return to WCA Archive
Index
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1631 --------------
001 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1621
002 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: 2nd instalment of essay
003 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Sensible Physics Teaching: Edelglass declines
004 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Response from Anya Coit
005 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Unconstitutional?
006 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: 2nd instalment of essay
007 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: A proper Anthroposophical Christmas Tree
008 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: French Waldorfs complain about being classed as a cult
009 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: Lawsuit Settlement Offer (press release)
010 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Martin life story (was: French Waldorfs complain about being c
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1631.1 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1621
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 22:40:02 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
References: (199911271155.DAA17080 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199911271155.DAA17080 lists1.best.com)
Res Dickinson, you wrote,
)I'm very pleased to have found this page as we are currently thinking about
)taking our six year old son out of an independent school here in London
)England and sending him to a Steiner School. But unfortunately, apart from
)the last two posts that give more down-to-earth examples of Steiner methods
)of teaching I havent found very much of it very useful.
)Is there anyone here that can give more examples of how Steiner methods
)differ in teaching Sciences etc. in the school environment? At the moment
)apart from all this arguing about sub-races and root-races I havent seen much
)of real benefit to people like myself who have recently discovered Steiner
)Schooling.
You came in just when we'd started a major discussion on racism.
Please be patient. We're currently hoping a prominent author will
sign on to the list so we can discuss the philosophy of science
teaching that's practiced in Waldorf. If he doesn't show up we'll do
it anyway, I have a ton of new Waldorf teaching manuals.
There are three problems with science in Waldorf:
1) The pedagogical philosophy, called phenomenology or "Goethean
Science." The idea is that children are supposed to discover the laws
of nature for themselves by observation. This is good as far as it
goes, but when practiced as a fundamentalism as it is by many
teachers, it means that all theories are omitted. Children will learn
about the behavior of electricity in Physics blocks, but even in
eighth grade they will not learn anything about electric current or
electrons. This is dumbing-down for the sake of an essentially
anti-scientific and anti-intellectual ideology. The body of
scientific knowledge required of students today is much too complex
for this romantic theory to work.
2) The retardation created due to Steiner's theory of child
development. According to Steiner, children aren't supposed to learn
cause-and-effect reasoning until after puberty! This turns science
teaching into what my son called "baby science."
3) The leakage of Anthroposophical pseudo-scientific beliefs into the
curriculum. Steiner claimed that, through his study of occult
traditions and direct observation of "the spiritual world" he could
correct the errors of science. Wacky things that leak into the
classroom include Steiner's "twelve senses," his "threefold"
physiology, the body consisting of the nerve-sense system, the
metabolic muscular system, and the rhythmic system, the belief that
the heart doesn't pump blood (it moves itself), and denial of the
role of refraction in the creation of color.
)I don't think it's so bad for children to learn about karma or
)reincarnation after all there are millions of people out there that truly
)believe it exists.
I agree if karma and reincarnation are taught as comparative
religion. But in Waldorf spirituality is taught by immersion. If your
family's religion finds reincarnation acceptable, there's no problem,
but many do not, and Waldorf schools conceal the fact that the
Anthroposophical world-view is innate in the curriculum.
)what I want to know is how my six year old child who is
)now reading and writing, is likely to experience switching to a steiner
)school where they are
)not even learning to read at this stage?
Everything depends on the class teacher that your child would have.
Many accommodate children at different stages with no problem, but we
have heard stories of fundamentalist Waldorf teachers who try to
suppress children's "premature" acquisition of skills, and tell
parents they are upsetting the class by giving their children
supplementary teaching at home.
)Also, how would a steiner educated
)child compare with other children at 18?
A very interesting question, one which very much needs to be studied.
We really don't know. The fact that schools are proud of their
talented graduates doesn't tell you anything about the drop-outs or
complete airheads that they turn out. There was one German study on
outcomes that we're trying to get translated. I suspect on average
they will come out superior in some areas, and inferior in others.
Waldorf is very different, so it's got to have an observably
different outcome.
Detlef Hardorp, can you obtain copies for us of the three studies
that you mentioned in your post?
)I have seen mention of science being taught on observations and not on
)theory? what does this mean - can anyone explain? how does it differ from
)mainstream schools? is it likely to affect my sons chances of going to
)university at 18? These are the types areas I am interested in not all the
)intellectual dancing that I have seen about whethe Steiner is a cult or not?
)Is there anyone that can give me answers please -
)I dont want to be making rash decisions and jeopardizing my son's future?
)Regards
)Res Dickinson. Bexley Kent England
Hope this helps, Res.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1631.2 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 22:43:57 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199911240943.BAA06297 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199911240943.BAA06297 lists1.best.com)
Detlef, you wrote:
) One more remark before jumping in: Rudolf Steiner clearly
)distanced himself from the concept of root-races as early as 1905.
)This seems to have been totally overlooked in the critical
)discussion so far. The claim that "the theory of root-races belongs
)to the pillars of anthroposophy" is clearly false. If the
)discussion does not prove me wrong, then I ask the critics to
)refrain in future from barking up a tree that, in fact, ceased to
)exist as early as 1905.
Steiner distanced himself from the -words- "root-race," substituting
the bowdlerism "cultural epoch." Same concept, different name. The
volkisch racial myth remained, and is evident in Anthroposophical
writings and in Waldorf schools today. Humanity (or "consciousness")
didn't "evolve" from Atlantis to ancient India to Egypt to Greece,
etc. That's the volkisch myth of the history of the "Aryan race" that
Blavatsky and Steiner taught. There's a direct line of inheritance
from them to Alfred Rosenberg's "Myth of the Twentieth Century" just
a few years later.
Does studying this framework harm children or make them into racists?
Probably not, but I keep harping on it for two reasons: it's false,
and it stinks from where it's been. Who believes this nonsense today?
I believe it was your sister, Detlef, who rebutted my argument with
the observation that the Nazi's referred to Darwin, too, so I'd have
to also consider him as one of the people who provided the
philosophical foundations for the holocaust. Don't Anthroposophists
have as much right to say that the Nazis misused and distorted
Steiner as scientists have to say that they misused and distorted
Darwin?
The difference is that Darwinian theory describes nature, as well as
we can understand it. I'm sure the Nazis referred to the scientific
work of Faraday and Boyle, too, but those scientists' reputations
aren't harmed either because their work, like Darwin's, is part of
the general knowledge of humanity. In the case of the
Theosophical/Anthroposophical historical myth, that myth was not
based on evidence but on supernatural revelations to the leaders of
those cults. Beyond the adherents of those groups, it had no place in
education in the 1920's, let alone now.
In no way did Steiner renounce volkisch racism in 1905. In 1910, for
example, he said:
"[There is] for example a point or center of cosmic influence
situated in the interior of Africa. At this center are active all
those terrestrial forces emanating from the soil which can influence
man especially during his childhood. Later on their influence
diminishes; man is less subject to these forces. Nevertheless their
formative influence makes a powerful impression upon him. The
locality where people live exercises its most potent influence in
early childhood and thereby determines for their whole life those who
are completely dependent on these forces, so that the particular
locality impresses the characteristics of their early childhood
permanently upon them. This is more or less typical of all those who,
in respect to their racial character, are determined by the etheric
formative forces of the earth in the neighborhood of that locality.
The black or Negro race is substantially determined by these
childhood characteristics.
"If we now cross over to Asia, we find a point or center where the
formative forces of the earth impress permanently on man the
particular characteristics of later youth or adolescence and
determine his racial character. Such races are the yellow and brown
races of our time.
"If we continue northward and then turn in a westerly direction
towards Europe, a third point or center is reached which permanently
impresses upon man the characteristics of his adult life. In this way
man is determined by the etheric forces emanating from the earth.
When we look more closely into these separate points or centers we
find that they follow a line which takes an unusual direction. These
centers still exist today. The center in Africa corresponds to those
terrestrial forces which imprint on man the characteristics of early
childhood; the center in Asia corresponds to those which give man the
characteristics of youth, and the corresponding center in Europe
imprints upon man the characteristics of maturity. This is a simple
universal law. Since all men in their different incarnations pass
through the various races the claim that the European is superior to
the black and yellow races has no real validity."
[Steiner, Rudolf. The Mission of Folk-Souls. (1910) London: The
Rudolf Steiner Press, 1971. pp. 75-76]
There's a pattern to this rhetoric that Steiner uses more than once.
He makes an outrageously racist statement, and then he adds an
inspiring internationalist statement at the end. I suppose he figured
the last impression would get him off the hook. If you examine it
closely, saying that people pass through all the races on their way
to the Aryan pinnacle of development doesn't do much to mollify the
insult of saying that other races are lower stages of development.
Talking about Steiner, you wrote,
)He made a commitment to lecture only about what he had researched
)himself. He nonetheless adapted some of the theosophic terminology,
)including the concept of the ìroot-races.î With these Steiner meant
)what he later more aptly called ìcultural epochsî within historical
)and pre-historical evolution, each lasting about two millennia.
What Steiner meant is clear from what he said, though sometimes
code-words have to be interpreted. If he talked about "root-races,"
he must have "researched" them. I don't care what he called it, the
concept is still wrong, and racist.
"The Ancestors of the Atlanteans lived in a region which has
disappeared, the main part of which lay south of contemporary Asia.
In theosophical writings they are called the Lemurians. After they
had passed through various stages of development the greatest part of
them declined. These became stunted men, whose descendants still
inhabit certain parts of the earth today as so-called savage tribes.
Only a small part of Lemurian humanity was capable of further
development. From this part the Atlanteans were formed.
"Later, something similar again took place. The greatest part of the
Atlantean population declined, and from a small portion are descended
the so-called Aryans who comprise present-day civilized humanity.
According to the nomenclature of the science of the spirit, the
Lemurians, Atlanteans and Aryans are root races of mankind. If one
imagines that two such root races preceded the Lemurians and that two
will succeed the Aryans in the future, one obtains a total of seven."
[Steiner, Rudolf. Cosmic Memory: Prehistory of Earth and Man. (1904)
Trans. Karl E. Zimmer. Blauvelt, New York: Steinerbooks, 1987. p. 48]
Does this sound like someone who doesn't believe what he's saying?
) By 1905 (in his essay ìAbout the Life of the Earth,î published
)posthumously in a collection of essays later entitled *From the
)Akashic Record*) Steiner laments having ever adapted an ìunfortunate
)terminologyî for something that in our day and age has nothing to do
)with race at all. ìMuch confusionî was caused by the conventional
)theosophical terminology of using the word ìraceî to depict
)something which is today a purely cultural phenomenon. In a lecture
)on December 4th in the year 1909, Steiner is adamant about his
)intention for the anthroposophical movement to work *ì... towards
)stripping away all characteristics to do with race by trying to
)unite people from all races and from all nations and thereby bridge
)the differentiation, the differences, the abysses that are present
)between the different groups of human beings. What remains of
)differences of race is physical in character; what the future calls
)for is something of a much more spiritual character. Thus it is of!
) utmost importance to understand that our anthroposophical movement
)is a spiritual movement that surmounts the differences stemming from
)physical differences through the potency of its spiritual force.*
) *ìIt is quite understandable that every movement has, let us say,
)its childhood illnesses and that at the beginning of the
)theosophical movement, the matter was portrayed as if earth
)evolution would break up into seven time-spans - these were called
)the ìroot-racesî - and each of these root-races into seven
)sub-races, and that this would perpetuate itself, so that one could
)forever speak of seven root-races with seven sub-races. But it is
)necessary to overcome such childhood illnesses and become clear
)about the fact that the concept of race ceases to have any meaning,
)in particular in our day and age. Something else is preparing the
)way - namely that which is most eminently connected to the
)individuality of the human being - for the human being to become
)more individual. It is solely a question of a proper development of
)this individuality; it is this which the anthroposophical movement
)is to serve: that human beings become individualities in the proper
)sense.î*
So now we'll talk about the -spiritual- qualities of races, rather
than the physical? Is that an improvement?
I just can't buy that these 1905 and 1909 statements represent a
turn-around for Steiner. I suspect he was trying to impress a
particular audience. Years later in 1916 he wrote:
"[B]ecause our etheric bodies differ in their constitution,
composition, and structure in the cosmos, there would have to be
seven groups of human beings. This is the fact we gradually arrive at
when we investigate the relationship between our etheric body and our
physical body with the methods of spiritual science. Now this
difference is connected with the racial diversities on the earth.
Basically, because of this difference in etheric bodies, the several
races can always be reduced to the number seven."
[Steiner, Rudolf. The Universal Human: Four Lectures given between
1909 and 1916 in Munich and Bern. (1909-1916) Trans. edited by
Christopher Bamford and Sabine H. Seiler. Anthroposophic Press, 1990.
p. 74]
That doesn't sound like he renounced racial theories, does it? In
fact, his racist statements become more extreme as he goes on into
the 20's when demogogues were whipping up the racial sentiments of
the Germans. Far from speaking out against it, he uses the same
tactics himself to curry favor with his audiences.
There's plenty of evidence that racial theory continues to be
important in Anthroposophy today. See how a contemporary
Anthroposophist characterizes races in "Planetary Qualities":
http://www.xs4all.nl/~busbi/chart.html
Relationship to feeling:
White: strong, long term
Black: short term
Relationship to feeling:
White: feeling is subordinate
Black: superficial
Detlef, perhaps you know the visiting European Anthroposophists who
blew the minds of the Stanford scholars in Milwaukee when they talked
about the childlike evolutionary stage of African-Americans. Perhaps
you were among them. It's only in hate groups and in Anthroposophy
that we find people who still believe volkisch racial myths.
Anthroposophy isn't a hate group, but you are in very bad company.
Your discussion of -The Philosophy of Freedom- at this point is an
irrelevant diversion. High-sounding talk about individuality (in a
cult that in practice creates uniformity) doesn't erase the racial
theory of history.
) Nonetheless, the word ìroot-raceî can cause confusion, although
)Steiner stopped using the term very soon. Most of those who
)criticize Steiner on this point could know better and many in fact
)do. If the aim is, however, to attempt to discredit anthroposophy
)and Waldorf education, the ìroot-raceî allegations are well suited
)in alleging something which is, in fact, no more racist than
)referring to the ìhuman race.î
In your dreams, Detlef. Anthroposophy discredits itself. If
Anthroposophists don't repudiate Steiner's racial theories, rather
than trying to minimize, re-interpret, or defend them as you do, they
deserve to be social pariahs along with the other volkisch believers.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1631.3 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Sensible Physics Teaching: Edelglass declines
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 23:57:56 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
References: (199911260121.RAA00971 lists1.best.com)
(199911301636.IAA18115 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199911301636.IAA18115 lists1.best.com)
At 11:51 PM -0700 11/29/99, Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
)Dan, could you post the passage you are referring to?
I'd like to wait a while more to see if D'Aleo will respond. If not
I'll go ahead without him.
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1631.4 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Response from Anya Coit
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 00:21:39 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
References: (MANGFLEGCEKDAAAA mailcity.com)
In-Reply-To: (MANGFLEGCEKDAAAA mailcity.com)
At 5:13 PM -0500 11/30/99, C. Anya Coit wrote:
)I am revising a letter I wrote earlier now that I have been home a
)bit longer and can think more clearly.
)
)
)Dear Mr. Dugan,
)
)I am a bit confused by your letter to the Waldorf Critics list,
)though I myself am often considered to be a critic of the Waldorf
)Schools and my history with the in-school politics and my "not
)having time for living BS and removing my daughter to homeschool
)once again" are, in some minds, legend.
)
)The Waldorf Homeschoolers' Exchange serves a wide variety of
)individuals, most of whom have no background in anthroposophy and
)most of whom are not interested in having one. I will note that the
)December issue of the journal is not complete, but that you may have
)noticed there is going to be an article called "Christmas Tree
)Traditions" -- out of that I want to state clearly that the site
)itself is not anthroposophic-centric and serves a variety of needs
)and interests... I wanted to post the article on the Steiner Tree
)because it serves a purpose of bringing a possible meaning to this
)Christmas symbolism -- not because I think it is the only possible
)Christmas Tree. The other article, once up, will have MY tree and
)the trees of certain friends posted -- none of them are Steiner
)Trees but they are about having more than a bauble -- about having
)meaning.
)
)I would also have to state that you do a very good job taking things
)out of their context for the sake of your argument -- "rigidity,
)right down to the size of the candles." Can you explain to me, Mr.
)Dugan, what you think might happen if you used candles that were,
)say, three times the size that Bruce suggested?
I think recommending using real candles on a Christmas tree is crazy.
I hope Bruce's readers are more responsible. I thought it odd that he
was so specific with the size detail. Bruce says he's going to rejoin
the waldorf-critics list, so perhaps he'll explain himself.
)Let me suggest that you might burn your house down. Does that make
)the candles a religious requirement? Not unless it is considered
)religious not to roast your family alive as a Christmas sacrifice.
)
)People have very set rules about how to handle and respect the
)American flag and it it is of course a symbolism of an ideal....does
)that make patriotism a RELIGION?
No, not when considered in context. Anthroposophy, in context, is a religion.
)Is saying the Pledge of Allegience in school a violation of the
)separation of church and state?
The line "under God" is. Even in my devout Catholic family we
considered that insertion to be a bad idea.
)Does it make the American flag a threat to Christianity as a whole?
)On the contrary, in the case of many fundamentalists it is seen as a
)SUPPORT of their Christianity.
We always had American flags in our classrooms and in our church.
)Likewise, for some anthroposophists, the symbols suggested by
)Steiner are supportive of their beliefs, of what they believe they
)are striving to become as balanced human beings striving for their
)highest potential. Give me that over an atheist who nonetheless
)covers his tree with angels and a baby Jesus anyday -- I find far
)less to fear from someone believing in a higher calling than from
)someone who has no respect for the meaning in what they do and who
)strive for no such ideals other than pleasure.
No argument there.
)There will, of course, be some information on the site that is
)stating something of what the movement that founded the Waldorf
)Schools is and has been all about -- I think *I* would be misguiding
)people if I didnt make that information available. At the same
)time, there is very little ELSE you can see on that site that you
)can point at as being anthroposophically oriented.... I am not out
)there preaching, I am only asking people to take time and to allow
)meaning into their lives, to develop the richness in their
)children's minds and to strive for balance ... Frankly most of the
)people using my website are either Christians (more fundamentalists
)than Catholics) and Buddhists -- neither of whom have much interest
)in the Anthro side to things... which isnt to say that they shouldnt
)take the time to look at it. I think anyone is foolish not to take
)a critical look at where something came from before they adopt any
)of it into their lives. SO OF COURSE IT IS GOING TO BE ON THIS
)SITE! I'd be a lying hypocrite not to let any of it in.
)
)I am not writing this to say that Waldorf Schools are or are not
)existing or should or should not exist without anthroposophy. That
)fight is not my own. I homeschool my own children according to my
)own experience and conscience and according to my own faith and
)belief in the Divine. Likewise I am not writing this to promote
)only my own vision -- if I did, I'd be promoting an Anya
)interpretation of God (when I write about Christmas, etc) and an
)Anya interpretation of Education ... something I feel I have no
)right to do.
Sure you do. Don't be shy.
)Each article on that website is the experience or view of its author
)(which perhaps I need to post more clearly for people who cannot see
)the obvious, cannot see the forest for the Christmas trees? -- that
)was meant as a joke, not a personal insult.) ... my view is there,
)but there will be the views of others as well. I would even be
)willing to consider a submission from a Waldorf Critic.
)
)Warmly and bemused,
Anya
Also bemused, and wishing you happy holidays, Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1631.5 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Unconstitutional?
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:47:19 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Alan Fine]
) This is what makes the world beautiful. Diversity. But I hope that
) Anthroposophists
) understand that Waldorf schools do not represent a universal
) expression of
) the etheric.
) It is the tendency for Anthroposophists to think of it as
) universal that
) lies at the core of what
) I find so objectionable about the movement.
[Bob Tolz]
I would find that objectionable, too, but I haven't seen any
anthroposophist (either on or off this list) make the claim that it's
universal and suitable for everyone. You and I must be observing different
phenomena.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1631.6 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:57:14 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Dan Dugan]
)
) Steiner was very much in line with the Ariosophists on who the Aryans
) were supposed to be:
[snip quote from 1904-1906 lecture series]
[Bob Tolz]
Dan,
It has been asserted on this list that Steiner disavowed these
root-race teachings that you pin on him. Do you contest that assertion?
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1631.7 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: A proper Anthroposophical Christmas Tree
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 09:13:07 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199911291700.JAA22753 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote:
) Personally, I feel that reincarnation, angels, the nature of the soul, )and the journey of the soul after death (or between incarnations) are )essentially religious questions. The philosophical works of )Anthroposophy deal with these questions, do they not? So I disagree )that those who study the philosophical works "have nothing to do with )anything religious."
)
) I don't think religious ritual or a church hierarchy are essential )features of a religion.
)
Excellent points, Steve. While a church hierarchy, formal clergy, creeds
and rituals are certainly a part of orthodox Christianity for example,
they are not part of other religious expressions. One cannot define
religion so narrowly as to include traditional theistic religions and
exclude other forms of religion.
John
Watchman Fellowship
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1631.8 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: French Waldorfs complain about being classed as a cult
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 09:22:13 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199911291840.KAA13078 lists1.best.com)
Joe Serio wrote:
)
) John W. Morehead (morehead mail2.quiknet.com) 11/29 12:32 PM wrote:
)
) )This book is by Richard Abanes, a respected and accurate researcher and
) )journalist who writes on the subject of new religious movements from an
) )evangelical Christian perspective. If you think he's inaccurate, please
) )cite the references and the documentation to refute his claims. If
) )you're beef is simply that he's a Christian author and therefore he must
) )be inaccurate, this claim rings hollow.
)
) John,
)
) What do you mean he writes from an 'evangelical Christian perspective'?
)
) Joe Serio
I mean he's an evangelical Christian and writes his critiques of new
religious movements from that perspective, just as a Latter-day Saint
author would critique orthodox Protestant Christianity from an LDS
perspective, or an Anthroposophist would critique orthodox Christianity
from their esoteric "Christian" perspective.
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1631.9 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: Lawsuit Settlement Offer (press release)
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 12:23:16 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Detlef Hardorp asked:
))What new knowledge of child development are you referring to specifically?
Dan Dugan replied:
)Piaget, Kohlberg, Gesell, Bruner? Ask a specialist, I'm not one.
Evidently Dan, you are of the opinion that newer is necessarily better. After all,
if you're not a specialist on what else can you base your thoughts that Waldorf
is lacking for not including theories of the above? And generally what does
specialist mean anyway, if our children, and later adults, are boxed in at a very
early age from really acquiring independent thought? And by the way, the ability
to toss around opinion after opinion, with more or less vitriol, is not independent
thought, not by a long shot.
Just as the four elements are still with us despite your claim that they belong
to 'outmoded alchemical' knowledge (you stated this in Spring Valley), children
still have baby teeth, and lose them, go through puberty, go through stages
of imitation, authority, independence, and in my humble opinion are still damaged
by too early an intellectual development (aka, not baby science).
But more on all this later.
Joe
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1631.10 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Martin life story (was: French Waldorfs complain about being classed as a cult)
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 09:34:42 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199911300015.QAA09037 lists1.best.com)
Bob Schultz wrote:
) BTW, I also ran across an interesting bio (probably written by a )Mormon) which examines Mr. Martin's life story and scholastic )credentials. One could find it by running an Alta Vista search with his )name or the title "kingdom of the Cults". Interesting guy!
Careful here. We don't want to give in to the temptation to dismiss an
author's arguments and the evidences produced to support such arguments
by a simple ad hominem. Dr. Martin, my mentor in the Christian faith and
the field of religious studies, was not perfect. None of us are. But any
flaws in his "life story" are separate from the arguments he raised
concerning new religious movements and the challenge they pose to
orthodox Christian evangelistic efforts.
For a response to many of the rumors circulated by Martin's critics I
recommend a visit to his daughter's website which continues to promote
his teaching and legacy: (http://www.waltermartin.org).
John
Watchman Fellowship
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1631 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1632 --------------
001 - "John W. Morehead" <moreh - Re: French Waldorfs complain about being classed as a cult
002 - "Alan S. Fine MD" <asf pe - Re: Unconstitutional?
003 - "Steve Premo" <premo cruz - Re: Defining religion
004 - "John W. Morehead" <moreh - Re: French Waldorfs complain about being classed as a cult
005 - Bob Schultz <bschultz str - Re: Unconstitutional?
006 - "C. Anya Coit" <anya_coit - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1631
007 - "Tolz, Robert" <RTolz TNS - RE: Unconstitutional?
008 - "Bruce Jackson" <brucey 0 - Brucey is back!
009 - "Joe Serio" <SERIO mbusa. - Re: French Waldorfs complain about being classed as a cult
010 - jellesonja computextos.ne - Re: 2nd instalment of essay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1632.1 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" <morehead mail2.quiknet.com>
Subject: Re: French Waldorfs complain about being classed as a cult
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 09:45:07 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <199911280352.TAA04538 lists1.best.com>
<199911270058.QAA19773 lists1.best.com>
<199911282124.NAA06152 lists1.best.com> <199911300016.QAA09897 lists1.best.com>
Bob Schultz wrote:
>
> Mr. Morehead writes:
>
> >If you checked the references you will see they are anything but "Far
> >Right" Christian authors, and nothing like Tex Marrs. I listed J. Gordon >Melton as a source, who is extremely reputable, and certainly not> >"anti-cult" or Far Right.
>
> I do not know anything about Mr. Melton and exhausted all available >time learning about the interesting life of Mr. Martin. Perhaps some >day I will have a chance.
In another post I gave you an addition website to find information about
the "interesting life of Mr. Martin." Hopefully you're not too
exhausted. As for Dr. Melton, he is a prolific author in the field of
new religious movements, and wrote the monumental _Encyclopedia of
American Religions_. He heads up the Institute for the Study of American
Religion in Santa Barbara, CA and works with the Center for Studies on
New Religions <http://www.cesnur.org>. He is anything but Right Wing,
and often bends over backwards to be fair to new and unpopular religious
movements in the interests of religious freedom, often drawing the
criticism of evangelical "cult watchers."
John
Watchman Fellowship
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1632.2 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" <asf peakpeak.com>
Subject: Re: Unconstitutional?
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 10:35:22 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <199912011542.HAA15560 lists1.best.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: Tolz, Robert <RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM>
To: <waldorf-critics lists.best.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 8:47 AM
Subject: RE: Unconstitutional?
> [Alan Fine]
>
. But I hope that
> > Anthroposophists
> > understand that Waldorf schools do not represent a universal
> > expression of
> > the etheric.
> I would find that objectionable, too, but I haven't seen any
> anthroposophist (either on or off this list) make the claim that it's
> universal and suitable for everyone. You and I must be observing
different
> phenomena.
>
> Bob Tolz
OK Bob, if Waldorf education is not suitable for everyone, shouldn't every
Waldorf school be very forthcoming about the spiritual basis of the
curriculum, so that parent's can make the decision whether this spiritual
path is the right one for their child? Why arent there any counselors in
Waldorf schools who might explore with parents their spiritual and cultural
beliefs and see if the school is a match? No. Waldorf educators sit back
and take all children with the assumption that the spiritual basis will be
right for the child and the parents. Most sectarian schools have this basic
approach, but at least the others are more open about what they are.
Alan Fine
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1632.3 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" <premo cruzio.com>
Subject: Re: Defining religion
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 09:36:52 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: <199912010456.UAA25979 lists1.best.com>
On 30 Nov 99, at 23:51, MICHAEL RONALL wrote:
> >>> "Steve Premo" <premo cruzio.com> - 11/30/99 10:27 PM >>>
>
> Steve:
>
> >The problem can easily be taken care of by
> >providing an appropriate definition for "supernatural," or by coining a
> >new term, or by using another term.
>
> MRx:
>
> All depends on who the "we" is; that is, on the purpose of all this defining.
Sorry, I thought that was clear.
The constitution protects the free exercise of religion. If it's not religion,
it may not be protected. The government also protects us from being coerced
into religious activities. If they're not religious, we don't have that
protection. So the purpose of defining "religion" is to determine the limits
of the constitutional protections that are embraced by the term, "freedom of
religion."
The "we" is those of us having this discussion, pretending that we are sitting
as the Supreme Court defining this stuff.
> Steve:
>
> >Just because you don't belong to an organized religion does not mean
> >that your own spiritual practices are not entitled to constitutional
> >protection.
>
> MRx:
>
> Your preaching to the choir. The rest of the First Amendment covers that nicely,
> I trow: "...or abridging the freedom of speech ... or the right of the people
> peaceably to assemble..."
Not necessarily. Suppose it's 1968. You belong to no formal, organized
religion, but your own spiritual beliefs prohibit killing another person. You
are about to be drafted and sent to Viet Nam. Are you entitled to
conscientious objector status? Does it violate the constitution for the draft
board to grant the exemption to Quakers but not to you? Well, if your
spiritual beliefs qualify as a "religion," it does violate the constitution,
but if your beliefs are not "religion," there is probably no constitutional
violation.
> Steve:
>
> >Well, we're talking specifically about "rituals regarding the
> >relationship of humanity to the supernatural," so secular rituals are
> >not a problem.
>
> MRx:
>
> I guess, to contextualize your judgment that "secular rituals are
> not a problem," you mean not a Constitutional problem
Yes, of course.
> I fail to see what business a court of law has * even being privy * to my
> (nonviolent, consensual) rituals; secular, sacred, salacious or
> sanctimonious.
I don't understand your point. Do you mean that any rituals in which you might
engage should be protected, whether religious or not? Or do you mean that
rituals are not entitled to protection even if they are religious?
> >Can you suggest something better?
>
> MRx:
>
> I can suggest in cultural life (mine) avoiding definitions and instead aiming at
> characterizations that can be multifaceted, layered, flexible and subject to
> processive modification without violating the principle of non-contradiction;
> conversation (and meditation)-starters rather than -stoppers.
Well, that's great, but when a particular government policy is challenged as
violating the freedom of religion, the court has to decide whether religion is
involved or not. Otherwise, the dispute cannot be resolved.
> I can suggest in legal-political life that the compelling force of the Biggest
> Bully on the Block (one serviceable -- uh, characterization -- of the State) be
> restricted to the point that it doesn't engage superstitious folk like me in
> compulsory casuistry.
I agree with you there. That's why I prefer an expansive definition, which
tends to keep the government's hands out of anything of a spiritual nature.
Those matters are personal, and not the business of the Big Bully.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carbonata descendum pantorum."
(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1632.4 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" <morehead mail2.quiknet.com>
Subject: Re: French Waldorfs complain about being classed as a cult
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 10:00:38 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <199911282130.NAA08423 lists1.best.com> <199911300019.QAA11891 lists1.best.com>
Bob Schultz wrote:
> >> Seen any black helicopters lately?
> >
> >So anyone who may use a carefully defined theological definition for
> >"cult" that may include Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses, for example,
> >are conspiracy "nuts" looking for black helicopers, eh?
>
> I apologize for the black helicopter statement- it was inappropriate and
> inflamatory. When I decided to log on to Critics for a brief stint, I hoped
> to reflect on each post before sending it and have failed to do so the last
> two days.
> I will continue to strive.
I appreciate that. Thank you.
> So where do you stand on the groups above? I was interested in your
> rejection of Tex Marrs.
Commenting from an evangelical Christian perspective that defines "cult"
theologically:
>
> >> Are the following groups a cult to you
> >>
> >> Greenpeace?
No. A secular, largely socialist and Far Left environmental group often
influenced by pantheistic monism in religious ideas that influence the
foundation for its activism.
> >> The Institute of Noetic Science?
A New Age oriented group.
> >> The Mormon Church?
A group which claims to be a restoration of true Christianity, allegedly
lost from the earth until God restored it through a young farm boy, but
allegedly restoring such "truths" as many deities, gods progress to
deity, humans are gods in embryo, and other controversial teachings
never held historically in early Christian thought. Thus, from a
perspective which seeks to look to the biblical texts as providing the
primary doctrines which define early Christianity, Mormonism would be
classified as pseudo-Christian and cultic. Christianity has its cults,
as does Islam (e.g., Nation of Islam), and Hinduism (e.g., Hare
Krishna).
> >> Unicef?
No.
> >> The United Nations?
No, despite the protestations of my over zealous evangelical brethren
who see the U.N. as fulfilling allegedl end-times prophecy.
> >> Hindus?
No. A major world religion.
> >> Native Americans?
No. A set of religious beliefs with some common elements, but also with
variation within tribes and geographical regions.
> >So are books in "esoteric Christian" bookstores, such as >>Anthroposophy, more reliable t han those in orthodox Christian >>bookstores?
>
> Orthodox?
Yes, orthodox. Christianity is classified as having three orthodox,
historic branches: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant. They
hold to a common body of doctrine taken from the biblical texts, and to
some extent (depending on the branch) from tradition. Other alleged
forms of Christianity, such as Gnosticism, esoteric Christianity
(Anthroposophy) would be non-orthodox.
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1632.5 ---------------
From: Bob Schultz <bschultz strategy.org>
Subject: Re: Unconstitutional?
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 12:15:28 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: <199912011542.HAA15560 lists1.best.com>
In-Reply-To: <199912011744.JAA12904 lists1.best.com>
Dr Fine (practicing the fine art of raising the stakes)
>OK Bob, if Waldorf education is not suitable for everyone, shouldn't every
>Waldorf school be very forthcoming about the spiritual basis of the
>curriculum, so that parent's can make the decision whether this spiritual
>path is the right one for their child? Why arent there any counselors in
>Waldorf schools who might explore with parents their spiritual and cultural
>beliefs and see if the school is a match? No. Waldorf educators sit back
>and take all children with the assumption that the spiritual basis will be
>right for the child and the parents. Most sectarian schools have this basic
>approach, but at least the others are more open about what they are.
Bob:
Where does it end? You say that no one will repudiate Steiner views which
seems incorrect in today's light- people point out that some do. You assert
that WE supporters present it as universal- people point out that it is
not.
You then somehow try to tie this to the aging disclosure argument so fondly
embraced by critics. One senses that you are not seeking conciliation or
agreement but rather are playing a game of raising the stakes.
Obviously, some Waldorf schools could do better in sharing information
about the pedagogy. Some already do a very thorough job. Our school does
far more to prepare parents for our pedagogy than other local independent
or public schools. When was the last time parents at public schools learned
the very shaky cognitive theory that their pedagogy is based upon, the
patchwork nature of the curriculum, and the lack of consensus among
teachers teaching the same student about approach.
Your issues with WE are making your requirements more and more extreme.
Peace
Robert Schultz Consulting
An issue management and strategic planning consultancy
with an emphasis on ecology and organizational learning.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1632.6 ---------------
From: "C. Anya Coit" <anya_coit mailcity.com>
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1631
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 14:40:31 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>I think recommending using real candles on a Christmas tree is crazy.
>I hope Bruce's readers are more responsible. I thought it odd that he
>was so specific with the size detail. Bruce says he's going to rejoin
>the waldorf-critics list, so perhaps he'll explain himself.
The candles are carefully placed and are only lit for a brief period
of time during the caroling. The families that I know pre-soak
the tree in a natural solution to make the tree less flammable,
and all safety precautions are taken. It was, after all, a tradition
for many year -- and I have seen fires start on trees from the old
electrical lights as well which many people still use as well as
overloaded outlets with more modern ones -- mostly
because they do not use them with the care that families using real
candles know they must take.
>>People have very set rules about how to handle and respect the
>>American flag and it it is of course a symbolism of an ideal....does
>>that make patriotism a RELIGION?
>
>No, not when considered in context. Anthroposophy, in context, is a religion.
I am suggesting that the interpretation of the CANDLES as a religious
symbol because of their size, etc would not be part of a religion per se.
I am not pretending that "spiritual science" or anthroposophy does
not have religious overtones. It cannot, on it's own, exist as
a religion. There are many interpretations of the notion of a Christ
and they vary wildly even amongst Christians and I see that as one
of many. I have had mixed experiences with the Waldorf
Schools themselves (including the spiritual interpretations of some
teachers I saw as less that spiritually or intellectually balanced,
not to mention teachers that just werent fit to teach the subject
matter of the classes -- but I have THAT problem in public schools
as well). However, I do not think that someone's religious beliefs
is necessarily taught per se -- even public school teacher's sometimes
have their opinions coloured by their own religions or lack thereof.
>>Is saying the Pledge of Allegience in school a violation of the
>>separation of church and state?
>
>The line "under God" is. Even in my devout Catholic family we
>considered that insertion to be a bad idea.
I would agree with that, actually. That doesnt necessarily mean
that I think a moment of silence at the beginning of the day or
a non-denominational verse about God is a horrible and misleading thing.
>>Does it make the American flag a threat to Christianity as a whole?
>>On the contrary, in the case of many fundamentalists it is seen as a
>>SUPPORT of their Christianity.
>
>We always had American flags in our classrooms and in our church.
So anthroposophy cannot exist as an ideal or personal vision of
someone's Christianity without making it a threat to everyone else?
Anthroposophy is not taught. Is it wrong in the public school
sector that a teacher goes home and prays for his/her students if
he/she does not come in and teach her own faith to her students the next day?
>> Likewise I am not writing this to promote
>>only my own vision -- if I did, I'd be promoting an Anya
>>interpretation of God (when I write about Christmas, etc) and an
>>Anya interpretation of Education ... something I feel I have no
>>right to do.
>
>Sure you do. Don't be shy.
I have the right to share my views but have no desire to state that I
am always right. I do stand by my conviction that no one should be using
a Waldorf School unless they have fully looked into it including the background
and decided they can deal with what it is and that, when and if
they disagree with the school, they can balance that out in their
family -- I say the same thing about most public schools. The strongest
lessons I have from first and second grade were not about the 3Rs
-- they were (1) Being wrong is bad. (2) Liars often come out on
top, and (3) Smart people should stick together and let the dumb
people deal with their own. None of those were the intentions of
the teachers, I am sure, but they were realities in school nonetheless.
My strongest memory of high school is a biology teacher scoffing at Christians.
My experiences around the Waldorf Schools when it comes to racism
are less problematic. My son's class had a number of black, asian
and multi-racial children. They alternated Advent and Hannukah,
and included some African history and mythology. One of the languages
taught was Japanese by a man from whose own children attended the
school and who brought a lot of ethnic cuisine and cultural history
to the children. When God was discussed it was done in a way to
respect the beliefs of all the children's families.
That does not necessarily mean I think Waldorf Schools should be
state funded. I'd write more but it is time for me to get to work.
Warmly and Happy Holidays to you, as well.
Anya
Get your FREE Email at http://mailcity.lycos.com
Get your PERSONALIZED START PAGE at http://my.lycos.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1632.7 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" <RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM>
Subject: RE: Unconstitutional?
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:52:58 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Alan Fine]
> OK Bob, if Waldorf education is not suitable for everyone,
> shouldn't every
> Waldorf school be very forthcoming.....
[Bob Tolz]
Alan, you're sidestepping your initial assertion, which is that
anthroposophists allegedly claim that their way is universal. I have stated
that I have never heard this said by an anthroposophist either on or off
this list. You have not indicated that you have heard anything from an
anthroposophist which indicates that they *do* believe what you say they do.
Whether or not Waldorf education is suitable for any particular
family (which is what you have addressed in your post) has nothing to do
with whether or not anthroposophists take the arrogant and objectionable
position that their world view is the supreme view.
I think we can both agree that anyone who has found a philosophy, a
religion or a spiritual path that they embrace may become extremely
enthusiastic about their choice. That doesn't rise to the level of
objectionability unless they start telling me that I have to believe what
they believe. I've never, ever heard that from an anthroposophist. Have
you?
You obviously have an impression about anthroposophists which you
have so far been unable or unwilling to back up with evidence, anecdotal or
otherwise.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1632.8 ---------------
From: "Bruce Jackson" <brucey 01019freenet.de>
Subject: Brucey is back!
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 20:42:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear friends,
After Dan wrote about my article on Anya's site I decided that I should
rejoin you.
VERY BRIEFLY, for those who haven't met me before...
Born 1949
Educated Michael Hall (England); Waldorf School
Graduate (Maths, Physics and Computing)
Taught at several schools (all waldorf).. (dates approximate)
Michael Hall '86-'89
Brighton '89-'91
Hannover Maschsee '96
Wiesbaden '96-'98
Rendsburg '98-present
Card-carrying Anthroposophist since 1984
Parents Anthroposophists, father (was) Freemason
Member of about 20 lists, Active on about 5! (NOT on Waldorf St Johns)
Those who have me in their address-books note my new address
I will lurk for a bit to " get the feel" again.. I am ENGLISH, and sometimes
accidentally upset Americans with my use of certain words or expressions. I
was asked to leave Bob and Nancy's list for this reason, and Dan (Dugan)
warned me at least once! I am also prone to posting private mails onlist
(inadvertently). I beg for forgiveness in the hope that it won't happen.. I
now have new software which should help, but might not!
I call myself Brucey simply to distinguish myself from the disproportionally
high number of Bruce's on the waldorf internet circuit. The theme of
identity seems to be doing the rounds.. I am known to people on this list
should anyone wish to challenge my identity (of course no one can prove that
the person writing this mail is indeed Bruce Jackson, but it is!)
warmly
Brucey
Bruce Jackson
Rendsburg, Germany
brucey 01019freenet.de
Analysing humour is like analysing a frog: you can do it, but
the frog tends to die in the process.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1632.9 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" <SERIO mbusa.com>
Subject: Re: French Waldorfs complain about being classed as a cult
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 15:46:24 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
John W. Morehead (12/01 12:22 PM) said:
>I mean he's an evangelical Christian and writes his critiques of new
>religious movements from that perspective, just as a Latter-day Saint
>author would critique orthodox Protestant Christianity from an LDS
>perspective, or an Anthroposophist would critique orthodox Christianity
>from their esoteric "Christian" perspective.
Thanks John. Of course that would be the case. But what I was
actually looking for was a characterization of that perspective from
your point of view.
Thanks if you have the time,
Joe
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1632.10 ---------------
From: jellesonja computextos.net (Gerard Schottelndreier)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 13:06:24 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <199912010412.UAA23107 lists1.best.com>
Alan:
> This is evidenced by the teaching of root race theory in your
> country, despite Steiner's apparent retraction of the concept.
Make that:
"...........the very seldom former teaching of ........."
It was in just some places and it has stopped.
(for newcomers I might add that the Dutch School
Inspection investigated the Waldorf schools all over the Netherlands, and
found no racism)
As for the rest of your post, again, I agree.
-Jelle
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1632 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1633 --------------
001 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1631
002 - "Bruce Jackson" (brucey 0 - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1631
003 - jellesonja computextos.ne - remember
004 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: French Waldorfs complain about being classed as a cult
005 - Christian Czachary (chris - RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1621
006 - jellesonja computextos.ne - Bad company?
007 - jellesonja computextos.ne - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1621
008 - jellesonja computextos.ne - Bad, terribly unfair company
009 - Christopher Yavelow (yave - Re: 2nd instalment of essay
010 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1633.1 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1631
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 15:57:49 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Dan Dugan said:
)I think recommending using real candles on a Christmas tree is crazy.
)I hope Bruce's readers are more responsible. I thought it odd that he
)was so specific with the size detail. Bruce says he's going to rejoin
)the waldorf-critics list, so perhaps he'll explain himself.
Dear Dan
I'll get to your other more important issues in a bit, but this is absolute
- what the word you used to characterize a statement of Goethe's to me -
B*U*L*L****. Come on Dan let's call a spade a spade.
My wife has insisted on real candles for the 10 years of our marriage.
Not because she's an Anthro. but because her family in Europe has done this
and continues to since her childhood. They are not Anthros. I wouldn't be
surprised if most people in Europe continue this custom.
I, in my neurotic american way, stand guard, with the pail of water nearby! With
finger ready to dail 911.
Talk about rigid ideas, geesh!
Joe
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1633.2 ---------------
From: "Bruce Jackson" (brucey 01019freenet.de)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1631
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 22:19:16 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Anya quotes someone in her post (POSSIBLY Dan):
))I think recommending using real candles on a Christmas tree is crazy.
))I hope Bruce's readers are more responsible. I thought it odd that he
))was so specific with the size detail. Bruce says he's going to rejoin
))the waldorf-critics list, so perhaps he'll explain himself.
.. I respond only since I am named, otherwise I will remain lurking a while
longer...
Real candles are REAL, and that is why I recommend them. Like I would
suggest using REAL anything else, as opposed to modern substitutes (not that
they don't have their place).. real coffee, sugar, leather, meat etc etc
Anya did the "danger" bit, I will only add: One can live one's life as
though you were sitting in a lead box, eliminating ALL outside danger. What
quality what that life have?
Responsible use of candles is probably a lot safer that having electric
lights on 24 hours a day, in some cases eight weeks long; it is also a lot
cheaper and environmentally friendly. I would NEVER suggest leaving the tree
unattended (when the candles are lit).
In case there is anyone who doesn't already realise it... I believe that
waldorf education IS connected to Anthroposophy, as is "The Christian
Community". The CC is a religion, neither Anthroposophy nor Waldorf
Education are.
warmly
Brucey
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1633.3 ---------------
From: jellesonja computextos.net (Gerard Schottelndreier)
Subject: remember
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 12:52:02 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912010412.UAA23107 lists1.best.com)
Alan:
) It is the tendency for Anthroposophists to think of it as universal that
) lies at the core of what
) I find so objectionable about the movement. In order to be a true
universal
) movement, Anthroposophy needs to be more than just racially tolerant,
) (as you say Steiner himself wanted). It must honor racial and cultural
) diversity. It must recognize that the Muslim and the Jewish path, for
) example, are on a
) completely equal plane to its own, even without the Grail, without Christ,
) and without Steiner to show the way. I do not feel that this type of
) recognition is part of Anthroposophy. Anthroposophy is no different
) than any other religion in this respect
)From an old post you probably have forgotten:
Jelle:
Sure there were Jewish children at the first Waldorf school, like there were
close Jewish friends and coworkers among the leading anthroposophists, like
there are today. Like there are Jewish teachers now in Waldorf schools. Take
a look at a WE website: you find them led by Jews in Israel (and in other
countries), by Islamics in Egypt, by Walakota in the US, by blacks in
Africa, by Hindus in India.
Still, I think you're right about:
.
)This is what makes the world beautiful. Diversity. But I hope that
)Anthroposophists
)understand that Waldorf schools do not represent a universal expression of
)the etheric.
Multiculturality, active respect of individuality and diversity are only
beginning in this era. We anthroposophists also have a lot to develop in
this area.
-Jelle
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1633.4 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: French Waldorfs complain about being classed as a cult
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 14:22:09 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912012121.NAA09012 lists1.best.com)
Joe Serio wrote:
)
) John W. Morehead (12/01 12:22 PM) said:
)
) )I mean he's an evangelical Christian and writes his critiques of new
) )religious movements from that perspective, just as a Latter-day Saint
) )author would critique orthodox Protestant Christianity from an LDS
) )perspective, or an Anthroposophist would critique orthodox Christianity
) )from their esoteric "Christian" perspective.
)
) Thanks John. Of course that would be the case. But what I was
) actually looking for was a characterization of that perspective from
) your point of view.
Tell me what you're looking for and I'll try. Still not sure of what
you're looking for. If you're familiar with reputable evangelical
paradigms for studying new religious movements, you'll have an idea for
his treatment of various groups. As an example of this see Watchman's
website.
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1633.5 ---------------
From: Christian Czachary (christian gammaresearch.com)
Subject: RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1621
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 18:23:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
[Dan]
)....There was one German study on
) outcomes that we're trying to get translated.
Now that you mention it: It will not happen in this year: I'm much too
busy these days.
(And this covers only the introduction.)
I really hoped to get some time for it.
Anyway, I believe, that the study is not as significant as you may have
thought in the beginning.
regards,
Christian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1633.6 ---------------
From: jellesonja computextos.net (Gerard Schottelndreier)
Subject: Bad company?
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 16:51:30 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912011732.JAA06806 lists1.best.com)
Dan:
) Detlef, perhaps you know the visiting European Anthroposophists who
) blew the minds of the Stanford scholars in Milwaukee when they talked
) about the childlike evolutionary stage of African-Americans. Perhaps
) you were among them. It's only in hate groups and in Anthroposophy
) that we find people who still believe volkisch racial myths.
) Anthroposophy isn't a hate group, but you are in very bad company.
[Chicago Tribune 9/20/99]
The first public Waldorf school, Milwaukee's Urban
Waldorf School, opened on the city's north side in
1991. District officials said they needed a radical
approach to help a largely poor, black student
population prone to failure.
After two years, the number of 3rd graders reading at or
above their grade levels rose to 41 percent from 25
percent. After four years, 63 percent were reading at or
above grade level. Last year, the figure exceeded 85
percent.
Dorothy St. Charles, principal of the Milwaukee
school, attributes the rising scores to the school's
nurturing environment.
"Kids get structure, continuity and stability," St.
Charles said. "When you don't have a lot of structure in
your (home) life and you find it in another source,
sometimes that can make a big difference."
Bruce Uhrmacher, associate professor of education at
the University of Denver, who has studied public and
private Waldorf schools, praised the schools' methods.
"There are some important pedagogical devices (used in
Waldorf schools) that all education would do well to
examine and, frankly, embrace," he said.
"By using rhythm, storytelling, movement and image, I
think they provide a holistic approach to education,"
Uhrmacher said.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1633.7 ---------------
From: jellesonja computextos.net (Gerard Schottelndreier)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1621
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 16:47:32 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912011732.JAA06806 lists1.best.com)
Dan:
) There are three problems with science in Waldorf:
[Chicago Tribune 9/20/99]
Arthur Zajonc, a physics professor at Amherst College
who started a Waldorf school near the campus, said the
schools teach sound science. He said many Waldorf
graduates have gone on to major in science at Harvard,
MIT and other prestigious universities.
"What Waldorf schools don't do is teach that a
particular viewpoint by a particular scientist is `the
truth,' " said Zajonc, who also is general secretary of
the Anthroposophical Society in America. "We present
it as a hypothesis that they should be critical of."
Res:
) )Also, how would a steiner educated
) )child compare with other children at 18?
) Dan:
) A very interesting question, one which very much needs to be studied.
) We really don't know. The fact that schools are proud of their
) talented graduates doesn't tell you anything about the drop-outs or
) complete airheads that they turn out.
[Chicago Tribune 9/20/99]
A 6-year-old public school here is getting national
attention as much for its high achievement levels as its
controversial teaching methods.
At Yuba River Charter School, the 1st-grade classroom
is painted pink to stimulate the students' creativity. For
1st and 2nd graders, imaginative play and knitting are
stressed over formal instruction in reading and math.
Students stay with the same teacher from grades 1
through 8. Published textbooks are shunned; instead,
students must write their own. And computers, deemed
stifling to human contact, are taboo.
Last year's 7th graders ranked first in the state in
reading, language arts and math. While 7th and 8th
graders nationwide often experience a dip in
achievement as they enter puberty, upper-grade students
at Yuba River routinely score in the 90th percentile on
standardized tests.
Yuba River officials attribute the success not so much to
being a charter school, a public school that is freed from
many state regulations, but to their application of a
curriculum developed by the private Waldorf schools.
-Jelle
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1633.8 ---------------
From: jellesonja computextos.net (Gerard Schottelndreier)
Subject: Bad, terribly unfair company
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 17:30:59 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912011732.JAA06806 lists1.best.com)
Dan:
) Detlef, perhaps you know the visiting European Anthroposophists who
) blew the minds of the Stanford scholars in Milwaukee when they talked
) about the childlike evolutionary stage of African-Americans. Perhaps
) you were among them. It's only in hate groups and in Anthroposophy
) that we find people who still believe volkisch racial myths.
) Anthroposophy isn't a hate group, but you are in very bad company.
What blew the minds of the Stanfords was how good the Waldorf school was for
the Afro-American population, not the one person (not more, like Dan says)
who made a bad impression.
Let's hear the professor of education himself, who btw doesn't give the
impression that Waldorf education is backward, a statement that Dan makes,
while in the next post admitting he's not a specialist. Is there an
adjective to describe this kind of behavior that might be added to the
subject line?
How does he know that Piaget et al aren't studied in WE? I studied him and
others in my Waldorf teacher training. One of the big lights in the
scientific field now is Howard Gardner, from the multiple intelligences
concept. Very compatible with Waldorf. Very inspiring.
The most modern math method, realistical math, that is quite a revolution in
several aspects, looks like a 70% copy of what Steiner advised 80 years ago.
Maybe they will come up with the next 30% in the future, anyway, the
scientific rediscovery of Steiner's insights still puts it in a new light
for us, or for some of us.
From:
Ray McDermott
Professor of Education
Stanford University
1 July, 1997
Jay Schenirer, President
Board of Education
Sacramento City Unified School District
CA 95814
Dear Mr. Schenirer:
I have recently been alerted that your Board is appraising the role
of Waldorf education in Sacramento and that my work, particularly my
paper
on "Racism and Waldorf Education", is being used as evidence of a
questionable belief system supporting Waldorf education ideas. This is
terribly unfair to the point of my work, to the good people who use
Waldorf
ideas to do good things in our community, and to the people who would
receive the benefits of their care.
In 1994, I headed a team evaluating a public Waldorf school in the
Milwaukee inner city. The school was fantastic, and we wrote an
unusually
positive report to sing its praises (see The Urban Review, 1996). We
also
ran into a person who for a minute expressed an idea about the limits
of
learning among African American children, and I wrote a small article
discussing the dangers of racism in a Waldorf context. A superficial
glance at that article may allow a reader grounds for condemnation. A
more
careful reading would instead give good cause for pushing a Waldorf
agenda
in our public institutions. I offer three.
One, the success of the Milwaukee public school is undeniable. It
is in the context of such achievement that a single teacher's foolish
opinion could stand out so markedly. I have worked in dozens of public
schools around the country over the last thirty years, and I have
listened
silently to racist opinions in many of them. I could not listen
silently
in the Milwaukee school, because the teachers there were accomplishing
so
much in the fight against racism. This point is made clearly in the
paper.
Two, the Waldorf community has rallied around the issue and has
been working to insure that racism has no place in Waldorf
institutions.
Please note that my paper was published in a Waldorf education journal.
Please note that it contains a strong note from the president of the
Waldorf education association condemning racism and promising to work
against racism in all forms. They are honest caring people tring to do
good things in our troubled world. Like the rest of us, they may make
mistakes along the way, but they keep trying. In Milwaukee, they have
accomplished more in the fight against racism than most of other public
schools around the country. Do not confuse a willingness to address
issues
with a confession of guilt.
Three, the educational ideas of Rudolf Steiner (the founder of
Waldorf schools) are really about the wonders of all children. In 400
volumes of his thought, there are a handful of pages that to our modern
ear
sound terribly stupid and racist. This is a better percentage than can
be
found in American icons such as Thomas Jefferson and Ralph Waldo
Emerson,
and Steiner's followers can at least point out that he, unlike
Jefferson or
Emerson, from within the confines of turn of the century Germany, had
little information and no experience with African or African American
children. Please note that my article is followed by a second article
by a
Steiner textual scholar and a Professor at Columbia University's
Teachers
College, Douglas Sloan, carefully showing how Steiner's thought, at its
heart and in its spirit, is not at all racist. This is not to say that
Steiner (or his transcribers) did not make mistakes, but it is to say
that
careful reading of the work would lead one to an appreciation of
Steiner's
love of all children, regardless of race, creed, or color. Please note
again the willingness of Waldorf people to address the issue and to
clean
house. I only wish that all public schools were so forthright on the
issue.
This is a strong letter of support for Waldorf education. I am not
a follower of Rudolf Steiner. I am interested in the Waldorf community
only to the extent it delivers good education. It does that job well.
As
a student of education and as a parent with vested interests in the
happiness and fulfillment of my children, I believe that we need more
Waldorf ideas in many of our schools. Waldorf brings both a gentleness
and
a thoughtful structure to early childhood education, and we need much
more
of this in both the inner city and in the high pressure schools that
dominate more affluent districts. I hope that Sacramento has the
foresight
and courage to continue working with Waldorf ideas.
Sincerely,
Ray McDermott
Professor of Education
Stanford University
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1633.9 ---------------
From: Christopher Yavelow (yavelow xs4all.nl)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 17:13:13 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Jelle wrote:
)(for newcomers I might add that the Dutch School
)Inspection investigated the Waldorf schools all over the Netherlands, and
)found no racism)
And for newcomers I might add that I replied:
There is only one non-white person at the Rudolf Steiner School in Haarlem.
And that covers grades pre-kindergarten through eighth grade. And this in
a country with a large percentage of people of different colors. Coincidence?
(for the record, the one dark-skinned girl is from Sri Lanka... and she is
the _only_ student in 10 grades that is not lilly-white... there are no
Asians or Africans, South Americans, Turks, or anything else). This has been
the situation for the past six years. Further, there are no non-white
employees. But I speak of only one school that just happens to be in a very
racially integrated neighborhood with plenty of people of different races
in it. And it's not an issue of money because Steiner Schools are funded by
the government in the Netherlands.
When my children were in the Waldorf School of Santa Monica (California)
there were two Afro-American children. One dropped out after the school had
a sex scandal in January of 1993.
And I also pointed out that the problem is so bad that there is an office set
up in the Netherlands to handle complaints of racism and discrimination
(I've had to make two complaints there):
Meldpunt Discriminatie
De Bond van Vrije Scholen
Hoofdstraat 14-B
3972 LA Driebergen
[Yes, I am still on this list, Jelle]
Can you document this "Dutch School Inspection"? When did it occur? Who
conducted it?
Was it before or after the following critical texts were written?
"Uit de Vrije School geklapt" (english translation at
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/articles/waldorf_salad.html
and
"Hoe vrij is de Vrije School?" (seen at
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/Bookstore/Recommended_Reading.html
Christopher Yavelow
eMail: mailto:Christopher yav.com
wSite: http://www.yav.com (business)
wSite: http://www.yavelow.com (family)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1633.10 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 18:20:09 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Dear Friends,
this may come as shock to some of you, and certainly to those of you
who know me, but I feel I must 'fess' up before I launch into the content.
If nothing else to clear the air. And I won't mention that this
is the result of the less than decent treatment I recieved from a
certain 'Wizard' in the sense of, in fact, in the exact sense of, the
'Wizard of Oz'. And even far be it from me to mention certain
defamatory statements made about me by this aforementioned
person. And not only that, I won't talk about how a certain editor
chose to introduce an article I was asked to write with these
aforementioned defamatory statements, and the humiliation I suffered
thereby and still suffer as this was viewed by practically every single
person I know, friend and foe alike. And mind you friends, these were
not public deeds, so public critique seems not in keeping. No I won't
talk about any of that. I will not rail though much railing goes on here.
I only want to confess that just this day I have vowed to myself, that
from this day forthe until I am either kicked off this list, or until I feel I
have nothing further to learn from nor offer to it, I will let Dan Dugan be
my new mentor. Dan admit it, Tom mellet would be proud!
Now we begin:
Detlef wrote:
)) You will find the Theosophical description of historical epochs
))in A.P. Sinnet's "Esoteric Buddhism" (published in 1883), for
))example, or in Blavatsky's "Secret Doctrine" (published in 1888).
))Both speak of root-races and sub-races that determine an age.
))Blavatsky calls the current root-race the Aryan root-race, which
))sounds extremely suspect. Obviously a precursor of Hitler's racist
))ideas, some have concluded - without a closer look, however.
))Because Blavatsky uses the word "Aryan" not only for the
))Indo-Germanic peoples, but also includes all Semitic peoples like
))the Jews and the Arabs: they, too, are Aryans and mainly determine
))this epoch. This is clearly not where Hitler got his definition of
))Aryan!
Dan answered:
)Steiner was very much in line with the Ariosophists on who the Aryans
)were supposed to be:
[Steiner quote by Dan]
)"We are within the great Root Race of humanity, which has peopled the
)earth, since the land on which we now live rose up out of the
)inundations of the ocean. Ever since the Atlantean Race began slowly
)to disappear, the great Aryan Race has been the dominant one on
)earth. If we contemplate ourselves, we here in Europe are thus the
)fifth Sub-Race of the great Aryan Root Race. The first Sub-Race lived
)in the distant past in Ancient India. And the present-day Indians are
)descendants of that first Sub-Race, whose spiritual life is still
)extant in the ancient Indian Vedas. The Vedas are indeed only echoes
)of the ancient culture of the Rishis. At that time there was of
)course no writing yet - there was only tradition. Then came the
)second, third and fourth Sub-Races. The fourth Sub-Race adopted
)Christianity. Then, halfway through the Middle Ages, we see that the
)fifth Sub-Race formed itself, to which we and the neighboring nations
)belong."
Now I promise, all friends, that in the measure my humiliation fades,
my sarcasm hopefully will too. So bear with me until then. It seems to
me that here I am taught how to miss the point. No I am facetious. I
am taught to see, how to see, that one misses the point. Where?
Take note the following from Steiner:
"If we contemplate ourselves, we here in Europe are thus the
fifth Sub-Race of the great Aryan Root Race. The first Sub-Race
lived in the distant past in Ancient India."
The reference to Europe is as a 'sub-race' of the 'great Aryan Root
Race'. Ancient India being the first *sub race* of the Aryan Root race.
As Detlep says:
"This is clearly not where Hitler got his definition of Aryan!"
By the way, whether Steiner backed off from his ideas of the root
races or not, they are not inherently racist. They can, however, be
misleading when you realize that *now* the element that must be
realized is individuality anyway. And that applies to 'race' as
understood today also. If, and I only say, IF, you have a sense for
individuality, do you realize that THAT reality is the true overcoming
of race (in any sense), folk, nationality, gender . . .and that anything
short of that is well, biding time at best. Go ahead and call me a
racist if you choose and then in your actions betray the fact that
you're the one who identifies a person with his race, not I. For
me, and no doubt for Steiner too, individuality is both the singer
and the song, and race, part of the instrument only. And the song
when sung sounds as beautiful on any instrument, however
constructed.
Dan is teaching me to say it like I see it.
By the way, Hitler was a master at taking half and quarter truths
and twisting and turning them to his devices. I find it odd that our
new icon, technology, has taken so much that was developed BY the
nazis, *originated* *by* *them* and no-one says boo, yet if ( and I only
say if) he confiscated a truth that preceeded him and turned and twisted
it to his own devices we must renounce it in its untwisted form. Ironic.
Paraoxical. Dishonest!! No?
Dan says:
)Note Steiner says "we here in Europe are thus the fifth Sub-Race of
)the great Aryan Root Race." and "The fifth Sub-Race...to which we and
)the neighboring nations belong." He's talking about Europe, only
)Europe.
Yes Europe only, but not as regards the great Aryan Root Race, but
only the fifth sub-race. So close and yet so far.
Dugan says:
)When do you expect Steiner's theories
)will be accepted by the scientific community? I wouldn't hold my
)breath.
Steiner's 'theories' wil be accepted by the scientific community
sometime in the future when science overcomes the strictures placed
upon it by an education based on the view of man deriving from it.
(largely this will happen thru Waldorf education and ideas gained
therefrom)
Yes Dan, we'll both be dead by then, whether we hold our breath or
not.
More to come,
Joe
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1633 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1634 --------------
001 - Detlef Hardorp (hardorp g - Re: What is science?
002 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: Unconstitutional?
003 - Detlef Hardorp (hardorp g - Re: 2nd instalment of essay
004 - "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall - Re: Defining religion
005 - Bob Schultz (bschultz str - Re: Bad company?
006 - "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall - ChestNUTS? Roasting on an open microwave?
007 - Bob Schultz (bschultz str - Re: Bad, terribly unfair company
008 - "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall - Re: What is science?
009 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: What is science?
010 - Bob Schultz (bschultz str - Re: Martin life story (was: French Waldorfs complain about bei
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1634.1 ---------------
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: Re: What is science?
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 02:14:35 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Steve Premo wrote:
)Now, I'm aware that in ancient times, through the middle ages, and into the renaissance, "science" was equated with knowledge, and there was a lot of overlap between science, philosophy, and religion. But in modern times, "science" has come to mean, I think, the use of the scientific method to study phenomena.)
[Detlef Hardorp]
Steve is following a clear and consistent line here. He does not consider epistemology nor mathematics a science, but a philosophy. Epistemology has always been considered part of philosophy. With mathematics, it's less clear-cut. A personal aside about this: As an undergraduate, I majored in mathematics at SUNY in Stony Brook and finished with a Bachelor of *Science*. Then I went to Princeton to do graduate work in mathematics. When I passed "general examinations", I got a Master of *Arts*. When I had finished writing my PhD thesis, I was awarded a Doctor of *Philosophy* degree. This is symptomatic for mathematics: it can pass as science, as art and as philosophy! More about mathematics later, though.
[Steve Premo]
)So when I say "science," I'm referring to what is sometimes derided as "materialist science" or "reductionist science." (...)
But there are ways of knowing besides science, and they are no less valuable. We can come to know what it was like to live at a time before we were born by reading novels of that period, talking to people who were alive then, looking
at artefacts, and studying history. (...) Now, these are all things that can be externally verified to some extent.)
[Detlef Hardorp]
Steiner did not speak of "spiritual science", he spoke of "Geisteswissenschaft". I think it is important to go into some linguistic differences here, for all of those not fluent in German, because these are important in this context.
There are less words in the German language than in English. Their meaning is often less confining. The German word "Geist" refers to something containing *mental* and *spiritual* matters. The German word "Wissenschaft" literally means "business of knowing". Thus universities in Germany traditionally offer courses in "Geisteswissenschaft" that include philosophy, history, romance languages etc.. In America, you call that the humanities. Nobody refers to the study of romance languages or even philosophy as a "spiritual science", because both "spiritual" and "science" have different connotations. Likewise, we could decide, sticking with the lexical definition of "Geisteswissenschaft" for now, to classify anthroposophy in with the humanities, instead of opening a new category called "spiritual science" that leads to myriads of misunderstandings. This would at least reduce the volume of postings on this list. We could, more specifically, also call anthroposophy a philo!
sophy. No problem!
Fact is that those that have studied Steiner in the western hemisphere have chosen to translate "Geisteswissenschaft" as "spiritual science". This immediately raises the fundamental question: How is anthroposophy a science?
In my opinion, this question has often not been answered as well as it could have been answered by those studying the works of Steiner.
Clearly, Steiner does *not* mean by this the kind of experiments that Rhine (wasn't that his name?) did at Duke University on ESP. (Rhine was trying to empirically demonstrate the validity of certain parapsychological phenomena.) Steiner's "Geisteswissenschaft" has nothing to do with external empirical verification. Anthroposophy does not use the methods of natural science as they are traditionally used in natural science.
There is still a connection, however. This is to be found in the subtitle of Steiner's basic work "The Philosophy of Freedom" or "The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity" or "Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Path" (the subtitle was left out in this latest edition!): "Seelische Beobachtungsresultate nach naturwissenschaftlicher Methode", which Stebbing translates as "Results of observing the human soul according to the methods of natural science" and Wilson translates as "Some results of introspective observation following the methods of natural science".
Steiner wants to apply the sober method of empirical observation not externally, but internally: instead of participating in the flux of soul movements, as we usually do, Steiner proposes the attempt to inwardly step outside of the intoxication with ourselves to observe our inner soul life as if it were the soul life of somebody else.
This is obviously not mainstream science. Philosophers also had their problems with this approach, questioning whether such a thing deserves to be considered as philosophy. Doing something new often makes you fall in-between all the traditional chairs.
In the end it is of little importance whether we define science to include or exclude Steiner's "Geisteswissenschaft". Fact is that Steiner wanted to combine the methods of empirical investigation with introspection in the sense I described above.
The real question is, rather, whether this makes any sense (and not what you end up calling it). Let me pursue this question.
[Steve Premo]
)I would assert (rather than admit) that science only leads to certain types of knowledge, and that other types of knowledge must be obtained in other ways. Maybe knowledge of the spiritual world may be obtained through anthroposophy, or through meditation, or through psychedelics, or just through sitting and thinking. And you may be personally convinced of the truth of the knowledge you obtain through such techniques. Many people have obtained knowledge in those ways, and are absolutely certain of the truth of what they learned. The problem is that different people come up with different and conflicting truths. Until you have an external way to verify what you've learned, you're going to have a hard time getting your ideas accepted outside of your own spiritual path.)
[Detlef Hardorp]
I'm glad we have two lawyers in this forum, because they tend to raise the central issues clearly and without fruitless emotional dressing. Steve wrote: "The problem is that different people come up with different and conflicting truths." This has indeed been the case with philosophy over the centuries.
But this is where mathematics comes in again. Because clearly mathematicians do not come up with different and conflicting truths. If you're looking for universal agreement, don't look to the natural scientists. Camps of conflicting theories are always battling each other there. Paradigms are held as "the truth" for centuries, until they are superseded by something new. This is not the case in mathematics: they come closer to universal agreement than in any other subject of human knowledge.
The question I would now like to pose is: how empirical is mathematics? Mathematics generally does not obtain results through external empirical methods. It arrives at results through introspection. Most people outside of mathematical research are not aware how alive creative mathematical thinking is. Mathematicians dreamed up worlds of hyperbolic geometry, for example, a geometry that is quite different from the Euclidean geometry we are used to. Kant claimed that geometry had to be Euclidean a priori, because we experience a Euclidean world through our sense perception, and we can a priori only form geometrical ideas that conform to our sense perception. Well, mathematics proved him wrong not too long after he made that statement by inventing non-Euclidean geometries.
When mathematicians dream up new worlds, logic obviously plays a role. In fact, clear logic is presupposed. But it is mere tool and not a method of invention. The greatest mathematicians often shunned putting their intuitions in the from of logical proofs, for this can be tedious. Mathematics lives from intuitions. Without intuition, mathematics is not even understandable. Proofs are mathematical corpses. As every mathematician knows, you only get insights by reading proofs if it calls forth mathematical intuitions, which may or may not occur. Thus the path of mathematical insight is one of introspection. It is a path of introspection that observes inner soul life quite soberly, as if it were the soul life of somebody else.
Now it is curious that by this method of intuitive introspection, more universal agreement is reached than in any of the natural sciences.
More yet: Mathematical results are actually applicable to the "outside" world. This greatly puzzled Albert Einstein, who once wrote an essay about this. It should also puzzle us. We take it for granted. We would do well to reflect on it. How can it be that results obtained through introspection and without external verification is found at the core of a natural science like physics? The answer is actually quite simple: mathematics is a science that penetrates the occult side of nature. It is the first true occult science.
And now we come back to anthroposophical "occult science". It has remained little known (this applies to critics as well as to proponents) what scientific ideal Steiner was trying to follow beyond what is implied in the subtitle of his "Philosophy ...". In lectures to university students in Den Haag in 1922 (in volume 82 of the collected works), he gives a lecture entitled "Die Stellung der Anthroposophie in den Wissenschaften" (the place of anthroposophy in the sciences). He makes it very clear in this lecture that he considers the *mathematical frame of mind* to be the starting point of anthroposophical inquiry. Anthroposophy goes beyond the content of mathematics. But its method is nothing other than the method of mathematics. To use the words of Michael Lipson: intuitive thinking as a spiritual path.
If you consider mathematics a philosophy, as you do, Steve, it is consistent to consider anthroposophy a philosophy as well. If mathematics is considered a science (because of the universality of its results, it is seen as the epitome of scientific inquiry by others!), then the striving of anthroposophy can equally well be considered a science. - Admitting all the while that the two are still very different: mathematics looks back on an unbroken development of several thousand years; anthroposophy has hardly been born.
Let me see if I can remember this joke correctly:
Sociologists secretly strive towards being psychologists;
psychologists secretly strive towards being biologists;
biologists secretly strive towards being chemists;
chemists secretly strive towards being physicist;
physicists secretly strive towards being God; -
and God secretly strives towards being a mathematician.
Detlef Hardorp
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1634.2 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: Unconstitutional?
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 18:23:43 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912011542.HAA15560 lists1.best.com) (199912011912.LAA02023 lists1.best.com)
Robert, you wrote, referring to me:
) You then somehow try to tie this to the aging disclosure argument so
fondly
) embraced by critics. One senses that you are not seeking conciliation or
) agreement but rather are playing a game of raising the stakes.
I am not trying to raise any stakes. I am trying to promote free critical
thinking and openness within the Anthroposophy movement. I feel this is the
direction that Anthroposphy needs to take to rise up beyond being a cult.
) Your issues with WE are making your requirements more and more extreme.
You neednt concern yourself about my "requirements". I have none.
Alan Fine
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1634.3 ---------------
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 02:49:33 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Alan:
) This is evidenced by the teaching of root race theory in your ) country, despite Steiner's apparent retraction of the concept.
Jelle:
)Make that:
"...........the very seldom former teaching of ........."
It was in just some places and it has stopped.
Detlef:
No! "Root race theory" has never been taught in *any* Waldorf school! A preview of an upcoming sentence from my essay: "At 7 (of the 95) Dutch Steiner Schools, the State Inspectorate, however, also reported evidence of a stereotyping of races and peoples with discriminatory tendencies." No root race theory!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1634.4 ---------------
From: "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall rabecker.com)
Subject: Re: Defining religion
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 20:59:57 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
))) "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com) - 12/1/99 12:36 PM )))
writes:
[snipping elucidations]
Steve:
Suppose it's 1968. You belong to no formal, organized
religion, but your own spiritual beliefs prohibit killing another person. You
are about to be drafted and sent to Viet Nam. Are you entitled to
conscientious objector status? Does it violate the constitution for the draft
board to grant the exemption to Quakers but not to you? Well, if your
spiritual beliefs qualify as a "religion," it does violate the constitution,
but if your beliefs are not "religion," there is probably no constitutional
violation.
MRx:
Having pondered this dilemma for a careful (sober) ten minutes, I would say toss the Quaker a rifle or throw 'im in the brig; if the citizens of the Republic construe themselves in need of immediate armed defense against a deadly threat of force, I don't see why any exceptions should be made for those who benefit from governmental protection. Let's translate the scenario from human combat to nature combat: If there were a scarcity of competent personnel to extinguish lethal fires, should someone, group-affiliated or not, who holds scruples against extinguishing what burns people be spared the stress of participating? I suspect my fellow-anthroposophists include those who would disagree with me here, but that's the best I can come up with now, ie, that rights and responsibilities of citizenship (should) operate irrespective of an individual's contribution to cultural initiatives, eg, religion, as well as independently of an individual's economic resources. Not incidentally, di!
versifying the military population is one way to humanize it, and eliminating exemption-privileges might just check excessive eagerness to wage war.
As to distributing privileges upon cults according to their popularity and antiquity (all religions started small), I don't (yet) see the merit. Christianity and Judaism, to name just two, were once small bands of dissenters. Their transient minority status was, as they themselves would claim, independent of the validity of the truths they asserted.
[snip agreement]
Steve cites MRx:
) I fail to see what business a court of law has * even being privy * to my
) (nonviolent, consensual) rituals; secular, sacred, salacious or
) sanctimonious.
Steve:
I don't understand your point. Do you mean that any rituals in which you might
engage should be protected, whether religious or not? Or do you mean that
rituals are not entitled to protection even if they are religious?
MRx:
Both, according to the circumstance: Lump religious practices under freedom of speech and assembly/association without (now respectfully addressing the Court) having to judge of their theological validity; and conscript the pacifists along with the militants while holding them responsible, along with everyone else, to elect warmongers to their taste.
Steve citing MRx:
) I can suggest in cultural life (mine) avoiding definitions and instead aiming at
) characterizations that can be multifaceted, layered, flexible and subject to
) processive modification without violating the principle of non-contradiction;
) conversation (and meditation)-starters rather than -stoppers.
Steve:
Well, that's great, but when a particular government policy is challenged as
violating the freedom of religion, the court has to decide whether religion is
involved or not. Otherwise, the dispute cannot be resolved.
MRx: See above (that's a textual, not liturgical, direction).
Steve citing MRx:
) I can suggest in legal-political life that the compelling force of the Biggest
) Bully on the Block (one serviceable -- uh, characterization -- of the State) be
) restricted to the point that it doesn't engage superstitious folk like me in
) compulsory casuistry.
Steve, reasonably:
I agree with you there. That's why I prefer an expansive definition, which
tends to keep the government's hands out of anything of a spiritual nature.
Those matters are personal, and not the business of the Big Bully.
MRx:
And by including "cultural" with your "spiritual," why, I agree with you too. And by cultural (I knew you'd ask) I mean whatever individuals learn from one another. Best, /M
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1634.5 ---------------
From: Bob Schultz (bschultz strategy.org)
Subject: Re: Bad company?
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 19:12:51 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199912011732.JAA06806 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199912012256.OAA14660 lists1.best.com)
Dan offering yet another abstraction:
)) Detlef, perhaps you know the visiting European Anthroposophists who
)) blew the minds of the Stanford scholars in Milwaukee when they talked
)) about the childlike evolutionary stage of African-Americans. Perhaps
)) you were among them. It's only in hate groups and in Anthroposophy
)) that we find people who still believe volkisch racial myths.
)) Anthroposophy isn't a hate group, but you are in very bad company.
Gerard forwards:
)After two years, the number of 3rd graders reading at or
)above their grade levels rose to 41 percent from 25
)percent. After four years, 63 percent were reading at or
)above grade level. Last year, the figure exceeded 85
)percent.
Bob Says:
Don't bother us with facts, this is an argument! Bring us inuendo or leave. :-)
Peace
Robert Schultz Consulting
An issue management and strategic planning consultancy
with an emphasis on ecology and organizational learning.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1634.6 ---------------
From: "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall rabecker.com)
Subject: ChestNUTS? Roasting on an open microwave?
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 21:12:32 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Before I could demand statistical evidence as well as professional credentials from Dan to support his pathologizing of the use of )real candles on a Christmas tree( (he called it "crazy"), comes the following from today's New York Times (p. B-19):
SYRACUSE, Nov. 30 -- (AP) -- [....] a study of 184 fir, pine and spruce trees conducted by researchers at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science concluded that well-cared-for trees did not pose any fire hazard.
"The bottom line is, if you keep your fresh-cut trees in water, the moisture content stays at 100 percent," said Prof. Russell Briggs. "If you put an open flame up to a tree, you can't burn it when the moisture content is up that high. The flame goes out."
Even without watering, fresh-cut trees do not become susceptible to ignition for two weeks, the SUNY study found. [Anthro-Pop quiz: Just HOW many nights do we keep our Christmas Trees (in water)? Winner gets a complete set of (polytheistic; natch) Lords a leaping.]
[suppressing-of-evidence snip concerning compromising financing of the study]
"The key thing is, you need to water them, water them, water them," said Capt. David Weber of the Syracuse Fire Department. [Whoops -- Note threefold incantation invoking classical/medieval doctrine of cosmological elements; scratch validity of study; go plastic.] /MRx
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1634.7 ---------------
From: Bob Schultz (bschultz strategy.org)
Subject: Re: Bad, terribly unfair company
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 19:23:12 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199912011732.JAA06806 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199912012256.OAA15369 lists1.best.com)
Ray: thanks for posting the Stanford letter.
Another interesting development speaking of Gardner, is his evolution of
thinking regarding cognitive development. His career and writing began in
the mainstream of cognitive theory, later he began to blaze the trail that
led to Multiple Intelligence, and his most recent work- The Disciplined
Mind could have been written by a Waldorf teacher.
Gardner returns to the old Greek ideals of Beauty, Truth, and Goodness as
being the foundations of an elementary education for today's children. If
this sounds familiar, it is because WE has been acting out of that
inspiration for 80 years! Many Waldorf schools even use those Greek
qualities in their brochures or school shirts.
As Eugene Schwartz pointed out in Sunbridge, the world is heading to WE.
Put another way, the world is catching up to 80 year old insights which
have been kept relevant and effective through the work of countless
teachers doing practical study.
)One of the big lights in the
)scientific field now is Howard Gardner, from the multiple intelligences
)concept. Very compatible with Waldorf.
So far the racism myth has been debunked, the Stanford in Milwaukee story,
and the use of the cult term has been rendered to small to be interesting.
And this in only the 2 weeks that I have subscribed. At this rate, the list
could close by Christmas.
Thanks again Ray
Peace
Robert Schultz Consulting
An issue management and strategic planning consultancy
with an emphasis on ecology and organizational learning.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1634.8 ---------------
From: "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall rabecker.com)
Subject: Re: What is science?
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999 23:31:38 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
))) Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net) - 12/1/99 8:27 PM )))
garners my great thanks for his exacting and enlightening discourse on, inter alia, mathematics, and I trust he will accordingly appreciate that his attribution to
)the words of Michael Lipson: intuitive thinking as a spiritual path.(
concerns a formulation comes, however, from the author of the book Michael Lipson has rendered into English under that title; specifically from the Author's Addition of 1918 to the final chapter, "The Consequences of Monism": "The argument of this book is built upon intuitive thinking which may be experienced in a purely spiritual way."
...And Detlef closes with:
) Let me see if I can remember this joke correctly:
)Sociologists secretly strive towards being psychologists;
)psychologists secretly strive towards being biologists;
)biologists secretly strive towards being chemists;
)chemists secretly strive towards being physicist;
)physicists secretly strive towards being God; -
)and God secretly strives towards being a mathematician.
...and mathematicians secretly strive toward being poets;
poets toward being priests;
priests toward being politicians;
and don't ask what follows; it isn't, as mathematicians like to say, elegant. /MRx
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1634.9 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: What is science?
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 22:33:46 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912020117.RAA16101 lists1.best.com)
----- Original Message -----
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
To: (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 1999 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: What is science?
As an undergraduate, I majored in mathematics at SUNY in Stony Brook and
finished with a Bachelor of *Science*. Then I went to Princeton to do
graduate work in mathematics. When I passed "general examinations", I got a
Master of *Arts*. When I had finished writing my PhD thesis, I was awarded
a Doctor of *Philosophy* degree. This is symptomatic for mathematics: it
can pass as science, as art and as philosophy! More about mathematics
later, though.
And, Detlef, you went on to say:
) Let me see if I can remember this joke correctly:
) Sociologists secretly strive towards being psychologists;
) psychologists secretly strive towards being biologists;
) biologists secretly strive towards being chemists;
) chemists secretly strive towards being physicist;
) physicists secretly strive towards being God; -
) and God secretly strives towards being a mathematician.
)
) Detlef Hardorp
As a psychiatrist I see I am rather low on the food chain, but well trained
enough to note that throwing in your Princeton math degree was more than
just a comment about art and science. I for one have no need to indulge my
narcissism with such revelations. That's why I won so many poker games at
the Fine Hall faculty lounge on Friday afternoons.
Alan Fine MD
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1634.10 ---------------
From: Bob Schultz (bschultz strategy.org)
Subject: Re: Martin life story (was: French Waldorfs complain about being
classed as a cult)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 22:47:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199911300015.QAA09037 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199912011732.JAA06805 lists1.best.com)
)Bob Schultz wrote:
)
)) BTW, I also ran across an interesting bio (probably written by a
)))Mormon) which examines Mr. Martin's life story and scholastic
)))credentials. One could find it by running an Alta Vista search with his
)))name or the title "kingdom of the Cults". Interesting guy!
)
)Careful here. We don't want to give in to the temptation to dismiss an
)author's arguments and the evidences produced to support such arguments
)by a simple ad hominem.
Bob writes:
I tried to word my post carefully to avoid judging Mr. Martin. You
obviously know more about the man and have a clearer picture. Perhaps you
and other critics could extend that courtesy to Herr Steiner regarding ad
hominems.
)For a response to many of the rumors circulated by Martin's critics I
)recommend a visit to his daughter's website which continues to promote
)his teaching and legacy: (http://www.waltermartin.org).
I will read it, but this is the last one of these guys that I am going to
track down. It is really quite exhausting following the list of names that
get tossed around here. I am definitely learning things about the situation
with JW and LDS with some Christians that I did not know. What I can't
figure out is why I need to know it? Now I have ordered this crazy book he
has written! Beginning to feel a bit like Alice.
Have you opened the first door?
Peace
Robert Schultz Consulting
An issue management and strategic planning consultancy
with an emphasis on ecology and organizational learning.
--------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1635 --------------
001 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: Fwd: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
002 - jellesonja computextos.ne - Re: 2nd instalment of essay
003 - "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall - The Hazards of Wiz
004 - "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall - The Hazards of Wiz
005 - jellesonja computextos.ne - Re: Digest waldorf-critics
006 - Christopher Yavelow (yave - Re:Martin life story
007 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: 2nd instalment of essay
008 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: RE: Definition of "cult" and of "religion"
009 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: Digest waldorf-critics
010 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - Candles of the Future
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1635.1 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 00:50:43 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Dan Dugan said:
)Steiner distanced himself from the -words- "root-race," substituting
)the bowdlerism "cultural epoch." Same concept, different name.
About as similar as the teakettle and the tea!
)Humanity (or "consciousness")
)didn't "evolve" from Atlantis to ancient India to Egypt to Greece,
)etc
How, briefly, did it then?
)Does studying this framework harm children or make them into racists?
)Probably not, but I keep harping on it for two reasons: it's false,
)and it stinks from where it's been. Who believes this nonsense today?
Wait! Wait! You didn't say this did you?
"Who believes this nonsense today?"
Come on Dan say it ain't so, even Toto is growling.
Darn, I've gone and used a reference that our European friends will not
know.
May I in three quick sentences (german), fill them in as my European wife
assures me they won't know anything about Toto and it's sure to come
up again?
Toto was Mary's (?) dog who (Mary) was swept up by a tornado and found
herself in the land of Oz and wanted desperately to find her way back
to her beloved Kansas. (1st sentence). Oz was ruled by none other,
as you can imagine, than the Wizard of Oz, whose booming, powerful voice
made the inhabitants of OZ *tremble* and who Mary (?) had to find her way
to so he could tell her how to get back to her beloved Kansas and to whom
she was accompanied by the tin man who wanted to find a heart, the
scarecrow who wanted to find courage and, well, and Mary (?) and of
course Toto, both of whom wanted to get back to Kansas. (2nd sentence)
They all finally found the wizard after following the yellow brick road and
Mary pulled back a curtain (sort of a reverse Isis myth) and discovered that
this great, powerful, booming voice which made people *tremble* was
really created by technology and that the 'wizard' was really a very
kindhearted fellow who was so meek he couldn't look you in the eye. (3rd
sentence)
Amazing what technology will do. No?
The only thing I'm not sure of was whether the Wizard, because he had
no real confidence in thinking, was afraid of cults and saw them
everywhere.
That's the only thing I'm not sure of.
OK where were we? Oh Yes Dan said:
)Who believes this nonsense today?
OK Dan we're all going to close our eyes and count to ten to give you
a chance to retract this "believes" stuff.
OK so that's what happens when I don't get enough sleep.
We'll pick up on the etheric streams coming from Africa, Asia, and
Europe tomorrow. Much too serious a topic to tackle in this frame of
mind.
I promise.
Joe
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1635.2 ---------------
From: jellesonja computextos.net (Gerard Schottelndreier)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 00:28:20 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912012322.PAA08582 lists1.best.com)
) From: Christopher Yavelow
) There is only one non-white person at the Rudolf Steiner School in
Haarlem.
That is very little. I remember the girl.
But your credibility has shrunk since you stated that reincarnation and
other esoterics are being taught in Waldorf schools, so I'll ask more
trustworthy sources.
I had 2 to 4 in every (three different) class of about 20, in other Waldorf
schools, which would more or less reflect the ratio of the general
population.
But because the schools are in cities, it should be higher.
It is an issue to work on.
I don't think the Netherlands is
)a country with a large percentage of people of different colors.
I'd say no more than 8 or 10%.
) And I also pointed out that the problem is so bad that there is an office
set
) up in the Netherlands to handle complaints of racism and discrimination
Set up by the Waldorf schools themselves. Not because the problem is so bad.
This is really nasty. If we hadn't taken it seriously, you'd have attacked
us for that, and now we do, it's another reason to attack.
Every school is the Netherlands, Waldorf or not, has to have a person or
commission for complaints, for sexual harrassment, etc. With or without
problems.
In the set of actions made after it was discovered that some schools taught
one three week unit about race characteristics, and which stopped this
practice that was introduced by Max Stibbe and not by Steiner, also this
Meldpunt ("ReportHere") was set up, to really be able to know about it IF
there would be discrimination.
I'll ask them how the situation is.
It's amazing that you have filed two complaints if there was only one
colored girl. Or was it about the lack of diversity?
Are you an aficionado of sueing, complaining and blaming?
) Can you document this "Dutch School Inspection"? When did it occur? Who
) conducted it?
Well, we're a small country, we have only one School Inspection.
) Was it before or after the following critical texts were written?
After Jeurissen. I read it in the Volkskrant (the newspaper of the
desillusioned socialists, known for its blindly cutting down of everything
that still dares to have ideals) so find their archives. But it was probably
also in de NRC en Trouw.
I've responded to your questions, now please be so fair to give us some
facts, some truth, some reality for your claim that
)the problem is so bad that there is an office set
)up in the Netherlands to handle complaints of racism and discrimination
Maybe this will be my last post to you, as I like to do other things also.
-Jelle
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1635.3 ---------------
From: "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall rabecker.com)
Subject: The Hazards of Wiz
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 01:06:12 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
))) "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com) - 12/2/99 12:50 AM )))
writes:
Toto was Mary's (?) dog who (Mary) was swept up by a tornado and found
herself in the land of Oz and wanted desperately to find her way back
to her beloved Kansas. (1st sentence). Oz was ruled by none other,
as you can imagine, than the Wizard of Oz, whose booming, powerful voice
made the inhabitants of OZ *tremble* and who Mary (?) had to find her way
to so he could tell her how to get back to her beloved Kansas and to whom
she was accompanied by the tin man who wanted to find a heart, the
scarecrow who wanted to find courage and, well, and Mary (?) and of
course Toto, both of whom wanted to get back to Kansas. (2nd sentence)
They all finally found the wizard after following the yellow brick road and
Mary pulled back a curtain (sort of a reverse Isis myth) and discovered that
this great, powerful, booming voice which made people *tremble* was
really created by technology and that the 'wizard' was really a very
kindhearted fellow who was so meek he couldn't look you in the eye. (3rd
sentence)
Amazing what technology will do. No?
The only thing I'm not sure of was whether the Wizard, because he had
no real confidence in thinking, was afraid of cults and saw them
everywhere.
That's the only thing I'm not sure of.
MRx:
Here, try some of these, too: It was Dorothy, not Mary. It was Toto, not Dorothy (and certainly not Mary) that pulled back the curtain scarecrow sought a brain. Courage was the Lion's wish.
Joe:
OK so that's what happens when I don't get enough sleep.
All of us:
Good night, then. And don't watch so much TV. /MRx
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1635.4 ---------------
From: "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall rabecker.com)
Subject: The Hazards of Wiz
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 01:26:11 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Some wise guy tried to write:
)It was Dorothy, not Mary. It was Toto, not Dorothy (and certainly not Mary) that pulled back the curtain(
...at which point a Munchkin ate the period and the "The" preceding
)scarecrow sought a brain. Courage was the Lion's wish.
Pay no attention to the shrdluuuuu /MRx
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1635.5 ---------------
From: jellesonja computextos.net (Gerard Schottelndreier)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 23:19:46 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912012322.PAA08582 lists1.best.com)
) From: "Joe Serio"
) My wife has insisted on real candles for the 10 years of our marriage.
) Not because she's an Anthro. but because her family in Europe has done
this
) and continues to since her childhood. They are not Anthros. I wouldn't be
) surprised if most people in Europe continue this custom.
)From a European:
Mostly on the special times, and those who want it lit all day use electric
then.
I'm the only anthroposophist in my family, the rest all use real candles
too. From my grandparents' days onwards, I've never seen or heard about a
fire.
I'm amazed that it is different in the US, the difference with real is so
big.
Ofcourse connecting the issue to cultism is too stupid to talk about, still,
it might be indicative of USers copying Euro (anthroposophists') traditions.
But then, this is one I heartily recommend.
In terra pax,
Jelle.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1635.6 ---------------
From: Christopher Yavelow (yavelow xs4all.nl)
Subject: Re:Martin life story
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 01:11:51 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Robert Schultz wrote:
)the use of the cult term has been rendered to small to be interesting
To you perhaps. I'm still not convinced. "Esoteric Christianity" sounds
like a polite way of saying "cult" to me. Esoteric implies some hidden
knowledge and if it's all that Atlantis stuff, well, you know how I feel
about that. Most cults say they have the secret -- that's what makes them
special. Whether it's the secret interpretation of the Bible or the Tibetan
Book of the Dead. And most cults, as has been pointed out, center around
the adoration of one charismatic leader and his proclamations, Steiner, in
this case. As I said, I'll stick with cult.
)Now I have ordered this crazy book he has written!
I think you will be impressed. It's quite an extensive piece of research.
Should be in everyone's reference library.
================================
Incidentally, You've probably heard the one about Abe Lincoln and Kennedy.
Well look at Rudolf Steiner and L. Ron Hubbard
Steiner has 7 letters in his name
Hubbard has 7 letters in his name
Rudolf has and L,O, and R in it
L. Ron has and L,O, and R in it
Rudolf Steiner has 8 consonants
L. Ron Hubbard has 8 consonants
A "Hub" and a "Stein" are both round
"Bards" used to drink out of "Steins"
L.Ron Hubbard founded a five syllable cult that became a religion (Scientology)
Rudolf Steiner founded a five syllable religion that became cult
(Anthroposophy)
Hubbard started as an artist and then began writing his doctrine
Steiner started writing doctrine and then began painting pictures
Hubbard invented Dyanetics
Steiner invented Biodynamics
They were both obsessed with the number 7
The were both vegeterians (I think).
and the clincher:
There is a children's song "old mother HUBBARD"
There is a children's song "RUDOLF the red nosed reindeer"
I rest my case.
Christopher Yavelow
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1635.7 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 09:13:54 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Bob Schultz wrote:
)The focus on criticism as a sign of psychological freedom is fascinating to
)me. I criticize therefore, I am. A sign of end of the millennium (I know it
)is really next year) cynicism. Let's hope the new millennium has a new
)standard for freedom.
I wish I had said that Bob, but I'm just as delighted you did.
Joe
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1635.8 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: RE: Definition of "cult" and of "religion"
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 09:27:35 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Bob Schultz wrote:
)Joe inquires:
))Hey Dan,
))
))who posted this?
))
))Joe
Bob replies:
)Warm heated:
(snip)
)Dan, I thought you said that Eugene would not join the list?
Yes Bob, the philosopher sometimes takes what lives in the age, or the
place, or the list, often unbenownst to ourselves, and puts it into words. As
grotesque as it may at first sound he does us a service as we recoil back
in horror at what lives in us, as they say 'unbenownst'.
Thanks and thanks for you other posts also,
Joe
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1635.9 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 10:04:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Gerard Schottelndreier wrote:
)From a European:
)Mostly on the special times, and those who want it lit all day use electric
)then.
)I'm the only anthroposophist in my family, the rest all use real candles
)too. From my grandparents' days onwards, I've never seen or heard about a
)fire.
)I'm amazed that it is different in the US, the difference with real is so
)big.
As this was connected with 'cults', it does make it too silly as you say.
But once I relaxed enough when the candles were lit to appreciate
them, I soon realized it was a matter of beauty, pure and simple (and
then I gave my wife the pail!).
Thanks Jelle,
Joe
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1635.10 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: Candles of the Future
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:10:45 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Since there are such refreshing new voices on the list taking up the cause
of the Waldorf Critic Critics, it has been a pleasure to sit back and coast
a bit as I watch the fray. Therefore, my main contribution today is a
sidelight (pun intended) on the candles-in-the-Christmas-tree dispute. The
following is from today's print and online editions of USA Today:
O fiber optics, O fiber optics . . . How light-laden, inexpensive and
popular are your branches
By Maria Puente
USA TODAY
America's love for all things faux combines with the national passion for
cool technology to beget a hot item this holiday season: the fiber-optic
Christmas tree.
No need to wrestle it into a stand. No need to water it, decorate it or
string it with lights. Just plug it in and watch its fiber-optic strands
glow with a zillion colored lights.
''They're convenient and easy, but people either like 'em or hate 'em,''
says Melodie Rolsten, manager of the Christmas Castle in Chillicothe, Ohio.
They're also inexpensive -- some cost as little as $39 -- and they're
everywhere. Or they would be, except many shops are sold out.
''We're besieged by retailers right now, but it's so late in the year we
won't get any more until next year,'' says Sue Pilger of Sterling Inc., a
Kansas City, Mo., importer.
What's the fascination?
''You can sit and watch it, like watching a fish tank or a lava lamp. It's
peaceful,'' says Sandra Rogstad of the Christmas Shoppe in Alexandria, Va.
''People today are very busy. They don't have time for decorating,'' says
Mitch Minchello of the Christmas Depot in Bayonne, N.J., which bills itself
as the largest Christmas store on the Internet (www.christmas depot.com).
''Plus, these trees are pretty cool.''
Donald Trump thinks so: He ordered up a 45-foot, gold-coated fiber-optic
tree for the atrium of Trump Tower in New York. Installed last week, the
tree contains more than 33 miles of optical fiber, with 14,500 points of
fiber-optic light.
Trump's tree cost him $80,000, but most consumers will pay $80 to $150,
depending on size. The Christmas Depot sells a 32-inch tree for $39 and an
8-foot tree for $449.
Fiber-optic technology is best known for transmitting telephone, computer
and other telecommunications traffic. In a fiber-optic tree -- or angel,
Santa, wreath, garland, poinsettia or tree-topper -- a device in the base of
the tree transmits light from a halogen bulb through thousands of hair-thin
fiber strands so that the tree appears to glow.
Total sales of fiber-optic Christmas items should reach $50 million to $70
million this year, estimates Leonard Finkel of importer Bradford Novelty in
Bellingham, Mass.
) -----Original Message-----
) From: jellesonja computextos.net [mailto:jellesonja computextos.net]
) Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 12:20 AM
) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics
)
)
) ) From: "Joe Serio"
) ) My wife has insisted on real candles for the 10 years of
) our marriage.
) ) Not because she's an Anthro. but because her family in
) Europe has done
) this
) ) and continues to since her childhood. They are not Anthros.
) I wouldn't be
) ) surprised if most people in Europe continue this custom.
)
) From a European:
) Mostly on the special times, and those who want it lit all
) day use electric
) then.
) I'm the only anthroposophist in my family, the rest all use
) real candles
) too. From my grandparents' days onwards, I've never seen or
) heard about a
) fire.
) I'm amazed that it is different in the US, the difference
) with real is so
) big.
)
) Ofcourse connecting the issue to cultism is too stupid to
) talk about, still,
) it might be indicative of USers copying Euro
) (anthroposophists') traditions.
) But then, this is one I heartily recommend.
)
) In terra pax,
) Jelle.
)
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1635 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1636 --------------
001 - "Bob Schultz" (bschultz s - Re: Martin life story
002 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: What is science?
003 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: The Hazards of Wiz
004 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: What is science?
005 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: question
006 - "John W. Morehead" (moreh - Re: Martin life story (was: French Waldorfs complain about bei
007 - Christopher Yavelow (yave - Re: 2nd instalment of essay
008 - jellesonja computextos.ne - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1634
009 - jellesonja computextos.ne - Re: 2nd instalment of essay
010 - jellesonja computextos.ne - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1634
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1636.1 ---------------
From: "Bob Schultz" (bschultz strategy.org)
Subject: Re: Martin life story
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 08:13:23 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
)Incidentally, You've probably heard the one about Abe Lincoln and Kennedy.
)Well look at Rudolf Steiner and L. Ron Hubbard
Thanks Christopher, that was funny!
Now how about one with
DAN DUGAN &
JIM JONES
One of the characteristics of cult leaders is that they try to characterize
others as cults.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1636.2 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: What is science?
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:17:14 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Alan Fine]
) As a psychiatrist I see I am rather low on the food chain,
) but well trained
) enough to note that throwing in your Princeton math degree
) was more than
) just a comment about art and science. I for one have no need
) to indulge my
) narcissism with such revelations. That's why I won so many
) poker games at
) the Fine Hall faculty lounge on Friday afternoons.
)
[Bob Tolz]
For shame, Alan. Denying the need to indulge one's narcissism and
then immediately turning around to brag about one's poker skills! Actually,
having met you (however briefly) I can quite imagine your prowess at the
table.
Bob Tolz
P.S. Poker joke to follow by private email. To others upon request.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1636.3 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: The Hazards of Wiz
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 10:16:14 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
MICHAEL RONALL wrote:
)Here, try some of these, too: It was Dorothy, not Mary. It was Toto,
)not Dorothy (and certainly not Mary) that pulled back the curtain
)scarecrow sought a brain. Courage was the Lion's wish.
What a mess I made. My wife warned me about Mary, couldn't help
me with who pulled back the curtain, and I swore there only three of
them . . . and of course Toto.
Oh well!
Joe
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1636.4 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: What is science?
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 08:59:19 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199912020117.RAA16101 lists1.best.com)
On 2 Dec 99, at 2:14, Detlef Hardorp wrote:
) Steve Premo wrote:
) )Now, I'm aware that in ancient times, through the middle ages, and into the
) )renaissance, "science" was equated with knowledge, and there was a lot of
) )overlap between science, philosophy, and religion. But in modern times,
) )"science" has come to mean, I think, the use of the scientific method to study
) )phenomena.)
)
) [Detlef Hardorp]
) Steve is following a clear and consistent line here.
Well, thanks. I strive for clarity and consistency, even when I'm wrong. :-)
[snip excellent discussion]
) If you consider mathematics a philosophy, as you do, Steve, it is consistent
) to consider anthroposophy a philosophy as well.
I do consider it a philosophy. That does not mean, though, that it cannot be a
religion as well. To the extent that Anthroposophy is a method of thinking
about yourself, about your own thinking, and so on, it is not a religion. To
the extent that it is a set of shared beliefs about reincarnation, angels, the
spiritual evolution of humanity, and all that other stuff Steiner claimed to
have observed in the spirit world and in the Akashic Record, it looks like a
religion to me.
And as Bob Schultz pointed out, "religion" is a subset of "philosophy."
) If mathematics is considered a science (because of the universality of its
) results, it is seen as the epitome of scientific inquiry by others!), then
) the striving of anthroposophy can equally well be considered a science.
Maybe someday. I don't share your confidence that Anthroposophy will grow to
be recognized as a reliable method of learning the truth about the structure of
the spiritual realm and about the different types of beings that supposedly
inhabit that realm, much less that it will ever be regarded as a reliable
method of learning about history or about the material world. Many of
Steiner's ideas about the physical world are considered, by the scientific
community, to have no basis in fact, such as the existence of Atlantis. This
leads me to doubt the veracity of his observations about the spiritual world as
well, and to suspect that they arose from his own imagination.
But we shall see. Or maybe our grandchildren will see.
) Let me see if I can remember this joke correctly:
) Sociologists secretly strive towards being psychologists;
) psychologists secretly strive towards being biologists;
) biologists secretly strive towards being chemists;
) chemists secretly strive towards being physicist;
) physicists secretly strive towards being God; -
) and God secretly strives towards being a mathematician.
Good one! I'm going to send that to my wife and mother-in-law, as my father-in-
law was a mathematician.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carbonata descendum pantorum."
(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1636.5 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: question
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 09:59:48 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199912010440.UAA13404 lists1.best.com)
Lisa writes:
) Perhaps I am alone, or at least in the minority, but most of MY concerns
)and questions about WE are not anthrop.-related, or at least not directly.
)That teachers may believe in reincarnation is of small concern to me; I am
)more interested in the teacher training required of Waldorf teachers, and
)whether it truly prepares the men and women hired in these schools to
)educate children. (Someone showed me the required reading, and it seemed ALL
)to do with anthroposophy. Do they have to take ANY education courses, or
)child psychology courses?)
I think this varies from school to school AND teacher to teacher, BUT in
general Waldorf teachers are Anthroposophical nuns. No core academics in
the Waldorf teacher training program. Academic education is the least of
their concerns. Saving our children's soul is an all day job!
) I wonder about the pedagogy I see in practice: why is copying from what
)a teacher writes on the blackboard or draws or paints better for the child
)than, say, working from a textbook or a novel or non-fiction book written
)for children? Why is it necessary (or is it?) for the paintings to all be
)done in the same ``Waldorfy'' style? At what age do the children, finally,
)get to paint what they want, the way they want, or to write things in their
)own words instead of someone else's?
Again, this seems to vary, but in my experience the teachers are keeping
the children from developing critical thinking skills until it is "time"
(according to Steiner's time, that is). Pre awakening children is BAD, and
can lead to illness later in life.
) I wonder all these things because of what I see my Waldorf schooled 4th
)grader doing, and not doing. Her mainlesson book, brought home over
)Thanksgiving, was copied completely from teacher's writing and drawing on
)the board, all the way down to how the decorative borders were done!
Yep. It was the same at our local Waldorf school. Then they pass these
books off as if they are original works of the children (enrollment
procurement context).
)Tonight's homework was to copy into said mainlesson book a Xeroxed sheet of
)the teacher's handwritten narrative about the history of our city. Am I
)missing something, or is this dull as dishwater and less challenging than
)figuring out the moral of an episode of ``Rugrats''?
One of my children liked this kind of homework - he copied letter by
letter, having no clue what the words said (4th grade), with little desire
to learn. The other totally rebelled and demanded I get him out of the
school stat! He wanted to )_learn_. Today, my oldest child still struggles
in school. My youngest is taking Pre Algebra in sixth grade. If he ever
gets himself organized, he'll fly through school. (He always chooses the
homework kings and queens to be his teacher. In 4th grade, he thought he
was not learning as much as he was capable of learning. He had a meeting
with his teacher and principal. They presented him with more challenging
curriculum.) BUT he can easily forget his work at home, leave his needed
book at school, or loose something he has worked hard on before it gets to
the teacher. (sigh)
) I'm puzzled. I am alarmed. I see what other children in more mainstream
)schools -- from the decent public schools nearby to the excellent private
)college prep academies that surround us -- and our curriculum looks boring,
)unchallenging and plain old, well, underwhelming.
Is your child happy and content with this copy work? What does she say
about all of this?
) Worse yet, I am worried as I write this that I am going to offend
)someone from my school who may be reading this and word will get around
)school that I am not a loyal parent (and I wonder why I should worry about
)this -- its juvenile and not worthy of anyone who is interested in making
)sure our children get a good education.) I have been a very vocal fan of WE
)for years, but something is happening (or not happening) that is making me
)uneasy.
Yes, in my experience, it was not OK to even whisper about the academic
aspects of Waldorf. Never came up in meetings or anywhere. Curious, eh?
People who do want the academic challenge are pooh-poohed and made to feel
badly or worse yet, just plain wrong, like _you_ are a bad parent for being
concerned...
Sounds like you have some doubts about this "wonderful education". I found
there is no one stop shop. If you send your child to public school, you
have to really take on their spiritual development. If you send them to
Waldorf, you have to make up for the lack of academic challenges. My
husband used to say, "We send our kids to church all day and educate them
at night."
Debra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1636.6 ---------------
From: "John W. Morehead" (morehead mail2.quiknet.com)
Subject: Re: Martin life story (was: French Waldorfs complain about being
classed as a cult)
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 10:07:28 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199911300015.QAA09037 lists1.best.com) (199912020544.VAA02026 lists1.best.com)
Bob Schultz wrote:
) I tried to word my post carefully to avoid judging Mr. Martin. You
) obviously know more about the man and have a clearer picture. Perhaps )you and other critics could extend that courtesy to Herr Steiner )regarding ad) hominems.
Check the archives. I haven't engaged in ad hominems against Mr.
Steiner. I can't speak for other critics or check their alleged
behavior, but I've got a clean bill of health here. At any rate, one ad
hominem does not deserve another.
I prefer to stick to the issues here, including not whether
Anthroposophy is properly understood as a cult, in France or anywhere
else, but is it religious, and if so, looking at its relationship to
Waldorf education in public schools. That's the crux of the issues
surrounding the PLANS suit.
John
Watchman Fellowship
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1636.7 ---------------
From: Christopher Yavelow (yavelow xs4all.nl)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 13:03:47 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Jelle wrote:
)But your credibility has shrunk since you stated that reincarnation and
)other esoterics are being taught in Waldorf schools, so I'll ask more
)trustworthy sources.
Excuse me! Don't put words in my mouth. I have stated repeatedly: "But I
speak of only one school" -- that's the school that I know about. Please
don't falsely report my postings in an effort to make me seem an
"untrustworthy source".
I have some experience with Waldorf education: I have been involved with
Waldorf schools for eight years. I have two children in Waldorf schools. My
wife used to teach German at one. She was in the teacher training for a
while. I have read many of the Steiner books put out by the
Anthroposophical Society. I have been to approximately one hundred
parent-teacher meetings. I conducted or participated in approximately 40
parent-teacher meetings in Santa Monica alone. For four years I was a
designated driver for all Waldorf field-trips in my daughter's class. I
have associated almost exclusively with Anthroposophs thanks to my wife
bringing them into my life. I have had lengthy meetings with the director
of the Association of Waldorf Schools in America. I have even taken courses
on how to identify cults.
I've watched the Waldorf school try to indoctrinate reincarnation into my
younger daughter using techniques that I consider to be reprehensible and
which I have reported to this lisgt. I've seen them destroy my older
daughter's self-confidence by pigeonholing her with Steiner's ridiculous
theories of four temperaments. And I've seen Waldorf parents subtley lure
my wife into every manner of wacko cult imaginable (and try to do the same
to me).
If you are looking for a reliable source, you don't have to look much
farther than me.
Jellow also wrote:
)It's amazing that you have filed two complaints if there was only one
)colored girl. Or was it about the lack of diversity?
)Are you an aficionado of sueing, complaining and blaming?
Don't assume that I was filing complaints against the Waldorf school for
the one black girl. Those complaints were about another type of
discrimination. I will have the complete correspondence chain on one of my
websites before the end of this month. In the meantime, you've jumped to
conclusions that have no basis in reality.
Jelle states that the complaint bureau was "Set up by the Waldorf schools
themselves."
Well, that may be. I read about it in a Dutch newspaper article (on the
web) that (I think) focused on the racism case by the author of "Uit de
Vrije School geklapt" -- Perhaps I misunderstood something in my attempt to
translate the Dutch. I will try to locate the reference and have it
translated.
One thing is certain, if the agency was set up by the Waldorf schools
themselves as you maintain, that would explain why they did absolutely
nothing about my complaints except continually postpone hearings until I
finally had to take the case to the the next level, the state-run
"Anti-Discriminatie Bureau (regio Haarlem)".
Didn't Scientology secretly purchase one of the organizations that had been
critizing them so that they could control the criticism. Having the
complaint organization run by the organization that is being complained
about sounds like the same sort of tactic to me.
Christopher Yavelow
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1636.8 ---------------
From: jellesonja computextos.net (Gerard Schottelndreier)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1634
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 14:51:54 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912020544.VAA02027 lists1.best.com)
Alan:
I for one have no need to indulge my
) narcissism with such revelations. That's why I won so many poker games at
) the Fine Hall faculty lounge on Friday afternoons.
This not only sounds doubly narcistic (won many and glorying in non-narcism)
but also like you can't stand someone else being glorified. Is there a word
for that in english?
And for this post-doc advice or introvision I charge nothing!
What a good boy am I!
-Jelle
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1636.9 ---------------
From: jellesonja computextos.net (Gerard Schottelndreier)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 15:06:30 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912020544.VAA02027 lists1.best.com)
) From: Detlef Hardorp
) No! "Root race theory" has never been taught in *any* Waldorf school! A
preview of an upcoming sentence from my essay: "At 7 (of the 95) Dutch
Steiner Schools, the State Inspectorate, however, also reported evidence of
a stereotyping of races and peoples with discriminatory tendencies." No
root race theory!
Okay, maybe not with this term. What was taught in some places was the idea
of races having characteristics of child, adolescent, adult and elder. This
connects to the root races.
What I remember from the Volkskrant - and then it really can't be worse or
they have made one of their many mistakes - is that in ONE place the
inspection found a characterization of a race that could POSSIBLY but not
necessarily be used in a derogatory sense. That's a different thing than a
tendency. But if you have an official report that is well translated (not
like the stuff of Jeurissen on Dan's website), that must be more accurate.
-Jelle
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1636.10 ---------------
From: jellesonja computextos.net (Gerard Schottelndreier)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1634
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 14:39:45 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912020544.VAA02027 lists1.best.com)
) Bob Says:
) Don't bother us with facts, this is an argument! Bring us inuendo or
leave. :-)
Please have mercy on foreigners. Inuendo isn't in my Webster's Unabridged.
Is the joke on lies and rabid destruction on this list?
-Jelle
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1636 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1637 --------------
001 - Neil Faiman (faiman zko.d - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1621
002 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1634
003 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: 2nd instalment of essay
004 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1634
005 - jellesonja computextos.ne - Re: 2nd instalment of essay
006 - jellesonja computextos.ne - Re: What is science?
007 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: question
008 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: question
009 - Chris McDonell/Sue Gordon - Remove
010 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: question
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1637.1 ---------------
From: Neil Faiman (faiman zko.dec.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1621
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 15:20:54 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dan Dugan advised Res Dickinson that
) Wacky things that leak into the
) classroom include Steiner's "twelve senses," his "threefold"
) physiology, the body consisting of the nerve-sense system, the
) metabolic muscular system, and the rhythmic system, the belief that
) the heart doesn't pump blood (it moves itself), and denial of the
) role of refraction in the creation of color.
This would be more accurately stated as "Wacky things that *sometimes*
leak into the classrom". Dan has a handful (or perhaps a hatful) of
examples of such leakage. Many others of us on this list have provided
counter-examples of children being taught "normal" science in their
Waldorf schools.
I really don't think you can improve on the advice I've been offering
for years: You need to find out what is being taught at the Waldorf
school that *you* are interested in. Talk to the teachers. Visit open
houses. Look at main lesson books. (At my daughter's school, main
lesson books are spread out throughout the classrooms at open houses.)
It should be easy enough to pick up a Physiology or Physics or
Chemistry block main lesson book and see for yourself. But don't trust
anyone on this list to tell you what your child will be taught at your
local Waldorf school, because none of us have the least idea.
As for long range outcomes, pretty much the same advice applies. I
could tell you about the overwhelmingly positive long-term outcomes
that I've observed from my daughter's school (or I could spend the
afternoon boasting about my daughter :-), but it wouldn't tell you a
thing about the school that *you* are looking at. Talk to parents at
that school. Get references to some alumni parents and ask them about
their experience. Listen to the glowing anecdotes the admissions
people will tell you. Then get refernces to some disaffected
ex-parents. (If the school claims that they don't have any, they're
lying to you.) Get their stories.
This list, and the SJU Waldorf List, will let you know how good things
can be at a Waldorf School, and how bad they can be. You'll get a
useful list of things to watch out for. But in the end, it's like
buying a used car. A book can tell you the problems that are likely to
show up, but you're the one who has to get in the car and see whether
*this* car has those problems.
Regards,
Neil Faiman
satisfied Waldorf alumni parent
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1637.2 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1634
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:33:40 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199912022010.MAA18852 lists1.best.com)
On 2 Dec 99, at 14:39, Gerard Schottelndreier wrote:
) ) Bob Says:
) ) Don't bother us with facts, this is an argument! Bring us inuendo or
) ) leave. :-)
)
) Please have mercy on foreigners. Inuendo isn't in my Webster's Unabridged.
That's because it's really spelled innuendo. It means "an oblique allusion
(hint, insinuation), especially a veiled or equivocal reflection on character
or reputation."
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carbonata descendum pantorum."
(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1637.3 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 15:51:05 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Christopher Yavelow]
)
) Didn't Scientology secretly purchase one of the organizations
) that had been
) critizing them so that they could control the criticism. Having the
) complaint organization run by the organization that is being
) complained
) about sounds like the same sort of tactic to me.
[Bob Tolz]
In the United States, we call it "self-policing." It happens all
the time here; e.g., the American Medical Association, the American Bar
Association, and so forth. Even the video game industry initiated its own
self-policing mode in order to deflect any movement by the government to
enact its own laws. If and when the self-policing is perceived to be
ineffective by the government, then in come the laws and the governmental
policing.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1637.4 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1634
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 15:57:57 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) Alan:
) I for one have no need to indulge my
) ) narcissism with such revelations. That's why I won so many
) poker games at
) ) the Fine Hall faculty lounge on Friday afternoons.
)
[Jelle]
) This not only sounds doubly narcistic (won many and glorying
) in non-narcism)
) but also like you can't stand someone else being glorified.
) Is there a word for that in english?
[Bob Tolz]
Geez, I thought Alan was trying to be funny by putting down someone
else's boasting and then immediately turning to his own boast. I see that I
may have misinterpreted his words and that he was really trying to be
serious.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1637.5 ---------------
From: jellesonja computextos.net (Gerard Schottelndreier)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 15:43:28 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912021510.HAA13172 lists1.best.com)
) From: "Joe Serio"
) Come on Dan say it ain't so, even Toto is growling.
) Darn, I've gone and used a reference that our European friends will not
) know.
) May I in three quick sentences (german), fill them in as my European wife
) assures me they won't know anything about Toto and it's sure to come
) up again?
Thanks!
On behalf of all foreigners,
Jelle.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1637.6 ---------------
From: jellesonja computextos.net (Gerard Schottelndreier)
Subject: Re: What is science?
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 15:18:40 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912020544.VAA02027 lists1.best.com)
Detlef:
) Now it is curious that by this method of intuitive introspection, more
universal agreement is reached than in any of the natural sciences.
) More yet: Mathematical results are actually applicable to the
"outside" world. This greatly puzzled Albert Einstein, who once wrote an
essay about this. It should also puzzle us. We take it for granted. We
would do well to reflect on it. How can it be that results obtained through
introspection and without external verification is found at the core of a
natural science like physics? The answer is actually quite simple:
mathematics is a science that penetrates the occult side of nature. It is
the first true occult science.
This phenomenon lies at the heart of The Philosophy of Freedom, as I
understand it.
In thinking, some concept is (at first intuitively) found inside, that
belongs to the percept outside, like jar and lid.
I remember the leading thought nr1 as "Anthroposophy wants to *connect* the
spiritual in man with the spiritual in the universe."
Did I get a bad translation?
Lovely post, btw.
-Jelle
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1637.7 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: question
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 16:32:07 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Lisa writes:
)) I wonder about the pedagogy I see in practice: why is copying from what
))a teacher writes on the blackboard or draws or paints better for the child
))than, say, working from a textbook or a novel or non-fiction book written
))for children? Why is it necessary (or is it?) for the paintings to all be
))done in the same ``Waldorfy'' style? At what age do the children, finally,
))get to paint what they want, the way they want, or to write things in their
))own words instead of someone else's?
Debra says:
)Again, this seems to vary, but in my experience the teachers are keeping
)the children from developing critical thinking skills until it is "time"
)(according to Steiner's time, that is). Pre awakening children is BAD, and
)can lead to illness later in life.
Joe says:
I had a very powerful experience which I will share. There is a Russian painter,
whose name skips my mind at the moment. A museum of his major works exists in
NYC. Most of his paintings are of the Himalayas. I remember going through these
once and being moved quite powerfully. I felt like I was right there in the mountains,
even though his paintings might be considered a bit primitive. On the top floor, was
a large photo book of actual photos of the very same mountains. I eagerly opened
it to see the 'real' mountains. What a disappointment as the photos 'killed'
the experience.
Plus, don't underestimate the fact that it is (hopefully) their
beloved teacher that they *see* writing this on the board, or drawing it. It's so
different that copying from a book.
Lisa says:
)) I wonder all these things because of what I see my Waldorf schooled 4th
))grader doing, and not doing. Her mainlesson book, brought home over
))Thanksgiving, was copied completely from teacher's writing and drawing on
))the board, all the way down to how the decorative borders were done!
Debra:
)Yep. It was the same at our local Waldorf school. Then they pass these
)books off as if they are original works of the children (enrollment
)procurement context).
Joe:
This word 'original' is a bit problematic. It's really a matter of how a child
learns. Even the great Michelangelo copied the great masters before him
for years. Anyway, before a person can really be original, he needs not only an
idea, but technique. What's realy important for a child at an early age?
Lisa:
))Tonight's homework was to copy into said mainlesson book a Xeroxed sheet of
))the teacher's handwritten narrative about the history of our city. Am I
))missing something, or is this dull as dishwater and less challenging than
))figuring out the moral of an episode of ``Rugrats''?
Joe:
It depends how the child experiences the 'coming into being' of their book.
As far as figuring out "Rugrats" I have to say, I'd go easy. Mind you, I am
not a Waldorf Teacher and have never studied Waldorf methodology. I
speak only out of my gut feeling and the experiences of raising my own.
You know what happens when your child outgrows his shoes? You get
rid of them. It's not so easy to get rid of things we take into ourselves, so
hopefully they can grow with us.
Debra:
)One of my children liked this kind of homework - he copied letter by
)letter, having no clue what the words said (4th grade), with little desire
)to learn. The other totally rebelled and demanded I get him out of the
)school stat! He wanted to )_learn_. Today, my oldest child still struggles
)in school. My youngest is taking Pre Algebra in sixth grade. If he ever
)gets himself organized, he'll fly through school. (He always chooses the
)homework kings and queens to be his teacher. In 4th grade, he thought he
)was not learning as much as he was capable of learning. He had a meeting
)with his teacher and principal. They presented him with more challenging
)curriculum.) BUT he can easily forget his work at home, leave his needed
)book at school, or loose something he has worked hard on before it gets to
)the teacher. (sigh)
Joe:
The sigh says alot. Isn't there some need there you are pointing to?
If you got him to put down his books a bit and play ball with you
I bet things would improve. (as I say not as I did!)
Lisa:
)) Worse yet, I am worried as I write this that I am going to offend
))someone from my school who may be reading this and word will get around
))school that I am not a loyal parent (and I wonder why I should worry about
))this -- its juvenile and not worthy of anyone who is interested in making
))sure our children get a good education.) I have been a very vocal fan of WE
))for years, but something is happening (or not happening) that is making me
))uneasy.
Debra:
)Yes, in my experience, it was not OK to even whisper about the academic
)aspects of Waldorf. Never came up in meetings or anywhere. Curious, eh?
)People who do want the academic challenge are pooh-poohed and made to feel
)badly or worse yet, just plain wrong, like _you_ are a bad parent for being
)concerned...
Joe:
Boy, the two of you raise a great issue here. It's a dilemma that goes far
beyond Waldorf. It concerns our wish to change
something we appreciate and think needs changing. But it's so complex
that it lends itself to no easy answer and as I tend to make the simple
complex, I may make this impossible. When do the changes we would
ask of a thing go so to the heart of what the thing is that to make those
changes would render it no longer the thing? Conversly, when will changes
make it *more* the thing? You can't blame a Waldorf Teacher or School for
defending Waldorf, they're not teaching there for fame and fortune,
obviously they think there is something to it. The problem comes
in the interpetation. Like everyone else, sometimes teachers defend what they do
simply because they do it. Also, sometimes we judge out of
our prejudices and expect others to act accordingly. Talk to the class teacher!
Regards,
Joe
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1637.8 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: question
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 17:00:40 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
)
) Joe says:
) I had a very powerful experience which I will share. There is
) a Russian painter,
) whose name skips my mind at the moment. A museum of his major
) works exists in
) NYC. Most of his paintings are of the Himalayas. I remember
) going through these
) once and being moved quite powerfully. I felt like I was
) right there in the mountains,
) even though his paintings might be considered a bit
) primitive. On the top floor, was
) a large photo book of actual photos of the very same
) mountains. I eagerly opened
) it to see the 'real' mountains. What a disappointment as the
) photos 'killed' the experience.
[Bob Tolz]
You're quite obviously referring to the Nicholas Roerich Museum.
I've had a link to them on my own website for quite a long time. Check them
out (and revisit the Himalayas) at http://www.roerich.org.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1637.9 ---------------
From: Chris McDonell/Sue Gordon (hawkline gtn.net)
Subject: Remove
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 17:13:22 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912022010.MAA18879 lists1.best.com)
remove
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1637.10 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: question
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 14:13:06 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199912022136.NAA28206 lists1.best.com)
On 2 Dec 99, at 16:32, Joe Serio wrote:
) This word 'original' is a bit problematic. It's really a matter of how a child
) learns. Even the great Michelangelo copied the great masters before him for
) years. Anyway, before a person can really be original, he needs not only an
) idea, but technique. What's realy important for a child at an early age?
Different things are important for different children. My son Dylan is now
nine years old. He went to Waldorf for kindergarten, and it was very good for
him. In first grade, though, he got very bored and as a result, started acting
out and causing trouble.
One of the things that Dylan really disliked was drawing, because try as he
might, he could not make a picture as beautiful as the picture the teacher drew
on the blackboard. And this is a kid who loves to draw!
He's now in a local charter school and loves it. He's also taking a comic book
illustration class for children, which is taught by a local guy who used to
draw comics professionally. The teacher's goal is to teach the kids how to
tell their own stories in an interesting way. He teaches technique - anatomy,
proportion, perspective, and so on - in the context of helping the kid create
something original.
Now, Dylan has a lot of stories in him. He'll come up with an idea - maybe
it's for a futuristic invention, or maybe it's a story - and talk about it for
20 or 30 minutes, nonstop. He's been doing that almost since he started
talking.
This class is exactly what Dylan needed artistically. Copying drawings on the
board was only frustrating and boring to him, and it was turning him off to
art. It's so great to see him excited about what he's doing now!
Different kids are different. Some thrive at Waldorf. Dylan did not, but he's
thriving now!
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carbonata descendum pantorum."
(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1637 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1638 --------------
001 - "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall - Another non-religion
002 - jellesonja computextos.ne - Re: What is science?
003 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: 2nd instalment of essay
004 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: 2nd instalment - etheric streams
005 - "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall - Re: RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1634
006 - Paulina Leonard (pkleonar - Re: question
007 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: question
008 - jellesonja computextos.ne - RE: 2nd instalment of essay
009 - jellesonja computextos.ne - Re: 2nd instalment of essay
010 - Detlef Hardorp (hardorp g - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1621
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1638.1 ---------------
From: "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall rabecker.com)
Subject: Another non-religion
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 17:25:46 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Welcome back, Cousin Brucey!
))) "Bruce Jackson" (brucey 01019freenet.de) - 12/1/99 4:19 PM )))
writes:
)The CC is a religion, neither Anthroposophy nor Waldorf Education are.(
This was said here before, but now that it issues from your keyboard, I must protest.
The Christian Community, inspired by Anthroposophy and aided at its inception by Rudolf Steiner, is NOT a religion. CHRISTIANITY is a religion, and Christianity is the religion practiced by The Christian Community (whether or not the "T" of "The" is capitalized changes every few years and may vary by country. See, Dan, how liberal [lower-case "L"] we can be!). The Christian Community, rather than itself being a religion, calls itself a "Movement for Religious Renewal." The term "movement" is favored over the term "church" because of the dynamic denotation that is intended to signifiy a Christianity moving forward, into the future; its liturgy celebrates a new (twentieth-century, tick-tick-tick) form of the Seven Christian Sacraments that addresses the modern demand for freedom from authority. Calling it a "church" is fine, however. It takes its place as ONE form of Christian corporate worship among many. It does not seek to diminish or depopulate other forms and welcomes those!
(relatively few) individuals who have not found their spiritual home in other forms but do find it there. That's how I see it, anyway. Nice to have you back. /MRx
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1638.2 ---------------
From: jellesonja computextos.net (Gerard Schottelndreier)
Subject: Re: What is science?
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 16:53:04 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912022010.MAA18879 lists1.best.com)
) From: "Steve Premo"
)To the extent that Anthroposophy is a method of thinking
) about yourself, about your own thinking, and so on, it is not a religion.
To
) the extent that it is a set of shared beliefs* about reincarnation,
angels, the
) spiritual evolution of humanity, and all that other stuff Steiner claimed
to
) have observed in the spirit world and in the Akashic Record, it looks like
a
) religion to me.
YES! And if you/they/we change beliefs* into knowledge, it will be science,
even if it is shared - more so when it is shared!
This has been the best description of the !!! anthroposophic movement !!!
I've come across. It shows the challenge
more clearly when you add my part to it. Knowledge has to be acquired.
But this isn't about !!! anthroposophy !!!
). Many of
) Steiner's ideas about the physical world are considered, by the scientific
) community, to have no basis in fact, such as the existence of Atlantis
Last winter I fell somewhere into a BBC
documentary in which several scientists stated that the historical reports
from various sources (Plato, Egyptians) that there had been
an Atlantean civilization, might prove real. They explained it with
conclusions
about old maps, shifting of the magnetic poles, tectonic movement, vulcanic
ash sediments and climatic change evidence which I don't recall the details
of, but it
sounded very possible to me, having studied some physical geography at
university .
-Jelle
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1638.3 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 15:46:59 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912021414.GAA18701 lists1.best.com)
Bob and Joe,
Russia under Stalin, East Germany before the fall, Castro under Cuba and
on and on. All societies that forbade criticism. Are these the examples
you wish us to follow into the new millenium?
Alan Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Serio (SERIO mbusa.com)
To: (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 1999 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
) Bob Schultz wrote:
)
) )The focus on criticism as a sign of psychological freedom is fascinating
to
) )me. I criticize therefore, I am. A sign of end of the millennium (I know
it
) )is really next year) cynicism. Let's hope the new millennium has a new
) )standard for freedom.
)
) I wish I had said that Bob, but I'm just as delighted you did.
)
) Joe
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1638.4 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment - etheric streams
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 18:12:13 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Dan Dugan wrote:
)In no way did Steiner renounce volkisch racism in 1905. In 1910, for
)example, he said:
[quote from Steiner]
"[There is] for example a point or center of cosmic influence
situated in the interior of Africa. At this center are active all
those terrestrial forces emanating from the soil which can influence
man especially during his childhood. Later on their influence
diminishes; man is less subject to these forces. Nevertheless their
formative influence makes a powerful impression upon him. The
locality where people live exercises its most potent influence in
early childhood and thereby determines for their whole life those who
are completely dependent on these forces, so that the particular
locality impresses the characteristics of their early childhood
permanently upon them. This is more or less typical of all those who,
in respect to their racial character, are determined by the etheric
formative forces of the earth in the neighborhood of that locality.
The black or Negro race is substantially determined by these
childhood characteristics.
"If we now cross over to Asia, we find a point or center where the
formative forces of the earth impress permanently on man the
particular characteristics of later youth or adolescence and
determine his racial character. Such races are the yellow and brown
races of our time.
"If we continue northward and then turn in a westerly direction
towards Europe, a third point or center is reached which permanently
impresses upon man the characteristics of his adult life. In this way
man is determined by the etheric forces emanating from the earth.
When we look more closely into these separate points or centers we
find that they follow a line which takes an unusual direction. These
centers still exist today. The center in Africa corresponds to those
terrestrial forces which imprint on man the characteristics of early
childhood; the center in Asia corresponds to those which give man the
characteristics of youth, and the corresponding center in Europe
imprints upon man the characteristics of maturity. This is a simple
universal law. Since all men in their different incarnations pass
through the various races the claim that the European is superior to
the black and yellow races has no real validity."
[Steiner, Rudolf. The Mission of Folk-Souls. (1910) London: The
Rudolf Steiner Press, 1971. pp. 75-76]
Dan proclaimed:
)There's a pattern to this rhetoric that Steiner uses more than once.
)He makes an outrageously racist statement, and then he adds an
)inspiring internationalist statement at the end. I suppose he figured
)the last impression would get him off the hook. If you examine it
)closely, saying that people pass through all the races on their way
)to the Aryan pinnacle of development doesn't do much to mollify the
)insult of saying that other races are lower stages of development.
Ok lets really take a look at it (in good old Jesuit fashion). First, however,
we need to get some preliminaries out of the way.
To *understand* what's being said here we need to keep in mind
what I call the Principle of Polarites # 1 v. 452. It goes like this.
"To the extent that the mind is overly complicated, it demands
simplicity in the world and life." Conversely, it states "To the extent
the mind is simple (hold the wisecracks), it is able to experience the
marvelous complexity of the world and life".
First, let's look at one little phrase, not at the end, but at the
beginning of the quote:
"The locality where people live exercises its most potent influence in
early childhood and thereby determines for their whole life those who
are completely dependent on these forces, so that the particular
locality impresses the characteristics of their early childhood
permanently upon them. "
"These forces" I take to mean these forces of the locality first and
foremost, and secondly forces that have been assimilated by a race
because of their association with a locality. What does it mean?
It is simply saying that people are more or less dependent on
these forces, to the extent they *don't* ovecome the influences of
their childhood, or their race, a purely individual thing, some are
more dependent, some less so, probably some not at all.
I want to tell a short story to emphasize my point. As some of you may
have guessed, I am of Italian descent. When I was young I saw this
that belonged to a person because they were American/Italians and I
sort of rebelled against it. I always saw it in the other, never in myself
or my family. Of course, now in later life, I am very greatful for what
comes through the Italian folk (pardon Dan, people).
Never-the-less this was somewhat of an issue in my very early youth.
A few years ago I took a trip to Italy and visited a resort town up in
the mountains. What do you suppose I saw. I couldn't believe my eyes
as the town was filled with my uncles, aunts, cousins. It was
amazing. Everywhere I turned I saw them. Now I had the good
fortune to sit and talk with some. The better I got to know them, the
less I saw these characteristics that they all seemed to posses at first.
I don't want to belabor this point but consider even in the 'vernacular'
we have the 'renaissance man' who overcomes the narrower
influences of his life precisely by using to the fullest the gifts his folk,
race, etc, give him. But who says they have to be the same gifts for
all, isn't diversity allowed?
Having said that we can unravel this a bit more by first of all pointing
to a prejudice which your interpretation Dan, betrays. You have
judged that 'forces of childhood = bad' and 'forces of maturity =
good'. But consider this. A person has to go through all phases of life.
It may seem bad that one person has the forces of childhood
throughout their adult life, but how about a person who is imbued by
his locality with forces of maturity in childhood. Do you see that as
necessarily beneficial?
Anyone, who thinks this makes them superior or inferior had best
think again, it only gives each different challenges. I think Dan, that it
unconscious racism that lives in you that interprets it as you do for the
"forces of maturity" that Steiner speaks of don't seem to me to be
soul-spiritual maturity. You seem to take them as 'maturity of the species'.
It's Darwinism you should take a look at.
But there is another problem with the whole thing. You're forgetting
that it is first and foremost a geographic thing, not first and foremost
a racial one. Yes, races that evolved in a certain geographic area
would be influenced by what lives in that area, and perhaps pass it
on through heredity, seems like common sense to me. But how about
when Blacks go to America or Europe, Europeans to South Africa,
Asians to America, etc. If those etheric streams are still there, as
Steiner said then they were, what then?
A person would then acquire certain things from his or her race,
another from the locale they grew up in, yet a third from their
nationality, etc. What infinite, or as as one person said, 'delicious'
complexity.
One more point. It *is* high time we Anthroposophists are honest
with ourselves. Rudolf Steiner's views on race, for example, must
appear racist to someone looking out of the eyes of the materialist,
even to a secular humanist that posits some vague notions of
'humanity'. If a person, even with a so-called religious view, doesn't
understand individuality how else can it be seen?
We also have a right to expect, nay demand honesty from our critics.
It is intellectually dishonest, vile in fact, to judge Steiner's remarks on race
out of a materialistic view of man which he simply didn't share with you. To
understand his ideas on race and much else of what he said, but paticularly
race, you must enter into his world view, see through his eyes, understand
what he means by the 'free individual'. If you don't, don't attribute racism
to him, attribute it to yourself who can't see man as anything but a sum of
characteristics thrown together, with maybe a soul, maybe not.
You can't judge what he says because you can't, or don't want to see what
he sees.
I would propose a new defintion of racism. It is this. Racism is denying the
highest in man, and equating him with his race.
I can hear the yowls now that such a defintion means you have to
have a spiritual view then not to be a racist.
Well so be it.
regards,
Joe
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1638.5 ---------------
From: "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall rabecker.com)
Subject: Re: RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1634
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 18:29:14 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Concerning Alan Fine MD's pro bono diagnosis of Detlef:
))throwing in your Princeton math degree was more than
))just a comment about art and science. I for one have no need to indulge my
))narcissism with such revelations.
))
))Alan Fine MD
))) "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM) - 12/2/99 3:57 PM )))
writes:
)Geez, I thought Alan was trying to be funny by putting down someone
)else's boasting and then immediately turning to his own boast. I see that I
)may have misinterpreted his words and that he was really trying to be
)serious.
The sole boast )Alan Fine MD( displays is his residence in Maryland. Must be an awfully nice place. /MRx (the "x" is so that no one think I'm boasting about being a Mister).
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1638.6 ---------------
From: Paulina Leonard (pkleonard sprintmail.com)
Subject: Re: question
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 18:49:23 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912022136.NAA28206 lists1.best.com)
Joe Serio wrote:
) )Lisa writes:
I wonder about the pedagogy I see in practice: why is copying from what
a teacher writes on the blackboard or draws or paints better for the
child than, say, working from a textbook or a novel or non-fiction book
written for children? Why is it necessary (or is it?) for the paintings
to all be done in the same ``Waldorfy'' style? At what age do the
children, finally, get to paint what they want, the way they want, or to
write things in their own words instead of someone else's? ( (
) )Debra says:
Again, this seems to vary, but in my experience the teachers are keeping
the children from developing critical thinking skills until it is
"time"(according to Steiner's time, that is). Pre awakening children is
BAD, and can lead to illness later in life.( (
) Joe says:
) I had a very powerful experience which I will share. There is a
) Russian painter, whose name skips my mind at the moment...
Hi Joe,
I'm enjoying your posts very much, but, I have to tell you that this
time I think you are really missing the point of what Lisa and Debra
are saying.
I'm very disturbed about the issue Lisa has raised about the excessive
copy work her child is experiencing in the fourth grade.
Since when did giving a young child paper and crayon or finger paints,
telling their own imaginative stories, and having an active fantasy life
awaken their head forces too early?
As an art educator with a certain amount of credentials in my field I'm
increasingly disturbed by what I'm hearing on a number of lists in
regard to what many believe is some exclusive Waldorf insight in regard
to "the artistic". I've heard a lot of erroneous stuff over a long
period of time and am close to deciding, public educator or not, I am
going to have to post about this to the WE list for the sake of my own
conscience.
Look, I'm an anthroposophist and society member by choice, but I don't
buy into anything just because "Steiner said". I was thrilled beyond
words when Jelle brought up the issue of pedagogy. The reason I'm
thrilled is that I see this issue of limited insight and/or exclusive
Waldorf insight in regard to the developing human being as a very big
factor in there being some pretty weak strands in the Waldorf fiber
worldwide.
I've been on the Waldorf list long enough to know well the tendency
among satisfied parents, (not to mention the teachers) to discount
questions, concerns or something that hasn't evolved out of Waldorf
itself. (I've even experienced this in regard to the issue of brain
research, and handedness and I wasn't complaining).
The tendency with those pleased and satisfied with how things are in WE
to be so easily be dismissive when it comes to outside or
other-than-Waldorf authority really concerns me.
I am personally convinced that I could never have suceeded with my
students without having found Steiner and taken up WE monographs,
techniques, etc., but, right along with that is the reality that I also
could not have survived in the classroom without what I learned through
the state curriculum I was required to master in order to be certified.
This state controlled curriculum enabled me to become an affective
teacher in the effective domain. (I'll admit I'm probably the only
teacher I've ever known who says her ed psych courses were the most
important part of her training, but, it is true!)
I can tell you that it is very easy to see from many Waldorf parents who
post to this and other lists with a wide range of concerns that a whole
lot of these concerns are a result of Waldorf teachers not having the
child development courses that would enable them to have greater
insight.
Bob Schultz can disagree all he wants but I stand firm on the belief
that Waldorf pedagogy is not enough. All teachers, Waldorf and
non-Waldorf, need to know and understand what Piaget and _many_ others
have to say in regard to child development.
Bernard Lievegoed understood this.
I encourage Bob and any other Waldorf parent who thinks Waldorf has all
the answers to at least read Lievegoed's book "Phases". Lievegoed was a
very important medical and literary figure in Holland ,as well as a
significant person in and for Anthroposophy.
If Lievegoed can grasp the significance and benefit of the work of
Adler, Jung, Frankl and others then surely it behooves those involved in
and with Waldorf to take a broader look at what these individuals have
to offer. The entire rest of the world does!
Additionally, from what is currently being said in regard to excessive
copying at the cost of individual creative expression, well, I don't
know anyone posting who couldn't use a healthy dose of Lev Vygotsy and
his life work on thought and language.
In the post I'm drafting for the WE list I mention that what saddens me
about the PLANS people and Dan is that I fear he is causing a focus on
such absurdities such as cultism, racism, crazy science, etc., and that
defending such absurdities will prevent Waldorf from taking a look at
what it really needs to be reevaluating.
Until Waldorf begins to get a grip on it's inherent myopic weaknesses I
can no longer support nor recommend it.
Boring children to distraction with copy work to the total exclusion of
individual expression, overriding parental authority on such matters as
dietary decisions, over-night trips, etc., and labeling children
behavior problems when the trouble is a lack of classroom management
skills, bullying and name calling, and turning out students who cannot
read is just totally, totally, unacceptable. Then, to just blow smoke by
saying Waldorf is not for all parents or all children just floors me.
Thank god public education does not have the same mind set.
Joe, you said "You can't blame a Waldorf Teacher or School for
defending Waldorf, they're not teaching there for fame and fortune".
No teacher goes into education to gain fame and fortune. We chose it.
We are, imo, more than any other profession I can think of responsible
for what we do and for the outcome we produce. No one made us become
teachers. Everyday I think about how someday I will be shown a view of
the thousands of souls whose lives I chose to touch and influence and
what that influence did to them. It is a thought that can bring on a
nervous stomach, I tell you.
There are some serious incidents happening in WE that are doing harm to
a certain number of children rather than helping them develop into the
idealistic souls that Waldorf claims is the outcome of this educational
process.
One harmed child is one too many, where I live.
Regards,
Paulina
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1638.7 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: question
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 17:25:57 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199912022136.NAA28206 lists1.best.com)
)Lisa writes:
))) I wonder about the pedagogy I see in practice: why is copying from what
)))a teacher writes on the blackboard or draws or paints better for the child
)))than, say, working from a textbook or a novel or non-fiction book written
)))for children? Why is it necessary (or is it?) for the paintings to all be
)))done in the same ``Waldorfy'' style? At what age do the children, finally,
)))get to paint what they want, the way they want, or to write things in their
)))own words instead of someone else's?
)
)Debra says:
)
))Again, this seems to vary, but in my experience the teachers are keeping
))the children from developing critical thinking skills until it is "time"
))(according to Steiner's time, that is). Pre awakening children is BAD, and
))can lead to illness later in life.
)
)Joe says:
)I had a very powerful experience which I will share. There is a Russian
)painter,
)whose name skips my mind at the moment. A museum of his major works exists in
)NYC. Most of his paintings are of the Himalayas. I remember going through
)these
)once and being moved quite powerfully. I felt like I was right there in
)the mountains,
)even though his paintings might be considered a bit primitive. On the top
)floor, was
)a large photo book of actual photos of the very same mountains. I eagerly
)opened
)it to see the 'real' mountains. What a disappointment as the photos 'killed'
)the experience.
What is your message here, Joe? Children should not be exposed to reality?
)
)Plus, don't underestimate the fact that it is (hopefully) their
)beloved teacher that they *see* writing this on the board, or drawing it.
)It's so
)different that copying from a book.
Don't place Waldorf teachers on pedestals, Joe. They are human beings with
faults and weaknesses like everyone else. Steiner wants teachers to become
the most important adult in the children's lives. I think parents should
maintain their rightful positions and teachers should educate. PERIOD. My
children watch me do many things. Just because they love me, doesn't
necessarily make them want to do what I'm doing, in the _exact_ same way.
Kids should not be clones of any teacher, Waldorf or not. Assuming that
other children learn Art by copying from a book is a bogus assumption. Like
I said, a _real_ artist friend called Waldorf wet on wet painting "Airbrush
by number" paintings.
)
)Lisa says:
)
))) I wonder all these things because of what I see my Waldorf schooled 4th
)))grader doing, and not doing. Her mainlesson book, brought home over
)))Thanksgiving, was copied completely from teacher's writing and drawing on
)))the board, all the way down to how the decorative borders were done!
)
)Debra:
)
))Yep. It was the same at our local Waldorf school. Then they pass these
))books off as if they are original works of the children (enrollment
))procurement context).
)
)Joe:
)This word 'original' is a bit problematic. It's really a matter of how a child
)learns. Even the great Michelangelo copied the great masters before him
)for years. Anyway, before a person can really be original, he needs not
)only an
)idea, but technique. What's realy important for a child at an early age?
[Debra]
Children learn by copying? I'm sorry that you have so little imagination.
Sure, they can learn by copying, but not ideally. Can you tell me which
masters Michelangelo "copied" and what pieces they are? Are they exact
copies? Did he do this for years and years and not allow himself freedom of
his own expression? Waldorf posing as an art school is simply a joke. Wet
on wet painting is little more than occult rituals, intended to help the
children's soul. As an art school, it just can't compete with the others.
My oldest son is a wonderful artist. His imaginative paintings/drawings
from young childhood showed a natural ability for ability and individual
style. Waldorf did nothing to promote his artistic ability - it actually
smothered it!
)Lisa:
)))Tonight's homework was to copy into said mainlesson book a Xeroxed sheet of
)))the teacher's handwritten narrative about the history of our city. Am I
)))missing something, or is this dull as dishwater and less challenging than
)))figuring out the moral of an episode of ``Rugrats''?
)
)Joe:
)It depends how the child experiences the 'coming into being' of their book.
)As far as figuring out "Rugrats" I have to say, I'd go easy. Mind you, I am
)not a Waldorf Teacher and have never studied Waldorf methodology. I
)speak only out of my gut feeling and the experiences of raising my own.
)You know what happens when your child outgrows his shoes? You get
)rid of them. It's not so easy to get rid of things we take into ourselves, so
)hopefully they can grow with us.
)
)Joe:
)The sigh says alot. Isn't there some need there you are pointing to?
)If you got him to put down his books a bit and play ball with you
)I bet things would improve. (as I say not as I did!)
[Debra]
Don't worry about my "dreamy" son. He has a full and active life. He has
plently of play time. He just needs to get organized. He likes his 1 hour
homework time. I never have to remind him to do his work. (I do have to ask
him to take his ball outside once in a while...) He just needs to get it in
his backpack (instead of the ball closet) when he is done.
)Lisa:
))) Worse yet, I am worried as I write this that I am going to offend
)))someone from my school who may be reading this and word will get around
)))school that I am not a loyal parent
[snip]
)Debra:
))Yes, in my experience, it was not OK to even whisper about the academic
))aspects of Waldorf. Never came up in meetings or anywhere. Curious, eh?
))People who do want the academic challenge are pooh-poohed and made to feel
))badly or worse yet, just plain wrong, like _you_ are a bad parent for being
))concerned...
)
)Joe:
)Boy, the two of you raise a great issue here. It's a dilemma that goes far
)beyond Waldorf. It concerns our wish to change
)something we appreciate and think needs changing. But it's so complex
)that it lends itself to no easy answer and as I tend to make the simple
)complex, I may make this impossible.
[Debra]
Imagine expecting a school to educate your child in academics! This concept
should be approached very slowly. Maybe in the next 80 years, it will
change. (Unless the Anthro. crowd recognizes Dan as steiner reincarnated,
then change could come rather quickly. I'm not holding my breath.)
[Joe]
When do the changes we would
)ask of a thing go so to the heart of what the thing is that to make those
)changes would render it no longer the thing?
This is really not about education, is it? It is about the belief system.
Conversly, when will changes
)make it *more* the thing? You can't blame a Waldorf Teacher or School for
)defending Waldorf, they're not teaching there for fame and fortune,
)obviously they think there is something to it.
[Debra]
Anthroposophy, Joe. That is why they are there. So much work to do, so
little time. Only the enlightened children recognize that Waldorf is good,
anyway. The rest will leave. These kids are likely incapable of higher
learning in their present life time. (Cosmic Knowledge)
[Joe]
The problem comes
)in the interpetation. Like everyone else, sometimes teachers defend what
)they do
)simply because they do it. Also, sometimes we judge out of
)our prejudices and expect others to act accordingly. Talk to the class
)teacher!
[Debra]
In Waldorf, it seems to be the teachers way or no way - over and over. It
is not long before the "If you don't like it you can leave" mantra begins.
Just who does have the authority to suggest change in Waldorf? Eugene
Schwartz?
-Debra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1638.8 ---------------
From: jellesonja computextos.net (Gerard Schottelndreier)
Subject: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 19:11:55 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912022216.OAA28624 lists1.best.com)
Christopher,
after taking a good jog in the hills here in Moquegua, I noticed I neglected
a part of what you were saying. I want to apologize for that. You credibly
wrote you were involved in WE as a parent for a long time, so your
complaints I should take more seriously. About the racism and general
badness I don't, but that you and/or your children have not been treated
well and/or professional to a degree that might be expected of a schooling
system that generally makes quite some claims, seems probable to me now.
-Jelle
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1638.9 ---------------
From: jellesonja computextos.net (Gerard Schottelndreier)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 17:38:31 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912022010.MAA18879 lists1.best.com)
) From: Christopher Yavelow
) I have some experience with Waldorf education: I have been involved with
) Waldorf schools for eight years
Me too, 15 years, not in the US.
I don't doubt you have experience, I heavily doubt that you report
truthfully.
) I've watched the Waldorf school try to indoctrinate reincarnation into my
) younger daughter using techniques that I consider to be reprehensible and
) which I have reported to this lisgt.
Techniques? You wrote about your child reporting a story being told in class
about a king who didn't complete all his tasks, but when he died, a child
was born that completed the last task.
Do you learn in your anti-cult course that 1 story equates techniques?
Shouldn't you let the teacher speak to the intent of the story before
jumping to this conclusion?
I've seen them destroy my older
) daughter's self-confidence by pigeonholing her with Steiner's ridiculous
) theories of four temperaments
If that really happened, you can count on me and others from that school (I
know quite a lot) to expose it. But you have to come up
with.........something credible.
There have been credible reports on this list, by Diana, by Debra and an
anonymous (my reaction earned Debra's praise) of things that went wrong on
Waldorf schools. I have learned on this list.
But I need to make the distinction between reality and angry bullshit.
) Jellow also wrote:
) )It's amazing that you have filed two complaints if there was only one
) )colored girl. Or was it about the lack of diversity?
) )Are you an aficionado of sueing, complaining and blaming?
)
) Don't assume that I was filing complaints against the Waldorf school for
) the one black girl.
That's why I asked.
)Those complaints were about another type of
) discrimination. I will have the complete correspondence chain on one of my
) websites before the end of this month. In the meantime, you've jumped to
) conclusions that have no basis in reality.
Still interested..........
) Jelle states that the complaint bureau was "Set up by the Waldorf schools
) themselves."
) Well, that may be.
Be sure. Noticed "Bond van Vrije Scholen" and the adress?
I read about it in a Dutch newspaper article (on the
) web) that (I think) focused on the racism case by the author of "Uit de
) Vrije School geklapt" -- Perhaps I misunderstood something in my attempt
to
) translate the Dutch. I will try to locate the reference and have it
) translated.
Please.
) One thing is certain, if the agency was set up by the Waldorf schools
) themselves as you maintain, that would explain why they did absolutely
) nothing about my complaints except continually postpone hearings until I
) finally had to take the case to the the next level, the state-run
) "Anti-Discriminatie Bureau (regio Haarlem)".
There might also be something on your side?
Still interested........
) Didn't Scientology secretly purchase one of the organizations that had
been
) critizing them so that they could control the criticism. Having the
) complaint organization run by the organization that is being complained
) about sounds like the same sort of tactic to me.
Cheap smearing, connecting it to Scientology, very cheap. Is that all you
can come up with?
I already told you:
((((((((((((((Set up by the Waldorf schools themselves. Not because the
problem is so bad.
This is really nasty. If we hadn't taken it seriously, you'd have attacked
us for that, and now we do, it's another reason to attack.
Every school is the Netherlands, Waldorf or not, has to have a person or
commission for complaints, for sexual harrassment, etc. With or without
problems.
In the set of actions made after it was discovered that some schools taught
one three week unit about race characteristics, and which stopped this
practice that was introduced by Max Stibbe and not by Steiner, also this
Meldpunt ("ReportHere") was set up, to really be able to know about it IF
there would be discrimination))))))))))))
And I repeat:
I've responded to your questions, now please be so fair to give us some
facts, some truth, some reality for your claim that
)the problem is so bad that there is an office set
)up in the Netherlands to handle complaints of racism and discrimination
And I add: it's not just a claim, it's an accusation of a quite condemning
type.
Please check with the conscientious attitude that you must somehow have seen
with others if it is true that you were in Harvard etc., if you should
substantiate or apologize.
What is so bad?
Facts, please.
-Jelle
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1638.10 ---------------
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1621
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 02:50:59 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Dan asked:
(Detlef Hardorp, can you obtain copies for us of the three studies that you mentioned in your post?)
Try amazon.com or amazon.de for the newer ones.
-Detlef
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1638 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1639 --------------
001 - Detlef Hardorp (hardorp g - RE: 2nd instalment of essay
002 - Detlef Hardorp (hardorp g - Black dolls revisited
003 - Detlef Hardorp (hardorp g - Re: Unconstitutional?
004 - Detlef Hardorp (hardorp g - Re: 2nd instalment of essay
005 - jellesonja computextos.ne - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1637
006 - Detlef Hardorp (hardorp g - Betr.: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
007 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: 2nd instalment of essay
008 - "Diana Winters" (winters_ - Re: 2nd instalment - etheric streams
009 - Christopher Yavelow (yave - Re: 2nd instalment of essay
010 - "Diana Winters" (winters_ - Re: 2nd instalment of essay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1639.1 ---------------
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 02:51:01 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
[Dan Dugan]
)Note Steiner says "we here in Europe are thus the fifth Sub-Race of the great Aryan Root Race." and "The fifth Sub-Race...to which we and the neighbouring nations belong." He's talking about Europe, only Europe.)
[Joe Serio in a later posting]
)The reference to Europe is as a 'sub-race' of the 'great Aryan Root Race'. Ancient India being the first *sub race* of the Aryan Root race.)
Detlef:
Joe has clearly made the point that Dan missed the point.
Let me expand a bit nonetheless: Steiner is talking not just about Europe, he is talking about European *civilization*, which happens to have spread to almost all of the rest of the world lately! Whether you like it or not: is does happen to be the dominant cultural influence of our times. Obviously this influence has good and bad sides. But that is not the point. The point is that it is dominant and becoming more so daily. Globalization is swallowing up cultural minorities fast. In a way, it is nothing but a huge impulse of European cultural imperialism! The world has largely become eurocentric, in spite of all the talk of multiculturalism.
Not that long ago, there were corners of the world untouched by European civilization (and, to be fair, one must add un-civilization). Good look finding that today! From this point of view, America is of course an appendix to European civilization.
More on how Steiner critically reflected on the *differences* between Europe and America in my fourth instalment. (Preview: he does not glorify Europe, but is quite critical of it. Stay tuned!)
[Detlef Hardorp]
) Had Steiner never employed the theosophical terminology of "root- )and sub-races", there would be nobody screaming "racism" at the )anthroposophical description of world evolution.
[Dan Dugan]
)If Steiner had never used the Theosophical terminology he would still be considered a racist based on many other things he said.
Detlef:
I said: "... there would be nobody screaming "racism" *at the anthroposophical description of world evolution*. That he might still be considered a racist based on many other things he said is another issue. You proposed doing this piece by piece and I agreed. So let's discuss this piece by piece. Lawyers and real critics stick to the issue being discussed.
As I remarked in my post "all quiet on the western front":
)We are only talking about the "root-race" issue so far. If we agree that this is a non-issue as far as accusations of racism go, that is not the end of the discussion on racism. "Blond hair", "the instinctive live of Negroes" and "the effects of Negro-novels on pregnant women" are still to come in future instalments. The situation there is less clear-cut. But before we go on to these, I would very much like to hear some assessments of the "root-race" issue by the critics.)
So far, there has at least been a reaction. But no critical assessment. Unfortunately, Dan, you missed the point twice: once you were wrong and once you were off.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1639.2 ---------------
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: Black dolls revisited
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 02:51:04 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I forwarded the discussion on black dolls to Joan Almon, a former kindergarten teacher that is very active in the Waldorf kindergarten movement internationally. She has just responded. I see no reason not to post this mail on the list.
Dear Detlef,
Thank you for forwarding the conversation on doll colors to me. In recent years Waldorf kindergarten teachers in North America have taken up the question of skin color in dolls. It would be rather rare, I think, to find kindergartens on this continent which have only light skinned dolls as was once the case. However, we have not done a review of how the children have received these dolls, whether they have shown preferences, etc. I will put a request into our upcoming kindergarten newsletter for feedback from the teachers
As a doll maker and puppeteer I have paid a lot of attention to skin tone in recent years. I found that the issue of dead or alive has less to do with black or white, but with the subtler aspects of color. There is a life quality to some colors while others appear flat and dead. If you look at skin tones you can see that some people's skin looks lifeless while others have a glow of life. On light skin the glow usually comes through a pinkness in the cheeks. On brown skins it is often a golden tone, and on very black skins it is a bluish tone. When picking fabrics for dolls or when dying fabrics I strive for this glow of life whatever the skin tone.
If I use a thin, dark fabric for a marionette, for example, I may put a gold fabric underneath to let light shine though. With heavier cottons on dolls, I may add a bit of color through crayon, color pencil or dyes. This is a bit technical, perhaps, but gives a picture of the challenges around skin color in dolls. It's not a simple matter. And yes, the clothing adds to the whole picture, although dark skins can look stunning in white as well as bright colors. In Africa people tend to use bright colors, but in the U.S. there has been a tradition among African Americans of dressing up in white.
Does all of this matter to children? It seems to, but this is where I would like contemporary feedback from my colleagues. Unfortunately I have not had my own kindergarten class for the past ten years while all of this work with color has been taking place. I was, however, very moved and concerned by the following incident which happened 8 or 9 years ago at the kindergarten where I used to work. Children were eating lunch and two little boys were talking about princesses. One said very adamently, "There are no princesses in Africa." A little African American girl looked crestfallen when this was said. The teacher assured the children that there were beautiful princesses in Africa and the girl beamed at her.
This teacher and I were part of a puppetry group that had just decided to do an African fairy tale. In it was a beautiful princess. We worked extra hard on that doll to make her as beautiful as we were able. I think she is the loveliest marionette I've ever helped create. We wanted every child who saw the play, black or white, to come away inwardly knowing that in Africa there are beautiful princesses. The children loved the play but beyond that I cannot say how all of this lives in them. It is such a subtle matter.
But some years later I showed the princess to an African American friend. Her response was immediate. She threw out her arms, embraced the doll and said, "This is the doll I longed for when I was a child."
So yes, I do think skin tone matters in dolls. Children need their own tone affirmed in lovely, especially minority children who absorb a hundred messages a day that they are not quite as good as the majority children.
But all children, I would say, benefit from an array of skin tones in their family of dolls.
I'll let you know what I learn from the teachers in the field.
All the best,
Joan Almon,
Co-chair, Waldorf Early Childhood Association of North America (WECAN)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1639.3 ---------------
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Unconstitutional?
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 02:50:49 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
[Detlef Hardorp]
)No church, no bible, no creed, no belief - just people working with other people in a special atmosphere. (Teachers with students and the students amongst each other: the social dimension of the class is also very important in this regard.) The special atmosphere is THE precondition for enabling the subject being taught to blossom.
)
) This is the religious element Steiner wanted in Waldorf education. He wanted mathematics, physics, social studies, English and every other subject to have a religious dimension in this sense. The methods of Waldorf education try to invoke this. Whether it works or not always depends on the moment.
) When it does work, education becomes inspired.
[Alan Fine]
)I believe in educating this way. But certainly you are aware that Waldorf schools do not restrict themselves to such a generalized spiritual approach. I know, for example a Muslim, who is a highly spiritual human being. He can't relate to much of Waldorf. The movements of Eurythmy look comical to him. Other forms of movement inspire him. Christmas, Michaelmas, Advent, mean little to him. They carry no spiritual valence. Other festivals, from his culture such as the various Eads have deep meaning. He finds the Grail myth to be mildly interesting at best, but not worthy of too much attention at school. Other legends, never taught (or even known) in Waldorf circles are the ones he feels are fundamental. In other words, his spiritual sensibilities are simply not the same as Waldorf.
[Detlef Hardorp]
May I amend your last sentence with one word, making it read:
"In other words, his spiritual sensibilities are simply not the same as *traditional* Waldorf."
I think Waldorf indeed has a long way to go here. Why shouldn't other legends (never before taught in Waldorf schools) not become part of the curriculum? Also from totally outside the traditional Christian Western mindset? I tend to side with the critics on this issue. Fact is, much of Waldorf education is still based on beginning-of-the-century Germany. Steiner said he was making lots of compromises with the school system of Wuerttemberg. There has been almost no critical reflection of what this means concretely within the Waldorf movement to this date.
It would be an exceedingly interesting research project to try to separate what, of all the traditional practices in Waldorf schools, is Waldorf at heart, and what was taken over from the curriculum of the time. I don't believe anybody has made the effort to dig out those old state curricula - that could turn out to be an eye-opener! But, beyond the curriculum, much of what is practised in Waldorf is not Waldorf at all, but simply German. This Christmas tree piece is a good example. Germans love real candles on Christmas trees. They like hanging apples on the branches. German anthroposophists regularly leaf through the collected works of Steiner at Christmas time to find something about this beloved tradition. Actually, Steiner says very little about the subject. There is, indeed, one lecture. But here - oh horror - the Christmas Tree is described as an old pagan tradition (if I remember correctly), and absolutely no connection to Christianity is made!
My point is: Waldorf should be possible in the context of totally different cultures and religions, looking totally different. Fortunately, there are brave pioneers around the world attempting this. Unfortunately, they are often in a minority. German traditions in Germany may still make sense; exported to America, they can become stilted and life-less. The business becomes really problematic when a false anthroposophical aura is attached to life-less traditions.
To be fair, things have been changing for the better in the last decades. I attended the 8th grade graduation at the Princeton Waldorf school two summers ago. The way, the depth and the sincerity with which the class teacher - a Jew who had lived in Israel for many years - said good-bye to each 8th grader individually was awe-inspiring.
[Alan Fine]
)This is what makes the world beautiful. Diversity.
[Detlef Hardorp]
I couldn't agree more!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1639.4 ---------------
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 02:50:54 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
)Detlef, you wrote:
) One more remark before jumping in: Rudolf Steiner clearly )distanced himself from the concept of root-races as early as 1905. )This seems to have been totally overlooked in the critical )discussion so far. The claim that "the theory of root-races belongs )to the pillars of anthroposophy" is clearly false. If the )discussion does not prove me wrong, then I ask the critics to )refrain in future from barking up a tree that, in fact, ceased to )exist as early as 1905.
[Dan Dugan]
)Steiner distanced himself from the -words- "root-race," substituting the bowdlerism "cultural epoch." Same concept, different name. The volkisch racial myth remained, and is evident in Anthroposophical writings and in Waldorf schools today.
Detlef:
I have just gone into the concept of a cultural epoch in a mail with the same subject and date (but RE instead of Re in the subject line). If you will care to read this again, you will notice that the concept has *absolutely nothing* to do with a "volkisch racial myth". The volkisch racial myth remains in your head, Dan. Get it out of there, because it has nothing to do with the facts.
[Dan Dugan]
Humanity (or "consciousness") didn't "evolve" from Atlantis to ancient India to Egypt to Greece, etc. That's the volkisch myth of the history of the "Aryan race" that Blavatsky and Steiner taught. There's a direct line of inheritance from them to Alfred Rosenberg's "Myth of the Twentieth Century" just a few years later.
Detlef:
That is an insidious defamation. The opposite is true. I will say something about how Steiner's ideas were the polar opposite of Voelkisch thoughts in the next instalment of my essay.
[Dan Dugan]
I believe it was your sister, Detlef, who rebutted my argument with the observation that the Nazi's referred to Darwin, too, so I'd have to also consider him as one of the people who provided the philosophical foundations for the holocaust. Don't Anthroposophists have as much right to say that the Nazis misused and distorted Steiner as scientists have to say that they misused and distorted Darwin?
Detlef:
How the concept of the "survival of the fittest" influenced history is indeed a very interesting and gruesome study.
Fact is, however, that the Nazis did not "misuse" or "distort" Steiner at all. They rejected him (even though they were intrigued by some of the results). I touch on that in the fourth instalment of my essay. Furthermore, a very thorough and candid study of how anthroposophists behaved during the reign of nationalsocialism by Uwe Werner has recently been published in the Oldenburg Verlag. Werner perused all the archives that were not open to research before the fall of the iron curtain. A most interesting study! It is based on facts.
"Hitler misusing Steiner" is a complete figment of false fancies. Sorry to be so harsh, Dan. Hitler considered Steiner to be more dangerous than than freemasons and Jews combined, which is about as negative a statement somebody like Hitler could make. And don't come with the line that he opposed Steiner because their ideas were dangerously similar. That is complete rot. But let us postpone this discussion when we get there.
[Dan Dugan]
)In no way did Steiner renounce volkisch racism in 1905. In 1910, for example, he said:
)"[There is] for example a point or center of cosmic influence situated in the interior of Africa. At this center are active all those terrestrial forces emanating from the soil which can influence man especially during his childhood. Later on their influence diminishes; man is less subject to these forces. Nevertheless their formative influence makes a powerful impression upon him. The locality where people live exercises its most potent influence in early childhood and thereby determines for their whole life those who are completely dependent on these forces, so that the particular locality impresses the characteristics of their early childhood permanently upon them. This is more or less typical of all those who, in respect to their racial character, are determined by the etheric formative forces of the earth in the neighborhood of that locality. The black or Negro race is substantially determined by these childhood characteristics.
)"If we now cross over to Asia, we find a point or center where the formative forces of the earth impress permanently on man the particular characteristics of later youth or adolescence and determine his racial character. Such races are the yellow and brown races of our time.
)"If we continue northward and then turn in a westerly direction towards Europe, a third point or center is reached which permanently impresses upon man the characteristics of his adult life. In this way man is determined by the etheric forces emanating from the earth. When we look more closely into these separate points or centers we find that they follow a line which takes an unusual direction. These centers still exist today. The center in Africa corresponds to those terrestrial forces which imprint on man the characteristics of early childhood; the center in Asia corresponds to those which give man the characteristics of youth, and the corresponding center in Europe imprints upon man the characteristics of maturity. This is a simple universal law. Since all men in their different incarnations pass through the various races the claim that the European is superior to the black and yellow races has no real validity."
)[Steiner, Rudolf. The Mission of Folk-Souls. (1910) London: The Rudolf Steiner Press, 1971. pp. 75-76]
)There's a pattern to this rhetoric that Steiner uses more than once. He makes an outrageously racist statement, and then he adds an inspiring internationalist statement at the end. I suppose he figured the last impression would get him off the hook. If you examine it closely, saying that people pass through all the races on their way to the Aryan pinnacle of development doesn't do much to mollify the insult of saying that other races are lower stages of development.
Detlef:
This long quote was to prove that:
"In no way did Steiner renounce volkisch racism in 1905. In 1910, for example, he said: ...."
Dan, you are leaving the plane of valid critical reflection. You would never make a lawyer. I said that Steiner renounced the concept of root- and subraces. He did, indeed, not renounce "volkisch racism" because he never embraced it. Furthermore, your long quote has nothing to do with root- and subraces.
Of course we could begin discussing the merits and problems of this quote here, but that is an issue that has nothing to do with the fact that Steiner renounced one very specific concept, namely that of root- and sub-races. I did not say that he renounced all his ideas on race.
Let's come back to this quote when I bring Steiner's 1923 quote on "negroes" in the fourth instalment, because the context fits your above quote. The Dutch report has a long section on "The Mission of Folk-Souls", BTW.
(snip early quotes where root-races are mentioned and more quotes where Dugan sees racism but root-races are not mentioned)
[Dan Dugan]
)Detlef, perhaps you know the visiting European Anthroposophists who blew the minds of the Stanford scholars in Milwaukee when they talked about the childlike evolutionary stage of African-Americans. Perhaps you were among them.
Detlef:
Sorry, I've never been to Milwaukee. Would love to visit the school, though.
[Dan Dugan]
It's only in hate groups and in Anthroposophy
that we find people who still believe volkisch racial myths. Anthroposophy isn't a hate group, but you are in very bad company.
Detlef:
Baseless insinuations is one things that let critics slip into being "critics". Dan, you are implying that I believe in "volkisch racial myths". That claim is libellous. I do not believe that I have made any statements about my beliefs in any of my (sometimes rather long) postings, let alone about believing in "volkisch racial myths".
[Dan Dugan]
)Your discussion of -The Philosophy of Freedom- at this point is an irrelevant diversion. High-sounding talk about individuality (in a cult that in practice creates uniformity) doesn't erase the racial theory of history.
Detlef:
Sorry, Dan, but it is clear that you have quite failed to understand the basic tenets of anthroposophy. I do not get the impression that you are willing to attempt to understand these, as this would undermine the hate group spirit that you bring towards anthroposophy. Fact is that "The Philosophy of Freedom" is Steiner's central work. It also, by the way, contains a chapter on "Individuality and Genus" that is well worth reading, as it reflects Steiner's basic attitudes about sexism that certainly have implications for racism as well.
As to "creating uniformity": if you bother to look, you will find people from all walks of life, of all religious convictions, running the whole gamut of political convictions and in every conceivable profession interested in anthroposophy. Just look at the postings on this list! Doesn't it reflect most diverse approaches, and not just because there are critics? Man, how can one be so blinded by convictions of granite as you are? You accuse anthroposophists of this. In fact, it seems very probable to me that you are projecting your own rigidity and dogma onto a hate group. I'm sorry to be so blunt, Dan. That is a common psychological phenomenon. I am well aware that you are unlikely to accept any of this. But you are doing the attacking here, I only allowed myself some psychological reflections in the process of rebutting.
[Detlef Hardorp]
) Nonetheless, the word ìroot-raceî can cause confusion, although )Steiner stopped using the term very soon. Most of those who )criticize Steiner on this point could know better and many in fact )do. If the aim is, however, to attempt to discredit anthroposophy )and Waldorf education, the ìroot-raceî allegations are well suited
)in alleging something which is, in fact, no more racist than )referring to the ìhuman race.î
[Dan Dugan]
)In your dreams, Detlef. Anthroposophy discredits itself. If Anthroposophists don't repudiate Steiner's racial theories, rather than trying to minimize, re-interpret, or defend them as you do, they deserve to be social pariahs along with the other volkisch believers.
Detlef:
So now you are saying that I deserve to be social pariahs. You know what that feels like? The step to saying that social pariahs is the scum of the earth and needs to be eliminated is not that great. Beware of the spirit that is moving you.
Dan, I would like to come back to your definition of racism here, which you kindly composed in a different posting and in a different state of soul:
[Dan Dugan]
)I see two kinds of racism as relevant to this discussion. One is racial hatred, hatred of people who are different from your ethnic group. Another is ignorant racism, believing things about ethnic groups that have no basis in reality. We are all, I am sure, inadvertently guilty of the latter form to some degree. In the case of the racial doctrines of Anthroposophy, they are ignorant racism raised to a high degree and institutionalized. But Anthroposophists think that because they don't hate anybody, they can't be racists.
Detlef:
Dan, you do hate. You are not a racist by your definition, because it is not hatred of people different from your ethnic group. But it is hatred of people who are different from your spiritual group. You sense a spirituality in anthroposophy that enrages you. That is the real issue. The totally one-sided Steiner quote-flinging that ensues is secondary. It is necessary to intellectually justify your hatred of this spirituality. There is something in you that is striving to eliminate it.
I do not want to end with that, however. The fact that you went to Spring Valley and were moved by Eugene's lecture seems to belong to a different, new (?), conflicting picture. Maybe this is a germ that can grow to begin to appease - with time - the deeply angry side inside you. I am not saying that you will then become a defender of anthroposophy. But the violence with which you attack could wane.
-Detlef Hardorp
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1639.5 ---------------
From: jellesonja computextos.net (Gerard Schottelndreier)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1637
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 20:13:00 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912022216.OAA28624 lists1.best.com)
) [Bob Tolz]
) Geez, I thought Alan was trying to be funny by putting down someone
) else's boasting and then immediately turning to his own boast. I see that
I
) may have misinterpreted his words and that he was really trying to be
) serious.
Probably I missed the US humor.
Did you find it funny?
-Jelle
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1639.6 ---------------
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: Betr.: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 03:14:57 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
) From: Detlef Hardorp
) No! "Root race theory" has never been taught in *any* Waldorf school! A preview of an upcoming sentence from my essay: "At 7 (of the 95) Dutch Steiner Schools, the State Inspectorate, however, also reported evidence of a stereotyping of races and peoples with discriminatory tendencies." No root race theory!
Jelle:
)Okay, maybe not with this term. What was taught in some places was the idea of races having characteristics of child, adolescent, adult and elder. This connects to the root races.
Detlef:
I don't see any connection of root- and sub-races (which was always an "unfortunate terminology" for cultural epochs) to the idea of races having characteristics of child, adolescent, adult and elder.
What I remember from the Volkskrant - and then it really can't be worse or they have made one of their many mistakes - is that in ONE place the inspection found a characterization of a race that could POSSIBLY but not necessarily be used in a derogatory sense. That's a different thing than a tendency. But if you have an official report that is well translated (not like the stuff of Jeurissen on Dan's website), that must be more accurate. -Jelle
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1639.7 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 21:47:21 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
)Bob and Joe,
) Russia under Stalin, East Germany before the fall, Castro under Cuba )and
)on and on. All societies that forbade criticism. Are these the examples
)you wish us to follow into the new millenium?
No Alan, of course not. But we're talking about two polarities; one
where criticism is forbidden, the other where it is imagined to be
the epitome of an independent mind. It's pretty easy to criticize in
an imperfect world. It's much harder to enter into another's
perspective and try to see what the person is saying or trying to do
from there. Even if you still disagree it loses it's edge.
Regards Alan,
Joe
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1639.8 ---------------
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment - etheric streams
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 02:55:54 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
According to Joe Serio,
)To understand [Steiner's] ideas on race and much else of what he )said, but
)particularly race, you must enter into his worldview, see )through his
)eyes, understand what he means ... You can't judge what )he says because
)you can't, or don't want to see what he sees.
Maybe it's best Waldorf educators *not* try to teach our children critical
thinking skills. The line of reasoning above, which is one I heard often
from Waldorf defenders, is well, if only you would agree with Steiner, then
you would agree with him! If only you would see it our way, we would not
have to keep arguing with you! Except that it's not even that simple, it's
the familiar arrogant assertion that you don't "see," as in *spiritually*
see . . . in short, you don't understand because you're not one of us.
Critics of Waldorf do not have to "enter into" anybody's world view to be
entitled to express an opinion about it.
Joe concludes with a new definition of racism: "Racism is denying the
highest in man, and equating him with his race." A person who holds this
definition of racism is thereby free to ascribe with impunity any
characteristic to any race. It's like saying, your race isn't important, so
it doesn't matter what we think of people of your race!
It is my opinion that most anthroposophists are not racists, though they may
hold some silly views about racial characteristics. What is troubling is the
lengths they will go to defend Steiner against *any* criticism! Nowhere in
(how many volumes?) of Steiner can they find anything that can't be
explained away (or, usually, just dismissed with "you're just not seeing
through Steiner's eyes"--come on, pretty lame). Maybe anthroposophy isn't a
cult, but a cult mentality is alive and well among anthroposophists.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1639.9 ---------------
From: Christopher Yavelow (yavelow xs4all.nl)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 20:57:09 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="============_-1267932664==_ma============"
--============_-1267932664==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Jelle wrote:
)Techniques? You wrote about your child reporting a story being told in class
)about a king who didn't complete all his tasks, but when he died, a child
)was born that completed the last task.
)Do you learn in your anti-cult course that 1 story equates techniques?
)Shouldn't you let the teacher speak to the intent of the story before
)jumping to this conclusion?
No. But I learned that it's not necessary to waste time providing example
after example when only one is necessary to illustrate a case.
)If that really happened, you can count on me and others from that school (I
)know quite a lot) to expose it. But you have to come up
)with.........something credible.
You need to take your blinders off. I've already provided all the
information that is necessary, you just refuse to comprehend it.
)) translate the Dutch. I will try to locate the reference and have it
)) translated.
)
)Please.
I still looking for it. I think I got to it from the SIMPOS site:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/anthroposophy.htm
))the problem is so bad that there is an office set
))up in the Netherlands to handle complaints of racism and discrimination
)
)And I add: it's not just a claim, it's an accusation of a quite condemning
)type.
Do you deny that my statement is true? I don't care who is running the office.
Do you deny that it was the Dutch government that demanded that this office
be set up because there had been so many complaints? Again, I don't care
who is running the office.
I've got better things to do than argue with an obvious Anthroposophic
fanatic. I can understand that a lot of this must hurt, especially if
you've been believing in Atlantis, auras, astral projection, temperaments,
racial ethnography, astrology, clairvoyance, reincarnation, and karma for
15 years. To suddenly have people confront you with the fact that not one,
but perhaps all of you beliefs are a total farce. It's bound to make you a
bit uncomfortable.
Christopher
--============_-1267932664==_ma============
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
Jelle wrote:
)Techniques? You wrote about your child reporting a story being told in
class
)about a king who didn't complete all his tasks, but when he died, a
child
)was born that completed the last task.
)Do you learn in your anti-cult course that 1 story equates
techniques?
)Shouldn't you let the teacher speak to the intent of the story before
)jumping to this conclusion?
No. But I learned that it's not necessary to waste time providing
example after example when only one is necessary to illustrate a case.
)If that really happened, you can count on me and others from that
school (I
)know quite a lot) to expose it. But you have to come up
)with.........something credible.
You need to take your blinders off. I've already provided all the
information that is necessary, you just refuse to comprehend it.
)) translate the Dutch. I will try to locate the reference and have it
)) translated.
)
)Please.
I still looking for it. I think I got to it from the SIMPOS site:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/anthroposophy.htm
(excerpt))the problem is so bad that there is an office set
)up in the Netherlands to handle complaints of racism and
discrimination
And I add: it's not just a claim, it's an accusation of a quite
condemning
type.
(/excerpt)
Do you deny that my statement is true? I don't care who is running the
office.
Do you deny that it was the Dutch government that demanded that this
office be set up because there had been so many complaints? Again, I
don't care who is running the office.
I've got better things to do than argue with an obvious Anthroposophic
fanatic. I can understand that a lot of this must hurt, especially if
you've been believing in Atlantis, auras, astral projection,
temperaments, racial ethnography, astrology, clairvoyance,
reincarnation, and karma for 15 years. To suddenly have people confront
you with the fact that not one, but perhaps all of you beliefs are a
total farce. It's bound to make you a bit uncomfortable.
Christopher
--============_-1267932664==_ma============--
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1639.10 ---------------
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 03:15:31 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
)Bob Schultz wrote:
)The focus on criticism as a sign of psychological freedom is )fascinating
)to me. I criticize therefore, I am. A sign of end of the )millennium (I
)know it is really next year) cynicism. Let's hope the )new millennium has a
)new standard for freedom.
Waldorf educators, if I understand correctly, would prefer our children
learn to hold certain things in reverence, before they learn to criticize
anything. While I do believe it's possible to start too early to teach
critical thinking, I don't understand the lack of balance in the Waldorf
approach. Surely we would like to encourage our children to hold in
reverence things worthy of reverence, yet develop the ability to think
critically and *not* hold things in reverence that do not merit it. Yes,
being free and able to criticize is a component of psychological freedom.
And other types of freedom.
But what's disturbing here is that we aren't talking about children. If I've
followed this thread correctly, Bob is suggesting that for *adults* there is
a problem with viewing criticism as a sign of psychological freedom? Well, I
guess he really just said it was "fascinating." Fascinating that on a
critics' forum people appreciate the freedom to criticize? Count me among
these fascinating specimens.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1639 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1640 --------------
001 - Christopher Yavelow (yave - Steiner without racism is like rock'n roll without drums
002 - Bob Schultz (bschultz str - Re: question
003 - "Diana Winters" (winters_ - Re: Betr.: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
004 - Bob Schultz (bschultz str - Re: Betr.: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
005 - Bob Schultz (bschultz str - Re: 2nd instalment of essay
006 - Bob Schultz (bschultz str - RE: question
007 - jellesonja computextos.ne - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1638
008 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: 2nd instalment - etheric streams
009 - Jo Mitchell (jamitche us. - Re: question
010 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - RE: question
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1640.1 ---------------
From: Christopher Yavelow (yavelow xs4all.nl)
Subject: Steiner without racism is like rock'n roll without drums
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 21:21:09 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Jelle, I'm still looking for that newspaper article but I found these while
searching and I think they might interest you:
"Steiner zonder racisme is als rock 'n' roll zonder drums."
http://www.groene.nl/1996/09/rz_stein.html
"Steiner zonder rassenleer is Marx zonder klassenstrijd"
http://www.stelling.nl/kleintje/301/sofen.htm
Christopher
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1640.2 ---------------
From: Bob Schultz (bschultz strategy.org)
Subject: Re: question
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 20:49:46 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199912022136.NAA28206 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199912030050.QAA05426 lists1.best.com)
Paulina writes:
)Bob Schultz can disagree all he wants but I stand firm on the belief
)that Waldorf pedagogy is not enough. All teachers, Waldorf and
)non-Waldorf, need to know and understand what Piaget and _many_ others
)have to say in regard to child development.
I do not recall ever saying this-can you tell me when I said it. It would
have been a strange instance for me to do so, particularly since I am
currently reading Howard Gardner's latest book in order to write a book
review and have studied and incorporated the notion of Multiple
Intelligences into my life. I appreciate Piaget and have looked into a
variety of pedagogies before selecting Waldorf. I just did not pursue the
nastiest information about each pedagogy before choosing WE. I looked to
each pedagogy and my family and asked, what will help us grow? I then
worked to optimize those qualities in our school.
BTW, I am unsure what training institute you attended but Eugene Schwartz
pointed out that at Sunbridge that they teach the breadth of developmental
theory. Where did you attend?
)Bernard Lievegoed understood this.
)I encourage Bob and any other Waldorf parent who thinks Waldorf has all
)the answers to at least read Lievegoed's book "Phases".
Once again, when did I make this statement. Please forward it. Is someone
else posting under my name.
These are some of my quotes from the Waldorf list
"WE is far from perfect, but there is
plenty of evidence (I have two that I need to go read to) that it works
well for most families who are drawn to it). See the Chicago Trib article
that I just posted. Since nothing is for everyone, obviously there will be
cases where the education or the school, or the teacher fails a child or
family. That does not justify the rabid claims of the critics."
) Lievegoed was a
)very important medical and literary figure in Holland ,as well as a
)significant person in and for Anthroposophy.
)If Lievegoed can grasp the significance and benefit of the work of
)Adler, Jung, Frankl and others then surely it behooves those involved in
)and with Waldorf to take a broader look at what these individuals have
)to offer. The entire rest of the world does!
I am suprised that you think I don't. My training is as a philosopher and
could not have graduated without a deep concentration on western thought
and a pretty shallow understanding (it was the 70's) of eastern thought.
Locally, I am involved with the Aspen Institute which hosts Mort Adler's
Great Ideas/Great books seminar for world leaders and executives from
around the planet. Our school cohosted an event marking the 250th
Anniversary of Goethe's birth this year which included a discussion of
Goethe's biography with Eugene Schwartz.
Everyone can learn the seminal message that man has freedom in determining
his reaction to events from Frankl and Jung's collective unconscious work
is now a part of the standard language of our age.
What was your point?
Peace
Robert Schultz Consulting
An issue management and strategic planning consultancy
with an emphasis on ecology and organizational learning.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1640.3 ---------------
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Betr.: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 03:49:00 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
[Detlef Hardorp:]
) ) No! "Root race theory" has never been taught in *any* Waldorf school!
[Jelle:]
)Okay, maybe not with this term. What was taught in some places was )the
)idea of races having characteristics of child, adolescent, adult )and
)elder. This connects to the root races.
[Detlef:]
)I don't see any connection of root- and sub-races (which was always an
)"unfortunate terminology" for cultural epochs) to the idea of races having
)characteristics of child, adolescent, adult and elder.
[Diana says:]
I'm only now vaguely getting these terms sorted out in my mind. It's just so
bizarre and disturbing and really quite shocking to watch this debate. No,
they didn't teach about root races! They only taught that blacks were like
children, and Asians were like adolescents! but they don't teach it any
more! And they *never* taught about the root races (whatever they were)! And
how lame the rest of us are intellectually if we can't keep straight these
two peculiar concepts (root-races versus races having characteristics of
children)! Okay, do we all feel better now that we know they *only* taught
about the races having characteristics of child, adolescent, etc.? Is
anybody else reading this just finding this incredibly shocking?
And it's funny how whenever Steiner's defenders confidently post along the
lines of, "Well they certainly never do that in Waldorf schools. No, never"
about 24 hours pass and then somebody posts, "Well, they did in the Waldorf
school my child attended . . ." If you think these ideas do not influence
how (at least some) Waldorf teachers somewhere look at the children of
different races in their classes, you have your head in the sand.
I'm sorry, there goes the blood pressure thing again. For God's sake, how
can Steiner's defenders even argue about what year he repudiated (or changed
the terminology, I don't even care which) these ugly ideas? Just repudiate
them *now* and be done with it!
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1640.4 ---------------
From: Bob Schultz (bschultz strategy.org)
Subject: Re: Betr.: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 21:12:35 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199912030350.TAA21786 lists1.best.com)
)I'm sorry, there goes the blood pressure thing again. For God's sake, how
)can Steiner's defenders even argue about what year he repudiated (or changed
)the terminology, I don't even care which) these ugly ideas? Just repudiate
)them *now* and be done with it!
My opine (not based on spiritual-scientific research):
That happened long ago. It is too easy of an emotional hot-button for the
critics to give up this claim. It gets free press and immediately puts
Waldorf supporters on the defensive. A guerilla operation like PLANS
benefits from such a strategy. "Well there must be something to it or they
wouldn't keep saying it".
Peace
Robert Schultz Consulting
An issue management and strategic planning consultancy
with an emphasis on ecology and organizational learning.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1640.5 ---------------
From: Bob Schultz (bschultz strategy.org)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 21:23:29 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199912030316.TAA23800 lists1.best.com)
Ms Winters (who must be given additional credence as her season nears) says:
)Waldorf educators, if I understand correctly, would prefer our children
)learn to hold certain things in reverence, before they learn to criticize
)anything. While I do believe it's possible to start too early to teach
)critical thinking, I don't understand the lack of balance in the Waldorf
)approach.
Perhaps your point is that critical thinking needs to be developed earlier
than most Waldorf Schools suggest? When do you think it should begin?
Surely we would like to encourage our children to hold in
)reverence things worthy of reverence, yet develop the ability to think
)critically and *not* hold things in reverence that do not merit it.
Who gets to decide which is which?
Yes,
)being free and able to criticize is a component of psychological freedom.
)And other types of freedom.
I agree that it is a component, my original post was to the suggestion that
it was the definition of freedom.
)Count me among
)these fascinating specimens.
You are number 724-362 and seem quite fascinating :-)
Peace
Robert Schultz Consulting
An issue management and strategic planning consultancy
with an emphasis on ecology and organizational learning.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1640.6 ---------------
From: Bob Schultz (bschultz strategy.org)
Subject: RE: question
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 21:28:14 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199912022154.NAA12120 lists1.best.com)
)[Bob Tolz]
) You're quite obviously referring to the Nicholas Roerich Museum.
)I've had a link to them on my own website for quite a long time. Check them
)out (and revisit the Himalayas) at http://www.roerich.org.
) Bob Tolz
A digital scan of a photo of a painting- no self-respecting Anthropop could
visit the site and the critics won't care for his wacky spirituality (which
is undisclosed before viewing the paintings)!
Peace
Robert Schultz Consulting
An issue management and strategic planning consultancy
with an emphasis on ecology and organizational learning.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1640.7 ---------------
From: jellesonja computextos.net (Gerard Schottelndreier)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1638
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 22:30:59 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912030152.RAA21726 lists1.best.com)
) Additionally, from what is currently being said in regard to excessive
) copying at the cost of individual creative expression, well, I don't
) know anyone posting who couldn't use a healthy dose of Lev Vygotsy and
) his life work on thought and language.
That's Vygotsky, Lev Semionovich (1896-1934) with a k, for who wants to
look him up.
Same time as Steiner, now a big influence in education. So it doesn't always
have to be the latest of the latest, even in mainstream.
-Jelle
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1640.8 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment - etheric streams
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 21:41:17 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
(color)(param)0000,0000,FFFF(/param)Lurker requests this be posted,
please.
(/color)
++++++
To Joe Serio,
The Jesuits would hand you your head for this mental gymnastic attempt
of a defense of Stiener!
1st lets list again the statement by Dan Dugan and his cite of R
Steiner
At 06:12 PM 12/2/99 -0500, you (Joe Serio) wrote:
)
)Dan Dugan wrote:
)
))In no way did Steiner renounce volkisch racism in 1905. In 1910, for
))example, he said:
)
) ((snip lengthy quote in the interests of our European subscribers)
)
)((see prior posts)
)
)[Steiner, Rudolf. The Mission of Folk-Souls. (1910) London: The
)Rudolf Steiner Press, 1971. pp. 75-76]
)
)Dan proclaimed:
)
))There's a pattern to this rhetoric that Steiner uses more than once.
))He makes an outrageously racist statement, and then he adds an
))inspiring internationalist statement at the end. I suppose he figured
))the last impression would get him off the hook. If you examine it
))closely, saying that people pass through all the races on their way
))to the Aryan pinnacle of development doesn't do much to mollify the
))insult of saying that other races are lower stages of development.
)Serio:
)Ok lets really take a look at it (in good old Jesuit fashion). First,
however,
)we need to get some preliminaries out of the way.
)
)To *understand* what's being said here we need to keep in mind
)what I call the Principle of Polarites # 1 v. 452. It goes like this.
)"To the extent that the mind is overly complicated, it demands
)simplicity in the world and life." Conversely, it states "To the
extent
)the mind is simple (hold the wisecracks), it is able to experience
the
)marvelous complexity of the world and life".
L:
The above statement sounds cute but is wholly irrelevent to explaining
Steiner and his view of race referred to here. It does in no way make
for any *understanding.*
)Serio:
)First, let's look at one little phrase, not at the end, but at the
)beginning of the quote:
)"The locality where people live exercises its most potent influence in
)early childhood and thereby determines for their whole life those who
)are completely dependent on these forces, so that the particular
)locality impresses the characteristics of their early childhood
)permanently upon them. "
)
)"These forces" I take to mean these forces of the locality first and
)foremost, and secondly forces that have been assimilated by a race
)because of their association with a locality. What does it mean?
)It is simply saying that people are more or less dependent on
)these forces, to the extent they *don't* ovecome the influences of
)their childhood, or their race, a purely individual thing, some are
)more dependent, some less so, probably some not at all.
L:
WRONG! The forces, as Steiner clearly stated, just before the sentence
you have placed here to discuss, are: "point or center of cosmic
influence situated in the interior of Africa. At this center are active
all those terrestrial forces emanating from the soil." He is claiming
these 'soil emanations' of 'cosmic influence' can influence man,
especially during his childhood. Rudolph Steiner is certainly not just
having a light discussion of nature/nurture in the development of a
person. Steiner is not discussing overcoming the influences of their
childhood when he refers to Asia and the "yellow and brown races"; in
his next paragraph, he says: "we find a point or center where the
formative forces of the earth impress permanently on man the particular
characteristics of later youth or adolescence and determine his racial
character". "Forces of the earth" "impress permanently" and "determine
his racial character"!!! These are powerful statements directly to the
point of Steiner's view of racial differences and characteristics and
the origins of same.
Nor is Steiner discussing overcoming the influences of childhood as
he takes this further and brings it home with: "...Europe, a third
point or center is reached which permanently impresses upon man the
characteristics of his adult life". He is claiming racial determinism
and assigning qualitative differences in the races. "In this way man is
determined by the etheric forces emanating from the earth".
He does not say this is any kind of historical racial development, but
claims:
"These centers still exist today."
He states the reasons for racial determinism and racial
characteristics:
"etheric forces emanating from the earth" = "terrestrial forces"
He claims these *terrestrial forces* imprint characteristics on man.
Steiner makes these equivalencies:
The center in Africa = characteristics of early childhood.
The center in Asia = characteristics of youth.
The center in Europe = characteristics of maturity.
Steiner claims "This is a simple universal law".
Stiener then says this is all OK because of reincarnation; since we
will all go through all the races/stages of development. "Since all men
in their different incarnations pass through the various races the
claim that the European is superior to the black and yellow races has
no real validity."
Now, to your anecdote:
((snip most of short story...)
)
)...The better I got to know them, the
)less I saw these characteristics that they all seemed to posses at
first.
)I don't want to belabor this point but consider even in the
'vernacular'
)we have the 'renaissance man' who overcomes the narrower
)influences of his life precisely by using to the fullest the gifts his
folk,
)race, etc, give him. But who says they have to be the same gifts for
)all, isn't diversity allowed?
Again, this is not the subject of Steiner's quote. You are talking
about Nature/Nurture. Steiner is talking about the qualitative and
deterministic differences in Races.
And where does it follow that a 'renaissance man' has to overcome
anything or has any gifts that aren't specific to his own unique
individuality?
)Serio:
)Having said that we can unravel this a bit more by first of all
pointing
)to a prejudice which your interpretation Dan, betrays. You have
)judged that 'forces of childhood = bad' and 'forces of maturity =
)good'. But consider this. A person has to go through all phases of
life.
)It may seem bad that one person has the forces of childhood
)throughout their adult life, but how about a person who is imbued by
)his locality with forces of maturity in childhood. Do you see that as
)necessarily beneficial?
L:
Dugan is not making any claim himself about good/bad forces. Steiner
is not talking about going through phases in one's life, but phases in
incarnations - lives.
How is anyone imbued with anything by their locality, let alone *forces
of maturity*? Beneficial? It is a fantasy!
)Serio:
)Anyone, who thinks this makes them superior or inferior had best
)think again, it only gives each different challenges. I think Dan,
that it
)unconscious racism that lives in you that interprets it as you do for
the
)"forces of maturity" that Steiner speaks of don't seem to me to be
)soul-spiritual maturity. You seem to take them as 'maturity of the
species'.
)It's Darwinism you should take a look at.
L:
Again, you are calling Dan a racist when it is Steiner that is being
quoted. It is no better if Steiner is saying that different races have
differing qualities of "soul-spiritual maturity" than if he were
claiming qualitative differences in intellect or physical attributes.
)Serio:
)But there is another problem with the whole thing. You're forgetting
)that it is first and foremost a geographic thing, not first and
foremost
)a racial one. Yes, races that evolved in a certain geographic area
)would be influenced by what lives in that area, and perhaps pass it
)on through heredity, seems like common sense to me. But how about
)when Blacks go to America or Europe, Europeans to South Africa,
)Asians to America, etc. If those etheric streams are still there, as
)Steiner said then they were, what then?
)A person would then acquire certain things from his or her race,
)another from the locale they grew up in, yet a third from their
)nationality, etc. What infinite, or as as one person said,
'delicious'
)complexity.
L:
Steiner talked about phases through incarnations, not whether someone
moved to a better neighborhood, got a better education and higher
salary. You are conflating geography, etheric streams, and
Nature/Nurture all in one paragraph. It does not work. It does not
explain away what Steiner wrote. That is the "problem with the whole
thing".
)Serio:
)One more point. It *is* high time we Anthroposophists are honest
)with ourselves.
L:
AMEN!
Serio:
)Rudolf Steiner's views on race, for example, must
)appear racist to someone looking out of the eyes of the materialist,
)even to a secular humanist that posits some vague notions of
)'humanity'. If a person, even with a so-called religious view,
doesn't
)understand individuality how else can it be seen?
L:
Words Mean Things! If it walks like a duck, quacks likes a duck, it is
probably a duck.
Further, you seem to be stating 1)that 'materialists' cannot comprehend
the meanings of Steiner; 2) that secular humanists only "posit" "some
vague notions" of [what said secular humanist dimly thinks is]
humanity; 3)that some people have *so-called* religious views and 4)
cannot understand individuality. So, you have accomplished dismissal
of: materialists, secular humanists, and ill-defined religious views in
one paragraph. Neat.
I have no idea what you mean by"...how else can it be seen?". How can
individuality be seen by people who cannot understand it? Whew!! Back
that assertion, please.
)Serio:
)We also have a right to expect, nay demand honesty from our critics.
)It is intellectually dishonest, vile in fact, to judge Steiner's
remarks on race
)out of a materialistic view of man which he simply didn't share with
you. To
)understand his ideas on race and much else of what he said, but
paticularly
)race, you must enter into his world view, see through his eyes,
understand
)what he means by the 'free individual'. If you don't, don't attribute
racism
)to him, attribute it to yourself who can't see man as anything but a
sum of
)characteristics thrown together, with maybe a soul, maybe not.
)You can't judge what he says because you can't, or don't want to see
what
)he sees.
L:
This is the most specious of arguments. "Don't knock it if ya aint
tried it" Worse: don't criticize if you don't accept our premises and
definitions.
Bull!
1. You make an assumption/judgement of the point of view the critic is
using.
2. Steiner shared his view when he printed it or spoke it to an
audience. If you think this does not make him subject for criticism,
who says he shared it with you either? You seem to feel you can speak
for him, explain what he really meant.
3. While stating we have no right to criticize Steiner's written
statements or make any claim of racism, you feel you can reserve for
yourself the right to criticize us, call us racist and attribute to us
a definition of what we think man is (all without any citation or
corroborating statements), then tell us again that we "can not judge
him" because we "can't, or don't want to see what
he sees". Why not? Who says? Maybe we do understand and see what he
sees, and don't like it. Maybe, after reading what you wrote here, we
see more clearly than you do. Maybe we don't think he saw anything
actual, but spoke solely from his imagination.
Serio:
)I would propose a new defintion of racism. It is this. Racism is
denying the
)highest in man, and equating him with his race.
L:
Again: _words mean things_. Racism already has a definition. It is in
common use. If Steiner is not being racist in his writing, as you
contend, why would you want to, or feel the need to, change the
definition of racism?
Serio:
)I can hear the yowls now that such a defintion means you have to
)have a spiritual view then not to be a racist
) Well so be it.
)
)regards,
)Joe
L:
No yowls. Yours is a wonderful sentiment on how humanity should treat
each other, but it just does not fit the definition of racism. If John
says Bill is full of shit, then when confronted, John can't cover by
saying he is a farmer and shit makes things grow, therefore shit is
good.
regardless,
L
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1640.9 ---------------
From: Jo Mitchell (jamitche us.oracle.com)
Subject: Re: question
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 01:23:45 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912010440.UAA13404 lists1.best.com)
Great forum!
Lisa -
You may want to check out Steiner's Early Education lectures - though Id be
shocked if your school didnt offer some sort of education classes.
Steiner believed that logical thought..."thinking" should not be accentuated
until age 14/15 by which time a strong "will" and "feeling" foundation had been
laid. (An extrapolation of the ideas: Babies should crawl before walking. Kids
should be kids.? ) Quite an interesting idea in our latchkey/choices/go-go-go
day and age.
Anyhow - tasks such as imitating someone who is being and thinking beauty
("goodness is beauty; bad is ugly") are suppose to enhance the will and feeling
foundation. Writing your own essay would of course work the ole logical
deduction processes (no no). Development of abstract thought is not the goal
yet - the ability to standup and say "that is wrong" is.
I think. But I might be totally wrong. Your message seemed to have been lost in
other threads so I wanted to reincarnate it. hehe.
Learning about Waldorf too (and loving every minute!)
momof3gals -
Jo
Lisa Ercolano wrote:
) It's puzzling to me why most of the discussion on this board, at least
) lately, seems to center on anthroposophy and its implications (either
) negative or positive, depending on whether you are a ``critic'' or a ``true
) believer'') for an educational system known as Waldorf Education (WE).
) Perhaps I am alone, or at least in the minority, but most of MY concerns
) and questions about WE are not anthrop.-related, or at least not directly.
) That teachers may believe in reincarnation is of small concern to me; I am
) more interested in the teacher training required of Waldorf teachers, and
) whether it truly prepares the men and women hired in these schools to
) educate children. (Someone showed me the required reading, and it seemed ALL
) to do with anthroposophy. Do they have to take ANY education courses, or
) child psychology courses?)
) I wonder about the pedagogy I see in practice: why is copying from what
) a teacher writes on the blackboard or draws or paints better for the child
) than, say, working from a textbook or a novel or non-fiction book written
) for children? Why is it necessary (or is it?) for the paintings to all be
) done in the same ``Waldorfy'' style? At what age do the children, finally,
) get to paint what they want, the way they want, or to write things in their
) own words instead of someone else's?
) I wonder all these things because of what I see my Waldorf schooled 4th
) grader doing, and not doing. Her mainlesson book, brought home over
) Thanksgiving, was copied completely from teacher's writing and drawing on
) the board, all the way down to how the decorative borders were done!
) Tonight's homework was to copy into said mainlesson book a Xeroxed sheet of
) the teacher's handwritten narrative about the history of our city. Am I
) missing something, or is this dull as dishwater and less challenging than
) figuring out the moral of an episode of ``Rugrats''?
) I'm puzzled. I am alarmed. I see what other children in more mainstream
) schools -- from the decent public schools nearby to the excellent private
) college prep academies that surround us -- and our curriculum looks boring,
) unchallenging and plain old, well, underwhelming.
) Worse yet, I am worried as I write this that I am going to offend
) someone from my school who may be reading this and word will get around
) school that I am not a loyal parent (and I wonder why I should worry about
) this -- its juvenile and not worthy of anyone who is interested in making
) sure our children get a good education.) I have been a very vocal fan of WE
) for years, but something is happening (or not happening) that is making me
) uneasy.
) Responses are welcome. I need feedback from both sides.
) Submitted respectfully,
) Lisa
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1640.10 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: question
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 01:35:17 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
References: (199912022154.NAA12120 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199912022154.NAA12120 lists1.best.com)
) You're quite obviously referring to the Nicholas Roerich Museum.
)I've had a link to them on my own website for quite a long time. Check them
)out (and revisit the Himalayas) at http://www.roerich.org.
) Bob Tolz
Thank you, Bob! Beautiful place to visit.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1640 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1641 --------------
001 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Martin life story
002 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Admin: Re: Candles of the Future
003 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1621
004 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: 2nd instalment of essay
005 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Unconstitutional?
006 - Detlef Hardorp (hardorp g - Re: Betr.: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
007 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Steiner without racism is like rock'n roll without drums
008 - Detlef Hardorp (hardorp g - Re: question
009 - "Diana Winters" (winters_ - Re: Betr.: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
010 - Detlef Hardorp (hardorp g - Re: Steiner without racism is like rock'n roll without drums
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1641.1 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Martin life story
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 01:34:56 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
References: (199912021512.HAA13910 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199912021512.HAA13910 lists1.best.com)
12/2/99, Bob Schultz wrote:
)One of the characteristics of cult leaders is that they try to characterize
)others as cults.
My observation is that people in a cultic group will often
acknowledge that other groups are cults, but give you good reasons
why their group isn't one.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1641.2 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: Re: Candles of the Future
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 01:34:04 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
References: (199912021510.HAA13171 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199912021510.HAA13171 lists1.best.com)
At 10:10 AM -0500 12/2/99, Tolz, Robert wrote:
)Since there are such refreshing new voices on the list taking up the cause
)of the Waldorf Critic Critics, it has been a pleasure to sit back and coast
)a bit as I watch the fray. Therefore, my main contribution today is a
)sidelight (pun intended) on the candles-in-the-Christmas-tree dispute. The
)following is from today's print and online editions of USA Today:
OK, let's throttle down the volume of this trivial thread, please.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1641.3 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1621
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 01:34:39 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
References: (199912022034.MAA10245 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199912022034.MAA10245 lists1.best.com)
12/2/99, Neil Faiman wrote:
(snip good advice on checking out a school)
)But don't trust
)anyone on this list to tell you what your child will be taught at your
)local Waldorf school, because none of us have the least idea.
I have a large collection of Waldorf curriculum books and teaching
handbooks. I think I have a pretty good idea what is -intended- to be
taught in Waldorf schools. I have a collection of student lesson
books. I think they demonstrate what is actually taught. We
understand individual teachers vary widely in their talents,
education, and devotion to Anthroposophy.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1641.4 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 01:34:21 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
References: (199912021904.LAA28181 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199912021904.LAA28181 lists1.best.com)
Christopher Yavelow wrote:
)Didn't Scientology secretly purchase one of the organizations that had been
)critizing them so that they could control the criticism. Having the
)complaint organization run by the organization that is being complained
)about sounds like the same sort of tactic to me.
People associated with Scientology filed 51 lawsuits all across the
country against the Cult Awareness Network. Most were dismissed
without trial, recognized as harassment. Just one stuck, $1.5 million
awarded, appeals failed. The assets of CAN, including its name, were
sold to people associated with Scientology. Now when you call the
Cult Awareness Network, a Scientologist answers.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1641.5 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Unconstitutional?
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 01:35:45 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
References: (199912030152.RAA22021 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199912030152.RAA22021 lists1.best.com)
Detlef, you wrote,
) I think Waldorf indeed has a long way to go here. Why shouldn't
)other legends (never before taught in Waldorf schools) not become
)part of the curriculum? Also from totally outside the traditional
)Christian Western mindset?
In the American "Waldorf-inspired" and Waldorf magnet schools this is
done. Native American stories and African stories are commonly used.
There is a kind of "majoritarian" principle I hear around Waldorf
schools, that the school should incorporate some of the spirituality
of the ethnic groups represented in the school. This leads European
schools to include a lot of Christian references, and Harriet Tubman
in San Diego to be Afrocentric. I'd prefer that all students have a
wide view of humanity that's focussed beyond their ethnicity. I think
ethnicity is for the home, and the school should represent the whole
world.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1641.6 ---------------
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Betr.: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:58:19 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
[Diana says:]
)I'm only now vaguely getting these terms sorted out in my mind. It's just so bizarre and disturbing and really quite shocking to watch this debate. No, they didn't teach about root races! They only taught that blacks were like children, and Asians were like adolescents! but they don't teach it any
more! And they *never* taught about the root races (whatever they were)! And how lame the rest of us are intellectually if we can't keep straight these two peculiar concepts (root-races versus races having characteristics of children)! Okay, do we all feel better now that we know they *only* taught about the races having characteristics of child, adolescent, etc.? Is
anybody else reading this just finding this incredibly shocking?
)And it's funny how whenever Steiner's defenders confidently post along the lines of, "Well they certainly never do that in Waldorf schools. No, never" about 24 hours pass and then somebody posts, "Well, they did in the Waldorf school my child attended . . ." If you think these ideas do not influence
how (at least some) Waldorf teachers somewhere look at the children of different races in their classes, you have your head in the sand.
)I'm sorry, there goes the blood pressure thing again. For God's sake, how can Steiner's defenders even argue about what year he repudiated (or changed the terminology, I don't even care which) these ugly ideas? Just repudiate them *now* and be done with it!
Detlef:
Diana, I would like to point out that it was Dan Dugan who invited me onto this list with the purpose of discussing my essay. It was he who suggested doing this bit by bit.
I can fully understand that this stuff on "root-races" bores you. To be honest, it never interested me personally until I was forced to deal with it because it was being waved on banners by certain critics who thought that this was proof of racism at the core of anthroposophy.
You comment with regard to the root-race issue: )If you think these ideas do not influence how (at least some) Waldorf teachers somewhere look at the children of different races in their classes, you have your head in the sand.(
It is true that it is always a bit risky to say "always" or "never". I am awaiting the next 24 hours (let's make it 72 hours) to prove me wrong. But I don't believe this will happen. Let me explain why.
You and I are not alone with their personal disinterest for "root-races". I know a lot of people that have studied anthroposophy intensely. You will find many different preferences: some thrive on epistemology, some on "threefolding", others on this and others on that - I could now start making a long list. But I have never known anyone that thrived on Steiner's early "root-race" terminology. This is a historical aside that most students of anthroposophy - if they are aware of it at all - consider a curious footnote to early Steiner.
As to the waldorf teachers ... They generally have read less Steiner than is good for them. Waldorf teachers tend to study a few basic works considered basic to WE in great detail - and are ignorant of even the majority of Rudolf Steiner's courses on education! There are a few exceptions, but they are rare. I do not believe that this becomes WE well. Thus the danger of them picking up this obscure stuff is even lower.
*****
Now to your other point. You wrote: )They only taught that blacks were like children, and Asians were like adolescents!)
This is a more serious matter. I have not discussed this for the simple reason that I am trying to discuss the issues bit by bit, and - so far - we are only discussing the root-race issue. I would like to stick to this, because the volume of mails I have to wade through on this list is awesome enough. (I was up to about 4 o'clock in the morning the last two nights attending to this - I have a job and a family to attend to during more civilized hours!)
Joe Serio has recently gone into this and gotten a strong response from Debra. Joe's remarks deserve more understanding than they got there! Let me pick up on just one point: If 'forces of childhood = bad' and 'forces of maturity = good' were indeed Steiner's meaning, I would also see this as racism. But, as Joe correctly points out, this is *not* the case.
Still, this has no place in Waldorf school, as anthroposophy ought not to be taught there, and "etheric streams" are clearly part of anthroposophy. If it is taught, something is indeed going wrong.
But can we come back to this issue when I launch my fourth instalment? Write your responses if you feel inspired now, but please post them when we get there!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1641.7 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner without racism is like rock'n roll without drums
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 01:35:52 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
References: (199912030322.TAA28607 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199912030322.TAA28607 lists1.best.com)
12/2/99, Christopher Yavelow wrote:
)Jelle, I'm still looking for that newspaper article but I found these while
)searching and I think they might interest you:
)
)"Steiner zonder racisme is als rock 'n' roll zonder drums."
)http://www.groene.nl/1996/09/rz_stein.html
)
)"Steiner zonder rassenleer is Marx zonder klassenstrijd"
)http://www.stelling.nl/kleintje/301/sofen.htm
Could someone who reads Dutch please summarize these articles for us?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1641.8 ---------------
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: Re: question
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 12:20:15 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lisa wrote:
) Steiner believed that logical thought..."thinking" should not be accentuated until age 14/15 by which time a strong "will" and "feeling" foundation had been laid.
Detlef Hardorp responds:
Statements similar to this one have been made in a number of postings recently. They are not totally unfounded. Yet Steiner's meaning can easily be completely misunderstood here. Let me restrict myself to just a few aphoristic remarks, because I am getting a bit overwhelmed by the volume of my own remarks.
1. If "thinking" is not *the* foundation of school starting with grade 1, then the school doesn't deserve to be called school. School is not kindergarten.
2. Withered intellectual abstractions don't interest first graders, however. Waldorf proposes *to stimulate thinking* through pictures, stories, manifold sense experiences, developing motoric intelligence, developing emotional intelligence etc..
3. It does sometimes unfortunately happen that sight is lost of the goal of the enterprise - namely developing thinking - because of all the wonderful methods meant to stimulate thinking through feeling and willing. If only feeling and willing remains, the school has degenerated to a kindergarten. This kind of teaching is *not* in tune with the natural development of the child, who wants to learn to think independently (not to be confused with independent *judgement*) from grade 1!
4. Independent thinking cannot be thrust upon a child like greatness was thrust upon Malvolio. It needs to evolve gently, layer by layer, out of the more dreamy consciousness of the kindergarten age. This is what Waldorf is about.
5. There are many dangers lurking here, particularly around grade 5, 6 and 7. I consider mathematics skills to be a gauge for whether or not independent thinking is developing properly. Steiner wants abstract thinking (yes, I said *abstract* thinking!) to awaken gently in mathematics beginning in 5th grade and fully in 6th grade. By the time algebra gets introduced in 7th grade, abstract thinking needs to be there as a capacity in the children. Because without abstract thinking, algebra is nothing but an incomprehensible set of rules with which meaningless symbols are manipulated.
6. Unfortunately, mathematics is often not taught well. This applies to all schools, unfortunately also to Waldorf schools.
7. It can happen that the situation is worse in Waldorf schools, because the otherwise wonderful class teacher missed the point and failed to elicit abstract thinking in the children when the laws of child development call for it. The children might even have learned to calculate well and solve equations by rote. If foundations of abstract thinking were, however, not laid beginning in 6th grade, it is too late to catch up when the "upper school teacher" takes over in grade 9. This is grave.
8. Certain traditions in Waldorf education run against these ideals of true Waldorf education as developed by Steiner, as verified empirically by Piaget in his numerous works in the 60's and as propagated by concerned Waldorf teacher trainers who, however, don't reach all Waldorf teachers because many don't do a training and engage in something which they believe is Waldorf but is, in fact, far from it. (There is a wonderful little booklet about what ought to happen in mathematics in grade 1 through 8 in a Waldorf school by Ernst Schuberth, teacher trainer at the German teacher training in Mannheim, previously professor of mathematics education at the University of Bielefeld, entitled "Mathematiklehrplan in den Klassen 1 bis 8 der Freien Waldorfschulen".)
8a. (an aside): The Waldorf teacher training institutes in Europe generally presuppose previous academic credentials. Thus a concentration on Steiner seems justified. Is this different in the States? When Werner Glas ran the Waldorf training in Detroit some decades ago, he certainly taught modern educators other than Steiner. The training moved to Sunbridge some years ago. Is Eugene not doing this?
9. Steiner warns about training children to make *intellectual judgements* too early. Here he mentions the age of 14. But that is another story.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1641.9 ---------------
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Betr.: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 12:09:31 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
)
[Diana:]
)I'm sorry, there goes the blood pressure thing again. For God's )sake, how
)can Steiner's defenders even argue about what year he )repudiated (or
)changed the terminology, I don't even care which) )these ugly ideas? Just
)repudiate them *now* and be done with it!
)
[Bob says:]
)My opine (not based on spiritual-scientific research):
)
)That happened long ago. It is too easy of an emotional hot-button )for the
)critics to give up this claim. It gets free press and )immediately puts
)Waldorf supporters on the defensive. A guerilla )operation like PLANS
)benefits from such a strategy. "Well there must )be something to it or they
)wouldn't keep saying it".
)
)
[Diana says:]
This is not a defense. Yes, racism is a hot-button issue. This doesn't
absolve anybody accused of racism from defending against the charge. It's
hot-button because it's important. Indeed it presses my buttons, and I never
saw any evidence of racism in the Waldorf school we were involved with, and
it has nothing to do with my reason for participating in the critics list. I
have no agenda, no desire for "free press," nor desire to engage in
"guerilla operations" in other words, I'm just an ordinary parent, yet it
does press my buttons. Why? Because it's important!
)
)
)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1641.10 ---------------
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner without racism is like rock'n roll without drums
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 15:35:32 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
[Dan Dugan]
)"Steiner zonder racisme is als rock 'n' roll zonder drums."
)http://www.groene.nl/1996/09/rz_stein.html
)
)"Steiner zonder rassenleer is Marx zonder klassenstrijd"
)http://www.stelling.nl/kleintje/301/sofen.htm
)Could someone who reads Dutch please summarize these articles for us?
I'm willing to bet that these articles appeared *before* the Dutch report came out. True?
-Detlef
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1641 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1642 --------------
001 - Detlef Hardorp (hardorp g - Re: Unconstitutional?
002 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1637
003 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: question
004 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: question
005 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: 2nd instalment of essay
006 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: 2nd instalment - etheric streams
007 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - RE: 2nd instalment of essay
008 - Christopher Yavelow (yave - Re: Steiner without racism is like rock'n roll without drums
009 - jellesonja computextos.ne - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1639
010 - jellesonja computextos.ne - Re: verence
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1642.1 ---------------
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Unconstitutional?
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 15:35:34 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Detlef, you wrote,
) I think Waldorf indeed has a long way to go here. Why shouldn't )other legends (never before taught in Waldorf schools) not become )part of the curriculum? Also from totally outside the traditional )Christian Western mindset?
[Dan Dugan responded:]
)In the American "Waldorf-inspired" and Waldorf magnet schools this is done. Native American stories and African stories are commonly used.
)There is a kind of "majoritarian" principle I hear around Waldorf schools, that the school should incorporate some of the spirituality of the ethnic groups represented in the school. This leads European schools to include a lot of Christian references, and Harriet Tubman in San Diego to be Afrocentric. I'd prefer that all students have a wide view of humanity that's focussed beyond their ethnicity. I think ethnicity is for the home, and the school should represent the whole world.
Detlef:
)... and the school should represent the whole world.)
All I can say is: YES!
The ideals of Dan Dugan, Detlef Hardorp and Rudolf Steiner have found common ground.
Steiner was adamant about how school should awaken interest in the whole world. If it doesn't, students will begin developing narcissistic interests, particularly around puberty. I would add that the world has moved on and we are now experiencing a further stage of what happens when interest in the whole world is not awakened in schools: extreme forms of absurd violence develop.
The roots of this problem are in the withered nature of contemporary education. See also Barry Sanders, "A is for Ox - The loss of orality in our modern age" (or something like that). The "loss of orality" is something that Waldorf tries to counter. Successfully, judges Sanders.
- Detlef Hardorp
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1642.2 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1637
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:20:22 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
)
) ) [Bob Tolz]
) ) Geez, I thought Alan was trying to be funny by putting down someone
) ) else's boasting and then immediately turning to his own
) boast. I see that
) I
) ) may have misinterpreted his words and that he was really
) trying to be
) ) serious.
)
[Jelle]
) Probably I missed the US humor.
) Did you find it funny?
) -Jelle
)
[Bob Tolz]
Yes, I did, at least mildly. And Alan confirmed that intention for
me in a private post. It was sort of in the vein of saying something like,
"I despise judgmental people. There are so few of us non-judgmental folks
left."
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1642.3 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: question
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:28:22 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
) )[Bob Tolz]
) ) You're quite obviously referring to the Nicholas Roerich Museum.
) )I've had a link to them on my own website for quite a long
) time. Check them
) )out (and revisit the Himalayas) at http://www.roerich.org.
) ) Bob Tolz
)
[Bob Schultz]
) A digital scan of a photo of a painting- no self-respecting
) Anthropop could
) visit the site and the critics won't care for his wacky
) spirituality (which
) is undisclosed before viewing the paintings)!
[Bob Tolz]
LOL!
P.S. My wife has a show of her colored pencil drawings opening this
evening at a gallery in Manhattan. One of the first conversations I ever
had on this list was in regard to someone assuming that her work evidenced
standard anthroposophical techniques, when she actually knows nothing about
them!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1642.4 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: question
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:36:24 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
) ) You're quite obviously referring to the Nicholas Roerich Museum.
) )I've had a link to them on my own website for quite a long
) time. Check them
) )out (and revisit the Himalayas) at http://www.roerich.org.
) ) Bob Tolz
)
[Dan Dugan]
) Thank you, Bob! Beautiful place to visit.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
[Bob Tolz]
I'm just a fountain of information these days. I've actually never
been to the museum personally (nor have I been to the Statue of Liberty for
that matter), but every person I've spoken to who has been through it
uniformly speaks of it in awe-inspiring tones.
By the way, I posted a CD to you yesterday afternoon with MP3's of
your lecture, your workshop and the plenum. As you probably remember,
technical difficulties prevented me from capturing Eugene Schwartz's talk,
so you'll have to wait to get a cassette from Eugene.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1642.5 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 08:47:07 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199912030153.RAA22114 lists1.best.com)
On 3 Dec 99, at 2:50, Detlef Hardorp wrote:
) ) [Dan Dugan]
) )If Anthroposophists
) )don't repudiate Steiner's racial theories, rather than trying to minimize,
) )re-interpret, or defend them as you do, they deserve to be social pariahs along
) )with the other volkisch believers.
)
) Detlef:
) Dan, you do hate. You are not a racist by your definition, because it is not
) hatred of people different from your ethnic group. But it is hatred of people
) who are different from your spiritual group. You sense a spirituality in
) anthroposophy that enrages you.
Dan, you're coming awfully close to an ad hominem with that comment that
Anthroposophists like Detlef deserve to be social pariahs.
And Detlef, your attempt to read Dan's mind and say that he is enraged by the
spirituality in anthroposophy is uncalled for. He has never said that, and has
never said that he hates people different from his spiritual group.
You both need to take a deep breath, apologize for the insults and come back
swinging - but swinging at the ideas expressed, not talking about the
motivations that you imagine the other person has, or what social consequences
are deserved by those who hold such ideas.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carbonata descendum pantorum."
(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1642.6 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment - etheric streams
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 08:54:04 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199912030256.SAA09050 lists1.best.com)
On 3 Dec 99, at 2:55, Diana Winters wrote:
) The line of reasoning above, which is one I heard often from
) Waldorf defenders, is well, if only you would agree with Steiner, then you would
) agree with him! If only you would see it our way, we would not have to keep
) arguing with you! Except that it's not even that simple, it's the familiar
) arrogant assertion that you don't "see," as in *spiritually* see . . . in short,
) you don't understand because you're not one of us.
)
) It is my opinion that most anthroposophists are not racists, though they may
) hold some silly views about racial characteristics. What is troubling is the
) lengths they will go to defend Steiner against *any* criticism!
Well said. This type of argument (if you don't agree, it's because you don't
really understand) is common, not just among anthroposophists, but among all
kinds of people, particularly those who hold strong views that are not easily
defended. I usually disregard such arguments, as they are essentially
meaningless. But I'd like to see someone from within Anthroposophy come
forward and say, "No, that won't do. That is not a valid argument."
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carbonata descendum pantorum."
(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1642.7 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:07:44 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199912030152.RAA21979 lists1.best.com)
On 3 Dec 99, at 2:51, Detlef Hardorp wrote:
) [Dan Dugan]
) )Note Steiner says "we here in Europe are thus the fifth Sub-Race of the great
) )Aryan Root Race." and "The fifth Sub-Race...to which we and the neighbouring
) )nations belong." He's talking about Europe, only Europe.)
)
) [Joe Serio in a later posting]
) )The reference to Europe is as a 'sub-race' of the 'great Aryan Root Race'.
) )Ancient India being the first *sub race* of the Aryan Root race.)
)
) Detlef:
) Joe has clearly made the point that Dan missed the point.
) Let me expand a bit nonetheless: Steiner is talking not just about Europe, he
) is talking about European *civilization*, which happens to have spread to almost
) all of the rest of the world lately!
I think Steiner was talking about white people, black people, and Oriental
people. Not just about their cultures.
I couple of years ago, I was in a spiritual bookstore and was looking through
some Steiner lectures. Sorry, I can't give you the citation. He said that
races exist because they represent the physical characteristics or people who
lived in prior epochs.
With each development in the spiritual evolution of humanity, a new kind of
physical body emerged which was associated with that stage of evolution. The
old type of body was supposed to die out, but Lucifer and Ahriman wanted the
old types to remain, so they did not die out. This was in the days of
Atlantis.
So, basically, he was saying that Blacks and Orientals represented the remnants
of obsolete types of people. Now, it could be that modern Blacks and Orientals
are not bound by the fact that they physically represent earlier stages of
humanity, but the stuff about etheric earth forces that Dan posted shows that
they *still* represent earlier stages of humanity.
This is similar to the assertion that the function of the Hebrew people was to
develop a body that was physically evolved to receive the Christ impulse, but
that they no longer have a function in the spiritual development of humanity.
To recap:
The spirituality of the future is in the hands of the white folks. That
doesn't mean that we're *better* than people of other races. They are better
than us in some ways. It just means that we represent a more advanced, but not
necessarily better, stage of evolution. And this is not racist, since (1) more
advanced is not necessarily better, and (2) our souls all pass through all
these stages anyway. So us white folks used to be black ourselves, and those
black folks will one day be white.
Man, if you can't see how racist that is, you've got blinders on. Time to
renounce the whole thing and say, unequivocally, that Steiner was WRONG!!!
He may not have been racist personally, given his emphasis on the individual
being more important than the racial group, and his ideas were not even that
racist, given the time in which he lived, and compared to other people of his
era. But he was still wrong, and the longer Anthroposophists keep defending
this stuff the more you're going to turn people off to Anthroposophy and
Waldorf.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carbonata descendum pantorum."
(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1642.8 ---------------
From: Christopher Yavelow (yavelow xs4all.nl)
Subject: Re: Steiner without racism is like rock'n roll without drums
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 11:57:06 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
))"Steiner zonder racisme is als rock 'n' roll zonder drums."
))http://www.groene.nl/1996/09/rz_stein.html
))
))"Steiner zonder rassenleer is Marx zonder klassenstrijd"
))http://www.stelling.nl/kleintje/301/sofen.htm
Dan Dugan writes:
)Could someone who reads Dutch please summarize these articles for us?
The first line (actually the last line of an article entitled, "Karmic
Inevitabilities") means "Steiner without racism is like rock 'n roll
without drums."
The next line (which is the title of the article) means "Steiner without
racist teachings is Marx without class struggle."
I would be wary of any translation done by a Waldorf enthusiast. I have
recently seen some documents translated by the Palais of Justice relating
to my case in the Netherlands and it's clear that certain sentences in
those documents have been intentionally mistranslated because the
translator was angry at criticisms I'd made of the Dutch legal system.
What about Toos Jeurissen?
Or the authors themselves? -- RenÈ Zwaap and Harry Westerink
There are many items in the notes of that would be interesting to read as well:
(1) Boek "Conferences with Waldorf-teachers of the Stuttgart-school", deel
1, bladzijde 125, Steiner Schools Fellowship Publication, 1986
(2) Brochure "Antroposofisch racisme", van het Nijmeegs ComitÈ van
waak-zaamheid tegen fascisme, mei 1986
(3) "Nascholing en begeleiding 1994-1995", van de Begeleidingsdienst voor
Vrije Scholen
(4) Blad Onkruid, nummer 111
(5) Blad Vrije Opvoedkunst, april 1996
(6) Rapportage van de Onderwijsinspectie
(7) Blad Jonas, nummer 20, 26 mei 1995
(8) Inleiding in jaarboekje 1995-1996 van de Geert Groote School
(9) Blad Hervormd Nederland, 29 juni 1996
(10) Onkruid nummer 111
(11) Brochure "Uit de Vrije School geklapt", februari 1996
(12) Uit brief d.d. 23 januari 1996 van Toos Jeurissen aan de beleidsgroep
van de Vrije School De Ijssel
(13) Onkruid nummer 111
Christopher Yavelow
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1642.9 ---------------
From: jellesonja computextos.net (Gerard Schottelndreier)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1639
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:53:29 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912030316.TAA23801 lists1.best.com)
Diana:
) It is my opinion that most anthroposophists are not racists, though they
may
) hold some silly views about racial characteristics. What is troubling is
the
) lengths they will go to defend Steiner against *any* criticism!
It's not just about Steiner, it's also about us/me.
Not everybody reacts that way to *any* criticism.
But to be falsely accused of racism is a very painful thing, cultism is
bearable to me, being connected to Nazis is outrageous. Maybe less so for
people who haven't had their family oppressed by them.
A person like Dan will never sit at my table without having apologized
deeply.
-Jelle
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1642.10 ---------------
From: jellesonja computextos.net (Gerard Schottelndreier)
Subject: Re: verence
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 11:28:43 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912030316.TAA23801 lists1.best.com)
Diana:
) Waldorf educators, if I understand correctly, would prefer our children
) learn to hold certain things in reverence, before they learn to criticize
) anything.
No, it's not about the things, not about certain things, it's about
reverence.
No matter for what.
Through reverence the feeling soul of the child develops, expands in a way
that makes it possible to later in life be truly independent and connected.
That's what I say. Steiner said different things that I don't remember.
That there sometimes is fashion, copying, a conformity over what can invoke
reverence is a sign of us being, alas, not as great and original as we would
like to be.
Yes we need more diversity.
Invoking reverence in a child nowadays is a difficult job.
Your previous posts showed a good common sense, do you have any ideas that
might help?
A sound child needs reverence. Maybe not for now. For what it transforms to
later. It's one of the things that later keeps you out of drugs, keeps you
from being apathic about destruction of the environment, inspires for
artisticity or leadership and, like we see in the president of American
Express.
KEN CHENAULT: THE RISE OF A STAR Business Week
Ken Chenault helped bring AmEx back from the brink. Now, he may be on the
brink of even bigger things
At Bowdoin College in the early 1970s, Ken Chenault spent endless hours at
the Afro-American Center debating the great issues of the era with his
classmates. That his peers often chose Chenault to represent them in
negotiations with school administrators had everything to do with his
character and abilities and little to do with his views. Unlike most other
''Afro-Am'' activists, Chenault argued that the cause was best served in the
long run by rising to power within the Establishment instead of assailing it
from without. ''We all thought he'd rise to high position on the inside,''
says George Khaldun, Chenault's roommate. ''The joke was that when we all
had to go to jail for our radicalism, at least we knew Ken would be there to
bail us out.''
(...)
OPEN DOOR. An extensive survey of current and former colleagues suggests
that the Chenault personality is mercifully free of the rough edges that
usually accompany vaulting ambition. Not one could recall him losing his
temper or even raising his voice. He makes time to chitchat with secretaries
when he telephones their bosses and has taken it upon himself to mentor
dozens upon dozens of promising AmEx managers. A methodical, inclusive
decision-maker, he leaves his door open to subordinates and encourages them
to speak their minds. ''With Ken, there is no game-playing, no politics
whatsoever,'' says Norma Arnold, a 23-year AmEx vet who joined Prudential
Insurance Co. last year.
(...)
''USEFUL BALANCE.'' The son of a butler and a maidservant, Hortenius
Chenault grew up in a small, mostly white town in Ohio and graduated from
Morehouse College with honors. In 1939, he earned a degree in dentistry from
Howard University and passed the New York state dental licensing exam with
the highest score recorded to date. During World War II, Chenault enlisted
in the Army, but segregation blocked his path into the multinational Allied
Dental Corps. Undaunted, he befriended a group of foreign officers and
entered the corps through an international arm.
(...)
Ken's boyhood coincided with the peak of civil rights activism on Long
Island, and the movement was a frequent topic of conversation at the dinner
table. ''My father's basic view was that you really needed to concentrate on
the things you can control,'' Ken recalls, ''and what you can control is
your own performance.'' Unimpressed with the education afforded blacks in
Hempstead's nominally integrated public schools, the Chenaults sent their
kids to a small private school, the Waldorf School of Garden City, N.Y. ''It
created a useful balance for me,'' Chenault says. ''In Hempstead, my
environment was predominantly black, while the school was predominantly
white.''
Chenault attended Waldorf from kindergarten through 12th grade. ''As early
as middle school, real qualities of leadership became obvious in Ken,''
recalls George Rose, one of his teachers. ''But at the same time, there was
a certain quiet within him that won everyone's respect.'' Chenault was
elected class president in each of his last four years, and as a senior
captained the basketball, soccer, and track teams. (...)
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1642 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1643 --------------
001 - Christopher Yavelow (yave - Re: Steiner without racism is like rock'n roll without drums
002 - Christopher Yavelow (yave - Re: Betr.: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
003 - Christopher Yavelow (yave - Reality Check
004 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Reality Check
005 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: question
006 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: question
007 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Reality Check
008 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: question
009 - jellesonja computextos.ne - More empty accusations by Mr. Dugan
010 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - "Holy Smoke"
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1643.1 ---------------
From: Christopher Yavelow (yavelow xs4all.nl)
Subject: Re: Steiner without racism is like rock'n roll without drums
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 12:08:45 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
))"Steiner zonder racisme is als rock 'n' roll zonder drums."
))http://www.groene.nl/1996/09/rz_stein.html
))
))"Steiner zonder rassenleer is Marx zonder klassenstrijd"
))http://www.stelling.nl/kleintje/301/sofen.htm
)
))Could someone who reads Dutch please summarize these articles for us?
)
)I'm willing to bet that these articles appeared *before* the Dutch report
)came out. True?
)-Detlef
They both seem to be in 1996 shortly after the publication of "Uit de Vrije
School Gekalpt." That would mean that they pre-date the article that I read
(which I am still looking for) demanding that an organization be
established to monitor such problems with the Steiner Schools (which Jelle
points out is run by the Steiner Schools themselves). The reason I surmise
this is because the article I recall (which I seem to remember was in the
Volkskrant) also mentioned "Uit de Vrije School Gekalpt." And "Uit de Vrije
School Gekalpt" was published in February, 1996.
One this is clear: The dates indicate that this problem was extremely hot
three years ago and remains hot today. Claims that racism in the Steiner
schools has magically disappeared in the past couple years are obvious
fabrications. This applies even more so to unsubstantiated claims made by
Anthroposophs responding to clear evidence of the contrary -- they cannot
be taken seriously!
Examine this exchange I had with Jelle:
)) From: Christopher Yavelow
)) There is only one non-white person at the Rudolf Steiner School in
)Haarlem.
)
)That is very little. I remember the girl.
That's a situation that has been going on for 8 years. Jelle states "I
remember the girl" as if it's over. And "That is very little"
while omitting the rest of my statement (the complete paragraph follows):
"There is only one non-white person at the Rudolf Steiner School in Haarlem.
And that covers grades pre-kindergarten through eighth grade. And this in
a country with a large percentage of people of different colors. Coincidence?
(for the record, the one dark-skinned girl is from Sri Lanka... and she is
the _only_ student in 10 grades that is not lilly-white... there are no
Asians or Africans, South Americans, Turks, or anything else). This has been
the situation for the past six years. Further, there are no non-white
employees. But I speak of only one school that just happens to be in a very
racially integrated neighborhood with plenty of people of different races
in it. And it's not an issue of money because Steiner Schools are funded by
the government in the Netherlands."
After dismissing my statement with "I remember the girl" (as if the problem
is over -- Hey! It's still going on and the girl is in the 8th grade now)
Jelle goes on to attempt to discredit everything I've said and label me as
not a "trustworthy" source:
)But your credibility has shrunk since you stated that reincarnation and
)other esoterics are being taught in Waldorf schools, so I'll ask more
)trustworthy sources.
Christopher Yavelow
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1643.2 ---------------
From: Christopher Yavelow (yavelow xs4all.nl)
Subject: Re: Betr.: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 12:11:04 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
[Diana says:]
)And it's funny how whenever Steiner's defenders confidently post along the
)lines of, "Well they certainly never do that in Waldorf schools. No, never"
)about 24 hours pass and then somebody posts, "Well, they did in the Waldorf
)school my child attended . . ." If you think these ideas do not influence
)how (at least some) Waldorf teachers somewhere look at the children of
)different races in their classes, you have your head in the sand.
I'm so glad that someone else has noticed this.
Christopher Yavelow
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1643.3 ---------------
From: Christopher Yavelow (yavelow xs4all.nl)
Subject: Reality Check
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 12:43:23 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Face this fact people: No person practicing racism in this day is every
going to admit to the fact publicly, especially if they are teaching
racisim to children and particularly if they are using the devious methods
of indoctrination that the Anthroposophs employ.
You seem to be intelligent people on this list: By what stretch of your
imaginations do you believe that any one of these Anthroposophic supporters
is ever going to come out and say, "Oh, all right, we admit it. We are
racists and our plan is to instill racist ideas in the children we teach."
Come on. Get real!
Polygomous Mormons don't admit that they are polygomous. I once knew one
and he claimed to me and everyone at his office that the two other women
living with his family were: 1) a nanny; and 2) a boarder. After three
years we discovered that was not accurate.
Wicca "witches" won't admit it either. I've confronted one in court (my
wife) with boxes of irrefutable evidence of extreme cult activities only to
hear her say "Your honor, I have nothing to do with these cults." Many
Wiccan books refer to the "burning times" and how they are to expect
similar persecution to this day.
These are simply three cases that have touch my life personally. However,
from them I tend to draw the conclusion that cults and certain "esoteric
religions" (is that p.c.?) have no moral obligation to themselves or to
their God(s) to tell the truth when questioned about their beliefs...
particularly if those beliefs might land them in court or get them run out
of town.
Christopher Yavelow
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1643.4 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Reality Check
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 11:12:08 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199912031844.KAA14349 lists1.best.com)
On 3 Dec 99, at 12:43, Christopher Yavelow wrote:
) Face this fact people: No person practicing racism in this day is every
) going to admit to the fact publicly, especially if they are teaching
) racisim to children and particularly if they are using the devious methods
) of indoctrination that the Anthroposophs employ.
I have seen no evidence, ever, of any racism being practiced in any Waldorf
school in the United States, and only a few examples from Europe, either
through "devious methods of indoctrination" or otherwise.
To say that Steiner exhibited racism in some of his writings is a far cry from
saying that kids are being indoctrinated with racist concepts in Waldorf
schools.
) You seem to be intelligent people on this list: By what stretch of your
) imaginations do you believe that any one of these Anthroposophic supporters is
) ever going to come out and say, "Oh, all right, we admit it. We are racists and
) our plan is to instill racist ideas in the children we teach." Come on. Get
) real!
You seem to be arguing thus:
1. If Waldorf schools intentionally instilled racist ideas in children, they
would not admit it.
2. Waldorf schools do not admit intentionally instilling racist ideas in
children. Therefore:
3. Waldorf schools must be intentionally instilling racist ideas in children.
You appear to be an intelligent person; you must see that this does not follow.
Some Anthroposophists on this list have admitted that some of Steiner's
writings were racist, and have said that Steiner was wrong about those things.
Others seem to have trouble believing that Steiner could be wrong about
anything specific, although they admit, in the abstract, that he was probably
wrong about some things, since he said so himself. Thus, they try to justify
his writings on race to make them appear to be acceptable. But in no instance
have I seen *any* evidence of an intent to instill racism in kids.
If you have evidence, let's hear it. Stop talking in the abstract about "the
devious methods of indoctrination that the Anthroposophs employ" and start
describing those methods, in detail, and explain specifically how they instill
racism in the students.
There's a reality check for you!
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carbonata descendum pantorum."
(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1643.5 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: question
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 14:18:03 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Steve Premo said:
)Different kids are different. Some thrive at Waldorf. Dylan did not, but he's
)thriving now!
In the end Steve that's what it's all about.
My daughter didn't do terribly well in math. There were a few other's in her
class with similar problems. Once in a large plenary meeting with parents the
concern about math with certain students was brought up by the parents.
I knew my daughter was one of them. I wondered, what should I do? then I
remembered something I would see her do often, cartwheels. Her cartwheels,
steve, were done with mathematical precision. They were not just free, and fully
formed, they were mathematically precise. I laughed and said to myself, she
knows all about math, but I have a feeling her's is not to be a mathematician.
So I did nothing beyond help her with homework when she needed it.
When she went to college, she wasn't certain what to do. I remembered the
wonderful compositions she would write in high school and I said, study
jounalism or writing of some sort. Well she took jounalism courses where she
could, studied literature and things where she had to write. She absolutely loved
it making the Dean's list etc. Without exception her professors raved about what
she wrote. She now writes in different ways professionally and is doing quite well.
Math, math? Different kids have different gifts.
Regards,
Joe
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1643.6 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: question
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 14:32:22 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Hi Paulina,
whew you said alot. For the moment I can only say a little.
First I am not a trained waldorf teacher, I have not even studied the Waldorf
cirriculum. Whatever I say there as elsewhere is totally my own as far as
I see it.
Comments on Art are very, very especially my own. I have not read nor
studied Goethe on art (though I should) and even Steiner, only little things
in passing. Yet Art is one of the closest things to my heart and I like
to think I know a hell of a lot about it, but probably like everything else
only very little. However, I would love for you to start a thread on it. I just
hope you don't accuse me of proferring some fundamentalist views.
For the record, the only couse I ever failed was American Poetry in college.
I failed it because the teacher, also kept accusing me of plagurizing second
rate critiics. You have to read them to plagurize them which I was not. I didn't
know whether to be flattered or insulted. Either way, she failed me.
Perhaps you will too.
I promise to respond more fully on your email at a latter date, but soon.
Regards and start the thread on Art,
Joe
))) Paulina Leonard (pkleonard sprintmail.com) 12/02 6:49 PM )))
Joe Serio wrote:
) )Lisa writes:
I wonder about the pedagogy I see in practice: why is copying from what
a teacher writes on the blackboard or draws or paints better for the
child than, say, working from a textbook or a novel or non-fiction book
written for children? Why is it necessary (or is it?) for the paintings
to all be done in the same ``Waldorfy'' style? At what age do the
children, finally, get to paint what they want, the way they want, or to
write things in their own words instead of someone else's? ( (
) )Debra says:
Again, this seems to vary, but in my experience the teachers are keeping
the children from developing critical thinking skills until it is
"time"(according to Steiner's time, that is). Pre awakening children is
BAD, and can lead to illness later in life.( (
) Joe says:
) I had a very powerful experience which I will share. There is a
) Russian painter, whose name skips my mind at the moment...
Hi Joe,
I'm enjoying your posts very much, but, I have to tell you that this
time I think you are really missing the point of what Lisa and Debra
are saying.
I'm very disturbed about the issue Lisa has raised about the excessive
copy work her child is experiencing in the fourth grade.
Since when did giving a young child paper and crayon or finger paints,
telling their own imaginative stories, and having an active fantasy life
awaken their head forces too early?
As an art educator with a certain amount of credentials in my field I'm
increasingly disturbed by what I'm hearing on a number of lists in
regard to what many believe is some exclusive Waldorf insight in regard
to "the artistic". I've heard a lot of erroneous stuff over a long
period of time and am close to deciding, public educator or not, I am
going to have to post about this to the WE list for the sake of my own
conscience.
Look, I'm an anthroposophist and society member by choice, but I don't
buy into anything just because "Steiner said". I was thrilled beyond
words when Jelle brought up the issue of pedagogy. The reason I'm
thrilled is that I see this issue of limited insight and/or exclusive
Waldorf insight in regard to the developing human being as a very big
factor in there being some pretty weak strands in the Waldorf fiber
worldwide.
I've been on the Waldorf list long enough to know well the tendency
among satisfied parents, (not to mention the teachers) to discount
questions, concerns or something that hasn't evolved out of Waldorf
itself. (I've even experienced this in regard to the issue of brain
research, and handedness and I wasn't complaining).
The tendency with those pleased and satisfied with how things are in WE
to be so easily be dismissive when it comes to outside or
other-than-Waldorf authority really concerns me.
I am personally convinced that I could never have suceeded with my
students without having found Steiner and taken up WE monographs,
techniques, etc., but, right along with that is the reality that I also
could not have survived in the classroom without what I learned through
the state curriculum I was required to master in order to be certified.
This state controlled curriculum enabled me to become an affective
teacher in the effective domain. (I'll admit I'm probably the only
teacher I've ever known who says her ed psych courses were the most
important part of her training, but, it is true!)
I can tell you that it is very easy to see from many Waldorf parents who
post to this and other lists with a wide range of concerns that a whole
lot of these concerns are a result of Waldorf teachers not having the
child development courses that would enable them to have greater
insight.
Bob Schultz can disagree all he wants but I stand firm on the belief
that Waldorf pedagogy is not enough. All teachers, Waldorf and
non-Waldorf, need to know and understand what Piaget and _many_ others
have to say in regard to child development.
Bernard Lievegoed understood this.
I encourage Bob and any other Waldorf parent who thinks Waldorf has all
the answers to at least read Lievegoed's book "Phases". Lievegoed was a
very important medical and literary figure in Holland ,as well as a
significant person in and for Anthroposophy.
If Lievegoed can grasp the significance and benefit of the work of
Adler, Jung, Frankl and others then surely it behooves those involved in
and with Waldorf to take a broader look at what these individuals have
to offer. The entire rest of the world does!
Additionally, from what is currently being said in regard to excessive
copying at the cost of individual creative expression, well, I don't
know anyone posting who couldn't use a healthy dose of Lev Vygotsy and
his life work on thought and language.
In the post I'm drafting for the WE list I mention that what saddens me
about the PLANS people and Dan is that I fear he is causing a focus on
such absurdities such as cultism, racism, crazy science, etc., and that
defending such absurdities will prevent Waldorf from taking a look at
what it really needs to be reevaluating.
Until Waldorf begins to get a grip on it's inherent myopic weaknesses I
can no longer support nor recommend it.
Boring children to distraction with copy work to the total exclusion of
individual expression, overriding parental authority on such matters as
dietary decisions, over-night trips, etc., and labeling children
behavior problems when the trouble is a lack of classroom management
skills, bullying and name calling, and turning out students who cannot
read is just totally, totally, unacceptable. Then, to just blow smoke by
saying Waldorf is not for all parents or all children just floors me.
Thank god public education does not have the same mind set.
Joe, you said "You can't blame a Waldorf Teacher or School for
defending Waldorf, they're not teaching there for fame and fortune".
No teacher goes into education to gain fame and fortune. We chose it.
We are, imo, more than any other profession I can think of responsible
for what we do and for the outcome we produce. No one made us become
teachers. Everyday I think about how someday I will be shown a view of
the thousands of souls whose lives I chose to touch and influence and
what that influence did to them. It is a thought that can bring on a
nervous stomach, I tell you.
There are some serious incidents happening in WE that are doing harm to
a certain number of children rather than helping them develop into the
idealistic souls that Waldorf claims is the outcome of this educational
process.
One harmed child is one too many, where I live.
Regards,
Paulina
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1643.7 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Reality Check
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 14:42:29 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Steve Premo]
)
) You seem to be arguing thus:
)
) 1. If Waldorf schools intentionally instilled racist ideas in
) children, they
) would not admit it.
)
) 2. Waldorf schools do not admit intentionally instilling
) racist ideas in
) children. Therefore:
)
) 3. Waldorf schools must be intentionally instilling racist
) ideas in children.
)
) You appear to be an intelligent person; you must see that
) this does not follow.
)
) Some Anthroposophists on this list have admitted that some of
) Steiner's
) writings were racist, and have said that Steiner was wrong
) about those things.
) Others seem to have trouble believing that Steiner could be
) wrong about
) anything specific, although they admit, in the abstract, that
) he was probably
) wrong about some things, since he said so himself. Thus,
) they try to justify
) his writings on race to make them appear to be acceptable.
) But in no instance
) have I seen *any* evidence of an intent to instill racism in kids.
)
) If you have evidence, let's hear it. Stop talking in the
) abstract about "the
) devious methods of indoctrination that the Anthroposophs
) employ" and start
) describing those methods, in detail, and explain specifically
) how they instill
) racism in the students.
)
) There's a reality check for you!
[Bob Tolz
Steve, sometimes I think the judges should be clerking for *you.*
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1643.8 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: question
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 14:38:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Ouch Debra!!
I'll respond once my wounds heal.
I'm a quick healer, though, so expect something by monday.
Joe
))) Debra Snell (snell netshel.net) 12/02 8:25 PM )))
)Lisa writes:
))) I wonder about the pedagogy I see in practice: why is copying from what
)))a teacher writes on the blackboard or draws or paints better for the child
)))than, say, working from a textbook or a novel or non-fiction book written
)))for children? Why is it necessary (or is it?) for the paintings to all be
)))done in the same ``Waldorfy'' style? At what age do the children, finally,
)))get to paint what they want, the way they want, or to write things in their
)))own words instead of someone else's?
)
)Debra says:
)
))Again, this seems to vary, but in my experience the teachers are keeping
))the children from developing critical thinking skills until it is "time"
))(according to Steiner's time, that is). Pre awakening children is BAD, and
))can lead to illness later in life.
)
)Joe says:
)I had a very powerful experience which I will share. There is a Russian
)painter,
)whose name skips my mind at the moment. A museum of his major works exists in
)NYC. Most of his paintings are of the Himalayas. I remember going through
)these
)once and being moved quite powerfully. I felt like I was right there in
)the mountains,
)even though his paintings might be considered a bit primitive. On the top
)floor, was
)a large photo book of actual photos of the very same mountains. I eagerly
)opened
)it to see the 'real' mountains. What a disappointment as the photos 'killed'
)the experience.
What is your message here, Joe? Children should not be exposed to reality?
)
)Plus, don't underestimate the fact that it is (hopefully) their
)beloved teacher that they *see* writing this on the board, or drawing it.
)It's so
)different that copying from a book.
Don't place Waldorf teachers on pedestals, Joe. They are human beings with
faults and weaknesses like everyone else. Steiner wants teachers to become
the most important adult in the children's lives. I think parents should
maintain their rightful positions and teachers should educate. PERIOD. My
children watch me do many things. Just because they love me, doesn't
necessarily make them want to do what I'm doing, in the _exact_ same way.
Kids should not be clones of any teacher, Waldorf or not. Assuming that
other children learn Art by copying from a book is a bogus assumption. Like
I said, a _real_ artist friend called Waldorf wet on wet painting "Airbrush
by number" paintings.
)
)Lisa says:
)
))) I wonder all these things because of what I see my Waldorf schooled 4th
)))grader doing, and not doing. Her mainlesson book, brought home over
)))Thanksgiving, was copied completely from teacher's writing and drawing on
)))the board, all the way down to how the decorative borders were done!
)
)Debra:
)
))Yep. It was the same at our local Waldorf school. Then they pass these
))books off as if they are original works of the children (enrollment
))procurement context).
)
)Joe:
)This word 'original' is a bit problematic. It's really a matter of how a child
)learns. Even the great Michelangelo copied the great masters before him
)for years. Anyway, before a person can really be original, he needs not
)only an
)idea, but technique. What's realy important for a child at an early age?
[Debra]
Children learn by copying? I'm sorry that you have so little imagination.
Sure, they can learn by copying, but not ideally. Can you tell me which
masters Michelangelo "copied" and what pieces they are? Are they exact
copies? Did he do this for years and years and not allow himself freedom of
his own expression? Waldorf posing as an art school is simply a joke. Wet
on wet painting is little more than occult rituals, intended to help the
children's soul. As an art school, it just can't compete with the others.
My oldest son is a wonderful artist. His imaginative paintings/drawings
from young childhood showed a natural ability for ability and individual
style. Waldorf did nothing to promote his artistic ability - it actually
smothered it!
)Lisa:
)))Tonight's homework was to copy into said mainlesson book a Xeroxed sheet of
)))the teacher's handwritten narrative about the history of our city. Am I
)))missing something, or is this dull as dishwater and less challenging than
)))figuring out the moral of an episode of ``Rugrats''?
)
)Joe:
)It depends how the child experiences the 'coming into being' of their book.
)As far as figuring out "Rugrats" I have to say, I'd go easy. Mind you, I am
)not a Waldorf Teacher and have never studied Waldorf methodology. I
)speak only out of my gut feeling and the experiences of raising my own.
)You know what happens when your child outgrows his shoes? You get
)rid of them. It's not so easy to get rid of things we take into ourselves, so
)hopefully they can grow with us.
)
)Joe:
)The sigh says alot. Isn't there some need there you are pointing to?
)If you got him to put down his books a bit and play ball with you
)I bet things would improve. (as I say not as I did!)
[Debra]
Don't worry about my "dreamy" son. He has a full and active life. He has
plently of play time. He just needs to get organized. He likes his 1 hour
homework time. I never have to remind him to do his work. (I do have to ask
him to take his ball outside once in a while...) He just needs to get it in
his backpack (instead of the ball closet) when he is done.
)Lisa:
))) Worse yet, I am worried as I write this that I am going to offend
)))someone from my school who may be reading this and word will get around
)))school that I am not a loyal parent
[snip]
)Debra:
))Yes, in my experience, it was not OK to even whisper about the academic
))aspects of Waldorf. Never came up in meetings or anywhere. Curious, eh?
))People who do want the academic challenge are pooh-poohed and made to feel
))badly or worse yet, just plain wrong, like _you_ are a bad parent for being
))concerned...
)
)Joe:
)Boy, the two of you raise a great issue here. It's a dilemma that goes far
)beyond Waldorf. It concerns our wish to change
)something we appreciate and think needs changing. But it's so complex
)that it lends itself to no easy answer and as I tend to make the simple
)complex, I may make this impossible.
[Debra]
Imagine expecting a school to educate your child in academics! This concept
should be approached very slowly. Maybe in the next 80 years, it will
change. (Unless the Anthro. crowd recognizes Dan as steiner reincarnated,
then change could come rather quickly. I'm not holding my breath.)
[Joe]
When do the changes we would
)ask of a thing go so to the heart of what the thing is that to make those
)changes would render it no longer the thing?
This is really not about education, is it? It is about the belief system.
Conversly, when will changes
)make it *more* the thing? You can't blame a Waldorf Teacher or School for
)defending Waldorf, they're not teaching there for fame and fortune,
)obviously they think there is something to it.
[Debra]
Anthroposophy, Joe. That is why they are there. So much work to do, so
little time. Only the enlightened children recognize that Waldorf is good,
anyway. The rest will leave. These kids are likely incapable of higher
learning in their present life time. (Cosmic Knowledge)
[Joe]
The problem comes
)in the interpetation. Like everyone else, sometimes teachers defend what
)they do
)simply because they do it. Also, sometimes we judge out of
)our prejudices and expect others to act accordingly. Talk to the class
)teacher!
[Debra]
In Waldorf, it seems to be the teachers way or no way - over and over. It
is not long before the "If you don't like it you can leave" mantra begins.
Just who does have the authority to suggest change in Waldorf? Eugene
Schwartz?
-Debra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1643.9 ---------------
From: jellesonja computextos.net (Gerard Schottelndreier)
Subject: More empty accusations by Mr. Dugan
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:42:20 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912030936.BAA12938 lists1.best.com)
[Dan Dugan]
)I see two kinds of racism as relevant to this discussion. One is racial
hatred, hatred of people who )are different from your ethnic group. Another
is ignorant racism, believing things about ethnic )groups that have no basis
in reality. We are all, I am sure, inadvertently guilty of the latter form
to )some degree. In the case of the racial doctrines of Anthroposophy, they
are ignorant racism raised )to a high degree and institutionalized.
Doctrines? Doctrine is something that is core to the activity of a movement.
Where do you find present day anthroposophical programmes, lectures, books,
symposia, or organisations engaged with race? The few quotes within the 5000
or so lectures by Steiner are not engaging anyone except the hateful racism
seekers.
How are they institutionalised?
Still, I find this one of your most reasonable posts. You come up with a
definition in line with what has been on this list.
Let's do some intuitive math on this.
There's a broad concensus that racial hatred is not promoted in Waldorf
schools or anthroposophy.
0x100=0
Then there's what I called along with prof. Essed, ordinary racism, and you
call that ignorant racism. This IS institutionalized in our society,
according to the prof, and also in Waldorf, I'd say.
1x 10=10 both for Waldorf and PLANS (how many nonwhites on your board?)
Then there's your unsubstantiated claim of "racial doctrines of ignorant
racism raised to a high degree and institutionalized".
nx50=50n (n=0 or 1, to be proven by you)
Add: Waldorf racism sum is 10+50n, deviating 50n from average, so we have
work to do, at least like average, like PLANS.
10/160 or 60/160, that's the question?
No, I want bonus points (in this system minus points) for the fantastic work
in Milwaukee and the basically multicultural curriculum. For the Waldorf
schools by Jews in Israel, by Islamics in Egypt, by Walakota in the US, by
blacks in Africa, by Hindus in India.
Please, mr. Engineer and Defender of Good Science, give me a model.
-Jelle
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1643.10 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: "Holy Smoke"
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 12:28:03 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Last night I attended a preview of a new movie directed by Jane
Campion (she directed "The Piano" titled "Holy Smoke". It's about a
beautiful young Australian woman (played by Kate Winslett) who joins
a guru's cult in India. Her family hires "America's top exit
counselor" (played by Harvey Keitel) for $10,000 to get her out. The
scheme goes crazy when, isolated out on a ranch, both the woman and
the deprogrammer break down.
I suspect the deprogrammer is modeled after Rick Ross. See his web site:
http://www.rickross.com
Many of the real issues of cult adherence and family dynamics are
raised and dealt with sensitively. But also Australian society is
painted with a broad satirical brush. A must-see for anyone
interested in cults or new religions.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1643 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1644 --------------
001 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: 2nd instalment - etheric streams
002 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: 2nd instalment of essay
003 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: Betr.: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
004 - jellesonja computextos.ne - Yavelow without Dutch
005 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: "Holy Smoke"
006 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: 2nd instalment - etheric streams
007 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
008 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: 2nd instalment - etheric streams
009 - Christopher Yavelow (yave - Re: Reality Check
010 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1644.1 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment - etheric streams
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 15:44:27 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Well,
time or not, I have to respond *now* to this one.
Diana Winters wrote:
))According to Joe Serio,
))To understand [Steiner's] ideas on race and much else of what he )said, but
))particularly race, you must enter into his worldview, see )through his
))eyes, understand what he means ... You can't judge what )he says because
))you can't, or don't want to see what he sees.
Diana replied:
)Maybe it's best Waldorf educators *not* try to teach our children critical
)thinking skills. The line of reasoning above, which is one I heard often
)from Waldorf defenders, is well, if only you would agree with Steiner, then
)you would agree with him! If only you would see it our way, we would not
)have to keep arguing with you! Except that it's not even that simple, it's
)the familiar arrogant assertion that you don't "see," as in *spiritually*
)see . . . in short, you don't understand because you're not one of us.
Diana, you miss my point. Let me be personal for a moment. There are
several ways I can react when Dan launches his defamatory
statements at Steiner, even at myself.
I can 'high tail' it on outta there (run away), I can hurl similar insults
back, I can try to show him where I believe he is wrong, or I can take
another approach. This other approach is fraught with grave difficulties and
earnest and very real and very scary trials. Taking this approach I can lose
everything that is most precious to me, I can lose it all. And that's to say
nothing of the job which I will lose for posting these emails all day.
The other approach amounts to this. By the way, if I claimed I did or even
was able to do it all the time, I would be lying. In very lonely, very quite
moment I have to put all my own thoughts aside and try to enter into Dan's,
no matter how grotesque they may seem to me at first. I have to try to see
what is it Dan is seeing in these quotes that make him respond so.
Now please, don't take this lightly. If I really allow Dan's thoughts in, in the
few moments I can, my own world view starts to tremble, it shakes, the
thunder roils (does thunder roil?). I never when disembarking know whether
I'll ever return to the shore from where I left. But Diana, this allows me to
see through Dan's eyes. When I did this for the 'etheric steams' post I noticed
something strange, the concept Dan had of 'maturity in race' slew my every
time, it knocked me flat off my horse. Steiner looked different, Dan looked
different, the sky was a different color (well this goes too far).
I was in a strange new world. But this concept, and now it was Dan's
concept I was looking at, I had put my own thoughts aside, This concept
had a strange quality to it. I couldn't determine what it was. Yet I had to
keep climbibg back on my horse because I wanted to understand where
dan was coming from.
I had started that post early in the morning, here it was evening and I was
not only still working on it, but I couldn't see what I was trying to say
anymore. I nearly 'canned' it more than once. Then guess what, I *Saw*
it. Yes Dan, you're not going to like this but your, let me repeat *your*
concept spoke to me (if it sounds spooky, it wasn't!!). I saw how Dan saw
this phrase 'maturity in the race' (whatever it was exactly). He saw it as if
Steiner wassaying that in the caucasian race the SPECIES reaches maturity.
But then the mystery was over. THAT wasn't Steiner idea, it was DAN's
that he was putting on Steiner.
Diana, bear with me one more moment, this is at least as exhausting
for me as for you (well maybe not!). At the same time I realized something
else. I saw a myriad of thoughts of my own, half thought out, or not at all,
and these thoughts I was mistaking for Steiner's also. I asked myself, If I
have trouble grasping his thoughts, and I start in a sympathetic mode,
can I criticize Dan for doing the same? Hell No!!! (of course that doesn't
mean I won't, see later post)
)Critics of Waldorf do not have to "enter into" anybody's world view to be
)entitled to express an opinion about it.
See the above again if you still think this. If I want to understand yours
I have to see through your eyes. That's not to say I'm successful too often!
But you know what Diana, I missed an opportunity to be snide and believe
me I *hate* when I do that and not only that but so do my Jesuit mentors.
I should have said "you're right and I'm glad you finally realize it's opinion
only". If it's knowledge you interested in, you'll have to get past your
opinions and mine also.
)Joe concludes with a new definition of racism: "Racism is denying the
)highest in man, and equating him with his race." A person who holds this
)definition of racism is thereby free to ascribe with impunity any
)characteristic to any race. It's like saying, your race isn't important, so
)it doesn't matter what we think of people of your race!
Huh? I take that back, I see your point, but it doesn't follow from mine.
You're still just hammering Steiner.
If you still think so show me where.
Diana says:
)It is my opinion that most anthroposophists are not racists, though they may
)hold some silly views about racial characteristics. What is troubling is the
)lengths they will go to defend Steiner against *any* criticism! Nowhere in
)(how many volumes?) of Steiner can they find anything that can't be
)explained away (or, usually, just dismissed with "you're just not seeing
)through Steiner's eyes"--come on, pretty lame). Maybe anthroposophy isn't a
)cult, but a cult mentality is alive and well among anthroposophists.
As far as Lame goes, see the above once again. But of course I defend
Steiner. The only question is whether my defense is lame!
By the way, "Etheric Streams" is not quite completed yet.
More soon to follow.
Regards,
Joe
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1644.2 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 15:52:56 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Ah Diana let me get some rest will you?
Diana Winters writes:
))Bob Schultz wrote:
))The focus on criticism as a sign of psychological freedom is )fascinating
))to me. I criticize therefore, I am. A sign of end of the )millennium (I
))know it is really next year) cynicism. Let's hope the )new millennium has a
))new standard for freedom.
Diana replied:
)Waldorf educators, if I understand correctly, would prefer our children
)learn to hold certain things in reverence, before they learn to criticize
)anything. While I do believe it's possible to start too early to teach
)critical thinking, I don't understand the lack of balance in the Waldorf
)approach. Surely we would like to encourage our children to hold in
)reverence things worthy of reverence, yet develop the ability to think
)critically and *not* hold things in reverence that do not merit it. Yes,
)being free and able to criticize is a component of psychological freedom.
)And other types of freedom.
Problem is, well actually there are two. One: you're equating criticizing
with critical thinking. Perhaps we need to define critical thinking.
Secondly, you are of the mistaken notion (excuse me I'm tired)
that intellectual thinking from where criticism derives is thinking plain
and simple, when in reality it is only a form of thought. And a form
which is either mastered out of a higher thinking (now Debra, I'm talking
out of my own experience remember the Jesuits? Don't flunk me)
or you ar enslaved by it.
Joe
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1644.3 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: Betr.: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 15:58:53 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Hi Diana, it's me again!
Diana Winters wrote:
) I'm only now vaguely getting these terms sorted out in my mind. It's just so
)bizarre and disturbing and really quite shocking to watch this debate. No,
)they didn't teach about root races! They only taught that blacks were like
)children, and Asians were like adolescents! but they don't teach it any
)more! And they *never* taught about the root races (whatever they were)! And
)how lame the rest of us are intellectually if we can't keep straight these
)two peculiar concepts (root-races versus races having characteristics of
)children)! Okay, do we all feel better now that we know they *only* taught
)about the races having characteristics of child, adolescent, etc.? Is
)anybody else reading this just finding this incredibly shocking?
IF you are only now getting the terms sorted out, how about the concepts?
This isn't what Steiner said (and stop saying Steiner said so much, you're
starting to sound like some other people I know). This is a gross
misunderstanding of what Seiner said. See my "etheric streams post"
towards the end and look for the next one. Hopefully, with good will,
we can see what Steiner means.
Regards from an doubly exhausted but waking up,
Joe
And it's funny how whenever Steiner's defenders confidently post along the
lines of, "Well they certainly never do that in Waldorf schools. No, never"
about 24 hours pass and then somebody posts, "Well, they did in the Waldorf
school my child attended . . ." If you think these ideas do not influence
how (at least some) Waldorf teachers somewhere look at the children of
different races in their classes, you have your head in the sand.
I'm sorry, there goes the blood pressure thing again. For God's sake, how
can Steiner's defenders even argue about what year he repudiated (or changed
the terminology, I don't even care which) these ugly ideas? Just repudiate
them *now* and be done with it!
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1644.4 ---------------
From: jellesonja computextos.net (Gerard Schottelndreier)
Subject: Yavelow without Dutch
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 16:05:28 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (199912031801.KAA11552 lists1.best.com)
) I would be wary of any translation done by a Waldorf enthusiast. I have
) recently seen some documents translated by the Palais of Justice relating
) to my case in the Netherlands and it's clear that certain sentences in
) those documents have been intentionally mistranslated because the
) translator was angry at criticisms I'd made of the Dutch legal system.
There is definitely something wrong with your logic.
Waldorfs can't be trusted because a Dutch official of the Palace of Justice
( you mean the International in The Hague?) "intentionally mistranslated"
something? Tsssss........
The list that follows contains a lot of books by Waldorfs, but it is not
clear what impression you want to make. Are you okay?
RenÈ Zwaap is a journalist about as truthful as DD
-Jelle
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1644.5 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: "Holy Smoke"
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 16:15:41 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Dan Dugan]
) Last night I attended a preview of a new movie directed by Jane
) Campion (she directed "The Piano" titled "Holy Smoke". It's about a
) beautiful young Australian woman (played by Kate Winslett) who joins
) a guru's cult in India. Her family hires "America's top exit
) counselor" (played by Harvey Keitel) for $10,000 to get her out. The
) scheme goes crazy when, isolated out on a ranch, both the woman and
) the deprogrammer break down.
)
) I suspect the deprogrammer is modeled after Rick Ross. See
) his web site:
)
) http://www.rickross.com
)
) Many of the real issues of cult adherence and family dynamics are
) raised and dealt with sensitively. But also Australian society is
) painted with a broad satirical brush. A must-see for anyone
) interested in cults or new religions.
[Bob Tolz]
I'll probably go see it. Did you know Harvey Keitel is a Waldorf
parent?
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1644.6 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment - etheric streams
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 16:38:53 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Diana wrote:
)) The line of reasoning above, which is one I heard often from
)) Waldorf defenders, is well, if only you would agree with Steiner, then you would
)) agree with him! If only you would see it our way, we would not have to keep
)) arguing with you! Except that it's not even that simple, it's the familiar
)) arrogant assertion that you don't "see," as in *spiritually* see . . . in short,
)) you don't understand because you're not one of us.
))
)) It is my opinion that most anthroposophists are not racists, though they may
)) hold some silly views about racial characteristics. What is troubling is the
)) lengths they will go to defend Steiner against *any* criticism!
Steve replied:
)Well said. This type of argument (if you don't agree, it's because you don't
)really understand) is common, not just among anthroposophists, but among all
)kinds of people, particularly those who hold strong views that are not easily
)defended. I usually disregard such arguments, as they are essentially
)meaningless. But I'd like to see someone from within Anthroposophy come
)forward and say, "No, that won't do. That is not a valid argument."
OK Steve "No, that won't do. That is not a valid argument."
But I ask. How often must one repeat?
But what's not valid is not distinquishing between disagreeing
and not grasping. If you don't grasp, disagreeing is a childish
exercise. If you grasp and disagree then we can talk about why,
or decide to differ and call it a day.
But it's a moot point until then.
I find you a reasonable fellow Steve.
Thanks,
Joe
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1644.7 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 17:15:59 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Steve Premo wrote:
) [Dan Dugan]
) )Note Steiner says "we here in Europe are thus the fifth Sub-Race of the great
) )Aryan Root Race." and "The fifth Sub-Race...to which we and the neighbouring
) )nations belong." He's talking about Europe, only Europe.)
)
) [Joe Serio in a later posting]
) )The reference to Europe is as a 'sub-race' of the 'great Aryan Root Race'.
) )Ancient India being the first *sub race* of the Aryan Root race.)
)
) Detlef:
) Joe has clearly made the point that Dan missed the point.
) Let me expand a bit nonetheless: Steiner is talking not just about Europe, he
) is talking about European *civilization*, which happens to have spread to almost
) all of the rest of the world lately!
Steve wrote:
)I think Steiner was talking about white people, black people, and Oriental
)people. Not just about their cultures.
Actually he was talking about neither. A careful reading of the lecture
Dan took the quotes from makes it clear. But can I suggest something
to anyone reading that would help. Consider the following picture.
You're reading a story and you recognize that it has several dimensions.
There is the historical time-sequence in the 'story', there are the certain
factual details in the story, but when the story is done you realize that the
writer is indeed a talented fellow. Why so? Well, most stories go from
beginning to end, as does this story also, but something most peculiar
happens as you get to the end. Something comes into view at the end
which is neither of the nature of time-sequence, nor detail, though they
are used to bring it into view. Imagine that fellow, what is his name,
a Jewish Philosopher who wrote a proof on the existence in mathematical
style? He was a lens grinder by trade? Anyway, imagine, you were focusing
his lens to bring this final picture into view. In fact, imagine, that when you
see the final picture, you realize, that is really the whole point to it all.
Steve:
)I couple of years ago, I was in a spiritual bookstore and was looking through
)some Steiner lectures. Sorry, I can't give you the citation. He said that
)races exist because they represent the physical characteristics or people who
)lived in prior epochs.
)With each development in the spiritual evolution of humanity, a new kind of
)physical body emerged which was associated with that stage of evolution. The
)old type of body was supposed to die out, but Lucifer and Ahriman wanted the
)old types to remain, so they did not die out. This was in the days of
)Atlantis.
)So, basically, he was saying that Blacks and Orientals represented the remnants
)of obsolete types of people. Now, it could be that modern Blacks and Orientals
)are not bound by the fact that they physically represent earlier stages of
)humanity, but the stuff about etheric earth forces that Dan posted shows that
)they *still* represent earlier stages of humanity.
Steve, the paragon of reasonablness (and I'm not being facetious)
how thou doest wound. First you speak of bodies:
"they represent the physical characteristics or people"
by the way, did you mean to say OF people, becasue "physical
characteristics" and "people" are not the same.
And then you say:
" Blacks and Orientals represented the remnants of obsolete
types of people"
Going strictly on the lecture Dan pointed to, he is hardly saying
either because, he makes it clear right after the quote from Dan
(Dan???) that he means certain characteristics pertaining to the
body and that even those are no longer relevant in any race.
But more on this later.
Steve:
)This is similar to the assertion that the function of the Hebrew people was to
)develop a body that was physically evolved to receive the Christ impulse, but
)that they no longer have a function in the spiritual development of humanity.
The lineage or the people? Neither, actually would follow. In fact such a
way of thinking is also ' Darwinistic'.
Steve:
)To recap:
)The spirituality of the future is in the hands of the white folks. That
)doesn't mean that we're *better* than people of other races. They are better
)than us in some ways. It just means that we represent a more advanced, but not
)necessarily better, stage of evolution. And this is not racist, since (1) more
)advanced is not necessarily better, and (2) our souls all pass through all
)these stages anyway. So us white folks used to be black ourselves, and those
)black folks will one day be white.
Boy Steve I don't like your view. Fortunately it's not Steiner's.
Steve:
)He may not have been racist personally, given his emphasis on the individual
)being more important than the racial group, and his ideas were not even that
)racist, given the time in which he lived, and compared to other people of his
)era. But he was still wrong, and the longer Anthroposophists keep defending
)this stuff the more you're going to turn people off to Anthroposophy and
)Waldorf.
Remember my prior post Steve. To grasp and disagree is fine.
Not to grasp and disagree is to take oneself for a fool for no-one
else is present.
Regards Steve,
Joe
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1644.8 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: 2nd instalment - etheric streams
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 17:48:21 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Boy this is novel, I've got to respond to my own post.
I realize an error I made, but whose counting.
Diana wrote:
))Critics of Waldorf do not have to "enter into" anybody's world view to be
))entitled to express an opinion about it.
the big mouth (that's me folks) said:
)See the above again if you still think this. If I want to understand yours
)I have to see through your eyes. That's not to say I'm successful too often!
)But you know what Diana, I missed an opportunity to be snide and believe
)me I *hate* when I do that and not only that but so do my Jesuit mentors.
)I should have said "you're right and I'm glad you finally realize it's opinion
)only". If it's knowledge you interested in, you'll have to get past your
)opinions and mine also.
My complex mind is making everything too simple. To understand *you*
I have to see through your eyes. To understand your world view, I
have to *think* it. Of course 'thinking' it means thinking your thoughts,
thinking them, not just commenting on them. The problem is,
we usually don't even *think*, experience in full self-consciousness, the
ideas behind our own world view, much less another's. And what that
means is that we are unconscious to our own world view. It's like
having a pair of glasses on and not knowing they're there.
There now my simple mind can dwell on this complexity of life.
Regards,
Joe
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1644.9 ---------------
From: Christopher Yavelow (yavelow xs4all.nl)
Subject: Re: Reality Check
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 16:57:33 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Steve Premo wrote:
)1. If Waldorf schools intentionally instilled racist ideas in children, they
)would not admit it.
)
)2. Waldorf schools do not admit intentionally instilling racist ideas in
)children. Therefore:
)
)3. Waldorf schools must be intentionally instilling racist ideas in children.
Not at all. I've been reading this list quite a bit and I believe that the
evidence is already in. There are plenty of other people on this list how
have put forth evidence. Disregarding the evidence, the low percentage of
racially mixed Steiner schools should tell you something.
)Some Anthroposophists on this list have admitted that some of Steiner's
)writings were racist, [snip] But in no instance
)have I seen *any* evidence of an intent to instill racism in kids.
Are you saying that _you_ personally haven't seen any evidence of an intent
to instill racism in kids? Where have you looked? Or are you saying that
you disbelieve all the reports that have been made to this list and all the
newspaper and magazine articles that have been cited (many of which are
quite recent)?
I suppose you haven't seen this image:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/articles/racial_ethnography.gif
and the accompanying article:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/articles/waldorf_salad.html
I suppose you didn't read the type of stories that my youngest daughter is
being fed to indoctrinate her about reincarnation. Her teacher does the
same sort of thing with astral projection. I'm only giving you first-hand
testimony, you don't have to believe it.
In that case you probably don't know about the categorization of children
according to Steiner's four temperaments.
This leads me to conclude that you know something about logic but not very
much about the Steiner Schools and what has already been established as
fact or perhaps you are simply a Steiner supporter.
Christopher Yavelow
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1644.10 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 18:04:11 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Joe Serio wrote:
)a Jewish Philosopher who wrote a proof on the existence [of God] in
)mathematical style? He was a lens grinder by trade?
Spinosa by God!
Joe
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1644 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1645 --------------
001 - warmregards comic.com - Shit (Was Re: 2nd instalment - etheric streams)
002 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
003 - Detlef Hardorp (hardorp g - Re: question
004 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Reality Check
005 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - RE: 2nd instalment - etheric streams
006 - Detlef Hardorp (hardorp g - RE: 2nd instalment of essay
007 - Detlef Hardorp (hardorp g - Re: My essay, part 1
008 - Christian Czachary (chris - RE: Betr.: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
009 - Christopher Yavelow (yave - Yavelow without Dutch
010 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Forwarded article: CHRONIC DISEASE, TEENAGE DARING PROVE A
D
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1645.1 ---------------
From: warmregards comic.com
Subject: Shit (Was Re: 2nd instalment - etheric streams)
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 17:40:50 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lurker, in his masterful, rational, logical deconstruction of Joe Serio's
apologia for racism, has hit on two central truths about Steiner,
Anthroposophy and Waldorf: it is all totally irrational, and it is full of
shit. (Not an insult, unless you want it to be, in which case I'm pleased
with your Anthroposophical astuteness -- read on).
)To Joe Serio,
)
)The Jesuits would hand you your head for this mental gymnastic attempt of a
defense of Stiener!
)
[snip]
)L:
)Again: _words mean things_. Racism already has a definition. It is in
common use. If Steiner is not being racist in his writing, as you contend,
why would you want to, or feel the need to, change the definition of racism?
)
)Serio:
))I can hear the yowls now that such a defintion means you have to have a
spiritual view then not to be a racist
))Well so be it.
))
))regards,
))Joe
)
)L:
)No yowls. Yours is a wonderful sentiment on how humanity should treat each
other, but it just does not fit the definition of racism. If John says Bill
is full of shit, then when confronted, John can't cover by saying he is a
farmer and shit makes things grow, therefore shit is good.
)
)regardless,
)L
Oh yes John can, L, courtesy of Rudolf Steiner himself, the chief shithead.
As a public service to all the other shitheads (you'll understand in a
minute) out there, here is another of Steiner's "metaphors" which proves
that words can mean anything the speaker wants them to mean, independent of
what the auditor hears or thinks they mean, and the meaning can change as it
suits the speaker from moment to moment.
"Now the central substance in bio-dynamic agriculture is cow and/or
horse manure to be used as the basis for composting. The following excerpt
is taken from Steiner's lecture on bio-dynamics. ("Agriculture," A Course
of 8 Lectures, given at Koberwitz, Silesia, 7 to 16 June 1924, GA #327,
published by Bio-Dynamic Agricultural Assn, London, 1977). I quote
specifically from Lecture 8, given 16 June 1924, (page 140):"
"Here you encounter a relationship which you will think most
paradoxical, even absurd at first sight, and yet you cannot overlook it if
you wish to understand the animal organization--- and the human
[organization] too, for that matter. What is this brainy mass? It is
simply an intestinal mass, carried to the very end. The premature
brain-deposit passes out through the intestines. As to its processes, the
content of the intestines is decidedly akin to the brain-content. To speak
grotesquely, I would say: That which spreads out through the brain is a
highly advanced heap of manure! Grotesque as it may be, objectively
speaking, this is the truth. It is none other than the dung, which is
transmuted--- through its peculiar organic process--- into the noble matter
of the brain, there to become the basis for Ego-development."
So, according to one Tom Mellett, Anthroposophical apostate par excellence,
we are all shit-for-brains, but to some of us it's an insult, while to
others it's a compliment.
I leave you all to figure out which of you on this list is insulted and
which are ROFLYAO.
I think the only shithead in the whole shebang is Steiner -- cosmic shit, at
that, the etheric shit of angels, devils, Jesus Christ and, for all I know,
trolls.
Now I know why so many Steiner, Anthroposophical and Waldorf apologists on
this list suffer such mental constipation with their thinking and such
verbal diarrhea-- they've all got shit-for-brains.
And I now know why I have to go to the toilet so often soon after reading
their shit -- I have a logical brain to which their shit won't stick,
according to Steiner's view.
Warm Regards (or should that be Warm RegardsLESS?)
__________________________________________________
FREE Email for ALL! Sign up at http://www.mail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1645.2 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 15:05:41 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199912032216.OAA16870 lists1.best.com)
On 3 Dec 99, at 17:15, Joe Serio wrote:
) Steve:
) )I couple of years ago, I was in a spiritual bookstore and was looking through
) )some Steiner lectures. Sorry, I can't give you the citation. He said that
) )races exist because they represent the physical characteristics or people who
) )lived in prior epochs.
)
) )With each development in the spiritual evolution of humanity, a new kind of
) )physical body emerged which was associated with that stage of evolution. The
) )old type of body was supposed to die out, but Lucifer and Ahriman wanted the
) )old types to remain, so they did not die out. This was in the days of
) )Atlantis.
)
) )So, basically, he was saying that Blacks and Orientals represented the remnants
) ) of obsolete types of people. Now, it could be that modern Blacks and
) )Orientals are not bound by the fact that they physically represent earlier
) )stages of humanity, but the stuff about etheric earth forces that Dan posted
) )shows that they *still* represent earlier stages of humanity.
)
)
) Steve, the paragon of reasonablness (and I'm not being facetious)
) how thou doest wound. First you speak of bodies:
) "they represent the physical characteristics or people"
)
) by the way, did you mean to say OF people, becasue "physical
) characteristics" and "people" are not the same.
Right. Sorry. The physical characteristics of people.
) And then you say:
) " Blacks and Orientals represented the remnants of obsolete
) types of people"
) Going strictly on the lecture Dan pointed to, he is hardly saying
) either because, he makes it clear right after the quote from Dan
) (Dan???) that he means certain characteristics pertaining to the
) body and that even those are no longer relevant in any race.
I was speaking here of the lecture I read in the bookstore. I wish I could
give you the citation. I may not be correctly remembering the details, but as
to the plain meaning of the language, I think I am correct.
) Steve:
) )This is similar to the assertion that the function of the Hebrew people was to
) )develop a body that was physically evolved to receive the Christ impulse, but
) )that they no longer have a function in the spiritual development of humanity.
)
) The lineage or the people? Neither, actually would follow.
Well, perhaps I misunderstand what Steiner meant. I have the distinct
impression from a couple of people, who are Waldorf supporters, that Steiner
felt that the Jewish people have no reason to continue to exist, as far as the
spiritual development of humanity is concerned. Not that their lives lack
value individually, but rather that their task as a people in the spiritual
development of humanity has been completed.
) Steve:
)
) )To recap:
) )The spirituality of the future is in the hands of the white folks. That
) )doesn't mean that we're *better* than people of other races. They are better
) )than us in some ways. It just means that we represent a more advanced, but not
) ) necessarily better, stage of evolution. And this is not racist, since (1)
) )more advanced is not necessarily better, and (2) our souls all pass through all
) ) these stages anyway. So us white folks used to be black ourselves, and those
) )black folks will one day be white.
)
) Boy Steve I don't like your view. Fortunately it's not Steiner's.
Good. But I got the impression, from what you had written, that Steiner did
ascribe more "childlike" attributes to blacks, and more "adolescent" attributes
to Orientals, and more "adult" attribute to white people. I believe you
asserted that this is not racist, in that having "adult" attributes is not
inherently superior to having "childlike" attributes.
) Steve:
) )He may not have been racist personally, given his emphasis on the individual
) )being more important than the racial group, and his ideas were not even that
) )racist, given the time in which he lived, and compared to other people of his
) )era. But he was still wrong, and the longer Anthroposophists keep defending
) )this stuff the more you're going to turn people off to Anthroposophy and
) )Waldorf.
)
) Remember my prior post Steve. To grasp and disagree is fine.
) Not to grasp and disagree is to take oneself for a fool for no-one
) else is present.
Well, we may disagree as to what Steiner meant. Perhaps my understanding,
which I think might be more in line with the plain meaning of his words, is not
as complete as your understanding, which takes into account a lot of context
and esoteric knowledge that I don't know about. On the other hand, maybe the
"plain meaning" interpretation is more in line with what he meant, and the more
"esoteric" interpretation is the result of some wishful thinking.
At least we seem to agree that, if my interpretation is correct, Steiner was
probably mistaken.
Thanks, Joe, for your continued efforts to help the rest of us wrap our brains
around these concepts. It's not an easy task, and I appreciate your patience.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carbonata descendum pantorum."
(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1645.3 ---------------
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: Re: question
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 00:08:50 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Pauline wrote:
)I'm very disturbed about the issue Lisa has raised about the excessive copy work her child is experiencing in the fourth grade.
Detlef responds:
Excessive copy work is not creative and not child centered. Traditional waldorf teaching is sometimes add odds with the ideals of waldorf education, which *are* child centered.
May I give an example from mathematics (sorry it's mathematics again, but this happens to be my area of expertise): fractions. They are on the agenda beginning in the 4th grade in Waldorf schools (in state schools in Germany, they start a year later). Adding and subtracting fractions should be discovered in 5th grade. Is it *discovered* by the students, or merely "taught" by the teacher?
One reason why students often learn mathematics so badly is that they are not allowed to *discover* it for themselves. You discover mathematics by making mistakes and trying to correct them. But often students get the impression from the teacher that mistakes are bad. So they get scared of thinking creatively for themselves, because the answer might be wrong.
In my opinion (the Hungarian mathematics educator Polya agrees), the rules for adding fractions need to be discovered by the children themselves. Their first attempt will probably go something like this: 1/2 + 1/2 = (1+1) / (2+2) = 2/4.
Now instead of the teacher intervening and pointing out that this is wrong, let the children discover this for themselves! And let them try to discover what might work correctly. Because mathematical discovery is like playing an exciting game together. It is something of an art.
Hartmut Kˆhler writes the following in his essay "Are pupils allowed to understand mathematics creatively? About the Art of Mathematics":
"Creativity neither develops within predetermined timetables nor, for that matter, according to any kind of exact planning. Therefore it is necessary to (finally) discuss creativity within a context with a wider horizon. We should discuss it as a truly pedagogical issue. For creativity must first be permitted. It is latent in every child. (...)
"Children as well as youth can only learn by discovering for themselves. This is always a creative process and is the basis for developing individualized personality. Paragraph two of the German constitution even guarantees the "free unfolding of personality". Yet it is standard practice that the same state which gives this constitutional right hires civil servants as teachers who try to structure their teaching in such a way as to squelch the dispositions for creativity, as our opening example [left out here] exemplified.
"Such teaching is therefore unconstitutional. In truth a preposterous state of affairs. It harms not only the pupil, but also society itself, which desperately needs to generate much more creativity to solve its existential problems, indeed in all areas of life. Modern day commerce has no use for pupils graduating from school who have been trimmed to mechanically solve problems in exactly one pre-given way."
This is part and parcel of the ideals of waldorf education. I am by no means claiming that these ideas are regularly fulfilled in Waldorf schools. Excessive copying from blackboards (and I believe this *does* happen much more often than it should at schools with the name "Waldorf" attached!) must go.
Of course copying from blackboards can make sense sometimes. I have even observed students asking for it in upper school, as it gives them a textbook-like sense of security. It is still better for the student to write his own text as much as possible. It might contain mistakes, it might not be as elegant as if the teacher had phrased it - but it is a real learning experience through learning by doing, which Waldorf education advocates.
Good waldorf teachers know this and practice it.
Pauline wrote:
)In the post I'm drafting for the waldorf educationalist I mention that what saddens me about the PLANS people and Dan is that I fear he is causing a focus on such absurdities such as cultism, racism, crazy science, etc., and that defending such absurdities will prevent Waldorf from taking a look at what it really needs to be reevaluating.
Detlef:
Exactly! Waldorf could indeed use a thorough critical re-evaluation. But the issues are not issues of racism or hidden agendas. They are generally much more mundane. But those who don't tackle the mundane are in no position "to attain knowledge of higher worlds", to paraphrase the title of a well known book.
One of the serious problems I see is the clumsy way Waldorf schools tend to be administered. Since responsibility is often not clearly delegated, more often than not nobody ends up feeling responsible for important issues. Problems can thereby remain unresolved and begin to accumulate. Parents can rightly get frustrated.
Worse yet, schools sometimes justify badly functioning administrative structures by putting them on a lofty Waldorf pedestal, beyond the reach of ordinary common sense. Badly functioning Colleges of teachers get an aura of esoteric responsibility to hide a lot of nonsense that common sense would unmask.
There is a grave misunderstanding here. Steiner was a great believer and practitioner of common sense. It goes a long way. He did talk about deeper levels of meaning, but he never dreamed of using these to *replace* common sense. Deeper levels of meaning can only serve to *augment* common sense. If they try to *replace* it, you can bet on the fact that these "deeper levels" are fake. Yes, fake spirituality can exist around Waldorf schools as well. I do not want to generalize, but I think it might help to admit the problem. Admitting to failures and caricatures does not lower the ideals that are not being met.
Critical attitudes are healthy.
One last remark. Waldorf schools are generally aware of these problems. But they have often had the tendency in the past to avoid speaking about it in public.
If you only discuss your problems internally, however, and always show the outside world a sunny smile, you loose your credibility. It is not a modern way of dealing with problems. If Waldorf schools were to change their attitude here - and many have in fact begun to do so -, false impressions of "hidden agendas" etc. will stop getting nourishment. Quite a number of schools in Germany are being helped to organise themselves better by external consultants.
Regards,
Detlef
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1645.4 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Reality Check
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 15:53:25 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199912032259.OAA18571 lists1.best.com)
On 3 Dec 99, at 16:57, Christopher Yavelow wrote:
) I've been reading this list quite a bit and I believe that the evidence
) [that Waldorf uses devious methods of indoctrination to instill racism in
) students] is already in. There are plenty of other people on this list how
) have put forth evidence.
I've been reading this list for years and either I've missed it, or you are
reading things into the posts that aren't there.
) Disregarding the evidence, the low percentage of racially mixed Steiner
) schools should tell you something.
It tells me that few minority people are interested in Waldorf, which is no
surprise. Waldorf is perceived, at least in Santa Cruz, as kind of a hippy/new
age sort of school, and frankly, that kind of stuff mainly appeals to white
people.
Also, Waldorf schools are mostly private, and cost an arm and a leg. Let's
face it, most people who can afford private school are white.
But I have seen efforts on the part of the Santa Cruz school to increase
minority enrollment, and to provide financial assistance to that end. I've
read people from other schools expressing concern about this too.
Believe me, there is no concerted attempt to keep minority kids out of Waldorf
schools.
) )Some Anthroposophists on this list have admitted that some of Steiner's
) )writings were racist, [snip] But in no instance
) )have I seen *any* evidence of an intent to instill racism in kids.
)
) Are you saying that _you_ personally haven't seen any evidence of an intent to
) instill racism in kids?
I said I have not seen any evidence on this list of an intent to instill racism
in kids. I did mention a few examples from Europe. A couple of isolated cases
is hardly enough to indict the whole movement.
) Where have you looked? Or are you saying that you disbelieve all the reports
) that have been made to this list and all the newspaper and magazine articles
) that have been cited (many of which are quite recent)?
I haven't read all the articles. For one thing, I only know English and a
little Spanish. But I do believe the truth of the the couple of instances I've
seen reported.
) I suppose you didn't read the type of stories that my youngest daughter is
) being fed to indoctrinate her about reincarnation. Her teacher does the
) same sort of thing with astral projection. I'm only giving you first-hand
) testimony, you don't have to believe it.
Reincarnation and astral projection are not racist concepts.
) In that case you probably don't know about the categorization of children
) according to Steiner's four temperaments.
I know about that. So what? That's not racist either.
) This leads me to conclude that you know something about logic but not very
) much about the Steiner Schools and what has already been established as
) fact or perhaps you are simply a Steiner supporter.
Well, you're wrong. I count myself as a critic, but I think that effective
criticism must be supported by facts and logic, not distortions and innuendo.
When I say I'm a critic, that means that I support these goals:
1. To make people aware that Waldorf pedagogy is based on a specific set of
concepts about the nature of the spiritual world, so that those who disagree
with those concepts may make an informed decision; and
2. To keep Waldorf out of the public schools, unless that can be done in a way
that separates the techniques from the underlying spiritual concepts. This
might mean, among other things, that schools should be free to alter the
curriculum in various ways, e.g., teach ancient China as well the subjects
currently taught.
I also think that Anthroposophists should disavow Steiner's ideas about race,
but I don't see that as a big thing, as I don't think that those ideas are
central to either Anthroposophy or to Waldorf education.
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carbonata descendum pantorum."
(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1645.5 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: RE: 2nd instalment - etheric streams
Date: 3 Dec 1999 19:16:00 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; Name="Message Body"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
"Steve Premo" posted:
On 3 Dec 99, at 2:55, Diana Winters wrote:
) The line of reasoning above, which is one I heard often from
) Waldorf defenders, is well, if only you would agree with Steiner, then you would
) agree with him! If only you would see it our way, we would not have to keep
) arguing with you! Except that it's not even that simple, it's the familiar
) arrogant assertion that you don't "see," as in *spiritually* see . . . in short,
) you don't understand because you're not one of us.
)
) It is my opinion that most anthroposophists are not racists, though they may
) hold some silly views about racial characteristics. What is troubling is the
) lengths they will go to defend Steiner against *any* criticism!
Steve resonded:
Well said. This type of argument (if you don't agree, it's because you don't
really understand) is common, not just among anthroposophists, but among all
kinds of people, particularly those who hold strong views that are not easily
defended. I usually disregard such arguments, as they are essentially
meaningless. But I'd like to see someone from within Anthroposophy come
forward and say, "No, that won't do. That is not a valid argument."
Luke posts (in disagreement to Steve's "Well said." part of his comment):
Steve, I am not an anthro. but I will take up your request (although I am pretty sure this is not what you intended to mean).
Diana, about your comment, "No, that won't do. That is not a valid argument." Your comment is specious.
Diana edits Joe Serio's post as follows:
According to Joe Serio,
)To understand [Steiner's] ideas on race and much else of what he )said, but
)particularly race, you must enter into his worldview, see )through his
)eyes, understand what he means ... You can't judge what )he says because
)you can't, or don't want to see what he sees.
Diana responded:
The line of reasoning above, which is one I heard often from
) Waldorf defenders, is well, if only you would agree with Steiner, then you would
) agree with him!
Luke comments:
You have got to be kidding that you really think that is what "waldorf defenders" are saying. (I'm surprised at you Steve for agreeing with this.)
You are completely making up (laughable) intentions and motivations for others here Diana. NO WHERE did Joe say anything about having to agree with Steiner (or anyone else). You are completely fabricating a situation.
No one asks you to agree Diana, just that *each of us* bother to take the time to understand/consider the other's point of view (which *is not* the same as agreeing). Of course that means work on our part. The more complicated the issue, the more work we may probably need to do. If we are too lazy or uninterested to educate ourself on the topic of discussion (which does not necessarily mean agreeing with it), that's (going to be) our problem.
Diana:
If only you would see it our way, we would not have to keep
) arguing with you!
Luke:
No one requires you to *see* anything their way (in the sense that you must then forget what you *see* and agree). This was my point (in a previous post) about Deby being angry because "defenders" would not just roll over and submit to the way PLANS sees Waldorf education.
Diana:
Except that it's not even that simple, it's the familiar
) arrogant assertion that you don't "see," as in *spiritually* see . . . in short,
) you don't understand because you're not one of us.
Luke:
In short, you are making up motivations and assigning judgements to fictitious people and claiming they stand for a group of people. I would say that is creative bigotry.
My impression is that you have got the whole thing wrong. No one ever said that you had to agree with RS (or anybody, except me about this, of course). You have made a straw man out of someone else's statement.
As Steve requested: "No, that won't do. That is not a valid argument."
Is that what you wanted Steve? I didn't think so.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1645.6 ---------------
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 01:26:07 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
)On 3 Dec 99, at 2:51, Detlef Hardorp wrote:
) [Dan Dugan]
) )Note Steiner says "we here in Europe are thus the fifth Sub-Race of the great ) )Aryan Root Race." and "The fifth Sub-Race...to which we and the neighbouring ) )nations belong." He's talking about Europe, only Europe.)
)
) [Joe Serio in a later posting]
) )The reference to Europe is as a 'sub-race' of the 'great Aryan Root Race'.
) )Ancient India being the first *sub race* of the Aryan Root race.)
)
) Detlef:
) Joe has clearly made the point that Dan missed the point.
) Let me expand a bit nonetheless: Steiner is talking not just about Europe, he ) is talking about European *civilization*, which happens to have spread to almost ) all of the rest of the world lately!
Steve Premo:
)I think Steiner was talking about white people, black people, and Oriental people. Not just about their cultures.
Detlef:
Oh dear! Confusion still reigns. And it's Steiner's fault. He has long since admitted for having caused "a lot of confusion" for using an inappropriate terminology by speaking of "root-races" and "sub-races" when he meant *cultural epochs*.
[Steve Premo:]
)I couple of years ago, I was in a spiritual bookstore and was looking through some Steiner lectures. Sorry, I can't give you the citation. He said that races exist because they represent the physical characteristics of people who lived in prior epochs.
Detlef:
There he speaks of the origins of race, which is *not* to b confused with root- and sub-races!
We have to keep two things separate:
1. Steiner speaking about the development and origin of race, which he did not stop doing and where he really always meant *race*
2. Steiner speaking of root- and sub-races. The word "race" is used here as well, and this causes great confusion because, unlike in 1. where he actually means race when he uses the word, here he *is not* referring to race at all, but to cultural and historical as well as pre-historical periods of evolution.
3. From 1905 to 1909 he renounces the inappropriate use of the word race as in 2.. This has no effect on anything to do with 1. What you are referring to falls under 1. and not 2.. I have so far *only* discussed 2.!
We can discuss the rest of what you say when we come to my fourth instalment and start dealing with the real concept of race.
- Detlef
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1645.7 ---------------
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: Re: My essay, part 1
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 01:26:54 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Dan Dugan wrote:
)In the preface, James Pewtherer wrote:
)) In the last few years, there have been several critics of the )Waldorf approach to education who have attempted to discredit not )only this education but Rudolf Steiner and his work as well.... It )is unfortunate, even if unsurprising, that these same critics )attempt to demean the proponents of Waldorf education by referring )to them as ìbrain-washed.î
)I don't believe that expression has ever appeared in the publications of PLANS. Just who of the "several critics" is this unattributed quotation referring to?
Dear Dan,
I have gotten some help from someone with better archives than I have to refresh your short- and long-term memory on how officers of PLANS have used the term "brainwashing" on this list. Take your pick as to who of the critics James may have been referring to.
I wouldn't hold my breath reading all these even after absolving several speed reading courses!
Regards, Detlef
PLANS President, Debra Snell:
-- characterizes Waldorf education as "Brainwashing, Anthroposophy style"
in citing a passage from Willi Aeppli, in 'Teacher, Child and Waldorf
Education'.
Ref: n637.1, 16 Jan 1998
PLANS Vice-President, Kathleen Sutphen:
-- characterizes Waldorf training of public school teachers as
indoctrination and brainwashing:
Many teachers have complained about the religious indoctrination they
received in these trainings from Staley. I have seen other teachers'
classnotes and handouts from classes I did not attend. These items are
awash in Anthroposohic doctrine. ((snip))
I wish that Staley had been forthright about her spiritual ideas and
"asked" me if I was willing to accept them or, perhaps, directly told
me that I had to accept these ideas if I were to stay in the training.
This would have been honest. Instead I was duped by RSC's false
advertising and my administrator and some coworkers were brainwashed
in the purest sense of the word.
Ref: n856.5, 12 Aug 1998
Will you refund my money too? Will you refund the training money that
was spent to brainwash me in Steiner's pedagogy?
Ref: n912.3, 14 Sep 1998
PLANS Secretary, Dan Dugan:
-- characterizes Steiner as having used thought-reform and brainwashing:
I don't want to live in a world ruled by religious zealots, either,
and that includes Anthroposophists. Steiner used thought-reform
techniques on his devotees, so you should be concerned about
brainwashing.
Ref: n911.1, 13 Sep 1998
-- characterizes the control of the mood of a Waldorf school event as
milieu control (a technique of brainwashing):
... to me, there seems to be something strange about turning a
contemporary American tradition, the haunted house walk-through, into
a serious Waldorf pedagogical event. Parents are instructed to give up
their guidance rights so that the children can be exposed to the
programmed series of images without intellectual interference.
Scholars of cult phenomena have a term for this. They call it "milieu
control." ((snip quote)) [Lifton, M.D., Robert J. Thought Reform and
the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China. Chapel
Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1989, p. 421.]
Ref: n966.4, 1 Nov 1998
-- characterizes Waldorf pedagogy as brainwashing and thus favored by the
Nazis:
In fact, the brain-washing character of Waldorf pedagogy was one of
the arguments used by the Nazis who favored it.
Ref: n980.3, 16 Nov 1998
PLANS board member, Daniel Sabsay:
-- characterizes an anthroposophist who claims to have seen the efficacy
of anthroposophical farming and medicine as brainwashed:
Proving conclusively that you have been brainwashed big-time by this
nonsense;
Ref: n779.6, 20 May 98
-- characterizes Waldorf education as brainwashing:
Deby, the Steiner quote you just posted (principal stanza copied
below) is the most chilling and repelling thing I have read yet about
Waldorf ((snip))
I am utterly apalled that this could be considered pedagogy. It is
brain washing, plain and simple. This goes way beyond mumbo-jumbo. It
positively reeks of prison camp and cults, and maybe a little of
Catholicism, too. Calling this education is obscene, and practicing it
on children is despicable.
Ref: n922.8, 19 Sep 98
Waldorf "critic", Michael Kopp:
-- characterizes Waldorf teachers as deluded, their training as
brainwashing and inculcation:
Nobody says they're necessarily stupid -- just deluded. You don't say
at what point in her training she is. If she survives the training
with that attitude, it will not be accepted by the
Steiner/Waldorf/Anthroposophist "college of teachers" (elders of the
church) in whatever of the movement's schools she teaches in.
The archives of this list are replete with details of the brainwashing
nature of the teacher training. The whole first year is taken up with
inculcating Anthroposophy, and the movement avers that one cannot be a
proper or good teacher in it without accepting Steiner.
Ref: n532.4, 14 Oct 1997
Obviously the Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical mafia doesn't approve
of high tech not only for children, but for the initiates of its
special brethren while they are undergoing brainwashing.
Ref: n874.6, 20 Aug 1998
There are "scientists" on this list who adhere to and prate this
Anthroposophical Science line; there are "scientists" who have left
their science jobs to go to Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical
seminary, and whose prose changed from personal to party line after
their first year of such brainwashing about science.
Ref: n1035.6, 19 Jan 1999
We have heard before on this list about the Anthroposophical
"training" of public school teachers at a Steiner teachers college
(some would call it religious brainwashing). I am aware, through a
third party who wishes to remain anonymous to protect the teacher in
question, of a former SWA teacher who has taken ten years to even
start to free herself of the mind-set that was inculcated in her by
her Anthroposophical colleagues.
Ref: n1154.5, 23 Mar 1999 14:00:23 +1200
-- characterizes anthroposophists as brainwashed:
Sure, I attack SWA. Unlike the brainwashed brethren, I can see the
faults.
Ref: n742.3, 20 Apr 1998
-- characterizes Waldorf students as brainwashed:
Methinks Mr Beeman has been brainwashed well and truly.
Ref: n781.9, 21 May 1998
Of course, we shouldn't expect much more from WE graduates,
brainwashed (for up to 12 years). Of course he has to defend where
he's been for that long: the alternative is psychological turmoil.
Poor boy, all that philosophical training and all he can do is deliver
the part line. I wonder if he ever ... doubts ...?
Ref: n879.6, 21 Aug 1998
I believe my children have been ill-served, brainwashed and badly
educated by your system operating through a public Steiner school,
which they no longer attend.
Ref: n919.2, 18 Sep 1998
Graduates of Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical schools probably don't
criticise their education because its dogma has been thoroughly
inculcated in them by the stealthy inclusion of Anthrosophy into every
minute of every day's curriculum and activity. Nothing is as it seems
in SWA schools: everything has its Anthroposophical purpose. There is
also the natural inclination of children to identify with and defend
the milieu in which they were formed, even if they could recognise its
warts. It takes critical thinking skills and an external impetus to
bring brainwashing to light.
Ref: n1031.8, 17 Jan 1999
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1645.8 ---------------
From: Christian Czachary (christian gammaresearch.com)
Subject: RE: Betr.: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 21:14:06 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Diana asked
) Is anybody else reading this just finding this incredibly shocking?
Yes, indeed. Incredibly shocking.
Christian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1645.9 ---------------
From: Christopher Yavelow (yavelow xs4all.nl)
Subject: Yavelow without Dutch
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 20:42:40 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Jelle wrote
)There is definitely something wrong with your logic.
)Waldorfs can't be trusted because a Dutch official of the Palace of Justice
)( you mean the International in The Hague?) "intentionally mistranslated"
)something? Tsssss........
No, again you misunderstand (intentionally or not). I mean, I'd no sooner
trust an English translation of a Steiner document done by an Anthroposoph
for people who are critical of Anthroposophy than I would trust an English
translation of a Dutch legal document done by a member of the Palais of
Justicie for someone who was critical of the Dutch legal system.
Translations should be done by disinterested third parties. Again, I speak
from experience.
Maybe here's a way you can understand the subtext of what I'm saying: How
about if *I* volunteer to translate those documents? I have had 2 years of
Dutch lessons, nine hours a week, and lived in the Netherlands for 6 years
(and I've got two huge "van Dale" dictionaries right next to me). I'm sure
that I won't let _my_ feelings about that nutcase Rudolf Steiner color the
translations one iota. (g)
Christopher
P.S. How about we let Babelfish do it? Do they do Dutch?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1645.10 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Forwarded article: CHRONIC DISEASE, TEENAGE DARING PROVE A
DEADLY COMBO
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 18:49:15 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The following article was selected from the Internet Edition
of the Chicago Tribune. To visit the site, point your browser
to http://chicagotribune.com/. This special e-mail feature is
brought to you by First Chicago.
----------- Chicago Tribune Article Forwarding----------------
Article forwarded by: Debra Snell
---Forwarded article----------------
CHRONIC DISEASE, TEENAGE DARING PROVE A DEADLY COMBO
By Cornelia Grumman, Tribune Staff Writer. Freelance writer Brian Cox
contributed to this report.
George Amos Poole VI spent his short life pushing against
limitations that were not of his own making: a reading disability,
memory problems, severe asthma.
Last week he collided with adolescence too.
The Cook County medical examiner's office attributed the boy's
death over the holiday weekend to bronchial asthma triggered by
smoking marijuana. Poole and two friends were horsing around at the
Old Orchard Shopping Center in Skokie when the 15-year-old suddenly
doubled over, gasping.
His companions--friends from Loyola Academy in Wilmette-- stood by
nearly helpless in the mall. One fumbled to administer Poole's inhaler
as he turned purple, then attempted cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Both have been charged with misdemeanors for possession of marijuana
paraphernalia, according to Skokie police.
The Chicago teen spent the next two days in a coma before he died late
Friday in Rush North Shore Medical Center, surrounded by his family.
His is a story not of a kid who did a bad thing and paid for it
dearly, family members and teachers say, but of a well-liked teen who
wanted desperately to live the seemingly unencumbered life of other
15-year-olds: experimenting with the forbidden, flouting rules,
exploring freedom.
Diagnosed with asthma at 18 months old, Poole entered high school
rebelling against many things--including his disease. Doctors describe
that phenomenon as typical, though little-examined, among teens who
have suffered chronic diseases for most of their lives.
While Poole's life is to be memorialized at a service Thursday night,
few lessons beyond the obvious are to be learned from his death.
Asthmatics shouldn't smoke. Teens shouldn't use drugs.
His father, George Amos Poole V, is not burdened by guilt, or by
doubts about what he might have done as a parent. "It's Braille,
parenting is. I don't have the handbook."
In his mother and father's grief lies the struggle of all parents of
teenagers, particularly in those families with children who suffer
severe but manageable diseases such as asthma and diabetes-- deciding
when to rein in and when to let go.
"We worried about him all the time, not because he was a bad boy but
because he was a teenager," said his father, who owns a tree-trimming
business. "Like every parent worries."
His mother, Susan, a schoolteacher, told a friend that she felt she
had been running around his whole life trying to burn all the spinning
wheels, a reference to the fabled effort to prevent Sleeping Beauty
from pricking her finger on one, causing her to fall into an eternal
sleep.
Teens have the most difficult time complying with the medical
imperatives of chronic diseases, according to Janet Williams of the
American Lung Association.
"Asthma and diabetes require constant vigilance," she said. "And
parents at that point are helpless. How long are you going to sit and
bug him?"
Little attention has been focused on how teens cope with asthma, but
increasing mortality rates among those suffering the disease may lend
urgency to further study of the issue, according to Leslie Boss, chief
of asthma programs at the National Center for Environmental Health,
part of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
"We put the bulk of our focus on younger children, and yet the issues
(for teens) are very real," she said.
Between 1989 and 1997 in Chicago, substance abuse contributed to 11
percent of 360 asthma deaths among 15- to 45-year-olds, according to
Dr. Sandra Thomas, an epidemiologist at the Chicago Department of
Public Health.
If Poole's body prevented him from being a brain or a varsity jock, he
at least wanted to be normal.
But normalcy came awkwardly, according to those who knew him best. It
came either by perilously ignoring his chronic disabilities or by
outright rebelling against them.
"He was testing every possible limit, at every possible moment,
including the limits of his illness," said Susan Stevenson, his grade
school teacher at The Waldorf School near Loyola University and a
family friend.
"If you told Amos not to do it, you could sort of be guaranteeing he'd
give it a try."
One of the most serious asthma triggers for Poole was falling into
cold water. He took up sailing.
A natural athlete, he loved sports. But at that, too, he could only
dabble.
"He was absolutely the fastest sprinter in the class, but he would do
it by not breathing at all," Stevenson said. "He would run the length
of the basketball court by not taking a breath, then he would sit out
the next race and use his inhaler."
He would come to school on frigid days without a coat, fully knowing
that sudden exposure to cold and heat could trigger an asthma attack.
What he excelled at was making friends. At no time was that more
apparent than at his funeral Tuesday night at the small Christian
Community Church in his family's Ravenswood neighborhood.
There, roughly 500 friends squeezed into the standing-room-only
church, fully involved in the family's sorrow.
His gift could be seen, too, inside the West Side classrooms of
Esperanza, a school for profoundly handicapped children where Poole
volunteered full-time last spring.
Suzanne Steinrueck, a nurse educator there, described how Poole would
walk up to children with "with a smile that just had this warmth
coming from his heart," sit down, hold their hand and help them draw
pictures.
"For a young person to come in and feel so at home, I think that had
to do with himself being disabled," Steinrueck said. "And that brought
a certain maturity when he was in contact with others who were always
dealing with their disabilities."
Poole, a freshman at Loyola, found ways to sidestep his shortcomings.
A gifted actor with a silky voice, he wanted a part last year in the
school play but worried he would forget his lines.
Stevenson gave him a part in "As You Like It," one that had two long
speeches and a solo.
"He struggled mightily with those speeches, worked on them over and
over again," she said. "And even the song, he wasn't sure he'd be able
to remember the words. So another boy sang with him softly behind the
curtain, enough so that Amos could hear him."
Poole knew trouble. Teachers remarked that while he was always getting
caught for something, whether it was graffiti or cigarette smoking,
there was a nobility to the way he owned up to it immediately and
honestly. And there was a poignancy to the way he forgave his friends
for not always doing the same.
He already had been punished for admitting to smoking marijuana in 8th
grade at school. And for that, to his great disappointment, he spent
the final weeks of grade school finishing homework at home and being
prohibited from attending the class trip to Utah. Teachers agonized
over whether the punishment was too severe, but they wanted it "to
have an impact," according to Stevenson.
"If he was in trouble, we would do things about that," said his
father. "But I think you have to step back and let children live a
little bit too. They're going to grow, and they're going to run, so
how do you do that graciously?"
The insidiousness of asthma is that one day you can get away with such
things, but the next day you cannot. Poole's father, who also had
asthma as an adolescent, admits he smoked cigarettes, but with no
apparent health consequences.
"I would have died in his place in a moment," he said, now overcome by
the thought of what he would miss most. "I'll miss his asthma. I'll
miss fighting with him about school. I'll miss not knowing where he
is. I'll miss everything about him."
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1645 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1646 --------------
001 - Christopher Yavelow (yave - Re: My essay, part 1
002 - Christopher Yavelow (yave - Yavelow without Dutch
003 - Christopher Yavelow (yave - Re: "Holy Smoke"
004 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
005 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Steiner without racism is like rock'n roll without drums
006 - "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall - Re: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
007 - "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall - Re: question
008 - Jo Mitchell (jamitche us. - What type of person will Waldorf schools produce?
009 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Lurker Re: read at your own peril.
010 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1646.1 ---------------
From: Christopher Yavelow (yavelow xs4all.nl)
Subject: Re: My essay, part 1
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 21:08:50 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Detlef wrote:
)PLANS President, Debra Snell:
)-- characterizes Waldorf education as "Brainwashing, Anthroposophy style"
)PLANS Vice-President, Kathleen Sutphen:
)-- characterizes Waldorf training of public school teachers as
) indoctrination and brainwashing:
)PLANS Secretary, Dan Dugan:
)-- characterizes Steiner as having used thought-reform and brainwashing:
)-- characterizes the control of the mood of a Waldorf school event as
) milieu control (a technique of brainwashing):
)-- characterizes Waldorf pedagogy as brainwashing and thus favored by the
) Nazis:
)PLANS board member, Daniel Sabsay:
)-- characterizes an anthroposophist who claims to have seen the efficacy
) of anthroposophical farming and medicine as brainwashed:
)-- characterizes Waldorf education as brainwashing:
)Waldorf "critic", Michael Kopp:
)-- characterizes Waldorf teachers as deluded, their training as
) brainwashing and inculcation
)-- characterizes anthroposophists as brainwashed:
)-- characterizes Waldorf students as brainwashed:
Yow! The way Jelle jumped down my throat about using the word
"brainwashing" in my first post on this list, I thought I might have been
the first person who had every used the word in the same sentence with
Waldorf education.
Thank you Detlef for setting me straight about this. I was beginning to
think that I was confused about the meaning of the word "brainwashed" --
especially since I've observed, first-hand, the brainwashing of my children
and all their Waldorf friends over a period of eight years.
Christopher Yavelow
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1646.2 ---------------
From: Christopher Yavelow (yavelow xs4all.nl)
Subject: Yavelow without Dutch
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 22:03:38 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Jelle wrote:
)Ren» Zwaap is a journalist about as truthful as DD
I'm not sure what your point is. Do you think they are both truthful?
Because everything I've read (so far) by Dan Dugan rings true to me. I
stumbled through a bit of the Zwaap piece and it sounds very well
researched, citing no less than ten books (many recent) to back up the
claims set forth in the article:
1) De volkszielen (Steiner)
2) Rassenleer met charisma (Bram Moerland)
3) Uit de Vrije School geklapt (Toos Jeurissen)
4) Flensburger Hefte (Steiner)
5) Antroposophie und Rassismus (Thomas von Hˆfer en Klaus Neumann)
6) Antroposophen in der Zeit des Deutschen Faschismus (Norbert von Deuchert
en Johannes Rogalla von Bieberstein)
7) Der esoterische Rassismus aus der besseren Gesellschaft, Die Hierarchie
der 'Vˆlker' bei Rudolf Steiner (Gerhard Kern_
8) Hitler, Steiner - G‰ste aus einer anderen Welt (Wolfgang Treher)
9) Geheime leer (Madame Blavatsky)
10) Guru Hitler (E.R. Carmin)
When I look at Dan Dugan's writings they seem to be just as well researched
and supported with reference upon reference as is Zwaap's work.
Your comment does make me notice that many of the Waldorf supporters on
this list seem to hurl out pronouncements without supporting them in any
way.
Incidentally, how about asking Herman de Tollenaere to translate those
articles. He certainly did a good job with Uit de Vrije School Gekapt and
I've talked to him a few times while I was researching cults that had
indoctrinated my wife. He seems very even-minded about cults. He maintains
a list of them at his website but he doesn't give any cult more prominance
than any other cult -- he seems fair toward them. I would have never known
that Anthroposophy was a cult if I hadn't visited his website:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/ (English version at:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm )
Christopher Yavelow
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1646.3 ---------------
From: Christopher Yavelow (yavelow xs4all.nl)
Subject: Re: "Holy Smoke"
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 22:10:03 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dan Dugan wrote:
)I suspect the deprogrammer is modeled after Rick Ross. See his web site:
)http://www.rickross.com
Thanks for the tip. I found a definition of Anthroposophy there that will
probably please everyone on this list:
"... the Waldorf educational movement is rooted in a New Age, cultlike
religion called anthroposophy..."
"a New Age cultlike religion" -- there's a compromise.
Christopher Yavelow
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1646.4 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 21:58:21 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
References: (199912032319.PAA10801 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199912032319.PAA10801 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo, you wrote,
)I was speaking here of the lecture I read in the bookstore. I wish I could
)give you the citation. I may not be correctly remembering the details, but as
)to the plain meaning of the language, I think I am correct.
I appreciated your summary of Steiner, I think it was accurate. Joe,
apparently, hasn't read enough Steiner (grin).
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1646.5 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner without racism is like rock'n roll without drums
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 22:06:14 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
References: (199912030322.TAA28607 lists1.best.com)
(199912031022.CAA28271 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199912031022.CAA28271 lists1.best.com)
We found a volunteer Dutch translator.
-Dan
At 1:35 AM -0800 12/3/99, Dan Dugan wrote:
)12/2/99, Christopher Yavelow wrote:
))Jelle, I'm still looking for that newspaper article but I found these while
))searching and I think they might interest you:
))
))"Steiner zonder racisme is als rock 'n' roll zonder drums."
))http://www.groene.nl/1996/09/rz_stein.html
))
))"Steiner zonder rassenleer is Marx zonder klassenstrijd"
))http://www.stelling.nl/kleintje/301/sofen.htm
)
)Could someone who reads Dutch please summarize these articles for us?
)
)-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1646.6 ---------------
From: "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall rabecker.com)
Subject: Re: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 01:08:27 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
))) "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com) - 12/3/99 6:04 PM )))
wrote that:
Joe Serio wrote:
))a Jewish Philosopher who wrote a proof on the existence [of God] in
))mathematical style? He was a lens grinder by trade?
)
)Spinosa by God!
Wouldn't that be God by Spinoza? /MRx
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1646.7 ---------------
From: "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall rabecker.com)
Subject: Re: question
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 01:07:12 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
))) Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net) - 12/3/99 6:24 AM )))
distinuishes between:
) the natural development of the child, who wants to learn to think independently (not to be confused with independent *judgement*)
MRx:
Hello, Detlef. What is the difference? (This is not a trick question.)
Detlef:
)Steiner warns about training children to make *intellectual judgements* too early. Here he mentions the age of 14. But that is another story.
MRx:
Please tell me us story, namely that one, in the service of helping us get out of kidergarten here. Many thanks. /M
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1646.8 ---------------
From: Jo Mitchell (jamitche us.oracle.com)
Subject: What type of person will Waldorf schools produce?
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 23:17:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------31043DDA034BA416EEA5A419"
--------------31043DDA034BA416EEA5A419
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Am I right in thinking that the bottom line on all this WONDERFUL
rhetoric is that antiWaldorf folks are scared that teaching our children
along Steiner lines will *harmfully* twist their minds? And Waldorf folk
are hoping that the twist will be great?
I hereby announce a poll. What will the children who are educated in
Waldorf grow up to be like?
Eg:
* will the children grow up to not read, not 'do math' or just be
castouts?
* will the children be rascist artists?
* will the children write obnoxious emails all signed warmregards?
* will they become fundamental Christians and try to sell me occult
books?
* will they become devil worshipers and try to reincarnate in my cat?
* will they be hurtful to society (mass murderers; advertisers;
philosophers :))
What do you think?
Curious mom awaiting your prophecy -
Jo
PS: Hope noone is offended by my jokes. If you are...OUCH. Sorry.
--------------31043DDA034BA416EEA5A419
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
(!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en")
(html)
Am I right in thinking that the bottom line on all this WONDERFUL rhetoric
is that antiWaldorf folks are scared that teaching our children along Steiner
lines will *harmfully* twist their minds? And Waldorf folk are hoping that
the twist will be great?
(p)I hereby announce a poll. (b)What will the children who are educated
in Waldorf grow up to be like(/b)?
(br)Eg:
(br) * will the children grow up to not read, not 'do math' or just
be castouts?
(br) * will the children be rascist artists?
(br) * will the children write obnoxious emails all signed warmregards?
(br) * will they become fundamental Christians and try to sell me
occult books?
(br) * will they become devil worshipers and try to reincarnate in
my cat?
(br) * will they be hurtful to society (mass murderers; advertisers;
philosophers :))
(p)What do you think?
(p)Curious mom awaiting your prophecy -
(br)Jo
(p)PS: Hope noone is offended by my jokes. If you are...OUCH. Sorry.(/html)
--------------31043DDA034BA416EEA5A419--
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1646.9 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Lurker Re: read at your own peril.
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 01:46:25 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Dear Lurker,
you may like
the attention
they get you
but
your
soundbytes
warmregards said:
)Lurker, in his masterful, rational, logical deconstruction of Joe Serio's
)apologia for racism, has hit on two central truths about Steiner,
)Anthroposophy and Waldorf: it is all totally irrational, and it is full of
)shit. (Not an insult, unless you want it to be, in which case I'm pleased
)with your Anthroposophical astuteness -- read on).
Not only are you a legend in your own mind, dear warm, but alas,
you miss the point. But indeed you know or seem to know that
truths are ofttimes hidden in flippant remarks.
Alas dear knave. . .
often two left feet . . .
land the flipper . . .
in the fire. . . .
and then he truly warms.
warmregards:
)Again: _words mean things_. Racism already has a definition. It is in
)common use. If Steiner is not being racist in his writing, as you contend,
)why would you want to, or feel the need to, change the definition of )racism?
A reasonable thought sir. I take my hat off and bow to
your reasonablness. Yes, I like reasonableness.
Let us sing to reasonablness sir.
And while we sing, let us say . . .
that then its another *type* of racism.
Made especially for those . . .
that doth protest too much!
Yes, I like that better!
But dear warm, I fear you're cold.
)Serio:
))I can hear the yowls now that such a defintion means you have to have a
spiritual view then not to be a racist
))Well so be it.
))
))regards,
))Joe
Warmregards:
)No yowls. Yours is a wonderful sentiment on how humanity should treat each other.
Ah cold
you warm.
warmregards:
)but it just does not fit the definition of racism. If John says Bill
)is full of shit, then when confronted, John can't cover by saying he is a
)farmer and shit makes things grow, therefore shit is good.
It depends what John's original meaniing was sir, I refer you to
warmregards . . .
cold ending.
Also sir . . .
you got . . .
your anal . . .
ogy . . .
wrong. . . .
dead wrong.
And so at last sir. . .
the fire indeed does. . .
warm your feet.
both left ones . . .
or is it two?
Methinks your too rigid mein . . .
dear sir . . .
has caused you . . .
to stick . . .
your own betwixt . . .
right in your own . . .
between.
Ask no more on this sire as translation was never my strong point.
warmregards:
)And I now know why I have to go to the toilet so often soon after reading
)their shit -- I have a logical brain to which their shit won't stick,
)according to Steiner's view.
No sir, you miss your own meaning now.
You have illogical manure. . .
to which . . .
no matter how hard you try . . .
your own cosmic brain . . .
can't warm. . .
Regardless.
Come out of hiding dear warm.
Are you so afraid of our bites . . .
that you *must* make your soundbytes bite?
And then hide?
regards regardless,
Joe
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1646.10 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 01:57:38 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
MICHAEL RONALL said:
)Joe Serio wrote:
))a Jewish Philosopher who wrote a proof on the existence [of God] in
))mathematical style? He was a lens grinder by trade?
)
)Spinosa by God!
Michael wrote:
)Wouldn't that be God by Spinoza? /MRx
Well yes. But then again, Spinosa knew his maker.
Spinosa,
by God.
Joe
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1646 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1647 --------------
001 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
002 - "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall - May his tribe increase!
003 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Forwarded article: CHRONIC DISEASE, TEENAGE DARING PROVE
004 - Bob Schultz (bschultz str - Re: Yavelow without Dutch
005 - Bob Schultz (bschultz str - Fraud
006 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Lurker Re: read at your own peril.
007 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1621
008 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Betr.: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
009 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Sensible Physics Teaching: Edelglass declines
010 - jellesonja computextos.ne - Reality Recheck
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1647.1 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 02:18:39 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Dan Dugan wrote:
)Steve Premo, you wrote,
))I was speaking here of the lecture I read in the bookstore. I wish I could
))give you the citation. I may not be correctly remembering the details, but as
))to the plain meaning of the language, I think I am correct.
Dan said:
)I appreciated your summary of Steiner, I think it was accurate. Joe,
)apparently, hasn't read enough Steiner (grin).
Well Dan, it sure is nice to see that smile. But now I don't mean to be
a nitpicker, and I'm not claiming that a bookstore owner is entitled
to payment for their book, I read in bookstores also.
BUT, did he say, he read it in the bookstore? Steve was that while
you waited in line to check out?
Warm regards to all,
Joe
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1647.2 ---------------
From: "MICHAEL RONALL" (mronall rabecker.com)
Subject: May his tribe increase!
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 02:19:21 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
))) "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com) - 12/4/99 1:57 AM )))
alleges that:
)MICHAEL RONALL said:
)
))Joe Serio wrote:
)
)))a Jewish Philosopher who wrote a proof on the existence [of God] in
)))mathematical style? He was a lens grinder by trade?
))
))Spinosa by God!
)
)Michael wrote:
)
))Wouldn't that be God by Spinoza? /MRx
)
)Well yes. But then again, Spinosa knew his maker.
)
) Spinosa,
) by God.
...and God His knower.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1647.3 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Forwarded article: CHRONIC DISEASE, TEENAGE DARING PROVE A D
EADLY COMBO
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 04:31:25 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
[Debra Snell]
)
) Article forwarded by: Debra Snell
)
) ---Forwarded article----------------
) CHRONIC DISEASE, TEENAGE DARING PROVE A DEADLY COMBO
)
[Bob Tolz]
I had to fly out to Columbus a few years ago to console a friend
whose college-age son had died from asthma, so I appreciate the sentiments
in the article. But did you forward this to the list with the intention of
saying something about Waldorf education?
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1647.4 ---------------
From: Bob Schultz (bschultz strategy.org)
Subject: Re: Yavelow without Dutch
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:54:05 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199912040405.UAA07391 lists1.best.com)
Mr. Yavelow:
)I'm not sure what your point is. Do you think they are both truthful?
)Because everything I've read (so far) by Dan Dugan rings true to me.
Click your heels three times and say "There is no place like home".
Get out now before it is too late.
Anyone have that deprogrammer's number?
Peace
Robert Schultz Consulting
An issue management and strategic planning consultancy
with an emphasis on ecology and organizational learning.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1647.5 ---------------
From: Bob Schultz (bschultz strategy.org)
Subject: Fraud
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 10:11:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199912040658.WAA12708 lists1.best.com)
So after hearing from a critics poster that Mr. Martin's tome The Kingdom
of Cults was the definitive work on the subject, that it clarifies the
problems with Anthro, and that it is a must read, I spent $29 to get the
thing ASAP.
A quick look at the index has revealed a single one line mention of
Anthroposphy, the same single mention of Steiner, and no mention of Waldorf
Education. That single sentence is in a Chapter lovingly titled "The New
Age Cults":
From Theosophy came (1) Anthroposophy, founded in 1912 by Rudolf
Steiner
(2) the Arcane School, founded in 1923 by Alice Bailey; and, (3) the
"I AM" sects, which began to appear in the 1930's
Ironically, even this limited information does not appear to be correct. If
one was to look objectively at that period and wish to lump the differenet
activities together, a more useful way to see them would be as an outgrowth
of the Spiritualist movement at the end of the last century. That
neo-gnostic movement was the umbrella for a number of groups including
Theosophy and Anthroposphy, among others.
Other than that, the books appears (at first blush) to include the
fundamentalists greatest hits: JW, LDS, Christian Science, Bahai, 7th Day
Advent, etc.
Anyone want to buy my copy? I bought it through fraud.
Peace
Robert Schultz Consulting
An issue management and strategic planning consultancy
with an emphasis on ecology and organizational learning.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1647.6 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Lurker Re: read at your own peril.
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 10:18:28 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Joe Serio,
I read your post: "Lurker Re: read at your own peril."
Alas, you do me wrong.
I had written my post in all seriousness to respond to your argument
that the cited quote by Rudolph Steiner was not racist.
You seem to pride yourself in having had Jesuit training in argument which
you refer to in the post I responded to and in several others. My
assertion was that the Jesuits would hand you your head for the quality of
the defense you wrote.
Your reply to me confuses me with another person, "Warmregards", who posted
commenting on both our posts. I am NOT Warmregards. I use the nom du
net: Lurker. I have only posted in one exchange before, to Bob Tolz, at
the end of October.
You further insult me and your so-called "Jesuit Training" by attributing
to "Warmregards" paragraphs which I wrote, as well as the ones s/he wrote.
You have created confusion for the readers of this list as to the nature
of the post I wrote, and you answered it with silly *poems*.
You owe me an apology, and you also owe the Anthroposophical Movement an
apology. Rudolph Steiner is not well served by your attempts to explain
his thoughts and work.
Sincerely,
Lurker
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1647.7 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1621
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 10:53:00 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
References: (199911282216.OAA28284 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199911282216.OAA28284 lists1.best.com)
[YAVELOW]
) )Judging from the school my kids are in (Rudolf Steiner School Haarlem, the
) )Netherlands), the vast majority of teachers are into teaching new age ideas
) )such as karma and reincarnation.
)
)[SCHULTZ
)Karma and reincarnation are pre-Christian ideas. Referring to them as new
)age dismisses a huge percentage of the world's population religion.
[DUGAN]
No. Talk of karma and reincarnation in the Netherlands or the U.S.,
outside of the context of Hinduism or other religions in which the
concepts are traditional, is properly identified with the social
phenomenon called "new age."
) )The problem is, that they teach these things as the only valid truth rather
) )than in a survey of religious beliefs. The brainwashing approach they used
) )on my youngest daughter last year is evidence of that.
)
)The ony time that I know of them being taught is in a survey of religious
)beliefs. They are however presented with dignity and integrity- as are all
)of the traditions presented.
[DUGAN]
Excuse me, Bob, but saying that Waldorf students have "a survey of
religious beliefs" is to deny or cover up an essential quality of
Waldorf teaching, immersion in spiritual traditions. Waldorf is proud
to be -not- analytical and comparative. Religious ideas are not only
presented with "dignity and integrity," they are presented as the
truth.
)
) )So much of what they teach in the early years is merely subtle preparation
) )for them to develop "their own, individual views" while guaranteeing that
) )those views are the exact ones Steiner intended them to have.
)
)If this is true, then the schools are miserable failures. A majority of the
)children do not know anything about Steiner or his beliefs and their own
)beliefs run the gamut. It makes a nice straw man though.
I agree that by and large Waldorf students don't come out
Anthroposophists. But depending on their teacher, of course, their
world-views are likely to contain many elements of Anthroposophy.
This would be interesting to study.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1647.8 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Betr.: Re: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 11:37:42 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
References: (199912031000.CAA21187 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199912031000.CAA21187 lists1.best.com)
Detlef Hardorp, you wrote,
) You and I are not alone with their personal disinterest for
)"root-races". I know a lot of people that have studied
)anthroposophy intensely. You will find many different preferences:
)some thrive on epistemology, some on "threefolding", others on this
)and others on that - I could now start making a long list. But I
)have never known anyone that thrived on Steiner's early "root-race"
)terminology. This is a historical aside that most students of
)anthroposophy - if they are aware of it at all - consider a curious
)footnote to early Steiner.
I have shown by his own words that Steiner meant race in the modern
sense when he spoke about root-races and sub-races, and the change to
"cultural epochs" was cosmetic, not fundamental. If you insist on
dismissing that instead of repudiating it that's your choice. We
might as well go on.
) As to the waldorf teachers ... They generally have read less
)Steiner than is good for them. Waldorf teachers tend to study a few
)basic works considered basic to WE in great detail - and are
)ignorant of even the majority of Rudolf Steiner's courses on
)education! There are a few exceptions, but they are rare. I do not
)believe that this becomes WE well. Thus the danger of them picking
)up this obscure stuff is even lower.
First, a good Waldorf teacher is supposed to be on a lifelong path of
study of Steiner. Therefore the teacher will be influenced more by
his racism as his or her study deepens.
Second, you can find Steiner's racism in the basic books on Waldorf
education that every teacher studies early on, for example:
"Look at the uneducated savage beside the average European, or again,
compare the latter with a lofty idealist. Each one of them has the
faculty of saying 'I' to himself; the 'Body of the Ego' is present in
them all. But the uneducated savage, with his Ego, follows his
passions, impulses and cravings almost like an animal. The more
highly developed man says to himslef, 'Such and such impulses and
desires you may follow,' while others again he holds in check or
suppresses altogether."
[Education of the Child, 1909, p. 15]
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1647.9 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Sensible Physics Teaching: Edelglass declines
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 11:25:45 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
References: (199911291520.HAA06639 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199911291520.HAA06639 lists1.best.com)
[Dan Dugan]
) )When I was speaking at Sunbridge, I showed a passage from D'Aleo and
) )Edelglass' -Sensible Physics Teaching- to point out the erroneous
) )philosophy of science promoted in Waldorf. We started a debate there,
) )but we were only able to just begin. I invited the authors to join us
) )on waldorf-critics. So far I've only heard from Edelglass, who
) )declines with "For many reasons e-mail is, at least for me, an
) )unsatisfactory forum for dialogue." Still waiting to hear from
) )Michael D'Aleo.
[Joe Serio]
)I also was at the 'event' at Spring Valley, and am still waiting for
)your reply
)to my questions posed throughout the meeting. I must say, though Dan,
)that I am more than a bit offended and angered at your dismissal of me as
)the 'aggressive guy Joe'. It seemed to me to be a bit dishonest. But
)to restate the questions:
[Dugan]
How can my personal impression of your manner be "dishonest?" Your
communications on this list corroborate my opinion.
)
)(regarding psuedo-science and the 12 senses).
) If I sit in your presentation and know when your words contain a
)thought and when
)just mumbling, independently of grasping the content of the thought
)or not, how do I
)do this?
If you want to call this perception one of "twelve senses" you're
welcome to. You're welcome to exclude yourself from scientific
dialogue by insisting on using Steiner cult jargon.
)(regarding outmoded knowledge).
)The four elements of earth, air, fire, and water haven't gone away
)since I last looked.
)What is it that makes them outmoded then? I could say more on this,
)unfortunately,
)I am afraid it would come out of my poets heart, and still be good
)science, but
)because of the former would be derided.
I'm pleased you've chosen not to say more.
)(regarding epistemology)
)In the workshop, I stated that to come to a true epistemology, you
)would have to look at your own thinking. Mind you, I said look at
)*your* thinking, not
)read what Popper or Steiner or anyone else for that matter said
)about it. What are
)your comments on this Dan?
That your attempts at a Socratic dialogue to convince me that I
should think like Steiner are tiresome. Please argue directly.
)
)(regarding the heart as pump or not)
)Remember this one? It was the only publicly asked question, and I wanted to
)be a gentleman so gave you an easy way out saying I didn't
)necessarliy expect an
)answer then. Well how about now? To restate: It is immensly easier
)to criticize
)than to be creative, so what are your thoughts to substantiate that
)the heart is a
)pump?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's not up to
me (or science) to examine every cockamamie claim some nut case like
Steiner makes. BTW I've read Marinelli's paper, it's woefully
inadequate.
)
)(regarding Goethe and 'Goethean Observation')
)I asked at the end, in response to what appeared to me to be an
)irrational opposition
)to so called Goethean Observation, how, if you're to know your own
)thinking, are
)to bring it before you if not by a form of Goethean Observation? How
)would you?
)
)(regarding the idea that 'observation of thinking' is an example of an idea
)attributed to Goethe that 'the phenomena is the theory')
)Remember that? You replied 'B*U*L*L*S*H*I*T' a theory is hard won over (many
)years?) not gotten in an easy chair' (words approximate except the expletive).
)Remember that at that point I asked you how you understood the statement of
)Goethe's. You wouldn't explain how you understood what you denounced.
)Would you care to try now?
I'll stand by the expletive. In science, theories are -more-
important than observations. You may redefine science if you wish, at
the risk of isolating yourself from the international dialogue.
)Perhaps these were a lot of questions. But they seem clearly to go
)to the heart
)of many of your opinions. With all due respects, Dan, it seemed to me that you
)'ignored' me each time you couldn't answer. That's why I was not only offended
)and angered at your comment towards me at the end of your summary, but also
)greatly disappointed.
It would have been unfair to the other people to allow you to
sidetrack the general meeting into a long epistemological discourse.
We had a workshop on that.
)Dan, who in their right mind would take up such a delicate
)issue as racism, in such a race senstive environment, unless they were
)absolutely certain of the other person's good will?
)
)Regards,
)Joe (aka, aggressive guy)
Though I disagree with you about epistemology, I have no reason not
to be confident that you are not intentionally a racist.
Unfortunately it appears that you support Steiner's ignorant
patronizing racism.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1647.10 ---------------
From: jellesonja computextos.net (Gerard Schottelndreier)
Subject: Reality Recheck
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 13:22:14 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912040246.SAA21048 lists1.best.com)
) From: "Steve Premo"
) I've been reading this list for years and either I've missed it, or you
are
) reading things into the posts that aren't there.
) (...)I have seen efforts on the part of the Santa Cruz school to increase
) minority enrollment, and to provide financial assistance to that end.
I've
) read people from other schools expressing concern about this too.
Thanks, Steve, maybe this fanatic is able to listen to a Waldorf critic.
) I said I have not seen any evidence on this list of an intent to instill
racism
) in kids. I did mention a few examples from Europe. A couple of isolated
cases
) is hardly enough to indict the whole movement.
As a European and Dutchman (where it's probably about) I have to protest.
A few teachers have in the past mistakenly thought that besides the teaching
of geography, history, botanics, astronomy, mineralogy, about animals, etc.,
as wide as possible a view of the world, they should also teach about races.
Thereby using ideas of Steiner that hardly anyone will back nowadays. This
was started by Max Stibbe, who maybe forgot that Steiner said: no teaching
of anthroposophical ideas in school.
It was stupid and wrong and it has stopped. Thanks to the Dutch critics.
I have not spoken to teachers involved, but I can not believe that this was
done in an attempt to install racism.
Do you believe that?
-Jelle
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1647 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1648 --------------
001 - "Bruce Jackson" (brucey 0 - Re: question
002 - "Bruce Jackson" (brucey 0 - Re: Reality Check
003 - "Bruce Jackson" (brucey 0 - Re: Admin: Re: Candles of the Future AND some more
004 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
005 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Reality Recheck
006 - Christopher Yavelow (yave - Re: Fraud
007 - Christopher Yavelow (yave - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1621
008 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: Lurker Re: read at your own peril.
009 - Christopher Yavelow (yave - Re: Reality Recheck
010 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Lurker Re: read at your own peril.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1648.1 ---------------
From: "Bruce Jackson" (brucey 01019freenet.de)
Subject: Re: question
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 14:27:47 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Debra Snell wrote:
)Like I said, a _real_ artist friend called Waldorf wet on wet painting
"Airbrush
)by number" paintings.
I realise that I have snipped an awful lot from your post Debra, but I still
cannot see where you are going with this somewhat strange analogy..
what has wet-on-wet got to do with Airbrush?
what has wet-on-wet got to do with Number?
or maybe you should ask your _real_ artist friend.
Brucey
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1648.2 ---------------
From: "Bruce Jackson" (brucey 01019freenet.de)
Subject: Re: Reality Check
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 14:18:05 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Dear Christopher,
If you want me to write : "Oh, all right, we admit it. We are racists and
our plan is to instil racist ideas in the children we teach.", then I will,
but it doesn't make it immediately true. There are 3 problems with the above
statement:
1. I am not a racist
2. I teach maths, physics and computing and wouldn't know HOW to instil
racist ideas in my students
3. I cannot answer for a "we".
I see the WCs are peddling the same wares, only some of the names have
changed.
Brucey
Bruce Jackson
Rendsburg, Germany
brucey 01019freenet.de
Analysing humour is like analysing a frog: you can do it, but
the frog tends to die in the process.
-----Urspr¸ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Christopher Yavelow (yavelow xs4all.nl)
An: waldorf-critics lists.best.com (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Datum: Freitag, 3. Dezember 1999 19:55
Betreff: Reality Check
)Face this fact people: No person practicing racism in this day is every
)going to admit to the fact publicly, especially if they are teaching
)racisim to children and particularly if they are using the devious methods
)of indoctrination that the Anthroposophs employ.
)
)You seem to be intelligent people on this list: By what stretch of your
)imaginations do you believe that any one of these Anthroposophic supporters
)is ever going to come out and say, "Oh, all right, we admit it. We are
)racists and our plan is to instill racist ideas in the children we teach."
)Come on. Get real!
)
)Polygomous Mormons don't admit that they are polygomous. I once knew one
)and he claimed to me and everyone at his office that the two other women
)living with his family were: 1) a nanny; and 2) a boarder. After three
)years we discovered that was not accurate.
)
)Wicca "witches" won't admit it either. I've confronted one in court (my
)wife) with boxes of irrefutable evidence of extreme cult activities only to
)hear her say "Your honor, I have nothing to do with these cults." Many
)Wiccan books refer to the "burning times" and how they are to expect
)similar persecution to this day.
)
)These are simply three cases that have touch my life personally. However,
)from them I tend to draw the conclusion that cults and certain "esoteric
)religions" (is that p.c.?) have no moral obligation to themselves or to
)their God(s) to tell the truth when questioned about their beliefs...
)particularly if those beliefs might land them in court or get them run out
)of town.
)
)Christopher Yavelow
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1648.3 ---------------
From: "Bruce Jackson" (brucey 01019freenet.de)
Subject: Re: Admin: Re: Candles of the Future AND some more
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 22:15:26 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
)OK, let's throttle down the volume of this trivial thread, please.
)
)-Dan Dugan
)Moderator
I agree Dan, but I believe that you started the thread here as the result of
an article I wrote on Anya's site, written for the benefit of those who want
to know what an Anthroposophical Christmas Tree is. One can assume that the
majority of the readers of this list DONT want to know this, the rest know
it already.
Those who are still reading...
It amuses me to read the posts after my "break". As I wrote already it seems
that nothing changes except some of the authors. I would like to make a
couple of points..
I "know" that reincarnation is a reality. I cannot prove it, nor do I need
to. It doesn't bother me one iota whether "you" believe in reincarnation or
not. What belongs in your belief-system is your business.
There are STILL people alive today (as far as I know, if not then until very
recently) who believe that the earth is flat. They try to prove this by
quoting the most bizarre (for us) facts: the high number of people who have
"simply vanished" is the most obvious. For these people the earth IS flat,
and they accuse the various government agencies of mass-manipulation of the
media so that we believe that there are space rockets etc.
There are people today who believe in UFOs. They cite as evidence the
"unexplained" crop-circles, the reports of an enormous number of
individuals, and the "secret" reports from the White House, implying that
alien landings have been covered up. For these people UFOs are real.
There are as many belief-systems as there are people, with many obviously
almost identically sharing a few models. Anthroposophy is one such model;
there are no two Anthroposophists with exactly the same views.
As a teacher my job is to educate the children in my lessons to the best of
my ability. I search constantly for ways of making my lessons better; I
learn as much from my children as they do from me, probably more. My job is
not simply to cram their heads full of formulae and facts, although that is
not unimportant. My belief-system plays a major part in the way I live, and
probably the way I teach, especially why I teach certain things when I do.
I do NOT however teach my belief system. If a child were to ask me,for
example, if I believe in reincarnation then I would say yes. I would not
attempt to convince the child that I was right. I have a very good
relationship with my children, especially in my class (grade 11), and we
meet from time to time socially. I believe they respect me for who I am,
maybe cannot understand that I do not want a TV, but visit me nevertheless.
Lastly: since I was last on WCs I have acquired a new computer room with
10PCs (6 Pent III and 4 Pent I), a LAN and an internet connection. This in
answer to some (maybe not here) who say that waldorf never teaches about
computers.
warmly
Brucey
Bruce Jackson
Rendsburg, Germany
brucey 01019freenet.de
Analysing humour is like analysing a frog: you can do it, but
the frog tends to die in the process.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1648.4 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: RE: 2nd instalment of essay
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 13:29:56 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199912040720.XAA22502 lists1.best.com)
On 4 Dec 99,, Joe Serio wrote:
) BUT, did he say, he read it in the bookstore? Steve was that while you
) waited in line to check out?
Nope. I was just browsing.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1648.5 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Reality Recheck
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 13:29:56 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199912042022.MAA00625 lists1.best.com)
On 4 Dec 99,, Gerard Schottelndreier wrote:
) ) I said I have not seen any evidence on this list of an intent to
) ) instill racism in kids. I did mention a few examples from Europe.
) ) A couple of isolated cases is hardly enough to indict the whole
) ) movement.
)
) I have not spoken to teachers involved, but I can not believe that
) this was done in an attempt to install racism. Do you believe that?
That it was done in an attempt to instill racism? Well, it appears
that the ideas conveyed were racist, and those concepts were
taught to the kids, but I doubt if the teachers realized how racist
the ideas are. I suspect that they were acting out of ignorance, but
I don't know their intent.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1648.6 ---------------
From: Christopher Yavelow (yavelow xs4all.nl)
Subject: Re: Fraud
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 15:40:42 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Robert Schultz wrote:
)A quick look at the index has revealed a single one line mention of
)Anthroposphy, the same single mention of Steiner, and no mention of Waldorf
)Education. That single sentence is in a Chapter lovingly titled "The New
)Age Cults"
You've obviously got a different edition that I do. Mine was a gift in 1990
and although I'm not at home to check this, I don't recall that it had a
chapterr entitled "The New Age Cults." Further, my copy, if I remember
correctly, had a chapter called "The Riddle of the 7th Day Adventists" that
concluded that they were NOT a cult. It sounds like there may have been
some changes since the original author died. Anyone have the earlier
edition?
Christopher Yavelow
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1648.7 ---------------
From: Christopher Yavelow (yavelow xs4all.nl)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1621
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 15:46:28 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)[DUGAN]
)No. Talk of karma and reincarnation in the Netherlands or the U.S.,
)outside of the context of Hinduism or other religions in which the
)concepts are traditional, is properly identified with the social
)phenomenon called "new age."
Exactly!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1648.8 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: Lurker Re: read at your own peril.
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 16:50:56 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Dear Debra,
ouch again, We have to stop meeting like this!
thanks for the heads up, though, you're absolutely right.
I mistakenly thought Lurker and warmregards were one and the same.
I thought the opening lines were lurker/warmregards talking
about him/her self.
Shows you the confusion that can result when people don't have the
courage to use their own names. Had warmergards said "Debra" I would have known instantly. But for my addition to the confusion, let me do something neither you nor Dan (as I see in a later post by him),
never seem able, much less willing, to do.
To all the world:
I apologyze to Lurker for where I confused such entity with warmregards.
I'll leave it up to Lurker to determine which of those silly poems fit his/her feet and which not.
As for you Debra, (you don't mind if I call you Debra do you?) as I had no way of knowing that you were lurker at the time, as it is not your real name,
I owe you nothing. But I feel you do owe me an apology for the confusion
you helped cause me by putting yourself forth as two people.
Joe
))) Debra Snell (snell netshel.net) 12/04 1:18 PM )))
Joe Serio,
I read your post: "Lurker Re: read at your own peril."
Alas, you do me wrong.
I had written my post in all seriousness to respond to your argument
that the cited quote by Rudolph Steiner was not racist.
You seem to pride yourself in having had Jesuit training in argument which
you refer to in the post I responded to and in several others. My
assertion was that the Jesuits would hand you your head for the quality of
the defense you wrote.
Your reply to me confuses me with another person, "Warmregards", who posted
commenting on both our posts. I am NOT Warmregards. I use the nom du
net: Lurker. I have only posted in one exchange before, to Bob Tolz, at
the end of October.
You further insult me and your so-called "Jesuit Training" by attributing
to "Warmregards" paragraphs which I wrote, as well as the ones s/he wrote.
You have created confusion for the readers of this list as to the nature
of the post I wrote, and you answered it with silly *poems*.
You owe me an apology, and you also owe the Anthroposophical Movement an
apology. Rudolph Steiner is not well served by your attempts to explain
his thoughts and work.
Sincerely,
Lurker
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1648.9 ---------------
From: Christopher Yavelow (yavelow xs4all.nl)
Subject: Re: Reality Recheck
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 16:10:38 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
[Steve Premo wrote:]
))A couple of isolated
))cases is hardly enough to indict the whole movement.
Yes, and a couple of isolated murders by the KKK is hardly enough to indict
the whole movement either, I infer from your statement.
[Jelle wrote:]
)As a European and Dutchman (where it's probably about) I have to protest.
)A few teachers have in the past mistakenly thought that besides the teaching
)of geography, history, botanics, astronomy, mineralogy, about animals, etc.,
)as wide as possible a view of the world, they should also teach about races.
)Thereby using ideas of Steiner that hardly anyone will back nowadays. This
)was started by Max Stibbe, who maybe forgot that Steiner said: no teaching
)of anthroposophical ideas in school.
Can you point to where Steiner stated this? I have asked you repeatedly to
back up your claims with references and it seems like you cannot do so.
Additionally, if Steiner actually did say that, then why are so many
Anthroposophical ideas taught in Steiner schools?
Or was Steiner himself making a distinction between actual teaching and
subtle brainwashing techniques? In that case I imagine it went something
like this with Steiner saying, "Now, now, teachers, remember we don't
actually, *teach* all these things in the schools, we use these other
*methods* to plant the ideas in the unsuspecting little children's maleable
minds... For example, you make the children copy something off the
blackboard a hundred times -- that's the *teaching* part -- but what it is
you make them copy off the blackboard, that's the *learning* part, that's
what gets rooted deep inside." (-- best said with a sinister Steiner'ian
accent)
[Jelle wrote:]
)It was stupid and wrong and it has stopped. Thanks to the Dutch critics.
When was it stopped? Can't you ever back up your claims with solid facts?
[Jelle wrote:]
)I have not spoken to teachers involved, but I can not believe that this was
)done in an attempt to install racism.
)Do you believe that?
I believe they are attempting to instill not just racisim but Steiner's
entire world view, philosophy, cult-like religion or whatever you choose to
call it. A racial hiearchy is simply a part of Anthroposophy. As the man
said, "Steiner without racism is like rock 'n roll without drums." Or to
put it another way, "Steiner without racist teachings is Marx without class
struggle." It's simply a small part of a whole belief system borrowing many
things from New Age movements and other unfounded and meritless ideas
espoused by people now considered to be "quacks."
[Diana once posted:]
)And it's funny how whenever Steiner's defenders confidently post along the
)lines of, "Well they certainly never do that in Waldorf schools. No, never"
)about 24 hours pass and then somebody posts, "Well, they did in the Waldorf
)school my child attended . . ." If you think these ideas do not influence
)how (at least some) Waldorf teachers somewhere look at the children of
)different races in their classes, you have your head in the sand.
It seems like deja vu all over again.
Christopher Yavelow
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1648.10 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Lurker Re: read at your own peril.
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 14:19:50 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199912042153.NAA12844 lists1.best.com)
)As for you Debra, (you don't mind if I call you Debra do you?) as I had no
)way of knowing that you were lurker at the time, as it is not your real
)name,
)I owe you nothing. But I feel you do owe me an apology for the confusion
)you helped cause me by putting yourself forth as two people.
I am sorry, Joe. I will try to make it very clear when I forward something
to the list that is not authored by myself. I've gotten myself in trouble
before. Guess I'm a slow learner here...
Debra (Who is not "Lurker")
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1648 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1649 --------------
001 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: Sensible Physics Teaching: Edelglass declines
002 - Detlef Hardorp (hardorp g - Shall we stop?
003 - jellesonja computextos.ne - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1647
004 - Bob Schultz (bschultz str - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1621
005 - Bob Schultz (bschultz str - Re: Fraud
006 - Bob Schultz (bschultz str - Re:fraud
007 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - etheric streams/debra/lurker
008 - Detlef Hardorp (hardorp g - Savages
009 - Detlef Hardorp (hardorp g -
010 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: Fwd: Re: 2nd instalment - etheric streams
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1649.1 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: Sensible Physics Teaching: Edelglass declines
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 18:08:08 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
[Dan Dugan]
)))When I was speaking at Sunbridge, I showed a passage from D'Aleo and
)))Edelglass' -Sensible Physics Teaching- to point out the erroneous
)))philosophy of science promoted in Waldorf. We started a debate there,
)))but we were only able to just begin. I invited the authors to join us
)))on waldorf-critics. So far I've only heard from Edelglass, who
)))declines with "For many reasons e-mail is, at least for me, an
)))unsatisfactory forum for dialogue." Still waiting to hear from
)))Michael D'Aleo.
[Joe Serio]
))I also was at the 'event' at Spring Valley, and am still waiting for
))your reply
))to my questions posed throughout the meeting. I must say, though Dan,
))that I am more than a bit offended and angered at your dismissal of me as
))the 'aggressive guy Joe'. It seemed to me to be a bit dishonest. But
))to restate the questions:
[Dugan]
)How can my personal impression of your manner be "dishonest?" Your
)communications on this list corroborate my opinion.
serio:
the overall impression your statement gave was. there's my view of
our personal meetings too, Dan.
Serio:
))(regarding psuedo-science and the 12 senses).
)) If I sit in your presentation and know when your words contain a
))thought and when
))just mumbling, independently of grasping the content of the thought
))or not, how do I
))do this?
Dugan:
)If you want to call this perception one of "twelve senses" you're
)welcome to. You're welcome to exclude yourself from scientific
)dialogue by insisting on using Steiner cult jargon.
serio:
But how does it happen Dan?
Serio:
)(regarding outmoded knowledge).
))The four elements of earth, air, fire, and water haven't gone away
))since I last looked.
))What is it that makes them outmoded then? I could say more on this,
))unfortunately,
))I am afraid it would come out of my poets heart, and still be good
))science, but
))because of the former would be derided.
Dugan:
)I'm pleased you've chosen not to say more.
Serio:
Glad to oblige Dan, but you still haven't answered the question.
Serio:
))(regarding epistemology)
))In the workshop, I stated that to come to a true epistemology, you
))would have to look at your own thinking. Mind you, I said look at
))*your* thinking, not
))read what Popper or Steiner or anyone else for that matter said
))about it. What are
))your comments on this Dan?
Dugan:
)That your attempts at a Socratic dialogue to convince me that I
)should think like Steiner are tiresome. Please argue directly.
serio:
I asked for your comments about the significance of looking at
your own thinking. No significance for epistemology? I guess,
after all, its infinitely easier to take pot shots at Steiner than to
state your own thoughts, thoughts not opinions.
But perhaps my methods are tiresome for all . . .well all?
Serio:
))(regarding the heart as pump or not)
))Remember this one? It was the only publicly asked question, and I wanted to
))be a gentleman so gave you an easy way out saying I didn't
))necessarliy expect an
))answer then. Well how about now? To restate: It is immensly easier
))to criticize
))than to be creative, so what are your thoughts to substantiate that
))the heart is a
))pump?
Dugan:
)Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's not up to
)me (or science) to examine every cockamamie claim some nut case like
)Steiner makes. BTW I've read Marinelli's paper, it's woefully
)inadequate.
But you mistake my question. I'm not asking you to examine Steiner's claim,
I'm asking to state your reasons for holding your opinion that the heart
is a pump. Socrates would be terribly dissappointed, Dan, especially
if your reason is simply that 'science says so that's why'.
Serio:
))(regarding Goethe and 'Goethean Observation')
))I asked at the end, in response to what appeared to me to be an
))irrational opposition
))to so called Goethean Observation, how, if you're to know your own
))thinking, are
))to bring it before you if not by a form of Goethean Observation? How
))would you?
)
))(regarding the idea that 'observation of thinking' is an example of an idea
))attributed to Goethe that 'the phenomena is the theory')
))Remember that? You replied 'B*U*L*L*S*H*I*T' a theory is hard won over (many
))years?) not gotten in an easy chair' (words approximate except the expletive).
))Remember that at that point I asked you how you understood the statement of
))Goethe's. You wouldn't explain how you understood what you denounced.
))Would you care to try now?
Dugan:
)I'll stand by the expletive. In science, theories are -more-
)important than observations. You may redefine science if you wish, at
)the risk of isolating yourself from the international dialogue.
serio:
and from whence do the theories derive?
serio:
))Perhaps these were a lot of questions. But they seem clearly to go
))to the heart
))of many of your opinions. With all due respects, Dan, it seemed to me that you
))'ignored' me each time you couldn't answer. That's why I was not only offended
))and angered at your comment towards me at the end of your summary, but also
))greatly disappointed.
dugan:
)It would have been unfair to the other people to allow you to
)sidetrack the general meeting into a long epistemological discourse.
)We had a workshop on that.
serio:
I'm really not sure what to make of this Dan. But I am genuinely
and I might say profoundly saddened by this response.
All the questions, except the 'publicly' asked one on the
heart came out in our personal tete a tetes. I didn't expect you to
answer them publicly. They were part of our own dialogue.
Serio:
))Dan, who in their right mind would take up such a delicate
))issue as racism, in such a race senstive environment, unless they were
))absolutely certain of the other person's good will?
))
))Regards,
))Joe (aka, aggressive guy)
Dugan:
)Though I disagree with you about epistemology, I have no reason not
)to be confident that you are not intentionally a racist.
)Unfortunately it appears that you support Steiner's ignorant
)patronizing racism.
serio:
I believe we call this, square one?
Regards,
Joe
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1649.2 ---------------
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: Shall we stop?
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 00:58:45 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Detlef Hardorp, you wrote,
) You and I are not alone with their personal disinterest for )"root-races". I know a lot of people that have studied )anthroposophy intensely. You will find many different preferences: )some thrive on epistemology, some on "threefolding", others on this )and others on that - I could now start making a long list. But I )have never known anyone that thrived on Steiner's early "root-race" )terminology. This is a historical aside that most students of )anthroposophy - if they are aware of it at all - consider a curious )footnote to early Steiner.
[Dan Dugan responded:]
)I have shown by his own words that Steiner meant race in the modern sense when he spoke about root-races and sub-races, and the change to "cultural epochs" was cosmetic, not fundamental. If you insist on dismissing that instead of repudiating it that's your choice. We might as well go on.
Detlef responds:
Or we might as well stop.
I agreed to join the list to critically discuss my essay.
To me, a critic questions everything thoroughly, but has an open mind and is willing to change his opinions.
All I can see you doing is repeating the opinions you have as if they were hewn in stone. I get the impression that it makes very little difference to you what is argued. You made up your mind that Steiner meant "race in the modern sense" when he spoke about "root-races" and "sub-races" and that his change to cultural epochs was "cosmetic" long ago. I have heard you say it over and over again with these very words.
The Steiner quote that is supposed to prove this position has nothing at all to do with "root"- and "sub-races". Steiner explains what he means at length, I go to great pains to make it clear - and nobody here seems to get the point. Not even Steve Premo seems to be able to keep the two apart (see a previous posting)..
It undoubtably has to do with my inability to make the issue sufficiently clear. But I have tried as hard as I could. If any issue in the racism debate is clear, it is this one. If this would be understood, this would not lay all accusations of racism to rest. There are plenty more places where Steiner really did mean race in the modern sense (for example in the quote you cited). If, however, even the most clear-cut "root-race" issue remains totally unclear in spite of all the evidence, then this discussion will bring no fruits.
I had hoped to improve my essay through a critical discussion; I had expected an open mind to at least a small degree on the part of the critics. I think I expected too much. The basis for a fruitful discussion is not there. It feels like trying to explain differential equations to people who believe that fractions are hogwash because only whole numbers exist.
I am not yet unsubscribing, but I am close to it. The amount of time I have spent reading and writing in this forum is incredible. If it bears no fruits at all, then I definitively have better things to do.
A minimal "harvest" would be a genuine and *systematic* critical appraisal of the issue. This is not the same as flinging odd Steiner quotes about. How often have I pleaded: let's do this bit for bit, and not everything at once. My pleading has not been heard. So everything gets mixed in with everything else and chaos ensues.
I am not willing to go on like this.
Beyond that: there is a minimum of good will needed to begin understanding anthroposophy. As anthroposophy is not a religion, you don't have to believe any of it - but be willing to think it on its own terms, without continuously inwardly ranting and raving against it. I considered Steve Premo to be a fair critic, for example. He was not completely alone, but ranting and raving was heard more often.
If you look at the state of soul of a racist in the worst sense of the word, you will find hatred of somebody of a different race to the extent of wanting to extinguish the other person. The stage previous to that is cultivating hate with the purpose of stigmatizing certain social groups. Racists define these social groups according to race. If the social groups are defined differently - anthroposophists, for example -, one can no longer speak of racism per se. But the soul qualities involved come awfully close.
) If Anthroposophists don't repudiate Steiner's racial theories, rather than trying to minimize, re-interpret, or defend them as you do, they deserve to be social pariahs along with the other volkisch believers.
You wrote that a few days ago. What soul attitude lives in a statement like this? Is it not the spirit of hate-groups?
And: isn't there a right to a fair trial before the summary judgement? What kind of a judge continuously pronounces summary judgements in the middle of the testimony? I believe that also Steiner has the right to a fair hearing. In my essay, I try to give him that. Sure, I play more the role of the defendant. But I am trying to pick up on the various prosecutors that have already spoken. The reader is to be the judge.
If there are things to repudiate, let them be repudiated. But that would be the last step. A critic will always allow a fair trial. "Critics" stage show trials and inquisitions. It is up to you all to decide how you will proceed. I will then decide how and whether I will proceed.
- Detlef Hardorp
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1649.3 ---------------
From: jellesonja computextos.net (Gerard Schottelndreier)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1647
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 18:32:08 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199912042022.MAA00641 lists1.best.com)
Dugan:
) First, a good Waldorf teacher is supposed to be on a lifelong path of
) study of Steiner. Therefore the teacher will be influenced more by
) his racism as his or her study deepens.
It's incredible that you accuse a group of racism without even looking at
them, just fantasizing.
) Second, you can find Steiner's racism in the basic books on Waldorf
) education that every teacher studies early on,
Not this teacher.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1649.4 ---------------
From: Bob Schultz (bschultz strategy.org)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n1621
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 19:38:01 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199911282216.OAA28284 lists1.best.com)
(199911282216.OAA28284 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199912041939.LAA08323 lists1.best.com)
)[YAVELOW]
)) )Judging from the school my kids are in (Rudolf Steiner School Haarlem, the
)) )Netherlands), the vast majority of teachers are into teaching new age
))ideas
)) )such as karma and reincarnation.
))
))[SCHULTZ
))Karma and reincarnation are pre-Christian ideas. Referring to them as new
))age dismisses a huge percentage of the world's population religion.
)
)[DUGAN]
)No. Talk of karma and reincarnation in the Netherlands or the U.S.,
)outside of the context of Hinduism or other religions in which the
)concepts are traditional, is properly identified with the social
)phenomenon called "new age."
Another example of DD trying to control reality by definition. Karma and
reincarnation are taught in the Waldorf schools as concepts of Hinduism. In
addition, dealing with those concepts outside of Hinduism is not "new age"
by definition. There are other reincarnation traditions around and people
who could not fairly be called "new age" (as I understand the term) who
adhere to the notion.
)[DUGAN]
)Excuse me, Bob, but saying that Waldorf students have "a survey of
)religious beliefs" is to deny or cover up an essential quality of
)Waldorf teaching, immersion in spiritual traditions. Waldorf is proud
)to be -not- analytical and comparative. Religious ideas are not only
)presented with "dignity and integrity," they are presented as the
)truth.
OK
Peace
Robert Schultz Consulting
An issue management and strategic planning consultancy
with an emphasis on ecology and organizational learning.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1649.5 ---------------
From: Bob Schultz (bschultz strategy.org)
Subject: Re: Fraud
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 19:44:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199912042140.NAA07593 lists1.best.com)
CY notes:
)You've obviously got a different edition that I do.
Mine is 1997, wanna upgrade?
)I don't recall that it had a
)chapterr entitled "The New Age Cults." Further, my copy, if I remember
)correctly, had a chapter called "The Riddle of the 7th Day Adventists" that
)concluded that they were NOT a cult.
Mine has an appendix chapter called Puzzle of 7th DA.
Peace
Robert Schultz Consulting
An issue management and strategic planning consultancy
with an emphasis on ecology and organizational learning.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1649.6 ---------------
From: Bob Schultz (bschultz strategy.org)
Subject: Re:fraud
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 20:02:44 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199912040029.QAA08728 lists1.best.com)
As I often do when starting a new book, I open the book to a few randomly
selected pages to see what is being presented. My first shot with Mr.
Martin, you remember the scholarly source that was quoted on cult matter,
is a doozy.
After discussing the female leadership of new traditions forged at the
end of the last century and beginning of this one:
"Regardless of the gender of a cult leader, male or female, God judges
all people by the Gospel of Jesus Christ
(Romans 1:16-18), and Joseph Smith founder of the Mormons, is no more
exempt from eternal death for his heresies than is Madame Blavatsky for
hers (Matthew 25:46)."
Dan, is this where you are picking up those lofty ideals about respect and
tolerance for others? Or are you just using the Christian right for their
ability to fund your legal case? Do you agree with these sentiments (since
you use the same definition of cult), or, have I again missed something?
Peace
Robert Schultz Consulting
An issue management and strategic planning consultancy
with an emphasis on ecology and organizational learning.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1649.7 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: etheric streams/debra/lurker
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 1999 03:28:03 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Dear Debra/Lurker
well finally the mystery is cleared. This post from Lurker which
came in on 12/03 12:41 had originally given me a problem
opening. (an attachment) I passed it over and I guess
eventually trashed it forgetting about it. When
this confusion with warmregards occurred I realized I had never
seen the original post which warmregards had referenced.
Thus as I saw it for the first time in warmergards post and thought
they were his/her words. Apologies for that to both of you.
So to Lurker, I appreciate your reply. It seems well thought out and unlike
many other things here at least represents your thoughts, it is
something I can work with. Mere opinion, asserted over and over,
no matter what is said, I can do nothing with.
I really do appreciate your effort. We'll see how it holds up.
I will forward it to my 'home' address to print it out and
will work with it and will have a point by point reply. (2:21 am now)
Thank you ,
Joe
))) Debra Snell (snell netshel.net) 12/03 12:41 AM )))
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1649.8 ---------------
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: Savages
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 11:09:24 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
[Dan Dugan wrote]
)Second, you can find Steiner's racism in the basic books on Waldorf education that every teacher studies early on, for example:
"Look at the uneducated savage beside the average European, or again, compare the latter with a lofty idealist. Each one of them has the faculty of saying 'I' to himself; the 'Body of the Ego' is present in them all. But the uneducated savage, with his Ego, follows his passions, impulses and cravings almost like an animal. The more highly developed man says to himself, 'Such and such impulses and desires you may follow,' while others again he holds in check or suppresses altogether."
[Education of the Child, 1909, p. 15]
Detlef writes::
Two remarks from me:
1. I studied some anthropology as an undergraduate in the early 70's and found that talking about "the uneducated savage" in comparison to the "civilized European" was quite common right up to the 1950's amongst anthropologists. The famous anthropologist David Maybury-Lewis published his wonderful book "The Savage and the Innocent" as late as 1965. "The Savage"?! Maybury-Lewis, professor at Harvard, a racist because he used this word? In the 70's, nobody was using words like this any more. Times change.
If you want to consider that to be racism: go ahead, I will not try to convince you to do otherwise. But then you will need to be consistent and admit that almost every anthropologist before the second half of this century was a racist. In fact, almost everybody in at least Europe and America made the distinction between" uneducated savages" and "civlized Europeans" back then and thus will have been racists. I am the first to admit that Steiner made no exception here. He did not think and write in a historical vacuum!
2. The point Steiner is making is that there are those willing to develop themselves by saying: "'Such and such impulses and desires you may follow,' while others again he holds in check or suppresses altogether." Anthroposophy is clearly about self-development. Not everybody wants to embark on a path of self-development, quite to the contrary. Everyone is free to decide for themselves. I see the situation today a bit differently than Steiner did back then. Today we see the *educated* savage following "his passions, impulses and cravings almost like an animal" in Europe and America because he has chosen that over the possibility of developing himself. The "naked ape" is becoming a reality. Although this expression discriminates against the ape: it does not stoop so low as the human imitation.
-Detlef Hardorp
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1649.9 ---------------
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject:
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 13:20:31 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
))) Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net) - 12/3/99 6:24 AM )))
distinguishes between:
) the natural development of the child, who wants to learn to think independently (not to be confused with independent *judgement*)
MRx:
)Hello, Detlef. What is the difference? (This is not a trick question.)
Detlef:
)Steiner warns about training children to make *intellectual judgements* too early. Here he mentions the age of 14. But that is another story.
MRx:
)Please tell me us story, namely that one, in the service of helping us get out of kindergarten here. Many thanks. /M
Detlef Hardorp responds:
Steiner describes these differences in detail in a lecture on April 19th 1923 published under the title "Die p‰dagogische Praxis" (I don't know the English title), for example. There are more places he talks about this, however.
If I sat down for a day I suppose i could summarize the entire lecture for you. I'm afraid that would be too much to expect. I'm sure it's translated, so you can read the whole thing for yourself.
I will try to communicate a few salient points, however, the way I understand them.
Steiner speaks about how the teacher needs to adapt his teaching to different developmental stages of the child between the age of 7 and 14. The way the child relates to images and to the social world about him or her changes dramatically around the age of 9 (this of course varies somewhat with the individual child concerned). After this, even the last vestiges of kindergarten have ceased.
There is another dramatic shift around 12. The latter has to do with what I talked about in my previous post regarding abstract thinking in mathematics and the introduction of algebra. The ability to think in abstract *causal relationships*, as is done in physics, fully awakens around this age. That is why physics begins to be taught in Waldorf schools in grade 6. This is already connected to practising *critical judgements*, is a precursor of something that naturally begins to flourish around 14, as everybody that has experienced teenagers know all too well.
Judging everything in the world critically is a capacity that Steiner wants to see embedded in a love for the world. Mature forms of human love also naturally begin to ripen around the age of 14.
Steiner remarks that it is indeed possible to begin instilling critical judgement into children at a much earlier age. In that case, however, the critical judgement tends not to be embedded in a love for the world and the other human being under the motto of "live and let live". The childish love for the world is in harmony with experiencing the world through *images* in exciting stories that narrate the world without intellectual analytic dissections. The world as a stage filled with exciting plays: that is the appropriate way to teach history in grade school. Discussing Marxian dialectics is not, that can only be fruitfully discussed later, when the intellectual forces of the teenager have awakened together with the ability to dissect the world through critical judgement.
If critical judgement comes too early, it becomes destructive. The results of this abound. They get more extreme by the day. Littleton is less the result of watching violence on TV; it's roots lie in an education that expects critical judgement before it comes as a natural stage of human development. The results are absolutely catastrophic. The problem begins with continuously asking children to form their own opinion at an age where the faculties for judgement are still unripe. This leads to opinions with an arbitrary character, instead of calling forth judgements that are founded in reality, as is possible later. We constantly treat children as "little adults" and partners *before* they are ready for it. The right for childhood is not respected because it is not understood. This is beginning to change. An "Alliance for Childhood" has just been formed amongst concerned educators from all walks of life, including Waldorf.
One of the most profound attacks on the dignity of the human being comes through an education that has no understanding of childhood.
I will permit myself a last, somewhat dangerous remark: maybe the above is more relevant to the reality of this list than I previously realized. Because who is not a victim of having been forced to practice critical judgement too early and now suffers from the disability of rigid, unloving opinions about others? Is the desire to hurl the wrath of God at everything connected with Waldorf education possibly connected to an unconscious feeling of hatred of that element in education which one would have sorely needed but of which one was deprived? - I don't expect any of the fundamentalist "critics" on this list to ever answer this affirmatively. Such a notion is likely to cause more ranting and raving. But it might be true nonetheless.
Detlef Hardorp
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1649.10 ---------------
From: "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa.com)
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: 2nd instalment - etheric streams
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 1999 09:09:07 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
To lurker:
after reading your response again. I start to feel that you are a person of good will who is trying to understand difficult concepts. me too!
I appreciate your thoughts.
Joe Serio wrote:
) Subject: Re: 2nd instalment - etheric streams
) Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 21:41:17 -0800
) From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)
) Lurker requests this be posted, please.
)
) ++++++
)
) To Joe Serio,
)
) The Jesuits would hand you your head for this mental gymnastic attempt of a defense of Stiener!
)
) 1st lets list again the statement by Dan Dugan and his cite of R Steiner
) At 06:12 PM 12/2/99 -0500, you (Joe Serio) wrote:
) )
) )Dan Dugan wrote:
) )
) ))In no way did Steiner renounce volkisch racism in 1905. In 1910, for
)
) ))example, he said:
) )
) ) (snip lengthy quote in the interests of our European subscribers)
) )
) )(see prior posts)
) )
) )[Steiner, Rudolf. The Mission of Folk-Souls. (1910) London: The
) )Rudolf Steiner Press, 1971. pp. 75-76]
) )
) )Dan proclaimed:
) )
) ))There's a pattern to this rhetoric that Steiner uses more than once.
)
) ))He makes an outrageously racist statement, and then he adds an
) ))inspiring internationalist statement at the end. I suppose he figured
)
) ))the last impression would get him off the hook. If you examine it
) ))closely, saying that people pass through all the races on their way
) ))to the Aryan pinnacle of development doesn't do much to mollify the
) ))insult of saying that other races are lower stages of development.
)
) )Serio:
) )Ok lets really take a look at it (in good old Jesuit fashion). First, however,
) )we need to get some preliminaries out of the way.
) )
) )To *understand* what's being said here we need to keep in mind
) )what I call the Principle of Polarites # 1 v. 452. It goes like this.
) )"To the extent that the mind is overly complicated, it demands
) )simplicity in the world and life." Conversely, it states "To the extent
) )the mind is simple (hold the wisecracks), it is able to experience the
) )marvelous complexity of the world and life".
)
) L:
) The above statement sounds cute but is wholly irrelevent to explaining Steiner and his view of race )referred to here. It does in no way make for any *understanding.*
Serio:
I'm glad you appreciate it's cuteness but it was also said for a reason. Which by the way so was the reference to the Jesuits who, in truth, I attribute none of whatever abilites I ma or may not have. You're right though, "complexity" doesn't help *understand* as you say, it merely shows you *how* to look. And that was the point.
If you want to understand Steiner's view of race, you must understand his view of man. Oftentimes a thing cannot be fully understood by looking at it in isolation (simple). Relationship, in fact is one of Aristotle's categories. Father of science. So oftentimes to fully grasp a thing you have to see it in realtionship to another thing. race is such a thing. in fact, if you don't see race in realtionship to the whole human being, you don't even really see race at all, but only a figment of your imagination.
And complexity *is* the issue. If your willing to acknowledge individuality, and you understand how man lifts himself out of his race, sex, family, and everything else besides and becomes once and for all himself, then you can understand race as Steiner saw it. Other wise you just see it your way and attribute it to Steiner.
) )Serio:
) )First, let's look at one little phrase, not at the end, but at the
) )beginning of the quote:
) )"The locality where people live exercises its most potent influence in
)
) )early childhood and thereby determines for their whole life those who
)
) )are completely dependent on these forces, so that the particular
) )locality impresses the characteristics of their early childhood
) )permanently upon them. "
) )
) )"These forces" I take to mean these forces of the locality first and
) )foremost, and secondly forces that have been assimilated by a race
) )because of their association with a locality. What does it mean?
) )It is simply saying that people are more or less dependent on
) )these forces, to the extent they *don't* ovecome the influences of
) )their childhood, or their race, a purely individual thing, some are
) )more dependent, some less so, probably some not at all.
)
) L:
) WRONG! The forces, as Steiner clearly stated, just before the sentence you have placed here to )discuss, are: "point or center of cosmic influence situated in the interior of Africa. At this center are )active all those terrestrial forces emanating from the soil." He is claiming these 'soil emanations' of )'cosmic influence' can influence man, especially during his childhood. Rudolph Steiner is certainly )not just having a light discussion of nature/nurture in the development of a person. Steiner is not )discussing overcoming the influences of their childhood when he refers to Asia and the "yellow and )brown races"; in his next paragraph, he says: "we find a point or center where the formative forces )of the earth impress permanently on man the particular characteristics of later youth or adolescence )and determine his racial character". "Forces of the earth" "impress permanently" and "determine his )racial character"!!! These are powerful statements directly to the point of!
Steiner's view of
) racial differences and characteristics and the origins of same.
)
serio:
Lurker let's be friends. We seem to agree at least in part.. When said I locality, I didn't mean locality in the sense I fear you take it, i.e. nuture, hardley. "All those terrestrial forces emanating from the soil." are localized in certain places 4 to be exact at least in the terms of this lecture - understand my meaning here? I too was aware of the sentences you quote.
But you do miss my essential point by pouncing so empatically on perhaps a poor choice of words. Whether you like it or not Stiener does say "The locality where people live exercises its most potent influence in early childhood and thereby determines for their whole life those who are completely dependent on these forces, so that the particular locality impresses the characteristics of their early childhood permanently upon them. " Yes, permanently upon them and determines for their whole
life "those who are completely dependent upon these forces". That's the point which you missed. But you see the reason why a person wouldn't be completely dependent upon them is because other things have superceded the racial forces.
You can't take a detail out of context of the whole lecture. And you certainly can't diviorce it from an anthroposophical view of man and the universe and hope to grasp Steiner's idea. But more on this latter. Unfortunately, Dan, as you, quote only what you need to make your accusations and not what is needed to fairly assess the issue.
But lets take this quote from 3 lines after Dan stopped quoting {wonder why}:
"These forces-I beg you not to misunderstand what I am about to say[and what he just said for that matter], it only refers to man in so far as he is dependent upon the forces which determine his physical organism, the terrestrial forces of his environment, FORCES UNRELATED TO HIS FUNDAMENTAL BEING. . ."[p.76]
Does this have any meaning to you?
L.
) Nor is Steiner discussing overcoming the influences of childhood as he takes this further and brings )it home with: "...Europe, a third point or center is reached which permanently impresses upon man )the characteristics of his adult life". He is claiming racial determinism and assigning qualitative )differences in the races. "In this way man is determined by the etheric forces emanating from the )earth".
)
serio:
well right and wrong. He isn't overcoming forces of childhood here as you say, but neither was he before. He's talking about overcoming the influences of these forces, period. which is done through their evolving to national forces, and then forces of individuality.
L.
) He does not say this is any kind of historical racial development, but claims:
) "These centers still exist today."
)
serio:
the geogrpahic centers yes. but what of it?
L.
) He states the reasons for racial determinism and racial characteristics:
) "etheric forces emanating from the earth" = "terrestrial forces"
)
) He claims these *terrestrial forces* imprint characteristics on man.
)
) Steiner makes these equivalencies:
) The center in Africa = characteristics of early childhood.
) The center in Asia = characteristics of youth.
) The center in Europe = characteristics of maturity.
)
) Steiner claims "This is a simple universal law".
)
) Stiener then says this is all OK because of reincarnation; since we will all go through all the races/stages of development. "Since all men in their different incarnations pass through the various races the claim that the European is superior to the black and yellow races has no real validity."
serio:
well yes, he says what you quote there. And that's where Dan stopped quoting. Of course if he's right about reincarnation, seems his ok has some weight.
But I fear your understanding shows another problem. when you say "races/stages of development". In fact, what you say here shows the leaning of your mind.
I've checked the lecture to be sure, and no where do I find him equating "characteristics of childhood", etc.with "stages of development". That you're putting on him. Characteristics are just that, "words" mean something as some sage will soon say. you can't just change it to "stages of development" and call them equal. I trust you don't do it intentionally.
Further, these characteristics are pertaining to the physical only not to the essential being.
The center in europe impressing charateristics of maturity doesn't mean the european is at a higher stage of development.
He is talking about characteristics - vitality is lost, physical hardening, etc.
In fact when he bings up reincarnation it says just the opposite. That is, you can't determine the maturity of the human being by the race he's in because we pass through them all, actually even, back and forth.
Plus, we haven't really grasped the significance of the time line he goes into here. And I'm not about to attempt it now.
L.
)Now, to your anecdote:
) (snip most of short story...)
) )
) )...The better I got to know them, the
) )less I saw these characteristics that they all seemed to posses at first.
) )I don't want to belabor this point but consider even in the 'vernacular'
) )we have the 'renaissance man' who overcomes the narrower
) )influences of his life precisely by using to the fullest the gifts his folk,
) )race, etc, give him. But who says they have to be the same gifts for
) )all, isn't diversity allowed?
)
) Again, this is not the subject of Steiner's quote. You are talking about Nature/Nurture. Steiner is talking about the qualitative and deterministic differences in Races.
)
) And where does it follow that a 'renaissance man' has to overcome anything or has any gifts that aren't specific to his own unique individuality?
)
serio:
For whatever reason, my point is missed. It doesn't really matter whether it's nature or nuture for my argument which was simply that the human being can and does overcome characteristics of the group. Anyway, your wrong here anyway. Folk isn't just a matter of nuture.
) )Serio:
) )Having said that we can unravel this a bit more by first of all pointing
) )to a prejudice which your interpretation Dan, betrays. You have
) )judged that 'forces of childhood = bad' and 'forces of maturity =
) )good'. But consider this. A person has to go through all phases of life.
) )It may seem bad that one person has the forces of childhood
) )throughout their adult life, but how about a person who is imbued by
) )his locality with forces of maturity in childhood. Do you see that as
)
) )necessarily beneficial?
)
) L:
) Dugan is not making any claim himself about good/bad forces. Steiner is not talking about going through phases in one's life, but phases in incarnations - lives.
)
) How is anyone imbued with anything by their locality, let alone *forces of maturity*? Beneficial? It is )a fantasy!
)
serio:
Phases in incarnations?
I'm not sure you want to understand me. What are the signifcance of these forces in different phases? That's my question and it goes only to show childhood=good, etc. doesn't hold. Here the misunderstandings of my argument become so severe that I wonder the point of it all. But its ok I like you. I don't grasp your next point at all though. You seem to be saying that none of this is particularly good. It's all bad. can you make this point clearer? Not a major issue though.
) )Serio:
) )Anyone, who thinks this makes them superior or inferior had best
) )think again, it only gives each different challenges. I think Dan, that it
) )unconscious racism that lives in you that interprets it as you do for the
) )"forces of maturity" that Steiner speaks of don't seem to me to be
) )soul-spiritual maturity. You seem to take them as 'maturity of the species'.
) )It's Darwinism you should take a look at.
)
) L:
) Again, you are calling Dan a racist when it is Steiner that is being quoted. It is no better if Steiner is saying that different races have differing qualities of "soul-spiritual maturity" than if he were claiming qualitative differences in intellect or physical attributes.
)
serio:
Steiner isn't saying different qualities of soul-spiritual maturity or intellectual maturity. "Characteristics" of physical maturity like sclerosis, hardening, loss of vigor. Need I say more?
NOT soul-spiritual maturity. What I said is that I feel Dan Interpets his meaning to be that the 'species reaches maturity' as in a Darwinian manner. Not the way Steiner saw it.
If you see the human being as only physical characteristics, then there is a problem isn' t there?. But I already said it once and it didn't seem to matter so why am I saying it again? In fact in your equating characteristics with stages of development you do the same thing Dan does.
) )Serio:
) )But there is another problem with the whole thing. You're forgetting
) )that it is first and foremost a geographic thing, not first and foremost
) )a racial one. Yes, races that evolved in a certain geographic area
) )would be influenced by what lives in that area, and perhaps pass it
) )on through heredity, seems like common sense to me. But how about
) )when Blacks go to America or Europe, Europeans to South Africa,
) )Asians to America, etc. If those etheric streams are still there, as
) )Steiner said then they were, what then?
) )A person would then acquire certain things from his or her race,
) )another from the locale they grew up in, yet a third from their
) )nationality, etc. What infinite, or as as one person said, 'delicious'
) )complexity.
)
) L:
) Steiner talked about phases through incarnations, not whether someone moved to a better )neighborhood, got a better education and higher salary. You are conflating geography, etheric )streams, and Nature/Nurture all in one paragraph. It does not work. It does not explain away what )Steiner wrote. That is the "problem with the whole thing".
)
serio:
Am I that bad at making my points? evidently so. Not moved at all, but where was a person in his chidlhood. By the way, this isn't Steiner. this is Joe Serio's extrapolation. But I believe it holds.
But you know here is where the complexity thing comes in again. They are geograhical centers. The races that developed near an area were impressed by these forces just because they developed near them. Steiner's point is also that the races developed near those centers because humanity as a whole needed them to.
But the real point i'm makining this paragraph is to show that this force that worked through the race isn't nearly as significant as you think.
Which leads me to ask why race is so important to you? "The nation occupies an intermediate position between race and the individual"[mission of the folk souls p.81]
And I don't know where you getting this nature/nuture thing. your idea not mine.
) )Serio:
) )One more point. It *is* high time we Anthroposophists are honest
) )with ourselves.
)
) L:
) AMEN!
) Serio:
) )Rudolf Steiner's views on race, for example, must
) )appear racist to someone looking out of the eyes of the materialist,
) )even to a secular humanist that posits some vague notions of
) )'humanity'. If a person, even with a so-called religious view, doesn't
) )understand individuality how else can it be seen?
)
) L:
) Words Mean Things! If it walks like a duck, quacks likes a duck, it is probably a duck.
serio:
but sometimes the words mean that no matter what is said the others going to believe what he wants anyway, so why am I wasting my time. As it is now 8:30 am. and I've been at this since finding it at 2:00 am.
Also, though, it's nice to see that not only I can be cute.
L.
)Further, you seem to be stating 1)that 'materialists' cannot comprehend the meanings of Steiner; 2) )that secular humanists only )"posit" "some vague notions" of [what said secular humanist dimly )thinks is] humanity; 3)that some people have *so-called* )religious views and 4) cannot understand )individuality. So, you have accomplished dismissal of: materialists, secular humanists, )and ill-)defined religious views in one paragraph. Neat.
serio:
Let's just say that anyone who denies the spiritual being of man, as an individuality, will miss most of what he says. That's just the way it is. It's like trying to understand an automobile while denying there's an engine under the hood. And by the way it doesn't work if you imagine the engine, in the end as self-conscious spirit. By the way, that's how I define individual. self-conscious spirit with a
soul that that spirit wants. every anthroposophist in the world will disagree, but they're not working this through with you.
Let's be quite clear, what this is really all about is not cults, religion, secularism, science, race or any such thing. It's about the human being!
)
L.
) I have no idea what you mean by"...how else can it be seen?". How can individuality be seen by )people who cannot understand it? Whew!! Back that assertion, please.
)
serio:
No, this is a matter of understanding the english of my long sentences. The 'it' refers to Steiner's views on race. But you know what. After looking closer at this lecture, I must conclude that what he says there can only be seen as racist if a person wants intentionally to deceive himself as to what Steiner is saying or just hasn't worked with it enough yet. Hey can you understand the most difficult concepts of mathematics in a snap?. How about years and years of hard work, and then finding your only at the begininng.
) )Serio:
) )We also have a right to expect, nay demand honesty from our critics.
) )It is intellectually dishonest, vile in fact, to judge Steiner's remarks on race
) )out of a materialistic view of man which he simply didn't share with you. To
) )understand his ideas on race and much else of what he said, but paticularly
) )race, you must enter into his world view, see through his eyes, understand
) )what he means by the 'free individual'. If you don't, don't attribute racism
) )to him, attribute it to yourself who can't see man as anything but a sum of
) )characteristics thrown together, with maybe a soul, maybe not.
) )You can't judge what he says because you can't, or don't want to see what
) )he sees.
)
) L:
) This is the most specious of arguments. "Don't knock it if ya aint tried it" Worse: don't criticize if )you don't accept our premises and definitions.
) Bull!
)
serio:
please refer to all of the above.
However, I must say that your words seem to be the critics last stand! How many times have I heard them since only last week?
L.
) 1. You make an assumption/judgement of the point of view the critic is using.
)
) 2. Steiner shared his view when he printed it or spoke it to an audience. If you think this does not make him subject for criticism, who says he shared it with you either? You seem to feel you can speak for him, explain what he really meant.
)
) 3. While stating we have no right to criticize Steiner's written statements or make any claim of )racism, you feel you can reserve for yourself the right to criticize us, call us racist and attribute to us )a definition of what we think man is (all without any citation or corroborating statements), then tell us )again that we "can not judge him" because we "can't, or don't want to see what
) he sees". Why not? Who says? Maybe we do understand and see what he sees, and don't like it. )Maybe, after reading what you wrote here, we see more clearly than you do. Maybe we don't think )he saw anything actual, but spoke solely from his imagination.
)
serio:[number by number]
1. Now this is really curious, the pot calling the kettle black. That's what his whole thing is about.
Your doing it to Steiner. Need we go on?
2. Yes and no. It involves the spoken word and how and wey meaning is carried. That's the problem with reading a lecture. It's the spoken word written down. It's been killed and it has to be resucitated. But that takes good will, not something found in great abundance around here (except by a few).
If what you say is true here than someone who mearly has done a cursory reading of Einstein has as much ground to stand on than someone who has worked with his concepts and tried them in life over many, many years. There are exceptionally gifted people. But you tell me, how many?
Steiner Shared his view with the world not just with me. everything is public. He did it though in 5000 lectures, and how many books 50 (?) can't be. Alot. somebody help me here. But also it not matter of how much you read of his to get his ideas, but HOW you read. And either way, it's a major commitment. But so what? So's math. But you wouldn't try to judge the concepts of higher math with out learning the more elementary ones first. He wrote 5 books for that. The mathematicians would laugh at you. But no mathematician worth his salt would laugh at someone who wanted to learn.
3. I don't mean to call anyone a racist except someone who is. I don't find you or dan to be one. My defintion, oh yes, we'll get ot that. You can think what you like here though. I'm not the one with the website to attack you. If you have a view of humanity that involves the free spiritual individuality and you don't like it. Well then fine. At least we know where we all stand. But if you don't understand this free individual spirit of man, then let's get to work, best I've got is an inkling, hardly anything at all. maybe we can help each other! Maybe we ar already. But neither you nor me are going to do it sitting on our duffs and hurling stones at one another.
) Serio:
) )I would propose a new defintion of racism. It is this. Racism is denying the
) )highest in man, and equating him with his race.
)
) L:
) Again: _words mean things_. Racism already has a definition. It is in common use. If Steiner is not being racist in his writing, as you contend, why would you want to, or feel the need to, change the definition of racism?
)
serio:
Here you're right and Iam wrong. This is a bit unfair in a way. But maybe we should use the Dan Dugan twostep to help us here. If we say that the concept of racism needs to be expanded and thinking alone can tell you this, then we expand it to include a new type of racism and that's as I above stated. Dan's twostep, which has merit by the way and defines two types of racism, intentional and ignorant or unintentional. The above would be mostly unintentional. As Dan said (I'm sounding like a Duganite) we're all unconscious racists to a certain extent.
by the way, didn't dan extend it in a way with his twostep?
) Serio:
) )I can hear the yowls now that such a defintion means you have to
) )have a spiritual view then not to be a racist
) ) Well so be it.
) )
) )regards,
) )Joe
)
) L:
) No yowls. Yours is a wonderful sentiment on how humanity should treat each other, but it just does )not fit the definition of racism. If John says Bill is full of shit, then when confronted, John can't cover )by saying he is a farmer and shit makes things grow, therefore shit is good.
)
) regardless,
) L
serio:
it does now.
as to your anaolgy it doesn't work. But I went into the two reasons why in the sillypoems you didn't like. Now I'm really offended!
However, as warmregards says. "it depends on the what the original meaning was in the first place".
Amen and as Bob says.
Thanks Lurker it's been fun! I mean it!
Joe
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n1649 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n1650 --------------
001 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: etheric streams/debra/lurker
002 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Re: etheric streams/debra/lurker
003 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: etheric streams/debra/lurker
004 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - anyone on line
005 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - Reformatted: 2nd instalment - etheric streams
006 - "Joe Serio" (SERIO mbusa. - to warmregards
007 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re:fraud
008 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Savages
009 - "Bruce Jackson" (brucey 0 - Re: Reality Recheck
010 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Admin: Re: etheric streams/debra/lurker
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n1650.1 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: etheric streams/debra/lurker
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 08:59:03 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199912050829.AAA24674 lists1.best.com)
)Dear Debra/Lurker
)
)well finally the mystery is cleared. This post from Lurker which
)came in on 12/03 12:41 had originally given me a problem
)opening. (an attachment) I passed it over and I guess
)eventually trashed it forgetting about it. When
)this confusion with warmregards occurred I realized I had never
)seen the original post which warmregards had referenced.
Hmm, I didn't send any attachment to the list - Lurker's pos