return to WCA Archive Index
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1093 --------------
001 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: The parabolic orbit myth (was: Heart as pump (was: Why Ant
002 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
003 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
004 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Water memory and heart not pump references 2 (Was Re: Proo
005 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: The parabolic orbit myth (was: Heart as pump (was: Why Ant
006 - Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabs - Re: FYI: The DigiBio invitation -- accepted
007 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit t - Re: about bigotry
008 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit t - Re: Waldorf curriculum unchanging (Was: Re: Cooleenbridge Jan.
009 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: The parabolic orbit myth (was: Heart as pump (was: Why Ant
010 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: FYI: The DigiBio invitation -- accepted
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1093.1 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: The parabolic orbit myth (was: Heart as pump (was: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like))
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 07:31:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Well put, Michael.
At some point you have to stop telling the
)whole truth and tell the relevant truth of the particular domain of
)interest. Sure, tell your students that there is more to it than what
)you are telling them, but still, you must tell them.
)
)
)--Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1093.2 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 21:47:59 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902082311.PAA12502 lists1.best.com)
(199902101751.JAA19548 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (45611539 toto.iv)
Joel A. Wendt writes:
) Michael Hirsch wrote:
) ) Joel A. Wendt writes:
) ) ) This spiritual freedom is neither a philosophy or a point of view, but is
) ) ) derived from a valid scientifically based understanding of the nature of human
) ) ) inner life and the true relationship between human experience and the life of
) ) ) thought.
) )
) ) If it derives from "a valid scientific" understanding, then, as I
) ) understand the term
)
) [Perhaps you should reconsider your understanding of the "term". The kind of
) authentic science you "seem" to espouse would be based on power structures, old boy
) networks and so forth, and not upon a real search for the truth, following the
) fundamental principles of "science".
Not at all. Science is, by definition, that which follows the
scientific method. This means that all hypotheses must be testable
and falsifiable. Can you give me a single testable and falsifiable
result from you "valid scientific" understanding?
I object to "spiritual science" for the same reasons I object to
"creationism science"--it is not science. If you want to call it
"spiritual research", "spiritual inquiry" or "spiritual investigation"
or almost anything else I wouldn't object so, but to call it a kind of
science is a perversion of the term. Merely calling it a science does
not make it one, but it makes it much harder for lay people to
understand that it is not a science.
Fortunately, in the U.S. we have legal rulings that creationism is not
a science and cannot be taught as such in schools. I foresee the day
that we will have similar court cases with "spiritual science". It
will probably be an easier case to win that the creationism case
because it isn't as ingrained in our culture as creationism.
) Even in main stream science you can find a lot
) of criticism of the problems of seeking the truth within the "poltical" climate of
) institutional science.
Sure, there are plenty of complaints about the way science _does_
occur, but little argument about the way it _should_ occur. Science
is that which follows the scientific method--nothing more nor less.
The success of science and the scientific method has lead many to try
to co-opt the name in an attempt to make the field sound more
legitimate. (Political science comes to mind--it is also not a
science and should not be taught as one.) It is a standard technique
for fields to try to gain legitimacy. I will resist it at all turns.
) The advancement made by Steiner was to look at human inner
) life using the ideal methods of "science", namely that whatever was asserted to be
) true had to be capable of being found true by any others who followed the same
) introspective methodology.
So, tell me, how could someone (me, say) show he was wrong? If I say
that I've also followed the path and found things to be different that
RS found, would that disprove him? What would you take as a disproof?
I can tell you a half dozen ways to disprove Einstein. Newton has
been disproved almost completely, I think. Yet these are two of the
greatest scientists of all time. Can you equally easily tell me how
to disprove Steiner? If not, then he is not a scientist.
--Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1093.3 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 04:52:26 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: (199902082311.PAA12502 lists1.best.com)
(199902101751.JAA19548 lists1.best.com) (45611539 toto.iv)
(199902160250.SAA16515 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902160250.SAA16515 lists1.best.com)
Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu) wrote:
)I can tell you a half dozen ways to disprove Einstein.
Let's have them, then.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1093.4 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Water memory and heart not pump references 2 (Was Re: Proof, anthroposophy style)
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 05:29:03 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: (199902152322.PAA18473 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902152322.PAA18473 lists1.best.com)
Thank you, Michael, for doing the footwork in providing all those
references. Sorry the Utrecht thing drew a blank -- the problem could be
my memory (insufficient memory-water in my brain as a consequence of
alcoholic dehydration? (g)). The report was on the BBC Radio 4 "Today"
programme, *almost* certainly within the 4 weeks and definitely this
year -- maybe your journalistic contacts can locate it?.
Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz) Wrote:
)I've never heard of the Gauquelin case,
Oh, it's one I hammer the self-validating a$trologers with on a semi-
regular basis. It goes something like this:
Michel Gauquelin advertised free a$trological readings, by a
"professional" a$trologer, to respondents who would subsequently answer
a few questions. He sent out around 250 readings. Something like 93% of
respondents agreed that the reading accurately described them (the
respondents) and their circumstances, as did 85% of close friends and
relations of the respondents.
It then transpired that all respondents were sent an identical
a$trological reading. It was one of someone who had previously been
executed for mass-murder.
Nuff said, really.
Gauquelin went on to discover what he called the "Mars effect";
apparently he noted an aspect of Mars which was common to an unusually
high number of successful people (sportsmen, politicians, etc.). There
was a hoo-hah about whether or not this was a blip in randomness which
went away if a bigger sample was taken (I think this is what your post
alluded to), but the interesting thing is that astrologers love to quote
Gauquelin as "scientific proof of a$trology", even though the "Mars
effect" actually flies in the face of the "traditional" a$trology they
make their $$$ out of.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1093.5 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: The parabolic orbit myth (was: Heart as pump (was: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like))
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 05:53:54 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: (199902151718.JAA12445 lists1.best.com) (127714198 toto.iv)
(199902152136.NAA14383 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902152136.NAA14383 lists1.best.com)
Either we are talking right past each other, or we have some fundamental
disagreements on how science should be taught (and, probably, on the
purpose of science education); possibly a bit of both.
Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu) wrote:
)It strikes me that you are too motivated by celestial mechanics.
No, my motivation is the teaching of precise scientific thinking. One
does not do this by teaching principles for which the accurate
scientific reasoning is flawed. I'm surprised that the main criticism of
my attitude comes from those on the side of the fence which usually
castigates Waldorf teachers for what is, as far as scientific thinking
goes, pretty much the same as what they themselves are doing now. I
don't suppose it is because *anything* a Waldorf supporter says just has
to be found to be wrong in some way, so what is it?
) When
)teaching science it is important and essential to teach students to
)learn to ignore small effects.
Yes, to learn to ignore them for the purposes of calculation is fine. To
ignore the facts when offering a scientific explanation is something
else altogether. "For the purposes of this experiment, we will assume
the crocodile to be a perfect sphere."
) For the flight of a thrown baseball,
)any effects due to air resistance far outweigh any effects due to a
)varying gravitational field. (Anyone know if this is true on the
)moon, too?)
Is this question indicative of the state of scientific thought in end-
of-millennium US? There is no effect from air-resistance on the Moon for
one simple reason: no atmosphere.
) For the purpose of such a calculation, the parabola it
)perfectly appropriate.
For the purposes of calculating those apparent motions of the Sun and
Moon which affect humankind, a geocentric solar system is perfectly
appropriate. I can just hear the clamour if Waldorf schools failed to
mention the heliocentric model, despite the fact that the pupils will
almost certainly never need to employ that point of view. Methinks the
WCs are being a tad inconsistent. See your comments science in the
thread: "Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents", for
example.
)Maybe I just had a very good high school physics teacher, but every
)time I've seen it presented it was: "Assuming a constant gravitational
)field, a projectile in vacuum goes in a parabola."
I teach that it will, according to Kepler 1, follow an elliptical path,
but that this *approximates* to a parabola for short trajectories; when
the students realise that the equations of parabolic motion are simpler
than those for elliptical motion, they are usually quite relieved (g).
(In this country, this sort of thing is normally done at A-level, so one
is not exactly going over their heads).
)
)Same with pendula: Assuming the angle is small enough, a pendulum
)swings in simple harmonic motion.
Again, I teach *approximates* to SHM (and why).
)Same with vector addition of velocity: As long as you are going too
)close to the speed of light...
Errrm -- I think you intended that there should be a "not" in there
somewhere.
)
)Do you not teach the periodic table because it doesn't include
)information about isotopes?
The periodic table that was up in the chemistry lab when I was an A-
level student had information about isotopes. We were taught about this.
) Do you insist on doing quantum mechanics
)instead of chemistry? At some point you have to stop telling the
)whole truth and tell the relevant truth of the particular domain of
)interest. Sure, tell your students that there is more to it than what
)you are telling them, but still, you must tell them.
I agree with the last statement -- what I am taking issue with is the
not telling them (and, consequently, using false reasoning). I am taking
issue with not telling pupils things they are perfectly able to
understand when those things are relevant to the subject.
I guess the difference is that I (and, I assume, most Waldorf science
teachers) am trying to help pupils understand how and why things work,
whereas you guys think that science teachers ought to teach simple
models which can be applied in (limited) practical situations and/or can
be regurgitated and subjected to simple (multiple-choice?) testing for
examination purposes. A big difference in philosophy, and one reason I
find it so much easier to teach decent science in a Waldorf school. I'm
not against teaching applied science or technology, but I don't like it
when it masquerades as science (and one of the reasons for this is that
increasingly fewer people are able to even see the distinction).
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1093.6 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: FYI: The DigiBio invitation -- accepted
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 02:56:35 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
BruceyJ aol.com wrote )
)is Jacques Benveniste on this list? Or did you copy this to him?
I e-mailed it to him personally, you are reading the copy. He has
already declined my invitation. He expressed caution about sending
samples "above the Atlantic," since he wasn't sure they would retain
their "information". I offered to help him investigate this interesting
quesion by using a variation of the same protocol. No response.
)IF my memory serves me correctly Jacques tried to emulate the so-called
Kalisko
)experiments unsuccessfully - as reported in "Nature" (I think) several years
)ago.
No doubt Michael Kopp's helpful reviews of this material will have
re-acquainted you with Jacques' recent "discoveries".
)I have no idea which side of the fence he is on - maybe I am in any case
)confusing him with someone else (apologies to those concerned!)
He is a true believer. He was pretty upset when Randi visited his lab
and taped the sample-blining list to the ceiling so it would be in plain
sight of all concerned, yet out of reach. Experiments conducted under
these "rules" were unable to replicate earlier successes. Name calling
ensued.
Why don't you and Sune get together to work out a strategy for claiming
the $1 million?
-- Daniel
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daniel Sabsay, president "Ignorance is the ultimate renewable resource"
East Bay Skeptics Society http://www.eb-skeptics.org
mail eb-skeptics.org
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1093.7 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: about bigotry
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:23:21 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902121615.IAA11564 lists1.best.com)
Dear Bob,
I have to admit I am of two minds with Dan's Nazi/Steiner obsession. I
admit to agreeing with PLANS about much of their criticism of Waldorf teacher
training, and as regards to the error in wanting Waldorf as a part of public
education. Because of this, I want PLANS to be successful.
Yet, if I were a lawyer defending in a lawsuit in which PLANS was a party,
I would love to get Dan on the stand and have him expose his Nazi thinking,
because it would clearly make him a less then credible witness.
Perhaps one day this very scenario will be played out.
warm regards,
joel
Tolz, Robert wrote:
) On Friday, February 12, 1999 5:01 AM, Dan Dugan [SMTP:dan dandugan.com]
) wrote:
) )
) ) The idea of Europeans being descended from Atlanteans can be traced from
) ) Blavatsky and Steiner to Alfred Rosenberg. This mythology formed part of
) ) the foundation of Nazi racial mythology, as you admit below:
) )
)
) There you go again with the alleged Nazi connection, Dan.
)
) It was not only the Europeans that were supposed to have descended
) from the Atlanteans, but also the Egyptians and the great Native American
) civilizations and I forget who else. The Nazis selectively chose from the
) Atlantean/Theosophical history/mythology to support their aims. Will you
) please, once and for all, come down off this Nazi soapbox?
)
) Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1093.8 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf curriculum unchanging (Was: Re: Cooleenbridge Jan. 27,
1999)
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:48:14 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902121023.CAA28521 lists1.best.com)
(199901301723.JAA10990 lists1.best.com)
(199902121023.CAA28521 lists1.best.com) (199902130755.XAA11777 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp wrote:
) The difference here is that the SWA
) schools are completely unknown quantities. Of course, they don't want to be
) quantified, do they?)
Dear Michael,
Well, I am impressed. You finally seem to be getting it, even if by
accident. Quantification is a process which only works by only looking at
those matters which can be counted. Thus, only a certain limited number of
facts are abstracted from the context in which they are imbedded, and then
conclusions are drawn from these facts. In this way reality is distorted and
falsified by the process of examination.
But children and education involve living processes, matters of quality and
morality, not just mere quantities. To have knowledge of the qualitative and
the moral is much more difficult, and no school, public or private, thrives
under an examination of its abstract quantitative aspects.
If you would just keep thinking along these lines you might actually
understand what Waldorf and Steiner are all about (imperfectly, like all human
endeavors, but nevertheless the pursuit of such ideals is what attracts so many
parents)
warm regards,
joel
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1093.9 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: The parabolic orbit myth (was: Heart as pump (was: Why Anthroposophy is c.
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:37:15 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In einer eMail vom 15.02.99 22:05:06 MEZ, schreiben Sie (Stephen):
((
Note to Bruce: The whole gamut of conics is in this, if you fancy giving
it a whirl in upper school maths lessons. The trajectory goes from
elliptical to circular to elliptical to parabolic to hyperbolic as the
velocity increases. An interesting exercise for pupils (it'll be trivial
for you) is to find the relationship between the escape velocity and
that which gives a circular orbit. (Hint: it helps to have Kepler's 3rd
Law, although you can derive this from Newton). It makes a potentially
nice link from class 9 conics to class 12 astronomy.
))
Thanks, Stephen, I am really grateful. This morning I had a supply lesson in
class 11, actually returnÌng their ML books, and I had 10 minutes spare. I
drew the classic situation, only on a scale where the earth's size is
significant, and drew first the parabola, showing it missed the earths centre,
and then the ellipse. When I told them I learnt it on internet last night they
were impressed, and will probably NEVER forget it!
Bruce
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1093.10 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: FYI: The DigiBio invitation -- accepted
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:37:18 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 16.02.99 12:02:39 MEZ, DanielSabsay earthlink.net (Daniel
Sabsay) wrote:
replying to Bruce J, and referring to Beneviste:
He is a true believer. He was pretty upset when Randi visited his lab
and taped the sample-blining list to the ceiling so it would be in plain
sight of all concerned, yet out of reach. Experiments conducted under
these "rules" were unable to replicate earlier successes. Name calling
ensued.
Why don't you and Sune get together to work out a strategy for claiming
the $1 million?
-- Daniel
))
If there are scientists out there doing research then maybe they could. It is
neither my field, nor have I the time at the moment (teaching takes too much).
Should I seriously see if anyone is interested? I dont know (do I Sune?) what
Sune does!
Bruce
PS Thanks all for the clarification on Beneviste.
Am I being REALLY stupid: what is a sample-blining list, and who in Randi?
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1093 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1094 --------------
001 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: Water memory and heart not pump references 1 (Was Re: Proo
002 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - FYI - On Certification
003 - Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabs - Re: FYI: The DigiBio invitation -- accepted
004 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Research, RANDI style
005 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Research, RANDI style
006 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: FYI: The DigiBio invitation -- accepted
007 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
008 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
009 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Re: The parabolic orbit myth (was: Heart as pump (was: Why Ant
010 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: The parabolic orbit myth (was: Heart as pump (was: Why Ant
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1094.1 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: Water memory and heart not pump references 1 (Was Re: Proof,anthroposophy.
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 12:37:16 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 16.02.99 00:52:22 MEZ, schreiben Sie:
((
A water memory thread began about November 3, 1966, with a post from
Michael Kopp, titled Water Memory.
Rigby Leighton replied to the Water Memory thread on November 3, 1966.
Rigby also posted on November 1, 1966, about The Heart Is Not a Pump.
Daniel Sabsay replied on Novembeer 3, 1966 in a thread called The Heart is
Much More Than a Pump and Water Memory.
Rigby also posted to this thread on November 5, 1966.
))
Shit, now I know why you critics are so clever - you exchanged emails before
the internet was invented!
Bruce
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1094.2 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: FYI - On Certification
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:10:00 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Riley May Urge U.S. Teacher Licenses
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In his yearly speech on
the state of American schools,
Education Secretary Richard Riley will
propose a national teacher licensing system to raise
the bar on teacher quality, a newspaper
reported today.
The plan, to be outlined in the speech to be
delivered at California State University, Long
Beach, would also tie a teachers' pay to the
certification, which could be carried from state
to state, USA Today reported in today's
editions.
In testimony before congressional education
panels last week, Riley offered no specifics
about what stick or carrot the federal
government might use to get states to follow a
national teacher certification plan.
Riley did say that the department's proposals
this year for the law governing most
education programs would include some way of
making sure states adopt tougher,
more-relevant teacher exams. He cited a
recent department survey of teachers showing
that many feel unprepared to teach specific
subjects.
``States receiving (federal) funds should
adopt challenging competency tests for new
teachers, phase out the use of uncertified
teachers, and reduce the number of teachers
who are teaching `out of field,''' Riley told
a House committee.
The plan would be state-operated and would go
as follows:
--New teachers would get a three-year maximum
initial license after passing a written
exam and an evaluation of classroom
performance. Teachers who perform poorly could
be fired.
--Other new teachers could get a professional
license, provided they meet state standards
and win the approval of a panel of teachers
and one supervisor.
--Finally, the nation's top-paid teachers
would be certified under a voluntary advanced
license. Experienced teachers could choose to
undergo a tough certification program
under the National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards.
States and districts would have to base a
teacher's salary on the teacher's type of license,
years of teaching experience and demonstrated
knowledge and skills valued by the district.
The plan also includes a national job bank to
match teachers with school districts.
Education officials expect that many new
teachers will be needed in coming years because
of the growing number of young students
expected from the ``baby boom echo.''
National Education Association President Bob
Chase told the newspaper that he supports
Riley's ideas of stricter licensing
requirements and tying salaries to tougher state standards.
Chase said he believes Riley is not calling
for federalization of the teacher licensing
process, an idea the NEA opposes.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1094.3 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: FYI: The DigiBio invitation -- accepted
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:58:37 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
)
)Am I being REALLY stupid: what is a sample-blining list, and who in Randi?
Sorry for the typo, "sample-blining list" should have been
"sample-blinding list". This list is an essential part of any
double-blind experiment. It remembers which samples are the substance to
under test, and which are the null controls. The purpose of blinding the
testers to which samples are real and which are null controls is to keep
the effect of observer bias from affecting the results of the test.
The lack of blind testing (as well as statistical ignorance) makes
Kolisko's work completely undependable.
Randi is a senior person in the skeptics movement. He has won a
MacArthur prize for his work. He has written many books, and exposed
frauds like Reverend Popov and psychic Uri Geller.
-- Daniel
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daniel Sabsay, president "Ignorance is the ultimate renewable resource"
East Bay Skeptics Society http://www.eb-skeptics.org
mail eb-skeptics.org
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1094.4 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Research, RANDI style
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 21:14:55 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199902130657.WAA17724 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Sabsay wrote:
) The skeptic's $1,000,000 Randi prize for the first person to demonstrate
) "water menory" by any replicable objective test is still unclaimed. The
) Nobel Prize committee is also still waiting.
)From a maybe European perspective, this approach to the problem of
investigating homeopathy, at least to me, stand out as very American,
and tries to intiate research for four bad reasons:
1 - to PROVE something you assume to be true or DISPROVE something you
don¥t like or believe in, with technical efficacy as the primary
criterion. Science done for this reason instead of to primarily
_investigate_ a problem to widen your understanding of nature generally
is second rate science, from the start strongly endangered by the wish
to arrive at a result of which you already have a preconception.
2 - to "win" BIG MONEY, where economical motives already is one of the
two main reasons for the choice of research done by academics at
University institutions; the choice mainly and primarily being
determined by the _financability_ via research councils, representing
the dominant opinions in the research field in questions and the
_instruments already existing_ for doing research.
3 - for both FAME and MONEY (Nobel Prize) and become a SCIENTIFIC HERO.
4 - as a GAME, the Wild West style poker game; make your bid and I¥ll
call your cards. If you lose, you¥re dead. Science done the poker way
...
Most of them reminding of the situation where someone was told: If you
fall down and pray to me, I¥ll give you the power over all the countries
on Earth.
As for Nobel Prize, the Alternative Nobel prize; the Right Livelihood
Awards honouring pioneers in economics, health, peace and development,
instigated by a Swede, has already been given (1996) for outstanding
contribution to homeopathy;
http://www.oneworld.org/news/reports/oct96_livelihood.html.
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.n1094.5 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Research, RANDI style
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 21:59:12 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199902130657.WAA17724 lists1.best.com)
P.S.
Correction:
4 - as a GAME, the Wild West style poker game; make your bid and I¥ll
call your cards. If you lose, you¥re dead. And if you win, you¥re dead
too, ¥cause I¥ll shoot your cards to pieces, so noone can see what they
were.
Science done the American poker way ...
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.n1094.6 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: FYI: The DigiBio invitation -- accepted
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 16:47:19 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 16.02.99 21:11:32 MEZ, schreiben Sie (Daniel):
((
The lack of blind testing (as well as statistical ignorance) makes
Kolisko's work completely undependable.
))
I think there are two issues here, or maybe better said the problem can be
viewed from two positions. I am neither a doctor nor a biologist, but do
understand the principle of blinding. The point with Kolisko, and similar
experiments that seem to be non-reproducible (and hence to orthodox-science
invalid) is that either THEY were hoodwinking us, or the thousands, nay
millions, of patients who have benefited from homeopathic remedies are
hoodwinking you, me and effectively themselves.
I do NOT believe that these people were trying to hoodwink anybody, what on
earth for? What they did and how will I am sure eventually be accepted by
orthodox science... meanwhile we must all wait!
Bruce
PS Thanks for the info
PPS I cannot understand where Benveniste comes from with his "experiments" - I
was initially thrilled by the reports in Nature (thanks for correcting the
memories)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1094.7 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 17:08:45 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902082311.PAA12502 lists1.best.com)
(199902101751.JAA19548 lists1.best.com)
(45611539 toto.iv)
(199902160250.SAA16515 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (70013809 toto.iv)
Stephen Tonkin writes:
) Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu) wrote:
) )I can tell you a half dozen ways to disprove Einstein.
)
) Let's have them, then.
I'm not sure why you're asking this, since I'm sure you know all this,
but it can be very easily done. Here are six off the top of my head.
1) Find that the precession of mecury in it's orbit is not as Einstein
predicted.
2) Make some light that travels slower than c.
3) Make some light travel faster than c.
4) Take two very accurate clocks and synchronize them. Send one up in
a baloon and show that it stays in sync with the other.
5) Same experiment except send one down a mine shaft.
6) Show that light does not bend when traveling through a
gravitational well.
Any of these 6 will disprove something Einstein's theories predict
(and Newton's wouldn't). If you succeed with this you will have
disproven Einstein. In principle, if you succeed you will get
physicists to admit the Einstein was wrong.
You are unlikely to succeed, as I believe all these have been tried
before and failed. But maybe someday...
Now, I repeat my question, what are some experiments I can do that (in
principle) would get you and/or other anthroposphists to agree that
I've disproven Steiner?
--Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1094.8 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 23:05:00 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: (199902082311.PAA12502 lists1.best.com)
(199902101751.JAA19548 lists1.best.com) (45611539 toto.iv)
(199902160250.SAA16515 lists1.best.com) (70013809 toto.iv)
(199902162210.OAA17916 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902162210.OAA17916 lists1.best.com)
Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu) wrote:
)Stephen Tonkin writes:
)) Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu) wrote:
)) )I can tell you a half dozen ways to disprove Einstein.
))
)) Let's have them, then.
)
)I'm not sure why you're asking this,
I misunderstood your statement -- I took it to mean that you knew 6
things that demonstrated he was incorrect, not that you knew 6 ways his
theories could be tested. My apologies.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1094.9 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Re: The parabolic orbit myth (was: Heart as pump (was: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like))
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 00:43:27 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902151718.JAA12445 lists1.best.com)
(127714198 toto.iv)
(199902152136.NAA14383 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (109543318 toto.iv)
Stephen Tonkin writes:
) Either we are talking right past each other, or we have some fundamental
) disagreements on how science should be taught (and, probably, on the
) purpose of science education); possibly a bit of both.
Actually, from what you said this time we probably only have minor
disagreements which are probably more stylistic than anything.
I have the impression that you did not teach them at all about the
parabola being the right shape to use in certain circumstances. It
appears that you do, albeit with a different emphasis than I would use.
I'm still interested in where you draw the line. You say you teach
ellipses a la Kepler. He has been outmoded, you know? How did you
decide that it was okay to "lie" by teaching Kepler's approximation of
reality, but not some other one?
) Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu) wrote:
) )It strikes me that you are too motivated by celestial mechanics.
)
) No, my motivation is the teaching of precise scientific thinking. One
) does not do this by teaching principles for which the accurate
) scientific reasoning is flawed. I'm surprised that the main criticism of
) my attitude comes from those on the side of the fence which usually
) castigates Waldorf teachers for what is, as far as scientific thinking
) goes, pretty much the same as what they themselves are doing now. I
) don't suppose it is because *anything* a Waldorf supporter says just has
) to be found to be wrong in some way, so what is it?
Heh. Just last week I was accused of being a "defender of the
faith". I have no axe to grind. I've had no bad Waldorf experiences
with my children. I just calls 'em as I see 'em.
) ) When
) )teaching science it is important and essential to teach students to
) )learn to ignore small effects.
)
) Yes, to learn to ignore them for the purposes of calculation is fine. To
) ignore the facts when offering a scientific explanation is something
) else altogether. "For the purposes of this experiment, we will assume
) the crocodile to be a perfect sphere."
)
) ) For the flight of a thrown baseball,
) )any effects due to air resistance far outweigh any effects due to a
) )varying gravitational field. (Anyone know if this is true on the
) )moon, too?)
)
) Is this question indicative of the state of scientific thought in end-
) of-millennium US? There is no effect from air-resistance on the Moon for
) one simple reason: no atmosphere.
Um, actually, there is. It is small and insignificant for most
purposes, but as long as you are concerned with "not lying" to your
students, they definitely should be informed of this. Any large
object in space will gain an atmosphere of gas molecules traveling
less than its escape velocity. My point is that it is usually more
useful to pretend it doesn't exist. I see you do beleive in some
approximations.
) ) For the purpose of such a calculation, the parabola it
) )perfectly appropriate.
)
) For the purposes of calculating those apparent motions of the Sun and
) Moon which affect humankind, a geocentric solar system is perfectly
) appropriate.
Not really. I've never seen a version of the geocentric model that
allows you to deduce the orbits from the distances and masses
involved. This is the strength of the Newtonian (and, to a lesser
extent, Keplerian) model--it allows you to deduce orbits, not just
describe them. The geocentric model only allows for description.
This is the primary distinguishing characteristic of science--its
predictive value. The geocentric model is not predictive, the
heliocentric (Newtonian or Keplerian) is. (It is this predictive
component that makes it falsifiable.)
) )Maybe I just had a very good high school physics teacher, but every
) )time I've seen it presented it was: "Assuming a constant gravitational
) )field, a projectile in vacuum goes in a parabola."
)
) I teach that it will, according to Kepler 1, follow an elliptical path,
) but that this *approximates* to a parabola for short trajectories; when
) the students realise that the equations of parabolic motion are simpler
) than those for elliptical motion, they are usually quite relieved (g).
) (In this country, this sort of thing is normally done at A-level, so one
) is not exactly going over their heads).
I have 3 comments. First, it sounds like we are in broad agreement.
You teach both ellipses and parabolas, and so would I. We both would
say that ellipses are the real rule but parabolas are "good enough"
under certain circumstances.
Second, it still sounds like you are missing some of my pedagogical
point. It is not just that parabolas are good approximations to a
small part of an ellipse. They are, but they are a good approximation
to a small part of any smooth curve. My point is that they are an
exact solution to a model that approximates a small part of the
Newtoniam system.
This is a very valuable lesson to young scientists. You start with a
model (Newtonian gravity), but it is fairly complex. Now make certain
approximations (pointmass planets--or at least unifiorm density--see
below) and you get an exact solution (ellipses). You make more
approximations (constant gravity, flat earth) and you get different
approximations (parabolas). Which approximation you use depends on
which kind of problem you need to answer. The ellipses solution is
not very useful to study the path of a baseball. The parabolas
solution is useless for orbital mechanics.
Third, as I mentioned above, Kepler was only approximately right. If
your orbiting object (say, a thrown ball or other small projectile) is
close to the earth there are small variations in the gravitational
force due to changing densities of the Earth's crust which will
perturb the path from a perfect ellipse. Furthermore, though Newton
verified Kepler, they were both later shown to be wrong by the success
of Einstein's special theory of relativity. So even though you say
you won't lie to your students, it appears that you do. Or do you
preface everything you say with "this isn't right, but I'm going to
teach it anyway"?
) )Same with pendula: Assuming the angle is small enough, a pendulum
) )swings in simple harmonic motion.
)
) Again, I teach *approximates* to SHM (and why).
Same point as above: It is not just the motion that I'm approximating,
but the model. The exact model (actually, I would only use the
constant gravity model, here) is too hard to solve (impossible in
closed form, I think) so we approximate the differential equation and
solve it exactly. We end up with an exact solution to an approximate
model as opposed to an approximate solution to an exact model.
) ) Do you insist on doing quantum mechanics
) )instead of chemistry? At some point you have to stop telling the
) )whole truth and tell the relevant truth of the particular domain of
) )interest. Sure, tell your students that there is more to it than what
) )you are telling them, but still, you must tell them.
)
) I agree with the last statement -- what I am taking issue with is the
) not telling them (and, consequently, using false reasoning). I am taking
) issue with not telling pupils things they are perfectly able to
) understand when those things are relevant to the subject.
Like I say, I think we are mostly in agreement. I hate lying to my
students, too, and I try hard not to.
) I guess the difference is that I (and, I assume, most Waldorf science
) teachers) am trying to help pupils understand how and why things work,
I do appreciate that. From everything I've read you do an excellent
job.
) whereas you guys think that science teachers ought to teach simple
) models which can be applied in (limited) practical situations and/or can
) be regurgitated and subjected to simple (multiple-choice?) testing for
) examination purposes.
I resent that implication. I recognize that there is a lot of bad
science being taught out there. This is bad. I do what I can to
counter act it.
I think science works by successive approximations. Epicycles worked
for a while, then Newton, now Einstein. But I don't pretend to know
that Einstein has the final word on the subject. In each case, one
can show that the old theory is an approximation of the new one.
Teaching your students to approximate theories and not just solutions
is a valuble lesson.
--Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1094.10 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: The parabolic orbit myth (was: Heart as pump (was: Why Anthroposophy is cult-like))
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 07:13:34 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: (199902151718.JAA12445 lists1.best.com) (127714198 toto.iv)
(199902152136.NAA14383 lists1.best.com) (109543318 toto.iv)
(199902170544.VAA02543 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902170544.VAA02543 lists1.best.com)
Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu) wrote:
)Actually, from what you said this time we probably only have minor
)disagreements which are probably more stylistic than anything.
So it seems.
)
)I have the impression that you did not teach them at all about the
)parabola being the right shape to use in certain circumstances.
I had assumed that was implicit in earlier statements, such as:
"As far as the parabola is concerned [...], I have no problem with it
being shown as a "fudge" that works in specific circumstances,"
)I'm still interested in where you draw the line. You say you teach
)ellipses a la Kepler. He has been outmoded, you know? How did you
)decide that it was okay to "lie" by teaching Kepler's approximation of
)reality, but not some other one?
A number of points here:
* As I have said previously on this list, I often go through an
historical approach. Kepler and his laws fit in there.
* The _scientific_ reasoning behind the ideal of an elliptical orbit is
sound, unlike that behind the parabolic projectile trajectory.
* Of course I mention that planetary orbits are not ideal ellipses!
Perturbations from other bodies led to the predictions of existence of
further planets, the search for planet Vulcan, and the eventual need
to invoke relativistic effects for the shift if the lines of Mercury's
perihelion.
* You appear to have missed the last clauses of my statement: "I am
taking issue with not telling pupils things they are perfectly able to
understand when those things are relevant to the subject. "
)There is no effect from air-resistance on the Moon for
)) one simple reason: no atmosphere.
)
)Um, actually, there is.
OK, then I suggest that there is a distinction between "an atmosphere"
and "the existence of a few molecules of gas" -- otherwise we have an
entirely useless definition of "atmosphere" which means that
interstellar space is "atmosphere" because there can be a few molecules
of gas per cubic metre .
)Not really. I've never seen a version of the geocentric model that
)allows you to deduce the orbits from the distances and masses
)involved.
Tycho's geocentric model, modified for elliptical orbits?
)The geocentric model is not predictive, the
)heliocentric (Newtonian or Keplerian) is. (It is this predictive
)component that makes it falsifiable.)
...and yet the geocentric model was falsified by the discovery of the
aberration of starlight.
)I have 3 comments. First, it sounds like we are in broad agreement.
)You teach both ellipses and parabolas, and so would I. We both would
)say that ellipses are the real rule but parabolas are "good enough"
)under certain circumstances.
Agreed.
)
)Second, it still sounds like you are missing some of my pedagogical
)point. It is not just that parabolas are good approximations to a
)small part of an ellipse. They are, but they are a good approximation
)to a small part of any smooth curve.
Yes, but so are circular arc segments. FWIW most amateur mirror makers
visualise the parabolising process as the production of a curve of
gradually changing radius.
) My point is that they are an
)exact solution to a model that approximates a small part of the
)Newtoniam system.
It's the *exact* solution to an *approximation* with which I have a
problem, if it is not made clear that it is an approximation. I have
seen many books and met many people who are not clear about this.
)So even though you say
)you won't lie to your students, it appears that you do.
I did say *knowingly* lie! And see points above where you previously
raised this point.
) Or do you
)preface everything you say with "this isn't right, but I'm going to
)teach it anyway"?
Something like that. I make a point, right from the beginning, that the
scientific picture of reality is not fixed laws but an evolving picture,
that some of what is believed to be true will be superseded during their
lifetimes, and yes, I do tell them that models only approximate to
reality. Pupils have been known to comment on one of the Tonkin stock
phrases: "One way of explaining it is..."
)) whereas you guys think that science teachers ought to teach simple
)) models which can be applied in (limited) practical situations and/or can
)) be regurgitated and subjected to simple (multiple-choice?) testing for
)) examination purposes.
)
)I resent that implication. I recognize that there is a lot of bad
)science being taught out there. This is bad. I do what I can to
)counter act it.
Then I apologise for lumping you in with those who would have us teach
in the manner I described.
)But I don't pretend to know
)that Einstein has the final word on the subject.
I'd be prepared to bet that he doesn't!
)Teaching your students to approximate theories and not just solutions
)is a valuble lesson.
I agree, as long as you teach them when and why, and to remember that
what they are dealing with are approximations. (And approximations of
things that may themselves be shown to be approximations of... [ad
infinitum] ?)
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1094 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1095 --------------
001 - Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabs - Re: Research, RANDI style
002 - Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabs - Re: FYI: The DigiBio invitation -- accepted
003 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Research, RANDI style
004 - Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabs - Re: Research, RANDI style
005 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Research, RANDI style
006 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Research, RANDI style
007 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Re: The parabolic orbit myth
008 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Research, RANDI style
009 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: The parabolic orbit myth
010 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Research, RANDI style
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1095.1 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Research, RANDI style
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 03:23:11 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se) )
)From a maybe European perspective, this approach to the problem of
)investigating homeopathy, at least to me, stand out as very American,
)and tries to intiate research for four bad reasons:
)
)1 - to PROVE something you assume to be true or DISPROVE something you
)don¥t like or believe in, with technical efficacy as the primary
)criterion.
What are you talking about? Technical efficacy has nothing to do with
it. This is about methodology to avoid self deception, a lesson learned
at the cost of millions and millions of lives.
)Science done for this reason instead of to primarily
)_investigate_ a problem to widen your understanding of nature generally
)is second rate science
My understanding of human nature HAS been widened by this tortured logic
and veiled insult.
)from the start strongly endangered by the wish
You have not correctly understood or expressed my wish. Not even close.
)to arrive at a result of which you already have a preconception.
Do you mean a preconception such as the belief in homeopathy? The reason
for double-blind objective tests is to determine who is doing the
preconceiving.
)[...remainder snipped...]
-- Daniel
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daniel Sabsay, president "Ignorance is the ultimate renewable resource"
East Bay Skeptics Society http://www.eb-skeptics.org
mail eb-skeptics.org
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1095.2 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: FYI: The DigiBio invitation -- accepted
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 03:51:39 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
BruceyJ aol.com wrote )
) [Daniel wrote ))]
)) The lack of blind testing (as well as statistical ignorance) makes
)) Kolisko's work completely undependable.
Bruce replied )
)I think there are two issues here, or maybe better said the problem can be
)viewed from two positions. I am neither a doctor nor a biologist, but do
)understand the principle of blinding. The point with Kolisko, and similar
)experiments that seem to be non-reproducible (and hence to orthodox-science
)invalid) is that either THEY were hoodwinking us,
I have no reason to believe THEY are anything but sincere.
)or the thousands, nay millions, of patients who have benefitted from
homeopathic
)remedies
This assumes facts not in evidence.
)are hoodwinking you, me and effectively themselves.
There are MANY historic precedents for large populations of humans being
deceived by untrue ideas. How many millions believe in "flying saucers"
and ESP. How many of the 22 million people who died in the flu epidemic
of 1918 believed homeopathy would protect them?
)I do NOT believe that these people were trying to hoodwink anybody, what on
)earth for?
I don't either.
)What they did and how will I am sure eventually be accepted by
)orthodox science... meanwhile we must all wait!
If you think waiting is the only tool we have to ascertain the truth of
this question, you have much to discover about the epistemology of
"orthodox" science. The check has been in the mail for 200 years, and
much has been learned about self deception and cognitive illusions since
Samuel Hahnemann invented homeopathy.
-- Daniel
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daniel Sabsay, president "Ignorance is the ultimate renewable resource"
East Bay Skeptics Society http://www.eb-skeptics.org
mail eb-skeptics.org
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1095.3 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Research, RANDI style
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:07:12 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (199902171124.DAA23040 lists1.best.com)
Sune wrote:
))- to PROVE something you assume to be true or DISPROVE something you
))don¥t like or believe in, with technical efficacy as the primary
))criterion. Science done for this reason instead of to primarily
))_investigate_ ))a problem to widen your understanding of nature generally
))is second rate
))science from the start strongly endangered by the wish to arrive at a
))result ))of which you already have a preconception.
Daniel wrote:
)
)Do you mean a preconception such as the belief in homeopathy?
My 2¢:
Or the disbelief in it. Being so strongly in favor of an unproven theory,
or so passionately opposed to it, that an neutral, objective approach to
its verification or dismissal is compromised thereby, produces second rate
science.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1095.4 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Research, RANDI style
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 04:30:45 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
))Do you mean a preconception such as the belief in homeopathy?
)
Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no) wrote )
)My 2¢:
)
)Or the disbelief in it. Being so strongly in favor of an unproven theory,
)or so passionately opposed to it, that an neutral, objective approach to
)its verification or dismissal is compromised thereby, produces second rate
)science.
Really, what a contribution to the discussion. What methodology do you
recommend as neutral and objective?
-- Daniel
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daniel Sabsay, president "Ignorance is the ultimate renewable resource"
East Bay Skeptics Society http://www.eb-skeptics.org
mail eb-skeptics.org
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1095.5 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Research, RANDI style
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:42:00 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (199902171230.EAA24944 lists1.best.com)
)))Do you mean a preconception such as the belief in homeopathy?
))
)Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no) wrote )
)
))My 2¢:
))
))Or the disbelief in it. Being so strongly in favor of an unproven theory,
))or so passionately opposed to it, that an neutral, objective approach to
))its verification or dismissal is compromised thereby, produces second rate
))science.
Daniel wrote:
)
)Really, what a contribution to the discussion. What methodology do you
)recommend as neutral and objective?
The normal scientific method, using tests and examining the results. In
controversial cases, the tests should be conducted by a team not sharing
the same pre-conceived opinion - preferably they should have no opinion at
all; no expectations.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1095.6 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Research, RANDI style
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:49:49 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199902171230.EAA24944 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Sabsay wrote:
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 04:30:45
Dear Daniel,
Aside from everything else,
I don¥t know your working hours,
but I do wish for you to have a good sleep at nights.
I wont go away and will be here for punching after your sleep too.
Friendly greetings,
from Sune,
on a sunny afternoon in
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.n1095.7 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Re: The parabolic orbit myth
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 08:47:47 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902151718.JAA12445 lists1.best.com)
(127714198 toto.iv)
(199902152136.NAA14383 lists1.best.com)
(109543318 toto.iv)
(199902170544.VAA02543 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (25759121 toto.iv)
Stephen,
I think we no longer have any disagreement on this issue! At worst we
disagree on where the emphasis should be, but not on anything
material. I'm glad to know this as I'd a good impression of your
teaching till now, and I still do.
--Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1095.8 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Research, RANDI style
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:15:13 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199902171230.EAA24944 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Sabsay wrote:
) Really, what a contribution to the discussion. What methodology do you
) recommend as neutral and objective?
) Daniel
Normally, the evaluation of research done by someone in one field is
being done by a _number_ of other _researchers_ in the _same_ field over
_some period of time_, making it possible to form some form of
_balanced, well founded judgements_.
The "scientific" "execution" of Benveniste (now at
http://www.digibio.com/), I¥d suspect initiated by CSICOP (maybe you or
someone at CSICOP knows or can find out the origin of the expedition of
specifically Randi, Stewart and Maddox to Paris?) with the making of an
example as the ONE, OBVIOUS, OVERRIDING goal, using 1 or 2 experiments
on biological material to evaluate research done by a number of
scientists over a number of years, with a person with appearently no
formal scientific education, probably no experience of immunological
research and only practice as a teenager in a biological lab as
experience of biological research (Kopp ref 2) as the appearent General
of the expedition is an insult to ANY normal scientific procedure.
Like sending a prosecutor-court-and-judge in one, and NO defense
attorney, headed by a north American corporal to France to prosecute and
sentence General de Gaulle for not doing his job as President of the
Republic properly ...
Name ONE Frenchman or ONE normal scientist who would not be _very_
deeply offended and thrown off-balance by such an megaextraordinary bad
scientific procedure in science and I¥ll name the rest 99,999 % who
would.
And then sceptics complain that close to NUL normal researcher dares
(continue to) produce and publish experimental research on homeopathy
...
Have you ever tried to prepare and demonstrate even simple physical,
chemical or biological experiments as a teacher in school, then you know
HOW many things that can go wrong in single experiments ...
If teacher should be fired on the basis of failed single experiments ...
well I suspect all our children would have to become their own teachers,
at last solving the problems of all the problems of not only PLANS ...
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.n1095.9 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: The parabolic orbit myth
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 15:55:49 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: (199902151718.JAA12445 lists1.best.com) (127714198 toto.iv)
(199902152136.NAA14383 lists1.best.com) (109543318 toto.iv)
(199902170544.VAA02543 lists1.best.com) (25759121 toto.iv)
(199902171350.FAA03059 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902171350.FAA03059 lists1.best.com)
Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu) wrote:
)I think we no longer have any disagreement on this issue! At worst we
)disagree on where the emphasis should be, but not on anything
)material.
It's good, but darned time-consuming, to find a consensus, is it not?
) I'm glad to know this as I'd a good impression of your
)teaching till now, and I still do.
Thank you.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1095.10 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Research, RANDI style
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:13:49 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: (199902171230.EAA24944 lists1.best.com)
(199902171624.IAA19496 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902171624.IAA19496 lists1.best.com)
Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se) wrote:
)If teacher should be fired on the basis of failed single experiments ...
I can confidently define the femtosecond as the period between one
experiment failing to perform as desired and the entire school community
knowing that "*None* of Steve Tonkin's experiments *ever* work!" (g)
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1095 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1096 --------------
001 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit t - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
002 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: FYI: The DigiBio invitation -- accepted
003 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: The parabolic orbit myth
004 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - Homeopathic/Anthroposophical medicine
005 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
006 - Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabs - Re: Research, RANDI style
007 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: The parabolic orbit myth
008 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
009 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Teaching Anthroposophy by Stealth
010 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: The parabolic orbit myth
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1096.1 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:43:25 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902082311.PAA12502 lists1.best.com)
(199902101751.JAA19548 lists1.best.com) (199902160250.SAA16515 lists1.best.com)
Dear Michael,
I will try to answer your questions as aspects of a more general statement.
Hopefully this will help you understand what I am trying to express. However, as in all
human communication, it is necessary for you to actually try to understand. If you do
not, then you present an insurmountable barrier to any attempt on my part to communicate
with you.
You have used the term "scientific method", and spoken of testible and falsifible
hypothesis. This is fine. The problems we face on this list, in understanding the
collision between "spiritual science" and "modern science", is a little broader. This
broader problem involves "knowledge" in a more general sense.
I made the statement in my "disclosure" piece that Waldorf was based upon a
scientifically valid understanding of human nature. We are thus at the core problem: How
to we come to knowledge and understanding of human nature? With the addition of a
subsidary problem: How do we do this in a scientific fashion?
At present "science" confines itself to knowledge gained essentialy through methods
of counting and pointer instruments of various types. Are such methods adequate to the
discovery of deeper truths about human nature? I think clearly they are not, so the
question becomes, what extentions of methodology can be made, yet which still retain the
right to call themselves "scientific". In order to answer this question we have to look
at the scientific method for some statement of its essential features, which does not
violate its fundamental premises.
I put forward as such a possible statement the following: One is scientific if one
postulates truths along with the relevant methodology so that the methodology itself can
first be tested, and then applied and the truth replicated. This allows us to expand our
methods, while remaining in concert with the fundamental "truth" principle of science,
i.e. the ability to replicate.
So if I say "such and such" is true about human psychology, I have to give you a
method for finding that out for yourself. I don't have to confine the method to counting
and pointer instruments, but can use some other method as long is it is accessible and
testible.
There is also a secondary problem, which has to do with jumping right into Steiner's
lecture cycles and approaching what is in them as if somehow it could be come to terms
with using the same standard of knowledge presently practiced in natural science. It is
understandable why skeptics ask for such a thing, but to do so really begs the question
and introduces some unnecessary confusion.
As I have said before, it is essential, if one has any interest at all in
"understanding" anthroposophy, to appreciate that anthroposophy is a method, not a
content. To appreciate this imagine for the moment that one was a 12th century European
scholastic, and was confonted with a modern text on evolutionary biology. It would make
little sense and would certainly conflict with how the world was already seen. We are in
similar circumstance here. To go to the "content", such as material in a Steiner
lecture, and apply standard scientific judgments to it, is to begin in the wrong place.
Our scholastic would have to be slowly brought into the fundamentals of scientific
thinking, before the elaborate content of evolutionary biology could be appreciated. The
same is true for the non-anthroposophist. If he is possessed of good will, he needs to
start with the method first -- to appreciate its validity in itself, before going on to
more complicated problems.
Moreover, the methodolgy is more immediatly accessible to modern minds, as it
involves nothing more than a carefully built up self knowledge.
So Michael, if you want to begin at the beginning, then you need to read either
"Truth and Knowledge" or "Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World Conception", for
it is conjunction with these texts that the necessary foundational steps are taken
extending the scientific method itself from mere counting and pointer instruments and
into the realm of the qualitative and the moral, the realm where knowledge must arrive if
it is to come to terms with understanding human nature. It is especially important,
however, not to merely read these texts and to argue with their content, but to look
within. For the essential text is not found in either of the refered to books, but in
one's own inner life.
Now certainly one can refuse to do that. However, in my view, such a refusal takes
away any license one might have to criticize anthroposophy, because one has refused the
essential scientific challenge -- namely to test the hypothesis for one's self.
warm regards
joel
Michael Hirsch wrote:
) Joel A. Wendt writes:
) ) Michael Hirsch wrote:
) ) ) Joel A. Wendt writes:
) ) ) ) This spiritual freedom is neither a philosophy or a point of view, but is
) ) ) ) derived from a valid scientifically based understanding of the nature of human
) ) ) ) inner life and the true relationship between human experience and the life of
) ) ) ) thought.
) ) )
) ) ) If it derives from "a valid scientific" understanding, then, as I
) ) ) understand the term
) )
) ) [Perhaps you should reconsider your understanding of the "term". The kind of
) ) authentic science you "seem" to espouse would be based on power structures, old boy
) ) networks and so forth, and not upon a real search for the truth, following the
) ) fundamental principles of "science".
)
) Not at all. Science is, by definition, that which follows the
) scientific method. This means that all hypotheses must be testable
) and falsifiable. Can you give me a single testable and falsifiable
) result from you "valid scientific" understanding?
)
) I object to "spiritual science" for the same reasons I object to
) "creationism science"--it is not science. If you want to call it
) "spiritual research", "spiritual inquiry" or "spiritual investigation"
) or almost anything else I wouldn't object so, but to call it a kind of
) science is a perversion of the term. Merely calling it a science does
) not make it one, but it makes it much harder for lay people to
) understand that it is not a science.
)
) Fortunately, in the U.S. we have legal rulings that creationism is not
) a science and cannot be taught as such in schools. I foresee the day
) that we will have similar court cases with "spiritual science". It
) will probably be an easier case to win that the creationism case
) because it isn't as ingrained in our culture as creationism.
)
) ) Even in main stream science you can find a lot
) ) of criticism of the problems of seeking the truth within the "poltical" climate of
) ) institutional science.
)
) Sure, there are plenty of complaints about the way science _does_
) occur, but little argument about the way it _should_ occur. Science
) is that which follows the scientific method--nothing more nor less.
)
) The success of science and the scientific method has lead many to try
) to co-opt the name in an attempt to make the field sound more
) legitimate. (Political science comes to mind--it is also not a
) science and should not be taught as one.) It is a standard technique
) for fields to try to gain legitimacy. I will resist it at all turns.
)
) ) The advancement made by Steiner was to look at human inner
) ) life using the ideal methods of "science", namely that whatever was asserted to be
) ) true had to be capable of being found true by any others who followed the same
) ) introspective methodology.
)
) So, tell me, how could someone (me, say) show he was wrong? If I say
) that I've also followed the path and found things to be different that
) RS found, would that disprove him? What would you take as a disproof?
)
) I can tell you a half dozen ways to disprove Einstein. Newton has
) been disproved almost completely, I think. Yet these are two of the
) greatest scientists of all time. Can you equally easily tell me how
) to disprove Steiner? If not, then he is not a scientist.
)
) --Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1096.2 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: FYI: The DigiBio invitation -- accepted
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:32:46 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 17.02.99 12:57:49 MEZ, schreiben Sie:
((
Daniel wrote:
If you think waiting is the only tool we have to ascertain the truth of
this question, you have much to discover about the epistemology of
"orthodox" science. The check has been in the mail for 200 years, and
much has been learned about self deception and cognitive illusions since
Samuel Hahnemann invented homeopathy.
))
I wasnt trying to suggest that one should wait inactively, sorry! I meant it
more in the sense - the time will one day come, but not without active
struggle - well who knows?
Bruce J
PS It is lent, and I am overworked at the moment, so will retire to lurking
(mostly) for a while.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1096.3 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: The parabolic orbit myth
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 05:06:12 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
But still no consensus on the underlying issue of whether to teach
hemodynamics!
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: The parabolic orbit myth
)Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu) wrote:
))I think we no longer have any disagreement on this issue! At worst we
))disagree on where the emphasis should be, but not on anything
))material.
)
)It's good, but darned time-consuming, to find a consensus, is it not?
)
)--
)+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
)+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
)+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
)+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1096.4 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Homeopathic/Anthroposophical medicine
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 99 22:18:44 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Hey,
My $.02
My son had athsma---real live athsma compounded by a very dangerous bout
with pneumonia--complete with inhalers, nebulizers (3 times/day),
wheezing--the whole enchilada.
Every time we tried to wean him off of the medicines, the athsma got
worse--no surprise there.
The last time we tried weaning him off of the medicine, we introduced a
course of anthroposophical/homeopathic remedies.
Eventually the allopathic medicines were replaced by the anthro. ones and
my son's totally- mainstream pediatrician was *totally amazed*.
Would his athsma have gone away anyway? Maybe.
Of course, I know all the skeptical arguments.
I'm just saying that I have a case where homeopathy seems to have worked,
and my son can breathe.
Best,
Charlie Frey
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1096.5 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:52:14 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
And if one were to follow these steps and come to an entirely different
belief? Why then you would say that the steps were not properly taken, for
belief in your truth is part of the methodology itself.
This is not science. You use the word science to underscore your belief
that Anthroposophy is not just your truth, but the Truth. The use of the
word science to describe your spiritual path is not only objectionable to
scientists, but even more objectionable to those many deeply spiritual
people who follow a path and a truth different than yours. It is
surprising that for all his knowledge and inspiration, Steiner did not show
us the inhumanity behind universalizing spirituality this way. History
certainly has.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel A. Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
)Dear Michael,
)
) I will try to answer your questions as aspects of a more general
statement.
)Hopefully this will help you understand what I am trying to express.
However, as in all
)human communication, it is necessary for you to actually try to understand.
If you do
)not, then you present an insurmountable barrier to any attempt on my part
to communicate
)with you.
)
) You have used the term "scientific method", and spoken of testible and
falsifible
)hypothesis. This is fine. The problems we face on this list, in
understanding the
)collision between "spiritual science" and "modern science", is a little
broader. This
)broader problem involves "knowledge" in a more general sense.
)
) I made the statement in my "disclosure" piece that Waldorf was based
upon a
)scientifically valid understanding of human nature. We are thus at the
core problem: How
)to we come to knowledge and understanding of human nature? With the
addition of a
)subsidary problem: How do we do this in a scientific fashion?
)
) At present "science" confines itself to knowledge gained essentialy
through methods
)of counting and pointer instruments of various types. Are such methods
adequate to the
)discovery of deeper truths about human nature? I think clearly they are
not, so the
)question becomes, what extentions of methodology can be made, yet which
still retain the
)right to call themselves "scientific". In order to answer this question we
have to look
)at the scientific method for some statement of its essential features,
which does not
)violate its fundamental premises.
)
) I put forward as such a possible statement the following: One is
scientific if one
)postulates truths along with the relevant methodology so that the
methodology itself can
)first be tested, and then applied and the truth replicated. This allows us
to expand our
)methods, while remaining in concert with the fundamental "truth" principle
of science,
)i.e. the ability to replicate.
)
) So if I say "such and such" is true about human psychology, I have to
give you a
)method for finding that out for yourself. I don't have to confine the
method to counting
)and pointer instruments, but can use some other method as long is it is
accessible and
)testible.
)
) There is also a secondary problem, which has to do with jumping right
into Steiner's
)lecture cycles and approaching what is in them as if somehow it could be
come to terms
)with using the same standard of knowledge presently practiced in natural
science. It is
)understandable why skeptics ask for such a thing, but to do so really begs
the question
)and introduces some unnecessary confusion.
)
) As I have said before, it is essential, if one has any interest at all
in
)"understanding" anthroposophy, to appreciate that anthroposophy is a
method, not a
)content. To appreciate this imagine for the moment that one was a 12th
century European
)scholastic, and was confonted with a modern text on evolutionary biology.
It would make
)little sense and would certainly conflict with how the world was already
seen. We are in
)similar circumstance here. To go to the "content", such as material in a
Steiner
)lecture, and apply standard scientific judgments to it, is to begin in the
wrong place.
)
) Our scholastic would have to be slowly brought into the fundamentals of
scientific
)thinking, before the elaborate content of evolutionary biology could be
appreciated. The
)same is true for the non-anthroposophist. If he is possessed of good will,
he needs to
)start with the method first -- to appreciate its validity in itself, before
going on to
)more complicated problems.
)
) Moreover, the methodolgy is more immediatly accessible to modern minds,
as it
)involves nothing more than a carefully built up self knowledge.
)
) So Michael, if you want to begin at the beginning, then you need to
read either
)"Truth and Knowledge" or "Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World
Conception", for
)it is conjunction with these texts that the necessary foundational steps
are taken
)extending the scientific method itself from mere counting and pointer
instruments and
)into the realm of the qualitative and the moral, the realm where knowledge
must arrive if
)it is to come to terms with understanding human nature. It is especially
important,
)however, not to merely read these texts and to argue with their content,
but to look
)within. For the essential text is not found in either of the refered to
books, but in
)one's own inner life.
)
) Now certainly one can refuse to do that. However, in my view, such a
refusal takes
)away any license one might have to criticize anthroposophy, because one has
refused the
)essential scientific challenge -- namely to test the hypothesis for one's
self.
)
)warm regards
)joel
)
)Michael Hirsch wrote:
)
)) Joel A. Wendt writes:
)) ) Michael Hirsch wrote:
)) ) ) Joel A. Wendt writes:
)) ) ) ) This spiritual freedom is neither a philosophy or a point of view,
but is
)) ) ) ) derived from a valid scientifically based understanding of the
nature of human
)) ) ) ) inner life and the true relationship between human experience and
the life of
)) ) ) ) thought.
)) ) )
)) ) ) If it derives from "a valid scientific" understanding, then, as I
)) ) ) understand the term
)) )
)) ) [Perhaps you should reconsider your understanding of the "term". The
kind of
)) ) authentic science you "seem" to espouse would be based on power
structures, old boy
)) ) networks and so forth, and not upon a real search for the truth,
following the
)) ) fundamental principles of "science".
))
)) Not at all. Science is, by definition, that which follows the
)) scientific method. This means that all hypotheses must be testable
)) and falsifiable. Can you give me a single testable and falsifiable
)) result from you "valid scientific" understanding?
))
)) I object to "spiritual science" for the same reasons I object to
)) "creationism science"--it is not science. If you want to call it
)) "spiritual research", "spiritual inquiry" or "spiritual investigation"
)) or almost anything else I wouldn't object so, but to call it a kind of
)) science is a perversion of the term. Merely calling it a science does
)) not make it one, but it makes it much harder for lay people to
)) understand that it is not a science.
))
)) Fortunately, in the U.S. we have legal rulings that creationism is not
)) a science and cannot be taught as such in schools. I foresee the day
)) that we will have similar court cases with "spiritual science". It
)) will probably be an easier case to win that the creationism case
)) because it isn't as ingrained in our culture as creationism.
))
)) ) Even in main stream science you can find a lot
)) ) of criticism of the problems of seeking the truth within the "poltical"
climate of
)) ) institutional science.
))
)) Sure, there are plenty of complaints about the way science _does_
)) occur, but little argument about the way it _should_ occur. Science
)) is that which follows the scientific method--nothing more nor less.
))
)) The success of science and the scientific method has lead many to try
)) to co-opt the name in an attempt to make the field sound more
)) legitimate. (Political science comes to mind--it is also not a
)) science and should not be taught as one.) It is a standard technique
)) for fields to try to gain legitimacy. I will resist it at all turns.
))
)) ) The advancement made by Steiner was to look at human inner
)) ) life using the ideal methods of "science", namely that whatever was
asserted to be
)) ) true had to be capable of being found true by any others who followed
the same
)) ) introspective methodology.
))
)) So, tell me, how could someone (me, say) show he was wrong? If I say
)) that I've also followed the path and found things to be different that
)) RS found, would that disprove him? What would you take as a disproof?
))
)) I can tell you a half dozen ways to disprove Einstein. Newton has
)) been disproved almost completely, I think. Yet these are two of the
)) greatest scientists of all time. Can you equally easily tell me how
)) to disprove Steiner? If not, then he is not a scientist.
))
)) --Michael
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1096.6 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Research, RANDI style
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 20:50:44 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sune wrote )
)Daniel Sabsay wrote:
)
)) Really, what a contribution to the discussion. What methodology do you
)) recommend as neutral and objective?
)) Daniel
)
)Normally, the evaluation of research done by someone in one field is
)being done by a _number_ of other _researchers_ in the _same_ field over
)_some period of time_, making it possible to form some form of
)_balanced, well founded judgements_.
Where did you get this idea?
)The "scientific" "execution" of Benveniste (now at
)http://www.digibio.com/), I¥d suspect initiated by CSICOP (maybe you or
)someone at CSICOP knows or can find out the origin of the expedition of
)specifically Randi, Stewart and Maddox to Paris?) with the making of an
)example as the ONE, OBVIOUS, OVERRIDING goal, using 1 or 2 experiments
)on biological material to evaluate research done by a number of
)scientists over a number of years,
This is a well-known story, and it had nothing to do with CSICOP. The
3-person team was chosen by Nature editor John Maddox, and the visit was
a condition of
publication of Benveniste's article in Nature.
)with a person with appearently no
)formal scientific education, probably no experience of immunological
)research and only practice as a teenager in a biological lab as
)experience of biological research (Kopp ref 2) as the appearent General
)of the expedition is an insult to ANY normal scientific procedure.
If you are referring to Randi, you might be interested to know that he
was awarded the prestigious $300,000 MacArthur "genius" prize for a
career of exposing fraud & sloppy scientific research. He has travelled
all over the world to conduct tests of self-styled master dowsers. He
personally risked the $10,000 prize money offered on these occasions, to
be awarded by an independent local judge (not Randi). All participants
(and there were many hundreds) signed statements that the test conditions
were agreeable, and all succeeded
when the trials were open (not blinded). As soon as the blinding was
applied, performance dropped to chance levels.
)Like sending a prosecutor-court-and-judge in one, and NO defense
)attorney, headed by a north American corporal to France to prosecute and
)sentence General de Gaulle for not doing his job as President of the
)Republic properly ...
What emotional imagery. Have you put any effort into hearing the other
side of the story?
)Name ONE Frenchman or ONE normal scientist who would not be _very_
)deeply offended and thrown off-balance by such an megaextraordinary bad
)scientific procedure in science and I¥ll name the rest 99,999 % who
)would.
Trust and respect in the scientific community comes from the humble
response to criticism, and the open access to labs and records.
)If teacher should be fired on the basis of failed single experiments ...
)well I suspect all our children would have to become their own teachers,
)at last solving the problems of all the problems of not only PLANS ...
I shared my proposed protocol with this e-list. This protocol makes no
demands on the researcher concerning their methodology, or the amount of
time it takes to reach their conclusions. The only requirement is that
the number of samples be sufficient to give reliable statistical
inferences, and that the blinding procedure be independently administered.
In the case of homeopathy, the testing methodology could be technology
based, or could be the administration of remedies to human subjects. The
evaluation of outcomes is entirely in the hands of the researchers. Upon
reaching a determination of which sample is active, and which control,
blinding keys will be shared with the researchers. This is as neutral as
it gets.
-- Daniel
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daniel Sabsay, president "Ignorance is the ultimate renewable resource"
East Bay Skeptics Society http://www.eb-skeptics.org
mail eb-skeptics.org
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1096.7 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: The parabolic orbit myth
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:02:24 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902171350.FAA03059 lists1.best.com)
(199902151718.JAA12445 lists1.best.com) (127714198 toto.iv)
(199902152136.NAA14383 lists1.best.com) (109543318 toto.iv)
(199902170544.VAA02543 lists1.best.com) (25759121 toto.iv)
(199902171350.FAA03059 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902172002.MAA26482 lists1.best.com)
Stephen Tonkin concludes his arguments with Michael Hirsch (and others)
about the fine points of teaching physics:
)Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu) wrote:
))I think we no longer have any disagreement on this issue! At worst we
))disagree on where the emphasis should be, but not on anything
))material.
)
)It's good, but darned time-consuming, to find a consensus, is it not?
)
)) I'm glad to know this as I'd a good impression of your
))teaching till now, and I still do.
)
)Thank you.
)
)Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
)Stephen
Michael KOPP says:
But this is a "consensus" of two: one scientist who sends his children to a
Waldorf school and has, apparently, few problems with Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposopical pedagogy and dogma, and a dyed-in-the-wool Anthroposophist
and Waldorf teacher, who is committed to that pedagogy and dogma.
And this fine point of discussion -- thought it dealt with whether or not
Waldorf science teachers should teach according to a "fudge factor" -- did
not answer ANY of the *very major* points of disagreement with SWA
pseudo-science teaching as enumerated by Waldorf critics from Dan Dugan
(who started this list because of such a disagreement) through academics in
the field of science education to people like myself.
And we have seen how scientists -- I'm thinking of John Calkins, who used
to work for Kodak, and posted to this list for a while about 18 months ago
-- can be sucked in to the SWA cult of pseudo-science. Calkins went to an
Anthroposophical seminary (Steiner teachers college) and is now doing his
practice teaching in Hawaii, according to a post I read recently. The
difference in Calkins' language mirrored the change in his world-view after
only one year of the seminary training. He talked like a scientist before
he left (though he was already wavering). When he finished his first year
of training, he talked like a Steiner cultist and spouted all the same
mumbo jumbo we hear tirelessly on this list from the likes of Nordwall,
Straume and Jackson.
How long will it be before the other scientists on this list succumb? (When
hell freezes over, in the case of _this_ scientist, if by scientist we mean
one who adheres to a method of rational learning [as opposed to limiting
the term to just those who practice science].)
How about you scientists -- Hirsch, Fine, any others with credentials in
science, or those who just follow science and science education, as I have
in my professional journalism career -- joining battle on the MAJOR points,
like the teaching of Goethe's colour theory, his phenomenology, and his
"science".
Stephen Tonkin has admitted -- proudly -- that he shortcuts the scientific
method in his classes by at least two important points, in favour of
teaching by some form of direct experience according to Goethe's scientific
views.
Let the kids figure it out for themselves, eh? Sounds more like replacing
knowledge and rationality with intuition, which is totally unscientific.
Science is an unintuitive, anti-intuitive method. To introduce intuition,
especially when it replaces sound parts of the scientific method, is wrong
and bad and hurts people's understanding of the world. It promotes the kind
of banal, rote adherence to belief that mumbo jumbo like homeopathy will
eventually be accepted by orthodox science.
How about getting back to the "heart is not a pump" argument. Call it what
you will, the discussion is about why SWA schools teach this stuff. Stephen
Tonkin says "because it works" and "because I won't lie or teach bad
science".
Nice excuses, but they don't hold water.
Let's get back to basics, like teaching kids that colour arises out of the
interaction of darkness and light. (In fact, this explanation actually goes
deeper, to the underlying sprititual -- that is, supernatural -- meaning of
darkness and light, and the spirits and forces and ethers responsible for
these matters.)
In other words, a simple natural phenomenon like colour is turned into
another inculcation of Anthroposophical spirituality by stealth (since
Waldorf teachers don't go quite so far as to tell the students the
underlying mumbo jumbo).
Come to think of it, Mr Tonkin, if you're so honest with your students, how
come you don't tell them the FULL story of the esoteric "science" you're
teaching them? Surely (according to one of your recent posts) they can
handle the intellectual task?
Arguing over the physical niceties of parabolas and ellipses is abstruse
and obfuscatory of the REAL concern on this list with the *major*
distortions of real science perpetrated in SWA schools. It's like arguing
how many angels can sit on the head of a pin, instead of
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1096.8 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:14:14 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="------------AC57C8E472CB27358E103A13"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------AC57C8E472CB27358E103A13
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------AC57C8E472CB27358E103A13
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Path: news1.online.no!newsfeed1.online.no!newsfeed.online.no!uio.no!romeo.dax.net!not-for-mail
From: "CHARLES KRISTIANSEN" (freddiefreak c2i.net)
Newsgroups: no.samfunn.narkotika
Subject: "schools for snitches,"
Date: 18 Feb 1999 11:22:04 GMT
Organization: Tele2 Norway Public Access
Message-ID: (01be5b31$16ab4200$LocalHost s-502836)
NNTP-Posting-Host: mp-119-128.daxnet.no
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1157
Xref: news1.online.no no.samfunn.narkotika:991
=======================================
For release: February 11, 1999
=======================================
For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: 76214.3676 Compuserve.com
=======================================
High schoolers can get $1,000 bounty
under new drug "snitch" program
WASHINGTON, DC -- A plan by three Oregon high schools to pay
$1,000 bounties to teenagers who anonymously turn in other students on
drug charges is a morally reprehensible program that will turn high
schools into "schools for snitches," the Libertarian Party charged
today.
"This is the first step towards turning America's teenagers
into paid informants for the government," said Steve Dasbach, the
party's national director. "Are these really the kinds of values and
skills we want to teach our young people?"
Starting this month, students in three high school districts in
Portland, Oregon, will be paid up to $1,000 for snitching on fellow
students who use drugs or alcohol on school property.
Under the new Crime Stoppers program, students will be given a
direct, anonymous hot line to school police.
But Libertarians say the program charts a direct line to a new
McCarthyism, where teenagers will live in fear of being turned in --
rightly or wrongly -- to the authorities by anonymous informers eager
for a cash reward.
"This turn-in-your-friends-for-cash scheme at Judas Iscariot
High School is a stark example of how Drug Prohibition has warped the
morals of this nation," said Dasbach. "Instead of treating drug abuse
as a medical problem that requires concern and compassion, this program
treats drug abuse as an opportunity to earn 30 pieces of silver by
ratting on your schoolmates."
There are many reasons Libertarians oppose the $1,000 bounty
program, said Dasbach, including...
* It's ripe for abuse. "How many high school grudges will be
settled by calling 1-800-BE-A-SNITCH?" asked Dasbach. "How strong will
the lure of a $1,000 reward be to a student who suffered from a broken
romance -- and wants revenge? For every honest report of drug abuse,
how many anonymous calls will be made to settle a score?"
* It will create a climate of fear and distrust. "Programs like
this will cause every student to wonder: Who will be turned in next?
Betrayal, snitching, and anonymous informants are not the proper recipe
for creating school spirit, respect, and trust," he said.
* It will funnel teenagers with drug problems into the criminal
justice system instead of the medical system. "Like all Americans,
Libertarians are concerned about teenage drug abuse," said Dasbach.
"But reporting and arresting a teenager for smoking marijuana isn't a
solution -- it's a bigger problem. For a high school student struggling
with the challenges of adolescence, putting him in a jail cell and
burdening him with a criminal record takes a temporary medical problem
and turns it into a lifelong disaster."
* It won't work. "Last week, the American Bar Association's
Criminal Justice Section released a study reporting that illicit drug
use in America had increased 7% from 1996 to 1997 -- while the number
of people arrested on drug charges since 1992 has increased by 73%. If
America could arrest its way out of the drug problem, it would have
happened by now."
Ironically, reports of the $1,000 high school bounty surfaced
at about the same time Vice President Al Gore unveiled the Clinton
Administration's new anti-drug policy, and argued that drug abuse is
partly a "spiritual problem."
"If Al Gore is correct, and drug abuse is a spiritual problem,
we won't solve the problem by devilishly appealing to the worst in
people -- and offering cash rewards to turn in your classmates," said
Dasbach. "The solution to a spiritual problem is not to turn America
into a nation of Soviet-style paid informants."
--------------AC57C8E472CB27358E103A13--
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1096.9 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Teaching Anthroposophy by Stealth
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:24:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902172002.MAA26482 lists1.best.com)
(199902171350.FAA03059 lists1.best.com)
(199902151718.JAA12445 lists1.best.com) (127714198 toto.iv)
(199902152136.NAA14383 lists1.best.com) (109543318 toto.iv)
(199902170544.VAA02543 lists1.best.com) (25759121 toto.iv)
(199902171350.FAA03059 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902180814.AAA20378 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp submits:
)Let's get back to basics, like teaching kids that colour arises out of the
)interaction of darkness and light. (In fact, this explanation actually goes
)deeper, to the underlying sprititual -- that is, supernatural -- meaning of
)darkness and light, and the spirits and forces and ethers responsible for
)these matters.)
)
)In other words, a simple natural phenomenon like colour is turned into
)another inculcation of Anthroposophical spirituality by stealth (since
)Waldorf teachers don't go quite so far as to tell the students the
)underlying mumbo jumbo).
According to this logic, the same would be true of the fact that light and
darkness alternate as the sun rises and sets. . . remember, we teach that
one, too.
When we draw or paint, we are conscious of the relationship between light
and dark. I'm often reminding the youngsters not to be too heavy with
their black crayon or blue paints, since the resulting blot will draw an
observer's attention immediately to that portion of the picture. At this
age, they should strive for a balance between light and dark in their
artistic work.
The relationship between light and dark is what makes it possible for you
to read this.
When I dress for school in the morning (can't say I'm so fastidious on my
days off) I try to balance light and dark in my jacket and shirt and
sweater and tie and pants.
All of these examples relate to how I teach. When I wake up in the
morning, it is dark outside. After turning on the light and my computer
screen, I begin to prepare for my teaching. This usually involves reading
a passage or a piece of music, or preparing a drawing for my students. At
some point, I notice through the window that it's getting light outside,
and head for the shower. On the way, I turn out the light in my office and
turn on the light in the bathroom. After showering, I dress in a way that
involves the same consideration for composition as the picture I've
prepared.
At no point in this process do I consider, "anthroposophy describes the
battle between light and darkness", or "the alternation between light and
darkness describes the dynamic of life on earth, according to
anthroposophy", or any other such thing.
Maybe some waldorf teachers do think this way, but I'm not aware of it. I
simply go about my business in what I feel is a considered and careful way.
To ascribe any other meaning to it is a gross imposition on behalf of your
"stealth" theory. I'm certain you remain convinced of its reality, but
I've seen you produce little in support.
Realize, when I call this paranoid behavior, that one of the
characteristics of paranoia is the tendency to see causal links where there
are none.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1096.10 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: The parabolic orbit myth
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:46:31 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: (199902171350.FAA03059 lists1.best.com)
(199902151718.JAA12445 lists1.best.com) (127714198 toto.iv)
(199902152136.NAA14383 lists1.best.com) (109543318 toto.iv)
(199902170544.VAA02543 lists1.best.com) (25759121 toto.iv)
(199902171350.FAA03059 lists1.best.com)
(199902172002.MAA26482 lists1.best.com)
(199902180814.AAA20378 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902180814.AAA20378 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz) wrote:
)Come to think of it, Mr Tonkin, if you're so honest with your students, how
)come you don't tell them the FULL story of the esoteric "science" you're
)teaching them?
Which esoteric science is that which I teach, Michael?
)Surely (according to one of your recent posts) they can
)handle the intellectual task?
I think you will find I said that A-level students can handle a specific
intellectual task -- I now teach in the middle school. If, by your
statement, you mean why don't I teach them anthroposophy, it is quite
simply because that is not my job. In fact, I am specifically required
*not* to do so.
)
)Arguing over the physical niceties of parabolas and ellipses is abstruse
)and obfuscatory of the REAL concern on this list with the *major*
)distortions of real science perpetrated in SWA schools.
I disagree. The approaches taken to teaching sciences can reveal the
different philosophies behind them. Debating specific examples is a
darned sight more productive than waffling generalities. (Apart from
which, I thoroughly enjoyed having to re-examine what I do when I was
faced with Michael Hirsch's challenges -- and my main purpose of staying
with this list is to be forced into those periodic re-examinations which
prevent me getting too complacent.)
) It's like arguing
)how many angels can sit on the head of a pin, instead of
Instead of ..?
I think your email program is playing up again.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1096 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1097 --------------
001 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
002 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Re: The parabolic orbit myth
003 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Anthroposophical Medicine
004 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit t - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
005 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
006 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - talking about us
007 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: talking about us
008 - Mark Swope (mws47 yahoo.c - Re: talking about us
009 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: talking about us
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1097.1 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:53:20 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902082311.PAA12502 lists1.best.com)
(199902101751.JAA19548 lists1.best.com)
(199902160250.SAA16515 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (40399329 toto.iv)
Joel,
Thank you for the lengthy reply. You are certainly right that I would
have to study long and hard to understand and comprehend Steiner. But
I am not asking to understand Steiner, I am asking to understand your
use of the word "scientific". It still appears to me that your
meaning of the term is in opposition to the meaning as ascribed by
actual scientists.
Joel A. Wendt writes:
)
) I made the statement in my "disclosure" piece that Waldorf was based upon a
) scientifically valid understanding of human nature. We are thus at the core problem: How
) to we come to knowledge and understanding of human nature? With the addition of a
) subsidary problem: How do we do this in a scientific fashion?
Yes, that is the crux. Scientists are notoriously bad at
understanding human nature. If it were possible to do so
scientifically, that would be great.
) At present "science" confines itself to knowledge gained essentialy through methods
) of counting and pointer instruments of various types. Are such methods adequate to the
) discovery of deeper truths about human nature? I think clearly they are not, so the
) question becomes, what extentions of methodology can be made, yet which still retain the
) right to call themselves "scientific". In order to answer this question we have to look
) at the scientific method for some statement of its essential features, which does not
) violate its fundamental premises.
Again, I agree with this. It is important not to violate the
principles that make science work even while trying to extend it to
new fields of research.
) I put forward as such a possible statement the following: One is scientific if one
) postulates truths along with the relevant methodology so that the methodology itself can
) first be tested, and then applied and the truth replicated. This allows us to expand our
) methods, while remaining in concert with the fundamental "truth" principle of science,
) i.e. the ability to replicate.
Here is where we part company. Science does not make progress by
demonstrating truth, but rather by demonstrating lack thereof.
Science progresses by theorizing that a certain model expresses a
certain aspect of reality. Then people "prove" the model by testing
it. "Prove" here is in the sense of "proving grounds" or "testing
grounds", not the mathematical sense. The model makes certain
predictions. If these predictions fail then the model is disproven.
If the predictions are correct then the theory is now in probationary
status.
If the model passes the first test, researchers then design further,
more difficult tests. A theory never really leaves probationary
status, though occasionally some theories become so ingrained we call
them laws, but that doesn't mean we stop testing them. We are still
testing Einstein's theories and "laws" such as conservation of energy
all the time.
) So if I say "such and such" is true about human psychology, I have to give you a
) method for finding that out for yourself. I don't have to confine the method to counting
) and pointer instruments, but can use some other method as long is it is accessible and
) testible.
To be science you need to give me a way to show that it isn't true.
If there is no way for me to (potentially) disprove your statement,
then it isn't science and your belief is not scientifically based. It
might be true, but it isn't scientifically testable, and hence does
not deserve the name "science".
As you can see, it is not necessary for me to read anything Steiner
wrote to discuss this. I am prepared to admit he may be right about
everything he says, but I am denied the opportunity to test his
theories. This is what makes it a matter of religion and faith to
me. "If you do this you will agree" is not a scientific answer to a
request for knowledge, no matter how heartfelt.
--Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1097.2 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Re: The parabolic orbit myth
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:09:12 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902171350.FAA03059 lists1.best.com)
(199902151718.JAA12445 lists1.best.com)
(127714198 toto.iv)
(199902152136.NAA14383 lists1.best.com)
(109543318 toto.iv)
(199902170544.VAA02543 lists1.best.com)
(25759121 toto.iv)
(199902172002.MAA26482 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (99908477 toto.iv)
Michael Kopp writes:
) Stephen Tonkin concludes his arguments with Michael Hirsch (and others)
) about the fine points of teaching physics:
)
) )Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu) wrote:
) ))I think we no longer have any disagreement on this issue! At worst we
) ))disagree on where the emphasis should be, but not on anything
) ))material.
) )
) )It's good, but darned time-consuming, to find a consensus, is it not?
) Michael KOPP says:
)
) But this is a "consensus" of two: one scientist who sends his children to a
) Waldorf school and has, apparently, few problems with Steiner/ Waldorf/
) Anthroposopical pedagogy and dogma, and a dyed-in-the-wool Anthroposophist
) and Waldorf teacher, who is committed to that pedagogy and dogma.
Perhaps you missed the post where I said I was not planning to send my
children there for elementary school because of problems with the
pedagogy and dogma? As did you, I see certain benefits from WE and
very little harm that can be done them in pre-Kindergarten. Unlike
you, I am still able to have a civil discussion about my disagreements
with Waldorf.
) And this fine point of discussion -- thought it dealt with whether or not
) Waldorf science teachers should teach according to a "fudge factor" -- did
) not answer ANY of the *very major* points of disagreement with SWA
) pseudo-science teaching as enumerated by Waldorf critics from Dan Dugan
) (who started this list because of such a disagreement) through academics in
) the field of science education to people like myself.
That's true. Your point being...? Did we pretend to answer any such
points? Did you expect it to? We found a topic upon which we could
converse, and after an exchange of ideas discovered that our
differences were differences in degree, not in kind. Since, as you
have said, Stephen Tonkin is a good scientist, wouldn't you expect us
to come to some sort of agreement?
If we said anything that you disapprove of, then please, join in the
discussion.
) How about you scientists -- Hirsch, Fine, any others with credentials in
) science, or those who just follow science and science education, as I have
) in my professional journalism career -- joining battle on the MAJOR points,
) like the teaching of Goethe's colour theory, his phenomenology, and his
) "science".
By all means. I'd love to hear from someone who knows something about
color theory and can speak to Geothe's color theory. Like any good
scientist, I try not to talk about things I don't know anything
about. This was the reason I discussed basic physics rather than
basic blood flow. I am not qualified to discuss blood flow and I'll
leave it for people who are.
--Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1097.3 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Anthroposophical Medicine
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 21:12:01 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (v04011712b2f149bb5366 [205.149.169.113])
Critical literature (in German) on Anthroposophical medicine, often
practiced at Waldorf schools:
Donald Frankenberg: Anthroposophische Medizin und Pflege. In: AKAZ IX, p.
123-129
Donald Frankenberg: Mythos Mistel ["The Myth of Mistletoe"; allegedly
curing cancer and other diseases]. In: Materialien und Informationen zur
Zeit 4/1996, p. 14-20
Franz Stratmann: Zur Bedeutung der anthroposophische Lehre im Bereich der
Medizin. Marburg university, MD thesis, 1988
Franz Stratmann: Zum Einfluş der Anthroposophie in der Medizin. W.
Zuckschwerdt Verlag, 1988. ISBN 3-88603-284-1
See also Belgian parliamentary report on cults, April 1997 [in French/Dutch]
and [in English]
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/leeuw.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Herman de Tollenaere
---------------------------------------------------------------------
My Internet site on Asian history and "new" religions:
http://stad.dsl.nl/~hermantl/
See also SIMPOS, information on occult tendencies' impact on society:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1097.4 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:06:11 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902180422.UAA27464 lists1.best.com)
Dear Alan,
I have placed a couple of comments in your remarks below, in [brackets].
warm regards,
joel
Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
) And if one were to follow these steps and come to an entirely different
) belief? Why then you would say that the steps were not properly taken, for
) belief in your truth is part of the methodology itself.
[What an interesting way to reason. First you invent the result of following
the methodology, without of course actually following the methodology. Then you
invent my reaction to your invention. I have no doubt you do not practice your
professional life in such a fantastic fashion. Please deal with realities and
cease making up things. That is not any kind of response at all.]
)
)
) This is not science. You use the word science to underscore your belief
) that Anthroposophy is not just your truth, but the Truth. The use of the
) word science to describe your spiritual path is not only objectionable to
) scientists,
[Since you have not made any attempt to practice the methodology, you are in no
position to state what it is or is not. I have also not stated any "beliefs".
There are certain universal psychological facts involving the nature of the
relationship between thinking and experience. It is certainly "scientific" to
observe one's inner life and confirm, or not, the truthfulness of the reported
observations concerning this relationship. It does, however, take a bit of
work, not unlike the work you engaged in in earning your M.D. It is also
obnoxiously disrespectful to judge in a negative fashion, without any real
knowledge on your part, the quality of effort I have put forward to learn what I
have learned.]
) but even more objectionable to those many deeply spiritual
) people who follow a path and a truth different than yours.
[This again is just a statement of assumptions convienient to your presumptions
about what I am refering to. I have carefully left out any details of the
methodology, so it is quite impossible for you to know anything about it. Of
course, you could have read the suggested books, but it is clear from you
remarks that you have not bothered to. That is fine. I am not insisting that
you do so. I will state again, however, that if you refuse to attempt, with
good will, to replicate the methodology, you are not entitled to speak at all
about what might or might not be the result.]
) It is
) surprising that for all his knowledge and inspiration, Steiner did not show
) us the inhumanity behind universalizing spirituality this way. History
) certainly has.
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Joel A. Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
) Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 4:09 PM
) Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
)
) )Dear Michael,
) )
) ) I will try to answer your questions as aspects of a more general
) statement.
) )Hopefully this will help you understand what I am trying to express.
) However, as in all
) )human communication, it is necessary for you to actually try to understand.
) If you do
) )not, then you present an insurmountable barrier to any attempt on my part
) to communicate
) )with you.
) )
) ) You have used the term "scientific method", and spoken of testible and
) falsifible
) )hypothesis. This is fine. The problems we face on this list, in
) understanding the
) )collision between "spiritual science" and "modern science", is a little
) broader. This
) )broader problem involves "knowledge" in a more general sense.
) )
) ) I made the statement in my "disclosure" piece that Waldorf was based
) upon a
) )scientifically valid understanding of human nature. We are thus at the
) core problem: How
) )to we come to knowledge and understanding of human nature? With the
) addition of a
) )subsidary problem: How do we do this in a scientific fashion?
) )
) ) At present "science" confines itself to knowledge gained essentialy
) through methods
) )of counting and pointer instruments of various types. Are such methods
) adequate to the
) )discovery of deeper truths about human nature? I think clearly they are
) not, so the
) )question becomes, what extentions of methodology can be made, yet which
) still retain the
) )right to call themselves "scientific". In order to answer this question we
) have to look
) )at the scientific method for some statement of its essential features,
) which does not
) )violate its fundamental premises.
) )
) ) I put forward as such a possible statement the following: One is
) scientific if one
) )postulates truths along with the relevant methodology so that the
) methodology itself can
) )first be tested, and then applied and the truth replicated. This allows us
) to expand our
) )methods, while remaining in concert with the fundamental "truth" principle
) of science,
) )i.e. the ability to replicate.
) )
) ) So if I say "such and such" is true about human psychology, I have to
) give you a
) )method for finding that out for yourself. I don't have to confine the
) method to counting
) )and pointer instruments, but can use some other method as long is it is
) accessible and
) )testible.
) )
) ) There is also a secondary problem, which has to do with jumping right
) into Steiner's
) )lecture cycles and approaching what is in them as if somehow it could be
) come to terms
) )with using the same standard of knowledge presently practiced in natural
) science. It is
) )understandable why skeptics ask for such a thing, but to do so really begs
) the question
) )and introduces some unnecessary confusion.
) )
) ) As I have said before, it is essential, if one has any interest at all
) in
) )"understanding" anthroposophy, to appreciate that anthroposophy is a
) method, not a
) )content. To appreciate this imagine for the moment that one was a 12th
) century European
) )scholastic, and was confonted with a modern text on evolutionary biology.
) It would make
) )little sense and would certainly conflict with how the world was already
) seen. We are in
) )similar circumstance here. To go to the "content", such as material in a
) Steiner
) )lecture, and apply standard scientific judgments to it, is to begin in the
) wrong place.
) )
) ) Our scholastic would have to be slowly brought into the fundamentals of
) scientific
) )thinking, before the elaborate content of evolutionary biology could be
) appreciated. The
) )same is true for the non-anthroposophist. If he is possessed of good will,
) he needs to
) )start with the method first -- to appreciate its validity in itself, before
) going on to
) )more complicated problems.
) )
) ) Moreover, the methodolgy is more immediatly accessible to modern minds,
) as it
) )involves nothing more than a carefully built up self knowledge.
) )
) ) So Michael, if you want to begin at the beginning, then you need to
) read either
) )"Truth and Knowledge" or "Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World
) Conception", for
) )it is conjunction with these texts that the necessary foundational steps
) are taken
) )extending the scientific method itself from mere counting and pointer
) instruments and
) )into the realm of the qualitative and the moral, the realm where knowledge
) must arrive if
) )it is to come to terms with understanding human nature. It is especially
) important,
) )however, not to merely read these texts and to argue with their content,
) but to look
) )within. For the essential text is not found in either of the refered to
) books, but in
) )one's own inner life.
) )
) ) Now certainly one can refuse to do that. However, in my view, such a
) refusal takes
) )away any license one might have to criticize anthroposophy, because one has
) refused the
) )essential scientific challenge -- namely to test the hypothesis for one's
) self.
) )
) )warm regards
) )joel
) )
) )Michael Hirsch wrote:
) )
) )) Joel A. Wendt writes:
) )) ) Michael Hirsch wrote:
) )) ) ) Joel A. Wendt writes:
) )) ) ) ) This spiritual freedom is neither a philosophy or a point of view,
) but is
) )) ) ) ) derived from a valid scientifically based understanding of the
) nature of human
) )) ) ) ) inner life and the true relationship between human experience and
) the life of
) )) ) ) ) thought.
) )) ) )
) )) ) ) If it derives from "a valid scientific" understanding, then, as I
) )) ) ) understand the term
) )) )
) )) ) [Perhaps you should reconsider your understanding of the "term". The
) kind of
) )) ) authentic science you "seem" to espouse would be based on power
) structures, old boy
) )) ) networks and so forth, and not upon a real search for the truth,
) following the
) )) ) fundamental principles of "science".
) ))
) )) Not at all. Science is, by definition, that which follows the
) )) scientific method. This means that all hypotheses must be testable
) )) and falsifiable. Can you give me a single testable and falsifiable
) )) result from you "valid scientific" understanding?
) ))
) )) I object to "spiritual science" for the same reasons I object to
) )) "creationism science"--it is not science. If you want to call it
) )) "spiritual research", "spiritual inquiry" or "spiritual investigation"
) )) or almost anything else I wouldn't object so, but to call it a kind of
) )) science is a perversion of the term. Merely calling it a science does
) )) not make it one, but it makes it much harder for lay people to
) )) understand that it is not a science.
) ))
) )) Fortunately, in the U.S. we have legal rulings that creationism is not
) )) a science and cannot be taught as such in schools. I foresee the day
) )) that we will have similar court cases with "spiritual science". It
) )) will probably be an easier case to win that the creationism case
) )) because it isn't as ingrained in our culture as creationism.
) ))
) )) ) Even in main stream science you can find a lot
) )) ) of criticism of the problems of seeking the truth within the "poltical"
) climate of
) )) ) institutional science.
) ))
) )) Sure, there are plenty of complaints about the way science _does_
) )) occur, but little argument about the way it _should_ occur. Science
) )) is that which follows the scientific method--nothing more nor less.
) ))
) )) The success of science and the scientific method has lead many to try
) )) to co-opt the name in an attempt to make the field sound more
) )) legitimate. (Political science comes to mind--it is also not a
) )) science and should not be taught as one.) It is a standard technique
) )) for fields to try to gain legitimacy. I will resist it at all turns.
) ))
) )) ) The advancement made by Steiner was to look at human inner
) )) ) life using the ideal methods of "science", namely that whatever was
) asserted to be
) )) ) true had to be capable of being found true by any others who followed
) the same
) )) ) introspective methodology.
) ))
) )) So, tell me, how could someone (me, say) show he was wrong? If I say
) )) that I've also followed the path and found things to be different that
) )) RS found, would that disprove him? What would you take as a disproof?
) ))
) )) I can tell you a half dozen ways to disprove Einstein. Newton has
) )) been disproved almost completely, I think. Yet these are two of the
) )) greatest scientists of all time. Can you equally easily tell me how
) )) to disprove Steiner? If not, then he is not a scientist.
) ))
) )) --Michael
) )
) )
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1097.5 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 06:23:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
OK then, I am sorry if I have jumped to a conclusion, so clarify it for me.
If I were to follow the steps and the method you are suggesting, and I did
not come to any realizations that matched yours or Steiner's, would you or
would you not believe that I must have followed the steps improperly? (This
of course is the same as Michael's arguement in different words.)
I am in no way criticizing the quality or importance of your effort to
learn what you have learned. I have encountered many people on many paths
and those people will vouch that I always treat them with the utmost respect
for their paths and their truths. But I expect them to accord me the same
respect. Steiner's methodology to gain cognitional experience of the
spiritual world is meaningful to you. I respect that more than you will
ever appreciate. But it is in my view an act of great hubris to imply that
it is similarly meaningful and truthful to others, and carelessly tossing
out words like science to support that conjecture. Tell me that I can
seriously follow Steiner's methodology, and I that I might come up with
spiritual realities other than Steiner's, and that these realities would be
just as important and vital as his. Tell me that there are other
methodologies besides Steiner's that can give me a meaningful spiritual
experience. And most of all tell me that the Muslim faith and the Jewish
faith are spiritual paths that are as real, as enduring, and as high as
yours. If you can tell me these things, you will be according me the
respect that I am ready to accord you.-
)Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
)
)) And if one were to follow these steps and come to an entirely different
)) belief? Why then you would say that the steps were not properly taken,
for
)) belief in your truth is part of the methodology itself.
)
)[What an interesting way to reason. First you invent the result of
following
)the methodology, without of course actually following the methodology.
Then you
)invent my reaction to your invention. I have no doubt you do not practice
your
)professional life in such a fantastic fashion. Please deal with realities
and
)cease making up things. That is not any kind of response at all.]
)
))
))
It is also
)obnoxiously disrespectful to judge in a negative fashion, without any real
)knowledge on your part, the quality of effort I have put forward to learn
what I
)have learned.]
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1097.6 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: talking about us
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:25:54 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Our former subscriber JoAnn Schwartz posted the following comments to the
list anthropos-views:
***
As one who put in about 2 years on the Critics list before 'retiring'
to the less contentious (!?!?) fields of Steiner98, let me drop in my
2 pennies Canadian...
I think the best thing to do on the WC is to consider your remarks as
addressed to the vast majority of folks who are lurkers, trying to
figure out what the hell WE is all about. Getting into 'pissing
contests' with the Dans, Kathy, Michael, Deby and the other vocal
critics--- while certainly holding a certain perverse satisfaction---
will get you nowhere.
I got to the point where I considered my *most* satisfactory posts to
be the ones that dropped like a stone into a pond, never to be seen
again.... If you look in the archives, you'll see that I mostly took
on the sweeping generalizations that the critics tend to make about
WE, by contrasting them to my own experience with WE as a parent. Some
may argue that the 'ancedote for ancedote' approach is unsatisfactory,
but it worked for me... in part because there were others on the list
who could argue the RS questions.
Also, you may find it helpful to come together outside of any
organized list to support each other (a sort of private, mini-list in
everyone's address book) --- that way the snarky remarks don't have to
be suppressed, just shared off-line with like-minded colleagues!
(wicked grin) The folks in my group used to take a break from posting
during Lent. Amazing how quiet the WC can become when no supporters
post... and how outrageous the critics can become as Eastertide draws
nearer and their usual baits don't work.... (Of course, after a six
week break, we would be ready to, ummm, take up the challenge!! Then
again, last year I 'gave up the critics for Lent' and it stuck!!)
Every now and then I take a look at the WC archives on the web and
realize nothing has changed from the critic's side.... which is why I
still maintain it is useless to address your remarks to them.
***
I think yesterday was Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent. Does this mean
we're going to get a break from the naddering nabobs of Anthroposophy? Yay!
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1097.7 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: talking about us
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:15:33 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199902190754.XAA13143 lists1.best.com)
Dear Dan,
) I think yesterday was Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent. Does this mean
) we're going to get a break from the naddering nabobs of Anthroposophy? Yay!
) -Dan
For a while I¥ve been pondering leaving the list, thinking it did not
feel like fair play any more, as the strugglers on the WC side seemed to
be fewer and not having as good arguments as the WS(upporter) side any
more. Or maybe even changing over partly to give you some breathing
space.
Yet, I think I¥ll settle for at least _trying_ to be nicer (must be,
must be, soon), though I feel participation on this list has taught
me something about myself I don¥t think I wanted to know, you know: If
you want to get to know and understand yourself, look at your
surroundings, the sitution you¥ve chosen to be in and the people you
somehow like talking to.
Cheer up!
Spring¥ll soon be here!
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.n1097.8 ---------------
From: Mark Swope (mws47 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: talking about us
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 02:39:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I'm one of the lurkers she is talking about. This list has become
less and less interesting over the past year or so. I'm going to join
the group and "resist not evil".
Bye Bye
---Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
)
) Our former subscriber JoAnn Schwartz posted the following comments
to the
) list anthropos-views:
)
) ***
)
) As one who put in about 2 years on the Critics list before 'retiring'
) to the less contentious (!?!?) fields of Steiner98, let me drop in my
) 2 pennies Canadian...
)
) I think the best thing to do on the WC is to consider your remarks as
) addressed to the vast majority of folks who are lurkers, trying to
) figure out what the hell WE is all about. Getting into 'pissing
) contests' with the Dans, Kathy, Michael, Deby and the other vocal
) critics--- while certainly holding a certain perverse satisfaction---
) will get you nowhere.
)
) I got to the point where I considered my *most* satisfactory posts to
) be the ones that dropped like a stone into a pond, never to be seen
) again.... If you look in the archives, you'll see that I mostly took
) on the sweeping generalizations that the critics tend to make about
) WE, by contrasting them to my own experience with WE as a parent.
Some
) may argue that the 'ancedote for ancedote' approach is
unsatisfactory,
) but it worked for me... in part because there were others on the list
) who could argue the RS questions.
)
) Also, you may find it helpful to come together outside of any
) organized list to support each other (a sort of private, mini-list in
) everyone's address book) --- that way the snarky remarks don't have
to
) be suppressed, just shared off-line with like-minded colleagues!
) (wicked grin) The folks in my group used to take a break from posting
) during Lent. Amazing how quiet the WC can become when no supporters
) post... and how outrageous the critics can become as Eastertide draws
) nearer and their usual baits don't work.... (Of course, after a six
) week break, we would be ready to, ummm, take up the challenge!! Then
) again, last year I 'gave up the critics for Lent' and it stuck!!)
)
) Every now and then I take a look at the WC archives on the web and
) realize nothing has changed from the critic's side.... which is why I
) still maintain it is useless to address your remarks to them.
)
) ***
)
) I think yesterday was Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent. Does
this mean
) we're going to get a break from the naddering nabobs of
Anthroposophy? Yay!
)
) -Dan
)
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1097.9 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: talking about us
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 08:28:17 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199902190754.XAA13143 lists1.best.com)
On 18 Feb 99, at 12:25, Dan Dugan wrote:
) Our former subscriber JoAnn Schwartz posted the following comments to the
) list anthropos-views:
I'm sorry that JoAnn is gone. I've missed her posts.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1097 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1098 --------------
001 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit t - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
002 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
003 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Admin: rein in those quotes!
004 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Anthroposophical Medicine
005 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
006 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Anthroposophical Medicine
007 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
008 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
009 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
010 - Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabs - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1098.1 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 17:22:04 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902190026.QAA08797 lists1.best.com)
Dear Alan,
You continue to operate under mistaken assumptions. I do not fault you for
this. I believe such problems are inherent in the nature of the subject under
consideration. I will try to develop matters further, in line with your
questions.
The world is full of a variety of spiritual paths. It was my great fortune
to live in Berkeley, California, during the end of the 1960's and all through
the 1970's, when living teachers from many of these paths were present. It was
a remarkable community of seekers to be a member of, and I have great respect,
as do you, for all these teachers and seekers and their wise individual Ways.
There is something different about anthroposophy, however -- different from
all these other paths. This does not make anthroposophy better, or more pure or
any such category. Rather the difference is rooted in an intention of young Dr.
Steiner to proceed to develop his work out of the scientific impulse of his
time, the rich and remarkable developments of the 19th Century.
In order to do this he had to appreciate deeply the thought content of
science, and as well the fundamental integrity of the method of truth seeking
which underlay it. The result was that he built up the ideas which he worked
with, entirely out of the approach to knowledge of his contemporaries. The
process (method) arrives at a spiritual content only because the ground of the
world is factually spiritual.
As you are no doubt aware, the philosopher Kant (among many others) in
considering the epistomological question, concluded that human knowledge was
limited, and that knowledge of the divine was not within the capacities of a
human being. Steiner has disproved this limitation.
The proof involves a careful examination of the universal properties of
human consciousness, from the inside, as would appear to an objective
introspection. It is a completely "scientific" examination of consciousness,
and has been replicated by many individuals. But like all science, one has to
do the work.
Now you give me a hypothetical question about what I might or might not do,
if you were to follow the methodology and get different results. Sorry, but I
don't argue hypotheticals. They are an illusion and have no meaning whatsoever.
You don't have to bother even with this dialogue, much less involve yourself
in any kind of examination of the details of your own consciousness. Just don't
expect me to pretend that knowledge, of the kind I have confirmed for myself,
does not exist.
You seem to be assuming that I am asserting that everything that Steiner
ever said is true, or something of that order. That, I have not done. I would
not be surprised if much of it was true, but that has nothing to do with the
point I have been trying to make.
Let me restate it. In order to understand what anthroposophy is about, you
have to go in by the front door. At the front door you come to the problem of
freedom. If one learns to understand the epistomological problem (in practice),
then one comes upon an enormous inner freedom and an appreciation of the right
of every other human being to enjoy that freedom. Properly understood, one is
even free of Steiner "thought", of the vast content which he gave in the
thousands of lectures he did not want published. The anthroposophical movement
(and Waldorf education as well) is haunted and enchained by a great ghost
(technically called an egregore), because this problem is not understood, even
among those attracted to Steiner and to anthroposophy.
It is the presence of this ghost which causes many people to so quickly
dislike and distrust much that they come upon in their encounters with
anthroposophy or Waldorf Education. Many people instinctly recognize the lack
of freedom among those whose souls are enchained with a dogmatic relationship to
anthroposophical content, and quite rightly have no desire to join them.
In spite of this garment of confusion, at the heart of anthroposophy is a
jewel of remarkable worth -- complete spiritual freedom. I would do a grave
disservice to my fellow human beings, were I not to continue to point toward
this divinely ordained gift, and all the possibilities which flows from its
existence as an aspect of human potential.
warm regards,
joel
Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
) OK then, I am sorry if I have jumped to a conclusion, so clarify it for me.
) If I were to follow the steps and the method you are suggesting, and I did
) not come to any realizations that matched yours or Steiner's, would you or
) would you not believe that I must have followed the steps improperly? (This
) of course is the same as Michael's arguement in different words.)
)
) I am in no way criticizing the quality or importance of your effort to
) learn what you have learned. I have encountered many people on many paths
) and those people will vouch that I always treat them with the utmost respect
) for their paths and their truths. But I expect them to accord me the same
) respect. Steiner's methodology to gain cognitional experience of the
) spiritual world is meaningful to you. I respect that more than you will
) ever appreciate. But it is in my view an act of great hubris to imply that
) it is similarly meaningful and truthful to others, and carelessly tossing
) out words like science to support that conjecture. Tell me that I can
) seriously follow Steiner's methodology, and I that I might come up with
) spiritual realities other than Steiner's, and that these realities would be
) just as important and vital as his. Tell me that there are other
) methodologies besides Steiner's that can give me a meaningful spiritual
) experience. And most of all tell me that the Muslim faith and the Jewish
) faith are spiritual paths that are as real, as enduring, and as high as
) yours. If you can tell me these things, you will be according me the
) respect that I am ready to accord you.-
)
) )Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
) )
) )) And if one were to follow these steps and come to an entirely different
) )) belief? Why then you would say that the steps were not properly taken,
) for
) )) belief in your truth is part of the methodology itself.
) )
) )[What an interesting way to reason. First you invent the result of
) following
) )the methodology, without of course actually following the methodology.
) Then you
) )invent my reaction to your invention. I have no doubt you do not practice
) your
) )professional life in such a fantastic fashion. Please deal with realities
) and
) )cease making up things. That is not any kind of response at all.]
) )
) ))
) ))
) It is also
) )obnoxiously disrespectful to judge in a negative fashion, without any real
) )knowledge on your part, the quality of effort I have put forward to learn
) what I
) )have learned.]
) )
) )
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1098.2 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 02:17:38 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199902181313.FAA12561 lists1.best.com)
Tarjei,there are other lists for discussion of important topics like drugs
in schools. I don't see a connection unless your intent was to indicate how
awful the conditions in public schools are in some places. But Waldorf
students use the same drugs other kids do.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1098.3 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: rein in those quotes!
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 12:01:17 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902180422.UAA27464 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902182304.PAA22570 lists1.best.com)
Dear Correspondents,
Please don't quote an entire dialogue when making a comment. When you reply
to a message, your mail program (well, most of them) will "quote" the
message you're replying to by reproducing it with ) marks down the left
side. Please delete all of this quoted text except the parts that you are
actually replying to. Otherwise you are filling up people's mailboxes with
redundant information. People who subscribe to the digest have to scroll
through all that excess text.
Thanks, Dan Dugan
Moderator
P.S. Sorry I'm so quiet lately. I have a lot of work, and that's good
because I have to pay off those Christmas credit card purchases! I've
marked a dozen messages to reply to, and I'm working my way down. Please be
patient; people who've made direct challenges, please don't declare that
you've silenced me!
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1098.4 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophical Medicine
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 01:00:51 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199902182144.NAA20832 lists1.best.com)
Herman de Tollenaere mentioned:
) Donald Frankenberg: Mythos Mistel ["The Myth of Mistletoe"; allegedly
) curing cancer and other diseases]. In: Materialien und Informationen zur
) Zeit 4/1996, p. 14-20
Reviewed by:
*Gabius, H.-J.; *AndrÈ, S.; *Kaltner, H.; *Siebert, H.-C.; v.d. Lieth,
C.W.; *Gabius, S. Mythos Mistel - Anspruch, Wirklichkeit und pr¸fbare
Perspektive. Z. Ÿrztl. Fortbildung 90: 103-110 (1996).
At http://www.datadiwan.de/hornung/ho_010d1.htm, you¥ll find a
"Bibliographie zu ¸ber 400 Titeln zur Mistel als Arzneimittel,
insbesondere in der biologischen Krebstherapie" (Bibliography of more
than 400 works on Mistletoe as a therapeutic), by Professor Joachim
Hornung, working in "der Abteilung f¸r Naturheilkunde im
Universit”tsklinikum Benjamin Franklin der Freien Universit”t Berlin"
(Department for natural remedies at the University Clinic Benjamin
Franklin at the Free University in Berlin).
http://www.datadiwan.de/hornung/ho_000d_.htm describes the work of his
research group at the University. He¥s a specialist in medical
statistics and especially the methodology of clinical studies in
alternative medicine (what they call "besonderen Therapierichtungen".)
In 1990 and 1991 he edited "The Berlin Journal on Research in
Homoeopathy" http://www.datadiwan.de/hornung/ho_011d_.htm
1996 he published: "Forschungsmethoden in der Komplement”rmedizin"
(Research methodolgy in Complementary medicine), critisizing randomized
double-blind clinical studies and described alternative research
methodologies.
Energetic chap.
) Franz Stratmann: Zur Bedeutung der anthroposophische Lehre im Bereich der
) Medizin. Marburg university, MD thesis, 1988
) Franz Stratmann: Zum Einfluş der Anthroposophie in der Medizin. W.
) Zuckschwerdt Verlag, 1988. ISBN 3-88603-284-1
It costs 32 DM and can be oredered via
mailto:skeptic_euro compuserve.com, see
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/skeptic_euro/dbuech.htm
) See also Belgian parliamentary report on cults, April 1997 [in French/Dutch]
) and [in English]
) http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/leeuw.htm
Maybe you mean: http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/antro3.htm?
Cheers,
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.n1098.5 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 01:20:02 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902181313.FAA12561 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902192351.PAA08796 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan wrote:
)Tarjei,there are other lists for discussion of important topics like drugs
)in schools. I don't see a connection unless your intent was to indicate how
)awful the conditions in public schools are in some places. But Waldorf
)students use the same drugs other kids do.
But Waldorf schools would not *pay* teenagers for turning in their friends
and parents, like *the Nazis* did, the East German Stasi regime, and U.S.
public schools. Besides, my post is *as least* as relevant to this list as
the one about religious sects denying medical treatment to children in
favor of prayer.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1098.6 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophical Medicine
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 01:55:33 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199902182144.NAA20832 lists1.best.com) (199902200005.QAA18658 lists1.best.com)
I, Sune Nordwall, wrote:
) ) Donald Frankenberg: Mythos Mistel ["The Myth of Mistletoe"; allegedly
) ) curing cancer and other diseases]. In: Materialien und Informationen zur
) ) Zeit 4/1996, p. 14-20
)
) Reviewed by:
) *Gabius, H.-J.; *AndrÈ, S.; *Kaltner, H.; *Siebert, H.-C.; v.d. Lieth,
) C.W.; *Gabius, S. Mythos Mistel - Anspruch, Wirklichkeit und pr¸fbare
) Perspektive. Z. Ÿrztl. Fortbildung 90: 103-110 (1996).
Sorry. My description of the article by Gabius et al is probably wrong.
Found it via a search engine. It seems to be an article completely
independent of the article by Frankenberg.
The Materialien ... is seemingly published by Internationaler Bund der
Konfessionslosen und Atheisten
(http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/orgs.html for those who like me
had never heard of it earlier).
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 the threefolding of society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1098.7 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 08:36:58 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I read your site, and found the material interesting (although I can do
without the skulls). So what you are saying is that the billions of people
on earth who do not believe in Christ are not inferior races, but merely
practitioners of spirituality from a lower epoch, and the Teutonic Christian
represents the latest and highest epoch. I stand clarified, but pardon me
if I am not the least bit reassured.
-
)
)
)--
)http://www.uncletaz.com/
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1098.8 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 03:58:29 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199902200240.SAA15815 lists1.best.com)
Alan S. Fine wrote:
)I read your site, and found the material interesting (although I can do
)without the skulls). So what you are saying is that the billions of people
)on earth who do not believe in Christ are not inferior races, but merely
)practitioners of spirituality from a lower epoch, and the Teutonic Christian
)represents the latest and highest epoch. I stand clarified, but pardon me
)if I am not the least bit reassured.
The Christ Impulse does not necessarily entail a belief in Christ, and it
is not dependent upon it. Many believers in Christ are less Christian than
many atheists. What counts is self-sacrificing love, the capacity to
forgive offenses, empathy and compassion etc. Seeing the best qualities in
in other people. Generosity. Healing. Religious beliefs are secondary.
Besides, the same thing may be said about Buddhism when it comes to
anthroposophy. Steiner once said that Buddhism is the religion of the
future.
In other words, the religious aspect of anthroposophy is Christian Buddhism
or Buddhist Christianity - not Christianity alone.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1098.9 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 21:17:21 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199902200240.SAA15815 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902200300.TAA27848 lists1.best.com)
On 20 Feb 99,, Tarjei Straume wrote:
) Alan S. Fine wrote:
)
) )I read your site, and found the material interesting (although I can do
) )without the skulls). So what you are saying is that the billions of
) )people on earth who do not believe in Christ are not inferior races, but
) )merely practitioners of spirituality from a lower epoch, and the Teutonic
) )Christian represents the latest and highest epoch. I stand clarified,
) )but pardon me if I am not the least bit reassured.
)
) The Christ Impulse does not necessarily entail a belief in Christ, and it
) is not dependent upon it. Many believers in Christ are less Christian than
) many atheists. What counts is self-sacrificing love, the capacity to
) forgive offenses, empathy and compassion etc. Seeing the best qualities in
) in other people. Generosity. Healing. Religious beliefs are secondary.
So these qualities are "Christian" whether they arise in the
individual from Christianity, Buddhism, the Baha'i Faith, or Secular
Humanism, right? Whether the person realizes it or not, he's being
influenced by the Christ Impulse.
So a Jewish person who exhibits these qualities is really a
Christian without realizing it. You know, that could be seen as
offensive. It's almost like saying that white people are superior, but
it's not the color of your skin that counts. One who becomes
educated and intellectually strong is following the White Impulse,
and may actually be more White than many light-skinned people.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1098.10 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (DanielSabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 00:08:09 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Joel Wendt wrote )
) The proof involves a careful examination of the universal properties of
)human consciousness, from the inside, as would appear to an objective
)introspection. It is a completely "scientific" examination of consciousness,
)and has been replicated by many individuals. But like all science, one
)has to do the work.
What nonsense. You do not have to do any work to see that the result of
triggering a nuclear bomb is unlike any chemical bomb. You do not have
to do any work to see the result of smallpox vaccine. You do not have to
do any work to see an airplane take off, or a transistor radio deliver
the evening news, or to see a computer display this message.
-- Daniel
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daniel Sabsay, president "Ignorance is the ultimate renewable resource"
East Bay Skeptics Society http://www.eb-skeptics.org
mail eb-skeptics.org
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1098 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1099 --------------
001 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
002 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: Admin: rein in those quotes!
003 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: talking about us
004 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
005 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
006 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
007 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
008 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
009 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
010 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1099.1 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 11:40:56 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902200300.TAA27848 lists1.best.com)
(199902200240.SAA15815 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902200520.VAA10825 lists1.best.com)
I wrote:
)) The Christ Impulse does not necessarily entail a belief in Christ, and it
)) is not dependent upon it. Many believers in Christ are less Christian than
)) many atheists. What counts is self-sacrificing love, the capacity to
)) forgive offenses, empathy and compassion etc. Seeing the best qualities in
)) in other people. Generosity. Healing. Religious beliefs are secondary.
Steve Premo wrote:
)
)So these qualities are "Christian" whether they arise in the
)individual from Christianity, Buddhism, the Baha'i Faith, or Secular
)Humanism, right? Whether the person realizes it or not, he's being
)influenced by the Christ Impulse.
)
)So a Jewish person who exhibits these qualities is really a
)Christian without realizing it. You know, that could be seen as
)offensive.
When the best qualities in humanity designated as Christian by a Christian,
as humane by a humanist, or as Muslim by a Muslim, is attributed to a
person, it is always a compliment regardless of religion or lack of such.
You know what? If it is offensive of me to call a secular humanist or Hindu
a good Christian when he does a truly honorable deed, then I am an
offensive person, Steve. And I am very proud to be offensive. You cannot
please everyone.
)It's almost like saying that white people are superior, but
)it's not the color of your skin that counts. One who becomes
)educated and intellectually strong is following the White Impulse,
)and may actually be more White than many light-skinned people.
Slanderous, malignant nonsense. There is nothing racist in Buddhism,
Christianity, or Hinduism. And a spiritual impulse has nothing to do with
ethnicity or complexion. You might as well say that love is a Nazi-impulse.
You WE critics sure know how to twist things around sometimes. This is
really stretching it.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1099.2 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: Admin: rein in those quotes!
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 06:50:19 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 20.02.99 01:09:07 MEZ, schreiben Sie:
........(( people who've made direct challenges, please don't declare that
you've silenced me!
-Dan ))
.. I had wondered!
Bruce
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1099.3 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: talking about us
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 06:50:17 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 19.02.99 09:00:03 MEZ, schreiben Sie:
((
I think yesterday was Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent. Does this mean
we're going to get a break from the naddering nabobs of Anthroposophy? Yay!
-Dan
))
I answered that already - if I AM a naddering nabob (it isnt in my dictionary
(wwwg))
Bruce
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1099.4 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 06:50:18 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 20.02.99 01:03:33 MEZ, Dan wrote:
((
Tarjei,there are other lists for discussion of important topics like drugs
in schools. I don't see a connection unless your intent was to indicate how
awful the conditions in public schools are in some places. But Waldorf
students use the same drugs other kids do.
))
Dan, I agree - but do you or PLANS have knowledge whether waldorf schools are
better?
Bruce
I know its lent!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1099.5 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 13:57:46 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902181313.FAA12561 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902192351.PAA08796 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan wrote:
)But Waldorf students use the same drugs other kids do.
There may be a difference in the quality of marijuana here. Waldorf
students are more likely to smoke the biodynamic variety while other kids
get high on pollutants like the pesticides as well, which is a lot more
dangerous than the controversial herb in question.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1099.6 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 15:02:57 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902181313.FAA12561 lists1.best.com) (199902201258.EAA09401 lists1.best.com)
Tarjei Straume wrote:
) There may be a difference in the quality of marijuana here. Waldorf
) students are more likely to smoke the biodynamic variety while other kids
) get high on pollutants like the pesticides as well, which is a lot more
) dangerous than the controversial herb in question.
Tarjei, you forgot the ;-) !
An investigation on the kids in a number of waldorf schools in Jaerna
showed that (if my memory serves me correctly) 13 % of them had some
form of allergic problem compared with about 26 % in other non-waldorf
schools in the area.
The investigation, done in cooperation between a doctor at the Vidar
Clinic in Jaerna and the Institute of Environmental Medicine at
Karolinska Institute (the Institute appointing the Nobel Proize in
Medicine ...), was reported on National Television some time ago, here
in Sweden.
I have a small hunch an investigation on the use of drugs by pupils in
waldorf- and other schools would give a result in a similar direction.
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.n1099.7 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 15:39:04 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902181313.FAA12561 lists1.best.com) (199902201258.EAA09401 lists1.best.com) (199902201406.GAA28353 lists1.best.com)
P.S.
) An investigation on the kids in a number of waldorf schools in Jaerna
) showed that (if my memory serves me correctly) 13 % of them had some
) form of allergic problem compared with about 26 % in other non-waldorf
) schools in the area.
This is not to say that waldorf schools or WE as such are/is better than
other schools or Educational methods.
Again, if my memory serves me correctly, a similar low incidence of
allergic problems is also found in at least one of the Baltic(?)
countries, with, I think close to 0 waldorf schools.
The authors of the report discuss a number of factors possibly
contributing to the low incidence in waldorf kids, among them
nutritional ones like the not negligable tradition of eating lactic acid
fermented products both in "waldorf homes" and schools and the Baltic
country in question.
I think the authors are now preparing for an investigation on a larger,
maybe also European, scale of the questions raised by the first study.
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.n1099.8 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 17:07:43 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902200300.TAA27848 lists1.best.com)
(199902200240.SAA15815 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902200520.VAA10825 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote:
)So a Jewish person who exhibits these qualities is really a
)Christian without realizing it. You know, that could be seen as
)offensive. It's almost like saying that white people are superior, but
)it's not the color of your skin that counts. One who becomes
)educated and intellectually strong is following the White Impulse,
)and may actually be more White than many light-skinned people.
My second comment on this:
This line of logic would make all Christians Jewish, if the Christ-idea is
designated as the "Jewish Impulse." (Norwegian Neo-Nazis hate Christianity
precisely because they view it as a Jewish import.) The apostle Paul, who
carried the message of the Gospel to the world at large, said that
salvation comes from the Jews, to the Jew first and then to the gentile.
If this is interpreted as a "Jewish supremacist" statement from Paul the
apostle, then all Christians in the world - Catholic, Protestant, or
Anthroposophist - would be promoting Sionism, in spite of the fact that we
come from all different ethnic backgrounds.
It is this kind of logic that is used to accuse Rudolf Steiner of Aryan
supremacist racism. Steiner saw the Christ Impulse as originating in
Palestine among the semites and then evolving in Europe like a growing
plant. One personal observation I have made that supports the idea of the
Christ Impulse gaining a foothold in Europe first of all, is the fact that
Western Europe is the only part of the world community that no longer
practices the death penalty. Norway has banned the use of the death penalty
completely, even if the country should be at war. I think this makes us
superior on this particular issue, but not on others.
I humbly confess, therefore, to the charge of Christian bigotry and
cultural supremacy - with no regrets whatsoever. By the way, the Christian
preacher Martin Luther King Jr. read all the German idealist philosopheres
that Steiner promoted, and we bigoted Scandinavian Aryans gave him the
Nobel Peace Prize here in Oslo in 1964 in order to stop the more
"enlightened" Americans, who followed the "White Impulse," from beating up
on black people.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1099.9 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 23:04:12 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In fact, Israel has not had a death penalty at any time in its modern
existence (with the single exception, of course, of the Adolf Eichmann
case), and your lack of awareness of that fact reflects a cultural supremist
view that you might consider having some regrets about after all.
One personal observation I have made that supports the idea of the
)Christ Impulse gaining a foothold in Europe first of all, is the fact that
)Western Europe is the only part of the world community that no longer
)practices the death penalty. Norway has banned the use of the death penalty
)completely, even if the country should be at war. I think this makes us
)superior on this particular issue, but not on others.
)
)I humbly confess, therefore, to the charge of Christian bigotry and
)cultural supremacy - with no regrets whatsoever.
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1099.10 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 18:31:06 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199902201706.JAA28516 lists1.best.com)
Alan S. Fine wrote:
)In fact, Israel has not had a death penalty at any time in its modern
)existence (with the single exception, of course, of the Adolf Eichmann
)case), and your lack of awareness of that fact reflects a cultural supremist
)view that you might consider having some regrets about after all.
In that case, the cultural supremist view in question would be a
Jewish-European one, which designates the origin of the Christ-idea. Since
you infer that all Christians are bigoted supremacists, I admit to the
charge and take it is as a compliment.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1099 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1100 --------------
001 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,
002 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Anthroposophical Medicine
003 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Anthroposophical Medicine
004 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitc
005 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - Naddering(sic) nabobs
006 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for
snit
007 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - errata
008 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: Naddering(sic) nabobs
009 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Anthroposophical Medicine
010 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1100.1 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"])
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 19:06:03 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199902201706.JAA28516 lists1.best.com)
Alan S. Fine MD
)In fact, Israel has not had a death penalty at any time in its modern
)existence (with the single exception, of course, of the Adolf Eichmann
)case), and your lack of awareness of that fact reflects a cultural supremist
)view that you might consider having some regrets about after all.
Here are three more comments:
1) I was aware of the fact that there are single nations in the world that
do not practice the death penalty. Its abolishment, however, comes from
Western Europe, which is the only continental region where it is banned by
legislation in country after country. And Norway's *total* constitutional
ban does make us superior, doesn't it?
2) Why should I consider having regrets about these views? Please convince me.
3) Anthroposophists also refer to the Christ Impulse as "the Michael
Impulse." The reason for this is that in 1879, Michael replaced Gabriel as
Time Spirit for humanity. In Biblical times, Michael was the leader of the
Jews under Jehovah; now he is the leader of humanity under Christ. As an
anthroposophist, I see a connection between these facts and the attempt
through Nazism to get rid of all European Jews. This was an assault against
the Christ-Michael Impulse at the dawn of the Michael age. When Rudolf
Steiner had finished his Christ sculpture (displayed at
http://www.uncletaz.com/christ.html), Friedrich Rittelmeyer inquired about
the features. Steiner explained that he had been at pains to show the
combination of the Semitic and the Aryan, because both of these elements
were present. I am emphasizing this to show that if anthroposophy is
promoting ethnic supremacy, the Jewish-semitic must be included with the
Aryan. This also makes it that much more difficult to defend the charge of
anti-semitism in Rudolf Steiner and in Anthroposophy.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1100.2 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophical Medicine
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 00:24:23 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199902182144.NAA20832 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902200005.QAA18658 lists1.best.com)
Sune Nordwall, your post included:
)1996 he published: "Forschungsmethoden in der Komplement”rmedizin"
)(Research methodolgy in Complementary medicine), critisizing randomized
)double-blind clinical studies and described alternative research
)methodologies.
I'm sure the experimental design and statistical methods of scientific
studies will continue to be criticized and thereby to improve. "Alternate
research methodologies," on the contrary, live in self-constructed hot
houses of believers, are not criticized, and don't improve.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1100.3 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophical Medicine
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 20:44:05 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199902182144.NAA20832 lists1.best.com) (199902201824.KAA28633 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan wrote:
) I'm sure the experimental design and statistical methods of scientific
) studies will continue to be criticized and thereby to improve. "Alternate
) research methodologies," on the contrary, live in self-constructed hot
) houses of believers, are not criticized, and don't improve.
Dan, Joachim Hornung is Professor of Medicine and specialist in medical
statistics at the Free University of Berlin. I don¥t think he qualified
before the academic committees by blowing soap bubbles.
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.n1100.4 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"])
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 21:55:08 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902201806.KAA21296 lists1.best.com)
Tarjei wrote:
) And Norway's *total* constitutional ban does make us superior, doesn't it?
Alan, Tarjei, as all Norwegians, you must understand, has a smaller
brother complex in relation to Sweden, as he, like all Norwegians, knows
that Sweden and Swedes of course are superior, except at skiing,
admittedly, a few times/decade ... :-))
The Danes, in turn, of course all think that Swedes really are
"somewhat", well you know ... and that they are the truly superior ones
in relation to us.
But they are wrong, of course and not to be believed ;-)))
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.n1100.5 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Naddering(sic) nabobs
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 99 17:33:56 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Bruce refers to a post by Mr. Dugan:
)
)I answered that already - if I AM a naddering nabob (it isnt in my dictionary
)(wwwg))
)Bruce
)
Bruce,
Mr. Dugan pilfers a piece of political speechwriting meant to impress the
feebleminded and mask the fact that there exists a major deficit in the
idea department. This is, of course, a time-worn technique of the
ill-equipped critic and political rhetorician.
The entire phrase is (with corrected spelling)"...the nattering nabobs
of negativity..."
and I think it was spoken by ex-president George Bush---but maybe Richard
Nixon--- I often mix them up. ;-}
The word "nabob" had absolutely nothing to do with the context of the
phrase, and was, clearly, put there solely for its alliterative quality.
So, now we have a meaningless quote from an anonymous propagandist;
delivered by a politician; pilfered by someone who bothered to check
neither the meaning nor the spelling; and posted , as far as I can tell,
to prove some kind of point.
Bruce--if this is the fiercest opponent of Waldorf/Anthroposophy, we
have nothing to worry about.
Peace,
Charlie
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1100.6 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for
snitches,"])
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 23:43:13 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902201806.KAA21296 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902202106.NAA27888 lists1.best.com)
Sune wrote:
)Alan, Tarjei, as all Norwegians, you must understand, has a smaller
)brother complex in relation to Sweden, as he, like all Norwegians, knows
)that Sweden and Swedes of course are superior, except at skiing,
)admittedly, a few times/decade ... :-))
Swedish jokes in Norway are as common as Polish jokes in America. What goes
round and round never reaching the door? Answer: A Swede who got is in his
living room. (From a Norwegian 8 year old.)
)
)The Danes, in turn, of course all think that Swedes really are
)"somewhat", well you know ... and that they are the truly superior ones
)in relation to us.
The Danes surrendered to Hitler, the Swedes declared neutrality and
cooperated, but the Norwegians refused to surrender and fought the swine
tooth and nail. Danes and Swedes are wannabe Vikings. Norway has the real
stuff. Norwegians are supreme - we always have been and always will be.
Before the Lillehammer Olympic games, we suggested giving the Swedish ski
jumbers some extra meters at the top to boost their performance a little.
Anyway, do you know why you need four men to change a light bulb in Sweden?
Some other time...
)But they are wrong, of course and not to be believed ;-)))
Well, the Dane, the Swede, and the Norwegian made a bet about who dared to
dive from the greatest height into the tiniest body of water. The Dane went
on top of a skyscraper and dove into a bathtub. The Swede climbed a
mountain and dove into a soup cup. The Norwegian boarded an airplane and
dove into a wet rag.
When the Dane and the Swede visited the Norwegian in the hospital, they
asked if he hadn't gone too far. "Of course not," said the Norwegian, "but
some funny idiot out there had gone and squeezed the rag almost dry!"
Anyway, if Sune should writes something dumb, it's not because he's an
anthropop like me. He's a Swede; that explains it. If I write anything
dumb, it's because my grandfather was a Dane who emigrated to America. A
weak spot in my ancestry.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1100.7 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: errata
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 23:48:30 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Correction on this joke from a Norwegian 8 year old:
What goes round and round never reaching the door? Answer: A Swede who is
lost in his living room.
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1100.8 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Naddering(sic) nabobs
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 18:28:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199902202234.OAA10325 lists1.best.com)
) The entire phrase is (with corrected spelling)"...the nattering nabobs
)of negativity..."
)and I think it was spoken by ex-president George Bush---but maybe Richard
)Nixon--- I often mix them up. ;-}
It was Spiro Agnew.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1100.9 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophical Medicine
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 12:13:43 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199902182144.NAA20832 lists1.best.com)
(199902201824.KAA28633 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902201946.LAA06711 lists1.best.com)
)Dan Dugan wrote:
)
)) I'm sure the experimental design and statistical methods of scientific
)) studies will continue to be criticized and thereby to improve. "Alternate
)) research methodologies," on the contrary, live in self-constructed hot
)) houses of believers, are not criticized, and don't improve.
)
)Dan, Joachim Hornung is Professor of Medicine and specialist in medical
)statistics at the Free University of Berlin. I don¥t think he qualified
)before the academic committees by blowing soap bubbles.
)
)Sune Nordwall
)Stockholm, Sweden
No, he probably learned that research technique in his post-doctoral
studies with the Anthroposophical Science mailing list home study course.
Serious point: real scientists sometimes turn to pseudo-science after they
gain their credentials. What they were when they gained their credentials
is unimportant to a discussion of their current methodologies.
What is important to that discussion is that their methodologies be able to
withstand robust criticism, produce replicable results and be falsifiable.
If the unorthodox scientist wishes his science to be accepted by the
orthodox scientific community, then he either has to follow the scientific
protocols generally accepted, or he has to show how changing the protocols
helps in finding answers to questions -- and to producing results.
If the unorthodox scientist wishes to completely abjure the orthodox
scientific protocols and the orthodox scientific community, then it
doesn't matter one whit what they studied or what degrees they received.
If they produce along the lines of those previously mentioned here --
Marinelli, Kolisko, Benveniste, Steiner, Goethe -- then one of two things
happens. Either people who want to believe in those results will do so with
no further challenge, or people who operate by the scientific method will
challenge those results according to orthodox scientific protocols, and
either confirm the results or not.
So far, none of the astounding "discoveries" of any of the aforementioned
people have been confirmed by orthodox science. In some cases that's
because nobody's interested in the work, or see it for what it usually is:
the pseudo- scienentific attempt to verify some metaphysical belief already
held by the "scientist". In some cases it's because the subject of
investigation is unimportant or uninteresting to orthodox science.
It's interesting that Nordwall should wave _this_ scientist's PhD shingle
at us to ward off the claims that his current investigations are
pseudo-scientific.
It's interesting because you would think that if the man is following the
true path of introspection and Anthroposophical Science, then a defender of
the faith [TM] like Nordwall would be the last person to say that orthodox
scientific credentials matter. Waving them at us means they matter to him.
If the credentials can be used to validate the "scientist's" standing, then
surely Nordwall sees that the "scientist" is thereby bound by orthodox
scientific method, practices and protocols as well.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1100.10 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 12:39:06 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902192351.PAA08796 lists1.best.com)
(199902181313.FAA12561 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902201258.EAA09401 lists1.best.com)
Tarjei Straume wrote:
)Dan Dugan wrote:
)
))But Waldorf students use the same drugs other kids do.
)
)There may be a difference in the quality of marijuana here. Waldorf
)students are more likely to smoke the biodynamic variety while other kids
)get high on pollutants like the pesticides as well, which is a lot more
)dangerous than the controversial herb in question.
)
)Tarjei
)
)http://www.uncletaz.com/
So, if I understand you correctly, there is marijuana grown by biodynamic
techniques.
This means it must be being grown by those people who either practice or
are dedicated to Anthroposophy.
The conclusion is that either dope-growing, dope-smoking, Anthroposophical
parents are personally supplying their children (a serious possibility, I
would say) -- then there is a market for and commercial supplier of
Anthroposophically-superior dope.
This is not at all flippant -- I know young people in our former Steiner
school who obtained marijuana, alcohol, and other substances from their
Anthroposophical parents. My son attended parties at some parents' homes
where the parents either ignored, or had provided, such substances.
When I tried to inject some control into these parties by attempting to get
the parents group of my son's class to discuss a "substances policy" for
our group, it was a very uphill battle to get them to recognise that there
might be some advantage in limiting substance use.
While the parents all said they didn't want to see their kids become heavy
drug users or use drugs at school (a natural thing, as it's against the law
here, and, like the U.S., this country has a "war on drugs"), there was a
vocal majorityof parents who said that kids should be allowed to experiment
under "friendly" circumstances, and that parents should be allowed to give
their kids anything then want in the privacy of their own home.
Drug use by students in the upper school at our former Steiner school was
common, according to my children and numerous other sources, both child and
adult. It was not unknown to occur on the school grounds (where it was
technically prohibited). I should note that all of the teachers were
tobacco smokers, who frequently broke the school's "no smoking on school
grounds" policy. One risked one's health going near the staff room. And the
children all thought the teachers to be hypocrites. The children were even
aware (since some of the kids in the school were children of teachers) that
some of the teachers grew or obtained -- and used -- dope.
But I don't know if it was biodynamically grown dope.
I am not blowing smoke here.
There is absolutely nothing to say that Anthroposophical schools should
have less propensity towards drug problems than public schools.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1100 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1101 --------------
001 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for
sni
002 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
003 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for
sn
004 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - Fwd: Re: Naddering(sic) nabobs
005 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
006 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for
s
007 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: Anthroposophical Medicine
008 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
009 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - marijuana & cannabis: clarification
010 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Strader machine web site
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1101.1 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for
snitches,"])
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 01:35:57 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199902201806.KAA21296 lists1.best.com) (199902202244.OAA14943 lists1.best.com)
Tarjei wrote:
) Danes and Swedes are wannabe Vikings. Norway has the real
) stuff. Norwegians are supreme - we always have been and always will be.
Surrender, surrender!
You¥re the Boss!
Most humbly
The Swedish dwarf, trying hard to become Norwegian!
Even thought seriously of emigrating west, when Sweden joined the EU.
You¥re my heroes :-)
And what do Swedish women have compared to the Norwegian?
Less than nothing ...!
Sune
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.n1101.2 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 02:10:37 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902201258.EAA09401 lists1.best.com)
(199902192351.PAA08796 lists1.best.com)
(199902181313.FAA12561 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902202344.PAA12106 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp wrote:
)
)So, if I understand you correctly, there is marijuana grown by biodynamic
)techniques.
I have no first hand knowledge, but I think it would be a swell idea.
)
)This means it must be being grown by those people who either practice or
)are dedicated to Anthroposophy.
Anthroposophists support biodynamic farming. Criminal anarchosophists like
myself would prefer biodynamic grass.
)
)The conclusion is that either dope-growing, dope-smoking, Anthroposophical
)parents are personally supplying their children (a serious possibility, I
)would say) -- then there is a market for and commercial supplier of
)Anthroposophically-superior dope.
Very nice. I only wish it were so. If not, I'd be happy to initiate it. But
it would be strictly for adults though. (On a more serious note, marijuana
or any other intoxicant is counter-productive to spiritual work, and
growing marijuana as a business, biodynamic or not, would bring highly
questionable karma to the Anthroposophical Movement.)
)
)This is not at all flippant -- I know young people in our former Steiner
)school who obtained marijuana, alcohol, and other substances from their
)Anthroposophical parents. My son attended parties at some parents' homes
)where the parents either ignored, or had provided, such substances.
They must have been criminal anarchosophists like me. (Bourgeuois, law
abiding anthropops frown at us though.)
)
)When I tried to inject some control into these parties by attempting to get
)the parents group of my son's class to discuss a "substances policy" for
)our group, it was a very uphill battle to get them to recognise that there
)might be some advantage in limiting substance use.
Sounds like enjoyable parties. No violence I hope.
)
)While the parents all said they didn't want to see their kids become heavy
)drug users or use drugs at school (a natural thing, as it's against the law
)here, and, like the U.S., this country has a "war on drugs"), there was a
)vocal majorityof parents who said that kids should be allowed to experiment
)under "friendly" circumstances, and that parents should be allowed to give
)their kids anything then want in the privacy of their own home.
Interesting. I have a Moroccan-Norwegian friend who has told me some
interesting things about family affairs in his old country, that are also
very different from ours. (Norway has the strictest drug laws in Europe.) I
have never heard anthroposophists or anybody else suggest that kids should
be supplied intoxicants. Never. But in Morocco, a father will pass his
cannabis joint to his son when the latter comes of age. It may be compared
to serving alcohol to a 17 or 18 year old, but it is a disputable topic
altogether.
I can understand the thought of supervising the teenagers when they
experiment with drugs, keeping them off the street. But I don't know if
it's right. All anthroposophist families I know personally are completely
drug free.
)
)Drug use by students in the upper school at our former Steiner school was
)common, according to my children and numerous other sources, both child and
)adult. It was not unknown to occur on the school grounds (where it was
)technically prohibited). I should note that all of the teachers were
)tobacco smokers, who frequently broke the school's "no smoking on school
)grounds" policy. One risked one's health going near the staff room. And the
)children all thought the teachers to be hypocrites. The children were even
)aware (since some of the kids in the school were children of teachers) that
)some of the teachers grew or obtained -- and used -- dope.
Reminds me of "The Greening of America." What hypocrisy is concerned, it is
certainly not more widespread among anthroposophists than other people. You
seem to suggest that Waldorf teachers and anthroposophists in general are
cunning, conniving, evil and intoxicated hypocrites. To begin with, I
thought you had been up against a Waldorf school with an unfortunate staff.
As your biased tirade continues, your credibility is fading.
)
)But I don't know if it was biodynamically grown dope.
If it was, I would sure like a taste, though it would probably be expensive
- espscially if imported to Europe.
)
)I am not blowing smoke here.
Perhaps you should. It might reduce some of your aggression and hostility
against anthroposophy and help you sleep better. On the other hand,
homeopathic medication would be a lot healthier, safer, and get at the
causes and not just the symptoms.
)
)There is absolutely nothing to say that Anthroposophical schools should
)have less propensity towards drug problems than public schools.
How do you know? Has any research been done on this?
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1101.3 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for
snitches,"])
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 02:24:19 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199902201806.KAA21296 lists1.best.com)
(199902202244.OAA14943 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902210038.QAA07106 lists1.best.com)
Sune wrote:
)Surrender, surrender!
)You¥re the Boss!
Chicken, but if you say so - let's have V”rmland back and expand our
Eastern territory. Incidentally, all the cruel jokes on Swedes stem from
the colonial years, when we were governed by you. Anyway, I looove
Cornelius Wreswiik!
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1101.4 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Fwd: Re: Naddering(sic) nabobs
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 99 22:15:17 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ----------------
Date: 02/20 5:28 PM
Received: 02/20 9:54 PM
From: Robert Flannery, litvas icu.com
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) The entire phrase is (with corrected spelling)"...the nattering nabobs
)of negativity..."
)and I think it was spoken by ex-president George Bush---but maybe Richard
)Nixon--- I often mix them up. ;-}
It was Spiro Agnew.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
----------------- End Forwarded Message -----------------
Even better!!!
A bona fide crooked, tax-evading, bribe-taking politician!
Thanks, Robert.
xxxooo,
Charlie
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1101.5 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 21:58:35 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199902200520.VAA10825 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902201042.CAA04593 lists1.best.com)
On 20 Feb 99,, Tarjei Straume wrote:
)Steve Premo wrote:
) )
) )So a Jewish person who exhibits these qualities is really a
) )Christian without realizing it. You know, that could be seen as
) )offensive.
)
) When the best qualities in humanity designated as Christian by a
) Christian, as humane by a humanist, or as Muslim by a Muslim, is
) attributed to a person, it is always a compliment regardless of religion
) or lack of such.
)
) You know what? If it is offensive of me to call a secular humanist or
) Hindu a good Christian when he does a truly honorable deed, then I am an
) offensive person, Steve. And I am very proud to be offensive. You cannot
) please everyone.
Calm down, Tarjei. I didn't say *I* found it offensive, or that it was
inherently offensive. I was tweaking your nose a bit, and having
some fun with the fact that almost any statement related to religion
or politics is going to offend somebody.
) )It's almost like saying that white people are superior, but
) )it's not the color of your skin that counts. One who becomes
) )educated and intellectually strong is following the White Impulse,
) )and may actually be more White than many light-skinned people.
)
) Slanderous, malignant nonsense.
Yes, I suppose it would be slanderous, malignant nonsense if
someone actually talked about education and intellectual activity
as "following the White Impulse." Fortunately, no one has.
) You WE critics sure know how to twist things around
) sometimes. This is really stretching it.
Thanks. I try. :)
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1101.6 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for
snitches,"])
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 10:32:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199902201806.KAA21296 lists1.best.com)
(199902202244.OAA14943 lists1.best.com) (199902210124.RAA29063 lists1.best.com)
Tarjei wrote:
) Chicken, but if you say so - let's have V”rmland back and expand our
) Eastern territory.
Never in my foot!! It¥s the home of at least two of the best Swedish
writers ever; Selma Lagerl–f and G–ran Tunstr–m and the most beautiful
landscape of Sweden!
Never in my other foot either!!
) Incidentally, all the cruel jokes on Swedes stem from
) the colonial years, when we were governed by you.
The ever new Swedish jokes about the Norwegians come naturally all the
time ...
But, I admit, I do have the feeling they¥re born out of a jealousy of
you who have Norway to live in (and all the oil to live on).
) Anyway, I looove Cornelius Wreswiik!
So have I, since childhood; unbeatable, a modern, beautifully ironic
Evert Taube, a warm, charming, poetic and musically talented version of
Tom Lehrer, maybe (all you out there in the world, if you see Cornelis¥
name on a record, buy it!) but he was Dutch ...
(Yeeh, now Mr Koppy will beat me up again with all them Dutch racist and
drug addicts. What a mess we¥re in, Tarjei.)
Best!
Sune
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.n1101.7 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: Anthroposophical Medicine
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 06:14:24 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 21.02.99 00:53:08 MEZ, Michael Kopp writes from Godzone:
((
(huge snip)
It's interesting because you would think that if the man is following the
true path of introspection and Anthroposophical Science, then a defender of
the faith [TM] like Nordwall would be the last person to say that orthodox
scientific credentials matter. Waving them at us means they matter to him.
If the credentials can be used to validate the "scientist's" standing, then
surely Nordwall sees that the "scientist" is thereby bound by orthodox
scientific method, practices and protocols as well.
))
You guys want everything both ways! When its convenient we should be "real"
scientists, doctors, ... first and then "convert", at other times we should
keep our "real" credentials hidden!
My little son (14 months) woke last night with tooth-ache, and I gave him a
homeopathatic remedy - he went back to sleep. Should I give him a placebo or
blind tomorrow to see if he sleeps too? Or would you too consider that cruel?
(I am not specifically addressing Michael)
cheers from Fockbek
Bruce J
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1101.8 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 06:14:27 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 21.02.99 00:54:44 MEZ, Michael Kopp wrote from Godzone:
(( Tarjei Straume wrote:
)Dan Dugan wrote:
)
))But Waldorf students use the same drugs other kids do.
)
)There may be a difference in the quality of marijuana here. Waldorf
)students are more likely to smoke the biodynamic variety while other kids
)get high on pollutants like the pesticides as well, which is a lot more
)dangerous than the controversial herb in question.
)
)Tarjei
)
)http://www.uncletaz.com/
So, if I understand you correctly, there is marijuana grown by biodynamic
techniques.
This means it must be being grown by those people who either practice or
are dedicated to Anthroposophy.
The conclusion is that either dope-growing, dope-smoking, Anthroposophical
parents are personally supplying their children (a serious possibility, I
would say) -- then there is a market for and commercial supplier of
Anthroposophically-superior dope.
Bruce: You are assuming that there is no medical market for marijuana, which
there is. MOST "drugs" (in the sense we are now talking about marijuana) are
also medicines.
This is not at all flippant -- I know young people in our former Steiner
school who obtained marijuana, alcohol, and other substances from their
Anthroposophical parents. My son attended parties at some parents' homes
where the parents either ignored, or had provided, such substances.
Bruce: You are only too right. Marijuana smoking is no longer illegal in some
european countries (I have no idea what goes elsewhere, but would like to be
enlightened). It is a problem in ALL schools (whether greater or lesser in
waldorf would be impossible to ascertain), and the effects of smoking pot can
be seen clearly. I am sure ALL teachers and parents would like to know how to
stop it - well almost all; I too know parents who smoke quite openly)
When I tried to inject some control into these parties by attempting to get
the parents group of my son's class to discuss a "substances policy" for
our group, it was a very uphill battle to get them to recognise that there
might be some advantage in limiting substance use.
While the parents all said they didn't want to see their kids become heavy
drug users or use drugs at school (a natural thing, as it's against the law
here, and, like the U.S., this country has a "war on drugs"), there was a
vocal majorityof parents who said that kids should be allowed to experiment
under "friendly" circumstances, and that parents should be allowed to give
their kids anything then want in the privacy of their own home.
Drug use by students in the upper school at our former Steiner school was
common, according to my children and numerous other sources, both child and
adult. It was not unknown to occur on the school grounds (where it was
technically prohibited). I should note that all of the teachers were
tobacco smokers, who frequently broke the school's "no smoking on school
grounds" policy. One risked one's health going near the staff room. And the
children all thought the teachers to be hypocrites. The children were even
aware (since some of the kids in the school were children of teachers) that
some of the teachers grew or obtained -- and used -- dope.
But I don't know if it was biodynamically grown dope.
I am not blowing smoke here.
There is absolutely nothing to say that Anthroposophical schools should
have less propensity towards drug problems than public schools.
Bruce: There is a very active group fighting against the use of drugs in
school, and elsewhere, and there are several very well known "drug-clinics"
run anthroposophically here in Europe.
BTW: Since this thread has virtually nothing to do with waldorf, I would like
to ask "critics" if they are against genetic manipulation? There is a large
international campaign centred at the Goetheanum (Switzerland) called IFGene.
Anyone interested please contact me OFFLIST (BruceyJ aol.com)
Bruce j
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1101.9 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: marijuana & cannabis: clarification
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:32:30 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
My fellow subscribers,
As an anarchosophist, I am always in danger of putting my hand into a
hornet's nest on this Waldorf Critics list. Sometimes the opportunity
presents itself to throw in an anarchist bomb, and when I can't resist the
temptation, there is always the risk that I may cause problems for my
fellow anthroposophists. My humorous remark about Waldorf students being
more likely to smoke biodynamic marijuana is a classic example of this.
Several anthroposophists have expressed their concern about the
marijuana-related articles and links on my website. The articles are in
Norwegian, and one Waldorf school in Norway with drug problems among the
students refused to exchange links with me because of these articles and
links.
My reasons for supporting the marijuana legalization movement are strictly
personal and unrelated to anthroposophy. They date back to 1969, when I
spent six months in prison for cannabis. Because I am still suffering
serious legal consequences of being convicted for cannabis exactly thirty
years ago - it's a lifetime punishment - I activiely support the
international legalization effort.
I had to leave the U.S. after twelve years, banned for life, because of
this conviction twenty years prior. For the full story, go to
http://www.uncletaz.com/immigintro.html
Today, I am being refused employment in a toll booth because of this
conviction, which is now thirty years old.
This movement has many active smokers in its camp, and I have still made
the choice of being their ally in spite of the fact that my own consumption
is limited to once or twice a year. These once or twice a year inhalations
are basically what I call "my socio-political civic duty," because I never
fail to mention my occasional illegal inhalations when engaged in public
debates with the narc police.
It's a human rights issue, not a recommended lifestyle. My point is that in
Norway, a good friend of mine got 12 years imprisonment for cannabis, and I
visited him in the cage, which was mainly occupied by violent killers and
the like. You get three to five years for homicide on the average and
fifteen for drugs. My friend was threatened with 21 years, which is the
maximum penalty in Norway, the very worst you can do against society.
I have noticed that the police and the drug-policy-supporting bourgeoisie
are extremely provoked by my profile what marijuana and cannabis is
concerned. Good. The Justice Department has made strong efforts to silence
the debate about the issue of changing the laws.
The only possible link here might be the nebulous borderline between banned
stimulants and alternative mediccine. The political noise around medical
use of marijuana as a prescription drug is very interesting when we
consider the fact that many medications are extracted from herbs. The
question is if it is moral to declare a plant to be illegal.
Nevertheless, as soon as I make a frivolous remark about smoking biodynamic
marijuana in Waldorf schools, hardcore Waldorf critic Michael Kopp
immediately seizes the opportunity to portray Waldorf students, Waldorf
parents, Waldorf teachers, and anthroposophists in general as dopey pot
heads engaged in some super-marijuana production and trade business. My
sincere apologies to the "defenders of the faith" for sending Kopp off on
this tangent!
Legalization or decriminalization of mariuana is more of a concern for
anti-authoritarian anarchists than it is for anthroposophists. With our
anarchist magazine Gateavisa, we did a stunt a few years ago after someone
in the Center Party - the old Farmers' Party that was the Norwegian Nazi
Party during the occupation under Vidkun Quisling - recommended that
cannabis be legalized and sold at pharmacies. The Center Party leadership
did not support this, but on the big speech day immediately before election
day, we made ourselves T-shirts with their green leaf logo and made it look
like a hemp leaf; we made a thousand flyers, "With the Center Party for
Free Hash." For the story, see the photos at
http://www.uncletaz.com/trashga.html
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1101.10 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Strader machine web site
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 11:43:37 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Devotees of pseudoscience will enjoy visiting:
http://www.palisades.freeserve.co.uk/strader.htm
It's about the "Strader Machine," an alchemical contraption featured in one
of Steiner's "mystery plays." It was modeled after the "Keely Motor"
admired by Rudolf Steiner.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1101 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1102 --------------
001 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Ogletree study
002 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
003 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Naddering(sic) nabobs
004 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: marijuana & cannabis: clarification
005 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
006 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Ogletree study
007 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for
snit
008 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: marijuana & cannabis: clarification
009 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for
sni
010 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for
sn
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1102.1 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Ogletree study
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 11:10:54 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
This has come to my attention, the result of an ERIC search:
ACCESSION #: ED364440
AUTHOR(S): Ogletree, Earl J.
TITLE: Creativity and Waldorf Education: A Study.
PUBLISHED: 1991
ABSTRACT: This paper discusses the comparative philosophical tenets and
practices of Germany's Waldorf and state schools with regard to the
creativity thinking ability of students. Waldorf schools, developed some 70
years ago, are based on the philosophy of creative idealism known as
anthroposophy. A study of 1165 third through sixth grade children from
Germany, Scotland, and England compared Waldorf and public schools.
Students took the Torrence Test of Creative Thinking Ability, which
includes verbal and figural components. The test is intended to measure:
(1) fluency, the number of ideas ideas produced; (2) flexibility, the
different categories of ideas produced; (3) originality, the unusualness of
an idea; and (4) elaboration, the development of an idea. Results showed
that cross-culturally, Waldorf students obtained significantly higher
creativity scores than their public school counterparts. In the figural
part of the test, Waldorf student pictures showed greater technique,
quality, and maturity. The findings may be attributable to the maturational
readiness and nurturing aspects of the Waldorf school, and the program's
discouragement of student exposure to television and radio. Waldorf
education also tends to foster a positive school climate and reduce faculty
and student stress. Contains 30 references. 19 pages.
I'd like to have the whole study, anybody know where it can be found? Two
thoughts immediately:
1) The study is comparing private and public school students. Was any
attempt made to control for economic class? What does "cross-culturally"
mean here?
2) Earl Ogletree has been an apologist for Waldorf in mainstream education
publications for some years. In my slide talk for school boards, I show a
page from one of his papers in which he warps Piaget (by a major shift of
four years) to make it appear that Piaget agrees with Steiner's
developmental stages.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1102.2 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 03:26:59 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Joel,
I am not a skeptic. I believe in matters beyond our immediate material
perception. Of the thousands of people who have honored me by making me a
major guide in their life, many have shared the view (perhaps overstated)
that they consider me to be a deeply spiritual person. I relate naturally
to people's spirituality, when used for meditation, consolation,
contemplation of the beauty of nature,inspiration to do good deeds, and the
like. Those things I respect and admire. Where I have trouble is with
those people who take spirituality a step further, beyond personal
inspiration, into the realm of thinking they know God, and know the TRUTH.
As my mother would say when we kids started to quarrel, here is where the
bloodshed starts. When they think they know the TRUTH about God, they place
their spiritual views in a higher (more truthful, more complete, whatever
word you want to use) plane than the next person's spiritual system- a
phenomenon which history has proven is all too easy to act upon with
horrific results. When they think they know the TRUTH, they begin to blur
the material reality we all share with their spiritual beliefs. The
fundamentalist Christians want to teach creationism in the schools because
it is written in the Old Testament which to them is the literal TRUTH. The
Jewish extremists, will build houses on other peoples land because they
believe that God promised that land to them and that is the TRUTH. The
Anthroposophist will deny the student the essential backround of
hemodynamics because hemodynamics is not the TRUTH. Well if you want the
truth, let me tell you my version. God is not man from Nazareth, or a boy
from India. God is not the author of books, and not a real estate agent.
God is not the impulse of racial development, and certainly not a
cardiologist. God is God. Going beyond that is divisive, disrespectful,
and dangerous. The ghost you describe is a direct result of the
Anthroposophists claim to know God, and it will haunt you until you adopt a
more enlightened and humane posture.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel A. Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Friday, February 19, 1999 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
)Dear Alan,
)
) You continue to operate under mistaken assumptions. I do not fault you
for
)this. I believe such problems are inherent in the nature of the subject
under
)consideration. I will try to develop matters further, in line with your
)questions.
)
) The world is full of a variety of spiritual paths. It was my great
fortune
)to live in Berkeley, California, during the end of the 1960's and all
through
)the 1970's, when living teachers from many of these paths were present. It
was
)a remarkable community of seekers to be a member of, and I have great
respect,
)as do you, for all these teachers and seekers and their wise individual
Ways.
)
) There is something different about anthroposophy, however -- different
from
)all these other paths. This does not make anthroposophy better, or more
pure or
)any such category. Rather the difference is rooted in an intention of
young Dr.
)Steiner to proceed to develop his work out of the scientific impulse of his
)time, the rich and remarkable developments of the 19th Century.
)
) In order to do this he had to appreciate deeply the thought content of
)science, and as well the fundamental integrity of the method of truth
seeking
)which underlay it. The result was that he built up the ideas which he
worked
)with, entirely out of the approach to knowledge of his contemporaries. The
)process (method) arrives at a spiritual content only because the ground of
the
)world is factually spiritual.
)
) As you are no doubt aware, the philosopher Kant (among many others) in
)considering the epistomological question, concluded that human knowledge
was
)limited, and that knowledge of the divine was not within the capacities of
a
)human being. Steiner has disproved this limitation.
)
) The proof involves a careful examination of the universal properties of
)human consciousness, from the inside, as would appear to an objective
)introspection. It is a completely "scientific" examination of
consciousness,
)and has been replicated by many individuals. But like all science, one has
to
)do the work.
)
) Now you give me a hypothetical question about what I might or might not
do,
)if you were to follow the methodology and get different results. Sorry,
but I
)don't argue hypotheticals. They are an illusion and have no meaning
whatsoever.
)
) You don't have to bother even with this dialogue, much less involve
yourself
)in any kind of examination of the details of your own consciousness. Just
don't
)expect me to pretend that knowledge, of the kind I have confirmed for
myself,
)does not exist.
)
) You seem to be assuming that I am asserting that everything that
Steiner
)ever said is true, or something of that order. That, I have not done. I
would
)not be surprised if much of it was true, but that has nothing to do with
the
)point I have been trying to make.
)
) Let me restate it. In order to understand what anthroposophy is about,
you
)have to go in by the front door. At the front door you come to the problem
of
)freedom. If one learns to understand the epistomological problem (in
practice),
)then one comes upon an enormous inner freedom and an appreciation of the
right
)of every other human being to enjoy that freedom. Properly understood, one
is
)even free of Steiner "thought", of the vast content which he gave in the
)thousands of lectures he did not want published. The anthroposophical
movement
)(and Waldorf education as well) is haunted and enchained by a great ghost
)(technically called an egregore), because this problem is not understood,
even
)among those attracted to Steiner and to anthroposophy.
)
) It is the presence of this ghost which causes many people to so quickly
)dislike and distrust much that they come upon in their encounters with
)anthroposophy or Waldorf Education. Many people instinctly recognize the
lack
)of freedom among those whose souls are enchained with a dogmatic
relationship to
)anthroposophical content, and quite rightly have no desire to join them.
)
) In spite of this garment of confusion, at the heart of anthroposophy is
a
)jewel of remarkable worth -- complete spiritual freedom. I would do a
grave
)disservice to my fellow human beings, were I not to continue to point
toward
)this divinely ordained gift, and all the possibilities which flows from its
)existence as an aspect of human potential.
)
)warm regards,
)joel
)
)Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
)
)) OK then, I am sorry if I have jumped to a conclusion, so clarify it for
me.
)) If I were to follow the steps and the method you are suggesting, and I
did
)) not come to any realizations that matched yours or Steiner's, would you
or
)) would you not believe that I must have followed the steps improperly?
(This
)) of course is the same as Michael's arguement in different words.)
))
)) I am in no way criticizing the quality or importance of your effort to
)) learn what you have learned. I have encountered many people on many
paths
)) and those people will vouch that I always treat them with the utmost
respect
)) for their paths and their truths. But I expect them to accord me the
same
)) respect. Steiner's methodology to gain cognitional experience of the
)) spiritual world is meaningful to you. I respect that more than you will
)) ever appreciate. But it is in my view an act of great hubris to imply
that
)) it is similarly meaningful and truthful to others, and carelessly tossing
)) out words like science to support that conjecture. Tell me that I can
)) seriously follow Steiner's methodology, and I that I might come up with
)) spiritual realities other than Steiner's, and that these realities would
be
)) just as important and vital as his. Tell me that there are other
)) methodologies besides Steiner's that can give me a meaningful spiritual
)) experience. And most of all tell me that the Muslim faith and the Jewish
)) faith are spiritual paths that are as real, as enduring, and as high as
)) yours. If you can tell me these things, you will be according me the
)) respect that I am ready to accord you.-
))
)) )Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
)) )
)) )) And if one were to follow these steps and come to an entirely
different
)) )) belief? Why then you would say that the steps were not properly
taken,
)) for
)) )) belief in your truth is part of the methodology itself.
)) )
)) )[What an interesting way to reason. First you invent the result of
)) following
)) )the methodology, without of course actually following the methodology.
)) Then you
)) )invent my reaction to your invention. I have no doubt you do not
practice
)) your
)) )professional life in such a fantastic fashion. Please deal with
realities
)) and
)) )cease making up things. That is not any kind of response at all.]
)) )
)) ))
)) ))
)) It is also
)) )obnoxiously disrespectful to judge in a negative fashion, without any
real
)) )knowledge on your part, the quality of effort I have put forward to
learn
)) what I
)) )have learned.]
)) )
)) )
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1102.3 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Naddering(sic) nabobs
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:41:31 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199902202234.OAA10325 lists1.best.com)
Charlie Frey says:
)Bruce refers to a post by Mr. Dugan:
))
))I answered that already - if I AM a naddering nabob (it isnt in my
))dictionary
))(wwwg))
))Bruce
))
)Bruce,
)Mr. Dugan pilfers a piece of political speechwriting meant to impress the
)feebleminded and mask the fact that there exists a major deficit in the
)idea department. This is, of course, a time-worn technique of the
)ill-equipped critic and political rhetorician.
) The entire phrase is (with corrected spelling)"...the nattering nabobs
)of negativity..."
No. "nattering nabobs of negativism", referring to the U.S. press corps
which was then plagueing Richard Nixon.
)and I think it was spoken by ex-president George Bush---but maybe Richard
)Nixon--- I often mix them up. ;-}
No. Said by (but not authored by) Nixon's vice president, Spiro T. Agnew,
formerly a state governor of little note, later forced to resign as veep
after a scandal was found in his past, in favour of one Gerald Ford, who
then became an unelected President of the U.S.
) The word "nabob" had absolutely nothing to do with the context of the
)phrase, and was, clearly, put there solely for its alliterative quality.
No. Nabob was meaningful in the context of the original phrase as spoken by
Agnew. It referred to the self-importance Agnew ascribed to the press. In
U.S. idiom, _nabob_ has more to do with self-aggrandizement than with the
original English meaning of the term, having to do with an Indian potentate.
) So, now we have a meaningless quote from an anonymous propagandist;
No. The speech was written by William Safire, previously a high-profile
journalist and commentator, and still a syndicated columnist on the right
wing.
In fact, he often used his columns for discussion of language, if I
remember.
)delivered by a politician; pilfered by someone who bothered to check
)neither the meaning nor the spelling; and posted , as far as I can tell,
)to prove some kind of point.
) Bruce--if this is the fiercest opponent of Waldorf/Anthroposophy, we
)have nothing to worry about.
)Peace,
)Charlie
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1102.4 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: marijuana & cannabis: clarification
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:10:35 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199902211434.GAA27668 lists1.best.com)
Tarjei Straume apologises to the defenders of the faith [TM] for
unintentionally tarnishing the Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical (SWA)
movement with the vile weed:
)My fellow subscribers,
)
)As an anarchosophist, I am always in danger of putting my hand into a
)hornet's nest on this Waldorf Critics list. Sometimes the opportunity
)presents itself to throw in an anarchist bomb, and when I can't resist the
)temptation, there is always the risk that I may cause problems for my
)fellow anthroposophists. My humorous remark about Waldorf students being
)more likely to smoke biodynamic marijuana is a classic example of this.
)
)Several anthroposophists have expressed their concern about the
)marijuana-related articles and links on my website. The articles are in
)Norwegian, and one Waldorf school in Norway with drug problems among the
)students refused to exchange links with me because of these articles and
)links.
)
)My reasons for supporting the marijuana legalization movement are strictly
[snip Tarjei's views on marijuana legalization, his own plight, and the
international drug war]
)Nevertheless, as soon as I make a frivolous remark about smoking biodynamic
)marijuana in Waldorf schools, hardcore Waldorf critic Michael Kopp
)immediately seizes the opportunity to portray Waldorf students, Waldorf
)parents, Waldorf teachers, and anthroposophists in general as dopey pot
)heads engaged in some super-marijuana production and trade business. My
)sincere apologies to the "defenders of the faith" for sending Kopp off on
)this tangent!
Michael KOPP says:
This is total bullshit. I did not portray Waldorf students, parent,
teachers and Anthropops in general as "dopey pot heads", nor did I suggest
that the SWA movement or any part of it was engaged in a "super-marijuana
production and trade".
I said I was aware of students at one SWA school in my personal experience
who used marijuana, including on school grounds during school time.
I said I was aware of SWA parents at this school who provided dope (as well
as another illegal substance, alcohol) to their (and perhaps other) kids,
at parties or at home.
I made a joke -- much like Tarjei's -- about there being an SWA drug
business. The object of that joke -- and the subsequent points I made --
was to take the wind out of the SWA movement's `holier-than-thou' attitude
in general.
That said, I have been contacted privately by someone in the U.S. who
cannot post to this list about similar drug and alcohol use in a SWA
community that they are aware of. As a journalist I cannot confirm this
because I have no secondary source and cannot mount an investigation
trans-Pacific. But it sounds like a reasonable report, and the illegality
there does extend to SWA parents growing for selling, and others escaping
punishment for their kids when caught because of their wealth and position
in the community. Such things are not unknown, of course.
I am also reminded of stories I have heard in New Zealand about marijuana
use at other SWA schools here. Again, I cannot confirm these without
extensive personal investigation which is beyond my capacity at the moment.
I do not allege that these stories are true, only that they are current and
believable.
This makes my point again: there is no reason to believe that SWA schools
should be exempt from such activities by students and parents. Marijuana is
not a class-conscious affair: even a certain president of a big firm (the
U.S.A.) has more-or-less admitted using it. (If he didn't inhale, he
probably chewed MJ brownies. Yeechh.)
STRAUME:
)Legalization or decriminalization of mariuana is more of a concern for
)anti-authoritarian anarchists than it is for anthroposophists.
KOPP:
Straume may be surprised to learn that it is my personal opinion that he
was the victim of an hypocritical American aberration that has cost the
world huge numbers of lives. It is Prohibition all over again. Until about
1900, even opiates were legal almost everywhere. Now one can't even legally
grow poppies in one's garden as flowers! The American `war on drugs' is
doomed to failure, but it keeps a huge, repressive apparatus in business
for geopolitical and financial reasons. The U.S. government (the
politicians and the bureaucrats) are all self-serving shits in this
instance, in my view.
I sympathise with Tarjei over his plight. It is not totally unlike my
shunning by mainstream media here in New Zealand because I talk back to
editors on the ethics and professionalism of themselves and their
proprietors, and because I was getting too close to exposing government
corruption. The result is the same: economic deprivation.
(There's my paranoia, Flannery, and it's real and not imagined. That, and
the possibility that someday I may say something that pushes my former
Steiner school's owners and operators -- who have the money to do it --
into suing me for defamation. I may be right, and totally, provably
truthful, but in this country, the defendant has to prove innocence in
defamation cases, unlike the U.S. situation. And there's no First Amendment
here. I would be bankrupted by proving my innocence of such an accusation
against me.)
I am also for marijuana decriminalisation, if for no other than the
practical reason that the witchhunt is both wrong and unsuccessful --
although I do think it has some negative health effects, as to most of the
pleasurable things humans ingest. There is certainly no worse effect on
people's brains than there is effect on their lungs and brains from
tobacco, which, of course, is hypocritically legal because of the huge
money and power involved. U.S. Senator Jesse Helms, mentioned elsewhere on
this list, is a tobacco state representative, and has fought tooth and nail
to preserve tobacco as a legal business, while being totally opposed to
marijuana. Doesn't politics make strange bedfellows? The people running the
U.S. drug war don't care if it's successful, and they don't care if it
means greater suffering, misery and criminality than previously. They are
amoral.
I'd be pleased (but surprised) to see Straume retract his accusation that I
am trying any means to discredit SWA, fair or foul. I am simply reporting
what I know, and use barbed humour no worse than do supporters of SWA.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1102.5 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:53:51 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199902212132.NAA06905 lists1.best.com)
Alan S. Fine wrote (to Joel):
)I relate naturally to people's spirituality, when used for meditation,
))consolation, contemplation of the beauty of nature,inspiration to do good
))deeds, and thevlike. Those things I respect and admire. Where I have
)trouble )is with those people who take spirituality a step further, beyond
)personal
)inspiration, into the realm of thinking they know God, and know the TRUTH.
You are supporting Immanuel Kant and his dualism, which has been shared by
most branches of inquiry for a couple of centuries. You are saying that
it's ok to hold a spiritual view of life and the universe as long as you
don't treat it as reality. Treat it as a dream, as a wish, as unreality.
Don't rock the boat by interpreting natural-scientific phenomena as
external expressions of a divine-spiritual natural order. Because that
gives you trouble.
)When they think they know the TRUTH about God, they place their spiritual
)views )in a higher (more truthful, more complete, whatever word you want
)to use) plane )than the next person's spiritual system- a phenomenon which
)history has proven )is all too easy to act upon with horrific results.
Why wouldn't you say the same thing about any field of knowledge? If you
know something, you have a truth. Wouldn't it be dangerous for a man to
know too much about Greek history because he could place his knowledge
higher than someone who only knows geometry, English law, and Italian
painting, and whose views about Greek history are based upon too little
reading? It is no more dangerous to know some truths about Greek history,
which is also a part of "God's truth," than some truths about spiritual
phenomena.
)When they think they know the TRUTH, they begin to blur the material
)reality we )all share with their spiritual beliefs.
If you insist upon keeping spiritual truth separated from material truth
and declare that they shall have nothing to do with one another, they
should in no way interact - then you postulate that one of these two
realities must be illusion. So I am permitted to say with the ancient
Indians that the external world of the senses is maya, illusion. I am also
permitted to say with the atheists that the spiritual does not exist. My
third option is to believe in the spiritual and confess ignorance about the
physical.
)The fundamentalist Christians want to teach creationism in the schools
))because it is written in the Old Testament which to them is the literal
)TRUTH.
They have tried to solve the riddle of physical origins by denouncing
evolution, and they cannot maintain their religious faith without creating
a non-reality based upon "the authority" of poorly understood scripture.
Rudolf SAteiner took an entirely different approach. He first investigated
the events recorded in Genesis by initiation science; then he checked the
old scripture to see if the perceptions told by Moses matched his own. They
did, and Steiner did actually say that the Bible is absolutely true and
gives an accurate account of evolution, provided we learn how to read the
text.
)The Jewish extremists, will build houses on other peoples land because they
)believe that God promised that land to them and that is the TRUTH.
As an anthroposophist, I don't believe that God or anyone else has promised
me anything material whatsoever. As an anarchist, I am aware that I am an
extremist. As an anarchosophist, I think that land belongs to those who are
using it and that the Sionists are guilty of a terrible injustice against
the Palistinians.
)The Anthroposophist will deny the student the essential backround of
)hemodynamics because hemodynamics is not the TRUTH.
As an anthroposophist, I WILL NOT deny anything to anybody. And as an
anthroposophist, I take that as a personal insult.
)Well if you want the truth, let me tell you my version. God is not man
)from )Nazareth, or a boy from India. God is not the author of books, and
)not a real )estate agent. God is not the impulse of racial development,
)and certainly not a
)cardiologist. God is God. Going beyond that is divisive, disrespectful,
)and dangerous. The ghost you describe is a direct result of the
)Anthroposophists claim to know God, and it will haunt you until you adopt a
)more enlightened and humane posture.
This is what Rudolf Steiner says about God:
"The all-encompassing attribute of the Godhead is not omnipotence, neither
is it omniscience, but it is love - the attribute in respect of which no
enhancement is possible. God is uttermost love, unalloyed love, is born as
it were out of love, is the very substance and essence of love. God is pure
love, not supreme wisdom, not supreme might."
It's that simple.
Cheers,
Tarjei
P.S. The RS quote above is from the lecture "Love and its Meaning in the
World," which is available in English at
http://www.uncletaz.com/lovemeaning.html
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1102.6 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Ogletree study
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:28:31 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199902212018.MAA09917 lists1.best.com)
Dan wrote:
) AUTHOR(S): Ogletree, Earl J.
) TITLE: Creativity and Waldorf Education: A Study.
) PUBLISHED: 1991
...
) discouragement of student exposure to television and radio. Waldorf
) education also tends to foster a positive school climate and reduce faculty
) and student stress. Contains 30 references. 19 pages.
)
) I'd like to have the whole study, anybody know where it can be found? Two
) thoughts immediately:
)
) 1) The study is comparing private and public school students. Was any
) attempt made to control for economic class? What does "cross-culturally"
) mean here?
It seems difficult to find on the net. Why don¥t you write to him
(according to http://www.acceleration.net/peridot/default.htm he¥s
Professor Emeritus of Education at Chicago State University and
according to http://www.csu.edu/email/oname.htm he has the email address
mailto:E-Ogletree csu.edu)
and ask him where to find the study and the eventual controls for
economic status, and tell him what you think of his understanding of
Piaget?
Sune
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.n1102.7 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for
snitches,"])
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:40:44 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902201706.JAA28516 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902201806.KAA21296 lists1.best.com)
Tarjei Straume says:
[snip]
)the Christ-Michael Impulse at the dawn of the Michael age. When Rudolf
)Steiner had finished his Christ sculpture (displayed at
)http://www.uncletaz.com/christ.html), Friedrich Rittelmeyer inquired about
)the features. Steiner explained that he had been at pains to show the
)combination of the Semitic and the Aryan, because both of these elements
)were present. I am emphasizing this to show that if anthroposophy is
)promoting ethnic supremacy, the Jewish-semitic must be included with the
)Aryan. This also makes it that much more difficult to defend the charge of
)anti-semitism in Rudolf Steiner and in Anthroposophy.
An interesting comparison of images are to be found at
http://www.antipodes.co.nz/steiner/
The central image is of the Christ statue Tarjei features on his pages as
being sculpted by Steiner himself.
The other images are photographs of Steiner at various stages in his life.
Tarjei's excuse for Steiner never smiling in a photo (it wasn't done in
those days because, among other things, photography was more primitive)
won't wash. At least since the 1880s plates and films were sensitive enough
to record fleeting expressions.
For me, the interesting thing about these images is Steiner's "presence",
what we would today in the broadcasting industry call the "q-factor", but
which was called in earlier days "charisma". Rudy certainly had it, all his
life if the teen-aged snap is any guide.
He developed it as he went along, I think, and he certainly knew what image
he was projecting. I've made hundreds of portraits in my professional
photojournalistic life, and I do not think any of the photographers of Rudy
(most of whom would have been unknown craftsmen, not photographers of note)
managed their sessions with Steiner. I think he controlled his image
completely.
As is befitting a guru.
----------------
The central image is borrowed from UncleTaz's pages, but the others were
laboriously collected by me in my travels through the wonderland of
Anthroposophy ascendant, Steiner cultism and Waldorf advertising that is
burgeoning on the Web.
Then I saw that UncleTaz has his own pantheon of images of Saint Rudy on
his page, and I could have got most of the images from one place. Oh, well,
it was an interesting trip down the rabbit hole ...
Cheers from Godzone
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1102.8 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: marijuana & cannabis: clarification
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:50:32 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902211434.GAA27668 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902212212.OAA04819 lists1.best.com)
I wrote:
)
))Nevertheless, as soon as I make a frivolous remark about smoking biodynamic
))marijuana in Waldorf schools, hardcore Waldorf critic Michael Kopp
))immediately seizes the opportunity to portray Waldorf students, Waldorf
))parents, Waldorf teachers, and anthroposophists in general as dopey pot
))heads engaged in some super-marijuana production and trade business. My
))sincere apologies to the "defenders of the faith" for sending Kopp off on
))this tangent!
)
Michael KOPP says:
)
)This is total bullshit. I did not portray Waldorf students, parent,
)teachers and Anthropops in general as "dopey pot heads", nor did I suggest
)that the SWA movement or any part of it was engaged in a "super-marijuana
)production and trade".
)
)I said I was aware of students at one SWA school in my personal experience
)who used marijuana, including on school grounds during school time.
)
)I said I was aware of SWA parents at this school who provided dope (as well
)as another illegal substance, alcohol) to their (and perhaps other) kids,
)at parties or at home.
)
)I made a joke -- much like Tarjei's -- about there being an SWA drug
)business. The object of that joke -- and the subsequent points I made --
)was to take the wind out of the SWA movement's `holier-than-thou' attitude
)in general.
Fair enough, but in view of the general witch hunt by yourself and some of
your fellow critics against Waldorf teachers - a pillory that you seek to
chain all anthroposophists onto for ridicule, scorn, and moral discredit
(divisive, dangerous, racist, exclusive, elitist, abusive, etc. etc.), your
gave the impression of adding the drugging of children to the long list of
sins in "the Waldorf approach."
(snip)
)(There's my paranoia, Flannery, and it's real and not imagined. That, and
)the possibility that someday I may say something that pushes my former
)Steiner school's owners and operators -- who have the money to do it --
)into suing me for defamation. I may be right, and totally, provably
)truthful, but in this country, the defendant has to prove innocence in
)defamation cases, unlike the U.S. situation. And there's no First Amendment
)here. I would be bankrupted by proving my innocence of such an accusation
)against me.)
You are suggesting that the Waldorf school in question is owned and
operated by wealthy criminals who may do something unpleasant to you if you
rub them the wrong way or get too close to their illegal activities. That's
fine with me as long as this profile is not blamed upon anthroposophy and
its founder.
)I am also for marijuana decriminalisation, if for no other than the
)practical reason that the witchhunt is both wrong and unsuccessful --
)although I do think it has some negative health effects, as to most of the
)pleasurable things humans ingest. There is certainly no worse effect on
)people's brains than there is effect on their lungs and brains from
)tobacco, which, of course, is hypocritically legal because of the huge
)money and power involved. U.S. Senator Jesse Helms, mentioned elsewhere on
)this list, is a tobacco state representative, and has fought tooth and nail
)to preserve tobacco as a legal business, while being totally opposed to
)marijuana. Doesn't politics make strange bedfellows? The people running the
)U.S. drug war don't care if it's successful, and they don't care if it
)means greater suffering, misery and criminality than previously. They are
)amoral.
Allen Ginsberg is no longer with us, but I had the opportunity to meet the
old legend at the Blindern University on Oslo a few years back, and I
brought up the issue of marijuana and the war on drugs in America. Ginsberg
held the opinion that the mafia with vested interests in the tobacco and
alcohol industry was responsible for the witch hunt against pot smokers
because they didn't want that kind of competition. Anyway, it goes back to
J. Edgar Hoover and the "reefer madness" propaganda. When it was a black
phenomenon, it was ignored. With the emergence of the jazz bands where
blacks and whites were mixed, it became a racial thing; it was part of a
reaction against white youth adopting black culture in America. When rock
and roll came along, there was panic in the Southern white bourgeoisie. Pot
smoking was cultural heresy in the white community. They couldn't ban the
music (though certain lyrics were banned), so they used marijuana as an
excuse for arrests and raids. And they still do. But the rich get away with
everything.
There are plenty of drug busts in Norway, and there has been all kinds of
noise about parties with cannabis and ecstasy and funny mushrooms. But
nothing about cocaine. Why? Because cocaine is still so expensive in Norway
that only the richest people use it. The ship owners, friends and peers of
the king. That is where the coke is. No wonder the cops never make a bust.
)I'd be pleased (but surprised) to see Straume retract his accusation that I
)am trying any means to discredit SWA, fair or foul. I am simply reporting
)what I know, and use barbed humour no worse than do supporters of SWA.
If I have given the impression that you are deliberately using foul means
to discredit SWA, I'm happy to apologize.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1102.9 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for
snitches,"])
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 01:01:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902201806.KAA21296 lists1.best.com)
(199902201706.JAA28516 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902212342.PAA20316 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp wrote:
)Tarjei's excuse for Steiner never smiling in a photo (it wasn't done in
)those days because, among other things, photography was more primitive)
)won't wash. At least since the 1880s plates and films were sensitive enough
)to record fleeting expressions.
Have I made *an excuse* for Steiner "never smiling" in a photo? That's news
to me.
You have posted photos of Steiner and his Christ scuplture. But it is not
clear from this webpage, or from your post about it, what your point is.
That Steiner controlled his image as is befitting a guru? So what?
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1102.10 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for
snitches,"])
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:04:08 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902212342.PAA20316 lists1.best.com)
(199902201806.KAA21296 lists1.best.com)
(199902201706.JAA28516 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902220002.QAA03593 lists1.best.com)
Tarjei Straume writes:
)Michael Kopp wrote:
)
))Tarjei's excuse for Steiner never smiling in a photo (it wasn't done in
))those days because, among other things, photography was more primitive)
))won't wash. At least since the 1880s plates and films were sensitive
))enough
))to record fleeting expressions.
)
)Have I made *an excuse* for Steiner "never smiling" in a photo? That's news
)to me.
)
)You have posted photos of Steiner and his Christ scuplture. But it is not
)clear from this webpage, or from your post about it, what your point is.
)That Steiner controlled his image as is befitting a guru? So what?
)
)Tarjei
)
)http://www.uncletaz.com/
The So What is that Steiner knew he was a guru, and he acted the part. But
that's not what this page is about; the guru stuff is already implicit in
my _writing_. I'm making a different comment with the picture page.
You're a real visually perceptive guy, Tarjei.
Take another look at _all_ the pictures -- a closer, comparative look.
Then see if you can come up with the obvious reason for my posting them so
I don't have to spell it out to you in words of one syllable.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1102 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1103 --------------
001 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - Re: Naddering(sic) nabobs
002 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Steiner's good teacher
003 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
004 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit t - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
005 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - mountain ranges making a cross
006 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for
007 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - article on new Camphill in Soquel
008 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for
s
009 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for
010 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: mountain ranges making a cross
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1103.1 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Re: Naddering(sic) nabobs
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 99 20:39:31 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Mr. Kopp corrects me--He's a good deal older than I (g), and remembers
such things.
)
)) So, now we have a meaningless quote from an anonymous propagandist;
)
)No. The speech was written by William Safire, previously a high-profile
)journalist and commentator, and still a syndicated columnist on the right
)wing.
Safire!! I should have known. We cross paths often.
The inscrutable wag and grammatical error-maker on signs placed on the
moon.
Actually, I deeply respect his knowledge of language; but to be a
speech-writer for Nixon and Agnew----pretty smarmy stuff!
Thanks, Mike.
Best,
Charlie
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1103.2 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Steiner's good teacher
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 19:39:13 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
"Good pedagogy will only come into existence when it is drawn from
spiritual science, when the teacher is aware that outside the planetary
system a world exists which unfolds in the human being, when it is more
than theorectical knowledge in him and permeates his feelings and
attitudes, when he himself has experienced the truth of this world beyond
the planets. The unsure steps of such a teacher are often better than the
ingenious pedigogical principles of a materialistic teacher...
It is to be wished that among the things that spiritual science must
metamorhose or transform is also the following: [I]t should be increasingly
understood that those who want to become teachers and educators - that
includes fundamentally also those who want to become parents - should
ensure that they become good educators by the assimilation of spiritual
ideas gathered in their soul. In order to become a good educator, the bulk
of the work has to be undertaken on oneself. And it is more important as
regards a teacher, for example, that he lives wholeheartedly in the
material to be dealt with in school the next day, before he enters school,
than that he has the best possible pedagogical principles on how to do this
or that. After he has grown to love the subject, grown to love it inwardly
in the spirit, he can even stumble in the leasson - although I do not want
to recommend that - and he will do a better job than the person who enters
school with all sorts of principles strait-jacketed into his brain and who
knows everything about the most correct way to set about things...
...The attitude towards human and cosmic development ought to be the
yardstick for whether someone is a good teacher or not."
Prayers For Mothers and Children, Rudolf Steiner, Rudolf Steiner Press,
third edition, 1983. Pp 11 &12
-posted by Debra Snell
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1103.3 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 22:11:01 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: (199902212132.NAA06905 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902212132.NAA06905 lists1.best.com)
Alan S. Fine MD (asf peakpeak.com) wrote:
[some reasonably good sense leading to:]
)God is God. Going beyond that is divisive, disrespectful,
)and dangerous.
...but spoilt it by continuing:
) The ghost you describe is a direct result of the
)Anthroposophists claim to know God,
Another thing that is disrespectful and dangerous is the propensity of
some people to generalise from the particular (or even from a false
perception?). I certainly don't claim to know God, and I don't think I
know any anthropops who have claimed to either. I'm trying not to be
offended by your implication that because I am an anthropop, I have
claimed to know God.
Alan, you seem to have some curious notion of that anthropops are
homogenous -- we are (as I think I have said before) a delightfully
diverse bunch; it infuriates those who try to shove us into convenient
little boxes with neat little defining labels. This is the nature of the
beast, I'm afraid.
Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
Stephen
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1103.4 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:34:37 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902082311.PAA12502 lists1.best.com)
(199902101751.JAA19548 lists1.best.com)
(199902160250.SAA16515 lists1.best.com) (199902181656.IAA03769 lists1.best.com)
Dear Michael,
I have placed some remarks below in [brackets].
warm regards,
joel
Michael Hirsch wrote:
) Joel,
)
) Thank you for the lengthy reply. You are certainly right that I would
) have to study long and hard to understand and comprehend Steiner. But
) I am not asking to understand Steiner, I am asking to understand your
) use of the word "scientific". It still appears to me that your
) meaning of the term is in opposition to the meaning as ascribed by
) actual scientists.
)
) Joel A. Wendt writes:
) )
) ) I made the statement in my "disclosure" piece that Waldorf was based upon a
) ) scientifically valid understanding of human nature. We are thus at the core problem: How
) ) to we come to knowledge and understanding of human nature? With the addition of a
) ) subsidary problem: How do we do this in a scientific fashion?
)
) Yes, that is the crux. Scientists are notoriously bad at
) understanding human nature. If it were possible to do so
) scientifically, that would be great.
)
) ) At present "science" confines itself to knowledge gained essentialy through methods
) ) of counting and pointer instruments of various types. Are such methods adequate to the
) ) discovery of deeper truths about human nature? I think clearly they are not, so the
) ) question becomes, what extentions of methodology can be made, yet which still retain the
) ) right to call themselves "scientific". In order to answer this question we have to look
) ) at the scientific method for some statement of its essential features, which does not
) ) violate its fundamental premises.
)
) Again, I agree with this. It is important not to violate the
) principles that make science work even while trying to extend it to
) new fields of research.
)
) ) I put forward as such a possible statement the following: One is scientific if one
) ) postulates truths along with the relevant methodology so that the methodology itself can
) ) first be tested, and then applied and the truth replicated. This allows us to expand our
) ) methods, while remaining in concert with the fundamental "truth" principle of science,
) ) i.e. the ability to replicate.
)
) Here is where we part company. Science does not make progress by
) demonstrating truth, but rather by demonstrating lack thereof.
[This is a very interesting statement. Essentially it means that science doesn't know anything
about the natural world, because any established view is always possibly falsifiable. I don't
think all scientists would agree with that, however.]
) Science progresses by theorizing that a certain model expresses a
) certain aspect of reality. Then people "prove" the model by testing
) it. "Prove" here is in the sense of "proving grounds" or "testing
) grounds", not the mathematical sense. The model makes certain
) predictions. If these predictions fail then the model is disproven.
) If the predictions are correct then the theory is now in probationary
) status.
)
) If the model passes the first test, researchers then design further,
) more difficult tests. A theory never really leaves probationary
) status, though occasionally some theories become so ingrained we call
) them laws, but that doesn't mean we stop testing them. We are still
) testing Einstein's theories and "laws" such as conservation of energy
) all the time.
[This is of course true. The kicker is that this position about what science does and does not
do is only taken when it is useful (by many scientiists). It terms of what our culture, in
general, believes true about what science does and what it says, this view is false. Ordinary
people do not understand this subtle distinction. They believe the scientist is telling them
what reality is; and many many scientists behave as if that was in fact what they were doing.
Now this would not be as bad a problem as it is, were it not for the fact of the reductionist
tendency. Let me examine this closely. A human being has a number of kinds of experience,
including various kinds of sense experience and various kinds of inner experiences. The
science you are describing abstracts from this rich experience only a very small part, which is
then disected and analysised in great detail. The laws which are discovered (which you say are
tentatve) are then combined and recombined in to very general pictures about the nature of
reality, and about the meaning and relationship of the human being to both earthly and cosmic
nature. Regardless of you "tentativeness", on the basis of this very partial understanding of
reality, human beings are taught that they are animals and live on a obscure planet in an
uncaring cosmos. These general ideas of science dominate the view of modern mankind, and leak
into every sphere; for example, behind the idol of free market capitalism lies the idea of
survival of the fitest -- our economics are darwinian in their hidden values. The social
implications of this are enormous.
This view of nature is false. That which on the surface seems a battle for survival is in
fact a vast organism of cooperation, but because "science" falsifies the evidence through
reductionism, and dishonors human experience with the presumption of subjectivity, the
ecological catastrophes of modern life have no adequate cultural and moral limits. If nature
has no being, no consciousness, then what is to stop us from its abuse and destruction.
Scientism is real, and much more damaging the Steinerism. The antidote is to stop playing the
objectivity game and for scientists to stop retreating into the point of view of their work
that it is value neutral. If this continues, the coming revolution in biology will be
ultimately devistating for all the good it does accidentally.
You will have noticed (I hope) that I am equally appalled at what is done within the
anthroposophical movement and Waldorf, as I am strongly supportive of the fundamental truths
inherent in Steiner's philosophical contributions. I yearn for the day "scientists" are
equally appalled at the dogmatism that characterizes the general relationship of science to
modern culture.]
)
)
) ) So if I say "such and such" is true about human psychology, I have to give you a
) ) method for finding that out for yourself. I don't have to confine the method to counting
) ) and pointer instruments, but can use some other method as long is it is accessible and
) ) testible.
)
) To be science you need to give me a way to show that it isn't true.
) If there is no way for me to (potentially) disprove your statement,
) then it isn't science and your belief is not scientifically based. It
) might be true, but it isn't scientifically testable, and hence does
) not deserve the name "science".
[Let me see if I understand you. Something can be true, but not be "scientifically" true. To
me this is a distinction without a difference. It would be interesting if "science" were to
purge itself of all ideas not falsifiable. Most of evolutionary biology and cosmology would
disappear. Probably most of relativity and quantum mechanics, at least in the sense that
scientists speak of their "implications". Cognative science and evolutionary psychology would
have to go as well. Probably the more interesting aspects of neurophysiology too. All the
research now being done on the nature of consciousness couldn't make it either. Give me a
break Michael. Inspite of your assertions, which are credible and true within narrow confines,
scientists do not view their work in such a limited way. They are searching for reality, for
the truth, and this objective lives in every act they do, as the motivating focus. They are
trying to describe the real world.]
)
)
) As you can see, it is not necessary for me to read anything Steiner
) wrote to discuss this. I am prepared to admit he may be right about
) everything he says, but I am denied the opportunity to test his
) theories. This is what makes it a matter of religion and faith to
) me. "If you do this you will agree" is not a scientific answer to a
) request for knowledge, no matter how heartfelt.
[How is it different from the replication of an experiment? My brother is a microbiologist.
He worked for years with e-coli and published many articles. He is now retired, but likes to
review the literature and is greatly pleased to find his work cited, but most especially when
it is reproduced and confirmed. The study of Steiner's epistomological works involves exactly
the same thing. Part of the problem is that people get so involved with Steiner's lectures and
arguing the truth of this or that statement. The clearest thinkers I know in anthroposophy all
treat that material as hypothesis, just like any scientist. To the extent they can they test
it. If it can be applied, they watch the results of its application. The major difference is
that anthroposophy moves beyond the quantitative into the qualitative and the moral and this is
unknown territory for mainstream scientists. Worse, it is not accepted by their peers. But
neither of these facts, the unknowness or the lack of acceptibility has anything to do with
whether or not the fundamental impulse of science can be extended into these realms. People
need to stop finding excuses, and take seriously Steiner's Theory of Knowledge Implicit in
Goethe's World Conception and his Philosophy of Freedom. Mathmatics is called the Queen of
the Sciences. Which is the King? Physics? No, Philosophy is King. Honor the King. Discover
for yourself the door past Kant.]
)
)
) --Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1103.5 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: mountain ranges making a cross
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 19:55:58 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I know I've seen it, but can't find the citation where Steiner talks about
the mountain ranges of the world forming a great cross. Can anybody point
me to it?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1103.6 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for
snitches,"])
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 20:58:26 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199902201806.KAA21296 lists1.best.com)
(199902202244.OAA14943 lists1.best.com)
(199902210124.RAA29063 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902210934.BAA27642 lists1.best.com)
)Tarjei wrote:
)
)) Chicken, but if you say so - let's have V”rmland back and expand our
)) Eastern territory.
)
)Never in my foot!! It¥s the home of at least two of the best Swedish
)writers ever; Selma Lagerl–f and G–ran Tunstr–m and the most beautiful
)landscape of Sweden!
)Never in my other foot either!!
)
)) Incidentally, all the cruel jokes on Swedes stem from
)) the colonial years, when we were governed by you.
(snip)
Dear correspondents, this dialogue is off-topic. Please take it to private
email.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1103.7 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: article on new Camphill in Soquel
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 01:00:57 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The San Francisco Chronicle's "Sunday" section (February 21, 1999) had a
front-page article on the new Camphill house in Soquel, near Santa Cruz.
The article continues on a full page inside, with photos.
"By 7:30 a.m., nine "friends" stand by a circular coffee table near the
family room fireplace. One person lights a candle on the table before the
group listens to Bible verses 35 to 51 from Chapter 1 of John.
"Brian Wainwright, a 45-year-old man who is mentally disabled and suffers
epileptic seizures, stands nearby.
"'I'm not coming for the reading,' explains Brian, a Buddhist. 'I'm coming
for the people.'
"Although the Bible is read, the Camphill housemates say the house has no
religious affiliation. Residents can choose whether to participate in the
daily morning circle. Most do."
No religious affiliation? They want people to believe that so there's no
trouble getting the state funding for all the inmates. Prayers are said at
lunch and dinner, too.
March 7 there's a $100/plate fundraiser for Camphill Communities California
at Frantoio Ristorante in Mill Valley, CA, featuring singers from the San
Francisco Conservatory of Music.
URL for the whole article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/02/21/SC8
9114.DTL
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1103.8 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for
snitches,"])
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:10:08 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902220002.QAA03593 lists1.best.com)
(199902212342.PAA20316 lists1.best.com)
(199902201806.KAA21296 lists1.best.com)
(199902201706.JAA28516 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902220104.RAA05532 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp wrote:
)The So What is that Steiner knew he was a guru, and he acted the part.
You don't like gurus. Why?
)But that's not what this page is about; the guru stuff is already implicit in
)my _writing_. I'm making a different comment with the picture page.
)
)You're a real visually perceptive guy, Tarjei.
)
)Take another look at _all_ the pictures -- a closer, comparative look.
)
)Then see if you can come up with the obvious reason for my posting them so
)I don't have to spell it out to you in words of one syllable.
Perhaps you're thinking about a verse from The Letter Of Paul The Apostle
To The Galatians:
2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but
Christ lives in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live
by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1103.9 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Europe, Aryans and Jews (was: Re: [Fwd: "schools for
snitches,"])
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:55:55 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199902201806.KAA21296 lists1.best.com)
(199902202244.OAA14943 lists1.best.com)
(199902210124.RAA29063 lists1.best.com) (199902220904.BAA27357 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan wrote on:
) )) Chicken, but if you say so - let's have V”rmland back and expand our
) )) Eastern territory.
) )
) )Never in my foot!! It¥s the home of at least two of the best Swedish
) )writers ever; Selma Lagerl–f and G–ran Tunstr–m and the most beautiful
) )landscape of Sweden!
) )Never in my other foot either!!
) Dear correspondents, this dialogue is off-topic. Please take it to private
) email.
Dear Dan, we just tried to show how the ever new popping-up human
weakness of arguing about the distribution of superiority-inferiority
between individuals and groups of different kind (one of the
never-ending discussions on this list, it seems) can be handled in a
rather friendly and hopefully grown-up way if you have the least
distance to yourself, humour and good-will somewhere in the soul.
Cheers,
Sune
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.n1103.10 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: mountain ranges making a cross
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 07:06:30 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 22.02.99 10:21:06 MEZ, schreiben Sie:
((
I know I've seen it, but can't find the citation where Steiner talks about
the mountain ranges of the world forming a great cross. Can anybody point
me to it?
))
In Stockmeyer he refers to the syllabus for Geography in certain classes,
mentioning the cross (my Stockmeyer is in German)
Bruce
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1103 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1104 --------------
001 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: mountain ranges making a cross
002 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - gurus
003 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit t - Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
004 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: about bigotry
005 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit t - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
006 - BruceyJ aol.com - IFGene (Genetic Engineering)
007 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: The parabolic orbit myth (was: Heart as pump (was: Why Ant
008 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: The parabolic orbit myth (was: Heart as pump (was: Why Ant
009 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: marijuana & cannabis: clarification
010 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1104.1 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: mountain ranges making a cross
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:56:14 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199902220902.BAA26535 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan wrote:
) I know I've seen it, but can't find the citation where Steiner talks about
) the mountain ranges of the world forming a great cross. Can anybody point
) me to it?
The basic concept of Steiner is that the great mountain ranges of the
Earth have their roots (not only in the coming together of the tectonic
plates, but) in two world encompassing "ring structures" around the
Earth, one more now winding along an East-West-line, the other more
North-South.
The book Mitte der Erde. Israel und Pal”stina im Brennpunkt natur- und
kulturgeschichtlicher Entwicklung, by Andreas Suchantke, Hans-Ulrich
Schmutz, Wolfgang Schad and Wolfgang Fackler, published by Verlag Freies
Geistesleben 1996 (2nd Ed). (The Middle of The Earth. Israel and
Palestine in the focus/at the crossing point of natural and cultural
historical developments) at http://www.jfl.de/anthrobooks/jf2882.html I
think treats one of the points where the two "mountain rings" cross,
according to Steiner. H-U Schmutz mentioned the book in connection with
his seminar on the "Tetraederstruktur der Erde" that he held in
Stuttgart in 1988 on the book he had written two years earlier on the
theme (http://www.datadiwan.de/moch/moch_7.htm).
The other crossing of the two "mountain rings" would be around Mexico,
both places also close to the two greatest most easily available oil
resources in the world, the vicinity of the Persian Golf and the Mexican
Golf.
The areas of the two crossingpoints also constitute the places for the
two about contemporary(?) mysteries of the death of Christ at Golgatha
in Palestine and of the drama of Huitzlipochtli in Mexico according to
Steiner (See The Other America by Carl Stegmann, Rudolf Steiner College
Press, http://www.steinercollege.org/bstore/rscplist.html, also
mentioned by Joel on his site
http://www.tiac.net/users/hermit/otlwa.html).
As for the source, as Bruce just mentioned, Stockmeyer probably mentions
the source in his overview over the Waldorf Curriculum, as suggested by
Steiner (http://www.steinercollege.org/bstore/wald1.html).
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.n1104.2 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: gurus
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:56:27 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
My fellow subscribers,
I have noticed that some critics keep referring to Rudolf Steiner as a
guru, and that they are endeavoring to attach negative or disparaging
connotations to the word. I think they'll have to find something worse than
that. Guru means teacher and spiritual guide in Hinduism. There is nothing
wrong with calling Steiner a guru, or a prophet for that matter, but why
the scorn, ridicule, and hostility?
Is it envy? Jealousy? Fear? If you believe that gurus are stupid or evil or
dangerous, you obviously hold a serious bias against Hinduism arising from
a sense of cultural superiority. America is better than India, and we hate
gurus. American Christianity, or American secular humanism, is superior to
Hinduism, and gurus are stupid.
Now, I would like you to close your eyes and meditate about what it might
be like to be a guru. What would you teach? I would like to hear from you,
guru critics and critic gurus, about the origin of life and the universe
for starters. This might provide a more solid basis for attacking and
ridiculing other approaches to such riddles.
Cheers from Guru Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1104.3 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: "schools for snitches,"]
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:14:42 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902200240.SAA15815 lists1.best.com) (199902200520.VAA10825 lists1.best.com)
Dear Steve,
I don't like to get into discussions of Steiner thought (which is what this
thread about the Christ Impulse is), but since I know how easy it is to
misunderstand this point, and since this language usage ("the Christ Impulse")
refers to an important fact of human nature, I will have to step in and try to
resolve the growing confusion.
First: Everyone can understand how it is that objects external to our self
consciousness aquire names. We call things we sit on "chairs", and certain
elements of inner experience "thoughts" and so forth.
"The Christ Impulse" is a "name" given by Steiner (and perhaps others) to an
aspect of human nature. It is a parallel process to that which occurs in the
Cultural East, wherein spiritual teachers will refer to one's Buddha Nature.
The basic matter is that investigators of human nature (who recognize the
need to investigate humanity's spiritual and inner life) come upon certain
universal qualities -- qualities shared by all human beings. It is necessary to
give a name to these qualities in order to have a language by which one can pass
on from teacher to pupil the frame of reference for certain kinds of inner
experiences.
Some on this list may recall from Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself" the line:
"...I am multitudes...". Investigation of one's inner life reveals all manner
of impulses, characteristics, patterns and so forth. In order to discuss these,
among people interested in this subject, words are necessary. Thus, the
terminology "the Christ Impulse" arises to refer to a set of common human
impulses.
We could go farther into Steiner thought, and look at the problem of
Archetypes in relation to human psychology (a matter carefully investigated by
C. Jung), and find connections along this train of thought between the
Incarnation (of Christ) and human nature. However, that would take us into even
more problematic territory (as regards the habits and processes of this list),
and I have no desire to appear to be advocating or defending this complex set of
ideas.
Nevertheless, I did want to point out that the terminology "the Christ
Impulse" has nothing whatsoever to do with traditional religious claims of
superiority or any other such type of conflict. Further, to try to stuff this
term into some kind of box of that type is to think to a forgone conclusion,
rather than to try to appreciate the underlying reality which these words
attempt to describe. There is no requirement that such a term be used anymore
than one has to use "magnetic resonance imaging" to refer to a certain medical
process. The real question is: What is going on inwardly in the human being?
Is there some common impulse, which is widely shared, to which this (the Christ
Impulse) or some other relevant name can be appended?
warm regards,
joel
Steve Premo wrote:
) On 20 Feb 99,, Tarjei Straume wrote:
)
) ) Alan S. Fine wrote:
) )
) ) )I read your site, and found the material interesting (although I can do
) ) )without the skulls). So what you are saying is that the billions of
) ) )people on earth who do not believe in Christ are not inferior races, but
) ) )merely practitioners of spirituality from a lower epoch, and the Teutonic
) ) )Christian represents the latest and highest epoch. I stand clarified,
) ) )but pardon me if I am not the least bit reassured.
) )
) ) The Christ Impulse does not necessarily entail a belief in Christ, and it
) ) is not dependent upon it. Many believers in Christ are less Christian than
) ) many atheists. What counts is self-sacrificing love, the capacity to
) ) forgive offenses, empathy and compassion etc. Seeing the best qualities in
) ) in other people. Generosity. Healing. Religious beliefs are secondary.
)
) So these qualities are "Christian" whether they arise in the
) individual from Christianity, Buddhism, the Baha'i Faith, or Secular
) Humanism, right? Whether the person realizes it or not, he's being
) influenced by the Christ Impulse.
)
) So a Jewish person who exhibits these qualities is really a
) Christian without realizing it. You know, that could be seen as
) offensive. It's almost like saying that white people are superior, but
) it's not the color of your skin that counts. One who becomes
) educated and intellectually strong is following the White Impulse,
) and may actually be more White than many light-skinned people.
)
) Steve Premo
) Santa Cruz, California
) http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1104.4 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: about bigotry
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:02:57 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Tuesday, February 16, 1999 11:23 AM, Joel A. Wendt [SMTP:hermit tiac.net]
wrote:
) Dear Bob,
)
) I have to admit I am of two minds with Dan's Nazi/Steiner obsession.
I
) admit to agreeing with PLANS about much of their criticism of Waldorf
teacher
) training, and as regards to the error in wanting Waldorf as a part of
public
) education. Because of this, I want PLANS to be successful.
)
) Yet, if I were a lawyer defending in a lawsuit in which PLANS was a
party,
) I would love to get Dan on the stand and have him expose his Nazi
thinking,
) because it would clearly make him a less then credible witness.
)
) Perhaps one day this very scenario will be played out.
)
) warm regards,
) joel
I've got to agree with every word you've said.
Sorry it took this long to respond. I was down in Florida with my
family this past week. OFFLIST TIP OF THE DAY: If you do anything in
DisneyWorld, do not, I repeat, do not, miss the "It's Tough To Be A Bug"
attraction in the new Animal Kingdom!
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1104.5 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:39:59 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902212132.NAA06905 lists1.best.com)
Dear Alan,
I can't speak for those "anthroposophists" you refer to since I don't know
any such people (as I stated before). I also know quite well the distinction
between truth and Truth, and studiously avoid the temptation to be involved in
pronouncing on the latter. I don't think Rudolf Steiner was involved in the
latter either, although many who read him seem to give the impression that they
have the Truth.
I was very much a "rationalist" (three years of technology and science at
the U.S. Air Force Academy and three years of law school), and was a very
conscious agnostic until my early thirties when, while I was living in Berkeley,
certain inner experiences compelled me to re-evaluate my view of such matters.
In my first years of this work, I was taught by a Tibetan Llama (Choygam
Trungpa) that Buddha's beginning point was to decide, for himself, the truth of
everything, and to preceed only on that basis. Thus, there was no god, no me,
no nothing unless I could establish it to my scientifically and legally trained
thinking. I worked very hard at this, over many years, before I even met
Steiner and anthroposophy, by which time I had already replicated (on a crude
level) the philosophical-epistomological facts pointed to in Steiner's
"Philosophy of Freedom". Finding the Truth had no interest to me at all.
Along the way I had to dismantle the dominate paradigms of my culture in
order to be free to build up the whole system independently. I don't assert
anything that I haven't independently established for myself, although I will
use some Steiner thought as an hypothetical for purposes of investigating
something that interests me. My main field of interest is the social-political,
which as you (and Michael H. Stephen Talbot etc) well know is very difficult to
apprehend in a rational scientific fashion. Only in Steiner's exposition of
Goethe's Theory of Knowledge, did I find a method of thinking that proved
practically useful for such work.
Perhaps some day you will meet me where I am, and not where you prejudge me
to be.
warm regards,
joel
"Strange Fire: the Death, and the Resurrection, of Modern Civilization"
http://www.tiac.net/users/hermit/stgfr.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1104.6 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: IFGene (Genetic Engineering)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:42:02 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear List,
Although Genetic Engineering (GE) has nothing to do with waldorf, I felt it
best to "advertise" the following post I received from David Heaf. The
international headquarters for IFGene is in the Goetheanum (the home of
anthroposophy). I am sorry that I gave the impression (which I thought to be
true) that IFGene was against GE.
Bruce
Dear Bruce,
(snip)
I will answer any direct correspondence to me about Ifgene or GE. I get
messages from all over the world several times a week asking us for help.
Ifgene is definitely NOT against GE. Please see our web site for our
approach. You might like to post our site details and my contact details to
the list you are on.
Best wishes,
David
Dr David J. Heaf
UK Coordinator
Ifgene - International Forum for Genetic Engineering
Tel 00 44 1766 523181
Fax 00 44 1766 523181 (0900-2200 GMT only)
Address:
Hafan
Cae Llwyd
Llanystumdwy
Cricieth
Gwynedd
LL52 0SG
UK
Ifgene web site: http://www.anth.org/ifgene
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1104.7 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: The parabolic orbit myth (was: Heart as pump (was: Why Anthro
posophy is cult-like))
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:09:07 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Monday, February 15, 1999 9:32 AM, Alan S. Fine MD
[SMTP:asf peakpeak.com] wrote:
) Well put, Michael.
)
) At some point you have to stop telling the
) )whole truth and tell the relevant truth of the particular domain of
) )interest. Sure, tell your students that there is more to it than what
) )you are telling them, but still, you must tell them.
) )
) )
) )--Michael
Sorry to jump in so late, but I've been away.
I'm not sure the Waldorf Critics would find the above philosophy acceptable.
It seems to support the idea that a disclosure statement to prospective
Waldorf parents need not be as detailed as the WC's might like it to be.
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1104.8 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: The parabolic orbit myth (was: Heart as pump (was: Why Anthroposophy is c.
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:25:18 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 22.02.99 18:20:23 MEZ, Robert Tolz wrote:
((
Sorry to jump in so late, but I've been away.
I'm not sure the Waldorf Critics would find the above philosophy acceptable.
It seems to support the idea that a disclosure statement to prospective
Waldorf parents need not be as detailed as the WC's might like it to be.
Bob ))
what teachers tell students and what teachers tell prospective parents need
not be governed by the same laws, and I would hope that the prospective
parents got a better idea of WHY than students.
But as you say, the arguments are all spent!
Bruce
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1104.9 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: marijuana & cannabis: clarification
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:31:28 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199902212212.OAA04819 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902212350.PAA26517 lists1.best.com)
On 22 Feb 99, at 0:50, Tarjei Straume wrote:
) )(There's my paranoia, Flannery, and it's real and not imagined. That, and
) )the possibility that someday I may say something that pushes my former
) )Steiner school's owners and operators -- who have the money to do it --
) )into suing me for defamation. I may be right, and totally, provably
) )truthful, but in this country, the defendant has to prove innocence in
) )defamation cases, unlike the U.S. situation. And there's no First
) )Amendment here. I would be bankrupted by proving my innocence of such an
) )accusation against me.)
)
) You are suggesting that the Waldorf school in question is owned and
) operated by wealthy criminals who may do something unpleasant to you if
) you rub them the wrong way or get too close to their illegal activities.
He's suggesting that he might get sued for defamation. He's not
suggesting that the school might hire thugs to blow off his
kneecaps.
) Allen Ginsberg is no longer with us, but I had the opportunity to meet the
) old legend at the Blindern University on Oslo a few years back, and I
) brought up the issue of marijuana and the war on drugs in America.
) Ginsberg held the opinion that the mafia with vested interests in the
) tobacco and alcohol industry was responsible for the witch hunt against
) pot smokers because they didn't want that kind of competition.
I suspect that organized crime is interested in stamping out
marijuana farming for another reason. Pot farmers are, for the most
part, relatively small, independent operators. Smuggling is more
easily controlled by organized crime, and independent growers cut
into the smuggler's profits.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1104.10 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:26:01 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902082311.PAA12502 lists1.best.com)
(199902101751.JAA19548 lists1.best.com)
(199902160250.SAA16515 lists1.best.com)
(199902181656.IAA03769 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (109667396 toto.iv)
Joel A. Wendt writes:
) Michael Hirsch wrote:
) )
) ) ) I put forward as such a possible statement the following: One is scientific if one
) ) ) postulates truths along with the relevant methodology so that the methodology itself can
) ) ) first be tested, and then applied and the truth replicated. This allows us to expand our
) ) ) methods, while remaining in concert with the fundamental "truth" principle of science,
) ) ) i.e. the ability to replicate.
) )
) ) Here is where we part company. Science does not make progress by
) ) demonstrating truth, but rather by demonstrating lack thereof.
)
) [This is a very interesting statement. Essentially it means that
) science doesn't know anything about the natural world, because any
) established view is always possibly falsifiable. I don't think all
) scientists would agree with that, however.]
Actually, I think they all would. We all hope that there is some
underlying "truth" that we are discovering, but we know that the only
way to do that is by ruling out the false.
I wouldn't say that we don't know anything about the natural world.
For instance, I know apples don't fall up. I know that there are more
elements that Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. The fact is, I don't know
the precise law of gravity for absolute certain nor am I absolutely
certain of the laws of particle physics. But I do know lots of things
that are not true.
It is the aura of absolute truth and certainty that is a dead giveaway
for non-science.
) ) Science progresses by theorizing that a certain model expresses a
) ) certain aspect of reality. Then people "prove" the model by testing
) ) it. "Prove" here is in the sense of "proving grounds" or "testing
) ) grounds", not the mathematical sense. The model makes certain
) ) predictions. If these predictions fail then the model is disproven.
) ) If the predictions are correct then the theory is now in probationary
) ) status.
) )
) ) If the model passes the first test, researchers then design further,
) ) more difficult tests. A theory never really leaves probationary
) ) status, though occasionally some theories become so ingrained we call
) ) them laws, but that doesn't mean we stop testing them. We are still
) ) testing Einstein's theories and "laws" such as conservation of energy
) ) all the time.
)
) [This is of course true. The kicker is that this position about what
) science does and does not do is only taken when it is useful (by many
) scientiists). It terms of what our culture, in general, believes true
) about what science does and what it says, this view is false.
) Ordinary people do not understand this subtle distinction. They
) believe the scientist is telling them what reality is; and many many
) scientists behave as if that was in fact what they were doing.
My point exactly. Scientists know that this is what they do, even
though some lay people may be confused on the issue. So when some
non-science comes along calling itself a science, the scientists are
not fooled but many lay people are. It is pure deception on the part
of the practitioners of this non-science.
Science has been so successful that lay people believe scientists know
the "truth". No wonder non-science practitioners want people to
believe that they do science--it gives them a false aura of knowing
"truth".
) Now
) this would not be as bad a problem as it is, were it not for the fact
) of the reductionist tendency. Let me examine this closely. A human
) being has a number of kinds of experience, including various kinds of
) sense experience and various kinds of inner experiences. The science
) you are describing abstracts from this rich experience only a very
) small part, which is then disected and analysised in great detail.
) The laws which are discovered (which you say are tentatve) are then
) combined and recombined in to very general pictures about the nature
) of reality, and about the meaning and relationship of the human being
) to both earthly and cosmic nature. Regardless of you "tentativeness",
) on the basis of this very partial understanding of reality, human
) beings are taught that they are animals and live on a obscure planet
) in an uncaring cosmos.
True, except for the "obscure" and "uncaring" part. We are animals
and we live on a planet in the cosmos. Which part do you disagree
with?
) Scientism is real, and much more damaging the Steinerism.
I am not arguing with that, right now. But if science is so bad why
are you pretending that your spiritualism is scientific? Clearly, you
see some value in being "scientific" spiritualism. Why do you want to
tar yourself and your methods with the brush of science?
) The antidote is to stop playing the objectivity game and
) for scientists to stop retreating into the point of view of their work
) that it is value neutral. If this continues, the coming revolution in
) biology will be ultimately devistating for all the good it does
) accidentally.
Yes, we need to educate our scientists (and society as a whole) in
ethics, but that is different from claiming that I can put ethics on a
scientific basis.
) ) To be science you need to give me a way to show that it isn't true.
) ) If there is no way for me to (potentially) disprove your statement,
) ) then it isn't science and your belief is not scientifically based. It
) ) might be true, but it isn't scientifically testable, and hence does
) ) not deserve the name "science".
)
) [Let me see if I understand you. Something can be true, but not be
) "scientifically" true.
Yup. Maybe there is a God (or gods). But it is impossible to
disprove the sentence "There is a God," hence that is not a scientific
truth. But it may be true.
) To me this is a distinction without a
) difference.
Which is what I've been saying: You are not a scientist and your
"scientific spiritualism" is not scientific.
) It would be interesting if "science" were to purge itself
) of all ideas not falsifiable. Most of evolutionary biology and
) cosmology would disappear.
Not at all. Evolutionary biology and cosmology make plenty of
predictions. We can't go do experiments about them, but instead have
to do field work digging up fossils and scanning the skies. But we
very often find our predictions holding true, adding evidence of the
correctness of the theory. If we get very lucky, the predictions
fail and we find something wrong with our theories.
) Probably most of relativity and quantum
) mechanics, at least in the sense that scientists speak of their
) "implications".
I'm confused. These are two of the most tested physical theories and
have had their predictions verified time and again. Physicists know
very well the limits of these theories. Any non-scientific parts are
not called theorems or facts. I'm referring here things like to the
"Copenhagen interpretations" and the "many worlds hypothesis". As you
can tell from their names, scientists know that these are not
scientifically testable.
What implications are you talking about that are not scientific?
) Inspite of your assertions, which are credible and true within narrow
) confines, scientists do not view their work in such a limited way.
) They are searching for reality, for the truth, and this objective
) lives in every act they do, as the motivating focus. They are trying
) to describe the real world.]
Sure, we are all trying to describe the real world. What makes it a
science is the methodology, not the content. I'm not opposed to a
science of spiritualism, I just don't see how to do it. By all means,
study reality. If you find a way to do it that is falsifiable, then
call it a science. Otherwise it is not a science and by calling it
such you are lying to yourself and to others.
) ) As you can see, it is not necessary for me to read anything Steiner
) ) wrote to discuss this. I am prepared to admit he may be right about
) ) everything he says, but I am denied the opportunity to test his
) ) theories. This is what makes it a matter of religion and faith to
) ) me. "If you do this you will agree" is not a scientific answer to a
) ) request for knowledge, no matter how heartfelt.
)
) [How is it different from the replication of an experiment? My
) brother is a microbiologist. He worked for years with e-coli and
) published many articles. He is now retired, but likes to review the
) literature and is greatly pleased to find his work cited, but most
) especially when it is reproduced and confirmed.
Sure, it's a great feeling when it is reproduced. That means your lab
procedure was good. (If you were totally sure of your work it would
not be so nice to see it reproduced, and a good scientist is very
totally sure.) But it doesn't prove your theories are right. If your
theory makes a prediction and that prediction is verified, this only
proves that the correct theory will predict that behavior. But there
are always multiple theories that will predict any given behavior and
the experiment does not distinguish between them.
Testing many different predictions can serve to rule out many
theories, but there are always two theories to explain all the
results. Often we only find one of them palatable, so we assume that
one is correct. Of course, there maybe others that we never even
thought of.
) The study of
) Steiner's epistomological works involves exactly the same thing. Part
) of the problem is that people get so involved with Steiner's lectures
) and arguing the truth of this or that statement. The clearest
) thinkers I know in anthroposophy all treat that material as
) hypothesis, just like any scientist. To the extent they can they test
) it.
Then why do you get so upset when someone asks "suppose I test it and
find it lacking?" A true scientists says "If you can describe a
reproducible experiment contradiction my theory then I will reject my
theory." You complain about hypothetical cases. A real scientists
has no trouble with hypothetical cases.
) If it can be applied, they watch the results of its application.
) The major difference is that anthroposophy moves beyond the
) quantitative into the qualitative and the moral and this is unknown
) territory for mainstream scientists. Worse, it is not accepted by
) their peers. But neither of these facts, the unknowness or the lack
) of acceptibility has anything to do with whether or not the
) fundamental impulse of science can be extended into these realms.
) People need to stop finding excuses, and take seriously Steiner's
) Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World Conception and his
) Philosophy of Freedom. Mathmatics is called the Queen of the
) Sciences. Which is the King? Physics? No, Philosophy is King. Honor
) the King. Discover for yourself the door past Kant.]
What I don't seem to be able to explain to you is that I have no
problem with you applying science to philosophy, morals, ethics, and
the spirit world. I think it would really neat if you did that.
My problem is that you are not applying science to those problems but
you claim you are. You are doing something else but calling it
science. This is wrong. It is an attempt to validate your methods by
using the name of a well respected field. Its like Wheaties using
Michael Jordan's face on its box. Eating Wheaties won't make you play
like MJ. Similarly, calling your spiritualism "scientific" doesn't
make it science, but it might fool some impressionable youths.
(There's a Latin or Greek name for this rhetorical trick, but it
escapes me at the moment.)
This all stemmed from you claim that that Waldorf Ed. was based on a
'valid scientific understanding" of human nature. Science is a
process, and when your process of understanding human nature is
examined it is not at all scientific. That is the only point I'm
trying to make here. It may be a valid understanding, but it is not
scientific and calling scientific does not add to your credibility
among people who know what the word means.
--Michael
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1104 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1105 --------------
001 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: marijuana & cannabis: clarification
002 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
003 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: gurus
004 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
005 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: gurus
006 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: mountain ranges making a cross
007 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
008 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Sillyness of Factionalism (FYI)
009 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: mountain ranges making a cross
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1105.1 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: marijuana & cannabis: clarification
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:35:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902212350.PAA26517 lists1.best.com)
(199902212212.OAA04819 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902221733.JAA27381 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote:
)He's suggesting that he might get sued for defamation. He's not
)suggesting that the school might hire thugs to blow off his
)kneecaps.
Well, with wealthy and well-connected organized criminals whose philosophy
of evolution is taken from Alfred Rosenberg you never know. They may even
have secret torture chambers in their basements.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1105.2 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 21:06:56 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199902212254.OAA05815 lists1.best.com)
Commenting on Alan S. Fine:
) )I relate naturally to people's spirituality, when used for meditation,
) ))consolation, contemplation of the beauty of nature,inspiration to do good
) ))deeds, and thevlike. Those things I respect and admire. Where I have
) )trouble )is with those people who take spirituality a step further, beyond
) )personal inspiration, into the realm of thinking they know God, and know
) the TRUTH.
Tarjei, you write:
) You are supporting Immanuel Kant and his dualism, which has been shared by
) most branches of inquiry for a couple of centuries. You are saying that
) it's ok to hold a spiritual view of life and the universe as long as you
) don't treat it as reality. Treat it as a dream, as a wish, as unreality.
) Don't rock the boat by interpreting natural-scientific phenomena as
) external expressions of a divine-spiritual natural order. Because that
) gives you trouble.
You may be right about Kant.
Yet, I¥m wondering if there is not also another shade in what Alan
writes. My feeling, partly supported by reading and maybe knowledge, is
that there are different forms of Christianity and spirituality.
One is reflected in one of the parables of the New Testament, that I
don¥t find at the moment. In the parable, one of two persons is saying
that he will do what his master tells hem, but then does not. Another
says he won¥t, but does anyway. Who is then the one obeying his masters
wish? Not the one who says he will, but the one who does.
Somehow, I came to think of it when reading your excange with Steve on
the meaning of "Christian" in relation to Judaism, Christianity,
Buddhism, the Baha'i Faith and Secular Humanism a few days ago.
Another form is the Christianity or spirituality of the heart, more
maybe cultivated by the more Platonic/Franciscan tradition, pointing to
how knowing and expressing what is in the heart is something else than
knowing and expressing what is in the head, the third form of
Christianity or spirituality more developed by the
Aristotelean/Dominican/scholastic tradition.
I have not read up on it, but know that Aristotle was accused of having
mistakenly put forth the opinion that the heart was the center of the
nervous system, something also Steiner comments on somewhere. Somehow, I
suspect it has to do with this discussion through the centuries of the
heart as a "sense organ"/organ of knowledge, even if not in the sense
"center of the nervous system".
_Something_ of Thomas Aquinas, really analyzing and dissecting
Christianity down to the tiniest detail, I think still lives on in
anthroposophy, with its effort to unite the Platonic and the
Aristotelean traditions.
In spite of all the efforts by Steiner, one can understand those who
think that it in different connections leans more to the "head" than the
"heart" side, in a way that I feel is the other shade of what Alan
expresses in his view of anthroposophy as something that stands out as
if really gives you KNOWLEDGE about the spiritual world in a way that
does not completely does justice to what your heart tells you.
In my experience, what Alan points to is an issue that also a number of
deeply Christian oriented persons with a strong interest in
anthroposophy have felt unable to solve and therefore have withdrawn
from anthroposophy.
I don¥t disagree with you, Tarjei. Yet, I think the monist/dualist issue
you bring up not is an easily solvable one, and one that extends beyond
the limits of the either/or logic of Aristotle.
Regards,
Sune
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.n1105.3 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: gurus
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 21:39:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To me it is in the relationship that the danger lies. The guru-follower
relationship is a regression to a parent child bond, that leaves followers
in a position of losing their autonomy, and forming belief systems,
attitudes, even personalities to match the guru's expectations. The guru,
in turn may be enticed and inspired by this power, and stimulated into
beliefs ever more farfetched, and expectations ever higher and more global.
This is powerful phenomenon, a natural and instinctive phenomenon, but
nonetheless a dangerous one. One of the dangers (although by no means the
only one) is if the guru begins to preach something destructive. Steiner
is deceased, and no longer poses this threat. But if he were alive today I
would consider your movement extremely dangerous. What if Steiner began to
lose his senses? What if he were to begin to preach violence? or suicide?
Tell me at that point you would break from him. And even if you would there
would be many who would not. The danger is not always in the content of
what the guru teaches, but in the psychological process of cultism itself.
Patients coming to see me have brought notebooks to record my words,
showered me with gifts, named children after me, even prayed to me. It is
very seductive to be put in that position, and at first I played the role
well, resulting in psychological regression in the patients. I have spent
years overcoming those powerful forces within, stepping down from the guru
place, and learning how to posture myself in a manner which places me on an
even level with my patients and encouraging true autonomy. I have found
the way to not be a guru, but I have sympathy for those, like Steiner, who
could not resist that temptation.
) There is nothing
)wrong with calling Steiner a guru, or a prophet for that matter, but why
)the scorn, ridicule, and hostility?
)Now, I would like you to close your eyes and meditate about what it might
)be like to be a guru. What would you teach? )
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1105.4 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:26:16 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902212254.OAA05815 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902222017.MAA17775 lists1.best.com)
Sune wrote:
)In spite of all the efforts by Steiner, one can understand those who
)think that it in different connections leans more to the "head" than the
)"heart" side, in a way that I feel is the other shade of what Alan
)expresses in his view of anthroposophy as something that stands out as
)if really gives you KNOWLEDGE about the spiritual world in a way that
)does not completely does justice to what your heart tells you.
)
)In my experience, what Alan points to is an issue that also a number of
)deeply Christian oriented persons with a strong interest in
)anthroposophy have felt unable to solve and therefore have withdrawn
)from anthroposophy.
I appreciate that, but Alan is not simply saying that anthroposophy may be
right for some people but not for him. He is saying that we are dangerous,
to be feared and loathed, and he says that history shows examples of what
terrible catasprophes we may cause by thinking the way we do. He compares
us to religious fundamentalists, Christian and Jewish, not recognizing that
these are the results of "Old Age" faiths rooted in the ethos of the Old
Testament that condones aggression and violence.
For this reason, I would like to approach Alan's objection to anthroposophy
from a different angle. Alan is not objecting to accepting anthroposophy in
his own philosophy, because nobody is asking him to do that. He is
objecting to other people accepting the works of Rudolf Steiner, which is
something he and his fellow critics want to do everything in their power to
prevent.
This is why I am going back to basics here, to anthroposophy, or religious
pseudo-science, as a human rights issue. There are many people who manage
to entertain religious beliefs that do not concur with the dictates of
natural science. (The Christian faith is a special challenge here, because
it includes the Immaculate Conception of the virgin Mary, and the physical
resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ.) There are other people in this
world, however, who have a longing for Christianity but who cannot
compromise intellectual honesty by accepting dogma that contradict
natural-scientific logic. I happen to belong to this category.
Rudolf Steiner saw it as a major task to help such people. When he was once
asked by some Roman Catholic clergymen who had attended his lectures, why
he did not join the church, he replied: "I speak to those who stand outside
the church. They also have the right to be led to Christ."
Here is the central reason why I take slander, ridicule, and scorn against
anthroposophy very personal. I would not have found it possible to be a
Christian unless Rudolf Steiner had succeeded in explaining the Gospel in
such a way that I could comprehend it with my logical, scientifically
oriented intellect. You may call it my "pseudo-scientifically oriented
intellect" if you like; that is not the point. The point is that the
premises for my Christianity are disrespected when I am accused of adhering
to the philosophy of Nazi war criminal Alfred Rosenberg, and when I am told
that my understanding of the New Testament is something dangerous,
despicable, and loathsome. In addition to this, I'm being told that I'm a
brainwashed nitwit incapable of critical thinking. And to top it all off,
to these juicy invectives is added the charge that I am a religious
supremacist and a racist supremacist. I am beginning to wonder who is
playing superemacists here.
The critics may defend their scientific orthodoxy tooth and nail for all I
care, and they may demand that their own children are educated - or
indoctrinated - to hold the same opinons about science. They also have the
perfect right to freedom from religion. Nevertheless, anthroposophically
oriented Christianity does not deserve slander, scorn, and hostility,
because it does not seek to proselytize anyone. And even if it did, it
deserves the same respect as other Christian denominations. For many
people, anthroposophy is a path to Christ.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1105.5 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: gurus
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:58:43 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199902231542.HAA13228 lists1.best.com)
Alan S. Fine wrote:
)To me it is in the relationship that the danger lies. The guru-follower
)relationship is a regression to a parent child bond, that leaves followers
)in a position of losing their autonomy, and forming belief systems,
)attitudes, even personalities to match the guru's expectations. The guru,
)in turn may be enticed and inspired by this power, and stimulated into
)beliefs ever more farfetched, and expectations ever higher and more global.
The purpose of the guru is to teach the neophyte to stand on his own two
feet and make his own decisions.
)
)This is powerful phenomenon, a natural and instinctive phenomenon, but
)nonetheless a dangerous one. One of the dangers (although by no means the
)only one) is if the guru begins to preach something destructive. Steiner
)is deceased, and no longer poses this threat. But if he were alive today I
)would consider your movement extremely dangerous. What if Steiner began to
)lose his senses? What if he were to begin to preach violence? or suicide?
)Tell me at that point you would break from him. And even if you would there
)would be many who would not. The danger is not always in the content of
)what the guru teaches, but in the psychological process of cultism itself.
In the case of Steiner, this is pure hypothetical speculation. Steiner
never advised anyone what to do. He never initiated any activity or
behavior, but simply responded to requests. He was a lecturer, not a
preacher. For instance, the reason why he said so much about the Bible and
the Gospel in particular, was that this was the subject his listeners were
most curious about.
)
)Patients coming to see me have brought notebooks to record my words,
)showered me with gifts, named children after me, even prayed to me. It is
)very seductive to be put in that position, and at first I played the role
)well, resulting in psychological regression in the patients. I have spent
)years overcoming those powerful forces within, stepping down from the guru
)place, and learning how to posture myself in a manner which places me on an
)even level with my patients and encouraging true autonomy. I have found
)the way to not be a guru, but I have sympathy for those, like Steiner, who
)could not resist that temptation.
The legacy from his contemporaries testify that Steiner resisted that
temptation very well.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1105.6 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: mountain ranges making a cross
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 01:14:35 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199902221208.EAA00731 lists1.best.com)
)In einer eMail vom 22.02.99 10:21:06 MEZ, schreiben Sie:
)
)((
) I know I've seen it, but can't find the citation where Steiner talks about
) the mountain ranges of the world forming a great cross. Can anybody point
) me to it?
) ))
)
)In Stockmeyer he refers to the syllabus for Geography in certain classes,
)mentioning the cross (my Stockmeyer is in German)
)
)Bruce
Thanks, Bruce. Found this (p. 84):
STEINER
"As you talk about the Alps, you can introduce the fact that in the
structure of the earth there is really a kind of cross to which the
external mountain formations point. Continue the Alps through the Pyrenees,
then through the Carpathians, go over to the wooded mountains as far as the
Altai, and in this way you have an extended east-west chain of mountains
which, continuing subterraneously, encloses the earth like a ring, which is
crossed perpendicularly by the Andes-Cordillera course which forms another
ring. You can very beautifully make clear to children how two cruciform
rings, on on another, give the structure of the earth. You get a picture of
the earth as a body with an inner organisation." [22.9.20]
There aren't any rings like that. He's making up "science".
Stockmeyer comments:
"Here Steiner gave Class 9 the same theme (mountain cross of the earth)
which he had given to Class 8 on September 23rd 1919, at that time linking
it to Atlantis and the ice ages as well as to the rising and submerging of
continents..."
About Atlantis, in the quotes for Class 8 Geography:
STEINER
"Let us start from the concept of rhythm. We can show that the British
Isles have ascended and descended four times. Then we come back to the
concept of old Atlantis by way of Geology...we must not shrink from
speaking to the children about the land of Atlantis. We must not pass this
by. We can establish a link also in connection with history. Only you will
have then to discard the usual geology. For the Atlantic catastrophe must
be placed in the 7th to 8th millenium." [25.9.19]
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1105.7 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 09:42:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199902222017.MAA17775 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902231628.IAA03551 lists1.best.com)
On 23 Feb 99, at 17:26, Tarjei Straume wrote:
) I appreciate that, but Alan is not simply saying that anthroposophy may be
) right for some people but not for him. He is saying that we are dangerous,
) to be feared and loathed, and he says that history shows examples of what
) terrible catasprophes we may cause by thinking the way we do.
That's funny; I don't recall him saying that. Could you provide an
exact quote of Alan's comments? I suspect that your summary is
not entirely accurate.
) He is objecting to other people accepting the works of Rudolf
) Steiner, which is something he and his fellow critics want to do
) everything in their power to prevent.
Assuming that Alan has stated such an objection, what is the
basis for your belief that other critics want to prevent people from
becoming anthroposophists? Waldorf critics, like
anthroposophists, are a diverse group of people.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1105.8 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Sillyness of Factionalism (FYI)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:28:03 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Schools Sued on Religious Grounds
By JIM FITZGERALD Associated Press Writer
WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (AP) -- Three Roman
Catholic families are suing a school
district, claiming fourth-grade vocabulary
words such as ``ghoul,'' Earth Day celebrations
and drug counseling violate their religious
and privacy rights.
The families also object to the study of a
Hindu god, a field trip to a cemetery and a card
game with satanic references.
``There are two standards,'' said James
Bendell, the families' attorney. ``Any trace of
Christianity must be banished, but teachers
are free to smuggle in Eastern religions and any
other forms (of belief).''
Bendell made the remarks during opening
statements Monday in the federal court trial.
Satanism, occultism and New Age religions
were being fostered, he said.
The card game ``Magic: The Gathering,'' is
worse than witchcraft, testified one of the
plaintiffs, Mary Ann DiBari.
Her two granddaughters and four teen-age
brothers from another family testified how they
were offended as Catholics by an assembly
with a yoga teacher and a visit from a
mineralogist who talked about crystals.
``It's not my religion, and I don't
participate in deep-breathing exercises,'' said John
DiNozzi, 17, referring to the yoga session.
Krystal DiBari, 15, said that when she was in
fourth grade, a woman leading a field trip to
a cemetery asked one of the children to lie
down on a grave ``to see the size of the
people. ... I didn't like it.''
On cross-examination, school district lawyer
Warren Richmond got some of the children
to acknowledge that they had been able to opt
out of some of the classes and their
teachers, while educating them about certain
cultural beliefs, did not express approval of
those beliefs.
Judge Charles Brieant, who had tried to get
school authorities to settle the case,
repeatedly expressed irritation with the
lawyers. He sarcastically said, ``That's shocking,
isn't it?'' when John DiNozzi talked about
the presence of senior citizens at Earth Day
celebrations.
In his opening, the school district lawyer
said the plaintiffs had mischaracterized and wildly
misrepresented the programs.
He said the study of Indian and Mexican
culture, the celebration of Earth Day and the
distribution of tiny dolls -- all objected to
in the lawsuit -- do not amount to the
endorsement of religion and are standard
educational fare replicated throughout the United
States.
The suit stems from the popularity of the
card game, which divided Bedford in the
mid-1990s. Children had been buying the cards
in packs at candy stores and playing a
strategy game, sometimes in clubs at school.
Some of the cards are lurid depictions of
demons and one shows a woman about to be
sacrificed.
When some parents objected, the school
district put a moratorium on the game but it was
later rescinded.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1105.9 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: mountain ranges making a cross
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:18:35 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902220902.BAA26535 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902221300.FAA22874 lists1.best.com)
Thanks, Sune.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1105 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1106 --------------
001 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
002 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
003 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
004 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
005 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
006 - toner (toner mbox.vol.cz) - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
007 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
008 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
009 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1106.1 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 20:15:01 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902231628.IAA03551 lists1.best.com)
(199902222017.MAA17775 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902231744.JAA15381 lists1.best.com)
I wrote:
)
)) I appreciate that, but Alan is not simply saying that anthroposophy may be
)) right for some people but not for him. He is saying that we are dangerous,
)) to be feared and loathed, and he says that history shows examples of what
)) terrible catasprophes we may cause by thinking the way we do.
Steve Premo wrote:
)
)That's funny; I don't recall him saying that. Could you provide an
)exact quote of Alan's comments? I suspect that your summary is
)not entirely accurate.
My summary may be incomplete, but here is Alan's text (from a previous post
in this thread):
"Where I have trouble is with those people who take spirituality a step
further, beyond personal inspiration, into the realm of thinking they know
God, and know the TRUTH. As my mother would say when we kids started to
quarrel, here is where the bloodshed starts. When they think they know the
TRUTH about God, they place their spiritual views in a higher (more
truthful, more complete, whatever
word you want to use) plane than the next person's spiritual system- a
phenomenon which history has proven is all too easy to act upon with
horrific results. When they think they know the TRUTH, they begin to blur
the material reality we all share with their spiritual beliefs. The
fundamentalist Christians want to teach creationism in the schools because
it is written in the Old Testament which to them is the literal TRUTH. The
Jewish extremists, will build houses on other peoples land because they
believe that God promised that land to them and that is the TRUTH. The
Anthroposophist will deny the student the essential backround of
hemodynamics because hemodynamics is not the TRUTH. Well if you want the
truth, let me tell you my version. God is not man from Nazareth, or a boy
from India. God is not the author of books, and not a real estate agent.
God is not the impulse of racial development, and certainly not a
cardiologist. God is God. Going beyond that is divisive, disrespectful,
and dangerous. The ghost you describe is a direct result of the
Anthroposophists claim to know God, and it will haunt you until you adopt a
more enlightened and humane posture."
In other words, anthroposophy is dangerous. If we add to this Dan Dugan's
view of anthroposophy as a Nazi ideology, we get a clear picture of what
kind of smear campaign is being collaborated here.
)
)) He is objecting to other people accepting the works of Rudolf
)) Steiner, which is something he and his fellow critics want to do
)) everything in their power to prevent.
)
)Assuming that Alan has stated such an objection, what is the
)basis for your belief that other critics want to prevent people from
)becoming anthroposophists? Waldorf critics, like
)anthroposophists, are a diverse group of people.
What the hardcore critics of anthroposophy are concerned, they may be
diverse in many respects, but they share the view that anthroposophy is
dangerous, dishonorable, conniving, sneaky, harmful, abusive, unhealthy,
unintelligent, and Nazi-inspired. Something to be feared and loathed and
warned and protected against.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1106.2 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 12:04:16 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199902231744.JAA15381 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902231916.LAA22679 lists1.best.com)
Tarjei quoted Alan as saying:
) "Where I have trouble is with those people who take spirituality a step
) further, beyond personal inspiration, into the realm of thinking they know
) God, and know the TRUTH. As my mother would say when we kids started to
) quarrel, here is where the bloodshed starts. When they think they know
) the TRUTH about God, they place their spiritual views in a higher (more
) truthful, more complete, whatever word you want to use) plane than the
) next person's spiritual system- a phenomenon which history has proven is
) all too easy to act upon with horrific results. When they think they know
) the TRUTH, they begin to blur the material reality we all share with their
) spiritual beliefs. The fundamentalist Christians want to teach
) creationism in the schools because it is written in the Old Testament
) which to them is the literal TRUTH. The Jewish extremists, will build
) houses on other peoples land because they believe that God promised that
) land to them and that is the TRUTH. The Anthroposophist will deny the
) student the essential backround of hemodynamics because hemodynamics is
) not the TRUTH. Well if you want the truth, let me tell you my version.
) God is not man from Nazareth, or a boy from India. God is not the author
) of books, and not a real estate agent. God is not the impulse of racial
) development, and certainly not a cardiologist. God is God. Going beyond
) that is divisive, disrespectful, and dangerous. The ghost you describe
) is a direct result of the Anthroposophists claim to know God, and it will
) haunt you until you adopt a more enlightened and humane posture."
)From this, Tarjei made the following statement:
) Alan is not simply saying that anthroposophy may
) be right for some people but not for him. He is saying that we are
) dangerous, to be feared and loathed, and he says that history shows
) examples of what terrible catasprophes we may cause by thinking the way
) we do.
He's saying that Anthroposophists think they know the truth about spiritual
matters, and that everyone else is wrong. He's also saying that those who think
this way sometimes blur the distinction between spiritual beliefs and knowledge of
the material world. I agree with him that anthroposophists tend to do the latter,
and that many anthroposophists are guilty of thinking that they know the "truth"
better than the rest of us, not only about the spiritual realm, but about the
material world as well.
Alan also points out that this kind of thinking has led to wars. I agree that this
kind of thinking has led to wars, but I also agree with Tarjei that it does not
necessarily lead to war. That depends on the belief system involved, and I don't
see Anthroposophy as posing a threat in this regard.
I think Tarjei is exagerating one aspect of Alan's statement and ignoring the rest.
Alan does not say that anthroposophy is dangerous, or that anthroposophists are
to be feared and loathed. Indeed, it is the fear and loathing of those following
other spiritual paths that causes the horrific problems to which Alan refers, and I
suspect that he would agree.
Tarjei continues:
) In other words, anthroposophy is dangerous. If we add to this Dan Dugan's
) view of anthroposophy as a Nazi ideology, we get a clear picture of what
) kind of smear campaign is being collaborated here.
Tarjei, you're starting to sound paranoid. I've been on this list for a couple of
years, and I've seen no evidence of a grand conspiracy to smear anthroposophy.
The fact that various critics agree on some key points (and disagree on others,
such as that Nazi nonsense) does not mean that they are collaborating. I
certainly see no evidence that Dugan and Alan are collaborating on some
campaign.
) What the hardcore critics of anthroposophy are concerned, they may be
) diverse in many respects, but they share the view that anthroposophy is
) dangerous, dishonorable, conniving, sneaky, harmful, abusive, unhealthy,
) unintelligent, and Nazi-inspired. Something to be feared and loathed and
) warned and protected against.
As I said....
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1106.3 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:21:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902231916.LAA22679 lists1.best.com)
(199902231744.JAA15381 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902232014.MAA03607 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote (about Alan's post):
)He's saying that Anthroposophists think they know the truth about spiritual
)matters, and that everyone else is wrong. He's also saying that those who
))think this way sometimes blur the distinction between spiritual beliefs
)and )knowledge of the material world. I agree with him that
)anthroposophists tend )to do the latter, and that many anthroposophists
)are guilty of thinking that )they know the "truth" better than the rest of
)us, not only about the spiritual )realm, but about the material world as
)well.
)
)Alan also points out that this kind of thinking has led to wars. I agree
)that )this kind of thinking has led to wars, but I also agree with Tarjei
)that it )does not necessarily lead to war. That depends on the belief
)system involved, )and I don't see Anthroposophy as posing a threat in this
)regard.
)
)I think Tarjei is exagerating one aspect of Alan's statement and ignoring
)the )rest.
I did not ignore the other aspects of Alan's post, but I skipped it to
focus on what I saw as the essential part. There are certainly many other
tangents to get off on here - one of them being that if "this kind of
thinking" (that has led to wars), refers to anthroposophy, then
anthroposophy is simply not understood at all, because *anthroposophical
thinking* did not really exist before it was developed by Rudolf Steiner;
it has been evolving for one hundred years only. And the wars of the
twentieth century were certainly not initiated by anthroposophical
thinking.
)Alan does not say that anthroposophy is dangerous, or that
)anthroposophists are
)to be feared and loathed.
He is saying that anthroposophy is based upon a kind of thinking that is
dangerous and that has caused catastrophes. This is an erroneous statement
based upon ignorance of anthroposophical thinking.
)Indeed, it is the fear and loathing of those following other spiritual
)paths )that causes the horrific problems to which Alan refers, and I
)suspect that he )would agree.
He was implying very clearly anthroposophy belongs to what that what you
call those "other" spiritual paths; that going beyond faith onto knowledge
in spiritual matters easily leads to fanaticism and war.
)
)Tarjei continues:
)
)) In other words, anthroposophy is dangerous. If we add to this Dan Dugan's
)) view of anthroposophy as a Nazi ideology, we get a clear picture of what
)) kind of smear campaign is being collaborated here.
)
)Tarjei, you're starting to sound paranoid. I've been on this list for a
)couple )of years, and I've seen no evidence of a grand conspiracy to smear
))anthroposophy. The fact that various critics agree on some key points
)(and )disagree on others, such as that Nazi nonsense) does not mean that
)they are )collaborating. I certainly see no evidence that Dugan and Alan
)are )collaborating on some campaign.
First of all, bein' paranoid don't mean they ain't out to getcha - in this
case, warning parents against the dangers of Waldorf education, calling for
the licences of anthroposophical doctors to be revoked, etc. Secondly, I
did not intend to imply that there was a conscious, deliberate off-list
cooperation among hardcore critics to create a smear campaign. Dan Dugan
has constructed the main body, and the others are hammering in the nails
and painting it. But it is a smear campaign, because even if you think the
Nazi thing is nonsense, this lie is yet being spread among people who
swallow such disinformation.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1106.4 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 22:36:06 +1300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902232014.MAA03607 lists1.best.com)
(199902231916.LAA22679 lists1.best.com)
(199902231744.JAA15381 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902240722.XAA16994 lists1.best.com)
Tarjei Straume writes:
{quoting Steve PREMO:]
))Tarjei, you're starting to sound paranoid. I've been on this list for a
))couple )of years, and I've seen no evidence of a grand conspiracy to smear
)))anthroposophy. The fact that various critics agree on some key points
))(and )disagree on others, such as that Nazi nonsense) does not mean that
))they are )collaborating. I certainly see no evidence that Dugan and Alan
))are )collaborating on some campaign.
And STRAUME says:
)First of all, bein' paranoid don't mean they ain't out to getcha - in this
)case, warning parents against the dangers of Waldorf education, calling for
)the licences of anthroposophical doctors to be revoked, etc. Secondly, I
)did not intend to imply that there was a conscious, deliberate off-list
)cooperation among hardcore critics to create a smear campaign. Dan Dugan
)has constructed the main body, and the others are hammering in the nails
)and painting it. But it is a smear campaign, because even if you think the
)Nazi thing is nonsense, this lie is yet being spread among people who
)swallow such disinformation.
Michael KOPP says:
Well, now, you're stepping on my toes, Mr Straume.
As a vocal critic of Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical affairs, I take it
you are including me in your broad-brush condemnation of all critics.
Methinks you do exactly what you claim others are doing to SWA.
I don't have anything to do with PLANS. I don't correspond much off-list
with Dan Dugan or any other of the PLANS group -- certainly no more than I
correspond off-list with defenders of the faith [TM], including yourself.
I am a journalist by profession. When I write facts, I label them as facts.
When I write opinion, I label it as opinion.
Everything I have written about my experience with and knowledge of a
Steiner school is factual. It has to be, or I would be open to suit for
defamation in this country. The fact that I have not named my former school
is thin protection, as many people are aware what school my children
attended.
Every opinion I have voiced about SWA is for the purpose of exposing to the
light of day aspects of SWA which I believe its adherents and practitioners
want to keep from prospective customers. The fact is that no school of
which I am aware has a disclosure document that comes within cooey (Kiwi
slang = a very long distance) of what I believe, and have stated,
prospective consumers should be told.
I take very strong exception to being included in your calumnious insult
that critics are engaged in a deliberate smear campaign. I am not engaged
in any smear campaign; I am not (yet, anyway) engaged in any kind of
campaign. I'm just a long-time, determined participant in a critical
discussion.
I have on occasion (you should read the archives) said that there are
aspects of my children's time in a Steiner school which I found beneficial.
I have on occasion (you should read the archives) said that I think that
there are some interesting ideas and possibilities for educating children
in Steiner's oeuvre.
I have also said that I think there are harmful practices of SWA schools
based on Steiner's pedagogy, and that I do not believe that the overall
education is superior or valuable for my children -- or other people's
children -- just to obtain the few good things.
Now, how is any of what I do a "smear campaign"?
I just want people to know more about SWA than its adherents, defenders,
apologists and practitioners seem to want people to know.
If I mistake your intent to include me in your broad brush insult, please
accept my sincere apologies for having misconstrued your view of me.
If I am not mistaken, and you do include me in your insult, I will accept
your apology and clearly stated assurances, published on this list, that
you do not think I am intent on "smearing" SWA, or that I am part of any
cabal with such an intent.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1106.5 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 12:23:58 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902240722.XAA16994 lists1.best.com)
(199902232014.MAA03607 lists1.best.com)
(199902231916.LAA22679 lists1.best.com)
(199902231744.JAA15381 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902241008.CAA24334 lists1.best.com)
I wrote:
))First of all, bein' paranoid don't mean they ain't out to getcha - in this
))case, warning parents against the dangers of Waldorf education, calling for
))the licences of anthroposophical doctors to be revoked, etc. Secondly, I
))did not intend to imply that there was a conscious, deliberate off-list
))cooperation among hardcore critics to create a smear campaign. Dan Dugan
))has constructed the main body, and the others are hammering in the nails
))and painting it. But it is a smear campaign, because even if you think the
))Nazi thing is nonsense, this lie is yet being spread among people who
))swallow such disinformation.
Michael Kopp wrote:
)
)Well, now, you're stepping on my toes, Mr Straume.
)
)As a vocal critic of Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical affairs, I take it
)you are including me in your broad-brush condemnation of all critics.
)Methinks you do exactly what you claim others are doing to SWA.
If you perceive my above statement as a "broad-brush condemnation of all
critics," so be it. But in that case, you need to specify what you mean by
condemnation.
)
)I don't have anything to do with PLANS. I don't correspond much off-list
)with Dan Dugan or any other of the PLANS group -- certainly no more than I
)correspond off-list with defenders of the faith [TM], including yourself.
In my above statement, I made it very clear that I did not imply any
off-list "conspiracy" among critics.
(snip)
)I take very strong exception to being included in your calumnious insult
)that critics are engaged in a deliberate smear campaign. I am not engaged
)in any smear campaign; I am not (yet, anyway) engaged in any kind of
)campaign. I'm just a long-time, determined participant in a critical
)discussion.
Read my post again, included above. It says: "Secondly, I did not intend to
imply that there was a conscious, deliberate off-list cooperation among
hardcore critics to create a smear campaign."
)Now, how is any of what I do a "smear campaign"?
What I call a smear campaign first is the result of the impression given by
the PLANS website, secondly the amplification of this impression by various
posts to the WC list. When someone visits this site who knows nothing or
little else about anthroposophy, then subscribes to the WC list, and reads
certain posts full of invectives, half-truths, and even falsehoods, it is
not improper to call it a smear campaign, though it may be disputable. But
some of your posts have contributed to this.
)
)I just want people to know more about SWA than its adherents, defenders,
)apologists and practitioners seem to want people to know.
)
)If I mistake your intent to include me in your broad brush insult, please
)accept my sincere apologies for having misconstrued your view of me.
I have not made any "broad brush insult."
)
)If I am not mistaken, and you do include me in your insult, I will accept
)your apology and clearly stated assurances, published on this list, that
)you do not think I am intent on "smearing" SWA, or that I am part of any
)cabal with such an intent.
In a post from Thu, 11 Feb, you wrote:
"Tarjei Straume's crocodile tears and false accusations should be seen for
what they are: anti-rational, anti-modern, and anti-U.S demagoguery.
"Most of what Straume says on this list does merit laughing at, as his
little (g)'s invite. But it ain't funny, is it."
If I were you, I wouldn't hurl bricks from a glasshouse by demanding
apologies for insults.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1106.6 ---------------
From: toner (toner mbox.vol.cz)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:37:10 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902240722.XAA16994 lists1.best.com)
(199902232014.MAA03607 lists1.best.com)
(199902231916.LAA22679 lists1.best.com)
(199902231744.JAA15381 lists1.best.com) (199902241124.DAA22096 lists1.best.com)
After researching Waldorf education on the web for only a few weeks I must agree
with Tarjei's point about the impression which perspective Waldorf parents do
recieve. I am quite disturbed. I didn't have any idea that there existed behind
the Waldorf shools anything more than a "educational standards" type of
organization. I would never have guessed that there was a connection to a
"spiritual/religious" group. But I am flabbergasted to hear that generally
accepted scientific theorys, such as light defraction or the purpose of the
heart, are not covered or perhaps distorted.
I attended parachial schools most of my life without being a member of any
organized church. It was never a problem. In Catholic school, tricky points, like
evolution, we taught as "this is the way the church sees it and this is the way
most scientists see it and we will discuss both view in the appropriate
classes.." ie: religion class and biology. (Religion class was optional for
non-Catholics, I might add.) Both views were covered.
If what I've read on the web is half true then I feel quite deceived. I did not
blindly choose Waldorf. I visited the Austin Waldorf school open house with my
wife two years ago and we asked a lot of questions about the course materials. I
had the concern that math and science were not adequately covered, so I asked
more questions. I didn't know about Anthroposophism or it's views, but I did see
a lack of school laboratory equipment.
In the end, after visiting three times and reading a book of interviews with
graduates, and being highly impressed with the gentle environment and the
fantastic arts / crafts / good food / humanistic approach we applied for a place.
After visiting the Dugan site and reading the emails from this list server, it is
clear to me that we will not accept a position in the school and will probably
just find a "good" public school district. It's a pity, the school is 80% perfect
(the approach) 10% reasonable (new age views, when not taken to extremes, are
appealing to me) and 10% completely unacceptable. To live in this world, you must
understand basic science or you will have great difficulties.
It's a pity that the last 10-15% cursed what is otherwise a clearly superior
approach to nurturing and educating our children.
Colin MacDougal
Tarjei
Tarjei Straume wrote:
) I wrote:
)
) ))First of all, bein' paranoid don't mean they ain't out to getcha - in this
) ))case, warning parents against the dangers of Waldorf education, calling for
) ))the licences of anthroposophical doctors to be revoked, etc. Secondly, I
) ))did not intend to imply that there was a conscious, deliberate off-list
) ))cooperation among hardcore critics to create a smear campaign. Dan Dugan
) ))has constructed the main body, and the others are hammering in the nails
) ))and painting it. But it is a smear campaign, because even if you think the
) ))Nazi thing is nonsense, this lie is yet being spread among people who
) ))swallow such disinformation.
)
) Michael Kopp wrote:
) )
) )Well, now, you're stepping on my toes, Mr Straume.
) )
) )As a vocal critic of Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical affairs, I take it
) )you are including me in your broad-brush condemnation of all critics.
) )Methinks you do exactly what you claim others are doing to SWA.
)
) If you perceive my above statement as a "broad-brush condemnation of all
) critics," so be it. But in that case, you need to specify what you mean by
) condemnation.
) )
) )I don't have anything to do with PLANS. I don't correspond much off-list
) )with Dan Dugan or any other of the PLANS group -- certainly no more than I
) )correspond off-list with defenders of the faith [TM], including yourself.
)
) In my above statement, I made it very clear that I did not imply any
) off-list "conspiracy" among critics.
)
) (snip)
)
) )I take very strong exception to being included in your calumnious insult
) )that critics are engaged in a deliberate smear campaign. I am not engaged
) )in any smear campaign; I am not (yet, anyway) engaged in any kind of
) )campaign. I'm just a long-time, determined participant in a critical
) )discussion.
)
) Read my post again, included above. It says: "Secondly, I did not intend to
) imply that there was a conscious, deliberate off-list cooperation among
) hardcore critics to create a smear campaign."
)
) )Now, how is any of what I do a "smear campaign"?
)
) What I call a smear campaign first is the result of the impression given by
) the PLANS website, secondly the amplification of this impression by various
) posts to the WC list. When someone visits this site who knows nothing or
) little else about anthroposophy, then subscribes to the WC list, and reads
) certain posts full of invectives, half-truths, and even falsehoods, it is
) not improper to call it a smear campaign, though it may be disputable. But
) some of your posts have contributed to this.
) )
) )I just want people to know more about SWA than its adherents, defenders,
) )apologists and practitioners seem to want people to know.
) )
) )If I mistake your intent to include me in your broad brush insult, please
) )accept my sincere apologies for having misconstrued your view of me.
)
) I have not made any "broad brush insult."
) )
) )If I am not mistaken, and you do include me in your insult, I will accept
) )your apology and clearly stated assurances, published on this list, that
) )you do not think I am intent on "smearing" SWA, or that I am part of any
) )cabal with such an intent.
)
) In a post from Thu, 11 Feb, you wrote:
)
) "Tarjei Straume's crocodile tears and false accusations should be seen for
) what they are: anti-rational, anti-modern, and anti-U.S demagoguery.
)
) "Most of what Straume says on this list does merit laughing at, as his
) little (g)'s invite. But it ain't funny, is it."
)
) If I were you, I wouldn't hurl bricks from a glasshouse by demanding
) apologies for insults.
)
) Tarjei
)
) http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1106.7 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 15:10:32 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902240722.XAA16994 lists1.best.com)
(199902232014.MAA03607 lists1.best.com)
(199902231916.LAA22679 lists1.best.com)
(199902231744.JAA15381 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902241008.CAA24334 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp wrote:
)I just want people to know more about SWA than its adherents, defenders,
)apologists and practitioners seem to want people to know.
You are telling the subscribers that I do not want people to know certain
things about SWA. Have I expressed any desire to hide factual information
from the public, thus giving you cause to come with a statement like that?
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1106.8 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 16:44:34 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199902240722.XAA16994 lists1.best.com)
(199902232014.MAA03607 lists1.best.com)
(199902231916.LAA22679 lists1.best.com)
(199902231744.JAA15381 lists1.best.com) (199902241124.DAA22096 lists1.best.com) (199902241238.EAA28152 lists1.best.com)
Dear Colin MacDougal,
) ... I am flabbergasted to hear that generally
) accepted scientific theorys, such as light defraction or the purpose of the
) heart, are not covered or perhaps distorted.
Why don¥t you ask the physics and biology teachers at Austin Waldorf
school how they approach the subjects of circulation and light in their
teaching? I¥d be _very_ surprised if they do not cover all of the normal
material on light refraction/reflection and the normal view of the heart
and its role in circulation when treating the subjects in the upper
grades in a rather undramatical way.
The present chairman of the Anthroposophical Society in America (I
think) the physicist Arthur Zajonc in 1993 published: "Catching the
Light: the Entwined Destiny of Light and Mind" (Bantam Books) (ISBN
0195095758) (or at http://199.72.49.25/gcdocs/gc_0195095758.html), a
rather comprehensive description of the enquiry into the nature of light
through history. It gives an understanding, I think, of how the subject
of light is taught at its best in waldorf schools. I think few waldorf
teachers on physics are unaware of it (not because he¥s a chairman of
something, but because it¥s a rather good book on the subject). Zajonc
has contributed in a number of publications. If you use any search
engine and his name, I think you¥ll find a number of them. I found 116
according to http://www.stpt.com.
His book on light is now part of Selected readings on science and art at
for example
http://www-graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs99d-98/bibliography.html or
recommended by HCI at http://www.liquid.org/bibliofrset.html or Science
& Nature / Physics / General Physics at
http://www.stavar.i.se/bookstore/Sci_Phy_General.html. The last page
also gives a link to a review of the book at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0195095758/stavarnetA/002-3975925-2952654.
Maybe Stephen Tonkin or other presently active teachers on the list can
tell you what they know about how the different subjects are approached
in different schools?
Else, http://netletter.com/waldorf/ describes how you can join a waldorf
discussion list for parents and teachers involved in Waldorf schools or
Rudolf Steiner schools. I think they can answer any question you can
have about waldorf schools and waldorf education.
My personal impression is that smaller waldorf schools can have a
difficulty in finding teachers for the subjects of the natural sciences
in the upper grades. And I don¥t know, but think it is somewhat more
normal that they take in rather conventionally educated and thinking non
waldorf teachers than to find more creative or excellent teachers like
Stephen on this list.
It is also not uncommon for pupils to change over from waldorf to
conventional public schools in Sweden, when the waldorf schools don¥t
have upper grades, that is after class 8 or 9.
Regards,
(mr) 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.n1106.9 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:20:10 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902232014.MAA03607 lists1.best.com)
(199902231916.LAA22679 lists1.best.com)
(199902231744.JAA15381 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902240722.XAA16994 lists1.best.com)
Tarjei wrote,
[snip]
)First of all, bein' paranoid don't mean they ain't out to getcha - in this
)case, warning parents against the dangers of Waldorf education, calling for
)the licences of anthroposophical doctors to be revoked, etc. Secondly, I
)did not intend to imply that there was a conscious, deliberate off-list
)cooperation among hardcore critics to create a smear campaign. Dan Dugan
)has constructed the main body, and the others are hammering in the nails
)and painting it. But it is a smear campaign, because even if you think the
)Nazi thing is nonsense, this lie is yet being spread among people who
)swallow such disinformation.
For the record, PLANS has never called Waldorf dangerous. Deceptive,
inadequate, religious, cult-like, racist roots -yes. Dangerous in the sense
that Waldorf proponets are eating babies or anything of the like? Never. I
see it as quite harmless overall. My own hot button is the deception.
Waldorf teachers do not fully inform parents of Anthroposophy's tenets,
therefore parents are denied the ability to make a fully informed choice.
That issue alone is enough to create PLANS. Personally I have done little
research into Steiner's Nazi relationship and I don't plan to explore it
either.
Debra
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1106 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1107 --------------
001 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
002 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
003 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
004 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
005 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
006 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
007 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
008 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - self-correction
009 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
010 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1107.1 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:52:18 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 24.02.99 13:58:09 MEZ, schreiben Sie:
((
After visiting the Dugan site and reading the emails from this list server,
it is
clear to me that we will not accept a position in the school and will
probably
just find a "good" public school district. It's a pity, the school is 80%
perfect
(the approach) 10% reasonable (new age views, when not taken to extremes, are
appealing to me) and 10% completely unacceptable. To live in this world, you
must
understand basic science or you will have great difficulties.
))
Deliberately not stating the poster (cos it is irrelevent):
PLANS is against the introduction of waldorf through the backdoor in public
schools. In a bitter struggle to achieve its ends it attempts to discredit
waldorf education, using often very unrelated topics as arguments (homeopathy,
christianity etc, etc). There are FAR MORE (my opinion) ENTIRELY SATISFIED
waldorf pupils and parents than dissatisfied.
If you are 80% satisfied with waldorf I think that is pretty good - could you
be sure that you are 81% satisfied with the nearest public school?
None of us is perfect, but as waldorf teachers we try to give what we believe
is the best for your children. We are only humans, as are all teachers, and
thus capable of mistakes. No teacher is perfect, no school is perfect.
Before letting PLANS send your children to a state/public school remember
this:
It is your children's education, not yours - one way or the other they will
thank you for your decision later. I know very many adults who wish that they
had attended a waldorf school. No doubt PLANS knows a few waldorf products who
wish they had attended public school.
Bruce Jackson
waldorf teacher in Germany
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1107.2 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 14:52:08 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 23.02.99 20:37:05 MEZ, schreiben Sie (Tarjei):
((
What the hardcore critics of anthroposophy are concerned, they may be
diverse in many respects, but they share the view that anthroposophy is
dangerous, dishonorable, conniving, sneaky, harmful, abusive, unhealthy,
unintelligent, and Nazi-inspired. Something to be feared and loathed and
warned and protected against.
))
I have not got the impression that ALL waldorf critics have ALL of these
views, and as Steve(?) stated, waldorf critics are as diverse as
anthroposophists. I would venture that there may even be anthroposophists who
dont like waldorf! Its a free world - almost!
Bruce
anthroposophist, and pro waldorf!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1107.3 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 21:40:14 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199902232014.MAA03607 lists1.best.com)
(199902231916.LAA22679 lists1.best.com)
(199902231744.JAA15381 lists1.best.com) (199902241918.LAA06882 lists1.best.com)
Debra Snell wrote:
) For the record, PLANS has never called Waldorf dangerous. Deceptive,
) inadequate, religious, cult-like, racist roots -yes. Dangerous in the sense
) that Waldorf proponets are eating babies or anything of the like? Never. I
) see it as quite harmless overall. My own hot button is the deception.
) Waldorf teachers do not fully inform parents of Anthroposophy's tenets,
) therefore parents are denied the ability to make a fully informed choice.
) That issue alone is enough to create PLANS. Personally I have done little
) research into Steiner's Nazi relationship and I don't plan to explore it
) either.
That¥s a REALLY weak defense of the racism-nazism-antisemitism campaign
against anthroposophy and waldorf schools that Dan repeatedly has been
running as the moderator of this list as the CENTRE and CORE sensational
argument to support his otherwise 90 % unfounded allegations about the
danger of waldorf education to the future life of the children and young
people at waldorf schools.
The only noticeable complaint that a number of former waldorf pupils had
in a great survey in the seventies, I think, in Sweden, was that they
did not think they had got _quite_ as good a math education as pupils in
public schools. I have not tried to check out that problem lately.
You REALLY overdo your arguing by 500% on your home page and 1000% on
this list!
Do you think the Former Chancellor of Germany Helmuth Schmidt would have
put and probably kept his child or children at a waldorf school (as I
think someone told in a posting on this list some months ago) for 12
years or that Willy Brandt, Former Chancellor of West Germany would have
said that "The advent of the Waldorf schools was in my opinion the
greatest contribution to world peace and understanding of the century."
(http://www.austinwaldorf.org/brochure/back_cover2.htm) if they
considered it racist-antisemitic-antirational-antiscientific mumbo jumbo
crap?? I don¥t they got their position by being dumb. You seem to.
I VERY seldom get angry at people.
But when taking in the totality of your argumentation on your page and
on this list I REALLY get angry because it stands out as so totally out
of proportion to what you want to say.
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.n1107.4 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 15:49:48 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 24.02.99 20:37:21 MEZ, schreiben Sie (Debra):
((
For the record, PLANS has never called Waldorf dangerous. Deceptive,
inadequate, religious, cult-like, racist roots -yes. Dangerous in the sense
that Waldorf proponets are eating babies or anything of the like? Never. I
see it as quite harmless overall. My own hot button is the deception.
Waldorf teachers do not fully inform parents of Anthroposophy's tenets,
therefore parents are denied the ability to make a fully informed choice.
That issue alone is enough to create PLANS. Personally I have done little
research into Steiner's Nazi relationship and I don't plan to explore it
either.
Debra
))
As I already said I think Tarjei is way OTT (over the top) with some of his
generalisations.
But I PERSONALLY would never "not fully inform parents of Anthroposophy's
tenets", and therefore this generalisation is also false. I think that a
statement on the lines of those quoted already is a good idea, since no-one
can know everything that parents might want/need to know. The problem (and I
speak from experience) is that a lengthy statement remains (largely) unread.
And that brings us nowhere fast.
**Constructive** development of this thread, from both sides, would help us
all.
Can we try to treat each other like human beings please?
Bruce
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1107.5 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 22:21:30 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199902240722.XAA16994 lists1.best.com)
(199902232014.MAA03607 lists1.best.com)
(199902231916.LAA22679 lists1.best.com)
(199902231744.JAA15381 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902241918.LAA06882 lists1.best.com)
Debra wrote:
)For the record, PLANS has never called Waldorf dangerous. Deceptive,
)inadequate, religious, cult-like, racist roots -yes. Dangerous in the sense
)that Waldorf proponets are eating babies or anything of the like? Never.
I have not said that the PLANS website voices suspicions about
anthroposophists eating babies. Alan S. Fine expressed the opinion that
anthroposophical thinking incorporates dangerous elements for two reasons:
The guru factor, and the step from blind faith to knowledge, or gnosis, in
spiritual matters. He also thinks that Rudolf Steiner was a "lesser person"
than anthroposophists of today, and that he fell for an unspecified
temptation in connection with the reverence and admiration by his
contemporaries. Dan Dugan and others have suggested that anthroposophical
medicine is dangerous and harmful, and that all anthroposophical doctors
should have their licences revoked because they are guilty of quackery. As
for the rest, I conclude from your above statement that I am a deceptive
racist.
)I see it as quite harmless overall. My own hot button is the deception.
)Waldorf teachers do not fully inform parents of Anthroposophy's tenets,
)therefore parents are denied the ability to make a fully informed choice.
)That issue alone is enough to create PLANS.
I agree that prospective Waldorf parents should be given a list of relevant
literature, and appropriate summaries of Rudolf Steiner and his works. But
*fully informing parents* with little or no prior knowledge about
anthroposophy is no small task. It is not just the 350 plus volumes; it is
also the fact that the digestion of this literature requires a deeper, more
active concentration than other literature. It must be acquired step by
step. Most Waldorf parents I have known personally are anthroposophists;
others are New Agers or something who like the profile of Waldorf without
feeling the need to study anthroposophy.
Because Waldorf schools do not teach anthroposophy, but simply apply the
educational technique developed by Rudolf Steiner based upon his insight
with regard to the spiritual evolution of the child and the young man and
woman (the seven year stages), it is quite natural to explain the external
aspects of this technique to outsiders to begin with. But it should be
outsiders who are genuinely attracted to the Waldorf approach and who do
not have misgivings about the best aspects of the New Age Movement, which
covers a broad spectrum. I think the perception that Waldorf and
anthroposophy is deceptive is based upon a misunderstanding, inadequate
communication. But I sincerely doubt that the intention has been to deceive.
)Personally I have done little research into Steiner's Nazi relationship
)and I )don't plan to explore it either.
You should explore it, especially because you voice the opinion that
anthroposophy is a racist philosophy. I wrote an article about Nazi
occultism two years ago. Unfortunately, it is only in Norwegian, but those
of you who read this language may pick it up at
http://www.uncletaz.com/nazi.html
But I'll give you the English language sources. None of these books were
written by anthroposophists:
Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke: "The Occult Roots of Nazism"
James Webb: "The Occult Establishment"
Both of these authors are ultra-rationalists, secular humanists, and they
do not admire Steiner. But they are historically accurate and quite
informative.
Gerald Suster: "Hitler: Black Magician"
Some interesting quotes By Hitler and other leading Nazi personalities. The
author, however, is a follower of Aleister Crowley, and the book is
sensational and sloppy with historical accuracy.
Nigel Pennick: "Hitler¥s Secret Sciences"
In my opinion, this is the best book on the subject. The author is not an
anthroposophist, but he has a keen understanding of the occult powers of
good and evil. This book helped me to understand *how* a small fanatical
party could possibly succeed in mass-hypnotizing the populations of Germany
and Austria.
Fascism: A Reader¥s Guide (Wildwood House) G–ts Aly, Peter Chroust og
Christian Pross: "Cleansing the Fatherland" (about racial hygiene and Nazi
medicine. The book created quite a stir in Gemany and a public debate about
health care and ethics.)
When you've read these books in addition to a lot of anthroposophy
(including the parts that certain critics may not want you to read), you
may post your conclusions about "Steiner's Nazi relationship."
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1107.6 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 22:33:56 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199902242012.MAA23297 lists1.best.com)
Bruce wrote:
)I have not got the impression that ALL waldorf critics have ALL of these
)views, and as Steve(?) stated, waldorf critics are as diverse as
)anthroposophists. I would venture that there may even be anthroposophists who
)dont like waldorf! Its a free world - almost!
What I tried to explain was that the various views from a variety of
critics, especially the "hardcore" ones, contribute to forming a certain
picture that I do not ascribe in its entirety to each critic. Incidentally,
I have never considered Steve a hardcore critic, and I don't think he has
contributed anything to what I would consider smear or false accusations.
(We had an obvious misunderstanding when I objected to his comparing
freedom for anthropops with freedom for Nazis.)
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1107.7 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:58:01 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se) wrote:
)That¥s a REALLY weak defense of the racism-nazism-antisemitism campaign
)against anthroposophy and waldorf schools that Dan repeatedly has been
)running as the moderator of this list as the CENTRE and CORE sensational
)argument to support his otherwise 90 % unfounded allegations about the
)danger of waldorf education to the future life of the children and young
)people at waldorf schools.
Note, not a word here about the creepy science you (Sune) keep pushing on
this list.
I'll tell you a little secret, Sune, your defense on this list of
homeopathy in anthroposophy, and your presentation of science in general,
particularly:
)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
is one of the most persuasive anti-Waldorf arguments anyone could wish
for.
Thanks again for keeping it all so visible.
-- Daniel
Daniel Sabsay Macintosh Consultant
http://www.eb-skeptics.org Ignorance is the Ultimate Renewable Resource
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1107.8 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: self-correction
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 23:12:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
23 Feb 1999, I wrote:
"What the hardcore critics of anthroposophy are concerned, they may be
diverse in many respects, but they share the view that anthroposophy is
dangerous, dishonorable, conniving, sneaky, harmful, abusive, unhealthy,
unintelligent, and Nazi-inspired. Something to be feared and loathed and
warned and protected against."
Instead of "share the view..." the sentence should read: "contribute to the
view..."
I humbly apologize to y'all for an unfair punch here.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1107.9 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 18:23:56 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Daniel Sabsay wrote:
)
) Note, not a word here about the creepy science you (Sune)
) keep pushing on
) this list.
)
) I'll tell you a little secret, Sune, your defense on this list of
) homeopathy in anthroposophy, and your presentation of science
) in general, particularly:
)
)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
) is one of the most persuasive anti-Waldorf arguments anyone could wish
) for.
Help me out here, Daniel. I don't follow your logic. How does
Sune's defense of homeopathy or anthroposophical medicine (assuming for the
sake of argument that both are quackery) translate into a "persuasive"
anti-Waldorf education argument? So far as I can tell, neither of those
"sciences" or "medical approaches" is part of Waldorf education. I just
don't get the connection your making.
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1107.10 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 01:07:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199902242213.OAA11367 lists1.best.com)
Daniel wrote:
) Note, not a word here about the creepy science you (Sune) keep pushing on
) this list. I'll tell you a little secret, Sune, your defense on this
) list of homeopathy in anthroposophy, and your presentation of science
) in general, particularly:
[snip site, see below]
) is one of the most persuasive anti-Waldorf arguments anyone could wish
) for. Thanks again for keeping it all so visible.
Dear Daniel,
As you may have forgotten, the paper on my site on the concept of
science at http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/SCIENCE/Science.htm was "well
approved" by the life time Professor of the Theory of Science; Haakan
Toernebohm at the University of Gothenburg when I wrote it in 1980. My
memory tells me he was a physicist before his professorship. He retired
some years ago. Argue with him, not me.
The paper at http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/SCIENCE/Potprobl.htm tries to
apply the basic concept of science, developed in the paper the Professor
seemed to like for some reason, to the problem of homeopathy. I don¥t
say it solves the problem, yet maybe covers the problem to 5-10 % as a
very rough personal estimate.
I¥m not 100% sure I¥m right about the reality of the potentiation
effect. As I say at http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/SCIENCE/SciPotIn.htm I
still think "the research still mainly seems to stand on square one,
greatly as a result of the problem to understand the potentizing process
theoretically and the basic problem of the unpredictable reproducibility
of the research results in experimental environments".
The potentiation effect is not a Whitney Houston or Barbara Streisand
performing on stage after you¥ve signed the contract and pay it. It is
still more an angel in the wings. Yet I have a very strong hunch, based
on all research done on the problem, that it will perform predictable.
The problem is, some things or natural phenomenon are like gardens; they
don¥t "perform" if you haven¥t learned to love them the right way;
objectively. Blindfold a good gardener with "green fingers" and try to
make make _him_ perform. All things in nature aren¥t stones you can move
about completely blindfolded. I think that¥s a complex dilemma you have
to face.
Sune
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
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1107 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1108 --------------
001 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - RE: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
002 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
003 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - Watch it, PLANS!
004 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - Re: Watch it, PLANS!
005 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - RE: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
006 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Knowing and knowledge (Was: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposoph
007 - BruceyJ aol.com - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
008 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Watch it, PLANS!
009 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
010 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Watch it, PLANS!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1108.1 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: RE: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 06:34:41 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Tolz, Robert (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM) wrote )
)Help me out here, Daniel. I don't follow your logic. How does
)Sune's defense of homeopathy or anthroposophical medicine (assuming for the
)sake of argument that both are quackery) translate into a "persuasive"
)anti-Waldorf education argument? So far as I can tell, neither of those
)"sciences" or "medical approaches" is part of Waldorf education. I just
)don't get the connection your making.
Both ARE quackery.
Unfortunately these stupidities are so interwoven into the foundations of
anthroposophy that they can never be separated; this is a package with
revealed truth as its basic modus operandi. This taints all its fruits,
and selects for people (administrators & teachers) who don't know the
difference between science & knowledge based on scripture. The evidence
is on this list constantly, and I have seen it first hand for myself at
several Waldorf schools.
-- Daniel
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daniel Sabsay, president "Ignorance is the ultimate renewable resource"
East Bay Skeptics Society http://www.eb-skeptics.org
mail eb-skeptics.org
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1108.2 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 10:04:09 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Daniel Sabsay [mailto:danielsabsay earthlink.net]
) Tolz, Robert (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM) wrote )
)
) )Help me out here, Daniel. I don't follow your logic. How does
) )Sune's defense of homeopathy or anthroposophical medicine
) (assuming for the
) )sake of argument that both are quackery) translate into a
) "persuasive"
) )anti-Waldorf education argument? So far as I can tell,
) neither of those
) )"sciences" or "medical approaches" is part of Waldorf
) education. I just
) )don't get the connection your making.
)
) Both ARE quackery.
As I said, I'll assume for the sake of argument that they are.
)
) Unfortunately these stupidities are so interwoven into the
) foundations of
) anthroposophy that they can never be separated; this is a
) package with
) revealed truth as its basic modus operandi. This taints all
) its fruits,
) and selects for people (administrators & teachers) who don't know the
) difference between science & knowledge based on scripture.
I thought you'd say something like that. I really don't buy the
fruit and the tree argument at all.
It's sort of like saying that because Bill Clinton is a miserable
person (which I will again assume for the sake of argument to be true),
everything he has done as president is tainted. That argument has recently
been raised but has been soundly rejected.
Now, I'm sure you'll distinguish my analogy from what we're
discussing on this list, as it is easy to do so, but the lack of logic in
your argument remains the same.
I suspect you are a person who prides himself on his rationality.
Are you perhaps setting aside your faith in logic and the rational here in
order to attain an objective which is more important to you?
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1108.3 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: Watch it, PLANS!
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 10:23:42 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
There's a federal trial ongoing now in my county, dealing with a
nearby school district which is being charged as illegally promoting
religion. I suspect that when the decision comes down, it may have some
precedential value for the PLANS lawsuit, though I'm sure it will be
distinguishable in a number of ways. Here's this morning's report on the
trial. I'm sure you will all find it intriguing:
---------------------------------------------
Teachers deny their lessons were religious
By LANNING TALIAFERRO
COPYRIGHT 1999 The Journal News. All rights reserved.
Publication date: 2/25/1999
WHITE PLAINS -- A teacher, a psychic and a Sikh insisted in federal court
yesterday that they did not promote religion in Bedford public schools.
Teacher Maria Pappace testified she started a seven-week study of Mexico
four years ago by reading a legend about the Aztec god, Quetzalcoatl, with
her Pound
Ridge fifth-graders. But, she said, the class did not discuss the ancient
religion.
"The goal was to point out that a legend is not factual," she said,
testifying for the defense.
Her view of what went on in her classroom differed with that of three Roman
Catholic families who accuse district schools of illegally promoting
non-Christian
religions and the occult. The Altmans, DiNozzis and DiBaris want U.S.
District Judge Charles Brieant to make the district stop.
Pappace dismissed as "ridiculous" their claims that a quetzal displayed in a
hall was an image of the devil. The bird was displayed with a pinata, a
topographical map
of Mexico and a pair of maracas, all projects by students, she said.
Neither the bird nor the legend offended her Roman Catholic beliefs, Pappace
told the court.
The plaintiffs' attorney, James Bendell, called yoga instructor Heia Akal
Singh Khalsa to describe lessons he led last year at Fox Lane High School.
Clad in a white cotton turban, robe and vest and white Reeboks, Khalsa
testified that he only led exercises and did not discuss his work as a
numerologist and
spiritual guide.
Pressed by Bendell about the origin of yoga as a Hindu philosophy, Khalsa
explained he was a Sikh minister and that secular organizations such as
fitness centers
offer yoga classes for fitness and relaxation.
The psychic also called by Bendell testified that she, too, did not discuss
spiritual aspects of her work during a 1996 visit to Pound Ridge school.
Nancy Weber said her work was designed to enhance students' creativity,
learning and memory. Conceding she could not recall exactly what she did at
the school,
Weber said she probably had children close one eye and draw with their
nondominant hands to exercise their brains in a new way.
The plaintiffs say her activities were an inappropriate psychological
experiment.
Weber's work as a registered nurse, psychic detective, spiritual healer,
telepath and minister in the LifeSpirit Congregational Church intrigued the
judge.
"Can a psychic tell when this case will finish?" Brieant asked as she
stepped down. Weber just smiled. The trial resumes Monday.
----------------------------------------
If you want to keep track as the local newspaper reports the
progress of the trial, the URL is http://www.nyjournalnews.com/news.
FYI, a couple of the things complained of by the plaintiffs, which
were reported in yesterday's news, were the D.A.R.E. program and the "Magic
the Gathering" card game. Apparently, the plaintiffs objected to D.A.R.E.
(a national anti-drug and anti-alcohol program) is being offensive because
they wanted to reserve for themselves how to discuss these matters with
their children. They objected to the refusal of the school to bar the
playing of the "Magic the Gathering" card game by other students, because it
allegedly brought satanic influences into the school.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1108.4 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: Re: Watch it, PLANS!
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 10:38:23 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
I found the preceding day's story in the archive of the local
Gannett paper. I couldn't find any other reporting on the case. For the
sake of completion and the interest of those following this thread, here it
is. I don't remember where I read about the D.A.R.E. complaint; maybe one
of the New York City papers.
-------------
Student liked game that prompted suit against schools
By BRUCE GOLDING
COPYRIGHT 1999 The Journal News. All rights reserved.
Publication date: 2/24/1999
WHITE PLAINS --A student whose family claims the Bedford Central School
District illegally promotes non-Christian religions and Satanism testified
yesterday
that he had enjoyed playing the controversial card game at the heart of the
case.
The schools superintendent also said the game was no longer being played
inside the district's schools, mainly because students were no longer
interested in it.
Russell Altman, 14, said he played Magic: The Gathering for several months
as part of a once-a-week school club when he was in fifth grade at Pound
Ridge
Elementary School three years ago.
The teen -- who now attends parochial school -- said he initially had his
parents' permission to play the fantasy-based strategy game, then stopped
when they told
him to do so.
Under cross-examination by the schools' lawyer, Altman admitted that he
thought the game was "fun" when he played it. He also said that he grew
bored of it after a
while, and that was also a reason he stopped playing.
Altman's family is among three Roman Catholic families suing in federal
court to block the school from allowing Magic within its walls, on grounds
that the game
amounts to dabbling in devil-worship.
Some cards used in the game feature lurid images of demons and occult
practices, including human sacrifice, and the lawsuit -- the subject of a
nonjury trial that
began Monday -- grew out of a 1995 controversy over Magic in the Bedford
schools.
The plaintiffs also allege that various school programs and activities --
including annual Earth Day ceremonies and lessons about Aztec and Hindu gods
-- amount to
the illegal promotion of New Age spirituality and non-Christian religions.
Schools Superintendent Bruce Dennis testified yesterday that the district's
policy was to teach about religion, but not to actually teach it, and to
maintain a "balance"
in the display of holiday decorations.
Dennis also said the Magic game was no longer being played in the schools
because a parent who had voluntarily supervised one club quit to take a
paying job, and
a teacher who supervised another had retired.
But Dennis -- who briefly imposed a moratorium on the game during the
earlier controversy -- said there was no policy preventing resumption of the
game should
students seek to establish new clubs.
The trial, before U.S. District Judge Charles L. Brieant, was scheduled to
continue this morning with testimony from a psychic who led students in
"right brain"
exercises objected to by the plaintiffs.
------------------------------------
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1108.5 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 08:24:40 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199902251434.GAA12362 lists1.best.com)
On 25 Feb 99, at 6:34, Daniel Sabsay wrote:
) Tolz, Robert (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM) wrote )
)
) )Help me out here, Daniel. I don't follow your logic. How does
) )Sune's defense of homeopathy or anthroposophical medicine (assuming for
) )the sake of argument that both are quackery) translate into a
) )"persuasive" anti-Waldorf education argument? So far as I can tell,
) )neither of those "sciences" or "medical approaches" is part of Waldorf
) )education. I just don't get the connection your making.
)
) Both ARE quackery.
)
) Unfortunately these stupidities are so interwoven into the foundations of
) anthroposophy that they can never be separated; this is a package with
) revealed truth as its basic modus operandi. This taints all its fruits,
) and selects for people (administrators & teachers) who don't know the
) difference between science & knowledge based on scripture.
Unless I'm misreading you, your argument, boiled down to the
essentials, goes like this:
Anthroposophy is a set of beliefs, some of which are nonsense.
Anthroposophical beliefs about child development form the basis for
the pedagogy of Waldorf schools.
Therefore, the pedagogy of Waldorf schools is based on nonsense.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. Assuming for
the sake of argument that homeopathy and anthroposophical
medicine are nonsense, it does not follow that anthroposophical
child development theory is nonsense, since that theory is not
based on homeopathy or anthroposophical medicine.
But I'm not really being fair to your argument. You actually seem
to be saying that only very gullible people would believe that
homeopathy and anthroposophical medicine have value, and such
people are likely to believe anything. Therefore, any opinions that
they have about child development are likely to be as nonsensical
as their opinions about medicine.
I still don't think that follows, though. If anthroposophical concepts
about child development are wrong, you're only going to show that
by attacking those concepts directly.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1108.6 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Knowing and knowledge (Was: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy ...)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:16:47 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199902251434.GAA12362 lists1.best.com)
Daniel Sabsay wrote on:
Robert:
) )Help me out here, Daniel. I don't follow your logic. How does
) )Sune's defense of homeopathy or anthroposophical medicine ...
Daniel:
) Both ARE quackery.
) Unfortunately these stupidities are so interwoven into the foundations of
) anthroposophy that they can never be separated; this is a package with
) revealed truth as its basic modus operandi. This taints all its fruits,
) and selects for people (administrators & teachers) who don't know the
) difference between science & knowledge based on scripture. The evidence
) is on this list constantly, and I have seen it first hand for myself at
) several Waldorf schools.
Daniel, I understand the deep resentment you express towards what partly
flows on into our time of the Medieval attitude in relation to knowledge
as something that you come to by reading the works by the Authorities;
Aristotle, Hippocrates, Galenos, Celcius and others, an attitude that
only partly has been overcome even today and somewhat lesser in
connection with anthroposophy.
The introduction and promotion of the experimental method has taken down
the method of taking great inductive steps from single small
observations to eternal great truths/laws from which one then tried to
predict all singular instances by deduction based on general laws and
limiting conditions.
It has taken down the knowledge building process to a more human,
democratic level, not limited to intellectual giants. We can all
participate in ths forming and building of knowledge by taking not big
inductive steps but small ones forming "hypothesis¥" and not being
satisfied with simply deducing single particulars, but also actually
looking to see if they also appear - or not!
This way of building your knowledge on what you can experience and think
for yourself, I readily admit, is something that also I have not found
to be the _always_ dominant attitude among many people I have met who
have taken a more deep interest in anthroposophy.
Reading people like Steiner confronts you with a _big_ dilemma and
problem. As I wrote in an earlier post, he appears and stands out as if
he was somebody like Aristotle born in the "wrong" time and "wrong"
place, easily awakening the old reverent attidude towards what he puts
forth in the same way that the people of Medieval times revered the
Authorities of Antiquity.
I really felt a necessity after a time to put him at a distance, to be
able to get perspective on him and put him into an understandable
context in relation to history and other individuals and traditions. I
also readily admit that I have not done that completely in my article on
the concept of science on my site. I only did half the work I should
have done, and I don¥t know if I will be able to put him completely into
context.
Yet you point to some specific problems; "revealed truths" als the
"modus operandi" of anthroposophy making it stupid and completely
unreliable, as what it puts forth has not been developed using
documented experiments, repeatable by anyone and consensus opinions
based on general discussions of the results.
It is not easy to describe the research methods used in anthroposphy and
discuss them, partly because I think _very_ few yet have done very much
in the field or come very far.
One small point though.
One part of the knowlege forming process goes from experience of
singular instances to hypothesis¥ or more general inductions. This part
can be termed "Context of discovery". One can think that this step is a
"rational" process. Yet, I think most inventors or discoverers would
admit that it involves a big, essentially non-rational, creative step.
This, what you consider "non-rational" step, seemingly mainly consisting
in something mysterious done by one indivudual; Steiner and leading to
unreliable "relevations" out of the reach of any normally functioning
person you abhor. Yet, it is probably not _more_ irrational than the
irrationality in the formation of many of the conjectures of more
"normal" science.
The _basic_ path of anthroposophy is not to form limited "hypothesis¥"
and then checking them againts reality by performing experiments with
instruments detecting and registreting singular instances of actions in
space, with time building reasonably confirmed hypothesis¥ into theories
and maybe laws.
It is to develop systematically the ability to perform "inductions" (I
think I would say, when trying to describe it) and continously checking
your development and understanding against your life experience. In
anthroposophy you make your whole life into one long continous
"experiment".
I think there are three things you can do to try to handle this.
ONE
is to try and find out if what Steiner describes as the way he has come
to his "conjectures" seems reasonable. This is one of the difficult
tasks and demands coming to an understanding of the basics of the
inductive side of knowledge formation.
Here Steiner distinguishes between, after percept: representation
(Vorstellung, I think), concept (Begriff) and idea.
What he suggests is ways to develop these three stages of the inductive
process, not by doing external experiments, but by strengthening at
first the ability of forming representations by a number of inner
"exercises" into what in anthroposophy is called "Imaginations" inner
pictures.
This _at first_ is a completely arbitrary process having the character
of completely coluntary formed imaginations. Later they however change
character. With time they develop through a number of stages from
arbitrarly created inner pictures, over impressions of freely floating
forms and colours, as expressed by for example the pictures by Picasso
and others artists of his time into something that becomes an "inner
seeing".
An exhibitions at Berkely in 1997 displayed a number of the images with
which Steiner "illustrated" his lectures out of this
"Imaginative/Picture" consciousness. See
http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/exhibits/steiner/.
A second stage consists in in a diciplined way first forming and then
supressing such strong inner images. The will needed to _form_ of the
pictures makes you very conscious. When you supress the pictures after
having formed them, you stay awake, but without content in your
consiousness. You are awake without being aware of any content. Doing
this means a strengthening of the process you normally develop on a much
smaller scale when forming nonspatial "concepts", as in mathematics.
This will lead to a stage when your hearing with time slowly changes
character from an "external" hearing to an also "inner" hearing.
Anthroposophy calls this stage the "Inspirative" stage.
The third stage consists in transforming your will into a completely
altrustic organ of "love" in a spiritual sense. This will strengthen and
transform what normally takes place in the formation of "ideas".
Eastern traditions depicts these three stages in a very simple way with
the three apes, one holding its hand before its eyes, the second before
his ears, the third before his mouth. What they "illustrate" is how the
first three "higher" stages of knowledeformation consists in attaining
complete control over your seeing, your hearing and your "tasting"
transforming them from external sense organs into "internal" sense
organs.
A more detailed, systematic and somewhat more dry description maybe, can
be found in "Rudolf Steiner and initiation. The Anthroposophical Path of
Inner schooling. A Survey" by Paul Eugen Schiller, published by The
Anthroposophic Press in 1981, summarizing what you do and what
experiences you can have at the different stages of this developed
inductive formation way.
IT is possible to come to a reasonably clear picture of in what way
Steiner himself at least describes what he has done to come to teh
results he presents in different forms.
The SECOND thing you can do is to try for yourself to do the same thing.
The THIRD thing you can do is to try to check if what he puts forth as
the results conforms or not with you life experience.
All three things are more or less ... _rather_ difficult to do, I think
most would say who have tried them. My personal rough estimate is that
_most_ people who have tried out, out of their experience of their own
inability to take a systematic regular, diciplined control of their
inner life without almost any support from without, remain at the first
stages in all three cases.
They feel deeply satisfied with the inner attidude of truth and honesty
you can experience when reading Steiners description of the "Path of
knowledge" he describes in for example "Knowledge of higher worlds, how
is it attained" (the first book I ever read by Steiner).
They try to do the first three basic exercises of the six in getting
control of their thought life, their wiil and their life of feeling and
continue to read his descriptions of what he says he has experienced by
followint the method he has described.
They try to check out on a long term basis if what Steiner describes
functions when working with activities based on his descriptions, like
in agriculture, medicine or pedagogics.
As maybe can be seen from this description, the problem of deciding what
is "quackery" is not only a very simple one to solve. That the formation
of hypothesis¥ or conjectures or "revealed truths" all contain
"irrational" components is not a sufficient criterion for the decision.
You also to some degree have to understand the nature of what you want
to "test" to be able to come to relevant, reliable and valid tests and
test situations.
If you can¥t even distinguish between Arnica tincture and maybe Arnica
potentized to some degree in first aid kits but seemingly calling it all
"homeopathic medicine" - maybe there is some way to go to gome to
meaningful questions and "test situations".
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.n1108.7 ---------------
From: BruceyJ aol.com
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:04:36 EST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In einer eMail vom 25.02.99 15:47:43 MEZ, schreiben Sie (Daniel):
((
)Help me out here, Daniel. I don't follow your logic. How does
)Sune's defense of homeopathy or anthroposophical medicine (assuming for the
)sake of argument that both are quackery) translate into a "persuasive"
)anti-Waldorf education argument? So far as I can tell, neither of those
)"sciences" or "medical approaches" is part of Waldorf education. I just
)don't get the connection your making.
Both ARE quackery.
Unfortunately these stupidities are so interwoven into the foundations of
anthroposophy that they can never be separated; this is a package with
revealed truth as its basic modus operandi. This taints all its fruits,
and selects for people (administrators & teachers) who don't know the
difference between science & knowledge based on scripture. The evidence
is on this list constantly, and I have seen it first hand for myself at
several Waldorf schools.
))
If this is supposed to be a logical answer perhaps you could supply the
question.
AT BEST one could say that anthroposophy is a kind of umbrella under which can
be found anthroposophical medicine and waldorf education (as well as numerous
other things).
As to homeopathy, there are undoubtedly more homeopaths in the world than
anthroposophists, so any connection there is totally irrevelant.
I think if PLANS were to arm themselves with rifles, certain so-called
supporters would very quickly find themselves in hospital with gun-shot in
their feet!! :-))
Bruce
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1108.8 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Watch it, PLANS!
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:17:13 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199902251534.HAA11334 lists1.best.com)
Thanks for sharing the article. Sounds like something PLANS should be watching.
Best,
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1108.9 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:16:26 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902251434.GAA12362 lists1.best.com)
What an inane observation. Hello logical fallacies?
I challenge you to outline quackery in the EDUCATIONAL methods preparing me
personally, and all my classmates, to a successful college experience and a
rewarding career.
I just recently saw another classmate who just graduated from the UNiversity of
Washington (anyone heard of Microsoft??) with a degree in Computer Science and
in Mathematics. The firm he works for designed the the NTFS MS eventually
bought and packaged with NT. His boss (the president) is so enamored of his
ability, he keeps him solely for pet programming/engineering projects. Why is
this particular young man so good at computer science compared to his colleagues
(all educated and hired in about the same fashion)? He thinks different (TM).
You might think Steiner was a 'quack', as you probably would have thought Newton
was a 'quack' for his religious beliefs, but his triumphs are not hinged to his
theosophy, thank goodness.
BTW I didn't think Sune went to Waldorf.
e
PS The law of large numbers suggest a uniform distribution of Skeptic's in their
rational abilities. The majority are only average skeptics, and at least half
are below average. The list should keep this in mind.
Daniel Sabsay wrote:
) Tolz, Robert (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM) wrote )
)
) )Help me out here, Daniel. I don't follow your logic. How does
) )Sune's defense of homeopathy or anthroposophical medicine (assuming for the
) )sake of argument that both are quackery) translate into a "persuasive"
) )anti-Waldorf education argument? So far as I can tell, neither of those
) )"sciences" or "medical approaches" is part of Waldorf education. I just
) )don't get the connection your making.
)
) Both ARE quackery.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1108.10 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Watch it, PLANS!
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:24:38 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902251534.HAA11334 lists1.best.com)
I believe I posted the AP story on this when it came over the wire. Must be
below radar at this point.
Seems like holding any personal convictions as a teacher is being called into
question. Maybe the future is in developing intelligent educational agents to
piece together a curriculum based on parent preferences. (These agents already
exits for comparative shopping, and the latest Wired has an article on the
probably evolution of the semi sentient agent in the economy [they will set out
with a set of preferences to say, negotiate all of Dan's wiring needs from
various vendors with their own set of bargaining bots.])
I have a couple of bots filtering newsfeeds for me. Anyone read Karl Capek's
"War With the Newts"? (grin)
e
"Tolz, Robert" wrote:
) I found the preceding day's story in the archive of the local
) Gannett paper. I couldn't find any other reporting on the case.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1108 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1109 --------------
001 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: newspaper articles: Alt med/Waldorf
002 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - program of fringe medicine conference at Waldorf high school
003 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Waldorf school attracts fringe medicine
004 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Waldorf school attracts fringe medicine
005 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
006 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
007 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit t - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
008 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: Waldorf school attracts fringe medicine
009 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
010 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1109.1 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: newspaper articles: Alt med/Waldorf
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:24:13 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (3.0.5.32.19990225121815.007ce210 frontiernet.net)
)Holistic Healing
)Alternative medicine becoming standard practice in Viroqua
)
)By TERRY RINDFLEISCH
)Of the Tribune staff
)
)Tribune file photo (of acupuncture being done)
)Coulee Region residents, especially in Viroqua, are increasingly turning to
)alternative therapies, like
)acupuncture.
)
)VIROQUA, Wis. - Alternative healing therapies and holistic medicine have
)created a niche for the
)Viroqua area.
) Residents there have accepted alternative health practitioners into their
)community as a natural
)part of their growth. One can find an acupuncturist, a zone therapist and
)physicians using holistic
)approaches.
) One also can find herbal remedies in stores and "The Healing Place, a
)place dedicated
)to complementary and alternative healing therapies in the Landmark Center
)in downtown Viroqua.
) Dr. Dan Ecklund, a medical doctor who uses traditional and alternative
)healing therapies in his
)practice in Viroqua, said holistic medicine is changing medical, practices
)in the Viroqua area.
) This type of medicine is expanding and attracting more people to Vernon
)County, Ecklund said.
)The hospital in Hillsboro has been converted to an alternative medicine
)center, he added.
) We get the burned-out hippies from the 60s who are open to this kind of
)thing," Ecklund said.
)But, really, the Waldorf School has attracted people from all over the
)country who are attracted to
)non-traditional approaches, including non-traditional schools. "We have an
)interesting mix of
)people now, old Norwegians and the New Agers" he said.
) Many people who have moved to Viroqua over the last several years came to
)enroll their children
)in the alternative school in Pleasant Ridge, he said. Viroqua also has an
)alternative high school, the
)Youth Initiative High School.
) Ecklund will be one of the speakers at the third annual holistic health
)conference Saturday and
)Sunday at the Landmark Center in Viroqua. He will talk about migraines,
)seizures, multiple
)sclerosis and mercury toxicity, chronic fatigue and neuraltherapy.
) Other conference topics include acupuncture, PMS, menopause, meditation,
)Reiki, zone therapy,
)osteopathy, hypnosis, Tai Chi, astrology, Buddhist Chinese prayer and dowsing.
)Charlene Elderkin, conference coordinator, said the conference's theme is
)creating health and
)
)Health options
)Continued from A-1
)
)balance by integrating conventional and complementary healing practices.
) WeÌll have a panel of local practitioners who will talk about how do we
)integrate and how do we
)balance them," Elderkin said. "Our goal is to find the common ground
)between traditional and
)non-traditional therapies that best aids people in their search for health."
) Holistic medicine has become popular in Viroqua because people have been
)attracted the rural
)lifestyle that includes organic farming and more "back to nature"
)approaches and techniques, she
)said.
) "One out of four people are using more than mainstream medicine, and I
)think patients are
)speaking out and telling us there are other ways to be healthier," Elderkin
)said.
)Traditional medicine is good at treating some medical problems, but people
)are also looking for
)ways to help heal themselves, she said. Holistic practitioners spend a lot
)more time with patients
)than most doctors, Elderkin said, and they support their patients by
)finding other ways to help
)them.
) "For such a small town to have a holistic conference like this is really
)remarkable," said Ellen
)Arndorfer, an acupuncturist who practices in Viroqua and La Crosse.
) "People in this town believe in this, and they're looking for another way
)to broaden the horizons of
)others."
) Waldorf school has attracted the kind of people to Viroqua who have used
)alternative healing
)therapies before, she said. "A lot of interesting people have done this
)stuff, and they continue to
)want these therapies for their, own health," Arndorfer said.
) With the growth of holistic medical practitioners in the Viroqua area,
)Ecklund said it is difficult
)for practitioners to survive in a small community. He also works as an
)emergency room physician.
)Ecklund said the growth of holistic medicine is a backlash to traditional
)medicine, adding that
)more money is spent out-of-pocket on holistic medicine than traditional
)medicine.
)"Conventional medicine is good at treating large groups of people and
)emergencies, but it often
)doesn't treat the individual," Ecklund said. "There are so many
)individuals who fall through the
)cracks in our healthcare system."
) With the growth of HMOs and managed care, physicians have, less time to
)spend with patients,.
)he said.
)As a holistic practitioner, Ecklund said he tries to look at an
)individual's biochemistry and figure
)out why doctors could not help the patient.
)He said he then looks at alternative treatments and puts together a plan
)for a particular patient.
)
)EVENT: Third annual Youth Initiative High School Holistic Health Conference
)WHEN: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Saturday and Sunday
)WHERE: Landmark Center, 500 E. Jefferson St., Viroqua
)COST: $20 per day; proceeds benefit Youth Initiative High School
)MORE INFORMATION: Call (608) 637-6445 or Charlene Elderkin at (608) 624-3240
)
)That was the glowing La Crosse Tribune article.
)Here is the contents of the program:
)
)Creating Health & Balance
)3rd Annual Youth Initiative High School
)Holistic Health Conference
)Sat. & Sun., Feb 27 & 28, 9am - 5pm, at the Landmark Center
)Landmark Center
)500 East Jefferson, Viroqua WI
)For more info, contact YIHS at 608 637-6445
)or Charlene Elderkin at (608)624-3240
)
)Saturday Keynote Panel Discussion
)1:30 to 3:00 PM
)Creating Health & Balance: Integrating
)Conventional & Complimentary Practices
)Panel Members: Mark Heberlein, DO; Paul Berquist, MD;
)Ellen Arndorfer, Acupuncturist; James Welch, Organic Farmer;
)Autumn Brennan, ND (Candidate), LMT,MH;
)Fred Kriemelmeyer, DDS.
)
)Saturday Presenters
)9:15-10:15
)KIM DOWAT: CNN, MSN
)A Holistic Approach to PMS mid Menopause
)GARY GUNDLACH: The Chakras, Meditation & the 7 Rays
)SUE HARKIN: Magnetics & Far Infra Red Technology
)JOELLE HOUZE, Acupuncturist:
)Healing Body & Spirit Simultaneously with Chinese Medicine
)AUTUMN BRENNAN, Reiki Master:
)Introduction to Relki
)MARIE AGREN & PATTI GERMANSEN
)Zone Therapists: The Benefits of Zone Therapy
)
)10:30-12:30
)MARK HEBERLEIN, DO:
)Osteopathy: America's Original Comprehensive Medical Model
)LYN ECKERT METZGER, Intuitive Counselor:
)Developing and Using Your Intuition
)FRED KRFEMELMEYER, DDS: Hands-on Myofascial Release
)ERIC WHEELER:
)An Introduction to the Enneagram: 9 Different Points of View
)CECILIA FARREN: (Bring a friendly stone)
)Leaning to Love Naturally: Earth Wisdoms for Spiritual Health
)PHILIP CLARK: Meditation for Stress Release
)
)3:15-4:45
)LESLIE ANN FIELD: TÌai Chi for Everyone
) CAROL DALEY, Hypnotherapist:
)Hypnosis with Altered States of Consciousness
)AUTUMN BRENNAN, ND (Candidate), MH:
)Natural Approaches to Weight Management
)REV SPRUCE KRAUSE, MA, CMT:
)Opening Up to More Aliveness: Laugh, Move, Breathe
)GARY GUNDLACH: The Mechanics of Healing
)NATHAN FENICK:
)Astrology Schmology-y-It's Just a Passing Phase
)
)Sunday Keynote Speaker
)James Ulness, Ph.D. 1:30 - 3:00 PM
)Extra-ordinary ways to health & balance
)Just as new means of holistic medicine are now being seen as Complimentary
)rather than
)alternative, there are further, extra-ordinary ways to greater health.
)These, too, are not
)alternatives. They will add to what you have learned, leading to an even
)more holistic way of life
)which actually creates health.
)
)Sunday Presenters
)9:15-10:45
)PANEL DISCUSSION
)The Fifth Sacred Thing: What is the Magic that Heals?
)Jack Ingersoll, Holistic Psychotherapist - Jaes Seis,
)Shamanic Practitioner - Lyn Metzger, Medical Intuitive
)Pam Radosen, Family Therapist & Shamanic Practitioner
)Marie Agren, Zone Therapist
) DAN ECKLUND, MD: It's All in Your Head: Migraines,
)Seizures, MS & Mercury Toxicity
)LESLIE ANN FIELD: T'ai Chi for Everyone
)SUE HARKIN: Magnetics and Far Infra Red Technology
)AUTUMN BRENNAN, ND (Candidate), MH:
)Herbal Wellness for Children
)
)
)11:00-12:30
)DAN ECKLUND, MD:
)Chronic Fatigue-Causes and Cures.
)JACK FNGERSOLL, Holistic Psychotherapist:
)The Jungian Approach to Spirituality & Wholeness
)JOELLE HOUZE, Acupuncturist:
)Breaking Patterns of Disease
)LYN METZGER, Intuitive Counselor: Looking at the New
)Millennium Through Astrology: The Planetary Energy of Pluto
)COLIN CROCKETT:
)Mandalas for Contemplation & Meditation
) ZHI MING, Bhuddhist Monk:
)Introduction to Bhuddhist Chinese Prayer
)
)3:15-4:45
) DAN ECKLUND, MD: Wounds that Never Healed
)Neural Therapy: A New Approach
)MARIE AGREN & FRED KRFEMELMEYER:
)The Inner Art of Dowsing
)GARY GUNDLACH: Light Wave Technology and
)the Science of Bio-Photonics
)JANE SIEMON, Nutritionist: Why Butter is Better
)Traditional Diets of Native Peoples
)PHILIP CLARK: Utilizing Techniques of Numerology
)for Personal Growth
)MARY ROOT: Meditation and the Role of Inner Peace
)in the Healing Process
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1109.2 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: program of fringe medicine conference at Waldorf high school
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:06:27 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Youth Initiative High School is a Waldorf school. See their web site
http://www.mwt.net/~yihs/info.html. While visiting, don't miss the
masterful student paper on Anthroposophy and Catholicism at
http://www.mwt.net/~yihs/anthrocath.html. In the school's Links section
there's a link to an article on the PLANS site.
-Dan Dugan
Program of the conference:
Creating Health & Balance
3rd Annual Youth Initiative High School Holistic Health Conference
Sat. & Sun., Feb 27 & 28, 9am - 5pm, at the Landmark Center
Landmark Center
500 East Jefferson, Viroqua WI
For more info, contact YIHS at 608 637-6445
or Charlene Elderkin at (608)624-3240
Saturday Keynote Panel Discussion
1:30 to 3:00 PM
Creating Health & Balance: Integrating Conventional & Complimentary Practices
Panel Members: Mark Heberlein, DO; Paul Berquist, MD; Ellen Arndorfer,
Acupuncturist; James Welch, Organic Farmer; Autumn Brennan, ND (Candidate),
LMT,MH; Fred Kriemelmeyer, DDS.
Saturday Presenters
9:15-10:15
KIM DOWAT: CNN, MSN
A Holistic Approach to PMS mid Menopause
GARY GUNDLACH: The Chakras, Meditation & the 7 Rays
SUE HARKIN: Magnetics & Far Infra Red Technology
JOELLE HOUZE, Acupuncturist:
Healing Body & Spirit Simultaneously with Chinese Medicine
AUTUMN BRENNAN, Reiki Master:
Introduction to Relki
MARIE AGREN & PATTI GERMANSEN
Zone Therapists: The Benefits of Zone Therapy
10:30-12:30
MARK HEBERLEIN, DO:
Osteopathy: America's Original Comprehensive Medical Model
LYN ECKERT METZGER, Intuitive Counselor:
Developing and Using Your Intuition
FRED KRFEMELMEYER, DDS: Hands-on Myofascial Release
ERIC WHEELER:
An Introduction to the Enneagram: 9 Different Points of View
CECILIA FARREN: (Bring a friendly stone)
Leaning to Love Naturally: Earth Wisdoms for Spiritual Health
PHILIP CLARK: Meditation for Stress Release
3:15-4:45
LESLIE ANN FIELD:
Tai Chi for Everyone
CAROL DALEY, Hypnotherapist:
Hypnosis with Altered States of Consciousness
AUTUMN BRENNAN, ND (Candidate), MH:
Natural Approaches to Weight Management
REV SPRUCE KRAUSE, MA, CMT:
Opening Up to More Aliveness: Laugh, Move, Breathe
GARY GUNDLACH:
The Mechanics of Healing
NATHAN FENICK:
Astrology Schmology-y-It's Just a Passing Phase
Sunday Keynote Speaker
James Ulness, Ph.D. 1:30 - 3:00 PM
Extra-ordinary ways to health & balance:
Just as new means of holistic medicine are now being seen as Complimentary
rather than alternative, there are further, extra-ordinary ways to greater
health. These, too, are not alternatives. They will add to what you have
learned, leading to an even more holistic way of life which actually
creates health.
Sunday Presenters
9:15-10:45
PANEL DISCUSSION
The Fifth Sacred Thing: What is the Magic that Heals?
Jack Ingersoll, Holistic Psychotherapist - Jaes Seis, Shamanic Practitioner
- Lyn Metzger, Medical Intuitive - Pam Radosen, Family Therapist & Shamanic
Practitioner - Marie Agren, Zone Therapist
DAN ECKLUND, MD:
It's All in Your Head: Migraines, Seizures, MS & Mercury Toxicity
LESLIE ANN FIELD: T'ai Chi for Everyone
SUE HARKIN: Magnetics and Far Infra Red Technology
AUTUMN BRENNAN, ND (Candidate), MH:
Herbal Wellness for Children
11:00-12:30
DAN ECKLUND, MD:
Chronic Fatigue-Causes and Cures.
JACK FNGERSOLL, Holistic Psychotherapist:
The Jungian Approach to Spirituality & Wholeness
JOELLE HOUZE, Acupuncturist:
Breaking Patterns of Disease
LYN METZGER, Intuitive Counselor: Looking at the New
Millennium Through Astrology: The Planetary Energy of Pluto
COLIN CROCKETT:
Mandalas for Contemplation & Meditation
ZHI MING, Bhuddhist Monk:
Introduction to Bhuddhist Chinese Prayer
3:15-4:45
DAN ECKLUND, MD: Wounds that Never Healed
Neural Therapy: A New Approach
MARIE AGREN & FRED KRFEMELMEYER:
The Inner Art of Dowsing
GARY GUNDLACH:
Light Wave Technology and the Science of Bio-Photonics
JANE SIEMON, Nutritionist:
Why Butter is Better: Traditional Diets of Native Peoples
PHILIP CLARK:
Utilizing Techniques of Numerology for Personal Growth
MARY ROOT:
Meditation and the Role of Inner Peace in the Healing Process
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1109.3 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Waldorf school attracts fringe medicine
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:37:51 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
[Lacrosse Tribune 2/24/99 (check date)]
Holistic Healing
Alternative medicine becoming standard practice in Viroqua
By TERRY RINDFLEISCH
Of the Tribune staff
Tribune file photo (of acupuncture being done)
Coulee Region residents, especially in Viroqua, are increasingly turning to
alternative therapies, like acupuncture.
VIROQUA, Wis. - Alternative healing therapies and holistic medicine have
created a niche for the Viroqua area.
Residents there have accepted alternative health practitioners into their
community as a natural part of their growth. One can find an acupuncturist,
a zone therapist and physicians using holistic approaches.
One also can find herbal remedies in stores and "The Healing Place, a place
dedicated to complementary and alternative healing therapies in the
Landmark Center in downtown Viroqua. Dr. Dan Ecklund, a medical doctor who
uses traditional and alternative healing therapies in his practice in
Viroqua, said holistic medicine is changing medical, practices in the
Viroqua area. This type of medicine is expanding and attracting more people
to Vernon County, Ecklund said. The hospital in Hillsboro has been
converted to an alternative medicine center, he added. We get the
burned-out hippies from the 60s who are open to this kind of thing,"
Ecklund said. But, really, the Waldorf School has attracted people from all
over the country who are attracted to non-traditional approaches, including
non-traditional schools. "We have an interesting mix of people now, old
Norwegians and the New Agers" he said. Many people who have moved to
Viroqua over the last several years came to enroll their children in the
alternative school in Pleasant Ridge, he said. Viroqua also has an
alternative high school, the Youth Initiative High School.
Ecklund will be one of the speakers at the third annual holistic health
conference Saturday and Sunday at the Landmark Center in Viroqua. He will
talk about migraines, seizures, multiple sclerosis and mercury toxicity,
chronic fatigue and neuraltherapy. Other conference topics include
acupuncture, PMS, menopause, meditation, Reiki, zone therapy, osteopathy,
hypnosis, Tai Chi, astrology, Buddhist Chinese prayer and dowsing. Charlene
Elderkin, conference coordinator, said the conference's theme is creating
health and balance by integrating conventional and complementary healing
practices. "We'll have a panel of local practitioners who will talk about
how do we integrate and how do we balance them," Elderkin said. "Our goal
is to find the common ground between traditional and non-traditional
therapies that best aids people in their search for health." Holistic
medicine has become popular in Viroqua because people have been attracted
the rural lifestyle that includes organic farming and more "back to nature"
approaches and techniques, she said.
"One out of four people are using more than mainstream medicine, and I
think patients are speaking out and telling us there are other ways to be
healthier," Elderkin said. Traditional medicine is good at treating some
medical problems, but people are also looking for ways to help heal
themselves, she said. Holistic practitioners spend a lot more time with
patients than most doctors, Elderkin said, and they support their patients
by finding other ways to help them.
"For such a small town to have a holistic conference like this is really
remarkable," said Ellen Arndorfer, an acupuncturist who practices in
Viroqua and La Crosse. "People in this town believe in this, and they're
looking for another way to broaden the horizons of others."
Waldorf school has attracted the kind of people to Viroqua who have used
alternative healing therapies before, she said. "A lot of interesting
people have done this stuff, and they continue to want these therapies for
their, own health," Arndorfer said. With the growth of holistic medical
practitioners in the Viroqua area, Ecklund said it is difficult for
practitioners to survive in a small community. He also works as an
emergency room physician.
Ecklund said the growth of holistic medicine is a backlash to traditional
medicine, adding that more money is spent out-of-pocket on holistic
medicine than traditional medicine. "Conventional medicine is good at
treating large groups of people and emergencies, but it often doesn't treat
the individual," Ecklund said. "There are so many individuals who fall
through the cracks in our healthcare system." With the growth of HMOs and
managed care, physicians have, less time to spend with patients,. he said.
As a holistic practitioner, Ecklund said he tries to look at an
individual's biochemistry and figure out why doctors could not help the
patient. He said he then looks at alternative treatments and puts together
a plan for a particular patient.
EVENT: Third annual Youth Initiative High School Holistic Health Conference
WHEN: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Saturday and Sunday
WHERE: Landmark Center, 500 E. Jefferson St., Viroqua
COST: $20 per day; proceeds benefit Youth Initiative High School
MORE INFORMATION: Call (608) 637-6445 or Charlene Elderkin at (608) 624-3240
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1109.4 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf school attracts fringe medicine
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:55:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199902252110.NAA05390 lists1.best.com)
Now Dan, you know that correlation does not necessarily imply
causation, and that one incident is not that statistically significant.
But assuming that Waldorf schools are generally found in
communities which also have holistic healers or alternative medical
practitioners does not mean that Waldorf schools attract fringe
medicine. More likely, a community with more "new age" people
tends to attract both Waldorf schools and alternative medical
practitioners.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1109.5 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 05:55:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Tarjei,
I have added a few comments to your message.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Sunday, February 21, 1999 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
)
))
)This is what Rudolf Steiner says about God:
)
)"The all-encompassing attribute of the Godhead is not omnipotence, neither
)is it omniscience, but it is love - the attribute in respect of which no
)enhancement is possible. God is uttermost love, unalloyed love, is born as
)it were out of love, is the very substance and essence of love. God is pure
)love, not supreme wisdom, not supreme might."
)
)It's that simple.
)
Then can we dispense with the cosmology, the root race theory,
reincarnation, the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth, the Mystery of
Golgotha, the angels above, the gnomes below, Ahriman, the etheric body, the
Christ impulse, etc.etc.etc? If it's just love were into, pure and
simple, count me in too. It seems to me however that there is a lot more to
your notion of God than just that. And the devil is in the details.
, how
If its
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1109.6 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 05:56:08 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I am sorry, I meant no disrespect. I was writing somewhat metaphorically.
What I meant to say is that Anthroposophists claim to know truths about the
spiritual world, but that Anthroposophists' truths in these matters may not
be the truth to other people. Those Anthroposophists who can accept these
spiritual matters as their own beliefs, and not necessarily truths that
apply to all, (and perhaps you are among them), will be the ones I would
feel most respected by, and the ones I would respect the most in return.
.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Date: Sunday, February 21, 1999 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
)Alan S. Fine MD (asf peakpeak.com) wrote:
)[some reasonably good sense leading to:]
))God is God. Going beyond that is divisive, disrespectful,
))and dangerous.
)
)...but spoilt it by continuing:
)
)) The ghost you describe is a direct result of the
))Anthroposophists claim to know God,
)
)Another thing that is disrespectful and dangerous is the propensity of
)some people to generalise from the particular (or even from a false
)perception?). I certainly don't claim to know God, and I don't think I
)know any anthropops who have claimed to either. I'm trying not to be
)offended by your implication that because I am an anthropop, I have
)claimed to know God.
)
)Alan, you seem to have some curious notion of that anthropops are
)homogenous -- we are (as I think I have said before) a delightfully
)diverse bunch; it infuriates those who try to shove us into convenient
)little boxes with neat little defining labels. This is the nature of the
)beast, I'm afraid.
)
)Noctis Gaudia Carpe,
)Stephen
)
)--
)+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
)+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
)+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
)+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1109.7 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:14:32 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902082311.PAA12502 lists1.best.com)
(199902101751.JAA19548 lists1.best.com)
(199902160250.SAA16515 lists1.best.com)
(199902181656.IAA03769 lists1.best.com) (199902221829.KAA03124 lists1.best.com)
Dear Michael,
Again I have inserted some comments in [brackets], below.
warm regards
joel
Michael Hirsch wrote:
) Joel A. Wendt writes:
) ) Michael Hirsch wrote:
) ) )
) ) ) ) I put forward as such a possible statement the following: One is scientific if one
) ) ) ) postulates truths along with the relevant methodology so that the methodology itself can
) ) ) ) first be tested, and then applied and the truth replicated. This allows us to expand our
) ) ) ) methods, while remaining in concert with the fundamental "truth" principle of science,
) ) ) ) i.e. the ability to replicate.
) ) )
) ) ) Here is where we part company. Science does not make progress by
) ) ) demonstrating truth, but rather by demonstrating lack thereof.
) )
) ) [This is a very interesting statement. Essentially it means that
) ) science doesn't know anything about the natural world, because any
) ) established view is always possibly falsifiable. I don't think all
) ) scientists would agree with that, however.]
)
) Actually, I think they all would. We all hope that there is some
) underlying "truth" that we are discovering, but we know that the only
) way to do that is by ruling out the false.
[I think it is more accurate to say that the only way scientists know how to discover the truth is
by ruling out the false. You can't say it is the "only" way, because a) you haven't tested an
offered alternative method; and b) you can't factually know there is no other method. What your
statement above amounts to is a cultural prejudice, and implies a claim of superiority to other
methods of knowledge. It is exactly this that is being challenged.]
)
)
) I wouldn't say that we don't know anything about the natural world.
) For instance, I know apples don't fall up. I know that there are more
) elements that Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. [you may have missed it, but in a previous post I
) noted that few people actually know what the doctrine of the elements is about, and you have just
) given the most common mis-statement of it] The fact is, I don't know
) the precise law of gravity for absolute certain nor am I absolutely
) certain of the laws of particle physics. But I do know lots of things
) that are not true.
)
) It is the aura of absolute truth and certainty that is a dead giveaway
) for non-science.
[Will this statement qualify as an absolute statement? "Venus was not always a red-hot cauldron
holding a cloudy soup of pressurized carbon dioxide and sulfuric acide. Roughly 800 million years
ago volcanoes repaved the planet's surface with lava ..." It is from the March '99 Scientific
American. Here we have a pronouncement of what was true on Venus 800 million years ago. There is
no limiting qualification. Are we always to assume that the qualitification you mention exists
behind every absolute statement? Personally I find such assertions as to what was true in the deep
past (big bang cosmology, neo-darwinian evolution) the height of hubris on the part of scientists,
especially considering the reductionism and the untested (and untestable) assumptions at the root
of such ideas.]
)
)
) ) ) Science progresses by theorizing that a certain model expresses a
) ) ) certain aspect of reality. Then people "prove" the model by testing
) ) ) it. "Prove" here is in the sense of "proving grounds" or "testing
) ) ) grounds", not the mathematical sense. The model makes certain
) ) ) predictions. If these predictions fail then the model is disproven.
) ) ) If the predictions are correct then the theory is now in probationary
) ) ) status.
) ) )
) ) ) If the model passes the first test, researchers then design further,
) ) ) more difficult tests. A theory never really leaves probationary
) ) ) status, though occasionally some theories become so ingrained we call
) ) ) them laws, but that doesn't mean we stop testing them. We are still
) ) ) testing Einstein's theories and "laws" such as conservation of energy
) ) ) all the time.
) )
) ) [This is of course true. The kicker is that this position about what
) ) science does and does not do is only taken when it is useful (by many
) ) scientiists). It terms of what our culture, in general, believes true
) ) about what science does and what it says, this view is false.
) ) Ordinary people do not understand this subtle distinction. They
) ) believe the scientist is telling them what reality is; and many many
) ) scientists behave as if that was in fact what they were doing.
)
) My point exactly. Scientists know that this is what they do, even
) though some
) [some, give me a break, most lay people have no idea whatsoever that these lawyer-like hedges
) exist] lay people may be confused on the issue. So when some
) non-science comes along calling itself a science, the scientists are
) not fooled but many lay people are
) [but who is responsible for the confusion? science sits across modern culture and knowledge
) claiming the high ground and insisting that anything that does not dance to their dance, cannot
) speak of what is true]. It is pure deception on the part
) of the practitioners of this non-science
) [It is difficult to disagree with you in certain respects, because there is so much b.s. out
) there of various kinds. Moreover, as I have admitted, it is my own view that dognmatic
) anthroposophists will present matters in a fashion which.justifies your perception of
) anthroposophy as non-science. However, their errors do not go to the root of the matter. They
) are not unlike the dogmatic lay writer of science who presents scientific knowledge in a
) completely irresponsible fashion because he does not really understand. On this list, then, I am
) attempting to present anthroposophy as "science", but clearly as an extension of the scientific
) impulse into those areas of knowledge concerning the qualitative and the moral. These are very
) problematic and much care must be taken in the very first steps (what I have previously called
) the front door). However, if that care is taken then whole other dimensions of knowledge become
) possible. One of the problems manifesting on this list is that people want to jump ahead into
) matters that can be justified, but without going through the front door. In that case
) consideration of possiblities is impossible. We can argue until the cows come home, but
) arguement is basically impotent because it starts by missing the point. It is like two alien
) cultures facing each other across a severe boundary of approach to the question of how one knows
) what is true. Both are justified in their point of view. Skeptics should have problems with
) what they have problems with. It would be surprising if they did not. But it is nothing more
) then prejudice to assume that the view they cannot agree with is without foundation, especially
) when that view explicitly points out the foundational (front door) problem. In this regard I can
) understand why some find the "critics" offensive, because many seem to have to justifiy the
) difference in point of view by attacking the character of the people who hold it
) (anthroposophists are entraped by a guru, etc.).]
)
) Science has been so successful that lay people believe scientists know
) the "truth". No wonder non-science practitioners want people to
) believe that they do science--it gives them a false aura of knowing
) "truth".
)
) ) Now
) ) this would not be as bad a problem as it is, were it not for the fact
) ) of the reductionist tendency. Let me examine this closely. A human
) ) being has a number of kinds of experience, including various kinds of
) ) sense experience and various kinds of inner experiences. The science
) ) you are describing abstracts from this rich experience only a very
) ) small part, which is then disected and analysised in great detail.
) ) The laws which are discovered (which you say are tentatve) are then
) ) combined and recombined in to very general pictures about the nature
) ) of reality, and about the meaning and relationship of the human being
) ) to both earthly and cosmic nature. Regardless of you "tentativeness",
) ) on the basis of this very partial understanding of reality, human
) ) beings are taught that they are animals and live on a obscure planet
) ) in an uncaring cosmos.
)
) True, except for the "obscure" and "uncaring" part. We are animals
) and we live on a planet in the cosmos. Which part do you disagree
) with?
[Well, we are not animals, for starters. Human beings are very different from mammals, our nearest
apparent relative. Read Schad's "Man and Mammals". I am not going to start up an old argument
about evolution, but scientists themselves do not agree, and many competent and interested lay
people also do not agree. I am satisfied, based upon my own knowledge, that I am not a higher
order animal. As to the cosmos, well you would have to read both my papers on these problems in
general. "The Idea of Mind: a Christian meditator looks at the problem of consciousness"
http://www.tiac.net/users/hermit/tidom.html and "The Quiet Suffering of Nature":
http://www.tiac.net/users/hermit/qsfnt.html . These are complicated problems and I have tried to
deal with them in the detail they deserve.]
)
)
) ) Scientism is real, and much more damaging the Steinerism.
)
) I am not arguing with that, right now. But if science is so bad why
) are you pretending that your spiritualism is scientific?
[Actually I am not saying science is bad. But it can stand some criticism, especially if it is
valid criticism. The bad element has to do with the social context in which science permiates our
culture. It is not bad in a moral sense, anymore then any other kind of activity can be done in an
immoral way. The "badness" is more on the order of science (in the form it entered civilization)
has served its purpose and needs to be evolve, otherwise it causes harm in the body social. This
harm takes the form of denying the deeper truths of human nature. It is as if a very big lie was
being taught to children, a dangerous lie because it makes them disbelieve in huge parts of
themselves. The problem is complicated by the fact that the undoing of the lie can only happen (at
least in this iteration of human culture) as an act of individual freedom. I could say a lot more
but I don't think it would be appropriate at this point.]
) Clearly, you
) see some value in being "scientific" spiritualism. Why do you want to
) tar yourself and your methods with the brush of science?
)
) ) The antidote is to stop playing the objectivity game and
) ) for scientists to stop retreating into the point of view of their work
) ) that it is value neutral. If this continues, the coming revolution in
) ) biology will be ultimately devistating for all the good it does
) ) accidentally.
)
) Yes, we need to educate our scientists (and society as a whole) in
) ethics, but that is different from claiming that I can put ethics on a
) scientific basis.
[Often when I mention that aspect of spiritual science, which involves the moral, people jump to
all kinds of conclusions. I would urge you not to make any leaps, or imagine you have the faintest
idea about this difficult problem. One has to make peace with the moral within first, before
understanding this even begins to be possible. This is not, however, a statement to be construed
that you lack anything moral, as I am not speaking of that at all. In my essays mentioned above
will be found some discussion of the relevant problem and I see no reason to repeat it here.]
)
)
) ) ) To be science you need to give me a way to show that it isn't true.
) ) ) If there is no way for me to (potentially) disprove your statement,
) ) ) then it isn't science and your belief is not scientifically based. It
) ) ) might be true, but it isn't scientifically testable, and hence does
) ) ) not deserve the name "science".
) )
) ) [Let me see if I understand you. Something can be true, but not be
) ) "scientifically" true.
)
) Yup. Maybe there is a God (or gods). But it is impossible to
) disprove the sentence "There is a God," hence that is not a scientific
) truth. But it may be true.
)
) ) To me this is a distinction without a
) ) difference.
)
) Which is what I've been saying: You are not a scientist and your
) "scientific spiritualism" is not scientific.
[Of course it isn't "scientific" in the sense that you define science. But suppose you were to
look at "science" as an historical entity, a "being" as it were, that has a beginning, stages of
development, growth, its own evolution etc. That "science" is not so fixed as you would have us
believe (see T. Kuhn, which you probably know of anyway). "Science" in this larger context, in its
historical being, leads right to spiritual science, through the front door of a "scientific"
epistomology. You can try to confine to its present state of being, but since it is a human
endeavor, it will not stand still for you regardless of how we might wish it to.]
)
)
) ) It would be interesting if "science" were to purge itself
) ) of all ideas not falsifiable. Most of evolutionary biology and
) ) cosmology would disappear.
)
) Not at all. Evolutionary biology and cosmology make plenty of
) predictions. We can't go do experiments about them, but instead have
) to do field work digging up fossils and scanning the skies. But we
) very often find our predictions holding true, adding evidence of the
) correctness of the theory. If we get very lucky, the predictions
) fail and we find something wrong with our theories.
[That certain events happened in the deep past is not testible. It is asserted, it is reasoned,
but it is not testible. By your own standards the main thrust of both those theories lies outside
the possibility of science to establish. For example, evolution assumes that at some point in the
past the nervous system became sufficiently complex for consciousness to arise, and that "mind" is
a function of the evolution of matter. There is no way to test this. Big bang cosmology tries to
describe events nanoseconds after the "event", but the whole process is based on "reasoning
backwards" from present understanding of physical reality. That the big bang happened, or not,
will never be testible, because the critical assumption (uninformitarnianism) can't itself be
tested. For those unfamiliar with the uniformitarnianism problem -- the question is whether
certain discovered contants, known in the present, existed in the past. The assumption is that a
whole set of values is constant for several billion years. Since we can't go to this past, even
500 years, to test whether these constants had the same value, the whole theory is not testible.
These are just the more obvious problems, there are many more, most due to reductionism.]
)
)
)
) ) Probably most of relativity and quantum
) ) mechanics, at least in the sense that scientists speak of their
) ) "implications".
)
) I'm confused. These are two of the most tested physical theories and
) have had their predictions verified time and again. Physicists know
) very well the limits of these theories. Any non-scientific parts are
) not called theorems or facts. I'm referring here things like to the
) "Copenhagen interpretations" and the "many worlds hypothesis". As you
) can tell from their names, scientists know that these are not
) scientifically testable.
)
) What implications are you talking about that are not scientific?
[First off, relativity and quantum mechanics are not compatable. Super string theory attempts at a
reconciliation, but it is so obtusely theoritical that it is a modern version of the scholastic's
question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Reconcilliation of relativity and
quantum mechanics is metaphysics under another name. The study and "proof" of quantum mechanics
itself is dependent upon a very peculiar kind of experiment, namely high energy physics. We throw
matter at itself at very high energies, energies that do not exist in nature. Nature does not do
quantum mechanics. We do it in a laboratory and then export the ideas to nature, through a mental
process that is not carefully examined. If you are going to say that quantum events occur in the
sun or or black holes, that is all just theory and not testible. The snake eats its tail. I
wouldn't be surprised that high energy physics is one day a big embarrassment, as a way too
expensive toy for metaphysically inclined physicists. Relativity keeps playing with the planck
(spelling?) constant in order to adjust itself to anomolous problems, but it probably will reach a
limit when the constant can't be adjusted anymore. There also seems to be a problem with the speed
of light (as a constant). Now having said these outrageous things, let me add that these views
(relativity and quantum mechanics) are quite understandable, given the reductionist and
uninformitarianistic assumptions, but once you start noticing these things then problems arise.
Science, in the sense of these problems, is a closed system. As long as the system is able to
exclude matters that it has refused to deal with, then that system is internally consistent. This
internal consistency is the current status, and the work is admirable. But there are plenty of
holes once you step outside the closed system.]
)
)
) ) Inspite of your assertions, which are credible and true within narrow
) ) confines, scientists do not view their work in such a limited way.
) ) They are searching for reality, for the truth, and this objective
) ) lives in every act they do, as the motivating focus. They are trying
) ) to describe the real world.]
)
) Sure, we are all trying to describe the real world. What makes it a
) science is the methodology, not the content. I'm not opposed to a
) science of spiritualism, I just don't see how to do it. By all means,
) study reality. If you find a way to do it that is falsifiable, then
) call it a science. Otherwise it is not a science and by calling it
) such you are lying to yourself and to others.
[answered above]
)
)
) ) ) As you can see, it is not necessary for me to read anything Steiner
) ) ) wrote to discuss this. I am prepared to admit he may be right about
) ) ) everything he says, but I am denied the opportunity to test his
) ) ) theories. This is what makes it a matter of religion and faith to
) ) ) me. "If you do this you will agree" is not a scientific answer to a
) ) ) request for knowledge, no matter how heartfelt.
) )
) ) [How is it different from the replication of an experiment? My
) ) brother is a microbiologist. He worked for years with e-coli and
) ) published many articles. He is now retired, but likes to review the
) ) literature and is greatly pleased to find his work cited, but most
) ) especially when it is reproduced and confirmed.
)
) Sure, it's a great feeling when it is reproduced. That means your lab
) procedure was good. (If you were totally sure of your work it would
) not be so nice to see it reproduced, and a good scientist is very
) totally sure.) But it doesn't prove your theories are right. If your
) theory makes a prediction and that prediction is verified, this only
) proves that the correct theory will predict that behavior. But there
) are always multiple theories that will predict any given behavior and
) the experiment does not distinguish between them.
)
) Testing many different predictions can serve to rule out many
) theories, but there are always two theories to explain all the
) results. Often we only find one of them palatable, so we assume that
) one is correct. Of course, there maybe others that we never even
) thought of.
)
) ) The study of
) ) Steiner's epistomological works involves exactly the same thing. Part
) ) of the problem is that people get so involved with Steiner's lectures
) ) and arguing the truth of this or that statement. The clearest
) ) thinkers I know in anthroposophy all treat that material as
) ) hypothesis, just like any scientist. To the extent they can they test
) ) it.
)
) Then why do you get so upset when someone asks "suppose I test it and
) find it lacking?" A true scientists says "If you can describe a
) reproducible experiment contradiction my theory then I will reject my
) theory." You complain about hypothetical cases. A real scientists
) has no trouble with hypothetical cases.
[I am not upset with hypotheticals, they are just not rational. They are reductionism in the
extreme, because they assume the answer has some kind of meaning. You ask me: if I do your
suggested experiment and it fails...and I respond: what answer can I give that has any meaning. To
make an answer I have to invent someting that is not true (yet), namely that you do falsify the
"experiment". How can I invent a response to an invented event, and make a statement that has any
meaning? Do the experiment, don't try to imagine what will happen if it doesn't work.]
)
)
) ) If it can be applied, they watch the results of its application.
) ) The major difference is that anthroposophy moves beyond the
) ) quantitative into the qualitative and the moral and this is unknown
) ) territory for mainstream scientists. Worse, it is not accepted by
) ) their peers. But neither of these facts, the unknowness or the lack
) ) of acceptibility has anything to do with whether or not the
) ) fundamental impulse of science can be extended into these realms.
) ) People need to stop finding excuses, and take seriously Steiner's
) ) Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World Conception and his
) ) Philosophy of Freedom. Mathmatics is called the Queen of the
) ) Sciences. Which is the King? Physics? No, Philosophy is King. Honor
) ) the King. Discover for yourself the door past Kant.]
)
) What I don't seem to be able to explain to you is that I have no
) problem with you applying science to philosophy, morals, ethics, and
) the spirit world. I think it would really neat if you did that.
)
) My problem is that you are not applying science to those problems but
) you claim you are. You are doing something else but calling it
) science. This is wrong. It is an attempt to validate your methods by
) using the name of a well respected field. Its like Wheaties using
) Michael Jordan's face on its box. Eating Wheaties won't make you play
) like MJ. Similarly, calling your spiritualism "scientific" doesn't
) make it science, but it might fool some impressionable youths.
) (There's a Latin or Greek name for this rhetorical trick, but it
) escapes me at the moment.)
)
[This begs the question. The only way to know it is not scientific is to do the "experiment".
Replicate it, or not, and then we can talk As to my usurpation of the term "scientific", well
you'll just have to grit your teeth and live with it. As far as I am concerned it is justified
(see "being" of science discussion above). In fact it would be a lie to suggest otherwise.]
) This all stemmed from you claim that that Waldorf Ed. was based on a
) 'valid scientific understanding" of human nature. Science is a
) process, and when your process of understanding human nature is
) examined it is not at all scientific. That is the only point I'm
) trying to make here. It may be a valid understanding, but it is not
) scientific and calling scientific does not add to your credibility
) among people who know what the word means.
[again, see my discussion of the "being" of science. Your argument is a nice legalism, but I don't
think it is historically or culturally accurate.]
)
)
) --Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1109.8 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf school attracts fringe medicine
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 19:50:21 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902252110.NAA05390 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902252204.OAA17656 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo posted:
)Now Dan, you know that correlation does not necessarily imply
)causation, and that one incident is not that statistically significant.
)
)But assuming that Waldorf schools are generally found in
)communities which also have holistic healers or alternative medical
)practitioners does not mean that Waldorf schools attract fringe
)medicine. More likely, a community with more "new age" people
)tends to attract both Waldorf schools and alternative medical
)practitioners.
I agree with what Steve has said, but I would like to suggest that the
final sentence is not quite accurate, in practice.
There's no organization or group of individuals working to "seed"
communities with waldorf schools. In every case I'm personally aware of,
waldorf schools have been started by people who are already present in a
community--usually parents with school-age children, but there are
instances (such as the school in which I teach) where the impulse was
provided by local anthroposophists.
So, it would be more accurate to say that a community might attract waldorf
*parents* to an existing school. Communities don't "attract" waldorf
schools, communities build them.
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1109.9 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 01:58:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199902260002.QAA11990 lists1.best.com)
"Alan S. Fine wrote:
)Then can we dispense with the cosmology, the root race theory,
)reincarnation, the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth, the Mystery of
)Golgotha, the angels above, the gnomes below, Ahriman, the etheric body, the
)Christ impulse, etc.etc.etc? If it's just love were into, pure and
)simple, count me in too. It seems to me however that there is a lot more to
)your notion of God than just that. And the devil is in the details.
Yes, we may also dispense with the theory of relativity, with gravity,
astronomy, mathematics, etc. - even with dance, theater, literature,
poetry, mythology, and theology. And the devil is in all the details. What
the hell would we do without the devil? But God is love, and the Mystery of
Golgotha is the most perfect expression of this love.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1109.10 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 02:19:57 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199902260002.QAA12647 lists1.best.com)
Alan S. Fine wrote:
)I am sorry, I meant no disrespect. I was writing somewhat metaphorically.
)What I meant to say is that Anthroposophists claim to know truths about the
)spiritual world, but that Anthroposophists' truths in these matters may not
)be the truth to other people. Those Anthroposophists who can accept these
)spiritual matters as their own beliefs, and not necessarily truths that
)apply to all, (and perhaps you are among them), will be the ones I would
)feel most respected by, and the ones I would respect the most in return.
An atheist knows that there is no god, he knows that natural science proves
that there is nothing supernatural. He knows this is the truth for all
people. He knows that the sun, that nurtures biological life as we know it,
is nothing but a gaseous ball.
The anthroposophist knows that the physical sun is the external expression
of the spiritual sun, inhabited by spiritual beings, and that no living
creature can evolve and grow without the fiery love from the spiritual sun.
Any sincere world-conception, or philosophy of life, would lose its weight
and value if it is not accepted as a perspective embracing all of
existence. The atheist hopes that all Christians, Hindus, Muslims,
Theosophists, etc. will wake up to the fact that we are all products of
chemical processes and that spiritual visions are only figments of our
imagination. All religious and spiritually oriented people feel that
atheism is a misfortune and an illusion. But it is perfectly possible for
people to hold such diametrically opposing views and still have the deepest
respect for each other.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1109 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1110 --------------
001 - Kathy (spike netshel.net) - Watch it PLANS!
002 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
003 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Steiner's scientific method
004 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: Watch it PLANS!
005 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Steiner's scientific method
006 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Rudolf Steiner on race and gender
007 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Re: Steiner's scientific method
008 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
009 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Steiner's scientific method
010 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Watch it PLANS!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1110.1 ---------------
From: Kathy (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:40:00 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902252020.MAA25505 lists1.best.com)
Robert Tolz posted:
) There's a federal trial ongoing now in my county, dealing with a
) nearby school district which is being charged as illegally promoting
) religion. I suspect that when the decision comes down, it may have some
) precedential value for the PLANS lawsuit, though I'm sure it will be
) distinguishable in a number of ways. Here's this morning's report on the
) trial. I'm sure you will all find it intriguing:
The newspaper article you posted describes a case in which children are
allegedly being taught religious beliefs or led in religious practices
(yoga) that are offensive to a particular group of families. It also
involves the use of Magic Cards on campus and presentation of the
D.A.R.E. program.
These allegations are not analogous to the PLANS litigation (except
perhaps, if one stretches the connection, the Yoga exercises). PLANS
alleges that school funds are being paid to a sectarian organization
(Rudolf Steiner College) and this is a direct violation of the
California State Consititution. The case also alleges that the Waldorf
method, as taught in the 2 public schools being sued, is based on
religious beliefs and these beliefs guide the pedagogy. It also alleges
that teachers are illegally being required to take Waldorf teacher
training at a sectarian institution.
These types of allegations are not part of the case you quoted.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1110.2 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:37:44 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
This is in reply to the interesting discussion about whether I am calling
Anthroposophy dangerous. It is a certain mentality that I fear. It is the
mentality of one that places absolute faith in a single man's views. It is
the mentality of one that sees spirituality not only as a personal belief
but as an absolute truth. It is the mentality of one who cannot see the
spiritual path of others as being as true and as high and as complete as his
own. I have seen this mentality in many places: not only among cults such
as the Scientologists, but among the Christian Fundamentalists, among the
Jewish Hassids of Lubavitch, (where incidentally the parallels to
Anthroposopy are strong - you with your Dr. Steiner, they with their Dr.
Schneerson), Some would say you can see something similar among special
armed forces.
Because this mentality involves subsuming aspects of individual
judgement to that of the group (or leader), and because the beliefs are
framed in this absolute high realm, there is always potential for the
beliefs to be acted upon in a forceful and unquestioning manner. The actions
prompted by such spiritual fervor have always carried a potential for
misdeed. Suicide, torture, human sacrifice, and military crusade are as
common as building hospitals, schools, and orphanages (and all can occur
within a single group). With individual autonomy impaired, it is natural
(and essential) to ask just what kind of actions will the belief system
prompt? It is here that the particular content of a groups beliefs becomes
critical. Among the concerns are: Are there precepts that could justify
violence? or the oppression of outside people? Or, for that matter, what
do those within the group have to submit to? What about the leader? Is he
stable? (I admit that I could not trust any such group whose leader is
still alive. Even the saintliest of humans can become psychotic from
Altzheimer's or a brain tumor, and then what becomes of the followers?).
As for Anthroposophy in particular, I do believe that it involves the
mentality I am referring to.(although there may be individual
Anthroposophists who do not so subscribe.) And because I see this mentality
in operation,
I am very concerned about the question of exactly what actions this group
may have prompted in the past, and what actions might it prompt in the
future. And my scrutiny is likely to continue.
Alan S. Fine MD
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1110.3 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's scientific method
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:29:47 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902070950.BAA10356 lists1.best.com)
(199902060306.TAA23200 lists1.best.com)
(199902060220.SAA20487 lists1.best.com)
(199902040938.BAA06071 lists1.best.com)
(199902040406.UAA04667 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902071234.EAA22552 lists1.best.com)
))Tarjei Straume, you quoted me (Dan Dugan),
))))Please explain how Steiner applied scientific method to reading "the
))))Akashic record."
)
))And you replied:
)
)))Rudolf Steiner extended the application of the scientific method to the
)))spiritual realm. That is why one of the biographies written about him -
)))the name of the author eludes me - is entitled "Scientist of the
)))Invisible."
)
)))Steiner's scientific approach to the Akashic Record is best dealt with in
)))"Geheimwissensschaft im Umriss" (GA 13), translated as "An Outline of
)))Occult Science."
DUGAN
))I've read it, every page. Please explain in your own words how Steiner
))applied scientific method to reading "the Akashic record."
TARJEI
)As you probably know, Helena Blavatsky was reading the Akashic Record by
)means of atavistic clairvoyance. This meant that her consciousness was
)reduced during the reading, when she was in a trance-like state. She did
)however possess an exceptionally good memory for such things, which enabled
)her to publish many details. Blavatsky's approach to the Akashic Record was
)of a kind that was commonly accepted by the theosophists, who with varying
)degrees of success, failure, and delusion, tried to emulate her. Their
)methods included spiritualism, hypnotism, crystal balls, etc.
I don't accept these assertions as fact. Blavatsky was successful as a cult
leader because she could convince people that preposterous claims like
"reading the Akashic Record" were true. We are in the realm of faith, not
science.
)Rudolf Steiner, on the other hand, had schooled himself in the natural
)sciences, and he had managed to approach the Akashic Record by means of the
)natural-scientific discipline. What this means is that when Steiner crossed
)the threshold of dreamless sleep, where most of us lose consciousness, he
)had attained a level of initiation that made it possible to enter this
)realm fully alert. That is why he also called it "initiation science." In
)this alert state it is possible to observe phenomena objectively and
)scientifically, checking and double-checking, taking different approaches
)and paths and match the results. This is not possible when receiving
)impressions from the outside in a state of trance, like Blavatsky did.
So Steiner learned the guru game from Blavatsky, and then took his devotees
off in his own direction. People in real science don't accept that
"initiation science" leads to objective observation. Quite the contrary, if
you look at the results, like Anthroposophical Medicine, you can see that
Steiner's techniques lead people -away- from useful knowledge about the
world. It takes a religious or cult-like structure for people to take
nonsense like this seriously. In the world of science such pretensions are
irrelevant.
)Rudolf Steiner discouraged the methods of obtaining spiritual wisdom that
)were practiced by the theosophists. But Annie Besant, head of the
)Theosophical Society, believed that Rudolf Steiner's approach was
)impossible, and this probably contributed to the events that led to the
)separation of Theosophy and Anthroposophy.
)
)Rudolf Steiner's introduction to the Akashic Record, in the preface to the
)book "Aus der Akasha-Chronik" which he wrote in 1904, includes the
)following:
)
)"Today I am still obliged to remain silent about the sources of the
)information given here. One who knows anything at all about such sources
)will understand why this has to be so. But events can occur which will make
)a breaking of this silence possible very soon. How much of the knowledge
)hidden within the theosophical movement may gradually be communicated,
)depends entirely on the attitude of our contemporaries."
)
)This enigmatic secrecy and caution by Steiner puzzled me for a long time,
)because this is, as mentioned before, the first book I read by him. The
)gravity of the matter may however be glimpsed if we consider the fact that
)active opposition to Steiner was initiated after the lecture cycle "From
)Jesus to Christ," where some specific occult knowledge was given out that
)was desired from certain quarters to be kept hidden from the public.
Occultists love to pretend that their "knowledge" is important, and
dangerous in the wrong hands. Note the construction: "One who knows
anything at all about such sources will understand..." This is a classic
guru trick.
)What spiritual science means to the anthroposophist, is that
)divine-spiritual subject matters such as the Gospels of the New Testament
)are made comprehensible to the scientifically oriented intellect and not
)only to the life of feeling, which is the case with religious faith. What
)this means for me personally is that without Anthroposophy, I would not
)have found it possible to be a Christian. Rudolf Steiner has shown me how
)to find the Christ without compromising the scientific intellect.
OK, maybe for you believing that there were two Christ children and two
Marys satisfies your "scientific intellect." Steiner's best trick was
inducing people believe that conclusions drawn purely from "the life of
feeling" were "comprehensible to the scientifically oriented intellect."
)You may call it pseudo-science, and you may call it weird, and you may
)announce your disbelief in everything that Anthroposophy stands for.
I'm sure we share belief in many of the good things that Anthroposophy
stands for; motherhood, apple pie...
)But I
)do believe that I deserve respect, and that my reality has the same right
)to recognition as anybody else's without being showered with arrogant and
)bigoted labels like nit-witted mumbo jumbo and the like.
Sorry, Tarjei, but I can respect you and in the same sentence tell you that
your "reality" is a ridiculous fantasy. All people deserve respect, but all
ideas aren't equal.
)Anthroposophy does
)not deserve to be slandered like some kind of disease, and my idealism,
)which includes my view of evolution and history that I have adopted to a
)very great extent from Steiner and Blavatsky and Hinduism, should not be
)subjected to mudslinging through charges of Nazism. I take those
)allegations very personally.
Anthroposophy richly deserves to be exposed as the religious doctrine that
it is. You're welcome to practice it with your Anthroposophical friends,
but to the degree that you promulgate it falsely in the world as "science,"
"medicine," and "education," you're going to have to take your knocks.
What I point out, Tarjei, is that the theory of evolution of humanity from
Atlantis that Blavatsky elaborated (from popular fiction) and Steiner
developed further as "spiritual science," formed a suitable part of the
foundation of Nazi mythology. See Alfred Rosenberg. This theory is not only
wrong, contradicted by all of the historical sciences like archaeology and
geology, but it is racist, in its description of races as stages of
development. Steiner's history is not only wrong, and racist, but it has
been forever contaminated by its subsequent incorporation by Nazi
ideologists (a tradition still carried on by a small group of neo-Nazi
Anthroposophists today). The right thing would be to repudiate it.
)My father was one of the heroes of Telemark in the resistance movement
)against the Nazi occupation of Norway during World War II, and my mother
)was arrested and incarcerated by the Nazis in this country for the "crime"
)of being an American citizen. As an anarchist, I belong to the number one
)target group for the neo-Nazis, their prime enemy. So what are you trying
)to tell me? That I have been a Nazi-racist all along?
My dad fought in the Pacific. What I'm telling you is that this belief
system is religion, not science, and because of its racism, it is
distasteful.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1110.4 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 04:55:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902252020.MAA25505 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902260245.SAA03957 lists1.best.com)
Kathy Sutphen posts:
)These allegations are not analogous to the PLANS litigation (except
)perhaps, if one stretches the connection, the Yoga exercises). PLANS
)alleges that school funds are being paid to a sectarian organization
)(Rudolf Steiner College) and this is a direct violation of the
)California State Consititution. The case also alleges that the Waldorf
)method, as taught in the 2 public schools being sued, is based on
)religious beliefs and these beliefs guide the pedagogy. It also alleges
)that teachers are illegally being required to take Waldorf teacher
)training at a sectarian institution.
Can any of the PLANS board members on the list comment on the current
status of your federal lawsuit, beyond the complaint itself?
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1110.5 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Steiner's scientific method
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:37:05 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902071234.EAA22552 lists1.best.com)
(199902070950.BAA10356 lists1.best.com)
(199902060306.TAA23200 lists1.best.com)
(199902060220.SAA20487 lists1.best.com)
(199902040938.BAA06071 lists1.best.com)
(199902040406.UAA04667 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902260832.AAA02033 lists1.best.com)
I wrote:
))As you probably know, Helena Blavatsky was reading the Akashic Record by
))means of atavistic clairvoyance. This meant that her consciousness was
))reduced during the reading, when she was in a trance-like state. She did
))however possess an exceptionally good memory for such things, which enabled
))her to publish many details. Blavatsky's approach to the Akashic Record was
))of a kind that was commonly accepted by the theosophists, who with varying
))degrees of success, failure, and delusion, tried to emulate her. Their
))methods included spiritualism, hypnotism, crystal balls, etc.
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
)I don't accept these assertions as fact. Blavatsky was successful as a cult
)leader because she could convince people that preposterous claims like
)"reading the Akashic Record" were true. We are in the realm of faith, not
)science.
You are not only saying that we are in the realm of faith. You are also
implying that Blavatsky was deceitful and dishonest.
I wrote:
)
))Rudolf Steiner, on the other hand, had schooled himself in the natural
))sciences, and he had managed to approach the Akashic Record by means of the
))natural-scientific discipline. What this means is that when Steiner crossed
))the threshold of dreamless sleep, where most of us lose consciousness, he
))had attained a level of initiation that made it possible to enter this
))realm fully alert. That is why he also called it "initiation science." In
))this alert state it is possible to observe phenomena objectively and
))scientifically, checking and double-checking, taking different approaches
))and paths and match the results. This is not possible when receiving
))impressions from the outside in a state of trance, like Blavatsky did.
)
)So Steiner learned the guru game from Blavatsky, and then took his devotees
)off in his own direction.
Steiner did not "play" Blavatsky's "game." His approach was very different
from hers.
)People in real science don't accept that "initiation science" leads to
))objective observation.
By "real science" you mean orthodox science, perhaps because nothing else
is real to *you.* But there are also many qualified orthodox scientists who
do accept Steiner's claims. For this reason, it is misleading to suggest as
you do that *everybody* in orthodox science rejects Steiner's spiritual
science.
)Quite the contrary, if you look at the results, like Anthroposophical
))Medicine, you can see that Steiner's techniques lead people -away- from
)useful )knowledge about the world.
What you call "useful knowledge about the world" I understand to be
orthodox science. Steiner added extra knowledge to this, spiritual
knowledge, but his techniques do not lead away from material reality. What
anthroposophical medicine is concerned, it is simply a matter of adding
useful knowledge to other useful knowledge.
)It takes a religious or cult-like structure for people to take nonsense
)like )this seriously.
No it doesn't. All it takes is the publishing of solid explanations and
arguments. Most unaffiliated anthroposophists are influenced by books
alone, not by any organizational structure.
)In the world of science such pretensions are irrelevant.
It is not pretension of make-believe. Anyone is free to reject the claim of
spiritual science to be science, but it is not based upon lies, dishonesty,
and deceit.
I wrote:
))Rudolf Steiner discouraged the methods of obtaining spiritual wisdom that
))were practiced by the theosophists. But Annie Besant, head of the
))Theosophical Society, believed that Rudolf Steiner's approach was
))impossible, and this probably contributed to the events that led to the
))separation of Theosophy and Anthroposophy.
))
))Rudolf Steiner's introduction to the Akashic Record, in the preface to the
))book "Aus der Akasha-Chronik" which he wrote in 1904, includes the
))following:
))
))"Today I am still obliged to remain silent about the sources of the
))information given here. One who knows anything at all about such sources
))will understand why this has to be so. But events can occur which will make
))a breaking of this silence possible very soon. How much of the knowledge
))hidden within the theosophical movement may gradually be communicated,
))depends entirely on the attitude of our contemporaries."
))
))This enigmatic secrecy and caution by Steiner puzzled me for a long time,
))because this is, as mentioned before, the first book I read by him. The
))gravity of the matter may however be glimpsed if we consider the fact that
))active opposition to Steiner was initiated after the lecture cycle "From
))Jesus to Christ," where some specific occult knowledge was given out that
))was desired from certain quarters to be kept hidden from the public.
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
)Occultists love to pretend that their "knowledge" is important, and
)dangerous in the wrong hands. Note the construction: "One who knows
)anything at all about such sources will understand..." This is a classic
)guru trick.
Just because you refuse to accept something as truthful, does not mean that
it is based upon trickery and deceit and dishonesty. And a guru in Hinduism
is not a trickster, a deceiver, and a liar. Do you hold that opinion about
all religions? Was Jesus Christ a shrewd and conniving deceitful trickster
when he turned water into wine, healed the sick, and rose from the dead?
I wrote:
)
))What spiritual science means to the anthroposophist, is that
))divine-spiritual subject matters such as the Gospels of the New Testament
))are made comprehensible to the scientifically oriented intellect and not
))only to the life of feeling, which is the case with religious faith. What
))this means for me personally is that without Anthroposophy, I would not
))have found it possible to be a Christian. Rudolf Steiner has shown me how
))to find the Christ without compromising the scientific intellect.
)
)OK, maybe for you believing that there were two Christ children and two
)Marys satisfies your "scientific intellect."
It does. Orthodox theologians have always had a big problem with
reconciling the Luke and Matthew gospels what the ancestry of Jesus is
concerned. I have not yet seen an explanation that makes better sense than
that of Steiner.
)Steiner's best trick was inducing people believe that conclusions drawn
)purely )from "the life of feeling" were "comprehensible to the
)scientifically oriented )intellect."
You obviously need to read more anthroposophy before you can say anything
about the interrelationship of thinking, feeling, and willing. Steiner
pointed out that traditional religious faith appealed almost exclusively to
the light of feeling, and that it was also necessary to make it
understandable in the life of thought. So your above statement us untrue
and misleading.
)I'm sure we share belief in many of the good things that Anthroposophy
)stands for; motherhood, apple pie...
Anthroposophy has never stood for motherhood or apple pie.
)Sorry, Tarjei, but I can respect you and in the same sentence tell you that
)your "reality" is a ridiculous fantasy. All people deserve respect, but all
)ideas aren't equal.
You don't only say that my reality is ridiculous fantasy. You're saying
that my ridiculous fantasies, that I view as realities, proceed from
conniving trickery and deliberate lies.
)Anthroposophy richly deserves to be exposed as the religious doctrine that
)it is.
You are not exposing it, Dan. You are distorting, falsifying, slandering
and maligning it.
)You're welcome to practice it with your Anthroposophical friends,
)but to the degree that you promulgate it falsely in the world as "science,"
)"medicine," and "education," you're going to have to take your knocks.
In other words, Waldorf education is *falsely* called so? It is not
education at all?
)
)What I point out, Tarjei, is that the theory of evolution of humanity from
)Atlantis that Blavatsky elaborated (from popular fiction) and Steiner
)developed further as "spiritual science," formed a suitable part of the
)foundation of Nazi mythology. See Alfred Rosenberg.
Several other leading Nazis distorted orthodox Christianity. So does the Ku
Klux Klan. According to your logic, Christianity is a Nazi religion.
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was also important to the Nazis. And
so was Nietzsche. So Darwin and Nietzsche were also Nazis?
)This theory is not only wrong, contradicted by all of the historical
)sciences )like archaeology and geology,
That is not true. Even Thor Heyerdahl has conceded that the story about
Atlantis cannot be excluded as one of the possibilities. Scientists are
divided on this issue. Please quote your gurus and site their conclusive
evidence.
)but it is racist, in its description of races as stages of development.
If the very description of human races and their evolution is racist, so be
it. I'm a racist. Put that in your notebook.
)Steiner's history is not only wrong, and racist, but it has been forever
))contaminated by its subsequent incorporation by Nazi ideologists
In that case, Darwin, Nietzsche, Christianity, and Feng-Shui (the Chinese
origin of Nazi geomancy) have also been "forever contaminated by its
subsequent incorporation by Nazi ideologists." By this line of logic, there
will be little left that hasn't been forever contaminated by the Nazis.
(snip)
)What I'm telling you is that this belief system is religion, not science,
)and )because of its racism, it is distasteful.
What if it is the truth? What is *your* truth about evolution, about
Christianity, and so on? Who are *your* gurus? And what makes them less
distasteful?
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1110.6 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Rudolf Steiner on race and gender
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:40:26 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
There are many of Rudolf Steiner's works that certain critics don't seem to
want people to read. One of these is the fourteenth chapter in "Philosophy
of Freedom," entitled "Individuality and Genus":
"The view that man is destined to become a complete, self-contained, free
individuality seems to be contested by the fact that he makes his
appearance as a member of a naturally given totality (race, people, nation,
family, male or female sex) and also works within a totality (state,
church, and so on). He bears the general characteristics of the group to
which he belongs, and he gives to his actions a content that is determined
by the position he occupies among many others.
"This being so, is individuality possible at all? Can we regard man as a
totality in himself, seeing that he grows out of one totality and integrates
himself into another?
"Each member of a totality is determined, as regards its characteristics
and functions, by the whole totality. A racial group is a totality and all
the people belonging to it bear the characteristic features that are
inherent in the nature of the group. How the single member is constituted,
and how he will behave, are determined by the character of the racial
group. Therefore the physiognomy and conduct of the individual have
something generic about them. If we ask why some particular thing about a
man is like this or like that, we are referred back from the individual to
the genus. The genus explains why something in the individual appears in
the form we observe.
"Man, however, makes himself free from what is generic. For the generic
features of the human race, when rightly understood, do not restrict man's
freedom, and should not artificially be made to do so. A man develops
qualities and activities of his own, and the basis for these we can seek
only in the man himself. What is generic in him serves only as a medium in
which to express his own individual being. He uses as a foundation the
characteristics that nature has given him, and to these he gives a form
appropriate to his own being. If we seek in the generic laws the reasons
for an expression of this being, we seek in vain. We are concerned with
something purely individual which can be explained only in terms of itself.
If a man has achieved this emancipation from all that is generic, and we
are nevertheless determined to explain everything about him in generic
terms, then we have no sense for what is individual.
"It is impossible to understand a human being completely if one takes the
concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment. The tendency to judge
according to the genus is at its most stubborn where we are concerned with
differences of sex. Almost invariably man sees in woman, and woman in man,
too much of the general character of the other sex and too little of what
is individual. In practical life this does less harm to men than to women.
The social position of women is for the most part such an unworthy one
because in so many respects it is determined not as it should be by the
particular characteristics of the individual woman, but by the general
picture one has of woman's natural tasks and needs. A man's activity in
life is governed by his individual capacities and inclinations, whereas a
woman's is supposed to be determined solely by the mere fact that she is a
woman. She is supposed to be a slave to what is generic, to womanhood in
general. As long as men continue to debate whether a woman is suited to
this or that profession "according to her natural disposition", the
so-called woman's question cannot advance beyond its most elementary stage.
What a woman, within her natural limitations, wants to become had better be
left to the woman herself to decide. If it is true that women are suited
only to that profession which is theirs at present, then they will hardly
have it in them to attain any other. But they must be allowed to decide for
themselves what is in accordance with their nature. To all who fear an
upheaval of our social structure through accepting women as individuals and
not as females, we must reply that a social structure in which the status
of one half of humanity is unworthy of a human being is itself in great
need of improvement.
"Anyone who judges people according to generic characters gets only as far
as the frontier where people begin to be beings whose activity is based on
free self-determination. Whatever lies short of this frontier may naturally
become matter for academic study. The characteristics of race, people,
nation and sex are the subject matter of special branches of study. Only
men who wish to live as nothing more than examples of the genus could
possibly conform to a general picture such as arises from academic study of
this kind. But none of these branches of study are able to advance as far
as the unique content of the single individual. Determining the individual
according to the laws of his genus ceases where the sphere of freedom (in
thinking and acting) begins. The conceptual content which man has to
connect with the percept by an act of thinking in order to have the full
reality (see Chapter 5 ff.) cannot be fixed once and for all and bequeathed
ready-made to mankind. The individual must get his concepts through his own
intuition. How the individual has to think cannot possibly be deduced from
any kind of generic concept. It depends simply and solely on the
individual. Just as little is it possible to determine from the general
characteristics of man what concrete aims the individual may choose to set
himself. If we would understand the single individual we must find our way
into his own particular being and not stop short at those characteristics
that are typical. In this sense every single human being is a separate
problem. And every kind of study that deals with abstract thoughts and
generic concepts is but a preparation for the knowledge we get when a human
individuality tells us his way of viewing the world, and on the other hand
for the knowledge we get from the content of his acts of will Whenever we
feel that we are dealing with that element in a man which is free from
stereotyped thinking and instinctive willing, then, if we would understand
him in his essence, we must cease to call to our aid any concepts at all of
our own making, The act of knowing consists in combining the concept with
the percept by means of thinking. With all other objects the observer must
get his concepts through his intuition; but if we are to understand a free
individuality we must take over into our own spirit those concepts by which
he determines himself, in their pure form (without mixing our own
conceptual content with them). Those who immediately mix their own
concepts into every judgment about another person, can never arrive at the
understanding of an individuality. Just as the free individuality
emancipates himself from the characteristics of the genus, so must the act
of knowing emancipate itself from the way in which we understand what is
generic.
"Only to the extent that a man has emancipated himself in this way from all
that is generic, does he count as a free spirit within a human community.
No man is all genus, none is all individuality. But every man gradually
emancipates a greater or lesser sphere of his being, both from the generic
characteristics of animal life and from domination by the decrees of human
authorities.
"As regards that part of his nature where a man is not able to achieve this
freedom for himself, he constitutes a part of the whole organism of nature
and spirit. In this respect he lives by copying others or by obeying their
commands. But only that part of his conduct that springs from his
intuitions can have ethical value in the true sense. And those moral
instincts that he possesses through the inheritance of social instincts
acquire ethical value through being taken up into his intuitions. It is
from individual ethical intuitions and their acceptance by human
communities that all moral activity of mankind originates. In other words,
the moral life of mankind is the sum total of the products of the moral
imagination of free human individuals. This is the conclusion reached by
monism."
This is the distasteful racist philosophy of Rudolf Steiner, and the very
core of his "Nazi connection."
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1110.7 ---------------
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum online.no)
Subject: Re: Steiner's scientific method
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:25:26 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199902071234.EAA22552 lists1.best.com)
(199902070950.BAA10356 lists1.best.com)
(199902060306.TAA23200 lists1.best.com)
(199902060220.SAA20487 lists1.best.com)
(199902040938.BAA06071 lists1.best.com)
(199902040406.UAA04667 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199902260832.AAA02033 lists1.best.com)
I skipped the following remark by Dan Dugan. On second thought, it should
also be responded to:
)Steiner's history is not only wrong, and racist, but it has
)been forever contaminated by its subsequent incorporation by Nazi
)ideologists (a tradition still carried on by a small group of neo-Nazi
)Anthroposophists today). The right thing would be to repudiate it.
Your anthroposophical neo-Nazis (who ipso facto cannot be regarded as
anthroposophists) are far outnumbered by Christian and atheist neo-Nazis,
Darwinist neo-Nazis, etc. Again, you are clinging to the logic that Jesus
Christ was a Nazi because of Ku Klux Klan.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1110.8 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Re: Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy disclosure to parents
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:17:31 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199902082311.PAA12502 lists1.best.com)
(199902101751.JAA19548 lists1.best.com)
(199902160250.SAA16515 lists1.best.com)
(199902181656.IAA03769 lists1.best.com)
(199902221829.KAA03124 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (98836847 toto.iv)
Joel,
Could you try to limit your lines to around 70 characters, please?
your 100 character lines make for extremely ugly quoting.
Joel A. Wendt writes:
) Michael Hirsch wrote:
)
) ) Joel A. Wendt writes:
) ) ) Michael Hirsch wrote:
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) I put forward as such a possible statement the following: One is scientific if one
) ) ) ) ) postulates truths along with the relevant methodology so that the methodology itself can
) ) ) ) ) first be tested, and then applied and the truth replicated. This allows us to expand our
) ) ) ) ) methods, while remaining in concert with the fundamental "truth" principle of science,
) ) ) ) ) i.e. the ability to replicate.
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Here is where we part company. Science does not make progress by
) ) ) ) demonstrating truth, but rather by demonstrating lack thereof.
) ) )
) ) ) [This is a very interesting statement. Essentially it means that
) ) ) science doesn't know anything about the natural world, because any
) ) ) established view is always possibly falsifiable. I don't think all
) ) ) scientists would agree with that, however.]
) )
) ) Actually, I think they all would. We all hope that there is some
) ) underlying "truth" that we are discovering, but we know that the only
) ) way to do that is by ruling out the false.
)
) [I think it is more accurate to say that the only way scientists know how to discover the truth is
) by ruling out the false. You can't say it is the "only" way, because a) you haven't tested an
) offered alternative method; and b) you can't factually know there is no other method. What your
) statement above amounts to is a cultural prejudice, and implies a claim of superiority to other
) methods of knowledge. It is exactly this that is being challenged.]
I say "only" because it is the only scientific way. Any other way is
not science.
) Are we always to assume that the qualitification you mention exists
) behind every absolute statement?
Yes.
) ) True, except for the "obscure" and "uncaring" part. We are animals
) ) and we live on a planet in the cosmos. Which part do you disagree
) ) with?
)
) [Well, we are not animals, for starters. Human beings are very different from mammals, our nearest
) apparent relative. Read Schad's "Man and Mammals". I am not going to start up an old argument
) about evolution, but scientists themselves do not agree, and many competent and interested lay
) people also do not agree. I am satisfied, based upon my own knowledge, that I am not a higher
) order animal.
Funny. I am similarly satisfied, based on my own knowledge, that I am
an animal. I don't have a concept of "higher" order, so I don't claim
to be a "higher order" animal.
) [Often when I mention that aspect of spiritual science, which involves the moral, people jump to
) all kinds of conclusions.
Yes, I jump to the conclusion that it is not science. So far,
everything you've said confirms this conclusion.
) ) Which is what I've been saying: You are not a scientist and your
) ) "scientific spiritualism" is not scientific.
)
) [Of course it isn't "scientific" in the sense that you define
science.
Good. Now we're getting somewhere. I am a scientist and I use the
scientists definition of science. I feel a certain ownership of the
term. If someone wants to use a different definition, I suppose I
can't stop them, but I will criticise them. I beleive to do so is at
best misguided and generally misleading.
) But suppose you were to
) look at "science" as an historical entity, a "being" as it were, that has a beginning, stages of
) development, growth, its own evolution etc. That "science" is not so fixed as you would have us
) believe (see T. Kuhn, which you probably know of anyway).
Actually, the concept of science hasn't changed much in several
hundred years. What Kuhn was talking about was how new scientific
theories came to be accepted, not how the concept of science has
changed. Probably his kind of arguments could apply to how science is
defined, but such changes are much rarer. Science has been a pretty
stable concept since the end of the middle ages.
) )
) ) ) It would be interesting if "science" were to purge itself
) ) ) of all ideas not falsifiable. Most of evolutionary biology and
) ) ) cosmology would disappear.
) )
) ) Not at all. Evolutionary biology and cosmology make plenty of
) ) predictions. We can't go do experiments about them, but instead have
) ) to do field work digging up fossils and scanning the skies. But we
) ) very often find our predictions holding true, adding evidence of the
) ) correctness of the theory. If we get very lucky, the predictions
) ) fail and we find something wrong with our theories.
)
) [That certain events happened in the deep past is not testible. It is asserted, it is reasoned,
) but it is not testible. By your own standards the main thrust of both those theories lies outside
) the possibility of science to establish.
Evolution predicts many things. For instance, it predicts
intermediate animal forms between an ancestor animal and a descendant.
For example, for many years creationists would point to the absence of
proto-shales as evidence that evolution can't explain whales. (Note
that they were correctly using the falsifiability of a good theory.)
In the last 10 years or so many intermediate whale forms have been
found, thus helping "prove" evolution.
) For example, evolution assumes that at some point in the
) past the nervous system became sufficiently complex for consciousness to arise, and that "mind" is
) a function of the evolution of matter.
Actually, I don't think "evolution" per se has anything to say about
"mind". It is about the evolution of new species Maybe evolutionary
psychology is a field. If it exists maybe this is the area you are
talking about.
) There is no way to test this. Big bang cosmology tries to
) describe events nanoseconds after the "event", but the whole process is based on "reasoning
) backwards" from present understanding of physical reality.
Sort of. The way you test it is the other way around, though. You
reason "If it was like this back then, then it ought to be like this
right now." Then you go and test the world now and see if your
theories made the right prediction. Surely, if your theories make the
wrong prediction then they have been disproven. Clearly this is a
testable theory.
) That the big bang happened, or not,
) will never be testible, because the critical assumption (uninformitarnianism) can't itself be
) tested.
I think you mean can't be proven. It certainly can be tested. Since
the light from very distant stars/galaxies/quasars was first emitted
millions of years ago, by studying this light we can find out a lot
about what happened long ago. In particular, if the fundamental
constants were much different back then we would probably be able to
detect it.
Now, it is always possible that they were different in such a way that
our (false) theories predict almost exactly the same thing as the
reality and so we won't find our error, but that only shows that it
isn't provable. It is still testable.
) ) What implications [of quantum mechanics and relativity] are you
) talking about that are not scientific?
)
) [First off, relativity and quantum mechanics are not compatable.
That's right. And every scientists knows that. Fortunately, we never
said that we had the final answers. We know all our theories are
tentative. In this case, one or both of the theories are clearly
false. That's science.
) The study and "proof" of quantum mechanics
) itself is dependent upon a very peculiar kind of experiment, namely
) high energy physics.
No, you can also test a lot of it with simple photon experiments.
You are thinking of particle physics. Most of quantum mechanics is
more easily examined with a low energy light source and a couple of
slits in a wall.
) We throw
) matter at itself at very high energies, energies that do not exist in nature. Nature does not do
) quantum mechanics. We do it in a laboratory and then export the ideas to nature, through a mental
) process that is not carefully examined. If you are going to say that quantum events occur in the
) sun or or black holes, that is all just theory and not testible.
Not at all. When these circumstances arise in a star or around a
black whole, the theory makes predictions about the resulting
radiation. We test these theories by studying the radiation.
But I agree with you about string theory. It has not evolved, yet,
into a theory that can be tested by current technology. I also agree
that particle physics is too expensive for the expected return. There
are better ways to spend our money, I think.
) ) Then why do you get so upset when someone asks "suppose I test it and
) ) find it lacking?" A true scientists says "If you can describe a
) ) reproducible experiment contradiction my theory then I will reject my
) ) theory." You complain about hypothetical cases. A real scientists
) ) has no trouble with hypothetical cases.
)
) [I am not upset with hypotheticals, they are just not rational. They are reductionism in the
) extreme, because they assume the answer has some kind of meaning. You ask me: if I do your
) suggested experiment and it fails...and I respond: what answer can I give that has any meaning. To
) make an answer I have to invent someting that is not true (yet), namely that you do falsify the
) "experiment". How can I invent a response to an invented event, and make a statement that has any
) meaning? Do the experiment, don't try to imagine what will happen if it doesn't work.]
Why should I do the experiment without imagining what will happen if
it doesn't work? To a scientists, there are two interesting
possibilities to an experiment. 1) It agree with prediction which
helps verify the theory. 2) It disagrees with the prediction and we
need a new theory. The only reason to perform any experiment is if I
can imagine the two results. If an experiment won't help me choose
between theories it is scientifically useless.
You seem to be claiming experiments that have only one possible
result, or at least only one result that you can contemplate. Thisis
not science.
) ) My problem is that you are not applying science to those problems but
) ) you claim you are. You are doing something else but calling it
) ) science. This is wrong. It is an attempt to validate your methods by
) ) using the name of a well respected field. Its like Wheaties using
) ) Michael Jordan's face on its box. Eating Wheaties won't make you play
) ) like MJ. Similarly, calling your spiritualism "scientific" doesn't
) ) make it science, but it might fool some impressionable youths.
) ) (There's a Latin or Greek name for this rhetorical trick, but it
) ) escapes me at the moment.)
) )
)
) [This begs the question. The only way to know it is not scientific
) is to do the "experiment".
I suppose it is possible that the experiment is scientific, but you
are not. The only way for it to be science is for you to make a
prediction and to agree that if the prediction doesn't hold then your
theories are wrong. Why should I perform an experiment when you won't
even tell me what the two possibilities are?
This is my last work in this thread. As I see it, you are claiming
the mantle of "science" for something that isn't even vaguely
scientific and doesn't pretend to follow the scientific method.
--Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1110.9 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Steiner's scientific method
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:27:48 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Tarjei Straume [mailto:tastraum online.no]
)
) Your anthroposophical neo-Nazis (who ipso facto cannot be regarded as
) anthroposophists) are far outnumbered by Christian and
) atheist neo-Nazis,
) Darwinist neo-Nazis, etc. Again, you are clinging to the
) logic that Jesus
) Christ was a Nazi because of Ku Klux Klan.
)
I never thought of that KKK response to Dan's Nazi war-song. Three
points for you, Tarjei.
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1110.10 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Watch it PLANS!
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:45:56 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Kathy [mailto:spike netshel.net]
) The newspaper article you posted describes a case in which
) children are
) allegedly being taught religious beliefs or led in religious practices
) (yoga) that are offensive to a particular group of families. It also
) involves the use of Magic Cards on campus and presentation of the
) D.A.R.E. program.
)
) These allegations are not analogous to the PLANS litigation (except
) perhaps, if one stretches the connection, the Yoga exercises). PLANS
) alleges that school funds are being paid to a sectarian organization
) (Rudolf Steiner College) and this is a direct violation of the
) California State Consititution. The case also alleges that the Waldorf
) method, as taught in the 2 public schools being sued, is based on
) religious beliefs and these beliefs guide the pedagogy. It
) also alleges
) that teachers are illegally being required to take Waldorf teacher
) training at a sectarian institution.
)
) These types of allegations are not part of the case you quoted.
As I believe I mentioned, the facts are certainly quite
distinguishable. However, I will follow the case with interest
nevertheless.
I'm looking forward to what the judge might say about the exercises
taught by the yoga person and the psychic. If, as I suspect, he rules that
what they teach arguably has a non-sectarian value, then the fact that the
teaching is based upon some religious belief probably does not make it an
unlawful religious intrusion. This is something that the judge could rule
in the PLANS case as well, even if he were to make a finding that
anthroposophy is a religion. Thus, he could find in favor of the school
district without having to inquire about the religious foundation of the
methods. Would you prevent a school sports program from teaching martial
arts simply because they stem from a religious foundation?
I have more difficulty with the requirement that individuals have to
take training at a "sectarian" institution. To analyze the issue, let's
assume that the training is at a Catholic seminary as opposed to a Steiner
college, so that we dispose of the quarrel, in your favor, over whether or
not the teaching institution is sectarian or non-sectarian. Again, I think
a judge could quite easily find that so long as the training is in methods
of pedagogy, there is no lawful intrusion of religion. If the training
involves giving background in the spiritual foundation of the pedagogy, then
I think it would come down to whether the judge determines, as a factual
matter, that it consists of unlawful indoctrination or something which is
more on the order of FYI. If the trainee is not required to "believe" in
Steiner and anthroposophy, it would seem more like FYI to me.
I'm sure you wouldn't want to prevent a public school from teaching
a course in comparative religions. Such a course does not require the
student to believe. Let's say that after the pre-requisite survey course in
comparative religions, the public school then offers an elective advance
class where the student can make an in-depth study of either Buddhism,
Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Taoism, Zoroastrianism or Pagan Religions.
I doubt that you would consider that to be offensive either.
I think the question comes down to whether or not the public school
is being used for religious indoctrination of either the students or the
teachers. The presentation of facts in the PLANS case is likely to be
crucial to the judge's determination.
Bob
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1110 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1111 --------------
001 - Tarjei Straume (tastraum - Anarchosophy [was: