(
Waldorf Critics Archive 9710 (October, 1997)
return to WCA Archive Index
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n525 --------------
001 - Per.Hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Re: Disclosure Statement
002 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Re: Disclosure Statement
003 - Per.Hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Re: Disclosure Statement
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n525.1 ---------------
From: Per.Hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se
Subject: Re: Disclosure Statement
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 17:02:29 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 13.39 97-09-29, Deby Snell wrote:
))Deby:
))
)))It has been a couple years so my memory could very well have faded on all
)))his points of concern. He felt strong enough to take this issue to a publ=
ic
)))meeting which I attended. Personally, I believe the practice is harmless.
)))But then there _is_ this non-sectarian claim. This is another example of
)))how Anthroposophical practices can violate families spiritual belief
)))system. This father seemed pretty distressed by the practice.
))
))This story reminded me of the woman who sued Disney - successfully - for
))the traumatic effect of seeing Mickey Mouse without a head (i.e. revealing
))that there was actually a person inside).
))The ability of North Americans to invent ever new and obscure forms of
))victimisation apparently knows no end (and here surpasses itself). Didn't
))anyone suggest litigation? It could have been phenomenal...
)
)
)Sorry James, no law suit here. Just another family who removed their
)children from the school. But just because you and I do not have a problem
)with teachers meditating on our children does not mean that we are in a
)position to judge another person's spiritual beliefs. I think it is
)unacceptable to place people in violation of their spiritual practices
)without their knowledge or consent. Do you agree?
)Deby
My name is Per Hallstroem and I work as a teacher at Rudolf
Steinerseminariet in Jaerna, Sweden.
As English is not my mothertounge, please have some patience with how I
handle your language, and please tell me when you think I use it
incorrectly.
This also makes my writing pretty slow, and I=B4m not able to spend very muc=
h
time at my Macintosh, so my postings will be few and sporadic.
This list belongs to the waldorf-critics, and as I am a representative for
anthroposophy, it is to those of you who are critics whom I primarily would
like to address.
I have made one earlier posting which was a bit beside the point in
connection with the question I thought I tried to answer at that time.
Though I have only followed this list for about a month, and only read some
of the archives, I think that I understand what your incentives and
core-issues are:
You have experienced mistreatment by Waldorf teachers/anthroposophists.
You mean that they are breaking the law by inculcation and espousing of
young, defenseless human beings.
You believe they suffer from deficient thinking and pseudo science-beliefs.
Now I would like to ask what toou think ameditation is in this context:
I wonder at the implications of what you are saying Deby... can a teacher
_think_ about a child in his class whithout risking to violate the families
spiritual belief system? Shouldnt he better ask the parents first?
The kind of meditation, knomn to me, that teachers do - often on regular
basis - is an act of intense thinking over or remembering the child in
order to better understand how to be a good teacher to the child.
The general purpose being to do what is possible to further the childs
development to a free, strong and compassionate grown up.
But you really think thinking about someone is to violate this person or
his family?
Or does it only apply if the person, in your opinion, suffers from
_deficient thinking?_
Per Hallstr=F6m
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n525.2 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Re: Disclosure Statement
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 20:17:28 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199709301500.IAA28594 lists1.best.com)
Per writes,
)I wonder at the implications of what you are saying Deby... can a teacher
)_think_ about a child in his class whithout risking to violate the families
)spiritual belief system? Shouldnt he better ask the parents first?
)The kind of meditation, knomn to me, that teachers do - often on regular
)basis - is an act of intense thinking over or remembering the child in
)order to better understand how to be a good teacher to the child.
)The general purpose being to do what is possible to further the childs
)development to a free, strong and compassionate grown up.
As I said, Per, *I* have _no_ problem with a teacher meditating on my
child. I think it is harmless. The term meditating [on a child] has
different connotations than the word "thinking". What I said was that
_some_ people, due to their own spiritual beliefs, may not want teachers
meditating on their children. I mentioned this because of a father who
objected to this practice at an all-school meeting _before_ he took his
children out of the school. My observation of this father's reaction is why
I felt this practice should be considered for the "full disclosure"
document.
By the way.. your english is easy to understand. I'm a native American and
often struggle with words. I'm happy that you joined the conversation.
Best,
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n525.3 ---------------
From: Per.Hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Re: Disclosure Statement
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:44:39 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 20.17 97-09-30, Deby Snell wrote:
)Per writes,
))I wonder at the implications of what you are saying Deby... can a teacher
))_think_ about a child in his class whithout risking to violate the familie=
s
))spiritual belief system? Shouldnt he better ask the parents first?
))The kind of meditation, knomn to me, that teachers do - often on regular
))basis - is an act of intense thinking over or remembering the child in
))order to better understand how to be a good teacher to the child.
))The general purpose being to do what is possible to further the childs
))development to a free, strong and compassionate grown up.
)
)
)As I said, Per, *I* have _no_ problem with a teacher meditating on my
)child. I think it is harmless. The term meditating [on a child] has
)different connotations than the word "thinking". What I said was that
)_some_ people, due to their own spiritual beliefs, may not want teachers
)meditating on their children. I mentioned this because of a father who
)objected to this practice at an all-school meeting _before_ he took his
)children out of the school. My observation of this father's reaction is why
)I felt this practice should be considered for the "full disclosure"
)document.
What I tried to say is that maybe a confusion regarding the "different
connotations" of the terms "meditating" and "thinking" might have been at
least part of the problem for the father you refer to. I also tried to make
clear what is ment by meditating [on a child] as a method for teachers who
want to enhance their ability to understand their pupils.
Autumnly greetings
Per Hallstr=F6m
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n525 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n526 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - reporter seeking contacts
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n526.1 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: reporter seeking contacts
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 11:10:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I received the following:
)I am a student writer for the Daily Northwestern, the campus newspaper.
)I am doing a story for the Daily on a Waldorf school that is in
)Evanston. Since you seem to be a vocal critic of the Waldorf system I am
)wondering if you could steer me to the covered sides of the Waldorf
)system not known to the general public.
)
)We can discuss details over the phone and I can call you on the
)University account, now all I need is your phone number. If the phone is
)too inconvenient for you, other forms of communication could be set up.
)Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.
)Aurin Squire
)a-squire nwu.edu
I talked with him on the phone. He's interviewed the head teacher at the
Waldorf school in Evanston also. He wants to talk with disgruntled former
Waldorf parents. Please email him ASAP with a brief description of your
experience. His deadline is Tuesday the 7th.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n526 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n527 --------------
001 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy 2
002 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - English/Four Elements
003 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Re: English/Four Elements
004 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: English/Four Elements
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n527.1 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy 2
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 12:44:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
My 1997 edition of the Anthroposophic Press catalog has a few new
offerings.To order a book, call the Anthroposophic Press. Their phone #:
888-757-2742, fax - 313-662-1727)
One new book, 'Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy 2'(Rudolf Steiner),
includes this description: "In this collection, as in the previous one,
Steiner is outspoken with regard to the spiritual nature of human beings
and the world, including the spiritual nature of Waldorf education." It is
book # 1802, $16.95.
Another new offering, 'Christianity as Mystical Fact' (Rudolf Steiner)
includes this description: 'As Steiner writes in his Autobiography: "My
intention was not simply to present the mystical content of Christianity.
Rather my aim was to describe evolution from the ancient Mysteries to the
Mystery of Golgotha in such a way as to reveal forces at work in this
evolution that were not just earthy, historial forces, but spiritual,
extra-earthly impulses. I wanted to show that the content presented in the
ancient Mysteries took the form of ritualistic pictures of events ocuring
within the cosmos to the earth in the Mystery of Golgotha as a
sense-perceptible *fact* accomplished on the plane of history."'
'Christianity as a Mystical Fact' is a fundamental book, both in Steiner's
own development and in the development of Western esotericsm and our
understanding of the Christ event. Here readers will find the evolutionary
development from the ancient Mysteries through the great Greek philosophers
to the events portrayed in the Gospels.'
Book#1957, $16.95
Deby Snell
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n527.2 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: English/Four Elements
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:32:19 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cleaning out the closet, I ran across a third grade main lesson book which
my son copied from his Waldorf classroom's chaulk board. It begins:
"In nature we find four elements and four seasons. We also have four kinds
of sentences:"
1. Commands
2. Exclamations
3. Statements
4. Questions
Anthroposophy sneaks into most everything in a Waldorf classroom. _Four_
elements?
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n527.3 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Re: English/Four Elements
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 11:35:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:43:04 -0700
)From: marta.hammel West.Sun.COM (Marta Hammel - PDX DSSR Sun/Portland)
)To: snell oro.net
)Subject: Re: English/Four Elements
)X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
)
)Yes, Deby,
)
)Four elements:
) Water
) Air
) Earth
) Fire
)
)This concept is not specific to Anthroposophy; but exists in many life
)orientations. (including that of Native Americans if I'm not mistaken.)
)
)In fact there are most likely several different applications of the concept of
)"four elements", this is just the first that came to mind.
)
)
)Marta
)
)) From snell oro.net Thu Oct 9 10:24:43 1997
)) From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
)) Subject: English/Four Elements
)) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:32:19 -0700
)) BestServHost: lists.best.com
)) MIME-Version: 1.0
)) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
))
)) Cleaning out the closet, I ran across a third grade main lesson book which
)) my son copied from his Waldorf classroom's chaulk board. It begins:
))
)) "In nature we find four elements and four seasons. We also have four kinds
)) of sentences:"
)) 1. Commands
)) 2. Exclamations
)) 3. Statements
)) 4. Questions
))
)) Anthroposophy sneaks into most everything in a Waldorf classroom. _Four_
)) elements?
)) Deby
))
))
))
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n527.4 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: English/Four Elements
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:43:48 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Please clarify. Does Waldorf teach "four elements:
water/air/earth/fire" as scientific fact? If so, I would find this
quite alarming. Or do they teach it as ancient philosophy, no longer
held true? This is what mainstream schools teach.
-- Brian
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Deby Snell [SMTP:snell oro.net]
) Sent: Thursday, October 09, 1997 2:35 PM
) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) Subject: Re: English/Four Elements
)
) )Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 10:43:04 -0700
) )From: marta.hammel West.Sun.COM (Marta Hammel - PDX DSSR
) Sun/Portland)
) )To: snell oro.net
) )Subject: Re: English/Four Elements
) )X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
) )
) )Yes, Deby,
) )
) )Four elements:
) ) Water
) ) Air
) ) Earth
) ) Fire
) )
) )This concept is not specific to Anthroposophy; but exists in many
) life
) )orientations. (including that of Native Americans if I'm not
) mistaken.)
) )
) )In fact there are most likely several different applications of the
) concept of
) )"four elements", this is just the first that came to mind.
) )
) )
) )Marta
) )
) )) From snell oro.net Thu Oct 9 10:24:43 1997
) )) From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
) )) Subject: English/Four Elements
) )) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 09:32:19 -0700
) )) BestServHost: lists.best.com
) )) MIME-Version: 1.0
) )) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) ))
) )) Cleaning out the closet, I ran across a third grade main lesson
) book which
) )) my son copied from his Waldorf classroom's chaulk board. It begins:
) ))
) )) "In nature we find four elements and four seasons. We also have
) four kinds
) )) of sentences:"
) )) 1. Commands
) )) 2. Exclamations
) )) 3. Statements
) )) 4. Questions
) ))
) )) Anthroposophy sneaks into most everything in a Waldorf classroom.
) _Four_
) )) elements?
) )) Deby
) ))
) ))
) ))
) )
)
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n527 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n528 --------------
001 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Re: English/Four Elements, and numerology
002 - RigbyL aol.com - Re: English/Four Elements
003 - spike netshel.net - Re: Four Elements
004 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - A Waldorf teacher's task
005 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Children/Sleep/Reincarnation
006 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: English/Four Elements
007 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - SF State hosting cult medical course
008 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Four Elements
009 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - No visuals
010 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Re: SF State hosting cult medical course
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n528.1 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Re: English/Four Elements, and numerology
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 23:00:02 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 09:32 AM 9/10/97 -0700, Deby wrote:
)Cleaning out the closet, I ran across a third grade main lesson book which
)my son copied from his Waldorf classroom's chaulk board. It begins:
)
)"In nature we find four elements and four seasons. We also have four kinds
)of sentences:"
)1. Commands
)2. Exclamations
)3. Statements
)4. Questions
)
)Anthroposophy sneaks into most everything in a Waldorf classroom. _Four_
)elements?
And _four_ seasons?, people who live in the tropics, not in central Europe,
will wonder. Btw, there is a pseudoscience called numerology. A. Sinnett,
vice president of the Theosophical Society about 1900, when Steiner joined
it, was an expert in it. Sinnett used it to advise how to gamble on horse races.
Herman
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n528.2 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Re: English/Four Elements
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:57:28 -0400 (EDT)
Brian asked::
(( Please clarify. Does Waldorf teach "four elements:
water/air/earth/fire" as scientific fact? If so, I would find this quite
alarming. Or do they teach it as ancient philosophy, no longer held true?
This is what mainstream schools teach.))
In my experience, the four elements are not taught as scientific
fact--certainly not in science classes per se. The best way to think of the
term "elements" when used with the air/fire/water/earth foursome is as sets
of qualities that are readily experienced in the physical world. In this
sense they are still as "true" as they ever were and there is a good deal to
be learned when approaching nature at this level of aggregation. I believe
it is fair to say (and I would certainly like to hear from Waldorf teachers
on this point) that in initial exposures of students to the ideas of science
they tend to work with phenomena at this level because they can be
experienced by the senses and thus understood deeply, before proceeding to
more abstract levels of science.
(BTW, traditionally there is a fifth "element" usually named "ether", but
sometimes in contemporary discussion named "space." In mainstream science
during the 19th century, ether was posited as the medium in which what we now
call electromagnetic waves waved. After Einstein's theories became accepted,
space--or spacetime, if you like--took over that role and the idea of ether
was dropped.)
Waldorf education does tend to use archaic terminology, much to the dismay of
literalist adults. The four temperaments, for example, can easily be
understood as clusters of personality traits, and likely would be given
credibility by contemporary child development specialists if they had
different labels. It takes a certain amount of intellectual generosity to
look behind the labels used by Waldorf educators to understand the meaning
behind them, and many critics are not willing or not able to do that.
Children are not so burdened with intellectual preconceptions, so labels
don't get in their way.
To return to elements, it is interesting to raise the question of how many
there are, really, if we all agree that four is not the proper scientific
number. By "elements" I am now referring to the most basic building blocks
of physical reality. In terms of that definition of "elements" what science
teachers still usually call the periodic table of elements is just as
misnamed as the earth/air/fire/water/(ether) rubric. We could count the
latest population of the quantum particle zoo, but even those phenomena seem
not to satisfy the search for ultimate building blocks. We might have to
conclude that any definition of "element" is arbitrary.
Rigby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n528.3 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: Re: Four Elements
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:17:35 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Brian,
In regard to your request:
)
)Please clarify. Does Waldorf teach "four elements:
)water/air/earth/fire" as scientific fact? If so, I would find this
)quite alarming.
Yes, Brian, they do teach this as scientific fact. Please read the
following narrative describing an experience I had last spring in regard to
the "four elements" and Waldorf teaching methods.
I am a public school teacher that was subjected to the Waldorf "Public
School Teacher Training" at Rudolf Steiner College in Sacramento. I am a
credentialed science teacher and I found their "scientific" beliefs and
teaching methods to actually be based on occult religious beliefs and the
pedagogy designed to increase "spiritual" awareness as opposed to actual
scientific training. (The Waldorf pedagogy for all curriculum areas is
designed to increase spriritual awareness.)
My protest became more public last spring. At one point I attended a
meeting at which many members of the Rudolf Steiner College staff and the
Sacramento Waldorf School staff and Board also attended (uninvited). After
the meeting I had a conversation with a staff member from the college. She
approached me and "kindly" asked what concerns I had about the Waldorf
science methodology. I explained briefly to her some of my concerns. At
this point she stated to me, something to the effect, that the Waldorf
approach concentrated heavily on the sciences and that the "four elements"
were introduced early in the primary years. I pointed out to her that the
belief or teaching of the "four elements" was occultist, mystical belief
and not based on any accepted scientific teaching, etc., etc., and
certainly not something I would or could offer in a public school
classroom. She then attempted to convince me that "Waldorf" and I simply
labeled things differently. She told me that all things were made of
"earth, wind, fire and water" and that this was what was actually being
taught. I finally inquired if perhaps she thought these referred to the
three states of matter? She wasn't sure about this, not being clear on what
the three states of matter are - I clarified this for her, but she still
was not sure since these were only three states and seemed to be leaving
out the "fire." She also insisted that she was taught the scientific
validity of the four elements at a public elementary school here in
northern California in her youth. Since she looked younger than me I was
more than a little surprised and somewhat dubious. When I asked what school
this was she changed the subject and would not tell me. However, she
remained adamant throughout our conversation that there are four elements
and this is what all "matter" (my word) is composed of. . . and this is
scientific _and_ is part of the Waldorf curriculum.
What is your interest in this list? Are you a parent of a Waldorf student?
If so I would suggest that you engage in extensive reading on
Anthroposophy, Waldorf pedagogy, and grade level curriculum. If you are
indeed a parent of a Waldorf student I would hope that it is your _clear_
desire to have your child educated in a religious, occultist based
curriculum designed to positively aid his or her future reincarnation and
spiritual powers, including clairvoyance. If this is not your clear desire
then I would suggest that you consider other schools before you find your
child seriously lacking in present day academic skills.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n528.4 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: A Waldorf teacher's task
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 20:48:25 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
"We injure the child's eternal being if we fail to cultivate in him the
right kind of feeling and will ... Education must help the child to think
properly so that he may bring over the fruits of his previous lives.
Working on the will and feeling prepares him for the live between death and
rebirth, if he does not receive what the physical world can give him in
Will and Feeling he is subsequently impoverished in the life after death."
Rudolf Steiner. Cosmic Forces in Man. Christiana Nov/Dec. 1921
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n528.5 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Children/Sleep/Reincarnation
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:02:28 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Boy, cleaning out the closet has yielded all kinds of goodies. In Audrey E.
McAllen's book, 'Sleep', (Hawthorn Press, 1986) she says;
"The astral body and ego have a biography outside of the body in sleep as
essential and meaningful as when it is united with the physical and ether
bodies; but if the content of speech has no knowledge of the realities of
the spiritual world then the soul and spirit (astral body and ego) are
confined to the earthly material aspect of the elemental kingdoms."
Ms McAllen goes on to quote Steiner from 'The Driving Force of Spiritual
Pwers in World History', Lecture 1 :
"...[I]f our school education is not spiritually deepened, he (the child
approaching puberty and after) brings with him into sleep the rumbling
sounds of the physical mineral world, in his blood the rustling thudding
sounds of the physical part of the plant world and thus he is made
dependent on the mineralized brain made disharmonious in sleep and the
blood with hissing and rustling sounding thro' it. Thus he is confined
through the spiritual, idealistic barreness of speech to the earthly sphere
alone, whereas in other circumstances the worlds could have raised him
above the earthly to experience a higher realm."
In the next chapter, 'Sleep and Reincarnation', the author says about
("non-sectarian") Waldorf education:
"The curiculum of the Waldorf School also aids the process of the child's
development from the aspect of reincarnation. As the sleep life extends
into the elemental world, so the Akasha of the earth with its store of
memory also becomes visable. This is geographical time-memory. Just as in
earlier periods of history, the pupil of the Mysteries went from centre to
centre for his training, so in sleep the history of the earth shines up to
us from the geographical place of its happenings. In the middle school
years the great cultural epochs are recapitulated by the retelling of the
myths and legends appertaining to them. With these imaginations living in
them, the souls can re-find their reality in the in the spiritual memory of
the planet. It becomes clear to the teacher that the children in a class
have a particular affinity with one or the other of these epochs. The joy
and interest and the will engendered help the child come from the past to
the present.
Geography is also taught in the context of the peoples of the regions
described, together with their myths and customs. These graphically
described and lived in by the teacher, enable the class as a group soul to
experience in sleep the elemental areas that are so pictured. Thus the
world is experienced in the child's soul as a living
historical-geographical whole in space-time, not as a foreign body, but as
the living Mother Being who carries us during our earthly life-time.
Confidence of soul and the will to incarnate spring up from the sleep
experiences. A right teaching method enables the soul and spirit to bring
over into the present earth life the fruits of previous incarnations."
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n528.6 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: English/Four Elements
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:20:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)Brian asked::
)
)(( Please clarify. Does Waldorf teach "four elements:
) water/air/earth/fire" as scientific fact? If so, I would find this quite
)alarming. Or do they teach it as ancient philosophy, no longer held true?
) This is what mainstream schools teach.))
And Rigby responded,
)In my experience, the four elements are not taught as scientific
)fact--certainly not in science classes per se. (snip)
Oh, yes they are. Attempted cover-up here.
My confrontation with the San Francisco Waldorf School was partly forced by
my son's having complained after a specialist teacher had given them some
chemistry lessons. He said "they're teaching us baby science." "What do you
mean?" "They say the elements are earth, air, fire and water."
In my slide show on Waldorf I have a Waldorf Organic Chemistry test in
which the teacher asks the student to discuss the relationship of sugar to
the four elements.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n528.7 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: SF State hosting cult medical course
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 00:21:38 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools, Inc.
c/o Dan Dugan, Secretary
290 Napoleon Street
San Francisco, CA 94124
phone 415 821 9776
fax 415 826 7699
email plans dandugan.com
http://www.waldorfcritics.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 10/10/97
SF STATE HOSTING CULT MEDICAL COURSE
People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools (PLANS), is blowing the whistle
on a San Francisco State University course called "Anthroposophical
Medicine." "Not only is medical quackery being promoted by a public
university," said PLANS President Debra Snell, "but this course violates
separation of church and state. Anthroposophy is a cult-like religious
sect. The University is being used to give legitimacy to lunatic fringe
beliefs."
Anthroposophists follow the teachings of Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925), an
Austrian mystic who claimed to be able to make "direct scientific
observations" of the "spirit world." Steiner's bizarre doctrines include
the assertion that the heart does not pump blood (it moves itself) and that
motor nerves don't exist ("the will" acts directly in the limbs). A
promotional video for Anthroposophical medicine shows a child being treated
for pneumonia with a cottage cheese wrap.
Anthroposophical medicine is well established in Europe, but has been
unable to make much progress in the United States due to our stronger
consumer protection laws. Medical boards have investigated questionable
practices of Anthroposophical doctors in California, North Carolina, New
York, and Oregon. In the U.S., Anthroposophy is best known for its school
system, Waldorf schools. The Anthroposophical physicians in the United
States get most of their business through referrals from Waldorf school
teachers.
The largest outbreak of whooping cough in Sonoma County in ten years
occurred at the Starchild Waldorf Preschool in April of 1994. Sonoma Public
Health Officer Dr. George Flores blamed that epidemic on the
Anthroposophical medical policy opposing childhood immunizations and
antibiotics.
Debra Snell of PLANS said "We're investigating the possibility of legal
action to invalidate the credits for this course." Wallace Sampson, MD,
Board Chairman of the National Council Against Health Fraud, states "It is
incomprehensible that state boards actually give health professionals
continuing education credit for religious indoctrination. I am sure that
was not the legislature's intent."
"Anthroposophical Medicine" is a full-credit course in the Department of
Holistic Health. It began Friday, October 3 and continues through Sunday,
October 12. The course gives three credit units or 45 continuing education
units.
For more information, contact PLANS at (415) 821-9776, (916) 273-1005, or
the National Council Against Health Fraud, (909) 824-4690.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n528.8 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Four Elements
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 09:01:25 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Kathy said:
) She told me that all things were made of
) "earth, wind, fire and water" and that this
) was what was actually being taught
Here's the first definition of "element" in Webster's dictionary:
any of the four substances air, water, fire, and earth
formerly believed to compose the physical universe
I think the key word in this context is "formerly".
) What is your interest in this list? Are you
) a parent of a Waldorf student?
Since you asked: I am the parent of a two-year old child, so educational
choices are much on my mind these days. From what I know so far, I
would not allow my child to attend a Waldorf school (my wife and I lean
towards Montessori at this point).
However, I am friendly with a number of Waldorf parents, teachers, etc.
There is a popular Waldorf school in my neighborhood. I am concerned
about Waldorf because a) it seems to be a rapidly growing movement, b)
it receives public funding, and c) it allegedly teaches pseudo-science.
It is this last point in particular that I joined this list to resolve.
I am not interested in Anthroposophy per se, but in whether
Anthroposophy is taught as fact in Waldorf schools. Most of the people
I know who are directly involved in Waldorf say "not really", while most
of the critics I know say "definitely yes".
I find this "four elements" debate to be a perfect example of my
quandary. Rigby (who I take to be involved in Waldorf) gave an
intelligent "no" response to my question. Others (who I take to be
Waldorf critics) say "yes".
I have heard it said that there is a wide range of actual teaching
practices in Waldorf. Intelligent practitioners teach the best of
Waldorf and leave out the Anthroposophical hogwash. Those with small
minds teach Steiner by the book, and are thus avoided by most parents if
at all possible. Can anyone verify (or refute) this basic description?
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n528.9 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: No visuals
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 08:28:29 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710100701.AAA24721 lists1.best.com)
Dear Critics,
Sometimes a scanner seems so necessary. This new book that I'm reading is
_wonderful_.
Can't resist adding the next paragraph ("Sleep, An unobserved element in
education") where Ms McAllen reveals the reason behind the lack of visual
aids:
[snip]
This book was given to me by my son's Waldorf teacher (kindergarten).My son
is now in fourth grade and I'm just now getting around to reading it..
) Geography is also taught in the context of the peoples of the regions
)described, together with their myths and customs. These graphically
)described and lived in by the teacher, enable the class as a group soul to
)experience in sleep the elemental areas that are so pictured. Thus the
)world is experienced in the child's soul as a living
)historical-geographical whole in space-time, not as a foreign body, but as
)the living Mother Being who carries us during our earthly life-time.
)Confidence of soul and the will to incarnate spring up from the sleep
)experiences. A right teaching method enables the soul and spirit to bring
)over into the present earth life the fruits of previous incarnations."
"In this respect we see how important it is not to use visual aids,
especially in Geography, i.e. slides and photographs of people and places.*
In both History and Geography it is the graphic description which calls on
the child to make innner visual pictures which stimulate the will and
enliven the body of formative forces, then the soul can find the approriate
spiritual counterpart in the earth's Akasha. The interaction of the two
helps him to take hold of his body with the full strength of his
individuality.
"* This does not apply to drawings and paintings. Here the artist has
solved the problem of transfering three-demensional space onto a
two-demensional plane."
______________________
Perhaps this information should be included in the full disclosure statement.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n528.10 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Re: SF State hosting cult medical course
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:04:00 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 12:21 AM 10/10/97 -0700, PLANS wrote:
)FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 10/10/97
)
)SF STATE HOSTING CULT MEDICAL COURSE
)
)People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools (PLANS), is blowing the whistle
)on a San Francisco State University course called "Anthroposophical
)Medicine." "Not only is medical quackery being promoted by a public
)university," said PLANS President Debra Snell, "but this course violates
)separation of church and state. Anthroposophy is a cult-like religious
)sect. The University is being used to give legitimacy to lunatic fringe
)beliefs."
)"Anthroposophical Medicine" is a full-credit course in the Department of
)Holistic Health.
What else does this *Department of Holistic Health* teach, apart from
Steiner? Quimby? Mary Baker Eddy? Elizabeth Clare Prophet? L. Ron Hubbard?
Deepak Chopra? Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? Louise L. Hay? Therapeutic Touch? Jan
Smuts, the early twentieth century South African general and politician, who
first used the concept holism? This is *not* a rhetorical question. I would
really like to know.
I have re-posted the PLANS mail about this in The Netherlands.
Herman de Tollenaere
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n528 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n529 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Nuts? (was: need info on anthroposophical medicine, pleas
002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: need info on anthroposophical medicine, please
003 - RigbyL aol.com - Re: Four Elements
004 - spike netshel.net - The Elements
005 - spike netshel.net - Sets of Qualities?
006 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Disclosure Statement
007 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Disclosure Statement
008 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Disclosure Statement
009 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Disclosure Statement
010 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - RE: Four Elements (Anthroposophical inculcation thread)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n529.1 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Nuts? (was: need info on anthroposophical medicine, please)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:00:24 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Dan, I saw your messages on the Waldorf mailing list. I'm not allowed
to reply there. I think you're naive to think that Waldorf education can be
separated from the crazy teachings of Rudolf Steiner. The teachers may
-say- that, but that's just to keep you quiet while they do their
Anthroposophical work. If you want some honest discussion, you might want
to join the waldorf-critics mailing list.
Steiner was just as loony both early and late in his career. It's just that
at first he attempted to write what he hoped would be accepted by the
"straight" world. When he developed a sufficient following he didn't have
to try to appeal to the mainstream any more.
If you think he was a good teacher, try reading his "Light Course" or
"Warmth Course" where he flops around confusedly trying to teach physics.
What he was good at was making gullible people believe obscurity was
profundity.
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
copy to waldorf-critics list
))X-Sender: JORGENSEN SSCL.UWO.CA
))MIME-version: 1.0
))Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 15:06:48 -0400
))Reply-To: SJU Waldorf School List (WALDORF MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU)
))Sender: SJU Waldorf School List (WALDORF MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU)
))From: DAN JORGENSEN (JORGENSEN SSCL.UWO.CA)
))Subject: Nuts? (was: need info on anthroposophical medicine, please)
))To: WALDORF MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
))
))At 07:15 PM 09/10/97 +0200, kneUcker wrote:
))
)))IMHO, nothing about Steiner's cosmology or what is currently practiced
)))as anthro medicine indicates ANYTHING about his "sanity" or lack of it.
)))
))
))(snip)
))
))This is only so if what people write, say, and profess to believe cannot be
))taken as evidence for *or* against their sanity.
))
))(snip)
))
)))Don't quite see the point of discussing this.
))
))But you discuss it nonetheless...
))
))(snip)
))
))I'm not an anthropop,
)))but the development of approaches to medicine, and farming developed by
)))Steiner seem perfectly logical and reasonable extensions of his
)))thinking about human beings and their relationships to their bodies,
)))and the earth.
))
))I am more concerned about pedagogy than medicine on this list. I regard
))the claim that Steiner's pedagogy is an outgrowth of his esoteric cosmology
))as a *serious mistake*, one that Steiner scholars could probably illuminate
))by tracking the chronology of his ideas and their development. (My own
))sense is that early Steiner has a lot to offer, especially on pedagogy, and
))that late Steiner is a loony, especially when it comes to cosmology and
))human destinies. I suspect that World War I has a lot to do with this.)
))Steiner's ideas have lots of different sources, ranging from: broadly-based
))pedagogical movements current in central Europe before and after the turn
))of the century (cf. the whole idea of Kindergarten, over which RS had no
))monopoly), to nutso stuff from theosophy -- a witches' brew of garbled
))European mysticism, 19th Century romanticism, ersatz hinduism and
))embarrassingly mistaken ideas about race, consciousness, history and
))culture. Toss in a dash of garden variety humoral theory (the common
))property of most mid-European peasants) for good measure (temperaments,
))substances, bodies). Mix with a pinch of astrology and rosicrucianism if
))you like.
))
))Many of these notions are a hop, skip and a jump away from those of the
))Krishnamurti folks who believed that the next stage of human development
))was going to be the emergence of a new race in Ojai, California. (Go visit
))Ojai; see what spiritual progress humanity made. If you find anything
))earth-shaking, let us know. If you simply find another bunch of humans not
))so very different from their neighbours, that's fine too.)
))
))Did Steiner invent this? The case for the defense, the case for taking
))Steiner seriously would have to say: no. No -- but he tried to assemble
))these currents in turn of the century confusion into a grandiose synthesis
))that would explain everything in human experience and, not content with
))that, the world at large. This plays to the belief/fantasy in some circles
))that everything has its reason if you have the key, and that you have (or
))will have) this key if you study Steiner hard enough. The appeal to
))followers is that they will never have to consult any other authority,
))never have to venture beyond the security of the creed. Claims to total
))coverage share the same impulses that unite biblical fundamentalism and
))wacky American conspiracy theories (only the clothing looks at a distance
))like New Age).
))
))Steiner's strengths were as a teacher, and, charitably, as a practical
))humorist. He seems to have had an intuitive grasp of a number of aspects
))of human character. His weaknesses were in abstract thought, for which he
))had lots of bombast and little gift. To maintain that the *largely sound
))pedagogical practices* of WE owe their existence to a rather crazed attempt
))to tie the whole cosmos into a single system based on dubious physics,
))psychology and the rest is, IMO, yet another instance of a search for the
))genius/teacher/boddhisatva that Steiner wanted to be but wasn't. WE is not
))well served by claims that anchor it to such a precarious foundation, and
))we shouldn't try to place too great a burden on RS's stray notions.
))
)))
)))I agree that being delighted with Waldorf Education does NOT mean that
)))you/we have to embrace everything Steiner thought or said, or wrote, or
)))propagated, or criticised...but to label some aspects of his thinking
)))as not being completely sane seems pretty extreme to me.
))
))It's the labels you object to, or the criticism?
))
))) I'll be happy to
)))introduce you to our family doctor, who practices anthroposophical
)))medicine. Talk to him for an hour, as he asks you questions about
)))yourself in a relaxed, attentive manner. You might have the feeling
)))that you are in the presence of the kind of sanity you may never have
)))experienced before!
))
))Perhaps. But I also know lots of perfectly ordinary MDs who can and do do
))the same, without the benefits of arcane Steinerish insights. Some of them
))even send their kids to Waldorf schools...
))
))Dan Jorgensen
))London, Ontario
))
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n529.2 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: need info on anthroposophical medicine, please
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 13:00:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)Dan Dugan wrote (to Becca):
)
)) Anthroposophical physicians claim that their practice is an "extension" of
)) scientific medicine into the realm of the soul and spirit. Given that many
)) Anthroposophical principles are directly opposed to science, I don't see
)) how this claim could be true.
))
)) I hope you understand that your teacher's recommendation of an
)) Anthroposophical physician is likely to be based on an "us vs. them"
)) ideology, rather than knowledge of what is best for your son.
Becca replied:
)I think it was Dorothy Parker who wrote:
)
)Faith is an investment
)when Gentlemen can see,
)but microscopes are prudent
)in an emergency.
)
)We tend to be rationalists around our house, and when I got a post telling me
)that a. med. was based on naturopathy and homeopathy, they lost me right
)there. Homeopathy was designed to give people less medicine, and lo! and
)behold, fewer people died... because the medicines of the day tended to
)contain arsinic, lead, belladona, stuff like that. Better believe that people
)got better faster when they were given homeopathic medications: they weren't
)being poisoned!
)
)I'l consult with the a. dr. just to have done it, but if he wants to fix
)strucutral neurological damage with homeopathy, fergetit. (g)
)
)We're keeping David in our local school because the educational techniques and
)general atmosphere are doing him a world of good. The decision to keep him
)there is an ongoing one, however, and the minute WE does him more harm than
)good, we look for someplace else. But then, that's true of any school we'd
)have him in.
)
)-becca
)
)
)--
)Becca Price
)beccap rust.net
)
)"I used to have brains...now I have children."
Bravo, Becca, you're on top of the situation. If you want to know about
Waldorf's treatment of disabilities, ask someone to lend you a copy of
Audrey McAllen's "The Extra Lesson" (don't waste your money buying it). I'd
like to invite you to join the waldorf-critics mailing list, where we can
laugh about the weird Anthroposophical stuff.
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
copy: waldorf-critics list
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n529.3 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Re: Four Elements
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 16:30:08 -0400 (EDT)
Brian:
(( I find this "four elements" debate to be a perfect example of my
quandary. Rigby (who I take to be involved in Waldorf) gave an intelligent
"no" response to my question. Others (who I take to be Waldorf critics) say
"yes".))
I have indeed been a supporter of Waldorf Education, based on my experience
as a parent of a Waldorf student (at three different Waldorf schools), former
Board of Trustees member and current treasurer of the Sacramento Waldorf
School, and participation in various seminars that brought together faculty,
staff and parents from several Waldorf schools for discussion of common
issues. The recent interest in various public school initiatives to adapt
Waldorf methods has led me to rethink my interest in Waldorf Education in a
larger context. That is, I would now characterize my position as supporting
the type of education that Waldorf represents. The best phrase I have heard
to describe that type is "arts-integrated, developmentally appropriate." I
am only beginning to deepen my understanding of what that phrase means, but I
do find it helpful to look at Waldorf Education in terms of how it works
rather than where it came from.
((I have heard it said that there is a wide range of actual teaching
practices in Waldorf. Intelligent practitioners teach the best of Waldorf
and leave out the Anthroposophical hogwash. Those with small minds teach
Steiner by the book, and are thus avoided by most parents if at all
possible. Can anyone verify (or refute) this basic description? ))
In my experience there are many Waldorf teachers who are deeply involved with
anthroposophy (they don't regard it as hogwash), but who have the maturity
and intelligence to realize that it is inappropriate to bring anthroposophy
into the classroom. There are many Waldorf teachers who are attracted to the
culture of Waldorf education, but who have relatively little interest in
anthroposophy. And there are Waldorf teachers who, as you note, find it
difficult to get beyond a fundamentalist attitude toward Steiner's work, and
sometimes allow this to get into their relations with parents and/or the
classroom.
There is a mix of these types from school to school. One of the consistently
emphasized recommendations of the Waldorf supporters who have commented on
this list, is that prospective parents make a serious effort to raise
questions that relate to these issues with the leaders of the specific school
they are considering. This is specially important if the child would be
entering the lower grades because of the common practice of the same teacher
staying with the class through the 8th grade.
Incidentally, on the four elements topic, last night I happened to come
across a 15th century reference (Ficino) stating that the four elements are
mutable in form and quality. I take this as substantiation of my perspective
that the elements as defined in this rubric are best viewed as sets of
sense-perceptible characteristics of nature. In fact, I can well imagine
that the philosophers who for centuries worked with the ideas of four or five
elements would be deeply insulted by the 20th century judgment that they were
so stupid as to believe that the elements were actually physical building
blocks (the phrase I myself used in my previous post) of the natural world.
For most of those philosophers, I would guess that the labels earth, fire,
air and water represented archetypal qualities that may be found in various
ways and combinations in the physical world. It is only our contemporary
science that has taught us to treat elements as things.
I wish you well in your educational decision.
Rigby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n529.4 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: The Elements
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:55:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Brian posted:
)However, I am friendly with a number of Waldorf parents, teachers, etc.
)There is a popular Waldorf school in my neighborhood. I am concerned
)about Waldorf because a) it seems to be a rapidly growing movement, b)
)it receives public funding, and c) it allegedly teaches pseudo-science.
These are the "Critics" concerns. My concern in particular is the issue of
public funding. While I would not choose Waldorf as a private education for
my children I have no problem with others making this choice. I do find it
perturbing, however; that Waldorf schools play a game of deception through
their failure to inform parents of the religious basis of their curriculum.
Anthroposphy permeates every facet of Waldorf curriculum. You may be
interested to look through the recent Archives to read the suggested
"Disclosure Statement" posted a month or so back. It presents an
extraordinarily clear picture of Waldorf pedagogy. Interestingly, none of
the Waldorf supporters on this list quarreled with the validity of its
contents, not even Rigby.
)I am not interested in Anthroposophy per se, but in whether
)Anthroposophy is taught as fact in Waldorf schools.
The Waldorf method is a covert one. While Anthroposophy is not taught in a
blatant sense in Waldorf schools, all of the curriculum has as its basis
the desire to further the spiritual growth of the child per
Anthroposophical religious beliefs. The Waldorf curriculum teaches science,
history, mathematics, literature according to Steiner's occultist beliefs.
As a result one finds the science curriculum teaching the four elements,
mathematics focusing on repetitive geometric drawing of occult symbols such
as the pentagram, hexagram, etc., history teaching the cultural epochs
(this Anthroposophical slant on history is fascinating - with Aryan
supremacy as the icing on the cake), art across the curriculum with
students "meditating on particular colors in order to further their
incarnation processes, etc.
The above description is a brief and simplistic one. I encourage you to
engage in reading texts of Steiner's speeches if you are indeed interested
in this subject and can bring yourself to wallow through it.
)I find this "four elements" debate to be a perfect example of my
)quandary. Rigby (who I take to be involved in Waldorf) gave an
)intelligent "no" response to my question.
You need to realize that what you perceived from Rigby to be an
"intelligent 'no'" in regard to the four elements was an example of
Anthroposophical double speak. (I won't deny the intelligence - Rigby was
clever in the framing of his denial.) Anthroposophical/Waldorf promotoers
deny their agenda and try to make it palatable by dressing it up with
present day terminology. For this reason Rigby is a valuable contributor to
our list. Study his postings well. They are a fascinating example of the
Waldorf coverup that the Critics work to expose. He is the Board president
of a Waldorf school in Sacramento. He denies vehemently that he is much
involved with the Anthroposophical community and paints a picture of
himself as a bit of an uninitiated neophyte. However, Rigby is always
"there" where PLANS is protesting. He has even gone so far as to solicit my
personnel records from my former employer in an attempt to discredit my
protest and then took the further step of posting his "information" about
me on this list. And yet, he claims to have no connection with the Rudolf
Steiner College or the problems that I have had with the religious
indoctrination I was exposed to in their public school teacher's training
(paid for with taxpayers' monies). He puts a nice light on the Waldorf
approach, be it curriculum or its encroachment in the realm of public
education. And he will himself as merely a "participant/observer," not
really terribly involved in it at all.
)I have heard it said that there is a wide range of actual teaching
)practices in Waldorf. Intelligent practitioners teach the best of
)Waldorf and leave out the Anthroposophical hogwash. Those with small
)minds teach Steiner by the book, and are thus avoided by most parents if
)at all possible. Can anyone verify (or refute) this basic description?
As with all schools and/or pedagogies there is a wide range of teaching
practices and talents. However, any Waldorf teacher is intensely trained in
Anthroposophical religious beliefs and teaches a curriculum that is based
entirely on these beliefs. The Waldorf curriculum/pedagogy is a rigid
system that is not subject to change. The curriculum is predetermined from
year to year and is not subject to change. This is the essence of Waldorf .
. . certain curriculum is delivered at particular grade levels per the
Waldorf pedagogy in order to foster spiritual and intellectual growth (per
Steiner's belief system). There is no such thing as leaving out the
"Anthroposophical hogwash." The pedagogy is completely and thoroughly based
on this hogwash and nothing else.
I have written quite a bit here Brian. I welcome you to the list. It is
good to have another new member. I have been off the list for some time and
I am glad to be back. You may also be interested in subscribing to the
Waldorf list in order to get a feel for the thinking of actual Waldorf
educators and others that are more firmly enmeshed in the
Waldorf/Anthroposophical community. They regularly engage in discussions
regarding the adherence to Steiner's "message" in the delivery of Waldorf
curriculum.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n529.5 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: Sets of Qualities?
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 20:55:17 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Rigby posted:
)In my experience, the four elements are not taught as scientific
)fact--certainly not in science classes per se. The best way to think of the
)term "elements" when used with the air/fire/water/earth foursome is as sets
)of qualities that are readily experienced in the physical world.
What's wrong with solid, liquid, gas? Heat would be introduced as energy,
since this is what it is. These are readily experienced in the physical
world and are not part of an occultist belief systems, ie; Anthroposophy,
astrology, Wicca, Paganism, etc., etc.
If _the_ "four elements" are not taught as scientific fact, then what are
they taught as? What is the point? If it's simply the experiential
phenomena then the states of matter (which are accepted scientific fact)
readily suffice and actually lead to accepted academic growth as opposed to
archaic alchemical indoctrination.
But then perhaps this is simply materialist thinking on my part. That
doggone lean toward "scientism" continues to muddy my thoughts Rigby.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n529.6 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Disclosure Statement
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:40:39 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hello everyone! I've been very busy this summer and haven't read any e mail
for quite some time.
Deby:
)) I believe we should have something in this disclosure statement about the
)) teacher meditating on your child without permission. One family I know took
)) great exception to this practice. He was especially concerned because the
)) teacher did not ask their permission.
)Steve:
)Why was the family bothered by that? Would they expect a teacher to
)ask permission before praying for a child in his or her class? It
)seems to me that the teachers prayers or meditations are a
)personal spiritual matter for the teacher, and none of the parent's
)business.
I'm the parent Deby is referring to, and I **strongly** disagree with
anyone who
says they want to "Meditate or Pray" for me or especially for my children. I
believe it is a gross intrusion on my families spiritual beliefs, particularly
when they don't ask, or in this situation, never told me or my wife
during the
nine years we were involved in WE.
Deby:
)) Also, Anthroposohical child studies are performed regularly by the faculty
)) _without_ parental knowledge or involvement. One parent at our school was
)) told a child study was going to take place. When she asked to attend, she
)) was informed that she could not. When I inquired about my own child, I was
)) told his child study had already taken place. Child studies are very
)) Anthroposophical. A Waldorf teacher told me that they consider the child's
)) karma and destiny.
Exactly! This is one of the main reasons my wife & I were so miffed at
finding out
that the WE teachers were meditating (NOT THINKING) on our children, and
then making
some bogus Anthroposophical analysis about the children.
David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n529.7 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Disclosure Statement
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:40:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Per Hallstroem wrote:
(snip)
)You have experienced mistreatment by Waldorf teachers/anthroposophists.
)You mean that they are breaking the law by inculcation and espousing of
)young, defenseless human beings.
)You believe they suffer from deficient thinking and pseudo science-beliefs.
)
)Now I would like to ask what toou think ameditation is in this context:
)
)I wonder at the implications of what you are saying Deby... can a teacher
)_think_ about a child in his class whithout risking to violate the families
)spiritual belief system?
There is a distinct difference between "think" and "meditate", the later being
to bring ones mind to a place clear of *all* thinking or intentional involvement
with the meditation process, a "clearing of the mind", so to speak. Whereas
thinking is a concious effort to have our brain/mind come up with some kind of
information, ie. ; memories, thoughts, questions, answers, etc. In
Anthroposophy
the use of meditation seems to be a way to get in touch with the "Supernatural".
Last year there was a post on the Waldorf List (and this one too I think)
by some-
one at RSC in Sac. that had written about how important meditating was to the
well disaplined WE teacher and how he felt that the "lack of" giving the proper
amount of time each evening to this was a major short coming for WE teachers.
Deby or Dan, do you remember who this was? Maybe you could repost it?
Per H.:
)Shouldnt he better ask the parents first?
)The kind of meditation, knomn to me, that teachers do - often on regular
)basis - is an act of intense thinking over or remembering the child in
)order to better understand how to be a good teacher to the child.
)The general purpose being to do what is possible to further the childs
)development to a free, strong and compassionate grown up.
Again, "thinking" is very different than "meditating". The teachers were
very clear
in saying that they were "meditating" on our children. In fact, they said
they had
pictures of their class (chidren) as part of their altar. That **is not
OK** by me!!!
)Per H.:
)But you really think thinking about someone is to violate this person or
)his family?
No, I don't. Meditating/Praying on children whose picture is on an Alter,
a big YES.
Per H.
)Or does it only apply if the person, in your opinion, suffers from
)_deficient thinking?_
For me it applies no matter what the persons thinking is if it is really
"meditating.
David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n529.8 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Disclosure Statement
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:40:46 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)At 20.17 97-09-30, Deby Snell wrote:
))Per writes,
)))I wonder at the implications of what you are saying Deby... can a teacher
)))_think_ about a child in his class whithout risking to violate the families
)))spiritual belief system? Shouldnt he better ask the parents first?
)))The kind of meditation, knomn to me, that teachers do - often on regular
)))basis - is an act of intense thinking over or remembering the child in
)))order to better understand how to be a good teacher to the child.
)))The general purpose being to do what is possible to further the childs
)))development to a free, strong and compassionate grown up.
))
))
))As I said, Per, *I* have _no_ problem with a teacher meditating on my
))child. I think it is harmless. The term meditating [on a child] has
))different connotations than the word "thinking". What I said was that
))_some_ people, due to their own spiritual beliefs, may not want teachers
))meditating on their children. I mentioned this because of a father who
))objected to this practice at an all-school meeting _before_ he took his
))children out of the school. My observation of this father's reaction is why
))I felt this practice should be considered for the "full disclosure"
))document.
)
)Per H.:
)What I tried to say is that maybe a confusion regarding the "different
)connotations" of the terms "meditating" and "thinking" might have been at
)least part of the problem for the father you refer to. I also tried to make
)clear what is ment by meditating [on a child] as a method for teachers who
)want to enhance their ability to understand their pupils.
)
The difference between "thinking" and "meditating" is quite clear to me and
was not in the "least part of the problem" for me or my understanding with
the WE teachers.
David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n529.9 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Disclosure Statement
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:41:01 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)Deby:
)
))It has been a couple years so my memory could very well have faded on all
))his points of concern. He felt strong enough to take this issue to a public
))meeting which I attended. Personally, I believe the practice is harmless.
))But then there _is_ this non-sectarian claim. This is another example of
))how Anthroposophical practices can violate families spiritual belief
))system. This father seemed pretty distressed by the practice.
)James:
)This story reminded me of the woman who sued Disney - successfully - for
)the traumatic effect of seeing Mickey Mouse without a head (i.e. revealing
)that there was actually a person inside).
)The ability of North Americans to invent ever new and obscure forms of
)victimisation apparently knows no end (and here surpasses itself). Didn't
)anyone suggest litigation? It could have been phenomenal...
Steve P. has already set the facts straight on the above details with
Disney, but I'm
the only one that can set James straight as to "invent ever new...forms of
victimisations".
I believe in respecting others space, beliefs, etc. It is **how** the
meditations
by WE teachers is **used** that bothers me greatly. Also, I do not
subscribe to the
"sue happy" mentality of some others in this country. I think laywers and
Judges
need to be way more discerning in what they allow to go forward within the legal
system in this country.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n529.10 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: RE: Four Elements (Anthroposophical inculcation thread)
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:14:17 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710101301.GAA25883 lists1.best.com)
Brian Berns quotes Kathy:
)) What is your [Brian's] interest in this list? Are you
)) a parent of a Waldorf student?
And BRIAN says:
)Since you asked: I am the parent of a two-year old child, so educational
)choices are much on my mind these days. From what I know so far, I
)would not allow my child to attend a Waldorf school (my wife and I lean
)towards Montessori at this point).
)
)However, I am friendly with a number of Waldorf parents, teachers, etc.
)There is a popular Waldorf school in my neighborhood. I am concerned
)about Waldorf because a) it seems to be a rapidly growing movement, b)
)it receives public funding, and c) it allegedly teaches pseudo-science.
)
)It is this last point in particular that I joined this list to resolve.
)I am not interested in Anthroposophy per se, but in whether
)Anthroposophy is taught as fact in Waldorf schools. Most of the people
)I know who are directly involved in Waldorf say "not really", while most
)of the critics I know say "definitely yes".
KOPP says:
I don't think many critics say that Anthroposophy is "taught" in the
Steiner/ Waldord/Anthroposophical schools.
I think most critics believe that the schools are too careful to actually
teach a catechism or religious view of life. Teachers don't even talk about
Anthroposophy in comparative religion classes. And they shy away from
discussing it as a factor in their personal lives when students ask.
This give the movement the deniability it seeks: "we don't teach
Anthroposophy".
But of course there's more than one way to inculcate a mystical,
spiritualist view of the world, and the special character curriculum of the
schools is rife with references to Anthroposophical fundamentalism in the
guise of myth, legend, and historial religious movements and beliefs.
Make no mistake: Anthroposophy is in every aspect of the children's
education, in every minute of every day, in everything they do, and in
everything the teachers say to them.
And Anthroposophy is not just pseudo-science, but spiritual manipulation of
the children according to Steiner.
Now, since as a rationalist, skeptic and scientist I do not believe in
anything supernatural, I am not worried about my children's spirits having
been manipulated by anyone or anything.
However, while the Steiner/Waldorf/Anthropsophical person has my children
under their control six hours a day, and is doing whatever mumbo-jumbo they
think is good for my children's spirits, they are also -- and cannot help
but -- affecting their temporal, rathional, faculties and personalities and
worldviews.
It is this that I do not want.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n529 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n530 --------------
001 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - RE: Four Elements (Pseudo-science thread)
002 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
003 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: SF State hosting cult medical course
004 - litvas icu.com - Disclosure Statement or Statement of Critical Intent?
005 - litvas icu.com - Re: The Elements
006 - Luna457954 aol.com - Re: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thre
007 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Re: Four Elements
008 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thre
009 - "Peter Schwab" (pschwab a - "to be racist or not racist, ..."
010 - RigbyL aol.com - Re: Four Elements
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n530.1 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: RE: Four Elements (Pseudo-science thread)
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:14:33 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710101301.GAA25883 lists1.best.com)
Brian Berns quoted Kathy:
)Kathy said:
)) She told me that all things were made of
)) "earth, wind, fire and water" and that this
)) was what was actually being taught
And BRIAN said:
)Here's the first definition of "element" in Webster's dictionary:
)
) any of the four substances air, water, fire, and earth
) formerly believed to compose the physical universe
)
)I think the key word in this context is "formerly".
KOPP says:
What is your point? All rational, scientific thinkers realise that these
concepts belong in antiquity.
Are you saying that you believe what you suggested in your earlier post
about this subject -- that Steiner/Waldorf/Anthropsophical schools only
mention these concepts as ancient history and not present fact?
Or are you saying that since the dictionary includes them as its first
definition, it is therefore all right for Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposopohical
schools to give them as a first approximation for youngsters of how the
world is made?
Either way is wrong, in my opinion.
And, in my personal experience, such pseudo-science is the norm and the
only teaching for quite some years, until the children reach what Steiner
said was the minimum age for understanding `abstract intellectual concepts'
like elements. Even then, children go on using the four Steiner "elements".
This pseudo-science has also included science (and other) teachers telling
my kids that:
* the heart is not a pump;
* the ancients had powers greater than ours that humanity has lost (such as
the moving of the stone blocks of the pyramids of Giza by sound power, and
alchemy);
* the Greek poetic device, dactylic hexameter, was invented because the
Greeks understood the mathematical ratios between the human heartbeat
rhythm and breathing rhythm and the `Platonic year' (what we know as the
precession of the equinoxes, a 26,000-year cycle);
* we could, today, practice alchemy (chemical, not atomic, transmutation of
elements) if we could but find and regain that lost knowledge;
and the teaching of lessons in how to do astrology, which Steiner/Waldorf/
Anthroposophical teachers believe in and _use_ in their handling of
children (not to mention their planting of their potatoes).
The children are taught these things as fact, not as historical curiosities.
No evidence is ever presented for any of these claims.
*BTW, the Platonic year thing is a good example of weird science: it was
deduced (inaccurately) by a Greek astronomer AFTER Plato, and LONG after
Homer and the development of greek epic poetry. It was not known before
then by any of the ancients. My spoken and written representations and
questions to the teacher about evidence, and whether this was an example of
the "special character" curriculum of the school, were not answered.
There is no doubt that Steiner=Pseudo-science, with a capital P.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n530.2 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:14:50 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710101301.GAA25883 lists1.best.com)
Brian Berns said:
)I have heard it said that there is a wide range of actual teaching
)practices in Waldorf. Intelligent practitioners teach the best of
)Waldorf and leave out the Anthroposophical hogwash. Those with small
)minds teach Steiner by the book, and are thus avoided by most parents if
)at all possible. Can anyone verify (or refute) this basic description?
KOPP says:
Can you tell us (I am one of the most adamant critics and ally myself with
all critics of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthropsophy, whatever their shade), either
from your personal experience or research, or from some other source:
what is an "Intelligent practitioner", and
what is "the best of Waldorf"?
Then, how does one tell, as a parent with children in such a school, or as
a parent intending to enroll children in such a school, whether and which
teachers or schools are the good ones and which are the bad ones? In
advance, before your child is damaged.
All Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy practitioners -- unless they are heretics
and subversives, and I don't think there are very many of those -- are, to
me, by definition, small-minded teachers of Steiner by the book.
My personal experience is that I have never met a
Steiner/Waldorf/Anthropsophy practitioner, believer, devotee or hanger-on
who *EVER* admitted that there could be a valid alternative to anything
that Steiner said.
I have been told the my school's "special character" is unchangeable,
non-negotiable, and the "right" way, and, if I don't like it, I can leave.
I am. One child has already gone. After four years of mumbo-jumbo instead
of science and reason he felt he had to leave and get a real education. The
other child is leaving soon.
The "best of Waldorf" in my experience is no more than the personal
attention, small classes, personal, respectful relationships between
student and teacher, pleasant surroundings, and absence of the
currently-fashionable high-pressure academic performance mill. One can get
that without the mumbo-jumbo in other schools -- it is not unique to
Steiner.
All the other supposedly great things about Steiner schools -- art,
integration of all subjects, classical focus, phenomenological natural
science, intuition inculcation, "head, heart, and hands" education -- are
negative influences based on Steiner's intent to capture souls.
Waldorf educators will tell you than there is no separating the parts of
the whole process.
There may be some Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical educators who go beyond
the Steiner "special character" curriculum. (A "defender of the faith" on
this list, Stephen Tonkin, an astronomer and scientist, comes to mind --
but he's also a staunch Anthroposophical teacher, and has NEVER admitted
the possibility of error in the Steiner method.)
But not in my personal experience.
My school (a private school "integrated" into the state school system and
allowed to retain its special character [waldorf], but required to teach
the state curriculum too) has just received its second state education
ministry report in five years that says that it has made NO progress
towards actually teaching the state curriculum in that five years.
That's five years of my childrens' lives wasted -- except that they are
wonderful kids and warm human beings who have benefited from the smallness,
personal attention and respect, and pleasant surroundings.
They have not -- unless I believe in Steiner's mystic mumbo-jumbo about
reincarnation and spirits, which I emphatically do not -- gained anything
else.
Most especially they have not gained an _education_ consistent with the
requirements of the state or life in general.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n530.3 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: SF State hosting cult medical course
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:22:10 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710101805.LAA02120 lists1.best.com)
KOPP says:
Pseudo-science and mystical mumbo-jumbo are raising their heads everwhere
as we move into a new dark age.
In this country, universities teach classes in "Maori science" -- the
folklore and spiritualism and animism of illiterate, cannibalistic, warrior
races of the indigenous peoples of these islands (Polynesian immigrants,
really, about 1,000 to 1,500 years ago.
This "science" is elevated to wisdom and fact.
We are truly on a long descent into the pit of unreason.
)At 12:21 AM 10/10/97 -0700, PLANS wrote:
)
))FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 10/10/97
))
))SF STATE HOSTING CULT MEDICAL COURSE
))
))People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools (PLANS), is blowing the whistle
))on a San Francisco State University course called "Anthroposophical
))Medicine." "Not only is medical quackery being promoted by a public
))university," said PLANS President Debra Snell, "but this course violates
))separation of church and state. Anthroposophy is a cult-like religious
))sect. The University is being used to give legitimacy to lunatic fringe
))beliefs."
)
))"Anthroposophical Medicine" is a full-credit course in the Department of
))Holistic Health.
)
)What else does this *Department of Holistic Health* teach, apart from
)Steiner? Quimby? Mary Baker Eddy? Elizabeth Clare Prophet? L. Ron Hubbard?
)Deepak Chopra? Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? Louise L. Hay? Therapeutic Touch? Jan
)Smuts, the early twentieth century South African general and politician, who
)first used the concept holism? This is *not* a rhetorical question. I would
)really like to know.
)
)I have re-posted the PLANS mail about this in The Netherlands.
)
)Herman de Tollenaere
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n530.4 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com
Subject: Disclosure Statement or Statement of Critical Intent?
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 97 07:32:11 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 10/10/97 11:55 PM, spike netshel.net wrote:
)You may be
)interested to look through the recent Archives to read the suggested
)"Disclosure Statement" posted a month or so back. It presents an
)extraordinarily clear picture of Waldorf pedagogy. Interestingly, none of
)the Waldorf supporters on this list quarreled with the validity of its
)contents, not even Rigby.
Hold on, Ms. Sutphen. This "disclosure statement" was originally posted
to the list about a year ago by one of the critics. At that time, a
number of waldorf types challenged its premises and presumptions in some
detail.
Just because we don't rechallenge it every time it is dredged back up
doesn't mean it has gained any validity, from our point of view.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n530.5 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com
Subject: Re: The Elements
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 97 08:17:06 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
One of the things about this list which I find very frustrating (and
which discourages me from my hope to find common ground) is the tendency
to generalize from the particulars of an individual's experiences at a
particular school.
Dan Dugan had problems at San Francisco, which he shared. Michael Kopp
has problems in New Zealand, which he has outlined. Deby Snell and David
McKay had problems at Mariposa/Twin Ridges (two names for what is
essentially the same school). Kathy Sutphen had issues with the training
she received as part of RSC's program for public school teachers.
There are others, too. I believe Daniel Saykaly has some experience with
a school in eastern Canada. A while back, we heard from a woman who had
some peripheral contact with the Hawthorne Valley School. No doubt there
are lurkers. . . .
My point is this: We might as well be arguing about restaurants.
I happen to love Japanese food. I know of a place in Ramsey, New Jersey,
which I frequent with my family as often as my budget allows. The people
who work there are friendly, attentive, and seem genuinely interested in
their work and the well-being of their customers.
One of my favorite dishes is sashimi. Prepared from raw seafood, each
morsel is an artistic presentation in itself. The sushi chef who
prepares it has gone through long, particularized (some might say arcane)
training in his craft. The training he received, his dedication to it,
and his experience in the restaurant all inform his decisions on what to
use and how to prepare it. He seems to be very particular about the
quality of his rice and fish, and where it comes from.
Now, if we were arguing about restaurants (which we aren't, of course), I
might say how much I love Japanese food, particularly sashimi. This
might elicit a response from someone who could share a story about how
they once got salmonella from sashimi. This person might tell me that I
am taking my life into my hands every time I eat such a dish.
Someone might even remind us that there is a little puffer-fish with a
toxic liver who is sometimes implicated in sashimi *deaths* in Japan!
This, in turn, might draw out fugu lovers who would describe their
numerous positive experiences with the delicacy.
Finally, an academic type might appear who would try to link fugu-eating
with headhunting in New Guinea.
On 10/10/97 11:55 PM, spike netshel.net wrote:
)The Waldorf method is a covert one. While Anthroposophy is not taught in a
)blatant sense in Waldorf schools, all of the curriculum has as its basis
)the desire to further the spiritual growth of the child per
)Anthroposophical religious beliefs. The Waldorf curriculum teaches science,
)history, mathematics, literature according to Steiner's occultist beliefs.
)As a result one finds the science curriculum teaching the four elements,
)mathematics focusing on repetitive geometric drawing of occult symbols such
)as the pentagram, hexagram, etc., history teaching the cultural epochs
)(this Anthroposophical slant on history is fascinating - with Aryan
)supremacy as the icing on the cake), art across the curriculum with
)students "meditating on particular colors in order to further their
)incarnation processes, etc.
)
)The above description is a brief and simplistic one. I encourage you to
)engage in reading texts of Steiner's speeches if you are indeed interested
)in this subject and can bring yourself to wallow through it.
I encourage you, Kathy, to eat fugu. (g)
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n530.6 ---------------
From: Luna457954 aol.com
Subject: Re: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 09:17:30 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 10/11/97 8:55:54 AM, Mr. Kopp wrote:
((My school (a private school "integrated" into the state school system and
allowed to retain its special character [waldorf], but required to teach
the state curriculum too) has just received its second state education
ministry report in five years that says that it has made NO progress
towards actually teaching the state curriculum in that five years.((
Why do you feel the "state curriculum" is the be all and end all of
education? From what I have seen in my area, there is nothing spectacular
about it.
))That's five years of my childrens' lives wasted -- except that they are
wonderful kids and warm human beings who have benefited from the smallness,
personal attention and respect, and pleasant surroundings.((
This doesn't sound like wasted time to me. I believe if every child had
these "wasted years" in conditions such as you have listed, the number of
suicides and violent crimes by young people would be drastically reduced, as
would the number of high-school drop outs and drug addicts. I also believe
that the number of people in therapy would drop, and that "self-esteem
problems" of young people would be almost nonexistent.
))They have not -- unless I believe in Steiner's mystic mumbo-jumbo about
reincarnation and spirits, which I emphatically do not -- gained anything
else. Most especially they have not gained an _education_ consistent with
the
requirements of the state or life in general.((
Then why do Waldorf students often do better in high school and college than
public school students?
Last year, our school graduated its first eighth grade, and the majority of
the students are either in honors classes or classes usually taken by
students in higher grades.((
Kelly
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n530.7 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Re: Four Elements
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:35:28 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 04:30 PM 10/10/97 -0400, Rigby wrote:
)In fact, I can well imagine
)that the philosophers who for centuries worked with the ideas of four or five
)elements would be deeply insulted by the 20th century judgment that they were
)so stupid as to believe that the elements were actually physical building
)blocks (the phrase I myself used in my previous post) of the natural world.
) For most of those philosophers, I would guess that the labels earth, fire,
)air and water represented archetypal
In what sense do you use 'archetype' here? C.G. Jung's?
Herman de Tollenaere
)qualities that may be found in various
)ways and combinations in the physical world.
)
)Rigby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n530.8 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 09:47:00 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710111317.GAA00063 lists1.best.com)
"Luna" (Kelly) quoted Michael Kopp on the qualities of Waldorf vs State
educations:
)In a message dated 10/11/97 8:55:54 AM, Mr. Kopp wrote:
)
)((My school (a private school "integrated" into the state school system and
)allowed to retain its special character [waldorf], but required to teach
)the state curriculum too) has just received its second state education
)ministry report in five years that says that it has made NO progress
)towards actually teaching the state curriculum in that five years.((
And KELLY says:
)Why do you feel the "state curriculum" is the be all and end all of
)education? From what I have seen in my area, there is nothing spectacular
)about it.
KOPP says:
I don't, though I believe there is no reason to fault the principles and
curriculum of state education, only its varied delivery, for the
difficulties of modern educational times. I have said that my children have
benefited in some intangible ways from their Steiner years.
However, we're not comparing two equally valid systems of thought here
(state vs Steiner) and simply saying that one is superior.
What we're saying is that one is rationalist (state) while the other is
spiritualist (Steiner). One is real, the other is mumbo-jumbo.
If you want to choose mumbo-jumbo for your kids, that's your decision
(except where the state mandates a certain rationalist education for
everyone, which is most places).
If my Steiner school had given that rationalist education _in its fullness
as required by the state_ and given the children some extra slant on life
that was identified as their special brand of looking at the world, and it
was not all- pervasive and did not replace the state curriculum with
mumbo-jumbo, then I might -- repeat might -- be interested in using that
schooling.
Kelly quoted Kopp:
)))That's five years of my childrens' lives wasted -- except that they are
)wonderful kids and warm human beings who have benefited from the smallness,
)personal attention and respect, and pleasant surroundings.((
And KELLY said:
)This doesn't sound like wasted time to me. I believe if every child had
)these "wasted years" in conditions such as you have listed, the number of
)suicides and violent crimes by young people would be drastically reduced, as
)would the number of high-school drop outs and drug addicts. I also believe
)that the number of people in therapy would drop, and that "self-esteem
)problems" of young people would be almost nonexistent.
KOPP says:
Can you show me statistically valid and controlled studies of the outputs
of Steiner schools that support your contentions? I doubt it. It is likely
that even if this is true, it is probably much more a factor of the
socio-economic-cultural lifestyles and demographics of the parents and
their children than it is the rationalist or spiritualist nature of their
educations.
Kelly quotes Kopp:
)))They have not -- unless I believe in Steiner's mystic mumbo-jumbo about
)reincarnation and spirits, which I emphatically do not -- gained anything
)else. Most especially they have not gained an _education_ consistent with
)the
)requirements of the state or life in general.((
And KELLY says:
)Then why do Waldorf students often do better in high school and college than
)public school students?
KOPP says:
Again, can you show me statistically valid and controlled studies of the
outputs of Steiner schools that support your contentions? Again, I doubt
it. They've been asked for many times by critics here, and never produced
by any proponents.
It is likely, in my opinion, that if this is true in any respect, it is,
again, due to the factors I cite above, rather than anything superior about
the Waldorf education. It would also include the factor that most of the
children who go on to university are more intelligent to start with.
Kelly said:
)Last year, our school graduated its first eighth grade, and the majority of
)the students are either in honors classes or classes usually taken by
)students in higher grades.((
KOPP says:
Obviously, your mileage is different from mine (and the other critics who
have had bad experiences).
Our school has had some successes and some failures (anecdotal evidence --
no studies exist here either, unfortunately). Some kids, even very bright
ones, have not been properly prepared for their choice of tertiary studies.
My own son (who almost always received top marks from the Steiner school)
is having a very hard time keeping up with children a year younger than
himself at the state high school (average, not top academic) which he now
attends. This is particularly so in the rationalist subjects of physics,
chemistry and maths. In art and art history he is doing rather better --
though he had never learned how to write properly from the Steiner school.
He believes that only my scientific bent and early inculcation in himself
of rationalist thinking, and his earlier state schooling, prevented him
from falling into the mumbo-jumbo trap many of his confreres have at the
Steiner school. He frequently spotted the mumbo-jumbo through his own
rationalism, and challenged it in class, without my prompting.
Yet he misses the Steiner school. We are all subject to emotional
yearnings, as evinced in Kelly's rather wooly thinking about the value of
various educations. That's probably why I brought my kids to the Steiner
school in the first place.
As I stated over a year ago here (just before Dan Saykaly's disclosure
statement was published), if I had known then what I know now about the
Steiner spiritualist agenda, I would not have allowed my children within
cooee of the Steiner people.
If I had known that they could not or would not deliver the state
curriculum they are required to deliver, I would not have allowed my
children in.
But they did not tell me these things, and I could not easily find them
out, despite doing more research than most prospective parents. Was I
misled, and was it purposeful deception? I don't know.
I do know that my children have not got the education that they require for
modern life (by MY reasoning, forget the state mandate), because the
Steiner school purposefully gave them an alternative which is ridiculous on
the face of it.
I do not belive that my children will be harmed by a state education or
contact with the rest of society, as Kelly seems to believe. (There is not
much difference between American and New Zealand teen-aged society and
education.)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n530.9 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab" (pschwab access.ch)
Subject: "to be racist or not racist, ..."
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 23:19:13 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199710101805.LAA02120 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199710110840.BAA12201 lists1.best.com)
On 11 Oct 97 at 21:22, Michael Kopp wrote:
) KOPP says:
)
) Pseudo-science and mystical mumbo-jumbo are raising their heads everwhere
) as we move into a new dark age.
)
) In this country, universities teach classes in "Maori science" -- the
) folklore and spiritualism and animism of illiterate, cannibalistic, warrior
) races of the indigenous peoples of these islands (Polynesian immigrants,
) really, about 1,000 to 1,500 years ago.
)
) This "science" is elevated to wisdom and fact.
)
) We are truly on a long descent into the pit of unreason.
)
Coming from the fingers of someone who accuses Rudolf Steiner of
being a "racist", this classification of the Maori-people is rather
strong tobacco...
If I remember the uprise about the " uneducated savages"-quote of
Rudolf Steiner some month ago, I dare to say that Mr. Kopp's
qualification is definitly racist, in particular according to the
critic's own standards!
He, who sits in a glass house, should refrain from casting stones...
+Peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 032 / 857.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n530.10 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Re: Four Elements
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 19:29:58 -0400 (EDT)
Herman:
(( In what sense do you use 'archetype' here? C.G. Jung's? ))
)From what I know of Jung's theory of archetypes, which is not a great deal, I
think he goes further than what I have in mind. Nor do I care greatly for my
dictionary's alternatives to usage in Jung's psychology, which are
"prototype" or "perfect example." My sense is more in line with what I
understand Goethe to have meant by Urphenomenon (which understanding I take
primarily Bortoft's book, "The Wholeness of Nature").
BTW, I slightly misquoted the Ficino statement in my last post. It should
have been "The elements are mutable in substance and quality," not "form and
quality." That better fits my impression that it was patently obvious to
early philosophers that dirt, stone, iron, copper, etc. were not made of the
same substance, but could still be considered as representing the same
"element" Earth, due to shared qualities.
Perhaps "archetype" was not the best word. I would welcome thoughts from
those who have a better classical education than I do.
Rigby
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n530 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n531 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: SF State hosting cult medical course
002 - spike netshel.net - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n530
003 - spike netshel.net - Fugu . . . hmmmm?
004 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: "to be racist or not racist, ..."
005 - litvas icu.com - Re: Fugu . . . hmmmm?
006 - litvas icu.com - Round and Round we go. . . .
007 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thre
008 - litvas icu.com - Annual Bash
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n531.1 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: SF State hosting cult medical course
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 16:55:11 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Herman asked,
)What else does this *Department of Holistic Health* teach, apart from
)Steiner? Quimby? Mary Baker Eddy? Elizabeth Clare Prophet? L. Ron Hubbard?
)Deepak Chopra? Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? Louise L. Hay? Therapeutic Touch? Jan
)Smuts, the early twentieth century South African general and politician, who
)first used the concept holism? This is *not* a rhetorical question. I would
)really like to know.
The following information is posted on their web site,
http://www.sfsu.edu/~bulletin/current/programs/health.htm
Holistic Health.The Institute for Holistic Healing Studies, under the
Department of Health Education, offers a Holistic Health Minor and a
Holistic Health Certificate Program. The only difference between the two is
that the minor is co-terminus with a bachelor's degree, while the
certificate is available to anyone admitted through Extended Learning/Open
University. The curriculum for the certificate includes an additional eight
units beyond the minor. The certificate is also available to minors upon
completion of the requirements.
General Information. Holistic health is concerned with the health and
well-being of the whole person--mind, body, spirit, and environment in
dynamic balance and interdependence. It emphasizes and seeks to enhance the
inherent healing ability of each individual and empower people through
teaching principles and skills that enable them to take greater
responsibility for their personal development, healing, and health
maintenance. This interdisciplinary approach assumes a systems perspective
in which mind-body-consciousness interacts with the physical, biological,
and psychosocial environments. A change in any one part can result in
individual imbalances. Holistic health complements and extends beyond our
current medicine, an approach that engenders the rebalancing of the
individual.
There are many specific applications and forms of holistic health, some
derived from ancient healing traditions and others from modern technology.
These areas include: stress management, behavioral medicine, applied
psychophysiology, biofeedback, autogenic training, Chinese medicine
(including acupuncture, acupressure, herbology, nutrition, qigong), somatic
therapies (such as: Feldenkrais, bioenergetics, Alexander), therapeutic
touch and subtle energy therapies, meditation, yoga, guided imagery,
psychoneuroimmunology, transformative, psycho-spiritual, and psychosomatic
therapies, and others.
Although careers in holistic health per seare still being developed,
holistic health is a rapidly expanding field. There is a growing demand for
training in this area among health care practitioners, such as nurses,
physicians, paramedics, health educators, physical therapists, occupational
therapists, nutritionists, counselors, psychotherapists, health
researchers, health consultants, and others. Certain areas of holistic
health, such as Chinese medicine, somatic therapy, and biofeedback, are
increasingly in demand and careers in these fields are being integrated
more directly into the educational/health care systems.
The Holistic Health Minor/Certificate is designed to provide a background
in western physiological perspectives; a survey of holistic health theories
and practices as developed in the East and West; a metaphoric view of
health, disease, and healing; specific practices in-depth; some theory and
background in related areas as well as learning specific self-healing
practices. The minor serves as an interdisciplinary liberal arts program
that complements or supplements a student's major field of study,
especially in health-related areas. The Holistic Health Certificate is a
certificate of completion of a curriculum in holistic health for those who
already have an academic degree and/or are already in health professions.
In addition, since holistic health emphasizes self-care and
self-regulation, the minor and certificate program can be taken for
personal stress reduction, growth, healing, and health maintenance.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n531.2 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n530
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:13:11 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Robert Flannery posted,
)
)Hold on, Ms. Sutphen. This "disclosure statement" was originally posted
)to the list about a year ago by one of the critics. At that time, a
)number of waldorf types challenged its premises and presumptions in some
)detail.
)
)Just because we don't rechallenge it every time it is dredged back up
)doesn't mean it has gained any validity, from our point of view.
Is that so? I wasn't on the list at that time, however; I was on the list
when it was posted approximately a month ago. What parts of the disclosure
statement do you take issue with? I still find it interesting that there
was no objection from WE supporters when it was recently posted.
Waldorf supporters on this list have been more than willing to take
particular stances repeatedly during the short time I have been on the
list. For example, we are once again pursuing a discussion re: the
Waldorf/Anthroposophical teaching of and belief in pseudo-science. Once
again WE supporters are attempting to make a case for their approach. Once
again the contributors are using their (IMO) weird logic. If WE supporters
are willing to be repetitive on these issues then why do they avoid the
Disclosure Statment as if it were a hot potato?
I am truly interested in specific objections to the Disclosure Statement.
Have at it.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n531.3 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: Fugu . . . hmmmm?
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 17:49:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Robert Flannery suggest,
)
)I encourage you, Kathy, to eat fugu. (g)
)
As a matter of fact I did try fugu some years ago - a daring (and
foolhardy) experience if I may say so. However, it was not altogether
unpleasant.
More to the point . . . is this an example of Anthroposophical humor? I
think your "joke" is that I should eat some fugu and die. How very
Anthroposophical of you. I continue to be touched by that patient and
receptive Waldorf/Anthroposophical method of dealing with critics.
Your comparison of the traditional art of sushi chefs to Waldorf education
is a long reach. I suppose that what you are attempting to say is that
Waldorf schools are as different in character from location to location as
sushi restaurants are. A bad experience at one restaurant/school cannot
reflect on all restaurants/schools.
I won't belabor the strangeness of your analogy (I suspect it was drummed
up to make room for the clever fugu suggestion), however; what I see as the
important point here is that all Waldorf educators have as their basis the
religious training at an Anthroposophical educational institution, such as
the Rudolf Steiner College in Fair Oaks, California. Also, while the other
critics you mentioned had their problems with particular schools, I had my
problem with one of the leading Anthroposophical "colleges" in the world.
The Rudolf Steiner College not only prepares hundreds of private Waldorf
educators _and_ attempts to permeate their religious mumbo-jumbo into the
public mainstream using taxpayer's monies, it can be looked upon as being
one of _the_ messengers of the Waldorf message.
Are you suggesting that the Critics' complaints have little validity
because they may simply have issued forth as the result of a problem with a
lousy school or teacher (aka sushi chef/restaurant)? Then how would this
reflect on my experience with the Rudolf Steiner College and the very
strange experiences I have had with Betty Staley and Arline Monk? Are they
somehow analogous to the illusive lousy sushi chef?
Mr. Flannery, I wholeheartedly recommend that you do _not_ try fugu. It is
poisonous and could lead to serious health problems or death. While I
disagree with you I wish you no physical harm.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n531.4 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: "to be racist or not racist, ..."
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 15:02:28 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199710110840.BAA12201 lists1.best.com)
(199710101805.LAA02120 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199710112118.OAA26210 lists1.best.com)
Peter Schwab is at it again (last time he and Neil Faiman accused me of
being a Nazi):
SCHWAB quoted Kopp:
)On 11 Oct 97 at 21:22, Michael Kopp wrote:
)
)) KOPP says:
))
)) Pseudo-science and mystical mumbo-jumbo are raising their heads everwhere
)) as we move into a new dark age.
))
)) In this country, universities teach classes in "Maori science" -- the
)) folklore and spiritualism and animism of illiterate, cannibalistic, warrior
)) races of the indigenous peoples of these islands (Polynesian immigrants,
)) really, about 1,000 to 1,500 years ago.
))
)) This "science" is elevated to wisdom and fact.
))
)) We are truly on a long descent into the pit of unreason.
))
SCHWAB:
)Coming from the fingers of someone who accuses Rudolf Steiner of
)being a "racist", this classification of the Maori-people is rather
)strong tobacco...
KOPP says:
Schwab is presumably referring to the following statement which I made,
contained in a post about Steiner's silence on Hitler:
"Much of his philosophy is *still* shot through with ideas that can only be
seen as racist -- *even judged by the prevailing views of his times*. Not
all people believed Nazi propaganda; many spoke out, and died. Where was
Steiner?"
That's as close as _I've_ ever come to saying Steiner was a racist, in _my_
archive at least.
SCHWAB:
)If I remember the uprise about the " uneducated savages"-quote of
)Rudolf Steiner some month ago, I dare to say that Mr. Kopp's
)qualification is definitly racist, in particular according to the
)critic's own standards!
)
)He, who sits in a glass house, should refrain from casting stones...
What glass house am I sitting in, Peter?
I did not say the Maori were "uneducated savages". There are many Maori of
high educational distinction (though the policies of successive governments
of New Zealand, while nominally espousing education for Maori, have made
that quite difficult in practice). There have been many Maori of high
intellectual distinction in the past, as well, and they have an awesome
oral history and storytelling oratorical skill.
I did not say that the Maori are *inherently* in any way inferior to anyone
else. I characterised their former culture, from which sprang a primitive
world view which they now wish to resurrect and *live by* despite modern
times.
The Maori are a fine, proud, resilient and resurgent race of people. Good
on 'em, in a Kiwi phrase, because it was the Kiwis' ancestors who usurped
this land from the Maori 150 years ago, and, in the name of religious and
governmental welfare do-goodism, almost obliterated their former culture
and pride.
However, the Maori knowledge of the world that I (and other scientists who
have not been beaten to a pulp by the political correctness police in this
country) reject as not being scientific is in the same category as
Steiner's "science".
The "science" that they profess today is the same kind of backwards
foisting of superstition and herbalist folklore on an enlightened,
rationalist, scientific world. They are doing it for cultural and political
reclamation.
The Maori spiritual view of the world has as much right to exist as any
other religion, including Steiner's. Neither have the right to insist that
we turn the clock back and believe in things which are demonstrably false
in rationalist, scientific terms.
My characterisation of Maori as "illiterate, canabalistic, warrior races"
refers to their historical situation and the culture from which they
developed their knowledge of the world and their belief system. It is
intended as a cultural, ehtnological observation, not a racist judgement.
Unless Schwab wants me judged by the current political correctness which
says that the use of the word "race", and making any statements, however
true, that are perceivable as unkind or derogatory, whether intended so or
not, is tantamount to racism, I am not guilty of racism.
I simply meant that the Maori of antiquity who developed their knowledge
did so from a condition of pre-enlightenment ignorance which cannot have
produced much (except by accident) that has validity in modern,
rationalistic, scientific terms.
What I abhor is the modern Maori insistence in the modern world that
_their_ mumbo jumbo should be taken as being as valid as modern science,
just because they wish it to be so, and wish to use it as a cultural and
political weapon to reclaim their former lands and power.
I am happy to see Maori win this battle for a just recompense for their
displacement ... except that I do not want to be forced to think like them,
or to have my children educated in their ways and beliefs.
Very much like my resistance to Steiner and other cult-like mumbo-jumbo.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n531.5 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com
Subject: Re: Fugu . . . hmmmm?
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 97 23:14:37 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 10/11/97 8:49 PM, spike netshel.net wrote:
)Robert Flannery suggest,
))
))I encourage you, Kathy, to eat fugu. (g)
))
)As a matter of fact I did try fugu some years ago - a daring (and
)foolhardy) experience if I may say so. However, it was not altogether
)unpleasant.
)
)More to the point . . . is this an example of Anthroposophical humor? I
)think your "joke" is that I should eat some fugu and die. How very
)Anthroposophical of you. I continue to be touched by that patient and
)receptive Waldorf/Anthroposophical method of dealing with critics.
For such a hard-shell crab, you can become very sensitive when it suits
you! I will, however, apologize for my morbidity (which characterized me
long before I became an anthropop).
But please don't add my poor attempt at humor to any future lists you
might make of "anthroposophists threatening me". I'm pretty sweet,
really.
(snip)
)Are you suggesting that the Critics' complaints have little validity
)because they may simply have issued forth as the result of a problem with a
)lousy school or teacher (aka sushi chef/restaurant)?
Yes.
)Then how would this
)reflect on my experience with the Rudolf Steiner College and the very
)strange experiences I have had with Betty Staley and Arline Monk? Are they
)somehow analogous to the illusive lousy sushi chef?
Dunno. Why don't you tell us about it? I seem to recall something about
Arline Monk and stress at a meeting, but I haven't heard the Betty Staley
story yet.
)Mr. Flannery, I wholeheartedly recommend that you do _not_ try fugu. It is
)poisonous and could lead to serious health problems or death. While I
)disagree with you I wish you no physical harm.
)
)Kathy
Thanks for making that clear. I've been worried ever since I first saw
that intimidating email moniker of yours.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n531.6 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com
Subject: Round and Round we go. . . .
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 97 23:36:58 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 10/11/97 8:13 PM, spike netshel.net wrote:
)Waldorf supporters on this list have been more than willing to take
)particular stances repeatedly during the short time I have been on the
)list. For example, we are once again pursuing a discussion re: the
)Waldorf/Anthroposophical teaching of and belief in pseudo-science. Once
)again WE supporters are attempting to make a case for their approach. Once
)again the contributors are using their (IMO) weird logic. If WE supporters
)are willing to be repetitive on these issues then why do they avoid the
)Disclosure Statment as if it were a hot potato?
Well, the list had gone dead, and Deby Snell had some time on her hands,
and it's just too boring to reread the archives again and again. . . so
she dropped the four elements line and got a bite.
Let's all be above board: There are some issues on the critics list that
will always be worth a few lines if things get slow: Racial theories,
heart-is-not-a-pump, epochs-as-history, psuedoscience, pentagrams, first
amendment, second amendment, and meditation. My list, of course, is
incomplete, but I think the disclosure statement just about covers them
all. The DS is, in fact, just the master list of complaints that have
been collected by the various critics, and presented as applicable to the
waldorf movement as a whole.
)
)I am truly interested in specific objections to the Disclosure Statement.
)Have at it.
)
)Kathy
)
1) Pick whichever topic you like from the DS.
2) Search the archives for interminable discussions about said topic.
3) Not having the time or energy to search, wait. It will always come
'round again.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n531.7 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 09:58:50 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Kelly, you said,
)Then why do Waldorf students often do better in high school and college than
)public school students?
)Last year, our school graduated its first eighth grade, and the majority of
)the students are either in honors classes or classes usually taken by
)students in higher grades.((
Compare their performance with students of private schools having similar
tuition levels. Private school students generally come from advantaged
homes and can be expected to outperform public school students (in general,
not always!). How about doing a little survey and giving us the figures?
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n531.8 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com
Subject: Annual Bash
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 97 13:32:50 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Hey, Dan Dugan!
Whatever happened to the annual "critics-list" party at your digs in S.F.?
Or was it "critics only" this year?
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n531 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n532 --------------
001 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Bigtime quackery (Was Re: SF State cult medical course)
002 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Four Elements (Pseudo-science thread)
003 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
004 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
005 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - RE: Four Elements (Pseudo-science thread)
006 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
007 - litvas icu.com - Teacher Trainees, Please Stand Up
008 - litvas icu.com - RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
009 - JoAnn Schwartz (jms mich. - RE: Round and Round we go. . . .
010 - JoAnn Schwartz (jms mich. - Let's Keep Hitler Buried Please
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n532.1 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Bigtime quackery (Was Re: SF State cult medical course)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:22:07 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710101805.LAA02120 lists1.best.com)
The following is quoted from James Randi's mailing list regarding scams,
and I thought it was apropos the cult medical course at SF State. We have
so many credulous individuals on this list who believe in all sorts of
supernatural crap that I thought a warning from yet another source about
irrational, unscientific thought and action might prove useful. It'll
certainly probably bring the homeopathic nuts out of the Waldorf woodwork.
Begin quoted material:
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: James Randi --- Wizard (JREFInfo ssr.com)
To: broadcast-JREFInfo ssr.com
Subject: The OAM, again....
Sender: owner-jrefinfo ssr.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: James Randi --- Wizard (JREFInfo ssr.com)
)From friend Bob Park come these items of interest.
The Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM), within the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) and well-funded by the Congress, has
alarmed a number of prominent scientists who are justifiably concerned
by the lack of rigor in the projects entered into by the agency.
Quack standards, embraced by the politically correct politicians, have
applied to much of what has passed for science at the OAM. There's
a move afoot to officially declare the OAM a "National Center," thus
making it essentially immune to criticism and open to fresh funding
opportunities. The alarmed scientists, both physicists and
biologists, are now strongly supporting research into the efficacy of
alternative therapies, provided that the research is held to rigorous
scientific standards. Says the group, "The American public deserves
to know what works and what doesn't work in the treatment of disease."
Their statement warned, however, that "To elevate the OAM to a
National Center without first examining its strengths and weaknesses
would risk amplifying existing problems."
At the same time, a new journal, "THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVE
MEDICINE," devoted exclusively to objective evaluation of alternative
therapies, will debut on Tuesday, 14 Oct 97 at the National Press Club
in Washington, DC. I'm sure Bob Park will be there to report on the
event and ask a few sharp questions. As if to flavor this examination
of pseudo-science, we learn that chemist John Bockris of Texas A&M was
honored at a Harvard ceremony by the magazine "Annals of Improbable
Research," for transmuting base metals into gold by means of a
cold-fusion cell. Two myths for the price of one! But Harvard can't
point too steely a finger at bad science. They have to live with the
burden of Professor John Mack, who seems convinced that we are all
being taken to Venus to have our genitals probed by
pruriently-oriented aliens from places even further away than
Arkansas.
The mind boggles....
Randi
END QUOTED MATERIAL
--------------------------------------------------------
RANDI MAY BE CONTACTED AT:
*********************************************************************
To Subscribe/Unsubscribe from the mailing list:
**********************************************************************
To subscribe: send a message to JREFInfo-request ssr.com.
In the body of the message have the one word, subscribe.
To unsubscribe: Send mail to JREFInfo-request ssr.com.
In the body of the message have the one word, unsubscribe
-----------------
How to Contact Randi:
-----------------
James Randi Educational Foundation phone: +1 954 467 1112
201 SE Davie Boulevard fax: +1 954 467 1660
Fort Lauderdale FL 33316-1815 http://www.randi.org
U.S.A.
General questions: randi randi.org
Mail directly to Randi: 76702.3507 COMPUSERVE.COM
---------------------------
BACK ISSUES OF THE HOTLINE:
---------------------------
(http://www.mindspring.com/~anson/randi-hotline/)
(ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/an/anson/Mailing_Lists/geller-hotline)
(ftp://ftp.ssr.com/Randi)
ftp.ssr.com is the home of the hotline, but we are very over loaded,
so please try the other sites first. European users please try:
(ftp://mercurio.iet.unipi.it/pub/Randi)
---------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL MESSAGE FROM HERMAN DE TOLLENAERE FOLLOWS:
)At 12:21 AM 10/10/97 -0700, PLANS wrote:
)
))FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 10/10/97
))
))SF STATE HOSTING CULT MEDICAL COURSE
))
))People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools (PLANS), is blowing the whistle
))on a San Francisco State University course called "Anthroposophical
))Medicine." "Not only is medical quackery being promoted by a public
))university," said PLANS President Debra Snell, "but this course violates
))separation of church and state. Anthroposophy is a cult-like religious
))sect. The University is being used to give legitimacy to lunatic fringe
))beliefs."
)
))"Anthroposophical Medicine" is a full-credit course in the Department of
))Holistic Health.
)
)What else does this *Department of Holistic Health* teach, apart from
)Steiner? Quimby? Mary Baker Eddy? Elizabeth Clare Prophet? L. Ron Hubbard?
)Deepak Chopra? Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? Louise L. Hay? Therapeutic Touch? Jan
)Smuts, the early twentieth century South African general and politician, who
)first used the concept holism? This is *not* a rhetorical question. I would
)really like to know.
)
)I have re-posted the PLANS mail about this in The Netherlands.
)
)Herman de Tollenaere
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n532.2 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Four Elements (Pseudo-science thread)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:21:10 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
I said:
))Here's the first definition of "element" in Webster's dictionary:
))
)) any of the four substances air, water, fire, and earth
)) formerly believed to compose the physical universe
))
))I think the key word in this context is "formerly".
) KOPP said:
)
) What is your point? All rational, scientific thinkers realise that
these
) concepts belong in antiquity.
Right -- that was exactly my point. I thought it was pretty clear.
)) This pseudo-science has also included science (and other) teachers
telling
)) my kids that:
))
)) * the heart is not a pump;
How bizarre. Do the Waldorf supporters on this list agree with this
characterization? Is this idea really taught in Waldorf schools? If
so, how can you possibly justify it?
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n532.3 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:21:13 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
) KOPP says:
) Can you tell us ... either from your personal experience or
) research, or from some other source:
)
) what is an "Intelligent practitioner", and
)
) what is "the best of Waldorf"?
Hey, I'm no fan of Waldorf, but it does seem to have *some* substance.
To answer your specific questions:
A) I am acquainted with a Waldorf teacher-in-training who seems to be
intelligent (although I don't know her well enough to be sure).
Furthermore, it seems highly unlikely to me that all Waldorf teachers
everywhere are just plain stupid.
B) The emphasis on direct experience with natural phenomena seems
commendable. There are other positive aspects, but, honestly, I don't
think I can do justice to them. Perhaps a Waldorf supporter could
provide an uncontroversial "best of Waldorf" list?
) Then, how does one tell, as a parent with children in such a school,
or as
) a parent intending to enroll children in such a school, whether and
which
) teachers or schools are the good ones and which are the bad ones? In
) advance, before your child is damaged.
I wonder the same thing myself. Perhaps by word of mouth from other
parents? Of course, all parents face this problem to some degree,
regardless of the school or teaching method that they're considering.
It's just a starker problem in Waldorf, where being stuck with an loopy
Anthroposophist for N years is the booby prize.
) All Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy practitioners -- unless they are
heretics
) and subversives, and I don't think there are very many of those --
are, to
) me, by definition, small-minded teachers of Steiner by the book.
The teacher-in-training that I know has said to me (via e-mail) that she
takes Anthroposophy "with a grain of salt". So there.
) My personal experience is that I have never met a
) Steiner/Waldorf/Anthropsophy practitioner, believer, devotee or
hanger-on
) who *EVER* admitted that there could be a valid alternative to
anything
) that Steiner said.
Please. I don't think most Waldorf "believers" have even read enough
Steiner to have an opinion on his views. This is actually part of the
problem -- most Waldorf parents don't seem to quite realize what they're
getting their kids into. (Note: one could also say that few Montessori
fans know much about what Maria Montessori actually said, either. This
is less problematic, however, because she was not such a lunatic.)
Kopp, here's some unsolicited advice: I think you do a disservice to
your own cause by being so rabidly negative about Waldorf. You run the
risk of underestimating Waldorf by painting it with too broad a brush.
Furthermore, you are likely to turn off anyone who has not yet formed a
full opinion on the subject (such as myself).
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n532.4 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 00:48:52 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710130421.VAA02383 lists1.best.com)
Brian Berns says:
)) KOPP says:
)
)) Can you tell us ... either from your personal experience or
)) research, or from some other source:
))
)) what is an "Intelligent practitioner", and
))
)) what is "the best of Waldorf"?
And BERNS says:
)Hey, I'm no fan of Waldorf, but it does seem to have *some* substance.
KOPP says:
Well, I've asked you some specific questions about what you think is "the
best of Waldorf" ... and you didn't (or couldn't) answer.
I'll try again: tell us what of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy "does seem to
have *some* substance". (It is the complete lack of *ANY* _substance_ which
is the defining and damning characteristic of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy.
Aren't you just blowing smoke here?
BERNS says:
)To answer your specific questions:
)
)A) I am acquainted with a Waldorf teacher-in-training who seems to be
)intelligent (although I don't know her well enough to be sure).
)Furthermore, it seems highly unlikely to me that all Waldorf teachers
)everywhere are just plain stupid.
[snip and rearrange ...]
BERNS continues:
)The teacher-in-training that I know has said to me (via e-mail) that she
)takes Anthroposophy "with a grain of salt". So there.
KOPP says:
Nobody says they're necessarily stupid -- just deluded. You don't say at
what point in her training she is. If she survives the training with that
attitude, it will not be accepted by the Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophist
"college of teachers" (elders of the church) in whatever of the movement's
schools she teaches in.
The archives of this list are replete with details of the brainwashing
nature of the teacher training. The whole first year is taken up with
inculcating Anthroposophy, and the movement avers that one cannot be a
proper or good teacher in it without accepting Steiner. Does your
acquaintance know this?
BERNS continues:
)B) The emphasis on direct experience with natural phenomena seems
)commendable. There are other positive aspects, but, honestly, I don't
)think I can do justice to them. Perhaps a Waldorf supporter could
)provide an uncontroversial "best of Waldorf" list?
KOPP says:
What, exactly, is "direct experience with natural phenomena"? And why is it
commendable? Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy education never gets beyond this
phenomenological approach. It certainly never teaches the proper modern
scientific method, which involves prediction, experiment and conclusion as
well as simple observation and the formulation of some intuitional idea of
what might be happening.
If you "can't do justice" to the "positive aspects" of this mystical,
esoteric, spiritualistic mumbo-jumbo, much less even list them, then why
are you so friendly to it? Or is it that you just don't like critics,
especially vociferous ones? (See below.)
BERNS quotes Kopp:
)) Then, how does one tell, as a parent with children in such a school,
)or as
)) a parent intending to enroll children in such a school, whether and
)which
)) teachers or schools are the good ones and which are the bad ones? In
)) advance, before your child is damaged.
And BERNS says:
)I wonder the same thing myself. Perhaps by word of mouth from other
)parents? Of course, all parents face this problem to some degree,
)regardless of the school or teaching method that they're considering.
)It's just a starker problem in Waldorf, where being stuck with an loopy
)Anthroposophist for N years is the booby prize.
Really? But _everyone_ who sends a child to a
Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical school is "stuck with an loopy
Anthroposophist for N years".
In my experience, parents who discover the truth about the movement and
leave do not pass on their judgements to others, and cerainly don't make
them public (except in the rarest of cases like that of the courageous
founder of this list and some others on it).
And I certainly don't think parents choosing a public or private school
which is mainstream face the same kind or degree of problem as with
Steiner/Waldorf/ Anthroposophy, where there is positive harm from weirdos
awaiting.
BERNS quotes Kopp again:
)) All Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy practitioners -- unless they are
)heretics
)) and subversives, and I don't think there are very many of those --
)are, to
)) me, by definition, small-minded teachers of Steiner by the book.
)) My personal experience is that I have never met a
)) Steiner/Waldorf/Anthropsophy practitioner, believer, devotee or
)hanger-on
)) who *EVER* admitted that there could be a valid alternative to
)anything
)) that Steiner said.
And BERNS says:
)Please. I don't think most Waldorf "believers" have even read enough
)Steiner to have an opinion on his views. This is actually part of the
)problem -- most Waldorf parents don't seem to quite realize what they're
)getting their kids into. (Note: one could also say that few Montessori
)fans know much about what Maria Montessori actually said, either. This
)is less problematic, however, because she was not such a lunatic.)
KOPP says:
Please, yourself.
For a guy who said he couldn't do justice to an explanation of the best
points of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposopohical education you're sure an expert
on the people involved and their mental state.
You're confusing the issue. Most parents are not "believers", they just
sent their kids to a Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical school because they
saw a nice, smallish, pastel-decorated school setting and gather that it
has an emphasis on arts and music and other soft and wonderful things. Most
parents are completely ignorant of how wacky it all is.
The "believers" etc., of whom I speak _have_ read Steiner, and swallowed it
holus-bolus, or had it drilled into them in teacher training, or are such
trendy, new-age mush-heads that they wouldn't recognise mumbo-jumbo when
they see it.
There is no, repeat no, questioning of Steiner's dogma. Nothing has changed
in 75 years.
BERNS concludes:
)Kopp, here's some unsolicited advice: I think you do a disservice to
)your own cause by being so rabidly negative about Waldorf. You run the
)risk of underestimating Waldorf by painting it with too broad a brush.
)Furthermore, you are likely to turn off anyone who has not yet formed a
)full opinion on the subject (such as myself).
KOPP says:
Berns, here's some unsolicited advice: put your thinking cap on, do some
real research, get some first-hand evidence or experience of what we're
talking about here (a cult-like, religious, closed, unchanging,
spiritualist movement which believes it has a mission to control the
spiritual development of my kids not for their or my benefit but for the
benefit of the "higher order" and their next reincarnation) before you
shoot off your mouth about what you perceive to be my stridency and my
"cause".
How am I "underestimating" Waldorf? Do you mean to say you think I'm
missing something GOOD about it?
Rabidly negative?
My children were *damaged* by this movement and you want me to be ... what?
As "open-minded" to `alternative thinking' as the new-agers? As you?
My brush is not broad -- it's very fine-pointed and paints a very detailed
and accurate picture of my children's experience with this movement.
I do not have a cause, and I am not trying to persuade anyone -- least of
all folks like yourself who seem, oh, so reasonable -- of anything. You
have to work it out for yourself, if you have the guts, intellectual
fortitude and right attitude (skepticism). And if you care. I'm just
presenting my evidence. You wanna believe some trendy's, because it's more
comfortable? Be my guest.
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: RE: Four Elements (Pseudo-science thread)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 00:50:19 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710130421.VAA02356 lists1.best.com)
Brian Berns says:
)I said:
)
)))Here's the first definition of "element" in Webster's dictionary:
)))
))) any of the four substances air, water, fire, and earth
))) formerly believed to compose the physical universe
)))
)))I think the key word in this context is "formerly".
)
)) KOPP said:
))
)) What is your point? All rational, scientific thinkers realise that
)these
)) concepts belong in antiquity.
)
)Right -- that was exactly my point. I thought it was pretty clear.
KOPP says:
Then your comment is either a non sequitur or you're ignorant of the
Steiner/ Waldorf/Anthroposophical view of life and its educational dogma
and curriculum, which posits all these antiquated ideas as valid today.
BERNS quoted Kopp:
))) This pseudo-science has also included science (and other) teachers
)telling
))) my kids that:
)))
))) * the heart is not a pump;
And BERNS says:
)How bizarre. Do the Waldorf supporters on this list agree with this
)characterization? Is this idea really taught in Waldorf schools? If
)so, how can you possibly justify it?
KOPP says:
I suggest you do a search on this subject in the archives of this list,
rather than asking for an apologia -- which is what you'll get -- from the
defenders of the faith. They will either slither out from under the literal
truth that they do indeed believe this (as Steiner did, and as
pseudo-scientists today are engaged in trying to prove with crackpot
experiments) and do indeed teach it.
There is a whole mailing list devoted to "Anthroposophical Science" (an
oxymoron if I ever heard one). Try it; if you have any rationality and
science training you will find it laughable -- but also frightening,
because of the ground such pseudo-science is gaining against reason.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n532.6 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:34:29 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Michael,
I am a card-carrying skeptic.
I freely admit that I don't know much about Waldorf. That's the precise
reason why I joined this mailing list: to learn more from a critical
standpoint. Did I come to the wrong place?
I am sympathetic to your point of view and to the horrible experience
your family had with Waldorf. Nonetheless, you are an inch away from my
killfile. By painting Waldorf as pure evil, you make it difficult to
take you seriously. Please back off.
-- Brian
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Michael Kopp [SMTP:mkopp actrix.gen.nz]
) Sent: Monday, October 13, 1997 8:49 AM
) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) Subject: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners
) thread)
)
) Brian Berns says:
)
) )) KOPP says:
) )
) )) Can you tell us ... either from your personal experience or
) )) research, or from some other source:
) ))
) )) what is an "Intelligent practitioner", and
) ))
) )) what is "the best of Waldorf"?
)
) And BERNS says:
)
) )Hey, I'm no fan of Waldorf, but it does seem to have *some*
) substance.
)
) KOPP says:
)
) Well, I've asked you some specific questions about what you think is
) "the
) best of Waldorf" ... and you didn't (or couldn't) answer.
)
) I'll try again: tell us what of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy "does
) seem to
) have *some* substance". (It is the complete lack of *ANY* _substance_
) which
) is the defining and damning characteristic of
) Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy.
)
) Aren't you just blowing smoke here?
)
) BERNS says:
)
) )To answer your specific questions:
) )
) )A) I am acquainted with a Waldorf teacher-in-training who seems to be
) )intelligent (although I don't know her well enough to be sure).
) )Furthermore, it seems highly unlikely to me that all Waldorf teachers
) )everywhere are just plain stupid.
)
) [snip and rearrange ...]
)
) BERNS continues:
)
) )The teacher-in-training that I know has said to me (via e-mail) that
) she
) )takes Anthroposophy "with a grain of salt". So there.
)
) KOPP says:
)
) Nobody says they're necessarily stupid -- just deluded. You don't say
) at
) what point in her training she is. If she survives the training with
) that
) attitude, it will not be accepted by the
) Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophist
) "college of teachers" (elders of the church) in whatever of the
) movement's
) schools she teaches in.
)
) The archives of this list are replete with details of the brainwashing
) nature of the teacher training. The whole first year is taken up with
) inculcating Anthroposophy, and the movement avers that one cannot be a
) proper or good teacher in it without accepting Steiner. Does your
) acquaintance know this?
)
) BERNS continues:
)
) )B) The emphasis on direct experience with natural phenomena seems
) )commendable. There are other positive aspects, but, honestly, I
) don't
) )think I can do justice to them. Perhaps a Waldorf supporter could
) )provide an uncontroversial "best of Waldorf" list?
)
) KOPP says:
)
) What, exactly, is "direct experience with natural phenomena"? And why
) is it
) commendable? Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy education never gets beyond
) this
) phenomenological approach. It certainly never teaches the proper
) modern
) scientific method, which involves prediction, experiment and
) conclusion as
) well as simple observation and the formulation of some intuitional
) idea of
) what might be happening.
)
) If you "can't do justice" to the "positive aspects" of this mystical,
) esoteric, spiritualistic mumbo-jumbo, much less even list them, then
) why
) are you so friendly to it? Or is it that you just don't like critics,
) especially vociferous ones? (See below.)
)
) BERNS quotes Kopp:
)
) )) Then, how does one tell, as a parent with children in such a
) school,
) )or as
) )) a parent intending to enroll children in such a school, whether and
) )which
) )) teachers or schools are the good ones and which are the bad ones?
) In
) )) advance, before your child is damaged.
)
) And BERNS says:
)
) )I wonder the same thing myself. Perhaps by word of mouth from other
) )parents? Of course, all parents face this problem to some degree,
) )regardless of the school or teaching method that they're considering.
) )It's just a starker problem in Waldorf, where being stuck with an
) loopy
) )Anthroposophist for N years is the booby prize.
)
) Really? But _everyone_ who sends a child to a
) Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical school is "stuck with an loopy
) Anthroposophist for N years".
)
) In my experience, parents who discover the truth about the movement
) and
) leave do not pass on their judgements to others, and cerainly don't
) make
) them public (except in the rarest of cases like that of the courageous
) founder of this list and some others on it).
)
) And I certainly don't think parents choosing a public or private
) school
) which is mainstream face the same kind or degree of problem as with
) Steiner/Waldorf/ Anthroposophy, where there is positive harm from
) weirdos
) awaiting.
)
) BERNS quotes Kopp again:
)
) )) All Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy practitioners -- unless they are
) )heretics
) )) and subversives, and I don't think there are very many of those --
) )are, to
) )) me, by definition, small-minded teachers of Steiner by the book.
)
) )) My personal experience is that I have never met a
) )) Steiner/Waldorf/Anthropsophy practitioner, believer, devotee or
) )hanger-on
) )) who *EVER* admitted that there could be a valid alternative to
) )anything
) )) that Steiner said.
)
) And BERNS says:
)
) )Please. I don't think most Waldorf "believers" have even read enough
) )Steiner to have an opinion on his views. This is actually part of
) the
) )problem -- most Waldorf parents don't seem to quite realize what
) they're
) )getting their kids into. (Note: one could also say that few
) Montessori
) )fans know much about what Maria Montessori actually said, either.
) This
) )is less problematic, however, because she was not such a lunatic.)
)
) KOPP says:
)
) Please, yourself.
)
) For a guy who said he couldn't do justice to an explanation of the
) best
) points of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposopohical education you're sure an
) expert
) on the people involved and their mental state.
)
) You're confusing the issue. Most parents are not "believers", they
) just
) sent their kids to a Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical school because
) they
) saw a nice, smallish, pastel-decorated school setting and gather that
) it
) has an emphasis on arts and music and other soft and wonderful things.
) Most
) parents are completely ignorant of how wacky it all is.
)
) The "believers" etc., of whom I speak _have_ read Steiner, and
) swallowed it
) holus-bolus, or had it drilled into them in teacher training, or are
) such
) trendy, new-age mush-heads that they wouldn't recognise mumbo-jumbo
) when
) they see it.
)
) There is no, repeat no, questioning of Steiner's dogma. Nothing has
) changed
) in 75 years.
)
) BERNS concludes:
)
) )Kopp, here's some unsolicited advice: I think you do a disservice to
) )your own cause by being so rabidly negative about Waldorf. You run
) the
) )risk of underestimating Waldorf by painting it with too broad a
) brush.
) )Furthermore, you are likely to turn off anyone who has not yet formed
) a
) )full opinion on the subject (such as myself).
)
) KOPP says:
)
) Berns, here's some unsolicited advice: put your thinking cap on, do
) some
) real research, get some first-hand evidence or experience of what
) we're
) talking about here (a cult-like, religious, closed, unchanging,
) spiritualist movement which believes it has a mission to control the
) spiritual development of my kids not for their or my benefit but for
) the
) benefit of the "higher order" and their next reincarnation) before you
) shoot off your mouth about what you perceive to be my stridency and my
) "cause".
)
) How am I "underestimating" Waldorf? Do you mean to say you think I'm
) missing something GOOD about it?
)
) Rabidly negative?
)
) My children were *damaged* by this movement and you want me to be ...
) what?
) As "open-minded" to `alternative thinking' as the new-agers? As you?
)
) My brush is not broad -- it's very fine-pointed and paints a very
) detailed
) and accurate picture of my children's experience with this movement.
)
) I do not have a cause, and I am not trying to persuade anyone -- least
) of
) all folks like yourself who seem, oh, so reasonable -- of anything.
) You
) have to work it out for yourself, if you have the guts, intellectual
) fortitude and right attitude (skepticism). And if you care. I'm just
) presenting my evidence. You wanna believe some trendy's, because it's
) more
) comfortable? Be my guest.
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n532.7 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com
Subject: Teacher Trainees, Please Stand Up
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 97 11:12:32 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 10/13/97 8:48 AM, Michael Kopp wrote:
)Brian Berns says:
))The teacher-in-training that I know has said to me (via e-mail) that she
))takes Anthroposophy "with a grain of salt".
)KOPP says:
)
)Nobody says they're necessarily stupid -- just deluded. You don't say at
)what point in her training she is. If she survives the training with that
)attitude, it will not be accepted by the Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophist
)"college of teachers" (elders of the church) in whatever of the movement's
)schools she teaches in.
Michael, if you want to talk about the experiences of your family with
your Steiner school in New Zealand, I will recognize you as an expert.
I can't give any credence to your comments about waldorf teacher training.
The only critic I know of on this list who has spent any time enrolled in
a teacher training institution is Kathy Sutphen, and she was not even
part of what is recognized as the normal two-year program. Kathy was
enrolled in a hybrid training for public school teachers, which carried
through weeks, not years.
)The archives of this list are replete with details of the brainwashing
)nature of the teacher training.
No, Michael. The archives are replete with the conclusions of critics
who have no experience with teacher training.
I've shared my firsthand experiences with the two-year program at
Sunbridge College, and that doesn't support your statements.
If you want to make reference to Kathy Sutphen's experiences at RSC,
please do so, but don't call it "teacher training". In waldorf schools
and the communities they serve, "teacher training" refers to the full
two-year program or its equivalent.
There are a lot of other things springing up these days as the movement
expands: Part-time programs on weekends, part-time programs over
summers, evening courses, courses for public-school teachers, courses for
homeschoolers, ad infinitum. Some are taught at an established center
such as RSC, some are taught at individual schools, some are taught
wherever space can be rented.
What you guys need is a disgruntled former teacher, with the full
training, to give you some credibility in this area. But unless such an
individual had an enormous chip on their shoulder, we wouldn't hear
things like "brainwashing" and "religious seminary".
I bring another experience not shared by many on this list. Not only
have I completed the "official" teacher training, but I served as an
enlisted man in the United States Marine Corps.
Having been through boot camp at Parris Island, I know what a program of
thought-control indoctrination is all about. Having spent the next four
years in the Marine infantry, I know what "party-line thinking" and "the
group mind" are all about.
I don't see any of these things in anthroposophy. That's not to say it
doesn't exist in individuals or even in certain schools, but it cannot be
said of anthroposophy or waldorf education as a whole. Anthroposophy is
not a cult. The teacher training centers are not religious seminaries.
Most importantly, the schools do not slavishly follow the words of Rudolf
Steiner, any more than you slavishly follow the words of Dan Dugan.
Hmmm. Maybe that's not such a good example, after all.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n532.8 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com
Subject: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 97 11:27:51 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 10/13/97 8:48 AM, Michael Kopp wrote:
)In my experience, parents who discover the truth about the movement and
)leave do not pass on their judgements to others, and cerainly don't make
)them public (except in the rarest of cases like that of the courageous
)founder of this list and some others on it).
It's funny, but I'm starting to see signs of a cult of personality
building up here, and the name associated with it is not Rudolf Steiner.
A lot of religious sloganeering is done by the critics in attacking
anthroposophy, waldorf schools and teacher training centers. You might
do well to look at your own organization.
1) Charismatic central figure who assumes paternal
role
2) Leader makes pronouncements which are taken up
verbatim by followers
3) Body of dogma is then built up.
Your attempts to demonize waldorf schools and anthroposophy have always
reminded me more of a crusade than an attempt to improve or rectify.
Since the list woke up this past week, it strikes me more strongly than
ever.
It's like you've all been away on a retreat together. I see the picture
now, as the Reverend Dugan rallies his troops under a big tent, somewhere
in the Sierras. . . .
I guess it must have been a virtual retreat.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n532.9 ---------------
From: JoAnn Schwartz (jms mich.com)
Subject: RE: Round and Round we go. . . .
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:49:03 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Kathy Sutphen wrote:
))I am truly interested in specific objections to the Disclosure
Statement.
))Have at it.
Robert Flannery replied:
)1) Pick whichever topic you like from the DS.
)
)2) Search the archives for interminable discussions about said topic.
)
)3) Not having the time or energy to search, wait. It will always come
) 'round again.
JoAnn chimes in:
In the Critics archives, use your browser to search on "disclosure" in
Nov. (both parts) & Dec. 1996 and Jan. 1997.
In the Waldorf archives, seach for "Miranda rights"
Warmly,
JoAnn Schwartz, Detroit Waldorf School parent
(jms mich.com) Detroit, Michigan USA
****All opinions strictly my own!!****
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n532.10 ---------------
From: JoAnn Schwartz (jms mich.com)
Subject: Let's Keep Hitler Buried Please
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:53:02 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
)KOPP says:
)
)Schwab is presumably referring to the following statement which I made,
)contained in a post about Steiner's silence on Hitler:
)
)"Much of his philosophy is *still* shot through with ideas that can only
be
)seen as racist -- *even judged by the prevailing views of his times*. Not
)all people believed Nazi propaganda; many spoke out, and died. Where was
)Steiner?"
JoAnn replies:
(Tired sigh...) I do NOT wish to reopen the debate on Steiner's alleged
racism/responsibility for Nazi doctrine. You can search the archives -- by
opening up each month and looking for Hitler, since the search engine
seems to have disappeared.
_However_, I feel compelled to point out once again (for the benefit of
newcomers to the list) that Steiner DIED on March 30, 1925. Hitler
published Mein Kampf in 1925. (The exact date of publication is
not available to me at my present location.) Therefore, I am not sure
just how Steiner was supposed to have commented on/opposed Herr Hitler.
Warmly,
JoAnn Schwartz, Detroit Waldorf School parent
(jms mich.com) Detroit, Michigan USA
****All opinions strictly my own!!****
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n532 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n533 --------------
001 - JoAnn Schwartz (jms mich. - Statistical Studies on the Outcomes of WE
002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Round and Round we go. . . .
003 - litvas icu.com - Re: Round and Round we go. . . .
004 - Luna457954 aol.com - Re: Re: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners
005 - Neil Faiman (faiman zko.d - RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
006 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Racism in Waldorf in The Netherlands (was: Round and Round we
007 - litvas icu.com - The Recognition and Resolution of the Racial Issue
008 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Teacher Trainees, Please Stand Up
009 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
010 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n533.1 ---------------
From: JoAnn Schwartz (jms mich.com)
Subject: Statistical Studies on the Outcomes of WE
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:57:22 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
)KOPP says:
)
)Can you show me statistically valid and controlled studies of the outputs
)of Steiner schools that support your contentions? I doubt it. It is
likely
)that even if this is true, it is probably much more a factor of the
)socio-economic-cultural lifestyles and demographics of the parents and
)their children than it is the rationalist or spiritualist nature of their
)educations.
JoAnn replies:
Michael, I have yet to see any scientific or statistical studies that show
that WE produces graduates who are academically or otherwise inferior to
those produced by public education, or indeed, to any other system of
education you care to name. All the evidence provided by the critics to
date has been anecdotal in nature. That is, in my time on this list, I
have never seen anything approaching a valid statistical study (of any
sort, never mind across the entire spectrum of WE schools) to indicate
proof of the critics' contention of the inferiority of the product (the
graduates). Where are _your_ studies? Sauce for the goose and all that.
BTW, I seem to recall Stephen Tonkin and others reporting that the UK
schools are subject to inspection/testing by the education department (or
its UK equivalent) and the results of WE were equal to or better than
those of state education. I'd search the archives, but that no longer
seems possible (Dan, can we add a search feature to the archives again??
In your spare time? (grin))
Warmly,
JoAnn Schwartz, Detroit Waldorf School parent
(jms mich.com) Detroit, Michigan USA
****All opinions strictly my own!!****
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n533.2 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Round and Round we go. . . .
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:01:56 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Robert Flannery, you said,
)Let's all be above board: There are some issues on the critics list that
)will always be worth a few lines if things get slow: Racial theories,
)heart-is-not-a-pump, epochs-as-history, psuedoscience, pentagrams, first
)amendment, second amendment, and meditation. My list, of course, is
)incomplete, but I think the disclosure statement just about covers them
)all. The DS is, in fact, just the master list of complaints that have
)been collected by the various critics, and presented as applicable to the
)waldorf movement as a whole.
An incomplete list, Robert, but you do catch our drift. A school system
with inherent racism, pseudoscience, and concealed religious doctrine is
eminently worthy of criticism and exposure. I look forward to your efforts
to reform Waldorf education from within. In the meantime, you can be sure
PLANS will be hammering these issues till Waldorf gets out of public
education.
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n533.3 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com
Subject: Re: Round and Round we go. . . .
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 97 14:50:59 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Ah, I always love it when the Grand Pooh-bah steps through the curtain
and gives me an audience!
Even if he is simply trying to divert attention from his
Sergeant-at-Arms, who has taken to harassing tourists at the gate.
On 10/13/97 1:01 PM, Dan Dugan wrote:
)An incomplete list, Robert, but you do catch our drift. A school system
)with inherent racism, pseudoscience, and concealed religious doctrine is
)eminently worthy of criticism and exposure.
)From my time on this list, I know of a school in the Netherlands where
racial stereotyping appeared in the work of one teacher. Similarly, I'm
aware of pseudoscience which has been taught in a school in New Zealand
and another in San Francisco. I'm not aware of any concealed religious
doctrine (but it sounds pretty broad). I do have experience with a
school in southern California which did not explain their own esoteric
christian festival calendar, in an effort to build enrollment.
Now, I'm not so naive as to think that my list is completely inclusive,
but it hardly looks like something on which to base an indictment of an
entire school system. Even if every critic on this list suddenly jumped
in and said "we had pseudoscience!" or "we had racism!", you cannot
project from that and say these things are inherent in the movement.
I still think such examples are worthy of criticism and exposure. If any
of this happens once, it happens too many times. This is why I continue
to subscribe to your list. I am not here to convert critics, nor sway
the undecided. I want as much information as I can get, from as many
sources as I have access to, about waldorf education.
I also want to correct the most blatant examples of the misinformation,
misrepresentations, and lies which I see presented on this list as
criticism.
)I look forward to your efforts
)to reform Waldorf education from within. In the meantime, you can be sure
)PLANS will be hammering these issues till Waldorf gets out of public
)education.
I can assure you that I will be just as happy as you when and if waldorf
is litigated out of the public school system.
Since I've got your attention, Dan, how about my question regarding the
annual shindig? Was it "invitation only"?
Remember, your credibility is at stake here. (BIG g)
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n533.4 ---------------
From: Luna457954 aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 15:08:15 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 10/11/97 9:09:05 PM, Mr. Kopp wrote:
((Can you show me statistically valid and controlled studies of the outputs
of Steiner schools that support your contentions?((
I don't have this info, but I will certainly look into it and let you know.
)We are all subject to emotional yearnings, as evinced in Kelly's rather
wooly thinking about the value of
various educations.((
Wooly? This sounds a bit condescending.
))I do not belive that my children will be harmed by a state education or
contact with the rest of society, as Kelly seems to believe.((
I never said children are harmed by a state education, only that in my
experience, WE will give them benefits that public schools often do not have.
Take care,
Kelly (wooly as a sheep, I guess)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n533.5 ---------------
From: Neil Faiman (faiman zko.dec.com)
Subject: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 16:18:19 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Brian Berns writes:
) I am a card-carrying skeptic.
As am I -- I have been a CSICOP member for almost two decades now. I =
have also spent ten years as a Waldorf school parent, watching with =
delight as my daughter received a first-rate education. It sounds like =
it's time for me to repost this counterpoint (from early August of this =
year):
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Greetings.
In the discussion on "Science in CA Public Schools", Deby Snell advised=20
Steve Premo:
) Your child is young. Check out the curriculum in the upper grades long
) before your child gets there. See if you agree with what is being=20
taught
) now. ... Make the choice based on a through and studied evaluation.
This is excellent advice, not only to Steve, but to every prospective=20
Waldorf parent. It should not be all that difficult. At the very=20
least, you should be able to get an opportunity to look at collected=20
main lesson books from the various upper grade blocks. Depending on the =
particular school, there may be opportunities to sit in on upper grade=20
classes. (On the one hand, visitors can be disruptive; on the other=20
hand, classroom visits can be valuable to prospective parents, current=20
parents, and the school. Different schools balance these concerns=20
differently. Years ago, the school that my daughter attended did not=20
allow classroom visitors; more recently, they have had regularly=20
scheduled classroom visitation days.) Attend talks about the=20
curriculum. Talk to a variety of parents with children in the upper=20
grades, or with graduates.
My own experience was that the representations of the school with regard =
to the sort of education my daughter would receive were highly accurate, =
that the quality of the education was excellent, and that=20
anthroposophical "doctrine" was not present in the education. Some=20
Critics here haved reported diametrically opposite experiences. Each=20
parent will make this determination for himself or herself in the end,=20
and will be doing himself or herself a service by beginning to make it=20
sooner rather than later.
Regards,
Neil Faiman, alumni Waldorf parent
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Brian was particularly concerned about Michael Kopp's "This =
pseudo-science has also included science (and other) teachers telling my =
kids that: ... the heart is not a pump; ..." Brian asks
) How bizarre. Do the Waldorf supporters on this list agree with this
) characterization? Is this idea really taught in Waldorf schools? If
) so, how can you possibly justify it?
The claim has been made on this list often enough that I must believe =
that there are some Waldorf schools where children really are taught =
that "the heart is not a pump," even though I have not seen it =
personally. I have no idea how common such schools are. In my own case =
(as I have posted previously on this list), my daughter was taught that =
"The blood flow in the body is regulated by the heart. It pumps the =
blood out with a strong beat and a regular force sufficient to squirt it
six feet in the air."
Dan congratulated me at the time on how lucky I was to have gotten an =
atypical teacher. Since I was back visiting the school this weekend, I =
took the opportunity to drop into a middle-school classroom. There on a =
student's desk was a main lesson book, open to a page titled "The =
Circulatory System", and the second sentence on that page read "The =
heart pumps the blood through the body."
By the way, none of the rest of Michael Kopp's litany of pseudo-science =
from his children's Waldorf school was familiar to me, either; and, yes, =
I have made it a point to be aware of what she was being taught =
throughout her education.
Sincerely,
Neil Faiman
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n533.6 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Racism in Waldorf in The Netherlands (was: Round and Round we
go. . . .)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:50:32 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 02:50 PM 13/10/97 -0400, Robert Flannery wrote:
)On 10/13/97 1:01 PM, Dan Dugan wrote:
))An incomplete list, Robert, but you do catch our drift. A school system
))with inherent racism, pseudoscience, and concealed religious doctrine is
))eminently worthy of criticism and exposure.
Robert:
))From my time on this list, I know of a school in the Netherlands where
)racial stereotyping appeared in the work of one teacher.
*ONE* teacher only?? How I wish Robert were right!
This teacher was backed by the College of Teachers (until distressed parents
went to the national news media). He based the racist schemes etc. on the
works of Rudolf Steiner, and of Max Stibbe, the founder of the first Waldorf
schools in The Netherlands (and in South Africa). And it was not just in
Zutphen, but also in my home town, Leiden, for instance. And look at the USA
(see the PLANS web site, an article by two *anthroposophists*), Germany
(read Flensburger Hefte), South Africa (Downer; a book also recommended at
Waldorf schools in the US and elsewhere).
greetings
Herman de Tollenaere
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n533.7 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com
Subject: The Recognition and Resolution of the Racial Issue
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 97 18:22:05 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 10/13/97 4:50 PM, Herman de Tollenaere wrote:
)Robert:
))From my time on this list, I know of a school in the Netherlands where
))racial stereotyping appeared in the work of one teacher.
)
)*ONE* teacher only?? How I wish Robert were right!
)
)This teacher was backed by the College of Teachers (until distressed parents
)went to the national news media). He based the racist schemes etc. on the
)works of Rudolf Steiner, and of Max Stibbe, the founder of the first Waldorf
)schools in The Netherlands (and in South Africa). And it was not just in
)Zutphen, but also in my home town, Leiden, for instance. And look at the USA
)(see the PLANS web site, an article by two *anthroposophists*), Germany
)(read Flensburger Hefte), South Africa (Downer; a book also recommended at
)Waldorf schools in the US and elsewhere).
Thanks, Herman, that's a much more complete picture of what you've
presented to the list.
But as I said six lines down from the material you quoted:
)Now, I'm not so naive as to think that my list is completely inclusive,
)but it hardly looks like something on which to base an indictment of an
)entire school system. Even if every critic on this list suddenly jumped
)in and said "we had pseudoscience!" or "we had racism!", you cannot
)project from that and say these things are inherent in the movement.
I'll stand by that.
Waldorf schools are found in somewhere between 50-150 countries in the
world. There are between 600-1200 schools worldwide. As a movement, we
are so lacking in central organization that we can't even say how many
schools there are without factoring in a margin of error of about 50%.
So no one can claim to speak for them all. It looks like there are
schools in your area that are promoting some inexcusable racial
stereotypes. No one has ever argued with you on these points.
For simplicity's sake, let's agree that Rudolf Steiner has passages in
his lectures or writings which can reasonably be construed to promote
racial stereotypes.
I have yet to see any evidence of such racial stereotyping or theory in
any school I am personally acquainted with. Every chance I get (and I
get a lot, since I live in an anthroposophical center), I talk to waldorf
teachers and parents from around the continent about issues of race.
I think it's an area which needs our attention in the United States,
because we are grossly underrepresented in our student populations.
Aside from places like Detroit, Atlanta, and Baltimore, we have almost no
African-american students in our schools (I'm not considering any public
waldorf schools here).
The waldorf schools and classrooms in this country don't attract
minorities, because there's nothing in our curriculum or physical
arrangements which speaks to a minority culture. This is slowly
beginning to change in some places. I do not, however, think you will
see greater numbers of black or hispanic faces in U.S. classrooms until
we begin drawing minority candidates to our teacher training
institutions. I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.
So please, Herman. Don't try to imply that all waldorf schools are
racist, or promote racist theories.
The waldorf schools that I'm familiar with are embarrassed by the
homogeneity of both their faculty and students, and are searching for
solutions. With racial issues everywhere, resolution is a long, slow,
discouraging road.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n533.8 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Teacher Trainees, Please Stand Up
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:58:14 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710131511.IAA19071 lists1.best.com)
Robert Flannery writes:
)I bring another experience not shared by many on this list. Not only
)have I completed the "official" teacher training, but I served as an
)enlisted man in the United States Marine Corps.
)
)Having been through boot camp at Parris Island, I know what a program of
)thought-control indoctrination is all about. Having spent the next four
)years in the Marine infantry, I know what "party-line thinking" and "the
)group mind" are all about.
)
)I don't see any of these things in anthroposophy. That's not to say it
)doesn't exist in individuals or even in certain schools, but it cannot be
)said of anthroposophy or waldorf education as a whole. Anthroposophy is
)not a cult. The teacher training centers are not religious seminaries.
KOPP says:
That explains a lot.
It appears that Mr Flannery's time in the green machine predates his time
in the Anthroposophical fields. (If it's the other way 'round, we're in
even bigger trouble!)
Speaking as an ex-soldier (NOT an ex-jarhead), and relying on my therefore
ingrained feeling of superiority over Gyrenes, I would say that Marine
training stays with you all your life.
Once you are broken to the yoke and rebuilt in the Marine image, you are so
convinced of your own superiority, and the superiority of any such creed
that demands unquestioning loyalty, that you would be easy pickings for
Anthroposophy.
Okay, Anthroposophy isn't a cult. And the Marines' motto isn't "semper
fidelis".
The teacher training centres aren't seminaries. And the Marines' boot camps
aren't mind control centres.
Oh, dear, poor Mr Flannery! An ex-Marine! (Oops, sorry, one is NEVER and
EX-Marine, one wears it for life.)
(Bit of interservice rivalry showing there, Mr Berns -- or will you now
also accuse me of saying the Marines are "evil"? I'm sure Mr Flannery knows
I'm just joking, and I have the utmost respect for jarheads. One of my
nephews was one at the time we were both in Vietnam. Some of my best
friends were Marines. The Marines always looked after me when I was in the
field, even when I couldn't keep up with them -- though I'm sure some
present company might wish it otherwise.)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n533.9 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:58:19 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710131527.IAA24771 lists1.best.com)
Robert Flannery is propagandising again:
)On 10/13/97 8:48 AM, Michael Kopp wrote:
)
))In my experience, parents who discover the truth about the movement and
))leave do not pass on their judgements to others, and cerainly don't make
))them public (except in the rarest of cases like that of the courageous
))founder of this list and some others on it).
)
)
)It's funny, but I'm starting to see signs of a cult of personality
)building up here, and the name associated with it is not Rudolf Steiner.
KOPP says:
Simply an observation from afar. I think it takes guts to hang your life
out on the line like Dugan and the others are doing. Doesn't take any guts
to take potshots at them personally, though.
Personality cult? Dan Dugan? Who he? I hardly know the man, never met him,
never even been on the invite list for the annual party at his house.
FLANNERY said:
[snip]
)Your attempts to demonize waldorf schools and anthroposophy have always
)reminded me more of a crusade than an attempt to improve or rectify.
)Since the list woke up this past week, it strikes me more strongly than
)ever.
KOPP says:
Well, if Flannery is speaking of the critics as a group, he's wrong -- at
least from this viewpoint. I'm not part of any group except rational,
skeptical, scientific thinkers, and, except for PLANS, I don't think anyone
else is either.
If he's speaking of Kopp personally, yeah, I guess it could seem like a
crusade. The crusade of the time-honoured muckraking journalist who exposes
unpleasant truths and keeps at it.
Improve or rectify Steiner/Waldorf/Anthropsophical things? Another attempt
to set a false agenda for the critics. Critics are not responsible for
improving things, only pointing out what's wrong.
That said, I repeat that I have never, never, never, seen any person
associated with the movement in my personal experience change in any way
despite any number of representations by myself and many others.
And I repeat what I said about my view of the purpose of this list: critics
are not adherents asking for some improvements. Critics are exposers of
mumbo-jumbo. How can mumbo-jumbo be "improved" or "rectified" other than by
rooting it out?
Then you wouldn't have the religious freedom that guarantees that devotees
can believe any preposterous thing they want to, and even act on it, and
educate their own children in it.
I wouldn't change that for the world.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n533.10 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners thread)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:58:09 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710131434.HAA05492 lists1.best.com)
Brian (we go from last-name to first-name basis pretty quickly on this
list, eh?):
)Michael,
)
)I am a card-carrying skeptic.
)
)I freely admit that I don't know much about Waldorf. That's the precise
)reason why I joined this mailing list: to learn more from a critical
)standpoint. Did I come to the wrong place?
)
)I am sympathetic to your point of view and to the horrible experience
)your family had with Waldorf. Nonetheless, you are an inch away from my
)killfile. By painting Waldorf as pure evil, you make it difficult to
)take you seriously. Please back off.
KOPP says:
If you're a card-carrying skeptic, answer my questions about your assertions.
Meantime, stop putting words in my mouth.
I never said it was evil. I said it was wrong and deceitful. I have never
met a Steiner/Waldorf/Anthropsophical person who was not sincere and
well-intentioned and believing they were doing good. I never characterised
Steiner as a messianic figure with delusions of godhood (thouogh others say
this is integral to his psychological foundation for a cult). I believe my
kids' teachers are good people who are believers in something they think is
a higher good. The fact that I think they are deluded and foolish and
irrational does not make them evil.
They have, however, mistakenly caused my children educational harm. For
that I forgive them, but I do not think it right to look the other way or
to remain silent.
If your view of my criticisms -- angry as they are -- is that I am not to
be taken seriously, then, by all means, add my name to your kill file.
You're the loser then, not me. Some skeptic.
)) -----Original Message-----
)) From: Michael Kopp [SMTP:mkopp actrix.gen.nz]
)) Sent: Monday, October 13, 1997 8:49 AM
)) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)) Subject: RE: Four Elements (Intelligent Waldorf practitioners
)) thread)
))
)) Brian Berns says:
))
)) )) KOPP says:
)) )
)) )) Can you tell us ... either from your personal experience or
)) )) research, or from some other source:
)) ))
)) )) what is an "Intelligent practitioner", and
)) ))
)) )) what is "the best of Waldorf"?
))
)) And BERNS says:
))
)) )Hey, I'm no fan of Waldorf, but it does seem to have *some*
)) substance.
))
)) KOPP says:
))
)) Well, I've asked you some specific questions about what you think is
)) "the
)) best of Waldorf" ... and you didn't (or couldn't) answer.
))
)) I'll try again: tell us what of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy "does
)) seem to
)) have *some* substance". (It is the complete lack of *ANY* _substance_
)) which
)) is the defining and damning characteristic of
)) Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy.
))
)) Aren't you just blowing smoke here?
))
)) BERNS says:
))
)) )To answer your specific questions:
)) )
)) )A) I am acquainted with a Waldorf teacher-in-training who seems to be
)) )intelligent (although I don't know her well enough to be sure).
)) )Furthermore, it seems highly unlikely to me that all Waldorf teachers
)) )everywhere are just plain stupid.
))
)) [snip and rearrange ...]
))
)) BERNS continues:
))
)) )The teacher-in-training that I know has said to me (via e-mail) that
)) she
)) )takes Anthroposophy "with a grain of salt". So there.
))
)) KOPP says:
))
)) Nobody says they're necessarily stupid -- just deluded. You don't say
)) at
)) what point in her training she is. If she survives the training with
)) that
)) attitude, it will not be accepted by the
)) Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophist
)) "college of teachers" (elders of the church) in whatever of the
)) movement's
)) schools she teaches in.
))
)) The archives of this list are replete with details of the brainwashing
)) nature of the teacher training. The whole first year is taken up with
)) inculcating Anthroposophy, and the movement avers that one cannot be a
)) proper or good teacher in it without accepting Steiner. Does your
)) acquaintance know this?
))
)) BERNS continues:
))
)) )B) The emphasis on direct experience with natural phenomena seems
)) )commendable. There are other positive aspects, but, honestly, I
)) don't
)) )think I can do justice to them. Perhaps a Waldorf supporter could
)) )provide an uncontroversial "best of Waldorf" list?
))
)) KOPP says:
))
)) What, exactly, is "direct experience with natural phenomena"? And why
)) is it
)) commendable? Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy education never gets beyond
)) this
)) phenomenological approach. It certainly never teaches the proper
)) modern
)) scientific method, which involves prediction, experiment and
)) conclusion as
)) well as simple observation and the formulation of some intuitional
)) idea of
)) what might be happening.
))
)) If you "can't do justice" to the "positive aspects" of this mystical,
)) esoteric, spiritualistic mumbo-jumbo, much less even list them, then
)) why
)) are you so friendly to it? Or is it that you just don't like critics,
)) especially vociferous ones? (See below.)
))
)) BERNS quotes Kopp:
))
)) )) Then, how does one tell, as a parent with children in such a
)) school,
)) )or as
)) )) a parent intending to enroll children in such a school, whether and
)) )which
)) )) teachers or schools are the good ones and which are the bad ones?
)) In
)) )) advance, before your child is damaged.
))
)) And BERNS says:
))
)) )I wonder the same thing myself. Perhaps by word of mouth from other
)) )parents? Of course, all parents face this problem to some degree,
)) )regardless of the school or teaching method that they're considering.
)) )It's just a starker problem in Waldorf, where being stuck with an
)) loopy
)) )Anthroposophist for N years is the booby prize.
))
)) Really? But _everyone_ who sends a child to a
)) Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical school is "stuck with an loopy
)) Anthroposophist for N years".
))
)) In my experience, parents who discover the truth about the movement
)) and
)) leave do not pass on their judgements to others, and cerainly don't
)) make
)) them public (except in the rarest of cases like that of the courageous
)) founder of this list and some others on it).
))
)) And I certainly don't think parents choosing a public or private
)) school
)) which is mainstream face the same kind or degree of problem as with
)) Steiner/Waldorf/ Anthroposophy, where there is positive harm from
)) weirdos
)) awaiting.
))
)) BERNS quotes Kopp again:
))
)) )) All Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy practitioners -- unless they are
)) )heretics
)) )) and subversives, and I don't think there are very many of those --
)) )are, to
)) )) me, by definition, small-minded teachers of Steiner by the book.
))
)) )) My personal experience is that I have never met a
)) )) Steiner/Waldorf/Anthropsophy practitioner, believer, devotee or
)) )hanger-on
)) )) who *EVER* admitted that there could be a valid alternative to
)) )anything
)) )) that Steiner said.
))
)) And BERNS says:
))
)) )Please. I don't think most Waldorf "believers" have even read enough
)) )Steiner to have an opinion on his views. This is actually part of
)) the
)) )problem -- most Waldorf parents don't seem to quite realize what
)) they're
)) )getting their kids into. (Note: one could also say that few
)) Montessori
)) )fans know much about what Maria Montessori actually said, either.
)) This
)) )is less problematic, however, because she was not such a lunatic.)
))
)) KOPP says:
))
)) Please, yourself.
))
)) For a guy who said he couldn't do justice to an explanation of the
)) best
)) points of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposopohical education you're sure an
)) expert
)) on the people involved and their mental state.
))
)) You're confusing the issue. Most parents are not "believers", they
)) just
)) sent their kids to a Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical school because
)) they
)) saw a nice, smallish, pastel-decorated school setting and gather that
)) it
)) has an emphasis on arts and music and other soft and wonderful things.
)) Most
)) parents are completely ignorant of how wacky it all is.
))
)) The "believers" etc., of whom I speak _have_ read Steiner, and
)) swallowed it
)) holus-bolus, or had it drilled into them in teacher training, or are
)) such
)) trendy, new-age mush-heads that they wouldn't recognise mumbo-jumbo
)) when
)) they see it.
))
)) There is no, repeat no, questioning of Steiner's dogma. Nothing has
)) changed
)) in 75 years.
))
)) BERNS concludes:
))
)) )Kopp, here's some unsolicited advice: I think you do a disservice to
)) )your own cause by being so rabidly negative about Waldorf. You run
)) the
)) )risk of underestimating Waldorf by painting it with too broad a
)) brush.
)) )Furthermore, you are likely to turn off anyone who has not yet formed
)) a
)) )full opinion on the subject (such as myself).
))
)) KOPP says:
))
)) Berns, here's some unsolicited advice: put your thinking cap on, do
)) some
)) real research, get some first-hand evidence or experience of what
)) we're
)) talking about here (a cult-like, religious, closed, unchanging,
)) spiritualist movement which believes it has a mission to control the
)) spiritual development of my kids not for their or my benefit but for
)) the
)) benefit of the "higher order" and their next reincarnation) before you
)) shoot off your mouth about what you perceive to be my stridency and my
)) "cause".
))
)) How am I "underestimating" Waldorf? Do you mean to say you think I'm
)) missing something GOOD about it?
))
)) Rabidly negative?
))
)) My children were *damaged* by this movement and you want me to be ...
)) what?
)) As "open-minded" to `alternative thinking' as the new-agers? As you?
))
)) My brush is not broad -- it's very fine-pointed and paints a very
)) detailed
)) and accurate picture of my children's experience with this movement.
))
)) I do not have a cause, and I am not trying to persuade anyone -- least
)) of
)) all folks like yourself who seem, oh, so reasonable -- of anything.
)) You
)) have to work it out for yourself, if you have the guts, intellectual
)) fortitude and right attitude (skepticism). And if you care. I'm just
)) presenting my evidence. You wanna believe some trendy's, because it's
)) more
)) comfortable? Be my guest.
))
))
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n533 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n534 --------------
001 - litvas icu.com - Jughead Mentality
002 - spike netshel.net - Party at Dugan's?
003 - spike netshel.net - Lousy Waldorf schools/teachers
004 - spike netshel.net - Religious training!
005 - litvas icu.com - Are you experienced?
006 - litvas icu.com - Misinformation, Misrepresentations and LIes
007 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: SF State hosting cult medical course
008 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - Trolling
009 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: The Elements
010 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Re: Misinformation, Misrepresentations and LIes
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n534.1 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com
Subject: Jughead Mentality
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 97 21:03:35 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 10/13/97 7:58 PM, Michael Kopp wrote:
)It appears that Mr Flannery's time in the green machine predates his time
)in the Anthroposophical fields. (If it's the other way 'round, we're in
)even bigger trouble!)
)
)Speaking as an ex-soldier (NOT an ex-jarhead), and relying on my therefore
)ingrained feeling of superiority over Gyrenes, I would say that Marine
)training stays with you all your life.
For lifers, definitely. I, however, was a one-hitch wonder who almost
got booted out halfway through that, primarily because I somehow held on
to too much of my individuality.
)Once you are broken to the yoke and rebuilt in the Marine image, you are so
)convinced of your own superiority, and the superiority of any such creed
)that demands unquestioning loyalty, that you would be easy pickings for
)Anthroposophy.
More like easy pickings for the police forces or the post office, which
is where most of my buddies ended up.
(snip)
)Oh, dear, poor Mr Flannery! An ex-Marine! (Oops, sorry, one is NEVER and
)EX-Marine, one wears it for life.)
)
)(Bit of interservice rivalry showing there, Mr Berns -- or will you now
)also accuse me of saying the Marines are "evil"? I'm sure Mr Flannery knows
)I'm just joking, and I have the utmost respect for jarheads. One of my
)nephews was one at the time we were both in Vietnam. Some of my best
)friends were Marines. The Marines always looked after me when I was in the
)field, even when I couldn't keep up with them -- though I'm sure some
)present company might wish it otherwise.)
Well, Michael, no one ever insulted me by insulting the Marines.
Whatever your motivation, I enjoyed your post immensely.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n534.2 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: Party at Dugan's?
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:52:38 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dan,
Why wasn't I invited to your party? I am deeply offended. Flannery knows
about it and I never heard a word. And I . . . a loyal follower! Watch out
or I may have to look for another guru.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n534.3 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: Lousy Waldorf schools/teachers
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:52:28 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Kathy posted
)
))Are you suggesting that the Critics' complaints have little validity
))because they may simply have issued forth as the result of a problem with a
))lousy school or teacher (aka sushi chef/restaurant)?
and Flannery responded:
)Yes.
Interesting theory you have here Mr. Flannery. So if we follow your
reasoning, there are lousy teachers/schools in San Francisco, Nevada City,
San Diego, New Zealand, and the Netherlands (to name a few locales). In
addition, the very gurus of Waldorf training for teachers (ie: Staley &
Monk) are also lousy teachers and the Rudolf Steiner College is a lousy
college. (I think I like your theory in regard to its reflection on the
standards of RSC.)
I do agree with you that the likelihood is enormous that all of these
schools and the teachers the Critics have had run-ins with are lacking in
professional, above-board standards in regard to educating their students
and responding appropriately and honestly with parents' and students'
concerns. But this list seems quite long. It would seem more than likely
the problems have something to do with the system as a whole since the
complaints are almost identical from locale to locale despite the
separation of many miles and no prior collaboration between the
complainants. It seems more than coincidental to me. Or is it just a case
of synchronicity?
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n534.4 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: Religious training!
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 21:52:35 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mr. Flannery posted:
)If you want to make reference to Kathy Sutphen's experiences at RSC,
)please do so, but don't call it "teacher training". In waldorf schools
)and the communities they serve, "teacher training" refers to the full
)two-year program or its equivalent.
RSC labels it as teacher training. Their title is "Public School Teacher
Training." In these courses RSC offers a watered down, concealed version of
Anthroposophical mumbo-jumbo, but _all_ the curriculum pedagogy (in their
ongoing effort to bring their "spiritual science" into the public school
system and gain access to public funding). Since the public teachers are
"outside the fold" they are, of course, _never_ told that they are actually
taking classes at a religious institution. Nor are they told that the
curriculum methods they must practice over and over and over again (ad
nauseum) are designed to develop clairvoyance, enhance spiritual growth,
and prepare us and our students for our future incarnations. In other words
RSC dishonestly usurps public monies while subjecting public employees to
veiled religious indoctrination in order that we may unwittingly carry the
Waldorf mantra into public school classrooms. (I for one deeply resent
being duped.)
)I bring another experience not shared by many on this list. Not only
)have I completed the "official" teacher training, but I served as an
)enlisted man in the United States Marine Corps.
)
)Having been through boot camp at Parris Island, I know what a program of
)thought-control indoctrination is all about. Having spent the next four
)years in the Marine infantry, I know what "party-line thinking" and "the
)group mind" are all about.
I find a good fit between the mind control of the military and that of
Anthroposophy. Both require blind adherance to the "message" and group
indoctrination during training. Are you sure you simply haven't found a
situation that provides you comfort resembling your previous lifestyle in
some subtle ways? It's human nature to seek the familiar.
)Anthroposophy is
)not a cult. The teacher training centers are not religious seminaries.
What were the names of the courses you took during your first year of
training? What were the names of the required books and who were the
authors? Who were the publishers? (For List members that are not aware of
it, the Waldorf training reading material is almost entirely published by
Rudolf Steiner Press and more than 50% of the texts are authored by Steiner
or are transcriptions of his speeches.)
Share these titles, authors, publishers, and let us decide if they seem to
be part of religious training. If you do not wish to do so, I believe I
have a copy of classes and required reading for the 1st and 2nd year at
RSC. I would be glad to post it if I can locate it.
)Most importantly, the schools do not slavishly follow the words of Rudolf
)Steiner.
I am also a member of the SJU Waldorf List and it's apparent that the
Waldorf educators on that list _do_ slavishly follow the words of RS. They
are quick to defend his writings and describe them as "difficult" where
they are blatantly racist or just plain maniacal. A recent thread on that
list had to do with governance. It was amazing how the words of your guru
were quoted again and again and again as the members discussed the proper
way to manage Waldorf schools.
Why do you deny religious training at Anthroposophical colleges? I should
think you would be proud of the sect you embrace? I have read many of the
books that are required reading for students at RSC and they are _all_
religious. And more to the point . . . anyone that stays in RSC's two year
program is thoroughly indoctrinated in Anthroposophical religious beliefs.
It would not be possible to stay and participate in the classes and do the
work if it were not so.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n534.5 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com
Subject: Are you experienced?
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 97 07:01:53 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 10/14/97 12:52 AM, spike netshel.net wrote:
)What were the names of the courses you took during your first year of
)training? What were the names of the required books and who were the
)authors? Who were the publishers? (For List members that are not aware of
)it, the Waldorf training reading material is almost entirely published by
)Rudolf Steiner Press and more than 50% of the texts are authored by Steiner
)or are transcriptions of his speeches.)
)
)Share these titles, authors, publishers, and let us decide if they seem to
)be part of religious training. If you do not wish to do so, I believe I
)have a copy of classes and required reading for the 1st and 2nd year at
)RSC. I would be glad to post it if I can locate it.
I'll save you the trouble. Check this URL:
http://home.sunbridge.org/sunbridge/default.nclk
This is the home page of Sunbridge College, and if you click on the
picture for Early Childhood Education, you'll find a listing of
Orientation Year Courses.
They even list a course in Esoteric Christianity!
))Most importantly, the schools do not slavishly follow the words of Rudolf
))Steiner.
If you wish to quote me, Kathy, please use what I actually said or
indicate where you've done editing.
The remainder of the sentence partially quoted above reads:
. . .any more than you slavishly follow the words of Dan
Dugan.
)Why do you deny religious training at Anthroposophical colleges?
I don't think I've ever denied coursework in religion. I take strong
exception to the characterization of teacher training as a "religious
seminary".
)I should
)think you would be proud of the sect you embrace? I have read many of the
)books that are required reading for students at RSC and they are _all_
)religious. And more to the point . . . anyone that stays in RSC's two year
)program is thoroughly indoctrinated in Anthroposophical religious beliefs.
)It would not be possible to stay and participate in the classes and do the
)work if it were not so.
Beg to differ, eye of the beholder and all that.
But you and I have not experienced the same thing. You're making the
same error Michael Kopp did: Talking about something with which you have
no experience.
Sure, you did RSC's "Public School Teacher Training". How many days of
coursework was that?
What was your syllabus? Did you complete the program, or did you
withdraw early?
When you say "anyone that stays in RSC's two year program is throroughly
indoctrinated in Anthroposophical religious beliefs", what do you base
that on? Your own experience that you don't have with the two-year
program?
Or do you base it on what Dan Dugan has said, having no experience with
it himself?
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n534.6 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com
Subject: Misinformation, Misrepresentations and LIes
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 97 07:23:11 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 10/14/97 12:52 AM, spike netshel.net wrote:
)I do agree with you that the likelihood is enormous that all of these
)schools and the teachers the Critics have had run-ins with are lacking in
)professional, above-board standards in regard to educating their students
)and responding appropriately and honestly with parents' and students'
)concerns.
Don't put words in my mouth, Kathy.
This is what I said:
)Dan Dugan had problems at San Francisco, which he shared. Michael Kopp
)has problems in New Zealand, which he has outlined. Deby Snell and David
)McKay had problems at Mariposa/Twin Ridges (two names for what is
)essentially the same school). Kathy Sutphen had issues with the training
)she received as part of RSC's program for public school teachers.
)
)There are others, too. I believe Daniel Saykaly has some experience with
)a school in eastern Canada. A while back, we heard from a woman who had
)some peripheral contact with the Hawthorne Valley School. No doubt there
)are lurkers. . . .
I also said, in a post to Dan Dugan just yesterday:
)I also want to correct the most blatant examples of the misinformation,
)misrepresentations, and lies which I see presented on this list as
)criticism.
Ahem.
If you can't quote me accurately (see accompanying post "Are You
Experienced?), if you twist my meaning, if you ascribe things to me I
never said. . .what is the point of trying to engage in a dialogue?
Better yet, what does it say about the rest of what you post?
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n534.7 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: SF State hosting cult medical course
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:33:25 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199710101805.LAA02120 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199710110840.BAA12201 lists1.best.com)
Michael:
)Pseudo-science and mystical mumbo-jumbo are raising their heads everwhere
)as we move into a new dark age.
)In this country, universities teach classes in "Maori science" -- the
)folklore and spiritualism and animism of illiterate, cannibalistic, warrior
)races of the indigenous peoples of these islands (Polynesian immigrants,
)really, about 1,000 to 1,500 years ago.
)This "science" is elevated to wisdom and fact.
Surely this is no different to any other historical, cultural and
anthropological study? The only thing that sounds contentious is the
Post-Modern spin: 'different, not better'. But I'd want to hear what they
(the Faculty of Maori Science) have to say for themselves, before passing
judgment.
BTW, there is a new biography of Newton here that shows him to be even more
the obsessed alchemist and magician than was ever suspected before. One
juicy snippet is the apple story - no doubt taught as 'fact' by every
scientifically orthodox school - which he is now shown to have invented as
a cover for the esoteric and metaphysical speculations which were the real
source of his theory of 'Gravity'.
Should we continue to study Newton? Yes, but as a 'Maori Scientist'...
)We are truly on a long descent into the pit of unreason.
I've never felt that more keenly than here, on the critters list... (g)
James
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n534.8 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: Trolling
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 09:43:13 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
) If you're a card-carrying skeptic, answer my questions about your
assertions.
Good idea. Let's argue some more about exactly what I meant when I
posted the dictionary definition of the word "element". Or when I say
"intelligent practitioner", what could this possibly refer to? Or when
I use the phrase "best of Waldorf" -- isn't this a non-sequitur? Golly,
why would I put the word "evil" in your mouth when all you really mean
to say is "wrong and deceitful"? (But somehow also "sincere and
well-intentioned"? Michael, "deceitful" and "sincere" are literal
opposites.)
In all honesty, I have just scrolled through your entire post and I
found just one question that a) I haven't already answered to the best
of my ability, and b) makes a whit of sense:
) How am I "underestimating" Waldorf? Do you mean to say you think I'm
) missing something GOOD about it?
Possibly, yes. Also, by seeing it as a cartoon "cult" stereotype, you
might be underestimating its true attractiveness to others, its
strength, and thus its actual dangerousness. It doesn't serve your
cause (my word) to underestimate your enemy's abilities.
If you are trolling, it's time to look somewhere else for jollies. I
suggest you respond to the recent post from the CSICOP member whose
Waldorf children are taught that the heart is a pump capable of spurting
blood six feet in the air (sorry, I can't quote exactly because I don't
have the message on this computer). How do you reconcile this with your
claim that "it is the complete lack of *ANY* _substance_ which is the
defining and damning characteristic of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy"?
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n534.9 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: The Elements
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:39:09 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710111216.FAA05130 lists1.best.com)
Robert:
)Finally, an academic type might appear who would try to link fugu-eating
)with headhunting in New Guinea.
Didn't you know that Hitler ate sashimi? Well, he would have done if he
hadn't been a vegetarian - and if only he hadn't died about forty years
before Japanese food became fashionable in Europe. But still, the
suggestion makes it a deeply suspect -
riddled-with-unfortunate-Nazi-associations only-known-to-those-with-PhD's -
thing to eat.
(v.vbg)
James
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n534.10 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Re: Misinformation, Misrepresentations and LIes
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 08:27:11 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710141122.EAA05227 lists1.best.com)
Robert writes,
Deby Snell and David
))McKay had problems at Mariposa/Twin Ridges (two names for what is
))essentially the same school).
For the record, we can add a third name for the same school (essentially
the same faculty). They are currently using the name "The Yuba River
School".
Deby
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
A sect or a party is an elegant incognito,
devised to save a man from the vexation of thinking.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n534 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n535 --------------
001 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - No Subject
002 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Re: No Subject
003 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: Let's Keep Hitler Buried Please
004 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Re: The Recognition and Resolution of the Racial Issue
005 - Per.Hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Thoughts about Meditation
006 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Harrassment. Who me???
007 - spike netshel.net - Newton?
008 - spike netshel.net - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n534
009 - spike netshel.net - Suggestions
010 - RigbyL aol.com - A Pump to Pump Discussion
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n535.1 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: No Subject
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 08:33:43 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)From: Devereux88 aol.com
)Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 09:59:52 -0400 (EDT)
)To: snell oro.net
)Subject: No Subject
)
)After subscribing to the Waldorf list for several months, I finally decided
)to check out the PLANS web site. You folks are really ill. That you have the
)time to promote such nonsense suggests you are not giving adequate time to
)worthwhile pursuits, like art and family. The Supreme Court has protected
)parents' rights to educate their children as they see fit. If you have some
)legitimate gripe about Waldorf education, you should try to present it in a
)professionally written manner. Then, those of us who would be happy to hear
)healthy criticism of Waldorf education or anthroposophy would not be
)exasperated and disgusted by your rabble-rousing, immature whining and
)nitpicking falsehoods that indicate you have no idea what you're talking
)about.
)
)Get a life!
)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~
A sect or a party is an elegant incognito,
devised to save a man from the vexation of thinking.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n535.2 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Re: No Subject
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 09:40:34 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (971014095927_579189102 emout11.mail.aol.com)
)After subscribing to the Waldorf list for several months, I finally decided
)to check out the PLANS web site. You folks are really ill. That you have the
)time to promote such nonsense suggests you are not giving adequate time to
)worthwhile pursuits, like art and family. The Supreme Court has protected
)parents' rights to educate their children as they see fit. If you have some
)legitimate gripe about Waldorf education, you should try to present it in a
)professionally written manner. Then, those of us who would be happy to hear
)healthy criticism of Waldorf education or anthroposophy would not be
)exasperated and disgusted by your rabble-rousing, immature whining and
)nitpicking falsehoods that indicate you have no idea what you're talking
)about.
)
)Get a life!
How long have you studied Anthroposophy? PLANS could use another expert on
our board.
The First Amendment protects religious freedom. Americans can protect
religious freedom by maintaining that time-proven wall between church and
state. Public funding of Waldorf schools violates this freedom. PLANS is
primarily concerned with public funding of Waldorf schools, but we are very
good for private Waldorf schools because we force WE proponets to justify
what they do _because_ of our critique.
Do you have suggestions about _how_ to better present our concerns? I would
appreciate hearing about them. PLANS welcomes your critique. That makes
_us_ better. Perhaps you could help us improve our slide show. If you have
any extra time after your worthwhile pursuits, like art and family, let me
know.
BTW, I have a life that I like very much, but thanks for your concern.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n535.3 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Let's Keep Hitler Buried Please
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 14:43:43 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710131650.JAA23106 lists1.best.com)
Michael:
)Schwab is presumably referring to the following statement which I made,
)contained in a post about Steiner's silence on Hitler:
)"Much of his philosophy is *still* shot through with ideas that can only
)be seen as racist -- *even judged by the prevailing views of his times*. Not
)all people believed Nazi propaganda; many spoke out, and died. Where was
)Steiner?"
Let's see if I've got this right. Steiner was a racist 'even judged by the
prevailing views of his times', whilst your comments about Maori Science
*don't* make *you* a racist, even judged by the prevailing views of your
times?
Give it a rest, Michael - lest you dig yourself into an even deeper hole.
James
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n535.4 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Re: The Recognition and Resolution of the Racial Issue
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 19:39:50 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 06:22 PM 13/10/97 -0400, Robert Flannery wrote:
))Robert:
)))From my time on this list, I know of a school in the Netherlands where
)))racial stereotyping appeared in the work of one teacher.
On 10/13/97 4:50 PM, Herman de Tollenaere wrote:
))*ONE* teacher only?? How I wish Robert were right!
))
))This teacher was backed by the College of Teachers (until distressed parents
))went to the national news media). He based the racist schemes etc. on the
))works of Rudolf Steiner, and of Max Stibbe, the founder of the first Waldorf
))schools in The Netherlands (and in South Africa). And it was not just in
))Zutphen, but also in my home town, Leiden, for instance. And look at the USA
))(see the PLANS web site, an article by two *anthroposophists*), Germany
))(read Flensburger Hefte), South Africa (Downer; a book also recommended at
))Waldorf schools in the US and elsewhere).
)Thanks, Herman, that's a much more complete picture of what you've
)presented to the list.
For a even more complete picture, see the article by Toos Jeurissen, one of
the parents in Zutphen concerned and a SIMPOS [Dutch foundation for
information on social consequences of occult tendencies] founder member, at
the SIMPOS website http://www.stelling.nl/simpos, under Antroposofie
(unfortunately, in Dutch only at the moment). Her book is still more complete.
)It looks like there are
)schools in your area that are promoting some inexcusable racial
)stereotypes. No one has ever argued with you on these points.
Presumably, you mean 'No one *on this list* has ever argued with you on
these points'? Because quite some Anthroposophists, (including the then vice
president of the Dutch Anthroposophical Society, who was going to become its
president; he did not become president after a big row in the national media
after his remarks on national radio on black soccer players in Ajax soccer
team) in The Netherlands argued with me, Toos Jeurissen, and others, saying
and writing that Steiner's 'passages in his lectures or writings which can
reasonably be construed to promote racial stereotypes' should be seen as
deep esoteric wisdom, too deep for outsiders to understand.
)
)For simplicity's sake, let's agree that Rudolf Steiner has
)passages in his lectures or writings which can reasonably be construed to
promote
)racial stereotypes.
Jaap de Boer of the Dutch Waldorf schools' advisory board estimates the
number of such passages at between 50-100.
)I think it's an area which needs our attention in the United States,
)because we are grossly underrepresented in our student populations.
)Aside from places like Detroit, Atlanta, and Baltimore, we have almost no
)African-american students in our schools (I'm not considering any public
)waldorf schools here).
)
)The waldorf schools and classrooms in this country don't attract
)minorities, because there's nothing in our curriculum or physical
)arrangements which speaks to a minority culture.
Might they be too strongly tied to German-Austrian culture of about 1920?
)So please, Herman. Don't try to imply that all
I never said *all* Waldorf schools; and I will not say it.
)waldorf schools are
)racist, or promote racist theories.
However, *all* Waldorf schools claim to base themselves on Rudolf Steiner.
If someone who is not a racist, and does not intend to become one, gets
involved in Anthroposophy, and hears everywhere how great Steiner is, the
Bodhisattva etc.; and then reads Steiner on races: might this person not be
tempted to think: 'Before I became an Anthroposophist, I would have
considered this passage to be racist. However, now I think it may have a
deep spiritual meaning. Maybe I have not progressed far enough on the
esoteric path yet to grasp it'?
greetings
Herman de Tollenaere
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n535.5 ---------------
From: Per.Hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Thoughts about Meditation
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 23:55:33 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
)There is a distinct difference between "think" and "meditate", the later b=
eing
)to bring ones mind to a place clear of *all* thinking or intentional
)involvement
)with the meditation process, a "clearing of the mind", so to speak. Wherea=
s
)thinking is a conscious effort to have our brain/mind come up with some=
kind of
)information, ie. ; memories, thoughts, questions, answers, etc. In
)Anthroposophy
)the use of meditation seems to be a way to get in touch with the
)"Supernatural".
snip
)Per H.:
))The kind of meditation, known to me, that teachers do - often on regular
))basis - is an act of intense thinking over or remembering the child in
))order to better understand how to be a good teacher to the child.
))The general purpose being to do what is possible to further the childs
))development to a free, strong and compassionate grown up.
)
)Again, "thinking" is very different than "meditating". The teachers were
)very clear in saying that they were "meditating" on our children. In fact,
)they said they had pictures of their class (children) as part of their alta=
r.
)That **is not OK** by me!!!
snip
)David McKay
I am aware that there are a lot of different meditating-techniques.
However, the specific meditating-technique, that Rudolf Steiner suggested
as appropriate for the present level of human consciousness, is based on an
intentional effort to strengthen the everyday thinking-capacity.
Already a hundred years ago,the development of scientific thought had
brought the potential of human consciousness to the point where it is
strong enough to be able to develop its own capacity into new levels of
awareness.
This is what antroposophical meditation offers: a fully conscious and
intentional process of gaining awareness of things and facts of life that
we usually overlook with our everyday-consciousness.
This kind of meditation is strengthened _thinking_ in the same sense as you
use the word: "a conscious effort to have our brain/mind come up with some
kind of information, ie. ; memories, thoughts, questions, answers, etc"
The teacher concentrates on his/her conscious memories of the child from
the last day (or other period of time) At the same time he/she wilfully
holds back his/her own immediate predisposed judgments and interpretations,
sort of tries to quiet en down the ever ongoing inner dialogue (if you know
what I mean?), in order to be able to let the memories "speak for
themselves" - that is to try to think if there's more to learn from the
memories than what a quick glance might show.
This is not easy, its harder than most of the thinking activities of
everyday-life.
In the same way that it isn't easy, for most of us, to manage to think
exclusively about only one little _boring_ thing (a nail for instance) for
just five minutes. This being an elementary meditation-exercise for gaining
intentionality in your thinking.
Of course, the soul purpose of this last exercise is to improve the power
of concentrated thought, you can use whatever object, only its less
effective if the thing in it self is of great interest to you. It is also
necessary that you really _want_ to do the exercise out of your own free
will (intentionality).
I find this exercise enhances my ability to keep thread of conversations
and lectures.
So, back to the child-meditation: it has basically no more to do with
anything supernatural than does your own ordinary thinking.
So you really could be content with a teacher who does this kind of
mind-work in order to be a good teacher to the children.
If the teacher also has a picture the children on his/her dressing table,
to help him/her with the recollection of everyone in class - well isn=B4t
that okay.
I think that "table" originally means "altar" but i don't think it is an
proper interpretation in this context. But then of course, I have not seen
the bedroom of the teacher in question.
I just wanted to contribute somewhat on the topic of antroposophical meditat=
ion.
Thanks for now
Per Hallstroem
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n535.6 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Harrassment. Who me???
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:51:45 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Boy, gotta love this person. _He/she_ contacts _me_. I respond kindly.
_He/she_ tells me to stop harrassing. Go figure.
)From: Devereux88 aol.com
)Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 20:43:42 -0400 (EDT)
)To: snell oro.net
)Subject: Re: No Subject
)So you're not only ignorant, but rude as well! If you send me any more
)private email, or if I receive any email from your list, it will be taken as
)harrassment. I advise you not to do so.
First they write,
))After subscribing to the Waldorf list for several months, I finally decided
))to check out the PLANS web site. You folks are really ill. That you have the
))time to promote such nonsense suggests you are not giving adequate time to
))worthwhile pursuits, like art and family. The Supreme Court has protected
))parents' rights to educate their children as they see fit. If you have some
))legitimate gripe about Waldorf education, you should try to present it in a
))professionally written manner. Then, those of us who would be happy to hear
))healthy criticism of Waldorf education or anthroposophy would not be
))exasperated and disgusted by your rabble-rousing, immature whining and
))nitpicking falsehoods that indicate you have no idea what you're talking
))about.
))
))Get a life!
)
I respond,
)How long have you studied Anthroposophy? PLANS could use another expert on
)our board.
)
)The First Amendment protects religious freedom. Americans can protect
)religious freedom by maintaining that time-proven wall between church and
)state. Public funding of Waldorf schools violates this freedom. PLANS is
)primarily concerned with public funding of Waldorf schools, but we are
)very good for private Waldorf schools because we force WE proponets to
)justify what they do _because_ of our critique.
)
)Do you have suggestions about _how_ to better present our concerns? I
)would appreciate hearing about them. PLANS welcomes your critique. That
)makes _us_ better. Perhaps you could help us improve our slide show. If
)you have any extra time after your worthwhile pursuits, like art and
)family, let me know.
)
)BTW, I have a life that I like very much, but thanks for your concern.
)
)Deby
)
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n535.7 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: Newton?
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 21:05:03 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
List members,
One more explicit example of the view Waldorf educators and
Anthroposophists take on accepted scientific theory and historical figures
that have made monumental scientific contributions.
Souttar posted:
)BTW, there is a new biography of Newton here that shows him to be even more
)the obsessed alchemist and magician than was ever suspected before. One
)juicy snippet is the apple story - no doubt taught as 'fact' by every
)scientifically orthodox school - which he is now shown to have invented as
)a cover for the esoteric and metaphysical speculations which were the real
)source of his theory of 'Gravity'.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n535.8 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n534
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 21:05:05 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Brian Berns posted in response to Kopp:
). . . by seeing it as a cartoon "cult" stereotype, you
)might be underestimating its true attractiveness to others, its
)strength, and thus its actual dangerousness. It doesn't serve your
)cause (my word) to underestimate your enemy's abilities.
Brian, I don't think that any of us that consider ourselves to be Critics
underestimate the attractiveness, strength, and dangerousness of the
Waldorf package. Each one of us bought the Waldorf package because of its
attractive wrapping. Our individual complaints all stemmed out of the
realization that we were not only gravely duped, but also gravely wronged.
Each of us or our children were unknowingly subjected to Anthroposophical
religious training without our knowledge. Each of us received dishonest or
misleading responses to our questions. (We still do.) And each of us has
been shunned, endured character assassination, and ongoing attempts to
malign our character simply because we ask that promoters of Waldorf
present an honest package.
We are all very clear how attractive and dangerous Waldorf is. We also know
its strengths. I suspect that you are a neophyte to Waldorf's hidden
agenda. I also suspect that you and Kopp have a lot in common in regard to
your "skeptical" tendencies. You wouldn't be on this list if you weren't a
skeptic, right? Kopp simply has much more mileage and therefore more
contempt for the system.
Hang in there with us. I've been on this list since May and my grasp of the
Waldorf agenda has deepened signficantly, primarily as a result of
information Waldorf supporters have posted.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n535.9 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: Suggestions
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 21:05:07 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Waldorf Supporters,
Flannery recently posted a request for dialogue between Critics and WE
supporters that could lead to constructive changes within the Waldorf
community. He lamented the fact that the dialogue on this list does nothing
to serve this purpose.
Other supporters have written similar statements during the short time I've
been on this list. I found myself thinking about this today and frankly,
I'm puzzled. Here are suggestions that would bring a positive change to the
Waldorf educational system. They are printed on this list almost every time
it is published, but I'll try to enumerate them in a brief, but concise
manner. I hope that these will finally be clear and brief enough for the
supporters to take to heart.
1. Be honest at all times with parents, community members, anyone at the
effect of your schools, teachers, colleges, etc. Clearly disclose the
_entire_ intent of Waldorf education and the desired effects from
individual pedagogical methodology.
2. In the pursuit of being honest with the above-mentioned folks, make it
clear at all times that the Waldorf curriculum is designed to develop the
soul life of its students per Anthroposophical beliefs, ie: reincarnation,
clairvoyance, etc.
3. Stay out of public education in the United States since it is a
violation of church and state. (Of course, by adhering to suggestions #1
and #2 Waldorf will immediately have to abandon all public funding and
integration in public school curriculum.)
There you have it. These are very clear and concise suggestions I offer as
a way to improve Waldorf education for the better. As far as your pedagogy,
I have no problem with others choosing it, as long as they do so with a
clear grasp of what it is they are choosing.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n535.10 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: A Pump to Pump Discussion
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 02:16:06 -0400 (EDT)
Brian-
You asked about the teaching of "the heart is not a pump" in Waldorf schools.
You have come upon an item relished by the critics--their premier example of
the "weird science" they allege to be part and parcel of Waldorf education.
And in fact the topic is a good touchstone for any anthroposophist you may
come across. Ask him (or her) what she (or he) makes of Steiner's idea that
the heart is not a pump. You should get a pretty good reading on that
individual's relationship to Steiner's work.
For Steiner did indeed declare that it was inappropriate to use the model of
a pump for the functioning of the heart. He then modified this statement a
bit, to say that if the pump metaphor is used, it should be the type of pump
known as an hydraulic ram. In that type of pump, the weight of falling water
is used as the source of energy to pump water. One might say that the effect
of the hydraulic ram is to allow water to pump itself. The intended analogy
would seem to be that the blood (as a result of forces other than the
heartbeat itself) and the heart both have an active role in circulation,
which seems closer to an hypothesis worth looking into.
Some Steiner followers have made what I find to be strained and unconvincing
attempts to justify his statement--the sort of thing that seems to start with
the unspoken premise that it must be true because Steiner said it, and then
seeks any plausible explanation. On the other hand, I have also seen
indications of some interesting research on the topic, with the researchers
making it clear that at best they have some clues as to what the explanation
might be. Their most definitive position seems to be that the heart could
not give enough incremental impetus to the blood to account for circulation;
in particular, the venous return part of the cycle. They are still trying to
understand what makes up the difference.
Steiner said a good many other things that run counter to conventional
science. One example is that the interior of the sun is negative space. I
recently heard a presentation by an anthroposophist who has had both the
interest and mathematical skills to try to figure out what this might mean.
He has been developing a theory of counter-space (as he and his colleagues
call it) by defining a metric within one form of non-Euclidean geometry (not
the form used by Einstein for his relativity theory); and he has been
successful in developing differential equations with this metric that resolve
to the classical equations of Newtonian mechanics (as do relativity
equations). He expects to publish this work within a year or so, and it will
be interesting to see how physicists receive it. The reason I mention this,
however, is that in his lecture he listed several other "weird" statements
Steiner had made about physical reality, and said that he certainly wouldn't
want to defend them to scientists. Taking inspiration from Steiner does not
require credulity.
But your question had to do with what is taught in Waldorf schools. In my
judgment, nothing in the area of science that depends solely on Steiner's
word should be taught in Waldorf schools. In the three Waldorf schools with
which I have had direct experience, to my knowledge the science teaching met
this criterion. I cringe when I hear that "the heart is not a pump" is
taught in any Waldorf school.
I will append to this note a description of one Waldorf teacher's approach to
teaching about the circulatory system-a posting he made here about a year
ago, when the "heart is not a pump" chestnut was getting one of its periodic
roastings. I would like to believe that this is the way the circulatory
system is taught in all Waldorf schools, but I fear that it is not so.
Regards,
Rigby
=====Excerpt from posting by Stephen Tonkin=====
Date: 96-10-30 20:44:57 EST
As far as the heart is concerned, I first introduce it as part of a
complete circulatory system, a system which also has arteries,
capillaries, venules, etc as distinct but not separate parts. The blood
is also introduced as a necessary part of the circulatory system (this
may be obvious as the /sine qua non/, but take a look at how many text
books omit this from the list of "components"). The alveoli are also an
integral part.
I will describe the structure of these members of the circulatory system
and then describe how the blood moves through a complete "cycle" of
circulation, from the squeezing of the corpuscles through capillaries
(something which a fluid-dynamics approach to circulation as a "pump and
plumbing" model has yet to fully account for) to the mixing vortex in
the heart, how the blood flows in as the heart relaxes and distends, how
the blood flows out as the ventricles contract; how movement of the
skeletal muscles aids venous flow; demonstrate the action of venous
valves by using a finger to squeeze blood "backwards" in a vein in the
back of my hand; the response of the pulse to muscular exertion;
changing mean pulse rates from birth to old age; describe how blood is
directed to where it is most needed (eg why going for a run directly
after a big meal is not a good idea); talk about "fight or flight"
response; describe what happens in shock, tying this in with "the law of
the heart"; discuss circulatory health and the role of exercise and
diet; the effects of altitude training for athletes; divers bends; the
effect of smoking on circulatory health...
That's probably fairly close to the order in which I do it and I
probably did other things -- I don't have my notes to hand and it's 2
years since I last taught it.
Does this clarify things?
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
(sft aegis1.demon.co.uk) (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/)
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n535 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n536 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - personal: Dan's next annual open house 3/15/98
002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: SF State hosting cult medical course
003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - we've been put in our place
004 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n534
005 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: A Pump to Pump Discussion
006 - Luna457954 aol.com - You Are A Marvel
007 - Luna457954 aol.com - Re: RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n534
008 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Ancient airplanes (was: Re: SF State hosting cult medical
co
009 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: SF State hosting cult medical course
010 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: Newton?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n536.1 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: personal: Dan's next annual open house 3/15/98
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 00:31:29 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Robert Flannery said,
)Since I've got your attention, Dan, how about my question regarding the
)annual shindig? Was it "invitation only"?
And then Kathy said,
"Why wasn't I invited to your party? I am deeply offended. Flannery knows
about it and I never heard a word. And I . . . a loyal follower! Watch out
or I may have to look for another guru."
Geez guys. I hold my annual open house at my laboratory on a Sunday near
March 20, my birthday. This year I sent out 1400 invitations. I'd be in
real trouble if everybody came. The next one will be on March 15, 1998, and
you're all invited, ok? Anthroposophists, too. You can look at my extensive
Steiner and Waldorf library.
Robert, sorry I forgot to announce it on the list last March. We had more
important things to talk about around then. Kathy, I didn't meet you till
April!
love, Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n536.2 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: SF State hosting cult medical course
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 00:31:34 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
James Souttar commented on M. Kopp's complaint about "Maori Science,"
)Surely this is no different to any other historical, cultural and
)anthropological study? The only thing that sounds contentious is the
)Post-Modern spin: 'different, not better'. But I'd want to hear what they
)(the Faculty of Maori Science) have to say for themselves, before passing
)judgment.
I guess, James, you haven't been exposed to racial identity pseudoscience
yet. No, it's not "historical, cultural and anthropological study." It's
the application of cultural relativism to science, ad absurdem. If "Western
science" is "just a story," anybody else's story is said to be just as
true. This viewpoint can only exist in ignorance of the truly international
and multicultural nature of real science.
It's on the increase as racial identity movements gather strength.
Historical negative example: the labelling of Einstein's theory of
relativity "Jewish science." Current example: in the U.S. we have the
"Portland Baseline Essays." In public schools with African-American
ethnocentric policies, children are taught, for example, that the ancient
Egyptians flew in airplanes! Bad news. Parallels with "Spiritual Science"
in Waldorf schools may now be relevant. Indeed, I've been given the
cultural relativism argument by Waldorf teachers.
)BTW, there is a new biography of Newton here that shows him to be even more
)the obsessed alchemist and magician than was ever suspected before. One
)juicy snippet is the apple story - no doubt taught as 'fact' by every
)scientifically orthodox school - which he is now shown to have invented as
)a cover for the esoteric and metaphysical speculations which were the real
)source of his theory of 'Gravity'.
Fascinating. Title and author, please?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n536.3 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: we've been put in our place
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 01:39:39 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
People have been saying some things about me on the SJU Waldorf list, and
Deby suggested there that I should be allowed on the list to defend myself.
This prompted K.A. Brooks (destiny csd.uwm.edu) to say:
) Why bother having Dugan on this list, he swipes whatever he wants from
)here anyway, most times without permission, puts it on his list,
)distorting peoples words and he e-mails new folks privately telling them
)the evils of Waldorf Education and how they can join his mission.
) I have to go with Dr. Laura on this one, you just don't reward
)inappropriate behavior.
Actually, my dear, I don't give a damn.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n536.4 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n534
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:36:06 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Kathy said:
) Each of us or our children were unknowingly subjected to
Anthroposophical
) religious training without our knowledge.
) Hang in there with us. I've been on this list since May and my grasp
of the
) Waldorf agenda has deepened signficantly, primarily as a result of
) information Waldorf supporters have posted.
I will hang in. I will also expect that the conclusions of the Waldorf
critics be supported by the evidence. (Just as I expect the claims of
Waldorf supporters to be supported by evidence.) When you speak of the
"Waldorf agenda", I assume that you are refering to an organized, covert
attempt to recruit children into an Anthroposophical religious movement.
This is a very strong charge, and thus requires very strong evidence.
It seems to me that for each posted example of Anthroposophical
psuedo-science taught in Waldorf schools, there is another posted
example of actual science taught in Waldorf schools. Roughly speaking,
this suggests an even mix of the two. Now, I certainly wouldn't want to
send my child to a school that teaches New Age mumbo jumbo half the
time, but I also don't see the "agenda" you refer to. What kind of cult
only practices its message half the time?
Here's a practical example: A friend of mine is a Waldorf parent. In
response to my concerned inquiry about his children's education, he
wrote back:
Well, if you are going to subscribe to a critic's list of something,
I guess this is about what you would expect to hear isn't it.
Just to balance that perspective, my 7th grader is just completing
a unit on electricity. They studied the classic experiments of
Volta et al, and did many of them in the classroom. He had to
write a composition each night about what they saw and learned.
It was all about circuits and current kind of stuff, nothing esoteric
or occult.
What can I say to this man to make him realize the peril his children
are in? How can I warn him of the hidden agenda his school is pursuing?
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n536.5 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: A Pump to Pump Discussion
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:36:15 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Rigby,
I appreciate your detailed response, but, in this case, I don't find it
very comforting.
I am not a doctor, so I'm not really qualified to judge these
descriptions of the heart's function. However, I do know that neither
blood nor water can "pump itself". In your example, it seems fairly
clear to me that gravity is pumping the water. Mr. Tonkin's description
is even more alarming. I believe that "the squeezing of the corpuscles
through capillaries" is accounted for by a scientific phenomenon known
as "capillary action". As far as I know, there is nothing here that a
mechanical view "has yet to fully account for". Also, I am mystified by
the description of the heart as a "mixing vortex". What does this mean?
Similarly, I'm no expert on modern physics, but I know enough to get by.
I think the scientific world would be absolutely shocked to learn that
the interior of the sun is anything but normal space. From a
gravitational point of view, the inside of the sun isn't a particularly
remarkable place. For example, the sun simply isn't massive enough to
produce anything unusual like a black hole or even a neutron star when
it dies. What observations have led to such a radical theory?
All this aside, I am pleased to see you say that "Some Steiner followers
have made what I find to be strained and unconvincing attempts to
justify his statement". This seems like good evidence that you do not
take Steiner's words as literal truth. Are the church elders aware of
your heresy?
-- Brian
) -----Original Message-----
) From: RigbyL aol.com [SMTP:RigbyL aol.com]
) Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 1997 2:16 AM
) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) Subject: A Pump to Pump Discussion
)
) Brian-
)
) You asked about the teaching of "the heart is not a pump" in Waldorf
) schools.
) You have come upon an item relished by the critics--their premier
) example of
) the "weird science" they allege to be part and parcel of Waldorf
) education.
) And in fact the topic is a good touchstone for any anthroposophist
) you may
) come across. Ask him (or her) what she (or he) makes of Steiner's
) idea that
) the heart is not a pump. You should get a pretty good reading on that
) individual's relationship to Steiner's work.
)
) For Steiner did indeed declare that it was inappropriate to use the
) model of
) a pump for the functioning of the heart. He then modified this
) statement a
) bit, to say that if the pump metaphor is used, it should be the type
) of pump
) known as an hydraulic ram. In that type of pump, the weight of
) falling water
) is used as the source of energy to pump water. One might say that the
) effect
) of the hydraulic ram is to allow water to pump itself. The intended
) analogy
) would seem to be that the blood (as a result of forces other than the
) heartbeat itself) and the heart both have an active role in
) circulation,
) which seems closer to an hypothesis worth looking into.
)
) Some Steiner followers have made what I find to be strained and
) unconvincing
) attempts to justify his statement--the sort of thing that seems to
) start with
) the unspoken premise that it must be true because Steiner said it, and
) then
) seeks any plausible explanation. On the other hand, I have also seen
) indications of some interesting research on the topic, with the
) researchers
) making it clear that at best they have some clues as to what the
) explanation
) might be. Their most definitive position seems to be that the heart
) could
) not give enough incremental impetus to the blood to account for
) circulation;
) in particular, the venous return part of the cycle. They are still
) trying to
) understand what makes up the difference.
)
) Steiner said a good many other things that run counter to conventional
) science. One example is that the interior of the sun is negative
) space. I
) recently heard a presentation by an anthroposophist who has had both
) the
) interest and mathematical skills to try to figure out what this might
) mean.
) He has been developing a theory of counter-space (as he and his
) colleagues
) call it) by defining a metric within one form of non-Euclidean
) geometry (not
) the form used by Einstein for his relativity theory); and he has been
) successful in developing differential equations with this metric that
) resolve
) to the classical equations of Newtonian mechanics (as do relativity
) equations). He expects to publish this work within a year or so, and
) it will
) be interesting to see how physicists receive it. The reason I mention
) this,
) however, is that in his lecture he listed several other "weird"
) statements
) Steiner had made about physical reality, and said that he certainly
) wouldn't
) want to defend them to scientists. Taking inspiration from Steiner
) does not
) require credulity.
)
) But your question had to do with what is taught in Waldorf schools.
) In my
) judgment, nothing in the area of science that depends solely on
) Steiner's
) word should be taught in Waldorf schools. In the three Waldorf
) schools with
) which I have had direct experience, to my knowledge the science
) teaching met
) this criterion. I cringe when I hear that "the heart is not a pump"
) is
) taught in any Waldorf school.
)
) I will append to this note a description of one Waldorf teacher's
) approach to
) teaching about the circulatory system-a posting he made here about a
) year
) ago, when the "heart is not a pump" chestnut was getting one of its
) periodic
) roastings. I would like to believe that this is the way the
) circulatory
) system is taught in all Waldorf schools, but I fear that it is not so.
)
) Regards,
) Rigby
)
) =====Excerpt from posting by Stephen Tonkin=====
)
) Date: 96-10-30 20:44:57 EST
)
) As far as the heart is concerned, I first introduce it as part of a
) complete circulatory system, a system which also has arteries,
) capillaries, venules, etc as distinct but not separate parts. The
) blood
) is also introduced as a necessary part of the circulatory system (this
) may be obvious as the /sine qua non/, but take a look at how many text
) books omit this from the list of "components"). The alveoli are also
) an
) integral part.
)
) I will describe the structure of these members of the circulatory
) system
) and then describe how the blood moves through a complete "cycle" of
) circulation, from the squeezing of the corpuscles through capillaries
) (something which a fluid-dynamics approach to circulation as a "pump
) and
) plumbing" model has yet to fully account for) to the mixing vortex in
) the heart, how the blood flows in as the heart relaxes and distends,
) how
) the blood flows out as the ventricles contract; how movement of the
) skeletal muscles aids venous flow; demonstrate the action of venous
) valves by using a finger to squeeze blood "backwards" in a vein in the
) back of my hand; the response of the pulse to muscular exertion;
) changing mean pulse rates from birth to old age; describe how blood is
) directed to where it is most needed (eg why going for a run directly
) after a big meal is not a good idea); talk about "fight or flight"
) response; describe what happens in shock, tying this in with "the law
) of
) the heart"; discuss circulatory health and the role of exercise and
) diet; the effects of altitude training for athletes; divers bends; the
) effect of smoking on circulatory health...
)
) That's probably fairly close to the order in which I do it and I
) probably did other things -- I don't have my notes to hand and it's 2
) years since I last taught it.
)
) Does this clarify things?
)
) --
) Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
) (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk) (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n536.6 ---------------
From: Luna457954 aol.com
Subject: You Are A Marvel
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 12:47:28 -0400 (EDT)
With all the arguing that folks do on this list, I think we all agree that we
want what we feel is the best for our kids.
So, when I came across this quote from Pablo Casals, I thought I should post
it to this list.
"Each second we live is a new and unique moment of the universe, a moment
that will never be again...And what do we teach our children? We teach them
that two and two make four, and that Paris is the capital of France.
When will we also teach them what they are?
We should say to each of them: Do you know what you are? You are a marvel.
You are unique. In all the years that have passed, there has never been
another child like you. Your legs, your arms, your clever fingers, the way
you move.
You may become a Shakespeare, a Michaelangelo, a Beethoven. you have the
capacity for anything. Yes, you are a marvel. And when you grow up, can you
then harm another who is, like you, a marvel?
You must work--we must all work--to make the world worthy of its children."
No matter what "camp" we're in on this list, I think this quote is worth
reading.
Kelly
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n536.7 ---------------
From: Luna457954 aol.com
Subject: Re: RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n534
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 13:25:38 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 10/15/97 3:03:32 PM, Berns rdaconsultants.com wrote:
((What kind of cult
only practices its message half the time?))
An interesting question.
I'd like to offer, if I may, some of that "anecdotal" evidence that Waldorf
parents are reputed to overuse. I think I may have posted it before.
At an end-of-year party at a local waterpark, my daughter's eighth grade
teacher was discussing Anthroposophy with a parent in the presence of her 13
year old son, who has been in WE since fourth or fifth grade. Sometime
during the conversation, the son turned to his teacher and said "what the
heck is Anthroposophy?"
If WE is trying to recruit students to Anthroposophy, they're not doing so
well.
Kelly
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n536.8 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Ancient airplanes (was: Re: SF State hosting cult medical
course)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 19:30:20 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 12:31 AM 15/10/97 -0700, Dan Dugan wtote:
)In public schools with African-American
)ethnocentric policies, children are taught, for example, that the ancient
)Egyptians flew in airplanes! Bad news. Parallels with "Spiritual Science"
)in Waldorf schools may now be relevant.
Where did the authors of this public school book get this idea from? From
Rudolf Steiner, who wrote in 'Unsere atlantische Vorfahren' [Our Atlantean
Ancestors; I am not sure if this work has been translated into English,
individually, or as part of Steiner's Akasha Chronicle writings] that
ancient inhabitants of the mythical continent Atlantis of Theosophy flew in
airplanes millions of years ago (Steiner thought they flew slower than
twentieth century ones)?
Or from another early twentieth century Theosophist, like Scott Elliott? The
connexion between the Atlantis myth and ancient Egypt is part of
Theosophical ideas.
Herman de Tollenaere
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n536.9 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: SF State hosting cult medical course
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:45:30 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710150732.AAA10720 lists1.best.com)
Dan:
)I guess, James, you haven't been exposed to racial identity pseudoscience
)yet. No, it's not "historical, cultural and anthropological study." It's
)the application of cultural relativism to science, ad absurdem. If "Western
)science" is "just a story," anybody else's story is said to be just as
)true. This viewpoint can only exist in ignorance of the truly international
)and multicultural nature of real science.
I'm just as uncomfortable with PoMo relativism as you are, believe me. But
the Philosophy of Science has been asserting that 'science' is 'just a
story' (they would probably use the terms 'narrative' or 'discourse', but
WTH) since Feyerabend, Kuhn and Nagel promoted this idea in the sixties.
The scientific establishment doesn't seem to have a problem with this
concept any more (indeed, many scientists now routinely present their work
to a popular audience in its cultural and social context). But I don't
think many of them would agree that *anyone* else's 'story' is 'just as
true' - rather, I suspect they would say that what we understand as
'science' is an epistemology with as much claim to be true as any other.
James
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n536.10 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Newton?
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:29:04 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710150426.VAA15180 lists1.best.com)
Kathy:
)List members,
)One more explicit example of the view Waldorf educators and
)Anthroposophists take on accepted scientific theory and historical figures
)that have made monumental scientific contributions.
)
)Souttar posted:
)
))BTW, there is a new biography of Newton here that shows him to be even more
))the obsessed alchemist and magician than was ever suspected before. One
))juicy snippet is the apple story - no doubt taught as 'fact' by every
))scientifically orthodox school - which he is now shown to have invented as
))a cover for the esoteric and metaphysical speculations which were the real
))source of his theory of 'Gravity'.
Actually, I was referring to Michael White's bestselling new *serious*
biography of Newton, 'The Last Sorcerer'. White, who is a highly respected
science journalist and historian of science, would be amazed at you
caricaturing him as an Anthroposophical 'fellow traveller'. You ought to
get yourself down to Barnes & Noble and avail yourself of a copy, Kathy. If
you think of Steiner as a kook and crank, I can't help wondering what you
will make of Newton.
In any case, these revelations are hardly new. In the 30's, when Newton's
journals were auctioned in London, John Maynard Keynes (who had read them),
commented that Newton should really be considered 'the last of the
magicians' instead of the father of modern science he is popularly supposed
to be.
Newton was highly disingenuous, too. He invented the stories about the
apple, and the 'revelations' about light from the Experimentum Crucis, to
mask the fact that his real - and then highly suspect - hypotheses about
Nature came from alchemy and the Kabbalah. He also held the only chair at
Cambridge that did not require him to be an ordained minister of the Church
of England - allowing him to continue in his heterodox beliefs without
suspicion of heresy.
James
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n536 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n537 --------------
001 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Jughead Mentality
002 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Harrassment. Who me???
003 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: You Are A Marvel
004 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n534
005 - Steve Premo (premo cruzio - RE: Four Elements
006 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Re: RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n534
007 - spike netshel.net - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n535
008 - spike netshel.net - Dan's party!
009 - spike netshel.net - What the heck is Anthroposophy?
010 - spike netshel.net - The Waldorf Agenda
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n537.1 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Jughead Mentality
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 00:57:09 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710140103.SAA17687 lists1.best.com)
Robert Flanney writes:
)Well, Michael, no one ever insulted me by insulting the Marines.
)Whatever your motivation, I enjoyed your post immensely.
KOPP says:
Gosh, a new career as a humorist awaits me if I can just think of enough
stupid-jarhead jokes!
Never knew I was destined to perform such a public service for this list as
cheering up the faithful.
Well, I guess Mr Flannery's comment, above, explains a bit about why they
call Marines "jarheads": they're too stupid to understand the insults, or
they think insults to the Marines are really compliments.
Been to a VA hospital for a brain-scan lately, Mr Flannery? Or did you
leave it at Camp Pendleton or Parris Island?
And why aren't you defending the honour of the Corps? In a bar, you'd have
tried to pound me into the floor by now for insulting your beloved.
Maybe that's why the defenders of the faith (TM) of Steiner/Waldorf/
Anthroposophy are such a humourless bunch: they're all Marine material,
whether they've actually been in or not.
I'll go crawl in my foxhole now, to await the sound of incoming.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n537.2 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Harrassment. Who me???
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:30:00 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710150050.RAA26774 lists1.best.com)
Deby Snell writes:
)Boy, gotta love this person. _He/she_ contacts _me_. I respond kindly.
)_He/she_ tells me to stop harrassing. Go figure.
)
)
))From: Devereux88 aol.com
))Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 20:43:42 -0400 (EDT)
))To: snell oro.net
))Subject: Re: No Subject
)
))So you're not only ignorant, but rude as well! If you send me any more
))private email, or if I receive any email from your list, it will be taken as
))harrassment. I advise you not to do so.
KOPP says:
Another Lefty.
)First they write,
)))After subscribing to the Waldorf list for several months, I finally decided
)))to check out the PLANS web site. You folks are really ill. That you have the
)))time to promote such nonsense suggests you are not giving adequate time to
)))worthwhile pursuits, like art and family. The Supreme Court has protected
)))parents' rights to educate their children as they see fit. If you have some
)))legitimate gripe about Waldorf education, you should try to present it in a
)))professionally written manner. Then, those of us who would be happy to hear
)))healthy criticism of Waldorf education or anthroposophy would not be
)))exasperated and disgusted by your rabble-rousing, immature whining and
)))nitpicking falsehoods that indicate you have no idea what you're talking
)))about.
)))
)))Get a life!
))
)I respond,
))How long have you studied Anthroposophy? PLANS could use another expert on
))our board.
))
))The First Amendment protects religious freedom. Americans can protect
))religious freedom by maintaining that time-proven wall between church and
))state. Public funding of Waldorf schools violates this freedom. PLANS is
))primarily concerned with public funding of Waldorf schools, but we are
))very good for private Waldorf schools because we force WE proponets to
))justify what they do _because_ of our critique.
))
))Do you have suggestions about _how_ to better present our concerns? I
))would appreciate hearing about them. PLANS welcomes your critique. That
))makes _us_ better. Perhaps you could help us improve our slide show. If
))you have any extra time after your worthwhile pursuits, like art and
))family, let me know.
))
))BTW, I have a life that I like very much, but thanks for your concern.
))
))Deby
))
))
))
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n537.3 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: You Are A Marvel
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:27:46 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710151647.JAA16579 lists1.best.com)
"Luna" (Kelly) wrote:
)With all the arguing that folks do on this list, I think we all agree that we
)want what we feel is the best for our kids.
)
)So, when I came across this quote from Pablo Casals, I thought I should post
)it to this list.
)
)
)"Each second we live is a new and unique moment of the universe, a moment
)that will never be again...And what do we teach our children? We teach them
)that two and two make four, and that Paris is the capital of France.
)When will we also teach them what they are?
)We should say to each of them: Do you know what you are? You are a marvel.
) You are unique. In all the years that have passed, there has never been
)another child like you. Your legs, your arms, your clever fingers, the way
)you move.
)You may become a Shakespeare, a Michaelangelo, a Beethoven. you have the
)capacity for anything. Yes, you are a marvel. And when you grow up, can you
)then harm another who is, like you, a marvel?
)You must work--we must all work--to make the world worthy of its children."
)
)No matter what "camp" we're in on this list, I think this quote is worth
)reading.
KOPP says:
Very noble and humanistic sentiments, but totally irrelevant here. Casals
was an artist, not a philosopher. And we're not talking about art, we're
talking about education for life, for which art is important, but not of
singular importance.
Casals himself knew the importance of knowing where Paris is; except in his
case it was Madrid, and he knew exactly where it was.
More about that below.
The role of saying to children that they can be anything they wish to be,
and inculcating a sense of respect for humanity, is a parental one. Parents
are free to choose any school which also subscribes to these tenets and
tries to inculcate them.
To the best of my knowledge, most teachers already are aware of the goal of
doing more for children than teaching them rote mathematics and geography.
And most do go beyond that, given the general restrictions on
non-interference (in public education) with the private, usually religious,
beliefs of children, which are, again, the prerogative of parents.
Parents can also obtain this further nurturing from many other types of
schools, usually private or specialist, and from other sources.
Steiner/Waldorf/ Anthroposophical schools are not unique in this regard.
However, two other points are important here, especially in regard to
Steiner/ Waldorf/Anthroposophical schools.
The first is that our children still need to know practical facts and
skills in order to live and function properly in a modern world. Even
Casals would have agreed with that.
Casals is an example of the importance of "geographical" knowledge, which I
take to include political and historical facts. He used that knowledge --
not just his warm fuzzy feelings about humanity -- to make politcal
protests against fascist dictatorships, particularly in his native Spain,
where he refused to play while Franco was alive. He didn't get that
political philosophy and activism from crystal rubbing or warm feelings
about humanity.
The second, and more important point, has to do with Steiner and his
religious philosophy, which is adhered to without demurr or deviation by
all Steiner/ Waldorf/Anthroposophical schools today, by virtue of the fact
that they profess that their education cannot be valid without the master's
teachings and the credo: "Waldorf without Anthroposophy is not Waldorf".
There is a logical incongruity between Kelly's quote about human potential
and the real Steiner agenda, which
*does NOT recognise this innate potential in every child, and,
in fact, believes that every child's life is already predestined,
as is their incarnation as what they are in this life, and their
re-incarnation in their next lives.
Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical educators believe in the "karma" of the
children, whatever that mystical mumbo-jumbo means. They act on the child
according to spiritual revelations of a child's karma and destiny -- not on
the basis of the belief that anyone can be anything.
Furthermore, believing in predestination and karma, and Steiner's
"indications", or pedagogical prescriptions, Steiner/Waldorf/
Anthroposophical educationalists restrict children from certain types of
development (intellectualisation to early, computers not at all until
almost adulthood because of their spiritual evil) on the basis that the
schools are not preparation for this temporal life, but for the further
spiritual lives of the children and their service to the "higher order".
I would suggest that Kelly, Brian Berns, and all the other people who are
so credulous about the "good things" of this cult-like, pseudo-scientific,
mystical and esoteric society should actually read the archives of this
list, where there has been great elucidation of the scientific and rational
problems with the Steiner/Waldorf/Anthropsophical philosophy and pedagogy.
What they will find is that there is a body of quite well-founded criticism
from fact and reason, which is never, repeat never, rebutted by fact and
reason from the defenders of the faith, but is slavishly opposed by some
patronising higher order of thought which only the defenders are able to
produce.
Take for example the many sayings of Steiner, quoted today in the teacher
training. When critics mention these, they are accused of taking the wrong
meaning, quoting out of context, not understanding the fullness of the
philosophy. "If you understood, you wouldn't criticise." Rubbish. We do
understand. That's our problem. We understand that a modern school system
is still using the mystical mumbo-jumbo of a Nineteenth Century
spiritualist without change.
If, after really reading these archives (or going to the source material
itself -- Dan Dugan has a seven-foot long bookshelf) Kelly and Berns, et
al, can still make platitudinous and irrelevant statements about human
potential like the one above, I will be surprised.
Or perhaps I won't be. Kelly says we "all want what we _feel_ is best for
our children". No, I and some of the others on this list want what we
_think_ is best for our children.
One of the main characteristics of many Steiner/Waldorf/Anthropsophy
consumers is a touching desire to believe in something, perhaps anything,
and an excess of feeling over thinking. Irrationality, thy name is emotion.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n537.4 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n534
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:37:16 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710151725.KAA04142 lists1.best.com)
"Luna" (Kelly) said:
)In a message dated 10/15/97 3:03:32 PM, Berns rdaconsultants.com wrote:
)
)((What kind of cult
)only practices its message half the time?))
)
)An interesting question.
)I'd like to offer, if I may, some of that "anecdotal" evidence that Waldorf
)parents are reputed to overuse. I think I may have posted it before.
)
)At an end-of-year party at a local waterpark, my daughter's eighth grade
)teacher was discussing Anthroposophy with a parent in the presence of her 13
)year old son, who has been in WE since fourth or fifth grade. Sometime
)during the conversation, the son turned to his teacher and said "what the
)heck is Anthroposophy?"
)If WE is trying to recruit students to Anthroposophy, they're not doing so
)well.
KOPP says:
Red herring, Kelly.
Even I never said WE is trying to recruit students to Anthroposophy.
Even I've come to recognise that the presence of Anthroposophy in every
facet of the Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical education is not even for the
purpose of inculcating spiritualism by stealth (though Steiner said it
was, and teachers had to be very careful not to let parents know).
That's overarched by the fact that to Steiner his "educational" movement
was for the purpose of shepherding souls into the higher realms upon the
continued reincarnation of people. Steiner also said _that_ was to be kept
from the parents.
That doesn't require that the kids know anything about Anthroposophy; all
it requires is the use of a mystical mumbo-jumbo education to move them
away from the temporal, rational life.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n537.5 ---------------
From: Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: RE: Four Elements
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 15:41:21 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199710101301.GAA25883 lists1.best.com)
On 10 Oct 97 , Brian Berns wrote:
) I have heard it said that there is a wide range of actual teaching
) practices in Waldorf. Intelligent practitioners teach the best of
) Waldorf and leave out the Anthroposophical hogwash. Those with small
) minds teach Steiner by the book, and are thus avoided by most parents if
) at all possible. Can anyone verify (or refute) this basic description?
I think it's more like this:
The Waldorf curriculum is driven by Anthroposophy. Certain subjects are
taught at certain times, and in certain ways, because Anthroposophical
thought holds that this will further the mental and spiritual development
of the child in specific ways. In this sense, Waldorf teachers at all
levels of competence strive to integrate Anthroposophy into their
teaching, and do not "leave out Anthroposophical hogwash."
However, Anthroposophical concepts are not supposed to be taught to the
kids. I think most teachers follow this on the surface, i.e.,
they don't talk to the kids about the nature of the spiritual realm as
described by Steiner. But many teachers have a harder time separating
Steiner's ideas about the physical world. I suspect that their own
understanding of the physical world is so intertwined with anthroposophy
that many teachers honestly don't understand that they are not supposed to
teach kids that there are four elements, or that the heart is not a pump,
or that there was an ancient civilization on the continent of Atlantis.
The better and more widely educated teachers, I think, keep the weird
stuff out of the classroom (although some folks on this list believe me to
be naive for thinking so).
Steve Premo ------ Santa Cruz, California
--
"A simple mind is a tidy mind." -- Melanie Premo
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n537.6 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Re: RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n534
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 17:54:54 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710151725.KAA04142 lists1.best.com)
Kelly writes,
)At an end-of-year party at a local waterpark, my daughter's eighth grade
)teacher was discussing Anthroposophy with a parent in the presence of her 13
)year old son, who has been in WE since fourth or fifth grade. Sometime
)during the conversation, the son turned to his teacher and said "what the
)heck is Anthroposophy?"
)If WE is trying to recruit students to Anthroposophy, they're not doing so
)well.
This statement _should_ be all that is needed to relieve a concerned
parent. I certainly believed it. Waldorf is a subliminal education. Our
13yo [Waldorf educated] son believes (to this day) in multiple gods. Seems
his Waldorf classroom, instead of teaching Ancient History, was solely
teaching myths. These myths were presented as history. Did the children
learn about commerce of these ancient civilizations? No.
Is it merely a coincidence that Steiner believed in polytheism? I don't
think so. I believe children are inculcated with Anthroposophy every minute
of their Waldorf school day. Do _you_ know the purpose of form drawing? Do
you ever wonder _why_ every child paints the _same_ picture? Have you
wondered why the main lesson books are all the same? Have you watched the
children or heard them complain about having to copy, copy, copy
"_everthing_" off the board? Why do you think wet on wet is the only
painting technique formally taught in a Waldorf school? What about
Eurythmy? Do you know that each movement is a letter? Do you know the
message behind the dances? Have you ever asked someone to interpret the
dances? _EVERYTHING_ done in a Waldorf school is fueled by Anthroposophical
beliefs. By the time a child graduates from a Waldorf school, they _are_
Anthroposophists. They likely will not know it. That is the core of what
bothers me about WE. The dishonesty and the hidden agenda. Parents are
unable to make an informed decision.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n537.7 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n535
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 19:37:10 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Rigby posted:
) They are still trying to
)understand what makes up the difference.
This was in your discussion of Steiner's assertion that the heart is not
sufficient cause for blood to circulate through the body. "They" are not
still trying to understand what makes up the difference, in the way that
Rigby means it. It has been known for some years that the veins and
arteries also contract subtley and add to the pumping of the heart muscle.
The blood is an organic fluid with no inherent motion of its own.
)"the law of
)the heart";
What is the "law of the heart?"
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n537.8 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: Dan's party!
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 19:41:18 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dan posted:
)
)Geez guys. I hold my annual open house at my laboratory on a Sunday near
)March 20, my birthday. Kathy, I didn't meet you till
)April!
I am so relieved to hear I wasn't excluded. I've had more than enough
"shunning" for one year. I was laying all of that at the door of RSC and
their public school devotees, but then Flannery led me to believe you had a
big shindig every summer.
I'm fine now, but Flannery may be miffed.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n537.9 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: What the heck is Anthroposophy?
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:09:45 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Kelly posted:
)At an end-of-year party at a local waterpark, my daughter's eighth grade
)teacher was discussing Anthroposophy with a parent in the presence of her 13
)year old son, who has been in WE since fourth or fifth grade. Sometime
)during the conversation, the son turned to his teacher and said "what the
)heck is Anthroposophy?"
My point exactly. Why would any school/institution hide the very basis and
reason for its mission from it clients? This is what I am referring to when
I use the phrase "hidden agenda." This child has been at this school for 4
- 5 years and he has _no_ clue that his teachers are Anthroposophists or
that the curriculum he studies is based on Anthroposophical belief. What's
wrong with this picture?
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n537.10 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: The Waldorf Agenda
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 20:09:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Brian posted:
When you speak of the
)"Waldorf agenda", I assume that you are refering to an organized, covert
)attempt to recruit children into an Anthroposophical religious movement.
)This is a very strong charge, and thus requires very strong evidence.
This isn't what I mean. What I mean is that the Waldorf pedagogy has a
hidden purpose that is not communicated to parents, students, public school
districts which embrace it, etc. The agenda is to expand the students' soul
consciousness in order to prepare them for their next reincarnation. This
is done by repeated exercises designed to train students to become adept at
"spiritual science" ala Steiner. Along with this is the teaching of history
according to Steiner (cultural epochs), science according to Steiner
(pseudo-science), art according to Steiner (wet-on-wet painting, color
meditations, etc.), movement ala Steiner (Eurythmy - the language of
angels), on and on. I have absolutely no problem with a sect delivering
this type of curriculum as long as the recipients of such are fully aware
of what they are getting. Anthroposophists know how very "strange" their
notions seem and therefore keep their intentions/beliefs/pedagogical focus
hidden in order not to scare off parents/students/public school districts
from buying into their package. Therefore, their "agenda" is a hidden
religious one. I don't believe they necessarily want their students to
"join" the Anthroposophical religious movement - I don't believe they see
this as necessary to attain their goal.
)
)It seems to me that for each posted example of Anthroposophical
)psuedo-science taught in Waldorf schools, there is another posted
)example of actual science taught in Waldorf schools. Roughly speaking,
)this suggests an even mix of the two. Now, I certainly wouldn't want to
)send my child to a school that teaches New Age mumbo jumbo half the
)time, but I also don't see the "agenda" you refer to. What kind of cult
)only practices its message half the time?
Please stay on the list, join the SJU Waldorf list, and read books
published by the Rudolf Steiner press. I have no doubt you will see for
yourself that their "mumbo-jumbo" is a full time, every day agenda. These
folks are extraordinarily adept at putting their view in a way that Joe
Public will buy it. I bought it hook, line, and sinker. If after a year of
listening and reading (only occasionally - not in any intense manner) you
still see it as inocuous, great. But please, reserve judgement for now.
Something must have tipped you off and made you suspicious or you wouldn't
be on this list.
)
)Here's a practical example: A friend of mine is a Waldorf parent. In
)response to my concerned inquiry about his children's education, he
)wrote back:
)
)What can I say to this man to make him realize the peril his children
)are in? How can I warn him of the hidden agenda his school is pursuing?
I don't think you are knowledgeable enough at present to say anything to
this man. Let it ride.
Kathy
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n537 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n538 --------------
001 - Luna457954 aol.com - Re: Re: RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n534
002 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Re: RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n534
003 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: The Waldorf Agenda
004 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Re: Re: RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n534
005 - Luna457954 aol.com - Re: Re: You Are A Marvel
006 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Internet site of SIMPOS improved
007 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Re: You Are A Marvel
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n538.1 ---------------
From: Luna457954 aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n534
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 00:22:41 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 10/16/97 12:00:06 AM, mkopp actrix.gen.nz wrote:
((all
it requires is the use of a mystical mumbo-jumbo education to move them
away from the temporal, rational life.))
Is there some evidence of adults who were Waldorf-educated being nontemporal
or irrational? I'd love to see those statistics.
Kelly
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n538.2 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Re: RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n534
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 23:21:01 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710160422.VAA17172 lists1.best.com)
Kelly says:
)In a message dated 10/16/97 12:00:06 AM, mkopp actrix.gen.nz wrote:
)
)((all
)it requires is the use of a mystical mumbo-jumbo education to move them
)away from the temporal, rational life.))
)
)Is there some evidence of adults who were Waldorf-educated being nontemporal
)or irrational? I'd love to see those statistics.
KOPP says:
The few I've met and surveyed myself by personal means that are wholly
unstatistical and unscientific and more investigative journalism -- about
20 -- are all as wooly thinkers as most of the defenders of the faith on
this list, yourself included. This is not an ad-hominem but a critical
judgement on the quality of your reasoning according to the rational,
scientific system which 99.99 percent of the world -- including me -- uses.
They are wonderful people, but few of them are productive yet, and several
have gone wholly new-age tripping, courtesy of the indulgence of their
school and their parents, one of whom is a teacher at the school.
More than one has had difficulty coming up to academic rigour of university
education and has had to have remedial courses and take a lower level of
university course. All report that they wish they had been better prepared
for the heavy demands of life, especially including any further academic
pursuits. Many say they gained some wonderful insights and a "holistic"
view of life, but many say they have large gaps in their knowledge that are
not easily filled. My observation is that most have a curiously skewed view
of life. None are raving lunatics or fanatical spiritualists. But all
believe that almost anything that can be posited can be possible or true,
if for no-one else, then for the positor. They do not have critical
faculties sufficient to judge ideas rigorously.
Adults in my experience who have come to believe in Anthropsophy, but who
were not educated in Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical schools, are the most
rabidly unable to accept critical thinking about their beliefs. Some of
them are completely irrational according to my measure of reason.
This list (and certainly Lefty's other pro-Waldorf lists, and the
Anthroposophical Science list) provide ample evidence of people who have
taken leave of ... NOT their senses, because that's about all they still
have ... but their sense and sensibility and reason.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n538.3 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: The Waldorf Agenda
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 09:59:36 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Kathy,
I would very much like to understand the specifics of your charge
against Waldorf. You say that I was mistaken, but I don't see how. The
differences between my description and yours seem very small (see
below). Please clarify.
I said:
)) When you speak of the "Waldorf agenda", I assume that you are
)) refering to an organized, covert attempt to recruit children into an
)) Anthroposophical religious movement. This is a very strong charge,
)) and thus requires very strong evidence.
You replied:
) This isn't what I mean. What I mean is that the Waldorf pedagogy has a
) hidden purpose that is not communicated to parents, students, public
) school districts which embrace it, etc.
I say "covert", you say "hidden".
) The agenda is to expand the students' soul consciousness in order to
) prepare them for their next reincarnation. This is done by repeated
) exercises designed to train students to become adept at
) "spiritual science" ala Steiner.
I say "organized", you say "agenda". I say "recruit", you say "train".
I say "Anthroposophical religious movement", you say "'spiritual
science' ala Steiner".
) Anthroposophists know how very "strange" their notions seem and
) therefore keep their intentions/beliefs/pedagogical focus
) hidden in order not to scare off parents/students/public school
districts
) from buying into their package.
While Waldorf may not advertise its Anthroposophical connection, it
hardly seems to be such a big secret either. I was able to discover the
connection after about ten minutes research on the Internet. You would
think public officials would be able to make the same discovery, but
perhaps not. In any case, the Anthroposophical connection should, of
course, disqualify Waldorf from public education. But I don't see how
it makes Waldorf a cult.
) Therefore, their "agenda" is a hidden religious one. I don't believe
they
) necessarily want their students to "join" the Anthroposophical
religious
) movement - I don't believe they see this as necessary to attain their
goal.
Children are trained but they are not expected to join? This seems very
unusual for a religion.
) If after a year of listening and reading (only occasionally - not in
any
) intense manner) you still see it as inocuous, great. But please,
reserve
) judgement for now. Something must have tipped you off and made you
) suspicious or you wouldn't be on this list.
I am aware of my ignorance, and will reserve judgment as you suggest.
However, I don't think of Waldorf as "innocuous". As I've stated
before, I would certainly not send my children to a Waldorf school.
What I'm trying to assess is Waldorf's actual dangerousness. Should I
be warning friends? Should I alert my local newspaper? These are
questions I would like to see the Waldorf critics answer.
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n538.4 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Re: Re: RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n534
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 08:33:08 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710160422.VAA17172 lists1.best.com)
)In a message dated 10/16/97 12:00:06 AM, mkopp actrix.gen.nz wrote:
)
)((all
)it requires is the use of a mystical mumbo-jumbo education to move them
)away from the temporal, rational life.))
)
)Is there some evidence of adults who were Waldorf-educated being nontemporal
)or irrational? I'd love to see those statistics.
)
)Kelly
So would I. Dan Dugan, you put together quite the parent questionaire when
you left SF Waldorf. A questionaire for Waldorf graduates would be
_wonderful_. We need grant money to study these issues.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n538.5 ---------------
From: Luna457954 aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: You Are A Marvel
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 11:43:40 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 10/16/97 5:52:09 AM, mkopp actrix.gen.nz wrote:
))The role of saying to children that they can be anything they wish to be,
and inculcating a sense of respect for humanity, is a parental one. Parents
are free to choose any school which also subscribes to these tenets and
tries to inculcate them((
True. I've never said otherwise and certainly didn't mean to imply anything
subversive or derogatory by my post. I just thought I'd share the quote with
the list because I liked it.
))Casals is an example of the importance of "geographical" knowledge, which I
take to include political and historical facts. He used that knowledge --
not just his warm fuzzy feelings about humanity -- to make politcal
protests against fascist dictatorships, particularly in his native Spain,
where he refused to play while Franco was alive. He didn't get that
political philosophy and activism from crystal rubbing or warm feelings
about humanity.((
Who said he did? This was a post which I took as saying that we, not just
educators, but ALL of us who are residents of this planet, have an obligation
to make the world worthy of its children. It wasn't meant as a plea to reject
the "three R's", so to speak.
))There is a logical incongruity between Kelly's quote about human potential
and the real Steiner agenda((
The quote was never meant to be a defense of WE. It was a quote I like, and
that I thought listmembers would like also.
))Or perhaps I won't be. Kelly says we "all want what we _feel_ is best for
our children". No, I and some of the others on this list want what we
_think_ is best for our children.((
The denial of feelings and the almost fanatical devotion to thought in this
post is frightening. I *don't* deny critical thinking (although I'm wouldn't
be surprised, Mr. Kopp, if you thought anyone who sends his or her kid to a
Waldorf school is a simpering, blubbering lemming blindly following the
Gospel According to Rudolf with no rational thought whatsoever). I think
(and feel) that there should be a balance between the feelings and thought.
))Irrationality, thy name is emotion.((
See above response. Irrationality without emotion makes us robots, IMO.
I'm offended by the hostility in this post. I sent this quote to the list in
the spirit (may I use that term without being stepped on?) of kindness and
common ground--most of us have kids, here's what I thought to be a great post
about kids.
I guess I was wrong to think that there could be any common ground here, and
frankly it saddens me.
I don't expect that anyone on this list who chooses not to send their child
to a Waldorf school should do so--WE is not for everyone. I have tried
desperately *not* to dump on public schools, because they're all different
(as are all Waldorf schools). I *have* said why I like WE, and why it works
for me.
I don't find that the same thought processes are happening in many of the
minds of the WE critics (is that a rational enough sentence?). I have seen
name-calling, sarcasm, and basic patronizing from a lot (not all) of the
critics.
It would be nice if you could give me the same credit for intelligence that I
give you.
Take care,
Kelly
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n538.6 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Internet site of SIMPOS improved
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:08:17 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The Internet site of the Stichting Informatie over Maatschappelijke
Problemen rond Occulte Stromingen SIMPOS, the foundation in The Netherlands
for information on occult tendencies and social problems, has overcome a
technical problem, which for some time prevented some of the information
(mainly on movements beginning with letters A-C) from showing up on our
English language page. Apart from this, we regularly improve it by adding
links to more (mainly critical) information on occult and 'paranormal'
organizations and individuals.
Recently, we have added more information on Anthroposophy, in English and
still more in Dutch.
The site has two pages (in English and in Dutch) on Scientology; a page (in
English) on Heaven's Gate; etc.
At the moment, we have access to information in seven languages: Dutch,
English, Bahasa Indonesia, Swedish, Spanish, Italian, and German.
The Internet URL is: http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/ (Dutch); and
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm (English; may also be reached
from the PLANS web site); and http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simposve.htm
(Swedish).
We hope you will come to our site regularly, as we refresh it often.
greetings,
Herman de Tollenaere
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n538.7 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Re: You Are A Marvel
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 11:02:01 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710161543.IAA00100 lists1.best.com)
Kelly responded to Kopp's assessment of Casals' geography knowledge (quoted
below).
Kelly also sent the identical message to me personally.
Is this a personal message that she felt needed publishing, or did she
perhaps send me a copy privately in error?
)In a message dated 10/16/97 5:52:09 AM, mkopp actrix.gen.nz wrote:
)
)
)
)))The role of saying to children that they can be anything they wish to be,
)and inculcating a sense of respect for humanity, is a parental one. Parents
)are free to choose any school which also subscribes to these tenets and
)tries to inculcate them((
)
)True. I've never said otherwise and certainly didn't mean to imply anything
)subversive or derogatory by my post. I just thought I'd share the quote with
)the list because I liked it.
)
)
)
)))Casals is an example of the importance of "geographical" knowledge, which I
)take to include political and historical facts. He used that knowledge --
)not just his warm fuzzy feelings about humanity -- to make politcal
)protests against fascist dictatorships, particularly in his native Spain,
)where he refused to play while Franco was alive. He didn't get that
)political philosophy and activism from crystal rubbing or warm feelings
)about humanity.((
)
)Who said he did? This was a post which I took as saying that we, not just
)educators, but ALL of us who are residents of this planet, have an obligation
)to make the world worthy of its children. It wasn't meant as a plea to reject
)the "three R's", so to speak.
)
)
)
)))There is a logical incongruity between Kelly's quote about human potential
)and the real Steiner agenda((
)
)The quote was never meant to be a defense of WE. It was a quote I like, and
)that I thought listmembers would like also.
)
)
)))Or perhaps I won't be. Kelly says we "all want what we _feel_ is best for
)our children". No, I and some of the others on this list want what we
)_think_ is best for our children.((
)
)The denial of feelings and the almost fanatical devotion to thought in this
)post is frightening. I *don't* deny critical thinking (although I'm wouldn't
)be surprised, Mr. Kopp, if you thought anyone who sends his or her kid to a
)Waldorf school is a simpering, blubbering lemming blindly following the
)Gospel According to Rudolf with no rational thought whatsoever). I think
)(and feel) that there should be a balance between the feelings and thought.
)
)))Irrationality, thy name is emotion.((
)
)See above response. Irrationality without emotion makes us robots, IMO.
)I'm offended by the hostility in this post. I sent this quote to the list in
)the spirit (may I use that term without being stepped on?) of kindness and
)common ground--most of us have kids, here's what I thought to be a great post
)about kids.
)I guess I was wrong to think that there could be any common ground here, and
)frankly it saddens me.
)
)I don't expect that anyone on this list who chooses not to send their child
)to a Waldorf school should do so--WE is not for everyone. I have tried
)desperately *not* to dump on public schools, because they're all different
)(as are all Waldorf schools). I *have* said why I like WE, and why it works
)for me.
)I don't find that the same thought processes are happening in many of the
)minds of the WE critics (is that a rational enough sentence?). I have seen
)name-calling, sarcasm, and basic patronizing from a lot (not all) of the
)critics.
)It would be nice if you could give me the same credit for intelligence that I
)give you.
)
)Take care,
)Kelly
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n538 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n539 --------------
001 - davidm igc.apc.org (David - Re: Re: RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n534
002 - Luna457954 aol.com - Re: Re: Re: You Are A Marvel
003 - James Souttar (ancient ur - RE: A Pump to Pump Discussion
004 - Neil Faiman (faiman zko.d - Hidden agendas
005 - Neil Faiman (faiman zko.d - RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n537
006 - Paul Levy (P.R.Levy bton. - Re: What the heck is Anthroposophy?
007 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: A Pump to Pump Discussion
008 - Steve Premo (premo cruzio - RE: A Pump to Pump Discussion
009 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Daily Northwestern on Waldorf and 'races'
010 - JoAnn Schwartz (jms mich. - Re: What the heck is Anthroposophy?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n539.1 ---------------
From: davidm igc.apc.org (David Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Re: RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n534
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 23:16:35 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Michael Kopp said:
"More than one has had difficulty coming up to academic rigour of university
education and has had to have remedial courses and take a lower level of
university course. All report that they wish they had been better prepared
for the heavy demands of life, especially including any further academic
pursuits. . . . They do not have critical faculties sufficient to judge
ideas rigorously."
__________________
I respond:
Michael Kopp, I have had quite a different experience then you with
regard to my four children's experinece with Waldorf Education and Waldorf
science,and none of my children are Anthropsophists.
The eldest graduated "Magna cum laude" from the Hampshire
College/the University of Massachusetts. The second graduated with honors
from Califoprnia College of Arts and Crafts in Oakland/Berkely. The third
is earning honor grade at Friends World College.
The last, my son, is a high honor senior in high school, as well as
an all-state athlete being aggresively recruited, at present, by the
following schools: Harvard, Dartmouth, Yale, the University of
Pennsylvania, the US Naval Academy, The Air Force Academy, Stanford,
Occidental, the University of Massachusetts, and Northwestern. He will
continue his love for the study of biology, perhaps aiming at a career in
medicine at whichever school he chooses.
My wife was educated at a Waldorf School in Norway. Altogether my
family represents
61 years of Waldorf Education. They appear happy with life, with their
family, with education, and with their choosen vocations.
While in college my first three were/are praised by their
professors for their ability to think both critically and with compassion.
Each child's teachers have contacted us to ask about Waldorf education
because they experienced a unique ability from our kids to see the
overview, the big picture.
Our home is the gathering spot for many friends of our children who
have attended Waldorf Schools. They matriculate at MIT, Brown, Oberlin,
Northwestern, the University of Colorado, Stanford, Yale, and Cornell.
Others come who have become furniture makers, weavers, and musicians. Each
of these young people possess abundant critical faculties sufficient to
judge ideas rigorously.
I'm also aware that each has teachers from the Waldorf high school
with whom they feel criticism, but then I've never met anyone who doesn't
have the same feelings toward someone at their own high school, public or
private. It comes with the territory.
John Steibnbeck once stated that you are fortunate if you go
through school and find one really good teacher. These Waldorf students
have many they would call "good teachers" and they also had in common a
curriculum which lacked dogmatism and fostered an understanding of
humankind. All of this was backed by a philosophy which asked for the
constant development and growth of the teacher.
David S. Mitchell
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n539.2 ---------------
From: Luna457954 aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: Re: You Are A Marvel
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 02:08:37 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 10/16/97 11:31:44 PM, mkopp actrix.gen.nz wrote:
((Is this a personal message that she felt needed publishing, or did she
perhaps send me a copy privately in error?))
My apologies, Mr. Kopp. I meant to post to the list, and neglected to delete
your name from the "reply all" list.
take care,
Kelly
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n539.3 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: RE: A Pump to Pump Discussion
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 11:13:55 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: (199710151436.HAA13984 lists1.best.com)
Brian:
)I am not a doctor, so I'm not really qualified to judge these
)descriptions of the heart's function. However, I do know that neither
)blood nor water can "pump itself". In your example, it seems fairly
)clear to me that gravity is pumping the water. Mr. Tonkin's description
)is even more alarming. I believe that "the squeezing of the corpuscles
)through capillaries" is accounted for by a scientific phenomenon known
)as "capillary action". As far as I know, there is nothing here that a
)mechanical view "has yet to fully account for". Also, I am mystified by
)the description of the heart as a "mixing vortex". What does this mean?
It may interest some of you to know that biologist Steven Rose (winner of
the Rh=F4ne-Poulenc Science Prize for his book 'The Making of Memory') used
the example of 'the heart is a pump' as an example of popular
*misunderstanding* of how the body works. This was shared with listeners to
BBC Radio 4's 'Start the Week' program - where guests from all aspects of
intellectual life (scientists, artists, writers) are invited to talk about
their work.
Interestingly - apart from pointing out the ridiculous mecanomorphic
simplification of the idea that the heart is a pump - Rose pointed to the
sheer physical impossibility of it being so. Something that has struck most
of us who have given even a little thought to this matter (and whose
exerience of hydraulics extends no further than grappling with the domestic
heating system) - the enormous problems faced by maintaining fluid
pressure through a system that branches into incredibly fine capillaries,
and which then has to return through a valved system of veins (often agaist
the force of gravity). Rose was not, however, seeking to make a point for
Anthroposophy - only for Science.
So, we now have it on record that a distinguished scientist thinks that
'the heart is a pump' is an ignorant assertion, and not scientific at all.
Perhaps we can lay this to rest now?
James
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n539.4 ---------------
From: Neil Faiman (faiman zko.dec.com)
Subject: Hidden agendas
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 08:23:28 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Kathy Sutphen recently wrote:
) What I mean is that the Waldorf pedagogy has a
) hidden purpose that is not communicated to parents, students, public =
school
) districts which embrace it, etc. The agenda is to expand the students' =
soul
) consciousness in order to prepare them for their next reincarnation. =
This
) is done by repeated exercises designed to train students to become =
adept at
) "spiritual science" ala Steiner.
This comes very close to being the most incredible thing I have ever =
seen on this list. It is, in my opinion (grounded in considerable =
Waldorf school experience, as well as moderately extensive reading in =
the underlying literature of Waldorf education), absolute and =
unmitigated balderdash.
Ms. Sutphen presumably has some good reason to make this assertion. If =
so, I hope that she will provide her documentation and explanations =
fully and promptly. I would strongly urge any readers to scrutinize her =
documentation and reasoning VERY carefully.
Remember one of the fundamental tenets of skepticism: Exceptional =
claims require exceptional evidence.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n539.5 ---------------
From: Neil Faiman (faiman zko.dec.com)
Subject: RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n537
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 08:58:16 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
A number of recent "critical" messages have conveyed the impression of a =
balanced appraisal of Waldorf education by suggesting that it does have =
its good points -- warm, fuzzy, humane, artistic, etc. -- it's just that =
it's hopelessly deficient in satisfying the traditional educational =
objectives. For example, Michael Kopp writes:
) However, two other points are important here, especially in regard to
) Steiner/ Waldorf/Anthroposophical schools.
)
) The first is that our children still need to know practical facts and
) skills in order to live and function properly in a modern world. Even
) Casals would have agreed with that.
)
) Casals is an example of the importance of "geographical" knowledge, =
which I
) take to include political and historical facts. He used that knowledge =
--
) not just his warm fuzzy feelings about humanity -- to make politcal
) protests against fascist dictatorships, particularly in his native =
Spain,
) where he refused to play while Franco was alive. He didn't get that
) political philosophy and activism from crystal rubbing or warm =
feelings
) about humanity.
There are, perhaps, parents and teachers somewhere who have chosen =
Waldorf education because they think that art classes, warm fuzzy =
feelings, and loving teachers are more important than practical facts =
and skills. However, speaking for myself , at least, I chose Waldorf =
education because I believed that it would lead provide a rich, =
comprehensive education; a sound foundation of facts and skills; =
particular strengths in critical thinking and in expression; an =
exceptional artistic foundation; AND an unusually humane educational =
environment. My experience to date has fully validated that decision.
Whether Waldorf education successfully delivers the quality of education =
that it aspires to is a perfectly legitimate question. To suggest that =
it doesn't even aspire to the delivery of a high quality of education is =
a straw horse.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n539.6 ---------------
From: Paul Levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: What the heck is Anthroposophy?
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 15:14:51 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199710160331.UAA19420 lists1.best.com)
spike netshel.net wrote:
)
) Kelly posted:
)
) )At an end-of-year party at a local waterpark, my daughter's eighth grade
) )teacher was discussing Anthroposophy with a parent in the presence of her 13
) )year old son, who has been in WE since fourth or fifth grade. Sometime
) )during the conversation, the son turned to his teacher and said "what the
) )heck is Anthroposophy?"
)
) My point exactly. Why would any school/institution hide the very basis and
) reason for its mission from it clients? This is what I am referring to when
) I use the phrase "hidden agenda." This child has been at this school for 4
) - 5 years and he has _no_ clue that his teachers are Anthroposophists or
) that the curriculum he studies is based on Anthroposophical belief. What's
) wrong with this picture?
)
) Kathy
Paul says:
This is interesting. In the brighton (UK) school, I find little or no
evidence of overt anthroposophy being taught. However, I am aware that
some of the teachers are anthroposophists and will happily say so,
whereas others have been drawn to the educational ideas and practices
and trained as teachers purely on that basis.
However, there is a clear ethic in the school that:
1. Anthroposophy is not pushed onto anyone
2. That the teachers should study and be aware of the "roots" of the
teaching philosophy but do not in any way need to commit themselves to
these roots
3. That anyone who asks about the anthroposophical ideas underpinning
Waldorf will get their questions answered to the best of the teacher's
ability or pointed in the direction of someone who can answer any
questions - perhaps a book
The fundamental values of the school is one of freedom, supported by
respect and kindness. Nothing is forced on anyone. Nothing is
deliberately hidden. Some teachersare better at living up to these
values than others, but, nevertheless, the values remain.
The dividing line between anthropsophy and "waldorf" is not clear.
Neither is the dividing line between state education methods and
"Thatcher" or "Laing" or "Freud". The state system in the UK has some
prepsoterous roots which parents and children alike are unaware of. How
many realise that much state teaching methdology is rooted in the
hierarchy of the church, and the experiments on rats of B.F. Skinner ?
At least with our school, there is a genuine struggle to respect and
nuture the freedom of thought and behaviour of our children.
best regards
Paul Levy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n539.7 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: A Pump to Pump Discussion
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 10:13:15 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
James wrote:
) It may interest some of you to know that biologist Steven Rose
) (winner of the Rh=F4ne-Poulenc Science Prize for his book
) 'The Making of Memory') used the example of 'the heart is a
) pump' as an example of popular *misunderstanding* of how the
) body works.
This is getting off-topic, but what the heck...
I had never heard of Steven Rose, so I did a little research on the =
Web.
First of all, he is a neuroscientist, not necessarily a cardiac expert.
Secondly, it appears that his scientific views are strongly influenced
by his Marxist politcs. Here are some quotes from his book:
"...profound chasm that has developed within the fragmented culture of =
a
western industrialized society, a chasm that the very power and
professed objectivity of science are seen by some as deepening." (p 7)
"We may feel superior to those who prefer astrology and tarot cards to
astronomy and statistics, but it is a superiority tinged with anxiety."
(p. 10)
"As one of the radical critics of a reductionist science in the last
decades, I have taken my own part in these debates, and I have lived =
the
best part of my life with a feminine sociologist of science whose
searching exposure of the nature of a masculinist and largely white
science as it is practiced in western capitalist societies will soon
reveal the weak places in any uncritical defence of a science which
refuses to recognize its limitations." (p. 11)
See http://www.general-semantics.org/text/major/trp_neur.html and
http://www.anatomy.su.oz.au/danny/book-reviews/h/The_Making_of_Memory.ht=
ml=20
for more info.
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n539.8 ---------------
From: Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: RE: A Pump to Pump Discussion
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 08:38:30 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199710151436.HAA13984 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199710171024.DAA23289 lists1.best.com)
On 17 Oct 97 , James Souttar wrote:
) So, we now have it on record that a distinguished scientist thinks that
) 'the heart is a pump' is an ignorant assertion, and not scientific at
) all. Perhaps we can lay this to rest now?
Let's not; it's kinda fun.
OK, the heart is much more sophisticated than a mechanical device. And
it's not sufficient to move blood by itself through the circulatory
system. There's also capillary action, and the role of valves in the
veins and the muscles surrounding veins. The muscles squeeze the veins,
and the blood moves toward the heart through the valves. Nothing strange
about that.
Does this mean that the heart does not move blood? Of course not. The
heart is a muscle which expands when it relaxes, drawing blood into its
chambers through valves that open in that direction, and then forcibly
contracts, pushing blood out through other valves. This certainly comes
within any normal concept of "pumping."
The strange assertion of anthropology, if I understand it more or
less correctly, is that the blood moves itself, and is not moved through
the body by any mechanical force. The heart regulates that flow, but does
not cause it.
How can the blood do this? It can move itself because, while it's in the
body, it is immaterial. It's not a liquid; it's a form of spirit. It is
only when it leaves the body that it takes material form. (Please
correct me if this is wrong. I read it on this list, and I tend to take
critic's assertions of what Steiner said with a grain of salt when not
supported by exact quotes.)
Say, did you know that hair is actually a vestigial remnant of the
channels through which spiritual knowledge was received by the ancients?
This I did read in Steiner, although I can't quote you chapter and verse.
Steve Premo ------ Santa Cruz, California
--
"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from
falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the
government from falling into error." -- Justice Robert H. Jackson
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n539.9 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Daily Northwestern on Waldorf and 'races'
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 18:28:50 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The Daily Northwestern of 17 October 1997 had this article on Waldorf education:
Special Ed?
Evanston's Great Oaks School provides 40
students with an alternative to regular elementary
school, teaching them the philosophy of Rudolf
Steiner.
by Aurin Squire
The Daily Northwestern
Fifteen second- and third-graders sit at their desks in a
dark classroom as their teacher taps on a drum, their math
lesson for the day.
Out of the group of 13 white and two Asian children, 10
students have blond hair and blue eyes.
They are 15 of about 120,000 children worldwide forgoing
a traditional elementary school education for one at a
Waldorf School. German philosopher Rudolf Steiner
founded the first Waldorf school for children of employees
of the Waldorf Cigarette Company in 1919 in Stuttgart,
Germany, said Steve Johnson, faculty chair for Great Oaks
School, a Waldorf school in Evanston.
Today Great Oaks, located on the second floor of
Hemingway Church at 933 Chicago Ave., is one of 600
Waldorf schools in 32 countries.
"Our education is based on the philosophy of Rudolf
Steiner," Johnson said. "We teach on what Steiner said in
his books and his lectures, all of them."
Steiner believed in a strong relationship between race and
the human soul.
In his book, "Being of Man and his Future Evolution,"
Steiner says members of the Nordic and Aryan race are the
"best section of mankind ... skillful and intelligent; it is as
though they were directed by strings above."
Steiner said black people have large bodies and small,
underdeveloped souls, as opposed to Europeans, who have
small bodies and large, developed souls. He wrote of a
connection between intelligence and people with blond hair
and blue eyes.
"A race of large men are all stupid," Steiner wrote.
Since its opening in 1993, Great Oaks has moved from
Evanston to Winnetka and back to Evanston, this time in a
more affordable building, Johnson said. The school
currently employs seven teachers, who will stay with their
40 students until they reach eighth grade. Johnson said he
hopes enrollment will increase as the school becomes more
established in the community.
Catherine Ciaffo, a parent of one of Johnson's student, has
a mixed reaction to the Great Oaks School in Evanston.
"I really like the holistic approach to education. The entire
person is involved," Ciaffo said."I do have a problem with
Waldorf education not being broad enough, and it is not
presented in a broad enough way to attract a diverse
student body."
Great Oaks' teachers must read about Steiner's
philosophies, Johnson said.
The oldest students at Great Oaks are in third grade, as
they started as kindergartners in 1993. Once they reach
high school, students can either attend Chicago Waldorf
School, 1651 W. Diversey Ave., or opt for a mainstream
secondary education.
But kindergartners at Great Oaks cannot enter first grade
until they have lost all their baby teeth, Johnson said.
"It is an outer expression of an inner experience," Johnson
said of tooth loss.
That inner experience is the change in soul from a baby to a
developing adult.
Members of the Association of Waldorf Schools in North
America sit in on classes at Great Oaks and about 125
other Waldorf schools on the continent, ensuring that they
all "stay true to the teachings of Steiner," Johnson said.
Those teachings have sparked controversy among groups
such as People for Legal Nonsectarian Schools.
Members of this San Francisco-based group say the
Waldorf education system is "deceptive," Secretary Don
Dugan said.
Dugan once sent his children to the Waldorf school in his
city. But when he realized what they were learning and
questioned teachers about it, he said they strongly advised
him to remove his children from the school.
"Waldorf education is a feel-good system," Dugan said.
"That is why they receive few complaints."
Johnson said he doubts the criticism of the parents and the
People for Legal Nonsectarian Schools.
"It is the Internet, after all," Johnson said about the group's
homepage. "You can say anything you want."
In his classroom, Johnson begins the day with a song and a
group circle. Children walk, dance and talk about their
school.
After getting the students active, Johnson turns off the lights,
takes out his drum and starts the math class.
"Let's say you leave a window open and this many bees fly
in," he said, as his palm rhythmically thumped the cloth
covering.
In a traditional classrooms, students would then raise their
hands and wait for the teacher to call on them. But at Great
Oaks, there is no hand-raising rule.
A high pitched voice from the back of the room yells out
the answer. Another student disagrees, and yells out his
own answer.
After math class, Johnson turns the lights back on and reads
the story of Joseph from the bible and takes out colored
chalk, so students can draw their interpretation of the story
on the blackboard.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n539.10 ---------------
From: JoAnn Schwartz (jms mich.com)
Subject: Re: What the heck is Anthroposophy?
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 12:51:51 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: (199710171412.HAA01727 lists1.best.com)
) Kelly posted:
)
) )At an end-of-year party at a local waterpark, my daughter's eighth grade
) )teacher was discussing Anthroposophy with a parent in the presence of her 13
) )year old son, who has been in WE since fourth or fifth grade. Sometime
) )during the conversation, the son turned to his teacher and said "what the
) )heck is Anthroposophy?"
)
) My point exactly. Why would any school/institution hide the very basis and
) reason for its mission from it clients? This is what I am referring to when
) I use the phrase "hidden agenda." This child has been at this school for 4
) - 5 years and he has _no_ clue that his teachers are Anthroposophists or
) that the curriculum he studies is based on Anthroposophical belief. What's
) wrong with this picture?
)
) Kathy
Well, good question. What _is_ wrong with this picture. I attended public
schools for K-12, and except for my 12th grade English teacher, have no
idea of any of my teachers' religious or philosophic affiliations. (My
12th grade English teacher got married that summer and invited our class
to his Catholic wedding -- otherwise I would have no idea of his either.)
I certainly have no idea what educational philosophy any of them held (if
indeed there was a coherent educational philosophy used by my school district.)
If the _parent_ had been unaware of Anthroposophy after 4 years, that
would be much more problematic.
Warmly,
JoAnn Schwartz, Detroit Waldorf School
(jms mich.com) Detroit MI USA
*****************All opinions strictly my own***********************
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n539 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n540 --------------
001 - James Souttar (ancient ur - RE: A Pump to Pump Discussion
002 - James Souttar (ancient ur - RE: A Pump to Pump Discussion
003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - SF State hosting cult medical course
004 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: What the heck is Anthroposophy?
005 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: A Pump to Pump Discussion
006 - Steve Premo (premo cruzio - Re: Daily Northwestern on Waldorf and 'races'
007 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Daily Northwestern on Waldorf and 'races'
008 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Is Anthroposophy a religion? (was: A Pump to Pump Discussion)
009 - Luna457954 aol.com - Re: Daily Northwestern on Waldorf and 'races'
010 - Luna457954 aol.com - Re: Re: Daily Northwestern on Waldorf and 'races'
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n540.1 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: RE: A Pump to Pump Discussion
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 18:29:28 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199710171024.DAA23289 lists1.best.com)
(199710151436.HAA13984 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199710171557.IAA22336 lists1.best.com)
Steve:
)Does this mean that the heart does not move blood? Of course not. The
)heart is a muscle which expands when it relaxes, drawing blood into its
)chambers through valves that open in that direction, and then forcibly
)contracts, pushing blood out through other valves. This certainly comes
)within any normal concept of "pumping."
I'm not sure that the issue of the heart playing a vital role in the
circulation of blood is in doubt. Remember that Steiner's 'threefold' model
of the human constitution is made up of the nerve/sense system, the
metabolic/limb system and the rhythmic/circulatory system. The latter
suggests the priority Steiner puts on the heart and lungs as circulatory
organs. What is more at issue is the 'how', which I would suggest is much
less far fetched and unreasonable than has been suggested.
Schwenk, in 'Sensitive Chaos' (a book which I assume represents an
Anthroposophical position on these things) asserts that the circulation of
the blood is caused by a fluid vortex within the heart. He says 'This organ
is like a vortical centre of suction to which the blood rushes with ever
increasing speed from the periphery, thither to return again, slowing down
and spreading out.'
So the arguments can be simply summarized. Firstly, the size, capacity and
power of the human heart is insufficient, if one looks at it as a pump, to
account for the circulation of the blood. Secondly, the nature of the
currents of blood flowing through the cavities of the heart point towards a
far more sophisticated system of fluid dynamics than one would find in a
pump. Thus far, I think the Anthroposophists have a point. But I agree that
the notion of the blood as 'immaterial' - if it is intended as anything
other than a colourful metaphor or poetic notion - is ridiculous.
I've come across another Anthroposophical assertion in relation to this
argument, which I think is also worthy of consideration - that the blood is
an organ in its own right. Given its functions and composition, that makes
a lot of sense to me. However, it does seem unlikely, on the face of it,
that blood cells have their own form of motive power.
)Say, did you know that hair is actually a vestigial remnant of the
)channels through which spiritual knowledge was received by the ancients?
)This I did read in Steiner, although I can't quote you chapter and verse.
It's not only Steiner who believed that hair had a spiritual connection. In
Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism, shaving the head has a spiritual
significance (as indeed, in certain forms of Hinduism *not* cutting the
hair has spiritual significance). In Christian monasticism, there is the
shaving of the tonsure (different in the Celtic and Roman churches).
Orthodox Jews have their curly ear locks, and Muslims place great
importance on the beard. In fact, is there any spiritual system that
doesn't attribute some form of spiritual significance to hair?
James
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n540.2 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: RE: A Pump to Pump Discussion
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 18:40:23 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710171413.HAA01871 lists1.best.com)
Brian:
)I had never heard of Steven Rose, so I did a little research on the Web.
)First of all, he is a neuroscientist, not necessarily a cardiac expert.
)Secondly, it appears that his scientific views are strongly influenced
)by his Marxist politcs. Here are some quotes from his book:
If you lived in the UK, you could hardly miss him. As one of our most
eminent and respected scientists, he is *everywhere* at the moment.
The comment about his politics is perplexing. If he was 'strongly
influenced by his Marxist politics' (is this allegation some kind of
vestigial McCarthyism?) he would almost certain believe in Dialectical
Materialism. That would mean believing in a purely mechanical model of the
body - hardly, I suggest, the material Anthroposophical 'fellow travellers'
are made of.
[And do 'cardiac experts' have some special knowledge about the hydraulics
of the heart - which proves that it must be a pump - that they withold from
their colleagues in Biochemistry and Neurophysiology?]
James
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n540.3 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: SF State hosting cult medical course
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 10:57:43 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools, Inc.
c/o Dan Dugan, Secretary
290 Napoleon Street
San Francisco, CA 94124
phone 415 821 9776
fax 415 826 7699
email plans dandugan.com
http://www.waldorfcritics.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 10/10/97
SF STATE HOSTING CULT MEDICAL COURSE
People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools (PLANS), is blowing the whistle
on a San Francisco State University course called "Anthroposophical
Medicine." "Not only is medical quackery being promoted by a public
university," said PLANS President Debra Snell, "but this course violates
separation of church and state. Anthroposophy is a cult-like religious
sect. The University is being used to give legitimacy to lunatic fringe
beliefs."
Anthroposophists follow the teachings of Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925), an
Austrian mystic who claimed to be able to make "direct scientific
observations" of the "spirit world." Steiner's bizarre doctrines include
the assertion that the heart does not pump blood (it moves itself) and that
motor nerves don't exist ("the will" acts directly in the limbs). A
promotional video for Anthroposophical medicine shows a child being treated
for pneumonia with a cottage cheese wrap.
Anthroposophical medicine is well established in Europe, but has been
unable to make much progress in the United States due to our stronger
consumer protection laws. Medical boards have investigated questionable
practices of Anthroposophical doctors in California, North Carolina, New
York, and Oregon. In the U.S., Anthroposophy is best known for its school
system, Waldorf schools. The Anthroposophical physicians in the United
States get most of their business through referrals from Waldorf school
teachers.
The largest outbreak of whooping cough in Sonoma County in ten years
occurred at the Starchild Waldorf Preschool in April of 1994. Sonoma Public
Health Officer Dr. George Flores blamed that epidemic on the
Anthroposophical medical policy opposing childhood immunizations and
antibiotics.
Debra Snell of PLANS said "We're investigating the possibility of legal
action to invalidate the credits for this course." Wallace Sampson, MD,
Board Chairman of the National Council Against Health Fraud, states "It is
incomprehensible that state boards actually give health professionals
continuing education credit for religious indoctrination. I am sure that
was not the legislature's intent."
"Anthroposophical Medicine" is a full-credit course in the Department of
Holistic Health. It began Friday, October 3 and continues through Sunday,
October 12. The course gives three credit units or 45 continuing education
units.
For more information, contact PLANS at (415) 821-9776, (916) 273-1005, or
the National Council Against Health Fraud, (909) 824-4690.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n540.4 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: What the heck is Anthroposophy?
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 14:32:39 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
I agree with JoAnn.
As a kid, I started off at a Montessori schools. It was not until years
later that I learned that it was part of a movement founded by a person
named Montessori. To this day, I am ignorant of my teachers' religious,
philosophical, and political beliefs. Hell, I've even forgotten most of
their names and faces, but not what I learned from them.
My parents, however, knew all about Montessori philosophy and actually
pulled me out of one school following a dispute over teaching methods.
How is this different from Waldorf?
-- Brian
) -----Original Message-----
) From: JoAnn Schwartz [SMTP:jms mich.com]
) Sent: Friday, October 17, 1997 12:52 PM
) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) Subject: Re: What the heck is Anthroposophy?
)
)
)
) ) Kelly posted:
) )
) ) )At an end-of-year party at a local waterpark, my daughter's eighth
) grade
) ) )teacher was discussing Anthroposophy with a parent in the presence
) of her 13
) ) )year old son, who has been in WE since fourth or fifth grade.
) Sometime
) ) )during the conversation, the son turned to his teacher and said
) "what the
) ) )heck is Anthroposophy?"
) )
) ) My point exactly. Why would any school/institution hide the very
) basis and
) ) reason for its mission from it clients? This is what I am referring
) to when
) ) I use the phrase "hidden agenda." This child has been at this school
) for 4
) ) - 5 years and he has _no_ clue that his teachers are
) Anthroposophists or
) ) that the curriculum he studies is based on Anthroposophical belief.
) What's
) ) wrong with this picture?
) )
) ) Kathy
)
) Well, good question. What _is_ wrong with this picture. I attended
) public
) schools for K-12, and except for my 12th grade English teacher, have
) no
) idea of any of my teachers' religious or philosophic affiliations. (My
) 12th grade English teacher got married that summer and invited our
) class
) to his Catholic wedding -- otherwise I would have no idea of his
) either.)
) I certainly have no idea what educational philosophy any of them held
) (if
) indeed there was a coherent educational philosophy used by my school
) district.)
)
) If the _parent_ had been unaware of Anthroposophy after 4 years, that
) would be much more problematic.
)
) Warmly,
) JoAnn Schwartz, Detroit Waldorf School
) (jms mich.com) Detroit MI USA
) *****************All opinions strictly my own***********************
)
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n540.5 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: A Pump to Pump Discussion
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 15:12:48 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
)) I had never heard of Steven Rose, so I did a little research
)) on the Web. First of all, he is a neuroscientist, not
)) necessarily a cardiac expert. Secondly, it appears that
)) his scientific views are strongly influenced by his Marxist
)) politcs.
) The comment about his politics is perplexing. If he was
) 'strongly influenced by his Marxist politics' (is this allegation
) some kind of vestigial McCarthyism?) he would almost
) certain believe in Dialectical Materialism.
Oh, c'mon. I'm a left-leaner myself. My point is that politics
(Marxist or otherwise) do not belong in science. Here's more on Rose's
agenda from Rose himself:
"We share a commitment to the prospect of the creation of a more
socially just--a socialist--society. And we recognize that a critical
science is an integral part of the struggle to create that society, just
as we also believe that the social function of much of today's science
is to hinder the creation of that society by acting to preserve the
interests of the dominant class, gender, and race. This belief--in the
possibility of a critical and liberatory science--is why we have each in
our separate ways and to varying degrees been involved in the
development of what has become known over the 1970s and 1980s, in the
United States and Britain, as the radical science movement."
)From _Not in Our Genes_. See http://www.groupz.net/~lrand/wilson01.html
for more.
) [And do 'cardiac experts' have some special knowledge about the
hydraulics
) of the heart - which proves that it must be a pump - that they withold
from
) their colleagues in Biochemistry and Neurophysiology?]
No, I don't think that many "'cardiac experts'" are withholding their
special knowledge of the heart. It appears, however, that at least one
of their colleagues in Neurophysiology simply isn't paying attention.
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n540.6 ---------------
From: Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Daily Northwestern on Waldorf and 'races'
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 13:11:57 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199710171629.JAA10773 lists1.best.com)
On 17 Oct 97 , Herman de Tollenaere wrote:
) The Daily Northwestern of 17 October 1997 had this article on Waldorf
) education:
What kind of paper is the Daily Northwestern? Is it a mainstream Chicago
newspaper, a religious paper, or what? I suspect some kind of a slant, as
this article does not appear to be objective.
Some of the comments attributed to the teacher I find hard to believe.
Having seen how people can be misquoted by newspapers, I sometimes have
doubts when people are quoted saying things that seem unusual.
For example:
) "Our education is based on the philosophy of Rudolf
) Steiner," Johnson said. "We teach on what Steiner said in
) his books and his lectures, all of them."
Since Waldorf schools are not supposed to teach Steiner's philosophy to
the kids, I find such a statement by a Waldorf teacher to be remarkable.
Perhaps he actually stated that they *follow* what Steiner said.
Aside from that, the implication that kids in Waldorf schools are taught
Steiner's theories of race is really hard to believe. It is even more
difficult to believe that they are taught anything like this author's
interpretation of Steiner's theories, notwithstanding problems that have
apparently arisen in this regard in Holland.
) But kindergartners at Great Oaks cannot enter first grade
) until they have lost all their baby teeth, Johnson said.
*All* their baby teeth? That happens at what, age 10? This
quote certainly impairs the credibility of the interviewer.
Steve Premo ------ Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n540.7 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Daily Northwestern on Waldorf and 'races'
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 18:09:48 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
)) The Daily Northwestern of 17 October 1997 had this article on Waldorf
)) education:
) What kind of paper is the Daily Northwestern?
The "Daily Northwestern" appears to be the student newspaper at
Northwestern University. You can see the story (including photo!) for
yourself at http://www.dailynorthwestern.com.
-- Brian [setting a record for most posts in a single day...]
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n540.8 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Is Anthroposophy a religion? (was: A Pump to Pump Discussion)
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 01:05:44 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 06:29 PM 17/10/97 +0000, James Souttar wrote:
Steve Premo:
))Say, did you know that hair is actually a vestigial remnant of the
))channels through which spiritual knowledge was received by the ancients?
))This I did read in Steiner, although I can't quote you chapter and verse.
James:
)It's not only Steiner who believed that hair had a spiritual connection.
True; but these other religions did and do not have the same view of hair as
remnant of channels of spiritual clairvoyance in the mythical continent of
Atlantis.
)In
)Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism, shaving the head has a spiritual
)significance (as indeed, in certain forms of Hinduism *not* cutting the
)hair has spiritual significance). In Christian monasticism, there is the
)shaving of the tonsure (different in the Celtic and Roman churches).
)Orthodox Jews have their curly ear locks, and Muslims place great
)importance on the beard. In fact, is there any spiritual system that
)doesn't attribute some form of spiritual significance to hair?
Buddhism, etc. are universally seen as *religions*. Most Anthroposophists
claim that Anthroposophy is not *religious* but scientific. By putting
Anthroposophy in the league of religions, James Souttar validates the
Waldorf critics' point, that Waldorf should not be in public education.
By the way, at least some Anthroposophists in The Netherlands do not seem to
object to describing Anthroposophy as religious (has this anything to do
with Dutch education law, which gives any religion the right to found
schools with the same government subsidies as public [in the US sense]
schools, one wonders?)
A few years ago, the review Religieuze bewegingen in Nederland (Religious
movements in The Netherlands) had an issue on Anthroposophy. Most articles
in it were by leading Anthroposophists. They apparently had not demanded
that the review should change its name to *Scientific* movements in The
Netherlands first.
The Anthroposophists in The Netherlands city of Haarlem have their own
Internet web page (it does not work because of some technical hiccup, so I
am not giving the URL). In The Netherlands, there is a firm called Nedstat;
a bit like Web Counter. It counts how many people visit your site; where
they are from, etc. (interesting stuff, really, and free. But I am not on
their payroll, so I won't give this URL either). If you submit your site to
Nedstat, you have to fill in, in what category (Sports, Science, etc.) the
site fits. The Haarlem Anthroposophists chose the category Religion.
greetings
Herman de Tollenaere
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n540.9 ---------------
From: Luna457954 aol.com
Subject: Re: Daily Northwestern on Waldorf and 'races'
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 22:37:18 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 10/17/97 5:49:57 PM, hermantl stad.dsl.nl wrote:
((Out of the group of 13 white and two Asian children, 10
students have blond hair and blue eyes.
))
If WE is so racist, please explain, if you will, why the school my kids
attend have many children who are not only not white, but are of mixed
parentage.
And tell me also why our Faculty Chair is also of mixed parentage.
Take care,
Kelly
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n540.10 ---------------
From: Luna457954 aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: Daily Northwestern on Waldorf and 'races'
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 22:43:48 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 10/17/97 11:22:18 PM, premo cruzio.com wrote:
(() But kindergartners at Great Oaks cannot enter first grade
) until they have lost all their baby teeth, Johnson said. ))
My daughter is in the fifth grade at our Waldorf School. She has lost two
"baby teeth" in the past three days. I don't think she'd fit in in the
Kindergarten.
Take Care,
Kelly (who would like to be in the Kindergarten herself)
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n540 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n541 --------------
001 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Re: Re: Daily Northwestern on Waldorf and 'races'
002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - waldorf list flaming
003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - RE: Daily Northwestern on Waldorf and 'races'
004 - RigbyL aol.com - Re: A Pump to Pump Discussion
005 - Neil Faiman (faiman zko.d - Re: Daily Northwestern on Waldorf and 'races'
006 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: waldorf list flaming
007 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: Is Anthroposophy a religion? (was: A Pump to Pump Discussi
008 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Re: Daily Northwestern on Waldorf and 'races'
009 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: SF State hosting cult medical course
010 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Re: Daily Northwestern on Waldorf and 'races'
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n541.1 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Re: Re: Daily Northwestern on Waldorf and 'races'
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 1997 20:31:53 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710180244.TAA26551 lists1.best.com)
)In a message dated 10/17/97 11:22:18 PM, premo cruzio.com wrote:
)
)(() But kindergartners at Great Oaks cannot enter first grade
)) until they have lost all their baby teeth, Johnson said. ))
)
)
)My daughter is in the fifth grade at our Waldorf School. She has lost two
)"baby teeth" in the past three days. I don't think she'd fit in in the
)Kindergarten.
)
)Take Care,
)Kelly (who would like to be in the Kindergarten herself)
My 13 yo son has yet to loose his baby teeth. I think the author may have
misunderstood, or the teacher was unclear. Anthroposophical education
_does_ use the loss of baby teeth as a yard stick for entering first grade.
I think if they have lost one or two, they will pass the test. Personally I
think it is genetic. My oldest daughter _walked_ before she had _any_
teeth. (She crawled at 6mo., walked at 8 1/2 mo., and broke her first tooth
at 10 1/2 mo.) She did not begin to loose her baby teeth until third
grade.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n541.2 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: waldorf list flaming
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 00:20:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Things are getting a little -warm- over on the Waldorf supporters mailing
list. See the following from Vicki Scholtz (vicki socsci.uct.ac.za):
)now I know where all the right wing extremists that couldn't live
)with the New South Africa went to.... I have seldom witnessed such
)lack of tolerance outside of racial bigotry in SA, and assumed that,
)as locally, Waldorf would have attracted the more open minded,
)mature, generous spirits, rather than the defensiveness demonstrated
)over the last few days on this listserv! If people are secure in
)themselves, and their convictions, why are they so threatened by
)people asking inconvenient questions? Do these people wear white
)pointy hoods at night?
)Vicki
Leigh Smith (leigh.smith uc.edu) said:
)Why is it that every school seems to have a group of rigid anthropops who
)view Steiner as a god-head/pope of the Waldorf Education Movement.
)Everything the guy says should be accepted without question. If anyone asks
)questions, why then he hasn't "read enough", or he hasn't the devotion to
)the movement. In my opinion, it is opinions like this which are clearly the
)most dangerous to the *survival* (yes I said survival) of the Waldorf
)Movement. I can't even count the number of families who have left schools
)exactly because of this rigidity. It certainly gives credence to Dugans'
)arguments (I don't accept them) about anthroposophical *DOGMA* in the
)schools.
Neil Faiman (faiman ZKO.DEC.COM) wrote (quoting Dan Jorgensen?):
))But I expect that if you took a synopsis of all that Steiner wrote and
))submitted it to a random sampling of the general
))population, "wacko" is probably one of the milder comments you would get.
)If Waldorf education is to be dependent on true believers, people who
)are too complacent to look into the writings of its founder, and people
)who are too tactful to express their feelings on what they find there,
)it is in very serious trouble.
And our good friend James Souttar (ancient URIZEN.DEMON.CO.UK) said:
)I'm a perfect example of the kind of person Neil described - persuaded by
)the intelligence, humanity and wit of those who support Waldorf Education
)on the critics list, but utterly dismayed by the bigotry, parochialism and
)(most recently) cloying sentimentality of those who claim to support it on
)this. It really does seem sometimes as if there were two Waldorfs - one
)fighting for one of the most far reaching and truly extraordinary
)pedagogies ever developed, the other complacent with beeswax candles,
)pentatonic lyres and the absence of tv. [I've even contemplated
)unsubscribing from both lists, rather than than live with the cognitive
)dissonance this situation creates].
Things have opened up quite a bit since Lefty gave control of the list to
Dick Oliver. Some very frank opinions are being aired. This is healthy for
the Waldorf movement. Dick's getting nervous and trying to hold things down
without being a fascist. He has his hands full.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n541.3 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: RE: Daily Northwestern on Waldorf and 'races'
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 01:07:47 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
He interviewed me, but did his own research, too. I don't have any quotes
from "Being of Man and His Future Evolution" in my database or on the web
site; he must have looked for Steiner in the library.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n541.4 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Re: A Pump to Pump Discussion
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 07:36:59 -0400 (EDT)
Brian:
(( I am not a doctor, so I'm not really qualified to judge these
descriptions of the heart's function. However, I do know that neither blood
nor water can "pump itself". In your example, it seems fairly clear to me
that gravity is pumping the water.))
Sorry, I must not have expressed myself clearly. When I said "in a sense"
water pumps itself, I was only calling attention to a relevant part of the
total picture--that is, relevant in terms of what Steiner may have been
suggesting about recasting the metaphor of the heart as a pump. Of course we
would say that gravity acts on the mass of the water (the part of the water
that motivates the pump) which then through its movement provides the energy
that drives the pump. I assume that an hydraulic ram would not work on the
space station Mir (but then, what does?). There is nothing at all mystical
about this, as long as we don't inquire too deeply into the true nature of
"gravity."
The point of the hydraulic ram analogy, as I take it, is to draw attention to
the possibility that circulating blood acquires momentum from factors other
than the pumping effect of the heartbeat. These other factors, whatever they
be, are analogous to "gravity" in the hydraulic ram model.
((Mr. Tonkin's description is even more alarming. I believe that "the
squeezing of the corpuscles through capillaries" is accounted for by a
scientific phenomenon known as "capillary action". As far as I know, there
is nothing here that a
mechanical view "has yet to fully account for". Also, I am mystified by the
description of the heart as a "mixing vortex". What does this mean?))
It's too bad Stephen is no longer a participant here, as I am sure he would
be able to give you helpful responses to your points. I gather from the
discussion among anthro-science discussants that the special fluid dynamics
associated with capillaries may indeed be an important factor, at least on
the arterial side of the system. It seems more questionable on the venous
side, since the capillaries there are in essence the starting point for the
flow. As for a mixing vortex, my understanding is that the heart beats with
a kind of rotary thrust, which induces vortices within the blood it contains.
This is all interesting stuff, I think, but my major point was really that
the parent of a Waldorf student should expect a science teacher to account
for the content of his or her teaching in terms that are grounded in
conventional science, with no reliance on esoterica from Steiner. Of course,
even reference to "conventional science" may leave room for differences of
opinion, as exemplified by your recent discussion with James.
((Similarly, I'm no expert on modern physics, but I know enough to get by.
I think the scientific world would be absolutely shocked to learn that the
interior of the sun is anything but normal space.))
Maybe. But the scientific world seems to have adjusted well to ideas like
curved spacetime, black holes, antimatter, probability waves that collapse
upon being observed, multiple universes, etc. Negative space, whatever that
may mean, doesn't seem like a far stretch. Maybe negative space is what
"connects" black holes with stars like the sun. Black holes suck up light;
stars spit it out again.
If the mathematics of "counter-space" stand up under the inspection of
conventional mathematical physicists, I believe they would have to give the
idea as much credibility as other contemporary theories of physics. Even if
that were to occur, I don't think it would in itself say anything about the
nature of space within the Sun. But it might stimulate interest in
investigating the question, just as Einstein's theory led to investigation
that likely would not otherwise have been undertaken.
((What observations have led to such a radical theory?))
I expect Dan Dugan and friends would say they were observations from within
the deranged mind of Rudolf Steiner. Anthroposophists would likely describe
them as observations made during his ventures into non-ordinary reality.
((All this aside, I am pleased to see you say that "Some Steiner followers
have made what I find to be strained and unconvincing attempts to justify
his statement". This seems like good evidence that you do not take
Steiner's words as literal truth. Are the church elders aware of your
heresy?))
Actually, they've been quite nice to me recently. They have invited me to a
special cookout on All Hallow's Eve--something about burning steaks.
Rigby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n541.5 ---------------
From: Neil Faiman (faiman zko.dec.com)
Subject: Re: Daily Northwestern on Waldorf and 'races'
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 08:36:43 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
You can tell that it's student work. More experienced journalists =
usually have learned to do a "hatchet job" while still creating the =
illusion of unbiased reportage.
Readers on this list, of course, will realize that the author simply got =
his Steiner quotes predigested from Dan and/or Dr. de Tollenaere, but I =
suppose that readers of the Daily Northwestern will be impressed by the =
"depth" of his scholarship.
It's a little disappointing, though, that he couldn't have come up with =
some heart-wrenching horror stories from disillusioned ex-Waldorf =
parents, especially after Dan put out a special appeal for him on the =
Waldorf Critics list.
-Neil Faiman
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n541.6 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: waldorf list flaming
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 18:09:36 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710180720.AAA04344 lists1.best.com)
Dan:
)And our good friend James Souttar (ancient URIZEN.DEMON.CO.UK) said: [...]
Thank you for extending the courtesy of asking my permission before
reposting my words here. Not!
In any case, I assume that they appear here for your own benefit - since
everyone but yourself can read them in the (unexpurgated) original on the
Waldorf list.
James
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n541.7 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Is Anthroposophy a religion? (was: A Pump to Pump Discussion)
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 18:02:44 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710172306.QAA12412 lists1.best.com)
Herman:
)Buddhism, etc. are universally seen as *religions*. Most Anthroposophists
)claim that Anthroposophy is not *religious* but scientific. By putting
)Anthroposophy in the league of religions, James Souttar validates the
)Waldorf critics' point, that Waldorf should not be in public education.
I hope that your reasoning is better in your scholarly papers - otherwise,
we might justly fear for the state of Dutch Academia.
Because Steiner took an interest in spirituality - and made pronouncements
on the subject - does not, of course, mean that his pedagogical work has to
be interpreted as religious. As an analogy, Linus Pauling received two
Nobel prizes - one for Chemistry, the other a Peace prize. But to imply
that his scientific work was therefore political is very, very flawed
reasoning.
To get from what I said to ' James Souttar validates the Waldorf critics'
point, that Waldorf should not be in public education' involves two
incredibly fallacious steps of argument. The first is the implication that
by mentioning the similarity of Steiner's pronouncements on hair to those
of other religious and philosophical traditions, I was therefore asserting
that Waldorf was also religious - a point that is hotly denied by Waldorf
supporters. The second is that having thus supposedly demonstrated Waldorf
to be religious, I had therefore resoundly demonstrated that it should not
be in public education.
For the record, I (like most of my compatriots) accept that 'religious'
education has a perfectly acceptable place the public sector - a place that
it fills, with great success, in both the UK and the Netherlands. So it is
incomprehensible that I could have unwittingly bolstered the critics case
in this respect.
I'm thinking more and more about Michael's 'pit of unreason'. Convince me
that posts such as yours, entirely lacking in logical rigour and
demonstrating the most stupefying feats of intellectual sleight-of-hand,
don't belong in it.
James
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n541.8 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Re: Daily Northwestern on Waldorf and 'races'
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 19:48:03 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 08:36 AM 18/10/97 -0400, Neil Faiman wrote:
)Readers on this list, of course, will realize that the author simply got
his Steiner quotes predigested from Dan and/or Dr. de Tollenaere,
In fact, not a single Steiner quote came from me. As Dan wrote, the author
[Aurin Squire] probably did his own research in the library or somewhere.
)It's a little disappointing, though, that he couldn't have come up with
some heart-wrenching horror stories from disillusioned ex-Waldorf parents,
He could have come up with more than Dan's, but apparently chose not to, as
he wrote an article for the *City* section of his daily. I sent him plenty
of information (not quoted in the Daily Northwestern article) about Dutch
ex-Waldorf parents who withdrew their children after finding out about the
contents of the subject Racial Ethnography. This issue led to a marked drop
in enrollment in Waldorf in The Netherlands. Apparently, Neil Faiman does
not know this; he probably missed my discussion with Robert Flannery on this
list on this a few days ago.
greetings
Herman de Tollenaere
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n541.9 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: SF State hosting cult medical course
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 11:25:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sorry I posted a duplicate of this by accident.
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n541.10 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Re: Daily Northwestern on Waldorf and 'races'
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 11:25:57 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
))(() But kindergartners at Great Oaks cannot enter first grade
))) until they have lost all their baby teeth, Johnson said. ))
Perhaps in the interview the teacher spoke the often-used formula "after
the change of teeth."
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n541 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n542 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: waldorf list flaming
002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - RE: The Waldorf Agenda
003 - Luna457954 aol.com - opinions, opinions
004 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Re: Is Anthroposophy a religion? (was: A Pump to Pump
Discus
005 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Re: Is Anthroposophy a religion? (was: A Pump to Pump
Discus
006 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Buddhism, New Age, and Anthroposophy (RE: The Waldorf Agenda)
007 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - admin: web counter
008 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Buddhism, New Age, and Anthroposophy (RE: The Waldorf Agen
009 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: waldorf list flaming
010 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: waldorf list flaming (SOUTTAR quote)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n542.1 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: waldorf list flaming
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 11:25:53 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I quoted James Souttar,
))It really does seem sometimes as if there were two Waldorfs - one
))fighting for one of the most far reaching and truly extraordinary
))pedagogies ever developed, the other complacent with beeswax candles,
))pentatonic lyres and the absence of tv. [I've even contemplated
))unsubscribing from both lists, rather than than live with the cognitive
))dissonance this situation creates].
The "one of the most far reaching and truly extraordinary pedagogies ever
developed" is an illusion, James, a fond desire that I shared when I was a
Waldorf parent.
-Sincerely, Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n542.2 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: RE: The Waldorf Agenda
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 11:25:59 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Brian, you said,
)What I'm trying to assess is Waldorf's actual dangerousness. Should I
)be warning friends? Should I alert my local newspaper? These are
)questions I would like to see the Waldorf critics answer.
My brief statement is that it's a cult-like religious sect, but it isn't
dangerous because the founder is dead. Though it's totalistic, its central
authoritarianism is weak, so the possibility of serious abuse is low. It's
a cult in the process of becoming a legitimate religion.
Not a dangerous cut, just a stupid one.
The most dangerous element is the promotion of Anthroposophical medicine.
Next on the list might be the quality of the teacher training and pedagogy,
but as I said, that's mostly just stupid and more of a consumer fraud
issue.
Should you be warning friends? Yes, if they're looking for a school, you
should tell them Waldorf doesn't present itself honestly. If they're into
new-age spirituality, Buddhism, etc., it might be just what they want.
Should you alert the local newspaper? If there's a proposal for a
publicly-funded school in your area, by all means.
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n542.3 ---------------
From: Luna457954 aol.com
Subject: opinions, opinions
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 14:43:43 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 10/18/97 6:36:35 PM, dan dandugan.com wrote:
((The "one of the most far reaching and truly extraordinary pedagogies ever
developed" is an illusion, James, a fond desire that I shared when I was a
Waldorf parent.
-Sincerely, Dan Dugan))
This sounds to me like opinion, not fact, Mr. Dugan.
How about an "in my opinion it is an illusion"?
Others opine differently.
take care,
Kelly
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n542.4 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Re: Is Anthroposophy a religion? (was: A Pump to Pump
Discussion)
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 21:30:52 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 06:02 PM 18/10/97 +0000, James Souttar wrote:
)Herman:
)
))Buddhism, etc. are universally seen as *religions*. Most Anthroposophists
))claim that Anthroposophy is not *religious* but scientific. By putting
))Anthroposophy in the league of religions, James Souttar validates the
))Waldorf critics' point, that Waldorf should not be in public education.
James denies that
)by mentioning the similarity of Steiner's pronouncements on hair to those
)of other religious
As I said last time: some similarity yes, identity no. The other religions
which James named in his earlier post, keep hair *as remnant of conductors
for clairvoyance in the mythical ancient continent of Atlantis* of which
Steiner speaks, out of it.
)and philosophical traditions,
James earlier post did not name a single *non-religious* philosophical
tradition; only *religions*.
) I was therefore asserting
)that Waldorf was also religious - a point that is hotly denied by Waldorf
)supporters.
Not by all of them; for instance, in The Netherlands, as I showed.
Please, *read* your own posts, and the posts to which you react, before flaming.
Herman de Tollenaere
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n542.5 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Re: Is Anthroposophy a religion? (was: A Pump to Pump
Discussion)
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 21:30:48 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 01:05 AM 18/10/97 +0200, I wrote:
)The Anthroposophists in The Netherlands city of Haarlem have their own
)Internet web page (it does not work because of some technical hiccup, so I
)am not giving the URL). In The Netherlands, there is a firm called Nedstat;
)a bit like Web Counter. It counts how many people visit your site; where
)they are from, etc. (interesting stuff, really, and free. But I am not on
)their payroll, so I won't give this URL either). If you submit your site to
)Nedstat, you have to fill in, in what category (Sports, Science, etc.) the
)site fits. The Haarlem Anthroposophists chose the category Religion.
I have to correct my earlier mail. Today, the Haarlem Anthroposophists' site
*did* work after the earlier problems. It is at
http://home.wxs.nl/~verho037/home.html
It announces, for instance, a lecture on Karma on 23 March.
Jan Verhoeven of this site includes an essay by himself on Steiner's views
on races, which he defends on the lines of: Steiner was clairvoyant, so his
views have a deep esoteric meaning.
Verhoeven also includes an essay of his own on the hidden esoteric meaning
of the Internet. He concludes [my translation from the Dutch original]:
'By our disposition in using this Internet we will be able to free captive
elemental beings [Dutch: 'gevangen elementenwezens'] and to absorb them into
our souls'.
'Elemental beings' are an idea of nineteenth century Spiritualism,
popularized by Madame Blavatsky, Annie Besant, C.W. Leadbeater, G. Hodson,
and other clairvoyants of the Theosophical Society. They are supposedly
subhuman beings, like hobgoblins or 'nature spirits'; invisible to ordinary
people, but visible to clairvoyants.
So, if Mr Verhoeven is right, what am I, what are all you other people on
this list, still doing on the Internet? 'freeing captive elemental beings'?
Someone call Ghostbusters, please!
greetings
Herman de Tollenaere
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n542.6 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Buddhism, New Age, and Anthroposophy (RE: The Waldorf Agenda)
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 22:14:05 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 11:25 AM 18/10/97 -0700, Dan Dugan wrote:
)Should you be warning friends? Yes, if they're looking for a school, you
)should tell them Waldorf doesn't present itself honestly. If they're into
)new-age spirituality, Buddhism, etc., it might be just what they want.
'Buddhism', as in '*esoteric* Buddhism' of Western occultists, is not
necessarily identical with as seen by Buddhists.
Certainly the Buddhists in The Netherlands, Belgium, and South Africa whom I
know, disagree sharply with being lumped together with Anthroposophy or New
Age. This showed for instance in the Belgian parliamentary committee on
cults, when a Buddhist witness answered a question on Anthroposophy.
One of the best known Dutch critics of 'new-age spirituality' is a Buddhist-
etc.
greetings and best wishes for the site and all of the list,
Herman de Tollenaere
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n542.7 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: admin: web counter
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 01:41:59 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On around the 13th the Web Counter for the PLANS page read 7534 since 8/12/96.
We keep an average of about 24 hits/day.
http://www.waldorfcritics.org
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n542.8 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Buddhism, New Age, and Anthroposophy (RE: The Waldorf Agenda)
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 02:26:16 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Herman quoted me,
))Should you be warning friends? Yes, if they're looking for a school, you
))should tell them Waldorf doesn't present itself honestly. If they're into
))new-age spirituality, Buddhism, etc., it might be just what they want.
and commented:
)'Buddhism', as in '*esoteric* Buddhism' of Western occultists, is not
)necessarily identical with as seen by Buddhists.
)
)Certainly the Buddhists in The Netherlands, Belgium, and South Africa whom I
)know, disagree sharply with being lumped together with Anthroposophy or New
)Age. This showed for instance in the Belgian parliamentary committee on
)cults, when a Buddhist witness answered a question on Anthroposophy.
)
)One of the best known Dutch critics of 'new-age spirituality' is a Buddhist-
)etc.
Interesting. In my survey of the S.F. Waldorf School parents, six of the 32
respondents professed some variety of Buddhism. They were the largest faith
group. Second place was "no answer" with five, and "no religion" with five
each. None of the respondents came from Buddhist families.
So I've harbored a suspicion that California Buddhist converts like Waldorf.
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n542.9 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: waldorf list flaming
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 23:25:55 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710180720.AAA04344 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan said:
)Things are getting a little -warm- over on the Waldorf supporters mailing
)list. See the following from Vicki Scholtz (vicki socsci.uct.ac.za):
)
[snip]
)
)Things have opened up quite a bit since Lefty gave control of the list to
)Dick Oliver. Some very frank opinions are being aired. This is healthy for
)the Waldorf movement. Dick's getting nervous and trying to hold things down
)without being a fascist. He has his hands full.
KOPP says:
But he wouldn't let me back on.
I tried an auto sub, got intercepted by Lefty's left-over punji-pit, and
Dick said there must be some reason why I was so completely barred, and
he's look into it.
Never heard another word.
Sure he's trying not to be a fascist?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n542.10 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: waldorf list flaming (SOUTTAR quote)
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 23:35:56 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710180720.AAA04344 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan quoted James Souttar from the Waldorf list:
SOUTTAR said:
))I'm a perfect example of the kind of person Neil described - persuaded by
))the intelligence, humanity and wit of those who support Waldorf Education
))on the critics list, but utterly dismayed by the bigotry, parochialism and
))(most recently) cloying sentimentality of those who claim to support it on
))this. It really does seem sometimes as if there were two Waldorfs - one
))fighting for one of the most far reaching and truly extraordinary
))pedagogies ever developed, the other complacent with beeswax candles,
))pentatonic lyres and the absence of tv. [I've even contemplated
))unsubscribing from both lists, rather than than live with the cognitive
))dissonance this situation creates].
KOPP says:
Well, it may be a "far reaching and truly extraordinary pegagogy" but it
sure has failed my kids, despite my appreciation for some of its techniques
and methods (particularly the integrated lessons and the lack of
competitive pressure).
Jimmy, of course, being a defender of the faith, is every bit as dogmatic,
parochial and sentimental about it as the people he's now slagging off.
But, then, he's one of those "intelligent, humane and witty" ones he thinks
so much of on the WC list.
It bears repeating time after time after time: it beggars the imagination
how supposedly "intelligent" people can be so arrogant and cocksure that
they never, ever, change their opinions, or admit that a critical point is
correct, or that nothing has changed in Steiner's cult since he died.
If Souttar had the same respect for the "intelligent, humane, witty" and
_wise_ comments of any of the critics, he might actually make some progress
towards engagement, instead of detente and cold war tactics.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n542 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n543 --------------
001 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Daily Northwestern on Waldorf and 'races'
002 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: opinions, opinions
003 - litvas icu.com - Absolutely Negatively
004 - litvas icu.com - Detente and Cold War Tactics
005 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Re: Buddhism, New Age, and Anthroposophy (RE: The Waldorf
Ag
006 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: A Pump to Pump Discussion
007 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Is Anthroposophy a religion?
008 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: The Waldorf Agenda
009 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Absolutely Negatively
010 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Steiner star-chamber (Was Re: Absolutely Negatively)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n543.1 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Daily Northwestern on Waldorf and 'races'
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 23:54:22 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710181455.HAA05220 lists1.best.com)
Neil Faiman takes on the job of journalism teacher:
)You can tell that it's student work. More experienced journalists usually
)have learned to do a "hatchet job" while still creating the illusion of
)unbiased reportage.
KOPP says:
So all journalists do "hatchet jobs", but students just don't know how to
make them look good? And "more experienced journalists" do?
Seems to me that the more experienced the journalist, the harder-hitting
they are when they get hold of something dark and unpleasant that needs
dragging into the light of day.
My take on this is that the guy saw a good news story from the view of his
editors: racism in schools is a big issue. A good news story is one that
reveals something that smells. Racism smells. Steiner's writings, if not
his followers and his educational movement, exhibit racist tendencies. Good
story.
FAIMAN says:
)Readers on this list, of course, will realize that the author simply got
)his Steiner quotes predigested from Dan and/or Dr. de Tollenaere, but I
)suppose that readers of the Daily Northwestern will be impressed by the
)"depth" of his scholarship.
The journalist told me (I took the trouble to inquire, Faiman, rather than
do a "hatchet job" like yours, and I have no reason to disbelieve him) that
he got the quotes out of the one single Steiner book on his own before he
ever made contact with Dan Dugan.
FAIMAN says:
)It's a little disappointing, though, that he couldn't have come up with
)some heart-wrenching horror stories from disillusioned ex-Waldorf parents,
)especially after Dan put out a special appeal for him on the Waldorf
)Critics list.
KOPP says:
I don't know that he didn't. I didn't give him any, because I was hoping he
would do his own homework, and I didn't want to interfere from the point of
view of a professional journalist and journalism teacher.
The student is not a journalism student, but a broadcasting student. He has
worked for real newspapers, and, as I said before, the Daily Northwestern
is about as close as a student newspaper can get to being a "real
newspaper".
There are faults with the story. It is sensationalist, which is to be
expected in the current era of info-tainment. I deplored that to the
journalist. It is shallow about a complex subject. I told him that. It
reaches no conclusions.
I do not think the fact that it hits hard on the racism angle is either
bias or slant -- merely news-peg. If more people understood the role,
function and nature of media in society, we might have better media.
Faiman should read up on American newspaper history and criticism before he
gets his shotgun out to make cheap points for the
Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy faith.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n543.2 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: opinions, opinions
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 00:06:24 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710181843.LAA17367 lists1.best.com)
Kelly says:
)In a message dated 10/18/97 6:36:35 PM, dan dandugan.com wrote:
)
)((The "one of the most far reaching and truly extraordinary pedagogies ever
)developed" is an illusion, James, a fond desire that I shared when I was a
)Waldorf parent.
)
)-Sincerely, Dan Dugan))
)
)This sounds to me like opinion, not fact, Mr. Dugan.
)How about an "in my opinion it is an illusion"?
)Others opine differently.
Kelly, you just shot down your own argument:
You are right to say the others -- mainly the "defenders of the faith" --
"opine", which means that everything they say is just an opinion.
However, they are the most arrogant, dogmatic opinions, presented as fact.
I've never heard a defender admit to anything less than total certainty in
terms of any view of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposphy.
The very nature of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy _is that it cannot be
proven to be fact_! There is no *evidence* for any of Steiner's
supernatural spiritualism.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n543.3 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com
Subject: Absolutely Negatively
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 97 08:58:40 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 10/19/97 7:35 AM, Michael Kopp wrote:
)It bears repeating time after time after time: it beggars the imagination
)how supposedly "intelligent" people can be so arrogant and cocksure that
)they never, ever, change their opinions, or admit that a critical point is
)correct, or that nothing has changed in Steiner's cult since he died.
On 10/19/97 8:06 AM, Michael Kopp wrote in a similar vein:
)I've never heard a defender admit to anything less than total certainty in
)terms of any view of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposphy.
Rigby said ("A Pump to Pump DIscussion") as recently as four days ago:
)Some Steiner followers have made what I find to be strained and unconvincing
)attempts to justify his statement [that the heart is not a pump]--the sort of
thing that )seems to start with the unspoken premise that it must be
true because Steiner said it, and )then seeks any plausible explanation.
Rigby is internationally recognized as a "defender of the faith".
A week ago, I wrote:
)For simplicity's sake, let's agree that Rudolf Steiner has passages in
)his lectures or writings which can reasonably be construed to promote
)racial stereotypes.
This was written in response to a critical position.
So far as other examples are concerned, as soon as a reasonable critique
comes forth, you'll find many "defenders" willing to recognize it as
valid.
We will not admit that a critical point is correct if it has no basis in
fact or is an inflammatory exaggeration.
Despite what you might think, we are a fairly critical bunch ourselves,
and are quite capable of seeing waldorf education and Rudolf Steiner for
what they truly are, warts and all (cf. the original posts of Faiman and
Souttar partially copied here from the waldorf list).
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n543.4 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com
Subject: Detente and Cold War Tactics
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 97 08:59:04 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 10/19/97 7:35 AM, Michael Kopp wrote:
)If Souttar had the same respect for the "intelligent, humane, witty" and
)_wise_ comments of any of the critics, he might actually make some progress
)towards engagement, instead of detente and cold war tactics.
On 10/15/97 8:57 AM, Michael Kopp wrote (referring to a remark I made
about how much I had enjoyed his post poking fun at the Marine Corps):
)Well, I guess Mr Flannery's comment, above, explains a bit about why they
)call Marines "jarheads": they're too stupid to understand the insults, or
)they think insults to the Marines are really compliments.
)
)Been to a VA hospital for a brain-scan lately, Mr Flannery? Or did you
)leave it at Camp Pendleton or Parris Island?
I'm curious, Michael. How would you characterize your remarks, above.
Were they intelligent? Or warm? Or witty? Or wise?
I chose to ignore them at the time you posted, and wondered what purpose
they served beyond angering me. They redeem themselves in giving the lie
to your own intelligent/warm/witty/wise construct. For the most part, I
would describe your posts only as mean-spirited.
In the face of such deliberately provocative material, "cold war tactics
and detente" becomes a best-case scenario.
You leave very little room for practical engagement.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n543.5 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Re: Buddhism, New Age, and Anthroposophy (RE: The Waldorf
Agenda)
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 20:34:16 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 02:26 AM 19/10/97 -0700, Dan Dugan replied to what I wrote:
))Certainly the Buddhists in The Netherlands, Belgium, and South Africa whom I
))know, disagree sharply with being lumped together with Anthroposophy or New
))Age. This showed for instance in the Belgian parliamentary committee on
))cults, when a Buddhist witness answered a question on Anthroposophy.
))
))One of the best known Dutch critics of 'new-age spirituality' is a Buddhist-
))etc.
Dan:
)Interesting. In my survey of the S.F. Waldorf School parents, six of the 32
)respondents professed some variety of Buddhism. They were the largest faith
)group. Second place was "no answer" with five, and "no religion" with five
)each. None of the respondents came from Buddhist families.
)
)So I've harbored a suspicion that California Buddhist converts like Waldorf.
This may very well be true; if you emphasize *converts* [None of the
respondents came from Buddhist families]; and wonder if their conversion was
maybe to a Madame Blavatsky-influenced type of Buddhism.
Compare also your experience with the criticism of Waldorf among Asian
immigrants in California, of whom many may be Buddhists (is this also true
in your experience?)
best wishes
Herman de Tollenaere
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n543.6 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: A Pump to Pump Discussion
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 17:52:09 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Rigby said:
) Of course, even reference to "conventional science" may leave
) room for differences of opinion, as exemplified by your recent
) discussion with James.
Yes. I wish that such differences were always at least pleasant, but
this is sadly not the case. (I might also point out that Steven Rose
doesn't seem to consider himself a "conventional" scientist.)
)
) Black holes suck up light; stars spit it out again.
My understanding is that stars produce light by fairly well-understood
nuclear processes. Quasars, however, are still quite mysterious and
might plausibly play the role of "white holes" such as you describe.
)) What observations have led to such a radical theory?
) I expect Dan Dugan and friends would say they were observations from
) within the deranged mind of Rudolf Steiner. Anthroposophists would
) likely describe them as observations made during his ventures into
) non-ordinary reality.
Oh boy. I think that's simply out of bounds when it comes to science.
You're welcome to visit non-ordinary reality in search of inspiration,
but observations made there are inadmissible because they are, in
principle and in fact, unverifiable.
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n543.7 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Is Anthroposophy a religion?
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 17:52:10 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
James said:
) ) For the record, I (like most of my compatriots) accept that
) 'religious' education has a perfectly acceptable place the
) public sector - a place that it fills, with great success, in
) both the UK and the Netherlands.
) I didn't know that. In the US, religion has absolutely no role in
) government. Most of us would like to keep it that way.
)
) -- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n543.8 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: The Waldorf Agenda
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 17:52:11 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Dan said:
) The most dangerous element is the promotion of Anthroposophical
) medicine.
How so? I don't think I've seen this mentioned before on this list.
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n543.9 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Absolutely Negatively
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 11:03:23 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710191257.FAA23919 lists1.best.com)
Robert Flannery tries unconvincingly to persuade us that Steiner/Waldorf/
Anthroposophical people are oh, so reasonable:
)On 10/19/97 7:35 AM, Michael Kopp wrote:
)
))It bears repeating time after time after time: it beggars the imagination
))how supposedly "intelligent" people can be so arrogant and cocksure that
))they never, ever, change their opinions, or admit that a critical point is
))correct, or that nothing has changed in Steiner's cult since he died.
)
)
)On 10/19/97 8:06 AM, Michael Kopp wrote in a similar vein:
)
))I've never heard a defender admit to anything less than total certainty in
))terms of any view of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposphy.
)
)
)Rigby said ("A Pump to Pump DIscussion") as recently as four days ago:
)
))Some Steiner followers have made what I find to be strained and unconvincing
))attempts to justify his statement [that the heart is not a pump]--the
))sort of
)thing that )seems to start with the unspoken premise that it must be
)true because Steiner said it, and )then seeks any plausible explanation.
KOPP says:
Rigby is performing a guru trick, and raising straw men. Makes him seem
like a reasoning skeptic, condemning excesses of belief.
But _he_ don't admit that `the heart is not a pump' is poppycock; he says
`some faithful have gone over the top' with `strained and unconvincing
attempts' in their belief in Steiner's infallibility. Makes it seem almost
like Rigby occasionally doubts Steiner's word.
It's not the same thing, though, is it. There's no credible scientific
evidence in any of the pseudo-scientific `work' being done by
Anthroposopohical `scientists' on this issue.
Rigby's `criticism' doesn't touch the source: Steiner's statement is left
standing, with neither need for reaffirmation nor battered in any way by
the excesses of the faithful.
Rigby -- and all the other defenders -- should tell us straight out: do
they personally believe that Steiner was right that the heart is not a
pump. You don't have to have blind faith, you don't have to have evidence,
just tell us.
FLANNERY:
)Rigby is internationally recognized as a "defender of the faith".
)
)
)A week ago, I wrote:
)
))For simplicity's sake, let's agree that Rudolf Steiner has passages in
))his lectures or writings which can reasonably be construed to promote
))racial stereotypes.
)
)This was written in response to a critical position.
KOPP says:
Another guru trick from Rigby. Saying Steiner's writing `can rasonably be
construed to promote racial stereotypes' is not the same as admitting that
it does, is it?
But it does, according to the anecdotal evidence of many critics on this
list who have experienced racism in Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical
establishments firsthand, and who have exposed it in the continued teaching
of Waldorf teachers.
Rigby's slipped off the hook again, and the issue is into the realms of
debatability. If something can be construed one way, it can be construed
another.
He's appearing to admit a position, but he's not, really.
Critics take Steiner at his word: he believed this execreble twaddle (or he
was lying), and he wasn't talking about "stereotyping", he was talking
about real people. Rigby -- and you, Mr Flannery -- are just fudging the
issue.
FLANNERY:
)So far as other examples are concerned, as soon as a reasonable critique
)comes forth, you'll find many "defenders" willing to recognize it as
)valid.
)
)We will not admit that a critical point is correct if it has no basis in
)fact or is an inflammatory exaggeration.
)
)Despite what you might think, we are a fairly critical bunch ourselves,
)and are quite capable of seeing waldorf education and Rudolf Steiner for
)what they truly are, warts and all (cf. the original posts of Faiman and
)Souttar partially copied here from the waldorf list).
KOPP says:
Flannery, Rigby and the other defenders of the faith criticise the rabid
brethren not becasue they think they've gone to far, but because it makes
them seem so reasonable while they privately continue to believe these
things themselves, and go on fostering a spiritualism which is
inappropriate in public education, and inappropriate for anyone who doesn't
fully understand its depths and who hasn't decided to embrace the faith.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n543.10 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Steiner star-chamber (Was Re: Absolutely Negatively)
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 11:52:44 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710191257.FAA23919 lists1.best.com)
Robert Flannery, in another thread, tried to make defenders of the faith
seem like skeptics and voices of reason within the
Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical movement (to which I've responded
separately). This post is about my latest encounter with such people:
[snip]
)Despite what you might think, we are a fairly critical bunch ourselves,
)and are quite capable of seeing waldorf education and Rudolf Steiner for
)what they truly are, warts and all (cf. the original posts of Faiman and
)Souttar partially copied here from the waldorf list).
KOPP says:
Well, not in my experience, most recently in what you might call an
Anthroposophical star chamber proceding upon my family's formalising our
exit from our Steiner school at the end of this school year.
I spent an hour with three of these sort of wonderful, questioning,
introspective, responsive, intellectually respectable and respectful people
from our Steiner school last week.
They were the proprietor's group representative, the nominal "principal"
(state integration requires it) from the college of teachers, and another
of the leaders of the school whose technical role I'm not sure of, but who
certainly qualifies as a defender of the faith.
The cause of this lovely tete-a-tete was my final communication to our
school, after a year of asking questions with no, or inadequate, answers;
and after four years in which I never once received any substantive
responses to any of my questions or problems with the method, the practice,
the rigour of the education they gave my kids, specific things they taught,
and the philosophy.
I have detailed many of these instances on this list, and never received
any rebuttal or sympathy from any of the defenders of the faith like Rigby
or Flannery. All I've ever seen is apologia or counter-attacks.
Just one example from my school suffices to remind us here, or to acquaint
new readers.
It was an English main lesson about Greek epic poetry (Homer's Odyssey, a
standard, commendably) that included the startling information that
dactylic hexameter was developed by the ancients because they knew about
the relationship between heartbeat* and breathing rates and something
called the "Platonic Year".
This Platonic Year is better known to modern science as the precession of
the equinoxes, a wholly random cosmic phenomenon. It's caused by that
approximately 26,000 year wobble of the Earth's axis that makes the north
celestial pole describe a circle in the sky, taking that time to go round.
But it wasn't deduced (by a Greek astronomer) until about 400 years after
Homer, and certainly after Plato.
She was talking Anthroposophical, numeralogical, astrological mumbo-jumbo.
(Must have gotten carried away and forgotten the golden rule: no
Anthroposophy in the classroom.)
However, the reason for my visit with the authorities of my school was that
my final letter is formal notice that my second child will be leaving the
school at the end of this school year (Southern Hemisphere school break is
December- January).**
After two months to digest my letter, the school requested that I meet with
these folks so they could -- finally -- `understand where you're coming
from' -- I guess.
So I explained again that I felt that I had been misled before enrolment,
and ignored, and that the school was failing in its legal responsibilities
to teach the state curriculum and to respond to parents. I also said that
it was abundantly apparent to me that Anthroposophy not only "underpinned"
the curriculum, but was IN every aspect and every minute of it.
Over that hour these three worthies (and a fourth, younger teacher whom we
all like, but who is obviously as committed an Anthropop as the others,
without the stridency, and with some apparent genuine concern for me which
I found lacking in the others) essentially spouted the party line, the
dogma that isn't a dogma, and challenged me again and again using
Anthroposophical arguments. I had read it all before here on the Critics
list, so I wasn't surprised.
The hostility of some of these people was palpable. The three elders of
this group sat there like judges: one with an unfriendly, stern look on his
face, and his arms perpetually folded on his chest; one, like a phrophet,
with his alternately Moses-stern, Jesus-kindly, bearded face and his
condescending "if you knew what we knew you wouldn't talk like that"
attitude; and the third like a prim schoolmarm or principal who has to do a
difficult task with an errant child.
Suffice to say that there was absolutely no movement on the part of any of
the four towards an entente (it was too late for that anyway, after four
years of stonewalling). All I got was a prefect's attack on my own thinking
and beliefs, and the curious idea that when one enrols a child in a Steiner
school, one should essentially give that child over to the school's trust
without question, and with dutiful loyalty.
This was perhaps the most incredible thing said during this bizzarre hour.
It reinforces the notions of religous cultism. I can't imagine any parent
not questioning everything about their children's education, no matter what
the source, state, private, or their own.
I did get an apology of sorts -- I think -- for the apparent midleading I
had suffered before enrolling my children. They protested that they were
innocent of any wrongful intent in this misleading, or even any rightful
intent: `If we had known you didn't know what Anthroposophy was, and its
role in the school, we'd have told you more', said the `principal'.
Four years ago she told me I didn't need to know anything about Anthroposophy.
(I didn't take her at her word, which is, of course, the root of my problem.)
(I thought then that I did know something about Anthroposophy, and had gone
well beyond the resources they gave me -- but then there wasn't an Internet
then. Oh, yes, that was one of the criticisms of my views: I got them off
the Internet, instead of learning about Steiner and Anthroposophy first
hand by studying the source material. I've reviewed, since the meeting, the
material I did have, and I still cannot see how I could have known then
what I know now. I would have had to read Dan Dugan's seven-foot bookshelf.
Where were you when I needed you, Dan?)
But, as I told them, this rings hollow because they haven't changed the
pre-enrolment material and information for parents, and, in fact, give less
today than they did when we enrolled.
I left that meeting emotionally drained. I had managed not to get angry. I
had managed to present my views dispassionately -- despite the feeling that
I was being put on trial, not that they were seeking any help from me in
truly understanding where they might have failed me and our children. This
was not an `exit interview', or a real search for understanding; this was a
dismissal***.
What a tragedy -- for all of us. For any other parents who think at all
like me and might enrol their chldren in the future. For a school of people
who I still believe have fundamentally good motives, who care, and who are
not bad people. For my kids, who will have to come to terms with the fact
that something they enjoyed and profited from so much is nonetheless
something that their parents decided they had been wrong about, and which
is not good for them.
How do they now reconcile the irrational things they learned
(phenomenology, anything is possible, every idea has equal merit) with the
rest of their educations?
And for me, who has to suffer the most -- becasue I didn't read that
seven-foot bookshelf first, and was seduced by a reasonable-appearing
chimera.
* Perhaps these were metaphorical "beats" and not the "pumping" that most
of us think we can feel. Did the ancients know the heart is not a pump? If
so, they sure did adopt a peculiar source of inspiration for their
thumping, rhythmic poetry.
** Or she may be. Although _I'm_ withdrawing her formally and ceasing to
pay them, she still wants to stay, despite some understanding of what the
problem is, because she's been there four years and wants to finish school
in 2000 with her friends. (Not something I took lightly in the decision.)
Perhaps she'll decide to overrule me and get the school to place her in a
foster home so she can continue.
*** (BTW, when our son left earlier this year, there was not a peep from
the school about why, either to him or me personally, or officially in the
way of an exit questionnaire. They said last week that there must have been
some admin slipup, because, they say, they certainly have one.)
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n543 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n544 --------------
001 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Detente and Cold War Tactics
002 - RigbyL aol.com - Re: A Pump to Pump Discussion
003 - RigbyL aol.com - Re: Absolutely Negatively
004 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: A Pump to Pump Discussion
005 - litvas icu.com - Re: Absolutely Negatively
006 - litvas icu.com - Re: Detente and Cold War Tactics
007 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Absolutely Negatively
008 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: A Pump to Pump Discussion
009 - spike netshel.net - The heart is not a pump?
010 - spike netshel.net - Honesty & religion
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n544.1 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Detente and Cold War Tactics
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 11:26:03 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710191258.FAA23961 lists1.best.com)
Robert Flannery raises a valid question about Kopp's tactics and manners:
)On 10/19/97 7:35 AM, Michael Kopp wrote:
)
)
))If Souttar had the same respect for the "intelligent, humane, witty" and
))_wise_ comments of any of the critics, he might actually make some progress
))towards engagement, instead of detente and cold war tactics.
)
)
)On 10/15/97 8:57 AM, Michael Kopp wrote (referring to a remark I made
)about how much I had enjoyed his post poking fun at the Marine Corps):
)
)
))Well, I guess Mr Flannery's comment, above, explains a bit about why they
))call Marines "jarheads": they're too stupid to understand the insults, or
))they think insults to the Marines are really compliments.
))
))Been to a VA hospital for a brain-scan lately, Mr Flannery? Or did you
))leave it at Camp Pendleton or Parris Island?
FLANNERY says:
)I'm curious, Michael. How would you characterize your remarks, above.
)Were they intelligent? Or warm? Or witty? Or wise?
KOPP says:
I never talk about myself ... but if you insist --
Intelligent, yes, by definition of myself as a soldier, not a Marine.
Warm ... well, call it "friendly fire" instead of "incoming".
Witty ... nope, not intended to be. A rather blunter instrument, sarcasm.
Wise ... I didn't join the Marines, did I?
Seriously, never claimed wisdom: I lucked out of the Marines in a draft
line, standing there in my shorts and counting off 1-2-3-4 ... "Okay, I
want every swinging dick who said `four' to follow that man in the blue
uniform with the gold stripes -- you lucky pussies are about to get the
chance to become Marine men. The rest of you babies, stand easy and clean
your shorts, you're in MY Army now!" (Sorry for the language, folks, it's a
direct quote, and there's no kiddies listening as far as I know.)
My number was either three or one, the terror was too great for my memory
to recall.
No, I'm not very wise, or I would have read the seven-foot bookshelf before
enrolling my kids in a Steiner school.
FLANNERY:
)I chose to ignore them at the time you posted, and wondered what purpose
)they served beyond angering me. They redeem themselves in giving the lie
)to your own intelligent/warm/witty/wise construct. For the most part, I
)would describe your posts only as mean-spirited.
KOPP says:
I didn't say my characterisation of the critics applied to myself.
A lot of my posts are bitter, scathing, satirical, black comedy.
But then, I have good reason to be bitter about
Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophy -- see my post "Steiner star-chamber".
I didn't intend to anger Flannery, or anyone else, though I assumed that
being a loyal Marine, he wouldn't be too happy.
I admit the "jarhead humour" probably falls flat unless you know the context.
I did write it so flamboyantly that I hoped no one could think I was
seriously questioning Mr Flannery's sanity.
I was questioning his unquestioning loyalty to the Steiner/Waldorf/
Anthroposphical creed, similar to the Marines' "semper fi".
I was using the over-the-top interservice rivalry satirically to make the
point that I think Flannery is as blind an adherent to the faith as any,
despite his appearances of reason -- see my reply to another of his posts,
"Re: Absolutely Negatively".
Of course Flannery has the right to be offended by being called a jarhead,
or to have his beloved Marines insulted. That's the point of satire and
black humour.
In my view, we are not a friendly debating society looking for truth and
rapprochement.
This is an attempt by people who have major concerns about a cult-like
spiritualistic educational movement to expose its weirdness to public view.
And a fight-back by the defenders of the faith to preserve its position as
a reasonable-sounding alternative that's better than the current public
education.
It seems that Flannery has a thinner skin that I thought Marines had.
Defenders like Lefty and Stephen Tonkin could dish it out and take it with
the best of them -- though they were better at dishing it out.
I unreservedly apologise to Mr Flannery for any personal hurt that my
remarks caused him. I don't apologise for using the argument, and I don't
back away from its validity in relation to the defenders of the faith.
FLANNERY continues:
)In the face of such deliberately provocative material, "cold war tactics
)and detente" becomes a best-case scenario.
)
)You leave very little room for practical engagement.
Surely a Marine can find a way? Don't tell me that my Green Beret buddies
in the Army were right, and the only thing Marines are good for is storming
beaches and laying down a carpet of bodies (theirs and the enemy's) for the
second wave?
See, there I go again, when in truth I have nothing but respect for Marines
as fighting men. (They saved my butt a few times, and got me drunk a lot of
times.) And they were always unfailingly courteous, like Mr Flannery.
Until you made a jarhead joke, that is.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n544.2 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Re: A Pump to Pump Discussion
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 18:58:33 -0400 (EDT)
Brian--
(( Oh boy. I think that's simply out of bounds when it comes to science.
You're welcome to visit non-ordinary reality in search of inspiration,
but observations made there are inadmissible because they are, in
principle and in fact, unverifiable.))
Really? Why do you think they need to be unverifiable in ordinary reality?
What does the source of an hypothesis have to do with its verifiability?
Isn't it a matter of its content?
As a practical matter, most scientists may decide they don't want to mess
with ideas that come from strange places, and funding would definitely be
hard to get. This has certainly been the case with most of Steiner's ideas.
Only a relative handful have felt it to be worthwhile to try to figure out
what he meant.
I recognize that hypotheses originating in non-ordinary reality do need
verification, just like all hypotheses that hope to be regarded as
scientific.
I am interested to read the new biography of Newton that James referenced
recently, which evidently goes more deeply into his occult work than previous
bios had done. Perhaps we have all been unwitting victims of Newtonosophy
these many years.
Rigby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n544.3 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Re: Absolutely Negatively
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 19:03:14 -0400 (EDT)
(( KOPP says:
Rigby is performing a guru trick, and raising straw men. Makes him seem
like a reasoning skeptic, condemning excesses of belief. ))
I was excited for a moment at being raised to the rank of guru. But then I
had to consider the source.
Rigby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n544.4 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: A Pump to Pump Discussion
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 18:17:46 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Rigby quoted Brian,
BRIAN
)((Mr. Tonkin's description is even more alarming. I believe that "the
)squeezing of the corpuscles through capillaries" is accounted for by a
)scientific phenomenon known as "capillary action". As far as I know, there
)is nothing here that a
)mechanical view "has yet to fully account for". Also, I am mystified by the
)description of the heart as a "mixing vortex". What does this mean?))
DUGAN
I have a vivid image in my mind of an extraordinary microscope film that
I've seen in more than one TV science program. It shows blood flowing
through capillaries so small that the corpuscles almost stick in them
between heartbeats. This is the bottom level of the blood system.
Obviously, the blood is being -pumped- through even these tiniest
capillaries. Not capillary action. Not the blood moving itself.
A question, Rigby: in Anthroposophical terms, if I see this on a broadcast
of a videotape of a film made through a microscope, am I seeing the
phenomenon, or could my impressions be dismissed as artifacts of the
process?
RIGBY
)This is all interesting stuff, I think, but my major point was really that
)the parent of a Waldorf student should expect a science teacher to account
)for the content of his or her teaching in terms that are grounded in
)conventional science, with no reliance on esoterica from Steiner.
DUGAN
Thanks, Rigby, we're in agreement on this. But given lack of any
non-Anthroposophical science in Waldorf teacher training, and the very bad
science that's typical in Anthroposophical science books and curriculum
guides, how are the teachers supposed to ground their lessons in
conventional science? It seems more likely that in their ignorance they
will err on the side of including Anthroposophical concepts.
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n544.5 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com
Subject: Re: Absolutely Negatively
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 97 21:19:27 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 10/19/97 7:03 PM, Michael Kopp wrote:
)Rigby is performing a guru trick, and raising straw men. Makes him seem
)like a reasoning skeptic, condemning excesses of belief.
(snip Michael's assessment of Rigby's position on the issue, and
Michael's view of the merits of that position)
)Rigby's `criticism' doesn't touch the source: Steiner's statement is left
)standing, with neither need for reaffirmation nor battered in any way by
)the excesses of the faithful.
Michael, this is not an attempt to reopen the "heart" issue.
Rigby said this last week:
)Some Steiner followers have made what I find to be strained and unconvincing
)attempts to justify his statement [that the heart is not a pump]--the sort of
thing that )seems to start with the unspoken premise that it must be
true because Steiner said it, and )then seeks any plausible explanation.
You said this today:
)I've never heard a defender admit to anything less than total certainty in
)terms of any view of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposphy.
My point here is this: All it takes to undermine an absolute statement
like yours is a single contradiction.
If you're going to couch your criticisms as absolutes, be prepared to
stand by what you say.
Don't try to rehash the argument which the example springs from.
)FLANNERY:
)
))A week ago, I wrote:
))
)))For simplicity's sake, let's agree that Rudolf Steiner has passages in
)))his lectures or writings which can reasonably be construed to promote
)))racial stereotypes.
))
))This was written in response to a critical position.
)
)KOPP says:
)
)Another guru trick from Rigby.
Check the header, Michael.
)Saying Steiner's writing `can rasonably be
)construed to promote racial stereotypes' is not the same as admitting that
)it does, is it?
No, it isn't. I bring the racial issue up because it appears as a direct
consequence of the critical activity of this list.
It wasn't anything I've encountered in my personal studies. It isn't
anything I've ever seen at any of the waldorf schools I've been
associated with. I wasn't aware it was an issue for anyone until I heard
about Dan Dugan and this list.
So I have no firsthand experience with it. All I know is what I've seen
on the critics list, and what some anthroposophists say in defense of
these comments.
Fact is, I don't agree with those anthroposophists who try to explain the
quotes away, and I don't agree with the position of the critics that this
proves Steiner a racist and makes waldorf education susceptible to racist
behaviors.
All I know is that what's been quoted "can reasonably be construed to
promote racial stereotypes."
Until I have the time to study it further on my own, I'll leave it at
that.
I'm not taking anybody's word for anything on this one. That means that
it doesn't make any difference to me if it's a critic or anthropop
speaking--I take my own counsel here.
)I've never heard a defender admit to anything less than total certainty in
)terms of *any* [my emphasis] view of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposphy.
If you're going to use absolutes like this, you'll have to answer to my
independence.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n544.6 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com
Subject: Re: Detente and Cold War Tactics
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 97 21:20:42 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 10/19/97 7:26 PM, Michael Kopp wrote:
)I didn't say my characterisation of the critics applied to myself.
You didn't? Read it again.
)If Souttar had the same respect for the "intelligent, humane, witty" and
)_wise_ comments of *any* [my emphasis] of the critics, he might actually make
some progress
)towards engagement, instead of detente and cold war tactics.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n544.7 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Absolutely Negatively
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:24:04 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710192303.QAA07287 lists1.best.com)
)(( KOPP says:
)
) Rigby is performing a guru trick, and raising straw men. Makes him seem
) like a reasoning skeptic, condemning excesses of belief. ))
)
)I was excited for a moment at being raised to the rank of guru. But then I
)had to consider the source.
)
)Rigby
Self-important, aren't you, Rigby. I didn't say you were being raised to
the rank of a guru -- I said you were performing a guru trick.
Beware the apprentice sorcerer, according to Walt Disney.
Your dismissal of the source obviously blinds you to the content of my
criticism in this, as in all dismissals of the critics: your transparent
failure to pull it off because of your faulty logic.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n544.8 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: A Pump to Pump Discussion
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:31:57 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
I said:
)))) What observations have led to such a radical theory?
Rigby said:
))) Anthroposophists would likely describe them as
))) observations made during his ventures into
))) non-ordinary reality.
Then I said:
)) You're welcome to visit non-ordinary reality in
)) search of inspiration, but observations made there are
)) inadmissible because they are, in principle and in fact,
)) unverifiable.
Then Rigby said:
) Really? Why do you think they need to be unverifiable [sic]
) in ordinary reality? What does the source of an hypothesis
) have to do with its verifiability? Isn't it a matter of its content?
I think it's me who has not made himself clear this time. I meant to
distinguish between observation and hypothesis. Hypotheses come from
who-knows-where, but observations come only from ordinary reality.
In short, you can dream up a theory, but you can't dream up a fact.
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n544.9 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: The heart is not a pump?
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 20:40:22 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Souttar writes:
)So, we now have it on record that a distinguished scientist thinks that
)'the heart is a pump' is an ignorant assertion, and not scientific at all.
)Perhaps we can lay this to rest now?
Please enlighten me. What is it then?
Also - what is the "Law of the Heart," per Anthroposophical/Waldorf teaching?
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n544.10 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: Honesty & religion
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 20:40:25 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
JoAnn posted:
)I attended public
)schools for K-12, and except for my 12th grade English teacher, have no
)idea of any of my teachers' religious or philosophic affiliations. (My
)12th grade English teacher got married that summer and invited our class
)to his Catholic wedding -- otherwise I would have no idea of his either.)
)I certainly have no idea what educational philosophy any of them held (if
)indeed there was a coherent educational philosophy used by my school
)district.)
)
Lacking knowledge of a teacher's religious affiliation in a public school
environment is not analogous to lacking knowledge of an entire school's
religious affiliation. This is particularly true when a school not only has
a specific religious affiliation, requires all teachers to have training in
these specific religious beliefs, and bases all pedagogy and curriculum on
these religious beliefs.
)If the _parent_ had been unaware of Anthroposophy after 4 years, that
would be much more problematic.
The child mentioned by Kelly was 13 years old and had been attending a
Waldorf school for 4 - 5 years. I believe in practicing a greater degree of
honesty and open communication with children, particularly young teenagers,
than Kelly's example illustrated. What is the point of keeping this
knowledge from the student? The child is attending a school in which _all_
of the curriculum is based on specific religious beliefs. The child should
be aware of this. To hide this knowledge, even through omission, is
dishonest.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n544 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n545 --------------
001 - spike netshel.net - Dialogue - not insults
002 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Re: A Pump to Pump Discussion
003 - Steve Premo (premo cruzio - Re: A Pump to Pump Discussion
004 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - first sale from bookstore
005 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Buddhism, New Age, and Anthroposophy (RE: The Waldorf Ag
006 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Curriculum Questions
007 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Web site of Anthroposophical hospital in Sweden
008 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - RE: The Waldorf Agenda
009 - rabriggs pacbell.net (Ric - Unsubscribe
010 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: A Pump to Pump Discussion
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n545.1 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: Dialogue - not insults
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 20:40:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Neil Faiman posted:
)Kathy Sutphen recently wrote:
)
)) What I mean is that the Waldorf pedagogy has a
)) hidden purpose that is not communicated to parents, students, public =
)school
)) districts which embrace it, etc. The agenda is to expand the students' =
)soul
)) consciousness in order to prepare them for their next reincarnation. =
)This
)) is done by repeated exercises designed to train students to become =
)adept at
)) "spiritual science" ala Steiner.
Faiman replied:
)
)This comes very close to being the most incredible thing I have ever =
)seen on this list. It is, in my opinion (grounded in considerable =
)Waldorf school experience, as well as moderately extensive reading in =
)the underlying literature of Waldorf education), absolute and =
)unmitigated balderdash.
What part my post is "absolute and unmitigated balderdash?" I believe my
statement to be true based on my experience in the Public School Teacher
Training conducted by the Rudolf Steiner College in Fair Oaks, California.
I also base my beliefs regarding Waldorf education on extensive reading of
books published by the Rudolf Steiner Press. Many of these books are
required reading for RSC's 2-year "college" program. Finally, I base my
beliefs on what I have read on the SJU Waldorf list and the SJU Steiner
list, in addition to postings made by WE supporters here on the Critics
list. I take my learning in this area quite seriously and I would _never_
make a malicious or dishonest statement with the intent to lead others to
believe something that I thought was not true. I know that I am an irritant
to Waldorf supporters, but my intentions are not malicious. If I am
incorrect in my assertions, please engage me in dialogue that is free from
personal insult. Truly, I have had more than my share of it from Waldorf
supporters over the past six months.
I would like to pose the question here, Mr. Faiman. Is it possible to
critique Steiner or Waldorf pedagogy without meeting with hostile personal
abuse? On the SJU Waldorf list I have recently observed a Dan J. treated
with abominable hostility because he posted his belief that Steiner's
beliefs were odd, outdated, and plain nonsense. When you wrote to support
Mr. J. you were also treated to outrageous, personal insults.
I have been treated in this way, on a face-to-face basis, and in postings
directed to me on this list, consistently over the past six months. The
first extreme hostility I experienced came immediately on the heels of
writing a memo to my boss stating that I was uncomfortable with the
spiritual basis of Waldorf education in the public school arena - nothing
more. I simply expressed my discomfort. The hostility of the response was
frightening and sent me "running" for "help." This is how I found PLANS. In
other words, the outrageous hostility of Waldorf supporters chased me into
your "enemy's camp." I would never have even known PLANS existed if I had
not felt so threatened and personally maligned that I was motivated to seek
others that may have perceived or experienced the Waldorf educational
method in a similar manner to my own.
You and other Waldorf supporters need to know, very clearly, that treating
people that question Waldorf or Steiner with hostility in any variety of
forms does nothing to serve your cause. I am particularly surprised that
you have responded to me in a hostile manner considering your recent
experience on the SJU Waldorf list. I am even more surprised considering
what I have read about you as a person, ie: your beliefs, your supportive
role at your school, etc. You sound like a well-intentioned, amiable
person. I too am well-intentioned and amiable. I simply do not like to be
treated rudely or misled. Both of these have occurred to me at the hands of
Waldorf supporters.
)Ms. Sutphen presumably has some good reason to make this assertion. If =
)so, I hope that she will provide her documentation and explanations =
)fully and promptly. I would strongly urge any readers to scrutinize her =
)documentation and reasoning VERY carefully.
One of the documents that I made these claims from was a part of a lecture
that was given to me at the Rudolf Steiner College by a member of the
staff. This document was a photocopy made from a book containing some of
Steiner's lectures. Upon reading this document I became acutely aware that
Waldorf education is based on a religion that believes in previous lives,
future lives, and the need to advance the soul during the present life. The
lecture contained a number of diagrams showing the process of
reincarnation, in addition to other statements regarding Steiner's somewhat
unusual beliefs regarding children and the role of Waldorf education as it
strives to serve their spiritual needs.
)Remember one of the fundamental tenets of skepticism: Exceptional =
)claims require exceptional evidence.
The evidence I have is not particularly exceptional. Anyone can easily
access it at the RSC bookstore or by ordering any books that contain
Steiner's lectures from the Rudolf Steiner Press. I would suggest reading a
few of the books that are required reading for students enrolled in the
full time Waldorf educator training at Rudolf Steiner College. These
beliefs are stated over and over again. In addition I would suggest that
anyone who is skeptical or simply wants to learn more about these beliefs
simply subscribe to the SJU Waldorf and SJU Steiner lists. These and other
unusual spiritual beliefs are discussed in depth on these lists. In
addiition, a subscriber can also see what happens to the occasional
dissident that "slanders" Steiner in any form. Mr. Faiman, you have
recently been treated with abominable contempt on the SJU list for
defending Mr. J's beliefs that Steiner was mentally unbalanced. Had Lefty
Redux still been the list manager I am sure you would have found yourself
removed from the list for making the mild anti-Steiner remarks that you
made.
I request that anyone that does not believe my claims to be true to explain
to me what Rudolf Steiner was speaking of when he addressed subjects
regarding his "spiritual science" in his lectures to his teachers and
others interested in Waldorf education? What was he talking about when he
described, repeatedly, the life of the soul from one incarnation to
another? Tell me, politely, what your interpretation of his beliefs are and
why you disagree with my take on his lectures. What was he speaking of when
he described educating children according to their current level of soul
incarnation? What did he mean when he discussed ways in which teachers can
increase their students' abilities to "see" and "experience" spiritual
realities? What was Steiner's spiritual science if not a religious system
that was based on a belief in reincarnation and the clairvoyant ability to
observe and "test" spiritual phenomena? What are the various exercises for
that are part of the Waldorf pedagogy, such as wet-on-wet painting,
eurythmy, geometric studies throughout the grades, etc., etc., if not to
advance spiritual growth ala Steiner's beliefs. And why are the teachers so
thoroughly trained in these beliefs and how to advance spiritual growth ala
Steiner if this is not the basis for Waldorf education?
I would appreciate dialogue without the personal insults. Please know that
they cause me a good deal of distress. I still have not become calloused
enough to shirk them off and I doubt that I ever will. Granted, this is a
weak point for me, but I suspect all of us experience to some degree an
emotional and physical reaction when our character is attacked.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n545.2 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Re: A Pump to Pump Discussion
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 20:20:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710181137.EAA15964 lists1.best.com)
Rigby writes,
[snip]
)It's too bad Stephen is no longer a participant here, [snip]
What happened to Mr. Tonkin? Dan, did he unsubscribe?
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n545.3 ---------------
From: Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: A Pump to Pump Discussion
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:12:27 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199710192258.PAA06136 lists1.best.com)
On 19 Oct 97 at 18:58, RigbyL aol.com wrote:
) Brian--
)
) (( Oh boy. I think that's simply out of bounds when it comes to science.
) You're welcome to visit non-ordinary reality in search of inspiration,
) but observations made there are inadmissible because they are, in
) principle and in fact, unverifiable.))
Yes indeed. Spiritual experiences are valuable, but as a source of
knowledge about the physical world, they are unreliable.
) I recognize that hypotheses originating in non-ordinary reality do need
) verification, just like all hypotheses that hope to be regarded as
) scientific.
True; as Brian said, non-ordinary reality is fine as a source of
inspiration. This applies both to inspiration with respect to
spiritual meaning, and inspiration with respect to scientific
hypotheses. But until verified, hypotheses have limited value.
The problem is when Steiner's hypotheses are taken as being true
until proved wrong. Unless there is *some* corroboration in the
physical world, a hypothesis based on spiritual experience has no
more scientific value than a hunch.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n545.4 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: first sale from bookstore
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:42:20 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The bookstore on the PLANS web page made its first sale today, a copy of
Storr's "Feet of Clay." An excellent choice, I'm sure the reader will be
pleased. We made a commission of $2.52.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n545.5 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Buddhism, New Age, and Anthroposophy (RE: The Waldorf Agenda)
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:42:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Herman commented,
)Compare also your experience with the criticism of Waldorf among Asian
)immigrants in California, of whom many may be Buddhists (is this also true
)in your experience?)
Good point. The Hmong leaders I have spoken with in Sacramento seemed to
have little concern with the spiritual aspects of Waldorf. Their concerns
were practical. The did handcrafts in the old country. Here they don't want
their kids to learn knitting, they want them to learn computers.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n545.6 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Curriculum Questions
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:42:02 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I wrote to Ken of the Waldorf list,
))I don't care for your implication that one must teach either "hard
))sciences" OR "compassion and helping others." How about teaching hard
))sciences AND compassion and helping others?
And James Souttar commented,
)But, but, but... It's *precisely* the objectification of the world that the
)'hard sciences' teach that is responsible for dignifying the eighties 'me
)first' attitude.
Ever hear of secular humanism? The American Humanist Association says:
"Humanism is free from any belief in the supernatural and is dedicated to
the search for meaning and values for individuals on Earth through reliance
upon intelligence and the scientific method, democracy, and social
sympathy." We humanists think objectivity and morality go hand in hand.
)These days, of course, 'hard sciences' mean those
)disciplines that have yet to really 'get' quantum physics - and are still
)stuck in a kind of Neo-Newtonian clockwork universe.
James, you position yourself in the fuzzy-thinking party that uses the
anomalies of quantum physics to justify mysticism. Personally, I don't
accept the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, so I'm not
impressed.
)The point is that these two perspectives ('hard science' and 'compassion
)and helping others') are ultimately mutually exclusive. One posits a world
)in which existence is accidental and meaningless - and that human purpose
)is to ruthlessly preserve our pathetic little individual genetic
)inheritance.
Not to a secular humanist. We decide our own purposes.
)The other requires, to a greater or lesser degree, the
)contradiction of all of these notions. [Of course there is a cynical kind
)of selfish selflessness - which asserts that if we don't look after others
)they'll come back to bug us later - but this is really beneath contempt.]
The evolutionary origins of altruism are a hot topic in evolutionary
biology today. My point is that morality is a human invention, IMHO one of
our best.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n545.7 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Web site of Anthroposophical hospital in Sweden
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:42:34 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Have a look at:
http://www.antronet.se/vidar/
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n545.8 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: RE: The Waldorf Agenda
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 22:42:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Brian quoted me,
DUGAN
)) The most dangerous element is the promotion of Anthroposophical
)) medicine.
and commented,
BRIAN
)How so? I don't think I've seen this mentioned before on this list.
DUGAN
Waldorf schools, wherever possible, have an Anthroposophical physician
associated with the school. Teachers refer parents to this doctor. I
consider this to be hazardous to the children, since Anthroposophical
doctors must repudiate their scientific training to follow Steiner's
"indications." (I know, I know, they call it an "extension" of scientific
medicine, but this is deceptive.)
"The patient feels really relieved when he learns the true nature of his
disease, especially if he has long been surrounded by lies. The truth tears
the mask from Ahriman's face. The physician must of course exercise great
care to choose the right moment to enlighten the patient. He himself needs
all his courage, his will to help, as well as all his tact.
***
"It is important that the patient, however ill he is, should realize that
with our treatment he is on the way to health and deliverance. Whether this
is achieved in this life or later, is of secondary importance when
considered in relation to eternity."
[Leroi M.D., Rita. An Anthroposophical Approach to Cancer. Spring
Valley, NY: Mercury Press, 1982, pp. 7-9.]
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n545.9 ---------------
From: rabriggs pacbell.net (Rick Briggs)
Subject: Unsubscribe
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 23:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Please take me off the list. Thank you!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n545.10 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: A Pump to Pump Discussion
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 00:48:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)What happened to Mr. Tonkin? Dan, did he unsubscribe?
)Deby
Yes, he was with us for a year from 8/96 to 8/97.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n545 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n546 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Anthroposophical seminar 10/12/97
002 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Detente and Cold War Tactics
003 - Paul Levy (P.R.Levy bton. - Re: The Waldorf Agenda
004 - Neil Faiman (faiman zko.d - Total certainty
005 - Neil Faiman (faiman zko.d - Re: Dialogue - not insults
006 - dsaykaly interlink.net (D - Re: A Waldorf teacher's task
007 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - New Zealand conference planned
008 - spike netshel.net - Newton
009 - JoAnn Schwartz (jms mich. - Re: Newton
010 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Newton
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n546.1 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Anthroposophical seminar 10/12/97
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 00:48:57 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Last weekend I indulged myself by attending an Anthroposophical seminar
held at the University of California, Berkeley, in conjunction with the
opening of an exhibition of Rudolf Steiner's chalkboard drawings at the
University Art Museum. I've pretty much given up going to Anthropop
lectures, but I didn't want to miss the Anthropop stars who were talking,
especially Zajonc, and I wanted to see the drawings, which are originals
directly from Steiner's hand.
The lecture was moved from the museum to Wheeler Auditorium because of the
size of the crowd, about 200 at least. I recognized John Bloom from the
board of the S.F. Waldorf school, he whose disclaimer of Anthroposophy in
the school I deconstruct in my slide talk; Gail Davis, the woman from
Rudolf Steiner College who was chumming up to Francesca Schomberg at the
infamous meeting at the CTA headquarters; and John Underwood, who left Oak
Ridge school when they moved to take up third grade at Summerfield Waldorf
School in Santa Rosa. Gail Davis said she'd introduce me to Zajonc, but I'm
glad we failed to connect because I wanted to argue points from his book
but didn't have it with me and would have had nothing cogent to say.
The first speaker was Kugler, from the Nachlass faction in Dornach. He was
reading notes in German and translating to English on the fly, very badly.
He often made no sense at all, and I felt it was arrogant or unconscious
for him to make such a poorly prepared address to an English-speaking
audience.
Second was Arthur Zajonc. First, we must learn how to pronounce his name,
which is said nothing like it looks. "Zaionce," like a heavily accented
"Science." Zajonc is Anthroposophy's star public scientist with the
publication of "Catching the Light: The Entwined History of Light and
Mind," called "An extraordinary work" by Oliver Sacks. It's a seductive mix
of real science and Anthroposophy, including the practice of quoting myth
as fact. In the Steiner science lecture tradition of unpreparedness, he was
the only speaker who didn't use any slides.
Zajonc is program director of the Fetzer Institute and is presently forming
a study center at the University of Arizona. I was disappointed in his
talk, a weak attempt to paint Steiner as an influential scientist. He
didn't say anything I found worth noting except to mention the interesting
fact that Max Planck and Von Laue (sp? the discoverer of x-ray diffraction)
published an article debunking Steiner's physics. I'd like to see that.
Third was Christopher Houghton-Budd, who goes about giving seminars on
"threefold" economics. He joked around a lot and also said practically
nothing in his twenty minutes. He said that one could take scientific
method and "lift one's gaze to the non-sense-perceptible." On capitalism
vs. socialism, he said, "do you want to walk on your left or right leg?"
His main point was the application of a favorite Steiner polarity to
economics, that the gold standard was from the center out, and floating
currency was from the periphery inwards. The inside out would be unstable
but the outside in would find equilibrium.
The fourth speaker was Houston Smith of Syracuse University. He was the
commentator for a recent Bill Moyers television series on spirituality.
Despite some feebleness of age, he commanded the stage with his
straightforward and well-informed talk, making the Anthroposophists all
look like the airheads they were even though he didn't really have much to
say, either. Smith said frankly "I don't get Steiner." He allowed as how he
respected Anthroposophy because other people he admired were into it, Owen
Barfield, Saul Bellow, Valentin Tomberg, and C.S. Lewis. Of the last he
said Lewis had "flat side" like his own regarding Steiner.
The conclusion of his remarks was to pose the question where does genius
come from? His examples included Blake and Swedenbourg, and he noted that
Swedenbourg drove Kant up the wall. He tied his remarks to the art scene by
ending with slides of Chagall's paintings "Jacob's Ladder" and "Jeremiah."
The final talk was by Lawrence Rinder, curator of the museum. He explored
the relationship of Steiners thought and blackboard drawings to three
artists who took some influence from him, Mondrian, Kandinsky, and Beuys.
Kandinsky took notes on Steiner's articles in "Lucifer Gnosis" magazine,
and tried to apply Goethe's color theory. He showed some slides of the
illustrations from the Theosophists Besant and Leadbeater's book "Thought
Forms" in which an artist interpreted their descriptions of the spiritual
images which appeared in the sky over a church when Bach was played.
Mondrian, who lived in the Theosophists' building, sent Steiner one of his
colored squares paintings with a letter saying that he'd arrived at the
perfect expression of Theosophical theory. He was miffed when Steiner
ignored him. Beuys was a wild modern artist and Anthropsophist who in
addition to making pieces using hundreds of pounds of fat made some
chalkboards in performance art that were reminiscent of Steiner's.
After the lectures I went over to see the Steiner drawings at the museum.
One of his devotees started taping black paper over the chalkboard at his
lectures. A thousand colored chalk drawings were saved in this way. They
have been virtually hidden, except for being used for some Goetheanum
classes, until recently. A publication of the entire series is in progress.
You've seen stippled pen and ink renderings of these drawings in Steiner's
published lectures. The originals in color are nicer, but they are neither
comprehensible without the associated lecture nor of particular artistic
value. There's a sample at http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/exhibits. The
Anthroposophists have pulled off quite a coup with this exhibition.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n546.2 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Detente and Cold War Tactics
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 21:08:43 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710200119.SAA12225 lists1.best.com)
)On 10/19/97 7:26 PM, Michael Kopp wrote:
)
)
))I didn't say my characterisation of the critics applied to myself.
)
)You didn't? Read it again.
)
))If Souttar had the same respect for the "intelligent, humane, witty" and
))_wise_ comments of *any* [my emphasis] of the critics, he might actually
))make
)some progress
))towards engagement, instead of detente and cold war tactics.
Yeah, pretty cunning of me, slipping myself into such an august group by a
simple adjective.
Look, I don't include myself in such generalisations. When I write like
that about others I'm not thinking about myself, no matter how it seems.
If I meant to include myself in the description, I would have done so
specifically.
I assure you I don't think I fit into the same size intellectual shoes as
the likes of Dugan and Sabsay and Sakayly and de Tollenaere, or have the
same humaneness as Sutphen or McKay, or the same wit and logic as Premo.
(Sorry if I left anybody out.)
And, despite the fact that too many of them believe in fairies, I am in awe
of the erudition of many of the defenders of the faith, far in excess of
anything I can muster. I'm just a poor hack journo with a bit of science
background, eh?
But I've got a bit of common sense, and it tells me not to believe in
anything without tangible evidence. And it tells me that people who can
believe in stuff like gods and spirits and ethers and whatever are either
way too smart or way too smart for their own good.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n546.3 ---------------
From: Paul Levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: The Waldorf Agenda
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:11:01 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199710200542.WAA18999 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) Brian quoted me,
)
) DUGAN
) )) The most dangerous element is the promotion of Anthroposophical
) )) medicine.
)
) and commented,
)
) BRIAN
) )How so? I don't think I've seen this mentioned before on this list.
)
) DUGAN
) Waldorf schools, wherever possible, have an Anthroposophical physician
) associated with the school. Teachers refer parents to this doctor. I
) consider this to be hazardous to the children, since Anthroposophical
) doctors must repudiate their scientific training to follow Steiner's
) "indications." (I know, I know, they call it an "extension" of scientific
) medicine, but this is deceptive.)
)
) "The patient feels really relieved when he learns the true nature of his
) disease, especially if he has long been surrounded by lies. The truth tears
) the mask from Ahriman's face. The physician must of course exercise great
) care to choose the right moment to enlighten the patient. He himself needs
) all his courage, his will to help, as well as all his tact.
) ***
) "It is important that the patient, however ill he is, should realize that
) with our treatment he is on the way to health and deliverance. Whether this
) is achieved in this life or later, is of secondary importance when
) considered in relation to eternity."
)
) [Leroi M.D., Rita. An Anthroposophical Approach to Cancer. Spring
) Valley, NY: Mercury Press, 1982, pp. 7-9.]
)
) -Dan Dugan
What a wonderful piece of mis-information. This is journalism of the
worst kind - I do admire your style ! First you make a comment which is
factually incorrect.In the UK (and in many other countries - perhaps not
the US) parents are free to take their kids to whatever doctor they wish
- there is no link with anthroposophical doctors - though you forget to
mention that ALL anthroposophical doctors must be fully qualified
conventional doctors as well.
then you proceed to quote from a book about cancer that has little to do
with Steiner schools and their doctors but giving the obvious impression
that your second assertion follows from the first.
You also fail to point out tha anthroposophical medicines are sold
throughout the world in huge numbers, including in the UK in Boots, the
largest pharmaceutical retailer, that they can be bought through the
National Health service, that the Lukas Clinic (where Leroi worked) is
one of the most respected in the world (respected that is, by the
mainstream, and that Weleda, a supplier and mannufacturer of
anthroposophical medicines worldwide wins awards for quality and care in
production.
Finally though I find myself smiling sadly. Anthroposophy needs such a
good kick up the arse, it ought to have good critics, it ought to be
attacked, but attacks such as this are so superficial and pathetic, so
easily and quickly penned in cybersdpace, that all you do it lose
credibility in the eyes of readers, furthering the cause of
anthropsophy. The tired old themes of "quackery" and "religious cult"
need to be laid aside for some more serious, logical criticism. I
suggest something more leaner, tighter, better referenced. The "horror"
stories are the best. I am sure you are well informed about the horror
stories associated with anthropophical medicine. Why don't you do an
expose of:
- the caring approach of anthroposophical doctors
- the university-based research into anthroposophical medicine
- the statistical results of the effectiveness of anthroposopical
medicines (check out the Lukas Clinic)
- the qualifications needed to be an anthroposophical doctor
No, I don't suppose you will.
Paul
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n546.4 ---------------
From: Neil Faiman (faiman zko.dec.com)
Subject: Total certainty
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:02:16 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Greetings.
It appears to be a point of considerable importance to Michael Kopp that
) I've never heard a defender admit to anything less than total =
certainty in
) terms of any view of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposphy.
I will therefore offer him the following personal statement:
* Every "scientific" pronouncement by Rudolf Steiner which I can =
readily bring to mind seems irreconcilable with contemporary scientific =
thinking on the same phenomena. Since there is considerable reason to =
give credence to contemporary scientific thinking, and I have no reason =
to give credence to Steiner's pronouncements, my working hypothesis on =
such pronouncements must be that Steiner was wrong.
* Certainty of any sort on "spiritual" issues is not something that =
I know of any way of acquiring. I have no particular reason to believe =
Steiner's pronouncements on the nature of spiritual reality. On the =
other hand, some of them have value for me in metaphorical or poetic =
terms, and it doesn't cost me anything to leave them in the back of my =
mind as intriguing possiblities, so I'm happy to hold on to them as =
subject matter for contemplation.
Perhaps this will now allow Mr. Kopp to let let this assertion of =
dogmatism go (or to modify it -- how about "I have seldom heard very =
many defenders admit to more than minor uncertainties ... :-).
More likely, though, it will just get me stricken from the Mr. Kopp's =
roll of the defenders of the faith.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n546.5 ---------------
From: Neil Faiman (faiman zko.dec.com)
Subject: Re: Dialogue - not insults
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:41:36 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Greetings.
Kathy Sutphen protests (at considerable length) the "hostility" that I =
have shown towards her in characterizing some of her recent comments on =
this list as "absolute and unmitigated balderdash". I am sorry that Ms =
Sutphen takes my comments as "personal insult". I had hoped it would be =
clear that my disagreement was purely with the purportedly factual =
statements made by Ms Sutphen. I took care not to comment on Ms Sutphen =
personally in any way. I made no suggestions as to her character, her =
personality, her intelligence, her motivations, her judgment, or any of =
her other personal characteristics.
I disagree as strongly as possible, though, with the content of Ms =
Sutphen's message; and I cannot apologize for characterizing it as =
balderdash ("words without sense; nonsense").
Ms Sutphen responds with a series of questions which, perhaps, =
illustrate the misunderstanding that I suspect might lie at the =
foundation of her assertions. For example
) I request that anyone that does not believe my claims to be true to =
explain
) to me what Rudolf Steiner was speaking of when he addressed subjects
) regarding his "spiritual science" in his lectures to his teachers and
) others interested in Waldorf education? What was he talking about when =
he
) described, repeatedly, the life of the soul from one incarnation to
) another? Tell me, politely, what your interpretation of his beliefs =
are and
) why you disagree with my take on his lectures.=20
Steiner believed that any attempt to educate children without a proper =
understanding the nature of the human being was doomed, and he therefore =
went to great lengths to instruct his listeners on his view of the "true =
nature" of the human being. That view of the true nature of the human =
being included reincarnation, karma, spiritual hierarchies, etheric and =
astral bodies, andvolumes of other such "weird" ideas. Steiner then =
went to considerable lengths to instruct his listeners on the =
consequences for the educator of these "facts of human nature".
It is very clear from a reading of Steiner's writings on education that =
his concern was how to carry out practical education for practical life, =
in the light of "spiritual science". Over and over, he admonishes about =
the importance of directing spiritual knowledge to the practical world. =
If there is anything in his writing or lectures suggesting that he was =
speaking *at all* about "educating children for there future =
incarnations", much less that it was for him the *primary* point of =
education, I would very much like to see it.
This is a critical distinction. If Waldorf schools are really out to =
"expand the students' soul consciousness in order to prepare them for =
their next reincarnation" and "train students to become adept at =
'spiritual science'," while they tell parents that they are educating =
students for life in this world, then that would be a damning criticism. =
On the other hand, if Waldorf education is a practical educational =
system constructed on highly questionable philosophical underpinnings, =
then it is perfectly reasonable that generations of parents should be =
happy to have secured Waldorf educations for their children, regardless =
of what they think about Anthroposophy. =20
Regards,
Neil Faiman
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n546.6 ---------------
From: dsaykaly interlink.net (Daniel Saykaly)
Subject: Re: A Waldorf teacher's task
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 12:12:01 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
There has been ongoing talk of a full disclosure document. It occurs to me
that one way to demonstrate the full accuracy and validity of such a
document would be to have it heavily footnoted from Steiner/Waldorf sources.
Quotes such as the one below are very suitable for demonstrating the
centrality of the Anthroposophic religious belief in the soul and
reincarnation to the Waldorf curriculum. Other quotes on race, karma,
angels, etc. could also be used to show the underlying principles that
direct WE.
All the best.
)"We injure the child's eternal being if we fail to cultivate in him the
)right kind of feeling and will ... Education must help the child to think
)properly so that he may bring over the fruits of his previous lives.
)Working on the will and feeling prepares him for the live between death and
)rebirth, if he does not receive what the physical world can give him in
)Will and Feeling he is subsequently impoverished in the life after death."
)
)Rudolf Steiner. Cosmic Forces in Man. Christiana Nov/Dec. 1921
)
)
)
)
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.n546.7 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: New Zealand conference planned
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 09:27:24 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
[posted on anthropos-science -dD-]
Hi my name is Jenny Gibbs, Im a parent at Michael Park Rudolf Steiner
School in Auckland New Zealand. I belong to the New Zealand Federation of
Rudolf Steiner Schools. A group of parents are organising a national
conference to promote Steiner Education in New Zealand. Has anybody out
there done similar. This is not a parenting conference. It is to be an
education conference organised by parents. Were flying blind, please help.
If you can contact me at skiv sinsurf.co.nz ASAP thanks.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n546.8 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: Newton
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 10:50:46 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Rigby posted:
)I am interested to read the new biography of Newton that James referenced
)recently, which evidently goes more deeply into his occult work than previous
)bios had done. Perhaps we have all been unwitting victims of Newtonosophy
)these many years.
What is Newtonosophy? What I am unclear about here is the disagreement
Anthroposophists and Waldorf educators have with Newton's theories. I would
like some clarity on this. Could I have some responses from WE supporters
and Critics?
I invite responses that are devoid of insults directed toward my motives,
intellect, and perceived character flaws.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n546.9 ---------------
From: JoAnn Schwartz (jms mich.com)
Subject: Re: Newton
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:06:26 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: (199710201812.LAA06347 lists1.best.com)
Kathy wrote:
) Rigby posted:
) )I am interested to read the new biography of Newton that James referenced
) )recently, which evidently goes more deeply into his occult work than previous
) )bios had done. Perhaps we have all been unwitting victims of Newtonosophy
) )these many years.
)
) What is Newtonosophy? What I am unclear about here is the disagreement
) Anthroposophists and Waldorf educators have with Newton's theories. I would
) like some clarity on this. Could I have some responses from WE supporters
) and Critics?
I believe Rigby is indulging in a small joke here. I understood him to
mean that Newton's scientific work stands up (at least in certain
circumstances) regardless of his interest in and _apparent_practice_of_
alchemy and other occult sciences. Newton kept his interest in these
subjects carefully hidden during his lifetime; now that they are revealed,
should we dismiss the calculus (for example) because of Newton's belief in
the supernatural? This biography would be interesting since it may discuss
the extent to which Newton's occult beliefs influenced his scientific
hypotheses.
The critics often appear to be taking the position that because Steiner
was open about his investigations into the spiritual, everything that
Steiner wrote is tainted and could not possibly be useful, let alone true.
There are, however, many persons who believe otherwise.
Warmly,
JoAnn Schwartz, Detroit Waldorf School parent
(jms mich.com) Detroit MI USA
*****************All opinions strictly my own***********************
*****************No one else would have them!***********************
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n546.10 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Newton
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 16:56:20 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Kathy,
If I may put words in his mouth, Rigby is not disagreeing with Newton's
theories. He's simply suggesting that much of what we currently regard
as Newtonian "science" might have started out as mysticism.
"Newtonosophy" is then a humorous attempt to draw an analogy between
Steiner's Anthroposophy and Newton's physics. "Unwitting victim" is a
tounge-in-cheek reference to anyone who has studied Newtonian physics
thinking that its origins are non-mystical.
BTW, I don't know if Rigby's suggestion is accurate. I'm just trying
(painfully) to explain the joke.
-- Brian
) -----Original Message-----
) From: spike netshel.net [SMTP:spike netshel.net]
) Sent: Monday, October 20, 1997 1:51 PM
) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) Subject: Newton
)
) Rigby posted:
) )I am interested to read the new biography of Newton that James
) referenced
) )recently, which evidently goes more deeply into his occult work than
) previous
) )bios had done. Perhaps we have all been unwitting victims of
) Newtonosophy
) )these many years.
)
) What is Newtonosophy? What I am unclear about here is the disagreement
) Anthroposophists and Waldorf educators have with Newton's theories. I
) would
) like some clarity on this. Could I have some responses from WE
) supporters
) and Critics?
)
) I invite responses that are devoid of insults directed toward my
) motives,
) intellect, and perceived character flaws.
)
) Kathy
)
)
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n546 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n547 --------------
001 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: waldorf list flaming (SOUTTAR quote)
002 - RigbyL aol.com - Re: A Pump to Pump Discussion
003 - Paul Levy (P.R.Levy bton. - being a seer to see
004 - Steve Premo (premo cruzio - Re: being a seer to see
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n547.1 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: waldorf list flaming (SOUTTAR quote)
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 22:46:48 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199710180720.AAA04344 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199710191033.DAA23998 lists1.best.com)
Michael:
)It bears repeating time after time after time: it beggars the imagination
)how supposedly "intelligent" people can be so arrogant and cocksure that
)they never, ever, change their opinions, or admit that a critical point is
)correct, or that nothing has changed in Steiner's cult since he died.
Isn't the point, though, that I *was* admitting that 'a critical point is
correct'? So what's the problem now? I have a go at 'Waldorf complacency'
on the Waldorf list, and you call me 'arrogant and cocksure'.
How about this for 'beggaring the imagination' - some people are so
blinkered and stubborn that they can't see when someone else might be
agreeing with them. But it makes my point nicely - the best reasons for
being wary of Waldorf are on the Waldorf list, whilst the best reasons for
believing that the Waldorf critics are talking nonsense is... right here!
James
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n547.2 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Re: A Pump to Pump Discussion
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 1997 23:10:57 -0400 (EDT)
Brian--
(( I think it's me who has not made himself clear this time. I meant to
distinguish between observation and hypothesis. Hypotheses come from
who-knows-where, but observations come only from ordinary reality.
In short, you can dream up a theory, but you can't dream up a fact.
))
Then we agree. Thanks for the clarification.
Rigby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n547.3 ---------------
From: Paul Levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk)
Subject: being a seer to see
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 14:13:00 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Is Anthropsophy a religion ? Yes.
Is Anthroposphy a religion ? No.
Is Rudolf Steiner a guru ? Yes - No
Is Dan Dugan a guru ? Yes - er...no.
Is PLANS a cult ? Yes - er....of course not.
Is Anthroposophy a cult ? Yes ... er...no.
SIMPLY THIS:
You can spend hours accusing anthropsophy of being a religion and you'd
be right when you consider that large numbers of "anthroposophists" have
not attempted to follow the path of development towards clairvoyance
outlined clearly by Steiner. And neither have many of the critics. The
anthroposophists have no excuse and, therefore, their blind faith
creates a religion out of anthroposophy, with Steiner its high priest.
The critics have no excuse either - but they do not need one. They
observe the quack behaviour of many cultish anthropops and they do not
wish to waste their time going any further into what is clearly, to
them, unscientific, quasi-religious rubbish. Also, they read Steiner and
are so overwhelmed by the apparent nonsense on every page that Steiner's
so-called scientific path to his results is simply not worth treading.
Indeed ordinary people should be protected from it.
The critics are further worried (indeed angry) that anthropsophical
initiatives such as schools and hospitals appear in the world making
little or no mention of their "mad" and "misguided" roots. They feel the
urge - often based on real, shocking experiences - to expose the cult
for what it is, to wake up the governemtns providing state support to
their irresponsibility, and wake up the public to guru Steiner and his
wishful-thinking, crazy followers.
Yet there are people who have followed Steiner's path, a path of
self-discipline, moral development and strengthening of the powers of
self-observation. There are people repeated the processes of observation
outlined by Steiner, and they are triangulating his findings.
Dan, once you've encountered an angel, once you've taken a walk in the
woods and encountered etheric forces penetrating leaves and branches and
flowers, once you've awoken consciously during your sleep with a clarity
of thought and observation beyond dreaming and observed your prone
physical body from above, there on the bed sleeping, once you've
perceived life forces flowing about you, then you really know that the
method is no madness.
Instead, you spend an inordinately large amount of time calling
anthropsophy as religion because many misguided people choose to be
followers. On the same logic we should say that the current England
football team is not a football team at all, but instead is a group of
hooligan supporters, simply because it is currently followed around by
hooligans.
Want to debunk anthroposophy ? Easy - debunk the process by trying it
out.
best regards
Paul
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n547.4 ---------------
From: Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: being a seer to see
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 1997 08:58:22 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199710211310.GAA17295 lists1.best.com)
On 21 Oct 97 , Paul Levy wrote a very good essay, about which I have a
few comments:
) The critics . . . read Steiner and are so overwhelmed by the apparent
) nonsense on every page that Steiner's so-called scientific path to his
) results is simply not worth treading. Indeed ordinary people should be
) protected from it.
Well, no, I have not heard critics saying that people should be protected
from anthroposophy. They are saying that people whose children are being
educated in a Waldorf school should be told more clearly what
anthroposophy is. In other words, vague statements such as "Waldorf
education recognizes the entire spiritual dimension of the child" are not
sufficient; the school should elaborate a bit and explain some of the
concepts included in that "spiritual dimension," such as the concept of
the spiritual evolution of humanity, with references to specific
historical epochs and their spiritual characteristics, hierarchies of
spiritual beings, and so on.
There is no need to protect people from anthroposophy, but these concepts
should be explained simply and clearly so that people know what they are
getting into. Waldorf education should proceed only with the informed
consent of the parents.
Now, I think anthroposophists are well aware that most people cannot
accept these concepts, especially if they are presented all at once, and
are afraid that it is misleading to make simple statements about a
complex topic. There is a feeling that if people *really* understood the
concepts, they would see that anthroposophy is not so strange after all.
But that is no excuse for hiding very specific concepts behind vague
terms that will mean whatever the listener wants them to mean. Specific
concepts should be conveyed in specific terms.
) The critics . . . feel the urge . . . to wake up the governments
) providing state support to their irresponsibility . . . .
This has to do with the separation of church and state, a principle that
is fundamental to the American concept of freedom, but apparently foreign
to the English concept.
) Yet there are people who have followed Steiner's path, a path of
) self-discipline, moral development and strengthening of the powers of
) self-observation. There are people repeated the processes of observation
) outlined by Steiner, and they are triangulating his findings.
Yes? Other people have confirmed the existence of Atlantis, the fact that
there were two Jesuses, the spiritual abilities of those living in prior
epochs, and so on? I was under the impression that these types of
specific assertions have not been experienced by others.
Have these other folks observed additional historical information, and
if so, are their observations generally accepted in the anthroposophical
community?
) Dan, once you've encountered an angel, once you've taken a walk in the
) woods and encountered etheric forces penetrating leaves and branches and
) flowers, once you've awoken consciously during your sleep with a clarity
) of thought and observation beyond dreaming and observed your prone
) physical body from above, there on the bed sleeping, once you've
) perceived life forces flowing about you, then you really know that the
) method is no madness.
Have you had these experiences? I would be very interested in your
description of them. What was the angel like? Did it talk to you?
) Instead, you spend an inordinately large amount of time calling
) anthroposophy as religion because many misguided people choose to be
) followers.
It really doesn't matter whether anthroposophy is a religion or not,
except with respect to the issue of public funding in the United States.
In that case, the issue turns not on whether it is a religion in the sense
of being believed on faith vs. direct experience (which appears to be your
definition), but on whether it functions as a religion. It seems to me
that it has some characteristics of a religion (e.g., it answers basic
spiritual questions), but not other characteristics (e.g., worship
ceremonies).
Even that is not determinative of the legal issues, though. There is a
basic question of whether it is unlawful to provide public funding to a
school with a pedagagy based on religion, where the religion is not taught
to the students, and no prayer or other undeniably religious practices
occur.
Steve Premo ------ Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n547 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n548 --------------
001 - Paul Levy (P.R.Levy bton. - Re: being a seer to see
002 - Steve Premo (premo cruzio - Re: being a seer to see
003 - bhw bradley.edu (Barry We - Re: being a seer to see
004 - bhw bradley.edu (Barry We - Re: being a seer to see
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n548.1 ---------------
From: Paul Levy (P.R.Levy bton.ac.uk)
Subject: Re: being a seer to see
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 12:52:34 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199710211611.JAA17262 lists1.best.com)
Steve, thanks for your full and clear reply. I agree with all you said.
PAUL said : The critics feel the urge to wake up the governments
providing state support to their irresponsibility . . . .
Steve Premo wrote:
) This has to do with the separation of church and state, a principle that is fundamental to the American concept of freedom, but apparently foreign to the English concept.
Paul:
The UK has a weird constitution. We have a government in Parliament
which answers directly to the Queen who is our "Defender of the Faith" -
the faith being the Church of England. Our education system, regulated
by Act of Parliament is still rooted in a system with Christian roots.
However, much of government policy (abortion, marriage e.t.c.) operates
in spite of the so-called religious foundations. However, it is still
law to have a religious assembly in the school though the extent of
"Christian" content varies from school to school.
Most people in the UK are unaware that the national school curriculum,
rooted as it is in government policy also has been influence by a strong
Christian Lobby (our House of Lords has a high number of bishops
influence ther making of laws including education). They are also
unaware that government is strongly influenced by the atheist lobby of
economists and scientists.It is a strange mix of different religious
views and ideologies, a cocktail of Darwin and Christ, Churchill and St
Paul. Our so-called "state" system still is organised hierarchically
like a church with a headmaster as high priest, addressing the children
during religious assembly in many schools.
There fore we have a strange kind of scitzophenic system. At one level,
church and state are constitutionally tied together. At another level,
there is a clear practical scizm between them.
For Waldorf schools this has meant that they exist as part of the
diversity of education tolerated in the country - so long as it conforms
to independent inspectors (called Her Majesty's Inspectors), meets the
needs of the national curriculum, and doesn't behave against the laws of
the land. Critcism of our schools in the UK is not organisationally
based. It tends to be anecdotal. Recently an article appeared in the
Daily Telegraph by Dave Gilmour of Pink Floyd who claimed that Michael
Hall Waldorf School had ruined his children's education. The problem
with these kinds of critcisms is that they simply rest alongside so many
other anecdotal articles about problems in the state education system,
in the private education system (usually about sexual abuse and
discilpne !) and so on.
I also believe that organised critcism of Waldorf in the UK would have
limited effect. We are not state funded (indeed the schools refused
state funding vis nursery education vouchers). Also the issue of church
and state is of less importance to most people. The church is seen to be
weaker here, and the state is seen to be tolerant of diverse approaches
within the law. People are welcome to hold "Quack" beliefs because, as
individuals, with their own thoughts and feelings, they can decide for
themselves what or what is not "quckery". We also tolerate eccentricity
more.
It is interesting to me, when I reflect on what I read about
Christianity in the U.S. For me, so much of the religious approach I
have come across and the many who "protest" in the name of some
religion, bear all the hallmarks of a cult far more than Anthroposophy
does.
I also find it interesting that so many people who want a separation of
"Church" and "State" have no clear idea about what the "state" really
means. So much of the American constitution is still rooted in hierarchy
which mirrors the church and in a belief in God as a creator. The
Constitition is based on "rights" and "declarations" which are clearly
religious in nature and which rest of individua faith and belief if they
are to be practical.
Dan Dugan, who has clearly, along with others, had a very poor
experience of anthroposophy, makes (at least currently) very poor links
between his anger and exasperation with anthroposophy and the "church
and state" argument. By constantly mixing up misquotes of Steiner,
horror stories from parents, and general attacks on the "cultishness" of
it all with fundamental concepts about "church and state" which are by
no means clear, Dan is clouding his own arguments.
A newcomer to his pages is confused. On the one hand he attacks the
Waldorf System and anthroposphy as quackery. On the other he makes the
claim that such quackery whould be divorced from state funding. All well
and good. But, in grinding his personal axe on anthroposophy
specifically, we all lose sight of the basic argument:
Any organisation which is religious in whatever way should not receive
state funding or support.
Were he to follow this argument up in the U.S., thousands of
organisations would lose their state support. Were he to follow it up in
the UK, the state itself would lose state support!
best wishes
Paul
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n548.2 ---------------
From: Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: being a seer to see
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 09:06:40 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199710241149.EAA03950 lists1.best.com)
On 24 Oct 97 , Paul Levy wrote:
) It is interesting to me, when I reflect on what I read about
) Christianity in the U.S. For me, so much of the religious approach I have
) come across and the many who "protest" in the name of some religion, bear
) all the hallmarks of a cult far more than Anthroposophy does.
True. While I find anthroposophy to be rather bizarre, it is not nearly
so strange to me as the fundamentalist Christian concepts of heaven and
hell, with eternal damnation being the fate of anyone who does not accept
salvation from Jesus, and eternal bliss being the reward for anyone who is
"saved."
) I also find it interesting that so many people who want a separation of
) "Church" and "State" have no clear idea about what the "state" really
) means. So much of the American constitution is still rooted in hierarchy
) which mirrors the church and in a belief in God as a creator. The
) Constitition is based on "rights" and "declarations" which are clearly
) religious in nature and which rest of individual faith and belief if they
) are to be practical.
I don't know what part of the constitution you are referring to, unless it
is to the preamble. Or are you saying that any recognition of human
rights is necessarily religious? If so, I disagree. Religion is not a
necessary prerequisite for ethics and morality.
) Any organisation which is religious in whatever way should not receive
) state funding or support.
)
) Were he to follow this argument up in the U.S., thousands of
) organisations would lose their state support.
Again, unless you consider all pursuit of morality or ethics to be
basically religious, I don't know why that would follow.
As a legal research attorney, I'm pretty familiar with church/state
issues. Here's some stuff I posted earlier on the separation of church
and state under the U.S. Constitution. My apologies to those who have
seen it before:
My source of information here is Witkin, a secondary source of very
high repute. I don't have time to review the primary sources myself,
although as a research attorney, I would do so if I were preparing a brief
for the court's use. However, the direct quotes are from the United States
Supreme Court.
The first amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Beyond that, there are 200 years of court decisions interpreting that
phrase, and those decisions are part of the law of the land.
There are two aspects of the freedom of religion. First, the
"establishment clause" prohibits any law which tends to establish an
official religion. Second, the "free exercise clause" prohibits any
law which interferes with the practice of a religion. We are
concerned here with the establishment clause.
The establishment clause applies to any preference granted by the
government to any religion.
"Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking
are complementary components of a broader concept of individual
freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own
creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the
creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that
this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect
over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience
of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such
as Mohammedism or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been
examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously
concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First
Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.
This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting
the individual's freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that
religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary
choice by the faithful, and from recognition of the fact that the political
interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among
Christian sects--or even intolerance among 'religions'--to encompass
intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain." (Wallace v. Jaffree
(1985) 472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 2488.
The court held, in McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) 333 U.S.
203, that allowing religious instruction in public schools violates
the first amendment: "Here not only are the state's tax-supported
public school buildings used for the dissemination of religious
doctrines. The State also affords sectarian groups an invaluable aid
in that it helps to provide pupils for their religious classes
through use of the state's compulsory public school machinery. This
is not separation of Church and state."
Then, in 1962, the court struck down a law providing for a short,
nonsectarian prayer in a public school. Engel v. Vitale (1962) 370
U.S. 421. The religious right is still seeking a constitutional
amendment to overturn this decision.
The prayer in question was, "Almighty God, we acknowledge our
dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents,
our teachers and our Country." The court held it unconstitutional
for several reasons.
First, the prayer was concededly a religious activity.
Second, it was part of a governmental program to further religious
belief, and the constitutional prohibition at least means that the
government may not compose official prayers for any group to recite
as part of a governmentally sponsored religious program.
Third, it was immaterial that objecting pupils could remain silent or be
excused from the room. The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Excerise
Clause, may be violated without any compulsion operating on individuals;
its object is to keep government and religion separate, and thereby to
avoid repetition of the historical experience of established religions
leading to religious persecution.
Fourth, it was immaterial that the prayer was nondenominational and
did not amount to a total establishment of a particular religion, or
that it was so brief and general that it did not threaten religious
freedom. As Madison put it, a slight encroachment may lead to
ultimately complete enforced conformity.
Fifth, to apply the Constitutional prohibition is not to indicate
hostility toward religion or prayer. "It is neither sacrilegious nor
antireligious to say that each separate government in this country
should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official
prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people
themselves and to those the people choose to look to for religious
guidance."
The court concludes, "The place of religion in our society is an
exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the
home, the church and the inviolable citadel of the individual heart
and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience that it is
not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its
purposes or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the
relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a
position of neutrality."
There has been a lot of fine-tuning of this doctrine in cases
discussing when public aid to a private religious school is, and is
not, constitutional. But the question here is whether establishing a
public Waldorf school would lead to the teaching of religion in a public
school. If so, Waldorf schools must remain private, and cannot be
chartered as public schools.
Steve Premo ------ Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n548.3 ---------------
From: bhw bradley.edu (Barry Westfall)
Subject: Re: being a seer to see
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 16:10:08 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
please take me off your e-mail list. I have asked twice for Dan Dugan to
do so and I am still getting Waldorf stuff. Thank you.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n548.4 ---------------
From: bhw bradley.edu (Barry Westfall)
Subject: Re: being a seer to see
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 16:11:23 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
please take me off your e-mail list. I have asked twice for Dan Dugan to
do so and I am still getting Waldorf stuff. Thank you.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n548 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n549 --------------
001 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: being a seer to see
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n549.1 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: being a seer to see
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 14:22:29 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199710211611.JAA17262 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199710241149.EAA03950 lists1.best.com)
Paul:
)Most people in the UK are unaware that the national school curriculum,
)rooted as it is in government policy also has been influence by a strong
)Christian Lobby (our House of Lords has a high number of bishops
)influence ther making of laws including education). They are also
)unaware that government is strongly influenced by the atheist lobby of
)economists and scientists.It is a strange mix of different religious
)views and ideologies, a cocktail of Darwin and Christ, Churchill and St
)Paul. Our so-called "state" system still is organised hierarchically
)like a church with a headmaster as high priest, addressing the children
)during religious assembly in many schools.
That is the beauty of the British system - in a characteristically
'muddling through' manner it manages to be at once 'broad church',
inclusive and tolerant. I can't help wondering if we had principles like
the separation of church and state enshrined in a constitution, it wouldn't
end up being an axe-grinder's charter - as in the US.
James
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n549 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n550 --------------
001 - hillm mcgraw-hill.com - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n549
002 - "John Reiman, Ph.D." (jre - leaving list
003 - litvas icu.com - Re: leaving list
004 - spike netshel.net - Exceptional Evidence
005 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - SAVE waldorf-critics subscription information
006 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - "The Schools We Need"
007 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Newton
008 - Luna457954 aol.com - Re: Re: Newton
009 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: Newton
010 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Newton
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n550.1 ---------------
From: hillm mcgraw-hill.com
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n549
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 97 11:26:54 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
have never received v001.n548--could I get it?
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n549
From: (waldorf-critics lists.best.com) at ccnode
Date: 10/27/97 6:00 AM
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n549 --------------
001 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: being a seer to see
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n549.1 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: being a seer to see
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 1997 14:22:29 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199710211611.JAA17262 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199710241149.EAA03950 lists1.best.com)
Paul:
)Most people in the UK are unaware that the national school curriculum,
)rooted as it is in government policy also has been influence by a strong
)Christian Lobby (our House of Lords has a high number of bishops
)influence ther making of laws including education). They are also
)unaware that government is strongly influenced by the atheist lobby of
)economists and scientists.It is a strange mix of different religious
)views and ideologies, a cocktail of Darwin and Christ, Churchill and St
)Paul. Our so-called "state" system still is organised hierarchically
)like a church with a headmaster as high priest, addressing the children
)during religious assembly in many schools.
That is the beauty of the British system - in a characteristically
'muddling through' manner it manages to be at once 'broad church',
inclusive and tolerant. I can't help wondering if we had principles like
the separation of church and state enshrined in a constitution, it wouldn't
end up being an axe-grinder's charter - as in the US.
James
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n549 ---------------
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n550.2 ---------------
From: "John Reiman, Ph.D." (jreiman mediate.com)
Subject: leaving list
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 12:34:06 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Could you please give me the protocol for unsubscribing?
Thanks, JR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
John W. Reiman, Ph.D. (Mediation, Facilitation, and Consultation Services)
Post Office Box 474
Monmouth, OR 97361
Phone: (voice) 541-753-4667; tty (OR) 800-735-2900; tty (U.S.) 800-877-8973
Fax: 541-757-7601
E-mail: jreiman mediate.com
Website: http://www.mediate.com/reiman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n550.3 ---------------
From: litvas icu.com
Subject: Re: leaving list
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 97 18:25:17 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
On 10/27/97 4:34 PM, John Reiman, Ph.D. wrote:
)Could you please give me the protocol for unsubscribing?
)
)Thanks, JR
Could you please give us -all- the protocol for unsubscribing. . .I like
it fine here these days, but there have been times when I've thought
about taking a break. . .and the PLANS page only has details about
joining.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n550.4 ---------------
From: spike netshel.net
Subject: Exceptional Evidence
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 20:48:43 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Neil Faiman posted on 10/17/97:
)Remember one of the fundamental tenets of skepticism: Exceptional
)claims require exceptional evidence.
This was in response to my post alleging that the Waldorf pedagogy has a
hidden purpose and this is to prepare their students for their next
reincarnation. Mr. Faiman found this allegation to be "absolute and
unmitigated balderdash." He also asked that I provide documentation.
I have been somewhat tardy in doing so and can only claim a very busy life,
ie: working, raising children, and caring for my ailing mother. But . . .
Mr. Faiman's request has been on my mind and I made the time to dig out my
documentation. I do not believe it to "exceptional evidence" supporting an
"exceptional claim." It is merely a posting of information that Waldorf
Critics and many/most Waldorf supporters on this list know to be true.
I have suspected, since Mr. Faiman's post, that he too is an "uninformed"
parent. In other words, he is one more example of a parent that has been
misled by the staff at his childrens' Waldorf school and, despite his
involvement with that school, truly has little notion of the underlying
basis for and aims of the Waldorf pedagogy. This is not to infer that he
isn't satisfied (happy) with his children's education. He seems to be quite
pleased with it. But I don't believe he "understands" what Waldorf is all
about in terms of its spiritual basis, ie: preparing students with
adequate/appropriate soul-growth activities that they might evolve
spiritualy, this evolution having a direct effect on their future
reincarnations and the world's movement into and through future
cultural/historical epochs (ala Steiner).
Here is my "documentation." There exists tremendously more documentation in
other resources, but this is a source that I am familiar with. This source
is also valuable since it is in a book that is required reading for all
Waldorf teachers-in-training at the Rudolf Steiner College. (I suspect the
teachers at Mr. Faiman's Waldorf School are all quite familiar with this
lecture.) It is also my contention that this documentation (and others like
it) are the true foundation of and reason for the Waldorf pedagogy.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[Steiner, Rudolf. Study of Man: General Education Course: Fourteen
Lectures given by Rudolf Steiner in Stuttgart 21st August-5th September
1919. (1919) Trans. Daphne Harwood and Helen Fox. London: Rudolf Steiner
Press, 1960.]
* This book is the top of the reading list for the second year "teacher
education program" at RSC. It's the basic reference on Steiner's
psychology.
****************************
Lecture II
"We must be quite clear that in man there are certain forces which reflect
back the pre-natal reality and hold the after-death reality in seed. . .
Because we can no longer remain in the spiritual world . . . we are brought
down into the physical world." (page 30)
"If antipathy is sufficiently strong something very remarkable happens. For
in ordinary life after birth we could not picture mentally if we did not do
it in a measure with the very force which has remained in us from the time
before birth. . . . we make our mental pictures with this force . . . This
then is one side of the soul's activity: antipathy, which is connected with
our pre-natal life." (page 32)
"Now we will take the other side, that of willing, which is in the nature
of a germ within us and belongs to the life after death. Willing is present
in us because we have sympathy with it, because we have sympathy with this
seed which will not be developed until after death. Just as our thinking
depends upon antipathy, so our willing depends on sympathy . . . Just as
memory arises out of antipathy so imagination arises out of sympathy."
(page 30 - 31)
"If you bring to the child as many imaginations as possible, if you educate
him as much as possible by speaking to him in images, then you are actually
laying in the child the germ for . . . continuous growth, because you point
to the future, to what comes after death." (page 39)
"The spiritual Powers have so dealt with us that they have planted within
us this image activity which works on in us after birth. If in our
education we ourselves give the children images we are taking up this
cosmic activity again." (page 39)
"If you bring to the child as many imaginations as possible, if you educate
him as much as possible by speaking to him in images, then you are actually
laying in the child the germ for . . . continuous growth, because you point
to the future, to what comes after death. In educating we take up again in
some measure the activities which were carried out with us men before
birth." (page 39)
"If you yourselves continually feel that in all education you are supplying
a kind of continuation of pre-natal supersensible activity that you will
give to all your education the necessary consecration, for without this
consecration it is impossible to educate at all." (page 39)
******************************
This lecture is (as all of Steiner's lectures are) long-winded,
contradictory in many areas, and far-fetched in many of his ideas (to put
it mildly). I have tried to restrict myself to supplying short passages
that document my "assertions," as requested by Mr. Faiman, without posting
too much of the lecture and overwhelming the reader.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n550.5 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: SAVE waldorf-critics subscription information
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 00:49:49 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subscription information for waldorf-critics mailing list
version C1 - 4/13/97
replaces all previous versions which should be labeled "superseded" or
destroyed.
New in this version: fair use guidelines
***
INTRODUCTION
Please save this message. You may want to unsubscribe or subscribe again in
a hurry. I'm on several mailing lists, and to keep them under control I
keep a folder called "subscription information" with copies of the welcome
messages from various lists in it.
Doing anything with a mailing list means communicating with a robot, a list
manager program that only understands a few simple commands. There are two
popular programs that almost everybody uses, Listserv and Majordomo. Their
commands are similar but just different enough to trip you up. My service
provider, Best Internet Communications, has decided to write their own list
manager called BestServ. BestServ is, yet again, *similar* to Majordomo and
Listserv, but *different*... so pay attention!
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE
To unsubsuscribe, send an e-mail message *from the address you're
subscribed at* to:
waldorf-critics-request lists.best.com
The subject field has no effect on the operation.
In the message body put *only*:
unsubscribe
If you have your software set to append a signature automatically, turn the
signature off to avoid getting a long error message back.
HOW TO SUBSCRIBE
To subscribe or resubscribe, send an e-mail message to:
waldorf-critics-request lists.best.com
In the message body, put *only*:
subsingle
This will subscribe you to receive single messages, which is the best way
if you intend to participate in the dialogue. If you just want to read the
list, instead of "subsingle", in the message body put *only*:
subscribe
This will subscribe you to the digest version of the list, which waits for
a few messages to collect before sending them together as one message. This
is easier on the mail system, but it makes replying to messages a little
harder, because you have to edit the "subject" line of your reply, and put
"waldorf-critics lists.best.com" in the "To:" field.
The digest messages you receive will be "from" "waldorf-critics-errors".
That's not an error, it's just the way the BestServ program does it. It's
part of their system for avoiding the catastrophic loops that plague lists
that are run by the Majordomo and ListServ programs.
Please note that the address for subscribe/unsubscribe requests is the
address of the list robot, not the same as the address for posting messages
to the list.
To change from single to digest or vice versa, unsubscribe in the one form
and subscribe again in the other. This can be done in two lines of one
message, e.g.
unsubscribe
subscribe
POSTING MESSAGES TO THE LIST
Subscribers may post messages to the list by sending e-mail to:
waldorf-critics lists.best.com
You must post from the address you subscribed from!
Anything posted to the list is automatically sent to all subscribers.
Digest readers PLEASE change the "Subject:" field, and address your message
to waldorf-critics lists.best.com
ANONYMOUS POSTING
Some parents are reluctant to speak up about their questions about Waldorf
for fear of reprisals against their children by the faculty. Teachers may
need to protect themselves from "troublemaker" evaluations. Incidents of
this kind have been reported. Subscribers who want to make an anonymous
post may address it to:
waldorf-anon dandugan.com
It will be reviewed and posted at the moderator's discretion. There may be
a delay if your moderator is busy
ADMINISTRATION
If you want to invite someone to join, just give them the information in
this file.
Privacy: The list of subscriber addresses is private. Message writers
retain copyright on everything that they write, but postings to this list
are publications and may be copied, forwarded to other lists, or quoted
without notice. Though the distribution of this list is limited, you should
assume that your mother might see anything you write as she changes the
newspaper in the birdcage.
Archives are available on our web site,
http://www.waldorfcritics.org
Note that the "waldorf" must be lower case.
Your moderator operates an active business, so if there's some trouble with
your account and list messages to you start bouncing into my mailbox, I'll
just unsubscribe you. I won't email you because your account isn't working!
If the list seems to just disappear, send a test post to see if it's alive.
If that doesn't work try subscribing again. Message me, dan dandugan.com if
you can't figure things out.
MANAGING YOUR MAIL
When you belong to several mail lists, as I do, you can get a lot of mail,
perhaps hundreds of messages per day. I use Eudora Pro, which is well worth
paying for. What it has that the free version doesn't is the ability to
filter messages into different mailboxes automatically. I set up a mailbox
window for each mail list. Then when I don't have time to read a particular
list I can just delete them all.
E-MAIL CUSTOMS AND COURTESY
Please keep on the topic of Waldorf schools and Anthroposophy. Some people
pay by the message and will be unhappy to receive off-topic mail.
If you want to reply privately to the author of a message from the list,
after giving your software's reply command, just change the "To" field from
the list address to the person's personal address.
Maintaining "threads": Try to stick to one topic per message. When you
reply to a message, leave the subject line alone. This "maintains the
thread." Then people not interested in a particular discussion can delete
those messages without reading them.
Conversely, do change the "Subject" field when you're changing the topic.
Please try to make "Subject" lines meaningful, to help people who get lots
of mail.
Expect list traffic to be quite variable; sometimes a lot, sometimes nothing.
If you're going away for a while, consider unsubscribing. List messages might
overflow your mailbox at your service and obliterate important mail. Never
set up an automatic reply without unsubscribing from all mail lists first!
We expect members of the press to be on this list. We can be frank in our
opinions, but we should avoid libelous statements and try to check our
facts before flaming too outrageously.
ALL CAPS is SHOUTING and should not be used often. Emphasis may be added *thus*
or _thus_ or -thus-.
The writers of messages bear all responsibility for their content. If
something bothers you, say so publicly or in private mail to the writer.
Dan Dugan provides this unmoderated list as a public forum, and will not
censor messages or ban a subscriber unless repeated public complaints from other
subsribers are ineffective in controlling offensive postings.
COPYRIGHT AND FAIR USE
Email messages are the property of the writer; the copyright is implicit.
Mailing list postings fall in a gray area; there is no legal precedent. I
consider them to be publications, the same as a newsletter that is
distributed to a mailing list. The authors of the messages own the
copyrights unless it's stated otherwise. For critical and educational
purposes, portions of copyrighted materials may be quoted under the
doctrine of "fair use."
We have agreed with our provider to establish fair use guidelines. Our fair
use guidelines are:
1) Less than 500 words quoted.
2) Full bibliographic information or URL for the source.
3) Editing indicated by "(snip)", "...", or "***". Editorial additions in
[square brackets].
4) A significant amount of commentary added.
Thanks, Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com or plans dandugan.com)
-dD-
Dan Dugan Sound Design _/_/_/_/_/_/ Automatic Microphone Mixers
290 Napoleon St. USA _/ _/_/ _/ Nagra Sales and Service
San Francisco, CA 94124 _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ Custom CDs for Performance
voice (415) 821-9776 _/ _/_/ _/ E-mail dan dandugan.com
fax (415) 826-7699 _/_/_/_/_/_/ http://www.dandugan.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n550.6 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: "The Schools We Need"
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 01:36:07 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I've just finished reading "The Schools We Need: Why We Don't Have Them" by
E.D. Hirsch, Jr. Hirsch is the author of "Cultural Literacy."
This book is a well-reasoned argument against the appealing principles of
"progressive education" that, in Hirsch's opinion, have been accepted so
uncritically that they have become an invisible environment. Jacket copy:
"Just as it takes money to make money, it takes knowledge to make
knowledge. 'For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have
more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even
that he hath' (Matthew 13:12). The paradox holds more inexorably for
intellectual than for money capital. Those who are well educated can make
money without inherited wealth, but those who lack intellectual capital are
left poor indeed.
"The paradox of Matthew is powerfully at work in the American educational
system. Those children who arrive at school lacking the relevant experience
and vocabulary--they see not, neither do they understand. They fall further
and further behind. The relentless humiliations they experience continue to
deplete their energy and motivation to learn. Lack of stimulation has
depressed their IQs. The ever-increasing differential in acquired
intellectual capital that occurs during the early years ends up creating a
permanent gap in such children's acquired abilities, particularly in their
abilities to communicate in speech and writing, to learn new things, and to
adapt to new challenges. In short, an early inequity in the distribution of
intellectual capital may be the single most important source of avoidable
injustice in a free society."
--From "The Schools We Need"
Hirsch supports his arguments with research results. At the end he has a
glossary that deconstructs all the popular buzzwords of education. The
buzzwords of Waldorf are found here. "Prospective teachers and members of
the general public are bemused, bullied, and sometimes infected by
seductive rhetorical flourishes like 'child-centered schooling' or bullying
ones like the dismissive words 'drill and kill.' These terms and phrases
pretend to more soundness, humaneness, substance, and scientific authority
than they in fact possess." (p. 239)
I strongly recommend this book to everyone involved in education. It's in
the PLANS bookstore-- http://www.waldorfcritics.org
Hirsch's principles are incorporated in a curriculum being developed in
"Core Knowledge Schools." The Core Knowledge Foundation has a rudimentary
web site at:
http://www.coreknowledge.org/
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n550.7 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Newton
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 01:36:02 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Kathy Sutphen asked,
)What is Newtonosophy? What I am unclear about here is the disagreement
)Anthroposophists and Waldorf educators have with Newton's theories. I would
)like some clarity on this. Could I have some responses from WE supporters
)and Critics?
Kathy, this is a point dear to my heart. I started doing theatrical
lighting design when I was a child, and it was my first career for a
decade. I'm deeply into the science and aesthetics of color. When I found
out how the S.F. Waldorf School was teaching about color I was really
amazed. Here's how it goes:
One of Steiner's main points was to agree with Goethe about color theory.
Goethe claimed (in 1840) to have refuted Newton's theory of color.
Scientists just laughed, and indeed, I think this bad reputation was
probably what led to the unknown Steiner's being appointed to edit an
edition of Goethe's scientific works. No real scientist would take them
seriously. The fact that Goethean color theory is actually taught in
Waldorf schools, including the contention that Newton was wrong, makes the
schools a laughingstock today.
When I went to a lecture by Anthroposophical Science guru Henri Bortoft, he
handed out prisms and led the audience through the "discovery" of the
"primal phenomenon" of color according to Goethe and Steiner. This is a
standard Waldorf lesson in sixth grade physics, elaborated later in high
school.
Goethe held up a prism and looked through it. He expected to see the
spectrum everybody had told him about; instead when he looked at a white
wall he just saw a white wall. The colors appeared as fringes at the edges
between light and dark areas of the image. Goethe immediately declared that
Newton was wrong about white light being a mixture of component colors.
Obviously, color was the result of the conflict between light and darkness.
Goethe said:
"A great mathematician was possessed with an entirely false notion on the
physical origin of colours; yet, owing to his great authority as a
geometer, the mistakes which he committed as an experimentalist long became
sanctioned in the eyes of a world ever fettered in prejudices."
[Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. Theory of Colours. (1810) Trans.
Charles Lock Eastlake. London: John Murray, 1840, reproduction: Cambridge,
MA: M.I.T. Press, 1970, #726]
Steiner said:
"Since the 1880's I have tried to gain acceptance for Goethe's theory of
color in spite of the findings of modern physics. Why does nobody
understand that? The answer is that Central Europe has been imbued with the
materialistic principle that has come to us from the British folk soul.
Newton, whom Goethe has to oppose, has been victorious over everything
emanating from Goethe's spirit."
[Steiner, Rudolf. Christ in Relation to Lucifer and Ahriman. (1915)
Trans. Peter Mollenhauer, Ph.D. Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophic Press,
1978, p. 30]
In his "Light Course," Steiner advised his listeners to ignore the most
important distinction in the understanding of color phenomena, the
difference between the physical phenomena of color and the nature of color
vision:
"Goethe does not entertain such concepts as of the "subjective" phenomena
of colour and the "objective" wave-movements in outer space. What he
beholds spread out in space and going on in time is for him one, a single
undivided whole."
[Steiner, Rudolf. First Scientific Lecture-Course (Light-Course): Ten
Lectures given at Stuttgart 23rd December 1919 to 3rd January 1920. Trans.
George Adams. Forest Row, East Sussex, U.K.: Steiner Schools Fellowship
Publications, 1987, p. 3]
After the mandatory looking through the prism, Waldorf students are shown a
demonstration with a milky tank of water in a dark room. When a flashlight
is viewed directly through the water, it appears reddish. When the beam is
directed through the tank from the side, the beam of light passing through
the water appears bluish. This "proves" the "primal phenomenon" as defined
by Goethe and Steiner: the warm colors are created when darkness is over,
i.e. obscures, light, and the cool colors are created when light is over
darkness.
This theory makes compound errors: not only does it ignore the crucial
difference between physical optics and subjective perception of color, but
it also confuses the generation of color by refraction with color
generation by diffraction and filtering. And this is what they teach.
In his "Light Course," Steiner explained how the prism worked to his new
Waldorf school teachers:
"Above, the dimming effect is deflected in the same sense as the light;
thus in a way they work together. The dimming and darkening gets into the
light like a parasite and mingles with it. Down here on the contrary, the
dimmng rays back into the light but is overwhelmed and as it were
suppressed by the latter. Here therefore, even in the battle between bright
and dim -- between the lightening and darkening -- the light predominates.
The consequences of this battle -- the consequences of the mutual
opposition of light and dark, and of the dark being irradiated by the
light, are in this downward region the red or yellow colours. So therefore
we may say: Upward, the darkening runs into the light and there arise the
blue shades of colour; downward, the light outdoes and overwhelms the
darkness and there arise the yellow shades of colour."
[Steiner, ibid. pp. 21-22]
Got that? Some science teacher!
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n550.8 ---------------
From: Luna457954 aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: Newton
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 07:15:10 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 10/28/97 6:13:33 AM, dan dandugan.com wrote:
((The consequences of this battle -- the consequences of the mutual
opposition of light and dark, and of the dark being irradiated by the
light, are in this downward region the red or yellow colours. So therefore
we may say: Upward, the darkening runs into the light and there arise the
blue shades of colour; downward, the light outdoes and overwhelms the
darkness and there arise the yellow shades of colour."
[Steiner, ibid. pp. 21-22]
Got that? Some science teacher!))
This wasn't the case in our school. My kids were taught the spectrum and
color wheel and all that. No mention of any "color battle"
Kelly
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n550.9 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Newton
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 14:11:57 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710280937.BAA13218 lists1.best.com)
Dan:
)When I went to a lecture by Anthroposophical Science guru Henri Bortoft, he
)handed out prisms and led the audience through the "discovery" of the
)"primal phenomenon" of color according to Goethe and Steiner. This is a
)standard Waldorf lesson in sixth grade physics, elaborated later in high
)school.
First, Henri Bortoft is *not* an 'Anthroposophical guru'. He's a retired
quantum physicist (Ph.D from Birkbeck College, University of London) and
former science teacher from a *mainstream* (N.B. not Waldorf) British
private school. His work on Goethean Science has been to present Goethe as
an important historical proponent of a 'Phenomenology of Nature' - placing
him squarely in the Phenomenological tradition, that includes such major
European Philosophers as Merleau-Ponty, Husserl, Heidegger, Gadamer and
Wittgenstein. The half dozen citations which Steiner gets in Bortoft's
magnum opus on Goethe, 'The Wholeness of Nature', are for his early work as
a Goethean scholar - translated in English as 'Goethean Science' and
'Goethe's World View'.
Second, if you had paid as much attention in Bortoft's seminar as some of
us did, you would have been struck by his insistence that Goethe's
conclusions about colour are not important, but that his methodology is. A
point, incidentally, that Wittgenstein picked up on in his last work -
'Remarks on Colour' - which is rooted in Goethe's Farbenlehre ('Theory of
Colours'). In the seminars I attended (neither hosted, nor attended by,
Anthroposophists, I should add) Bortoft was explicit that the issue is not
whether Goethe was 'right' about colour - and short with those who
mistakenly assumed that that was what he was saying. He is far too
conscientious a philosopher and historian of science to make such a naive
assertion - although that is what you seem to want to suggest.
James
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n550.10 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Newton
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:37:45 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Dan quoted Rudolf :
)) The consequences of this battle -- the consequences of the
)) mutual opposition of light and dark, and of the dark being
)) irradiated by the light, are in this downward region the red
)) or yellow colours.
and then adds:
)) After the mandatory looking through the prism, Waldorf
)) students are shown a demonstration with a milky tank of
)) water in a dark room
Kelly responded:
) This wasn't the case in our school. My kids were taught the
) spectrum and color wheel and all that. No mention of any
) "color battle"
This is getting to be classic. A critic posts a long message full of
embarrassing Steiner quotes and Waldorf examples, and then a supporter
posts a short message saying "not in our school".
There seems to be much disagreement about what is actually taught in
Waldorf schools. Personally, I'm finding very it difficult to judge the
*merits* of Waldorf education when we can't even agree on the *content*
of Waldorf education.
-- Brian
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n550 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n551 --------------
001 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Re: Re: Newton
002 - Steve Premo (premo cruzio - Re: Re: Newton
003 - Steve Premo (premo cruzio - Re: Newton
004 - Steve Premo (premo cruzio - RE: Newton
005 - Deby Snell (snell oro.net - Re: Re: Newton
006 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Newton
007 - James Souttar (ancient ur - Re: Newton
008 - Steve Premo (premo cruzio - RE: Newton
009 - JoAnn Schwartz (jms mich. - RE: Newton
010 - BfloBruce aol.com - Please remove my name from your mailings.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n551.1 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Re: Re: Newton
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 08:13:10 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199710281215.EAA27260 lists1.best.com)
)In a message dated 10/28/97 6:13:33 AM, dan dandugan.com wrote:
)
)((The consequences of this battle -- the consequences of the mutual
)opposition of light and dark, and of the dark being irradiated by the
)light, are in this downward region the red or yellow colours. So therefore
)we may say: Upward, the darkening runs into the light and there arise the
)blue shades of colour; downward, the light outdoes and overwhelms the
)darkness and there arise the yellow shades of colour."
) [Steiner, ibid. pp. 21-22]
)
)Got that? Some science teacher!))
)
)This wasn't the case in our school. My kids were taught the spectrum and
)color wheel and all that. No mention of any "color battle"
)
)Kelly
Kelly,
Do you have evidence to support your claim?
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n551.2 ---------------
From: Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Re: Newton
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 08:51:18 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199710281215.EAA27260 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199710281612.IAA07573 lists1.best.com)
On 28 Oct 97 , Deby Snell wrote:
) )My kids were taught the spectrum and
) )color wheel and all that. No mention of any "color battle"
) Kelly,
) Do you have evidence to support your claim?
Just to be clear on what constitutes "evidence," that would include
conversations with the kids about what they were being taught,
conversations with the teacher about what was being taught, and/or a
review of the child's workbook.
Personally, though, I'm as willing to take her word for it, just as I'm
willing to believe the assertions of Deby, Michael, David McKay, and
Dan about what their kids were taught.
Steve Premo ------ Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n551.3 ---------------
From: Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Newton
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 08:45:01 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199710280937.BAA13218 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199710281418.GAA25335 lists1.best.com)
On 28 Oct 97 , James Souttar wrote:
) Second, if you had paid as much attention in Bortoft's seminar as some of
) us did, you would have been struck by his insistence that Goethe's
) conclusions about colour are not important, but that his methodology is.
That's fine, and I have no problems with Goethe's methodology being used
in science classes. Those methods appear to be valuable in honing one's
powers of observation. The problem is when Goethe's conclusions about
color are taught to students. Then those conclusions *do* become
important!
(I realize that your post was in defense of Bortoft, and not about
Waldorf education, and that you are not defending the teaching of Goethe's
color theory to Waldorf students.)
Steve Premo ------ Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n551.4 ---------------
From: Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: RE: Newton
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 08:44:59 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199710281438.GAA02057 lists1.best.com)
On 28 Oct 97 , Brian Berns wrote:
) There seems to be much disagreement about what is actually taught in
) Waldorf schools. Personally, I'm finding very it difficult to judge the
) *merits* of Waldorf education when we can't even agree on the *content*
) of Waldorf education.
Brian, it's not that there is disagreement about what is taught at Waldorf
schools; it's that different things are taught by different teachers.
Some teachers are pretty serious about keeping Steiner's "science" out of
the classroom; others can't seem to tell the difference between Steiner's
pronouncements and real science.
Steve Premo ------ Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n551.5 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell oro.net)
Subject: Re: Re: Newton
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:19:41 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199710281612.IAA07573 lists1.best.com)
(199710281215.EAA27260 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199710281656.IAA29237 lists1.best.com)
)On 28 Oct 97 , Deby Snell wrote:
)) Kelly,
)) Do you have evidence to support your claim?
)
)Just to be clear on what constitutes "evidence," that would include
)conversations with the kids about what they were being taught,
)conversations with the teacher about what was being taught, and/or a
)review of the child's workbook.
)
)Personally, though, I'm as willing to take her word for it, just as I'm
)willing to believe the assertions of Deby, Michael, David McKay, and
)Dan about what their kids were taught.
)
)Steve Premo ------ Santa Cruz, California
) http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
I asked for evidence because I believe PLANS has an obligation to recognise
Waldorf schools who have departed from Steiner's theory. While I have no
reason to doubt Kelly's word, I'd also like the chance to "plug" her
child's school. For this purpose, I'd like to see quotes from a main lesson
book, or other evidence. Perhaps I should have explained.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n551.6 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Newton
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 13:07:46 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
I said:
)) There seems to be much disagreement about what is actually
)) taught in Waldorf schools.
Steve said:
) Brian, it's not that there is disagreement about what is taught at
) Waldorf schools; it's that different things are taught by different
) teachers.
That's plausible enough, but how then do you explain Dan's unambiguous
statements to the contrary?
Dan's statements:
) This [prism experiment] is a standard Waldorf lesson in sixth
) grade physics, elaborated later in high school.
) After the mandatory looking through the prism, Waldorf students
) are shown a demonstration with a milky tank of water in a dark
) room
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n551.7 ---------------
From: James Souttar (ancient urizen.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Newton
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 20:33:28 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199710281418.GAA25335 lists1.best.com)
(199710280937.BAA13218 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199710281659.IAA00533 lists1.best.com)
Steve:
)That's fine, and I have no problems with Goethe's methodology being used
)in science classes. Those methods appear to be valuable in honing one's
)powers of observation. The problem is when Goethe's conclusions about
)color are taught to students. Then those conclusions *do* become
)important!
Agreed. If Waldorf is going to teach Goethean Science, then it needs to be
clear about *what* it is teaching - whether it is suggesting that Goethe's
answers were the correct ones, or whether it is teaching a method of doing
science of which Goethe was an exemplar. I suspect that this might be an
issue where we might see a distinction between 'orthodox' and 'liberal'
positions...
Having said that, I should add that it is very often taught in mainstream
schools that Newton's conclusions about colour were correct - when, in
fact, that is far from true. Goethe was right to draw attention to the
flaws in the Newtonian model - his critique of Newtonian methodology in the
Farbenlehre is really the forerunner of the modern history and philosophy
of science - and modern colour theory is now far removed from both of them.
However, from what we now know, Goethe was undoubtedly the better (and
more modern) scientist: understanding the relationship of hypothesis,
observation and experiment, making painstakingly careful observations which
were meticulously recorded and shared with anyone who was interested, etc.
Newton was an Sorcerer, who hid his occult agenda beneath a veneer of
respectability - and was far from keen on openness and collaboration in his
work. Even so, both were to a large extent circumscribed by the scientific
paradigms of their times - and their theories are now historical and
cultural artefacts rather than definitive statements of Natural Science.
There is a great challenge facing education of all kinds in really
understanding the implications of the history and philosophy of science.
Too often, the work of historical figures is ignored by the high school
humanities department, and taught as a naive - and self fulfilling - story
of the gradual unveiling of 'fact' by the science department.
James
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n551.8 ---------------
From: Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: RE: Newton
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 12:39:16 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199710281808.KAA06786 lists1.best.com)
On 28 Oct 97 , Brian Berns wrote:
) I said:
) )) There seems to be much disagreement about what is actually
) )) taught in Waldorf schools.
)
) Steve said:
) ) Brian, it's not that there is disagreement about what is taught at
) ) Waldorf schools; it's that different things are taught by different
) ) teachers.
)
) That's plausible enough, but how then do you explain Dan's unambiguous
) statements to the contrary?
I suppose it's not up to me to explain anyone's statements but my own. I
have noticed, though, that it occurs relatively frequently that a critic
will post some weird notion that is taught in Waldorf schools, and one or
two Waldorf supporters will state that this notion was not taught to their
kids. So, either (1) that notion was actually taught to the supporters'
kids, but the parents either (a) don't realize it, or (b) are lying about
it; or (2) the notion was not taught to the supporters' kids,
but the supporters' schools are exceptions to the rule; or (3) the notion
was not taught to the supporters' kids, and there is considerable
variation in the details of what is taught in Waldorf schools. In the
latter case, perhaps some of the critics are mistaken as to the uniformity
of the curriculum in Waldorf schools.
The latter seems most likely to me.
Now, there is clearly a uniformity to the general topics that are taught
at a Waldorf school. For example, ancient civilizations are taught in a
certain grade. But in teaching ancient civilizations, many (perhaps
most) teachers would pr