return to WCA Archive Index
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n616 --------------
001 - RogGoetsch (RogGoetsch ao - Logic?
002 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: the "soul" and enquiring minds
003 - Deby Snell (snell netshel - Re: Camphill & Wendt
004 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: the "soul" and enquiring minds
005 - The Textbook League (text - Cult Awareness Network
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n616.1 ---------------
From: RogGoetsch (RogGoetsch aol.com)
Subject: Logic?
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 00:20:11 EST
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Michael Kopp said:
"For my part, the defining characteristic of religions, which is shared in
spades by Anthroposophy, is that they deal with the supernatural spiritual
world, however one characterises it, external or internal. Any philosophy
which deals with such spiritual realms is therefore a religion."
All lemons are sour, therefore all sour things are lemons?
RogGoetsch AOL.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n616.2 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: the "soul" and enquiring minds
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 21:50:24 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199712301640.IAA10685 lists1.best.com) (199712310059.QAA03035 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp wrote:
joel wendt said:
) To me, anthroposophy is an inner discipline, an art of the
) soul, if you will excuse the poetic expression. It is method, not
) content. When this discipline is not practiced, when anthroposophical ) content is stored in memory, and then drawn forth as a given truth, it ) is dogmatic. Anthroposophical content may then live in the soul in ) that area which is religious in nature, and appear to others as a ) religion. But from my point of view, such activity, which is epidemic ) in Waldorf, is not anthroposophy.
) So if one were to say: "anthroposophy is a religion", I would ) have to disagree. However, if one were to say: "dogmatic followers of ) Rudolf Steiner behave as if anthroposophy was a religion", I would
) have to agree.
) Do you understand the distinction I am trying to make?
)
) KOPP says:
)
) Yes, but it doesn't hold up. The METHOD you use is as much a religion,
) because of its intangibility and supernaturality (show me your "soul",
) please).
[This is a rather remarkable statement, since I did not describe the
actual content of the "method". I only made a distinction. You must be
assuming a specific content as to what I meant by "method". It will
help any further discussions if you could refrain from assuming my
statements mean something you might believe you understand already about
anthroposophy. It will work better if you just work from what I say,
without adding interpretations from any previous experiences. In our
initial (supposedly) intemperate exchange, you ascribed many
characteristics to me that could only come from presumptions. I don't
expect you not to have prejudices about anthroposophists (most every
post I've read of your's reveals them), but it will not be conducive to
discussion to "assume facts not in evidence".]
)
) From what I've seen firsthand, you are right that Anthroposophy is a
) dogmatic religion. But it never could have been anything else, for all ) the reasons given above.
[I didn't say anthroposophy is a dogmatic religion. Please reread the
post and be accurate in your statements about what I said]
)
) And you, Mr Wendt, exhibit all the qualities of belief (including
) defensiveness and lashing out at critics) of the true Anthropsophical
) religious.
[I have clearly stated my reasons for my uses of language in my other
posts. "Lashing out" is your characterization, and, as is usual, is
incorrect.]
)
) What have you discovered in your soul-searching that is different from ) the Anthroposophical view of the Universe? Enquiring minds would like ) to know.
[I have difficulty experiencing your mind as enquiring, but I will try
to be as temperate as possible. First of all, I have seldom read a
statement, on the list, of the "anthroposophical view" by the main PLANS
critics that was accurate. Many quotes are given, but there is little
demonstration of understanding. There are moments of light, and then
other times it just seems to be a kind of raw hate.
I am not surprised by this. Dogmatic anthroposophy is not a good
thing, and that people who have encountered it are angry and don't want
it in public schools seems completely justified to me.
Fortunately reality is not so simple, and anthroposophy is more then
meets the prejudiced eye. However, Mr Kopp and others, would like
concreteness and not just general statements (if only those that want
such things would always practice that discipline!). So I will make a
beginning at being concrete.
Mr. Kopp says: "show me your "soul", please." Actually its right in
front of you, in a way, you just don't give "it" that name, but call
"it" something else. However, if Mr. Kopp was willing, it might be
possible to show him his own "soul", and from that experience he could
learn to "see" someone elses.
Ah, would that it was all that easy. The key words above are: "if Mr
Kopp was willing". There's the rub, alas. No one, as far as I know,
learns something they don't know, without "wanting" to learn it. (As the
list members read this, please keep in mind what I said above, about not
making assumptions about "method" - we haven't gotten to that yet).
Against this dilemma, I am afraid I have no answer. What do you say
Mr. Kopp? Open to learning anything new?
Having made the above statements, I would like to add the following.
This is not, again NOT, a challenge to Mr. Kopp, and his disinterest
should not be interpreted in any way. To me, personal freedom of
thought is one of the most important things I want for myself, and, that
being the case, I try, as best as I am able, to serve that in everyone
else.
I am making an offer to assist in an exploration of something rather
unusual, and I take the relevant moral considerations very seriously.
One last matter. In the light of the presumptions as to method I would
like to state certain ideas regarding what is involved in the "learning"
I have in mind. First, nothing is to be observed or thought about that
does not lie entirely within any individuals immediate experience.
Remember what I said above, about "soul" being right in front of you,
but not having been given that "name" by our culture. Second, we
proceed very carefully. Baby steps. No hurry, no leaping ahead.
Basically what will be involved is my "pointing a finger" and you
"looking and deciding for yourselves".
Last, should Mr. Kopp decline, I make the same offer to others.
Multiple explorations would have the advantage of double checking each
others investigations. This, I believe, would keep us within the
"scientific" spirit (metaphorically speaking).
Welcome to 1998.
joel wendt]
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n616.3 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Camphill & Wendt
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 22:41:29 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199712310510.VAA25209 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199712311923.LAA25401 lists1.best.com)
Dear Joel,
As long as we're being honest, I should tell you that I am a complete
sucker for sensitive men. (sigh)
Deby
)Kathy,
)
) Please don't give up. I can reform, and I will try to restrain my
)emotions.
)
) My central problem is: How can I provide you information, about
)Camphill, I do not possess?
)
) My "emotional" problem is: I don't trust you to state how you truly
)think. I too am suspicious of your motives. It seems to me that there
)is an indifferent or neutral kind of skepticism that is willing to
)learn, and an active negative skepticism that has no intention of
)finding out information other then that which reinforces one's
)prejudgments. You read, to me, like the latter and not the former.
)
) Lacking trust, I act mildly obnoxious - poking at you with a kind of
)verbal stick to see what happens. The fact is that if I trusted your
)reactions to my posts, I would be more willing to give anecdotal
)information about Camphill, because I would know that the inherent
)weaknesses of that kind of information would not be turned into an easy
)means to criticise.
)
) Since it is my experience of you that you are not trustworthy in this
)sense, I don't have much of an option. In such circumstances I am not
)willing to be the source of information about Camphill.
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n616.4 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: the "soul" and enquiring minds
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 14:16:32 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199801010545.VAA01066 lists1.best.com)
On 31 Dec 97 at 21:50, Joel A. Wendt wrote:
) First of all, I have seldom read a
) statement, on the list, of the "anthroposophical view" by the main PLANS
) critics that was accurate. Many quotes are given, but there is little
) demonstration of understanding.
I have heard that from Waldorf supporters before, but as I've
recently stated, such a comment is not as helpful as a description
of precisely how a given statement is inaccurate. Without that, it
sounds as though the complaint is not that a statement is
*literally* inaccurate, only that it casts anthroposophy in a false
light because it does not reflect an understanding of the underlying
principles. Even so, a specific correction would be more helpful
than a general complaint about inaccuracy.
) I am making an offer to assist in an exploration of something rather
) unusual, and I take the relevant moral considerations very seriously.
)
) One last matter. In the light of the presumptions as to method I would
) like to state certain ideas regarding what is involved in the "learning"
) I have in mind. First, nothing is to be observed or thought about that
) does not lie entirely within any individuals immediate experience.
) Remember what I said above, about "soul" being right in front of you,
) but not having been given that "name" by our culture. Second, we
) proceed very carefully. Baby steps. No hurry, no leaping ahead.
) Basically what will be involved is my "pointing a finger" and you
) "looking and deciding for yourselves".
)
) Last, should Mr. Kopp decline, I make the same offer to others.
) Multiple explorations would have the advantage of double checking each
) others investigations. This, I believe, would keep us within the
) "scientific" spirit (metaphorically speaking).
Hey, sounds good to me. My time is very limited, what with
taking care of the kids and all, but I'm willing to give it a shot if
it's not too time consuming. Kathy previously offered to do the
same. What's the first step?
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n616.5 ---------------
From: The Textbook League (textbook earthlink.net)
Subject: Cult Awareness Network
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 1998 14:40:24 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Here's an item that Mary-Karen Reid posted to the Skeptics list.
Bill Bennetta
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
) On Sunday 12/28, "60 Minutes" aired a piece about Scientology's
) takeover of the Cult Awareness Network (CAN.) For those who missed
) it, a transcript can be found at http://www.magpie.co.uk/60mins.html
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n616 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n617 --------------
001 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Religion
002 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Re: Religion
003 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: the "soul" and enquiring minds
004 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Scientific Reasoning and WE (Oart 1)
005 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Scientific Reasoning and WE (Oart 1)
006 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Scientific Reasoning and WE (Oart 1)
007 - Bart Windrum (stretch sof - Deby-Response/Teardown-buildup
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n617.1 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Religion
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 08:37:31 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199801010520.VAA22237 lists1.best.com)
On 1 Jan 98 , RogGoetsch wrote:
) Michael Kopp said:
)
) "For my part, the defining characteristic of religions, which is shared
) in spades by Anthroposophy, is that they deal with the supernatural
) spiritual world, however one characterises it, external or internal.
) Any philosophy which deals with such spiritual realms is therefore a
) religion."
)
) All lemons are sour, therefore all sour things are lemons?
OK, Rog, if you don't like that definition, what definition of religion
would you propose?
Remember, the definition is strictly for the purpose of determining
whether public funding of the institution will violate the constitutional
prohibition on government funding of religious schools. Therefore, it
should be a useful definition, which a court can reasonably apply to a
wide range of instutions.
(As I've stated before, this is not the end of the inquiry. It is not
clear that public support of a school is prohibited where the pedagogy is
based on a religion, if the religion is not taught to the kids, no overt
religious activities take place, and there is no discrimination against
teachers who reject the spiritual teachings or beliefs.)
Steve Premo ----------- http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
-----
"It's a messed up world but I love it anyway, I love it."
--Greg Brown
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n617.2 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Re: Religion
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 20:12:54 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 08:37 AM 2/1/98 +0000, Steve Premo wrote:
)Remember, the definition [of religion] is strictly for the purpose of
determining
)whether public funding of the institution will violate the constitutional
)prohibition on government funding of religious schools. Therefore, it
)should be a useful definition, which a court can reasonably apply to a
)wide range of instutions.
)
)(As I've stated before, this is not the end of the inquiry. It is not
)clear that public support of a school is prohibited where the pedagogy is
)based on a religion, if the religion is not taught to the kids, no overt
)religious activities take place, and there is no discrimination against
)teachers who reject the spiritual teachings or beliefs.)
About ten years ago, a Dutch Waldorf school dismissed a teacher, after she
had become a devotee of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (Osho).
)Steve Premo ----------- http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n617.3 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: the "soul" and enquiring minds
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 12:56:20 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801012218.OAA21934 lists1.best.com)
Steve,
Thanks. You're right to wonder about my statement about the lack of
understanding of the "anthroposophical view". I'll comment directly
below your comment [in brackets, of course], and then at the end I'll
suggest a first step in "seeing" if there is a "soul".
Steve Premo wrote:
)
) On 31 Dec 97 at 21:50, Joel A. Wendt wrote:
)
) ) First of all, I have seldom read a
) ) statement, on the list, of the "anthroposophical view" by the main PLANS
) ) critics that was accurate. Many quotes are given, but there is little
) ) demonstration of understanding.
)
) I have heard that from Waldorf supporters before, but as I've
) recently stated, such a comment is not as helpful as a description
) of precisely how a given statement is inaccurate. Without that, it
) sounds as though the complaint is not that a statement is
) *literally* inaccurate, only that it casts anthroposophy in a false
) light because it does not reflect an understanding of the underlying
) principles. Even so, a specific correction would be more helpful
) than a general complaint about inaccuracy.
[I tried to link two ideas, without doing a good job of it, these ideas
being "accuracy" and "understanding". Obviously one can quote another's
words "accurately". But can one be "accurate" - on the mark - in
understanding what another person "means" by what they have stated.
This last is, to me, much more difficult, and many years of experience
in mental health, and in just ordinary conversation, (especially were
there is strong emotional texture in the background) have taught me that
misunderstanding is much more common than understanding. Let me try to
be more concrete.
During 1989, '90 and '91, I read a great deal about the fields of
neurophysiology and cognative science, and about the attempts at that
time to bring several separate disciplines into better contact with each
other in the pursuit of an understanding of the mind. Now I came to
this examination from the experience of a "christian meditator" (let's
not make too much of that term, please), wanting to reconcile ongoing
scientific work with christian meditative and contemplative practice and
experience (this last being a place where I was more at home).
I had found out before this, that in order to "understand" someones
else's point of view it was necessary during the act of reading to
approach the work as if I was it's author. To read and simultaneously
imagine that I was writing these words and intended their meaning. It
is possible to have a completely different experience of reading (or
listening) if one sets aside for the moment one's own point of view, and
then lives into the point of view of the other person. This is not
always easy, and one's emotional state often makes it even more
difficult.
Anyway, it is in this manner I use the word "understand", that is with
empathic connotations. I have so far only read about 10% of the
archives, but it is clear on both sides of various "arguments" that such
understanding is absent. However, I would maintain, that without
understanding (in the way described above) another's point of view, it
is not possible to state it with accuracy. Instead one tends to state
the other's point of view colored with one's own interpretive emotional
and rational texturing, sometimes as well (given the international
nature of e-mail) with the natural prejudices of a different culture and
language.
The result is that often people argue, but not about the same thing,
tending to mean very different things while at the same time using the
same words, language, grammer and syntax. The words used do not have
the same experiencial reference. Someone will use the word
"clairvoyance" for example, and not "believe" such an act is possible,
while another will have had some small experiences, and therefore accept
the possibility, but more importantly have an "experiential referent"
that the other person not only lacks, but considers impossible (and,
sometimes, evidence of a pathological mental condition. How can these
two talk to each other and achieve mutual comprehension on any of the
indirectly related issues, when the fundamental nature of each other's
personal experience is denied. I don't just mean from the
anthropop-critics side either. Someone from the Waldorf-Steiner-culture
(to create a new term), who fails to accept and understand someone from
the Materialist-sceptical-culture (this is of course hopelessly
oversimplified) will have just as much trouble. Now I have seen (in my
10% archive reading) individuals struggling across the divide from both
sides. But both Dan and Lefty, for example, spend a lot of time
arguing pointlessly (in my view) because they don't stop and accept the
differing assumptions and experiences each possesses, as valid in their
own right - i.e. no accuracy of "understanding". When this is done,
then the dialogue opens up, the loaded language disappears, and real
interest in the other "person" arises (instead of this acrimonious
banging of head forces in the argument of one view or another being more
"true", more "scientific" and so forth.
In this post you are responding too, I made a very crucial distinction,
between the essence of a thing (anthroposophy), and its appearance to
someone who has no experience of that essense. For example, you know
yourself in a way no one else can. Why ever should I try to tell you
that your self knowledge is defective and that you should believe about
yourself my perceptions of you over against your own? Yet people do
this confusing impossible judging of each other routinely. This is not
to say there is no value in "reflecting" our mutual experience of each
other to each other. That is a very "nutritious" psychological (soul
lawful) food. But nothing in my experience suggests that I could know
any other person better then they know themselves.
Now when we dialogue about the ideas we have (for which each individual
has individual experiential referents), and try to do this as if our
abstract expressions of ideas could in any way be separated out of our
inner relationship to them and the meaning we give to them, then this
dialogue becomes a zone of conflict because the essential human context
from which it constantly arises is left out.
Ideas don't have an absolute meaning (except perhaps mathematical
ideas, and this in a limited way), but only that meaning given to them
by the speaker/writer. We can try to make our use of language more
practical by resorting to definitions and dictionary meanings, but as
soon as we forget the human context from which they issue, and "argue"
about these abstractions as if some kind of absolute reasoned conclusion
could be arrived at, then we founder in a swamp of illusion.
Someone could oversimplify these comments by saying I am arguing
somekind of "relativism", but I am not arguing anything. Just pointing
out the observable realities of how human beings use language, which we
all know, but forget as soon as we set ought to prove we are right and
the other guy is wrong.
Rudolf Steiner tried to direct our attention to this powerful
individualistic quality of each human being, by suggesting that whereas
the animal kingdom is sub-divided into various species, each human
being, was, with respect to each other human being, as different
ultimately as each species (ants vs. elephants). This is not an
abstract argument by the way, but an attempt to create by analogy a
sense of the deep nature of individuality as that manifests in human
beings. All my experiences conform this observation. We are very
different from each other, much to my delight, by the way.
Arguing and crashing ideas into each other, may be common human
behavior, but that doesn't change its undesirable and unproductive
consequences, or its essentially uniformed (lacking "understanding" as
described above) character.]
)
) ) I am making an offer to assist in an exploration of something rather
) ) unusual, and I take the relevant moral considerations very seriously.
) )
) ) One last matter. In the light of the presumptions as to method I would
) ) like to state certain ideas regarding what is involved in the "learning"
) ) I have in mind. First, nothing is to be observed or thought about that
) ) does not lie entirely within any individuals immediate experience.
) ) Remember what I said above, about "soul" being right in front of you,
) ) but not having been given that "name" by our culture. Second, we
) ) proceed very carefully. Baby steps. No hurry, no leaping ahead.
) ) Basically what will be involved is my "pointing a finger" and you
) ) "looking and deciding for yourselves".
) )
) ) Last, should Mr. Kopp decline, I make the same offer to others.
) ) Multiple explorations would have the advantage of double checking each
) ) others investigations. This, I believe, would keep us within the
) ) "scientific" spirit (metaphorically speaking).
)
) Hey, sounds good to me. My time is very limited, what with
) taking care of the kids and all, but I'm willing to give it a shot if
) it's not too time consuming. Kathy previously offered to do the
) same. What's the first step?
[Hopefully more than one person will do this, so that we have a number
of points of view, but "a" (not "the") first step would be to explain in
your own words, what the following phrase refers to: "Please be quiet, I
can't hear myself think". Specifically, just the last part: "...I can't
hear myself think". What, in your own experience would you mean, if you
were to make such a statement? Do you think this statement referes to
anything more or less universal in the human being; i.e. do we all have
an experience that such a statement would refer to? There is no right
answer here, by the way. Its just a place to begin looking at
something, I believe we all share as human beings.]
)
) Steve Premo
) Santa Cruz, California
) http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
[joel wendt]
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n617.4 ---------------
From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Scientific Reasoning and WE (Oart 1)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 17:49:28 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
)From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
)Subject: RE: Reality Check for Joel
)Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997=20
)Personally, I'm still quite interested in the truth -- call me backward.
)I'd like to see this list return to a discussion of what is (and isn't)
)true about Waldorf. Enough with the public preening.
--------------------------------
Dear Brian,
=09
You've finally caught me in a rare moment of public non-preening, so while
I'm temporarily distracted from gazing into my full length mirror, I will
address some of your concerns and even tell you something of my agenda on
this List.=20
I've noticed from some of your earlier posts that you are interested in
stamping out pseudo-science like the crusading "Unholy Trinity" of Dans on
the List (Dugan, Sabsay & Sakaly--- 3 Dans in one Anti-God--- how
undivine!) and their mighty devil's advocate and Defender of the Skeptical
=46aith Extraordinaire, Michael Cardinal Kopp, Archbishop of the Diocese of=
Scientism in=20
New Zealand.
However, I sense that you have not yet decided to join their specific 1st
Amendment legal crusade against Waldorf Education. I sense that you are
much more interested in the issues that separate what you call science from
pseudo-science. I will endeavor to address those issues on the List, but
keeping to the focus, I will always refer my examples to specific content
of what is taught in WE.
I myself have had a very brief career as a Waldorf teacher, having taught
physics and chemistry at the Garden City, Long Island Waldorf High School
in the early 1980's. (You might be interested to know that the entire K-12
physical plant of the Garden City WS is actually part of Adelphi University
(has been since 1947), a completely unique situation among all WSs in the
USA. Perhaps its attachment to a university is part of the reason that 96%
of its graduates go on to college, many of them to great success at Ivy
League schools, thus proving conclusively the incompetence of Waldorf
Graduates who ought to just wilt under the pressure of a secular college
education.)
As for myself, I am presently putting together material for a Master's
thesis in Science Education here at UT Austin. I recently finished my B.S.
degree in physics to go with my B.A. degree in Classical Greek, I also have
a 15 year non-academic background in theater as actor, playwright, play
translator (Greek & German), director and speech coach for a Shakespearean
troupe here in Austin--- using very successfully, you guessed it, my own
updated translations of Rudolf Steiner's speech and drama exercises.=20
I intend to put all of this together in a master's thesis that will involve
the realm of statistical inference. My cheeky title for the thesis is
"Deconstructing Popper," but I realize that I will not be allowed such
cheekiness in the formal dry academic title I must eventually use. However,
I will be writing a journal/magazine article with that title after I get my
research in order.=20
Now where this intersects with the List is that I am "deconstructing" Sir
Karl Popper as the guru of the skeptic community just as Dan Dugan is
"deconstructing" Rudolf Steiner as the guru of Waldorf Education. And I've
actually picked up a few good pointers and "deconstructing" techniques from
the way both sides attack each other here.
[NOTE: as a point of order here, "Deconstructing" is the present trendy
politically correct academic buzzword and elitist euphemism for the more
colloquial "trashing." I'm very grateful to Woody Allen for titling his
latest movie: "Deconstructing Harry" even though I hear it's a terrible
movie.]
Now the great advantage for all of us concerned is that I have managed to
find a way to deconstruct Popper and the associated dogmatic belief system
that his followers swear by without recourse to either (1) Steiner's ideas
(the supernatural) or (2) Quantum Logic (the sub-natural)--- even though I=
could arhue from both those points of view.=20
But in fact, all the ideas can be found in a long-neglected school of=
statistical inference called the Bayesian school, and the most=
sophisticated mathematics for such
research involves only a mastery of college algebra for everyone to
understand. Therefore, I need not stir up the terror that Michael Kopp
feels whenever the equally demonic doctrines of anthroposophy or quantum phy=
sics
are invoked. (So Michael, I swear you won't need the garlic clove necklace
or the hand-held crucifix to ward off the twin superstitions I refer to.)
Let me proceed here. "Bayesian" is a reference to Rev. Thomas Bayes, an
English clergyman, who in 1763 formulated the famous theorem in classical
probablility that bears his name. The subject of the theorem is
"conditional probability," and a die example is in order here. You know
that if you roll a die, you have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling, let us say,
the number 6. =09
But now suppose there is another person who rolls the die. You
don't see it, but the person tells you that the roll is an even number.
What are the odds now that the number is a 6? Well, your chances double.
Instead of a 1 in 6 chance, you now have a 1 in 3 chance.=20
The variables can be expressed algebraically as P(6|E), which means the
=46UTURE probability that you will roll a 6 given the PRIOR condition that
you know the roll is some even number.
Without going into the details of the full equation, suffice it to say
that Bayes' Theorem allows a future inference to be made (a posteriori)
based on a past (a priori) assumption. The upshot is that you can
quantitatively estimate the DEGREES OF BELIEF that a scientist holds about
the experimental data that he is using to prove or disprove his hypothesis. =
In short, it provides an objective way of ascertaining the subjective=
preconceptions and pejudices that scientists bring to their experiments---=
somthing that Karl Popper and his devotees wish to avoid like the plahue.=
=20
Now where this has relevance on this List is in the favorite "punching
bag" brought forward by the critics about the teaching in WE of the heart
as an organ that is NOT a mechanical pump. I will develop that specific
issue in the next post because it also involves the "ox" of
"reprodicability" and the "sacred cow" of"falsifiability" that I must gore
first and that will get very messy and bloody, so it deserves its own
thread, actually.
For now, I will stop here and send off this post to the list. It's a taste=
of what's to come, but I'm not sure there will be a lot of interest in the=
topic. By the way, Brian, if you wish to read the best introductory book=
on Bayesian methods, read "Scientific Reasoning: the Bayesian Approach." by=
Colin Howson and Peter Urbach , (Open Court Publishing, Illinois, 1989).=
Here is something of the summary blurb on the book as well as a critical qu=
ote.
"Confronting the problems of induction and the confirmation of scientific=
theories, Howson and Urbach reject the 'objectivist ideal' and the=
fashionable non-probabilistic standard of scientific worth., associated=
with such writers as Neyman & Pearson, Fisher, Popper and Lakatos. ...
"[The co-authors] examine the way in which scientists actually appeal to=
probability arguments and explain the 'classical' approach to statistical=
inference, which they demonstrate to be full of flaws. "
And the blurb from Prof. Dennis Lindley at University College in London.
"For the first time we have a book that combines philosophical wisdom, =
mathematical skill and and statistical appreciation to produce a coherent=
system ... Popper has recently described the the Bayesian approach as=
being 'in tatters.' Howson and Urbach successfully show that this is false=
and that it is Popper who is wrong."
Stay tuned for Part 2, which may not arrive gor 2 or 3 days, depending on=
my schedule this weekend.
Tom.=20
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n617.5 ---------------
From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Scientific Reasoning and WE (Oart 1)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 17:49:28 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
)From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
)Subject: RE: Reality Check for Joel
)Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997=20
)Personally, I'm still quite interested in the truth -- call me backward.
)I'd like to see this list return to a discussion of what is (and isn't)
)true about Waldorf. Enough with the public preening.
--------------------------------
Dear Brian,
=09
You've finally caught me in a rare moment of public non-preening, so while
I'm temporarily distracted from gazing into my full length mirror, I will
address some of your concerns and even tell you something of my agenda on
this List.=20
I've noticed from some of your earlier posts that you are interested in
stamping out pseudo-science like the crusading "Unholy Trinity" of Dans on
the List (Dugan, Sabsay & Sakaly--- 3 Dans in one Anti-God--- how
undivine!) and their mighty devil's advocate and Defender of the Skeptical
=46aith Extraordinaire, Michael Cardinal Kopp, Archbishop of the Diocese of=
Scientism in=20
New Zealand.
However, I sense that you have not yet decided to join their specific 1st
Amendment legal crusade against Waldorf Education. I sense that you are
much more interested in the issues that separate what you call science from
pseudo-science. I will endeavor to address those issues on the List, but
keeping to the focus, I will always refer my examples to specific content
of what is taught in WE.
I myself have had a very brief career as a Waldorf teacher, having taught
physics and chemistry at the Garden City, Long Island Waldorf High School
in the early 1980's. (You might be interested to know that the entire K-12
physical plant of the Garden City WS is actually part of Adelphi University
(has been since 1947), a completely unique situation among all WSs in the
USA. Perhaps its attachment to a university is part of the reason that 96%
of its graduates go on to college, many of them to great success at Ivy
League schools, thus proving conclusively the incompetence of Waldorf
Graduates who ought to just wilt under the pressure of a secular college
education.)
As for myself, I am presently putting together material for a Master's
thesis in Science Education here at UT Austin. I recently finished my B.S.
degree in physics to go with my B.A. degree in Classical Greek, I also have
a 15 year non-academic background in theater as actor, playwright, play
translator (Greek & German), director and speech coach for a Shakespearean
troupe here in Austin--- using very successfully, you guessed it, my own
updated translations of Rudolf Steiner's speech and drama exercises.=20
I intend to put all of this together in a master's thesis that will involve
the realm of statistical inference. My cheeky title for the thesis is
"Deconstructing Popper," but I realize that I will not be allowed such
cheekiness in the formal dry academic title I must eventually use. However,
I will be writing a journal/magazine article with that title after I get my
research in order.=20
Now where this intersects with the List is that I am "deconstructing" Sir
Karl Popper as the guru of the skeptic community just as Dan Dugan is
"deconstructing" Rudolf Steiner as the guru of Waldorf Education. And I've
actually picked up a few good pointers and "deconstructing" techniques from
the way both sides attack each other here.
[NOTE: as a point of order here, "Deconstructing" is the present trendy
politically correct academic buzzword and elitist euphemism for the more
colloquial "trashing." I'm very grateful to Woody Allen for titling his
latest movie: "Deconstructing Harry" even though I hear it's a terrible
movie.]
Now the great advantage for all of us concerned is that I have managed to
find a way to deconstruct Popper and the associated dogmatic belief system
that his followers swear by without recourse to either (1) Steiner's ideas
(the supernatural) or (2) Quantum Logic (the sub-natural)--- even though I=
could arhue from both those points of view.=20
But in fact, all the ideas can be found in a long-neglected school of=
statistical inference called the Bayesian school, and the most=
sophisticated mathematics for such
research involves only a mastery of college algebra for everyone to
understand. Therefore, I need not stir up the terror that Michael Kopp
feels whenever the equally demonic doctrines of anthroposophy or quantum phy=
sics
are invoked. (So Michael, I swear you won't need the garlic clove necklace
or the hand-held crucifix to ward off the twin superstitions I refer to.)
Let me proceed here. "Bayesian" is a reference to Rev. Thomas Bayes, an
English clergyman, who in 1763 formulated the famous theorem in classical
probablility that bears his name. The subject of the theorem is
"conditional probability," and a die example is in order here. You know
that if you roll a die, you have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling, let us say,
the number 6. =09
But now suppose there is another person who rolls the die. You
don't see it, but the person tells you that the roll is an even number.
What are the odds now that the number is a 6? Well, your chances double.
Instead of a 1 in 6 chance, you now have a 1 in 3 chance.=20
The variables can be expressed algebraically as P(6|E), which means the
=46UTURE probability that you will roll a 6 given the PRIOR condition that
you know the roll is some even number.
Without going into the details of the full equation, suffice it to say
that Bayes' Theorem allows a future inference to be made (a posteriori)
based on a past (a priori) assumption. The upshot is that you can
quantitatively estimate the DEGREES OF BELIEF that a scientist holds about
the experimental data that he is using to prove or disprove his hypothesis. =
In short, it provides an objective way of ascertaining the subjective=
preconceptions and pejudices that scientists bring to their experiments---=
somthing that Karl Popper and his devotees wish to avoid like the plahue.=
=20
Now where this has relevance on this List is in the favorite "punching
bag" brought forward by the critics about the teaching in WE of the heart
as an organ that is NOT a mechanical pump. I will develop that specific
issue in the next post because it also involves the "ox" of
"reprodicability" and the "sacred cow" of"falsifiability" that I must gore
first and that will get very messy and bloody, so it deserves its own
thread, actually.
For now, I will stop here and send off this post to the list. It's a taste=
of what's to come, but I'm not sure there will be a lot of interest in the=
topic. By the way, Brian, if you wish to read the best introductory book=
on Bayesian methods, read "Scientific Reasoning: the Bayesian Approach." by=
Colin Howson and Peter Urbach , (Open Court Publishing, Illinois, 1989).=
Here is something of the summary blurb on the book as well as a critical qu=
ote.
"Confronting the problems of induction and the confirmation of scientific=
theories, Howson and Urbach reject the 'objectivist ideal' and the=
fashionable non-probabilistic standard of scientific worth., associated=
with such writers as Neyman & Pearson, Fisher, Popper and Lakatos. ...
"[The co-authors] examine the way in which scientists actually appeal to=
probability arguments and explain the 'classical' approach to statistical=
inference, which they demonstrate to be full of flaws. "
And the blurb from Prof. Dennis Lindley at University College in London.
"For the first time we have a book that combines philosophical wisdom, =
mathematical skill and and statistical appreciation to produce a coherent=
system ... Popper has recently described the the Bayesian approach as=
being 'in tatters.' Howson and Urbach successfully show that this is false=
and that it is Popper who is wrong."
Stay tuned for Part 2, which may not arrive gor 2 or 3 days, depending on=
my schedule this weekend.
Tom.=20
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n617.6 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Scientific Reasoning and WE (Oart 1)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 22:05:32 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Tom said:
) I will address some of your concerns.
Thank you, I appreciate that. I am willing to give you as much slack as
you need (as long as you continue making sense). Unfortunately, what I
cannot give you much of is time -- hence, the shorter your posts, the
better (for me).
) I've noticed from some of your earlier posts that you are interested
in
) stamping out pseudo-science
True.
) However, I sense that you have not yet decided to join their specific
) 1st Amendment legal crusade against Waldorf Education.
Yes and no. I consider public Waldorf schools an aberration that can be
corrected without my direct involvement. My layman's opinion is that
public funding of Waldorf schools is in violation of the First
Amendment. (BTW, some Waldorf proponents on this list feel the same
way.) However, to me, this is a side-issue, not directly relevant to
the nature of Waldorf itself.
) [Bayes' Theorem] provides an objective way of ascertaining the
) subjective preconceptions and pejudices that scientists bring to their
) experiments
If I understand correctly, Bayes' Theorem addresses the mathematics of
probability. I fail to see how any such theory could provide
quantitative information about a person's subjective mental state.
Scientifically speaking, consciousness is still pretty much a mystery.
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n617.7 ---------------
From: Bart Windrum (stretch softsmart.com)
Subject: Deby-Response/Teardown-buildup
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 20:35:24 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199801020600.WAA15342 lists1.best.com)
Hi Deby,
It's been about two weeks since I responded to your request to enlarge upon
some statements I made on the list. In that post, and in private mail
shortly afterwards I asked you for feedback. So far I've heard exactly
nothing from you. This interests me given your role as PLANS'
president--not to mention it's impolite.
Why don't you respond, or even reply?
***
Several weeks ago in direct response to a PLANS adherent's comments I
stated my co-interest in identifying mining, extracting, finessing, and
utilizing in public education what is "good" about WE.
For clarification, I am *not* an anthroposophist, although if my only
choices were traditional 3R and WE schooling, I'd re-enroll my child in WE
at least through elementary school and possibly middle...as the lesser of
two evils (*so to speak*; don't anybody launch themsevles from this phrase,
please).
Dan clearly stated PLANS' purpose as entirely focused on the dissolution of
any aspect of WE in public schools utilizing the "can't take the pig out of
the pork" test.
As a result of which I queried the list: is it possible for two people to
engage in the same experience, but, coming from differing intentions, have
different experiences? In other words, making new or different meaning (or
even less meaning; what is dogma if not a claim of ownership on meaning?)?
So, here's a second call for feedback/discussion/creativity on this topic.
Cheers, Bart
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n617 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n618 --------------
001 - Deby Snell (snell netshel - Re: Deby-Response/Teardown-buildup
002 - "Sutphen" (spike netshel. - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n616
003 - "Sutphen" (spike netshel. - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n617
004 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n616
005 - AJULSON COOK.TAMU.EDU - Re: Camphill
006 - Deby Snell (snell netshel - Re: Camphill
007 - "Peter Schwab" (pschwab a - Re: Camphill
008 - AJULSON COOK.TAMU.EDU - Re: Camphill
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n618.1 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Deby-Response/Teardown-buildup
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 11:29:06 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801020600.WAA15342 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801030334.TAA23255 lists1.best.com)
)Hi Deby,
This interests me given your role as PLANS' president--not to mention it's
impolite.
)
)
)Why don't you respond, or even reply?
)
Hi,
Since you asked why...
The past two months have been especially intense for me. My beloved (80 yo)
mother had a massive heart attack which led to surgery and an intense
recovery. During this time, my beloved 87 yo Uncle (who has dementia)
moved in with my family for a month. My two sisters and I moved my widowed
mother and brother from their remote mountain home of 50 years, to be
closer to us. Christmas is a busy time for _most_ folks, but our business
makes 1/3 of our annual income during this time of year. I hosted a party
for our 13 employees and their families, then Christmas dinner for 32 of
my immediate family members. In the middle of this, we re-financed our
house, and needed to do a few things to our large 1912 farm house to
prepare for the appraisal, including central heat/air. My boys have been
out of school for winter recess. I have had little time and have felt quite
stressed.
I have continued to contribute to the critics list but mostly short
responses on issues that take little thought. I have barely kept up on my
e-mail. Please accept my apology. I'm unsure if I still have that post.
I'll check on it, but likely won't have time until my boys are back in
school.
Best,
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n618.2 ---------------
From: "Sutphen" (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n616
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 12:47:11 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
----------
) From: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) Subject: Wendt's Distrust
) Date: Thursday, January 01, 1998 10:00 PM
)
)
Joel
I believe I missed a list posting as I worked at configuring my new
computer. However, I saw this reposted in a reply from Deby Snell:
) ) My "emotional" problem is: I don't trust you to state how you truly
) )think. I too am suspicious of your motives. It seems to me that there
) )is an indifferent or neutral kind of skepticism that is willing to
) )learn, and an active negative skepticism that has no intention of
) )finding out information other then that which reinforces one's
) )prejudgments. You read, to me, like the latter and not the former.
I find myself very confused by this message. I have not posted to you more
than a few times. One post was to Kopp *about* the frustrating nature of
your lengthy posts about truth, etc., nothing dishonest in my statements to
Kopp. In another post I apologized to you for speaking to Kopp about your
list behavior instead of directly writing to you. I also asked you about
Camphill. You then replied in an incredibly insulting manner accusing me of
having a tantrum, in addition to other pejorative accusations.
I can understand why you may not like my posts, but how this would lead you
to distrust me is quite beyond my grasp, particularly in light of your
advice to Mr. Kopp to withhold judgement. More to the point, I will simply
state that while I am a critic of Waldorf I am not a dishonest person. I
have dealt straight with you and I find myself confused and somewhat
repelled by your hostility. Unfortunately, given my previous contact with
Anthroposophists on and off this list, I find your approach to me
consistant. I am a critic, therefore I am to be treated rudely, accused of
behaviors I have not exhibited, and generally insulted and demeaned.
) ) Lacking trust, I act mildly obnoxious - poking at you with a kind of
) )verbal stick to see what happens.
You have stated on this list before that you indulged in rude behavior as
some sort of *test* (my word). I define this as dishonest manipulation and
extremely obnoxious in any setting. I believe in being straight with people
- I say what I mean. There are no hidden agendas - it's all out on the
table.
The fact is that if I trusted your
) )reactions to my posts, I would be more willing to give anecdotal
) )information about Camphill, because I would know that the inherent
) )weaknesses of that kind of information would not be turned into an easy
) )means to criticise.
Joel, I have lost all desire to converse with you about Camphill. Your
behavior on this list has been rude and inappropriate.
) ) Since it is my experience of you that you are not trustworthy in this
) )sense,
Once again, how am I untrustworthy? How insulting. You don't even know me.
You are the one that has admittedly
attempted to manipulate me by posting rude accusations. I am surprised,
given your background in mental health, that you engage in manipulative
behavior. Surely you know the value of striving to be honest and
straightforward in communication.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n618.3 ---------------
From: "Sutphen" (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n617
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 13:18:13 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Steve Premo posted:
) (As I've stated before, this is not the end of the inquiry. It is not
) clear that public support of a school is prohibited where the pedagogy is
) based on a religion, if the religion is not taught to the kids, no overt
) religious activities take place, and there is no discrimination against
) teachers who reject the spiritual teachings or beliefs.)
One of the ways in which I was harassed at my public school site was being
denied a transfer request to another school. The stated reason was that I
was "not a team player." Being a team player meant that I had to attend the
training at Rudolf Steiner College (sans monetary reimbursement), accept
the methods and curriculum content with no objection or even question, and
plan my
curriculum around the Waldorf teaching methods. I would have been somewhat
content to ignore the focus of the other teaching staff had I been allowed
to quietly pursue my teaching as I had in the past. Unfortunately, my
experience is very similar to that of other protesting public school
teachers at publicly funded Waldorf sites.
I've given the phenomena quite a bit of thought. Had this simply been a new
math method or focus, perhaps like the one recently mandated in California,
I would not have been subjected to harassment for expressing my concern. I
know quite a number of teachers that are opposed to or concerned about the
new
math direction in California public curriculum. They are not being
harrassed or blacklisted. What is the difference? The answer seems clear to
me. The Waldorf method is much more than a curriculum approach. It's an
entire spiritual belief system. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of
dollars (probably millions) have now been spent by districts that bought
into the false
advertising put forth by Rudolf Steiner College. So there are at least two
levels of extreme defensiveness when criticism or refusal to participate
occurs. The spiritual/religious underpinnings are being attacked (or at
least it is perceived this way on an emotional level), and the
administrators that pursued this course *must* defend it in order to avoid
looking badly in the public's eyes. How can they freely admit that they so
cavalierly misused and continue to misuse public funds (even
unintentionally)?
I will be relieved when this chapter of my life is over. It is time
consuming and lacks the positive focus I would rather have in education and
in my life in general. I am always deeply emotionally shaken when I am
subjected to the insults, name calling, and character assassination that
has come hand-in-hand with my protest. No amount of self-talk has been
sufficient to help me overcome my reaction to the Wendts and others that
have seen fit to malign me with such abandon. (This phenomena alone is
telling.)
Additionally, I am now working again and I have little time on my hands
since I also have a family and am very involved on that front. However, I
feel morally compelled to follow this through to its end. I know what
happened to me and I have spoken to several other teachers that were
severely harmed by Waldorf inclusion. They are simply not as outspoken as I
am. A public school teacher must speak out loudly about inappropriate
nature of this inclusion, both on the issue of church/state and low
academic standards. The task seems to have fallen in my lap. However, there
are other teachers waiting in the wings and will be ready to step forward
when this goes to trial.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n618.4 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n616
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 1998 20:52:11 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801032046.MAA25498 lists1.best.com)
Kathy,
Oh boy! Can we start over again?
When I meet people have I "reactions" to them. I don't consider the
"reactions" exactly factual, but I don't ignore them either. In
cyberspace, with just written words to go on, it is even more difficult
to form an impression of someone. My statement about "trust" was an
attempt to share with you such a "reaction", so you could better
understand (perhaps) my difficulties in communicating with you.
Your response below seems to me to be an "over-reaction", and it is
that "intensity" of response (similar to other posts) which means I
can't "trust" how you react to me. By "trust" I mean (and I thought the
message I sent before was clear on this) not that you are dishonest, but
your responses like an emotional authenticity. Your words to me, and
the surrounding emotional context, seem at odds with each other. A kind
of dissonance, which bothers me and makes me reluctant to be open and
honest with you. The "over-reaction" below just confirms my impression.
I make an attempt to break down barriers, and you blow it out of
proportion, as if I was attacking you, rather then seeking (which I
still am) to find a way to make a human connection.
In my post to Steve P., I wrote of the same thing, the problems that
arrise when posts are sent back and forth without any human connection
being made. You don't have to want it. I am not trying to force it.
But I know for a fact that if we can't transcend the differences in our
views, we will never really understand each others truth. Everyone who
writes to the list has a truth, which can be valued and honored.
Differences can be understood and accepted without our becoming mortal
enemies.
joel wendt
Sutphen wrote:
)
) ----------
) ) From: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
) ) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) ) Subject: Wendt's Distrust
) ) Date: Thursday, January 01, 1998 10:00 PM
) )
) )
) Joel
) I believe I missed a list posting as I worked at configuring my new
) computer. However, I saw this reposted in a reply from Deby Snell:
)
) ) ) My "emotional" problem is: I don't trust you to state how you truly
) ) )think. I too am suspicious of your motives. It seems to me that there
) ) )is an indifferent or neutral kind of skepticism that is willing to
) ) )learn, and an active negative skepticism that has no intention of
) ) )finding out information other then that which reinforces one's
) ) )prejudgments. You read, to me, like the latter and not the former.
)
) I find myself very confused by this message. I have not posted to you more
) than a few times. One post was to Kopp *about* the frustrating nature of
) your lengthy posts about truth, etc., nothing dishonest in my statements to
) Kopp. In another post I apologized to you for speaking to Kopp about your
) list behavior instead of directly writing to you. I also asked you about
) Camphill. You then replied in an incredibly insulting manner accusing me of
) having a tantrum, in addition to other pejorative accusations.
)
) I can understand why you may not like my posts, but how this would lead you
) to distrust me is quite beyond my grasp, particularly in light of your
) advice to Mr. Kopp to withhold judgement. More to the point, I will simply
) state that while I am a critic of Waldorf I am not a dishonest person. I
) have dealt straight with you and I find myself confused and somewhat
) repelled by your hostility. Unfortunately, given my previous contact with
) Anthroposophists on and off this list, I find your approach to me
) consistant. I am a critic, therefore I am to be treated rudely, accused of
) behaviors I have not exhibited, and generally insulted and demeaned.
)
) ) ) Lacking trust, I act mildly obnoxious - poking at you with a kind of
) ) )verbal stick to see what happens.
)
) You have stated on this list before that you indulged in rude behavior as
) some sort of *test* (my word). I define this as dishonest manipulation and
) extremely obnoxious in any setting. I believe in being straight with people
) - I say what I mean. There are no hidden agendas - it's all out on the
) table.
)
) The fact is that if I trusted your
) ) )reactions to my posts, I would be more willing to give anecdotal
) ) )information about Camphill, because I would know that the inherent
) ) )weaknesses of that kind of information would not be turned into an easy
) ) )means to criticise.
)
) Joel, I have lost all desire to converse with you about Camphill. Your
) behavior on this list has been rude and inappropriate.
)
) ) ) Since it is my experience of you that you are not trustworthy in this
) ) )sense,
)
) Once again, how am I untrustworthy? How insulting. You don't even know me.
) You are the one that has admittedly
) attempted to manipulate me by posting rude accusations. I am surprised,
) given your background in mental health, that you engage in manipulative
) behavior. Surely you know the value of striving to be honest and
) straightforward in communication.
)
) Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n618.5 ---------------
From: AJULSON COOK.TAMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Camphill
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 1998 23:17:54 -0600 (CST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Dear Kathy,
I've only subscribed to this list for a week, so I apologize for
jumping in "in the middle of things". It seems that before I signed
on you had queried the list about Camphill. I can't give a full
answer because I don't live or work in a Camphill community. However,
I do have several relevant experiences which I will share with you.
I am interested in YOUR interest because my youngest child has
Down Syndrome and thus special education and the broader issue of
the "differently abled" is of great personal concern to me.
I should confess up front to having studied Anthroposophy intensively
since 1990 (and to being a card-carrying member of the A.S.!). When
my son was born in 1995 his condition came as a surprise and yes, quite
a shock. While I immediately loved him because he was mine I also
experienced the grief and distress that is common to parents faced
with such a situation. I knew about Camphill and began reading all
the literature from the Curative Education movement, from Steiner's
original "Curative Education" lectures to the latest issues of "The
Journal of Curative Education and Social Therapy". In particular I
found the writings of Karl Konig, the founder of Camphill, to be
most helpful in coming to understand what my son has to offer the
world. Thus as an overall philosophy I would characterize the Camphill
movement as addressing the individuality of each human being, regardless
of their physical or mental handicaps.
Additionally, my son has been treated by an anthroposophical doctor
affiliated with Camphill; with the recommendations for diet, remedies,
etc. his health has been quite robust given his condition (yes, I do
give a lot of credit to the various remedies he takes!). I am quite
positively impressed with my experiences (and we have to travel halfway
across the country for our yearly visits).
I realize that I can't offer any perspective on the day-to-day
operations of a Camphill school or village. I would hope that some
day my son would be part of one, but I certainly will weigh all the
options when the day comes to make this decision (and he may have
quite a lot to say about it himself). There may in fact be problems,
as there is with any human institution, but the ideal of Camphill is
inspired by a deep love and respect for the human spirit.
Sorry to read in your latest posting of your difficult experiences
involving Waldorf. It is incomprehensible to me how such things
could occur. I am interested in participating on this list as
an individual able to appreciate the lofty ideals of Waldorf Education
(and curative education, "Camphill") but also able to admit to the
problems that may exist in bringing these ideals into practice. Thank
you for your eye-opener.
Most Sincerely,
Amanda Julson
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n618.6 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Camphill
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 1998 22:28:44 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199801040519.VAA08292 lists1.best.com)
Amanda,
Does the camphill movement encourage early stimulation of Downs children?
BTW, my husband and I tried to adopt a Downs child. I was relieved to hear
[from our adoption agency] that they were not considered "special needs".
I have a good friend, Brock, who has Downs. Our birthday is one day apart.
We have celebrated our birthdays together for 21 years. (whew. Time does
fly..) I worked with Downs folks for thirteen years. I am interested in the
Anthroposophical view of special needs children/adults. And I need to you
to know that I am not immediately critical. I read about Camphill in the
mid seventies. I was surprised that the program I directed had many
commonalities to Camphill. We were heavy into the arts.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n618.7 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab" (pschwab access.ch)
Subject: Re: Camphill
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 15:50:02 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199712281721.JAA26768 lists1.best.com)
On 28 Dec 97 at 8:55, spike netshel.net wrote:
)
) I guess all we can do is drop this thread. I want to know about Camphill.
) The Anthroposophists on this list won't give me information, even though
) some have strongly defended it. I'm not even asking for firsthand
) knowledge, simply printed literature will suffice. I would suggest that a
) rebuttal or claimed offense to another's allegations be backed by more than
) endless verbage with little or no substance.
)
) Kathy
)
To get some answers, a look at
http://www.camphill.org.uk
or
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/camphill/page20.htm
may help you.
Best wishes and a happy new year
+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.n618.8 ---------------
From: AJULSON COOK.TAMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Camphill
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 1998 09:59:03 -0600 (CST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Dear Deby,
The question of early stimulation for children with Down Syndrome is
a good one! I was unable to find any substantial comment on what to
do with a young child in any of the literature I spoke of. Most of it
had been written many decades ago when just accpeting special children
was a radical idea; the advice for parents is more aimed at seeing the
child as a gift than offering any real practical advice. Thus I was left
perplexed about how to proceed. In the early days my son was so
sleepy (and low tone in general) that it was a real struggle to get
him to wake up and nurse (he might have starved if I had just "let
him dream"). And the early intervention folks (from the very helpful state
agency; I can't say enough good about them) showed up with armfuls
of bright, loud plastic toys (I had been pretty "Waldorf" until then,
although I wasn't rigid about what my other children played with).
Needless to say, I had to do some real contemplation about what was
truly best for my son.
An anthroposophist friend gave me a xerox copy of some typed material
(wish I knew the source) about caring for the young Downs child; it is the
only thing of its kind that I've seen in print. It pointed out that
the child will move more slowly through life, and will acvtually be a baby
for two years rather than one; this has been true in my son's case.
Anoter friend pointed out regarding my dilemma over whether all the
therapy was helpful or harmful that it was all _human_ interaction.
Thinking this over, I was able let go of my objection to loud plastic
toys and appreciate all the wonderful, caring human interactions that
my son was receiving from his therapists. So as far as early stimulation,
while there is no "Camphill party line" (the schools and villages
serve mostly older children and adults) it seems that early stimulation
in the form of human contact is a good thing; also, lots of experience
of tactile sensations (and here I've introduced my son to lots of
things from nature as a balance to all the plastic things he plays
with :) , the human voice (singing and speaking), and pictures in
books.
If you are familiar with the anthroposophical view of early childhood
you know that an important point is made about the child first calling
itself "I" at about age three. This is seen as the child having learned
to stand (by age one), speak (by age two), and think (my age three), thus
allowing the child's ego (of "I") to really be present (or "incarnate").
Now with a child with Down Syndrome, all those milestone will of course
be delayed; there is the possibility that the milestones won't be
fully reached until the time of the "change of teeth" around age 7,
at which growth slows down. Thus in anthroposophical terms, the ego
won't ever fully incarnate, and the individual won't ever have the same
kind of self-consciousness that typical people do. However, their ego
(or "I") is just as real as anyone elses, it simply doesn't relate
to their body in the same way. One of the remarks that Rudolf Steiner
made about "special" chlidren was that they were already working toward
thei next incarnation; he pointed out how a "holding back" in this life
could help the individual develop certain strengths for their next
life. Additionally, he noted that in his investigations of the
incarnations of people regarded as great geniuses, he invariable found
a "feeble-minded" incarnation in their past. I realize that I'm on the
critics list, and anyone is welcome to take this with a grain of salt
if they wish; I'm just addressing your question about what is the
anthroposophical view of special chlidren/adults.
I'd be happy to expand on any specific point. I must say that my son
has been an incredible blessing, not the least of which has been
my letting go of preconceptions about early childhood (i.e., my
"Waldorf" biases) and my taking a fresh look at the process of
human development.
We don't live near a Waldorf school (nor a Camphill school - there is
only one for young children in the U.S.) so W.E. for my son isn't
really an issue (my other three chldren go to an Episcopal school).
The little that I have been able to gather about special education
in Waldorf Schoolf (that is, inclusion of "special children") sounds
pretty dismal. It would seem that mainstream public and private schools
are way ahead on this count. Has this issue been discussed in this
forum (I'd like to search the archives if so).
Many Thanks,
Amanda Julson
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n618 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n619 --------------
001 - Gunilla Gerland (gge swip - Re: Camphill
002 - AJULSON COOK.TAMU.EDU - Re: Camphill
003 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Amanda Julson/Camphill
004 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Links to Camphill Websites
005 - Gunilla Gerland (gge swip - Re: Antrophosophy and disabilities (was: Camphill)
006 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: the "soul" and enquiring minds
007 - AJULSON COOK.TAMU.EDU - Re: Amanda Julson/Camphill
008 - "Peter Schwab" (pschwab a - Re: Links to Camphill Websites
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n619.1 ---------------
From: Gunilla Gerland (gge swipnet.se)
Subject: Re: Camphill
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 1998 21:02:02 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199801041559.HAA11465 lists1.best.com)
Hello Amanda, and others on this list,
I just recently subsrcibed, and had planned to wait some with posting, to
get an idea of what the list is like. But when I saw this I just had to reply.
(....)
Thus in anthroposophical terms, the ego
)won't ever fully incarnate, and the individual won't ever have the same
)kind of self-consciousness that typical people do. However, their ego
)(or "I") is just as real as anyone elses, it simply doesn't relate
)to their body in the same way. One of the remarks that Rudolf Steiner
)made about "special" chlidren was that they were already working toward
)thei next incarnation; he pointed out how a "holding back" in this life
)could help the individual develop certain strengths for their next
)life. Additionally, he noted that in his investigations of the
)incarnations of people regarded as great geniuses, he invariable found
)a "feeble-minded" incarnation in their past. I realize that I'm on the
)critics list, and anyone is welcome to take this with a grain of salt
)if they wish; I'm just addressing your question about what is the
)anthroposophical view of special chlidren/adults.
I am a person with a disability (I have high functioning autism, and in my
country the Anthroposophists have worked with autistic people a lot) and I
find this Steiner idea of ego-incarnation most offending. It suggests for
instance that having a high IQ would be *better* than having a low. I am
pretty convinced it's not; it's just *different*. And we who have pervasive
developmental disorders are not just here in some 'passing through stage',
we're here for real, just as much as anybody else.
I am very glad you wrote this here though, because these are the things I
need to know about. I have had some 'experiences' with Anthroposophists and
I have had a vague feeling that thier view on disabilities is kind of
strange. It's important to have facts if you want to argue with someone.
Amanda, do you know where this is written down? Could you tell me what book
to look in to fins these ideas?
Gunilla
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n619.2 ---------------
From: AJULSON COOK.TAMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Camphill
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 1998 16:21:33 -0600 (CST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Dear Gunilla,
I understand you taking offense at the material I quoted (please
be assured that none is intended from me!). It is difficult in this
day and age to read dated literature, and much of the Curative
Education material is no exception. For instance, Karl Konig, whose
work I have come to respect dearly (he was the founder of Camphill)
referred to what I would call "children with Down Syndrome" (using
the "people-first" language now preferred) with the term of his time
which was the unfortunate expression "Mongoloid". It takes a bit of
inner fortitude to read the old material and forgive the authors
the use of these regrettable terms!
The remarks attributed to Rudolf Steiner that I quoted came from
"The Birth of Curative Education," an essay by Albrecht Stroschein
in the book "A Man Before Others: Rudolf Steiner Remembered" (Rudolf
Steiner Press, 1993; originally appeared in the 1958 issue of
"The Golden Blade", in turn reprinted from an earlier German book
"Wir Erlrbten Rudolf Steiner" (1956).
The other comments and opinions I mentioned refer to Down Syndrome
in particular; sorry for being unclear about that. Dr. Konig was
particularly fond of children with Down Syndrome wrote about them often
in his works. Some of the writings are onscure and I have only xerox
copies but I could track down references if you wish to pursue this.
The idea of the ego not being able to incarnate fully because of
slow development of the body refers specifically to Down Syndrome.
Please note, however, that the underlying thought is that as you
rightly point out, that people are only _different_, there is no
_better_ or _worse_ implied. This has been the view of the anthroposophical
curative education community from the start, long before it was
commonly accepted by society at large. The name Rudolf Steiner
suggested for the first curative homes was "Homes for Children in
Need of Special Care of the Soul"; his intention was to minimize
the distinction between these children and any other children,
quite a departure for the 1920 when more unflattering terms were
generally used for such institutions.
Gunilla, anthroposophists would view us all as being "in some passing
through stage" as you call it! We are all here with both challenges
and capabilities, and how we work with them determines much of
the outcome of our lives (both in an ordinary sense and in the
anthroposophical sense of repeated earth lives).
I think it is easy to lose sight of how far we have come in accepting
the "differently abled" as well as how far we still have to go.
Sincereny,
Amanda Julson
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n619.3 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Amanda Julson/Camphill
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 1998 16:23:15 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801042000.MAA27268 lists1.best.com)
Amanda,
Thank you for your posts regarding Camphill, your son, and
Anthroposophical curative treatment. I appreciate the information. I
haven't more than a few personal experiences with individuals with Downs
Syndrome. My daughter has a friend that was in her classroom
(mainstreamed in a public school) and also on her Little League team
this past summer. He is a darling boy and the children in her class and
on her team embrace him and seem to instinctively understand his needs.
This boys mother is a public school teacher at a different school. I
know that she and her husband have worked very hard to provide Danny
with lots of stimulation. He is doing well.
I have no preconceptions about Camphill, but simply am curious. Peter
Schwab posted some links that I will investigate following my responses
here.
I am curious about the treatment that your son receives from what I
assume is an Anthropsophical practitioner. I would be most interested in
reading anything you have to post on this subject.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n619.4 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Links to Camphill Websites
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 1998 16:26:01 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801042000.MAA27268 lists1.best.com)
Peter,
Thank you for the links to websites that provide information regarding
Camphill. I appreciate the time you took to post these.
We haven't heard from you for some time. Are you back to converse with
us?
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n619.5 ---------------
From: Gunilla Gerland (gge swipnet.se)
Subject: Re: Antrophosophy and disabilities (was: Camphill)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 09:40:01 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199801042221.OAA20315 lists1.best.com)
Amanda,
I don't hold you responsible for any of the antrophosophic (jeez, it *is*
difficult to spell! :-) ideas. However I don't buy what you are writing.
For instance, how come that the A's (my motor skills are not great and
typing takes time so I will now call Anthrosophists for 'A's') have such a
vigilant relation to their old ideas? When it suits their purpose they like
to say that they (Steiner) were early in understanding and caring for
things that society didn't care for or understand, on the other hand when
critizised they tend to say that Steiners ideas can't be seen in the light
of today and that they are outdated. Furthermore, how come this discussion
is not vivid among the A's themselves, but does just occur when confronted
with others, or when trying to pursuade others to buy their ideas?
When it comes to 'incarnation of the ego ideas' I beleive that in all
incarnation/reincarnation ideas, there is a strong beleive that you are
actually reaching something *better* or 'higher levels' as you incarnate.
(Correct me if I am wrong in this when it comes to antrophosophy).
And belive me, I would be extremely sceptical if there were hindu's
managing a hinduistic boarding school for autistic people. But then at
least it would be very obvious it was religous, which is not the fact at
the A's.
Regarding 'passing through stages' I do know that the A's think all people
are 'passing through' but the idea about mentally retarded people being
more in a 'passing through stage' than others, does sound to me as not
having to treat them as *real* people. This does not mean they don't *care
for* people with MR, it means that I beleive that antrophosophic theories
is an obstacle in fully appreciating and understanding/respecting mentally
retarded or otherwise disabled people. I also have met very vaguely
expressed ideas that it is something in your previous incarnation that
makes you disabled in the next, but I am not sure whther these were
antrophosophic ideas, or ideas of individual A's. Maybe someone can
enlighten me on this?
The lack of actual *knowledge* is what strikes me as worse in the A's who
work with autism, for instance, many of them seem to still beleive that
autism can be caused by psychological/environmental factors, although
resaerch has proved again and again that it's not so. I was engaged to
lecture about autism once at an antrophosophical school where they worked
with autistic individuals, when I arrived I realized I had to change my
lecture completely since they seemed to lack even the basic knowledge about
the disability! Here they differ alot from other people who work with
autism; whatever method they beleive in they seem to have a *general
interest* in learning basic facts and reading new literature in the area.
Gunilla
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n619.6 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: the "soul" and enquiring minds
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 08:56:41 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199801022051.MAA20558 lists1.best.com)
On 2 Jan 98 , Joel A. Wendt wrote:
) explain in your own words, what the following phrase refers to: "Please
) be quiet, I can't hear myself think". Specifically, just the last part:
) "...I can't hear myself think". What, in your own experience would you
) mean, if you were to make such a statement?
When I am concentrating on something fairly complicated, which requires a
linear type of logic to figure out, I need to be able to internally
verbalize my thoughts, and hold the train of thought long enough to come
to my conclusion. When I concentrate on something complicated which is
more pattern-oriented, I also need to concentrate for some period of time.
If I am interrupted and lose my train of thought, I cannot reach my
conclusion and sometimes I must start over.
When I say, "Please be quiet, I can't hear myself think," I am using a
slightly humorous figure of speech to say, "I cannot follow my train of
thought long enough to reach a conclusion because of your interruptions.
Please be quiet." It is humorous because it pretends that the one doing
the "listening" and the one doing the "thinking" are separate, when in
fact, there is just me, trying to hold on to my train of thought.
) Do you think this statement referes to anything more or less universal
) in the human being; i.e. do we all have an experience that such a
) statement would refer to?
Well, I suspect it is common, if not universal. I think I am more
easily distracted than many people.
Steve Premo ----------- http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
-----
"It's a messed up world but I love it anyway, I love it."
--Greg Brown
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n619.7 ---------------
From: AJULSON COOK.TAMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Amanda Julson/Camphill
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 11:42:32 -0600 (CST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Dear Kathy,
I appreciate hearing about your daughter's classmate/teammate with
Down Syndrome. My son's progress in motor skills has been very slow
(but steady) and it is always encouraging to hear success stories!
You asked about the treatment Ben receives from the anthroposophical
practitioner. While we have a local pediatrician, all of the medical
practices in our immediate area are rather conventional: child gets
sick, child is given antibiotics, child gets better. This worked OK
with my older children because they were in excellent health and
rarely needed antiobiotic treatment. Ben, however, was a different
story; he had the lower immunity typical of many children with D.S.
I took him to a classical homeopath in a nearby city, but didn't get
a positive impression (I'd used homeopathic home treatment on my
children for a few years with great results, but Ben was beyond my
level of expertise!).
So I ended up travelling halfway across the country to see an
anthroposophical physician who works closely with Camphill. These
doctors have a regular M.D. degree, then additional anthroposophical
training. He prescribed a number of remedies (generally compound
homeopathic preparations) and advice in response to my specific
questions about diet and general care. We've followed this up with
yearly visits andtelephone consultations as needed. For instance,
Ben was diagnosed with a heart defect that may require surgery or
may close on its own. I knew there was a remedy to assist overall
heart function, so the Dr. agreed to presc
heart function, so the Dr. agreed to prescribe it for him. Many of
the other remedies are to generally assist his connective tissue
development, overall immunity, digestion, and skin (he has problems
with all of these).
His health has been pretty good for a child with D.S. - only a
handful of ear infections, which a remarkable. He has developed
a tendency toward bronchitis and ended up in the hospital over
Thanksgiving. Since then I called the Dr. for advice and was
prescribed an aromatic cream that a rub on his chest a few times
a day; he's had two colds since then but they have stayed out of his chest.
Overall, I've been pretty impressed (as is my husband, who I should
tell you is in general skeptical of Anthroposophy! :)
Hope I answered your question!
Amanda Julson
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n619.8 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab" (pschwab access.ch)
Subject: Re: Links to Camphill Websites
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 21:12:40 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199801050025.QAA03090 lists1.best.com)
On 4 Jan 98 at 16:26, spike wrote:
) Peter,
) Thank you for the links to websites that provide information regarding
) Camphill. I appreciate the time you took to post these.
)
I'm glad I could help you...
) We haven't heard from you for some time. Are you back to converse with
) us?
)
Occasionally, as time allows and when I feel that I have something
useful to contribute.
Best wishes
+Peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 032 / 857.16.72
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n619 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n620 --------------
001 - AJULSON COOK.TAMU.EDU - Re: Antrophosophy and disabilities (was: Camphill)
002 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Gunilla - Welcome
003 - Gunilla Gerland (gge swip - Re: Gunilla - Welcome
004 - "L. Carson" (lcarson tele - Re: Camphill
005 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Africa
006 - Deby Snell (snell netshel - Re: Anthroposophy and disabilities (was: Camphill)
007 - Gunilla Gerland (gge swip - Re: Antrophosophy and disabilities (was: Camphill)
008 - Gunilla Gerland (gge swip - Re:Who am I? (was: Anthroposophy and disabilities)
009 - Gunilla Gerland (gge swip - Re:Who am I? (was: Anthroposophy and disabilities)
010 - Nnsandplay (Nnsandplay ao - Re: Africa
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n620.1 ---------------
From: AJULSON COOK.TAMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Antrophosophy and disabilities (was: Camphill)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 15:47:31 -0600 (CST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Dear Gunilla,
I don't have a very elegant E-mail program, so you'll have to excuse
my "cut-and-paste" approach to responding to the points you have raised:
)antrophosophic (jeez, it *is*
difficult to spell!
[Yes, I agree! :)]
)how come that the A's (my motor skills are not great and
typing takes time so I will now call Anthrosophists for 'A's') have such a
vigilant relation to their old ideas? When it suits their purpose they like
to say that they (Steiner) were early in understanding and caring for
things that society didn't care for or understand, on the other hand when
critizised they tend to say that Steiners ideas can't be seen in the light
of today and that they are outdated.
[First of all, I can only speak for myself, not all anthroposophists!
I can, however, make observations regarding others, and you have raised
a point that we frequently discuss on the "Anthroposophia" list. It
is so easy to fall into the "Steiner said" mentality (as it is when
studing the collected works of any author, whether or not they were
the founder of a school of thought, philosophy, etc.). And you are quite
right, to proceed as if all that there is to Anthroposophy is the
_words_ of Rudolf Steiner to be endlessly quoted and requoted would
be a sad state of affairs! However I think awareness is growing that
Anthroposophy is really an activity, inner activity by means of which
a person develops for themself new insights ("higher knowledge")
I think to answer the point about how can we say that Steiner was
both ahead of his time and simultaneously a product of his time is
to ask do they have to be mutally exclusive? Didn't Tom Mellet post
something here recently about "both/and" thinking (as opposed to
"either/or" thinking?). I honestly don't think it's a case of
whitewashing, it's just saying that things are rarely so black or
white as they are shades of gray. For instance, Thomas Jefferson,
writer of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, was also a slave
owner; one must view this from many angles to come to a clear
picture.]
)Furthermore, how come this discussion
is not vivid among the A's themselves, but does just occur when confronted
with others, or when trying to pursuade others to buy their ideas?
[As I said, we are always talking about this kind of thing on the
Anthroposophia list (I'm sure that the address has been posted here
already).]
)When it comes to 'incarnation of the ego ideas' I beleive that in all
incarnation/reincarnation ideas, there is a strong beleive that you are
actually reaching something *better* or 'higher levels' as you incarnate.
(Correct me if I am wrong in this when it comes to antrophosophy).
[Anthroposophical thoughts about reincarnation are in many cases
quite different from those of eastern religions such as Buddhism,
Hinduism, etc. It is not something easily reduced to a nutshell
explanation; toward the end of his life Rudolf Steiner gave a lengthy
series of lectures about this topic now collected in the "Karmic
Relationships" volumes. The overall picture would be that as humans
incarnate through the ages they are evolving new capacities (again
I refer to Tom's recent post about the age of the Intellectual Soul
that preceded our current Consciousness soul age; previously we
humans we at a stage of development in which we could observe the
world and form thoughts based on our senses; now we have entered
an age in which we can look into the world and recognize spiritual
truths {we're still near the beginning of this epoch!}). So it
isn't a simple matter of getting "better", its more of bringing
new capacities to fruition.]
)Regarding 'passing through stages' I do know that the A's think all people
are 'passing through' but the idea about mentally retarded people being
more in a 'passing through stage' than others, does sound to me as not
having to treat them as *real* people. This does not mean they don't *care
for* people with MR, it means that I beleive that antrophosophic theories
is an obstacle in fully appreciating and understanding/respecting mentally
retarded or otherwise disabled people.
[Again, I can only speak from my personal understanding of Anthroposophy.
This is that in each incarnation we undertake a spiritual task; we
incarnate with various abilities as well as challenges. Some individuals
are actually working with a bigger picture, in that they have taken
on challenges in this lifetime that will help them to develop strengths
for a future lifetime. I have heard Anthroposophists who work with
Camphill residents speak of them with the greatest respect, as they
recognize that a very severely handicapped individual may in fact be
a great soul working for the benefit of all mankind; it is a sad
thing if this has not been your experience among anthroposophists,
Gunilla.]
)I also have met very vaguely
expressed ideas that it is something in your previous incarnation that
makes you disabled in the next, but I am not sure whther these were
[I have heard people say similar things, but speaking from other
reincarnational belief systems]
) I was engaged to
lecture about autism once at an antrophosophical school where they worked
with autistic individuals, when I arrived I realized I had to change my
lecture completely since they seemed to lack even the basic knowledge about
the disability! Here they differ alot from other people who work with
autism; whatever method they beleive in they seem to have a *general
interest* in learning basic facts and reading new literature in the area.
[Again, I'm sorry to hear that this has been your experience. I
sincerely hope that you will reserve judgement regarding all
anthroposophists based on this disappointing situation!
I have a dear friend who is a devout Mormon. We've been quite open
with one another (and neither of us has tried to "convert" the
other! :) She shared an item from her church's articles of faith
that says (I'm paraphrasing): "we seek whatever is praiseworthy,
of good report" (now I forget the exact wording). Basically, she
found many things in Anthroposophy and Waldorf (we had a children's
playgroup going at the time) that she appreciated; yet she was
secure in her own beliefs; she could see the good and not be
turned off by whatever didn't click with her. Please take all that I
have said in these various posts in the same spirit!
Sincerely,
Amanda Julson
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n620.2 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Gunilla - Welcome
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 14:20:19 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801052012.MAA08734 lists1.best.com)
Gunilla,
Welcome to the Critics list. I found your post very interesting. I have
had some similar experiences with Waldorf educators, ie; a "vigilant
relation to their old ideas," doublespeak regarding Steiner's ideas, and
what appears to me to be a lack of critical evaluation of
Anthroposophical beliefs and Steiner's teachings.
I look forward to more of your postings. Your experience with
Anthroposophy is intriguing since it is outside the walls of Waldorf.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n620.3 ---------------
From: Gunilla Gerland (gge swipnet.se)
Subject: Re: Gunilla - Welcome
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 07:45:16 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801052012.MAA08734 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801052221.OAA03740 lists1.best.com)
At 14:20 1998-01-05 -0800, you wrote:
)Gunilla,
)Welcome to the Critics list.
thanks. :-)
Gunilla
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n620.4 ---------------
From: "L. Carson" (lcarson teleport.com)
Subject: Re: Camphill
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 98 00:33:27 PST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; X-MAPIextension=".TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: Conversation (199801042221.OAA20315 lists1.best.com) with last message (199801042221.OAA20315 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801042221.OAA20315 lists1.best.com)
Amanda,
I thank you for offering your personal experience, patience, explanations=
and wonderful disposition to this list!
Could you send me your e-mail address?
Libby
lcarson teleport.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n620.5 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Africa
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 23:39:12 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I watched the first episode of the PBS historical drama "Rhodes" last
night. In a speech to the parliament in Capetown, Rhodes describes the
native Africans as "children," incapable of self-government.
It's so bizarre that Anthroposophy continues to preach this doctrine today.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n620.6 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and disabilities (was: Camphill)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 23:56:26 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801042221.OAA20315 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801050839.AAA22109 lists1.best.com)
Gunilla Gerland writes,
)When it suits their purpose they like
)to say that they (Steiner) were early in understanding and caring for
)things that society didn't care for or understand, on the other hand when
)critizised they tend to say that Steiners ideas can't be seen in the light
)of today and that they are outdated.
Somehow, your statement encourages me. I have yet to hear defenders of
Anthroposophy say that Steiner's ideas are outdated. I have heard that
Steiner is difficult, that one should never study him alone, etc., but I've
not heard anyone repute Steiner. The Camphill movement interests me more
and more. Could it be that it attracts a more liberal group?
)Furthermore, how come this discussion
)is not vivid among the A's themselves, but does just occur when confronted
)with others, or when trying to pursuade others to buy their ideas?
Because it is a religious system. There is little room for critical dialog
within the movement. Even the truly committed Anthroposophists are not
always tolerated if something in the movement is questioned. That is why
PLANS work is important. Through our "protests", we create critical dialog
among the "insiders", and put pressure on the movement to change some of
the crazier practices (like children being forced to walk, single file,
with their arms crossed over their hearts when going, say, to the lunchroom
from their class).
)When it comes to 'incarnation of the ego ideas' I beleive that in all
)incarnation/reincarnation ideas, there is a strong beleive that you are
)actually reaching something *better* or 'higher levels' as you incarnate.
)(Correct me if I am wrong in this when it comes to antrophosophy).
)
)And belive me, I would be extremely sceptical if there were hindu's
)managing a hinduistic boarding school for autistic people. But then at
)least it would be very obvious it was religous, which is not the fact at
)the A's.
Absolutely. I've yet to learn of another religious sect so willing to deny
their own beliefs to further their agenda. Steiner said, "...We must worm
our way in... and say what it is that we need to say, in order to do what
we want to do, and inwardly make fools of them" (Slaughtered quote alarm.
If you _really_ want me to look it up, I will.) I believe Anthroposophists
within the Waldorf system are deceptive by training. It would be great to
believe that The Camphill movement is different.
)Regarding 'passing through stages' I do know that the A's think all people
)are 'passing through' but the idea about mentally retarded people being
)more in a 'passing through stage' than others, does sound to me as not
)having to treat them as *real* people. This does not mean they don't *care
)for* people with MR, it means that I beleive that antrophosophic theories
)is an obstacle in fully appreciating and understanding/respecting mentally
)retarded or otherwise disabled people.
It is kind of a condescending attitude, isn't it? Like Steiner and racism,
it seems to be an ignorant kind of thinking. (Not that Anthroposophists are
the only group that treat people who are differently abled in an ignorant
and condescending way.) BTW, does anyone know if the adults who receive
services/care in Camphill Villages are free to have consenting sex?
I also have met very vaguely
)expressed ideas that it is something in your previous incarnation that
)makes you disabled in the next, but I am not sure whther these were
)antrophosophic ideas, or ideas of individual A's. Maybe someone can
)enlighten me on this?
I think that is the karma part of Anthroposophy kicking in. I've certainly
heard it from Waldorf teachers [in regards to _both_ of my sons, who are
adopted]. "Hmm", said Max's teacher, "I wonder _what_ karma he is working
out in _this_ lifetime."
Oh God! If one subscribes to reincarnation, and you were born with
differently abled, does that mean you could guilty about what happened in a
past life ? (Now everyone knows I was bad in my last life because I was
born "marked"..)
)The lack of actual *knowledge* is what strikes me as worse in the A's who
)work with autism, for instance, many of them seem to still beleive that
)autism can be caused by psychological/environmental factors, although
)resaerch has proved again and again that it's not so.
One of the earmarks of a cult is that the group clings to rejected
knowledge.("The heart is not a pump; Newton was wrong about deviding light;
autism is caused by psychological/environmental factors, puberty is brought
on early because of exposure to media and other materialistic influences")
)I was engaged to
)lecture about autism once at an antrophosophical school where they worked
)with autistic individuals, when I arrived I realized I had to change my
)lecture completely since they seemed to lack even the basic knowledge about
)the disability!
What brought you to lecture at an Anthroposophical school? What is your
relationship to Anthroposophy? What brought you to this list? I would like
to know more about you.
Somehow your statement, "they seemed to lack even the basic knowledge about
the disability!" does not surprise me. It was hard for me to believe that
there is no training in core academics in the Waldorf teacher training
program?. It is _possible_ that your child's Waldorf teacher may be
clueless when it comes to teaching your child basic reading skills. My
son's teacher had difficulty with multiplication tables. My son (who
desperately wanted to learn to read) said, "But Mom! She _can't_ teach me
how to read because she doesn't know how!" I ardently defended her in that
moment (I was a complete believer) but was shocked when I read the teacher
training content at Rudolf Steiner College. Perhaps Max was right. If your
statement is correct, it would lead me to believe that Camphill workers are
committed Anthroposophists, period.
)Here they differ alot from other people who work with
)autism; whatever method they beleive in they seem to have a *general
)interest* in learning basic facts and reading new literature in the area.
That is good to hear. And one reason why I'm not feeling immediately
critical of The Camphill movement. I've seen gross care. I've also seen a
lot of wonderful programs.
Glad you joined the list.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n620.7 ---------------
From: Gunilla Gerland (gge swipnet.se)
Subject: Re: Antrophosophy and disabilities (was: Camphill)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 11:23:51 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199801052147.NAA20542 lists1.best.com)
Amanda, and others,
)[First of all, I can only speak for myself, not all anthroposophists!
)I can, however, make observations regarding others, and you have raised
)a point that we frequently discuss on the "Anthroposophia" list. It
)is so easy to fall into the "Steiner said" mentality (as it is when
)studing the collected works of any author, whether or not they were
)the founder of a school of thought, philosophy, etc.). And you are quite
)right, to proceed as if all that there is to Anthroposophy is the
)_words_ of Rudolf Steiner to be endlessly quoted and requoted would
)be a sad state of affairs! However I think awareness is growing that
)Anthroposophy is really an activity, inner activity by means of which
)a person develops for themself new insights ("higher knowledge")
Just a reflection: I have met a few people in my life whome I would
consider having wisdom ore being a possessor of some 'higher knowledge';
None of them were anthroposophists.... :-) (Nor did they belong to any
other sectarian school of thoughts.)
)I think to answer the point about how can we say that Steiner was
)both ahead of his time and simultaneously a product of his time is
)to ask do they have to be mutally exclusive? Didn't Tom Mellet post
)something here recently about "both/and" thinking (as opposed to
)"either/or" thinking?). I honestly don't think it's a case of
)whitewashing, it's just saying that things are rarely so black or
)white as they are shades of gray. For instance, Thomas Jefferson,
)writer of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, was also a slave
)owner; one must view this from many angles to come to a clear
)picture.]
I am not very familiar with American history, as I am Swedish. But what
really makes the difference is ones openness. When anthroposophists in my
country write about or talk about the good sides of their ideas, they don't
openly say for instance 'In anthroposophy there has also been ideas like
this and this but we do strongly object to this nowadays, and other ideas
like this and this we do discuss among ourselves. One of my problems with
anthroposophy is that they are not open which in my opinion makes them
sectarian.
When it comes to what has been posted here earlier on the subject please
remember that I've only been on this list a couple of days.
)
)[Again, I can only speak from my personal understanding of Anthroposophy.
)This is that in each incarnation we undertake a spiritual task; we
)incarnate with various abilities as well as challenges. Some individuals
)are actually working with a bigger picture, in that they have taken
)on challenges in this lifetime that will help them to develop strengths
)for a future lifetime. I have heard Anthroposophists who work with
)Camphill residents speak of them with the greatest respect, as they
)recognize that a very severely handicapped individual may in fact be
)a great soul working for the benefit of all mankind;
This is a twisted version of respect. I am speaking of respect as in
respect for being who you are, a person among persons. Not for 'being a
great soul working for the benefit of all mankind', for being Gunilla, or
Patrick, or whover you are. The seeing people as 'being a great soul
working for the benefit of all mankind' is not the same as respecting them
for who they are. It could be compared to, for instance, that macho men who
are against equality of sexes usually tend to see the woman as some
fantastic but fragile goddess who has to be protected and looked after.
This is not respect, nor equality.
)[Again, I'm sorry to hear that this has been your experience. I
)sincerely hope that you will reserve judgement regarding all
)anthroposophists based on this disappointing situation!
I don't judge them as individual people, but if I can't look upon them as a
group and make conclusions about them as a group based on my experiences,
then it would be dangerous. Then it would be impossible to critisize
anything. I am always however, prepared to change or rewise my view on them
as well as on other things when I get new information or new experiences.
)I have a dear friend who is a devout Mormon. We've been quite open
)with one another (and neither of us has tried to "convert" the
)other! :) She shared an item from her church's articles of faith
)that says (I'm paraphrasing): "we seek whatever is praiseworthy,
)of good report" (now I forget the exact wording). Basically, she
)found many things in Anthroposophy and Waldorf (we had a children's
)playgroup going at the time) that she appreciated; yet she was
)secure in her own beliefs; she could see the good and not be
)turned off by whatever didn't click with her. Please take all that I
)have said in these various posts in the same spirit!
I think there is a good part in most things that I dislike or don't
sympathize with. The fact that there are political parties that I would
never give my vote doesn't mean I dislike or don't beleive in all of their
ideas. But to act as your friend you have to have a basic feeling of trust
in something, I don't have that trust in anthroposophy. This doesn't mean
that I don't think anthroposophists have never done good things, or that
some of their ideas can't be benficial to some. Still I don't see the need
for being engaged in Anthroposophy in order to just use some of the ideas
from it, I don't see the need for having schools devoted to Anthroposophy
when you can have special education schools and use influences from many
educational theories. Especially since the science of teaching is
constantly developing and we learn new things about the brain and about
learning.
Gunilla
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n620.8 ---------------
From: Gunilla Gerland (gge swipnet.se)
Subject: Re:Who am I? (was: Anthroposophy and disabilities)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 12:07:21 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801050839.AAA22109 lists1.best.com)
(199801042221.OAA20315 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801060756.XAA29421 lists1.best.com)
Deby,
First we have to clear some misunderstandings. I didn't write about the
Camphill movement, I live in Sweden and as far as I know the Camphill
movement doesn't exist here. I was speaking about Anthroposophists in
general. I am not a parent and I don't have any children (and will probably
never have). I have high functioning autism and I have written two books
about this (one is translated to English, email me if you are interested in
knowing the title; it's an autobiography about living with autism). The
fact that I have autism and have written about this, has led to people
asking me to lecture in different places, and one day they asked me from an
anthroposophical community. I accepted since my idea of lecturing is to
give a better understanding of what it is like to have autism, in order for
professionals to better understand autistic people. At that time I didn't
know much about Anthroposophy other than that I dislike everything that
'smells' fanatism (which also some psychological ideas on autism pursuaded
by psychoanalysts do, there is one article on the web I wrote about this it
can be found at: I have written several articles in Swedish on this
subject but the one I mention here is the only one translated to English).
My 'normal' kind of lecture where I try to explain how it is to live with
autism does however require a basic understanding of the symptoms of autism
and what the causes are. Since the people who asked me to
lecture--'Hagastiftelsen' in Swedish--told me they had worked with autistic
individuals for more tahn a decade I did of course take for granted that
tehy would have this basic knowledge. But it turned out they didn't.
What brought me to this list? Well after that experience I have met other
Anthroposophists and felt they are 'beside reality' rather than in it. So I
looked for information on the web, and when I some time ago looked for
information in order to stop a book which was supposed to be governmentally
financed and which pursuaded Anthroposophical teaching for autistic people
I emailed Dan Dugan with some questions. And now I eventually joined this
list. In Sweden I beleive that Anthroposophy has a good reputation which
they haven't earned. Most people here think it's only about healthy food
and nice colors on the walls, and they of course think that is good. I have
however also met people who have been badly treatened in Anthroposophy,
even though I wouldn't blame the whole movement for that, I think that the
sectarian quality of it 'helps' to quiet information about maltreatment.
Also parts of Anthroposophic movement here in Sweden has 'adopted' a woman
who claims to have autism but has no formal diagnose (she has been offered
evaluation by experts but turned this down since it's "not important with
labels"), this woman gives lectures on autism where she said she got autism
becuase she was frightened as a little girl (which is totally against all
scientific knowledge in the area) and she has lots of ideas that people
with autism need 'skin contact' (which many of us actually have a big
problem with since we have perception deficits which can affect the tactile
perception).
)Somehow, your statement encourages me. I have yet to hear defenders of
)Anthroposophy say that Steiner's ideas are outdated. I have heard that
)Steiner is difficult, that one should never study him alone, etc., but I've
)not heard anyone repute Steiner. The Camphill movement interests me more
)and more. Could it be that it attracts a more liberal group?
As I said above, this was not about the Camphill movement. I have heard
from individual Anthroposophists when I have critisized some ideas that
they are outdated, or rather that they can't be seen in the light of todays
knowledge etc.
)Absolutely. I've yet to learn of another religious sect so willing to deny
)their own beliefs to further their agenda. Steiner said, "...We must worm
)our way in... and say what it is that we need to say, in order to do what
)we want to do, and inwardly make fools of them" (Slaughtered quote alarm.
)If you _really_ want me to look it up, I will.)
Actually I would like you to do that. I always want to know I have it right
when I am critisizing something, so please also give me the full reference.
)Oh God! If one subscribes to reincarnation, and you were born with
)differently abled, does that mean you could guilty about what happened in a
)past life ? (Now everyone knows I was bad in my last life because I was
)born "marked"..)
Of course. There are other sects that pursue these ideas, like the Hare
Krishna who claim to be a religion but really is a sect. Reincarnation
ideas really can be used, and often are in subtle ways, to oppress people.
Many people who have these ideas doesn't realize that the other part of it
actually is guilt and oppression.
))Here they differ alot from other people who work with
))autism; whatever method they beleive in they seem to have a *general
))interest* in learning basic facts and reading new literature in the area.
)
)That is good to hear. And one reason why I'm not feeling immediately
)critical of The Camphill movement. I've seen gross care. I've also seen a
)lot of wonderful programs.
Here I meant that Anthroposophist differ from for instance special
education techers with behavioural, or TEACCH (a program for autistic
people, developed in North Carolina) preferences, these teachers will read
new books on autism even if these books are not written by people who have
exactly their own idea of teaching. Anthroposophists seem to be totally
without such an interest.
Gunilla
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n620.9 ---------------
From: Gunilla Gerland (gge swipnet.se)
Subject: Re:Who am I? (was: Anthroposophy and disabilities)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 12:24:23 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801050839.AAA22109 lists1.best.com)
(199801042221.OAA20315 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801060756.XAA29421 lists1.best.com)
I just realised Iforget to write the URL to the article I mentioned in my
previous post; it's
http://home4.swipnet.se/~w-44675/gerland_6.html
Gunilla
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n620.10 ---------------
From: Nnsandplay (Nnsandplay aol.com)
Subject: Re: Africa
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 11:12:35 EST
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dan,
My impression (which you are free to say is mislead) is that Anthroposophists
do not preach this doctrine ("Africans are children") today. I have heard
that some cultural practices may inhibit the coming into consciousness that
will allow for full development of one's ego in this life, but I suspect that
there are cultural practices in modern Western society that are at least as
contraindicated as those Steiner may have been reacting to when he wrote. I
really doubt it was a race issue as much as a cultural one.
Which is not to say that he may not have been effected by his time. Certainly
I was taken aback when reading C.G. Jung's biography when he described his
reaction to the people he met during the times he spent in Afirca and in the
southwestern U.S. Of course, Jung did not claim the type of higher knowledge
Steiner is said to have access too. I'm willing to cut them both some slack
given what they offer and in the light of my experiences with the schools of
thought and the institutions they have inspired.
I have not found racisim in the Waldorf School, on the contrary, I've found
more racism in mainstream media, unconsciously on television, or in most of
the people I meet in the course of my life.
Best wishes,
Nancy Norton
Ithaca, NY
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n620 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n621 --------------
001 - Nnsandplay (Nnsandplay ao - Re: Anthroposophy and disabilities (was: Camphill)
002 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - Biases and Agendas
003 - Deby Snell (snell netshel - Re:Who am I? (was: Anthroposophy and disabilities)
004 - Deby Snell (snell netshel - Re: Anthroposophy and disabilities (was: Camphill)
005 - AJULSON COOK.TAMU.EDU - Re: Anthroposophy and disabilities (was: Camphill)
006 - Nnsandplay (Nnsandplay ao - Re: Biases and Agendas
007 - Deby Snell (snell netshel - Nancy's personal response to me
008 - Deby Snell (snell netshel - Nancy's post to the SJU Waldorf list
009 - "Robert Mays" (MAYS RALVM - Trial?
010 - Deby Snell (snell netshel - Re: Anthroposophy and disabilities (was: Camphill)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n621.1 ---------------
From: Nnsandplay (Nnsandplay aol.com)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and disabilities (was: Camphill)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 11:12:27 EST
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Deby,
Let me assure you that I have never seen children forced to walk single file
with their arms crossed over their chests. Our school han't had a lunchroom,
but they don't travel like that at any time. I continue to submit that the
public school has as much of a bias and an agenda that the Waldorf schools
have, but I appreciate your experience and critical voice.
Nancy Norton
Ithaca, NY
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n621.2 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: Biases and Agendas
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 11:34:26 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Nancy Norton said:
) I continue to submit that the public school has as much of a bias
) and an agenda that the Waldorf schools have
Can you be more specific about the biases/agendas of both public and
Waldorf schools?
I agree that public schools have an agenda. In my opinion, their
primary purpose is to produce citizens capable of participating in a
modern democracy. Unfortunately, this sometimes has the side-effect of
pressuring students to conform to societal expectations.
It also seems likely that Waldorf schools have an agenda (as you
suggest). I'd be interested in seeing a statement of that agenda from
Waldorf supporters.
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n621.3 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re:Who am I? (was: Anthroposophy and disabilities)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 08:39:35 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801060756.XAA29421 lists1.best.com)
(199801050839.AAA22109 lists1.best.com)
(199801042221.OAA20315 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801061107.DAA19386 lists1.best.com)
Gunilla writes,
)First we have to clear some misunderstandings.
Thank you.
(Slaughtered quote alarm.
))If you _really_ want me to look it up, I will.)
"We must worm our way through. . .[I]n order to do what we want to do, at
least, it is necessary to talk with the people, not because we want to, but
because we have to, and inwardly make fools of them."
Rudolf Steiner, 'Conferences with Teachers of the Waldorf School in
Stuttgart, vol.1, 1919 to 1920 (Forest Row, East Sussex, England: Steiner
Schools Fellowship Publications. 1986),125
)))Here they differ alot from other people who work with
)))autism; whatever method they beleive in they seem to have a *general
)))interest* in learning basic facts and reading new literature in the area.
) Here I meant that Anthroposophist differ from for instance special
)education techers with behavioural, or TEACCH (a program for autistic
)people, developed in North Carolina) preferences, these teachers will read
)new books on autism even if these books are not written by people who have
)exactly their own idea of teaching. Anthroposophists seem to be totally
)without such an interest.
)
That sounds more in line with my own experience (in the Waldorf school
movement).
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n621.4 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and disabilities (was: Camphill)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 08:46:28 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199801061617.IAA00857 lists1.best.com)
)Dear Deby,
)
)Let me assure you that I have never seen children forced to walk single file
)with their arms crossed over their chests. Our school han't had a lunchroom,
)but they don't travel like that at any time. I continue to submit that the
)public school has as much of a bias and an agenda that the Waldorf schools
)have, but I appreciate your experience and critical voice.
)
)Nancy Norton
)Ithaca, NY
Both of my children walked [with their classmates] in this position at
their Waldorf schools. Oak Ridge parents in Sacramento took great exception
to this practice.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n621.5 ---------------
From: AJULSON COOK.TAMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and disabilities (was: Camphill)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 11:17:55 -0600 (CST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Dear Deby,
I'm really interested in this comment of yours:
)Because it is a religious system. There is little room for critical dialog
within the movement. Even the truly committed Anthroposophists are not
always tolerated if something in the movement is questioned. That is why
PLANS work is important. Through our "protests", we create critical dialog
among the "insiders", and put pressure on the movement to change some of
the crazier practices (like children being forced to walk, single file,
with their arms crossed over their hearts when going, say, to the lunchroom from their class).(
Referring to the last item, yes, what an absolutely crazy idea! But
what I am really interested in is the role that PLANS sees itself
playing in "creating dialog among the 'insiders'". As I mentioned
before, I'm what you would call a pretty committed anthroposophist,
and I share your sense of the great need for inner dialog. And I
agree that there are some "crazy practices" and I also question
the "marriage" of Waldorf and public education.
As I suspect is true of many people on this list, I first heard of
Anthroposophy through Waldorf education. Like many others, I was first
struck by the external aspects of W.E. - the beauty, the "niceness".
And as was true for many on this list, I imagine, I detected a
spiritual element that seemed to live within all the "externals".
My reaction to this, however, was to be attracted rather than repulsed!
And this is where I find the characterization of Anthroposophy as a
sect or a cult or a religion that is voiced on this list to be
funny (both in the sense of humorous and strange). Please realize
that as I keep saying in my posts, I can only speak from my own
experience. I grant that others may have had quite different
experiences.
The thing that is funny is that from the time I first heard of
Waldorf (about 1989) until I started ordering books on Anthroposophy
from the Anthroposophic press (1990), joined the Society (1992),
attended the Waldorf early childhood associates training (1994; I
was unable to complete it because of having a baby!), joined the
"First Class" (School for Spiritual Science) until now - during all that
time and activity no one involved ever seemed to care about my interest!
What I mean is that in a sect or cult, wouldn't you expect "them" to
be pushy or coercive, or to say (when you "joined") something like
"now you've seen the light, now you're one of us, the chosen few" or
something like that (thank heavens they didn't; I'd be right out the door!).
I'm trying to say that each step I took in taking up Anthroposphy was
totally my own initiative. The only time I've ever had a phone call
from the Society was to ask if I wanted them to return the money th
I'd overpaid for my dues (the dues pay for the newsletter and other
mailings; they are basically optional for people who can't pay and the
specific amount paid it as the discretion of the members who can pay).
I'm not trying to be argumentative; please realize that my only
interest is that Anthroposophy be accurately and fairly represented
here! What I personally have gotten out of studying Rudolf Steiner's
works is not "the answer" to my spiritual questions, it is more like
a road map to finding the answers for myself through hard inner work.
And certainly this isn't the only path toward this goal; it just
works for me whereas nothing I'd explored before did. So for me
personally, if Anthroposophy were a religion, I'd go to their church.
(and yes, I know about the Christian Community, but there are only a
tiny handful of CC churches scattered throughout the country). Instead
Anthroposophy is in my estimation somethhing that doesn't fit into
any of the various categories we currently recognize under the broad
heading of "Spiritual". Thus the inaccurate characterization as
religion, church, cult, sect, philosophy, world view. It's like the
story of the blind men and the elephant; from a certain point of
view Anthroposophy might seem like any of the things I mentioned,
yet that isn't the total picture.
Because I _want_ my children to attend a school where there is a
spiritual content to their education I send them to a school run
by the Episcopal church (at great financial expense which means
it is a huge sacrifice for our family). Personally I see a real
dilemma regarding education (I guess we all do or this list wouldn't
exist!) and Waldorf schools, whether public or private, are
not ever going to be the choice for everyone. But I'm wondering,
what would PLANS like to see happen regarding the fate of Waldorf
Schools? Should every one be closed? Should they only be private?
Should they be declared parochial (like Episcopal and Catholic
schools)? Is it a matter of how they are represented to the public
or is it their very existence that you would like to put to an end?
I've read the PLANS web site material, but it dosent address this
specific point. And I'm asking these questions honestly.
Thanks,
Amanda Julson
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n621.6 ---------------
From: Nnsandplay (Nnsandplay aol.com)
Subject: Re: Biases and Agendas
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 12:53:40 EST
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Brian,
I would be glad to say more about Waldorf Schools and Public Schools in this
matter. I posted a note to Deby in December asking her to forward it to the
critics list (which I wasn't on at the time). I will havaen't been able to
find it in my computor, which means I will need to reenter it I guess. but
before I do that, might it be in the archive? I haven't seen December's list
up yet, so it may that it isn't available there. Deby may have chosen not to
post it. I've spent the morning on the computer, and I need to get out to do
some gardening before the weather returns to winter here (it is in the
fifties, rather than the usual 20's or 30's) and I still have some late-fall
tasks to complete. If I can't find it later, I will sit down and reenter it
when it is dark and cold outside.
I have been thinking about this topic quite a bit this year. I don't really
like the words 'biases and agendas' (even though I probably started this
thread under this name), they sound so menancing or underhanded in some way.
I don't think they are secret, so much as often unarticulated, or even
unconscious, at least most of the time. But I hope I see more discussion of
the topic. I'll followup this post with my December letter on the topic, and
we can go from there.
Thanks,
Nancy Norton
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n621.7 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Nancy's personal response to me
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 11:10:35 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)Dear Deby,
)
)I have mixed feelings about the forwarding of my response. Yes, of course
)you may forward it and thank you for asking. Information should be
)shared; I trust each individual can come to their own decision about their
)personal choices.
)
)On the other hand, my experience of the public schools and mainstream
)education, and what I have learned about the founding of public schools
)and their purpose, leads me to think that they have as strongly held
)positions on child development, which includes the spiritual, as Waldorf
)Schools.
)
)So, I would ask you to please post this admittedly long winded responce at
)the same time you post my first comments on the Christian or
)Anthroposophical nature of the Waldorf School movement.
)
)As you probably know, one of the main impulses behind the public school
)movement was to protect the Protestant Anglo majority from the Roman
)Catholic immigrants and to assure democratic values in the children of
)immigrants. The first textbooks made in America by Noah Webster were a
)response to British textbooks - Webster thought American children should
)use American books written in the American form of the English Language -
)thus Webster's AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE was first
)published in 1828. The McGuffy Readers sold over 122 million copies and
)were used for over fifty years. These readers advertise themselves as
)providing "a healthful moral tone." William Bennett recognizes this
)historical emphasis on teaching values when he writes in the introduction
)to THE CHILDREN'S BOOK OF VIRTUES, that the stories in the book speak to
)the child as people did "when the central task of education was virtue."
)
)This is not a complete or scholarly look at the development of public
)education in America. But I wanted us to remember that it did not come
)out of what we would now consider to be a free system of thought. It
)began in a world where women and blacks were strongly discriminated
)against, where worldwide there was a strongly held fear of religious
)difference, in an America that was still developing it's identity as a
)country. Consider the conflict around bi-lingual education and official
)language status even now. I suggest that the schools remain an instrument
)of molding our children into the current image of a good citizen.
)
)I recently enrolled my four year old daughter in a neighborhood nursery
)school. Although I have been a Waldorf parent for fifteen years, I really
)wanted her to know and appreciate her nieghbors. (And I wanted her to
)have local friends so I wouldn't have to drive all over the county for her
)to play with a friend.) After three weeks it was clear to me that my
)approach to child deveopment was at such variance with the mainstream that
)I removed her and put her in the Waldorf nursery. The teachersin the
)neighborhood school said they just worked on socialization skills, but
)they did it from their perspective on child development. The Waldorf
)perspective, informed by Anthroposophy, starts with different assumptions
)about the needs of the child and so results in a different outcome.
)
)Anyone contemplating sending a child to the Waldorf School knows that
)paying the tuition will change something about their budget. When my son
)went, I used all his child support to pay his tuition and lived very
)simply. Now that I am remarried, we are able to send our three children
)and still live reasonably comfortably. But I am aware that many families
)are not able to make this commitment. Is it right that they are then
)given the choice of homeschooling - if that is even an option - or public
)school. School is not a voluntary activity; we are mandated to educate
)our children. But the only affordable choice for most families remains
)the public school.
)
)Most of us don't think about the philosophical and political basis of
)public education. It is like asking us to think about breathing air, or
)asking fish to describe water. But that doesn't mean it isn't there and
)doesn't have an impact on the techniques and curriculum. I was always
)uncomfortable with the fundamentalists who insisted that public schools
)were "teaching values". I want my children to feel comfortable with their
)neighbors and fellow world citizens. I avoid 'us vs. them' whenever I am
)aware of it (probably not often enough). But I was surprised at the depth
)of the gap between the mainstream approach to education and my experience
)and beliefs as a Waldorf parent. It really brought home the enforced
)nature of public school mentality on our children. What choices do most
)families have?
)
)So, now I am much more in favor of school choice in some form. Isn't
)America founded on freedom? I suggest that our schools have become not
)only babysitters and places to learn, but in effect our state churches.
)We are all taxed for their support, we are required to attend, and they
)have an effect on us as spiritual beings. I hope I haven't alienated
)those with whom I would like to diagogue. Thank you for reading such a
)long post. As long as you don't flame me, I'd be glad to hear your
)experiences and opinions.
)
)Oh, and none of my young children are aware of Anthroposophy or Rudolf
)Steiner. My twenty year old son has recently asked about who started
)Waldorf schools and I told him a bit about the founding of Waldorf
)schools, a bit on who Rudolf Steiner was, and loaned him a series of tapes
)of HOW TO KNOW HIGHER WORLDS, an Anthroposophical basic book. He listened
)while on a long car trip, stopped when it stopped making sense, and hasn't
)asked any more. However, although reading isn't easy for him, he has
)chosen to read quite a few books on the Baha'i faith in the last year.
)This Fall he joined that faith after years of saying he didn't believe in
)God because it didn't make sense. He always had an appreciation for
)beauty and a joy in movement that, when he spoke about it, was as close to
)a spiritual experience that I have heard.
)
) Hoping the holiday season, chistmas, solstice, new year, winter break,
)whatever,
)is joyous,
)
)Nancy Norton
)Ithaca, NY
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n621.8 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Nancy's post to the SJU Waldorf list
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 11:38:36 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I originally asked Nany for permission to repost this on the critics list.
She gave it to me, but asked me to post her private response as well, which
I am sending seperately.
I had decided not to post it because I felt she needed to be part of any
possible discussion resulting from her writing. I'm glad she has joined the
list.
Deby
)Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 23:06:16 EST
)Reply-To: SJU Waldorf School List (WALDORF MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU)
)Sender: SJU Waldorf School List (WALDORF MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU)
)From: Nnsandplay (Nnsandplay AOL.COM)
)Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
)Subject: Re: Christianity, form and content
)To: WALDORF MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
)
)As a member of the Society of Friends (Quakers) and someone quite interested
)in Anthroposophy, but with a history of evangelical Christianity, I would have
)to say that many Christians would not accept the philosophical basis of the
)Waldorf school (as I understand it) as Christian - the beliefs really are
)heretical to the orthodox dogma.
)I haven't seen this issue raised. I think Waldorf schools are not being
)deceptive when they say they are Christian or not - it is not an easy
)question. However I've yet to see a school that is not up front about their
)practice of celebrating the seasons of the year using Christian holidays as
)the markers. I don't know what many other schools use for morning verses, but
)the ones I have heard are fairly generic - they may mention God, but not
)Christ.
)
)Nancy Norton
)Ithaca, NY
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n621.9 ---------------
From: "Robert Mays" (MAYS RALVM12.VNET.IBM.COM)
Subject: Trial?
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 98 14:48:19 EST
Kathy,
You wrote on 3 January:
) However, I feel morally compelled to follow this through to its end. I
) know what happened to me and I have spoken to several other teachers
) that were severely harmed by Waldorf inclusion. They are simply not as
) outspoken as I am. A public school teacher must speak out loudly about
) inappropriate nature of this inclusion, both on the issue of
) church/state and low academic standards. The task seems to have fallen
) in my lap. However, there are other teachers waiting in the wings and
) will be ready to step forward when this goes to trial.
Who are / will be the parties to this trial? PLANS? vs. public school
district(s)?, Rudolf Steiner College?, AWSNA?, private Waldorf schools?
What are the main issues that are being tried? Use of Waldorf methods
amounts to teaching religious doctrines? Public school teachers are being
required to study anthroposophy? The harm you and other teachers
experienced? (What was the nature of that harm?)
Robert Mays
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n621.10 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy and disabilities (was: Camphill)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 11:56:14 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199801061718.JAA26624 lists1.best.com)
Amanda, you ask:
)But I'm wondering,
)what would PLANS like to see happen regarding the fate of Waldorf
)Schools?
Speaking for myself, I would like to see every parent read and sign a full
disclosure document explaining Anthroposophical beliefs and how
Anthroposophy permeates the curriculum in the private schools.
Should every one be closed?
No. I think they are fine for the children of Anthroposophists and even
others who choose this education after an honest and full disclosure of my
above statement. (Currently they are marketed as non-sectarian..)
Should they only be private?
Absolutely.
)Should they be declared parochial (like Episcopal and Catholic
)schools)?
Absolutely.
Is it a matter of how they are represented to the public
)or is it their very existence that you would like to put to an end?
See above. I have not heard _one_ PLANS board member suggest that Waldorf
schools should be "put to an end". Just that they acknowledge that many of
their "facts" are religious beliefs, beginning with Steiner's child
development model which is based on reincarnation principals.
)I've read the PLANS web site material, but it dosent address this
)specific point. And I'm asking these questions honestly.
Good point.
Deby
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n621 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n622 --------------
001 - Deby Snell (snell netshel - Re: Trial?
002 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Antrophosophy and disabilities (was: Camphill)
003 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - Deby quotes Steiner (sort of)
004 - Bart Windrum (stretch sof - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n621
005 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Africa
006 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: the "soul" and enquiring minds
007 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n621
008 - Kevin Jackson (kevin nvis - comments from the peanut gallery
009 - RogGoetsch (RogGoetsch ao - Re: Anthroposophy & disabilities
010 - "L. Carson" (lcarson tele - Re: Biases and Agendas
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n622.1 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Trial?
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 13:11:45 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199801061951.LAA04631 lists1.best.com)
Robert Mays asks,
))Who are / will be the parties to this trial? PLANS? vs. public school
)district(s)?, Rudolf Steiner College?, AWSNA?, private Waldorf schools?
)
)What are the main issues that are being tried? Use of Waldorf methods
)amounts to teaching religious doctrines? Public school teachers are being
)required to study anthroposophy? The harm you and other teachers
)experienced? (What was the nature of that harm?)
)
)Robert Mays
Speaking for PLANS, trials cost money. If we find funds, we would _love_ to
resolve this issue in court. Care to donate toward resolution? I have heard
that the Anthroposophists have collected a "large" fund to fight people who
are slandering Waldorf. Do you know anything about this?
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n622.2 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Antrophosophy and disabilities (was: Camphill)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 17:20:25 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hello Gunilla, and welcome to this list. I want to thank you for your
clear thoughts and understanding, you're "a breath of fresh air" to this
list! Thanks for your sharing.
David McKay
)Amanda, and others,
)
))[First of all, I can only speak for myself, not all anthroposophists!
))I can, however, make observations regarding others, and you have raised
))a point that we frequently discuss on the "Anthroposophia" list. It
))is so easy to fall into the "Steiner said" mentality (as it is when
))studing the collected works of any author, whether or not they were
))the founder of a school of thought, philosophy, etc.). And you are quite
))right, to proceed as if all that there is to Anthroposophy is the
))_words_ of Rudolf Steiner to be endlessly quoted and requoted would
))be a sad state of affairs! However I think awareness is growing that
))Anthroposophy is really an activity, inner activity by means of which
))a person develops for themself new insights ("higher knowledge")
)
)Just a reflection: I have met a few people in my life whome I would
)consider having wisdom ore being a possessor of some 'higher knowledge';
)None of them were anthroposophists.... :-) (Nor did they belong to any
)other sectarian school of thoughts.)
)
)
))I think to answer the point about how can we say that Steiner was
))both ahead of his time and simultaneously a product of his time is
))to ask do they have to be mutally exclusive? Didn't Tom Mellet post
))something here recently about "both/and" thinking (as opposed to
))"either/or" thinking?). I honestly don't think it's a case of
))whitewashing, it's just saying that things are rarely so black or
))white as they are shades of gray. For instance, Thomas Jefferson,
))writer of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, was also a slave
))owner; one must view this from many angles to come to a clear
))picture.]
)
)I am not very familiar with American history, as I am Swedish. But what
)really makes the difference is ones openness. When anthroposophists in my
)country write about or talk about the good sides of their ideas, they don't
)openly say for instance 'In anthroposophy there has also been ideas like
)this and this but we do strongly object to this nowadays, and other ideas
)like this and this we do discuss among ourselves. One of my problems with
)anthroposophy is that they are not open which in my opinion makes them
)sectarian.
)
)When it comes to what has been posted here earlier on the subject please
)remember that I've only been on this list a couple of days.
)
))
))[Again, I can only speak from my personal understanding of Anthroposophy.
))This is that in each incarnation we undertake a spiritual task; we
))incarnate with various abilities as well as challenges. Some individuals
))are actually working with a bigger picture, in that they have taken
))on challenges in this lifetime that will help them to develop strengths
))for a future lifetime. I have heard Anthroposophists who work with
))Camphill residents speak of them with the greatest respect, as they
))recognize that a very severely handicapped individual may in fact be
))a great soul working for the benefit of all mankind;
)
)This is a twisted version of respect. I am speaking of respect as in
)respect for being who you are, a person among persons. Not for 'being a
)great soul working for the benefit of all mankind', for being Gunilla, or
)Patrick, or whover you are. The seeing people as 'being a great soul
)working for the benefit of all mankind' is not the same as respecting them
)for who they are. It could be compared to, for instance, that macho men who
)are against equality of sexes usually tend to see the woman as some
)fantastic but fragile goddess who has to be protected and looked after.
)This is not respect, nor equality.
)
)
))[Again, I'm sorry to hear that this has been your experience. I
))sincerely hope that you will reserve judgement regarding all
))anthroposophists based on this disappointing situation!
)
)I don't judge them as individual people, but if I can't look upon them as a
)group and make conclusions about them as a group based on my experiences,
)then it would be dangerous. Then it would be impossible to critisize
)anything. I am always however, prepared to change or rewise my view on them
)as well as on other things when I get new information or new experiences.
)
)
))I have a dear friend who is a devout Mormon. We've been quite open
))with one another (and neither of us has tried to "convert" the
))other! :) She shared an item from her church's articles of faith
))that says (I'm paraphrasing): "we seek whatever is praiseworthy,
))of good report" (now I forget the exact wording). Basically, she
))found many things in Anthroposophy and Waldorf (we had a children's
))playgroup going at the time) that she appreciated; yet she was
))secure in her own beliefs; she could see the good and not be
))turned off by whatever didn't click with her. Please take all that I
))have said in these various posts in the same spirit!
)
) I think there is a good part in most things that I dislike or don't
)sympathize with. The fact that there are political parties that I would
)never give my vote doesn't mean I dislike or don't beleive in all of their
)ideas. But to act as your friend you have to have a basic feeling of trust
)in something, I don't have that trust in anthroposophy. This doesn't mean
)that I don't think anthroposophists have never done good things, or that
)some of their ideas can't be benficial to some. Still I don't see the need
)for being engaged in Anthroposophy in order to just use some of the ideas
)from it, I don't see the need for having schools devoted to Anthroposophy
)when you can have special education schools and use influences from many
)educational theories. Especially since the science of teaching is
)constantly developing and we learn new things about the brain and about
)learning.
)
)Gunilla
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n622.3 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: Deby quotes Steiner (sort of)
Date: 6 Jan 1998 21:25:37 -0500
Deby, you posted:
)(Slaughtered quote alarm.
)))If you _really_ want me to look it up, I will.)
)"We must worm our way through. . .[I]n order to do what we want to do, at
)least, it is necessary to talk with the people, not because we want to, but
)because we have to, and inwardly make fools of them."
)Rudolf Steiner, 'Conferences with Teachers of the Waldorf School in
)Stuttgart, vol.1, 1919 to 1920 (Forest Row, East Sussex, England: Steiner
)Schools Fellowship Publications. 1986),125
We must worm our way through....
... this circus of beauraucratic hoops?
... the prying questions of those bothersome parents?
... the mountain of red tape and paper pushing
... this pile of leaves?
And inwardly make fools of them
(translated in England in 1986(?) from early 1900's swiss/austrian/german
German)
To show them to be wrong, but not get in their face about it.
(possible meaning in 1990's white middle class 30 something american English
Deby;
Were there really ". . . "'s in the quote? Can you give us the complete
quote? Also, do you know in what context this statement was made. Have you
ever questioned the translators of this quote? I don't know from anything on
this, but he may have been speaking about the beauracracy of the German
schooling system, which I have read in other posts was viewed as rather rigid
and ineffective. In a context of this sort I would not see this statement as
any big thing (although it has that slap-you-in-the-face-to-get-your-attention
kind of quality PLANS devotees like so much).
There was a story of a single mother on welfare in NYC, on the radio today.
In the story she described all the things she did to survive and care for
child as a full time student and a single mother on welfare. She admitted to
having to struggle with the welfare system, and even admitted to having to lie
about her rental payments in order to make ends meet (150$). (She wasn't
living in a shack in the Maine woods but it sounded pretty meager.) She was
currently struggling with the beauraucracy around a requirement that all
recipients must work a minimum of 20 hours per week regardless if one is a
full time student or not (so that they got, as the welfare official explained,
basic job skills like getting up and getting to work on time, riding the bus,
and experience of working with others) Criminy! This woman has a child *and*
is going to school full time. Seems to me that she already gets all these
'basic job skills' by doing these things. (not to mention other bad effects
such as the loss of some benefits and additional childcare expenses and the
time spent away from the child that having a job would entail) Alas, *the
rule is the rule*, so she was denied childcare payments. Now, except for that
she has imposed on some friends for emergency child care, she may not be able
to go to school and get that teaching degree either.(that'll teach her)
What's my point? If anyone could (and seems to) benefit from the words you
quoted, I think this young woman could (and does). And the more power to her.
Deby, you seem to be fond of this quote by how often you post it ( probably
because it has those really juicy turns of phrases in it like "worm our way
through" and "inwardly make fools of them".
If you are using this quote *(especially with no context as to what is being
"wormed through")* as shock value, I think your tactics are reprehesible
(especially since you are the president of PLANS). It seems that you may
have adopted one interpretation of this same quote into the foundation of
PLANS.
What I find interesting is that one might contend that this quote which is/was
in a publicly available book published by the people supposedly trying to work
this deception is some sort of evidence of it. If this was such a deception
why wouldn't they have edited this comment out, and save it for those mythical
inner circle holy scrolls (yeh yeh I know, deceptive and stupid, blah blah
blah)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n622.4 ---------------
From: Bart Windrum (stretch softsmart.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n621
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 17:12:09 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199801061953.LAA05830 lists1.best.com)
)From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
)Subject: Biases and Agendas
)I agree that public schools have an agenda. In my opinion, their
)primary purpose is to produce citizens capable of participating in a
)modern democracy. Unfortunately, this sometimes has the side-effect of
)pressuring students to conform to societal expectations.
Brian,
Do (acceptable) societal expectations include creating television and
consumer/commercialization addicts? In other words, what do the children
learn in school *by default* besides the 3Rs?
Cheers, Bart
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n622.5 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Africa
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 18:57:10 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801060740.XAA21859 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) I watched the first episode of the PBS historical drama "Rhodes" last
) night. In a speech to the parliament in Capetown, Rhodes describes the
) native Africans as "children," incapable of self-government.
)
) It's so bizarre that Anthroposophy continues to preach this doctrine today.
)
) -Dan Dugan
Amazing Dan, truly amazing.
joel wendt
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n622.6 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: the "soul" and enquiring minds
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 18:58:40 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801051658.IAA00122 lists1.best.com)
Steve,
I've stuck a few more questions in below in [brackets]. Liked your
"answer" by the way.
joel
Steve Premo wrote:
)
) On 2 Jan 98 , Joel A. Wendt wrote:
)
) ) explain in your own words, what the following phrase refers to: "Please
) ) be quiet, I can't hear myself think". Specifically, just the last part:
) ) "...I can't hear myself think". What, in your own experience would you
) ) mean, if you were to make such a statement?
)
) When I am concentrating on something fairly complicated, which requires a
) linear type of logic to figure out, I need to be able to internally
) verbalize
[Try "internally verbalizing" on any theme, even counting. Does any
"place" in your body seem to be the locus of this activity?]
my thoughts, and hold the train of thought long enough to come
) to my conclusion. When I concentrate on something complicated which is
) more pattern-oriented
[Do you mean this involves using your imagination, or picture making
capacity, at the same time?
Try to hold a picture (again any theme, even just colored numbers).
Where in your body sense is this picturing arising, if that is a
question that makes sense to you?]
, I also need to concentrate for some period of time.
)
) If I am interrupted and lose my train of thought, I cannot reach my
) conclusion and sometimes I must start over.
)
) When I say, "Please be quiet, I can't hear myself think," I am using a
) slightly humorous figure of speech to say, "I cannot follow my train of
) thought long enough to reach a conclusion because of your interruptions.
) Please be quiet." It is humorous because it pretends that the one doing
) the "listening" and the one doing the "thinking" are separate, when in
) fact, there is just me, trying to hold on to my train of thought.
)
) ) Do you think this statement referes to anything more or less universal
) ) in the human being; i.e. do we all have an experience that such a
) ) statement would refer to?
)
) Well, I suspect it is common, if not universal. I think I am more
) easily distracted than many people.
)
) Steve Premo ----------- http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
) -----
) "It's a messed up world but I love it anyway, I love it."
) --Greg Brown
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n622.7 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n621
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 21:10:14 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801061953.LAA05830 lists1.best.com)
Robert Mays posted:
) Who are / will be the parties to this trial? PLANS? vs. public school
) district(s)?, Rudolf Steiner College?, AWSNA?, private Waldorf schools?
)
) What are the main issues that are being tried? Use of Waldorf methods
) amounts to teaching religious doctrines? Public school teachers are being
) required to study anthroposophy? The harm you and other teachers
) experienced? (What was the nature of that harm?)
My attorney has requested that I not share the specifics of this
information. However, the legal actions will revolve around inclusion
and public funding of Waldorf curriculum in public schools and a variety
of issues that have evolved as a result of these practices.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n622.8 ---------------
From: Kevin Jackson (kevin nvision.on.ca)
Subject: comments from the peanut gallery
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 01:15:24 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi Folks,
Been following this list through some up's and down's for some four months
now, as well as the waldorf list, and thinking about the amount of time
spent merely reading these two digests, without even participating in any
of the discussions, I decided to put up or shut up. I am aware of the
amount of time it takes to get involved on an e-mail list, especially ones
where the posts require as much thought as these do, and I just wanted to
thank everyone who takes time out to place their thoughts out here for all
to see, attack, or appreciate. Without this kind of participation, these
lists would not exist, and a tremendous opportunity would be lost. The
opportunity as I see it is a gathering of thoughts such as has never been
possible in the history of the world. Of all the 6 something Billion people
in the world, there are less than 70 something million who have enough
disposable income, leisure time, and curiousity, so far, to gain access to
the Internet. Out of interest, the non-English speaking part is growing far
more rapidly than the rest, soon to equal the english speaking part in
numbers.
Out of those seventy something million, a few thousand have heard of
Anthroposophy, Waldorf schools and Camphill. Of those few thousand, a few
hundred have subscribed to some of these mailing lists; and of those, only
a few dozen have the interest, time, energy, and ability to participate in
discussion by posting their own letters into the lists. A few of them are
affiliated offline, geographically and socially, but most of the discussion
is between people who have never met Face to Face (F2F), and who would
rarely be involved in such discussion in their local community. In fact,
maybe four hundred years ago they would have been treated affectionately as
the town crank, or revered as the highest representative of whatever god
was convenient, depending on the weather, crops, and a little serendipity.
I don't know, I'm no history expert.
However, here we are, and people who would possibly never have known of
each other's existance if not for this technology, are *discussing* things
as abstract as whether waldorf schools would violate the US constitution if
they were funded by the money of US taxpayers. I am not an American,
neither are the majority of waldorf schools and teachers, yet there is
apparently interest and participation in the activity of this mailing list
from many quarters. The question is: why. (I believe it is because they are
genuinely interested in placing their life's work and activity into a
context which is meaningful today, in the real world, not in isolated
circles where the discussion has become so outdated and semantic as to be
quite funny sometimes.)
I have worked in several different careers, alongside people of many
cultures, religions, and abilities, and I am slowly coming to a realization
of my own. Most people in our western (americanized) culture are simply
struggling to pay the rent, put food on the table, and get enough sleep,
while desperately trying to reach an ideal lifestyle illustrated in movies
and TV soaps. However *most* of them will never attain that lifestyle,
there simply are not enough resources. Meanwhile (remember the other 6
Billion?), many are destroying and neglecting their own rich cultural
heritages, sometimes thousands of years old, as they buy into that same lie
and move to already overpopulated cities so they can work for less in a
year than a poor american will get in a week on minimum wage.
I grew up living in a Camphill community, matriculated from a Waldorf High
school, was confirmed and probably christened, in a Christian Community
church. Though I have never studied Anthroposophy, I have some experience
of the practical influence of these organizations in the world around us.
My family were committed to working in Camphill, without personal gain, in
fact tremendous personal loss, for many years, and they were instrumental
in the beginnings of one of the leading Waldorf schools in North America,
although they moved before it grew. I now have two young children of my
own, and am thinking deeply about the decisions facing us in their education.
My own feelings are mixed, and I would be glad to lay them out here, in
the hope that it will stimulate some discussion in this area. I have
witnessed examples of waldorf teachers who were good teachers, and those
who were bad teachers: I have seen examples of good waldorf schools, and
also of bad ones. I have also seen good and bad public school teachers, and
ditto public schools. Without touching on the subject of Anthroposophical
interest, the numbers of successful versus deviant Waldorf and public
schools, seem to reflect a law of averages present in almost any
organizational efforts, look at political parties, municipal governments,
corporations etc. - they all have heroes and villians.
I have met some waldorf teachers who have never mentioned anything
Anthroposophical unless in a cynical tone that many use, and yet they were
very good teachers, their academic standards were higher than I have
experienced in other, non-waldorf educational institutions, and they were
good human beings, approaching students and others with respect. These
teachers remained in waldorf because they believed they were doing the best
for their students, and that the structure of the school enabled them to
continue to do so. I have also met some public school teachers who are
equally attentive to their students, and who work incredably long hours,
most of it unpaid, and put in their own money for supplies, in order to do
the best they believe possible. They look at waldorf school teachers with
envy, because their curriculim guidelines change every time the government
does, something waldorf schools don't have to contend with. If the public
school curriculim was consistant, these caring teachers would find ways to
do their good inside of those guidelines, given time - as do the excellent
waldorf teachers I have encountered. I could go on and on, citing more
anecdotal examples of good schools and bad schools, good teachers and bad
teachers, and my own conclusions are leading me to say that it almost
doesn't matter any more which type of school our children attend, rather
the type of people who run and work in that school, and that can be found
out by visiting and observing, talking and questioning, something that
should be done in *any* school, regardless of guiding principles.
Thankyou for listening, I feel much better now!
(stepping down from soapbox to make room for the next speaker)
Kevin Jackson
kevin nvision.on.ca
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n622.9 ---------------
From: RogGoetsch (RogGoetsch aol.com)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy & disabilities
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 02:18:10 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Gunilla,=0A=0AI wanted to address questions you raised in your posts=
, and before I could put=0Ait into words, I found the words: they are you=
r own!:=0A=0A"To me this interpretation looks like the manifestation of t=
he great fear that=0Amany people feel for what is unknown and different, =
for what is not easily=0Aunderstood by the habitual and comfortable train=
s of thought. A fear of the=0Athings that =96 if she assimilates it =96 =
forces a person to reevaluate her=0Apositions and see the world from a ne=
w angle."=0A=0A(From a translation of an article published in the Swedish=
journal of =0Apsychology "PsykologTidningen", no 16 1996. Reply to revi=
ew, by Gunilla=0AGerland)=0A=0ABeautifully said. I think most of us thin=
k in categories in order to speed=0Athings up, (but maybe, as you say, it=
is out of fear). If I can see where=0Asomeone or some idea, for instanc=
e, fits into my preconceived framework (and=0Awe *all*, I submit, have pr=
econceived frameworks) than I don't have to bother=0Awith expanding, alte=
ring or shattering my conceptual framework in order to=0Aaccommodate chan=
ge. I guess the fear would come in if I am identified with my=0Aframewor=
k: believe in it like a religion, be it science or superstition.=0A=0AIn =
my opinion, and I'm not an anthroposophist, just a Waldorf parent for 16=
=0Ayears who loves what Waldorf Education has done for my kids and me,=0A=
anthroposophy seems to offer a different way of seeing the world and as s=
uch,=0A"is not easily understood by the habitual and comfortable trains o=
f thought".=0AThat's probably why it takes so much study. It's not easy =
challenging one's=0Aown view of reality.=0A=0AI have not pursued it; I ha=
ve my own philosophical means of interpreting and=0Acoping with the incon=
ceivable immensity that surrounds us. In Waldorf, I have=0Amet many wond=
erful people, several jerks, and every type in between,=0A(sometimes a fu=
ll-time job trying to keep from being a jerk, myself!) and I=0Adon't real=
ly know which were anthros and which weren't. I try to listen to my=0Ahe=
art rather than my head, since after 50 years I have no certain knowledge=
of=0Aanything and have never met anyone who had.=0A=0AYou, again: "I don=
't judge them as individual people, but if I can't look upon=0Athem as a =
group and make conclusions about them as a group based on my=0Aexperience=
s, then it would be dangerous. Then it would be impossible to=0Acriticize=
anything. I am always however, prepared to change or revise my view=0Aon=
them as well as on other things when I get new information or new=0Aexpe=
riences."=0A=0AIt wouldn't be impossible to criticize, it would just take=
more specific=0Acriticism and a lot more work! It would take love to fo=
llow through with that=0Akind of contribution. It's a short cut to say, =
they're all the same, no more=0Athinking required. Have you ever belonge=
d to any group you would want someone=0Ato judge based on the actions or =
beliefs of a few of its members?=0A=0AAnd once more: "I have had some 'ex=
periences' with Anthroposophists and I have=0Ahad a vague feeling that th=
eir view on disabilities is kind of strange. It's=0Aimportant to have fac=
ts if you want to argue with someone." (Actually facts=0Ajust get in the=
way if you *really* want to argue with someone :-). Learn too=0Amuch an=
d you may find they're not as strange as you thought!)=0A=0ATo me, the an=
throposophical view on *everything* is strange! But I've gotten=0Ainside=
more than one view of the world in my time and I can say that what=0Amat=
ters most is love. My own personal experience of WE is that love is the=
=0Adriving force behind it. That speaks volumes to me about what it aris=
es from.=0A=0AI would caution you about getting your information from thi=
s list, or any=0Aother, for that matter. It just ain't that easy. A lot=
of emotion flying=0Aaround where people have been hurt or egos bruised.=
=0A=0AFollow your heart.=0A=0ARoger=0ARogGoetsch AOL.com=0A
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n622.10 ---------------
From: "L. Carson" (lcarson teleport.com)
Subject: Re: Biases and Agendas
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 98 02:18:18 PST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; X-MAPIextension=".TXT"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: Conversation (199801061638.IAA08541 lists1.best.com) with last message (199801061638.IAA08541 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801061638.IAA08541 lists1.best.com)
For a thought-provoking criticism of public schools -their history, shor=
tcomings, biases and agendas- try the book 'Dumbing us Down' by John =
Gatto, a former New York teacher of the year.
Elizabeth
----------
Brian wrote:
| I agree that public schools have an agenda. In my opinion, their
| primary purpose is to produce citizens capable of participating in a
| modern democracy.
. . .Capable of *participating*. . .Do you think so?
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n622 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n623 --------------
001 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Biases and Agendas
002 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - Re: Biases and Agendas
003 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Religion
004 - Nnsandplay (Nnsandplay ao - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n621
005 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Biases and Agendas
006 - Deby Snell (snell netshel - Re: Deby quotes Steiner (sort of)
007 - RogGoetsch (RogGoetsch ao - Re: Anthroposophy & disabilities (repost)
008 - "Robert Mays" (MAYS RALVM - Re: Trial?
009 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Deby quotes Steiner (sort of)
010 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: comments from the peanut gallery
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n623.1 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Biases and Agendas
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 09:50:38 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
I said:
)) I agree that public schools have an agenda. In my opinion,
)) their primary purpose is to produce citizens capable of
)) participating in a modern democracy.
Elizabeth Carson said:
) . . .Capable of *participating*. . .Do you think so?
Well, yes, although maybe I should've said "participating responsibly"
or something. Running a country is a pretty serious endeavor, don't you
think? It requires an solid understanding of history, technology,
communication, etc.
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n623.2 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: Re: Biases and Agendas
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 09:50:39 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
I said:
) )) I agree that public schools have an agenda. In my opinion,
)) their primary purpose is to produce citizens capable of
)) participating in a modern democracy. Unfortunately, this
)) sometimes has the side-effect of pressuring students to
)) conform to societal expectations.
Bart Windrum said:
) Do (acceptable) societal expectations include creating television
) and consumer/commercialization addicts?
Definitely not. This is a great concern of mine as well.
) In other words, what do the children learn in school *by default*
) besides the 3Rs?
A lot of crap, no doubt about it. But these are problems inherited from
society at large, not reasons to abandon the public school system.
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n623.3 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Religion
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 10:07:11 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199801070720.XAA18121 lists1.best.com)
I've been giving some thought to the definition of "Religion." Some
people on this list have thought of identification with a concept as
being a hallmark of "religion." Some have asserted that anthroposophists
on this list sometimes become very defensive about their position because
anthroposophy is a religion, and that is how people act when their
religious beliefs are questioned.
Thus, Roger wrote:
) I guess the fear would come in if I am identified with my framework:
) believe in it like a religion, be it science or superstition.
(I realize that Roger was not trying to define religion, and was not
saying that if you identify with a concept in which you believe that makes
it a religion. This sentence, though, was what started me thinking along
these lines.)
Well, it's true that people act that way when their religious beliefs are
questioned, but that is because they identify with their religious
beliefs. People similarly identify with other things, and have a similar
reaction when those things are criticized.
For example, I am a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights in the United
States Constitution. Some folks on this list from other countries have
suggested that it is wrong, silly, or harmful for the constitution to
protect offensive speech, or to prohibit the government from offering
financial assistance to religious institutions. I have reacted strongly
to such suggestions, but that does not make "constitutionalism" a
religion.
Similarly, I am a fan of bluegrass music, and other music derived from
American folk and bluegrass roots. I subscribe to a Fairport Convention
mailing list, and I have reacted strongly when people on that list have
made disparaging remarks about bluegrass music. This simply means that I
identify myself as a bluegrass fan, not that "bluegrassism" is a
religion.
So, while people tend to identify with their religious beliefs, the fact
that someone identifies with a particular movement or philosophy is not
really evidence that it is religious.
Now, a lot of people on this list have defined "religion" as something
that is believed on faith. Under this definition, if your belief is based
on an evaluation of your own experience and perception, it is not
religious, whether it is a belief regarding the nature of the spiritual
world, or a belief regarding the physical nature of the material world.
However, if you believe something that you cannot perceive, and that you
don't understand, that belief is religious, whether it is about God or
about particle physics.
Others have defined "religion" as any system which relates to that which
is supernatural or spiritual. Under this definition, it does not matter
whether the beliefs are based on faith or on direct perception. Indeed,
beliefs are not really necessary at all. The Unitarian church is clearly
a religious institution, in that its purpose is to serve people's
spiritual natures, but it does not promote any belief system.
Since we are defining religion for legal purposes, rather than for more
personal, subjective purposes, an objective definition is preferable to
one which requires an examination of the individual's internal
relationship with the institution. So I've come to the tentative
conclusion that Michael Kopp's definition of religion is the preferable
one:
) Michael Kopp said:
)
) "For my part, the defining characteristic of religions, which is shared
) in spades by Anthroposophy, is that they deal with the supernatural
) spiritual world, however one characterises it, external or internal. Any
) philosophy which deals with such spiritual realms is therefore a
) religion."
So my tentative conclusion, applying this definition, is that
anthroposophy is a religion.
Steve Premo ----------- http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
-----
"It's a messed up world but I love it anyway, I love it."
--Greg Brown
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n623.4 ---------------
From: Nnsandplay (Nnsandplay aol.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n621
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 13:23:20 EST
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Kathy says she has been advised not to disclose any information regarding the
law suit with whom she has threatened someone or some institution associated
with Waldorf schools. I hate to get in the fray on this, it seems strange
that legal action is threatened and the attorney advises restraint, even non-
disclosure, while one continues to probe the other for information. It would
seem to me that this is really quite one-sided and doesn't lend itself to an
honest dialogue.
Maybe because I work as a mediator, it really strikes me as an unfair "power
play". It would seem much more functional to attempt to remain engaged and
resolve the issues as I don't believe that Waldorf schools are a conspirasy
nor do they want to secretly insinuate themselves into American life in order
to create anthroposophists without anyone's knowledge. I have read what I
consider to be honest attempts to understand the problems Kathy had, with a
willingness to either modify the program, or clarify whatever she found so
disarming, or even to withdraw if there was a clear evidence that there is no
way to integrate public education and waldorf education to the satisfaction of
the parents involved. (I have also read contentious and what sounded to me
like disrespectful postings that made me uncomfortable and seemed
counterproductive.) Even if I agreed with Kthy's position, as a mediator I
would have to suggest that once the legal action is decided on, the time for
discussion has past.
Nancy Norton
Ithaca, NY
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n623.5 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Biases and Agendas
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 11:00:02 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801071454.GAA29194 lists1.best.com)
Brian,
Someone is running this country, or ruining it? I participate on a
number of political lists, and try to read the NY Times and my local
paper every day, as well as a lot of books over the years. Don't see
much evidence our politicians understand anything other than how to get
elected and how to raise money by selling out to monied interests.
Public school has one purpose at present, and this is to make workers
and consumers, period. Just read what's being said now about schools at
the elite levels of dialogue. Everything has to conform to some
romantic ideal of market forces, and now there is a movement to further
destroy our universities by getting read of tenure and academic freedom;
all in the name of the ideal that an education is a "product" and its
value is determined by the usefulness of the graduate's labor in the
market place.
Where are these people with "solid understanding of history,
technology, communication", much less human nature, psychology,
sociology, ethics, critical thinking and so forth? I sure don't see
them in politics; but then, perhaps you were thinking of something else
entirely different.
joel wendt
Brian Berns wrote:
)
) I said:
) )) I agree that public schools have an agenda. In my opinion,
) )) their primary purpose is to produce citizens capable of
) )) participating in a modern democracy.
)
) Elizabeth Carson said:
) ) . . .Capable of *participating*. . .Do you think so?
)
) Well, yes, although maybe I should've said "participating responsibly"
) or something. Running a country is a pretty serious endeavor, don't you
) think? It requires an solid understanding of history, technology,
) communication, etc.
)
) -- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n623.6 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Deby quotes Steiner (sort of)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 11:03:33 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199801070227.SAA02807 lists1.best.com)
Luke writes,
)We must worm our way through....
)
)... this circus of beauraucratic hoops?
)... the prying questions of those bothersome parents?
)... the mountain of red tape and paper pushing
)... this pile of leaves?
)
)And inwardly make fools of them
)(translated in England in 1986(?) from early 1900's swiss/austrian/german
)German)
)
)To show them to be wrong, but not get in their face about it.
)(possible meaning in 1990's white middle class 30 something american English
Too bad [for Anthroposophists] that the quote does not say that.
)
)Deby;
)
)Were there really ". . . "'s in the quote? Can you give us the complete
)quote? Also, do you know in what context this statement was made.
The context of the quote fits exactly. Steiner was trying to obtain state
approval for his school in 1920.
) Have you ever questioned the translators of this quote ?
Err, no, I haven't gone so far as to question the translators. I guess that
would be a job left to Anthroposophists. I'm amazed at your argument here,
given PLANS mission statement. The critics post something embarrassing [by
your guru]. Rather than repute Steiner, you imply that PLANS should be
questioning the translation? Do you think this is a reasonable expectation,
Luke?
) There was a story of a single mother on welfare in NYC, on the radio today.
(snip long story)
)
Perhaps Antroposophists would do well to jump into politics. I think that
would be an improvement. In my experience, Anthroposophical
endeavors/activities are generally so busy asking for help or money that
there is no time to give. The Quakers may be a good role model. They are
pacifist activists.
)
)Deby, you seem to be fond of this quote by how often you post it ( probably
)because it has those really juicy turns of phrases in it like "worm our way
)through" and "inwardly make fools of them".
It is a cross Anthroposophy has to bear, I guess. I didn't make the quote
up. Nor did I make up the Anthroposophical tenent that the heart is not a
pump. IMO, Anthroposophy has no hope of establishing itself as a
mainstream religion until many of Steiner's crazy ideas are dealt with.
)If you are using this quote *(especially with no context as to what is being
)"wormed through")* as shock value, I think your tactics are reprehesible
)(especially since you are the president of PLANS). It seems that you may
)have adopted one interpretation of this same quote into the foundation of
)PLANS.
I'm aware that using that quote will upset some people. I'm also aware that
many people find PLANS reprehensible. Anthroposophists tend to attack PLANS
members on a personal level, as if we are bad people because we do not
agree with how Waldorf schools are marketed. I'm unsure if this is common
among organizations such as ours, but I would imagine so.
)
)What I find interesting is that one might contend that this quote which is/was
)in a publicly available book published by the people supposedly trying to work
)this deception is some sort of evidence of it. If this was such a deception
)why wouldn't they have edited this comment out, and save it for those mythical
)inner circle holy scrolls (yeh yeh I know, deceptive and stupid, blah blah
)blah)
Hmm. Do you think the Anthroposophical folks ever felt an organization such
as PLANS would actually take the time to read what Steiner wrote? It may
help you to look at PLANS as Anthroposophy's karma. Please calm down. I'd
hate to feel responsible for a heart attack or something.
Best,
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n623.7 ---------------
From: RogGoetsch (RogGoetsch aol.com)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy & disabilities (repost)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 14:42:58 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This is a repost without (I hope) formatting problems:=0A=0ADear Gunilla,=
=0A=0AI wanted to address questions you raised in your posts, and before =
I could put=0Ait into words, I found the words: they are your own!:=0A=0A=
"To me this interpretation looks like the manifestation of the great fear=
that=0Amany people feel for what is unknown and different, for what is n=
ot easily=0Aunderstood by the habitual and comfortable trains of thought.=
A fear of the=0Athings that =96 if she assimilates it =96 forces a pers=
on to reevaluate her=0Apositions and see the world from a new angle."=0A=
=0A(From a translation of an article published in the Swedish journal of =
=0Apsychology "PsykologTidningen", no 16 1996. Reply to review, by Gunil=
la=0AGerland)=0A=0ABeautifully said. I think most of us think in categor=
ies in order to speed=0Athings up, (but maybe, as you say, it is out of f=
ear). If I can see where=0Asomeone or some idea, for instance, fits into=
my preconceived framework (and=0Awe *all*, I submit, have preconceived f=
rameworks) than I don't have to bother=0Awith expanding, altering or shat=
tering my conceptual framework in order to=0Aaccommodate change. I guess=
the fear would come in if I am identified with my=0Aframework: believe i=
n it like a religion, be it science or superstition.=0A=0AIn my opinion, =
and I'm not an anthroposophist, just a Waldorf parent for 16=0Ayears who =
loves what Waldorf Education has done for my kids and me,=0Aanthroposophy=
seems to offer a different way of seeing the world and as such,=0A"is no=
t easily understood by the habitual and comfortable trains of thought".=
=0AThat's probably why it takes so much study. It's not easy challenging=
one's=0Aown view of reality.=0A=0AI have not pursued it; I have my own p=
hilosophical means of interpreting and=0Acoping with the inconceivable im=
mensity that surrounds us. In Waldorf, I have=0Amet many wonderful peopl=
e, several jerks, and every type in between,=0A(sometimes a full-time job=
trying to keep from being a jerk, myself!) and I=0Adon't really know whi=
ch were anthros and which weren't. I try to listen to my=0Aheart rather =
than my head, since after 50 years I have no certain knowledge of=0Aanyth=
ing and have never met anyone who had.=0A=0AYou, again: "I don't judge th=
em as individual people, but if I can't look upon=0Athem as a group and m=
ake conclusions about them as a group based on my=0Aexperiences, then it =
would be dangerous. Then it would be impossible to=0Acriticize anything. =
I am always however, prepared to change or revise my view=0Aon them as we=
ll as on other things when I get new information or new=0Aexperiences."=
=0A=0AIt wouldn't be impossible to criticize, it would just take more spe=
cific=0Acriticism and a lot more work! It would take love to follow thro=
ugh with that=0Akind of contribution. It's a short cut to say, they're a=
ll the same, no more=0Athinking required. Have you ever belonged to any =
group you would want someone=0Ato judge based on the actions or beliefs o=
f a few of its members?=0A=0AAnd once more: "I have had some 'experiences=
' with Anthroposophists and I have=0Ahad a vague feeling that their view =
on disabilities is kind of strange. It's=0Aimportant to have facts if you=
want to argue with someone." (Actually facts=0Ajust get in the way if y=
ou *really* want to argue with someone :-). Learn too=0Amuch and you may=
find they're not as strange as you thought!)=0A=0ATo me, the anthroposop=
hical view on *everything* is strange! But I've gotten=0Ainside more tha=
n one view of the world in my time and I can say that what=0Amatters most=
is love. My own personal experience of WE is that love is the=0Adriving=
force behind it. That speaks volumes to me about what it arises from.=
=0A=0AI would caution you about getting your information from this list, =
or any=0Aother, for that matter. It just ain't that easy. A lot of emot=
ion flying=0Aaround where people have been hurt or egos bruised.=0A=0AFol=
low your heart.=0A=0ARoger=0ARogGoetsch AOL.com=0A
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n623.8 ---------------
From: "Robert Mays" (MAYS RALVM12.VNET.IBM.COM)
Subject: Re: Trial?
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 98 16:07:43 EST
Deby and Kathy,
Thank you for your replies. It seems that PLANS has insufficient funds to
pursue legal steps but that Kathy does and has an attorney advising her
about it.
The issues you mention, Kathy, are worth getting resolved.
Are there perhaps others (other organizations?) who are involved in your
planned legal actions, Kathy (or Deby)?
Regarding the legal fund, I have heard that a fund is being set up by the
Anthroposophical Society in America for legal issues. Perhaps it's in
response to your planned legal actions. Have your attorneys contacted the
Society, Rudolf Steiner College, AWSNA or some other anthroposophical
entity?
Robert Mays
) Speaking for PLANS, trials cost money. If we find funds, we would _love_ to
) resolve this issue in court. Care to donate toward resolution? I have heard
) that the Anthroposophists have collected a "large" fund to fight people who
) are slandering Waldorf. Do you know anything about this?
) Deby
) My attorney has requested that I not share the specifics of this
) information. However, the legal actions will revolve around inclusion
) and public funding of Waldorf curriculum in public schools and a variety
) of issues that have evolved as a result of these practices.
) Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n623.9 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Deby quotes Steiner (sort of)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 14:27:47 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Luke wrote:
)Deby, you posted:
)
))(Slaughtered quote alarm.
))))If you _really_ want me to look it up, I will.)
)
)
))"We must worm our way through. . .[I]n order to do what we want to do, at
))least, it is necessary to talk with the people, not because we want to, but
))because we have to, and inwardly make fools of them."
)
))Rudolf Steiner, 'Conferences with Teachers of the Waldorf School in
))Stuttgart, vol.1, 1919 to 1920 (Forest Row, East Sussex, England: Steiner
))Schools Fellowship Publications. 1986),125
)
)Luke:
)We must worm our way through....
)
)... this circus of beauraucratic hoops?
)... the prying questions of those bothersome parents?
)... the mountain of red tape and paper pushing
)... this pile of leaves?
)
)And inwardly make fools of them
)(translated in England in 1986(?) from early 1900's swiss/austrian/german
)German)
)
)To show them to be wrong, but not get in their face about it.
)(possible meaning in 1990's white middle class 30 something american English
Luke, this is a common way of dealing with bureaucracies in a lot of
societies, as you have shown below. The difference I experienced with WE
over a ten year period, and especially as a founding parent of the Waldorf
Charter School in Nevada City (now known as the Yuba River Charter School),
as well as having been on the Parent Council and the Charter Council (a
Charter schools Board of Directors) is the *explicit attitude* that if you
were *not* an Anthroposophist, or *coming from* Anthroposophy, or didn't
*have the proper training to know* that you would do better to just mind
your own business. Having been very involved with WE, and having been to
many other WE schools to see and share how we could do better fund raising
in the private sector, I always noticed this same attitude no matter where
I was, De ja vue.
)
)Deby;
)
)Were there really ". . . "'s in the quote? Can you give us the complete
)quote? Also, do you know in what context this statement was made. Have you
)ever questioned the translators of this quote? I don't know from anything on
)this, but he may have been speaking about the beauracracy of the German
)schooling system, which I have read in other posts was viewed as rather rigid
)and ineffective. In a context of this sort I would not see this statement as
)any big thing (although it has that slap-you-in-the-face-to-get-your-attention
)kind of quality PLANS devotees like so much).
) There was a story of a single mother on welfare in NYC, on the radio today.
)In the story she described all the things she did to survive and care for
)child as a full time student and a single mother on welfare. She admitted to
)having to struggle with the welfare system, and even admitted to having to lie
)about her rental payments in order to make ends meet (150$). (She wasn't
)living in a shack in the Maine woods but it sounded pretty meager.) She was
)currently struggling with the beauraucracy around a requirement that all
)recipients must work a minimum of 20 hours per week regardless if one is a
)full time student or not (so that they got, as the welfare official explained,
)basic job skills like getting up and getting to work on time, riding the bus,
)and experience of working with others) Criminy! This woman has a child *and*
)is going to school full time. Seems to me that she already gets all these
)'basic job skills' by doing these things. (not to mention other bad effects
)such as the loss of some benefits and additional childcare expenses and the
)time spent away from the child that having a job would entail) Alas, *the
)rule is the rule*, so she was denied childcare payments. Now, except for that
)she has imposed on some friends for emergency child care, she may not be able
)to go to school and get that teaching degree either.(that'll teach her)
) What's my point? If anyone could (and seems to) benefit from the words you
)quoted, I think this young woman could (and does). And the more power to her.
)
)
)Deby, you seem to be fond of this quote by how often you post it ( probably
)because it has those really juicy turns of phrases in it like "worm our way
)through" and "inwardly make fools of them".
It is *because* of WE/Anthroposophists *explicit attitude* of *do it
anyway* that is
*reprehensible* Luke. The decietfullness and lies by WE staff that is
*reprehensible* Luke.
Your example above is concerning to all of us I'm sure, but just because
things aren't always the way they maybe should be, *doesn't* give people
the right to be decietfull.
We are also talking about two completely different issues here with very
different outcomes and impacts on society. In one, we have a woman trying
to lift herself up by her boot straps and make a better place for herself,
and by her actions of speaking out she will undoubtedly bring change to the
system that seems to be so short sighted.
On the other is a concerted effort by a Religious Cult to "worm it's way"
into the public sector of education under the guise of being non-sectarian
and *the best thing the world ever put forth for human education* of which
it is no where close to having such an honor bestowed on it. A very real
and direct action by the Waldorf Charter School was to consciuosly choose a
name that *did not* refer to *Waldorf* and not just for the reason that
AWSNA holds the trademark on that name, but because of the *fact* that if
they *admitted* that they were a pure Waldorf School they wouldn't get
public funding.
Deby and myself, along with many, many families were told explicitly that
if we wanted anything *but pure Waldorf*, we should take our kids and go
somewhere else.
)If you are using this quote *(especially with no context as to what is being
)"wormed through")* as shock value, I think your tactics are reprehesible
)(especially since you are the president of PLANS). It seems that you may
)have adopted one interpretation of this same quote into the foundation of
)PLANS.
What *is* reprehensible Luke, is the continued deception and empty words
used to describe how much the school has supposedly "changed", yet it is
still run as a pure WE school.
So many families have witnessed what I am saying, in this community, as
well as communities around the world. I'm glad this venue for people to
share their experiences with WE is here and available as I think it will be
a cold day in hell before any Waldorf school adopts the suggested "Full
Disclosure Statement" or ever does any "exit polls" of why digrunteled
parents leave.
At the public Waldorf Charter School here, there has been an average of 30
to 60 families that leave that program each year since it's beginning 4
years ago. For a school that started with 90 students it's first year,
120 it's second year (it has added a grade each year), and now is up to
200, that is a very high percentage of drop-outs.
)
)What I find interesting is that one might contend that this quote which is/was
)in a publicly available book published by the people supposedly trying to work
)this deception is some sort of evidence of it. If this was such a deception
)why wouldn't they have edited this comment out, and save it for those mythical
)inner circle holy scrolls (yeh yeh I know, deceptive and stupid, blah blah
)blah)
As if *anyone*, let alone the masses, could ever wade their way through
Steiners writings, let alone know where to start or look (you and one
other have asked Deby for exact info on this. Why couldn't you find it
yourself?).
But even more telling is the fact that they *didn't* hide it. It's that
*superior* attitude that Steiner and now his WE/Anthro followers *know* and
the rest of us don't. I've never met a group of people so simple yet at
the same time very complex due to their undying faith/trust in one mans
writings/teachings (actually that's not accurate, Creationists are the
other group), that they blindly contridict them selves.
David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n623.10 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: comments from the peanut gallery
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 14:27:51 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Welcome to the front lines Kevin. Nice post!
Kevin wrote:
)Hi Folks,
)
) Been following ... [snip]... and my own conclusions are leading me to say
)that it almost
)doesn't matter any more which type of school our children attend, rather
)the type of people who run and work in that school, and that can be found
)out by visiting and observing, talking and questioning, something that
)should be done in *any* school, regardless of guiding principles.
I agree with you on this idea Kevin. The hard part in trying to do this
with WE is the fact that there is no clear, *in depth*, Full Disclosure of
what one is getting into when going to a WE school. The brochures have all
the "warm & fussy" stuff mentioned that would (and did for me and my wife)
have one signing up in a split second. Many, including me, feel that those
brochures or what you are told by WE staff are "false advertising". One
can only make a good decision base on complete and accurate information.
At the 3 public schools I have delt with since leaving the Waldorf Charter
School, what they said I was going to get and what I could expect from
them was exactly what I got. There have been no suprises (in a negative
sense, but lots in a positive sense).
)
)Thankyou for listening, I feel much better now!
)(stepping down from soapbox to make room for the next speaker)
)Kevin Jackson
)kevin nvision.on.ca
David McKay
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n623 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n624 --------------
001 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n621
002 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Biases and Agendas
003 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n621
004 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Biases and Agendas
005 - AJULSON COOK.TAMU.EDU - Re: Deby quotes Steiner (sort of)
006 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n621
007 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n621
008 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Steiner's religion no weirder than others (Was Re: Deby quotes
009 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Biases and Agendas
010 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Biases and Agendas
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n624.1 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n621
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 11:40:11 +1300 (NZDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199801071830.KAA21590 lists1.best.com)
Nancy Norton replied to Kathy Sutphen:
)Kathy says she has been advised not to disclose any information regarding the
)law suit with whom she has threatened someone or some institution associated
)with Waldorf schools. I hate to get in the fray on this, it seems strange
)that legal action is threatened and the attorney advises restraint, even non-
)disclosure, while one continues to probe the other for information. It would
)seem to me that this is really quite one-sided and doesn't lend itself to an
)honest dialogue.
)
)Maybe because I work as a mediator, it really strikes me as an unfair "power
)play". It would seem much more functional to attempt to remain engaged and
)resolve the issues as I don't believe that Waldorf schools are a conspirasy
)nor do they want to secretly insinuate themselves into American life in order
)to create anthroposophists without anyone's knowledge. I have read what I
)consider to be honest attempts to understand the problems Kathy had, with a
)willingness to either modify the program, or clarify whatever she found so
)disarming, or even to withdraw if there was a clear evidence that there is no
)way to integrate public education and waldorf education to the satisfaction of
)the parents involved. (I have also read contentious and what sounded to me
)like disrespectful postings that made me uncomfortable and seemed
)counterproductive.) Even if I agreed with Kthy's position, as a mediator I
)would have to suggest that once the legal action is decided on, the time for
)discussion has past.
KOPP says:
This post is contentious and disrespectful and will not doubt make Norton
uncomfortable. I do hope so. Norton talks like a Steiner/Waldorf/
Anthroposoophical apologist, not a neutral, impartial mediator.
Norton says she is a mediator, but she expresses a negative opinion about
Sutphen based on an attorney's advice not to discuss her case.
Norton says she is a mediator, and advises Sutphen to "remain engaged" with
the people she is litigating with, but she says she doesn't believe certain
things about Waldorf schools are true. (They are irrelevant to Sutphen's
case anyway, in my opinion.)
Norton says she is a mediator, but she appears to have ignorantly prejudged
Sutphen and Sutphen's opponents.
Norton says she is a mediator, but says once litigation is on, chat it off.
Norton says she is a mediator, but says Sutphen is being somehow dishonest
in her continuing dialogue on this list just because she has instituted
litigation.
The subjects of Sutphen's dialogues on this list do not relate to the
specifics of her litigation, but to SWA in general. How can that be said to
be dishonest?
Norton should read the WC list archives before she makes prejudicial
statements.
Sutphen's experiences leading up to her litigation are well explored there,
by both sides. Sutphen's litigation (as I understand it) is not against
monolithic Waldorf, but specific entities with whom she had problems.
Indeed, it appears from my reading of the situation, that Sutphen actually
tried several approaches to her problems, including mediation, with no
success in resolving her grievances.
Preserve me from "mediators" who want the underdog to see sweet reason. It
ususally results in the wronged party getting screwed.
Preserve me from "mediators" who ignorantly prejudge a situation, then call
for resolution of issues.
Notice that Norton does not call for _solution_ to the problems or
differences, only _resolution_ of the _issues_. Resolution means to make
clear what the issues are, not to solve the problems.
Notice that Norton does not call for a just and fair outcome for the side
of the dispute which feels wronged.
As I understand it, Sutphen has sought justice against people she believes
are lawbreakers and abusers of her rights.
Mediation cannot provide justice, only compromise in which agrieved usually
lose.
There is no resolution or solution to be had between SWA and people who
dissent from SWA practices. SWA people do not ever compromise their beliefs
and dogmas for anyone. No one has ever reported such an instance on this or
any other list I've ever read, and it certainly ain't my own personal
experience.
SWA people in authority are hard-line cultists who will preserve their cult
and its tenets by manipulative or stonewalling techniques. They do not
engage in mediation.
Can Norton clarify her positions for us, including her SWA interests and/or
involvements, knowledge and beliefs?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n624.2 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Biases and Agendas
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 18:02:32 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Joel Wendt said:
) Public school has one purpose at present, and this is to make
) workers and consumers, period.
What a remarkably shallow statement. You sound just as slanted as the
Waldorf critics you scold.
) Where are these people with "solid understanding of history,
) technology, communication", much less human nature, psychology,
) sociology, ethics, critical thinking and so forth?
Well, I attended public schools, and I think I have at least some of
those attributes.
) I sure don't see them in politics; but then, perhaps you were
) thinking of something else entirely different.
I was thinking of citizens, not politicians.
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n624.3 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n621
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 15:04:17 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199801071830.KAA21590 lists1.best.com)
On 7 Jan 98 , Nancy Norton wrote:
) Kathy says she has been advised not to disclose any information regarding
) the law suit with whom she has threatened someone or some institution
) associated with Waldorf schools. I hate to get in the fray on this, it
) seems strange that legal action is threatened and the attorney advises
) restraint, even non- disclosure, while one continues to probe the other
) for information.
Probe the other side for information? I doubt if anyone on this list
besides Kathy is a party to her lawsuit or potential lawsuit.
As far as I know, this dispute relates to Kathy's specific employment
situation, and is not against Waldorf education in general.
In any event, as a lawyer I agree with Kathy's attorney that she should
not discuss the particulars of her lawsuit in this forum, because anything
she says here could be used against her.
) Even if I agreed with Kathy's position, as a mediator I would have to
) suggest that once the legal action is decided on, the time for
) discussion has past.
I assume you mean that once legal action is decided on, the time for
discussion between the parties directly has passed, and communications
should be between their respective counsel. I agree, but as I said, I
don't think any other parties to the litigation are involved in
discussions on this list.
With respect to the attorneys for the parties, communications should be
open and free throughout the litigation. That's how cases get settled,
and well over 90% of all lawsuits settle out of court.
You appear to be suggesting that Kathy should muzzle her opinions of
Waldorf education in general because she is involved in litigation
regarding her employment situation, and that it is somehow unfair for her
to express an opinion on the subject. I do not understand what you mean,
or how it is unfair. Could you explain?
Steve Premo ----------- http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
-----
"It's a messed up world but I love it anyway, I love it."
--Greg Brown
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n624.4 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Biases and Agendas
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 15:29:00 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Joel wrote:
)
) Where are these people with "solid understanding of history,
)technology, communication", much less human nature, psychology,
)sociology, ethics, critical thinking and so forth? I sure don't see
)them in politics; but then, perhaps you were thinking of something else
)entirely different.
Joel, you must know as well as the rest of us that no decent person with
all the above training along with some basic human morels wouldn't get
involved and those that have tried get slam dunked by PAC's big money.
I've help on several Congressional campaigns out here in Northern Calif.,
and unless you were willing to by into one of the two main political
machines, you really didn't have a chance. Something does definately
need to change with the current system, but short of a revolution I don't
know what would bring about such change.
David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n624.5 ---------------
From: AJULSON COOK.TAMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Deby quotes Steiner (sort of)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 19:28:37 -0600 (CST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Dear Deby,
Yes, so true what you said:
)It may
help you to look at PLANS as Anthroposophy's karma.(
I think that there is a real awakening among Anthroposophists today
(although it may still be a minority) that calls us to look beyond
the words of Rudolf Steiner. Anthroposophy is not meant to be a body
of knowledge, whether about this world, higher worlds, whatever. It
is not meant to be an intellectualizing of the spirit; rather is is
meant to be an activity, a spiritualizing of the intellect. And so yes,
I agree, to cling to a body of ideas from any great guru of the past
can lead to a clash with those who oppose those ideas. It seems
inevitable, doesn't it?
Rather taking up Anthroposophy calls for simply increasing attention,
observation, and awareness for one's own inner life of thoughts,
feelings, and deeds, and to develop a similar loving, interested
concern for other people and all of nature. Simply listening, really
listening when people speak, would be a great first step. Yet based
on what I have "seen" and "heard" during my brief tenure on this
list it seems as though many in the W.E. movement (who should know better)
are not practicing this central aspect of Anthroposophy.
Currently I'm not directly involved with W.E., so it's hard to assess
the overall impact of the critics movement represented by PLANS. Is
there a general unhappiness with W.E. as it exists, or the critics a
vocal minority? Either way, again I agree that this sounds like a
case of "instant karma"; from my persective as a very sympathetic
outsider to W.E. the schools are doing something to bring this
criticism on themselves. Karma can be very painful to deal with
but doing so results in positive growth, so I appreciate your
assessment, Deby!
I cab't claim to be much of an "insider" when it comes to Anthroposophy,
just to being a "committed Anthroposophist". I don't have any
"friends in high places" so to speak. But if you or PLANS would care
to pass on any of your specific concerns regarding the schools at a
"grassroots" level of Anthroposophy, I'd be happy to do what I could
to start a dialog based on your concerns (for instance, on the
Anthroposophia list). Surely you could think of a few things that
we ought to be doing better :)
Amanda Julson
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n624.6 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n621
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 18:12:01 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801072240.OAA00091 lists1.best.com)
Michael,
Nice to see you're still out there. Hows the weather down there? It's
New Zealand, isn't it?
I've been trying to read the archives, as you suggest below, but if
everyone who posted to the list had to read 10MB of archive before they
could share a point of view, we might as well start puting our messages
in bottles and throwing them in the sea.
How about giving that argument a rest, or at least make a reference to
a specific year and month to look at, if you think the archive is
relevant. Suppose I was to say to you, you can't argue with me, until
you've read (and understood to my satisfaction) all the books I've
read. That would be pretty ridiculous, wouldn't it?
joel wendt
Michael Kopp wrote:
) KOPP says:
)
) This post is contentious and disrespectful and will not doubt make Norton
) uncomfortable. I do hope so. Norton talks like a Steiner/Waldorf/
) Anthroposoophical apologist, not a neutral, impartial mediator.
)
) Norton says she is a mediator, but she expresses a negative opinion about
) Sutphen based on an attorney's advice not to discuss her case.
)
) Norton says she is a mediator, and advises Sutphen to "remain engaged" with
) the people she is litigating with, but she says she doesn't believe certain
) things about Waldorf schools are true. (They are irrelevant to Sutphen's
) case anyway, in my opinion.)
)
) Norton says she is a mediator, but she appears to have ignorantly prejudged
) Sutphen and Sutphen's opponents.
)
) Norton says she is a mediator, but says once litigation is on, chat it off.
)
) Norton says she is a mediator, but says Sutphen is being somehow dishonest
) in her continuing dialogue on this list just because she has instituted
) litigation.
)
) The subjects of Sutphen's dialogues on this list do not relate to the
) specifics of her litigation, but to SWA in general. How can that be said to
) be dishonest?
)
) Norton should read the WC list archives before she makes prejudicial
) statements.
)
) Sutphen's experiences leading up to her litigation are well explored there,
) by both sides. Sutphen's litigation (as I understand it) is not against
) monolithic Waldorf, but specific entities with whom she had problems.
)
) Indeed, it appears from my reading of the situation, that Sutphen actually
) tried several approaches to her problems, including mediation, with no
) success in resolving her grievances.
)
) Preserve me from "mediators" who want the underdog to see sweet reason. It
) ususally results in the wronged party getting screwed.
)
) Preserve me from "mediators" who ignorantly prejudge a situation, then call
) for resolution of issues.
)
) Notice that Norton does not call for _solution_ to the problems or
) differences, only _resolution_ of the _issues_. Resolution means to make
) clear what the issues are, not to solve the problems.
)
) Notice that Norton does not call for a just and fair outcome for the side
) of the dispute which feels wronged.
)
) As I understand it, Sutphen has sought justice against people she believes
) are lawbreakers and abusers of her rights.
)
) Mediation cannot provide justice, only compromise in which agrieved usually
) lose.
)
) There is no resolution or solution to be had between SWA and people who
) dissent from SWA practices. SWA people do not ever compromise their beliefs
) and dogmas for anyone. No one has ever reported such an instance on this or
) any other list I've ever read, and it certainly ain't my own personal
) experience.
)
) SWA people in authority are hard-line cultists who will preserve their cult
) and its tenets by manipulative or stonewalling techniques. They do not
) engage in mediation.
)
) Can Norton clarify her positions for us, including her SWA interests and/or
) involvements, knowledge and beliefs?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n624.7 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n621
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 18:21:37 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Michael, your hit on Nancy is very accurate. I don't know if she is a
"mediator" from the folds of the Waldorf/Anthroposophy world, but she
definately uses the same words/tactics that I have heard for 14 years now
in trying to deal with any concerns in the WE. The *issue* seems to never
be dealt with, but instead a watered down, vailed attempt to devalue any
legitament concerns. Waldorf/Anthroposophies version of "consensus" is so
different than what it is supposed to be it's a joke. My experience of
what happens to any well proven method of meetings, negotiations,
mediations, after it's been put through the WE/Anthro filter/training, is
that you have to really be on your toes to not become a victum of a very
"warm and fuzzy" duping. I've seen the term "double-speak" used to
describe what I'm getting at, and I think it's a very appropriate
definition.
David McKay
)Nancy Norton replied to Kathy Sutphen:
)
))Kathy says she has been advised not to disclose any information regarding the
))law suit with whom she has threatened someone or some institution associated
))with Waldorf schools. I hate to get in the fray on this, it seems strange
))that legal action is threatened and the attorney advises restraint, even non-
))disclosure, while one continues to probe the other for information. It would
))seem to me that this is really quite one-sided and doesn't lend itself to an
))honest dialogue.
))
))Maybe because I work as a mediator, it really strikes me as an unfair "power
))play". It would seem much more functional to attempt to remain engaged and
))resolve the issues as I don't believe that Waldorf schools are a conspirasy
))nor do they want to secretly insinuate themselves into American life in order
))to create anthroposophists without anyone's knowledge. I have read what I
))consider to be honest attempts to understand the problems Kathy had, with a
))willingness to either modify the program, or clarify whatever she found so
))disarming, or even to withdraw if there was a clear evidence that there is no
))way to integrate public education and waldorf education to the satisfaction of
))the parents involved. (I have also read contentious and what sounded to me
))like disrespectful postings that made me uncomfortable and seemed
))counterproductive.) Even if I agreed with Kthy's position, as a mediator I
))would have to suggest that once the legal action is decided on, the time for
))discussion has past.
)
)KOPP says:
)
)This post is contentious and disrespectful and will not doubt make Norton
)uncomfortable. I do hope so. Norton talks like a Steiner/Waldorf/
)Anthroposoophical apologist, not a neutral, impartial mediator.
)
)Norton says she is a mediator, but she expresses a negative opinion about
)Sutphen based on an attorney's advice not to discuss her case.
)
)Norton says she is a mediator, and advises Sutphen to "remain engaged" with
)the people she is litigating with, but she says she doesn't believe certain
)things about Waldorf schools are true. (They are irrelevant to Sutphen's
)case anyway, in my opinion.)
)
)Norton says she is a mediator, but she appears to have ignorantly prejudged
)Sutphen and Sutphen's opponents.
)
)Norton says she is a mediator, but says once litigation is on, chat it off.
)
)Norton says she is a mediator, but says Sutphen is being somehow dishonest
)in her continuing dialogue on this list just because she has instituted
)litigation.
)
)The subjects of Sutphen's dialogues on this list do not relate to the
)specifics of her litigation, but to SWA in general. How can that be said to
)be dishonest?
)
)Norton should read the WC list archives before she makes prejudicial
)statements.
)
)Sutphen's experiences leading up to her litigation are well explored there,
)by both sides. Sutphen's litigation (as I understand it) is not against
)monolithic Waldorf, but specific entities with whom she had problems.
)
)Indeed, it appears from my reading of the situation, that Sutphen actually
)tried several approaches to her problems, including mediation, with no
)success in resolving her grievances.
)
)Preserve me from "mediators" who want the underdog to see sweet reason. It
)ususally results in the wronged party getting screwed.
)
)Preserve me from "mediators" who ignorantly prejudge a situation, then call
)for resolution of issues.
)
)Notice that Norton does not call for _solution_ to the problems or
)differences, only _resolution_ of the _issues_. Resolution means to make
)clear what the issues are, not to solve the problems.
)
)Notice that Norton does not call for a just and fair outcome for the side
)of the dispute which feels wronged.
)
)As I understand it, Sutphen has sought justice against people she believes
)are lawbreakers and abusers of her rights.
)
)Mediation cannot provide justice, only compromise in which agrieved usually
)lose.
)
)There is no resolution or solution to be had between SWA and people who
)dissent from SWA practices. SWA people do not ever compromise their beliefs
)and dogmas for anyone. No one has ever reported such an instance on this or
)any other list I've ever read, and it certainly ain't my own personal
)experience.
)
)SWA people in authority are hard-line cultists who will preserve their cult
)and its tenets by manipulative or stonewalling techniques. They do not
)engage in mediation.
)
)Can Norton clarify her positions for us, including her SWA interests and/or
)involvements, knowledge and beliefs?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n624.8 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Steiner's religion no weirder than others (Was Re: Deby quotes
Steiner (sort of))
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 16:26:11 +1300 (NZDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801070227.SAA02807 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801071901.LAA03733 lists1.best.com)
Deby Snell writes in response to Luke Schelly:
[Answer to criticism of her for quoting Steiner's exhortation to the
faithful to use stealth in promoting the faith...]
)pump. IMO, Anthroposophy has no hope of establishing itself as a
)mainstream religion until many of Steiner's crazy ideas are dealt with.
Hmmmm. Anthroposophy as a "mainstream religion". Would this somehow make it
... better? (In the sense of the Beatles' song, perhaps?)
Considering that the "mainstream religions" are based on beliefs equally as
supernaturalistic and unprovable as Steiner's spiritualism, and are merely
outgrowths of mankind's need for inventing powers greater than its own to
explain and control the world, which goes back to pre-history, I doubt that
repudiation of Steiner's "crazy ideas" is necessary for respectability _as
a religion_.
Now, respectability as a tool for educating and understanding, that's a
different matter. No religion -- not the mainstream ones nor the lunatic
fringe ones -- can ever hold a candle to rationalism and the scientific
method.
All religions are, to the rationalist, mumbo-jumbo.
Because religions have enormous power, rationalists ususally tread softly
around them, saving their potshots for the lunatic fringe and the obvious
charlatans who engage in flummery.
Let's be fair in our attacks on Steiner's religious cult: it is no more
fantastic in its underlying beliefs, no more repressive in its tactics for
controlling its adherents, than any mainstream religion, past or present.
Like later developments, such as Scientology, it is, however, just as
clever at manipulation, if not cleverer, as the wizards, shamans, priests
and popes of the past.
But no amount of religious "respectability" will cause Anthroposophy to be
any more acceptable to rationalists than any other.
We can agree to respect other people's rights to believe anything they
want; we do not have to agree to therefore grant those beliefs legitimacy
or veracity.
Modern politically correct anti-bigotry laws are just the flip side of
old-fashioned state religions: both prevent the use of reason and
skepticism for the dissection and exposure of the emperical deficiencies of
all beliefs.
As rationalism cannot abide spiritualism of any stripe, no amount of
religious orthodoxy in Anthroposophy could legitimise its fantastic
world-view.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n624.9 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Biases and Agendas
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 19:43:00 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801072329.PAA21362 lists1.best.com)
David B McKay wrote:
)
) Joel, you must know as well as the rest of us that no decent person with
) all the above training along with some basic human morels wouldn't get
) involved and those that have tried get slam dunked by PAC's big money.
) I've help on several Congressional campaigns out here in Northern Calif.,
) and unless you were willing to by into one of the two main political
) machines, you really didn't have a chance. Something does definately
) need to change with the current system, but short of a revolution I don't
) know what would bring about such change.
)
) David McKay
David,
Totally agree with you there. I was just making an assumption that
Brian's post was about politicians, but it turns out it was about
citizens. I've responded on that to him.
I subscribe to some anarchist lists, and those folks do want to
escalate the level of direct action, but aren't at this time suggesting
revolution. But all this is for another list, not the waldorf-critics.
joel wendt
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n624.10 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Biases and Agendas
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 19:43:27 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801072306.PAA11011 lists1.best.com)
Brian,
Some comments below in [brackets].
Brian Berns wrote:
)
) Joel Wendt said:
) ) Public school has one purpose at present, and this is to make
) ) workers and consumers, period.
)
) What a remarkably shallow statement. You sound just as slanted as the
) Waldorf critics you scold.
[Well you've got me nailed there. It was pretty superficial though, not
shallow. I've spent a lot of time active in and thinking about
politics, so I'd have to write a big essay to make the above case.
Schools are seen as instruments of passing on the basic tenets of one's
culture, often without critical examination. Lately schools have been
teaching "media" courses which help students identify the commercialism
we all swim in.
As someone who grew up in the 1950's, I remember a time when modern
women's underware ads in your hometown newspaper would have caused the
paper to be burned to the ground. As for as I am concerned our schools
are already co-opted as transmitters of basic cultural values, and do
not function as educators of a healthy psyche capable of seeing through
the dominant cultural biases.
Maybe that's okay with you, maybe not. I don't claim Waldorf Schools do
well on this level either. I am not sure at what age, and in what form,
a healthy society should teach its young how to think critically about
that society.
In any case, public schools serve many masters, and not all of it has to
do with "education".]
)
) ) Where are these people with "solid understanding of history,
) ) technology, communication", much less human nature, psychology,
) ) sociology, ethics, critical thinking and so forth?
)
) Well, I attended public schools, and I think I have at least some of
) those attributes.
[Can't argue with you, but did the public schools (up to what grade
level are we talking about here, 12th?) give it to you, or your peers,
or parents, or religion. We grow up in a complicated milieux, of which
the school is only one part.]
)
) ) I sure don't see them in politics; but then, perhaps you were
) ) thinking of something else entirely different.
)
) I was thinking of citizens, not politicians.
[Well, depending on who you read, our current state of affairs can be
blamed on the citizen, who has (according to some) gone to sleep, and is
more concerned with his/her own immediate economic welfare than the
broader questions. More than 50% don't vote, for example. Is that a
product of public schools and education? I think not entirely, anyway.
But as I said to David, these questions belong on another list.
joel wendt]
)
) -- Brian
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n624 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n625 --------------
001 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Religion
002 - Gunilla Gerland (gge swip - Re: Anthroposophy & disabilities
003 - Gunilla Gerland (gge swip - Qute from web site
004 - Gunilla Gerland (gge swip - Another quote
005 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Qute from web site
006 - Gunilla Gerland (gge swip - Re: Qute from web site
007 - Bart Windrum (stretch sof - Re: Biases and Agendas
008 - Bart Windrum (stretch sof - Re: Mediation, Discussion, Lawsuits
009 - "Robert Mays" (MAYS RALVM - Re: Deby quotes Steiner (sort of)
010 - AJULSON COOK.TAMU.EDU - Re: Qute from web site
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n625.1 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Religion
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 19:43:59 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801071809.KAA13766 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote:
So I've come to the tentative
) conclusion that Michael Kopp's definition of religion is the preferable
) one:
)
) ) Michael Kopp said:
) )
) ) "For my part, the defining characteristic of religions, which is shared
) ) in spades by Anthroposophy, is that they deal with the supernatural
) ) spiritual world, however one characterises it, external or internal. Any
) ) philosophy which deals with such spiritual realms is therefore a
) ) religion."
)
) So my tentative conclusion, applying this definition, is that
) anthroposophy is a religion.
)
) Steve Premo
Nice post Steve, very thoughtful and thought provoking. I already tried
to suggest that anthroposophy is a method, rather than a content, which
Michael Kopp didn't buy, so I won't repeat it here (basically since it
has to do with what anthroposophy is from the inside, which is not how a
court is likely to look at it anyway).
Since you are apparently a practicing lawyer, can you give us a Supreme
Court definition. I think I've seen one or two recently (perhaps in the
archive, but that is a real jungle). However, I can't place my hands on
it, and don't have access to WestLaw, or whatever the current computer
law data base is. So if you wouldn't mind...
joel wendt
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n625.2 ---------------
From: Gunilla Gerland (gge swipnet.se)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy & disabilities
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 08:51:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: (199801070720.XAA18121 lists1.best.com)
Roger and others,
)I wanted to address questions you raised in your posts, and before I
could put
)it into words, I found the words: they are your own!:
)
)"To me
this interpretation looks like the manifestation of the great fear
that
)many people feel for what is unknown and different, for what is not
easily
)understood by the habitual and comfortable trains of thought. A
fear of the
)things that =96 if she assimilates it =96 forces a person to
reevaluate her
)positions and see the world from a new angle."
)
)(From a
translation of an article published in the Swedish journal of
)psychology
"PsykologTidningen", no 16 1996. Reply to review, by
Gunilla
)Gerland)
)
)Beautifully said. I think most of us think in
categories in order to speed
)things up, (but maybe, as you say, it is out
of fear). If I can see where
)someone or some idea, for instance, fits
into my preconceived framework (and
)we *all*, I submit, have preconceived
frameworks) than I don't have to bother
)with expanding, altering or
shattering my conceptual framework in order to
)accommodate change. I
guess the fear would come in if I am identified with my
)framework: believe
in it like a religion, be it science or superstition.
)
)In my opinion, and
I'm not an anthroposophist, just a Waldorf parent for 16
)years who loves
what Waldorf Education has done for my kids and me,
)anthroposophy seems to
offer a different way of seeing the world and as such,
)"is not easily
understood by the habitual and comfortable trains of thought".
)That's
probably why it takes so much study. It's not easy challenging one's
)own
view of reality.
The quote refers to people who are locked into one paradigm and become
zealots. These are people who don't accept scientific findings in the
autism area but stick to old and completely unproven theories. To me this
sounds more applicable to anthroposophists and their view of the world,
than to the outer world looking at the anthroposophists. I wouldn't mind
anthroposophy at all if it only was practised by adult people by their own
choice and among themselves. But it is practised *upon* other people, e.g.
disabled people who can't choose for themselves. And that's why oblect to
it. When it comes to caring for autistic people I see several problems with
anthroposophy. 1. It has religious ideas, like the ones of reincarnation,
which the parents are not told about when they leave their child (or adult
child) in anthroposophic care. 2. Being in anthroposophic care means you
won't get the proper treatment for autism, which means you may not develop
your full potential. 3. Many anthroposophists beleive that autism can be
caused by 'bad parenting' or 'emotional trauma' which is totally untrue but
of course will affect the treatment. 4. The anthroposophists ideas is an
obstacle in fully respecting disabled people, I thought this was true
before I joined this list and by being presented with the 'great soul
working for the benefit of mankind' crap, I think so even more.
I have never been afraid to look at things from new perspectives, but I do
beleive in making things as simple and understandable as possible. And I
will feel suspicious about anyone who can't present their ideas in an open
and clear way. I also beleive that when it comes to treatment of people
with illnesses and disabilities this has to be done in a way that is
scientifically proven to be a good treatment, and ethics must be constantly
discussed. This is not what I see among anthroposophists.=20
)I have not pursued it; I have my own philosophical means of interpreting
and
)coping with the inconceivable immensity that surrounds us. In
Waldorf, I have
)met many wonderful people, several jerks, and every type
in between,
)(sometimes a full-time job trying to keep from being a jerk,
myself!) and I
)don't really know which were anthros and which weren't. I
try to listen to my
)heart rather than my head, since after 50 years I have
no certain knowledge of
)anything and have never met anyone who had.
I am sure there are wonderful people as well as jerks in the Waldorf
movement as well as in anthroposophy in general. That's why we need to
discuss anthroposophists as a group and not as individual people.
)You, again: "I don't judge them as individual people, but if I can't look
upon
)them as a group and make conclusions about them as a group based on
my
)experiences, then it would be dangerous. Then it would be impossible
to
)criticize anything. I am always however, prepared to change or revise
my view
)on them as well as on other things when I get new information or
new
)experiences."
)
)It wouldn't be impossible to criticize, it would just
take more specific
)criticism and a lot more work! It would take love to
follow through with that
)kind of contribution. It's a short cut to say,
they're all the same, no more
)thinking required. =20
I don't agree with you that it just would take more specific criticism and
a lot more work, I am not at all interested in them as individual people
when it comes to critisism. Anthroposophy is a movement and therefore
should be looked upon and criticized as a movement. Doing this does not
mean that I am saying they're all the same, no more thinking reqired.
Making that conclusion is a wellknown argumenting trick, it's taking my
reasoning to an extreme which I haven't expressed and then try to say that
this is what I said. Won't work on me.
Have you ever belonged to any group you would want someone
)to judge based
on the actions or beliefs of a few of its members?
No. But then I didn't ever belong to any groups at all. It's not in my
nature. And hypothetically I would leave a group if there were enough
individual members acting in a way that raised criticism from others, *or*
I would bring these questions to a big and public forum and say "we have a
problem" and ask "what ideas do we have in this group, and how come that
quite a few people who meet us as a group are not pleased with how we work?"
)
)And once more: "I have had some 'experiences' with Anthroposophists and
I have
)had a vague feeling that their view on disabilities is kind of
strange. It's
)important to have facts if you want to argue with someone."
(Actually facts
)just get in the way if you *really* want to argue with
someone :-). Learn too
)much and you may find they're not as strange as
you thought!)
Again, I don't agree with you. When criticising things I always try to
learn what I can, and in my opinion facts does not get in the way. To me
karma and reincarnation theories are religious, but not being open about it
just makes the view on disabilities come out as 'strange'. I don't think
karma and reincarnation tehories are strange per se, but if services for
disabled people are being provided by a movement who beleive in these
theories then they should be obligated to be completely open about this.
)To me, the anthroposophical view on *everything* is strange! But I've
gotten
)inside more than one view of the world in my time and I can say
that what
)matters most is love. My own personal experience of WE is that
love is the
)driving force behind it. That speaks volumes to me about what
it arises from.
Another reflection: The people who speak a lot about love seem to be the
ones who practise it the least...
In all kind of anti-scientific movements, as for instance the New Age
(which of course includes several movements and schools of thought) there
seem to be so much *talk* about love and humanity, inner wisdom and woking
on ones self, yet these people many times seem to be the most immature
people when your are in a discussion with them.=20
)I would caution you about getting your information from this list, or
any
)other, for that matter. It just ain't that easy. A lot of emotion
flying
)around where people have been hurt or egos bruised.
)Follow your
heart.
I completely trust my own ability make conclusions about what I see and=
hear.
Gunilla
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n625.3 ---------------
From: Gunilla Gerland (gge swipnet.se)
Subject: Qute from web site
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 09:36:08 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I found this quote on an anthroposophical web site, in a presentation of
anthroposophy in general:
It is especially important for us the search to understand how individuals
develop through successive lifes on earth, and in the time in between these
lives, and how the forces of destiny form each life out of the previous one
(reincarnation and karma).
http://www.goetheanum.ch/e_ag2.htm
And I would like to know how anthroposophists think this affects the
non-anthroposophists they educate or treat, i. e. children and disabled
people.
Gunilla
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n625.4 ---------------
From: Gunilla Gerland (gge swipnet.se)
Subject: Another quote
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 09:47:20 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Here in my country an autistic child who couldn't controll her bowels was
often held by two people and showered with cold water as a punishment. This
took place at an Anthroposophical boarding school for disabled people about
28 years ago. This women developed huge behaviour problems and was later
contiously maltreated in psychiatric care (which is another story). The
fact that the punishment showering took place is undoubteable, there were
witnesses.
It is not shocking that a thing like this could happen 28 years ago, when
punishing children were much more common than today.
What is shocking and what I wonder is how it could happen in an environment
which claim things like this:
"Anthroposophical ideas are vessels fashioned by love, and man's being is
spiritually summoned by the spiritual world to partake of their content.
Anthroposophy must bring the light of true humanness to shine out in
thoughts that bear love's imprint; knowledge is only the form in which man
reflects the possibility of receiving in his heart the light of the world
spirit that has come to dwell there and from that heart illumine human
thought. Since anthroposophy cannot really be grasped except by the power
of love, it is love-engendering when human beings take it in a way true to
its own nature. That is why a place where love reigned could be built in
Dornach in the very midst of raging hatreds. Words expressing
anthroposophical truths are not like words spoken elsewhere today; rightly
conceived, they are all really reverential pleas that the spirit make
itself known to men."
- from Awakening to Community, Lecture I, Stuttgart, January 23, 1923
Gunilla
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n625.5 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Qute from web site
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 00:51:25 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199801080836.AAA17745 lists1.best.com)
)I found this quote on an anthroposophical web site, in a presentation of
)anthroposophy in general:
)
)It is especially important for us the search to understand how individuals
)develop through successive lifes on earth, and in the time in between these
)lives, and how the forces of destiny form each life out of the previous one
)(reincarnation and karma).
)http://www.goetheanum.ch/e_ag2.htm
)
)And I would like to know how anthroposophists think this affects the
)non-anthroposophists they educate or treat, i. e. children and disabled
)people.
)
)Gunilla
Gunilla,
Can you clarify please, for a didactic English speaker? Your comment can be
taken up to three ways (by me, at least). I know you don't mean to be
unclear; I'm not criticising, just looking for the nub. Which of the
following is (are) correct:
1. How the _knowledge_ of Anthroposophy affects non-Steiner/Waldorf/
Anthroposophical people (that is, how their thinking and actions are
changed by the knowledge);
2. how the _substance_ of the SWA reincarnation belief is believed by SWA
people to affect non-SWAs lives, without the non-SWAs even knowing it;
3. how the _understanding_ by non-SWA people of these beliefs and actions
by SWAs -- mostly on the children of the non-SWAs -- affects the
_reputation_ of SWAs (literally, the ability of SWA to continue fooling
most of the people most of the time).
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n625.6 ---------------
From: Gunilla Gerland (gge swipnet.se)
Subject: Re: Qute from web site
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 15:16:04 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801080836.AAA17745 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801081148.DAA03697 lists1.best.com)
Michael,
)Gunilla,
)
)Can you clarify please, for a didactic English speaker? Your comment can be
)taken up to three ways (by me, at least). I know you don't mean to be
)unclear; I'm not criticising, just looking for the nub.
Sorry for being unclear. English is not my native language.
Which of the
)following is (are) correct:
)
)1. How the _knowledge_ of Anthroposophy affects non-Steiner/Waldorf/
)Anthroposophical people (that is, how their thinking and actions are
)changed by the knowledge);
)
)2. how the _substance_ of the SWA reincarnation belief is believed by SWA
)people to affect non-SWAs lives, without the non-SWAs even knowing it;
)
)3. how the _understanding_ by non-SWA people of these beliefs and actions
)by SWAs -- mostly on the children of the non-SWAs -- affects the
)_reputation_ of SWAs (literally, the ability of SWA to continue fooling
)most of the people most of the time).
Number 2.
Gunilla
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n625.7 ---------------
From: Bart Windrum (stretch softsmart.com)
Subject: Re: Biases and Agendas
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 00:57:03 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199801072228.OAA24583 lists1.best.com)
Brian Berns said:
)) )) I agree that public schools have an agenda. In my opinion,
))) their primary purpose is to produce citizens capable of
))) participating in a modern democracy. Unfortunately, this
))) sometimes has the side-effect of pressuring students to
))) conform to societal expectations.
)
)Bart Windrum said:
)) Do (acceptable) societal expectations include creating television
)) and consumer/commercialization addicts?
)
)Definitely not. This is a great concern of mine as well.
)
)) In other words, what do the children learn in school *by default*
)) besides the 3Rs?
)
)A lot of crap, no doubt about it. But these are problems inherited from
)society at large, not reasons to abandon the public school system.
Not at all, and for the auditors, I never said or implied that. But, it is
reason to modify it.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n625.8 ---------------
From: Bart Windrum (stretch softsmart.com)
Subject: Re: Mediation, Discussion, Lawsuits
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 00:58:46 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199801072228.OAA24583 lists1.best.com)
) Even if I agreed with Kthy's position, as a mediator I
)would have to suggest that once the legal action is decided on, the time for
)discussion has past.
)
)Nancy Norton
)Ithaca, NY
Yes, and everybody is mining one another for information even as we
discuss. I for one am participating with both objectives in mind: learning,
and mining. I haven't taken sides yet.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n625.9 ---------------
From: "Robert Mays" (MAYS RALVM12.VNET.IBM.COM)
Subject: Re: Deby quotes Steiner (sort of)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 98 09:24:58 EST
Deby said recently (in two separate posts):
) Absolutely. I've yet to learn of another religious sect so willing to
) deny their own beliefs to further their agenda. Steiner said,
)
) "We must worm our way through. . .[I]n order to do what we want to do,
) at least, it is necessary to talk with the people, not because we want
) to, but because we have to, and inwardly make fools of them."
)
) Rudolf Steiner, 'Conferences with Teachers of the Waldorf School in
) Stuttgart, vol.1, 1919 to 1920 (Forest Row, East Sussex, England:
) Steiner Schools Fellowship Publications. 1986),125
Luke then asked Deby:
) Were there really ". . . "'s in the quote? Can you give us the complete
) quote? Also, do you know in what context this statement was made.
And Deby replied:
) The context of the quote fits exactly. Steiner was trying to obtain
) state approval for his school in 1920.
Deby, I think the just opposite is the case: Steiner was trying to keep
the Stuttgart Waldorf school independent, out of the public school
system. Perhaps we should all read the full context of this extract (this
was during a staff meeting on 22 September 1920):
The question of the authorities recognising the Waldorf School as a
Primary School was raised.
Dr. Steiner: This is the kind of question that can produce different
answers depending on the goodwill of the various school authorities. We
shall only succeed in acquiring a bit of security regarding the actual
existence of the School if we appreciate the importance of personal
discussions. And here I should like to mention explicitly that we must
speak absolutely emphatically and not use the 'phone. Personal
discussion, with all the possibilities of emphasising sentences and
words and the possibilities of conversation, altogether, that are
available when addressing someone personally, create the sort of mood
that gives confidence. If we pursue the matter in a bureaucratic way we
shall come up against the same thing in the future.
So I think the best thing would be if Herr Molt could do something
about the matter personally, and put in a personal word. It is the kind
of question where we can only stop worrying about the Waldorf School if
you yourself could present a case to one or another of the people who
have a say in the matter. I am convinced that when you have exchanged a
few words like this, and driven one of the heads of the authority to
say something he has to stand by, you have better protection than by
writing reports to and fro. This is particularly the case here in
Wuerttemberg where you can possibly achieve more in this direction than
in Prussia. After permission has been granted in Prussia the next thing
would be that the School would have to be cut back.
First of all the matter would have to be dealt with in this way. For
this should not be underestimated -- unfortunately I had far too little
time in Berlin to give adequate answers when questions of this sort
were raked up -- Headmasters or teachers of ordinary schools keep
coming along wanting Waldorf School education and asking what they can
do to help their acquire it. This is absolute nonsense. The first thing
to do would be to renounce a connection with the State. An unreasonable
demand like this only goes to show how incapable people are of thinking
consistently.
What should happen is that more and more people should get hold of the
idea of what we might call our School Movement, the movement to have
independent schools, so that a really big movement to have independent
schools arises as part of the Threefold Movement. We might use the term
standard school where it is opportune, though for my part I must
confess I never liked the choice of definition -- although it had to be
chosen as it was opportune -- because it does not sufficiently
emphasise that we do not want what the State means by a standard
school, and that we attach more importance to the school being
independent than being standard. Then it is bound to come about. The
kind of standard school the present German government is aiming for is
the direct opposite. Giving in to things like this would be like
grovelling to something we abhor. We must worm our way through -- not
through an inner provocation, then it would be the way Jesuits work --
but done with a certain mental reservation in response to external
requirements. We have to be conscious that in order to do what we want
to do, at least, it is necessary to talk with the people, not because
we want to but because we have to, and inwardly make fools of them.
Herr Molt: I will try and settle the matter.
Rudolf Steiner, 'Conferences with Teachers of the Waldorf School in
Stuttgart, vol.1, 1919 to 1920 (Forest Row, East Sussex, England:
Steiner Schools Fellowship Publications. 1986), pp. 124-125
"...deny their own beliefs to further their agenda." ?
"Steiner was trying to obtain state approval for his school in 1920." ?
Robert Mays
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n625.10 ---------------
From: AJULSON COOK.TAMU.EDU
Subject: Re: Qute from web site
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 11:28:40 -0600 (CST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Dear Gunilla,
If you can bear to read a direct quote from the Old Man himself (R.S.),
and if you can forgive his use of the term "backward children: then
perhaps this will hive the perspective you are wondering about:
)From "Curative Education", Lecture 2:
"But when we come to working out of spiritual sources, we are inevitably
confronted, daily and hourly, with decisions: in regard to each single
action, we stand face to face with the possibility of either doing it
or leaving it undone - or else maintaining an entirely neutral
attitude. And the decisions require courage. This inner courage is
the very first thing needed, if we want to accomplish anything in the
domain of Curative Education. And it can be aroused in us if we hold
continually before our minds the greatness of that which we have
undertaken. We must be constantly thinking: "I am doing something
which generally the Gods do in the life between death and new birth."
The fact that you know this is of untold significance. Receive it as
a meditation. To be able to think it, is most important. If we bring
it before us every day in meditation - as one says a prayer every
day - if we place it there before our soul day by day, it will endow
our astral body with the character and tone that we need to give it if
we are to deal in the right way with backward children."
Rudolf Steiner was speaking to the founders of the first home for
Children in Need of Special Care of the Soul. This thought has been
a great help to me personally in making decisions regarding my
son's various therapies. While from a rationalist point of view this
is all at best self-delusion, from an anthroposophic point of view
humans are capable of working co-operatively with the spiritual
world, including the higher members of their own spiritual being.
And this thought from R.S. gives one the courage to do so.
Thanks for asking,
Amanda Julson
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n625 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n626 --------------
001 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Religion
002 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Steiner's religion no weirder than others (Was Re: Deby qu
003 - Nnsandplay (Nnsandplay ao - Mediation and v001.n621
004 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Anthroposophy & disabilities
005 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Religion
006 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Religion
007 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Mass suicide attempt by Holistic Center Isis
008 - Deby Snell (snell netshel - Re: Trial?
009 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Deby quotes Steiner (sort of)
010 - Gunilla Gerland (gge swip - Re: Religion
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n626.1 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Religion
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 09:39:56 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199801080340.TAA09301 lists1.best.com)
On 7 Jan 98 , Joel A. Wendt wrote:
) Since you are apparently a practicing lawyer, can you give us a Supreme
) Court definition.
I would if I had one. I suppose I should research it, and I'd like to do
that some time. But as far as I know, the Supreme Court has not had to
define "religion" in this context, because the cases have concerned
activities, such as prayer, that are undeniably religious.
Even where the religious aspect is in dispute (e.g., with respect to
whether a moment of silence is a religious activity), the issue is whether
the activity itself is religious, not whether a particular philosophy
constitutes a religion.
Does Anthroposophy have anything to say about God, or does it stop just
short of God in defining heirarchies of spiritual beings? That might be
relevant, depending on how a court defines "religion."
Steve Premo ----------- http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
-----
"It's a messed up world but I love it anyway, I love it."
--Greg Brown
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n626.2 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's religion no weirder than others (Was Re: Deby quotes
Steiner (sort of))
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 10:11:41 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801070227.SAA02807 lists1.best.com) (199801080327.TAA03279 lists1.best.com)
Michael,
A few comments below in [brackets].
Michael Kopp wrote:
) Considering that the "mainstream religions" are based on beliefs ) equally as
) supernaturalistic and unprovable as Steiner's spiritualism, and are ) merely
) outgrowths of mankind's need for inventing powers greater than its own ) to
) explain and control the world, which goes back to pre-history,
[Actually, Michael, there is some very interesting work on whether that
view of pre-history is justified. I'll concede it is "thought" by many
today, but how would you come to knowledge of whether those, who "lived"
through what we call "pre-history", acted the way you have assumed.
Certainly a "rationalist" would not claim to be able to read their
minds, or to know the world they in fact experienced. So what emperical
evidence is there for making a statement about the inner life and outer
experiences of people long dead?
Now one individual, who as attempted to find such evidence, was the
philogist Owen Barfield. He worked many many years with languages,
thinking that they would give some kind of picture of how people thought
and what they might have experienced. His views, about both pre-history
and history, from a lifetime of a study of languages, are available in
this delightful small book: "Speaker's Meaning".]
) All religions are, to the rationalist, mumbo-jumbo.
[So the 40% of scientists, who professed a belief in God in a recent
poll, are no longer rationalists?]
) Modern politically correct anti-bigotry laws are just the flip side of
) old-fashioned state religions: both prevent the use of reason and
) skepticism for the dissection and exposure of the emperical ) ) deficiencies of
) all beliefs.
[Not sure I follow you on this last. This is what I think you are
saying: Prejudice, which has been made illegal, if against a
non-rationalist point of view, should not be illegal. So the test is,
if I am bigoted against non-rational views, that's okay; all I have to
do is establish their non-rationality?]
[joel wendt]
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n626.3 ---------------
From: Nnsandplay (Nnsandplay aol.com)
Subject: Mediation and v001.n621
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 13:03:42 EST
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Michael, David, Steve, and Kathy,
Thank you for your responses to the posting regarding Kathy Sutphen's proposed
litigation. You are right to suggest that I would benefit from reading the
archives more fully. I have only read November (I joined the list in
December). However, I've already spent an hour this morning just reading my
mail since last night. I do have a family, a small private practice in
counseling and mediation, and other personal interests, so I will be working
my way through the archives fairly slowly I suspect. I will ask for your
patience and appreciate a gentle correction if I misunderstand something based
on my lack of background information. Thanks in advance.
I don't know how to quote from other letters, but I think they were quoted
enough already and I will try to respond directly, so I think this will be
understandable. If it doesn't work like this, could someone try to educate me
as to how to quote (other than retyping, which I could do, but would rather
not).
Michael, thank you for sending me to the dictionary over 'resolution' vs.
'solution'. I used 'resolution' to mean: "coming to an agreed upon
understanding of the issues concerned, and taking action such that all parties
are satisfied with the results." Of course, that would be the ideal and you
are right that all parties are often not equally satisfied. At any rate,
turning to the dictionary I see that the definition for 'resolution' that most
fit my intended meaning, was its use as a muscial term: "the passing of a
dissonance or discord into a concord, usually after it has been heard in the
preceding harmony."
It is interesting to me that the first definition of 'solution' and
'resolution' seem to share importand qualities: "Solution, n. The act of
separting the parts of any body; disruption; breach" and then: "Resolution, n.
The act, operation, or process of separating the parts which compose a complex
idea or a mixed body; the act of reducing any compound or combination into
its componant parts; analysis: as, the resolution of complex ideas; the
resolution of any material substance by chemical operations. (These
definitions are from Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English
Language, unabridged, copyright 1962. I wish I had a more recent dictionary
to see if and how the word usage may have changed.)
Both 'resolution' and 'solution' share the same root: "solutio" - a
loosening. Maybe a reminder that we need to keep some flexibility of thought,
some openess if we hope to understand the other and experience both the
dissonance and the concord.
Now that I've endulged in the linguistics, I'll try to address the questions
you raised. Michael, I believe you asked about my training, and my position
regarding SWA, which I take to be shorthand for Steiner/Waldorf/Anthrophophy.
First as a mediator, I was initially trained in mediation at Syracuse
University. At the time (1989) they did not offer a program in mediation, but
only one course on the masters level. I took that as part of my coursework
for my MSW. I followed that up with training and volunteer work through our
local community dispute resolution center. I have participated in additional
training and supervision as recommended by national mediator organizations,
and I am currently a practioner member of the Academy of Family Mediators.
The focus of my work is primarily with divorcing couples, although I also do
parent-teen mediations and have done the "barking dog" type community
mediations.
My intent in my letter was not to suggest myself as meditator. I would not
mediate the issues involved because my neutrality would be questioned.
Because I am not the mediator for this issue, I make no pretense to
neutrality.
Therefore, I stated my thoughts on Waldorf education in the body of my
original post.
I do not think that Waldorf education deliberately misleads parents. I have
read that parents on the Waldorf critics list have felt mislead, and I am not
attempting to deny their experience. I do not share it in seventeen years of
involvement as a parent of children in the Waldorf School. I was introducted
to Waldorf education through a series of lectures on the curriculum and by
volunteering in the kindergarden in exchange for my son's tuition, so maybe I
had an unusual introduction. I was invited to participate in the kindergarden
faculty meetings, so there were no secrets. While I sometimes heard things
that were out of the mainstream, I heard nothing particularly escoteric or
unsettling. I attended a three week session of the Rudolf Steiner College in
August 1983, just before my son entered first grade. So maybe I have a skewed
vision of how WE presents itself. What I experienced at the school seemed to
be consistant with what had been presented to me before I enrolled my son.
The school has always had an anthroposophical study group to which all
interested individuals are invited, it is no secret.
I was not and probably am not an anthroposophist, although I find the study
interesting, and I am open to the ideas. (I am a member of the Society of
Friends.) I am currently a parent of children in the school, and a class room
representative to parent council. I have found the child development
suggestions put forth by people who have worked with anthroposophy to be very
meaningful and enriching to my family life and personal life. And I think
there is more to heaven and earth than rational scientific materialism allows
for.
I apologize to Kathy if she experienced my post as critical of HER; it was
intended not to suggest she is a bad person, but that holding back information
in an open dialogue feels uncomfortable to me. I recognize that this is the
waldorf CRITICS list, and I think that fact wasn't in the forefront of my
thinking when I wrote my post. Of course, it is her right to ask whatever she
wants, as Amanda Julson expressed far more graciously than I am capable of
doing.
Please forgive all these "I's" I still don't know a better way of explaining
who I am without them. I am interested in the ideas here, although it is hard
for me to put aside my reactivity sometimes. Is a "hit" (David's comment that
Michael's "hit" on me was very accurate) a neutral computor term? My first
reaction was that it was unfriendly. But thinking about it, a 'hit' may be
delivered with intention to hurt or in the Buddhist sense of just to wake
someone up.
Finally, Michael raised the concern that Waldorf schools don't do exit polls
and never respond or retact or change based on what other people say. (Now I
am sorry I don't know how to just edit; please forgive me if I am
misrepresenting you). The school I've been associated with does exit polls
and we have considered the concerns raised in them very seriously in parent
council. I can't speak for the teachers or the board of directors, but my
impression is that they listen to the parents' concerns. No, they don't alway
respond in the sense of changing to do things the way these parents would
like. But my husband (who thinks anthroposophy is balderdash and he has no
interest in learning more) and I choose the Waldorf school very consciously
and we want it to remain true to the foundation upon which it is based. My
hope would be that each parent have the opportunity to make such a conscious
choice and to the degree that your work on the critics list encourages that,
I support you completely.
I sincerely hope I have carified more than confused and that any responses
will not be flames.
Nancy Norton
Ithaca, NY
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n626.4 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy & disabilities
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 11:01:54 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Gunilla, I know very little about autism or high autism, but in reading
your posts I can honestly say that you show the least "disabilities" of
most on this list. Your abilitiy
to express your self with kindness yet very direct and to the point is a
pleasant and refreshing contribution to this list. I have always felt
that we are all born with different
disablities, not just the physical ones.
Again, thanks for your time and thoughts,
David McKay
)Roger and others,
)
))I wanted to address questions you raised in your posts, and before I
)could put
))it into words, I found the words: they are your own!:
))
))"To me
)this interpretation looks like the manifestation of the great fear
)that
))many people feel for what is unknown and different, for what is not
)easily
))understood by the habitual and comfortable trains of thought. A
)fear of the
))things that =96 if she assimilates it =96 forces a person to
)reevaluate her
))positions and see the world from a new angle."
))
))(From a
)translation of an article published in the Swedish journal of
))psychology
)"PsykologTidningen", no 16 1996. Reply to review, by
)Gunilla
))Gerland)
))
))Beautifully said. I think most of us think in
)categories in order to speed
))things up, (but maybe, as you say, it is out
)of fear). If I can see where
))someone or some idea, for instance, fits
)into my preconceived framework (and
))we *all*, I submit, have preconceived
)frameworks) than I don't have to bother
))with expanding, altering or
)shattering my conceptual framework in order to
))accommodate change. I
)guess the fear would come in if I am identified with my
))framework: believe
)in it like a religion, be it science or superstition.
))
))In my opinion, and
)I'm not an anthroposophist, just a Waldorf parent for 16
))years who loves
)what Waldorf Education has done for my kids and me,
))anthroposophy seems to
)offer a different way of seeing the world and as such,
))"is not easily
)understood by the habitual and comfortable trains of thought".
))That's
)probably why it takes so much study. It's not easy challenging one's
))own
)view of reality.
)
)
)The quote refers to people who are locked into one paradigm and become
)zealots. These are people who don't accept scientific findings in the
)autism area but stick to old and completely unproven theories. To me this
)sounds more applicable to anthroposophists and their view of the world,
)than to the outer world looking at the anthroposophists. I wouldn't mind
)anthroposophy at all if it only was practised by adult people by their own
)choice and among themselves. But it is practised *upon* other people, e.g.
)disabled people who can't choose for themselves. And that's why oblect to
)it. When it comes to caring for autistic people I see several problems with
)anthroposophy. 1. It has religious ideas, like the ones of reincarnation,
)which the parents are not told about when they leave their child (or adult
)child) in anthroposophic care. 2. Being in anthroposophic care means you
)won't get the proper treatment for autism, which means you may not develop
)your full potential. 3. Many anthroposophists beleive that autism can be
)caused by 'bad parenting' or 'emotional trauma' which is totally untrue but
)of course will affect the treatment. 4. The anthroposophists ideas is an
)obstacle in fully respecting disabled people, I thought this was true
)before I joined this list and by being presented with the 'great soul
)working for the benefit of mankind' crap, I think so even more.
)
)I have never been afraid to look at things from new perspectives, but I do
)beleive in making things as simple and understandable as possible. And I
)will feel suspicious about anyone who can't present their ideas in an open
)and clear way. I also beleive that when it comes to treatment of people
)with illnesses and disabilities this has to be done in a way that is
)scientifically proven to be a good treatment, and ethics must be constantly
)discussed. This is not what I see among anthroposophists.
)
)
))I have not pursued it; I have my own philosophical means of interpreting
)and
))coping with the inconceivable immensity that surrounds us. In
)Waldorf, I have
))met many wonderful people, several jerks, and every type
)in between,
))(sometimes a full-time job trying to keep from being a jerk,
)myself!) and I
))don't really know which were anthros and which weren't. I
)try to listen to my
))heart rather than my head, since after 50 years I have
)no certain knowledge of
))anything and have never met anyone who had.
)
)I am sure there are wonderful people as well as jerks in the Waldorf
)movement as well as in anthroposophy in general. That's why we need to
)discuss anthroposophists as a group and not as individual people.
)
)
))You, again: "I don't judge them as individual people, but if I can't look
)upon
))them as a group and make conclusions about them as a group based on
)my
))experiences, then it would be dangerous. Then it would be impossible
)to
))criticize anything. I am always however, prepared to change or revise
)my view
))on them as well as on other things when I get new information or
)new
))experiences."
))
))It wouldn't be impossible to criticize, it would just
)take more specific
))criticism and a lot more work! It would take love to
)follow through with that
))kind of contribution. It's a short cut to say,
)they're all the same, no more
))thinking required.
)
)I don't agree with you that it just would take more specific criticism and
)a lot more work, I am not at all interested in them as individual people
)when it comes to critisism. Anthroposophy is a movement and therefore
)should be looked upon and criticized as a movement. Doing this does not
)mean that I am saying they're all the same, no more thinking reqired.
)Making that conclusion is a wellknown argumenting trick, it's taking my
)reasoning to an extreme which I haven't expressed and then try to say that
)this is what I said. Won't work on me.
)
)Have you ever belonged to any group you would want someone
))to judge based
)on the actions or beliefs of a few of its members?
)
)No. But then I didn't ever belong to any groups at all. It's not in my
)nature. And hypothetically I would leave a group if there were enough
)individual members acting in a way that raised criticism from others, *or*
)I would bring these questions to a big and public forum and say "we have a
)problem" and ask "what ideas do we have in this group, and how come that
)quite a few people who meet us as a group are not pleased with how we work?=
"
)
))
))And once more: "I have had some 'experiences' with Anthroposophists and
)I have
))had a vague feeling that their view on disabilities is kind of
)strange. It's
))important to have facts if you want to argue with someone."
)(Actually facts
))just get in the way if you *really* want to argue with
)someone :-). Learn too
))much and you may find they're not as strange as
)you thought!)
)
)Again, I don't agree with you. When criticising things I always try to
)learn what I can, and in my opinion facts does not get in the way. To me
)karma and reincarnation theories are religious, but not being open about it
)just makes the view on disabilities come out as 'strange'. I don't think
)karma and reincarnation tehories are strange per se, but if services for
)disabled people are being provided by a movement who beleive in these
)theories then they should be obligated to be completely open about this.
)
)
))To me, the anthroposophical view on *everything* is strange! But I've
)gotten
))inside more than one view of the world in my time and I can say
)that what
))matters most is love. My own personal experience of WE is that
)love is the
))driving force behind it. That speaks volumes to me about what
)it arises from.
)
)Another reflection: The people who speak a lot about love seem to be the
)ones who practise it the least...
)
)In all kind of anti-scientific movements, as for instance the New Age
)(which of course includes several movements and schools of thought) there
)seem to be so much *talk* about love and humanity, inner wisdom and woking
)on ones self, yet these people many times seem to be the most immature
)people when your are in a discussion with them.
)
))I would caution you about getting your information from this list, or
)any
))other, for that matter. It just ain't that easy. A lot of emotion
)flying
))around where people have been hurt or egos bruised.
))Follow your
)heart.
)
)I completely trust my own ability make conclusions about what I see and hea=
r.
)
)Gunilla
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n626.5 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Religion
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 11:10:42 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801081742.JAA14849 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote:
) Does Anthroposophy have anything to say about God, or does it stop ) just
) short of God in defining heirarchies of spiritual beings? That might ) be
) relevant, depending on how a court defines "religion."
Steve,
Thanks for the quick reply. I see the problem, I think. There is
another one. In your above question you use the word "anthroposophy",
which I think we will all agree is a noun, a "something". Ah, but
"what" is it?
Then of course there is the word "anthroposophist", which means "what"
again. We could avoid the problem a little by talking about "readers of
Rudolf Steiner", and get rid of anthroposophist as a term, but on this
list I do not think there would arise the necessary self discipline.
Of course, this is again the subject once spoken of by me in my now
infamous "anthroposophy is not a content, but a method". As long as
those familiar with Steiner (critics or followers) use the word
"anthroposophy" to refer to a point of view (a content), we are going to
be stuck with that usage, even though it emphasizes the cart and not the
horse.
This last "anthroposophy" (the cart) does, I have previously conceded,
very much resemble a religion, based on how people behave. So now to
your question: "does anthroposophy have anything to say about God?"
Well, many people who already believe in God, become "anthroposophists"
(whatever that is). Rudolf Steiner gave many lectures in which the
problem of the classical trinity were spoken of (God, the Father; God,
the Son; and God, the Holy Spirit), and the central Meditation of the
Anthroposophical Movement/Society, the "Foundation Stone", is expressly
in line with this way of conceiving the Godhead.
However, since many people believe in God, whether they are
"anthroposophists" or not, one question could be asked: Is there
anything about anthroposophy which is different, which might make it not
a religion? This would involve some subtle thinking (a good law problem
then). In my last post to Michael Kopp on this list, I pointed to the
recent poll showing 40% of scientists believe in God. Does that make
the science they practice a religion? I don't think so, and I suspect a
court would have to say that a belief in God common to members of a
group does not make that group's activities necessarily a religion.
This was gone over somewhat in the archives, before, but focused on the
fact that many public school teachers and administrators are religious
believers, but that doesn't make their schools "religious".
As you know, a court is likely to need to make many findings of fact
before it concludes anthroposophy is a religion, and the mere insistance
on this list, or assertion by witnesses at a hearing or trial, is not
likely to be sufficient. The problem for the law is not so easily
solved, whatever the critics on this list may want to assert.
What is "supernatural"? Are "market forces", the beloved of economists
and conservatives a term for invisible powers? Adam Smith's "invisible
hand" still lives, but what is it? What about a "quark"? Quantum
mechanics posits a world of interacting invisible "points of force and
motion", but no one can see it. Then there is an "idea". What is that?
Could Kopp's rationalists produce works of art? A lot of questions
raised by C.P. Snow's exploration of the problem of two cultures
(science - rationalism, and liturature - humanities) still remain
unresolved.
Actually I think there are three cultures: science, art and relgion,
who come to their particular "knowledge" in three different ways -
superficially speaking - science listening mainly only to reason, art
using mainly the imagination, and religion using mainly only devotion.
Reason leads to truth, imagination to beauty, and devotion to goodness.
The problem is not to raise one Way as superior - rationalism/reason -
but to integrate all three of them within human consciousness in a
healthy way.
Here is what Roger Penrose, a major thinker on the problem of mind and
science, had to say in his The Emperor's New Mind, pp. 421, Oxford
University Press, 1989:
"It seems clear to me that the importance of aesthetic criteria applies
not only to the instantaneous judgments of inspiration, but also to the
much more frequent judgments we make all the time in mathematical (or
scientific work). Rigorous argument is usually the last step! Before
that, one has to make many guesses, and for these, aesthetic convictions
are enormously important..."
And here is Karl Popper, whose work on scientific method sets the
standard (for many at least), in his, Realism the Aim of Science, pp. 8,
Rowan and Littlefield, 1956:
"...I think that there is only one way to science - or to philosophy,
for that matter: to meet a problem, to see its beauty and to fall in
love with it;...".
"to meet a problem" (reason), "to see its beauty" (imagination), "and to
fall in love with it;" (devotion)
truth, beauty and goodness....
The point of all this is to suggest that calling anthroposphy a
religion doesn't make it so. The problems are much more subtle and not
so easily solved, even for a court of law.
joel wendt
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n626.6 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Religion
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 17:39:26 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Steve Premo said:
) As far as I know, the Supreme Court has not had to
) define "religion" in this context [i.e. the First Amendment],
) because the cases have concerned activities, such
) as prayer, that are undeniably religious.
I'm not a lawyer, but it strikes me that there is a certain (probably
superficial) similarity between Anthroposophy and Scientology. To wit:
both promulgate a process (or "technique") rather than a fixed set of
beliefs. (I think someone also mentioned that Buddhism is similar this
way, yes?)
Now, I recall that Scientology's status as a religion has been the
subject of some legal action. Specifically, they were granted tax
exempt religious status by the IRS. Also, they claim to be subject to
religious persecution in some countries (e.g. Germany, Russia).
(Perhaps someone who knows the actual facts can back me up or correct me
here.)
Steve, do you think the outcomes of these cases may have some bearing on
Anthroposophy's own legal religious status?
BTW, as I've stated before, my own personal opinion is that
Anthroposophy is a religion (for the purposes of the First Amendment),
but that is not the issue I'm addressing here.
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n626.7 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Mass suicide attempt by Holistic Center Isis
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 00:47:08 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Spanish police state they prevented mass suicide by "Holistic Center Isis" cult
On Thursday 8 January 1997, the Spanish police in Santa Cruz on the tourist
island of Tenerife announced that they had only just prevented a mass
suicide planned for that day.
A Berlin psychologist (named as Ms Heide Fittkau-Garte, 57, by CNN TV; 56
years old according to RTL Television) was said to be the leader of this
cult, the "Holistic Center Isis". Supposedly, it arose from a split in the
Order of the Solar Temple, notorious from earlier suicides and murders in
France, Switzerland, and Canada, and from a recent British TV program,
stating that the late Princess Grace of Monaco had been a member.
32 cult members, 31 of them German (however, BBC TV mentioned also Britons),
one Spaniard, five of them children, were supposedly on Tenerife, to commit
suicide on the volcano Mt. Teide. Their leader told them the end of the
world would be on 8 January. If they would commit suicide as she told them,
a UFO would appear, to save them.
The police say that they prevented this by going into the cult's premises
during their "last supper", and arresting the leader for inciting people to
suicide.
Herman de Tollenaere
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n626.8 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Trial?
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 19:50:44 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199801072110.NAA23452 lists1.best.com)
)Deby and Kathy,
)Thank you for your replies. It seems that PLANS has insufficient funds to
)pursue legal steps but that Kathy does and has an attorney advising her
)about it.
)
)The issues you mention, Kathy, are worth getting resolved.
)
)Are there perhaps others (other organizations?) who are involved in your
)planned legal actions, Kathy (or Deby)?
Other organizations who are sympathetic to PLANS have their hands full with
the Christian right..(A fight PLANS fully supports). Fact is, Waldorf is
small potatoes. It is difficult to even ask them for money. Kind of like
robbing Peter to pay Paul. One item on the agenda is grant writing for
PLANS. Funds could help us advertise, etc. But we are all very busy, but
money is an issue.
)
)Regarding the legal fund, I have heard that a fund is being set up by the
)Anthroposophical Society in America for legal issues. Perhaps it's in
)response to your planned legal actions. Have your attorneys contacted the
)Society, Rudolf Steiner College, AWSNA or some other anthroposophical
)entity?
)
Interesting, given that PLANS biggest beef is with the public sector.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n626.9 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Deby quotes Steiner (sort of)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 16:36:43 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
R. Mays wrote:
)Deby said recently (in two separate posts):
)
)) Absolutely. I've yet to learn of another religious sect so willing to
)) deny their own beliefs to further their agenda. Steiner said,
))
)) "We must worm our way through. . .[I]n order to do what we want to do,
)) at least, it is necessary to talk with the people, not because we want
)) to, but because we have to, and inwardly make fools of them."
))
)) Rudolf Steiner, 'Conferences with Teachers of the Waldorf School in
)) Stuttgart, vol.1, 1919 to 1920 (Forest Row, East Sussex, England:
)) Steiner Schools Fellowship Publications. 1986),125
)
)Luke then asked Deby:
)
)) Were there really ". . . "'s in the quote? Can you give us the complete
)) quote? Also, do you know in what context this statement was made.
)
)And Deby replied:
)
)) The context of the quote fits exactly. Steiner was trying to obtain
)) state approval for his school in 1920.
)
)Deby, I think the just opposite is the case: Steiner was trying to keep
)the Stuttgart Waldorf school independent, out of the public school
)system. Perhaps we should all read the full context of this extract (this
)was during a staff meeting on 22 September 1920):
Robert, Deby was right, he was not only trying to obtain state approval,
but also state
funding. You are right that he didn't want his methods adopted by the
state run schools
as he didn't feel they had the proper training, understanding or
abilities, in fact he shows us his feeling of superiority; "-- Headmasters
or teachers of ordinary schools keep coming along wanting Waldorf School
education and asking what they can do to help their acquire it. This is
absolute nonsense. The first thing to do would be to renounce a connection
with the State. An unreasonable demand like this only goes to show how
incapable people are of thinking consistently."
So it is obvious Steiner wanted to "have his cake and eat it too" and was
willing to do and
say anything to get his way. Steiners last paragraph below is very telling
of this.
)
) The question of the authorities recognising the Waldorf School as a
) Primary School was raised.
)
) Dr. Steiner: This is the kind of question that can produce different
) answers depending on the goodwill of the various school authorities. We
) shall only succeed in acquiring a bit of security regarding the actual
) existence of the School if we appreciate the importance of personal
) discussions. And here I should like to mention explicitly that we must
) speak absolutely emphatically and not use the 'phone. Personal
) discussion, with all the possibilities of emphasising sentences and
) words and the possibilities of conversation, altogether, that are
) available when addressing someone personally, create the sort of mood
) that gives confidence. If we pursue the matter in a bureaucratic way we
) shall come up against the same thing in the future.
In the paragraphs above and below it is interesting how emphatic Steiner is
about
using the verble power of persuation instead of a written agreement;
"Personal discussion , with all the possibilities of emphasising sentences and
words and the possibilities of conversation, altogether, that are available
when
addressing someone personally, create the sort of mood that gives confidence."
And; "I am convinced that when you have exchanged a few words like this, and
driven one of the heads of the authority to say something he has to stand by,
you have better protection than by writing reports to and fro."
Steiner admits that this tactic will work better in Wuerttemberg than in
Prussia.
)
) So I think the best thing would be if Herr Molt could do something
) about the matter personally, and put in a personal word. It is the kind
) of question where we can only stop worrying about the Waldorf School if
) you yourself could present a case to one or another of the people who
) have a say in the matter. I am convinced that when you have exchanged a
) few words like this, and driven one of the heads of the authority to
) say something he has to stand by, you have better protection than by
) writing reports to and fro. This is particularly the case here in
) Wuerttemberg where you can possibly achieve more in this direction than
) in Prussia. After permission has been granted in Prussia the next thing
) would be that the School would have to be cut back.
)
) First of all the matter would have to be dealt with in this way. For
) this should not be underestimated -- unfortunately I had far too little
) time in Berlin to give adequate answers when questions of this sort
) were raked up -- Headmasters or teachers of ordinary schools keep
) coming along wanting Waldorf School education and asking what they can
) do to help their acquire it. This is absolute nonsense. The first thing
) to do would be to renounce a connection with the State. An unreasonable
) demand like this only goes to show how incapable people are of thinking
) consistently.
)
) What should happen is that more and more people should get hold of the
) idea of what we might call our School Movement, the movement to have
) independent schools, so that a really big movement to have independent
) schools arises as part of the Threefold Movement. We might use the term
) standard school where it is opportune, though for my part I must
) confess I never liked the choice of definition -- although it had to be
) chosen as it was opportune -- because it does not sufficiently
) emphasise that we do not want what the State means by a standard
) school, and that we attach more importance to the school being
) independent than being standard. Then it is bound to come about. The
) kind of standard school the present German government is aiming for is
) the direct opposite. Giving in to things like this would be like
) grovelling to something we abhor. We must worm our way through -- not
) through an inner provocation, then it would be the way Jesuits work --
) but done with a certain mental reservation in response to external
) requirements. We have to be conscious that in order to do what we want
) to do, at least, it is necessary to talk with the people, not because
) we want to but because we have to, and inwardly make fools of them.
)
) Herr Molt: I will try and settle the matter.
)
) Rudolf Steiner, 'Conferences with Teachers of the Waldorf School in
) Stuttgart, vol.1, 1919 to 1920 (Forest Row, East Sussex, England:
) Steiner Schools Fellowship Publications. 1986), pp. 124-125
)
)
)"...deny their own beliefs to further their agenda." ?
)
)
)"Steiner was trying to obtain state approval for his school in 1920." ?
)
)
)Robert Mays
David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n626.10 ---------------
From: Gunilla Gerland (gge swipnet.se)
Subject: Re: Religion
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 07:06:35 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801081742.JAA14849 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801081906.LAA19356 lists1.best.com)
This problem of definitions I don't understand. Or have I gotten it all wrong?
At 11:10 1998-01-08 -0800, you wrote:
)Steve,
) Thanks for the quick reply. I see the problem, I think. There is
)another one. In your above question you use the word "anthroposophy",
)which I think we will all agree is a noun, a "something". Ah, but
)"what" is it?
As I understand it anthroposophy is a society you can be a member of.
) Then of course there is the word "anthroposophist", which means "what"
)again.
A member of the anthroposophy society.
Gunilla
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n626 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n627 --------------
001 - Gunilla Gerland (gge swip - Re: Anthroposophy & disabilities
002 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n623
003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Qute from web site
004 - Nnsandplay (Nnsandplay ao - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n623
005 - Nnsandplay (Nnsandplay ao - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n623
006 - Deby Snell (snell netshel - Re: Deby quotes Steiner (sort of)
007 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n623
008 - Deby Snell (snell netshel - Re: Steiner's religion no weirder than others
009 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n623
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n627.1 ---------------
From: Gunilla Gerland (gge swipnet.se)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy & disabilities
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 07:09:40 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199801081902.LAA17775 lists1.best.com)
At 11:01 1998-01-08 -0700, you wrote:
)Gunilla, I know very little about autism or high autism, but in reading
)your posts I can honestly say that you show the least "disabilities" of
)most on this list. Your abilitiy
)to express your self with kindness yet very direct and to the point is a
)pleasant and refreshing contribution to this list. I have always felt
)that we are all born with different
)disablities, not just the physical ones.
)
)Again, thanks for your time and thoughts,
)
)David McKay
Thanks Dave,
I rarely feel disabled on the Internet. Actually the Internet has been a
revolution in providing possibilities for many people with all kinds of
disabilities.
Gunilla
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n627.2 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n623
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 22:48:50 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801072228.OAA24583 lists1.best.com)
Nancy Horton posted:
) Kathy says she has been advised not to disclose any information regarding the
) law suit with whom she has threatened someone or some institution associated
) with Waldorf schools. I hate to get in the fray on this, it seems strange
) that legal action is threatened and the attorney advises restraint, even non-
) disclosure, while one continues to probe the other for information. It would
) seem to me that this is really quite one-sided and doesn't lend itself to an
) honest dialogue.
I am trying to make sense of this. You do know that I am not engaged in
litigation with the participating members of this list, don't you? Also,
I don't perceive myself as *probing* other list members for information.
I do engage in discussions here, but I am not attempting to get
information out of any list member that they do not wish to share. I
have, however, occasionally experienced this phenomena on the part of
pro-Waldorf participants in their dealings with me on this list.
) Maybe because I work as a mediator, it really strikes me as an unfair "power
) play".
Huh? I am lost here. How is this a power play? It is the truth. Nothing
more or less.
It would seem much more functional to attempt to remain engaged and
) resolve the issues as I don't believe that Waldorf schools are a conspirasy
) nor do they want to secretly insinuate themselves into American life in order
) to create anthroposophists without anyone's knowledge.
The issues that will be litigated are beyond the point of resolution.
Resolution is not my purpose on this list. I participate in this
activity as a means of "blowing the whistle" on Waldorf, specifically in
regard to its illegal funding and inclusion in the public education
sector here in the US.
I have read what I
) consider to be honest attempts to understand the problems Kathy had, with a
) willingness to either modify the program, or clarify whatever she found so
) disarming, or even to withdraw if there was a clear evidence that there is no
) way to integrate public education and waldorf education to the satisfaction of
) the parents involved.
I have not been aware of a single offer to modify the Waldorf program in
the public sector or to withdraw from illegal public funding and
inclusion. Where did you read or hear this "willingness" or
"clarification?" I am sincerely interested in reviewing this
information. On occasion I have not received mailing lists because of
technology difficulties. Perhaps I missed these offers during one of
these times?
(I have also read contentious and what sounded to me
) like disrespectful postings that made me uncomfortable and seemed
) counterproductive.)
es, sadly I have been subjected to contentious and disrespectful
treatment at the hands of Waldorf supporters and Anthroposophists since
I uttered my first, and at that time, weak protest. I continue to be
alarmed and confused by the need to attack my character, morals, and
emotional state simply because I do not believe the public funding of
Waldorf is appropriate in our country.
Even if I agreed with Kthy's position, as a mediator I
) would have to suggest that once the legal action is decided on, the time for
) discussion has past.
Since you are a mediator I am assuming (correct me if I am wrong) that
you have some training in counseling, psychology, etc. How could
discussion of a traumatic incident in my life in anyway be a negative
activity? It is my perception that I am performing a public service by
being vocal about the incidents that occurred to me as a result of
Waldorf inclusion in the public sector, in addition exposure of the
religious nature/foundation of Waldorf education. Please keep in mind, I
am not in litigation with any active, participating members of this
list.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n627.3 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Qute from web site
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 00:14:51 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Replying to Gunilla, Amanda quoted Steiner,
)undertaken. We must be constantly thinking: "I am doing something
)which generally the Gods do in the life between death and new birth."
)The fact that you know this is of untold significance. Receive it as
)a meditation. To be able to think it, is most important. If we bring
Amanda, this is a guru trick. Devotees are told that they have a special
role to play.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n627.4 ---------------
From: Nnsandplay (Nnsandplay aol.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n623
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 14:40:03 EST
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Kathy,
Just what I hope will be a quick note, as I am off to work this morning. I
hope you received my longer posting about the subject yesterday. Again, I
really forgot my place, of course you are free to state your opinions on the
critics list without any intention of achieving a resolution of the issues you
raise.
Thanks for the limited clarification about the target of your litigation. I
understood the original posting as a request for information regarding both
the issues with which you were concerned, and the adversary you had chosen.
Just who had been targeted seemed to be the question. had not read that no
one involved with the list was to be included in the legal action. Knowing
that modifies my feeling that you were engaging in a 'power play' -
withholding information critical to the dialogue (e.g. what are the issues
and who are the proposed litagants). In most dialogue, I think if someone
raises and issue, it is polite to offer the basic facts when requested.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n627.5 ---------------
From: Nnsandplay (Nnsandplay aol.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n623
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 16:21:40 EST
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Kathy,
My last posting beginning "Just a quick note . . ." was somewhat quicker than
I had anticipated. I had to go see a client, and the computor sent the letter
off automatically. I hope it didn't cause too much confusion. I will try to
finish this one before it leaves the house. I have received your note on
posting and quoting. Unfortunately I am using AOL, which seems to have some
limitations (none of any substance when compared to my own glaringly obvious
technological ones . . .).
I don't know which list it was on, but I have read postings from individuals
who will not send their children to a charter school because of the lack of a
sound foundation in Anthroposophy - not all "SWA"s" even support charter
schools. I thought I had read that the teacher training program had been
modified in response to concerns raised in the inital phases of training
public school teachers for charter Waldorf schools. I don't know if you are
contending that they simply became more deceptive or that they don't respond
to alternative views with genuine changes. Knowing how closely these posts
are read, I wish I could quote directly or at least be more specific, but my
paraphrase is all I remember now. I only save a few of the posts I read, and
rereading the archives is a daunting prospect.
I received a MSW in family mental health from Syracuse University in August
1989. I've worked for a hosipice, and in the child and youth section of a
privately run community mental health clinic, before opening an office of my
own. I have been studying Jungian-oriented sandplay therapy for three years
(and sandtray therapy for two years before that). Currently, most of my time
is taken up . . . with this posting business to be honest! But I usually am a
wife and mother, working only two to five hours a week doing a combination of
divorce mediation and, usually, individual counseling (sometimes working with
couples). When I had my last child, I had the luxury of choosing to stay
home, so I am using this time to aquire the additional training in Sandplay,
which is a very deep interest of mine.
I think taking action is a wonderful way to counteract the effects of a
traumatic situation, providing one doesn't become retraumatized in the
process. I could imagine that for many people, handling the kind of abuse
that is sometimes dished out in this kind of forum (apparently not just in
this forum) would be too much for them to take. I applaud your ability to
stay engaged here, and to respond with reason and consideration of the effects
of your words on others.
I will take issue with the use of the word "illegal" to describe the charter
schools. While they may one day be illegal, as I understand it no court has
ruled them such at this time. You may call them immoral, or some other term,
but illegal seems misleading. Personally, I would like to see the School of
the Americas, where military training is offered in counterinsurgency (read:
torture) to peoples of Central and South America, outlawed. I believe it is
immoral and should be illegal. However it continues to receive congressional
funding despite my (and many other people's) protests.
Thanks for the time you took to reply. I'm not sure if I should stick with
AOL; I could sure use a spell checker and they don't have one. If anyone as
some teckie advice, I would be glad to learn more about the ideal e-mail
system.
Nancy Norton
Ithaca, NY
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n627.6 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Deby quotes Steiner (sort of)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 13:26:06 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199801080129.RAA13739 lists1.best.com)
Amanda, you wrote:
)I cab't claim to be much of an "insider" when it comes to Anthroposophy,
)just to being a "committed Anthroposophist". I don't have any
)"friends in high places" so to speak. But if you or PLANS would care
)to pass on any of your specific concerns regarding the schools at a
)"grassroots" level of Anthroposophy, I'd be happy to do what I could
)to start a dialog based on your concerns (for instance, on the
)Anthroposophia list). Surely you could think of a few things that
)we ought to be doing better :)
I truly don't have time to participate on two lists. This list seems to
have its share of people with critical opinions of Waldorf, not to mention
a few who think we have some solutions. :+) Perhaps you could invite the
members from the anthroposophia list [who may be interested in this kind of
dialog..] to join us.
Best,
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n627.7 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n623
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 10:57:01 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199801091941.LAA15584 lists1.best.com)
)Dear Kathy,
)
)Just what I hope will be a quick note, as I am off to work this morning. I
)hope you received my longer posting about the subject yesterday. Again, I
)really forgot my place, of course you are free to state your opinions on the
)critics list without any intention of achieving a resolution of the issues you
)raise.
)
)Thanks for the limited clarification about the target of your litigation. I
)understood the original posting as a request for information regarding both
)the issues with which you were concerned, and the adversary you had chosen.
)Just who had been targeted seemed to be the question. had not read that no
)one involved with the list was to be included in the legal action. Knowing
)that modifies my feeling that you were engaging in a 'power play' -
)withholding information critical to the dialogue (e.g. what are the issues
)and who are the proposed litagants). In most dialogue, I think if someone
)raises and issue, it is polite to offer the basic facts when requested.
KOPP says:
Speaking for myself only, your recognition of your unfortunate actions is
appreciated. But you can't leave it, you have to remind us of our duty to
be polite.
And sure, and within their limited ability and time to search out the
specific referential posts from their own, or the PLANS web page's, WC list
archive, they are happy to do so.
But you didn't just ask a question or create a real issue: you prejudged
and made assertions about Sutphen's behaviour, without enough facts, and
with a big misunderstanding.
Under those circumstances, can you accept that politeness of those attacked
wanes? And that's reasonable?
Knowing, as we now do from your additional posts, of your long and close
involvement with Steiner/Waldorf/ Anthroposophy (SWA), it is clearer why
you acted as you did. Such is not uncommon -- and it often results in worse
slanging matches than you've got into.
Your bias for SWA does put any statements you make, professionally or
personally, about mediation, dialogue, meeting of minds, resolution, etc.,
in perspective.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n627.8 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner's religion no weirder than others
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 14:00:05 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801071901.LAA03733 lists1.best.com)
(199801070227.SAA02807 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801080327.TAA03279 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp writes,
)Deby Snell writes in response to Luke Schelly:
)
)[Answer to criticism of her for quoting Steiner's exhortation to the
)faithful to use stealth in promoting the faith...]
)
))pump. IMO, Anthroposophy has no hope of establishing itself as a
))mainstream religion until many of Steiner's crazy ideas are dealt with.
)
)Hmmmm. Anthroposophy as a "mainstream religion". Would this somehow make it
)... better? (In the sense of the Beatles' song, perhaps?)
)From the Anthroposophical perspective? In the end, I would think so. It
must be hard to think you have "the answer" (i.e., above the label of
religion), yet appear as a bit of a speck on the map in Society. (So much
to do, so little time...)
)Considering that the "mainstream religions" are based on beliefs equally as
)supernaturalistic and unprovable as Steiner's spiritualism, and are merely
)outgrowths of mankind's need for inventing powers greater than its own to
)explain and control the world, which goes back to pre-history, I doubt that
)repudiation of Steiner's "crazy ideas" is necessary for respectability _as
)a religion_.
Perhaps you are right, Michael. Do you see Anthroposophy experiencing a
growth spurt?
)Now, respectability as a tool for educating and understanding, that's a
)different matter. No religion -- not the mainstream ones nor the lunatic
)fringe ones -- can ever hold a candle to rationalism and the scientific
)method.
While I may personally agree with you, I suspect Waldorf schools have yet
to provide much competition for other Christian based schools. One of the
reasons is their non-sectarian claim. If Anthroposophists' decided to do
the honest thing by declaring Anthroposophy a religion, do you see Waldorf
schools able to academically compete with other Christian schools?
)All religions are, to the rationalist, mumbo-jumbo.
)
)Because religions have enormous power, rationalists ususally tread softly
)around them, saving their potshots for the lunatic fringe and the obvious
)charlatans who engage in flummery.
)Let's be fair in our attacks on Steiner's religious cult: it is no more
)fantastic in its underlying beliefs, no more repressive in its tactics for
)controlling its adherents, than any mainstream religion, past or present.
But why do you think, after 75+ years, the movement is still so small in
comparison to other new age religious movements, such as Scientology?
)Like later developments, such as Scientology, it is, however, just as
)clever at manipulation, if not cleverer, as the wizards, shamans, priests
)and popes of the past.
)But no amount of religious "respectability" will cause Anthroposophy to be
)any more acceptable to rationalists than any other.
No argument here, Michael, but I wasn't really thinking of rationalists.
Out of curiosity, do you know what percentage of the world considers
themselves to be rationalists?
)
)We can agree to respect other people's rights to believe anything they
)want; we do not have to agree to therefore grant those beliefs legitimacy
)or veracity.
Do we get to vote on what belief system can be legitamized? I just wish
they'd fess up to being a religion. It would solve many of my complaints. I
would respect the movement more _if_ they would place themselves in an
honest catagory. There is something about their "spiritual science" claim
that truly bothers me. It seems arrogant.
)Modern politically correct anti-bigotry laws are just the flip side of
)old-fashioned state religions: both prevent the use of reason and
)skepticism for the dissection and exposure of the emperical deficiencies of
)all beliefs.
)
)As rationalism cannot abide spiritualism of any stripe, no amount of
)religious orthodoxy in Anthroposophy could legitimise its fantastic
)world-view.
I can respect that as your personal opinion, but I'd hate to be arguing
_that_ one to society. I suspect that is why rationalists "tread lightly".
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n627.9 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n623
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 21:29:09 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199801092122.NAA18050 lists1.best.com)
On 9 Jan 98 at 16:21, Nnsandplay wrote:
) I will take issue with the use of the word "illegal" to describe the charter
) schools. While they may one day be illegal, as I understand it no court has
) ruled them such at this time. You may call them immoral, or some other term,
) but illegal seems misleading.
You seem to be saying that public Waldorf schools do not now violate
the law (and the constitution is the law) because no court has yet
ruled on that issue. This implies that it is the court decision,
rather than the constitution, which makes it illegal (if, in fact, it
is illegal). I believe that to be incorrect.
The decision on whether public or charter Waldorf schools are legal
in the United States will probably be decided on the basis of
existing law. That being the case, they are either legal or illegal
at the present time, but that determination has not yet been made.
The court may decide that public funding of WE violates the
constitution, but it is the constitution, not the court decision,
that makes it so. It's a fine distinction, and I hope I'm making
sense.
So until that determination is made by a court, the question of
whether public Waldorf schools are legal is a matter of opinion on
which reasonable minds may differ. There is nothing wrong with
expressing an opinion on that subject one way or another, any more
than it is wrong to express an opinion on any other unresolved legal
issue.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n627 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n628 --------------
001 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n627
002 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Another quote
003 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Clarification
004 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n623
005 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Mail readers (off-topic)
006 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Qute from web site
007 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n623
008 - Gunilla Gerland (gge swip - Re: Another quote
009 - Nnsandplay (Nnsandplay ao - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n623
010 - Gunilla Gerland (gge swip - Re: Qute from web site
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n628.1 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n627
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 08:21:23 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801100700.XAA28941 lists1.best.com)
Nancy posted:
) I don't know which list it was on, but I have read postings from individuals
) who will not send their children to a charter school because of the lack of a
) sound foundation in Anthroposophy - not all "SWA"s" even support charter
) schools.
The school where I was employed is not a charter school. Oak Ridge, in
Sacramento, where Waldorf inclusion caused a very large stir last
spring, also is not a charter school. I am not absolutely sure, but I
*think* there are a few other public school campuses that have adopted
the Waldorf pedagogy and have invested thousands (hundreds of
thousands?) of dollars of public tax revenue to pay for training from
unaccredited, sectarian institutions such as Rudolf Steiner College.
I thought I had read that the teacher training program had been
) modified in response to concerns raised in the inital phases of training
) public school teachers for charter Waldorf schools. I don't know if you are
) contending that they simply became more deceptive or that they don't respond
) to alternative views with genuine changes.
I have no idea if the teacher training program has been *truly*
modified, since I have not attended a *training* since last April or
May, 1997. I would hazard a guess that there has been an attempt at
modification. The last few training programs I took were *modified.* Of
course, they weren't modifed at all, except that fables from other
cultures were used for the endless oral story-telling sessions, and
mainstream poetry was utilized in the chanting activity. It is my
opinion that the training cannot come out of Waldorf (Rudolf Steiner
College) and be in a form that retains the Waldorf pedagogy) and, at the
same time, be within the parameters that are legal for public funding.
) I think taking action is a wonderful way to counteract the effects of a
) traumatic situation, providing one doesn't become retraumatized in the
) process. I could imagine that for many people, handling the kind of abuse
) that is sometimes dished out in this kind of forum (apparently not just in
) this forum) would be too much for them to take. I applaud your ability to
) stay engaged here, and to respond with reason and consideration of the effects
) of your words on others.
I have, on occasion, taken a time-out from this list because I was
clearly being retraumatized in the process of participation here. I have
been subjected to name-calling, threats, private (off the list)
electronic harassment, and belittling through the course of my
participation here. All of the people that have done so have been
Anthroposophists or Waldorf supporters. The treatment on this list
parallels the treatment I received when I made my protest vocal at my
former school site. I am a deeply sensitive individual and the
harassment, literally, makes me ill. However, I return because I believe
it is important that this dialogue continue and that I not waver in
telling my "tale." There are other public school teachers that have
chosen to walk away from their experience and get on with their lives.
They have been deeply traumatized and have experienced tremendous
professional loss, as have I. I can clearly see that one of us needs to
be vocal in an ongoing manner and in a variety of arenas.
) I will take issue with the use of the word "illegal" to describe the charter
) schools. While they may one day be illegal, as I understand it no court has
) ruled them such at this time.
I'll make an analogy here. When an individual burlarlizes a home or robs
a store, the activity is illegal. The illegality of the event does not
imply that a court ruling has been made or that a specific individual
has been found guilty. Because the act is illegal some individual or
agency will bring charges if it is believed that the perpetrator has
been identified. The alleged perpetrator is then considered innocent
until proven guilty. The *act* remains illegal no matter the sequence of
events that follows the crime.
)I'm not sure if I should stick with
) AOL; I could sure use a spell checker and they don't have one.
Off the subject here, but I would strongly advise you to dump AOL. Find
a local ISP (Internet Service Provider) and keep your money and business
within your community. Giants such as AOL don't provide the service that
a local private vendor can give you. Plus, you won't be locked into the
limitations of the AOL browser. I don't know of any email software that
includes a spell checker. On my Mac I use a limited version of Eudora
and use Netscape 3.0 for my email on my PC, so perhaps more updated
versions do have this option. You could always input your response into
a word processing program such as Word, run the spell-check there, then
cut and paste into your email software. If you have a PC this shouldn't
be too tedious.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n628.2 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Another quote
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 08:27:48 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801080847.AAA22549 lists1.best.com)
Gunilla,
Reference below. Name me a group which does not have individual
members who fail at achieving the standards the group aspires to. No
one should be surprised that activities associated with anthroposophists
have human failing in them. What is wrong with that? This happens
everywhere.
joel wendt
Gunilla Gerland wrote:
)
) Here in my country an autistic child who couldn't controll her bowels was
) often held by two people and showered with cold water as a punishment. This
) took place at an Anthroposophical boarding school for disabled people about
) 28 years ago. This women developed huge behaviour problems and was later
) contiously maltreated in psychiatric care (which is another story). The
) fact that the punishment showering took place is undoubteable, there were
) witnesses.
)
) It is not shocking that a thing like this could happen 28 years ago, when
) punishing children were much more common than today.
)
) What is shocking and what I wonder is how it could happen in an environment
) which claim things like this:
)
) "Anthroposophical ideas are vessels fashioned by love, and man's being is
) spiritually summoned by the spiritual world to partake of their content.
) Anthroposophy must bring the light of true humanness to shine out in
) thoughts that bear love's imprint; knowledge is only the form in which man
) reflects the possibility of receiving in his heart the light of the world
) spirit that has come to dwell there and from that heart illumine human
) thought. Since anthroposophy cannot really be grasped except by the power
) of love, it is love-engendering when human beings take it in a way true to
) its own nature. That is why a place where love reigned could be built in
) Dornach in the very midst of raging hatreds. Words expressing
) anthroposophical truths are not like words spoken elsewhere today; rightly
) conceived, they are all really reverential pleas that the spirit make
) itself known to men."
) - from Awakening to Community, Lecture I, Stuttgart, January 23, 1923
)
) Gunilla
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n628.3 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Clarification
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 08:53:59 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801100700.XAA28941 lists1.best.com) (34B7A003.36EF netshel.net)
I wrote this and reread this after it was sent. I felt the need to add
to the original post:
) Nancy posted:
)
) ) I don't know which list it was on, but I have read postings from individuals
) ) who will not send their children to a charter school because of the lack of a
) ) sound foundation in Anthroposophy - not all "SWA"s" even support charter
) ) schools.
)
) The school where I was employed is not a charter school. Oak Ridge, in
) Sacramento, where Waldorf inclusion caused a very large stir last
) spring, also is not a charter school. I am not absolutely sure, but I
) *think* there are a few other public school campuses that have adopted
) the Waldorf pedagogy and have invested thousands (hundreds of
) thousands?) of dollars of public tax revenue to pay for training from
) unaccredited, sectarian institutions such as Rudolf Steiner College.
There are now many public charter schools that embrace the Waldorf
pedagogy and I believe the number will grow if something isn't done to
stop it. In the above paragraph I am speaking of public, *non* charter
schools. Please realize that while charter schools can avoid many of the
restrictions that non-charter campuses are bound by, this does not allow
them to violate the constitution. In particular, they cannot offer a
religiously based pedagogy, and they cannot require or even provide
their teachers and staff with training/education from a sectarian
organization, such as Rudolf Steiner College. In fact, tax revenue
cannot be utilized in any manner to pay for services or supplies from a
sectarian organization whether the money is part of a charter budget or
a non-charter budget.
I am deeply concerned about the inclusion of Waldorf in the public
arena. However, I recognize that most charter campuses that have been
created specifically to offer Waldorf in the public sector have been
organized by Yuppie (for lack of a better descriptor) parents that, for
the most part, consciously choose to educate their children in this
manner. (I don't believe that most of them know the Anthroposophical
tenets that drive the pedagogy.) What I find most disturbing and
alarming is the inclusion of Waldorf at schools where most of the
students are of low income, many are "at-risk" in a variety of ways, and
their parents have not *chosen* this type of education for their
children. The parents and teachers are given a "quick-sell" on the
pedagogy, the campus becomes a public Waldorf school, and the children
are then placed farther at-risk as they are subjected to a curriculum
that does not follow state frameworks and is academically deficient.
These children, for the most part, do not come from families where they
receive academic education within the home. Often their parents are
non-English speaking. Additionally, many of them are of racial heritage
that Anthroposophists consider to be "child-like" and less evolved than
the Aryan race. (Discovering these teachings of Steiner's made somewhat
clear to me why I was taught repeatedly to tell adolescent gang members
fairy tales and was told, in essence, when I objected, that my students
weren't ready for hard academic subject matter.)
I can't help but wonder about the possible *other* motivators for
inclusion of Waldorf in urban, public schools. This is certainly a great
revenue source where, it was assumed, there would be ready acceptance
since parents are traditionlly (or apparently) uninvolved in their
children's education.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n628.4 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n623
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 09:32:02 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801100531.VAA24393 lists1.best.com)
Steve, Nancy and Kathy,
Maybe the difficulty (below and elsewhere on this thread) has to do
with "illegal" sometimes having the connotation in usage of "criminal",
while "unconstitutional" means neither, criminal or illegal, but
"without constitutional authority", i.e. the State lacks the power to
permit the activity.
So a public school using Waldorf (assuming it is found by a court to be
a religion), would not be illegal/criminal, but outside the authority of
the State to permit, because such power has not been granted by the
People to any government (federal, state or local), under the design of
our constitution.
joel wendt
Steve Premo wrote:
)
) On 9 Jan 98 at 16:21, Nnsandplay wrote:
)
) ) I will take issue with the use of the word "illegal" to describe the charter
) ) schools. While they may one day be illegal, as I understand it no court has
) ) ruled them such at this time. You may call them immoral, or some other term,
) ) but illegal seems misleading.
)
) You seem to be saying that public Waldorf schools do not now violate
) the law (and the constitution is the law) because no court has yet
) ruled on that issue. This implies that it is the court decision,
) rather than the constitution, which makes it illegal (if, in fact, it
) is illegal). I believe that to be incorrect.
)
) The decision on whether public or charter Waldorf schools are legal
) in the United States will probably be decided on the basis of
) existing law. That being the case, they are either legal or illegal
) at the present time, but that determination has not yet been made.
) The court may decide that public funding of WE violates the
) constitution, but it is the constitution, not the court decision,
) that makes it so. It's a fine distinction, and I hope I'm making
) sense.
)
) So until that determination is made by a court, the question of
) whether public Waldorf schools are legal is a matter of opinion on
) which reasonable minds may differ. There is nothing wrong with
) expressing an opinion on that subject one way or another, any more
) than it is wrong to express an opinion on any other unresolved legal
) issue.
)
) Steve Premo
) Santa Cruz, California
) http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n628.5 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Mail readers (off-topic)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 09:30:35 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199801101621.IAA22563 lists1.best.com)
On 10 Jan 98 at 8:21, spike wrote:
) I don't know of any email software that includes a spell checker.
Try Pegasus Mail, at:
http://www.pegasus.usa.com/
It's free, and includes a spell checker. It will also sort your mail
by whatever criteria you choose. I have mail from different mailing
lists show up in different colors.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n628.6 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Qute from web site
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 10:36:14 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801080836.AAA17745 lists1.best.com)
Gunilla Gerland wrote:
)
) I found this quote on an anthroposophical web site, in a presentation of
) anthroposophy in general:
)
) It is especially important for us the search to understand how individuals
) develop through successive lifes on earth, and in the time in between these
) lives, and how the forces of destiny form each life out of the previous one
) (reincarnation and karma).
) http://www.goetheanum.ch/e_ag2.htm
)
) And I would like to know how anthroposophists think this affects the
) non-anthroposophists they educate or treat, i. e. children and disabled
) people.
)
) Gunilla
Gunilla,
I can't speak for "anthroposophists", and don't know anyone who can,
except in the most general sense, but I can tell you how the idea of
repeated earth lives has effected my own work (4 years caring for
emotionally disabled adolescents, 7 years working on an adult ward at a
psychiatric hospital, and presently a live-in aide for a disabled
professor of history)
First off, in terms of my own relationship to this idea: I find it has
an explanatory power, especially if one tries to understand the meaning
of evil in the world, and the problems of God's love. Now I do
understand that "rationalists", or whatever, disbelieve, but what I am
talking about is what this idea means to someone who believes, namely
me. [I am skipping by the problem of knowledge and faith, because it is
very complex and subtle.]
So, for instance, at the psychiatric hospital I have the care of a
suicidal man, who has just been arrested for molesting his teenage
daughter (not a single instance, but a number of years of this henious
activity). He is losing his family, facing many years of prison, has
lost his job, his friends. Such a person is to many the lowest of the
low. Even in the hospital, he is treated terribly; and everyone knows
now, I think, what is in store for him in prison. He must be kept
isolated from the general population or be killed.
So what is my "idea" of this person, who I will relate to for several
days (or perhaps weeks), as he is treated for his suicidality? Do I view
him as a demon (this is meant metaphorically), never to be forgiven, to
be forever outside the human community? Or do I see an immortal human
spirit undergoing a grevious "education", who will ultimately judge
himself harsher then I ever would, and who will pay a price I cannot
guess in the life between death and a new birth.
According to Steiner, in kamaloka (inbetween death and a new birth) we
experience ourselves how we have treated others - God's justice in
action). Thus, this man will experience what his daughter felt; he will
live inside those feelings from beginning to end. In Catholic theology,
this "place" is called purgetory.
Now please again remember, I am not arguing the truth or not of this
view, but as one who holds it, I am "explaining" what it means to me in
terms of how I treat someone in my care.
Again for me (not speaking for any other "anthroposophist"), I would
treat this man with dignity, and respect, while at the same time making
clear that what he has done is, in my heart, one of the most terrible
things one human being can do to another. I will not tell him of my
beliefs, or how such ideas effect the way I conduct myself toward him,
because it is how these beliefs effect me that is the most crucial.
I will not judge him (being a Christian), nor will I forgive him, as it
is not my place - I was not the one wronged. I will act to preserve his
life, and leave his "punishment" to those others in whose hands is
earthly fate lies.
These views (repeated earth lives) really only effect the "context" in
which one sees another human being, and how one can choose (in this we
are certainly free as to how we do it) to act toward another human
being. I feel no need to teach such a doctrine. It is true or it is
not, just as a materialist view (a world without spirit) is true or it
is not.
Now the fact is that I am very good at what I do. My interventions and
interactions with patients were well regarded by my peers and my
superiors. In fact, I was often given "hard" cases, because of my even
temperedness, and patience. Many patients took to me because they
experienced my willingness not to judge them, regardless of what had
brought them into the hospital.
I was not born with all the skills I use in this kind of work. Most
were developed through the study of spiritual paths, and the inner self
discipline those paths require. So what I am, I am because (in large
part, but not all) of encountering Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy. At
the same time, I consider such a choice of life path entirely personal,
and would urge it on no one.
Inner spiritual freedom, to believe or not, love or not, to judge or
not, as each individual chooses, is the value I hold highest. I have
met many, who know nothing of these views, yet are wonderful human
beings, well skilled in the arts needed for this kind of work.
I hope this will help a little in anwering your question below.
joel wendt
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n628.7 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n623
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 10:55:43 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199801101727.JAA11169 lists1.best.com)
On 10 Jan 98 at 9:32, Joel A. Wendt wrote:
) Maybe the difficulty (below and elsewhere on this thread) has to do
) with "illegal" sometimes having the connotation in usage of "criminal",
) while "unconstitutional" means neither, criminal or illegal, but
) "without constitutional authority", i.e. the State lacks the power to
) permit the activity.
"Illegal" means against the law. Some things that are illegal are
criminal, and other things have a civil remedy. The constitution is
the highest law of the land, and an action which violates the
constitution is illegal, but not criminal (unless there is a criminal
statute which proscribes it as well).
) So a public school using Waldorf (assuming it is found by a court to be
) a religion), would not be illegal/criminal, but outside the authority of
) the State to permit, because such power has not been granted by the
) People to any government (federal, state or local), under the design of
) our constitution.
Not exactly. Public funding of religious education is not just
beyond the power of the state to permit; it is specifically
prohibited, and therefore illegal.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n628.8 ---------------
From: Gunilla Gerland (gge swipnet.se)
Subject: Re: Another quote
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 20:05:57 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801080847.AAA22549 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801101622.IAA22719 lists1.best.com)
Joel,
)
) Reference below. Name me a group which does not have individual
)members who fail at achieving the standards the group aspires to.
I never said that this couldn't had happen anywhere else. You seem to have
missed the point. (By the way: this was not *a* individual member who did
this but several and the whole group working there knew about it, and thus
passively accepted it.) I don't find it hard to understand that one
individual member can fail at acheiving the standards the group aspires to.
But if the group is about bringing "the light of true humanness to shine
out in thoughts that bear love's imprint" then how can they stand by and
watch? As a group I mean.
No
)one should be surprised that activities associated with anthroposophists
)have human failing in them. What is wrong with that? This happens
)everywhere.
The point is that I find it especially wrong when it happens in places
where people claim to have *higher standars* and *better education* and
*understanding* than other places. (I also find it quite typical for
sectarian groups to have an accepting and loving facade, and behind that a
silent oppressing attitude.)
Gunilla
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n628.9 ---------------
From: Nnsandplay (Nnsandplay aol.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n623
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 14:22:14 EST
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Steve,
Glad we have a lawyer on board to straighten these things out. Thanks,
Nancy Norton
Ithaca, NY
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n628.10 ---------------
From: Gunilla Gerland (gge swipnet.se)
Subject: Re: Qute from web site
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 21:14:57 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801080836.AAA17745 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801101831.KAA01007 lists1.best.com)
Joel and others,
I appreciate you are telling me about the conscious aspects of the
reincarnation thought. My concern is that there are subconscious aspects of
it which may affect the work also. And especially so if the entire staff
has these beleifs (I don't know if this is the fact where you work).
So one of my concerns is this (and please note that this remark is not
about the idea of having the molester badly treated, I beleive he need help
and treatment t to be able to face what he did):
) So what is my "idea" of this person, who I will relate to for several
)days (or perhaps weeks), as he is treated for his suicidality? Do I view
)him as a demon (this is meant metaphorically), never to be forgiven, to
)be forever outside the human community? Or do I see an immortal human
)spirit undergoing a grevious "education", who will ultimately judge
)himself harsher then I ever would, and who will pay a price I cannot
)guess in the life between death and a new birth.
)
) According to Steiner, in kamaloka (inbetween death and a new birth) we
)experience ourselves how we have treated others - God's justice in
)action). Thus, this man will experience what his daughter felt; he will
)live inside those feelings from beginning to end. In Catholic theology,
)this "place" is called purgetory.
Where does this leave the molested daughter? As a person who in an earlier
life molested someone and now is 'doing justice' to herself?
Gunilla
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n628 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n629 --------------
001 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n628
002 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Kamaloka (was: Quote from web site)
003 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Mail readers (off-topic)
004 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Another quote
005 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Steiner's religion no weirder than others (Was Re: Deby
q
006 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Steiner's religion no weirder than others (Was Re: Deby
q
007 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n621
008 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Administrivia: subject lines and digests
009 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Qute from web site
010 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n628
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n629.1 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n628
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 13:42:12 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801102014.MAA08332 lists1.best.com)
Joel posted:
Joel posted:
)
) So, for instance, at the psychiatric hospital I have the care of a
) suicidal man, who has just been arrested for molesting his teenage
) daughter (not a single instance, but a number of years of this henious
) activity). . . . So what is my "idea" of this person, who I will relate to for several
) days (or perhaps weeks), as he is treated for his suicidality? Do I view
) him as a demon (this is meant metaphorically), never to be forgiven, to
) be forever outside the human community? Or do I see an immortal human
) spirit undergoing a grevious "education", who will ultimately judge
) himself harsher then I ever would, and who will pay a price I cannot
) guess in the life between death and a new birth.
My life's work has been/is with the at-risk criminal population. My
students have included rapists, molesters, murderers, torturers, drug
abusers . . . you name it. A number of the criminals that you may have
read about here in Northern California have been my students. I am not
unduly concerned with what brought them to me or what their "karma" is,
or any such thing. I have something to offer them and, should they
desire it, I offer it freely without judgement. I experience joy in my
work and have found each of my students to be able to give back to me in
some form. I feel lucky to have a calling for working people with
criminal issues. (This is not to say that I don't experience frustration
and stress at times.) I have no need of Steiner's teachings to allow me
to work effectively with my students. I understand that these teachings
have been valuable for you (and others) in your profession and in other
walks of life. That's fine. I do object, however, to having them forced
on me in the guise that they will help me to work more effectively with
my students.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n629.2 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Kamaloka (was: Quote from web site)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 23:22:47 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 10:36 AM 10/1/98 -0800, Joel wrote:
) According to Steiner, in kamaloka (inbetween death and a new birth) we
)experience ourselves how we have treated others - God's justice in
)action). (snip) In Catholic theology, this "place" is called purgetory.
Like many other concepts of Steiner, the kamaloka concept is derived from
Madame Blavatsky, founder of Theosophy. Like many other concepts of
Blavatsky, it sounds Indian, but isn't (the idea is from nineteenth century
Spiritualism, started in 1848 by the Fox family in the US).
Herman de Tollenaere
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n629.3 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Mail readers (off-topic)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 09:34:20 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801101621.IAA22563 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801101732.JAA13116 lists1.best.com)
)On 10 Jan 98 at 8:21, spike wrote:
)
)) I don't know of any email software that includes a spell checker.
)
)Try Pegasus Mail, at:
)
) http://www.pegasus.usa.com/
)
)It's free, and includes a spell checker. It will also sort your mail
)by whatever criteria you choose. I have mail from different mailing
)lists show up in different colors.
)
)
)Steve Premo
)Santa Cruz, California
) http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
Steve,
Love to see your colour code chart!
How many lists are you on, and how do you remember all the colours?
Cheers,
Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n629.4 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Another quote
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 09:48:47 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801080847.AAA22549 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801101622.IAA22719 lists1.best.com)
Joel Wendt wrote:
)Gunilla,
)
) Reference below. Name me a group which does not have individual
)members who fail at achieving the standards the group aspires to. No
)one should be surprised that activities associated with anthroposophists
)have human failing in them. What is wrong with that? This happens
)everywhere.
)
)joel wendt
KOPP says:
What is wrong with it in Waldorf is that it is not individuals making
individual mistakes based on some faulty understanding of or some
deficiency in practising Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical (SWA) philosophy,
pedagogy or ritual.
What is wrong with it in SWA is that the individuals are making collective
mistakes of adherence to outdated, mystical, esoteric mumbo-jumbo, and
mistakes of cult-like herd behaviour according to the master's directions.
What is wrong with this is that it is a mistake of sheep following a wolf*
in sheep's clothing, blindly accepting his guidance to "truth" and a higher
incarnation next time, and in the process damaging others who are not
adherents to this supernaturalism.
What is wrong with this is that it is a collective evil of deceit, not an
individual mistake of perception or telling. The deceit is practised upon
all who come to SWA schools believing they have found a superior
educational model, when in fact they are, through false advertising, being
sucked into a cult.
Come on, Wendt, we're not talking about "human failings" here; we're
talking about humans collectively and knowingly participating in wrongs to
others.
)Gunilla Gerland wrote:
))
)) Here in my country an autistic child who couldn't controll her bowels was
)) often held by two people and showered with cold water as a punishment. This
)) took place at an Anthroposophical boarding school for disabled people about
)) 28 years ago. This women developed huge behaviour problems and was later
)) contiously maltreated in psychiatric care (which is another story). The
)) fact that the punishment showering took place is undoubteable, there were
)) witnesses.
))
)) It is not shocking that a thing like this could happen 28 years ago, when
)) punishing children were much more common than today.
))
)) What is shocking and what I wonder is how it could happen in an environment
)) which claim things like this:
))
)) "Anthroposophical ideas are vessels fashioned by love, and man's being is
)) spiritually summoned by the spiritual world to partake of their content.
)) Anthroposophy must bring the light of true humanness to shine out in
)) thoughts that bear love's imprint; knowledge is only the form in which man
)) reflects the possibility of receiving in his heart the light of the world
)) spirit that has come to dwell there and from that heart illumine human
)) thought. Since anthroposophy cannot really be grasped except by the power
)) of love, it is love-engendering when human beings take it in a way true to
)) its own nature. That is why a place where love reigned could be built in
)) Dornach in the very midst of raging hatreds. Words expressing
)) anthroposophical truths are not like words spoken elsewhere today; rightly
)) conceived, they are all really reverential pleas that the spirit make
)) itself known to men."
)) - from Awakening to Community, Lecture I, Stuttgart, January 23, 1923
))
)) Gunilla
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n629.5 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Steiner's religion no weirder than others (Was Re: Deby
quotes Steiner (sort of))
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 14:33:32 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801070227.SAA02807 lists1.best.com)
(199801080327.TAA03279 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801081806.KAA24335 lists1.best.com)
Joel Wendt wrote:
)Michael,
) A few comments below in [brackets].
)
)Michael Kopp wrote:
)) Considering that the "mainstream religions" are based on beliefs )
))equally as
)) supernaturalistic and unprovable as Steiner's spiritualism, and are ) merely
)) outgrowths of mankind's need for inventing powers greater than its own ) to
)) explain and control the world, which goes back to pre-history,
)
)[Actually, Michael, there is some very interesting work on whether that
)view of pre-history is justified. I'll concede it is "thought" by many
)today, but how would you come to knowledge of whether those, who "lived"
)through what we call "pre-history", acted the way you have assumed.
)Certainly a "rationalist" would not claim to be able to read their
)minds, or to know the world they in fact experienced. So what emperical
)evidence is there for making a statement about the inner life and outer
)experiences of people long dead?
KOPP says:
The early historical evidence of the development of religion, and
increasing numbers of finds of archaeological evidence from prehistoric
times that can be interpreted as consistent with human nature and the
developments that are historically known, are reasonable to me as being
fairly emperical. We do have to use inference here, I'll admit, but the
picture is a scientifically reasonable as those we have created for our
understanding of the natural world.
WENDT quoting Kopp:
)) All religions are, to the rationalist, mumbo-jumbo.
WENDT says:
)[So the 40% of scientists, who professed a belief in God in a recent
)poll, are no longer rationalists?]
KOPP says:
That's right, and most of them would have to admit it if they were reasonable.
In fact, most scientists who believe in any supernaturalism rigidly
compartmentalise their lives, because the two things are mutually exclusive
according to the precepts of both.
(Deby asked in another post what percentage of the general population is
rationalist. Pretty small, I would imagine. A failing of science to
properly promote and explain itself, coupled with the fact that one
actually has to be trained to think scientifically, because reason is often
counterintuitive, and the lack of good scientific education, despite the
ascendency of technology. People seem to want to believe in the easiest
thing, without question. That's why religions arose, to answer people's
questions, as well as for political control and social order.)
Here's a quote from an old book I've been rereading:
"The pious and learned Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) spent much of his
life arguing, at enormous length and in tiny illegible handwriting, that
there was no conflict between science and religion; that all truth was one,
and that therefore Aristotle's logic must fit the Christian faith. In fact,
Saint Thomas promoted Aristotle to a kind of pre-Christian saint.
"The pious and learned Ghazzali (1058-1111) also studied the science and
philosophy of the Greeks but came to different conclusions. After mature
and searching consideration, he decided that these studies were harmful,
because they shook men's faith in God and undermined religion; `they lead
to loss of belief in the origin of the world and in the creator'.
"Europe followed Saint Thomas, while Islam followed Chazzali. For
example, in 1150 the Khalifah of the moment proved his piety by burning the
books of a philosophical library of Baghdad. As a result of these diverging
trends, science and technology flowered in Europe so richly and advanced so
swiftly that the rest of the world is still breathlessly trying to catch
up. On the other hand, science in Islam withered away.
"The real irony is that Chazali was right and Saint Thomas wrong.
Science _does_ shake men's faith in God and undermine religion. It has been
doing so for many years and shows every sign of continuing to do so. As to
how it will all end, and whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, only
our remote descendants -- if any -- will be able to say."
-- The Ancient Engineers, L. Sprague de Camp, New York, 1960, Dorset Press.
The fact that some scientists (a minuscule number of the 40 percent you
claim are believers) are engaged in what might be called pseudo-science,
metaphysics or, more charitably, the self-styled "frontier science", is, to
me, not an indication that there is any connection or causality between the
natural and supernatural.
Rather, I think it is a sign of complexity and the depth of the pool of
knowledge we have built up through science. Science is also nearing a wall
of time and space (astrophysically and sub-atomically) that seems from this
side to be impenentrable, and what is on the other side, unknowable. (I
don't think it will turn out to be impenetrable; I think we'll find a way
to think around the wall and see what's on the other side. I think the only
unknowable answer is "what came before what now is, and why did that state
change?").
We all want to understand our world; but who, today, understands all of
science? Religion is so much easier and more comforting. Even if we don't
understand it, either. God's in his heaven and all's right with the world.
This is not to say that believers can't be good scientists, nor that their
religion cannot help their imaginations when it comes to science. Only that
religion does not hold the answers (there being so many competing gods and
spirits and ethers and forces, etc.).
Wendt elsewhere talks of three "cultures": science, art and religion, and
seems to imply that never the twain shall meet: "Could Kopp's rationalists
produce a work of art?" He cites CP Snow and Roger Penrose and Carl Popper
on the role of imagination in rational endeavour. (His Popper quote would
have been easily recognised by the Los Alamos crew that built the bomb:
Oppenheimer said the scientists recognised a quality called "sweetness" --
an aesthetic pleasantness -- about their work. But that was before the
first unearthly flash, which caused them to doubt ...
My espousal of rationalism does not deny the value of art and religion. We
wouldn't have the civilisations we do today without religion to have given
the masses codified behaviour for the benefit of all the people (but mostly
for the benefit of the priests, kings and plunderers). We would still have
civilisation, based on secular humanism, but it may not have got as far as
we have by now. On the other hand, it might have done better, and we might
actually have arrived at peace and prosperity for all.
And as for art: many scientists are also artists, many artists at least
studied science, and understand and employ rationalism. Certainly, much art
involves skepticism. I as a journalist and photographer produce
aesthetically pleasing creations (I don't call them art, but they're
artistic). As for religion: my upbringing by parents acting within a
society based on rules arising out of Judeo-Christian ethics has made me a
tolerable member of society. Almost every society has these religious
fundamentals of behaviour.
But the bottom line is that rationalism and belief, naturalism and
supernaturalism, science and mysticism, are antithetical and immiscible.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n629.6 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Steiner's religion no weirder than others (Was Re: Deby
quotes Steiner (sort of))
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 14:05:43 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801070227.SAA02807 lists1.best.com)
(199801080327.TAA03279 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801081806.KAA24335 lists1.best.com)
Joel Wendt wrote:
)Michael,
) A few comments below in [brackets].
)
)Michael Kopp wrote:
)) Modern politically correct anti-bigotry laws are just the flip side of
)) old-fashioned state religions: both prevent the use of reason and
)) skepticism for the dissection and exposure of the emperical
)) deficiencies of all beliefs.
)
And Wendt said:
)[Not sure I follow you on this last. This is what I think you are
)saying: Prejudice, which has been made illegal, if against a
)non-rationalist point of view, should not be illegal. So the test is,
)if I am bigoted against non-rational views, that's okay; all I have to
)do is establish their non-rationality?]
KOPP says:
No, that's not what I meant.
Reason and skepticism are not prejudice and bigotry, but many laws today
make it impossible to employ reason and skepticism against people's beliefs.
Law now goes beyond saying we must respect other people's rights to hold
beliefs. It now says we must respect those beliefs themselves, by not
attacking them with the instruments of human progress, examination and
testing.
This lends a false air of truth to all beliefs, and means, for instance,
that the Church of Scientology can get away with destroying an anti-cult
organisation and taking it over as a wing of the church itself.
In New Zealand we have laws designed to prevent the inciting of racial
disharmony (between the European usurpers, colonisers and conquerors* of
this land and its aboriginal Maori owners, now politically resurgent). Like
the laws that are supposed to prevent another Holocaust in Europe, they
forbid the denigration of the beliefs of the Maori.
Unfortunately, this means that there are now "Maori science" classes in the
universities here (accepted by the scientific establishment out of fear of
the political and career consequences of challenging them).
There is no such thing as Maori "science"; the Maori never made any attempt
to scientifically discover and codify the laws of nature. They had a
well-developed folk-knowledge of nature, similar to that of many other
primitive cultures, and they had creation legends and other legends to
explain their world, in concert with their spiritual views of ancestor
worship and spirits that remain among the living.
But none of that is science.
I as a science reporter could not do journalistic investigations of this
trend towards allowing supernaturalism the cachet of science and the
respectability of the rational, Western, academy. This was because the
Maori have developed sufficient political power to prevent the intellectual
challenging of their beliefs, under the pretence of preventing racial
bigotry
Maori suffered such bigotry in spades for about 130 of the 150 years of New
Zealand's history, and they deserve redress, no doubt. But they are geting
theirs back in spades, by denying others the right to question.
This is religious tyranny.
I would have no problem with allowing Maori to attack western science by
whatever non-restrictive means they chose. They do not do so (probably
because they know it's correct). Instead, for political and cultural
resurgence purposes (not for the study of the beliefs or questioning
thereof) they have wormed their way into the academy with an
unchallengeable belief system whose mumbo jumbo thereby becomes respectable.
Revealing and questioning both this political trend and the falseness of
"Maori science" is not bigotry, but reason in action.
Maori ends (cultural renascence and political power) are laudable; Maori
means (anti-reason and anti-openness) are not.
This trend is visible elsewhere in the religious anti-science movement that
has always been with us.
(For more on the "Maori science" issue, see posts around 9-13 October 1997
in the archive, from me and about me, beginning with 9/10 or 10/10 "Re: SF
State hosting cult medical course", a post which got me called a "racist"
in the fine tradition of the new political correctness. I won't cite the
header details of those messages which attacked me (as opposed to my
statements about Maori). I followed them up with a clarification of my
opposition to Maori supernaturalism masquerading as science in a post on
11/10 or 12/10, "Re: "to be racist or not racist, ..."".)
*The Brits goofed: they made a "treaty" between their queen and the Maori
giving the Maori "dominion of all their traditonal lands and resources",
with which the Maori are now bludgeoning whitey, to the tune of billions of
dollars and cultural supremacy. New Zealand, a multi-cultural country with
about a third as many people from other Pacific Island racial groups as the
Maori 11 percent of the population, is more like Quebec, a functionally
BI-cultural country that shuts out other races from power. Thus Maori is an
official language of the country, and Maori is allowed to be spoken in
courts and in Parliament. Maori, under colour of the "Treaty of Waitangi"
(place where it was "signed"), are proceeding to rape natural resources
such as offshore fisheries, just as they did with the now-extinct ancient
flightless birds like the huge moa, and as they did with their burning of
whole forests before whitey arrived. The Brits also goofed in that during
their "land wars" with Maori (to confiscate lands the Maori wouldn't sell
to whitey under the Treaty) the whites stopped short of the extermination
level imposed on the North American Indian by my ancestors, the usurpers of
that continent (related to the Brits who came here). Maori almost died out
or were assimilated as a culture and race, but the post-modern radical
leftist movements taught them a thing or two, and they have as many really
smart people among them as does any other race. As I've said elsewhere:
more power to them -- except when they tell me what to believe and take
away my freedom.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n629.7 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n621
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 11:34:39 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801072240.OAA00091 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801080209.SAA01062 lists1.best.com)
Joel Wendt replies to Michael Kopp's exhortation to new list subscribers to
read the archives before shooting off thier mouths:
) I've been trying to read the archives, as you suggest below, but if
)everyone who posted to the list had to read 10MB of archive before they
)could share a point of view, we might as well start puting our messages
)in bottles and throwing them in the sea.
)
) How about giving that argument a rest, or at least make a reference to
)a specific year and month to look at, if you think the archive is
)relevant.
KOPP says:
Sorry, I learned this lesson the hard way, both on this list, by not
reading enough of the archives before I spoke, and in my conflict with my
Steiner school by not reading even deeper (there wasn't anything critical
of Steiner/Waldorf/ Anthroposophy on the Internet when we enrolled five
years ago) before enrolling my kids in a Steiner school.
That's what the archives are for: use them.
As to giving specific references to newbies, I believe this has already
been addressed by the list owner's stated intention to prepare something of
a FAQ.
Perhaps Wendt would like to volunteer to index the archives?
WENDT:
)Suppose I was to say to you, you can't argue with me, until
)you've read (and understood to my satisfaction) all the books I've
)read. That would be pretty ridiculous, wouldn't it?
KOPP says:
As to him demanding that I can't argue with him until I've read (and
understood to his satisfaction) all the books he's read .... the only
ridiculous part of his idea is that I should understand anything _to his
satisfaction_ before we argue. If I read it, then we can discuss and argue
according to our understandings, and that's fine.
But that's not what I said. I only said people should READ the archives, I
didn't say they had to understand _anything_.
Knowing what has gone before is important, whether you understand it or not.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n629.8 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Administrivia: subject lines and digests
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 12:09:01 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Many people on the list take it as a daily digest, rather than message by
message. The subject header for a digest message is a generic title for the
list and announces that it is a digest with a particular date or code.
When people who receive the digest format reply to a message in the digest,
their mailers (unless they are advanced, professional mailers) copy the
subject line of the _digest_ instead of the subject line of the _original
post_.
So the subject line of their reply becomes, confusingly, something like:
Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n621
obscuring what the real subject of their post is, and completely losing the
original thread (subject) identification in further replies to _them_,
which also have this meaningless subject (or another digest subject if they
also are digest subscribers).
Although it's an inconvenience, people who take the digest could help out
here by making sure when they do an auto-reply to a digest item, that they
copy the original posting's subject line into their email reply, replacing
the auto-reply subject taken from the digest header.
Hope this helps, folks. If you're new to the Internet, or email, or
computers, or you haven't (or don't want to) take the time to learn the
conventions, it's really easy to find an email primer: just ask your
browser's search engine in plain English, or look on the home pages of the
browsers or emailers themselves.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n629.9 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Qute from web site
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 21:21:34 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801080836.AAA17745 lists1.best.com) (199801102014.MAA08269 lists1.best.com)
Gunilla Gerland wrote:
) Where does this leave the molested daughter? As a person who in an earlier
) life molested someone and now is 'doing justice' to herself?
)
) Gunilla
Gunilla,
I must admit it is hard not to believe you have gone out of your way to
find something "wrong" in what I wrote. I never met this person, was
not responsible for her, and would not form any idea about her at all.
If your question is: how does the idea of repeated earth lives consider
such a person (a more neutral question in my mind), I know of no
"doctrine" suggesting what you have invented in your own mind.
The "justice" idea I related to you, is how I believe it is, and
frankly it scares me. Just like any other human being I know, there are
many people I have met in my life that I have wronged, in one way or
another. The thought of having to live through how my deeds felt to
them is not a comforting thought.
The man I work for, has related a story to me, of an individual, a
fundamentalist preacher, who said of him (he had contracted polio when
he was seven years old) that he (the preacher) wondered what sin he (my
boss) had commited in order to be punished with this disease. So such
odd ideas are not the possession of any one group. In reading the
archives on this list, you might be surprised what anthroposophists have
been accused of by those who would vilify them as a group.
Human beings have wondered about the nature of fate and destiny and the
meaning of life throughout recorded history. It is only in the last few
hundred years, that a deity has been so vigorously denied. Given the
realities of our modern civilization, which has many wonderful
inovations over the past, it remains a question to me, whether we
understand the deeper mysteries any better than the ancients.
Science, for all its techological success, actually no longer asks the
deep questions, having found a way to eliminate the whole qualitative
problem from its main language (mathematics). Having split itself off
from the humanities, and from religion (both deeply human qualities and
interests), and claimed a "superior" (in the minds of many) position as
to knowledge of the truth, I find the "rationalist" world view verging
on the anti-human, it is so empty of the forces of the heart and of the
imagination.
To me it was disturbing you could even ask the question you asked, with
its implications that the idea of repeated earth lives could have such a
heartless interpretation of what the life of that young woman was like
and what brought her to such pass. Her father violated her innocence,
not God or religion or anthroposophists.
joel wendt
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n629.10 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n628
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 21:21:56 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801102014.MAA08332 lists1.best.com) (199801102142.NAA10509 lists1.best.com)
spike wrote:
. I understand that these teachings
) have been valuable for you (and others) in your profession and in other
) walks of life. That's fine. I do object, however, to having them forced
) on me in the guise that they will help me to work more effectively with
) my students.
)
) Kathy
Kathy,
Do you suppose you will ever get over this offense? What punishment do
you think should be visited personally on those individuals who commited
this act?
joel wendt
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n629 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n630 --------------
001 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Kamaloka (was: Quote from web site)
002 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Steiner's religion no weirder than others (Was Re: Deby
003 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Steiner's religion no weirder than others (Was Re: Deby
004 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Another quote
005 - Deby Snell (snell netshel - Waldorf violates my parental rights
006 - Gunilla Gerland (gge swip - Re: Qute from web site
007 - Kevin Jackson (kevin nvis - re:Mail readers (off-topic)
008 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Punishment?
009 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n628
010 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Qute from web site
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n630.1 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Kamaloka (was: Quote from web site)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 21:22:19 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801102222.OAA25472 lists1.best.com)
Herman de Tollenaere wrote:
)
) At 10:36 AM 10/1/98 -0800, Joel wrote:
)
) ) According to Steiner, in kamaloka (inbetween death and a new birth) we
) )experience ourselves how we have treated others - God's justice in
) )action). (snip) In Catholic theology, this "place" is called purgetory.
)
) Like many other concepts of Steiner, the kamaloka concept is derived from
) Madame Blavatsky, founder of Theosophy. Like many other concepts of
) Blavatsky, it sounds Indian, but isn't (the idea is from nineteenth century
) Spiritualism, started in 1848 by the Fox family in the US).
)
) Herman de Tollenaere
Herman,
Hi! How very interesting. Can you prove it? (I think that is the
stardard reposte in the archives). Actually it is a more interesting
question to me, whether it is true or not, not where the idea may or may
not have come from.
Even purely as an hypothosis, I think it provides an interesting
context from which to make decisions in life, and certain it has an
intriging resonance with an older idea "do unto others as you would have
them do unto you."
joel wendt
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n630.2 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's religion no weirder than others (Was Re: Deby
quotes Steiner (sort of))
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 21:23:02 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801070227.SAA02807 lists1.best.com)
(199801080327.TAA03279 lists1.best.com) (199801110141.RAA14548 lists1.best.com)
Michael,
Thanks for your post explaining better your comment on rationalism,
skepticism, bigotry and so forth. I appreciate the time and care you
gave to it.
joel wendt
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n630.3 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's religion no weirder than others (Was Re: Deby
quotes Steiner (sort of))
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 21:23:28 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801070227.SAA02807 lists1.best.com)
(199801080327.TAA03279 lists1.best.com) (199801110141.RAA14482 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp wrote:
) But the bottom line is that rationalism and belief, naturalism and
) supernaturalism, science and mysticism, are antithetical and immiscible.
Michael,
Again, an excellant post. I have a couple of question. Wbat is the
difference between a theory and a belief, in terms of how the human
being experiences this "thought content" inwardly? I know a theory is
supposed to be falsifiable in structure, but I am interested in how you
address this problem.
A belief, in ordinary religions, would not have such a quality
(intended to concern matters not capable of being tested). But all the
"supernatural" systems I have worked with (anthroposophy, the magic path
of Franz Bardon, Tibetan Buddhism, and the native wisdom of the Plains
Indians) all begin by placing before the student "psychological" work,
which is falsifiable. You practice the practices and you find out if
the paradigm works.
The only difference is that what I "examine" and "study" in these
systems begins with myself. After 25 years of work in this way I have
"replicated" many aspects of these systems.
I have no desire to force anyone to take such a path in life, but when
you assert that rationalism and "supernaturalism" are antithetical and
immiscible (incapable of being mixed), I would have to inform you that I
am, in very practical ways, a rational supernaturalist. I do have
hypotheses, based on various teachings regarding "supernatural" matters
I have yet to verify for myself, but the fundamental question of the
"supernatural", as to its existence, is a fact of experience for me.
I have never abandoned the rationalism in which I was raised (being
educated in science and the law), but I have greatly extended the realm
of my experiences.
Now in saying this, I am not asserting something you should believe.
There is no reason for you accepting in anyway that I have had such
experiences. I would wish, however, not to be beat over the head for
it, since in fact you (or any other rationalist or skeptic) cannot
"know" what my experience is. Go ahead, don't believe it. I would
prefer you did not, in fact. Just don't treat as insane, deluded, or
otherwise less then human.
joel wendt
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n630.4 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Another quote
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 21:40:43 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801080847.AAA22549 lists1.best.com) (199801110141.RAA14401 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp wrote:
) Come on, Wendt, we're not talking about "human failings" here; we're
) talking about humans collectively and knowingly participating in wrongs to
) others.
Michael,
I don't see a factual basis for your assertion. It is overgeneral,
almost to the extreme. It is not possible for you to know anyones
inward subjectivity sufficiently to state they "collectively and
knowingly participating in wrongs".
Your whole conclusion has to be based on inference, which given the
subject matter can hardly be considered scientific "inference".
Psychology and psychiatry attempt to "scientifically" infer subjective
inner states and motives, but as you well know, there is so much diverse
opinion in these fields that little of it can be called "scientific".
I don't see where you have anything more than an opinion, which, in
what I have read of the archives, consistantly makes the same subjective
judgments. This implies that you have a certain attitude towards things
anthroposophical, but since I can't know your subjectivity any better
then those you generalize about, my view is also just an opinion.
Can we do better then trade subjective opinions?
joel wendt
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n630.5 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Waldorf violates my parental rights
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 22:45:41 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In the book, 'Sleep, an unobserved element in education' by Audrey McAllen
(a book "written for the teachers who are working in Rudolf Steiner's
educational movement"), Ms McAllen addresses another benefit of Waldorf
curriculum. These kind of benefits drive me right off the edge. No one has
the right to concern themselves with _this_ aspect of my child without my
knowledge or consent. This is a religious concern that is of sectarian
nature.
Deby
"The curriculum 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 visible. This is a 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 telling of the
myths and legends appertaining to them. With these imaginations living in
them, the souls can re-find their reality 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 to come from the past into
the present."
[snip paragraph about puberty and the child finding his affinity to his own
periods of incarnation in historical time.]
"Geography is also taught in the context of the peoples of the regions
described, together with their myths and customs. These geographically
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 *inner visual* pictures which stimulate the will and
enliven the body of formative forces, then the soul can find the
appropriate 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."
(pages 32 & 33)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n630.6 ---------------
From: Gunilla Gerland (gge swipnet.se)
Subject: Re: Qute from web site
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 07:45:46 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801080836.AAA17745 lists1.best.com)
(199801102014.MAA08269 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801110516.VAA05292 lists1.best.com)
Joel,
You wrote:
) I must admit it is hard not to believe you have gone out of your way to
)find something "wrong" in what I wrote.
And
) To me it was disturbing you could even ask the question you asked, with
)its implications that the idea of repeated earth lives could have such a
)heartless interpretation of what the life of that young woman was like
)and what brought her to such pass.
Beleive me or not, but I did certainly not get out of my way to find this;
I found it long before you wrote your post. This is one of the other sides
of beleiving in reincarnation, and I have seen it 'practised'. Of course,
as always, with the idea that the person who has 'brought this upon
themselves' karma-vise, are supposed to be 'helped' by understanding that
this was not 'meaningless', their tragedy had a 'reason'. I mean this is an
obstacle in fully respect the person. And my problem with it is that it
(the reincarnation idea) is in the anthroposophic movement, which is not
open about it to the people who seek their services.
The point I am trying to make is that it has consequences. Whether you like
it or not, there are people who interpret reincarnation this way. Not out
of evilness, they do often honestly think they're helping the person by
looking at it this way. I mean they're not.
I wish I had had to 'go out of my way' to interpret karma like this.
Unfortunately not. All kinds of religions have been used to oppress people,
to have them 'stay in their place', and religions with reincarnation
theories are no exception.
Gunilla
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n630.7 ---------------
From: Kevin Jackson (kevin nvision.on.ca)
Subject: re:Mail readers (off-topic)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 20:46:31 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Eudora Pro 3.0 has a spell checker built-in, they were selling it off cheap
before the next version, which I think has been released now. Eudora is
made by Qualcomm.
Cheers
Kevin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n630.8 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Punishment?
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 23:46:25 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Joel posted:
)). I understand that these teachings
)) have been valuable for you (and others) in your profession and in other
)) walks of life. That's fine. I do object, however, to having them forced
)) on me in the guise that they will help me to work more effectively with
)) my students.
))
)) Kathy
)Kathy,
) Do you suppose you will ever get over this offense? What punishment do
)you think should be visited personally on those individuals who commited
)this act?
)joel wendt
I have absolutely no doubt that I will "get over this offense." I think
it would be more productive on this list if you responded to the topic
of the posts instead of engaging in off-topic flames like the one above.
I have never mentioned punishing anyone and I find it odd that you would
choose this terminology.
Perhaps you are not clear about the reason for my involvement on this
list. It stems from the loss of my job as a direct result of Waldorf
inclusion in public education. So, you can expect that I will be
mentioning this on a regular basis. It is why I am participating in this
arena.
I have no disregard for the fact that your spiritual beliefs have
enhanced your ability to work with mentally ill and criminal clients.
Everyone that works effectively with such clients need a variety of
"tools" to do so. It is difficult and demanding work. What I was saying
in my post is that Anthroposophy is not a tool I need or one I should be
required to have. I am doing fine without it.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n630.9 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n628
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 09:03:55 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199801110516.VAA05401 lists1.best.com)
On 10 Jan 98 at 21:21, Joel A. Wendt wrote:
) Kathy,
)
) Do you suppose you will ever get over this offense? What punishment do
) you think should be visited personally on those individuals who commited
) this act?
Sounds like you think Kathy should have gotten over this by now.
Good lord, Joel, do you have any idea how patronizing and offensive
your post is? Kathy loses her job in a public school over her
personal beliefs and educational philosophy, and is practically
blacklisted, so she indicates that she is seeking legal recourse.
Your response? "When are you going to get over this? It happened
last school year, for Chrissakes!"
By the way, when you are unlawfully deprived of your job, seeking
compensation for your lost salary is hardly visiting punishment on
the other folks. It's holding them responsible for their acts.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n630.10 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Qute from web site
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 09:33:33 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801080836.AAA17745 lists1.best.com)
(199801102014.MAA08269 lists1.best.com) (199801110644.WAA08384 lists1.best.com)
Gunilla,
Thank you for your clarification. I agree with most of it, having met
many people who use the idea of repeated earth lives in the way you
suggest. I do not, and I seldom find such judgments among other
anthroposophists who I know personally.
Perhaps this really has little to do with "the idea" of repeated earth
lives, and more to do with ordinary human prejudice. For example, we
have had, with the rise of feminism, a struggle against the idea that if
a woman was raped, she must have acted in such a way that brought this
upon her. The same is thought about many abused women. Abused people,
in general, tend to feel "responsible" for what is done to them, even
though they can rationally state the know they are not. The "feeling"
and shame and guilt remains.
What concerns me, especially with this list, is when common human
characteristics are attributed to "anthroposophists" as if somehow their
encounter with anthroposophy has added something reprehensible to their
ordinary human nature. Such a conclusion is made frequently, and often
is accompanied by rationalizations, but I find it very hard to
distinguish such a way of thinking about other people from simple
bigotry.
As to your last point below, suggesting that religions "have been used
to oppress people, to have them 'stay in their place'", so have
political ideas, color of skin, sex, and so forth. I would suggest that
it is not "religions" that oppress people, but other people. Religions
also are the primary sources of health care and food in much of the
third world. Religious believers are responsible for some of the
worlds' greatest art, and some of the deepest scientific insights.
joel wendt
Gunilla Gerland wrote:
)
) Joel,
)
) You wrote:
)
) ) I must admit it is hard not to believe you have gone out of your way to
) )find something "wrong" in what I wrote.
)
) And
)
) ) To me it was disturbing you could even ask the question you asked, with
) )its implications that the idea of repeated earth lives could have such a
) )heartless interpretation of what the life of that young woman was like
) )and what brought her to such pass.
)
) Beleive me or not, but I did certainly not get out of my way to find this;
) I found it long before you wrote your post. This is one of the other sides
) of beleiving in reincarnation, and I have seen it 'practised'. Of course,
) as always, with the idea that the person who has 'brought this upon
) themselves' karma-vise, are supposed to be 'helped' by understanding that
) this was not 'meaningless', their tragedy had a 'reason'. I mean this is an
) obstacle in fully respect the person. And my problem with it is that it
) (the reincarnation idea) is in the anthroposophic movement, which is not
) open about it to the people who seek their services.
)
) The point I am trying to make is that it has consequences. Whether you like
) it or not, there are people who interpret reincarnation this way. Not out
) of evilness, they do often honestly think they're helping the person by
) looking at it this way. I mean they're not.
)
) I wish I had had to 'go out of my way' to interpret karma like this.
) Unfortunately not. All kinds of religions have been used to oppress people,
) to have them 'stay in their place', and religions with reincarnation
) theories are no exception.
)
) Gunilla
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n630 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n631 --------------
001 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Punishment?
002 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n628
003 - Gunilla Gerland (gge swip - Re: Qute from web site
004 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - a new post to my website
005 - s.desterke qut.edu.au (So - Unsubscribe...!
006 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Prohibition of Visual Aids
007 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Unsubscribe...!
008 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Prohibition of Visual Aids
009 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: a new post to my website
010 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n627
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n631.1 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Punishment?
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 10:25:48 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801111656.IAA02435 lists1.best.com)
Kathy,
I have inserted some comments below in [brackets].
spike wrote:
)
) Joel posted:
)
) )). I understand that these teachings
) )) have been valuable for you (and others) in your profession and in other
) )) walks of life. That's fine. I do object, however, to having them forced
) )) on me in the guise that they will help me to work more effectively with
) )) my students.
) ))
) )) Kathy
)
) )Kathy,
)
) ) Do you suppose you will ever get over this offense? What punishment do
) )you think should be visited personally on those individuals who commited
) )this act?
)
) )joel wendt
)
) I have absolutely no doubt that I will "get over this offense." I think
) it would be more productive on this list if you responded to the topic
) of the posts instead of engaging in off-topic flames like the one above.
[It was not my intent to "flame". I am sorry you took it that way.
What happened seems to have powerfully effected you (emphasis on the
word "seems"). I can't know this, but only can infer from your frequent
references to this event.]
) I have never mentioned punishing anyone and I find it odd that you would
) choose this terminology.
[You're right. It was a poor term. It is a bad habit I have picked up
being on this list. My question could be more precise, but you do not
need to answer it. What consequences do you think should come to those
individuals who have caused this "loss of my job"?]
)
) Perhaps you are not clear about the reason for my involvement on this
) list. It stems from the loss of my job as a direct result of Waldorf
) inclusion in public education. So, you can expect that I will be
) mentioning this on a regular basis. It is why I am participating in this
) arena.
)
) I have no disregard for the fact that your spiritual beliefs have
) enhanced your ability to work with mentally ill and criminal clients.
) Everyone that works effectively with such clients need a variety of
) "tools" to do so. It is difficult and demanding work. What I was saying
) in my post is that Anthroposophy is not a tool I need or one I should be
) required to have.
[I agree with you. I have always agreed with these views of the
Waldorf critics. My own experience of Waldorf (three of my five
children have attended a few years each) has been in private schools,
and I already knew and understood the philosophy. In the public sector
the problems that have arisen seem more the fault of Waldorf
overreaching, then non-waldorf parents and administrators.
What often bothers me on this list is the tendency to violate Hanlon's
Razor: "Do not attribute to malice what more easily belongs to
stupidity." When flaws in particular Waldorf schools, or in general
trends in Waldorf get raised to the "malevolent intentions of cults to
brainwash" then, frankly, it ticks me off. I believe that's why such
ideas get included on this list, directly, or by implication in many
posts. It is supposed to inflame.
When I got on the list I engaged this use of language, but it is not,
nor was it, my intention to continue to engage at that level. But being
human, sometimes I read things and add in more than is there, and when I
do (and am aware of it) I appologize. Now I've run into some amazingly
biggoted statments on this list, and never once seen an apology. This
is a very unfortunate state of affairs.
I am learning a great deal being involved here, and reading the
archives; and, I want to strive to use language with more care and less
flame. I hope others will do the same.
joel wendt
I am doing fine without it.
)
) Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n631.2 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n628
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 10:37:22 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801111706.JAA05680 lists1.best.com)
Steve,
You're right. I was a jerk. I knew that these words could be
interpreted this way, even though I didn't truly mean it, and wanted to
convey other feelings. It was my fault, and I am not happy with myself
about it all. My unredeemed feelings got in the way of my good
judgment.
joel wendt
Steve Premo wrote:
)
) On 10 Jan 98 at 21:21, Joel A. Wendt wrote:
)
) ) Kathy,
) )
) ) Do you suppose you will ever get over this offense? What punishment do
) ) you think should be visited personally on those individuals who commited
) ) this act?
)
) Sounds like you think Kathy should have gotten over this by now.
)
) Good lord, Joel, do you have any idea how patronizing and offensive
) your post is? Kathy loses her job in a public school over her
) personal beliefs and educational philosophy, and is practically
) blacklisted, so she indicates that she is seeking legal recourse.
) Your response? "When are you going to get over this? It happened
) last school year, for Chrissakes!"
)
) By the way, when you are unlawfully deprived of your job, seeking
) compensation for your lost salary is hardly visiting punishment on
) the other folks. It's holding them responsible for their acts.
)
) Steve Premo
) Santa Cruz, California
) http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n631.3 ---------------
From: Gunilla Gerland (gge swipnet.se)
Subject: Re: Qute from web site
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 19:38:23 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801080836.AAA17745 lists1.best.com)
(199801102014.MAA08269 lists1.best.com)
(199801110644.WAA08384 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801111728.JAA12273 lists1.best.com)
Joel,
) What concerns me, especially with this list, is when common human
)characteristics are attributed to "anthroposophists" as if somehow their
)encounter with anthroposophy has added something reprehensible to their
)ordinary human nature.
Buy reading your post I understand that this is what concerns you. I don't,
however, buy your point. Since anthroposophists do claim to be working on
their self understanding, and run services which they claim are better than
others, I do think we have a right to expect more from them. Furthermore it
is when something is stated and open about what it is (as for instance a
religion) that you can build in methods for *preventing* mal-practice,
*and* people will know what is behind the services they seek or the school
they put their kids in, they can then be cautious about how the providers
applicates their religious beleifs. As long as all this is done in the
obscure there will not be the open dialougue which is step 1 in preventing
malpractice.
) As to your last point below, suggesting that religions "have been used
)to oppress people, to have them 'stay in their place'", so have
)political ideas, color of skin, sex, and so forth. I would suggest that
)it is not "religions" that oppress people, but other people. Religions
)also are the primary sources of health care and food in much of the
)third world. Religious believers are responsible for some of the
)worlds' greatest art, and some of the deepest scientific insights.
I am not *against* religion, I am just saying that it is a powerful tool.
It can be -- and has been -- used constructive as well as destructive.
Awareness of this is what can prevent it from being used in an oppressive
and destructive way. But then you first have to know that it *is* a religion.
Gunilla
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n631.4 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: a new post to my website
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 10:53:01 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801101857.KAA11065 lists1.best.com)
Waldorf-critics list members,
I have just posted to following to my website.
"scenes from the eye of the heart: a meditation on Dan Dugan, PLANS,
Waldorf Education and the battle for the future of the Soul"
http://www.microweb.com/hermit/sfteh.html
Comments on or off list are welcome. Flames will be painfully read,
and perhaps replied to. Humor would not be inappropriate.
joel wendt
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n631.5 ---------------
From: s.desterke qut.edu.au (Sonja de Sterke)
Subject: Unsubscribe...!
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 08:27:05 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
/\//\\///\\\////\\\\/////\\\\\////\\\\///\\\//\\/\
Sonja de Sterke Phone: (07) 3864 5816
Photographer Fax: (07) 3864 3532
QUT TALSS Development Mob: 0419 668 046
QUT Kelvin Grove Campus
\/\\//\\\///\\\\////\\\\\/////\\\\////\\\///\\//\/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n631.6 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Prohibition of Visual Aids
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 15:11:02 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801111728.JAA12276 lists1.best.com)
Deby posts:
) In the book, 'Sleep, an unobserved element in education' by Audrey McAllen
) (a book "written for the teachers who are working in Rudolf Steiner's
) educational movement"), Ms McAllen addresses another benefit of Waldorf
) curriculum.
)
) 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 *inner visual* pictures which stimulate the will and
) enliven the body of formative forces, then the soul can find the
) appropriate 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."
) (pages 32 & 33)
Thank you for the post and the research. Another piece of the puzzle is
made clear to me here. I understand more clearly why I was allowed no
visual aids on the wall of my classroom . . . absolutely forbidden
despite my strenuous objections otherwise. School year, 1996/97: the
*only* work allowed on my classroom walls was that created by my
students.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n631.7 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Unsubscribe...!
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 15:34:20 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199801112229.OAA23247 lists1.best.com)
)/\//\\///\\\////\\\\/////\\\\\////\\\\///\\\//\\/\
)Sonja de Sterke Phone: (07) 3864 5816
)Photographer Fax: (07) 3864 3532
)QUT TALSS Development Mob: 0419 668 046
) QUT Kelvin Grove Campus
)\/\\//\\\///\\\\////\\\\\/////\\\\////\\\///\\//\/
Sonya,
This should do the trick. Turn off your signature first.
Deby
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.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n631.8 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Prohibition of Visual Aids
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:28:41 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801111728.JAA12276 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801112329.PAA16998 lists1.best.com)
Kathy writes,
)Thank you for the post and the research. Another piece of the puzzle is
)made clear to me here. I understand more clearly why I was allowed no
)visual aids on the wall of my classroom . . . absolutely forbidden
)despite my strenuous objections otherwise. School year, 1996/97: the
)*only* work allowed on my classroom walls was that created by my
)students.
You are welcome. I'll post more when I can.
Was any kind of student art permitted, or did your school limit the
students to Anthroposophical art? Did your students copy their art, or was
it original?
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n631.9 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: a new post to my website
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:52:20 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801101857.KAA11065 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801111848.KAA07562 lists1.best.com)
Joel, regarding:
"scenes from the eye of the heart: a meditation on Dan Dugan, PLANS,
)Waldorf Education and the battle for the future of the Soul"
)http://www.microweb.com/hermit/sfteh.html
Lets cut to the chase. Is your nine page "meditation" a long way of
conceding that PLANS concerns are valid ?
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n631.10 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n627
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 17:31:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Eudora Pro has a spell checker, as well as Claris Emailer. Going with a
local ISP is a
very good idea, as you will get better service, cost will be less
usually, and you
won't be paying for all the extra wiz-bang stuff you don't need.
)Off the subject here, but I would strongly advise you to dump AOL. Find
)a local ISP (Internet Service Provider) and keep your money and business
)within your community. Giants such as AOL don't provide the service that
)a local private vendor can give you. Plus, you won't be locked into the
)limitations of the AOL browser. I don't know of any email software that
)includes a spell checker. On my Mac I use a limited version of Eudora
)and use Netscape 3.0 for my email on my PC, so perhaps more updated
)versions do have this option. You could always input your response into
)a word processing program such as Word, run the spell-check there, then
)cut and paste into your email software. If you have a PC this shouldn't
)be too tedious.
)
)Kathy
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n631 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n632 --------------
001 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: a new post to my website
002 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Waldorf's pseudo-psychology/classroom detail/fertility
003 - "Manfred Hoss" (HOSS hbi- - WE and religious education
004 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Heart=Pump as "Flat Earth" Belief
005 - "Robert Mays" (MAYS RALVM - Re: Deby quotes Steiner (sort of)
006 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Waldorf's history classes
007 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Re: Kamaloka (was: Quote from web site)
008 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Heart=Pump as "Flat Earth" Belief
009 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Heart=Pump as "Flat Earth" Belief
010 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n631
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n632.1 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: a new post to my website
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 18:03:57 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801101857.KAA11065 lists1.best.com) (199801120049.QAA18678 lists1.best.com)
Debra Snell wrote:
)
) Joel, regarding:
) "scenes from the eye of the heart: a meditation on Dan Dugan, PLANS,
) )Waldorf Education and the battle for the future of the Soul"
) )http://www.microweb.com/hermit/sfteh.html
)
) Lets cut to the chase. Is your nine page "meditation" a long way of
) conceding that PLANS concerns are valid ?
) Deby
Deby,
I have always said "some" of the concerns of PLANS are valid. Most of
what is said about Waldorf in Public School I agree with. The reports
of encountering dogmatism and sectarianism I agree are likely to have
occured. There is, however, much on the Waldorf-critics list, and some
material on the PLANS website, that I cannot agree with.
My "meditation" had other concerns besides the above.
joel wendt
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n632.2 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Waldorf's pseudo-psychology/classroom detail/fertility
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 23:08:27 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Once again, I will quote Audrey McAllen's book 'Sleep-An unobserved element
in education'. In Chapter nine (pp. 46), MS McAllen gives Waldorf teachers
Anthroposophical insight into students with remedial needs:
"In the foregoing chapters we have sketched the phenomena of our life of
sleep. We shall now relate this to children who have difficulties in their
process of incarnation. This difficulty often shows itself in behavior and
problems with learning. Whatever the physiological blocks to learning may
be - mixed dominance, lack of spacial orientation, poor concentration and
so on, all symptoms point to the main problem, that the child is unable to
take hold of his body in such a way that it is an organ of perception for
him in the physical and spiritual worlds. His sleep experience is disturbed
and unclear, and consequently his body is uncomfortable to live in,
breathing and circulation are poor, his limbs unresponsive to his will.
Therefore each lesson is conceived as a concentrated meditation on the
archetypal form of the physical body in its co-ordination aspect that is,
the interaction between nerves, muscles and bones, which, seen spiritually,
are described by Steiner as inner light (Intuition) inner sound
(Inspiration) and the inner pictures of Imagination. To enable the
individuality to use this living, sounding, light-filled organism in its
relation to the movements of inner supersensible space is our objective.
Therefore all lessons contain movement, music, form drawing and painting,
arranged in such a way that the child has an artistic experience of time
within the lesson and of the soul living in its own element of in-breathing
and out-breathing."
[snip three situations a remedial teacher may confront]
On the remedial classroom:
(pp.47 & 48)
"Ideally this room should be different from others, a special room,
intimate and warm, where the children can feel 'received'. Something
towards this can be done, for instance, by changing the shape of the
windows. How we form the space through which light passes has an effect on
the supersensible bodies of man. If it is formed according to the laws of
the ether body we enliven that member. If we colour the light as it enters
the room we stimulate or calm the astral body.
The rectangle confines the ether body to the physical body. This we could
release by making suitable forms in plywood to frame the windows. We could
also introduce the planetary colour of the day by inserting a transparency
behind the form, should the room have two windows. If storage space makes
the daily colours impracticable then one colour should be chosen which the
teacher feels belongs to this particular situation. There should also be
various interesting objects placed about in the room, the platonic solids
made as mobile in gold paper could be suspended in the relationships of the
Golden Ratio or these could be modelled in clay and painted silver or made
from coloured beeswax. One might choose to have something from a selection
of objects. A Celtic Cross or the Crucifix of St. Francis. Shells, pebbles,
crystals, a piece of gnarled wood, postcard subjects of main lesson would
all be helpful. A picture all children have remarked on is Hilda Boos -
Hamburger's "Quellenwunder'* and latterly the classroom paintings from the
Engelberg Waldorf School have met with appreciation. At a certain stage in
their development photographs of the present Goetheanum also became
something which caught their attention. But the two works of art which
bring consolation to the children who need our help are the Madonna del
Gransuca by Raphael and the sculptured 'Group' from the First Goetheanum.
The former has been the way for many a mother to open herself to the
waiting soul of her child. This picture also gives consoling help to
children who do not feel themselves received into, or accepted, by the
community in which they live. Children often notice the group when they
make a step forward in their development.
* Study for wall painting of Rudolf Steiner 'Marchen' from the Second
Mystery Drama.
Posted by Deby Snell
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n632.3 ---------------
From: "Manfred Hoss" (HOSS hbi-stuttgart.de)
Subject: WE and religious education
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 16:41:53 -0100
I found the following statement on the official homepage of
Waldorfschools in Austria.
http://www.waldorf-austria.org/paedagogik1.html
If somebody is finding an error in my translation then correct it
please. I translated the text by using a dictionary.
"Religioese Erziehung im weitesten Sinne des Wortes ist neben der
Kunst ein durchgehendes Unterrichtsprinzip an den Waldorfschulen."
Translation by my own:
"Religious education in every sense of the word is beside the art a
running through lessons principle at the waldorf schools."
And some sentences later, now about the choice of religious
education, that means protestant, roman catholic or
Christengemeinschaft[the anthroposophical church] education:
"Die Waldorfpaedagogik nimmt keinerlei Einfluss auf die Wahl des
Religionsunterrichtes, bezieht jedoch positiv zur Religiositaet
Stellung. Religion stellt fuer sie ein Fundament des moralischen und
sozialen Verhaltens dar. Kein Bildungsgang kann ohne Religion
vollstaendig sein, da Religion und Kultur untrennbar verbunden sind."
Translation - again by my own:
"Waldorf education brings no influence to bear on the choice of the
religious education but comes out in favour of religiousness.
Religion represent a foundation of moral and social behaviour for it.
No school career can be complete without religion as religion is
inextricably linked with culture."
Manfred Hoss
*******************************************************
* *
* Manfred Hoss Manfred Hoss *
* WB Student WB student *
* Hochschule fuer University for *
* Bibliotheks- und librarian and *
* Informationswesen information studies *
* Stuttgart Stuttgart *
* *
* E-Mail-Adresse: e-mail-address: *
* hoss hbi-stuttgart.de hoss hbi-stuttgart.de *
* *
*******************************************************
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n632.4 ---------------
From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Heart=Pump as "Flat Earth" Belief
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 10:19:06 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
)Subject: RE: Scientific Reasoning and WE (Part 1)
)Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998
)To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
----------------------------------
))TOM: [Bayes' Theorem] provides an objective way of ascertaining the
)) subjective preconceptions and pejudices that scientists bring to their
)) experiments
)
)BRIAN: If I understand correctly, Bayes' Theorem addresses the
)mathematics of
)probability. I fail to see how any such theory could provide
)quantitative information about a person's subjective mental state.
)Scientifically speaking, consciousness is still pretty much a mystery.
------------------------------------------------
Dear Brian,
In deference to Mr. Kopp and others on the List who are terrified
by the mention of the dreaded "C-word" ("Consciousness") and its evocation
in some of the theories of modern physics (and now even biology, BTW), I
will state at the outset that all of the arguments I bring forward in this
post will neither call upon any of those "crazy ideas" in modern physics
past 1900 nor any of Rudolf Steiner's "crazy ideas" as Mr. Kopp calls them.
I will proceed as if the year is 1898 and not 1998.
Furthermore, specifically for you, Brian, I will alternate the
focus of my posts. This one addresses the "heart as pump" issue, whereas
your question about Bayesian concerns I will address in the next post
entitled "Subjectivity in Science."
Then I will only use arguments from Bayesian statistics and
inference which require no more mathematical sophistication than college
algebra. However, they will require a very sobering look at just how
pervasive subjectivity in science really is (masquerading, of course, as
objectivity). And this treatment is a necessary pre-condition for looking
at the "crazy ideas" behind WE.
For this post, though, you notice that I have titled it "Heart=Pump
as 'Flat Earth' Belief." I choose the issue of the "heart as pump" because
it is a favorite rallying cry of the Waldorf Critics. You see how the Dan
Trinity, Mr. Kopp and even Deby and Kathy all invoke this mantram or
affirmation one way or another in their "laundry list" of what's wrong with
WE.
To address the issue, I am going to use the very same "thought
experiment" that I will use for the physics students who will be starting
the new semester this week. I coordinate the physics labs at Austin
Community College, where we teach the essentials of Physics I and II for
non-physics majors. We further sub-divide the classes into General Physics
and Engineering Physics, the latter being for those students who intend to
go on (usually) to the University of Texas for their engineering degrees.
Now the first experiment for the pre-engineers is to introduce the
theory of measurement, with special attention to the limits of measurement
and how to calculate the systematic (instrumental) and random (statistical)
errors that must be reckoned with in any engineering application. In
the experiment, they will take meter sticks and measure the lengths and
widths of the tabletops, take calipers and measure the dimensions of a
block of wood, use scales to weigh the blocks, take temperatures, etc. Then
they will calculate areas and volumes and densities, etc. and they must
figure out just how accurate their calculations are based on the errors
assumed in the original measurements.
When all that is done and they get the correct answers, then I will
ask them what assumptions did they make in measuring the length and width
of the tabletop. Eventually, it will come out that we tacitly assume a
perfect absolute flatness for the measurement. In other words, we
completely ignore the well-established scientific fact that the earth is
round. Why?
Well, let's calculate the effect that the curvature of the earth
would have on our measurements. At this point, I tell the story of the
Building contractor, Mr. Bean (in honor of that wacky British comedian
Rowan Atkinson), who must construct a building that is 200 feet long. We
want to figure out how much the curvature of the earth would affect his
construction crew laying the foundation slab that needs to be perfectly
flat.
First of all, imagine a brick sitting on top of a basketball. It
touches in the center, but at the far ends of the brick, those edges would
need to be filled in with shims to hope that a flat brick would sit stably
on such a spherical surface. It's the same with Mr. Bean's building. Let's
suppose that the middle of the building is touching the earth and 100' away
on both sides, the flat foundation would have to have to be filled in with
a "shim" because the curvature of the earth causes a deviation from perfect
flatness. So the question is: how thick of a shim would Mr. Bean need to
shore up the edges of his building to counteract the curvature of the earth?
Well, we do a little geometry and trigonometry. The radius of the
earth is about 4,000 miles. Multiplying by 5,280 feet in a mile we get 21
million feet as the radius of the earth. We set up a right triangle with
that great distance as the long leg and the 100 ft of the building as the
short leg. It turns out that the thickness of the shim needs to be 30
millionths of one inch! How thick is that? Consider that the average
thickness of a white sheet of copy paper is about 3 thousandths of an inch,
or equivalently a sheet of paper is 3,000 millionths of an inch. Therefore,
the sheet of paper is one hundred times thicker than the shim needs to be!
So what does Mr. Bean do? Well, if it were a real comedy skit with
Rowan Atkinson, then Mr. Bean would set about trying to make the shims by
using a razor blade to slice 100 very thin sheets of paper from the
original one. Much slapstick there!
Obviously, a sane builder would completely ignore the curvature of
the earth. Why? Because the deviation from flatness is far below the
acceptable tolerance limits of even his most accurate machinery and even
the expansion and contraction of the concrete due to temperature
differences would be more than the curvature of the earth deviation. And
this little exercise is valuable in showing the students how the limits of
measurement affect the practical application of the theory and how an
assumption of perfect flatness at our building scale is justified and even
necessary.
Now, we are finally about to arrive at the heart (pun intended) of
the analogy for the heart as pump. Thanks for bearing with me so far. Now
wouldn't be just like Mister Bean to extrapolate the perfect flatness of
his local building to the perfect flatness of the entire earth and indeed
of the entire universe? Why not? It is certainly a very logical and
rational extension of a well-verifiable fact that the ground under the
building is locally perfectly flat. There is absolutely nothing wrong with
the reasoning, so Mister Bean decides that not only is the earth perfectly
flat, he organizes a chapter of The Flat Earth Society for his town and
they go around protesting at the Waldorf-Astoria University where the
demonic doctrine is taught that the earth is round.
What is wrong with Mr. Bean's reasoning? Nothing. The problem
arises from the fact that the knowledge required to show that the earth is
round is separate from the knowledge Mr. Bean needs to build his building.
Even though he is logically consistent and eminently rational, nonetheless,
he is guilty of a "false extrapolation." Mr. Bean is not acting as a
scientist should; rather, he is making a large "leap of faith" to
extrapolate his local flatness to the earth itself. In other words, his
conviction that the earth is flat is based entirely upon his own emotional
belief projected on to the scientific facts at his disposal as a good
builder. His reasoning is perfectly sound, eminently logical. Who could be
more rational than Mr. Bean? (The only person I know who qualifies is
Michael Kopp! [:=})
(And I do believe that this "leap of faith" qualifies as a
religious belief under the definition of religion that Steve Premo hammered
out!)
Mr. Bean extrapolates on the basis of one set of true scientific
facts to arrive at a false conclusion because he doesn't care to
investigate a second set of true scientific facts that come from a
different area of physics. There is no question about his rationality. The
question is why he makes such a giant leap of faith based on only one very
limited set of facts.
That is exactly what the Critics do with the heart as pump. What a
good scientist would say about the heart is:
" The human heart can, to a good first approximation, be seen to
operate as if it were a mechanical pump."
Now consider the statement I've read on the Critics' List:
"The human heart is nothing but a mechanical pump. Period. Case
closed!"
Notice how the statement of the scientist carefully avoids the
problem of false extrapolation. But not so the Critics' statement, which
exptrapolates blindly and therefore dogmatically beyond the limits of the
premise that the heart in only a pump. That's why the Critics' belief that
the heart is only a pump qualifieds as a religious belief and becomes a
tenet in their "canon law" of Scientism.
Obviously, there is a local context in which the heart most
definitely needs to act as a mechanical pump. And I would be in total
agreement with the Critics on this issue of teaching the heart as more than
a pump in a Waldorf School --- but only if the WS was teaching CPR!!
(C.P.R.= Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitaion" for those of you non-native English
speakers).
In a CPR class, the instructor MUST teach the heart as a mechanical
pump and indeed the lungs as a set of mechanical bellows. Because if
someone needs life support, then the approximation of heart as pump is
absolutely necessary. It is very logical to extrapolate and believe that
the heart is ONLY a pump--- but that is just like Mr. Bean believing that
the earth must be flat because he builds his buildings on locally perfectly
flat ground. He comes to a very rational conclusion, but one that is
scientifically wrong.
Now whatever the heart is, in its essence, beyond the emergency
situation of CPR or open heart surgery, is something that cannot be
approached with the knowledge necessary to do CPR or operate on a heart.
Consider also the artificial heart. The complications that arise in
patients who get a real mechanical pump all concern aspects completely
unrelated to the mechanical action of the pump.
Now I understand why the Critics believe in such "flat earth"
superstition, since it suits their political agenda. But politics is not
science, and political provocateurs love to make outlandish false
extrapolations from bona fide (and very context-limited) scientific facts.
But let's not lose sight of where the real science ends and the
propagandizing about science begins.
Tom Mellett.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n632.5 ---------------
From: "Robert Mays" (MAYS RALVM12.VNET.IBM.COM)
Subject: Re: Deby quotes Steiner (sort of)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 98 09:37:29 EST
David McKay wrote:
) Deby was right, he [Steiner] was not only trying to obtain state
) approval, but also state funding. ... So it is obvious Steiner wanted
) to "have his cake and eat it too" and was willing to do and say
) anything to get his way.
It would be helpful if one would get all the facts before drawing broad
conclusions from a quote. David (or Deby), what evidence do you have that
Steiner was trying to obtain state funding?
What was raised in the staff meeting in 1920 was the "question of the
authorities recognizing the Waldorf School as a Primary School". It is an
assumption -- and an erroneous one -- that Steiner wanted the authorities
to make the Waldorf School a state supported school. In fact, it was just
the opposite: the authorities wanted to make the Waldorf School a Primary
School and Steiner opposed this.
The history of the first Waldorf School is well documented and easy to
research. It would help if one would check the facts before making
assertions based on assumptions. The facts are:
1. The Stuttgart Waldorf School was funded for its initial several years
by the profits of Emil Molt's Waldorf-Astoria cigarette factory. The
Waldorf initiative grew out of Steiner's Threefold Movement for Social
Renewal in the spring of 1919. As a businessman, Emil Molt was deeply
involved in this work. Under the Threefold Movement, cultural
activities which include education are to be supported from the
economic sphere (businesses) and not from the legal/political sphere
(government). Consistent with these principles, Molt pledged the
profits of his enterprise as "gift-money" for this new cultural
venture. (1, p.255) The School was to be open to the children of his
factory workers -- about 150 -- as well as all other children.
2. One of the conditions Steiner stipulated was that:
"...the teachers, who carry the daily responsibility for educating
the children, should be free to teach and run the school outside the
control of either government or outside economic interests.
"This was to be a truly independent school, freely supported out of
the economic realm, and conforming only to those conditions legally
required by the state of Wuerttemberg. The [condition of freedom
from state control] was undoubtedly the most radical, since Germany
at that time had virtually no tradition of private education, and
teachers were civil servants like any other government employees.
But central to Steiner's ideas was the conviction that education
would truly serve the future only within the freedom of the cultural
and spiritual sphere of social life." (2, p. 146).
3. That Steiner was opposed to any funding from the State for Waldorf
Schools is clear from a number of sources, for example:
"[An]other point which seems dubious to me is that it should be
possible to run a school with the aid of state subsidies. For I very
much doubt whether the government, if it pays out money for such a
school, would not insist on the right to inspect it. Therefore I
cannot believe that a free school could be founded with state
subsidies, which in themselves imply supervision by inspectors of
the education authorities." (3, p. 315)
4. The relationship with the Wuerttemberg authorities was as follows:
"The State authorities of Wuerttemberg had granted [Steiner] the
right to make the experiment over a period of three years, although
all he had submitted to them was a memorandum telling them how he
proposed to run the school." (1, p. 256)
5. The school opened on September 7, 1919 with 253 students in 8 grades.
After a year (in 1920), the Wuerttemberg school authorities reneged on
their agreement and wanted the Waldorf School to become a state
controlled school.
Now we see the true context of these remarks in the staff meeting of
September 22, 1920. Steiner is advising Molt to "speak absolutely
emphatically" with the school authorities to succeed in "acquiring a bit
of security regarding the actual existence of the School", and to use
direct personal contact to drive "one of the heads of the authority to
say something he has to stand by". What Steiner wanted to achieve was a
recommitment that the State would allow the school to continue as it had
been agreed.
State funding was not the issue because Emil Molt had already pledged the
financial support of the School. Furthermore, State funding could not
have been the issue because Steiner opposed it. Steiner's remarks about
"the first thing to do would be to renounce a connection with the State"
and "we attach more importance to the school being independent than being
[a State] standard" are consistent with his position that Waldorf schools
should not accept financial support from the State.
So the assertion that Steiner sought state approval and thereby sought
state funding is incorrect. He had to get state approval because it was
the law but sought to keep the school independent of state control. To do
this, he had secured funding from a private business.
Finally, Steiner's point that "we must worm our way through" refers to
the bureaucracy of the State school authorities. Indeed, Steiner's
guidance (paraphrased):
We must worm our way through, carrying not an inner attitude of
provocation but with a certain mental reservation, in response to
external requirements. It is necessary to respond not because we want
to but because we have to, and inwardly make fools of them.
is actually quite good advice ;-).
Robert Mays
1. Stewart Easton, "Rudolf Steiner: Herald of a New Epoch",
Anthroposophic Press, Spring Valley, New York (1980).
2. Henry Barnes, "A Life for the Spirit: Rudolf Steiner in the
Crosscurrents of our Time", Anthroposophic Press, Hudson, New York
(1997).
3. Rudolf Steiner, "Soul Economy and Waldorf Education", Anthroposophic
Press, Spring Valley, New York (1982).
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n632.6 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Waldorf's history classes
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 10:31:12 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Like Kathleen, I continually seek explainations for my experience with
Waldorf. I am continually offended at Waldorf's non-sectarian claim.
Deby
Audrey McAllen, in 'Sleep', continues to educate the Waldorf teacher (PP. 62):
"The factor of sleep can play a crucial part in diagnosis and therapy. We
must take this fully into account as the whole psychology/physiology of our
education is based on the understanding of the processes of waking,
dreaming, sleeping, in the development of the child, and of the principal
of recapitulation of the spiritual - cultural evolution of mankind. In
Rudolf steiner's educational lectures the importance of repitition and
recapitulation and their connection with the will is repeatedly emphasised.
Whether the class teacher is consciously aware of it or not, the previous
lives of his pupils are constantly weaving into the experiences of the
class room. For example, the class can be absorbed by the Indian period,
while Ancient Persia only makes an outer impression. When the children are
able to relate themselves to chronological time at about 12 years and the
teaching of history begins, it is the inner connection of the teacher with
his class that leads him to select particular examples for his history
teaching, because, in the life of sleep, he and the class are united and
the inner relationships to historical time are revealed, acting as
inspiring power in the selection of his lesson material."
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n632.7 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Re: Kamaloka (was: Quote from web site)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 19:32:19 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 09:22 PM 10/1/98 -0800, Joel wrote:
)Herman de Tollenaere wrote:
))
)) At 10:36 AM 10/1/98 -0800, Joel wrote:
))
)) ) According to Steiner, in kamaloka (inbetween death and a new
birth) we
)) )experience ourselves how we have treated others - God's justice in
)) )action). (snip) In Catholic theology, this "place" is called purgetory.
))
)) Like many other concepts of Steiner, the kamaloka concept is derived from
)) Madame Blavatsky, founder of Theosophy. Like many other concepts of
)) Blavatsky, it sounds Indian, but isn't (the idea is from nineteenth century
)) Spiritualism, started in 1848 by the Fox family in the US).
))
)) Herman de Tollenaere
)
)Herman,
)
) Hi! How very interesting. Can you prove it?
See H.P. Blavatsky's Collected Writings (Wheaton, Theosophical Publishing
House; for instance, the Index volume).
)(I think that is the
)stardard reposte in the archives). Actually it is a more interesting
)question to me, whether it is true or not,
How can you prove kamaloka truly exists?
)not where the idea may or may
)not have come from.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n632.8 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Heart=Pump as "Flat Earth" Belief
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 10:59:19 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199801121620.IAA05658 lists1.best.com)
On 12 Jan 98 , Tom Mellett wrote:
) " The human heart can, to a good first approximation, be seen to
) operate as if it were a mechanical pump."
I agree with that statement.
) Now consider the statement I've read on the Critics' List:
)
) "The human heart is nothing but a mechanical pump. Period. Case
) closed!"
This statement is unsupported, since the heart may serve other functions
than the movement of blood through the body.
) Obviously, there is a local context in which the heart most
) definitely needs to act as a mechanical pump. And I would be in total
) agreement with the Critics on this issue of teaching the heart as more
) than a pump in a Waldorf School --- but only if the WS was teaching CPR!!
So, you are saying that the heard *does* move blood through the body, but
this is not a complete view of the heart?
I have no problem with that. Nor do I have a problem with the concept
that the heart is not sufficient, by itself, to move blood through the
body. As I understand it, there are valves in the veins, so that blood
moves toward the heart as muscles contract the veins. And maybe there
are more processes moving blood of which I am not aware.
My impression, though, is that Steiner asserted that the heart does *not*
move blood through the body. Rather, blood, while within the body, is of
a non-material "spirit" nature, and moves by itself.
I do have a big problem with students being taught that the heart does not
move blood through the body.
Steve Premo ----------- http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
-----
"It's a messed up world but I love it anyway, I love it."
--Greg Brown
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n632.9 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Heart=Pump as "Flat Earth" Belief
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 14:48:44 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Tom,
I have read your entire post and have no argument with its logic. I
agree that it is unreasonable to claim that "the human heart is nothing
but a mechanical pump". It would be very difficult to show that the
heart plays no other role in the body whatsoever. (BTW, do you know of
any evidence that the heart actually does play some other role in the
body?)
However, the claim I have seen attributed to Anthroposophy is "the heart
is not a pump". Now, if the claim was "the heart is not JUST a pump", I
would have no objection. However, as stated, the claim seems to be at
odds with your own statement that the "heart can, to a good first
approximation, be seen to operate as if it were a mechanical pump".
(BTW, wouldn't it be simpler just to say that the the heart IS, to a
first approximation, a pump? Do you see a meaningful difference between
these two formulations?)
I await your post on subjectivity in science.
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n632.10 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n631
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 15:49:15 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801120131.RAA06601 lists1.best.com)
Deby posts:
) Was any kind of student art permitted, or did your school limit the
) students to Anthroposophical art? Did your students copy their art, or was
) it original?
At the time that this incident occurred the type of art permitted was
that which was assigned in class. Artwork simply created by the students
was not permitted to be posted. I had a couple of pieces of student
artwork on my wall that was placed there by students. It had nothing to
do with class studies, so it was removed at the same time as my posters
and other items.
Not all of the in-class artwork was Anthroposophical in nature. I did
not utilize this type of artwork. I initially enjoyed Waldorf art
techniques when I first attended training in 1993, but it gets old fast
when it has to be repeated over and over again, *and* it is all copied
from the teacher. This is what we had to do in the Public School Teacher
Training classes offered through Rudolf Steiner College.
However, even though not all of the artwork was anthroposophical, it was
all copied. The only differences from picture to picture were the
students' individual style. The same medium was used in any one
assignment and the illustration matched that of the teacher. Some
individual artwork was completed in the elective art class offered by a
teacher that had been employed by the school for years to come in just
for this class. She had not yet been subjected to the Anthroposophical
art techniques and I doubt that she would have taken to them. Incredible
artwork came out of this class. A great deal of Waldorf/Anthroposophical
artwork was done in the other teacher's classes. She had been immersed
in the Waldorf method for 4 years when I left.
Kathy
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n632 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n633 --------------
001 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Kamaloka (was: Quote from web site)
002 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Another quote
003 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Another quote
004 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Waldorf violates my parental rights
005 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Another quote
006 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Steiner Reincarnational FYI
007 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Another quote
008 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Web page on alleged mass suicide plan by "Isis Holistic
Cent
009 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Another quote
010 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Heart=Pump as "Flat Earth" Belief
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n633.1 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Kamaloka (was: Quote from web site)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 17:19:34 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801121836.KAA22448 lists1.best.com)
Herman,
Actually what I wondered was not the Blavatsky had it in one of her
books, but whether the kamaloka idea had its origin in the Fox family as
you seemed to have implied. Moreover, how could even the fact that this
idea is in books, establish its real origin with any degree of
satisfaction.
However, as I said, which apparently you didn't understand. I am not
asserting its truth, as something I could prove. It is simply an idea,
like any other idea, about how the Cosmos works. In this idea the human
being has certain after death experiences. In another idea there is no
after death. Neither idea is "provable", but one of them may be true,
while the other is not. Something can be true, even if we can't prove
it or don't know of it, is that not so?
joel wendt
Herman de Tollenaere wrote:
)
) At 09:22 PM 10/1/98 -0800, Joel wrote:
) )Herman de Tollenaere wrote:
) ))
) )) At 10:36 AM 10/1/98 -0800, Joel wrote:
) ))
) )) ) According to Steiner, in kamaloka (inbetween death and a new
) birth) we
) )) )experience ourselves how we have treated others - God's justice in
) )) )action). (snip) In Catholic theology, this "place" is called purgetory.
) ))
) )) Like many other concepts of Steiner, the kamaloka concept is derived from
) )) Madame Blavatsky, founder of Theosophy. Like many other concepts of
) )) Blavatsky, it sounds Indian, but isn't (the idea is from nineteenth century
) )) Spiritualism, started in 1848 by the Fox family in the US).
) ))
) )) Herman de Tollenaere
) )
) )Herman,
) )
) ) Hi! How very interesting. Can you prove it?
)
) See H.P. Blavatsky's Collected Writings (Wheaton, Theosophical Publishing
) House; for instance, the Index volume).
)
) )(I think that is the
) )stardard reposte in the archives). Actually it is a more interesting
) )question to me, whether it is true or not,
)
) How can you prove kamaloka truly exists?
)
) )not where the idea may or may
) )not have come from.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n633.2 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Another quote
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 18:03:32 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801080847.AAA22549 lists1.best.com) (199801101905.LAA13726 lists1.best.com)
Gunilla,
Some comments below in [brackets].
Gunilla Gerland wrote:
) But if the group is about bringing "the light of true humanness to shine
) out in thoughts that bear love's imprint" then how can they stand by and
) watch? As a group I mean.
[It seems they should be the ones to be asked such a question. Have you
spoken or written to them about this? Perhaps there is more to this
story?]
) where people claim to have *higher standars* and *better education* and
) *understanding* than other places. (I also find it quite typical for
) sectarian groups to have an accepting and loving facade, and behind that a
) silent oppressing attitude.)
[As usual I am bothered by generalizations. What do you personally know
for a fact about these people? The psych hospital where I worked
advertised itself on TV, and was in the business for big bucks. They
didn't deliver, and they claimed their "medical model" was the superior
psychiatry (mostly they just gave people drugs, and had a very high rate
of chronically returning patients). Its easy to take single instances
and declare them general trends. Some of what PLANS sees is fairly true
in a number of places, but I have been part of three different Waldorf
Schools (all private) and they were not as described. Simple
explanations may be good for physics (Occum's Razor), but they don't
work when you get down to human behavior.]
)
) Gunilla
[joel wendt]
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n633.3 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Another quote
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 20:26:58 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801080847.AAA22549 lists1.best.com)
(199801101905.LAA13726 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801130158.RAA21902 lists1.best.com)
Joel writes,
) Some of what PLANS sees is fairly true
)in a number of places, but I have been part of three different Waldorf
)Schools (all private) and they were not as described.
Ask a dedicated Catholic about his child's parochial school. He would give
an excellent testamony, I'm sure.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n633.4 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf violates my parental rights
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 21:02:46 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801110643.WAA07921 lists1.best.com)
Deby Snell wrote:
. These kind of benefits drive me right off the edge. No one has
) the right to concern themselves with _this_ aspect of my child without my
) knowledge or consent. This is a religious concern that is of sectarian
) nature.
) Deby
Deby,
Could you say some more here? The teacher has some ideas about your
child's sleep life. Another teacher, in public school, will also have
ideas. Are you saying that ideas about your child's sleep life are bad
in themselves? Or are you saying that a teacher should tell you all the
ideas it has about your child so you can judge whether any are offensive
or not. How far into the "mind" of any teacher (public or waldorf)
should we be able to go?
It would help me if you were to suggest some standard that applies
equally to all teachers, as to what investigations of what lives in
their minds we have a right to make.
joel wendt
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n633.5 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Another quote
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 09:20:23 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801080847.AAA22549 lists1.best.com)
(199801101905.LAA13726 lists1.best.com) (199801130426.UAA00744 lists1.best.com)
Debra Snell wrote:
)
) Joel writes,
) ) Some of what PLANS sees is fairly true
) )in a number of places, but I have been part of three different Waldorf
) )Schools (all private) and they were not as described.
)
) Ask a dedicated Catholic about his child's parochial school. He would give
) an excellent testamony, I'm sure.
) Deby
Deby,
Could you cut to the chase here. Are you trying to say, "Ask a
dedicated anthroposophist (a practitioner of the religion of
anthroposophy) about his child's religious school and he would give
excellant testimony."? And by that mean that I am biased, because of my
relationship to anthroposophy and therefore could not have an objective
point of view about the schools my children attended.
joel wendt
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n633.6 ---------------
From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Steiner Reincarnational FYI
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 12:02:58 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801081806.KAA24335 lists1.best.com)
(199801070227.SAA02807 lists1.best.com)
(199801080327.TAA03279 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801110141.RAA14482 lists1.best.com)
-------------------------------------------
))Michael Kopp wrote:
)Here's a quote from an old book I've been rereading:
)
) "The pious and learned Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) spent much of his
)life arguing, at enormous length and in tiny illegible handwriting, that
)there was no conflict between science and religion; that all truth was one,
)and that therefore Aristotle's logic must fit the Christian faith. In fact,
)Saint Thomas promoted Aristotle to a kind of pre-Christian saint.
--------------------------------------
Dear Michael,
This might be a good point to remind the Critics that
Anthroposophists believe that two of the previous incarnations of Rudolf
Steiner are none other than Saint Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle. It is
actually quite informative to test that spiritual scientific hypothesis by
researching the progression, evolution and transformation of each figure's
work into the next.
And if that's not enough for you, Steiner himself predicted that he
would reincarnate at the end of the 20th Century. That means now! And that
when he "came of age" in the early 21st century, he might have to oppose
vigorously what was emanating from Dornach because by that time
anthroposophy would become so corrupted. Good God, Michael, what if it is
you!!!! Or, what if you are at least his "John the Baptist-like" precursor?
(Of course, my hunch is that he will be a she this time around. Any
guesses? Deby? Kathy?)
Tom.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n633.7 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Another quote
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 11:30:50 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801080847.AAA22549 lists1.best.com)
(199801101905.LAA13726 lists1.best.com)
(199801130426.UAA00744 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801131716.JAA28019 lists1.best.com)
)Debra Snell wrote:
))
)) Joel writes,
)) ) Some of what PLANS sees is fairly true
)) )in a number of places, but I have been part of three different Waldorf
)) )Schools (all private) and they were not as described.
))
)) Ask a dedicated Catholic about his child's parochial school. He would give
)) an excellent testamony, I'm sure.
)) Deby
)Deby,
) Could you cut to the chase here. Are you trying to say, "Ask a
)dedicated anthroposophist (a practitioner of the religion of
)anthroposophy) about his child's religious school and he would give
)excellant testimony."? And by that mean that I am biased, because of my
)relationship to anthroposophy and therefore could not have an objective
)point of view about the schools my children attended.
)
)joel wendt
Hi Joel,
I would think that the curriculum content would be a difficult area for you
to remain objective....Do you subscribe to the idea that Waldorf schools
are non-sectarian?
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n633.8 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Web page on alleged mass suicide plan by "Isis Holistic
Center" cult
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:37:34 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Web page on alleged mass suicide plan by "Isis Holistic Center" cult
On Thursday 8 January 1997, the Spanish police in Santa Cruz on the tourist
island of Tenerife announced that they had only just prevented a mass
suicide planned for that day.
A Berlin psychologist, Ms Heide Fittkau-Garte, was said to be the leader of
this cult, the "Holistic Center Isis". Supposedly, it arose from a split in
the Order of the Solar Temple. According to the German press, she was an
ex-member of the Brahma Kumaris, an ex-TV actress, well connected in big
business. She claimed an earlier incarnation in ancient Egypt.
A web page with many links on this subject is
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/isis.htm
Herman de Tollenaere
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n633.9 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Another quote
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 15:06:24 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801080847.AAA22549 lists1.best.com)
(199801101905.LAA13726 lists1.best.com)
(199801130426.UAA00744 lists1.best.com) (199801131928.LAA16384 lists1.best.com)
Debra Snell wrote:
) Hi Joel,
) I would think that the curriculum content would be a difficult area for you
) to remain objective....Do you subscribe to the idea that Waldorf schools
) are non-sectarian?
) Deby
Deby,
Here is how I "see" Waldorf schools. They are formed by individuals
(either teachers or parents) following an ideal, which is known both
through the reading of books and seeing examples of other schools. This
"ideal" is actually a hierarchy of ideas, and depending on the
individuals who "form" the school, and those later who "carry" it as it
grows, the school then appears as an attempt to realize these ideals.
Fundamentally then a school is an activity of human beings striving to
create something they value.
Schools have a tendency to be similar due to the fact that there is a
common pattern (the ideal), but each school is actually very different
in execution, because the main character of the school comes from the
people involved in it. The central element is actually the children,
whose individual natures determine everything else: for example the
responses of the teachers and the parents.
Now this relationship between ideal and execution is very complicated,
but the so-called "waldorf-character" is actually only the surface
part. A new school with rented spaces and young teachers is very
different from an older school with a many years building program and
master teachers.
The main thing that happens goes on between the children and the
teachers, and among the children. The content element (waldorf
pedagogy) produces very subtle differences as against public schools,
but public schools are again a place of teachers and children, more than
they are of "philosophy". Children go to school to learn to read and
write, to become immersed in their civilization, and to encounter each
other (learn to be human). Who of us remembers the art on our first
grade walls, or whether the teacher spoke of this idea or that. But we
do remember how it felt, were we cared about, how did our classmates
treat us.
Human beings don't know everything. So schools only reflect the
present state of knowledge of a given time. Fifty years from now there
are certain to be major differences, most of which we could not predict.
So my question as a parent is: will my child like his school, and will
his school (teachers and peers) like him. No philosophy will force a
student to learn better than any other, while one or another point of
view may be more supportive of what lives in the child and how that
unfolds.
The sectarian - non-sectarian question is way down my list of critical
concerns. If Waldorf hadn't been around, I might have sent my kids to
parochial school. I wasn't looking for them to be indoctrinated, one
way or another, but to grow up beliving in themselves and able to make
their own decisions.
Now saying all this, I fully recognize that many people (teachers and
parents) are more critically involved, love the details to an extreme
and were intolerant of "fooling" with what they perceived as the
"system". Mostly I looked the teachers in the eye, and tried to come to
some sense of who they were as human beings - it was this that I felt
was most important.
I was already an "anthroposophist" for very other reasons, before I
even knew there were "waldorf schools".
Now, I don't know if my approach was typical or atypical, or whatever.
But it was how I thought about it.
At the same time, I agree with what is said (generally) on the critics
list about hiding the "philosophy". I think that is poor judgment.
Trying to force their way into the public sector is also poor judgment.
I am glad there is "resistance" but, truth to tell, I think there is
something in Waldorf the critics don't see, and that essence will
survive this crisis of growth and continue on to find itself many times
chosen by parents as a place they want their children educated.
Isn't that what it comes down to in the end. The parent is the
responsible one, the one whose task it is to decide, and nobody should
interfer with that choice. In this regard I like Amanda's recent post
wishing for all kinds of schools, for all the different kinds of people
and children and points of view, and beliefs.
joel wendt
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n633.10 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Heart=Pump as "Flat Earth" Belief
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 15:27:00 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Tom wrote:
[big snip]
) That is exactly what the Critics do with the heart as pump. What a
)good scientist would say about the heart is:
)
) " The human heart can, to a good first approximation, be seen to
)operate as if it were a mechanical pump."
)
) Now consider the statement I've read on the Critics' List:
)
) "The human heart is nothing but a mechanical pump. Period. Case
)closed!"
Since you are _building_ your hypothisis on the above statement would you
please
re-post the *exact* quote and by whom?
)
) Notice how the statement of the scientist carefully avoids the
)problem of false extrapolation. But not so the Critics' statement, which
)exptrapolates blindly and therefore dogmatically beyond the limits of the
)premise that the heart in only a pump. That's why the Critics' belief that
)the heart is only a pump qualifieds as a religious belief and becomes a
)tenet in their "canon law" of Scientism.
The arguement that the WC Critics have put forth is on the WE/Anthro
statement and
presented in class teachings that "the heart is _not_ a pump".
You seem to have turned the tables around here to confuse the issue. Why?
)
) Obviously, there is a local context in which the heart most
)definitely needs to act as a mechanical pump. And I would be in total
)agreement with the Critics on this issue of teaching the heart as more than
)a pump in a Waldorf School --- but only if the WS was teaching CPR!!
)(C.P.R.= Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitaion" for those of you non-native English
)speakers).
Why "but only if the WS was teaching CPR!!"?
) In a CPR class, the instructor MUST teach the heart as a mechanical
)pump and indeed the lungs as a set of mechanical bellows. Because if
)someone needs life support, then the approximation of heart as pump is
)absolutely necessary. It is very logical to extrapolate and believe that
)the heart is ONLY a pump--- but that is just like Mr. Bean believing that
)the earth must be flat because he builds his buildings on locally perfectly
)flat ground. He comes to a very rational conclusion, but one that is
)scientifically wrong.
Please provide this scientific information that supports your statement;
"but one that is scientifically wrong."
) Now whatever the heart is, in its essence, beyond the emergency
)situation of CPR or open heart surgery, is something that cannot be
)approached with the knowledge necessary to do CPR or operate on a heart.
)
) Consider also the artificial heart. The complications that arise in
)patients who get a real mechanical pump all concern aspects completely
)unrelated to the mechanical action of the pump.
Again, you are being vary vague, please explain your statement above
concerning;
"The complications that arise in... all concern aspects completely
unrelated to the mechanical action of the pump."
) Now I understand why the Critics believe in such "flat earth"
)superstition, since it suits their political agenda. But politics is not
)science, and political provocateurs love to make outlandish false
)extrapolations from bona fide (and very context-limited) scientific facts.
)But let's not lose sight of where the real science ends and the
)propagandizing about science begins.
Your _assumptions_ are full of hog wash!! You have a cleaver (but hollow
and transparent) way of taking things out of context, putting
words/thoughts in others mouths (so to speak) and then building on this
_very_ unstable ground. How did you ever get your Proffessorship?
)
)Tom Mellett.
David McKay
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n633 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n634 --------------
001 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Steiner Reincarnational FYI
002 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Steiner Reincarnational FYI
003 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Another quote
004 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Another quote
005 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Admin: web counter turns 10,000
006 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Waldorf violates my parental rights
007 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - How Waldorf inculcates Anthroposophy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n634.1 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Steiner Reincarnational FYI
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 15:34:28 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Tom, How often and openly do you discuss this stuff with your colleagues
at your
school and at others? When you go to any respective scientific
conferences do you
adamantly discuss these beliefs/views?
David McKay
)-------------------------------------------
)))Michael Kopp wrote:
)
))Here's a quote from an old book I've been rereading:
))
)) "The pious and learned Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) spent much of his
))life arguing, at enormous length and in tiny illegible handwriting, that
))there was no conflict between science and religion; that all truth was one,
))and that therefore Aristotle's logic must fit the Christian faith. In fact,
))Saint Thomas promoted Aristotle to a kind of pre-Christian saint.
)--------------------------------------
)Dear Michael,
) This might be a good point to remind the Critics that
)Anthroposophists believe that two of the previous incarnations of Rudolf
)Steiner are none other than Saint Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle. It is
)actually quite informative to test that spiritual scientific hypothesis by
)researching the progression, evolution and transformation of each figure's
)work into the next.
) And if that's not enough for you, Steiner himself predicted that he
)would reincarnate at the end of the 20th Century. That means now! And that
)when he "came of age" in the early 21st century, he might have to oppose
)vigorously what was emanating from Dornach because by that time
)anthroposophy would become so corrupted. Good God, Michael, what if it is
)you!!!! Or, what if you are at least his "John the Baptist-like" precursor?
) (Of course, my hunch is that he will be a she this time around. Any
)guesses? Deby? Kathy?)
)
)Tom.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n634.2 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Steiner Reincarnational FYI
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:09:23 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801110141.RAA14482 lists1.best.com)
(199801081806.KAA24335 lists1.best.com)
(199801070227.SAA02807 lists1.best.com)
(199801080327.TAA03279 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801131804.KAA16049 lists1.best.com)
Tom Mellett rages on ...
)-------------------------------------------
)))Michael Kopp wrote:
)
))Here's a quote from an old book I've been rereading:
))
)) "The pious and learned Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) spent much of his
))life arguing, at enormous length and in tiny illegible handwriting, that
))there was no conflict between science and religion; that all truth was one,
))and that therefore Aristotle's logic must fit the Christian faith. In fact,
))Saint Thomas promoted Aristotle to a kind of pre-Christian saint.
)--------------------------------------
)Dear Michael,
) This might be a good point to remind the Critics that
)Anthroposophists believe that two of the previous incarnations of Rudolf
)Steiner are none other than Saint Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle.
KOPP says:
Pretty big comedown, if you ask me. St. Rudolf?
MELLETT:
)It is
)actually quite informative to test that spiritual scientific hypothesis by
)researching the progression, evolution and transformation of each figure's
)work into the next.
) And if that's not enough for you, Steiner himself predicted that he
)would reincarnate at the end of the 20th Century. That means now! And that
)when he "came of age" in the early 21st century, he might have to oppose
)vigorously what was emanating from Dornach because by that time
)anthroposophy would become so corrupted. Good God, Michael, what if it is
)you!!!! Or, what if you are at least his "John the Baptist-like" precursor?
KOPP:
Well, that sure does give me a whole lot more credit than I'm worth, don't
you think?
Or is it that the "Ur-Steiner-spirit" is weakening with every incarnation,
instead of strengthening? (I didn't have the benefit of a Steiner
education.)
Or perhaps this life is my purgatory for the sins of Steiner in his last
one, and this stoush we're all caught up in is really a bad dream?
MELLETT:
) (Of course, my hunch is that he will be a she this time around. Any
)guesses? Deby? Kathy?)
KOPP:
Is this a tenet of reincarnation theory?
Maybe its really Tom Mellett who has received the Ur-Steiner this time
around -- the higher realms have been watching too much television, and
decided a little black comedy was in order.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n634.3 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Another quote
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 21:48:59 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801080847.AAA22549 lists1.best.com)
(199801101905.LAA13726 lists1.best.com)
(199801130426.UAA00744 lists1.best.com)
(199801131928.LAA16384 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801132301.PAA14938 lists1.best.com)
)Deby,
)
) Here is how I "see" Waldorf schools. They are formed by individuals
)(either teachers or parents) following an ideal, which is known both
)through the reading of books and seeing examples of other schools. This
)"ideal" is actually a hierarchy of ideas, and depending on the
)individuals who "form" the school, and those later who "carry" it as it
)grows, the school then appears as an attempt to realize these ideals.
) Fundamentally then a school is an activity of human beings striving to
)create something they value.
Don't forget, Joel. Waldorf schools strive to be sanctioned by AWSNA. It is
extremely important for Waldorf schools to be "pure".
) Schools have a tendency to be similar due to the fact that there is a
)common pattern (the ideal), but each school is actually very different
)in execution, because the main character of the school comes from the
)people involved in it.
I can agree with this to a (tiny) point, Joel. Clearly there will be more
dogmatic (insecure) teachers at some schools, and somehow they clone
themselves through the hiring process, but I have yet to see a Waldorf
school that doesn't tell Fairy Tales in first grade, Ancient History (based
on theosophy's world view) in fifth grade, etc. etc. All Waldorf schools
celebrate the same festivals, whether the school is in America or Germany
or Africa. The difference generally exists because of the individual
personalities of the teachers. They all speak and sing in that learned,
high pitch voice. All Waldorf schools use Steiner's child development
model (based on reincarnation) and "insights" to "help" (judge) children.
Some Waldorf schools may employ an administrator, but I've yet to hear of a
Waldorf school that doesn't use that same strange (Steiner) version of
consensus. A Waldorf school is a Waldorf school. All Waldorf schools have
nature tables (alters). I'll bet there is at least one crystal in _every_
Waldorf school. They all have silks. The kindergartens are pink. Even the
Kindergarten menus are similar (tasteless). Most bake bread, if there is an
oven available. All Waldorf schools teach the same method of painting (wet
on wet color meditation exercises). They all believe in having the children
copy (ad nauseum) into their main lesson books from the board. All Waldorf
schools who are sanctioned by AWSNA are faculty led.
I assert that there are many more similarities than differences.
)The central element is actually the children,
)whose individual natures determine everything else: for example the
)responses of the teachers and the parents.
In 4+ years of Waldorf experience (at the board and parent level), I was at
very few meetings where children were even mentioned.
) Now this relationship between ideal and execution is very complicated,
)but the so-called "waldorf-character" is actually only the surface
)part. A new school with rented spaces and young teachers is very
)different from an older school with a many years building program and
)master teachers.
Well, it depends on how much start up money you have. Private schools may
take awhile to complete, but the public Waldorf (charter) schools are very
beautiful right from the start.
) The main thing that happens goes on between the children and the
)teachers, and among the children. The content element (waldorf
)pedagogy) produces very subtle differences as against public schools,
)but public schools are again a place of teachers and children, more than
)they are of "philosophy".
Joel, I may have fallen off the potato truck, but it wasn't today. This
argument isn't worth making _again_.
Children go to school to learn to read and
)write, to become immersed in their civilization, and to encounter each
)other (learn to be human).
But Waldorf is immersed in Europe, not America. Have you ever heard of a
Waldorf school that has a flag in the classroom, or said the Pledge of
Allegiance?
Off topic digression warning:
My youngest son transferred from Waldorf mid second grade. About the third
day, we were driving home from school. Max said, "I almost know my new
school's verse." To which I replied, "You say verses at your new school?"
He answered, "Yes. It goes, 'I pledge allegiance to the flag'..." (Could
hardly contain my smile.)
Who of us remembers the art on our first
)grade walls, or whether the teacher spoke of this idea or that.
I remember.
But we
)do remember how it felt, were we cared about, how did our classmates
)treat us.
Waldorf is a feel good school.
) Human beings don't know everything. So schools only reflect the
)present state of knowledge of a given time. Fifty years from now there
)are certain to be major differences, most of which we could not predict.
So you are under the impression that Waldorf schools curriculum changes?
Give me some examples of how Waldorf's curriculum has changed over the past
75 years.
) So my question as a parent is: will my child like his school, and will
)his school (teachers and peers) like him. No philosophy will force a
)student to learn better than any other, while one or another point of
)view may be more supportive of what lives in the child and how that
)unfolds.
Joel, I want all that _and_ more. I want a solid academic foundation based
on real science and history. And a school whose foundation for teaching
academics and socialization is based on ethics and morals, not hidden
religious dogma.
) The sectarian - non-sectarian question is way down my list of critical
)concerns. If Waldorf hadn't been around, I might have sent my kids to
)parochial school. I wasn't looking for them to be indoctrinated, one
)way or another, but to grow up beliving in themselves and able to make
)their own decisions.
Your view seems to be shared by your fellow Anthroposophist friends who are
inculcating religious beliefs in the public sector. I am hopefulthat your
view (of church state separation) is a minority one. Every parent wants the
best for their children.
) Now saying all this, I fully recognize that many people (teachers and
)parents) are more critically involved, love the details to an extreme
)and were intolerant of "fooling" with what they perceived as the
)"system". Mostly I looked the teachers in the eye, and tried to come to
)some sense of who they were as human beings - it was this that I felt
)was most important.
I grew frustrated working with humans who came with their own pedestals.
) I was already an "anthroposophist" for very other reasons, before I
)even knew there were "waldorf schools".
) Now, I don't know if my approach was typical or atypical, or whatever.
)But it was how I thought about it.
) At the same time, I agree with what is said (generally) on the critics
)list about hiding the "philosophy". I think that is poor judgment.
I sense you agree with the critics on a few levels...
)Trying to force their way into the public sector is also poor judgment.
Two things we agree on..
)I am glad there is "resistance" but, truth to tell, I think there is
)something in Waldorf the critics don't see, and that essence will
)survive this crisis of growth and continue on to find itself many times
)chosen by parents as a place they want their children educated.
Parents can choose Waldorf all day long, as long as it is an informed
choice and they pay for it. Do you believe my mission is to shut down
Waldorf schools? It is certainly not. But to be critical of anything, you
have to be knowledgeable. Knowledge can feelthreatening if it's in the
"wrong" hands.
) Isn't that what it comes down to in the end. The parent is the
)responsible one, the one whose task it is to decide, and nobody should
)interfer with that choice. In this regard I like Amanda's recent post
)wishing for all kinds of schools, for all the different kinds of people
)and children and points of view, and beliefs.
)
It sounds like you would support the voucher system. At the risk of
sounding like a broken record, Anthroposophists' should work toward that
goal rather than "worm your way in" the public coffers.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n634.4 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Another quote
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 23:24:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Joels response to Deby:
)Debra Snell wrote:
)) Hi Joel,
)) I would think that the curriculum content would be a difficult area for you
)) to remain objective....Do you subscribe to the idea that Waldorf schools
)) are non-sectarian?
)) Deby
)
)Deby,
)
) Here is how I "see" Waldorf schools. They are formed by individuals
)(either teachers or parents) following an ideal, which is known both
)through the reading of books and seeing examples of other schools. This
)"ideal" is actually a hierarchy of ideas, and depending on the
)individuals who "form" the school, and those later who "carry" it as it
)grows, the school then appears as an attempt to realize these ideals.
) Fundamentally then a school is an activity of human beings striving to
)create something they value.
Which in this case are the teachings of Rudolf Steiner taught to these
"human beings" at one of the _official_ Steiner Colleges.
) Schools have a tendency to be similar due to the fact that there is a
)common pattern (the ideal), but each school is actually very different
)in execution, because the main character of the school comes from the
)people involved in it.
They are "similar" because they all come out of the same _mold_! Any
truely dedicated Waldorf teacher will strive to duplicate all the _essences
& nuances_ taught to them at the Steiner Colleges. The desire to show
oneself as a _pure_ Waldorf teacher that is very committed to Anthroposophy
to the school and staff is very important within the Waldorf/Anthroposophy
community. This is also _a requirement_ if a WE school is to be
officially sanctioned by AWSNA, and that santioning is the ultimate goal of
Anthroposophists.
)The central element is actually the children,
)whose individual natures determine everything else: for example the
)responses of the teachers and the parents.
In what way do the children's "individual natures" determine everything
else? Please explain more thoroughly.
) Now this relationship between ideal and execution is very complicated,
)but the so-called "waldorf-character" is actually only the surface
)part. A new school with rented spaces and young teachers is very
)different from an older school with a many years building program and
)master teachers.
Yea, the "master teachers" are much better at deception.
) The sectarian - non-sectarian question is way down my list of critical
)concerns. If Waldorf hadn't been around, I might have sent my kids to
)parochial school. I wasn't looking for them to be indoctrinated, one
)way or another, but to grow up beliving in themselves and able to make
)their own decisions.
Your above statement is an oxymoron, i.e., to send ones child to a
parochial school would be _indoctrinating_ them to the Catholic beliefs.
Why do you seem to think that public schools couldn't have your kids "grow
up believing in themselves and able to make their own decisions."? Why
can't you as a parent do that at home?
It seems that your choices for schooling are slanted to _religious_ based
schools (sectarian as opposed to non-sectarian). So again you contradict
yourself, which is an _oxymoron_!
) Now saying all this, I fully recognize that many people (teachers and
)parents) are more critically involved, love the details to an extreme
)and were intolerant of "fooling" with what they perceived as the
)"system". Mostly I looked the teachers in the eye, and tried to come to
)some sense of who they were as human beings - it was this that I felt
)was most important.
Yes, and the WE teachers I _looked in the eye_ were willing to treat me
and any other parents that questioned what they were doing and why in a
very alarming way. We were told we wouldn't understand as we didn't have
the proper training and perhaps we should attend some parent training
classes put on by the Anthroposophical staff to better understand where
they were coming from.
I _know_ where they are coming from now and I don't trust it, believe it,
and have no doubt that it is one of the most deceptive "quick silver"
organizations I've ever delt with.
) I was already an "anthroposophist" for very other reasons, before I
)even knew there were "waldorf schools".
I could have figured that one out, it's obvious, (and OK, just don't try
and convince me to be one).
) Now, I don't know if my approach was typical or atypical, or whatever.
)But it was how I thought about it.
) At the same time, I agree with what is said (generally) on the critics
)list about hiding the "philosophy". I think that is poor judgment.
Just when I'm ready to write you off, you finally say something that is
honest and true. (I'm not impling that you being an antroposophist is not
true or that your beliefs are not true, I just don't like the "hiding the
"philosophy" part about WE).
)Trying to force their way into the public sector is also poor judgment.
Right again.
)I am glad there is "resistance" but, truth to tell, I think there is
)something in Waldorf the critics don't see, and that essence will
)survive this crisis of growth and continue on to find itself many times
)chosen by parents as a place they want their children educated.
I disagree with "something in Waldorf the critics don't see". We are not
heartless, emotionless human-beings unable to choose "a place they want
their children educated.", that would be kind, considerate, caring, and
treat each child with respect and love.
In fact, all three public schools my kids have been to since taking them
out of WE are _all_ of that and _more_! And I know _where the ground is_,
what the teachers motives are and any concerns are dealt with in a very
caring and straight forward manner. NO HIDDEN AGENDA'S!!!
) Isn't that what it comes down to in the end. The parent is the
)responsible one, the one whose task it is to decide, and nobody should
)interfer with that choice. In this regard I like Amanda's recent post
)wishing for all kinds of schools, for all the different kinds of people
)and children and points of view, and beliefs.
Of course, just don't try and sell the WE mumbo jumbo to the public school
systems, or _at least_ be honest about the foundation of the curriculum,
but then that would show WE for what it is and it couldn't get public
funding.
)
)joel wendt
David Mckay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n634.5 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Admin: web counter turns 10,000
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 01:18:27 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The web counter on the PLANS site read 10,053 tonight (since August 12, 1996).
The daily average for the last month is 24 visitors per day.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n634.6 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf violates my parental rights
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 10:59:00 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199801110643.WAA07921 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199801130457.UAA14419 lists1.best.com)
)Deby Snell wrote:
). These kind of benefits drive me right off the edge. No one has
)) the right to concern themselves with _this_ aspect of my child without my
)) knowledge or consent. This is a religious concern that is of sectarian
)) nature.
)) Deby
)
)Deby,
)
) Could you say some more here? The teacher has some ideas about your
)child's sleep life. Another teacher, in public school, will also have
)ideas. Are you saying that ideas about your child's sleep life are bad
)in themselves? Or are you saying that a teacher should tell you all the
)ideas it has about your child so you can judge whether any are offensive
)or not. How far into the "mind" of any teacher (public or waldorf)
)should we be able to go ?
I am opposed to any public school that is based on any religious system.
I am offended by a school system [whose employees] do not respect my
personal religious freedom, exhibited by their open and public denial of
religious inclusion in my children's school, when the facts show
differently.
As a parent [in America], I have every right to expect full disclosure
regarding the content of Waldorf's religious beliefs. I expect information
to be given that will allow me to freely and knowingly choose my children's
spiritual path.
Masking Anthroposophy's hidden religious agenda by using non-sectarian
public education [as a vehicle] is despicable. The entire time the
Anthroposophists were inculcating my children with their own religious
belief system, they were denying it. I am outraged that I have been
steadily lied to (and about) while my experience has been publicly
invalidated.
)It would help me if you were to suggest some standard that applies
)equally to all teachers, as to what investigations of what lives in
)their minds we have a right to make.
It is actually simple, Joel. Adhere to the law. Read the State
Constitution and the U.S. Constitution for reference.
)
)joel wendt
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n634.7 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: How Waldorf inculcates Anthroposophy
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:11:28 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In Willi Aeppli's book, 'Teacher, Child and Waldorf Education'
(Anthroposophic Press, 1986), Mr Aeppli writes to Waldorf teachers:
"What does [A]nthroposophy become when it turns toward the developing man,
the child?
It becomes a real psychology and pedagogy, but again not as a psychological
system, but as a "method." Anthroposophy becomes a method of education
which each individual teacher must recreate in himself and adapt to the
inner and outer situation in which he finds himself. It is a path by which
the teacher can awaken his teaching forces. But it is a path of
self-education. Rudolf Steiner's pedagogical lectures and writings are of
particular help along this path. They present in concrete detail the
evolutionary stages through which a child must pass. These metamorphoses,
the result of exact research, are not simply new facts at the teacher's
disposal. They are means by which he may awaken to the children in his
environment. Anthroposophy is actually just another word for "Awakening."
Rudolf Steiner once said:
'Waldorf school education is not a pedigogical system, at all, but an art,
so that what exists in man is awakened. Actually,
Waldorf education does not even want to educate, but to awaken, for that is
what we are dealing with today, awakening. First the teachers must be
awakened, then the teachers must awaken the children and young people.'
Education is releasing and freeing, says Toxler, and the same can be said
of self-education. According to today's theory, however, the teacher must
take a barrage of exams, and he in turn must submit the children to exams,
as if anything significant were done for education that way." (PP.18,19.)
Reading further on page 20 & 21, Mr Aeppli continues:
An individual will be able to make the right use of freedom later, if as a
child, and in the most natural way, he is able to place himself under the
absolute authority of a well-liked adult, if he is able to feel respect for
an adult. The respect of a child for a particular person - which is
actually respect for the truth the way it is silently expressed by that
particular adult - is later transformed into the respect for the objective
truth, independent of any one human being.
Anthroposophy allows an individualto feel such truths, which are so
important in education, down to his toes, and that is only one example out
of many.
The educational system today can no longer be concerned with the new
devices constantly being built by and for experimental psychology.
Education is helped only when the teacher is shown how he can develop new
organs of perception. With them he can do more than ascertain the current
state of "how things are." He can follow the living processes in a child
with at least some idea of what is going on. Anthroposophy as psychology is
a path to that goal.
When Anthroposophy, on the other hand, turns to the world as a whole, it
becomes true world-knowledge. No one needs that more than the teacher - the
mediator between the child and the world. On him depends whether or not a
child awakens to the world in the right way."
posted by Deby Snell
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n634 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n635 --------------
001 - JoAnn Schwartz (jms mich. - Re: Another quote [long]
002 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Waldorf's Science
003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Heart=Pump as "Flat Earth" Belief
004 - "Daniel" (danielg nectar. - Re: Heart=Pump as "Flat Earth" Belief
005 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Church & State has no authority?
006 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: How Waldorf inculcates Anthroposophy
007 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Waldorf's Science
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n635.1 ---------------
From: JoAnn Schwartz (jms mich.com)
Subject: Re: Another quote [long]
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 18:24:40 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: (199801140548.VAA10720 lists1.best.com)
Dear list members,
I have several comments on the recent conversation between Joel and Deby.
I have tried to label all the participants to keep down confusion. For
those new to the list, I am a long time Waldorf parent. I am not an
anthroposophist.
Joel:
) Here is how I "see" Waldorf schools. They are formed by individuals
)(either teachers or parents) following an ideal, which is known both
)through the reading of books and seeing examples of other schools. This
)"ideal" is actually a hierarchy of ideas, and depending on the
)individuals who "form" the school, and those later who "carry" it as it
)grows, the school then appears as an attempt to realize these ideals.
[snip. Still Joel]
) Schools have a tendency to be similar due to the fact that there is a
)common pattern (the ideal), but each school is actually very different
)in execution, because the main character of the school comes from the
)people involved in it.
Deby:
)[snip] I have yet to see a Waldorf school that doesn't tell Fairy Tales
)in first grade, Ancient History (based on theosophy's world view) in
)fifth grade, etc. etc.
JoAnn:
Of course, the ideal Waldorf school spoken of by Joel above has a pattern
for the curiculum and so the schools will share these characteristics. BTW,
what is PLANS beef with fairy tales?? They beat the heck out of Dick and
Jane! I went to public school here in suburban Detroit and I distinctly
recall hearing, reading, _inhaling_ fairy tales in first, second and third
grade (all the "color" fairy books, _East of the sun, west of the moon_,
the complete Brothers Grimm (8 volumes! borrowed a volume at a time from
my paternal grandmother)), also lots of fables (Please, Br'er Fox, don't
throw me in that briar patch!). Fourth and fifth grade brought the
wonder of Greek & Roman mythology (no Norse and more's the pity -- I would
have adored it!) In fifth and sixth grade, my science teacher had us study and
write reports on ancient Sumeria, Egypt, Assyria, Persia, China, and India
(hmm...maybe he was a closet Theosophist??). So the Waldorf curiculum does not
seem that strange to me...
Deby:
)All Waldorf schools use Steiner's child development model (based on
)reincarnation) and "insights" to "help" (judge) children.
JoAnn:
Actually, if you leave out the reincarnation, Steiner's model of child
development is not at all weird. Lots of non-Waldorf educators advocate
non-academic kindergartens, postponement of formal academics until after
age seven, and other aspects of Waldorf pedagogy.
Deby:
)Some Waldorf schools may employ an administrator, but I've yet to hear of
)a Waldorf school that doesn't use that same strange (Steiner) version of
)consensus.
JoAnn:
Actually, the teachers and board at Detroit WS use a consensus process
remarkably like the consensus process used by the Society of Friends at my
alma mater (Earlham College in Indiana). Of course, to many Americans,
_consensus_ is a wierd concept (we should vote!).
Deby:
)A Waldorf school is a Waldorf school. All Waldorf schools have
)nature tables (alters). I'll bet there is at least one crystal in _every_
)Waldorf school. They all have silks. The kindare similar (tasteless).
)Most bake bread, if there is an oven available. All Waldorf schools teach
)the same method of painting (wet on wet color meditation exercises).
JoAnn:
Is there something wrong with recognizing and marking the passage of the
seasons? (nature tables are _not_ alters) Crystals? Silk? Pink? Bread?
Oatmeal and millet? (staples in our kindergarten.) In my experience, lots
of little kids _like_ "tasteless" food. My five year old subsists in large
part on cheese sandwiches, fruit, and vanilla or banana yoghurt.
Deby:
)They all believe in having the children copy (ad nauseum) into their main
)lesson books from the board.
JoAnn:
As I have noted before, as I look at my daughter's main lesson books and
the main lesson books of her classmates, I have seen things copied off the
board, and as many or more things not copied off the board (unless the children
were looking at really different boards :). As I have also noted before,
many students -- even college students -- copy the teacher's notes from
the board to fix an idea/concept/method in their mind.
[BIG SNIP]
Joel:
) Human beings don't know everything. So schools only reflect the
)present state of knowledge of a given time. Fifty years from now there
)are certain to be major differences, most of which we could not predict.
Deby:
)So you are under the impression that Waldorf schools curriculum changes?
)Give me some examples of how Waldorf's curriculum has changed over the
)past 75 years.
JoAnn:
At DWS, the history and culture of Africa has been woven into the fabric
of the curriculum, including African dance and drumming. (Bet they didn't do
that in Stuttgart!)
Joel:
) So my question as a parent is: will my child like his school, and will
)his school (teachers and peers) like him. No philosophy will force a
)student to learn better than any other, while one or another point of
)view may be more supportive of what lives in the child and how that
)unfolds.
Deby:
)Joel, I want all that _and_ more. I want a solid academic foundation
)based on real science and history. And a school whose foundation for
)teaching academics and socialization is based on ethics and morals, not
)hidden religious dogma.
JoAnn:
Some of us with children in Waldorf schools think we _are_ getting all
that and more! After the fourth grade study of Detroit history, my
daughter knows more about it than I do. She has walked the old battlefields,
role played the great fire, and "lived" it through the imaginative
presentation of her teacher. Instead of spending 8 years studying
arithmatic, she will spend time with plane and solid geometry as well as
simple algebra. She will be exposed to basic physics (optics, acoustics,
magnetism) and basic chemistry. I believe she will come out of DWS with a
very solid academic foundation. This is not just my opinion. It was
confirmed by an independent accredation agency -- the same one that looks
to accredit other independent schools in the Great Lakes region. It is
also the opinion of many area high school teachers. Every year our
graduates enter and excel at some of the toughest, most competitive public
and private high schools in the metro Detroit area.
I also believe the school _is_ based on ethical and moral principals, nor
do I find the role of Steiner and anthroposophy to be "hidden religious
dogma". Well, at least not hidden or religious -- some teachers (even at
my paragon of a school) do tend to be a bit dogmatic.
Again, your milage may vary. All Waldorf schools are _not_ alike, no
matter how many times Deby and other critics chant the mantra. You need to
check out the individual school.
Joel:
)Trying to force their way into the public sector is also poor judgment.
Deby:
Two things we agree on..
JoAnn:
Believe it or not, even I agree on this one. As an aside, the Arts in
Academics program cited by Deby as a public Waldorf school (in the Detroit
Public Schools) is no longer referring to itself as Waldorf-inspired. I may
have more to post on this in the future.
Joel:
) Isn't that what it comes down to in the end. The parent is the
)responsible one, the one whose task it is to decide, and nobody should
)interfer with that choice. In this regard I like Amanda's recent post
)wishing for all kinds of schools, for all the different kinds of people
)and children and points of view, and beliefs.
Deby:
)It sounds like you would support the voucher system. At the risk of
)sounding like a broken record, Anthroposophists' should work toward that
)goal rather than "worm your way in" the public coffers.
JoAnn:
Vouchers would be good. Other alternative methods of paying for the
education would be good. But Deby, given the context of the "worm your way
in" quote given here recently, shouldn't you drop that line, at least for
funding?? Steiner neither sought nor received public funding for the
original Waldorf school. Many of us are following that example in our own
"free and independent" Waldorf schools.
Warmly,
JoAnn Schwartz, Detroit Waldorf School parent
(jms mich.com) Detroit MI USA
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n635.2 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Waldorf's Science
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 19:35:52 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
"Rudolf Steiner once said: "The child longs to grasp the devine in nature
and in the history of mankind." Experience confirms these words a
thousandfold. It is just as certain that no child longs for a dogma, for a
religious denomination, for a political or other kind of program; he longs
neither for pacifism nor nationalism. What he does want is to grasp the
spiritual influences on nature and on world history, for they are food for
his soul. Rudolf Steiner disclosed the importance of the subject matter
when he said that it must act as a medicine in the hand of the teacher.
That shows us just how far we still have to go to achieve true education.
Or is someone bold enough to claim that he can meet this challenge?
Goethe can act as our guide part of the way, particularly with his
"metamorphosis of plants" and his "theory of color." They can be
significant because they school perception and thought in the right way.
They are meaningful as methods, however, and not as systems. Goethe did not
consider it important to arrange and classify things neatly and properly.
It was the metamorphosis which was important, in other words, the
transition from one form of nature to the other. For this a living, active
thinking must be developed. For Goethe, formulating theories was secondary
to perceiving the original phenomena. That is possible, however, only
through a proper schooling of the faculties of perception. It is wrong to
believe that these faculties of perception are being educated in today's
schools. What follows is a small example out of the science of optics: In
many basic physics textbooks we find the bold statement, "The beam of white
light is refracted by the prism into seven colors." That is presented to
the student as though engraved in stone, when in fact it is one of Newton's
theories, which even he had to admit was not yet conclusively proven.
Newton's color theory is the classic example of a scientific
Weltanschauung, and it is now taught to children without a second thought.
Goethe took quite a different approach. With his heightened faculties of
perception and with the help of experiments, he was able to perceive the
original phenomena: [T]hose manifestations which, because they have been
reduced to the simplest elements, express their essence the most clearly.
The original phenomenon of light, however, speaks a completely different
language from that of Newton's theory. The teacher schooled in Goethe will
no longer introduce optics by presenting his students with a theory.
Instead he will lead them slowly back to the original phenomena, so that
these themselves will experience their essence, and thereby the essence of
light, to the child. Now, imagine a healthy child, still very engrossed
with color, reading the following sentence in a physics textbook: Red and
green make white, just as blue and orange or yellow and purple make white.
When such a child reads these theories, he will be greatly amazed and will
call out excitedly: "But that's not true at all! When you mix those colors
together you end up with a muddy color, not white."
"What I have just related is no hypothesis, but a very personal classroom
experience".
Willie Aeppli, Teacher, Child and Waldorf Education, Anthroposophic
Press,1986.(PP.22 & 23).
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n635.3 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Heart=Pump as "Flat Earth" Belief
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 01:03:59 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Tom Mellett, you said,
)What a
)good scientist would say about the heart is:
)
) " The human heart can, to a good first approximation, be seen to
)operate as if it were a mechanical pump."
)
) Now consider the statement I've read on the Critics' List:
)
) "The human heart is nothing but a mechanical pump. Period. Case
)closed!"
I don't recall anyone ever making that statement on waldorf-critics, Tom. I
guess that's why your "quote" has no attribution. But I'm not going to
argue with the spirit of it. To the best of my knowledge, and I'm ready to
be corrected by a cardiologist if I'm wrong, the heart is unique among the
organs of the body in having only one function, that of pumping blood. All
the wishful thinking and pseudo-scientific smoke-blowing in the world isn't
going to change that fact of nature, Tom.
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n635.4 ---------------
From: "Daniel" (danielg nectar.com.au)
Subject: Re: Heart=Pump as "Flat Earth" Belief
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 23:21:28 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Dan,
Does feeling have its home in the heart?
daniel.
----------
) From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) Subject: Re: Heart=Pump as "Flat Earth" Belief
) Date: Thursday, 15 January 1998 20:03
)
) Tom Mellett, you said,
)
) )What a
) )good scientist would say about the heart is:
) )
) ) " The human heart can, to a good first approximation, be seen to
) )operate as if it were a mechanical pump."
) )
) ) Now consider the statement I've read on the Critics' List:
) )
) ) "The human heart is nothing but a mechanical pump. Period. Case
) )closed!"
)
) I don't recall anyone ever making that statement on waldorf-critics, Tom.
I
) guess that's why your "quote" has no attribution. But I'm not going to
) argue with the spirit of it. To the best of my knowledge, and I'm ready
to
) be corrected by a cardiologist if I'm wrong, the heart is unique among
the
) organs of the body in having only one function, that of pumping blood.
All
) the wishful thinking and pseudo-scientific smoke-blowing in the world
isn't
) going to change that fact of nature, Tom.
)
) Sincerely, Dan Dugan
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n635.5 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Church & State has no authority?
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 09:02:29 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Again, quoting Willi Aeppli in his book, 'Teacher, Child and Waldorf
Education', Aeppli says:(PP.17,18)
"For the teacher to help the child in a truly educational way, he must use
his own fully awakened forces. No one can order or forbid these forces,
which are valuable only for education. It is just as impossible to submit
them to an examination and evaluate them on a scale of A-F. Can an expert
evaluate the strength of an applicant's moral forces? It is nevertheless
these very forces on which teaching depends.They are intangible, but then
education consists of many intangibles.
Out of such insights Troxler once dared to say the following:
The spirit, however, as all living things, stays only where earth and air
ensure it an undisturbed self-development.
To Gugler:
I still dare to claim publicly, even in these times, that what you call
church and state have no authority over the school system or the education
of man.
The school is a living being, and a well structured organism and cannot be
determined by decrees and experiments. Its makeup is a force of nature and
ideas.
Free is that education which strives to be purely human in all subjects,
and which in this striving neither incurs nor endures interference from the
outside. [Such educational freedom] will not be blocked by any state
regulation or constitution, for this freedom is an essential requirement
and a basic condition of the republic. Nowhere does a citizen feel more
human than in free nations, and nowhere else does he have a greater
responsibility, as well as right, to be a human being.
Only this radical revolution in the school system, in your compatriots, in
your most human citizens, can release and free you."
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n635.6 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: How Waldorf inculcates Anthroposophy
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:12:39 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On 1/14/98, Deby wrote:
)In Willi Aeppli's book, 'Teacher, Child and Waldorf Education'
)(Anthroposophic Press, 1986), Mr Aeppli writes to Waldorf teachers:
)
)"What does [A]nthroposophy become when it turns toward the developing man,
)the child?
)It becomes a real psychology and pedagogy, but again not as a psychological
)system, but as a "method." Anthroposophy becomes a method of education
)which each individual teacher must recreate in himself and adapt to the
)inner and outer situation in which he finds himself. It is a path by which
)the teacher can awaken his teaching forces. But it is a path of
)self-education. Rudolf Steiner's pedagogical lectures and writings are of
)particular help along this path.
)They present in concrete detail the
)evolutionary stages through which a child must pass. These metamorphoses,
)the result of exact research, are not simply new facts at the teacher's
)disposal.
What "concrete detail"? This is another example of Anthroposophical
_opinions_ being twisted into some kind of absolute fact as the next
sentence above shows; "...the result
of exact research, are not simply new facts at the teacher's disposal."
Again, what
"exact research"?
)They are means by which he may awaken to the children in his
)environment. Anthroposophy is actually just another word for "Awakening."
)Rudolf Steiner once said:
)
)'Waldorf school education is not a pedigogical system, at all, but an art,
)so that what exists in man is awakened. Actually,
)Waldorf education does not even want to educate, but to awaken, for that is
)what we are dealing with today, awakening. First the teachers must be
)awakened, then the teachers must awaken the children and young people.'
As Steiner even admits above, WE _is not_ for the purpose of educating
children in the classical sense, but in the mold of Anthroposophy.
)Reading further on page 20 & 21, Mr Aeppli continues:
)
)
)An individual will be able to make the right use of freedom later, if as a
)child, and in the most natural way, he is able to place himself under the
)absolute authority of a well-liked adult, if he is able to feel respect for
)an adult. The respect of a child for a particular person - which is
)actually respect for the truth the way it is silently expressed by that
)particular adult - is later transformed into the respect for the objective
)truth, independent of any one human being.
So the "method" of inculcating the children in Anthroposophy becomes very
clear here. First, the child is "held" by the kindergarden teacher whom
prepares the children for the "grades" teacher to take these children
"through the grades" (1st-8th). The _importance_
of the teachers ability to be "well liked" and "respected" for "the truth"
in "the way it is silently expressed" as well as being a major infulence
during the childrens most formative years for _eight_ years is not to be
taken lightly!
I have no doubt that any child that goes through this Anthroposophical
inculcalation will
be an Anthroposophist whether they know it/admit it or not!
)
)Anthroposophy allows an individual to feel such truths, which are so
)important in education, down to his toes, and that is only one example out
)of many.
The above doesn't say "A person" or "parent" for "such truths", instead it
shows the importance of "Anthroposophy" for any individual to "feel such
truths" as a prerequisite
to education. I don't think so.
[snip]
)
)When Anthroposophy, on the other hand, turns to the world as a whole, it
)becomes true world-knowledge. No one needs that more than the teacher - the
)mediator between the child and the world. On him depends whether or not a
)child awakens to the world in the right way."
The "right way"!?!? The "mediator between the child and the world"!?!? It
is no wonder that I and many others have been told by WE teachers in one
way or another that our children would be better off if we (parents) would
stay out of our childrens education!
This pretentious, arrogant and decietfull behavior by WE/Anthroposophists
is reprehensible!
)
)posted by Deby Snell
David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n635.7 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Waldorf's Science
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 12:12:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Deby posted:
[snip]
)Goethe can act as our guide part of the way, particularly with his
)"metamorphosis of plants" and his "theory of color." They can be
)significant because they school perception and thought in the right way.
)They are meaningful as methods, however, and not as systems. Goethe did not
)consider it important to arrange and classify things neatly and properly.
)It was the metamorphosis which was important, in other words, the
)transition from one form of nature to the other. For this a living, active
)thinking must be developed. For Goethe, formulating theories was secondary
)to perceiving the original phenomena. That is possible, however, only
)through a proper schooling of the faculties of perception. It is wrong to
)believe that these faculties of perception are being educated in today's
)schools. What follows is a small example out of the science of optics: In
)many basic physics textbooks we find the bold statement, "The beam of white
)light is refracted by the prism into seven colors." That is presented to
)the student as though engraved in stone, when in fact it is one of Newton's
)theories, which even he had to admit was not yet conclusively proven.
)Newton's color theory is the classic example of a scientific
)Weltanschauung, and it is now taught to children without a second thought.
)Goethe took quite a different approach. With his heightened faculties of
)perception and with the help of experiments, he was able to perceive the
)original phenomena: [T]hose manifestations which, because they have been
)reduced to the simplest elements, express their essence the most clearly.
)The original phenomenon of light, however, speaks a completely different
)language from that of Newton's theory. The teacher schooled in Goethe will
)no longer introduce optics by presenting his students with a theory.
)Instead he will lead them slowly back to the original phenomena, so that
)these themselves will experience their essence, and thereby the essence of
)light, to the child. Now, imagine a healthy child, still very engrossed
)with color, reading the following sentence in a physics textbook: Red and
)green make white, just as blue and orange or yellow and purple make white.
)When such a child reads these theories, he will be greatly amazed and will
)call out excitedly: "But that's not true at all! When you mix those colors
)together you end up with a muddy color, not white."
)
)"What I have just related is no hypothesis, but a very personal classroom
)experience".
What Willie Aeppli has just shown is his ignorance from not having a
complete or proper education or his abandonment of such knowledge for quack
Anthroposophical hog wash. There are two methods of mixing colors,
additive and subtractive, depending on whether one is doing the mixing
using light, pygments or dye-stuff, different results will be attained.
To miss-lead children with half-truths or mis-information is inexcusable!
)
)Willie Aeppli, Teacher, Child and Waldorf Education, Anthroposophic
)Press,1986.(PP.22 & 23).
David McKay
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n635 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n636 --------------
001 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Waldorf Teacher Indoctrination
002 - Nnsandplay (Nnsandplay ao - Re: Urban Waldorf Schools was 'Clarification' on 1/10/98
003 - Nnsandplay (Nnsandplay ao - Re: Prohibition of Visual Aids
004 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Waldorf violates my parental rights
005 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Blind mentor teaches kids
006 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Was "Another Quote" is now "another story"
007 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Blind mentor teaches kids
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n636.1 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Waldorf Teacher Indoctrination
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 19:23:58 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199801150000.QAA23549 lists1.best.com)
Deby Snell posts:
Willi Aeppli's book, 'Teacher, Child and Waldorf Education'
) (Anthroposophic Press, 1986), Mr Aeppli writes to Waldorf teachers:
)
) 'Waldorf school education is not a pedigogical system, at all, but an art,
) so that what exists in man is awakened. Actually,
) Waldorf education does not even want to educate, but to awaken, for that is
) what we are dealing with today, awakening. First the teachers must be
) awakened, then the teachers must awaken the children and young people.'
So, when I was made to communicate silently, chant, march, walk
rhythmically, etc., etc., I was being *awakened*. And what was I being
awakened to??? Well, Anthroposophy, of course. And Rudolf Steiner
College has the _audacity_ to sell their "Public School Teachers
Training" with the false advertising that it is non-sectarian.
) Education is releasing and freeing, says Toxler, and the same can be said
) of self-education. According to today's theory, however, the teacher must
) take a barrage of exams, and he in turn must submit the children to exams,
) as if anything significant were done for education that way." (PP.18,19.)
As usual, the Anthroposphist author denigrates public education, both on
the primary/secondary level and then on the university level. Why?
Because only the Anthropsophists know the *truth* about what is
"significant" for education to occur. _And_ they deny the label of being
"cult-like!"
) Reading further on page 20 & 21, Mr Aeppli continues:
)
) An individual will be able to make the right use of freedom later, if as a
) child, and in the most natural way, he is able to place himself under the
) absolute authority of a well-liked adult, if he is able to feel respect for
) an adult. The respect of a child for a particular person - which is
) actually respect for the truth the way it is silently expressed by that
) particular adult - is later transformed into the respect for the objective
) truth, independent of any one human being.
So, let's see if I can get this straight. An individual will be able to
utilize freedom (*rightly utilize freedom*) in a natural way, if he is
placed under the "absolute authority" of a respected adult. And . . .
this is actually respect for the truth and later becomes the objective
truth. Hmmmm. Would this be the classroom teacher that the Waldorf child
is indoctrinated by for the first 8 years of her education?
It would seem that the followers of Jim Jones, adults and children
alike, respected and submitted to his absolute authority and, quite
apparently, viewed his teachings as the truth. The same holds true for
the followers of David Karesh, Do (of Heaven's Gate), and other more
innocuous cult leaders. The pattern is the same. Who holds the truth?
The Waldorf teacher. What does the "student" obtain by following and
learning from this respected individual? The path to the one, objective
truth. And ultimately, what does this lead to? Freedom. Same old
message, same old techniques, the surrounding decor, the shape of the
"truth," and the guru simply differs from sect to sect.
)
) The educational system today can no longer be concerned with the new
) devices constantly being built by and for experimental psychology.
) Education is helped only when the teacher is shown how he can develop new
) organs of perception. With them he can do more than ascertain the current
) state of "how things are." He can follow the living processes in a child
) with at least some idea of what is going on. Anthroposophy as psychology is
) a path to that goal.
I guess I should have been developing new organs of perception during
those chantings, sharing of traumatic childhood experiences, silent
communing, etc. And to think I wasted all those public monies by not
"going with the program."
)
) When Anthroposophy, on the other hand, turns to the world as a whole, it
) becomes true world-knowledge. No one needs that more than the teacher - the
) mediator between the child and the world. On him depends whether or not a
) child awakens to the world in the right way."
Anthroposophy - true world knowledge. How can any defender of WE or
Anthroposophy deny that this is a religion or support the continued
funding of such with money from the public coffers in the United States?
The lack of integrity and the dishonesty here is mind staggering. Truly,
my civil rights have been violated by forcing me to submit to training
based on these beliefs.
I haven't the words to express how offensive it is to me to read
excerpts such as these. It sickens me to think that I was a pawn to the
hidden agenda of an organization that thinks along the lines of those
expressed by this author.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n636.2 ---------------
From: Nnsandplay (Nnsandplay aol.com)
Subject: Re: Urban Waldorf Schools was 'Clarification' on 1/10/98
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 1998 22:39:35 EST
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Kathy,
Please excuse the delay in responding to your letter of 1/10/96 in which you
suggested that Waldorf ideas were being propigated in urban public schools
because the parents there are more likely to be uninvolved in their children's
education and therefore not complain when the SWA's move in in order to get
more money than they would otherwise. (This is a paraphrase, as I still don't
know how to edit out and attach a piece of a post using AOL. I think it
accurately portrays your concerns though.)
You mention that gang members and young people who have been in trouble are
offered fairy tales because the Waldorf school teachers say that the children
aren't able or aren't ready to do anything more challenging. I recently
attended a weekend conference at Sunbridge College in Spring Valley, NY on
Thinking in the Waldorf School movement - how we teach children to think, or
something like that.
One of the speakers told the story of reading the diary of a teacher who had
begun to work in a Waldorf school (I don't know if it was a charter, or
Waldorf- inspired, but I think it was not a private Waldorf or Camphill
school). This teacher was faced with a class of angry, disheartened
adolescents. They were not interested in the lessons they had up to that
point, and had learned to tune out the teacher very effectively. This teacher
began to tell stories, I think fairy tales, and I believe by the end of the
week, the atmosphere in the class had turned around. These students became
students. They became involved, they began to think and to care about what
happened in the class. They initiated discussion about the stories, how they
related to their lives, what they would do in the place of the hero or
heroine, etc. She assigned written work based on the issues raised in class,
and it was done with some enthusiasm.
As you probably remember I am a convinced long-time Waldorf parent, so you may
take this with a grain of salt. However, I also do play therapy with children
and my sister has had a twenty-five year career educating young people with
serious behavioral problems. It seems to me that unless one respe