return to WCA Archive Index
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n2029 --------------
001 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - "Getting With Goethe"
002 - "Diana Winters" (winters_ - Re: the race question (long)
003 - "Diana Winters" (winters_ - Re: lines once again / Lisa child
004 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Steiner's word about race
005 - "Diana Winters" (winters_ - Re: Reading, abstractions and sclerosis (was dominant culture
006 - njpmail mindspring.com (Y - Re: Dolls: Gender Issues
007 - njpmail mindspring.com (Y - Re: Jewish wisdom
008 - njpmail mindspring.com (Y - Re: hyperbole by Sune
009 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: muck
010 - Terry Boardman (terry.boa - Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2029.1 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: "Getting With Goethe"
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 22:42:48 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
"Getting with Goethe" is the name of an article by Jon Spayde
published in the Utne Reader (No. 75, May, 1996). The full text is at
http://www.utne.com/bBooks.tmpl$search?db=dArticle.db&eqheadlinedata=Getting
%20with%20Goethe. The article is sub-titled "Germany's greatest sage is a
Green as ever."
The following consists of excerpts from that article. This is just
one of the many items I've found in the research which Dan Dugan and warm
regards inspired me to do by their dismissal of Goethe.
Bob Tolz
--------------------------
[Begin excerpts from Jon Spayde, "Getting With Goethe," Utne Reader #75,
May, 1996]
The poet, playwright, critic, scientist, and seer Johann Wolfgang
von Goethe (1749-1832)--whose collected works run to 143 fat
volumes--virtually founded German literature, gave German culture its
bearings, and seemed the equal of Shakespeare and Dante to many of our
great-grandparents. But German high culture was compromised by the horrors
of 1933-45, and the author of Faust faded into the stacks of the scholarly
libraries.
Or did he? Goethe, who was a master of metamorphosis while he
lived--changing from a young rebel novelist into a cool classicist, a
serious naturalist, a master of Gothic smoke and mirrors, and a vibrantly
sensual elderly poet--is a good candidate for reincarnation today as a
prophet of holism, [Note: "Holism" is apparently a dirty word to Dan Dugan.
You'll see his approach to this idea, which apparently is that holism cannot
coexist with the study of science, if and when he makes transcripts
available from his conference at the Green Meadow Waldorf School. -- Bob
Tolz] environmentalism, and the unity of reason and imagination.
....
And yet he was no gushing romantic but a tireless scientist. Though
his actual contributions to the advance of biology are minor (and he was
dead wrong in his decades-long struggle against Newton's theory of light),
Goethe was a major precursor of a new attitude toward the scientific task.
In our day scientists as disparate as René Dubos and Larry Dossey
have called for a science of contemplation that would keep the unity,
dynamism, and integrity of nature in view, abandoning the idea that the
world "out there" exists only to be cut apart and manipulated. Goethe was
passionate about this goal. "He who wills the highest must will the whole,"
he wrote. "He who treats of spirit must presuppose nature; he who speaks of
nature must presuppose . . . spirit."
For Goethe, examining plants was one way to behold this unity. To
describe the essential sameness of form that runs through all the variations
of leaf or stem from plant to plant, or all the stages of a single plant's
growth, to see this consistency as a kind of energy and each disparate form
as just one "moment" in the unfolding of that energy, was his method [Note:
The idea of the "recursion" of forms at different levels is one of the
essential elements of Chaos mathematics and science. -- Bob Tolz]; he
didn't merely taxonomize each leaf according to its differences from its
nearest neighbors. Ecologist Nigel Hoffmann, writing in Social Alternatives
(Jan. 1996), calls the Goethean view an "interpretive ecological art" and
suggests that it can be the foundation for a truly ecological style of
seeing landscape and doing design.
Goethe's spirit also seems very close to magician-writer David
Abram, who, in The Spell of the Sensuous (Pantheon, 1996), takes
contemporary science to task for removing our gaze from the sensory realm
into an unseeable, untouchable mathematical and subatomic limbo. Physicist
Hermann von Helmholtz (1821-1894) [Note: Helmholtz was referred to by our
list-mate Peter Farrell in a post sent to the list today. -- Bob Tolz]
noted that the poet's voluminous writings on color theory were also "an
attempt to protect the immediate truth of the sensory perception against the
attacks made on it by the scientists." (Goethe argued that apparatus like
microscopes and prisms run the risk of distorting the realities they seek to
probe. He was wrong about prisms, but proved to be a prophet when physics
turned subatomic and Heisenberg enunciated his uncertainty principle.)
While Abram tends to emphasize the subjective, human, idiosyncratic
side of scientific seeing, Goethe's way of discovering unity in plant life
or nature as a whole is not emotion-laden intuition but "an exact form of
investigation into an objective reality," writes Nigel Hoffmann. Thus Goethe
challenges modern prophets of nature's unity to be less misty and more
rigorous at the same time that he wars against the reductive scientism that
can make eco-thought dull.
[End Excerpts From Utne Reader]
--------------------------------
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2029.2 ---------------
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: the race question (long)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 03:41:01 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
[Lisa wrote]
) Take as an example some self-professed Christians I know -- )They say
)they believe in loving their fellow humans, and in not )judging, ``lest ye
)be judged.''***
) In the next breath, though, some of these people will admit that )they
)believe with all of their hearts that homosexual people are )sinners who
)will die and go to hell unless they change.
In other words, "love the sinner but not the sin"? I think that sheds some
light on why some of Steiner's defenders can insist Steiner was not racist.
He might have felt your race was inferior, but he didn't hold it against you
personally.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2029.3 ---------------
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: lines once again / Lisa child
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 03:47:29 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
[David wrote:]
)A Waldorf school is definitely more of a "everybody does it together"
)enterprise. One *might* say that the approach (overall) purports to )be
)more in sync with children's (in the universal sense) innate )tendencies.
Glad you pointed this out. Somebody today, might have been Harve but I've
lost track, said Waldorf considers the "individual child" (maybe about
reading readiness?) This is a common misunderstanding, sort of like Chand's
"they let them learn at their own pace." Yes, they are interested in your
child as an individual, but they are basically applying fairly rigid
"universal" timetables in terms of their understanding of children's
development. In many ways it's "one size fits all" in Waldorf.
Of course "everybody does it together" is a nice thing in some ways too.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2029.4 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Steiner's word about race
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 23:06:45 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) )
) )Lisa says:
) ) If the view that the white race is the most spiritually
) evolved, that
) )the ``yellow'' race is in the adolescence of its spiritual
) path and that
) the
) )black race represents the ``infancy'' of humanity is an
) accepted part of
) )Anthroposophy, wouldn't you want to know about that view
) before placing
) your
) )child in an Anthroposophical school?
[David McCann]
) Of course I would want to know that. It's just my opinion
) that it's better
) to find out by talking to the people involved than by
) interpreting eighty
) year old texts. Further, I see little evidence that this
) race issue has any
) serious role in waldorf schools today. By saying "I'm not
) that interested",
) I'm saying that I'm confident that the school I'm associated
) with is not
) furthering such as misguided notion.
[Bob Tolz]
Lisa, I really think that David is right on target.
Ask the teachers in your school what they think of these things that
make you uncomfortable. If you're not satisfied with their answers, then
don't stick around. If you don't ask them the questions that gnaw at you,
then, with all due respect, I think you're just engaging in mental
gymnastics. I have a feeling that if you ask with respect rather than with
a challenging attitude, you'll get a non-defensive response. I'd love to
hear back from you after you've had the conversation.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2029.5 ---------------
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Reading, abstractions and sclerosis (was dominant culture etc. )
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 04:08:10 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
[Harve quoted Jane Healy -- I've snipped a lot, but a few relevant parts are
below]
Debra, I didn't want my son to be pushed into early reading or academics
either. It's one of the things that attracted us to Waldorf. But before you
conclude that Healy's theories support Waldorf's timetable, can you tell me
if Healy gives any specifics about what is "too early"? I couldn't find any
in the passage you quoted (is it elsewhere in the book? I once read part of
this book but I don't have it now). She says the process of myelinization is
not complete sometimes till we're in our 20's, which doesn't help much
unless you want to delay reading till age 20; also that the timetable may be
genetic, which would suggest to me it varies between individuals.
There are better indicators than either chronological age, or teeth. It's
more about the individual child, and Waldorf is not particularly interested
in an *individual* child's timetable. When other indicators are present,
holding a child back waiting for the teeth to change is just superstitious.
"Pushing" is damaging, and I am ready to protest when anybody is "pushing"
my son, but ignoring signs of readiness because it's "too soon" for this
child to be ready is also damaging. Healy's theories are interesting but
probably suggest more research is needed rather than supporting any
particular educational timetable.
Diana
Endangered Minds, by Jane Healy,
)states at
)page 66-67:
) Myelin continues to develop slowly all during childhood and
)adolescence in a gradual progression from lower-to higher-level systems.
)The process of mylenation in human brains is not completed at least )until
)most of us are in our twenties and may continue
)even longer
)scientists beleive its order of development is mainly predetermined )by a
)genetic system.
)the schedule of myelination appears to put some boundaries
)around 'appropriate' forms of learning at any given age.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2029.6 ---------------
From: njpmail mindspring.com (Yael Resnick)
Subject: Re: Dolls: Gender Issues
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 01:17:38 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Non-mothers reading the discussion of boys' dolls might not quite
understand how agonizing this kind of situation can be. It truly is
delicate and complex. My son is 3, and my daughter is 5 and a half, so my
son gets dressed up (by his sister) in tutus and mommy-shoes, and plays
with really girly dolls all the time! He nurses his babies, pushes them
around in strollers (when we all go for a walk, my kids each have a doll in
a stroller), etc. I think it's great! (except maybe the tutu part, but I'm
not worried :)
He's not in school yet, so I don't know what kind of peer pressure might
come up in the future, but I think having a happy family, two involved
(work-at-home) parents, and a lovey-dovey older sister will ultimately be a
much stronger influence on him.
If I were in your situation, having already clued your son in that some
kids might not appreciate Isabelle the way he does, I would probably kick
myself for a while (because I do that kind of thing), and then I'd
underplay the whole thing for a while. Sometimes less discussion is better.
You can always get deeper into certain subjects when the child is older.
Sometimes it's good to just go into maintenance mode for a little while,
and let everyone grow up a little (as long as you're not ignoring a real
problem that needs to be addressed).
Maybe suggest to the teacher to give more specific suggestions for
show-and-tell? My daughter's pre-K teacher last year had different themes
each week -- something red, something round, something noisy. (Ask her not
to ask for something pink...)
Approaching the teacher about doing a unit about fathers, gender roles,
etc., is a nice idea, but if it were me in real life, I'd probably just
quietly go about modeling the kinds of attitudes I believe in (i.e., that
mothers and fathers should be affectionate and nurturing, both should
contribute to running the household -- both are perfectly capable of
cooking, cleaning, etc. -- and spend plenty of "on the floor" time with
their kids, and so on). I'd comment on how nice it is to see him taking
such good care of his dolls, what a great father he'll be when he grows up.
Those messages sink in (deep), become part of a child's value system, and
help kids get through minor social traumas with peers.
Just a few rambling thoughts -- hope it made some sense.
Yael
*****
Yael Resnick, Publisher/Editor, Natural Jewish Parenting
The only magazine dedicated to a Jewish perspective
on childraising and family health!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2029.7 ---------------
From: njpmail mindspring.com (Yael Resnick)
Subject: Re: Jewish wisdom
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 01:17:37 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sune posted:
)Also,
)
)Yael:
)
)) I feel uncomfortable when people who are not Jewish try to (re)define the
)) 'task' of 'Jewish culture.'
)
)I'm grateful that ca 9 of the ca 14 million Jews of the world have
)found it possible to continue to contribute to the life and
)development of the contexts in which they live around the world.
)
)I'm also grateful that the Swedish Prime Minister, at the The
)Stockholm World Conference on Holocaust Education / Towards a
)Millenium of Tolerance, 26-28 Jan this year fully supported Elie
)Wiesel's suggestion to continue the work of the conference by annually
)organising a Forum on Conscience and Humanity in Stockholm, starting
)next year (see link to 'The Stockholm International Forum on the
)Holocaust Closing remarks by the Prime Minister of Sweden, Mr G–ran
)Persson, 28 January 2000' at
)http://www.regeringen.se/inenglish/speeches.htm ).
)
)Hopefully it will be a contribution in solving the humanly difficult
)situation that has existed in the Middle East since more than 50
)years.
I may not have completely understood your point here, but I just want to
mention that there is no contradiction between Jews being dispersed around
the world, trying to be a force for good wherever they may find themselves,
and at the same time praying to be reunited in Israel when the time is
right.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe's told his Chassidim to make wherever they are,
Jerusalem. But that doesn't mean we stop praying for Moshiach; we just live
wherever we find ourselves as if the era of Moshiach has already come --
which, in itself, hastens its arrival, since good deeds (mitzvahs) "tip the
scale" of the world toward good, literally bringing Moshiach. (This, of
course, applies to all people, not just Jews.)
In another post, Sune wrote:
)With Israel, that I have not yet visited (my mother did many years
)ago), my personal distant perspective (3000 km away) is that I don't
)think it is quite yet clearly visible what good the hardships of the
)situation there will bring to the rest of the world in a somewhat
)longer perspective, as every passed, survived and overcome hardship
)will and does. From a distance, it gives me heartache.
It gives me heartache too. But when there is finally peace in Israel, we
will surely know Moshiach is here.
Yael
*****
Yael Resnick, Publisher/Editor, Natural Jewish Parenting
The only magazine dedicated to a Jewish perspective
on childraising and family health!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2029.8 ---------------
From: njpmail mindspring.com (Yael Resnick)
Subject: Re: hyperbole by Sune
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 01:17:45 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Lisa wrote:
)Bob,
) I read your response with interest and take what you say quite
)seriously. As I am not Jewish, I cannot pretend to know what it feels like
)to have comparisons to Naziism and the Holocaust thrown about by either
)side.
) Thank you for offering your response as a Jewish person. I wonder what
)Yael's opinion on Sune's statement is, and I hope she offers it for our
)contemplation.
Lisa, the truth is, this kind of comparison gets tossed around so
frequently, both on this list and elsewhere, that I don't pay much
attention to it. It's just obviously hollow to me. I don't get offended;
this kind of statement comes out of not understanding the Holocaust
intimately, or not caring deeply about it the way people do who lost family
during that time.
Like most Jews, I have deep, personal feelings about the Holocaust -- it
was the reason my grandparents came to the US in 1935 (their siblings and
parents stayed in Hungary/Poland and were eventually killed in
concentration camps), and the cause of the deaths of my 86-year-old
great-aunt's brothers, sisters, and parents. Every Jewish person has
stories like these.
If I were Armenian, or Native American, or Chinese, I would have a better,
deeper understanding of the tragedies their people have endured. I can
understand intellectually, I can gain a more emotional understanding
through literature (I remember reading "My Name is Aram" in elementary
school), but I will probably never have that tears-in-my-heart feeling
about those periods of other peoples' histories, because they have not
touched my life in a tangible way. I can only hope I will never, out of my
own ignorance, unintentionally offend others whose people have suffered.
Yael
)----------
))From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
))To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
))Subject: RE: hyperbole by Sune
))Date: Sun, Feb 27, 2000, 1:15 PM
)))
))) Sune writes to Dan on the list:
)))
)))
))) ((But when you write something, based on the material Dan has
))) collected
))) on PLANS site, that I find to be as offensive to me and the work I've
))) tried to contribute to for 30 years, as the Jews probably experienced
))) the Nazi propaganda against them in the 30s' in Germany,))
)))
))) Lisa says:
)))
))) You have got to be kidding. How can you (how DARE you!)
))) compare the
))) facts, etc. offered by the PLANS website with the terrible, unethical,
))) hatefilled propaganda directed toward the Jewish people by
))) the Nazis in 30s
))) Germany????
))) If I were Jewish, I would be very offended that you would
))) compare the
))) two. Though PLANS is doing all that it can to carry out its
))) mission -- to
))) keep public money out of religious schools (read: Waldorf
))) charter schools)
))) -- its efforts, certainly cannot be compared in either spirit
))) or scope with
))) the anit-Semitic Nazi propaganda.
))
)) [Bob Tolz]
)) As you know, I am Jewish.
)) What Sune has said does not offend me.
)) On the other hand,I've said it before, and I'll say it again: What
)) Dan does in attempting to associate Nazism with Steiner and Anthroposophy I
)) find terribly offensive. By trying to exploit this alleged connection for
)) his anti-Waldorf political action purposes, he minimizes and diminishes the
)) Holocaust. This is my opinion, observation and feeling, as a Jew and as a
)) person who finds Waldorf Education perfectly satisfactory.
)) Bob Tolz
*****
Yael Resnick, Publisher/Editor, Natural Jewish Parenting
The only magazine dedicated to a Jewish perspective
on childraising and family health!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2029.9 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: muck
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 10:18:07 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200002292137.NAA22980 lists1.best.com)
Steve wrote:
) So in addition to trying to show us that Steiner's statements aren't truly
) racist, I'd like to see strong statements to the effect that people who
) interpret Steiner in a racist way are not fit to teach.
I think that people who interpret Steiner in a racist way and have any
other central and primary perspective of children than as humans,
irrespective of any external quality they might have, are not fit to
be teachers of them!
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2029.10 ---------------
From: Terry Boardman (terry.boardman cableinet.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 11:47:19 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200003010337.TAA26566 lists1.best.com)
) Peter Farrell wrote:
)
) Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 11:12:03 +1100
)
) After some deliberation I am convinced that Goethe is a reasonably
) significant scientist. More significant than me for example at least so
) far. I base this on the fact that I can trace through Helmholtz to Land a
) direct influence on some of the modern theories of human perception of
) colour. I also base it on an assertion by S J Gould, (More light on leaves,
) Natural History, Feb91, p16) that Goethe's work on plant morphology has an
) historical connection with modern work. There is more. But let's put this
) into perspective. When I do a search on Newton I get 3443 references that
) mention his name.Some could be other Newtons of course. Newton is an
) absolute giant. Goethe is insignificant.
You make some valid points Peter, and I respect your fairness of mind.
But I'd like to ask: how significant was Aristotle 170 years after his death
compared with what he'd become by, say, the year 1300? A view of his
significance (I am including of course his works on observation of the natural world
and not just his philosophical works) taken 170 years after his death which
asserted that he was not so significant a thinker would not exactly have been
prescient, would it?
Newton will always be important, of course, when it
comes to classical mechanics, but one of Steiner's key insights
- rejected by you possibly - is that
the last 300 years have been dominated by an approach to science based on the
exploration of *the inorganic world*. Thus physics is regarded as the "queen of sciences"
because it allows us to *control* the world to a tighter degree than the more organic
sciences. We are still in this "inorganics-based" phase of scientific thinking and are
only just beginning to emerge from it - hence all the hullaballo about the genetic revolution,
chaos theory etc. Steiner's point was that a new area of science will require a
completely new kind of thinking to cope with it,
and not one based on the inorganic predilections of the 17th
century. I can well understand how scientists who have invested their lives and especially
their *emotions* in the science based on inorganics over the last 300 years might bitterly
resist the assertion I am making here, because it would seem as if I am saying "you are
yesterday's men and women", but history and science are not sentimental, despite the
fact that they may be deeply bound up with human subjectivity. To me, as I look around the
world, it is self-evident that humanity is entering upon a new phase of science - one that is
concerned with the essential dynamics of life and wholeness, not of inorganic substance and
dissected death - the cadaver approach to knowledge.
Now if you look carefully at Steiner's approach to history, you will see that he often
called it "symptomatological". He was always looking for those phenomena that were
symptomatic evidence of coming change in culture and society - the pioneers, if you like.
This was because Steiner's view of history was dynamic. It was from this
aspect that he esteemed Goethe - not as the be-all and end-all of scientists, but as one
of the first to reach into a new realm of scientific thinking. Obviously Goethe's thought will be
limited, because he was at *the beginning* of something, but that does not lessen his
significance, which, I would argue, can be expected - like that of Aristotle - to grow
over the coming decades and even centuries. Steiner discussed
Goethe in remarkable depth and insight - check out his innumerable
comments and lectures about Goethe and I am sure you will come to the same conclusion;
it's not just my assertion; you can prove it for yourself. But equally, because
Steiner was a balanced individual, he was only too aware of Goethe's
weaknesses and often drew attention to them.
) Hemholtz who many on this list
) will not have heard of gets 2567 references. Goethe is insignificant
) compared to Helmholtz.
The number of references does not prove that Goethe in himself is insignificant
compared to Helmholtz. Helmholtz's work was particular to a certain limited area
of science. Goethe pointed to a new thinking which can fructify science as a whole,
especially in the organic sciences.
Take the case of architecture as an analogy: I happen to think that Steiner as
architect is far more
significant *for the future* (not just the 20th cent.) than modernist Mies van der Rohe
for example, or that Steiner's Goetheanums were far more fruitful for architecture than the Dessau
Bauhaus building. Compare them for yourself. Just because not many architects
at the end of the late 20th cent. have heard of the Goetheanums and have heard of,
even quote the Bauhaus as an influence
does not mean the latter is more *significant* in absolute terms than the former.
Ask yourself rather which is the more creative and which really belongs to the future.
Which is the more organic and dynamic? You surely cannot avoid the impression that
the modernists' arid box structures are not only the static products of an inorganic-based
thinking, but are already being consigned to the has-been pages
of architecture, whereas anthroposophically inspired architecture continues to blossom
and slowly but surely gain ground, because it is in tune with the deeper trends of the age.
As indeed is Waldorf - which is why more and more state school educationalists
become interested in it.
Darwin gets 1065 references. Note that these are
) name references. If you were to try and do a real measure of Newton's
) influence, you might not rule out any published scientific work of the last
) 7 years as being not influenced by Newton. Virtually every publication on
) the theory of evolution is influenced by Darwin. It's quite clear you have
) to search for Goethe's influence.
)
Again, this is very limited view in historical terms and says little or nothing
about the significance of these people in absolute terms. Darwin was/is big
because, besides being essentially *correct* about *the idea* of evolution,
his work both culminated with the crest of the wave of philosophical
materialism that had been rising since the 9th century, but also because he too
was one of the first to think in terms of "organic growth".
The intellectual milieu - which then consisted both of the followers of
philosophical materialism and of those who were alert to the coming idea of
devlopment and evolution - was ready for him. Such waves recede
only slowly in history. Indeed, Steiner insisted that materialism would
intensify in the coming centuries, but the resistance to materialism would
also intensify. Freud was very big 50 years ago - he's taken a battering
since. What's the betting that the current vogue for neo-Darwinism and
evolutionary biology will also have retreated by the end of this century?
)
) Is it appropriate to teach Goethe's science in the class room? Maybe. If
) you decide to use colour as a subject of study (a perfectly reasonable
) subject in my view), you might include the physical dimension of colour
) (ideas about waves, perhaps photons, colour relates to wavelength and so
) on) and human perception of colour (rods and cones, psychology of vision,
) etc) then it is reasonable to discuss Goethe's work.
)
I quite agree with you Peter, but I wouldn't say teach first the one then the other,
but rather both together.
)
) It is not reasonable to take Goethe's work and treat it as though it is the
) last word on the subject.
Steiner never said it was.
) It is not reasonable to discuss Goethe's work and
) not to say that modern scientific views are at odds with much or most or
) all of what Goethe said
Agreed. Recall that Steiner insisted that materialistic science needs to be
*complemented*, added to, not abolished. Such scientific thinking is fine
in its own sphere. It's when it insists on taking over all the other spheres
that problems arise.
) .
) Note that I am not saying that this is what happens in Waldorf schools or
) in any particular Waldorf school by any particular teacher. The extremes I
) am pointing to are roughly the extremes that are discussed on this list. I
) think that, for example, teaching that Goethe is the last word on plant
) morphology
He wasn't the last word, rather more like the first word - this is why he's
important. The Wright Bros weren't the last word in powered flight, but
their achievement was epoch-making nevertheless.
) is as bad as teaching creation science instead of or even side
) by side with evolution. I think the latter is simply dishonest. I think the
) former is the same.
)
As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as "creation *science*", but nor do I
think the current materialist explanations of the beginnings of all and everything
are much further advanced than mere belief. 'Creation science vs evolution' is
a false dichotomy that goes back to the Darwinists vs clergy debates of the 19th cent.
which was but the latest version of the old mediaeval 'reason vs faith' dichotomy.
The *second* millennium was full of such *di*chotomous debates.
The view of evolution that Steiner brings forward leaves that false dichotomy
behind, as his emphasis on *three*folding in the natural and social worlds
was oriented towards the *third* millennium.
He was interested in creating the bases for a healthy future, not repeating the tendencies
of a fraught past.
Regards,
Terry
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n2029 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n2030 --------------
001 - Sean Slovan (sean.slovan - Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
002 - "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2ga - race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
003 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - Re: Chand to Dan on Steiner and Nazism
004 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - Re: the race question (long)
005 - Sean Slovan (sean.slovan - Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
006 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
007 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - Re: Heart (Was: College of teachers (Was Re: ....)
008 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Chand to Dan on Steiner and Nazism
009 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - Re: art and outlines (Chand)
010 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2030.1 ---------------
From: Sean Slovan (sean.slovan gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 15:24:12 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (200003011153.DAA20497 lists1.best.com)
)When I do a search on Newton I get 3443 references that
)mention his name.Some could be other Newtons of course. Newton is an
)absolute giant. Goethe is insignificant.
Sorry, but this is somehow ludicrous. So quantity determines quality and
value? Perhaps this is also because in the English-speaking hemisphere many
don't bother to (or just can't) read anything that is NOT written in
English, since they take it for granted that ex Occidente lux, etc.
How many entries would you find for the Czech Jan Evangelista Purkyne,
discoverer of the arbitrary heart fibres (known as an experimental reality
by many people in the Eastern hemisphere of this planet, who are trained in
certain techniques of meditation), who in the future will be reckoned much
higher than Robert Boyle and his "pump" -- because of medical reasons? And
for the Ukrainian Georgij Vernadskij, discoverer of the Biosphere decades
before John Lovelock (who of course took all the glory) and of Light
Therapy. And for the Russian A.L. Chizhevskij, discoverer of the influence
of the cycles of solar spots on life on earth, including human behavior?
In the holy Western Sciences, there is a popedom like in Rome, with a Curia,
cardinals and bishops. They decide what is important and what is not. They
sanctify and they condemn. They give you the catechism of what common people
are supposed to believe in, and name the Authorities, including the Church
Fathers (like Newton or Francis Bacon). And the true believers (who of
course believe in the "power of Reason" and worship their "reasonable"
Idols) say "Amen, Amen, be it so". Sometimes, after some 200 years, they
rehabiltate certain burnt and expelled heretics, like Rome did with Galilei
and recently with Giordano Bruno.
I would recommend to read "Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason
in the West" by John Ralston Saul, Random House, New York 1992.
Jan (Seán) Slován
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2030.2 ---------------
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 09:30:05 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
David cann says, in regard to our ongoing discussion as to whether Steiner's
words on the various races of humankind are relevant in WS today:
((
I just don't think the parochial school analogy works at all
well with relation to Waldorf schools, where they're not teaching any
particular belief system like a Catholic school does.))
Lisa answers:
There are a few of us out here who could argue with that! (Later)
I am considering your point that stereotyping each and every
Anthroposophist as a ``racist'' is as repugnant as the stereotyping of any
other group.
I would argue, though, that certain groups are in fact groups at all
because their belief systems are what hold them together -- in this case,
the belief system is what makes the person identify himself/herself and be
identified by others as an Anthroposophist. (Same with Catholics, Buddhists,
etc.) The commonality of that very belief system (whatever that belief
system contains) is what makes the group a group.
But stereotyping a person because of the amount of melanin in his or her
skin or the straightness or curliness of that person's hair is different, I
believe. Chinese people may share a certain coloring and texture of hair
(though not always -- I know a few curly-headed Chinese children!) but in
regard to the belief system -- the lens through which these people view the
world --- they are completely different!
I certainly would not look at each and every person I know who identifies
himself as an Anthrop. and immediately think ``racist.'' But I WOULD wonder,
based on the depth of that person's commitment to Anthrop. (take a dedicated
W. teacher, for instance -- one who is known for going ``by the book'')
whether they shared Steiner's feelings that one racial group is more
spiritually evolved than others. I still think it is a fair question.
Please note I have not called anyone a ``racist.'' I am merely asking
why devoted Anthropo. seem unable or unwilling to repudiate those things
that Steiner said about the races of humankind that, to today's ear, sound
very dated and yes, racist. (Perhaps the answer is: because these devoted
Anthroposophists believe what Steiner said ....)
* Also, David, I am sorry if I sounded annoyed. I am, in fact, quite
pleased that you have engaged yourself in answering my question, and I feel
I have benefitted from the exchange. I hope to hear more of what you might
have to offer on the matter.
I'm still waiting, though, for any of the devoted Anthros on the list to
answer me!! (G)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2030.3 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Chand to Dan on Steiner and Nazism
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:40:24 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Thank you for your message, Terry. I think there are a lot of things going on
with Dan, not just resentment against Waldorf schools. A lot of people today
reject 'science' because it does not minister to people, instead concentrating
on the manipulation of the physical. While 'science' does represent an
incomplete outlook, it still contains much that is worthy and that has
indirectly ministered to people (e.g. improving health). To people who make a
living in science and technology (e.g. Dan and I) it is frustrating to see
people closing their minds to science and rational thinking - just as it is
frustrating to listen to Dan on this list. I have to say, that this attitude is
not uncommon in the Waldorf communities of my experience.
Dan's reaction is, in my view, partly against what he sees as a return to
irrationality and the religion of ages past. There was a book a while back (I
only read about it) - something like "A Candle in the Darkness" about how
science was the light that lead out of the dark ages of superstition, and that
current tendencies might return us to a new "dark age." I think this view
(perhaps even this book) is why the issue of how science is taught is so dear to
Dan. I am now starting a book called The Decline of the Clockwork God (or
something like that) that seems to be more proactive and positive about the
limitations of conventional scientific thinking. I'll let you know if I think
it is worth recommending.
Chand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2030.4 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: the race question (long)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:59:06 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
[Lisa asks]:
) ``If there are people who follow Steiner's teachings to the extent that
)they wear the colors he said to wear on certain days of the week; that they
)eat the grains he prescribed on certain days of the week; that they use a
)system of medical treatment he devised to keep themselves healthy, or to
)treat ill-health; that they follow his educational prescriptions down to
)painting classrooms for each grade a certain color and introducing subjects
)not only in the order he suggested, but also in the manner he suggested;
)etc. etc.....
) ``then why would that devoted Anthroposophist who follows Steiner's
)indications in so many small details of life NOT view minority peoples
)through Steiner's lens, too? If a person eats millet on Wednesday because
)Steiner says it is good for the health and the spirit, why would that same
)person not also believe that my ``yellow-skinned'' Chinese child is in the
)``adolescent stage'' of spiritual development?''
) NO ONE ANSWERED THE QUESTION I POSED.
I'll answer, since you are so gung ho about it, even though I haven't read the
relevant Steiner. It should be obvious by now that if a critic were your
child's Waldorf teacher, you would certainly be in danger of that teacher
judging " ``yellow-skinned'' Chinese child is in the ``adolescent stage'' of
spiritual development?'' This is because, judging from the interpretations of
Steiner posted on this list, the critics read his words but are blind to his
meaning. In other words, while the critics trawl for juicy phrases for use in
their crusade against Waldorf schools, Steiner's insights, what he means and
represents to Waldorf teachers and Anthroposophists, slip through their nets.
That is not to say you will not find an unthinking person who fits Steiners
writings into his/her racists world view. This teacher in Holland seems to be
such a person. The Waldorf teachers I have know were not into racial
stereotyping. You mention that some Christians you know are judgmental, at
least as far as homosexuals are concerned. I have no doubt that such people
exist. Are you now going to interview your children's potential teachers,
rejecting the Anthroposophists who don't reject Steiner to your satisfaction and
the Christians who judge homosexuals? If you want to be sure that your
children's teachers are saints, or at least share your world view, you had
better stick to homeschooling. Many people do for precisely these reasons.
Chand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2030.5 ---------------
From: Sean Slovan (sean.slovan gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 16:05:37 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (200003011153.DAA20497 lists1.best.com)
Corrigendum:
I wrote:
)Robert Boyle and his "pump"
Should read (of course): William Harvey and his "pump".
Apologies for the ignorance of an inhabitant of the barbarian part of the
world.
Seán Slován
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2030.6 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 10:12:39 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Peter Farrell]
) )When I do a search on Newton I get 3443 references that
) )mention his name.Some could be other Newtons of course. Newton is an
) )absolute giant. Goethe is insignificant.
[Sean Slovan]
) Sorry, but this is somehow ludicrous. So quantity determines
) quality and value?
[Bob Tolz]
Peter can certainly speak for himself, but my reading of his post is
somewhat different from yours and that he was writing with brevity to
conclude that the *numbers* of references are insignificant as compared to
Newton and others. Of course, maybe he *did* mean to imply the plain
meaning of his short sentence, as you have read it.
Comments, Peter?
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2030.7 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Heart (Was: College of teachers (Was Re: ....)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:10:43 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
[Dan, paraphrasing Steiner]:
)the blood, (is) "a very special fluid," (that) moved itself,
[Sune replies]:
)At the early embryological stage it does, before the formation of the
)heart out of the blood stream.
I don't think so. The developing embryonic heart "beats" or at least
rhythmically contracts even before the circulatory system is closed. It is sort
of meaningless to talk about blood flow before that. To be sure, the heart is
more of a tube at that stage, not the complicated organ found in adults.
Chand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2030.8 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Chand to Dan on Steiner and Nazism
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 10:20:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Chand]
) Dan. I am now starting a book called The Decline of the
) Clockwork God (or
) something like that) that seems to be more proactive and
) positive about the
) limitations of conventional scientific thinking. I'll let
) you know if I think it is worth recommending.
[Bob Tolz]
You might also want to take a peek at "The Marriage of Sense and
Soul : Integrating Science and Religion" by Ken Wilber (Random House, 1998).
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2030.9 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: art and outlines (Chand)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:23:20 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Diana - don't you even read what I write? You repeat:
[Diana]:
)Chand is not convinced there is any spiritual purpose to art instruction in
)Waldorf. Never mind that any Waldorf teacher who thinks you would like to
)hear about it will tell you *everything* in Waldorf has a spiritual purpose.
Yet for the second time last post I clarify: "I did not say that there is no
spiritual purpose to Waldorf education."
There likely is a spiritual component to Waldorf education, as they seek to
teach the "head, heart and hands" which to me means the physical, the
intellectual and the spiritual. It was you who wrote and fail to justify:
[Diana]:
))I think what's going on here is that art instruction in Waldorf is not at
))all about teaching children to perceive the "sensual world"...
Which means that you don't think art education in Waldorf schools is about
teaching art.
You go on to say that you son after three years in Waldorf is still insecure
about art, now being in the first grade of a public school. Someone recently
wrote that the art instruction in Waldorf began in the grades, not in
Kindergarten. This squares with my current experience with my son's class,
where they apparently draw anything they want. Perhaps your son's Waldorf
preschool and kindergarten teachers were mistakenly trying to introduce art
instruction before his myelin was ready.
Chand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2030.10 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:44:39 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
Boundary="0__=rUxMb0sgaEajJljE7vLlCvPBkkcxb35mzsE9htkKLJGJFd8c8bZJhaxN"
Content-Disposition: inline
--0__=rUxMb0sgaEajJljE7vLlCvPBkkcxb35mzsE9htkKLJGJFd8c8bZJhaxN
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
[Se
--0__=rUxMb0sgaEajJljE7vLlCvPBkkcxb35mzsE9htkKLJGJFd8c8bZJhaxN
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
=E1n Slov=E1n]:
)Apologies for the ignorance of an inhabitant of the barbarian part of =
the
)world.
We named all our kids after barbarians: Anya, Danika and Miro. Just t=
urned out
that way - as far as I know we don't have barbarian ancestry. Isn't th=
is the
age of barbarians, according to Steiner?
Chand
=
--0__=rUxMb0sgaEajJljE7vLlCvPBkkcxb35mzsE9htkKLJGJFd8c8bZJhaxN--
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n2030 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n2031 --------------
001 - Sean Slovan (sean.slovan - Weleda vs. NASA
002 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - RE: Anthroposophical Scientists (was College of teachers)
003 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - Re: Weleda vs. NASA
004 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Anthroposophical Scientists (was College of teachers)
005 - "debra harvey" (debharve - Re: Reading, abstractions and sclerosis (was dominant culture
006 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: Jewish wisdom
007 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - Re: Reading, abstractions and sclerosis (was dominant culture
008 - Sean Slovan (sean.slovan - Re: Waldorf vs. NASA
009 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - Re: Reading, abstractions and sclerosis (was dominant culture
010 - "debra harvey" (debharve - Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2031.1 ---------------
From: Sean Slovan (sean.slovan gmx.net)
Subject: Weleda vs. NASA
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 16:57:06 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (200003010147.RAA10523 lists1.best.com)
Dear list-members, especially the Americans among you
I respect that some of you would go so far as to boycott Weleda products,
because they were sent to Dachau.
Well, but what about your income taxes that were and still are used by the
U.S. American (and Canadian and Australian and British) government to pay
the salaries and pensions of old Nazis, who enjoyed themselves and a jolly
good life after 1945 under the secure protection of an American (Canadian
etc.) passport.
After helping to exterminate the Jews and rotten Slavic subhumans like my
ancestors, they made a brilliant, Dr.Strangelove-like career as Cold War
freedom-fighters in Western laboratories, paid by your and your
(grand-)parents' money, developing nuclear, biological and chemical devices,
irradiating part of the U.S. American population (those who paid so
generously for them).
Thnaks to the efforts of a bunch of old Nazis, the Americans even made it to
the Moon. Great! But you should be aware that the progress in U.S. American
aeronautic and space medicine after the war is to a considerable extent due
to the "tests", i.e. tortures inflicted on helpless prisoners in the KZ
Dachau. And many of Dachau's "medical" staff escaped Nuremberg and got
employed by the U.S. Army and other Agencies, because the U.S. government
had already decided in 1944 to bring them to the States with "Operation
Paperclip", also known as the "Ratline". I won't mention the Dachau tests
concerning Mind Control -- the CIA had all reasons to rejoice in 1948, when
it took over research papers and staff.
If you would like to know more about the converted Nazis, to whom you still
generously donate part of your taxes (what about a boycott?), here you go:
Higham, Charles: Trading with the Enemy. An Exposé of the Nazi-American
Money Plot 1933-1949. New York: Delacorte Press 1983.
Higham, Charles: American Swastika. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday 1985.
Aarons, Mark and Loftus, John: Unholy Trinity: The Vatican, the Nazis, and
Soviet Intelligence. New York: St. Martin's Press 1991.
Bower, Tom: The Paperclip Conspiracy The Hunt for Nazi Scientists. London:
Michael Joseph 1987
Hunt, Linda: Secret Agenda. The United States Government, Nazi Scientists,
and Project Paperclip. 1945 to 1990. New York: St. Martin's Press 1991.
Lasby, Clarence G.: Project Paperclip. German Scientists and the Cold War.
New York: Atheneum 1971
Loftus, John / Mark Aarons: The Secret War Against the Jews. How Western
Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People. New York 1994.
Marks, John: The Search for the "Manchurian Candidate². The CIA and Mind
Control. New York 1979.
Simpson, Christopher: Blowback. America's Recruitment of Nazis and Its
Effects on the Cold War. New York: Weidenfeld & Nicolson 1988
Simpson, Christopher: Science of Coercion. Communication Research and
Psychological Warfare, 1945-1980. New York, Oxford: OUP 1994.
Simpson, Christopher: Universities and Empire: Money and Politics in the
Social Sciences during the Cold War. New York: The New Press 1999.
Simpson, Christopher: The Splendid Blond Beast. Money, Law, and Genocide in
the 20th Century. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press 1995.
Weleda surely should have known about the tortures in Dachau and should have
refused to "collaborate".
But what about your own governments? Take the conference of Bermuda, at
Easter! 1943: Churchill and Roosevelt knew already of what was going on in
Auschwitz, Treblinka etc. Were they ready to ACT (to bomb railways leading
to the camps, for example)? No, Sir. Of course we know of what happens to
the Jews, the documents explain, but nothing should be done about it. Fears
were raised that the Nazis would stop the gas chambers and, for cash,
release the Jews who would flee to the West. Nobody would favor such an idea
of Jewish mass emigration to the West. The Jews are expendable to the war
effort. In fact, even dead, they are rather useful with regard to the moral
war against Germany during and AFTER the war.
Cf. David Wyman: The Abandonment of the Jews, New York 1984;
Walter Laqueur: The Terrible Secret. London 1981;
Martin Gilbert: Auschwitz and the Allies, London 1981;
John Loftus/Mark Aarons: The Secret War against the Jews. N.Y. 1994;
Richard Breitman: Official Secrets. What the Nazis Planned, What the British
and Americans Knew. New York: Hill & Wang 1998.
There should be a general boycott.
-------
Seán Slován
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2031.2 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Anthroposophical Scientists (was College of teachers)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 00:18:45 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
References: (200002291647.IAA24750 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (200002291647.IAA24750 lists1.best.com)
)[Dan Dugan]:
) )No, thanks.
)
)Guess who has no data?
)
)Chand
Sorry, but I'm just too busy right now.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2031.3 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Weleda vs. NASA
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 12:17:59 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
Boundary="0__=IKQl7BG8kNoqBJD5G51rTzdXevrpjLb8D1StIfdJ3WAxiXchdJGQqs4h"
Content-Disposition: inline
--0__=IKQl7BG8kNoqBJD5G51rTzdXevrpjLb8D1StIfdJ3WAxiXchdJGQqs4h
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Dear Se
--0__=IKQl7BG8kNoqBJD5G51rTzdXevrpjLb8D1StIfdJ3WAxiXchdJGQqs4h
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
=E1n Slov=E1n,
Thank you for the list of references. I know this stuff in a gene=
ral way,
but it is nice to know where to look for details. Let us not forget th=
at in
every country the Germans occupied, they found people more that willing=
to hunt
and hurt Jews. Baba Yar happened without the benefit of a concentratio=
n camp.
[Se=E1n Slov=E1n]:
)There should be a general boycott.
Hear, hear! Lets live off of the grid! Throw out all of those washers=
and
vacuum cleaners and plant your gardens (no F1 hybrids, please!)!
Chand
=
--0__=IKQl7BG8kNoqBJD5G51rTzdXevrpjLb8D1StIfdJ3WAxiXchdJGQqs4h--
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2031.4 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Anthroposophical Scientists (was College of teachers)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 14:05:47 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) )[Dan Dugan]:
) ) )No, thanks.
) )
) )Guess who has no data?
) )
) )Chand
)
) Sorry, but I'm just too busy right now.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
[Bob Tolz]
Well, if the only problem is present time constraints, I can wait
for you, Dan. Give me some idea when you think you'll have sufficient time
and let's target that date.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2031.5 ---------------
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Reading, abstractions and sclerosis (was dominant culture etc. )
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:15:42 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
))
)Debra, I didn't want my son to be pushed into early reading or academics
)either. It's one of the things that attracted us to Waldorf. But before you
)conclude that Healy's theories support Waldorf's timetable, can you tell me
)if Healy gives any specifics about what is "too early"? I couldn't find any
)in the passage you quoted (is it elsewhere in the book? I once read part of
)this book but I don't have it now). She says the process of myelinization
)is
)not complete sometimes till we're in our 20's, which doesn't help much
[Harve]
I read this book a few years ago. I'll look at it again and see if I can
answer your questions. I'm really busy right now, so I can't do it until
the weekend.
Obviously, Healy is not suggesting that we wait until our 20's to learn how
to read. As I understand it, different parts of the brain are coated with
mylenin at different times. Until that part of the brain is coated, it is
not operating at best efficiency/capacity. Yes, you can learn and perform
with that part of the brain before it is coated, but then you will be taking
away from a lower function that has already been coated. She does use the
example of algebra. Healy said that when she "learned" it in school, she
did not get it. Later, she attempted again and it came very easily and
hypothesized that that part of her brain had been mylenized when she learned
easily.
Last night I was reading the Sunday paper (yes I read it later in the week).
An item caught my eye about a study on Alzheimer's that was done in
Seattle. The study found that people who were members of a large family (5
or more siblings) were nearly 40% more likely to develop the disease than
those who grew up in smaller families.
The researcher's (Victoria Moceri) "theory is that the early environment
could affect brain development that may manifest itself as symptoms of
dementia when a person reaches old age." The researcher concluded that this
might have to do with socio-economic status.
Since the researcher really doesn't know the cause, I submit that it's open
to discussion. Perhaps children in large families (and I wonder about birth
order) out of necessity are called upon to do certain tasks before they are
really ready.
At any rate, as I said yesterday, it makes Steiner's sceloris/hardening
argument more credible.
When I read this article, I wondered about the long term effect of
one-year-olds pushing buttons on a computer and pushing the mouse button.
Quite frankly, it makes me want to run to the closest Waldorf school.
The article is in "Neurology." Chand or Alan, do you have access to it?
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2031.6 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: Jewish wisdom
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 12:23:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200002271736.JAA05421 lists1.best.com) (200002272146.NAA17167 lists1.best.com) (200002272228.OAA06459 lists1.best.com) (200002280058.QAA13549 lists1.best.com) (200002282232.OAA12462 lists1.best.com)
Joel writes:
) Dear Alan,
)
) Perhaps I don't understand history at all, but don't cultures get
born,
) then live, and then die. Where are the Sumarians? Greece still exists,
but
) does that ancient rich culture still exist? What about the Culture of Old
) Egypt? If I am correct that it is a fact of history that cultures mature
and
) then die, what is "offensive" to suggest that Jewish culture may
experience the
) same thing. Certainly England as a world power is in eclipse. Etc. etc.
etc.
Well, some cultures come and go quickly, too. That is another fact of
history. If I were to say that Anthroposophy is dying and its task is to
pass on its wisdom before it expires, would you find that offensive?
Alan Fine
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2031.7 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Reading, abstractions and sclerosis (was dominant culture etc
. )
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 14:07:10 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
[Debra H.]:
) )It's like potty training: if you wait until the child is ready, it
) )can be done in a weekend. If you push it, it can leave scars and take a
) )long time.
[Chand]
))Is this where hemorrhoids come from?
)
I'm sorry, I couldn't help it.
I'm glad you took it in the right spirit. Anyway, in that same vein...don't you
think that this could be the answer to PLANS? I mean if Waldorf education can
really reduce baldness and those other things, well then, who would be against
it? Those Anthroposophical scientists should give up their silly attempts to
prove that the heart is not a pump and demonstrate that going to Waldorf schools
leads to hemorrhoid loss and hair gain.
I can see it now, Dan shambling up to the supreme court in 20 years or so with
his tired arguments After shifting around on those hard benches listening to
Dan go on and on about how Steiner was really Hitler's father, the chief justice
will slam down his gavel and declare - "Are your really trying to argue that
just because Waldorf schools are training proto Nazis who may well start WW III,
you want to shut down the only proven method for eliminating those things
affecting our arrears?!" "Mr. Dugan, I find you guilty to obstructing justice
and sentence you to 20 years moderating the Anthroposophical science internet
list! Case dismissed!
Chand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2031.8 ---------------
From: Sean Slovan (sean.slovan gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf vs. NASA
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 21:00:27 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (200003011507.HAA19390 lists1.best.com)
Disclaimer:
The intention of my last post "Waldorf vs. NASA" was not to attack or to
make responsible for different faults anybody on this list because of
her/his belonging to a people/nation. Others in their respective countries,
like the author of these lines, have the honor to finance with their income
tax old communists, and they cannot be made personally responsible for the
crimes and murders commited by these "honorable" fellas.
The purpose of this post was to give you a blatent demonstration of how
history can be treacherous, when one is perhaps too convinced of one's own
crusading righteousness. I dislike groups, I only consider the moral deeds
of individuals. But there are many corpses in the closet, not only in
Austria and in Waldorf schools.
So, no attack intended, perhaps a provocation, and surely a call for
reflexion and vigilance.
Seán Slován
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2031.9 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Reading, abstractions and sclerosis (was dominant culture etc
. )
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 16:50:40 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Debra,
I tried to look up articles by Victoria Moceri but only came up with two
citations about breat cancer. Sorry.
Chand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2031.10 ---------------
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 23:05:22 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
[Lisa quoting David]
) ((
) I just don't think the parochial school analogy works at all
)well with relation to Waldorf schools, where they're not teaching any
)particular belief system like a Catholic school does.))
)
[Harve]
I think that there is a danger in even stereotyping Catholic schools. Since
my son is currently at a parochial preschool and we are considering staying,
I have been asking a lot of questions about the religious program. I have
problems with very strict theologies.
In the grades, children have a period in the morning where they talk about
morality, and values, such as being kind and civil to each other.
Obviously, sacramental preparation is different, but that occurs in the
second grade and children can opt out. The children do attend a children's
mass, but our priest is very liberal and laid back and brings his dog to
these masses.
There are very few people of religious orders teaching at these schools
now--there aren't enough of them. The music teacher is a nun and when I saw
her teaching a class she had on jeans, sneakers and a sweatshirt.
When we had the diversity dinners last week, one of the guests was a teacher
in the middle school. He teaches 6th grade religion and science. When I
asked him what they were covering, he said that they had spent the entire
year on the Hebrew Scriptures and were touching on Islam. He said that his
class had visited the Spertus Museum and the rabbi and other staff had been
impressed with his students' knowledge, enthusiasm, and respect for another
tradition.
So, I don't think that there are wide differences even among Catholic
schools.
Harve
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n2031 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n2032 --------------
001 - Peter Farrell (peter.farr - Re: Goethe and science
002 - "debra harvey" (debharve - Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
003 - "debra harvey" (debharve - Re: Reading, abstractions and sclerosis (was dominant culture
004 - "debra harvey" (debharve - Re: Weleda vs. NASA
005 - "debra harvey" (debharve - Re: Reading, abstractions and sclerosis (was dominant culture
006 - "Sarina McDonald" (pandor - Subject: Weleda vs. NASA
007 - njpmail mindspring.com (Y - Re: Jewish wisdom
008 - "David Cann" (canndw netz - Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
009 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit t - Re: College of teachers (Was Re: correspondence from Pan
010 - "David Cann" (canndw netz - Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2032.1 ---------------
From: Peter Farrell (peter.farrell vu.edu.au)
Subject: Re: Goethe and science
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 10:29:16 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (200003011547.HAA17125 lists1.best.com)
Sean Slovan writes
Sorry, but this is somehow ludicrous. So quantity determines quality and
value?
Peter responds. You're right. Of course it's ludicrous if you are talking
about quality and value. I am talking about influence. A related but
different notion. Influence is a bit like fame. How do you find out whether
a person is famous or not. One way might be to count the number of times
the person is mentioned in the newspapers compared to someone who is
recognised as famous. You're right. There is an implied assumption that
quantity is related to value. It may or may not be true. On the other hand
if very few people pay any attention what is the value?
How many entries would you find for
Jan Evangelista Purkyne, 5
Georgij Vernadskij, 1
A.L. Chizhevskij, 0
)I would recommend to read "Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason
)in the West" by John Ralston Saul, Random House, New York 1992.
I have read it and other books by John Ralston Saul. Highly recommended. I
don't think this book says what you think it says. It is a criticism of the
power given to economists in the west who claim reason but in fact,
according to Saul, do not use reason.
Thanks also to Terry Boardman for a long and thoughtful response. I have no
comment to make unless there is a specific answer to something you
requested that I missed.
Cannon to the right of me, cannon to the left :-)
Peter
Peter Farrell Phone (+613) 9688 4282
Optical Technology Research Laboratory Fax (+613) 9688 4698
School of Communications and Informatics(F119)
Victoria University Email peter.farrell vu.edu.au
PO Box 14428 MCMC
Melbourne 8001 Australia
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2032.2 ---------------
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 23:23:44 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
[Lisa]
) I certainly would not look at each and every person I know who
)identifies
)himself as an Anthrop. and immediately think ``racist.'' But I WOULD
)wonder,
)based on the depth of that person's commitment to Anthrop. (take a
)dedicated
)W. teacher, for instance -- one who is known for going ``by the book'')
)whether they shared Steiner's feelings that one racial group is more
)spiritually evolved than others. I still think it is a fair question.
[Harve]
What you are describing is a very anti-intellectual approach. Based on the
anthroposophists we have heard from on this list: e.g., Paulina, Joe, Sune,
Felix--that is clearly not the case. I do not think that these analytical
thinkers are going to wear certain colors and eat certain things simply
because Steiner said so. Nor are they going to subscribe to alleged racial
theories because Steiner said so. If they choose to follow Steiner on a
point, it is because they have thought about it and believe it.
I know that you have little patience with talk of folk groups and root
groups, but I think that it is necessary to explore Steiner's readings fully
on these issues, before making a decision on his racism.
I think that people who blindly follow Steiner or any ideology or religion
without thinking for themselves are either tremendously insecure and/or very
lazy. It is called fundamentalism. They have found an answer and now they
don't have to think anymore. Anthroposophy seems too complex and
contradictory (hence rich) to grab onto as the quick fix.
It seems to me that if people are blindly following what they perceive to be
Steiner, then they are not even getting it.
I think that most teachers in Waldorf schools today have probably never
heard of root groups and would be deeply offended by the material on Dan's
website. Most of them are probably so busy getting ready for the next day
and learning new material for the course block that they don't really have
time to ponder these issues.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2032.3 ---------------
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Reading, abstractions and sclerosis (was dominant culture etc . )
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 23:26:39 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
[Chand
),
) I tried to look up articles by Victoria Moceri but only came up with
)two
)citations about breat cancer.
[Harve]
The good news is that I read in my same Sunday paper that researchers say
that girls born today will not have to worry about breast cancer.
Thanks for looking. This month's Neurology may not have hit the stands yet.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2032.4 ---------------
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Weleda vs. NASA
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 23:36:52 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
[Sean]
)But what about your own governments? Take the conference of Bermuda, at
)Easter! 1943: Churchill and Roosevelt knew already of what was going on in
)Auschwitz, Treblinka etc. Were they ready to ACT (to bomb railways leading
)to the camps, for example)? No, Sir. Of course we know of what happens to
)the Jews, the documents explain, but nothing should be done about it. Fears
)were raised that the Nazis would stop the gas chambers and, for cash,
)release the Jews who would flee to the West. Nobody would favor such an
)idea
)of Jewish mass emigration to the West. The Jews are expendable to the war
)effort. In fact, even dead, they are rather useful with regard to the moral
)war against Germany during and AFTER the war.
[Harve]
Unfortunately, this has a ring of truth to it. When you refer to documents,
were these actual transcripts of meetings or testimonial accounts taken
later on? Which one of these sources do you most recommend?.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2032.5 ---------------
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Reading, abstractions and sclerosis (was dominant culture etc . )
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 23:41:39 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
[Chand]
I mean if Waldorf education can
)really reduce baldness and those other things, well then, who would be
)against
)it?
[Harve]
Hell, if Anthroposophist can cure baldness, where do I buy the stock? Did
Steiner say anything about cellulite? We could make a mint on that.
)
[Chand]
)I can see it now, Dan shambling up to the supreme court in 20 years or so
)with
)his tired arguments
[Harve]
More like Cousin Vinny.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2032.6 ---------------
From: "Sarina McDonald" (pandora aa.net)
Subject: Subject: Weleda vs. NASA
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 15:57:22 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Jan Slovan writes:
)Take the conference of Bermuda, at Easter! 1943:
)Churchill and Roosevelt knew already of what was going on in
)Auschwitz, Treblinka etc.
(snip)
)The intention of my last post "Waldorf vs. NASA" was not to attack or to
)make responsible for different faults anybody on this list because of
)er/his belonging to a people/nation.
I, for one, REALLY appreciated your post, but for an entirely off-topic
reason. My grandmother was personally chosen to serve Winston Churchill at a
summit meeting in Bermuda, presumably because she was a 'neutral' Swiss
citizen.
Any idea if there were any other summit meetings on Bermuda? I'd like to be
able to verify my granmother's story, but I have no idea when it happened -
only that it was during WW2. (Not that I think she was lying, but it would
be nice to actually document for posterity.)
Thanks.
---------------------------
Sarina McDonald
pandora aa.net
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2032.7 ---------------
From: njpmail mindspring.com (Yael Resnick)
Subject: Re: Jewish wisdom
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 19:20:20 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)Joel writes:
)
)) Dear Alan,
))
)) Perhaps I don't understand history at all, but don't cultures get
)born,
)) then live, and then die. Where are the Sumarians? Greece still exists,
)but
)) does that ancient rich culture still exist? What about the Culture of Old
)) Egypt? If I am correct that it is a fact of history that cultures mature
)and
)) then die, what is "offensive" to suggest that Jewish culture may
)experience the
)) same thing. Certainly England as a world power is in eclipse. Etc. etc.
)etc.
)
)Well, some cultures come and go quickly, too. That is another fact of
)history. If I were to say that Anthroposophy is dying and its task is to
)pass on its wisdom before it expires, would you find that offensive?
)
)Alan Fine
There's a big difference between saying that, from a historical
perspective, a culture has already passed its peak, or has even died out,
and speculating or predicting that a currently vibrant culture is about to
die (or should have already). In my opinion, the latter is offensive; the
former not at all.
Yael
*****
Yael Resnick, Publisher/Editor, Natural Jewish Parenting
The only magazine dedicated to a Jewish perspective
on childraising and family health!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2032.8 ---------------
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 19:10:40 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lisa E, regarding my assertion that WE is not like a parochial school:
) There are a few of us out here who could argue with that! (Later)
I've read this list long enough to realize that! Doesn't mean I should shy
away from confronting such a misguided notion.
Lisa again:
) * Also, David, I am sorry if I sounded annoyed. I am, in fact, quite
)pleased that you have engaged yourself in answering my question, and I feel
)I have benefitted from the exchange. I hope to hear more of what you might
)have to offer on the matter.
Don't worry, I'm not annoyed. I was surprised, that's all.
All I really have to add is that on this list I feel like I am expected to
answer, answer, answer, and that the questions I ask seem to disappear into
the ether.
My second brief whine is that it's usually the least important sentence in
my post that gets pulled out and used as grist, when the part that I think
is meatier and more comment-worthy gets dropped.
No biggie, though. If it really bothers me, I can always go away.
David
__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2032.9 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: College of teachers (Was Re: correspondence from Pan
Forrest)
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:49:08 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200002292303.PAA29440 lists1.best.com)
Dear Peter,
I would like to address this, but please be assured I am not out to change
your diet.
As in the case of the remarks I wrote to Lisa (I think), about the "forces"
concerning "hardending" etc., I would like to (in a playful way) express some
thoughts regarding the "heart".
As you know Peter, many "forces" science has so far found in nature are
"invisible", at least to our normal sense organs. We don't see gravity, for
example, just its "effects".
We also do not normally see a magnetic field, but if we place some iron
filings on a piece of paper etc etc (as you well know), we can see something of
the "lines of force" of the field.
Steiner tried to steer away from the "life" force idea, because his view
was it caused a lot of confusion. He most often wrote of etheric formative
forces, or as George Adams Kaufman liked to say: ethereal forces.
In Kaufman's book, "Universal Forces in Mechanics", he made an attempt to
speak of these ethereal forces using the more ordinary understanding of
physics. For example, he wrote of the capacity of certain types of matter to
"flex", that is certain metals could be bent. Now one of the consequences of
bending repeatedly a piece of metal is that it gets "hot". Our bending changes
the "coherence" of the material and "releases" something bound up in the
metal. Now interestly enough, if you "weigh" it afterward, it "weighs" the
same, even though it has given up "heat". That is there is no oxidation, no
chemical change. Where does the "heat" from?
Now a human being is a "warm" blooded animal (opps, not anthroposophically
poltically correct, but what the heck, this is the critics list, it isn't
necessary to be really logical and systematic, is it.). Our langauge has
acquired over the many years of human existence, a number of metaphors for
various states of emotional being, using the imagery of "heat": hot blooded,
warm hearted, cold hearted etc.
Emperical science, hard evidence, and double blind experiments to the
contrary, these terms (and all their relatives) have deep and important meaning
in human relationships. We all experience them. We know, for example, that a
mere glance can "warm" us, or, if something more sinister is happening, "make
our blood run cold".
Yes, yes, I know it's supposed to be all hormones and chemical reactions,
and evolutionary biology and psychology and stuff. Not really talking about
what the current "paradigm" believes. Not talking about that at all. Going in
an entirely different direction.
The question is do you want to "experience" the ethereal forces flowing
through your heart center? To an open minded, adventureous person, that might
sound very "cool". To a professed skeptic, who doesn't want anything
interferring with his already made up mind, then, gosh, don't bother at all.
Just kiss it off. It's probably some cult trick anyway, right?
For those willing to hazard a few sacred cows ...
Lets back up a bit first. Remember in my earlier post about "upbuilding"
forces and how they became involved in using the "intellect" and that's why
"hardening" could arise too early, if these "upbuilding" forces were put to an
inappropriate use too early in the development of a child's life?
Anyway, thinking is an "ethereal" activity. Again, all one has to do is
look at language, where human experience is recorded. We speak of a "bright"
idea, or call someone "bright" or draw pictures of someone having a "bright
idea" by having a "light bulb" go off over their head. I am sure you are
aware of the biographies of scientists regarding their "experiences" of
intiution, and of "thinking" in pictures. There is nothing new here.
In my "paradigm" this "light" is an experience of the ethereal, which is
kin to the light described by Goethe as the "deeds and sufferings of light".
Yeah, okay, but this is anecdotal. Sure it is, but do you want to try an
experiment? See, one of the problems has been that this "intuitional"
experience, this "flash of insight" (isn't insight a delightful word -
in-sight, sight within?), hasn't been found by those who occassionally
experience it to be reproducible. You can have it apparently spontaneously,
but can't generate it (at least that's the rumor).
Now here is what you do (and by the way, it will take some time for this to
show itself. Somethings need to be practiced). When you are involved with
another human being try to pay attention to the flow of thoughts. Don't dwell
on them, just be a little bit more awake. While doing this try to notice your
attitude. In particular, do I care about this person, or am in basically
indifferent.
When the opportunity arises, try to move your attention to your heart. Not
a lot of effort need to be involved here. Just try to image that you are
thinking about them with your heart instead of your head. You let yourself
care about them, be open to them, vulnerable to them, even (dare we speak the
dreaded L-word) love them.
This intention, using the will (obviously you have to "will it"), brings it
about that a current arises in the will aspect of ones own ether body, a
current which rises up through the heart, and which current becomes then a
dynamic "field" of etherealized blood in the head. Thoughts "produced" in this
field will start to have "intuitional" or "light filled" qualities.
Now circle back to the beginning of this post (in your mind of course) and
remember what I said about invisible forces and iron filings and being able to
see the magnetic field in the filings. So it is with our thought life. We
activate the heart forces, using the imagination and the attention and our
"intention" to create a "current", which then leaves its "traces" in the life
of thought.
By the way, a small note of caution. Love is not excessive sympathy. Love
doesn't involve sacrificing "judgment". Rather, at this stage anyway, it is
about "concerned interest".
Now what does this have to do with "the heart is more than a pump, in fact
maybe not a pump at all, but rather a pneumatic ram"? Well, to "know" what the
heart does, you have to learn to give to thinking a whole other quality. The
above concerns learning about that "quality" in the most immediate aspects of
our life, our personal relationships.
warm regards,
joel
Peter Farrell wrote:
) Peter Farrell responding to Dan.
)
) I am aware of some of the nonsense that Steiner and followers have written
) with repect to blood movement. In my words the Steiner belief is something
) like the blood moves on its own due to a life force, and the role of the
) heart is to slow it down, perhaps acting more like a valve than a pump.
)
) I find it absolutely astonishing that anybody can believe this nonsense.
) And yet I know they exist. If it were some sort of allegory or spiritual
) metaphor that would take it into the realms of religion alone, and that
) might be ok. But that is clearly not the case. Some of the books I've read
) make it clear that the life force stuff is what makes it go and this is the
) actual physical fact.
)
) My hats are safe.
)
) Peter
)
) Peter Farrell Phone (+613) 9688 4282
) Optical Technology Research Laboratory Fax (+613) 9688 4698
) School of Communications and Informatics(F119)
) Victoria University Email peter.farrell vu.edu.au
) PO Box 14428 MCMC
) Melbourne 8001 Australia
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2032.10 ---------------
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 19:54:02 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lisa
)
)) I certainly would not look at each and every person I know who
))identifies
))himself as an Anthrop. and immediately think ``racist.'' But I WOULD
))wonder,
))based on the depth of that person's commitment to Anthrop. (take a
))dedicated
))W. teacher, for instance -- one who is known for going ``by the book'')
))whether they shared Steiner's feelings that one racial group is more
))spiritually evolved than others. I still think it is a fair question.
)
)[Harve]
)
)What you are describing is a very anti-intellectual approach. Based on the
)anthroposophists we have heard from on this list: e.g., Paulina, Joe, Sune,
)Felix--that is clearly not the case. I do not think that these analytical
)thinkers are going to wear certain colors and eat certain things simply
)because Steiner said so. Nor are they going to subscribe to alleged racial
)theories because Steiner said so. If they choose to follow Steiner on a
)point, it is because they have thought about it and believe it.
David: Apart from all that, who the heck knows (and how would you tell?)
which teachers are more anthroposophist or less anthroposophist? There just
isn't very much objective evidence you can use to make that determination
(other than simply asking). Nor is this a topic I ever remember coming up
in parking lot conversation, at parent council meetings, at board meetings,
anywhere.
All our teachers are engaged at some level in studying anthroposophy as it
relates to their teaching. I (and most if not all of the parents I've met)
are far more interested in how well our teachers teach than in whether they
follow a nonexistent Waldorf / anthroposophic "book".
David
__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n2032 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n2033 --------------
001 - Felix Hau (felix.hau anth - Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
002 - Sean Slovan (sean.slovan - Peter Staudenmaier's use of sources
003 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit t - Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
004 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Jewish wisdom
005 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Jewish wisdom
006 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
007 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Jewish wisdom
008 - "Diana Winters" (winters_ - Re: Avoid computReading, abstractions and sclerosis (was domin
009 - "David Cann" (canndw netz - Re: lines once again / Lisa's child
010 - Joe Serio (jserio01 earth - Re: Peter Staudenmaier's use of sources
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2033.1 ---------------
From: Felix Hau (felix.hau anthroposophie-heute.de)
Subject: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 02:10:15 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200003012327.PAA26945 lists1.best.com)
Dear Harve!
harve wrote:
) What you are describing is a very anti-intellectual approach. Based on the
) anthroposophists we have heard from on this list: e.g., Paulina, Joe, Sune,
) Felix--that is clearly not the case. I do not think that these analytical
) thinkers are going to wear certain colors and eat certain things simply
) because Steiner said so. Nor are they going to subscribe to alleged racial
) theories because Steiner said so. If they choose to follow Steiner on a
) point, it is because they have thought about it and believe it.
That's it, indeed. If there has been one "rule" for me not
only in view to Steiner, but to all "theories",
"thought-systems" and so on, then it has been to be
sceptical about them - until I can say: I know (I find it
very difficult to define what "knowledge" means, by the
way!). And even then I continue to check and verify it with
respect to every situation I meet with.
Maybe it's surprising: But I would call myself still an
atheist. I find that this matches extraordinarily well with
anthroposophy.
By the way: Do you know one of my favourite Steiner's?
"It's better to eat some ham than to think some"
:-)))
Regards,
Felix
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2033.2 ---------------
From: Sean Slovan (sean.slovan gmx.net)
Subject: Peter Staudenmaier's use of sources
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:15:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (200003011821.KAA24655 lists1.best.com)
Another posting, I got too much spare time tonight, but this won't happen
very often, I promise.
As I have access to and am familar with a rather big research library, I
took the pains to check the "proofs" P. Staudenmaier recently gave here on
this list for his claim that Rudolf Hess was "Anthroposophist" -- a question
that caught my interest. Now let us see.
Subject: [Staudenmaier] one more for the list
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 23:49:50 -0800
) But while Hess was hardly the only high-up Nazi who was a
) convinced anthroposophist, he was the best known, so Detlef's laughable
) claim deserves at least to be tested against the scholarly consensus. [...]
)The matter is complicated in this instance by the fact that after
) Hess lost the internal party struggle over offical attitudes toward
) organized anthroposophy, it wasn't a wise career move to voice one's
) favorable opinions of it. Nevertheless scholarly opinion is not divided on
) this question. Aside from the sources cited in my article (both Haushofer
) and Bramwell document Hess's Steinerite worldview), evidence for the
) determinate influence of anthroposophy on Hess's thinking is provided in
) biographies of Hess (see Wulf Schwarzwaeller, Der Stellvertreter des
) Fuehrers, p. 159),
Schwarzwaeller's book is a popular account, without references nor
footnotes. On p. 159 he mentions that Hess was a greedy reader of obscure
writings on Homeopathy, nature healing and eye diagnostics, that he tried to
get into contact with all kind of prophets, astrologers and diviners, and
that he studied books on Theosophy and Anthroposophy as well. He was
especially interested in bio-dynamical agriculture (as he was very concerned
with healthy nutrition and always afraid of being poisoned) and in Waldorf
education. No statement as to Hess being an Anthroposophist. No sources are
given.
)general accounts of the Nazi leadership (see Joachim
) Fest, Das Gesicht des Dritten Reiches, p. 264),
Fest is indeed a renowned conservative historian. But: Nada, nothing at all.
Hess "was convinced of the influence of stars on the destiny", was
surrounded by diviners, radioesthesians and pendulum swingers (how do you
say in English??), used homeopathic drugs brought to him by Sven Hedin from
Tibet. No mentioning of Steiner nor of Anthroposophy on p. 264 and in the
whole essay on Hess. The same is true for the best historical account (not
quoted by Staudenmaier) by Dietrich Orlow in: Die braune Elite, edited by
the American historian Ronald Smelser (whom I happen to know personally) and
the rather conservative German historian Rainer Zitelmann, Darmstadt 1989.
)overviews of the esoteric
) movement (see James Webb, The Occult Establishment, p. 308), and studies of
) the link between esoteric and fascist philosophies (see Peter Orzechowski,
) Schwarze Magie - Braune Macht, p. 121).
Hmm, I like Webb's book a lot, but in many details it is simply unreliable,
as Webb had to refer to already existing literature, in the case of Hess to
the multitude of books which make a well-selling story out of the "occult
history of the Third Reich", from Tibet to Aleister Crowley. His statement
on Hess is only cursory, a bit like Schwarzwaeller's. He had no access to
sources at all. Orzechowski is much worse, as he recopies almost every crude
story that can be found in trashy books like the ones by Pauwels/Bergier and
Brennan.
Strange that Staudenmaier has a preference for the kind of irrational
"historical" literature he tries to refute. But that's the way it goes: as
long as it serves the means, print the legend.
)I am unaware of a single
) non-anthroposophist historian who disputes this interpretation. That
) doesn't, of course, necessarily mean that this interpretation is "correct",
) but it does mean that you need to adduce more than a lone deprecating
) remark by Hess to disprove it.
Hess was an early member of the notorious Munich Thule Society (already in
1918/19); the same secret society tried to kill "Jewish revolutionaries" who
came to government in Munich at that time.
(For details see Hermann Gilbhard: Die Thule-Gesellschaft Vom okkulten
Mummenschanz zum Hakenkreuz. München 1994; Detlev Rose: Die
Thule-Gesellschaft. Legende Mythos Wirklichkeit. Tübingen 1994; Reginald
H. Phelps: Before Hitler Came: Thule Society and Germanenorden. In: Journal
of Modern History 35 (1963), pp. 245-261; M. Plewnia: Auf dem Weg zu Hitler.
Der »völkische« Publizist Dietrich Eckart. Bremen 1970.)
And on May 15, 1922, the Thule Society (Hitler, too, was close to it at that
time) tried to assassinate the "Jew and Anthroposoph" Rudolf Steiner during
a public lecture in Munich in the hotel Vier Jahreszeiten. Steiner escaped
thanks to his alert bodyguards and never held a public lecture in Germany
again. After the attempted Ludendorff-Hitler putsch in Munich in 1923, he
said that he would not even touch German soil again, if these people would
come to power.
Hess at that time was quite open for all kind of "occult" phenomena, but not
particulary for Anthroposophy, even if some Anthroposophists had the
illusion that Hess, if only addressed, could intervene in their favour to
protect them from persecution. Much more important: Hess' wife Ilse Hess
wrote in a letter from June 14, 1984 that her husband was not interested in
Anthroposophy at all ("ihr Mann [hat] sich überhaupt nicht für
Anthroposophie interessiert"), even if others held the opinion that they
both were Anthroposophists ["die Meinung, wir seien Anthroposophen, [sich]
beharrlich hielt"; quoted in "Anthroposophy and Nationalsocialism", in:
Flensburger Hefte no. 32 (1991), p. 23], -- especially after Hess' flight to
Scotland in 1941, when Martin Bormann and Heydrich started their diffamation
attack against Hess.
As Marco Pasi could prove in his excellent Ph.D. thesis "Aleister Crowley e
la tentazione della politica", Milano 1999, chap. 3, Hess was attracted to
go to Scotland by British occultists like Aleister Crowley who cooperated on
this with the secret service M.I.5 (among the contact persons was Ian
Fleming -- yes 007's father). Crowley, the Beast, had been in Berlin from
1930 until 1932. The documents from this very period are missing among his
papers in the London Warburg Institute.
The most authoritative scholarly books on the "occult" side of the NS, e.g.
Ellic Howe: Astrology and the Third Reich. Wellingborough 1984; Nicholas
Goodrick-Clarke: The Occult Roots of National-Socialism. London 1985; Hans
Th. Hakl: Nationalsozialismus und Okkultismus, in: Gnostika nos.1, 4 and
7/1997; Brigitte Hamann: Hitler's Wien. Lehrjahre eines Diktators. München
1996; Friedrich Heer: Der Glaube des Adolf Hitler. Anatomie einer
politischen Religiosität. München-Esslingen 1968, all NEVER mention either
Rudolf Steiner or Anthroposophy in this context.
It can be stated: Hess was NOT an Anthroposophist, nor was he basically
influenced by Anthroposophy. Sorry.
An old sworn enemy of Rudolf Steiner since 1920, Jakob Wilhelm Hauer, who
was eager to prove already in the early 1930s that A. was contrary and
harming to the (un-)spirit of New Nazi Germany, came forward with this story
in 1941, when Hess was in Scotland. Hess had been manipulated -- Hauer wrote
in a letter to Himmler on May 13, 1941 -- by "the great demonical seducer"
Rudolf Steiner, certainly of Jewish origin, who had according to Hauer
already manipulated by occult means General von Moltke back in 1914, when
the German army under the command of the latter lost the battle on the
Marne. This Steiner was an anti-German Cagliostro. Hess was his victim.
Hauer relied on Mathilde Ludendorff's and her followers' attack against
Steiner from February 1933 in a Berlin newspaper (National-Zeitung) where
she had claimed that because of his influence on the German general H. von
Moltke in 1914, Germany lost the first, decisive battle at the Marne and as
a consequence the entire war. Germany's defeat in WW I therefore was the
work of the "Theosoph, Jew, Freemason and Communist Rudolf Steiner". In
another pamphlet by the NS propaganda office Hochmuth, Steiner is depicted
as being involved in the Jewish-Masonic world conspiracy, being a "Half-Jew,
the agent of the [Masonic] Grand Orient [of France]".
That's why Hess went to Scotland when he fell under the "Anthroposophical
spell".
And that's how fairy tales start. Many books just copy and recopy the old
Nazi propaganda on Hess written AFTER 1941. So did Staudenmaier. I won't
comment his knowledge of historical sources, which is equal to nil, any
further. Nor his non-existing care for historical accuracy.
Seán Slován
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2033.3 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 21:00:22 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200003011439.GAA29389 lists1.best.com)
Lisa Ercolano wrote:
) I'm still waiting, though, for any of the devoted Anthros on the list to
) answer me!! (G)
Dear Lisa,
I will be a devoted anthro for you, but I hope you won't mind if I don't fit
what appears to be assumptions on your part. In fact, I would guess from your
posts that you don't know many anthroposophers, and that a lot of what you think
you know, you have learned on this list.
Personally, if I wanted to know something about the Jewish religion, I would
not go to Louis Farakan with my questions. This list is a very poor place to
learn about anthroposophy.
You speak of anthro beliefs. If you will remember, Paulina recently asked
Dan (I think it was Dan) to tell her what he thought her beliefs were, so she
could see if it was true. I am of the same mind. I don't know what you are
talking about, even though I have been acquainted with Steiner for over twenty
years, and a member of the Society for that long and a member of the Class for
fifteen (if you want to know about the Class, please don't ask Dan, unless you
don't want to know about the Class).
I do know many anthroposophers who sometimes act like "true believers" in
the sense of Eric Hoffer. But that characteristic is a human one, not limited
to anthroposophers. "True believers" of any persuasion will always leave one a
bit put off. So, I am not surprised to find that condition in anthroposophy or
any where else for that matter.
Also, regards Steiner's "racist" ideas: If you collected those ideas you
have been posting from this list, then consider the source. If not, than
perhaps you didn't understand what you read.
Also, I am sorry to tell you, that since I am not a type of human being that
is a "true believer", I don't carry a lot of Steiner-ideas in my head as
beliefs. To me, being an anthroposopher means being interested in the truth,
and in being very careful about "how" I think. Not "what" I think, but about
the "qualities" of intention etc. that happen precedent to, and coextensive
with, the act of thinking. Most, not "true believing" anthroposophers that I
know, wouldn't touch a racist Steiner idea wherever they found it (and he did
seem to have some stereotypes of his own). Most anthroposophers I know (again
of the non-true believing type of person), struggle, like most good willed
people (such as you appear to be), to overcome what is repugnant in our culture
and to improve it.
warm regards,
joel
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2033.4 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Jewish wisdom
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 02:50:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (200002271736.JAA05421 lists1.best.com) (200002272146.NAA17167 lists1.best.com) (200002272228.OAA06459 lists1.best.com) (200002280058.QAA13549 lists1.best.com) (200002282232.OAA12462 lists1.best.com) (200003011925.LAA26716 lists1.best.com)
Alan wrote:
) Well, some cultures come and go quickly, too. That is another fact of
) history. If I were to say that Anthroposophy is dying and its task is to
) pass on its wisdom before it expires, would you find that offensive?
Dear Alan,
I'm grateful for your response to my small efforts of sorting some
possible thoughts on anthroposophy and Judaism. I had not thought much
about it or expressed them before. Seeing your response, and thinking
for some time about it, I can understand you and see your point. The
history of the Jewish people is a complex story and I have no final
'answers' on the subject.
During the hard time of its (only Juda or all tribes the tribes of
Israel?) abduction to Babylonia by Nebukadnezar II c 590 B.C. it was
promised by Jehova through the Profets that it would be allowed to
come 'back' to its 'home' country. It also did 538 B.C.
To what extent can that be used as an argument, if that is the case
(?), also after that return, for having been promised to return also
after the Diaspora that started 350 years later, or are there other
promises for that renewed return this century? The question is not
meant to be offensive, as I hope you understand, I'm just curious
about the argumentation.
I'm also aware of the two heavenly congregations of the one of
144 000, related to the 12 tribes of Israel (?) and the innumerable
members of the white-dressed congregation described in the Apocalypse
of St John, related to the rest of mankind(?). It's still a subject I
haven't dived into.
(Also, Yael writes:
'There's a big difference between saying that, from a historical
perspective, a culture has already passed its peak, or has even died
out, and speculating or predicting that a currently vibrant culture is
about to die (or should have already). In my opinion, the latter is
offensive; the former not at all.'
Integrating the culture of different Jewish groups around the world in
a natural way into the cultural environment where it exists, that has
to a large extent also been the case is, I think, something that is a
good development that should be striven for.
What I think upset a number of members of also the Jewish community
around the world when the thought came up of a return to a sort of
pre-Diaspora state, was the concept of today to found a new/old
_state_ based on the dominance of a more or less purely
_ethnic/cultural_ group, with laws for all the members of the state
based on that _ethnic/cultural_ group, not more generally human
perspectives.
This is an unlucky tendency that has become increasingly common with
always unhappy results around the world, one of the latest one being
Nigeria (?), where the Government the last period decided to impose
the Islamic law of Sharia to all, leading to violent conflicts between
Muslim and 'Christian' groups and many dead.
The same has been the case in Yugoslavia, when US decided to support
the separation and special formation of Kosovo as a separate new
state, based on the Albanian part of its population, dragging the rest
of NATO and Europe into a war, that has just lead to renewed human
disaster to all involved in the region, with no light yet at the end
of the tunnel.
It is a sort of renewed mini National Socialism, based on the
'special' rights of a special ethnic group 'over' the rights over
other ethnic groups.
The problem can, I think, only be solved, if one looks at what is the
issue; the awareness of the necessity to distinguish between
_cultural_ rights and basic _civil_(?) rights, equal for all, the last
of which is what holds for states as _legal_ areas.
The problem can be solved and _has_ been solved without violence in
different parts of the world, one being for 'Åland', the 'Finnish'
island with a Swedish speaking population, that has its special status
within mainly Finnish speaking Finland without separating from Finland
to become part of Sweden, or forming a fullblown 'state' of its own.
There are surely other examples around the world, that I'm not just
now aware of right now.)
As for anthroposophy being old already ... that is not my feeling,
when seeing how much it has developed so far. I more have the feeling
it is still in a very early phase that will continue to develop over
at least some two hundred more years in its present form before
declining.
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2033.5 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Jewish wisdom
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 02:50:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (200002271736.JAA05421 lists1.best.com) (200002272146.NAA17167 lists1.best.com) (200002272228.OAA06459 lists1.best.com) (200002280058.QAA13549 lists1.best.com) (200002282232.OAA12462 lists1.best.com) (200003011925.LAA26716 lists1.best.com)
Alan wrote:
) Well, some cultures come and go quickly, too. That is another fact of
) history. If I were to say that Anthroposophy is dying and its task is to
) pass on its wisdom before it expires, would you find that offensive?
Dear Alan,
I'm grateful for your response to my small efforts of sorting some
possible thoughts on anthroposophy and Judaism. I had not thought much
about it or expressed them before. Seeing your response, and thinking
for some time about it, I can understand you and see your point. The
history of the Jewish people is a complex story and I have no final
'answers' on the subject.
During the hard time of its (only Juda or all tribes the tribes of
Israel?) abduction to Babylonia by Nebukadnezar II c 590 B.C. it was
promised by Jehova through the Profets that it would be allowed to
come 'back' to its 'home' country. It also did 538 B.C.
To what extent can that be used as an argument, if that is the case
(?), also after that return, for having been promised to return also
after the Diaspora that started 350 years later, or are there other
promises for that renewed return this century? The question is not
meant to be offensive, as I hope you understand, I'm just curious
about the argumentation.
I'm also aware of the two heavenly congregations of the one of
144 000, related to the 12 tribes of Israel (?) and the innumerable
members of the white-dressed congregation described in the Apocalypse
of St John, related to the rest of mankind(?). It's still a subject I
haven't dived into.
(Also, Yael writes:
'There's a big difference between saying that, from a historical
perspective, a culture has already passed its peak, or has even died
out, and speculating or predicting that a currently vibrant culture is
about to die (or should have already). In my opinion, the latter is
offensive; the former not at all.'
Integrating the culture of different Jewish groups around the world in
a natural way into the cultural environment where it exists, that has
to a large extent also been the case is, I think, something that is a
good development that should be striven for.
What I think upset a number of members of also the Jewish community
around the world when the thought came up of a return to a sort of
pre-Diaspora state, was the concept of today to found a new/old
_state_ based on the dominance of a more or less purely
_ethnic/cultural_ group, with laws for all the members of the state
based on that _ethnic/cultural_ group, not more generally human
perspectives.
This is an unlucky tendency that has become increasingly common with
always unhappy results around the world, one of the latest one being
Nigeria (?), where the Government the last period decided to impose
the Islamic law of Sharia to all, leading to violent conflicts between
Muslim and 'Christian' groups and many dead.
The same has been the case in Yugoslavia, when US decided to support
the separation and special formation of Kosovo as a separate new
state, based on the Albanian part of its population, dragging the rest
of NATO and Europe into a war, that has just lead to renewed human
disaster to all involved in the region, with no light yet at the end
of the tunnel.
It is a sort of renewed mini National Socialism, based on the
'special' rights of a special ethnic group 'over' the rights over
other ethnic groups.
The problem can, I think, only be solved, if one looks at what is the
issue; the awareness of the necessity to distinguish between
_cultural_ rights and basic _civil_(?) rights, equal for all, the last
of which is what holds for states as _legal_ areas.
The problem can be solved and _has_ been solved without violence in
different parts of the world, one being for 'Åland', the 'Finnish'
island with a Swedish speaking population, that has its special status
within mainly Finnish speaking Finland without separating from Finland
to become part of Sweden, or forming a fullblown 'state' of its own.
There are surely other examples around the world, that I'm not just
now aware of right now.)
As for anthroposophy being old already ... that is not my feeling,
when seeing how much it has developed so far. I more have the feeling
it is still in a very early phase that will continue to develop over
at least some two hundred more years in its present form before
declining.
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2033.6 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:06:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200003012327.PAA26945 lists1.best.com) (200003020115.RAA27162 lists1.best.com)
Felix wrote:
) Maybe it's surprising: But I would call myself still an
) atheist. I find that this matches extraordinarily well with
) anthroposophy.
New thought provoking perspective! :-)
Hm. Is God, not?
) By the way: Do you know one of my favourite Steiner's?
) "It's better to eat some ham than to think some"
) :-)))
'think ham'? Or was it 'hamburger ...'? :-)
Sune
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2033.7 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Jewish wisdom
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 02:50:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (200002271736.JAA05421 lists1.best.com) (200002272146.NAA17167 lists1.best.com) (200002272228.OAA06459 lists1.best.com) (200002280058.QAA13549 lists1.best.com) (200002282232.OAA12462 lists1.best.com) (200003011925.LAA26716 lists1.best.com)
Alan wrote:
) Well, some cultures come and go quickly, too. That is another fact of
) history. If I were to say that Anthroposophy is dying and its task is to
) pass on its wisdom before it expires, would you find that offensive?
Dear Alan,
I'm grateful for your response to my small efforts of sorting some
possible thoughts on anthroposophy and Judaism. I had not thought much
about it or expressed them before. Seeing your response, and thinking
for some time about it, I can understand you and see your point. The
history of the Jewish people is a complex story and I have no final
'answers' on the subject.
During the hard time of its (only Juda or all tribes the tribes of
Israel?) abduction to Babylonia by Nebukadnezar II c 590 B.C. it was
promised by Jehova through the Profets that it would be allowed to
come 'back' to its 'home' country. It also did 538 B.C.
To what extent can that be used as an argument, if that is the case
(?), also after that return, for having been promised to return also
after the Diaspora that started 350 years later, or are there other
promises for that renewed return this century? The question is not
meant to be offensive, as I hope you understand, I'm just curious
about the argumentation.
I'm also aware of the two heavenly congregations of the one of
144 000, related to the 12 tribes of Israel (?) and the innumerable
members of the white-dressed congregation described in the Apocalypse
of St John, related to the rest of mankind(?). It's still a subject I
haven't dived into.
(Also, Yael writes:
'There's a big difference between saying that, from a historical
perspective, a culture has already passed its peak, or has even died
out, and speculating or predicting that a currently vibrant culture is
about to die (or should have already). In my opinion, the latter is
offensive; the former not at all.'
Integrating the culture of different Jewish groups around the world in
a natural way into the cultural environment where it exists, that has
to a large extent also been the case is, I think, something that is a
good development that should be striven for.
What I think upset a number of members of also the Jewish community
around the world when the thought came up of a return to a sort of
pre-Diaspora state, was the concept of today to found a new/old
_state_ based on the dominance of a more or less purely
_ethnic/cultural_ group, with laws for all the members of the state
based on that _ethnic/cultural_ group, not more generally human
perspectives.
This is an unlucky tendency that has become increasingly common with
always unhappy results around the world, one of the latest one being
Nigeria (?), where the Government the last period decided to impose
the Islamic law of Sharia to all, leading to violent conflicts between
Muslim and 'Christian' groups and many dead.
The same has been the case in Yugoslavia, when US decided to support
the separation and special formation of Kosovo as a separate new
state, based on the Albanian part of its population, dragging the rest
of NATO and Europe into a war, that has just lead to renewed human
disaster to all involved in the region, with no light yet at the end
of the tunnel.
It is a sort of renewed mini National Socialism, based on the
'special' rights of a special ethnic group 'over' the rights over
other ethnic groups.
The problem can, I think, only be solved, if one looks at what is the
issue; the awareness of the necessity to distinguish between
_cultural_ rights and basic _civil_(?) rights, equal for all, the last
of which is what holds for states as _legal_ areas.
The problem can be solved and _has_ been solved without violence in
different parts of the world, one being for 'Åland', the 'Finnish'
island with a Swedish speaking population, that has its special status
within mainly Finnish speaking Finland without separating from Finland
to become part of Sweden, or forming a fullblown 'state' of its own.
There are surely other examples around the world, that I'm not just
now aware of right now.)
As for anthroposophy being old already ... that is not my feeling,
when seeing how much it has developed so far. I more have the feeling
it is still in a very early phase that will continue to develop over
at least some two hundred more years in its present form before
declining.
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2033.8 ---------------
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Avoid computReading, abstractions and sclerosis (was dominant culture etc. )
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:32:40 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
[Harve, about the Healy book:]
)I read this book a few years ago. I'll look at it again and see if I can
)answer your questions. I'm really busy right now, so I can't )do it until
)the weekend.
I just wondered. Don't feel you must. I could look at it somewhere else too.
[Harve]
)She does use the example of algebra. Healy said that when she )"learned"
)it in school, she did not get it. Later, she attempted )again and it came
)very easily and hypothesized that that part of her )brain had been
)mylenized when she learned easily.
I had to take algebra twice too. The first time through I was completely
confused and panic-stricken and barely passed. The next year it was suddenly
obvious to me and I breezed through.
)I wondered about the long term effect of one-year-olds pushing )buttons on
)a computer and pushing the mouse button. Quite frankly, )it makes me want
)to run to the closest Waldorf school.
Well, I agree about one year olds on the computer, there's much better
things for a one year old to spend their time on. I just don't know if I
agree any more about 5 year olds, or 8 year olds. I think in today's world
not letting your child use the computer would be sort of like not letting
them learn to use the telephone. There may be drawbacks to it, even grave
dangers, but you have to deal with them, you can't just pretend it doesn't
exist, or you're solving one problem (maybe, or just postponing it) but
you're creating others.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2033.9 ---------------
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: lines once again / Lisa's child
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 21:52:21 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
)[David wrote:]
))A Waldorf school is definitely more of a "everybody does it together"
))enterprise. One *might* say that the approach (overall) purports to )be
))more in sync with children's (in the universal sense) innate )tendencies.
Diana Winters
)Glad you pointed this out. Somebody today, might have been Harve but I've
)lost track, said Waldorf considers the "individual child" (maybe about
)reading readiness?) This is a common misunderstanding, sort of like Chand's
)"they let them learn at their own pace." Yes, they are interested in your
)child as an individual, but they are basically applying fairly rigid
)"universal" timetables in terms of their understanding of children's
)development. In many ways it's "one size fits all" in Waldorf.
)
)Of course "everybody does it together" is a nice thing in some ways too.
I do not think that "everybody does it together" is inconsistent with "learn
at their own pace." In a Waldorf school, everybody may "do it" together,
but everybody certainly will not "get it" at the same time.
I think you either misinterpreted my post or decided to make a different
point from the one I intended. I would not use the word "rigid" in
describing Waldorf education.
All children undertake each subject.
All children participate in the music, language, math, reading, painting,
beeswax, movement, etc.
How the children respond to the subjects and the various approaches to the
subjects are highly individual. Some are better at some things, others not
so. The "individual child" figures strongly into this. I see no attempt to
make everybody the same, to make (using your words) "one size fit all."
Is this what you meant above?
David
__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2033.10 ---------------
From: Joe Serio (jserio01 earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's use of sources
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 23:19:11 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (200003020119.RAA00884 lists1.best.com)
Sean Slovan wrote:
)
)
) And that's how fairy tales start. Many books just copy and recopy the old
) Nazi propaganda on Hess written AFTER 1941. So did Staudenmaier. I won't
) comment his knowledge of historical sources, which is equal to nil, any
) further. Nor his non-existing care for historical accuracy.
)
) Seán Slován
Thanks Sean, for taking the time to do the research.
Joe
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n2033 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n2034 --------------
001 - "David Cann" (canndw netz - Re: lines once again / Lisa child
002 - "joseph robinson" (joseph - From Heyatawin: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
003 - Felix Hau (felix.hau anth - Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
004 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: From Heyatawin: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
005 - Sean Slovan (sean.slovan - Re: Weleda vs. NASA
006 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit t - Re: Chand to Dan on Steiner and Nazism
007 - "Diana Winters" (winters_ - Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
008 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Jewish wisdom
009 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
010 - "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2ga - Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2034.1 ---------------
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: lines once again / Lisa child
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 19:18:44 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
)[David wrote:]
))A Waldorf school is definitely more of a "everybody does it together"
))enterprise. One *might* say that the approach (overall) purports to )be
))more in sync with children's (in the universal sense) innate )tendencies.
Diana Winters
)Glad you pointed this out. Somebody today, might have been Harve but I've
)lost track, said Waldorf considers the "individual child" (maybe about
)reading readiness?) This is a common misunderstanding, sort of like Chand's
)"they let them learn at their own pace." Yes, they are interested in your
)child as an individual, but they are basically applying fairly rigid
)"universal" timetables in terms of their understanding of children's
)development. In many ways it's "one size fits all" in Waldorf.
)
)Of course "everybody does it together" is a nice thing in some ways too.
I do not think that "everybody does it together" is inconsistent with "learn
at their own pace." In a Waldorf school, everybody may "do it" together,
but everybody certainly will not "get it" at the same time.
I think you either misinterpreted my post or decided to make a different
point from the one I intended. I would not use the word "rigid" in
describing Waldorf education.
All children undertake each subject.
All children participate in the music, language, math, reading, painting,
beeswax, movement, etc.
How the children respond to the subjects and the various approaches to the
subjects are highly individual. Some are better at some things, others not
so. The "individual child" figures strongly into this. I see no attempt to
make everybody the same, to make (using your words) "one size fit all."
Is this what you meant above?
David
__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2034.2 ---------------
From: "joseph robinson" (joseph_robins hotmail.com)
Subject: From Heyatawin: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:01:21 PST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
)From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)Subject: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
)Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 23:23:44 GMT
)
)[Lisa]
)
)) I certainly would not look at each and every person I know who
))identifies
))himself as an Anthrop. and immediately think ``racist.'' But I WOULD
))wonder,
))based on the depth of that person's commitment to Anthrop. (take a
))dedicated
))W. teacher, for instance -- one who is known for going ``by the book'')
))whether they shared Steiner's feelings that one racial group is more
))spiritually evolved than others. I still think it is a fair question.
(Heyatawin to Lisa)Hello Lisa. I was going to respond to your post re: your
child's experience two days ago - I have decided to relate the following:
I had a long talk with my little girl's principal today. This past
week, my daughter's school has been doing various workshops, healing circles
and sharing re; issues of abuse and violence with an emphasis on connecting
the feelings and emotions induced by these issues. One of the teachers (who
my daughter adores) included, in his particular workshop, a little booklet
aimed at teaching the children to trust their feelings and to talk to
parents they trust when or if they feel scared etc. . One of the pages of
the booklet is blank, save for a title over a frame within which there is no
picture. The title reads, "Violence can Make People Feel Scared" and
underneath the frame in smaller letters is the sentence, "It is ok to feel
scared" - the teacher wanted the children to understand that they were/are
allowed to have feelings of fear, confusion, dislike etc. re: someone who
hurts them and not to feel guilty or ashamed for their feelings. The
children were then given the choice to draw a picture inside of the empty
frame - my little girl drew a picture of her fear.
My daughter's drawing is a depiction of one of the incidences of abuse
that she sustained in Waldorf. The picture shows my daughter's teacher
standing behind her, the face is contorted in anger, the mouth drawn
downward. The teacher's arms are reaching outward encircling my daughter -
the hands are drawn large, the fingers grasping toward my child, the eyes
are filled in with dark purple, the eye brows drawn down heavy over the eyes
in anger. My daughter is positioned seated at her desk directly in front of
the teacher, the large hands of the teacher positioned on each side of her
body. My little girl's arms are stretched upward and outward - as though
she were drowning and waving for help, my little girl drew in her long black
hair falling forward over a depiction of her desk which hides the rest of
her body. The expression on my little girl's face in this drawing (this is
difficult) is haunting . . . her face is tilted slightly upward, her mouth
is an upside down "U". My daughter has drawn her eyes wide open, she filled
them in with no colour - they are just wide empty circles - never has my
daughter before drawn eyes like she has depicted hers to look in this
picture . . .she has drawn her fear, her bewilderment and the emptiness that
she felt, that all of us feel, at the moment when their trust has been
breeched. This picture was photo copied and filed by my daughter's school
today.
I know well the incident that has induced my daughter to project this
image of fear - there were other "incidents" as well. Substantial time has
passed since my daughter told me of the abuses she was being subjected to in
the Waldorf school that she was in. At the time of her telling, I made a
point of taping her as she related to me what had been happening - I have
those tapes. My daughter has related to her present teachers and principal
yesterday and today what she suffered in that W. school - what she has told
them, of course, match the tapes. Her principal pointedly spoke separately
to the two teachers to whom my daughter spoke re: these issues, he then
spoke with my daughter alone; her story changed not between each of them.
My little girl is not yet eight years old - difficult to refute and
impossible to ignore
I have placed this post between Lisa's and Harve's posts for a reason -
it does not need elaboration. The *reality* is, for those of you who so
admantly disagree, there *are* Waldorf educators who are racist and who *do*
believe that they *are* designated as the developers of our childrens'
"consciousness soul" and who *will* endeavor to carry out that objective by
whatever means necessary due to their interpretations, faith and adoration
for Rudolph Steiner and Anth. A "distorted" reinterpretation of Stiener is
inevitable (positive or negative) because no one will ever be able to
accurately regurgitate Steiner's experience - only Steiner himself can do
that. Others will interpret Steiner through the filters of their own
values, attitudes and beliefs, which produces their own unique perception,
which is key to the above. The *reality* is that there are many (too many)
people in this world who seek out a philosophy, worldview, religion, cult
etc. for the sole purpose of validating their own distorted and/or
dysfunctional mental states. If I, Lisa, Dan or Deby percieve some of
Steiner's ideas, suggestions, or pieces of his 'philosophy' as racist - what
might people as described above percieve? It is time for a reality check;
there are people who relish "power" who crave/need to be percieved and to
percieve themselves as special, as superior, as "designated" to guide the
spiritual life of others and on and on. Further, if you think that someone
who harbours such warped self - perceptions or psychological difficulties is
going to sit down with you and have a casual little chit chat about it, you
are dreaming.
Harve, what you wrote below is, in my view, the approach that is "anti
- intellectual" and Lisa was not talking about Paulina, Joe, Sune, Felix or
you. Have you ever heard of Ted Bundy?? You may not, immediately, understand
why I asked you that particular question but if you "think about" it, you
might. (study his character) Many on this List have recommended some
wonderful literature - here's my recommendation: begin with a comprehensive
study of anti - social personality disorder . . . it is much more common
than you may think.
Heyatawin
P.S. Screen your teachers THOROUGHLY, it's the least you could do in
response to some of the parents on this List.
)[Harve]
)
)What you are describing is a very anti-intellectual approach. Based on the
)anthroposophists we have heard from on this list: e.g., Paulina, Joe, Sune,
)Felix--that is clearly not the case. I do not think that these analytical
)thinkers are going to wear certain colors and eat certain things simply
)because Steiner said so. Nor are they going to subscribe to alleged racial
)theories because Steiner said so. If they choose to follow Steiner on a
)point, it is because they have thought about it and believe it.
)
)I know that you have little patience with talk of folk groups and root
)groups, but I think that it is necessary to explore Steiner's readings
)fully
)on these issues, before making a decision on his racism.
)
)I think that people who blindly follow Steiner or any ideology or religion
)without thinking for themselves are either tremendously insecure and/or
)very
)lazy. It is called fundamentalism. They have found an answer and now they
)don't have to think anymore. Anthroposophy seems too complex and
)contradictory (hence rich) to grab onto as the quick fix.
)
)It seems to me that if people are blindly following what they perceive to
)be
)Steiner, then they are not even getting it.
)
)I think that most teachers in Waldorf schools today have probably never
)heard of root groups and would be deeply offended by the material on Dan's
)website. Most of them are probably so busy getting ready for the next day
)and learning new material for the course block that they don't really have
)time to ponder these issues.
)
)
)______________________________________________________
)Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2034.3 ---------------
From: Felix Hau (felix.hau anthroposophie-heute.de)
Subject: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 09:27:20 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200003011439.GAA29389 lists1.best.com) (200003020155.RAA29181 lists1.best.com)
Dear Joel!
Joel wrote:
)
) To me, being an anthroposopher means being interested in the truth,
) and in being very careful about "how" I think.
That's pointing to something very interesting. In several
discussions with philosophers and physicists I asked them -
arrived at the nowadays claimed "total interaction" (is it
the right term you use for that?), which is, of course,
thought in a materialistic way by natural sciences - what
they think it would be, that "acts" in this interaction.
What is it, that is causing effects? What are the famous
natural laws "substantially"? Can matter _act_?
There are some philosophers who have no difficulties to
regard natural laws substantially as --- _thinking_, not as
some thoughts (and so does Anthroposophy). And I find it
pretty simple to get to this view. If you - for example -
had no idea about what a continuity is, if you could not
_think_ it (not the term, but it's "content"), you would not
be able to make observations at all or to learn your mother
tongue.
It's a lot of fun to discuss this with the most of natural
scientists! Still the common sense is, that the "res
extensa" would have nothing to do with the "res cogitans".
According to that, you can think _about_ the world, but that
has little or no effects on the world itself in all day's
life (in spite of the claimed "total interaction" ;-) ). But
if you just think one minute and watch what you _must_
presuppose in your just simply seeing the world as such, you
will find some extraordinarily striking facts. (That is - by
the way - a spiritual science's research yet!)
If you meet natural laws, you are not thinking _about_ the
world. It's rather, that you think _the world_. :-))
Regards,
Felix
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2034.4 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: From Heyatawin: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 06:32:04 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
[Heyatawin]
) P.S. Screen your teachers THOROUGHLY, it's the least you could do in
) response to some of the parents on this List.
[Bob Tolz]
Even the critics of the Critics can agree with you on that.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2034.5 ---------------
From: Sean Slovan (sean.slovan gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Weleda vs. NASA
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 12:46:49 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (200003012339.PAA06901 lists1.best.com)
) [Sean]
)) But what about your own governments? Take the conference of Bermuda, at
)) Easter! 1943: Churchill and Roosevelt knew already of what was going on in
)) Auschwitz, Treblinka etc.
) [Harve]
)
) Unfortunately, this has a ring of truth to it. When you refer to documents,
) were these actual transcripts of meetings or testimonial accounts taken
) later on? Which one of these sources do you most recommend?.
[Seán]
Transcripts of the British Foreign Office. Check especially David Wyman's
book "The Abandonment of the Jews", New York: Pantheon 1984,
and in case that you need detailed documentation: David S. Wyman: "America
and the Holocaust : a thirteen-volume set documenting the editor's book The
abandonment of the Jews".
Pozdravy,
Seán Slovan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2034.6 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Chand to Dan on Steiner and Nazism
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 07:25:25 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200003011443.GAA01906 lists1.best.com)
Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu wrote:
) Dan's reaction is, in my view, partly against what he sees as a return to
) irrationality and the religion of ages past. There was a book a while back (I
) only read about it) - something like "A Candle in the Darkness" about how
) science was the light that lead out of the dark ages of superstition, and that
) current tendencies might return us to a new "dark age." I think this view
) (perhaps even this book) is why the issue of how science is taught is so dear to
) Dan.
Dear Chand,
Are you thinking about Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World"? The "candle in
the darkness bit is from the jacket blurb, I think.
warm regards,
joel
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2034.7 ---------------
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 12:24:48 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
[Joel to Lisa:]
)In fact, I would guess from your posts that you don't know many
) )anthroposophers, and that a lot of what you think you know, you have
) )learned on this list.
Oh come on, Joel, she's had her children in Waldorf for eight years, she
knows a few anthroposophists.
[Joel:]
)Steiner's "racist" ideas: If you collected those ideas you have been
) )posting from this list, then consider the source.
Joel, the source of the Steiner quotes posted on the list is Steiner.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2034.8 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Jewish wisdom
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 11:31:31 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200002271736.JAA05421 lists1.best.com) (200002272146.NAA17167 lists1.best.com) (200002272228.OAA06459 lists1.best.com) (200002280058.QAA13549 lists1.best.com) (200002282232.OAA12462 lists1.best.com) (200003011925.LAA26716 lists1.best.com) (200003020157.RAA01188 lists1.best.com)
Sorry for the multi-posting. I have some problems with my Internet
Service Provider.
Also, ...
) for some time about it, I can understand you and see your point. The
) history of the Jewish people is a complex story and I have no final
) 'answers' on the subject.
should of course have been ... 'and I of course have no final
'answers' on the subject. Who has, or can have?'
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2034.9 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 08:05:21 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
[David]:
)My second brief whine is that it's usually the least important sentence in
)my post that gets pulled out and used as grist, when the part that I think
)is meatier and more comment-worthy gets dropped.
I have also noticed this.
Chand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2034.10 ---------------
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 09:04:30 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The source IS Steiner, and I DO know people who are very ``by the book''
(meaning, their lives are set up with Anthroposophy as the matrix into which
all else fits). They certainly have the right to adopt any belief system
they choose.
Once again, I find that those who follow Anthrop. are unwilling to
repudiate, to say they do not buy into, Steiner's racial ethnography. Why is
that? Chand says it is because we interpret it the wrong way -- yet Chand
admits to not having read the relevant Steiner. (I would advise you to do
so, Chand, so you might speak with the authority necessary to make your
comments informed ones.)
)From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
)To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)Subject: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
)Date: Thu, Mar 2, 2000, 7:24 AM
)
)
)
)
) [Joel to Lisa:]
))In fact, I would guess from your posts that you don't know many
)) )anthroposophers, and that a lot of what you think you know, you have
)) )learned on this list.
)
) Oh come on, Joel, she's had her children in Waldorf for eight years, she
) knows a few anthroposophists.
)
)
) [Joel:]
))Steiner's "racist" ideas: If you collected those ideas you have been
)) )posting from this list, then consider the source.
)
) Joel, the source of the Steiner quotes posted on the list is Steiner.
)
) ______________________________________________________
) Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
)
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n2034 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n2035 --------------
001 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - Re: College of teachers (Was Re: correspondence from Pan
F
002 - "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2ga - Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
003 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - Re: Chand to Dan on Steiner and Nazism
004 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
005 - "Sarina McDonald" (pandor - Recent Statements by Heyatawin
006 - "Sarina McDonald" (pandor - Computers (WAS: Avoid computReading, abstractions and sclerosi
007 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: Peter Staudenmaier's use of sources
008 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Peter Staudenmaier's use of sources
009 - Terry Boardman (terry.boa - Re: Lisa and the races
010 - Terry Boardman (terry.boa - Chand to Dan on Steiner and Nazism
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2035.1 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: College of teachers (Was Re: correspondence from Pan
Forrest)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 08:18:17 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Joel writes, among other things,
) In Kaufman's book, "Universal Forces in Mechanics", he made an attempt to
)speak of these ethereal forces using the more ordinary understanding of
)physics. For example, he wrote of the capacity of certain types of matter to
)"flex", that is certain metals could be bent. Now one of the consequences of
)bending repeatedly a piece of metal is that it gets "hot". Our bending changes
)the "coherence" of the material and "releases" something bound up in the
)metal. Now interestly enough, if you "weigh" it afterward, it "weighs" the
)same, even though it has given up "heat". That is there is no oxidation, no
)chemical change. Where does the "heat" from?
My understanding is that each time you bend the metal you are breaking
connections between individual metal atoms. These connections are a type of
chemical bond that involves the sharing of electrons. When you break these
bonds, the energy that went into them is released as heat. Thus you shouldn't
get any change in mass. Even if a some sort of mass to energy conversion were
taking place, the amount of matter required to produce the small amount of heat
produced would be minuscule - too small to detect using most measuring devices.
The part about this I am not sure of is why the metal gets stiffer each
time you bend it. Peter?
[Joel]:
) Now what does this have to do with "the heart is more than a pump, in fact
)maybe not a pump at all, but rather a pneumatic ram"?
I'm sorry but this is obscuring the issue. Without the heart, blood flow is
minimal. The rhythmic contraction of the arteries would provide the residual
motive force for the blood, which does not move itself. Most people do not care
if you call the heart a pump or a ram.
The rest of your post deals with alternative ways of viewing nature and people.
I think that adopting many viewpoints is conducive to staving off sclerotic
tendencies ;-).
Chand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2035.2 ---------------
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 09:16:18 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Chand, you don't miss a thing, do you? (G)
----------
)From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
)To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)Subject: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
)Date: Thu, Mar 2, 2000, 9:05 AM
)
)
)
) [David]:
))My second brief whine is that it's usually the least important sentence in
))my post that gets pulled out and used as grist, when the part that I think
))is meatier and more comment-worthy gets dropped.
)
) I have also noticed this.
)
) Chand
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2035.3 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Chand to Dan on Steiner and Nazism
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 08:37:19 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu wrote:
)) Dan's reaction is, in my view, partly against what he sees as a return
to
)) irrationality and the religion of ages past. There was a book a while back
(I
)) only read about it) - something like "A Candle in the Darkness" about how
)) science was the light that lead out of the dark ages of superstition, and
that
)) current tendencies might return us to a new "dark age." I think this view
)) (perhaps even this book) is why the issue of how science is taught is so dear
to
)) Dan.
)Dear Chand,
)
) Are you thinking about Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World"? The "candle
in
)the darkness bit is from the jacket blurb, I think.
)
)warm regards,
)joel
That's it!
Chand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2035.4 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 08:47:47 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
[Lisa]:
)Chand, you don't miss a thing, do you? (G)
I try not to, although I think Heyatawin would disagree with you. Also, there
are times I don't post when I disagree with something. I have to get my work
done, like everybody else, and it can get tiresome to go over the same stuff.
I'm glad you still read my posts, even after all the flak I throw at you.
Chand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2035.5 ---------------
From: "Sarina McDonald" (pandora aa.net)
Subject: Recent Statements by Heyatawin
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 08:15:46 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
)It is time for a reality check;
I agree.
)there are people who relish "power" who crave/need to be
)percieved and to percieve themselves as special, as superior
This is true. It is also true of many public school teachers in our midst.
Can you not see that? Or does the horror of what your child endured loom so
large in your mind that you attribute everything bad in the world to Steiner
and Waldorf?
Ask me, sometime, what a history teacher did to me in my public highschool.
No, on second thought, don't.
Go to the website
http://www.nospank.org
and read the article on rape in the classroom.
Look around you at the violence that seems to be so prevalent around you -
and indeed, always has been. (At least we are all here posting to this list
instead of out dueling in the street.)
These realities do not lessen the effects of the absue your child suffered
or excuse them in any way.
But they do show that what you said is true of a lot of people, not just
Waldorf teachers. I am personally aquainted with a public school teacher who
quit after twelve years because she couldn't stand it anymore. She felt like
she was surrounded by people who hated children and could not understand why
they even became teachers. This was in the public schools, in inner city Los
Angeles.
Do you think there was no racism there? Pah.
Your sad story of abuse may be true, and it may be horrifying, and it may
totally unexcusable. But the "are you still beating your wife?" approach
does nothing but prove to us what YOUR expereinces have been. It does NOT
prove that ALL Waldorf teachers are this way.
How can you explain the good experiences of others? Yes, even others who are
members of minority ethnic or racial groups?
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times - these schools are
individual, and should be treated as such. Some of them are really bad. Some
of them are pretty good. It is up to you, the parent, to figure out which is
which. But saying that because your child and Dan's child and Deby's child
suffered at the hands of Waldorf teachers, that ALL children do and that ALL
Waldorf teachers are racist bigots is beyond shallow. It is, in fact,
exactly what you profess to abhor: stereotyping.
---------------------------
Sarina McDonald
pandora aa.net
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2035.6 ---------------
From: "Sarina McDonald" (pandora aa.net)
Subject: Computers (WAS: Avoid computReading, abstractions and sclerosis)
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 08:34:10 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
)I think in today's world
)not letting your child use the computer would be sort of like not letting
)them learn to use the telephone. There may be drawbacks to it, even grave
)dangers, but you have to deal with them, you can't just pretend it doesn't
)exist, or you're solving one problem (maybe, or just postponing it) but
)you're creating others.
Utter baloney. "Grave dangers" should be overlooked for some pie-in-the-sky
"perceived" benefit? Hah!
First of all, the computer technology we use today will be completely
eclipsed in just a few years, so exactly HOW is it important for kids to
learn how to use today's soon-to-be-outdated technology?
Second, how can you then explain the fact that I learned how to use my
computer at 27? I can design a website, do everything I need to do for my
business (Word, Publisher, Excel, etc.), and last week I reformatted the
hard drive and installed Win98 (finally!). I have been computing for all of
three and half years. So please explain to me how I was somehow held back by
not having computers as a child?
My "deprivation" did not create any problems, I assure you.
Diane, I realize I sound a little snotty. I find myself reacting to this
issue because I feel it is driven by big business and marketing, period.
Like so many other things - from PG-13 movies being marketed to 5 year olds
with Happy Meals and tons of merchandising, to the pervasive attitude that
"enriched" sugar cereal must be good for you (it's not, but it makes a lot
of money). I feel the belief that computers are "essential for children and
the earlier the better", to be nothing more than totally fasle - and highly
successful - marketing propaganda.
There is NO benefit to using computers for children under about the age of
8. That is my opinion, which is based on comparing my personal experience
watching my son use the pc and reading FAILURE TO CONNECT, by Jane Healy. (I
was able to contrast what she was saying in the book with what my kid was
doing on the machine. I realized that it was a colossal waste of his time.)
Please don't take this ranting personally, Diane. I'm not ranting at you.
But I do feel like much of our cultrue is determined by Nabisco and Disney
and whoever it is that puts out Pokemon...and this is one area where VCR
children are finding more reasons to stay inside and hot play with friends
(socially, online gaming doesn't count!), and it really freaks me out. Maybe
this is way out there, but I think kids really do need fresh air and
sunshine, and lots of it. Worthless computer games seem to get in the way of
that.
---------------------------
Sarina McDonald
pandora aa.net
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2035.7 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's use of sources
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 07:01:49 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200003020119.RAA00884 lists1.best.com)
In an interesting post on Hess and Anthroposophy, Peter Slovan writes:
) The most authoritative scholarly books on the "occult" side of the NS,
e.g.
) Ellic Howe: Astrology and the Third Reich. Wellingborough 1984; Nicholas
) Goodrick-Clarke: The Occult Roots of National-Socialism. London 1985
. . .
, all NEVER mention either
) Rudolf Steiner or Anthroposophy in this context.
)
This may be true, but Goodrick-Clarke mentions Steiner and Anthroposophy
several times in the context of the roots of Naziism, particularly inspiring
Rosenberg's works. The point to me is not whether this man is an
Anthropsophist or that man is, or whether Weleda is "clean" of Nazism and
NASA is "dirty" or the other way around. Those kinds of debates can never
and will never get resolved. To me the important issue is whether Steiner
and Anthroposophy contain ideas that reflect the German racism of the
twenties, and Nazi ideology. My feeling is that they sit far too close for
me to ever embrace either of them.
Alan Fine
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2035.8 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Peter Staudenmaier's use of sources
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:05:40 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Alan Fine]
) This may be true, but Goodrick-Clarke mentions Steiner and
) Anthroposophy
) several times in the context of the roots of Naziism,
) particularly inspiring Rosenberg's works.
[Bob Tolz]
That's untrue, Alan. Now it's my turn to say it's you who are being
deceptive, unless of course you come up with some adequate explanation.
I happen to have Goodrick-Clarke's book right here. I'm sure you
must have a copy, right? Turn to the index. Now find the references in the
index which refer to Steiner and Rosenberg on the same page. There are two:
p. 170 and p.223. And on neither of those pages are Steiner and Rosenberg
referred to in the same sentence, let alone linked in the way you stated.
Your comments are a flashback to your McCarthy-like condemnation of
Steiner for being quoted on some hate-oriented website. Need I drag that up
again in detail?
Why do you do you mislead in this way? Is it intentional or by
accident?
) and will never get resolved. To me the important issue is
) whether Steiner
) and Anthroposophy contain ideas that reflect the German racism of the
) twenties, and Nazi ideology. My feeling is that they sit far
) too close for me to ever embrace either of them.
Again you give us comments that you're not going to "embrace"
Steiner or anthroposophy, a variation on a repeated theme in your posts.
Again I ask you who's requesting you to embrace them?
\
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2035.9 ---------------
From: Terry Boardman (terry.boardman cableinet.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Lisa and the races
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 18:38:03 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 09:30:05 -0500
David cann says, in regard to our ongoing discussion as to whether
Steiner's
words on the various races of humankind are relevant in WS today:
((
I just don't think the parochial school analogy works at all
well with relation to Waldorf schools, where they're not teaching any
particular belief system like a Catholic school does.))
Lisa answers:
There are a few of us out here who could argue with that! (Later)
I am considering your point that stereotyping each and every
Anthroposophist as a ``racist'' is as repugnant as the stereotyping of
any
other group.
Why are you only "considering" it, Lisa? Is it not self-evidently
repugnant?
I would argue, though, that certain groups are in fact groups at
all
because their belief systems are what hold them together -- in this
case,
the belief system is what makes the person identify himself/herself
and be
identified by others as an Anthroposophist. (Same with Catholics,
Buddhists,
etc.) The commonality of that very belief system (whatever that belief
system contains) is what makes the group a group.
There is also the question of so-called 'karmic groups', of course.
People may
be drawn to a particular belief system because of their experiences
together
in a previous life. Obviously, if you regard reincarnation as nonsense,
then you can
forget about that, but I'll wager you that reincarnation is going to
come back
very big in the 21st century and we will start to investigate it
scientifically (non-
materialist scientifically, that is). Please do not think, by the way,
that I am
suggesting that *all* anthroposophers today were somehow connected to
others in a previous life!
But stereotyping a person because of the amount of melanin in his
or her
skin or the straightness or curliness of that person's hair is
different, I
believe. Chinese people may share a certain coloring and texture of
hair
(though not always -- I know a few curly-headed Chinese children!) but
in
regard to the belief system -- the lens through which these people
view the world --- they are
completely different!
Lisa, I too have a child who is both western and eastern; my wife is
Japanese and
we have a 12 year old son. Forgive me, as I do not know you, but is your
child adopted
or did you bear him/her? I ask because I have a query.
When your child was very young, until the age of about 4, did
s/he have a large bluish spot at the base of the spine, which
subsequently faded away?
Ours did, and so do many, if not the majority of Japanese, I believe.
It's called the
Mongoloid or Mongolian spot, I think. Do you know anything about it? It
has intrigued
me for a long time, but I never got around to finding out about it. I
could well understand
that it's not the thing to talk about in our PC times, but if we're
going to talk about
what races are and really try to understand them in all aspects, perhaps
this should be
understood, don't you think? Do you know what conventional biology has
to say about
it?
I certainly would not look at each and every person I know who
identifies
himself as an Anthrop. and immediately think ``racist.''
Glad to hear it.
But I WOULD wonder,
based on the depth of that person's commitment to Anthrop. (take a
dedicated
W. teacher, for instance -- one who is known for going ``by the
book'')
More than a few of the dedicated teachers at our son's Waldorf school
have very little
interest in Anthroposophy, I regret to say.
whether they shared Steiner's feelings that one racial group is more
spiritually evolved than others. I still think it is a fair question.
It won't do to just float this kind of assertion past us Lisa. What did
he say? When and where
and in what context did he say what you claim he said, please? And how
do you presume
to know what he *felt*? Jesus got pretty stroppy with the money-changers
in the temple;
do you then condemn him for having a violent personality? No, you look
at the rest of
what he said and did and put those actions in the temple in context,
right?.
Steiner's real interest was in what he called the universal human (das
allgemein
menschliches in German) - the human spirit, the human
individuality, not in races, which he believed to be declining forms of
human existence
-*all* of them, without exception. OK, so some may be declining faster
than others -
so what? There's always variety in human affairs. Things aren't uniform.
I happen to
think the white race is curently declining faster than many others due
to the lunacy
of much of its conceptual life which has a negative effect on the
physical body.
The point is, the races are all declining and emotional attachment to
any of them takes us
back towards groupthink and away from individual freedom.
Please note I have not called anyone a ``racist.'' I am merely
asking
why devoted Anthropo. seem unable or unwilling to repudiate those
things
that Steiner said about the races of humankind that, to today's ear,
sound
very dated and yes, racist. (Perhaps the answer is: because these
devoted
Anthroposophists believe what Steiner said ....)
I don't have a problem with what Steiner said about the "ages" of the
races.
Humanity is one big family. In a family, you don't have everybody the
same.
People of different ages are at different stages of development. A major
problem in western thinking since the so-called Enlightenment of the
18th cent.
has been the tendency to think away real differences between people and
pretend that we're all the same - that there's no difference between
children
and adults, between east and west, north and south - this is simply
fantasy, not
living in the real world.
And yet, in that Enlightenment impulse towards
universality, there *was* something positive - there was the truly
modern intuition
that human beings are essentially spirit beings - individual spirits -
untrammelled
by the various "clothes" they wear (gender, race, nationality etc).
Being human,
however, there was a tendency to go too far in one direction and try to
wish
away all these "old clothes" and pretend they don't exist.
(this kind of thing, I think, is at the heart of the current
globalisation debate.
We *are* spirits indeed, but we also wear these "clothes", and we wear
them
because we have "chosen" to wear them - they are no accident, any more
than
my parents were an accidental relationship for me. As such, the
"clothes" should
be understood and respected for what they are in themselves. At the same
time,
we need to recognise that in the course of history, the "clothes" are
getting worn
out, just as the physical Earth is getting worn out. Does this make any
sense to
you? Am I getting through at all?
To come back to the "ages" of the races, reincarnation and the notion of
us all as
individual spiritual beings is the key. In my next life, I may be black,
yellow, brown,
or red, as I have been before. The odds, I'd say, are on yellow. I need
to
experience all of these "clothes" during my stays on Earth, and the
"clothes" have to
be different. Races are but "clothes". Emotional and intellectual
attachment
to them is the problem, and materialism and the idea that we have only
one life
on this Earth breeds this attachment.
Regards,
Terry
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2035.10 ---------------
From: Terry Boardman (terry.boardman cableinet.co.uk)
Subject: Chand to Dan on Steiner and Nazism
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 18:39:44 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Chand, I take my hat off to scientists like you, because, like Prospero
in
The Tempest, you abjure the power, the influence and the "glamour" of
modern science and that takes integrity.
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Chand to Dan on Steiner and Nazism
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:40:24 -0600
Thank you for your message, Terry. I think there are a lot of things
going
on
with Dan, not just resentment against Waldorf schools. A lot of
people
today
reject 'science' because it does not minister to people, instead
concentrating
on the manipulation of the physical. While 'science' does represent
an
incomplete outlook, it still contains much that is worthy and that has
indirectly ministered to people (e.g. improving health). To people
who
make a
living in science and technology (e.g. Dan and I) it is frustrating to
see
people closing their minds to science and rational thinking - just as
it is
frustrating to listen to Dan on this list. I have to say, that this
attitude is
not uncommon in the Waldorf communities of my experience.
Yes, I know what you mean, but many people can't forget some of
the very ugly things that science, or rather some unsrupulous
scientists,
have been responsible for in the 20th century. This feeling must also be
understood by scientists. In the 20th cent they were given their head.
Mid-century they became as demi-gods, or at least like new cardinals.
The inevitable hubris and the inevitable backlash followed.
Dan's reaction is, in my view, partly against what he sees as a
return to
irrationality and the religion of ages past.
He only has to compare Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy with some of
the christian fundamentalist, or wiccan/pagan/New Age groups...
Anthroposophy is a path of knowledge, of understanding. "Science" means
"knowing". The problem is only how limited one chooses to make one's
definition of "science", surely?
.
There was a book a while back (I
only read about it) - something like "A Candle in the Darkness" about
how
science was the light that lead out of the dark ages of superstition,
and that
current tendencies might return us to a new "dark age." I think this
view
(perhaps even this book) is why the issue of how science is taught is
so
dear to
Dan.
When we emerge from childhood into adulthood, who can deny we have
gained
something very precious, but also that we have lost something equally
precious?
Dan and many (but fortunately not all) scientists, alas, seem only
capable
of perceiving the first part of
this equation. The so-called "Dark and mediaeval ages" in Europe, for
instance,
are often lambasted by western scientists who compare that age of
seeming
external
ignorance in the west (though can the Empire State building really be
compared to
Chartres Cathedral?) with the advanced external contemporary societies
of
China and
the Islamic world. They often blame that European "backwardness" on the
Church, religion,
Christianity. What they overlook is that it was precisely during those
centuries, when
the West was guided by faith and by feeling, that the inner experience
of
individuality
and conscience grew in western societies (and could thus later blossom
after
the Renaissance)
And that inner experience of conscience is worth more than any rocket
science or
other toys for the boys. For unlike technology, that is truly new and
can build
the future.
I am now starting a book called The Decline of the Clockwork God (or
something like that) that seems to be more proactive and positive
about the
limitations of conventional scientific thinking. I'll let you know if
I think
it is worth recommending.
I'll look forward to reading it, Chand. My hat is off.
Terry
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n2035 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n2036 --------------
001 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: From Heyatawin: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
002 - "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2ga - maturity of races
003 - "joseph robinson" (joseph - Re: Recent Statements by Heyatawin: From Heyatwain
004 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - Re: Peter Staudenmaier's use of sources
005 - "joseph robinson" (joseph - Re: Deby Snell: From Heyatawin: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro
006 - "debra harvey" (debharve - Re: From Heyatawin: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
007 - "joseph robinson" (joseph - Response to Harve: From Heyatawin: Re: race stereotypes/Anthr
008 - "joseph robinson" (joseph - To Chand from Heyatawin :Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotyp
009 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - Re: Chand to Dan on Steiner and Nazism
010 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - Re: To Chand from Heyatawin :Re: race stereotypes/Anthro
ste
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2036.1 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: From Heyatawin: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 11:25:30 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (200003020803.AAA06378 lists1.best.com)
)(Heyatawin to Lisa)
[snip]
)she has drawn her fear, her bewilderment and the emptiness that
)she felt, that all of us feel, at the moment when their trust has been
)breeched.
It sounds like your daughter is not only a good artist, but very insightful
and very bright. Your description of her picture was very good. I felt like
I could see it, but what a sad picture. I am so happy that she is getting
help at her new school. I've never heard of a school offering this kind of
help. Is she in a public school?
[H to L]
)At the time of her telling, I made a
)point of taping her as she related to me what had been happening - I have
)those tapes.
Do you believe that this is an isolated case, or do you think this teacher
bullies other children in the class? If you do, have you thought of
reporting her to child protective officials? This teacher should not be in
_any_ classroom, IMO.
My daughter has related to her present teachers and principal
)yesterday and today what she suffered in that W. school - what she has told
)them, of course, match the tapes. Her principal pointedly spoke separately
)to the two teachers to whom my daughter spoke re: these issues, he then
)spoke with my daughter alone; her story changed not between each of them.
)My little girl is not yet eight years old - difficult to refute and
)impossible to ignore
Do you think the school will take steps to report this teacher? (I think it
is the law.)
) I have placed this post between Lisa's and Harve's posts for a reason -
)it does not need elaboration. The *reality* is, for those of you who so
)admantly disagree, there *are* Waldorf educators who are racist and who *do*
)believe that they *are* designated as the developers of our childrens'
)"consciousness soul" and who *will* endeavor to carry out that objective by
)whatever means necessary due to their interpretations, faith and adoration
)for Rudolph Steiner and Anth.
When my son Max started making noises about his teacher being unable to
teach him anything of true value and questioned his out of control
classroom, his teacher openly pondered his "karma", why he had chosen
Waldorf and what he "needs to work out". (He, of course did not "choose
Waldorf" - *I* did.) Waldorf teachers take the kids soul development _very_
seriously. That is their first and foremost task.
Steiner sez:
"It is the eternal being of the child with which Waldorf education is
concerned. Its aim is to educate the three powers of thinking, feeling
and willing as they unfold during the child's growth in such a way that
they become a balanced trinity, an organ of perception through which the
eternal individuality can experience the world. objectively and therefore
in freedom.
'We injure the child's eternal being if we fail to cultivate in him the
right kind of feeling and will ... Education must help the child to think
properly so that he may bring over the fruits of his previous lives.
Working on the will and feeling prepares him for the life between death
and rebirth, if he does not receive what the physical world can give him
in Will and Feeling he is subsequently impoverished in life after
death'.* "
*Rudolf Steiner. Cosmic Forces in Man. Christiana Nov/Dec. 1921
) The *reality* is that there are many (too many)
)people in this world who seek out a philosophy, worldview, religion, cult
)etc. for the sole purpose of validating their own distorted and/or
)dysfunctional mental states.
Yes, I have often felt that Waldorf attracts too many dysfunctional people.
Not _every_ Waldorf teacher is dysfunctional. It would be interesting to
interview Waldorf teachers about their own early childhoods.
) It is time for a reality check;
)there are people who relish "power" who crave/need to be percieved and to
)percieve themselves as special, as superior, as "designated" to guide the
)spiritual life of others and on and on. Further, if you think that someone
)who harbours such warped self - perceptions or psychological difficulties is
)going to sit down with you and have a casual little chit chat about it, you
)are dreaming.
Exactly! If parents won't build those pedestals for their children's
Waldorf teachers - the teachers will build them themselves. Waldorf parents
can become very devoted to their teachers and that concept is reinforced at
every gathering. The teachers actually make the parents students rather
than peers at 'Back to School" events. Of course if they are asking for
more $$$, parents are not treated as students, but the pedestal is firmly
nailed to the floor and the faculty is standing tall. I saw devoted parents
who lived in _deplorable_ conditions giving more and more $$$ to the
school.
) Many on this List have recommended some
)wonderful literature - here's my recommendation: begin with a comprehensive
)study of anti - social personality disorder . . . it is much more common
)than you may think.
Many Waldorf teachers do remove themselves from mainstream society. How
many Waldorf teachers volunteer outside Anthroposophical circles?
) Heyatawin
)P.S. Screen your teachers THOROUGHLY, it's the least you could do in
)response to some of the parents on this List.
What are your suggestions on how to do this? In Waldorf, parents are not
usually welcome in the classroom without an appointment. These appointments
allow teachers to clean up their act. (My husband asked to sit in on a main
lesson. He was told that he would have to wait _two_ weeks!) Parents are
told that our presence interferes with the classroom environment. That is
just hogwash. Parents should be able to just drop in (quietly, of course).
Am I wrong, here? Can parents just drop into their childs classroom? Has
any Waldorf parent tried that lately? What was the response? What did you
see?
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2036.2 ---------------
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: maturity of races
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 16:21:46 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I would like to take more time answering Terry Boardman's response to
my question/postings about Rudolf Steiner's views on the ``spiritual
ages'' of the various races of humankind. But I am in a hurry, so I
will offer the following (for me!) short answer for now:
Terry said, in a very eloquent metaphor, (and I am paraphrasing
because I am in a hurry! (G)) that ``it doesn't matter whether some
groups of the family of humanity are older than others; in families,
some people are younger and some are older, but they are all part of a
larger family.''
Sounds so nice. But take into consideration this little factoid: It is
the adults in the family who are in charge. Only adults can vote.
Children are --in a very real sense -- unrepresented politically. They
cannot vote. They must do as adults say.
You say you have a Japanese wife and a Eurasian child. Would you want
your child to be taught by someone, who, however kind and sweet,
viewed your child as less ``spiritually evolved'' than the blonde,
blue-eyed German child sitting next to her/him in class? Would you
want to think of your child, your wife, as coming from a race that is
less evolved? Despite what you might argue, there is a judgment
inherent in saying that Asians are adolescents and Black people are
infants, etc. Yes, we love our infants. But we do not afford them the
same rights and privileges as we do adults.
I personally object strongly to any philosophy that makes sweeping
statements about any race or ethnic group. I particularly dislike
Steiner's views, because they are based on information that I believe
he just made up out of the whole cloth of his imagination. He claims
special knowledge, clairvoyance. If a person believes that he actually
WAS gifted with special sight and insights, then that person obviously
will naturally take the views on race as part of the whole package.
* I will write you about Mongolian spots later. Yes, Juliet had one
really large one on her backside. It is fading and getting smaller as
she grows. It probably has something to do with melanin and coloring
and the concentration of that at certain points in the skin. (We
adopted her when she was 6 months old from Changshu, J
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2036.3 ---------------
From: "joseph robinson" (joseph_robins hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Recent Statements by Heyatawin: From Heyatwain
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 13:30:18 PST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
)From: "Sarina McDonald" (pandora aa.net)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)Subject: Recent Statements by Heyatawin
)Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 08:15:46 -0800
)
) )It is time for a reality check;
)
)I agree.
(Heyatawin) That's good.
)
) )there are people who relish "power" who crave/need to be
) )percieved and to percieve themselves as special, as superior
)
)This is true. It is also true of many public school teachers in our midst.
)Can you not see that? Or does the horror of what your child endured loom so
)large in your mind that you attribute everything bad in the world to
)Steiner
)and Waldorf?
(Heyatawin) I think you need to reread my post.
)Ask me, sometime, what a history teacher did to me in my public highschool.
)No, on second thought, don't.
(Heyatawin) I won't.
)
)Go to the website
)http://www.nospank.org
)and read the article on rape in the classroom.
(Heyatawin) Understanding such issues is part of my studies and my work.
)
)Look around you at the violence that seems to be so prevalent around you -
)and indeed, always has been. (At least we are all here posting to this list
)instead of out dueling in the street.)
(Heyatawin) Read conflict theory as a base point from which to understand
the above issues.
)
)These realities do not lessen the effects of the absue your child suffered
)or excuse them in any way.
(Heyatawin)You betcha!!
)
)But they do show that what you said is true of a lot of people, not just
)Waldorf teachers.
(Heyatawin)I think you need to reread my post.
I am personally aquainted with a public school teacher who
)quit after twelve years because she couldn't stand it anymore. She felt
)like
)she was surrounded by people who hated children and could not understand
)why
)they even became teachers. This was in the public schools, in inner city
)Los
)Angeles.
(Heyatawin) I, personally, believe that teachers who choose to work with
inner city street kids need more than a B.Ed. in order to truly comprehend
the dynamics at play for these youth.
)
)Do you think there was no racism there? Pah.
(Heyatawin) Did you gather from reading my post that I said there was no
racism in schools in inner cities schools? Pah, pah!!
)
)Your sad story of abuse may be true, and it may be horrifying, and it may
)totally unexcusable.
(Heyatawin) You betcha!!
But the "are you still beating your wife?" approach
)does nothing but prove to us what YOUR expereinces have been. It does NOT
)prove that ALL Waldorf teachers are this way.
(Heyatawin)1) I didn't "apply" that or any other "approach". Further, I did
not say that ALL W. teachers "are this way" - you, in fact, are saying that
I said ALL W. teachers "are this way". I think you need to reread my post.
)
)How can you explain the good experiences of others? Yes, even others who
)are
)members of minority ethnic or racial groups?
(Heyatawin) By listening very carefully to what they say.
)
)If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times - these schools are
)individual, and should be treated as such. Some of them are really bad.
)Some
)of them are pretty good. It is up to you, the parent, to figure out which
)is
)which.
(Heyatawin) Which is what I did and will continue doing.
But saying that because your child and Dan's child and Deby's child
)suffered at the hands of Waldorf teachers, that ALL children do and that
)ALL
)Waldorf teachers are racist bigots is beyond shallow. It is, in fact,
)exactly what you profess to abhor: stereotyping.
(Heyatawin) The above, again, is not what I said - are you paranoid or
something???? I'm now very intrigued by your post, very intrigued indeed .
. .I think I'll return to this again when I have more time, I think it
deserves a thorough "look - see", so to speak.
)---------------------------
)Sarina McDonald
)pandora aa.net
)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2036.4 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's use of sources
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 16:15:59 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
[Alan writes in response to Sean Slovan's trashing of Staudenmeier's
scholarship]:
)This may be true, but ...
Is this all you can say? After what is now shown to be a major piece of
propaganda written by Staudenmeier is being promulgated on Dan's website? After
all the chest beating about how the Anthroposophs don't repudiate Steiner? I
would like to see those beating the loudest, including you Alan, repudiate
Staudenmeier and take Dan to task for advertising that particular piece of
disinformation. Otherwise you are practicing all of the behaviors that you
define as cultlike.
[Alan]:
)...Goodrick-Clarke mentions Steiner and Anthroposophy
)several times in the context of the roots of Naziism, particularly inspiring
)Rosenberg's works. The point to me is not whether this man is an
)Anthropsophist or that man is, or whether Weleda is "clean" of Nazism and
)NASA is "dirty" or the other way around. Those kinds of debates can never
)and will never get resolved. To me the important issue is whether Steiner
)and Anthroposophy contain ideas that reflect the German racism of the
)twenties, and Nazi ideology. My feeling is that they sit far too close for
)me to ever embrace either of them.
This is pathetic. You find that you cannot prove any specific connection and
then say there probably is some sort of connection anyway. Such a nebulous
concept is much more difficult to prove or disprove.
So how about you critics, Diana, Lisa, etc. etc. etc. who have been calling for
the repudiation of Steiner's racist statements. Lets hear your voices on this
shameful piece of demagoguery.
Chand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2036.5 ---------------
From: "joseph robinson" (joseph_robins hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Deby Snell: From Heyatawin: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 15:09:11 PST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
)From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)Subject: Re: From Heyatawin: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
)Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 11:25:30 -0800
)
)
) )(Heyatawin to Lisa)
)
)[snip]
)
) )she has drawn her fear, her bewilderment and the emptiness that
) )she felt, that all of us feel, at the moment when their trust has been
) )breeched.
)
)It sounds like your daughter is not only a good artist, but very insightful
)and very bright. Your description of her picture was very good. I felt like
)I could see it, but what a sad picture. I am so happy that she is getting
)help at her new school. I've never heard of a school offering this kind of
)help. Is she in a public school?
(Heyatawin) My daughter is a phenomenal artist . . .and she is bright and
insightful and . . .(hee, hee). No, she is not in public school, she is in
a Native cultural school.
)
)[H to L]
) )At the time of her telling, I made a
) )point of taping her as she related to me what had been happening - I have
) )those tapes.
)
)Do you believe that this is an isolated case, or do you think this teacher
)bullies other children in the class? If you do, have you thought of
)reporting her to child protective officials? This teacher should not be in
)_any_ classroom, IMO.
(Heyatawin) I know that my daughter was systematically ostracized which
included shaming her in front of the other children. There are people who
are aware of the above issues and with whom I shared the tapes immediately
upon their completion. (off List)
)
) My daughter has related to her present teachers and principal
) )yesterday and today what she suffered in that W. school - what she has
)told
) )them, of course, match the tapes. Her principal pointedly spoke
)separately
) )to the two teachers to whom my daughter spoke re: these issues, he then
) )spoke with my daughter alone; her story changed not between each of them.
) )My little girl is not yet eight years old - difficult to refute and
) )impossible to ignore
)
)Do you think the school will take steps to report this teacher? (I think it
)is the law.)
(Heyatawin) Off List.
)
) ) I have placed this post between Lisa's and Harve's posts for a
)reason -
) )it does not need elaboration. The *reality* is, for those of you who so
) )admantly disagree, there *are* Waldorf educators who are racist and who
)*do*
) )believe that they *are* designated as the developers of our childrens'
) )"consciousness soul" and who *will* endeavor to carry out that objective
)by
) )whatever means necessary due to their interpretations, faith and
)adoration
) )for Rudolph Steiner and Anth.
)
)When my son Max started making noises about his teacher being unable to
)teach him anything of true value and questioned his out of control
)classroom, his teacher openly pondered his "karma", why he had chosen
)Waldorf and what he "needs to work out". (He, of course did not "choose
)Waldorf" - *I* did.) Waldorf teachers take the kids soul development _very_
)seriously. That is their first and foremost task.
(Heyatawin) I was not aware of the above when my daughter entered the said
W. school, I was smoke screened - no one has the right to impose such a
"task" upon others, particularly, covertly upon other peoples' children.
)
)Steiner sez:
)
)"It is the eternal being of the child with which Waldorf education is
)concerned. Its aim is to educate the three powers of thinking, feeling
)and willing as they unfold during the child's growth in such a way that
)they become a balanced trinity, an organ of perception through which the
)eternal individuality can experience the world. objectively and therefore
)in freedom.
)
)'We injure the child's eternal being if we fail to cultivate in him the
)right kind of feeling and will ... Education must help the child to think
)properly so that he may bring over the fruits of his previous lives.
)Working on the will and feeling prepares him for the life between death
)and rebirth, if he does not receive what the physical world can give him
)in Will and Feeling he is subsequently impoverished in life after
)death'.* "
)
)*Rudolf Steiner. Cosmic Forces in Man. Christiana Nov/Dec. 1921
(Heyatawin)I will be further examining the above.
)
)
)
) ) The *reality* is that there are many (too many)
) )people in this world who seek out a philosophy, worldview, religion, cult
) )etc. for the sole purpose of validating their own distorted and/or
) )dysfunctional mental states.
)
)Yes, I have often felt that Waldorf attracts too many dysfunctional people.
)Not _every_ Waldorf teacher is dysfunctional. It would be interesting to
)interview Waldorf teachers about their own early childhoods.
(Heyatawin) Absolutely!!
)
)
) ) It is time for a reality check;
) )there are people who relish "power" who crave/need to be percieved and to
) )percieve themselves as special, as superior, as "designated" to guide the
) )spiritual life of others and on and on. Further, if you think that
)someone
) )who harbours such warped self - perceptions or psychological difficulties
)is
) )going to sit down with you and have a casual little chit chat about it,
)you
) )are dreaming.
)
)
)Exactly! If parents won't build those pedestals for their children's
)Waldorf teachers - the teachers will build them themselves. Waldorf parents
)can become very devoted to their teachers and that concept is reinforced at
)every gathering. The teachers actually make the parents students rather
)than peers at 'Back to School" events. Of course if they are asking for
)more $$$, parents are not treated as students, but the pedestal is firmly
)nailed to the floor and the faculty is standing tall. I saw devoted parents
)who lived in _deplorable_ conditions giving more and more $$$ to the
)school.
(Heyatawin) People who have such a deep - ceded concern for humanity should
know better.
)
) ) Many on this List have recommended some
) )wonderful literature - here's my recommendation: begin with a
)comprehensive
) )study of anti - social personality disorder . . . it is much more common
) )than you may think.
)
)Many Waldorf teachers do remove themselves from mainstream society. How
)many Waldorf teachers volunteer outside Anthroposophical circles?
)
) ) Heyatawin
) )P.S. Screen your teachers THOROUGHLY, it's the least you could do in
) )response to some of the parents on this List.
)
)What are your suggestions on how to do this?
(Heyatawin) An intensified and comprehensive psych. evaluation such as has
been formulated for police officers due to the power dynamics invoved in law
enforcement - but it would take extensive research to formulate the above
and difficult to apply and/or monitor application.
In Waldorf, parents are not
)usually welcome in the classroom without an appointment. These appointments
)allow teachers to clean up their act. (My husband asked to sit in on a main
)lesson. He was told that he would have to wait _two_ weeks!) Parents are
)told that our presence interferes with the classroom environment. That is
)just hogwash. Parents should be able to just drop in (quietly, of course).
(Heyatawin)Parents should never be denied access, knowledge, process etc.
for any reason re: the schools their children are attending.
)
)Am I wrong, here? Can parents just drop into their childs classroom? Has
)any Waldorf parent tried that lately? What was the response? What did you
)see?
)Deby
)
)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2036.6 ---------------
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: From Heyatawin: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 00:10:11 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
[Heyatawin]
) I have placed this post between Lisa's and Harve's posts for a reason
)-
)it does not need elaboration. The *reality* is, for those of you who so
)admantly disagree, there *are* Waldorf educators who are racist and who
)*do*
)believe that they *are* designated as the developers of our childrens'
)"consciousness soul" and who *will* endeavor to carry out that objective by
)whatever means necessary due to their interpretations, faith and adoration
)for Rudolph Steiner and Anth.
[Harve]
Once again, where is the evidence of racism? If this is true, why are we
not hearing about a lot of specific documented cases? I am sure that there
are isolated incidents, as there are anywhere, but once again, I think if
this was true, there would be evidence.
[Heyatawin]
A "distorted" reinterpretation of
)Stiener is
)inevitable (positive or negative) because no one will ever be able to
)accurately regurgitate Steiner's experience - only Steiner himself can do
)that. Others will interpret Steiner through the filters of their own
)values, attitudes and beliefs, which produces their own unique perception,
)which is key to the above. The *reality* is that there are many (too many)
)people in this world who seek out a philosophy, worldview, religion, cult
)etc. for the sole purpose of validating their own distorted and/or
)dysfunctional mental states.
[Harve]
This is true of any tradition. All formal religions are derivative. People
latch on to the easy answer anywhere. I don't see how this proves your
point.
[Heyatawin]
If I, Lisa, Dan or Deby percieve some
)of
)Steiner's ideas, suggestions, or pieces of his 'philosophy' as racist -
)what
)might people as described above percieve?
[Harve]
We've seen people on this list read the Bible in a very narrow, and in my
opinion, very pathological way. Does that mean that we throw it out because
some people may choose to interpret it in such a way?
[Heyatawin]
)there are people who relish "power" who crave/need to be percieved and to
)percieve themselves as special, as superior, as "designated" to guide the
)spiritual life of others and on and on. Further, if you think that someone
)who harbours such warped self - perceptions or psychological difficulties
)is
)going to sit down with you and have a casual little chit chat about it, you
)are dreaming.
[Harve]
Once again, this is true in any tradition.
[Hewatawin]
) Harve, what you wrote below is, in my view, the approach that is "anti
)- intellectual" and Lisa was not talking about Paulina, Joe, Sune, Felix or
)you.
[Harve]
I don't get it. I didn't say that Lisa was anti intellectual. I said that
taking something literally and following it blindly was anti intellectual.
[Heyatawin]
Have you ever heard of Ted Bundy?? You may not, immediately,
)understand
)why I asked you that particular question but if you "think about" it, you
)might. (study his character)
[Harve]
Yes, when I was representing a prisoner on death row, I did a lot of reading
on Bundy and other sociopaths. I don't get your point. I don't think that
Bundy was an anthroposophist or a product of a Waldorf education. Nor did
he teach at a Waldorf school. He evidently did have a terrible childhood,
which is largely a mystery, since both he and his mother claimed it was
normal. I recall after the Florida sorority killings, a shrink said that if
you looked into his childhood, you would find a woman with a stick. I also
remember reading that it was revealed towards the end that when he was very
young (2 or 3), a relative woke up and found that he had encircled her body
with every knife in the house--certainly not normal behavior and probably
imitative behavior. I really don't get your point. Are you saying that
people like Bundy are attracted to Waldorf teacher training? I think even
Eugene Schwartz said that Waldorf teacher training gets its share of whackos
who don't belong in teaching. Certainly if there had been any murders, Dan
would have let us know.
[Heyatawin]
)P.S. Screen your teachers THOROUGHLY, it's the least you could do in
)response to some of the parents on this List.
)
))[Harve]
))
Absolutely. I could not agree more. But I see a huge problem with indicting
anthroposophy because it is susceptible to misuse and misinterpretation.
The story about your daughter makes me sad. I am very sorry.
D. Harvey
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2036.7 ---------------
From: "joseph robinson" (joseph_robins hotmail.com)
Subject: Response to Harve: From Heyatawin: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 19:39:11 PST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
)From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)Subject: Re: From Heyatawin: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
)Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 00:10:11 GMT
)
)[Heyatawin]
)
)) I have placed this post between Lisa's and Harve's posts for a reason
))-
))it does not need elaboration. The *reality* is, for those of you who so
))admantly disagree, there *are* Waldorf educators who are racist and who
))*do*
))believe that they *are* designated as the developers of our childrens'
))"consciousness soul" and who *will* endeavor to carry out that objective
))by
))whatever means necessary due to their interpretations, faith and adoration
))for Rudolph Steiner and Anth.
)
)[Harve]
)
)Once again, where is the evidence of racism?
(Heyatawin) If people who are predisposed to believe in the inferiority of
other peoples due to race, which can be due to multiple factors, they would
be more prone to internalize Steiner's "views" in alliance with the said
predisposition based upon what is known as a "good fit" - meaning, they will
find cohesion between predisposition and "suggestion'. Internalization of
what is percieved to be true leads to allied bahviour with the above.
If this is true, why
)are we
)not hearing about a lot of specific documented cases?
(Heyatawin) I don't have the answer to that question.
I am sure
)that there
)are isolated incidents, as there are anywhere, but once again, I think if
)this was true, there would be evidence.
(Heyatawin)I am extremely interested in finding what underlies every
incident in relation to the context - ie. Do certian Steiner writings
perpetuate racist ideology, behaviour, beliefs etc. .
)[Heyatawin]
))A "distorted" reinterpretation of
))Stiener is
))inevitable (positive or negative) because no one will ever be able to
))accurately regurgitate Steiner's experience - only Steiner himself can do
))that. Others will interpret Steiner through the filters of their own
))values, attitudes and beliefs, which produces their own unique perception,
))which is key to the above. The *reality* is that there are many (too many)
))people in this world who seek out a philosophy, worldview, religion, cult
))etc. for the sole purpose of validating their own distorted and/or
))dysfunctional mental states.
)
)[Harve]
)
)This is true of any tradition. All formal religions are derivative.
)People
)latch on to the easy answer anywhere. I don't see how this proves your
)point.
(Heyatawin) I am talking about Waldorf/Steiner?Anth.
Deby Snell has provided me a pefect example
to use in helping you to see my point. She provided me an excerpt re:
Steiner. In particular, I noted this quote,"We injure the child's eternal
being if we fail to cultivate in him the right kind of feeling and will . .
." Immediately, I question what the *right* kind of feeling and will is. A
person who is seeking a means to validate *their* ideas of the same and, who
is at the same time, just a little "side ways" re: *their* thoughts on the
"right kind of feeling and will" has the potential to percieve such
suggestions as a green light to begin practicing the same via all kinds of
wild and wierd procedures in accordance to their "unique" perception. To be
blunt, if a person believes that the 'cultivation of the right kind of
feeling and will" means that they must hold "power over" children in the
forms of violence or emotional, physical, mental and/or sexual abuse, such
suggestions by Steiner have the potential to afford them the
justification/validation they seek and can legitimize such abusive
behaviours.
)[Heyatawin]
)
) If I, Lisa, Dan or Deby percieve some
))of
))Steiner's ideas, suggestions, or pieces of his 'philosophy' as racist -
))what
))might people as described above percieve?
)
)[Harve]
)
)We've seen people on this list read the Bible in a very narrow, and in my
)opinion, very pathological way. Does that mean that we throw it out
)because
)some people may choose to interpret it in such a way?
(Heyatawin)No, you don't throw the Bible out but you'd better pay attention
not only to people's interpretations of it but the behaviours that go along
with their interpretations - and why.
)[Heyatawin]
)
)
))there are people who relish "power" who crave/need to be percieved and to
))percieve themselves as special, as superior, as "designated" to guide the
))spiritual life of others and on and on. Further, if you think that someone
))who harbours such warped self - perceptions or psychological difficulties
))is
))going to sit down with you and have a casual little chit chat about it,
))you
))are dreaming.
)
)[Harve]
)
)Once again, this is true in any tradition.
(Heyatawin) I am talking about Steiner?Anth. and its
application/connections in Waldorf Ed. .
)
)[Hewatawin]
)
)
)) Harve, what you wrote below is, in my view, the approach that is
))"anti
))- intellectual" and Lisa was not talking about Paulina, Joe, Sune, Felix
))or
))you.
)
)[Harve]
)
)I don't get it. I didn't say that Lisa was anti intellectual. I said that
)taking something literally and following it blindly was anti intellectual.
(Heyatawin)Then you are obviously more cognizant re: my discussion than it
*appears* in this post.
)
)[Heyatawin]
)Have you ever heard of Ted Bundy?? You may not, immediately,
))understand
))why I asked you that particular question but if you "think about" it, you
))might. (study his character)
)
)[Harve]
)
)Yes, when I was representing a prisoner on death row, I did a lot of
)reading
)on Bundy and other sociopaths. I don't get your point. I don't think that
)Bundy was an anthroposophist or a product of a Waldorf education. Nor did
)he teach at a Waldorf school. He evidently did have a terrible childhood,
)which is largely a mystery, since both he and his mother claimed it was
)normal. I recall after the Florida sorority killings, a shrink said that
)if
)you looked into his childhood, you would find a woman with a stick. I also
)remember reading that it was revealed towards the end that when he was very
)young (2 or 3), a relative woke up and found that he had encircled her body
)with every knife in the house--certainly not normal behavior and probably
)imitative behavior. I really don't get your point. Are you saying that
)people like Bundy are attracted to Waldorf teacher training? I think even
)Eugene Schwartz said that Waldorf teacher training gets its share of
)whackos
)who don't belong in teaching. Certainly if there had been any murders, Dan
)would have let us know.
(Heyatawin) Bundy was a highly intlelligent, charming guy - who was well
liked by many (as is true of most A.S.P.D's. My point is this, people who
harbour psychological dysfunction or impaired social functioning can sit and
eat dinner with you, work with you, live with you and more and the sad fact
is. . .unless you're aware of it or looking for it etc. you're going to go
merrily about your business without a clue re: the above. Further, anti
-social personality disorder does not manifest itself in murder across the
board - it just so happens that the ones who do kill, rape, abuse etc. are
the ones who get the most attention and air time. I am not saying that
Waldorf attracts, any psych. or personality disorders in particular. I am
saying, however, that W. teachers such as the *one* I described (I do have
some info. re: others) may harbour impairments, distorted perceptions or
dysfunctional behaviours that others are unaware of and will "apply" certain
aspects of Steiner?Anth. accrodingly.
As suggested, study A.S.P.D., it provides the best example of how well
hidden dysfunction can be.
)
)[Heyatawin]
)
))P.S. Screen your teachers THOROUGHLY, it's the least you could do in
))response to some of the parents on this List.
))
)))[Harve]
)))
)Absolutely. I could not agree more. But I see a huge problem with
)indicting
)anthroposophy because it is susceptible to misuse and misinterpretation.
(Heyatawin) I am sorry about that, but I have a huge problem with certain
"ideas" taught and perpetuated by Steiner. If you have the time I would like
the quote re: L.K. and human beings who are not human etc. fully explained
and, tell me, how do you think such an idea may be interpreted re: the above
discussion?
)
)The story about your daughter makes me sad. I am very sorry.
(Heyatawin) Thank - you.
)
)
)D. Harvey
)______________________________________________________
)Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2036.8 ---------------
From: "joseph robinson" (joseph_robins hotmail.com)
Subject: To Chand from Heyatawin :Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 21:59:00 PST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
)From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)Subject: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
)Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 08:47:47 -0600
)
)
)
)[Lisa]:
) )Chand, you don't miss a thing, do you? (G)
)
)I try not to, although I think Heyatawin would disagree with you. Also,
)there
)are times I don't post when I disagree with something. I have to get my
)work
)done, like everybody else, and it can get tiresome to go over the same
)stuff.
)I'm glad you still read my posts, even after all the flak I throw at you.
)
)Chand
Chand,
You see alot. . . .you just seem to be missing those opportunistic
male worms I told you about.
Heyatawin
)
)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2036.9 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Chand to Dan on Steiner and Nazism
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 00:41:13 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Dear Terry,
Thank you for your compliments.
[Chand]:
)) I have to say, that this (anti-science) attitude is
)) not uncommon in the Waldorf communities of my experience.
[Terry]:
)Yes, I know what you mean, but many people can't forget some of
)the very ugly things that science, or rather some unsrupulous scientists,
)have been responsible for in the 20th century. This feeling must also be
)understood by scientists. In the 20th cent they were given their head.
)Mid-century they became as demi-gods, or at least like new cardinals.
)The inevitable hubris and the inevitable backlash followed.
Scientists are embedded in the larger culture and its influences don't stop at
the laboratory door. The governments that support scientists have always
directed them to some extent - especially in this century. Not to say that this
excuses the "Its not my department said Werner von Braun" attitude.
It is true that in today's world, science is the gold standard of reality,
replacing what Mom said and common sense. I have said the most outrageous
things in a "scientific" way and people fell for it. The potential for abuse is
quite real.
[Terry]:
)He only has to compare Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy with some of
)the christian fundamentalist, or wiccan/pagan/New Age groups...
)Anthroposophy is a path of knowledge, of understanding. "Science" means
)"knowing". The problem is only how limited one chooses to make one's
)definition of "science", surely?
It not just this. One doesn't have to look far to find Anthroposophs whose
belief in Steiner's writings and ideas outpaces their understanding of him. To
their credit, many Anthroposophs keep on working at understanding. At least in
some people, however, this kind of thinking can lead to uncritical acceptance
and misunderstanding - presumably this is what happened in Holland.
As far as broadening the definition of science, I have no problem with this in
principle. To be useful, however, a method/path must yield results that have
some sort of testable predictive value.
[Terry]:
)When we emerge from childhood into adulthood, who can deny we have
)gained something very precious, but also that we have lost something equally
)precious? Dan and many (but fortunately not all) scientists, alas, seem only
)capable of perceiving the first part of this equation.
You have not been on the list long enough to have read Dan's idea of teaching
color to a 4 year old using the concept of wavelength!
[Terry]:
)The so-called "Dark and mediaeval ages" in Europe, for instance,
)are often lambasted by western scientists who compare that age of
)seeming external ignorance in the west (though can the Empire State building
really be
)compared to Chartres Cathedral?) with the advanced external contemporary
societies
)of China and the Islamic world. They often blame that European "backwardness"
on the
)Church, religion, Christianity. What they overlook is that it was precisely
during those
)centuries, when the West was guided by faith and by feeling, that the inner
experience
)of individuality and conscience grew in western societies (and could thus later
blossom
)after the Renaissance) And that inner experience of conscience is worth more
than any rocket
)science or other toys for the boys. For unlike technology, that is truly new
and
)can build the future.
I need read more socially redeeming books. Unfortunately, when I get home and
all the kids are in bed, the siren call of fiction is very strong.
Chand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2036.10 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: To Chand from Heyatawin :Re: race stereotypes/Anthro
stereotypes
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 00:45:16 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
[ Heyatawin]:
) Chand,
) You see alot. . . .you just seem to be missing those opportunistic
)male worms I told you about.
The males are quite obvious when present. They are fleet and svelte compared to
the rather lethargic, gravid hermaphrodites. Opportunistic yes. Male sperm is
used preferential over the hermaphrodite sperm. Makes you wonder how those
oocytes know where the sperm came from.
Chand
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n2036 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n2037 --------------
001 - "Sarina McDonald" (pandor - Re: Recent Statements by Heyatawin: From Heyatwain
002 - raison orthodox.com - Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
003 - "Diana Winters" (winters_ - Re: Computers (WAS: Avoid computReading, abstractions and scle
004 - Sean Slovan (sean.slovan - Re: Goodrick-Clarke
005 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - Re: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
006 - Sean Slovan (sean.slovan - Re: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
007 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - RE: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
008 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: Goodrick-Clarke
009 - "debra harvey" (debharve - Re: Response to Harve: From Heyatawin: Re: race stereotypes/An
010 - "debra harvey" (debharve - Re: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2037.1 ---------------
From: "Sarina McDonald" (pandora aa.net)
Subject: Re: Recent Statements by Heyatawin: From Heyatwain
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 00:18:46 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
)(Heyatawin)I think you need to reread my post.
Obviously, since you said this three times, I did need to re-read your post.
So I did.
Nowhere did you directly say that ALL Waldorf teachers "are people who
relish "power" who crave/need to be perceived and to perceive themselves as
special, as superior."
Hmm.
Perhaps I AM just paranoid, but your previous posts where you told people to
"eat worms" would seem to indicate your opinion of anthroposophists, and
Waldorf teachers in particular. Also, you did say you were responding to
Lisa's post asking about racism inherent in WE. I took this "reality check"
as an attempt to imply that your experiences with Waldorf were wide-spread.
Perhaps I was wrong in this assumption? (But it seemed to me that that's
what you were doing; you ARE the person who posted a bunch of totally
unrelated racist quotes, juxtaposed with Steiner quotes - aren't you?) You
also seemed to use the now-familiar attempt to link Waldorf with
evils-of-the-world by throwing around the name of a bad-guy (Ted Bundy),
just like other critics keep flinging the Nazi mud on this list in hopes
that some of it will stick.
Maybe I needed more coffee before reading your post this morning Heyatawin.
I think, upon re-reading it, that I must have interpreted it wrong based on
your previous posts. Hm, that makes me prejudiced... sheesh, this is getting
too complicated!
I do wish you'd be more specific about your references, however. The Ted
Bundy thing still has me puzzled. Exactly what was it you were trying to say
there?
---------------------------
Sarina McDonald
pandora aa.net
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2037.2 ---------------
From: raison orthodox.com
Subject: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 05:25:12 -0500 (EST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
(Was Re: Chand to Dan on Steiner and Nazism)
[Terry Boardman]:
)Yes, I know what you mean, but many people can't forget some
)of the very ugly things that science, or rather some unsrupulous
)scientists, have been responsible for in the 20th century. This
)feeling must also be understood by scientists. In the 20th cent
)they were given their head. Mid-century they became as demi-gods,
)or at least like new cardinals. The inevitable hubris and the
)inevitable backlash followed.
Who are these "unscrupulous scientists" of the 20th Century, Terry?
Could you name some, please? Would they include Watson and Crick? (Quite possible, as their discovery of DNA led to genetic engineering, which Anthroposophists irrationally hate.)
Or only Oppenheimer and Teller and Fermi and von Braun?
Would they include Sakharov, Russian patriot and father of the Russian H-bomb, independently of Teller, and without espionage -- who later became one of the world's most outspoken peace activists?
Would they include Salk and Sabin? (Quite possible, given Anthroposphists' irrational hatred of immunization in general.)
Can you name some ... _scrupulous_ ... scientists of the past century who have _benefitted_ mankind? Is there such a thing in the Anthroposophical lexicon of hatred of all things modern, scientific and technological?
How, exactly, was Oppenheimer "responsible" for the atomic bomb (assuming the arugability of whether the A-bomb is inherently evil)? Did he decide to make it or drop it? Could he have stopped it? There were a number of scientists (would they make your heroes list, Terry) who DID try to stop the making and use of the bomb. They were ignored by the real powers, the politicians.
Why do you not vilify the politicians of the 20th Century, Terry? Why is not politics as dirty to you and Anthroposophists as modern, "materialist" science?
Could it be because Steiner himself was a politician first and always, and his invented religion Anthroposophy has metamorphosed into a quasi-political movement, especially in Europe? Steiner's three-fold social order is not dead, though little is heard of it openly -- isn't that right, Terry? Isn't three-folding a political goal of European Anthroposophy, through the "spritualization" of the European Union?
Where, exactly, is the hubris in science or scientists? In an attempt to tame AIDS, despite the irrationalist beliefs of alternative medicine quacks like Peter Duesberg (see list archives for defense of Duesberg by a prominent Anthroposophical Apologist)?
And where, exactly is this "backlash" against science -- except in the science-bashing of new-age cults like Anthroposophy and Waldorf?
Gee, I hadn't noticed that scientists were being hunted like Dracula and burned at the stake (except for doctors being killed for performing abortions). I hadn't noticed that Anthroposophists eschewed all modern contraptions and comforts (only those that are ideologically ... sorry, spiritually ... suspect, like TV and computers. (Did Steiner know about Zworykin?) I hadn't noticed that the common people of the world -- particularly in developing countries -- want to do without electricity and cell-phones, jetliners and automobiles, fridges and microwave ovens -- much less what's around the next corner.
(Did you know, Terry, that the man who first figured out how to make an A-bomb -- Leo Szilard -- the man who alerted the West to it's probability, no matter what, the man who later refused to work on it and warned against it, also invented, about the time Steiner died, a cheap, efficient refrigerator that would have made the use of ozone-layer-killing CFC's unnecessary and been affordable by most of the world? Would he fit on your list of evil scientists of the 20th Century for figuring out how to make the A-bomb?)
I have, however, noticed an explosion of alternative medicine practitioners -- otherwise known as quacks. Many of these practice "Anthroposophical medicine", which is something like "Anthroposophical science" in terms of its irrationality. When will these hubristic modern shamans get their comeuppance, Terry? When epidemics of deadly childhood diseases become common again because not enough people vaccinate their kids?
Perhaps Rudolf Steiner himself -- the "scientist" whose "clairvoyance" led to his founding of "spiritual science" -- who should head the list of "unscrupulous demigods" you speak of as the villains of the 20th Century.
Science, technology and engineering march on, Terry, and they will not be stopped by the likes of you and your rag-tag army of science-haters. They, and reason itself, may be slowed and dented and set back and perhaps even driven underground as intellectual pursuits. But as practical elements of human life they will continue because of their economic value. They work, and they make possible things people want. You will not be able to make enough people stop wanting those things.
Did Rudolf Steiner, scientist, invent anything like Szilard's refrigerator?
Will "spiritual science" keep my food from spoiling? Will it keep my beer cold?
)[Chand Desai]:
)))I have to say, that this (anti-science) attitude
)))[he's not talking about the above from Terry, but
)))something Terry said in an earlier post, and, perhaps,
)))his own observations of Steiner, Anthroposophy and
)))Waldorf communities] is not uncommon in the Waldorf
)))communities of my experience.
[....])
)It is true that in today's world, science is the gold standard
)of reality, replacing what Mom said and common sense. I have
)said the most outrageous things in a "scientific" way and people
)fell for it. The potential for abuse is quite real.
Rudolf Steiner not only spoke in a "scientific" way, but created his own "science" -- "sprititual science" with which to mold the authority of his created religion, Anthroposophy.
What's the difference, Chand, between listening to a real scientist (someone like yourself, for instance) and listening to Rudolf Steiner?
The difference is, you can be understood with the education that people get from mom and their schools, while Steiner cannot be understood using any known system of thought. One has to completely immerse onself in Steiner's irrational method of thinking in order to even begin to understand him -- and even then no two students ever completely agree on anything.
Except that Steiner, Anthroposophy and Waldorf are the one true way.
What Anthroposophists lose sight of in gathering themselves into their cloaks certainty and identification with Rudolf Steiner is the great human need balance between group identity and what we all share in common.
The identity of Anthroposophy and Waldorf is confined to an an unshareable inner life and an adherence to the received wisdom of their Guru, Steiner.
The identity of science and reason lies in the eminent reality of the material Universe we can all share.
)[Terry]:
))He only has to compare Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy with some of
))the christian fundamentalist, or wiccan/pagan/New Age groups...
))Anthroposophy is a path of knowledge, of understanding. "Science" means
))"knowing". The problem is only how limited one chooses to make one's
))definition of "science", surely?
)
[Chand]
)It not just this. One doesn't have to look far to find Anthroposophs whose
)belief in Steiner's writings and ideas outpaces their understanding of him. To
)their credit, many Anthroposophs keep on working at understanding. At least in
)some people, however, this kind of thinking can lead to uncritical acceptance
)and misunderstanding - presumably this is what happened in Holland.
Anthroposophy is not a "path of knowledge". It is a rehash of millennia-old mythic and occult esotericism about life, the Universe and everything. It's interesting, by the way, that you say "path OF knowledge", not path TO knowledge; the former sounds like the received shibboleths that Steiner recycled as Anthroposophy.
The Dutch Anthroposophists understood Steiner to mean what he says about race, in the common meanings of his language, and in the special, spiritual, Aryan superiority meaning as well.
What most Anthroposophical Apologist Association members on this list engage in is "uncritical acceptance and misunderstanding" -- on purpose, for deniability of Steiner's racism.
[Chand]
)As far as broadening the definition of science, I have no problem with this in
)principle. To be useful, however, a method/path must yield results that have
)some sort of testable predictive value.
)
)[Terry]:
))When we emerge from childhood into adulthood, who can deny we have
))gained something very precious, but also that we have lost something equally
))precious? Dan and many (but fortunately not all) scientists, alas, seem only
))capable of perceiving the first part of this equation.
Chand is enough of a rational, evidence-based scientist to recognize that the broadened "definition of science" of Anthroposophy -- "Sprititual Science" -- is incapable of producing that "testable predictive value" (much less the explanatory value which is real science's greatest achievement).
One wonders why Chand is such a junkyard dog of an Anthroposophical Apologist, when he has the _capacity_ to see clearly why Steiner, Anthroposophy and Waldorf are frauds, but chooses not to.
And what, exactly, Terry, is it that we have in childhood that we lose to adulthood that is _better_ in any way at explaining the world, or dealing with it? Is it that childlike belief in magic that imbues Anthroposophy, and which Waldorf education tries to insure children carry into irrational thinking as adults?
)[Terry]:
))The so-called "Dark and mediaeval ages" in Europe, for
))instance, are often lambasted by western scientists who
))compare that age of seeming external ignorance in the west
))(though can the Empire State building really be compared to
))Chartres Cathedral?) with the advanced external contemporary
))societies of China and the Islamic world. They often blame
))that European "backwardness" on the Church, religion,
))Christianity. What they overlook is that it was precisely
))during those centuries, when the West was guided by faith
))and by feeling, that the inner experience of individuality
))and conscience grew in western societies (and could thus
))later blossom after the Renaissance) And that inner experience
))of conscience is worth more than any rocket science or other
))toys for the boys. For unlike technology, that is truly new and
))can build the future.
Whose history of the "Dark and medieval ages" have you been reading, Terry?
This is a favorite canard of the modern-science and technology hater.
This, of course, is a hallmark of Steiner, Anthroposophy and Waldorf, viz the bans on TV and computers, and the mystical attraction of ancient lore taught as being better than modern knowledge.
The history of science I grew up on celebrated the engineering skill of the builders of Chartres -- and this continues with wonderful piece in Scientific American within the last ten years. I remember this history of science not the least because it included great science and engineering, and respect for the builders, but great social, political, cultural and economic history as well.
Far from denigrating the science -- and more particularly the engineering -- of the past, modern history of science is fascinated with its sophistication for the times. And this has led to a rethinking in general history of those times. Science has led the way to enlightenment about the past.
But that enlightenment shows that people have always been ordinary problem solvers, that they have always used reason and rational, pragmatic thinking to solve problems and build great things. There were no mystical hidden powers or knowledge that have since been lost to us, as found in the teachings of Steiner, Anthroposopohy and Waldorf. The pyramids were not built using sound to move the huge blocks of sandstone, as one Waldorf parent long ago on this list mentioned having discovered a Waldorf teacher told his child.
The builders of Chartres did not need any "inner experience of individuality and conscience" in order to build Chartres. The architects and stonemasons of Chartres were ordinary workmen, not mystics. They were guided by experience of materials and rational thought, not faith. It was experiment and understanding of some crude, new laws of engineering that allowed vaulted arches, not faith that they would hold up the roof.
And the Empire State building compares favorably with Chartres in any engineering sense, because it was the foremost and nearly the most graceful example of an engineering breakthrough, the steel skeleton skyscraper of Louis Sullivan. It allowed the builders to hang a light exterior of stone on a light skeleton of steel, instead of having to use the mass of ever more stone to support itself.
This is an achievement wholly in keeping with the history of advancement of science and engineering and technology. The builders of Chartres would understand the ideas of the builders of the Empire State Building, and would consider them brothers of the guild. No matter that the builders of Chartres might prefer the Chrysler building esthetically, as being more recognizably, triumphally celebratory of mammon instead of God. Chartres, after all, was a symbol of the wealth and prestige of its region, not a simple house of god.
You, Terry, would have us go back to being serfs living in thatched huts and eking out a living on the Medieval prince's land, tithing to both him and the church, for the glory of a god who gave them nothing in the way of the "individuality" you suppose was nascent and flowered in Chartres.
Science does not need to condemn the church for its restraint of progress: the church has admitted its error.
Technology has often been misused by people and societies. This is not the fault of the builders of Chartres, or the Empire State Building, or the Atom Bomb. (Chartres was a poorly managed and wasteful project, decimating the countryside, polluting the waters, causing rampant over-urbanization and slums and ill health, not to mention its occupational safety and health debacle, measured in thousands of deaths. With all that, it was human progress.)
And Technology is not a djin which can be captured and squeezed back into its lamp. We will control technology -- as well as all other social aspects of life -- or we will reap the consequences. But I haven't noticed very many Anthrposophists or Waldorf teachers, students, parents, and children giving up the family car for horses, or living in hovels (thatched rooves are back in style, though).
Wernher von Braun was a Nazi, whose employment by the U.S. was deemed in the national interest -- not to get to the moon, but to kill Russians before they killed us. You don't have to be an Anthroposophist or new-age science hater to think that von Braun's masters deserve the opprobrium of history for their embracing of evil and, perhaps, their becoming evil themselves in the name of their civil creed, which is both great and profane. On the other hand, the judgement of history may be kinder than we now believe.
Science, engineering and technology are value-neutral processes. It is the values of society which determine their uses, and the moral and ethical codes of their practitioners which determine their paths. To the extent that many people today seem to want badly to find a way to stuff the djin back in the bottle, we have a renascence of irrational "ancientism" posing as new-age solutions.
Steiner, Anthroposophy and Waldorf are but a small part of this movement away from human progress. But they are one of the most effusive neoplasms of an epidemic of carcinogenic irrationality spreading through culture and the body politic.
Human progress does not require turning back the clock, increasing the individuation and isolation of the cultural mind in the name of "true spiritual thought" which is nothing but narcissistic intellectual hedonism, and repressing the means of increasing our well-being and commonweal: reason and science, and their engines of the future, technology and engineering.
yours for truth -- it matters
raison
----------------------------------------------------------------
Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2037.3 ---------------
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Computers (WAS: Avoid computReading, abstractions and sclerosis)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 13:09:03 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
[Diana wrote:]
)I think in today's world not letting your child use the computer )would be
)sort of like not letting them learn to use the telephone. )There may be
)drawbacks to it, even grave dangers, but you have to )deal with them, you
)can't just pretend it doesn't exist, or you're )solving one problem (maybe,
)or just postponing it) but you're )creating others.
[Sarina said:]
)Utter baloney. "Grave dangers" should be overlooked for some
)pie-in-)the-sky "perceived" benefit?
Well, I didn't say anything about pie in the sky. I don't find talking on
the telephone to give me "pie in the sky," but I will not be having my
telephone service disconnected any time soon, or putting pink cloths over it
so my son will maybe forget it is there until he's 14. I'm talking about
treating it as a fact of life, putting it in its place.
I didn't say grave dangers should be overlooked either. There are lot of
grave dangers for children on the Internet and you can bet I am not
overlooking them. My son will not be going anywhere near anything dangerous
or ugly on the Internet (he is never on the computer unless I am sitting
next to him), not to mention lesser dangers associated with all the stupid
software that's touted as "educational" for kids. What I said was, you have
to deal with this -- manage it -- not pretend the technology doesn't even
exist.
Actually, my son hasn't been on the computer for weeks. He got some software
at Christmas that he was excited about, briefly, till the novelty wore off,
which I was glad of because I wasn't very impressed with it. He does get
email from his grandparents. He has an hour of computer instruction per week
at school, and I don't really know what they do, though he's mentioned math
problems. (There's one computer in his classroom, but the teacher doesn't
seem to have any idea what to do with it.) You're not talking to someone
who's gung ho for getting children on the computer. My computer/office is in
a part of the house fairly remote from my son's usual activities, and I am
normally not on the computer unless he is at school, asleep, or with his
dad, so you could say that's a variation of the pink cloth, I guess.
[Sarina:]
)First of all, the computer technology we use today will be completely
)eclipsed in just a few years, so exactly HOW is it important for )kids to
)learn how to use today's soon-to-be-outdated technology?
It isn't important they learn to use any particular type of technology. I
think you're arguing with someone else, because I never said that.
[Sarina]
)Second, how can you then explain the fact that I learned how to use )my
)computer at 27? (snip) So please explain to me how I was )somehow held
)back by not having computers as a child?
)My "deprivation" did not create any problems, I assure you.
Who said it did? The difference is, computers weren't around when you were a
child, well, weren't an everyday fact of life in many households or
workplaces yet. Think of the telephone again -- it's a pretty simple device,
you could learn at age 27 in a couple of minutes even if you'd never used
one, but imagine if your parents had forbidden you to make or receive phone
calls, or to see them talking on the phone, till you were grown. (They
could've waited till you were asleep to make phone calls, after all.) You'd
have been spared the Ahrimanic influences of the telephone, and maybe you'd
be rosier-cheeked for it, but you'd probably have some other, unusual
problems.
[Sarina]
)Diane, I realize I sound a little snotty. I find myself reacting to )this
)issue because I feel it is driven by big business and )marketing, period.
)(snip etc., Happy Meals, sugared cereal)
)I feel the belief that computers are "essential for children and
)the earlier the better", to be nothing more than totally fasle - and
) )highly successful - marketing propaganda.
Sarina, I totally agree with you. Believe me. I just disagree with the "pink
cloth" approach to dealing with this. I did not say "computers are essential
for children and the earlier the better," that's idiotic (though I realize
there are plenty of people spouting this; you're arguing with them, not me).
I just think computers are *here*, they are a part of the world our children
live in and they are not going away, and there is no point to pretending
they're not or in making it forbidden fruit.
[Sarina]
)There is NO benefit to using computers for children under about the )age of
)8. That is my opinion, which is based on comparing my )personal experience
)watching my son use the pc and reading FAILURE )TO CONNECT, by Jane Healy.
)(I was able to contrast what she was )saying in the book with what my kid
)was doing on the machine. I )realized that it was a colossal waste of his
)time.)
Probably true. There is very little that is useful for children to do on the
computer -- at least that he/she can't do elsewhere -- and there's all kinds
of crap that people are eager to convince you your child really *needs*, and
it's best to stay savvy to this. In my opinion there are some things that
are fun and harmless, though, perhaps for an hour on a rainy day, and a few
things that are in fact educational, and the point is to keep it in its
place. I feel about it as I do about TV, an hour here and there isn't going
to damage anybody's myelin.
[Sarina]
)Please don't take this ranting personally, Diane. I'm not ranting at )you.
) (snip Nabisco, Disney, Pokemon etc) more reasons to stay )inside and
)not play with friends (socially, online gaming doesn't )count!), and it
)really freaks me out. Maybe this is way out there, )but I think kids really
)do need fresh air and sunshine, and lots of )it. Worthless computer games
)seem to get in the way of that.
Agree totally. I'm not taking it personally, because you're not even talking
to me. You're talking to Nabisco and Disney, whom I don't like much either.
Fresh air and sunshine is definitely the way to go. So what you can do is
say "no" when you think that's enough TV/computers for one day/week,
whatever your limit is. (And you don't put a computer or TV in your kid's
room.) There's just no point in getting freaked out about it, in my opinion.
Diana
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2037.4 ---------------
From: Sean Slovan (sean.slovan gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Goodrick-Clarke
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 10:39:49 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (200003021657.IAA14004 lists1.best.com)
Alan Fine wrote:
) This may be true, but Goodrick-Clarke mentions Steiner and Anthroposophy
) several times in the context of the roots of Naziism, particularly inspiring
) Rosenberg's works.
I sometimes really wonder whether mankind loses the ability to read (and to
think)! And I am VERY sensible to Orwellian Newspeak, after decades of
experience with a totalitarian regime that had roots Peter Staudenmaier,
Peter Bierl and sorts are apparently rather fond of, since, as everybody
knows, Marx, Engels and Trotzky were great rationalists, ok?
Goodrick-Clarke. The book is called "The Roots of NS". This means that
everybody mentioned in the 293-pages edition Wellingborough 1985 is a "root"
of NS?
Goodrick-Clarke mentions Steiner on pages 26, 28, 30, 60, 101, 170, 221,
223. If there is the need, I'll scan them all and post them.
Inspiring Rosenberg's works... Did you read page 223 where Goodrick-Clarke
quotes from the trashy occult thriller by Trevor Ravenscroft, who claimed to
adapt material of R. Steiner and the Anthrop. Walter J. Stein, a book called
"The Spear of Destiny"? That Rosenberg celebrated obscure seances with a
(good-looking?) naked medium in the Thule Society? Goodrick-Clarke quotes
this trash only to make the conclusion (p. 224) that "there is not a shred
of evidence for such rituals", the book has a "fictional nature", etc (he is
polite).
On p. 170, G-C writes about the Ukrainian Schwarz-Bostunitsch, an
anti-semite and anti-mason agitator, who was fond of occultism since his
early days in Kiev. He indeed worked in Rosenberg's "Weltdienst" news agency
since 1925, and later turned to the SS only to eventually become
SS-Standartenführer (a much more comprehensive account on him is to be found
in Walter Laqueur's "Russia and Germany", London 1965, chap. 6: "Hitler and
the Russian Far Right").
It is true that from 1923 until 1925, S-B appreciated Rudolf Steiner as
someone who freed the "occult sciences" from obscurantism, but his attitude
changed dramatically when he joined Rosenberg's services. In 1929, he
published in Munich one of the fiercest attacks AGAINST Rudolf Steiner, a
pamphlet called "Rudolf Steiner -- a swindler like no other". He had
"discovered" by now that Steiner was a "Jew", working as a mole in order to
promote the "jewish-masonic conspiracy", a theory Rosenberg was so fond of,
etc.
These are the only two mentionings of the alleged "Rosenberg-Steiner"
connection. Goodrick-Clarke NEVER comes to such a conclusion, because it is
simply false, and Goodrick-Clarke a diligent scholar.
On p. 60: Steiner wrote about the Rosicrucians.
on p. 30: On Vienna at the turn of the century. Steiner was close to a
Theosophic circle (-- no, not the Ariosophists. Imagine -- there were people
living in Vienna who were NOT "reds" and did NOT become Nazis either! That's
incredible, isn't it? How is that possible?), its "members were initially
inclined towards a Biedermeier tradition of pious 'inwardness' and
self-cultivation", a reflection of the "predilection of the educated classes
for piety, subjectivism," [aahh, that's suspicious, as Lenin had already
noted in 1905! He later shot all subjectivists (= bourgeois fascists) as a
preventive measure and banished books by such dangerous fascist authors like
Dostoyevsky] "and the cult of feelings".
But -- now it comes! You will be delighted! On p. 101, G-C mentions the
völkisch writer and "proto-ariosophist" Harald Grävel. He wrote for the
notorious Ostara, one of Hitler's favorite journals in his Vienna period, in
1908, where he oulined, according to G-C, "a thoroughly theosophical
conception of race and a programme for the restauration of Aryan authority
in the world. His quoted occult sources were texts by Annie Besant (...) and
Rudolf Steiner", from the lecture "Blut is ein ganz besonderer Saft". I
could not check Grävel's article to see WHAT exactly he was refering to, and
HOW it related to what R. Steiner actually said in this lecture (as every
scholar knows, this might be of some importance). However, Grävel was NOT an
Anthroposophist.
Steiner spoke in this lecture about the importance of the "mingling" of
blood in the course of history, in order to overcome mediumistic
clearvoyance and to develop the clear intellect as a precondition of
individualisation.
That's all.
Seán Slovan
P.S.: What about an investigation of Jesuit schools and academies like
Georgetown University in Washington D.C.? As everybody knows, such
freedom-loving philantropists like Pol-Pot and other red Khmers, and Fidel
Castro, too, went to a Jesuit school, before they turned rationalist and
communist. What did they teach them there? As far as I know, Waldorf can't
claim a Pol Pot yet... Hitler and Himmler appreciated their catholic
background very much. Himmer even copied the Jesuit Order, when he
established the S.S. Iosif Dzhugashvili aka Stalin was better off, as he
even entered a priest seminary. He could use it later on, when he
orchestrated his mass murder (just some 25 million (wo)men or more, not only
Jews) as a big orthodox mass.
P.S. 2, never make the mistake to agress a member of the religious minority
of the Parses, who still practize one of the oldest religious beliefs in the
world. In old Avestian (the oldest Iranian language, related to Sanscrit),
the religious community is called Arya, Arians, because this is the old name
for Iranians. It can be dated back to prehistory. They would feel very
discriminated!
P.S. 3,
Alan Fine wrote:
)Peter Slovan writes:
My name is Jan, Seán (John), not Peter. Cf. John 21:20-23.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2037.5 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:30:28 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
raison uses practically 2,600 words for the purpose of calling me a "junkyard
dog of an Anthroposophical Apologist". A pretty creative epithet but hardly
worthy of the verbal Krakatoa.
The gist of raisons deluge is that Anthroposophy is not a method of gaining
knowledge, rather it is anti-science, "narcissistic intellectual hedonism, and
repressing the means of increasing our well-being and commonweal: reason and
science, and their engines of the future, technology and engineering", in
raison's purple prose. Lisa, I hope you are enjoying this.
[raison]:
)Science, engineering and technology are value-neutral processes.
You cannot believe this, surely? You yourself state:
[raison]:
)Wernher von Braun was a Nazi, whose employment by the U.S. was deemed in the
national interest -- not to get to )the moon, but to kill Russians before they
killed us.
This is value free? Your thinking gets muddled when you get exercised. You
also get wordy. Slow down.
[raison rhetorically asks]:
)Who are these "unscrupulous scientists" of the 20th Century, Terry?
I cannot name them because they are mostly minor figures, but one could
determine their identities. Here are three examples of many: 1) the
scientists who for years fought tooth and nail against the truth about
cigarettes. 2) the scientists who developed and continue to work on nerve gas
and biological warfare. 3) the scientist who worked in eugenics in the early
part of this century (http://vector.cshl.org/eugenics/).
Your post is so full of bigoted, reactionary and absolutist statements, that I
wonder if you understand much at all about science, raison. You have done
better, so I assume Terry hit a nerve. Here are some examples:
[raison]:
)...genetic engineering, which Anthroposophists irrationally hate.
There are very real concerns regarding genetic engineering. It is off-topic,
but I will go into it further if you wish.
[raison]:
)...Anthroposphists' irrational hatred of immunization in general.
There are also real concerns regarding immunization. It is off topic, but...
[raison]:
)Can you name some ... _scrupulous_ ... scientists of the past century who have
_benefitted_ mankind? Is there such a )thing in the Anthroposophical lexicon of
hatred of all things modern, scientific and technological?
Sigh. We all can name scientists that have benefited mankind. The influence of
science and technology is not based on mere propaganda. Imight well ask "is
there such a thing in your lexicon for adoration of all things modern,
scientific and technological? Your question does not describe Anthroposophists,
who after all are not moving to Taos to live in earth ships. My question (I
hope) does not describe you.
[raison]:
)What's the difference, Chand, between listening to a real scientist (someone
like yourself, for instance) and listening to )Rudolf Steiner?
Well, these days you have to be sufficiently clairvoyant to hear Steiner.
I will leave the rest of your soulless wit to someone with more patience than I.
Chand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2037.6 ---------------
From: Sean Slovan (sean.slovan gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 12:53:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (200003031027.CAA02922 lists1.best.com)
raison orthodox.com wrote:
) [Terry Boardman]:
)) Yes, I know what you mean, but many people can't forget some
)) of the very ugly things that science, or rather some unsrupulous
)) scientists, have been responsible for in the 20th century. This
)) feeling must also be understood by scientists. In the 20th cent
)) they were given their head. Mid-century they became as demi-gods,
)) or at least like new cardinals. The inevitable hubris and the
)) inevitable backlash followed.
)
) Who are these "unscrupulous scientists" of the 20th Century, Terry?
) Could you name some, please?
You will find a gallery of such persons in Stephen Jay Gould's book "The
Mismeasure of Man", New York 1981 on biology. Or in Robert Jay Lifton, "The
Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genozid". New York 1986
on medicine. Or Vance Packard, "The People Shapers", Boston 1977 on
psychatry. Really comprehensive (but in German) is Peter Emil Becker: Wege
ins Dritte Reich. vol. I: Zur Geschichte der Rassenhygiene; vol. II:
Sozialdarwinismus, Rassismus, Antisemitismus und Völkischer Gedanke.
Stuttgart, New York 1988, 1990.
How about José Maria Delgado, who worked at the Yale University School of
Medicine, secretly financed with tax-payers money by the US Office of Naval
Intelligence, who wrote in 1969 the interesting book "Physical Control of
the Mind. Toward a Psychocivilized Society" and who stated in 1974: "We need
a program of psychosurgery for political control of our society. (...) The
purpose is physical control of the mind. Everyone who deviates from the
given norm can be surgically mutilated. (...) The individual may think that
the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his
personal point of view. This lacks historical perspective. (...) Man does
not have the right to develop his own mind. (...) We must electrically
control the brain. Some day armies and generals will be controlled by
electric stimulation of the brain." Congressional Record, no. 26, vol. 118,
February 24, 1974.
On a much more "academic" level, read Richard Dawkin's book "The Selfish
Gene". What conclusions do you draw from his "insights"?
Seán Slovan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2037.7 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: RE: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: 3 Mar 2000 11:38:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; Name="Message Body"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
)Once again, I find that those who follow Anthrop. are unwilling to
)repudiate, to say they do not buy into, Steiner's racial ethnography. Why is
)that?
No Lisa, what I see on this list is that "those who follow Anthrop." are unwilling to repudiate **your interpretation** of what Steiner wrote/said and your intellectual extensions of what that must lead to.
There seems to have been quite a number of people who have repudiated some results of what you are advancing as an idea, but they disagree that that was Steiner's intention. If they don't believe you have accurrately characterized it or interpretted it, why should they have to dance to your tune?
If you are looking for strong action from Anthrops.(i.e. repudiation), I think you must convince, with equal strength of argument, that *your reading is the strongest reading*. Personally, I don't think you have. Otherwise, give people the right and dignity to disagree or not side with your personal preferences. Anthrops. don't need to prove that their reading is the only reading because they are not asking for wholesale acceptance or repudiation. They are not asking for people to draw a definite conclusion.
Does this mean that if people don't agree with you that it means that they are completely opposed to you? (You are either for us or against us) No, it may mean that no one has provided sufficient arguments to make a definite decision one way or the other; and the questions remain just that, questions.
Repudiation is a serious announcement of a conclusion. To people like myself (but not speaking for Anthrops.) who find the need for conclusive statements like this as potentially misguided, your request for this degree of conclusiveness is something to be avoided, even at the risk of negative stereotyping and witch-hunting by others. For the record, I say this as someone who does not accept Steiner as a clairvoyant person, but not because 'he wasn't because there is no such thing' (as a fundamental humanist must insist), but because I have no idea what a clairvoyant is supposed to be like. And, even if he was, he may have poorly understood it himself or understood it really well or a combination of both at different times.
Let me re-emphasize however, there seems to have been quite a number of people on this list who have repudiated some results of what you are advancing as an idea, but they disagree that that was Steiner's intention.
FWIW, I honestly have to admit (and I know that this may strike people as completely repugnant) but that in a part of my mind, the part that understands that there must be so much yet to learn that humankind has not learned or has developed the instruments (both cultural and scientific) to even know are able to be learned, that striking and serious ideas of cultural, racial, and genetic differences *may* exist (as well as other currently sensitive questions , such as animal/human rights); and exist in such a way that our current cultural climate could not, even if it wanted to, undertake a study of these questions because of, for starters, real fear and a lack of understanding within society.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2037.8 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: Goodrick-Clarke
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:05:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (200003031415.GAA11340 lists1.best.com)
Sean Slovan writes, to support that Steiner was distant from Nazism:
) On p. 170, G-C writes about the Ukrainian Schwarz-Bostunitsch, an
) anti-semite and anti-mason agitator, who was fond of occultism since his
) early days in Kiev. He indeed worked in Rosenberg's "Weltdienst" news
agency
) since 1925, and later turned to the SS only to eventually become
) SS-Standartenführer (a much more comprehensive account on him is to be
found
) in Walter Laqueur's "Russia and Germany", London 1965, chap. 6: "Hitler
and
) the Russian Far Right").
)
) It is true that from 1923 until 1925, S-B appreciated Rudolf Steiner as
) someone who freed the "occult sciences" from obscurantism, but his
attitude
) changed dramatically when he joined Rosenberg's services. In 1929, he
) published in Munich one of the fiercest attacks AGAINST Rudolf Steiner, a
) pamphlet called "Rudolf Steiner -- a swindler like no other". He had
) "discovered" by now that Steiner was a "Jew", working as a mole in order
to
) promote the "jewish-masonic conspiracy", a theory Rosenberg was so fond
of,
To me the gist of Goodrick Clark's book is that IDEAS of theosophy and
anthroposophy filtered down into Nazi ideology. This is what is important
to me. The ideas, not the complex relationships and involvements. Werent
Nazis among those who tried to assassinate Hitler? Should we then clear
Hitler of responsibility in the Nazi movement? There were Jews who served
as officers in the German army under the Reich. Should we say that the
Jews were the real friends of the Nazis and the Anthroposophists were the
enemies? Trying to decide who the "good guys" and the "bad guys" were, by
determining who was enemies with whom and who was friends with whom, who
participated and who resisted, is to me largely an idle exercize which
ultimately serves more to support our own biases and assuage our
conciousness than to understand why Nazism happened, and what we all need to
do to guard against it in the future.
Sean
) My name is Jan, Seán (John), not Peter. Cf. John 21:20-23.
My apologies, I was confusing you with another Slovan I knew years ago. Do
you have any Peters in your family?
Alan Fine
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2037.9 ---------------
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Response to Harve: From Heyatawin: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 18:37:54 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
)
)(Heyatawin)No, you don't throw the Bible out but you'd better pay attention
)not only to people's interpretations of it but the behaviours that go along
)with their interpretations - and why.
[Harve]
I totally agree.
)
))[Heyatawin]
))
))
)))there are people who relish "power" who crave/need to be percieved and to
)))percieve themselves as special, as superior, as "designated" to guide the
)))spiritual life of others and on and on. Further, if you think that
)))someone
)))who harbours such warped self - perceptions or psychological difficulties
)))is
)))going to sit down with you and have a casual little chit chat about it,
)))you
)))are dreaming.
))
))[Harve]
))
))Once again, this is true in any tradition.
)
)(Heyatawin) I am talking about Steiner?Anth. and its
)application/connections in Waldorf Ed. .
[Harve]
I totally reject sociopaths teaching children in any school. We are in
agreement.
))
))[Hewatawin]
I am not saying
)that
)Waldorf attracts, any psych. or personality disorders in particular. I am
)saying, however, that W. teachers such as the *one* I described (I do have
)some info. re: others) may harbour impairments, distorted perceptions or
)dysfunctional behaviours that others are unaware of and will "apply"
)certain
)aspects of Steiner?Anth. accrodingly.
) As suggested, study A.S.P.D., it provides the best example of how well
)hidden dysfunction can be.
[Harve]
Once again, I agree.
))
))[Heyatawin]
))
)))P.S. Screen your teachers THOROUGHLY, it's the least you could do in
)))response to some of the parents on this List.
)))
))))[Harve]
))))
))Absolutely. I could not agree more. But I see a huge problem with
))indicting
))anthroposophy because it is susceptible to misuse and misinterpretation.
)
)(Heyatawin)
I am sorry about that, but I have a huge problem with
)certain
)"ideas" taught and perpetuated by Steiner. If you have the time I would
)like
)the quote re: L.K. and human beings who are not human etc. fully explained
)and, tell me, how do you think such an idea may be interpreted re: the
)above
)discussion?
))
[Harve]
I don't have an answer to that. I am not an anthroposophist and I have only
read a small amount of Steiner. Certainly on it's face, it is hard to
justify that quote. I seriously doubt if that stuff is taught in teacher
training. But I do see how someone with those tendencies could take those
quotes and use them to justify racism.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2037.10 ---------------
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 18:41:28 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
[Chand]
)
)
)raison uses practically 2,600 words for the purpose of calling me a
)"junkyard
)dog of an Anthroposophical Apologist". A pretty creative epithet but
)hardly
)worthy of the verbal Krakatoa.
{Harve]
I haven't read it yet, but you must admit, he has a way with words. I am
casting Peter O'Toole to play warm/raison. He's the only actor I can think
of that will do justice to the role.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n2037 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n2039 --------------
001 - "Sarina McDonald" (pandor - Waldorf Critics List - The Movie
002 - "debra harvey" (debharve - Re: Waldorf Critics List - The Movie
003 - "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2ga - Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
004 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - RE: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
005 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
006 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: the race question (long)
007 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: Goodrick-Clarke
008 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - RE: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
009 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Science and reason
010 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - different understanding of Steiner
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2039.1 ---------------
From: "Sarina McDonald" (pandora aa.net)
Subject: Waldorf Critics List - The Movie
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 14:26:01 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
)Sissy Spacek as Sarina (warm, funny, natural).
...and tall, thin, and redheaded! Bwahahahaha! I love it!
Seriously, though - how 'bout Janeanne Garafalo or Rosie O'Donnell instead?
Either would be more accurate, all around.
---------------------------
Sarina
(short, plump, brunette, and mouthy!)
pandora aa.net
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2039.2 ---------------
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List - The Movie
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 22:43:38 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
[Sarina]
Janeanne Garafalo
[Harve]
Who's that? I will defer to your wishes, but I am picking up Sissy-like
"soul" vibrations.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2039.3 ---------------
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 18:08:19 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Yes!
----------
)From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
)To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)Subject: RE: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
)Date: Fri, Mar 3, 2000, 2:32 PM
)
))From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
))
)))Once again, I find that those who follow Anthrop. are unwilling to
)))repudiate, to say they do not buy into, Steiner's racial ethnography. Why is
)))that?
))
)
) [Luke]
)) No Lisa, what I see on this list is that "those who follow Anthrop." are
))unwilling to repudiate **your interpretation** of what Steiner wrote/said
))and your intellectual extensions of what that must lead to.
))
)) There seems to have been quite a number of people who have repudiated
))some results of what you are advancing as an idea, but they disagree that
))that was Steiner's intention. If they don't believe you have accurrately
))characterized it or interpretted it, why should they have to dance to your
))tune?
)
) [Deby]
) _Some_ people (like me) just can not buy the idea that a Waldorf teacher
) who wears the _right_ color dresses on the _right_ day, serves the _right_
) grain on the _right_ day, paint their classrooms the _right_ color,
) celebrate the _right_ festivals, teach the _right_ verses, have the
) students paint the _right_ pictures, etc. yet reject Steiner's theory on
) race. His words are quite clear. Think of Waldorf History curriculum, based
) solely on Theosophy's racist world view. Anthroposophists won't disagree
) with _anything_ Steiner says. Steiner's racist words are just too clear to
) people like me. Given the fact that Waldorf schools sell racist books in
) their book stores across the country, if not around the world does not give
) me any comfort. It is hogwash to say that I just don't understand. I
) understand - I just don't agree. I think the Anthroposophists don't
) understand.
) Deby
)
)
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2039.4 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: RE: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
Date: 3 Mar 2000 18:17:09 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; Name="Message Body"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Chand
)
)
)raison uses practically 2,600 words for the purpose of calling me a
)"junkyard
)dog of an Anthroposophical Apologist". A pretty creative epithet but
)hardly
)worthy of the verbal Krakatoa.
luke
This image is hilarious. Really ROFL
{Harve]
I haven't read it yet, but you must admit, he has a way with words. I am
casting Peter O'Toole to play warm/raison. He's the only actor I can think
of that will do justice to the role.
Luke
I was thinking of Walter Matthau. :)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2039.5 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 17:41:34 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
[Lisa]:
)Yes!
Your opinion on the recent examples of critics' scholarship - Alan's and Peter
Staudenmeier's?
Chand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2039.6 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: the race question (long)
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 16:00:30 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
References: (200003011501.HAA14894 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (200003011501.HAA14894 lists1.best.com)
3/1/00, Chand wrote:
)[Lisa asks]:
) ) ``If there are people who follow Steiner's teachings to the extent that
) )they wear the colors he said to wear on certain days of the week; that they
) )eat the grains he prescribed on certain days of the week; that they use a
) )system of medical treatment he devised to keep themselves healthy, or to
) )treat ill-health; that they follow his educational prescriptions down to
) )painting classrooms for each grade a certain color and introducing subjects
) )not only in the order he suggested, but also in the manner he suggested;
) )etc. etc.....
) ) ``then why would that devoted Anthroposophist who follows Steiner's
) )indications in so many small details of life NOT view minority peoples
) )through Steiner's lens, too? If a person eats millet on Wednesday because
) )Steiner says it is good for the health and the spirit, why would that same
) )person not also believe that my ``yellow-skinned'' Chinese child is in the
) )``adolescent stage'' of spiritual development?''
) ) NO ONE ANSWERED THE QUESTION I POSED.
)
)I'll answer, since you are so gung ho about it, even though I haven't read the
)relevant Steiner.
Maybe you better catch up on your homework before being so sure about
what you think Steiner means.
)It should be obvious by now that if a critic were your
)child's Waldorf teacher, you would certainly be in danger of that teacher
)judging " ``yellow-skinned'' Chinese child is in the ``adolescent stage'' of
)spiritual development?'' This is because, judging from the interpretations of
)Steiner posted on this list, the critics read his words but are blind to his
)meaning.
Convoluted logic worthy of an Anthroposophist. But occultists like to
do things backwards.
)In other words, while the critics trawl for juicy phrases for use in
)their crusade against Waldorf schools, Steiner's insights, what he means and
)represents to Waldorf teachers and Anthroposophists, slip through their nets.
Welcome to Anthroposophy, Chand. You're a convert. You might as well
sign up for "first class" the way you talk about "Steiner's
insights." Don't you know a phony when you see one? Read his books,
and since you are scientist, I suggest you start with the science
lecture courses for teachers (light, warmth, astronomy).
) That is not to say you will not find an unthinking person who
)fits Steiners writings into his/her racists world view. This
)teacher in Holland seems to be such a person.
That wasn't one teacher, it was a lesson block that had been
traditional at many schools there. It was based on Steiner's
"insight" into Aryan superiority. And don't forget that when the
parent objected, the school spin-doctored and minimized just the way
you do on this list. It wasn't until it became -public- that the
scandal had to be dealt with by the schools.
)The Waldorf teachers I have know were not into racial
)stereotyping.
Not those I know, either, but some of them won't say that Steiner was
wrong about race.
)You mention that some Christians you know are judgmental, at
)least as far as homosexuals are concerned. I have no doubt that such people
)exist. Are you now going to interview your children's potential teachers,
)rejecting the Anthroposophists who don't reject Steiner to your
)satisfaction and the Christians who judge homosexuals?
Yes, I think interviewing the prospective teacher is a very good thing to do.
)If you want to be sure that your
)children's teachers are saints, or at least share your world view, you had
)better stick to homeschooling. Many people do for precisely these reasons.
Sainthood not required, Chand, you're exaggerating.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2039.7 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: Goodrick-Clarke
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 17:33:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200003031903.LAA00183 lists1.best.com)
I wrote:
) ) To me the gist of Goodrick Clark's book is that IDEAS of theosophy and
) ) anthroposophy filtered down into Nazi ideology. This is what
) ) is important
) ) to me. The ideas, not the complex relationships and involvements.
)
) [Bob Tolz]
) #1: You seem to be back-pedaling. You initially stated:
) "Goodrick-Clarke mentions Steiner and Anthroposophy several times in the
) context of the roots of Naziism, PARTICULARLY INSPIRING ROSENBERG'S WORKS.
) [my emphasis]" Would you care to admit error in this regard?
Bob, have you read this book? If you have I'd be happy to discuss it with
you.
Alan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2039.8 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: RE: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: 3 Mar 2000 19:36:09 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; Name="Message Body"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)posted
)From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
)
))Once again, I find that those who follow Anthrop. are unwilling to
))repudiate, to say they do not buy into, Steiner's racial ethnography. Why is
))that?
)
[Luke]
) No Lisa, what I see on this list is that "those who follow Anthrop." are
)unwilling to repudiate **your interpretation** of what Steiner wrote/said
)and your intellectual extensions of what that must lead to.
)
) There seems to have been quite a number of people who have repudiated
)some results of what you are advancing as an idea, but they disagree that
)that was Steiner's intention. If they don't believe you have accurrately
)characterized it or interpretted it, why should they have to dance to your
)tune?
[Deby]
_Some_ people (like me) just can not buy the idea that a Waldorf teacher
who wears the _right_ color dresses on the _right_ day, serves the _right_
grain on the _right_ day, paint their classrooms the _right_ color,
celebrate the _right_ festivals, teach the _right_ verses, have the
students paint the _right_ pictures, etc. yet reject Steiner's theory on
race.
That may be an indication of how unflexible your thinking is, not others. You might be an "I am all in or I am all out" kind of person, others may not be that way. (sorry to be so blunt)
Also, you are making a composite person. Some people do some of these things some do others of these things. I think you will find very few who do all of these things, and especially practice racism.
For the most part you will see the easy things that don't really seem to take much effort to have to justify as the things that are implemented. You don't have to wrestle with your soul to choose a paint chip or pick up some millet, or decide to wear a purple dress or shirt today. Frankly, it can be an easy window dressing. I believe, however that it is unreasonable to jump to a conclusion that since a teacher does x and y they must therefore do A and B when they are clearly actions of different qualities involving a greater depth of serious thinking.
) His words are quite clear. Think of Waldorf History curriculum, based
)solely on Theosophy's racist world view.
Studying your PLANS mantras again, Deby?
)Anthroposophists won't disagree with _anything_ Steiner says.
(keep repeating) PLANS has told me so, so I will believe it.
)Steiner's racist words are just too clear to people like me.
What kind of people is that? Are they better than me and my friends?
)Given the fact that Waldorf schools sell racist books in their book stores
)across the country, if not around the world does not give me any comfort.
First:
So you are saying that you are a supporter censorship, right? (These books are also available at Barnes and Noble).
That anti-liberal stance backfired in Dan's face at the San Francisco school too. Now he has to go around proving to everyone else that those nasty waldorf people are really ultra conservative rigid dogmatics, in disguise no less, because they "out-liberaled" him by not succumbing to his anti-liberal censorship desires.
Second:
It is you that is viewing these books as racist and wanting others to dance to your tune. It is abundantly clear that you have not made a compellingly strong argument to show that your interpretation *must be* the intended interpretation.
)It is hogwash to say that I just don't understand. I
)understand - I just don't agree. I think the Anthroposophists don't
)understand.
Spoken like a true PLANS believer. It's hogwash if I say that you don't understand (which I didn't say) but perfectly reasonable to say that Anthrops. don't understand. Gimme a break
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2039.9 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Science and reason
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 01:59:26 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200003031027.CAA02922 lists1.best.com)
"raison" wrote:
) Could you name some, please? Would they include Watson
) and Crick? (Quite possible, as their discovery of DNA
) led to genetic engineering, which Anthroposophists
) irrationally hate.)
More untruths from 'raison'.
Do anthroposophists 'irrationally hate' genetic engineering?
Some rubbish! In both cases!!
You write as if:
1. any critical opinion of genetic engineering implies that it should
be irrational
2. when 'anthroposophists' develop a critical view of genetic
engineering, it is not only 'irrational' but also 'hateful.
To name just some very few of the many links on the issue:
On 1:
http://www.psrast.org/indexeng.htm
http://www.gene-watch.org/
http://www.zero.com.au/agen/body_index.html
http://www.i-sis.org/
http://www.i-sis.dircon.co.uk/meacher.htm
http://www.psrg.org.nz/
http://www.foeeurope.org/biotechnology/about.htm
(EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT BANS GM FOOD!:)
http://www.foeeurope.org/press/european_parliament.htm
http://www.anth.org/ifgene/reviews.htm
http://www.anth.org/ifgene/ho.htm
On 2:
http://www.anth.org/ifgene/ifgene.htm
http://www.anth.org/ifgene/
I leave it to the readers to judge the truthfulness of 'raisons'
projected alleged 'irrational hate'.
) Why do you not villify the politicians of the 20th
) Century, Terry?
... you really do deeply dislike politicians?
) Why is not politics as dirty to you
) and Anthroposophists as modern, "materialist" science?
)
) Could it be because Steiner himself was a politician
) first and always
!!!???!!! Some twisted logic.
), and his invented religion Anthroposophy
) has metamorphosed into a quasi-political movement,
) especially in Europe? Steiner's three-fold social order
) is not dead, though little is heard of it openly
) -- isn't that right, Terry?
The Anthroposophical Society in nil ways is engaged in any political
activity. The work to develop social forms that do justice to the
specific work that comes to expression as 'cultural life', 'social and
legal life' and 'economical life' in society in a differentiated way
is very low level also in the anthroposophical movement.
One way it is developing outside organized anthroposophical activities
is now however in the Phillipines
http://chimaira.psdn.iphil.net/agenda21/start.htm as The Philippine
Agenda 21, in an organized way doing justice not only to 'business'
and 'government' as the basic centers of influence in soicety, but
also giving equal weight to 'civil society' as a central force in
attaining the long term goal of sustainable development for society
http://chimaira.psdn.iphil.net/agenda21/unity.htm
As all surely remember, Agenda 21 formulated the long term goals for
sustained development at the United Nations Conference on Environment
and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro in 1972
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csdgen.htm .
A site on the basic concepts from an anthroposophical perspective can
be found at http://www.anth.org/socialthreefolding/ The essence of the
concept of social threefolding is doing justice to the ideals of the
French revolution to do the Freedom, Justice and Brother/Sisterhood
justice, that European cultural and social life since then has striven
to realize. I leave it to the readers to judge the value of it.
) Isn't three-folding
) a political goal of European Anthroposophy, through
) the "spritualization" of the European Union?
I assume you refer to the article I have on my site at
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/EU/euengoff.htm As with the other points
in your posting, I leave it to the readers to judge how truthfully you
reflect its content.
) Will "spiritual science" keep my food from spoiling? Will it keep my beer cold?
Soo, you drink beer ... ? :-)
) What's the difference, Chand, between listening to
) a real scientist (someone like yourself, for instance)
) and listening to Rudolf Steiner?
)
) The difference is, you can be understood with the
) education that people get from mom and their schools,
) while Steiner cannot be understood using any known
) system of thought.
As can be seen at http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/SCIENCE/Science.htm
what you say is not true.
) What Anthroposophists lose sight of in gathering
) themselves into their cloaks ...
Is this the type a defamation the Moderator finds belongs on this
list?
) Anthroposophy is not a "path of knowledge". It is a rehash
) of millennia-old mythic and occult esotericism about life,
) the Universe and everything.
See http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/SCIENCE/Science.htm
) It's interesting, by the way, that you say "path OF knowledge",
) not path TO knowledge; the former sounds like the received
) shibboleths that Steiner recycled as Anthroposophy.
Path OF knowledge gives expression to the understanding of knowledge
as something you come to through a process of long term maturation.
Path TO knowledge implies that knowledge should be something that was,
is and will be there, out in the world somewhere, unchangeable from
eternity to eternity and that the only thing man has to do is to find
it. Having found it, one 'has' it, and it does not change.
OF speaks of knowledge in the sense of the knowledge that changes and
develops in meaning depending on your widening your horizon. TO speaks
of knowledge in the sense of the having knowledge of singular
instances of events, without looking at the context in which it is
embedded.
Both can be developed in a onesided way
) The history of science I grew up on celebrated the engineering
) skill of the builders of Chartres
All science is not primarily technologically oriented.
As for the rest of what you write, it will have to wait for another
time. It takes to long to read, analyze and argue about.
You really DO have the well formulated, polemical and rhetorical
journalistic qualities and capabilities of Michael Kopp as I remember
him ...
Regards,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2039.10 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: different understanding of Steiner
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 02:16:45 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200003011501.HAA14894 lists1.best.com) (200003040013.QAA20493 lists1.best.com)
Dan wrote:
) Convoluted logic worthy of an Anthroposophist. But occultists like to
) do things backwards.
(psst! It was irony ... :-))
) It was based on Steiner's "insight" into Aryan superiority.
As you know, this is not true.
Chand:
) )The Waldorf teachers I have know were not into racial
) )stereotyping.
Dan:
) Not those I know, either, but some of them won't say that Steiner was
) wrong about race.
Don't you find it strange, that they were not into 'racial
stereotyping', if it was true, as so often is described by critics on
this list, that the majority of waldorf teachers were so blind
Steiner-followers? If they are so much into Steiner, maybe they don't
understand him the way you do?
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n2039 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n2040 --------------
001 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit t - Re: Goethe and science
002 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit t - Re: Jewish wisdom
003 - "Diana Winters" (winters_ - RE: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
004 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - RE: lines as impulse/was art and outlines (response to Paulina
005 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit t - Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
006 - "Diana Winters" (winters_ - Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
007 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
008 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
009 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Goodrick-Clarke
010 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Folk-Spirits in the Bible
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2040.1 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Goethe and science
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 20:48:59 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200003012313.PAA14638 lists1.best.com)
Peter Farrell wrote:
) I am talking about influence. A related but
) different notion. Influence is a bit like fame. How do you find out whether
) a person is famous or not. One way might be to count the number of times
) the person is mentioned in the newspapers compared to someone who is
) recognised as famous. You're right. There is an implied assumption that
) quantity is related to value. It may or may not be true. On the other hand
) if very few people pay any attention what is the value?
)
Dear Peter,
You know, your "influence" idea is very interesting. There was this guy
named Henry David Thoreau, who is somewhat well known in America and elsewhere,
but at the same time one could wonder about his real "influence". Except, he
had this idea called "civil disobediance", which another guy, not so
uninfluential by the name of Ghandi, who took it up and beat up the worlds
greatest ever trading power with it. Then later, another fellow, name of
Martin Luther King, ran with the same idea and changed the face of race issues
everywhere with it. Then some guys, who hung out with King in Selma in 1962,
and came back to University of California at Berkeley, and started the Free
Speech Movement, which then gave birth to the whole revolution on student
campuses world wide, and the anti-war movement, etc etc etc
So maybe good old HDT is not so famous as some of these others, but the
"quality" of his "influence", now that seems to have been quite remarkable.
warm regards,
joel
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2040.2 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Jewish wisdom
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 20:52:58 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200002271736.JAA05421 lists1.best.com) (200002272146.NAA17167 lists1.best.com) (200002272228.OAA06459 lists1.best.com) (200002280058.QAA13549 lists1.best.com) (200002282232.OAA12462 lists1.best.com) (200003011925.LAA26716 lists1.best.com)
Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
) Well, some cultures come and go quickly, too. That is another fact of
) history. If I were to say that Anthroposophy is dying and its task is to
) pass on its wisdom before it expires, would you find that offensive?
)
Dear Alan,
Well, if you say something, it is just words isn't it? So I read your
words and ask myself do I agree with them, that is do they ring true. Or if
they don't quite ring true is there something in them that merits further
consideration on my part. But since I don't identify my being with your words,
how can "I" be made the object of an offense.
Actually, it is my understanding that spiritual science is temporary.
Steiner suggested this was so, and I think even gave a life span to it (but I
can't remember the details). It certainly would seem to be the case, at least
based on the patterns suggested by history.
I will be sixty this year. I have noticed that I think about death more
than I did before. Not in fear so much, but as to whether there are some things
I would like to bring to fruition, to completion. It seems a very natural
reflective kind of process, and I see no reason that "cultures" would not
exhibit similar "impulses" when they mature.
Now as to the Hebrew culture in particular, in my own view it has a very
long life, and I would be surprised if certain aspects of it did not continue on
for some time (time in this sense meaning perhaps hundreds, even thousands of
years. Certainly the Torah, the Talmud, and the teachings collected under the
name Kabballa, being composed of much hard won wisdom, will have meaning for
many centuries.
History seems to suggest that some aspects of a culture require the "people"
to continue, as a separate group, in order for the traditions to continue.
Clearly the modern world contains much that works against that, that blurs the
lines between one people and the next, and tends to merge them in some kind of
new capitalist-feudal world culture. Already there is a distinct class of
corporate managers that less and less identifies itself with any particular
people, language or nation-state. Will "being Jewish" die in such a historical
process?
Actually, I would hope not, at least not completely. I find the diversity
of peoples to be very wonderful. So many different ways of being in the world.
At the same time, I have noticed that individuality is on the rise, that
individuals are choosing the throw off their own heritages. It is as if what a
single personality actually was, was something greater than being a member of a
traditional community, people, nation, or language group. Like a butterfly
emerging from a necessary, but no longer useful cocoon.
To me all this causes a sense of mystery and wonder, not of sorrow, or
outrage, or offense.
warm regards,
joel
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2040.3 ---------------
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 02:02:19 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
[Deby]
)_Some_ people (like me) just can not buy the idea that a Waldorf )teacher
)who wears the _right_ color dresses on the _right_ day, )serves the _right_
)grain on the _right_ day, paint their classrooms )the _right_ color,
)celebrate the _right_ festivals, teach the )_right_ verses, have the
)students paint the _right_ pictures, etc. )yet )reject Steiner's theory on
)race.
[Luke didn't like this characterization:]
)That may be an indication of how unflexible your thinking is, not )others.
)You might be an "I am all in or I am all out" kind of )person, others may
)not be that way. (sorry to be so blunt)
)Also, you are making a composite person. Some people do some of )these
)things some do others of these things.
Well, if it's a composite, it describes a high percentage of the faculty at
the school my son attended.
They didn't always get the details precisely right, but it wasn't for lack
of trying.
Getting us all in the right color dresses on the right days was particularly
difficult. Okay, I'm exaggerating. They would have been happy if they could
get us consistently in the right color dresses *at all* (pink in the
kindergarten). Junior faculty members did question the color restrictions,
and then it was relaxed to include any color pastel, as long as the print
was "dreamy."
You can only buy so many pink, flowing, earth-mama dresses. Fortunately
denim jumpers or skirts were allowed too. Don't know if Steiner would have
approved, but it increased my wardrobe options considerably.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2040.4 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: RE: lines as impulse/was art and outlines (response to Paulina)
Date: 3 Mar 2000 21:22:13 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; Name="Message Body"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
[Paulina]
You know as well as I do that the objective outcome for the
form drawings is so that the etheric body will take up the day
consciousness work that has been left unfinished.
[Luke]
You say that as if you feel it is *the only* objective of it. Is that an accurate reading of your statement? I totally disagree with you if that is what you think, and so do teachers at our school and I am pretty sure so does our curriculum descriptions.
It seems fairly obvious that form drawing is, on a very practical level, excersizes in pre-penmanship and eye/hand coordination and spatial visualization.
[Paulina]
)There are similiar
)objective in the other activities that you mention. Why you would
)chose to call these the same or silimiar to the goal and outcome
)of what went on in the guild workshops is beyond me.
[Luke]
Because I am not trying to equate the "goal and outcome" of one to another. (That may be the particular way you view/value educational approaches). I am saying that it is possible to look at something (several things) done in the past and say hmmm...'parts of that have useful things in it that I value, and I want to incorporate them along with other parts of other tendencies/approaches to create something that I feel better addresses what I find to be important, or by combination, reduces the drawbacks that I feel are within each tendency. I am not saying that waldorf = apprenticeship programs.
) [Paulina]
) "Art education' of the populace during the 18th century was
) essentially a "polite accomplishment" for young ladies and gentleman
) on both continents. The Privy council for Education in England finally
) decided in the 19th century to make art a subject in the national schools,
) but this instruction was very different for children than the instruction
) given in the academies. The aim of this initiative was not to produce
) artists but to produce "careful, accurate workmen" for industry.
)
[Luke]
) Carefulness and accuracy are hallmarks of artistry.
[Paulina]
Don't you mean the hallmark of good craftmanship?
[Luke]
I guess I mean both if you feel the need to make a distinction. But somehow I get the feeling you mean that these things are *below* other more important "real artistic" endeavors (but it could just be me projecting).
[Paulina]
Are you saying this is a stated objective outcome of the artistic activities
in Waldorf; to become an industrial craftaman?
[Luke]
"Industrial crafstman", as in a compliant worker bee, no. But a person with skills for accurate and carefull communication when the desire to do so arises, yes.
To quote from John Ruskin's course objectives for The Working Man's College (1850's)
"The teacher of landscape drawing wishes it to be generally understood by all of his pupils that that the instructions given in his class is not intended to to fit them for becoming artists, or in any direct manner, to advance their skill in the occupations they presently follow. They are taught drawing, primarily in order to direct their attention accurately to the beauty of God's work in the material universe; and secondarily, that they may be enabled to record with some degree of truth, the forms and colours of objects, when such record is likely to be useful"
(page 140; "A History of Art Education" by Arthur Efland)
[Paulina]
Again, are you saying
the purpose of the artitist activities in WE is to turn out industrial
craftsmen?
I don't think so.
[Luke]
I don't think so either. The "industrial craftsman" is your line of thought, not mine.
[Pualina]
BTW, Luke, I'm Paulina, not Diana.
[Luke]
Sorry, I got mixed up with another post I was thinking about and must have not editted all the attributions back to you.
) [Paulina]
) Art as taught in the academies and art schools is very different
) than what is taught as a subject in k-12.
)
) [Luke]
) Yep. What I am saying is that what is taught in both the art lessons of waldorf (which comes in as a sperate subject taught by a seperate teacher about grade four or five, before that it is usually taught by the main teacher) *and* the everyday other times when drawing or visual acuity or eye hand coordination can be incorporated to other lesson/activities is more like the art academies than it is like the public k-12 experience.
How do you consider that the above is taught in Waldorf?
As a serious and integrated aspect of children's daily excersizes/lessons.
Is this a stated outcome in Waldorf or do you consider it to be an implied
outcome?
I would imagine it would depend on the school. For our school I believe some of it is part of the stated curriculum description and PPO's of the Ohio Dept. of Education school charter and some of it is implied because the state doesn't ask to have it described to them and some of it is explained directly to parents by teachers.
[Paulina]
If so, how is this outcome measured, btw?
[Luke]
The same way that mostly all activities/lessons of waldorf are measured, namely by the teachers assesment of the child's work and teacher reports and parent teacher conferences. Are you asking about a different kind of measurement?
[Paulina]
My yearly stated goals include both _visual literacy_, and _improved hand -eye coordination_, btw.
[Luke]
It sounds like you would have been my favorite teacher in school then.
[Luke] previously
) I think waldorf teachers and board members/parents take it quite seriously, and you will usually find alot more resistance to elimating it from the waldorf curriculum, if there is a budget shortage, than you might find in a public school district board of trustees meeting.
[Paulina]
Take what quite seriously? Art as a seperte issue? How is it possible
to eliminate the inherent artistic activities from the Waldorf curriculum?
[Luke]
You can't eliminate it totally because alot of it is so interwoven. (that is what I like about it). But, in the early grades, strings (starting in third grade I think), eurythmy, and handwork (except first grade) are handled by seperate teachers (as is French and Games); later grades (4-6) also has woodwork and art and textile work and chorus/band taught seperately; and the amount that we can afford of each is part of the yearly thought process in crafting a workable budget. We always seem to be able to do without or cut back on something else in order to have these things as much as possible. Many times it has been the teachers and administrators who make a sacrifice too inorder to keep these things.
[Paulina]
Are you saying that art as a seperate sujbect is taught before high school?
[Luke]
Yes
[Paulina]
Where?
[Luke]
Our school for one. Beginning in Grade six (not four or five as I had thought) a seperate art instruction class is run by a sperate art instructor. The focus at first is on charcoal drawing of still lifes (I can hear some of you yawning already, but I really enjoyed it). I am going to review the curriculum descriptions of our school charter to see how specific it gets and I am getting info from the teachers too to fill in what happens in the rest of grade six and grade seven and eight.
[Paulina]
Even on the WE high school level 'art' is focused on activities
such as portraits of human heads emphasizing the colors in relation
to the temperments. Is that not correct?
[Luke]
I don't know about a waldorf high school, we are focused on elementary grades. Are you saying that that is all the children are supposed to get out it? Or that is one aspect of it?
) [Luke] previously
Is DBA the "truest" way to do it? No.
[Paulina]
But, neither is what goes on in Waldorf, in my opinion.
[Luke]
I agree, waldorf is not the truest way (there is no truest way IMO) it is just
*a* way that I and others are attracted to.
[Paulina]
To be truthful I'm a bit weary of Waldof people calling the artistic
approach and artistic activities of Waldorf the same as "art eduation".
It is an artistically 'infused educational system, but, that is not the same
as "art education"
[Luke]
)From your professional standpoint I can see how that would bother you, but I feel I am going to differ with you that there is a right way of "art education" and a wrong way because I don't believe there is any right or wrong way, just ways that suit our cultural desires.
[Luke] previously
) As a man in the cultural, literary and arts circles of Germany/Europe, I find this second position rather hard to accept.
[Paulina]
Interesting statement, Luke. I'm not really sure what you are getting at.
[Luke]
I am staing that I find it hard to believe that RS, a man who was so involved in the cultural life of Germany, and heading up the editing of Geothe works and passionately interested in the history of mankind and its culture (from a predominantly western POV) did not know or read or was unaware or knew nothing of the current or previous thinking on art and art education of people such as Ruskin and Spencer and others.
I understand your need for specifics and I will try to provide them the best I can.
Paulina, the rest of your post requires much more reviewing of books and calls to other artists and teachers but I will address what I can as soon as possible.
Also, both my wife and I are interested in learning about your art ed curriculum. How do we get a hold of it?
[Paulina] answering, I think, my "What is Art?" query
Art and architecture is an outcome of the society out of which it arises.
It is not seperate from the society out of which it arises, but rather a
reflection of a given society's believes and values.
[Luke]
This is great sounding but it can also be seen as a definition of everything, so it reads as a definition with no distinction. Maybe I am not getting it?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2040.5 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 21:52:34 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200003021227.EAA22136 lists1.best.com)
Dear Diana,
O come on now Diana, don't overreact, read what I wrote. I've stuck a
comment or two in [brackets] below.
warm regards,
joel
Diana Winters wrote:
) [Joel to Lisa:]
) )In fact, I would guess from your posts that you don't know many
) ) )anthroposophers, and that a lot of what you think you know, you have
) ) )learned on this list.
)
) Oh come on, Joel, she's had her children in Waldorf for eight years, she
) knows a few anthroposophists.
[Yes, a few. From one school? Very different from knowing a vital
anthroposophical community, with a school, a couple of farms, a medical
practice, an adult education center, etc etc etc. And, does she actually
"know" any of them? Again, as I read her posts, she doesn't give much
evidence of "knowing" many anthroposophists.]
)
)
) [Joel:]
) )Steiner's "racist" ideas: If you collected those ideas you have been
) ) )posting from this list, then consider the source.
)
) Joel, the source of the Steiner quotes posted on the list is Steiner.
[well, of course. But Steiner quotes posted to this list are invariable
taken out of context and misinterpreted. This is a road too frequently
travelled. If Lisa gets her "understanding" of Steiner from the "critics"
she is getting hogwash. If she is reading Steiner herself, and has gathered
the quotes there, that would be an entirely different matter.
This list needs some honesty. A person with an agenda reading his/her
"enemies" works, does not read what is written, but what they are looking
for that reinforces the already existing prejudices. Especially if we are
talking about Steiner lectures, which many anthroposophers can't make heads
or tail of without a lot of thought and work. Its a Rorschach test, only
with words. Critics just don't get it that how they interpret Steiner texts
often tells more about them (the critics) than it does about Steiner. To
someone who has actually taken the trouble to try to understand Steiner,
this can often be a very frightening experience, as it (the
misinterpretation) muc too frequently reveals unchecked hatred.]
)
)
) ______________________________________________________
) Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2040.6 ---------------
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 03:15:19 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
[Diana]
)Joel, the source of the Steiner quotes posted on the list is )Steiner.
[Joel]
)well, of course. But Steiner quotes posted to this list are )invariable
)taken out of context and misinterpreted. This is a road )too frequently
)travelled
Can't argue with that last point. But I'm glad you're back, Joel.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2040.7 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 21:37:19 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (200003032023.MAA04809 lists1.best.com)
)) ){Harve]
)[Harve]
)
)SIR Anthony Hopkins? Then we would have two knighted actors Sir Peter
)O'Toole for warm/raison. Nothing but royalty for this list. How about
)Vanessa Redgrave for Paulina (brilliant, impassioned), Alan Alda for Bob
)Tolz (sensitive, liberated), William Hurt or that actor that played Barbara
)Hershey's boyfriend in Hannah and her sisters (intense), Sissy Spacek as
)Sarina (warm, funny, natural).
)
)As you can see, I've been in too many boring deps all week.
Kathleen Sutphen and I used to cast for this movie in the early days of PLANS.
I'd like to see Tom Hanks play Steve Premo (level headed, everyone loves
him)... Sheesh, I'm locked up with a sick grandbaby on a beautiful blue sky
day...
When I was disposed by the schools legal counsel, the stenographer cornered
me during the breaks. She thought our case was so very interesting. She
sent her child to Waldorf in kindergarten and chose not to further his
education there. She said she would have done this case for free. I guess
not all deps are boring. :+)
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2040.8 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 21:38:54 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (200003032023.MAA04809 lists1.best.com)
)) ){Harve]
)[Harve]
)
)SIR Anthony Hopkins? Then we would have two knighted actors Sir Peter
)O'Toole for warm/raison. Nothing but royalty for this list. How about
)Vanessa Redgrave for Paulina (brilliant, impassioned), Alan Alda for Bob
)Tolz (sensitive, liberated), William Hurt or that actor that played Barbara
)Hershey's boyfriend in Hannah and her sisters (intense), Sissy Spacek as
)Sarina (warm, funny, natural).
)
)As you can see, I've been in too many boring deps all week.
Kathleen Sutphen and I used to cast for this movie in the early days of PLANS.
I'd like to see Tom Hanks play Steve Premo (level headed, everyone loves
him)... Sheesh, I'm locked up with a sick grandbaby on a beautiful blue sky
day...
When I was disposed by the schools legal counsel, the stenographer cornered
me during the breaks. She thought our case was so very interesting. She
sent her child to Waldorf in kindergarten and chose not to further his
education there. She said she would have done this case for free. I guess
not all deps are boring. :+)
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2040.9 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Goodrick-Clarke
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 05:16:20 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) ) [Bob Tolz]
) ) #1: You seem to be back-pedaling. You initially stated:
) ) "Goodrick-Clarke mentions Steiner and Anthroposophy several
) times in the
) ) context of the roots of Naziism, PARTICULARLY INSPIRING
) ROSENBERG'S WORKS.
) ) [my emphasis]" Would you care to admit error in this regard?
)
[Alan Fine]
) Bob, have you read this book? If you have I'd be happy to
) discuss it with you.
[Bob Tolz]
Please don't answer a question with a question. It is human to err.
I'd appreciate it if you would either admit it or deny it.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2040.10 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Folk-Spirits in the Bible
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 11:41:09 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200002291917.LAA24023 lists1.best.com)
Christian Czachary wrote:
) ) The Book of the Makkabees...
)
) Is not part of the bible according to evangelical tradition.
)
) ) Book of Henoch...
)
) is not part of the bible either. so we can dismiss the text thereof as
) having no authority in the sense of the Holy Scriptures.
The Editorial review by Amazon at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1585090190/ugeniepcs/002-0162302-3677827
says: The Book of Enoch was considered one of the most important books
in early Christianity and was used widely. R.H. Charles, who lated the
book, said, "the influence of I Enoch on the New Testament has been
greater than that of all the other aprocryphal and pseudepigraphical
books put together."
It seems both books were part of the the 'Old Testament' up to the
16th century, after which the Protestant tradition called them
"Apocrypha" while the Catholic tradition called them
"deuterocanonical" books
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm .
What you mean by 'Bible' then, is the Bible according to the
Protestant tradition after the 16th century?
Just trying to sort the concepts, not argue specifically on anything.
Regards,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n2040 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n2038 --------------
001 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: Goodrick-Clarke
002 - "debra harvey" (debharve - Re: Goodrick-Clarke
003 - "debra harvey" (debharve - RE: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
004 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Goodrick-Clarke
005 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - RE: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
006 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
007 - "debra harvey" (debharve - Re: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
008 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
009 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - RE: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
010 - "debra harvey" (debharve - RE: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2038.1 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: Goodrick-Clarke
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:40:55 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: (200003031415.GAA11340 lists1.best.com) (200003031807.KAA17209 lists1.best.com)
error, should read "to assuage our own consciences".
ASF
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan S. Fine MD (asf peakpeak.com)
To: (waldorf-critics lists.best.com)
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: Goodrick-Clarke
) Sean Slovan writes, to support that Steiner was distant from Nazism:
)
) ) On p. 170, G-C writes about the Ukrainian Schwarz-Bostunitsch, an
) ) anti-semite and anti-mason agitator, who was fond of occultism since his
) ) early days in Kiev. He indeed worked in Rosenberg's "Weltdienst" news
) agency
) ) since 1925, and later turned to the SS only to eventually become
) ) SS-Standartenführer (a much more comprehensive account on him is to be
) found
) ) in Walter Laqueur's "Russia and Germany", London 1965, chap. 6: "Hitler
) and
) ) the Russian Far Right").
) )
) ) It is true that from 1923 until 1925, S-B appreciated Rudolf Steiner as
) ) someone who freed the "occult sciences" from obscurantism, but his
) attitude
) ) changed dramatically when he joined Rosenberg's services. In 1929, he
) ) published in Munich one of the fiercest attacks AGAINST Rudolf Steiner,
a
) ) pamphlet called "Rudolf Steiner -- a swindler like no other". He had
) ) "discovered" by now that Steiner was a "Jew", working as a mole in order
) to
) ) promote the "jewish-masonic conspiracy", a theory Rosenberg was so fond
) of,
)
) To me the gist of Goodrick Clark's book is that IDEAS of theosophy and
) anthroposophy filtered down into Nazi ideology. This is what is important
) to me. The ideas, not the complex relationships and involvements. Werent
) Nazis among those who tried to assassinate Hitler? Should we then clear
) Hitler of responsibility in the Nazi movement? There were Jews who served
) as officers in the German army under the Reich. Should we say that the
) Jews were the real friends of the Nazis and the Anthroposophists were the
) enemies? Trying to decide who the "good guys" and the "bad guys" were,
by
) determining who was enemies with whom and who was friends with whom, who
) participated and who resisted, is to me largely an idle exercize which
) ultimately serves more to support our own biases and assuage our
) conciousness than to understand why Nazism happened, and what we all need
to
) do to guard against it in the future.
)
)
) Sean
)
) ) My name is Jan, Seán (John), not Peter. Cf. John 21:20-23.
)
) My apologies, I was confusing you with another Slovan I knew years ago.
Do
) you have any Peters in your family?
)
) Alan Fine
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2038.2 ---------------
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Goodrick-Clarke
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 18:46:18 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Sean,
Thanks for your careful scholarship.
Harve
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2038.3 ---------------
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 18:52:45 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
[Luke]
) FWIW, I honestly have to admit (and I know that this may strike people
)as completely repugnant) but that in a part of my mind, the part that
)understands that there must be so much yet to learn that humankind has not
)learned or has developed the instruments (both cultural and scientific) to
)even know are able to be learned, that striking and serious ideas of
)cultural, racial, and genetic differences *may* exist (as well as other
)currently sensitive questions , such as animal/human rights); and exist in
)such a way that our current cultural climate could not, even if it wanted
)to, undertake a study of these questions because of, for starters, real
)fear and a lack of understanding within society.
{Harve]
Thanks for this honest comment. I have been feeling that way too. There
needs to be some way to have a respectful dialoug since this is so
sensitive. As I said last week, we are all individuals and members of
groups. Our differences should be celebrated and respected.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2038.4 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Goodrick-Clarke
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 14:09:35 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Alan Fine]
)
) To me the gist of Goodrick Clark's book is that IDEAS of theosophy and
) anthroposophy filtered down into Nazi ideology. This is what
) is important
) to me. The ideas, not the complex relationships and involvements.
[Bob Tolz]
#1: You seem to be back-pedaling. You initially stated:
"Goodrick-Clarke mentions Steiner and Anthroposophy several times in the
context of the roots of Naziism, PARTICULARLY INSPIRING ROSENBERG'S WORKS.
[my emphasis]" Would you care to admit error in this regard?
#2: The Nazis would have taken advantage of an idea from Hitler's
grandmother if it suited their purposes.
[Alan Fine]
)Trying to decide who the "good guys" and the "bad
) guys" were, by
) determining who was enemies with whom and who was friends
) with whom, who
) participated and who resisted, is to me largely an idle exercize which
) ultimately serves more to support our own biases and assuage our
) conciousness than to understand why Nazism happened, and what
) we all need to
) do to guard against it in the future.
[Bob Tolz]
Chasing shadows of history and casting them on Waldorf Education is
*not* going to guard against Nazism in the future. Your pattern of
quickness to taint Waldorf Education, anthroposophy or Steiner with anything
in this area displays your own "biases."
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2038.5 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: RE: race stereotypes/Anthro stereotypes
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:32:38 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (200003031641.IAA11809 lists1.best.com)
)From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
)
))Once again, I find that those who follow Anthrop. are unwilling to
))repudiate, to say they do not buy into, Steiner's racial ethnography. Why is
))that?
)
[Luke]
) No Lisa, what I see on this list is that "those who follow Anthrop." are
)unwilling to repudiate **your interpretation** of what Steiner wrote/said
)and your intellectual extensions of what that must lead to.
)
) There seems to have been quite a number of people who have repudiated
)some results of what you are advancing as an idea, but they disagree that
)that was Steiner's intention. If they don't believe you have accurrately
)characterized it or interpretted it, why should they have to dance to your
)tune?
[Deby]
_Some_ people (like me) just can not buy the idea that a Waldorf teacher
who wears the _right_ color dresses on the _right_ day, serves the _right_
grain on the _right_ day, paint their classrooms the _right_ color,
celebrate the _right_ festivals, teach the _right_ verses, have the
students paint the _right_ pictures, etc. yet reject Steiner's theory on
race. His words are quite clear. Think of Waldorf History curriculum, based
solely on Theosophy's racist world view. Anthroposophists won't disagree
with _anything_ Steiner says. Steiner's racist words are just too clear to
people like me. Given the fact that Waldorf schools sell racist books in
their book stores across the country, if not around the world does not give
me any comfort. It is hogwash to say that I just don't understand. I
understand - I just don't agree. I think the Anthroposophists don't
understand.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2038.6 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:46:42 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (200003031843.KAA14770 lists1.best.com)
)[Chand]
))
))
))raison uses practically 2,600 words for the purpose of calling me a
))"junkyard
))dog of an Anthroposophical Apologist". A pretty creative epithet but
))hardly
))worthy of the verbal Krakatoa.
)
){Harve]
)
)I haven't read it yet, but you must admit, he has a way with words. I am
)casting Peter O'Toole to play warm/raison. He's the only actor I can think
)of that will do justice to the role.
)
I get dibs on Lily Tomlin to play me! I think Richard Dryfuss would be a
great Dan. We'd certainly have to bring back Lefty for the movie - I was
thinking of that guy in 'Silence of the Lambs' (what's his name...) to play
him.
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2038.7 ---------------
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 20:22:45 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
) ){Harve]
) )
) )I haven't read it yet, but you must admit, he has a way with words. I am
) )casting Peter O'Toole to play warm/raison. He's the only actor I can
)think
) )of that will do justice to the role.
) )
[Deby]
)I get dibs on Lily Tomlin to play me! I think Richard Dryfuss would be a
)great Dan. We'd certainly have to bring back Lefty for the movie - I was
)thinking of that guy in 'Silence of the Lambs' (what's his name...) to play
)him.
[Harve]
SIR Anthony Hopkins? Then we would have two knighted actors Sir Peter
O'Toole for warm/raison. Nothing but royalty for this list. How about
Vanessa Redgrave for Paulina (brilliant, impassioned), Alan Alda for Bob
Tolz (sensitive, liberated), William Hurt or that actor that played Barbara
Hershey's boyfriend in Hannah and her sisters (intense), Sissy Spacek as
Sarina (warm, funny, natural).
As you can see, I've been in too many boring deps all week.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2038.8 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 16:18:22 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Debra Snell]
) I get dibs on Lily Tomlin to play me! I think Richard Dryfuss
) would be a great Dan.
[Bob Tolz]
Excellent choice.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2038.9 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: RE: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 15:31:44 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
[Debra Snell]
) I get dibs on Lily Tomlin to play me! I think Richard Dryfuss
) would be a great Dan.
[Bob Tolz]
) Excellent choice.
John Malkovtch for Christopher?
Chand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2038.10 ---------------
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 22:06:37 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
[Chand]
))
)John Malkovtch for Christopher?
)
[Harve]
Perfect.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n2038 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n2041 --------------
001 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: Goodrick-Clarke
002 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - Re: the race question (long)
003 - "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2ga - those butterflies again
004 - "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2ga - clothes, colors and other Anthro necessities
005 - "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2ga - correction
006 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Goodrick-Clarke
007 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - RE: Goodrick-Clarke
008 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Goodrick-Clarke
009 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Goodrick-Clarke
010 - "Diana Winters" (winters_ - Re: clothes, colors and other Anthro necessities
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2041.1 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: Goodrick-Clarke
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 09:02:25 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200003041011.CAA05018 lists1.best.com)
)
) ) ) [Bob Tolz]
) ) ) #1: You seem to be back-pedaling. You initially stated:
) ) ) "Goodrick-Clarke mentions Steiner and Anthroposophy several
) ) times in the
) ) ) context of the roots of Naziism, PARTICULARLY INSPIRING
) ) ROSENBERG'S WORKS.
) ) ) [my emphasis]" Would you care to admit error in this regard?
) )
)
) [Alan Fine]
) ) Bob, have you read this book? If you have I'd be happy to
) ) discuss it with you.
)
) [Bob Tolz]
) Please don't answer a question with a question. It is human to err.
) I'd appreciate it if you would either admit it or deny it.
) Bob Tolz
lawyers.
Alan Fine
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2041.2 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: the race question (long)
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 11:15:10 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Ah! Dan has time to reply to me with opinions, but not to Bob Tolz, a task
which would require data.
I wrote:
))It should be obvious by now that if a critic were your
))child's Waldorf teacher, you would certainly be in danger of that teacher
))judging " ``yellow-skinned'' Chinese child is in the ``adolescent stage'' of
))spiritual development?'' This is because, judging from the interpretations of
))Steiner posted on this list, the critics read his words but are blind to his
))meaning.
[Dan replies]:
)Convoluted logic worthy of an Anthroposophist. But occultists like to
)do things backwards.
It is not convoluted logic, whether you wish it so or not. First,
Anthroposophists like Joe, Terry, Felix et al. do not feel that Steiner is
racist and in fact to do not promulgate racist views. On the other hand, Dan,
Alan, Staudenmeier et al. think that Steiner was racists and that Anthroposophy
is racist with proto-Nazi tendencies. This is a disagreement.
Why do the people who have chosen Anthroposophy as their life's work have a
different opinion than those whose current purpose is to counter Waldorf
education? 1) the Anthroposophs are lying and are really racists. 2) the
Anthroposophs are right and you, Dan, are wrong. 3) you are both right -
Steiner was racist, but the Anthroposophists do not take those aspects of
Steiner to heart. My own experiences as well as yours are inconsistent with
racism in Waldorf schools, undermining possibility '1'. That leaves
possibilities 2 & 3, in which case the logic of the paragraph I wrote above is
fine - you see Steiner's words but miss his meaning.
[Dan]:
)Welcome to Anthroposophy, Chand. You're a convert. You might as well
)sign up for "first class" the way you talk about "Steiner's
)insights." Don't you know a phony when you see one?
I can only say that convert implies embracing a religion. I do not see how you
can come to this opinion when I have repeately stated that I have not read
Steiner. Just because I disagree with you? Because I find value in Waldorf
schools? Your entrenched position has more to do with convert, dogma and
religion than anything I have read by Terry or Felix.
[Chand]:
)) That is not to say you will not find an unthinking person who
))fits Steiners writings into his/her racists world view. This
))teacher in Holland seems to be such a person.
[Dan]:
)That wasn't one teacher, it was a lesson block that had been
)traditional at many schools there
I stand corrected.
[Dan]:
)It was based on Steiner's
)"insight" into Aryan superiority.
But the Anthroposophists on this list disagree that Steiner thought that Aryans
were superior. Perhaps you are closer than you think to the teachers in that
Dutch school - both inflexibly missing his point.
[Dan]:
)And don't forget that when the
)parent objected, the school spin-doctored...
)It wasn't until it became -public- that the
)scandal had to be dealt with by the schools.
There is no excuse for this.
[Dan]:
)and minimized just the way
)you do on this list.
What event have I spin doctored and minimized, Dan?
[Chand]:
))The Waldorf teachers I have know were not into racial
))stereotyping.
[Dan]:
)Not those I know, either, but some of them won't say that Steiner was
)wrong about race.
Will you admit that Staudenmeier was wrong about Anthroposophy and the Nazis?
Will you admit that you are wrong about Goethe or, if you still think your are
righ,t take up Bob's challenge? Or are you merely asking others to do what you
yourself are incapable of?
[Chand]:
))If you want to be sure that your
))children's teachers are saints, or at least share your world view, you had
))better stick to homeschooling. Many people do for precisely these reasons.
[Chand]:
Sainthood not required, Chand, you're exaggerating.
OK, I was exaggerating about sainthood, but not, perhaps about teachers sharing
Lisa's world view.
Chand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2041.3 ---------------
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: those butterflies again
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 13:47:17 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a discussion with Dr. Fine about ``Jewish wisdom'' and the various groups
of people on Earth today, etc., Joel Wendt says:
((Like a butterfly
emerging from a necessary, but no longer useful cocoon.))
Lisa asks:
Why is it that I see/hear/read this metaphor in relation to
Anthroposophy so often?
I just read and reread it in several lectures in ``The Kingdom of
Childhood'' and have heard it alluded to quite often in conversations about
WE, children and their development.
It's a rather cliqued kind of metaphor -- very Hallmark greeting card,
imnsho!
But it seems to have a particular meaning to Anthroposophy. Anyone care
to enlighten me in words that are easier to navigate than are Steiner's?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2041.4 ---------------
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: clothes, colors and other Anthro necessities
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 14:01:07 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Diana mentioned that at the WS with which she was once associated, it
was often a challenge to get everyone wearing the right colored clothing on
the right day, etc. (This was a la a thread about committed Anthroposophists
following Steiner's prescriptions about clothing, food choice, and perhaps
racial ethnography.)
I just want to offer an anecdote from my own school to back Diana's
experiences up. When my older girl first came to the Waldorf School of
Baltimore in 1993, female teachers were required to wear dresses or skirts
-- no pants. The nursery school teachers, in particular, were to wear long,
flowing, ``embracing'' skirts or dresses.
I asked one of the teachers why this was so -- it seemed quite sexist to
me.
The teacher told me that female teachers had to wear dresses because of
two things, only one of which I understood at the time. The first was that
flowing dresses and skirts were more maternal and enveloping, softer, and
brought a comforting feeling to the children.
The second reason had to do with the ``etheric'' body of the teacher.
The teacher told me that the flowing garment was considered a physical
representation of the teacher's ``etheric'' body. I remember feeling a bit
confused, because she then told me that it was a challenge for her to
balance her etheric, which was perhaps overly maternal. Jokingly, I
suggested that then perhaps she ought to wear a man's business suit, which
would balance the very womanly vibes she gave out.
Four years ago, the school changed its rules. Teachers now can wear
pants, and they do. The nursery school teachers, however, seem to stick
mostly to flowing skirts and dresses.
I'm struggling to understand the ``three-fold'' humanbeing model put
forth by Steiner, and would appreciate a plainly worded explanation from
someone else -- especially the etheric body.
Lisa
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2041.5 ---------------
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: correction
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 18:07:23 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mea culpa.
In a recent post on Anthroposophy's/Anthroposophers' frequent use of the
butterflies as metaphor, I used the word ``cliqued'' when I obviously meant
to use the word ``cliched.''
Call me obsessive-compulsive, but I hate making stupid mistakes. (Of
course, I could argue that Anthroposophers/ists are a ``clique'' but that
might be a cliche, right?)
Lisa
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2041.6 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Goodrick-Clarke
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 20:51:25 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) )
) ) ) ) [Bob Tolz]
) ) ) ) #1: You seem to be back-pedaling. You initially stated:
) ) ) ) "Goodrick-Clarke mentions Steiner and Anthroposophy several
) ) ) times in the
) ) ) ) context of the roots of Naziism, PARTICULARLY INSPIRING
) ) ) ROSENBERG'S WORKS.
) ) ) ) [my emphasis]" Would you care to admit error in this regard?
) ) )
) )
) ) [Alan Fine]
) ) ) Bob, have you read this book? If you have I'd be happy to
) ) ) discuss it with you.
) )
) ) [Bob Tolz]
) ) Please don't answer a question with a question. It is human to err.
) ) I'd appreciate it if you would either admit it or deny it.
) ) Bob Tolz
)
[Alan Fine]
) lawyers.
)
[Bob Tolz]
You betcha. And you're still in avoidance mode.
You make a particularly condemning (and untrue) comment about
Steiner and then fail to retract it when you're called on it.
How can you call for anthroposophists to repudiate stuff that
Steiner said, even though they don't agree with your interpretation, when
you can't even retract your *own* blatant and unexplainable errors?
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2041.7 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: RE: Goodrick-Clarke
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 23:14:32 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (200003050145.RAA07703 lists1.best.com)
)[Bob Tolz]
) You betcha. And you're still in avoidance mode.
) You make a particularly condemning (and untrue) comment about
)Steiner and then fail to retract it when you're called on it.
) How can you call for anthroposophists to repudiate stuff that
)Steiner said, even though they don't agree with your interpretation, when
)you can't even retract your *own* blatant and unexplainable errors?
)
...And all this time I thought you were _not_ an Anthroposophist. Are you
coming out of the closet, Bob?
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2041.8 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Goodrick-Clarke
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 09:44:22 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200003050713.XAA03110 lists1.best.com)
Debra Snell wrote:
) )[Bob Tolz]
) ) You betcha. And you're still in avoidance mode.
) ) You make a particularly condemning (and untrue) comment about
) )Steiner and then fail to retract it when you're called on it.
) ) How can you call for anthroposophists to repudiate stuff that
) )Steiner said, even though they don't agree with your interpretation, when
) )you can't even retract your *own* blatant and unexplainable errors?
) )
[Debra]
) ... And all this time I thought you were _not_ an Anthroposophist. Are you
) coming out of the closet, Bob?
The comment and question by Bob could be made by any neutral observer
of how G-C has been used in the discussion.
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2041.9 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Goodrick-Clarke
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 05:42:51 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
)
) )[Bob Tolz]
) ) You betcha. And you're still in avoidance mode.
) ) You make a particularly condemning (and untrue) comment about
) )Steiner and then fail to retract it when you're called on it.
) ) How can you call for anthroposophists to repudiate stuff that
) )Steiner said, even though they don't agree with your
) interpretation, when
) )you can't even retract your *own* blatant and unexplainable errors?
) )
[Debra Snell]
)
) ...And all this time I thought you were _not_ an
) Anthroposophist. Are you
) coming out of the closet, Bob?
) Deby
)
[Bob Tolz]
No, Deby. There's nothing to come out of the closet for.
I just can't stand blatant hypocrisy.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2041.10 ---------------
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: clothes, colors and other Anthro necessities
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 13:19:43 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
[Lisa wrote:]
)Diana mentioned that at the WS with which she was once associated, it
)was often a challenge to get everyone wearing the right colored )clothing
)on the right day, etc
Just to clarify -- I did say this, but then I admitted I was exaggerating!
They might have liked to, but they did not actually ask us to wear specific
colors on specific days! I don't know if the teachers tried to do this or
not.
[Lisa]
)When my older girl first came to the Waldorf School of
)Baltimore in 1993, female teachers were required to wear dresses or )skirts
)-- no pants. The nursery school teachers, in particular, were )to wear
)long, flowing, ``embracing'' skirts or dresses.
) I asked one of the teachers why this was so -- it seemed quite )sexist
)to me.
I think it's just silly. But male kindergarten teachers are supposed to wear
tunics. The male k'garten teacher at our school usually wore an apron all
day over his clothes, presumably for the same effect.
) The teacher told me that female teachers had to wear dresses )because
)of two things, only one of which I understood at the time. )The first was
)that flowing dresses and skirts were more maternal and )enveloping, softer,
)and brought a comforting feeling to the children.
I understood that the grade teachers were allowed to wear pants. One of the
kindergarten teachers I worked with wore pants occasionally, but she was in
fact trained as a grade teacher rather than for kindergarten, so maybe she
didn't feel as strongly about it. I was asked to work in the classroom in
the middle of the year on rather short notice, and didn't feel I was
obligated to go buy a whole new wardrobe for what was essentially volunteer
work, so I came in my mom-at-the-playground look, ie, jeans or sweatpants,
at first, but when I signed on for the following year it was clear I needed
the whole Waldorf kindergarten teacher "look."
)The second reason had to do with the ``etheric'' body of the teacher.
)The teacher told me that the flowing garment was considered a )physical
)representation of the teacher's ``etheric'' body. I remember )feeling a bit
)confused,
This I don't know anything about. I thought it was more about not making the
children conscious of the *physical* body, so you wear things that are
"sheath-like." There is certainly a primness to it and a sense of
inculcating modesty, and since it cannot be applied to men, at least not
very easily, you could say there is sexism involved.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n2041 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n2042 --------------
001 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit t - Re: Peter Staudenmaier's use of sources
002 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - RE: Goodrick-Clarke
003 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit t - Re: those butterflies again
004 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit t - Re: clothes, colors and other Anthro necessities
005 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Science and reason
006 - "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2ga - cliches/was those butterflies
007 - Peter Farrell (peter.farr - Missing posts
008 - Peter Farrell (peter.farr - Re: Goethe and science
009 - Peter Farrell (peter.farr - Re: College of teachers (Was Re: correspondence from Pan
010 - Peter Farrell (peter.farr - Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2042.1 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's use of sources
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 11:54:28 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200003020119.RAA00884 lists1.best.com) (200003021657.IAA14004 lists1.best.com)
Alan S. Fine MD wrote:
) My feeling is that they sit far too close for
) me to ever embrace either of them.
)
Dear Alan,
Good grief! No hard evidence? A conclusions based
on a "feeling"? Oh my, oh my, are we getting a little
bit mystical here. Alan, you better go in for a check
up, you are sounding almost anthroposophical (or at
least new-agey) (he says teasingly)
warm regards,
joel
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2042.2 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: RE: Goodrick-Clarke
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 11:24:52 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
[Bob Tolz]
) You betcha. And you're still in avoidance mode.
) You make a particularly condemning (and untrue) comment about
)Steiner and then fail to retract it when you're called on it.
) How can you call for anthroposophists to repudiate stuff that
)Steiner said, even though they don't agree with your interpretation, when
)you can't even retract your *own* blatant and unexplainable errors?
I have met other psychiatrists who seem remarkably incapable of applying their
trade to themselves and their families.
Chand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2042.3 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: those butterflies again
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 12:43:01 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200003041907.LAA17711 lists1.best.com)
Dear Lisa,
There is a kind of reason called "reasoning by analogy". Some people find
it unproductive, others find it very important.
The human being is "of" nature, not "separate" from it. Processes
observable in nature are often mirrored in the human being, and in aspects of
human social existence. Such processes include, but are not limited to,: birth,
growth, death, reproduction, and metamorphosis.
Metamorphosis is a common nature "process". It is not just found there,
however, but like other aspects of nature, metamorphosis has mathematical
analogues. These can be studied in the geometry called projective or synthetic
geometry (see the works of Adams, Whicher et al.). It can also be studied in a
field of mathematics which is called topology (I believe).
In projective geometry are various kinds of "transformations", whereby one
form is "changed" into another. For example, take a rubber glove, which you
have fitted to your left hand. If you pull it off your left hand in such a way
that it turns inside out in the process, it will thereby become "transformed"
into a right-handed glove.
Goethe is not the only person to extol the virtures of the imagination in
coming to an understanding of nature. The ability to "think in pictures" is
very crucial to many disciplines. The archetypal image of metamorphosis is the
transformation from catapillar to butterfly. First the catapiller forms its
cocoon, after which it begins to change, to lose form, until it is essentially a
homeogenous cell mass, a kind of living chaos. Only after reaching this stage
does the butterfly begin to appear, first as shadows on the outer surfaces of
this chaos, and then later as these shadows deepen and become more sculpted, the
cells again differentiate into the necessary functional characteristics required
by the butterfly (nerve cells, skin cells, metabolic cells etc).
People who learn to understand these dynamic characteristics of nature, also
learn to see how such nature processes are mimicked by human social
transformations. It is no 'cliche' at all, but a more mobile and picture-like
(i.e. less linear and static) kind of thinking that makes this reference that
has puzzled you.
warm regards,
joel
Lisa Ercolano wrote:
) In a discussion with Dr. Fine about ``Jewish wisdom'' and the various groups
) of people on Earth today, etc., Joel Wendt says:
)
) ((Like a butterfly
) emerging from a necessary, but no longer useful cocoon.))
)
) Lisa asks:
)
) Why is it that I see/hear/read this metaphor in relation to
) Anthroposophy so often?
) I just read and reread it in several lectures in ``The Kingdom of
) Childhood'' and have heard it alluded to quite often in conversations about
) WE, children and their development.
) It's a rather cliqued kind of metaphor -- very Hallmark greeting card,
) imnsho!
) But it seems to have a particular meaning to Anthroposophy. Anyone care
) to enlighten me in words that are easier to navigate than are Steiner's?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2042.4 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: clothes, colors and other Anthro necessities
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 13:31:02 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------8218644DCC0F3D590A2F1452"
References: (200003041917.LAA22045 lists1.best.com)
--------------8218644DCC0F3D590A2F1452
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lisa Ercolano wrote:
) I'm struggling to understand the ``three-fold'' humanbeing model put
) forth by Steiner, and would appreciate a plainly worded explanation from
) someone else -- especially the etheric body.
Dear Lisa,
There are two "threefoldnesses", a four-foldness, a seven-foldness, a
nine-foldness and a ten-foldness. Depends upon what questions you are asking.
The human being is threefold as to form, (which is the most common "anthro"
approach, details in a bit). We are also threefold as in: spirit, soul, and
body. We are four-fold (from another point of view): physical body, ethereal
body, astral, body and warmth body or ego. We have seven psychic centers
(chackras), and are also sometimes called the tenth heirarchy (in relationship
to the nine celestial heirarchies).
Lets dip a little deeper at the form threefoldness (which disturbs certain
critics to no end, but not one of whom has yet met my challenge and admitting
reading Wolfgang Schads book: "Man and Mammals: Toward a Biology of Form", which
goes into this true observation of the human being in delightful detail.
Picture the human form in your own imagination. At the upper "pole" lies
the head, which is dominated by most of the sense organs, and the brain. Most
of the nerve tissue in the body is present there, and in anthro terms the upper
pole is called the nerve-sense system.
Next picture the lower pole, the abdominal section and the limbs (admittedly
the upper limbs do not proceed from the abdomen, but in truth these systems
interpenetrate each other, so the human form is not to be seen as some kind of
complicated erector set. The lower pole is called the metabolic system.
Metabolism occurs not just in the digestive tract, but in the large muscle
structures as well.
These two "poles", the upper and the lower, have an interesting form
difference (or "opposition"). In the upper pole the bony element surrounds the
soft tissues, and in the lower pole the soft tissues surround the bony element.
Inbetween these two "systems" lies a third, the rhythmic system, which
mediates and combines the upper and lower poles. At the upper end of the
rhythmic system, the skeleton surrounds (rib cage) the softer tissues, but
slowly gives way to a likeness to the lower pole, so that the soft tissues end
up surrounding the bony (leaving the spinal column inside. The "rhythmic"
aspect comes from the heart and breath rhythms.
In the head, one can see all systems active and present, with the head
dominated by the nerve-sense function of the eyes, after which in the middle
breathing begins in the nose, and then metabolism begins in the mouth. Remember
each system interpentrates the others in very complicated and marvelous ways.
Now before people argue with this, they really need to read Schad's book,
because the reality is definitely in the details.
Of course the ethereal body is not an aspect of this form organization, but
a differentiation due to other elements. I have described this in one of my
writings (very briefly) as follows:
"Each object of our experience falls within certain limited general categories.
Nature, in the widest sense, can be divided into four kingdoms: the mineral
kingdom, the plant kingdom, the animal kingdom and the human kingdom. This
division is due to each of the kingdoms bearing different complexities. The
mineral kingdom has only physical matter as a member of its organization. The
plant kingdom adds the quality of life, of growth and reproduction. The animal
kingdom adds the element of inwardness, of consciousness, of a wisdom filled
instinct. The human kingdom adds the crowing glory, that of self awareness, and
the freedom fully conscious self awareness implies. The human being is a
complex arrangement of physical matter, life, inwardness (soul) and self-aware
freedom (spirit)." [from Strange Fire: the Death, and the Resurrection, of
Modern Civlization, a work in progress available online at:
http://www.tiac.net/users/hermit/stgfr.html
In the above "system" of organization of facts, the physical body is as
known, the physical body; the life structure is the ethereal body; the
inwardness element is the astral body; and the self aware element is the warmth
body or ego.
Our ethereal body is held in common with all living things. Its qualities
and characteristics are quite complicated, as has been indicated by previous
posts of mine referring to the "upbuilding" or "formative" forces etc. It is
sometimes called the "time" body, and has a relationship to memory and
thinking. When people have near-death experiences and report seeing their life
pass before them, they are reporting waking up in their ethereal (or "time")
body, and entering into its full unmediated (by the physical) reality.
You could read George Adam's book: Physical and Ethereal Spaces, or Lawrence
Edward's: The Field of Form, for more information and insight.
warm regards,
joel
--------------8218644DCC0F3D590A2F1452
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
(HTML)
Lisa Ercolano wrote:
(BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE) I'm struggling to understand the
``three-fold'' humanbeing model put
(BR)forth by Steiner, and would appreciate a plainly worded explanation
from
(BR)someone else -- especially the etheric body.(/BLOCKQUOTE)
Dear Lisa,
(P) There are two "threefoldnesses", a four-foldness,
a seven-foldness, a nine-foldness and a ten-foldness. Depends upon
what questions you are asking.
(P) The human being is threefold as to form, (which
is the most common "anthro" approach, details in a bit). We are also
threefold as in: spirit, soul, and body. We are four-fold (from another
point of view): physical body, ethereal body, astral, body and warmth body
or ego. We have seven psychic centers (chackras), and are also sometimes
called the tenth heirarchy (in relationship to the nine celestial heirarchies).
(P) Lets dip a little deeper at the form threefoldness
(which disturbs certain critics to no end, but not one of whom has yet
met my challenge and admitting reading Wolfgang Schads book: "Man and Mammals:
Toward a Biology of Form", which goes into this true observation of the
human being in delightful detail.
(P) Picture the human form in your own imagination.
At the upper "pole" lies the head, which is dominated by most of the sense
organs, and the brain. Most of the nerve tissue in the body is present
there, and in anthro terms the upper pole is called the nerve-sense system.
(P) Next picture the lower pole, the abdominal section
and the limbs (admittedly the upper limbs do not proceed from the abdomen,
but in truth these systems interpenetrate each other, so the human form
is not to be seen as some kind of complicated erector set. The lower
pole is called the metabolic system. Metabolism occurs not just in
the digestive tract, but in the large muscle structures as well.
(P) These two "poles", the upper and the lower, have
an interesting form difference (or "opposition"). In the upper pole
the bony element surrounds the soft tissues, and in the lower pole the
soft tissues surround the bony element.
(P) Inbetween these two "systems" lies a third, the rhythmic
system, which mediates and combines the upper and lower poles. At
the upper end of the rhythmic system, the skeleton surrounds (rib cage)
the softer tissues, but slowly gives way to a likeness to the lower pole,
so that the soft tissues end up surrounding the bony (leaving the spinal
column inside. The "rhythmic" aspect comes from the heart and breath
rhythms.
(P) In the head, one can see all systems active and present,
with the head dominated by the nerve-sense function of the eyes, after
which in the middle breathing begins in the nose, and then metabolism begins
in the mouth. Remember each system interpentrates the others in very
complicated and marvelous ways.
(P) Now before people argue with this, they really need
to read Schad's book, because the reality is definitely in the details.
(P) Of course the ethereal body is not an aspect of this
form organization, but a differentiation due to other elements. I
have described this in one of my writings (very briefly) as follows:
(P)"Each object of our experience falls within certain limited general
categories. Nature, in the widest sense, can be divided into four
kingdoms: the mineral kingdom, the plant kingdom, the animal kingdom and
the human kingdom. This division is due to each of the kingdoms bearing
different complexities. The mineral kingdom has only (I)physical
matter(/I) as a member of its organization. The plant kingdom adds
the quality of (I)life(/I), of growth and reproduction. The animal
kingdom adds the element of (I)inwardness(/I), of consciousness, of a wisdom
filled instinct. The human kingdom adds the crowing glory, that of
(I)self awareness(/I), and the freedom fully conscious self awareness implies.
The human being is a complex arrangement of physical matter, life, inwardness
(soul) and self-aware freedom (spirit)." [from Strange Fire: the Death,
and the Resurrection, of Modern Civlization, a work in progress available
online at:
(BR)(A HREF="http://www.tiac.net/users/hermit/stgfr.html")http://www.tiac.net/users/hermit/stgfr.html(/A)
(P) In the above "system" of organization of facts, the
physical body is as known, the physical body; the life structure is the
ethereal body; the inwardness element is the astral body; and the self
aware element is the warmth body or ego.
(P) Our ethereal body is held in common with all living
things. Its qualities and characteristics are quite complicated,
as has been indicated by previous posts of mine referring to the "upbuilding"
or "formative" forces etc. It is sometimes called the "time" body,
and has a relationship to memory and thinking. When people have near-death
experiences and report seeing their life pass before them, they are reporting
waking up in their ethereal (or "time") body, and entering into its full
unmediated (by the physical) reality.
(P) You could read George Adam's book: Physical and Ethereal
Spaces, or Lawrence Edward's: The Field of Form, for more information and
insight.
(P)warm regards,
(BR)joel(/HTML)
--------------8218644DCC0F3D590A2F1452--
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2042.5 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Science and reason
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 10:20:17 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
References: (200003031027.CAA02922 lists1.best.com)
(200003040101.RAA19915 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (200003040101.RAA19915 lists1.best.com)
[Raison]
) ) What Anthroposophists lose sight of in gathering
) ) themselves into their cloaks ...
[Sune]
)Is this the type a defamation the Moderator finds belongs on this
)list?
(pythonvoice) *whack* "Ow! What are you hitting me for, I thought
this was the argument clinic!" "No, no, the argument clinic is down
the hall, this is getting hit on the head" *whack* "Ow!"
(/pythonvoice)
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2042.6 ---------------
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: cliches/was those butterflies
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 17:35:55 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I was not confused, Joel. I know what a ``metaphor'' is and what a
cliche is, and it is not.
The image of a butterfly emerging from a cocoon -- a caterpillar
transformed into a beautiful, winged creature -- is, in my opinion, an
overused one and therefore, a cliche.
I am well aware of the uses of metaphors in helping to clarify an
abstract thought or a point in a visual way. To be of particular impact,
however, those metaphors ideally should be fresh and original.
What I asked was why THIS PARTICULAR metaphor is the one so often chosen
in Anthroposophy. I think I know the answer, however: because Steiner used
it.
----------
)From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit tiac.net)
)To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)Subject: Re: those butterflies again
)Date: Sun, Mar 5, 2000, 12:43 PM
)
) Dear Lisa,
)
) There is a kind of reason called "reasoning by analogy". Some people find
) it unproductive, others find it very important.
)
) The human being is "of" nature, not "separate" from it. Processes
) observable in nature are often mirrored in the human being, and in aspects of
) human social existence. Such processes include, but are not limited to,:
birth,
) growth, death, reproduction, and metamorphosis.
)
) Metamorphosis is a common nature "process". It is not just found there,
) however, but like other aspects of nature, metamorphosis has mathematical
) analogues. These can be studied in the geometry called projective or
synthetic
) geometry (see the works of Adams, Whicher et al.). It can also be studied in
a
) field of mathematics which is called topology (I believe).
)
) In projective geometry are various kinds of "transformations", whereby one
) form is "changed" into another. For example, take a rubber glove, which you
) have fitted to your left hand. If you pull it off your left hand in such a
way
) that it turns inside out in the process, it will thereby become "transformed"
) into a right-handed glove.
)
) Goethe is not the only person to extol the virtures of the imagination in
) coming to an understanding of nature. The ability to "think in pictures" is
) very crucial to many disciplines. The archetypal image of metamorphosis is
the
) transformation from catapillar to butterfly. First the catapiller forms its
) cocoon, after which it begins to change, to lose form, until it is essentially
a
) homeogenous cell mass, a kind of living chaos. Only after reaching this stage
) does the butterfly begin to appear, first as shadows on the outer surfaces of
) this chaos, and then later as these shadows deepen and become more sculpted,
the
) cells again differentiate into the necessary functional characteristics
required
) by the butterfly (nerve cells, skin cells, metabolic cells etc).
)
) People who learn to understand these dynamic characteristics of nature,
also
) learn to see how such nature processes are mimicked by human social
) transformations. It is no 'cliche' at all, but a more mobile and picture-like
) (i.e. less linear and static) kind of thinking that makes this reference that
) has puzzled you.
)
) warm regards,
) joel
)
) Lisa Ercolano wrote:
)
)) In a discussion with Dr. Fine about ``Jewish wisdom'' and the various groups
)) of people on Earth today, etc., Joel Wendt says:
))
)) ((Like a butterfly
)) emerging from a necessary, but no longer useful cocoon.))
))
)) Lisa asks:
))
)) Why is it that I see/hear/read this metaphor in relation to
)) Anthroposophy so often?
)) I just read and reread it in several lectures in ``The Kingdom of
)) Childhood'' and have heard it alluded to quite often in conversations about
)) WE, children and their development.
)) It's a rather cliqued kind of metaphor -- very Hallmark greeting card,
)) imnsho!
)) But it seems to have a particular meaning to Anthroposophy. Anyone care
)) to enlighten me in words that are easier to navigate than are Steiner's?
)
)
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2042.7 ---------------
From: Peter Farrell (peter.farrell vu.edu.au)
Subject: Missing posts
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 10:09:05 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
G'day all,
the last few posts I ahve sent do not appear to have been received. At the
risk of boring you twice, I am going to send them again.
Begging forgiveness in advance,
Peter
Peter Farrell Phone (+613) 9688 4282
Optical Technology Research Laboratory Fax (+613) 9688 4698
School of Communications and Informatics(F119)
Victoria University Email peter.farrell vu.edu.au
PO Box 14428 MCMC
Melbourne 8001 Australia
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2042.8 ---------------
From: Peter Farrell (peter.farrell vu.edu.au)
Subject: Re: Goethe and science
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 10:08:44 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Joel Wendt writes
)
) You know, your "influence" idea is very interesting. There was this guy
)named Henry David Thoreau, who is somewhat well known in America and
elsewhere,
)but at the same time one could wonder about his real "influence".
I have Walden and Civil Disobedience on my bookshelf, AND I 've read them.
I did my search trick on Thoreau and I get 121 hits. I think this is a
clear indication that my search method finds influential people and that
Thoreau is. The rate of hits in what you might call the social sciences and
arts is much less than the natural sciences, so a comparison across these
disciplines is a bit dodgy.
Peter
Peter Farrell Phone (+613) 9688 4282
Optical Technology Research Laboratory Fax (+613) 9688 4698
School of Communications and Informatics(F119)
Victoria University Email peter.farrell vu.edu.au
PO Box 14428 MCMC
Melbourne 8001 Australia
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2042.9 ---------------
From: Peter Farrell (peter.farrell vu.edu.au)
Subject: Re: College of teachers (Was Re: correspondence from Pan
Forrest)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 10:09:08 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Chand asks
The part about this I am not sure of is why the metal gets stiffer each
time you bend it. Peter?
I've responded also to this but I haven't addressed this point. I'm not
absolutely sure that stiffer is the right description. The short and simple
answer is that large scale structures in the metal are being broken and new
ones formed. The ability for different parts of the metal to move with
repsect to each other depends critically on how these large scale (still
microscopic) structures are bonded to each other. There are lots of
complications, size of structures, impurities, defects in the crystal
structure ... .
Peter
Peter Farrell Phone (+613) 9688 4282
Optical Technology Research Laboratory Fax (+613) 9688 4698
School of Communications and Informatics(F119)
Victoria University Email peter.farrell vu.edu.au
PO Box 14428 MCMC
Melbourne 8001 Australia
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2042.10 ---------------
From: Peter Farrell (peter.farrell vu.edu.au)
Subject: Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 10:09:07 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I want to make one more comment about Joel's post. He writes
)To a professed skeptic, who doesn't want anything
)interferring with his already made up mind,
I don't believe skeptics are like this at all. Skeptics usually can do
something very simple which indicates that they do not have closed minds.
They can describe a circumstance or experimental outcome which will change
their minds. Closed mindedness is not changing your mind regardless of the
outcome of any experiment or any circumstance.
I actually find it very difficult to design an experiment to test heart as
pump or otherwise because I don't understand what the "heart is not a pump"
proponents are talking about. I would need advice and study and frankly I'd
rather someone else did it. I have enough to do designing the experiments
and studies I get paid for doing. I have thought about homeopathy however
and there is a relatively simple experiment that could be performed that
would convince me that homeopathy has some basis. I'll describe it simply
though I would require double blind conditions and a lot more attention to
detail than I describe here. The idea is as follows using my terminology.
Start with a single container of what (water, alcohol) will be the
homeopathic remedies. Make two different remedies and take them past the
Avogadro limit using liquid from the original container. My prediction is
the two final remedies are indistinguishable. Homeopaths say otherwise.
They are potent different remedies. An appropriate administration of these
to samples of people ought to be able to statistically distinguish the two
remedies on the basis of the effect of the remedies on the people. This
might mean administering the remedies to thousands of people in order to
get a sufficiently large sample. So this is conceptually simple, possible,
but probably expensive. I note that a simplified version might be done
using some of the electromagnetic devices in use by some homeopaths. If the
sub Avagadro remedies could be reliably distinguished by any method (apart
from cheating), I would be convinced. Closed mindedness is the opposite
where no possible experimental outcome will change a mind.
I am a professed skeptic, but I do like things interfering with my made up
mind. All the skeptics I know are like this.
Peter
Peter Farrell Phone (+613) 9688 4282
Optical Technology Research Laboratory Fax (+613) 9688 4698
School of Communications and Informatics(F119)
Victoria University Email peter.farrell vu.edu.au
PO Box 14428 MCMC
Melbourne 8001 Australia
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n2042 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n2043 --------------
001 - Peter Farrell (peter.farr - Re: College of teachers (Was Re: correspondence from Pan
002 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Another disgruntled parent
003 - Peter Farrell (peter.farr - Re: Goethe and science
004 - Peter Farrell (peter.farr - Re:"Getting With Goethe"
005 - Peter Farrell (peter.farr - Re: those butterflies again
006 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Admin: February Archive posted on web site
007 - "debra harvey" (debharve - Re: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
008 - "debra harvey" (debharve - Re: Goodrick-Clarke
009 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Another disgruntled parent
010 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Another disgruntled parent
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2043.1 ---------------
From: Peter Farrell (peter.farrell vu.edu.au)
Subject: Re: College of teachers (Was Re: correspondence from Pan
Forrest)
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 10:09:06 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
There's a serious problem associated with expressing an opinion and that is
it generates dialogue which has already gone past my allowance of free time
to take part in. Joel Wendt also makes a thoughtful response without
prejudice to my hats. I don't have any problem with what Joel says. The
word "heart" is not a pump. It has a load of meaning taking the human
response to "heart" well beyond the physiological processes associated with
heart.
I do have a problem with bending metal however. Energy goes in and energy
goes out. If you bend metal you apply a force through a distance. This is
called work in the technical sense. Cetainly the metal gets hot. It's
another question whether it has the same mass (weight is asubtly different
notion) before and after. Any mass difference in an experiment like this
will be fiendishly diffecult to measure. The heat comes from you, the
bender. It is also an interesting question whether there has been chemical
change. Taking a rather broad view of what constitutes a chemical change, I
think there has. Bending metal repeatedly as you described changes the
local crystalline structure. This is complicated and I don't want to go
into detail, but this is in fact very like a chemical change. Individual
bonds between atoms are broken and new ones formed.
) The question is do you want to "experience" the ethereal forces flowing
)through your heart center? To an open minded, adventureous person, that
might
)sound very "cool". To a professed skeptic, who doesn't want anything
)interferring with his already made up mind, then, gosh, don't bother at all.
)Just kiss it off. It's probably some cult trick anyway, right?
)
Joel, how do you know I haven't done this, perhaps not exactly. I am
reminded of suggestions from the seventies about how to include women in
male dominated meetings. I think you will think I am trivialising your
suggested experiment but I am not. Those suggestions made a big difference
to the way I relate to people. Don't tell my wife, she'll laugh. Taking
away all the jargon (which I will come back to) isn't what you are
suggesting as an experiment the same thing?
Let's get back to the jargon. If you get a group of physicists together
over a beer or equivalent, a familiar topic of conversation is how
technical terminology used, coopted from every day language, or invented by
physicists is used in ways which make physicists wince with real pain.
Energy is a favourite. Force is another beauty. Joel, you've used current,
field, ether all of which have technical meanings. I wince. I find it
difficult to understand (my problem I know) because of the wincing. I'm
going to ask for a favour. Please reword the experiment in terms that won't
make me wince. Then I might be able to understand the answer to the
question at the end of the previous paragraph. You might note that
physicists are asked to do this all the time and I at least regularly
attempt it.
This comes back to the word "heart". It has a technical meaning (the piece
of meat sitting in the chest) and an enormous range of what you might call
folk meaning. We are pretty good at distinguishing these meanings in
context. If I say "I had a hearty meal" then you don't assume I had cow's
heart although I might have. When you say "the heart is not a pump" (sorry,
you didn't say that but for the sake of argument let it lie) do you mean
something entirely different to what I mean. If it is really just that the
folk meanings are more important than the technical meaning, that's fine.
It is certainly true that there are Anthroposophical writings that are
impossible for me to interpret in this way.
I will also take this opportunity to respond to Terry Boardman. The points
you make about timing of importance and relevance are absolutely right.
Aristotle is an excellent example.
Peter
Peter Farrell Phone (+613) 9688 4282
Optical Technology Research Laboratory Fax (+613) 9688 4698
School of Communications and Informatics(F119)
Victoria University Email peter.farrell vu.edu.au
PO Box 14428 MCMC
Melbourne 8001 Australia
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2043.2 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Another disgruntled parent
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 15:21:31 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I received this post privately. (I took out his name, where he lives and the name of the Waldorf school he is suing.)
Deby
) Dear Friend,
I have read some of the articles written in PLANS site. These confirm my suspicions about Waldorf Education, I am busy with litigation against a Waldorf School in ******, called The ********** Waldorf School. Not only did I think it was an OCCULT but they have not delivered any EDUCATION to my child who started in Grade 0 to grade 4. I am suing for non delivery of our contract that stated that they would educate my child, and for occult teaching. We were also drawn to the school as a result of the wonderful methods of "gently caring for the child and letting them develop, child centered education blah blah". How wrong we were and how our child has suffered. This all amounted to a confused child who at the age of 10 could not read or tell the difference between a D and a B. They told us that they do not teach children to read or do maths -- so what worries me is ... what was I paying R1200.00 school fees for (was it for some Antroposophical religious teaching...with!
out my consent). He was evaluated by a external education psychologist and found him to be normal and should be reading and writing if he was taught. I have many parents who feel the same way as I do. Please help by sending me a list of parents or past teachers that I can talk to verify my opinion. Thanking you in advance. Lets expose this cult teaching and let prospective new parent know the truth behind this facade of education.
************ DESPERATE DAD
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2043.3 ---------------
From: Peter Farrell (peter.farrell vu.edu.au)
Subject: Re: Goethe and science
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 10:48:46 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Oh, by the way. I know I'm not influential enough on this list to warrant
movie star representation, but I'd like an Australian actor. Paul Hogan is
a bit old. How about Mel Gibson.
Peter
Peter Farrell Phone (+613) 9688 4282
Optical Technology Research Laboratory Fax (+613) 9688 4698
School of Communications and Informatics(F119)
Victoria University Email peter.farrell vu.edu.au
PO Box 14428 MCMC
Melbourne 8001 Australia
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2043.4 ---------------
From: Peter Farrell (peter.farrell vu.edu.au)
Subject: Re:"Getting With Goethe"
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 11:50:50 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Bob Tolz quotes from Jon Spayde, "Getting With Goethe," Utne Reader #75,
May, 1996
And yet he was no gushing romantic but a tireless scientist. Though
his actual contributions to the advance of biology are minor (and he was
dead wrong in his decades-long struggle against Newton's theory of light),
Goethe was a major precursor of a new attitude toward the scientific task.
Peter Farrell responds
Bob must have a scanner or be a bit of a typist. This issue of being wrong
is an interesting one in science. Being wrong is fine. It's the argument
that is important. My favourite example is a famous paper of Einstein's and
coworkers. [Einstein, A.; Podolsky, B.; and Rosen, N. ``Can
Quantum-mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered
Complete?'' Phys. Rev. 41, 777, 1935. ] A marvel of a paper. Einstein et al
argued correctly that quantum mechanics is inconsistent with a local real
universe, and that as a result quantum mechanics must be incomplete. He
described an experiment which would test this proposition. Unfortunately he
did not live to see the experiment performed. Over the last two or three
decades the EPR experiment has been performed numerous times with the
outcome firmly on the side of QM being complete and the universe not being
local and/or real. (I hope people who really understand this won't give me
too hard a time on the brief version of what I consider is the major
intellectual achievement of the 20th century). The outcome of this paper
and the arguments and other work it produced are about to bear
technological fruit. I refer you to Gerard Milburn's book "The Feynman
Processor" for more detail. The point I want to make is that it is
absolutely irrelevant to the quality of the work that Einstein (and
Podolsky and Rosen) were wrong. This is absolutely fantastic work. Its
influence will be felt for generations to come (my prediction).
The issue of accepting that you are wrong cuts right to the core of being a
scientist. This is really the lesson that Popper (Dan's favourite) is
partly reponsible for. A scientist (as skeptic) ought to be able to define
an experimental or theoretical result which would force a change of mind.
This is exactly the point I was making in responding to Joel about
skepticism. I think it is desirable that this be applied to religious and
quasi religious belief as well. A suitable question might be "What
circumstances might occur which would make a person consider rejecting
Catholicism (for example)". The Pope removing the prohibition on chemical
birth control? The appearance of Buddha performing miracles? The
Inquisition executing Giordano Bruno? The Pope outlawing the Latin mass?
Does asking this question constitute a lack of faith? I can't claim to
understand other religious traditions sufficiently well to be able to give
appropriate examples.
How might this apply to Anthroposophy? This is not meant to be a trap for
those who argue that Anthroposophy is not a religion. The question I am
asking is how do Anthroposophers stand. Are they skeptics? Should they be?
Let me take this back to physics. A good question to ask me might be "what
would make me doubt the law of conservation of mass energy?" Well this
would be tricky. I would want heaps of evidence. Any single experiment
which gave results which contradicted mass energy conservation I would
think was somehow flawed, and I would try and find the flaw rather than
give up the law.
Peter
Peter Farrell Phone (+613) 9688 4282
Optical Technology Research Laboratory Fax (+613) 9688 4698
School of Communications and Informatics(F119)
Victoria University Email peter.farrell vu.edu.au
PO Box 14428 MCMC
Melbourne 8001 Australia
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2043.5 ---------------
From: Peter Farrell (peter.farrell vu.edu.au)
Subject: Re: those butterflies again
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 13:56:54 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Joel Wendt writes
) In projective geometry are various kinds of "transformations", whereby one
)form is "changed" into another. For example, take a rubber glove, which you
)have fitted to your left hand. If you pull it off your left hand in such
a way
)that it turns inside out in the process, it will thereby become "transformed"
)into a right-handed glove.
)
These transformations are not limited to projective geometry or to topolgy.
Prctically every branch of mathematics has this kind of idea as either a
really important tool, or the main idea. As a futher example grab a book on
complex analysis (eg Churchill) and check out a topic call mapping.
If someone were to buy me a beer or two I might be prepared to argue that
in mathematics and physics there ain't no other sort of reasoning but
analogy. I might lose but I'd give you a run for your money.
Peter
Peter Farrell Phone (+613) 9688 4282
Optical Technology Research Laboratory Fax (+613) 9688 4698
School of Communications and Informatics(F119)
Victoria University Email peter.farrell vu.edu.au
PO Box 14428 MCMC
Melbourne 8001 Australia
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2043.6 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: February Archive posted on web site
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 00:29:16 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
The February waldorf-critics archive has been posted on the PLANS web site:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org
This time I added another process to preparing the files, re-wrapping
text that was sent as paragraph-long lines. The offenders were
raison, Luke, and Detlef. Please set your email programs to wrap
lines on transmission to something reasonable like 55 characters.
That'll make it easier for everybody down the line.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2043.7 ---------------
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophists are anti-science and anti-reason
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 16:12:43 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
[Deby]
)When I was disposed by the schools legal counsel, the stenographer cornered
)me during the breaks. She thought our case was so very interesting. She
)sent her child to Waldorf in kindergarten and chose not to further his
)education there. She said she would have done this case for free. I guess
)not all deps are boring. :+
)
[Harve]
Oh no, your case is far from boring. Actually, I was exagerating. On my
dep Thursday afternoon, I asked the other lawyer to move away from my client
and lower his voice. He reacted by screaming for a few minutes and pointing
his finger at me. I was trying so hard not to laugh, I simply noted calmly
for the record that he was screaming and pointing his finger at me--which
really set him off. That sort of thing can get old fast.
)
)
)
)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2043.8 ---------------
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Goodrick-Clarke
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 16:23:23 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
) [Alan Fine]
) ) ) Bob, have you read this book? If you have I'd be happy to
) ) ) discuss it with you.
) )
) ) [Bob Tolz]
) ) Please don't answer a question with a question. It is human to err.
) ) I'd appreciate it if you would either admit it or deny it.
[Alan]
)
)lawyers.
)
[Harve]
Actually, Alan, you are the one who is acting like a lawyer in this context.
Since there is some role reversal going on, perhaps you would care to
share your motivations?
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2043.9 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Another disgruntled parent
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 08:42:42 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (200003052319.PAA07956 lists1.best.com)
On 5 Mar 00, at 15:21, Debra Snell wrote:
) I received this post privately. (I took out his name, where he lives and
) the name of the Waldorf school he is suing.) Deby
Why? Lawsuits are a matter of public record. It's not like the local
Waldorf people are unaware of his claims.
It's interesting that when Waldorf supporters write privately to Dan, he
has no hesitation about posting their letters, with their real names. Why
remove this fellow's name?
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.n2043.10 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Another disgruntled parent
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 09:12:13 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (200003052319.PAA07956 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (200003061643.IAA01369 lists1.best.com)
)On 5 Mar 00, at 15:21, Debra Snell wrote:
)
)) I received this post privately. (I took out his name, where he lives and
)) the name of the Waldorf school he is suing.) Deby
)
)Why? Lawsuits are a matter of public record. It's not like the local
)Waldorf people are unaware of his claims.
)
)It's interesting that when Waldorf supporters write privately to Dan, he
)has no hesitation about posting their letters, with their real names. Why
)remove this fellow's name?
I removed his name because I didn't ask permission to post it to the list.
I know what Dan does - clearly I'm not Dan.
Deby
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n2043 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n2044 --------------
001 - "debra harvey" (debharve - Re: Another disgruntled parent
002 - "debra harvey" (debharve - Re: Dolls
003 - "debra harvey" (debharve - Re: Goethe and science
004 - Peter Farrell (peter.farr - Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
005 - Peter Farrell (peter.farr - Holism and Reductionism
006 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit t - Re: cliches/was those butterflies
007 - "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit t - Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
008 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Judge Damrell's memorandum and order on web site
009 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Der Targesspiegel article mentions Hardorp
010 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Another disgruntled parent
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2044.1 ---------------
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Another disgruntled parent
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 17:19:26 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
[Sterve]
)Why? Lawsuits are a matter of public record. It's not like the local
)Waldorf people are unaware of his claims.
[Harve]
I had the same thoughts. I'm also wondering if this is another disgruntled
divorced/divorcing Dad. I guess it happens, but I wonder how these bad
feeling manifest themselves so suddenly. Weren't there any hints of
dissatisfaction earlier?
What is the basis of his lawsuit? Misrepresentation? Failure to Teach?
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2044.2 ---------------
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Dolls
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 17:58:44 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
I was going to send this offlist, but there were so many people who
expressed concern and help, I wanted to give you a followup. Actually, I'm
still interested in discussing how Waldorf deals with gender roles.
I spoke with the teaching "assistant" (actually she's the one who has been
there for years and has 2 children in high school and 2 children in their
30's, the "lead" teacher is right out of college--they make a good team).
She told me that the kids play dress up and play with dolls at school. They
would not allow the children to make fun of a boy who brought in a doll for
"show and tell." She said her boys played with Barbies.
This morning in the car, my son told me that his "babies" are too little to
go to school. (Since last week, he's had more children). He says that
Isabelle can go when she learns how to walk, which will be "soon" (actually
his baby sister will be walking in the next month or so).
She also wanted to recommend "Endangered Minds" to me because she and her
husband had found it useful with their youngest children(!) She tried to
get "Failure to Connect" out of the library, but it was out. Guess what?
I'm going to buy several copies and donate them.
We haven't heard from the Waldorf school yet, but I'm thinking we'd be crazy
to leave this wonderful place.
Incidentally, I read "Man's Search for Meaning" over the weekend and was
blown away.
Thanks for all your help.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2044.3 ---------------
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Goethe and science
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 19:23:44 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
[Peter talking about who should play him]
How about Mel Gibson.
[Harve]
Hmm. Mel Gibson? You are making Goethe's theory of color more interesting.
If I tell you that Kim Bassinger should play me would that make my doll
discussion more interesting to you?
Sorry to disappoint. . .. . .
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2044.4 ---------------
From: Peter Farrell (peter.farrell vu.edu.au)
Subject: Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 08:02:47 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Terry Boardman writes
)'Creation science vs evolution' is
)a false dichotomy that goes back to the Darwinists vs clergy debates of
the 19th cent.
)which was but the latest version of the old mediaeval 'reason vs faith'
dichotomy.
)
I think the dichotomy is real enough in its harmful consequences. The major
part of this battle seems to occur in the US where the consequences are
felt by science educators, text book publishers and those who are
miseducated as a result. This would not be so bad if the US was not such a
major market for textbooks and such a major source of textbooks. The result
is that biology textbooks not just in the US have the importance of the
role evolution plays in modern biology down played. This is a disaster. It
means that generations of students are unaware of the beauty and centrality
of this theory to our understanding of life.
Peter
Peter Farrell Phone (+613) 9688 4282
Optical Technology Research Laboratory Fax (+613) 9688 4698
School of Communications and Informatics(F119)
Victoria University Email peter.farrell vu.edu.au
PO Box 14428 MCMC
Melbourne 8001 Australia
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2044.5 ---------------
From: Peter Farrell (peter.farrell vu.edu.au)
Subject: Holism and Reductionism
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 07:52:48 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
One of the issues which has been raised in discussions about science on
this list is the difference between a reductionist approach and a holistic
approach. For example some claim Goethe's work is holistic while Newton's
work is reductionist. This is a very interesting claim which I think is
false. The point I want to make is that I don't believe any human being can
make a claim to holism. What is such a mythical human being going to do?
Understand the whole universe and all its interactions all at once? This is
simply impossible. I assert that all human beings have to take a
reductionist approach to everything. One must consider some subset of the
experience of the universe in order to make any sense of it. The real trick
is to balance the notions of holism and reductionism in order to make
progress. Here, I don't restrict progress to the capitalist notion. I mean
progress in understanding. It seems to me to be very obvious that the
choices Newton made in optics, mechanics and mathematics between holism and
reductionism were as close to perfect as a human being of his time and
place could make. The understanding that has arisen as a result of that
choice is breathtaking. In biology, the idea that life can be understood on
a molecular level has also been very successful. This idea is both holistic
and reductionist, holistic in the sense that it seeks to understand all
life, reductionist in that it does so through a reduced set of possible
tools. The theory of evolution also has this character of being holistic
and reductionist all at once.
If we wish to compare Goethe and Newton, one might make the claim that
Goethe was more holistic than Newton. I think this is probably wrong. I
think Newton was aware of the holistic understanding he was achieving. I
think Goethe thought he was achieving holistic understanding but that has
turned out to be not the case. Had he taken a more reductionist view might
he have achieved more and been more influential?
Peter
Peter Farrell Phone (+613) 9688 4282
Optical Technology Research Laboratory Fax (+613) 9688 4698
School of Communications and Informatics(F119)
Victoria University Email peter.farrell vu.edu.au
PO Box 14428 MCMC
Melbourne 8001 Australia
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2044.6 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: cliches/was those butterflies
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 19:43:03 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200003052243.OAA18368 lists1.best.com)
Dear Lisa,
I am to take it then, that your question(s) is/are rhetorical and not genuine,
and that you already have your mind made up about a matter you are in no position to
actually know anything about. This is called prejudging by the way, to give it its
most kind term.
now I understand regards,
joel
Lisa Ercolano wrote:
) I was not confused, Joel. I know what a ``metaphor'' is and what a
) cliche is, and it is not.
) The image of a butterfly emerging from a cocoon -- a caterpillar
) transformed into a beautiful, winged creature -- is, in my opinion, an
) overused one and therefore, a cliche.
) I am well aware of the uses of metaphors in helping to clarify an
) abstract thought or a point in a visual way. To be of particular impact,
) however, those metaphors ideally should be fresh and original.
) What I asked was why THIS PARTICULAR metaphor is the one so often chosen
) in Anthroposophy. I think I know the answer, however: because Steiner used
) it.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2044.7 ---------------
From: "Joel A. Wendt" (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 20:19:36 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200003052309.PAA02447 lists1.best.com)
Peter Farrell wrote:
) I am a professed skeptic, but I do like things interfering with my made up
) mind. All the skeptics I know are like this.
)
Dear Peter,
One of the items that has come up on the list in the past is the suggestion
that "knowledge", in order to be "scientific" has to follow certain types of
"protocols". A not disagreeable request, but if how we come to "knowledge" is
investigated carefully, it becomes possible to consider alternative to "double
blind" studies and the like.
If the homeopathic physician and the patient are satisfied with the result,
will the "skeptic" accept that there was a "result". Consider this anecdote:
My son was eight at the time, and thin, and a bedwetter. He began to have
something like seizures. We would find him in the morning shaking and
drooling. He would also be impossible to arouse. If you raised his eyelids,
the eyes were rolled up in his head. This was very irregular. It might not
occur for 3 or 4 months, and then would occur five times in eight days. The
episodes would pass after five minutes and he would then be in a normal state.
For a while we thought it was some kind of glycemic problem and bought
blood sugar test equipment and worked on his diet. The situation did not
change.
Finally my wife took him to a homeopath in Conneticut, a four hour drive
each way. This was because the doctor had a widespread reputation and
specialized in children.
At his recommendation we began what is called a "constituional" remedy.
For six months Adam received three little white pills in the morning. He was
to have no other medicines during this period.
He gained twenty -five pounds, and the bed wetting and "seizures" stopped,
and were never repeated.
Most of my adult life I have been interested in psychology. I have worked
in this field twenty out of the last 30 years. I have learned most of the best
of what I know from introspection and the teachings of the Gospels. A lot of
it contradicts conventional theories and work. [for details see my: "The Idea
of Mind: a christian meditator looks at the problem of consciousness" (
http://www.tiac.net/users/hermit/tidom.html ) and "pragmatic moral psychology"
( http://www.tiac.neet/users/hermit/stgfr5.html ).
There is more than one way to "know", than that encompassed by modern
science.
warm regards,
joel
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2044.8 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Judge Damrell's memorandum and order on web site
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 18:13:35 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
In response to Debra Harvey's suggestion, I found the Adobe Acrobat
.pdf file of Judge Damrell's memorandum and order that Bob Tolz
scanned. It's now posted in the Articles section of the PLANS web
site. Being a scan of the text, it's big, 2.2 Mb, and you need
Acrobat Reader installed on your system to read it.
This is the judge's decision rejecting the school districts' motion
for summary judgment, October 24, 1999.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2044.9 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Der Targesspiegel article mentions Hardorp
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 19:36:33 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
A friend in Europe forwarded this article that mentions Deltlef
Hardorp. Translations, anybody?
-Dan Dugan
***
Aktuell :: Berlin :: Stadtleben
Der Tagesspiegel
vom 1. März 2000
Rudolf Steiner - Antisemit und Rassist?
Vorwürfe von "Report" schreckt Waldorfschulen und Senatsverwaltung auf
Susanne Vieth-Entus
In Berlins Waldorfschulen gab es gestern nur ein Thema: die Vorwürfe des
Rassismus und Antisemitismus gegen den Anthroposophen Rudolf Steiner und
einzelne Pädagogen der von Steiners Werk geprägten Waldorfschulen. Das
ARD-Magazin "Report" hatte am Montagabend darüber berichtet und als Beleg
Schülerhefte vorgeführt. Die Senatsschulverwaltung kündigte daraufhin "Visiten"
in Waldorfschulen an. Die Landesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Waldorfschulen in
Berlin-Brandenburg erwägt eine "Qualitätsoffensive".
"Report" zeigte so genannte Epochenhefte aus dem Geschichtsunterricht von
Unterstufenschülern. Sie enthielten angeblich schwärmerische Definitionen des
'Arier-'Begriffs sowie vorurteilsbelastete Charakterisierungen von
Völkern ("Der
Russe ist ...", "der Franzose ist ..."). Nicht gesagt wurde, aus welchen
Bundesländern und Schulen die Hefte stammten. Dazu stellte "Report" Zitate
Steiners, die - zumindest isoliert betrachtet - antisemitische und rassistische
Auffassungen belegen könnten.
Die Landesarbeitsgemeinschaft der Waldorfschulen zeigte sich gestern wenig
überrascht über die Vorwürfe. Ihr bildungspolitischer Sprecher Detlef Hardorp
sagte auf Anfrage, die "Attacken" seien nicht neu. Immer wieder würden Zitate
Steiners aus dem Zusammenhang gerissen und dadurch völlig verfälscht. Ernster
nimmt er die Auszüge aus den Schülerheften. Das Wort 'Arier' gehöre
selbstverständlich nicht in den Unterricht. Hardorp betont allerdings
auch, dass
solche Begriffe vor 1933 eine andere Bedeutung hatten. Außerdem meint er, "dass
man Völker nicht stereotypisieren sollte", wie dies offenbar in einem der
Schülerhefte nachzulesen war. Um derartige Entgleisungen in Berlin-Brandenburg
zu verhindern, spricht er sich für eine "Qualitätsoffensive" aus: Die
Schulleitungskonferenzen könnten durch intensive Diskussionen schwarzen Schafen
auf die Spur kommen.
Hardorp sieht in dem "Report"-Beitrag eine "relativ gut organisierte Gruppe" am
Werk, die seit langem versuche, alles zusammenzufügen, was bei Steiner
rassistisch sein könnte. Diese Gruppe spiele ein "subtiles Spiel", wenn sie
jetzt die Epochenhefte vorlege, ohne zu sagen, von welcher Schule diese kommen.
Im übrigen erinnert er daran, dass selbst der langjährige Vorsitzende der
Jüdischen Gemeinde zu Berlin, Heinz Galinski, seine Tochter auf der
Rudolf-Steiner-Schule hatte.
Da es sich bei den Waldorfschulen um private Schulen handelt, obliegt ihre
Aufsicht direkt der Senatsschulverwaltung. Hier war manchem Mitarbeiter
angesichts von "Report" der "Schreck in die Glieder gefahren". Spontan hieß es,
man werde wohl einige "Visiten" machen und versuchen, in Schülerarbeiten
Einblick zu nehmen. Generell habe man aber gute Erfahrungen mit den
Waldorfschulen gemacht, die in Berlin als "sehr liberal" gelten würde. Von
Eltern erhalte man "unwahrscheinlich positive Rückmeldungen".
© 2000 Tagesspiegel Online-Dienste GmbH
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2044.10 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Another disgruntled parent
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 06:29:44 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
[Debra Snell]
) I removed his name because I didn't ask permission to post it
) to the list.
) I know what Dan does - clearly I'm not Dan.
) Deby
)
[Debra Snell]
Good for you, Deby. Honestly.
Bob Tolz
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n2044 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n2045 --------------
001 - "Christian Czachary" (chr - RE: Folk-Spirits in the Bible
002 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Peter Staudenmaier's use of sources [from Peter Staudenmai
003 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Folk-Spirits in the Bible
004 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: Goodrick-Clarke
005 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Der Targesspiegel article mentions Hardorp (translation)
006 - Peter Farrell (peter.farr - Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
007 - Sean Slovan (sean.slovan - Re: Peter Staudenmaier's use of sources [from Peter Staudenmai
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2045.1 ---------------
From: "Christian Czachary" (christian gammaresearch.com)
Subject: RE: Folk-Spirits in the Bible
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 12:20:01 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (200003041043.CAA11634 lists1.best.com)
[Sune wrote]
)The Editorial review by Amazon at
)http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1585090190/ugeniepcs/002
-0162302-3677827
)says: The Book of Enoch was considered one of the most important books
)in early Christianity and was used widely. R.H. Charles, who lated the
)book, said, "the influence of I Enoch on the New Testament has been
)greater than that of all the other aprocryphal and pseudepigraphical
)books put together."
An interesting consideration (by whom?). )But not one quote in the New
Testament of Enoch? This is New Age stuff in my eyes. Elizabeth Prophet
makes quite some money with this, that's for sure.) Enoch was never removed
from the canon, because it was never IN the canon. The editors are lacking a
lot of knowledge or they are simply lying, to earn some bucks of course.
)It seems both books were part of the the 'Old Testament' up to the
)16th century, after which the Protestant tradition called them
)"Apocrypha" while the Catholic tradition called them
)"deuterocanonical" books
)http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm .
The book of Enoch and Makabees were not part of the 'Old Testament'
according to following Bible versions:
The Hebrew Old Testament written between 1500-389 (B.C.).
Parts of the Hebrew Old Testament written n Aramaic 1500 - 500 B.C.
A New Testament in Koine Greek (40 - 90 A.D.) (nothing mentions anything
about Enoch of Makabees).
The Syriac translation in Syrian (120 - 150 A.D.).
The Old Latin Bible (A.D. 150-200).
The Greek Textus Receptus did not contain the Apocrypha as part of the canon
(the Bible).
The German translation (by Luther in 1520) and the English translation of
1611 both used traditional manuscripts (including the receptus which was
known under another name) which were used by Christians for centuries (and
copied) and they did not contain the Apocrypha as part of the Old or New
Testament.
So, "one of the most important books" which was used widely according to
Amazon.com did not find its way into the holy Canon, it simply failed to
take part in it. Its influence may be great, but surely not among Bible
believing folks. (Let alone folk spirits!).
)What you mean by 'Bible' then, is the Bible according to the
)Protestant tradition after the 16th century?
)
)Just trying to sort the concepts, not argue specifically on anything.
I did only respond to what Jan (Seán) Slován posted:
"According to the Bible (Old Testament)..." and then he quoted the King
James Bible (1611), a book with which I'm familiar with to the extend, that
I know that Makabees and Enoch cannot be found in it as part of the holy
canon.
He called this book "the Bible") (definitive article) and if this book IS
the bible then Enoch and Makabees are NOT "the Bible". And if Enoch and
Makabees are part of the Bible, than the book ("The Bible") is not "The
Bible" and you have to find another book to quote from. Or you don't believe
that the bible exists in the form of a book, than we have to take someone's
personal preference as authority about this matter. In this case, I prefer
someone like Solomon: "Where the word of a king is, there is power."
Christian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2045.2 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's use of sources [from Peter Staudenmaier]
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 01:49:50 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
[From Peter Staudenmaier -Dan Dugan]
Hello waldorf critics,
sorry to crash your list yet again. Dan Dugan was kind enough to
forward to me Sean Slovan's recent post on my use of sources, to which I'd
naturally like to reply. It's difficult to have a reasonable debate when
the participants rely on aspersions rather than arguments, but I will do my
best. I suppose I should feel fortunate; in Europe these days
anthroposophists have taken to suing authors and publishers who print
things they don't want to read. So far my detractors have been content to
use innuendo rather than the courts. Still, I must ask at the outset: what
purpose does it serve to frame this disagreement with unconfirmable
speculations such as that my "knowledge of historical sources is equal to
nil" or that my "care for historical accuracy" is "non-existing"? Aside
from the question of what might qualify Sean to make such a judgement
in the first place, the evidence available to him - a single article
written for a popular audience - is simply insufficent to reach any
conclusion on the matter. The nature of historical research is such that
all writers in the field make mistakes, and most of us are happy to correct
them once they've been pointed out.
Factual mistakes, however, are not at all the same thing as
differences of interpretation, and it is just such a difference, as far as
I can tell, that has Sean so agitated. He takes a narrow view of what
counts as "anthroposophy", and I take a broad view. My view is widely
supported within the existing literature. I followed this broad
characterization throughout my article, not merely in regard to Hess, and I
continue to think it is justified. By Sean's criteria, some of the best
known post-war German anthroposophists, such as Joseph Beuys or Otto
Schily, would not be considered anthroposophists. This may suit the
preferences of certain defenders of orthodox anthroposophy, but it does not
accord with popular perceptions.
Strangely, Sean's post does not address my article, but only the last
installment of my exchange with Detlef Hardorp. There I named four further
sources of "evidence for the determinate influence of anthroposophy on
Hess's thinking", as I put it in that message. As I explained then, I don't
consider the matter of Hess's adherence to anthroposophy particularly
significant, but I pointed out that there is no scholarly divide on the
issue. Aside from anthroposophists, no scholar who has addressed the
question of anthroposophy's influence on Hess has either denied or
minimized that influence, as far as I am aware. Sean has so far provided no
evidence to the contrary. Since that was the substance of my argument in
the passage of mine which Sean quotes, the rest of Sean's post strikes me
as quite irrelevant. He lists, for some reason, several fine works which
have nothing to say either way on the question at hand. It would make as
much sense for me to argue, with reference to the very same works, that
"the most authoritative scholarly books on the "occult" side of the Nazis
NEVER deny, or even so much as cast doubt on, Hess's anthroposophist
inclinations." It will be difficult to settle our dispute by relying on
works which do not concern themselves with it.
Sean's post does, however, raise several interesting issues, even if
their connection to what I wrote is not always apparent. I will follow the
order of his presentation:
) Schwarzwaeller's book is a popular account, without references nor
) footnotes. On p. 159 he mentions that Hess was a greedy reader of obscure
) writings on Homeopathy, nature healing and eye diagnostics, that he tried
) to get into contact with all kind of prophets, astrologers and diviners,
and
) that he studied books on Theosophy and Anthroposophy as well. He was
) especially interested in bio-dynamical agriculture (as he was very
) concerned with healthy nutrition and always afraid of being poisoned) and
) in Waldorf education. No statement as to Hess being an Anthroposophist.
I believe this is the crux of our disagreement. I don't know what it
takes to "be an anthroposophist" on Sean's terms, but this catalogue of
Hess's predilections certainly suggests a more than amateur interest in
the doctrine. Even Uwe Werner, the favorite recourse for anthroposophist
apologists, follows this loose definition of anthroposophic activity in his
huge book on anthroposophists in the Nazi period (though Werner, of course,
also denies that Hess was personally drawn to or influenced by Steiner's
philosophy; that stance is to be expected in such a transparently
tendentious work).
) Fest is indeed a renowned conservative historian. But: Nada, nothing at
) all. Hess "was convinced of the influence of stars on the destiny", was
) surrounded by diviners, radioesthesians and pendulum swingers (how do you
) say in English??), used homeopathic drugs brought to him by Sven Hedin
from
) Tibet. No mentioning of Steiner nor of Anthroposophy on p. 264 and in the
) whole essay on Hess.
I'll have to take Sean's word on this; I don't own a copy of Fest's
book and was relying on a reference I made to it in my notes from six
years ago, when I did the original research for the Ecofascism book and had
no interest in the question of anthroposophy. If I have misrepresented
Fest's portrayal of Hess, I apologize. (Given Sean's willingness to jump to
conclusions about my "care for historical accuracy", I hasten to add that
when preparing pieces for publication I make a point of double-checking old
references, a step I felt quite comfortable skipping when I responded to
Detlef's email.)
) The same is true for the best historical account (not
) quoted by Staudenmaier) by Dietrich Orlow in: Die braune Elite, edited by
) the American historian Ronald Smelser (whom I happen to know personally)
) and the rather conservative German historian Rainer Zitelmann, Darmstadt
) 1989.
I share Sean's admiration for Smelser's work. I must say Sean is too
kind to call Zitelmann's political position these days merely "rather
conservative", but when Die braune Elite was published Zitelmann still fell
within the bounds of mainstream historiography. Orlow's profile of Hess is
indeed excellent, but hardly exhaustive. Since Sean knows Smelser,
perhaps he will consider sending him my article along with our present
exchange and ask him for an opinion of our respective "use of sources."
) Hmm, I like Webb's book a lot, but in many details it is simply
) unreliable, as Webb had to refer to already existing literature, in the
case of Hess to the multitude of books which make a well-selling story
) out of the "occult history of the Third Reich", from Tibet to Aleister
) Crowley. His statement on Hess is only cursory, a bit like
) Schwarzwaeller's. He had no access to sources at all.
I agree that Webb's book is often questionable on details and relies
too heavily on occult sources, though it's an exaggeration to say that he
had "no access at all" to more reputable sources. In general I'd say it's
the best of the early works on the topic.
)Orzechowski is much worse, as he recopies almost every
) crude story that can be found in trashy books like the ones by
) Pauwels/Bergier and Brennan.
I think Sean is too quick to dismiss Orzechowski's book, perhaps the
major attempt by a trained historian to take the murky occult literature
into account in a serious analysis. His treatment of that literature is not
nearly as naive as Sean suggests, though once again I agree that he is
often too credulous regarding details. My chief complaint with his book is
its psychologizing approach, not its exploration of occult
pseudo-histories, which I think is often quite careful. Whatever one
thinks of Orzechowski's methods, his book surely does not belong in
the same category as Pauwels & Bergier, et al.
) Strange that Staudenmaier has a preference for the kind of irrational
) "historical" literature he tries to refute. But that's the way it goes:
) as long as it serves the means, print the legend.
This is a crucial point for anyone studying Steiner and his followers,
and I wholeheartedly agree with Sean's position. Unfortunately he's somehow
convinced that I stand on the other side of this fundamental cleavage
within the literature. I do not. Libraries around the world are filled with
fantastic occult "exposes" of other occult groups, many of them invented
out of thin air, and once a particular fabrication reaches print it
frequently takes on a life of its own in later "studies". Even responsible
historians are sometimes tempted to crack open, for example, Angebert's The
Occult and the Third Reich. I deliberately avoided drawing on this sort of
literature in my article, and nowhere do I quote or cite any of it. I also
scrupulously refrained from taking advantage of the large body of
literature that falls into the gray zone between serious research and
occult nonsense; I steered clear of Sklar's popular book Gods and Beasts:
The Nazis and the Occult, for example. If I were interested in making
unsubstantiated but commonly repeated charges against Steiner and cohorts,
I'd have quite an array to choose from.
On a related note, had I been out to spread dubious and damaging
insinuations about anthroposophy, I could have had a field day slinging mud
at Steiner simply by quoting extensively from Anna Bramwell's voluminous
work on the connections between anthroposophists and Nazis. Bramwell is,
for better or worse, a professional historian and one of the leading
chroniclers of the "green wing" of the Nazi party, and her two books on the
topic are simply damning toward anthroposophy, at least for anyone who -
unlike Bramwell herself - thinks that systematic collaboration with
characters like Hess and Darre is to be condemned rather than praised. She
says unequivocally that "Hess was a follower of Rudolf Steiner", and much
much more besides; it certainly would have been
tempting to take her work at face value and "print the legend" since it so
perfectly suited my thesis. But of course I explicitly distanced
myself from Bramwell's interpretations both in my article and in the
Ecofascism book, while drawing judiciously and cautiously on the massive
research she's done (rather unavoidable when writing about the "green
wing"). I don't understand how I gave Sean or anyone else the impression
that I'd happily make use of any old rumor about Steiner and anthroposophy
that I could get my hands on, since my article clearly followed precisely
the opposite approach.
) Hess was an early member of the notorious Munich Thule Society (already
) in 1918/19); the same secret society tried to kill "Jewish
) revolutionaries" who came to government in Munich at that time.
) (For details see Hermann Gilbhard: Die Thule-Gesellschaft - Vom okkulten
) Mummenschanz zum Hakenkreuz. München 1994; Detlev Rose: Die
) Thule-Gesellschaft. Legende - Mythos - Wirklichkeit. Tübingen 1994;
) Reginald H. Phelps: Before Hitler Came: Thule Society and Germanenorden.
) In: Journal of Modern History 35 (1963), pp. 245-261; M. Plewnia: Auf dem
) Weg zu Hitler. Der »völkische« Publizist Dietrich Eckart. Bremen 1970.)
Hess did indeed belong to the Thule Society, a group I mentioned
briefly in the Ecofascism book. Steiner's one-time mentor Haeckel also
joined the Thule Society before his death. I'm intrigued by Sean's
favorable mention of Detlev Rose's book, since that book lends support
to my argument about Hess's anthroposophist leanings: on page 132,
Rose writes that "Rudolf Steiner's anthroposophy also influenced him
[Hess]." A cursory reference, to be sure, but one that further erodes
Sean's categorical claim that the responsible literature "NEVER" makes this
association.
) And on May 15, 1922, the Thule Society (Hitler, too, was close to it at
) that time) tried to assassinate the "Jew and Anthroposoph" Rudolf Steiner
) during a public lecture in Munich in the hotel Vier Jahreszeiten. Steiner
) escaped thanks to his alert bodyguards and never held a public lecture
) in Germany again. After the attempted Ludendorff-Hitler putsch in Munich
) in 1923, he said that he would not even touch German soil again, if these
) people would come to power.
Of the many of accounts of this 1922 incident that I've come across,
this is the first to claim that Steiner's attackers intended to assassinate
him. But the incident is certainly real, and telling, though its
significance is, I think, rather different from what Sean seem to make of
it here. Given his evident familiarity with the literature on the Thule
Society, Sean is surely aware that the Vier Jahreszeiten Hotel was a
central gathering point for Munich's ultranationalist far right throughout
the early twenties, and indeed housed the headquarters of the Thule
Society and, moreover, was owned by a Thule member. This raises the obvious
question: if Steiner was such a principled opponent of German nationalism,
as anthroposophist apologists would have us believe, what on earth
was he doing giving a public lecture in such a notorious nest of
nationalist agitation in the first place? The answer to this puzzle is
simple: Steiner was an 'opponent of nationalism' only when viewed through
the peculiar prism of anthroposophy's esoteric lens. In truth he remained
an ardent German nationalist himself, according to any political, rather
than 'spiritual', understanding of the term.
Sean's description of the Munich incident and its aftermath seems to
suggest the following logic: since Hess belonged to an organization that
was overtly hostile to Steiner, he couldn't possibly have believed in
anthroposophy. But this deduction misunderstands the porous nature of the
various right-wing and esoteric groupings so prevalent at the time. Webb's
book, which Sean says he likes a lot, covers this territory fairly
thoroughly, and emphasizes the extent of crossover among these competing
groups. Pages 285-290 of The Occult Establishment explore the interplay
between anthroposophists and "voelkisch" forces, both the overlaps and the
mutual hostilities ("voelkisch" refers to the right-wing populist and
nationalist tendencies that paved the way for the Third Reich). Webb's
description of the campaign against Steiner conducted by other mystical
nationalists, including the Thule Society, shows the extent to which this
rejection of Steiner and his teachings was actually based on ideological
proximity and competition. Webb, who argues that "Steiner was not
really alien to voelkisch thought", concludes: "the voelkisch reaction
[against Steiner] was an admission that both camps were operating
on the same level. And a proportion of the voelkisch rage came from
the realization that here [in anthroposophy] was another vision of the
universe which claimed to be 'spiritual'." (p. 290) The lessons to be
drawn from the 1922 incident point toward, not away from, the thesis of
mutual influence by early Nazis and anthroposophists.
) Hess at that time was quite open for all kind of "occult" phenomena, but
) not particulary for Anthroposophy, even if some Anthroposophists had
) the illusion that Hess, if only addressed, could intervene in their
) favour to protect them from persecution.
I don't buy this "some Anthroposophists" line; even Werner's book
makes clear that practically the entire leadership of German anthroposophy
counted on Hess to protect them, and actively sought his support over and
over again.
)Much more important: Hess' wife Ilse Hess wrote in a letter from
) June 14, 1984 that her husband was not interested in
) Anthroposophy at all ("ihr Mann [hat] sich überhaupt nicht für
) Anthroposophie interessiert"), even if others held the opinion that they
) both were Anthroposophists ["die Meinung, wir seien Anthroposophen,
) [sich] beharrlich hielt"; quoted in "Anthroposophy and
) Nationalsocialism", in: Flensburger Hefte no. 32 (1991), p. 23], --
) especially after Hess' flight to Scotland in 1941, when Martin
) Bormann and Heydrich started their diffamation attack against Hess.
This is the quote anthroposophists always trot out when Hess comes up.
This level of argument has the unfortunate effect of reducing the issue to
a purely terminological one: what exactly does "anthroposophy" mean?
Who knows? Since I'm not an anthroposophist I don't find this question
particularly compelling, so I rely on standardly accepted meanings of the
term, which include a strong attraction to such anthroposophist endeavors
as biodynamic food and anthroposophic medicinals. If this doesn't fit Mrs.
Hess's personal criteria for membership, I don't see why it should concern
us here. There is simply no doubt that Rudolf Hess was strongly "interested
in" various anthroposophic phenomena.
Sean's reliance on this quote puts a revealing focus on this whole
discussion: Why is the claim that Hess was an anthroposophist
being denounced as some sort of reverse slander when not a few
anthroposophists held this view themselves? I fail to see the logic in
that, especially when the prize witness for Sean's side is Hess's wife, who
made countless outrageously false claims about her husband over the years.
) As Marco Pasi could prove in his excellent Ph.D. thesis "Aleister Crowley
) e la tentazione della politica", Milano 1999, chap. 3, Hess was attracted
) to go to Scotland by British occultists like Aleister Crowley who
cooperated
) on this with the secret service M.I.5 (among the contact persons was Ian
) Fleming -- yes 007's father). Crowley, the Beast, had been in Berlin from
) 1930 until 1932. The documents from this very period are missing among
) his papers in the London Warburg Institute.
Uh-oh.... It just got a whole lot harder for me to take Sean
seriously. Up to this point I had been impressed by his
knowledge of the historical literature on Nazi Germany and his
concern to separate the scholarly wheat from the occult chaff. But here I
think he's gone off the deep end. Crowley was a charlatan, not "the
Beast", and his whereabouts in the early thirties (when Hess, by the way,
was in Munich, not Berlin) are of no interest to serious historians. I
thought the British intelligence services' supposed occult involvements had
died with Ellic Howe. This tale sounds much too much like the usual
anthroposophist conspiracy fare. Why was Sean getting so upset earlier
about his (mistaken) impression that I'm too gullible toward occult
sources, when he's willing to swallow a whopper like this? The standard
explanation for Hess's bizarre decision to fly to Britain is that he
deluded himself into thinking he could personally arrange a separate peace
with the British, and that this represented Hitler's own true wishes. I see
no reason to replace that explanation with lurid tales of occult
"attraction".
) The most authoritative scholarly books on the "occult" side of the NS,
) e.g. Ellic Howe: Astrology and the Third Reich. Wellingborough 1984;
) Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke: The Occult Roots of National-Socialism.
) London 1985; Hans Th. Hakl: Nationalsozialismus und Okkultismus,
) in: Gnostika nos.1, 4 and 7/1997; Brigitte Hamann: Hitler's Wien.
) Lehrjahre eines Diktators. München
) 1996; Friedrich Heer: Der Glaube des Adolf Hitler. Anatomie einer
) politischen Religiosität. München-Esslingen 1968, all NEVER mention
) either Rudolf Steiner or Anthroposophy in this context.
I can't completely agree with Sean regarding Howe, but
Goodrick-Clarke's book stands out for its thoughtfulness and professional
standards. Sean is right that it doesn't identify Hess as an
anthroposophist; in fact, Goodrick-Clarke never discusses Hess's views at
all and mentions him only in perfunctory lists of the early Nazi
leadership. His book, while authoritative, is thus immaterial to our
dispute. I don't have Heer's fine book at hand, but I imagine the same
holds true of it as well. To my mind, if one wants to refute the
Hess-Steiner connection, one needs to adduce sources that controvert it,
not ones that ignore it.
On a side note: Goodrick-Clarke does supply interesting information on
Steiner's contribution to racist thought; see pages 101 and 242 in
particular. He also underscores, throughout the book, the porousness of
various competing esoteric racist groups - including anthroposophy - which
I mentioned above, both in terms of personnel and in terms of ideology.
) It can be stated: Hess was NOT an Anthroposophist, nor was he basically
) influenced by Anthroposophy. Sorry.
Of course it can be stated, and anthroposophists are fond of stating
it again and again. But repetition won't make it true. Depending on how one
defines "an Anthroposophist", I might even agree with Sean's first claim.
But it is mere posturing, and a sign of bad faith, to pretend that Hess was
not basically influenced by anthroposophy. Every time this well established
fact has been called into question, I have provided further evidence to
support it; so as not to disappoint all of you, I will gladly do so again.
One of the more recent scholarly books on Nazism and the occult is Rene
Freund's Braune Magie? ("Brown Magic?", brown being the color of Nazism;
Vienna 1995), the subtitle of which translates as "Occultism, New Age, and
National Socialism". Freund writes on p. 68 that Hess "admired
anthroposophy and was secretly a follower of Rudolf Steiner". His source
for this claim is Gestapo chief Walter Schellenberg's memoirs. I will
reiterate what I said originally in response to Detlef: I have yet to
encounter a work of history written by a non-anthroposophist which disputes
this claim. If Sean knows of such a work, I'd appreciate it if he would
produce it.
) An old sworn enemy of Rudolf Steiner since 1920, Jakob Wilhelm Hauer, who
) was eager to prove already in the early 1930s that A. was contrary and
) harming to the (un-)spirit of New Nazi Germany, came forward with this
) story in 1941, when Hess was in Scotland.
Hauer, a mid-level Nazi agitator, was a veritable fountain of
ridiculous stories. Sean seems to be suggesting that later scholars took
some of those stories seriously. That would certainly be surprising, but it
remains pure speculation. None of the many sources I have provided that
describe Hess's anthroposophist leanings draws on Hauer in any way. The
anthroposophist Uwe Werner also makes much of Hauer's primitive
anti-Steiner propaganda, and gives the impression that Hauer dedicated his
career during the Third Reich to making anthroposophists miserable. In
fact, Hauer fanatically hounded all spiritual competitors to his own
favored brand of Teutonic paganism, especially mainstream Christians.
Interestingly enough, another recent book on fascism and esoteric groups
says that Hauer "originally came from Steiner's anthroposophy" (Peter
Kratz, Die Goetter des New Age, Berlin 1994, p. 199; Kratz is another one
of those anti-fascist researchers who get Detlef so riled up). Kratz also
points out that contemporary extreme rightists and race mystics draw
equally on Steiner and on Hauer for their nordic theology.
) And that's how fairy tales start. Many books just copy and recopy the old
) Nazi propaganda on Hess written AFTER 1941. So did Staudenmaier.
This is perplexing indeed. I can't recall so much as mentioning Hauer,
the Ludendorffers, or any other of anthroposophy's not so distant
ideological cousins in my article; perhaps Sean could point to the passages
which suggested to him that I've drawn on this obscurantist literature.
Especially in light of Sean's own fairy tale about the awesome psychic
powers of Mr. Crowley, I must conclude that Sean is suffering from a severe
case of projection.
) I won't
) comment his knowledge of historical sources, which is equal to nil, any
) further. Nor his non-existing care for historical accuracy.
Sean, you're sounding more and more like Detlef. Did you guys go to
school together or something? I've gone over Sean's post a half dozen times
now, and for the life of me I can find only a single instance - the Fest
reference, where I must by default plead no contest - where he even accuses
me of an inaccuracy. And even that instance was taken from an email
exchange, not from my article. So whence these non sequiturs about the
quality of my scholarship?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is all a bit too familiar.
Detlef began by accusing me of falsifying my sources, and it turned he was
the one doing the falsifying. Now Sean, for reasons I am unable to discern,
says that I relied on unreliable occult sources, and then indulges in his
own overly imaginative hypotheses about Hess. Anthroposophists seem to have
a knack for self-refutation. While this doesn't make for a particularly
stimulating intellectual exchange, I hope that at least the rest of you are
being entertained.
Sincerely,
Peter Staudenmaier
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2045.3 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Folk-Spirits in the Bible
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 19:46:22 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200003071630.IAA07121 lists1.best.com)
Dear Christian Czachary,
You write:
) An interesting consideration (by whom?). )But not one quote in the New
) Testament of Enoch? This is New Age stuff in my eyes. Elizabeth Prophet
) makes quite some money with this, that's for sure.) Enoch was never removed
) from the canon, because it was never IN the canon. The editors are lacking a
) lot of knowledge or they are simply lying, to earn some bucks of course.
I had almost never heard of the books, when starting to search for
info on them on the net. What I wrote was my first impression, based
on some links. As I wrote:
))Just trying to sort the concepts, not argue specifically on anything.
Me, based on the the impression of the little I had time to go
through:
) )It seems both books were part of the the 'Old Testament' up to the
) )16th century, after which the Protestant tradition called them
) )"Apocrypha" while the Catholic tradition called them
) )"deuterocanonical" books
) )http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deuteros.htm .
You:
) The book of Enoch and Makabees were not part of the 'Old Testament'
) according to following Bible versions: [snip]
You seem to be right in the strict sense.
However,
On Enoch,
See Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.cdisys.com/netis/demos/catholica/cathen/01602a.htm
'It influenced not only later Jewish apocrypha, but has left its
imprint on the New Testament and the works of the early Fathers.' and
'Passing to the patristic writers, the Book of Henoch enjoyed a high
esteem among them, mainly owing to the quotation in Jude.'
Also,
It seems to have been one of the books of the Second Temple Period
that turned up in Qumran according to
http://metalab.unc.edu/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Library/enoch.html
'The Book of Enoch was not included in either the Hebrew or most
Christian biblical canon'. If I had time, I'd search for what 'most'
hints at.
On the Maccabees:
'Contained in the Catholic Bible, but omitted in the Protestant
Bibles, is a set of books called the Apocrypha.' One of those books is
2 Maccabees (http://www.voicenet.com/~gospel/apocryph.htm) So, it's
included in the Catholic Bible as a third group of books, except for
the Old and New Testament.
Am I right if you seem to mean that the canon of the Catholic Bible
contains 'New Age' material? Or you only mean that the Book of Enoch
that was found at Qumran as part of the Dead See Scrolls is 'New Age',
and therefore not to be taken too seriously?
Regards,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2045.4 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: Goodrick-Clarke
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 13:24:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200003031415.GAA11340 lists1.best.com)
Sean advises me:
) P.S. 2, never make the mistake to agress a member of the religious
minority
) of the Parses, who still practize one of the oldest religious beliefs in
the
) world. In old Avestian (the oldest Iranian language, related to Sanscrit),
) the religious community is called Arya, Arians, because this is the old
name
) for Iranians. It can be dated back to prehistory. They would feel very
) discriminated!
I have no idea what you mean by agressing a member of the Parses. My posts
were intended to point out that it is the European version of the Aryan myth
which agresses against the people of that region, as pointed out by the
scholars from that region that I posted.
Alan Fine
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2045.5 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Der Targesspiegel article mentions Hardorp (translation)
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 13:07:25 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
[Translation by robot, edited by non-German-speaking Dan Dugan with
dictionary in hand]
Der Targesspiegel, March 1, 2000
Rudolf Steiner Schools and Senate Administration frightened by
accusations in "Report"
by Susanne Vieth Entus
There was only one subject in the Berlin Rudolf Steiner Schools
yesterday: the accusations of racism and antisemitism against the
Anthroposophist Rudolf Steiner, and individual teachers of the Rudolf
Steiner Schools, shaped by Steiners work. The pool of broadcasting
corporations magazine "Report" had reported on Monday evening on
this, as documented by students' workbooks. Thereupon the senate
school administration quit making "rounds" in Rudolf Steiner Schools.
The national working group of the Rudolf Steiner Schools in Berlin
Brandenburg is considering a "quality offensive".
"Report" showed the workbooks from the history lessons of elementary
school pupils. They contained allegedly enthusiastic definitions of
'Aryan' concepts as well as prejudice-laden characterizations of
peoples ("the Russian is...", "the Frenchman is..."). It was not
stated from which regions of the Federal Republic and schools the
booklets originated. In addition "Report" presented quotations from
Steiner which--at least when seen in isolation--could be
characterized as anti-Semitic and racist views.
Yesterday the national working group of the Rudolf Steiner Schools
appeared to be a little surprised over the accusations. Its education
policy speaker, Detlef Hardorp, said when asked that the "attacks"
were not new. Quotations from Steiner were disconnected and thus
completely falsified. The Steiner group takes the extracts from the
student workbooks more seriously. Naturally the word 'Aryan' does not
belong in lessons. Hardorp stresses however also that such terms had
different meaning in 1933. Additionally it means, "that one should
not stereotype peoples", how this was to be reread obviously in one
of the pupil booklets. In order to prevent such derailing in Berlin
Brandenburg, the working group proposes a "quality offensive": The
school leadership conferences could bring "black sheep" back on the
track through intensive discussions.
Hardorp sees in the "Report" contribution "a relatively well
organized group" at the organization, which has tried for a long time
to connect everything possible with Steiner being racistic. This
group makes a "subtle ploy", if it submits the history booklets now,
without saying what school they are from. In all other respects one
should recall that even the long-time chairman of the Jewish
community, Heinz Galinski, had his daughter in the Rudolf Steiner
school in Berlin.
Since this is about the private Rudolf Steiner Schools, their
supervision is directly incumbent on the Senate School
Administration. Here, according to "Report", "some were scared
stiff". The Administration will probably try to make some unannounced
"rounds" to look at students' work. They have good experiences with
the Rudolf Steiner Schools in general, which would apply "very
liberally" in Berlin. Parents have given "improbably positive
acknowledgements".
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2045.6 ---------------
From: Peter Farrell (peter.farrell vu.edu.au)
Subject: Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 10:23:29 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Joel Wendt responds to my skeptics post with an anecdote and a claim that
there is more than one way to know.
I accept that your account of your child's illness and recovery was one
hundred percent accurate. This does not convince me of the efficacy of
homeopathy. I did describe a simple experiment which would change my mind.
The difficulty with the progress of any single human's wellness or ill
health is that these are complicated by so many factors that it is
difficult or impossible to determine a cause or causes for many outcomes.
We are fortunate to benefit from the work of another very influential man,
R A Fisher, who among others constructed modern statistics. The point of
statistics is that it allows us to determine in complicated circumstances
regardless of your belief about a particular mechanism whether or not there
is a correlation between two events (not the best word) which is different
from chance. As far as I am aware, the efficacy of homeopathy as tested by
these methods is not (very) different from chance. As well, there are
serious difficulties with water memory models. I don't believe that
homeopathy is consistent with thermodynamics.
I am perfectly happy for you, and indeed anyone else, to believe in
homeopathy. I don't. I described an experimental outcome which would change
my mind. Anecdotal evidence is helpful in so far as it assists in designing
such crucial experiments but in this particular case it's not enough,
because you are asking me at the same time to make serious and fundamental
changes to the extremely well tested theories known collectively as
statistical mechanics and thermodynamics.
The analogy that comes to my mind for the anecdotal argument is the claims
made by smokers like, "I've been smoking for years and I'm not dead yet,
cough cough." It's true there are 90 year old smokers. But the statistics
are clear, the mechanisms are becoming clearer. Smoking is bad for you. I
think the data is in on homeopathy. It is consistent with placebo. Sugar
pills are cheaper.
Is what I am saying inconsistent with Joel's claim that there is more than
one way to know? This is a very interesting question. I want to talk about
some other questions you and I might think about? For example, does your
wife (partner, lover as appropriate) love you? How could you know this? How
much certainty do you want? Doing a statistical test is tricky? Few of us
have statistical samples of wives or lovers. Certainly not me. I think this
kind of question is a question where scientific ideas don't help a great
deal, only a little bit. It is till true that individuals think things like
"if she loved me, she would or wouldn't...". This is a test, often unspoken.
I think that Joel's assertion probably does apply to questions of this
sort. However I happen to believe in a possibly contentious notion. That is
that there is a single truth if you like. If homeopathy works, then it
ought to work for the statistical tests as well as for the anecdotes. If it
doesn't (which is the case), then the onus is on the homeopaths to
reformulate their theoretical basis and their practice.
[Joel]
)If the homeopathic physician and the patient are satisfied with the result,
)will the "skeptic" accept that there was a "result".
The short answer is no. There is an enormous body of evidence to suggest
that positive outcomes could have been achieved with appropriate belief on
the parts of the practitioner, the patient and in the case above the
parent, regardless of the method of treatment. If the method of treatment
is irrelevant, in what sense can one claim that it is the method that works.
the very diluted Peter
Peter Farrell Phone (+613) 9688 4282
Optical Technology Research Laboratory Fax (+613) 9688 4698
School of Communications and Informatics(F119)
Victoria University Email peter.farrell vu.edu.au
PO Box 14428 MCMC
Melbourne 8001 Australia
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2045.7 ---------------
From: Sean Slovan (sean.slovan gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's use of sources [from Peter Staudenmaier]
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 00:34:27 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (200003071710.JAA00293 lists1.best.com)
) [From Peter Staudenmaier -Dan Dugan]
) Strangely, Sean's post does not address my article, but only the last
) installment of my exchange with Detlef Hardorp. There I named four further
) sources of "evidence for the determinate influence of anthroposophy on
) Hess's thinking", as I put it in that message. As I explained then, I don't
) consider the matter of Hess's adherence to anthroposophy particularly
) significant, but I pointed out that there is no scholarly divide on the
) issue. Aside from anthroposophists, no scholar who has addressed the
) question of anthroposophy's influence on Hess has either denied or
) minimized that influence, as far as I am aware.
As far as I am aware, "Anthrop. influence on Hess" and "Hess being an
Anthropos." are two separate matters.
)Sean has so far provided no
) evidence to the contrary.
????
)Since that was the substance of my argument in
) the passage of mine which Sean quotes, the rest of Sean's post strikes me
) as quite irrelevant.
Of course...
)He lists, for some reason, several fine works which
) have nothing to say either way on the question at hand. It would make as
) much sense for me to argue, with reference to the very same works, that
) "the most authoritative scholarly books on the "occult" side of the Nazis
) NEVER deny, or even so much as cast doubt on, Hess's anthroposophist
) inclinations." It will be difficult to settle our dispute by relying on
) works which do not concern themselves with it.
We are talking about the biography of Hess, aren't we? And what exactly are
"anthroposophist inclinations"? Eating bio-dynamical food? If the
relationship between Anth. and NS is that close, why was Hess so isolated
among his fellow party-comrades?
) Sean's post does, however, raise several interesting issues, even if
) their connection to what I wrote is not always apparent. I will follow the
) order of his presentation:
)) Schwarzwaeller's book is a popular account, without references nor
)) footnotes. On p. 159 he mentions that Hess was a greedy reader of obscure
)) writings on Homeopathy, nature healing and eye diagnostics, that he tried
)) to get into contact with all kind of prophets, astrologers and diviners,
) and
)) that he studied books on Theosophy and Anthroposophy as well. He was
)) especially interested in bio-dynamical agriculture (as he was very
)) concerned with healthy nutrition and always afraid of being poisoned) and
)) in Waldorf education. No statement as to Hess being an Anthroposophist.
)
) I believe this is the crux of our disagreement. I don't know what it
) takes to "be an anthroposophist" on Sean's terms, but this catalogue of
) Hess's predilections certainly suggests a more than amateur interest in
) the doctrine.
Yes, he was fond of all sorts of occultism.
) Since Sean knows Smelser,
) perhaps he will consider sending him my article along with our present
) exchange and ask him for an opinion of our respective "use of sources."
I shall.
) Of the many of accounts of this 1922 incident that I've come across,
) this is the first to claim that Steiner's attackers intended to assassinate
) him. But the incident is certainly real, and telling, though its
) significance is, I think, rather different from what Sean seem to make of
) it here. Given his evident familiarity with the literature on the Thule
) Society, Sean is surely aware that the Vier Jahreszeiten Hotel was a
) central gathering point for Munich's ultranationalist far right throughout
) the early twenties, and indeed housed the headquarters of the Thule
) Society and, moreover, was owned by a Thule member.
Yes, indeed.
)This raises the obvious
) question: if Steiner was such a principled opponent of German nationalism,
) as anthroposophist apologists would have us believe, what on earth
) was he doing giving a public lecture in such a notorious nest of
) nationalist agitation in the first place? The answer to this puzzle is
) simple: Steiner was an 'opponent of nationalism' only when viewed through
) the peculiar prism of anthroposophy's esoteric lens. In truth he remained
) an ardent German nationalist himself, according to any political, rather
) than 'spiritual', understanding of the term.
The public lecture in the hotel was arranged and organized by the big
concert agency Sachs & Wolff, with stop-overs in ten German towns. Vier
Jahreszeiten was (and still is) one of the "best addresses" in town.
) Sean's description of the Munich incident and its aftermath seems to
) suggest the following logic: since Hess belonged to an organization that
) was overtly hostile to Steiner, he couldn't possibly have believed in
) anthroposophy. But this deduction misunderstands the porous nature of the
) various right-wing and esoteric groupings so prevalent at the time. Webb's
) book, which Sean says he likes a lot, covers this territory fairly
) thoroughly, and emphasizes the extent of crossover among these competing
) groups. Pages 285-290 of The Occult Establishment explore the interplay
) between anthroposophists and "voelkisch" forces, both the overlaps and the
) mutual hostilities ("voelkisch" refers to the right-wing populist and
) nationalist tendencies that paved the way for the Third Reich). Webb's
) description of the campaign against Steiner conducted by other mystical
) nationalists, including the Thule Society, shows the extent to which this
) rejection of Steiner and his teachings was actually based on ideological
) proximity and competition. Webb, who argues that "Steiner was not
) really alien to voelkisch thought", concludes: "the voelkisch reaction
) [against Steiner] was an admission that both camps were operating
) on the same level. And a proportion of the voelkisch rage came from
) the realization that here [in anthroposophy] was another vision of the
) universe which claimed to be 'spiritual'." (p. 290) The lessons to be
) drawn from the 1922 incident point toward, not away from, the thesis of
) mutual influence by early Nazis and anthroposophists.
I shall post and comment Webb's full text later on.
)) Much more important: Hess' wife Ilse Hess wrote in a letter from
)) June 14, 1984 that her husband was not interested in
)) Anthroposophy at all ("ihr Mann [hat] sich überhaupt nicht für
)) Anthroposophie interessiert"), even if others held the opinion that they
)) both were Anthroposophists ["die Meinung, wir seien Anthroposophen,
)) [sich] beharrlich hielt"; quoted in "Anthroposophy and
)) Nationalsocialism", in: Flensburger Hefte no. 32 (1991), p. 23], --
)) especially after Hess' flight to Scotland in 1941, when Martin
)) Bormann and Heydrich started their diffamation attack against Hess.
)
) This is the quote anthroposophists always trot out when Hess comes up.
) This level of argument has the unfortunate effect of reducing the issue to
) a purely terminological one: what exactly does "anthroposophy" mean?
) Who knows?
Yes, Pan Staudenmaier is right, that exactly is the problem, the main crux.
Someone once said: "What is truth?"
)) As Marco Pasi could prove in his excellent Ph.D. thesis "Aleister Crowley
)) e la tentazione della politica", Milano 1999, chap. 3, Hess was attracted
)) to go to Scotland by British occultists like Aleister Crowley who
) )cooperated
)) on this with the secret service M.I.5 (among the contact persons was Ian
)) Fleming -- yes 007's father). Crowley, the Beast, had been in Berlin from
)) 1930 until 1932. The documents from this very period are missing among
)) his papers in the London Warburg Institute.
)
) Uh-oh.... It just got a whole lot harder for me to take Sean
) seriously. Up to this point I had been impressed by his
) knowledge of the historical literature on Nazi Germany and his
) concern to separate the scholarly wheat from the occult chaff. But here I
) think he's gone off the deep end. Crowley was a charlatan, not "the
) Beast",
That's how he called himself.
)and his whereabouts in the early thirties (when Hess, by the way,
) was in Munich, not Berlin) are of no interest to serious historians.
I wouldn't be so sure about that.
)I
) thought the British intelligence services' supposed occult involvements had
) died with Ellic Howe. This tale sounds much too much like the usual
) anthroposophist conspiracy fare.
)Why was Sean getting so upset earlier
) about his (mistaken) impression that I'm too gullible toward occult
) sources, when he's willing to swallow a whopper like this?
Marco Pasi's Ph.D. at the University of Milan was accepted by the Ecole
Pratique des Hautes Etudes in Paris. It is serious work of historic
scholarship. He had access to archival sources at the Warburg Institute
London (Yorke Collection) and at the Liddell Hart Centre for Military
Archives, King's College, London. Hess was not "bewitched" by Crowley, but
Crowley was engaged in intelligence work. No magick, but very effective
secret service techniques. The aim was of course to make Hess believe that
there was a NS-friendly fraction in Britain that was ready to negociate.
I would check source evidence (archives) before I bark.
) standards. Sean is right that it doesn't identify Hess as an
) anthroposophist; in fact, Goodrick-Clarke never discusses Hess's views at
) all and mentions him only in perfunctory lists of the early Nazi
) leadership. His book, while authoritative, is thus immaterial to our
) dispute. I don't have Heer's fine book at hand, but I imagine the same
) holds true of it as well. To my mind, if one wants to refute the
) Hess-Steiner connection, one needs to adduce sources that controvert it,
) not ones that ignore it.
Does any of the books give a personal statement of Hess on Anthroposophy or
Steiner? Any archival source quoted? Any letter, diary clip, conversation?
) On a side note: Goodrick-Clarke does supply interesting information on
) Steiner's contribution to racist thought; see pages 101 and 242 in
) particular.
I commented on that before.
)He also underscores, throughout the book, the porousness of
) various competing esoteric racist groups - including anthroposophy - which
) I mentioned above, both in terms of personnel and in terms of ideology.
)
)) It can be stated: Hess was NOT an Anthroposophist, nor was he basically
)) influenced by Anthroposophy. Sorry.
)
) Of course it can be stated, and anthroposophists are fond of stating
) it again and again. But repetition won't make it true. Depending on how one
) defines "an Anthroposophist", I might even agree with Sean's first claim.
) But it is mere posturing, and a sign of bad faith, to pretend that Hess was
) not basically influenced by anthroposophy. Every time this well established
) fact has been called into question, I have provided further evidence to
) support it; so as not to disappoint all of you, I will gladly do so again.
) One of the more recent scholarly books on Nazism and the occult is Rene
) Freund's Braune Magie? ("Brown Magic?", brown being the color of Nazism;
) Vienna 1995), the subtitle of which translates as "Occultism, New Age, and
) National Socialism". Freund writes on p. 68 that Hess "admired
) anthroposophy and was secretly a follower of Rudolf Steiner". His source
) for this claim is Gestapo chief Walter Schellenberg's memoirs.
A good source, indeed, after what had happened in 1941. Bormann said the
same thing.
) Hauer, a mid-level Nazi agitator, was a veritable fountain of
) ridiculous stories. Sean seems to be suggesting that later scholars took
) some of those stories seriously. That would certainly be surprising, but it
) remains pure speculation. None of the many sources I have provided that
) describe Hess's anthroposophist leanings draws on Hauer in any way. The
) anthroposophist Uwe Werner also makes much of Hauer's primitive
) anti-Steiner propaganda, and gives the impression that Hauer dedicated his
) career during the Third Reich to making anthroposophists miserable. In
) fact, Hauer fanatically hounded all spiritual competitors to his own
) favored brand of Teutonic paganism, especially mainstream Christians.
) Interestingly enough, another recent book on fascism and esoteric groups
) says that Hauer "originally came from Steiner's anthroposophy"
I commented on that before.
) Now Sean, for reasons I am unable to discern,
) says that I relied on unreliable occult sources, and then indulges in his
) own overly imaginative hypotheses about Hess.
See above.
Seán Slovan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n2045 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n2046 --------------
001 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - The past: race-tribe, today: culture-)individual
002 - Peter Farrell (peter.farr - Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
003 - "Christian Czachary" (chr - RE: Folk-Spirits in the Bible
004 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: The past: race-tribe, today: culture-)individual
005 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: The past: race-tribe, today: culture-)individual
006 - "joseph robinson" (joseph - Res. to Mr. Fine: HeyatawinRe: The past: race-tribe, today: c
007 - Sean Slovan (sean.slovan - What is historical evidence?
008 - njpmail mindspring.com (Y - Re: Critics List - the Movie
009 - njpmail mindspring.com (Y - Re: Jewish wisdom
010 - njpmail mindspring.com (Y - Re: Jewish wisdom
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2046.1 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: The past: race-tribe, today: culture-)individual
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 01:03:54 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200002281253.EAA12687 lists1.best.com) (200002281812.KAA26760 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan wrote (26 Feb):
Tom:
) )The concept of root-races is strictly a theosophical, NOT an
) )anthroposophical one!
) )Rudolf Steiner did NOT use the term after having parted with the
) )theosophical society. To get it straight: how often does he use the term
) )in his book "Occult Science" where he describes the cultures in the most
) )elaborate way?
) )I don't think any critic will answer, because again it would be too
) )embarassing to do so.
Dan:
) He changed the terminology, not the concept. You've chosen to ignore
) the quotes that prove this.
No, Tom does not ignore it. I know you must have loads of postings to
scan. But you seem to have missed what I posted two days before this
posting (26 Feb) by you, showing Steiner not only changed the
terminology, but also understanding of the subject.
According to Steiner, (see below)
'The concept of race in a proper sense was only useful at the old
Atlantis. Therefore we have, as we count with a real evolution of
humanity, not used the concept of race for the post-Atlantean time'
and 'one has to overcome this child disease and become clear about
that the concept of race ceases to have any meaning/importance
specifically in our time'.
According to Steiner (as that is what is discussed here), during the
development following the cultural epochs we presently experience, all
talk of 'races' will have become completly meaningless to talk about.
******************************
Steiner (1909) on the importance of overcoming that which is racial
(II) Datum: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 02:30:55
Rudolf Steiner:
'The concept of race in a proper sense was only useful at the old
Atlantis. Therefore we have, as we count with a real evolution of
humanity, not used the concept of race for the post-Atlantean time. We
don't speak of an Indian race and so on, as it isn't proper any more.
We speak of an Old Indian cultural epoch, of an Old Persian cultural
epoch and so on.
It would have completely no sense if we were to speak of that we in
our time were preparing for a sixth 'race'. If we in our time still
see remains of the old Atlantean differences, remaining old group
soulishness, so that you still can speak of a differentiation into
races - what is preparing itself for the sixth epoch consists
specifically in getting rid of and leaving behind that which is
'racial character'. That is the important thing.
Therefore it is necessary, that that movement that is called the
anthroposophical movement, that prepares for the sixth epoch in its
basic character takes up especially this task of getting rid of that
which related to 'racial character' and to unite people of all races,
of all nations and in this way bridging this differentiation, these
differences, this abyss, that exists between different groups of
people. Because that which are old racial points of view has a
physical character, and that which will develop into the future has a
spiritual character.
That is the reason it is so urgently necessary that our
anthroposophical movement is a spiritual movement, that looks at that
which is spiritual and overcomes specifically that which is based on
physical differences out of the force of this spirituality. It is
completely understandable that every movement has its child diseases
and that one at the beginning of the theosophical movement described
what it is about as if the evolution of the Earth so to speak was
diferrentiated into seven epochs - they were called 'main races' (root
races My comment. S.N.) - and that every 'root race' was
differentiated into seven 'sub-races', and that everything would
repeat itself that way for ever, so that you for ever could speak of
seven 'races' and seven 'sub-races'. But one has to overcome this
child disease and become clear about that the concept of race ceases
to have any meaning/importance specifically in our time'
Something else is preparing itself - something that in the most
eminent sense has to do with the human individuality - the ever more
increasing individualisation of man. What it is about is that this
development of the individuality is supported in the right way, and
the anthroposophical movement has to support this development of
individuality in man in the right way.'
4 December 1909, in: The deeper secrets of the development of humanity
in the light of the gospels (GA 117)
***********************************
Dan:
) All Waldorf schools, including the publicly funded ones, teach the
) exact sequence of sub-races of the Aryan root-race that Blavatsky and
) Steiner laid out. Other ancient history programs do not.
Waldorf schools don't teach about 'sub'races'. They also as a rule
don't teach about 'root races' in any other way than as Plato
describing something about a mythical culture called 'Atlantis', west
of the Pillars of Heracles at Gibraltar, giving a Solon via Dropides
and Critias as source. Using Steiner as source for teaching something
in the lower classes about it that can not be documented from other
sources, as has been done in some cases, is, I think, undefendable.
Waldorf schools describe a number of basic cultures that seem to
follow a pattern, from the last glacial epoch up to our present time
in a way that somewhat corresponds to the inner development of
children at different ages, not very different from the way I was
taught history during my time in school during the 50s'-60s' (a
completely non-waldorf school). In the upper classes, at the latest,
at least also all other more important cultures too should be treated.
The first two of these cultures are more mythological and normally (in
non-waldorf schools) maybe not much pointed to, as they are so
sparsely documented. In general, I find that they can be qualitatively
described as sequential. As I tried to show partly in a posting on 29
Feb (23:07 on Jewish wisdom) I think the sequence of the cultures
Egyptian-Chaldean-Babylonean, Greek-Roman, and finally the Western
European dominated culture developing since the end of the Middle Ages
can be rather well documented as a basic sequence, as also in their
timing as 'cultural epochs'.
So, I think you're basically wrong on all points in your answer to
Tom.
Regards,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2046.2 ---------------
From: Peter Farrell (peter.farrell vu.edu.au)
Subject: Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 11:28:22 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I wanted to add to my response to Joel in particular to this
) One of the items that has come up on the list in the past is the suggestion
)that "knowledge", in order to be "scientific" has to follow certain types of
)"protocols".
There is an implication in this which I didn't pick up on my previous
reading that these protocols are fixed and final. That is not so. They grow
and develop and new ones appear as is the case with most human activity.
The whole point about any scientific argument is that the bases have to be
covered. The point at issue is that I think that any measurements on
homeopathic objects are flawed by the measurers knowledge of them. I am not
asking that they be made in any way which distorts what the homeopath is
trying to achieve. What I am trying to do is to design an experiment which
examines two different beliefs about why a measurement might return a
particular result. In the homeopathy experiment (with the absence of double
blind) I described previously, the two reasons are (homeopath) the two
different sub Avagadro remedies really are different and have healing
properties, and (Peter) the two different sub Avagadro remedies are
identical and any difference is due to (subconscious) manipulation by the
measurer.
Double blind is an excellent method to distinguish these two. If Joel or
anyone else for that matter wants to describe an alternative protocol which
will sort these out, I'm all ears.
Having said that what's wrong with double blind. Double blind is playing
poker without looking at the other players' cards. What's wrong with that?
Check out the subject line. I've really made the big time. Same billing as
Goethe but I come first.
A little less diluted Peter
Peter Farrell Phone (+613) 9688 4282
Optical Technology Research Laboratory Fax (+613) 9688 4698
School of Communications and Informatics(F119)
Victoria University Email peter.farrell vu.edu.au
PO Box 14428 MCMC
Melbourne 8001 Australia
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2046.3 ---------------
From: "Christian Czachary" (christian gammaresearch.com)
Subject: RE: Folk-Spirits in the Bible
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 17:28:01 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (200003071848.KAA06629 lists1.best.com)
)Am I right if you seem to mean that the canon of the Catholic Bible
)contains 'New Age' material? Or you only mean that the Book of Enoch
)that was found at Qumran as part of the Dead See Scrolls is 'New Age',
)and therefore not to be taken too seriously?
)
Sune, you raise some interesting question, but we should follow this
discussion off list because it will not be possible to pretend to be
on-topic anymore.
kind regards,
Christian
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2046.4 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: The past: race-tribe, today: culture-)individual
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 18:40:01 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200002281253.EAA12687 lists1.best.com) (200002281812.KAA26760 lists1.best.com) (200003080006.QAA21377 lists1.best.com)
In support of Steiner not being a racist, Sune offers a Steiner quote:
) Therefore it is necessary, that that movement that is called the
) anthroposophical movement, that prepares for the sixth epoch in its
) basic character takes up especially this task of getting rid of that
) which related to 'racial character' and to unite people of all races,
) of all nations and in this way bridging this differentiation, these
) differences, this abyss, that exists between different groups of
) people. Because that which are old racial points of view has a
) physical character, and that which will develop into the future has a
) spiritual character.
Is Steiner not saying that there is in fact a spiritual racial point of
view? If so it worse than the physical racial point of view in my book.
Alan Fine
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2046.5 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: The past: race-tribe, today: culture-)individual
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 21:25:13 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Alan Fine]
)
) In support of Steiner not being a racist, Sune offers a Steiner quote:
)
) ) Therefore it is necessary, that that movement that is called the
) ) anthroposophical movement, that prepares for the sixth epoch in its
) ) basic character takes up especially this task of getting rid of that
) ) which related to 'racial character' and to unite people of
) all races,
) ) of all nations and in this way bridging this differentiation, these
) ) differences, this abyss, that exists between different groups of
) ) people. Because that which are old racial points of view has a
) ) physical character, and that which will develop into the
) future has a
) ) spiritual character.
)
) Is Steiner not saying that there is in fact a spiritual
) racial point of
) view? If so it worse than the physical racial point of view
) in my book.
)
) Alan Fine
)
[Bob Tolz]
I really don't follow how you get that reading from the quote.
Would you please elaborate on your thinking here? What's a "spiritual
racial point of view?"
The quote seems pretty easy to understand to me: Steiner sees
racial differences as something which needs to be bridged and transcended.
Don't you agree with that? I'm mystified by your apparent disagreement.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2046.6 ---------------
From: "joseph robinson" (joseph_robins hotmail.com)
Subject: Res. to Mr. Fine: HeyatawinRe: The past: race-tribe, today: culture-)individual
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 19:13:36 PST
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
)From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)Subject: Re: The past: race-tribe, today: culture-)individual
)Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 18:40:01 -0700
)
)In support of Steiner not being a racist, Sune offers a Steiner quote:
)
) ) Therefore it is necessary, that that movement that is called the
) ) anthroposophical movement, that prepares for the sixth epoch in its
) ) basic character takes up especially this task of getting rid of that
) ) which related to 'racial character' and to unite people of all races,
) ) of all nations and in this way bridging this differentiation, these
) ) differences, this abyss, that exists between different groups of
) ) people. Because that which are old racial points of view has a
) ) physical character, and that which will develop into the future has a
) ) spiritual character.
)
)Is Steiner not saying that there is in fact a spiritual racial point of
)view? If so it worse than the physical racial point of view in my book.
)
)Alan Fine
To Mr. Alan Fine,
I am very busy with studies etc. at the moment, so wanted to take
a moment to say "thank - you" re: the above.
Heyatawin
)
)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2046.7 ---------------
From: Sean Slovan (sean.slovan gmx.net)
Subject: What is historical evidence?
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 09:35:23 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: (200003072336.PAA27318 lists1.best.com)
I don't want to turn this into a history lesson and to thereby bore you to
death, but I'd like to make several basic observations with regard to the
question: Was Hess an Anthroposophist, had Anthroposophy a "determinate
influence" on him or not?
The problem, as I perceive it, is the following: There is no study yet, at
least known to me (please enlighten my ignorance), that examines
specifically the mental roots of Hess. It is important to note that all the
books known to me and quoted in my and Mr. Staudenmaier's contribution give
remarks like "Rudolf Steiner's anthroposophy also influenced him", but fail
to develop this assertion (because most of them are not interested in this
aspect of Hess's life), simply repeat other authors who wrote the same short
sentence, and never give archival sources as well. I did not and would not
deny that Hess WAS indeed influenced, since he read (I don't know how many)
anthrop. books next to other books on the "occult sciences", and he knew
Anthroposophists personally. But to state that something had a "determinate
influence", you need concrete evidence: personal statements, letters,
documents, drafts etc. And what kind of ideas did Hess actually pick up? Did
his thinking on race originate from the reading of Steiner?
If one takes the books like those by Webb, Fest, Orzechowski etc. etc., one
has to check the sources they are referring to.
Two examples:
1. Hauer "originally came from Steiner's anthroposophy" (Peter Kratz, Die
Goetter des New Age, Berlin 1994, p. 199).
I wrote on this:
)The Ukrainian Schwarz-Bostunitsch, an anti-semite and
) anti-mason agitator, who was fond of occultism since his early days in Kiev.
) He indeed worked in Rosenberg's "Weltdienst" news agency since 1925, and later
) turned to the SS only to eventually become SS-Standartenführer. It is true
) that from 1923 until 1925, S-B appreciated Rudolf Steiner as someone who freed
) the "occult sciences" from obscurantism, but his attitude changed dramatically
) when he joined Rosenberg's services. In 1929, he published in Munich one of
) the fiercest attacks AGAINST Rudolf Steiner, a pamphlet called "Rudolf Steiner
) -- a swindler like no other". He had "discovered" by now that Steiner was a
) "Jew", working as a mole in order to promote the "jewish-masonic conspiracy",
) a theory Rosenberg was so fond of, etc.
Is this enough to support the claim that he "originally came from Steiner's
anthroposophy"?
2. Mr. Staudenmaier quoted from Rene Freund's "Brown Magic? Occultism, New
Age, and National Socialism", on p. 68: Hess "admired anthroposophy and was
secretly a follower of Rudolf Steiner". His source for this claim is Gestapo
chief Walter Schellenberg's memoirs.
Now, this suits Mr. Staudenmaier's assertion. But again, what is the
background to Gestapo chief Schellenberg's claim? Schellenberg was at the
head of the SD-Auslandsdienst, the NS intelligence service. His superior was
Reinhard Heydrich. Archival evidence shows that Heydrich orchestrated the
diffamation campaign against Hess in May 1941, when Hess went to Scotland.
I wrote already what this intelligence campaign was all about: Hess was a
victim of Rudolf Steiner, who was of Jewish origin, who had already
manipulated by occult means General von Moltke back in 1914, when the German
army under the command of the latter lost the battle on the Marne. This
Steiner was an anti-German Cagliostro, an anti-German "Theosoph, Jew,
Freemason and Communist". How credible is the former head of the service
that orchestrated the diffamation campaign?
On the other hand, Mr. Staudenmaier dismisses the written testimony of
Hess's wife Ilse by simply stating that she "made countless outrageously
false claims about her husband over the years". That's an easy way to refute
Ilse Hess, of course.
Again: As long as one doesn't produce first hand evidence (personal
statements, letters, documents, diaries, drafts, direct table talks etc.),
it is for a historian not legitimate to assert that Hess was
Anthroposophist, or Anthroposophy had a "determinate influence" on him.
(Actually, Mr. Staudenmaier first claimed that he was "Anthroposophist" full
stop.) I am ready to be convinced of this assertion as soon as this reliable
evidence is produced.
Another aspect of this problem: A 750-pages book has been written by the
liberal Catholic historian Friedrich Heer on the "Faith of Adolf Hitler",
where Heer in fact GIVES enough evidence to prove that Hitler was strongly
influenced by his Catholic background and upbringing. One can demonstate how
the NS state copied countless aspects of the Catholic rituals. Hitler's
speeches are full of Catholic allusions. But was Hitler a Catholic? Was he
-- a Christian? While there enough evidence to deny the latter and to show
that Hitler's stance was anti-christian, there are whole documentary volumes
that show the extent of active collaboration of both Churches, Catholic and
Protestant, in Nazi Germany (only a minority in these Churches was
resisting). But the main question here is: Was Hitler a Catholic or a
Christian, because he had read the Gospels, and used elements from the
Gospels for his purpose?
One could write an equally voluminous book on Stalin, showing how the former
priest candiate read the Gospels and especially the Epistles of Paul and the
Revelation of John, only to transform Bolshevism in a religious cult that
had countless parallels to Orthodoxy. The whole system of Bolshevik ideology
was developed in Christian chiliastic metaphors and images (that's why it
had such an effect on people). The New Man and the New Earth. The Communist
Red as the dawn of the New Morning. Lenin's brain as the cristalized Holy
Ghost. (Even Lenin's language is full of "materialized" Christian formulas.)
But were Stalin, who "originally came from Georgian orthodoxy" ("Jesus's
Sermon on the Mount also influenced him"), or Lenin -- Christians? Was Jesus
a forerunner of Lenin? There are people who maintain such an assertion. I do
not belong to them.
To paraphrase the problem in the words of Mr. Staudenmaier:
This level of argument has the unfortunate effect of reducing the issue to
a purely terminological one: what exactly does "Christian" mean?
Who knows? If I weren't a Christian, I wouldn't find this question
particularly compelling, so I rely on standardly accepted meanings of the
term, which include a strong attraction to such Christian endeavors as cult,
ritual and creed/worship formulas. If this doesn't fit Hitler's/Stalin's
personal criteria for membership, I don't see why it should concern us here.
Seán Slovan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2046.8 ---------------
From: njpmail mindspring.com (Yael Resnick)
Subject: Re: Critics List - the Movie
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 03:41:19 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I realize my role will be minor but please do find out if Teri Garr would
like a part in the Critics movie... (no, I'm not blond - the similarity is
more temperamental than physical).
Holly Hunter would be another good choice...
*****
Yael Resnick, Publisher/Editor, Natural Jewish Parenting
The only magazine dedicated to a Jewish perspective
on childraising and family health!
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2046.9 ---------------
From: njpmail mindspring.com (Yael Resnick)
Subject: Re: Jewish wisdom
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 03:41:17 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Joe wrote:
) History seems to suggest that some aspects of a culture require the
)"people"
)to continue, as a separate group, in order for the traditions to continue.
)Clearly the modern world contains much that works against that, that blurs the
)lines between one people and the next, and tends to merge them in some kind of
)new capitalist-feudal world culture. Already there is a distinct class of
)corporate managers that less and less identifies itself with any particular
)people, language or nation-state. Will "being Jewish" die in such a historical
)process?
)
) Actually, I would hope not, at least not completely. I find the diversity
)of peoples to be very wonderful. So many different ways of being in the world.
)At the same time, I have noticed that individuality is on the rise, that
)individuals are choosing the throw off their own heritages. It is as if what a
)single personality actually was, was something greater than being a member of a
)traditional community, people, nation, or language group. Like a butterfly
)emerging from a necessary, but no longer useful cocoon.
Joe, the facts do not support your assertion that individuals are "choosing
to throw off their own heritages." I can't speak for people of other
heritages, but at least in a Jewish context, this is simply not true. The
trend among Jews from across the spectrum of observance is to begin to add
in Jewish learning and practice... the Reform movement is moving toward
more outward expressions of Jewishness, the Conservative movement is
inching toward closer adherence to Jewish law, and I myself am part of a
definite trend in which people are choosing a fully observant Jewish
lifestyle as adults, and raising families in this way.
(Of course, these days, if you're Jewish, becoming Torah-observant is still
the ultimate rebellion and expression of one's own individuality... Have
you ever noticed that people who pride themselves on being such
"individuals" tend to all bear a remarkable resemblance? :)
Yael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2046.10 ---------------
From: njpmail mindspring.com (Yael Resnick)
Subject: Re: Jewish wisdom
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 03:41:16 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
A few days back, Sune wrote:
)Integrating the culture of different Jewish groups around the world in
)a natural way into the cultural environment where it exists, that has
)to a large extent also been the case is, I think, something that is a
)good development that should be striven for.
I don't understand why Jewish "culture," if I understand you correctly, is
somehow valuable or acceptable only when it is "integrated" into other
cultural environments, and not when it stands on its own, in its own
national/cultural/religious environment.
)
)What I think upset a number of members of also the Jewish community
)around the world when the thought came up of a return to a sort of
)pre-Diaspora state, was the concept of today to found a new/old
)_state_ based on the dominance of a more or less purely
)_ethnic/cultural_ group, with laws for all the members of the state
)based on that _ethnic/cultural_ group, not more generally human
)perspectives.
The Torah itself states that Jews will reunite in Israel in the time of
Moshiach. It was not a matter of a "thought" that "came up," but, rather,
has always been a very basic part of Judaism itself. Also, Israel as a
Jewish state has nothing to do with "dominance" of a particular (Jewish)
group, but rather is meant to be the safe homeland for the Jews.
When you try to shoehorn Judaism into some generic humanistic ideal that
holds that "ethnic/cultural groups" should "integrate" themselves into
their larger cultural environments, you destroy Judaism, plain and simple.
It's not unlike someone saying that Sune should ideally please integrate
himself into his environment and stop being quite so... so... Sune-ish...
(no offense intended; I'm just making an example).
)
)This is an unlucky tendency that has become increasingly common with
)always unhappy results around the world, one of the latest one being
)Nigeria (?), where the Government the last period decided to impose
)the Islamic law of Sharia to all, leading to violent conflicts between
)Muslim and 'Christian' groups and many dead.
The conflict in Israel makes me very sad and affects me and people close to
me in a very personal way. It's a mistake to say that the violence is
caused by the tiny state of Israel making its own laws as a Jewish state,
as it was created with the right to do. The conflict comes from Israel's
neighbors opposing her simple right to exist, period. They are not arguing
that Israel should be humanistic or anything else; they are arguing that
Israel should be driven into the sea.
If I understand what you are saying, you would rather have no Jewish state
at all, but rather simply have Jews "integrate" into other countries (this
is, of course, what Jews have always done). But when integration leads to
the shedding of what is particularly Jewish about Judaism, then there's
another word for it -- it's called assimilation, and it leads inexorably to
the end of Judaism itself (a result that is apparently not in conflict with
your view of where Judaism should properly be headed).
I hope I'm misunderstanding you and that you will set me straight if I have
put words into your mouth, because even though I do appreciate that you are
trying to be respectful and polite, I feel that your ideas have some
dangerous consequences.
Please respond if you have the time.
Thanks,
Yael
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n2046 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n2047 --------------
001 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: The past: race-tribe, today: culture-)individual
002 - Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordw - Re: Der Targesspiegel article mentions Hardorp (translation)
003 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
004 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Jewish wisdom
005 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
006 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - RE: Jewish wisdom
007 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
008 - "Diana Winters" (winters_ - RE: The past: race-tribe, today: culture-)individual
009 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
010 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: The past: race-tribe, today: culture-)individual
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2047.1 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: The past: race-tribe, today: culture-)individual
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 11:04:38 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200002281253.EAA12687 lists1.best.com) (200002281812.KAA26760 lists1.best.com) (200003080006.QAA21377 lists1.best.com) (200003080142.RAA03048 lists1.best.com)
Alan wrote:
Steiner:
) ) Therefore it is necessary, that that movement that is called the
) ) anthroposophical movement, that prepares for the sixth epoch in its
) ) basic character takes up especially this task of getting rid of that
) ) which related to 'racial character' and to unite people of all races,
) ) of all nations and in this way bridging this differentiation, these
) ) differences, this abyss, that exists between different groups of
) ) people. Because that which are old racial points of view has a
) ) physical character, and that which will develop into the future has a
) ) spiritual character.
Alan:
) Is Steiner not saying that there is in fact a spiritual racial point of
) view?
No. What he describes is that what - according to him (as I understand
it) - will develop after the present cultural development through a
number of stages, with the American (North-)South) as the last epoch,
building something that finally mixes all races and nationalities into
something completely new and universal, will be something where the
physical has lost its primary importance of being the 'central
perspective'.
It corresponds to the transition in the Apocalypse of St John, where
he, after having written the letters to the seven congregations,
commenting on the cultures developed by the seven congregations, is
lifted up to heaven, before the one who sits on the throne, and the
seals of a scroll are being opened.
Another aspect of it - as I understand it - is that while we today
have appearances (race, gender and other) that mainly come from what
we inherit from our anscestors, that will ever more cease to be the
case in the future, when our physical appearences will increasingly
more will be formed out of what we have made of ourselves through
history as individuals.
It's more like we, as humanity, in the future, will display what we as
individuals display when becoming mature and somewhat middle aged; our
faces show what life has done to us and what we, as individuals, have
developed out of it, trying to handle life. Not our ancestors, but we
will form and become ever more visible in our external appearances as
we really are, as individuals.
Regards,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2047.2 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Der Targesspiegel article mentions Hardorp (translation)
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 12:56:51 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200003072145.NAA08801 lists1.best.com)
Dan has translated an article in Der Tagesspiegel on a TV-program:
) [Translation by robot, edited by non-German-speaking Dan Dugan with
) dictionary in hand]
Great, Dan! Some things in the translation maybe could be commented
on. In general you seem to have replaced the "Waldorf Schools" in the
original text by "Rudolf Steiner Schools" in your translation.
Two letters to the editor on the issue, published some days later in
the paper will come soon too to this list.
Maybe some small corrections, as I understand it:
You left out the heading:
Rudolf Steiner - anti-Semite and racist?
) Rudolf Steiner Schools and Senate Administration frightened by
) accusations in "Report"
) by Susanne Vieth Entus
)
) There was only one subject in the Berlin Rudolf Steiner Schools
; in the original: Waldorf Schools
) yesterday: the accusations of racism and antisemitism against the
) Anthroposophist Rudolf Steiner, and individual teachers of the Rudolf
) Steiner Schools, shaped by Steiners work. The pool of broadcasting
) corporations magazine "Report" had reported on Monday evening on
) this, as documented by students' workbooks. Thereupon the senate
) school administration quit making "rounds" in Rudolf Steiner Schools.
Original: said it would make visits to Waldorf Schools
) The national working group of the Rudolf Steiner Schools in Berlin
) Brandenburg
Original: the Waldorf Schools in Berlin-Brandenburg
)is considering a "quality offensive".
)
) "Report" showed the workbooks from the history lessons of elementary
) school pupils. They contained allegedly enthusiastic definitions of
) 'Aryan' concepts as well as prejudice-laden characterizations of
) peoples ("the Russian is...", "the Frenchman is..."). It was not
) stated from which regions of the Federal Republic and schools the
) booklets originated. In addition "Report" presented quotations from
) Steiner which--at least when seen in isolation--could be
) characterized as anti-Semitic and racist views.
)
) Yesterday the national working group of the Rudolf Steiner Schools
) appeared to be a little surprised over the accusations. Its education
) policy speaker, Detlef Hardorp, said when asked that the "attacks"
) were not new. Quotations from Steiner were disconnected and thus
) completely falsified. The Steiner group takes the extracts from the
Original: He takes the the extracts
) student workbooks more seriously. Naturally the word 'Aryan' does not
) belong in lessons. Hardorp stresses however also that such terms had
) different meaning in 1933.
Not _in_ 1933, _before_ 1933, see long discussion earlier on this
list.
) Additionally it means, "that one should
) not stereotype peoples", how this was to be reread obviously in one
) of the pupil booklets.
; as this clearly could be read ...
) In order to prevent such derailing in Berlin
) Brandenburg, the working group proposes a "quality offensive": The
) school leadership conferences could bring "black sheep" back on the
) track through intensive discussions.
)
) Hardorp sees in the "Report" contribution "a relatively well
) organized group" at the organization,
; at work
) which has tried for a long time
) to connect everything possible with Steiner being racistic.
Original: to bring together everything that could be taken as racistic
by Steiner.
) This
) group makes a "subtle ploy", if it submits the history booklets now,
Original: plays a "subtle game" when it submits the history booklets
now
) without saying what school they are from. In all other respects one
) should recall that even the long-time chairman of the Jewish
) community, Heinz Galinski, had his daughter in the Rudolf Steiner
) school in Berlin.
; the long time chairman of the Jewish Community in Berlin, Heinz
Galinski, had his daughter at the Rudolf-Steiner-Schule.
) Since this is about the private Rudolf Steiner Schools, their
Original: Since the Waldorf schools are private schools
) supervision is directly incumbent on the Senate School
) Administration. Here, according to "Report", "some were scared
) stiff". The Administration will probably try to make some unannounced
) "rounds" to look at students' work.
Original: They spontanously said that they probably would make some
visits ...
) They have good experiences with
) the Rudolf Steiner Schools in general, which would apply "very
) liberally" in Berlin.
; In general, one however had had good experiences with the Waldorf
Schools, that in Berlin were taken to be "very liberal".
) Parents have given "improbably positive acknowledgements".
; From parents one had gotten "incredibly positive acknowledgements".
Of course I (never having studied German at school either) can have
made mistakes too. Then maybe others can correct them.
Regards,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell biology and
EU as a mechanical esoteric temple and threefolding of society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2047.3 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 08:18:05 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
[Peter]:
)I think that Joel's assertion probably does apply to questions of this
)sort. However I happen to believe in a possibly contentious notion. That is
)that there is a single truth if you like. If homeopathy works, then it
)ought to work for the statistical tests as well as for the anecdotes. If it
)doesn't (which is the case), then the onus is on the homeopaths to
)reformulate their theoretical basis and their practice.
Although I generally agree with Peter, there are other possibilities. One that
comes to mind, from what little I know about homeopathy is this: each case is
different. For example, there is no single diagnosis of sinusitis - there are 7
or a dozen or whatever number of types of sinusitis - each with their own
homeopathic cure. To collect statistics for this type of treatment would be a
nightmare and almost impossible to compare with conventional MDs, who would
diagnose "sinusitis", prescribe antibiotics and a call in the morning. In this
case, the only valid test may be to compare the outcomes of individual
physicians. What is the cure rate for Dr. Ampicillin vs what is the cure rate
for Dr. Kalibi? This type of rating would not satisfy the MDs, because the
"cure rate" of such a study would depend largely on patient opinion, which may
not correspond precisely to reduction of nasal bacterial load. It would,
however, have the salutary effect of exposing bad homeopaths (as well as bad
MDs).
Chand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2047.4 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Jewish wisdom
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 09:45:57 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
[Yael]
)
) Joe, the facts do not support your assertion that individuals
) are "choosing
) to throw off their own heritages." I can't speak for people of other
) heritages, but at least in a Jewish context, this is simply
) not true. The
) trend among Jews from across the spectrum of observance is to
) begin to add
) in Jewish learning and practice...
[Bob Tolz]
Yael, is your comment based on independent research or personal
observation? Just curious.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2047.5 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 08:38:09 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
[Peter]:
)Double blind is an excellent method to distinguish these two. If Joel or
)anyone else for that matter wants to describe an alternative protocol which
)will sort these out, I'm all ears.
Just to play the devil's advocate, part of the homeopathic remedy include the
confidence that Dr. Kalibi has in his remedy. If he knows that 50% of his
prescriptions are wrong, his treatments may be less effective. I know this
sounds awfully metaphysical, but I have heard about a study that purports to
show in a controlled sort of way (this is all mushy because I didn't read it
myself) that prayer can influence healing. Does anybody know about this? If
so, then perhaps a study that removes the mental state of the practitioner from
the treatment would not be valid. As I wrote in my last post, examining
physician cure rates may be a way to study efficacy.
Chand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2047.6 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: RE: Jewish wisdom
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 08:54:45 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
[Yael]
)) Joe, the facts do not support your assertion that individuals
) are "choosing
) to throw off their own heritages." I can't speak for people of other
) heritages, but at least in a Jewish context, this is simply
) not true. The
) trend among Jews from across the spectrum of observance is to
) begin to add
) in Jewish learning and practice...
[Bob Tolz]
) Yael, is your comment based on independent research or personal
)observation? Just curious.
Bob, are you asking if Yael's knowledge comes from controlled, double blinded
studies :-)?
Chand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2047.7 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 10:05:12 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"
[Chand]
)
) Just to play the devil's advocate, part of the homeopathic
) remedy include the
) confidence that Dr. Kalibi has in his remedy. If he knows
) that 50% of his
) prescriptions are wrong, his treatments may be less
) effective. I know this
) sounds awfully metaphysical, but I have heard about a study
) that purports to
) show in a controlled sort of way (this is all mushy because I
) didn't read it
) myself) that prayer can influence healing. Does anybody know
) about this? If
) so, then perhaps a study that removes the mental state of the
) practitioner from
) the treatment would not be valid. As I wrote in my last
) post, examining
) physician cure rates may be a way to study efficacy.
[Bob Tolz]
Sounds like some exotic variant of the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle, where (to oversimplify) the observer affects the experiment.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2047.8 ---------------
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: The past: race-tribe, today: culture-)individual
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 16:11:34 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
)[Alan Fine]
) ) [In support of Steiner not being a racist, Sune offers a Steiner quote:]
[anthroposophy should])
)takes up especially this task of getting rid of that
)which related to 'racial character' and to unite people of
)all races, (snip) Because that which are old racial points of view has
)a physical )character, and that which will develop into the future has a
) )spiritual character.
[Alan]
)Is Steiner not saying that there is in fact a spiritual racial point )of
)view? If so it worse than the physical racial point of view) in )my book.
[Bob Tolz]
) I really don't follow how you get that reading from the quote.
)Would you please elaborate on your thinking here? What's a )"spiritual
)racial point of view?"
) The quote seems pretty easy to understand to me: Steiner sees
)racial differences as something which needs to be bridged and )transcended.
)Don't you agree with that? I'm mystified by your )apparent disagreement.
No, it is not that simple, and I'm sure, Bob, you don't really think Steiner
spoke as an advocate of "bridging differences."
Anyone who thought that racial differences should be transcended would stop
spinning byzantine theories about racial differences and and their supposed
origins eons ago in the cosmic past, on other planets, etc., which serves to
make these differences seem all the more inescapable. He's not talking about
*historical* differences, though I believe this is what Steiner's defenders
wish to put across with the distinction he supposedly made when he changed
his terms from "root races" to "origins." He is still talking about
spiritual (essential) differences.
The last line ("that which are old racial points of view has a physical
character") means your spiritual nature or "point of view" used to be tied
to your physical body (i.e., which race you were born into) and you couldn't
get away from it (at least not until you were reincarnated into a different
body). Now a change is supposedly occurring whereby these spiritual
differences will no longer be tied to your race/physical body.
He is not exhorting people to change their attitudes about race. He's
describing movements or changes (which he claims he has the inside scoop on)
in the grand course of future human evolution, and here he is letting
anthroposophists in on the secret.
What practical work they are supposed to do to "unite
people of all races" is not clear, but nothing there suggests a person need
bother to change any beliefs they might hold about particular races.
If anything the appropriateness of such beliefs is reinforced, because all
these changes are humans' collective karma. You have nothing to say about
it; the spiritual point of view of members of your race is divorcing itself
from the physical characteristics of your race *collectively*, not
individually, and over long spans of cosmic history.
It may make sense for individuals to get with the program and change their
attitudes accordingly. I can give Steiner the benefit of the doubt that he
might have agreed with this. But it's a total misreading to think this
passage has anything to do with combatting racist attitudes among
individuals.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2047.9 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 08:44:25 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (200003081440.GAA05576 lists1.best.com)
On 8 Mar 00, at 8:38, Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu wrote:
) I know this sounds awfully metaphysical, but I have heard about a study
) that purports to show in a controlled sort of way (this is all mushy
) because I didn't read it myself) that prayer can influence healing.
) Does anybody know about this?
Well, this is fourth hand, but here goes.
At Dr. Andrew Weil's website, he discusses a book by Dr. Larry Dossy.
Dossy apparently cites a study Duke University Medical Center's VA
hospital, where a doctor and nurse recruited prayer for patients
undergoing cardiac catheterization and other cardiac procedures. Those
patients who opted for the outside prayer offered by strangers had 50
percent to 100 percent fewer side effects than patients who rejected the
offer.
Note that this was not a double-blind study; the patients who received the
prayers knew that strangers would be praying for them. So assuming that
the study is otherwise valid, all it tells us is that patients who believe
in prayer and know that strangers are praying for them have a better
chance of recovery than those who don't.
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.n2047.10 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: The past: race-tribe, today: culture-)individual
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 13:00:43 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) [Alan]
) )Is Steiner not saying that there is in fact a spiritual
) racial point )of
) )view? If so it worse than the physical racial point of
) view) in )my book.
)
) [Bob Tolz]
) ) I really don't follow how you get that reading from the quote.
) )Would you please elaborate on your thinking here? What's a
) )"spiritual
) )racial point of view?"
) ) The quote seems pretty easy to understand to me: Steiner sees
) )racial differences as something which needs to be bridged
) and )transcended.
) )Don't you agree with that? I'm mystified by your )apparent
) disagreement.
)
[Diana Winters]
) No, it is not that simple, and I'm sure, Bob, you don't
) really think Steiner
) spoke as an advocate of "bridging differences."
[Bob Tolz]
Your certainty is misplaced. It very much sounds to me from that
quotation and from others which have been offered here that Steiner indeed
spoke as an advocate of bridging differences.
[Diana Winters]
)
) Anyone who thought that racial differences should be
) transcended would stop
) spinning byzantine theories about racial differences and and
) their supposed
) origins eons ago in the cosmic past, on other planets, etc.,
) which serves to
) make these differences seem all the more inescapable.
[Bob Tolz]
I disagree. However whacky his description of humanity's history
might sound to you and me, his pointer towards the future sure sounds like
bridging and transcending racial differences. Just for reference, here's
the whole quote again:
) ) Therefore it is necessary, that that movement that is called the
) ) anthroposophical movement, that prepares for the sixth epoch in its
) ) basic character takes up especially this task of getting rid of that
) ) which related to 'racial character' and to unite people of
) all races,
) ) of all nations and in this way bridging this differentiation, these
) ) differences, this abyss, that exists between different groups of
) ) people. Because that which are old racial points of view has a
) ) physical character, and that which will develop into the
) future has a
) ) spiritual character.
[Diana Winters]
)
) The last line ("that which are old racial points of view has
) a physical
) character") means your spiritual nature or "point of view"
) used to be tied
) to your physical body (i.e., which race you were born into)
) and you couldn't
) get away from it (at least not until you were reincarnated
) into a different
) body). Now a change is supposedly occurring whereby these spiritual
) differences will no longer be tied to your race/physical body.
[Bob Tolz]
Again, I disagree with you. What I read is that the state of
consciousness of humanity has historically been tied to physical
differences, and I think he's right on that. Just look at the ethnic strife
which continues to this day. I believe (and I suspect that Steiner did as
well, though I'd leave to those more familiar with his work than I to find a
quotation) that even though this has been the "default" or "inertial" state
of humanity's consciousness, each individual has the capacity to transcend
and bridge those external differences, and there are innumerable instances
in which people have succeeded in doing so -- and this does not require
reincarnation, it can be done here and now. It is those instances which
provide the example for us and our children to make that bridging and
transcendence the norm rather than the exception.
I believe you're severely mis-reading the quotation when you say,
"Now a change is supposedly occurring whereby these spiritual differences
will no longer be tied to your race/physical body." Where the heck do you
read anything about "differences" in the future? It's not in Steiner's
words, so it must be in your preconceived notion of what he meant.
All I see him saying is that our old views are racial and physical
in nature, which necessarily bring about the sorrow of the differences we
really need to bridge. In contrast, the future of humanity lies with human
beings centered in their spirituality rather than their physicality, and in
moving in that direction we will encounter similarities, not differences.
Perhaps this is my own preconceived notion of what Steiner meant, because it
jives with my own world view. But I have a really hard time getting your
interpretation from his words.
[Diana Winters]
)
) He is not exhorting people to change their attitudes about race. He's
) describing movements or changes (which he claims he has the
) inside scoop on)
) in the grand course of future human evolution, and here he is letting
) anthroposophists in on the secret.
[Bob Tolz]
It's no big secret, Diana. This is an idea that is way beyond
anthroposophy. You'll see it in many, many different places.
[Diana Winters]
)
) What practical work they are supposed to do to "unite
) people of all races" is not clear, but nothing there suggests
) a person need
) bother to change any beliefs they might hold about particular races.
[Bob Tolz]
You're quite correct that it is not clear from this quotation what
the "practical work" would be. Of course, you wouldn't expect the methods
to be laid out in one paragraph would you? I have my own ideas about what
that "practical work" would entail, and I'm sure you would have your own
ideas as well. I think both you and I would probably agree that we would
need to observe our own beliefs about races and differences and look for
what is common among people. You say there's nothing in the quotation which
"suggests that a person need to bother to change any beliefs they might hold
about particular races." I say there's nothing in the quote that advises
you to the contrary, and, in fact, such change would be absolutely
necessary.
[Diana WInters]
) might have agreed with this. But it's a total misreading to
) think this
) passage has anything to do with combatting racist attitudes among
) individuals.
)
[Bob Tolz]
I disagree again. I think it has everything to do with combatting
racist attitudes among individuals.
Bob Tolz
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n2047 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n2048 --------------
001 - Chand.Desai mcmail.vander - RE: The past: race-tribe, today: culture-)individual
002 - "debra harvey" (debharve - The past-race and tribe
003 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: The past: race-tribe, today: culture-)individual
004 - "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf pe - Re: Peter Staudenmaier's use of sources [from Peter Staudenmai
005 - "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2ga - pt. of view on race/was race-tribe
006 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: The past: race-tribe, today: culture-)individual
007 - "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNS - RE: The past-race and tribe
008 - "debra harvey" (debharve - RE: The past-race and tribe
009 - Peter Farrell (peter.farr - Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
010 - Peter Farrell (peter.farr - Re: Peter Farrell on Goethe and science teaching
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2048.1 ---------------
From: Chand.Desai mcmail.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: RE: The past: race-tribe, today: culture-)individual
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 13:27:58 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Bob, I agree with your interpretation of what Steiner meant in the paragraph:
) ) Therefore it is necessary, that that movement that is called the
) ) anthroposophical movement, that prepares for the sixth epoch in its
) ) basic character takes up especially this task of getting rid of that
) ) which related to 'racial character' and to unite people of all races,
) ) of all nations and in this way bridging this differentiation, these
) ) differences, this abyss, that exists between different groups of
) ) people. Because that which are old racial points of view has a
) ) physical character, and that which will develop into the
) ) future has a spiritual character.
Diana you are just sniping. Just because Steiner isn't consistently racist
does not mean that he never made a racist statement. You should choose your
battles because this paragraph doesn't support your case.
[Diana Winters]
))
)) What practical work they are supposed to do to "unite
)) people of all races" is not clear, but nothing there suggests
)) a person need
)) bother to change any beliefs they might hold about particular races.
[Bob Tolz]
) You're quite correct that it is not clear from this quotation what
)the "practical work" would be. Of course, you wouldn't expect the methods
)to be laid out in one paragraph would you? I have my own ideas about what
)that "practical work" would entail, and I'm sure you would have your own
)ideas as well.
My own view is that there has to be a lot more intermarriage between races -
with or without parental permission. I vividly remember my hurt and confusion
when I asked a Chinese girl to a high school dance and she replied that her
parents wouldn't let her - because I was not Chinese. In India, it is still
most common to marry within one's own 'caste' or at least social stratum - as it
is here in the USA. I have a Jewish friend who is really bent out of shape
because he is in love with a Catholic woman but feels that he cannot marry her,
even though she is willing to convert to Judaism, because she can never really
be Jewish. This kind of group identity happens all the time, and often forms
the basis for hideous bloodshed.
The easiest way to get rid of racism may be to get rid of races. Knowing our
predilections, however, until we advance farther along in our spiritual
development, we will find something to replace race to use as a discriminator.
No doubt bad genes is a good candidate.
Chand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2048.2 ---------------
From: "debra harvey" (debharve hotmail.com)
Subject: The past-race and tribe
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 19:44:13 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
I don't know how to copy and paste and I had sent this quote to someone
else. I thought that it was relevant to the discussion Alan, Sune, Bob and
Diana are engaging in today. It is from Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for
Meaning," which I heard about on this list and which I just finished
reading, and which blew me away:
)
)"From all of this we may learn that there are two races of men in this
)world, but only these two--the 'race' of the decent man and the race of the
)indecent man. both are found everywhere; they penetrate into all groups of
)society. No group consists entirely of decent or indecent people. In this
)sense, no group is of 'pure race'--and therefore one occasionally found a
)decent fellow among the camp guards."
)
)"Life in a concentration camp tore open the human soul and exposed its
)depths. Is it surprising that in those depths we again found only human
)qualities which in their very nature were a mixture of good and evil? The
)rift dividing good from evil, which goes through all human beings, reaches
)into the lowest depths and becomes apparent even on the bottom of the abyss
)whih is laid open by the concentration camp."
[Harve]
After reading this, I'm wondering, is it possible to look at people based
solely on their decent/indecent actions? Is that what Steiner was
envisioning for the future?
Yet, Yael noted a few days ago that when certain cultures are integrated,
they are lost.
How can we celebrate, honor, and preserve these differences while looking at
the individual's conduct--not at the race, ethnic orgin, sexual orientation,
etc?
Harve
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2048.3 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: The past: race-tribe, today: culture-)individual
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 13:37:26 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200003081758.JAA04872 lists1.best.com)
Sune, Bob, and Diana offer interpretations on Steiner's work.
I agree with all three of you, and the views are not contradictory. What
Steiner seems to be saying is that we are currently in a world with races at
different stages of spiritual development, and physical features which are
related to these spiritual differences, and that Anthroposophy looks forward
to a new epoch where such differences are no longer significant.
I have one other comment about this point of view.
Yuck.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2048.4 ---------------
From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
Subject: Re: Peter Staudenmaier's use of sources [from Peter Staudenmaier]
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 13:47:29 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (200003072336.PAA27318 lists1.best.com)
Sean and Staudenmaier are having a complex and involved interchange.
What strikes me most from all this is that the question of Anthroposophy's
influence on Nazism is a far more well developed debate than I had realized,
involving more people than I had realized, and going on longer than I had
realized. Those who think Dan Dugan drummed this issue up because of some
personal vendetta can see that many have had serious concerns about
Anthropsophy and Nazism for some time.
Alan Fine
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2048.5 ---------------
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: pt. of view on race/was race-tribe
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 16:08:17 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I second that emotion, Alan. Double yuck. Someone said on this list awhile
back in response to my distaste for this view that Steiner's point was that
races may be spiritually difference in age, but together, we comprise one
``family of humanity.'' I pointed out that that sounds so warm and fuzzy and
nice, but it is quite insulting to the non-white races, which are viewed as
the ``children and adolescents'' in this family. Children and adolescents
have less rights; they have to be taken care of; they often must bend to the
will of the adults, who ``know best'' based on their experiences.
I am insulted on behalf of my Asian daughter and all non-Caucasian (or is
the proper term ``Aryan''?) individuals.
This discussion is bound to go nowhere, as the Steiner followers are forever
saying that those of us who are not Anthroposophists and who are, thus, not
``doing the work ourselves'' interpret Steiner the wrong way. All we have to
go on, however, are his words. He made more than a few statements about
race-tribe-spiritual development, and the overall gist of his message is
that races ARE in different stages of spiritual development.
Lisa
----------
)From: "Alan S. Fine MD" (asf peakpeak.com)
)To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
)Subject: Re: The past: race-tribe, today: culture-)individual
)Date: Wed, Mar 8, 2000, 3:37 PM
)
) Sune, Bob, and Diana offer interpretations on Steiner's work.
)
) I agree with all three of you, and the views are not contradictory. What
) Steiner seems to be saying is that we are currently in a world with races at
) different stages of spiritual development, and physical features which are
) related to these spiritual differences, and that Anthroposophy looks forward
) to a new epoch where such differences are no longer significant.
)
) I have one other comment about this point of view.
)
) Yuck.
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2048.6 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: The past: race-tribe, today: culture-)individual
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:45:56 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
) Sune, Bob, and Diana offer interpretations on Steiner's work.
)
) I agree with all three of you, and the views are not
) contradictory. What
) Steiner seems to be saying is that we are currently in a
) world with races at
) different stages of spiritual development, and physical
) features which are
) related to these spiritual differences, and that
) Anthroposophy looks forward
) to a new epoch where such differences are no longer significant.
)
[Bob Tolz]
I disagree with you, Alan. There is nothing in the Steiner
quotation which relates physical features to spiritual differences.
Bob Tolz
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n2048.7 ---------------
From: "Tolz, Robert" (RTolz TNSJ-LAW.COM)
Subject: RE: The past-race and tribe
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:46:03 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
[Harve]
) I don't know how to copy and paste and I had sent this quote
) to someone
) else. I thought that it was relevant to the discussion Alan,
) Sune, Bob and
) Diana are engaging in today. It is from Viktor Frankl's
) "Man's Search for
) Meaning," which I heard about on this list and which I just finished
) reading, and which blew me away:
[Bob Tolz]
"Man's Search for Meaning" should be required reading for every
human being.
[Harve, quoting from Frankl]
)
) )
) )"From all of this we may learn that there are two races of
) men in this
) )