroposophical ideas.
But in the same way, every body of ideas will attract people who -
whilst they find some of the basic principles useful and interesting
- will seek to reform them so that they might be more relevant to a
contemporary community.
Given the tensions within the Waldorf community to which Eddie
refers, it would seem *more than likely* that we will see a division
between 'orthodoix' and 'reform' Waldorf - especially since mcuh of
the present interest in Waldorf comes from people who like its
methods and its emphases, but who are uncomfortable about some of the
ideas and some of the dogmatism.
Dare I say that, like so many things, it comes down to supply and
demand. There is a big demand for 'reform Waldorf', which many within
WE recognize - and some, at least, appear to sympathize with. And
there is also a body of resistance which, while it may be vocal, does
not appear to be too numerous. Whether the Waldorf movement can
accommodate both these tendencies is an interesting question. But we
live in intolerant times, and few organizations are succeeding in
maintaining a 'broad church' approach (including the Church of
England, which gave us the expression). So it would hardly be too far
fetched to suggest that we will see, before long, 'pure'
Anthroposophical Waldorf schools for 'pure' Anthroposophical
communities and Waldorf-ish schools for parents who like the ideas
and the pedagogy - in smaller doses.
James
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n371.3 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Truth and Certainty (here without Karl Popper)
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 97 06:53:50 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 4/18/97 ancient urizen.demon.co.uk (James Souttar) wrote )
)Daniel Sabsay wrote )|
)|The term scientism is a biased and ignorant incantation used, in my
)|experience, only by people who have a sacred cow they need to
)|protect from the light of day.
)If it's good enough for Neil Postman, it's certainly good enough for
)me (the only 'sacred cows' I've come across in his work are the ones
)that he has exposed in American Society). But if it is a 'a biased
)and ignorant incantation', it is no worse than the word 'cult' -
)which seems to be a mainstay of the skeptics' vocabulary.
Oh, I thought we were having a serious discussion. Think I'll go back to
watching for the UFO behind Hale-Bopp. No cults here.
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
http://home.earthlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n371.4 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n368
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 22:19:44 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
oops! Spike quoted us a whole digest. Whoa, Spike.
(Look for instructions on how to change your subscription to "subsingle" in
the "SAVE ME" file, or ask me for it. Digests are for lurkers.)
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n371.5 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Town Meeting
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 20:57:31 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
KVMR, our local [community supported] radio station hosted a town meeting
regarding Charter Schools. It's focus was to discuss the positive and the
negitive aspects.Panelists included Dianne Carrol, a board member from
Nevada Union High School, Terry McAteer, County Schools Superintendent,
George Hoffecker, principal at The Yuba River Waldorf School, Lew Sitzer, a
high school teacher from Bear River High (south county) who is proposing a
high school Charter school, Pastor Morton, Citizen's for Twin Ridges School
District Accountability, and Linda (can't think of her last name to save my
soul), Chairman of Nevada City School of the Arts Charter Council (where my
son Derrick attends).
A few rambling notes from memory:
Pastor Morton was sensational. His opening statements were great. He spoke
of his great support of the separation of church and state, and why we
felt the public Waldorf school violated this law.
Later in the debate, Pastor used the theory of a Baptist-inspired Charter
school. He promised a warm, fuzzy feeling. Every child would be
individually greeted each morning. Pastor would administrate the school and
the teachers would have to study the Baptist doctrine for would qualify to
teach in his school. It was apparently a very effective parable as Terry
McAteer (County Schools Superintendent) commented that he should continue
using that analogy in his messages....I was dancing around my house,
whooping it up, every time Pastor Morton spoke or responded. He was indeed
elequent. At one point he quoted Gilbert Child's "... one must be an
Anthroposophist first.." quote.
A public teacher from out of town phoned in. She has been attending public
teacher training at RS College since 1992. She recently refused to to
attend anymore training because the religious aspects contradicted her own
spiritual beliefs, and she feels the curriculum is inferior. She was
great. She climbed all over George Hoffecker, the public Waldorf
Administrator because he mentioned that "Award winning public school
teachers were taking the training." She fit his description, but did not
want to be counted as a teacher who supported the training.
A parent, whose daughter has been in WE for at least six years agreed with
the religious allegations. He rebutted George's claim that the teachers
held state credentials by reminding him that _his_ child's teacher was
merely Waldorf trained. He rebutted George Hoffecker's claim that the
parents were "very involved" by saying that only 30 % of the parents in his
daughter's class even showed up for the class meetings..He said, "George,
I'm at the school. I _know_ what goes on there. It _is_ a religious
school."
Dianne Carrol, a board member from the local high school turned to the
Waldorf administrator [at one point] and asked, "George, do _all_ of your
teachers have to receive traing from a Steiner College?" George replied
"....yes, they do." Dianne said, ..."If all of the teachers must attend a
certain college to receive training in order to qualify, then it definately
sounds like Pastor Morton has a valid concern."
George Hoffecker said that he has been a student of Rudolf Steiner for
twelve years and _he_ would know if it was religious or not. He then
accused our group of being "ignorant". Pastor confronted him after the
debate. He told George, "I resent you calling our committee ignorant. You
are personalizing this issue. "We are far from ignorant, George. We just
don't agree with you." When George apologized, Pastor said, "My friend,
you said that we were ignorant in public. It is one thing to apologize to
me in private, but since you said that in front of a vast audience, I'd
like a public apology." Pastor said the conversation got "rather heated".
Interestingly, George Hoffecker used WestEd's report against us. He said
the report cleared The Tubman School of any religious
allegations....Actually, my copy of the report stated that they were not
even going to _look_ at the religious allegation issue to determine if it
met legal guidelines. With the quote in my hand, I reached for the phone.
It rang as I picked it up. Guess who is on the other end of the phone ?
Another public Waldorf teacher [from out of town] wanting to discuss
getting help from PLANS to expose her school. By the time I got off the
phone I realized that the moment had passed, but dropped the report off at
Pastor Morton's church with the quote underlined the next morning.
The Waldorf controversy took up much of the two hours, in spite of the
moderators request to move on to another subject. Of course the typical WE
parents spoke in support of their school, denied any religious training,
etc.Two children called in to say how much they loved WE and their school.
(So much for not pre-awakening the Waldorf kids. My own kids were not
allowed to listen to this adult oriented forum. They have friends in the
school and I was concerned that it _may_ upset them.)
Oh yes ! The Christian Right was there too. They want in the public coffers
too. They were willing to support the public Waldorf School as long as they
could start a charter school too. (I was saying, "YES!! Scare the heck out
of them. Just wait until the Christian Right rallies around their cause
[using the Waldorf School as an example of why _they_ should be let in]."
I tuned in a bit late as I took Derrick to an open house at our
neighborhood public school. I was sad that I was double booked that night.
We're trying to transition "Mr.D" to public school next year for seventh
grade. It will be a big jump. He has never attended a large school, and
the principal felt attending the open house would benefit him. As torn as
I was in the beginning, I felt so good to realize that the anti-Waldorf
public school movement [in this community] is FINALLY much bigger than me.
_That_ is a true accomplishment.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n371.6 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: more details on Dutch debate
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 23:58:25 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Herman de Tollenaere (lokabaal dsl.nl) of SIMPOS wrote us:
The debate on Anthroposophy will be on Friday 9 May, in Theater De Romein,
Begijnestraat 59, Leeuwarden. It starts at 8 p.m. Speakers will be Herman
de Tollenaere, Wiebe Venema, MD, of the Anti-Quackery League (Vereniging
tegen Kwakzalverij), and people of the local Waldorf School and
Anthoposophical medical center (names not known yet).
posted by Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n371 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n372 --------------
001 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Town Hall Meeting # 2
002 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Correction :+O
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n372.1 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Town Hall Meeting # 2
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 22:28:15 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Received a phone call from former Waldorf parents whose children attended
the public Waldorf School last year. While we left the school together, and
our sons are in the same class this year, we have _never_ discussed my
concerns with the public Waldorf school.
She wanted me to know that she listened to the Town Hall Meeting on KVMR,
and felt that our position regarding removing public funding for the
Waldorf School made head way as a result of the debate. She mentioned that
a few of her friends agreed that we presented a powerful and grounded
position. In contrast, she felt that the Waldorf parents who spoke truely
worked against themselves. I asked her if she felt that the Waldorf School
was religious. She said, "I definately do, but you have to experience it
like we did to understand that George Hoffecker was not truthful when he
denied religion in the school." I told her that I hoped that was not the
case, or our movement was in trouble. It was unrealistic to expect everyone
to enroll their children in the school in order to make that determination.
We had a great laugh over that idea.
She said that we have earned her respect, and she admired our tenacity to
take our message forward in the midst of all of the supporters...
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n372.2 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Correction :+O
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 23:17:54 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
This is certainly a case for proof reading messages _before_ you send
them... Sorry, I was in a hurry.
I said,
"Pastor would administrate the school and the teachers would have to study
the Baptist doctrine for would qualify to teach in his school."
I _should_ have said,
Pastor Morton would administrate the school and the teachers would have to
study the Baptist doctrine at a Baptist college for two years to qualify to
teach in his school.
Deby
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n372 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n373 --------------
001 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Town Hall Meeting
002 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Waldorf Schools Do Not Teach Anthroposophy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n373.1 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Town Hall Meeting
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 13:50:03 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I received an audio tape of the town hall meeting. One interesting aspect:
The only people that mentioned the words, "Racism, cult, evil, witch, etc.
was the Waldorf supporters. At one point, a pro-Waldorf caller rebutted
Pastor's accusation of "racism in the school." When Pastor denied saying
anything about Racism, the caller began to argue with him. The moderator
interrupted to let the caller know that _another_ caller had mentioned it,
not Pastor Morton. Robert and I had a great laugh about that.
BTW, I understand that Nevada County's own T.V. station (must be a small
station) filmed the meeting and it "replaying" it on the station. Several
of Pastor's friends mentioned it to him. I do not have cable, but a film
is perhaps available. It would be great if we edited it down to just the
pro and cons of WE in the public sector. I'll check on that.
I am _very_ interested in an impression of the meeting from the WE
supporters side. If there is any lurkers from our community who would
kindly share, please do so. George Hoffecker is a very good speaker who
did a good job representing the movement, even if he _did_ use half truths
and misquote WestEd's report.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n373.2 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Waldorf Schools Do Not Teach Anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 22:37:59 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The Community Endeavor printed Dan Dugan ans Judy Daar's 'Are Rudolf
Steiner's Waldorf Schools Non-Sectarian?' in two parts. April's issue
expectedly contains an article by David Adams, a former Waldorf teacher
from Mariposa. It will be printed in two parts. While it is a very good
article, the thought of typing it for reposting is daunting. A few of the
highlights are irresistible.
'Waldorf Schools Do Not Teach Anthroposophy'
"I would like to reply to the inaccurate, vitriolic, and
fanatically-toned commentary on Waldorf education written by Dan Dugan and
Judy Daar with my own observations."
"Although the authors claim to have read 40 books by Rudolf Steiner, the
founder of [A]nthroposophy, and others, they do not seem to have
understood what they have read (or perhaps did not read them with a spirit
of understanding). As a former Waldorf teacher and a student of the
worldview called [A]nthroposophy for 25 years, I had a difficult time
recognizing what I know to be the ideas of Steiner and Waldorf education in
the commentary in question."
"Steiner said he did not derive his Anthroposophical ideas from other
sources (such as Theosophy, Zoroastrianism, medievel Europe, or Hinduism,
as the authors claim) but out of his own spiritual scientific research
based on a path of training (trained conscious clairvoyance) that he
clearly described in step-by-step fashion and which is open to anyone to
pursue. In this sense he never presented merely "personal revelations." He
frequently asked those interested in his work to not just take his findings
as "doctrine," but to try to verify for themselves in several ways."
Well, _that_ should make the taxpayers more comfortable with supporting a
public Waldorf School, don't you think?
Deby
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n373 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n374 --------------
001 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Your Removal From the WALDORF List
002 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Your Removal From the WALDORF List
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n374.1 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Your Removal From the WALDORF List
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 13:09:38 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (v03010d0aaf845252f812 [17.201.20.241])
Lefty,
In response to your termination of my subscription to the Waldorf List, in
which you say you suspect me of forwarding your list's postings to Dan
Dugan, of the Waldorf Critics list:
To the best of my recollection, I have never forwarded any messages from
any of your lists to anyone else.
I have, of course, occasionally referred to material from your lists, and
quoted parts thereof in replies or in private messages to others. I have
not had any communication of substance with Dan Dugan himself in several
months.
But I agree with Dugan's practice: it's a public service. He's no bad apple
-- in fact he's Johnny Appleseed.
You, on the other hand, are a real Fascist, you know?
Not only that, but you're acting mighty paranoid, if you suspect anyone who
disagrees with you, and openly voices that disagreement, as I have.
It's your list, you can do anything you want with it. Thanks for the
interesting reading while it lasted. There are some genuinely thoughtful
and open-minded people on them.
Most of them don't even mind discussing differences of opinion with Waldorf
Critics, even on your lists. But of course, it wouldn't do for the shepherd
to allow his flock to divert their attention from the holy work of grinding
ever finer the mills of your esoteric fantasies masquerading as a
philosophy. So you don't permit any dissent or critical thinking on your
list from non-believers.
Thanks for the confirmation that SteinDorfPop defenders-of-the-faith like
you are so closed-minded.
You will understand that I am forwarding a copy of your message and this
one to the Waldorf Critics list and to every named individual email address
I have collected from your mailing lists over the time I have been reading
them. Your followers need to know what a despotic little tyrant you are.
Yours faithfully,
Michael Kopp
At 04:57 PM 4/23/97 -0700, you wrote:
)Since Mr. Dugan has been utterly uncooperative in agreeing not to respect
)the rights of the subscribers to the WALDORF list, I am forced to take the
)step of removing anyone who I think _might_ be forwarding postings on to
)him.
)
)It's a shame how one bad apple can spoil the fun for everyone, isn't it?
)
)
)--
)Lefty [gYon-Pa] (lefty apple.com)
)C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
)
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n374.2 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Your Removal From the WALDORF List
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 07:39:35 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To Waldorf Critics Mailing List:
The following is a message sent to the infamous Lefty, owner of the Waldorf
list, after I received -- out of the blue -- a message from him terminating
my subscription to that list. His original message is at the bottom of my
reply.
Lefty,
In response to your termination of my subscription to the Waldorf List, in
which you say you suspect me of forwarding your list's postings to Dan
Dugan, of the Waldorf Critics list:
To the best of my recollection, I have never forwarded any messages from
any of your lists to anyone else.
I have, of course, occasionally referred to material from your lists, and
quoted parts thereof in replies or in private messages to others. I have
not had any communication of substance with Dan Dugan himself in several
months.
But I agree with Dugan's practice: it's a public service. He's no bad apple
-- in fact he's Johnny Appleseed.
You, on the other hand, are a real Fascist, you know?
Not only that, but you're acting mighty paranoid, if you suspect anyone who
disagrees with you, and openly voices that disagreement, as I have.
It's your list, you can do anything you want with it. Thanks for the
interesting reading while it lasted. There are some genuinely thoughtful
and open-minded people on them.
Most of them don't even mind discussing differences of opinion with Waldorf
Critics, even on your lists. But of course, it wouldn't do for the shepherd
to allow his flock to divert their attention from the holy work of grinding
ever finer the mills of your esoteric fantasies masquerading as a
philosophy. So you don't permit any dissent or critical thinking on your
list from non-believers.
Thanks for the confirmation that SteinDorfPop defenders-of-the-faith like
you are so closed-minded.
You will understand that I am forwarding a copy of your message and this
one to the Waldorf Critics list and to every named individual email address
I have collected from your mailing lists over the time I have been reading
them. Your followers need to know what a despotic little tyrant you are.
Yours faithfully,
Michael Kopp
At 04:57 PM 4/23/97 -0700, you wrote:
)Since Mr. Dugan has been utterly uncooperative in agreeing not to respect
)the rights of the subscribers to the WALDORF list, I am forced to take the
)step of removing anyone who I think _might_ be forwarding postings on to
)him.
)
)It's a shame how one bad apple can spoil the fun for everyone, isn't it?
)
)
)--
)Lefty [gYon-Pa] (lefty apple.com)
)C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
)
)
)
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n374 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n375 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - chant
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n375.1 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: chant
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 22:14:50 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
My nephew Tom Louie, an elementary teacher in Los Angeles, sent me this message:
2!4!6!8! Church and state! SEPARATE!
(Assuming, of course, you guys ever have a demonstration.)
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n375 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n376 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Truth and Certainty (a la Karl Popper)
002 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - cult-like behavior
003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Legos
004 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - FW: Lego
005 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - California Constitution
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n376.1 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Truth and Certainty (a la Karl Popper)
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 23:53:02 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Tom Mellett said (4/12/97):
) When two tennis players are in a match, it is belaboring the
)obvious to make the observation that they are playing on the same court.
)So it is with any conflict. In looking at your conflict with WE, I ask
)myself what "common ground" or "common boxing ring" you both share.
)Otherwise you wouldn't even notice each other's existence.
) It strikes me that my own problems with WE, as well as with
)anything the followers of Steiner put forth today, is that they are stuck
)in a time warp, as if the world ended in 1925 when Steiner died and that
)they "freeze-dried" his legacy, preserving it like a wooly mammoth in an
)ice block. (BTW, read the 4th of 12 essays in "Coming into Being"
)(St.Martin's Press, NY, 1996) by William Irwin Thompson for a good send-up
)of this aspect of Steiner's followers in regard to eurythmy (pp. 82-83)).
DAN DUGAN
I agree about the time warp. Could you copy Thompson's essay for me? I
think this "freezing" is inevitable because Steiner did -not- produce a
useful epistemology. If he had, his followers would have been able to use
it to produce all kinds of wonderful new knowledge in the last 75 years.
They haven't, because while Steiner -talked- about epistemology, what he
really -did- was just dress up revealed religion in new clothes.
Anthroposophy, and Waldorf education, are stuck in 1925 because almost no
one dares to claim "exact scientific knowledge" of the spirit world as he
did.
) However, it also strikes me that your own epistemology concerning
)science is also "freeze-dried" in 1925, since that is the year that de
)Broglie formulated his idea of "matter waves," Heisenberg was bringing out
)his "Uncertainty Principle," an in 1931, Kurt Goedel published his
)Incompleteness Theorem. In short, your scientific world view is as
)pre-quantum physics as is Steiner's and Waldorf. No wonder you can focus
)so well on them!
I'm mystified by this characterization of my point of view. Perhaps your
attitude has to do with the, in my opinion, unwarranted extensions of
things like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle that are used to justify
mystical thinking today. Heisenberg's principle is quite specifically about
subatomic particles; extending it to the larger world by analogy can be
interesting but deceptive. People start saying that purely conjectural
statements are based on scientific theory when they forget or don't know
what Heisenberg was talking about.
) Of course you are not alone in this. A survey of the college
)science curriculm today shows that the same old quaint Industrial Age,
)Victorian epistemology is at work. In short, the epistemology says that a
)very accurate approximation to reality is as good as reality. As we
)approach the 21st Century, modern science is discovering just how woefully
)inadequate is this stance.
I don't get this either. I know my 12-inch ruler isn't really exactly 12
inches, but in, say, framing carpentry where an accuracy of 1/16 inch is
plenty enough, it's a super-accurate tool.
) The problem is stated very well by one of your favorite
)philosophers of science, Sir Karl Popper. It is the distinction he makes
)between truth and certainty. I quote him from the book: _Mind in Nature_, a
)compendium of lectures given by various scholars at the 17th Nobel
)Conference held at Gustavus Adolphus College, MN in 1981. (Harper & Row,
)S.F., 1981, Richard Q. Elvee, editor):
)
)-------------------------------------------------------------
) "... a testable and well-tested conjecture is, I suggest, the very
)best kind of knowledge that we can have. Thus I suggest, even our best
)knowledge is tentative knowledge, conjectural knowledge. This includes the
)natural sciences: even scientific knowledge remains conjectural, although
)it is the best knowledge we have. It is tentative knowledge that has been
)severely criticized. It consists of testable, tentative conjectures.
) "We cannot reach certainty: not even the best theories of the
)natural sciences are certain. (They cannot even be said to be more probable
)than improbable, if we take probability in any of the senses that satisfy
)the laws of the calculus of probability.) All we can do is to criticize
)them, and to test them, as severely as our ingenuity permits.
) "This view of mine has often been misunderstood. Thus it has often
)been said, wrongly, that I reject the concept of truth. I do not: I think
)that truth is the aim of all our intellectual endeavors. "
) (Pages 31-32)
)---------------------------------------------------------------
This is why I'm proud to be called a Popperian. He puts it so clearly.
Isn't his attitude diametrically opposed to Goetheanism?
) And it is precisely this lack of distinction between truth and
)certainty that charactertizes the 1920's time warp shared both by the
)Waldorf critics and the Waldorfians. It is really not an argument over
)truth vs. falsity; rather arguments rage over the issues of certainty of
)knowledge in the pursuit of truth. I think we can all agree that everyone
)on this List is one way or another dedicated to searching for truth. The
)question is how do we deal with the inherent uncertainty in that search?
Yes, as I often say, the arguments with quack medicine, new-age physics,
and Anthroposophy boil down to epistemology. But I don't see how you can
characterize my Popperian attitude as "1920's". You imply that you, on the
contrary, occupy a "modern" position relative to both Steiner and me. Show
me.
) Later on, I might get into the issue of the Uncertainty Principle
)and its effects on scientific attitudes today, but for this discussion, the
)principle is best illustarted by analysing what you have called the "ad
)hominem" arguments.
Please -don't- get into the uncertainty principle here. It's about
observing subatomic particles, not Anthroposophy or education.
) They fall into two neatly polar-opposite categories. If I were to
)take all the "ad hominems" directed at me, they consider me as too
)expanded, too "out there," too "spaced-out" or crazy in the sense of being
)too manic. My mental state is too fluidic or gaseous, vaporous, impossible
)to pin down, all over the place, implying that the directors of the remarks
)believe themselves to be: "together, contracted, realistic, tightly bound
)to practical,no-nonsense, day-to-day reality. ("What you get is what you
)see!")
Were I an Anthroposophist, I would say your were overly influenced by Lucifer.
) On the other side, the "ad hominems" directed at Dan Dugan are like
)arrows being shot from on high. As a classic and recent example, I really
)get a chuckle out of all the piles and piles of "immense pity" being dumped
)on Dan (below) by Val Setzer (above). Thus Dan is viewed as being too
)"contracted, too rigid in thinking, too dry, too focussed on the "trees"
)and not the "forest," etc., too much in the "here and now." If anything,
)Dan, you are seen as "spaced-in," "stuck in yourself," or wallowing in the
)dark depressive side of the manic-depressive polarity. ("What you see is
)what you get.")
)From the viewpoint of Anthroposophy, I am an agent, if not an incarnation,
of Ahriman. An amusing thought, but I fail to see the relevance of this
digression to the problem of obtaining reliable knowledge.
) Now I'd like to characterize the logic structure of the two kinds
)of arguments. First, I'd like to point out the close relationship between
)the concepts of "certainty-uncertainty" and "consistency-inconsistency." In
)1931, the mathemetician Kurt Goedel proved that any fully self-consistent
)system, e.g. arithmetic, is incomplete. That is to say, there exist
)propositions and assertions that exist outside the consistent system and
)hence are "undecidable" when proof or disproof of them is attempted.
) The application of this Incompleteness Theorem is that you can
)achieve full consistency at the cost of incompleteness; but if you posit
)completeness, then you must deal with the necessary inconsistencies that
)will plague your complete system. In other words, you cannot "eat your cake
)and have it too."
Goedel is interesting, but I don't know of anybody's work save philosophers
that is affected by it. My confidence in the mathematics describing
carpentry is unshaken. Like the uncertainty principle, Goedel is a red
herring new-age thinkers throw in to support their pretense that science as
we know it is dead.
) This distinction expresses what Popper is saying above. Truth is
)completeness; while certainty is consistency. Actually, I should more
)accurately say it this way: Truth is the BELIEF in completeness
)while certainty is the BELIEF in consistency.
Finally you have come to a point. I disagree. My summary of the Popper
statement would be to say that truth is the aim of science and certainty is
unattainable, just that. It's not about belief.
) I bring in the "B" word because that is exactly how all human
)beings decide these "undecidable propositions." For example, let us take
)the undecidable proposition of the existence of God. No one can logically
)or scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God. Whichever side
)you fall out on this issue, whether atheist or devout religious believer,
)the issue is finally decided by a leap of faith. It has to be, because the
)proposition is undecidable within the system of logic that we use in our
)culture.
) Thus, Dan, you as an atheist have just as much certainty that
)there is NO God, as a devout Muslim has certainty that there IS a God named
)Allah. You both arrive at your respective positions by equal amounts of
)BELIEF. And belief is a judgment that comes from our emotions and as such
)it expresses itself in opposites. That is the nature of judgments, whether
)they be "ad hominem" arguments or proofs and disproofs of the existence of
)God.
So f***ng what? Let's -not- talk about proving the existence of your deity.
I suspect you're trying to work around to that "science is just another
religious belief system" nonsense that new-agers cling to. Won't wash.
) Now to get back to the "ad hominems" on the List. My "leap of
)faith" is a leap toward completeness. However, I know that if I claim
)completeness for any system, be it Steiner's or modern physics or whatever,
)I must acknowledge the existence of the inconsistencies that will, of
)necessity, permeate my complete system. So I revel in these
)inconsistencies. You might even say I worship them, since any leap of faith
)is religious in nature. At least they don't bother me like they bother you.
I guess if you "revel in inconsistencies" you immunize yourself against
logic. You make your own reality, eh? Convenient for you.
) On the other side, Dan, you worship at the altar of consistency and
)certainty. Logical inconsistencies upset you. Thus you rightfully and
)correctly point out the many inconsistencies of logic that Waldorfians
)adhere to. So what! Inconsistencies "go with the territory" of system
)completeness. In quantum physics today, logical inconsistencies are
)ABSOLUTELY CENTRAL to the entire subject!!!
Now we have a conclusion, finally. No, inconsistencies don't go with
"system completeness" except in math as Goedel has posited. Carpentry is
unaffected. You're doing the same thing you did with Heisenberg, extending
the principle beyond its area of application. This was one of Steiner's
weaknesses that you seem to have inherited. For example, Steiner turned the
then-new knowledge that the embryo recapitulates some earlier evolutionary
stages into an iron law that then determines the Waldorf curriculum
recapitulating a fancied evolution of humanity. This was impressive to his
followers, lending an aura of advanced science to their guru's
pronouncements. But Steiner's extension of a tendency into a law was as
incorrect as the current attempts to extend Goedel and Heisenberg by weak
analogies.
) So it is no surprise that you would see Steiner and by your
)syllogism, me, as crazy or mad, in the sense of me "being spaced out, way
)out there." Completeness is like a giant balloon being ever blown up more
)and more.
) On the other hand, a belief in full consistency or "worship of
)certainty" means that your "leap of faith" (actually more like a "falling
)backwards" and down into yourself) demands that you stay within the
)confines of yourself and trust only what you can prove or disprove within
)the narrow limits of your very incomplete system. But you yourself, by
)your belief, have created these limitations and self-imposed them. We all
)do that, of course, but the problem arises when you believe that your fully
)consistent system can also be simultaneously complete, and thus applicable
)to others, e.g. Waldorfians. It can't be in reality, but you obviously
)BELIEVE that it can be and should be!
Huh? You're building a straw man. First you acknowledge I'm a Popperian,
then you say I "worship certainty." That's inconsistent, but of course you
said you revel in that. If you won't use logic, faith is all that's left
for you.
) (I just got a picture of you, Dan, as a "Carrie Nation type" of
)abolitionist who bursts into the Waldorf Saloon and tries to drag out all
)the drunken Waldorfian revelers. I agree with you that these silly drunks
)ought to be sobered up, but why do you blame the "alcohol" (literally
)spirits)? My point is that the alcohol can be drunk in moderation).
I honor the rights of minority religions. Anthroposophists can have their
fun, I won't disturb you. It's only where your religion transgresses its
ethical boundaries as in your deceitful recruiting practices, your quack
medicine, your promulgation of proto-nazi racism, and your intrusion into
public schools, that I am out to expose and curtail your activities.
) Anyway, let me end this long post for now with a few more Popper
)quotes from the same book.
) [Popper's emphasis throughout]
)------------------------------------------------------------------
) "The claim that truth is objective and absolute may sound arrogant;
)and it would be arrogant if it were combined with the claim that we know
)the truth; or that we possess a criterion of truth, that is to say, some
)means by which we recognize a proposition that agrees with the facts. But
)to say that truth is objective and absolute is far from arrogant when it is
)combined with fallibilism, with the doctrine that the possibility of error
)affects all, or almost all, our knowledge, and that it makes all our best
)and most interesting knowledge conjectural." (Page 33)
)
) "....TRUTH can never be known with CERTAINTY; and this means that
)we have to distinguish sharply between truth and certainty: truth is
)objective, and may be achieved. Certainty, or certain truth, cannot be
)achieved at all. Thus the distinction between truth and certainty is of
)decisive importance."
) (Page 34)
)
) "Even our best knowledge, the well-tested scientific knowledge of
)the physical and biological sciences, is fallible: it is CONJECTURAL
)KNOWLEDGE ." (Page 34)
)------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine Tom, but Steiner argued against these ideas.
"People aren't really concerned about hypothetical-deductive science; they
are so foolish that they don't notice that this is logical nonsense. They
say that ours is not hypothetical-deductive science not because it would be
logical to say so but only because it derives from anthroposophy. People
are too foolish to to comprehend what comes from anthroposophy. Naturally,
their lack of comprehension makes them angry, and therefore they denounce
it. The real reason anthroposophy is considered heresy is that those who
are engaged in so-called science do not think and cannot understand
anthroposophy."
[Steiner, Rudolf. Health and Illness: Volume 2 : Nine Lectures to
the Workmen at the Goetheanum, Dornach, Switzerland, 1922-23. (1923)
Trans. Maria St. Goar, Ed. Gilbert Church and Alice Wulsin. Spring Valley:
Anthroposophic Press, 1983, p. 35.]
Sounds like Val, doesn't he?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n376.2 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: cult-like behavior
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 09:32:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Lefty to Michael Kopp (in a parinoid ferver):
)Since Mr. Dugan has been utterly uncooperative in agreeing not to respect
)the rights of the subscribers to the WALDORF list, I am forced to take the
)step of removing anyone who I think _might_ be forwarding postings on to
)him.
)
)It's a shame how one bad apple can spoil the fun for everyone, isn't it?
)
Hey, give these guys a shovel and they'll bury themselves...("We are _not_
a cult, we are _not_ a cult, we are _not_ a cult.")
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n376.3 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Legos
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 16:31:39 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I want to share a couple of excerpts from Val Setzer on the Waldorf list:
)A second argument against Legos before adolescence is that they force a
)logical thinking. They are so small as to be independent of the force of
)gravity, contrary to wooden blocks. The only rule to combine one piece to
)another is to fit the tiny protuberances (Eng.?) into the tiny holes. It
)seems to me that there is a strong abstract, logical component in this
)process. Again, according to WE, logical, abstract thinking should only
)be introduced at high school. BTW, this is one of the arguments I used in
)my book "Computers in Education" to criticize Papert's use of the
)programming language LOGO as an educational tool. A program has to be
)written using atomized statements.
)I think Legos force abstract thinking and this
)is extremely damaging to ages where it is not yet appropriate. Abstract
)thinking in early ages tends to produce, among other things, sclerosis -
)but don't ask me to justify this statement. I would have to enter into
)quite a bit of Anthroposophy for that. Just take it or leave it.
)Valdemar W.Setzer Dept. of Computer Science, University of S\~ao Paulo, Brazil
) vwsetzer ime.usp.br http://www.ime.usp.br/~vwsetzer
posted by Dan Dugan
P.S. Lefty, I have my own subscription to your list, so stop harassing your
subscribers.
-dD-
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n376.4 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: FW: Lego
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 20:09:24 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Barry Udoff posted this on the SJU Waldorf list. I am reposting this with
permission, as an example that not all potential Waldorf parents fall for
the hype.
Deby
When we started thinking about a Waldorf school for our 9 year-old son, we
subscribed to this list. I have read much that is good about this movement as
some that is not. The lego debate is is very troubling. Our son has played
with them since he was 3. They have challenged and improved his fine motor
skills, exercised his imagination and given him confidence as creative
builder. Only recently has he begun to build the project as intended. His
'free building' designs are amazing. Yes, we've stepped on pieces barefooted
in the dark and they make keeping a room clean more difficult. The objections
I read on this list seem to come from an adult's point of view rather then a
child's. I find that this attitude is turning us against the Waldorf system.
sandibar aol.com
snell oro.net
http://www.dandugan.com/plans
People For Legal and
Non-Sectarian Schools
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n376.5 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: California Constitution
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 23:33:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The California Constitution is even clearer than the Federal. Waldorf
certainly would be a great test case for these laws. I'd _love_ to see it.
Deby
Article 16, Section 5 of the California Constitution states, "Neither the
Legislature, nor any county, city and county, township, school district, or
other municipal corporation shall ever make an appropriation, or pay from
any public fund whatever, or grant anything to or in aid of any religious
sect, church, creed, or sectarian purpose, or help to support or sustain
any school, college, university, hospital, or other institution controlled
by any religious creed, church, or sectarian denomination whatever . . ."
Article 9, Section I of the California Constitution states, "No public
money shall ever be appropriated for the support of any sectarian or
denominational school, or any school not under the exclusive control of the
officers of the public schools; nor shall any sectarian or denominational
doctrine be taught, or instruction thereon be permitted, *directly or
indirectly (let me repeat that - from *) in any of the schools of this
State.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n376 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n377 --------------
001 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: Legos
002 - "Daniel H. Chase" (dhchas - Re: Legos
003 - "Daniel H. Chase" (dhchas - Re: Legos
004 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Legos
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n377.1 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Legos
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 97 12:14:25 +0100
Dan:
I'm not sure why you and Debi want to repeat the Lego thread on this
list - except, perhaps, that it gives you a chance to selectively
quote it.
For anyone who is interested (and hasn't been thrown off Lefty's list
for breach of copyright), I started a robust thread about the Waldorf
attitude to Lego the Waldorf list. There have been many thoughtful
posts, pro and anti, which make interesting reading - and give the
lie to the suggestion that the Waldorf community is not open to
dissent and criticism. Indeed, it now seems that the only activity
that can properly be classified as 'criticism' now happens there -
and not here .
James
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n377.2 ---------------
From: "Daniel H. Chase" (dhchase inlink.com)
Subject: Re: Legos
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 09:18:32 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi James,
Huh???
There is no Dan and Debi here. Just a Dan and Linda,
Lego thread? Are you sure you got the right people? :-)
Perhaps you could fill me in. I am new to the list, new to the discussion
and new to the Waldorf Method.
Thanks.
Linda.
At 12:14 PM 4/28/97 +0100, you wrote:
)Dan:
)
)I'm not sure why you and Debi want to repeat the Lego thread on this
)list - except, perhaps, that it gives you a chance to selectively
)quote it.
)
)
)For anyone who is interested (and hasn't been thrown off Lefty's list
)for breach of copyright), I started a robust thread about the Waldorf
)attitude to Lego the Waldorf list. There have been many thoughtful
)posts, pro and anti, which make interesting reading - and give the
)lie to the suggestion that the Waldorf community is not open to
)dissent and criticism. Indeed, it now seems that the only activity
)that can properly be classified as 'criticism' now happens there -
)and not here .
)
)James
)
)
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n377.3 ---------------
From: "Daniel H. Chase" (dhchase inlink.com)
Subject: Re: Legos
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 11:43:06 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Clueless Newbie Linda Here...
Apologies to the list. This Newbie didn't notice the reply to: header.
List, email, list, email. (memorizing the difference) :-)
James was talking Dan Dugan, and Debi about a crossposted topic from the
pro/Waldorf list, not me personally in email.
I'm straightened out now. :-) Thanks to other kind list participants.
(explanation) I was in the middle of a LEGO thread somewhere else...
(/explanation)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n377.4 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Legos
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 09:10:16 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199704281338.GAA10029 lists1.best.com)
James Souttar talks about a lego discussion, and in passing makes
inaccurate statements about censorship and the character of discussion on
the Waldorf list as compared to the Waldorf Critics list:
)Dan:
)
)I'm not sure why you and Debi want to repeat the Lego thread on this
)list - except, perhaps, that it gives you a chance to selectively
)quote it.
KOPP says:
What's wrong with selective quoting? It's a time-honoured tradition of
scholarship, debate and discussion, isn't it? How else to get to the nub of
the matter?
SOUTTAR:
)For anyone who is interested (and hasn't been thrown off Lefty's list
)for breach of copyright),
KOPP says:
Or "thrown off Lefty's list" for no reason at all, much less for breach of
copyright.
Souttar is joining Tonkin in the snide remarks gallery.
Lefty's message dumping me said it was because he had to retaliate against
Dan Dugan by dumping someone who "might have" passed on Waldorf list stuff.
No due process, no warning, no chance to deny, no redress.
The only real reason Lefty dumped me is because I was a high-profile critic
of h