return to WCA Archive Index
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n679 --------------
001 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Re: RS-tube
002 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - MELLETT ADMITS HEART IS PUMP!!
003 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: MELLETT ADMITS HEART IS PUMP!!
004 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: MELLETT ADMITS HEART IS PUMP!!
005 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Re: MELLETT ADMITS HEART IS PUMP!!
006 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - God's legal troubles may help PLANS
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n679.1 ---------------
From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Re: RS-tube
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 23:58:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 10.03 98-02-28, Manfred Hoss wrote:
)Dear Mr. Hallstrom,
)
)you're writing about looking in the "RS-tube" to see, if Steiner was
)right or wrong. If I would look in the "RS-tube", would I have the
)same experiences like Rudolf Steiner or would they be different? If
)they would be different, would this proof, that Steiner was wrong?
)
)Sincerely, Manfred Hoss.
Dear Mr Hoss
Let me cite a line from the movie Forest Gump: Life is like a box of
chocolates, you never know what you=B4re gonna get!
True science is like that too; you can predict an outcome, but you never
really know for sure until you try it out. It goes for most things in life.
So what your experiences would be, would you try develop your soul
faculties, we will not know until you do so, and report back to us.
But if your experiences would be different from those of RS that would of
course not necessarily prove that any of you are "wrong", but it would be
all the more interesting for all of us who judge by our own insight, and
understanding capacity, and not by what anyone says.
Sincerely,
Per Hallstr=F6m
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n679.2 ---------------
From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: MELLETT ADMITS HEART IS PUMP!!
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 18:39:10 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
------------------------------------------
DATELINE: February 28, 1998
SPECIAL TO: The Akasha Chronicle
BY: Harvey Avatar
------------------------------------------
MELLETT ADMITS HEART IS PUMP!
-------------
DORNACH IN DISARRAY AS "LOOSE CANNON" SHOOTS AGAIN!
-------------
WILL WALDORF EDUCATION SURVIVE THIS SHOCKING REVELATION?
In a stunning exclusive interview with this reporter for the occult
newspaper, "The Akasha Chronicle," Tom "Loose Cannon" Mellett, the always
erratic, sometimes erotic, but seldom coherent apologist for Rudolf Steiner
and Anthroposophy has finally admitted for the record that "the heart is
actually a pump!"
When news of this stunning admission reached the mysterious
powers-that-be at the mysterious Goetheanum Building, the mysterious
cosmos-wide HQ of the mysterious Anthroposophical Society (AS), located
high on a non-mysterious hill in Dornach, Switzerland, the mysterious Chief
Executive of the AS, Gustavus Adolphus Geschwindigkeitsgrenze issued this
mysterious statement in heavily accented English:
"Vee haff no record of zee existence of such an being as zis Herr
Mellett. Vee are also not concerned vedder dis heart is eider a pump or an
apfel-strudel. Vee haff more important issues to vorry about, such as zee
serious vorld-vide shortage of eurythmy veils."
Such patently false denials have long fed the persistent rumors of
Mellett's actual status as an Occult Agent for the Cosmic Intelligence
Agency (CIA) and its central European branch known as the Dornach Mystery
Police (DMP). Therefore, this reporter decided to open the interview with
a direct question to Mellett about his agent status.
The interview took place in the back of Mellett's obvious business
front for the CIA, a cheesy, sleazy, erotic paraphernalia shop called "The
Fructifier's Warehouse."
AVATAR: Mr. Mellett, Let's cut to the chase right away. Are you an Occult
Agent of the CIA in the DMP?
MELLETT: Yes. I thought everybody knew that.
AVATAR: Well, I didn't. Could you elaborate, please?
MELLETT: I started out as a regular agent 20 years ago, but unfortunately
I've always been far too sexually active for my own good. Very early in my
agent's career, I was caught in a compromising position with a woman at
Rudolf Steiner College who told me she was a reincarnated Mystery Temple of
Ephesus Prostitute, but who actually turned out herself to be an agent of
the infamous Dugananda Cult of Self-Promotion, an organization dedicated to
preventing the infiltration by health, wealth and stealth of Waldorf
Education into the public schools of America.
AVATAR: What happened?
MELLETT: Well, she really blew my cover, if you know what I mean. I
then had to become a double agent for them. So I returned to Dornach to
gather intelligence for the Duganandas, but then I was seduced by a
beguiling Mata Hari type eurythmist who demanded truth for sex. Hey, I'm
easy about stuff like that, so I told her everything, whereupon she
reported me to the Vorstand and then I had to beg them to become a triple
agent. They finally agreed, but then they lost the paperwork, and now both
sides claim me and frankly, I don't even know which side I'm on any more.
They're still fighting over it to this day!
AVATAR: Allright, then. So what's all this stuff about the heart being a
pump after all? It sounds like a bona fide conversion experience.
MELLETT: Not really. I got to thinking about the simple question: Just
what is a pump? I remembered the last time I had to use a mechanical pump,
last semester in the physics lab at UT Austin where I had to degas (create
a partial vacuum in) 500 ml of water for a sonoluminescence experiment.
When I first clicked the switch for the pump, nothing happened. So I had
to get down under the lab table and check the wiring. Someone had turned
off the surge protector. Once I got that on, the pump started pumping.
Now it is typical for us to think that all the pump consists of is
the obviously visible part that can be unplugged, put in a crate and
shipped somewhere. But in actuality, the system of the pump must also
include the energy that powers it. In this case, the pump's electric cord
with plug goes into the wall socket, which is connected to the local power
grid in the city. The grid in turn is powered by some coal-burning plant
about 100 miles east of here, so that the system of the WORKING pump must
include a power source that is 100 miles away!
At the other end, you have me as the monitor of the pump, who turns
it on or off and makes sure it runs smoothly and for the proper time.
Therefore, I, as monitor, must also be included in the entire system of the
pump.
And that is exactly how Steiner describes the action of the human
heart. He said it wasn't a pump, only because he was speaking 80 years ago
when people of that time had the belief that the human body was like a
coal-burning factory of the Industrial Revolution.
AVATAR: If the heart is NOT a pump, then what did Steiner say that it
actually IS?
MELLETT: He said it was more like a sense organ, in that it perceives the
condition of the blood and regulates the pumping rhythm accordingly. That's
the equivalent of me as the monitor with the vacuum pump.
AVATAR: But what about the power source? Where's the electric plant for
the heart?
MELLETT: It's hard to see this in creatures with hearts after they are
born, because the "plugging in" occurs way back in the early embryonic
stages of the organism. There we see that the blood circulation appears
first. Only later on, does the structure of the physical heart appear.
Therefore, we could say that the mechanical pump structure of the heart is
actually created by the circulation!
AVATAR: But aren't you overlooking the fact that an embryo in a womb is
receiving the blood circulation from the mother's heart?
MELLETT: Excellent point and your point would definitely refute Steiner's
claim entirely except for the fact that this same "blood circulation
appearing before physical heart structure" also occurs in a chick embryo
fully enclosed within its hard calcium shell, very disconnected from its
mother hen's blood supply.
AVATAR: But isn't the creation of the chick heart simply pre-programmed in
its DNA code?
MELLETT: Yes, but the DNA code is like the architect's drawing of a house,
compared to the actual house itself. In between you must have the building
contractor who actually gets the physical material together and builds the
house, and that's where we see the energy source of the heart.
AVATAR: I see. So the DNA is a blueprint, but something else carries out
the building of the heart.
MELLETT: Right, and that something is the circulation of the blood itself.
AVATAR: We're back to our old chicken-egg question again.
MELLETT: Actually, it's was beyond the eggshell. In fact, the source of
the circulation of all the blood for all the hearts that exist in mammals
on the planet earth is located at the infinite periphery of the entire
universe. That's where the souorce of energy is and all the building
contractors who build up every cell in every living organism according to
the DNA blueprints.
AVATAR: What? That's crazy! That is pure mysticism. Nonsense!
Pseudo-science!
MELLETT: Well, I'd say it used to be pure mysticism. Now it's the
beginning of a true science of the organic realm.
AVATAR: How can you make such an assertion?
MELLETT: Do you know anything about the up and coming fields of chaos
studies, complexity theory, especially focusing on the area of
self-similarity of scale that is expressed by fractals?
AVATAR: Yes, it looks very nice and artsy, but not very scientific I'm afraid.
MELLETT: Add in Projective Geometery and you've got an explanation for how
the circulation not only pumps the heart, but actually creates it.
AVATAR: This I've got to hear!
MELLETT: All right, tell me this. Are we mutually exclusive?
AVATAR: What?
MELLETT: I mean, we are separated, aren't we?
AVATAR: Yes, I'm sitting over here and you're pacing around over there.
MELLETT: OK, but what is the boundary that separates us?
AVATAR: Our skin.
MELLETT: Right. But is the boundary of our skin so impermeable that we
are in essence, mutually exclusive?
AVATAR: I guess so. What are you driving at?
MELLETT: Well, our skin is an organ, isn't it? And since we sweat, it's
certainly very permeable to the outside environment. We know all that, but
I want you to go deeper and consider a microscopic picture of the skin.
AVATAR: It would be very lumpy.
MELLETT: Yes, if we were to magnify the picture further and further, we
would find that the boundary would melt away. At the atomic and nuclear
level, it would disappear entirely, and finally at the level of the photon,
it would cease to have any meaning whatsoever as a boundary.
AVATAR: All right, I can agree, but that's such a vastly different scale
of things.
MELLETT: True enough, but in the study of fractals and non-linear
dynamics, we find that living systems self-organize by overcoming the
limitations of scale. That's called self-similarity and it makes no
difference whether the scale is down to the micro-level of nuclear
particles or else out to the far reaches of the universe that
astrophysicists study. Life and living systems are INDEPENDENT OF SCALE.
AVATAR: All right, but so what? And what does that have to do with the
circulation of the blood?
MELLETT: It means that the circulation of the blood has its source all
around us, out there at the far ends of the universe, by our spatial
reckoning a billion billion billion light years away in all directions, to
echo Carl Sagan.
AVATAR: That's ridicuolous.
MELLETT: It's only ridiculous to our one-sided pointwise conception of space.
AVATAR: How do you mean? And what is pointwise?
MELLETT: In regular geometry, we know that a line is made up of a bunch of
points. And that a plane is made up of a bunch of lines, right?
AVATAR: Right, but what does geometry have to do with it?
MELLETT: Everything, actually, as long as you look at Projective Geometry,
where a whole bunch of planes can meet together in such a way as to make
only one point. That's called the dual form in PG. Also in PG, parallel
lines do meet and they meet at one point which is called the point at
infinity, but it's also a plane at infinity, too. You see, scale doesn't
matter in PG just as scale doesn't matter to living systems. That's why PG
can express the new organic sciences that are growing out of the present
fractals, chaos & complexity studies.
AVATAR: I'm still not convinced and it sounds all too complicated and
weird for me. Therefore, let's change the subject back to sex.
MELLETT: Fine with me.
AVATAR: I've read reports that you claim to have had oral sex with
hundreds of women. Is that true?
MELLETT: I must admit it, yes, it's true.
AVATAR: That is shocking, Mr. Mellett, but please tell me more because
otherwise this issue won't sell at all.
MELLETT: You see, over the years I've asked hundreds of women if they
would like to have sex with me, and almost all of them said NO!
AVATAR: Yes, go on. Then what happened?
MELLETT: Well, that was the oral sex.
AVATAR: What do you mean, oral sex?
MELLETT: They said NO to me. You know--- speaking with their mouths. Orally.
AVATAR: That's it?
MELLETT: That's it.
AVATAR: That's bullshit! You know what I was expecting to hear.
MELLETT: I know. Let this be a lesson to you, Mr. Avatar, be careful what
you think others mean by their words. It's very possible to project your
own expectations and connotations onto others.
AVATAR: All right. What about the few who said yes?
MEKLLETT: Ah, those I have on videotape. Would you like to buy one?
AVATAR: What if my wife finds out?
MELLETT: Tell her you're doing research on the blood circulation coming in
from the boundaries of the universe and pumping the heart. Tell her that if
you and she watch it together, the universe will pump both your hearts a
lot faster.
AVATAR: Hey, yeah! That sounds romantic. She might just go for that.
But... off the record, Mr. Mellett... can I confess something to you?
MELLETT; Yes, Harvey, go right ahead.
AVATAR: I can get it up all right, but I can't keep it up. My wife says I
should get a special kind of pump, and since you know so much about pumps
and operate this warehouse, I wonder....
MELLETT: Sure, we sell those in the front. Over there by the edible
underwear. Now these are mechanical pumps, Harvey, so they are completely
self-enclosed. Nothing cosmic about a lifeless machine. So you have to
provide the energy and you do the monitoring. Takes a little practic, but
I guarantee results. A few squeezes s on this rubber bulb and pretty soon
the whole universe will be pumping your heart and your wife's heart in
unison.
AVATAR: Hey, sounds great. That reminds me. Next week I want to interview
you about the Big Bang. What did you say it was?
MELLETT: God's orgasm.
AVATAR: Hey, forget about God. This pump better work for MY orgasm.
MELLETT: Harvey, I guarantee it. You'll be coming like the messiah. Maybe
even a second coming, but I can't guarantee that. But I know your wife will
worship you for it.
AVATAR: On that note, let me turn this tape recorder off and show me the
pumps you got.
[CLICK}
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n679.3 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: MELLETT ADMITS HEART IS PUMP!!
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 23:08:42 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199803010039.QAA19917 lists1.best.com)
Tom,
Has anyone ever mentioned the word "manic" when describing your personality?
Just curious.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n679.4 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: MELLETT ADMITS HEART IS PUMP!!
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 20:18:42 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199803010039.QAA19917 lists1.best.com)
Tom Mellett wrote:
)------------------------------------------
)DATELINE: February 28, 1998
)SPECIAL TO: The Akasha Chronicle
)BY: Harvey Avatar
)------------------------------------------
)
)
) MELLETT ADMITS HEART IS PUMP!
) -------------
) DORNACH IN DISARRAY AS "LOOSE CANNON" SHOOTS AGAIN!
) -------------
)WILL WALDORF EDUCATION SURVIVE THIS SHOCKING REVELATION?
)
[the rest is expurgated to protect our tender readers from having to face
Mellett's depravity again]
KOPP says:
Maybe there was something to the Communications Decency Act after all.
I thought this was a "G"-rated list.
How can I let my tender young teenagers, exposed to years of SWA
brainwashing, read this list as therapy to correct their warped minds, if
Mellett is allowed to rave on like a lunatic?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n679.5 ---------------
From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Re: MELLETT ADMITS HEART IS PUMP!!
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 13:29:45 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199803010039.QAA19917 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199803010705.XAA22661 lists1.best.com)
)Tom,
)Has anyone ever mentioned the word "manic" when describing your personality?
)Just curious.
---------------------
Dear Deby,
Yes. Got any Lithium?
Tom.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n679.6 ---------------
From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: God's legal troubles may help PLANS
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 14:33:33 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199803010039.QAA19917 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199803011837.KAA26335 lists1.best.com)
The following press release was issued by Heaven last week.
Whatever the outcome of the possible impeachment proceedings against God,
it is safe to assume that God will be distracted from the full attention He
needs to give to the PLANS vs. Waldorf lawsuit. As one Waldorf teacher put
it: "It always helps to have God on your side like we do, but to have God
impeached like this? It doesn't bode well for us in the PLANS lawsuit."
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Divine Press Release
Turmoil rocked Heaven this morning as allegations arose that God
had had an affair with a former worshipper. The scandal was begun when a 21
year old woman, known only as Mary, claimed that she had given birth to
God's "only son" last week in a barn in the hamlet of Bethlehem.
Sources close to Mary claim that she "had loved God for a long time", that
she was constantly talking about her relationship with God, and that she
was "thrilled to have had his child." In a press conference this morning,
God issued a vehement denial, saying that "No sexual relationship existed",
and that "the facts of this story will come out in time, verily".
Independent counsel Kenneth Beelzebub immediately filed a brief with
the Justice department to expand his investigation to cover questions of
whether any commandments may have been broken, and whether God had
illegally funneled laundered money to his illegitimate child through three
foreign operatives know only as the "Wise Men". Beelzebub has issued
subpoenas to several angels who are rumored to have acted as go-betweens in
the affair.
Critics have pointed out that these allegations have little to do
with the charges that Beelzebub was originally appointed to investigate,
that God had created large-scale flooding in order to cover up evidence of
a failed land deal.
In recent months, Beelzebub's investigation has already been
expanded to cover questions surrounding the large number of locusts that
plagued God's political opponents in the last election, as well as to
claims that the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah was to
divert attention away from a scandal involving whether the giveaway of a
parcel of public land in Promised County to a Jewish special interest
group was quid pro quo for political contributions.
If these allegations prove to be true, then this could be a huge blow
to God's career, much of which has been spent crusading for stricter moral
standards and harsher punishments for wrongdoers. Indeed, God recently
outlined a "tough-on-crime" plan consisting of a series of 10
"Commandments", which has been introduced in Congress in a bill by Rep.
Moses. Critics of the bill have pointed out that it lacks any provisions
for the rehabilitation of criminals, and lawyers for the ACLU are planning
to fight the "Name in Vain" Commandment as being an unconstitutional
restriction on free speech.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by: Peter Putrimas nytimes.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n679 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n680 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - What are you fighting against?
002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Andres in Ontario
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n680.1 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: What are you fighting against?
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 01:48:40 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The following was received from the PLANS web site. Please copy comments to
Hans' address, he's not a subscriber. -dD-
)Date: Sun, 01 Mar 1998 11:25:11 +0100
)From: hans.uma.zimmermann t-online.de (Hans Zimmermann)
)
)"Is Anthroposophy science"? What a question! Is Philosophy science? Is
)Proklos, Dioysios Areopagites, Thomas de Aquino, Hildegard von Bingen
)science? Is Jakob Boehme science? See, I live in Goerlitz.
)
)What do you object against our old philosophical traditions?
)Nothing of course, aou don't know them.
)
)hans.uma.zimmermann t-online.de
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n680.2 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Andres in Ontario
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 01:10:48 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
DAN DUGAN
Dear Andres, on February 15 you wrote to me. I don't have time for private
dialogues so I'm replying to your letter on the waldorf-critics mailing
list. I urge you to subscribe to the list if you want to discuss these
issues.
ANDRES MUSTA
)Greetings.
)I am the first grade teacher at the London Waldorf School in Ontario,
)Canada.
)I would like you to know that work is being done to increase awareness
)and respect for diversity of class, race, gender and so on. Recently
)several Ontario teachers attended an AWSNA conference in Detroit on
)increasing the African presence in the curriculum.
I support increasing awareness and respect for diversity. Are you aware
that in '96 some teachers at the Detroit public Waldorf school complained
that the principal was making it too Afrocentric at the expense of Waldorf
values? In my opinion neither way is very helpful to the children.
)I maintain that in
)fact that Anthroposophy is, if anything, Afrocentric, not European,
)though German has been the prevailing culture of waldorf teachers in the
)west. (Steiner speaks of the ethiopian as being destined to be the
)'all-human').
Andres, this is bizarre, given some of the statements Steiner made about
Africans. Please elaborate on your theory and give references.
)We need to inform every community about Waldorf and get as
)many different views represented as possible. I find Waldorf unique in
)its ability to have liberals and conservatives working together for the
)betterment of their community. Your info pages neglect to mention that
)Steiner spoke in metaphor and changed his lectures based on his audience
)to best communicate. Compare how he lectures to russians and finns,
)compared to brits and germans.
People often try to save Steiner by saying that he spoke in metaphor.
Steiner said that he didn't.
)Many people are working 30 hours a day to
)see Waldorf become a truly inspiring worldwide healing. Help us. Raise
)awareness. Challenge conventions.
Try challenging the conventions in a Waldorf school!
)Test the teachers on their personal
)convictions regarding race.
I did, at my son's school, and they flunked. They would not repudiate
Steiner's racist statements.
)Do workshops and make money while you're at
)it. Bring your arguments to the schools. challenge them to give you an
)open forum with parents, boards and faculty. Heck, even tell the
)children. But work with us. Please.
Been there, done that. I don't think the Waldorf movement is reformable any
more than our friends the evangelical Christians are reformable. Both
movements are based on faith in a fixed body of scripture.
)Andres Musta
)London Waldorf School,
)7 Beaufort street, London, Ontario, N6G 1A5, Canada
)fax 519-858-8863
(computer-guys geocities.com)
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n680 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n681 --------------
001 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Free judgment
002 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Free judgment
003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - State of Washington committie nixes charter bill
004 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - PLANSucks
005 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: PLANSucks
006 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Free judgment
007 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: PLANSucks
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n681.1 ---------------
From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Free judgment
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 23:29:27 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 01.10 98-03-04, Dan Dugan wrote, in answer to a waldorf teacher in Ontari=
o:
Snip
)
)Been there, done that. I don't think the Waldorf movement is reformable any
)more than our friends the evangelical Christians are reformable. Both
)movements are based on faith in a fixed body of scripture.
)
)-Dan Dugan
Mr Dugan, you have told us that you, as a parent, have had some
objectionable experiences with a waldorf school. This is unfortunate and
serious and should be taken into consideration by the people who work at
this school - I suppose they=B4ve done so already.
You also claim to have a scientific aspiration in your way of thinking and
arguing.
However your statement above only shows us your feelings; that you loathe
the waldorf movement. And this you have said many times already.
Scientifically this is interesting in a psychological perspective - why do
you repeatedly tell us about your feelings, is it an urge, or is it a
calculated way to try to convince.
As a presumably scientific statement about the Waldorf movement it is void
of substance.
On the contrary, Waldorf pedagogy is based on anthroposophy which in its
turn is based on experience, thinking and free personal judgment.
A movement, that is based on faith in a fixed body of scripture, can
therefore not be a Waldorf movement.
Sincerely
Per Hallstr=F6m
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n681.2 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 15:07:44 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: (199803042226.OAA12999 lists1.best.com)
On 4 Mar 98 , Per Hallstr=F6m wrote:
) At 01.10 98-03-04, Dan Dugan wrote:
) )
) )Been there, done that. I don't think the Waldorf movement is reformable=
any
) )more than our friends the evangelical Christians are reformable. Both
) )movements are based on faith in a fixed body of scripture.
) )
)
) However your statement above only shows us your feelings; that you loath=
e
) the waldorf movement. And this you have said many times already.
I've been on this list for quite a while, and I have never heard Dan
express loathing for Waldorf education. He has said that there are some
things he admires about it, and some things he has opposed.
Specifically, Dan has opposed:
1. The teaching of anthroposophical doctrine as science or history (e.g.,=
teaching about Atlantis, teaching that the heart does not pump blood, and
so on);
2. The tendency to couch explanations of the pedagogy in ways that
obscure the very specific spiritual concepts underlying the pedagogy, so
as to give the impression that the school is "spiritual" in the general
sense of honoring the spirit of the child, rather than in the specific
sense of being based on Steiner's concepts of reincarnation, karma, etc.;
3. The specific teachings of Steiner with regard to race; and
4. The use of public funds to support Waldorf schools in the United
States.
) As a presumably scientific statement about the Waldorf movement it is
) void of substance. On the contrary, Waldorf pedagogy is based on
) anthroposophy which in its turn is based on experience, thinking and fre=
e
) personal judgment.
)
) A movement, that is based on faith in a fixed body of scripture, can
) therefore not be a Waldorf movement.
It appears to me that anthroposophy is limited to those whose experience,
thinking, and free personal judgment lead them to the conclusion that
Steiner was basically correct in his view of the spiritual world.
One is free to come to the contrary conclusion, but those who do are not
anthroposophists. The same is true of religions based on scripture.
Now, I suppose Anthroposophists can believe that Steiner was basically
correct, but disagree with him on many details and specifics. However,
I've heard several calls on this list for supporters of anthroposophy
to give examples of folks who have reached different conclusions and
publicly stated that they believe Steiner to have been wrong about
something. I don't recall seeing such examples. And as far as I know, no=
one has ever disagreed with Steiner on any subject and convinced a
substantial number of anthroposophists that Steiner was mistaken.
Per, if you have examples of teachings of Steiner that are generally
considered, by modern anthroposophists, to be incorrect, that would go a
long way toward convincing me that anthroposophists are free thinkers. As=
it looks to me right now, Steiner's writings, as a practical matter, are
treated as scripture by anthroposophists.
This view, of anthroposophy as a religion, is also supported by the fact
that Steiner claimed to have received his knowledge through clairvoyance,
and no one since Steiner has claimed to have reached the same level of
spiritual perception. Therefore, his teachings have the same kind of
authority as those of prophets who claim to have received their knowledge
directly from God. Until someone else reaches the same spiritual level as=
Steiner, how can they effectively challenge anything he wrote?
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.n681.3 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: State of Washington committie nixes charter bill
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 01:29:12 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
An article posted on the Education Consumers Clearinghouse reported that
the Washington State Senate Ways and Means Committee voted down a proposed
charter school bill which would have made Washington the 30th state with a
charter school law. It's the fourth year the proposal has failed.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n681.4 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: PLANSucks
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 11:33:36 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Recieved the following today: -dD-
)Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 18:48:11 +0100
)From: hpr (hpr salzburg.co.at)
)Reply-To: hpr salzburg.co.at
)MIME-Version: 1.0
)To: plans dandugan.com
)Subject: PLANSucks
)X-Rcpt-To: plans dandugan.com
)
)Oh man,
)
)what a bullshit that you're offering here.
)
)
)I was searching "Rudolf Steiner" and "social", and what does Exceed reveal?
)This homepage of yours.
)
)
)Anyway, the wolves are howling, but the caravan walks on.
)
)hpr
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n681.5 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: PLANSucks
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 12:10:21 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199803051933.LAA20149 lists1.best.com)
))Oh man,
))
))what a bullshit that you're offering here.
))
))
))I was searching "Rudolf Steiner" and "social", and what does Exceed reveal?
))This homepage of yours.
))
))
))Anyway, the wolves are howling, but the caravan walks on.
))
))hpr
I just love America. Folks can freely say anything they want. Is Exceed a
search engine?
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n681.6 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 13:36:38 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803042311.PAA02024 lists1.best.com)
Steve,
I have inserted some comments in [brackets] below.
joel wendt
Steve Premo wrote:
) It appears to me that anthroposophy is limited to those whose experience,
) thinking, and free personal judgment lead them to the conclusion that
) Steiner was basically correct in his view of the spiritual world.
[As I have tried to explain before, Steiner's "teachings" are not
anthroposophy, even though many of those who call themselves
"anthroposophists" behave as if anthroposophy is these "teachings".
There has always been disagreement over this problem.
For example, the English philologist Owen Barfield, in a talk given at
the Goetheanum in 1933, makes the clear distinction between method and
content; anthroposophy being a method - a way of developing the human
thinking faculty so that the individual begins with understanding its
own spiritual nature, and then can metamorphose that thinking into an
organ of cosmic spiritual perception.
This principal is stated in Steiner's First of his Leading Thoughts:
"Anthroposophy is a path of cognition from the spiritual in the human
being to the Spiritual in the Universe."
Before I ever read of Barfield's lecture (which is published in his
book "Romanticism Comes of Age", I independently arrived at this same
conclusion - that anthroposophy is a method, not a content.
Those of the content school, who I would call dognamtic
anthroposophists, believe that studying Steiner's lectures and writings
is a way to become an anthroposophist. Many of these also believe in
self development and practice it, often with great skill and success.
Nevertheless, this confusion, and the degree to which Steiner may have
fostered it, or not, has always been part of the community of those with
an interest in Steiner's work.
I have written about certain of these problems on my website:
Outlaw Anthroposophy: the journal:
http://www.microweb.com/hermit/oajnr.html
These articles have been translated into German, and will published in
May in the German journal: Critical Anthroposophy.
The reason that one does not find the "disagreements" on the surface,
has to do with a lot of history, and the fact that the Anthroposophical
Society, as a typical human institution, has commited itself to the role
of preserving a certain image of Steiner. Those who participate in the
community of anthroposophists soon find their way to these disagreements
(there are others) and after some time make up their own minds. An
outside observer, who meets only the most public faces of the Society,
such as Rudolf Steiner College etc. is unlikely to encounter the real
areas of concern and dispute. Below, I will say more about another
matter.]
) One is free to come to the contrary conclusion, but those who do are not
) anthroposophists.
[You need to meet a lot more anthroposophists, before you have any
justification for making such a conclusion.]
) The same is true of religions based on scripture.
[Hopefully you will now at least admit to the possibility that there
are many anthroposophists, including, perhaps, Steiner, who do not agree
that what they do is a religion. Those who do not understand
anthroposophy - that is, what it is in reality (and this includes many
who call themselves anthroposophists) can of course form any "opinion"
they wish. But what anthroposophy is in fact, remains the same. It is
an inner discipline of a certain nature, similar in some ways to other
inner disciplines, but at its core, very unique. Knowing anthroposophy
factually, as an experience, has nothing whatsoever to do with faith or
belief. It is, in fact, a science of inner life.
Now having said the word "science", I will of course attract the
skeptics etc. So, if they will allow, I will say what "I" mean when I
use this term.
In the history of ideas, "science" could be described as the modern
path to the truth. It is how modern humanity struggles to find its way
to certainty of knowledge, and is seen by many as "progress" over the
prior ages, which, in most cases, relied on faith, on priests, for
knowledge of the truth.
To me, the core of the practice (or path) of science toward the truth,
is in its methodology. By this I do not mean double-blind studies and
so forth, which are mere techniques, but rather the moral center of
science, which says: If someone asserts a matter as true, then that
person must provide, as well, their method for arriving at this truth,
so that others may duplicate this process. It is then this
"replication" of "experiment" which allows others to repeat the
investigation, which becomes the modern basis for discovering the truth.
When a community of knowledge arises, founded upon common replication of
an experiment, it is understood that a "scientific" truth has been
arrived at.
It is in this sense, this moral sense, that anthroposphy is
"scientific". It invites the doubter to learn to practice the inner
disciplines, and then to prove or disprove, for themselves, what may or
may not be true, using that "method" (experimental protocol).
Now of course, such an approach is not at all like what we usually
think of when we think of science. Since the matters being investigated
are human inner life and what might be possible if that inner life were
transformed through discipline and practice, anthroposophy as "science"
must ask different questions and make different protocols.
Just as we may speak of the spirit and the letter of the law, there is
a "spirit" to science, which "spirit" is also found in the fundamental
practical work of the path of cognition - anthroposophy.
Steiner's Philosophy of Spiritual Activity contains the sub-title:
"some results of introspective observation following the methods of
natural science". His Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World
Conception" looks at the basic problem of epistomology (the
investigation of the problem of how we know what we know).
There is some discussion of these books in the archives, but from what
I have read, there has been little understanding of them on the part of
the "critics". These books ask something rather different, for the
reader, then just an analytical examination of ideas, which the study of
philosophy often entails.
In order to use these books in the "spirit" in which they were
intended, it is necessary to "do" certain things, to actually look at
one's inner life in a very objective and careful fashion. In this way
certain "universals" can be discovered, elements of inner life which
human beings share in common. It is then from these facts, that the
understanding of the truth about the nature of thinking unfolds.
The core problem with those who don't make a good connection to
anthroposophy as a method of cognition, has to do with how these books
are approached. There are many, including "anthroposophists", who fail
to "wake up" inwardly through their encounter with these books. There
is an analogy which might help.
There are many books about pottery, and about forming pots on a
potters' wheel. Yet, one can read all the books one wants and never
understand what the "experience" of actually forming pots on a wheel is
about. The same is true of Steiner's discoveries concerning the act of
cognition. You have to "do" it, not just think about it.
This aspect of Steiner's work, the practicalities of understanding
thinking in this new way, has been "replicated" by many. There is a
whole literature involved in this. Not only that, but because the
experiences won on this path are very intimate and personal, many who
succeed carry this success in silence, only revealing its existence
through their work product.]
) Now, I suppose Anthroposophists can believe that Steiner was basically
) correct, but disagree with him on many details and specifics. However,
) I've heard several calls on this list for supporters of anthroposophy
) to give examples of folks who have reached different conclusions and
) publicly stated that they believe Steiner to have been wrong about
) something. I don't recall seeing such examples. And as far as I know, no
) one has ever disagreed with Steiner on any subject and convinced a
) substantial number of anthroposophists that Steiner was mistaken.
[This problem is not as simple as you have stated it. This "science"
is not like laboratory science. And it is disingenuous to suggest that
it should be. It is not a matter of disagreeing or not. The problems
are much more subtle.
For example, inner disciplines, especially in the Christianized West,
involve the practitioner with coming to terms with the experience of
conscience. Now we often think of moral behavior as being determined by
cultural conditioning, inculcated in some way from outside the
consciousness of the individual. But those who enter more intimately
into the dynamics of their inner life, soon discover that "conscience"
is an objective quality, whose nature is independent of cultural norms.
It would go too far to go into detail here, but the point I am trying
to make is that the scientist, whose laboratory is like a chemistry lab,
has no need to confront the shadow elements of his nature, while a
"spiritual scientist" must come to terms with "conscience", as much as
he/she must come to terms with "thinking", "feeling" and "willing", in
an objective fashion.
Just as a carpenter must learn to use sharp instruments in order to
carry out his craft, those who struggle to learn inner disciplines must
learn to deal with the "pointed" judgments arising from the fact of
possessing a conscience.
It is in this encounter with conscience that the problem of disagreeing
takes its course, because one must first be able to say in good
conscience that one has penetrated to sufficient depths of spiritual
understanding to make such a judgment regarding much of Steiner's work.
Everyone understands that Steiner has claimed the highest knowledge.
That dogmatic anthroposophists accept this without questioning it is
very sad, but not relevant to whether Steiner reported the truth. Many
anthroposophists hold these "indications" of Steiner in much the same
way a good scientist holds the current theory in his/her field - at a
distance. It becomes then, depending on the specific discipline in
which the practioner works, the main theory. This is basically true for
non-dogmatic doctors, teachers, farmers and so forth, who follow in the
paths pioneered by Steiner.
If you actually read their work, it is clear that Steiner inspired
them, but they have made the field their own. What is remarkable is the
frequency in which workers in specific areas confirm Steiner's
indications. I will give a couple examples:
Sometimes on this list we come to a discussion of the "threefold man",
with the metabolic, rhythmic, and nerve-sense systems. This biological
idea has been attacked as so much psuedo-science. Those who want to
bother, need to read Wolfgang Schad's Man and Mammals. Here is an
individual, inspired by Steiner, and by the underlying methological
elelements of Goethean Science, who has become a master of the factual
material underlying mammalian form. He has done the work.
One of the things which Steiner pointed to on many occasions, was the
discipline of projective or synthetic geometry. He describes the
thinking which can arise from the study of this mathematics as essential
to coming to an experience of the ethereal formative forces - forces not
yet recognized by mainstream science.
This geometry had been (until the latter part of this century)
unavailable to the ordinary person because of its symbolic and algebraic
formulation. However, individuals inspired by the indications of
Steiner have made the understanding of this remarkable geometry
available to the non-mathematician. I recommend Olive Whicher's
Projective Geometry: Creative Polarities in Time and Space. Whoever
studies this book, which uses drawing and human imagination to convey
its understanding, will find remarkable benefits arising inwardly in the
thinking through learning to consciously "morph" forms, one into the
other, following the laws of this geometry. Then on the basis of a new
capacity in the life of thought, advances can be made in many fields,
because the underlying inward discipline has changed.
The Olympic athlete understands the need to discipline the body (and
the mind) in order to achieve what is desired. There is a similar
demand on those who would investigate the spiritual in a scientific
fashion. Do the work!]
)
) Per, if you have examples of teachings of Steiner that are generally
) considered, by modern anthroposophists, to be incorrect, that would go a
) long way toward convincing me that anthroposophists are free thinkers. As
) it looks to me right now, Steiner's writings, as a practical matter, are
) treated as scripture by anthroposophists.
[As I said, you need to meet some more anthroposophists, and to think
carefully about the problem you are posing. Most of the discussion and
replication involves the lower levels of spiritual development. The
ABC's. You can start there yourself. Test the basic stuff first.
That's were non-dogmatic anthroposophists start and that is where they
universally confirm Steiner's work.
As to higher levels - it has been claimed (on the list archives and in
an essay on the PLANS page) that no one has achieved this level, and
therefore no one has confirmed Steiner at this level.
Here again is a matter not on the public face of the Anthroposophical
Society.
There was an individual named Valentin Tomberg (1900-73), who many
believe "replicated" Steiner's work to the highest levels. He emerged
within the Anthroposophical Society following Steiner's death in 1925,
and was the center of a "fight" (by others - not himself) over whether
he was an "initiate", in the same sense as Steiner's followers
considered Steiner.
Tomberg left the Society in 1938, and in 1945 became a Roman Catholic.
I add this information to suggest that these matters involve subtleties
and a certain degree of effort will be required in order to be
understood. The individual who wants to form superficial judgments will
only know his/her own prejudices.
Tomberg wrote "anthroposophical" works on the Old Testament, the New
Testement, St John's Appocalypse, The Return of the Etheric Christ,
Inner Development, and many essays on deep spiritual matters. In
Tomberg's private letters he describes his path to spiritual knowledge
as being completely based on reproducing in himself (Tomberg) Steiner's
path of cognition.
Some information on the controvery surrounding Tomberg can be found on
the Web at: http://www.vermontel.com/~vtsophia
You have to go through the index page to the contents to the links to
other info to find the material (partial) on the controvery surrounding
Tomberg.
Clearly, following Steiner's death, few of his followers were willing
to accept another as possibly having the same stature. This problem of
the "followers" and their "worship" of the "guru" is discussed in an
essay on the Web: "Work on What Has Been Spoiled" at:
http://members.aol.com/kitmac/workon.htm]
)
) This view, of anthroposophy as a religion, is also supported by the fact
) that Steiner claimed to have received his knowledge through clairvoyance,
) and no one since Steiner has claimed to have reached the same level of
) spiritual perception.
[See immediatly above regarding Valentin Tomberg.]
Therefore, his teachings have the same kind of
) authority as those of prophets who claim to have received their knowledge
) directly from God. Until someone else reaches the same spiritual level as
) Steiner, how can they effectively challenge anything he wrote?
[As I tried to indicate, the problem is not one of challenging
anything, or, unless one wants to be dogmatic, submitting to authority.
One simply does the work, starting from the beginning, and sees if what
Steiner has indicated is true. Those who actually do this, are
confirming his indications. There are subtle questions being asked and
which have been asked. Content vs. method was one. There are others
that can be found. Certainly Steiner's behavior as a teacher - how he
conducted himself in human relationships has and is being examined.
This is a different matter from his spiritual research, which is more
difficult to investigate at the upper levels, but AGAIN, one doesn't
start there. The Society, Waldorf education, etc. - all these modern,
world involved, anthroposophically oriented, formal structures are under
constant pressure to be reevalutated. But these take their nature from
those human beings who are now responsible for them, and the most
frequent complaint, of those anthroposophists who critisize these
structures, is their failure to embody the fundamental method, the inner
discipline.
It is for this reason that I have, since I began to participate in this
list, sided with many of the "critics" views on Waldorf. The dogmatic
face that is far to often presented to the world is not anthroposophy.
It is its shadow.
joel wendt
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n681.7 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: PLANSucks
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 10:55:29 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199803051933.LAA20149 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199803052006.MAA04719 lists1.best.com)
Deby wrote:
)))Oh man,
)))
)))what a bullshit that you're offering here.
)))
)))
)))I was searching "Rudolf Steiner" and "social", and what does Exceed reveal?
)))This homepage of yours.
)))
)))
)))Anyway, the wolves are howling, but the caravan walks on.
)))
)))hpr
)
)I just love America. Folks can freely say anything they want. Is Exceed a
)search engine?
)Deby
KOPP says:
His email address (assuming it's not falsified) indicates he's in Austria.
Actually, America is less and less free in many ways, and speech is the
thin end of the wedge of creeping fascism worldwide (including my present
country, New Zealand, whose government is trying to pass a "code of social
responsibility" for citizens, and which has one of the most draconian
censorship laws (including the Internet) anywhere in the world.
Anyone interested in Internet culture and politics could start with the
Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF), at http://www.eff.org/
Those particularly interested in free speech issues could check out the
Fight Censorship mailing list, at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc
We cannot rest anywhere in the world; censorship is on the increase everywhere.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n681 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n682 --------------
001 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Free judgment
002 - Brian Berns (Berns rdacon - RE: Free judgment
003 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Free judgment
004 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Free judgment
005 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Re: Free judgment
006 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Free judgment
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n682.1 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 16:31:41 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199803052130.NAA12780 lists1.best.com)
Joel,
Thanks for the interesting and thoughtful response.
) Steve Premo wrote:
) ) It appears to me that anthroposophy is limited to those whose experience,
) ) thinking, and free personal judgment lead them to the conclusion that
) ) Steiner was basically correct in his view of the spiritual world.
)
) [As I have tried to explain before, Steiner's "teachings" are not
) anthroposophy, even though many of those who call themselves
) "anthroposophists" behave as if anthroposophy is these "teachings".
If we accept this premise, most of the rest of what you say follows
logically. But the context of this list is Waldorf education, and
anthroposophy as it forms the basis of the pedagogy of Waldorf education.
Now, a pedagogy, as I understand the term, is an approach to education.
The Waldorf pedagogy does not include teaching the anthroposophical
method to the students; rather, it is an approach to teaching which is
based on a set of concepts. When I talk about anthroposophy in this
sense, I am referring to the concepts on which Waldorf education is
based, and the related concepts which were propounded by Steiner as part
of his view of the spiritual world. I am not referring to the method by
which Steiner purportedly discovered them.
Maybe that is not a proper use of the term "anthroposophy," but I believe
that it is what is meant when the school literature states that Waldorf
education is based on anthroposophy.
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.n682.2 ---------------
From: Brian Berns (Berns rdaconsultants.com)
Subject: RE: Free judgment
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1998 20:53:33 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Joel wrote:
) ) As I have tried to explain before, Steiner's "teachings" are not
) ) anthroposophy, even though many of those who call themselves
) ) "anthroposophists" behave as if anthroposophy is these "teachings".
)
Do the teachings have a name at all, or are they actually unimportant?
) anthroposophy being a method - a way of developing the human
) thinking faculty
What happens if a human employing these methods comes to conclusions
that differ from Steiner's? Who decides the "truth", and how?
-- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n682.3 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 21:42:40 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803060035.QAA09642 lists1.best.com)
Steve,
You make an excellant point below, to which I would like to respond in
the spirit of my previous post.
When a Waldorf School says it is based on anthroposophy, it would be
hard to understand in all instances that each school which says such a
thing probably does not mean exactly the same thing.
Let me expand upon this. In my previous post I made the observation
that there is method and content, and that some concentrate on the
former, and some on the latter. Your post helps me to see that I would
be closer to the truth to suggest a spectrum, with emphasis on content
to one side and emphasis on method to the other.
Individuals who follow the path laid out by Steiner will orient
themselves on this spectrum in various places. There are masters of
content and masters of method and many who combine both in quite
individual ways. So when one meets an anthroposophist, or to follow the
example relevant to this list, when one meets a Waldorf teacher, you
will be with an individual mixture of method and content - each one is
their own cook, so to speak. Each one combines in their individual way
those practices that result from their personal insight, the use of
Steiner pedagogy in dogmatic and non-dogmatic ways, individual
experiences confirming something tried on the basis of Steiners
indications, and so forth.
I hope what I am trying to convey is clear. I think all of us have
matters we know for fact, and matters we assume from faith (even if it
is just trust that someone feels a certain way about us). A Waldorf
teacher will be a mixture of these things, and within any school each
teacher will be different. The novice may rely more upon remembered
content, the master teacher more on experience and confirmed individual
insight.
It would be disingenuous of me to suggest that when parents and others
not familiar with anthroposophy encounter Waldorf that they have some
burden to understand such matters as I have outlined them above. I
think, rather, that the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak. It is
the Waldorf teachers and administrators that should recognize the need
of the parent and interested observer for understanding and appreciation
of what they bring.
For example, Dan's experience at the SF Waldorf School didn't have to
take the course it did. It might have, even if those he interacted with
were more skilled, but it might not have. By skill, by the way, I am
not suggesting some kind of hiding of things, but rather an appreciation
of the rightness of Dan's questions, and the fact that the School could
have viewed having such a personality within its parent body was an
impetus for growth, rather then a cause for circling the wagons and
turning him away. Alas, that is not the course things have taken.
A more precise use of language might be to say that there is such a
thing as anthroposophical pedagogy, meaning by that an understanding of
childhood development based upon a certain method of research. The
practice of this pedagogy by the teachers is as I have described above,
however, with much done on faith in the beginning, and then hopefully,
later, with deep experience and understanding.
Certainly Waldorf is, to some degree, in a state of crises in many
places, because so many individuals have approached it in the dogmatic
way. Again, I am grateful for the Dan Duggans of the world, who refuse
to be dismissed, and whose honest opposition may (emphasis on the may)
have the salutory effect of bringing a kind of purifying renewal, both
to Waldorf and to the anthroposophical movement as well.
This does not mean that Dan is correct in many of his judgements about
Waldorf and anthroposophy, but his opposition is certainly a gift that
should be appreciated for the degree to which it causes anthroposophists
to raise the level of their own understanding, and, as well, the level
of their appreciation of the views of non-anthroposophists. For me, the
critics list has been (and is) an important experience.
joel wendt
Steve Premo wrote:
)
) Joel,
)
) Thanks for the interesting and thoughtful response.
)
) ) Steve Premo wrote:
) ) ) It appears to me that anthroposophy is limited to those whose experience,
) ) ) thinking, and free personal judgment lead them to the conclusion that
) ) ) Steiner was basically correct in his view of the spiritual world.
) )
) ) [As I have tried to explain before, Steiner's "teachings" are not
) ) anthroposophy, even though many of those who call themselves
) ) "anthroposophists" behave as if anthroposophy is these "teachings".
)
) If we accept this premise, most of the rest of what you say follows
) logically. But the context of this list is Waldorf education, and
) anthroposophy as it forms the basis of the pedagogy of Waldorf education.
)
) Now, a pedagogy, as I understand the term, is an approach to education.
) The Waldorf pedagogy does not include teaching the anthroposophical
) method to the students; rather, it is an approach to teaching which is
) based on a set of concepts. When I talk about anthroposophy in this
) sense, I am referring to the concepts on which Waldorf education is
) based, and the related concepts which were propounded by Steiner as part
) of his view of the spiritual world. I am not referring to the method by
) which Steiner purportedly discovered them.
)
) Maybe that is not a proper use of the term "anthroposophy," but I believe
) that it is what is meant when the school literature states that Waldorf
) education is based on anthroposophy.
)
) 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.n682.4 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 1998 22:19:17 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803060154.RAA18959 lists1.best.com)
Brian,
Thank you for your questions. I have inserted what answers I am
capable of giving below in [brackets].
joel wendt
Brian Berns wrote:
)
) Joel wrote:
)
) ) ) As I have tried to explain before, Steiner's "teachings" are not
) ) ) anthroposophy, even though many of those who call themselves
) ) ) "anthroposophists" behave as if anthroposophy is these "teachings".
) )
) Do the teachings have a name at all, or are they actually unimportant?
[Steiner gave thousands of lectures and wrote many books. Some books
and lectures are specificially related to inner development (method) and
others more directed to the content that can arise from such a process
of spiritual research. There are different ways in which the material,
which is content, can be useful, i.e. important.
However, most of these ways involve taking a step toward such ideas as
if they were the truth, that is to "try them on" so to speak, in good
faith. Steiner has been quoted in the archives about this and accused of
"guru tricks", because he is suggesting that as one explores the
"importance" of his researches it helps to do that in a sympathetic
manner.
Again, as I said in the initial post on this to which you refer, the
exploration of inner life is not like an experiment in a chemistry
laboratory. It is very intimate and personal. For example, Steiner
wrote quite a bit about the path the recently dead take, and in these
writings expressed certain ideas for the living, practical ideas about
ways to relate to the recent passing of one who was near to us in life.
To carry out such suggested activity could hardly be done with any
respect toward the recently dead, if done with the inner attitude of a
skeptic. It simply wouldn't work, it couldn't work. So the first steps
of those who engage in such suggested activities is to act on faith - to
act in such a way that is open and sympathetic, rather then with an
attitude of "prove it".
As mentioned in my response to Steve's response to my post, applying
this more directly to Waldorf, the pedagogy needs to be tried in order
to see if it works. To try half heartedly is senseless. Any task one
holds one's self back from will be done poorly.
Thus, in answer to your question, the content material, often called
"indications" by anthroposophists is a guide to many practical matters
in life. The non-dogmatic anthroposphist will test it with a good
heart, and if it doesn't work, discard it.
Now I have read that in some schools, where a teacher has had
difficulty with a certain "indication", it is expressed to such a
teacher that it must be some flaw of theirs, that they haven't tried
hard enough. This could be true of course, but it is certainly poor
training psychology, and not a practice I would expect Steiner to have
condoned. Anyone trying to come to tersm with anthroposophy, in
whatever practical application this discipline is applied, needs to find
their individual way to it. An administrator, or a master teacher, who
forces a novice to carry out a practice they are having trouble with, is
in error, in that they undercut the necessary freedom from which all
spiritual practice must proceed.
Yes, I know it has happened. But it does not always happen.]
)
) ) anthroposophy being a method - a way of developing the human
) ) thinking faculty
)
) What happens if a human employing these methods comes to conclusions
) that differ from Steiner's? Who decides the "truth", and how?
[You have made a hypothetical, assuming it is relevant. I am not
interested in hypotheticals having learned that nothing in life actually
happens in accord with them. The way to deal with this is personal.
You try the methods, in good faith. If you don't want to that's fine.
But don't presume the methods can be understood except in practice.]
)
) -- Brian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n682.5 ---------------
From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 00:01:51 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 15.08 98-03-04, Steve Premo wrote:
Snip
)I've been on this list for quite a while, and I have never heard Dan
)express loathing for Waldorf education. He has said that there are some
)things he admires about it, and some things he has opposed.
Dear mr Premo:
I=B4ve been on this list for quite a while too, and I have seen hardly any
trace of mr Dugans admiration for Waldorf education. Any comment from him
about something agreeable about WE is closely followed by an explanation
that it=B4s really not good at all - working with art is good, but not in th=
e
way WE does it - or it=B4s good but would have even better without WE - like
the presumably small classes.
You tell me a number of things that mr Dugan specifically opposes. I
consider his opposition to be a bit like don Quixote=B4s; he imagines big
"demons" and then opposes them.
Maybe this is due to the feelings he experienced in confrontations he had
with people at the Waldorf school. I sympathise deeply, but it doesn=B4t mak=
e
the opposition more sciencentific.
Anyway I would like to comment on these "demons".
)
)1. The teaching of anthroposophical doctrine as science or history (e.g.,
)teaching about Atlantis, teaching that the heart does not pump blood, and
)so on);
To teach any historic or scientific theory _as a fact_ is teaching
doctrine, unless you somehow can prove it by experiment or make it
believable and trustworthy by reference to your sources.
This must be hard in the case of "Atlantis the lost continent". And I, and
the other waldorf teachers I know in Scandinavia, do not teach about
Atlantis as a fact. Sometimes it we may refer to it as an old legend though
(mentioned by Plato among others).
In the case of the heart we teach as a fact that blood moves in the veins
of the fetus even before the heart is formed and can start its rhythmical
regulation of the bloodstream. We then point out the resemblance between
the heart and a pump, but we don=B4t say: "the heart is a pump, it=B4s main
function is to make the blood move through the body". That would be too
much of a doctrine.
)2. The tendency to couch explanations of the pedagogy in ways that
)obscure the very specific spiritual concepts underlying the pedagogy, so
)as to give the impression that the school is "spiritual" in the general
)sense of honouring the spirit of the child, rather than in the specific
)sense of being based on Steiner's concepts of reincarnation, karma, etc.;
Parents should be told from the start that the Waldorf Teachers work out
from the following _assumptions_:
We all have had a life before birth in another dimension of existence.
Significant work, with bearing on education in our world, was done in that
dimension and is still being done here and now, by higher spiritual beings.
Therefore it is beneficiary for the process of education to take this into
consideration when developing the art of WE.
Now these are assumptions, not dogmas. In that way they are more comparable
to Darwinism than to any doctrinous religion.
AND, in my opinion, these assumptions are more congruous with the idea
that: "the school is "spiritual" in the general sense of honouring the
spirit of the child" than the assumptions that:
1. the spirit of the child does not exist before birth (or conception) and
its functions: thoughts, feelings, experiences are essentially byproducts
of chemical processes in the physical body.
or
2. Its fruitless and of no consequence what you think about these issues
because the answers are beyond modern science. It=B4s also rather improbable
that science in future will come up with something revolutionary new
because the knowledge we have reached in our _modern_ science explains so
much and is so very balanced and coherent.
And therefore N:o 1 is the most likely answer.
)
)3. The specific teachings of Steiner with regard to race; and
Steiner sometimes said silly things about races to say the least, that=B4s m=
y
opinion and so say many - but not all - of the people i know who think of
them selves as Anthroposophists.
The main things he said about races though was that they would be of no
consequence in the future, and that the individual would count more than
race, ethnic belonging and so forth.
In the context of his historic and geographic situation this latter
statement was the more unaccustomed one.
Steiner was accountable for what he said. I=B4m accountable for what I say.
There is no doctrine.
)4. The use of public funds to support Waldorf schools in the United
)States.
As I=B4ve stated before: Anthroposophy and WE are more comparable to
Darwinism than to any doctrinous religion.
)
)) As a presumably scientific statement about the Waldorf movement it is
)) void of substance. On the contrary, Waldorf pedagogy is based on
)) anthroposophy which in its turn is based on experience, thinking and free
)) personal judgment.
))
)) A movement, that is based on faith in a fixed body of scripture, can
)) therefore not be a Waldorf movement.
)
)It appears to me that anthroposophy is limited to those whose experience,
)thinking, and free personal judgment lead them to the conclusion that
)Steiner was basically correct in his view of the spiritual world.
)One is free to come to the contrary conclusion, but those who do are not
)anthroposophists. The same is true of religions based on scripture.
"One is free to come to the contrary conclusion" Yes! (It=B4s a free country
both here and were you live.) But this goes for all sciences too. If you
come to the contrary conclusion of Aristotle, Kepler, Newton, Goethe, or
Skinner you are not an Aristotelian, etc, etc or behaviourist (Skinnerist).
Religions however, often are based on belief and scripture, not on experienc=
e,
thinking, and free personal judgment.
)
)Now, I suppose Anthroposophists can believe that Steiner was basically
)correct, but disagree with him on many details and specifics. However,
)I've heard several calls on this list for supporters of anthroposophy
)to give examples of folks who have reached different conclusions and
)publicly stated that they believe Steiner to have been wrong about
)something. I don't recall seeing such examples. And as far as I know, no
)one has ever disagreed with Steiner on any subject and convinced a
)substantial number of anthroposophists that Steiner was mistaken.
)
)Per, if you have examples of teachings of Steiner that are generally
)considered, by modern anthroposophists, to be incorrect, that would go a
)long way toward convincing me that anthroposophists are free thinkers. As
)it looks to me right now, Steiner's writings, as a practical matter, are
)treated as scripture by anthroposophists.
)
HMM... anthroposophists are free thinkers - otherwise they are not
anthroposophists.
If someone, as a practical matter, treats Steiner's writings as scripture
this person is a much worse threat to anthroposophy than anyone who
fiercely criticises anthroposophy.
I have stated that Steiner has said things with which i disagree (see above
at the top). Most of what Steiner said I have not read, most of what I have
read I find very interesting, some of it I consider to be true after trying
it out in practice or comparing it to my own experiences and previous
knowledge, some I don not understand and some I find inappropriate,
incorrect or mistaken. Though I must admit there are not many things which
I consider to be erroneous, I don=B4t think this makes me an unfree thinker =
-
I mean he could be right about a lot of things couldn=B4t he? Well anyway I
don=B4t concern myself primarily with peoples flaws but with their
ingenuousness.
Still, there is one thing that Steiner says that could be taken as
anthroposophic scripture namely: "Never should anyone say that something is
true just because I said so" or " The foundation must be to try it out, not
to take it on by faith"
)This view, of anthroposophy as a religion, is also supported by the fact
)that Steiner claimed to have received his knowledge through clairvoyance,
)and no one since Steiner has claimed to have reached the same level of
)spiritual perception. Therefore, his teachings have the same kind of
)authority as those of prophets who claim to have received their knowledge
)directly from God. Until someone else reaches the same spiritual level as
)Steiner, how can they effectively challenge anything he wrote?
=46irst of all: there are people who claim to have reached very high levels
of spiritual perception, some not as high, some maybe higher than Steiner.
But maybe more interesting is the fact that there are people who have
reached high levels of spiritual perception but don=B4t want to speak of it
because it can cause so much misunderstanding and it=B4s not necessary for
there work.
Steiner encouraged everyone to challenge everything he wrote and said, and
he meant that everyone could do this with just normal reasoning and an open
mind. That=B4s one main reason why anthroposophy is no religion.
I willingly admit though, that this is not clearly stated by all fans of
anthroposophy.
May the long-time-sun shine upon you
all love surround you
and the pure light within you
guide you all the way on
-The Incredible String Band-
Per Hallstr=F6m
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n682.6 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 16:42:42 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: (199803062259.OAA23235 lists1.best.com)
On 7 Mar 98 , Per Hallstr=F6m wrote:
) )1. The teaching of anthroposophical doctrine as science or history (e.=
g.,
) )teaching about Atlantis, teaching that the heart does not pump blood, a=
nd
) )so on);
)
) To teach any historic or scientific theory _as a fact_ is teaching
) doctrine, unless you somehow can prove it by experiment or make it
) believable and trustworthy by reference to your sources.
Certainly. I'm also aware that anthroposophical theory is not supposed to=
be taught at all in Waldorf schools, even as theory. I believe those who
say they have seen such things taught, but there is no telling how common
it is.
) )2. The tendency to couch explanations of the pedagogy in ways that
) )obscure the very specific spiritual concepts underlying the pedagogy, s=
o
) )as to give the impression that the school is "spiritual" in the general
) )sense of honouring the spirit of the child, rather than in the specific
) )sense of being based on Steiner's concepts of reincarnation, karma, etc=
.;
)
) Parents should be told from the start that the Waldorf Teachers work out
) from the following _assumptions_: We all have had a life before birth in
) another dimension of existence. Significant work, with bearing on
) education in our world, was done in that dimension and is still being
) done here and now, by higher spiritual beings. Therefore it is
) beneficiary for the process of education to take this into consideration
) when developing the art of WE.
Excellent! I wish that all schools told parents about the role of higher
spiritual beings in Waldorf pedagogy. I was rather surprised to learn
about that stuff myself, and I have the impression that most parents at
our school think, for example, that the etheric body is nothing more than
a metaphor for a stage of child development.
) AND, in my opinion, these assumptions are more congruous with the idea
) that: "the school is "spiritual" in the general sense of honouring the
) spirit of the child" than the assumptions that:
)
) 1. the spirit of the child does not exist before birth (or conception)
) and its functions: thoughts, feelings, experiences are essentially
) byproducts of chemical processes in the physical body.
)
) or
)
) 2. Its fruitless and of no consequence what you think about these issues
) because the answers are beyond modern science. It's also rather
) improbable that science in future will come up with something
) revolutionary new because the knowledge we have reached in our _modern_
) science explains so much and is so very balanced and coherent. And
) therefore N:o 1 is the most likely answer.
I agree. No parent who sends a child to a school which states it has a
strong spiritual foundation should think that the school will be based on
those assumptions.
) )) A movement, that is based on faith in a fixed body of scripture, can
) )) therefore not be a Waldorf movement.
) )
) )It appears to me that anthroposophy is limited to those whose experienc=
e,
) )thinking, and free personal judgment lead them to the conclusion that
) )Steiner was basically correct in his view of the spiritual world.
) )One is free to come to the contrary conclusion, but those who do are no=
t
) )anthroposophists. The same is true of religions based on scripture.
)
) "One is free to come to the contrary conclusion" Yes! (It's a free
) country both here and were you live.) But this goes for all sciences too=
.
) If you come to the contrary conclusion of Aristotle, Kepler, Newton,
) Goethe, or Skinner you are not an Aristotelian, etc, etc or behaviourist
) (Skinnerist).
True, but one can come to a contrary conclusion from Skinner and still be
a psychologist. Behaviorism is not a science; it is a movement
within the science of psychology. Is anthroposophy a discipline
unto itself, or a movement within some other discipline, such as
philosophy?
If it is a philosophical or religious movement, there's not much point in
quibbling over whether it is essentially philosophical or religious,
except to the extent that this is relevant to American constitutional law.=
) )This view, of anthroposophy as a religion, is also supported by the fac=
t
) )that Steiner claimed to have received his knowledge through clairvoyanc=
e,
) )and no one since Steiner has claimed to have reached the same level of
) )spiritual perception. Therefore, his teachings have the same kind of
) )authority as those of prophets who claim to have received their knowled=
ge
) )directly from God. Until someone else reaches the same spiritual level=
as
) )Steiner, how can they effectively challenge anything he wrote?
)
) First of all: there are people who claim to have reached very high
) levels of spiritual perception, some not as high, some maybe higher than
) Steiner.
Very interesting. I did not know that until you and Joel pointed it out.
) Steiner encouraged everyone to challenge everything he wrote and said,
) and he meant that everyone could do this with just normal reasoning and
) an open mind.
Sounds good to me.
(off-topic)
) May the long-time-sun shine upon you
) all love surround you
) and the pure light within you
) guide you all the way on
)
) -The Incredible String Band-
Thanks for putting that song into my head this afternoon! I have that
old Incredible String Band album, and I love that little song.
I have more recently heard the quote in another context. I can't
recall where, but it predated the Incredible String Band. They found the
quote and worked it into their song. Does anyone know the origin of this?
Speaking of English folk-rock, I'll be seeing Fairport Convention on March=
19 in Santa Cruz. They don't come to California much, and I'm *really*
looking forward to it.
(/off-topic)
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
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n682 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n683 --------------
001 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Free judgment
002 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Re: Free judgment
003 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Re: Free judgment
004 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Free judgment
005 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Free judgment
006 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Free judgment
007 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Free judgment
008 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Free judgment
009 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: Free judgment
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n683.1 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 98 22:23:40 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Per Hallstr=F6m (per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se) wrote )
)In the case of the heart we teach as a fact that blood moves in the veins
)of the fetus even before the heart is formed and can start its rhythmical
)regulation of the bloodstream. We then point out the resemblance between
)the heart and a pump, but we don=B4t say: "the heart is a pump, it=B4s =
main
)function is to make the blood move through the body". That would be too
)much of a doctrine.
I don't understand why you think it would be too much of a doctrine =
to say that the heart is a pump, or that the heart has as it's main =
function moving blood through the body. This is as much of a fact as =
anything else you can observe about the body. Only followers of =
Rudolph Steiner have any trouble with this issue. Talk about =
doctrine! This is one of the many cases where Rudy was simply =
mistaken.
)Steiner sometimes said silly things about races to say the least, =
that=B4s my
)opinion and so say many - but not all - of the people i know who think of
)them selves as Anthroposophists.
Why can't YOU admit that Steiner also said some silly things about =
science, too.
)Steiner was accountable for what he said. I=B4m accountable for what I =
say.
)There is no doctrine.
I find these two sentences to be without meaning.
)As I=B4ve stated before: Anthroposophy and WE are more comparable to
)Darwinism than to any doctrinous religion.
This is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I think it is =
objectively false.
)But this goes for all sciences too. If you
)come to the contrary conclusion of Aristotle, Kepler, Newton, Goethe, or
)Skinner you are not an Aristotelian, etc, etc or behaviourist =
(Skinnerist).
Or a flat-earther, or an Anthroposophist. Nevertheless, we don't =
teach discredited knowledge in our public school system. This =
includes the mistaken notion that "the heart is not a pump".
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n683.2 ---------------
From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 13:50:32 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 22.23 98-03-06, Daniel Sabsay wrote:
)Per Hallstr=F6m (per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se) wrote )
)
))In the case of the heart we teach as a fact that blood moves in the veins
))of the fetus even before the heart is formed and can start its rhythmical
))regulation of the bloodstream. We then point out the resemblance between
))the heart and a pump, but we don=B4t say: "the heart is a pump, it=B4s mai=
n
))function is to make the blood move through the body". That would be too
))much of a doctrine.
)
)I don't understand why you think it would be too much of a doctrine to say
)that the heart is a pump, or that the heart has as it's main function
)moving blood through the body. This is as much of a fact as anything else
)you can observe about the body. Only followers of Rudolph Steiner have
)any trouble with this issue. Talk about doctrine! This is one of the
)many cases where Rudy was simply mistaken.
No,no, mr Sabsay, doctrine is when you are very sure that you are right
about something and reject anyone who says otherwise as being mistaken.
Doctrine is not when you try to see things from different (new) points of
view and state that something is true but not the hole truth.
If someone calls you heartless they don=B4t usually imply that your blood
doesn=B4t move in your body. What they imply refers to another function of
the heart which maybe is more of a main function than what you call
pumping.
))Steiner sometimes said silly things about races to say the least, that=B4s=
my
))opinion and so say many - but not all - of the people i know who think of
))them selves as Anthroposophists.
)
)Why can't YOU admit that Steiner also said some silly things about
)science, too.
Because have not encountered them yet.
))Steiner was accountable for what he said. I=B4m accountable for what I say=
.
))There is no doctrine.
)
)I find these two sentences to be without meaning.
To me they are three sentences, but all the same, to me they mean that I
don=B4t stand for, i=B4m not responsible for what Steiner said (or wrote). I=
=B4m
an anthroposophist because I find it a fruitful way of understanding the
world and my self, and therefore I a try to be a representative for
anthroposophy.
))As I=B4ve stated before: Anthroposophy and WE are more comparable to
))Darwinism than to any doctrinous religion.
)
)This is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I think it is
)objectively false.
So,so, objectively is it now.
))But this goes for all sciences too. If you
))come to the contrary conclusion of Aristotle, Kepler, Newton, Goethe, or
))Skinner you are not an Aristotelian, etc, etc or behaviourist (Skinnerist)=
.
)
)Or a flat-earther, or an Anthroposophist. Nevertheless, we don't teach
)discredited knowledge in our public school system. This includes the
)mistaken notion that "the heart is not a pump".
Discredited, mistaken notion ....well, well...I think one has to be careful
with these statements. They have historically been used often by the
prevailing knowledge-establishment and very often been proven as just so
_much mistaken notion_ by later knowledge-establishments.
Per Hallstr=F6m
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n683.3 ---------------
From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 13:50:36 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 16.43 98-03-06, Steve Premo wrote:
)On 7 Mar 98 , Per Hallstr=F6m wrote:
Dear mr Premo
Thank you for you post and its constructiveness.
)) "One is free to come to the contrary conclusion" Yes! (It's a free
)) country both here and were you live.) But this goes for all sciences too.
)) If you come to the contrary conclusion of Aristotle, Kepler, Newton,
)) Goethe, or Skinner you are not an Aristotelian, etc, etc or behaviourist
)) (Skinnerist).
)
)True, but one can come to a contrary conclusion from Skinner and still be
)a psychologist. Behaviorism is not a science; it is a movement
)within the science of psychology. Is anthroposophy a discipline
)unto itself, or a movement within some other discipline, such as
)philosophy?
)
)If it is a philosophical or religious movement, there's not much point in
)quibbling over whether it is essentially philosophical or religious,
)except to the extent that this is relevant to American constitutional law.
Anthroposophy is a research method in the field of general Human concerns
and relations. There are other methods in this field. Anthroposophy, as a
method, has a modern, scientific non-authoritarian approach.
(off-topic)
I would also like to know the origin the song i question.
BTW do you remember "the Minotaur song" I really liked that text.
(/off-topic)
All the best
Per Hallstr=F6m
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n683.4 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 09:55:58 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199803070623.WAA04024 lists1.best.com)
Daniel,
I'd like to make a general comment on your remarks to Per Hallstrom
below.
As I stated in my long post to Steve Premo, to my experience
"anthroposophy" is about developing a new kind of cognition. In a
dialogue between two individuals, one of whom has done some work in this
direction, and one of whom has not, there will be problems of agreement
much in the same way people speaking different languages find a
difficulty finding common ground.
To approach the situation as if one was right and one was wrong would
be to seriously confuse what is actually happening. This means, in the
context of your comments below, that you are correct that Steiner is
wrong, because "how" you think about the questions, and what you mean by
the words, and what the context of your experience is, is not congruent
with how Steiner thinks, what he means, and what the totality of his
experience is (also Per H.). From my understanding, the apparent
disagreement is quite expectable - there is no reason it should be
otherwise.
It would be nice (but certainly not necessary) were you to understand
this.
joel wendt
p.s. By the way, I am not suggesting this different mode of cognition is
objectively better, or that someone who does not have it or has no
interest in seeking it, has something "wrong" with them. The thread of
this post is after all "free judgment". I do think, however, that if
both sides (anthroposophists and skeptics - a sad overgeneralization,
but unavoidable) would understand that what is going on is the
intersection of two different "cultures" of consciousness, with neither
"side" being any less human, or moral, or truth seeking, then, perhaps,
the dialogues could be less acrimonious and take rather a form of mutual
interest and appreciation for the great variety of ways of being human,
and living on the Earth.
Daniel Sabsay wrote:
)
) Per Hallstr–m (per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se) wrote )
)
) )In the case of the heart we teach as a fact that blood moves in the veins
) )of the fetus even before the heart is formed and can start its rhythmical
) )regulation of the bloodstream. We then point out the resemblance between
) )the heart and a pump, but we don¥t say: "the heart is a pump, it¥s main
) )function is to make the blood move through the body". That would be too
) )much of a doctrine.
)
) I don't understand why you think it would be too much of a doctrine to say that the heart is a pump, or that the heart has as it's main function moving blood through the body. This is as much of a fact as anything else you can observe about the body. Only followers of Rudolph Steiner have any trouble with this issue. Talk about doctrine! This is one of the many cases where Rudy was simply mistaken.
)
) )Steiner sometimes said silly things about races to say the least, that¥s my
) )opinion and so say many - but not all - of the people i know who think of
) )them selves as Anthroposophists.
)
) Why can't YOU admit that Steiner also said some silly things about science, too.
)
) )Steiner was accountable for what he said. I¥m accountable for what I say.
) )There is no doctrine.
)
) I find these two sentences to be without meaning.
)
) )As I¥ve stated before: Anthroposophy and WE are more comparable to
) )Darwinism than to any doctrinous religion.
)
) This is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I think it is objectively false.
)
) )But this goes for all sciences too. If you
) )come to the contrary conclusion of Aristotle, Kepler, Newton, Goethe, or
) )Skinner you are not an Aristotelian, etc, etc or behaviourist (Skinnerist).
)
) Or a flat-earther, or an Anthroposophist. Nevertheless, we don't teach discredited knowledge in our public school system. This includes the mistaken notion that "the heart is not a pump".
)
) -- Daniel Sabsay, president
) East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n683.5 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 98 12:45:56 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
So, Per Hallstr=F6m & Joel Wendt:
When people say Jesus Christ is their savior, and it makes them =
better (happier?) people, are they talking about "spiritual science"? =
Why haven't they discovered that "the heart is not a pump"?
Do you think that others who practice the "spiritual science" of =
anthroposophy would have discovered that "the heart is not a pump" if =
St. Rudy hadn't written it in the scriptures? If so, what other =
"facts" of science have the followers of anthroposophy found. What =
"facts" of science discovered by St. Rudy have the followers found to =
be wrong?
What about those very advanced ones who have decided to say nothing =
at all. We can only guess that they are not finding out any facts at =
all.
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n683.6 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 1998 23:00:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: (199803080700.XAA17913 lists1.best.com)
Subject: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n683
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 1998 17:03:17 -0800
Daniel,
It is difficult to take your message below other than as apparently
intended to mock and to make sarcasm.
I would be glad to respond to something with some content, and some
respect, when you are in the mood for it.
with respect,
joel wendt
Daniel Sabsay wrote:
)
) So, Per Hallstr–m & Joel Wendt:
)
) When people say Jesus Christ is their savior, and it makes them better (happier?) people, are they talking about "spiritual science"? Why haven't they discovered that "the heart is not a pump"?
)
) Do you think that others who practice the "spiritual science" of anthroposophy would have discovered that "the heart is not a pump" if St. Rudy hadn't written it in the scriptures? If so, what other "facts" of science have the followers of anthroposophy found. What "facts" of science discovered by St. Rudy have the followers found to be wrong?
)
) What about those very advanced ones who have decided to say nothing at all. We can only guess that they are not finding out any facts at all.
)
) -- Daniel Sabsay, president
) East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n683.7 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 15:02:17 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199803071247.EAA20531 lists1.best.com)
Per Hallstrom and Dan Sabsay are arguing:
HALLSTROM:
)))But this goes for all sciences too. If you
)))come to the contrary conclusion of Aristotle, Kepler, Newton, Goethe, or
)))Skinner you are not an Aristotelian, etc, etc or behaviourist (Skinnerist).
SABSAY:
))Or a flat-earther, or an Anthroposophist. Nevertheless, we don't teach
))discredited knowledge in our public school system. This includes the
))mistaken notion that "the heart is not a pump".
HALLSTROM:
)Discredited, mistaken notion ....well, well...I think one has to be careful
)with these statements. They have historically been used often by the
)prevailing knowledge-establishment and very often been proven as just so
)_much mistaken notion_ by later knowledge-establishments.
KOPP says:
Hallstrom is acting like a patronising schoolmarm. He knows best, and will
instruct us. I puke.
Most of the knowledge Hallstrom is talking about is scientific knowledge,
and is the result of a modern scientific establishment's way of thinking
developed over the last 500 years. Within that "establishment" there is a
consistent method for progress, which is its genius over other systems,
such as religions, philosophies, cults and the pronouncements of various
self-appointed gurus.
If Hallstrom is saying that other "establishments" outside of science have
overturned scientific knowledge, he's talking pure, unadulterated, new-age,
mumbo-jumbo rubbish. Especially if he's talking about the weird and wacky
world of Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical (SWA) cant.
In the case of the scientific "establishment", the statements of theory,
verified by experiment and evidence, which become scientific knowledge, and
taught as such, are invitations to others to produce better understandings.
Science works, as I have said many times, to no effect on the SWA
apologists on this list, by skepticism and seeking new answers. When those
new answers stand the rigorous test of scientific method and prove
themselves, they are accepted as advancements in our understanding, despite
the personal cost to the discoverers of the previously held view, which is
consigned to history.
Anthroposophy, the cult of Rudolf Steiner, tells people there is a body of
truth which they can find themselves by following a psychic method which
cannot be tested, replicated, conveyed by logic and reason, or proved
empirically.
It is therefore an act of faith by SWA people to believe any of the
esoteric "knowledge" such as that colour arises through the opposition of
dark and light etheric, spiritual forces, and is not an inherent property
of the electro- magnetic spectrum for which evolution has equipped us with
receivers to perceive, and which can be viewed as separate bands of
wavelengths by means of the spreading of a light beam by a prism.
If it is an act of faith to believe these things, then the method that
teaches how to arrive at these conclusions is a supernatural spiritualism.
Ergo SWA is a religious faith.
(Under the U.S. Constitution, religions have no business in U.S. state
education; the U.S. and its states have no business paying for religions to
provide education, no matter what type of system it is delivered in.)
I repeat again Dan Sabsay and Dan Dugan and my own and many other
_scientists'_ challenges to the SWA apologists:
1. Prove any one of your contentions by the scientific method, rather than
your "spiritual science" and Anthroposophy and I will agree with it.
I am satisfied with the scientific view of the world. Whatever I think
about my own "spirituality" is my business. Whatever I think and want to
transmit about that subject to my children is MY business, not that of a
school such as the so-called Waldorf or Waldorf-method or Waldorf-inspired
exercises in deception.
2. Show me any single piece of doctrine or dogma -- and that's what it is
-- from Rudolf Steiner, which has been repudiated or superseded by
subsequent Anthroposophical work of any kind (philosophical, spiritual
scientific, or divine guidance if you will).
Pursuant to No. 2, Hallstrom's shilly-shallying answer to the challenge of
repudiating Steiner's racism is instructive of SWA apologists' methods: if
you are caught out, and it is obvious that you are wrong, belittle the
import of the original claim. So, Steiner's racism is excused by Hallstrom
as "a bit of silliness". My ass. It is racism, a dangerous and demented
human failing that has cost humanity hugely, and isn't dead yet. Why does
not SWA simply repudiate Steiner, instead of excusing him?
As I said about three months ago when Joel Wendt joined this list: there
will never be a meeting of the minds of scientists and spiritualists like
SWA adherrents. It is impossible. So Wendt and Hallstrom et al will
continue to use up bandwidth maundering about philosophical minutiae and
grinding the mills ever finer in an attempt to instruct the skeptics, who
will, with time and enough repitition, come to agree with little bits of
Anthroposophy, losing sight of the purpose of this list, which is to
_criticise_ the irrationality and received wisdom of SWA and expose it for
what it is: meaningless babble.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n683.8 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 18:12:03 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199803071247.EAA20560 lists1.best.com)
Per Hallstrom writes:
)Anthroposophy is a research method in the field of general Human concerns
)and relations. There are other methods in this field. Anthroposophy, as a
)method, has a modern, scientific non-authoritarian approach.
Wow! Life, the Universe and everything! Is there anything that
Anthroposophy _isn't_?
This kind of new-age, feel-good, anything goes bullshit is so pathetic an
excuse for a discipline that I imagine that the
Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophical mafia dons are tearing their hair out over
what people say in Steiner's/ Waldorf's/ Anthroposophy's name.
Everything in Hallstrom's explanation is so useless in terms of the
ordinary meaning of the English language that the whole statement is
meaningless. Which is typical of esoteric spiritualism.
like all good thought-control systems, Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy uses
words to mean whatever they want them to mean depending on the spur of the
moment. War is peace, etc.
Come on, Mr Hallstrom you'll have to do better than this tripe.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n683.9 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 18:41:12 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199803070623.WAA04024 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199803071749.JAA05902 lists1.best.com)
Joel Wendt wrote:
)Daniel,
)
) I'd like to make a general comment on your remarks to Per Hallstrom
)below.
)
) As I stated in my long post to Steve Premo, to my experience
)"anthroposophy" is about developing a new kind of cognition.
KOPP says: Realy? I thought it saiys it is about attaining "knowlege of
higher worlds through spiritual exploraration". Doesn't sound like
cognition to me. Or is Mr Wendt trying to redefine perfectly good English
words and perfectly well understood psychological understanding of the
human brain, as well?
WENDT says:
) In a
)dialogue between two individuals, one of whom has done some work in this
)direction, and one of whom has not, there will be problems of agreement
)much in the same way people speaking different languages find a
)difficulty finding common ground.
)
) To approach the situation as if one was right and one was wrong would
)be to seriously confuse what is actually happening. This means, in the
)context of your comments below, that you are correct that Steiner is
)wrong, because "how" you think about the questions, and what you mean by
)the words, and what the context of your experience is, is not congruent
)with how Steiner thinks, what he means, and what the totality of his
)experience is (also Per H.). From my understanding, the apparent
)disagreement is quite expectable - there is no reason it should be
)otherwise.
)
) It would be nice (but certainly not necessary) were you to understand
)this.
)
)joel wendt
KOPP says:
There is no confusion in my mind: one is right and one is wrong, and this
is not a debate among equal bodies of knowledge that are possibly both
right.
This is one of the confusions of students "educated" in Steiner schools, in
my experience. They believe all things are possible, and the wildest claims
and bizarrenesses, and most irrational and esoteric of thought processes,
should be given the same respect until one decides which one to buy of the
supermarket shelf of ideas.
I decline to do so. I use the Western, rationalist, scientific method of
thought, and I do not believe there is a superior one, or one which can
even come close to explaining the world.
To say that supernatural spiritualism should be taken as an equally valid
method of coming to terms with our experience is to elevate it to a level
which it has never demonstrated any right to.
To repeat: Steiner/ Waldord/ Anthrophosophy has never produced one shred of
evidence to counter any scientific knowledge, nor one shred of credibility
in reasoning to make it an equal system.
WENDT says:
)p.s. By the way, I am not suggesting this different mode of cognition is
)objectively better, or that someone who does not have it or has no
)interest in seeking it, has something "wrong" with them. The thread of
)this post is after all "free judgment". I do think, however, that if
)both sides (anthroposophists and skeptics - a sad overgeneralization,
)but unavoidable) would understand that what is going on is the
)intersection of two different "cultures" of consciousness, with neither
)"side" being any less human, or moral, or truth seeking, then, perhaps,
)the dialogues could be less acrimonious and take rather a form of mutual
)interest and appreciation for the great variety of ways of being human,
)and living on the Earth.
KOPP says:
I don't recall any critic here saying that Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy
is less human than science, less moral than anything else, or less "truth
seeking".
What I and others have said is that, among other things, Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposophy and its adherents and apologists are often unethical, and
that the "truth" they seek is more like the received wisdom of a religion
or an esoteric, supernatural spiritualist cult.
I have no further interest in or appreciation of the Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposphical "way of being human". That's why I removed my children and
myself from a Steiner school, which had failed abysmally in a number of
respects in helping my children in "being human" which were entrusted to
them as an educational institution.
Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical/ mumbo-jumbo is only of interest to me
insofar as I wish to continue to criticise it for its failures of reason
and ethical behaviour. I am not interested in a dialogue about its
potential as "a way of being human and living on the earth".
Others who are are welcome to it. I would like to see this list return from
the navel-gazing, nit-picking discussion of esoteric ideas and concentrate
on
1. critical comment on Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophic ideas (which is not
the same as study of them as potentially equally valid to rationality);
2. criticism of the actions of Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical movement
and schools;
3. their legitimacy and success or otherwise as an educational method, and
4. the rightness or wrongness of their receiving public funding or being a
part of public (state) schools, and associated issues.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n683 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n684 --------------
001 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Navel Gazing & Nit-Picking
002 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Re: Free judgment
003 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Free judgment
004 - "Peter Schwab" (pschwab a - Rudolf Steiner and racism
005 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Westfall on Waldorf
006 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Re: Free judgment
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n684.1 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Navel Gazing & Nit-Picking
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 1998 09:32:56 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803080700.XAA17913 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp posted:
) Others who are are welcome to it. I would like to see this list return from
) the navel-gazing, nit-picking discussion of esoteric ideas and concentrate
) on
)
) 1. critical comment on Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophic ideas (which is not
) the same as study of them as potentially equally valid to rationality);
)
) 2. criticism of the actions of Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical movement
) and schools;
)
) 3. their legitimacy and success or otherwise as an educational method, and
)
) 4. the rightness or wrongness of their receiving public funding or being a
) part of public (state) schools, and associated issues.
Thank you Michael. I am with you on your request. I haven't posted
lately because I simply can't drum up enough interest to respond to the
esoteric BS posted here by Wendt. Joel needs to direct his cerebral
slush to those that frequent the bobnancy site and other
Anthroposophical hangouts. (Wendt has recently been welcomed back into
the fold and various Anthro/Waldorf sites now have links to his
ungrammatical meanderings.) I suspect the recent embrace of his "outlaw"
thoughts by SWA has encouraged his ramblings in this forum.
I do, however, appreciate Halstrom's posts when he speaks to the content
and point of pedagogical matters. They provide a deeper look into the
Anthroposophical reasoning and behavior in the Waldorf classroom
regarding issues such as the heart - not a pump issue.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n684.2 ---------------
From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 19:55:20 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Mr Kopp
In your last posts, as in many previous ones, your sufferings from your
encounter with
what you describe as Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy is vividly obvious.
I hope that you will acknowledge/recieve my sincere and deep sympathy, and
not take it as anything else.
Whatever the cause for your bad experiences are, I would like to ensure you
that it is no way coherent with the ambitions of Anthroposophy and WE to be
rude and abusive to people, teach anything that is not true, try to put
people in the dark or in any other way say one thing and do the other.
In your posts you state a lot of different things, but I think the citing
below sort of sums it up so I would liketo try to answer to this:
Kopp says:
)This is one of the confusions of students "educated" in Steiner schools, in
)my experience. They believe all things are possible, and the wildest claims
)and bizarrenesses, and most irrational and esoteric of thought processes,
)should be given the same respect until one decides which one to buy of the
)supermarket shelf of ideas.
Hallstrom says:
During my years as a waldorf parent/teacher I have also met with Lecturers
from different organisations like the National School Board, various
corporations, anti-drug-organisations, political parties, religious groups
and ethnical groups who had visited Waldorf schools to talk to the pupils
there. They have experience of doing this kind of work mainly in ordinary
state-schools and they always comment on the unaccustomed "openness and
wakeful interest, combined with a lot of critical questions" that they met
in the Waldorf schools.
Kopp says:
)I decline to do so. I use the Western, rationalist, scientific method of
)thought, and I do not believe there is a superior one, or one which can
)even come close to explaining the world.
Hallstrom says:
Of course I respect your right to have your belief. However, to be
unwilling to try out new methods is not considered as a rationalist,
scientific method of thought, as far as I know.
Kopp says:
)To say that supernatural spiritualism should be taken as an equally valid
)method of coming to terms with our experience is to elevate it to a level
)which it has never demonstrated any right to.
Hallstrom says:
"supernatural spiritualism" is a very vague and general term.
RS described a method by which he could discover new data, it is a method
of enhancing your consciousness.
The hard part about this is of course that you have to do some work with
you self, if you want these new capacities of experience
As you probably know the method, at its basic stage concerns the striving fo=
r:
a) a more precise thinking capacity
b) a more conscious influence on your acts of will
c) a more objectivated feeling capacity that opens new fields of data
d) an attitude that always has an eye open for positive
aspects.(beauty,truth, love)
e) an open mind.
f) all five (a-e) together.
Ways to work with these exercises are described in various books by RS. If
you are interested I could list some for you.
The results of this kind of work is evident in the many different books and
lectures given by people who work with the method and last but not least
the practical work being done as a consequence of these.
(For those who are interested; surf the web for anthroposophy and its practi=
ces)
Kopp says:
)To repeat: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy has never produced one shred of
)evidence to counter any scientific knowledge, nor one shred of credibility
)in reasoning to make it an equal system.
Hallstrom says:
The scientific knowledge reached by people working anthroposophically
inspired in various fields of scientific research (not to mention the
common sense knowledge reached by people working anthroposophically
inspired in various fields of profession) is not contradictory to the
knowledge reached by natural sciences alone; they are complementary. The
credibility of anthroposophically inspired knowledge must be continually
tested in each case. You can tell a tree by it fruits but not just by a few
virus infected ones. (and not a dog by its hair BTW).
And ,as I=B4ve pointed out before:
Steiner encouraged everyone to challenge everything he wrote and said, and
he meant that everyone could do this with just normal reasoning and an open
mind. That=B4s one main reason why anthroposophy is no religion.
I willingly admit though, that this is not clearly stated by all fans of
anthroposophy.
BTW I find your posts a bit rough and snotty. I also like to use that tone
now and then, its=B4s like having a skirmish with verbal rapiers, it=B4s goo=
d
sport. But I prefer to do it as a jest, with people who know me and know
I=B4m not really serious.
Otherwise I=B4ve observed that I unintentionally hurt people and cause them
and myself unnecessary confusion and complications.
Have a coke!
Per Hallstr=F6m
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n684.3 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 98 13:02:24 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Per Hallstr=F6m (per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se) wrote)
)The scientific knowledge reached by people working anthroposophically
)inspired in various fields of scientific research (not to mention the
)common sense knowledge reached by people working anthroposophically
)inspired in various fields of profession) is not contradictory to the
)knowledge reached by natural sciences alone; they are complementary.
Please a few examples of this "complementary" knowledge. Do you =
include the inspired "fact" that "the heart is not a pump"?
)And ,as I=B4ve pointed out before:
)Steiner encouraged everyone to challenge everything he wrote and said, and
)he meant that everyone could do this with just normal reasoning and an =
open
)mind. That=B4s one main reason why anthroposophy is no religion.
Why do you think reincarnation is not a religious belief? Would a =
person who believes in everything Rudy said, except reincarnation, be =
considered an anthrosophist?
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n684.4 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab" (pschwab access.ch)
Subject: Rudolf Steiner and racism
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 23:46:57 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
This could interest you..
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/anthromedia/race01.htm
best wishes
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 032 / 857.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n684.5 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Westfall on Waldorf
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 01:17:35 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dr. Barry Westfall gave the following testimony in a child custody case in
Ohio. He did his dissertation on the influence of 19th-century German
educational thought on American school practices in the early 20th century.
He teaches in the College of Education and Health Sciences at Bradley
University in Peoria, Illinois.
-Dan Dugan
***
Q Dr. Westfall, as part of your education and your experience, have you
ever had an opportunity to inquire into Rudolf Steiner and his writings on
anthroposophy?
A Yes.
Q And can you tell the Court your professional opinion as to its validity
or acceptability as a teaching philosophy?
***
A Steiner's problem, first off, is that as far as the contemporary
published material that's available on educational philosophy and
psychology, it's virtually nonexistent other than things that are written
by his advocates about him, primarily the Waldorf school people; but you
are not going to find anything written about Steiner I would say in the
last 40 years by other than these people. I had to go back to the turn of
the century just to find a footnote in one book.
Q Does this indicate to you that his philosophy and writings are generally
accepted?
A He's very--as a person his ideas are extremely obscure, and that's the
only word for it, obscure.
Q Okay. And have you had an opportunity to investigate Waldorf schools?
A Yes.
Q And do you have an opinion about Waldorf schools and their place and
context in the American educational system?
A The Waldorf schools are what I would call--and this is my word...I use it
as a descriptor for lack of a better term--what I would call an example of
an educational tabloid. ... {S}omething like what the *Inquirer* or the
*Star* would be compared to the *New York Times* or the *Washington
Post*... By no means is it anywhere near or close to a position of being in
the middle of accepted standards. That's why I call it an educational
tabloid because...it doesn't really do anything...other than just primarily
appeal to what a lot of people want to hear.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n684.6 ---------------
From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 18:34:43 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 13.02 98-03-08, Daniel Sabsay wrote:
)Per Hallstr=F6m (per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se) wrote)
)
))The scientific knowledge reached by people working anthroposophically
))inspired in various fields of scientific research (not to mention the
))common sense knowledge reached by people working anthroposophically
))inspired in various fields of profession) is not contradictory to the
))knowledge reached by natural sciences alone; they are complementary.
)
)Please a few examples of this "complementary" knowledge. Do you include
)the inspired "fact" that "the heart is not a pump"?
Yes, the heart does its work, it can be studied empirically. If these
studies are limited to the physical movement of the heart, if your frame of
reference is limited to sense experience of other physical objects, and if
you prefer to look for analogies among man made machines, then conclusion
is evident: the heart is a pump.
Complementary knowledge can be attained by using complementary data,
complementary frames of reference and complementary analogies.
Examples of complementary data, complementary frames of reference and
complementary analogies is abundant in the work of Rudolf Steiner among
others.
Whether the outcome is regarded as complementary _knowledge_ or not depends
on the outcome of your own evaluation.
))And ,as I=B4ve pointed out before:
))Steiner encouraged everyone to challenge everything he wrote and said, and
))he meant that everyone could do this with just normal reasoning and an ope=
n
))mind. That=B4s one main reason why anthroposophy is no religion.
)
)Why do you think reincarnation is not a religious belief? Would a person
)who believes in everything Rudy said, except reincarnation, be considered
)an anthrosophist?
Per Hallstr=F6m
A person who believes in everything Rudolf Steiner said would not be
considered an anthrosophist, at least not by me and most of the
anthroposophists I know, mostly because this person seems unable to think
for him/herself and is a dogmatic "believer".
A person who believes in everything Rudolf Steiner said, except
reincarnation is a totally hypothetic person, and would not be considered
an anthrosophist.
Whether you appreciate the idea of reincarnation or not must not be a
question of belief. You may consider it an assumption, a hypothesis.
It can be tested and evaluated and used as a working hypothesis (about the
eventuality of existence of experiences and consciousness before conception
and after death) even if it cant be proved.
If you find that it can help to explains things (like human relations, the
universe, meaning of life etc) better than any other hypothesis, it is
reasonable to use it.
With best regards
Per Hallstr=F6m
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n684 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n685 --------------
001 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Westfall on Waldorf
002 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Free judgment
003 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Re: Free judgment
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n685.1 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Westfall on Waldorf
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 1998 10:20:01 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803090917.BAA25431 lists1.best.com)
Dan,
Very cute Dan, but you have to know that when (or if) this man ever
gets cross-examined by an attorney, who actually knows something about
Waldorf, Anthroposophy and Steiner, the picture won't so conveniently
support the PLANS dogma.
joel wendt
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) Dr. Barry Westfall gave the following testimony in a child custody case in
) Ohio. He did his dissertation on the influence of 19th-century German
) educational thought on American school practices in the early 20th century.
) He teaches in the College of Education and Health Sciences at Bradley
) University in Peoria, Illinois.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
) ***
)
) Q Dr. Westfall, as part of your education and your experience, have you
) ever had an opportunity to inquire into Rudolf Steiner and his writings on
) anthroposophy?
)
) A Yes.
)
) Q And can you tell the Court your professional opinion as to its validity
) or acceptability as a teaching philosophy?
)
) ***
)
) A Steiner's problem, first off, is that as far as the contemporary
) published material that's available on educational philosophy and
) psychology, it's virtually nonexistent other than things that are written
) by his advocates about him, primarily the Waldorf school people; but you
) are not going to find anything written about Steiner I would say in the
) last 40 years by other than these people. I had to go back to the turn of
) the century just to find a footnote in one book.
)
) Q Does this indicate to you that his philosophy and writings are generally
) accepted?
)
) A He's very--as a person his ideas are extremely obscure, and that's the
) only word for it, obscure.
)
) Q Okay. And have you had an opportunity to investigate Waldorf schools?
)
) A Yes.
)
) Q And do you have an opinion about Waldorf schools and their place and
) context in the American educational system?
)
) A The Waldorf schools are what I would call--and this is my word...I use it
) as a descriptor for lack of a better term--what I would call an example of
) an educational tabloid. ... {S}omething like what the *Inquirer* or the
) *Star* would be compared to the *New York Times* or the *Washington
) Post*... By no means is it anywhere near or close to a position of being in
) the middle of accepted standards. That's why I call it an educational
) tabloid because...it doesn't really do anything...other than just primarily
) appeal to what a lot of people want to hear.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n685.2 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 98 12:26:05 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Per Hallstr=F6m (per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se) wrote)
)[...] Complementary knowledge can be attained by using complementary data,
)complementary frames of reference and complementary analogies.
)
)Examples of complementary data, complementary frames of reference and
)complementary analogies is abundant in the work of Rudolf Steiner among
)others. Whether the outcome is regarded as complementary _knowledge_ or =
not
)depends on the outcome of your own evaluation.
Anthroposophists re-define "knowledge".
)[...] Whether you appreciate the idea of reincarnation or not must not be =
a
)question of belief. You may consider it an assumption, a hypothesis.
)It can be tested and evaluated and used as a working hypothesis (about the
)eventuality of existence of experiences and consciousness before =
conception
)and after death) even if it cant be proved.
Anthroposophists re-define "religion."
)[...]A person who believes in everything Rudolf Steiner said would not be
)considered an anthrosophist, at least not by me and most of the
)anthroposophists I know, mostly because this person seems unable to think
)for him/herself and is a dogmatic "believer".
)A person who believes in everything Rudolf Steiner said, except
)reincarnation is a totally hypothetic person, and would not be considered
)an anthroposophist.
And, of course, anthroposophists re-define "free judgement."
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n685.3 ---------------
From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Re: Free judgment
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 10:01:20 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear mr Sabsay
I have been trying to understand your questions and trying to answer them
in a correct way.
It seems to me though, that you are not really interested in what I try to
say or how I think about these matters.
And maybe thereby this thread - originally regarding the question of
presumed actuality of "faith in a fixed body of scripture" among
anthroposophists - is getting a bit worn out.
With best regards
Per Hallstr=F6m
----------------------------------
Last parts of the thread:
Hallstrom:
))))The scientific knowledge reached by people working anthroposophically
))))inspired in various fields of scientific research (not to mention the
))))common sense knowledge reached by people working anthroposophically
))))inspired in various fields of profession) is not contradictory to the
))))knowledge reached by natural sciences alone; they are complementary.
Sabsay:
)))Please a few examples of this "complementary" knowledge. Do you include
)))the inspired "fact" that "the heart is not a pump"?
Hallstrom:
))Yes, the heart does its work, it can be studied empirically. If these
))studies are limited to the physical movement of the heart, if your frame o=
f
))reference is limited to sense experience of other physical objects, and if
))you prefer to look for analogies among man made machines, then conclusion
))is evident: the heart is a pump.
))Complementary knowledge can be attained by using complementary data,
))complementary frames of reference and complementary analogies.
))Examples of complementary data, complementary frames of reference and
))complementary analogies is abundant in the work of Rudolf Steiner among
))others.
))Whether the outcome is regarded as complementary _knowledge_ or not depend=
s
))on the outcome of your own evaluation.
)Sabsay:
)Anthroposophists re-define "knowledge"
Per Hallstr=F6m:
))))And ,as I=B4ve pointed out before:
))))Steiner encouraged everyone to challenge everything he wrote and said, a=
nd
))))he meant that everyone could do this with just normal reasoning and an o=
pen
))))mind. That=B4s one main reason why anthroposophy is no religion.
)))Sabsay:
)))Why do you think reincarnation is not a religious belief? Would a person
)))who believes in everything Rudy said, except reincarnation, be considered
)))an anthrosophist?
Per Hallstr=F6m:
))A person who believes in everything Rudolf Steiner said would not be
))considered an anthrosophist, at least not by me and most of the
))anthroposophists I know, mostly because this person seems unable to think
))for him/herself and is a dogmatic "believer".
))A person who believes in everything Rudolf Steiner said, except
))reincarnation is a totally hypothetic person, and would not be considered
))an anthrosophist.
)Sabsay:
)And, of course, anthroposophists re-define "free judgement."
))Whether you appreciate the idea of reincarnation or not must not be a
))question of belief. You may consider it an assumption, a hypothesis.
))It can be tested and evaluated and used as a working hypothesis (about the
))eventuality of existence of experiences and consciousness before conceptio=
n
))and after death) even if it cant be proved.
)Sabsay:
)Anthroposophists re-define "religion."
))If you find that it can help to explains things (like human relations, the
))universe, meaning of life etc) better than any other hypothesis, it is
))reasonable to use it.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n685 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n686 --------------
001 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Public charter school not religious
002 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Public charter school not religious
003 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Public charter school not religious
004 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Public charter school not religious
005 - mckay oro.net (David B Mc - Re: Public charter school not religious
006 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Public charter school not religious
007 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Public charter school not religious
008 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Public charter school not religious
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n686.1 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Public charter school not religious
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 16:23:41 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Letters to the Editor
Public charter school not religious
By Janet Miller - Tue, Mar 10, 1998
The Yuba River Charter School (YRCS) has been accused by PLANS of teaching
religion to its students. This allegation is without merit. The school does
not teach religion. It is a public school. The faculty and administration
consciously addressed this concern, raised several years ago, and teach
only what is appropriate for a public school. As a charter school, the YRCS
curriculum differs from mainstream public schools. Every aspect of the
curriculum has an academic and artistic purpose, from the two hour academic
main lesson in the morning to the foreign languages, games, music,
painting, handwork, or other specialties during the rest of the day. For
example, all children learn to knit, a process that develops attention
span, counting skills, and coordination. The coordination helps develop
reading skills.
One result of this education is that over half of this year's eighth grade,
the school's first graduating class, received an overall score of 99
percent on the standardized CAT tests they took this year. Ninety-five
percent of the class scored in the 94th percentile or above. However, the
academic aspect is not the only critical aspect of the education. Equally
important is the stimulation of the children's imaginative and creative
abilities brought about by integrating the arts (drama, music, painting)
into the academic subjects, including science and math. As a result of
this integrated approach, the students maintain an enthusiasm for learning
long after graduating from the eighth grade.
Religion is not taught within this curriculum. Accusing it of being so does
not make it so, no matter how loud or how often the accusations are made.
Come visit. Get your information first hand. The fragments of information
and misinformation in these pages are insufficient for understanding what
YRCS is or isn't doing. It would be irresponsible to insist on the closure
of a very effective public school because of these insupportable charges.
Janet Miller
Parent of a 6th grader at YRCS
Grass Valley
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n686.2 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Public charter school not religious
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 16:50:46 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199803110020.QAA08182 lists1.best.com)
On 10 Mar 98 , Debra Snell wrote:
) Letters to the Editor
)
) Public charter school not religious
)
) By Janet Miller - Tue, Mar 10, 1998
)
) The Yuba River Charter School (YRCS) has been accused by PLANS of
) teaching religion to its students.
That's not it. As I understand it, the allegation is that the school's
pedagogy is based on religious concepts, not that religion is taught to
the students. But members of the public seldom understand the legal
issues involved in litigation, and unfortunately, the newspapers do little
to enlighten them.
) One result of this education is that over half of this year's eighth
) grade, the school's first graduating class, received an overall score of
) 99 percent on the standardized CAT tests they took this year. Ninety-five
) percent of the class scored in the 94th percentile or above.
Wow. That's impressive.
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.n686.3 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Public charter school not religious
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:52:16 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199803110020.QAA08182 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199803110055.QAA24126 lists1.best.com)
)
)) One result of this education is that over half of this year's eighth
)) grade, the school's first graduating class, received an overall score of
)) 99 percent on the standardized CAT tests they took this year. Ninety-five
)) percent of the class scored in the 94th percentile or above.
)
)Wow. That's impressive.
)
Impressive as heck, Steve. Knowing the children in that class, I'd love to
see a challenge of the test scores. These scores very well make this school
#1 in the entire state, if not the country.
A teacher from the Yuba River Charter School gave a parent a CAT test to
take home with them. This is absolutely irregular. Schools are not supposed
to even have copies of these tests because it gives unfair advantage to the
school.
Debra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n686.4 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Public charter school not religious
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 22:12:52 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)Letters to the Editor
)
)Public charter school not religious
)
)By Janet Miller - Tue, Mar 10, 1998
[snip]
)One result of this education is that over half of this years eighth grade,
)the schools first graduating class, received an overall score of 99
)percent on the standardized CAT tests they took this year. Ninety-five
)percent of the class scored in the 94th percentile or above.
I find this information very suspect as the CAT tests are given in the
Spring *after* the students have almost completed the years learnings. I
know that this class was given the CAT test in the spring of '97 and didn't
do very well. Now to hear that they took the test this past Fall *before*
they had even learned the eighth grade curriculum is quite amazing! How
did they get the CAT tests before they had learned the curriculum??
I wouldn't trust the above findings knowing that the teachers,
administration, and devout parent followers of this Waldorf School in
Disguise have always been willing to do and say *anything* to have there
Pure Waldorf School. Remember, these are people that do more bashing of
public schools than anyone. They would no-more think of turning their
Public Waldorf school into a *regular* Public school than Michael Kopp
would think of putting his kids back into a Waldorf school!
Parents of at least 60 kids in the YRC Waldorf School (formerly Twin
Ridges) tried for almost three years to have an alternative education type
school with some aspects of Waldorf included and were told that; 1) there
is "no such thing as *Waldorf inspired*, 2) it wouldn't be *Waldorf*
without Anthroposophy, and 3) there are plenty of "alternative" type
Charter schools in this county (including one right next door), so if what
you want doesn't include "pure Waldorf" then you should "leave the school
and go somewhere else".
So why are they are they now saying that they are not in any way a Waldorf
School? And if so, why have two schools that are now the same literally
right next to each other? (the Charter school that is next to the Waldorf
Charter is called "Nevada City School of the Arts" who's purpose is to
teach academics thru the Arts)
David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n686.5 ---------------
From: mckay oro.net (David B McKay)
Subject: Re: Public charter school not religious
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 22:23:24 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)Letters to the Editor
)
)Public charter school not religious
)
)By Janet Miller - Tue, Mar 10, 1998
)One result of this education is that over half of this year's eighth grade,
)the school's first graduating class, received an overall score of 99
)percent on the standardized CAT tests they took this year. Ninety-five
)percent of the class scored in the 94th percentile or above.
So lets do some math; "over half of this year's eighth grade,... received
an overall score of 99 percent" so that's at least 51%, then she states,
"Ninety-five percent of the class scored in the 94th percentile or above."
So we now have an equation that looks like this; 51 + 95 = 146% of
the students took this test and did *way above average*. I guess this must
be Anthroposophical Math and we "just have to trust" that it's right, and
if you don't you need to study more Steiner!
David McKay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n686.6 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Public charter school not religious
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 02:16:54 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Debra, you said,
)A teacher from the Yuba River Charter School gave a parent a CAT test to
)take home with them. This is absolutely irregular. Schools are not supposed
)to even have copies of these tests because it gives unfair advantage to the
)school.
When was this? Was it the test session that Miller was referring to? Can
the allegation be substantiated?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n686.7 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Public charter school not religious
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 02:16:52 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)So lets do some math; "over half of this year's eighth grade,... received
)an overall score of 99 percent" so that's at least 51%, then she states,
)
)"Ninety-five percent of the class scored in the 94th percentile or above."
)
)
)So we now have an equation that looks like this; 51 + 95 = 146% of
)the students took this test and did *way above average*. I guess this must
)be Anthroposophical Math and we "just have to trust" that it's right, and
)if you don't you need to study more Steiner!
David, draw a column graph of the results with 0% at the bottom and 100% at
the top. Mark off the top 51% and label that block "score 99%". The next
block down is 44% high, from 49 down to 5. Label this block "score 94 -
98%". The bottom 5% is labeled "score below 94%". Now read the text above
again with this picture in mind.
Miller chose her words for their gee-whiz value, not for clarity. In any
case, I think this report is incredible.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n686.8 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Public charter school not religious
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 08:28:26 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199803111016.CAA18170 lists1.best.com)
On 11 Mar 98 , Dan Dugan wrote:
) )So lets do some math; "over half of this year's eighth grade,... received
) )an overall score of 99 percent" so that's at least 51%, then she states,
) )
) )"Ninety-five percent of the class scored in the 94th percentile or above."
) )
) )
) )So we now have an equation that looks like this; 51 + 95 = 146% of
) )the students took this test and did *way above average*. I guess this must
) )be Anthroposophical Math and we "just have to trust" that it's right, and
) )if you don't you need to study more Steiner!
)
) David, draw a column graph of the results with 0% at the bottom and 100%
) at the top. Mark off the top 51% and label that block "score 99%". The
) next block down is 44% high, from 49 down to 5. Label this block "score
) 94 - 98%". The bottom 5% is labeled "score below 94%". Now read the text
) above again with this picture in mind.
Even that might not follow, because a score of 99 percent may not be the
same as scoring in the 99th percentile. That is, scoring in the 94th
percentile means that you do better than 94% of the students taking the
test, i.e., in the top 6 percent. So the claim is that 95% of this class
scored in the top 6% of the relevant sample, presumably, all
California public school students in the same grade taking the same
test (although it may include students from other states as well).
We don't know what percentage of the students in the relevant sample had
an overall score of 99% on the test.
And yes, I agree, it is incredible. I would not assume that the author of
the letter intentionally lied, though. She may just be mistaken,
especially if she got her "facts" by word of mouth.
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
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n686 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n687 --------------
001 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Test scores impressive?
002 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Test scores impressive?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n687.1 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Test scores impressive?
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 21:26:59 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Steve Premo posted:
)
) ) One result of this education is that over half of this year's eighth
) ) grade, the school's first graduating class, received an overall score of
) ) 99 percent on the standardized CAT tests they took this year. Ninety-five
) ) percent of the class scored in the 94th percentile or above.
)
) Wow. That's impressive.
Also pretty close to impossible. I suspect these are the highest scores
in the state . . . by a bit. How can this be so? I hope there is a
formal investigation of these scores. I think a "controlled" testing
would be appropriate at this time.
I talked to a woman I know this evening who described having the CAT
test sent home with a student when he was in the 6th grade and attending
the YRCS. This is highly inappropriate and does not lead to valid
scoring.
Teachers are not supposed to have the tests in their possession until
the time of testing. How does a student get ahold of one to take home?
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n687.2 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Test scores impressive?
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 23:06:19 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199803120532.VAA16922 lists1.best.com)
)Spike writes about Yuba River Waldorf test scores,
)Also pretty close to impossible. I suspect these are the highest scores
)in the state . . . by a bit. How can this be so? I hope there is a
)formal investigation of these scores. I think a "controlled" testing
)would be appropriate at this time.
I have been hearing these rumors for weeks. Couldn't wait to see it in writing.
Janet's letter has cerainly been the buzz of the community today. Teacher's
and administration at my son's school even mentioned this. The quote I
heard today, "These scores are a slap in the face to any school who plays
by the rules." Another teacher, a former teacher of _very_ gifted students
in Sacramento said that even students with I.Q.'s upwards of 140 score
about 94% on the CAT test.
)Teachers are not supposed to have the tests in their possession until
)the time of testing. How does a student get ahold of one to take home?
I have a copy of this test, complete with the school districts name stamped
across the front. The test is numbered, so can be accounted for.
Deby
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n687 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n688 --------------
001 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - PLANS web site
002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: PLANS web site
003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Bay Area: Dan's open house Sunday
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n688.1 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: PLANS web site
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 23:12:59 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Friends,
Nineteen months ago today (8/12/96), we began tracking the number of
visitors on PLANS web site. As of tonight, we have had 12,106 visitors.
Considering how small the Waldorf movement is, that number is amazing.
PLANS web site has averaged a little over 23 visitors each day. That's
about an average classroom size.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n688.2 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: PLANS web site
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 01:52:37 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Deby wrote,
)Nineteen months ago today (8/12/96), we began tracking the number of
)visitors on PLANS web site. As of tonight, we have had 12,106 visitors.
)Considering how small the Waldorf movement is, that number is amazing.
)PLANS web site has averaged a little over 23 visitors each day. That's
)about an average classroom size.
We've had a thousand hits in the last month. That's an average of 33 a day
recently. About a week after the press release we had several days over 40
and a high of 48 hits.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n688.3 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Bay Area: Dan's open house Sunday
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 02:51:42 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
My annual open house is Sunday, 15th, noon to midnight. Celebrating 55th
birthday, 30 years in business, 15 years in location.
-Dan Dugan
Dan Dugan Sound Design _/_/_/_/_/_/ Automatic Microphone Mixers
290 Napoleon St. USA _/ _/_/ _/ Nagra Sales and Service
San Francisco, CA 94124 _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ Custom CDs for Performance
voice (415) 821-9776 _/ _/_/ _/ E-mail dan dandugan.com
fax (415) 826-7699 _/_/_/_/_/_/ http://www.dandugan.com
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n688 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n689 --------------
001 - Deby Snell (snell netshel - To the Faculty and parents of Yuba River Waldorf School
002 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: To the Faculty and parents of Yuba River Waldorf School
003 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: To the Faculty and parents of Yuba River Waldorf School
004 - Deby Snell (snell netshel - Re: To the Faculty and parents of Yuba River Waldorf School
005 - Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ m - Re: Bay Area: Dan's open house Sunday
006 - Kevin Jackson (kevin nvis - re: PLANS Web site
007 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: To the Faculty and parents of Yuba River Waldorf School
008 - Deby Snell (snell netshel - Rudolf Steiner on Francis of Assisi
009 - Michael Kopp (mkopp actri - Re: To the Faculty and parents of Yuba River Waldorf School
010 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Bay Area: Dan's open house Sunday
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n689.1 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: To the Faculty and parents of Yuba River Waldorf School
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 13:37:47 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I am using this forum to communicate with the faculty and parents of The
Yuba River Waldorf Charter School.
I received a phone call from a local family this morning. They were
upset [at me] because they received a phone call from their child's
former Waldorf teacher at Yuba River Waldorf School (formerly Twin
Ridges Alternative Charter School). This teacher demanded the immediate
return of the CAT 5 test she gave them. They said while they had already
returned the test, they do not wish to be associated with this issue.
The idea that this teacher thought they were the source of this damning
evidence was extremely upsetting to this family. I would like the folks
from the Yuba River Waldorf School to know that this family is innocent,
and request that there be no further harrassment by teachers or parents
from this school. This is unethical and inappropriate behavior.
Thank you,
Debra Snell
President, PLANS
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n689.2 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: To the Faculty and parents of Yuba River Waldorf School
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 18:37:06 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199803142136.NAA13389 lists1.best.com)
)This teacher demanded the immediate
)return of the CAT 5 test she gave them. They said while they had already
)returned the test, they do not wish to be associated with this issue.
Seems reasonable enough on the face of what information is provided. The
teacher asks for it back, they say they've already returned it.
)I would like the folks
)from the Yuba River Waldorf School to know that this family is innocent,
)and request that there be no further harrassment by teachers or parents
)from this school. This is unethical and inappropriate behavior.
Unless there's more to the story than what's been posted, this doesn't
strike me as harassment.
It does, however, look like an attempt to mold circumstances to fit a
presupposition (i.e. waldorf schools harass and ostracize dissident
parents).
If you wish to provide additional information in support of your position,
I would be happy to rethink my conclusions.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n689.3 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: To the Faculty and parents of Yuba River Waldorf School
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 13:53:11 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199803142136.NAA13389 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199803142327.PAA27403 lists1.best.com)
Robert Flannery said:
))This teacher demanded the immediate
))return of the CAT 5 test she gave them. They said while they had already
))returned the test, they do not wish to be associated with this issue.
)
)Seems reasonable enough on the face of what information is provided. The
)teacher asks for it back, they say they've already returned it.
)
)
))I would like the folks
))from the Yuba River Waldorf School to know that this family is innocent,
))and request that there be no further harrassment by teachers or parents
))from this school. This is unethical and inappropriate behavior.
)
)Unless there's more to the story than what's been posted, this doesn't
)strike me as harassment.
)
)It does, however, look like an attempt to mold circumstances to fit a
)presupposition (i.e. waldorf schools harass and ostracize dissident
)parents).
)
)If you wish to provide additional information in support of your position,
)I would be happy to rethink my conclusions.
KOPP says:
Bushwah. Flannery will just come up with another of the pat answers to
criticism that he and other Steiner/ Waldorf/ Andthroposophy (SWA)
defenders of the faith are famous for.
I didn't read what he says is the obvious conclusion into Snell's story.
What I read was that the school is running scared of being exposed for
cheating on tests, and is trying to get back all the evidence.
(I don't think many of the critics need to "presuppose" that SWA "harrasses
and ostracizes dissident parents". It's happened to too many of us to make
the tissue of denials by SWA apologists very meaningful.
Now Flannery will give me the same line of eyewash and attack-the-messenger BS.
I don't care, and I don't think many people on this list care, whether
Flannery and his ilk ever "rethink [their] conclusions". That's not in the
nature of SWA adherents and apologists.
Like the earlier events reported by Kathy Sutphen on this list, which are
sub judice now, apparently, I await more information on this latest
indication (no pun intended) of a potential scandal in the SWA fold.
Cheating on tests or misrepresenting scores may be the American Way, but
getting caught and getting your fingers burned is also the American Way.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n689.4 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: To the Faculty and parents of Yuba River Waldorf School
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 17:56:32 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803142136.NAA13389 lists1.best.com) (199803150053.QAA25998 lists1.best.com)
) What I read was that the school is running scared of being exposed for
) cheating on tests, and is trying to get back all the evidence.
Bingo!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n689.5 ---------------
From: Tom Mellett (TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu)
Subject: Re: Bay Area: Dan's open house Sunday
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 17:57:22 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199803131052.CAA08424 lists1.best.com)
)My annual open house is Sunday, 15th, noon to midnight. Celebrating 55th
)birthday, 30 years in business, 15 years in location.
) Dan Dugan Sound Design
) 290 Napoleon St.
) San Francisco, CA 94124
----------------------------
Hey Dan,
I wish I could fly out and attend and it's too late to organize a
protest, but what say, you plan some other public event in the near future
and I can work to organize a protest of Waldorf Teachers and various
Steiner people from all walks of occult life and we can picket in front of
your store and hand out leaflets.
Somehow, the concept "protest eurythmy" is a real oxymoron right
now, but hey, this is America! I'll bet I could get some eurythmists
together to do some kind of ritual in front of your place.
Now you can't have a good protest without chanting slogans, so I've
thought up two so far. Imagine a whole group of Waldorf parents, teachers
and students all chanting:
------------------
DUGAN IS A CHUMP!
THE HEART IS NOT A PUMP!
DUGAN IS A CHUMP!
THE HEART IS NOT A PUMP!
----------------------
and the second one:
----------------------
LOOK INTO THIS PRISM!
RENOUNCE YOUR SCIENTISM!
LOOK INTO THIS PRISM!
DECRY YOUR SKEPTICISM!
------------------
I wonder if you have a mascot for your business, Dan? That would
make for some nice pageantry. If not, I have an idea for one. We could have
this creature called:
Danny the Dragon
Since there will be a lot of sensitive children around, we want to
make this mascot somewhat friendly, so I picture Danny as a kind of cross
between Barney the Dinosaur and Darth Vader.
So if you have Danny the Dragon, then the Waldorf side can send in
the Archangel Michael and a whole bunch of little helper angels to slay
your dragon mascot. Perhaps we could tie it together by bringing in the
theme of the Crusades. That way, all the PLANS people can play godless
Saracens while the Waldorfians can play the Christian Crusaders.
Since one of your pet peeves with Waldorf is that it is not modern
and American enough, what say we update the pageant a little bit? We could
have a Western cowboy motif, with our own Anthroposophical Outlaw, Joel
Wendt, coming into town dressed like Clint Eastwood in one of his old
"spaghetti Westerns." I could send a nice black Stetson hat from Texas here.
You PLANS guys could be like the gang in "Gunfight at the OK
Corral." Kathy could either play the saloon girl or Annie Oakley. (Work it
out with Deby). Steve (Su)Premo could be the town judge, wearing black
robes and we could give him a lot of pockets with goodies therein so when
he walks around the town square, the kids can get candy or homeopathic
remedies.
For the Skeptic Society, I envision a "3 Stooges" motif, with Dan
Sabsay as Curly, who would go around and do the Curly routine of holding
both hands over his eyes and screaming: "I can't see! I can't see!" Then
Moe and Larry rush over all concerned and say: "What's the matter?" Curly
pulls away his hands and says: "'cause my eyes were closed!" (Get it? Two
hands over the eyes? A double blind test! Nyuk! Nyuk! Nyuk!)
Of Course, Moe then slaps him upside the head and makes him look
directly into a prism. Then I come over and lecture Dan about pure
phenomenology.
As for Michael Kopp, I do believe we could import him in a cage and
call him an "exotic New Zealand Primate." We could warn the children that
if they get too close, he might pee on them. Later, we could let Kopp out
of his cage and sit him up in the Dunking Booth, where the children get 3
throws to hit the handle that dunks him. In throw #1 they yell: "STEIN!"
On throw #2, they yell: "DORF!" and on throw #3 they yell: "POP!"
As the night wears on and the children go home to sleep, we could
bring on more adult entertainment. Dan, you can't be too far from a good
leather or chain bar there, especially in your neighborhood of S.F. Maybe
some strongmen in black Nazi SS uniforms could ride their choppers up to
your studio while Waldorfians are singing like the Trapp family in "Sound
of Music."
Or we could have you dressed as Swami Dugananda arriving in a
Punjab chair carried by Kathy & Deby who throw (plastic, non-living) rose
petals in front of your path.
Maybe at the end, everyone could light up a Waldorf Astoria
cigarette, and end it with a Dugan Light and Sound Show, to showcase the
Ahrimanic electronic technology, while the Waldorfians will all light some
nice Luciferic candles.
Then I can come out in the middle (to balance everything, of
course), dressed in white robes. You shine your Ahrimanic spotlights on me.
At the appropriate dramatic moment, I declare myself to be Jesus Christ and
that this is officially the Second Coming of me, the long-awaited Messiah.
I cancel Armegeddon, declare peace on earth and cry out to the
multitude: "Verily, verily, I say unto you: let's party!"
You open up your soup kitchen and lay out the food, wine and beer.
And a good time was had (but not remembered) by all!
Any more ideas?
Tom.
_________________________________________________
"If we define a religion to be a system of thought which contains
unprovable statements, then Goedel has taught us that not only is
mathematics a religion but it is the only religion able to prove itself to
be one."
---- John D. Barrow
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n689.6 ---------------
From: Kevin Jackson (kevin nvision.on.ca)
Subject: re: PLANS Web site
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 21:00:07 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Just need to add a little reminder about the true meaning of the statistics
quoted as to number of visitors to the PLANs web site. "Hits" is probably
the most misunderstood word on the web today: a "hit" is recorded by most
hit counters whenever a file - any file - is requested from a web server.
Most web pages consisting of an average of 10 files (1 html, 9 images),
that means that for every page viewed by a visitor to most sites, the hit
counter increments by *10* - not to mention what happens if you take a look
at more than one page. Consequently, the only reliable method to count
number of *visitors* is to examine the raw server log files, and run a
statistical analysis to determine number of visitors based on a roughly
defined "user session".
Bottom line - a hit counter which shows 10,000 hits to a site could more
realistically indicate somewhere in the region of 1,000 total visitors.
I am posting this in an effort to help people understand what these numbers
really mean, because they are very open to misinterpretation and often
misunderstood, and considering that advertising revenues are being
generated on sites based on those numbers, it is becoming increasingly
important to be accurate.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n689.7 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: To the Faculty and parents of Yuba River Waldorf School
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 21:54:13 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199803142327.PAA27403 lists1.best.com)
(199803142136.NAA13389 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199803150053.QAA25998 lists1.best.com)
))If you wish to provide additional information in support of your position,
))I would be happy to rethink my conclusions.
)Bushwah. Flannery will just come up with another of the pat answers to
)criticism that he and other Steiner/ Waldorf/ Andthroposophy (SWA)
)defenders of the faith are famous for.
Seems pretty clear to me, Michael. I'm willing to recast my position as
soon as facts are brought forward which could support conclusions of
harassment.
You've illustrated the point I made with regard to Deby's post. Here's
another attempt to shoehorn a circumstance into your personal
characterization of waldorf types.
This time, my review of the facts coupled with a request for information
becomes, to your mind, the beginning of "another of the pat answers to
criticism" which you presuppose is characteristic of anyone who supports
waldorf education.
)I didn't read what he says is the obvious conclusion into Snell's story.
)What I read was that the school is running scared of being exposed for
)cheating on tests, and is trying to get back all the evidence.
That's quite a projection, based on what's been supplied so far.
)(I don't think many of the critics need to "presuppose" that SWA "harrasses
)and ostracizes dissident parents". It's happened to too many of us to make
)the tissue of denials by SWA apologists very meaningful.
Again, here's the point: Whatever you or anyone else considers harassment
with regard to your subjective experiences is not part of the facts at hand
now.
You want to tie this to the issue of harassment in Waldorf schools,
generally. I also suspect that was part of Deby's motivation in posting
her open letter to the Yuba River people.
I'm simply saying the facts given don't support a conclusion of harassment.
)Now Flannery will give me the same line of eyewash and
)attack-the-messenger BS.
You're always free to dismiss anything that I say, but my statements today
are really pretty simple.
)I don't care, and I don't think many people on this list care, whether
)Flannery and his ilk ever "rethink [their] conclusions". That's not in the
)nature of SWA adherents and apologists.
I continue to get the impression that you're not really interested in a
constructive dialogue.
I've been on this list for over two years now. I would guess that I've
written 40-100 posts in that time. I'm not satisfied that any words I've
ever sent here have made an iota of difference in altering the opinions of
you, Deby, Kathy, David, or any of the Dans.
So now I try to stick to the facts, as they're presented. Can you do the
same? Or will you insist on attempting to rehash your tired
characterizations, or make me a part of them?
And please don't tell me if the shoe fits, I should wear it, Michael. You
don't know me. You don't even know enough about me to typecast me.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n689.8 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Rudolf Steiner on Francis of Assisi
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 21:21:47 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199802081700.JAA13757 lists1.best.com)
"On the shores of the Black Sea there existed an occult school guided by
certain human beings who set for themselves the highest ideals of the
teaching of Buddhism. As well they were permeated by impulses which came
into the world through Christianity...One such pupil of the occult
school on the Black Sea, was born in his next incarnation as Francis of
Assisi....There are two fundamental impulses which are able to found a
truly moral life. First the belief in the devine at the bottom of every
human soul, and secondly, boundless human love which springs from this
belief. For it was only this measureless love which could bring Francis
of Assisi to the sick, the crippled and those stricken with leprosy.
Rudolf Steiner, The Spiritual Foundation of Morality
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n689.9 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp actrix.gen.nz)
Subject: Re: To the Faculty and parents of Yuba River Waldorf School
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 18:38:25 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199803150053.QAA25998 lists1.best.com)
(199803142327.PAA27403 lists1.best.com)
(199803142136.NAA13389 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199803150244.SAA00654 lists1.best.com)
Robert Flannery says to Michael Kopp:
)And please don't tell me if the shoe fits, I should wear it, Michael. You
)don't know me. You don't even know enough about me to typecast me.
And KOPP says:
Flannery is attributing a type of response to me that I've never used, here
or elsewhere on the Internet. If he's been around on this list for two or
so years, he knows I never admonish people in such a fashion as he suggests.
But as Flannery says, he has made "40-100" posts in the two or so years
he's been on this list. That's enough to typecast him as I did in my
earlier post, as a reactionary, invariant apologist -- "defender of the
faith" -- for Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthropsophy (SWA). Those who have an
archive or have the stomach for searching the WC list archive can see that
for themselves. We do know that much about Flannery without needing to
"know him" as he suggests.
In fact, I do appreciate the sometimes useful comments he makes which
reveal SWA for what it is.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n689.10 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Bay Area: Dan's open house Sunday
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 01:30:20 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Great ideas, Tom. Start planning for next year. Imagination's working
overtime, how are your intuition and inspiration doing?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n689 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n690 --------------
001 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - re: PLANS Web site
002 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Cheating on the CAT5 at YRWS
003 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: Cheating on the CAT5 at YRWS
004 - Deby Snell (snell netshel - Re: Cheating on the CAT5 at YRWS
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n690.1 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: re: PLANS Web site
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 98 01:38:23 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Kevin Jackson (kevin nvision.on.ca) lectures us)
)Just need to add a little reminder about the true meaning of the statistics
)quoted as to number of visitors to the PLANs web site. "Hits" is probably
)the most misunderstood word on the web today: a "hit" is recorded by most
)hit counters whenever a file - any file - is requested from a web server.
Where did you gain this deep technical insight, are you a Waldorf
graduate? Instead of YOUR misunderstanding, try this concept:
Each time a PAGE CONTAINING A WEBCOUNTER is accessed, the counter is
incremented by ONE, NO MATTER HOW many pictures the page contains, nor
how many other pages the website contains.
)Most web pages consisting of an average of 10 files (1 html, 9 images),
)that means that for every page viewed by a visitor to most sites, the hit
)counter increments by *10* - not to mention what happens if you take a look
)at more than one page. Consequently, the only reliable method to count
)number of *visitors* is to examine the raw server log files, and run a
)statistical analysis to determine number of visitors based on a roughly
)defined "user session".
)
)Bottom line - a hit counter which shows 10,000 hits to a site could more
)realistically indicate somewhere in the region of 1,000 total visitors.
Bottom line, this is a cognitive illusion, based on an unverified
theoretical misunderstanding.
)I am posting this in an effort to help people understand what these numbers
)really mean, because they are very open to misinterpretation and often
)misunderstood, and considering that advertising revenues are being
)generated on sites based on those numbers, it is becoming increasingly
)important to be accurate.
I hope you are not entrusted with any of these loose dollars.
How about a little Goethean reality check, simply try the following
ACTUAL experiment:
Visit the PLANS website twice in a row, and read the webcounter. In
point of fact, I have found that this particular webcounter seems to
suppress counting two consecutive visits from the same visitor. And
please don't bother to lecture me about browser caching, I made very sure
to empty my cache.
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n690.2 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Cheating on the CAT5 at YRWS
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 16:38:41 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803150931.BAA01814 lists1.best.com)
Kopp posted:
)
) )I didn't read what he says is the obvious conclusion into Snell's story.
) )What I read was that the school is running scared of being exposed for
) )cheating on tests, and is trying to get back all the evidence.
Flannery replied:
)
) That's quite a projection, based on what's been supplied so far.
)
As a California public school teacher I can attest that the CAT5 is
_never_ to be in the hands of students, except during the test taking
period. Individual teachers are not permitted to have copies of the CAT5
prior to the test taking period. When I was still teaching in a standard
public school classroom the CAT5 was delivered to me about 5 minutes
prior to the test period. The tests were in a sealed packet and the seal
was broken only as I was ready to distribute these.
I too have heard about a parent of a student enrolled at the public Yuba
River Waldorf School that had a CAT5 test sent home for the child to
study. This is blatantly against the clearly stated rules for
administration of this test. I do not know the possible penalties for a
school supporting and condoning cheating on CAT5 tests in order to gain
higher school wide scores, however, the circumstances surrounding the
alleged CAT5 scores at the YRWS certainly brings the possibility of
cheating to mind. Without any information whatsoever about children that
were given the test to "study," the scores alone are suspicious. This
school has allegedly attained overall scores that are much higher than
any school in the entire state of California. A letter recently posted
by in the local newspaper claimed scores of 99th percentile for 1/4 of
the students and 94th percentile or above for 3/4 of the students (in
the 8th grade). These scores are ludicrous.
There is a possibility this author of the letter had the wrong
information. But if her information is correct, then the situation will
have to be investigated. What point standardized testing if some schools
simply let their students take the tests home and have unlimited time to
complete them with the correct answers?
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n690.3 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Cheating on the CAT5 at YRWS
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 20:40:26 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199803150931.BAA01814 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199803160039.QAA00088 lists1.best.com)
)What [is the] point [of] standardized testing if some schools
)simply let their students take the tests home and have unlimited time to
)complete them with the correct answers?
)
)Kathy
Agreed.
The Yuba River/Twin Ridges/Mariposa group seems to live from one
controversy to another. There's lots we don't know about this CAT issue,
and I personally don't have much interest in it.
If they've tried to manipulate test scores, they should be treated just
like any other public school in the same situation. Within the last year,
a public school in Connecticut was caught in a similar scandal, and if my
memory serves me correctly, some administrators were fired and lost
benefits.
I don't believe much will be gained by trying to discuss the differences
between public and private waldorf endeavors, especially in the midst of an
emerging controversy. Suffice it to say that this would not be an issue in
a private waldorf school, and that covers about 98% of all waldorf schools
in the United States.
However, I have heard talk that some private waldorf schools are
considering the use of standardized tests in the higher levels of their
grade schools.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n690.4 ---------------
From: Deby Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Cheating on the CAT5 at YRWS
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 21:53:25 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803150931.BAA01814 lists1.best.com) (199803160130.RAA16419 lists1.best.com)
Robert Flannery wrote:
Robert Flannery wrote,
) However, I have heard talk that some private waldorf schools are
) considering the use of standardized tests in the higher levels of their
) grade schools.
I am happy to hear this news. This could take Waldorf out of the
testimonial league and into mainstream educational accountability.
I sat in meetings where Waldorf teachers at TRACS, now Yuba River
Charter School discussed their concern over their students performance
in the context of going public. One teacher said, "If we know what is on
the tests, we can prepare our students." I hope other Waldorf schools
who choose to test their students will play by the rules and compete in
an honest way. Talk about instant karma. YRCS will certainly have some
questions to answer. I turned over the evidence that I was given. While
I know little about the testing process, the registration numbers should
be trackable. However, this issue [of test scores] is not my fight. I
just am sick and tired of seeing people harrassed by devout parents and
teachers from that school, especially when the parents have no fight
against the school. What is that saying, "With friends like this, who
needs enemies?"
Deby
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n690 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n691 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - anthroposophy
002 - "Peter Schwab" (pschwab a - Re: anthroposophy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n691.1 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 16:38:49 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Received today: -dD-
)From: ByeSY (ByeSY aol.com)
)Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 16:18:12 EST
)To: dan dandugan.com
)Mime-Version: 1.0
)Subject: anthroposophy
)X-Rcpt-To: dan dandugan.com
)
)Dear Mr. Dugan,
)
) It is with great joy that I have found a group of people whose purpose it
)is to expose the fraudulent practices of the followers of Rudolph Steiner. In
)the 1980's a younger sister of mine was involved with an anthroposophical
)community which trashed and shunned her when she had the temerity to question
)the firing of a teacher from their local Waldorf School. Through my sister,
)since deceased, I also had the bad luck to encounter minions of the "Christian
)Community" who were some of the most passive aggressive individuals I have
)ever known.
) I thank you for your efforts opposing the anthroposophist diseducation
)mission and I encourage you to continue to expose them as the cult they are.
) Regards........ByeSY
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n691.2 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab" (pschwab access.ch)
Subject: Re: anthroposophy
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:58:55 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199803170040.QAA24652 lists1.best.com)
On 16 Mar 98 at 16:38, Dan Dugan wrote:
) Received today: -dD-
)
) )From: ByeSY (ByeSY aol.com)
) )Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 16:18:12 EST
) )To: dan dandugan.com
) )Mime-Version: 1.0
)[...] were some of the most passive aggressive individuals I have
) )ever known.
)
Now, if someone could just explain me what " passive aggressive "
means ....
+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.n691 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n692 --------------
001 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Passive-Aggressive
002 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Passive-Aggressive
003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Twin Ridges district testing program
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n692.1 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Passive-Aggressive
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 18:32:34 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803180100.RAA22058 lists1.best.com)
Peter Schwab asked:
) Now, if someone could just explain me what " passive aggressive "
) means ....
Passive-aggressive is a common term used in the US to describe behavior
that is psychologically or emotionally harmful to another person, but is
performed in a non-physical manner. In other words, the behavior is
psychologically harmful, but it is not physically aggressive. For
instance, in a relationship in which one member becomes angry at the
other and punishes that person by refusing to speak to him/her, by
completely ignoring that person. Or perhaps the passive-aggressive
behavior could be in the form of a pattern of fault-finding and
continual dissatisfaction.
I was subjected to passive-aggressive behavior at the hands of my former
coworkers when they left the room when I entered, or quit talking as
soon as I entered. This occurred after I became "open" about my
resistance to Waldorf inclusion because of its religious basis.
I do not know how the term "passive-aggressive" came into use, however;
it has been broadly used by counselors and other members of the
psychological profession for at least 25 years here in the United
States. I first became familiar with the use and definition of this
term, as I recall, in 1978.
I hope this answered your question.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n692.2 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Passive-Aggressive
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 20:02:48 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803180100.RAA22058 lists1.best.com) (199803180234.SAA01754 lists1.best.com)
spike wrote:
)
) Peter Schwab asked:
)
) ) Now, if someone could just explain me what " passive aggressive "
) ) means ....
)
) Passive-aggressive is a common term used in the US to describe behavior
) that is psychologically or emotionally harmful to another person, but is
) performed in a non-physical manner. In other words, the behavior is
) psychologically harmful, but it is not physically aggressive. For
) instance, in a relationship in which one member becomes angry at the
) other and punishes that person by refusing to speak to him/her, by
) completely ignoring that person. Or perhaps the passive-aggressive
) behavior could be in the form of a pattern of fault-finding and
) continual dissatisfaction.
When I think of passive aggressive behavior, I think of someone who may be mad at
someone for a specific reason but they will not openly discuss or own their anger.
Instead of resolving the specific problem, they _act as if_ they are mad by shunning
you and/or continually finding fault [with you] in unrelated situations. Another
example may be that you are left off of a party invitation list . Passive aggressive
anger is generally not obvious to common friends, yet evident to the person
targeted. Passive aggressive behavior can leave the targeted person feeling very
confused. Yet when asked directly, "Are you upset with me?", people who act out
their anger in this way will typically deny anything is wrong.
I think the Waldorfians in my community have taken passive aggressive behavior to
art form.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n692.3 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Twin Ridges district testing program
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 01:00:23 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Today I spoke with Susan Lamela, Twin Ridges School District Secretary. She
ran down their testing program as follows:
They have given the CAT 5 test for five seasons. It was last given in
October, 1997.
In October '97 the arts charter declined taking the CAT 5. Yuba River
School (the Waldorf charter) did take it.
The CAT 5 is given by the teachers and scored by the publisher.
The school results are reported to the school board and are available from
Lamela on request. The publisher provides individual student reports that
are returned to parents.
They used to make up school "report cards" with vital statistics and test
results, but they haven't done that for ten years. Lamela will send me the
October '97 CAT 5 report for Yuba River School.
The state has mandated the STAR test (bill 376) which will be given to the
regular schools on April 20 and to the charter schools on May 4.
Lamela says a test given in the fall is preferable, because it gives the
teachers a chance to aim the curriculum at the students' needs. It is also
highly desirable to give the same test year after year so progress can be
observed. It hasn't been decided whether the mandated STAR test will
replace or supplement the CAT 5. They pay for CAT 5, Lamela thinks the
state reimburses for the cost of the STAR test.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n692 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n693 --------------
001 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Twin Ridges district testing program
002 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Art School welcomes Waldorf student
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n693.1 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Twin Ridges district testing program
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:34:12 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803190902.BAA10266 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) The CAT 5 is given by the teachers and scored by the publisher.
) Lamela says a test given in the fall is preferable, because it gives the
) teachers a chance to aim the curriculum at the students' needs. It is also
) highly desirable to give the same test year after year so progress can be
) observed. It hasn't been decided whether the mandated STAR test will
) replace or supplement the CAT 5. They pay for CAT 5, Lamela thinks the
) state reimburses for the cost of the STAR test.
This answers part of my question. I was unsure if the test handed out to parents
(two that I know of) was an old test, therefore perhaps openly available to teachers,
or the current test used by the district. It appears the test given out (in a casual
manner) _is_ indeed the current test. Interesting. Current tests are typically
guarded. If teachers have free access to a standardized test, it is not an accurate
way to determine the academic level of the class/school.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n693.2 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Art School welcomes Waldorf student
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 23:20:00 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In this week's newsletter, Nevada City School of the Arts welcomed an eighth
grade student into our school. While we frequently welcome students, this
student sticks out as a particularly interesting addition.
Our new student transferred from the Yuba River Waldorf school. This child has
attended Waldorf for her entire school life. This move would be a particularly
difficult decision at this age, when peers and acceptance mean so much. What
would make a committed family agree to send their child to another school less
than three months before graduating with her long term friends and class?
I smell another rat at the Waldorf school.
Debra
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n693 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n694 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - don't call it a temple
002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - On Art and Science
003 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: On Art and Science
004 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Rudolf Steiner's intention
005 - per.hallstrom mbox3.swipn - Thats the spirit!
006 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Rudolf Steiner's intention
007 - Luna457954 (Luna457954 ao - Re: Re: Rudolf Steiner's intention
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n694.1 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: don't call it a temple
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 17:56:44 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
A member of the Anthroposophia list recently posted the full text of a
couple of Steiner lectures that included the following passage of interest:
***
When a local priest once wrote an article against our society, I
drew up a reply. An important item in this reply was that I called
his attention towards the fact that our society has nothing to do
with religion, in a direct way. One of the most necessary things for
the prosperity of our whole movement is that the world outside should
at last grasp the following thought: We are connected with a
religious community just as little as the Copernican world conception
is connected with a religious community. The fact that religious
communities have nevertheless opposed Copernicanism is their own
affair. But we do not intend to found a sect, or a religious
movement. I must confess that at one particular place I once had a
most unpleasant experience. With the best intention, articles were
written in connection with the Goetheanum building, in which our
building was designated as a "temple". This damages us enormously,
because we can thus be accused of competing with religious
communities; hence, the members of the society must draw attention to
the fact that our society hs nothing whatever to do with religion. We
must drum into the hard skulls of the people outside that we are
connected with a society which pursues *scientific* aims, and that we
are not connected with a temple, or with a church.
***
How Should a Society Such as Ours be Constituted?, by Rudolf Steiner,
Members' Lecture, Dornach, September 10, 1915. Taken from NewsSheet,
Vol. 7, 1939, p. 33 s-3108
***
Steiner teaches the members how to make something so just by saying it's
so. It's a scientific organization, ok?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n694.2 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: On Art and Science
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 17:56:51 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In the his post below to the SJU Waldorf school list, Humberto St. Martin
puts his finger on the anti-science attitude that is common, I believe,
among -most- elementary school teachers, not just Waldorf teachers. In
Waldorf, the attitude is supported by Anthroposophy's "anti-materialism";
in conventional teacher education, by "post-modern" philosophy.
-Dan Dugan
***
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 11:49:24 CST
Sender: SJU Waldorf School List (WALDORF MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU)
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto XIBALBA.IFISICAM.UNAM.MX)
Subject: On Art and Science
"Where the world ceases to be the scene of our personal
hopes and wishes, where we face it as free beings,
admiring, asking and observing, there we enter the realm
of Art and Science".
Albert Einstein
Thank's to Antony Skipper for his discussion on the dicotomy Art-Science.
It answers to a large extent my question about WE's approach to Science. My
concern on this topic comes from talking to Waldorf teachers and parents at
Cuernavaca, whose opinions are pervaded by what I call "perverse myths"
that make Science seem as boring, or even evil. I would like to comment on
some of these "myths":
1. Because Science and Technology are destroying our environment, children
should be taught to look at them as a dangerous kind of knowledge. It is
undeniable that high-tech industries do produce a lot of pollutants and
consume a lot of natural resources; nevertheless, such a non-industrial
approach as traditional agriculture causes the loss of forests: in Mexico
from the total loss, 94% is due to traditional agriculture, whereas only
2.4% is due to fire, for instance (data from the Mexican Ministry of
Natural Resources). And, after all, Ecology is a Science.
2. Science is boring to children. This is very strange to me, especially
because most scientists chose to be scientists at an early age; one can
read the biographies of Richard Feynman, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan and
others to find that their interest was born when they were between 5 and 10
years old. The book "A Glorious Accident", written by the Dutch journalist
Wim Kyzer comprises interviews with six scientists and philosophers, all of
which are amazed at the amazement of Kyzer when he learned this feature
common to them, that they decided their future occupation since their
childhoods.
3. Art gives you more freedom than Science. I do not understand what people
mean by "freedom" in this context. However, Skipper's discussion gives me a
hint: Art is an interpretation of the Universe in which the individual
experience is the most important thing; on the other hand, Science is
necessarily collective (as Newton put it, "I can see very far because I am
standing on the shoulders of giants"). Nevertheless, individuals play a
major role in Science. For instance, a non-trivial question is: Would there
be a Pythagorean theorem had there not been a Pythagoras?
I would like more discussions on this kind of topics. I am also very
interested in WE's views on teaching History, like Universal vs. National,
Ancient vs. Modern, etc.
--
Humberto Saint Martin
__________________________________________________________________
Laboratorio de Cuernavaca, IFUNAM | Tel.: (52-73) 135688
Apartado Postal 48 - 3 | 175388
Calle Estrada Cajigal 510, | (52-5) 6227796
Colonia Tezontepec |
62251 Cuernavaca, Morelos | Fax: (52-73) 173077
MEXICO | 111603
| (52-5) 6227775
__________________________________________________________________
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n694.3 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: On Art and Science
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 98 23:50:12 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Dan Dugan quotes Humberto Saint Martin:
)Nevertheless, individuals play a major role in Science. For instance, a
)non-trivial question is: Would there be a Pythagorean theorem had there not
)been a Pythagoras?
Actually, I think this IS a trivial question. And the answer is yes.
For that matter, and with no disrespect to Bob Noyce, I think the
integrated circuit chip was inevitable, too.
My idea of a non-trivial question is: Were the works of Shakespere
inevitable?
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n694.4 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Rudolf Steiner's intention
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 01:01:59 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I received the following from John Stirling Walker
(Geistesforscher webtv.net). As I don't have time for individual debates,
and Walker's questions are substantial, I am making an open reply on the
waldorf-critics list. John, if you want to carry on a discussion, please
subscribe to the list. -Dan Dugan
)Dear Mr. Dugan,
)
)I have taken the time to study the material on your PLANS website. I
)respect your concern, because I sense that it comes from a real desire
)to see truthful science prevail. However, I perceive that you fail to
)grasp the revolutionary nature of Steiner's intention. He truly sought
)to found the SCIENCE of the human spirit, though, like any pioneer, he
)made errors based on the need to go forward WITHOUT the support of an
)established tradition.
A revolutionary concept? Maybe, maybe not. I'd praise him for trying, and
IMHO failing, if he wasn't so damn pompous.
If you want to have a "science of the human spirit", I'd say that would be
psychology. Steiner is utterly insignificant in the development of 20th
century psychology. His mistake was epistemological. He chose to derive his
information by synthesizing religious and occultist traditions with his own
meditations. His neglect of the real world of human nature made his
guidance worthless at best.
)The attempt by proponents of a "non-sectarian" educational system to
)rule out the possibility that SPIRIT receive attention in public schools
)is misguided, to say the least. I know that it has rarely been the case
)that a teacher in any school could address the topic of the human SPIRIT
)without bringing influence to bear upon the students to believe in or
)accept certain fixed ideas.However, this is not due to any
)religious/dogmatic dimension somehow inherent in the very topic of
)SPIRIT, but is rather a reflection of the UNIVERSAL tendency of teachers
)to do this!
)
)I would like to ask you a question: are you opposed, perchance, from
)any conscious reflection on the nature of the human being, to the
)(re-)introduction of the word "spirit" into our SECULAR culture?
The word "spirit" has secular meanings, granted they were originally
religious concepts, but those links have fallen away in modern usage, like
secular Easter. I have no compunction about referring to "the human
spirit," but I don't mean an eternal reincarnating soul the way
Anthroposophists use the word.
"Spirituality," on the other hand, is always religious. I've heard Waldorf
organizers try to pass off "Spirituality" as generically human and
therefore acceptable to everyone, but many religions won't buy that dodge,
nor will atheists or secular humanists.
)Or have you gathered your sense of antipathy for Waldorf education purely
)from the naturally unreflective response of your mind, educated in our
)materialistic culture with its own fixed ideas ("dogma"), to that which
)strikes it as foreign? I ask this in a spirit of friendly challenge...
You flame, John. I was raised Catholic and came slowly into secular
humanism in maturity.
)I do not defend the narrowness in the thinking and speaking of Waldorf
)teachers you may (seemingly must) have encountered: they have certainly
)failed to grasp the fundamentally OPEN nature of Steiner's impulse to
)educate young people in freedom.
"Educate young people in freedom" is an empty platitude, John. Granted,
Waldorf isn't as stultifyingly dogmatic as the Christian academy my two
smaller boys went to, but I just don't see Steiner's followers as showing
the fruits of "freedom." Remember, Steiner said that when he said
"freiheit" it would be best translated into English as "spiritual
activity."
)However, it is really equally
)indefensible for you to insist that Anthroposophy is a religion, when it
)most emphatically is not in the remotest sense connected to any "belief"
)system!
"Through such meditation a complete transformation takes place in the
student. He begins to form quite new conceptions of reality."
[Steiner, Rudolf. Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and its Attainment.
(1904-1918) Trans. George Metaxa, revised by Henry B. and Lisa D. Monges.
Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1947, p. 31.]
)I admire the Waldorf educators I know for their firm dedication to the
)principle that indoctrination is antithetical to free and healthy human
)development. How many teachers committed to the astoundingly fixed
)ideas of secular "humanism" and materialistic science share
)anthroposophists' dedication to this principle?
The only people I know who are -for- indoctrination are religious
fundamentalists like my Christian and Anthroposophical friends.
)I protest most vehemently the confusion of religion and science which
)the language of PLANS' agenda promotes by its assumption that spirit
)CANNOT be observed in scientific terms.
Who's confused? Depends on what you mean by "spirit." If you mean the human
personality, that which dies when the brain quits, then it is approachable
by science, the science of behavior. If you mean reincarnating souls and
entities like angels, then no, these are -cultural- realities, "memes" in
today's terminology. They can be studied as cultural artifacts. That isn't
what Steiner had in mind with his "spiritual science," however. Steiner's
claim to have made "exact scientific observations" of the spirit world is a
ludicrous self-delusion.
)In hopes of fruitful dialogue,
)
)John Stirling Walker
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n694.5 ---------------
From: per.hallstrom mbox3.swipnet.se (Per =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hallstr=F6m?= )
Subject: Thats the spirit!
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 20:53:33 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
At 01.01 98-03-23, Dan Dugan wrote:
snip
)The word "spirit" has secular meanings, granted they were originally
)religious concepts, but those links have fallen away in modern usage,
snip
)"Spirituality," on the other hand, is always religious. I've heard Waldorf
)organizers try to pass off "Spirituality" as generically human and
)therefore acceptable to everyone, but many religions won't buy that dodge,
)nor will atheists or secular humanists.
I think you have a concept of what spiritual means that can be exemplified
with words like;
holy, sacred, blessed, celestial, consecrated, divine, godly, hallowed,
pure, sanctified, metaphysical, bodiless, celestial, disembodied, ethereal,
heavenly, incorporeal, insubstantial, intangible, nonmaterial, unearthly,
unreal, unsubstantial.
If you want a broader understanding of the modern usage of the word, then
try these:
alert, alive, bouncy, bright, bustling, clever, creative, daring, deft,
driving, dynamic, ebullient, energetic, enterprising, enthusiastic,
exuberant, fertile, frolicsome, fruitful, gifted, imaginative, ingenious,
inventive, lively, playful, poignant, resourceful, rousing, scintillating,
skilful, sound, spirited, strong, talented, venturesome, vibrant, vigorous,
vital, vivacious
snip
)"Educate young people in freedom" is an empty platitude, John.
snip
)Remember, Steiner said that when he said
)"freiheit" it would be best translated into English as "spiritual activity.=
"
To educate in and to freedom is a spiritual activity - or its a
self-delusion caused by some funny phenomenon which makes parts of matter
behave as if it was "conscious" of itself.
If this is the case, then blissfully this is not a permanent, stable
condition as mr Dugan also points out later on. Its only life-long.
snip
)"Through such meditation a complete transformation takes place in the
)student. He begins to form quite new conceptions of reality."
)
)[Steiner, Rudolf. Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and its Attainment.
)(1904-1918) Trans. George Metaxa, revised by Henry B. and Lisa D. Monges.
)Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1947, p. 31.]
snip
)Who's confused? Depends on what you mean by "spirit." If you mean the human
)personality, that which dies when the brain quits, then it is approachable
)by science, the science of behavior. If you mean reincarnating souls and
)entities like angels, then no, these are -cultural- realities, "memes" in
)today's terminology. They can be studied as cultural artifacts. That isn't
)what Steiner had in mind with his "spiritual science," however. Steiner's
)claim to have made "exact scientific observations" of the spirit world is a
)ludicrous self-delusion.
Oh, the science of behavior! That=B4s the spirit? Ergo: the matter in mr
Dugans brain temporarily (until "the brain quits") generates a so-called
mental condition not compatible with concepts like: "new conceptions of
reality". Thus the behaviour!
So that was the pudels kernel!
Towards ever new conceptions of reality.
Per Hallstr=F6m
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n694.6 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Rudolf Steiner's intention
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 12:23:21 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)From: Geistesforscher webtv.net (John Stirling Walker)
)Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 05:31:32 -0700
)To: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
)Cc: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)Subject: Re: Rudolf Steiner's intention
)MIME-Version: 1.0 (WebTV)
)X-Rcpt-To: dan dandugan.com
)
)Dear Dan,
)
)And I have no time for other than individual "debates"...
)
)I will point out two false perceptions in your response to my letter:
)you seem to be intent on identifying "belief" and "conception" (freely
)forming new conceptions of reality is practically the opposite of belief
)systems), and you identify cultural realities (such as angels) as having
)no existence independently of the brains of human beings (I'm
)extrapolating from the reference to brain death and the evidently
)materialistic conception you have of the roots of culture.)
)
)I must take back my hopes of fruitful dialogue, unless you are an
)exception to my oft-made observation that materialists who were formerly
)religious become such based on inner conflicts their religious teachers
)failed to help them resolve. I have no wish to involve myself in your
)deepest personal life, as I am not your religious teacher; my approach
)to you was based on my knowledge of spiritual SCIENCE.
)
)Most sincerely,
)
)John Stirling Walker (Jack)
Anthroposophists, don't you love em?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n694.7 ---------------
From: Luna457954 (Luna457954 aol.com)
Subject: Re: Re: Rudolf Steiner's intention
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 17:13:56 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 3/23/98 4:58:20 PM, dan dandugan.com wrote:
((Anthroposophists, don't you love em?))
Actual, in the persons of my childrens' teachers, and one good friend, yes, I
do.
This is not to say that there aren't plenty of Anthroposophists out there who
I wouldn't like. That's human reality.
I am, however, truly grateful for the years my childrens' teachers have given
them, and the openness and honesty they have given me in answers to my
questions about the pedagogy.
I'm sorry you haven't been so fortunate.
Kelly Shinners
2nd and 6th grade parent
Meadowbrook Waldorf School
South Kingstown, RI
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n694 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n695 --------------
001 - Preston Booker (booker mc - Pleading, Please Unsubscribe Me
002 - angelica hesse (hesse96 m - Re: Several of Dan's messages
003 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Science, thoughts, freedom
004 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Science, thoughts, freedom
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n695.1 ---------------
From: Preston Booker (booker mcione.com)
Subject: Pleading, Please Unsubscribe Me
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 18:55:21 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199803220717.XAA19709 lists1.best.com)
Does any more need to be said than my Subject. I received 24 letters in 2 weeks.
Nauseating#!$%^
waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com wrote:
) -------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n693 --------------
)
) 001 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Twin Ridges district testing program
) 002 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Art School welcomes Waldorf student
)
) --------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n693.1 ---------------
)
) From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
) Subject: Re: Twin Ridges district testing program
) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:34:12 -0800
) MIME-Version: 1.0
) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
) References: (199803190902.BAA10266 lists1.best.com)
)
) Dan Dugan wrote:
) )
) ) The CAT 5 is given by the teachers and scored by the publisher.
)
) ) Lamela says a test given in the fall is preferable, because it gives the
) ) teachers a chance to aim the curriculum at the students' needs. It is also
) ) highly desirable to give the same test year after year so progress can be
) ) observed. It hasn't been decided whether the mandated STAR test will
) ) replace or supplement the CAT 5. They pay for CAT 5, Lamela thinks the
) ) state reimburses for the cost of the STAR test.
)
) This answers part of my question. I was unsure if the test handed out to parents
) (two that I know of) was an old test, therefore perhaps openly available to teachers,
) or the current test used by the district. It appears the test given out (in a casual
) manner) _is_ indeed the current test. Interesting. Current tests are typically
) guarded. If teachers have free access to a standardized test, it is not an accurate
) way to determine the academic level of the class/school.
)
) --------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n693.2 ---------------
)
) From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
) Subject: Art School welcomes Waldorf student
) Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 23:20:00 -0800
) MIME-Version: 1.0
) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
)
) In this week's newsletter, Nevada City School of the Arts welcomed an eighth
) grade student into our school. While we frequently welcome students, this
) student sticks out as a particularly interesting addition.
)
) Our new student transferred from the Yuba River Waldorf school. This child has
) attended Waldorf for her entire school life. This move would be a particularly
) difficult decision at this age, when peers and acceptance mean so much. What
) would make a committed family agree to send their child to another school less
) than three months before graduating with her long term friends and class?
)
) I smell another rat at the Waldorf school.
) Debra
)
) --------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n693 ---------------
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n695.2 ---------------
From: angelica hesse (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu)
Subject: Re: Several of Dan's messages
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 16:15:21 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (199803250002.QAA27209 lists1.best.com) from "waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com" at Mar 24, 98 04:02:07 pm
Okay, I can't keep my mouth shut any longer. I believe everything I've
quoted below as written by Dan (sorry, I'm subscribed in digest form, so I
may have snipped some things wrong...). As I brief intro, I subscribed to
this list because as a graduate of a walfor school, I am continually
interested and sometimes shocked at how other people react to these schools.
I would like to respond to some of your remarks.
) A revolutionary concept? Maybe, maybe not. I'd praise him for trying, and
) IMHO failing, if he wasn't so damn pompous.
Pompous? All the first hand reports I have ever read of steiner's attitude
and behavior describe him as anything but pompous. He was seen as humble,
concerned about other people, never self-seeking, and a highly responsible
citizen of this world. Your comment seems awfully judgemental to me. And
what he tried to do is really very incredible. I see that more and more as
I try to share what I know about him with people who've never heard of him.
) If you want to have a "science of the human spirit", I'd say that would be
) psychology. Steiner is utterly insignificant in the development of 20th
) century psychology. His mistake was epistemological. He chose to derive his
) information by synthesizing religious and occultist traditions with his own
) meditations. His neglect of the real world of human nature made his
) guidance worthless at best.
I've always been very interested in the human condition. For that reason I
considered studying psychology. I have taken several courses in it, but
ultimately had to turn away because it simply did not provide answers to the
issues of human experience that plagued me. It treats humans as intelligent
animals, and I feel very strongly, from my own experience, taht we are not
that. WE're NOT just brains. Psychology is the science of the brain, maybe
of the mind, but not the science of the human spirit. I have sat in teh
back of a classroom silently weeping (!) because I sensed that the concepts
being taught in my class would never truly answer who the human being is.
And as a final note, steiner did not synthesize, he observed! We can all
choose to accept that or not, but unless we can observe waht he saw, or
soemthing to negate it, we're hardly in a possition to judge his
observations, any more than you would judge to observations of someone who
walked on the moon if you hadnt' been there yourself.
) secular Easter. I have no compunction about referring to "the human
) spirit," but I don't mean an eternal reincarnating soul the way
) Anthroposophists use the word.
Then what on earth do you mean? THe mind? That's not spirit.
) "Spirituality," on the other hand, is always religious. I've heard Waldorf
) organizers try to pass off "Spirituality" as generically human and
) therefore acceptable to everyone, but many religions won't buy that dodge,
) nor will atheists or secular humanists.
Spirituality, as I understand it is a concept that there is some living
force in the world that is independant of, and probably the cause of, teh
physical reality we see. It is generally unacceptable to religious
organizations because it does not include a concept of God. It could, but
it doesn't inherently. REligion does. SPirituality is only unacceptable to
non-religious people if they are convinced that mere matter is all that our
earth, our lives, our thoughts consist of. In fact, I have a personal
theory that even science no longer can say that everything is purely matter.
Atomic theory traces all matter back to particles of energy, which comes
very close to being spiritual, to my mind.
) You flame, John. I was raised Catholic and came slowly into secular
) humanism in maturity.
Maybe he flamed a bit, but just about every sentence I have seen you write
to this list is also a flame. Your derogatory, judgemental attitude is
hardly conducive to a real conversation. Your numerous insults are truly
uncalled for. I'm surprised I react this way, because i reside in a college
community where cynicism is a way of life, but your attitude truly
dissapoints me in an adult (or at least I had assumed you to be one...)
) "Educate young people in freedom" is an empty platitude, John. Granted,
) Waldorf isn't as stultifyingly dogmatic as the Christian academy my two
Stultifying and dogmatic? Hardly. I've been there, I've lived it, I've
spent 12.5 years in a waldorf school. I find the state university I am in
more dogmatic, actually. The point of view is generally very onesided, and
impossibly convinced that it is rigth (especially scientific views). I
learned, in my waldorf school, to look at the world from many different
angles, to examine how different aspects of life (art, history, science,
etc) interrelated. This gave even more perspectives, as well as a
cohesiveness to my world outlook. If you haven't attented such a school,
you're hardly in a possition to determine the positive effects it has on
learning, thinking, and human development. I am eternally grateful for my
education, and it continues to stand me VERY well in college, where I feel
much better equipped to deal with educating myself than a lot of those
around me.
) )most emphatically is not in the remotest sense connected to any "belief"
) )system!
) "Through such meditation a complete transformation takes place in the
) student. He begins to form quite new conceptions of reality."
Concepts are NOT beliefs. Concepts are how we view teh world, what we see,
what we conclude, waht comes from experience. It's an outlook. Beliefs are
ideas given us by others which are blindly assimilated, and have no basis in
our own experience of reality. Belief is blind, it's dogma. A concept
comes from inside our own minds.
) The only people I know who are -for- indoctrination are religious
) fundamentalists like my Christian and Anthroposophical friends.
Oh go home already. I'm not defending everyone because in any group,
organisation, etc there are always people who corrupt good ideas, or who try
to indoctrinate others, but by all means, that is no reason to condemn an
entire groupd of individuals. What you're displaying is purely and simply
stereotyping. ANyone who truly was an anthroposophist could share their
ideas, but could not, by virtue of the philosophy itself try to 'convert'
others. That would be taking away their individual freedom, and would run
counter to what anthroposophy is built on.
) Who's confused? Depends on what you mean by "spirit." If you mean the human
) personality, that which dies when the brain quits, then it is approachable
) by science, the science of behavior. If you mean reincarnating souls and
) entities like angels, then no, these are -cultural- realities, "memes" in
) today's terminology. They can be studied as cultural artifacts. That isn't
) what Steiner had in mind with his "spiritual science," however. Steiner's
) claim to have made "exact scientific observations" of the spirit world is a
) ludicrous self-delusion.
Spirit is waht makes us alive, thinking, feeling, CREATING beings. And who
are you to say that angels, etc are simply cultural realities, not facts?
You say that steiners research is "ludicrous self-delusion" Where is your
research, and is it any better? If not, then maybe it's time to stop making
blanket judgements based on your personal oppinion and nothing more.
) Anthroposophists, don't you love em?
Some of them yes, some of them no. Being an anthroposophist doesn't make
someone likeable or not. I hope that I wouldn't judge all people with
similar outlooks to yours judge because I find you personally to be
vindictive and hopelessly close-minded. Why are you even having these
discussions? Do you hope to achieve somethign, or to learn something, or to
create something? or are you simply having fun putting down other peoples
ideas, life work, etc? I rather think that latter, and I don't see that
point to that.
DO I sound angry? Well I am, at your nastiness and rude attitude. Excuse
me for having to be this blunt, but it seemed the only way to respond.
Angelica G. Hesse
hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n695.3 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: Science, thoughts, freedom
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 98 19:29:23 CST
In-Reply-To: (199803252117.NAA19653 lists1.best.com); from "angelica hesse" at Mar 25, 98 4:15 pm
Angelica,
I find it very interesting to read what a person educated in the Waldorf
system writes, especially in a Waldorf-critics list. I am concerned about
the teaching of science and technology in general, and within WE in particular.
Maybe you can help me with this: Is there any information on the percentage
of people from Waldorf schools who become either scientists or engineers?,
any comparison to public education or other systems?, any data on the
performance in standardized tests? It seems to me that this information can
show if there is a bias in the professional orientation of WE.
Personally, I was educated in Catholicism, but later became an atheist. I do
not believe there are any angels (or demons, for the case). I am not trying to
be contentious, but I do not see how the topic could be treated scientifically,
i. e. how an experiment could show their existence. Are there any predictions
made by Steiner or other anthroposophists?
--
Humberto Saint Martin
__________________________________________________________________
Laboratorio de Cuernavaca, IFUNAM | Tel.: (52-73) 135688
Apartado Postal 48 - 3 | 175388
Calle Estrada Cajigal 510, | (52-5) 6227796
Colonia Tezontepec |
62251 Cuernavaca, Morelos | Fax: (52-73) 173077
MEXICO | 111603
| (52-5) 6227775
__________________________________________________________________
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n695.4 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Science, thoughts, freedom
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 18:29:32 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803260125.RAA02211 lists1.best.com)
Dear Huberto saint Martin,
I will respond for myself here, expecting Angelica, to speak for
herself as well.
Your views are understandable, but those about angels and so forth
remain beliefs, because the tool you espouse as the one true method for
the obtaining of truth - that is the "tool" science, does not really
consider questions or matters by which such a determination could be
made.
Many on this list have heard this before, as we have also heard Dan's
rants before, yet I will repeat myself, as Dan (who by example, sets the
standards for the list) often repeats himself.
The process by which a human being comes to knowledge of what is true
does not rest on the laboratory, testing, or mathematical methodologies
usually pointed to by those who use "science" as a club to beat aside
the views of others. The primary element has always been and will
remain human thinking.
Knowledge is the product of thought. The difficult issues which relate
to this are usually considered in universities in philosophy courses
covering the subject: epistomology.
A laboratory experiment is first a thought hypothesis, and later a
thought conclusion. The meaning of the facts observed, and the nature
of the facts themselves, all require the presence of thought to be known
to the human mind. Mathematics, which appears so useful to science,
oddly enough arises soley from human thought (i.e. is not found in sense
perceptible nature).
Rudolf Steiner, in spite of Dan's assertions to the contrary, presented
to the world, at the young age of 25, a remarkable achievement in the
field of epistomology - one that was fully conversant with the universal
elements of human psychology, especially the role of thinking, in his
book: "Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World Conception."
This book does confront the reader with a particular difficulty,
however. The reader cannot just work abstractly with the ideas
presented, as if it was a matter of argument, but must instead engage in
careful and objective self observation. Thinking must become objective
experience. This is no small feat, because normally thinking has as its
object everything but itself. But only by this subtle act can clarity
arise as to the nature of knowledge and truth as these matters flow from
the act of thinking.
The conclusions that come from such a disciplined self study, then lead
to an alteration of how one approaches the problem of knowledge in all
spheres of human endeavor, not just the scientific. These same
conclusions, however, allow one to consider questions in the realm of
the spiritual, just as objectively as questions have been previously
considered in the realm of material existence.
The results of such work bring nothing less than a complete
transformation of humanities understanding of itself, the earth and the
cosmos. But all these larger matters, depend upon the care which must
be taken in the very first step - the achievement of a real objective
knowledge about the nature of thinking and the relationship of thinking
to the world of experience.
The consequence of this first step is an alteration of one's inner life
in profound ways. Yet, the only process by which one can investigate
the truth of these questions is by looking at one's own mind with the
same scrupulous objectivity that is practiced in the field of natural
science. It is a matter of doing.
Those who argue without having undertaken this doing, have failed at
the primary level by which science proceeds. It is as if one were to
say: "Well, I don't care, I won't perform the confirming experiment"
(the required self observation and thinking about thinking).
Anyone who wishes to really consider the problems posed by Steiner's
work must begin here.
At the very least, if someone seriously tries to do this, a discussion
can be begun with those familiar with this work. My review (still
incomplete) of the archives of this list shows that this has never been
done. If a dialogue cannot be made at this most fundamental level,
then a dialogue cannot be made concerning any other matters which flow
from Steiner's discovery in the field of epistomology.
Without a common vocabulary regarding the role of thinking in the
development of knowledge and truth, all dialogue is at cross purposes,
as if the disputants (and there have been many on this list) were not
living in the same universe.
There are those who visit this list, who would say that it is only for
the discussion of criticism of Waldorf. However, as Dan, and others,
routinely disparage Steiner, it seems entirely appropriate to speak on
behalf of the truths he has discovered.
joel wendt
"the narrow gate" http://www.microweb.com/hermit
Humberto saint Martin wrote:
)
) Angelica,
)
) I find it very interesting to read what a person educated in the Waldorf
) system writes, especially in a Waldorf-critics list. I am concerned about
) the teaching of science and technology in general, and within WE in particular.
)
) Maybe you can help me with this: Is there any information on the percentage
) of people from Waldorf schools who become either scientists or engineers?,
) any comparison to public education or other systems?, any data on the
) performance in standardized tests? It seems to me that this information can
) show if there is a bias in the professional orientation of WE.
)
) Personally, I was educated in Catholicism, but later became an atheist. I do
) not believe there are any angels (or demons, for the case). I am not trying to
) be contentious, but I do not see how the topic could be treated scientifically,
) i. e. how an experiment could show their existence. Are there any predictions
) made by Steiner or other anthroposophists?
) --
)
) Humberto Saint Martin
)
) __________________________________________________________________
) Laboratorio de Cuernavaca, IFUNAM | Tel.: (52-73) 135688
) Apartado Postal 48 - 3 | 175388
) Calle Estrada Cajigal 510, | (52-5) 6227796
) Colonia Tezontepec |
) 62251 Cuernavaca, Morelos | Fax: (52-73) 173077
) MEXICO | 111603
) | (52-5) 6227775
) __________________________________________________________________
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n695 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n696 --------------
001 - angelica hesse (hesse96 m - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n695
002 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Heart as a pump
003 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Re: Science, thoughts, freedom
004 - "David E. Gower" (dgower - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n695
005 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - RE: science
006 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Heart as a pump
007 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Science, thoughts, freedom
008 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - RE: science
009 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - science, thoughts, freedom
010 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: science, thoughts, freedom
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n696.1 ---------------
From: angelica hesse (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n695
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 22:57:58 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (199803260310.TAA27035 lists1.best.com) from "waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com" at Mar 25, 98 07:10:33 pm
) From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
) Subject: Science, thoughts, freedom
)
) Angelica,
)
) I find it very interesting to read what a person educated in the Waldorf
) system writes, especially in a Waldorf-critics list. I am concerned about
) the teaching of science and technology in general, and within WE in particular.
)
) Maybe you can help me with this: Is there any information on the percentage
) of people from Waldorf schools who become either scientists or engineers?,
) any comparison to public education or other systems?, any data on the
) performance in standardized tests? It seems to me that this information can
) show if there is a bias in the professional orientation of WE.
Those are definitely valid, and interesting questions and concerns. I dont'
actually know waht data is available on this. I did recently see a study,
posted on the www that had looked at what graduates of waldorf schools (in
scandinavis, I believe) were doing 5-10 years later. There might be some
info to answer your question there (I know the vast majority were working or
studying). Unfortunately I dont' recall where the site was, but I know it
came up on a yahoo search under waldorf ed.
As far as standardized test scores, the one test we all, even in waldorf
schools take in the US are the SAT and usually achievement tests. My SAT
scores were in the 97 percentile for verbal, and the 96th for math on a
national level. A math achievement test, which I also took, and which is
much more competitive only yielded a score in the 53 percentile (680 our of
800), but that is probably related to the fact that only students with
already strong skills and interest in math tend to take that exam. To be
honest, I dont' think I know anyone who took achievement tests in science
topics. My experience with looking at those was that they were very much
specialized (and waldorf tends to give a more broad scope of all the
sciences)) They also focused on sort of technical trivia. NOt an overall
knowledge of the subject, but a series of facts. The sort of thing that can
be memorized if need be, or more often simply looked up. This is definitely
not what we learn in our sciences classes.
I am studynig graphic design, after trying theatre and music. I have an
artistic leaning, but always had a keen mind and loved math. Despite my
more artistic leanings, I always found my waldorf science classes extremely
interesting,a dn to this day I remember experiments we did in classes as
early as age 12. I still remember doing them, where we were, what I saw; I
remember making drawings of htem, writing about them. In fact, I notice
that i remember a lot of interesting science facts that others just dont'
know (its' suprisingly enough my strongest suit when it comes to trivial
persuit and jeopardy!!!). In all honesty, I find the biology class I am
taking now in college (human bio for non-majors) dreadfully dull and
superficial. NEver the less, I got the highest score in teh class on the
first exam (out of 200 or so students!). WE makes science interesting. I
think that is very important. It makes it come alive. ANd I don't think it
does what often happens in other schools: exert a bias toward boys rather
than girls. THat is also very important to consider in our present society.
As a final thought, there has been soem talk on this list about "hokey
science" I don't think that exists in WE. I will admite that some concepts
are presented that are not part of mainstream science, but they are
presented only where their is solid evidence to indicate that they are as
valid as the mainstream ideas. I've seen the experiments, and to this day,
I dont' buy the argument that the heart is a pump!!! I've heard it this year
in class, and it just doesnt' hold water for me, because I've read a
published medical research article proving just the opposite! That's how
science works, right? If there are conflicting ideas, the one that has the
most evidence for it, or is presneted in teh most convincing way is the one
we choose, right?
) Personally, I was educated in Catholicism, but later became an atheist. I do
) not believe there are any angels (or demons, for the case). I am not trying to
) be contentious, but I do not see how the topic could be treated scientifically,
) i. e. how an experiment could show their existence. Are there any predictions
) made by Steiner or other anthroposophists?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by predictions. OCuld you rephrase that?
)From my point of view, in a certain way 'regular' science itself kind of
answers this question for me. I just can't accept the idea that all of life
is a chance accident, that nothing is shaping or planning it, that nothing
breathes life into the world. The evidence to the effect that atoms and DNA
make up our entire world and control it's developmentment and organisation
just doesn't seem like a strong enough argument to me. SO much is always
left unanswered. The world just has too much LIFE in it to be exclusively
dead matter. That is obviously my oppinion, but it's what I see and
experience around me. So to me, that points to the fact taht something (and
my upbringing calls it god and angels, but choose waht you like) something
is behind the life on this planet, somethign makes it go, somethign gives it
purpose nad direction. My favorite example of this is the demonstration of
stirring something to show how the galaxies, planets, etc were formed. THe
wonderful question I've heard asked is: but who stirred the world???
Perhaps I haven't answered your question, quite. I'll be the first to admit
that my understanding of anthroposophy is still very limited compared to
what there is to read and understand. Some of the scientific questions of
how one proves spiritual things have, I think been very extensively, adn
thoughtfully answered by Joel Wendt in another message. I don't think I can
do better than he did, so I'll leave this already very long message where it
is. ( I do tend to keep going once I start on an idea!)
Happy discussing
Angelica G. Hesse
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n696.2 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: Heart as a pump
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 98 23:04:42 CST
In-Reply-To: (199803260358.TAA08084 lists1.best.com); from "angelica hesse" at Mar 25, 98 10:57 pm
Sorry to send this message to all of you, but I couldn't find Angelica Hess'
personal e-mail in her message.
You do not buy the argument that the heart is a pump. What is it, then?
Thanks.
--
Humberto Saint Martin
__________________________________________________________________
Laboratorio de Cuernavaca, IFUNAM | Tel.: (52-73) 135688
Apartado Postal 48 - 3 | 175388
Calle Estrada Cajigal 510, | (52-5) 6227796
Colonia Tezontepec |
62251 Cuernavaca, Morelos | Fax: (52-73) 173077
MEXICO | 111603
| (52-5) 6227775
__________________________________________________________________
Yes and no. Planck, Einstein and other giants showed that they do not hold
either for small particles or high speeds. However, there is no need to discard
Newton's Laws, for
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n696.3 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: Re: Science, thoughts, freedom
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 98 22:57:05 CST
In-Reply-To: (199803260231.SAA29972 lists1.best.com); from "Joel A. Wendt" at Mar 25, 98 6:29 pm
Joel,
Thank you for your message. It leaves me with more questions, which have the
aim of establishing a common vocabulary, or at least to allow me to follow
you.
It is not my intention to use the concept "science" as a club against any
others views. What I understand by science and objectivity is based on
my training as a scientist, that includes readings of Popper, Kuhn, Dennet,
Poincare, Russell and other philosophers. It seems to me that it can be
summarized in the following way: Science is concerned with understanding Nature
by building theories that require the smallest amount of assumptions to
"explain" known phenomena (Occam's razor), then making predictions of phenomena
that have not been observed; if the new phenomena are observed, the theory is
successful and "understanding" has been achieved. A different set of assumptions
might also "explain" the same originally observed phenomena. In this context,
"explaining" means that taking the assumptions as "axioms", the phenomena can
be deduced as "theorems". The choice of the "right" theory will depend on its
ability to predict new phenomena. Newton's Laws of motion give an example: He
knew the data of Kepler and the works of Galileo; his theory allowed to
"explain" the motions of both terrestrial and celestial bodies, with only three
laws of motion and one of gravity. The prediction of something new came from the
French physicist LaVille, who in 1874 predicted the existence of Neptune based
on Newton's Laws and the data of Uranus' orbit. Neptune was found where LaVille
said it would be, on January, 1875. Does that mean that Newton's Laws are true?
Yes and no. Planck, Einstein and other giants showed that they do not hold
either for small particles or high speeds. However, there is no need to discard
Newton's Laws, for they are very good at "explaining" a lot of phenomena.
New theories are proposed every now and then, and tested in this way. This is
the job of scientists. Once they have a good theory, they put it under the
consideration of other scientists by means of written articles or presentations
at various meetings. In this context "objectivity" is attained when supporters
of the new theory can successfully answer the questions and problems asked by
the opponents. For instance, Einstein was against Bohr's interpretation of
Quantum Mechanics, so he made his best to find contradictions and paradoxes.
Bohr could always resolve them, even based on Einstein's own theories.
Most scientists are aware that scientific truth is "perishable", in the sense
that Newton's Laws "perished"; it is my opinion that the skepticism of
scientists stems from this situation (my own skepticism does). Thus, the
scientific approach has its limitations. However, it seems to be the best basis
for making decisions, because it has a predictive capability that is not
present in any other form of thought. Occam's razor has shown its usefulness.
About mathematics, I agree that it is not a "natural science", in the sense
of physics, chemistry or biology. It is more closely related to a "language",
with a particular grammar, that serves as a model for scientific thought.
But even "mathematical truth" can be discussed.
)From what you say I gather that Goethean philosophy and anthroposophy are
"objectively true". Does that mean that they would have been discovered by
other people, had there not been a Wolfgang Goethe and a Rudolf Steiner?,
are the characters of shakespearean plays also "true"?
I also gather that you do believe in the existence of angels. Do you also
believe in Virgin of Guadalupe? How do you discriminate what you believe
from what you disbelief?
The latter questions seem ironical, but my intention is not; I am not trying
to be offensive. I do want answers and explanations.
Thanks.
--
Humberto Saint Martin
__________________________________________________________________
Laboratorio de Cuernavaca, IFUNAM | Tel.: (52-73) 135688
Apartado Postal 48 - 3 | 175388
Calle Estrada Cajigal 510, | (52-5) 6227796
Colonia Tezontepec |
62251 Cuernavaca, Morelos | Fax: (52-73) 173077
MEXICO | 111603
| (52-5) 6227775
__________________________________________________________________
--
Humberto Saint Martin
__________________________________________________________________
Laboratorio de Cuernavaca, IFUNAM | Tel.: (52-73) 135688
Apartado Postal 48 - 3 | 175388
Calle Estrada Cajigal 510, | (52-5) 6227796
Colonia Tezontepec |
62251 Cuernavaca, Morelos | Fax: (52-73) 173077
MEXICO | 111603
| (52-5) 6227775
__________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your message. It leaves me with more questions, which have the
aim of establishing a common vocabulary, or at least to allow me to follow
you.
It is not my intention to use the concept "science" as a club ag
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n696.4 ---------------
From: "David E. Gower" (dgower interhop.net)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n695
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 08:21:53 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199803260310.TAA27035 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199803260358.TAA08084 lists1.best.com)
At 22:57 25/03/98 -0500, A. Hesse wrote:
)presented only where their is solid evidence to indicate that they are as
)valid as the mainstream ideas. I've seen the experiments, and to this day,
)I dont' buy the argument that the heart is a pump!!! I've heard it this year
)in class, and it just doesnt' hold water for me, because I've read a
)published medical research article proving just the opposite!
Angelica,
Please provide references for this article. I would very much like to
locate it.
**************************************************************************
Opinions, comments, etc. are my own and all original material is:
Copyright 1998 by David E. Gower. All Rights Reserved.
Contact: dgower interhop.net
_!_
_______(_)_______
**************************************************************************
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n696.5 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: RE: science
Date: 26 Mar 1998 11:29:55 -0500
Humberto posted:
)Personally, I was educated in Catholicism, but later became an atheist. I do
)not believe there are any angels (or demons, for the case). I am not trying
to
)be contentious, but I do not see how the topic could be treated
)scientifically, i. e. how an experiment could show their existence.
Humberto,
Maybe you need some new or different tools for your science toolbox. I
imagine real scientists do that kind of stuff all the time (that is come up
with new methods and "tools").
On another line of thought, why does it seem that scientist avoid this kind
of subject matter like the plague. Does it have something to do with society
not being ready for whatever the results could be? (i.e being alone in the
universe or submitting our independence to "higher" force(s)) Are they
reluctant to focus on their own foundations? Are they already convinced that
it is an impossible proposition?
Interestingly enough, the *constitutional* seperation of church and state
(which may be seen as different than any "natural" or otherwise logical
seperation or unity) may be the very vehicle (through its ability to stifle
research by removal of funding) that keeps the two from ever meeting. Maybe
that should be repealed so we can get to the bottom of this matter (or
unmatter as the case may be).
agnostically
Luke
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n696.6 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Heart as a pump
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 08:39:15 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199803260358.TAA08084 lists1.best.com); from "angelica hesse" at Mar 25, 98 10:57 pm
In-Reply-To: (199803260503.VAA15870 lists1.best.com)
On 25 Mar 98 , Humberto saint Martin wrote:
) You do not buy the argument that the heart is a pump. What is it, then?
And a follow-up question: If the heart does not move blood through the
body, what does?
Steve Premo http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
"Computers, huh? I guess they're OK... if you've got the time"
--Barry "The Flash" Allen
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n696.7 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Science, thoughts, freedom
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:05:36 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199803260231.SAA29972 lists1.best.com)
On 25 Mar 98 , Joel A. Wendt wrote:
) The tool you espouse as the one true method for
) the obtaining of truth - that is the "tool" science, does not really
) consider questions or matters by which such a determination could be
) made.
Well, yes. I can't speak for Humberto, but I would never say that science
is the one true method for obtaining the truth. Only that it is the best
method available for understanding the material world.
) The conclusions that come from such a disciplined self study, then lead
) to an alteration of how one approaches the problem of knowledge in all
) spheres of human endeavor, not just the scientific. These same
) conclusions, however, allow one to consider questions in the realm of the
) spiritual, just as objectively as questions have been previously
) considered in the realm of material existence.
Perhaps, although I have considerably less confidence in the objectivity
of philosophy and disciplined self study than I do in the objectivity of
science. Science, of course, also suffers from subjective
interpretation, but at least there is a mechanism for attacking the
assumptions of other scientists.
While philosophy and spiritual self-study are worthy pursuits, they
are not science. They lack the kind of self-correcting mechanism present
in science, which is why you see statements like Angela's: "[S]teiner did
not synthesize, he observed! We can all choose to accept that or not, but
unless we can observe waht he saw, or something to negate it, we're hardly
in a position to judge his observations..."
I agree with the statement that we aren't in a position to judge the
observations of spiritualists, because we can't know, really, what was
going on in their minds when they saw what they claim to have seen. And I
agree that spiritual exploration is a worthy pursuit. But again, it ain't
science.
) Without a common vocabulary regarding the role of thinking in the
) development of knowledge and truth, all dialogue is at cross purposes, as
) if the disputants (and there have been many on this list) were not living
) in the same universe.
Indeed. That is why I wish anthroposophists used the word "science" in
the same sense that it is used in the scientific community.
(And I promised myself that I would not get drawn into any more
discussions about the nature of science and philosophy!)
Steve Premo http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
"Computers, huh? I guess they're OK... if you've got the time"
--Barry "The Flash" Allen
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n696.8 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: RE: science
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 98 11:17:13 CST
In-Reply-To: (199803261630.IAA15874 lists1.best.com); from "Luke Schelly" at Mar 26, 98 11:29 am
Scientists do not avoid topics as extraterrestrial life or non-conventional
knowledge. Quite the opposite, we (I am a professional biophysicist) look
for new stuff; that is our job. For instance, the "Very Large Array" of
radiotelescopes is used to look for possible messages from "outside", among
many other studies. Also there is this new theory about "morphogenetic fields"
advanced by Rupert Sheldrake, a british biochemist. I don't want to bore you
with the details, but rather will give some references:
- Carl Sagan, "This Demon-Haunted World", "Cosmos", "Connections", and many
other books. As the astrophysicist he was, he treats the problem of ET
"intelligence".
- Though I do not have direct references of Sheldrake's work, an interesting
discussion can be found in the book "A Glorious Accident", by Wim Kyzer. I
really recommend this book, for it presents interviews with six remarkable
thinkers of our time and, most exciting, a round-table with the six of them.
-Fritjof Capra, "The Tao of Physics", 3rd ed. (1990 or 1991), with analogies
between Oriental mysticism and physics. Capra is a physicist who studies
phenomena of high energy.
- Daniel Dennet, professional philosopher, "Consciousness Explained",
"Darwin's Dangerous Idea". The other side of the coin: Materialistic thinking
at its best.
Hopefully this can help to erradicate the idea that scientists are "square".
--
Humberto Saint Martin
__________________________________________________________________
Laboratorio de Cuernavaca, IFUNAM | Tel.: (52-73) 135688
Apartado Postal 48 - 3 | 175388
Calle Estrada Cajigal 510, | (52-5) 6227796
Colonia Tezontepec |
62251 Cuernavaca, Morelos | Fax: (52-73) 173077
MEXICO | 111603
| (52-5) 6227775
__________________________________________________________________
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n696.9 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: science, thoughts, freedom
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:55:34 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Humberto,
I will place some comments amoung the elements of your message in
[brackets] below. I will also (snip) some material. I hope what I have
left out will not have damaged your thesis. If so, please correct me in
your response.
"Joel,
Thank you for your message. It leaves me with more questions, which have
the
aim of establishing a common vocabulary, or at least to allow me to
follow
you.
It is not my intention to use the concept "science" as a club against
any
others views."
[That is good of you (I am not being sarcastic). If you were to read
the archives of this list you would find examples of many who do not
possess such forbearence.]
"What I understand by science and objectivity is based on
my training as a scientist, that includes readings of Popper, Kuhn,
Dennet,
Poincare, Russell and other philosophers. It seems to me that it can be
summarized in the following way: Science is concerned with understanding
Nature
by building theories that require the smallest amount of assumptions to
"explain" known phenomena (Occam's razor), then making predictions of
phenomena
that have not been observed; if the new phenomena are observed, the
theory is
successful and "understanding" has been achieved. A different set of
assumptions
might also "explain" the same originally observed phenomena. In this
context,
"explaining" means that taking the assumptions as "axioms", the
phenomena can
be deduced as "theorems". The choice of the "right" theory will depend
on its
ability to predict new phenomenon."
[You have used above the follow terms: phenomena, assumption, theory,
explain, observe, predict. Each of these appears in thinking as a
concept - an idea. One could spend a lot of time "defining" such terms
with other terms, but even those terms used to define will first have
arisen in thinking. This thinking is the act, which occures a'priori to
any investigation of the phenomenal world. The philsophers you have
mentioned above have points of view about the relationship between
thinking and the phenomenal world of our experience. It is with these
matters that our discussion needs to begin. If we begin directly with
the practice of science (hypothesis, observation, experiment, theory and
so forth), we skip right past the essential matter, the point at which
the digression begins. Think of it this way. If I shoot an arrow, the
smallest deviation at the beginning will bring it about that the arrow
ends up in very different places. So it is with how we understand the
problem of thinking as an act of knowledge.]
[I (sniped) your science history lesson.]
"About mathematics, I agree that it is not a "natural science", in the
sense
of physics, chemistry or biology. It is more closely related to a
"language",
with a particular grammar, that serves as a model for scientific
thought.
But even "mathematical truth" can be discussed."
[Yes, and so can the thinking which preceeds, and is necessary to, all
perception, hypothesizing, planning of experiments, etc.]
"From what you say I gather that Goethean philosophy and anthroposophy
are
"objectively true"."
[While that might be implied by what I said, it was not my intention to
make a leap into the consequences of an objective examination of thought
and knowledge. We still need to begin at the beginning, otherwise we
might as well not discuss anything at all.]
"Does that mean that they would have been discovered by
other people, had there not been a Wolfgang Goethe and a Rudolf
Steiner?,"
[I have no idea. I find imaginary thinking of this sort to be generally
useless. What happened is what happened. Let's deal with that.]
"are the characters of shakespearean plays also "true"?"
[I don't know what this has to do with the matter under discussion.]
"I also gather that you do believe in the existence of angels. Do you
also
believe in Virgin of Guadalupe? How do you discriminate what you believe
from what you disbelief?"
[Actually I don't use the word belief very much at all, except perhaps
in casual conversation where precise language does not matter so much.
My early education (three years at the US Air Force Academy, a degree in
philosophy and religion from the Univ. of Denver, and a law degree from
the Univ. of Montana) had made me an agnostic and a scientific
materialist. I only really began to question the scientific paradigm
when I was introduced to the rich psychological developments going on in
California in the late 1960's and '70's. This actually only raised
questions in my mind, because what was taught in academic pyschology and
the nature of my direct experience began to come in conflict. The rest
of the story is much too long, but suffice it to say, that "beliefs"
have nothing to do with it.]
"The latter questions seem ironical, but my intention is not; I am not
trying
to be offensive. I do want answers and explanations.
Thanks.
--
Humberto Saint Martin"
[I am not offended. Far from it. It is my hope to finally have a
discussion on this list that proceeds with some care and discipline and
doesn't just become a back and forth assertion of strongly held points
of view. My brother is a mircobiologist and we have had many fruitful
dialogues over the years, without rancor or name calling. He has helped
me to see that many scientists are not true believers in materialism,
but rather just careful thinkers, very much along the lines you have
described in your message. All I want is to examine thinking
objectively, as a preliminary matter, before coming to an understanding
of knowledge and truth, as these exist for the human being.
warm regards,
joel wendt]
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n696.10 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: science, thoughts, freedom
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 10:20:24 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199803261755.JAA10024 lists1.best.com)
On 26 Mar 98 , Joel A. Wendt wrote:
) [You have used above the follow terms: phenomena, assumption, theory,
) explain, observe, predict. Each of these appears in thinking as a
) concept - an idea. One could spend a lot of time "defining" such terms
) with other terms, but even those terms used to define will first have
) arisen in thinking. This thinking is the act, which occures a'priori to
) any investigation of the phenomenal world. The philsophers you have
) mentioned above have points of view about the relationship between
) thinking and the phenomenal world of our experience. It is with these
) matters that our discussion needs to begin. If we begin directly with
) the practice of science (hypothesis, observation, experiment, theory and
) so forth), we skip right past the essential matter, the point at which
) the digression begins.
Joel, the discussion really needs to begin by defining the issue. If the
issue is whether Steiner's "spiritual science" is really science as that
term is generally understood today, a discussion of the practice of
science, specifically with regard to that which distinguishes it from
other pursuits, is the place to begin the discussion of that issue.
If the issue is the comparative value of science and "spiritual science"
in understanding the phenomenal world, then perhaps a discussion of the
relationship between thinking, the observation of phenomena, and the
phenomena themselves is the place to begin.
What are we discussing here?
Steve Premo http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
"Computers, huh? I guess they're OK... if you've got the time"
--Barry "The Flash" Allen
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n696 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n697 --------------
001 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Re: science, thoughts, freedom
002 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Second World Skeptics Conference "Facing Armageddon"
Heidelb
003 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - RE: science
004 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: Science, thoughts, freedom
005 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Science, thoughts, freedom
006 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - RE: science
007 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - RE: science
008 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - re: Hokey Science (was: digest v001.n695)
009 - "c.mcilroy" (c.mcilroy el - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n695
010 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Re: science, thoughts, freedom
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n697.1 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: Re: science, thoughts, freedom
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 98 12:51:31 CST
In-Reply-To: (199803261825.KAA05749 lists1.best.com); from "Steve Premo" at Mar 26, 98 10:20 am
) On 26 Mar 98 , Steve Premo wrote:
)
) Joel, the discussion really needs to begin by defining the issue. If the
) issue is whether Steiner's "spiritual science" is really science as that
) term is generally understood today, a discussion of the practice of
) science, specifically with regard to that which distinguishes it from
) other pursuits, is the place to begin the discussion of that issue.
)
) If the issue is the comparative value of science and "spiritual science"
) in understanding the phenomenal world, then perhaps a discussion of the
) relationship between thinking, the observation of phenomena, and the
) phenomena themselves is the place to begin.
)
) What are we discussing here?
)
Ditto.
--
Humberto Saint Martin
__________________________________________________________________
Laboratorio de Cuernavaca, IFUNAM | Tel.: (52-73) 135688
Apartado Postal 48 - 3 | 175388
Calle Estrada Cajigal 510, | (52-5) 6227796
Colonia Tezontepec |
62251 Cuernavaca, Morelos | Fax: (52-73) 173077
MEXICO | 111603
| (52-5) 6227775
__________________________________________________________________
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n697.2 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Second World Skeptics Conference "Facing Armageddon"
Heidelberg, 23.-26. Juli 1998
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 20:37:49 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
(Provisional) program (text German/English) of Second World Skeptics
Conference in Heidelberg, with Willem Betz, Kees de Jager and me as speakers
from the Benelux. See for updates http://www.gwup.org/konferenz.htm
Herman
Second World Skeptics Conference
"Facing Armageddon"
Heidelberg, 23.-26. Juli 1998
Vom 23.-26. Juli 1998 wird in Heidelberg die zweite weltweite
Skeptiker-Konferenz stattfinden, die gemeinsam von der
amerikanischen Skeptiker-Organisation CSICOP, dem Verband der europ=E4ische=
n
skeptischen Organisationen ECSO sowie
der GWUP veranstaltet wird.
Weitere Anfragen beantwortet die=
GWUP-Gesch=E4ftsstelle
Hauptschwerpunkt der Tagung wird entsprechend dem Titel "Facing Armageddon"
der bevorstehende Jahrtausendwechsel
und die damit verbundene Weltuntergangsprophezeiungen,
Katastrophen=E4ngste und Vorhersagen sein.
Daneben werden auch folgende Themen schwerpunktm=E4=DF=
ig
behandelt:
Paramedizin und ihr politisches und
gesellschaftliches Umfeld
Der Energiebegriff in der Esoterik
Wissenschaft und Parawissenschaft in Bildung und
Ausbildung
Alle Vortr=E4ge finden auf Englisch statt.
Die GWUP nimmt Reservierungen in Jugendherbergen bis zum 10.
April 1998 vor.
(Unterkunft in 4 - 6 Bett-Zimmer f=FCr 30,- DM pro Tag
inkl. Fr=FChst=FCck)
Verbindliche Anmeldungen hier
Programm:
(Vorl=E4ufig)
(E) =3D Englisch
(D) =3D Deutsch
Mittwoch, 22. Juli
20-22 Uhr
Reception
Donnerstag, 23. Juli
9-12 Uhr
Plenary 1: Biblical prophesies
=20
Gerald Lague: The Bible and the Prophets of Doom
=20
Mark Kingwell: Significance of the Millenium
=20
(James Lewis: Doomsday Prophesies)
=20
Dave Thomas: Bible Code
14-18 Uhr
Concurrent A1: Alternative medicine I (E)
=20
Barry Beyerstein: Why Alternative Medicine seems
to work
=20
Wallace Sampson: Alternative Medicine in a
Scientific World
=20
Willem Betz: Homeopathy
=20
Concurrent A2: Alternative medicine II (E)
=20
Rainer Schiele: The fear of Amalgam tooth
fillings in Germany
=20
Concurrent B: Workshop on Critical Thinking (E)
=20
Responsible: Ray Hyman, James Alcock
=20
Concurrent C1: Kritisches Denken im
Bildungssystem (D)
=20
Wolfgang Hahn, Wolfgang Hund, Werner Schulz
20-22 Uhr
Keynote (Richard Dawkins)
Freitag, 24. Juli
9-12 Uhr
Plenary 2: Natural disasters (E)
=20
(David Morrison: Cosmic Impacts)
=20
Alan Hale: Comet Hale Bopp: Portent or Disaster?
=20
Jean Meeus: Doomsday: the May 2000 prediction
=20
Cornelis de Jager: Predicting the Catastrophic
End of Time
14-18 Uhr
Concurrent D1: Environmental Issues (E)
=20
William H. Calvin: The Great Climate Flip-flop
=20
(Ross Gelbspan: The Global Warming Crisis)
=20
Th. Casten: Global Warming and what we can do
about it
=20
Concurrent D2: Science and Education (E)
=20
Herman de Tollenaere: Theosophy and=
Anthroposophy in
Education in Asia, Europe and America
=20
Gerhard Eggert: Strange metals in antiquity
=20
Concurrent E: Selbsthifegruppen und=
Krebsinformation
(D) (BKFZ etc.)
=20
Parallel session with separate registration
=20
Concurrent F: Ad hoc meetings
=20
Philosophers meeting
20-22 Uhr
German Panel with public participation
Samstag, 25. Juli
9-12 Uhr
Plenary 3 (E)
=20
Tim Madigan: Doomsday psychology
=20
James Birx: Evolutionary Eschatology and the
Omega Point
=20
Edmond Cohen, Lewis Vaughn: Why People Believe
=20
Hartmut Zinser: Doomsday fantasies among new
religious
groups
=20
(James Lewis: Doomsday cults)
=20
(William Jarvis: Historical Review of Doomsday
Groups)
14-18 Uhr
Concurrent G (E)
=20
J. Nickell, R. Wiseman: Case Studies
=20
Concurrent H: E Rays and Dowsing (E)
=20
Jim Enright: Why the Scheunen Experiments do not
prove
dowsing
=20
Concurrent I: Alternative Medizin (D)
=20
J=FCrgen Windeler: Ein =DCberblick der neuesten=
Studien
=20
Barbara Burkhard: Der Binnenkonsens heute
=20
E. N=FCchtern: Was macht die alternative Medizin
so attraktiv?
=20
(Gerd B=FCschel: Best-case Analysen)
=20
(NN: Lebensberatungsgesetz)
20-22 Uhr
Banquet and boat trip (Richard Wiseman)
=20
Light Music, Brazilian dance, Comedy and Magic
Anmeldung:
Hiermit melde ich mich verbindlich f=FCr die 2nd World Skeptics Conference=
vom
23.-26. Juli 1998 in Heidelberg an.
=20
Vorname: =20
=20
Nachname: =20
=20
Titel: =20
=20
Stra=DFe: =20
=20
PLZ: Ort:=20
=20
Land: =20
=20
Konferenzgeb=FChren:
=20
Nicht-Mitglieder 245,- DM Anzahl:
=20
Nicht-Mitglieder (Student) 125,- DM Anzahl:
=20
Mitglied 195,- DM Anzahl:
Mitglied (Student) 95,- DM Anzahl:
Mitglied (Sponsor Silber) 97,50 DM Anzahl:
Mitglied (Sponsor Gold) freier Eintritt Anzahl:
Zuz=FCglich Abendessen und Bootsfahrt am 25. Juli (optional):
Mitglied 70,- DM
Mitglied Student 60,- DM
Ich m=F6chte w=E4hrend der Konferenz von dem =DCbernachtungsangebot=
Gebrauch
machen!
Unterbringung in 4 bis 6-Bett Zimmern in der Jugenherberge
120,- DM f=FCr vier N=E4chte (Mi-So).
Anmeldung nur =FCber die GWUP bis zum 10. April 1998
=20
Den Gesamtbetrag =FCberweisen Sie bitte bis zum 30. Juni 1998 auf folgendes=
Konto:
Name: GWUP e.V.
Konto: 1667 85-606
Bank: Postgiroamt Frankfurt
BLZ: 500 100 60
=20
=A9 17. Januar 1998 by Webmaster
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n697.3 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: RE: science
Date: 26 Mar 1998 17:09:20 -0500
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
)Scientists do not avoid topics as extraterrestrial life or non-conventional
)knowledge. Quite the opposite, we (I am a professional biophysicist) look
)for new stuff; that is our job.
Yes, that is probably true. It all depends or whether you consider that
stuff "new stuff" or just more or the same old stuff. "Non-conventional
knowledge" sounds promising, maybe you could tell us some fruits of this
study. (my fear is that it is more "complicated knowledge" than
non-conventional, although with that Occam's Razor comment, "complicated" may
well be "non-conventional" for scientists.
For instance, the "Very Large Array" of
)radiotelescopes is used to look for possible messages from "outside", among
)many other studies.
A more narrow example of what I meant by "tools" or "alone in the
universe", I think. I meant the "tools" of your epistemology, and "being
alone" in the "universe of random chance"
)Also there is this new theory about "morphogenetic fields"
)advanced by Rupert Sheldrake, a british biochemist.
Shape-forming fields? Sounds like magnetism (not too new), but I should
probably look this up (thanks for the references)
)- Carl Sagan, "This Demon-Haunted World", "Cosmos", "Connections", and many
)other books. As the astrophysicist he was, he treats the problem of ET
)"intelligence".
Not so interested in ET. Not really what I meant by alone in the universe.
)- Though I do not have direct references of Sheldrake's work, an interesting
)discussion can be found in the book "A Glorious Accident", by Wim Kyzer. I
)really recommend this book, for it presents interviews with six remarkable
)thinkers of our time and, most exciting, a round-table with the six of them.
I guess they might be scientists, but "thinkers" does not necessarily equal
"scientists" doing science. (hmm..or does it)
)-Fritjof Capra, "The Tao of Physics", 3rd ed. (1990 or 1991), with analogies
)between Oriental mysticism and physics. Capra is a physicist who studies
)phenomena of high energy.
Analogies between mysticism and physics may not be considered science either.
)- Daniel Dennet, professional philosopher, "Consciousness Explained",
)"Darwin's Dangerous Idea". The other side of the coin: Materialistic thinking
)at its best.
Being a professional philosopher may not be the same doing scientific
research.
Humberto, I am not trying to be particularly snotty here, but I was asking why
most scientists stay away from ideas that some believe to be belief
epistomologies. It seems that none of the references above (although I may
very well be wrong) explore what kind of "tools" or "research" might be needed
to investigate the question of the possibilty of making sensible what others
consider to be (possibly at this time) supersensible.
If it isn't too obvious, I think this is what Steiner was trying to get at in
the 'Philosophy of Freedom' book (although that may be wrong too)
)Hopefully this can help to erradicate the idea that scientists are "square".
Scientists are only "square" if some other scientists agree that they are, and
that they can predict that other scientist will be square as well. But since
it is more (Occamly) simple to be round it would be more likely that
scientists are round. (g)
sorry if I seem too pedantic
Luke
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n697.4 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: Science, thoughts, freedom
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 14:46:34 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803261711.JAA09429 lists1.best.com)
Steve,
I've stuck some comments below in [brackets].
joel
Steve Premo wrote:
)
) On 25 Mar 98 , Joel A. Wendt wrote:
)
) ) The tool you espouse as the one true method for
) ) the obtaining of truth - that is the "tool" science, does not really
) ) consider questions or matters by which such a determination could be
) ) made.
)
) Well, yes. I can't speak for Humberto, but I would never say that science
) is the one true method for obtaining the truth. Only that it is the best
) method available for understanding the material world.
[Well that is certainly interesting. In which case, this science you
describe can't have a thing to say about the non-material at all, can
it? And since it doesn't ask those kinds of questions, then it can't
really say there isn't more to the causal relations in the material
world, because this kind of science doesn't consider other possiblities.
So those on this list who assert there is something in science which
settles Steiner's hash, haven't a leg to stand on because this science
doesn't ask the relevant questions.
Now please remember, I am not saying anything about what I think
science is, just playing off of what you said above. Even so, the point
I am looking toward is not to be found in such a discussion (see another
post for details).]
)
) ) The conclusions that come from such a disciplined self study, then lead
) ) to an alteration of how one approaches the problem of knowledge in all
) ) spheres of human endeavor, not just the scientific. These same
) ) conclusions, however, allow one to consider questions in the realm of the
) ) spiritual, just as objectively as questions have been previously
) ) considered in the realm of material existence.
)
) Perhaps, although I have considerably less confidence in the objectivity
) of philosophy and disciplined self study
[There would only be a reason to have confidence in philosophy and self
study if you had the experiences that would give you such confidence.
Please, however, don't dismiss the possibility of acquiring such
confidence in the future.]
than I do in the objectivity of
) science. Science, of course, also suffers from subjective
) interpretation, but at least there is a mechanism for attacking the
) assumptions of other scientists.
)
) While philosophy and spiritual self-study are worthy pursuits, they
) are not science.
[This was precisely Steiner's contribution, having come into his
intellectual understanding in the midst of powerful scientific currents.
He made philosophy and self study scientific. His Philosophy of Freedom
has as a motto: "some results of introspection following the methods of
natural science".]
They lack the kind of self-correcting mechanism present
) in science, which is why you see statements like Angela's: "[S]teiner did
) not synthesize, he observed! We can all choose to accept that or not, but
) unless we can observe waht he saw, or something to negate it, we're hardly
) in a position to judge his observations..."
)
) I agree with the statement that we aren't in a position to judge the
) observations of spiritualists, because we can't know, really, what was
) going on in their minds when they saw what they claim to have seen. And I
) agree that spiritual exploration is a worthy pursuit. But again, it ain't
) science.
[Again, please do not jump ahead. Begin at the beginning. What is
thinking? What is knowledge? What is experience? What are the
objective relationships among these three things?]
)
) ) Without a common vocabulary regarding the role of thinking in the
) ) development of knowledge and truth, all dialogue is at cross purposes, as
) ) if the disputants (and there have been many on this list) were not living
) ) in the same universe.
)
) Indeed. That is why I wish anthroposophists used the word "science" in
) the same sense that it is used in the scientific community.
[I am trying to use it in precisely the same way. But the difference is
I am narrowing the scope of the examination of Steiner's work, to the
foundations, rather then the later work. The arrow begins its flight in
only one place - thinking. Where it ends after that becomes a whole
other matter.]
)
) (And I promised myself that I would not get drawn into any more
) discussions about the nature of science and philosophy!)
)
) Steve Premo http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
) "Computers, huh? I guess they're OK... if you've got the time"
) --Barry "The Flash" Allen
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n697.5 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Science, thoughts, freedom
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 15:38:28 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199803262247.OAA29745 lists1.best.com)
On 26 Mar 98 , Joel A. Wendt wrote:
) Steve Premo wrote:
) )
) ) I would never say that science
) ) is the one true method for obtaining the truth. Only that it is the best
) ) method available for understanding the material world.
)
) In which case, this science you
) describe can't have a thing to say about the non-material at all, can it?
I didn't say that. One could use science to explore, say, the existence
of angels, if one can come up with a hypothesis (e.g., that angels exist),
come up with predictions based on that hypothesis, and then devise
experiments to test those predictions, so as to test the hypothesis.
I can't personally conceive of what kind of testable predictions one could
make regarding angels, but there may be others with more imagination who
can come up with such an experiment.
So far, though, I have not seen the scientific method used to answer
questions about the spiritual world one way or the other.
) And since it doesn't ask those kinds of questions, then it can't really
) say there isn't more to the causal relations in the material world,
) because this kind of science doesn't consider other possibilities.
"Science" does not ask questions, except in a metaphorical sense.
Scientists ask questions, and use the scientific method to attempt to
answer them.
) So those on this list who assert there is something in science which
) settles Steiner's hash, haven't a leg to stand on because this science
) doesn't ask the relevant questions.
I didn't say that, either, and I hope that you are not intentionally
putting words in my mouth, or twisting the meaning of what I've said. I
think I expressed myself pretty clearly, and I'm not interested in
semantic games.
I don't think there is a scientific answer to the questions of whether
angels exist, whether we have etheric bodies, or what happens after we
die. There is a scientific answer to the question of whether the heart
pumps blood, but like any scientific theory, it may not be correct.
While I have heard it said that "Steiner's hash" is a bunch of
pseudoscientific nonsense, I don't think I have heard it asserted that
there is something in science which disproves it. In other words, the
assertion, with which I agree, is that Steiner's concepts are based on
spiritualism rather than science, not that the questions raised by
Steiner have been settled scientifically.
) [There would only be a reason to have confidence in philosophy and self
) study if you had the experiences that would give you such confidence.
) Please, however, don't dismiss the possibility of acquiring such
) confidence in the future.]
Oh, I don't dismiss that possibility.
) [Again, please do not jump ahead. Begin at the beginning. What is
) thinking? What is knowledge? What is experience? What are the
) objective relationships among these three things?]
Those questions may be interesting, but I'm not interested in discussing
them. In any event, while these questions are basic to philosophy, and
are important questions in evaluating the value of the scientific method,
one can distinguish science from philosophy (or spiritual science
as practiced by Steiner) without answering those questions.
) ) I wish anthroposophists used the word "science" in
) ) the same sense that it is used in the scientific community.
)
) [I am trying to use it in precisely the same way.
You describe Steiner's spiritual observations as science. What
hypotheses did he propound? What predictions did he make based on those
hypotheses? What experiments did he devise to test those predictions?
Unless you can answer those questions in a meaningful way, Steiner was not
practising science, and you are not succeeding in your quest to use the
word "science" in the same sense that it is used in the scientific
community.
Steve Premo http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
"Computers, huh? I guess they're OK... if you've got the time"
--Barry "The Flash" Allen
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n697.6 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: RE: science
Date: 26 Mar 1998 18:55:39 -0500
Humberto, you posted:
) Science is concerned with understanding Nature
)by building theories that require the smallest amount of assumptions to
)"explain" known phenomena (Occam's razor), then making predictions of
phenomena
)that have not been observed; if the new phenomena are observed, the theory is
)successful and "understanding" has been achieved.
and later on:
)Most scientists are aware that scientific truth is "perishable", in the sense
)that Newton's Laws "perished"; it is my opinion that the skepticism of
)scientists stems from this situation (my own skepticism does). Thus, the
)scientific approach has its limitations. However, it seems to be the best
basis
)for making decisions, because it has a predictive capability that is not
)present in any other form of thought. Occam's razor has shown its usefulness.
Humberto, what if "building theories that require the smallest amount of
assumptions to "explain" known phenomena (Occam's razor)" is a prestructure
of your outlook that doesn't necessarily in all cases relate to the real
world?
Doesn't this automatically preclude you from directing your attention to
potentially half of the rest of the stuff out there? (Assuming that there is
only one other opposite way of "explaining known phenomena")? So that when
you say: "... it seems to be the best basis for making decisions, because it
has a predictive capability that is not present in any other form of thought.
Occam's razor has shown its usefulness", I see that statement like this: This
way of looking is excellent at telling us about things that it can "detect",
but is so ineffective about possibly detecting other things it makes it appear
as though there is nothing else to detect (and of course life, as we are
experiencing it, is relatively comfortable, so that there is no need for
anyone to suspect that there is anything else.)
Occam's Razor may have shown its usefulness, but that is not the same thing as
completeness. It doesn't seem too useful in examining the boundary between
"science" and "religion".
Luke
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n697.7 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: RE: science
Date: 26 Mar 1998 19:46:01 -0500
Steve Premo posted
)Well, yes. I can't speak for Humberto, but I would never say that science
)is the one true method for obtaining the truth. Only that it is the best
)method available for understanding the material world.
..Or maybe it is a method we use in order to exist (the way we do) in the
"material world" in such a way that the world isn't too upset by our
understanding and actions (making it appear to work.) And since we don't have
a parellel universe as a "control" I guess we can't know if it is "the best
method" (it seems to me that it is simply the one we are mostly using).
)While philosophy and spiritual self-study are worthy pursuits, they
)are not science. They lack the kind of self-correcting mechanism present
)in science...
What you see as "self-correcting" I can easily see as "different direction
leading" which ain't the same and doesn't have automatically nested in it a
notion of necessarily being better.
)which is why you see statements like Angela's: "[S]teiner did
))not synthesize, he observed! We can all choose to accept that or not, but
))unless we can observe waht he saw, or something to negate it, we're hardly
))in a position to judge his observations..."
)I agree with the statement that we aren't in a position to judge the
)observations of spiritualists, because we can't know, really, what was
)going on in their minds when they saw what they claim to have seen.
I don't interperet the above statement that way. You seem to assume that
what they saw was only in their minds, otherwise what is the difference
between what is going in the mind of one person or another. It seems to me
that you have a problem with the *possibilty* that whatever was seen was
outside of the persons mind. (but I could have misunderstood)
(joel)
)) Without a common vocabulary regarding the role of thinking in the
)) development of knowledge and truth, all dialogue is at cross purposes, as
)) if the disputants (and there have been many on this list) were not living
)) in the same universe.
(steve)
)Indeed. That is why I wish anthroposophists used the word "science" in
)the same sense that it is used in the scientific community.
I think they call it "spiritual science" which may or may not be a
distinction similar to social science and physical science, meaning perhaps
some methods of one kind of science may be useful for some parts but that it
also may require the development of new tools or methods to delve into it any
meaningful way.
)(And I promised myself that I would not get drawn into any more
)discussions about the nature of science and philosophy!)
sorry Steve, maybe someone else will take up the baton.
honestly curious
Luke
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n697.8 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: re: Hokey Science (was: digest v001.n695)
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 98 01:24:02 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Angelica Hesse (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu) wrote )
You told us earnestly:
)In all honesty, I find the biology class I am taking now in college (human bio
)for non-majors) dreadfully dull [...]
And recalled a previous interest in math & science like this:
)I am studynig graphic design, after trying theatre and music. I have an
)artistic leaning, but always had a keen mind and loved math. Despite my
)more artistic leanings, I always found my waldorf science classes extremely
)interesting,a dn to this day I remember experiments we did in classes as
)early as age 12. [...]
And then delivered this judgement:
)As a final thought, there has been soem talk on this list about "hokey
)science" I don't think that exists in WE. I will admite that some concepts
)are presented that are not part of mainstream science, but they are
)presented only where their is solid evidence to indicate that they are as
)valid as the mainstream ideas. I've seen the experiments, and to this day,
)I dont' buy the argument that the heart is a pump!!! I've heard it this year
)in class, and it just doesnt' hold water for me, because I've read a
)published medical research article proving just the opposite!
Using "spiritual science", I'm imagining the "solid evidence" you are
referring to is:
The Heart Is Not A Pump: A Refutation Of The Pressure Propulsion Premise
Of Heart Function, by Ralph Marinelli & 4 others. This article appeared
in the V5 #1 Fall/Winter 95 edition of the fringe science journal
"Frontier Perspectives" published by the "Center for Frontier Sciences".
Principal author Marinelli lists his affiliation as:
Rudolph Steiner Research Center, Royal Oak, MI.
)That's how science works, right? If there are conflicting ideas, the one that
)has the most evidence for it, or is presneted in teh most convincing way is
)the one we choose, right?
Well, it depends Angelica. Some might wonder about the significance of
your phrase: "the most convincing way". I would hope we are talking
about research qualities like credibility, peer review, bias,
reproduciblity, etc.
Referring to Marinelli's article as "solid evidence" speaks volumes about
the quality of Waldorf Education.
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n697.9 ---------------
From: "c.mcilroy" (c.mcilroy elvis.murdoch.edu.au)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n695
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 20:19:02 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
in response to the conversation around Angelica's contribution
regarding epistemology. luckily, in the 1990's, we are all (hopefully) now
well aware that what counts as knowledge is socially constructed and
political. ie there are power relationships involved in any question or
claim of knowlege, or truth for that matter, which is arbitrary and can only
every be partial.
in the 1990's we are also aware (hopefully) that science is not all it's
made out to be. the myth of value-free, neutral objectivity was exposed
long ago, which throws particular light on modern western 'knowledge'. by
its own definition, that which cannot be falsified is not science, and
therefore dogma. if a science of spirituality cannot be falsified then it
is dogma. but i would argue that because 'science' itself can only ever be
partial truth, then it must also be dogma. and anyway, don't things change
when you're talking about spiritual science rather than scientific spirituality?
we are also well aware (hopefully) that there is a big difference between
religion and spirituality, as Angelica says. the first is an institution
based (arguably) upon the second. according to the criteria of the bastions
of theology, what counts as a religion must have a deity and an explicit set
of guidelines. and we can all see how foolish conflating religion and
spirituality is when marxism meets that criteria, and buddhism (and animism)
do not.
in light of the above i am suprised to see so many intelligent people
spending so much time arguing about whose truth is the right truth.
my children attend a steiner school. in this system (for isn't it only one
system among many?) i have seen matters that need to be attended to.
however, i have also been involved in other education systems and see the
same things there, albiet often implicitly rather than explicitly. by
contrast, in steiner education i see many positive things that i do not see
in other systems.
i am always happy to hear intelligent and fair critique, ie constructive
and careful analysis. but is this criticism for its own sake worthwhile??
what is your point, and who are you writing for and why?
and especially for Angelica.. the malestream mainstream white western
academy in which you find yourself is indeed very problematic for many of
us. how can something claim to be about knowledge and truth when it only
represents the knowledge and truth of white western middle-class academic
men in western history? for your own sake, have a good look at the feminist
departments for a refreshing perspective.
carl
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n697.10 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: Re: science, thoughts, freedom
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 98 12:58:29 CST
In-Reply-To: (199803261825.KAA05749 lists1.best.com); from "Steve Premo" at Mar 26, 98 10:20 am
It seems to me that this discussion on science and "spiritual science"
got way out of hand. It started from my statement that I could not see
how the existence of angels could be treated scientifically. Then Joel
wrote that we would have to speak with a common vocabulary, so I answered
with a definition of standard science, expecting a response with other
definitions that would help develop this common vocabulary. Instead, the
discussion has focused on wether or not standard science is "the" way to
find "truths".
Maybe I have some prestuctured thoughts that preclude me from following the
lines of reasoning of Luke, but I must confess that I still do not understand
what are the criteria he proposes to distinguish "true" statements from
"false" statements. (BTW, I think the "maybe" arguments can be applied the
other way).
So I will try to restart from more precise questions:
What definitions should we use in this common vocabulary for:
- science?
- objectivity?
- true?
Please forgive my "simple-mindedness" and take into consideration that I
am not a native English speaker.
Thank you.
--
Humberto Saint Martin
__________________________________________________________________
Laboratorio de Cuernavaca, IFUNAM | Tel.: (52-73) 135688
Apartado Postal 48 - 3 | 175388
Calle Estrada Cajigal 510, | (52-5) 6227796
Colonia Tezontepec |
62251 Cuernavaca, Morelos | Fax: (52-73) 173077
MEXICO | 111603
| (52-5) 6227775
__________________________________________________________________
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n697 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n698 --------------
001 - Angelica (hesse96 matrix. - Real or imagined?
002 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Real or imagined?
003 - Angelica (hesse96 matrix. - Dont' know waht to call this!!!!
004 - Angelica (hesse96 matrix. - Heart as pump, etc....
005 - John Anderson (reality ne - Re: Real or imagined? (private post)
006 - Bart Windrum (stretch sof - The Academy
007 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - RE: science
008 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - RE: Science, thoughts, freedom
009 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - RE: Science, thoughts, freedom
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n698.1 ---------------
From: Angelica (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu)
Subject: Real or imagined?
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 15:01:52 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803271855.KAA27709 lists1.best.com)
)which is why you see statements like Angela's: "[S]teiner did
))not synthesize, he observed! We can all choose to accept that or not, but
))unless we can observe waht he saw, or something to negate it, we're hardly
))in a position to judge his observations..."
)I agree with the statement that we aren't in a position to judge the
)observations of spiritualists, because we can't know, really, what was
)going on in their minds when they saw what they claim to have seen.
I don't interperet the above statement that way. You seem to assume
that
what they saw was only in their minds, otherwise what is the difference
between what is going in the mind of one person or another. It seems to
me
that you have a problem with the *possibilty* that whatever was seen was
outside of the persons mind. (but I could have misunderstood)
Thanks, as the author of the original statement above, I would like to
confirm that the later is the better interpretation of what I said.
Personally, I am willing to believe what steiner has said about his
'seeings' and studies, because I have no basis to doubt him (he's always
seemed honest and forthright), and because I have as yet NOT discovered
a world view which I find more convincing, or that answers questions of
existence as fully as his does. SO what I am saying, is that I have
chosesn to accept what he said and saw because to me it is plausible to
me. If one goes with the assumption that waht he wrote is not true,
then we are assuming one of two things:
1, that he must have been nuts or halucinating, or delusional. (he
hardly seemd that way, from recounts I've read of him).
or
2, that he's an outright lier who made up these things to mislead the
world or for some private agenda (which I again do not see in evidence
in his attitude toward the world or his life).
If neither of these explanations seems acurate, it seems we are left
with only one option: IT MIGHT ALL BE TRUE!
Is this an impossible thing to consider in today's world?
I hope not.
Stretching my Mind,
Angelica
hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n698.2 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Real or imagined?
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:00:49 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199803271957.LAA18746 lists1.best.com)
I'm trying to get all the attributions straight here.
For those not familiar with the conventions of attribution on the
Internet, the statements with no carrots are my current statements; the
statements with one carrot ()) are by the person I am quoting (Angelica);
the statements with two carrots ())) are the person Angela is quoting
(Luke?); and the statements with three carrots ()))) are the person Luke
is quoting (me); and the statements with four carrots ())))) are the
person I was quoting previously (Angelica).
On 28 Mar 98 , Angelica wrote:
)Luke(?) wrote:
))Steve Premo wrote:
)))
)))Angelica wrote:
)))
))))"[S]teiner did not synthesize, he observed! We can all choose to
))))accept that or not, but unless we can observe waht he saw, or
))))something to negate it, we're hardly in a position to judge his
))))observations..."
)))
)))I agree with the statement that we aren't in a position to judge the
)))observations of spiritualists, because we can't know, really, what was
)))going on in their minds when they saw what they claim to have seen.
))
)) I don't interperet the above statement that way. You seem to assume
))that what they saw was only in their minds, otherwise what is the
))difference between what is going in the mind of one person or another.
No, I don't assume that. I'm making no judgment one way or another. I'm
saying that you can't really know whether another person's spiritual
observations reflect external reality.
))It seems to me that you have a problem with the *possibilty* that
))whatever was seen was outside of the persons mind. (but I could have
))misunderstood)
No, I have no problem with the possibility. I do have a problem with the
assertion, with certainty, that what was seen was external to the person's
mind.
) Personally, I am willing to believe what steiner has said about his
) 'seeings' and studies, because I have no basis to doubt him (he's always
) seemed honest and forthright), and because I have as yet NOT discovered a
) world view which I find more convincing, or that answers questions of
) existence as fully as his does. SO what I am saying, is that I have
) chosen to accept what he said and saw because to me it is plausible to
) me.
Fine with me. Steiner's world view does not seem so plausible to me,
because it is contrary that what I feel, intuitively, to be true. In
other words, it conflicts with my intuitive spiritual feelings.
Obviously, it is in harmony with your intuitive spiritual feelings.
) If one goes with the assumption that waht he wrote is not true, then
) we are assuming one of two things:
)
) 1, that he must have been nuts or halucinating, or delusional. (he
) hardly seemd that way, from recounts I've read of him).
)
) or
)
) 2, that he's an outright lier who made up these things to mislead the
) world or for some private agenda (which I again do not see in evidence in
) his attitude toward the world or his life).
There are at least two other possibilities.
Many people have had profound spiritual experiences, and have gained much
personal insight from those experiences. I don't think that those people
made up those experiences, and I don't think that they were nuts, or were
hallucinating or delusional in the clinical sense of the word. I think
that either:
1. Spiritual reality is far outside our ordinary experience. Some people
have, though fortune or inner work, been able to catch a glimpse of that
reality. However, it must be interpreted through the filters of our
perception before it will make sense. So people from different cultural
backgrounds will have very different ways of seeing the same thing. Thus,
Steiner's observations are quite consistent with the early 20th century
European spiritualist tradition of which he was a part, while the
observations of a great Hindu mystic will be consistent with the Hindu
spiritual tradition, and the observations of, say, a Souix on a vision
quest will be consistent with his tradition.
OR
2. There is something in the human psyche that predisposes certain people
toward profound spiritual experiences. Those experiences are
interpreted, by the individual, within the context of that person's
culture, but they are simply psychological phenomena, and not based on
anything external to the individual.
I don't know which is correct, but I lean toward the former explanation,
because, well, it feels better to me.
) If neither of these explanations seems acurate, it seems we are left with
) only one option: IT MIGHT ALL BE TRUE!
Well, there's also that alternative, that Steiner's observations are
completely accurate, and those of, say, Hindu mystics are less accurate.
I personally doubt that explanation, but if it resonates with your own
spiritual beliefs, go for it.
Steve Premo http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
"Computers, huh? I guess they're OK... if you've got the time"
--Barry "The Flash" Allen
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n698.3 ---------------
From: Angelica (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu)
Subject: Dont' know waht to call this!!!!
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 15:28:09 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803271855.KAA27709 lists1.best.com)
Carl wrote:
) i am always happy to hear intelligent and fair critique, ie constructive
)and careful analysis. but is this criticism for its own sake worthwhile??
)what is your point, and who are you writing for and why?
If this was addressed to me, my point, is that the traditionally
accepted methods of education, and points of view are not necessarily
the most valid or the most effective. I'm writing for myself but also,
of my choice, for the (anthroposophical) community in which I was
raised, which has given me some of my perspective on life and a lot of
good things. Of course, a lot of it is more my personal take on that
community and possible not accurately representative of what IT stands
for. As for why, I guess because there is a lot of critique of it going
on here (obviously that's the point of this list!) so I've sort of given
myself the task of representing the GOOD sides of it -- to balance
things out....
)and especially for Angelica.. the malestream mainstream white western
)academy in which you find yourself is indeed very problematic for many of
)us. how can something claim to be about knowledge and truth when it only
)represents the knowledge and truth of white western middle-class academic
)men in western history? for your own sake, have a good look at the feminist
)departments for a refreshing perspective.
I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to here.... WHence this
analisys of my university? And waht does it have to do with truth adn
knowledge?? I'm confused what specifically you are critiquing about my
previous comments. For the record, I recently took a course in our
(currently highly controversial!) women's studies department (Psych of
WOmen). So, help me out. Reclarify what you are challenging me on, so
that I may respond.
Thanks!
Angelica
hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n698.4 ---------------
From: Angelica (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu)
Subject: Heart as pump, etc....
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 15:17:02 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803271855.KAA27709 lists1.best.com)
" )I dont' buy the argument that the heart is a pump!!! I've heard it
this year
)in class, and it just doesnt' hold water for me, because I've read a
)published medical research article proving just the opposite!
Using "spiritual science", I'm imagining the "solid evidence" you are
referring to is:
The Heart Is Not A Pump: A Refutation Of The Pressure Propulsion
Premise
Of Heart Function, by Ralph Marinelli & 4 others. This article appeared
in the V5 #1 Fall/Winter 95 edition of the fringe science journal
"Frontier Perspectives" published by the "Center for Frontier
Sciences".
Principal author Marinelli lists his affiliation as:
Rudolph Steiner Research Center, Royal Oak, MI."
Humberto, I believe, was asking for a reference to the article I had
read (in part, several years ago). For the record, this is the one I
was referring to, and I found it very interesting.
)That's how science works, right? If there are conflicting ideas, the one that
)has the most evidence for it, or is presneted in teh most convincing way is
)the one we choose, right?
Well, it depends Angelica. Some might wonder about the significance of
your phrase: "the most convincing way". I would hope we are talking
about research qualities like credibility, peer review, bias,
reproduciblity, etc.
Actually, I was referring to evidence presented, and the breadth of
considerations of what the evidence means. I'm not sure if that article
dealt with it or not, but I remember one piece of information in
particular which I always found interesting. (forgive the digression
here). It was the fact that blood circulates and pulses in an embryo
before a heart is even formed. THe heart actually seems to form from
this, thus indicating that the blood is not completely static and that
the heart is not entirely responsible for "forcing" it through our blood
vessels. This is a fact that I could not ignore, not matter what else
was presented to me.
In terms of scientific credibility and bias. I find the entire
scientific world, or should I say all of western society, or maybe all
of humanity, biased in some way. SOemone else brought this up today
too. There really is very little anythign that isn't biased, including
research. So if this study was biased, and perhaps it was, it needs to
be kept in mind that it is probably no more biased than other studies,
only in a different direction. Perhaps that is good, as a sort of
balance. now we have two biases to contend with, giving a broader
picture of the possible realities, don't we? Look at the arguments on
both sides, and decide from there (knowing the both are probably biased
in one way or another) which one truly holds more water (or should that
be blood!!!???)
Just my two cents worth
Angelica
hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n698.5 ---------------
From: John Anderson (reality netspace.net.au)
Subject: Re: Real or imagined? (private post)
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 09:49:51 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Steve,
I read Angelica's letter this morning and I guess I cringed. My reason for
cringing was that her letter was very sincere and from the heart, and that
it was wide open for mass slaughter by the critics of the list. I don't
know Angelica from a bar of soap, but new people enter the lists and if
they are not extremely careful with their wording and their "facts" then
they get shot down very quickly.... never to return.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with anything that she had to say, I am
simply writing to say that it was so nice to read a reply to such a letter
as this and see compassion and understanding.
Thanks,
John.
At 13:00 27/03/98 +0000, you wrote:
)I'm trying to get all the attributions straight here.
)For those not familiar with the conventions of attribution on the
)Internet, the statements with no carrots are my current statements; the
)statements with one carrot ()) are by the person I am quoting (Angelica);
)the statements with two carrots ())) are the person Angela is quoting
)(Luke?); and the statements with three carrots ()))) are the person Luke
)is quoting (me); and the statements with four carrots ())))) are the
)person I was quoting previously (Angelica).
)
)On 28 Mar 98 , Angelica wrote:
)
))Luke(?) wrote:
)))Steve Premo wrote:
))))
))))Angelica wrote:
))))
)))))"[S]teiner did not synthesize, he observed! We can all choose to
)))))accept that or not, but unless we can observe waht he saw, or
)))))something to negate it, we're hardly in a position to judge his
)))))observations..."
))))
))))I agree with the statement that we aren't in a position to judge the
))))observations of spiritualists, because we can't know, really, what was
))))going on in their minds when they saw what they claim to have seen.
)))
))) I don't interperet the above statement that way. You seem to assume
)))that what they saw was only in their minds, otherwise what is the
)))difference between what is going in the mind of one person or another.
)
)No, I don't assume that. I'm making no judgment one way or another. I'm
)saying that you can't really know whether another person's spiritual
)observations reflect external reality.
)
)))It seems to me that you have a problem with the *possibilty* that
)))whatever was seen was outside of the persons mind. (but I could have
)))misunderstood)
)
)No, I have no problem with the possibility. I do have a problem with the
)assertion, with certainty, that what was seen was external to the person's
)mind.
)
)) Personally, I am willing to believe what steiner has said about his
)) 'seeings' and studies, because I have no basis to doubt him (he's always
)) seemed honest and forthright), and because I have as yet NOT discovered a
)) world view which I find more convincing, or that answers questions of
)) existence as fully as his does. SO what I am saying, is that I have
)) chosen to accept what he said and saw because to me it is plausible to
)) me.
)
)Fine with me. Steiner's world view does not seem so plausible to me,
)because it is contrary that what I feel, intuitively, to be true. In
)other words, it conflicts with my intuitive spiritual feelings.
)Obviously, it is in harmony with your intuitive spiritual feelings.
)
)) If one goes with the assumption that waht he wrote is not true, then
)) we are assuming one of two things:
))
)) 1, that he must have been nuts or halucinating, or delusional. (he
)) hardly seemd that way, from recounts I've read of him).
))
)) or
))
)) 2, that he's an outright lier who made up these things to mislead the
)) world or for some private agenda (which I again do not see in evidence in
)) his attitude toward the world or his life).
)
)There are at least two other possibilities.
)
)Many people have had profound spiritual experiences, and have gained much
)personal insight from those experiences. I don't think that those people
)made up those experiences, and I don't think that they were nuts, or were
)hallucinating or delusional in the clinical sense of the word. I think
)that either:
)
)1. Spiritual reality is far outside our ordinary experience. Some people
)have, though fortune or inner work, been able to catch a glimpse of that
)reality. However, it must be interpreted through the filters of our
)perception before it will make sense. So people from different cultural
)backgrounds will have very different ways of seeing the same thing. Thus,
)Steiner's observations are quite consistent with the early 20th century
)European spiritualist tradition of which he was a part, while the
)observations of a great Hindu mystic will be consistent with the Hindu
)spiritual tradition, and the observations of, say, a Souix on a vision
)quest will be consistent with his tradition.
)
)OR
)
)2. There is something in the human psyche that predisposes certain people
)toward profound spiritual experiences. Those experiences are
)interpreted, by the individual, within the context of that person's
)culture, but they are simply psychological phenomena, and not based on
)anything external to the individual.
)
)I don't know which is correct, but I lean toward the former explanation,
)because, well, it feels better to me.
)
)) If neither of these explanations seems acurate, it seems we are left with
)) only one option: IT MIGHT ALL BE TRUE!
)
)Well, there's also that alternative, that Steiner's observations are
)completely accurate, and those of, say, Hindu mystics are less accurate.
)I personally doubt that explanation, but if it resonates with your own
)spiritual beliefs, go for it.
)
)Steve Premo http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
)"Computers, huh? I guess they're OK... if you've got the time"
) --Barry "The Flash" Allen
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n698.6 ---------------
From: Bart Windrum (stretch softsmart.com)
Subject: The Academy
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:59:15 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199803271855.KAA27709 lists1.best.com)
)and especially for Angelica.. the malestream mainstream white western
)academy in which you find yourself is indeed very problematic for many of
)us. how can something claim to be about knowledge and truth when it only
)represents the knowledge and truth of white western middle-class academic
)men in western history? for your own sake, have a good look at the feminist
)departments for a refreshing perspective.
Tangentally, my wife, an academic librarian, pointed out to me how
political the libarary of congress categorization process is...how people
of differing classes, world views, etc., consider and look for information
under different subject headings. Who controls subject headings can be a
very effective filter of information.
Cheers,
Bart Windrum, Soft Smart LLC
Movement For Computer Terminal People (sm)
Computer Users' Stress Relief workshops - Card Decks - Macintosh/Windows CD-Rom
stretch softsmart.com Toll-free 1 888 499 8120
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n698.7 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: RE: science
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 18:12:05 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BD59AE.2B91D100"
------ =_NextPart_000_01BD59AE.2B91D100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
-----Original Message-----
From: Luke Schelly [SMTP:lschelly JackRouse.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 1998 8:30 AM
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
Subject: RE: science
Humberto posted:
)Personally, I was educated in Catholicism, but later became an atheist. =
I do
)not believe there are any angels (or demons, for the case). I am not =
trying
to
)be contentious, but I do not see how the topic could be treated
)scientifically, i. e. how an experiment could show their existence.
Humberto,
Maybe you need some new or different tools for your science toolbox. =
I
imagine real scientists do that kind of stuff all the time (that is come =
up
with new methods and "tools").
On another line of thought, why does it seem that scientist avoid this =
kind
of subject matter like the plague. Does it have something to do with =
society
not being ready for whatever the results could be? (i.e being alone in =
the
universe or submitting our independence to "higher" force(s)) Are they
reluctant to focus on their own foundations? =20
[Ezra Beeman] =20
I think you should read a book already indirectly referred to by =
Humberto, it is by Kuhn and it is called something like "The structure =
of scientific revolutions."
Are they already convinced that
it is an impossible proposition?
Interestingly enough, the *constitutional* seperation of church and =
state
(which may be seen as different than any "natural" or otherwise logical
seperation or unity) may be the very vehicle (through its ability to =
stifle
research by removal of funding) that keeps the two from ever meeting. =
Maybe
that should be repealed so we can get to the bottom of this matter (or
unmatter as the case may be).
[Ezra Beeman] =20
Are you serious? =20
agnostically
Luke=20
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n698.8 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: RE: Science, thoughts, freedom
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 18:28:30 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BD59AE.2E959B20"
------ =_NextPart_000_01BD59AE.2E959B20
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Premo [SMTP:premo cruzio.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 1998 1:06 AM
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
Subject: Re: Science, thoughts, freedom
On 25 Mar 98 , Joel A. Wendt wrote:
) The tool you espouse as the one true method for
) the obtaining of truth - that is the "tool" science, does not really
) consider questions or matters by which such a determination could be
) made.
Well, yes. I can't speak for Humberto, but I would never say that =
science=20
is the one true method for obtaining the truth. Only that it is the =
best=20
method available for understanding the material world.
) The conclusions that come from such a disciplined self study, then =
lead
) to an alteration of how one approaches the problem of knowledge in all
) spheres of human endeavor, not just the scientific. These same
) conclusions, however, allow one to consider questions in the realm of =
the
) spiritual, just as objectively as questions have been previously
) considered in the realm of material existence.
Perhaps, although I have considerably less confidence in the objectivity
of philosophy and disciplined self study than I do in the objectivity of
science. Science, of course, also suffers from subjective
interpretation, but at least there is a mechanism for attacking the
assumptions of other scientists. =20
While philosophy and spiritual self-study are worthy pursuits, they
are not science. They lack the kind of self-correcting mechanism =
present=20
in science, which is why you see statements like Angela's: "[S]teiner =
did=20
not synthesize, he observed! We can all choose to accept that or not, =
but=20
unless we can observe waht he saw, or something to negate it, we're =
hardly=20
in a position to judge his observations..."
I agree with the statement that we aren't in a position to judge the=20
observations of spiritualists, because we can't know, really, what was=20
going on in their minds when they saw what they claim to have seen. And =
I=20
agree that spiritual exploration is a worthy pursuit. But again, it =
ain't=20
science.
[Ezra Beeman] =20
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the scientific method =
involves positing a _falsifiable_ hypothesis, testing the hypothesis and =
observing the results. Being able to duplicate the experiment is also =
fundamental to the scientific method. =20
Personally, I wouldn't agree that spiritual exploration is a worthy =
pursuit. I share the view put forth in Freud's "The Future of an =
Illusion", and think it is about time for humans to wean themselves of =
their superstitions. But on the other hand, as a libertarian of sorts, =
this is a free country and if that is your hobby so be it.
) Without a common vocabulary regarding the role of thinking in the
) development of knowledge and truth, all dialogue is at cross purposes, =
as
) if the disputants (and there have been many on this list) were not =
living
) in the same universe.
Indeed. That is why I wish anthroposophists used the word "science" in=20
the same sense that it is used in the scientific community.
(And I promised myself that I would not get drawn into any more=20
discussions about the nature of science and philosophy!)
Steve Premo http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
"Computers, huh? I guess they're OK... if you've got the time"
--Barry "The Flash" Allen
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n698.9 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: RE: Science, thoughts, freedom
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:59:21 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BD59AE.27411480"
------ =_NextPart_000_01BD59AE.27411480
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sorry MS email client doesn't reply using the v bracket, but I will try =
to make my comments obvious. Hopefully everyone can read them in blue.
-----Original Message-----
From: Humberto saint Martin [SMTP:humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 8:57 PM
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
Subject: Re: Science, thoughts, freedom
Joel,
Thank you for your message. It leaves me with more questions, which have =
the
aim of establishing a common vocabulary, or at least to allow me to =
follow
you.
It is not my intention to use the concept "science" as a club against =
any
others views. What I understand by science and objectivity is based on
my training as a scientist, that includes readings of Popper, Kuhn, =
Dennet,
Poincare, Russell and other philosophers. It seems to me that it can be
summarized in the following way: Science is concerned with understanding =
Nature
by building theories that require the smallest amount of assumptions to
"explain" known phenomena (Occam's razor), then making predictions of =
phenomena=20
that have not been observed; if the new phenomena are observed, the =
theory is
successful and "understanding" has been achieved. A different set of =
assumptions
might also "explain" the same originally observed phenomena. In this =
context,
"explaining" means that taking the assumptions as "axioms", the =
phenomena can
be deduced as "theorems". The choice of the "right" theory will depend =
on its
ability to predict new phenomena. Newton's Laws of motion give an =
example: He
knew the data of Kepler and the works of Galileo; his theory allowed to
"explain" the motions of both terrestrial and celestial bodies, with =
only three
laws of motion and one of gravity. The prediction of something new came =
from the=20
French physicist LaVille, who in 1874 predicted the existence of Neptune =
based=20
on Newton's Laws and the data of Uranus' orbit. Neptune was found where =
LaVille
said it would be, on January, 1875. Does that mean that Newton's Laws =
are true?
Yes and no. Planck, Einstein and other giants showed that they do not =
hold=20
either for small particles or high speeds. However, there is no need to =
discard
Newton's Laws, for they are very good at "explaining" a lot of =
phenomena.
New theories are proposed every now and then, and tested in this way. =
This is
the job of scientists. Once they have a good theory, they put it under =
the
consideration of other scientists by means of written articles or =
presentations
at various meetings. In this context "objectivity" is attained when =
supporters
of the new theory can successfully answer the questions and problems =
asked by
the opponents. For instance, Einstein was against Bohr's interpretation =
of
Quantum Mechanics, so he made his best to find contradictions and =
paradoxes.
Bohr could always resolve them, even based on Einstein's own theories.=20
Most scientists are aware that scientific truth is "perishable", in the =
sense
that Newton's Laws "perished"; it is my opinion that the skepticism of
scientists stems from this situation (my own skepticism does). Thus, the
scientific approach has its limitations. However, it seems to be the =
best basis
for making decisions, because it has a predictive capability that is not
present in any other form of thought. Occam's razor has shown its =
usefulness.=20
About mathematics, I agree that it is not a "natural science", in the =
sense
of physics, chemistry or biology. It is more closely related to a =
"language",
with a particular grammar, that serves as a model for scientific =
thought.
But even "mathematical truth" can be discussed.
[Ezra Beeman] =20
I agree with you to a certain extent on this, but I would point out the =
more obvious distinction of deductive versus inductive methods used. =
Generally speaking (there are such things as inductive proofs in math, =
but they are of a peculiar nature and more a useful mathematical trick =
then an example of inductive reasoning) math is based on deductive =
reasoning much like the above example of axioms deducing to theorems. =
The so called hard sciences are based on the inductive reasoning =
principles advanced by Francis Bacon. =20
Mathematics is a sub-section of the "language" of logic. I think there =
are a great many eminent philosophers, mathematicians and scientists =
that would warn against deriving truths from logic. Kurt Godel is =
probably my favorite example.
)From what you say I gather that Goethean philosophy and anthroposophy =
are
"objectively true". Does that mean that they would have been discovered =
by
other people, had there not been a Wolfgang Goethe and a Rudolf =
Steiner?,
are the characters of shakespearean plays also "true"?=20
I also gather that you do believe in the existence of angels. Do you =
also
believe in Virgin of Guadalupe? How do you discriminate what you believe
from what you disbelief?
The latter questions seem ironical, but my intention is not; I am not =
trying
to be offensive. I do want answers and explanations.
Thanks.=20
--
Humberto Saint Martin
__________________________________________________________________
Laboratorio de Cuernavaca, IFUNAM | Tel.: (52-73) 135688
Apartado Postal 48 - 3 | 175388
Calle Estrada Cajigal 510, | (52-5) 6227796
Colonia Tezontepec |
62251 Cuernavaca, Morelos | Fax: (52-73) 173077
MEXICO | 111603
| (52-5) 6227775
__________________________________________________________________
--
Humberto Saint Martin
__________________________________________________________________
Laboratorio de Cuernavaca, IFUNAM | Tel.: (52-73) 135688
Apartado Postal 48 - 3 | 175388
Calle Estrada Cajigal 510, | (52-5) 6227796
Colonia Tezontepec |
62251 Cuernavaca, Morelos | Fax: (52-73) 173077
MEXICO | 111603
| (52-5) 6227775
__________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your message. It leaves me with more questions, which have =
the
aim of establishing a common vocabulary, or at least to allow me to =
follow
you.
It is not my intention to use the concept "science" as a club ag
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n698 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n699 --------------
001 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - RE: science, thoughts, freedom
002 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: science, thoughts, freedom
003 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - what are we discussing here
004 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: science, thoughts, freedom
005 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - tearful testimonial
006 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Heart as pump, etc....
007 - "David E. Gower" (dgower - Re: science, thoughts, freedom
008 - angelica hesse (hesse96 m - Re: Heart as pump, etc....
009 - angelica hesse (hesse96 m - DANTE HESSE
010 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: science, thoughts, freedom
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n699.1 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: RE: science, thoughts, freedom
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 18:49:18 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- =_NextPart_000_01BD59AE.311BF7E0"
------ =_NextPart_000_01BD59AE.311BF7E0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel A. Wendt [SMTP:hermit microweb.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 1998 9:56 AM
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
Subject: science, thoughts, freedom
Humberto,
I will place some comments amoung the elements of your message in
[brackets] below. I will also (snip) some material. I hope what I have
left out will not have damaged your thesis. If so, please correct me in
your response.
"Joel,
Thank you for your message. It leaves me with more questions, which have
the
aim of establishing a common vocabulary, or at least to allow me to
follow
you.
It is not my intention to use the concept "science" as a club against
any
others views."
[That is good of you (I am not being sarcastic). If you were to read
the archives of this list you would find examples of many who do not
possess such forbearence.]
"What I understand by science and objectivity is based on
my training as a scientist, that includes readings of Popper, Kuhn,
Dennet,
Poincare, Russell and other philosophers. It seems to me that it can be
summarized in the following way: Science is concerned with understanding
Nature
by building theories that require the smallest amount of assumptions to
"explain" known phenomena (Occam's razor), then making predictions of
phenomena=20
that have not been observed; if the new phenomena are observed, the
theory is
successful and "understanding" has been achieved. A different set of
assumptions
might also "explain" the same originally observed phenomena. In this
context,
"explaining" means that taking the assumptions as "axioms", the
phenomena can
be deduced as "theorems". The choice of the "right" theory will depend
on its
ability to predict new phenomenon."
[You have used above the follow terms: phenomena, assumption, theory,
explain, observe, predict. Each of these appears in thinking as a
concept - an idea. One could spend a lot of time "defining" such terms
with other terms, but even those terms used to define will first have
arisen in thinking. This thinking is the act, which occures a'priori to
any investigation of the phenomenal world. =20
[Ezra Beeman] =20
I think I fail to follow the intricacies of your syllogism or sorts. I =
would think that existentialists might disagree with your assumptions of =
a priori.
The philsophers you have
mentioned above have points of view about the relationship between
thinking and the phenomenal world of our experience. It is with these
matters that our discussion needs to begin. If we begin directly with
the practice of science (hypothesis, observation, experiment, theory and
so forth), we skip right past the essential matter, the point at which
the digression begins. Think of it this way. If I shoot an arrow, the
smallest deviation at the beginning will bring it about that the arrow
ends up in very different places. So it is with how we understand the
problem of thinking as an act of knowledge.]
[Ezra Beeman] =20
Chaos theory might have been a better example.
[I (sniped) your science history lesson.]
"About mathematics, I agree that it is not a "natural science", in the
sense
of physics, chemistry or biology. It is more closely related to a
"language",
with a particular grammar, that serves as a model for scientific
thought.
But even "mathematical truth" can be discussed."
[Yes, and so can the thinking which preceeds, and is necessary to, all
perception, hypothesizing, planning of experiments, etc.]
"From what you say I gather that Goethean philosophy and anthroposophy
are
"objectively true"."
[While that might be implied by what I said, it was not my intention to
make a leap into the consequences of an objective examination of thought
and knowledge. We still need to begin at the beginning, otherwise we
might as well not discuss anything at all.]
[Ezra Beeman] =20
If you are serious in your wishes to examine issues of subjectivity, I =
would recommend Wittgenstein's book Tractatus Logico Philosophicus. I =
read it so long ago, but if nothing else, it did a fantastic job of =
describing the logical intricacies of the concepts under discussion =
here, such as knowledge and thinking.
"Does that mean that they would have been discovered by
other people, had there not been a Wolfgang Goethe and a Rudolf
Steiner?,"
[I have no idea. I find imaginary thinking of this sort to be generally
useless. What happened is what happened. Let's deal with that.]
"are the characters of shakespearean plays also "true"?"=20
[I don't know what this has to do with the matter under discussion.]
"I also gather that you do believe in the existence of angels. Do you
also
believe in Virgin of Guadalupe? How do you discriminate what you believe
from what you disbelief?"
[Actually I don't use the word belief very much at all, except perhaps
in casual conversation where precise language does not matter so much.=20
My early education (three years at the US Air Force Academy, a degree in
philosophy and religion from the Univ. of Denver, and a law degree from
the Univ. of Montana) had made me an agnostic and a scientific
materialist. I only really began to question the scientific paradigm
when I was introduced to the rich psychological developments going on in
California in the late 1960's and '70's. This actually only raised
questions in my mind, because what was taught in academic pyschology and
the nature of my direct experience began to come in conflict. The rest
of the story is much too long, but suffice it to say, that "beliefs"
have nothing to do with it.]
[Ezra Beeman] =20
Would you mind naming the most influential figures in this movement and =
some of the books that described it?
"The latter questions seem ironical, but my intention is not; I am not
trying
to be offensive. I do want answers and explanations.
Thanks.=20
--
Humberto Saint Martin"
[I am not offended. Far from it. It is my hope to finally have a
discussion on this list that proceeds with some care and discipline and
doesn't just become a back and forth assertion of strongly held points
of view. My brother is a mircobiologist and we have had many fruitful
dialogues over the years, without rancor or name calling. He has helped
me to see that many scientists are not true believers in materialism,
but rather just careful thinkers, very much along the lines you have
described in your message. All I want is to examine thinking
objectively, as a preliminary matter, before coming to an understanding
of knowledge and truth, as these exist for the human being.
warm regards,
joel wendt]
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n699.2 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: science, thoughts, freedom
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 21:35:07 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803280225.SAA03567 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman wrote:
) [Ezra Beeman]
) Would you mind naming the most influential figures in this movement and some of the books that described it?
Ezra,
I am not sure how to answer your question. I assume (but am not
certain) that you are refering to this statement of mine as a reference
to some kind of "movement":
"I only really began to question the scientific paradigm when I was
introduced to the rich psychological developments going on in California
in the late 1960's and '70's. This actually only raised questions in my
mind, because what was taught in academic pyschology and the nature of
my direct experience began to come in conflict."
Have I correctly understood your question?
I ask this because to answer your question in the fashion you seem to
wish would be very difficult. There may in fact exist books of the kind
that you would like to see, but I stopped reading in psychology over 20
years ago. Certainly we read (at that time) Fritz Perls, R.D. Lang,
Eric Berne, Robert Ornstein, Eric Ericson, Carl Rogers, a hundred
others.
More crucial was the atmosphere. Esalen Institute was active south of
Berkeley, where I was studying and practicing (at that time in
California, one could be a group counsellor and not be licensed).
Everywhere, if we weren't talking about the war in Vietnam, we were
talking about psychology and self development. The Gurus started
showing up. Indian Yogis, Tibetan and Zen Buddhists, Sufi teachers. We
swam in a sea of new ideas, practices and seeming personal freedom.
There was much that fell out of this that was ultimately shameful. The
Synanon Game was powerful in the beginning but the Synanon movement
ended up in disgrace. I had many friends join groups only to have sad,
even terrible experiences.
At the same time there were others more grounded. Some "experiments"
gave birth to healthy understanding. Yet, there was so much, (I was in
this environment for 14 years), I don't know that anyone could chronicle
it with any kind of valid overview.
Let me share a bit of personal story, which perhaps may give you a
sense of matters.
I practiced a kind of group conselling that was called: "Reparenting".
It was born of a fusion of Eric Berne's Transactional Analysis and the
work of Jackie Schiff, described in the book: "All my children". I
entered this "discipline" as a group member, and became a group
"leader". I worked at this for 3 years.
Each group had a male and female group leader (a mother and father
figure - it was "reparenting", remember. My partner and I were invited
to Chicago, to hold a weekend marathon (group therapy beginning on a
Friday evening and extending until Sunday afternoon). The people who
invited us were my partner's parents, who were practicing PhD
psychologists in Evanstan Ill, just north of Chicago.
The first time we came, they gave us some of their most normal patients
(about 25 attended for the weekend). The second time (we were invited
back) they gave us some of their more difficult patients (same number,
more or less). The third time they gave us their most difficult
patients (one came directly from a state hospital to our weekend). We
also had two psychiatrists as observers the third time, because our
results were so outstanding.
What did we do? Well that would take us very far afield, but some of
what we did was violate all the traditional rules. We touched people.
We held them. We had them act out their anger. We got them laughing
and crying. And the worst thing of all, was that we worked from the
heart, we cared about them. No dry intellectual distance, no pure talk
"therapy". No psychobable.
The Vienese trained freudian (a survivor of the holocost) psychiatrist
spoke to me afterward. We had a brief, yet sympathetic talk. We agreed
that the current streams in psychotherapy would never take up our
techniques. Certainly people would respond to love more than another
experience, but no professional therapist could violate the rules which
basically made it a given that everything had to proceed from the head
instead of the heart.
Anyway, these experiences (and many others) caused me to reconsider a
great deal. In fact, during my years in this work, I discovered on my
own many of the epistomological principles which Rudolf Steiner had
discovered almost 90 years earlier, so that when I came to anthroposophy
in another 4 or 5 years, it was, in a way, like coming home.
I hope this has been some help and at least some kind of answer to your
question.
joel wendt
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n699.3 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: what are we discussing here
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 22:10:42 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Humberto and Steve,
We have on the one had people with some familiarity with "science", and
some other people with familiarity with "spiritual science", and the
question we are discussing (from my point of view) is where and in what
way do these two disciplines intersect, differentiat, or otherwise
co-exist in such a way that the word "science" can have a meaning
applicable to both.
It does not seem to be easy. I have been trying, in many different
ways, to get to this question and to answer it, since I got on this
list.
Let me start slow, with the following question.
Does what "science" is to either of you have anything to do with the
following idea:
"Whoever asserts the truth of a thing, must show another by what method
that truth was obtained. Further, this method must be of a nature that
someone else can repeat it and find the same truth" ?
joel wendt
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n699.4 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: science, thoughts, freedom
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 22:53:50 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803280225.SAA03567 lists1.best.com) (199803280535.VAA29314 lists1.best.com)
Joel A. Wendt wrote:
) Let me share a bit of personal story, which perhaps may give you a
) sense of matters.
)
) I practiced a kind of group conselling that was called: "Reparenting".
) It was born of a fusion of Eric Berne's Transactional Analysis and the
) work of Jackie Schiff, described in the book: "All my children". I
) entered this "discipline" as a group member, and became a group
) "leader". I worked at this for 3 years.
)
) Each group had a male and female group leader (a mother and father
) figure - it was "reparenting", remember. My partner and I were invited
) to Chicago, to hold a weekend marathon (group therapy beginning on a
) Friday evening and extending until Sunday afternoon). The people who
) invited us were my partner's parents, who were practicing PhD
) psychologists in Evanstan Ill, just north of Chicago.
)
) The first time we came, they gave us some of their most normal patients
) (about 25 attended for the weekend). The second time (we were invited
) back) they gave us some of their more difficult patients (same number,
) more or less). The third time they gave us their most difficult
) patients (one came directly from a state hospital to our weekend). We
) also had two psychiatrists as observers the third time, because our
) results were so outstanding.
)
) What did we do? Well that would take us very far afield, but some of
) what we did was violate all the traditional rules. We touched people.
) We held them. We had them act out their anger. We got them laughing
) and crying. And the worst thing of all, was that we worked from the
) heart, we cared about them. No dry intellectual distance, no pure talk
) "therapy". No psychobable.
)
) The Vienese trained freudian (a survivor of the holocost) psychiatrist
) spoke to me afterward. We had a brief, yet sympathetic talk. We agreed
) that the current streams in psychotherapy would never take up our
) techniques. Certainly people would respond to love more than another
) experience, but no professional therapist could violate the rules which
) basically made it a given that everything had to proceed from the head
) instead of the heart.
)
) Anyway, these experiences (and many others) caused me to reconsider a
) great deal. In fact, during my years in this work, I discovered on my
) own many of the epistomological principles which Rudolf Steiner had
) discovered almost 90 years earlier, so that when I came to anthroposophy
) in another 4 or 5 years, it was, in a way, like coming home.
)
) I hope this has been some help and at least some kind of answer to your
) question.
)
) joel wendt
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n699.5 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: tearful testimonial
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 02:04:14 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On the web site (http://darsie.ucdavis.edu/DWS/docs/thws3.html), Karen
Anderson and Richard Darsie have posted a report on a Waldorf
administration workshop. they attended. They describe a charismatic
recruiting experience:
"There were wonderful talks given on the opening night--two I wish I'd
taped, but I didn't even take notes. I will try to get a copy of a talk
given by a SWS parent, Carol Yeates, who raised the "Why Waldorf?"
questions ("Why am I spending my child's college fund on elementary
education? Why do I drive 90 minutes a day to the Waldorf school when
there's a public school right around the corner?") and answered with an
eloquent recounting of the reasons why -- it was one of the best, most
moving testimonials by a parent I've ever heard; it rang true, bringing
tears to my eyes again and again, and I'd love to be able to share the
whole of it with more parents (and prospective parents -- I'm sure everyone
there who works on Outreach had the same thought)."
They also make this statement:
"There are two major foundations to Waldorf schools:
1.The art of the teacher in incarnating the child; and
2.The function of the parents in incarnating the school itself as a being."
So the teacher's job is to produce the child's soul, and the parents' job
is to produce the school's. Occultists like to do things backwards.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n699.6 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Heart as pump, etc....
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 98 02:56:01 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Angelica (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu) wrote )
)[...] It was the fact that blood circulates and pulses in an embryo
)before a heart is even formed. THe heart actually seems to form from
)this, thus indicating that the blood is not completely static and that
)the heart is not entirely responsible for "forcing" it through our blood
)vessels. This is a fact that I could not ignore, not matter what else
)was presented to me.
)
)In terms of scientific credibility and bias. I find the entire
)scientific world, or should I say all of western society, or maybe all
)of humanity, biased in some way. SOemone else brought this up today
)too. There really is very little anythign that isn't biased, including
)research. So if this study was biased, and perhaps it was, it needs to
)be kept in mind that it is probably no more biased than other studies,
)only in a different direction. Perhaps that is good, as a sort of
)balance. now we have two biases to contend with, giving a broader
)picture of the possible realities, don't we?
Babies come from sex, water is ACTUALLY composed of 2 parts hydrogen & 1
part oxygen, and the earth is no longer flat, either. These scientific
facts are not a matter of bias.
Who said "Give us your child til he's 7, and we'll have him for the rest
of his life." Do you think e-mail is more or less biased than ESP?
I hope your college experience will give you a little more perspective on
your mystical "education", and that you can adapt enough to become
prosperous and productive in our complex society. Good luck in your
(apparently first) biology class.
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n699.7 ---------------
From: "David E. Gower" (dgower interhop.net)
Subject: Re: science, thoughts, freedom
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 09:05:05 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199803280225.SAA03567 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199803280535.VAA29314 lists1.best.com)
At 21:35 27/03/98 -0800, Joel wrote:
[Hope this isn't a Freudian slip! (grin)]
\\\\\/////
) I practiced a kind of group conselling that was called: "Reparenting".
)It was born of a fusion of Eric Berne's Transactional Analysis and the
)work of Jackie Schiff, described in the book: "All my children". I
)entered this "discipline" as a group member, and became a group
)"leader". I worked at this for 3 years.
)
) Each group had a male and female group leader (a mother and father
)figure - it was "reparenting", remember. My partner and I were invited
)to Chicago, to hold a weekend marathon (group therapy beginning on a
)Friday evening and extending until Sunday afternoon). The people who
)invited us were my partner's parents, who were practicing PhD
)psychologists in Evanstan Ill, just north of Chicago.
)
) The first time we came, they gave us some of their most normal patients
)(about 25 attended for the weekend). The second time (we were invited
)back) they gave us some of their more difficult patients (same number,
)more or less). The third time they gave us their most difficult
)patients (one came directly from a state hospital to our weekend). We
)also had two psychiatrists as observers the third time, because our
)results were so outstanding.
Would you please specify what those results were and what followup was
done? What was a patient like before the weekend and how did they differ
after? Have you maintained contact with these "children" over the years to
enjoy their progress?
**************************************************************************
Opinions, comments, etc. are my own and all original material is:
Copyright 1998 by David E. Gower. All Rights Reserved.
Contact: dgower interhop.net
_!_
_______(_)_______
**************************************************************************
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n699.8 ---------------
From: angelica hesse (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu)
Subject: Re: Heart as pump, etc....
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 11:53:21 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (199803281057.CAA09801 lists1.best.com) from "Daniel Sabsay" at Mar 28, 98 02:56:01 am
Daniel wrote:
) Babies come from sex, water is ACTUALLY composed of 2 parts hydrogen & 1
) part oxygen, and the earth is no longer flat, either. These scientific
) facts are not a matter of bias.
Hmhm, and who's contesting this? These are some of the oldest, and most
substantiated scientific facts. I doubt anyone is arguing about this. I'm
certainly not. What I was referring to in terms of bias has more to do with
recent research, things that are not as yet completely and irrevocably
proven (if such a thing is even possible). As long as there is controversy
around a 'fact' it needs to be considered, from as many angles as possible.
Let's take an even more uncertain issue of modern science: AIDS. To this
day, we have no cure. It seems, most of the time, to be caused by HIV. But
there are people with HIV who never become ill with AIDS, and I believe I've
heard of some with AIDS who don't test positive. There is a theory that HIV
has been around much longer than the illness, and that AIDS is really
aggravated by weakened immune systems. This has been attributed by some to
the increasing use of vaccination, while others seek a vaccine for AIDS.
Neither answer is complete or convincing, but don't both merit
consideration? Both are somewhat biased toward a certain view of health and
illness, but both have validity. I don't' think there's any way to determine
at this point which is 'truer'. Maybe both are, in some respects, but
neither is a complete answer?
) Who said "Give us your child til he's 7, and we'll have him for the rest
) of his life." Do you think e-mail is more or less biased than ESP?
I'm not aware of the source of that quote, but as to the second sentence:
What??????????
) I hope your college experience will give you a little more perspective on
) your mystical "education", and that you can adapt enough to become
) prosperous and productive in our complex society. Good luck in your
) (apparently first) biology class.
Oh, stop the condescension. I don't appreciate being taken for a complete
idiot, you know. Get off the mystical stuff. MY education was pretty damn
practical, and stands me very well where I am today. IN fact, I first began
to really see the value of my early education when I came to college.I function perfectly
fine in school and society and am consistently well thought of by all my
teachers. Excuse me for having to toot my own horn, but I'm fed up with
ridicule of my intelligence. As for biology, I've had plenty before, and
grew up with a nurse/therapist for a mother and a Physician for a father.
I guess I'd really rather get back to discussing the issues at hand rather
than defending myself and my competence as a human being. I find that
rather insulting.
Angelica Hesse
hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n699.9 ---------------
From: angelica hesse (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu)
Subject: DANTE HESSE
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 11:56:37 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sorry everyone, I shouldn't send this to the list, but I dont' have the
individual address....
I udnerstand the highschool advisor of my little brother Dante is out there
somewhere (just spoke to him today). I'd enjoy talking to you, so let me
know!
THanks
Angelica Hesse
hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n699.10 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: science, thoughts, freedom
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 11:18:06 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803280225.SAA03567 lists1.best.com) (199803281407.GAA01302 lists1.best.com)
To the waldorf-critics list,
I am replying to the question asked, and I know that it is not what
some would think relevant to trashing waldorf, so if you're looking for
some of that dialogue, you won't find it here (at least in a
recognizable form).
David E. Gower wrote:
) Would you please specify what those results were and what followup was
) done? What was a patient like before the weekend and how did they differ
) after? Have you maintained contact with these "children" over the years to
) enjoy their progress?
David,
I will try to answer as best I can. Please remember that I was not a
"professional" with date books and files on clients and such.
The parents of my partner, the two Evanston PhD psychologists, told us
that after our weekends, patients who participated soon became the
leaders in the ongoing groups, and also became the best "problem
solvers". Having these people in their groups altered the depth of the
whole practice. This is what we were told.
I can tell a couple individual stories, so you can get a sense of what
I saw directly.
We (my partner and I) were invited to Boston, to give a weekend
marathon to a group of professionals, who had structured continuing
education weekends for themselves, one about every three or four months.
Our method (silly as this may be it was very effective) was to work in
a room covered in mattresses with brightly colored sheets, and where the
walls meet the floor, lots of huge floor pillows. We would hand out
tootsie pops and baby bottles with fruit juice in them. People wore
casual clothes, and no shoes. The name we gave this was: "helping them
get into Child", refering to Eric Berne's system of ego states (Child,
Adult and Parent).
Our experience was that a certain kind of atomsphere of trust and
relaxation needed to built up before people could experience their
feelings, instead of denying them and living in their heads. Of course
there were those who were awash in feeling and didn't want to think at
all. Anyway, I suspect you can get some idea of how things went.
We also had a term we used (mostly among the leaders, but the group
could use it as well, after we taught them how to understand it) This
term was "structure". If the "structure" was good, then when people
talked (worked, is what we called it) then they were emotionally
authentic and everyone was focused and interested. If the group started
to get fuzzy, people not paying attention, interrupting, then the
"structure" needed to be worked with, before proceeding any further.
The other thing we worked with was confrontation (pioneeered by the
Synanon folks, but they took it to extreems). In our work this
basically meant pointing out to people that their words and their affect
were inconsistent and trying to discover why that was.
What was most intersting as a general rule, was that once the
"structure" was tight, people would initiate what they most felt
comfortable with and the group would follow their lead. This helped
people feel in control of what was exposed, and contributed to the
feeling of emotional safety.
Anyway, back to Boston...We meet with those folks for several hours and
they mostly kept asking us to give information (be in the Adult ego
state). Finally I began to get real uncomfortable with this, and after
a quick whisper to my partner told the group that it was all pretty
boring and a waste of their time and ours, and that we weren't going to
feed into it anymore. We were just going to shut up and sit there.
There were a lot of strange looks, some strangled coughs, and about ten
minutes of dead silence. You could see people getting more and more
uncomfortable. Finally two women had a quick private chat and spoke up
and said the group had been meeting for a year, there had been all these
dominance games and unfinished business and they wanted to talk about
that.
The result was these folks talked to each other with emotional honesty
for the first time since they started meeting, and my partner and I sat
back and enjoyed them really getting to know each other. Afterwards,
they told us we were the best "presenters" they had ever had.
In New Orleans, we had been working for over half the weekend, when I
noticed one woman wasn't really participating. She wore a brown pants
suit (this is '70's right), short brown hair with no style and little if
any makeup.
There came a quite moment, and I began to ask her some questions based
on an intution I had had while observing her. These were very gentle
questions, and very indirect. I had learned that if you gave people too
much direction they would go with that rather then with what was truely
real for them.
Eventually I elicited what my intution had told me, that she had, for
religions reasons, been keep away from playmates during her latency
period (6 to 12). She was not allowed out of the house except to go to
school. Toward the end of this conversation I asked her more directly:
"Then you never got to play dress up with any girl friends, did you."
Everyone is the room was quite attentive at this point, because it was
so clear from this woman's voice and body language that she was
revealing matters no one else had known about before. When she said
"yes, it was true," she had never had such experiences, you could hear
the intake of breath throughout the room, a kind of anticipation of
whast was to come next.
Now in this work, part of the leader's (reparenter's) work involves
"giving permission". The authority figure needs to encourage things,
but yet only at a very precise moment. So I then said: "Did you know,
you can still have such an experience?", looking not only at her, but at
several other women in the group who full well understand what was at
stake here.
At this point I had no more role. Several women gathered around this
person, and with her consent and trepidacious interest went off into
other parts of the building, gathering up makeup kits and clothes that
might fit. For the next two hours, as those who remained, worked on
other matters, we could all here the giggling and shouting down the
hall. The whole atmosphere was charged with good feeling and genuine
affection.
Needless to say, after a time, we were all treated to a fashion show,
as this wallflower, feeling safe enough to cross a very difficul
threshold, walked out and back, wearing several different outfits, her
hair combed in more than one way, and with different patterns of makeup.
Her face was flushed, almost estatic.
Did we cure her of something. I don't think so. I am sure she came
down from her high. But she was part of an ongoing group, and with
their support, I do not doubt that she made some subtle and important
changes in her life.
The last time my partner and I were in Chicago, we had a woman come who
was just released from the state hospital. She arrived several hours
late, and the first thing she told me was that she had hitchhiked to the
marathon and the guy who had picker her up had tried to grope her, so
she had stabbed him in the thigh. And I mean first thing. She was
standing in the door, which I had answered, and was looking at me with
that "so now what are you going to do buster" look.
I invited her in, introduced her to the others, and we want back to
work, slowing bringing her up to speed about how the group worked and
what was going on. Since we hadn't rejected her outright, she sat with
a kind of stoney silence and watched for the rest of the day.
After dinner, before we started the Saturday night session, I was
called into the kitchen. She was lying on the floor, kind of curled up,
with a sock off of one foot, and the sock was now on her hand. I knelt
down beside her, and we began to have a conversation - she talked in a
tiny girl voice, using the "hand puppet".
Again I just followed her lead. I was also as authentic as I was
capable. I told I felt frightened, because this kind of thing had never
happened to me, but that I trusted her, and would do what I could, if
she could tell me what she needed.
We spoke this way for about an hour. She told me horror stories of
being physically abused as a child by her miliary father, who at one
point threw her (at age 6) through a plate glass window. Toward the end
I asked her if (I can't remember the name she gave the puppet) could ask
her to talk to me directly. We played with this for a while, and in the
end, she was sitting on the floor and we were talking as two adults.
All the time this was happening the other members of the group were
nearby, silent, supportive. No intrusions, especially by a couple of
others who had been often very disruptive in the regular sessions
(remember at this meeting, we had been given the worst cases these PhD
psychologists were treating.)
The rest of the weekend, the hard persona was absent, and a very quite
young woman was present, who seemed quite happy just to be there. Do I
know where she is today? No. I do know she continued to attend her
regular group therapy sessions, and the last I heard had not returned to
the state hospital (you may perhaps know of the residivisim in mental
health).
I hope this has been some kind of answer to your questions. If you or
anyone else has more, we should perhaps carry this tread privately
instead of on the list.
joel wendt
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n699 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n700 --------------
001 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: what are we discussing here
002 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit m - Re: what are we discussing here
003 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: science, thoughts, freedom
004 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Yuba River Waldorf School's first graduation
005 - "c.mcilroy" (c.mcilroy el - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n698
006 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Yuba River Waldorf School's first graduation
007 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Admin: dialogue style
008 - angelica hesse (hesse96 m - Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n700.1 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: what are we discussing here
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 11:29:16 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199803280611.WAA17053 lists1.best.com)
On 27 Mar 98, Joel A. Wendt wrote:
) Let me start slow, with the following question.
)
) Does what "science" is to either of you have anything to do with the
) following idea:
) "Whoever asserts the truth of a thing, must show another by what method
) that truth was obtained. Further, this method must be of a nature that
) someone else can repeat it and find the same truth" ?
Sounds like you're trying to teach me something, using the Socratic
method. I got enough of that in law school.
I've told you what science means to me. What does it mean to you?
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n700.2 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit microweb.com)
Subject: Re: what are we discussing here
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 11:49:17 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803281931.LAA19826 lists1.best.com)
Steven,
I give up. I am not trying to do anything, much less teach you
something. I am trying to have a dialogue, with give and take, across
real boundaries of language and meaning.
So I ask a question, because it may help me find the right words to
communicate with. You don't want to dialogue, as far as I can tell,
so like I said:
I give, you win.
joel
Steve Premo wrote:
)
) On 27 Mar 98, Joel A. Wendt wrote:
)
) ) Let me start slow, with the following question.
) )
) ) Does what "science" is to either of you have anything to do with the
) ) following idea:
) ) "Whoever asserts the truth of a thing, must show another by what method
) ) that truth was obtained. Further, this method must be of a nature that
) ) someone else can repeat it and find the same truth" ?
)
) Sounds like you're trying to teach me something, using the Socratic
) method. I got enough of that in law school.
)
) I've told you what science means to me. What does it mean to you?
)
) Steve Premo
) Santa Cruz, California
) http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n700.3 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: science, thoughts, freedom
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 12:46:05 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803280225.SAA03567 lists1.best.com) (199803280535.VAA29314 lists1.best.com)
Yes, that was what I had asked about. However, my views on groups, and society in general, run more along
Hobbes, Rousseau and Nietzsche. This is a simplistic answer on my part, but serves to illustrate the divergence
of my belief system from such an atmosphere as you speak of.
ezra
But I must say that most of these threads seem to be far afield of the focus of this list.
Joel A. Wendt wrote:
) Ezra Beeman wrote:
)
) ) [Ezra Beeman]
) ) Would you mind naming the most influential figures in this movement and some of the books that described it?
)
) Ezra,
)
) I am not sure how to answer your question. I assume (but am not
) certain) that you are refering to this statement of mine as a reference
) to some kind of "movement":
)
) "I only really began to question the scientific paradigm when I was
) introduced to the rich psychological developments going on in California
) in the late 1960's and '70's. This actually only raised questions in my
) mind, because what was taught in academic pyschology and the nature of
) my direct experience began to come in conflict."
)
) Have I correctly understood your question?
)
) I ask this because to answer your question in the fashion you seem to
) wish would be very difficult. There may in fact exist books of the kind
) that you would like to see, but I stopped reading in psychology over 20
) years ago. Certainly we read (at that time) Fritz Perls, R.D. Lang,
) Eric Berne, Robert Ornstein, Eric Ericson, Carl Rogers, a hundred
) others.
)
) More crucial was the atmosphere. Esalen Institute was active south of
) Berkeley, where I was studying and practicing (at that time in
) California, one could be a group counsellor and not be licensed).
) Everywhere, if we weren't talking about the war in Vietnam, we were
) talking about psychology and self development. The Gurus started
) showing up. Indian Yogis, Tibetan and Zen Buddhists, Sufi teachers. We
) swam in a sea of new ideas, practices and seeming personal freedom.
)
) There was much that fell out of this that was ultimately shameful. The
) Synanon Game was powerful in the beginning but the Synanon movement
) ended up in disgrace. I had many friends join groups only to have sad,
) even terrible experiences.
)
) At the same time there were others more grounded. Some "experiments"
) gave birth to healthy understanding. Yet, there was so much, (I was in
) this environment for 14 years), I don't know that anyone could chronicle
) it with any kind of valid overview.
)
) Let me share a bit of personal story, which perhaps may give you a
) sense of matters.
)
) I practiced a kind of group conselling that was called: "Reparenting".
) It was born of a fusion of Eric Berne's Transactional Analysis and the
) work of Jackie Schiff, described in the book: "All my children". I
) entered this "discipline" as a group member, and became a group
) "leader". I worked at this for 3 years.
)
) Each group had a male and female group leader (a mother and father
) figure - it was "reparenting", remember. My partner and I were invited
) to Chicago, to hold a weekend marathon (group therapy beginning on a
) Friday evening and extending until Sunday afternoon). The people who
) invited us were my partner's parents, who were practicing PhD
) psychologists in Evanstan Ill, just north of Chicago.
)
) The first time we came, they gave us some of their most normal patients
) (about 25 attended for the weekend). The second time (we were invited
) back) they gave us some of their more difficult patients (same number,
) more or less). The third time they gave us their most difficult
) patients (one came directly from a state hospital to our weekend). We
) also had two psychiatrists as observers the third time, because our
) results were so outstanding.
)
) What did we do? Well that would take us very far afield, but some of
) what we did was violate all the traditional rules. We touched people.
) We held them. We had them act out their anger. We got them laughing
) and crying. And the worst thing of all, was that we worked from the
) heart, we cared about them. No dry intellectual distance, no pure talk
) "therapy". No psychobable.
)
) The Vienese trained freudian (a survivor of the holocost) psychiatrist
) spoke to me afterward. We had a brief, yet sympathetic talk. We agreed
) that the current streams in psychotherapy would never take up our
) techniques. Certainly people would respond to love more than another
) experience, but no professional therapist could violate the rules which
) basically made it a given that everything had to proceed from the head
) instead of the heart.
)
) Anyway, these experiences (and many others) caused me to reconsider a
) great deal. In fact, during my years in this work, I discovered on my
) own many of the epistomological principles which Rudolf Steiner had
) discovered almost 90 years earlier, so that when I came to anthroposophy
) in another 4 or 5 years, it was, in a way, like coming home.
)
) I hope this has been some help and at least some kind of answer to your
) question.
)
) joel wendt
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n700.4 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Yuba River Waldorf School's first graduation
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 18:48:26 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In the Gaia Sophia [Anthroposophical] Group's spring, 1998 newsletter, the
following statement is made:
"Carol Nimmick is hosting a special graduation ceremony for her eighth grade class
of The Yuba River Charter Waldorf School at Camp Augusta, by Lake Vera, on June
3. All members of Gaia Sophia and supporters of the Waldorf movement are warmly
invited to attend.
This graduation marks a special milestone in the Nevada City/Grass Valley
community. After almost 20 years of slowly building and rebuilding the Waldorf
school community, this is its first graduating class. Carol has been a true pioneer
who has worked tirelessly since 1980 to support Waldorf education. She is a master
professional teacher who has built many bridges between the public teaching
community and Wadorf education."
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n700.5 ---------------
From: "c.mcilroy" (c.mcilroy elvis.murdoch.edu.au)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n698
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 10:47:27 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
to angelica..
)
)Carl wrote:
)) i am always happy to hear intelligent and fair critique, ie constructive
))and careful analysis. but is this criticism for its own sake worthwhile??
))what is your point, and who are you writing for and why?
here i was talking about the people on this list criticisng WE.
)
)If this was addressed to me, my point, is that the traditionally
)accepted methods of education, and points of view are not necessarily
)the most valid or the most effective.
i absolutely agree with you
) I'm writing for myself but also,
)of my choice, for the (anthroposophical) community in which I was
)raised, which has given me some of my perspective on life and a lot of
)good things. Of course, a lot of it is more my personal take on that
)community and possible not accurately representative of what IT stands
)for. As for why, I guess because there is a lot of critique of it going
)on here (obviously that's the point of this list!) so I've sort of given
)myself the task of representing the GOOD sides of it -- to balance
)things out....
)i see that you are the only one on this list so far who is ready and
willing to reflect on their own biases and purposes. As for defending the
antrop community, maybe it is not really necessary, and also maybe it is
worth saving your efforts for somewhere where it's going to make a difference.
)
)
))and especially for Angelica.. the malestream mainstream white western
))academy in which you find yourself is indeed very problematic for many of
))us. how can something claim to be about knowledge and truth when it only
))represents the knowledge and truth of white western middle-class academic
))men in western history? for your own sake, have a good look at the feminist
))departments for a refreshing perspective.
)
)I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to here.... WHence this
)analisys of my university?
in defending WE in an earlier email you suggested that you had not found the
university system to be perfect.
And waht does it have to do with truth adn
)knowledge??
the word university itself, coming from the word 'universatis', suggests it
is representative of knowledge and truth, and the search for it. My point
here is that it clearly is representative of only certain truths and
knowledges, given that it is a knowledge constructed on the thoughts (up
until only very recently) of white western men of a particular class and
no-one else. And even today, minority 'others' have trouble injecting their
truths and critiques into the discourses because the academy is structured
in such a way as to support the dominant paradigm. They are allocated a
position as marginal rather than central.
I'm confused what specifically you are critiquing about my
)previous comments. For the record, I recently took a course in our
)(currently highly controversial!) women's studies department (Psych of
)WOmen). So, help me out. Reclarify what you are challenging me on, so
)that I may respond.
i am not trying to 'challenge' you angelica, though i can understand, by the
way your comments have been taken up, if you feel defensive on this list.
my point about finding the women's studies department was to indicate a path
to somewhere in the institution (and, sadly, we have to conform to the
dominant paradigm by getting their bits of paper) where there is at least an
intent of a truth that is somewhat more representative of truths of more of
the people, and is self-reflexive. i hope you enjoyed a feminist
perspective on psychology and that you can see that such critique of the
dominant perspective is central rather than marginal. mainstream malestream
psychology, based as it is on Freud, is another area which is certainly very
problematic.
my interest, as i've said before, is in social change. One of the places
to begin, with social change, is to take apart the dualism between the
spiritual and the material world. i am raising my children in WE because of
that.
i have stated that my concerns regarding eurocentrism, racism and sexism and
elitism, both in WE and on this list. I have noticed that no-one has been
prepared to take that up. Rather, the conversation continues around whose
truth is more true than someone else's truth and how to go about proving it.
is this because there is an invested interest in maintaining the dominant
paradigm?? is it because you are all men (maybe apart from angelica and me)
or is it bwecause you are american?
:)
carl
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n700.6 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Yuba River Waldorf School's first graduation
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 1998 21:56:02 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (351DB67A.2418 netshel.net)
What I find interesting about this statement [in the local Anthroposophist study
group's newsletter] is the proud claim to Yuba River's Waldorf tie. In local
advertising, the school has completely dropped their association with Waldorf.
Reminds me of my favorite quote:
"We must worm our way through...and inwardly make fools of them."
The problem with dropping their association includes the real moral crime that
parents are completely unable to make an informed decision about their child's
education.
Deby
)
) In the Gaia Sophia [Anthroposophical] Group's spring, 1998 newsletter, the
) following statement is made:
)
) "Carol Nimmick is hosting a special graduation ceremony for her eighth grade class
) of The Yuba River Charter Waldorf School at Camp Augusta, by Lake Vera, on June
) 3. All members of Gaia Sophia and supporters of the Waldorf movement are warmly
) invited to attend.
)
) This graduation marks a special milestone in the Nevada City/Grass Valley
) community. After almost 20 years of slowly building and rebuilding the Waldorf
) school community, this is its first graduating class. Carol has been a true pioneer
) who has worked tirelessly since 1980 to support Waldorf education. She is a master
) professional teacher who has built many bridges between the public teaching
) community and Wadorf education."
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n700.7 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Admin: dialogue style
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 02:31:24 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Ezra, you said,
)I'm trying to get all the attributions straight here.
)For those not familiar with the conventions of attribution on the
)Internet, the statements with no carrots are my current statements; the
)statements with one carrot ()) are by the person I am quoting (Angelica);
)the statements with two carrots ())) are the person Angela is quoting
)(Luke?); and the statements with three carrots ()))) are the person Luke
)is quoting (me); and the statements with four carrots ())))) are the
)person I was quoting previously (Angelica).
This is a useful standard quoting method that is usually turned on in email
programs. The programs, however, don't automatically identify who's
talking, nor do they delete the unnecessary parts of the quotation!
I've found that the caret style gets confusing after the third level. I've
been pleased with the clarity of editing quoted dialogue like a play
script:
JANE
This is what Jane said.
DICK
What Dick said.
Let me say again, please edit quotes down to the essentials. Remember all
the people who read these messages in digest form who have to scroll
through long quoted messages.
Thanks, Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n700.8 ---------------
From: angelica hesse (hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu)
Subject: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 10:23:22 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (199803290248.SAA07448 lists1.best.com) from "c.mcilroy" at Mar 29, 98 10:47:27 am
Carl wrote:
) )i see that you are the only one on this list so far who is ready and
) willing to reflect on their own biases and purposes. As for defending the
) antrop community, maybe it is not really necessary, and also maybe it is
) worth saving your efforts for somewhere where it's going to make a difference.
Well, yeah, I am willing to take a look at what I stand for and why, tha'ts
actually a big part of why I'm on this list. It's important for me to
reflect my views off of the broader world. I suppose I'm laying my soul
bare by saying all of this, but I dont' really feel I have anythign to lose,
so I'm doing it anyway. I guess I defend anthrop because it's been a big
part of who I have become, my identity. It's a pretty intuitive thing to do
for me. Not that I'd ever pretend that everythign is right about it always,
cause that could never be the case with anythign in this world.
) the word university itself, coming from the word 'universatis', suggests it
) is representative of knowledge and truth, and the search for it. My point
) here is that it clearly is representative of only certain truths and
) knowledges, given that it is a knowledge constructed on the thoughts (up
) until only very recently) of white western men of a particular class and
) no-one else. And even today, minority 'others' have trouble injecting their
) truths and critiques into the discourses because the academy is structured
) in such a way as to support the dominant paradigm. They are allocated a
) position as marginal rather than central.
Yes, very much true. Our university in particular has actually been all
over the news (including NY Times) a few months ago due to soemone with a
very conservative agenda reacting to some rather liberal conferences on
campus. Two weekends in a row, womens studies and the art department each
had a conference which dealt, incidentally with sexuality (Women's Sexuality
on the one hand, The Body in Art on the other). Obviously, they covered a
broad range of things, some of which were controversial. We ended up in teh
paper for supposedly techign and advocating S&M with state tax dollars! THe
whole things was completely overblown. Now of course, all of our 'non
mainstream' subjects are coming into question (women's studies, black
studies, art, etc). I guess this is getting really off subject, maybe we
shoudl continue the discussion in private.... Or maybe it's on topic, in a
tangential way, in that it's examening the merit and dismerit of tradition
ideas of education.
) i am not trying to 'challenge' you angelica, though i can understand, by the
) way your comments have been taken up, if you feel defensive on this list.
) my point about finding the women's studies department was to indicate a path
) to somewhere in the institution (and, sadly, we have to conform to the
) dominant paradigm by getting their bits of paper) where there is at least an
) intent of a truth that is somewhat more representative of truths of more of
) the people, and is self-reflexive. i hope you enjoyed a feminist
) perspective on psychology and that you can see that such critique of the
) dominant perspective is central rather than marginal. mainstream malestream
) psychology, based as it is on Freud, is another area which is certainly very
) problematic.
Sorry Carl, I realized the day after writing this that you were not
challenging me. You're right, I got a little overdefensive (reflex action
around here?) and answered without really reading. My mistake. The
interesting thing with women's studies what that while the fundamental ideas
are good ones, I found it to have it's own sort of stubborn, biased outlook.
But I guess that's everywhere.
One of the interesting things abotu my WE is
that feminism was never an issue for me. THe girls really were the stronger
group at the school. It never occured to me, even vaguely, that anyone
would treat me as less important or intelligent. And frankly, they never
really did, even after I left there. maybe because I approach the world
expecting (or rather not even questioning) that I'm an equal. I never would
have guessed it before, but that may have turned out to be the single most
valuable thing I got out of WE. I was raised and educated as a human being,
not as a woman. If everyone had my experience, I don't think feminism would
really be an issue. It certainly never occured to me as somethign
necessary, until I started hearing more what was going on in mainstream
education and the workforce, etc.
) my interest, as i've said before, is in social change. One of the places
) to begin, with social change, is to take apart the dualism between the
) spiritual and the material world. i am raising my children in WE because of
) that.
That's a neat perspective. I'd agree that it's important. I often feel
that the idea of separation of church and state has been taken too far, or
corrupted in some way. We all know that the point was to prevent the
country from being governed by one religious perspective. TO keep a
religion from being made national, and to give people the right to practice,
without persecution, their own religions. But I question very seriously
whether taht means that we should REMOVE all religion or spirituality from
societal values, from laws, from school. Wouldn't we be eliminating
religion that way, rather than freeing it? And what woudl the consequences
of that be? We've been moving in that direction for a long time now, and it
really concerns me. The further we move from a sense that there may be more
than to existence than just this earth life teh closer we move to a culture
that is based exclusively on a 'me' concept, on materialism, on selfishness,
on greed.
) i have stated that my concerns regarding eurocentrism, racism and sexism and
) elitism, both in WE and on this list. I have noticed that no-one has been
) prepared to take that up. Rather, the conversation continues around whose
) truth is more true than someone else's truth and how to go about proving it.
) is this because there is an invested interest in maintaining the dominant
) paradigm?? is it because you are all men (maybe apart from angelica and me)
) or is it bwecause you are american?
I dont' know why. I sort of wonder whether this list is about any real
concerns for education, or jsut about a political agenda... What are your
concerns about eurocentrism, etc, within WE? I would say those are very
valid, and should be addressed. I'll say from my own experience taht racism
and sexism were never issues in our school (except that we were mostly white
due to teh financial situation in my county). They do now, at my former
school, haev a wonderful scholarship fund that has been set up to fully pay
the tuition of minority children from the area. it's limited, but it's a
beautiful effort.
I'm not sure why teh struggle over truth, except that maybe it is related to
teh merit of waldorf considering the implied truths behind it, those ideas
which formed the education in the first place. I han't noticed that this
list is all male (at least according to who's talking!). However, I
assumed from your name that you are too. Am I mistaken??? ANd where are
you writing from? I know we have at least one other non-american on the
list. And at heart, though I've grown up here, I'm really half european!
Enjoying these Ideas,
Angelica G. Hesse
hesse96 matrix.newpaltz.edu
) :)
) carl
)
)
)
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n700 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n701 --------------
001 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Religious freedom
002 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Eurocentrism, "gringoism"
003 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
004 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Eurocentrism, "gringoism"
005 - "c.mcilroy" (c.mcilroy el - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n700
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n701.1 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Religious freedom
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 1998 13:30:50 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199803290248.SAA07448 lists1.best.com) from "c.mcilroy" at Mar 29, 98 10:47:27 am
In-Reply-To: (199803291524.HAA00523 lists1.best.com)
On 29 Mar 98, angelica hesse wrote:
) I often feel that the idea of separation of church and state has
) been taken too far, or corrupted in some way. We all know that the
) point was to prevent the country from being governed by one
) religious perspective. TO keep a religion from being made
) national, and to give people the right to practice, without
) persecution, their own religions.
Well, yes, and to allow people to practice no religion at all,
without being compelled to practice even "nonsectarian" religion by
the government.
When prayer was allowed in public school, it was generally Christian
prayer, and Jews felt left out and were made to feel different.
There is no cause for this kind of discrimination.
Even a non-sectarian prayer in public school would have that effect
on those who do not pray.
) But I question very seriously
) whether taht means that we should REMOVE all religion or
) spirituality from societal values, from laws, from school.
Social values? That only follows if you consider the government the
source of social values. I think social values do not flow from the
government; they arise from the larger culture.
As for removing religion from public school, I've already answered
that. With respect to laws, well, any law which discriminates,
overtly or covertly, in favor of those who believe in God over those
who do not would be wrong.
) Wouldn't we be eliminating religion that way, rather than freeing
) it?
Remember, the government is prohibited from inhibiting
religion as well as from promoting religion. If religion is so weak
that it cannot survive without government support, it is not the
government eliminating religion, it is the society at large.
In any event, I see no danger of that happening.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n701.2 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: Eurocentrism, "gringoism"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 98 10:20:47 CST
In-Reply-To: (199803290248.SAA07448 lists1.best.com); from "c.mcilroy" at Mar 29, 98 10:47 am
Carl wrote:
) i have stated that my concerns regarding eurocentrism, racism and sexism and
) elitism, both in WE and on this list. I have noticed that no-one has been
) prepared to take that up. Rather, the conversation continues around whose
) truth is more true than someone else's truth and how to go about proving it.
)
) is this because there is an invested interest in maintaining the dominant
) paradigm?? is it because you are all men (maybe apart from angelica and me)
) or is it bwecause you are american?
)
I am also interested in these matters. Part of my concern in WE is the teaching
of History, as it is implemented at Cuernavaca. As far as I know, the courses
deal with "Classical History", i. e. Greek and Roman. Whereas Mexican Ancient
History is taught somewhat marginally.
As you most probably noticed, I wrote "gringoism" instead of "americanism".
In Mexico we use the "gringo" denomination colloquially; but even oficially,
the word used is "estadounidense", meaning "people from the United States".
Cultural identity is a major issue in this country, and the relationship with
the U. S. A. of great relevance.
I would like to read more opinions on the teaching of History.
--
Humberto Saint Martin
__________________________________________________________________
Laboratorio de Cuernavaca, IFUNAM | Tel.: (52-73) 135688
Apartado Postal 48 - 3 | 175388
Calle Estrada Cajigal 510, | (52-5) 6227796
Colonia Tezontepec |
62251 Cuernavaca, Morelos | Fax: (52-73) 173077
MEXICO | 111603
| (52-5) 6227775
__________________________________________________________________
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n701.3 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Defensiveness, Elitism, etc
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 09:00:40 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Angelica, you said,
)The further we move from a sense that there may be more
)than to existence than just this earth life the closer we move to a culture
)that is based exclusively on a 'me' concept, on materialism, on selfishness,
)on greed.
One could just as well say that as long as we use imaginary deities to
justify our prejudices the longer we will stay in bondage to them.
Materialism*, selfishness, and greed are human weaknesses that afflict the
religious just as much as the godless.
* I use "materialism" here in the perjorative sense, meaning attachment to
wealth and possessions, not in the philosophical sense meaning rejection of
the existence of a spiritual world. Religious people like to overlook this
distinction.
"Humanism contends that human beings are a part of nature, that they have
emerged as a result of a continuous evolutionary process, and that all
their values--religious, ethical, political, and social--have their source
in human experience and are the product of their culture." (American
Humanist Association)
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n701.4 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Eurocentrism, "gringoism"
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1998 09:34:14 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199803301616.IAA18018 lists1.best.com)
Humberto,
I wish that I had the patience to type out what I I think to be a fair
representation of my experience and observations of the history taught by WE. But
alas, I have but a limited attention span and an even more limited amount of free
time. So here goes.
When I was in 'lower school', those years from 1st through 8th grade, I think that
I cannot recall having much in the way of Latin American history. It seems to me
that the history taught flowed from the cradle of civilization (babylon and persia)
and their myths, through the mostly occidental traditions until the culmination of
American history. Now while it is true that greek and roman histories were a point
of focus, as were the medieval and reformation periods, in lower school, in high
school things changed and I had 'blocks' on Africa and Latin America.
I find a great deal of the debate in this discussion group to be ironical. when it
comes to the 'multiculturalism' of WE. Before there was multicultursalism, as it
exist today in the university and the press, there was WE history. In fact, I
often boast to my peers of the multicultural history I obtained in high school
(while everyone else became exposed in college).
Finally, it has been my experience that WE reflects a great deal of the local
culture. For example, at my school, the two other languages were German and
Spanish. German the obvious bastion of Steiner and Goethe and WE in general, while
Spanish reflected local realities (west coast). On the east coast I am told it is
usually French and German.
Hope that gives some idea, without being too scattered.
Ezra
Humberto saint Martin wrote:
) Carl wrote:
)
) ) i have stated that my concerns regarding eurocentrism, racism and sexism and
) ) elitism, both in WE and on this list. I have noticed that no-one has been
) ) prepared to take that up. Rather, the conversation continues around whose
) ) truth is more true than someone else's truth and how to go about proving it.
) )
) ) is this because there is an invested interest in maintaining the dominant
) ) paradigm?? is it because you are all men (maybe apart from angelica and me)
) ) or is it bwecause you are american?
) )
)
) I am also interested in these matters. Part of my concern in WE is the teaching
) of History, as it is implemented at Cuernavaca. As far as I know, the courses
) deal with "Classical History", i. e. Greek and Roman. Whereas Mexican Ancient
) History is taught somewhat marginally.
)
) As you most probably noticed, I wrote "gringoism" instead of "americanism".
) In Mexico we use the "gringo" denomination colloquially; but even oficially,
) the word used is "estadounidense", meaning "people from the United States".
) Cultural identity is a major issue in this country, and the relationship with
) the U. S. A. of great relevance.
)
) I would like to read more opinions on the teaching of History.
) --
)
) Humberto Saint Martin
)
) __________________________________________________________________
) Laboratorio de Cuernavaca, IFUNAM | Tel.: (52-73) 135688
) Apartado Postal 48 - 3 | 175388
) Calle Estrada Cajigal 510, | (52-5) 6227796
) Colonia Tezontepec |
) 62251 Cuernavaca, Morelos | Fax: (52-73) 173077
) MEXICO | 111603
) | (52-5) 6227775
) __________________________________________________________________
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n701.5 ---------------
From: "c.mcilroy" (c.mcilroy elvis.murdoch.edu.au)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n700
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 13:52:30 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
joel wrote...
) I give, you win.
very gracefully said joel, but i wonder if what we should be looking for is
a win-win situation. many of us may benefit by the type of discussion you
ask for. i too would like to see a committment to opening dialogue rather
than closing it. people who have important things to contribute end up
dropping off lists for reasons like this. a shame. please don't do that.
for angelica..
)I guess this is getting really off subject,
i think these issues are fundamental to the discussion at hand, although you
may be right in assuming that others may not agree.
) maybe we
)shoudl continue the discussion in private....
i would like that. see my address below.
)I found it to have it's own sort of stubborn, biased outlook.
Within feminism(s) there is a diversity of positions, its true. but common
to all of them, i hope, is a commitment to addressing the problems of gender
bias. That committment may be stubborn, but i ain't letting go of it. i see
that although things may not look as bad for us now as they did for our
foremothers, they are not much better, just better hidden! so far as i can
tell feminist theory is about trying to do things, including thinking,
differently. and so far no-one's sayin we've got it right. in fact, the
claim to anything universal would just not be feminist. sorry if this
sounds like a lecture, but maybe someone else will read it as well.
)
)One of the interesting things abotu my WE is
)that feminism was never an issue for me.
i am glad you feel strong. i wonder how much of that is due specifically to
WE, and how much is due to the fact that you belong in the younger
generation of women, many of whom say they feel the same way, even though
they didn't have a WE.
there are many good things i see (along gender lines) in the school my
children attend (they are 8 and 11, a girl and a boy). but i also see some
big problems. i wonder if this is partly to do with the fact that the
school is relatively young (pioneers have just reached year 12 this year and
much of the school energy has been put into getting infrastructure in
place), whether it's a matter of the individual teachers' perspectives
(there is no race or gender policy in place at the school so far). i find
that my daughter's teacher is not at all open to discussion about why, for
example, she constantly refers to God in the masculine. Language is
important, on that i'm stubborn as well.
what i see as 'eurocentrism' goes unchallenged as well. i love the whole
mythology and evolution of human consciousness thing, but i have a problem
with the (apparent) insistence that european 'civilisation' is the most
superior and highly evolved. those notions, in todays society as well as
historically, play a major role in maintaining the subordination of peoples
of 'other' races, cultures, countries etc. again, i don't know if that's a
function of our school's age and remoteness, the individual teachers or
what. i do know that there are a lot of concerned parents, and some
concerned staff. i think it's easy to be blinkered to these issues when we
have all the priveleges.. ie. white, western, middle-class. but i have a
strong sense of social justice and cannot ignore it. As i have said before
though, i don't think the mainstream system is any better. the same
fundamentally eurocentric, racist and sexist assumptions are there, they are
just obscured. worse perhaps.
i'm interested to hear more of your thoughts.
)I sort of wonder whether this list is about any real
)concerns for education, or jsut about a political agenda...
:)))
)it's limited, but it's a
)beautiful effort.
sure, at least someone (WE? feminism?) is trying.
)
)I'm not sure why teh struggle over truth,
my point about truth was that limiting discussion to whose truth (the
critics on this list?) is more true than some-one else's (WE'S) truth is
only effective in foreclosing on discussion. Limiting the discussion like
this means that WE cannot have a voice in the matter of how we could be
educating our children differently. why set up a waldorf critics list then??
) I han't noticed that this
)list is all male (at least according to who's talking!).
ther's been a lot of work done on 'gender and internet'. seems males make
up 90% of users. and dominate the conversation. and don't take women's
comments as seriously as men's. and women get flamed more often that men.
same old story? ie. is this any different to how women have fared since the
literary revolution? and if 'knowlege' as we know it has been constructed
in books, and if the internet has the possibility of constructing knowlege,
are these gender biases important?
However, I
)assumed from your name that you are too.
:)
if using a man's or gender neutral name protects me from the above biases
and allows me a voice, i'll do it. not that i want to be a man. it's just
a means to an ends.
)ANd where are
)you writing from?
australia. on a par with america as far as sexism goes i believe. please
forgive my comment re: americans. here, america (generally) has a
reputation for thinking itself the centre of the universe , and i guess
there's little doubt that it is the most 'poweerful', uses most of the
world's resources etc. of course not all americans are like this. and of
course many american's don't have their fair share of power in the hierarchy
either.
)though I've grown up here, I'm really half european!
i've grown up white, but feel like i'm black inside. and i'm proud.
)Enjoying these Ideas,
ditto. interesting that these refresing and interesting ideas are coming
from women and or those grown up by WE!!! also interesting is the fact that
these are the very ideas that seem to be getting ignored on this list.
carl
:)
________________________________
c.mcilroy student.murdoch.edu.au
________________________________
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n701 ---------------