return to WCA Archive Index
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n839 --------------
001 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Re: Steiner and nazis
002 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Waldorf science (was: Anything like the good parts of Wald
003 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n839.1 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Re: Steiner and nazis
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 1998 14:14:41 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Charlie Frey wrote:
)And if there is a group of neo-Nazis who call themselves
)Anthroposophists, I am no more embarrassed by this than if there was a
)Nazi named Charlie Frey.
The situation in Europe is more serious than Charly Frey knows. Ex-SS
officer Haverbeck, the author of "Rudolf Steiner, Anwalt fur Deutschland"
is an ordained priest of the Christian Community, the Anthroposophy-linked
church, since the 50s. He had Adolf Hitler's birthday celebrated in the
hall of his esoteric educational institution Collegium Humanum. I spoke
about Haverbeck with a Dutch Christian Community priest: she was a great
deal more concerned than Charlie appears to be.
Also, Gennadi Bondarew, Russian Anthroposophist leader, claimed the Shoah
by the Nazis was "a Jewish invention". [An invitation to Bondarew to speak
at a conference in The Netherlands caused a big row among Dutch
Anthroposophists, as I wrote earlier].
Then, there was the anti-Semitic article by Irene Diet: ªAuf den Spuren der
Opfer. Anmerkungen zu Barbro Karlen und Yonassan Gershom´, in Das
Goetheanum, Nr. 20, of 17 May 1998.
To their credit, some Anthroposophists protested [reaction, in German,
linked from
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/anthroposophy.htm
However, Das Goetheanum is the central international Anthroposophical
magazine.
)I am also not in the habit of lending ANY credence to ANY decisions that
)could be made by such hateful cretins--including what they choose to name
)their organization.
But, if they *do* have some standing in Anthroposophical organizations?
Best,
------------------------------------------
Herman de Tollenaere
------------------------------------------
Internet site:
http://stad.dsl.nl/~hermantl/
See also:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
------------------------------------------
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n839.2 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf science (was: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 23:31:49 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199807291839.LAA15587 lists1.best.com)
John Calkins, you said,
)I do not think reductionism is bad, it has its place. It does have its
)limits to understanding nature. Even in science, the meaning of the parts
)is often better understood once the whole has been reconstructed (of course
)this is "non-reductionism"). I think the value of both reductionism and
)its opposite is fairly transparent. It is simply that science tends to
)have an imbalance towards the reductionist view.
Of course. Analysis of some complex phenomenon into its constituent parts
is usually the best first step toward understanding it. Holism has its
limits to understanding nature.
PREMO
))Would more correct conclusions be reached about, say, the
))structure of matter if we look at the whole without analyzing the
))parts (molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles) and how they
))relate to one another, and to the whole?
CALKINS
)Very likely, I would not say more correct but rather a different kind of
)knowledge, valid from its own perspective. Certainly humans made
)remarkable advances in metallurgy without the slightest idea of what was
)happening on an atomic scale.
DUGAN
Here you're arguing from a relativist position that bodes ill for your
career as a teacher. If all supposed "knowledge" is considered to be "valid
from its own perspective," how can good and bad ideas be differentiated?
PREMO
))Frankly, I have trouble picturing how one would approach science
))from a "non-reductionist" viewpoint. Could you give an example
))from science, rather than an analogy to the understanding of
))language?
CALKINS
)I don't think you realize how much you are asking here. I am not really an
)expert on Goethe or his methods, but I will attempt (feebly at best) to
)explain the classic example of his work with plants. After years of
)observation of plants, Goethe was able to achieve his vision of the
)archetypal plant. From this he could see in his mind how every plant in
)nature is derived from it. Now when Schiller pointed out to Goethe that
)his archetypal plant was not real, but an idea, Goethe was astonished.
)Goethe came to the idea not through thinking in the usual sense, but it
)emerged directly from his observations and meditations on plants. *Once
)Goethe had his archetypal plant, he was able to see the whole in every part
)of every plant*.
DUGAN
I think Goethe's insight was a useful one, but Schiller was right, too.
You're being altogether too reverent of Goethe here, saying "observations
and meditations" are somehow different (and superior to) "thinking in the
usual sense."
CALKINS
)Now the type of knowledge that Goethe was able to gain is not the usual
)kind that you can serve on a platter as is the case with orthodox science.
)It requires a deep sense of inner discipline and reflection so that his
)thinking does not get in the way of the pure observation of the plants.
)One must go through the experience oneself to gain a similar insight.
)Clearly Goethe is an extraordinary man, an his powers of concentration are
)way beyond what I could ever hope to achieve.
DUGAN
This is pure crap, John. Hanging out with Anthroposophists is baking your
brain.
CALKINS
)I am not one to deify
)Goethe, he was not without his faults. He did not at all understand the
)material view of science, and consequently I think he was largely without
)cause in his criticism of Newton in Goethe's "Theory of Colors". His
)ignorance of the methods of science probably helped in developing his way
)of seeing nature, his thinking not obscured by conventional thought.
DUGAN
No, his ignorance of science made him a laughing stock when he made
pretentious pronouncements about science.
CALKINS
)His
)archetypal plant arose from pure observation, and in this sense it is
)scientific.
Not.
)The difference between "objective" science and Goethe's
)methods is that the latter requires a very active participation of the
)observer, where the former does not (at least not to the same extent).
Nonsense.
)In this century methods similar to Goethe's have led to a deeper understand
)of other fields such as taxonomy, clearing up much of the ambiguity in the
)classification of animals.
Are you aware that there's a revolution going on in classification thanks
to genetic analysis? It's about as reductionist as you can get.
Classifications that were based on a Goethean "looks like" are falling to
physical evidence.
)Please don't take this information as gospel. At most this is barely a
)taste of Goethe's conception of the world. Again, I would recommend anyone
)who wants to know more to read one of the many books on his work for more
)reliable information.
For example, "Goethe's World View" by Rudolf Steiner. I wouldn't count that
as a "source of reliable information," though.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n839.3 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 00:24:44 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (v04011702b1e702dab522 [205.149.169.113])
("sumh1.rdg.ac:002240:980715052132" reading.ac.uk)
In-Reply-To: (199807311803.LAA18181 lists1.best.com)
Welcome, Jesper Carlstrom. You wrote,
)Hello! I subscribed a few ours ago, so I hope I don't confuse Your debate.
)I am a teacher of mathematics at a waldorf school in Sweden
)(Kristofferskolan) and at Stockholm University. I'm interested in
)mathematics, but mainly in logic. I would like to comment a letter from
)Dan Dugan to the anthropos-science list:
DUGAN
))I believe that there are at least a few Anthroposophists who agree with me
))that Waldorf education should stop hiding its relationship with
))Anthroposophy. Steiner established that attitude in order to get approval
))for his school from the authorities, and possibly to give it a wider
))appeal. I don't believe, given the increasing interest in spirituality in
))this age, that that kind of denial is necessary any more. Waldorf schools
))could prosper as "out front" spiritually-oriented schools. Lamb has written
))from this perspective in "The Threefold Review."
CARLSTROM
)Waldorf schools do not hide there relationship to Anthroposophy. It could
)be a good commercial thing to point at that relationship. However, that
)would not be honest. The THEORY behind our teaching is based on
)anthroposophy, but on the philosophical part, not on the "spritual
)science" part. Further, we do not teach anthroposophy, we teach ordinary
)things which we (from an anthroposophic view) think that the pupils need.
DUGAN
Jesper, I guess if you repeat things enough times they seem to be true, but
what you are saying here is the standard propaganda, and it's a lie.
CARLSTROM
For example, we teach projective geometry. Steiner thougt that this
geometry was a good exercise for the developing of certain qualities of our
mind. So that is WHY we teach it, but we teach pure geometry, not anything
You would call "spiritual science". Thus, it is perfectly possibly to join
the lessons whithout having to accept anything "spiritual", those things
are not even mentioned.
DUGAN
Your example shoots down your premise. What "certain qualities of the mind"
does projective geometry develop? Hear some Anthroposophical authors:
"[P]rojective geometry...is a branch of mathematics that develops the
imagination of the student while bringing will into the student's thinking.
The practical drawing exercises of projective geometry require particular
inner activity on the part of the students. Waldorf high schools are among
the few places where it is taught today, especially with its qualitative
aspects taken into consideration.
"The class begins with a review of the three types of curve that can be
formed by intersecting a cone-the ellipse, the parabola, and the hyperbola.
These are then shown to be connected with the threefold nature of the human
and the activities of thinking, feeling, and willing."
[Kotzsch, Ronald. "Sunbridge College." Renewal: A Journal for Waldorf
Education. Spring/Summer 1996. p. 35]
"The kind of 'space' in which one creates out of the etheric realm is quite
different than ordinary three-dimensional physical space: 'One
can...perceive by "imaginations," this space--pregnant with forms,
everywhere able to produce shapes out of itself, and from such perceptions
one can create forms in plastic art, architectural or sculptural.' Such an
artist works not with external objects but only with 'forces, effects of
forces, lines of force, and force-configurations.' Mathematician George
Adams once called this the 'helioplastic' space of projective geometry,
very different from the physically-oriented space of Euclidean geometry. In
the former, you cannot start from one point and relate everything else to
it but rather must start from the 'counterimage' of the point, that is, the
blue vault of heaven, the periphery. Etheric planar forces approach the
earth from all directions, working sculpturally upon it. The human etheric
body itself is formed plastically from out of the whole cosmos by such
'planes of force.' This is the explanation for the typical quality of forms
in Steiner's architecture and sculpture, each shaped by angular surface
planes slanting inward from the cosmic etheric periphery, as it were. This
is the etheric world's method of shaping forms."
[Adams, David. "The Goetheanum as White Magic, or Why Is Anthroposophical
Architecture So Important?" Journal for Anthroposophy, No. 64, Spring 1997,
p. 20.]
So it would appear, Jesper, that though projective geometry itself may be a
good thing to teach, it's taught in Waldorf schools (and almost nowhere
else) because Steiner recommended it as a way to teach people to think
Anthroposophically. It's a way of doing geometry while avoiding
measurement, so it's more holistic & spiritual (supposedly Aryan), less
materialistic (supposedly Jewish).
CARLSTROM
)Personally, I can't say I have accepted the hole of anthroposophy, but the
)theory of my teaching is not based on the hole, it is based on thougts
)that are perfectly clear to me. I think that it is VERY important that
)schools teach things that develops mind-qualities rather than knowledge of
)modern theories.
DUGAN
"Mind-qualities" sounds good, but I don't trust Anthroposophists' choice of
which "mind-qualities" to develop. A thorough understanding of modern
theories is simply essential, you mis-educate without that.
CARLSTROM
It must also be legal to have theories of why things are important to
teach, even if those theories differs from the common ones.
DUGAN
In the USA in private schools one may do whatever one wishes, especially if
accreditation doesn't matter to you. The new taxpayer-funded charter
schools have almost as much freedom as private schools, as long as they
stay away from religion.
CARLSTROM
However, I agree that it should not be legal to teach those theories
directly in schools. It should also be illegal to teach that they are
wrong. Who knows how it is?
DUGAN
Most Waldorf teachers try not to teach Anthroposophy directly, but due to
their training things slip through that they don't know are Anthroposophy.
And in publicly-funded schools, our constitution forbids promoting
religious concepts even indirectly. Everything in the Waldorf curriculum is
designed to teach the Anthroposophical world view indirectly, through
immersion and symbolism.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n839 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n840 --------------
001 - Jesper =?iso-8859-1?Q?Car - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
002 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - Waldorf Critics
003 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - Steiner and Nazis
004 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
005 - "Eric Barrows" (eric.barr - newbie
006 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: newbie
007 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Waldorf Graduate.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n840.1 ---------------
From: Jesper =?iso-8859-1?Q?Carlstr=F6m?= (jesper matematik.su.se)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 15:17:13 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199807311803.LAA18181 lists1.best.com)
(v04011702b1e702dab522 [205.149.169.113])
("sumh1.rdg.ac:002240:980715052132" reading.ac.uk)
In-Reply-To: (199808020732.AAA12817 lists1.best.com)
This is a reply to Dan Dugan. You can find his letter beneath, but I wont use it for quoting as usual this time.
Dan. You seem almost angry everytime you write anything, especially your replies. Are You really confident with Your life? It can't be nice to waste so much time on reading, learning, and debating something that one can't see more than crap into! So, if Your alternative is to go out with a big gun shooting around You, than please continue calling peoples opinions "lies", "crap", "nonsence" and more (read Your letter to me and John Calkins, and You will see what I meen). But if You really want to hear other peoples thougts and experiences, than please use a modest tone. We don't have to agree, but I think we could at least debate. Your methods does not serve that. Your letter shows that You don't want to hear what I have to say, You just want to destroy me.
I wont waste my time on You anymore, Dan. You will have to exercise Your debating tecnique with someone else. Try it: insult me as much as You can! I wont reply :-).
Jesper
)Welcome, Jesper Carlstrom. You wrote,
)
))Hello! I subscribed a few ours ago, so I hope I don't confuse Your debate.
))I am a teacher of mathematics at a waldorf school in Sweden
))(Kristofferskolan) and at Stockholm University. I'm interested in
))mathematics, but mainly in logic. I would like to comment a letter from
))Dan Dugan to the anthropos-science list:
)DUGAN
)))I believe that there are at least a few Anthroposophists who agree with me
)))that Waldorf education should stop hiding its relationship with
)))Anthroposophy. Steiner established that attitude in order to get approval
)))for his school from the authorities, and possibly to give it a wider
)))appeal. I don't believe, given the increasing interest in spirituality in
)))this age, that that kind of denial is necessary any more. Waldorf schools
)))could prosper as "out front" spiritually-oriented schools. Lamb has written
)))from this perspective in "The Threefold Review."
)CARLSTROM
))Waldorf schools do not hide there relationship to Anthroposophy. It could
))be a good commercial thing to point at that relationship. However, that
))would not be honest. The THEORY behind our teaching is based on
))anthroposophy, but on the philosophical part, not on the "spritual
))science" part. Further, we do not teach anthroposophy, we teach ordinary
))things which we (from an anthroposophic view) think that the pupils need.
)
)DUGAN
)Jesper, I guess if you repeat things enough times they seem to be true, but
)what you are saying here is the standard propaganda, and it's a lie.
)
)CARLSTROM
)For example, we teach projective geometry. Steiner thougt that this
)geometry was a good exercise for the developing of certain qualities of our
)mind. So that is WHY we teach it, but we teach pure geometry, not anything
)You would call "spiritual science". Thus, it is perfectly possibly to join
)the lessons whithout having to accept anything "spiritual", those things
)are not even mentioned.
)DUGAN
)Your example shoots down your premise. What "certain qualities of the mind"
)does projective geometry develop? Hear some Anthroposophical authors:
)
)"[P]rojective geometry...is a branch of mathematics that develops the
)imagination of the student while bringing will into the student's thinking.
)The practical drawing exercises of projective geometry require particular
)inner activity on the part of the students. Waldorf high schools are among
)the few places where it is taught today, especially with its qualitative
)aspects taken into consideration.
)
)"The class begins with a review of the three types of curve that can be
)formed by intersecting a cone-the ellipse, the parabola, and the hyperbola.
)These are then shown to be connected with the threefold nature of the human
)and the activities of thinking, feeling, and willing."
)
)[Kotzsch, Ronald. "Sunbridge College." Renewal: A Journal for Waldorf
)Education. Spring/Summer 1996. p. 35]
)
)"The kind of 'space' in which one creates out of the etheric realm is quite
)different than ordinary three-dimensional physical space: 'One
)can...perceive by "imaginations," this space--pregnant with forms,
)everywhere able to produce shapes out of itself, and from such perceptions
)one can create forms in plastic art, architectural or sculptural.' Such an
)artist works not with external objects but only with 'forces, effects of
)forces, lines of force, and force-configurations.' Mathematician George
)Adams once called this the 'helioplastic' space of projective geometry,
)very different from the physically-oriented space of Euclidean geometry. In
)the former, you cannot start from one point and relate everything else to
)it but rather must start from the 'counterimage' of the point, that is, the
)blue vault of heaven, the periphery. Etheric planar forces approach the
)earth from all directions, working sculpturally upon it. The human etheric
)body itself is formed plastically from out of the whole cosmos by such
)'planes of force.' This is the explanation for the typical quality of forms
)in Steiner's architecture and sculpture, each shaped by angular surface
)planes slanting inward from the cosmic etheric periphery, as it were. This
)is the etheric world's method of shaping forms."
)
)[Adams, David. "The Goetheanum as White Magic, or Why Is Anthroposophical
)Architecture So Important?" Journal for Anthroposophy, No. 64, Spring 1997,
)p. 20.]
)
)So it would appear, Jesper, that though projective geometry itself may be a
)good thing to teach, it's taught in Waldorf schools (and almost nowhere
)else) because Steiner recommended it as a way to teach people to think
)Anthroposophically. It's a way of doing geometry while avoiding
)measurement, so it's more holistic & spiritual (supposedly Aryan), less
)materialistic (supposedly Jewish).
)
)CARLSTROM
))Personally, I can't say I have accepted the hole of anthroposophy, but the
))theory of my teaching is not based on the hole, it is based on thougts
))that are perfectly clear to me. I think that it is VERY important that
))schools teach things that develops mind-qualities rather than knowledge of
))modern theories.
)
)DUGAN
)"Mind-qualities" sounds good, but I don't trust Anthroposophists' choice of
)which "mind-qualities" to develop. A thorough understanding of modern
)theories is simply essential, you mis-educate without that.
)
)CARLSTROM
)It must also be legal to have theories of why things are important to
)teach, even if those theories differs from the common ones.
)
)DUGAN
)In the USA in private schools one may do whatever one wishes, especially if
)accreditation doesn't matter to you. The new taxpayer-funded charter
)schools have almost as much freedom as private schools, as long as they
)stay away from religion.
)
)CARLSTROM
)However, I agree that it should not be legal to teach those theories
)directly in schools. It should also be illegal to teach that they are
)wrong. Who knows how it is?
)
)DUGAN
)Most Waldorf teachers try not to teach Anthroposophy directly, but due to
)their training things slip through that they don't know are Anthroposophy.
)And in publicly-funded schools, our constitution forbids promoting
)religious concepts even indirectly. Everything in the Waldorf curriculum is
)designed to teach the Anthroposophical world view indirectly, through
)immersion and symbolism.
)
)-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n840.2 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Waldorf Critics
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 98 18:10:40 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Hello,
I have been on this list for a pretty small amount of time, but I have
noticed something that, I feel, deserves comment.
I am also involved in a list wherein we discuss Waldorf ideas and
methods, and I have become acutely aware of the difference between people
who are trying to build something out of love, and those who are trying
to tear something apart out of hatred.
Peace,
Charlie Frey
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n840.3 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Steiner and Nazis
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 98 18:10:38 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Mr. de Tollenaere writes:)
)The situation in Europe is more serious than Charly Frey knows. Ex-SS
)officer Haverbeck, the author of "Rudolf Steiner, Anwalt fur Deutschland"
)is an ordained priest of the Christian Community, the Anthroposophy-linked
)church, since the 50s. He had Adolf Hitler's birthday celebrated in the
)hall of his esoteric educational institution Collegium Humanum. I spoke
)about Haverbeck with a Dutch Christian Community priest: she was a great
)deal more concerned than Charlie appears to be.
Mr. de Tollenaere,
I take great exception to your post.
I only hope that there was some sort of language barrier that led to your
mis-understanding of my letter.
You address someone who is of Jewish extraction, and am likely one of
the few people you will encounter who has fought and bled in the fight
against racism and anti-semitism in particular, and will likely do so
again if I must. So DO NOT give me any of your crap about what you see as
a lack of concern on my part.
The point of my post was that if sick, hateful individuals or groups
practice their idiocy in the name of Rudolph Steiner, Herman de
Tollenaere, Jesus Christ or Jody Foster, we cannot blame those whose
words and intentions are being twisted to suit someone's evil agenda.
And if there are some anti-semitics who claim to be anthroposophists,
they are not; this is counter to everything the movement stands for.
Are there a few bad people in every group?
Well, I think you can answer that one, Mr. de Tollenaere.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n840.4 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1998 11:40:46 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199808020732.AAA12817 lists1.best.com)
(199807311803.LAA18181 lists1.best.com)
(v04011702b1e702dab522 [205.149.169.113])
("sumh1.rdg.ac:002240:980715052132" reading.ac.uk)
In-Reply-To: (199808021315.GAA06590 lists1.best.com)
Jesper Carlstrom wrote,
)Dan. You seem almost angry everytime you write anything, especially your
)replies. Are You really confident with Your life? It can't be nice to
)waste so much time on reading, learning, and debating something that one
)can't see more than crap into! So, if Your alternative is to go out with a
)big gun shooting around You, than please continue calling peoples opinions
)"lies", "crap", "nonsence" and more (read Your letter to me and John
)Calkins, and You will see what I meen). But if You really want to hear
)other peoples thougts and experiences, than please use a modest tone. We
)don't have to agree, but I think we could at least debate. Your methods
)does not serve that. Your letter shows that You don't want to hear what I
)have to say, You just want to destroy me.
)
)I wont waste my time on You anymore, Dan. You will have to exercise Your
)debating tecnique with someone else. Try it: insult me as much as You can!
)I wont reply :-).
Anthroposophists, I love 'em. Write a reply that's both reasoned and
heartfelt, including literature quotes with full biblio data, and what do I
get? He wants to know about my FEELINGS!
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n840.5 ---------------
From: "Eric Barrows" (eric.barrows postoffice.tased.edu.au)
Subject: newbie
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 19:31:40 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199808020732.AAA12817 lists1.best.com)
(199807311803.LAA18181 lists1.best.com)
(v04011702b1e702dab522 [205.149.169.113])
("sumh1.rdg.ac:002240:980715052132" reading.ac.uk)
(199808030749.AAA10778 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199808030749.AAA10778 lists1.best.com)
Hi all,
As a new subscriber to this list I thought I'd scribe
just a little introductory note.
----------------------------------------
(scribe)
Seems your list consists of fiery debate and I understand the heat.
As an ex-Steiner student who had to depart due to the conflicts
within the community I know that *feelings* often run high.
However as a parent and teacher about to send my own children off
to school, I can still find no better alternative other than a Steiner school.
The ideology may still be grounded in 19th century European
mystical fog, but Steiner was not as original person! His ideas
have been "stolen" from many reasoned sources. These ideas it seems
have been homogenized into units and the units into a whole bound
with a mystical glue.
The use of myth, however in Steiner-isms is quiet obvious and if one
can accept that myth is a valid tool for developing a working paradigm
canít we use that system to a greater good.
Myth is not Steiners exclusive tool. In contemporary government education
we use the myth of "teacher knows best", "science as truth", "trust the system"
"math mirrors reality" and many other social myths. All used to achieve a
good educational outcome.
The mythological glue that Steiner uses can leave a bad taste, but I think the
building blocks are valid and more useful for child development than many of
the pedagogical units we employ in "state" run systems.
(/scribe)
====================================================
) ) )
( ( ( Eric Barrows
____ AST1 Art&IT
) )))) (_) Ouse D.H.S.
( (((( )
====================================================
http://www.tased.edu.au/schools/ousedh/staff/eric.htm
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n840.6 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: newbie
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 08:31:35 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Eric Barrows:
)The ideology may still be grounded in 19th century European
)mystical fog, but Steiner was not as original person! His ideas
)have been "stolen" from many reasoned sources. These ideas it seems
)have been homogenized into units and the units into a whole bound
)with a mystical glue.
Nobody owns an idea. Once it is known, others are free to build upon it.
Steiner did not work in a vacuum. If you believe his account, he learned a
lot from other human beings (both by observation and by their writings,
etc.), living in his time and elsewhere.
I am not a historian, but I think many of Steiner's ideas in his
"Philosophy of Freedom" are unique. His refutation of the Kantian
perspective is both simple and brilliant. Kant poses that nothing can be
known directly because everything we experience is colored by our
subjective senses. Steiner's reply is: how does one know this is true, if
nothing can be known? Illuminating the fallacy of Kant's position still
leaves open the question of how we can know anything, and Steiner gives his
ideas on this subject (no pun intended) in this book.
I believe his approach to education based on the image of the incarnating
human being is original. His advocating of a sustainable, bio-diverse
agriculture anticipated the organic movement in the United States by four
decades.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n840.7 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate.
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 10:03:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
It is fascinating to me that Dugan had nothing to reply to my post which
involved direct experience rather than theory. Dan is a closet
anthroposophist and it makes him "important" to use strong language. When
the facts of direct experience confront him he is speechless. The fact is
that Waldorf education works just because of it's deep roots. It should not
be under public control. And there is no reason for people like Dugan to
worry about it; unless they are closet anthroposophists. Perhaps these ideas
will work on, after death, as a positive force.
Best Wishes,
Daniel Perez.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n840 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n841 --------------
001 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Waldorf science (was: Anything like the good parts of Wald
002 - Lara Ernest (redpo yahoo. - spelling
003 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
004 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
005 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: spelling
006 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Waldorf Graduate on Dugan
007 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Steiner and nazis
008 - "Eric Barrows" (eric.barr - Re: newbie
009 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
010 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: newbie
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n841.1 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Waldorf science (was: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf)
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 11:13:48 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
)DUGAN
)I think Goethe's insight was a useful one, but Schiller was right, too.
)You're being altogether too reverent of Goethe here, saying "observations
)and meditations" are somehow different (and superior to) "thinking in the
)usual sense."
Again you are making unsupported assumptions. What I presented in the
paragraph you cite is an attempt to relate what Goethe himself had to say
about his experience with plants. You are free to believe that Goethe was
lying or deluded, but by his own description the "idea" of the archetypal
plant (which Goethe acknowledges is an idea, thanks to Schiller's help) did
not come to him through normal, rational thinking.
There is a quite a difference between thinking and having control over
one's thoughts (whether or not one is superior to the other, as you have
raised [not I], we will leave aside for the moment). Right now, try _not_
to think about a polar bear and you'll see what I mean. How long can you
do this for? I cannot do this for very long. No matter how hard I try,
that bear keeps creeping in. With this in mind, I get an appreciation for
how difficult it to have control over my thoughts.
)CALKINS
))Now the type of knowledge that Goethe was able to gain is not the usual
))kind that you can serve on a platter as is the case with orthodox
science.
))It requires a deep sense of inner discipline and reflection so that his
))thinking does not get in the way of the pure observation of the plants.
))One must go through the experience oneself to gain a similar insight.
))Clearly Goethe is an extraordinary man, an his powers of concentration
are
))way beyond what I could ever hope to achieve.
)
)DUGAN
)This is pure crap, John. Hanging out with Anthroposophists is baking your
)brain.
If this is pure crap, Dan, how long can you go without thinking about that
bear? How strong are your powers of concentration? How much control do
you really have over your thoughts, and how much are they subject to the
influences of habit and the whims of external stimuli? How does this lack
of control impede our ability to learn and observe?
)DUGAN
)No, his [Goethe's] ignorance of science made him a laughing stock when he
made
)pretentious pronouncements about science.
The same is true of Mendel's work on the genetics of pea plants. His work
was not recognized until decades after his death. Today Goethe's work is
gaining recognition from scientists inside and outside of anthroposophy
(roughly 10,000 papers have been written in the field of phenomenology).
)Are you aware that there's a revolution going on in classification thanks
)to genetic analysis? It's about as reductionist as you can get.
)Classifications that were based on a Goethean "looks like" are falling to
)physical evidence.
Dan, why do you keep trying to turn this into a competition between us and
them? Every simple view is limited. While we have learned many things
from work in genetics, it is not the whole story. Genetics is only a
potentiality, as seen by genetically identical plants taking on different
forms depending on the conditions they experience during growth. Living in
California, you must be familiar with the myriad of disguises poison oak
can take on.
)CALKINS (out of order)
))Very likely, I would not say more correct but rather a different kind of
))knowledge, valid from its own perspective. Certainly humans made
))remarkable advances in metallurgy without the slightest idea of what was
))happening on an atomic scale.
)
)DUGAN
)Here you're arguing from a relativist position that bodes ill for your
)career as a teacher. If all supposed "knowledge" is considered to be
"valid
)from its own perspective," how can good and bad ideas be differentiated?
Dan, how can you have read so much Steiner without understanding what he
has to say? Whether or not you agree with him, you _should_ know that he
is not a relativist, and I agree with him on this point. You must have
come across his example that we all have the same concept of a triangle,
and there is only one concept. Just because there are multiple
perspectives does not imply that a broader understanding cannot be achieved
through reconciling the apparent contradictions of the particular views.
The particle and wave behavior of light is a classic example. No single
physical experiment has been able demonstrate this dual nature. Neither
view effectively characterizes the nature of light, but when the two views
are taken together in a broader context, using imagination one comes to a
more representative image of the nature of light.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n841.2 ---------------
From: Lara Ernest (redpo yahoo.com)
Subject: spelling
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 08:49:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I'm sorry but I cannot recall the original subject heading for this
topic. I am writing in reference to the somewhat recent postings
regarding the misspellings and grammatical errors of a waldorf
graduate. A comment on another list suggested a correlation between
delayed reading and the inability to spell. Perhaps much as there is
a time in early childhood when we are most receptive to learning
language there is also a time where we are most receptive to spelling.
Is anyone aware of any studies that have been done on the effects of
learning to read on a later schedule? I have often heard it said by
waldorf supporters that by the end of elementary school waldorf
students have exceeded the reading/writing level of their public
school counter parts.
Lara
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n841.3 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 98 12:38:39 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
)
)Anthroposophists, I love 'em. Write a reply that's both reasoned and
)heartfelt, including literature quotes with full biblio data, and what do I
)get? He wants to know about my FEELINGS!
)
)-Dan Dugan
)
Yeah...what kind of weirdo, airhead would want to bother worrying about
someone else's feelings? ;-)
xxxooo,
Charlie Frey
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n841.4 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 12:47:14 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808031401.HAA07493 lists1.best.com)
) Anthroposophists, I love 'em. Write a reply that's both reasoned and
) heartfelt, including literature quotes with full biblio data, and what do I
) get? He wants to know about my FEELINGS!
)
) -Dan Dugan
I do believe that your replies have been heartfelt. It's quite obvious
how the emotions come through in your writing. It just seems to me that
a large number of those replies tend to be more emotional than
reasoned. It makes your arguments much less persuasive to me. I have
never found name-calling to be persuasive.
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n841.5 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: spelling
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 14:13:03 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cute. (That was a fragment!).
Any errors must have been the result of the public school where I first
learned to read and write. Reading and writing was initially taught to me in
first grade and was too early to be healthy. Anyway, email tends to be
informal and fragments and the like are more likely to occur. The one
fragment was included for effect (give you something to pick on since I
could not expect a balanced reply). I left out about 6 commas, 2
apostrophes, a dash, and did not capitalize a couple of words. It must have
been my FEELINGS that got out of control and so I typed too fast. Thank you
for reminding me to review what I post for typos! By the way, I write for
professional journals and do not have grammatical errors in my writings. It
is harder to measure creativity.
P.S. My high-school English teacher was a Harvard graduate who was thorough
on the topic of grammar. His studies were as comprehensive as the English
curriculum of any prep school. You are not going to get far with this one;
try again. Actually, do not bother. If this is what the discussion is
reduced to, I can see that this exercise is wasting our time.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lara Ernest (redpo yahoo.com)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Monday, August 03, 1998 9:13 AM
Subject: spelling
)
)
)I'm sorry but I cannot recall the original subject heading for this
)topic. I am writing in reference to the somewhat recent postings
)regarding the misspellings and grammatical errors of a waldorf
)graduate. A comment on another list suggested a correlation between
)delayed reading and the inability to spell. Perhaps much as there is
)a time in early childhood when we are most receptive to learning
)language there is also a time where we are most receptive to spelling.
) Is anyone aware of any studies that have been done on the effects of
)learning to read on a later schedule? I have often heard it said by
)waldorf supporters that by the end of elementary school waldorf
)students have exceeded the reading/writing level of their public
)school counter parts.
)
)Lara
)_________________________________________________________
)DO YOU YAHOO!?
)Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n841.6 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate on Dugan
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 14:34:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Just in case this could not be read, I added missing commas: :-).
It is fascinating to me that Dugan had nothing to reply to my post, which
involved direct experience rather than theory. Dan is a closet
Anthroposophists and it makes him "important" to use strong language. When
the facts of direct experience confront him, he is speechless. The fact is
that Waldorf education works just because of its deep roots. It should not
be under public control. In addition, there is no reason for people like
Dugan to worry about it; unless they are, "closet Anthroposophists." Perhaps
these ideas will work on, after death, as a positive force.
Regards,
Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n841.7 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Steiner and nazis
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 05:33:42 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I wrote, replying to Charlie Frey:
)The situation in Europe is more serious than Charlie Frey knows. Ex-SS
)officer Haverbeck, the author of "Rudolf Steiner, Anwalt fur Deutschland"
)is an ordained priest of the Christian Community, the Anthroposophy-linked
)church, since the 50s. He had Adolf Hitler's birthday celebrated in the
)hall of his esoteric educational institution Collegium Humanum. I spoke
)about Haverbeck with a Dutch Christian Community priest: she was a great
)deal more concerned than Charlie appears to be.
My point was NOT about [hypothetical] anti-Semites and racists, just
suddenly claiming to be Anthroposophists, while never having had any
connection to that movement. It was about real people with standing in the
Anthroposophical movement.
Mr Frey seems to think that if Anthroposophists like Haverbeck, Bondarew,
or Irene Diet, do not share [understatement] his own *concern in general*
(which I do not doubt) about anti-Semitism and racism, these persons
*automatically* cease to be Anthroposophists. So, in this perspective, one
would not expect much concern *about possibilities of anti-Semitism and
racism in the Anthroposophical movement*, I meant.
In the practice of the Anthroposophical movement, things do not work so
"automatically".
Else, why Haverbeck's long career? Why does Mr Bondarew ("the [shoah] is a
Jewish invention") rise to the leadership of Russia's Anthroposophists, and
why did Dutch Anthroposophists invite him to the congress they organized?
Why did the central Anthroposophical magazine Das Goetheanum, Nr. 20, of 17
May 1998, publish Diet's anti-Semitic article?
Questions, questions, questions ...
Mr Frey:
)And if there are some anti-semitics who claim to be anthroposophists,
)they are not; this is counter to everything the movement stands for.
This would be correct, *if that movement would be unequivocally against
them; which it isn't*. *Every*thing' means a 100%. Why, then, does the
article by Irene Diet in Das Goetheanum quote Steiner on Jews and
'negative' 'group soul consciousness'? Why did a Jewish family in Vienna
dismiss Steiner as a tutor because of his support for the anti-Semite
Hamerling (read it in Steiner's autobiography)?
------------------------------------------
Herman de Tollenaere
------------------------------------------
Internet site:
http://stad.dsl.nl/~hermantl/
See also:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
------------------------------------------
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n841.8 ---------------
From: "Eric Barrows" (eric.barrows postoffice.tased.edu.au)
Subject: Re: newbie
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 09:00:42 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199808031228.FAA02065 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199808031228.FAA02065 lists1.best.com)
)From: John Calkins
)Nobody owns an idea. Once it is known, others are free to build upon it.
Is this true in a Steiner school? I have seen little building and much bullying.
Steiner was not one for the freedom of information. He instigated a system
of hidden meaning, layers of restricted knowledge and power structures based
on access to these restricted levels.
One is not allowed to build knowledge in a Steiner system because one never
knows the full story.
)I am not a historian, but I think many of Steiner's ideas in his
)"Philosophy of Freedom" are unique.
Steiner was unique especially in his ideas about freedom it wasent till 1948 that
"doublespeek" and the "ministry of freedom" that his ideas were clearly identified.
So much talk about freedom and development of the individual in a system that
restricts and develops a product. (albeit a better product)
)Kant poses that nothing can be
)known directly because everything we experience is colored by our
)subjective senses. Steiner's reply is: how does one know this is true, if
)nothing can be known?
Good example of massaging an idea to his own ends.
The problem is that Kant does not say -we can know nothing so what does Steiner
think he is talking about?
I think quantum theory gives a better one a understanding of how subjective
reality really is.
)I believe his approach to education based on the image of the incarnating
)human being is original.
This is the mystical glue I'm talking about! Taking sound blocks of educational
theory and putting them together with wish wash. Its like building with bricks but using
potatoes for mortar.
)His advocating of a sustainable, bio-diverse
)agriculture anticipated the organic movement in the United States by four
)decades.
True but stirring in cosmic forces is a sad and trivial way to present a good and
sustainable idea. Again mystical poop on somebody elseís good idea.
PS ok i'm also a waldorf graduate who cant spell but - who cares about spelling
(don't you have a life)
=====================
Eric Barrows
Life Enrichment Facilitator
=====================
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n841.9 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 98 21:04:01 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net wrote) )
)I have never found name-calling to be persuasive.
Do you mean comments like [Jesper Carlstr–m]:
"Are You really confident with Your life?"
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
Daniel Sabsay home.earthlink.net/~danielsabsay/ebss
Macintosh Consultant Ignorance is the Ultimate Renewable Resource
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n841.10 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: newbie
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 19:43:14 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199808031228.FAA02065 lists1.best.com)
(199808031228.FAA02065 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199808032256.PAA18903 lists1.best.com)
Eric Barrows, thanks for your post but I want to quibble with this:
)I think quantum theory gives a better one a understanding of how subjective
)reality really is.
You find a lot of talk about "quantum" stuff in popular writing today, but
it's bullshit. I've just finished a great little book that has been most
helpful:
*Where Does the Weirdness Go? Why Quantum Mechanics is Strange But Not As
Strange As You Think* by David Lindley, Basic Books 1996.
"Quantum mechanics indeed permits--in fact demands--a kind of relativism,
in the sense that different observers using the same logic can make
different inferences about the 'reality' that lies behind a set of
experimental data. But this relativism is of a rigidly proscribed kind ...
The only point on which they are permitted honorable disagreement concerns
the inferred spin state of the electrons in the interval between the two
measurements.
"And this disagreement, let us emphasize once again, concerns not any known
or definite facts, but only an inference about an intermediate state that
is never actually observed. How this calls into question the traditional
physicists' view of reality is a deep and complex issue that we will have
to dig into. Regardless of all that, there is nothing here about morality
or politics." [p. 104]
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n841 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n842 --------------
001 - Jesper =?iso-8859-1?Q?Car - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
002 - "Eric Barrows" (eric.barr - Re: newbie
003 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: newbie
004 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Waldorf Graduate
005 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Waldorf Graduate
006 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
007 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: newbie
008 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: newbie
009 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Philosophy of Freedom
010 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Waldorf Graduate.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n842.1 ---------------
From: Jesper =?iso-8859-1?Q?Carlstr=F6m?= (jesper matematik.su.se)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 10:18:37 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (199808040403.VAA16352 lists1.best.com)
)Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net wrote) )
)
))I have never found name-calling to be persuasive.
)
)Do you mean comments like [Jesper Carlstr–m]:
)
)"Are You really confident with Your life?"
)
Sorry, I meant "Are You really COMFORTABLE with Your life?". I edited that sentence but forgot that word.
I unsubscribe now, I don't have time enough. Regards, Jesper.
(As a swedish waldorf graduate, I hope I spell and write grammatically correct in swedish...)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n842.2 ---------------
From: "Eric Barrows" (eric.barrows postoffice.tased.edu.au)
Subject: Re: newbie
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 18:38:10 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199808031228.FAA02065 lists1.best.com)
(199808031228.FAA02065 lists1.best.com)
(199808040730.AAA20594 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199808040730.AAA20594 lists1.best.com)
Thanks Dan
))I think quantum theory gives a better one a understanding of how subjective
))reality really is.
)Dan Dugan wrote:
)You find a lot of talk about "quantum" stuff in popular writing today, but
)it's bullshit.
What I was refering to was not so much as the physics of Quantum mechanics
but the infered reality.
When an electron (or any other particle) seems to take a particular course rather
than annother it in fact takes both. The universe divides and by your observation
you chose which universe you go with.
Of course your other self in the newly bifurcated universe observed the other electron
path.
Therefore every possibility happens! and you have chosen your universe. However
I would debate wether there is a possible universe for pure Steiner dogma.
====================================================
) ) )
( ( ( Eric Barrows
____ AST1 Art&IT
) )))) (_) Ouse D.H.S.
( (((( )
====================================================
http://www.tased.edu.au/schools/ousedh/staff/eric.htm
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n842.3 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: newbie
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 08:39:48 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Woah Eric, slow down! I never said you had to agree with Steiner. I was
responding to your comment that you thought he is unoriginal.
)Calkins:
))Kant poses that nothing can be
))known directly because everything we experience is colored by our
))subjective senses. Steiner's reply is: how does one know this is true,
if
))nothing can be known?
Barrows:
)Good example of massaging an idea to his own ends.
)The problem is that Kant does not say -we can know nothing so what does
Steiner
)think he is talking about?
Let me be more explicit. The Kantian view is that human beings cannot know
_with_certainty_ the nature of the objective world. Kant fails to realize
that human beings are also objects in that world when he makes this
definitive claim about these objects. There isn't any room for argument
here. This is a clear contradiction.
My intention is not to beat up on Kant, but to show the insight of Steiner.
So many talented philosophers of the 19th century missed Kant's error, then
Steiner comes along and asks the simple question, "How does he know that?"
He is very clear about this in his "Philosophy of Freedom". Whatever one
thinks about his more esoteric ideas, one has to give Steiner credit for
his brilliance and originality on this one.
)PS ok i'm also a waldorf graduate who cant spell but - who cares about
spelling
)(don't you have a life)
That's okay. I have my problems with speling, and I attribute it to being
educated in public schools. I don't care if people make misspellings or
grammatical errors on this list, as long as I can understand their meaning.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n842.4 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 10:10:53 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I was forwarded past email postings from a Waldorf School graduate. These
postings were so poor in grammar and spelling that any individual would have
had trouble deciphering their meaning. Each school is unique and is subject
to quality control measures. Perhaps this student should not have been
allowed to graduate. I am thankful to this list to have had the opportunity
to learn about such cases and I must emphasize that this is not the norm.
My graduating class of 13 people contained individuals who went on to very
successful careers. Most of the 13 people graduated from Harvard, Amherst,
Brown, Boston College or the University of Rochester. Many are medical
doctors, lawyers, astro-physicists or securities analysts. Every individual
in my class could write better than the majority of students at the
university level; we all shared this common experience. It was humorous
that I thought a few missing commas in my mail were the source of the
concern!
I am impressed with the intensity of thought with which people are
considering the nature of Waldorf Education. Most Waldorf schools are in
their infancy. They are struggling to survive, much like the rural schools
in this nations early day. Public schools have had the opportunity to prove
their effectiveness and they have failed. Every modern educator agrees that
there are deep problems. In any school, whether public or private, there
will be stronger and weaker students and any judgement on the system must
look at greater statistics. If there is a quality control problem, then I
will work through my personal contacts in the Waldorf Accreditation body.
As to other postings on this list, I have just signed on and will reserve
judgement. I can make the statement, however, that so far the level of
understanding of philosophy is lacking. Kant was inconsistent in his
thinking, and arguing against this is a reflection of a lack of
understanding. Kant could state that he was able to ëknow,í but his
philosophy *proved* that he could not. The 'naive realists' were as flawed
in their thinking as was Kant. If we are strict in our logic these things
become self-evident.
- Daniel Perez
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n842.5 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 11:25:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199808041410.HAA03009 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Perez wrote:
)
) I was forwarded past email postings from a Waldorf School graduate. These
) postings were so poor in grammar and spelling that any individual would have
) had trouble deciphering their meaning. Each school is unique and is subject
) to quality control measures. Perhaps this student should not have been
) allowed to graduate. I am thankful to this list to have had the opportunity
) to learn about such cases and I must emphasize that this is not the norm.
With no studies to lean on, what are you basing your last sentence on?
How do you know that _your_ Waldorf school _is_ "the norm"?
) My graduating class of 13 people contained individuals who went on to very
) successful careers. Most of the 13 people graduated from Harvard, Amherst,
) Brown, Boston College or the University of Rochester. Many are medical
) doctors, lawyers, astro-physicists or securities analysts. Every individual
) in my class could write better than the majority of students at the
) university level; we all shared this common experience. It was humorous
) that I thought a few missing commas in my mail were the source of the
) concern.
My Waldorf educated child was not reading in 5th grade. (He was tested
for learning problems but the test showed no indication of such.) MY
concern was centered on _his_ problem for two years when I began asking
other parents how their child was reading. Imagine all of our surprise
to learn that just under 1/2 of the class could not read. Imagine my
surprise to learn that Waldorf teacher training course study contains no
core academic classes.
)
) I am impressed with the intensity of thought with which people are
) considering the nature of Waldorf Education. Most Waldorf schools are in
) their infancy. They are struggling to survive, much like the rural schools
) in this nations early day. Public schools have had the opportunity to prove
) their effectiveness and they have failed. Every modern educator agrees that
) there are deep problems.
Every modern educator agrees that there are deep problems? That is a
sweeping statement, Daniel. There are many public and private school
teachers who feel that _their_ technique is the right one.
)In any school, whether public or private, there
) will be stronger and weaker students and any judgement on the system must
) look at greater statistics. If there is a quality control problem, then I
) will work through my personal contacts in the Waldorf Accreditation body.
Please do, Daniel. I believe there are serious problems with AWSNA's
accreditation process. They limit their accreditation process to
Anthroposophical concerns.
) As to other postings on this list, I have just signed on and will reserve
) judgement. I can make the statement, however, that so far the level of
) understanding of philosophy is lacking. Kant was inconsistent in his
) thinking, and arguing against this is a reflection of a lack of
) understanding. Kant could state that he was able to ëknow,í but his
) philosophy *proved* that he could not. The 'naive realists' were as flawed
) in their thinking as was Kant. If we are strict in our logic these things
) become self-evident.
Can you help us out here? Specifics would be a good place to start.
Debra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n842.6 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 10:41:11 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199808040403.VAA16352 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199808040817.BAA16564 lists1.best.com)
)I unsubscribe now, I don't have time enough. Regards, Jesper.
Chicken!
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n842.7 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: newbie
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 10:44:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199808041235.FAA25300 lists1.best.com)
John Calkins, you said,
)I don't care if people make misspellings or
)grammatical errors on this list, as long as I can understand their meaning.
Thanks, I agree. Sometimes I correct obvious typos or spelling errors in
other people's texts I'm quoting, just because they're distracting from the
discussion of the topic.
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n842.8 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: newbie
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 10:40:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199808040730.AAA20594 lists1.best.com)
(199808031228.FAA02065 lists1.best.com)
(199808031228.FAA02065 lists1.best.com)
(199808040730.AAA20594 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199808040839.BAA26337 lists1.best.com)
)When an electron (or any other particle) seems to take a particular course
)rather
)than annother it in fact takes both. The universe divides and by your
)observation
)you chose which universe you go with.
)
)Of course your other self in the newly bifurcated universe observed the
)other electron
)path.
)
)Therefore every possibility happens! and you have chosen your universe.
)However
)I would debate wether there is a possible universe for pure Steiner dogma.
Eric, the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics doesn't solve
the problems, just invents a new absurdity to replace the old one. This is
treated in Lindley's book.
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n842.9 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Philosophy of Freedom
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 11:20:38 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199808041235.FAA25300 lists1.best.com)
John Calkins, you wrote,
)Let me be more explicit. The Kantian view is that human beings cannot know
)_with_certainty_ the nature of the objective world. Kant fails to realize
)that human beings are also objects in that world when he makes this
)definitive claim about these objects. There isn't any room for argument
)here. This is a clear contradiction.
So we can't know ourselves with certainty, either. So what? Only a problem
if you're hung up on certainty.
)My intention is not to beat up on Kant, but to show the insight of Steiner.
)So many talented philosophers of the 19th century missed Kant's error, then
)Steiner comes along and asks the simple question, "How does he know that?"
)He is very clear about this in his "Philosophy of Freedom". Whatever one
)thinks about his more esoteric ideas, one has to give Steiner credit for
)his brilliance and originality on this one.
Sorry, I don't see "brilliance and originality." Could you explain more?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n842.10 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate.
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 11:44:29 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199808031401.HAA07492 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Perez, you said,
)It is fascinating to me that Dugan had nothing to reply to my post which
)involved direct experience rather than theory.
I know this may be hard for you to understand, but a good theory is much
stronger than anybody's "direct experience."
)Dan is a closet
)anthroposophist and it makes him "important" to use strong language. When
)the facts of direct experience confront him he is speechless.
Do tell. Please elaborate on your diagnosis of my shameful condition. Or
was it intended to be a compliment?
)The fact is
)that Waldorf education works just because of it's deep roots.
I find that almost any statement using the word "deep" nowadays should
automatically be checked for bullshit. What is "deep?"
)It should not
)be under public control.
We agree on that.
)And there is no reason for people like Dugan to
)worry about it; unless they are closet anthroposophists. Perhaps these ideas
)will work on, after death, as a positive force.
My reason for worrying about it is that as a taxpayer, I'm being asked to
pay for schools that violate the constitution. Another problem is consumer
fraud in the private Waldorf school system. And irresponsible referrals to
Anthroposophical medicine. And incompetent treatment of learning disorders.
If people with these concerns are "closet anthroposophists," lets all come
out right now and straighten out these schools that are giving us a bad
reputation!
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n842 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n843 --------------
001 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Waldorf Graduate
002 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Waldorf Graduate.
003 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Waldorf Graduate.
004 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Waldorf Graduate.
005 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Waldorf Graduate.
006 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Waldorf Graduate.
007 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Waldorf Graduate
008 - "Eric Barrows" (eric.barr - Re: Waldorf Graduate.
009 - "Eric Barrows" (eric.barr - Re: Waldorf Graduate
010 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Philosophy of Freedom
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n843.1 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 11:31:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (199808041410.HAA03009 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Perez, you wrote,
)I was forwarded past email postings from a Waldorf School graduate. These
)postings were so poor in grammar and spelling that any individual would have
)had trouble deciphering their meaning. Each school is unique and is subject
)to quality control measures. Perhaps this student should not have been
)allowed to graduate. I am thankful to this list to have had the opportunity
)to learn about such cases and I must emphasize that this is not the norm.
If you are talking about the person I think you are talking about, she said
to another list that she is dyslexic. Waldorf has its own system of dealing
with learning disabilities, the "extra lesson," including "curative
eurythmy," and IMHO it is incompetent.
)My graduating class of 13 people contained individuals who went on to very
)successful careers. Most of the 13 people graduated from Harvard, Amherst,
)Brown, Boston College or the University of Rochester. Many are medical
)doctors, lawyers, astro-physicists or securities analysts. Every individual
)in my class could write better than the majority of students at the
)university level; we all shared this common experience. It was humorous
)that I thought a few missing commas in my mail were the source of the
)concern!
I would expect Waldorf students, like any private school students, to do
better than the average public school student, because they're from a
higher economic class and have more stimulation and encouragement at home.
I wouldn't be surprised if they were better in communication skills
(reading, writing, presentation) than economic equivalent private school
students, but this remains to be seen. There is no research.
)I am impressed with the intensity of thought with which people are
)considering the nature of Waldorf Education. Most Waldorf schools are in
)their infancy. They are struggling to survive, much like the rural schools
)in this nations early day. Public schools have had the opportunity to prove
)their effectiveness and they have failed. Every modern educator agrees that
)there are deep problems. In any school, whether public or private, there
)will be stronger and weaker students and any judgement on the system must
)look at greater statistics. If there is a quality control problem, then I
)will work through my personal contacts in the Waldorf Accreditation body.
One could just as well say that Waldorf schools have deep problems, and
have had the opportunity to prove their effectiveness and have failed. Show
me the data.
)As to other postings on this list, I have just signed on and will reserve
)judgement. I can make the statement, however, that so far the level of
)understanding of philosophy is lacking. Kant was inconsistent in his
)thinking, and arguing against this is a reflection of a lack of
)understanding. Kant could state that he was able to ëknow,í but his
)philosophy *proved* that he could not. The 'naive realists' were as flawed
)in their thinking as was Kant. If we are strict in our logic these things
)become self-evident.
Show me.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n843.2 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate.
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 12:52:22 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199807311745.KAA03858 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Perez, you wrote,
)Dan Dugan had a difficult experience with human beings in a Waldorf school
)where his son attended. These teachers, who were only human, did their best
)in handling a difficult individual, but were not without fault.
)Unfortunately, he is now confused about the nature of Waldorf education and
)its place in the world. Objectivity has been lost.
If it was just a few incompetent teachers you would be right. But I have
taken the responsible route and researched my subject thoroughly. I've read
over 40 books by Steiner from cover to cover. I have an equal library of
other Waldorf and Anthroposophical books. I subscribe to half a dozen
Waldorf and Anthroposophical periodicals. I don't claim to be objective,
but I am well-informed.
You bet, I'm a difficult individual. I would not stand for the school that
I was supporting selling books containing typical 1920's German racism. I
would not stand for our school teaching Steiner's beliefs instead of
science. I would not stand for our school promoting quack Anthroposophical
medicine. The teachers first said read more, and I did. The more I knew,
the more crap I found. Then they said shut up or get out.
)I am sending this message to both the anthropos-science list as well as the
)Waldorf critics list. It is only meant to defend Waldorf Education through
)my personal experience as a Waldorf School graduate. It is not for
)propaganda or selfish reasons that I make these statements. It is factual
)and based on balanced objectivity.
OK, Daniel, do I read you correctly? When I write, you say "objectivity has
been lost." When you write, "it is factual and based on balanced
objectivity." Hmmm. I don't quite follow. Please explain your special
status in the world. Is it because you're a Waldorf graduate?
)The topic of how science is taught in Waldorf schools is important. I am a
)Waldorf graduate. I attended Waldorf school from 2nd to 12th grade. It was
)a private institution I attended. I am also in a scientific discipline after
)having studied at the University of Rochester both Electrical Engineering
)and Optics. Dugan's articles speak of "watered down" science being taught
)and other non-objective statements. I was taught by a P.H.D. from M.I.T.
)for science and a P.H.D. in math (Berkley) for mathematics, and a P.H.D. in
)biology for biology (another major American university). This was not a
)cult exercise. I am a better scientist for it, even in traditional science.
You were lucky to have such qualified teachers. Please lend me your lesson
books. I'll return them in one week, and pay FedEx both ways.
)I learned traditional science as well as Goethean science and was left to
)decide the truth between them.
Bad teaching. Do you think that kids should be taught both "Creation
Science" and evolution, so they can choose between them?
)I discovered that I was not choosing between
)them, but learning much more, and adding to what I learned in the
)traditional views. In the end I knew both areas, the whole completed
)picture, which is the point of science.
Since Steiner's view is opposed to science, I don't think so. Let's see
those lesson books before we talk more about what you were taught.
)The question of public funding for Waldorf education is a separate question.
)Many anthroposophists are against this as well, because of people like Dugan
)who don't realize that traditional education is founded on religion, the
)religion of materialism. It is less objective than the Waldorf school which
)always (in my direct experience) presents all the views and allows the
)student to decide the truth.
This is a standard argument of the creationists. No, secular education is
not based on "the religion of materialism." The Supreme Court has made that
clear.
)We can only corrupt Waldorf education by
)allowing political funding. I am personally undecided about voucher based
)funding, but many people see this the same way. Dugan's approach to this is
)for the wrong reasons, however.
)
)In terms of Steiner hiding the spiritual aspect of the school, that is a
)confused statement. Understanding the truth that human beings are spiritual
)does not reduce objectivity. Europe, especially in the time of Steiner, was
)much healthier in terms of understanding this than Americans are. There was
)no need to hide a spiritual understanding. Having an understanding of the
)spiritual does not propagandize or subconsciously remove freedom from those
)being educated in this method. The opposite is the result. I never was
)taught "Anthroposophy." I never was propagandized.
The above paragraph is self-contradictory.
)I didn't know who Steiner
)was until high-school when he was presented objectively along with Newton,
)Emerson or Einstein. The education was more objective than the public
)system I was rescued from.
Whew, Steiner on a par with Newton, Emerson, and Einstein? A two-bit guru
who is very rarely even mentioned in surveys of his time? Are you sure
about this "objectivity" of yours?
)The public system is the environment I found propaganda and the religion of
)materialism taught. This is more true of American public education than
)European. I was brought up traditional Baptist and this religion along with
)_any_ other was completely consistent with Waldorf Education.
Please read the article by Baptist minister Dr. James M. Morton on the
PLANS web site. He discusses Waldorf purely from the church-state
separation angle, not touching the conflicts with Christian faith. Then
browse the Christian sites we link to like Watchman Fellowship and
Spiritual Counterfeits Project for explanations of the insurmountable
doctrinal conflicts.
)It was not
)consistent with the religion of materialism. The public system I experienced
)from Kindergarten to 2nd grade. It was a picture of the loss of thinking
)and objectivity inherent to the religion of materialism. The nature of
)reading was not understood, and because the human being is a machine
)(according to this religion), children's creative skills were destroyed. I
)witnessed this as direct experience. In second grade I innocently wondered
)why the books were so devoid of substance. If Dugan claims to be objective
)(I know he is an audio engineer so he has a background in logical thought),
)then he will have to admit that the public system is deceptive if it doesn't
)recognize it's religious basis. If he has seen atoms with his own eyes,
)then he may claim that modern science is not a religion.
OK, Daniel, you're talking from Goetheanism plus relativism here. Any
belief not verifiable by direct experience is religion, all beliefs are
stories, any story is as good as any other story. This is nonsense. I
suggest you read "Higher Superstition" by Gross and Levitt. It's an
in-depth discussion of the penetration of post-modern thought into American
universities, to the great detriment of reason, clear writing, and science.
)I was recently working in Computer vision research, a completely
)mathematical discipline and my colleagues viewed the human being as a
)computer. I was working with the director of research in the largest
)company in this field (I am now in a startup company researching digital
)cameras). This individual has his P.H.D. from MIT and came from the MIT
)media lab. If Waldorf education is a cult how did I manage to gain the
)respect of this individual? How can I work with mutual respect with someone
)who views the world as material only? It is because with Waldorf education
)I can respect both the physical as well as the spiritual worlds and keep
)them in their proper inter-relationship. It is only Waldorf education which
)allows the individual the freedom to chose between the religion of
)materialism and the balanced view of both the physical and spiritual worlds
)existence. Any religious persuasion, and above all complete freedom of
)thought are the tenets of Waldorf Education.
Catholics, Mormons, and Seventh Day Adventists are scientists too. In my
personal opinion mixing religion and science can require an unhealthy
amount of compartmentalization and dissociation, but many people seem to be
able to manage it. Fundamentalisms like Baptist Christianity or
Anthroposophy are harder. The world of Anthroposophical science, as can be
viewed on the anthropos-science list, is more sophisticated but just as
absurd as the Christians' "creation science."
Daniel, you keep talking about "spiritual worlds." This didn't come from
your Baptist background. Sounds like you've been indoctrinated. Your
writing demonstrates that Waldorf education converted you from your family
religion to Anthroposophy. From what I know about Baptist religion, that
may have been an improvement, but you still sound like a fundamentalist,
just in a different church. Notice the exclusivity (emphasis added),
"-only- Waldorf education allows the individual the freedom to choose."
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n843.3 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate.
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 15:24:00 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808042010.NAA23158 lists1.best.com)
Once more, for the sake of exercise....
Dan Dugan wrote:
) You bet, I'm a difficult individual. I would not stand for the school that
) I was supporting selling books containing typical 1920's German racism. I
) would not stand for our school teaching Steiner's beliefs instead of
) science. I would not stand for our school promoting quack Anthroposophical
) medicine. The teachers first said read more, and I did. The more I knew,
) the more crap I found. Then they said shut up or get out.
If difficult means 'damned if you do and damned if you don't.' First you say that you won't stand for them printing the racism, then you say that by not printing it they are hiding something. Perhaps you could submerge the books and if they
drown.....But before letting the jury hang, let me ask you what 'quack' medicine you are referring to? Is it homeopathy? Which, so far as I know, is NOT an anthroposophical affiliate (although it may be practiced by anthros). I think that if you
look it up in the encyclopedia, Steiner's name will not appear. But I may be wrong. As for its efficacy, it is recognized by 'official' medical bodies in many '1st' world countries besides the US (which has more to do with patent law than anythign
else). But I'm not here to defend homeopathy or anthroposophy, even though forcing you to be clear, concise and consistent will accomplish much towards those ends.
e
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n843.4 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate.
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 16:44:45 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199808042246.PAA25259 lists1.best.com)
On 4 Aug 98, at 15:24, Ezra Beeman wrote:
) If difficult means 'damned if you do and damned if you don't.' First you
) say that you won't stand for them printing the racism, then you say that
) by not printing it they are hiding something.
Well, they could refuse to sell books that contain racist concepts,
and renounce the racism in some of Steiner's writing.
) But before letting the jury hang, let me
) ask you what 'quack' medicine you are referring to? Is it homeopathy?
There are practitioners who say that they practice anthroposophical
medicine. It's similar to homeopathy, but it's not identical. In other
words, it involves treatment with extremely diluted concoctions, in
little sugar pills like the homeopathic ones, but our homeopath said
we should not try to combine homeopathic and anthroposophic
remedies because they're based on different systems.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n843.5 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate.
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 17:54:07 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808042008.NAA21682 lists1.best.com)
) I know this may be hard for you to understand, but a good theory is much
) stronger than anybody's "direct experience."
So, I guess since the quesiton has been begged, may I directly ask you to state this 'good' theory. (You know, the one that precludes you from responding to contrary evidence). I would also ask you to please deliniate for me your use of direct
experience in this case and fact, since I believe most (note most, and not all) of what was listed is factual. For example, 'my teachers had credentials from x,' or 'my classmates went on to y.' Seems to me that what we have here, besides a failure
to communicate, is a clear case of theory in the face of data. Claims that good theory flies in the face of 'direct experience' is suspicious and a tad scary. Is the theory good because it flaunts data? What is observation but 'direct experience?'
Either 'direct experience' or 'good theory' is vague and inconsistant, or both.
) )The fact is
) )that Waldorf education works just because of it's deep roots.
)
) I find that almost any statement using the word "deep" nowadays should
) automatically be checked for bullshit. What is "deep?"
Doesn't Mr. Kopp's Sagan quote contain 'deep?' I find that almost any statement using the word 'should' is full of bullshit. (grin) And although I shrink from using normative premises to back up my beliefs, I do agree that using public money is
anethma to WE. Vouchers seem like the way to go, or abolishing public education altogether. Who put the government in the business of education anyway? Stats show (see Libertarianism by Boaz) that our national literacy rate was higher before
public education. There has been much talk of 'deep' problems in PE, this stat seems to be about as deep as I can think. Ahh but I digress....
My reason for worrying about it is that as a taxpayer, I'm being asked to
) pay for schools that violate the constitution.
And as a taxpayer I have to pay for my kids public shooling (that they will not get), or social security that I will not see, not to mention the legal bills that these counties will finance to counter your suits. And unlike private enterprise,
rarely is cost a limiting factor when it comes to litigation.
) Another problem is consumer
) fraud in the private Waldorf school system.
Why don't you let the defrauded make their claim, or try a class action lawsuit. But for arguments sake, what are the allegations of fraud anyway? Please try and state them as propositions so we can avoid issues of non-falsification etc.. I have a
hunch that the missives will be so egregious (to WE, not about it) that the fraud will be on your part, not WE. Either way, I look forward to the charges.
e
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n843.6 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate.
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 18:05:49 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808042348.QAA22456 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote:
) On 4 Aug 98, at 15:24, Ezra Beeman wrote:
)
) ) If difficult means 'damned if you do and damned if you don't.' First you
) ) say that you won't stand for them printing the racism, then you say that
) ) by not printing it they are hiding something.
)
) Well, they could refuse to sell books that contain racist concepts,
) and renounce the racism in some of Steiner's writing.
Somehow, I think that Dan and others would view non-publication as hiding. Moreover, I am of the opinion that full disclosure is the best policy. If Steiner said that, so be it, though it should NOT be qualified by the here and now. Dan (ie
heresay) has stated that the high mucky mucks in the anthro kingdom refuse to renounce the racism, but have they affirmed it? I ask this because I've a hunch that they think Dugan's claims are irrelevent and that renouncing them lends them a
credence that is innapropriate. If they were to affirm them, on the other hand, then it would seem that Dan has a point (ie that anthroposophists are racist). Even so, some high mucky muck in the anthro order saying this or that (especially in
Germany) seems to have little or no meaning for WE in the states. The convoluted logic necessary to tie all this together in order to levy charges of through and through racism is mind boggling. Those that clamor for renounciation are already
buying into the assumption that Steiner was a racists (by modern standards, since that is what is being forwarded). Lastly, this sort of collectivism (anthros are all the same, WE is all the same, resistence is futile...) is insipid for it claims on
reality by way of reason. If you are exposed to minute amounts of logic, the myriad phallacies would be OBVIOUS. See Aristotles' Logic, or any good text for details.
)
)
) ) But before letting the jury hang, let me
) ) ask you what 'quack' medicine you are referring to? Is it homeopathy?
)
) There are practitioners who say that they practice anthroposophical
) medicine. It's similar to homeopathy, but it's not identical. In other
) words, it involves treatment with extremely diluted concoctions, in
) little sugar pills like the homeopathic ones, but our homeopath said
) we should not try to combine homeopathic and anthroposophic
) remedies because they're based on different systems.
I appreciate the distinction. I wonder how much irreprable psychic harm (since there is no proof of physical effect) I've been subject to in all those years of education (which reminds me, what the HECK does this have to do with WE??)
e
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n843.7 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 01:11:07 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199808042010.NAA23112 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
)I would expect Waldorf students, like any private school students, to do
)better than the average public school student, because they're from a
)higher economic class and have more stimulation and encouragement at home.
I can't speak for the US, but in many of the schools in the UK (and, I
imagine elsewhere in the world) there are a number of families in
receipt if state benefits (= welfare?) -- this seems to contradict the
"higher economic class" argument.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n843.8 ---------------
From: "Eric Barrows" (eric.barrows postoffice.tased.edu.au)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate.
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 19:45:32 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199808042008.NAA21682 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199808042008.NAA21682 lists1.best.com)
)I know this may be hard for you to understand, but a good theory is much
)stronger than anybody's "direct experience."
Come on Dan this is why Steiner works "good theory","nice ideas".
I dislike Steiner education because of my "direct experience" and "direct
experience" is the only way to cure the Steiner infected people of this world.
Anthropop theory is not a level playing field - you can argue all you like but
logic won't work against magic.
=====================
Eric Barrows
Life Enrichment Facilitator
=====================
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n843.9 ---------------
From: "Eric Barrows" (eric.barrows postoffice.tased.edu.au)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 19:38:35 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199808042010.NAA23112 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199808042010.NAA23112 lists1.best.com)
)Show me.
Good point! the argument so often expressed in this list that "I read *this* book and it
said I'm right -so there" reeks of the Anthropops.
Please people if you have a point - Make it, translate it, or express it. There are lots of
words here but not much communication!
====================================================
) ) )
( ( ( Eric Barrows
____
) (_)
(____)
====================================================
http://www.tased.edu.au/schools/ousedh/staff/eric.htm
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n843.10 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Freedom
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 09:29:15 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
)John Calkins, you wrote,
)
))Let me be more explicit. The Kantian view is that human beings cannot
know
))_with_certainty_ the nature of the objective world. Kant fails to
realize
))that human beings are also objects in that world when he makes this
))definitive claim about these objects. There isn't any room for argument
))here. This is a clear contradiction.
Dugan:
)So we can't know ourselves with certainty, either. So what? Only a problem
)if you're hung up on certainty.
This is just silly. From what you say it follows that we cannot know with
certainty the truth of the statement: "Waldorf schools are the primary
missionary activity of the religion of anthoposophy." If you hold onto
this view, then this conflicts with PLANS's primary argument.
The point of what I wrote above was not to draw any further epistemological
conclusions but to illustrate the originality of Steiner. The fact that
this contradiction exists in Kant's thinking does not lead to any
conclusion about whether we can know anything with certainty or _not_.
From this point, it remains an open question. I don't want to get involved
in a "discussion?" of the "Philosophy of Freedom" on this list. From the
attitude of Dan's comment above, he is more interested in criticizing than
understanding. It suffices to say that Steiner gives his ideas of how we
can know the world with certainty.
))My intention is not to beat up on Kant, but to show the insight of
Steiner.
))So many talented philosophers of the 19th century missed Kant's error,
then
))Steiner comes along and asks the simple question, "How does he know
that?"
))He is very clear about this in his "Philosophy of Freedom". Whatever one
))thinks about his more esoteric ideas, one has to give Steiner credit for
))his brilliance and originality on this one.
)
)Sorry, I don't see "brilliance and originality." Could you explain more?
I don't know the exact dates, but certainly well over a century had passed
where a flurry of scientific thought had the opportunity to question Kant
from a great diversity of perspectives. Yet no one found this
contradiction including Michelson, Maxwell, Darwin, Fresnel, Fraunhofer,
Freud, Curie, Pasteur, Mendeleyev, and this "who's who" list goes on. I do
not take anything away from the accomplishments of these brilliant
individuals. Somehow Steiner felt that there was something wrong with
Kant's philosophy, and after intense study, he found this contradiction.
Dan, if you still disagree, perhaps you can explain how this discovery of
Steiner is unoriginal or not brilliant when all of these individuals, most
(if not all) of them familiar with Kant's work, did not see it.
By the way Dan, have you read "Philosophy of Freedom"?
John Calkins
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n843 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n844 --------------
001 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Waldorf Graduate
002 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Waldorf Graduate.
003 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Waldorf Graduate
004 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Waldorf Graduate
005 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Waldorf Graduate on Dugan.
006 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
007 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Waldorf Graduate
008 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - economic status of families
009 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Waldorf Graduate
010 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Camp Hill
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n844.1 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 09:37:35 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
There is a difference between empirical knowledge and theory, Dan. I will
address both, as time permits. The main purpose of my posting to this list
has been served. Your Web Site was non-objective and any rational analysis
would agree with this. My posting was intended to give another empirical
sample, to balance the skew in your data set. My children are attending a
different Waldorf school than I did, and I know dozens of teachers and
Waldorf graduates. I have the same sample set from traditional educational
backgrounds, including my sister having attended public school (same
socio-economic background). Within this body of empirical knowledge, the
ìtheoryî of Waldorf education is supported. The term ìdeepî refers to the
strength of this theory, as it is based on the realization that a human
being is not a machine. Your religion does not permit this view. The
Supreme Courtís view, which you cited, is irrelevant.
Now, on to the theory. (fragment). I will post another email, after this
one, containing excerpts from a Web Site you support. It demonstrates the
poor reasoning of the Kantian worldview. I can only give indications of the
errors, because it is not my interest to educate you on philosophy. I
assume you have read, ìThe Philosophy of Spiritual Activity.î It is
precisely in the theory of Kant that your religion has its basis. Modern
science never bothered to consider the nature of thinking. Thinking,
gravity, Nuclear strong forces, Nuclear weak forcesÖ.who knows? Not modern
science, that is by definition, certain. Stephen Hawking thinks he will
ìknow the mind of Godî and he does not even consider the mind of man. The
forgotten tool he uses freely. Hofstadter (Godel, Escher, Bach) concludes
his book with this subtitle: ìStrange Loops as the Crux of Consciousness.î
Please insert your definition for ìdeepî for this one. David Marr (writer
of Vision, from MIT) states, ìOur view is that vision goes symbolic almost
immediately.î In other words, ìI have no idea how electrical impulses from
the eye can create the experience of sight.î He goes on, ìbecause the
activity of neurons, quite simply, are thought processes.î If you cannot
explain phenomena, ignore it: that is science. Again, Kant permeated
confusion. If those with the religion of materialism can not explain the
natural world, then they should not tell others that they can not know.
Explain to yourself that you can not know. Do not evangelize.
You may have read 40 books by Steiner, but I have too. I have also read
hundreds of books and articles based on the Kantian worldview. Our society
is permeated with it. I have surveyed from Penrose to Sagan; I am well
informed.
Now on to Anthroposophical medicine. Read last Sundays New York Times
article on drug resistant diseases, including ìStafî and VISA. That is the
result of the blind use of ìmodernî medicine. Every researcher (sweeping
statement: yes. I have excluded the drug company lobby) can see what is
occurring as a result of over-use of anti-biotics. Close relatives have
died at the hands of modern medicine, so keep the sob stories. If the body
is sick, let's poison it further (chemo). Some treatments use radiation
which is Many times greater than the Chernobyl disaster created, I suppose
that is the answer.
In conclusion, I can not ìshow youî what you choose to ignore. Debra Snell
wrote some thoughtful responses to my mail, and her empirical data set has
not been lost on me. (ìEvery modern educatorî did not include the teacherís
union). I am objective when theory and empirical evidence are kept in their
rightful places. Never-the-less, the implementation of Waldorf education is
based on theory which is more certain than the theory at the heart of the
public system. The public system is based on the theory of Kant and the
faith based religion of materialism. You have not answered this. As a
taxpayer, I should not be responsible for financing your ìcult.î As a
consumer, I should be protected from the false statement that ìpublic
education is neutral.î
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n844.2 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate.
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 09:48:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ezra, clarity of thought is a blessing!
On the topic of racism, my experience so far is that Steiner has been
critical of every race. What happens is that people pick out their race
only, and call it racism. It works best if it is a sensitive group to start
with. Are people on this list stating that the human being is completed and
perfect? Even Darwin would disagree. No one ever picked out a race to
bring us into the future. Show me where Steiner picks out his or any other
race. I have read his description of the European people and they have
their work to do like the rest of us. Some facts, please.
- Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n844.3 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 09:50:44 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This is one of the "goals" of the CSICOP which I found on their web-site:
=================================================================
FROM CSICOP Website:
Skeptics should forego any thought of convincing the unconvinced that we
hold the torch of truth illuminating the darkness. A more modest, realistic,
and achievable goal is to encourage the idea that one may be mistaken. Doubt
is humbling and constructive; it leads to rational thought in weighing
alternatives and fully reexamining options, and it opens unlimited vistas.
Those of us who have been speakers on the regional and national media
circuits know in our collective guts that no matter how articulate, witty,
disarming, and convincing we may be, in the last analysis we change very few
minds. And that is being optimistic! The rest of the time, when we are not
preaching to our collective choirs, we converse knowingly with each other,
reading our articles and books, and meeting at our conferences, deploring
the sad state of affairs beyond our ken. And no one has yet collected James
Randi's legendary $10,000 (now more than a collective million-dollar)
challenge.
The result is that despite the impressive progress CSICOP and its satellites
have made since its founding, collectively we remain a series of small
islands of rational thought in the vast ocean of scientific illiteracy. Many
reasons have been advanced over the years for this continuing state of
affairs.
====================================================================
What is the basis for the claim that they "hold the market" on "rational
thought." "one may be mistaken" is all that can be said by one who bases
their world view on Kantian misconceptions. If CSICOP's goal is to show
everyone that they (other individuals) "can be mistaken", then they have
shown only that they are themselves mistaken. This is elementary logic; no
philosopher would make such a mistake. What footing do the "Waldor Critics"
stand on? "unlimited vistas" to the unknowable; this is clear. I am not
trying to be snide, lets get our thinking on a level playing field.
"rational thought in the vast ocean of scientific illiteracy," those are
convincing words! :~).
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n844.4 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 10:04:40 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This sentence I wish to modify before someone misreads it. "The radiation
that some of the workers at Chernobyl received at the time of the accident"
is what is meant.
) Some treatments use radiation which is Many times greater than
) the Chernobyl disaster created, I suppose that is the answer.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n844.5 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate on Dugan.
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 10:36:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I was having some fun "outing" you, Dan. Here is a quote from Steiner. You
can see what affect this research of yours has on the other side of the
threshold. Perhaps people will read, but you won't listen?
"Had we during their earthly lives gone to them with a
book on spiritual science, they might have dismissed us
in anger. After death we can do them no greater service
than to read to them. Reading in thought to the dead can
have the greatest furthering effect for them."
Regards,
- Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n844.6 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 11:48:41 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
))I unsubscribe now, I don't have time enough. Regards, Jesper.
)
)Chicken!
)
)-Dan
Well Dan, I see you have achieved a new level (depth?) of maturity.
Congratulations! I think you are now ready to work on the "Did not! Did
too!" phase.
If I did not have time to kill while my experiments are running, I would
not bother with this list either.
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n844.7 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 12:23:46 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Dugan:
)If you are talking about the person I think you are talking about, she
said
)to another list that she is dyslexic. Waldorf has its own system of
dealing
)with learning disabilities, the "extra lesson," including "curative
)eurythmy," and IMHO it is incompetent.
This is a gross simplification of a complex problem. I don't know the
details of this student, but from what I understand in the U.S., Waldorf
schools usually do not have the resources that a large public school has to
deal with students with severe learning disabilities. The school district
of the town (not city) I grew up in has roughly 15 times (7000 to 8000
total) as many students as the largest Waldorf schools. Often in such a
case the Waldorf school reluctantly cannot admit the student. It is better
to be up front and admit this limitation than to pretend that Waldorf
schools are good for all situations. I think Steiner would agree.
It is worth noting that another initiative arising from anthroposophy, Camp
Hill villages, is doing some wonderful work with individuals who are
mentally handicapped.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n844.8 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: economic status of families
Date: 5 Aug 1998 14:13:38 -0400
Dan posted;
)I would expect Waldorf students, like any private school students, to do
)better than the average public school student, because they're from a
)higher economic class and have more stimulation and encouragement at home.
Dan, perhaps you could tell us what you mean by a higher economic class? As
a volunteer on our finance committee and tuition assistance committee I can
say that there are many families at our school that make 20-30 thousand
dollars (gross per year), and some that make less (I hope I'm not breaking any
confidentiality rules). Out of a grade school and kindergarten population of
about 90 from about 70 families, there are 34 children from 25 families who
have applied and received tuition aid. Many if not most of these families
receive 50% reductions (our tuition for grade school is 5000/year, 3100 for
5-day K) This also does not include sibling discounts and employee remissions
which make it possible for more families to send their children to the school.
Nor does it take into account the families who, although they would qualify
for assistance, choose not to apply for it and do without on other things in
their lives.
(as an aside, do you really think that people who work that hard at getting
something they want are going to just let it go off on its merry way and not
want some kind of results that fit with what they thought they were going to
get? Especially when it has to do with their own children.)
Our school does not have a scholarship fund that it draws from, nor does it
receive any donated money from individuals to fund this. The parents, the
school finance committee and the employees work together to find a reasonable
tuition level that will cover the costs of running the school and provide the
opportunity to make this education available to others who can afford what
they can afford. The employees (I try not to say teachers anymore because
they are not the only ones earning a living by working at the school) make
their own sacrifices too, working for less than in other situations. Yes, we
also have wealthy families in our school, but they are not the majority by
far. Each year when we review our operating budget (which is managed by
parents and interested volunteers and a paid bookkeeper, not the teachers),
many of our parents tell us that, for them, it is a choice between public
school and waldorf school (maybe parochial school too). Many people make
great efforts to provide the best that they feel they can for their children.
When you constantly "set the bar higher" and subtly try to suggest that a
waldorf school is elitist and 'for the wealthy ' by throwing out the "higher
economic class" crap, you not only draw attention away from the possibility
that these families are just regular hard working folks, but also that there
are a lot of people who work extra hard in difficult and through personal
situations to try and make a waldorf education as available as possible to
anyone who chooses it.
I also don't understand how you equate encouragement and stimulation with
economic status (unless you are assuming that you need material things for
encouragement and stimulation).
Perhaps children do better because some families (both in public and
private schools) believe in an idea about the importance of the best education
they can find/afford, and that being involved with their children's education
is a rewarding and beneficial thing all around. Call me a skeptic, but I
don't believe that economic class, by itself, has much relationship to at home
encouragement and stimulation. (I can easily imagine how it could be a
distraction and a hinderance.) Why don't you publish some statistics or
references.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n844.9 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 1998 11:28:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808051620.JAA25608 lists1.best.com)
469593N knotes.kodak.com wrote:
)
) It is worth noting that another initiative arising from anthroposophy, Camp
) Hill villages, is doing some wonderful work with individuals who are
) mentally handicapped.
)
) John Calkins
I suppose that is a matter of opinion.
Debra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n844.10 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Camp Hill
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 08:14:25 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
))
)) It is worth noting that another initiative arising from anthroposophy,
Camp
)) Hill villages, is doing some wonderful work with individuals who are
)) mentally handicapped.
))
)) John Calkins
)
)I suppose that is a matter of opinion.
)Debra
Hello Debra,
I suppose the use of the word "wonderful" is my opinion, but it is based
upon a visit this year to a Camp Hill village in Copake, New York. The
lives of the villagers (the handicapped individuals, most if not all
adults) are overseen by the co-workers. I spent a day touring the village
and shared a meal with a group of villagers. The villagers are an integral
to the livelihood of the village and are given the responsibility they
need. Each one contributes to the industries of the village to the extent
they are able to. These include a bakery, candle shop, book bindery, farm,
and others. From what I observed, the villagers are quite happy. They
have a strong sense of belonging to the village. They see it as their
place, many having lived there for twenty or thirty years. The co-workers
are unpaid, but their necessities are covered (nobody wears rags or has
holes in his shoes), and the village covers tuition for their children at a
nearby Waldorf school.
There is a Camp Hill in Kimberton, Pennsylvania for children, but I have
not been there.
Perhaps you have a basis for another opinion? I would be interested to
know. I have heard of some problems at Camp Hills (what community doesn't
have its share of difficulties?).
John Calkins
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n844 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n845 --------------
001 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - Re: Waldorf Graduate
002 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
003 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Re: Waldorf Graduate.
004 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
005 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Waldorf Graduate.
006 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Waldorf Graduate.
007 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Waldorf Graduate.
008 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Waldorf Graduate.
009 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Waldorf Graduate.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n845.1 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 98 09:23:53 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Dan writes...
)....including "curative
)eurythmy," and IMHO it is incompetent.
Dan,
Did you know that the "H" in "IMHO" means "humble"? ;}
xxxooo,
Charlie
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n845.2 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 12:37:59 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199808040730.AAA20609 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Sabsay wrote:
)
) Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net wrote) )
)
) )I have never found name-calling to be persuasive.
)
) Do you mean comments like [Jesper Carlstr–m]:
)
) "Are You really confident with Your life?"
)
) -- Daniel Sabsay, president
) East Bay Skeptics Society
Yes. I mean comments like that as well. They appear on both sides of
the dialogue on this list, and I don't find them persuasive in either
case.
I must say, however, that the emotion that I detect in Mr. Dugan's
posts makes me think back to what he has revealed as his own family's
personal experience with Waldorf education. I'm sure it was, to say the
least, unpleasant. The crusade which has arisen out of that experience
ostensibly is for the purpose of enforcing our Constitution's
prohibition against State entanglement with religion. What I infer,
though, is that the crusade is a way for Mr. Dugan to "get back" at
Waldorf.
I could be very wrong, but this is the impression that I have about Mr.
Dugan's position in all this, and it inevitably colors my interpretation
of everything that he writes in this list.
Mr. Dugan's admission ("I don't claim to be objective, but I am
well-informed.") supports my feeling that he will scour the earth for
information which supports his agenda, all the while remaining
relatively uninterested in that which does not. He chooses not to be
objective, because that does not suit his purposes.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n845.3 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate.
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 12:57:19 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (84610372 toto.iv)
Daniel Perez writes:
) On the topic of racism, my experience so far is that Steiner has been
) critical of every race. What happens is that people pick out their race
) only, and call it racism.
I must disagree with this. I feel that racism is when anyone make
judgements about people primarily on the basis of race.
If someone were to go around saying that Europeans (or Aryans, or
whatever) are intrinsically one way while Africans (or blacks) are
another and Asians a third, I call that racism. (The only exception
for this is someone who A. only calls it a predisposition and agrees
that there are many exceptions, and B. has some hard data to back it
up.)
As far as I know, Steiner had no data to back up his assertions.
Whether he agrees that there are exceptions, I don't know. But the
quotes I've seen from him that have been called 'racist' definitely
are. It's hard to imagine anyone nowadays agreeing with those
statements. Why the anthoposiphic movement hasn't disavaowed those
beleifs is beyond me.
) It works best if it is a sensitive group to start
) with. Are people on this list stating that the human being is completed and
) perfect? Even Darwin would disagree. No one ever picked out a race to
) bring us into the future. Show me where Steiner picks out his or any other
) race. I have read his description of the European people and they have
) their work to do like the rest of us. Some facts, please.
Just because he is critical of his own race doesn't make him any less
racist. At best it is a less evil form of racism.
--Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n845.4 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 11:55:35 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808040730.AAA20609 lists1.best.com) (199808061640.JAA17219 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Sabsay writes:
) ) "Are You really confident with Your life?"
) )
Robert Tolz writes:
)
) Yes. I mean comments like that as well. They appear on both sides of
) the dialogue on this list, and I don't find them persuasive in either
) case.
)
) I must say, however, that the emotion that I detect in Mr. Dugan's
) posts makes me think back to what he has revealed as his own family's
) personal experience with Waldorf education. I'm sure it was, to say the
) least, unpleasant. The crusade which has arisen out of that experience
) ostensibly is for the purpose of enforcing our Constitution's
) prohibition against State entanglement with religion. What I infer,
) though, is that the crusade is a way for Mr. Dugan to "get back" at
) Waldorf.
_Many_ people have had poor experiences with Waldorf. PLANS receives
phone calls and other communication on an increasingly regular basis.
Concerns generally boil down to the lack of full disclosure about
Anthroposophy and it's relationship to WE. When parents believe they
are questioning the aspects of their child's education, they get
confused (to put it mildly) when the school circles it's wagons. Parents
have the _right_ to understand that Waldorf education is informed by
religious beliefs and that it is impossible to disagree with aspects of
Waldorf education without appearing threatening to Anthroposophical
teachers. Information that PLANS makes available to parents better
equip them to make educational decisions _before_ their children are
enrolled in Waldorf. This is a service that Waldorf proponents should
provide but do not.
For the record, I questioned many things about the quality of WE from
inside the system. I have been much more effective working outside the
system. A sad but true statement. It is less about "get[ting]" back" at
Waldorf than informing potential parents about Anthroposophical doctrine
[that may not agree with their own beliefs] before their child/children
are enrolled. This may avoid a painful experience for other parents.
It may help you to look at PLANS as Anthroposophy's karma. Every system
only improves with critical evaluation. Waldorf is no exception.
)
) I could be very wrong, but this is the impression that I have about Mr.
) Dugan's position in all this, and it inevitably colors my interpretation
) of everything that he writes in this list.
)
) Mr. Dugan's admission ("I don't claim to be objective, but I am
) well-informed.") supports my feeling that he will scour the earth for
) information which supports his agenda, all the while remaining
) relatively uninterested in that which does not. He chooses not to be
) objective, because that does not suit his purposes.
PLANS does not deny that there are good things about Waldorf education
but Waldorf's propaganda speaks to that end. Our task is of a different
nature.
Debra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n845.5 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate.
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1998 14:07:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808061658.JAA28710 lists1.best.com)
) Just because he is critical of his own race doesn't make him any less
) racist. At best it is a less evil form of racism.
)
) --Michael
At first I thought that this conceptualization of racism was too simple, but on second thought I agree with the caveat being that racism (in this regard) is a conceptual problem not an 'evil' one. I make this distinction because I find it hard
to condemn people (unless I'm on a bandwagon) for being ignorant. I will challange their ignorance, but leave 'evil' for those who know better. My German stinks (after roughly 8 years of neglect) nor have I read any Steiner. That said, I am
aware of the problems of tranlating, and suspect that Steiner's metaphysically leaning prose would present 1st rate challanges to anyone trying to render it into contemporary vernacular. I think that much of the debate on Steiner's racial views are
of a secondary nature, they presuppose a great deal on the part of the translator and the conceptual parity of often loaded terminology.
It seems that most people's skepticism goes right out the window when evaluating Steiner tranlsations, usually indicating their biases along the way. I propose, for arguments sake, that Steiner was referring to cultures more than races. If
someone can show that culture and race were two distinct concepts used in early 20th century Germany, and that Steiner explicitly indicated the racial preference among the two (if he deliniated between them that would be excellent), then I would say
that he can safely be labled a racist. I leave the readers to formulate the corollary.
So if Steiner is read, substituting race for culture (much like MadLibs), does it make sense?
e
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n845.6 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate.
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 15:54:46 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
)Daniel Perez writes:
)
)) On the topic of racism, my experience so far is that Steiner has been
)) critical of every race. What happens is that people pick out their
)) race only, and call it racism.
Michael Hirsch:
)I must disagree with this. I feel that racism is when anyone make
)judgements about people primarily on the basis of race.
)
I disagree with your disagreement. There are clear cultural differences
among people of different races, though there are always exceptions to any
generalization one might make. I have friends of many races, and broadly
speaking there are characteristics in thinking that are definitely Chinese,
or Indian, or Mexican, or Filipino. When people settle in another country,
they and their descendants often seek a connection with the culture
associated with their race (I know I do, two generations removed). I think
it is fair to say that many of these differences are inherited not so much
in a physical sense, but more in a social sense. Language is one example.
There is a danger that these cultural characteristics can effect our
judgment of individuals. Let me pick on myself; "typical American tourist"
and similar thoughts can get in the way of one getting to know a person.
Nevertheless, these broad cultural differences among races are real.
These differences are not superficial. People of different cultures have
very different ways of thinking about the world. It was inconceivable to a
friend of mine from Kenya that child care is such a major problem in this
country. In his village, the mother brings the child with her when she
works, and neighbors or family simply help out when the need arises. The
Chinese tend to have a much stronger sense of family loyalty compared to
Americans. With such a variety of world conceptions, it is clear that the
cultures of different races will vary in their ability to address
particular questions of life.
I know people can get emotional on this issue, so let me be clear on this.
It is possible to recognize the differences between races, and objectively
criticize them (both positively and negatively). In doing so, one finds
that different races have their unique cultural strengths and weaknesses,
while none is superior or inferior to any other.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n845.7 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate.
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 15:35:36 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199808062128.OAA09433 lists1.best.com)
On 6 Aug 98, at 15:54, 469593N knotes.kodak.com wrote:
) From: John Calkins
)
) )Daniel Perez writes:
) )
) )) On the topic of racism, my experience so far is that Steiner has been
) )) critical of every race. What happens is that people pick out their
) )) race only, and call it racism.
) Michael Hirsch:
) )I must disagree with this. I feel that racism is when anyone make
) )judgements about people primarily on the basis of race.
) )
) I disagree with your disagreement. There are clear cultural differences
) among people of different races, though there are always exceptions to any
) generalization one might make.
I agree with much of what you say. I want to point out, though,
that there is a difference between race, which is a concept relating
to physical characteristics, and culture.
It is not racist to recognize that there are differences between
different cultures, but it usually is racist to attribute those
differences to race, i.e., to the physical characteristics of the
people.
Racism is a type of prejudice. Prejudice can be based on many
things, including race, culture, gender, hair color, religion, and so
on. It is prejudice to assume that an individual will have certain
mental or emotional characteristics because of that person's race
or culture, even if those characteristics are more common in that
culture than they are in the society at large. If those assumed
characteristics are negative, such as greed, sloth, and so on, it is
bigotry.
Be that as it may, from what I have heard, one of Steiner's faults
was to assign certain roles to certain races in the spiritual evolution
of humanity, e.g., to say that the function of the Jewish people was
to evolve a physical body that could withstand being inhabited by
the Christ spirit, that the function of the white race is to bring about
an intellectual understanding of the physical world, and that the
function of Indians is to help us integrate that understanding with
an understanding of the spiritual realm, which the Indians have
maintained when the white folks lost it, after which the Indians will
disappear.
(This is all stuff that I've gathered from the list. If any of it is
incorrect, please correct me.)
That seems racist to me. I don't think he was talking just about
cultural differences, either, because of his idea that the races
developed so that we'd have the physical capacity to grow in
certain defined ways.
One day I was looking at some Steiner at the local metaphysical
bookstore. I was pretty astonished at how wacky some of his
ideas are. For example, our hair is actually remnants of the
channels by which our ancestors received knowledge from the
spiritual realm. But I digress.
With respect to the races, I recall that Steiner said that the
different races developed at different times, and represent different
stages in the development of humanity. As each epoch supplanted
the last, the physical form of man relating to that epoch was to be
supplanted with the more recent form. However, Ahriman and/or
Lucifer objected to this, and insisted that the older models be
retained as well. So at the time of Atlantis, all the races coexisted
on that continent. When Atlantis was destroyed, they went their
separate ways.
This concept, that blacks represent an earlier stage in human
evolution (in the anthroposophic sense), that east Asians represent
a later stage, and that we represent the most recent stage, seems
to me to be racist in any sense of the word.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n845.8 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate.
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 20:22:31 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199808061658.JAA28710 lists1.best.com)
Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu) wrote:
)But the
)quotes I've seen from him that have been called 'racist' definitely
)are.
Indeed they are.
) It's hard to imagine anyone nowadays agreeing with those
)statements.
Unfortunately that is not the case -- Steiner reflected in some ways the
mores of his time. There were many Europeans of that era whose ideas,
despite being acceptable and respectable then, are appalling by today's
standards. The words of some of these people are taken up by today's
racists and used to support an end-of-20th-Century racism, where they
are, of course, entirely out of context. It is unfortunate, but it is
true.
) Why the anthoposiphic movement hasn't disavaowed those
)beleifs is beyond me.
Depends to whom you listen. Many individual anthropops, myself included,
have rejected these beliefs and will continue to do so. The
"anthroposophic movement" is not an homogenous movement with a single
viewpoint, so it cannot, as a "movement" disavow these things. I am also
sure that many who haven't disavowed them have not done so for no other
reason than racism is not one of those things which exercise their
minds.
FWIW I have been arrested and imprisoned in connection with my anti-
racist stance in southern Africa in the 1970s; and I was beaten up for
it in the 1980s. I confess to being a tad less vociferous since the last
assault (yes, it's fear of repetition), but I hope that is sufficient to
suggest that I am not one of those woolly, ivory-tower, words-only,
professed anti-racists who infest western European cultures. (It is also
why I get a tad irritated when these latter types start implying that
the work of people like myself is racist.)
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n845.9 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate.
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 10:07:15 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Steve Premo:
)Be that as it may, from what I have heard, one of Steiner's faults
)was to assign certain roles to certain races in the spiritual evolution
)of humanity, e.g., to say that the function of the Jewish people was
)to evolve a physical body that could withstand being inhabited by
)the Christ spirit, that the function of the white race is to bring about
)an intellectual understanding of the physical world, and that the
)function of Indians is to help us integrate that understanding with
)an understanding of the spiritual realm, which the Indians have
)maintained when the white folks lost it, after which the Indians will
)disappear.
Let me begin by stating I generally agree with the spirit of your posting.
The only thing I would add is that there can be a fairly strong correlation
between physical characteristics and culture. Are these characteristics
solely a result of random selection or does the collective 'spirit' of the
culture have its influence as well?
I am not so quick to pass judgment on Steiner on this one. The question I
would ask is, is it not the case that Europeans (including those who came
to North America) have taken the lead in the intellectual understanding of
the physical world? Owen Barfield's "Saving the Appearances" makes a
convincing argument that with the commandments (not with individual
freedom) of Moses, the Jews began to 'wake up' from the mythological world
view. This was a necessary step which permitted the human being
subsequently to act out of one's self, to follow one's heart (as opposed to
the externally imposed commandments). Many people in anthroposophy see
this following of one's heart as a manifestation of the Christ spirit.
Viewed in this light, perhaps there is some truth to Steiner's view that
you cite.
John Calkins
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n845 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n846 --------------
001 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Waldorf Graduate.
002 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
003 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
004 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Waldorf Graduate.
005 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n846.1 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate.
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 10:26:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I would like to add to the previous posts. Here is Webster's definition of
racism, "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and
capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a
particular race.î
First, Steinerís view was that the primary part of man was his spirit. This
was the ìdeterminant of human traits and capacities.î Please post a quote
that refutes that. On that alone he is not a racist, according to Websterí
s. The secondary part of man is his soul, not his body. The third part of
man, and least important, is his body. The body ultimately is a reflection
of the spirit, so any inherited traits have almost no bearing at all. If
the spirit is strong, the inherited traits have zero bearing. Otherís have
already covered the topic of there being differences in races and cultures.
Physical differences in races do not ìproduce an inherent superiority of a
particular raceî in any of Steinerís work that I have seen. So the second
half of Websterís definition is not affirmed. Biologists study races to
understand our past and they are not racists.
What is important is ìSteinerís view,î regardless of ìyourî belief in
spirit. That is what determines if he was a racist. He believed each of us
re-incarnates into every race, which proves again that race is not
ìprimary,î in his view. Otherwise, every incarnation we would lack
continuity, which makes no sense. We can not force our lack of belief in
re-incarnation on Steinerís statements, otherwise we force these statements
to be read as racist. Then they have more to do with ourselves than with
Steiner.
I agree with Stephen Tonkin that Anthroposophists have not put much concern
into this topic and views can vary. I believe that it is because our view
of Steiner depends on our breadth of knowledge. I have read a lot of
Steiner and the viewpoint I have garnered has nothing to do with racism. I
disagree with this statement, ìSteiner reflected in some ways the mores of
his time.î I feel this is not worked through. I am open to other views,
but I have never seen such statements backed up.
The topic of re-incarnation really addresses the point made by Steve Premo.
The descriptions of Steiner are historical ones, dating back to the time of
Christ, and each of us has and will continue to be part of each race. They
are never ìprimary determinantsî of any individual. Also, the historical
significance of a race is like our looking back at ourselves 2000 years ago.
*We* were those people and *we* and those races have changed. In this day
and age race is no longer a factor (in my understanding of Steiner's work).
Unless we alter the definition in Websterís I have yet to see this
definition met.
- Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n846.2 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 10:32:20 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808071403.HAA06942 lists1.best.com)
Debra Snell writes:
)
) _Many_ people have had poor experiences with Waldorf. PLANS receives
) phone calls and other communication on an increasingly regular basis.
) Concerns generally boil down to the lack of full disclosure about
) Anthroposophy and it's relationship to WE. When parents believe they
) are questioning the aspects of their child's education, they get
) confused (to put it mildly) when the school circles it's wagons. Parents
) have the _right_ to understand that Waldorf education is informed by
) religious beliefs and that it is impossible to disagree with aspects of
) Waldorf education without appearing threatening to Anthroposophical
) teachers. Information that PLANS makes available to parents better
) equip them to make educational decisions _before_ their children are
) enrolled in Waldorf. This is a service that Waldorf proponents should
) provide but do not.
I cannot disagree with you one iota that parents should be fully
informed. I have no "data" as to what is provided by proponents within
the public school arena. I don't recall ever suffering from a lack of
information as a parent at a private Waldorf school.
You seem to be somewhat knowledgeable about the facts. I'm curious
about how Waldorf Education has been implemented in the public schools
you're familiar with. Is it a "magnet" type of offering where people
have a choice? Or is it a situation where you're stuck with
Waldorf-style education because that's where your kid has to go?
) Information that PLANS makes available to parents better
) equip them to make educational decisions _before_ their children are
) enrolled in Waldorf. This is a service that Waldorf proponents should
) provide but do not.
I presume that this "service" provides information on an objective
basis and takes the perspective of informing rather than attacking. As
Mr. Dugan has requested to review "lesson plans" from others on this
list, I'd really love to take a look at the materials you provide to
parents in order to disseminate information that Waldorf proponents
should have provided. If you're willing to send out a packet, I'll give
you my address by email.
) For the record, I questioned many things about the quality of WE from
) inside the system. I have been much more effective working outside the
) system. A sad but true statement. It is less about "get[ting]" back" at
) Waldorf than informing potential parents about Anthroposophical doctrine
) [that may not agree with their own beliefs] before their child/children
) are enrolled. This may avoid a painful experience for other parents.
My comments about "getting back" were referring to my perspective on
Mr. Dugan's approach, not on anybody else's. Mr. Dugan's approach seems
to be to eradicate Waldorf education in the public schools, and I
presumed that the mission of PLANS was to do just that. Your post leads
me to believe that it is your aim to educate, not eradicate. Is that
correct?
)
) It may help you to look at PLANS as Anthroposophy's karma. Every system
) only improves with critical evaluation. Waldorf is no exception.
There are plenty of things I've observed about Waldorf that could stand
improvement. If the PLANS objective is to help to improve Waldorf
education, I have no quarrel with that.
)
) PLANS does not deny that there are good things about Waldorf education
) but Waldorf's propaganda speaks to that end. Our task is of a different
) nature.
Your comment is actually a relief to me. What has been conveyed to me
by reading comments by PLANS supporters in this list was quite to the
contrary. I'm glad you've set me straight on that. If I hadn't read
your post, I would have thought that every PLANS member was a sworn
enemy of Waldorf education in the public schools.
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n846.3 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:26:53 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Robert Tolz wrote:
) Your comment is actually a relief to me. What has been conveyed to me
)by reading comments by PLANS supporters in this list was quite to the
)contrary. I'm glad you've set me straight on that. If I hadn't read
)your post, I would have thought that every PLANS member was a sworn
)enemy of Waldorf education in the public schools.
)
)
It was a relief to me too! I am not opposed to disclosing the philosophical
basis of Waldorf education either. I don't know schools that do this.
- Daniel
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n846.4 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Graduate.
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 08:34:01 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199808061658.JAA28710 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199808070503.WAA28713 lists1.best.com)
On 6 Aug 98, at 20:22, Stephen Tonkin wrote:
) ) Why the anthoposiphic movement hasn't disavaowed those
) )beleifs is beyond me.
)
) Depends to whom you listen. Many individual anthropops, myself included,
) have rejected these beliefs and will continue to do so. The
) "anthroposophic movement" is not an homogenous movement with a single
) viewpoint, so it cannot, as a "movement" disavow these things.
I have seen no trace of racism at the Santa Cruz Waldorf School.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n846.5 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1998 13:33:20 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808071403.HAA06942 lists1.best.com) (199808071433.HAA22878 lists1.best.com)
Robert Tolz wrote:
)
) You seem to be somewhat knowledgeable about the facts. I'm curious
) about how Waldorf Education has been implemented in the public schools
) you're familiar with. Is it a "magnet" type of offering where people
) have a choice? Or is it a situation where you're stuck with
) Waldorf-style education because that's where your kid has to go?
As you can well imagine, every situation is different. We have been
contacted by teachers/parents whose neighborhood schools were converted
to Waldorf without their knowledge or consent. We know of a Waldorf
charter whose district used it as an overflow - sending children from
their overly crowded neighborhood schools to the Waldorf charter -
without informing the parents as to the special nature of their
children's new school. Uninformed parents can find themselves sending
their children to a school whose spiritual beliefs contradict their own.
) ) Information that PLANS makes available to parents better
) ) equip them to make educational decisions _before_ their children are
) ) enrolled in Waldorf. This is a service that Waldorf proponents should
) ) provide but do not.
)
) I presume that this "service" provides information on an objective
) basis and takes the perspective of informing rather than attacking. As
) Mr. Dugan has requested to review "lesson plans" from others on this
) list, I'd really love to take a look at the materials you provide to
) parents in order to disseminate information that Waldorf proponents
) should have provided. If you're willing to send out a packet, I'll give
) you my address by email.
I'd say that we customize each packet, depending on the information
requested. Generally PLANS requests information before we get involved.
We want to make our own determination on whether Anthroposophy is
present within the school. We don't just have _one_ packet. We also have
a slide show presentation that we can customize for a given situation.
For example, if parents or teachers have supplied PLANS with evidence
that Anthroposophy is in the school, we can use some of the examples
[provided by our contacts] in our slide show. We have targeted our slide
show toward governing bodies of school districts who are considering or
currently sponsor public Waldorf schools, but we have given our slide
show to parents and teachers as well.
Primarily we use Anthroposophical publications to inform the public. We
certainly don't make this stuff up. You may come to a slide show
anytime and you are invited to view PLANS extensive resource library,
housed in San Francisco.
[snip]
) Mr. Dugan's approach seems
) to be to eradicate Waldorf education in the public schools, and I
) presumed that the mission of PLANS was to do just that. Your post leads
) me to believe that it is your aim to educate, not eradicate. Is that
) correct?
Well, I do not support Waldorf in the public sector. I'd call our
lawsuit the ultimate attempt to educate. Be assured that that we did not
pass one doorstep on our journey to the U.S. district court.
)
) )
) ) It may help you to look at PLANS as Anthroposophy's karma. Every system
) ) only improves with critical evaluation. Waldorf is no exception.
)
) There are plenty of things I've observed about Waldorf that could stand
) improvement. If the PLANS objective is to help to improve Waldorf
) education, I have no quarrel with that.
I think PLANS has had a tremendous impact on the quality of Waldorf
schools. We've forced segments of the Anthroposophical community to look
at issues previously swept under the rug [with the all too familiar
phrase "If you don't like it you should leave" mentality]. In the
public arena, Waldorf education must stand on it's own merit _as_ an
educational approach and simply telling parents to leave is not
acceptable practice.
Waldorf should be critically evaluated just like any other educational
approach within the public sector. It is my experience that the
Anthroposophical ties to Waldorf hamper the evaluative process.
Parents/teachers/community members who notice this defensiveness get
inquisitive. I believe that Waldorf teachers and administrators in the
public schools should not only allow but _welcome_ scrutiny . While
the general public is pretty allowing of methods done in a certain way
for religious reasons, the problem here is that Waldorf proponets can't
admit to it's religious ties because they wouldn't be able to receive
public funding. Waldorf proponets place themselves in a "catch 22"
position with their entrance into the public coffers.
) )
) ) PLANS does not deny that there are good things about Waldorf education
) ) but Waldorf's propaganda speaks to that end. Our task is of a different
) ) nature.
)
) Your comment is actually a relief to me. What has been conveyed to me
) by reading comments by PLANS supporters in this list was quite to the
) contrary. I'm glad you've set me straight on that. If I hadn't read
) your post, I would have thought that every PLANS member was a sworn
) enemy of Waldorf education in the public schools.
)
For the record, PLANS is a sworn ememy (well, *I* don't swear) of
Waldorf in the public sector. Why should the government support one
religious belief system [over another] simply because the proponets
deny their own belief system is religious? This behavior creates not
only a legal problem, but a moral one as well. It is [at the very
least] arrogant to say that Anthroposophy is "spiritual science". I say
"spiritual-science" is an oxymoron.
Debra
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n846 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n847 --------------
001 - "Eric Barrows" (eric.barr - Art and the individuall
002 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Art and the individuall
003 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Kolisko Conference program
004 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - treatment of gifted children and P of F
005 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Dan's problem (according to engemi)
006 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Chicago Inner-City Waldorf Experience?
007 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
008 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
009 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
010 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n847.1 ---------------
From: "Eric Barrows" (eric.barrows postoffice.tased.edu.au)
Subject: Art and the individuall
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 09:13:20 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199808071403.HAA06942 lists1.best.com)
(199808071433.HAA22878 lists1.best.com)
(199808072029.NAA22688 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199808072029.NAA22688 lists1.best.com)
I must admit that my years as a student in W.E. (grades 3-8 inclusive) were
*much* happier than my time in the public system.
However all through my W.E. years my peers and I were told that we were
being raised to be individuals.
I have since followed a career in the visual arts expressing my individuality as
loudly as possible. I have felt that art is where a person can be themselves and
express their unique interpretation of the world.
Why is it then that examining anthoposiphic art it appears to be all created by
the same person. i.e. the work at http://earth.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz/art/gallery/index.html
could be by anybody from a W.E. background.
Take a look at the exiting students exhibition in a W.E. school compared to another
school. -I find it terrifying- because I myself feel crippled by my education.
What I thought was my ëindividualityí was really anthoposiphic programming.
(having a life crises here can anybody help?)
salutations.
====================================================
) ) )
( ( ( Eric Barrows
____
) (_)
(____)
====================================================
http://www.tased.edu.au/schools/ousedh/staff/eric.htm
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n847.2 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Art and the individuall
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 22:21:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199808071403.HAA06942 lists1.best.com)
(199808071433.HAA22878 lists1.best.com)
(199808072029.NAA22688 lists1.best.com) (199808092308.QAA14243 lists1.best.com)
Eric Barrows wrote:
)
) I must admit that my years as a student in W.E. (grades 3-8 inclusive) were
) *much* happier than my time in the public system.
Waldorf is certainly a feel good school.
)
) However all through my W.E. years my peers and I were told that we were
) being raised to be individuals.
WE has a unique concept on what individual means. Did you perform much
copying in Waldorf, Eric? Did your peers paint the same pictures that
you did? Did your class speak in unison ? How old were you before you
had a part ina play where you spoke your own lines?
)
) I have since followed a career in the visual arts expressing my individuality as
) loudly as possible. I have felt that art is where a person can be themselves and
) express their unique interpretation of the world.
Do you feel that your art is different and unique?
)
) Why is it then that examining anthoposiphic art it appears to be all created by
) the same person. i.e. the work at http://earth.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz/art/gallery/index.html
) could be by anybody from a W.E. background.
Yep. My son is great at Waldorf art. His main lesson books are
beautiful. Luckily he has learned many techniques since leaving
Waldorf. His art has been stolen off the walls at community art shows.
His teachers always ask to purchase them. I grow frustrated because much
of his art never makes it home due to the deals he makes at school. He
was always a wonderful artist. His art was confined to Anthroposophical
work during the four years at WE. It si refreshing to see his
individuality return since leaving the school.
)
) Take a look at the exiting students exhibition in a W.E. school compared to another
) school. -I find it terrifying- because I myself feel crippled by my education.
Waldorf appears so liberal. It must be shocking to find out how narrow
and ridged it is in actuality.
)
) What I thought was my ëindividualityí was really anthoposiphic programming.
)
) (having a life crises here can anybody help?)
Recognizing the problem is a big step. Hang in there. Things could be
worse. My oldest son _loved_ Waldorf when he was there but since leaving
two years ago, his reflections on his experiences there are mixed. He is
very happy that he left.
My youngest son detested Waldorf. He seemed to see right through it. He
drug _me_ ,kicking and screaming, out of the school.
Debra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n847.3 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Kolisko Conference program
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 01:51:02 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Here are some of the workshops that were offered at the Kolisko conference
that just ended Friday (full moon).
10. Cynthia Hoven, Therapeutic Eurythmist, U.S.A. "The Soul Exercises of
Therapeutic Eurythmy: Creating Health and Preventing Illness in the Etheric
Body."
Pity the child with learning disabilities in a Waldorf school; Therapeutic
Eurythmy is their lot.
27. Ina Jaehnig, High School Teacher, Jane Wulsin, Class Teacher, U.S.A.
"Conversations on the Morning Lectures."
Ina Jaehnig is the founding teacher of the Denver Waldorf school and mother
of the Waldorf graduate who killed a policeman and himself.
2. Alheidis von Bothmer, Director, Bothmer Seminar, Michael Neu, Physical
Educator, Michael Hubner, M.D., and Ludwig Flocken, M.D., Germany. "Bothmer
Gymnastics and Movement--Their Therapeutic Meaning for Children of All
Ages."
I've been hearing about Bothmer Gymnastics for years. It comes from the
original Waldorf school. Can anybody on the list tell us about it?
4. Joop van Dam, M.D., and Marcel de Leuw, Holland. "The Curriculum
Subjects as a Therapy in Connection with the Physiological Polarities: How
to Use the Curriculum to Help Children Incarnate."
5. Patrick Wakeford Evans, Class Teacher, U.S.A., and Martina Schmidt,
M.D., Germany. "Preventing the Rift between Mind, Heart and Nature: Science
Teaching in the Middle School Years. (Chemistry, Physics and Astronomy)"
Wish I could have gone to that one. Hope it'll be in the published proceedings.
7. Michaela Glockler, M.D., Switzerland. "Medical Foundations of the
Curriculum--Introduction and Overview."
16. Dennis Klocek, Goethean Studies Teacher, and Gerald Karnow, M.D.,
U.S.A. "Studies in Perception and Proportion as Foundation for Child
Observation: Practical work with the polarities of large headed/small
headed, earthly/cosmic, fantasy rich/poor."
Waldorf's arcane classification system, in addition to "the four
temperaments." Here's something about how "large-headed children" are
treated:
"Salt is significant for the body because it is a crystalline substance
that unites the great poles of acid and base. If the body does not learn to
dissolve salts and incorporate them into its own personal context, then the
balance between the working of the nervous system and that of the
metabolism cannot be properly maintained. By adequately salting the child's
food or giving therapeutic doses of lead compounds-there are certain salts
of lead that can be given safely-we help the body break down solid
substances, substances that are pure salts. When we do this, we are working
by way of the metabolism to stimulate the ability to make clear and
conscious distinctions, to consciously separate and unite things. All of
these are helpful to the large-headed child."
[Glockler, Michaela M.D. "Constitutional Problems in Children of School
Age: The 'Large-headed' and 'Small-headed' Child." Association for a
Healing Education Newsletter. Fall 1993, Volume 9, pp. 12-26, p. 19.]
17. Cornelius Pietzner and Coleman Lyles, Camphill Educators, U.S.A., and
Mel Belenson, Class Teacher, Canada. "The Pedagogical Law and Its Impact on
Children and Teachers: Practical Examples Drawn from Daily Teaching."
Pietzner and Lyles are the founders of a recent Camphill institutuion. Does
anybody know what "The Pedagogical Law" is?
23. Joep Eikenboom, Remedial Educator, and Class Teacher Erica Eikenboom,
Painting Therapist, Holland. "The First Goetheanum and Its Architecture in
Relation to Extra Lesson Exercises and Pedagogy."
How's that? We study Steiner's architecture as background for the treatment
of learning disabilities? Remember, this is *spiritual* science.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n847.4 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: treatment of gifted children and P of F
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 01:04:02 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Wulff Wendelstein wrote to the SJU Waldorf list:
) being a waldorf-alumni myself, maybe I might put my 2 cents of personal
) experience into the discussion.
) I myself was considered as an intellectually gifted child. I had learned to
) read at the age of 5 on my own, just by asking questions about letters and
) how they formed words. So I was able to read and write fluently and doing
) simple maths when I entered school. Soon I found I was the only one in the
) class with these abilities. So I was bored by almost everything the teacher
) tried to teach me, even by the stories and fairytales etc, because I knew
) them all... My favorite books then were the Encyclopedia on my parents
) bookshelf (forbidden), the Atlas of The World etc.
) This feeling of boredness continued throughout school life. School was
) something I attended, but I wasn't really there - a waste of time. Why? The
) teachers - almost all - tried to "cure" me by telling me to be patient, to
) be social, and finally to shut up. And yes, I must admit, I was a nuisance.
) I wanted to learn, to discuss, to know details and so on. My parents were
) told to take away the books - "the boy is reading too much, it's no good for
) him" - and other advices of this kind were given. For me all this was a mere
) catastrophy. And I've seen this happening to others too, with few
) exceptions.
)
) I know this type of children are not easy to handle. But I warn all of you
) to [not?] believe teachers who talk easily about necessary balance between
) intellectual abilities, social skills, emotions etc. Check what they really
) mean: Is it possible for them to keep up with the intellectual progress
) *and* to teach the child the other aspects of a sound personality, or will
) they try to force the child onto the level of the majority?
)
) The above is not a special waldorf problem, and there is no general answer.
) It depends on the school and even more on the teachers. A special school for
) the intellectually gifted can as well produce unwanted results such as
) emotionally and socially castrated eggheads...
)
) Wulff
And in a later message, Wulff wrote:
) Over the years I met quite a bunch of waldorf alumnis with a similiar school
) biography - too much to accept myself as an exception. I also met alumnis
) from Non-Waldorf schools having experienced the same shut-up-type of
) pedagogics. And I saw what happened to my sons. It's not a genuine Waldorf
) problem, but again - WSs should do *much better. Funny enough, the school at
) which I had my absolutely worst time did very well about 15 years later with
) an extreme math genius... But of course there was not one of the teachers
) from that time still there.
When I asked him if I could copy his post to the waldorf-critics list, he
replied:
)thanks for asking. I looked at your proposal from different angles, but I'd
)rather say no. When I criticise the Waldorf movement this way, it's meant
)for those who are connected to it somehow - parents, teachers, management
)etc. On Waldorf-critics newsgroups etc. you find a lot of people who really
)understood nothing - they just live their Weltschmerz. Not my audience
)(grin).
)There is a process of change going on - in Germany, Europe, and regarding
)the email-feedback I got from the US, there too: more self-confidence,
)self-consciousness, an understanding of Anthroposophy based on the
)"Philosophy of Freedom" rather than on the exegesis of and believing in
)Steiners esoteric books and lectures: knowing, not believing. This is what I
)want to contribute to. If you feel that it will work this way where you
)intend to post it, ok, go on. But please think twice. And maybe add a
)comment re. the above.
Which I take as no-but-yes. Most of the people on our list *are* connected
with Waldorf. Wulff probably doesn't know that the SJU Waldorf list is
censored; I can't discuss his post with him there.
Regarding the treatment of a gifted child, Wulff's experience is not
unique. I was that kind of brainy kid myself, and I gave my teachers a very
hard time. Thank god I didn't have to go to Waldorf school! Waldorf with
Steiner's anti-intellectual principles tries to hold smart kids back, as
happened to Wulff. This is abusive. I've seen it stated that when a child
has a special talent, the teacher's job is to fill in the other areas of
development around it to achieve balanced development. This sounds good in
theory, but I don't think Waldorf teacher training prepares them at all to
handle this kind of situation. Besides, why shouldn't a math genius be
allowed to *be* a math genius, and not be treated as though an imbalance
needed to be corrected? We need exceptional people, not just people who are
"balanced" by Waldorf standards.
Regarding Wulff's sense of "a change going on," some of the people on this
list also seem to promote the philosophical "entity-free" approach to
Steiner, based on *The Philosophy of Freedom*. I wish you good luck with
this. You're going to have to throw out most of the Waldorf literature to
maintain this position, and I'm not sure it's tenable at all. Wulff wants
the Waldorf promise to be true. I don't think it's possible, because
Steiner built the anti-intellectualism into the system.
I think P of F is a snow job, a front that Steiner erected to try to show
that he was really a philosopher, not a guru, and that one could approach
Anthroposophy from a purely philosophical attitude. That's true, one can
approach that way, but when you get there, what do you have? P of F to me
is a very weak position, and the world of philosophy correctly ignored it
both because it was weak in itself, and because they knew what Steiner was
really about.
-Dan Dugan
copy to Wulff Wendelstein (Wulff.Wendelstein t-online.de)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n847.5 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Dan's problem (according to engemi)
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998 15:51:25 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (v0401170fb1ed17f03578 [205.149.169.113])
In-Reply-To: (35C9BFB7.422C iafrica.com)
A person named Rafael wrote to the anthropos-science mailing list asking
for help finding Anthroposophical cancer therapy for his/her mother. I
wrote Rafael cautioning against Anthroposohphical medical quackery, and let
the a-s list know about it. Engemi (who if I recall correctly was on this
list for a while) responded (in part):
)Rafael
)I hope you will be able to get help for your mother, and also be able to
)ignore the ongoing diversity between this and other lists with Dan. He
)has his own pain to solve, and he does it in this mystical way of
)fighting the light which he probably thinks will engulf him if he does
)not keep his darkness close to him. Please don't be discouraged by
)something which has nothing to do with your situation. And seek on. Let
)your heart show you the truth.
)Best wishes, and strength - also for your mother
)engemi
Fighting the light? My mission as I see it is to -let in- some light on the
medieval darkness that Anthroposophists are trying to perpetuate. Engemi
makes what I think is the fundamental epistemological error of
Anthroposophy and New Age philosophy saying "Let your heart show you the
truth."
"[N]ot the mind alone but healthy feeling as well is qualified to determine
what is true."
[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. vii.]
-Dan Dugan
copy to engemi (engemi iafrica.com) Rafael (ose mrecic.gov.ar)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n847.6 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Chicago Inner-City Waldorf Experience?
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:12:34 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808081511.IAA19563 lists1.best.com)
A friend brought to my attention that an educator from Chicago brought
the Waldorf method into a Chicago inner-city environment and supposedly
had astounding success with it. Supposedly, she has spoken to many
educator's conferences, including one at (where my contact is) Columbia
University. Does anybody have details?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n847.7 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:17:18 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808081511.IAA19563 lists1.best.com)
Debra Snell wrote:
)
) For the record, PLANS is a sworn ememy (well, *I* don't swear) of
) Waldorf in the public sector. Why should the government support one
) religious belief system [over another] simply because the proponets
) deny their own belief system is religious? This behavior creates not
) only a legal problem, but a moral one as well. It is [at the very
) least] arrogant to say that Anthroposophy is "spiritual science". I say
) "spiritual-science" is an oxymoron.
)
) Debra
Debra,
Do you find the foregoing at all in conflict with your prior
statement/admission that there are actually good aspects to Waldorf
education? If there are good aspects to it, why would you exclude them
simply because of your conclusion that it is "religiously" based?
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n847.8 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 10:34:38 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808081511.IAA19563 lists1.best.com) (199808101620.JAA18622 lists1.best.com)
Robert Tolz wrote:
)
) Debra Snell wrote:
) )
) ) For the record, PLANS is a sworn ememy (well, *I* don't swear) of
) ) Waldorf in the public sector. Why should the government support one
) ) religious belief system [over another] simply because the proponets
) ) deny their own belief system is religious? This behavior creates not
) ) only a legal problem, but a moral one as well. It is [at the very
) ) least] arrogant to say that Anthroposophy is "spiritual science". I say
) ) "spiritual-science" is an oxymoron.
) )
) ) Debra
)
) Debra,
)
) Do you find the foregoing at all in conflict with your prior
) statement/admission that there are actually good aspects to Waldorf
) education? If there are good aspects to it, why would you exclude them
) simply because of your conclusion that it is "religiously" based?
)
) Bob
No. There is some good in most things that I don't buy into. I have no
tolerance for deception. That outweighs the good in my book. I see
Waldorf's move into the public sector morally abominable. Parents have
the exclusive right to decide the spiritual path for their own children.
Public and private Waldorf schools takes that right away.
"You must make the children conscious that they are being given the
objective truth. And if this sometimes appears to be anthroposophical,
anthroposophy is not to blame; it is that things have to be like that,
because. . . . The matter itself leads to it becoming anthroposophical."
Rudolf Steiner, Conferences with Teachers at the Waldorf School in
Stuttgart, vol 3, 1922 to 1923, p. 61
"[W]ith these things the outer form is of the utmost importance. Never
call the verse a "prayer" but a "school opening verse." Do see to it
that people do not hear the expression "prayer" used by the teacher.
This will go a long way towards overcoming the prejudice that this is an
anthroposophical school."
Steiner, Conferences with teachers, vol. 1, p.4
As Steiner wrote in 1920, while trying to obtain state approval for his
school:
"We must worm our way through . . . . [I]n order to do what we want to
do, at least, it is necessary to talk with the people, not because we
want to, but we have to, and inwardly make fools of them."
Rudolf Steiner, Conferences with Teachers, vol.1, p. 125
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n847.9 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 11:20:17 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808081511.IAA19563 lists1.best.com) (199808101620.JAA18622 lists1.best.com) (199808101734.KAA08781 lists1.best.com)
Debra Snell wrote:
No. There is some good in most things that I don't buy into. I have no
) tolerance for deception. That outweighs the good in my book. I see
) Waldorf's move into the public sector morally abominable. Parents have
) the exclusive right to decide the spiritual path for their own children.
) Public and private Waldorf schools takes that right away.
What I find 'morally abominable' (something I usually find redundant) is the statement that Parent's choose a child's spiritual path. People, (be they children, youths, adults) have the exclusive 'right' to decide their spiritual path. We hold that
truth to be self evident, remember?In fact, your declaration reminds me of a quote from my Montessori School about how children are not their parents possessions, but only under their stewardship. (Maybe someone knows the quote, which is not from
Montessori herself) Neglecting ontological issues of spiritual determinism (like, is there a choice?) I find you allow for a great deal of spiritual influence on the part of WE.
Does it have that power? If so, then it would seem to exhibit a level of efficacy that Dan and others flatly deny. So then there is the problem of disclosure, but not of fraud. You can't have it both ways. But even if you stick with disclosure,
it is not a slippery slope but rather a leap of faith to get from spiritually informed to religiously indoctrinated.
) "You must make the children conscious that they are being given the
) objective truth. And if this sometimes appears to be anthroposophical,
) anthroposophy is not to blame; it is that things have to be like that,
) because. . . . The matter itself leads to it becoming anthroposophical."
)
) Rudolf Steiner, Conferences with Teachers at the Waldorf School in
) Stuttgart, vol 3, 1922 to 1923, p. 61
Why did you omit parts of the passage, and why no context to the passage. This selection seems to bolster your position, until the slightest bit of skepticism is brought to bare upon it. But I find both yours and Dan's quotations from 'Scripture'
to be about as credible as the Revs Falwell, Baker and Horton Heat.
) "[W]ith these things the outer form is of the utmost importance. Never
) call the verse a "prayer" but a "school opening verse." Do see to it
) that people do not hear the expression "prayer" used by the teacher.
) This will go a long way towards overcoming the prejudice that this is an
) anthroposophical school."
)
) Steiner, Conferences with teachers, vol. 1, p.4
Too weary to comment
) As Steiner wrote in 1920, while trying to obtain state approval for his
) school:
)
) "We must worm our way through . . . . [I]n order to do what we want to
) do, at least, it is necessary to talk with the people, not because we
) want to, but we have to, and inwardly make fools of them."
)
) Rudolf Steiner, Conferences with Teachers, vol.1, p. 125
Wasn't this prime fascist time? In that context doesn't this ACTUALLY better WE position as a bullwork against the collective? Here Steiner is seeking to make fools of the Kaiser's legacy. I am a bit weak on dates and the political climate of
1920s Germany, but I DOUBT in the strongest of terms, that it was as liberal as say, present day California (to which PLANS would like to draw parallels). If this is the kind of deception that is outweighing the good parts of WE, you are sadly
misinformed.
ezra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n847.10 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 14:28:14 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Debra Snell:
)Waldorf should be critically evaluated just like any other educational
)approach within the public sector. It is my experience that the
)Anthroposophical ties to Waldorf hamper the evaluative process.
)Parents/teachers/community members who notice this defensiveness get
)inquisitive. I believe that Waldorf teachers and administrators in the
)public schools should not only allow but _welcome_ scrutiny ...
I partially agree with what you say, but I also think such scrutiny can
(and has) go (gone) too far. In some public schools a teacher cannot
approach a parent about a potential problem with a student without having
to fill out a form. Because of this "scrutiny", public school teachers are
increasingly becoming reluctant to address problems in their early stages,
and action only occurs when crises erupt. It is an invasion of the privacy
of the relationship among student, parents, and teacher, not to mention the
hassle of doing the paperwork. One must find the balance between
appropriate critical review and negative intrusiveness. From what I have
learned with conversations with public school teachers, many of our schools
suffer from an imbalance on the intrusive side. Professional
administrators that the students rarely see (I did not lay eyes on the
superintendent of the public school district I attended until my graduation
ceremony) often impose policy with little direct consultation of the
teachers. I would not want to subject _any_ school to this kind of
scrutiny.
)It is [at the very
)least] arrogant to say that Anthroposophy is "spiritual science". I say
)"spiritual-science" is an oxymoron.
Debra, would you please elaborate on 'arrogant' and 'oxymoron' in the
context of Steiner's meaning of 'spiritual'? I think both sides of the
debate are in agreement that science must be testable.
Last night I came across this passage in Owen Barfield's "Poetic Diction".
I think it answers well to your comment.
(( I believe the difference between the two theories of knowledge may best
be presented in a parable. Once upon a time there was a very large
motor-car called the Universe. Although there was nobody who wasn't on
board, nobody knew how it worked or how to work it, and in course of time
two very different problems occupied the attention of two different groups
of passengers. The first group became interested in invisibles like
internal combustion; but the second group said the thing to do was to push
and pull levers and find out by trial and error what happened. The words
'internal combustion', they said were obviously meaningless, because nobody
ever pushed or pulled either of these things. For a time both groups
agreed that knowledge of how it worked and knowledge of how to work it were
closely connected with one another, but in the end the second group began
to maintain that the first kind of knowledge was an illusion based on a
misunderstanding of language. Pushing, pulling, and seeing what happens,
they said, are not a means to knowledge; the *are* knowledge. It was an
odd sort of car, because after the second group had with conspicuous and
gratifying success tried pushing and pulling all the big levers, they began
on some of the smaller ones, and the car was so constructed that nearly all
of these, whatever other effect they had, acted as accelerators. Meanwhile
the first group held their breath and began to think that their kind of
knowledge might perhaps come in useful after the smash.
The notion that knowledge consists of seeing what happens and getting
used to it--as distinct from consciously participation in what *is*--was
first worked out systematically by Hume. A mere sense-impression is
something that happens to us, not something that we do, and Hume started
from the assumption that thoughts themselves are faded sense-impressions.
These simple ideas, he held, associate themselves more or less
automatically in the mind by virtue of 'some associating quality', by which
one idea naturally introduces another. There were three such qualities,
namely *resemblance*, *contiguity*, and *causation*.
The fatal flaw in these presmisses has often been pointed out, namely,
that the idea or experience of *resemblance* (and the same is true of the
other two and indeed of all relations) cannot itself have originated as a
sense-impression. ...))(emphasis is the author's)
As far as I have seen, every theory of knowledge of a Kantian flavor breaks
down when it is applied to itself. Where is the arrogance when those with
a material scientific view (or secular humanistic, if you like) have no
solid foundation for their knowledge, yet they tell us how we should be
thinking?
John Calkins
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n847 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n848 --------------
001 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - By way of comparison
002 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: treatment of gifted children & Connection waldorf-anthrop
003 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
004 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
005 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
006 - mays VNET.IBM.COM - Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
007 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Art and the Individual
008 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - ) Subject: Re: Art and the individual
009 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
010 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n848.1 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: By way of comparison
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:07:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Districts Seek Substitute Teachers
By ROBERT GREENE AP Education Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- An acute shortage of substitute teachers has left states and school districts scrambling this summer --
advertising, raising pay and even lowering qualifications as they try to prepare for fall.
Kentucky has decided to let some districts hire substitutes with just a high school diploma. Michigan is considering allowing subs
with the equivalent of two years' college, and other states are weighing raising the number of days that each sub can work.
In Washington state, administrator Linda Louwsma found herself scraping for substitutes after her Federal Way school district
this summer began shopping for full-time teachers.
``I noticed a lot of my subs are getting hired,'' said Louwsma, who handles substitutes for the Federal Way schools. ``So I'm
pounding the pavement here in August to get new subs in.''
Louwsma's 22,000-pupil district between Tacoma and Seattle had one day last year when 12 percent of its teachers and other
staff were absent. ``There must have been something in the air,'' she says.
But it's no laughing matter when school employees are making frantic phone calls at 5:30 a.m., or classes are canceled and
students reshuffled, or principals are called in to teach, and districts must compete for the same teachers.
A pool of 300 subs at Federal Way sounds big for a district with 2,350 employees, but ``they're either busy, not wanting to
work that day, they want a three-day weekend, too, or they're working for another district,'' Louwsma laments.
Even less amusing is that students, in hours and days that add up over 12 years, may be deprived of instruction by qualified
teachers.
One paradox of the current crunch is that some teacher absences are caused by the imposition of higher academic standards:
Regular teachers must undergo more training that takes them out of classrooms.
``You can either pay more or you can lower standards,'' said Warren Fletcher, a Los Angeles substitute teacher who's been
doing the job for 15 years and makes $131.26 a day -- the high end of substitute pay.
But Fletcher, head of the substitute teacher caucus of the National Education Association, makes no more than a sub with no
experience. Trained to teach English, he's been thrust into many other classes, even those for the deaf and hard of hearing
although he cannot sign.
That's life in California, where laws to reduce class size have turned many would-be substitutes into full-time teachers and
drained the sub pool of its top talent. Family leave laws and generous leaves in teacher contracts also add to missing days.
And the booming economy has made other work more attractive for many teachers, especially since substitutes often receive a
daily rate far below regular salaries and without benefits.
``November and December were difficult months for us,'' said Pam Taylor, substitute coordinator for Jefferson County public
schools in Kentucky. ``Lots of our merchants around here were advertising for positions for the Christmas rush.''
The district, which includes Louisville, has about 5,400 teachers during the 177-day school year -- the equivalent of close to 1
million teaching days. It used substitutes for the equivalent of 60,000 teaching days but couldn't find substitutes for 2,000.
To entice more substitutes, the district now is raising minimum daily pay to $60 from $53, and top pay to $91.37 from $87.
But the district is also one of five in Kentucky allowed this year to use substitutes with only a high school diploma. The cutoff
had been about two years of college.
In Michigan, too, lawmakers are considering temporarily lowering the cutoff. The latest proposal would allow students training
to be teachers to be substitutes if they have at least 60 semester hours of college. The cutoff had been lowered two years ago to
90 hours -- the equivalent of having finished the junior year.
Colorado, in turn, has increased the maximum number of days a substitute may teach in a year. Nebraska did the same the year
before.
And in North Carolina, the Legislature is considering minimum pay requirements for substitutes, and linking pay increases to the
increases for regular teachers.
AP-NY-08-10-98 1439EDT
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n848.2 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: treatment of gifted children & Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:15:53 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I am interested in the below students experience. I graduated 1st in my
class (straight A) in high school. I had a different experience of Waldorf
School from him, and would like to understand the nature of that difference.
I took three college courses while in my senior year of high school, besides
my high school work and three varsity sports. The Waldorf School was
supportive of this in my case. I also took advanced math and science courses
which were separate (and more advanced) from most of my class. Advanced
students were verbally outspoken about not being "held back" in any way and
we were accommodated. Having Ph.Ds from major universities as teachers,
there was no lack of striving for knowledge. Perhaps some schools are not as
supportive and I am open to learning about this.
My family purchased a computer when I was 12 (1975) and that is when I
started programming. In high school, I worked with my math teacher
installing computers in the Waldorf high school. Students had access to this
system. I think it would be dangerous for any school to exclude technology
in high school courses, where appropriate.
At ten, I was studying transistors and P/N junctions, and the list goes on.
The point is that if there were advanced topics I was interested in, I was
allowed to pursue them. My family had this view and the school supported it.
It is a misunderstanding of Steiner's work to forbid access to knowledge. It
is *not* a misunderstanding to limit access to television and media, because
these can rationally be demonstrated to be harmful to intellectual
development, and leave a child dependent.
My son is five and is teaching himself to read. We read together and look at
the encyclopedia. He is also creating mathematical mazes, all of which I
encourage. The difference is it is coming from him. It is his intense
interest, not something I am, or society is pushing on him. We will probably
start using "Encarta" (the computer encyclopedia) together. There is a
balance to be struck here. The point is to create the opportunity for the
child to become musical, or artistic, or a poet. If the student is bent on
math, as my son appears to be, then that must be supported. Again, there
will be misunderstandings of Steiner's intentions; that is only human.
Quoting from Ezra's last mail: "People, (be they children, youths, adults)
have the exclusive 'right' to decide their spiritual path. We hold that
truth to be self evident, remember?" That is what I have found at the
source of Waldorf education, and I have the facts to back this up.
The purpose of Waldorf education is definitely to discourage the creation
of:
"emotionally and socially castrated eggheads..." as Wulff stated. Waldorf
education is not intended to create anything but an individual. The way
this is done is to present all educational options. If your philosophy is
to create "emotionally and socially castrated eggheads..." instead of
individuals, then you can not respect this alternative approach. As an
example, to make my education a challenge, the teachers gave me the lead
role in my senior play. I had over 900 lines and the acting was involved.
Instead of breadboarding another CPU circuit, I learned an aspect of the
world I would not have learned. Certainly there are public school students
who are balanced, we are not determined by our education! It is a question
of what us encouraged.
"On Waldorf-critics newsgroups etc. you find a lot of people who really
understood nothing." What did Wulff infer by this? Perhaps his criticisms
are more balanced than they are interpreted here? Every school requires
feedback, and children at either end of the bell curve always require
special treatment. I received this from my parents and my teachers, but I do
not claim that this is always true. It is very helpful to hear of cases
where this does not work properly, but it also does not invalidate the
educational method.
My purpose is not to trash public education, but to illustrate the strengths
and weaknesses of both. From the evidence presented it is clear that
Waldorf Education is a valid method. I stand by the criticisms I have made
of public education, but my real purpose is to keep each set of parents (or
better, students) free to chose. I want all education to be privatized, but
financed by all. I do not want public education to be pushed on our
children. I also do not want Waldorf Education pushed on our children. The
goal of PLANS should be to privatize all of education. What I find
disturbing is this emphasis on doing away with Waldorf Education, without
criticizing public education. This is not balanced.
- Daniel.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Monday, August 10, 1998 2:28 AM
Subject: treatment of gifted children and P of F
)Wulff Wendelstein wrote to the SJU Waldorf list:
)
)) being a waldorf-alumni myself, maybe I might put my 2 cents of personal
)) experience into the discussion.
)) I myself was considered as an intellectually gifted child. I had learned
to
)) read at the age of 5 on my own, just by asking questions about letters
and
)) how they formed words. So I was able to read and write fluently and doing
)) simple maths when I entered school. Soon I found I was the only one in
the
)) class with these abilities. So I was bored by almost everything the
teacher
)) tried to teach me, even by the stories and fairytales etc, because I knew
)) them all... My favorite books then were the Encyclopedia on my parents
)) bookshelf (forbidden), the Atlas of The World etc.
)) This feeling of boredness continued throughout school life. School was
)) something I attended, but I wasn't really there - a waste of time. Why?
The
)) teachers - almost all - tried to "cure" me by telling me to be patient,
to
)) be social, and finally to shut up. And yes, I must admit, I was a
nuisance.
)) I wanted to learn, to discuss, to know details and so on. My parents were
)) told to take away the books - "the boy is reading too much, it's no good
for
)) him" - and other advices of this kind were given. For me all this was a
mere
)) catastrophy. And I've seen this happening to others too, with few
)) exceptions.
))
)) I know this type of children are not easy to handle. But I warn all of
you
)) to [not?] believe teachers who talk easily about necessary balance
between
)) intellectual abilities, social skills, emotions etc. Check what they
really
)) mean: Is it possible for them to keep up with the intellectual progress
)) *and* to teach the child the other aspects of a sound personality, or
will
)) they try to force the child onto the level of the majority?
))
)) The above is not a special waldorf problem, and there is no general
answer.
)) It depends on the school and even more on the teachers. A special school
for
)) the intellectually gifted can as well produce unwanted results such as
)) emotionally and socially castrated eggheads...
))
)) Wulff
)
)And in a later message, Wulff wrote:
)
)) Over the years I met quite a bunch of waldorf alumnis with a similiar
school
)) biography - too much to accept myself as an exception. I also met alumnis
)) from Non-Waldorf schools having experienced the same shut-up-type of
)) pedagogics. And I saw what happened to my sons. It's not a genuine
Waldorf
)) problem, but again - WSs should do *much better. Funny enough, the school
at
)) which I had my absolutely worst time did very well about 15 years later
with
)) an extreme math genius... But of course there was not one of the teachers
)) from that time still there.
)
)
)When I asked him if I could copy his post to the waldorf-critics list, he
)replied:
)
))thanks for asking. I looked at your proposal from different angles, but
I'd
))rather say no. When I criticise the Waldorf movement this way, it's meant
))for those who are connected to it somehow - parents, teachers, management
))etc. On Waldorf-critics newsgroups etc. you find a lot of people who
really
))understood nothing - they just live their Weltschmerz. Not my audience
))(grin).
))There is a process of change going on - in Germany, Europe, and regarding
))the email-feedback I got from the US, there too: more self-confidence,
))self-consciousness, an understanding of Anthroposophy based on the
))"Philosophy of Freedom" rather than on the exegesis of and believing in
))Steiners esoteric books and lectures: knowing, not believing. This is what
I
))want to contribute to. If you feel that it will work this way where you
))intend to post it, ok, go on. But please think twice. And maybe add a
))comment re. the above.
)
)Which I take as no-but-yes. Most of the people on our list *are* connected
)with Waldorf. Wulff probably doesn't know that the SJU Waldorf list is
)censored; I can't discuss his post with him there.
)
)Regarding the treatment of a gifted child, Wulff's experience is not
)unique. I was that kind of brainy kid myself, and I gave my teachers a very
)hard time. Thank god I didn't have to go to Waldorf school! Waldorf with
)Steiner's anti-intellectual principles tries to hold smart kids back, as
)happened to Wulff. This is abusive. I've seen it stated that when a child
)has a special talent, the teacher's job is to fill in the other areas of
)development around it to achieve balanced development. This sounds good in
)theory, but I don't think Waldorf teacher training prepares them at all to
)handle this kind of situation. Besides, why shouldn't a math genius be
)allowed to *be* a math genius, and not be treated as though an imbalance
)needed to be corrected? We need exceptional people, not just people who are
)"balanced" by Waldorf standards.
)
)Regarding Wulff's sense of "a change going on," some of the people on this
)list also seem to promote the philosophical "entity-free" approach to
)Steiner, based on *The Philosophy of Freedom*. I wish you good luck with
)this. You're going to have to throw out most of the Waldorf literature to
)maintain this position, and I'm not sure it's tenable at all. Wulff wants
)the Waldorf promise to be true. I don't think it's possible, because
)Steiner built the anti-intellectualism into the system.
)
)I think P of F is a snow job, a front that Steiner erected to try to show
)that he was really a philosopher, not a guru, and that one could approach
)Anthroposophy from a purely philosophical attitude. That's true, one can
)approach that way, but when you get there, what do you have? P of F to me
)is a very weak position, and the world of philosophy correctly ignored it
)both because it was weak in itself, and because they knew what Steiner was
)really about.
)
)-Dan Dugan
)
)copy to Wulff Wendelstein (Wulff.Wendelstein t-online.de)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n848.3 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:28:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Well put John! Perhaps if we keep reminding this list they will start
addressing this point; the most basic of all points!
"I think P of F is a snow job" is Dan Dugan's level of understanding of
philosophy. How can anyone call themselves "scientific" when they don't
understand what they are criticizing? "P of F to me
is a very weak position" states Dan. O.K. why? I have answered your
questions, where are your answers to ours? Is your only answer
"profanation?"
- Daniel.
)
)As far as I have seen, every theory of knowledge of a Kantian flavor breaks
)down when it is applied to itself. Where is the arrogance when those with
)a material scientific view (or secular humanistic, if you like) have no
)solid foundation for their knowledge, yet they tell us how we should be
)thinking?
)
)John Calkins
)
)
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n848.4 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 13:00:17 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199808101826.LAA15990 lists1.best.com)
On 10 Aug 98, at 14:28, 469593N knotes.kodak.com wrote:
) As far as I have seen, every theory of knowledge of a Kantian flavor
) breaks down when it is applied to itself. Where is the arrogance when
) those with a material scientific view (or secular humanistic, if you like)
) have no solid foundation for their knowledge, yet they tell us how we
) should be thinking?
No solid foundation for what knowledge? If you mean that those
with a material world view have no solid foundation for believing that
there are no spiritual entities that exist outside the material realm,
that's true. There's no particular foundation for the nonexistence of
such beings.
If you mean there is no solid foundation to believe, say, that matter
is composed of atoms, I disagree completely.
I've never studies philosophy, and I don't know Kant from a hole in
the ground. I do think, though, that philosophers are generally not
all that influential. If modern scientific thought seems to be based
on Kant, I suspect that is because Kant did a good job of
expressing the mode of thought which had become popular in the
scientific community, not because prospective scientists were
influenced by Kant.
Be that as it may, you've drawn a distinction between the scientific
method and Steiner. The scientific method posits that every theory
(even those referred to as "laws") is potentially subject to
modification or rejection in the face of new data. Therefore, our
scientific knowledge is all provisional, although some theories (e.g.,
basic atomic theory) have proved so useful that we have a high
degree of confidence in them.
If I understand you correctly, Steiner showed that things can, in
fact, be known with certainty. Presumably, these things become
known using Steiner's methods.
My question is this: Are Steiner's concepts regarding human
history, evolution, life after death, and the spiritual world ideas that
he knew with certainty? If so, how does he know that they did not
spring from his imagination?
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n848.5 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 12:42:26 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808101826.LAA15990 lists1.best.com)
469593N knotes.kodak.com wrote:
)
) From: John Calkins
)
) Debra Snell:
) )Waldorf should be critically evaluated just like any other educational
) )approach within the public sector. It is my experience that the
) )Anthroposophical ties to Waldorf hamper the evaluative process.
) )Parents/teachers/community members who notice this defensiveness get
) )inquisitive. I believe that Waldorf teachers and administrators in the
) )public schools should not only allow but _welcome_ scrutiny ...
)
Calkins:
) I partially agree with what you say, but I also think such scrutiny can
) (and has) go (gone) too far.
Snell:
There is _no_ objective scrutiny in Waldorf. The college of teachers who
run the schools are committed Anthroposophists. From my experience,
their primary role is to define how true the school remains to Steiner's
indications, i.e., "Are we Waldorf enough?" If there are problems within
the school, they assume the answer is "No". Then they go about
correcting the Anthroposophical weakness within the school.
Calkins:
) In some public schools a teacher cannot
) approach a parent about a potential problem with a student without having
) to fill out a form. Because of this "scrutiny", public school teachers are
) increasingly becoming reluctant to address problems in their early stages,
) and action only occurs when crises erupt.
Snell:
I have not found this to be true in the public schools that my children
have attended. In fact, I've seen little behavior problems in the public
system as compared to the Waldorf school my children attended. I concede
to living in a community where the public school system is one of the
best. Possibly our local Waldorf school is one of the worst, for that
matter. Just as every Waldorf school is independent, public schools are
governed by their own district regulations. I'm certain the process you
describe is not universally true. Teachers vote on policy changes at at
least one of my children's schools. I'll inquire about the other.
Calkins:
) It is an invasion of the privacy
) of the relationship among student, parents, and teacher, not to mention the
) hassle of doing the paperwork.
Snell:
Perhaps the school district(s) [you used as an example] had a problem
with a teacher or two and felt they had to implement a checks and
balances system. Where is Waldorf's checks and balances? Who determines
the quality of the services rendered to the customers? The
Anthroposophical teachers (Steiner Definers)? It is a closed process
that easily boils down to the old "If you don't like it you can leave
(and good riddance!)." That mentality will never survive in the public
arena. A closed process may be adequate for a private religious school,
but not for a public school.
My question is: Will watered down Waldorf still be Waldorf? If it is to
be legal, there won't be any anthroposophy left. Then what do you have?
State framework with curriculum taught in blocks? Is that "Waldorf
enough" to call itself 'Waldorf-Inspired"?
Calkins:
) One must find the balance between
) appropriate critical review and negative intrusiveness. From what I have
) learned with conversations with public school teachers, many of our schools
) suffer from an imbalance on the intrusive side.
Snell:
How many public school teachers have you spoken with? Based on your own
research, how many public schools have this problem?
Calkins:
Professional
) administrators that the students rarely see (I did not lay eyes on the
) superintendent of the public school district I attended until my graduation
) ceremony) often impose policy with little direct consultation of the
) teachers. I would not want to subject _any_ school to this kind of
) scrutiny.
Snell:
The question is not how often _you_ saw the superintendent of your
public school, but how often the teachers saw and communicated with
their superintendent.
Again: How current is your information? How broad is your research? My
brother-in-law is a public School Superintendent and a former County
Schools Superintendent. The management style you describe has to be an
old one. Union-ized teachers are powerful forces. The teachers must buy
in to local regulations for success. I have a hard time believing this
is the status quo of public school management in the 90's.
)
Snell:
) )It is [at the very
) )least] arrogant to say that Anthroposophy is "spiritual science". I say
) )"spiritual-science" is an oxymoron.
)
Calkins:
) Debra, would you please elaborate on 'arrogant' and 'oxymoron' in the
) context of Steiner's meaning of 'spiritual'? I think both sides of the
) debate are in agreement that science must be testable.
Snell:
Clearly, we'd both have to agree on the definition of spiritual and
I've run around that bush before. I guess Steiner should have published
his own dictionary, the way he redefines words..
[snip parable]
Calkins:
) Where is the arrogance when those with
) a material scientific view (or secular humanistic, if you like) have no
) solid foundation for their knowledge, yet they tell us how we should be
) thinking?
Snell:
Are you suggesting that _your_ foundation (using Steiner's
"non-sectarian" definition of spiritual, of course) for knowledge is the
_only_ correct foundation?
Debra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n848.6 ---------------
From: mays VNET.IBM.COM
Subject: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 98 15:21:51 EDT
Debra,
You wrote recently:
) As Steiner wrote in 1920, while trying to obtain state approval for his
) school:
)
) "We must worm our way through . . . . [I]n order to do what we want to
) do, at least, it is necessary to talk with the people, not because we
) want to, but we have to, and inwardly make fools of them."
)
) Rudolf Steiner, Conferences with Teachers, vol.1, p. 125
Perhaps you don't remember my posts last January about this, so I will
refresh your memory with the following two extracts. The statement that
Steiner sought to obtain state funding for the original Waldorf school is
false and the implication which you make (through the use of a quotation
taken out of context) that he sought to act deceptively is also false.
Both the statement and the implication defame Steiner, Waldorf Schools
and anthroposophists.
I respectfully request that you retract this statement and that you and
PLANS cease making this statement and using this quotation to imply how
Steiner, Waldorf Schools or anthroposophists did or do act.
Thank you,
Robert Mays
From: Thu, 8 Jan 98 09:24:58 EST
Deby said recently (in two separate posts):
) Absolutely. I've yet to learn of another religious sect so willing to
) deny their own beliefs to further their agenda. Steiner said,
)
) "We must worm our way through. . .[I]n order to do what we want to do,
) at least, it is necessary to talk with the people, not because we want
) to, but because we have to, and inwardly make fools of them."
)
) Rudolf Steiner, 'Conferences with Teachers of the Waldorf School in
) Stuttgart, vol.1, 1919 to 1920 (Forest Row, East Sussex, England:
) Steiner Schools Fellowship Publications. 1986),125
Luke then asked Deby:
) Were there really ". . . "'s in the quote? Can you give us the complete
) quote? Also, do you know in what context this statement was made.
And Deby replied:
) The context of the quote fits exactly. Steiner was trying to obtain
) state approval for his school in 1920.
Deby, I think the just opposite is the case: Steiner was trying to keep
the Stuttgart Waldorf school independent, out of the public school
system. Perhaps we should all read the full context of this extract (this
was during a staff meeting on 22 September 1920):
The question of the authorities recognising the Waldorf School as a
Primary School was raised.
Dr. Steiner: This is the kind of question that can produce different
answers depending on the goodwill of the various school authorities. We
shall only succeed in acquiring a bit of security regarding the actual
existence of the School if we appreciate the importance of personal
discussions. And here I should like to mention explicitly that we must
speak absolutely emphatically and not use the 'phone. Personal
discussion, with all the possibilities of emphasising sentences and
words and the possibilities of conversation, altogether, that are
available when addressing someone personally, create the sort of mood
that gives confidence. If we pursue the matter in a bureaucratic way we
shall come up against the same thing in the future.
So I think the best thing would be if Herr Molt could do something
about the matter personally, and put in a personal word. It is the kind
of question where we can only stop worrying about the Waldorf School if
you yourself could present a case to one or another of the people who
have a say in the matter. I am convinced that when you have exchanged a
few words like this, and driven one of the heads of the authority to
say something he has to stand by, you have better protection than by
writing reports to and fro. This is particularly the case here in
Wuerttemberg where you can possibly achieve more in this direction than
in Prussia. After permission has been granted in Prussia the next thing
would be that the School would have to be cut back.
First of all the matter would have to be dealt with in this way. For
this should not be underestimated -- unfortunately I had far too little
time in Berlin to give adequate answers when questions of this sort
were raked up -- Headmasters or teachers of ordinary schools keep
coming along wanting Waldorf School education and asking what they can
do to help their acquire it. This is absolute nonsense. The first thing
to do would be to renounce a connection with the State. An unreasonable
demand like this only goes to show how incapable people are of thinking
consistently.
What should happen is that more and more people should get hold of the
idea of what we might call our School Movement, the movement to have
independent schools, so that a really big movement to have independent
schools arises as part of the Threefold Movement. We might use the term
standard school where it is opportune, though for my part I must
confess I never liked the choice of definition -- although it had to be
chosen as it was opportune -- because it does not sufficiently
emphasise that we do not want what the State means by a standard
school, and that we attach more importance to the school being
independent than being standard. Then it is bound to come about. The
kind of standard school the present German government is aiming for is
the direct opposite. Giving in to things like this would be like
grovelling to something we abhor. We must worm our way through -- not
through an inner provocation, then it would be the way Jesuits work --
but done with a certain mental reservation in response to external
requirements. We have to be conscious that in order to do what we want
to do, at least, it is necessary to talk with the people, not because
we want to but because we have to, and inwardly make fools of them.
Herr Molt: I will try and settle the matter.
Rudolf Steiner, 'Conferences with Teachers of the Waldorf School in
Stuttgart, vol.1, 1919 to 1920 (Forest Row, East Sussex, England:
Steiner Schools Fellowship Publications. 1986), pp. 124-125
....
And from: Mon, 12 Jan 98 09:37:29 EST:
What was raised in the staff meeting in 1920 was the "question of the
authorities recognizing the Waldorf School as a Primary School". It is an
assumption -- and an erroneous one -- that Steiner wanted the authorities
to make the Waldorf School a state supported school. In fact, it was just
the opposite: the authorities wanted to make the Waldorf School a Primary
School and Steiner opposed this.
The history of the first Waldorf School is well documented and easy to
research. It would help if one would check the facts before making
assertions based on assumptions. The facts are:
1. The Stuttgart Waldorf School was funded for its initial several years
by the profits of Emil Molt's Waldorf-Astoria cigarette factory. The
Waldorf initiative grew out of Steiner's Threefold Movement for Social
Renewal in the spring of 1919. As a businessman, Emil Molt was deeply
involved in this work. Under the Threefold Movement, cultural
activities which include education are to be supported from the
economic sphere (businesses) and not from the legal/political sphere
(government). Consistent with these principles, Molt pledged the
profits of his enterprise as "gift-money" for this new cultural
venture. (1, p.255) The School was to be open to the children of his
factory workers -- about 150 -- as well as all other children.
2. One of the conditions Steiner stipulated was that:
"...the teachers, who carry the daily responsibility for educating
the children, should be free to teach and run the school outside the
control of either government or outside economic interests.
"This was to be a truly independent school, freely supported out of
the economic realm, and conforming only to those conditions legally
required by the state of Wuerttemberg. The [condition of freedom
from state control] was undoubtedly the most radical, since Germany
at that time had virtually no tradition of private education, and
teachers were civil servants like any other government employees.
But central to Steiner's ideas was the conviction that education
would truly serve the future only within the freedom of the cultural
and spiritual sphere of social life." (2, p. 146).
3. That Steiner was opposed to any funding from the State for Waldorf
Schools is clear from a number of sources, for example:
"[An]other point which seems dubious to me is that it should be
possible to run a school with the aid of state subsidies. For I very
much doubt whether the government, if it pays out money for such a
school, would not insist on the right to inspect it. Therefore I
cannot believe that a free school could be founded with state
subsidies, which in themselves imply supervision by inspectors of
the education authorities." (3, p. 315)
4. The relationship with the Wuerttemberg authorities was as follows:
"The State authorities of Wuerttemberg had granted [Steiner] the
right to make the experiment over a period of three years, although
all he had submitted to them was a memorandum telling them how he
proposed to run the school." (1, p. 256)
5. The school opened on September 7, 1919 with 253 students in 8 grades.
After a year (in 1920), the Wuerttemberg school authorities reneged on
their agreement and wanted the Waldorf School to become a state
controlled school.
Now we see the true context of these remarks in the staff meeting of
September 22, 1920. Steiner is advising Molt to "speak absolutely
emphatically" with the school authorities to succeed in "acquiring a bit
of security regarding the actual existence of the School", and to use
direct personal contact to drive "one of the heads of the authority to
say something he has to stand by". What Steiner wanted to achieve was a
recommitment that the State would allow the school to continue as it had
been agreed.
State funding was not the issue because Emil Molt had already pledged the
financial support of the School. Furthermore, State funding could not
have been the issue because Steiner opposed it. Steiner's remarks about
"the first thing to do would be to renounce a connection with the State"
and "we attach more importance to the school being independent than being
[a State] standard" are consistent with his position that Waldorf schools
should not accept financial support from the State.
So the assertion that Steiner sought state approval and thereby sought
state funding is incorrect. He had to get state approval because it was
the law but sought to keep the school independent of state control. To do
this, he had secured funding from a private business.
Finally, Steiner's point that "we must worm our way through" refers to
the bureaucracy of the State school authorities. Indeed, Steiner's
guidance (paraphrased):
We must worm our way through, carrying not an inner attitude of
provocation but with a certain mental reservation, in response to
external requirements. It is necessary to respond not because we want
to but because we have to, and inwardly make fools of them.
is actually quite good advice ;-).
Robert Mays
1. Stewart Easton, "Rudolf Steiner: Herald of a New Epoch",
Anthroposophic Press, Spring Valley, New York (1980).
2. Henry Barnes, "A Life for the Spirit: Rudolf Steiner in the
Crosscurrents of our Time", Anthroposophic Press, Hudson, New York
(1997).
3. Rudolf Steiner, "Soul Economy and Waldorf Education", Anthroposophic
Press, Spring Valley, New York (1982).
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n848.7 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Art and the Individual
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:51:30 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808101826.LAA15991 lists1.best.com)
Eric Barrows wrote:
) I have since followed a career in the visual arts expressing my individuality as
) loudly as possible. I have felt that art is where a person can be themselves and
) express their unique interpretation of the world.
)
) Why is it then that examining anthoposiphic art it appears to be all created by
) the same person. i.e. the work at http://earth.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz/art/gallery/index.html
) could be by anybody from a W.E. background.
That's pretty wierd! The URL you mention is my own, and the artwork
you refer to is my wife's. Neither she nor I have either an
anthroposophic nor Waldorf background. What in the world made you think
that was "anthroposophic art"?
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n848.8 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: ) Subject: Re: Art and the individual
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:56:01 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808101826.LAA15991 lists1.best.com)
Debra Snell wrote:
)
) WE has a unique concept on what individual means. Did you perform much
) copying in Waldorf, Eric? Did your peers paint the same pictures that
) you did? Did your class speak in unison ? How old were you before you
) had a part ina play where you spoke your own lines?
Debra, your question to Eric implies that none of the kids in a Waldorf
class speaks his or her own lines in a class play until they are quite
old. Just to provide "data," I believe my son was in second grade when
he and most others in his class first had lines to speak by themselves.
As further (contrasting) data, when I went to school, in one of the best
public school systems in the Philadelphia suburbs, we never, ever had
any class plays at all.
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n848.9 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:35:25 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808102018.NAA06803 lists1.best.com)
Thanks for the full text. As I suspected, quotes from PLANS scripture were foolishly made.
There must be some WE lawyer with the pro bono time to file defamation papers forcing PLANS people to be honest (grin). I think the irony would be tremendous (if your PLANS). While this doesn't reflect my personal opinion of how law works, PLANS penchant for legal recourse should be met in kind.
ezra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n848.10 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:50:05 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808102016.NAA04678 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote:
) I've never studies philosophy, and I don't know Kant from a hole in
) the ground. I do think, though, that philosophers are generally not
) all that influential.
I beg to differ, would you say the following list of philosophers were not all that influential?Zeno
Archemedes
Pythagoras
Socrates
Plato
Aristotle
Ptolomy
St. Thomas Aquinas
Descartes
Spinoza
HUme
Francis Bacon
Karl Marx
Sartre
Kierkegaard
Nietzsche
Betrant Russel
Foucult
yada yada yada
ezra
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n848 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n849 --------------
001 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
002 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Art and the Individual
003 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: ) Subject: Re: Art and the individual
004 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
005 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Art and the individual
006 - spike (spike netshel.net) - technology & Waldorf
007 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
008 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
009 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
010 - "Eric Barrows" (eric.barr - Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n849.1 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:58:07 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
An apology would be in order Deby! That goes for Eric Barrows too!
Mr. Mays, thank you for your rational thought. Robert too!
- Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n849.2 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Art and the Individual
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 15:57:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808101826.LAA15991 lists1.best.com) (199808102117.OAA21358 lists1.best.com)
That has got to be one of the more amuzing list threads I've seen..
e
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n849.3 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: ) Subject: Re: Art and the individual
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:00:31 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199808102117.OAA21392 lists1.best.com)
On 10 Aug 98, at 16:56, Robert Tolz wrote:
) Debra, your question to Eric implies that none of the kids in a Waldorf
) class speaks his or her own lines in a class play until they are quite
) old. Just to provide "data," I believe my son was in second grade when he
) and most others in his class first had lines to speak by
) themselves.
Yeah, at Santa Cruz the first grade put on a play in which a
number of kids had lines spoken individually; other lines were
spoken in unison. Dylan didn't have his own lines, but then not all
kids can have lines in every play.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n849.4 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:15:11 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199808102252.PAA13390 lists1.best.com)
On 10 Aug 98, at 15:50, Ezra Beeman wrote:
) I beg to differ, would you say the following list of philosophers were not
) all that influential?Zeno Archemedes Pythagoras Socrates Plato Aristotle
) Ptolomy St. Thomas Aquinas Descartes Spinoza HUme Francis Bacon Karl Marx
) Sartre Kierkegaard Nietzsche Betrant Russel Foucult yada yada
) yada
Yes, with the exception of Marx.
By "influential," I do not mean "influential to other philosophers." I
mean that a typical person's thoughts are more influenced by their
culture than by the writings of any philosopher.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n849.5 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Art and the individual
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:28:56 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808101826.LAA15991 lists1.best.com) (199808102117.OAA21392 lists1.best.com)
I was always involved in class plays and had the lead role three times. The earliest play was in second grade (the michaelmas play, slaying the dragon). I was the dragon (go me). That would put my age at about 7? Of course, the rest of the leads had their own lines as well. To this day I have a terrible time memorizing lines (nor can I spell), but that didn't stop me from acting at the college level either. All told, I was in 8 plays during my WE.
ezra
Robert Tolz wrote:
) Debra Snell wrote:
) )
) ) WE has a unique concept on what individual means. Did you perform much
) ) copying in Waldorf, Eric? Did your peers paint the same pictures that
) ) you did? Did your class speak in unison ? How old were you before you
) ) had a part ina play where you spoke your own lines?
)
) Debra, your question to Eric implies that none of the kids in a Waldorf
) class speaks his or her own lines in a class play until they are quite
) old. Just to provide "data," I believe my son was in second grade when
) he and most others in his class first had lines to speak by themselves.
) As further (contrasting) data, when I went to school, in one of the best
) public school systems in the Philadelphia suburbs, we never, ever had
) any class plays at all.
)
) Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n849.6 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: technology & Waldorf
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:37:26 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808102252.PAA13403 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Perez posted:
)
) My family purchased a computer when I was 12 (1975) and that is when I
) started programming. In high school, I worked with my math teacher
) installing computers in the Waldorf high school. Students had access to this
) system. I think it would be dangerous for any school to exclude technology
) in high school courses, where appropriate.
The administrator at the school where I was employed removed *all*
student computer workstations from the school site as a direct result of
Waldorf training and adopting the label of a model Waldorf school in the
public sector. This occurred even though my school had previously
received a number of impressive and generous technology grants and had a
skilled technology teacher (myself) onsite. Our site was one of the
first worldwide to participate in long-distance student collaboration
with other school sites worldwide to produce a published writing
project. And yet, my administrator determined, following the 1996 Public
School Teachers Institute at Rudolf Steiner College, that "students
could learn nothing" from technology or the integration of technology
into their studies. I was forbidden to have a computer in my classroom
and I was forbidden to permit any student to use my computer in the
small room where I was assigned to work when I was not in class. My
administrator told me I would have a better understanding of this
decision if I had attended the 1996 summer training at RSC.
Before the 1996/97 school year was over all student workstations were
given away to another public school. My students (adolescents from
economically disadvantaged backgrounds) often begged me to use my
computer. It was very difficult trying to explain to them why they were
not permitted to use a computer at school and, at the same time, not
cast a negative light upon the school principal and the "head teacher."
Betty Staley was the primary influence or driving force in the change of
my school site to a Waldorf based program. It is my understanding that
she is perhaps *the* foremost Waldorf "expert" and/or teacher trainer in
the United States. I cannot come to any other conclusion than that
computer technology was banned from my former school site as a direct
result of her influence and/or suggestion.
Betty Staley is the same Waldorf trainer/teacher that subjected me to
religious/spiritual indoctrination lessons and literature paid for with
public school funds.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n849.7 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 20:18:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I am sorry Steve, but that makes no sense. Where do the "culture's"
thoughts come from? The public school system? Every change in culture has
been preceded by a change in thinking. There is always an individual who
first posits a thought train. Even modern science acknowledges this. Why
do we care who Galileo was?
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Monday, August 10, 1998 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
On 10 Aug 98, at 15:50, Ezra Beeman wrote:
) I beg to differ, would you say the following list of philosophers were not
) all that influential?Zeno Archemedes Pythagoras Socrates Plato Aristotle
) Ptolomy St. Thomas Aquinas Descartes Spinoza HUme Francis Bacon Karl Marx
) Sartre Kierkegaard Nietzsche Betrant Russel Foucult yada yada
) yada
Yes, with the exception of Marx.
By "influential," I do not mean "influential to other philosophers." I
mean that a typical person's thoughts are more influenced by their
culture than by the writings of any philosopher.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n849.8 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 16:59:48 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808102252.PAA13403 lists1.best.com)
John Calkins posted:
) In some public schools a teacher cannot
) approach a parent about a potential problem with a student without having
) to fill out a form. Because of this "scrutiny", public school teachers are
) increasingly becoming reluctant to address problems in their early stages,
) and action only occurs when crises erupt.
I don't doubt the truth of this on a rare campus, but I seriously
question that it is the norm in the public sector. I have been employed
by three public school districts and involved with 4 others through my
children and my own student teaching. I have never experienced the
requirement of a form to meet with a student and/or parent.
The most "intrusive" school related experience occurred at the school
that became a model public Waldorf school. My principal went through my
desk and file cabinets. She called and/or met with parents and students
and asked them what I had talked to them about. She went through my
computer files. She and the head teacher stripped all posters and other
wall decorations from my classroom. All of this was done in order to
determine if I was implementing the Waldorf method or to force me to do
so where I was deemed remiss. It was a very disconcerting and intrusive
experience, quite in line with the "thought police" concept. I was
suspect; I was not "Waldorf" enough in my teaching style.
I also have not experienced a district that was reluctant to address
problems in their early stages. I have never waited for a crises to
emerge with one of my students, nor has this ever happened with my
children or the children of close friends. If anything, I have
heard/experienced just the opposite. It is wisest to address any
potential problem early on and to meet with student and parents to
determine if other resources are warranted or if the situation is merely
a passing one and can be addressed through meeting/talking, adjustment
of, or clarification of expectations and support.
I do believe, however, that there are some impacted, inner city
districts, that ignore problems. They simply have too many and are
likely overwhelmed and tired. The school where I worked had serious
student behavioral problems, but collaboration with Rudolf Steiner
College and Betty Staley seemed to me to make matters worse as the
administrator became more and more intrusive in her surveillance of
teachers and their curriculum delivery, interaction, and use of
resources.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n849.9 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 17:14:07 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------6D81C936425FC5F08411332A"
References: (199808102316.QAA02994 lists1.best.com)
--------------6D81C936425FC5F08411332A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I guess it all depends on how educated they are (grin).
I believe you said that statement with regard to scientists, not the typical person. That is why I included Bacon, Spinoza (binary), and others that contributed in some way to scientific method or theory. I forgot to mention Newton (considered himself a theosopher), Leibniz, Confuscious, Buddha and various others that deserve recognition for their role in history.
ezra
Steve Premo wrote:
) On 10 Aug 98, at 15:50, Ezra Beeman wrote:
)
) ) I beg to differ, would you say the following list of philosophers were not
) ) all that influential?Zeno Archemedes Pythagoras Socrates Plato Aristotle
) ) Ptolomy St. Thomas Aquinas Descartes Spinoza HUme Francis Bacon Karl Marx
) ) Sartre Kierkegaard Nietzsche Betrant Russel Foucult yada yada
) ) yada
)
) Yes, with the exception of Marx.
)
) By "influential," I do not mean "influential to other philosophers." I
) mean that a typical person's thoughts are more influenced by their
) culture than by the writings of any philosopher.
)
--------------6D81C936425FC5F08411332A
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
(HTML)
I guess it all depends on how educated they are (grin).
(BR)I believe you said that statement with regard to scientists, not the
typical person. That is why I included Bacon, Spinoza (binary), and
others that contributed in some way to scientific method or theory.
I forgot to mention Newton (considered himself a theosopher), Leibniz,
Confuscious, Buddha and various others that deserve recognition for their
role in history.
(BR)ezra
(BR)Steve Premo wrote:
(BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE)On 10 Aug 98, at 15:50, Ezra Beeman wrote:
(P)) I beg to differ, would you say the following list of philosophers
were not
(BR)) all that influential?Zeno Archemedes Pythagoras Socrates Plato Aristotle
(BR)) Ptolomy St. Thomas Aquinas Descartes Spinoza HUme Francis Bacon Karl
Marx
(BR)) Sartre Kierkegaard Nietzsche Betrant Russel Foucult yada yada
(BR)) yada
(P)Yes, with the exception of Marx.
(P)By "influential," I do not mean "influential to other philosophers."
I
(BR)mean that a typical person's thoughts are more influenced by their
(BR)culture than by the writings of any philosopher.
(BR)(A HREF="http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html")(/A) (/BLOCKQUOTE)
(/HTML)
--------------6D81C936425FC5F08411332A--
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n849.10 ---------------
From: "Eric Barrows" (eric.barrows postoffice.tased.edu.au)
Subject: Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 10:42:39 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
References: (199808102258.PAA19524 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199808102258.PAA19524 lists1.best.com)
On 10/08/98, at 06:58 pm, Daniel Perez wrote:
)An apology would be in order Deby! That goes for Eric Barrows too!
Who, How, When, Where, Why, What *are* you talking about?
Eric Barrows.
====================================================
) ) )
( ( ( Eric Barrows
____
) (_)
(____)
====================================================
http://www.tased.edu.au/schools/ousedh/staff/eric.htm
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n849 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n850 --------------
001 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
002 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Art and the individual
003 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: technology & Waldorf
004 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Art and the individual (long)
005 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Art and the Individual
006 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
007 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: technology & Waldorf
008 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Spelling
009 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Hallo?
010 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Art and the Individual
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n850.1 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:22:47 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808102258.PAA19524 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Perez wrote:
)
) An apology would be in order Deby! That goes for Eric Barrows too!
)
) Mr. Mays, thank you for your rational thought. Robert too!
)
) - Daniel.
Sorry to disappoint you, Daniel, but I'll not apologise. Why should
Eric offer an apology? Because he said that Anthroposophic art is easy
to recognize? Bob can't honestly tell me that his wife's art was not
inspired by Anthroposophy. Is it just happenstance that he is on this
list?
Debra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n850.2 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Art and the individual
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 18:15:26 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808101826.LAA15991 lists1.best.com) (199808102117.OAA21392 lists1.best.com) (199808102330.QAA09726 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman wrote:
)
) I was always involved in class plays and had the lead role three times. The earliest play was in second grade (the michaelmas play, slaying the dragon). I was the dragon (go me). That would put my age at about 7? Of course, the rest of the leads had their own lines as well. To this day I have a terrible time memorizing lines (nor can I spell), but that didn't stop me from acting at the college level either. All told, I was in 8 plays during my WE.
) ezra
At our local Waldorf school, the children always spoke the lines in
unison. We left after fifth grade, so I have no idea when the children
began to speak alone at that school. As the dragon, did you have
speaking lines ? I don't think "our" michaelmas dragon spoke.
) ) Debra, your question to Eric implies that none of the kids in a Waldorf
) ) class speaks his or her own lines in a class play until they are quite
) ) old. Just to provide "data," I believe my son was in second grade when
) ) he and most others in his class first had lines to speak by themselves.
) ) As further (contrasting) data, when I went to school, in one of the best
) ) public school systems in the Philadelphia suburbs, we never, ever had
) ) any class plays at all.
Too bad for you. During my elementary years, we had two plays
productions a year. They were so much fun. My favorite was "Tom Sawyer".
Max has been in two plays per year since he left WE. They last one was
'Oh California' (Fourth grade). The play depicted California history
all the way through the flower children of the sixties to current. It
was a beautiful and original play which the children shared with
community elders at local nursing homes.
Derek attends a performing arts school, so he is either performing with
his modern dance class and/or performing a play about _four_ times per
year. He is taught by professional drama teachers and dancers. Their
performances are held in community theatres and are truly awesome. We
missed getting tickets last time because we were out of town and the
tickets were sold out by the time we got back. I didn't even get to see
his performance. :+(
I was disappointed with the way plays were put on at the Waldorf school
my children attended. I'm glad to hear that it may not be typical.
Debra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n850.3 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: technology & Waldorf
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 21:03:49 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This is a valid concern. I would need to know more about the circumstances
from the other side. I will look into this question.
- Daniel.
-----Original Message-----
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Monday, August 10, 1998 5:14 PM
Subject: technology & Waldorf
)Daniel Perez posted:
))
)) My family purchased a computer when I was 12 (1975) and that is when I
)) started programming. In high school, I worked with my math teacher
)) installing computers in the Waldorf high school. Students had access to
this
)) system. I think it would be dangerous for any school to exclude
technology
)) in high school courses, where appropriate.
)
)The administrator at the school where I was employed removed *all*
)student computer workstations from the school site as a direct result of
)Waldorf training and adopting the label of a model Waldorf school in the
)public sector. This occurred even though my school had previously
)received a number of impressive and generous technology grants and had a
)skilled technology teacher (myself) onsite. Our site was one of the
)first worldwide to participate in long-distance student collaboration
)with other school sites worldwide to produce a published writing
)project. And yet, my administrator determined, following the 1996 Public
)School Teachers Institute at Rudolf Steiner College, that "students
)could learn nothing" from technology or the integration of technology
)into their studies. I was forbidden to have a computer in my classroom
)and I was forbidden to permit any student to use my computer in the
)small room where I was assigned to work when I was not in class. My
)administrator told me I would have a better understanding of this
)decision if I had attended the 1996 summer training at RSC.
)
)Before the 1996/97 school year was over all student workstations were
)given away to another public school. My students (adolescents from
)economically disadvantaged backgrounds) often begged me to use my
)computer. It was very difficult trying to explain to them why they were
)not permitted to use a computer at school and, at the same time, not
)cast a negative light upon the school principal and the "head teacher."
)
)Betty Staley was the primary influence or driving force in the change of
)my school site to a Waldorf based program. It is my understanding that
)she is perhaps *the* foremost Waldorf "expert" and/or teacher trainer in
)the United States. I cannot come to any other conclusion than that
)computer technology was banned from my former school site as a direct
)result of her influence and/or suggestion.
)
)Betty Staley is the same Waldorf trainer/teacher that subjected me to
)religious/spiritual indoctrination lessons and literature paid for with
)public school funds.
)
)Kathy
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n850.4 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Art and the individual (long)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:46:40 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Eric Barrows wrote to the Waldorf Critics list (and I have responded
privately to him as follows, receiving permission to share my thoughts with
the list):
)I must admit that my years as a student in W.E. (grades 3-8 inclusive)
)were
)*much* happier than my time in the public system.
)
)However all through my W.E. years my peers and I were told that we were
)being raised to be individuals.
)
)I have since followed a career in the visual arts expressing my
)individuality as
)loudly as possible. I have felt that art is where a person can be
)themselves and
)express their unique interpretation of the world.
)
)Why is it then that examining anthoposiphic art it appears to be all
)created by
)the same person. i.e. the work at
)http://earth.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz/art/gallery/index.html
)could be by anybody from a W.E. background.
)
)Take a look at the exiting students exhibition in a W.E. school compared
)to another
)school. -I find it terrifying- because I myself feel crippled by my
)education.
)
)What I thought was my ÎindividualityÌ was really anthoposiphic
)programming.
)
)(having a life crises here can anybody help?)
Michael KOPP says:
Eric,
It is interesting that you have this viewpoint that the most important
aspect of your life having been negatively affected by your Steiner/
Waldorf/ Anthroposophic education; yet you have in other posts seemed to be
approving of SWA initiatives and the schools in general, and, if memory
serves, you either have something to do with an SWA school or have children
in one or are contemplating enrolling your children in one.
If you think you are having a life crisis, imagine what it like for a
parent of two bright, talented, artistically-inclined children, 15 and 18,
who spent five and four years, respectively, in a Steiner school, having
their creativity deadened, their media skills reduced, instead of
increased, and their general outlook on art, especially as a possible way
of life or career, almost defeated.
Both kids, now back in public schools, are having an uphill battle (not
only with art), and it is only through great extra enrichment, lots of
encouragement from their good art teachers, and lots of patience and
reassurance, that they are making their way back into the real world.
Fortunately, I spent most of our time in Steiner education arguing with my
kids' teachers about the Anthroposophical crap the kids were getting.* And
I kept my kids' eyes on the real world by making sure they did their own
thing at home, and by ensuring that the house was full of their earlier art
works to remind them of what they were capable of before they went to a
Steiner school, and what they could still do. And they were exposed to
other art works regularly.
Because you have invited our thoughts and ideas which might be helpful to
you, I will jump in here with both boots, and suggest some things, both for
your art recovery, and in re: your teaching and being a prospective Waldorf
parent.
These are partially based on some experience as an artist myself
(photography) who had to unlearn some bad programming by other
professionals and teachers. Feel free to ignore any or all of this if it
seems too wild or draconian, or to tell me I'm full of it and have a good
laugh (maybe that would help, too). Art is very personal, and you want to
recover your self-possession of your artistic faculties. Good on ya, matey.
For you, Eric, I would say that the most important thing is to never look
back. Look at your artistic surroundings, and root out all reminders and
relics of your Waldorf art education: works, materials, media that have no
current usefulness.
Try to look at the world again afresh: as if you were a child again. If you
have children, and they are not themselves being programmed by a Steiner
education, look at the world through their eyes.
Immerse yourself in contemporary work and the milieu of artists around you.
Revisit art history: no one of any consequence in this century has used
Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophic art techniques.
Turn your art into therapy, and work out your old, Steiner-patterned
viewpoints through whatever comes to the canvas, even if that be anger and
frustration and even violence with the media.
Use raucous colour with abandon; use acrylic or oil only, not watercolour,
at least until you feel better. If you work in 3-D materials, such as clay
or stone, take out your frustration physically (working clay is great
therapy!).
(Sorry, I see from a late look at your Web site that you _do_ work in stone
and wood. Same principles apply, however: be more aggressive/abandoned with
the materials and the application of your tools to them.)
Eric, the you that is the artist is still alive, under all that
programming. Strip the layers of programming away as you would peel an
onion. Discard, if necessary, new works that you feel still bear traces of
the past. Many great artists have done that.
Use your surroundings, and solitude, to re-inform your visual eye and
re-examine your mind's eye. Do nothing spiritual, if possible. Direct
yourself to the outer world. Concentrate for a time on representational,
straight draughting, even if you are not good at it, and though your
previous work may have been inner- directed, surreal or imaginative. You
can always work back to that.
When you have something to say, write it down first, before you form it in
media. Explore your feelings about your problem in a journal. In this
journal you can keep sketches that express your feelings about the problem
of overcoming faulty training, as well as record your progress towards
artistic strength and wholeness.
Give it time, even if you don't have that luxury. Meantime, if you can't do
anything else ... fake it, for a while. Re-programme yourself by patterning
yourself on something else: some artist or some method or some style or
genre you admire.
Finally, have great faith in yourself, even when it seems as if nothing
works and you can't escape your programming.
*(You may, and others undoubtedly will, say, `well, why didn't we leave
sooner'? The answers to this are long, complicated, and painful, and I
won't reanswer the question. I have posted about this previously, and I
would suggest anyone who wants to have a go at me on this should read the
archive first, or risk some wrath.)
Some more advice, if you're still with me (I'm being pretty direct here):
1. Heed the warnings of your own experience and dilemma.
We sent our kids to a Steiner school not only because we were enamoured of
the bullshit they duped us with (the standard prettinesses). Not only
because the teachers seemed to have great personal respect for the
children. Not only because I did and still do believe in the harmony of
educating whole persons through disciplines that engage all their faculties
and exercise all their capacities (Steiner/ Waldorf/ calls it "Head, Heart
and Hands", but I knew it since my childhood; it's not that unique). Not
only because it was a small school. Not only because I had always been
interested in alternative educational ideas since my university days, when
I read A.S. Neill's "Summerhill".
No, we sent our kids to a Steiner school for the same reason you are
contemplating sending your kids to one: fear of the public school system,
and the scarcity of other alternative schools. A believer in public
education, a rationalist, a public school board member when my kids went to
one, a former teacher, and pretty well informed, I still made a big mistake
forsaking the secular.
The only reason I allowed myself to do this was because our Steiner school
had been recently integrated into the state system (in order to get the
state money), and therefore had to teach the full and complete state
curriculum in addition to the Steiner/ Waldorf "special character"
curriculum they were allowed to continue teaching. Only over a period of 18
months after the kids started did we come to see how perversely and how
stealthily and how thoroughly the Anthroposophical religion -- not taught
per se in the classrooms -- was in fact in every minute of every lesson,
every hour and day of the kids lives at school.
What we got was not exalted, but profane mumbo jumbo.
2. Your signature indicates you are a schoolteacher involved in the
Information Technology push at your school in rural Tasmania.
But Steiner/ Waldorf/ schools and Anthroposophists in particular detest
modern electronic conveniences. (I share some of that: I don't like most
television, and we don't have one in the house. But I don't think it's
`evil'.) Computers, according to this dogma (developed long after Steiner)
do bad things to the spiritual and physical health of children if
introduced to them too early. I'm not a fan of very young kids using
computers, and I wouldn't push them on kids in any case. But I don't think
they are `evil', and they can be used well if not overused.
With a kid in Steiner, but teaching at a secular school, and involved in
high tech, and especially as a secular artist, would you not be living a
dichotomous, paradoxical life: sending your kids to one school, whilst
teaching and working according to a completely antithetical educational
paradigm. How could you do that with professional integrity? How would your
attempt to retrieve your artistic integrity and personality fare under such
a dual life?
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n850.5 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Art and the Individual
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:44:33 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199808101826.LAA15991 lists1.best.com)
(199808102117.OAA21358 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199808102258.PAA19576 lists1.best.com)
)That has got to be one of the more amuzing list threads I've seen..
)e
What amuses you, Ezra, the idea that someone was profoundly affected by a
stultifying Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical education and now seeks
answers and a way out of his predicament?
Jeez, you're a really friendly guy, Ezra.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
By the way, Ezra, put the spell checker on your posts, will you? Your
academically inadequate Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposohical education is
beginning to get on the nerves.
"amuzing" indeed. Not you, though.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n850.6 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 15:39:54 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199808102018.NAA06803 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199808102236.PAA28556 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman says:
)Thanks for the full text. As I suspected, quotes from PLANS scripture
)were foolishly made.
)There must be some WE lawyer with the pro bono time to file defamation
)papers forcing PLANS people to be honest (grin). I think the irony would
)be tremendous (if your PLANS). While this doesn't reflect my personal
)opinion of how law works, PLANS penchant for legal recourse should be met
)in kind.
)ezra
Michael KOPP says:
Careful, Ezra, you're starting to talk like the members of a certain other
religious sect which has been successful lately in a fascist repression of
freedom of speech through the use of suits over copyright on the scriptures
of their founder and master. Steiner's been dead longer than that other
individual; who holds the copyrights on his commandments, uh, 'scuse me,
indications? Or haven't they passed into the public domain? The books they
appear in may be copyrighted, but that's not what the PLANS people are
quoting when they quote Steiner, is it? And what about the fair use
doctrine? Your personal opinion of how law works must be verrry curious.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n850.7 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: technology & Waldorf
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:10:04 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199808110207.TAA06681 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Perez says:
)This is a valid concern. I would need to know more about the circumstances
)from the other side. I will look into this question.
)
)- Daniel.
Yeah, what are you going to "look into" "from the other side", Daniel?
What IS "the other side"?
Do you mean the side of the school district that may the subject of a legal
action?
Perhaps you should do your homework first by reading the archives of this
list, wherein this subject has been rather thoroughly detailed.
And rather thoroughly alibied for and pooh-poohed by the defenders of the
Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical faith.
Are you going to tell us that YOU are in a position to check up with the
school distric authorities, who were remarkably dissembling or clammed-up
to the local reporters, who didn't ask the right questions anyway, the
bumbling clods?
Are you going to use your "inside contacts" in the Anthroposophical mafia
to check up on Kathleen Sutphen and her personal, private, employment
record, as did some others of your fellows, with the apparently voluble
school principal who formerly wouldn't answer pointed questions about what
was going on in her school, but WOULD spill the beans on that troublemaker,
Sutphen?
Or do you mean you're going to do your homework on the issue of Steiner/
Waldorf/ Anthroposophical dogma on technology, especially the evil effects
of computers on the minds, bodies and spirits of the young? Or are you
familiar with that already? If not, you could start, once again, by
searching the archives of this list for the name Waldemar Setzer, a South
American "educator" and Anthroposophist who has written and campaigned
extensively against computers for schoolchildren below the Steinerian "age
of abstract reasoning", or about 14.
Go on, Daniel, let us know about your "looking into" efforts, will you
please?
Or will we have to wait for another whitewash of what appear to be
straightforward mind-control and employee-bashing by a new convert to the
Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical cult bent on injecting it into another
unsuspecting PUBLIC school system?
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
)
)
)-----Original Message-----
)From: spike (spike netshel.net)
)To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
)Date: Monday, August 10, 1998 5:14 PM
)Subject: technology & Waldorf
)
)
))Daniel Perez posted:
)))
))) My family purchased a computer when I was 12 (1975) and that is when I
))) started programming. In high school, I worked with my math teacher
))) installing computers in the Waldorf high school. Students had access to
)this
))) system. I think it would be dangerous for any school to exclude
)technology
))) in high school courses, where appropriate.
))
))The administrator at the school where I was employed removed *all*
))student computer workstations from the school site as a direct result of
))Waldorf training and adopting the label of a model Waldorf school in the
))public sector. This occurred even though my school had previously
))received a number of impressive and generous technology grants and had a
))skilled technology teacher (myself) onsite. Our site was one of the
))first worldwide to participate in long-distance student collaboration
))with other school sites worldwide to produce a published writing
))project. And yet, my administrator determined, following the 1996 Public
))School Teachers Institute at Rudolf Steiner College, that "students
))could learn nothing" from technology or the integration of technology
))into their studies. I was forbidden to have a computer in my classroom
))and I was forbidden to permit any student to use my computer in the
))small room where I was assigned to work when I was not in class. My
))administrator told me I would have a better understanding of this
))decision if I had attended the 1996 summer training at RSC.
))
))Before the 1996/97 school year was over all student workstations were
))given away to another public school. My students (adolescents from
))economically disadvantaged backgrounds) often begged me to use my
))computer. It was very difficult trying to explain to them why they were
))not permitted to use a computer at school and, at the same time, not
))cast a negative light upon the school principal and the "head teacher."
))
))Betty Staley was the primary influence or driving force in the change of
))my school site to a Waldorf based program. It is my understanding that
))she is perhaps *the* foremost Waldorf "expert" and/or teacher trainer in
))the United States. I cannot come to any other conclusion than that
))computer technology was banned from my former school site as a direct
))result of her influence and/or suggestion.
))
))Betty Staley is the same Waldorf trainer/teacher that subjected me to
))religious/spiritual indoctrination lessons and literature paid for with
))public school funds.
))
))Kathy
))
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n850.8 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Spelling
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 21:42:50 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808101826.LAA15991 lists1.best.com)
(199808102117.OAA21358 lists1.best.com) (199808110352.UAA14721 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp wrote:
)
) By the way, Ezra, put the spell checker on your posts, will you? Your
) academically inadequate Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposohical education is
) beginning to get on the nerves.
)
Come on, Michael - there is plenty to complain about without going here.
I don't have a spell checker on my e-mail program and I know I'm
extremely guilty of grammar and spelling errors. So what? If it bothers
you, use your delete key.
If you caught a bit of defensiveness here, it is because I have a very
bright child who is a dire speller. At one point, he became so self
conscious that he didn't want to write _anything_ . We've paid lots of
$$ to have him learn from the best. He has gotten better, but still has
difficulties. His test scores were so poor in spelling that I didn't
even show him the paper. I hope that he is never tormented by anyone.
(Did ya notice that this issue pushes my buttons?)
Debra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n850.9 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Hallo?
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 23:22:53 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808102018.NAA06803 lists1.best.com) (199808110352.UAA14762 lists1.best.com)
Welcome back Mr Kopp,
Am I to understand you correctly that you are comparing fanciful comments on my part to various instruments on the Church of Scientology? What do you know about Scientology, probable less than you do of WE. If you care to educate yourself (learn
you reel good), I could recommend a title or two. L. Ron is a fascinating story.
Back to your rather bumbling missive; you managed to completely miss the point. I was aiming for defamation and slander, not patent law. Besides, I'll bet you a nickel that I'd have better luck with slander than you would with copywrite
infringement. And it was only a whim, not the well thought out and beautifully articulated reply you sent.
Jeers from SFO,
e
Michael Kopp wrote:
) Careful, Ezra, you're starting to talk like the members of a certain other
) religious sect which has been successful lately in a fascist repression of
) freedom of speech through the use of suits over copyright on the scriptures
) of their founder and master. Steiner's been dead longer than that other
) individual; who holds the copyrights on his commandments, uh, 'scuse me,
) indications? Or haven't they passed into the public domain? The books they
) appear in may be copyrighted, but that's not what the PLANS people are
) quoting when they quote Steiner, is it? And what about the fair use
) doctrine? Your personal opinion of how law works must be verrry curious.
)
) Cheers from Godzone,
)
) Michael Kopp
) Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n850.10 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Art and the Individual
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 1998 23:29:34 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808101826.LAA15991 lists1.best.com)
(199808102117.OAA21358 lists1.best.com) (199808110352.UAA14721 lists1.best.com)
Anytime you care to compare academic pedigree, I'd be more than happy to oblige. BTW, since you broached the subject of academic adequacy, where did you get your academic credentials from? Professional degree?
Just so you aren't left in the dark (I know how much I hate inside jokes), the fact that all the pictures were INDEED painted by the same person tickled my funny bone. How about you, when was the last time you found something, nay anything, amusing?
e
Michael Kopp wrote:
) )That has got to be one of the more amuzing list threads I've seen..
) )e
)
) What amuses you, Ezra, the idea that someone was profoundly affected by a
) stultifying Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical education and now seeks
) answers and a way out of his predicament?
)
) Jeez, you're a really friendly guy, Ezra.
)
) Cheers from Godzone,
)
) Michael Kopp
) Wellington, New Zealand
)
) By the way, Ezra, put the spell checker on your posts, will you? Your
) academically inadequate Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposohical education is
) beginning to get on the nerves.
)
) "amuzing" indeed. Not you, though.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n850 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n851 --------------
001 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Art and the individuall
002 - Sune Nordwall (thebee hem - Re: technology & Waldorf
003 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
004 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: technology & Waldorf
005 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
006 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Deby falsely accuses Tolz of dishonesty!
007 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: technology & Waldorf
008 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: technology & Waldorf
009 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: technology & Waldorf
010 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: technology & Waldorf
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n851.1 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Art and the individuall
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 07:10:01 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199808100518.WAA15456 lists1.best.com)
Debra Snell (snell netshel.net) wrote:
)Did your peers paint the same pictures that
)you did?
I don't think I've ever received satisfactory answers to my questions
that arise from the perception, which also seems to be the implication
in Deby's question, that learning techniques of painting by copying
(which results in similar-looking pictures) is inherently "a bad thing".
Is it not the case that many of the painters who are revered as
"masters" in the world of art learned their technique by copying other
masters? Does this not suggest that copying is an effective way of
learning technique?
If it was the only artistic work a Waldorf-school child ever did I would
share Deby's concern, but it isn't. I suggest that there is a clear
distinction between a painting lesson, where technique is taught, and an
opportunity for self-expression/free-rendering (the satisfaction from
which, I suggest, may be enhanced if a pupil is assisted by a
coinfidence in technique).
I have also asked why those who object to sameness in painting never
seem to complain about it in another expressive art: music. One does not
expect a pupil to learn a musical instrument merely by free expression:
some lessons in technique are taught.
Lastly, it has to be remembered that a Waldorf (or any other) curriculum
is not a one-lesson or a one-year affair -- one needs to look at the
totality of it. I suggest that the great individual diversity of
artistic work in Waldorf upper schools gives the lie to any contention
that the overall effect of Waldorf art lessons is a sameness. (That is
not a contention that Deby made.)
I write this as someone whose school art lessons for many years entirely
of free expression; I was not a "natural" artist and I was always
unsatisfied with my work. It was a great relief when a teacher I had at
age 12 actually taught me *how* to draw and paint to some small extent.
I wished it had happened much earlier.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n851.2 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (thebee hem.passagen.se)
Subject: Re: technology & Waldorf
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 12:16:27 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808102252.PAA13403 lists1.best.com) (199808102340.QAA14710 lists1.best.com)
spike wrote:
) The administrator at the school where I was employed removed *all*
) student computer workstations from the school site as a direct result of
) Waldorf training and adopting the label of a model Waldorf school in the
) public sector. This occurred even though my school had previously
) received a number of impressive and generous technology grants and had a
) skilled technology teacher (myself) onsite. Our site was one of the
) first worldwide to participate in long-distance student collaboration
) with other school sites worldwide to produce a published writing
) project. And yet, my administrator determined, following the 1996 Public
) School Teachers Institute at Rudolf Steiner College, that "students
) could learn nothing" from technology or the integration of technology
) into their studies.
Computers and the Internet are handled in different ways in different
parts of the world.
In Germany, the country with maybe the greatest number of Waldorf
Schools in the world, Bund der Freien Waldorfschulen has its own home
page at http://www.waldorfschule.de/.
"Die Waldorfs" have a homepage of their own at
http://dieWaldorfs.waldorf.net/.
At present about 29 German Waldorf Schools have their own home
page.
The OnLine Redaktion of SPIEGEL chose the home page of FACT,
http://www.bubis.com/fact, the OnLine Journal of the Freie Waldorfschule
Engelberg as the third best of the OnLine School Journals in Germany for
1997/98 (see http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/pool/schuelerzeitungen.html).
Greetings!
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
thebee hem.passagen.se
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n851.3 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 09:05:42 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
)Snell:
)The question is not how often _you_ saw the superintendent of your
)public school, but how often the teachers saw and communicated with
)their superintendent.
I can see we have different opinions of how to effectively run a school. I
believe it is of utmost importance for administrators to get to know the
students. The idea that a superintendent is too busy to meet the students
to me is simply poor school management.
)Again: How current is your information? How broad is your research? My
)brother-in-law is a public School Superintendent and a former County
)Schools Superintendent. The management style you describe has to be an
)old one. Union-ized teachers are powerful forces. The teachers must buy
)in to local regulations for success. I have a hard time believing this
)is the status quo of public school management in the 90's.
You are fortunate to have such a good public school system near you. I
think you are giving too much credit to public education which to a large
extent has failed. Perhaps my personal experience is not as broad as
yours, but it is fairly extensive. Between my wife and me, we have four
siblings or sibling in-laws who are currently or have recently taught in
public schools in New York and California. In addition I have many friends
and acquaintances who teach in public schools in many states, and I have
heard first-hand accounts of horror stories you wouldn't believe from
Sunbridge students observing public school classrooms.
In my professional life, I have interviewed dozens of job applicants both
here and in California. It is the rare case (maybe 1 in 20) that they know
how to think for themselves. Yes these people have the skills, whether it
be circuit board construction, operation of machines, software skills,
etc., but they do not know how to think. Since the work has to be done,
many of these people are hired anyway, and I find myself having to babysit
them. Every detail has to be spelled out. These people have good hearts,
and they are my friends, but they have a very difficult time making the
simplest of judgments. I have spoken about this issue with hiring managers
and have found the situation to be universal. How else can this be
interpreted but by a broad scale failure of our schools?
As far as Waldorf education is concerned, I am aware of some schools that
are not run very well. For these schools, the parents pull there kids (as
you and others have done), and if the school does not change, in all
likelihood it will fail. You must be aware that Waldorf education has been
growing by orders of magnitude in this country, and this simple could not
happen if the unfortunate experience that you had with your school is the
norm.
I would ask the questions of you, how many _other_ Waldorf schools have you
observed teachers teaching, and what was your impression?
)Snell:
)Are you suggesting that _your_ foundation (using Steiner's
)"non-sectarian" definition of spiritual, of course) for knowledge is the
)_only_ correct foundation?
)Debra
No Debra, I have said this before; do I have to go through this again?
Despite its shaky epistemological foundation, what we have learned from
conventional science is truly miraculous. As Steiner has pointed out, the
validity of knowledge from both a simple physical and simple spiritual
perspective is limited (but no less valid) to its particular perspective.
The way I approach this for myself (which I have done with some success
with Goethean and Newtonian color theories and the Darwinian physical
evolution and the spiritual evolution of consciousness, for example) is to
try to reconcile the apparent contradictions between two for a more
universal perspective.
Spiritual science is in its infancy. It does not know better, but it knows
different. We (collectively as a culture) are just beginning to address
the questions raised from a spiritual scientific perspective, and it would
be arrogant to think that we have the answers. The fact is is that there
is much work to be done to understand the world from this perspective.
You don't have to answer if you don't want to, but I am still curious about
your use of the words "arrogant" and "oxymoron" to characterize spiritual
science. If you like, the way I see Steiner's use of the word "spiritual"
are those intangible realities like thoughts, feelings, and
sense-perceptions in addition to anything that may exist observable through
clairvoyance.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n851.4 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: technology & Waldorf
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 09:23:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I don't have time for a long post today, but this requires some explanation.
I didn't mean I had some special status (beyond not being openly hostile).
I meant that just like you I would like to learn the facts of this case.
I'm not looking to pry into any ones personal affairs. I indirectly (and
directly) know some people in the Waldorf School movement, but that does not
give me an automatic fast track. When I spoke about the Accreditation board
I felt that as a graduate they would take my viewpoint as not being hostile,
i.e. your mail is not very conciliatory. I will look at the archives, by
the way; good suggestion.
- Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n851.5 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 10:07:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Are you claiming that Mr. May's posting did not convince you of your
misquotes? How do you explain the facts, Deby? If I had made this mistake,
I would certainly apologize. Have you noticed that I thank people when they
make a truthful point, when there is information I did not have before? You
strike me as very mature, and I honestly thought you would apologize.
- Daniel.
-----Original Message-----
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Monday, August 10, 1998 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
)Daniel Perez wrote:
))
)) An apology would be in order Deby! That goes for Eric Barrows too!
))
)) Mr. Mays, thank you for your rational thought. Robert too!
))
)) - Daniel.
)
)Sorry to disappoint you, Daniel, but I'll not apologise. Why should
)Eric offer an apology? Because he said that Anthroposophic art is easy
)to recognize? Bob can't honestly tell me that his wife's art was not
)inspired by Anthroposophy. Is it just happenstance that he is on this
)list?
)Debra
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n851.6 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Deby falsely accuses Tolz of dishonesty!
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 10:07:31 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808110630.XAA26020 lists1.best.com)
Debra Snell wrote:
)
) Sorry to disappoint you, Daniel, but I'll not apologise. Why should
) Eric offer an apology? Because he said that Anthroposophic art is easy
) to recognize? Bob can't honestly tell me that his wife's art was not
) inspired by Anthroposophy. Is it just happenstance that he is on this
) list?
) Debra
)
Well, Debra, I can **honestly** tell you that my wife's art is not and
never has been inspired by Anthroposophy!
I usually am accustomed to people accepting my honesty at face value,
but since you don't know me personally, I won't take it personally. I
won't even demand an apology. ...maybe an admission of error or
presumptiveness might do, though.... :-) Your implication that what I
have had to say here was a lie is really uncalled for.
I come to this list because I am a Waldorf parent, influenced by my own
spiritual background. I have an insatiable thirst for knowledge and
subscribed both to this list and the regular Waldorf list. I have to
admit that I look forward more to reading this list than the other,
because it's more fun than just listening to people agree with each
other.
Let me give you the background so that you can have some element of
"proof" of my disavowal of Anthroposophic influence that may satisfy
you. As I've mentioned before on this list, both my wife and I have
engaged in a spiritual path for almost 25 years. It's a word-of-mouth
type of thing which is not large and does not seek to convert. There's
further info on that on my web page for those who are interested.
We didn't know a whole heck of a lot about Anthroposophy (and still
don't know a whole lot) before we put our first child into the Waldorf
school at Green Meadow about 4 years ago. We were not even aware of
Waldorf Education until about 5 years ago. I do remember many years ago
trying to read something by Madame Blavatsky (the person who kicked out
Steiner from the Theosophical Society) and giving up after trying to get
through the first few turgid paragraphs. The first time I ever read
anything of Steiner's was about 2 months ago, when I dug up from the
internet an address he had given to the first group of parents at the
original Waldorf school.
My wife actually read a few things by Steiner a couple of years ago,
mostly having to do with his approach to the use of color. If you want
to bother checking out my wife's art resume posted on our website,
you'll see that the work which has been "accused" of having an
Anthroposophic influence has been in process, and frequently shown in
public, for many years prior to our first awareness of Anthroposophy or
Waldorf.
I don't want to make this sound like a brief, so I'll stop there. I do
want to stress that I take my honesty seriously, and my heart beats a
little faster if someone wrongly accuses me of falsehood, as you have
done.
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n851.7 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: technology & Waldorf
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 10:19:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Michael Kopp wrote:
) SNIP) extensively against computers for schoolchildren below the
Steinerian "age
) of abstract reasoning", or about 14.
As you know, Steiner gave no indication about the "proper" age of use for
computers, especially since he died before the computer was invented. I
don't think computers should be used very much before junior high school,
perhaps even before high school. This is for my own rational reasons, not
what Steiner said. Perhaps the schools in question have good reasons for
this decision. I know and see the positive and negative aspects of
computers in education (from personal experience), as I started programming
myself at 12 years old.
- Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n851.8 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: technology & Waldorf
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:19:34 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The Green Meadow Waldorf School is in the process of going "on-line" and
creating a home page, by the way. I don't know what the extent of student
access will be.
- Daniel.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sune Nordwall (thebee hem.passagen.se)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 3:27 AM
Subject: Re: technology & Waldorf
)spike wrote:
)
)) The administrator at the school where I was employed removed *all*
)) student computer workstations from the school site as a direct result of
)) Waldorf training and adopting the label of a model Waldorf school in the
)) public sector. This occurred even though my school had previously
)) received a number of impressive and generous technology grants and had a
)) skilled technology teacher (myself) onsite. Our site was one of the
)) first worldwide to participate in long-distance student collaboration
)) with other school sites worldwide to produce a published writing
)) project. And yet, my administrator determined, following the 1996 Public
)) School Teachers Institute at Rudolf Steiner College, that "students
)) could learn nothing" from technology or the integration of technology
)) into their studies.
)
)Computers and the Internet are handled in different ways in different
)parts of the world.
) In Germany, the country with maybe the greatest number of Waldorf
)Schools in the world, Bund der Freien Waldorfschulen has its own home
)page at http://www.waldorfschule.de/.
) "Die Waldorfs" have a homepage of their own at
)http://dieWaldorfs.waldorf.net/.
) At present about 29 German Waldorf Schools have their own home
)page.
) The OnLine Redaktion of SPIEGEL chose the home page of FACT,
)http://www.bubis.com/fact, the OnLine Journal of the Freie Waldorfschule
)Engelberg as the third best of the OnLine School Journals in Germany for
)1997/98 (see http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/pool/schuelerzeitungen.html).
)
)
)Greetings!
)
)Sune Nordwall
)Stockholm, Sweden
)
)thebee hem.passagen.se
)http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n851.9 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: technology & Waldorf
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:22:29 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808111322.GAA08062 lists1.best.com)
Don't pay much mind to Mr. Kopp, he is gifted in the use of pejoratives but his style lacks substance. Betty Staley was my high school sponsor, so when I get the time, I will relay by thoughts on the subject. It was not the traumatic experience you might be led to believe.
ezra
Daniel Perez wrote:
) I don't have time for a long post today, but this requires some explanation.
) I didn't mean I had some special status (beyond not being openly hostile).
) I meant that just like you I would like to learn the facts of this case.
) I'm not looking to pry into any ones personal affairs. I indirectly (and
) directly) know some people in the Waldorf School movement, but that does not
) give me an automatic fast track. When I spoke about the Accreditation board
) I felt that as a graduate they would take my viewpoint as not being hostile,
) i.e. your mail is not very conciliatory. I will look at the archives, by
) the way; good suggestion.
)
) - Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n851.10 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: technology & Waldorf
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 11:37:28 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
The question I would ask, Kathy, is what age students are you talking
about. Last year I attended a "Computers in Education" conference at
Columbia University. The speakers included a public high school computer
teacher from Idaho, a representative from Disney (formerly an inventor at
Apple Computer), a leading thinker of ideas in computing from MIT, a
professor of education from Columbia, a former education aid to Al Gore,
and others. It is interesting that the proponents for computers for young
children were those who appeared to have a financial interest in selling
computers and software (the man from Disney and Gore's aid). Otherwise
there was unanimous agreement that it is best to introduce computers no
earlier than the age of 12. The reason being not that children cannot
learn anything from computers, but that they are far better off discovering
the world in other ways than staring at a two dimensional screen and moving
their hands across a 5 inch square mouse pad. I never used a computer
before the age of 17, I have excellent eye-mouse coordination, I know how
to use computers, I understand how they work at many levels, and I program
them. My "late" introduction to computers has not been a handicap at all.
This does not excuse your account of the heavy-handed approach you
describe. Can you give us more details, especially the age of the students
involved so we can better understand where the school might have been
coming from. In a Waldorf K-8 school, the removal of computers from the
classroom is easily defensible.
)Betty Staley is the same Waldorf trainer/teacher that subjected me to
)religious/spiritual indoctrination lessons and literature paid for with
)public school funds.
Kathy, this is not the first time you have made such a characterization of
Betty Staley's teaching. I have not met Betty Staley, but I have recently
finished a book of hers. It is a guide to raising adolescents for teachers
and parents (I cannot remember the title just now. I can get it for you
tomorrow.). While it does mention Steiner's spiritual ideas behind Waldorf
education, I have a difficult time seeing how anyone would say it is
anything like a "religious/spiritual" teaching. She does not ask the
reader to make any leap of esoteric faith, rather she writes at a practical
level. She writes about the students as they are, based on her experience
of raising and teaching teenagers. From the obvious care (of thought, not
in the sentimental sense) that went into her book, I have difficulty seeing
how she would use an excessively "spiritual" approach to teaching a group
of non-anthroposophical teachers.
It is obvious that you have a bias against Waldorf education. Could it not
have been that Betty Staley was being up-front in presenting Steiner's
spiritual basis for Waldorf education (I think both critics and supporters
favor this disclosure), then proceeded to present the specifics of Waldorf
pedagogy in the context of this view? Did she ever say that you are
required to accept his spiritual ideas?
John Calkins
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n851 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n852 --------------
001 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: technology & Waldorf
002 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Art and the individuall
003 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
004 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Chicago Inner-City Waldorf Experience?
005 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Blavatsky/Steiner (was: Deby falsely accuses Tolz of
dishone
006 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: treatment of gifted children and P of F
007 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
008 - Sarah (rabbr concentric.n - Re: By way of comparison
009 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: technology & Waldorf
010 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n852.1 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: technology & Waldorf
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:39:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808111422.HAA07006 lists1.best.com)
I agree, and said as much in previous posts (archives) on the subject of delayed technological submersion. Perhaps it parallels ideas on reading and why that should not necessarily be rushed. A solid foundation is THE most important aspect of any monumental achievement (or not so monumental). I started a bit later than you did with computers, but I fixed motherboard malfunction when I was around 14 or 15 and went on from there (with a total hiatus in college) to learn UNIX systems, a list
of languages and protocols and am currently my firm's information systems manager. I don't have a shred of computer science training. I attribute my success to a combination of high computer aptitude and problem solving skills. One of my classmates was fielding offers from MicroSoft.
Like any tool, Computers only extend the capabilities of the craftsmen. It is important to master the basic skills before using advanced devices. Kids are taught the algebra behind the calculus before the calculus itself. If you were only taught calculus, you might excel early, only to be hampered eventually by a good foundation in algebra.
ezra
Daniel Perez wrote:
) Michael Kopp wrote:
) ) SNIP) extensively against computers for schoolchildren below the
) Steinerian "age
) ) of abstract reasoning", or about 14.
)
) As you know, Steiner gave no indication about the "proper" age of use for
) computers, especially since he died before the computer was invented. I
) don't think computers should be used very much before junior high school,
) perhaps even before high school. This is for my own rational reasons, not
) what Steiner said. Perhaps the schools in question have good reasons for
) this decision. I know and see the positive and negative aspects of
) computers in education (from personal experience), as I started programming
) myself at 12 years old.
)
) - Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n852.2 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Art and the individuall
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 08:55:40 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808110636.XAA29738 lists1.best.com)
Simply because Debra and others express their opinions on art does NOT make them valid. Many people here prance about spewing the latest digest they've read 'proving' their foregone conclusions. When in comes to art, however, debating the merits of WE with the majority of the people on this list approaches the absurd. Since many of these people were educated in the public sector, and NONE have so far confessed to any formal training in the arts, it boggles my mind that they might even
suggest an informed opinion. No, no, as someone with 12 years of WE art training and another 3 in college (taken electively, since I majored in Econ and Philo) I would say they know nothing of art, art history, or teaching art.
For the record, I recieved A's in all my (college) art classes, with the notable exception of watercolor B+ (seems I had a problem showing up).
ezra
Stephen Tonkin wrote:
) Debra Snell (snell netshel.net) wrote:
) )Did your peers paint the same pictures that
) )you did?
)
) I don't think I've ever received satisfactory answers to my questions
) that arise from the perception, which also seems to be the implication
) in Deby's question, that learning techniques of painting by copying
) (which results in similar-looking pictures) is inherently "a bad thing".
)
) Is it not the case that many of the painters who are revered as
) "masters" in the world of art learned their technique by copying other
) masters? Does this not suggest that copying is an effective way of
) learning technique?
)
) If it was the only artistic work a Waldorf-school child ever did I would
) share Deby's concern, but it isn't. I suggest that there is a clear
) distinction between a painting lesson, where technique is taught, and an
) opportunity for self-expression/free-rendering (the satisfaction from
) which, I suggest, may be enhanced if a pupil is assisted by a
) coinfidence in technique).
)
) I have also asked why those who object to sameness in painting never
) seem to complain about it in another expressive art: music. One does not
) expect a pupil to learn a musical instrument merely by free expression:
) some lessons in technique are taught.
)
) Lastly, it has to be remembered that a Waldorf (or any other) curriculum
) is not a one-lesson or a one-year affair -- one needs to look at the
) totality of it. I suggest that the great individual diversity of
) artistic work in Waldorf upper schools gives the lie to any contention
) that the overall effect of Waldorf art lessons is a sameness. (That is
) not a contention that Deby made.)
)
) I write this as someone whose school art lessons for many years entirely
) of free expression; I was not a "natural" artist and I was always
) unsatisfied with my work. It was a great relief when a teacher I had at
) age 12 actually taught me *how* to draw and paint to some small extent.
) I wished it had happened much earlier.
)
) --
) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
) + Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
) + (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n852.3 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 09:09:04 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199808110020.RAA10365 lists1.best.com)
On 10 Aug 98, at 20:18, Daniel Perez wrote:
) I am sorry Steve, but that makes no sense.
OK, maybe I'm wrong. I certainly don't know why certain ideas or
modes of thought become fashionable.
My point is that, if I understood correctly, John Calkins feels that
the scientific method, which posits that all theories are subject to
disproof or modification, is based on Kant's concept that nothing
can be known for certain. According to Calkins, Steiner showed
that this is false.
Presumably, this means that by using Steiner's methods of
observation and mental discipline, things can be known for certain.
What I want to know is whether Steiner's
crackpot^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W unconventional concepts about
human history (including Atlantis, the spiritual abilities of folks in
prior civilizations, etc.), the journey of the soul after death, the
literal existence of angels, the identities and character of spiritual
beings such as Lucifer, Michael, and Ahriman, the incarnation of
the soul into the body in stages, and so on, are things that he
claimed to know for certain.
Personally, I think that there is an objective reality. I also think
that it is possible for people to "know things for certain" because
certainty is a subjective state. But it is no guarantee against being
wrong.
In spiritual matters, it may be very comforting for folks to feel
certain about their beliefs. Since spiritual matters generally cannot
be objectively proved or disproved, it's fairly safe to be certain about
them. Of course, different people are quite certain about conflicting
"truths."
It makes more sense to me to keep an open mind; to acknowledge
that you could be wrong. This is especially true of things that can
be objectively demonstrated.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n852.4 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Chicago Inner-City Waldorf Experience?
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 00:54:57 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199808081511.IAA19563 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199808101616.JAA15855 lists1.best.com)
Robert Tolz wrote,
)A friend brought to my attention that an educator from Chicago brought
)the Waldorf method into a Chicago inner-city environment and supposedly
)had astounding success with it. Supposedly, she has spoken to many
)educator's conferences, including one at (where my contact is) Columbia
)University. Does anybody have details?
There is an interesting story going on there at a school called Esperanza.
It is a private school that contracts with the state to take special
education students. It has been operated as a Waldorf "curative education"
school for many years.
Recently the state tightened up its requirements for the teachers in such a
facility, requiring credentials. In came real teachers, out went
Waldorfians, but the management and some peripheral people stayed the same.
Some of the new teachers contacted us. They can't believe how deep the
Waldorf bullshit is that they have to wade through, and characterize the
school as a totally incompetent religious organization. Changes are being
called for. Stand by for more news.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n852.5 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Blavatsky/Steiner (was: Deby falsely accuses Tolz of
dishonesty!)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 21:01:06 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Robert Tolz wrote:
)I do remember many years ago
)trying to read something by Madame Blavatsky (the person who kicked out
)Steiner from the Theosophical Society)
Madame Blavatsky died in 1891. Her successor, Annie Besant, kicked out
Steiner, General Secretary for Germany for life, in 1912.
------------------------------------------
Herman de Tollenaere
------------------------------------------
Internet site:
http://stad.dsl.nl/~hermantl/
See also:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
------------------------------------------
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n852.6 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: treatment of gifted children and P of F
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:29:30 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Dugan:
)Regarding Wulff's sense of "a change going on," some of the people on this
)list also seem to promote the philosophical "entity-free" approach to
)Steiner, based on *The Philosophy of Freedom*. I wish you good luck with
)this. You're going to have to throw out most of the Waldorf literature to
)maintain this position, and I'm not sure it's tenable at all. ...
At first glance I too thought such a position is untenable. When I was
reading "Cosmic Memory" with it's Atlantean hover crafts that run on grains
at other really far out concepts, I asked myself what does this have to do
with _anything_? But when one approaches it from the perspective of
evolving human consciousness, believe it or not, it makes sense. If one
approaches it with from a literal physical/temporal perspective, one will
not get very far. I'm not saying that I entirely agree with Steiner, but I
do see the truth in some of what he says.
)I think P of F is a snow job, a front that Steiner erected to try to show
)that he was really a philosopher, not a guru, and that one could approach
)Anthroposophy from a purely philosophical attitude. That's true, one can
)approach that way, but when you get there, what do you have? P of F to me
)is a very weak position, and the world of philosophy correctly ignored it
)both because it was weak in itself, and because they knew what Steiner was
)really about.
Fair enough Dan, would you please elaborate on the weaknesses you have
found in Steiner's position in his "Philosophy of Freedom"?
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n852.7 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:01:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Now we are getting somewhere. I don't have much time right now, but this is
fair and logical thinking. The important point is that modern science does
not concern itself with the origin of thinking. It uses a tool, namely
thinking, without understanding that tool. That may not appear important at
first, because we take thinking for granted. It is important, however,
because thinking shapes our interpretation of experimental results. We can
believe we have shown something by "explaining" external events, but
discover that we have only a small part of the picture. The reason Kant is
discussed, is that modern science is best represented by his philosophy. If
you were to search high and low for a philosophy of modern science, it would
be found in Kant and "critical idealism." If you interview Hawking about
how he arrives at deductions or the nature of thinking, I expect it would be
along the lines of "critical idealism." We don't need to interview an
individual, however, because the view is ubiquitously repeated in scientific
literature. If you find an alternative view, please share it with us.
The Critical Idealistic view can be summarized:
The objects are out there, we are in our isolated organism. We "test" the
objects and form representations of them. Our representations never fully
mesh with the object under study. The sense impression is transmitted to us
via atoms and nerves and becomes a "percept." We then make deductions or
"precepts" (Note: pre, not per-cept) about the external objects.
Individuals around the world can repeat our experiment on an object, thus
coming to the same "precept." This view, which I think you will agree is
the scientific method, can be proven to be incomplete, at best. It does not
explain the "thing in itself." Philosophically it falls apart - it is not
founded on certain knowledge. This philosophy can only state, "I don't know
what objects are, I can not know anything for certain. I can believe, based
on faith, that the world has fundamental characteristics that my theories
_may_ approximate."
Steve Wrote:
) Personally, I think that there is an objective reality. I also think
) that it is possible for people to "know things for certain" because
) certainty is a subjective state.
That is the result of a "Kantian" philosophy. That statement is
self-contradictory. One can not "know things for certain" if knowing is
subjective. We can not have it both ways. Either you can know or you can
not know.
Steve Wrote:
) It makes more sense to me to keep an open mind; to acknowledge
) that you could be wrong. This is especially true of things that can
) be objectively demonstrated.
I agree. Individuals can be wrong about the things that they do not yet
know for certain. Spiritual science says, "By understanding the nature of
my thinking I have a starting point to know things for certain." No other
philosophy that I have found so far can make this claim. Let me know if you
find one. Experiments must still be made, experiences explained, but there
is no fundamental limit to knowing.
The problem that you have with this (I presume) is that no one can give you
the results on a silver platter. You have to investigate for yourself.
This is not because knowledge is subjective, but because the instrument to
be used to obtain objective experience is thinking itself.
Many books could be written on this so don't take this as a complete
description. "The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity" happens to have the
most complete description of this. It is not some "Bible" that we are
promoting. It is based on logic and reason, which _are_ universal and
repeatable. I have read the "Critical Idealistic" reasoning and it does not
stand up to this same scrutiny. That is the first experiment that can be
repeated anywhere in the world, by anyone.
Steiner's personal experiences do not need to be taken and believed at face
value. I don't claim that this would be scientific. I claim that he is the
first one to have demonstrated that precepts could be known for certain. If
you find a philosophy that can do this, then please share it with us.
- Daniel.
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Tuesday, August 11, 1998 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
On 10 Aug 98, at 20:18, Daniel Perez wrote:
) I am sorry Steve, but that makes no sense.
OK, maybe I'm wrong. I certainly don't know why certain ideas or
modes of thought become fashionable.
My point is that, if I understood correctly, John Calkins feels that
the scientific method, which posits that all theories are subject to
disproof or modification, is based on Kant's concept that nothing
can be known for certain. According to Calkins, Steiner showed
that this is false.
Presumably, this means that by using Steiner's methods of
observation and mental discipline, things can be known for certain.
What I want to know is whether Steiner's
crackpot^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^W unconventional concepts about
human history (including Atlantis, the spiritual abilities of folks in
prior civilizations, etc.), the journey of the soul after death, the
literal existence of angels, the identities and character of spiritual
beings such as Lucifer, Michael, and Ahriman, the incarnation of
the soul into the body in stages, and so on, are things that he
claimed to know for certain.
Personally, I think that there is an objective reality. I also think
that it is possible for people to "know things for certain" because
certainty is a subjective state. But it is no guarantee against being
wrong.
In spiritual matters, it may be very comforting for folks to feel
certain about their beliefs. Since spiritual matters generally cannot
be objectively proved or disproved, it's fairly safe to be certain about
them. Of course, different people are quite certain about conflicting
"truths."
It makes more sense to me to keep an open mind; to acknowledge
that you could be wrong. This is especially true of things that can
be objectively demonstrated.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n852.8 ---------------
From: Sarah (rabbr concentric.net)
Subject: Re: By way of comparison
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:59:05 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808101917.MAA24109 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman wrote:
)
) Districts Seek Substitute Teachers
)
I'm new on this list and I have been observing for a while. I have been
both an advocate and opponent of Waldorf Education. Regarding the
message sent by Ms. Berman, I wonder what the comparison is. Are you
telling us that Waldorf teachers all have teaching degrees and or
certificates? My friend's daughters class teacher has an MBA and a
crash course from Spring Valley. Her art teacher has an MFA and no
prior teaching experience. I have been asked by the head of Council to
be a substitute teacher. When I replied that I had no teaching
experience, it was not a problem. (I loved kids and showed an interest
in Antrhoposophy by going to lectures, so I assume I qualified.) There
are class teachers, specialty teachers and subs all at the same school
with questionable teaching credentials. They must have a Foundation
Year, though.
Sarah Mann
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n852.9 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: technology & Waldorf
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 22:05:10 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199808111524.IAA13776 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org) wrote:
)Don't pay much mind to Mr. Kopp, he is gifted in the use of pejoratives but his
)style lacks substance.
I know Michael can look after hiself in a "robust discussion", but as
one who once held a similar view to that of Ezra Beeman, perhaps I may
comment. Whilst I don't agree with all of Michael Kopp's opinions on
Waldorf education and I too can find his style to be a tad abrasive at
times (but who am I to talk?), I submit that those of us who care for
Waldorf Education must listen to precisely those people who feel that
they or their children have been damaged by it.
To stick out heads in the sand and tell ourselves and others (as I once
did, in spades!) that their criticisms are without substance is to do
*ourselves* a great disservice and to lose an opportunity to strengthen
our education. If, after due consideration/investigation, we find those
criticisms to entirely lack substance, then so be it. However, I think
that we will find that there is an element of fact in all of them, even
if it is, in some cases, a difficult situation being handled very badly
(and who of us can honestly say that we don't recognise that one?).
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n852.10 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 14:47:33 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199808112100.OAA26218 lists1.best.com)
On 11 Aug 98, at 17:01, Daniel Perez wrote:
[A very helpful description of critical idealism, among other things.]
) Steve Wrote:
) ) Personally, I think that there is an objective reality. I also think
) ) that it is possible for people to "know things for certain" because
) ) certainty is a subjective state.
) That is the result of a "Kantian" philosophy. That statement is
) self-contradictory. One can not "know things for certain" if knowing is
) subjective. We can not have it both ways. Either you can know or you can
) not know.
I was really playing with words here. In the subjective sense,
"certainty" is a feeling that one cannot be mistaken, i.e., it is the
absence of feelings of doubt. In the objective sense, one cannot be
certain of something that is false, no matter how much one
believes oneself to be certain.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n852 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n853 --------------
001 - mays VNET.IBM.COM - Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
002 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: technology & Waldorf
003 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
004 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
005 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
006 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: By way of comparison
007 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - re: Tort
008 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Blavatsky/Steiner
009 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Art and the Individual
010 - snell (snell netshel.net) - Re: Blavatsky/Steiner
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n853.1 ---------------
From: mays VNET.IBM.COM
Subject: Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 98 18:18:06 EDT
Debra,
You wrote in response to Daniel Perez regarding my recent post:
) Sorry to disappoint you, Daniel, but I'll not apologise.
Debra, I didn't ask for an apology but rather for a retraction. I have
demonstrated that your statement (that Steiner sought to obtain state
funding for the first Waldorf School) is false and the implications based
on the Steiner quotation are therefore false (among other things that
Steiner, Waldorf Schools and anthroposophists use deception to get what
they want).
Your statement, your use of the quotation and its implications defame
many people. Therefore, it is appropriate to ask you to retract them and
to request that you and PLANS refrain from using this statement and the
particular Steiner quotation in the future.
How about it?
Robert Mays
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n853.2 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: technology & Waldorf
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 16:47:11 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808112106.OAA00788 lists1.best.com)
Stephen,
This post made my heart flutter! Could it be love I'm feeling? :+)
Debra
Stephen Tonkin wrote:
)
) Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org) wrote:
) )Don't pay much mind to Mr. Kopp, he is gifted in the use of pejoratives but his
) )style lacks substance.
)
) I know Michael can look after hiself in a "robust discussion", but as
) one who once held a similar view to that of Ezra Beeman, perhaps I may
) comment. Whilst I don't agree with all of Michael Kopp's opinions on
) Waldorf education and I too can find his style to be a tad abrasive at
) times (but who am I to talk?), I submit that those of us who care for
) Waldorf Education must listen to precisely those people who feel that
) they or their children have been damaged by it.
)
) To stick out heads in the sand and tell ourselves and others (as I once
) did, in spades!) that their criticisms are without substance is to do
) *ourselves* a great disservice and to lose an opportunity to strengthen
) our education. If, after due consideration/investigation, we find those
) criticisms to entirely lack substance, then so be it. However, I think
) that we will find that there is an element of fact in all of them, even
) if it is, in some cases, a difficult situation being handled very badly
) (and who of us can honestly say that we don't recognise that one?).
)
) --
) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
) + Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
) + (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n853.3 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 17:39:11 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808112240.PAA13342 lists1.best.com)
mays VNET.IBM.COM wrote:
)
) Debra,
) You wrote in response to Daniel Perez regarding my recent post:
)
) ) Sorry to disappoint you, Daniel, but I'll not apologise.
)
) Debra, I didn't ask for an apology but rather for a retraction. I have
) demonstrated that your statement (that Steiner sought to obtain state
) funding for the first Waldorf School) is false and the implications based
) on the Steiner quotation are therefore false (among other things that
) Steiner, Waldorf Schools and anthroposophists use deception to get what
) they want).
This is what I did:
"We must worm our way through. . . . [I]n order to do what we want to
do...."
The ". . . . " indicates that there is more to the quote, as does the "[
]" where I capitalized the letter i. I believe that it sums up the
essence of what is said without typing so many words.
Debra
)
)Therefore, it is appropriate to ask you to retract them and
) to request that you and PLANS refrain from using this statement and the
) particular Steiner quotation in the future.
I will not personally use that quote again unless I say [snip] instead
of
using ". . . ." to indicate what I did.
Best,
Debra
)
) How about it?
)
) Robert Mays
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n853.4 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 10:24:10 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199808111406.HAA28994 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Perez, you wrote to Deby,
)Are you claiming that Mr. May's posting did not convince you of your
)misquotes? How do you explain the facts, Deby? If I had made this mistake,
)I would certainly apologize. Have you noticed that I thank people when they
)make a truthful point, when there is information I did not have before? You
)strike me as very mature, and I honestly thought you would apologize.
I just don't get it. Deby says Steiner's "worm our way" quote was in the
context of getting state approval for his school. Then Mays flames Deby for
claiming Steiner wanted state -funding-, which he didn't, and she didn't
say, either. Mays quotes Steiner at length, and the context doesn't change
the meaning of the excerpt at all. Steiner's telling them to keep their
cards close to their chest, when talking to the authorities, to tell them
what they want to hear. He knew if the Anthroposophy stuff got out, he'd be
sunk. Steiner set up the cover-up in Waldorf schools that, since they don't
evolve, has continued in exactly the same form to the present day.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n853.5 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 18:01:28 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199808120037.RAA14819 lists1.best.com)
On 11 Aug 98, at 17:39, Debra Snell wrote:
) This is what I did:
)
) "We must worm our way through. . . . [I]n order to do what we want to
) do...." The ". . . . " indicates that there is more to the quote, as does
) the "[ ]" where I capitalized the letter i. I believe that it sums up the
) essence of what is said without typing so many words.
)
) I will not personally use that quote again unless I say [snip] instead of
) using ". . . ." to indicate what I did.
Deby, that's silly. The only mistake you made in the quote was to
put four dots in your ellipsis instead of three. If you want to say
[snip] instead of using an ellipsis, fine, but there's nothing wrong
with your use of an ellipsis.
You didn't misquote Steiner. You did take a quote out of context;
that is the nature of a quote. And you interpret it differently than
Mays. Maybe you've even misinterpreted the quote; I didn't pay
that much attention. But misinterpreting a quote is hardly
defamation, and I wouldn't take those accusations of defamation
too seriously.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n853.6 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: By way of comparison
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 22:05:41 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808101917.MAA24109 lists1.best.com) (199808112104.OAA29332 lists1.best.com)
If you were referring to Mr. Beeman, I was offering the news feed as current data on the state of public school hiring practices. Everything else you have suggested is speculation on your part. I said nothing beyond the subject heading.
e
Sarah wrote:
) Ezra Beeman wrote:
) )
) ) Districts Seek Substitute Teachers
) )
)
) I'm new on this list and I have been observing for a while. I have been
) both an advocate and opponent of Waldorf Education. Regarding the
) message sent by Ms. Berman, I wonder what the comparison is. Are you
) telling us that Waldorf teachers all have teaching degrees and or
) certificates? My friend's daughters class teacher has an MBA and a
) crash course from Spring Valley. Her art teacher has an MFA and no
) prior teaching experience. I have been asked by the head of Council to
) be a substitute teacher. When I replied that I had no teaching
) experience, it was not a problem. (I loved kids and showed an interest
) in Antrhoposophy by going to lectures, so I assume I qualified.) There
) are class teachers, specialty teachers and subs all at the same school
) with questionable teaching credentials. They must have a Foundation
) Year, though.
)
) Sarah Mann
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n853.7 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: re: Tort
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 22:21:28 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808120103.SAA06706 lists1.best.com)
Would someone please explain to me the difficulty in understanding how quoting Steiner out of context leads to slanderous and misleading conclusions?? I've already pointed out the issue is not copywrite or quotation syntax, it is one of defamation.
Misinterpreting a quote??? That is the crux of the matter, and I am struggling to follow the logic that leads one to focus on the misinterpretation instead of the result. (Whoops, I THOUGHT there was a fire in that crowded theater.)
Steve Premo wrote:
) You didn't misquote Steiner. You did take a quote out of context;
) that is the nature of a quote. And you interpret it differently than
) Mays. Maybe you've even misinterpreted the quote; I didn't pay
) that much attention. But misinterpreting a quote is hardly
) defamation, and I wouldn't take those accusations of defamation
) too seriously.
)
) Steve Premo
) Santa Cruz, California
) http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n853.8 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Blavatsky/Steiner
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:32:23 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808112150.OAA02297 lists1.best.com)
Herman de Tollenaere wrote:
) Robert Tolz wrote:
)
) )I do remember many years ago
) )trying to read something by Madame Blavatsky (the person who kicked out
) )Steiner from the Theosophical Society)
)
) Madame Blavatsky died in 1891. Her successor, Annie Besant, kicked out
) Steiner, General Secretary for Germany for life, in 1912.
Thank you, Herman. I stand corrected.
But I just gotta' laugh. Debbie, if the foregoing factual error
doesn't convince you I'm not an Anthroposophical shill, nothing will!
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n853.9 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Art and the Individual
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 01:32:13 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hi Eric!
Eric Barrows wrote:
)What I thought was my ëindividualityí was really anthoposiphic programming.
)(having a life crises here can anybody help?)
I mentioned to my wife Delia the questions you've raised on the list.
However, I haven't told her that you assumed that her work "could have
been done by anyone with an anthroposophical background." She might
take that as a very cruel insult, and I'm sure that was not what you
intended.
In any event, Delia sympathized with your plight about feeling
constrained by your Waldorf training. Just a few years ago, she became
aware that there exists a branch of art influenced by Steiner. Delia
was surprised to find some similarities between her own work and that of
artists trained under a Steiner type of influence.
She has spoken with some of those artists and viewed their work. Some
of them, she found, were extremely constrained by the training, to the
extreme that instead of viewing and examining Delia's openly,
objectively and for its own sake, one artist tried to get her to take
courses with him to learn how to do art more in tune with Steiner.
On the other hand, there was an art teacher at the Waldorf school where
we send our kids who became quite aware of the pressure to conform to a
particular style and found it necessary to break away. He now gives
courses to people trained in the "Steinerian" methods on how to
individualize one's own artwork! What I understand is that he hasn't
become anti-Waldorf or anti-Steiner. He has simply recognized the
plight that you find yourself in and has taken some steps to get himself
out of it and to assist others in doing so. If you're interested, I can
probably find out how you can contact him.
It's obvious to me that Delia has much greater respect for the artist
who broke away than for the artist who sought to impress the mold on his
and everyone else's art.
When I asked her what comments she might have for you personally, her
very first comment was that she would love to see your work! I see from
your email address that you're in Australia, so the commute is likely to
be a little difficult. Do you have any scans you could send? A URL?
Delia is not one to give unsolicited advice, but she was able to tell
me what she felt was important in her own experience, and that is to
continue to pay attention to her inner work and to try to express that
through her art.
I have a feeling that if you wanted to engage in an email
correspondence with her on these subjects, artist to artist, she'd love
to be of service. Just understand that she's computer-phobic (she says
she's not phobic, she just doesn't have patience for computers -- a
likely story), so I'd be reading everything and inputting all of her
replies.
When I discussed these issues with her, I recalled that in the public
schools I attended we never had a regular art class after about the
second grade. I asked Delia which she thought was worse -- being taught
art in a limiting way throughout pre-college education, or not being
taught art at all. Her response was immediate: that it would definitely
be worse not being taught art at all. She pointed to the example of our
two nephews who showed so much artistic ability when they were little,
and then lost the capacity and interest when they received no more fuel
for the artistic fire.
By the way, I didn't see anything in what you previously posted which
required an apology. I don't know what Daniel Perez was referring to.
Also.... I've been working on our own website, especially the virtual
art gallery that you've already visited. It'll show quite a bit more
variety that what you've already seen. If you'd like to get a preview,
I'd be happy to zip up the thumbnails and send them to you.
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n853.10 ---------------
From: snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Blavatsky/Steiner
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 98 23:00:16 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
)Subject: Re: Blavatsky/Steiner
)Sent: 8/11/98 10:32 PM
)Received: 8/11/98 10:55 PM
)From: Robert Tolz, rtolz cosmoweb.net
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)
)Herman de Tollenaere wrote:
)) Robert Tolz wrote:
)
) Thank you, Herman. I stand corrected.
) But I just gotta' laugh. Debbie, if the foregoing factual error
)doesn't convince you I'm not an Anthroposophical shill, nothing will!
Hi Bob,
Actually, if you say you aren't an Anthroposophist, that is good enough
for me. It is not uncommon for some of PLANS members to know more about
Anthroposophy than some self proclaimedAnthroposophists.
Deby
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n853 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n854 --------------
001 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
002 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Spiritual Science
003 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Tort
004 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Blavatsky/Steiner
005 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - libel
006 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Tort
007 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Blavatsky/Steiner
008 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Spiritual Science
009 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
010 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Art and the Individual
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n854.1 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 14:27:31 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199808120037.RAA14819 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199808120103.SAA06706 lists1.best.com)
)On 11 Aug 98, at 17:39, Debra Snell wrote:
)
)) This is what I did:
))
)) "We must worm our way through. . . . [I]n order to do what we want to
)) do...." The ". . . . " indicates that there is more to the quote, as does
)) the "[ ]" where I capitalized the letter i. I believe that it sums up
))the
)) essence of what is said without typing so many words.
))
)) I will not personally use that quote again unless I say [snip] instead
))of
)) using ". . . ." to indicate what I did.
)
)Deby, that's silly. The only mistake you made in the quote was to
)put four dots in your ellipsis instead of three. If you want to say
)[snip] instead of using an ellipsis, fine, but there's nothing wrong
)with your use of an ellipsis.
)
)You didn't misquote Steiner. You did take a quote out of context;
)that is the nature of a quote. And you interpret it differently than
)Mays. Maybe you've even misinterpreted the quote; I didn't pay
)that much attention. But misinterpreting a quote is hardly
)defamation, and I wouldn't take those accusations of defamation
)too seriously.
)
)
)Steve Premo
Slander and defamation suits are pretty much obsolete in the U.S., are they
not?
Americans sue for libel, and the burden of proof is on the complainant,
especially in the case of public figures, which, arguably, Steiner was.
New Zealand and Britain still have suits for defamation, and the burden of
proof is on the _defendant_. The defenses are somewhat the same, but the
plaintiff does not have to prove malice, as in the U.S., at least in the
case of public figures.
In New Zealand, one can be defamed by the truth, and recover damages, in
some circumstances.
Finally, it is impossible in law to defame or libel a dead person, as I
understand it, certainly one as long dead as Steiner.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n854.2 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Spiritual Science
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 98 23:26:07 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
John Calkins (469593N knotes.kodak.com) wrote )
)Spiritual science is in its infancy. It does not know better, but it knows
)different. We (collectively as a culture) are just beginning to address
)the questions raised from a spiritual scientific perspective, and it would
)be arrogant to think that we have the answers. The fact is is that there
)is much work to be done to understand the world from this perspective.
)
)You don't have to answer if you don't want to, but I am still curious about
)your use of the words "arrogant" and "oxymoron" to characterize spiritual
)science. If you like, the way I see Steiner's use of the word "spiritual"
)are those intangible realities like thoughts, feelings, and
)sense-perceptions in addition to anything that may exist observable through
)clairvoyance.
Let's start with the self-assured notion that anthroposophical medicine
or homeopathy have any validity. This is the "moron" in oxymoron. Let's
finish with the notion of clairvoyance.
-- Daniel Sabsay, predsident
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n854.3 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Tort
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 02:28:08 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808120557.WAA23225 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman wrote:
)Would someone please explain to me the difficulty in understanding
)how quoting Steiner out of context leads to slanderous and misleading
)conclusions?? I've already pointed out the issue is not copywrite or
)quotation syntax, it is one of defamation.
)Misinterpreting a quote??? That is the crux of the matter, and I
)am struggling to follow the logic that leads one to focus on the
)misinterpretation instead of the result. (Whoops, I THOUGHT there
)was a fire in that crowded theater.)
Sure, Ezra. Take it from a lawyer who once sued someone else for
defaming me (actually it was my own "hot button" issue of impugning my
honesty) -- I don't think defamation applies to this situation at all.
Defamation consists of uttering (slander) or writing (libel) words which
impugns someone's character. To have a worthwhile lawsuit, you'd not
only need to show the improper act took place, but in almost all cases
you'd have to show some form of economic harm. I really don't see
defamation here.
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n854.4 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Blavatsky/Steiner
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 02:34:48 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808120557.WAA23225 lists1.best.com)
Debra Snell wrote:
) Hi Bob,
)
) Actually, if you say you aren't an Anthroposophist, that is good enough
) for me. It is not uncommon for some of PLANS members to know more about
) Anthroposophy than some self proclaimedAnthroposophists.
) Deby
I knew you sounded like a more reasonable-minded person than some of the
other PLANS supporters on this list! You and Steve Premo rate pretty
high in my book on that scale.
By the way, I'd still love to see some of the literature PLANS hands out
to parents. How do I get ahold of some? I'm interested in how you go
about your function of educating people about Waldorf.
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n854.5 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: libel
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 00:16:49 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808120037.RAA14819 lists1.best.com) (199808120618.XAA16399 lists1.best.com)
I found what you said instructive, but I had a question or two. If I ever find the time to sit for the LSAT (and the motivation) then I will be better informed. In the meanwhile, what of the following:
) Americans sue for libel, and the burden of proof is on the complainant,
) especially in the case of public figures, which, arguably, Steiner was.
I agree, and with the exception of legacy estates (ie Walt Disney or say, L. Ron) it is hard to slander the dead (and have it result in loss satisfying libel.) But that would be the straw man example in this case.To get a better idea of who might be
slandered I would look for who might have suffered loss by these statements. I think here the victims (monetarily speaking) would be the Waldorf schools or the AWS. So as far as I am concerned, one can rail against Steiner until Rapture, but if one
rails against Waldorf Schools 'falsely' (which that post did by taking the quote out of context so as to mislead) and it results in loss, then there is case for libel.
) In New Zealand, one can be defamed by the truth, and recover damages, in
) some circumstances.
This I find to be quite interesting, would you give an example? I am under the impression that the best defence for defamation is the truth.
) Finally, it is impossible in law to defame or libel a dead person, as I
) understand it, certainly one as long dead as Steiner.
Wouldn't that involve standing, and if the dead represented something to the living (ie estate) then the loss would be to the living (heirs or owners.)
But I admit that my knowledge of law is probably akin to the lawyers knowledge of art. That said, I am curious as to where reason or fact break down in my arguments.
ezra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n854.6 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Tort
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 00:20:25 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808120557.WAA23225 lists1.best.com) (199808120631.XAA01616 lists1.best.com)
Robert Tolz wrote:
Defamation consists of uttering (slander) or writing (libel) words which impugns someone's character. To have a worthwhile lawsuit, you'd not only need to show the improper act took place,
We are in agreement that the hypothetically libelous statement occured.
but in almost all cases you'd have to show some form of economic harm.
That would be the more dificult of the two. I gave some reasoning in my reply to Mr. Kopp's post. The vicitm of the libel is not Steiner, but WE. Since Waldorf schools are legal entities, could they not have standing?
ezra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n854.7 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Blavatsky/Steiner
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 07:52:11 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
)Hi Bob,
)
)Actually, if you say you aren't an Anthroposophist, that is good enough
)for me. It is not uncommon for some of PLANS members to know more about
)Anthroposophy than some self proclaimedAnthroposophists.
)Deby
Deby, if this makes any difference to you, I am not an Anthroposophist
either. I do admire much of Steiner's work. I also admire much of the
work of Aristotle and Kant, but I am not a philosopher either. If reading
Steiner or taking Waldorf education courses make one an anthroposophist,
then Dan Dugan and Kathy (Spike?) would qualify. I do not belong to any
anthroposophical organizations, and I subscribe to no anthroposophical
publications.
-John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n854.8 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Spiritual Science
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 08:41:12 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
))You don't have to answer if you don't want to, but I am still curious
about
))your use of the words "arrogant" and "oxymoron" to characterize spiritual
))science. If you like, the way I see Steiner's use of the word
"spiritual"
))are those intangible realities like thoughts, feelings, and
))sense-perceptions in addition to anything that may exist observable
through
))clairvoyance.
)
)Let's start with the self-assured notion that anthroposophical medicine
)or homeopathy have any validity. This is the "moron" in oxymoron. Let's
)finish with the notion of clairvoyance.
)
)-- Daniel Sabsay, predsident
) East Bay Skeptics Society
Whose self-assured notion are you talking about? I know virtual nothing
about homeopathy and anthroposophical medicine aside from a general idea of
how they are practiced. I cannot make any claims for either one.
As far as conventional medicine is concerned, there is plenty to praise and
criticize. Take antibiotics (figuratively that is) for instance. One
would have to be rather extreme not to acknowledge their benefits for
fighting infection. At the same, their excessive use has led to resistant
strains of TB and other bacteria. Daniel Perez has commented on the abuses
of toxic "therapies" for cancer. I don't know what the solutions are to
these extremes of western medicine, but it seems to me that a more balanced
approach would probably be more effective.
What I gave above was my impression of what Steiner means by the word
"spiritual". I am not asking anyone to believe that Steiner was
clairvoyant.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n854.9 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Connection waldorf-anthroposophy
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:35:35 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
)Steve [Premo] Wrote:
)) It makes more sense to me to keep an open mind; to acknowledge
)) that you could be wrong. This is especially true of things that can
)) be objectively demonstrated.
Daniel Perez:
)I agree. Individuals can be wrong about the things that they do not yet
)know for certain. Spiritual science says, "By understanding the nature
of
)my thinking I have a starting point to know things for certain." No other
)philosophy that I have found so far can make this claim. Let me know if
you
)find one. Experiments must still be made, experiences explained, but
there
)is no fundamental limit to knowing.
It is worth elaborating this point of understanding the nature of thinking.
We have the ability to think about our thinking. That
_thinking_can_be_understood_by_itself_ makes it a self-consistent basis for
knowledge. Anyone can do this. Just after you have finished some activity
of thought, through thinking, you can recall your process of thinking. As
Steve points out, the thinking may be faulty. How we can know anything
(aside from our thoughts) with certainty is another question, and a complex
one at that.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n854.10 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Art and the Individual
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 10:08:39 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Robert Tolz Wrote:
===============
By the way, I didn't see anything in what you previously posted which
required an apology. I don't know what Daniel Perez was referring to.
Also.... I've been working on our own website, especially the virtual
art gallery that you've already visited. It'll show quite a bit more
variety that what you've already seen. If you'd like to get a preview,
I'd be happy to zip up the thumbnails and send them to you.
===============
I was primarily referring to the quote made by Deby. As stated by Ezra to
Robert Tolz, "We are in agreement that the hypothetically libelous statement
occurred." About the same time as this there was a statement that your
(Robert's) wife's artwork was typical "Waldorf." As you pointed out this
artwork was not inspired by Steiner. That is an error, is it not? Usually
an individual replies, "Sorry, it was an error to state that it was typical
Waldorf (or Steiner)."
I only really cared about Deby's error (or misleading quote) that you and
Ezra have been discussing. The art question is simply humorous, but not at
anyones expense! It was at least an "honest" mistake (not that Deby's was
dishonest, I just do not know her motivation). Do you and Ezra both agree
that Deby's post was misleading?? After I read the post of Mr. Mays the
meaning of the quote was finally evident. Steiner had many experiences with
people intentionally taking quotes out of context in order to change the
effective meaning.
.... I'm open to other views Robert!
By the way, I'm not interested in getting into a tit-for-tat. I had simply
hoped that Deby would be able to say, "The out-of-context quote portrayed a
different meaning from Mr. May's posting."
I'll be interested to visit your web site Robert! I studied art with
Michael Howard (briefly in high school) and was impressed with his work. Do
you have a sense for his art? I have not seen anything recently.
- Daniel.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n854 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n855 --------------
001 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Tort
002 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Art and the Individual
003 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: libel
004 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - PLANS misconceptions
005 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Blavatsky/Steiner
006 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: libel
007 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - secular society
008 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: libel
009 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: libel
010 - snell (snell netshel.net) - Re: libel
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n855.1 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Tort
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:33:56 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808121407.HAA11167 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman wrote:
)
) We are in agreement that the hypothetically libelous statement occured.
)
) but in almost all cases you'd have to show some form of economic harm.
)
) That would be the more dificult of the two. I gave some reasoning in my reply to Mr. Kopp's post. The vicitm of the libel is not Steiner, but WE. Since Waldorf schools are legal entities, could they not have standing?
I think it might be possible for a non-individual to sue for defamation,
but for an action to exist I think you have to have a lot more than a
misquote or a quote out of context. Simply to misrepresent what someone
has said really is not defamation.
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n855.2 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Art and the Individual
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:33:59 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808121407.HAA11167 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Perez wrote:
) Do you and Ezra both agree that Deby's post was misleading??
Sorry, I can't be the mediator on that one. I didn't follow that thread
closely and I don't have the back issues in hand.
)
) I'll be interested to visit your web site Robert! I studied art with
) Michael Howard (briefly in high school) and was impressed with his work. Do
) you have a sense for his art? I have not seen anything recently.
I don't know who Michael Howard is. My wife may or may not. When I get
back home from this business trip to San Jose (felt my first California
earthquake this morning), I'll try to remember to ask her.
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n855.3 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: libel
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 08:59:56 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199808120717.AAA08122 lists1.best.com)
On 12 Aug 98, at 0:16, Ezra Beeman wrote:
) I agree, and with the exception of legacy estates (ie Walt Disney or say,
) L. Ron) it is hard to slander the dead (and have it result in loss
) satisfying libel.)
Correct. No civil action lies to protect the reputation of the
deceased.
) I think here the victims
) (monetarily speaking) would be the Waldorf schools or the AWS. So as far
) as I am concerned, one can rail against Steiner until Rapture, but if one
) rails against Waldorf Schools 'falsely' (which that post did by taking the
) quote out of context so as to mislead) and it results in loss, then there
) is case for libel.
Here, you're talking about trade libel. This requires a statement of
fact (not merely opinion) and generally requires the disparagement
of the quality of goods. I'm not sure it could apply to the quality of
services at all, and in any event it would be difficult to show that a
statement that, say, someone is a lousy teacher or that a school
does a poor job is a statement of fact rather than opinion.
The statement you feel is defamatory, if I understand correctly, is
that Waldorf schools have a goal of developing the spiritual nature
of kids in specific ways, and that the schools downplay this in
talking to the parents of prospective students. Personally, I think
that's true. My experience is that the school will talk about
recognizing the spiritual nature of humanity, and about nurturing
that spiritual nature, but tend to talk about it in vague terms when
the concepts involved are really quite specific. I suspect the
reason for this is to avoid conflict with the parents' own concepts of
the spiritual nature of their children.
Be that as it may, it *might* be possible to maintain a trade
defamation action if (1) you can show that the statement is untrue;
(2) you can show that it is a statement of fact, rather than of
opinion; and (3) you can demonstrate that specific people were
dissuaded from enrolling their kids in the school, so that the school
lost money.
It seems to me that the chances of success are extremely slim.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n855.4 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: PLANS misconceptions
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 09:13:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808120103.SAA06650 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Steiner's telling them to keep their
) cards close to their chest, when talking to the authorities, to tell them
) what they want to hear.
These were the same bureaucrats that gave rise to National Socialism. Probable rank and file Nazi party members within the decade.
) He knew if the Anthroposophy stuff got out, he'd be
) sunk.
By the collectivist and fascist authorities.
) Steiner set up the cover-up in Waldorf schools that, since they don't
) evolve, has continued in exactly the same form to the present day.
If you mean standing for something that is met with suspiscion by the average person, you're probably correct.
I remember in 2nd of 3rd grade reading flyers that were dumped on our campus by unknown individuals (this preceeded PLANS) claiming that we were a satanic cult. If my memory serves, there were crude pictures and depictions of ceremonies by moonlight. For a child of 7 or 8, this is profoundly confusing, especially since that had not been my experience. I remember (vividly) not understanding how someone could bear such false witness.
I don't believe that was an isolated incident and that others have occured as well. I'm sure they are more likely to escalate with suspicions (be they 'kernals of truth' or no) raised by PLANS (including misinterpretations).
ezra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n855.5 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Blavatsky/Steiner
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 02:43:10 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199808120557.WAA23225 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199808120637.XAA06314 lists1.best.com)
Robert Tolz, you wrote,
)By the way, I'd still love to see some of the literature PLANS hands out
)to parents. How do I get ahold of some? I'm interested in how you go
)about your function of educating people about Waldorf.
We're planning to produce a pamphlet or two for parents, but they're not
out yet. We have a packet of articles and newspaper clippings about Waldorf
that we send out with a donation of $15 requested.
-Dan Dugan
Secretary, PLANS
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n855.6 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: libel
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:13:11 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808121601.JAA20017 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote:
) Here, you're talking about trade libel. This requires a statement of
) fact (not merely opinion) and generally requires the disparagement
) of the quality of goods. I'm not sure it could apply to the quality of
) services at all, and in any event it would be difficult to show that a
) statement that, say, someone is a lousy teacher or that a school
) does a poor job is a statement of fact rather than opinion.
First let me distinguish between two possible cases. The first is the quote out of context implying that Waldorf Schools behave fraudulently, always have, always will. The second is the statements that Waldorf Schools conspire to defraud their customers (parents of students and the students themselves). This is one of PLANS' stated goals.Second, could you elaborate, in a legal context, the difference between a statement of fact and one of opinion?? For example, what do you make of the
following: 'Microsoft is the anti-Christ.' This seems to be a fairly straight forward opinion on my part. But say I was the Pope and hundreds of millions of Catholics world wide stopped buying MS products. It would seem to me that the Pope is responsible for the ensuing losses, provided his opinion proved groundless.
Perhaps all this is pointless, but I am very unclear as to the precedent distinguishing between statements of fact (which I believe PLANS is claiming for legal recourse) and those of opinion. Often, fact is decided in the courtroom via expert opinion.
) Be that as it may, it *might* be possible to maintain a trade
) defamation action if (1) you can show that the statement is untrue;
) (2) you can show that it is a statement of fact, rather than of
) opinion; and (3) you can demonstrate that specific people were
) dissuaded from enrolling their kids in the school, so that the school
) lost money.
I think that 3) is supported by PLANS victories (and I've seen posts from Dan that affirm this.)
ezra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n855.7 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: secular society
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:44:48 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I would like to posit the following hypothesis. If PLANS thesis is correct, and Anthroposophy's relationship to WE, by virtue of teachers being anthroposophists (say by taking the foundation year), makes WE religious. Than it follows that Public Education relationships to Christianity, by virtue of teachers being Christian (or whatever faith) (say by holding religious convictions, see below), makes PE religious. This is not airtight, but something to consider.
e
Most Americans expect to go to heaven
NEW YORK, Aug. 12 (UPI) Most Americans are optimistic
about their long-term future they think they are going to heaven.
A recent Harris poll finds that 84 percent of adults believe souls
survive after death and more than three-quarters of those
respondents expect to go heaven 64 percent of the population.
Just 2 percent think they are headed to hell and 4 percent
anticipate going to purgatory.
Almost all interviewees who identified themselves as Christians
say they have faith in God 99 percent. Plus, 96 percent said they
believe in the resurrection of Christ and 91 percent in the Virgin
birth, beliefs held by 49 and 47 percent of non-Christians
respectively.
However, about one-fifth of the self-styled Christians also believe
in reincarnation, a clear conflict with traditional Christian dogma.
Almost the same percentage of the general public also think they
were once another person.
And 37 percent of public put stock in astrology, 35 percent in
ghosts.
When pollsters asked the population as a whole whether they
believed in God, 94 percent said yes. An estimated nine out of 10
respondents acknowledged heaven and 73 percent believe in the
devil and in hell.
The survey was conducted among a nationwide cross section of
1,011 adults between July 17-21. The results have a statistical
precision of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n855.8 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: libel
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 11:57:58 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (199808121815.LAA02506 lists1.best.com)
On 12 Aug 98, at 11:13, Ezra Beeman wrote:
) First let me distinguish between two possible cases. The first is the
) quote out of context implying that Waldorf Schools behave fraudulently,
) always have, always will. The second is the statements that Waldorf
) Schools conspire to defraud their customers (parents of students and the
) students themselves). This is one of PLANS' stated goals.
Is it? I thought their goal was to ensure that Waldorf schools fully
disclosed the nature of Anthroposophy to the parents of
prospective schools. Do you have information showing that
PLANS' goal is to accuse Waldorf schools of a conspiracy to
defraud?
) Second, could you
) elaborate, in a legal context, the difference between a statement of fact
) and one of opinion??
That's a difficult question, and often a matter of contention between
the parties in a defamation suit. Was the statement in question an
assertion of fact or of opinion?
Here's a lengthy quote from Hoffman Co. v. E.I. DuPont de
Nemours & Co. (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 390, 397-398. (Bob,
California official cites put the date before the volume and page.
We don't follow the Blue Book out here.)
[begin quote]
If respondents' statements about appellant are opinions, the cause of
action for trade libel must of course fail. "Under the First Amendment
there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion
may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges
and juries but on the competition of other ideas. But there is no
constitutional value in false statements of fact."4 (Gertz v. Robert
Welch, Inc. (1974) 418 U.S. 323, 339340, fn. omitted.) Statements of fact
can be true or false, but an opinion ó "a view, judgment, or appraisal
formed in the mind ... [,a] belief stronger than impression and less strong
than positive knowledge" ó is the result of a mental process and not
capable of proof in terms of truth or falsity. (Webster's Third New
Internat. Dict. (1970) p. 1582.)
In most cases "[t]he critical determination of whether the allegedly
defamatory statement constitutes fact or opinion is a question of law."
(Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 596, 601; Okun v.
Superior Court (1981) 29 Cal.3d 442, 450; Baker v. Los Angeles Herald
Examiner (1986) 42 Cal.3d 254, 260.) However, where a statement is
ambiguous and capable of being understood by the average reader as
being either fact or opinion, categorization of the statement is not a
question of law and must be left to the jury's determination. (Good
Government Group of Seal Beach, Inc. v. Superior Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d
672, 680682.)
"The distinction [between fact and opinion] frequently is a difficult one
...." (Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 601; see
also, Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. (1st Cir. 1982)
692 F.2d 189, 194, affd. 466 U.S. 485; Prosser & Keeton, The Law of Torts
(5th ed. 1984) ß 113A, pp. 813815; Titus, Statement of Fact Versus
Statement of Opinion ó A Spurious Dispute in Fair Comment (1962) 15
Vand.L.Rev. 1203; note, Fair Comment (1949) 62 Harv.L.Rev. 1207.) To
make the differentiation "California courts have developed a 'totality of
the circumstances' test ...." (Baker v. Los Angeles Herald Examiner,
supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 260.) The court must put itself in the place of an
"'"average reader"'" and decide the "'"natural and probable effect"'" of
the statement. (Ibid., citing MacLeod v. Tribune Publishing Co. (1959) 52
Cal.2d 536, 547.) The words themselves must be examined to see if they
have a defamatory meaning, or if the "'"sense and meaning ... fairly
presumed to have been conveyed to those who read it"'" have a
defamatory meaning. (42 Cal.3d at p. 261, citing Scott v. McDonnell
Douglas Corp. (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 277, 291, fn. 11.) Statements
"'cautiously phrased in terms of apparency'" are more likely to be
opinions. (42 Cal.3d at pp. 260261, citing Gregory v. McDonnell
Douglas Corp., supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 603.)
In addition to the language, the context of a statement must be examined.
(Baker, supra, 42 Cal.3d at p. 261.) The court must "look at the nature
and full content of the communication and to the knowledge and
understanding of the audience to whom the publication was directed."
(Ibid.)
[end quote]
I'm not sure if that's helpful to you, but there it is.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n855.9 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: libel
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:14:51 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808121859.LAA11343 lists1.best.com)
It was helpful, although it did not shed light on what 'defamatory meaning' constitutes. I found
"Statements 'cautiously phrased in terms of apparency' are more likely to be opinions. (42 Cal.3d at pp. 260261, citing Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 603.)" interesting as the misquotation was not cautiously phrased by any stretch of the imagination. Rarely are statements imbedded in such language on this list (or on PLANS website). The misquote was a false statement of fact (and echoed in subsequent post by Dan).
I see how defamation and libel are not simple things to prove, we are all better off for it (IMHO).
ezra
PS Am I delirious or has Dan made those same statements time and again with regard to WE results? That exact sentence may not have been uttered, but the meaning was conveyed. (speaking, of course, as an 'average' person) (g)
Steve Premo wrote:
) Do you have information showing that
) PLANS' goal is to accuse Waldorf schools of a conspiracy to
) defraud?
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n855.10 ---------------
From: snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: libel
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 98 14:19:33 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Ezra writes:
[snip]
) For example, what do you make of the
)following: 'Microsoft is the anti-Christ.' This seems to be a fairly
)straight forward opinion on my part. But say I was the Pope and hundreds
)of millions of Catholics world wide stopped buying MS products. It would
)seem to me that the Pope is responsible for the ensuing losses, provided
)his opinion proved groundless.
I wonder what Microsoft would think of this quote:
"VI. Who's in that machine? Examining the spiritual reality behind the
computer."
[snip first paragraph]
"The alteration of man's being toward hell occured in two stages, as the
serpent captured Eve's attention, and then Adam and Eve excercised their
will, eating the apple. Both events propelled them toward hell, and were
followed by a downward spiral of degeneration. They moved from the Edenic
to the fallen. The earth hardened, dried up. Life became a continual
struggle, all of which is reflected in our lives today.
Much later, in 1879 as Rudolf Steiner tells us, Satan was cast down to
earth, and so could actually be present in the world of material objects.
Also in 1879, the first electric, artificial light burned. All other
lights before that were related to the sun. The "burning" associated with
electricity has its own basis, unrelated to the sun. During this same
year Frega invented "concept-script" --logic as an intellectual object
unrelated to the world. Later Von Neumann took this much further, when he
conceived of automata -- creatures capable of reproducing themselves, and
which include the means of reproduction. So, from "wordless logic" and
"sunless light", the computer was designed. Now, David Black exclaimed,
the serpent is in the computer, and each person is offered the chance to
be a child of hell.
Paying attention to the computer changes us. One of the reasons why
working with the computer is so attractive is that it can provide a
substitute for our own will. Will seems to come from the computer even as
our will flows into the machine. After living with the computer for
awhile, we begin to loose our own will. Where does it go?"
Computers and Waldorf Education - David Sloan, Arthur Fink and David
Mitchell, The Association of Waldorf Schools of North America, Pine Hill
Waldorf School, p. 10-11.
posted by Debra
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n855 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n856 --------------
001 - Gary Meier (meierg pt.Cya - Kolisko Conference Happenings
002 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Waldorf/Anthroposophic art
003 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Re: technology & Waldorf
004 - Sarah (rabbr concentric.n - Re: By way of comparison
005 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Re: technology & Waldorf
006 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Re: libel
007 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: By way of comparison
008 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Re: Spiritual Science
009 - Sarah (rabbr concentric.n - Re: Art and the individual
010 - "Eric Barrows" (eric.barr - Re: Art and the Individual
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n856.1 ---------------
From: Gary Meier (meierg pt.Cyanamid.COM)
Subject: Kolisko Conference Happenings
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 98 17:47:07 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I read with interest Dan's listing of some of the workshops at the Kolisko
conference. Lots of questions came to mind, but I'll focus on those raised
by number 16, reproduced below:
)16. Dennis Klocek, Goethean Studies Teacher, and Gerald Karnow, M.D.,
)U.S.A. "Studies in Perception and Proportion as Foundation for Child
)Observation: Practical work with the polarities of large headed/small
)headed, earthly/cosmic, fantasy rich/poor."
)"Salt is significant for the body because it is a crystalline substance
)that unites the great poles of acid and base. If the body does not learn to
)dissolve salts and incorporate them into its own personal context, then the
)balance between the working of the nervous system and that of the
)metabolism cannot be properly maintained. By adequately salting the child's
)food or giving therapeutic doses of lead compounds-there are certain salts
)of lead that can be given safely-we help the body break down solid
)substances, substances that are pure salts. When we do this, we are working
)by way of the metabolism to stimulate the ability to make clear and
)conscious distinctions, to consciously separate and unite things. All of
)these are helpful to the large-headed child."
)[Glockler, Michaela M.D. "Constitutional Problems in Children of School
)Age: The 'Large-headed' and 'Small-headed' Child." Association for a
)Healing Education Newsletter. Fall 1993, Volume 9, pp. 12-26, p. 19.]
Therapeutic doses of LEAD compounds for children? Can anyone cite
peer-reviewed medical literature supporting this recommendation? I'm aware
of other elements that are highly toxic in small doses, yet essential for
life in very very small amounts (Cr, Se, for example) but I've never seen
lead on this list. I'm concerned about the logic behind the lead
"prescription", because the discussion of salt in the body in the above
text is pretty much gibberish.
I've not encountered the "large head/small head" diagnostic before, and if
anyone could explain its significance I'd be most interested. On the
surface, it sounds a bit like phrenology, which has been put to rest
decades ago.
Gary
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n856.2 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Waldorf/Anthroposophic art
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:22:01 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808110630.XAA26020 lists1.best.com)
In response to Robert Tolz,
I was finally able to access your or your wife's website with the many
works of art exhibited. They are lovely, however, it is quite apparent
that their style is directly influenced by anthroposophic art. They are
identical in technique to those on the walls at Rudolf Steiner College
and those we were taught to paint/draw while in teacher training courses
offered by Rudolf Steiner College.
Did you state or infer that the artwork on your website has no
anthroposophical influence? If this is indeed your claim, how do you
explain the uncanny resemblence they have to almost *all* artwork
hanging on the walls in Waldorf schools, at Anthroposophical art
exhibits, in Anthroposophic publications, and at the Rudolf Steiner
College?
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n856.3 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Re: technology & Waldorf
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 15:25:15 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808111534.IAA20700 lists1.best.com)
Sune Nordwall posted:
) Computers and the Internet are handled in different ways in different
) parts of the world.
) In Germany, the country with maybe the greatest number of Waldorf
) Schools in the world, Bund der Freien Waldorfschulen has its own home
) page at http://www.waldorfschule.de/.
) "Die Waldorfs" have a homepage of their own at
) http://dieWaldorfs.waldorf.net/.
) At present about 29 German Waldorf Schools have their own home
) page.
) The OnLine Redaktion of SPIEGEL chose the home page of FACT,
) http://www.bubis.com/fact, the OnLine Journal of the Freie Waldorfschule
) Engelberg as the third best of the OnLine School Journals in Germany for
) 1997/98 (see http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/pool/schuelerzeitungen.html).
I know that many schools and anthroposophic training institutes have
their own homepages. For that matter, many anthroposophists are active
internet users. This has nothing to do, however, with what I experienced
at my school site by way of having all student technology resources
banned and removed, at the direct influence of Waldorf training through
Rudolf Steiner College.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n856.4 ---------------
From: Sarah (rabbr concentric.net)
Subject: Re: By way of comparison
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 18:39:19 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808101917.MAA24109 lists1.best.com) (199808112104.OAA29332 lists1.best.com) (199808120505.WAA23339 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman wrote:
)
) If you were referring to Mr. Beeman, I was offering the news feed as current data on the state of public school hiring practices. Everything else you have suggested is speculation on your part. I said nothing beyond the subject heading.
I am wondering, Mr. Beeman what you mean by offering the information?
Are you comparing something. If so, what? I am sorry if I misconstrued
your offering as a comparison of hiring practices of the public school
to those of the Waldorf Schools. Please elaborate.
Thanks,
Sarah
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n856.5 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Re: technology & Waldorf
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:02:20 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808111534.IAA20700 lists1.best.com)
John Calkins posted:
) The question I would ask, Kathy, is what age students are you talking
) about.
Our youngest students were 12 (7th grade). Our oldest students were 18
(high school). I would venture to estimate that the average age of our
students was 15 - 16. Most of the younger students were not "ready" to
integrate technology into their coursework, simply because their reading
skills were so low. However, there are some good interactive,
skill-building software programs that could have offered them remedial
assistance when there was no teacher available for tutoring.
)
) Kathy, this is not the first time you have made such a characterization of
) Betty Staley's teaching. I have not met Betty Staley, but I have recently
) finished a book of hers. It is a guide to raising adolescents for teachers
) and parents (I cannot remember the title just now. I can get it for you
) tomorrow.). While it does mention Steiner's spiritual ideas behind Waldorf
) education, I have a difficult time seeing how anyone would say it is
) anything like a "religious/spiritual" teaching. She does not ask the
) reader to make any leap of esoteric faith, rather she writes at a practical
) level. She writes about the students as they are, based on her experience
) of raising and teaching teenagers. From the obvious care (of thought, not
) in the sentimental sense) that went into her book, I have difficulty seeing
) how she would use an excessively "spiritual" approach to teaching a group
) of non-anthroposophical teachers.
I will make an analogy here. Betty Staley has no more business receiving
public school funds for instructing teachers in their pedagogical
approach than a rigidly religious Catholic nun would. All of Betty
Staley's educational advice/knowledge/technique comes out of her
Anthroposphical belief system. She is no more able to keep this out of
her approach than the above-mentioned nun would be. Anthroposphical
education is Betty Staley's life work - it is her "mission," it is what
she is about.
I do not claim that she explicitly delivered spiritual indoctrination at
all times to public school teachers, although she certainly did it at
some times. I have a handout she gave us one summer that is filled with
Anthroposophic religious beliefs of the most bizarre nature (from my
stance at a public school teacher). This was handed to me at a public
school teacher's training on the RSC campus and was specifically given
to the staff from my school to assist us in our work with adolescents.
The handout specifically addresses the process of incarnation in
relation to teaching, in addition to addressing the Anthroposphic
beliefs regarding blood and the deleterious effects abstract thinking
will have on a child's blood (raising the carbolic acid level or some
such silly thing).
I am wondering if you have difficulty seeing how Staley would use an
excessively "spiritual" approach because you are also unable to
recognize the extreme difference in your belief system from that of the
general public or at least public school teachers who are mandated to
leave religious indoctrination out of their curriculum. I do not mean
this as an insult, but perhaps an insight or reflection for you.
) It is obvious that you have a bias against Waldorf education. Could it not
) have been that Betty Staley was being up-front in presenting Steiner's
) spiritual basis for Waldorf education (I think both critics and supporters
) favor this disclosure), then proceeded to present the specifics of Waldorf
) pedagogy in the context of this view? Did she ever say that you are
) required to accept his spiritual ideas?
No, she was not being upfront in presenting Steiner's basis. It is her
contention that *all* Anthroposophic content was removed from public
school teacher's training. She never mentioned the word Anthroposophy
and I had no idea for more than 2 years that Rudolf Steiner College or
the Anthroposophical movement had any connection. I did not even know
what Anthroposophy was. If I had received this sort of disclosure there
could have been some honest dialogue along the lines of Staley and other
instructors using Anthroposphic beliefs in the training.
Many teachers have complained about the religious indoctrination they
received in these trainings from Staley. I have seen other teachers'
classnotes and handouts from classes I did not attend. These items are
awash in Anthroposohic doctrine. It is shocking and telling in regard to
Staley's awareness of non-Anthroposophic beliefs and the correct use of
public school funds. I believe she simply knew no better. She sleeps,
eats, and breathes Anthroposphy - it is her reality.
Had Staley made full disclosure my school board and others would clearly
have known (and would know now) that funding of this training violates
federal law. In addition, I could have made a clear choice to get out of
the training in the early stages. Waldorf is pretty and feels good, so
it is almost like a drug for many people, public school teachers
included. It is only after they have been with it for a while and
certain troublesome areas become more and more consistent and the
indoctrinatioin becomes more intense that those of us that are able to
"think for ourselves" begin to see clearly that Anthroposophic training
has no place in the public schools.
I wish that Staley had been forthright about her spiritual ideas and
"asked" me if I was willing to accept them or, perhaps, directly told me
that I had to accept these ideas if I were to stay in the training. This
would have been honest. Instead I was duped by RSC's false advertising
and my administrator and some coworkers were brainwashed in the purest
sense of the word. Their conversion to rabid pro-Waldorf and anti-any
other pedagogy was a horrible experience and one that I hope will not
repeat itself in my lifetime.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n856.6 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: Re: libel
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 98 18:21:55 CDT
In-Reply-To: (199808120717.AAA08122 lists1.best.com); from "Ezra Beeman" at Aug 12, 98 12:16 (midnight)
)From Ezra Beeman:
(snip)
) Michael Kopp:
) ) In New Zealand, one can be defamed by the truth, and recover damages, in
) ) some circumstances.
) Ezra Beeman
) This I find to be quite interesting, would you give an example? I am under
the impression that the best defence for defamation is the truth.
)
HSMP:
In Mexico, defamation is publicly spreading information, either true or false,
to the dammage of someone; whereas slander or libel is used exclusively for
imputing someone with saying or writing something that she did not. You can sue
for either of the two, or for both, but you have to prove there was malice. If
the defendant can prove that she was convinced that spreading the information
was a service to the community, then there is no crime.
--
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.n856.7 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: By way of comparison
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 16:17:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808101917.MAA24109 lists1.best.com) (199808112104.OAA29332 lists1.best.com) (199808120505.WAA23339 lists1.best.com) (199808122245.PAA11119 lists1.best.com)
Hope this helps.
Oftentimes people on this list make claims of one sort or another without offering any background on the problem. One sore point with some people (rightfully so IMHO) is the lack of credentialed educators in WE. I intended to show by that article that good people are hard to find, full stop. Therefor, the fact that not all teachers (or most teachers, or whatever absolute measure) have credentials at Waldorf schools is not an indication that Waldorf itself fosters this environment. This is a
problem of supply and demand. Scientifically speaking (g), given WE's smaller subset from which to draw, they are more likely to have fewer credentialed teachers than a similiarly sized public schools
e
Sarah wrote:
) Ezra Beeman wrote:
) )
) ) If you were referring to Mr. Beeman, I was offering the news feed as current data on the state of public school hiring practices. Everything else you have suggested is speculation on your part. I said nothing beyond the subject heading.
)
) I am wondering, Mr. Beeman what you mean by offering the information?
) Are you comparing something. If so, what? I am sorry if I misconstrued
) your offering as a comparison of hiring practices of the public school
) to those of the Waldorf Schools. Please elaborate.
)
) Thanks,
) Sarah
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n856.8 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: Re: Spiritual Science
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 98 18:27:23 CDT
In-Reply-To: (199808121239.FAA00227 lists1.best.com); from "469593N knotes.kodak.com" at Aug 12, 98 8:41 am
)From John Calkins:
) What I gave above was my impression of what Steiner means by the word
) "spiritual". I am not asking anyone to believe that Steiner was
) clairvoyant.
)
Without trying to be contentious, I wanted to ask you this before: in this
sense you are giving to spiritual, would the software of computers qualify?
would the feelings of some animals, as proposed by behaviorists, qualify?
--
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.n856.9 ---------------
From: Sarah (rabbr concentric.net)
Subject: Re: Art and the individual
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 19:53:37 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808101826.LAA15991 lists1.best.com) (199808102117.OAA21392 lists1.best.com) (199808102330.QAA09726 lists1.best.com) (199808110206.TAA03192 lists1.best.com)
My daughter was in a Norse Myth play in the fourth grade. A shy child,
she did not have more than one line. However, some children had very
lengthy parts. Waldorf students are very good at memorizing. Did they
understand the archaic language the play was written in, (a sort of old
English)? I did not. My daughter told me she barely understood what it
was about. I know they worked for MONTHS on it. The children did not
design the sets, stage the actors, pick out costumes or do anything
which would have engaged their thought processes. All of this was
directed to the last detail, by the classroom teacher. On the surface,
a great performance but one must look beyond that.
Sarah.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n856.10 ---------------
From: "Eric Barrows" (eric.barrows postoffice.tased.edu.au)
Subject: Re: Art and the Individual
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 10:21:35 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199808121407.HAA11164 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199808121407.HAA11164 lists1.best.com)
On 12/08/98, at 10:08 am, Daniel Perez wrote:
)Robert Tolz Wrote:
)===============
)By the way, I didn't see anything in what you previously posted which
)required an apology. I don't know what Daniel Perez was referring to.
(snip)
...
) there was a statement that your
)(Robert's) wife's artwork was typical "Waldorf." As you pointed out this
)artwork was not inspired by Steiner. That is an error, is it not?
(snip)
Sorry, it was an error and I have apologized to Robert - Thanks for all
the constructive feedback everybody.
)I only really cared about Deby's error
Oh thanks! even when I make an error nobody realy cares (sob).
Eric
_½,.ª¨=ʧ†¾ƒ`Ø Ø`ƒ¾†§Ê=- Barrows -=ʧ†¾ƒ`Ø Ø`ƒ¾†§Ê=¨´.,½.
AST1 Art & I.T.
Ouse DHS
Tas drop
7140 the
pebble
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n856 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n857 --------------
001 - mays VNET.IBM.COM - Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
002 - spike (spike netshel.net) - apology
003 - snell (snell netshel.net) - Re: Art and the Individual
004 - snell (snell netshel.net) - Re: Art and the individual
005 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Art and the Individual
006 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: technology & Waldorf
007 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Spiritual Science
008 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Re: Spiritual Science
009 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Kolisko Conference Happenings
010 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Spiritual Science
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n857.1 ---------------
From: mays VNET.IBM.COM
Subject: Re: Deby misquotes Steiner yet again!
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 98 18:31:39 EDT
Here are the statements about the quotation in question:
In January, Deby Snell said:
) I've yet to learn of another religious sect so willing to
) deny their own beliefs to further their agenda. Steiner said,...^quote†
) The context of the quote fits exactly. Steiner was trying to obtain
) state approval for his school in 1920.
Earlier today Dan Dugan said again that Steiner was trying to get state
approval (right, approval not funding -- my mistake) for the first
school:
) Steiner's telling them to keep their cards close to their chest, when
) talking to the authorities, to tell them what they want to hear. He
) knew if the Anthroposophy stuff got out, he'd be sunk. Steiner set up
) the cover-up in Waldorf schools that, since they don't evolve, has
) continued in exactly the same form to the present day.
And if the implications of this quote are unclear to anyone, the PLANS
web site has an article (co-authored by Dan) where it is laid out very
plainly. Waldorf Schools (and Waldorf teachers, administrators, and
anthroposophists) actively engage in deliberate deception:
) Deception ^subtitle†
)
) Besides their seductive beauty, these schools use deliberate deception
) about their purpose and organization to attract the children of
) outsiders. From the beginning, Steiner planned attract the general
) public by systematically concealing the objectives of the schools and
) the contents of their curriculum. As he wrote in 1920, while trying to
) obtain state approval for his school:
)
) We must worm our way through. . . . çIn order to do what we want to
) do, a it is necessary to talk with the people, not because we want
) to, but because we have to, and inwardly make fools of them. ç4
The total evidence that Steiner wished to have the first Waldorf School
practice deception and by implication something that is carried out in
all Waldorf Schools today is this out-of-context quotation. However Dan's
and Deby's statements contain three falsehoods:
1. The statement that Steiner was seeking state approval is false. As my
earlier posts have shown, he was trying to keep the state from taking
over the school and making it part of the public school system.
Steiner wanted the school to be completely independent. He didn't want
state approval, rather he wanted the state to keep out of the school's
affairs. The Wuerttemberg authorities originally agreed to let the
school operate as an experiment for three years starting in 1919.
After the first school year (in summer 1920) they reneged and wanted
to take over the school. Steiner was instructing Emil Molt (a
businessman who was influential in Stuttgart) to get the authorities
to re-commit themselves according to the original agreement so that
Steiner and the faculty could "acquir^e† a bit of security regarding
the actual existence of the School".
2. The statement that Steiner *wrote* these words is false. He spoke
them, not even in a prepared lecture, but informally in a staff
meeting. The implication that he wrote them is that his "instructions"
were promulgated some way to Waldorf Schools, that he was establishing
policy and practices for the future. In fact these were specific
instructions to a single person about dealing with a specific
situation. Furthermore, this quotation comes from stenographic notes
which were not reviewed by Steiner. Their accuracy is always subject
to question.
3. The fact that Steiner is advocating or directing deception is false.
If you look at the entire quote, including the part Deby and Dan like
to leave out, the real meaning becomes clear.
Steiner is advising Molt to "speak absolutely emphatically" with the
school authorities to use direct personal contact to drive "one of the
heads of the authority to say something he has to stand by".
"... Giving in to things like this ^i.e. becoming a State standard
school† would be like grovelling to something we abhor. We must worm
our way through -- not through an inner provocation, then it would
be the way Jesuits work -- but done with a certain mental
reservation in response to external requirements. We have to be
conscious that in order to do what we want to do, at least, it is
necessary to talk with the people, not because we want to but
because we have to, and inwardly make fools of them.
"Herr Molt: I will try and settle the matter."
The first school had to follow the law which meant that the
Wuerttemberg officials had to sanction the school. Steiner and Molt
had no choice but to work with them even though they didn't want to.
So where is Steiner's advocacy of "systematically concealing the
objectives of the schools and the contents of their curriculum", the
"cover-up in Waldorf schools"? Where is Steiner's advocacy of any
other form of deception? It's simply not there in the quote if you
look at the full quote and the actual context.
What Steiner actually did advocate was: to be firm, to "worm" through
the State bureaucracy, to speak with the bureaucrats because it was
necessary, not to carry an inner sense of provocation but rather a
certain mental reservation and "inwardly make fools of them", make
them agree to what they had earlier committed to, not by waving their
foolish inconsistency in front of their face, but just get them to
agree.
By stating that what was sought was the opposite of the facts, by leaving
out the context of specific instructions to a single person about a
specific matter, by stating it was written rather than spoken informally,
by stating that Steiner was advocating deception, the quotation appears
to be a general directive to the Waldorf School and by implication to
other Waldorf schools to practice deception.
Now, Dan's and Deby's statements contain three falsehoods. Their direct
statements and the implications they draw, based on these falsehoods,
malign the character of Waldorf teachers, Waldorf administrations, and
anthroposophists by stating outright and implying that such people
knowingly practice deception, a practice which is part of Waldorf School
policy.
In my book, that sounds like making false, defaming statements.
Once again, in light of the forgoing, I request that Deby and Dan retract
their statements and that they and PLANS refrain from using them and the
"supporting" Steiner quotation in the future.
Thank you,
Robert Mays
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n857.2 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: apology
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 19:05:43 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808130015.RAA17864 lists1.best.com)
To Robert Tolz:
I posted:
) I was finally able to access your or your wife's website with the many
) works of art exhibited. They are lovely, however, it is quite apparent
) that their style is directly influenced by anthroposophic art. They are
) identical in technique to those on the walls at Rudolf Steiner College
) and those we were taught to paint/draw while in teacher training courses
) offered by Rudolf Steiner College.
I posted this prior to reading your posts denying any influence by the
Waldorf/Anthroposophic movement on your wife's art. I am sorry if I
insinuated you were being dishonest in this regard. There is a
remarkable resemblance between your wife's style and the style of art
seen in Waldorf schools, however, there are also some differences -
notably the inclusion of photographic art into work. Whatever the case,
her work is very nice and the observed connection/influence is
apparently coincidental. Please accept my apology.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n857.3 ---------------
From: snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Art and the Individual
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 98 20:03:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Subject: Re: Art and the Individual
Sent: 8/12/98 5:21 PM
Received: 8/12/98 7:56 PM
From: Eric Barrows, eric.barrows postoffice.tased.edu.au
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
))I only really cared about Deby's error
)Oh thanks! even when I make an error nobody realy cares (sob).
Oh yeah, well...Why does _everyone_ focus only on _my_ mistakes?
(bigger sob and a sniff).
Deby :+)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n857.4 ---------------
From: snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Art and the individual
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 98 20:08:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
)Subject: Re: Art and the individual
)Sent: 8/12/98 4:53 PM
)Received: 8/12/98 7:56 PM
)From: Sarah, rabbr concentric.net
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)
)My daughter was in a Norse Myth play in the fourth grade. A shy child,
)she did not have more than one line. However, some children had very
)lengthy parts. Waldorf students are very good at memorizing. Did they
)understand the archaic language the play was written in, (a sort of old
)English)? I did not. My daughter told me she barely understood what it
)was about. I know they worked for MONTHS on it. The children did not
)design the sets, stage the actors, pick out costumes or do anything
)which would have engaged their thought processes. All of this was
)directed to the last detail, by the classroom teacher. On the surface,
)a great performance but one must look beyond that.
)
)Sarah.
I remember when my son was in first grade. He had been "exposed" to
German for almost two years. He said, "I don't really like German." I
responded with, "Oh really? Why not?" "Because I can't understand
anything they say. They only speak Spanish."
Debra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n857.5 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Art and the Individual
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:11:52 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199808130259.TAA25246 lists1.best.com)
)Subject: Re: Art and the Individual
)Sent: 8/12/98 5:21 PM
)Received: 8/12/98 7:56 PM
)From: Eric Barrows, eric.barrows postoffice.tased.edu.au
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)
)
)
)))I only really cared about Deby's error
)
))Oh thanks! even when I make an error nobody realy cares (sob).
)
)Oh yeah, well...Why does _everyone_ focus only on _my_ mistakes?
)(bigger sob and a sniff).
)Deby :+)
)
Well, you could get picked on when you're *right*, as happens to those of
us who always are ...
And who says you're the only one who gets picked on when someone thinks
you're wrong? I seem to remember a rather blistering comment to me about
... um, spelling ... the other day, from ... um, you.
For the record, I have never picked on *your* spelling, Debra -- you're not
a Waldorf graduate.
(There is a serious reply to your not unreasonably somewhat emotional
attack on my criticism of spelling, but I don't think it's worth
exacerbating the situation. Suffice to say I think you confuse my criticism
of schooling with criticism of individuals.)
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
WEllington New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n857.6 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: technology & Waldorf
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 08:09:39 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Kathy:
)No, she was not being upfront in presenting Steiner's basis. It is her
)contention that *all* Anthroposophic content was removed from public
)school teacher's training. She never mentioned the word Anthroposophy
)and I had no idea for more than 2 years that Rudolf Steiner College or
)the Anthroposophical movement had any connection. I did not even know
)what Anthroposophy was. If I had received this sort of disclosure there
)could have been some honest dialogue along the lines of Staley and other
)instructors using Anthroposphic beliefs in the training.
Now you have me confused. You previously claimed that you were subjected
to anthroposophical spiritual/religious indoctrination in Betty Staley's
classes. Now you say that there was no disclosure of Steiner's spiritual
ideas. You can't have it both ways. If the spiritual basis truly was not
there, I cannot see how a reasonable person can interpret teaching solely
the methods of Waldorf education as religious indoctrination. You can
probably find something similar to any particular "Waldorf" technique you
want in a "non-religious" school somewhere.
)I am wondering if you have difficulty seeing how Staley would use an
)excessively "spiritual" approach because you are also unable to
)recognize the extreme difference in your belief system from that of the
)general public or at least public school teachers who are mandated to
)leave religious indoctrination out of their curriculum. I do not mean
)this as an insult, but perhaps an insight or reflection for you.
No insult is taken if you are talking about my belief that it is best to
think for myself, where the general public tends to let others do their
thinking for them. If you think I subscribe to some fixed "belief system"
(whatever that means), you probably are mistaken. What do you think my
belief system is, Kathy? You are right that my beliefs may be different
from those of the general public (perhaps not as much as you might think),
but that does not make them extreme. I strive (but do not always succeed)
to find a balance between the inner world of thinking, feelings, etc. and
the outer world. If the norm is unhealthily out of balance, a more
balanced approach may seem extreme from the norm's perspective.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n857.7 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Spiritual Science
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 09:02:14 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
)From John Calkins:
)) What I gave above was my impression of what Steiner means by the word
)) "spiritual". I am not asking anyone to believe that Steiner was
)) clairvoyant.
))
)Without trying to be contentious, I wanted to ask you this before: in this
)sense you are giving to spiritual, would the software of computers
qualify?
)would the feelings of some animals, as proposed by behaviorists, qualify?
)
)
)--
)
) Humberto Saint Martin
I would not attribute the same spiritual qualities to computer software as
to any form of life. In the past there has been some pioneering work
exploring the possibilities of artificial intelligence (AI). But as far as
I understand they are still machines, spiritually not that much different
from a can opener (both are imbued with human thought) and radically
different from an animal. I am not at all up to date in this field, but I
think advance in AI has been stalled for at least a decade (meaning work
has been mostly refinements of or relatively minor variations of the more
revolutionary ideas). Daniel Perez could probably tell you if there have
been any recent major developements (if he is so inclined to do).
)From Steiner's viewpoint as far as animals and plants are concerned, they
both have a life force, and animals have a consciousness that plants lack.
Humans are distinguished from animals by self-consciousness. In Steiner's
language, he calls the life forces "etheric", consciousness is "astral",
and self-consciousness is the "I" or "ego". In summary, I would answer
your second question with a "yes"?
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n857.8 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: Re: Spiritual Science
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 98 10:50:35 CDT
In-Reply-To: (199808131259.FAA10427 lists1.best.com); from "469593N knotes.kodak.com" at Aug 13, 98 9:02 am
)From John Calkins:
) I would not attribute the same spiritual qualities to computer software as
) to any form of life. (snip)
HSMP:
Then the question would be: are we humans really that different from computers?
Some centuries ago the idea that we were similar to animals was unconceivable.
Stated in another form, the question is: does a spiritual, non-mechanical
entity exist? I expect your answer to be yes, but (see below)
J. C.:
)
) )From Steiner's viewpoint as far as animals and plants are concerned, they
) both have a life force, and animals have a consciousness that plants lack.
) Humans are distinguished from animals by self-consciousness. In Steiner's
) language, he calls the life forces "etheric", consciousness is "astral",
) and self-consciousness is the "I" or "ego". In summary, I would answer
) your second question with a "yes"?
HSMP:
Since the beginning of biochemistry, the main criticism was that taking the
substances out of living organisms would leave those substances ineffective.
Nevertheless, Pasteur's experiments showed that there is no need to propose
"life forces" to explain the existence of life. The advancements in biochemistry
and biophysics further corroborate this conclusion. Though consciousness is yet
another problem, it seems to me that there are enough data to cast a reasonable
doubt on the existence of an immortal spirit that inhabits a perishable body.
It's not just that science does not deal with spiritual entities, but that it
provides data to produce doubt on their existence.
I expect the last paragraph to be qualified as kantian, thus disqualified by
Daniel. My questions here are: because there is a contradiction with spiritual
thinking, should we expect the latter to:
1. Show that the foundations of scientific thinking are wrong?
2. Explain why then scientific thinking is so successful to predict the
behavior of many systems?
3. Provide a different epistemology that is at least equally successful?
If your answers to these questions are "yes", I would like you to elaborate a
little on them.
--
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.n857.9 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Kolisko Conference Happenings
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 01:49:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199808122145.OAA10194 lists1.best.com)
Gary Meier, you wrote,
)Therapeutic doses of LEAD compounds for children? Can anyone cite
)peer-reviewed medical literature supporting this recommendation? I'm aware
)of other elements that are highly toxic in small doses, yet essential for
)life in very very small amounts (Cr, Se, for example) but I've never seen
)lead on this list. I'm concerned about the logic behind the lead
)"prescription", because the discussion of salt in the body in the above
)text is pretty much gibberish.
The lead idea comes from Steiner. He said printers were smart because of
the homeopathic doses of lead they absorbed.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n857.10 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Spiritual Science
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:20:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
One statement: What makes you believe that the materialists are the ones who
made all the scientific progress? Look at history and you will discover the
spiritual basis to the views of Kepler, for example, which brought him to
understand the physical world. The same is true of the birth of the study
of genetics.
- Daniel.
-----Original Message-----
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Thursday, August 13, 1998 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: Spiritual Science
))From John Calkins:
)) I would not attribute the same spiritual qualities to computer software
as
)) to any form of life. (snip)
)
)HSMP:
)
)Then the question would be: are we humans really that different from
computers?
)Some centuries ago the idea that we were similar to animals was
unconceivable.
)Stated in another form, the question is: does a spiritual, non-mechanical
)entity exist? I expect your answer to be yes, but (see below)
)
)J. C.:
))
)) )From Steiner's viewpoint as far as animals and plants are concerned,
they
)) both have a life force, and animals have a consciousness that plants
lack.
)) Humans are distinguished from animals by self-consciousness. In
Steiner's
)) language, he calls the life forces "etheric", consciousness is "astral",
)) and self-consciousness is the "I" or "ego". In summary, I would answer
)) your second question with a "yes"?
)
)HSMP:
)
)Since the beginning of biochemistry, the main criticism was that taking the
)substances out of living organisms would leave those substances
ineffective.
)Nevertheless, Pasteur's experiments showed that there is no need to propose
)"life forces" to explain the existence of life. The advancements in
biochemistry
)and biophysics further corroborate this conclusion. Though consciousness is
yet
)another problem, it seems to me that there are enough data to cast a
reasonable
)doubt on the existence of an immortal spirit that inhabits a perishable
body.
)It's not just that science does not deal with spiritual entities, but that
it
)provides data to produce doubt on their existence.
)
)I expect the last paragraph to be qualified as kantian, thus disqualified
by
)Daniel. My questions here are: because there is a contradiction with
spiritual
)thinking, should we expect the latter to:
)
)1. Show that the foundations of scientific thinking are wrong?
)
)2. Explain why then scientific thinking is so successful to predict the
)behavior of many systems?
)
)3. Provide a different epistemology that is at least equally successful?
)
)If your answers to these questions are "yes", I would like you to elaborate
a
)little on them.
)--
)
) 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.n857 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n858 --------------
001 - snell (snell netshel.net) - Re: technology & Waldorf
002 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Re: Spiritual Science
003 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Spiritual Science
004 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Spiritual Science
005 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Spiritual Science
006 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Re: Spiritual Science
007 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Re: Spiritual Science
008 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Waldorf/Anthroposophic art
009 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Apology
010 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Re: Spiritual Science
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n858.1 ---------------
From: snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: technology & Waldorf
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 98 11:38:52 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
)Subject: Re: technology & Waldorf
)Sent: 8/13/98 5:09 AM
)Received: 8/13/98 9:48 AM
)From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)
)From: John Calkins
)
)Kathy:
))No, she was not being upfront in presenting Steiner's basis. It is her
))contention that *all* Anthroposophic content was removed from public
))school teacher's training. She never mentioned the word Anthroposophy
))and I had no idea for more than 2 years that Rudolf Steiner College or
))the Anthroposophical movement had any connection. I did not even know
))what Anthroposophy was. If I had received this sort of disclosure there
))could have been some honest dialogue along the lines of Staley and other
))instructors using Anthroposphic beliefs in the training.
)
)Now you have me confused. You previously claimed that you were ))
))))))subjected
)to anthroposophical spiritual/religious indoctrination in Betty Staley's
)classes. Now you say that there was no disclosure of Steiner's spiritual
)ideas. You can't have it both ways. If the spiritual basis truly was not
)there, I cannot see how a reasonable person can interpret teaching solely
)the methods of Waldorf education as religious indoctrination. You can
)probably find something similar to any particular "Waldorf" technique you
)want in a "non-religious" school somewhere.
)From my experience, it _is_ possible to have it both ways. In fact, this
is just what I mean when I say that Waldorf is deceptive.
Anthroposophical tenets such as "blood is pure spirit" and "the soul
consciousness leaves the body at night" show up under the 'Music'
portion of the public school teacher training. While there is no mention
of the word 'Anthroposophy', Anthroposophical tenets are fully present.
Also present are excersizes which encourage public school teachers to
"let go of all prior training". Unless one understands _what_
Anthroposophical tenets are, it may be hard to identify them as such.
)
))I am wondering if you have difficulty seeing how Staley would use an
))excessively "spiritual" approach because you are also unable to
))recognize the extreme difference in your belief system from that of the
))general public or at least public school teachers who are mandated to
))leave religious indoctrination out of their curriculum. I do not mean
))this as an insult, but perhaps an insight or reflection for you.
Are you saying that Catholicism is not as wide spread as Anthroposophy?
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n858.2 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: Re: Spiritual Science
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 98 14:01:28 CDT
In-Reply-To: (199808131719.KAA19583 lists1.best.com); from "Daniel Perez" at Aug 13, 98 1:20 pm
)From Daniel Perez:
)
) One statement: What makes you believe that the materialists are the ones who
) made all the scientific progress? Look at history and you will discover the
) spiritual basis to the views of Kepler, for example, which brought him to
) understand the physical world. The same is true of the birth of the study
) of genetics.
)
HSMP:
That is precisely the point: through history many people approached the study
of natural phenomena making assumptions such as Kepler's. After retrieving and
analyzing enough data they noticed that their assumptions were either wrong, as
is the case with Kepler, or at least unnecessary to explain the phenomena they
were looking at. That is to say, science evolved _from_ spiritual to
materialistic thinking, not the other way around.
Currently there are many professional scientists who have various spiritual
and religious beliefs; they might even use these beliefs as the motivation
to do their research. Nevertheless, when it comes to examine the data and
propose theories, they leave their beliefs aside and try to find materialistic
explanations. This procedure has been successful so far; so successful that it
is used even in cases where there is not a satisfactory explanation yet. Maybe
for some of those cases there cannot be a materialistic explanation, but maybe
there is one. Put in other words, spiritual entities might exist; but they also
might not exist. IMHO the available data support the latter.
--
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.n858.3 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Spiritual Science
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 15:14:42 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
)HSMP:
)
)Since the beginning of biochemistry, the main criticism was that taking
the
)substances out of living organisms would leave those substances
ineffective.
)Nevertheless, Pasteur's experiments showed that there is no need to
propose
)"life forces" to explain the existence of life. The advancements in
biochemistry
)and biophysics further corroborate this conclusion. Though consciousness
is yet
)another problem, it seems to me that there are enough data to cast a
reasonable
)doubt on the existence of an immortal spirit that inhabits a perishable
body.
)It's not just that science does not deal with spiritual entities, but that
it
)provides data to produce doubt on their existence.
Let me anticipate where I think you are going with this. I am familiar
with the experiment where a mixture of gases (that some people believe
existed on the earth around the time they believe life originated) are put
in a bottle and exposed to simulated lightning and I don't know what else.
Amino acids are formed. This provides some indication to how life may have
physically manifested on the earth. There is nothing wrong with this
experiment in itself, but let us discuss its limitations.
1.) The experiment the biophysicist would really like to perform cannot be
done. It is often overlooked that "sciences" that look into the past are
not really sciences (archeology, paleontology) in the Kantian sense,
because there are no experiments to perform. The noumenon (the thing or
event in itself) has passed, and there is no phenomenon to observe(*).
Since most of us cannot look into the past clairvoyantly, the best we can
do is to indirectly look at the remnants of past events, and make our best
judgment on what assumptions to make about the past and what conclusions
can be drawn from the remnants and assumptions.
2.) With regard to an explanation of life without spiritual forces, I am
guessing that you are assuming that there was a time on this earth that
there was no consciousness. On what basis does one make this assumption.
I think Pasteur would agree that a fly can only come from another fly.
Similarly, as far as we have observed, consciousness arises only from other
conscious beings. How do we know that some form of consciousness did not
exist before the manifestation of living beings on this planet? Is not
possible that spiritual influences were integral in tranforming the
chemical soup into life?
I know this runs contrary to conventional assumptions, but science has no
instrument to measure consciousness. There is no scientific basis for
either assumption, one way or the other. Really the best you can say is "I
doubt that consciousness played a roll in the origin of life." Someone
else is equally justified in surmising that consciousness did play a roll.
)I expect the last paragraph to be qualified as kantian, thus disqualified
by
)Daniel. My questions here are: because there is a contradiction with
spiritual
)thinking, should we expect the latter to:
)
)1. Show that the foundations of scientific thinking are wrong?
)
)2. Explain why then scientific thinking is so successful to predict the
)behavior of many systems?
)
)3. Provide a different epistemology that is at least equally successful?
)
)If your answers to these questions are "yes", I would like you to
elaborate a
)little on them.
I have answered 1. above. For 2., yes, the scientific method works very
well for objects to the extent that they exist independent of human
consciousness. For 3., Daniel Perez has given Steiner's point that one can
find a basis knowledge if one is able to reflect upon the nature of one's
own thinking. I don't think counting the number of successful conclusions
is a very useful measure. Even a single result from a spiritual scientific
perspective is significant in its demonstration of the limitations of the
prevalent Kantian view. You may recall that Gallileo also had a difficult
time with the prevailing assumptions of thought during his time.
John Calkins
(*) For those unfamiliar with Kant, a phenomenon requires human
participation.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n858.4 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Spiritual Science
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 15:47:46 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
John Calkins statements cover this pretty well, but let me ask this: "Are
you stating that Kepler made no contributions to science?" What do you
mean?
)they noticed that their assumptions were either wrong,
)as is the case with Kepler, or at least unnecessary to explain the
phenomena they
)were looking at.
I did not pick Kepler for any particular reason, but do you think you *know*
his name for no reason? If your *gods* are todays big names, such as
"Hawking," then that is the only way to explain your lack of understanding
of Kepler. Hawking will be found to have made errors in the future; that
does not invalidate his contributions. I would expect Kepler made more
contributions for his age than Hawking has for ours.
The arrogance of hind-sight is amazing.
-----Original Message-----
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Thursday, August 13, 1998 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: Spiritual Science
))From Daniel Perez:
))
)) One statement: What makes you believe that the materialists are the ones
who
)) made all the scientific progress? Look at history and you will discover
the
)) spiritual basis to the views of Kepler, for example, which brought him to
)) understand the physical world. The same is true of the birth of the
study
)) of genetics.
))
)HSMP:
)
)That is precisely the point: through history many people approached the
study
)of natural phenomena making assumptions such as Kepler's. After retrieving
and
)analyzing enough data they noticed that their assumptions were either
wrong, as
)is the case with Kepler, or at least unnecessary to explain the phenomena
they
)were looking at. That is to say, science evolved _from_ spiritual to
)materialistic thinking, not the other way around.
)
)Currently there are many professional scientists who have various spiritual
)and religious beliefs; they might even use these beliefs as the motivation
)to do their research. Nevertheless, when it comes to examine the data and
)propose theories, they leave their beliefs aside and try to find
materialistic
)explanations. This procedure has been successful so far; so successful that
it
)is used even in cases where there is not a satisfactory explanation yet.
Maybe
)for some of those cases there cannot be a materialistic explanation, but
maybe
)there is one. Put in other words, spiritual entities might exist; but they
also
)might not exist. IMHO the available data support the latter.
)
)
)--
)
) 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.n858.5 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Spiritual Science
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 13:04:55 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199808131913.MAA01354 lists1.best.com)
On 13 Aug 98, at 15:14, 469593N knotes.kodak.com wrote:
) From: John Calkins
)
) 2.) With regard to an
) explanation of life without spiritual forces, I am guessing that you are
) assuming that there was a time on this earth that there was no
) consciousness. On what basis does one make this assumption.
One does not have to assume that there was no consciousness;
only that the manner in which life arose can ultimately be
understood. To assume that "consciousness did it" or "God did it"
doesn't tell us how it occurred, and it would be a mistake to stop
our inquiry there.
For example, we know a great deal about the effects of gravity.
We don't know, though, what causes it. *Why* are all objects
attracted to all other objects?
One might say that it is because all the material universe is a
manifestation of God, that God is love, and that love is an attractive
force. Well, that's very poetic, but it doesn't really tell us anything.
If we end our inquiry there, we've learned nothing.
Suppose we learn that there are subatomic particles that can
instantaneously travel between objects, that these particles are
constantly emitted by every object, and that they exert an
attractive force. Suppose, further, that the mechanism by which
they exert an attractive force is discovered.
Does this disprove the God notion? Not at all. It doesn't answer
the question one way or another. If the "God is love" notion is
correct, our new knowledge identifies the mechanism by which love
operates to pull objects together. If it is incorrect, the new
knowledge still identifies the mechanism by which gravity operates.
I disagree with Humberto that the evidence favors the concept that
there are no spiritual beings. But it does favor the concept that
there are material explanations for material phenomena.
) Is not possible
) that spiritual influences were integral in tranforming the chemical soup
) into life?
Sure, but that doesn't mean we stop looking for a material
explanation. If we find one, and there are spiritual influences, then
we've identified a way that those spiritual influences manifest in the
material world.
But it's not neither necessary nor particularly useful (other than for
personal fulfillment) to assume that the spiritual influences exist.
) Really the best you can say is
) "I doubt that consciousness played a roll in the origin of life." Someone
) else is equally justified in surmising that consciousness did play
) a roll.
I think consciousness plays the diner in the origin of life, and
maybe even the cook. The sun plays the stove, and the roast beef,
peas, potatoes and roll are played by chemicals. (g)
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n858.6 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: Re: Spiritual Science
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 98 15:37:52 CDT
In-Reply-To: (199808131913.MAA01354 lists1.best.com); from "469593N knotes.kodak.com" at Aug 13, 98 3:14 pm
)From John Calkins:
(snip)
) I have answered 1. above. For 2., yes, the scientific method works very
) well for objects to the extent that they exist independent of human
) consciousness. For 3., Daniel Perez has given Steiner's point that one can
) find a basis knowledge if one is able to reflect upon the nature of one's
) own thinking. I don't think counting the number of successful conclusions
) is a very useful measure. Even a single result from a spiritual scientific
) perspective is significant in its demonstration of the limitations of the
) prevalent Kantian view. You may recall that Gallileo also had a difficult
) time with the prevailing assumptions of thought during his time.
)
HSMP:
For the first part of your post, I refer you to my answer to Daniel Perez.
About this last paragraph of yours, I would say that Descartes started from the
same reflection on the nature of one's own thinking. To the best of my knowledge,
the number of successful conclusions is what makes a scientific theory prevail
over others. But then again, exceptio probat regula, meaning that a single
exception puts the rule under test (not, as generally and wrongly known, "the
exception confirms the rule"). Not only Galileo in his time, but currently the
process known as "peer-review" puts that difficulty on anyone coming up with a
new idea. To a substantial extent, that's what science is about. So yes, a
single result from a "spiritual scientific" perspective would be significant.
What is that result?, where is it documented?
--
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.n858.7 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: Re: Spiritual Science
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 98 16:03:00 CDT
In-Reply-To: (199808131947.MAA25577 lists1.best.com); from "Daniel Perez" at Aug 13, 98 3:47 pm
)From Daniel Perez:
) John Calkins statements cover this pretty well, but let me ask this: "Are
) you stating that Kepler made no contributions to science?" What do you
) mean?
)
HSMP:
No, I did not mean to dismiss Kepler's contribution to science. What I meant is
that he assumed several things that proved wrong: that planets' orbits were
perfect circles, that the ratios of their distances to the sun were in
correspondence with harmonic tones, that those ratios could be represented by
relationships between regular polyhedra, ...
D. P.:
) I did not pick Kepler for any particular reason, but do you think you *know*
) his name for no reason? If your *gods* are todays big names, such as
) "Hawking," then that is the only way to explain your lack of understanding
) of Kepler. Hawking will be found to have made errors in the future; that
) does not invalidate his contributions. I would expect Kepler made more
) contributions for his age than Hawking has for ours.
)
) The arrogance of hind-sight is amazing.
)
HSMP:
Whew! Are you defensive! It is interesting to see that you are the one who
brings big names to the discussion. I talked about Pasteur's _results_, not
about Louis himself. I consider myself an atheist, so I do not worship either
Stephen (Hawking) or Johannes (Kepler), though I admire both. I even dare to
call them by their first names (grin).
Besides, IMHO, one of Kepler's most significant contributions to science is that
after more than two decades of research to defend his original assumptions, he
was humble and rational enough to acknowledge that his own data were against
those cherised (I presume) assumptions.
I can't resist the temptation to ask you this: what do you consider more
arrogant between these two positions:
1. Spiritual humans, who consider themselves so different from dust that they
propose the existence of superior spiritual entities to which they are related,
or,
2. Materialistic humans, who do not pretend to be that different from inert
matter?
--
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.n858.8 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf/Anthroposophic art
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:01:02 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808130015.RAA17864 lists1.best.com)
Kathy wrote:
) I was finally able to access your or your wife's website with the many
) works of art exhibited. They are lovely, however, it is quite apparent
) that their style is directly influenced by anthroposophic art. They are
) identical in technique to those on the walls at Rudolf Steiner College
) and those we were taught to paint/draw while in teacher training courses
) offered by Rudolf Steiner College.
)
) Did you state or infer that the artwork on your website has no
) anthroposophical influence? If this is indeed your claim, how do you
) explain the uncanny resemblence they have to almost *all* artwork
) hanging on the walls in Waldorf schools, at Anthroposophical art
) exhibits, in Anthroposophic publications, and at the Rudolf Steiner
) College?
That is correct. I doubt I could be much clearer: Delia's artwork on
the website certainly has a spiritual influence, but it has no
anthroposophical influence. With one tiny exception: Delia found a
poem by Steiner that was the inspiration for one small color pencil
drawing. You can find that single work at
http://earth.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz/art/gallery/apoemby.htm
I doubt very much that Delia's work is identical in technique to what
you find at a Steiner or Anthroposophic institution, from the simple
point of view that (other than the fact that she never studied Steiner
or Anthroposophy) she uses the medium of color pencils as well as black
and white photography. I may be wrong, but it was my impression that
these means of expression were not on the list of what Anthroposophists
or Steiner-influenced artists are supposed to use.
We once attended an opening by an artist who was not only
Steiner/Anthroposophy-influenced but who also gave courses in that
"discipline." Delia showed him a few copies of her work, and she was
disappointed that he was unimpressed. Both Delia and I interpreted his
comments as dismissing her work because it was **not** sufficiently
similar to his own. We can certainly appreciate the complaint that some
have lodged on this list about the tendency to fit people into a mold
artistically.
What I will agree with you on (and so will Delia) is that there is, in
your words, "an uncanny resemblance" in some respects, mainly in the
kind of spiritual and ethereal quality Delia's work has. Also, while
some people do art for art's sake, most of Delia's art is
"representational." I think that's the correct terminology. That is,
each work is a communication by her of some discovery from her
contemplation, meditation and dreams. There is an attempt to express
the personal spiritual experience. Here's what she has to say in her
"online resume" on the website:
--------------------------
"My work is a visual expression of the way I embrace life within my
soul. This is a conscious commitment to nurture and heal people, the
environment and the universe using the strength of loving thoughts,
feelings, prayers and meditations. Through my work, I express my
awareness of the interconnections with all of life and with all beings,
past, present and future, trying to bring hope and to alleviate the
suffering of others and of the world.
"In my color pencil drawings, I express my inner world. With
photo-drawing montages, I bring that inner world together with the
palpable world, reflected in photographs. In my black and white
photographs, I concentrate on capturing quiet moments in order to evoke
a reflective response.
"Regardless of where I am or who I am with or what I am doing, I have a
choice in how I respond to each person, to each situation, to life.
"This choice, at times easy, at times difficult, comes from examining
my life as a whole, not just in elationship to myself, but also in
relationship to others, the earth, the universe. Each relationship
begins at the core of my being. Each moment is a harbinger of hope as
well as despair, of love as well as hate, of joy as well as sorrow. The
way I respond to the myriad of events, feelings and thoughts that I
experience daily is a reflection of my commitment to life.
"I choose to see the hope, the love and the joy. I acknowledge the
existence of the negative aspects of life, but I consciously choose not
to give them strength, not to feed them more than I already do. I
examine their coexistence with me. I know that they are also part of me.
However, I use the energy of anger and sadness to fuel me into useful
work. The despair of seeing the suffering and aggression in the world is
a call to lertness when I look at myself and try to end the pain I cause
those around me.
"In many of my pieces I have included a poem, a prayer or a sentence.
This is my way to invite others to pass the threshold of just looking at
my work and to share to some extent the inner discovery that has come
forth with each piece. These gifts I receive are not just for me alone,
but for all of us."
--------------------------
When Delia first became aware of some of the similarities that her work
had to some of the artwork created by Steiner-trained artists (You know,
I'm not even sure whether I should say "Steiner-trained" or
"Anthroposophically trained" or something else), she was actually quite
stunned. So I certainly don't blame you or anybody else for pointing
out a similarity. Afterwards, I remember she got ahold of some books
which dealt with Steiner's use of colors, but after flipping through
them she consciously chose not to study them, to make sure that her art
and her technique were her own.
You know what jumped to my mind when thinking about what you call
"uncanny resemblance?" In Australia there are a number of marsupials
which, other than the reproductive system, seem to be almost identical
to their mammalian counterparts. How does one explain the "uncanny
resemblance" in that situation? I do not believe they evolved directly
from their mammalian counterparts, there was just an independent
evolution which wound up along similar lines. It seems that nature may
have some favored routes that it likes to traverse. I don't want to say
the marsupial/mammal similarity is a direct analogy, but it's worth
thinking about. By the way, this also explains why virtually all alien
life forms in the original Star Trek TV series looked exactly like Homo
Sapiens.
If anybody following this thread would like me to zip up the thumbnails
for the artwork that I'm now in the process of posting to our site
(Everything takes longer than you expect, doesn't it?), just send me an
email message. For those who are in the New York vicinity and would
like to see some of the work in the flesh, Delia has a show at a library
in Westchester County for the remainder of August. I'll send details by
email to anyone who's interested.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n858.9 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Apology
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:10:05 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808131719.KAA19589 lists1.best.com)
Kathy wrote:
) I posted this prior to reading your posts denying any influence by the
) Waldorf/Anthroposophic movement on your wife's art. I am sorry if I
) insinuated you were being dishonest in this regard. There is a
) remarkable resemblance between your wife's style and the style of art
) seen in Waldorf schools, however, there are also some differences -
) notably the inclusion of photographic art into work. Whatever the case,
) her work is very nice and the observed connection/influence is
) apparently coincidental. Please accept my apology.
Apology unnecessary, but accepted nonetheless.
Was it you or someone else who mentioned that spelling was a hot button
for them? Honesty is a hot button for me. But since both Delia and I
have each noticed a similarity between some of her work and some of the
Steiner/Anthroposophy stuff, it doesn't surprise me if someone else's
synapses fire up and make a connection between the two.
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n858.10 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: Re: Spiritual Science
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 98 16:27:52 CDT
In-Reply-To: (199808132007.NAA12039 lists1.best.com); from "Steve Premo" at Aug 13, 98 1:04 pm
)From Steve Premo:
)
) One does not have to assume that there was no consciousness;
) only that the manner in which life arose can ultimately be
) understood. To assume that "consciousness did it" or "God did it"
) doesn't tell us how it occurred, and it would be a mistake to stop
) our inquiry there.
)
) For example, we know a great deal about the effects of gravity.
) We don't know, though, what causes it. *Why* are all objects
) attracted to all other objects?
)
HSMP:
IMHO the best answer to your last question is "for no reason, it just happens".
This is the answer given by Freeman Dyson, one of the members of my pantheon
according to Daniel.
Steve:
(snip)
)
) I disagree with Humberto that the evidence favors the concept that
) there are no spiritual beings. But it does favor the concept that
) there are material explanations for material phenomena.
HSMP:
I base my opinion on the fact that many phenomena --wind, thunders, volcanoes,
earthquackes, sickness-- previously adjudged to gods, demons and fairies, are
now understood in materialistic terms. But I am aware that the absence of proof
is not proof of absence. However, one of the strengths of the scientific method
is that the burden of proof is on those who propose the existence of non-detected
entities. That happened when heat was proposed as a form of energy, when atoms
were proposed, and the same goes for all subatomic particles.
Steve:
(snip)
)
) But it's not neither necessary nor particularly useful (other than for
) personal fulfillment) to assume that the spiritual influences exist.
)
HSMP:
I agree with this position.
--
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.n858 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n859 --------------
001 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Grant to Study Waldorf or Art-Infused Education
002 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Spiritual Science
003 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - RE: spiritual science
004 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Re: technology & Waldorf
005 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Grant to Study Waldorf or Art-Infused Education
006 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: spiritual science
007 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Spiritual Science
008 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Debra Snell - Help with Source
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n859.1 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Grant to Study Waldorf or Art-Infused Education
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:33:02 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808131719.KAA19589 lists1.best.com)
I was interested in finding other sources of information than this list
about Waldorf in the public schools. I though folks would be interested
in visiting the following URL:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ftpbranch/retdiv/charter/rfa/96grant/nevadacity.html
It details a 1996 grant request to assess the results of Waldorf and
other art-infused methods of education in the public schools.
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n859.2 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Spiritual Science
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 17:55:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
So you're on a first name basis with Stephen, just as I thought! :~). I bet
you have a poster of him too! :~).
I am not really very charged up about this as I've already presented my
views on this topic. There are only so many times you can get fired-up
about the same discussion.
)I can't resist the temptation to ask you this: what do you consider more
)arrogant between these two positions:
)
)1. Spiritual humans, who consider themselves so different from dust that
they
)propose the existence of superior spiritual entities to which they are
related,
)or,
You miss the premise. I don't decide on my relationship to spiritual
entities, the facts relate themselves. It has nothing to do with what we
"propose," they have manifested themselves in the natural world and in our
thinking. The spirit has been *discovered*.
)
)2. Materialistic humans, who do not pretend to be that different from inert
)matter?
)--
Those are arrogant who use spirit to understand the world and yet deny the
spirits existence. If you use thinking and refuse to study its nature, then
some would consider that arrogant. My reference to arrogance was for a
different reason, though.
)
) 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.n859.3 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: RE: spiritual science
Date: 13 Aug 1998 18:39:18 -0400
Humberto posted:
I can't resist the temptation to ask you this: what do you consider more
arrogant between these two positions:
1. Spiritual humans, who consider themselves so different from dust that they
propose the existence of superior spiritual entities to which they are
related,
or,
2. Materialistic humans, who do not pretend to be that different from inert
matter?
--
Humberto Saint Martin
My answer : neither of these postions is as arrogant as the position that
tries to subject groups of people to a general position (especially those that
are as limited and biased as yours) rather than regarding each individual for
who/what they seem to be.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n859.4 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Re: technology & Waldorf
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 16:40:53 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808131719.KAA19589 lists1.best.com)
John Calkins posted:
) Now you have me confused. You previously claimed that you were subjected
) to anthroposophical spiritual/religious indoctrination in Betty Staley's
) classes. Now you say that there was no disclosure of Steiner's spiritual
) ideas. You can't have it both ways. If the spiritual basis truly was not
) there, I cannot see how a reasonable person can interpret teaching solely
) the methods of Waldorf education as religious indoctrination. You can
) probably find something similar to any particular "Waldorf" technique you
) want in a "non-religious" school somewhere.
What I am trying to describe is a situation in which Staley and others
affiliated with RSC presented certain religious/spiritual ideas during
public school teacher training classes. These ideas were based on
Steiner's teaching and Anthroposophical religious beliefs. However, at
no point did Staley or any other instructor inform me or others in my
presence that the beliefs/ideas we were being taught were based on
teachings by Rudolf Steiner, or that Waldorf education came/comes out of
Anthroposophy, or that all of the instructors teaching us were either
Anthroposophists or had extensive Anthropsophical training, etc., etc. I
was completely in the dark and often wondering what was going on. I
recall another attendee whispering to me during the 1995 summer training
something to the effect, "Do you feel like you're being indoctrinated
into a cult when you're in these trainings?" This was exactly how I felt
during these "training" sessions. What was missing was honesty and
disclosure. It is still so strange to me that a movement such as
Waldorf/Anthroposophy would leave out these crucial pieces of
information while taking money from and offering educational information
to others that are completely in the dark as to the
philosophical/religious underpinnings. It is unethical.
)
) No insult is taken if you are talking about my belief that it is best to
) think for myself, where the general public tends to let others do their
) thinking for them.
I have heard this said before, re: the general public letting others do
their thinking for them. I agree with this, but I believe the general
public includes Anthroposphists and others connected with the Waldorf
movement. It was apparent during my strange sojourn with RSC/Waldorf
that my coworkers did not question anything they were presented. They
heard no alarms when Staley and others spoke of reincarnation, nor when
we were handed copies of literature stating the "blood is pure spirit,"
or given literature indicating that teaching abstract ideas will raise
the level of carbolic acid in the blood. Staley and others told us that
Waldorf was what our school needed. Waldorf was pretty, Waldorf was
comforting. Where was my coworkers thinking in regards to our state and
federal constitutions? Where was their ability to think for themselves.
I also recall a number of conversations with Anthroposophists during the
spring, 1997. One in particular in which an employee of RSC argued that
the elements were four: earth, wind, fire, water. She did not know this
was inappropriate to teach in public schools. Where was her ability to
think? Her Anthroposophical indoctrination seemed to be complete. I
could go on with examples. My experience with those connected with the
Waldorf/Anthroposophical movement is that most are very far from what I
would consider to be people that think for themselves. Many are rigid in
their belief system and react with anger when it is threatened or
questioned. That is evident on this list and certainly on the Waldorf
List. The dress a certain way; they are rigid in their prejudices
against the public school system; they are locked into their beliefs
regarding medical quackery; and they rever a philosopher that is long
dead and had few original ideas.
This has turned into a bit of a rant for me. For this I apologize. But I
have difficulty buying the "free thinking" propaganda touted by
Anthroposphists. It simply does not hold when contrasted with the
behavior of those I have had contact with.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n859.5 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Grant to Study Waldorf or Art-Infused Education
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 13:39:11 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199808131719.KAA19589 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199808132133.OAA07094 lists1.best.com)
)I was interested in finding other sources of information than this list
)about Waldorf in the public schools. I though folks would be interested
)in visiting the following URL:
)http://www.cde.ca.gov/ftpbranch/retdiv/charter/rfa/96grant/nevadacity.html
) It details a 1996 grant request to assess the results of Waldorf and
)other art-infused methods of education in the public schools.
)--
)Robert Tolz
The characterisation of Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical "methods of
education" as "art-infused" is one of the false representations of SWA that
is common in the proselytising and advertising of such schools.
In fact, SWA education is nothing of the sort, though use of supposedly
artistic flourishes and decorations in all aspects of the work of children
and teachers in an SWA school, as well as in their advertising, could lead
someone to think so.
However, IMNSHO, SWA schools would be better characterised as
"Anthroposophy- infused". Anthroposophy is in every detail of every lesson,
every scholastic technique taught to children, every minute of every day
they are in school
This includes the "art", which is nothing more or less than the visual
manifestation of the spiritualistic, supernatural mumbo jumbo that
"informs" SWA education. Thus, the "art" equals the Anthroposophy.
That term, "informs", is the one that SWA advocates and school authorities
like to use when they dissemble and dupe those few prospective- enrolling
parents who have done enough homework to be worried about Anthroposophy in
the classroom.
It is a clear misuse of a term which is used in art, science and literature
to indicate an influence upon thought and creativity and action by a
person, or genre of work.
It is clear that if Anthroposophy "informs" the art, and the art "infuses"
the education, then *Anthroposophy* itself "infuses" every aspect of a
Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposphical education.
That was one reason we removed our children from a Steiner school: we did
not want our children stealthily inculcated with religious symbolism
through the putative medium of "art"!
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n859.6 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: spiritual science
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 11:10:36 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
)
) My answer : neither of these postions is as arrogant as the position that
)tries to subject groups of people to a general position (especially those
that
)are as limited and biased as yours) rather than regarding each individual
for
)who/what they seem to be.
)
)
Can you be more specific? Who is getting subjected to what? I'll assume
you are referring to Anthroposophy subjecting "people" to a general
position, and that PE somehow takes "each individual for who/what they seem
to be." If that is the statement, then you have not explained how PE
accomplishes this. To my experience of PE in both practice as well as
theory, it locks people in neat little boxes and categories. "[W]ho/what
they seem to be" is very revealing, because PE has no idea about "who/what"
a human being is. To state that the teachers unions know what is best for
the public, when they don't understand what the students "seem to be," is a
tad presumptuous. - Yet I don't want to be "defensive!" :~). I'll get my
poster of Hawking out to have my mid-day prayer...... :~).
In reading Penrose recently it was interesting to see how he relies on
ancient Greek (spiritual!) writings to launch his book "Shadows of the
Mind." I guess new ideas are hard to come by....... :~).
- Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n859.7 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Spiritual Science
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:48:31 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Steve Premo:
)One does not have to assume that there was no consciousness;
)only that the manner in which life arose can ultimately be
)understood. To assume that "consciousness did it" or "God did it"
)doesn't tell us how it occurred, and it would be a mistake to stop
)our inquiry there.
Consciousness is part of life. Consciousness evolves. Just how it evolves
is a matter of debate, but I think even the most radical materialist would
agree with these two sentences. I believe the relationship between
consciousness and the physical evolution of life (including its origin) is
an important and valid one that is worthy of study. It is within the realm
of possibility that through consciousness _is_ "how it occurred", and I
would not discount this so easily.
)For example, we know a great deal about the effects of gravity.
)We don't know, though, what causes it. *Why* are all objects
)attracted to all other objects?
)
)One might say that it is because all the material universe is a
)manifestation of God, that God is love, and that love is an attractive
)force. Well, that's very poetic, but it doesn't really tell us anything.
)If we end our inquiry there, we've learned nothing.
)
)Suppose we learn that there are subatomic particles that can
)instantaneously travel between objects, that these particles are
)constantly emitted by every object, and that they exert an
)attractive force. Suppose, further, that the mechanism by which
)they exert an attractive force is discovered.
)
)Does this disprove the God notion? Not at all. It doesn't answer
)the question one way or another. If the "God is love" notion is
)correct, our new knowledge identifies the mechanism by which love
)operates to pull objects together. If it is incorrect, the new
)knowledge still identifies the mechanism by which gravity operates.
)
)I disagree with Humberto that the evidence favors the concept that
)there are no spiritual beings. But it does favor the concept that
)there are material explanations for material phenomena.
Agreed.
)) Is not possible
)) that spiritual influences were integral in tranforming the chemical soup
)) into life?
)
)Sure, but that doesn't mean we stop looking for a material
)explanation. If we find one, and there are spiritual influences, then
)we've identified a way that those spiritual influences manifest in the
)material world.
Yes.
)But it's not neither necessary nor particularly useful (other than for
)personal fulfillment) to assume that the spiritual influences exist.
The usefulness depends on your perspective. If one is only interested in
tangible material objects I would agree. If one is interested in ideas,
the spiritual influences (again Steiner's definition) are important.
)) Really the best you can say is
)) "I doubt that consciousness played a roll in the origin of life."
Someone
)) else is equally justified in surmising that consciousness did play
)) a roll.
)
)I think consciousness plays the diner in the origin of life, and
)maybe even the cook. The sun plays the stove, and the roast beef,
)peas, potatoes and roll are played by chemicals. (g)
Sounds good to me as long as ideas aren't half-baked. ;}
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n859.8 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Debra Snell - Help with Source
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 17:24:39 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Debra,
Can you help me find the source for the quote below from David Black?
Was this from
)Computers and Waldorf Education - David Sloan, Arthur Fink and David
)Mitchell, The Association of Waldorf Schools of North America, Pine Hill
)Waldorf School, p. 10-11.
or from another source? It sounded very interesting and I wanted to read
it! Thanks,
- Daniel.
-----Original Message-----
From: snell (snell netshel.net)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: libel
)Ezra writes:
)[snip]
)
)) For example, what do you make of the
))following: 'Microsoft is the anti-Christ.' This seems to be a fairly
))straight forward opinion on my part. But say I was the Pope and hundreds
))of millions of Catholics world wide stopped buying MS products. It would
))seem to me that the Pope is responsible for the ensuing losses, provided
))his opinion proved groundless.
)
)I wonder what Microsoft would think of this quote:
)
)"VI. Who's in that machine? Examining the spiritual reality behind the
)computer."
)
)[snip first paragraph]
)
)"The alteration of man's being toward hell occured in two stages, as the
)serpent captured Eve's attention, and then Adam and Eve excercised their
)will, eating the apple. Both events propelled them toward hell, and were
)followed by a downward spiral of degeneration. They moved from the Edenic
)to the fallen. The earth hardened, dried up. Life became a continual
)struggle, all of which is reflected in our lives today.
)
)Much later, in 1879 as Rudolf Steiner tells us, Satan was cast down to
)earth, and so could actually be present in the world of material objects.
)Also in 1879, the first electric, artificial light burned. All other
)lights before that were related to the sun. The "burning" associated with
)electricity has its own basis, unrelated to the sun. During this same
)year Frega invented "concept-script" --logic as an intellectual object
)unrelated to the world. Later Von Neumann took this much further, when he
)conceived of automata -- creatures capable of reproducing themselves, and
)which include the means of reproduction. So, from "wordless logic" and
)"sunless light", the computer was designed. Now, David Black exclaimed,
)the serpent is in the computer, and each person is offered the chance to
)be a child of hell.
)
)Paying attention to the computer changes us. One of the reasons why
)working with the computer is so attractive is that it can provide a
)substitute for our own will. Will seems to come from the computer even as
)our will flows into the machine. After living with the computer for
)awhile, we begin to loose our own will. Where does it go?"
)
)Computers and Waldorf Education - David Sloan, Arthur Fink and David
)Mitchell, The Association of Waldorf Schools of North America, Pine Hill
)Waldorf School, p. 10-11.
)
)posted by Debra
)
)
)
)
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n859 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n860 --------------
001 - mays VNET.IBM.COM - Retraction requested
002 - snell (snell netshel.net) - Re: Debra Snell - Help with Source
003 - Sarah (rabbr concentric.n - Therapy
004 - snell (snell netshel.net) - Re: Therapy
005 - David McKay (mckay oro.ne - Re: Retraction requested
006 - Sarah (rabbr concentric.n - Re: Therapy
007 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - German article: anthroposophy and racism
008 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Grant to Study Waldorf or Art-Infused Education
009 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Staley & Eisner - more and more grant monies
010 - snell (snell netshel.net) - Re: Therapy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n860.1 ---------------
From: mays VNET.IBM.COM
Subject: Retraction requested
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 98 18:32:01 EDT
)From my post of August 12:
) By stating that what was sought was the opposite of the facts, by leaving
) out the context of specific instructions to a single person about a
) specific matter, by stating it was written rather than spoken informally,
) by stating that Steiner was advocating deception, the quotation appears
) to be a general directive to the Waldorf School and by implication to
) other Waldorf schools to practice deception.
)
) Now, Dan's and Deby's statements contain three falsehoods. Their direct
) statements and the implications they draw, based on these falsehoods,
) malign the character of Waldorf teachers, Waldorf administrations, and
) anthroposophists by stating outright and implying that such people
) knowingly practice deception, a practice which is part of Waldorf School
) policy.
)
) In my book, that sounds like making false, defaming statements.
)
) Once again, in light of the forgoing, I request that Deby and Dan retract
) their statements and that they and PLANS refrain from using them and the
) "supporting" Steiner quotation in the future.
Deby and Dan, for the fourth time I am requesting that you retract your
referenced statements and that you and PLANS refrain from using them and
the "supporting" Steiner quotation in the future.
How about it?
Robert Mays
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n860.2 ---------------
From: snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Debra Snell - Help with Source
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 98 16:25:26 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Daniel writes,
)Debra,
) Can you help me find the source for the quote below from David Black?
)Was this from
))Computers and Waldorf Education - David Sloan, Arthur Fink and David
))Mitchell, The Association of Waldorf Schools of North America, Pine Hill
))Waldorf School, p. 10-11.
)or from another source? It sounded very interesting and I wanted to read
)it! Thanks,
Sure. The Booklet is called 'Computers and Waldorf Education'. It is a
report on a conference with Waldorf educators and Professor Joseph
Weizenbaum of M.I.T.
I purchased mine from the Rudolf Steiner College book store. The cost
was $6.95 for 15 pages. Give them a call. With a few credit card numbers,
I'm sure they will mail you a copy.
))Computers and Waldorf Education - David Sloan, Arthur Fink and David
))Mitchell, The Association of Waldorf Schools of North America, Pine Hill
))Waldorf School, p. 10-11.
))
))posted by Debra
))
))
))
))
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n860.3 ---------------
From: Sarah (rabbr concentric.net)
Subject: Therapy
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 20:36:54 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808101826.LAA15990 lists1.best.com) (199808102017.NAA06545 lists1.best.com)
There was a child psychologist on staff at the WS my daughters attended.
She was a parent of one of the students.
My oldest daughter attended for 6 years. The class teacher must have
sent 7 students to therapy, either there or outside the school. I was a
class parent, a lot of information got to me. I am wondering if anyone
else had experience like this. One child was asked to go to therapy
and the family took him. The therapist found him to be a healthy, well
adjusted child. However the powers that be at that school were not
happy with that decision and asked the family to leave. Mind you, this
was a very pro-Waldorf family, very "spiritual". The boy just did not
fit the mold. Sometimes he would speak in an effeminate (? sorry no
spell checker) manner in a joking, silly sort of way. That just pushed
the teacher's buttons. He was asked to leave, without any negotiation.
His parents were never the type to question methods, curricula, etc.
I noticed a lot of weeding out of children going on.
I'd love to see this discussion list on an open forum, sort of what they
have for the E. Lib or Announcement Board. Is it too costly? It seems
that the information shared here would reach a larger audience. Correct
me if I'm wrong.
Sarah
P.S. Dan and Deby, you are phenomenal! Thanks for your effort in this
mission.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n860.4 ---------------
From: snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Therapy
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 98 20:34:16 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
)Subject: Therapy
)Sent: 8/14/98 5:36 PM
)Received: 8/14/98 6:48 PM
)From: Sarah, rabbr concentric.net
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
Hi Sarah, you wrote:
)My oldest daughter attended for 6 years. The class teacher must have
)sent 7 students to therapy, either there or outside the school.
Do you know what kind of therapists the students were referred to?
)I was a
)class parent, a lot of information got to me. I am wondering if anyone
)else had experience like this. One child was asked to go to therapy
)and the family took him. The therapist found him to be a healthy, well
)adjusted child. However the powers that be at that school were not
)happy with that decision and asked the family to leave. Mind you, this
)was a very pro-Waldorf family, very "spiritual". The boy just did not
)fit the mold. Sometimes he would speak in an effeminate (? sorry no
)spell checker) manner in a joking, silly sort of way. That just pushed
)the teacher's buttons. He was asked to leave, without any negotiation.
)His parents were never the type to question methods, curricula, etc.
I think we had the opposite experience. Of course, enrollment was down
and we couldn't attract enough families to fill the classrooms. It
seemed [to me] that we accepted kids who couldn't make it in public
school settings. Perhaps your school had a waiting list so teachers could
pick and choose.
)I noticed a lot of weeding out of children going on.
I saw blaming certain children for problems that seemed to stem from the
teachers poor classroom management skills. She would say, "If ----(name
deleted) weren't here, the classroom would be wonderful."
)
)I'd love to see this discussion list on an open forum, sort of what they
)have for the E. Lib or Announcement Board. Is it too costly? It seems
)that the information shared here would reach a larger audience. Correct
)me if I'm wrong.
Dan will have to respond to this one as he manages the list. Personally,
I like this forum, but if you think we could reach a larger audience. . .
.
)
)Sarah
)
)P.S. Dan and Deby, you are phenomenal! Thanks for your effort in this
)mission.
Thank you and you are most welcome. I wish something like this had been
available _before_ I enrolled my boys in Waldorf.
)From your post, I presume that your girls are out of Waldorf. How long
have they been out and how are they doing?
Welcome to the list.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n860.5 ---------------
From: David McKay (mckay oro.net)
Subject: Re: Retraction requested
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 00:31:33 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199808142237.PAA01440 lists1.best.com)
Give it up!!!
))From my post of August 12:
)
)) By stating that what was sought was the opposite of the facts, by leaving
)) out the context of specific instructions to a single person about a
)) specific matter, by stating it was written rather than spoken informally,
)) by stating that Steiner was advocating deception, the quotation appears
)) to be a general directive to the Waldorf School and by implication to
)) other Waldorf schools to practice deception.
))
)) Now, Dan's and Deby's statements contain three falsehoods. Their direct
)) statements and the implications they draw, based on these falsehoods,
)) malign the character of Waldorf teachers, Waldorf administrations, and
)) anthroposophists by stating outright and implying that such people
)) knowingly practice deception, a practice which is part of Waldorf School
)) policy.
))
)) In my book, that sounds like making false, defaming statements.
))
)) Once again, in light of the forgoing, I request that Deby and Dan retract
)) their statements and that they and PLANS refrain from using them and the
)) "supporting" Steiner quotation in the future.
)
)Deby and Dan, for the fourth time I am requesting that you retract your
)referenced statements and that you and PLANS refrain from using them and
)the "supporting" Steiner quotation in the future.
)
)How about it?
)
)Robert Mays
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n860.6 ---------------
From: Sarah (rabbr concentric.net)
Subject: Re: Therapy
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 08:22:14 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808150331.UAA04144 lists1.best.com)
Hi Deby,
You asked:
) Do you know what kind of therapists the students were referred to?
Not specifically. I can find out.
) I saw blaming certain children for problems that seemed to stem from the
) teachers poor classroom management skills. She would say, "If ----(name
) deleted) weren't here, the classroom would be wonderful."
(Wish I knew how to use the double arrows.) Yes!! Several parents I
knew from the class are teachers in public schools. They originally
liked the Waldorf approach because of its "nurturing" aspect.(Nurturing
is a word that is mentioned a lot in Waldorf literature and tours - we
could fill volumes on Waldorf "nurturing.") These parents, (the
teachers) eventually pulled their children out (3 in the same class)
They told the kids were BORED. The boredom led to "behavior problems"
like chair rocking, rolling eyes and smirking.
) )From your post, I presume that your girls are out of Waldorf. How long
) have they been out and how are they doing?
My eldest attended a WS up until the fourth grade.(That's two years
ago.) We took her out because questionable things were going on.
1. She was supposed to be "caught up" to the public schools academically
after the third grade. (Not so, she had never done a book report,
research, or written much by herself. Most of the "writing" up to that
point was copied or dictated.) A friend of mine who pulled her child out
and is a teacher said "writing involves thinking." That hit hard.
2. Too many asked to go into therapy.
When we took her out (high tuition was also a factor 9,000 for fifth
grade plus the mandatory one thousand a year private music lessons)we
enrolled her in the local public school. (A school with a great
reputation.) She was put into fifth grade. After ten days her teacher
told me she couldn't write - did not know how...needed a lot of coaching
to push out a sentence. She was using a Social Studies text. Never
having one in Waldor, she did not know how to look for answers that were
right in front of her. She was up until 10pm doing homework the first
week of school.
The teacher and other personnel in the school believed it would be best
to have her repeat fourth grade. And that's what we had to do (instead
of heavy tutoring.) through a lot of tears and guilt on my part. We
though she'd hate school. She grew to love her school, worked
diligently and was bestowed a Presidential award upon graduation. The
REAL NURTURING happened at her local public school. We were very lucky.
) Welcome to the list.
The list is a relief. The word has to get out.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n860.7 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: German article: anthroposophy and racism
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 02:26:29 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
A critical article in German by Herbert Ratz on anthroposophy and racism:
Die Steiner-J¸nger und der Rassismus; from the magazine blick nach rechts,
22 April 1998
is at
http://www.bnr.de/archiv98/BNR8_98/BNR8_98_11.htm
blick nach rechts has its web site at
http://www.bnr.de/
They monitor especially the extreme right [parties claiming succession to
Hitler; also, eg, Scientology and the Universal Church of Leach-Lewis]. It
is published by the German social democratic party (SPD); according to
opinion polls, likely to win the next election in Germany
------------------------------------------
Herman de Tollenaere
------------------------------------------
Internet site:
http://stad.dsl.nl/~hermantl/
See also:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
------------------------------------------
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n860.8 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Grant to Study Waldorf or Art-Infused Education
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 09:46:59 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808142211.PAA05401 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp wrote:
) The characterisation of Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical "methods of
) education" as "art-infused" is one of the false representations of SWA that
) is common in the proselytising and advertising of such schools.
)
) [major snip]
My goodness, Michael! You certainly do hate Waldorf don't you?
Time after time I hear PLANS supporters on this list decry the lack of
any data regarding the efficacy of Waldorf education. The only purpose
of my post was to let everyone know that it appears that there may be an
ongoing study to provide just that type of data.
You then proceed to use that pretty neutral platform to jump off into
an unexpected tirade.
I'd like to revise a prior comment I made about what's unconvincing to
me about some of Dan Dugan's posts. I had said that I find name-calling
unpersuasive. After further reflection, I think I'm able to more
readily identify what disturbs me that characterizes both his and your
comments here -- a palpable sense of hatred, mixed with righteous
indignation, that "informs" and permeates the language and tone. That's
what really turns me off.
Understand quite clearly that I'm not an apologist for Waldorf, Steiner
or Anthroposophy. As a Waldorf parent, there are at least a few things
that I've had difficulty with, which is one of the reasons I subscribed
to this list for another perspective.
But, in the realm of human communication, when someone yells, or is
angry or hateful, the words usually take a back seat in the recipient's
experience, and the message which is more strongly conveyed is the anger
and the hatred. That's what you are conveying to me much more strongly
than any other message.
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n860.9 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Staley & Eisner - more and more grant monies
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 10:48:47 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808142211.PAA05401 lists1.best.com)
Robert Tolz posted:)
)
) I was interested in finding other sources of information than this list
) about Waldorf in the public schools. I though folks would be interested
) in visiting the following URL:
) http://www.cde.ca.gov/ftpbranch/retdiv/charter/rfa/96grant/nevadacity.html
) It details a 1996 grant request to assess the results of Waldorf and
) other art-infused methods of education in the public schools.
Sorry Robert, but after reviewing the grant at this URL, I smell a big
rat. These are two of the same people named in the grant that funded
formal Waldorf implementation at my school for the years 1997-99. In
addition, Betty Staley and Elliot Eisner are involved in quite a few
other public Waldorf programs and receive grant funds for their
implementation and assessment. Several questions arise for me. First and
foremost is how Staley and Eisner can give this much of time to so many
different implementations, assessments, evaluations, trainings, etc.,
etc? When do they sleep? How valid can their input be when they are
spread so thin? Another question is who is supplying the funding for
this assessment and in what amount? Who, specifically, receives this
funding? I know that RSC received thousands of dollars for the grant
implemented at my former school site - I'm sure much of it went to
Staley.
After reading the grant I saw a number of holes simply in the way it was
worded. Somehow Staley and Eisner have allegedly had the time to review
various assessment tools and determine if they are relevant to assessing
these two charter schools. "Teacher researchers" will also provide
research information. Then . . . if there are no appropriate assessments
out there, Staley and Eisner are going to create an assessment.
I haven't the time to go over the grant point by point, however, I find
it interesting that these are the same two folks that have been
continuously involved in obtaining funding based on public
implementation of Waldorf. The last study that Eisner and Staley had a
hand in at my former school site was a charade. Students that could
barely read were given questionaires that they made a mockery of. The
onsite assessor (under Eisner's direction) was so intimidated by the
student body that teachers had to take over the questionaire process for
her in a several classrooms. The questions were such that they could not
be evaluated in an objective manner even if appropriate responses had
been given. Eisner's "researcher" left in a flustered state, leaving
behind personal belongings and never came back. This was all funded by a
grant.
Perhaps PLANS needs to look into the funding of this grant, how the
funds are allocated, and if there has been an assessment tool
"developed" or selected yet to properly evaluate these two schools. I
certainly haven't heard of one. The only assessment I've heard of is the
mandated CAT test that the Waldorf school claimed its students scored in
the 98th percentile on, or a number very close to this.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n860.10 ---------------
From: snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Therapy
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 98 11:17:31 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Sarah, you write,
)Hi Deby,
)You asked:
)) Do you know what kind of therapists the students were referred to?
)Not specifically. I can find out.
It's not that important.
)
)) I saw blaming certain children for problems that seemed to stem from the
)) teachers poor classroom management skills. She would say, "If ----(name
)) deleted) weren't here, the classroom would be wonderful."
)
)(Wish I knew how to use the double arrows.) Yes!! Several parents I
)knew from the class are teachers in public schools. They originally
)liked the Waldorf approach because of its "nurturing" aspect.(Nurturing
)is a word that is mentioned a lot in Waldorf literature and tours - we
)could fill volumes on Waldorf "nurturing.") These parents, (the
)teachers) eventually pulled their children out (3 in the same class)
)They told the kids were BORED. The boredom led to "behavior problems"
)like chair rocking, rolling eyes and smirking.
My son disliked his classroom so much that he said, "Mom, if _you_ came
into my classroom and watched what goes on, you wouldn't make me go to
that school." I did go into his classroom and I didn't like what I saw.
My good friend's son [who is a genius] was mind traveling, I mean he
wasn't even present in the classroom. The look on his face and the noises
that came out of his mouth were amazing. The kids were so bored and the
teacher was so authoritarian. One girl dropped her mouthpiece out of her
flute. The teacher refused to let her bend down and pick it up until
after the song. The child was so obviously distressed by her inability to
play her flute with the rest of the class. The teacher spent so much time
franticly running from desk to desk [individually] shushing the children
that the main lesson was lost.
[snip]
)we
)enrolled her in the local public school. (A school with a great
)reputation.) She was put into fifth grade. After ten days her teacher
)told me she couldn't write - did not know how...needed a lot of coaching
)to push out a sentence. She was using a Social Studies text. Never
)having one in Waldor, she did not know how to look for answers that were
)right in front of her. She was up until 10pm doing homework the first
)week of school.
)The teacher and other personnel in the school believed it would be best
)to have her repeat fourth grade.
A similar thing happened to our oldest son. He repeated fourth grade in a
public setting because he was so clearly behind. Long story here, but we
returned to public Waldorf the following year (convinced it would be
different but it was more dogmatic than the private Waldorf school he had
attended. It seems that the money was secure and customer service went
out the window in favor of dogmatism).
My youngest son transferred into mainstream public school toward the
middle of second grade. He was immediately evaluated and scored 0.0 on a
reading comprehension test. He was diligent and the school was wonderful.
Within four months, he was reading well enough to go on to third grade.
He is entering fifth grade [in public school] and excelling.
Many families defected from Waldorf that year (60 families!). We were
amazed that we saw public school doing what Waldorf only claimed they did.
)And that's what we had to do (instead
)of heavy tutoring.) through a lot of tears and guilt on my part. We
)though she'd hate school. She grew to love her school, worked
)diligently and was bestowed a Presidential award upon graduation. The
)REAL NURTURING happened at her local public school. We were very lucky.
Again, a similar story to ours. The first week of school, Max said, "I
don't know if I can go to this school. The children are gifted here, and
I'm not." Broke my heart.
)) Welcome to the list.
)The list is a relief. The word has to get out.
Absolutely.
Debra
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n860 ---------------