return to WCA Archive Index
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n904 --------------
001 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n903
002 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Peach blossom
003 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Steve Premo: Waldorf's spiral path and mission of Art
004 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Steve Premo: Waldorf's spiral path and mission of Art
005 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Peach blossom
006 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Black Holes and Neutrinos (was:Peach blossom)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n904.1 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n903
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 12:02:46 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808311510.IAA02770 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199808311510.IAA02770 lists1.best.com)
Charlie ckzfrey ix.netcom.com wrote:
)
) Michael,
) Sniping and nitpicking are unattractive and do not suit adults.
) In the above quote, which you copied to this letter, Dugan said:
Heh heh. Don't like it thrown back in your face, do you? You told
Dan that he needed better reading comprehension skills, then
demonstrated your lack of such. You said nothing to contradict Dan,
and yet you said it in a most belittling way. Got my dander up so I
sniped and nitpicked. Fighting fire with fire is usually a bad idea,
and I apologize to the rest of the list for doing so.
) )"Peach-blossom" is a very important color for Steiner. It's the color of
) ) )white people's skin.
) I simply wanted to show that Steiner never said anything about race in
) this matter, and to say that this quote applies only to white people is
) irresponsible and inflamatory; two qualities that Dan has in spades.
) Dan's definition of "peach-blossom" obviously describes white people's
) skin; Steiner's does not.
That is not at all clear to me. You quoted Steiner as saying it is
"the color of human skin." Since that is patently false, I think
"white human skin" is a reasonable interpretation. The other
interpretation that appeals to me it that Steiner was talking
nonsense. You have some other interpretation which I don't follow and
you haven't explained.
) I did not change Dan's quote in order to change its meaning, I just
) posted it as I found it in my copy of Steiner's lectures on color. It
) would have been irresponsible of me to simply pass on a quote that was of
) unknown(to me) origin, and attribute it to Steiner.
Agreed. You were right to use the correct quote. A pity that it
reinforced Dan's point.
) In case you didn't read my entire post, please do so:
) )Steiner's method of understanding color requires much more than just
) )reading it and a subsequent knee-jerk reaction.
) )If one can begin to understand the different 'gestures' in the colors,
) )and the different feelings that come from the colors, only then can one
) )begin to understand how this color of peach-blossom is present in all but
) )the very ill and, of course, the dead.
) ) Have you ever seen anyone "glow", Dan?
) ) Have you ever seen a black person blush?
) )This is a small part of what peach-blossom is.
Of course I read it. I didn't respond to it because it
a) seemed to lack content. What if I (or Dan) answered "yes" to both
questions? How does that say anything about what peach-blossom is?
You might as well say that red is present, or yellow, or brown. Even
blue.
b) perhaps did have content to someone more insightful then I. I have
nothing to contribute to the discussion. I merely wished to point out
that you comments were a classic case of "the pot calling the kettle
black." You accused Dan of something that you were guilty of in
spades. I don't particularly wish to discuss peach-blossom and it's
meaning. I don't know enough.
) And as for teaching this in Africa, Brazil and Eastern Asia---how about
) Spring Valley, New York? My class at Sunbridge included 2 black
) Africans(Kenya and Ghana), 1 African American,
) 1 Chinese,4 Japanese,1 Puerto Rican and 1 Cuban and,for the record, none
) of them complained about Steiner's use of the term "peach-blossom"
) because they were shown that is a soul quality that is in all of us, not
) just a color in a crayon box.
Wow. I'd love to know how that is demonstrated. Is it falsifiable in
any way?
) If you are genuinely interested in this subject, you might read some of
) Steiner's lectures in the book entitled, "Colour". Until you do quite a
) bit more reading though, please allow me to suggest that you refrain from
) assuming that you have any idea what Steiner "apparently"
) "felt".
Actually, that was what I believed Dan thought Steiner believed, so I
think Dan is the one who should complain, not you (or Steiner).
As I said, I am mostly interested in having a civil discourse and your
knee jerk reaction to Dan set me off. Granted, he can be abrasive,
but I wouldn't have thought that the Anthroposophic approach would be
to be equally abrasive. It certainly is not what I've experienced
with the Waldorf educators I've known. What would you teach your
students at Sunbridge is the right way to deal with a jerk like me?
--Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n904.2 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Peach blossom
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 18:15:46 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199808311603.JAA22515 lists1.best.com)
Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu) wrote:
)That is not at all clear to me. You quoted Steiner as saying it is
)"the color of human skin." Since that is patently false, I think
)"white human skin" is a reasonable interpretation.
I don't.
In fact, I can't think of anyone I know whose skin-colour is the same
colour as peach blossom. Do you?
This, IMNSHO, is as silly as that ancient criticism that the lack of use
of black crayons in Waldorf kindergartens is racist. It comprehensively
ignored two simple observations:
# White crayons weren't used either.
# Nobody's skin is the same colour as either the colours which were
being either used or not used. (i.e. the use of "black" and "white" in
describing pigments is entirely different to their social use).
Amazing what you can learn with a little bit of Goethean observation of
primary phenomena...
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n904.3 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Steve Premo: Waldorf's spiral path and mission of Art
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 17:27:34 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I don't have a lot of time Steve, but here is a quick response.
You state, "It seems to be a matter of faith, though, and not of science."
The opposite is true and I have already covered this. Matter is not
explained by modern physics.
You state that your worldview is not materialistic: "It's obviously not
materialistic, because I have a concept of God in which I believe, at least
tentatively." I would disagree. I apologize for being blunt, but you're
god is dead, at best. There is no rational basis that you give to "believe"
in God. I don't believe in God because it gives me a fuzzy feeling inside.
I believe in the spiritual world because it is a reality. The key is the
statement "at least tentatively." This is why so many people are confused
about the spiritual world. They confuse materialism for religion.
Materialism is a religion and this view you portray is the religion of
materialism. This is what drove Nietzsche insane. He tried to "believe"
but "God was dead."
I am not discrediting your notion "to feel the presence of this God." It
may be that a small part of you is awake to reality. However, there is no
conceptual basis to believe in this other than "harmones." You refuse to
look beyond the material. This view is what gives materialists the greatest
ammo, for it has no basis.
- Daniel.
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: Waldorf's spiral path and mission of Art
On 25 Aug 98, at 12:13, Daniel Perez wrote:
) I don't think we need prayer, we need spiritual science. We need to
) *understand* the world instead of creating illusions about matter. The
) spirit is at the foundations of matter, not in some Theology.
Could be. It seems to be a matter of faith, though, and not of
science.
) There is no such thing as "neutral with respect to spirituality." You
) have one religion or another, materialistic religion or a spirit-based
) worldview. They are inseperable.
It's just one or the other, eh?
How about me? I conceive of God as an infinite presence, the
main quality of which is love. I do not believe in a God with
anthropomorphic qualities, and do not believe that angels or other
spiritual beings have a literal existence. Is that a spirit-based
worldview? It's obviously not materialistic, because I have a
concept of God in which I believe, at least tentatively.
I believe that it is possible to feel the presence of this God, but also
believe that all physical phenomena have purely physical
explanations.
I tend to think that thinking is a physical function of the brain, and
emotions are physical functions of hormones and the brain, but
also I suspect that there is a part of our consciousness separate
from thinking and feeling that goes back to God when we die, and
that God is like a big pool of consciousness, a little bit of which
goes into each living thing, and maybe even into things that aren't
alive at all.
So tell me, which category am I in?
) If you saw what Catholism actually has at its roots, or Judaism, you would
) not believe it. The Catholic Jusuits keep their deeper doctrines very
) secret.
Frankly, I find the Christian concepts of original sin, salvation
through accepting Christ, and damnation of non-believers to be as
bizarre as anything in Anthroposophy. They do tend to be more
socially acceptable, though, since we've been exposed to those
concepts all our lives.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n904.4 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Steve Premo: Waldorf's spiral path and mission of Art
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 15:15:05 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199808312125.OAA14943 lists1.best.com)
On 31 Aug 98, at 17:27, Daniel Perez wrote:
) You state that your worldview is not materialistic: "It's obviously not
) materialistic, because I have a concept of God in which I believe, at least
) tentatively." I would disagree.
Actually, I was assuming that it was not materialistic under your
definitions. Thanks for letting me know which pigeon hole I fit into,
under your limited classification system.
Beyond that, my response is in private email.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n904.5 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Peach blossom
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 14:02:45 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199808311603.JAA22515 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199808311847.LAA27707 lists1.best.com)
Stephen Tonkin wrote:
)Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu) wrote:
))That is not at all clear to me. You quoted Steiner as saying it is
))"the color of human skin." Since that is patently false, I think
))"white human skin" is a reasonable interpretation.
)
)I don't.
)
)In fact, I can't think of anyone I know whose skin-colour is the same
)colour as peach blossom. Do you?
)
)This, IMNSHO, is as silly as that ancient criticism that the lack of use
)of black crayons in Waldorf kindergartens is racist. It comprehensively
)ignored two simple observations:
)
)# White crayons weren't used either.
)
)# Nobody's skin is the same colour as either the colours which were
)being either used or not used. (i.e. the use of "black" and "white" in
)describing pigments is entirely different to their social use).
)
)Amazing what you can learn with a little bit of Goethean observation of
)primary phenomena...
Michael KOPP says:
Tonkin is a scientist. That's been established by his arguments to the
issues of what science is and how it works and whether or not "real"
science is or is not taught in Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical schools.
It's also visible in his work as a teacher of things like astronomy, and
his references to his own astronomical knowledge. Finally, he has sometimes
argued with the "Anthroposophical scientists" on the A-S mailing list in
such a way as to demonstrate that he knows more about science than they do.
I have often said that I wished my children could have had a science
teacher like him in their Steiner school, which taught them the standard
Anthroposophical mumbo jumbo*.
Yet Tonkin continues to make these references to his belief in older,
outdated, useless scientific methods, and to proclaim himself "one of us"
when speaking to the Athroposophical faithful, especially when he is
warning them off their public exposition of the more outrageously fantastic
of their pseudo-scientific nonsense, lest they tarnish the overall
credibility of the religion to which he obviously subscribes.
I find this dichotomy -- nay, flaming paradox -- quite interesting. It's as
if Tonkin is related to Charles Dodgson, another scientist, whose rich
fantasy life had Alice believing six impossible things before breakfast!
What a curiously mirrorer rabbit hole Tonkin must live in, in order to
believe in both the power of modern science and the supposed benefits of
esoteric occultism as exhibited in "Goethean science".
What I'd like to ask Tonkin, so that I can understand this multi-faceted
gem of reasoning to which he is privy, are a few questions about how he (or
workers whom he feels are better qualified than himself to represent such
efforts) use "Goethean science" in the twin disciplines of science which
are at the opposite ends of our attempts to understand the Universe.
For example, what methods of Goethean "direct observation of primary
phenomena" are applicable to astrophysical problems such as black holes and
event horizons; and which are applicable to sub-atomic physical problems
such as the mass of the neutrino; and how does Goethean science expose and
relate phenomena at both ends of this vast scale of nature?
Enquiring minds, obviously less erudite scientifically -- in _either_ kind
of science -- want to know, if for no other reason (in my case) than that I
am able when I write as a specialist science journalist, about these two
sciences for a lay public. A lay public that may be interested, for
example, in the more mundane application of these two sciences to the
scientific education of their children in either public or private schools,
including Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical ones.
*BTW, for the record, it's "mumbo jumbo" without a hyphen, according to my
Oxford dictionaries, for those who write it here uncertainly.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n904.6 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Black Holes and Neutrinos (was:Peach blossom)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 07:03:02 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199809010201.TAA05052 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz) wrote:
)Stephen Tonkin wrote:
[...]
))Amazing what you can learn with a little bit of Goethean observation of
))primary phenomena...
)
)Michael KOPP says:
[...]
)For example, what methods of Goethean "direct observation of primary
)phenomena" are applicable to astrophysical problems such as black holes and
)event horizons; and which are applicable to sub-atomic physical problems
)such as the mass of the neutrino; and how does Goethean science expose and
)relate phenomena at both ends of this vast scale of nature?
My opinion is that it is inappropriate to use a steam-hammer to crack
the shells of my breakfast eggs. In other words, observation of primary
phenomena is just *one* of an arsenal of scientific "tools". It is
fairly obvious to most people that the nature of things like black holes
and neutinos are postulated by what are essentially mathematical means -
- mathematics is, after all, a remarkably powerful tool in theoretical
physics.
However, to take one of your examples, neutrinos, as I understand it the
detectors are finding only about a third of the numbers expected off
neutrinos from the Sun. Observation (in this case, of tertiary phenomena
-- the electronic detection of interactions as neutrinos plough through
socking great subterranean vats of dry-cleaning fluid) is certainly
playing its part in refining the picture.
HTH
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n904 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n905 --------------
001 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Peach blossom
002 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Peach blossom
003 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Peach blossom
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n905.1 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Peach blossom
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 12:52:55 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808311603.JAA22515 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (116476545 toto.iv)
Stephen Tonkin writes:
) Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu) wrote:
) )That is not at all clear to me. You quoted Steiner as saying it is
) )"the color of human skin." Since that is patently false, I think
) )"white human skin" is a reasonable interpretation.
)
) I don't.
)
) In fact, I can't think of anyone I know whose skin-colour is the same
) colour as peach blossom. Do you?
Good point. I'm glad that you agree that what Steiner said was
nonsense.
Of course, if some actual skin did inspire Steiner's ideas, it still
seems much more likely to me that it was a pale (but rosy) skinned
European than a dark African.
--Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n905.2 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Peach blossom
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 23:12:04 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199809011653.JAA29131 lists1.best.com)
Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu) wrote:
)Stephen Tonkin writes:
)) Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu) wrote:
)) )That is not at all clear to me. You quoted Steiner as saying it is
)) )"the color of human skin." Since that is patently false, I think
)) )"white human skin" is a reasonable interpretation.
))
)) I don't.
))
)) In fact, I can't think of anyone I know whose skin-colour is the same
)) colour as peach blossom. Do you?
)
)Good point. I'm glad that you agree that what Steiner said was
)nonsense.
I think you have misinterpreted (presumably unintentionally) wha tI
wrote. The physical/material colour of human skin is certainly never
"peach-blossom". I believer that Steiner was referring to a
supersensible perception -- since I do not have this facility, I
couldn't possibly comment on whether or not it is accurate. That is not
*quite* the same as agreeing that it is nonsense.
Believe me, Michael, if I think something is nonsense, I am not exactly
shy about procaliming it from the rooftops.
)
)Of course, if some actual skin did inspire Steiner's ideas, it still
)seems much more likely to me that it was a pale (but rosy) skinned
)European than a dark African.
Depends upon whether one is referring to a physical/material or a
spiritual perception. Even in the case of the former, I suggest that if
something "nearly hits" it still misses and, in the case of colour, the
degree of miss is a qualitiative, not a quantitative, judgement.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n905.3 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Peach blossom
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 01:15:10 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (116476545 toto.iv) (199808311603.JAA22515 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199809011653.JAA29131 lists1.best.com)
TONKIN
)) I don't.
))
)) In fact, I can't think of anyone I know whose skin-colour is the same
)) colour as peach blossom. Do you?
HIRSCH
)Good point. I'm glad that you agree that what Steiner said was
)nonsense.
)Of course, if some actual skin did inspire Steiner's ideas, it still
)seems much more likely to me that it was a pale (but rosy) skinned
)European than a dark African.
DUGAN
Steiner may have been inspired by Goethe:
"671.
That the colour of the skin and hair has relation with the differences of
character, is beyond question; and we are led to conjecture that the
circumstances of one or other organic system predominating, produces the
varieties we see. A similar hypothesis may be applied to nations, in which
case it might perhaps be observed, that certain colours correspond with
certain confirmations, which has always been observed of the negro
physiognomy.
"672.
Lastly, we might here consider the problematical question, whether all
human forms and hues are not equally beautiful, and whether custom and
self-conceit are not the causes why one is preferred to another? We
venture, however, after what has been adduced, to assert that the white
man, that is, he whose surface varies from white to reddish, yellowish,
brownish, in short, whose surface appears most neutral in hue and least
inclines to any particular or positive colour, is the most beautiful."
[Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. Theory of Colours. (1810) Trans. Charles
Lock Eastlake. London: John Murray, 1840, reproduction: Cambridge, MA:
M.I.T. Press, 1970, p. 265]
I can't resist including the next quote in the database (serendipity),
Steiner on Goethe's racial superiority:
:Is the perfected spirit to have the same preconditions as the imperfect
one? Does a Goethe have the same antecedents as any Hottentot? The
antecedents of an ape are as unlike those of a fish as the antecedents of
Goethe's mind are unlike those of a savage. The spiritual ancestry of
Goethe's soul is different from that of the savage soul. The soul has grown
as well as the body. The spiritual ancestry of Goethe is richer than that
of a savage. Let us take the doctrine of reincarnation in this sense, and
we shall no longer find it unscientific."
[Steiner, Rudolf. Christianity as a Mystical Fact and the Mysteries of
Antiquity. 2nd ed, London: Rudolf Steiner Press, 1972. pp. 33-45
(McDermott, Robert A., Editor. The Essential Steiner: Basic Writings of
Rudolf Steiner. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1984., p. 193)]
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n905 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n906 --------------
001 - Lara Ernest (redpo yahoo. - Re: peach blossom
002 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Peach Blossom
003 - "David E. Gower" (dgower - A (Steiner) Festival of Economics
004 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - a good disclosure from nz
005 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - worming no more?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n906.1 ---------------
From: Lara Ernest (redpo yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: peach blossom
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1998 15:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Stephen Tonkin wrote:
) ) In fact, I can't think of anyone I know whose skin-colour is the
same
) ) colour as peach blossom. Do you?
Okay, so this is a little bit off the beaten track but...
old crayola boxes used to contain a very peachy color that was called
flesh. It was most certainly inspired by white skin. Since then the
color has been omitted or its name changed due to the correction of
what now seems to be obvious racism. I'm sure it is possible that
Steiner's view was that all people have a peachy glow. It seems just
as likely to me that he may have also had the not very unique and
perhaps unconscious viewpoint that actual flesh (the flesh that
mattered anyway) was peach colored. In more modern times we are more
aware of the many subtle forms racism takes, not just the blatant this
or that race is bad, but racism by omission and lack of
acknowledgement. Perhaps, like crayola, Steiners own views (had he
been alive) would have changed and he would have made corrections. It
is impossible to say. In light of his view of evolution through the
races it seems unlikely, unless he were to change a large portion of
his entire philosophy. Wether or not Steiner meant skin or a glow,
teaching that the color of humans is peach blossom seems pretty far
out. I know Dan said that this was not done in schools but didn't the
gentleman who attended the Manhattan waldorf school say that they were
taught about it there as a glow? Seems pretty wacky and impossible to
prove.
Lara.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n906.2 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Peach Blossom
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 21:25:15 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809021653.JAA23625 lists1.best.com)
Tonkin (or someone else) posted:
) ) In fact, I can't think of anyone I know whose skin-colour is the same
) ) colour as peach blossom. Do you?
The day after the original "peach blossom" quotation was posted I found
myself talking to a coworker. She is a strawberry blonde. I was not
consciously thinking of this list, Waldorf, or skin color during our
meeting and we were discussing something vastly removed from this list.
However, it suddenly dawned on me, during the course of our
conversation, that this woman has lovely, glowing skin close to the
color of pale peach blossoms. She also has blue eyes. I don't know her
heritage, however, she is most definitely caucasian.
Are you absolutely sure Steiner wasn't talking about what he perceived,
literally, to be "human" skin?
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n906.3 ---------------
From: "David E. Gower" (dgower interhop.net)
Subject: A (Steiner) Festival of Economics
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 13:02:08 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The following turned up on another list and will doubtless be of interest to
many here.
**************************************************************************
Opinions, comments, etc. are my own and all original material is:
Copyright 1998 by David E. Gower. All Rights Reserved.
Contact: dgower interhop.net
_!_
_______(_)_______
"Old pilots never die, they just move on to a different plane"
**************************************************************************
BEGIN FORWARD
From: David Banner (dbanner mwt.net)
To: "'ecomda danenet.wicip.org'" (ecomda danenet.wicip.org)
Subject: The Festival in Associative Economics
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1998 18:18:56 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-users danenet.wicip.org
Precedence: bulk
Dear listserve folks:
I felt that a number of you would want to know about what is
happening in your own "backyard"(Viroqua) , and that many of you might want
to attend. This is VERY exciting stuff; a really new paradigm of economics
that combines the efficiency and accountability of the free enterprise
system with the heart of socialism (without the toxic byproducts of
either!) Sound too good to be true?Come check it out!!!!!! Dr. David K.
Banner, Co-ordinator, Festival of Economics
ANNOUNCING:
MARK YOUR CALENDARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"A Festival of Economics"
And the Creation of the Midwest Center for Associative
Economics
October 5-11, 1998 in Viroqua ,Wisconsin
at the Landmark Center , second floor Conference Room
(next to Pleasant Ridge Waldorf School, 500 E. Jefferson St., Viroqua, WI
54665)
Background
It seems to be part of the conventional wisdom now that capitalism has "won"
the economic wars on the planet with socialism and communism in full
retreat.
Only the island of Cuba and North Korea with their ailing economies can
still
claim to be communist. Socialism, with its flaws of dependency, government
bungling and inefficiency laid bare, has lost the ideological high ground.
And
capitalism's vaunted "free market" is being lauded as the solution to man's
ills.
What is wrong with this picture? Increasingly, scholars and practitioners
alike are seeing that the market cannot correct problems it has created,
namely problems of the increasing gap between the rich and the poor on the
planet and the problem of resource depletion/environmental collapse. Today,
450 individuals (billionaires!) control more wealth among themselves than
the
other 6 billion inhabitants on the planet; far from ameliorating the gap,
capitalism has increased it. And, perhaps more ominously, capitalism and the
materialism/consumptive cycle it depends upon for growth, is threatening to
deplete the planet of resources and despoil its environment irrevocably.
Rudolf Steiner, the prescient Austrian innovator at the turn of the century
(from whom has emerged Waldorf education, biodynamic farming methods,
anthroposophical medicine and other alternative approaches) formulated a
concept of ideal societal relationships, which he called the "threefold
order." Simply put, Steiner felt that the three major sectors of society
needed to operate in the following way: (1) the cultural realm(education,
the
arts, philosophy,etc.) needed to be completely free from influence from the
other major sectors in order to promote free thinking individuals (CULTURAL
FREEDOM); (2) the economic realm should concentrate on producing goods and
services for the common good with an emphasis on mutuality and collaboration
(ECONOMIC MUTUALITY); and (3) the political realm should operate such that
everyone has equal access and opportunity to influence decisions (POLITICAL
EQUALITY). This threefolded notion has never been tested nationwide as
Steiner
died in 1925 and his disciples never realized his vision. Renewed interest
is
arising concerning this model, as it promises to combine the individual
initiative, accountability and entrepreneurship of capitalism with the
compassion and heart of socialism, without the dysfunctional byproducts of
either.
Together with colleagues, Christopher Houghton Budd, an international
economist living in England, is developing an economic paradigm called
"associative economics", drawn from a wide range of sources, and
incorporating
in particular Steiner's indications about the nature of purpose of modern
economic life. A number of working prototypes are being developed in several
countries around the world (Brazil, Switzerland, France) and we propose to
bring the work to the Midwest.
How Associative Economics works in practice
A group comes together using associative principles or economic mutuality as
their guiding values. This group begins to buy existing businesses or create
new ones with the express aim of collaborating to produce synergy together
and
to share resources for achieving optimum economic growth with
sustainability
and a "win-win" philosophy. Within each business, there are frequent
conversations about goals, values, and sharing of information, as well as
accountability and financial rigor. In fact, the model relies on each
business
(and each sector within a business) setting financial goals and reviewing
their performance vis a vis those goals on a regular basis. There are
monthly
meetings of the managers of each business with an eye towards satisfying
major
stakeholders of each business: (1) the employees need to feel "psychological
ownership" of the enterprise, a sense of responsibility and a fair wage for
their work; (2) the customers need to feel they are getting value and good
service for their dollar spent; and (3) the investors need to feel good
about
their return, both financially and psychically. After these constituencies
have been satisfied, the excess net income from operations is used to
support
the cultural realm with no strings attached, thus preserving the cultural
freedom referred to earlier.
There will be a week-long Festival of Associative Economics (5-11 October
1998)
.Oct. 5-8 will be the Third Annual U.S Practitioner's Meeting with
an emphasis on practical projects already underway and help for those who
wish to start(primarily in the Viroqua area)
.Oct. 9-11 will be an "Introduction to Associative Economics" for
beginners (called "Beyond the Market", it will be primarily
lecture/discussion format and is suitable for folks from all areas)
The third event will be the official launching of the Midwest Center for
Associative Economics in Viroqua.
Festival
The Festival proposal is to bring Christopher Houghton Budd to Viroqua
(along
with three colleagues, Tamara Slayton of Sebastopol, CA and Anita Grandjean
and Marc Desaules of Switzerland) to provide a week-long set of events:
- the 3rd US Practitioners' Meeting (5-8) - features of which will be to
continue work on prefinanced education and to consider the possibilities for
implementing associative economics in the Viroqua area (and the exploration
of the feasibility of other areas)
- a preliminary showing of the "New Economy Images" exhibition (5-11), a
project aimed at enlivening 'the dismal science' by images
- a weekend open (beginners') workshop entitled "Beyond the Market" (9-11)
Center
The second major event is to establish a Center for Associative
Economics and to begin the process for getting funding for businesses,
creating administrative arrangements for overseeing the process, and
designing
evaluatory mechanisms for assessing our progress.
Why Viroqua?
Viroqua, is a small town of 4,000 in southwestern Wisconsin. We have a
thriving Waldorf school here (formed in 1979, we have 8 grades and 190
students, with the enviable distinction of having a balanced budget for 17
of
our eighteen years of existence!) and a two year old Waldorf high school
initiative. Our community is very interested in exploring alternatives to
mainstream ideas of agriculture, economics, health care and politics. We
have
lots of citizen participation in our local government, several biodynamic
and
organic farms in the area, and myriad alternative health practitioners
locally, i.e., chiropractors, acupuncturists, Reiki, massage, zone therapy,
energy healers and others. The area is very supportive of new thinking and
that is why we intend to launch an associative economics project here in
Viroqua, with an emphasis on citizen empowerment, sustainability and
community
development.
We expect there to be widespread interest in this work. For example, there
are
four Chicago-area Waldorf schools, two in Minneapolis, and two in Milwaukee,
all within 4 hours driving distance from Viroqua. In addition, there are
several biodynamic farms in the area as well as a biodynamic center three
hours away. These groups are a natural constituency for this work. We have
already assembled a core team of 12 people here who are committed to
bringing
this work to our area, and we will handle the logistics for the project, as
well as launching the new Center. Please come join us in this important
work!!!!!
For more information, call David Banner at 608-637-2451 or email at
dbanner mwt.net
END FORWARD
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n906.4 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: a good disclosure from nz
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:17:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
John Suggate (j.suggate ch.steiner.school.nz) recently posted the following
disclosure to parents on the SJU Waldorf mailing list. I think it's the
best I've seen so far. Well, "free of dogma or sectarianism" isn't true,
but you have to be outside Anthroposophy to see that. "Anthroposophy, as a
world conception, its
description of the universe, and the human being is the basis of the art of
education and of all endeavour in the school." is very good.
-Dan Dugan
***
THE CHRISTCHURCH RUDOLF STEINER SCHOOL'S
"SPECIAL CHARACTER"
Extracts from the school's integration agreement:
The School provides and shall continue to provide education with a Special
Character the essential elements of which include:
The Special Character of the School is that it is a Rudolf Steiner Waldorf
School for boys and girls established by Rudolf Steiner Schools Trust for
the community of parents who wish their children to receive Rudolf Steiner
Waldorf Education.
The Rudolf Steiner Schools Trust promotes and supports the school in its
provision of education with a Special Character, that is to say:
The School is a Rudolf Steiner Waldorf School in which Rudolf Steiner's Art
of Education is practised. Anthroposophy, as a world conception, its
description of the universe, and the human being is the basis of the art of
education and of all endeavour in the school. The education with a Special
Character includes Festival observances and religious education which is
Christian in its deepest sense, free of dogma or sectarianism.
The College of Teachers which works collegially, shares responsibility for
maintaining the Special Character of the School and the anthroposophical
impulse which is inherent in all aspects of school life.
PREFERENCE of enrolment at the School under Section 29 (1) of the Private
Schools Conditional Integration Act 1975 shall be given only to those
children whose parents have established a particular connection with the
Special Character of the School and the Controlling Authority shall not
give preference of enrolment to the parents of any child unless the
Proprietor has stated that those parents have established such a particular
or general connection with the Special Character of the School.
No child shall be enrolled at the School unless the Proprietor has stated
that the parents of that child have established a particular or general
connection with the Special Character of the School.
CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING RELATIONSHIP TO SPECIAL CHARACTER
The following criteria will be taken into account in assessing the general
or specific relationship of any prospective parents to the special
character of the school without which enrolment may not proceed.
Prospective parents shall acknowledge, accept and value:
1. That the curriculum and the teaching methods are derived from the
indications outlined by Rudolf Steiner, elaborated and adapted by the
College of Teachers of this school for its particular circumstances.
2. The Christian (non-sectarian) basis of the education.
3. The anthroposophical basis of all endeavour in the school.
4. That the education is an integrated unity from Kindergarten
through Lower School (Primary) to Upper School (Secondary)
5. The need to provide a protected environment for the child.
6. That the education is of a general and comprehensive character,
not specialised or for any particular type of pupil.
7. That the educational programmes are a co-ordinated whole, each
part contributing to the child's development in its own particular way.
8. That eurythmy, handwork and religion are integral elements of
the curriculum.
9. That a particular aspect of the curriculum is that in the first
few years non-academic elements of learning are fostered and the direct
teaching of reading, writing, and mathematical skills are delayed until
the pupil is about seven years and is then related to the unfolding of the
child's consciousness.
10. That because of the broad nature of curriculum the usual
externally assessed examination programme for senior pupils is not
followed by this school.
Essentially the school expects that parents will value the education for
itself. An indicator of this will be that they apply to enrol all
children in their family. School policy is that where this does not
happen, they should include with their completed application form a
letter outlining their reasons. If these reasons are found by the
Proprietor to be acceptable in terms of the Preference of Enrolment
section of the school's Deed of Agreement, enrolment will proceed.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n906.5 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: worming no more?
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:27:57 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
An anonymous friend wrote me:
"Check out the newly-released edition of "Faculty Meetings with Rudolf
Steiner", just made available from Anthroposophic Press (this is the
revision of the four-volume "Rudolf Steiner's Conferences with the Teachers
of the Waldorf School in Stuttgart" which has been discussed on your list
of late).
"The "worm our way through" quote has disappeared--there are interesting
changes in that entire passage.
"The new two-volume set is currently 20% off until October 15 (still
requiring you to drop $39.96 plus shipping!)"\
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n906 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n907 --------------
001 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: worming no more?
002 - Sarah (rabbr concentric.n - Re: worming no more?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n907.1 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: worming no more?
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1998 01:59:29 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199809031937.MAA28607 lists1.best.com)
)"The "worm our way through" quote has disappeared--there are interesting
)changes in that entire passage.
Could someone give us the passage in German?
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n907.2 ---------------
From: Sarah (rabbr concentric.net)
Subject: Re: worming no more?
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 1998 07:26:30 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809051649.JAA14740 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) )"The "worm our way through" quote has disappeared--there are interesting
) )changes in that entire passage.
)
) Could someone give us the passage in German?
)
) -Dan
Dan,
I know a few people who speak German as their native tongue.
If you have the passage in German you wish translated, e-mail it to me
and I will ask them to translate.
Sarah
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n907 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n908 --------------
001 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: color black
002 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: raising heroes
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n908.1 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: color black
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1998 01:15:53 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (3.0.5.32.19980907135221.007bfe40 frontiernet.net)
A friend wrote me,
)People were discussing the avoidance of exposing kids to the color black
)w/in the Waldorf community.
)
)FYI: My Russian grandmother told me that black was the color worn by brides
)in pre-20th century Russian villages. Subsequently, I saw a PBS documentary
)on the prehistoric mastodon-bone building culture found in Russia (about
)1990...the program). I believe the point was made that black & dark brown
)were symbolic of earth & fertility and that the presence of these colors
)pointed to a matriarchal/earth-centered worship.
)
)Presented this idea to some anthropops & was pooh-poohed.
)
)BTW, in the '70's there were many articles around about children & color.
)One thing I remember was that red was "bad" for kids...made them hyper or
)something like that. Not too sure about this, as it was mainly from my
)mother protesting when my 9 yr old wanted his bedroom painted red. We did &
)he is now a college grad in chemistry working as a sys-admin/LAN
)admin/software engineer. Didn't hurt him at all.
Here's some Anthroposophical color psychology:
"The colors which surround the small child should be selected with the
awareness that the complementary color is created within the child, and it
is the one by which the child will be influenced. An excitable child
should be dressed in red; s/he will inwardly create the opposite, green,
and this activity of creating green has a calming effect." [Richards, p. 50]
"A few more examples may be given. A 'nervous,' that is to say excitable
child, should be treated differently as regards environment from one who is
quiet and lethargic. Everything comes into consideration, from the colour
of the room and the various objects that are generally around the child, to
the colour of the clothes in which he is dressed. One will often do the
wrong thing if one does not take guidance from spiritual knowledge. For in
many cases the materialistic idea will hit on the exact reverse of what is
right. An excitable child should be surrounded by and dressed in the red or
reddish-yellow colours, whereas for a lethargic child one should have
recourse to the blue or bluish-green shades of colour. For the important
thing is the complementary colour, which is created within the child. In
the case of red it is green, and in the case of blue orange-yellow, as may
easily be seen by looking for a time at a red or blue surface and then
quickly directing one's gaze to a white surface. The physical organs of the
child create this contrary or complementary colour, and it is this which
brings about the corresponding organic structures that the child needs. If
the excitable child has a red colour around him, he will inwardly create
the opposite, the green; and this activity of creating green has a calming
effect. The organs assume a tendency to calmness. " [lost the reference for
this, but it looks like Steiner's Conferences with Teachers-can anybody
finger it for me?]
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n908.2 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: raising heroes
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 01:18:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (3.0.5.32.19980908090527.007c1d90 frontiernet.net)
A friend wrote,
)In the 1996 archives of waldorf-critics,a discussion of UR-Fascism refered
)to the "raising of heroes" Dan replied :"I wish."
)
)A 1st grade Waldorf teacher, many years experience at many different
)schools, German speaking, visits Germany regularly, said (of her male
)students): "They are all knights!"
)
)If the emphasis on Parsifal and the Grail stories are so prevalent in
)Waldorf, aren't they _trying_ to raise heros? Their high school graduates'
)postings and school writings all defend Anthropop. Heros defend & save. By
)their lights, Anthropops _are_ raising heros (to the cause).
I suspect by the numbers they're pretty unsuccessful, but maybe one or two
devotees from each class isn't bad. I suspect a lot of grads who come out
thinking Anthroposophy is bunk are actually more Anthropops in their
world-view that they know.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n908 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n909 --------------
002 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: raising heroes
004 - snell netshel.net - Character Education
005 - Rob & Rikki Myran (bhstud - Re: raising heroes
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n909.2 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: raising heroes
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1998 11:13:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Parsifal has significance in its meaning, not the trivial aspect of the age
in which it was written. It took the form of chivalry only as a means of
expression, the canvas upon which it was written. If you study this work,
as I have, then you realize that the knightly deeds are struggles with the
meaning and foundation of existence, not "heroes" in the sense you may mean.
There is nothing wrong with encouraging "heroes" if the definition of hero
is correct. In this story Parsifal is the hero because he is searching for
truth. This is something that I hope the good people on this list are
attempting to do. Are we not trying to be this kind of hero as we work here
on this list? Perhaps you were simply commending the Waldorf teachers for
supporting the search for truth.
If you wish to discuss Parsifal, it is an involved topic. It is like
discussing any great work of literature. The Fisher King and the Grail
Castle have symbolic significance and are studied by scholars throughout the
world. Dan, you stated "Heroes defend & save." If you knew the story of
Parsifal you would know that he wandered in search of truth and gave up
fighting in an outer sense. His fight turned inward to remove the barriers
in his thinking that interfered with truth-seeking. This is firmly
established in his meeting with the hermit in the cave at the end of the
book.
It is "Quelle ironique!" that you raise this topic.
- Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n909.4 ---------------
From: snell netshel.net
Subject: Character Education
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 98 08:51:24 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
I finally received a flyer from Max's school that somewhat explains their
Character Education program. I really like this program's emphasis as it
is truely non-sectarian while leaving the children's soul development to
the parents.
In every classroom, the office, and the assembly room, one sees posters
with Character Education's traits. Many of these posters are done by the
children.
Deby
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Character Education
Our Character Education program includes nine attributes:
*respect
*responsibility
*loyalty
*self-discipline
*friendship
*goal-setting
*perseverance
*honesty
*courage
By having a "common language" we can communicate more effectively with
each other. During the past three years, as we have developed this
program, we have observed that these concepts have become part of
students' and adults' shared vocabularies. These attributes are reflected
in our social and behavioral guidelines at Deer Creek School. The
students and staff feel they are working together to create a community
where everyone works hard, plays hard, and feels safe and secure.
Every other month we will select a specific characteristic common to the
whole school. The trait will be introduced during grade-level assemblies
and may include discussions, skits, inspirational stories of famous
people, exemplary community members, video segments, and stories.
Teachers may nominate students who have demonstarted a particular
attribute so they can be recognized by their peers.
During the ensuing month this trait will be included formally and
informally during class activities. Teachers and children may honor
additional students within the classroom. Each of the character traits
remains in our vocabulary the entire school year, and students may be
recognized at any time of the year for a specific characteristic.
In September we will introduce the attribute of friendship in assemblies.
If you have ideas to share with your child or your child's teacher,
please feel free to do so. Your involvement and support in this program
will be appreciated and encouraged."
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n909.5 ---------------
From: Rob & Rikki Myran (bhstudio frontiernet.net)
Subject: Re: raising heroes
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 12:37:02 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (3.0.5.32.19980908090527.007c1d90 frontiernet.net)
In-Reply-To: (199809090819.BAA08627 lists1.best.com)
At 01:18 AM 9/9/98 -0700, you wrote:
)A friend wrote,
)
))In the 1996 archives of waldorf-critics,a discussion of UR-Fascism refered
))to the "raising of heroes" Dan replied :"I wish."
))
))A 1st grade Waldorf teacher, many years experience at many different
))schools, German speaking, visits Germany regularly, said (of her male
))students): "They are all knights!"
))
))If the emphasis on Parsifal and the Grail stories are so prevalent in
))Waldorf, aren't they _trying_ to raise heros? Their high school graduates'
))postings and school writings all defend Anthropop. Heros defend & save. By
))their lights, Anthropops _are_ raising heros (to the cause).
)
)I suspect by the numbers they're pretty unsuccessful, but maybe one or two
)devotees from each class isn't bad. I suspect a lot of grads who come out
)thinking Anthroposophy is bunk are actually more Anthropops in their
)world-view that they know.
)
)-Dan Dugan
)
)DAN THIS WAS POSTED W/MY E_MAIL!!!!!DELETE PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n909 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n910 --------------
001 - snell netshel.net - "Big Heading"
002 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: "Big Heading"
003 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: worming no more?
004 - snell netshel.net - Re: "Big Heading"
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n910.1 ---------------
From: snell netshel.net
Subject: "Big Heading"
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 98 09:33:02 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
"In one region of Austria people have a drastic view of intelligent
people. The[y] are called, namely, "big heads," which means, they say,
they have large heads - intellectually understood. A poet I know who
lived in this region once said that the development of humankind proceeds
intellectualistically. This leads to the point where humans develop
always larger and larger heads, and the other body parts hang on as
rudimentary organs. Mankind is thus reduced to large spheres, which then
simply roll away."
Rudolf Steiner, December 24, 1921, Knowledge of Higher Worlds, Rudolf
Steiner's Blackboard Drawings, UC Berkeley Museum, Oct.11-January 4,
1998, p.62
-posted by Debra Snell
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n910.2 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: "Big Heading"
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 16:39:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Drum roll .......... and the point? Steiner has a good sense of humor? :~).
-----Original Message-----
From: snell netshel.net (snell netshel.net)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Friday, September 11, 1998 10:55 AM
Subject: "Big Heading"
)
)
)"In one region of Austria people have a drastic view of intelligent
)people. The[y] are called, namely, "big heads," which means, they say,
)they have large heads - intellectually understood. A poet I know who
)lived in this region once said that the development of humankind proceeds
)intellectualistically. This leads to the point where humans develop
)always larger and larger heads, and the other body parts hang on as
)rudimentary organs. Mankind is thus reduced to large spheres, which then
)simply roll away."
)
)Rudolf Steiner, December 24, 1921, Knowledge of Higher Worlds, Rudolf
)Steiner's Blackboard Drawings, UC Berkeley Museum, Oct.11-January 4,
)1998, p.62
)
)-posted by Debra Snell
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n910.3 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: worming no more?
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 17:18:11 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809061710.KAA07397 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan wrote:
) )
) ) )"The "worm our way through" quote has disappeared--there are interesting
) ) )changes in that entire passage.
) )
) ) Could someone give us the passage in German?
) )
) ) -Dan
I've been told that the original German passage is "Man muss sich
durchschlaengln."
I'm also told that the original text appears in its entirety in
something entitled "GA 300a" which I presume is some method for
cataloging Steiner archives. I believe that's supposed to be available
at the Sunbridge College here in NY; I don't know if there's a similar
library elsewhere.
My high school German has mostly vacated my synapses, but I do remember
that the word "Man" is used as a pronoun in the same way that we use the
word "One" in English. That is, it's an indefinite pronoun.
"Muss" translates to "must" in English.
I don't know the translation of the verb, but the use of "Man" (one)
instead of "Wir" (we) or "Sie" (you) indicates to me a kind of
generalized advice rather than a command, directive or imperative.
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n910.4 ---------------
From: snell netshel.net
Subject: Re: "Big Heading"
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 98 17:29:25 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
)Drum roll .......... and the point? Steiner has a good sense of humor? :~).
Maybe I'll buy that one, Daniel. It makes more sense than any of the
senarios I came up with. :+)
Debra
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n910 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n911 --------------
001 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - RE: treatment of gifted children and P of F
002 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - RE: treatment of gifted children and P of F
003 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Admin: web counter
004 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Savitri Devi boek Goodrick-Clarke
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n911.1 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: treatment of gifted children and P of F
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 12:00:10 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (v04011705b203b36ac870 [205.149.169.113])
In-Reply-To: (000901bdcec3$8012c420$591d9fc1 wulff)
Wulff Wenldelstein (Wulff.Wendelstein t-online.de) continued our dialogue:
DUGAN
)) The censorship consists in the banning of people who are critical of
)) Waldorf. This policy made it necessary to found a separate waldorf-critics
)) list.
WENDELSTEIN
)Sounds a little bit like paranoia.
Paranoia is irrational fear. I'm not afraid of anything in Waldorf or
Anthroposophy. I see things that need to be exposed and understood by the
public.
DUGAN
))Steiner doesn't want children to be exposed to
)) "cause and
)) effect" reasoning till puberty. To me this is as anti-intellectual as you
)) can get. His ridiculing of science (including pooh-poohing Einstein) put
)) him squarely in the company of the romantic holists fighting for a return
)) to pre-enlightenment mysticism.
WENDELSTEIN
)And Einstein pooh-poohed Quantum Physics (and there are still some people
)who try to prove that he was right on this issue). But nobody claims that
)because Einstein was wrong on Quantum Physics all his work is nonsense.
)You're bashing Steiner, meaning his self-styled successors.
All of Steiner isn't nonsense, just most of it. Einstein has a better track
record.
DUGAN
)) Steiner was not a "strong supporter" of modern science, he was a strong
)) opponent. He often plays a rhetorical game of praising modern science, and
)) then ridiculing it. Here is a typical statement that appears to be
)) supporting:
))
)) "Someone can easily believe, for example, that some statement or other
)) contradicts certain facts established by modern science. In
)) reality, there
)) is no such thing as a scientific fact that contradicts spiritual science;
)) but there can easily seem to be contradictions unless scientific
)) conclusions are consulted abundantly and without prejudice. The student
)) will find that the more open mindedly he compares spiritual science with
)) positive scientific achievements, the more clearly is complete
)) accord to be
)) seen."
))
)) [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. vi.]
))
)) But by "without prejudice," he means without disagreeing with his visions,
)) "open mindedly" means giving equal weight to nonsense, and "positive
)) scientific achievements" are those of which he approves.
WENDELSTEIN
)Funny - I never saw it this way, and I can't see how your above quotings can
)support your allegations. Wishful thinking of yours?
Of course not, it serves your position to take his code-words literally.
Steiner played this game a lot, and I can see the pattern.
WENDELSTEIN
)The other way round:
)Looking at things without prejudice today is more important than ever,
)because there is so much nonsense around us, multiplied by the media and
)sold as the absolute truth. And believing is prejudice. Who decides what is
)nonsense and what not? If you're not able to look at things open mindedly,
)you will depend on your own prejudices and the judgement of others forever.
)This means believing, not knowing. No chance for self-determination, just a
)perfect cogwheel in the social gearbox. Is this what you want? Communist,
)eh? (grin)
You're spouting platitudes. My point is that "the conclusions of spiritual
science" are -not- in accord with science, and Steiner knew very well that
they weren't. He was manipulating his devotees.
DUGAN
)) At other times he reveals his anti-intellectualism more directly:
))
)) "[P]resent human thinking, the present intellect, lies in a stratum of
)) being where it does not reach down to realities. One can therefore prove
)) something quite strictly, and also prove its opposite. ... Ahriman makes
)) use of this confusion in order to prepare the triumph of his incarnation
)) and to drive men with increasing force into what they find so difficult to
)) realize--namely, that by intellectual or modern scientific
)) reasoning today,
)) one can prove anything and equally well prove its opposite."
))
)) [Steiner, Rudolf. The Ahrimanic Deception. (1919) Trans. M. Cottrell,
)) revised by William Riggens. Spring Valley: Anthroposophic Press, 1985, pp.
)) 12-14.]
WENDELSTEIN
)So what? Aren't Statistics very scientific? And wouldn't you agree you can
)prove everything with statistics? Isn't it done every day? This is only one
)of the most ovious cases.
Yes, statistical techniques are very important to scientific
investigations, and no, you can't "prove everything with statistics." It's
very easy to make deceptive rhetorical points by mis-using statistics, and
that's what the common phrase refers to.
)What about the particle zoo? There is more than
)one physicist who wonders whether these particles are really "real" or just
)created by the way we investigate matter.
As well they should, such an attitude is good science.
WENDELSTEIN
)) )But though we still see much of the old, dogmatic thinking,
)) )things are improving. This is a fact.
DUGAN
)) I hope they are. We hear a lot of talk about undogmatic Waldorf,
)) but has no
)) organization and no literature. People who say "things aren't like that in
)) our school" are often looking very hard the other way when they are.
WENDELSTEIN
)Because most of these people don't need an organization. They just express
)their thoughts, and I can tell you from my own experience: the dogmatic
)hardliners are on their retreat. And there is enough literature (I speak for
)Germany).
I'll believe it when I see it.
WENDELSTIEN
)) The WE can help a lot in
)) developing a free,
)) )stable personality, without the need to "believe" whatsoever to keep his
)) )brains together.
I question this assertion. An important part of Steiner's pedagogical
theory is that children should not make judgements and should take
everything on authority up the age of puberty, and that that will prepare
them for "freedom." This is like the military principle that humiliation
prepares soldiers for leadership. I don't think so. I think children need
to -practice- thinking for themselves from a quite early age, and if this
is denied, they will be intellectually and morally crippled.
)) I think you express a hope of all education, but not something
)) that Waldorf
)) actually accomplishes. My opinion, of course. Have you any evidence?
WENDELSTEIN
)Me.
I think your arguments make a better case for my position.
)) My edition includes the 1818 introduction. Perhaps you will take up the
)) challenge from which another list member has recently demurred. Please
)) explain what you think is -original- and -significant- in Steiner's
)) thought, in your own words.
))
))
)) He started talking about esoteric subjects when he had an audience for it.
)) Obviously the worshipping ladies of Theosophy were a much easier audience
)) to play to than the philosophers.
WENDELSTEIN
)Why are you selling automatic mixers? Obviously because it's much easier
)than becoming a Nobel prize winner in Quantum physics. Just an allegation.
I asked you to explain Steiner's contributions to philosophy and you reply
with an ad hominem. I'm working on the quantum physics, though.
Yet another Anthroposophist declines my direct question. The great
physicist Feynman said if he couldn't explain something to his students in
plain language, he didn't understand it.
)) I read actively in current brain theory and in quantum mechanics. I don't
)) claim to be an expert, just well read. I see no connection
)) between them and
)) Steiner's philosophy.
WENDELSTEIN
)One of the most intriguing books was published 1995 by Gerhard Roth: "The
)Brain and it's Reality" (Prof. Roth is a philosopher and neurologist,
)director of the well known Institute of Brain Sciences in Bremen, Germany).
)It is not very likely that it is published in the US, since science outside
)the US is often subject to the "not invented here" attitude.
)If it develops into a philosophical discussion, I admit I'm seriously
)handicapped: even my two-volume German-English dictionary doesn't help much
)when I try to translate this kind of content into English. My English is
)technically oriented and lacks competely the special language of the
)philosophers, which I regret.
I asked you to explain Steiner's contribution -in your own words-.
)) I was a devout Catholic as a youth before drifting away when I
)) went away to
)) Catholic college. Years later I discovered that secular humanism described
)) my position well and rejoiced to find a world-wide community of
)) independent
)) thinkers.
WENDELSTEIN
)I just strode through your Website, Dan. I admit it made me shudder. Though
)I don't blame you for hating Waldorf schools and Anthroposophists, I think
)the campaign you're organizing there is unproportionate. As a "secular
)humanist" IMHO you should primarily fight Scientology these days. In my eyes
)they are much more dangerous than any other "occult" movement. Their goal is
)economic and mental control on others - fundamentalistic inhumanity at it's
)best. But of course it's dangerous to fight them - you'll at least get
)involved in an expensive lawsuit.
I don't hate Waldorf schools and some of my friends are Anthroposophists.
It would be much easier for you if it was a black-and-white situation and
you could call me a monster. I agree that Scientology is a much more
dangerous cult to fight, and I have donated more than I can afford to that
cause. Waldorf is something I know about, and an area where my particular
knowledge can be useful to society.
WENDELSTEIN
)You try to collect money to involve WSs, A.s and supporters in lawsuits.
)Kind of unfair, because these groups are easy to attack - they aren't well
)organized and usually don't have the economic and PR power to fight back.
)And I don't think they'll act like Scientology trying to ruin your
)reputation with rumours about your abnormal sexual behaviors, your
)extramarital relations and such nice things. The dirty, hatred-soaked
)Scientology campaign against the alleged suppression of religious freedom in
)Germany, supported by (ignorant?) US stars and US politicians, left a bad
)taste not only in Germany but in Europe. The main reason is widely unknown
)in the US: German school authorities tried to remove teachers who had
)teached Scientology contents and recruited members during their classes.
)What would US autorities do in such cases?
I think there is some litigation in progress over Scientology textbooks
being adopted by public school districts in California. Their brown-shirt
tactics are indeed terrifying. Anthroposophy is a more honorable opponent,
but only by degrees. Teachers who opposed Waldorf programs in their schools
have had their characters attacked.
)WSs and A.s are only a handful compared to the millions of Scientologists
)around the globe. WSs exist for more than 70 years - can you prove they did
)any harm? As far as I'm concerned - I don't want to live in a world ruled by
)"operating thetan" zombies - do you? I hate the idea of being made a
)brain-washed Pawlow dog. Steiner has some viable ideas about the opposite.
I don't want to live in a world ruled by religious zealots, either, and
that includes Anthroposophists. Steiner used thought-reform techniques on
his devotees, so you should be concerned about brainwashing. Harm? Yes, I
am harmed when my tax money goes to teacher training at Rudolf Steiner
College. Students are harmed by Waldorf's incompetence. Sick people are
harmed by Anthroposophical medicine's quackery.
)And what about US neonazis (most of the web sites containing nazi materials
)are based in the US and run by US citizens) and other homegrown terrorists?
)What about worldwide religious fundamentalism? In my eyes there are more
)important movements, undermining social stability, to fight than WS and A.
)You're not beating the donkey, you're even beating the wrong bag.
Because we value free speech so highly, we tolerate people saying things we
hate. How about the neo-Nazi Anthroposophists in Germany? Have you any
articles from the Anthroposophic presses denouncing them?
You keep trying to deflect criticism of Waldorf by saying there are more
important problems I should be attacking. There are children starving in
Africa. How come you aren't there helping them? You see, that's just
rhetoric. Stick to the issues of this discussion. I've chosen to expose the
failings of Waldorf and Anthroposophy. There are other forums devoted to
Scientology, and starving children.
)And Racism? To put someone down, call him racist. Within 350 books there are
)3 or 4 sentences which could be judged as racistic in terms of today (see
)the NL study). But a hundred times he warns against the evil of racism.
)Honestly - Steiner is as much a racist as the term "black hole" proves that
)there is racism in astrophysics.
See the dozens of racist quotations spanning a wide selection of Steiner's
work in my collection posted on the PLANS web page. Honestly, Steiner's
racism was one of the bricks in the foundation of the holocaust.
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
copy to waldorf-critics
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n911.2 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: RE: treatment of gifted children and P of F
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 98 20:46:11 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Dan writes:
) Harm? Yes, I
)am harmed when my tax money goes to teacher training at Rudolf Steiner
)College.
My money, my money...blah blah blah
My offer still stands to refund the portion of your tax money that goes
toward Waldorf Education...and not just at RSC!
) Honestly, Steiner's
)racism was one of the bricks in the foundation of the holocaust.
Honestly, your pettiness, greed and ego are outweighed only by your
ignorance. A gargantuan feat, I might add!
You really need to get off of this Nazi thing, Dan.
I mean, don't get me wrong, I love it when you undermine your credibility
on a regular basis, but if you're going to be inflammatory, at least act
like you've read the material!
O.K. so there are some things that Steiner said that are..um...somewhat
less than politically correct by today's standards; But "the bricks in
the foundation of the holocaust"!?!? Jeeze Louise!!!! Christianity was
one such 'brick', as were people named Hermann, and trains, and small
children, and whatever that crap was that Hitler put in his hair to make
it stick to his forehead, and the list goes on.
How can you, in one breath, speak of how statistics are so easily
twisted to suit the whims of the twister(!?), and, in the next ...well,
you know.
A zealot always becomes blinded by his zeal; and you, Dan, for all of
your information and dedication, are becoming morbidly nearsighted.
Phew!
Charlie frey
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n911.3 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: web counter
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 01:48:19 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At the end of the day on August 13 the PLANS web site visitor counter read
17,740. That's 765 visitors in the last month, an average of 25 per day.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n911.4 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Savitri Devi boek Goodrick-Clarke
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:56:08 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hitler's Priestess. "Savitri Devi, the Hindu-Aryan Myth, and Neo-Nazism"
Edited by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke.
New York University Press 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction: "Discovered Alive in India: Hitler's Guru!"
1. Hellas and Judah
2. Aryavarta
3. Hindu Nationalism
4. The Nazi Brahmin
5. The Duce of Bengal
6. Akhnaton and Animal Rights
7. The Hitler Avatar
8. Defiance
9. Pilgrimage
10. The ODESSA Connection
11. Inside the Neo-Nazi International
12. Last Years and Legacy: Nazis, Greens, and the New Age
Notes and References - Bibliographical Notes - Index - About the Author
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke is the author of The Occult Roots of Nazism:
Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology, which the Times
Literary Supplement dubbed "an intriguing study of apolocalyptic fantasies."
"Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke's finely crafted biography is a minefield of
disconcerting paradoxes and uncomfortable truths. His story of Savitri Devi
reveals the mixture of power worship with sentimentality that links her
Nazi religion with 'deep ecology' and other New Age movements."
--Joscelyn Godwin, Colgate University
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Savitri Devi
30.9.1905 - 17.10.1982
------------------------------------------
Herman de Tollenaere
------------------------------------------
Internet site:
http://stad.dsl.nl/~hermantl/
See also:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
------------------------------------------
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n911 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n912 --------------
001 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Faint Praise From Unexpected Regions
002 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: raising heroes
003 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Money Refund
004 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: raising heroes
005 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Fw: raising heroes
006 - snell netshel.net - Re: Faint Praise From Unexpected Regions
007 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Anti-Semitism/Anthroposophy (Thieben)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n912.1 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Faint Praise From Unexpected Regions
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 16:48:10 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809141910.MAA28874 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan wrote:
) We hear a lot of talk about undogmatic Waldorf, but has no
) organization and no literature. People who say "things aren't like that in
) our school" are often looking very hard the other way when they are.
)
) WENDELSTEIN
) )Because most of these people don't need an organization. They just express
) )their thoughts, and I can tell you from my own experience: the dogmatic
) )hardliners are on their retreat. And there is enough literature (I speak for
) )Germany).
Dan,
Now that school is back in session, I had occasion to mention to a few
of the teachers at my kids' Waldorf school that I was participating in
this list, and this sparked a few comments.
Although most of the comments would not be of interest to you, one of
the teachers remarked that it's probably necessary for an organization
like PLANS to exist, if only to help Waldorf be more responsive than
dogmatic. Don't get too talmudic about the words; these are my own
words characterizing what I recall of the conversation.
Bob
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n912.2 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: raising heroes
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 10:52:47 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (199809091511.IAA28932 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Perez wrote,
)Parsifal has significance in its meaning, not the trivial aspect of the age
)in which it was written. It took the form of chivalry only as a means of
)expression, the canvas upon which it was written. If you study this work,
)as I have, then you realize that the knightly deeds are struggles with the
)meaning and foundation of existence, not "heroes" in the sense you may mean.
)There is nothing wrong with encouraging "heroes" if the definition of hero
)is correct. In this story Parsifal is the hero because he is searching for
)truth. This is something that I hope the good people on this list are
)attempting to do. Are we not trying to be this kind of hero as we work here
)on this list? Perhaps you were simply commending the Waldorf teachers for
)supporting the search for truth.
)
)If you wish to discuss Parsifal, it is an involved topic. It is like
)discussing any great work of literature. The Fisher King and the Grail
)Castle have symbolic significance and are studied by scholars throughout the
)world. Dan, you stated "Heroes defend & save." If you knew the story of
)Parsifal you would know that he wandered in search of truth and gave up
)fighting in an outer sense. His fight turned inward to remove the barriers
)in his thinking that interfered with truth-seeking. This is firmly
)established in his meeting with the hermit in the cave at the end of the
)book.
Parsifal is a -really big deal- with Anthroposophists. Steiner talked of a
"Parsifal principle" carried by Christ:
"The Christ [in Steiner's sculpture] towers in the middle as the One who is
carrying the Parcival principle into the new age and who, not through his
power but through his very being, induces others to overcome themselves,
rather than being overcome by Him. In Michelangelo's painting [Sistine
Chapel], we see a Christ who uses His very power to send some to heaven and
others to hell. In future, such an image will no longer be seen as the
genuine Christ, but rather as a Christ having luciferic qualities. ...There
has to be a clear understanding that we cannot turn our attention just to
the Christ, but must set our sight on the threefold configuration: Christ,
Lucifer, Ahriman. I can only hint at this, but spiritual science will
eventually bring to light the full content of the mystery, Christ in
relation to Lucifer and Ahriman."
[Steiner, Rudolf. Christ in Relation to Lucifer and Ahriman. (1915) Trans.
Peter Mollenhauer, Ph.D. Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1978, pp.
15-16.]
Steiner's unholy trinity. Note the way the occultist guru says, darkly, "I
can only hint at this." I think he doesn't want to upset the Christians too
much.
After viewing a performance of Wagner's Parsifal, Hitler said "Out of
Parsifal I make a religion."
[Flood, C.B. Hitler: The Path to Power. Boston: Houghton Mifflin 1989, p. 432.]
The study of Parsifal is viewed as an adolescent rite of passage:
"The story of Parsifal is a journey toward individual consciousness and an
inner sense of selfhood. The seventeen-year-olds, who tend to carry their
new sense of themselves like a secret, appreciate sharing their own
awakening with Parsifal's."
[Richards, Mary Caroline. Toward Wholeness: Rudolf Steiner Education in
America. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1980, p. 39.]
A couple of years ago Val Setzer described how he taught the high school
Parsifal block in Sao Paulo as a camping trip. It sounded like an
initiation similar to the Catholic sacrament of Confirmation.
The Rudolf Steiner College Foundation Year reading list includes a course
on Parsifal. Students must buy their own copies of titles with asterisks:
"Lit 100 Parsifal
W. von Eschenbach. Parzival (Mustard and Passage translation)*
RenÈ Querido, The Mystery of the Holy Grail: A Modern Path of Initiation*
Steven Roboz, ed., The Holy Grail
Rudolf Steiner, The Search for the Holy Grail"
Sunbridge College announced a course on Parsifal:
"Parzival and the Development of Consciousness: Kay Hoffman
Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival is a pivotal area of study in the Waldorf
school. In it we accompany "a brave man slowly wise" through trials and
suffering that lead him to self-knowledge and awareness of others. This
course for adults affords many opportunities for discussion of major life
questions through the study of Parzival. To understand Parzival is to
understand how we, too, may become "knights" in modern times."
[Sunbridge College, Winter/Spring 1998 course announcement, p. 5]
Amanda Julson, who subscribed here briefly, brings us up to date in her
posting to Anthroposophia at around the same time (January, '98):
"But let us not just look at Parsifal in his 9th century incarnation;
rather consider Parsifal in his pending late 20th Century incarnation. For
Parsifal is the reincarnation of Mani, the founder of Manicheanism and
opponent of St. Augustine, and Parsifal, according to Rudolf Steiner, will
reincarnate NOW as the figure who will lead the decadent intellectualized
remnant of anthroposophy into the world-wide life forces of the New
Manichaeanism as Parsifal-Mani comes of age in the early 21st century.
(See Bernie Lievengood's book "The Battle for the Soul.")"
At the end of Wagner's version, the pure seeker is proclaimed fuhrer. Maybe
Parsifal is in a Waldorf school right now...getting ready to lead his flock.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n912.3 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Money Refund
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 21:13:05 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809141910.MAA28874 lists1.best.com)
Charlie Frey writes:
) Dan writes:
) ) Harm? Yes, I
) )am harmed when my tax money goes to teacher training at Rudolf Steiner
) )College.
)
) My money, my money...blah blah blah
) My offer still stands to refund the portion of your tax money that goes
) toward Waldorf Education...and not just at RSC!
Will you refund my money too? Will you refund the training money that
was spent to brainwash me in Steiner's pedagogy? I could have applied
that money to much more useful training and not had to endure the
chanting, silent communication, fairytales, marching, wet on wet
painting, etc. I could have actually studied something relevant to my
students. I could have spent that money on classroom materials that
actually educated adolescents in a manner that could have helped prepare
them to competently meet their future.
But, it's never too late. If you refund the money misspent on my Waldorf
training I will promise to spend it on what I perceive to be relevant
teacher training for at-risk children.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n912.4 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: raising heroes
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:35:38 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sounds like you agree on the point that these are not "heroes" in the sense
of chivalry. There was no references to defending or protecting Steiner's
worldview. This is what I was referring to and this is accurate:
)"The story of Parsifal is a journey toward individual consciousness and an
)inner sense of selfhood. The seventeen-year-olds, who tend to carry their
)new sense of themselves like a secret, appreciate sharing their own
)awakening with Parsifal's."
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: raising heroes
)Daniel Perez wrote,
)
))Parsifal has significance in its meaning, not the trivial aspect of the
age
))in which it was written. It took the form of chivalry only as a means of
))expression, the canvas upon which it was written. If you study this work,
))as I have, then you realize that the knightly deeds are struggles with the
))meaning and foundation of existence, not "heroes" in the sense you may
mean.
))There is nothing wrong with encouraging "heroes" if the definition of hero
))is correct. In this story Parsifal is the hero because he is searching
for
))truth. This is something that I hope the good people on this list are
))attempting to do. Are we not trying to be this kind of hero as we work
here
))on this list? Perhaps you were simply commending the Waldorf teachers for
))supporting the search for truth.
))
))If you wish to discuss Parsifal, it is an involved topic. It is like
))discussing any great work of literature. The Fisher King and the Grail
))Castle have symbolic significance and are studied by scholars throughout
the
))world. Dan, you stated "Heroes defend & save." If you knew the story of
))Parsifal you would know that he wandered in search of truth and gave up
))fighting in an outer sense. His fight turned inward to remove the
barriers
))in his thinking that interfered with truth-seeking. This is firmly
))established in his meeting with the hermit in the cave at the end of the
))book.
)
)Parsifal is a -really big deal- with Anthroposophists. Steiner talked of a
)"Parsifal principle" carried by Christ:
)
)"The Christ [in Steiner's sculpture] towers in the middle as the One who is
)carrying the Parcival principle into the new age and who, not through his
)power but through his very being, induces others to overcome themselves,
)rather than being overcome by Him. In Michelangelo's painting [Sistine
)Chapel], we see a Christ who uses His very power to send some to heaven and
)others to hell. In future, such an image will no longer be seen as the
)genuine Christ, but rather as a Christ having luciferic qualities. ...There
)has to be a clear understanding that we cannot turn our attention just to
)the Christ, but must set our sight on the threefold configuration: Christ,
)Lucifer, Ahriman. I can only hint at this, but spiritual science will
)eventually bring to light the full content of the mystery, Christ in
)relation to Lucifer and Ahriman."
)
)[Steiner, Rudolf. Christ in Relation to Lucifer and Ahriman. (1915) Trans.
)Peter Mollenhauer, Ph.D. Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1978, pp.
)15-16.]
)
)Steiner's unholy trinity. Note the way the occultist guru says, darkly, "I
)can only hint at this." I think he doesn't want to upset the Christians too
)much.
)
)After viewing a performance of Wagner's Parsifal, Hitler said "Out of
)Parsifal I make a religion."
)
)[Flood, C.B. Hitler: The Path to Power. Boston: Houghton Mifflin 1989, p.
432.]
)
)The study of Parsifal is viewed as an adolescent rite of passage:
)
)"The story of Parsifal is a journey toward individual consciousness and an
)inner sense of selfhood. The seventeen-year-olds, who tend to carry their
)new sense of themselves like a secret, appreciate sharing their own
)awakening with Parsifal's."
)
)[Richards, Mary Caroline. Toward Wholeness: Rudolf Steiner Education in
)America. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1980, p. 39.]
)
)A couple of years ago Val Setzer described how he taught the high school
)Parsifal block in Sao Paulo as a camping trip. It sounded like an
)initiation similar to the Catholic sacrament of Confirmation.
)
)The Rudolf Steiner College Foundation Year reading list includes a course
)on Parsifal. Students must buy their own copies of titles with asterisks:
)
)"Lit 100 Parsifal
)W. von Eschenbach. Parzival (Mustard and Passage translation)*
)RenÈ Querido, The Mystery of the Holy Grail: A Modern Path of Initiation*
)Steven Roboz, ed., The Holy Grail
)Rudolf Steiner, The Search for the Holy Grail"
)
)Sunbridge College announced a course on Parsifal:
)
)"Parzival and the Development of Consciousness: Kay Hoffman
)Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival is a pivotal area of study in the Waldorf
)school. In it we accompany "a brave man slowly wise" through trials and
)suffering that lead him to self-knowledge and awareness of others. This
)course for adults affords many opportunities for discussion of major life
)questions through the study of Parzival. To understand Parzival is to
)understand how we, too, may become "knights" in modern times."
)
)[Sunbridge College, Winter/Spring 1998 course announcement, p. 5]
)
)Amanda Julson, who subscribed here briefly, brings us up to date in her
)posting to Anthroposophia at around the same time (January, '98):
)
)"But let us not just look at Parsifal in his 9th century incarnation;
)rather consider Parsifal in his pending late 20th Century incarnation. For
)Parsifal is the reincarnation of Mani, the founder of Manicheanism and
)opponent of St. Augustine, and Parsifal, according to Rudolf Steiner, will
)reincarnate NOW as the figure who will lead the decadent intellectualized
)remnant of anthroposophy into the world-wide life forces of the New
)Manichaeanism as Parsifal-Mani comes of age in the early 21st century.
)(See Bernie Lievengood's book "The Battle for the Soul.")"
)
)At the end of Wagner's version, the pure seeker is proclaimed fuhrer. Maybe
)Parsifal is in a Waldorf school right now...getting ready to lead his
flock.
)
)-Dan Dugan
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n912.5 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Fw: raising heroes
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 10:38:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Correction: There *were* no references to defending or protecting Steiner's
worldview; I type too fast!
- Daniel.
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Perez (dperez ultranet.com)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: raising heroes
)Sounds like you agree on the point that these are not "heroes" in the sense
)of chivalry. There was no references to defending or protecting Steiner's
)worldview. This is what I was referring to and this is accurate:
)
))"The story of Parsifal is a journey toward individual consciousness and an
))inner sense of selfhood. The seventeen-year-olds, who tend to carry their
))new sense of themselves like a secret, appreciate sharing their own
))awakening with Parsifal's."
)
)-----Original Message-----
)From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
)To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
)Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 5:43 PM
)Subject: Re: raising heroes
)
)
))Daniel Perez wrote,
))
)))Parsifal has significance in its meaning, not the trivial aspect of the
)age
)))in which it was written. It took the form of chivalry only as a means of
)))expression, the canvas upon which it was written. If you study this
work,
)))as I have, then you realize that the knightly deeds are struggles with
the
)))meaning and foundation of existence, not "heroes" in the sense you may
)mean.
)))There is nothing wrong with encouraging "heroes" if the definition of
hero
)))is correct. In this story Parsifal is the hero because he is searching
)for
)))truth. This is something that I hope the good people on this list are
)))attempting to do. Are we not trying to be this kind of hero as we work
)here
)))on this list? Perhaps you were simply commending the Waldorf teachers
for
)))supporting the search for truth.
)))
)))If you wish to discuss Parsifal, it is an involved topic. It is like
)))discussing any great work of literature. The Fisher King and the Grail
)))Castle have symbolic significance and are studied by scholars throughout
)the
)))world. Dan, you stated "Heroes defend & save." If you knew the story of
)))Parsifal you would know that he wandered in search of truth and gave up
)))fighting in an outer sense. His fight turned inward to remove the
)barriers
)))in his thinking that interfered with truth-seeking. This is firmly
)))established in his meeting with the hermit in the cave at the end of the
)))book.
))
))Parsifal is a -really big deal- with Anthroposophists. Steiner talked of a
))"Parsifal principle" carried by Christ:
))
))"The Christ [in Steiner's sculpture] towers in the middle as the One who
is
))carrying the Parcival principle into the new age and who, not through his
))power but through his very being, induces others to overcome themselves,
))rather than being overcome by Him. In Michelangelo's painting [Sistine
))Chapel], we see a Christ who uses His very power to send some to heaven
and
))others to hell. In future, such an image will no longer be seen as the
))genuine Christ, but rather as a Christ having luciferic qualities.
...There
))has to be a clear understanding that we cannot turn our attention just to
))the Christ, but must set our sight on the threefold configuration: Christ,
))Lucifer, Ahriman. I can only hint at this, but spiritual science will
))eventually bring to light the full content of the mystery, Christ in
))relation to Lucifer and Ahriman."
))
))[Steiner, Rudolf. Christ in Relation to Lucifer and Ahriman. (1915)
Trans.
))Peter Mollenhauer, Ph.D. Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1978,
pp.
))15-16.]
))
))Steiner's unholy trinity. Note the way the occultist guru says, darkly, "I
))can only hint at this." I think he doesn't want to upset the Christians
too
))much.
))
))After viewing a performance of Wagner's Parsifal, Hitler said "Out of
))Parsifal I make a religion."
))
))[Flood, C.B. Hitler: The Path to Power. Boston: Houghton Mifflin 1989, p.
)432.]
))
))The study of Parsifal is viewed as an adolescent rite of passage:
))
))"The story of Parsifal is a journey toward individual consciousness and an
))inner sense of selfhood. The seventeen-year-olds, who tend to carry their
))new sense of themselves like a secret, appreciate sharing their own
))awakening with Parsifal's."
))
))[Richards, Mary Caroline. Toward Wholeness: Rudolf Steiner Education in
))America. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1980, p.
39.]
))
))A couple of years ago Val Setzer described how he taught the high school
))Parsifal block in Sao Paulo as a camping trip. It sounded like an
))initiation similar to the Catholic sacrament of Confirmation.
))
))The Rudolf Steiner College Foundation Year reading list includes a course
))on Parsifal. Students must buy their own copies of titles with asterisks:
))
))"Lit 100 Parsifal
))W. von Eschenbach. Parzival (Mustard and Passage translation)*
))RenÈ Querido, The Mystery of the Holy Grail: A Modern Path of Initiation*
))Steven Roboz, ed., The Holy Grail
))Rudolf Steiner, The Search for the Holy Grail"
))
))Sunbridge College announced a course on Parsifal:
))
))"Parzival and the Development of Consciousness: Kay Hoffman
))Wolfram von Eschenbach's Parzival is a pivotal area of study in the
Waldorf
))school. In it we accompany "a brave man slowly wise" through trials and
))suffering that lead him to self-knowledge and awareness of others. This
))course for adults affords many opportunities for discussion of major life
))questions through the study of Parzival. To understand Parzival is to
))understand how we, too, may become "knights" in modern times."
))
))[Sunbridge College, Winter/Spring 1998 course announcement, p. 5]
))
))Amanda Julson, who subscribed here briefly, brings us up to date in her
))posting to Anthroposophia at around the same time (January, '98):
))
))"But let us not just look at Parsifal in his 9th century incarnation;
))rather consider Parsifal in his pending late 20th Century incarnation. For
))Parsifal is the reincarnation of Mani, the founder of Manicheanism and
))opponent of St. Augustine, and Parsifal, according to Rudolf Steiner, will
))reincarnate NOW as the figure who will lead the decadent intellectualized
))remnant of anthroposophy into the world-wide life forces of the New
))Manichaeanism as Parsifal-Mani comes of age in the early 21st century.
))(See Bernie Lievengood's book "The Battle for the Soul.")"
))
))At the end of Wagner's version, the pure seeker is proclaimed fuhrer.
Maybe
))Parsifal is in a Waldorf school right now...getting ready to lead his
)flock.
))
))-Dan Dugan
))
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n912.6 ---------------
From: snell netshel.net
Subject: Re: Faint Praise From Unexpected Regions
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 98 11:50:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
)Now that school is back in session, I had occasion to mention to a few
)of the teachers at my kids' Waldorf school that I was participating in
)this list, and this sparked a few comments.
)
) Although most of the comments would not be of interest to you, one of
)the teachers remarked that it's probably necessary for an organization
)like PLANS to exist, if only to help Waldorf be more responsive than
)dogmatic. Don't get too talmudic about the words; these are my own
)words characterizing what I recall of the conversation.
)
) Bob
)
That is exactly what I have been saying for years. No critical dialog
existed before PLANS. It is difficult for any program to improve without
this necessary ingredient.
Debra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n912.7 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Anti-Semitism/Anthroposophy (Thieben)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:22:47 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
"[In 1998] The Auschwitz Komitee [founded by Auschwitz survivors] in
Germany has asked the Anthroposophical organizations to stop selling the
book ªDas R”tsel des Judentums´ by Ludwig Thieben, because of its
anti-Semitic and racist content. It was originally published in 1931. In
1991, Thomas Meyer published it again, at the ªPerseus-Verlag´. Its jacket
text describes it as ªso far, the only complete discussion of Jewry from
the Anthroposophical viewpoint [bis heute die einzige umfassende
Darstellung des Judentums aus anthroposophischer Sicht]´.
According to the author, the book discusses questions, ªwhich go right to
the essence of the modern Jewish problem [die in den Kern des modernen
Judenproblems f¸hren]´, like ªHow does this people behave, who more than
any other people fight Christianity because of the [racial] condition of
their blood [Wie verh”lt sich nun jenes Volk, das sich wie kein zweites
durch seine Blutsveranlagung gegen das Christentum str”ubt?]´ ªAlso, it is
explained, how Arabism and Romance culture, into the bearers of which the
Jews ... made themselves, bring about the end of the Western world
[Arabismus und Romanismus, zu dessen Tr”gern sich die Juden ... gemacht
haben, den Untergang des Abendlandes herbeif¸hren]´.
...
The Auschwitz Komitee considers it unbearable, to publish, after Auschwitz,
such a collection of anti-Judaism and racisms, which hardly omits any of
the anti-Semitic insults.
hma" [German original in Antifascistische Nachrichten 7/1998]
[The organization "Children of the Holocaust" campaigned in Switzerland
against Thieben's book. The District Attorney investigated, and concluded
that though the book was indeed "racist", it was not illegal according to
Swiss anti-racism law]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Startseite | Inhaltsverzeichnis | Archiv | InfoLinks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
------------------------------------------
Herman de Tollenaere
------------------------------------------
Internet site:
http://stad.dsl.nl/~hermantl/
See also:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
------------------------------------------
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n912 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n913 --------------
001 - Kevin Houston (khouston o - New to this list.
002 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: New to this list.
003 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Rules of engagement
004 - snell netshel.net - Re: raising heroes
005 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Admin: archives up to date
006 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: New to this list.
007 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - public funding of Waldorf
008 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - RE: treatment of gifted children and P of F
009 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - RE: treatment of gifted children and P of F
010 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: treatment of gifted children and P of F
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n913.1 ---------------
From: Kevin Houston (khouston onel.com)
Subject: New to this list.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 16:21:20 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809151436.HAA20762 lists1.best.com)
Hi, I'm new to this list and trying to understand the word
Anthroposophy. both it's pronunciation, and it's meaning. To my
reading, it should translate as Sophism about Mankind, but that can't be
right. I'm not trying to be inflamitory here, just wondering what's
going on.
so, a simple question from a simple man.
What is Anthroposophy?
Kevin Houston
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n913.2 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: New to this list.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 17:15:02 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809151436.HAA20762 lists1.best.com) (199809152133.OAA26264 lists1.best.com)
I was taught that Philosophy means love of wisdom (Greek). Based on that explanation I would say that Anthroposophy means wisdom of man or something derivative.
e
Kevin Houston wrote:
) Hi, I'm new to this list and trying to understand the word
) Anthroposophy. both it's pronunciation, and it's meaning. To my
) reading, it should translate as Sophism about Mankind, but that can't be
) right. I'm not trying to be inflamitory here, just wondering what's
) going on.
)
) so, a simple question from a simple man.
)
) What is Anthroposophy?
)
) Kevin Houston
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n913.3 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Rules of engagement
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:44:36 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Today must be my lucky day.
I came across a website dedicated to logical fallacies and thought to post them to this list to facilitate ongoing dicussion viz a viz a common vocabulary. Follow the url at the bottom as I've only posted the index.
e
Fallacies of Distraction
False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three options
From Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false
Slippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn
Complex Question: two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition
Appeals to Motives in Place of Support
Appeal to Force: the reader is persuaded to agree by force
Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy
Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences
Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author
Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true
Changing the Subject
Attacking the Person:
(1) the person's character is attacked
(2) the person's circumstances are noted
(3) the person does not practise what is preached
Appeal to Authority:
(1) the authority is not an expert in the field
(2) experts in the field disagree
(3) the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious
Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named
Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to
affect the truth of the conclusion
Inductive Fallacies
Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a
population
Unrepresentative Sample: the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole
False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar
Slothful Induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the
evidence to the contrary
Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is
excluded from consideration
Fallacies Involving Statistical Syllogisms
Accident: a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an
exception
Converse Accident : an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should
apply
Causal Fallacies
Post Hoc: because one thing follows another, it is held to be caused by the other
Joint effect: one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an
underlying cause
Insignificant: one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to
other causes of the effect
Wrong Direction: the direction between cause and effect is reversed
Complex Cause: the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect
Missing the Point
Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises
Irrelevant Conclusion: an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different
conclusion
Straw Man: the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's
best argument
Fallacies of Ambiguity
Equivocation: the same term is used with two different meanings
Amphiboly: the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations
Accent: the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence
actually says
Category Errors
Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is
argued that the whole has that property
Division: because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that
property
Non Sequitur
Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A
Denying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B
Inconsistency: asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true
Syllogistic Errors
Fallacy of Four Terms: a syllogism has four terms
Undistributed Middle: two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a
common property
Illicit Major: the predicate of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises
only mention some cases of the term in the predicate
Illicit Minor: the subject of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only
mention some cases of the term in the subject
Fallacy of Exclusive Premises: a syllogism has two negative premises
Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise: as the name implies
Existential Fallacy: a particular conclusion is drawn from universal premises
Fallacies of Explanation
Subverted Support (The phenomenon being explained doesn't exist)
Non-support (Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased)
Untestability (The theory which explains cannot be tested)
Limited Scope (The theory which explains can only explain one thing)
Limited Depth (The theory which explains does not appeal to underlying causes)
Fallacies of Definition
Too Broad (The definition includes items which should not be included)
Too Narrow (The definition does not include all the items which shouls be included)
Failure to Elucidate (The definition is more difficult to understand than the word or concept
being defined)
Circular Definition (The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition)
Conflicting Conditions (The definition is self-contradictory)
References
www.assiniboinec.mb.ca/user/downes/fallacy/index.htm
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n913.4 ---------------
From: snell netshel.net
Subject: Re: raising heroes
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 98 23:54:00 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Dan Dugan writes,
))At the end of Wagner's version, the pure seeker is proclaimed fuhrer. Maybe
))Parsifal is in a Waldorf school right now...getting ready to lead his
)flock.
))
In my neck of the woods, Parsifal _became_ Waldorf. The original private
school was called "The Parsifal School". It incarnated into "Mariposa
Waldorf School", then became the "Twin Ridges Alternative Charter
School", and finally "The Yuba River School". Pretty much the same cast
of teachers and parents, just different names.
Debra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n913.5 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: archives up to date
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 01:19:48 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear subscribers,
Today I uploaded the July and August archives, and we are now up to date.
Access the waldorf-critics archives through the PLANS web site:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org
In the process I filled up my disk space and had to rent more. Cost has
gone up by $20/month. Donations gratefully accepted.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n913.6 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: New to this list.
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 01:20:50 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199809151436.HAA20762 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199809152133.OAA26264 lists1.best.com)
Kevin Houston, you wrote,
)Hi, I'm new to this list and trying to understand the word
)Anthroposophy. both it's pronunciation, and it's meaning.
It's pronounced AN-throw-PAH-suh-fee.
There's a one-page article "Anthroposophy" by Rob Boston on the PLANS web
site that's a quick introduction.
-Dan Dugan
___________________________________________________________________________
People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools www.waldorfcritics.org
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n913.7 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: public funding of Waldorf
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 01:20:11 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
A few weeks ago, PLANS board member Daniel Sabsay and I took Waldorf
teacher (and list subscriber) Robert Flannery out to dinner at our favorite
Mexican restaurant, the Roosevelt Tamale Parlor. Flannery was out here for
the Kolisko Conference. We got acquainted and had a good talk, though, as
you can imagine, we could only scratch the surface of many issues of mutual
interest.
One thing Robert said I'd like to ask him to expand on here. He said that
he agreed with us that Waldorf education shouldn't be publicly funded, "but
for different reasons."
Robert, what are your reasons?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n913.8 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: treatment of gifted children and P of F
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 01:21:33 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199809140042.RAA04699 lists1.best.com)
DUGAN
)) Harm? Yes, I
))am harmed when my tax money goes to teacher training at Rudolf Steiner
))College.
FREY
)My money, my money...blah blah blah
)My offer still stands to refund the portion of your tax money that goes
)toward Waldorf Education...and not just at RSC!
DUGAN
)) Honestly, Steiner's
))racism was one of the bricks in the foundation of the holocaust.
FREY
)Honestly, your pettiness, greed and ego are outweighed only by your
)ignorance. A gargantuan feat, I might add!
Pettiness I can't speak to, but I'll answer "greed." I suppose you said
that because I talked about "my tax money." My concern isn't with the
money, it's with the support of something that, by law, I am not required
to support, somebody else's religion. Regarding the big ego, I'll cop to
that. Ignorance, too. I keep reading Steiner, and I don't get any smarter.
)You really need to get off of this Nazi thing, Dan.
)I mean, don't get me wrong, I love it when you undermine your credibility
)on a regular basis, but if you're going to be inflammatory, at least act
)like you've read the material!
) O.K. so there are some things that Steiner said that are..um...somewhat
)less than politically correct by today's standards; But "the bricks in
)the foundation of the holocaust"!?!? Jeeze Louise!!!! Christianity was
)one such 'brick', as were people named Hermann, and trains, and small
)children, and whatever that crap was that Hitler put in his hair to make
)it stick to his forehead, and the list goes on.
) How can you, in one breath, speak of how statistics are so easily
)twisted to suit the whims of the twister(!?), and, in the next ...well,
)you know.
) A zealot always becomes blinded by his zeal; and you, Dan, for all of
)your information and dedication, are becoming morbidly nearsighted.
Magnificent rant, Charlie. I have read the material. How about this:
STEINER (1923)
"No doubt about it, the soul becomes corrupted through using the French
language...It is also possible at the present time that the French will
even ruin their own blood, the very element which has kept their language
going as a corpse. That is a terrible thing the French people are doing to
other people, the frightful cultural brutality of transplanting black
people to Europe. It affects France itself worst of all. This has an
incredibly strong effect on the blood, the race. This will substantially
add to French decadence. The French nation will be weakened as a race."
[Steiner, Rudolf. *Conferences with the Teachers of the Waldorf School in
Stuttgart 1922 to 1923: Volume Three: Being the end of the Fourth Year*.
(1923) Trans. Pauline Wehrle. Forest Row, U.K.: Steiner Schools Fellowship
Publications, 1988, pp. 87-88.]
HITLER (1925)
"France is and remains by far the most terrible enemy. This people, which
is basically becoming more and more negrified, constitutes in its tie with
the aims of Jewish world domination an enduring danger for the existence of
the white race in Europe. For the contamination by Negro blood on the Rhine
in the heart of Europe is just as much in keeping with the perverted
sadistic thirst for vengeance of this hereditary enemy of our people..."
[Hitler, Alolph. *Mein Kampf* (1925) Trans. Ralph Manheim. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1971, p. 624]
Am I twisting something here? They speak for themselves. Both were
demogogues playing to the prejudices of their listeners.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n913.9 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: RE: treatment of gifted children and P of F
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:57:51 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199809140042.RAA04699 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199809160824.BAA28302 lists1.best.com)
On 16 Sep 98, at 1:21, Dan Dugan wrote:
) FREY
)
) )You really need to get off of this Nazi thing, Dan.
) ) O.K. so there are some things that Steiner said that are..um...somewhat
) )less than politically correct by today's standards; But "the bricks in
) )the foundation of the holocaust"!?!? Jeeze Louise!!!!
Less than politically correct by today's standards?
"Political correctness," in this context, usually refers to the efforts
of left-wing academic types to stifle ideas that are deemed
insensitive to some group that is considered oppressed. To say
that something is "less than politically correct by today's
standards" implies that it is not unacceptable to thinking people,
but may be offensive to some overly sensitive types.
Are you saying that Steiner's racist ideas are acceptable?
) DAN
)
) Magnificent rant, Charlie. I have read the material. How about this:
)
) STEINER (1923)
) "No doubt about it, the soul becomes corrupted through using the French
) language...It is also possible at the present time that the French will
) even ruin their own blood, the very element which has kept their language
) going as a corpse. That is a terrible thing the French people are doing to
) other people, the frightful cultural brutality of transplanting black
) people to Europe. It affects France itself worst of all. This has an
) incredibly strong effect on the blood, the race. This will substantially
) add to French decadence. The French nation will be weakened as a race."
)
) [Steiner, Rudolf. *Conferences with the Teachers of the Waldorf School in
) Stuttgart 1922 to 1923: Volume Three: Being the end of the Fourth Year*.
) (1923) Trans. Pauline Wehrle. Forest Row, U.K.: Steiner Schools Fellowship
) Publications, 1988, pp. 87-88.]
)
) HITLER (1925)
) "France is and remains by far the most terrible enemy. This people, which
) is basically becoming more and more negrified, constitutes in its tie with
) the aims of Jewish world domination an enduring danger for the existence of
) the white race in Europe. For the contamination by Negro blood on the Rhine
) in the heart of Europe is just as much in keeping with the perverted
) sadistic thirst for vengeance of this hereditary enemy of our people..."
)
) [Hitler, Alolph. *Mein Kampf* (1925) Trans. Ralph Manheim. Boston: Houghton
) Mifflin, 1971, p. 624]
)
) Am I twisting something here? They speak for themselves. Both were
) demogogues playing to the prejudices of their listeners.
Yes, but Dan, your statement was that Steiner's racist comments
were "bricks in the foundation of the holocaust." This implies either
that Hitler was influenced by Steiner, or that his followers found
Hitler's racist ideas more acceptable because the followers were
influenced by Steiner. The fact that Hitler and Steiner had similar
feelings about the French and about African migration into Europe
does not show that Hitler or his followers were influenced by
Steiner.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n913.10 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: treatment of gifted children and P of F
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 13:00:51 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
"That is a terrible thing the French people are doing to
other people, the frightful cultural brutality of transplanting black
people to Europe. "
)Am I twisting something here? They speak for themselves. Both were
)demogogues playing to the prejudices of their listeners.
)
)-Dan Dugan
)
Yes you are Dan. First of all, we need the entire context to make any sound
judgement. Second, Steiner was referring to the effect on the black people
of being transplanted out of their native culture. It is "cultural
brutality" to the black culture to transplant them. This occurred in
America as well and was considered "brutality."
"the French will even ruin their own blood." This sounds pretty bad as
presented and I would not stand behind that if there was no greater context.
If it was meant in a way that was derogatory to the Negro, then it would be
wrong, or if it was meant that the "primary determinant" of human behavior
was the race. I don't believe that was the context of the statement. I
would guess, and none of us can do otherwise than guess, that this refers to
each people needing time to gain individuality before all races combine and
unite. The "primary determinant" of human behavior was not the race.
Steiner was not opposed to the melting pot, he saw it as the future. He
wrote that the reason Christ went to the "marriage of Cana" was to bless the
melting pot activity. This marriage was a marriage across races and was the
*only* way the Christ could work. I think a sudden, violent change in
cultures and its affect on *both* cultures, was Steiner's warning. What
occurred in America was considered wrong for both cultures development,
mainly devastating the black culture in Africa. A gradual "melting pot"
would be seen as the goal. Steiner firmly supported cross-cultural
marriage.
These statements are not appropriate to this day and age, and they would not
have been made in this day and age. In fact, they were not made in this day
and age, nor do we have their greater context. If you look at the debates
in Canada over French speaking vs. English speaking, these can also sound
racist. Each culture is trying to preserve something. The context and
history of the concern is also important.
- Daniel.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n913 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n914 --------------
001 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: treatment of gifted children and P of F
002 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: treatment of gifted children and P of F
003 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: treatment of gifted children and P of F
004 - snell netshel.net - Re: treatment of gifted children and P of F
005 - Kevin Houston (khouston o - Re: New to this list.
006 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: treatment of gifted children and P of F
007 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: New to this list.
008 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: New to this list.
009 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: New to this list.
010 - Kevin Houston (khouston o - Re: New to this list.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n914.1 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: treatment of gifted children and P of F
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 17:48:20 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199809160824.BAA28302 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
)DUGAN
))) Honestly, Steiner's
)))racism was one of the bricks in the foundation of the holocaust.
[snip quotes from Steiner and Hitler]
)Am I twisting something here? They speak for themselves.
You have demonstrated that both men made comments which, by today's
standards (assuming the quotes are translated correctly), are entirely
unacceptable to decent human beings. There is, indeed, an apparent
correlation between parts of these statements.
Your first statement above implies causation.
However, as an opponent of pseudoscience, you well know that correlation
does *not* imply causation.
You have also failed to note that Steiner made a number of anti-racist
statements. Perhaps you should re-read Peter Schwab's posts on the
subject in your archives. We all (I assume) know the pitfalls of failing
to take "inconvenient" data into account.
So, to answer your question, Dan: No, you have not twisted anything.
However, you appear to have assumed that correlation implies causation
and you have somehow missed the contrary evidence.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n914.2 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: treatment of gifted children and P of F
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 14:14:51 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809161732.KAA09403 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote:
) )Dan Dugan wrote:
) ) Am I twisting something here? They speak for themselves. Both were
) ) demogogues playing to the prejudices of their listeners.
)
) Yes, but Dan, your statement was that Steiner's racist comments
) were "bricks in the foundation of the holocaust." This implies either
) that Hitler was influenced by Steiner, or that his followers found
) Hitler's racist ideas more acceptable because the followers were
) influenced by Steiner. The fact that Hitler and Steiner had similar
) feelings about the French and about African migration into Europe
) does not show that Hitler or his followers were influenced by
) Steiner.
Steve,
You're showing yourself to be an independent thinker and not just
following a party line. I respect that deeply.
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n914.3 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: treatment of gifted children and P of F
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 11:16:52 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199809161732.KAA09384 lists1.best.com)
On 16 Sep 98, at 13:00, Daniel Perez wrote:
) "That is a terrible thing the French people are doing to
) other people, the frightful cultural brutality of transplanting black
) people to Europe. "
)
) )Am I twisting something here? They speak for themselves. Both were
) )demogogues playing to the prejudices of their listeners.
) )
) )-Dan Dugan
) )
) Yes you are Dan. First of all, we need the entire context to make any sound
) judgement. Second, Steiner was referring to the effect on the black people
) of being transplanted out of their native culture. It is "cultural
) brutality" to the black culture to transplant them. This occurred in
) America as well and was considered "brutality."
It was brutality to bring unwilling people into the United States as
slaves. It would have been brutality whether they were taken from
Africa or Europe.
Were the French taking Africans into Europe against their will, or
were they creating opportunities for Africans to immigrate to
France? I suspect the latter, which would not be brutality by any
reasonable definition of the word. Do you have information
indicating that Africans were transported to France, against their
will, in the early 20th century?
) Steiner firmly supported cross-cultural
) marriage.
That's good to know. If that includes interracial marriage, it goes a
long way toward showing that Steiner was not *that* racist.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n914.4 ---------------
From: snell netshel.net
Subject: Re: treatment of gifted children and P of F
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 98 11:54:00 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Daniel:
)) Steiner firmly supported cross-cultural
)) marriage.
Steve:
)That's good to know. If that includes interracial marriage, it goes a
)long way toward showing that Steiner was not *that* racist.
Daniel, I know that you are well read, at least where Steiner is
concerned. Being of fair mind, I'd like to see something in writing that
shows Steiner supported cross-cultural marriage. Can you help me out?
(Out of context quotes are fine by me.)
Thanks,
Debra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n914.5 ---------------
From: Kevin Houston (khouston onel.com)
Subject: Re: New to this list.
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 13:57:03 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809151436.HAA20762 lists1.best.com) (199809160824.BAA28069 lists1.best.com)
Well, that's your introduction, is there one written by a supporter of
Anthroposophy? or is Rob Boston a supporter?
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) Kevin Houston, you wrote,
)
) )Hi, I'm new to this list and trying to understand the word
) )Anthroposophy. both it's pronunciation, and it's meaning.
)
) It's pronounced AN-throw-PAH-suh-fee.
)
) There's a one-page article "Anthroposophy" by Rob Boston on the PLANS web
) site that's a quick introduction.
)
) -Dan Dugan
) ___________________________________________________________________________
) People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools www.waldorfcritics.org
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n914.6 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: treatment of gifted children and P of F
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 15:27:20 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
) Were the French taking Africans into Europe against their will, or
) were they creating opportunities for Africans to immigrate to
) France? I suspect the latter, which would not be brutality by any
) reasonable definition of the word. Do you have information
) indicating that Africans were transported to France, against their
) will, in the early 20th century?
I interpreted it as "the French taking Africans into Europe in an exploitive
way." I don't really know the context of Steiner's statements or what they
were referring to. None of us really do. I was proposing my interpretation
of the passage and illuminating the different ways it may have been meant.
This interpretation could be wrong, as could Dugan's. I don't know the time
frame Steiner was referring to or the pressures at work behind the
immigration. I also do not have enough information on the history of black
people in Europe in the 20th century. These facts need to be put into
context.
Thanks for being open minded, I intend my statements to be open minded as
well.
Debra wrote:
) Daniel, I know that you are well read, at least where Steiner is
) concerned. Being of fair mind, I'd like to see something in writing that
) shows Steiner supported cross-cultural marriage. Can you help me out?
) (Out of context quotes are fine by me.)
I will. The immediate reference that comes to mind is in relation to the
"marriage at Cana." I'll have to remember the lecture context where he
spoke about marriage in modern times. That will be harder to find, but some
things come to mind.
- Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n914.7 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: New to this list.
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 15:43:11 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
See www.anthroposophy.org
That is the Anthroposophical Society in America site.
Arthur Zajonc is the president. He is a physicist in a major university and
is living in Amherst, MA. Anthroposophists on this and other lists can help
with further questions. If you are open minded you will discover many new
and fruitful ideas. For starters, Steiner proved that the modern scientific
view of the world has no foundation, that to know the world is to understand
both its spiritual and physical manifestation. Every bit of matter has both
components and we do not know the world or ourselves without this complete
understanding.
- Daniel.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Houston (khouston onel.com)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 12:13 PM
Subject: Re: New to this list.
)Well, that's your introduction, is there one written by a supporter of
)Anthroposophy? or is Rob Boston a supporter?
)
)Dan Dugan wrote:
))
)) Kevin Houston, you wrote,
))
)) )Hi, I'm new to this list and trying to understand the word
)) )Anthroposophy. both it's pronunciation, and it's meaning.
))
)) It's pronounced AN-throw-PAH-suh-fee.
))
)) There's a one-page article "Anthroposophy" by Rob Boston on the PLANS web
)) site that's a quick introduction.
))
)) -Dan Dugan
))
___________________________________________________________________________
)) People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools
www.waldorfcritics.org
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n914.8 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: New to this list.
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 13:11:31 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199809161858.LAA13607 lists1.best.com)
On 16 Sep 98, at 13:57, Kevin Houston wrote:
) Well, that's your introduction, is there one written by a supporter of
) Anthroposophy?
That's a pretty big question you've asked. Here's an introduction
from:
http://www.anthroposophy.org/
[begin quote]
Echoing the ancient Greek axiom, "Man, know thyself," Rudolf
Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, described it as "awareness
of one's humanity." Nowhere is the need for such awareness
greater than in relation to our fellow human beings, and to the life
and work we share with them. It is this awareness that lies at the
heart of the practical work described in this web site. The number
and breadth of these initiatives, fostered by the General
Anthroposophical Society that Steiner founded in 1924, reflect
anthroposophy's progressive, healing influence on cultural life in
North America.
Anthroposophy embraces a spiritual view of the human being and
the cosmos, but its emphasis is on knowing, not faith. It is a path
in which the human heart and hand, and especially our capacity for
thinking, are essential. It leads, in Steiner's words, "from the spirit
in the human being to the spirit in the universe," because only if we
first come to experience the spirit in ourselves can we know the
cosmic spirit. But anthroposophy is more than self-development.
Through it we recognize our humanity. Humanity (anthropos) has
the inherent wisdom (Sophia) to transform both itself and the world.
The practical work from agriculture to education, flows from insights
provided by anthroposophy.
[end quote]
Now, that's pretty general, and gives nary a hint about the actual
doctrines involved in anthroposophy, that is, the anthroposophical
views of reincarnation, the journey of the soul between
incarnations, history, Christ, the nature, types and identities of
various spiritual beings, and so on. But poking around that site
can give you a general idea of the type of work anthroposophists do
in agriculture, education, and so on.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n914.9 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: New to this list.
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 22:02:17 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199809151436.HAA20762 lists1.best.com) (199809152133.OAA26264 lists1.best.com)
Dear Kevin Houston,
You wrote:
) Hi, I'm new to this list and trying to understand the word
) Anthroposophy. both it's pronunciation, and it's meaning. To my
) reading, it should translate as Sophism about Mankind, but that can't be
) right. I'm not trying to be inflamitory here, just wondering what's
) going on.
)
) so, a simple question from a simple man.
)
) What is Anthroposophy?
)
) Kevin Houston
and Dan mentioned an article on the site of PLANS as something that
would give a short introduction to the theme.
If you want to read up on more, the Anthroposophic Press has a site that
presents what it considers as essential reading in Anthroposophy at
http://www.anthropress.org/press/Essentials.html and some basic works at
http://www.anthropress.org/press/Classics.html.
A short presentation of the life and works of Rudolf Steiner can be
found at
http://www.anthropress.org/press/SteinerProf.html
There is also a "Rudolf Steiner Archive and Electronic Library" at
http://www.elib.com/Steiner/ leading on to full texts of three selected
books and lecture series by Rudolf Steiner at
http://www.elib.com/Steiner/eLib.phtml:
- Guidance in Esoteric Training
- The Philosophy of Freedom (Philosophy of Spiritual Activity)
- Mysticism at the Dawn of the Modern Age
A number of selected lectures by Rudolf Steiner can be found at
http://www.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/.
Not only as simple as one would hope, maybe, but everyone has to judge
for him- or herself what one finds to be - or not to be - of use and an
inspiration in one¥s life.
Two sites that give links to a number of places on the net that also
describe activities that have grown out of anthroposophy are:
"Anthroposophy around the world" at http://www.waldorf.se/antropos.html
and ANTRONET internet magasine at http://www.antronet.se.
Then there is always the other side of it; more or less well founded
objections to how different people trying to work out of anthroposophy
have behaved or more principal objections.
Some (many!/most?) one can find among other presented on this list.
But here you already are!
Friendly greetings,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
mailto:Sune.Nordwall home.se
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n914.10 ---------------
From: Kevin Houston (khouston onel.com)
Subject: Re: New to this list.
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 16:35:13 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809161944.MAA17548 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Perez wrote:
)
) See www.anthroposophy.org
Ok, I will look. the rest of my comments are just off the cuff and are
in response to your words, not anything about Anthroposophy (of which, I
am (blissfully?) unaware.)
)
) That is the Anthroposophical Society in America site.
) Arthur Zajonc is the president. He is a physicist in a major university and
) is living in Amherst, MA. Anthroposophists on this and other lists can help
) with further questions. If you are open minded you will discover many new
) and fruitful ideas. For starters, Steiner proved that the modern scientific
) view of the world has no foundation, that to know the world is to understand
Proved? really? I would like to see this "proof" that the modern
scientific view has no foundation. I could understand saying that the
modern scientific worldview is not reality, but to say it has no
foundation, is non-sense. Everything has a foundation. The foundation
may be flawed, but there most certainly is one.
) both its spiritual and physical manifestation. Every bit of matter has both
) components and we do not know the world or ourselves without this complete
) understanding.
Can you provide an example of a common everyday object (or not so common
if that is a problem) which has a "spiritual manifestation" and how I
might experience it? Spirituality is a property assigned by human
beings, not inherent in inanimate objects. Even a CD of Gospel music is
not inherently spritual, it is only the humans who hear it which can be
moved by the CD's 'spirit'. A caveman, devoid of a CD-player, cannot
comprehend the beautiful melodies, to him it is only a strangely colored
flat round thing. Any purpose he could put it to would be just as well
served by a CD containing anything at all, from a solid string of
"AAAAAAAAA...", to a CD of the Starr Report (trying to find an example
of non-spirituality).
And if anyone does have a creative use for CDs, I would like to hear it,
since I have about 15 AOL CD's that I can not bear to throw away. I
have already used one for a coaster, and i never was much into mobiles,
so don't send those ideas.
)
) - Daniel.
)
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Kevin Houston (khouston onel.com)
) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
) Date: Wednesday, September 16, 1998 12:13 PM
) Subject: Re: New to this list.
)
) )Well, that's your introduction, is there one written by a supporter of
) )Anthroposophy? or is Rob Boston a supporter?
) )
) )Dan Dugan wrote:
) ))
) )) Kevin Houston, you wrote,
) ))
) )) )Hi, I'm new to this list and trying to understand the word
) )) )Anthroposophy. both it's pronunciation, and it's meaning.
) ))
) )) It's pronounced AN-throw-PAH-suh-fee.
) ))
) )) There's a one-page article "Anthroposophy" by Rob Boston on the PLANS web
) )) site that's a quick introduction.
) ))
) )) -Dan Dugan
) ))
) ___________________________________________________________________________
) )) People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools
) www.waldorfcritics.org
) )
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n914 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n915 --------------
001 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: New to this list.
002 - Kevin Houston (khouston o - Re: New to this list.
003 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: New to this list.
004 - snell netshel.net - Off topic-CD's
005 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Spiritual in Everyday Objects
006 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: public funding of Waldorf
007 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: New to this list.
008 - Kevin Houston (khouston o - Re: Spiritual in Everyday Objects
009 - Kevin Houston (khouston o - Re: New to this list.
010 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: New to this list.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n915.1 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: New to this list.
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 15:21:26 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199809161944.MAA17548 lists1.best.com)
On 16 Sep 98, at 15:43, Daniel Perez wrote:
) Steiner proved that the modern scientific
) view of the world has no foundation, that to know the world is to understand
) both its spiritual and physical manifestation. Every bit of matter has both
) components and we do not know the world or ourselves without this complete
) understanding.
Daniel, I think I'm finally starting to understand where you're coming
from. I'm reluctant to put words in your mouth, but I'm getting the
impression that this is more or less your viewpoint:
You believe that Steiner proved that all matter has both a physical
and a spiritual manifestation. Now, an assertion that has been
proven is not reasonably subject to dispute by those persons of
intelligence and reason who have considered the matter, unless
those persons are hanging on to preconceptions that have no basis
in reality. Those preconceptions are taken on faith, and are usually
religious in nature.
But Steiner's assertions are not generally accepted as true in the
scientific and philosophical communities. Why? Because many,
and perhaps most, people in those communities accept, on faith,
the concept that physical objects have only physical, and not
spiritual, manifestations. Therefore, this concept, materialism, is a
religion.
One problem with that reasoning is that it ignores the fact that
people may accept the possibility that matter has a spiritual
manifestation, but still disagree that Steiner has proven the
existence of that spiritual element. Because to really prove it, the
purported proof must include a way of distinguishing a true
characteristic of matter from an illusion, or a figment of one's
imagination.
As I understand it, the spiritual nature of matter can only be
perceived supersensibly. But first, the existence of supersensible
perception must be proved in a way that distinguishes it from a
purely internal mental process. As far as I know, that has not
occurred, in spite of a number of studies that have been done to
test such things as telekinesis, telepathy, and so on.
(I suppose my impression of your reasoning probably does not
reflect your actual views any more accurately than your statements
about my viewpoint have reflected my actual views. But hey, it's
something interesting to discuss.)
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n915.2 ---------------
From: Kevin Houston (khouston onel.com)
Subject: Re: New to this list.
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 17:39:13 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199809161944.MAA17548 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Perez wrote:
)
) See www.anthroposophy.org
)
OK, i went there with an open mind, however the site was very sparse as
to Anthroposophy's tenets and beliefs. the few items that were more
than just email addresses, were so blatantly ridiculous as to cast a
very dim light on the whole affair.
to wit: (copied verbatim from web site www.anthroposophy.org)
) When we discern the
) tendencies living in modern
) medicine, we detect three ideals:
) 1) To make doctors superfluous;
Huh? then why do all the medicines require a prescription? If the goal
of modern medicine was to make Doctors superfluous, then why would the
AMA support modern medicine? The goal as I see it is quite the
opposite, to make doctors more and more necessary.
) 2) To standardize the medicines;
Okay, I agree with this one, and can even see that it is a "Bad Thing
(tm)" since not all people are the same, not even biochemically, there
are many examples of medicines which work differently in different
people. Myself for example, i have paradox reactions to some stimulants
and depressants. what will make most people fall asleep, will make me
stay up all night, and vice versa, what will keep many people awake and
alert will put me right to sleep.
) 3) To heal all patients, without the
) patient having to play any part in it.
I know a lot of Doctors who would disagree with that statement. Which
of course means nothing as to the truth or falsity of the statement. I
can see some truth in this statement, modern medicine does tend to treat
people like cars, figure out which component isn't working, then fix
it. If a clogged fuel injector is the problem in a car, and cleaning
the fuel ports fixes the problem, then the next car with a clogged fuel
injector will also be fixed by cleaning the fuel port. the desire of
the car (since inanimate objects don't have any desires) is immaterial.
but people aren't cars, so what works on one may not work at all on
another, or do damage to a third. and even if the machinery is working
properly, the attitude of the person may cause them to behave as if they
were sick. This would be like the driver of the car saying it would not
run, when in fact, he hasn't turned the key, or has surreptitiously
severed a wire.
)
) The conclusions in this book* differ
) considerably from these attitudes:
) 1) The effect of medicine is
) highly dependent on the
) personality of the doctor;
Complete and utter falsehood! A more correct statement might be: "The
effect of medicine is highly dependent on the [patient's perception of
the] personality of the Doctor. If I don't know the doctor is a SOB who
hates me, but in fact think he is a kind and caring person, I may heal
faster than If the doctor were a saint, but I believed him to be the
devil incarnate.
) 2) The quality and choice of
) medicines are continually
) changing and developing;
An observable fact, a statement which is true of all things at all
times. I note that the author does not state whether the change is for
the good or bad. One would be hard pressed to state categorically which
is the case (witness phen-fen and insulin for diabetes)
) 3) The possibility of healing
) depends not only on the doctor
) and medicine but, just as important,
) on the patient himself."
Wrong, the _possibility_ of healing is an inherent property of the
illness or injury. The _probability_ of healing is dependent upon the
skill of the doctor, the efficacy of the medication on this patient, and
on the attitude of the patient.
)
) L.F.C. Mees
)
) *Blessed by Illness,
) © 1983 Anthroposophic Press
To have a web site devoted to an entire philosophy, and not put any of
the views, and beliefs there, is to beg your opponents to fill in the
gaps on their web sites. i have found a lot more info on the
anti-anthroposophical web site than on the pro sites.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n915.3 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: New to this list.
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 00:52:09 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809151436.HAA20762 lists1.best.com) (199809152133.OAA26264 lists1.best.com)
P.S.
Kevin,
I missed/forgot:
Robert F. Lathe and Nancy Parsons Whittaker.have a site too at
http://www.bobnancy.com/bobnancy.html. with material, including full
text lectures at http://www.bobnancy.com/steiner/steiner.html
Cheers,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
mailto:Sune.Nordwall home.se
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n915.4 ---------------
From: snell netshel.net
Subject: Off topic-CD's
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 98 15:59:03 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
)And if anyone does have a creative use for CDs, I would like to hear it,
)since I have about 15 AOL CD's that I can not bear to throw away. I
)have already used one for a coaster, and i never was much into mobiles,
)so don't send those ideas.
Can you recycle the CD's with the other plastics?
Debra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n915.5 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Spiritual in Everyday Objects
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 19:18:19 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199809161944.MAA17548 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199809162134.OAA13985 lists1.best.com)
)Can you provide an example of a common everyday object (or not so common
)if that is a problem) which has a "spiritual manifestation" and how I
)might experience it? Spirituality is a property assigned by human
)beings, not inherent in inanimate objects.
If you limit the search to inanimate objects, I can't think of any examples.
However, the human being has a clear "spiritual manifestation", to my mind.
I don't know if the following will mean anything to you:
The human body can be reduced to its chemical components easily, and these
can be supplied. We'll have a blueprint from the human genome project
soon, which will provide the genetic component.
I doubt anyone will ever be able to build a live human from scratch, no
matter our level of sophistication. All the necessary raw materials can be
assembled, and at some point the proper "wiring" will be both apparent and
replicable, but the spark of life will never come out of technology.
I would suggest this is an example of one spiritual manifestation of the
human being, in readily accessible terms.
Cloning, of course, doesn't claim to start from scratch.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n915.6 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: public funding of Waldorf
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 19:43:42 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199809160824.BAA28102 lists1.best.com)
)One thing Robert said I'd like to ask him to expand on here. He said that
)he agreed with us that Waldorf education shouldn't be publicly funded, "but
)for different reasons."
)
)Robert, what are your reasons?
With school having started, I'm not certain I'll be able to keep up with
this thread if it continues, but here is a quick outline of my thinking in
this area.
Basically, I believe that any public school calling itself a waldorf school
could only give a rough approximation of a private waldorf education (some
might feel that's at least a slight improvement).
While many waldorf techniques would be effective across a wide educational
spectrum without any connection to anthroposophy by the teacher, I believe
a strong and active interest in anthroposophy by that teacher enhances the
effectiveness of waldorf methods enormously. I also think it is pretty
obvious that public school teachers cannot and should not be compelled to
practice anthroposophy (please note: I am distinguishing the "practice" of
anthroposophy from the "study" of anthroposophy).
This conclusion also has nothing to do with any ideas I might hold about
whether or not anthroposophy is a religion.
I also believe that the difference between an independent, "faculty-run"
school and a vertically-administered school is on the order of magnitudes.
Finally, a public waldorf school would be holding something out to the
local population which parents would take to be a "waldorf education". In
fact, it would not be that.
In my opinion, this is where the real issue of deception in waldorf
education lies today.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n915.7 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: New to this list.
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 16:48:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199809162239.PAA10979 lists1.best.com)
On 16 Sep 98, at 17:39, Kevin Houston wrote:
) Daniel Perez wrote:
) )
) ) See www.anthroposophy.org
) )
) OK, i went there with an open mind, however the site was very sparse as
) to Anthroposophy's tenets and beliefs.
Well, yes. I was just reflecting today, when I was thinking about
your question, on this aspect of anthroposophy, that is, the
tendency of its proponents to state its principles is very general
terms, and to require the investigator to read voluminous texts in
order to get at the underlying tenets.
This is very different from a mainstream religious movement like the
Baha'i faith, the proponents of which generally set out to educate
people on what it is all about. I think that this tendency to avoid
stating the "weird stuff" is one of the cult-like aspects of
anthroposophy (although I don't consider it a cult).
I did find one good book at the library, by the way. It was called
"Man and World in Light of Anthroposophy" by Stewart Copinger
Easton. It's pretty dry, and I didn't get all the way through it, but I
learned a lot from the introductory chapters.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n915.8 ---------------
From: Kevin Houston (khouston onel.com)
Subject: Re: Spiritual in Everyday Objects
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 19:13:00 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809161944.MAA17548 lists1.best.com) (199809162307.QAA04051 lists1.best.com)
But this experiment (building a human being from component chemicals and
sequencing the genes one-by-one) has not been done yet, so this is not a
valid example. This is just your assertion, not proof. It could well
be the case that a human being *could* be assembled in such a fashion,
and that it would be a thinking, living, spiritual being, what then?
The fact is, an experiment which can't be done yet is no proof of
anything.
Robert Flannery wrote:
)
) )Can you provide an example of a common everyday object (or not so common
) )if that is a problem) which has a "spiritual manifestation" and how I
) )might experience it? Spirituality is a property assigned by human
) )beings, not inherent in inanimate objects.
)
) If you limit the search to inanimate objects, I can't think of any examples.
)
) However, the human being has a clear "spiritual manifestation", to my mind.
) I don't know if the following will mean anything to you:
)
) The human body can be reduced to its chemical components easily, and these
) can be supplied. We'll have a blueprint from the human genome project
) soon, which will provide the genetic component.
)
) I doubt anyone will ever be able to build a live human from scratch, no
) matter our level of sophistication. All the necessary raw materials can be
) assembled, and at some point the proper "wiring" will be both apparent and
) replicable, but the spark of life will never come out of technology.
)
) I would suggest this is an example of one spiritual manifestation of the
) human being, in readily accessible terms.
)
) Cloning, of course, doesn't claim to start from scratch.
)
) Robert Flannery
) New York
) litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n915.9 ---------------
From: Kevin Houston (khouston onel.com)
Subject: Re: New to this list.
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 19:33:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809162222.PAA24152 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote:
)
) One problem with that reasoning is that it ignores the fact that
) people may accept the possibility that matter has a spiritual
) manifestation, but still disagree that Steiner has proven the
) existence of that spiritual element. Because to really prove it, the
) purported proof must include a way of distinguishing a true
) characteristic of matter from an illusion, or a figment of one's
) imagination.
)
) As I understand it, the spiritual nature of matter can only be
) perceived supersensibly. But first, the existence of supersensible
) perception must be proved in a way that distinguishes it from a
) purely internal mental process. As far as I know, that has not
) occurred, in spite of a number of studies that have been done to
) test such things as telekinesis, telepathy, and so on.
What is "supersensible"? From content, I must guess it means some
"other" sense. From what I have read of Anthroposophy ("AS" from now
on.), this sense has something to do with "thought". So, can some AS
supporter enlighten me as to how I may use this "other" sense.
I realize that it must be difficult to explain sight to a blind man, but
you must have been "blind" in this way once, please take pity on me. Or
is this something you are either born with or not?
Kevin Houston
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n915.10 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: New to this list.
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 02:53:15 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199809162134.OAA13985 lists1.best.com)
Kevin Houston (khouston onel.com) wrote:
)And if anyone does have a creative use for CDs, I would like to hear it,
# Modern shingles?
# A few seconds in a microwave creates beautiful modern art which puts
the like of Jackson Pollock and Miro in the shade. (Caveat: this is
probably potentially hazardous!)
# The only really worthwhile use I have found is to use bits of them as
diffraction gratings in spectroscopes-made-from-junk. Now every
student in my astronomy class can afford to have a spectroscope!
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n915 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n916 --------------
001 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: New to this list.
002 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: New to this list.
003 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: Spiritual in Everyday Objects
004 - snell netshel.net - Re: New to this list.
005 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: New to this list
006 - Kevin Houston (khouston o - Re: Spiritual in Everyday Objects
007 - RebFree aol.com - Re: Re: Spiritual in Everyday Objects
008 - Kevin Houston (khouston o - Re: Spiritual in Everyday Objects
009 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: New to this list.
010 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: New to this list
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n916.1 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: New to this list.
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 03:12:59 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199809162350.QAA10924 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com) wrote:
)I did find one good book at the library, by the way. It was called
)"Man and World in Light of Anthroposophy" by Stewart Copinger
)Easton. It's pretty dry, and I didn't get all the way through it, but I
)learned a lot from the introductory chapters.
You may have better luck with:
F. Edmunds, _Anthroposophy - A Way of Life_, 1982, Carnant Books,
ISBN 0 903580 65 9
which is the easiest-to-read introduction to the subject I have come
across. YMMV
If you want something of Steiner's which gives an introduction to the
esoteric nature of anthroposophy, the lecture cycle published as:
_At the Gates of Spiritual Science_, 1970, Rudolf Steiner Press,
ISBN 0 85440 306 X
is reasonably concise. However, like many (all?) of the English-language
published lecture cycles, it was put together from notes taken by a
member of the audience, was not corrected/revised by the lecturer, and
has been translated into another language.
The one to avoid if one is seeking an introduction is titled
_Anthroposophy - An Introduction_ -- paradoxically, it isn't an
introduction for the newcomer.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n916.2 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: New to this list.
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:35:35 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199809161944.MAA17548 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199809162134.OAA13985 lists1.best.com)
Kevin Houston wrote:
)Daniel Perez wrote:
))
)) See www.anthroposophy.org
)
)Ok, I will look. the rest of my comments are just off the cuff and are
)in response to your words, not anything about Anthroposophy (of which, I
)am (blissfully?) unaware.)
Ah, but your comments, Mr Houston, ARE, most certainly, whether you know it
or not, "about Anthroposophy".
My advice to you would be to suspend making comments about what people say
here until you understand the full meaning of what they say.
(This is not a pejorative statement about your comments or abilities -- you
seem quite astute -- which, on their face, are reasonable; just to save you
wasting your breath and effort.)
Nothing to do with Anthroposophy is as it seems on the face of it.
Anthroposophists are the hardest people in the world to understand, even
when they use the same language you think you know pretty well, because
there are hidden meanings and spiritual mumbo jumbo behind almost
everything, and because they want you to hear what they mean, not what they
say, and because this shifts at their whim.
They will also frequently tell you that if you were only open-minded
enough, or did enough of your own introspective spiritual work (according
to Steiner's path) you would understand, and, until you do so, your
comments are not to be taken seriously.
Viz:
[Perez -- a chief defender of the Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical faith,
and one of the more intransigent figures on this list]
)) Every bit of matter has both
)) components and we do not know the world or ourselves without this
))complete
)) understanding.
To which Mr Houston replied:
)Can you provide an example of a common everyday object (or not so common
)if that is a problem) which has a "spiritual manifestation" and how I
)might experience it? Spirituality is a property assigned by human
)beings, not inherent in inanimate objects. Even a CD of Gospel music is
)not inherently spritual, it is only the humans who hear it which can be
)moved by the CD's 'spirit'. A caveman, devoid of a CD-player, cannot
)comprehend the beautiful melodies, to him it is only a strangely colored
)flat round thing. Any purpose he could put it to would be just as well
)served by a CD containing anything at all, from a solid string of
)"AAAAAAAAA...", to a CD of the Starr Report (trying to find an example
)of non-spirituality).
In the world of supernatural mumbo jumbo to which Anthroposophy belongs,
EVERYTHING material is imbued with "spiritual manifestation", which is to
say, spirits.
The Universe consists of these etheric forces, acting through four
"elements" (earth, air, fire and water, which is taught as "science" to
Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical school students right up to high school
age).
So, your CDs, and the machines that play them, contain a spirit, "Ahriman".
This is why Anthroposophical university professors have written at great
length that computers (and television, and lots of other electrical and
mechanical things) are harmful to children under the age of about 14,
before which their spirituality is not sufficiently strong to resist the
bad influences of Ahriman.
They usually don't mention this crackpot occultism in their published
papers, but only allude to it through references to the spiritual teachings
of Steiner. However, there are sufficient open discussions in the archives
of this list and several others (Waldorf, and Anthroposophical Science
being the main ones) to give one the willies about having their children
educated by these crackpots.
)And if anyone does have a creative use for CDs, I would like to hear it,
)since I have about 15 AOL CD's that I can not bear to throw away. I
)have already used one for a coaster, and i never was much into mobiles,
)so don't send those ideas.
Break them all into tiny fragments and maybe Ahriman will let go of you?
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp (definitely NOT a spiritualist)
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n916.3 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Spiritual in Everyday Objects
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 23:15:10 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199809161944.MAA17548 lists1.best.com)
(199809162307.QAA04051 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199809170014.RAA00664 lists1.best.com)
)But this experiment (building a human being from component chemicals and
)sequencing the genes one-by-one) has not been done yet, so this is not a
)valid example. This is just your assertion, not proof. It could well
)be the case that a human being *could* be assembled in such a fashion,
)and that it would be a thinking, living, spiritual being, what then?
)The fact is, an experiment which can't be done yet is no proof of
)anything.
Sorry for my misunderstanding. I had no idea the goal was certainty.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n916.4 ---------------
From: snell netshel.net
Subject: Re: New to this list.
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 98 22:38:39 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
)Daniel Perez wrote:
))
)) See www.anthroposophy.org
Kevin did that, then wrote:
)
)OK, i went there with an open mind, however the site was very sparse as
)to Anthroposophy's tenets and beliefs. the few items that were more
)than just email addresses, were so blatantly ridiculous as to cast a
)very dim light on the whole affair.
I think you will find that pretty typical. Anthroposophy is an esoteric
belief system so's ya gotta be initiated first. One have to delve into
Steiner books, an arduous task, and sift through the contradictions. It
helps to have a Steiner dictionary on hand as well, because you can't
ever be sure that what you are reading and interpreting is actually what
_they_ mean by the words. Anthroposphy has their own meaning for words.
One thing is clear, all Anthroposophical books are either written by
Steiner or about him. The other thing Anthroposophical books have in
common is they are written in a very boring way. If ever I can't sleep at
night, I grab Steiner. He's better than drugs.
[snip]
)) The conclusions in this book* differ
)) considerably from these attitudes:
)) 1) The effect of medicine is
)) highly dependent on the
)) personality of the doctor;
)Complete and utter falsehood! A more correct statement might be: "The
)effect of medicine is highly dependent on the [patient's perception of
)the] personality of the Doctor. If I don't know the doctor is a SOB who
)hates me, but in fact think he is a kind and caring person, I may heal
)faster than If the doctor were a saint, but I believed him to be the
)devil incarnate.
What they really mean is an Anthroposophical Doctor. They are the only
ones who know the truth, i.e., the heart is not a pump (Calm down
Daniel!), the soul consciousness leaves the body at night, computers will
suck out your "will forces", etc., etc.
)
)) 2) The quality and choice of
)) medicines are continually
)) changing and developing;
)
)An observable fact, a statement which is true of all things at all
)times. I note that the author does not state whether the change is for
)the good or bad. One would be hard pressed to state categorically which
)is the case (witness phen-fen and insulin for diabetes)
Anthroposphical medicine promotes mistletoe extract as a cure for cancer.
(When it doesn't work, they say it's karma.) Anthroposphical gardening
includes magic rituals using animals as sacrifices. Anthroposphical
education uses art to practice occult rituals and dance as a way to
communicate with the spirits.
)
)) 3) The possibility of healing
)) depends not only on the doctor
)) and medicine but, just as important,
)) on the patient himself."
)
)Wrong, the _possibility_ of healing is an inherent property of the
)illness or injury. The _probability_ of healing is dependent upon the
)skill of the doctor, the efficacy of the medication on this patient, and
)on the attitude of the patient.
Well said.
)To have a web site devoted to an entire philosophy, and not put any of
)the views, and beliefs there, is to beg your opponents to fill in the
)gaps on their web sites. i have found a lot more info on the
)anti-anthroposophical web site than on the pro sites.
PLANS believes that parents have the right to understand the belief
system that permeates their children's education, deceptively sold to
parents as non-sectarian. We try to expose esoteric Anthroposophical
beliefs so parents who are considering Waldorf can make an informed
consent.
Debra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n916.5 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: New to this list
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 05:16:25 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809170248.TAA14965 lists1.best.com)
Kevin Houston wrote:
)
) What is "supersensible"? From content, I must guess it means some
) "other" sense. From what I have read of Anthroposophy ("AS" from now
) on.), this sense has something to do with "thought". So, can some AS
) supporter enlighten me as to how I may use this "other" sense.
)
) I realize that it must be difficult to explain sight to a blind man, but
) you must have been "blind" in this way once, please take pity on me. Or
) is this something you are either born with or not?
Kevin,
I think Steve used the term "supersensible" in an attempt to synthesize
his own understanding of how an anthroposophist or Steiner himself might
perceive something not ordinarily apparent and not subject to ordinary
methods of testing and proof.
I do not come from an anthroposophical background, so I don't know how
Steiner or anthroposophists might view the answer to your question, but
I do have my own perspective on your question.
Let me back up to my first year in law school, many moons ago. I
remember auditing a class at the university in comparative religions.
The professor introduced himself as someone who had come to "know" God.
I had no idea what that meant. Within the following year, I had bumped
into enough people who seemed to feel similarly to that professor and
had read enough tomes from authors who had professed to have had
mystical experiences that I wondered what I was missing out on.
I won't write an autobiography for you, but suffice it to say that
since that time I have had the good fortune to have had some light shed
on the issue, and on me.
The times when I have felt that I can "see" something more than what is
ordinarily apparent are probably best described by alluding to the
common experience of being in awe of a beautiful sunset. Or you could
pick whatever similar experience you may have had which simultaneously
humbles you and thrills you; e.g., the love for a child, creating some
work of art that came to you out of nowhere, or an all-night talk with a
close friend that draws you closer to that person than you ever thought
possible. The common thread is that there is a deep feeling of
appreciation of what is beyond yourself, and a contact with (or being a
conduit or vehicle for) a creative force or the force of love. This may
be accompanied by feelings of being very small in the scheme of things,
or feeling a sense of expansion to include more than what you used to
define as your own self-limits -- or both apparently contradictory
feelings at the same time.
You can get really stretched by such experiences, but like a
rubber-band you have to snap back to ordinary, everyday (material)
experience. As one adage goes, "After enlightenment: the dishes." But
even though you snap back to ordinary, material reality, the **feeling**
and reality of the experience is not forgotten. Even if you have only
one such experience in your lifetime, it lingers in the memory and
"enlightens" the rest of one's existence. To some people, that feeling
goes well beyond emotion and is so profound that it approaches something
akin to knowledge. This is why, I think, some people use the phrase
that they've come to "know" God. I just don't happen to use that phrase
myself.
I cannot "prove" to you or anyone else what I have experienced or
learned any more than you could prove to me what you are feeling at this
moment. Since these types of experiences and forms of knowledge are
essentially confined to the inner consciousness of the human being, I
doubt that they will ever be testable by science, though I'm sure some
have tried. To the outside observer, one cannot discern whether what is
being reported as truth is pure conjecture (based on mental constructs,
dogma or pure faith), a bona fide mystical experience, or merely a
psychotic episode.
What Steiner or anthroposophists might mean when they talk about
perceiving the spiritual component of all material objects I couldn't
begin to guess. But I think my own experience provides something which
might be analogous: When we can stop long enough from being preoccupied
with ourselves, our problems, our successes, our position, our identity,
our self-image and so forth and so on, we might be granted the grace of
some perspective that teaches us something about our interrelationship
with all that is beyond ourselves. This knowledge may be on the logical
or material level (check the labels on your clothing to see how many
countries around the world you represent each day) or it may be on what
I would call the "spiritual" level, where one has become convinced (from
an experience in the realm of feeling or intuition but which goes beyond
normal feeling and intuition) that there is an honest-to-goodness
**real** connection at a level which cannot be seen with the ordinary
senses of the human being (thus, Steve Premo's use of the word
"supersensible").
Sorry for being long-winded.
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n916.6 ---------------
From: Kevin Houston (khouston onel.com)
Subject: Re: Spiritual in Everyday Objects
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 05:29:22 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809161944.MAA17548 lists1.best.com)
(199809162307.QAA04051 lists1.best.com) (199809170324.UAA20170 lists1.best.com)
But you wrote :
)
) ) If you limit the search to inanimate objects, I can't think of
) )
) ) any examples. However, the human being has a clear "spiritual
) ) manifestation", to my mind. I don't know if the following will
) ) mean anything to you:
If the human being has a _clear_ Spiritual manifestation, then you
should be able to point it out to anyone, even a "spiritually blind" man
like me. If I claim that human beings have a clear skeletal structure,
I can point to the bones that you can feel under your skin, I can point
to X-rays, I can point to autopsies. I am not asking for certainty,
only evidence.
Robert Flannery wrote:
)
) )But this experiment (building a human being from component chemicals and
) )sequencing the genes one-by-one) has not been done yet, so this is not a
) )valid example. This is just your assertion, not proof. It could well
) )be the case that a human being *could* be assembled in such a fashion,
) )and that it would be a thinking, living, spiritual being, what then?
) )The fact is, an experiment which can't be done yet is no proof of
) )anything.
)
) Sorry for my misunderstanding. I had no idea the goal was certainty.
)
) Robert Flannery
) New York
) litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n916.7 ---------------
From: RebFree aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: Spiritual in Everyday Objects
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 07:24:12 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Rudolf Steiner, Edgar Cayce, and others have outlined ways in which one can
develop the sight necessary to see the spiritual world, and experience it as
real as the physical world. Steiner does not have a corner on this. Yes, you
do need eyes to see. Of course, until you have the "eyes" you will not see
the spiritual in as clear a way as you see the physical. I have not taken the
time necessary to develop my spiritual eye, or whatever you want to call it,
so I cannot attest to the experience of seeing. Also, since I have not made
the effort, I cannot attest to its being bunk, either.
Rebecah
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n916.8 ---------------
From: Kevin Houston (khouston onel.com)
Subject: Re: Spiritual in Everyday Objects
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 07:40:43 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809171126.EAA22113 lists1.best.com)
RebFree aol.com wrote:
)
) Rudolf Steiner, Edgar Cayce, and others have outlined ways in which one can
) develop the sight necessary to see the spiritual world, and experience it as
This is what I meant by the AnthropoSophical (AS) web site was sparse,
could you (or someone who has studied this) tell me what those steps are
to "seeing" this spiritual world?
) real as the physical world. Steiner does not have a corner on this. Yes, you
) do need eyes to see. Of course, until you have the "eyes" you will not see
) the spiritual in as clear a way as you see the physical. I have not taken the
I would be happy for a brief, bleary, out-of-focus, glimpse. I rather
suspect it will take much effort to sense the spiritual world
"clearly". If it exists at all, and a normal person can sense it, then
there should be some simple means to demonstrate the principle involved
if nothing else. To extend the analogy of the man with his eyes shut,
you would have to explain to him the steps required for him to see
(first, make sure you are in a place with light, then relax these
specific muscles... etc.) Even if these things were physically beyond
his abilities, one could explain the principles of light, rhodopsin,
rods and cones, optic nerve etc. which, while not completely
convincing, would at least demonstrate that such a sense was possible if
not actually occuring.
) time necessary to develop my spiritual eye, or whatever you want to call it,
) so I cannot attest to the experience of seeing. Also, since I have not made
) the effort, I cannot attest to its being bunk, either.
I am not saying it's bunk. This would be like a man saying that Red
does not exist, all the time he has his eyes shut. I am saying that
there should be some step by step method by which one can develop this
sense, and I would like to hear the AS version of it. Even the Mormons
have a way you can know the truth of their religion, by praying, God is
supposed to reveal this truth to you.
Kevin Houston
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n916.9 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: New to this list.
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:49:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
)
)And if anyone does have a creative use for CDs, I would like to hear it,
)since I have about 15 AOL CD's that I can not bear to throw away. I
)have already used one for a coaster, and i never was much into mobiles,
)so don't send those ideas.
)
In the future we should be able to insert them into our gas tanks directly
...... are they not a petroleum product? :~).
)Proved? really? I would like to see this "proof" that the modern
)scientific view has no foundation. I could understand saying that the
)modern scientific worldview is not reality, but to say it has no
)foundation, is non-sense. Everything has a foundation. The foundation
)may be flawed, but there most certainly is one.
)
The statement was, "Steiner proved that the modern scientific *view* of the
world has no foundation." I am not trying to play word games, as some
"critics" like to accuse me. If the sentence was unclear I will clarify:
the *view* has no foundation. The material world obviously has foundation,
I was not refering to that. Perhaps it is a matter of semantics. I term a
foundation that is so flawed that it is not reality, "no foundation." If I
say I can run the marathon, but I discover I am without legs, then the view
that I can run the marathon has no foundation. Don't give me a cybernetics
based response! :~).
On the topic of worldview, let me repost what I wrote to Steve Premo once.
It refers to Kants philosophy and critical idealism:
Now we are getting somewhere. 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.
)
)Can you provide an example of a common everyday object (or not so common
)if that is a problem) which has a "spiritual manifestation" and how I
)might experience it? Spirituality is a property assigned by human
)beings, not inherent in inanimate objects. Even a CD of Gospel music is
)not inherently spritual, it is only the humans who hear it which can be
)moved by the CD's 'spirit'. A caveman, devoid of a CD-player, cannot
)comprehend the beautiful melodies, to him it is only a strangely colored
)flat round thing. Any purpose he could put it to would be just as well
)served by a CD containing anything at all, from a solid string of
)"AAAAAAAAA...", to a CD of the Starr Report (trying to find an example
)of non-spirituality).
You are right that a CD "comes to life" when experienced by an individual.
That says nothing about whether the object is purely physical or spiritual.
How do you know for certain that, "Spirituality is a property assigned by
human
beings, not inherent in inanimate objects? " Your worldview does not allow
that statement. The basis for that statement has already been *proven*
false. You can not have certainty with the Kantian view. Kopp calls me
"intransigent." I call it "fact." Kopp and other are "transigent" (not a
real word), because they have no solid foundation.
We have had extensive discourse on the question of "Can you provide an
example of a common everyday object (or not so common
if that is a problem) which has a "spiritual manifestation" and how I might
experience it?" The anthro-science list archives should have info on that
topic. The subject "Mr. Miller" was about this.
Good luck on your search,
- Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n916.10 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: New to this list
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 08:35:28 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199809170918.CAA04054 lists1.best.com)
On 17 Sep 98, at 5:16, Robert Tolz wrote:
[A beautiful post about the nature of the spiritual experience. I
agree completely, and it comports with my own experience.]
) I cannot "prove" to you or anyone else what I have experienced or
) learned any more than you could prove to me what you are feeling at this
) moment. Since these types of experiences and forms of knowledge are
) essentially confined to the inner consciousness of the human being, I
) doubt that they will ever be testable by science, though I'm sure some
) have tried. To the outside observer, one cannot discern whether what is
) being reported as truth is pure conjecture (based on mental constructs,
) dogma or pure faith), a bona fide mystical experience, or merely a
) psychotic episode.
That, indeed, is the dilemma, and why I have trouble believing that
Steiner proved that there is a spiritual component to all material
objects. I personally think that there is, but I don't believe that this
has been proven.
Moreover, experiences of the type you described, while very
valuable to the individual, are not much of a guide to ascertaining
such things as the history of Atlantis, the journey of the soul after
death, whether there were actually two Jesus Christs rather than
one, and other things that Steiner asserted as fact.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n916 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n917 --------------
001 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: New to this list.
002 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: New to this list.
003 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: New to this list
004 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: Spiritual in Everyday Objects
005 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Independent Prosecutors
006 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: New to this list
007 - Kevin Houston (khouston o - Re: Spiritual in Everyday Objects
008 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: New to this list
009 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Quiz for Dan Dugan
010 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Racism (was: treatment of gifted children and P of F)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n917.1 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: New to this list.
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 11:46:08 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Steve Premo wrote:
I think that this tendency to avoid
stating the "weird stuff" is one of the cult-like aspects of
anthroposophy (although I don't consider it a cult).
------------------------------------------------------
You don't start high school math with differential equations. The reason is
that it is not comprehensible until you know trig, algebra, etc. There is
no point discussing the harder material if you can't move beyond the basics.
Why talk about things that can't be understood until the basics are
mastered? It is not a conspiracy, but a waste of time.
- Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n917.2 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: New to this list.
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:08:28 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199809171544.IAA16797 lists1.best.com)
On 17 Sep 98, at 11:46, Daniel Perez wrote:
) Steve Premo wrote:
) I think that this tendency to avoid
) stating the "weird stuff" is one of the cult-like aspects of
) anthroposophy (although I don't consider it a cult).
) ------------------------------------------------------
) You don't start high school math with differential equations. The reason is
) that it is not comprehensible until you know trig, algebra, etc. There is
) no point discussing the harder material if you can't move beyond the basics.
) Why talk about things that can't be understood until the basics are
) mastered? It is not a conspiracy, but a waste of time.
I would hope that a good high school math teacher would at least
tell the class what kind of things are possible through the use of
advanced mathematics, e.g., what can be done, in a practical way,
with calculus. Even if though the students won't be taught calculus
before algebra, the existence of calculus, and its value, can be
explained.
Similarly, those who want to know about anthroposophy could be
told of the existence of the akashic (?) record and some of the
things that Steiner learned by exploring it, and told that they, too,
can learn to explore the akashic record, thereby gaining a
knowledge of historical fact through spiritual means.
If you mean, though, that people are not likely to accept this stuff
as true unless you've first convinced them of more basic
anthroposophical concepts, well, that's probably true. It's also cult-
like behavior to withhold this type of knowledge until the student is
"ready" to receive it.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n917.3 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: New to this list
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:14:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
How can we talk about proof when we don't agree on worldview? There are too
many presuppositions. When I talk about proof I do so with regard to
proving the fallacy of the Kantian modern scientific view. That is the
place to start.
- Daniel.
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Thursday, September 17, 1998 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: New to this list
On 17 Sep 98, at 5:16, Robert Tolz wrote:
[A beautiful post about the nature of the spiritual experience. I
agree completely, and it comports with my own experience.]
) I cannot "prove" to you or anyone else what I have experienced or
) learned any more than you could prove to me what you are feeling at this
) moment. Since these types of experiences and forms of knowledge are
) essentially confined to the inner consciousness of the human being, I
) doubt that they will ever be testable by science, though I'm sure some
) have tried. To the outside observer, one cannot discern whether what is
) being reported as truth is pure conjecture (based on mental constructs,
) dogma or pure faith), a bona fide mystical experience, or merely a
) psychotic episode.
That, indeed, is the dilemma, and why I have trouble believing that
Steiner proved that there is a spiritual component to all material
objects. I personally think that there is, but I don't believe that this
has been proven.
Moreover, experiences of the type you described, while very
valuable to the individual, are not much of a guide to ascertaining
such things as the history of Atlantis, the journey of the soul after
death, whether there were actually two Jesus Christs rather than
one, and other things that Steiner asserted as fact.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n917.4 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Spiritual in Everyday Objects
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:42:09 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199809161944.MAA17548 lists1.best.com)
(199809162307.QAA04051 lists1.best.com)
(199809170324.UAA20170 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199809171030.DAA00889 lists1.best.com)
)But you wrote :
))
)) ) If you limit the search to inanimate objects, I can't think of
)) )
)) ) any examples. However, the human being has a clear "spiritual
)) ) manifestation", to my mind. I don't know if the following will
)) ) mean anything to you:
)
)If the human being has a _clear_ Spiritual manifestation, then you
)should be able to point it out to anyone, even a "spiritually blind" man
)like me. If I claim that human beings have a clear skeletal structure,
)I can point to the bones that you can feel under your skin, I can point
)to X-rays, I can point to autopsies. I am not asking for certainty,
)only evidence.
I said "clear 'spiritual manifestation' , to my mind".
That doesn't have anything to do with how you interpret this example.
Anticipating your rebuttals, I tried to recognize the likelihood of
divergent points of view in the last sentence you quoted, above.
It's pretty obvious to most members of this list that no matter what
evidence we bring forth or how it is presented, not many folks here change
their original way of thinking.
How often does it happen that anyone on this list, on either "side" of any
issue, says something like, "you're quite right--I see that I was
mistaken!"?
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n917.5 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Independent Prosecutors
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:53:34 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809161944.MAA17548 lists1.best.com)
(199809162307.QAA04051 lists1.best.com)
(199809170324.UAA20170 lists1.best.com) (199809171630.JAA16744 lists1.best.com)
Perhaps it is the winter doldrums, but I agree with your statement that most people on this list are intellectually entrenched and beyond reasonable efforts at debate. Dialogue is an illusion at best when engaged in without good faith. For the time being, I intend to limit my posts to correcting factual errors or especially egregious allegations.
Unfortunately, this list is a forum in the same way that the Inquisition or HUAC was a forum.
e
Robert Flannery wrote:
) It's pretty obvious to most members of this list that no matter what
) evidence we bring forth or how it is presented, not many folks here change
) their original way of thinking.
)
) How often does it happen that anyone on this list, on either "side" of any
) issue, says something like, "you're quite right--I see that I was
) mistaken!"?
)
) Robert Flannery
) New York
) litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n917.6 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: New to this list
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:53:16 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199809171612.JAA04346 lists1.best.com)
On 17 Sep 98, at 12:14, Daniel Perez wrote:
) How can we talk about proof when we don't agree on worldview? There are too
) many presuppositions. When I talk about proof I do so with regard to
) proving the fallacy of the Kantian modern scientific view. That is the
) place to start.
Daniel, you speak of fact, and you speak of proof. These words
mean something, and I don't know what you mean by them.
I know of several kinds of proof. Two types are mathematical or
logical proof, and experimental proof. Of course, in both cases,
sometimes what was believed to have been proven is later shown
to be false, especially if the proof is complex. But a true proof is
verifiable, either through deduction or through experiment.
In a legal sense, "proof" basically means that evidence was
presented which convinced the trier of fact that, according to some
standard, the assertion is true. That standard may be a
preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not), clear and
convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt. But this is
really a technical legal definition, and is not understood to be
"proof" in the scientific or mathematical sense of the word. It is
related, though, to the use of the word "proof" in common usage.
In common usage, "proof" can refer to anything that convinces you,
subjectively, that the assertion is true. You might prove your love
for others by acts of kindness and compassion.
You said, "Steiner proved that the modern scientific view of the
world has no foundation, that to know the world is to understand
both its spiritual and physical manifestation. Every bit of matter
has both components and we do not know the world or ourselves
without this complete understanding."
I thought you were referring to a logical deduction, which can be
tested by applying the rules of logic. Now, I think you just mean
that he convinced you. What did you mean?
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n917.7 ---------------
From: Kevin Houston (khouston onel.com)
Subject: Re: Spiritual in Everyday Objects
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:03:54 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809161944.MAA17548 lists1.best.com)
(199809162307.QAA04051 lists1.best.com)
(199809170324.UAA20170 lists1.best.com) (199809171630.JAA16744 lists1.best.com)
I am *not* trying to dispute everything you say, I do *not* have a
pre-formed opinion, I *am* serious about understanding the AS method.
It is no wonder people think you are a 'cult' (whatever that means) when
you refuse to tell the uninitiated what you are about. Im not asking
for the holy of holies here, I'm simply trying to find out how i can use
my 'supersense' (quote marks because I don't know what it means).
I'm a libertarian, when people ask me for more information, i gladly
tell them the basis of Libertarian thinking (you own yourself, and by
extension you own what you earn. no can steal from you, not even Govt.
etc., etc., etc.) if you go to the Libertarian website
http://www.lp.org/ , you will find many of our core beliefs, a statement
of principle etc.
we don't tell people you have to be a libertarian to understand this, go
read Adam Smith and then come back when you are conversant in free
market economics and can discuss utility functions and laffer curves.
Robert Flannery wrote:
)
) )But you wrote :
) ))
) )) ) If you limit the search to inanimate objects, I can't think of
) )) )
) )) ) any examples. However, the human being has a clear "spiritual
) )) ) manifestation", to my mind. I don't know if the following will
) )) ) mean anything to you:
) )
) )If the human being has a _clear_ Spiritual manifestation, then you
) )should be able to point it out to anyone, even a "spiritually blind" man
) )like me. If I claim that human beings have a clear skeletal structure,
) )I can point to the bones that you can feel under your skin, I can point
) )to X-rays, I can point to autopsies. I am not asking for certainty,
) )only evidence.
)
) I said "clear 'spiritual manifestation' , to my mind".
)
) That doesn't have anything to do with how you interpret this example.
) Anticipating your rebuttals, I tried to recognize the likelihood of
) divergent points of view in the last sentence you quoted, above.
)
) It's pretty obvious to most members of this list that no matter what
) evidence we bring forth or how it is presented, not many folks here change
) their original way of thinking.
)
) How often does it happen that anyone on this list, on either "side" of any
) issue, says something like, "you're quite right--I see that I was
) mistaken!"?
)
) Robert Flannery
) New York
) litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n917.8 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: New to this list
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 12:48:08 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809171536.IAA12893 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote:
)
) Moreover, experiences of the type you described, while very
) valuable to the individual, are not much of a guide to ascertaining
) such things as the history of Atlantis, the journey of the soul after
) death, whether there were actually two Jesus Christs rather than
) one, and other things that Steiner asserted as fact.
Someone from whom I've learned a lot about spiritual matters once gave
a talk to a packed house many years ago. During the question and answer
period, someone asked him whether or not he believed in reincarnation.
His response was something like, "I admit the possibility, but I cannot
teach it."
Similarly, I admit the possibility of some of the things that Steiner
talks about because I admit that he might have had some sensory
perception to which I am not privy. I may be more ready to admit he may
have had such perception than some other people, based on my own
experiences and the experiences of people who I know well and trust.
However, I do not consider anything that Steiner has said to be proved
unless either I see the type of substantiation that a logically-minded
person would accept or someone shows me how to obtain the type of inner
knowledge that I referred to in my last post.
Curiously, Steiner is not the only person who seems to have reported
detailed facts about the civilization of Atlantis and even its
predecessor civilizations. Do a search in Amazon.com for "Lemuria" and
you'll see what I mean. I wonder what proportion of those descriptions
are from people who alleged themselves to be directly privy to some form
of clairvoyant transmittal, and what proportion are from people who are
providing hearsay regarding what someone else previously reported.
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n917.9 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Quiz for Dan Dugan
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 13:06:44 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199808122117.OAA16314 lists1.best.com)
Dan,
I just wanted to get your feelings about someone who would write
something like the following:
"I advance it therefore, as a suspicion only, that the
blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and
circumstance, are inferior to the whites in the endowment both of body
and mind."
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n917.10 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Racism (was: treatment of gifted children and P of F)
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:02:46 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Daniel Perez wrote:
Steiner:
"That is a terrible thing the French people are doing to other people, the
frightful cultural brutality of transplanting black people to Europe. "
Daniel:
)Second, Steiner was referring to the effect on the black people
If so, then, why didn't he state that he did *not* mean the *German*
"other" people, allegedly suffering from black French soldiers?
Daniel:
)It is "cultural brutality" to the black culture to transplant them. This
occurred in
)America as well and was considered "brutality."
Are a few thousand West African professional soldiers in the French
Rhineland army, of whom many Germans were [often racistically] jealous
because of better pay than many Germans got at the time, in the nineteen
twenties, really comparable to the millions who died and millions who
became slaves because of the cross-Atlantic slave trade from Africa to
America?
Daniel:
)If you look at the debates in Canada over French speaking vs. English
speaking, these can )also sound racist.
When the Parti Quebecois leader, after losing a referendum, said that the
defeat did not really count, as it was because of "the ethnic vote", very
many people, including French speakers, thought that *was* racist.
------------------------------------------
Herman de Tollenaere
------------------------------------------
Internet site:
http://stad.dsl.nl/~hermantl/
See also:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
------------------------------------------
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n917 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n918 --------------
001 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - truth and facts
002 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Independent Prosecutors
003 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - explaining belief systems
004 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - A possible life lesson
005 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Racism (was: treatment of gifted children and P of F)
006 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - RE:new to the list
007 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Racism - Steiner's Passage
008 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Racism - Steiner's Passage
009 - Kevin Houston (khouston o - Re: explaining belief systems
010 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: New to this list
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n918.1 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: truth and facts
Date: 17 Sep 1998 14:16:28 -0400
Steve, you posted
)Moreover, experiences of the type you described, while very
)valuable to the individual, are not much of a guide to ascertaining
)such things as the history of Atlantis, the journey of the soul after
)death, whether there were actually two Jesus Christs rather than
)one, ***and other things that Steiner asserted as fact.***
Steve (or anyone)
Did he assert these as fact...end of discussion... or did he assert these
things as facts ...so far as I have been able to tell... or some way else?
I, for one, have difficulty even cracking a book until this kind of question
can be delineated. Otherwise, I am always having to track at least two
readings of his writings going on simultaneously in my head (and one reading
is difficult enough for this stuff)
I had posted something a few months back that stated how I tried to view
Steiner's writings (haaving to do with exploration and the act of map making)
This (and a few recent posts) also makes me think of the Ezra's topic of
double standards on this list.
"Truth and facts" are usually characterized as provisional, testable, and
changable when people want to talk about them in support of their worldview.
However some critics often seem quite open to portray Steiner's "facts" as
*his intention* that they be accepted as universal statements of Truth (which
they then denigrate as incredibly egotistic, dangerous, and outright rubbish).
As i see it, critics make a straw man out of these statements by perhaps
wrongly asserting that Steiner meant them in a way that suggested a finality
of discussion on the topic.
Was his presentations more like *beating his shoe on the podium shouting "we
will bury you"!* or was he grasping the podium and announcing "I have seen the
promised land" or was he stating "all men are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalianable rights"?
Does anyone care what effect the style of the language and the conventions
of the culture has on the interpretability of Steiner?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n918.2 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Independent Prosecutors
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 11:20:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199809171732.KAA03984 lists1.best.com)
On 17 Sep 98, at 9:53, Ezra Beeman wrote:
) Perhaps it is the winter doldrums, but I agree with your statement
) that most people on this list are intellectually entrenched and beyond
) reasonable efforts at debate. Dialogue is an illusion at best when
) engaged in without good faith.
If the only goal of dialogue is to convince others that you are right
and they are wrong, you're probably going to be frustrated. But
there are other values in dialogue:
1. By articulating what I think, I come to a better understanding of
my own thoughts.
2. By listening to other viewpoints, and by asking questions, I
come to a better understanding of those viewpoints.
3. If those opposing viewpoints are well reasoned and based on
reasonable assumptions, this leads me to reevaluate my own
viewpoint.
Now, I'm not likely to discard a considered opinion simply because
someone points out a weakness. Perhaps it would be best if I
could do so, but there seems to be a psychological mechanism
that causes my views to change relatively slowly. Nevertheless,
my views do change over the years as a result of talking with
others, and of considering other viewpoints.
I don't consider any of this to be a waste of time.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n918.3 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: explaining belief systems
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 11:27:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809161944.MAA17548 lists1.best.com)
(199809162307.QAA04051 lists1.best.com)
(199809170324.UAA20170 lists1.best.com) (199809171630.JAA16744 lists1.best.com) (199809171734.KAA08128 lists1.best.com)
I just read your declaration that you are a libertarian., and it is of personal interest to me as I consider myself a libertarian. Often I debate a good friend of mine who works at the Pacific Research Institute (Libertarian think tank) in SFO as a public policy fellow. We have debated everything from antitrust to the tragedy of the commons to educational funding.
Even within the Libertarian community there is factionalism, anarchists vs. minarchists (limited constitutional government etc.) are a good example. In fact I am attending a debate on the subject in SFO on Saturday, should be very interesting. Do you think that you could convincingly explain the nuances of such a debate, and why we should dismantle government as a whole to the average person?
As a libertarian, I ask you to state what you see as the role of government in education? Assuming the Federal government won't go away, do you agree that all schools should be funded publicly (given they meet certain basic requirements)? Would you agree that a separation of Church and State with regard to education restricts freedom? I would remind you and others that the founding fathers did not have government controlled education in mind when they framed the constitution.
I guess my point is that even Libertarianism, which claims a simple and consistent application of principles (and I think that is true), is viewed with skepticism and horror by the large majority of people in this country. So what then?
e
Kevin Houston wrote:
) I'm a libertarian, when people ask me for more information, i gladly
) tell them the basis of Libertarian thinking (you own yourself, and by
) extension you own what you earn. no can steal from you, not even Govt.
) etc., etc., etc.) if you go to the Libertarian website
) http://www.lp.org/ , you will find many of our core beliefs, a statement
) of principle etc.
)
) we don't tell people you have to be a libertarian to understand this, go
) read Adam Smith and then come back when you are conversant in free
) market economics and can discuss utility functions and laffer curves.
)
) Robert Flannery wrote:
) )
) ) )But you wrote :
) ) ))
) ) )) ) If you limit the search to inanimate objects, I can't think of
) ) )) )
) ) )) ) any examples. However, the human being has a clear "spiritual
) ) )) ) manifestation", to my mind. I don't know if the following will
) ) )) ) mean anything to you:
) ) )
) ) )If the human being has a _clear_ Spiritual manifestation, then you
) ) )should be able to point it out to anyone, even a "spiritually blind" man
) ) )like me. If I claim that human beings have a clear skeletal structure,
) ) )I can point to the bones that you can feel under your skin, I can point
) ) )to X-rays, I can point to autopsies. I am not asking for certainty,
) ) )only evidence.
) )
) ) I said "clear 'spiritual manifestation' , to my mind".
) )
) ) That doesn't have anything to do with how you interpret this example.
) ) Anticipating your rebuttals, I tried to recognize the likelihood of
) ) divergent points of view in the last sentence you quoted, above.
) )
) ) It's pretty obvious to most members of this list that no matter what
) ) evidence we bring forth or how it is presented, not many folks here change
) ) their original way of thinking.
) )
) ) How often does it happen that anyone on this list, on either "side" of any
) ) issue, says something like, "you're quite right--I see that I was
) ) mistaken!"?
) )
) ) Robert Flannery
) ) New York
) ) litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n918.4 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: A possible life lesson
Date: 17 Sep 1998 14:42:21 -0400
Michael Kopp posted
)Nothing to do with Anthroposophy is as it seems on the face of it.
Michael,
Perhaps these people are living out the expression:
'Nothing to do with living is as it seems on the face of it.'
Those who would not be comfortable with the destabilized nature of their life
resulting from adopting this perspective might very well see this as some sort
of problem. Those that would embrace the precariousness and intensity of this
kind of attitude might find it a very attractive.
I hope to find myself more on the precarious and intense (but not careless)
side in my life. Although it does seem to make me a bit slow moving. How
about you?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n918.5 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Racism (was: treatment of gifted children and P of F)
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:29:09 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Good to see you back, Herman.
)
)If so, then, why didn't he state that he did *not* mean the *German*
)"other" people, allegedly suffering from black French soldiers?
)
From the references that were posted I made a possible interpretation. I
started the post by claiming that I did not have the full context, and I
don't. Perhaps you do? I find it hard to believe anyone can truly
reconstruct all of the context. I question not only the meaning of the
statements, but what was occuring politically as to prompt the statements.
)Daniel:
)
))It is "cultural brutality" to the black culture to transplant them. This
)occurred in
))America as well and was considered "brutality."
)
)Are a few thousand West African professional soldiers in the French
)Rhineland army, of whom many Germans were [often racistically] jealous
)because of better pay than many Germans got at the time, in the nineteen
)twenties, really comparable to the millions who died and millions who
)became slaves because of the cross-Atlantic slave trade from Africa to
)America?
)
No matter how small the harm, it is still harm. If Steiner witnessed only a
few individuals who were exploited, then he may have reacted to those few.
I repeat that I don't know the full context and stated that from the
beginning. I have contrary evidence, however, regarding the claim of
racism. I will post it when I have a chance.
)Daniel:
)
))If you look at the debates in Canada over French speaking vs. English
)speaking, these can )also sound racist.
)
)When the Parti Quebecois leader, after losing a referendum, said that the
)defeat did not really count, as it was because of "the ethnic vote", very
)many people, including French speakers, thought that *was* racist.
That could well be. My point was that you have to get into the details of
the facts underlying statements to make a valid judgement. You have to
unearth the circumstances of a statement to understand it. If a statement
is mathematical, then it has axioms and an accepted language that is
universal. The statements that were posted (by Steiner) were in a past
circumstance that I find hard to recompile. Those statements cirtainly were
not appropriate for the way they would be read in this age. I stated that I
won't stand behind them as they stand, without the greater context. I will
post the contrary evidence, however, regarding the question of racism in
general.
- Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n918.6 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: RE:new to the list
Date: 17 Sep 1998 16:38:12 -0400
Kevin Houston responded to Daniel's post
Daniel Perez :
)
) See www.anthroposophy.org
Kevin:
Ok, I will look. the rest of my comments are just off the cuff and are
in response to your words, not anything about Anthroposophy (of which, I
am (blissfully?) unaware.)
Daniel:
) That is the Anthroposophical Society in America site.
) Arthur Zajonc is the president. He is a physicist in a major university and
) is living in Amherst, MA. Anthroposophists on this and other lists can help
) with further questions. If you are open minded you will discover many new
) and fruitful ideas. For starters, Steiner proved that the modern scientific
) view of the world has no foundation, that to know the world is to understand
Kevin:
Proved? really? I would like to see this "proof" that the modern
scientific view has no foundation. I could understand saying that the
modern scientific worldview is not reality, but to say it has no
foundation, is non-sense. Everything has a foundation. The foundation
may be flawed, but there most certainly is one.
Luke
I think the book Daniel would refer you to is the "Philosophy of Freedom" by
Steiner. If you are looking to have a debate/discussion on this idea (which i
think you have to agree is a big idea) then i think this book is probably only
one of a number of philosophy concepts your going to have to have at your
disposal to get anywhere.
(if this is what critics mean when they say supporters require extensive
reading in order to understand/discuss issues, I say if you can't be bothered
to even read some material *not buy into it, just read it* why should anyone
else who is interested in it feel obligated to have a discussion with you. It
seems quite egotistical and presumptuous to expect people to discuss things on
command when you aren't even really prepared to engage their interest)
Daniel
) both its spiritual and physical manifestation. Every bit of matter has both
) components and we do not know the world or ourselves without this complete
) understanding.
Kevin
Can you provide an example of a common everyday object (or not so common
if that is a problem) which has a "spiritual manifestation" and how I
might experience it?
Luke:
This might not be right ( i'm not a member of the anthroposophical
society),and i will probably be working at cross purposes here, but what about
the American Flag or the Torah or a picture of a starving child or a painting
in a art museum. All of these things have/are imbued with meanings that are
not physically there. Yes, all or many of these qualities are manifested
within humans but i didn't hear anyone say that they could not be manifested
inside humans, just that be manifested and you could experience it. I think
that one might say that all knowing is manifested inside humans so the
appearance that spiritual manifestations of physical objects are primarily
only manifested within humans seems to be no big stumbling block. To be even
more pedantic Daniel said .."that to know the world is to understand both its
spiritual and physical manifestation. Every bit of matter has both components
and we do not know the world or ourselves without this complete
understanding." Nowhere does it say that manifestations have to be somewhere
in particular or especially that they have to be outside the human being.
Kevin :
Spirituality is a property assigned by human beings, not inherent in inanimate
objects.
Luke
Can you give me an example of an inanimate object that has no inherent
spirituality?
Kevin
Even a CD of Gospel music is
not inherently spritual, it is only the humans who hear it which can be
moved by the CD's 'spirit'.
Luke: (straw man?)
I think you are refering to the music recorded on the CD not the CD itself.
Kevin:
A caveman, devoid of a CD-player, cannot
comprehend the beautiful melodies, to him it is only a strangely colored
flat round thing. Any purpose he could put it to would be just as well
served by a CD containing anything at all, from a solid string of
"AAAAAAAAA...", to a CD of the Starr Report (trying to find an example
of non-spirituality).
Luke
you are still refering to the content of the CD housed in it(on it) not the CD
itself. Maybe you should try regarding the CD itself?
Kevin
And if anyone does have a creative use for CDs, I would like to hear it,
since I have about 15 AOL CD's that I can not bear to throw away. I
have already used one for a coaster, and i never was much into mobiles,
so don't send those ideas.
Luke
You can cut slits into them and use them as buiding blocks to make stuff.
You can compose them into an "art" piece, you can use them in different
experiments revolving around CD's (like at what point do CD's melt or how
scratched can a CD get before it can't be used in a player or what kind of
stuff can I do to a CD to make the player do different stuff). Perhaps
regarding the CD in these ways may give you a spiritual manifestation of the
physical object. Perhaps it will give you nothing more than a pile of ruined
CD's.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n918.7 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Racism - Steiner's Passage
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:44:29 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This passage is typical of what I have found over and over again to be
Steiner's view on the history of race and the future of culture. In the
past we lived by tribalism and there was a point in our spiritual evolution
where that was appropriate. In the past we survived both physically and
spiritually by staying together in communities based on tribe. In this age
such an impulse would be termed "racism." Back then it was "development."
or an evolutionary stage. Since 0 A.D. and into the future inter-racial
marriage is necessary and provides the means for spiritual advancement. We
must transcend our physical/racial basis altogether.
Steiner goes much further than any materialist in denouncing racism.
His worldview sees the spirit as transcending race. The place where Steiner
is misunderstood is in that we were not always strong enough in spirit to
leave our tribes. This was fine for its proper time (B.C.), but is now a
weakness that must be resolved.
Steiner:
"Then intermarriage became more frequent, and the mixing of blood kills off
increasingly the memory that extends beyond the phenomenon of the single
personality. The narrowing down of memory has come as a consequence of
intermarriage. The course of humanity is thus, that the single person
increasingly grows beyond his tribe. In the common blood that streamed
through the tribe, there also streamed the common expression of this blood.
However, that love which we designate as the original love, which is bound
to the blood and has led to the building of a whole family, becomes
extinguished in the course of time. The love of the past is a totally
different one, from the one that shines forth to us as the love from the
future. In the post-Atlantean periods we still find love through the blood
as dominant; those have love for one another in whose veins there flows
common blood. But that will increasingly disappear; human beings pass
increasingly more out of the narrow blood relationships and become more
individual."
"....But human beings mature ever more towards becoming independent of
related blood. As the living breath entered into the human being, this was
the first impetus to building the blood. But now, after long ages of time,
humanity has become ripe enough, so to permeate this blood, that in the
place of the original love, a universal human love can come. Think of the
progress of humanity as I have just described it to you; the original love,
the love of related persons--from mother to child, etc.--had to diminish.
The blood is not itself so far effective that a bond of love could include
the whole of humanity, and the power of the ego, the power of addiction to
the self (selfishness), will become ever greater. Here an event had to
intervene that called into existence another love in place of the original
love, a spiritual love. This event is Christianity.........." Steiner,
"Theosophy and Rosicrucianism," June 27, 1907, Kassel.
He goes on to describe that the "blood of Christ" is, in fact, interracial
blood. Not only physically, but more important, spiritually. This passage
is *Steiner's* view and it does not mean you have to take it at face value.
It is Steiner's view and Steiner's view is not racist. But it is *Steiner*
who has been accused, so only *his* view matters. All that he stood for via
anthroposophy was due to the significance of the Christ event in human
existence. His definition of Christ's blood crosses and transcends race.
Steiner is *not* a racist. I already established this in past postings.
This passage is different from the recent posts. In the recent posts
Steiner does not describe in detail the *meaning* of his statements. In
this passage he does.
- Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n918.8 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Racism - Steiner's Passage
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 14:43:24 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199809172045.NAA10848 lists1.best.com)
On 17 Sep 98, at 16:44, Daniel Perez wrote:
) This passage is typical of what I have found over and over again to be
) Steiner's view on the history of race and the future of culture.
Hey, thanks, that's a very interesting quote.
) Steiner:
) "Then intermarriage became more frequent, and the mixing of blood kills
) off increasingly the memory that extends beyond the phenomenon of the
) single personality. The narrowing down of memory has come as a
) consequence of intermarriage. The course of humanity is thus, that the
) single person increasingly grows beyond his tribe. In the common blood
) that streamed through the tribe, there also streamed the common expression
) of this blood. However, that love which we designate as the original love,
) which is bound to the blood and has led to the building of a whole family,
) becomes extinguished in the course of time. The love of the past is a
) totally different one, from the one that shines forth to us as the love
) from the future. In the post-Atlantean periods we still find love through
) the blood as dominant; those have love for one another in whose veins
) there flows common blood. But that will increasingly disappear; human
) beings pass increasingly more out of the narrow blood relationships and
) become more individual."
So, if I understand this correctly, Steiner was saying that as long
as our genetic heritage is limited to a small group, our love for
others is limited to love for others of our own group. Through
interracial marriage, this becomes diluted, as our genetic heritage
is broadened, until finally, it becomes extinguished. (I assume that
in referring to "blood," Steiner is talking about genetic heritage, i.e.,
blood lines, and not physical blood.)
It is not automatically replaced by a love of all humanity, though,
because the genetic bond is not strong enough to include all of
humanity; instead, Christianity came into being to replace the love
of our tribe with a more universal love.
Well, that certainly is not a racist viewpoint. Although other quotes
indicate that Steiner had a stereotyped view of the races and their
role in the evolution of humanity (which is, I think, a form of
racism), this quote indicates that he was not racist in the sense of
opposing interracial marriage in the name of "racial purity,"
promoting the hatred of folks from other racial groups, and so on.
I pretty much agree that interracial marriage is a good thing, as is
anything that breaks down barriers between different racial or
cultural groups, and I do think that this makes it easier to have a
love for all humanity rather than just for one's own group (however
one defines that group).
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n918.9 ---------------
From: Kevin Houston (khouston onel.com)
Subject: Re: explaining belief systems
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:54:26 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809161944.MAA17548 lists1.best.com)
(199809162307.QAA04051 lists1.best.com)
(199809170324.UAA20170 lists1.best.com) (199809171630.JAA16744 lists1.best.com) (199809171734.KAA08128 lists1.best.com) (199809171830.LAA22461 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman wrote:
)
) Even within the Libertarian community there is factionalism,
)anarchists vs. minarchists (limited constitutional government etc.)
)are a good example. In fact I am attending a debate on the subject
)in SFO on Saturday, should be very interesting. Do you think that
)you could convincingly explain the nuances of such a debate, and
)why we should dismantle government as a whole to the average person?
I agree that to explain _all_ the nuances to the average person might be
difficult, but explain the basics of the argument? Yes, I think that
can be done easily in a few paragraphs. (NB Im a minarchist)
To wit:
The argument of anarchy vs minarchy is one of total elimination of Govt.
vs reducing govt. to its lowest possible size. The question is what is
the legitimate purpose of Govt.? One of the basic tenets of
Libertarianism is Non-Initiation Of Force (NIOF). This means that you
may do as you please, provided you do not initiate (self defense is ok)
Force or Fraud. The Anarchist holds that rights only make sense where
they can be enforced, and that if I own a house and want to protect it,
I should hire the muscle myself (think Hell's Angels providing security
at rolling stones concert). While the minarchist holds that one of the
few legitimate purposes of Govt. is to protect us from each other, and
would therefore grant the power to use force only to the Govt., and only
when the intended victim of that force (the person breaking into my
house in this example) has already initiated force.
The anarchist holds that any service which is provided by the state,
(police and legal protection in this case) would be provided better and
cheaper by the private sector (Hell's angels provided security in
exchange for free beer). While the minimalist argues that such a
society puts us back in Hobbs' state of nature, with the person with the
largest club ruling all, and no one able to stop him (Hell's angels also
brutally beat up anyone who messed with them.)
There, didn't even take two paragraphs.
This is all I'm asking of the AS supporters, lay out the basics of
"supersense". Show me how I might gain this knowledge as well.
) As a libertarian, I ask you to state what you see as the role
) of government in education? Assuming the Federal government won't
)go away, do you agree that all schools should be funded publicly
)(given they meet certain basic requirements)? Would you agree
)that a separation of Church and State with regard to education
)restricts freedom? I would remind you and others that the
)founding fathers did not have government controlled education
)in mind when they framed the constitution.
The role of Govt. in education is non-answerable in Libertarian terms,
the role of the _Federal_ Govt. in education is clear however, This is
not an enumerated power9check http://www.constitution.org/ and therefore
is reserved to the State, or the people. The State may pass laws with
regard to education insofar as their constitutions allow, but
personally, I think all Govt. money should be out of education. This is
definitely one place where the free market is best. Private schools are
almost always cheaper than public schools (State of MN spends more than
$6000.00 per student, average private schools are in the 3-4 thousand
range.) They almost always provide the education parents want. and if
they don't parents can put their children in a different school.
So no, I don't agree (nor would any libertarian) that all schools should
be funded publicly. no school should have to teach something they don't
want to (be it sex ed, evolution, science, etc... doesn't matter) and no
person should have to pay for the schooling of another, especially if
they are teaching something against that persons beliefs. (would you
expect Blacks to cheerfully pay for the Klan to educate it's children
that Blacks are inferior?)
I would agree that Separation of church and state with regard to
[*Public*] education restricts freedom, for the reason that I (someone
who does not have children) is paying for your children's education.
But if we are going to have public education, then the wall between
church and state should be a mile thick, and a mile tall. and if that
infringes on your freedom, then I suggest you work for an end to public
education.
I would agree that the issue of separation of church and state is moot
with regard to private schools. Since no public money goes in, you can
teach any damn thing you like, provided you are up-front with parents
(no fraud) If a waldorf school didn't tell parents that AS was a heavy
part of the curriculum, then i would be very surprised if parents didn't
pull their children the minute they found out about it. but, I think
those parents would also have a case in court for refund of tuition on
the grounds of fraud.
As to the founding fathers, many of them were escaping religious control
at home, the king of england had set himself up as the deity (head of
the church), and was forcing all other religions to adhere to this
tenet, or else. And the reason the framers did not envision government
controlled education, was because they would not have believed that a
parent would turn over the impressionable mind of their children to the
crown in order that they might be indoctrinated against them.
) I guess my point is that even Libertarianism, which claims a simple and consistent application of principles (and I think that is true), is viewed with skepticism and horror by the large majority of people in this country. So what then?
Education, Education, Education. That is why i cannot understand why
some AS supporter won't step forward and educate me on how this
"supersense" works.
Kevin Houston
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n918.10 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: New to this list
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:18:07 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199809171536.IAA12893 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199809171744.KAA20082 lists1.best.com)
Robert Tolz wrote:
)Steve Premo wrote:
)
))
)) Moreover, experiences of the type you described, while very
)) valuable to the individual, are not much of a guide to ascertaining
)) such things as the history of Atlantis, the journey of the soul after
)) death, whether there were actually two Jesus Christs rather than
)) one, and other things that Steiner asserted as fact.
)
) Someone from whom I've learned a lot about spiritual matters once
)gave
)a talk to a packed house many years ago. During the question and answer
)period, someone asked him whether or not he believed in reincarnation.
)His response was something like, "I admit the possibility, but I cannot
)teach it."
)
) Similarly, I admit the possibility of some of the things that
)Steiner
)talks about because I admit that he might have had some sensory
)perception to which I am not privy. I may be more ready to admit he may
)have had such perception than some other people, based on my own
)experiences and the experiences of people who I know well and trust.
)However, I do not consider anything that Steiner has said to be proved
)unless either I see the type of substantiation that a logically-minded
)person would accept or someone shows me how to obtain the type of inner
)knowledge that I referred to in my last post.
)
) Curiously, Steiner is not the only person who seems to have reported
)detailed facts about the civilization of Atlantis and even its
)predecessor civilizations. Do a search in Amazon.com for "Lemuria" and
)you'll see what I mean. I wonder what proportion of those descriptions
)are from people who alleged themselves to be directly privy to some form
)of clairvoyant transmittal, and what proportion are from people who are
)providing hearsay regarding what someone else previously reported.
You leave out the most logical and reasonable possibilities for this
phenomenon:
they are fantasising and self deluding -- or they are charlatans.
The record of exposure of such fantasies and frauds is quite extensive.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
(Shortest post ever from me?)
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n918 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n919 --------------
001 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Quiz for Dan Dugan
002 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: A possible life lesson
003 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: explaining belief systems
004 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - RE: new to the list
005 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - RE:new to this list
006 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - RE: new to the list
007 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - Fwd: Money Refund
008 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - RE: treatment of gifted children and P of F
009 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Independent Prosecutors
010 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: treatment of gifted children and P of F
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n919.1 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Quiz for Dan Dugan
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:14:42 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199808122117.OAA16314 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199809171802.LAA02855 lists1.best.com)
Robert Tolz said:
)Dan,
) I just wanted to get your feelings about someone who would write
)something like the following:
)
) "I advance it therefore, as a suspicion only, that the
)blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and
)circumstance, are inferior to the whites in the endowment both of body
)and mind."
Begging Dan's pardon for answering a post directed at him ...
This sounds like something I read recently*, but don't have at hand, in the
way of revisionist history of Thomas Jefferson.
It appears that Jefferson, thought to be a fair and decent man, and great
libertarian, despite magnanimously holding slaves, and despite his part in
the Declaration of Independence and the other founding documents, *was*
intensely and intellectually a racist.
There is some question about the context of his words as graven in stone on
his memorial in Washington, D.C. Apparently, if one reads the whole passage
from which those fine ideas are quoted, they don't seem so pure.
It is also apparent from this historical revisionism that Jefferson _knew_
his opinions were racist, even for that time. He was, after all, a
Virginian first and foremost, and a somewhat weak federalist. He was
apparently uncomfortable with his necessarily overt racism, but could not
shed it.
In fact, the Declaration is being taken by a new class of American
revolutionary as a founding text for the _next_ revolt against government
-- and perhaps rightly so, apparently, based on Jefferson's esposal of
other rebellions of his time against duly constituted authority.
These revelations do, indeed, tarnish the image of the founding father, and
help to understand why a country founded on liberty did not initially grant
that liberty to all humans. And they lessen his greatness, for me.
But it _is_ reasonable for us to use our 20-20 hindsight, and our "modern"
sensibilities about race, to judge such a great man.
Just as it is reasonable for us to do so with Rudolf Steiner.
*If anyone wants the citation or more quotes, I'll retrieve the source. I
meant to copy it anyway.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n919.2 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: A possible life lesson
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:57:42 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199809171844.LAA02831 lists1.best.com)
Luke Schelly wrote:
)Michael Kopp posted
)
))Nothing to do with Anthroposophy is as it seems on the face of it.
)
)Michael,
)
)Perhaps these people are living out the expression:
)
)'Nothing to do with living is as it seems on the face of it.'
)
)Those who would not be comfortable with the destabilized nature of their
)life
)resulting from adopting this perspective might very well see this as some
)sort
)of problem. Those that would embrace the precariousness and intensity of
)this
)kind of attitude might find it a very attractive.
)
)I hope to find myself more on the precarious and intense (but not careless)
)side in my life. Although it does seem to make me a bit slow moving. How
)about you?
Life for thinking people seems to be about trying to figure out the world
around us.
I think there are better systems of investigation than spiritual
introspection for this purpose in my life.
Metaphysics is interesting, but completely intangible, inconclusive and
always changing. I do not believe that the Universe's fundamental nature is
constantly changing (though I admit that physicists are coming to think
that perhaps the laws of nature are not immutable).
Physics is absolutely, positively riveting, and has produced more
*evidence* -- understandable, tangible evidence -- for my purposes. The
changes that occur in physical understanding are advances in tangible
evidence.
I agree that precariousness and intensity are desirable attributes to an
interesting and examined life. I just choose different tools for myself --
and my children.
This list is about whether your system or my system is the better for
educating children (and the appropriateness of your system in public
schools). I believe my children have been ill-served, brainwashed and badly
educated by your system operating through a public Steiner school, which
they no longer attend.
Much of what passes for deep thinking on this list is epistemological
wanking. I'm not interested in that, and it should be carried on elsewhere,
in my opinion.
When you can show me some *evidence* that your system produces advances in
humanity's understanding of its mysteries -- show me *evidence*, for
example, of the Ahrimanic spirit that you say inhabits the machine I am
using to converse with you -- I will have greater interest in your system.
Let me be clear that I do not denigrate the intensity or profundity of the
thinking that you and the other metaphysicians on this list evince. I wish
I were the intellectual, erudite, rhetorical equal of some of you. But you
can't produce the goods. Physicists and science can.
As others have said, the problem with metaphysicians -- especially cultists
-- is that they can't communicate clearly -- or don't want to.
I am not after certainty; in fact life would become boring with all
questions answered. But I do like approachability, and I especially like
new evidence. Neither are available in Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy, in
my opinion, unless I wish to become self-delusional.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n919.3 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: explaining belief systems
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:37:18 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199809161944.MAA17548 lists1.best.com)
(199809162307.QAA04051 lists1.best.com)
(199809170324.UAA20170 lists1.best.com)
(199809171630.JAA16744 lists1.best.com)
(199809171734.KAA08128 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199809171830.LAA22461 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman wrote about Kevin Houston's libertarianism and suggested a
discussion on the subject of the role of the state in education.
Although I'm not the list owner, nor an amateur "list mom", I think this is
off topic and should NOT be discussed here.
I respectfully suggest (respectfully because I appreciate the subject and
am also interested in it, and appreciate the contributions that Houston and
Beeman might make to such a discussion) that this list is not the place for
such a discussion.
The subject is off-topic for this list because the place of Steiner/
Waldrof/ Anthroposophical education in public schools, in those countries
with secular state school systems, and particularly the U.S., which is the
major location under discussion, is not subject to the resolution of a
debate about the role of the state in education.
For the purposes of this list's interest in Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposophical education's place in such public schools, the issue is
clearly the interpretation of *existing* federal and state constitutional
principles and laws. The hypothetical role of the state in some future is
not at issue.
Please stick to the list subject: criticism of Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposophical education and its place or not in the *existing*
educational frameworks.
If you want to discuss the state's role in education in speculative and
political terms, do it privately or find another list, please.
Thanks in advance.
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
) I just read your declaration that you are a libertarian., and it is of
)personal interest to me as I consider myself a libertarian. Often I
)debate a good friend of mine who works at the Pacific Research Institute
)(Libertarian think tank) in SFO as a public policy fellow. We have
)debated everything from antitrust to the tragedy of the commons to
)educational funding.
) Even within the Libertarian community there is factionalism,
)anarchists vs. minarchists (limited constitutional government etc.) are a
)good example. In fact I am attending a debate on the subject in SFO on
)Saturday, should be very interesting. Do you think that you could
)convincingly explain the nuances of such a debate, and why we should
)dismantle government as a whole to the average person?
) As a libertarian, I ask you to state what you see as the role of
)government in education? Assuming the Federal government won't go away,
)do you agree that all schools should be funded publicly (given they meet
)certain basic requirements)? Would you agree that a separation of Church
)and State with regard to education restricts freedom? I would remind you
)and others that the founding fathers did not have government controlled
)education in mind when they framed the constitution.
) I guess my point is that even Libertarianism, which claims a simple
)and consistent application of principles (and I think that is true), is
)viewed with skepticism and horror by the large majority of people in this
)country. So what then?
)e
)
)Kevin Houston wrote:
)
)) I'm a libertarian, when people ask me for more information, i gladly
)) tell them the basis of Libertarian thinking (you own yourself, and by
)) extension you own what you earn. no can steal from you, not even Govt.
)) etc., etc., etc.) if you go to the Libertarian website
)) http://www.lp.org/ , you will find many of our core beliefs, a statement
)) of principle etc.
))
)) we don't tell people you have to be a libertarian to understand this, go
)) read Adam Smith and then come back when you are conversant in free
)) market economics and can discuss utility functions and laffer curves.
))
)) Robert Flannery wrote:
)) )
)) ) )But you wrote :
)) ) ))
)) ) )) ) If you limit the search to inanimate objects, I can't think of
)) ) )) )
)) ) )) ) any examples. However, the human being has a clear "spiritual
)) ) )) ) manifestation", to my mind. I don't know if the following will
)) ) )) ) mean anything to you:
)) ) )
)) ) )If the human being has a _clear_ Spiritual manifestation, then you
)) ) )should be able to point it out to anyone, even a "spiritually blind"
))man
)) ) )like me. If I claim that human beings have a clear skeletal
))structure,
)) ) )I can point to the bones that you can feel under your skin, I can
))point
)) ) )to X-rays, I can point to autopsies. I am not asking for certainty,
)) ) )only evidence.
)) )
)) ) I said "clear 'spiritual manifestation' , to my mind".
)) )
)) ) That doesn't have anything to do with how you interpret this example.
)) ) Anticipating your rebuttals, I tried to recognize the likelihood of
)) ) divergent points of view in the last sentence you quoted, above.
)) )
)) ) It's pretty obvious to most members of this list that no matter what
)) ) evidence we bring forth or how it is presented, not many folks here
))change
)) ) their original way of thinking.
)) )
)) ) How often does it happen that anyone on this list, on either "side" of
))any
)) ) issue, says something like, "you're quite right--I see that I was
)) ) mistaken!"?
)) )
)) ) Robert Flannery
)) ) New York
)) ) litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n919.4 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: RE: new to the list
Date: 17 Sep 1998 18:40:51 -0400
Steve posted,
)That's a pretty big question you've asked. Here's an introduction
)from:
)http://www.anthroposophy.org/
)[begin quote]
)Echoing the ancient Greek axiom, "Man, know thyself," Rudolf
)Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, described it as "awareness
)of one's humanity." Nowhere is the need for such awareness
)greater than in relation to our fellow human beings, and to the life
)and work we share with them. It is this awareness that lies at the
)heart of the practical work described in this web site. The number
)and breadth of these initiatives, fostered by the General
)Anthroposophical Society that Steiner founded in 1924, reflect
)anthroposophy's progressive, healing influence on cultural life in
)North America.
) Anthroposophy embraces a spiritual view of the human being and
)the cosmos, but its emphasis is on knowing, not faith. It is a path
)in which the human heart and hand, and especially our capacity for
)thinking, are essential. It leads, in Steiner's words, "from the spirit
)in the human being to the spirit in the universe," because only if we
)first come to experience the spirit in ourselves can we know the
)cosmic spirit. But anthroposophy is more than self-development.
)Through it we recognize our humanity. Humanity (anthropos) has
)the inherent wisdom (Sophia) to transform both itself and the world.
)The practical work from agriculture to education, flows from insights
)provided by anthroposophy.
)[end quote]
)Now, that's pretty general, and gives nary a hint about the actual
)doctrines involved in anthroposophy, that is, the anthroposophical
)views of reincarnation, the journey of the soul between
)incarnations, history, Christ, the nature, types and identities of
)various spiritual beings, and so on. But poking around that site
)can give you a general idea of the type of work anthroposophists do
)in agriculture, education, and so on.
Steve,
Are you not able to make a distinction between views and "actual
doctrines"? To me, the things you chose to list are currently mostly the
minutea of anthroposophy (and the religiousy sounding bits for that matter)
Although they may have been part of the catalyst to the organization some 75
years ago, I don't experience a preoccupation with them in our waldorf school
or in all the Anthroposohists I know. I see this development of anthroposophy
in terms of the seed and the plant. You might always be able to find the seed
of the plant but the plant itself as gone on to be and involve other stuff.
To me, your statement after the quote is much more of an editorial caraciture
than anything resembling the focus of anthroposophy. But it could be wishful
thinking on my part too.
To Kevin (mostly)
To me, people involved in anthroposophy today are interested in issues of
human interrelation and social, cultural, environmental developments in the
world with, at least, the everpresent reminder that all that you see/know is
*not necessarily* all that there is. They tend to focus on the concepts of
transformation and potentiality (as modeled in the natural world and in the
growth of children into adults). Some hold onto a more preformed picture of
the meaning and the direction this will lead as indicated by Steiner, the more
dogmatic types, others are more interested in not relying heavily on the
preformed picture. (This may be a generational and/or cultural difference).
I do think to get anything out of or anywhere within anthroposophy one needs
to have at least sympathy or interest with ***the possibility*** that there is
a "spiritual content" to existence. Yet even "spiritual content" is left open
and vague today because,i feel, many people are not wholly convinced of or are
overwhelmed by or cautious of Steiner's very detailed picture of a spiritual
reality. Yet there are those that are absolutelty enthralled and excited by
his insight and shear product of mind and will (and I would add that they are
not necessarily only the dogmatic types but also those that find it
fascinating and engaging while still having a certain distance to it). I
think Steiner's original, and still only, requirement to membership in the
anthroposophical society is that one acknowledges that there is a place in
Dornach, Sitzerland, the geotheanum where people take up the study of
spiritual science. Now if that was his only requirement he must have been
expecting/planning for membership to be diverse and interests as they relate
to this topic to be broad and varied. But once again rose colored glasses and
all that.
Luke
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n919.5 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: RE:new to this list
Date: 17 Sep 1998 19:57:48 -0400
Steve, you posted
)I would hope that a good high school math teacher would at least
)tell the class what kind of things are possible through the use of
)advanced mathematics, e.g., what can be done, in a practical way,
)with calculus. Even if though the students won't be taught calculus
)before algebra, the existence of calculus, and its value, can be
)explained.
As someone who took advanced classes in mathematics I don't agree that it is a
good idea to do as you hoped. And besides this is an argument about point of
view. You probably don't want to try to explain calculus to the sixth grade
student beginning to embark on geometry. So your comment is a statement more
about someone's feeling as to the appropriate time to introduce material of
different complexities. If I can't give a complex issue an answer that I feel
does justice to the issue and the person inquiring and my ability to keep up
my end of what could amount to be an open-ended discussion, I may make the
situation worse or turn off some to the whole idea before it is even opened.
It may just as well be better for me not to say too much. Of course this is
from my perspective as the one who is contemplating embarking on the
explanation. So if you as the non-recipient are all out of whack because I
didn't jump through your hoops, tough cookies and how presumptuous. Of course
if I actually said "tough cookies and how presumptuous" that would be equally
abrasive and uncalled for. I think the saying is to look in one's own eye to
find the branch before you tell the other to take the speck out of their's
)Similarly, those who want to know about anthroposophy could be
)told of the existence of the akashic (?) record and some of the
)things that Steiner learned by exploring it, and told that they, too,
)can learn to explore the akashic record, thereby gaining a
)knowledge of historical fact through spiritual means.
...If you as the explainer are prepared to continue on in this open question
period. It sounds equally bad to just say this is what i'm able to tell you
and don't ask me anymore questions.
On the other hand Steve perhaps you would like to tell me about the Akashic
record and some of the things that Steiner learned by exploring it. Sounds
like you know more about it than i do. And remember it s not polite to
deflect my inquiry by sending me off to someone else or telling me to go read
a book about it. And if you don't tell me or "pretend" not to be able to do
so then you are being deceptive and evasive.
)If you mean, though, that people are not likely to accept this stuff
)as true unless you've first convinced them of more basic
)anthroposophical concepts, well, that's probably true. It's also cult-
)like behavior to withhold this type of knowledge until the student is
)"ready" to receive it.
What is "this type of knowledge"?
Steve,
Have you taught you child about the justice system in this country and the
death penalty? How about suicide and depression or justifiable homicide?
what about the complexities of safety and freedom. Or sex and procreation?
Are you acting cult-like with your child. No, you are assessing both your
ability to explain clearly and appropriately and making a judgement about the
recipient's ability(your child)to be able to integrate and understand what you
have to say and the manner in which you are able to say it. Give me a break
with this cult-like crap!
This paranoid belief that some one is trying to dupe you into something (by
not telling you stuff) seems more like a temper tantrum by the person saying I
want! You need to give me! Make me understand! People have got wits of their
own why not try and engage them in their quest for information. Why is it
that people want stuff but are not prepared to give anything in return but
more requests to fulfill their needs?
Steve please let me know if you think i am being abusive or abrupt, but i
think I got up on the cranky side of the bed today.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n919.6 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: RE: new to the list
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 16:57:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199809172243.PAA17618 lists1.best.com)
On 17 Sep 98, at 18:40, Luke Schelly wrote:
) Steve posted,
)
) )Now, that's pretty general, and gives nary a hint about the actual
) )doctrines involved in anthroposophy, that is, the anthroposophical
) )views of reincarnation, the journey of the soul between
) )incarnations, history, Christ, the nature, types and identities of
) )various spiritual beings, and so on.
)
) Steve,
)
) To me, the things you chose to list are currently mostly the
) minutea of anthroposophy (and the religiousy sounding bits for that
) matter) Although they may have been part of the catalyst to the
) organization some 75 years ago, I don't experience a preoccupation with
) them in our waldorf school or in all the Anthroposohists I know.
My understanding is that the anthroposophical views of
reincarnation, and of the progressive incarnation of the etheric
body, astral body, and ego, are central to Waldorf pedagogy. Is
that incorrect?
) I see
) this development of anthroposophy in terms of the seed and the plant. You
) might always be able to find the seed of the plant but the plant itself as
) gone on to be and involve other stuff.
Luke, I don't understand your metaphor. I have a sense of what
you might mean, but I do much better with ideas that are clearly
and directly expressed. Could you use words that express your
idea directly, so that I may understand it?
) To Kevin (mostly)
) To me, people involved in anthroposophy today are interested in issues
) of
) human interrelation and social, cultural, environmental developments in
) the world with, at least, the everpresent reminder that all that you
) see/know is *not necessarily* all that there is.
Well, sure, we're all interested in such issues, and people of all
spiritual persuasions carry "the everpresent reminder that all that
you see/know is *not necessarily* all that there is." But if you
want to know what anthroposophy is, you need to know those
things that distinguish anthroposophy from other spiritual pursuits.
) They tend to focus on
) the concepts of transformation and potentiality (as modeled in the natural
) world and in the growth of children into adults).
Sorry, but this is too general for me to understand. I know that the
words mean individually, but not when they're all strung together.
Again, if people are going to understand anthroposophy, it must be
explained in more specific terms.
I can understand specific concepts, e.g., that the soul incarnates
into the body in stages, what those stages are called, the specific
characteristics of each stage, and the consequences of forcing a
stage to incarnate prematurely, if the concepts are clearly
explained. That kind of specificity is what is missing from the
website I was referring to.
) Yet even "spiritual content" is left open and vague today
) because,i feel, many people are not wholly convinced of or are overwhelmed
) by or cautious of Steiner's very detailed picture of a spiritual reality.
That's my point. Talking about the details of Steiner's picture of
spiritual reality tends to alienate people. And yet, the pedagogy of
Waldorf schools is based on that picture, so prospective parents
should have a clear description of that picture before they are
asked to trust their kids to the school (not to mention being asked
to plunk down a large sum of money).
That does not mean, necessarily, that the parents need to be told
all about Steiner's views on Lucifer, Ahriman and Christ, although it
would be nice. But a clear statement of the teachings that underly
the pedagogy should be provided. They may not choose to read it,
but they should not have to read dozens of lecture transcripts to
get the picture. This would include a discussion of the etheric
body, the astral body, and the ego. And since ancient history is
taught in a manner which tracks Steiner's view of the progressive
spiritual development of humanity, his ideas about the spiritual
characteristics of the ancient civilizations should also be explained
clearly.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n919.7 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Fwd: Money Refund
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 98 23:11:00 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ----------------
Date: 09/14 10:13 PM
Received: 09/15 7:26 PM
From: spike, spike netshel.net
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
Charlie Frey writes:
) Dan writes:
) ) Harm? Yes, I
) )am harmed when my tax money goes to teacher training at Rudolf Steiner
) )College.
)
) My money, my money...blah blah blah
) My offer still stands to refund the portion of your tax money that goes
) toward Waldorf Education...and not just at RSC!
Will you refund my money too? Will you refund the training money that
was spent to brainwash me in Steiner's pedagogy? I could have applied
that money to much more useful training and not had to endure the
chanting, silent communication, fairytales, marching, wet on wet
painting, etc. I could have actually studied something relevant to my
students. I could have spent that money on classroom materials that
actually educated adolescents in a manner that could have helped prepare
them to competently meet their future.
But, it's never too late. If you refund the money misspent on my Waldorf
training I will promise to spend it on what I perceive to be relevant
teacher training for at-risk children.
Kathy
----------------- End Forwarded Message -----------------
It seems to me that your Waldorf training has given you a new life and
mission!
There is no amount of money that can replace that.
Best,
charlie
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n919.8 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: RE: treatment of gifted children and P of F
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 98 23:18:50 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Dan wrote:
)Magnificent rant, Charlie.
Hey, I'm good...what else can I say?
xxxooo
cf
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n919.9 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Independent Prosecutors
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 23:20:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199809161944.MAA17548 lists1.best.com)
(199809162307.QAA04051 lists1.best.com)
(199809170324.UAA20170 lists1.best.com)
(199809171630.JAA16744 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199809171732.KAA03984 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman, you wrote,
)Dialogue is an illusion at best when engaged in without good faith.
Who are you accusing of not speaking in good faith, Ezra? Please tell us.
Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they are dishonest.
) Unfortunately, this list is a forum in the same way that the
)Inquisition or HUAC was a forum.
This is really silly, Ezra. There are no subpoena'd witnesses here, and no
authorities meting out punishment. Just free discussion. Are you a sore
loser?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n919.10 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: treatment of gifted children and P of F
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 23:57:52 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199809161850.LAA07602 lists1.best.com)
)Daniel:
))) Steiner firmly supported cross-cultural
))) marriage.
)
)Steve:
))That's good to know. If that includes interracial marriage, it goes a
))long way toward showing that Steiner was not *that* racist.
)
)Daniel, I know that you are well read, at least where Steiner is
)concerned. Being of fair mind, I'd like to see something in writing that
)shows Steiner supported cross-cultural marriage. Can you help me out?
)(Out of context quotes are fine by me.)
)Thanks,
)Debra
I can contribute something here. Steiner said that greatness came from
mixing blood lines:
[A] personality like Dante cannot be born of homogeneous blood. To belong
to a single nation is impossible for such a soul. It needs a mysterious
alchemy; various blood streams must flow together. Whatever those
over-patriotic people might say who claim great personalities for a single
people, there is no great reality behind it!
[Steiner, Rudolf. The Karma of Untruthfulness: Volume One. (1916) Trans.
Johanna Collis. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1988, p. 121.]
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n919 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n920 --------------
001 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: New to this list.
002 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Center for Frontier Science: recent articles
003 - RebFree aol.com - Spiritual in Everyday Objects
004 - RebFree aol.com - racism
005 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: New to this list.
006 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: treatment of gifted children and P of F - Racism
007 - Gary Meier (meierg pt.Cya - Atlantis "facts"
008 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - RE:new to this list
009 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Explaning belief systems
010 - Kevin Houston (khouston o - Re: Explaning belief systems
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n920.1 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: New to this list.
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:01:36 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199809171446.HAA14476 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Perez, you wrote,
)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.
A lot has happened since Kant! You should at least include Karl Popper in
your summary.
)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."
If you can't handle uncertainty I guess you should cling to religion.
)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.
PEREZ
)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.
Not really, Daniel. Knowlege is progressive, we stand on the shoulders of
our predecessors. If each person had to build a world-view from scratch,
we'd be in a sorry state. For example, Sacks pointed out that people born
deaf invent "home sign" languages to communicate with their families, but
home sign is impoverished compared to a language like American Sign
Language that has developed over generations.
)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.
Very well, if Steiner's PoSA is "based on logic and reason," please
summarize it for us as you did with Kant.
)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.
Sure, how about bible-based Christianity. God said it, it's in the book,
it's certain knowledge.
)We have had extensive discourse on the question of "Can you provide an
)example of a common everyday object (or not so common
)if that is a problem) which has a "spiritual manifestation" and how I might
)experience it?" The anthro-science list archives should have info on that
)topic. The subject "Mr. Miller" was about this.
Tell us about it here, Daniel.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n920.2 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Center for Frontier Science: recent articles
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 98 03:28:13 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
A few months back, we discussed an article titled: THE HEART IS NOT A
PUMP: A REFUTATION OF THE PRESSURE PROPULSION PREMISE OF HEART FUNCTION
by Ralph Marinelli [Rudolf Steiner Research Center, Royal Oak, MI]. This
piece of delusional junk appeared as an article in the Fall 1995 edition
of a journal called FRONTIER SCIENCE published by the Center for Frontier
Science [Temple University, Philadelphia, PA].
Now, a recent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer discusses the "Center
for Frontier Science", and it's journal.
CALL IT FREEDOM, OR BEYOND THE FRINGE?
Activity at Temple University's Center for
Frontier Science is the Target of a Columnist"
-- Philadelphia Inquirer 8/31/98
Faye Flam, Staff Writer
This lengthy article was occasioned by a column by Martin Gardner titled
"What's Going On at Temple University?". Gardner's column, critical of
Temple University was just published in the September/October 1998
edition of SI.
Reporter Flam observes that Gardner finds the articles published by the
Center for Frontier Science to be pseudoscience, not science.
CSICOP fellow and Temple mathematician, John Allen Paulos comments on the
"Center for Frontier Science", saying: "It's been like the scandal of the
lobotomized cousin up in the attic."
CSICOP is the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the
Paranormal, publisher of the Skeptical Inquirer bimonthly magazine. For
more about CSICOP, take the link off our website
[http://www.eb-skeptics.org]
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n920.3 ---------------
From: RebFree aol.com
Subject: Spiritual in Everyday Objects
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 07:57:38 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
For "the steps" to developing spiritual sight, please read "Knowledge of the
Higher World and its Attainment." This is under several titles, the most
recent of which may be "How to Know Higher Worlds." While you are reading
this book, you can do the 6 subsidiary exercises, which I will be happy to fax
to you, as I do not want to type them out. Email me privately with your fax
number.
Others may know of other paths to developing spiritual sight, which they can
contribute.
My experience of reading Philosophy of Freedom was that it did not so much
give a path to developing spiritual sight as it very logically and
systematically explained thinking. (Or something like that. I couldn't
follow it very well. :-) )
Rebecah
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n920.4 ---------------
From: RebFree aol.com
Subject: racism
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:05:11 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I am an Anthroposophist and a Waldorf Early Childhood teacher. I have been
following this thread silently, as it interests me. There are a couple of
questions I have.
1. What is the source for the comment about the blacks being inferior in mind
and body? (This greatly disturbed me, as it is a blatant judgement.)
2. About Steiner's "racism" in general; what policies or actions did he
recommend that were racist? (My assumption in asking this is that there is
something happening in Anthroposophy, or as a result of it, that is racist
activity about which members of this list are concerned. I have not seen it,
and if it exists, then I want to eradicate it, if possible.)
Rebecah
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n920.5 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: New to this list.
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 09:59:41 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Friday, September 18, 1998 12:57 AM
Subject: Re: New to this list.
)Daniel Perez, you wrote,
)
))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.
)
)A lot has happened since Kant! You should at least include Karl Popper in
)your summary.
)
I invite a summary as to how Karl Popper transcends the gap between thinking
and perception. Is there a source on the web with info on him?
))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."
)
)If you can't handle uncertainty I guess you should cling to religion.
)
Unless I can do away with the uncertainty. Are you suggesting uncertainty
is better than certainty! Now we have learned something about you.
))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.
)
)PEREZ
))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.
)
)Not really, Daniel. Knowlege is progressive, we stand on the shoulders of
)our predecessors. If each person had to build a world-view from scratch,
)we'd be in a sorry state. For example, Sacks pointed out that people born
)deaf invent "home sign" languages to communicate with their families, but
)home sign is impoverished compared to a language like American Sign
)Language that has developed over generations.
)
Spiritual science builds on the shoulders of the past initiates. People
like St. Thomas, Kepler, Copernicus. They all wrote about the underlying
spiritual significance of the outer world.
))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.
)
)Very well, if Steiner's PoSA is "based on logic and reason," please
)summarize it for us as you did with Kant.
)
I don't have the time to teach you philosophy. The book is available for
you to read.
))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.
)
)Sure, how about bible-based Christianity. God said it, it's in the book,
)it's certain knowledge.
)
How do you know for certain it was God that said it?
))We have had extensive discourse on the question of "Can you provide an
))example of a common everyday object (or not so common
))if that is a problem) which has a "spiritual manifestation" and how I
might
))experience it?" The anthro-science list archives should have info on that
))topic. The subject "Mr. Miller" was about this.
)
)Tell us about it here, Daniel.
)
I don't find this path to be a fruitful one. I'll pass. The philosophical
arguments are concrete according to your own logic systems, straying beyond
that is not helpful.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n920.6 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: treatment of gifted children and P of F - Racism
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:13:25 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
First you call him racist, then you fault him for admiring the beauty of
what can occur through the mixing of races. Make up your mind, Dan. The
spirit is always first on the mind of Steiner, matter is the *reflection* of
spirit. Any geneticist knows what happens with in-breeding. Are the
geneticists racist? Why don't you propose your theory of racial development
and genetics. Natural selection is a racist doctrine, is it not?
- Daniel.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Friday, September 18, 1998 12:55 AM
Subject: Re: treatment of gifted children and P of F
))Daniel:
)))) Steiner firmly supported cross-cultural
)))) marriage.
))
))Steve:
)))That's good to know. If that includes interracial marriage, it goes a
)))long way toward showing that Steiner was not *that* racist.
))
))Daniel, I know that you are well read, at least where Steiner is
))concerned. Being of fair mind, I'd like to see something in writing that
))shows Steiner supported cross-cultural marriage. Can you help me out?
))(Out of context quotes are fine by me.)
))Thanks,
))Debra
)
)I can contribute something here. Steiner said that greatness came from
)mixing blood lines:
)
)[A] personality like Dante cannot be born of homogeneous blood. To belong
)to a single nation is impossible for such a soul. It needs a mysterious
)alchemy; various blood streams must flow together. Whatever those
)over-patriotic people might say who claim great personalities for a single
)people, there is no great reality behind it!
)
)[Steiner, Rudolf. The Karma of Untruthfulness: Volume One. (1916) Trans.
)Johanna Collis. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1988, p. 121.]
)
)-Dan Dugan
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n920.7 ---------------
From: Gary Meier (meierg pt.Cyanamid.COM)
Subject: Atlantis "facts"
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 98 14:27:15 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199809171802.LAA03039 lists1.best.com)
Robert Tolz wrote:
) Curiously, Steiner is not the only person who seems to have reported
)detailed facts about the civilization of Atlantis and even its
)predecessor civilizations. Do a search in Amazon.com for "Lemuria" and
)you'll see what I mean. I wonder what proportion of those descriptions
)are from people who alleged themselves to be directly privy to some form
)of clairvoyant transmittal, and what proportion are from people who are
)providing hearsay regarding what someone else previously reported.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Steiner is not the only person to
have SPECULATED about the civilization of Atlantis? I don't think a whole
lot of "detailed facts" about Atlantis exist. Clairvoyant transmittal is
not a source of "fact", no matter what the Psychic Friends commercials may
claim.
I haven't done much reading on the subject in a decade, but I believe the
best accepted Atlantean hypothesis at that time was that the island of
Crete, wiped out by the tsunami caused by the explosion of Santorini, was
the most probable origin of the "sunken continent" legend.
Gary
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n920.8 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: RE:new to this list
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:35:54 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199809172358.QAA20220 lists1.best.com)
On 17 Sep 98, at 19:57, Luke Schelly wrote:
) Steve, you posted
)
) )I would hope that a good high school math teacher would at least
) )tell the class what kind of things are possible through the use of
) )advanced mathematics, e.g., what can be done, in a practical way,
) )with calculus. Even if though the students won't be taught calculus
) )before algebra, the existence of calculus, and its value, can be
) )explained.
)
) As someone who took advanced classes in mathematics I don't agree that it
) is a good idea to do as you hoped.
Well, OK, we can disagree on that.
) You probably don't want to try to explain calculus to the
) sixth grade student beginning to embark on geometry. So your comment is a
) statement more about someone's feeling as to the appropriate time to
) introduce material of different complexities.
Perhaps it was a poor example. My point is that the theory behind
the education should be made available to prospective parents.
Some people who have no problem with spirituality in general have
a big problem with a system based on very specific beliefs about
the nature of the spiritual realm. Those folks should be able to
learn about those beliefs by having them explained in a fairly
simple matter.
) )Similarly, those who want to know about anthroposophy could be
) )told of the existence of the akashic (?) record and some of the
) )things that Steiner learned by exploring it, and told that they, too, can
) )learn to explore the akashic record, thereby gaining a knowledge of
) )historical fact through spiritual means.
)
) On the other hand Steve perhaps you would like to tell me about the
) Akashic record and some of the things that Steiner learned by exploring it.
Not really, I don't understand it well enough. I believe, though, that
Steiner's unconventional ideas about history, including the spiritual
abilities of those living in ancient civilizations, the existence and
nature of Atlantis, the nature of Christ, and so on, were learned
through studying the Akashic record. (My understanding is that
calling it a "record" is a bit of a metaphor, in that it's not like
reading something in a book.)
) And remember it s not
) polite to deflect my inquiry by sending me off to someone else or telling
) me to go read a book about it.
It's good to see that you're concerned about people being polite
and respectful on this list. I'm concerned about that as well.
) And if you don't tell me or "pretend" not
) to be able to do so then you are being deceptive and evasive.
How do you figure?
) )If you mean, though, that people are not likely to accept this stuff as
) )true unless you've first convinced them of more basic anthroposophical
) )concepts, well, that's probably true. It's also cult- like behavior to
) )withhold this type of knowledge until the student is "ready" to receive
) )it.
)
) What is "this type of knowledge"?
Specific information about Steiner's view of the spiritual realm, as
opposed to general pronouncements about recognizing the spiritual
element in human beings.
) Have you taught you child about the justice system in this country and the
) death penalty? How about suicide and depression or justifiable homicide?
) what about the complexities of safety and freedom. Or sex and
) procreation?
Well, now, that's not really your business, is it?
) Give me a break with this cult-like crap!
Well, Luke, I'm sorry my opinions offend you, but I'm going to
continue posting them. If you don't want to read them, though,
that's up to you. You can probably even set up a kill file on your
email program.
) People have got
) wits of their own why not try and engage them in their quest for
) information.
That's what we're trying to do on this list, isn't it?
) Why is it that people want stuff but are not prepared to
) give anything in return but more requests to fulfill their needs?
To whom are you referring? Folks like me who say that the
spiritual doctrines underlying the pedagogy should be explained to
the parents before they're asked to trust their kids to the school?
) Steve please let me know if you think i am being abusive or abrupt, but i
) think I got up on the cranky side of the bed today.
Well, let's just say that you're taking my post way too personally.
I'm not interested in attacking anybody. Believe it or not, I have no
anger or resentment toward Waldorf schools. The school with
which I've had experience is a good school, and I like it.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n920.9 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Explaning belief systems
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 13:42:29 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
) I agree that to explain _all_ the nuances to the average person might be
) difficult, but explain the basics of the argument? Yes, I think that
) can be done easily in a few paragraphs. (NB Im a minarchist)
Here I think we agree at the outset, but diverge in our conclusions. Your rational seems to assume that explanation of a theorie's basic elements, or the simplification of those elements, makes them more rather than less sensible. This is not my experience (unless you're dealing with an overly complicated system to begin with).
Please keep in mind that in order to maintain the analogy between explaining libertarianism and anthroposophy, you must assume an audience of monarchists, communists, anarchists as well as the occasional believer in democratic rule. Perhaps you begin to see the problems associated with such an endeavor. (One's reliance on normative assumptions of fairness, righteousness and justice). Now take it a step further, and pretend you speak only rough English but fluent Finnish(or some other
language sufficiently removed from English's branch on the Indo-European tree). If you were describing simple and universal concepts like 'food' or 'yak' you would do fine, but a debate on government would be futile until either you or your party mastered the other's language (and its idioms).
I think your examples are fair, but presuppose primary notions of property and government that most people in this country (and around the world) would not understand (they will understand the words themselves, but the concepts will not make sense). To many, the libertarian reliance (indeed faith in) the market mechanism for almost everything is downright frightening. What of the poor? What of the sick? What of the weak? I mean these questions metaphorically speaking.
A personal favorite mental exercise of mine, is to try and rationalize why 'freedom to' is ontologically primary to 'freedom from'. (Such a notion was brought to my attention in 'The Handmaiden's Tale' by Margaret Atwood.)
To restate what is now a somewhat muddled point: Explaining a sophisticated tapestry, woven in revolutionary knots and unusual or even strange colors, is not simple. The complexity of the task rises with that of the system it attempts to explain. Lastly, I do not believe it an impossible or even unworthy task. I do believe there is no quick solution and there are some things that must be experienced to be understood (culture?).
e
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n920.10 ---------------
From: Kevin Houston (khouston onel.com)
Subject: Re: Explaning belief systems
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:17:10 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809182044.NAA12728 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman wrote:
)
) Here I think we agree at the outset, but diverge in our
)conclusions. Your rational seems to assume that explanation of
)a theorie's basic elements, or the simplification of those
)elements, makes them more rather than less sensible. This is
)not my experience (unless you're dealing with an overly
)complicated system to begin with).
no, Im not saying that it makes the theory anything at all, just that it
passes knowledge on to the listener. maybe a little, maybe a lot, maybe
it is wrong, but it is knowledge and it does increase the recipients
base.
(snip stuff about different language.)
) To restate what is now a somewhat muddled point: Explaining a
) sophisticated tapestry, woven in revolutionary knots and unusual
) or even strange colors, is not simple. The complexity of the
) task rises with that of the system it attempts to explain.
) Lastly, I do not believe it an impossible or even unworthy
) task. I do believe there is no quick solution and there are
) some things that must be experienced to be understood (culture?).
your response seems to be you cannot possibly explain this to me,
because I don't speak your "language" Ok, Try me. let us hear your
words, and judge for ourselves if we are capable of understanding.
again, how do I perceive the "spiritual component" of inanimate objects?
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n920 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n921 --------------
001 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - RE:new to this list
002 - Kevin Houston (khouston o - Scientific "view" (was New to this list.)
003 - Kevin Houston (khouston o - Re: new to the list
004 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Zen and the art of explanation
005 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Scientific "view" (was New to this list.)
006 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - RE:new to this list
007 - Kevin Houston (khouston o - Re: Zen and the art of explanation
008 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: New to this list
009 - Kevin Houston (khouston o - Re: Scientific "view" (was New to this list.)
010 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - RE: A possible life lesson
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n921.1 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: RE:new to this list
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:21:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Steve Wrote:
Perhaps it was a poor example. My point is that the theory behind
the education should be made available to prospective parents.
Some people who have no problem with spirituality in general have
a big problem with a system based on very specific beliefs about
the nature of the spiritual realm. Those folks should be able to
learn about those beliefs by having them explained in a fairly
simple matter.
------------------------------------------------
There are some general beliefs that could be portrayed, but overall they
would fall short of answering very much. It is silly to talk about advanced
theory that really doesn't impact the pedagogy directly. I know I'm going
to get a flurry of email on that one. When visiting a medical doctor, they
do not go into the chemistry of the body except in very general terms. The
same rules apply, only it is not life-and-death in the case of pedagogy.
Most schools encourage parents to learn about AP, but you can't force
people. It is a process, not some flyer that can list the entire system.
Steve Wrote:
Not really, I don't understand it well enough. I believe, though, that
Steiner's unconventional ideas about history, including the spiritual
abilities of those living in ancient civilizations, the existence and
nature of Atlantis, the nature of Christ, and so on, were learned
through studying the Akashic record. (My understanding is that
calling it a "record" is a bit of a metaphor, in that it's not like
reading something in a book.)
------------------------------------------------
Those ideas really have nothing to do directly with the pedagogy. I'm
waiting for the second flame at this point! :~).
Luke Schelly Wrote:
) Have you taught you child about the justice system in this country and the
) death penalty? How about suicide and depression or justifiable homicide?
) what about the complexities of safety and freedom. Or sex and
) procreation?
Steve Wrote:
Well, now, that's not really your business, is it?
--------------------------------------------------
That is pretty evasive and cult-like Steve. This is an example, you can
keep it to the theoretical.
Steve Wrote:
Well, let's just say that you're taking my post way too personally.
I'm not interested in attacking anybody. Believe it or not, I have no
anger or resentment toward Waldorf schools. The school with
which I've had experience is a good school, and I like it.
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry Steve, but people are either fundamentalist materialists like Dugan,
or else all over the map, never really taking a stand on anything. That is
what frustrates people. One day you see a view and the next you don't.
That is what it seems like, but maybe I'm wrong on that.
- Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n921.2 ---------------
From: Kevin Houston (khouston onel.com)
Subject: Scientific "view" (was New to this list.)
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:46:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809171446.HAA14476 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Perez wrote:
)
) )
) )And if anyone does have a creative use for CDs, I would like to hear it,
) )since I have about 15 AOL CD's that I can not bear to throw away. I
) )have already used one for a coaster, and i never was much into mobiles,
) )so don't send those ideas.
) )
) In the future we should be able to insert them into our gas tanks directly
) ...... are they not a petroleum product? :~).
Alas they are contaminated with a layer of aluminum, which would do
terrible things to your pistons and cylinders. At least this is my
prediction based on my experience with moving metal parts and
contaminants.
) )Proved? really? I would like to see this "proof" that the modern
) )scientific view has no foundation. I could understand saying that the
) )modern scientific worldview is not reality, but to say it has no
) )foundation, is non-sense. Everything has a foundation. The foundation
) )may be flawed, but there most certainly is one.
) )
) The statement was, "Steiner proved that the modern scientific *view* of the
) world has no foundation." I am not trying to play word games, as some
But I am still saying that the *view* has a foundation. you may argue
that this foundation is flawed, but there is a foundation (or how could
we be talking about it?) When we speak, do we not mention the thing we
speak of? Therefore how can it not exist? but even beyond semantic
games, the scientific *view* of the world is founded upon observation,
experiment, and prediction. The last part is not "proof", but it does
show that that model under consideration has value. As long as the
predictions turn out true.
) "critics" like to accuse me. If the sentence was unclear I will clarify:
) the *view* has no foundation. The material world obviously has foundation,
) I was not refering to that. Perhaps it is a matter of semantics. I term a
nor was I.
) foundation that is so flawed that it is not reality, "no foundation." If I
in what way is the view flawed. I think this is a valid argument for
your case, I just would like to hear you enumerate one single example
that is counter to the modern scientific view of the world (an example
where modern science predicts one thing, but the reality is different
from what the theory predicts)
) say I can run the marathon, but I discover I am without legs, then the view
) that I can run the marathon has no foundation. Don't give me a cybernetics
) based response! :~).
I won't. The view in this case does have a foundation, unfortunately,
it's foundation is based in madness (refusing to accept your lack of
legs.) but again, the foundation *is* there. your *view* is founded on
something, no matter how insane that something is.
) On the topic of worldview, let me repost what I wrote to Steve Premo once.
) It refers to Kants philosophy and critical idealism:
)
(snip)
)
) 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
But this is precisely what interests me in AS, Stiener claims (If I
understand correctly) that _any_ person can have "certain knowledge".
How is this achieved?
) 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."
)
I would say that the modern scientific view would be better stated as
"based on repeated experiment, an object under certain strict conditions
will always behave in the following manner." An example would be the
mixing of Sodium Hydroxide and Hydrochloric acid, provided the
concentrations are precise, and the amount of acid is exactly the same
as the amount of hydroxide, then you end up with salt water, which could
be drunk safely. Even though each substance alone would cause you great
distress.
) 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.
We do "know", based on past experience. I have never witnessed or heard
of the acid/hydroxide experiment failing, therefore I can predict that
the mixed liquids will be safe to drink. Even though I know form prior
experience that either liquid alone will not be safe. How can I know
that hydrochloric acid is not safe to drink, have i drunk it before?
no. I have, however spilled acid on my hand. it burned. I know from
countless practical experience with this body that anything which will
burn my hand will be even worse when it comes into contact with my
throat. also, I have never experienced acid changing to neutral liquid
spontaneously. therefore I can predict that hydrochloric acid will burn
my throat severely if I drink it.
) 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.
Okay, I'll bite, what is the nature of your thinking? (no ad hominem
intended)
) 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.
Please outline this experiment. how does the critical idealistic
reasoning not stand up to scrutiny, and how does PoSA stand up better?
) 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.
how did he demonstrate that precepts can be known for certain?
) - Daniel.
)
) )
) )Can you provide an example of a common everyday object (or not so common
) )if that is a problem) which has a "spiritual manifestation" and how I
) )might experience it? Spirituality is a property assigned by human
) )beings, not inherent in inanimate objects. Even a CD of Gospel music is
) )not inherently spritual, it is only the humans who hear it which can be
) )moved by the CD's 'spirit'. A caveman, devoid of a CD-player, cannot
) )comprehend the beautiful melodies, to him it is only a strangely colored
) )flat round thing. Any purpose he could put it to would be just as well
) )served by a CD containing anything at all, from a solid string of
) )"AAAAAAAAA...", to a CD of the Starr Report (trying to find an example
) )of non-spirituality).
) You are right that a CD "comes to life" when experienced by an individual.
) That says nothing about whether the object is purely physical or spiritual.
No, you have missed my point. The point is, that a CD is a "flat round
pretty" to the caveman, he is unable to tell what data is on it. Just
as I am unable to tell what spirit is on (or in) it. i do not seem to
possess the "player" required to experience this facet. Now along comes
AS which claims that I do have such a player. All I'm asking for is for
someone to point out the play button to me, all the answer i have gotten
is "Read the schematic"
) How do you know for certain that, "Spirituality is a property assigned by
) human
I cannot, no person can ever prove a negative. but you are stating a
positive. Positives can be proven. The onus is on you to show that
objects do contain a "spiritual manifestation", not the other way
round. I cannot "prove" that the sky will never be blue at midnight.
But if you say that the sky was blue last midnight, you must provide
evidence. Your single picture (with appropriate evidence as to the
current time) would be enough to prove your point, and I would be forced
to accept the fact that the sky can be blue at midnight. you need only
point to one example. I have yet to hear it.
) beings, not inherent in inanimate objects? " Your worldview does not allow
) that statement. The basis for that statement has already been *proven*
It does not allow that statement now, show me one tiny example, and my
world view will crumble and change in a blink of an eye. You seem to be
saying that in order to show me the proof, I must first accept the proof
as valid. this is circular logic.
) false. You can not have certainty with the Kantian view. Kopp calls me
) "intransigent." I call it "fact." Kopp and other are "transigent" (not a
) real word), because they have no solid foundation.
I dont need certainty, I am quite comfortable with uncertainty. But
here is someone who says certainty can be had, this intrigues me. but
if intransigent means close-minded, does transigent mean open minded?
if so, put me down as transigent.
)
) We have had extensive discourse on the question of "Can you provide an
) example of a common everyday object (or not so common
) if that is a problem) which has a "spiritual manifestation" and how I might
) experience it?" The anthro-science list archives should have info on that
) topic. The subject "Mr. Miller" was about this.
I don't belong to that list. what was the conclusion of the discussion.
Kevin Houston
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n921.3 ---------------
From: Kevin Houston (khouston onel.com)
Subject: Re: new to the list
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:40:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809172041.NAA06736 lists1.best.com)
Luke Schelly wrote:
)
) Kevin Houston responded to Daniel's post
)
) Daniel Perez :
) ) That is the Anthroposophical Society in America site.
) ) Arthur Zajonc is the president. He is a physicist in a major university and
) ) is living in Amherst, MA. Anthroposophists on this and other lists can help
) ) with further questions. If you are open minded you will discover many new
) ) and fruitful ideas. For starters, Steiner proved that the modern scientific
) ) view of the world has no foundation, that to know the world is to understand
)
) Kevin:
) Proved? really? I would like to see this "proof" that the modern
) scientific view has no foundation. I could understand saying that the
) modern scientific worldview is not reality, but to say it has no
) foundation, is non-sense. Everything has a foundation. The foundation
) may be flawed, but there most certainly is one.
)
) Luke
) I think the book Daniel would refer you to is the "Philosophy of Freedom" by
) Steiner. If you are looking to have a debate/discussion on this idea (which i
) think you have to agree is a big idea) then i think this book is probably only
) one of a number of philosophy concepts your going to have to have at your
) disposal to get anywhere.
i agree it is a big subject, but i disagree that we can not discuss the
ideas without reference to the book, we share a language in common, we
should be able to arrive at an understanding. If you read this post, I
think you will agree we are making progress.
) (if this is what critics mean when they say supporters require extensive
) reading in order to understand/discuss issues, I say if you can't be bothered
) to even read some material *not buy into it, just read it* why should anyone
) else who is interested in it feel obligated to have a discussion with you. It
) seems quite egotistical and presumptuous to expect people to discuss things on
) command when you aren't even really prepared to engage their interest)
But why should I invest weeks of time reading a book that may not
interest me, when a few words on your part would enlighten me, and give
me the information needed to decide if it is worth my time to
investigate further. this was the reason for my analogy to
Libertarianism, I don't tell people to read "The wealth of nations"
before I can even think about discussing economic theory with them. I
am conversant enough in it to summarize, and if the other person has
trouble with the concept, I might then direct them to a book, or a more
knowledgeable person.
)
) Daniel
) ) both its spiritual and physical manifestation. Every bit of matter has both
) ) components and we do not know the world or ourselves without this complete
) ) understanding.
)
) Kevin
) Can you provide an example of a common everyday object (or not so common
) if that is a problem) which has a "spiritual manifestation" and how I
) might experience it?
)
) Luke:
) This might not be right ( i'm not a member of the anthroposophical
) society),and i will probably be working at cross purposes here, but what about
) the American Flag or the Torah or a picture of a starving child or a painting
) in a art museum. All of these things have/are imbued with meanings that are
) not physically there. Yes, all or many of these qualities are manifested
But meanings are not spiritual manifestations, or are they? If I
understand AS properly, the "spiritual component" within the flag,
should be evident to anyone who can see these "spiritual components"
even if they never saw a flag, never heard of america. Can an object
with evil meaning (a book on Satanism for example) house a good spirit?
can an object with good meaning (a book on God) house a bad spirit? do
good and bad have any meaning within this context?
[OFF topic humor -did you hear about the dyslexic Satanist? he sold his
soul to Santa. ;)]
) within humans but i didn't hear anyone say that they could not be manifested
) inside humans, just that be manifested and you could experience it. I think
) that one might say that all knowing is manifested inside humans so the
) appearance that spiritual manifestations of physical objects are primarily
) only manifested within humans seems to be no big stumbling block. To be even
) more pedantic Daniel said .."that to know the world is to understand both its
) spiritual and physical manifestation. Every bit of matter has both components
) and we do not know the world or ourselves without this complete
) understanding." Nowhere does it say that manifestations have to be somewhere
) in particular or especially that they have to be outside the human being.
OK, I can accept this. The object has a spiritual component, but it
only manifests within the human being. (a "tree falling in the forest,
makes no sound if there is not a human to listen" kind of property)
Does each object manifest it's own unique spiritual component, or do all
objects share the same spiritual component?
) Kevin :
) Spirituality is a property assigned by human beings, not inherent in inanimate
) objects.
)
) Luke
) Can you give me an example of an inanimate object that has no inherent
) spirituality?
Of course I can't, no one can prove a negative. but since you are
saying that all objects have an inherent spiritual component, you should
be able to prove the positive.
) Kevin
) Even a CD of Gospel music is
) not inherently spritual, it is only the humans who hear it which can be
) moved by the CD's 'spirit'.
)
) Luke: (straw man?)
) I think you are refering to the music recorded on the CD not the CD itself.
Correct on both counts, I withdraw the example.
)
) Kevin:
) A caveman, devoid of a CD-player, cannot
) comprehend the beautiful melodies, to him it is only a strangely colored
) flat round thing. Any purpose he could put it to would be just as well
) served by a CD containing anything at all, from a solid string of
) "AAAAAAAAA...", to a CD of the Starr Report (trying to find an example
) of non-spirituality).
)
) Luke
) you are still refering to the content of the CD housed in it(on it) not the CD
) itself. Maybe you should try regarding the CD itself?
)
Ok, good suggestion. if I understand your position, this round piece of
plastic contains or is imbued with something not matter, not energy, but
something else, and furthermore, your position is that this other thing
can be experienced by me without the need for a "CD player". i have a
CD (evil AOL CD) now what do I do? close my eyes and hum 'OM' to myself
... help me out here. (not trying to be insulting, just trying to
understand.
Kevin Houston.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n921.4 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Zen and the art of explanation
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:40:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809182044.NAA12728 lists1.best.com) (199809182117.OAA04193 lists1.best.com)
Kevin Houston wrote:
) no, Im not saying that it (the explanation) makes the theory anything at all, just that it
) passes knowledge on to the listener.
Yes, you are assuming an increase in knowledge. Correct me where I am wrong, but knowledge is a positive thing, it is information. Two examples of what could be passed on instead of information is noise, and disinformation.
) maybe a little, maybe a lot, maybe
) it is wrong, but it is knowledge and it does increase the recipients
) base.
Not if it is noise or disinformation.
) your response seems to be you cannot possibly explain this to me,
) because I don't speak your "language" Ok, Try me. let us hear your
) words, and judge for ourselves if we are capable of understanding.
) again, how do I perceive the "spiritual component" of inanimate objects?
Actually I cannot possibly explain it to you because I know nothing about it, other than as a 'product' of it. Let try a different analogy and ask how you might explain what philosophy is to someone who has never encountered it. As a philosophy major (someone you might suppose in the best position to explain such a question) I often find myself at a complete loss when trying describe it in layman's terms. It is so many things. Yet for every simplification I can make, hundreds of exceptions
to such a simplification spring to mind. I am left with little more than the dictionary definition to fall back on.
I think maybe explaining Zen to someone might have been a better analogy.
Back to the question of whether someone else can explain Anthroposophy to you, I don't know. It was my intention to give some rational as to why it hadn't already been encapsulated on a web page for speedy and certain understanding. (this is mostly tongue in cheek)
e
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n921.5 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Scientific "view" (was New to this list.)
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:46:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809171446.HAA14476 lists1.best.com) (199809182126.OAA11638 lists1.best.com)
I don't understand your statement that something negative cannot be proven. Could you rephrase that or explain what is meant by that? In math, many things are proven inductively, which calls for proving the inverse of something is always false. Am I confusing false and negative here? (I know they are not necessarily the same)
e
Kevin Houston wrote:
) I cannot, no person can ever prove a negative. but you are stating a
) positive. Positives can be proven. The onus is on you to show that
) objects do contain a "spiritual manifestation", not the other way
) round. I cannot "prove" that the sky will never be blue at midnight.
) But if you say that the sky was blue last midnight, you must provide
) evidence. Your single picture (with appropriate evidence as to the
) current time) would be enough to prove your point, and I would be forced
) to accept the fact that the sky can be blue at midnight. you need only
) point to one example. I have yet to hear it.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n921.6 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: RE:new to this list
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:47:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199809182118.OAA05776 lists1.best.com)
On 18 Sep 98, at 17:21, Daniel Perez wrote:
) Steve Wrote:
) Not really, I don't understand it well enough. I believe, though, that
) Steiner's unconventional ideas about history, including the spiritual
) abilities of those living in ancient civilizations, the existence and
) nature of Atlantis, the nature of Christ, and so on, were learned through
) studying the Akashic record. (My understanding is that calling it a
) "record" is a bit of a metaphor, in that it's not like reading something
) in a book.) ------------------------------------------------
) Those ideas
) really have nothing to do directly with the pedagogy. I'm waiting for the
) second flame at this point! :~).
Yes, I know, Luke asked a question and I was trying to answer it. I
did not say that the concept of the Akashic record must be
explained to prospective parents.
) Steve Wrote:
) Well, let's just say that you're taking my post way too personally.
) I'm not interested in attacking anybody. Believe it or not, I have no
) anger or resentment toward Waldorf schools. The school with which I've
) had experience is a good school, and I like it.
)
)Sorry Steve, but people
) are either fundamentalist materialists like Dugan, or else all over the
) map, never really taking a stand on anything.
Daniel, there are only two kinds of people: those who divide
humanity into two kinds of people, and those who don't.
Seriously, though, the fact that you have trouble categorizing me
does not mean that I'm being inconsistent. Perhaps I just don't fit
into these categories that you create.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n921.7 ---------------
From: Kevin Houston (khouston onel.com)
Subject: Re: Zen and the art of explanation
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:18:13 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809182044.NAA12728 lists1.best.com) (199809182117.OAA04193 lists1.best.com) (199809182143.OAA23074 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman wrote:
)
) Kevin Houston wrote:
)
) ) no, Im not saying that it (the explanation) makes the theory
) ) anything at all, just that it passes knowledge on to the listener.
)
) Yes, you are assuming an increase in knowledge. Correct me where
) I am wrong, but knowledge is a positive thing, it is information.
) Two examples of what could be passed on instead of information is
) noise, and disinformation.
Ok, i will correct you. Knowledge is neither positive nor negative, it
is human beings who assign values. Even noise and disinformation are
useful. If i ask a question and you transmit an answer, and it comes
out as noise, then I have gained useful information (that the
explanation is beyond one or both of our understanding, or the
transmission device is faulty) If it is disinformtaion, then I will
eventually come to a contradiction (either with what you have said, or
with my perception of reality) and therefore I can draw a useful
conclusion as to your ethics ;)
)
) ) maybe a little, maybe a lot, maybe
) ) it is wrong, but it is knowledge and it does increase the recipients
) ) base.
)
) Not if it is noise or disinformation.
see above.
)
) ) your response seems to be you cannot possibly explain this to me,
) ) because I don't speak your "language" Ok, Try me. let us hear your
) ) words, and judge for ourselves if we are capable of understanding.
) ) again, how do I perceive the "spiritual component" of inanimate objects?
)
) Actually I cannot possibly explain it to you because I know nothing about it, other than as a 'product' of it. Let try a different analogy and ask how you might explain what philosophy is to someone who has never encountered it. As a philosophy major (someone you might suppose in the best position to explain such a question) I often find myself at a complete loss when trying describe it in layman's terms. It is so many things. Yet for every simplification I can make, hundreds of exceptions
) to such a simplification spring to mind. I am left with little more than the dictionary definition to fall back on.
) I think maybe explaining Zen to someone might have been a better analogy.
Okay, but the problem is your unwillingness to be vauge and oversimplify
from the beginning (gee, maybe you do have ethics after all ;) If you
were to accept the fact that you will not describe zen, but will only
describe something similar to zen, then you can still impart useful
information provided you tell your subject that you are simplifing.
) Back to the question of whether someone else can explain Anthroposophy
) to you, I don't know. It was my intention to give some rational as to
) why it hadn't already been encapsulated on a web page for speedy and
) certain understanding. (this is mostly tongue in cheek)
) e
sarcasm understood. i guess i am left playing twenty (thousand)
questions - oh well, no worries.
Kevin Houston
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n921.8 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: New to this list
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:29:39 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809172214.PAA22936 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp wrote:
) )you'll see what I mean. I wonder what proportion of those descriptions
) )are from people who alleged themselves to be directly privy to some form
) )of clairvoyant transmittal, and what proportion are from people who are
) )providing hearsay regarding what someone else previously reported.
)
) You leave out the most logical and reasonable possibilities for this
) phenomenon:
)
) they are fantasising and self deluding -- or they are charlatans.
)
) The record of exposure of such fantasies and frauds is quite extensive.
That's certainly possible. To the bulk of the population, who would
dismiss clairvoyance and the possibility of existence on other planes,
it is certainly the most logical and reasonable possibility. Although
clairvoyance and other planes of existence are not anything that I have
ever experienced, and I view any description based on them with a
severely critical eye, I do not dismiss them out of hand.
Bob
(P.S. You're right about Jefferson, but my detailed response is on my
laptop, which I'll probably get to send off to the list tonight)
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n921.9 ---------------
From: Kevin Houston (khouston onel.com)
Subject: Re: Scientific "view" (was New to this list.)
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 17:22:42 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809171446.HAA14476 lists1.best.com) (199809182126.OAA11638 lists1.best.com) (199809182149.OAA28259 lists1.best.com)
Suppose i claim that leprechauns make flowers bloom. you challenge
this, and i reply with "OK wise guy, prove that the leprechauns _Don't_
make the flowers bloom." you cannot possibly do this. your inability
to disprove my assertion says nothing about the truth of my assertion.
In this case, it is up to me to prove that the leprechauns exist, and
that they make flowers bloom, all i have to do is catch one in the act.
Ezra Beeman wrote:
)
) I don't understand your statement that something negative cannot be proven. Could you rephrase that or explain what is meant by that? In math, many things are proven inductively, which calls for proving the inverse of something is always false. Am I confusing false and negative here? (I know they are not necessarily the same)
) e
)
) Kevin Houston wrote:
)
) ) I cannot, no person can ever prove a negative. but you are stating a
) ) positive. Positives can be proven. The onus is on you to show that
) ) objects do contain a "spiritual manifestation", not the other way
) ) round. I cannot "prove" that the sky will never be blue at midnight.
) ) But if you say that the sky was blue last midnight, you must provide
) ) evidence. Your single picture (with appropriate evidence as to the
) ) current time) would be enough to prove your point, and I would be forced
) ) to accept the fact that the sky can be blue at midnight. you need only
) ) point to one example. I have yet to hear it.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n921.10 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: RE: A possible life lesson
Date: 18 Sep 1998 18:51:49 -0400
Micheal Kopp posted,
)Physics is absolutely, positively riveting, and has produced more
)*evidence* -- understandable, tangible evidence -- for my purposes. The
)changes that occur in physical understanding are advances in tangible
)evidence.
I agree with you on what you say about physics, but I still spend mostly all
of my days dealing with feelings, thoughts, and emotions of my own and those
who I work with and live with. From my point of view, physics is virtually
silent and/or irrelevent to this situation and so I am left with a need to
have other tools/processes to bring to these situations. For me, physics and
its attributes are extremely important but on a day to day basis limited at
best in its ability to assist me in the world. (besides flying off the face of
the earth or thinking i will sail off the end of the earth or getting juice to
this box)
)I agree that precariousness and intensity are desirable attributes to an
)interesting and examined life. I just choose different tools for myself --
)and my children.
)This list is about whether your system or my system is the better for
)educating children (and the appropriateness of your system in public
)schools).
..and also the appropriateness of (bits of) your system too I would expect.
(alternative schools don't just come into being for no reason, or at least
they don't endure for no reason)
I want to note here that what I understand by "my system" and "your system",
in this discussion, has to do with the the original descriptions of two ways
some people desire to experience the world.(not waldorf and anti waldorf)
Frankly, the system that I like the best is a blend of both systems leaning
towards the open ended and destabilized. For me, it has the potential to
create an interesting and important mix of desire, confidence and humility.
Desire to be in the world, with all its incredible complexity and wonder,
motivating action with confidence on one's own thinking that is tempered by
humility through the experience of the possible limits of
human-knowledge-in-action.
)I believe my children have been ill-served, brainwashed and badly
)educated by your system operating through a public Steiner school, which
)they no longer attend.
As I think I have said before I am saddened by your experience, Micheal.
But, please don't call what your family has experienced "my system" for that
is not what it was. It was, as you state, a public Steiner school. The two
may or may not be very related.
)Much of what passes for deep thinking on this list is epistemological
)wanking. I'm not interested in that, and it should be carried on elsewhere,
)in my opinion.
Perhaps you are correct to the first part, but just because your not
interested in something does not make it irrelevant. In the education of the
potential of human beings, I can see how "epistemological wanking" would be
very important. (that's part of that self reflective humilty stuff, I think)
Also much of what passes for rigourous logic is but only self-reassurance
)When you can show me some *evidence* that your system produces advances in
)humanity's understanding of its mysteries -- show me *evidence*, for
)example, of the Ahrimanic spirit that you say inhabits the machine I am
)using to converse with you -- I will have greater interest in your system.
Firstly, you are conjoining me with your conclusions about waldorf education
or anthroposphy. They are not the same.
Secondly, (as a person who is not a member of the Anth Society)[motAS] I can't
tell you anything about ahriman or its spirit, but I can say that I feel my
discussion with you would probably be very different in person, because I
wouldn't be able to fixate on absolutely every word that you had typed. This
could be good or bad depending on the kind of discussion we are hoping to
have. This is compounded with the occurance that *I* have to give a voice to
all the words you send to me, which is, as I see it, more of me and less of
you. The more things between you and me (no. I wasn't going to say "the
better") the more difficult it is to hear you and the more I am obliged to
replace you with me or my impressions of you. (ME me me me, it makes me so
tired of me.) Unless I strive to always be conscious of this potential
arrangement and/or if i don't learn new ways to communicate that are
appropriate and useful to this kind of medium, I am being directed, to a
degree, by the influence this box has on me and my relationship to others.
That could be all the "spiritual" quality that this box has, but to me it
seems like a lot. If this is something like Steiner had in mind, then chalk
one up for the man in my book. If not, then there may be more understanding to
do, or it may be time to turn the page on that chapter.
)Let me be clear that I do not denigrate the intensity or profundity of the
)thinking that you and the other metaphysicians on this list evince. I wish
)I were the intellectual, erudite, rhetorical equal of some of you. But you
)can't produce the goods. Physicists and science can.
Physicists don't produce the goods on compassion and curiousity and hope and
revenge. These too are wordly "goods"* that I am surrounded by and produce
all day. I try to do my best to understand them through human
experience/testing the best i can.
*Hmm, these "ideas" seem to have no physical qualities yet they are able to
produce/motivate work. How could that fit into the equations W=F*d and F=M*a
and E=mc2?
)As others have said, the problem with metaphysicians -- especially cultists
)-- is that they can't communicate clearly -- or don't want to.
or the topic doesn't lend itself by nature (or design) to easy communication.
(back to the original statement about people living out the expression)
)I am not after certainty; in fact life would become boring with all
)questions answered. But I do like approachability, and I especially like
)new evidence.
Me too
) Neither are available in Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy, in
)my opinion, unless I wish to become self-delusional.
sounds polemical, but it is your opinion.
)Cheers from Godzone,
)Michael Kopp
)Wellington, New Zealand
Cheers from porkopolis (old name for cincinnati)
Luke
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n921 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n922 --------------
001 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Quiz for Dan Dugan
002 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - RE:new to this list
003 - snell netshel.net - RE:new to this list
004 - spike (spike netshel.net) - New Mission?
005 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - RE: A possible life lesson
006 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Waldorf "Inspired" School
007 - David McKay (mckay oro.ne - Re: Waldorf "Inspired" School
008 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Brain washing as education
009 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Center for Frontier Science: recent articles
010 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Disclosure and McAllen's Color Exercises
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n922.1 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Quiz for Dan Dugan
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:09:35 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809180748.AAA07175 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp wrote:
)
) Robert Tolz said:
)
) )Dan,
) ) I just wanted to get your feelings about someone who would write
) )something like the following:
) )
) ) "I advance it therefore, as a suspicion only, that the
) )blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and
) )circumstance, are inferior to the whites in the endowment both of body
) )and mind."
)
) Begging Dan's pardon for answering a post directed at him ...
)
) This sounds like something I read recently*, but don't have at hand, in the
) way of revisionist history of Thomas Jefferson.
Right you are, Michael. You get 100 points for the correct answer and
extra credit for the depth of your response.
Thomas Jefferson, he of the "all men are created equal" pen, was a
slaveholder. Apparently the word "men" was not intended by the framers
of the Declaration of Independence to include anything other than white
men, nor was it intended to include women.
Jefferson did believe in emancipation. He later wrote "Whatever be
their degree of talent, it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir
Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not
therefore lord of the persons or property of others." But Jefferson was
not a thinker for the latter half of the twentieth century, because he
believed that, once emancipated, the blacks ought to be kept separate
from the whites, perhaps exported back to Africa.
As one commentator I found on the internet wrote, "Jefferson, like all
of us, is complicated."
Another quiz: To whom might you ascribe the following quotation?
"There is a physical difference between the white and black races which
I suppose will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of
social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live,
while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and
inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favour of having the
superior position assigned to the white race."
I'll cut short the suspense. The answer is (drum roll, please) Abraham
Lincoln. Fourth Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Spetember 18, 1858. While
Lincoln was arguing for emancipation, he was not arguing for
equality, and he too initially favored sending emancipated slaves back
to Africa.
The reason I had set up this "quiz" for Dan is that I think it
illustrates a number of points I wanted to make about some of the
reasoning that Dan has used in numerous posts. (P.S. This is not an
attack; it is criticism)
The points deal with:
1. Out-of-context quotations
2. Correlation does not mean causation
3. Statements not viewed in historical context
4. Don't disregard the message just because you don't like the
messenger.
First, my out-of-context quotation shows how easy it is to make someone
look like an ogre by selectively quoting that which suits my purpose and
shielding from the view of the reader that which detracts from my
agenda. I can make someone feel quite a bit of ill will towards
Jefferson, simply by my artful selection of his words.
Second, as another illustrious member of this list has stated,
correlation does not mean causation. Jefferson was a slaveholder and
arguably a racist. Neither he nor the body of thought with which he is
identified was the cause of slavery or racism. Assuming for the sake of
argument that Steiner had anti-Semitic tendencies, neither he nor the
body of thought with which he is identified was the cause of
anti-Semitism or the rise of the Nazis and Hitler.
Third, the ideas or personal feelings of any individual must be viewed
in historical and cultural context, and any prejudices must be viewed in
that context. Both Steiner and Jefferson were part of a cultural and
social milieu that informed (sorry, Michael, I still love that word)
their attitudes and their entire lives.
It is well nigh impossible to break out of the stranglehold of that
milieu unless one becomes aware of another possibility, either through
introspection and contemplation or through direct exposure to another
culture or idea. This is because we can hardly even be **aware** of how
our current milieu imprisons us, or even the fact that it does so, any
more than a fish has any consciousness of what water is until someone
yanks it with a fish-hook onto dry land.
Today, our newly-found environmental consciousness allows us to look
with great criticism at the environmental ignorance of our post-World
War II years of prosperity, how we wasted resources and disregarded how
our actions affect our surroundings. What is it that I think and do
today, I wonder, which will be viewed by my grandchildren as being
hopelessly prejudiced and ignorant, or at least politically incorrect by
their standards?
I am not surprised to find that either Jefferson or Steiner may have
had prejudices. I think we all have prejudices, and in my book the
person who claims that he or she does not is either (a) an extraordinary
person, (b) ignorant of his or her true feelings or (c) a liar.
Fourth, human beings have frailties. Don't condemn the entire person
because of one attribute you find obnoxious and don't kill the message
simply because you don't like the messenger.
This particular precept is probably of little use to you, Michael,
since you have made it completely clear that you have no respect for
Steiner's "message." However, in the context of whatever arguments
PLANS or Dan Dugan wants to use to try to persuade others about the
evils of Waldorf, if Steiner in the years immediately after World War I
had frailties or defects, it has no logical relevance to or bearing on
the usefulness of Waldorf to a 1998 parent. To try to use that type of
argument is what some people call the shot-gun approach and I call the
spaghetti approach. If you throw a whole pot of spaghetti against the
wall, you can be pretty confident that at least one strand will stick.
This morning's NY Times has a story of a New Jersey congregation
dealing with accusations that its former rabbi had been arrested for
arranging the murder of his wife. The story ends with the following
anecdote: "Jeffrey F. Karl is taking a more detached view. Mr. Karl
said Rabbi Neulander performed his son's bar mitzvah a few months before
the killing, and when the accusations later arose at the family dinner
table, he urged his children to remember the distinction between the
frailties of human beings and the power of God. 'It's odd,' said Mr.
Karl, a municipal judge in Cherry Hill. 'Our discussions about him are
a lot like the discussions we're having now about President Clinton.
You question these things because he's a role model and he's supposed to
behave in a certain way. But I tell my kids, people are people. The
reality is, you have to teach them not to be in awe of anyone."
Although American opinion can fluctuate rapidly (and who can guess what
will happen when the grand jury video is released), the most recent
polls seem to show that while the American people do not respect
President Clinton as an individual, they are (so far) able to separate
their disrespect for him from the high ratings they give him for how he
does his job. (Of course, my own view of the "job-rating" in the polls
is that it's really a vote on how happy people are about the economy,
but that's an entirely different discussion.)
There's a book called "Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism" which I
read long ago and had a great influence on me. When I recommended it to
someone, they told me that the author was a known drunkard and
womanizer, hardly the type one would expect to be a credible source for
spiritual advice. But I went back to the book and found the ideas still
gripped me, regardless of the defects of the author.
Michael Kopp wrote:
)
) These revelations do, indeed, tarnish the image of the founding father, and
) help to understand why a country founded on liberty did not initially grant
) that liberty to all humans. And they lessen his greatness, for me.
)
) But it _is_ reasonable for us to use our 20-20 hindsight, and our "modern"
) sensibilities about race, to judge such a great man.
)
) Just as it is reasonable for us to do so with Rudolf Steiner.
)
I'd say go ahead and judge Jefferson, Lincoln or Steiner if you
like, but temper your evaluation with the knowledge that you are removed
from his time, his context and his life.
I imagine that in 1776 there were very few people of Jefferson's class
and status who had a more racially enlightened view than he did. The
fact that we may indeed be more enlightened today than he was then does
not cause his reputation to suffer in my mind, because he was among the
leaders of the pack while most of us are not at the forefront. The very
fact that we may be more enlightened today than he was then is probably
in large part due to the leadership he showed then.
While I know vastly less about Steiner than about Jefferson (and this
post might make me sound like I know more about Jefferson than I
actually do), if it is true that Steiner had any anti-Semitic
tendencies, I would not at all be surprised if someone with a deep
knowledge of Steiner would be able to draw strong parallels to
Jefferson.
If you choose to judge someone from a vastly different point in
history, whether it be Jefferson or Steiner, by all means do so. Just
remember that your grandchildren will be using 20-20 hindsight with you!
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n922.2 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: RE:new to this list
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:02:38 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809182317.QAA22053 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote:
)
) Daniel, there are only two kinds of people: those who divide
) humanity into two kinds of people, and those who don't.
You didn't get that quite right. It's supposed to go:
There are only three kinds of people in this world: those who can
count, and those who can't.
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n922.3 ---------------
From: snell netshel.net
Subject: RE:new to this list
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 98 19:15:39 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
)Steve Wrote:
)Perhaps it was a poor example. My point is that the theory behind
)the education should be made available to prospective parents.
)Some people who have no problem with spirituality in general have
)a big problem with a system based on very specific beliefs about
)the nature of the spiritual realm. Those folks should be able to
)learn about those beliefs by having them explained in a fairly
)simple matter.
)------------------------------------------------
Daniel wrote:
There are some general beliefs that could be portrayed, but overall they
)would fall short of answering very much. It is silly to talk about advanced
)theory that really doesn't impact the pedagogy directly. I know I'm going
)to get a flurry of email on that one. When visiting a medical doctor, they
)do not go into the chemistry of the body except in very general terms. The
)same rules apply, only it is not life-and-death in the case of pedagogy.
)Most schools encourage parents to learn about AP, but you can't force
)people. It is a process, not some flyer that can list the entire system.
I am going to clog the list with a copy of my long post from 8/27/98
because this passage, directed toward Waldorf teachers, seems relevant to
the discussion. Anthroposophy plays a huge role in Waldorf pedagogy and
I don't think anyone has refuted that.
I understand your argument about advanced discussions not being
understood by parents. I confess to reading some of Steiner's work and
not understanding it the first time I read it. After I became more
familiar with Anthroposophy I read it again with understanding. That
said, I still believe parents should be informed about specific
Anthroposophical tenets that directly impact Waldorf curriculum, yet Ido
not believe that attempt is made. Parents are frequently given some
patronizing explanations such as, "All artists' need instruction", or "No
picture taking allowed because it will disrupt the children".
Questioning parents can sense Waldorf teachers hold a reverance for the
particular way things are done, but can't seem to grasp why.
Do you believe that it would be silly to talk about why children perform
certain movement exercises before they paint, or explain why children
paint the same picture, using the exact same colors during their painting
lessons? I think the underlying reasons that children are instructed in
the way they are should be openly shared with parents. Friday notes
should be filled with passages such as the one below. Clearly WE teachers
can not ensure parents will read what is sent home, but an honest attempt
should be made continuously, as it pertains to the curriculum their
children are currently studying.
* Prior to this post, I posted a portion of Steiner's lecture on "Colour
Meditation" that was quoted in the book 'Sleep', written just before this
sample "lesson". If someone is interested in seeing that, I'll send it
privately.
Debra
_____________________________________________________________
Subject: Waldorf's "Art" lessons and the hidden bonuses
Sent: 8/27/98 8:10 PM
Received: 8/27/98 9:03 PM
From: snell, snell netshel.net
Reply-To: Waldorf Critics, waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: Waldorf Critics, waldorf-critics lists.best.com
"... The colour sequence works as a cleansing re-orientation of soul,
helping the individuality to accept the present incarnation in a physical
body. This is clearly shown in the pictures which pupils make...
These exercises are not suitable until the twelfth has been reached and
chronological history (I take this to mean Theosophy's world view.-ds)
has been introduced. It is at this time that the first awareness of the
skeleton wakens into consciousness...During such a process the pupil
improves his whole bearing and outlook. Problems of the soul are solved
in sleep life and the individuality takes hold of his body with his whole
will.
To prepare the first colour sequence which is vermillion with a magenta
star form, let the pupil first experience his body as a star, standing
with his feet apart, his arms raised horizontally from his sides, head
erect. He could be reminded of the verse with its movements that he
learnt in Class Four.
1. 'I place myself steadfastly into existence.'
(from standing with feet together, place the
left foot to the left away from the body.)
2. 'With confidence I tread the path of life.'
(Right foot placed to the right of body - the child
is now standing with feet apart.)
3. 'Love I nurse in the core of my being.'
(Left arm raised to the side shoulder level, remaining
held so.)
4. 'Hope I lay into all my doing.'
(Right arm raised to shoulder level.)
5. 'Confidence I impress into my thinking.'
(Head held so that pupil gazes straight in front but
with the head pressed slightly back.)
Release the star gesture in the following order. Relax head pressure,
right arm to side, left arm to side. Right foot to centre, left foot to
its side so that both feet are together as at the beginning of the verse.
This experience can be strengthened by jumping into the star-form, one or
three times.
The painting can now be made. There are two methods which may be used.
First exercise. Cover the paper with vermillion red using long unbroken
brush strokes across the paper from left to right, commencing at the top
of the page. In this way the nervious 'brushing' of the paint is
controlled and the pupil learns how to put on a good wash. The brush
stroke can be repeated from the place where the colour lightens to obtain
an even tone. The star form can then be taken out of this colour-mass by
brish or sponge. Alternatively, the vermillion wash may be made and the
star form left uncoloured. This is suitable when repition of the colour
sequence is repeated. Nothing is said about the quality of the vermillion
red or its effect on the soul. (Deception alert-ds)
In this first exercise only, I ask the pupil what colour he would choose
for the star, so that the vermillion red is held back from the star and
kept in balance. Most children immediately say - yellow - and therein
lies the problem. Yellow is the colour which should not be confined, it
needs to dissolve and fly away. The soul is 'holding on' to something
which needs to be released. The vermillion is drawing out the 'congealed'
yellow in the soul. I have allowed the pupil to paint-in the star with
yellow, as I have noted that it is these two colours which Fra-Angekico
used in his paintings for Mary Magdalene. I then ask my pupil if he likes
the effect. If the answer is yes, I make no comment. We repeat the
exercise at the next lesson, asking what colour the star should be. When
he gives the answer that he does not like the effect, we discuss the
relationship between the two colours, for example, that the yellow makes
the vermillion hot. Then comes the question, how shall we cool the
vermillion red? There are some children who insist on the yellow, others
will suggest different colours, and then realize they are not
satisfactory. We can now tell them to paint the star in the pale
peach-blossom-like magenta. This always brings great satisfaction. I have
learned to dwell on this first combination for several weeks and then to
proceed with the sequence in their order, telling the pupils which
colours to use.
...(5 more exercises described, the six pointed star in prussion blue
w/orange background, a pale orange circle w/yellow background, leaf-like
forms in greens, cobalt blue background w/ a carmine lemniscate, violet
background w/cobalt blue square: -ds)
Let us now consider the exercises in relation to their colours and forms.
*The red vermillion and the star.* (Both from Rudolf Steiner). The five
point star belongs to the rose, the red rose which is symbolic of the
purified blood of the human being, a blood which no longer carries the
desire element implanted in it though the effect of the temptation of
Lucifer. Our blood is formed in the marrow of our bones, within a
fortress, secure from intrusion. Here our red and white corpuscles are
formed and liberated and entering the circulatorysystem become the basis
for our will and karma from the past. Through the vermillion red
activity, all that is dross is separated out and the archetype of
purified man stands before us in the form of the five pointed star and
the magenta colour. The Alpha letter was chosen for a similar reason that
in the beginning of time the form of man was present.
*Orange and Prussian Blue with the six pointed star.* This is the birth
star of incarnation. Here upper and lower man are fused together to work
on the earth. Man incarnates in matter; substance darkens the spiritual
light. Our skeleton is densified light. The cells of our bones are
hexagonal in form. We are now stepping from inner to outer form.
Elsewhere Steiner describes orange as 'streaming in the spiritual world
just as the physical'. The star is darkened with the complementary colour
of the orange and has the quality of space. The Greek letter which is
part of the abbreviation for the name of Christ was the choice here.
*Yellow with Orange Circle*. The circle is the perfect form of the astral
body. One carries one's self-awareness in the yellow, into the stream of
earth existence. The evolutionary sequence commences with the sound of B.
Hence the choice of the letter Betta.
*Green with leaf forms*. A taking-hold of the present, an awakening into
the day-time personality with its intellectual faculties; green is a much
beloved colour in adolescence, the life forces coming under the sway of
consciousness and its dying processes in the body. The letter Theta is
the sign used for the sentence of death by the Greeks.
Note.
When painting this, the background should be in the different tones of
green, and the letter in the one tone.
*Blue with carmine lemniscate.* Blue and red are the colours of the
Madonna. They are archetypal colours of the soul, of its capacity to
experience inwardly the cold distance of blue and warm nearness of red.
They are the colours of movement, of expansion and contraction. They have
a physiological connection with the eyes - the gateway of the soul - blue
with the left eye, red with the right eye. These are the colours through
which the soul is freed from its bodily involvement and can live
objectively in its own innner space. The lemniscate is the form showing a
balancing of above and below in circulatory movement. The Greek letter
TAU is the symbol of life.
*Violet/black with blue/yellow.* (Colours by H. B-H). This is a
difficult colour combination. Hilda Boss_Hamburger referred to a notebook
reference in connection with it. This has now been published in the 1970
edition of 'Colour' page 62.
Sleep, by Audrey E. McAllen, pages 40-43
posted by Debra Snell
)Steve Wrote:
)Not really, I don't understand it well enough. I believe, though, that
)Steiner's unconventional ideas about history, including the spiritual
)abilities of those living in ancient civilizations, the existence and
)nature of Atlantis, the nature of Christ, and so on, were learned
)through studying the Akashic record. (My understanding is that
)calling it a "record" is a bit of a metaphor, in that it's not like
)reading something in a book.)
)------------------------------------------------
)Those ideas really have nothing to do directly with the pedagogy. I'm
)waiting for the second flame at this point! :~).
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n922.4 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: New Mission?
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:07:10 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809180748.AAA07175 lists1.best.com)
Charlie Frey posted (to me),
)
) It seems to me that your Waldorf training has given you a new life and
) mission!
) There is no amount of money that can replace that.
How so? Certainly Waldorf changed the direction of my career and was the
impetus to creating tremendous distress in my life. However, my family
life, relationships with friends, social activities, extended family
interactions, etc., were not changed other than thay loved ones were
supportive of me during the worst of it, just as they would have been
for any other traumatic experience that may have occurred in my life. My
participation in this list is a very, very small part of what I do on a
day to day basis. Do you think this list is my primary focus? Is it
yours?
You offered to repay Dan Dugan that portion of his tax money that went
toward funding Waldorf inclusion in public schools. I simply asked if
you would refund, to me, public teacher training funds (tax revenue)
that were spent on Waldorf training. Why don't we reach a mutual
agreement regarding the chosen training? Would this be better?
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n922.5 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: RE: A possible life lesson
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 15:23:31 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199809182317.QAA22014 lists1.best.com)
Luke Schelly wrote:
)Micheal Kopp posted,
)
))Physics is absolutely, positively riveting, and has produced more
))*evidence* -- understandable, tangible evidence -- for my purposes. The
))changes that occur in physical understanding are advances in tangible
))evidence.
SCHELLY:
)I agree with you on what you say about physics, but I still spend mostly
)all
)of my days dealing with feelings, thoughts, and emotions of my own and
)those
)who I work with and live with. From my point of view, physics is virtually
)silent and/or irrelevent to this situation and so I am left with a need to
)have other tools/processes to bring to these situations. For me, physics
)and
)its attributes are extremely important but on a day to day basis limited at
)best in its ability to assist me in the world. (besides flying off the
)face of
)the earth or thinking i will sail off the end of the earth or getting
)juice to
)this box)
KOPP:
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought we were talking about physical versus
metaphysical ways of knowing the Universe. I am happy to hear that you
think physics valuable for doing that.
As to dealing with our inner life, I don't think physics ever pretended to
be of use for that. However, I think that some certainty about the external
world, through physics, can help us have some inner calm as we address what
I think is the unknowable, and learn how to deal with that in our own,
personal, inimitable and unreplicable ways, whether or not we believe in
some _meta_physical system.
My problem -- and, I think, yours too -- is that you (and Steiner before
you) seem to be saying that metaphysics can tell us more about the physical
Universe than can physics -- and that, moreover, it is a *better* system
for knowing "higher truths" about both the outer world and the inner world.
I reject this, because I have never seen it demonstrated or evidenced.
This is an argument -- the question of whether metaphysics can, or should
be able to, or should be required to, provide evidence -- that I consider
to be of least use in our discussions here about Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposophical education. In two-and-one-half years on this list I have
never seen either side in the discussion budge on their views, nor approach
a useful conslusion, other than that we will have to agree to disagree.
The question at issue is whether school children in public schools, whether
or not the parents are aware of it, or in private schools where the parents
are unaware of it, should be educated according to a metaphysical system
whose founder and adherents believe is a better way of knowing the
Universe, instead of a physical (rational) system which is known and tested
and accepted by the vast majority -- including you, Mr Schelly.
A subsidiary of this question is whether that metaphysical system
(Anthroposophy) then becomes _inculcated_ (by stealth, since its inclusion
in the curriculum is technically abjured by Steiner/ Waldorf schools) as a
way of thought and life and world view, in the children so educated.
The results of metaphysical arguments (or, as I call them, epistemological
wanking) here do not bear on what we ordinary people understand of Steiner/
Waldorf/ Anthroposophical educational dogma and practice, or our potential
acceptance of it for our children.
SCHELLY [quoting KOPP]
))I agree that precariousness and intensity are desirable attributes to an
))interesting and examined life. I just choose different tools for myself --
))and my children.
))
))This list is about whether your system or my system is the better for
))educating children (and the appropriateness of your system in public
))schools).
)
SCHELLY:
)..and also the appropriateness of (bits of) your system too I would expect.
)(alternative schools don't just come into being for no reason, or at least
)they don't endure for no reason)
KOPP:
This is a side issue not in debate here. Most of us who have educated our
children in public schools find them in one way or another imperfect. But
we have ways of dealing with that. In my experience there is no way for
parents of children in Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical schools to deal
with what we find imperfect about them. Let's leave this out of our
discussions here.
SCHELLY:
)I want to note here that what I understand by "my system" and "your
)system",
)in this discussion, has to do with the the original descriptions of two
)ways
)some people desire to experience the world.(not waldorf and anti waldorf)
)Frankly, the system that I like the best is a blend of both systems leaning
)towards the open ended and destabilized.
KOPP:
I'm sorry if my shorthand for the two sides of the question being argued
here is uncomfortable for you. I am happy to accept that your personal
position is a blend of physics and metaphysics, and that you are not a
Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical "defender of the faith".
Perhaps I've been misreading all your posts about metaphysics as an
endorsement for, or belief in, the subject under discusion (Anthroposophy)
when in fact you may be talking about something entirely different. Is this
your own brand of metaphysics, then?
SCHELLY:
)For me, it has the potential to
)create an interesting and important mix of desire, confidence and
)humility.
)Desire to be in the world, with all its incredible complexity and wonder,
)motivating action with confidence on one's own thinking that is tempered by
)humility through the experience of the possible limits of
)human-knowledge-in-action.
KOPP:
I'm sorry, I don't understand much of that, especially the last sentence.
Can you rephrase it in simpler terms and explicate a little more, please?
SCHELLY [quoting KOPP]
))I believe my children have been ill-served, brainwashed and badly
))educated by your system operating through a public Steiner school, which
))they no longer attend.
SCHELLY:
)As I think I have said before I am saddened by your experience, Micheal.
)But, please don't call what your family has experienced "my system" for
)that
)is not what it was. It was, as you state, a public Steiner school. The two
)may or may not be very related.
Okay, agreed, it's not *your* system. Again, I was under the impression
that you were generally approving of the Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical
"system", and that therefore it was reasonable to say "your system".
It may not be yours, but it IS the opposite of the physical (rational)
system used in the vast majority of public schools in the world.
And it certainly is the system that was used in our school. There is no
possibility that the errors and wrongs and weirdnesses I have catalogued
here for the last 2-1/2 years are in any way products of the _public_
school system.
And there is no doubt that our school is a dyed-in-the-wool Steiner/
Waldorf/ Anthroposophical school: it was a private SWA school for 14 of its
19 years before becoming integrated with the state (public) school system
for money. Nothing about its "special character" (as the law calls its
allowable deviance from the public curriculum) has changed one iota in
those five years (which coincide with our five-year experience there).
The state Education Review Office (school inspectorate) has slated our
former Steiner school four years running for not teaching the state
curriculum thoroughly and properly, while paying too much attention to the
special character curriculum.
In fact, what we found was that every minute of every lesson of every hour
of every day of our kids' school lives was so suffused with the "special
character" of Anthroposophy that there was no chance that they could
benefit from the secular curriculum.
And while you are right to say that I personally cannot know that my school
is not an abberation from the Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical "norm" or
"standard", there is enough evidence on this list and all the others I have
read for the last 2-1/2 years, from SWA educators themselves, all around
the world, as well as other disaffected parents, to convince me that this
*spiritualist* mumbo jumbo is the reason for the existence of these schools
worldwide, and that most are similar to ours in their devotion to and
proselytisation of, Anthroposophy.
[snip]
SCHELLY [quoting KOPP]:
))When you can show me some *evidence* that your system produces advances in
))humanity's understanding of its mysteries -- show me *evidence*, for
))example, of the Ahrimanic spirit that you say inhabits the machine I am
))using to converse with you -- I will have greater interest in your system.
SCHELLY:
)Firstly, you are conjoining me with your conclusions about waldorf
)education
)or anthroposphy. They are not the same.
)
)Secondly, (as a person who is not a member of the Anth Society)[motAS] I
)can't
)tell you anything about ahriman or its spirit, [snip] Unless I strive to
))always be conscious of this potential
)arrangement and/or if i don't learn new ways to communicate that are
)appropriate and useful to this kind of medium, I am being directed, to a
)degree, by the influence this box has on me and my relationship to others.
)That could be all the "spiritual" quality that this box has, but to me it
)seems like a lot. If this is something like Steiner had in mind, then
)chalk
)one up for the man in my book. If not, then there may be more
)understanding to
)do, or it may be time to turn the page on that chapter.
KOPP:
I don't think Steiner meant that Ahriman influences our communication. The
issue is not about words that pass between people. The issue as I
understand it from my reading of modern interpreters of Steiner in regard
to machines, and as applied to computers, is that Ahriman's spirit in the
machines affects the spiritual development and health of children if they
come in contact with them before an "appropriate" age (of abstract
reasoning, usually 12-14, much too late for my view of children's
intellectual abilities).
If you do not understand the place of Ahriman in the pantheon of Steiner's
religion, why are you so vociferous and unyielding in your counterattacks
against the Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical critics? Perhaps you do need
to do at least as much study of this stuff as many of the critics have,
before you deny the possibility that the critics' points can have utility
or validity.
As I understand it, you are a former Waldorf school student; and, earlier
in your time here you have made some critical remarks of your own about the
education. However, you generally take sides with the defenders of the
faith.
Is this a case of the kind of inculcation of Anthroposophical wooly
thinking and belief by stealth, in the guise of "open mindedness", that I
and others accuse the Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical movement of
foisting on us and our children? Perhaps you should investigate this
possibility within yourself?
SCHELLY [quoting KOPP]
))Let me be clear that I do not denigrate the intensity or profundity of the
))thinking that you and the other metaphysicians on this list evince. I wish
))I were the intellectual, erudite, rhetorical equal of some of you. But you
))can't produce the goods. Physicists and science can.
SCHELLY:
)Physicists don't produce the goods on compassion and curiousity and hope
)and
)revenge. These too are wordly "goods"* that I am surrounded by and produce
)all day. I try to do my best to understand them through human
)experience/testing the best i can.
KOPP:
This seems to me to be a non-sequitur: physics doesn't deal with human
psychology (under which I place spirituality, since there is no evidence of
a human spirit), therefore it's of no use in education or life. As I said
above, physics is silent on these things because they are not physically
knowable. (Though the scientists working with brain research are getting
closer to knowing the location and chemistry and physics of such things as
thoughts, and we may yet have a complete scientific picture of what it
means to be sentient.)
I agree that there is more to us that needs educating than our knowing
faculties. That was the main reason we sent our kids to a Steiner school.
And they did receive some good things along the lines you suggest, in their
feeling faculties. But their critical thinking faculties were screwed up by
the mumbo jumbo they were fed, and the school's negativity towards standard
rationalistic, scientific knowledge.
SCHELLY [quoting KOPP]:
))As others have said, the problem with metaphysicians -- especially
))cultists
))-- is that they can't communicate clearly -- or don't want to.
SCHELLY:
)or the topic doesn't lend itself by nature (or design) to easy
)communication.
)(back to the original statement about people living out the expression)
KOPP:
Well, we do hear that view a lot here in answer to our criticisms of "your
system" ... oops, sorry, "the other system".
Tell me please how you perceive your own Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical
education. To me, there seems to be some confusion in your arguments
between metaphysics and physics.
[snip]
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n922.6 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Waldorf "Inspired" School
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 20:28:28 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809182117.OAA04197 lists1.best.com)
Auburn Journal - September 16, 1998
"SCHOOL FAVORS ALTERNATIVE TEACHING"
"For Mark Brown and Ben Hegland, digging potatoes in the warm, September
sun translates to fun - plain and simple.
But for Somerset School director Charles Baldwin, the students' work
adds up to educational therapy. Located in Colfax, the one-room school
boasts a swimming pool, garden and a few llamas - as well as a pair of
honking geese.
Students come to Somerset School to catch up on academic basics and to
work on social skills hampered by learning, physical, and emotional
disabilities. These disabilities serve as roadblocks on the path of
learning - something Baldwin and fellow staff members attack by
utilizing methods geared toward preparing the students to learn.
"We are an arcane secret." Baldwin said, "Everything we do is
purposeful. There is no haphazard activity in the program."
. . .
Serving a maximum of 12 students at a time, the school charges $7,500 in
yearly tuition and nearly $20,000 for residential students. . . .
"They come to school and they're already in a state on some mornings,"
said Baldwin, a Waldorf-trained teacher and wife of Charles. "Sometimes
they're very bright but can't progress because other things interfere."
. . . Robin White, a Somerset teacher who instructs the children in
everything from mathematics to flute, said she spends her spare time
preparing lessons . . .
While White and Sunny Baldwin teach mostly inside the building, Charles
Baldwin - who like his wife does not daw a salary except room and board
- directs the outside activities involving agriculture, exercise, and
animals . . ."
(This sounds like a Waldorf-inspired program. I wonder if Baldwin and
his wife share the "arcane secret" behind the Waldorf influence in the
teaching with parents. I note that they didn't share it with the
newspaper reporter.)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n922.7 ---------------
From: David McKay (mckay oro.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf "Inspired" School
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 22:04:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199809182117.OAA04197 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199809190332.UAA03233 lists1.best.com)
Robin White taught violin at both Mariposa Waldorf School, (a private WE)
before converting to the public "Twin Ridges/Yuba River Waldorf School".
She then went to RSC to get her Waldorf Teaching Certificate.
David McKay
)Auburn Journal - September 16, 1998
)"SCHOOL FAVORS ALTERNATIVE TEACHING"
)
)"For Mark Brown and Ben Hegland, digging potatoes in the warm, September
)sun translates to fun - plain and simple.
)
)But for Somerset School director Charles Baldwin, the students' work
)adds up to educational therapy. Located in Colfax, the one-room school
)boasts a swimming pool, garden and a few llamas - as well as a pair of
)honking geese.
)
)Students come to Somerset School to catch up on academic basics and to
)work on social skills hampered by learning, physical, and emotional
)disabilities. These disabilities serve as roadblocks on the path of
)learning - something Baldwin and fellow staff members attack by
)utilizing methods geared toward preparing the students to learn.
)
)"We are an arcane secret." Baldwin said, "Everything we do is
)purposeful. There is no haphazard activity in the program."
)
). . .
)
)Serving a maximum of 12 students at a time, the school charges $7,500 in
)yearly tuition and nearly $20,000 for residential students. . . .
)
)"They come to school and they're already in a state on some mornings,"
)said Baldwin, a Waldorf-trained teacher and wife of Charles. "Sometimes
)they're very bright but can't progress because other things interfere."
)
). . . Robin White, a Somerset teacher who instructs the children in
)everything from mathematics to flute, said she spends her spare time
)preparing lessons . . .
)
)While White and Sunny Baldwin teach mostly inside the building, Charles
)Baldwin - who like his wife does not daw a salary except room and board
)- directs the outside activities involving agriculture, exercise, and
)animals . . ."
)
)(This sounds like a Waldorf-inspired program. I wonder if Baldwin and
)his wife share the "arcane secret" behind the Waldorf influence in the
)teaching with parents. I note that they didn't share it with the
)newspaper reporter.)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n922.8 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Brain washing as education
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 98 02:10:38 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Deby, the Steiner quote you just posted (principal stanza copied below)
is the most chilling and repelling thing I have read yet about Waldorf,
and considering my continuous participation in this e-list since its
founding, that is saying a lot.
I am utterly apalled that this could be considered pedagogy. It is brain
washing, plain and simple. This goes way beyond mumbo-jumbo. It
positively reeks of prison camp and cults, and maybe a little of
Catholicism, too. Calling this education is obscene, and practicing it
on children is despicable.
DEBY quoted:
)"... The colour sequence works as a cleansing re-orientation of soul [...]
)The painting can now be made. There are two methods which may be used.
)First exercise. Cover the paper with vermillion red using long unbroken
)brush strokes across the paper from left to right, commencing at the top
)of the page. In this way the nervious 'brushing' of the paint is
)controlled and the pupil learns how to put on a good wash. The brush
)stroke can be repeated from the place where the colour lightens to obtain
)an even tone. The star form can then be taken out of this colour-mass by
)brish or sponge. Alternatively, the vermillion wash may be made and the
)star form left uncoloured. This is suitable when repition of the colour
)sequence is repeated. Nothing is said about the quality of the vermillion
)red or its effect on the soul. (Deception alert-ds)
)
)In this first exercise only, I ask the pupil what colour he would choose
)for the star, so that the vermillion red is held back from the star and
)kept in balance. Most children immediately say - yellow - and therein
)lies the problem. Yellow is the colour which should not be confined, it
)needs to dissolve and fly away. The soul is 'holding on' to something
)which needs to be released. The vermillion is drawing out the 'congealed'
)yellow in the soul. I have allowed the pupil to paint-in the star with
)yellow, as I have noted that it is these two colours which Fra-Angekico
)used in his paintings for Mary Magdalene. I then ask my pupil if he likes
)the effect. If the answer is yes, I make no comment. We repeat the
)exercise at the next lesson, asking what colour the star should be. When
)he gives the answer that he does not like the effect, we discuss the
)relationship between the two colours, for example, that the yellow makes
)the vermillion hot. Then comes the question, how shall we cool the
)vermillion red? There are some children who insist on the yellow, others
)will suggest different colours, and then realize they are not
)satisfactory. We can now tell them to paint the star in the pale
)peach-blossom-like magenta. This always brings great satisfaction. I have
)learned to dwell on this first combination for several weeks and then to
)proceed with the sequence in their order, telling the pupils which
)colours to use.
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
http://www.eb-skeptics.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n922.9 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Center for Frontier Science: recent articles
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 12:57:10 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809181026.DAA04828 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Sabsay wrote:
) A few months back, we discussed an article titled: THE HEART IS NOT A
) PUMP: A REFUTATION OF THE PRESSURE PROPULSION PREMISE OF HEART FUNCTION
) by Ralph Marinelli [Rudolf Steiner Research Center, Royal Oak, MI]. This
) piece of delusional junk appeared as an article in the Fall 1995 edition
) of a journal called FRONTIER SCIENCE published by the Center for Frontier
) Science [Temple University, Philadelphia, PA].
For those interested, an overview of the work at the Center can be found
at http://www.temple.edu/CFS/cfs1.htm
According to the Index of Feature Articles at
http://www.temple.edu/CFS/Fpindex1.htm the article by Marinelli appeared
in Volume 5 (#1) 1996.
The Lectures for Fall '98 can be found at
http://www.temple.edu/CFS/index.html
To those who have lectured at the Center for Frontier Sciences
belong Prof Lynn Margulis, who on Sept. 13, 1996 gave a lecture on
"Symbiogenesis" (http://www.temple.edu/CFS/margulis.htm).
) Now, a recent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer discusses the "Center
) for Frontier Science", and it's journal.
)
) CALL IT FREEDOM, OR BEYOND THE FRINGE?
) Activity at Temple University's Center for
) Frontier Science is the Target of a Columnist"
) -- Philadelphia Inquirer 8/31/98
) Faye Flam, Staff Writer
The article, published under "Arts & Entertainment" can be found at
http://www.phillynews.com/inquirer/98/Aug/31/entertainment/PSYC31.htm
) This lengthy article was occasioned by a column by Martin Gardner titled
) "What's Going On at Temple University?". Gardner's column, critical of
) Temple University was just published in the September/October 1998
) edition of SI.
(SI=Sceptical Enquirer, published by The Committee for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal)
) Reporter Flam observes that Gardner finds the articles published by the
) Center for Frontier Science to be pseudoscience, not science.
)
) CSICOP fellow and Temple mathematician, John Allen Paulos comments on the
) "Center for Frontier Science", saying: "It's been like the scandal of the
) lobotomized cousin up in the attic."
In the article also
"Temple spokeswoman Harriet Goodheart said faculty members she spoke
with were outraged at the column. "They thought it was a cheap shot at
the university based on one faculty member and one center." "
) CSICOP is the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the
) Paranormal, publisher of the Skeptical Inquirer bimonthly magazine. For
) more about CSICOP, take the link off our website
The home site of CSIOP can be found at http://www.csicop.org/
An example of how complex problems are that the CSIOP take an interest
in can be found in an article on magnetic therapy in the last on-line
issue of the Sceptical Inquirer at
http://www.csicop.org/si/9807/magnet.html.
According to the article, Dr. William Jarvis, president of the
National Council Against Health Fraud, had formerly dismissed magnet
therapy as "essentially quackery." as probably also the SI.
Now, a study at Baylor College of Medicine, published last November
in Archives of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (Vallbona 1997),
concluded that permanent magnets reduce pain in post-polio patients.
After the publication of the study, even Dr Jarvis "tentatively
admits that it may have value for post-polio pain." and the author of
the article in SI concludes that "The results of the Baylor study,
however, raise the possibility that at least in some cases, topical
application of permanent magnets may indeed be useful in pain relief, a
conclusion that should be regarded as tentative until supported by
further studies."
As I understand it, much of the scepticism on part of "sceptics" against
"magnetic therapy" is and was rooted in worldviewpoints, coming to
expression also in the dismissal of "animal magnetism" and Samuel
Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy.
Maybe the study, changing the standpoint of also Dr. William
Jarvis, president of the National Council Against Health Fraud, can
throw a sceptical light also on some of the basis for the standpoints of
"sceptics".
Sincerely,
Sune Nordwall, sceptical of simple standpoints,
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and the
building of EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and the threefolding of
society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n922.10 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Disclosure and McAllen's Color Exercises
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 07:59:36 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199809190211.TAA09493 lists1.best.com)
)Do you believe that it would be silly to talk about why children perform
)certain movement exercises before they paint, or explain why children
)paint the same picture, using the exact same colors during their painting
)lessons? I think the underlying reasons that children are instructed in
)the way they are should be openly shared with parents. Friday notes
)should be filled with passages such as the one below. Clearly WE teachers
)can not ensure parents will read what is sent home, but an honest attempt
)should be made continuously, as it pertains to the curriculum their
)children are currently studying.
While I am always in favor of the free flow of information in all
circumstances, I usually can't support the specific suggestions for
disclosure made on this list--as above, these "disclosures" contain
sensational nuggets describing things which don't seem to be part of the
general practice in waldorf schools.
I find painting classes pretty tough to prepare for. I give a lot of
thought to what we've already worked through in terms of primary,
secondary, and tertiary colors, and what the children seem ready for. I
try to relate whatever we're doing to the curriculum, and since painting is
an emotional experience, what the social dynamics of the class have been,
of late.
I don't have the children engage in any "certain movement exercises"
beforehand. While I have read the McAllen book, I don't view it as a
legitimate resource for my painting classes. I found this title useful
years ago, when I first discovered waldorf, and was trying to understand
what sleep meant to a waldorf teacher. In fact, I'd forgotten that the
book contained any painting exercises until Deby began posting them on the
list.
There are always opportunities for disclosure, and then there are openings
for proselytizing and propaganda.
I want the parents in my class to be fully informed, with good and relevant
information. This past Monday night, I had a parent meeting where I spent
some time explaining the existence and function of this list, and I
encouraged those with access to subscribe. If any of them choose to do so,
they'll find all sorts of information here, and probably be able to make
intelligent decisions about the credibility of what they find here.
Giving new parents a disclosure statement which is simply a propaganda
sheet isn't helpful (and I say this recognizing there is the potential for
misinformation on both sides of this debate).
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n922 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n923 --------------
001 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Center for Frontier Science: recent articles
002 - Morgan Vierheller (mrgnsm - Re: public funding of Waldorf
003 - "David E. Gower" (dgower - RE: new to this list
004 - snell netshel.net - Re: Disclosure and McAllen's Color Exercises
005 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: Disclosure and McAllen's Color Exercises
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n923.1 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Center for Frontier Science: recent articles
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 98 06:19:04 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Daniel Sabsay wrote:
) Now, a recent article in the Philadelphia Inquirer discusses the "Center
) for Frontier Science", and it's journal.
)
) CALL IT FREEDOM, OR BEYOND THE FRINGE?
) Activity at Temple University's Center for
) Frontier Science is the Target of a Columnist"
) -- Philadelphia Inquirer 8/31/98
) Faye Flam, Staff Writer
Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se) wrote )
)The article, published under "Arts & Entertainment" can be found at
)http://www.phillynews.com/inquirer/98/Aug/31/entertainment/PSYC31.htm
[...]
)For those interested, an overview of the work at the Center can be found
)at http://www.temple.edu/CFS/cfs1.htm According to the Index of Feature
)Articles at http://www.temple.edu/CFS/Fpindex1.htm the article by
)Marinelli appeared in Volume 5 (#1) 1996.
And what good company he's in, too. By the way, here is how the article
begins. Note that the Center is under the Temple's School of Education. )
)By encouraging an open exchange of ideas, even very prestigious
)universities end up nurturing some fringe material. At Harvard, there's a
)psychology professor who is convinced that his patients have been abducted
)by UFO aliens, while at Stanford a doctor is promoting the idea that AIDS
)is not caused by HIV but by drug abuse. At Princeton, a group of engineers
)keeps trying to show that computers and other machines can be controlled
)with the mind.
)
)At Temple University, a whole center is devoted to what many scientists
)consider fringe activity. Temple's school of education includes the small
)but vocal Center for Frontier Science -- which sends out a journal and
)hosts numerous talks and conferences on such fare as homeopathic medicine,
)telekinesis, cold fusion, even Tarot cards, as well as misapplications of
)quantum physics to AIDS and cancer treatments, spirituality and plant
)development. The journal prints some articles by respected researchers and
)some by people who don't appear to understand freshman-level physics.
)[...]
)The center itself is a surprisingly small operation, consisting of
)director Nancy Kolenda and one graduate student. Kolenda is not a
)scientist -- she majored in accounting -- but she has an interest in both
)science and communication. "I think science has been held back by a lack
)of communication," she said.
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
http://www.eb-skeptics.org
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n923.2 ---------------
From: Morgan Vierheller (mrgnsms metro.net)
Subject: Re: public funding of Waldorf
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 08:49:59 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199809160824.BAA28102 lists1.best.com)
)A few weeks ago, PLANS board member Daniel Sabsay and I took Waldorf
)teacher (and list subscriber) Robert Flannery out to dinner at our favorite
)Mexican restaurant, the Roosevelt Tamale Parlor. Flannery was out here for
)the Kolisko Conference. We got acquainted and had a good talk, though, as
)you can imagine, we could only scratch the surface of many issues of mutual
)interest.
)
)One thing Robert said I'd like to ask him to expand on here. He said that
)he agreed with us that Waldorf education shouldn't be publicly funded, "but
)for different reasons."
)
)Robert, what are your reasons?
)
)-Dan Dugan
Couldn't resist. (Roosevelt's is one of my favorite places as well. I used
to live at the Farm)
I bet that Robert doesn't want public monies used for the same reason I had
trouble with the NEA funding individual artists(I am a sculptor), the
government then begins to dictate what can and can not be taught and
schools founded on a specific philosophy must compromise.
I no longer feel that public monies should be kept from either individual
artisits or "alternative" schools. They both need to realize that there
will be compromise.
All cases should be viewed by the communities where they are. Blanket
policies turn us all into automatons.
Morgan Vierheller
Sonoma County, CA
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n923.3 ---------------
From: "David E. Gower" (dgower interhop.net)
Subject: RE: new to this list
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 13:46:14 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (199809182037.NAA07838 lists1.best.com)
) -----Original Message-----
) From: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
) [mailto:waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com]On Behalf Of Steve Premo
) Sent: 18-Sep-98 16:36
) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) Subject: RE:new to this list
)
)
)
Luke Schelly wrote:
) Steve please let me know if you think i am being abusive or
) abrupt, but i think I got up on the cranky side of the bed today.
Is this possible? Does a bed have a "cranky side" and (assumed by
extension) an opposite "contented side". The anthroposophical truth that
all things material also contain a spiritual component could give rise to
the possibility that Luke's explanation for his perhaps abusive behaviour is
rooted not in what he cites with flippant phraseology but grounded in actual
(whether conscious or subconscious) belief.
There is doubtless a very interesting exploration to be made of this
"cranky" phenomenon of bed sides. A bed has many components, some natural
(like a wooden frame, sheets and other bedding made of cotton) and others
man-made (like the mattress springs). These different components would have
incarnated at different times and the spiritual mix would doubtless have an
impact on which side holds what properties. The colours of the bedclothes
would be significant and because they are changeable, would figure in
deciding which side is cranky on any given morning. Factor in the change of
seasons and the alignment of the stars and planets and pretty soon you have
a pretty robust system for creating the 50/50 conundrum of which side to
alight from upon rising.
But what spiritual science details, can in not also answer? Is there a way
of divining which side of the bed to utilise before actually setting a foot
on the floor? Is there some part of the human spirit that can be employed
to supersensibly become aware of which side is the content side and thus
avoid the cranky consequences? Or is the spiritual mix that is a bed so
spooky that the cranky\content effect is more like QM and only a probability
can be offered making it impossible to know with certainty which side will
avoid crankiness thus refuting determinism and once again preserving free
will while simultaneously avoiding responsibility for one's actions?
"Nothing's as good as the real thing," said Peter. "It's odd that even a
perfect imitation, as soon as you know it's an imitation, gives much less
pleasure. I remember Kant says how disappointed your guests are when they
discover that the after-dinner nightingale is a small boy posted in the
grove."
"A case of the natural attractiveness of truth," said Michael.
Iris Murdoch, _The Bell_
**************************************************************************
Opinions, comments, etc. are my own and all original material is:
Copyright 1998 by David E. Gower. All Rights Reserved.
Contact: dgower interhop.net
_!_
_______(_)_______
"Old pilots never die, they just move on to a different plane"
**************************************************************************
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n923.4 ---------------
From: snell netshel.net
Subject: Re: Disclosure and McAllen's Color Exercises
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 98 14:56:01 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Robert Flannery wrote:
)While I am always in favor of the free flow of information in all
)circumstances, I usually can't support the specific suggestions for
)disclosure made on this list--as above, these "disclosures" contain
)sensational nuggets describing things which don't seem to be part of the
)general practice in waldorf schools.
Come on Flannery, this "practice" is common to every Waldorf school that
teaches wet on wet painting. children in Waldorf schools around the world
start each day with morning prayers whic include carefully chosen
movements. You are starting to sound like Clinton.
That said, I'm feeling calmer... Perhaps you are different, and more
forthright with prospective parents. How do you describe the relationship
between Anthroposophy and Waldorf? Do you give reasons for movement
exercises, wet on wet painting classes, eurythmy and the verses recited
each morning? What do you say?
)
)I find painting classes pretty tough to prepare for. I give a lot of
)thought to what we've already worked through in terms of primary,
)secondary, and tertiary colors, and what the children seem ready for.
Please go on. Specifically what do you mean by "what the children seem
ready for"? For example I give my two year old grandson the whole box of
crayons. He determines what color he is ready for. Working through
primary, secondary and titiary colors is carefully considered because of
Anthroposophical beliefs. Are your parents aware of this and do you tell
them what those beliefs are? If so, what do you say?
)I
)try to relate whatever we're doing to the curriculum, and since painting is
)an emotional experience, what the social dynamics of the class have been,
)of late.
I have a thought - maybe Clinton should be an Anthroposophist. He is
smart, likeable and earnest. He certainly has put out considerable effort
in an attempt to convince the American people that the damning evidence
means nothing. (I know, I'm slipping again.)
)I don't have the children engage in any "certain movement exercises"
)beforehand. While I have read the McAllen book, I don't view it as a
)legitimate resource for my painting classes. I found this title useful
)years ago, when I first discovered waldorf, and was trying to understand
)what sleep meant to a waldorf teacher. In fact, I'd forgotten that the
)book contained any painting exercises until Deby began posting them on the
)list.
Are you saying that Waldorf movement exercises have absolutely no
meaning or connection to Anthroposophy? Are you saying that you do not
perform movement exercises in your classroom? Nothing is meaningless in
Waldorf, down to the color of the clothing worn by kindergarten teachers,
to the colors of the walls, to what particular myth or fairytale is told,
to the design of the building itself and the three fold social order of
the community.
'Sleep' is riddled with Anthroposophy as it relates to WE. In fact, the
preface of Sleep reads: "This book is written for the teachers who are
working in Rudolf Steiner's educational movement...They are a summing up
of facts which spiritual scientific research gives about the mystery of
sleep. These give insight into the general working of our pedagogical
principles." (Sleep, an unobserved element in education, Audrey E.
McAllen, preface.)
Many Waldorf teachers I have spoke to readily admit to the occult
meaning in movement exercises. I appreciate their honesty.
)There are always opportunities for disclosure, and then there are openings
)for proselytizing and propaganda.
Agreed.
)
)I want the parents in my class to be fully informed, with good and relevant
)information. This past Monday night, I had a parent meeting where I spent
)some time explaining the existence and function of this list, and I
)encouraged those with access to subscribe. If any of them choose to do so,
)they'll find all sorts of information here, and probably be able to make
)intelligent decisions about the credibility of what they find here.
I'd be interested in hearing about the presentation you made.
)Giving new parents a disclosure statement which is simply a propaganda
)sheet isn't helpful (and I say this recognizing there is the potential for
)misinformation on both sides of this debate).
As a parent, I have every right to make an informed decision about my
children's education. By witholding Anthroposophy's tenets and its
essential role in the classroom, parents are denied their right to make
an informed decision.
Debra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n923.5 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Disclosure and McAllen's Color Exercises
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 1998 23:46:58 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199809192151.OAA26728 lists1.best.com)
)Robert Flannery wrote:
)
))While I am always in favor of the free flow of information in all
))circumstances, I usually can't support the specific suggestions for
))disclosure made on this list--as above, these "disclosures" contain
))sensational nuggets describing things which don't seem to be part of the
))general practice in waldorf schools.
)
)Come on Flannery, this "practice" is common to every Waldorf school that
)teaches wet on wet painting.
The movement exercises described by McAllen are not used in any waldorf
school that I am familiar with. It was not part of my painting classes in
teacher training, and I have never seen it done nor heard it mentioned in
numerous painting workshops which I have taken as part of various
anthroposophical seminars.
)How do you describe the relationship
)between Anthroposophy and Waldorf?
I say something to the effect that anthroposophy underlies the pedagogy,
and that most class teachers in our school are students of anthroposophy.
)Do you give reasons for movement
)exercises, wet on wet painting classes, eurythmy and the verses recited
)each morning? What do you say?
Movement is emphasized because all learning starts from the physical.
Wet-on-wet painting requires less brush control and is primarily a color
experience. Eurythmy is much tougher to describe--I'm not a eurythmist, so
I try to limit my descriptions to my own experiences in eurythmy classes
and the benefits of controlled movement and the documented connection
between gesture and thought. The verses recited each morning are a ritual
which act as a signal to the children that their learning time has begun,
and help build a space of quiet and reverence so that schoolwork may
properly begin.
))I find painting classes pretty tough to prepare for. I give a lot of
))thought to what we've already worked through in terms of primary,
))secondary, and tertiary colors, and what the children seem ready for.
)
)Please go on. Specifically what do you mean by "what the children seem
)ready for"?
)From the earliest painting classes, color is introduced carefully. Single
colors are worked with first, and when the children learn to control
dilutions and learn the basics of brush management, secondary colors can be
mixed off the primaries. Since only varieties of blues, reds and yellows
are used, there's no point in going on until the children have mastered the
previous step: primaries first, then secondaries, then tertiaries--all the
while remaining as much as you can in the realm of color, and deemphasizing
form for at least the first few grades.
This last part can vary within the waldorf schools--I've seen some classes
which are representationally painting animals and landscapes as soon as
first grade.
)For example I give my two year old grandson the whole box of
)crayons. He determines what color he is ready for. Working through
)primary, secondary and titiary colors is carefully considered because of
)Anthroposophical beliefs. Are your parents aware of this and do you tell
)them what those beliefs are? If so, what do you say?
Working through these colors may be considered from an anthroposophical
point of view by some teachers--I just want my class to have a feeling
experience of color, and be able to demonstrate some proficiency with their
palette.
Since I don't know what the anthroposophical beliefs are which you refer to
(can't say that anything you've quoted from McAllen resonates within me,
personally--as I already pointed out, this material made so little
impression on me when I originally read it that I instantly forgot all
about it), I obviously don't inform my parents of these.
))I don't have the children engage in any "certain movement exercises"
))beforehand. While I have read the McAllen book, I don't view it as a
))legitimate resource for my painting classes. I found this title useful
))years ago, when I first discovered waldorf, and was trying to understand
))what sleep meant to a waldorf teacher. In fact, I'd forgotten that the
))book contained any painting exercises until Deby began posting them on the
))list.
)
)Are you saying that Waldorf movement exercises have absolutely no
)meaning or connection to Anthroposophy?
I said I don't do the McAllen movement exercises or any other
"anthroposophical" movement exercises before painting classes. I will have
them stand at their desks and recite the morning verse, then do something
with them that gives them a little bit of activity before they take their
seats for a painting story and my painting demonstration. Whatever
activity I choose to do before seating them is designed to tire them enough
so that they can sit comfortably for about twenty minutes at the start of
the day. Last year, in second grade, I often did a variation of "The Hokey
Pokey" to have them move about and develop their sense of right and left
(remember how it goes? "you put your right foot in, you put your right foot
out . . .)
Beyond this, I guess I'd have to ask what you mean by "Waldorf movement
exercises".
)Are you saying that you do not
)perform movement exercises in your classroom?
I get in as much movement as I reasonably can, provided I can justify the
value of it for the children in my class.
)Nothing is meaningless in
)Waldorf, down to the color of the clothing worn by kindergarten teachers,
)to the colors of the walls, to what particular myth or fairytale is told,
)to the design of the building itself and the three fold social order of
)the community.
I'm sure that's as correct as a generalization can be. Each member of the
school community is something of a specialist. The kindergarten teachers
focus on dress and gesture, in recognition of the enormous imitative
capacity of the preschool child. The art teachers know something about
what colors are most appropriate for the age of certain classes. A
first-grade teacher is very careful about her choice of fairy tales, in
order to impart a specific lesson. The anthroposophical architect who
designed the building has very specific ideas about form. Absolutely no
one understands the threefold social order.
I know of no individual knowledgable in all these areas, and I live in a
place where some people devote their lives to this stuff. From a practical
point of view, if you tried to make everything in your life correct
anthroposophically, you'd be spending all your time researching the
literature and precious little time doing anything. This would be equally
true whether you were in or out of a waldorf classroom.
No practicing waldorf teacher has time to work around the clock with Rudolf
Steiner's indications and how they have been interpreted in the last
century. A waldorf teacher who is interested in studying anthroposophy
uses whatever makes sense and seems to have relevance in making informed
decisions. The "dogmatic" type, whom we've descibed in this forum from
time to time, is much more likely to take something Steiner said at face
value, and use it without much introspection.
Maybe somebody, somewhere, does use McAllen's movement exercises to start
their painting classes. I don't, and I can explain everything that I do in
practical terms, because that's what it means to me. If I can't put
something into readily understandable, everyday language when I explain it
to myself or anyone else, that's a sign to me that I'm not really qualified
to use it.
Now, I'll drag out my soapbox here, and make a little speech. . . .
Today, the study of anthroposophy covers thousands of texts, and hundreds
of new lectures and seminars are conducted annually in the U.S. alone.
I've been studying it for about seven years, and feel like I've just begun
to scratch the surface. Dan Dugan has read lots more Steiner than I have
(but my bookshelf is still bigger).
I suppose that if time were not an issue for anyone, I could spend years
educating parents as to what I know about anthroposophy, and the best we
could hope for would be a superficial understanding of some basic
principles. I would estimate that I have interviewed nearly 100 families
over the last three years in the course of building and maintaining a
class--I cannot imagine how much time I would have to spend in order to
give them Rudolf Steiner's views on movement, painting, form drawing,
storytelling, clothing, diet, color, sleep, rhythm, the rest of the
curriculum, religion, the akashic record, meditation, child study,
anthroposophic medicine, eurythmy, incarnation and excarnation,
reincarnation, planetary spheres, learning disorders, biodynamic farming,
architecture, the threefold social order, temperaments, the mood of the
fifth, diatonic versus pentatonic music, angels, demons, and what side of
the bed to get up on in the morning.
Most of these parents are more interested in what the school can offer
their children, and what kind of a person I am.
That's why I suspect Mr. Houston hasn't had a satisfactory response to his
requests for information--beyond pointing him to a few books, we're all
still beginners! Unless everyone with a real appetite for information
wants to start out on a path of self-study, anything we say by way of
disclosure is just an incomplete preamble, and could always be criticized
for its shortcomings.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n923 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n924 --------------
001 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Disclosure and McAllen's Color Exercises
002 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: Disclosure and McAllen's Color Exercises
003 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - cranky beds
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n924.1 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Disclosure and McAllen's Color Exercises
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 18:27:39 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809201410.HAA14806 lists1.best.com)
) )Robert Flannery wrote:
) Maybe somebody, somewhere, does use McAllen's movement exercises to start
) their painting classes. I don't, and I can explain everything that I do in
) practical terms, because that's what it means to me. If I can't put
) something into readily understandable, everyday language when I explain it
) to myself or anyone else, that's a sign to me that I'm not really qualified
) to use it.
Robert,
Just out of curiosity, what's the copyright date on the McAllen book?
)
) Most of these parents are more interested in what the school can offer
) their children, and what kind of a person I am.
Amen! This is my experience with my fellow Waldorf parents.
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n924.2 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Disclosure and McAllen's Color Exercises
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 19:04:25 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199809201410.HAA14806 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199809202229.PAA27156 lists1.best.com)
)Robert,
) Just out of curiosity, what's the copyright date on the McAllen book?
According to my copy of the book, the original copyright was made in 1981.
My version is a second edition, published in 1986.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n924.3 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: cranky beds
Date: 21 Sep 1998 18:50:28 -0400
David posted,
)Luke Schelly wrote:
)) Steve please let me know if you think i am being abusive or
)) abrupt, but i think I got up on the cranky side of the bed today.
David then asked,
)Is this possible? Does a bed have a "cranky side" and (assumed by
)extension) an opposite "contented side".
From my wife's point of view it seems that I always get up on the cranky
side. And even if I crawl out of bed on her "contented" side after her, it
seems to have switched to "cranky". Go figure.
(Snip the rest of what I think was supposed to be humorous.)
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n924 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n925 --------------
001 - "David E. Gower" (dgower - RE: cranky beds
002 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - RE: cranky beds
003 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: RE:new to this list
004 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - anybody in Minnesota?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n925.1 ---------------
From: "David E. Gower" (dgower interhop.net)
Subject: RE: cranky beds
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 22:53:51 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (199809212253.PAA28075 lists1.best.com)
) -----Original Message-----
) Sent: 21-Sep-98 18:50
) Subject: cranky beds
)
)
) )Luke Schelly wrote:
)
) )) Steve please let me know if you think i am being abusive or
) )) abrupt, but i think I got up on the cranky side of the bed today.
)
) David then asked,
)
) )Is this possible? Does a bed have a "cranky side" and (assumed by
) )extension) an opposite "contented side".
)
) From my wife's point of view it seems that I always get up on the cranky
) side. And even if I crawl out of bed on her "contented" side
) after her, it
) seems to have switched to "cranky". Go figure.
Sounds like more spooky QM (grin).
)
) (Snip the rest of what I think was supposed to be humorous.)
)
)
Its sole purpose was to be humorous if the sole purpose of spiritual science
is to contribute to humour. Otherwise, I would characterise it as an act of
Socratic irony.
**************************************************************************
Opinions, comments, etc. are my own and all original material is:
Copyright 1998 by David E. Gower. All Rights Reserved.
Contact: dgower interhop.net
_!_
_______(_)_______
"Old pilots never die, they just move on to a different plane"
**************************************************************************
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n925.2 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: RE: cranky beds
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 08:42:24 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199809212253.PAA28075 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199809220253.TAA06164 lists1.best.com)
On 21 Sep 98, at 22:53, David E. Gower wrote:
) ) (Snip the rest of what I think was supposed to be humorous.)
)
) Its sole purpose was to be humorous if the sole purpose of spiritual
) science is to contribute to humour. Otherwise, I would characterise it as
) an act of Socratic irony.
Oh, Socratic irony! I thought it was just sarcasm. Well, if
Socrates did it, it must be a good thing.
Personally, though, I still prefer it when people say what they mean
clearly and directly, rather than using metaphor, obscuring the
issue by using vague terms, using common words as terms of art
(e.g., using "spiritual" to refer to any mental activity), or using
"socratic irony" to make a point.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n925.3 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: RE:new to this list
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 11:59:02 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Steve Wrote:
)Seriously, though, the fact that you have trouble categorizing me
)does not mean that I'm being inconsistent. Perhaps I just don't fit
)into these categories that you create.
Perhaps. I wasn't very strong about the statement, it was a broad
generalization. I did have a disclaimer that you did not repeat, "perhaps
I'm wrong." I was conjecturing why Luke may have been frustrated. We
certainly have exchange many points of view and when it comes to the human
being, I don't take seminary judgement too seriously. Regarding your
thought process as presented on this list, that is open game. That stands
or falls on it's own merits. It is ultimately weakness to resort to
personal judgments, however. It is possible to approach the problem based
on the merits of the thinking.
It is not wrong to elucidate tendencies on this list. There are tendencies
that lead to restrictions of thought. I might be accused of being biased by
Anthroposophical dogma. I certainly work on not being limited, however, and
my positions have stood the many tests brought to bear by people on this
list. So, I guess I agree that there was no point to the statement, except
to give you some friendly grief! :~).
- Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n925.4 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: anybody in Minnesota?
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 1998 15:47:14 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
A reporter is asking for contacts with dissatisfied or ex-Waldorf parents
in Minnesota. Anybody out there?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n925 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n926 --------------
001 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Model Disclosure Statement
002 - SINGERCARP aol.com - Help! translation
003 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - Fwd: cranky beds
004 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Help! translation
005 - Kevin Houston (khouston o - Re: anybody in Minnesota?
006 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Help! translation
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n926.1 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Model Disclosure Statement
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:28:52 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809230310.UAA26709 lists1.best.com)
One of the things upon which I agree with PLANS supporters is that
prospective parents should receive sufficient disclosure of the
underpinnings of Waldorf Education so that they can make an informed
decision.
Wouldn't it be possible for PLANS to come up with what they think would
be an adequate disclosure statement? Perhaps we could bandy it about on
this list.
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n926.2 ---------------
From: SINGERCARP aol.com
Subject: Help! translation
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:45:51 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Could anybody help me translating the following paragraph? (Steiner, Theory of
knowledge)
(Das Prinzip der Erfahrung wird zumeist in seiner Tragweite und eigentliche
Bedeutung verkannt. In seiner schroffsten Form ist es die Forderung, die
Gegenstaende der Wirklichkeit in der ersten Form ihres Auftretens zu belassen
und sie nur so zu Objekten der Wissenschaft zu machen. Das ist ein rein
methodisches Prinzip. Es sagt ¸ber den Inhalt dessen, was erfahren wird, gar
nichts aus. Wollte man behaupten, daþ nur die Wahrnehmungen der Sinne
Gegenstand der Wissenschaft sein koennen, wie das der Materialismus tut, so
d¸rfte man sich auf dieses Prinzip nicht stuetzen.)
Thank you!
Tom
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n926.3 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Fwd: cranky beds
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 98 19:56:15 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ----------------
Date: 09/21 4:50 PM
Received: 09/22 10:33 PM
From: Luke Schelly, lschelly JackRouse.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
David posted,
)Luke Schelly wrote:
)) Steve please let me know if you think i am being abusive or
)) abrupt, but i think I got up on the cranky side of the bed today.
David then asked,
)Is this possible? Does a bed have a "cranky side" and (assumed by
)extension) an opposite "contented side".
From my wife's point of view it seems that I always get up on the cranky
side. And even if I crawl out of bed on her "contented" side after her,
it
seems to have switched to "cranky". Go figure.
(Snip the rest of what I think was supposed to be humorous.)
----------------- End Forwarded Message -----------------
Rudolph Steiner did, in fact, give specific indications concerning which
side of the bed to get up on depending on geographical orientation, time
of day, day of the week, time of year, position of the planets, and
post-Atlantean epoch; but it is obvious that the critics' list is just
not ready to receive this information.
;-}
Peace, y'all
Charlie
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n926.4 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Help! translation
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 09:25:09 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199809231951.MAA12401 lists1.best.com)
SINGERCARP aol.com wrote:
) Could anybody help me translating the following paragraph? (Steiner, Theory of
) knowledge)
) Das Prinzip der Erfahrung wird zumeist in seiner Tragweite und eigentliche
) Bedeutung verkannt. In seiner schroffsten Form ist es die Forderung, die
) Gegenstaende der Wirklichkeit in der ersten Form ihres Auftretens zu belassen
) und sie nur so zu Objekten der Wissenschaft zu machen. Das ist ein rein
) methodisches Prinzip. Es sagt ¸ber den Inhalt dessen, was erfahren wird, gar
) nichts aus. Wollte man behaupten, daþ nur die Wahrnehmungen der Sinne
) Gegenstand der Wissenschaft sein koennen, wie das der Materialismus tut, so
) d¸rfte man sich auf dieses Prinzip nicht stuetzen.)
) Thank you!
) Tom
There probably exists a published translation in English, which I don¥t
have.
Maybe a general translation could be:
"The principle of experience (of empiricism) is most often
underestimated as far as its width and real meaning are concerned. In
its most strict form, it is the demand to let the objects of reality
retain their first form of appearance and only make them into objects of
science in that form.
This is a purely methodological principle. It does not say anything
about the content of the experience. If you wanted to assert that only
the perceptions of the senses could be objects of science, as
materialism does, it would not be allowed to base ones opinion on this
principle"
The paragraph (for the ones not having the book: written by the 25 year
old RS as part of his work to edit the natural scientific works of
Goethe) is part of a longer argument defending the principle of
empiricism as a justified scientific principle, but also trying to show
that it in its most extreme form only can be upheld as fas as thinking
is concerned.
The argument seems to paralell a similar argument by Aristotle on what
qualifies to be taken as primary substance, that only "God" can be
understood as satisfying the demand that must be put on anything that
deserves the title of substance in the full sense, that it must be
identical with its essence. (I have not read Aristotle¥s original work,
but D.W. Hamlyn discusses the problem in The Penguin history of Western
Philosophy pp 68-69 (1990)).
Friendly greetings,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n926.5 ---------------
From: Kevin Houston (khouston onel.com)
Subject: Re: anybody in Minnesota?
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:14:21 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809222305.QAA05734 lists1.best.com)
I'm in minnesota, but not a parent.
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) A reporter is asking for contacts with dissatisfied or ex-Waldorf parents
) in Minnesota. Anybody out there?
)
) -Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n926.6 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Help! translation
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:22:12 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
My father-in-law, Bill Lindeman, translated this work "Theory of Knowledge"
as well as "Goethean Science." I can check the publisher, but they should
be available.
- Daniel.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n926 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n927 --------------
001 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - Re:Fwd: cranky beds
002 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Cranky side of the bed . . .
003 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: racism
004 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: racism
005 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: racism
006 - RebFree aol.com - Re: Re:Fwd: cranky beds
007 - RebFree aol.com - Re: Re: racism
008 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Re: racism
009 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: racism
010 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Model Disclosure Statement
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n927.1 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Re:Fwd: cranky beds
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 98 19:53:59 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ----------------
Date: 09/23 7:56 PM
Received: 09/24 7:38 PM
From: ckzfrey, ckzfrey ix.netcom.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ----------------
Date: 09/21 4:50 PM
Received: 09/22 10:33 PM
From: Luke Schelly, lschelly JackRouse.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
David posted,
)Luke Schelly wrote:
)) Steve please let me know if you think i am being abusive or
)) abrupt, but i think I got up on the cranky side of the bed today.
David then asked,
)Is this possible? Does a bed have a "cranky side" and (assumed by
)extension) an opposite "contented side".
From my wife's point of view it seems that I always get up on the cranky
side. And even if I crawl out of bed on her "contented" side after her,
it
seems to have switched to "cranky". Go figure.
(Snip the rest of what I think was supposed to be humorous.)
----------------- End Forwarded Message -----------------
Rudolph Steiner did, in fact, give specific indications concerning which
side of the bed to get up on depending on geographical orientation, time
of day, day of the week, time of year, position of the planets, and
post-Atlantean epoch; but it is obvious that the critics' list is just
not ready to receive this information.
;-}
Peace, y'all
Charlie
----------------- End Forwarded Message -----------------
Hello,
I must apologize for the above post. I have taken some lumps from the
Anthroposophical community, and they insist that I post a retraction and
set the record straight.
Rudolph Steiner gave NO SUCH INDICATIONS concerning which side of the bed
to get up on;
it was his less-known brother, Murray Steiner, who was a janitor at the
first Waldorf School in Stuttgart who gave these indications.
Murray, it seems, was destined for greatness and may have surpassed his
brother in many ways had he not learned to read and write so early in
life.
Because of this, he lived in relative obscurity in the shadow of his
brilliant brother, Rudolph.
I hope this clears some things up.
Thank you.
xxxooo,
Charlie
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n927.2 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Cranky side of the bed . . .
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 18:34:46 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809241710.KAA20014 lists1.best.com)
Charlie posted:
)
) Rudolph Steiner did, in fact, give specific indications concerning which
) side of the bed to get up on depending on geographical orientation, time
) of day, day of the week, time of year, position of the planets, and
) post-Atlantean epoch; but it is obvious that the critics' list is just
) not ready to receive this information.
Please, please do inform me Charlie. I've a distinct impulse to receive
this information . . . and my husband would like to know too.
;-) Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n927.3 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: racism
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 17:21:38 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199809181206.FAA06729 lists1.best.com)
Rebecah, you wrote,
)I am an Anthroposophist and a Waldorf Early Childhood teacher. I have been
)following this thread silently, as it interests me. There are a couple of
)questions I have.
)
)1. What is the source for the comment about the blacks being inferior in mind
)and body? (This greatly disturbed me, as it is a blatant judgement.)
)
)2. About Steiner's "racism" in general; what policies or actions did he
)recommend that were racist? (My assumption in asking this is that there is
)something happening in Anthroposophy, or as a result of it, that is racist
)activity about which members of this list are concerned. I have not seen it,
)and if it exists, then I want to eradicate it, if possible.)
Here is an example of what people outside of Anthroposophy find intolerable:
"According to Rudolf Steiner, certain regions of the earth are connected
with the Historical development of the human being. One of these regions or
centres, as they are better called, where cosmic influences played their
part was situated in the interior of Africa. All terrestrial forces
emanating from the soil, that influence man during his early childhood,
were particularly active in those centres... Man's environment has the
strongest impact on him during his early childhood, and this particular
environment imprints the characteristics of his childhood upon him for the
rest of this life... Thus the black negro race is determined by these
childhood characteristics. Another centre where cosmic influences were
particularly active was located in Asia but there the etheric formative
forces of the earth impressed permanently upon man the characteristics of
adolescence. There the brown and yellow races came into being, the brown
race specifically imprinted with the characteristics of the child from the
age of seven years to fourteen years; the yellow race with those of the
youth from fourteen to twenty-one years. In a similar centre in Europe, the
characteristics of maturity were imprinted upon the race and in America
those of the older human being and even old age. Dr. Steiner calls this a
UNIVERSAL LAW.
"Coming back to the black race which had its centre in the interior of
Africa, the Spirits of Form--the Exousiai--and the Abnormal Spirits of Form
(who as you will remember are those Higher Beings who forsook their
promotion to a higher hierarchy to perform a special duty), were centred in
Mercury. Hence we may call the black race the Mercury Race. Although the
seeds for this race were already planted in Lemuria, its concrete formation
occurred in early Atlantis. From there the race spread across Africa and
"crystallized," as Dr. Steiner put it, into the Ethiopian race as an
express of an impulse from the Mercury Oracle or, if one prefers, the
Mercury Mysteries in Atlantis. In these Mysteries, the abnormal Spirits of
Form worked specifically in the glandular or lymphatic system. Everything
that characterised the Ethiopian race stems from the fermentation of the
Mercury forces in the glandular system of the people. Dr. Steiner taught:
"What transforms the undifferentiated universal human form into black
pigmentation and wooly or frizzy hair, is the consequence of their
activity."
"Whereas Mercury dominates, so to speak, the glandular system, Venus
dominates the nervous system, Mars the blood and Jupiter the senses. Hence
the specific characteristics of Venus--brown race, Mars--yellow race, and
Jupiter--white race...
"In lectures presented by the late Dr. Max Stibbe, who made an extensive
study of race relations in South Africa, it was mentioned that the Mercury
Mysteries in Atlantis soon degenerated, with the result that the Negro race
was deprived of those spiritual impulses that introduced initiatives.
Migrating from Atlantis, the blacks entered Africa at the mouth of the
Congo river. Some of them went to North-West Africa, the rest journeying to
the East and the South. The life forces of the black race are so strong
that they absorb all light. The warmth of the cosmos is, so to speak,
boiling inside them, hence their particular metabolism, their strong
desires, instincts and emotions. Their skin is coarce (large-pored) and
their limbs extraordinarily strong, in comparison with which the
development of their thinking is much weaker. Their strong life forces see
to it that of their soul functions, WILLING is by far the most strongly
developed. Their metabolism is dominated by the liver, hence the frequent
liver diseases--and other glandular disturbances--among blacks. They are
rigidly imprisoned in the fire of their metabolism and their physical as
well as etheric body is hardened."
[Picard, Hymen W.J. "Some Thoughts on Race Relations." Invisible Africa: A
search for the Grail in Africa--Selected Essays. Kenilworth, Republic of
South Africa: Novalis Press, 1987., pp. 113-114.]
This kind of ignorant and patronizing racism must be repudiated by
Anthroposophy before Anthroposophy can become a legitimate religion. As
long as beliefs such as these are held, Anthroposophy must suffer being
called a cult-like sect.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n927.4 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: racism
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 04:56:25 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199809181206.FAA06729 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199809250618.XAA19116 lists1.best.com)
)[Picard, Hymen W.J. "Some Thoughts on Race Relations." Invisible Africa: A
)search for the Grail in Africa--Selected Essays. Kenilworth, Republic of
)South Africa: Novalis Press, 1987., pp. 113-114.]
Does anyone have a source where I might obtain a copy of this book?
Amazon.com doesn't list it.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n927.5 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: racism
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:14:18 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Mr. Dugan,
I posted a message illustrating how historically we have changed from
tribal based communities to nations and are now moving towards a global
world. Part of this historical evolution has had expression in our races,
in the past. The races are a reality and were necessary for our human
development. You would not be here today, if forefathers were not part of
certain races. Humanity is moving beyond race and has been doing so since 0
A.D. Prior to this time, specific cosmic influences prevailed because the
human being was not fully incarnate. As human beings fully incarnate in
this age, they overcome any influence of race. This progression is enhanced
by inter-racial marriage. All of these physical components are secondary to
the spiritual influences, both of the individual and of the cosmos. My
posting, which describes this, was quoted *directly* from Rudolf Steiner,
not someone's interpretation. My interpretation is supported by my quote
and can be judged on its own merits.
Your posting is your interpretation and another individuals
interpretation with little understanding of time-frames or a broader basis.
It is not possible to understand where *Steiner* stood on this topic from
this posting. If you remember history, Karl Marx took Hegel's theories and
interpreted them to form the basis of communism. Hegel was not a communist
and his work does not lead to communism. Lesser thinkers such as Marx can
take and twist anything to their liking.
You have not defended your own racist position regarding the survival of
the fittest doctrine. I am interested in learning how your worldview
overcomes racism. That would hold much more credibility. I will wait for
your reply.
- Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n927.6 ---------------
From: RebFree aol.com
Subject: Re: Re:Fwd: cranky beds
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:19:27 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
lol, Charlie. What else did Murray say?
Rebecah
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n927.7 ---------------
From: RebFree aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: racism
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:49:55 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dan,
I did not state my question clearly enough, I guess, so I will try again.
Why is it "racism" to describe these races in terms of childhood, adolescence,
strong-willed, etc.?
What policies or actions did Rudolf Steiner advocate that you see as racist?
Rebecah
(PS. Thank you for the summary; it has clarified a few points I did not
understand before.)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n927.8 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Re: racism
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 14:02:00 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I assume that "Dan" refers to "Dan Dugan" as my name is "Daniel." :~). I
refer to him as "Dugan" just to be clear! And thanks for restating your
question, I think we are all waiting for many questions to be answered. You
may wait a long time ....... By the way, I posted the definition of racism
(Webster's) awhile back and no one has been able to fit Steiner's worldview
to that definition.
- Daniel.
-----Original Message-----
From: RebFree aol.com (RebFree aol.com)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Friday, September 25, 1998 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: Re: racism
)Dan,
)
)I did not state my question clearly enough, I guess, so I will try again.
)
)Why is it "racism" to describe these races in terms of childhood,
adolescence,
)strong-willed, etc.?
)
)What policies or actions did Rudolf Steiner advocate that you see as
racist?
)
)Rebecah
)
)(PS. Thank you for the summary; it has clarified a few points I did not
)understand before.)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n927.9 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: racism
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 13:28:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (199809251311.GAA09691 lists1.best.com)
On 25 Sep 98, at 9:14, Daniel Perez wrote:
) You have not defended your own racist position regarding the survival
) of the fittest doctrine.
If you are referring to social Darwinism, that outdated and
discredited social doctrine which was invented to justify class and
race barriers, you are correct that it is racist.
If you are referring to the biological theory of natural selection
(which is sometimes inaccurately characterized as the "survival of
the fittest doctrine"), I do not understand your assertion that it is
racist. You have explained it thus:
) The result of materialism is moral relativism. The human life is a
) collection of chemical reactions, it is worth nothing in and of
) itself. Materialists embrace Darwinian evolution. If you combine
) Darwinian evolution and the lack of value of human life, racism
) results. 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 If man is only matter, and the form of matter is
) transmitted through the genes, then "race is the primary
) determinant of human traits and capacities." Darwin already
) determined that "racial differences produce an inherent
) superiority of a particular race." This is in accordance with the
) religion of materialism.
This statement bears so little resemblance to the theory of natural
selection, as I understand it, as to make no sense. Specifically,
the statement, "race is the primary deteminant of human traits and
capacities" does not follow from the statement that "man is only
matter, and the form of matter is transmitted through the genes."
You can't expect those who agree with the theory of natural
selection to defend their "racist positions" unless they first agree
with your assertion that natural selection is a racist concept.
Since you have not demonstrated that natural selection is a racist
concept, and indeed, seem to be wrong about that, your question
is premature. When did you stop beating your wife?
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n927.10 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Model Disclosure Statement
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 13:45:10 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199809231629.JAA17284 lists1.best.com)
On 23 Sep 98, at 12:28, Robert Tolz wrote:
) Wouldn't it be possible for PLANS to come up with what they think would
) be an adequate disclosure statement? Perhaps we could bandy it about on
) this list.
One was posted a while back. Some inaccuracies were corrected,
and there were general objections to the tone.
I recall that a disclosure statement by a Waldorf school was
posted, too, at one time, which seemed pretty darn good.
I don't have the posts, though.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n927 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n928 --------------
001 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: racism
002 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Makin' fun
003 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: racism
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n928.1 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: racism
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 16:59:29 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
On 15 Sept Herman de Tollenaere wrote, commenting on the republication
in 1991 of a book by Ludwig Thieben (himself a jew) published in 1931:
"[The organization "Children of the Holocaust" campaigned in Switzerland
against Thieben's book. The District Attorney investigated, and
concluded that though the book was indeed "racist", it was not illegal
according to Swiss anti-racism law]."
According to the site of PERSEUS VERLAG BASEL, which republished the
book in 1991 and the journal ´DER EUROPŸERª at
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Europaeer/PerEuro.htm,
Die Staatsanwaltschaft Basel-Stadt stellte am 25. Mai 1998 das
Strafverfahren ein, u. a. mit der Begr¸ndung: ´Schliesslich sind weder
im fraglichen Buch noch im Nachwort Meyers Passagen zu erkennen, die die
Menschenw¸rde Angeh–riger einer Rasse, Ethnie oder Religion verletzen
w¸rden.ª
(The District Attorney of Basel-Stadt on 25 May 1998 cancelled the
prosecution, among other things with the motivation: "Finally one can
neither in the text of the book nor in the afterword by Meyer find
passages that insult/breach against the human value of people belonging
to/on the basis of their race, ehtnic group or religion".)
According to
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Europaeer/Meyer_BaZ.htm#BaZ,
"The concept of reincarnation overcomes racism, nationalism and
religious fundamentalism", Thieben writes in the book:
´Die lebendige Anschauung eines ungeborenen und unsterblichen
Wesenskernes, der sich durch die wiederholten Erdenleben hindurchringt,
und zwar so, dass die Wiederverk–rperungen eines Menschen durchaus nicht
immer der gleichen Nationalit”t, Rasse oder Religion angeh–ren,
schliesst nat¸rlich jeden extremen Nationalismus, jede konfessionelle
Einseitigkeit aus. (...) Die Individualit”t, nicht die Zugeh–rigkeit zu
einer Gruppe, bestimmt letzten Endes den Wert des Menschen.ª
(The living view of an unborn, immortal human core, that works itself
through repeated lives on Earth, and in such a way that it not always
belongs to the same nationality, race or religion, of course makes every
extreme nationalism, every confessionel onesidedness impossible (...)
The individuality, not its belonging to a group, in the end decides the
value of the human being.)
David Schweizer, the President of the Sionistist Society of Basel,
stated in December 1997, that the book by Thieben, even though it in his
opinion must be partially criticized, was neither antiesmitic nor
racist.
According to Thomas Meyer, the actions of Althof, central in the
organization "Children of the Holocaust", had to do with the publication
by Perseus Publishing Company of the Autobiography by Barbro Karlen,
forseen for November last year, delayed until May this year. Karlen
experiences herself as the reborn Anne Frank.
Althof tried to stop two public panel discussions in Basel and
Z¸rich this year with Karlen and other jewish and non-jewish
participants on "Reincarnation, fiction or reality?" and also demanded
the resignation of the present President of the Anne Frank Foundation,
on the ground that he had not tried to stop the panel discussions.
Several personalities, among them David Schweizer and Prof. Shimon
Levy, Tel Aviv, have recently distanced themselves from Althof¥s
organisation and write:
´Das Vorgehen der Aktion Kinder des Holocaust stellt f¸r uns eine
unw¸rdige Vereinnahmung des Holocaust dar.ª (The actions of "Children of
Holocaust" appears to us as an unworthy monopolisation on Holocaust.)
The possible thought that someone living as a jew should not live as a
jew also in a next life seems to be one of the problems in the
connection.
The Rabbi Yonassan Gershom with a home page at:
http://www.pinenet.com/~rooster/index.html has much material on the
theme.
The introduction of the new edition of the book by Thieben in 1991 was
written by Amnon Reuveni (also of jewish origin), editor of the journal
INFO 3
(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/anthromedia/homepage.htm)
which is a strong defender of anti-racism and anti-anti-semitism.
It published an article by Gershom in July this year;
"Multi-cultural Aspects of Reincarnation Studies: some questions for
Anthroposophists." It can be found on his site in a short form at
http://www.pinenet.com/~rooster/multi-3.html.
The full text article can be found at
http://www.pinenet.com/~rooster/multi.html.
In Holland, an investigating committee, chaired by Th.A. van Baarda, a
lawyer specialising in discrimination issues recently published:
Anthroposophy and the Race Issue
Summary of the interim report:ªANTHROPOSOPHY AND THE RACE ISSUE´. It can
be found at the site of INFO 3
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/anthromedia/race01.htm.
In summary I would say that of course interracial marriages, overcoming
out of the heart what binds us to a specific race, ethnic group or any
group in an unjustified way is something that is good and, as Daniel
Perez has pointed out, a goal most fully in harmony with anthroposophy
and that the critique of Dan (D) and Herman completely miss the essence
of anthroposophy.
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n928.2 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Makin' fun
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1998 20:03:51 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809252047.NAA29923 lists1.best.com)
Charlie posted:
)
) Rudolph Steiner did, in fact, give specific indications concerning which
) side of the bed to get up on depending on geographical orientation, time
) of day, day of the week, time of year, position of the planets, and
) post-Atlantean epoch; but it is obvious that the critics' list is just
) not ready to receive this information.
)
) ;-}
)
) Peace, y'all
) Charlie
)
) ----------------- End Forwarded Message -----------------
)
) Hello,
) I must apologize for the above post. I have taken some lumps from the
) Anthroposophical community, and they insist that I post a retraction and
) set the record straight.
) Rudolph Steiner gave NO SUCH INDICATIONS concerning which side of the bed
) to get up on;
) it was his less-known brother, Murray Steiner, who was a janitor at the
) first Waldorf School in Stuttgart who gave these indications.
) Murray, it seems, was destined for greatness and may have surpassed his
) brother in many ways had he not learned to read and write so early in
) life.
) Because of this, he lived in relative obscurity in the shadow of his
) brilliant brother, Rudolph.
) I hope this clears some things up.
) Thank you.
) xxxooo,
) Charlie
Methinks Murray was the enlightened one. I enjoyed this post and am
wondering if, perhaps, Murray has a following? I think I've felt an
impulse to follow Murray's ways/path for many years, without being able
to put a name or a face to it. My children both read at an early age,
and my husband often gets up on the cranky side of bed, showing himself
completely unable to choose the more preferable side as indicated by my
own early morning behavior.
On a more serious note . . . your description of the Anthroposophical
community's reaction to your "joke" speaks louder than words. I've
posted opinions, statements, etc., on a number of occasions on this list
that other "critics" were in disagreement with. However, I have never
been the recipient of any pressure whatsoever to post a "retraction," or
received any sort of reaction other than honest, open disagreement
posted here for all to see.
Does the Anthroposophical Community think Critics will take your humor
seriously? Or is it that one can't "fun" with the topic of RS's
indications? Or, maybe one simply shouldn't fun with the Critics? Help
me here.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n928.3 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: racism
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 22:57:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199809250618.XAA19116 lists1.best.com)
(199809181206.FAA06729 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199809250843.BAA18603 lists1.best.com)
))[Picard, Hymen W.J. "Some Thoughts on Race Relations." Invisible Africa: A
))search for the Grail in Africa--Selected Essays. Kenilworth, Republic of
))South Africa: Novalis Press, 1987., pp. 113-114.]
)
)Does anyone have a source where I might obtain a copy of this book?
)Amazon.com doesn't list it.
)Robert Flannery
)New York
)litvas icu.com
It was in the 1997 catalog from Rudolf Steiner College.
-Dan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n928 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n929 --------------
001 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: racism
002 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: racism
003 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: racism
004 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: racism
005 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: racism
006 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - Fwd: Makin' fun
007 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: racism
008 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: racism
009 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: racism
010 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: racism
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n929.1 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: racism
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:26:16 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Steve,
I have been trying to engage in a civil discourse involving theory and
concept. I am not interested in sensationalism or nasty comments.
Furthermore, I have been trying to get Mr. Dugan to describe for us what his
theory and concepts lead to as regards racism. Ideas lead to results and
fundamental truths. My understanding of his view as regards Popper (sp?)
etc. is that it leads to the kind of statements that he is claiming are
coming from Steiner. These are serious accusations and require serious
deliberation. This is not a game.
I did not intend to deeply insult you at any time in the past, but you
act as though you have been deeply hurt. You reacted strongly when I
described Nietzsche's mental illness, and it was not even directed at you.
Now you react strongly when I try and find out how Mr. Dugan's worldview is
not racist, after he has made untold claims about Steiner and
anthroposophists. What is making you so sensitive to dialog? I thought you
and the public school "wisdom" was to be open minded and able to converse on
serious topics. I am happy to stop confronting those people who can't face
their own worldview. I am not looking to cause you or anyone else undue
stress. I misunderstood the intention and purpose of this list, and
expected higher standards.
- Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n929.2 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: racism
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 12:55:28 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199809281624.JAA13688 lists1.best.com)
On 28 Sep 98, at 12:26, Daniel Perez wrote:
) Steve,
) I have been trying to engage in a civil discourse involving theory and
) concept.
Yes, me too.
) I am not interested in sensationalism or nasty comments.
Neither am I.
) Furthermore, I have been trying to get Mr. Dugan to describe for us what
) his theory and concepts lead to as regards racism.
Well, that's fine. You can ask him whether he feels that Popper's
philosophy leads to racism, and why or why not. Or you can
explain why you think that materialism leads to racism, and ask for
a rebuttal.
Instead, you accused Dan of following a racist philosophy. You
stated, in the prior post:
) You have not defended your own racist position regarding the
) survival of the fittest doctrine.
[back to Daniel's current post]
) My understanding of his view as regards Popper
) (sp?) etc. is that it leads to the kind of statements that he is claiming
) are coming from Steiner.
But you have not demonstrated that.
) These are serious accusations and require
) serious deliberation.
Indeed. That is why I challenged you on it.
) I did not intend to deeply insult you at any time in the past, but you
) act as though you have been deeply hurt.
Daniel, I was insulted and offended by your statements linking
materialism and racism, and linking materialism and mental
illness, but I was not deeply hurt. I thought that you were being
bigoted in accusing materialists of racism, and I thought you were
implying that materialists are, as a group, mentally ill. You have
since explained that you were not talking about materialists as
individuals, but rather were saying that racism and mental illness
are the logical end results of a materialist philosophy.
So I'm no longer offended, although I disagree with you. But I do
get annoyed at your tendency to state your opinions as if they
were facts. For example:
) I am happy to stop confronting those people who can't face their
) own worldview.
This statement implies that if people disagree with you, it is not
because of a difference of opinion, but rather it is because they
"can't face their own worldview." Sorry, but this annoys me. Since
I'm annoyed, I tend to be a little more harsh than usual. That is my
shortcoming.
Nevertheless, my post was not an attempt to hurt your feelings.
Rather, I was sincerely hoping you would respond to my inquiry.
I'll ask again. You challenged Dan to "defend [his] own racist
position regarding the survival of the fittest doctrine." This
assumes that the theory of natural selection is inherently racist,
which you have not demonstrated. Please explain whether I am
correctly interpreting your statement as an assertion that natural
selection is a racist doctrine, and if so, why you feel it is racist.
To the rest of the list:
I apologize for discussing my personal feelings about Daniel's
posts in a post to the whole list, rather than in private email, but
since Daniel's comments were to the whole list, I thought I should
explain here.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n929.3 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: racism
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 16:14:01 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thank you for the summation, Sune Nordwall. From one of the sites that you
listed I found:
----------------------------------------------------------
The main conclusions of the research:
There is no question of a racial doctrine being involved in the work of
Rudolf Steiner. Nor does his work contain any statements which have been
made with the intention of insulting people or groups on account of race and
which therefore could be called racist. Suggestions that racism is inherent
in anthroposophy or that Steiner was one of the conceptual pioneers of the
holocaust have been shown to be categorically incorrect. Rudolf Steiner's
anthroposophical portrayal of man is based on the equality of all
individuals and not on the alleged superiority of one race over another one.
Nevertheless, the collected work of Rudolf Steiner does contain some
statements which according to current criteria are of a discriminatory
nature or could be found discriminatory. ([my insertion: part of the
definition of discriminatory], "answering the question of whether a
statement is insulting for a group of people on account of race ...., etc.
depends on the nature of the statement and does not partly depend on the
intentions of the person who makes the statements public. A statement which
is not intended to be discriminatory can nevertheless have a discriminatory
consequence.")
The Committee emphasizes that it hardly ever happens in the Netherlands that
antiquarian publications like those of Rudolf Steiner are subjected to such
a strict test. This is not incomprehensible also in view of the problem of
the methods applied. In Europe at the time that Steiner was alive
(1861-1925) there was no ethical nor a general legal ban on racial
discrimination. As a result of this it is practically impossible to test the
relevant statements made by Steiner against the then legal
anti-discrimination standards.
It is theoretically possible to test these statements against the current
legislation but requires a great deal of reticence. Testing with
retrospective effect certain actions or statements made in the past against
penal provisions in the present is in conflict with the law. ("An act shall
not be punishable unless made so under a previously laid down statutory
penal legislation"). Furthermore, strict application of current
anti-discrimination legislation to antiquarian publications would have the
consequence that countless historical and scientific publications would not
be available at all or hardly at all. For example, the works of Darwin,
Hegel, Albert Schweitzer or Mahatma Gandhi.
However, the collected work of Steiner has more than an antiquarian
significance. It still forms the source of study and inspiration for many
people. The Committee therefore considers it is important to study all the
passages which deal with races in their context and to provide clarity about
whether they are discriminatory or not.
----------------------------------------------------------
My interpretation:
The statement, "Nevertheless, the collected work of Rudolf Steiner does
contain some statements which according to current criteria are of a
discriminatory nature or could be found discriminatory." is in view of the
subsequent statement, "The Committee therefore considers it is important to
study all the passages which deal with races in their context and to provide
clarity about whether they are discriminatory or not." The first statement
in effect is "How may people *interpret* these statements as being racist."
The second statement is connected with the *education* of individuals about
the meaning of the statements (and the underlying worldview.) The first set
of criteria for "discriminatory nature" is very broad. If a statement
*sounds* racist, even if it is out of context, then it is "discriminatory in
nature." Many modern politicians who are not considered "racist" have at
one time or another made a "discriminatory" comment.
The following statement is self-explanatory, "Testing with retrospective
effect certain actions or statements made in the past against penal
provisions in the present is in conflict with the law." My previous
postings on this topic are supported by these findings. These findings have
had no credible opposition. Does anyone claim there is credible opposition
in which there are specific arguments against these statements? I would be
interested in specifics, not more random quotes. Thanks,
- Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n929.4 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: racism
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 17:37:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
) I am happy to stop confronting those people who can't face their
) own worldview.
This statement implies that if people disagree with you, it is not
because of a difference of opinion, but rather it is because they
"can't face their own worldview." Sorry, but this annoys me. Since
I'm annoyed, I tend to be a little more harsh than usual. That is my
shortcoming.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Steve, I have never taken offense at people disagreeing with me. That is
not true. I have found Mr. Dugan to selectively respond to questions. I
infer from this that he has no response, and that is a reasonable
conclusion. To be certain of where he stands (because an inference is not
conclusive), I try to "ask questions," but he ignores my questions as well
as other people's questions. I have a hard time when someone makes
outlandish claims and alligations against another person who is not alive to
defend themselves (Steiner), and then does not even respond to questions
himself. That is "bigoted" in my humble oppinion. Is it not? I am left
with inferences that I subsequently share with the list. You believe I
should not share these inferences. However, people must face their own
accusations. It is simply not moral to take pot-shots at someone elses
worldview without examining your own. How can there be any objectivity? I
have taken and reflected on questions brought by people on this list and I'm
getting weary of the dodging. I have reflected on my own worldview
publicly, but it has not been returned in kind. Some of my statements are
meant to draw out those who are unwilling to face their worldview. I don't
see what is objectionable in that statement. Not responding to the "hard"
questions, or responding in an angry way to these "hard" questions, leads me
to the conclusion that people do not wish to face their own worldview. I
stand by that statement.
If you are annoyed by these inferences, then there is no point in our
continuing a discussion. The playing field is not flat, but is skewed
towards your perspective. Mr. Dugan should be able to articulate how his
worldview handles the question of race. I don't know enough about his
mindset, but can make "inferences." I was looking for information on how
any worldview with a basis in "Darwinian doctrine" can transcend racism. I
am the one to research many things, not only Steiner's worldview, but Mr.
Dugan's worldview. It is time for a change, because if I state the problems
with the "Darwinian doctrine," then Mr. Dugan will dodge that through some
other statement. He doesn't want to stand and state something clearly
because he will be picked apart. There is a huge body of Steiner's quotes
to pick apart, it is now time to find out what Mr. Dugan stands for. These
are my "inferences" about Mr. Dugan's tactics from the evidence I have
gathered. If there is a flaw in my inference, I'm happy to learn about it.
Currently there is not a level playing field and I'm wondering if there is
any point in continuing. If you are resorting to sensational statements,
then it is a further indication as to what I am dealing with.
Let me restate, "From what I know about materialism and Darwinian doctrine,
it results in a racist worldview. I ask how this worldview can transcend
racism, in particular Mr. Dugan's worldview? I find no point in presenting
this understanding of mine if individuals do not have an interest in
understanding their own worldview first. I understand anthroposophy and
have presented how anthroposophy transcends racism, now it is your turn."
Thanks for a more honorable discourse, Steve. :~).
Regards,
- Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n929.5 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: racism
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 14:58:46 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------8868825F4A33577ACE540950"
References: (199809281958.MAA17797 lists1.best.com)
--------------8868825F4A33577ACE540950
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I don't intend this as a missive, but rather as my own questions and observations as they pertain to Premo's post. BTW I've been in Boston for the past 10 days, and unable to comment on previous posts. e
Steve Premo wrote:
) Instead, you accused Dan of following a racist philosophy. You
) stated, in the prior post:
I think standards Dan uses to pass judgment, if applied to his own world view in equal measure, leads to something very akin to a racist philosophy. This may not be the intention, nor probably inherent, but then again I'll wager the same can be said of Anthroposophy. Which is my point.
) Daniel, I was insulted and offended by your statements linking
) materialism and racism, and linking materialism and mental
) illness, but I was not deeply hurt. I thought that you were being
) bigoted in accusing materialists of racism, and I thought you were
) implying that materialists are, as a group, mentally ill.
Would you mind explaining to me how bigotry is involved in questions of racism, unless you assume Daniel's an anthro, and anthros are racist, thus making it a relative question. Is this the case then, or can you offer a better explanation for your use of bigotry in this case? Another issue I wish to clarify, and it may have nothing to do with Daniel, but rather with Premo's assumption everyone is capable of driving themselves insane given a materialist world view.
Daniel's ideas on materialism, though they may be entirely his own, are not unique. There are more than a few intellectual heavyweights that proposed and indeed defended such a hypothesis (that Materialism, the rejection of the metaphysical, leading ultimately to rejection of one's faction, leads to insanity).
In fact, less I'm much mistaken, that (the logical conclusion of materialism) is Nietzsche's _primary_ conclusion (why normal mortals cannot progress, why the Superman is needed). Whether or not he was a victim himself is another question entirely, though I suspect Heidegger, among others, have said as much. Kierkegaard might be another good example, but it lead him to existentialism instead of insanity (and who knows, they might be of the same coin in the eyes of western civilization).
Even if you don't accept insanity, you must have some notion of materialism's role in nihilism?
What I meant to say, before digression, was that not just anyone is bright enough (ie logically consistent, of exceptional fortitude) to contemplate materialism's reducto ad absurdum. Perhaps this list is as good a place as any to look for evidence of my assertion (grin).
This also leads me to ask, in at least your opinion Steve, and perhaps yours as well Daniel, who are the eminent figures of materialistic philosophy?
) I'll ask again. You challenged Dan to "defend [his] own racist
) position regarding the survival of the fittest doctrine." This
) assumes that the theory of natural selection is inherently racist,
) which you have not demonstrated. Please explain whether I am
) correctly interpreting your statement as an assertion that natural
) selection is a racist doctrine, and if so, why you feel it is racist.
)
What of the doctrine of manifest destiny? I am not stating that it is the inherent conclusion of a survival of the fittest world view, but I would like some explanation as to why it is not valid within the materialistic/survival of the fittest world view. Mere mention of a species' fitness sounds awful racist to me.e
--------------8868825F4A33577ACE540950
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
(HTML)
I don't intend this as a missive, but rather as my own questions and observations
as they pertain to Premo's post. BTW I've been in Boston for the
past 10 days, and unable to comment on previous posts. e
(P)Steve Premo wrote:
(BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE)Instead, you accused Dan of following a racist philosophy.
You
(BR)stated, in the prior post:(/BLOCKQUOTE)
I think standards Dan uses to pass judgment, if applied to his own world
view in equal measure, leads to something very akin to a racist philosophy.
This may not be the intention, nor probably inherent, but then again I'll
wager the same can be said of Anthroposophy. Which is my point.
(BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE)Daniel, I was insulted and offended by your statements
linking
(BR)materialism and racism, and linking materialism and mental
(BR)illness, but I was not deeply hurt. I thought that you were being
(BR)bigoted in accusing materialists of racism, and I thought you were
(BR)implying that materialists are, as a group, mentally ill.(/BLOCKQUOTE)
Would you mind explaining to me how bigotry is involved in questions of
racism, unless you assume Daniel's an anthro, and anthros are racist, thus
making it a relative question. Is this the case then, or can you
offer a better explanation for your use of bigotry in this case?
Another issue I wish to clarify, and it may have nothing to do with Daniel,
but rather with Premo's assumption everyone is capable of driving themselves
insane given a materialist world view.
(BR) Daniel's ideas on materialism, though they may be
entirely his own, are not unique. There are more than a few intellectual
heavyweights that proposed and indeed defended such a hypothesis (that
Materialism, the rejection of the metaphysical, leading ultimately to rejection
of one's faction, leads to insanity).
(BR) In fact, less I'm much mistaken, that (the logical
conclusion of materialism) is Nietzsche's _primary_ conclusion (why normal
mortals cannot progress, why the Superman is needed). Whether or
not he was a victim himself is another question entirely, though I suspect
Heidegger, among others, have said as much. Kierkegaard might be
another good example, but it lead him to existentialism instead of insanity
(and who knows, they might be of the same coin in the eyes of western civilization).
Even if you don't accept insanity, you must have some notion of materialism's
role in nihilism?
(BR) What I meant to say, before digression, was that
not just anyone is bright enough (ie logically consistent, of exceptional
fortitude) to contemplate materialism's reducto ad absurdum. Perhaps
this list is as good a place as any to look for evidence of my assertion
(grin).
(BR) This also leads me to ask, in at least your opinion
Steve, and perhaps yours as well Daniel, who are the eminent figures of
materialistic philosophy?
(BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE)I'll ask again. You challenged Dan to "defend
[his] own racist
(BR)position regarding the survival of the fittest doctrine." This
(BR)assumes that the theory of natural selection is inherently racist,
(BR)which you have not demonstrated. Please explain whether I am
(BR)correctly interpreting your statement as an assertion that natural
(BR)selection is a racist doctrine, and if so, why you feel it is racist.
(BR)(A HREF="http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html")(/A) (/BLOCKQUOTE)
What of the doctrine of manifest destiny? I am not stating that it
is the inherent conclusion of a survival of the fittest world view, but
I would like some explanation as to why it is not valid within the materialistic/survival
of the fittest world view. Mere mention of a species' fitness sounds
awful racist to me.e
(BR) (/HTML)
--------------8868825F4A33577ACE540950--
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n929.6 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Fwd: Makin' fun
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 98 20:26:18 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
"Spike" wrote:
)On a more serious note . . . your description of the Anthroposophical
)community's reaction to your "joke" speaks louder than words. I've
)posted opinions, statements, etc., on a number of occasions on this list...
The "pressure" I received from the Anthroposophical community was no more
real than Murray Steiner.
Best,
Charlie
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n929.7 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: racism
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 17:32:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199809282140.OAA21605 lists1.best.com)
On 28 Sep 98, at 17:37, Daniel Perez wrote:
) I have a hard time when
) someone makes outlandish claims and alligations against another person who
) is not alive to defend themselves (Steiner), and then does not even
) respond to questions himself. That is "bigoted" in my humble oppinion.
) Is it not?
Well, the bigotry, if it is there, is in Dan's willingness to believe
anything bad about anthroposophists, and to ignore contrary
evidence. It really has nothing to do with whether and when he
responds to questions.
) I am left with inferences that I subsequently share with the
) list. You believe I should not share these inferences.
I never said that, and I do not hold that belief. I simply think that
you should not phrase your opinions as facts, as if all reasonable
people know that, for example, natural selection is a racist doctrine.
I feel almost as though we speak different languages. I try to state
my thoughts clearly, and yet you misunderstand me. And I seem
to be misunderstanding you as well. (Folks, am I making sense in
this discussion? I could use a reality check.)
I think you should share any inferences that you think relevant to
the discussion, but I also think you should be willing to explain how
you drew that particular inference, and the facts or assumptions on
which the inferences are based.
) I was looking for information on how
) any worldview with a basis in "Darwinian doctrine" can transcend racism.
To me, that makes no sense, because I do not understand how
evolution through natural selection has any relationship to racism
one way or the other. It is as though you asked how anyone who
eats meat can transcend racism. I can't answer that question
because, without knowing why you would link a carnivorous diet to
racism in the first place, the question makes no sense.
That's why I asked you to explain the link, in your mind, between
racism and natural selection. If you prefer not to answer, that's
fine. You have no obligation to answer the question, and while I
may disagree with your reasons for not answering, I respect your
right to discuss only that which you wish to discuss.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n929.8 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: racism
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1998 17:41:29 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199809282203.PAA08214 lists1.best.com)
On 28 Sep 98, at 14:58, Ezra Beeman wrote:
Steve Premo wrote:
)
) ) Daniel, I was insulted and offended by your statements linking
) ) materialism and racism, and linking materialism and mental
) ) illness, but I was not deeply hurt. I thought that you were being
) ) bigoted in accusing materialists of racism, and I thought you were
) ) implying that materialists are, as a group, mentally ill.
)
) Would you mind explaining to me how bigotry is involved in questions of
) racism, unless you assume Daniel's an anthro, and anthros are racist, thus
) making it a relative question.
No. Racism is a particular form of bigotry, where the group against
which one is prejudiced is a racial group. If it's prejudice against
some other group, such as a religious group, it's bigotry. At least,
that's my understanding of the word.
I thought, incorrectly, that Daniel was exhibiting prejudice against
those who held a materialist personal philosophy.
) This also leads me to ask, in at least your opinion Steve, and perhaps
) yours as well Daniel, who are the eminent figures of materialistic
) philosophy?
I have no idea. I am not a student of philosophy.
By the way, Ezra, please avoid posting in HTML. Thanks.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n929.9 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: racism
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:33:36 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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 You may be willing
to discuss these topics, Steve, but Mr. Dugan isn't and that carries with it
significant implications. If Mr. Dugan were not presenting distorted facts,
it would be one thing. He continues to present distorted facts and yet
can't defend his own worldview. It is clear to my mind that he doesn't have
a solid worldview on which to stand, otherwise why not explain it to us? He
clearly has the time and energy to present distorted truths about
anthroposophists, why can't he present his very own foundation? It is
obvious to me why this occurs, and perhaps I come across in a strong way as
a result: He either has no solid worldview or doesn't understand the
worldview he has adopted. This is what the facts reveal to me.
With regard to natural selection and racism, I refuse to go into elaborate
detail if Mr. Dugan is not part of the discussion. He is the one who has
attacked anthroposophy, and has attacked it without sufficient foundation.
He is the one who has decried the lack of objectivity of the Waldorf school,
and yet is so non-objective that he can't analyze his own perspective. He
is the one who has stated that modern science and evolution theory have a
solid foundation, and when we show him the contrary evidence he doesn't
respond. On the anthro-science list Mr. Dugan's views have been shown to be
absolutely false (on the rare occasion when he presents something).
It is absolutely clear to me that natural selection is based on "survival of
the fittest." "Survival of the fittest" means that the species or race of
an animal, human or otherwise, is the "primary determinant of traits and
capacities" of an individual. Furthermore "racial differences produce an
inherent superiority of a particular race." The definition of superiority
is the propagation of the species. This is the only definition that makes
any sense in terms of evolution theory. We would not be here today to
discuss these ideas if man was not superior to certain animals, and if one
race was not superior to another. Evolution theory is founded on this
maxim. You are welcome to critic this broad sweeping statement, but I doubt
it will get us anywhere. This statement is not meant to be defended as it
stands, but to be an indication. If Mr. Dugan has any ability to understand
his own statements, then he can take up the question. I will repeat: "these
statements are not complete and they were intended to be incomplete." Let
us see if those who hold the keys to the dogma can unlock the door.
I appreciated your viewpoints Steve, and have taken them to heart. Thank
you Ezra for your input as well.
- Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n929.10 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: racism
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 09:58:12 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
"And so, in order to create dissensions, Ahriman also makes use of what
develops from the old conditions of heredity which man has really outgrown
in the Fifth Post-Atlantean Epoch [starting in the 15th century]. The
Ahrimanic powers use all that is derived from old circumstances of heredity
in order to set men against each other in conflicting groups. All that
comes from old differences of family, race, tribe, peoples, is used by
Ahriman to create confusion. "Freedom for every nation, even the smallest
..." These were fine-sounding words. But the powers hostile to man always
use fine words in order to bring confusion and in order to attain the things
that Ahriman wishes to attain for his incarnation. If we inquire: Who stirs
up nations against each other? Who raises the questions that are directing
humanity today? -- the answer is: the Ahrimanic deception which plays into
human life. And in this field men very easily let themselves be
deceived." - Rudolf Steiner, Zurich, October 27, 1919, "The Ahrimanic
Deception."
These are the words of an individual who fully experienced the necessity of
transcending race. He understood the importance of this to a greater degree
than most men do today. He went further than most non-racist doctrines
because he saw a higher conspiracy to the action of racism. He saw a being
who's intention is to deceive us into thinking race is the "primary
determinant." This goes beyond men merely being mistaken and speaks to the
very intention of powerful beings.
Even battling the accusations of racism against anthroposophy plays into the
hands of Ahriman, if one is not careful. These forces are at work looking
to bring anger and strife between the people on this list. At times it has
worked most effectively. I am not looking to confront and be controversial
in any way. I am looking to speak to ideas that can be perceived by all,
and if that is not possible I will look for other means of thoughtful
action.
- Daniel.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n929 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n930 --------------
001 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Re: racism
002 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Racism
003 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: racism
004 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: racism
005 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Racism
006 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Racism
007 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: racism
008 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Karl Popper
009 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Karl Popper
010 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Conspiracy theories (was: racism)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n930.1 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Re: racism
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 10:48:21 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809282140.OAA21605 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (89156888 toto.iv)
Steve Premo writes:
) I feel almost as though we speak different languages. I try to state
) my thoughts clearly, and yet you misunderstand me. And I seem
) to be misunderstanding you as well. (Folks, am I making sense in
) this discussion? I could use a reality check.)
Reality check:
That is exactly how I feel reading this discussion. You, as always,
Steve, are the height of reason, decorum, and restraint. You try much
harder than I to be polite yet clear and firm about your beliefs (or
lack thereof). You always seem so clear to me that it is hard to
imagine anyone disagreeing with you, much less misunderstanding you.
An yet Daniel manages to do so consistently.
And if you are misunderstanding him, so am I. (There are certainly
times when I don't understand him, but that should be different from
misunderstanding him.)
--Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n930.2 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Racism
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 11:21:19 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199809291356.GAA27947 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Perez wrote:
) 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 You may be willing
)
) It is absolutely clear to me that natural selection is based on "survival of
) the fittest." "Survival of the fittest" means that the species or race of
) an animal, human or otherwise, is the "primary determinant of traits and
) capacities" of an individual.
That's quite a leap you've taken there, Daniel, and I frankly don't
agree with your logic.
Here's the algebra of your analysis:
A = "Survival of the fittest" (Darwinism)
B = "Race is the primary determinant of traits and capacities"
C = Racism
You start off with the Webster definition of B = C. Then you offer the
proposition that A = B. Since A = B then A must also equal C;
therefore, Darwinism = Racism.
I don't buy it. You have manufactured a link between A and B which I
do not believe is accurate. Therefore the equation of Darwinism with
racism doesn't work.
"Survival of the fittest," as I understand it, means that a species
which is best suited to its environment (i.e., can forage best to
sustain itself, can defend itself against predators, can reproduce
adequately, etc.) is likely to prevail over a species that is not so
well suited, leading potentially to the extinction of the less suitable
species.
Although some commentators might like to extend the theory of natural
selection to competition between groups of human beings, I don't buy
that extension in today's world, where the opportunities for oppression
by one group against another, though still present, are diminishing.
And even though those opportunities for oppression still exist, they
thankfully no longer represent an opportunity for extinction.
I happen to think that Darwin's theories are a pretty good explanation
for how the plant and animal kingdom have produced the species which
they have produced. Does that make me a racist?
) Furthermore "racial differences produce an
) inherent superiority of a particular race." The definition of superiority
) is the propagation of the species. This is the only definition that makes
) any sense in terms of evolution theory. We would not be here today to
) discuss these ideas if man was not superior to certain animals, and if one
) race was not superior to another. Evolution theory is founded on this
) maxim.
I'd love to see something in currently accepted, mainstream
understanding of evolution theory that its fundamental maxim includes
something about racial superiority. I'd be aghast if you were able to
produce it. To my mind, the theories of how plant and animal species
evolved have precious little application to race relationships.
There are some who argue a version of "social Darwinism" which, I
think, talks about how those with the most brains, beauty, charisma,
spunk, etc. (choose your preferred virtue) will rise to the top and
perpetuate themselves through their progeny. One of the problems with
that theory is that, once such people rise to the top (assuming that
they do), who is to say that these are the ones who will be populating
the planet and wiping out those who are less "suitable." It just
doesn't work that way.
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n930.3 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: racism
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:38:29 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199809291330.GAA16999 lists1.best.com)
On 29 Sep 98, at 9:33, Daniel Perez wrote:
) It is absolutely clear to me that natural selection is based on "survival
) of the fittest." "Survival of the fittest" means that the species or race
) of an animal, human or otherwise, is the "primary determinant of traits
) and capacities" of an individual. Furthermore "racial differences produce
) an inherent superiority of a particular race." The definition of
) superiority is the propagation of the species. This is the only
) definition that makes any sense in terms of evolution theory. We would
) not be here today to discuss these ideas if man was not superior to
) certain animals, and if one race was not superior to another. Evolution
) theory is founded on this maxim. You are welcome to critic this broad
) sweeping statement, but I doubt it will get us anywhere. This statement
) is not meant to be defended as it stands, but to be an indication.
Thanks, Daniel. I understand how you could conclude that natural
selection is a racist doctrine. I disagree, but since you really want
a response from Dan, I'll step aside and let him answer it.
To you, Dan.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n930.4 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: racism
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:04:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Perhaps Michael understands Mr. Dugan's "height of reason" as well, and can
help us understand why Mr. Dugan does not so much as present his own
worldview. Is it my "loss of reason" that I request the same scrutiny to
be applied to Mr. Dugan's worldview as to Steiner's? It appears a simple
request to ask how Mr. Dugan's worldview transcends racism. Perhaps I
should not have tied any theory of Mr. Dugan's to racism at the outset,
because my intention is learning more about his worldview in the first
place. I have reason to believe from the indications Mr. Dugan has given
that he can not overcome the question of race, but I'm not looking to get
into the question until I have more information. From all of Mr. Dugan's
statements and explorations of Popper's perspective, I am looking to
understand how race is transcended. I can not speak for Mr. Dugan so it is
a simple request for him to present his views in greater depth.
Perhaps that is not possible in this forum, and perhaps that is an
unreasonable request? Steve Tonkin, do you find this an unreasonable
request?
- Daniel.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: racism
)Steve Premo writes:
)
)) I feel almost as though we speak different languages. I try to state
)) my thoughts clearly, and yet you misunderstand me. And I seem
)) to be misunderstanding you as well. (Folks, am I making sense in
)) this discussion? I could use a reality check.)
)
)Reality check:
)That is exactly how I feel reading this discussion. You, as always,
)Steve, are the height of reason, decorum, and restraint. You try much
)harder than I to be polite yet clear and firm about your beliefs (or
)lack thereof). You always seem so clear to me that it is hard to
)imagine anyone disagreeing with you, much less misunderstanding you.
)An yet Daniel manages to do so consistently.
)
)And if you are misunderstanding him, so am I. (There are certainly
)times when I don't understand him, but that should be different from
)misunderstanding him.)
)
)--Michael
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n930.5 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Racism
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 08:59:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809291356.GAA27947 lists1.best.com) (199809291522.IAA03197 lists1.best.com)
I think aboriginal (native) peoples might disagree with your notions of race relations. I think your analysis narrowly focuses on race relations as they are represented prima faci by the mainstream media.
As for your analysis of his argument, I think it falls with its correspondence to the original source (ie Darwin, who, incidentally never mentioned the word evolution in his Origins of Species paper). Does proposition B map to Darwin's paper?
Robert Tolz wrote:
) Here's the algebra of your analysis:
)
) A = "Survival of the fittest" (Darwinism)
)
) B = "Race is the primary determinant of traits and capacities"
)
) C = Racism
)
) You start off with the Webster definition of B = C. Then you offer the
) proposition that A = B. Since A = B then A must also equal C;
) therefore, Darwinism = Racism.
)
This is the part I was referring to in the beginning of my post.e
) There are some who argue a version of "social Darwinism" which, I
) think, talks about how those with the most brains, beauty, charisma,
) spunk, etc. (choose your preferred virtue) will rise to the top and
) perpetuate themselves through their progeny. One of the problems with
) that theory is that, once such people rise to the top (assuming that
) they do), who is to say that these are the ones who will be populating
) the planet and wiping out those who are less "suitable." It just
) doesn't work that way.
I think the use of manifest destiny to decimate the native american race (documented well by Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee) is a very salient example.
The Nazis also used a variant of this for their doctrine of Lebensraum.
I'm certain there are more, and probably better examples.
e
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n930.6 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: Racism
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:40:09 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In my last mail I meant, "Robert Tolz" instead of Steve Tonkin! Steve had a
different discussion with me in the past and I thought it was his mail that
had been posted (until I read it!). Robert, first of all, my posting was
not meant to define a perspective. I tried hard to make that clear: "I will
repeat: "these statements are not complete and they were intended to be
incomplete."" I am not referring to social Darwinian theory or intending to
make any logical leaps to that. I am interested in:
1) Learning about Mr. Dugan's worldview.
2) Understand how Mr. Dugan believes his worldview transcends the question
of race.
3) Enter into a conversation about how materialism and racism are orthogonal
and/or mutually exclusive.
If all three of the above are met, then I would withdraw my statements about
Mr. Dugan's worldview. Right now I don't see a different interpretation.
Now, you want me to do all of the above, but I will not. It does not make
sense for me to describe Mr. Dugan's worldview. If he can't do that himself
then we should just move on.
Your analysis of my incomplete statements my be correct. They were not
meant to be defensible, as I clearly stated. They were indications of some
of the questions that arise when a materialistic worldview is maintained. I
have much more concrete and exact questions, but it is not the right
environment to present them. I think Ezra has admirably started to take up
the questions with his reference to the American Indian, but these are still
indications.
Perhaps you disagree with my exploring bits and pieces of questions, perhaps
I should not have thrown out those bits, but it was my last attempt to learn
more specifics of Mr. Dugan's worldview. Thanks for the feedback,
- Daniel.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: Racism
)Daniel Perez wrote:
)
)) 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 You may be
willing
)
))
)) It is absolutely clear to me that natural selection is based on "survival
of
)) the fittest." "Survival of the fittest" means that the species or race
of
)) an animal, human or otherwise, is the "primary determinant of traits and
)) capacities" of an individual.
)
) That's quite a leap you've taken there, Daniel, and I frankly don't
)agree with your logic.
)
) Here's the algebra of your analysis:
)
) A = "Survival of the fittest" (Darwinism)
)
) B = "Race is the primary determinant of traits and capacities"
)
) C = Racism
)
) You start off with the Webster definition of B = C. Then you offer the
)proposition that A = B. Since A = B then A must also equal C;
)therefore, Darwinism = Racism.
)
) I don't buy it. You have manufactured a link between A and B which I
)do not believe is accurate. Therefore the equation of Darwinism with
)racism doesn't work.
)
) "Survival of the fittest," as I understand it, means that a species
)which is best suited to its environment (i.e., can forage best to
)sustain itself, can defend itself against predators, can reproduce
)adequately, etc.) is likely to prevail over a species that is not so
)well suited, leading potentially to the extinction of the less suitable
)species.
)
) Although some commentators might like to extend the theory of natural
)selection to competition between groups of human beings, I don't buy
)that extension in today's world, where the opportunities for oppression
)by one group against another, though still present, are diminishing.
)And even though those opportunities for oppression still exist, they
)thankfully no longer represent an opportunity for extinction.
)
) I happen to think that Darwin's theories are a pretty good explanation
)for how the plant and animal kingdom have produced the species which
)they have produced. Does that make me a racist?
)
)
)) Furthermore "racial differences produce an
)) inherent superiority of a particular race." The definition of
superiority
)) is the propagation of the species. This is the only definition that
makes
)) any sense in terms of evolution theory. We would not be here today to
)) discuss these ideas if man was not superior to certain animals, and if
one
)) race was not superior to another. Evolution theory is founded on this
)) maxim.
)
) I'd love to see something in currently accepted, mainstream
)understanding of evolution theory that its fundamental maxim includes
)something about racial superiority. I'd be aghast if you were able to
)produce it. To my mind, the theories of how plant and animal species
)evolved have precious little application to race relationships.
)
) There are some who argue a version of "social Darwinism" which, I
)think, talks about how those with the most brains, beauty, charisma,
)spunk, etc. (choose your preferred virtue) will rise to the top and
)perpetuate themselves through their progeny. One of the problems with
)that theory is that, once such people rise to the top (assuming that
)they do), who is to say that these are the ones who will be populating
)the planet and wiping out those who are less "suitable." It just
)doesn't work that way.
)
)
)--
)Robert Tolz
)Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
)Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
)Tel: (212) 754-9400
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n930.7 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Re: racism
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 13:19:58 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thanks, Steve. I appreciate your understanding. I can be hard to put into
a narrow package as well. :~).
- Daniel.
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: racism
On 29 Sep 98, at 9:33, Daniel Perez wrote:
) It is absolutely clear to me that natural selection is based on "survival
) of the fittest." "Survival of the fittest" means that the species or race
) of an animal, human or otherwise, is the "primary determinant of traits
) and capacities" of an individual. Furthermore "racial differences produce
) an inherent superiority of a particular race." The definition of
) superiority is the propagation of the species. This is the only
) definition that makes any sense in terms of evolution theory. We would
) not be here today to discuss these ideas if man was not superior to
) certain animals, and if one race was not superior to another. Evolution
) theory is founded on this maxim. You are welcome to critic this broad
) sweeping statement, but I doubt it will get us anywhere. This statement
) is not meant to be defended as it stands, but to be an indication.
Thanks, Daniel. I understand how you could conclude that natural
selection is a racist doctrine. I disagree, but since you really want
a response from Dan, I'll step aside and let him answer it.
To you, Dan.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n930.8 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Karl Popper
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 15:03:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Perhaps I should start with a simpler question. Who can recommend the best
book of Popper's regarding the question of epistemology and worldview?
Logic of Scientific Discovery; Karl R. Popper
Objective Knowledge; An Evolutionary Approach; Karl Raimund, Sir, Popper
The Myth of the Framework; Karl Raimund Popper
Conjectures and Refutations : The Growth of Scientific Knowledge; Karl
Raimund Popper
I expect, "Logic of Scientific Discovery?"
Thanks,
- Daniel.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n930.9 ---------------
From: "Daniel Perez" (dperez ultranet.com)
Subject: Karl Popper
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 15:11:58 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This excerpt from the site http://www.friesian.com/popper.htm is most
illuminating. Popper is quite close to Kantianism, it appears. I am not
making any assertion as I know little about Popper, but I'm learning. From
this it appears that Popper made some a priori presuppositions upon which
his philosophy is based. His philosophy doesn't look very solid so far,
perhaps there is more to this...... perhaps he was an economist and not a
philosopher?
"The most important question about Popper for the Proceedings of the
Friesian School is why, in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, he says that,
rather than a Positivist, he is more a Kantian in the Friesian tradition. He
undoubtedly says this because Fries had held that synthetic propositions a
priori, or the First Principles of Demonstration, do not need to be proven.
This follows from the definition of "synthetic" and from Aristotle's
definition of "First Principles." Since Popper thought that justification
works through falsificaiton, and never through verification, he obviously
agreed that such propositons do not need to be proven in the sense of
logical derivation.
Popper, however, misunderstands the rest of Fries's theory, accusing him of
"psychologism" in the sense that Fries supposedly relies on a psychological
or subjective sense of certainty to justify instances of immediate
knowledge. This is not true. Popper misses the Kantian aspect of Friesian
theory that immediate knowledge consists of phenomenal objects, which as
objects, are not merely psychological or subjective. One's psychological
attitude is therefore irrlevant; and the cognitive force of immediate
knowledge lies in the intersubjective availability of empirical objects and
the possiblity of their being shown to others by way of justification.
(These issues are discussed in the essay "Ontological Undecidability".)
Furthermore, Popper himself realized that the test of falsification cannot
be applied to everything, for it is not clear how the principle of
falsification itself could be subject to a falsifying test. If the principle
can then be known to be true, there must be some means of verification for
certain things after all. That must return us to Fries' original
considerations. "
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n930.10 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Conspiracy theories (was: racism)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 21:11:53 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Daniel Perez wrote:
Steiner:
"Freedom for every nation, even the smallest..." These were fine-sounding
words. But the powers hostile to man always use fine words in order to
bring confusion and in order to attain the things that Ahriman wishes to
attain for his incarnation.
[idea, deriveded directly or indirectly from Jacob Boehme's 17th century
speculation that demons don't have a body and need humans to parasitize on?
Compare present day myths on evil "grey" extraterrestrials, involved in
secret "Illuminati" conspiracies. See my page:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/ufo.htm]
Steiner quote continued:
If we inquire: Who stirs up nations against each other? Who raises the
questions that are directing humanity today? -- the answer is: the
Ahrimanic deception which plays into human life. And in this field men
very easily let themselves be deceived."
- Rudolf Steiner, Zurich, October 27, 1919, "The Ahrimanic Deception."
Daniel Perez:
These are the words of an individual who fully experienced the necessity of
transcending race.
Herman de Tollenaere:
Put into the historical context, shortly after the First World War, they
are rather the words of an individual, who, like quite some individuals in
the collapsing German and Austrian empires, opposed freedom for "small"
nations like Czechs, Slovaks, South Slavs, etc (as the then United States
government advocated); as it spelled the end of these big empires (where
better jobs usually went to German speakers).
Does anyone on this list believe in "higher conspiracy" [Daniel Perez'
words] theories, whether these conspiracies are led by Ahriman, Lucifer,
Xenu [according to L. Ron Hubbard of Scientology], "the Illuminati",
"Zionists" [according to Russian Anthroposophist G. Bondarew], or others;
whether their aim is to cause World War I [as the Steiner quote implies],
have a Czech republic, independent from the Habsburg emperors, or to hide
that UFOs supposedly really exist, and land in Area 51 in the US?
------------------------------------------
Herman de Tollenaere
------------------------------------------
Internet site:
http://stad.dsl.nl/~hermantl/
See also:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
------------------------------------------
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n930 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n931 --------------
001 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Racism
002 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n930
003 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Racism
004 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Racism
005 - "Daniel Perez" (dperez ul - Re: Racism
006 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Ahriman, get thee behind me! (Was Re: racism)
007 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Racism
008 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Racism
009 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - re: racism
010 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: racism
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n931.1 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Racism
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 15:51:05 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809291914.MAA18565 lists1.best.com)
I (Bob Tolz) wrote:
) ) There are some who argue a version of "social Darwinism" which, I
) ) think, talks about how those with the most brains, beauty, charisma,
) ) spunk, etc. (choose your preferred virtue) will rise to the top and
) ) perpetuate themselves through their progeny. One of the problems with
) ) that theory is that, once such people rise to the top (assuming that
) ) they do), who is to say that these are the ones who will be populating
) ) the planet and wiping out those who are less "suitable." It just
) ) doesn't work that way.
)
To which Ezra Beeman replied:
) I think the use of manifest destiny to decimate the native american race (documented well by Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee) is a very salient example.
) The Nazis also used a variant of this for their doctrine of Lebensraum.
) I'm certain there are more, and probably better examples.
Sorry, those are certainly examples of racism and genocide, but I do
not view them as examples of survival of the fittest species/race.
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n931.2 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n930
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 15:58:20 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199809291914.MAA18565 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Perez wrote:
)
) If all three of the above are met, then I would withdraw my statements about
) Mr. Dugan's worldview. Right now I don't see a different interpretation.
) Now, you want me to do all of the above, but I will not.
No, I don't want you to do anything of the sort. I'm merely responding
to what I perceived to be a rather bold statement that an acceptance of
Darwinian "doctrine" necessarily implies racism. Based on your
following comments ....
) Your analysis of my incomplete statements my be correct. They were not
) meant to be defensible, as I clearly stated. They were indications of some
) of the questions that arise when a materialistic worldview is maintained. I
) have much more concrete and exact questions, but it is not the right
) environment to present them. I think Ezra has admirably started to take up
) the questions with his reference to the American Indian, but these are still
) indications.
)
) Perhaps you disagree with my exploring bits and pieces of questions, perhaps
) I should not have thr