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 cho