return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Admin: web counter 63,698
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Re: OT: acupuncture question for Dan, ad hominem
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Quote of the Week
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Some hubris
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Re: Quote of the Week
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Quote of the Week
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Re: Can you substantiate your claim, Dan?
By hardorp gmx.net
Re: Quote of the Week
By dottie_z yahoo.com
possible member
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
By dan dandugan.com
Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
By dan dandugan.com
Re: OT: acupuncture question for Dan, ad hominem
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Quote of the Week
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Can you substantiate your claim, Dan?
By dan dandugan.com
Re: confirmatory evidence and dounle blind studies and lack of
compassion for
By dan dandugan.com
Re: More confusion from Sharon
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Can you substantiate your claim, Dan?
By dan dandugan.com
Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Re: Can you substantiate your claim, Dan?
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Re: Can you substantiate your claim, Dan?
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Re: Quote of the Week
By earlyfire earthlink.net
Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Quote of the Week
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 15:41:14 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Admin: web counter 63,698
Dan Dugan wrote:
) )Michael C:
) )I first discovered the PLANS from a link on the
) )Anthoposophy site.
)
) Which Anthroposophy site?
There are links to PLANS at the largest anthroposophical link site I know,
built by a waldorf teacher here in Stockholm, at
http://www.anthroposophy.net under 'category search' under the category
'contra anthroposophy', at the site of Info3 in Germany at
http://www.info3.de/cgi-bin/yforum/yforum.cgi?forum=interaktiv/anthrokritik&cfg=0
linked from the main page at http://www.info3.de/ (down left; 'weiteres')
and at Tarjei's site at http://uncletaz.com/allegations.html
) )Does the PLANS site Have a link to
) )the Anthro site or any other pro Anthro sites Dan? Do
) )you know how many people come to the site from the
) )Anthro site or any other pro Anthro links?
)
) I've toyed with the idea from time to time, but there are so many
) Anthroposophy and Waldolf web pages now, any kind of search will find
) more references to them than to us.
)
) No, we don't claim to present "a balanced view." Sense and nonsense
) aren't equals.
You're right. Sense on WE still prevails on the net.
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 09:39:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: OT: acupuncture question for Dan, ad hominem
--- Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
) An ad hominem argument, Michael.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
Michael C.
Dan if that is a warning against an ad hominem then I
accept the warning because that is an area where you
have the authority to decide on this matter for this
list. And you can ignore the rest of the letter.
If it wasn't a warning I want to say that I didn't
make an ad hominem argument I just relayed that it was
possibly to make such an argument. The reason that I
was showing that it was possible to make such an
argument was that you made an argument from authority.
Although an argument from authority does not directly
attack a persons credibility, it can be used against
people and ideas that may have much merit. It is an
equallt fallacious form of argument as the ad hominem
argument.
I believe that when the argument from authority is
used that it opens the way for the ad hominem argument
against the authority. This ad hominem argument should
be limited arguments that attempt to show that the
authority invoked is not necessarily creadible.
Attacks on other aspects of the charector of the
authority should be out of bounds.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 10:18:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Quote of the Week
--- Steve Premo (steve premofine.com) wrote:
) This quote is from Drug Sense Weekly, a newsletter:
)
) "We scientists are not finding it as easy as it used
) to be to convince
) people that rational inquiry is the best way to seek
) useful knowledge.
) The religious fundies, the premods, and postmods
) don't believe us.
) I wish we could get all of them on one side of a
) line out in the Nevada
) desert with us scientists on the other. They could
) use all their weapons
) on us: prayers, incantations, calling down UFO
) attacks, emailing us long
) unreadable discourses; and we could nuke 'em." --
) Professor Vic Stenger
)
) 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://www.premofine.com
Michael C:
Charlie, Diana, Steve, Sune,
Having never heard of Vic Stenger before, I assumed
that he was making a joke, that he was attemting to
show that "scientists" can be very irational also. I
still think this is the case but less so than before.
It is true that much of what is irrational has value
and is perhaps detrimental. How ever answer me if you
will these questions. What is the source of rational
thought? How can one know if a line of thought is
rational? How can one take rational thought from the
realm of idea and apply it to the realm of the "real"
world ? The only answer that I know for these
questions and many others invoke the human spirtual
capacity of intuition which is clearly above
rationailty. Intuition is also not subject to the
limitations of rationality and is capable of getting
to the truth without rational thought. Lets face it
rational thought is a wonderful tool in the right
hands, a useless or perhaps dangerous tool in the
wrong hands and is completely useless as a master.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:21:27 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Some hubris
soma mwt.net wrote:
) ... I, an infidel, knows secrets concealed to the initiated, and
) democratically leaks the Mysteries to the uninitiated from whom the secrets are
) withheld, (a sin once punishable by death if betrayed by an initiate.)
Some endless hubris and seeming need of drama in life.
Sharon, most of what you refer to probably is what you have read in books
available to anyone somewhat interested in the subjects you comment on on
this list with little trouble, then coming to 'conclusions' like 'Steiner
was inspired by Bacon'.
You 'know secrets concealed to the initiated' ...
You don't know what you are talking about.
As to 'leaking the Mysteries to the initiated' you sit in Steiner's coat
pocket.
SUPERSENSIBLE KNOWLEDGE:
Its Secrecy in the Past and Publication in our Time
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Articles/SupKno_index.html
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 10:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Quote of the Week
--- michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com) wrote:
)
) --- Steve Premo (steve premofine.com) wrote:
) ) This quote is from Drug Sense Weekly, a
) newsletter:
) )
) ) "We scientists are not finding it as easy as it
) used
) ) to be to convince
) ) people that rational inquiry is the best way to
) seek
) ) useful knowledge.
) ) The religious fundies, the premods, and postmods
) ) don't believe us.
) ) I wish we could get all of them on one side of a
) ) line out in the Nevada
) ) desert with us scientists on the other. They could
) ) use all their weapons
) ) on us: prayers, incantations, calling down UFO
) ) attacks, emailing us long
) ) unreadable discourses; and we could nuke 'em." --
) ) Professor Vic Stenger
) )
) ) 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://www.premofine.com
) Michael C:
)
) Charlie, Diana, Steve, Sune,
)
) Having never heard of Vic Stenger before, I assumed
) that he was making a joke, that he was attemting to
) show that "scientists" can be very irational also. I
) still think this is the case but less so than
) before.
)
Michael C:
I meant to say that I am a little less certain that
Victor Stenger is poking fun at himself the people
that espouse the same opinion about rationality as he
does. I hope that he is poking fun at himself and at
others, but after a little searching on the web I am a
little less sure that he realizes the irrationality of
his own statement and that he and his pals would be
destroyed also.
)
) It is true that much of what is irrational has value
) and is perhaps detrimental.
Michael C:
I meant to say much of what is irrational has no value
...
) How ever answer me if
) you
) will these questions. What is the source of rational
) thought? How can one know if a line of thought is
) rational? How can one take rational thought from the
) realm of idea and apply it to the realm of the
) "real"
) world ? The only answer that I know for these
) questions and many others invoke the human spirtual
) capacity of intuition which is clearly above
) rationailty. Intuition is also not subject to the
) limitations of rationality and is capable of getting
) to the truth without rational thought. Lets face it
) rational thought is a wonderful tool in the right
) hands, a useless or perhaps dangerous tool in the
) wrong hands and is completely useless as a master.
)
)
) __________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 20:07:35 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: Quote of the Week
charlie:
I wonder what sort of response there would be on this list if someone had
found a quote by Steiner joking about using a weapon of mass destruction
against people who held different views to him.
warm regards,
charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:43:34 +0100
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Can you substantiate your claim, Dan?
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 12:40:31 -0000, "Diana Winters" =
(winters_diana hotmail.com)
looses all her bets.
Concerning a French report, I had commented:
)"The authors clearly had little comprehension of what they were writing."
)Here is an excerpt:
)In English: "According to Steiner, humanity knows four stages: )mineral, =
)plant, cosmic and stage of "I", which correspond to four )bodies (or=20
)karma): physical, etheric, astral and body of "I". The )initial goal for =
)the teachers is thus to figure out the stage of )evolution the confided =
)children are at, in such a way as to allow )maximizing the development on =
)the stage where they are situated."
)I wrote in response in a note of protest:
)"What nonsense to pretend that the teachers must judge the stage of=20
) )evolution of their students; should the students that belong to the=20
) )plant stage of evolution be watered each morning?!"
Diana thinks the "four stages" thing isn't "too far off":
DW: )I don't think the "four stages" thing is too far off. I bet if an =
anthroposophist had written it and meant it in a admiring way, you'd be =
pleased with it.
DH: Diana, you loose your bet. People that write nonsense never please me. =
In fact, if they write it in an admiring way, this really drives me up the =
wall - I much prefer critics writing nonsense. What I like best, however, =
is the absense of nonsense.
Diana continues, trying to justify four stages of humanity corresponding to =
four bodies.
I agree with Diana that vestiges of anthroposophy remain recognizable: =
Steiner does speak of four stages of evolution (of the world, not of =
humanity, but I won't quibble over this detail), and these stages can be =
put in correspondence with the four bodies Steiner also speaks about (in =
fact, these four bodies develop successively in each stage of world =
evolution, according to Steiner). So far, so good.
Diana then continues:
DW: )The only part that seems incorrect is that the teachers have to =
"figure out" which stage the children are in. They have that spelled out =
for them, since the stages correlate conveniently with 7-year periods.
1. It's not the "only part" incorrect in the quotation I cite: the author =
makes "karma" synonomous with "bodies" (which is also complete nonsense).
2. The statement that Diana agrees is incorrect was _the statement made =
about Waldorf_! The conclusion about Waldorf education the author draws =
from a sentence that uses recognizable anthroposophical vocabulary is as =
far from a touchdown as kicking the ball towards the sun at noon.
Remember, the conclusion drawn in the French report was:
"The initial goal for the teachers is thus to figure out the stage of =
evolution the confided children are at, in such a way as to allow =
maximizing the development on the stage where they are situated."
And my comment to that was:
"What nonsense to pretend that the teachers must judge the stage of =
evolution of their students; should the students that belong to the plant =
stage of evolution be watered each morning?!"
An analogy:
Imagine someone visits a school run by secular humanists (i.e. almost all =
schools in France and most public schools in the States) where Darwin's =
"survival of the fittest" plays a major role in the basic understanding of =
the human being. Imagine someone concocts the following comment about =
secular humanist _educational methods_:
"Humanity went through several stages (amino acids, amoebas, apes, U.S. =
citizens), reflected in the chemical, bacterial and libido nature of man =
(or survival of the fittest). The teacher must thus judge what stage of =
evolution the students are at, so as to allow maximizing the development on =
the stage where they are situated."
A straight F! Not even a D minus should be considered for this kind of =
mumbo-jumbo understanding of Darwinian theory.
As to Diana's next bet:
)And if watering plants were offered by an anthroposophist as an image of =
the teacher caring for and gently nurturing her students, I bet you would =
find it quite appealing.
DH: You lost this bet as well, Diana. I find the image is apalling. Human =
beings are not vegetables. They need excitement, variety, stimulating =
sense experiences, images that stimulate the imagination, and above all: =
teaching needs to _breathe_. That means the plot must thicken, tension =
must rise, find a temporary release, receive a new dramatic impulse from =
elsewhere: this is what good Waldorf teaching is all about (I am not saying =
that all teaching done under the name of Waldorf education is good Waldorf =
teaching: I am well aware that feeble dogmatists exist, and these are =
always the worst teachers). This is what makes good Waldorf teaching so =
exciting. Watering plants would be an appropriate image for squelching all =
human fire. But fire is the essence of a human being! Nurturing that fire =
is what all of education should be about in the end.
Detlef Hardorp=
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Quote of the Week
) charlie:
) I wonder what sort of response there would be on
) this list if someone had
) found a quote by Steiner joking about using a weapon
) of mass destruction
) against people who held different views to him.
)
dottie
You took the words right out of my mouth.
I don't think the Critics realize how hypocritical
they tend to come off. I have found that when I try to
hold them accountable to what they would not tolerate
from Steiner, there is a lot of whining that "Steiner
is dead so we can say anything we want to" and then
the other defense is "oh this is about Steiner and not
about (in this case, Steve, and those who laugh about
this particular quote) so and so".
dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:32:55 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: possible member
soma mwt.net wrote:
) Sharon:
) 44 members of PLANS. I hope I'm one of them.
You hope, but don't know if you're a member of PLANS?
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 09:01:10 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
Steve, you knew Sune would take it seriously, didn't you?
Humorlessness and Anthroposophy go together.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:58:24 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Humorlessness and Anthroposophy go together.
) -Dan Dugan
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:02:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
Dan
) Steve, you knew Sune would take it seriously, didn't
) you?
) Humorlessness and Anthroposophy go together.
)
dottie
What about the Critics humor regarding writings of Dr.
Steiner? You actually try to convince people that Dr.
Steiner was serious, regarding a quote, about white
women reading books while pregnant and the fact that
it might alter the color of their children. ???
The Critics take on this just keeps showing the
hypocrisy they practice.
dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:09:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
) Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) ) Humorlessness and Anthroposophy go together.
) ) -Dan Dugan
)
) http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
)
)
Hi Sune,
That is a great page you posted. I think it would be a
great service to post it to the many places Mr.
Staudenmaier posted his revisionist paper on
Anthroposophy. His eco tale is listed next to just
about every name he quoted or referenced, in this very
misinformed paper.
Thanks,
dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 22:05:40 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
)dottie
)
)What about the Critics humor regarding writings of Dr.
)Steiner? You actually try to convince people that Dr.
)Steiner was serious, regarding a quote, about white
)women reading books while pregnant and the fact that
)it might alter the color of their children. ???
)
)The Critics take on this just keeps showing the
)hypocrisy they practice.
Steiner's telling of this joke shows how insensitive he was about race.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:47:21 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: OT: acupuncture question for Dan, ad hominem
At 9:39 AM -0700 6/16/01, michael C wrote:
)--- Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
)) An ad hominem argument, Michael.
))
)) -Dan Dugan
))
)Michael C.
)
)Dan if that is a warning against an ad hominem then I
)accept the warning because that is an area where you
)have the authority to decide on this matter for this
)list. And you can ignore the rest of the letter.
Not really, Michael.
)If it wasn't a warning I want to say that I didn't
)make an ad hominem argument I just relayed that it was
)possibly to make such an argument. The reason that I
)was showing that it was possible to make such an
)argument was that you made an argument from authority.
Dr. Sampson is a respected authority on pseudoscience. In addition to
being on the board of CSICOP he edits *The Scientific Review of
Alternative Medicine*, and I believe he does something with the
National Council Against Health Fraud.
)Although an argument from authority does not directly
)attack a persons credibility, it can be used against
)people and ideas that may have much merit. It is an
)equallt fallacious form of argument as the ad hominem
)argument.
Touche'.
)I believe that when the argument from authority is
)used that it opens the way for the ad hominem argument
)against the authority. This ad hominem argument should
)be limited arguments that attempt to show that the
)authority invoked is not necessarily creadible.
)Attacks on other aspects of the charector of the
)authority should be out of bounds.
Good luck attacking Sampson's credibility. I'm sure a lot of people
have written negative things about him, he's been very visible for
many years making some people very uncomfortable. Finding their
squeals of protest does little to impugn his credibility.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:49:40 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Quote of the Week
Michael C., you wrote,
)Intuition is also not subject to the
)limitations of rationality and is capable of getting
)to the truth without rational thought.
You wish. Intuition is the source of ideas that then have to be
tested in the real world.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 22:03:54 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Can you substantiate your claim, Dan?
Detlef, you wrote,
)An analogy:
)Imagine someone visits a school run by secular humanists (i.e.
)almost all schools in France and most public schools in the States)
A straw man, Detlef. I doubt there are any public schools in the U.S.
"run by secular humanists." We are a small minority. You're confusing
our constitutional separation of church and state with teaching
secular humanism. It's not happening.
The 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court wrote in a California case
(Peloza v Capistrano, 1994): "The Supreme Court has held
unequivocally that while belief in a Divine Creator of the universe
is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of
life evolved from lower ones is not."
)where Darwin's "survival of the fittest" plays a major role in the
)basic understanding of the human being.
Straw man again. If the theory of evolution were to be condensed into
one phrase, it would likely be "descent with modification."
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 22:16:11 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: confirmatory evidence and dounle blind studies and lack of
compassion for
)Michael C:
)
)Sorry I can see how you might have trouble with that
)last paragraph. It was't all that clear. I will
)restate it with some other ideas added.
)
)1. By the time a drug gets to the double blind study
)stage it has usually already been given good
)preliminary tests to determine the degree of saftey.
)The saftey testing of course is an ongoing process
)that continues even years after a drug is approved and
)in use.
Yes.
)2. Also by the time a drug gets to the double blind
)study stage it has usually been established that there
)is good reason to believe that the drug is effective
)for the treatement of certain medical ailments. The
)saftey testing process continues with the double blind
)and beyound.
Yes.
)3. The main thing that the double blind can do is
)eliminate unitentional bias and the placebo effect.
)Other types of testing can do everything else. In the
)case of a terminal illness unitentional bias is pretty
)easy to eliminate because it is hard to confuse a
)living person with a dead one. All we have left is the
)placebo effect and if more people survive because of
)the placebo effect, that seems fine to me.
No, selection bias or bad randomizing could screw up a study of survival times.
)4. So what I said is lets give people a choice when
)they have a very serious perhaps life threatening
)problem.
When is that not the case?
)They can choose to participate in a double
)blind for the new therapy or they can choose to
)particpate in experiment that just test the effects of
)the drug against survival rates and so forth.
You can't "just test the effects" without randomization and blinding.
)In both
)cases they will be informed as to how safe or unsafe
)the treatment is as has been determined by studies so
)far. They will also be told something about the
)treatment and why it is believed that it might be
)effective.
Do you have any reason to believe that isn't standard procedure?
Experimenters go through hell getting a human subject experiment
approved nowadays.
)Now what if no one wants to particpate in the double
)blind. Maybe offer incentives like money. Perhaps some
)one that is convinced that they will die anyway will
)want the money for their children.
It would be unethical to offer substantial payment for participation.
)By the way one more question. I assume that in order
)to get into a double blind for a new treatment you
)have to promise that you will not seek any other
)treatmeant, at least in some if not most cases. Is
)that correct?
Yes.
)If it is then I think that in the case
)of a terminal illness that Sune is right and saying
)that a certain number of human sacrifices are called
)for.
In the case of a terminal illness volunteers are sought from among
those for whom all known approaches have failed.
)I suppose that some one might be able to justify these
)sacrafices by saying that other lives will be saved by
)determinning the effectiveness of the treatment.But I
)am not so sure that this agument holds up. Again with
)terminal illnesses it is easy to get unbiased data for
)survival rates. As far as the placebo effect goes
)there are also statics from previous double blinds
)that can looked at to determine if the treatment seems
)to significantly exceed the expectations for the
)placebo effect alone.
The circumstances of every trial are different, I don't think this is
a safe assumption.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 22:33:15 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: More confusion from Sharon
Tarjei, you quoted Steiner,
)"The pupils are enjoined to listen at certain times, by way of
)practice, to the most contradictory views and to silence in
)themselves all positive agreement and, more especially all adverse
)criticism. The point is to silence not only all intellectual
)judgement, but also all feelings of displeasure, denial or
)agreement. The pupil must always watch himself carefully to see
)whether such feelings, even when not on the surface, may not still
)be present in the inmost core of his soul. He must listen, for
)example, to the utterances of those who in one respect or another
)are far beneath him, while yet suppressing every feeling of
)superiority or of possessing greater knowledge. It is useful for
)everyone to listen in this way to children, for even the wisest can
)learn immeasurably much from children. So the pupil comes to listen
)to the words of others quite selflessly, while completely shutting
)out his own personality, with its opinions and trends of feeling.
)When he has trained himself to listen without criticism, when even
)the most preposterous statement is made in his presence, he learns
)gradually to merge himself into the being of another. Then he learns
)_through_ the words into the very soul of the other. It is through
)assidious practice of this kind that asound becomes for the first
)time the right means for perceiving the soul and spirit. Certainly,
)this requires the most rigorous self-discipline, but it leads to a
)lofty goal."
)
)"Knowledge of the Higher Worlds, How is it Achieved?" -
)"Preparation." (GA #10)
An excellent example of mind control training technique. How to make
a cult 101.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 22:27:32 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Can you substantiate your claim, Dan?
At 11:18 AM +0100 6/15/01, Detlef Hardorp wrote:
)DH: )The law certainly does NOT name anthroposophy!
))
))The law gives the authorities the right to dissolve an organisation
))in which a leader has been convicted of a crime.
)
)DD: )Thanks for the information. Our French-speaking correspondent in
)Canada says the same thing. Both of the French governments -reports-
)about cults (sectes) do mention Anthroposophy, however.
)
)DH: There were two parlamentary reports. The first (in 1995 or 6)
)names anthrosopsophy as being a totally "innocuous" organisation and
)does NOT classify it as a sect.
Thanks for the clarification.
)In the second parlamentary report in 1999, anthroposophy IS
)classified as a sect. The president of the commission,
)Jacques Guyard, makes the mistake of saying it is "a typical sect"
)on national TV. He is sued for diffamation. In court, he is unable
)to present any evidence not worthless to substantiate his claims (as
)noted by the judge) and is fined heavily.
I believe his evidence was testimony from people who had had
experience with the schools, and were offered anonymity to protect
them and their children from retaliation. Legal matters aside,
Detlef, do you really regard such testimony as "worthless"?
)His appeal was heard just some days ago. The appeals judgement is
)due in September. His lawyers mainly appealed on whether he can
)claim parliamentary immunity when speaking to the press about a
)parliamentary report and whether the organisations that sued have
)standing. It is certainly possible that the first ruling will be
)overturned. But it would be on these legal issues.
The wheels of law grind slowly, and much time is spend dealing with
technicalities unrelated to the real issues. The same thing is going
on with PLANS' lawsuit.
)No more witnesses were heard in the appeal, it was just the lawyers
)presenting their arguments. The findings of the first judge on the
)actual accusation and the total poverty of evidence was so
)unequivocal and devestating (for Guyard and the "research" done by
)the gov't) that - whether or not he wins the appeal - respect for
)this parliametary report will remain blemished forever.
You cannot say that the evidence was bad because the appeal is based
on Guyard's claim of immunity. I think that is a very important issue
for the legislature, and if French law respects the separation of
functions the way we do in the U.S. (judicial, executive,
legislative) the first judge may very well get her hand slapped for
interfering with the work of another department.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:33:53 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
Dan Dugan wrote:
) )dottie
) )
) )What about the Critics humor regarding writings of Dr.
) )Steiner? You actually try to convince people that Dr.
) )Steiner was serious, regarding a quote, about white
) )women reading books while pregnant and the fact that
) )it might alter the color of their children. ???
) )
) )The Critics take on this just keeps showing the
) )hypocrisy they practice.
Dan:
) Steiner's telling of this joke shows how insensitive he was about race.
Then you haven't noticed how 'insensitive' he was in his comments on the
metabolism of empiricist philosophers in the same morning lecture to
construction workers. And other comments in the generally overall humorous
and original lecture ...
And you complain about anthroposophy and Steiner lacking humour, implying
that you have it ...
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 10:15:43 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Steve, you knew Sune would take it seriously, didn't you?
You complain about a dust particle on the shelf in the kitchen in
'Theosophy' as 'racism!' and then defend the extensive anti-humanism below
the surface of the quote by the missionary of secular humanism lecturing to
congregations of freethinkers and atheists put on the list by Steve?
) Humorlessness and Anthroposophy go together.
Can you point to one instance where humour is expressed at the site of
PLANS, except in *Steiner's theory of child development [is] based on
reincarnation of "the etheric body," "the astral body," and "the I"* and
other bad jokes at the site ...?
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 10:44:16 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Can you substantiate your claim, Dan?
Dan Dugan wrote:
) At 11:18 AM +0100 6/15/01, Detlef Hardorp wrote:
...
) )In the second parlamentary report in 1999, anthroposophy IS
) )classified as a sect. The president of the commission,
) )Jacques Guyard, makes the mistake of saying it is "a typical sect"
) )on national TV. He is sued for diffamation. In court, he is unable
) )to present any evidence not worthless to substantiate his claims (as
) )noted by the judge) and is fined heavily.
Dan:
) I believe his evidence was testimony from people who had had
) experience with the schools, and were offered anonymity to protect
) them and their children from retaliation. ...
And what is the source for this belief; the same as for your earlier ones
in this connection?
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 09:46:37 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: Can you substantiate your claim, Dan?
Dan wrote:
) The 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court wrote in a California case
) (Peloza v Capistrano, 1994): "The Supreme Court has held
) unequivocally that while belief in a Divine Creator of the universe
) is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of
) life evolved from lower ones is not."
charlie:
This seems to be a reasonable ruling. Of course when this theory becomes
thought of as fact then it is equivalent to religious belief. Projecting the
theory into the distant future, how high a form can we evolve into?
Dan (snip)
)If the theory of evolution were to be condensed into
) one phrase, it would likely be "descent with modification."
charlie:
And from what have we descended, that is the question?
warm regards,
charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:46:32 -0700
From: Harvey Bornfield (earlyfire earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Quote of the Week
Dan, I think you might wish to consider intuition in a wider context
than as merely a talent which has value only when verifiable in
empirical contexts. It is intuition which creates a Mozart requiem or a
Beethoven's 9th, works which establish themselves as manifestations of
genius with a "shelf-life" which suggests they easily rival the duration
and reliablility and "experiential utility" of many scientific laws.
Seeing truth only as as collection of causes and effects established
through subjection to criteria externally admissible corroboratability,
is one, but certainly not the only reflection of intuitive processes.
Intuition is, by its nature, possessed of a broad bandwith of focus, and
as such, is doubtless capable of affording self-evident penetration of
truth, beyond the rigid scaffolding of the corral of sense. When focused
for art and the unfolding of wisdom inherent in art, we see genius as
the ability to author (= to translate) the fruits of intuition into an
appropriate language configuration, whether scientific or aesthetic it
matters not.
The longevity of immortal works of art illustrates, i.e., invites the
inference, that intuition, when sufficiently developed, is perfectly
capable of revealing evolutionary processes. One can develop an interest
in studying the architecture of art works and witness how thoughts are
metabolized in contexts which lend credibility and trustworthiness to
experiences arising in human subjectivity, (or as an alternative, one
can free up as much time as possible accumulating diplomas, square
footage, greenspan and other acorns to stash inside their pyramids for
the trip home.)
The great artists knew the value of their art independently of applause
meters. Beethoven's rebuttal to the criticism of his Rasumovsky string
quartets, then easily twice the length, structural complexity, and
emotional intensity of what contemporary audiences expected, (and now
considered 'plain vanilla') was simply "Not for you, but for a later
age."
When Morya says "Through art thou hast the light", he foreshadows that
all future self-knowledging processes will occur only when there exists
a balanced dialogue between scientific and artistic activity. My point:
Fellow Rocket scientists: Subjectivity is also the real world. Try
amputating dream, love and imagination from the human cuisine, and then
assess whether a diet of euphoric competitive triumph and corporate
cannibalism has the requisite majesty to mainstay the fulfilment of
human needs.
Harvey
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Michael C., you wrote,
)
) )Intuition is also not subject to the
) )limitations of rationality and is capable of getting
) )to the truth without rational thought.
)
) You wish. Intuition is the source of ideas that then have to be
) tested in the real world.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:05:19 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
) Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) ) )Michael C:
) ) )I first discovered the PLANS from a link on the
) ) )Anthoposophy site.
) )
) ) Which Anthroposophy site?
Me [Sune:]
) There are links to PLANS at the largest anthroposophical link site I know,
) built by a waldorf teacher here in Stockholm, at
) http://www.anthroposophy.net under 'category search' under the category
) 'contra anthroposophy', at the site of Info3 in Germany at
) http://www.info3.de/cgi-bin/yforum/yforum.cgi?forum=interaktiv/anthrokritik&cfg=0
) linked from the main page at http://www.info3.de/ (down left; 'weiteres')
) and at Tarjei's site at http://uncletaz.com/allegations.html
Forgot, the anthroposophical site at
http://www.rudolf-steiner.de/thema/kritik/ at http://www.rudolf-steiner.de
also links to PLANS.
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:02:15 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
sune:
) To this your reaction is a laughter.
)
) Interesting reaction.
I learned during my years at michael hall waldorf school that anthros dont
have a sense of humour, from a great pious higher world they look down on
mere mortals amuzing themselves with jokes
bea
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:03:55 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Quote of the Week
) charlie:
) I wonder what sort of response there would be on this list if someone had
) found a quote by Steiner joking about using a weapon of mass destruction
) against people who held different views to him.
)
) warm regards,
) charlie.
you mean steiner told jokes??
bea
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 346
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Quote of the Week
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
By raymon_ford yahoo.com.au
Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
By earlyfire earthlink.net
Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
By dan dandugan.com
Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites and info on WE and anthroposophy on the
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Re: Can you substantiate your claim, Dan?
By hardorp gmx.net
Re: (still...) brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
By paixs yahoo.com.br
Re: Quote of the Week
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: More confusion from Sharon
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites and info on WE and
anthroposophy o
By dan dandugan.com
Re: (still...) brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Four elements (was: Comments on Waldorf education)
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
The art of listening
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Some hubris
By soma mwt.net
Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites and info on WE and
anthroposophy
By soma mwt.net
Re: Some hubris
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Quote of the Week
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Quote of the Week
By winters_diana hotmail.com
RE: Quote of the Week
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites and info on WE and
anthroposophy o
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 12:19:17 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: Quote of the Week
) you mean steiner told jokes??
) bea
I take it you haven't read all the posts about constipation, pregnancy and
negro novels.
warm regards,
charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 17:59:19 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
Dan Dugan wrote:
)Humorlessness and Anthroposophy go together.
Really? You guys applaud me for writing a satirical court room drama
where I'm making fun of anthroposophy. I haven't seen any instance of
critics making fun of Waldorf criticism.
You can't have it both ways - laughing at my humor, and then claiming
that anthros don't have any humor. Make up your minds and show me
some of your own self-critical humor that beats mine.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 18:14:15 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
Sune forgot to mention my 'Anthroposophical Links' page with a
banner-link to PLANS at
http://uncletaz.com/linksfolder/anthroposlinks.html
Among other anthroposiophical sites linking to PLANS:
http://www.gomilpitas.com/homeschooling/methods/Waldorf.htm
http://www.waldorfworld.net/Waldorf/Information/
I have seen many others. It looks like anthroposophical webmasters
don't shy away from linking up PLANS.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 03:20:14 +1000 (EST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Raymon=20Ford?= (raymon_ford yahoo.com.au)
Subject: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
Re the number of Anthroposophical sites with links to
PLANS, some mentioned below by Tarjei, it seems to me
that one of the main concerns of PLANS - deceptive
marketing to the parents - is becoming a moot point.
For how can such deceptive marketing succeed to any
great extent when so much information - both pro and
con - is available on the web?
Raymon
) Sune forgot to mention my 'Anthroposophical Links'
) page with a
) banner-link to PLANS at
)
) http://uncletaz.com/linksfolder/anthroposlinks.html
)
) Among other anthroposiophical sites linking to
) PLANS:
)
)
http://www.gomilpitas.com/homeschooling/methods/Waldorf.htm
)
) http://www.waldorfworld.net/Waldorf/Information/
)
)
) I have seen many others. It looks like
) anthroposophical webmasters
) don't shy away from linking up PLANS.
)
) --
) Tarjei
)
_____________________________________________________________________________
http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Messenger
- Voice chat, mail alerts, stock quotes and favourite news and lots more!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 18:31:17 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
) Re the number of Anthroposophical sites with links to
) PLANS, some mentioned below by Tarjei, it seems to me
) that one of the main concerns of PLANS - deceptive
) marketing to the parents - is becoming a moot point.
) For how can such deceptive marketing succeed to any
) great extent when so much information - both pro and
) con - is available on the web?
)
) Raymon
well certainley in the UK thats irrelevant, so few people have internet,
and its about the marketing the schools do locally and on their open days,
and in their new parents talks, I for one wouldent have gone and looked on
the internet to see if it was the truth, I wouldent be expecting anyone in a
school situation to dupe me, why are they so reluctant just to tell it like
it is? ( i have learnt from this deception) there were anthros at michael
hall who favoured this approach, they thought that the school would shrink
to one class per year and it would be anthro parents who wanted a real
waldorf school, so they wouldent have to do any worldly exam programs.
Ultimately though that would have meant halsf of the teachers losing their
jobs so it didnt ever get enough votes (from the teachers)
bea
)
)
))
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 20:17:03 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
Bea wrote (to Raymon about links on the web):
)well certainley in the UK thats irrelevant, so few people have internet,
The internet cannot be said to be irrelevant to the at least 11
million Britons with access at home
(http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/geographics/article/0,,5911_564001,00.html)
plus countless others who have access through libraries,
universities, schools, and at work. Old folks' homes and nursing
homes too. The U.K. has had an avalanche of senior citizens going
online at institutions and centers for the elderly
(http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,s2075328,00.html), and it's my
distinct impression that Britain has been one of the pioneeering
nations in the IT field from the start. I regularly watch
"clickonline" on BBC World
(http://www.bbcworld.com/Content/clickonline/default.asp).
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:16:30 -0700
From: Harvey Bornfield (earlyfire earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
Jokes, the 'fruits' of a sense of humor, are ways to lighten the human load,
to uncoagulate the obsessive-compulsive gravity of righteousness, whether
justified or dogmatic, it matters not. (The quality of mercy is not strained)
Humor is wings, forgiveness incognito, paroles a person from being sentenced
to endure their own mighty convictions, and makes enchantment the vehicle for
a stay of execution of offenses most solemn.
(Earlyfire, thinking to himself out loud)
The sensitivity to the intended audience, the stopping to reflect upon the
receptivity, the 'climate of welcome' of those upon whose ears the pardon is
about to fall, and asking do I, or do they REALLY DESIRE RELEASE from what
humor, the Universal Locksmith wishes to 'de-incarcerate'. Some prejudices
are addictions, and are hard to let go of. So the decision to apply, do
offer, to invite the levity of humor, is all about courtesy and tact, two
variants of compassion, footnotes to Will's "Gently to Hear, Kindly to judge,
our play (Henry V, prologue)
The wind that swells one man's sails may shred anothers. Then what have we
achieved?, whom have we enriched and assisted? What have we put out there?
More Jihad, more angel's tears? A nanosecond's reflection is worth an hour of
post. Make sure that in the act of criticism our intention to share clarity
is not obliterated by what the hearer will take as sadism.
Harvey
"mypostbox.formail" wrote:
) sune:
) ) To this your reaction is a laughter.
) )
) ) Interesting reaction.
)
) I learned during my years at michael hall waldorf school that anthros dont
) have a sense of humour, from a great pious higher world they look down on
) mere mortals amuzing themselves with jokes
) bea
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:00:23 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
on 6/17/01 1:20 PM, Raymon Ford at raymon_ford yahoo.com.au wrote:
) Re the number of Anthroposophical sites with links to
) PLANS, some mentioned below by Tarjei, it seems to me
) that one of the main concerns of PLANS - deceptive
) marketing to the parents - is becoming a moot point.
) For how can such deceptive marketing succeed to any
) great extent when so much information - both pro and
) con - is available on the web?
)
) Raymon
Because not everybody is ON the web.
Parents who are attracted to Waldorf schools -- where computers and TV are
forbidden -- are very likely not making use of these sources of information
themselves. That leaves colorful pamphlets, Parents Handbooks, and
misleading lectures that conveniently omit dissenting views and Steiner's
disturbing quotes.
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:06:57 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
Bea wrote:
)I learned during my years at michael hall waldorf school that anthros dont
)have a sense of humour, from a great pious higher world they look down on
)mere mortals amuzing themselves with jokes
I see. How about http://uncletaz.com/#anchor166344. Or my previously
posted reconciliation between Darwin and Genesis, also available at
http://uncletaz.com/adameve.html ? What is your reason to assume
that I look down on those who amuse themselves with jokes? (I have
the distinct impression that I'm being considered an anthro on this
list.)
Now that I've shown you some of my own jokes, where are yours?
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:18:11 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
)Dan Dugan wrote:
)
))Humorlessness and Anthroposophy go together.
[TARJEI]
)Really? You guys applaud me for writing a satirical court room drama
)where I'm making fun of anthroposophy. I haven't seen any instance
)of critics making fun of Waldorf criticism.
)
)You can't have it both ways - laughing at my humor, and then
)claiming that anthros don't have any humor. Make up your minds and
)show me some of your own self-critical humor that beats mine.
You win, you're right, you're an exception.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 11:29:02 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
Thanks for the links. I found several still linked to dandugan.com;
I've written to the webmasters.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:58:35 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites and info on WE and anthroposophy on the net
Tarjei wrote:
) Sune forgot to mention my 'Anthroposophical Links' page with a
) banner-link to PLANS at
) http://uncletaz.com/linksfolder/anthroposlinks.html
)
) Among other anthroposiophical sites linking to PLANS:
) http://www.gomilpitas.com/homeschooling/methods/Waldorf.htm
) http://www.waldorfworld.net/Waldorf/Information/
)
) I have seen many others. It looks like anthroposophical webmasters
) don't shy away from linking up PLANS.
You're right, Tarjei. I mainly mentioned those I remembered more directly.
There are some others too:
http://www.halcyon.com/comvis/resource_steiner.html (admittedly not
anthroposophical as such, but clearly positive to WE) and
http://www.antroposofi.org/index2d.htm (another Swedish anthroposophical
site).
As to info by more or less dissatisfied parents on their personal
experiences of Waldorf education and schools, I personally have no
objection to that part at the site of PLANS.
As to information on what waldorf education and anthroposophy are, the site
of PLANS and this list rise few inches above the level of being a simple
disinformation-, smearing- and propaganda site on it from a secular
humanist perspective, yet with Dan as mainly responsible for it standing
out as a model of truthfulness in comparison with people like Peter
Staudenmaier.
Both the sites of http://www.bobnancy.com and
http://www.elib.com/Steiner/eLib.phtml give plenty of better and full
original information on it than can be found at the site of PLANS, that
makes it possible for parents and prospective parents and others to read up
for themselves on what both anthroposophy and waldorf education stand for
and the relation between them.
There are plenty of other link sites, articles and sites discussing
Frequently Asked Questions on WE; some very few of them being
http://homeschooling.about.com/education/homeschooling/cs/methwaldorf/
http://www.webcrawler.com/education/teacher_resources/education_theory/learning_methods/waldorf/guides/
http://www.webcrawler.com/education/k_12/schools/alternative_schools/waldorf/guides/
(;good short page also linking to Sharon's article as the only one from the
site of PLANS)
http://www.oranaschool.com/links.html
http://www.findarticles.com/m0STR/4_109/58119922/p1/article.jhtml
http://www.waldorf-toys.com/shopuk/waldorfeducation.html
http://www.fortnet.org/rsws/waldorf/faq.html
http://www.capeannwaldorf.org/caws-faq.html
http://nvcs.tresd.k12.ca.us/walfaq.htm
http://www.oranaschool.com/glossary.html
http://www.steinerwaldorf.org.uk/
As for UK, there were some 40 Million Britons between 15 and 64 last year
(http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html#People) As
Tarjei has pointed out, 1 in 4 of them now have access to internet at home
and with maybe just as many more having access to it at public institutions
in different forms.
That's still behind US, where some 2 (132 Million) of 3 (sone 180 Million
between 15 and 64) probably have access to internet
(http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/s-asia-it/9810/msg00014.html and
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#People), about
the same as in Sweden.
But the difference probably is not very great and http://www.amazon.com/
gives some 588 titles when searching with 'anthroposophy' and 132 matches
for 'waldorf' under the category 'books'. http://www.altavista.com links to
ca 3400 pages on the net when searching with +"Rudolf Steiner"
+anthroposophy
Nobody can say that it isn't possible for anybody to get a quite full
picture of what anthroposophy and waldorf education are about, who has the
least incentive in trying to find out about it.
What PLANS adds to that, except for personal articles like that by Sharon,
is little more than secular humanist propaganda and smearing.
Sune
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 22:47:42 +0100
From: Detlef Hardorp (hardorp gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Can you substantiate your claim, Dan?
Detlef H.: )In the second parliamentary report in 1999, anthroposophy IS=20
)classified as a sect. The president of the commission,
)Jacques Guyard, makes the mistake of saying it is "a typical sect"=20
)on national TV. He is sued for defamation. In court, he is unable=20
)to present any evidence not worthless to substantiate his claims (as=20
)noted by the judge) and is fined heavily.
Dan D. wrote: )I believe his evidence was testimony from people who had had =
experience with the schools, and were offered anonymity to protect=20
them and their children from retaliation. Legal matters aside,=20
Detlef, do you really regard such testimony as "worthless"?
DH: 1. It was deemed worthless by the judge. I was quoting her.
2. As to your first sentence, Dan:
This was NOT "testimony from people who had had experience with the =
schools, and were offered anonymity to protect them and their children from =
retaliation." Wishful thinking.
I have explained the French "renseignement generaux" before: it's a bit =
like civil spying. Anybody can report anything to a special police force. =
These reports are anonymous by their very nature. They are never signed, =
that's why they are called "blancs" in French: they always lack signatures.
I'll give you an example. They are supposed to be secret, but they were =
cited at length by Guyard's defense, so we KNOW what was in these files.
Waldorf classes often go to work on farms for a week or two to get to know =
agricultural work first hand. And - of course - it's done with a =
"hands-on" approach. One day, a local farmer observed a bunch of Waldorf =
children ploughing a field - by hand! They were all pulling the plough in =
a long row!
So he wrote an anonymous report to the RG about this sect that forces =
children to engage in child labour.
Then there is one about worshipping the moon and the stars - this time, I =
think it was a class that had sung songs about the moon and the stars =
around a campfire or something like that.
People that know Steiner Waldorf education just laughed their head off, =
because they were all perfectly understandable misinterpretations by =
suspicious onlookers who had no idea what was going on and didn't bother to =
ask. I don't think any were from people that had taken their children from =
Waldorf schools after bad experiences. There were most definitively no =
witnesses that were "protected because of fear of retaliations". Yes, I =
know they do that when mafia bosses go on trial. Don't overdo the hype, =
Dan. Lisa E. posted her private phone numbers on this list over a year ago =
when I doubted that she was a real person (convincing me that she was =
real). She has given a lot of negative testimony concerning Waldorf =
education. Has she been harassed by phone calls?! Ask her. Have you, =
Dan? Your phone number isn't secret either! Or other "retaliations"? Has =
anybody threatened to blow up you house, assaulted you on the street, =
called in bomb threats, or what have you?
When parents withdraw their children from Waldorf schools, I sometimes wish =
the schools would do a little bit of following up, at least asking the =
question: "why?" Often, valuable indications of problems can be got that =
way, before these problems get a chance to magnify and possibly blow up. =
But the Waldorf teachers are generally so busy with other things that they =
don't get around to even asking such a simple question.
But at night, between two and four in the morning, when no one is looking, =
Waldorf teachers hold secret ceremonies in caves, with animal sacrifice, =
lots of chanting, and plan insidious retaliations against parents who dare =
to take their children from their holy schools and who speak up against the =
covered-up tyranny of anthroposophy-inculcating teachers ... (Yes, I was =
being sarcastic, just in case you didn't notice.)
Anyway, the judge in France was not amused by the evidence of the RG =
(renseignement generaux) at all and dismissed all of these reports as =
worthless. Imagine a similar gov't agency collecting information like that =
from U.S. citizens. Wow, that would be great evidence for the PLANS suit! =
Christopher Yawelow could write about this telling fetish for woolen =
underwear, and it could be submitted as part of the official evidence - =
anonymously, of course, for fear of retaliations.
Too bad the suit has been dismissed.
Detlef Hardorp=
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 23:14:18 -0300
From: "CP" (paixs yahoo.com.br)
Subject: Re: (still...) brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
Quite late in the upkeep I¥m answering the post
below by Tarjei - sorry, been off:
----- Original Message -----
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 09:55
Subject: Re: (still...) brain surgeons/ was
Anthroposophy and dogma
)Clara:
)
)Tarjei, I¥m on the run, and getting tired of this
)brain surgeon thing (you must be too ;)). But
only
)one more obs:
)If one trusts spiritual records to be as reliable
)as material records (those available on this
world
)not other), it is logical to presume that one
)would trust a surgeon whose qualifications are
)registered in the spiritual records in the same
)way as one would trust a surgeons whose
)qualifications are recorded on material records.
)Remember, in my analogy the spiritually trained
)doctor is very well qualifyed, *spiritually*. He
)knows all that the spiritual records say about
)the human brain and how to cure its diseases.
)If you dismiss my analogy saying I cannot compare
)a scientifically qualifyed doctor to a
spiritually
)qualifyed doctor because they¥re training and
)eductaion is different - there you have it, I
)demonstrated my point.
)If you really thought brain surgeons are
)comparable to occultists (in that both groups
)develop knowledge that is not readily available
)for others), you wouldn¥t have thought my analogy
)was that absurd.
[Tarjei]
My point was that you assumed the non-doctor
claimed to be a
qualified brain surgeon with no such training or
qualifications
_only_ because he or she was an occultist.
Clara:
I didn¥t assume it only because he/she was an
occultist. I made up the analogy, I invented a
scientist vs an occultist, to suggest that
scientific evidence is more trustworthy than
spiritual. My point was, you can check on the
evidence that is on this world; you cannot check
on the evidence that is in the spiritual world.
[Tarjei:]
A surgeon's training involves the use of
instruments. An occultist's training involves the
development of spiritual organs. You cannot
perform surgery with spiritual organs any more
than you can view the spirit with medical
equipment.
Clara:
I agree - but tell this to the spiritual healers
who conduct surgeries (I mean opening up people¥s
bodies, literally) by the dozens every month
claiming that they receive spiritual guidance and
thus have no need for scientific training in the
use of instruments.
(Oh well, probably you don¥t have those in
Norway?)
BTW of course spiritual surgeries are ilegal; why
is that? - because in order to open up a person¥s
body you need to be a qualifyed doctor; what does
that mean? - scientifically qualifyed; - what does
that mean? verifyable, trustable qualifications in
this world; why is that? because we don¥t have
access to the other world, so we¥d rather play
safe.
The claim by a spiritual healer (that he is
spiritually qualifyed and receives spiritual
guidance to perform surgeries) is to me comparable
to the claim by a spiritual historian (that he is
enlightened and has access to spiritual records on
the Origins of Humankind), a spiritual educator
(that he is enlightened and has spiritual insights
on the development of children)... to any
"spiritual scientist". They are comparable,
because they are all based on spiritual rather
than material evidence.
Of course they differ in that a spiritual healer
can kill a person with his surgery, whereas a
spiritual historian can hardly kill anyone with
his writings (or could he?). So let¥s say, there
may be an ethical difference, but not
theorethical.
Clara
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:12:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Quote of the Week
--- Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
) Michael C., you wrote,
)
) )Intuition is also not subject to the
) )limitations of rationality and is capable of
) getting
) )to the truth without rational thought.
)
) You wish. Intuition is the source of ideas that then
) have to be
) tested in the real world.
)
) -Dan Dugan
Michael C:
Agreed, If the intuition is held on it's own without
testing we have the same self reference problem that
we have with reason. There is more to this, but I
won't writer anything else now.
)
)
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 16:01:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: More confusion from Sharon
--- Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
) Tarjei, you quoted Steiner,
)
) )"The pupils are enjoined to listen at certain
) times, by way of
) )practice, to the most contradictory views and to
) silence in
) )themselves all positive agreement and, more
) especially all adverse
) )criticism. The point is to silence not only all
) intellectual
) )judgement, but also all feelings of displeasure,
) denial or
) )agreement. The pupil must always watch himself
) carefully to see
) )whether such feelings, even when not on the
) surface, may not still
) )be present in the inmost core of his soul. He must
) listen, for
) )example, to the utterances of those who in one
) respect or another
) )are far beneath him, while yet suppressing every
) feeling of
) )superiority or of possessing greater knowledge. It
) is useful for
) )everyone to listen in this way to children, for
) even the wisest can
) )learn immeasurably much from children. So the pupil
) comes to listen
) )to the words of others quite selflessly, while
) completely shutting
) )out his own personality, with its opinions and
) trends of feeling.
) )When he has trained himself to listen without
) criticism, when even
) )the most preposterous statement is made in his
) presence, he learns
) )gradually to merge himself into the being of
) another. Then he learns
) )_through_ the words into the very soul of the
) other. It is through
) )assidious practice of this kind that asound becomes
) for the first
) )time the right means for perceiving the soul and
) spirit. Certainly,
) )this requires the most rigorous self-discipline,
) but it leads to a
) )lofty goal."
) )
) )"Knowledge of the Higher Worlds, How is it
) Achieved?" -
) )"Preparation." (GA #10)
)
) An excellent example of mind control training
) technique. How to make
) a cult 101.
)
) -Dan Dugan
Michael C:
Perhaps for someone that has an overly weak or
unhealthy ego and who only listens to one side of a
story in an open and receptive fashion this might be
the case. However Dan if you will take the chance of
being brainwashed and reread the passage carefully you
will find that it is actually instructions for
deprogramming oneself. Notice that it says silence
both positive agreement and negative disagreement.
Notice that it suggest doing this with contradictory
views not view (singular). Notice that Steiner also
recomends listening to children this way, does that
sound like brainwashing?
If is intersting because your reply to this quote
demonstrates the very need for this exercise. But take
heart Dan not just you but probably every person on
earth could benefit from this practice.
One more comment, some one who has mastered the skill
of listening is not the one that is easily controled.
The master of listening can with a few other skills
control other people and often they don't even know
that they are being controled. I don't suggest that
someone use this skill this way, but just point out
that listening is an essential component of
salesmanship.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:45:28 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
Raymon Ford, you wrote,
)Re the number of Anthroposophical sites with links to
)PLANS, some mentioned below by Tarjei, it seems to me
)that one of the main concerns of PLANS - deceptive
)marketing to the parents - is becoming a moot point.
)For how can such deceptive marketing succeed to any
)great extent when so much information - both pro and
)con - is available on the web?
Most of what Waldorf promoters post on the web is no more truthful
than the printed materials they pass out to parents.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:51:08 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites and info on WE and
anthroposophy on the
Sune, you wrote:
)What PLANS adds to that, except for personal articles like that by Sharon,
)is little more than secular humanist propaganda and smearing.
I guess it doesn't matter that PLANS' board and supporters come from
all faiths and non-faith; the fact that I profess secular humanism
gives you a hook to hang religious bigotry on.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 01:21:48 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: (still...) brain surgeons/ was Anthroposophy and dogma
Clara wrote:
) )If you really thought brain surgeons are
))comparable to occultists (in that both groups
))develop knowledge that is not readily available
))for others), you wouldn=B4t have thought my analogy
))was that absurd.
The analogy wasn't yours. It was mine. this is from a post from June 3:
*********************************************************
Clara:
"What happens with anthroposophy is preciselly this. The
self-proclaimed initiates argue, they "know" things we others cannot
know."
Tarjei:
Experienced brain surgeons might argue something quite similar.
**************************************************
I made the analogy between brain surgeons and occultists to
demonstrate that both disciplines require training and preparation. I
would never suggest that a podiatrist should perform oral surgery or
that any educated lab technician should claim objective seership, or
that a historian should fly a 747. Who would you rather have as a
pilot for your flight? A historian or a trained pilot? That is the
kind of question you make up when you ask if an occultist should
perform brain surgery, even if he has no training or education for
the latter. And you phraze this question in such a wasy *as though*
someone who accepts the validity of spiritual science and therefore
disagrees with you, would prefer a non-qualified doctor - or dentist
or electrician or plumber for that matter - to a qualified one. In
the middle of a very astute discussion on your part. you suddenly
made a sidetrack into what looks like a endeavor to discredit
acceptors of spiritual science by suggesting that they would have
heart surgery performed by a plumber or a journalist as long as the
plumber or journalist was also an occultist. My point is that you
either twisted my analogy completely for this purpose, or you simply
misunderstood it to begin with.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 01:27:58 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Four elements (was: Comments on Waldorf education)
Sarina, you wrote:
Michael Kopp wrote:
It's a total waste of time to try to read Sune - or Steiner. There's
nothing there but perfervid imagination.
Sarina:
Yeah, but at least Sune seems to be a pretty nice guy...
Me [Sune:]
Thanks, Sarina.
(I'll overlook the 'yeah' part, as I of course don't think you know what
you're talking about on that point, and agree with the Professor of
Philosophy of science who gave me 'excellent' marks on the paper on the
concept of science, found at my site, that I wrote as part of my study at
the University of Gothenburg of Philosophy of Science ... ;-)) )
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 02:02:40 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: The art of listening
)Tarjei, you quoted Steiner,
)
))"The pupils are enjoined to listen at certain times, by way of
))practice, to the most contradictory views and to silence in
))themselves all positive agreement and, more especially all adverse
))criticism. The point is to silence not only all intellectual
))judgement, but also all feelings of displeasure, denial or
))agreement. The pupil must always watch himself carefully to see
))whether such feelings, even when not on the surface, may not still
))be present in the inmost core of his soul. He must listen, for
))example, to the utterances of those who in one respect or another
))are far beneath him, while yet suppressing every feeling of
))superiority or of possessing greater knowledge. It is useful for
))everyone to listen in this way to children, for even the wisest can
))learn immeasurably much from children. So the pupil comes to listen
))to the words of others quite selflessly, while completely shutting
))out his own personality, with its opinions and trends of feeling.
))When he has trained himself to listen without criticism, when even
))the most preposterous statement is made in his presence, he learns
))gradually to merge himself into the being of another. Then he
))learns _through_ the words into the very soul of the other. It is
))through assidious practice of this kind that asound becomes for the
))first time the right means for perceiving the soul and spirit.
))Certainly, this requires the most rigorous self-discipline, but it
))leads to a lofty goal."
))
))"Knowledge of the Higher Worlds, How is it Achieved?" -
))"Preparation." (GA #10)
)
)An excellent example of mind control training technique. How to make
)a cult 101.
)
)-Dan Dugan
By "mind control" you assumably mean one person, or some persons,
controlling the minds of other people. What Steiner describes in KOHW
excerpted above, is an exercise in self-discipline that the student,
listener, or reader does alone. If I succeed in suspending my judgent
and my antipaties and sypmathies when reading one of your challenging
posts before evaluating it and responding to it, Dan, who is
mind-controlling me in that case? If the art of listening is best
achieved by silencing one's inner self until the other party has been
heard, who is bing manipulated and by whom? In other words, can you
explain your interpretation of the above quote?
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 20:39:18 -0700
From: soma (soma mwt.net)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
Sune Nordwall wrote:
) soma mwt.net wrote:
)
) ) ... I, an infidel, knows secrets concealed to the initiated, and
) ) democratically leaks the Mysteries to the uninitiated from whom the secrets are
) ) withheld, (a sin once punishable by death if betrayed by an initiate.)
) Sune:
)
) Some endless hubris and seeming need of drama in life.
Sharon:
I've taken to calling myself an infidel because an Anthro. on this list was crying
"Burn the Infidels", insinuating that PLANS wanted to burn Anthros.(Not the case).
Since I'm an infidel myself, I thought it was an odd comment coming from a heretic
and fellow infidel.....then Steve posted his joke about nuking new agers...it does
get complicated doesn't it? (BTW, I thought the joke was in bad taste.) I do not
need drama Sune, I have plenty of it every time I pick up something by or about
Steiner. (I also have you and Tarjei). You've been on this list longer than I have,
I guess we are both just very religious. You are defending your religion, and I am
defending my right to freedom from it. For your information, I learned the above
about 'death to the betrayer' directly from Steiner my teacher who said: "No
transgression could be greater than the "betrayal" of the Mysteries to the
uninitiated; the betrayer would be punished not just with the confiscation of
property but with death." [ p 2 Christianity as Mystical Fact, Rudolf Steiner.
Anthroposophic Press c 1997.]
I guess it all boils down to the fact that I just don't walk away from a rotten
situation, I stand up to it and try to change it. (I once intervened to stop several
policemen beating a man and drowning him in a puddle.) When innocent people are
being hurt I try to correct the situation, it is just the way I was raised. I was
duped unnecessarily by Anthroposophists, and I will not back down until you guys
quit the deception. It is not love or kindness or caring to dupe people.
) Sune:
)
) Sharon, most of what you refer to probably is what you have read in books
) available to anyone somewhat interested in the subjects you comment on on
) this list with little trouble, then coming to 'conclusions' like 'Steiner
) was inspired by Bacon'.
Sharon:
I often speak about things that I learn about in books, but I came to be a Waldorf
critic after my *experience* of being a Waldorf parent without reading *ANY* Steiner
or occult books. You are correct that it is from books that I learn certain facts
such as Steiner was very interested in secret societies and that he was a member of
several of them including Memphis-Misraim which was very famous for it's sex magic
practices. I have never said that I know it all. The other day an Anthro. on this
list stated that I was becoming more and more "superior" with each book that I read.
Instead of calling him a jerk I chose to agree with him by saying 'knowledge is
power' which Steiner said in one of the books I read. It was an off the cuff remark,
in jest to defend myself from being called "superior". I was trying to insinuate
that yes, with each book I read I become more confident with my criticism of SWA.
You then attributed that particular quote to Francis Bacon, (I never said Steiner
was the originator of that quote, and Steiner was of course speaking about spiritual
knowledge.) Again, with my usual sarcasm I wrote that Steiner was "inspired" by
Bacon. I should have said that Steiner read Bacon, or spoke about Bacon, as I have
found references to Bacon in Steiner's lectures. I looked him up ages ago after
reading his name from Steiner, and if memory serves, Bacon was anti-religious....but
I don't know that much about the man.
) Sune:
) You 'know secrets concealed to the initiated' ...
)
) You don't know what you are talking about.
Sharon:
I do know some things, a lot more than when I enrolled my kid in Waldorf, but of
course I don't know all of them as certain secrets can't be written down, divulged
or directly expressed.
Steiner:
"Within this whole stream, the initiation of Mani, who also initiated Christian
Rosenkreutz in 1459, is considered to be of a 'higher degree'; it consists of the
true understanding of the nature of evil. This initiation and all that it entails
will have to remain completely hidden from the majority for a long time to come. For
where even only a tiny ray of its light has flowed into literature it has caused
harm, as happened with the irreproachable Guyau, of whom Frederich Nietzsche became
a pupil." p 16, on the next page he states, "For information only. It cannot be
stated directly in this form at present". [Correspondence and Documents 1901-1925
Rudolf Steiner and Marie Steiner von Sivers. Anthroposophic Press, New York c 1988]
In my reading I often come across this kind of thing from Steiner and other
occultists...and you old chap are correct in saying that I don't know what I'm
talking about, I certainly don't know all that I need to know, it's very frustrating
having secrets dangled overhead. Wish I could know them all.
) Sharon:
)
) As to 'leaking the Mysteries to the initiated' you sit in Steiner's coat
) pocket.
)
) SUPERSENSIBLE KNOWLEDGE:
) Its Secrecy in the Past and Publication in our Time
) http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Articles/SupKno_index.html
Sharon:
I've said before that I'm the reincarnation of Steiner. (sarcasm) (I'll try to be
more carefull about letting you know when I'm joking.) I feel just like him
sometimes as I leak the secrets here on critics. (sarcasm) I have read quite a few
times that Steiner got a few people all riled up for leaking certain secrets of the
Great White Brotherhood.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 21:07:01 -0700
From: soma (soma mwt.net)
Subject: Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites and info on WE and
anthroposophy on the
Sune Nordwall wrote:
)
) What PLANS adds to that, except for personal articles like that by Sharon,
) is little more than secular humanist propaganda and smearing.
Sharon:
I need to sit down and write another article, an update. When I wrote "My Brush With Rudolf Steiner" I
didn't know half of what I now know. I don't think I even knew that 'gnomes actually exist' at that stage!
I was just emerging from the cult after my awakening. It was a very bizarre time in my life. In my next
article I want to talk about things like ritual magic, gnomes, sex magic, talismans and hypnotism. I'd
like to inform people of the deeper task of the Anthro movement. I'd like to report on what the Anthro
prescription given my daughter was all about. I want to expose the quack medicine doled out in Waldorf
schools.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 04:06:53 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
)Sharon:
)I've taken to calling myself an infidel because an Anthro. on this
)list was crying "Burn the Infidels", insinuating that PLANS wanted
)to burn Anthros.(Not the case). Since I'm an infidel myself, I
)thought it was an odd comment coming from a heretic and fellow
)infidel.....then Steve posted his joke about nuking new agers...it
)does get complicated doesn't it? (BTW, I thought the joke was in bad
)taste.) I do not need drama Sune, I have plenty of it every time I
)pick up something by or about Steiner. (I also have you and
)Tarjei). You've been on this list longer than I have, I guess we are
)both just very religious. You are defending your religion, and I am
)defending my right to freedom from it. For your information, I
)learned the above about 'death to the betrayer' directly from
)Steiner my teacher who said: "No transgression could be greater than
)the "betrayal" of the Mysteries to the uninitiated; the betrayer
)would be punished not just with the confiscation of property but
)with death." [ p 2 Christianity as Mystical Fact, Rudolf Steiner.
)Anthroposophic Press c 1997.]
According to this interpretation of ancient history, Caiphas and the
high priests decided to have Jesus Christ condemned to death after
the raising of Lazarus (chapter 11 of the John Gospel) because this
was seen as a betrayal of temple secrets. The bringing back to life
of a candidate after three days and nights on "the other side" was
the old style of initiation. The Mystery of Golgotha marked the end
of such old temple mysteries.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 02:51:22 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Quote of the Week
early-fire:
)Try amputating dream, love and imagination from the human cuisine, and
) )then assess whether a diet of euphoric competitive triumph and )corporate
)cannibalism has the requisite majesty to mainstay the )fulfilment of human
)needs.
Well, early-fire, who *did* suggest amputating dream, love and imagination
from the human cuisine? Aren't we just a little melodramatic? (How do you
"amputate" something from a cuisine?)
If I recall (and it gets harder after many passages of early-fire prose),
the posts you were responding to were about medical testing? Are dream, love
and imagination incompatible with medical testing? Seems this shows the
limits of your own imagination.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 02:54:15 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Quote of the Week
Charlie wrote:
)I wonder what sort of response there would be on this list if someone )had
)found a quote by Steiner joking about using a weapon of mass )destruction
)against people who held different views to him.
In my case, since I am completely insensitive to mass murder (joke), the
"nuke 'em" comment actually went right by me. The part I was actually
laughing about was the prayers, incantations and "long unreadable e-mail
discourses." :)
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 02:59:25 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Quote of the Week
earlyfire earthlink.net wrote:
) Dan, I think you might wish to consider intuition in a wider context
) than as merely a talent which has value only when verifiable in
) empirical contexts.
But it depends on what you call intuition. It is a flaky word, in that
it really means a hunch one has about a particular thing. It is hardly
definable. Usually it *is* verified in reality.
It is intuition which creates a Mozart requiem or a
) Beethoven's 9th, works which establish themselves as manifestations of
) genius with a "shelf-life" which suggests they easily rival the duration
) and reliablility and "experiential utility" of many scientific laws.
No, I think the word to use here is imagination, not intuition. Another
word is creativity. You tend to say things in a verbose or hyperlexic
way. But what I gather is that you think that the Mozart or Beethoven
pieces have long-lasting meaning through the ages.
) Seeing truth only as as collection of causes and effects established
) through subjection to criteria externally admissible corroboratability,
) is one, but certainly not the only reflection of intuitive processes.
Again, to intuit something is to suspect something only to have it
verified later by the success of the particular intuition. For
instance, you intuit that from a persons body posture, they are going to
ask you a particular question. Or you seem to know what will happen on a
certain day. It means that you have a notion of something and then it is
verified by actual events.
On the other hand, you don't intuit an opera or a symphony. You create
it. And for many composers, that means writing the notes and trying them
on the piano or other instrument, and seeing how they fit together. A
creative and imaginative endeavor.
) Intuition is, by its nature, possessed of a broad bandwith of focus, and
) as such, is doubtless capable of affording self-evident penetration of
) truth, beyond the rigid scaffolding of the corral of sense.
Hyperlexic, here again. I believe you are trying to say that intuition
*has* a nature. Intuition is a process, usually having to do with
reading nonverbal cues, or even guessing, if you will, in an educated
manner.
When focused
) for art and the unfolding of wisdom inherent in art, we see genius as
) the ability to author (= to translate) the fruits of intuition into an
) appropriate language configuration, whether scientific or aesthetic it
) matters not.
Art is definitely another form of wisdom. The genius to transform a
visual perception into something of beauty and meaning is a creative
effort.
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 03:00:07 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
Sune:
)The quote from Steve expressing the wish in four sentences reveals the
)anti-human essence of 'science' when stripped of all humanizing )clothing,
)the Terminator slowly loosing his artificial and seemingly )human skin.
)To this your reaction is a laughter.
Oh, I have an even worse fate than nuclear weapons in mind for the
non-believers - let's line them up and adminster placebos!! :)
Now Sune, as I explained to Charlie, that wasn't what I was laughing at. But
I think what you are doing here really is continuing the discussion about
"mass murder" (double-blind testing) at the Karolinska Institute, in a way
that does not require you to address the actual issue of double-blind
testing any further. You feel, if I am understanding correctly, that you
have now found corroborating evidence that Diana Winters is insensitive to
the victims of mass murder, in this case nuclear weapons. You, in turn, will
appear more sympathetic than ever to the victims of science.
This is easier, I guess, than responding any further on the
mass-murder-at-the-Karolinska-Institute thread, where you have fallen
silent. I really am curious, though, whether I may have explained the logic
of the experiment any better to you (and why it was probably not inhumane),
or whether you do, in all your earnestness, seriously still believe they are
murdering people at the Karolinska Institute?
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:49:25 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: On killing non-believers in science as God with a nuclear bomb
) I see. How about http://uncletaz.com/#anchor166344. Or my previously
) posted reconciliation between Darwin and Genesis, also available at
) http://uncletaz.com/adameve.html ? What is your reason to assume
) that I look down on those who amuse themselves with jokes? (I have
) the distinct impression that I'm being considered an anthro on this
) list.)
)
) Now that I've shown you some of my own jokes, where are yours?
dear tarjei,
I do not consider you the average anthro like the ones that hang out at
michael hall, I wish you did it may have made it more entertaining
bea
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:53:33 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites and info on WE and
anthroposophy on the
may I just say that none of the parents I was involved with at michael hall
had internet, there was an american who set up a alternative michael hall
site who did but he was annonymous, but none of us mothers did, this time
last year I didnt know how to turn a computor on, I still have very few
friends who are internet literate,
so I still say we should have clear upfront HONEST school literature
available
bea
)
) As for UK, there were some 40 Million Britons between 15 and 64 last year
) (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html#People) As
) Tarjei has pointed out, 1 in 4 of them now have access to internet at home
) and with maybe just as many more having access to it at public institutions
) in different forms.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 347
-- Topica Digest --
Humor (was: On killing non-believers..)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 12:27:47 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Humor (was: On killing non-believers..)
) ) I see. How about http://uncletaz.com/#anchor166344. Or my previously
)) posted reconciliation between Darwin and Genesis, also available at
)) http://uncletaz.com/adameve.html ? What is your reason to assume
)) that I look down on those who amuse themselves with jokes? (I have
)) the distinct impression that I'm being considered an anthro on this
)) list.)
))
)) Now that I've shown you some of my own jokes, where are yours?
)
)dear tarjei,
)I do not consider you the average anthro like the ones that hang out at
)michael hall, I wish you did it may have made it more entertaining
)bea
Speaking about... Well, this is off-topic, but it's fresh and recent
and dramatic and about legal threats from those who don't think my
web-pranks are funny at all.
This very morning I received a phone call from the chief of police in
Norway, Arne Huuse (http://www.kripos.no/om_kripos/) The logo I stole
for my fake police site is displayed at the upper left corner.
Anyway, the site I made, which has been extremely popular and been
topping the search engines, has been on my domain uncletaz.com for
two years, after the police chased it from a Norwegian server where
it was earlier. The fact is, however, that after the site was
re-written and redesigned this very morning in order to avoid
prosecution, it's a lot more embarrassing than before - especially to
Huuse. You see, the police are so incredibly stupid that when the
offending page was on a .com and not a .no, they asked the FBI to
find out who the webmaster was. Yes, incredible but true: The
Norwegian criminal police, priding itself on solving serious crimes
with advanced investigations, could not see who the webmaster was in
spite of my name and email address and phone numbers and snail mail
and everything being splattered all over my site!! They had to ask
the FBI to help them! When I thought this was funny, Huuse exploded
in a fury. When he asked why the fake police page was funny and I
realized he had no sense of humor, I said it was an individual
question, which made him go off in an explosion once more. When I
casually said I'd remove the logo, he said I should remove the whole
page. Of course I didn't do that. I just changed the background to
black and the text to red and replaced the police logo with the skull
and kept the rest of the graphics and the links.
(http://uncletaz.com/norsktaz/kripos/). If this had not been a
hostile e-group, I'd be happy to show you the original. But although
the redesigned page is in Norwegian, the graphics speak a million
words if you click on them.
When it rains, it pours: I also received a mail from the RTC lawyers
in California. I have succeeded in keeping Ron Hubbard's secret
writings available online for many years, moving them from site to
site. (See http://uncletaz.com/backyard/othersites.html.) The RTC has
succeeded in getting three of my free sites closed (accounts
terminated) without notice from the hosts. In the last mail, they
went after the graphics that I had pasted on various documents at
http://uncletaz.com/backyard/entheta/. Unfortunately, I can't tell
you where I have moved all the hot scientology files to, but like it
says in the Bible, those who seek will find.
Tarjei
--
===========================================================================
ANARCHY MAY NOT RULE IN SOCIETY, BUT ANARCHOSOPHY RULES ON THE INTERNET.
http://uncletaz.com/
Tarjei Straume
Slettelokka 39a
0597 Oslo, Norway
(+47)22-25-37-68, (+47)993-09-685
mailto:tastraum uncletaz.com
==========================================================================
Like This Internet Resource? Click to Recommend-It (r)
(http://www.recommend-it.com/l.z.e?s=698958)
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 348
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites and info on WE andanthroposophy
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites and info on WE
andanthroposophy
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Can you substantiate your claim, Dan?
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
By raymon_ford yahoo.com.au
Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Some hubris
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Admin: OT Re: Humor (was: On killing non-believers..)
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Some hubris
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Admin: OT Re: Humor (was: On killing non-believers..)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Some hubris
By soma mwt.net
Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
By dottie_z yahoo.com
when is an altar not an altar?
By dan dandugan.com
Sensitivity
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
By raymon_ford yahoo.com.au
Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 10:42:46 GMT
From: Sune Nordwall (sune.nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites and info on WE andanthroposophy o
Bea wrote:
) may I just say that none of the parents I was involved
) with at michael hall had internet, there was an american
) who set up a alternative michael hall site who did but he
) was annonymous, but none of us mothers did, this time
) last year I didnt know how to turn a computor on, I still
) have very few friends who are internet literate,
) so I still say we should have clear upfront HONEST school
) literature available
The great standard source of information about all and
everything in UK probably is Encyclopedia Britannica.
Looking it up on 'Rudolf Steiner', in probably all school
brochures on WE described as the originator of WE,
it (containing some errors like 'Waldorf School movement,
derived from his experiments with the Goetheanum'), says:
(http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=71361&tocid=0)
Steiner, Rudolf
EncyclopÊdia Britannica Article
born Feb. 27, 1861, Kraljevic, Austria
died March 30, 1925, Dornach, Switz.
Austrian-born scientist, editor, and founder of
anthroposophy, a movement based on the notion that there is
a spiritual world comprehensible to pure thought but
accessible only to the highest faculties of mental
knowledge.
Attracted in his youth to the works of Goethe, Steiner
edited that poet's scientific works and from 1889 to 1896
worked on the standard edition of his complete works at
Weimar. During this period he wrote his Die Philosophie der
Freiheit (1894; ?The Philosophy of Freedom?), then moved to
Berlin to edit the literary journal Magazin f¸r Literatur
and to lecture. Coming gradually to believe in spiritual
perception independent of the senses, he called the result
of his research ?anthroposophy,? centring on ?knowledge
produced by the higher self in man.? In 1912 he founded the
Anthroposophical Society.
Steiner believed that man once participated more fully in
spiritual processes of the world through a dreamlike
consciousness but had since become restricted by his
attachment to material things. The renewed perception of
spiritual things required training the human consciousness
to rise above attention to matter. The ability to achieve
this goal by an exercise of the intellect is theoretically
innate in everyone.
In 1913 at Dornach, near Basel, Switz., Steiner built his
first Goetheanum, which he characterized as a ?school of
spiritual science.? After a fire in 1922, it was replaced
by another building. The Waldorf School movement, derived
from his experiments with the Goetheanum, by 1969 had some
80 schools attended by more than 25,000 children in Europe
and the United States. Other projects that have grown out
of Steiner's work include schools for defective children; a
therapeutic clinical centre at Arlesheim, Switz.;
scientific and mathematical research centres; and schools
of drama, speech, painting, and sculpture. Among Steiner's
varied writings are The Philosophy of Spiritual Activity
(1894), Occult Science: An Outline (1913), and Story of My
Life (1924).
On 'anthroposophy', Encyclopedia Britannica says
(also 'contact spiritual worlds' maybe does not quite hit
the point):
anthroposophy
EncyclopÊdia Britannica Article
philosophy based on the premise that the human intellect
has the ability to contact spiritual worlds. It was
formulated by Rudolf Steiner (q.v.), an Austrian
philosopher, scientist, and artist, who postulated the
existence of a spiritual world comprehensible to pure
thought but fully accessible only to the faculties of
knowledge latent in all humans. He regarded human beings as
having originally participated in the spiritual processes
of the world through a dreamlike consciousness. Because
Steiner claimed that an enhanced consciousness can again
perceive spiritual worlds, he attempted to develop a
faculty for spiritual perception independent of the senses.
Toward this end, he founded the Anthroposophical Society in
1912. The society, now based in Dornach, Switz., has
branches around the world.
The Who's Who in the Twentieth Century: Oxford University
Press says (http://www.xrefer.com/entry/171824):
'Steiner, Rudolf (1861 - 1925)
Austrian founder of anthroposophy.
Born in Kraljeve, Croatia, the son of a Catholic
stationmaster, Steiner was educated at the University of
Vienna, where he studied natural science. From 1890 to 1897
he worked at Weimar, editing Goethe's writings on natural
history. At this point Steiner's career as an academic
scholar ended when he came under the influence of Annie
Besant (1847-1933) and the theosophist movement. For some
ten years Steiner served the movement but in 1912 he broke
away to found his own school of anthroposophy. Steiner
established the headquarters of his new movement at the so-
called 'Goetheanum' at Dornach near Basel.
Like its theosophical ancestor, Steiner's anthroposophy is
essentially eclectic, with elements taken from eastern
religions, early Christian gnosticism, mystic literature,
and classical German philosophy. It has consequently been
quite self-contained. More influential have been his
educational theories with their emphasis on play and
creative activity in the learning process; Steiner schools
are operating in many parts of the western world.
Who's Who in the Twentieth Century, Oxford University
Press, © Market House Books Ltd 1999'
http://www.xrefer.com/results.jsp?
shelf=search+all&term=Rudolf+Steiner&Submit.x=20&Submit.y=33
mentions descriptions of Steiner in a number of different
English standard encyclopedias and dictionaries.
http://www.amazon.com gives some 866, almost one thousand,
matching book titles (probably all in English) when
searching for books related to 'Rudolf Steiner', all
probably available by order from most large book stores
in London.
It gives 91 matching book titles for 'waldorf education'.
On 'anthroposophy' it gives 508 matching book titles.
Even though I understand your feeling and Waldorf schools
like Kristofferskolan in Stockholm and in other places,
that Per Hallstroem in Jaerna mentioned earlier on this
list, offer introductory courses on anthroposophy as the
basis of waldorf education to all prospective parents, as I
think all Waldorf schools should to who don't do it yet, I
think you can't say that you had now way of knowing what
you did when choosing a Waldorf school for your child or
children.
Regards,
Sune Nordwall,
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological
cell biology, EU and social threefolding
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 12:11:36 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites and info on WE
andanthroposophy
)
) sune:
) Even though I understand your feeling and Waldorf schools
) like Kristofferskolan in Stockholm and in other places,
) that Per Hallstroem in Jaerna mentioned earlier on this
) list, offer introductory courses on anthroposophy as the
) basis of waldorf education to all prospective parents, as I
) think all Waldorf schools should to who don't do it yet, I
) think you can't say that you had now way of knowing what
) you did when choosing a Waldorf school for your child or
) children.
)
sune: I most definately DO say that i was not informed about really goes on
when I went to michael hall. I was told that they delayed reading and wriing
in line with the european schools and consequently the children were ready
to learn and therefore learned very quickly (NOT true) I cant go into right
now all the things that were left out or twisted, I dont have the time,(i
will when I have a moment if you want to hear) but I can assure you there
were many many angry parents who felt they had been duped. I didnt care
about rudolf steiner then and I dont now, I dont give two hoots what he said
or did, I am only interested in the waldorf schools and how they are run and
the effect they have on parents (and their children) who are duped by it.
I do not go and look up in encyclopedias or internets or anything else, I
go to a school open day and i expect THEM to tell me the TRUTH,
and I will say that again sune: I want them to tell me the truth
bea
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 18:41:56 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Can you substantiate your claim, Dan?
Detlef:
)1. It's not the "only part" incorrect in the quotation I cite: the )author
)makes "karma" synonomous with "bodies" (which is also complete )nonsense).
Yeah, okay, Detlef, I missed the word "karma" floating in there, which I
agree didn't make much sense. I can picture the writer scratching her head,
thinking, "Now I know karma is really important, central to everything, I'll
just stick the word in here in parentheses." I can sympathize with the
difficulty in making sense of it all. I agree with you she didn't get this
part.
)2. The statement that Diana agrees is incorrect was _the statement )made
)about Waldorf_!
)Remember, the conclusion drawn in the French report was:
)"The initial goal for the teachers is thus to figure out the stage of
) )evolution the confided children are at, in such a way as to allow
) )maximizing the development on the stage where they are situated."
This is totally splitting hairs, Detlef. A statement about the teacher's
"initial goal" is hardly a grand "conclusion" about Waldorf. And you well
know that the statement is not at all far from correct. The teacher does not
need to "figure out" the stage the children are at because they already
know; but he or she does work from that basis in order to "maximize the
development on the stage where they are situated."
re: If children are plants, shall we water them every morning?
)DH: You lost this bet as well, Diana. I find the image is apalling. Human
)beings are not vegetables.
Oh, give me a break. I still think you'dve liked the image if an
anthroposophist had written it. This person was not saying human beings are
vegetables (*you* made up the appalling joke, remember?). They were trying
to make sense of the stage in which the "etheric body," which we have in
common with plants, is "born," namely, the second 7-year period of life,
during which time the birth of this "member" determines how education should
be focused, n'est-ce pas?
By joking you imply it cannot be as crazy as it sounds, the writer simply
*must* have understood, see how ridiculous it would be to speak of a "plant
stage"; when in fact, she didn't get it all straight, she needs tutoring in
anthro-speak certainly, but she put a lot of the concepts out there.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 05:46:19 +1000 (EST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Raymon=20Ford?= (raymon_ford yahoo.com.au)
Subject: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
DAN SAID
Most of what Waldorf promoters post on the web is no
more truthful than the printed materials they pass out
to parents.
Raymon: The point is that these promoters (whose
sites were listed by Tarjei and Sune) not only
advertise their own wares, but they include the PLANS
site too. If their own advertising is overly biased
in their own favor, then this is balanced up by the
PLANS link. As the web becomes more and more part of
the public domain then to that extent schools would
find themselves hard put to keep anything secret. So
this particular concern of PLANS is being resolved it
seems to me.
BEA SAID
I am only interested in the waldorf schools and how
they are run and the effect they have on parents (and
their children) who are duped by it.
I do not go and look up in encyclopedias or internets
or anything else, I go to a school open day and i
expect THEM to tell me the TRUTH, and I will say that
again sune: I want them to tell me the truth
Raymon: Yes, information should not be withheld from
the parents. But the lesson here in part is, when one
is choosing something of importance, be it a computer
or an educational institute or whatever - it is
prudent to gain information from more than one source
and not rely solely on what the provider or seller
tells one. Else one will repeatedly be duped...
_____________________________________________________________________________
http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Messenger
- Voice chat, mail alerts, stock quotes and favourite news and lots more!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:10:24 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
on 6/18/01 3:46 PM, Raymon Ford at raymon_ford yahoo.com.au wrote:
(snip)
) Raymon: Yes, information should not be withheld from
) the parents. But the lesson here in part is, when one
) is choosing something of importance, be it a computer
) or an educational institute or whatever - it is
) prudent to gain information from more than one source
) and not rely solely on what the provider or seller
) tells one. Else one will repeatedly be duped...
Isn't this attitude called "Blame the victim..."???
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 21:13:22 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
)
) Raymon: Yes, information should not be withheld from
) the parents. But the lesson here in part is, when one
) is choosing something of importance, be it a computer
) or an educational institute or whatever - it is
) prudent to gain information from more than one source
) and not rely solely on what the provider or seller
) tells one. Else one will repeatedly be duped...
raymon: are you excusing the waldorf schools, or saying thats ok because I
should be aware of fraud, I will continue to say: The lesson here is not to
trust waldorf schools, there is NO excuse for them witholding information,
these are SCHOOLS not businesses, I am not buying a computor, please do not
equate it with that.
I have questioned some mums today and they said they hadnt assumed the
schools were lying at the open days,(not waldorf schools) they just accepted
what they were told. This is normal, It is normal behaviour to accept what a
school tells you as the truth.
bea
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 23:06:48 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
Sharon, you write:
) The other day an Anthro. on this
) list stated that I was becoming more and more "superior"
) with each book that I read.
No, he did not write that you were becoming more and more superior with
each book you read.
What he wrote was that he observed from the distance how your continuing
research was feeding your sense of superiority.
Sharon, couldn't you consider tuning down somewhat on your reading for a
time. I'm not fully aware of the climate where you live, but here in
Sweden, summer has arrived. Everybody needs to take a break in between to
get a perspective on things. You can always come back to your reading later
if you feel the need for it. And we're both young, at least you ;-),
there's plenty of time to come back to your studies at a later time.
Regards,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:56:06 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: OT Re: Humor (was: On killing non-believers..)
Tarjei, please don't fill up the list with stories that have no
relationship to the list topic.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:47:45 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
Sune wrote,
)Sharon, couldn't you consider tuning down somewhat on your reading for a
)time. I'm not fully aware of the climate where you live, but here in
)Sweden, summer has arrived. Everybody needs to take a break in between to
)get a perspective on things. You can always come back to your reading later
)if you feel the need for it. And we're both young, at least you ;-),
)there's plenty of time to come back to your studies at a later time.
I'm falling down laughing! Usually Anthropops say you should study
more and then you'll understand. The problem with Sharon is that she
actually -read- the books!
-Dan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 04:33:38 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: OT Re: Humor (was: On killing non-believers..)
)Tarjei, please don't fill up the list with stories that have no
)relationship to the list topic.
)
)-Dan Dugan
)Moderator
My point is: Anthroposophists have humor, but police chiefs and
scientologists don't. As a matter of fact, in Scientology, jokes and
humor is automatically suspect and will get you punished. In the case
of the police, many cops have apparently laughed at the page but not
dared to tell the chief.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 23:34:25 -0700
From: soma (soma mwt.net)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
Sune Nordwall wrote:
) Sharon, you write:
)
) ) The other day an Anthro. on this
) ) list stated that I was becoming more and more "superior"
) ) with each book that I read.
Sune:
) No, he did not write that you were becoming more and more superior with
) each book you read.
)
) What he wrote was that he observed from the distance how your continuing
) research was feeding your sense of superiority.
Sune:
English is my first language Sune, but please would you explain what the
difference is between what I wrote and what the anthro wrote and what you
wrote. They all mean the same thing as far as I can tell.
) Sune:
)
) Sharon, couldn't you consider tuning down somewhat on your reading for a
) time. I'm not fully aware of the climate where you live, but here in
) Sweden, summer has arrived. Everybody needs to take a break in between to
) get a perspective on things. You can always come back to your reading later
) if you feel the need for it. And we're both young, at least you ;-),
) there's plenty of time to come back to your studies at a later time.
Sharon:
Thanks for the recommendation deary, I live in Dornach II with a climate
rather like Siberia and people here read a lot, but don't ya worry....this was
my last winter here for a while and summer isn't quite as precious to me
anymore.
I should tell you about the super duper book I read recently about the Knights
Templars and their 'three-way exchanges' of funds. Could this be sort of like
three-folding? I'm quite fascinated by the Knights Templars from which
Masonry, Rosicrucianism and Anthroposophy stem. I've been reading all about
the relics of Christ, all about his navels, teeth, foreskins, crowns of thorns
etc. (plural yes) that the various monasteries and cathedrals kept for the
faithful to pay and take a peek at. I'm especially intrigued with the idea of
Christ's mummified head being brought to Marseilles by Jesus' wife and then
ending up at Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland, which the Templar high ups supposedly
worshipped and took a swig out of. (A chalice, the Holy Grail itself).
Intrigued by the fact that Rosicrucians also worship heads, and blown away by
all that I've read on the ancient severed head cults having to do with Moses
who was Akhenaten.....
Now why am I so interested in all this? Firstly, it's because I sent my very
own child to a magical mystery school without realizing it because the school
pretended to be an arts based, nonsectarian thingy and didn't bother to inform
me that all Waldorf classroom activity is based upon Steiner's occultism
called Anthroposophy. Secondly, it's because that dear old Anthro John
Fletcher wrote and published a marvelous book with color pickies of Steiner's
Rosicrucian Temples, including a great photo of Solomon's Pillars with bust of
head and all. Now of course Fletcher doesn't mention all the nitty gritties,
however, Fletcher does allude to Steiner and the mystery of John the Baptist's
severed head in another little book of his. (Unfortunately, it's packed so
I'll have to share the quote later.) I just gotta know what the Mystery of
Golgotha is. (I read Steiner's book on the subject, but as usual, he kept
telling me that he'd tell me in the next chapter and never really
did.....so..... I have no choice but to find other books on the subject.)
Rosicrucian Keith Laidler's book "The Head of God" has been indispensable to
me when it comes to explaining the Cathars and Gnostics and Inquisition
History. Just awful how those poor heretics were tortured. Laidler goes into
detail from the old torture records....revolting what the Catholics did. One
poor old Templar had his feet slowly roasted off as he laid on an iron bed,
some had weights attached to their genitals and were dangled in mid air. Racks
were used to tear ligaments and dislocate limbs, many were burned, just
horrifying what was done to fellow human beings to get them to confess! Why?
Because the heretics knew, (just as I the infidel knows along with Steiner)
that Christ did not fly up to heaven in a perfect body as the pope
insisted/insists, ( the Templars knew for certain as they had Christ's
mummified head.) What a peculiar thing to kill and maim over.... so I ask
myself, what was the real reason for the Inquisition? (After my Waldorf
experience I'm always wanting to go a bit deeper.) Now I've been to Italy and
seen all the splendors of the Pope's....I have a hunch that money and power
might have been the real reason, rather than the difference of religious
belief. What I don't understand Sune, is why Waldorf found the need to dupe me
in this day and age?
Now you know Sune that I'm not a Catholic nor an Anthroposophist, but I do
love this subject. I'm no great scholar, just mommy the duped who is a tad
more knowledgeable than she was a few years ago. You mentioned in a previous
post that the books I read are easy to get a hold of and I just want you to
know that they aren't always that easy to locate. I found Fletcher's book in
England. The Rosicrucian Digests came from a Rosicrucian who died and left a
little box in the back of his cupboard....and a friend knew about my little
interest and lent them to me. The magic self initiation books were obtained
by.....(I'll save that for another time)....... I get quite a few books from
inter library loans and lately the local librarian has kindly extended the due
date as she knows I'm a serious mystery plumber and the usual 2 week limit
doesn't cut it. Yet another very recent streak of good fortune has come my
way....a grad student has checked out a bag full of lovely old Steiner books
which I can keep for 6 months!!! Another wonderful friend has slow mailed an
enormous box just chock full of Waldorf books with lovely new color covers.
It's getting easier now as books have started to come to me.
You're right about needing to take a break...I will be forced to slow down a
bit because I'm packing, expanding my neighborhood to sunnier climbs, where
I'll be living right next to a UNIVERSITY and a giant Catholic Cathedral!!!!!!
(Mystery plumber drops clue to be deciphered by the initiated.)
Cheery bye-bye Sune, got to get back to the old Baphomet Head, I'm just not as
young as I used to be, so much to read, so little time.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 22:13:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
) raymon_ford yahoo.com.au wrote:
)
) (snip)
) ) Raymon: Yes, information should not be withheld
) from
) ) the parents. But the lesson here in part is, when
) one
) ) is choosing something of importance, be it a
) computer
) ) or an educational institute or whatever - it is
) ) prudent to gain information from more than one
) source
) ) and not rely solely on what the provider or seller
) ) tells one. Else one will repeatedly be duped...
)
) Isn't this attitude called "Blame the victim..."???
)
) ...Gary
)
)
dottie -
I think it is more on the side of be accountable for
your actions.
dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 22:27:23 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: when is an altar not an altar?
There's an amusing item in the June issue of Church and State
(newsletter of Americans United for Separation thereof). In Harlan
county Kentucky, already well-known in church-state circles for the
ACLU's suit against the display of the Ten Commandments in the
courthouse, a public school has converted a 9 x 12 storage closet
into a Christian chapel complete with pulpit, altar, and pews adorned
with crosses. Naturally, there was a flap when it was found out.
"About two weeks after the chapel opened, school officials
temporarily closed it and removed the [Lord's] prayer from the wall.
Johnnie L. Turner, the school board attorney, said he believes the
room is now constitutional.
"'I did a quick inspection, and the only thing I was aware of that
would cause a problem is the biblical verse,' Turner told the
Louisville Courier-Journal. He asserted that the crosses could be the
letter T and called their presence in the room 'a grayish area. It
depends on how you look at them.' Turner also called the pews
'benches' and said the altar was a 'podium.'
Those aren't crosses, they're letter Ts! You want us to teach them
the alphabet, don't you? Sounds a lot like the excuses the public
Waldorf schools make about things like nature altars and advent
spiral ceremonies.
ROFL, Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 08:48:00 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Sensitivity
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Sune, you wrote:
) )What PLANS adds to that, except for personal articles like that by Sharon,
) )is little more than secular humanist propaganda and smearing.
Dan:
) I guess it doesn't matter that PLANS' board and supporters come from
) all faiths and non-faith; the fact that I profess secular humanism
) gives you a hook to hang religious bigotry on.
Interesting demand for truthful balanced objectivity in describing the
organisation for which you stand out as its main initiator and main driving
person, and someone
- who admittedly still consciously lies in describing the basis of WE at
the site,
- who untruthfully up to last year at the site of PLANS described it as if
what was presented at the site represented all the views of people who were
not actively engaged in anthrop. or WE, only changing it after I complained
exemplifying the untruthfulness of it,
- who being pointed to the untruthfulness spread in contributions at PLANS'
site, does not take away the contributions in question, but keeps them and
only washes his hands and says he takes no reponsibility for the untruths
that can be found at the contributions he puts at the site of PLANS,
- who's own main contribution to the site consists in depicting Steiner and
anthrop. as racist and anti-Semite and centrally responsible for
contributing to the development of Nazism and the holocaust in Germany.
Your expressed opinion is 'interesting', in view of the expressed opinion
by former German Chancellor Willy Brandt that "The advent of the Wald.
Schools" in his opinion are "the greatest contribution to world peace and
understanding of the {20th] century."
(http://www.waldorf-sandiego.org/wdhistory.htm).
One may also get a perspective of it from what Tarjei pointed out on 21 May
on this list:
'During the apartheid regime in South Africa, the Waldorf schools were the
only ones where black and white students attended the same classes, and the
school for Waldorf teacher training in Cape Town, The Novalis Institute
(http://www.ideas-net.de/novalis/), was praised by UNESCO as an
organization of tremendous consequence in the conquest of apartheid.
(Tolerance: The Treshold of Peace. A Teaching/Learning Guide for Education
for Peace, Human Right and Democracy, UNESCO 1994.)'
Your argumentation on the subject is as a valid as arguing that Swedish
Social democracy is responsible for the atrocities of Stalin or Pot Pol
because they grew out of the same 'ideological basis'. But then there are
bigots in Sweden who argue that too.
My description of PLANS:
)What PLANS adds to that, except for personal articles like that by Sharon,
)is little more than secular humanist propaganda and smearing.
- that you call 'bigoted' and implicitly ask that I correct - is a soft
summer breeze considered as rhetoric in comparison with the propaganda and
smear campaign you stand out as the main driving force behind and
responsible conductor of against WE and Steiner at the site of PLANS, in
articles and on this list.
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:39:30 +1000 (EST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Raymon=20Ford?= (raymon_ford yahoo.com.au)
Subject: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
Bea said:
) raymon: are you excusing the waldorf schools, or
) saying thats ok because I
) should be aware of fraud,
Raymon: Oh no I am not excusing any schools - my
first sentence was 'information should not be withheld
from the parents'. The schools need to be as open as
possible. As for fraud, that was just practical advice
- Waldorf schools do not have a monopoly on fraud or
misrepresentation, and one should be careful with any
school.
Bea said:
) The lesson here is not to
) trust waldorf schools, there is NO excuse for them
) witholding information,
) these are SCHOOLS not businesses, I am not buying a
) computor, please do not
) equate it with that.
) I have questioned some mums today and they said they
) hadnt assumed the
) schools were lying at the open days,(not waldorf
) schools) they just accepted
) what they were told. This is normal, It is normal
) behaviour to accept what a
) school tells you as the truth.
Raymon: Well... it is not normal behaviour
everywhere... when choosing educational institutes, I
have frequently seen people make multiple checks and
comparisons, including on the grapevine, not to
mention the net, before deciding. Any educational
institute needing to attract students will present
itself in as favorable a light as possible - we need
not perhaps go so far as to say they lie, but
certainly some things may be left unsaid, others
unduly emphasised etc. The analogy with a business is
not so far-fetched, in today's competitive world.
Ideally yes, as you say, one would wish that one can
accept what one is told at face value. I would prefer
that too - I hate having to shop around, for schools
or anything else.
_____________________________________________________________________________
http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Messenger
- Voice chat, mail alerts, stock quotes and favourite news and lots more!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 11:05:07 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
) dottie -
)
) I think it is more on the side of be accountable for
) your actions.
)
) dottie
are you saying the waldorf schools should be accountable for their actions?
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 349
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Sensitivity
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Sensitivity
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Sensitivity
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Sensitivity
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Sensitivity
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Sensitivity
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites and info on WE
andanthroposop
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Sensitivity
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Re: Sensitivity
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Some hubris
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Re: Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites and info on WE
andanthroposo
By litvas icu.com
Robert Flannery's Waldorf Education thesis
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: Sensitivity
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Sensitivity
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Robert Flannery's Waldorf Education thesis
By litvas icu.com
Re: Robert Flannery's Waldorf Education thesis
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Robert Flannery's Waldorf Education thesis
By litvas icu.com
Re: Some hubris
By earlyfire earthlink.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 11:12:17 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Sune about Dan:
)- who being pointed to the untruthfulness spread in contributions at
) )PLANS' site, does not take away the contributions in question, but )keeps
)them and only washes his hands and says he takes no )reponsibility for the
)untruths that can be found at the contributions )he puts at the site of
)PLANS,
Sune, anyone who's been reading here any length of time has read at least
one of the endless mega-discussions about your so-called "untruths" at the
PLANS site and understands that these are differences of opinions, not
"untruths."
Your position about Dan's responsibility for things posted on the PLANS site
is interesting. The way I understand it, Dan will post something there if it
seems relevant to PLANS' cause and he has reason to believe in the integrity
of the author. Dan can't be expected to personally vouch for the 100%
accuracy of every statement made by the authors of the articles. I mean, he
would have to *be* Peter Staudenmaier, and have done all the research Peter
S. has done, in order to assert, "Yes, everything Peter Staudenmaier has
written is correct in every detail."
Sune, you have a website, and you have posted a lot of Steiner texts there
that make a great many assertions about hierarchies of spirits and the role
they played eons ago in shaping cosmic history and the destiny of humanity.
Have you personally interviewed those spirits, Sune? Did they really say
everything Steiner says they said? Were you around on Old Saturn, did you
get some photographs documenting the watery conditions?
If not, how come you don't take these "untruths" off your website? Haven't
the critics pointed out many times that this stuff is fairly dubious, and
most people consider it quite likely to be untrue?
And finally, Sune, just curious. Do you plan to answer my question to you of
the other night, or is it another of my questions you will discreetly
ignore? (I'll take silence for "yes.")
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:50:50 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Diana wrote:
)Sune, you have a website, and you have posted a lot of Steiner texts
)there that make a great many assertions about hierarchies of spirits
)and the role they played eons ago in shaping cosmic history and the
)destiny of humanity. Have you personally interviewed those spirits,
)Sune?
Because I also have a dozen or so webpages on my site not too
dissimilar to those of Sune, I would say you=E6re being unnecessarily
facetious here. I have awakened to and become aware of the presence
and activities of spirits, whether you like it or not, and regardless
of how psychologically unsound this may seem to you.
I believe that "interviewing" spirits, i.e. extracting exact answers
from them, would require a degree of initiation. You may think
initiation is nonsense and brain washing or whatever, but that's
beside the point. Communion with spirits is practiced by non-atheists
of all kinds all over the world. Communion is communication. One
doesn't engage in dialogues like we do human-to-human or in
interviews, just like communication with animals and plants is
different. Have you interviewed your dog or your cat lately?
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 14:04:26 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
I wrote:
)Sune, you have a website, and you have posted a lot of Steiner texts there
)that make a great many assertions about hierarchies of spirits and the role
)they played eons ago in shaping cosmic history )and the destiny of
)humanity. Have you personally interviewed those )spirits, Sune?
Tarjei says:
)Because I also have a dozen or so webpages on my site not too
)dissimilar to those of Sune, I would say youÊre being unnecessarily
)facetious here.
I'm not being facetious! I'm asking Sune if he holds himself to the same
level of exactitude in verifying material that he has asked of Dan regarding
articles on the PLANS website (namely, verify every word; remove anything if
someone has pointed out that it isn't verifiable per se but is more a matter
of opinion - or in this case someone's religious beliefs).
)I have awakened to and become aware of the presence and activities of
) )spirits, whether you like it or not,
It has nothing to do with my liking it. I have not the slightest interest in
your relationship with the spirits, Tarjei.
)I believe that "interviewing" spirits, i.e. extracting exact answers
)from them, would require a degree of initiation. You may think
)initiation is nonsense and brain washing or whatever, but that's
)beside the point.
I really do not doubt that it is quite difficult to extract exact answers
from the spirits.
The point is, if these exact answers cannot be extracted, then if Sune
wishes to be consistent, he will need to delete all the Steiner material for
which he has not extracted exact answers, since that is what he would like
Dan to do on the PLANS website regarding material critical of anthroposophy.
Meanwhile you guys can initiate, commune with spirits, have a ball. Don't
tell the *rest* of us are we are posting "untruths."
)Communion with spirits is practiced by non-atheists of all kinds all )over
)the world. Communion is communication. One doesn't engage in )dialogues
)like we do human-to-human or in interviews, just like )communication with
)animals and plants is different. Have you )interviewed your dog or your cat
)lately?
No, but I haven't posted any of my dog or cat's theories of the origins of
the universe, either.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 16:27:54 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
I wrote:
))I have awakened to and become aware of the presence and activities
))of )spirits, whether you like it or not,
Diana wrote:
)It has nothing to do with my liking it.
True.
)I have not the slightest interest in your relationship with the
)spirits, Tarjei.
Only in Sune's relationship with spirits. Point taken.
)Meanwhile you guys can initiate, commune with spirits, have a ball.
)Don't tell the *rest* of us are we are posting "untruths."
The notion that Steiner was buried in "OTO regalia," for instance -
that was posted to this list - is nonsense. Untruth is only another
word for it.
))Have you interviewed your dog or your cat lately?
)
)No, but I haven't posted any of my dog or cat's theories of the
)origins of the universe, either.
That's because your pets haven't written books or been on lecture
tours. The point is that we communicate with non-humans (animals,
plants, spirits) differently from the way we normally communicate
with fellow humans. Only humans make theories.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:35:29 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
I wrote:
)I have not the slightest interest in your relationship with the
)spirits, Tarjei.
Tarjei:
)Only in Sune's relationship with spirits. Point taken.
No, nor with Sune's relationship to spirits, in any personal sense. Sune,
not you, requests that Dan remove things from the PLANS website that he
disagrees with (calling them "untruths"). So it was Sune I was asking,
whether he can verify, by personal communication with said spirits, all the
things Steiner wrote which Sune has posted on his own site.
)The notion that Steiner was buried in "OTO regalia," for instance -
)that was posted to this list - is nonsense. Untruth is only another
)word for it.
I'm not terribly interested in the circumstances of Steiner's burial, but I
would have to say, if I were really hoping to get to the bottom of it, that
Sharon's citing of a recognized source would carry at least as much weight
as anthroposophists' claims, who have, shall we say, a slight tendency to
mythologize the life and times of the great man, and believe what they wish
to believe of him. (I don't exactly get why it is a *problem* for him to
have been buried in OTO regalia, if he was, but please, don't explain.)
Still, the discussion was about the PLANS website. Even Sune, I don't think,
imagines that Dan has control over what people post on the mailing list,
true or not.
Tarjei:
)Have you interviewed your dog or your cat lately?
me:
)No, but I haven't posted any of my dog or cat's theories of the
)origins of the universe, either.
Tarjei:
)That's because your pets haven't written books or been on lecture
)tours.
Were my cat to start a lecture tour, she would have approximately the same
credibility as Steiner's theories on the past on Old Saturn, Old Moon, the
future on Jupiter, the future of human reproduction via the larynx, etc.
(Actually, my cat's theories of the universe are probably pretty
interesting.)
)The point is that we communicate with non-humans (animals,
)plants, spirits) differently from the way we normally communicate
)with fellow humans. Only humans make theories.
Interesting, didn't you comment recently that Steiner's theories couldn't be
criticized (couldn't be called racist, specifically) because they came from
the spirits, or else we would be calling the spirits racist?
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 08:42:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Diana wrote:
)
) I'm not being facetious! I'm asking Sune if he holds
) himself to the same
) level of exactitude in verifying material that he
) has asked of Dan regarding
) articles on the PLANS website (namely, verify every
) word; remove anything if
) someone has pointed out that it isn't verifiable per
) se but is more a matter
) of opinion - or in this case someone's religious
) beliefs).
)
Michael C:
There is a difference. While the Steiner quotes that
you are refering to on Sune's site may not be verified
by Sune, they aren't attacking anyone.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 16:03:38 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
I wrote:
)I'm asking Sune if he holds himself to the same level of exactitude in
) )verifying material that he has asked of Dan regarding articles on the
) )PLANS website
Michael C.:
)There is a difference. While the Steiner quotes that
)you are refering to on Sune's site may not be verified
)by Sune, they aren't attacking anyone.
Two points, Michael C.: First, Sune suggested a very high standard of
ensuring accuracy, I am asking if he can maintain the same standard of
accuracy on his own website. If anything questionable must be deleted, he'd
have to toss most of the Steiner essays. Very simple. I have no problem with
Sune making Steiner's lectures available, I think it's great. I'm just
pointing out his inconsistent standards.
Second, and far more important:
I do not have sympathy that anthroposophists feel "attacked," or feel that
Steiner has been "attacked," when people criticize anthroposophy. I do feel
very impatient with the anthroposophists here who feel their own theories
and the reputation of their revered leader are more important than what
children have experienced in this educational system, which they will
sometimes allow is regrettable, but insist it has nothing, actually, to do
with anthroposophy, so we should stop smearing them . . .
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 19:01:24 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Diana wrote:
)I'm not terribly interested in the circumstances of Steiner's
)burial, but I would have to say, if I were really hoping to get to
)the bottom of it, that Sharon's citing of a recognized source
Recognized by whom? Steiner was cremated, not buried. Besides, he was
never a member of OTO. What this means is that the "source" in
question has no serious credibility. But you say it is "recognized."
By whom?
)Interesting, didn't you comment recently that Steiner's theories
)couldn't be criticized (couldn't be called racist, specifically)
)because they came from the spirits, or else we would be calling the
)spirits racist?
I said the theosophical/anthroposophical outline of evolution is not
racist. The ultimate conclusion of such a claim would be to say that
evolution itself is racist because it has produced different races.
--
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 11:05:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
--- Diana Winters (winters_diana hotmail.com) wrote:
)
) I wrote:
)
) )I'm asking Sune if he holds himself to the same
) level of exactitude in
) ) )verifying material that he has asked of Dan
) regarding articles on the
) ) )PLANS website
)
) Michael C.:
)
) )There is a difference. While the Steiner quotes
) that
) )you are refering to on Sune's site may not be
) verified
) )by Sune, they aren't attacking anyone.
)
) Two points, Michael C.: First, Sune suggested a very
) high standard of
) ensuring accuracy, I am asking if he can maintain
) the same standard of
) accuracy on his own website. If anything
) questionable must be deleted, he'd
) have to toss most of the Steiner essays. Very
) simple. I have no problem with
) Sune making Steiner's lectures available, I think
) it's great. I'm just
) pointing out his inconsistent standards.
)
Michael C:
Laws often come from moral intuitions and the law
recognizes the difference between published ideas that
cannot be substantiated that have been published and
ideas that attack a living person that cannot be
substantiated that have been published. The second one
is illegal and is called slander. If Steiner was alive
and wished to he could haul Peter S. into a court. If
Peter S. could not back up his claims he could be
found guilty of slander. Although it is not illegal it
seems that a person should respect the memory of a
dead person by not publishing unsubstatiated attacks
against them. But by all means if it will help
somebody tell them negative truths about Steiner but
be prepared to back up any negative assertions with
some reasonable evidence.
)
) Second, and far more important:
)
) I do not have sympathy that anthroposophists feel
) "attacked," or feel that
) Steiner has been "attacked," when people criticize
) anthroposophy. I do feel
) very impatient with the anthroposophists here who
) feel their own theories
) and the reputation of their revered leader are more
) important than what
) children have experienced in this educational
) system, which they will
) sometimes allow is regrettable, but insist it has
) nothing, actually, to do
) with anthroposophy, so we should stop smearing them
) . . .
)
) Diana
Michael C:
Fine I imagine that there are many children and
parents that have had bad experiences of varying
degrees with Waldorf Education. I think that it is in
the interest of a well rounded story to put this type
these stories on the PLANS site. Also informing the
public that Waldorf Education springs from Rudolph
Steiner and Anthroposophy and showing that WSA is very
different than what the public schools offer. Saying
things like the theories are not scientifically tested
and so forth and other true attacks are fine.But in
the interest if truth stay within certain bounds or
else or rename PLANS PARSA People Against Rudolph
Steiner And Anthroposophy.
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 11:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
--- Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com) wrote:
) Diana:
) )Interesting, didn't you comment recently that
) Steiner's theories
) )couldn't be criticized (couldn't be called racist,
) specifically)
) )because they came from the spirits, or else we
) would be calling the
) )spirits racist?
)
Tarjei:
) I said the theosophical/anthroposophical outline of
) evolution is not
) racist. The ultimate conclusion of such a claim
) would be to say that
) evolution itself is racist because it has produced
) different races.
)
Michael C:
It is questionable whether or not the concept race has
much or any basis in nature. Species is more solid
because ther are certain test that can be done to
substantiate (nearly 100% of the time)that two life
form are different. All humans are the same species
and except for a few cases like the Australian
Aborigines that have been isolated for a long time,
the blur between "races" is great. Who invented
"race"? Humans did. Once the concept of race is used
the inevitable result will be racism. It is some
scientists and academics that keep the idea of race
alive and respectable although for the most part it is
not done with bad intentions.
) --
) Tarjei
)
) http://home.no.net/tastraum/
)
) It is impossible to understand a human being
) completely if
) one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's
) judgment.
) - Rudolf Steiner
)
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:48:24 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
I repeat:
)Sune suggested a very high standard of ensuring accuracy, I am asking )if
)he can maintain the same standard of accuracy on his own website.
The answer obviously being no, since his and Steiner's sources are the
spirit world (from which, as Tarjei tells us, it is very hard to get exact
answers, even for anthroposophists "doing the work"). The saying comes to
mind, "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." There is
barely a paragraph on Sune's website that is substantiable in any normal
usage of the term, yet whenever there is criticism, we are told we daren't
comment if we haven't researched the hard facts (like say, where and how
Steiner was buried/cremated/whatever).
Michael C:
)Laws often come from moral intuitions and the law
)recognizes the difference between published ideas that
)cannot be substantiated that have been published and
)ideas that attack a living person that cannot be
)substantiated that have been published.
Huh? Maybe you want to try that sentence again? Your distinction is . .? I
hope the law is in fact much clearer than that.
)The second one is illegal and is called slander. If Steiner was alive
)and wished to he could haul Peter S. into a court. If Peter S. could )not
)back up his claims he could be found guilty of slander.
Well, since he *has*, at great length, backed up his claims, I guess he'd
have no problem.
)Although it is not illegal it seems that a person should respect the
) )memory of a dead person by not publishing unsubstatiated attacks
)against them.
I quite agree. I don't think there are any unsubstantiated attacks against
Steiner on the PLANS website, though there is a great deal of critical
analysis of his theories, as well as testimony to the experiences people
have had with his schools. I realize that to many anthroposophists, that is
the same thing as an "attack."
Michael C:
)Fine I imagine that there are many children and
)parents that have had bad experiences of varying
)degrees with Waldorf Education.
I guess you don't know how dismissive your tone is, like this is a minor
point for you to concede, while the philosophical integrity of Steiner is
really important to the world. To some of us the *whole point* is pointing
out the negative patterns specific to Waldorf to alert other parents. There
isn't much interest left in Steiner after that.
)I think that it is in the interest of a well rounded story to put this
) )type these stories on the PLANS site.
No, it is not in the interest of a "well rounded story." It is in the
interest of the *children*.
)Saying things like the theories are not scientifically tested
)and so forth and other true attacks are fine.
Michael, you crack me up. What is a "true attack"? Is it an "attack" if it
happens to be true?
)But in the interest if truth stay within certain bounds or else or )rename
)PLANS PARSA People Against Rudolph Steiner And Anthroposophy.
I'm getting tired of arguing in circles. I suggested that Sune stay within
the same "certain bounds" he (and you) feel are appropriate for PLANS,
pointing out that this would be much harder for him than for the critics,
since Steiner's theories are pulled out of the ether, and are far less
verifiable than (for instance) where or how Steiner's remains were disposed
of.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:50:56 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Michael C:
)It is questionable whether or not the concept race has
)much or any basis in nature. Species is more solid
)because ther are certain test that can be done to
)substantiate (nearly 100% of the time)that two life
)form are different. All humans are the same species
)and except for a few cases like the Australian
)Aborigines that have been isolated for a long time,
)the blur between "races" is great. Who invented
)"race"? Humans did. Once the concept of race is used
)the inevitable result will be racism. It is some
)scientists and academics that keep the idea of race
)alive and respectable although for the most part it is
)not done with bad intentions.
Well I would like to say Bravo, Michael C., though if you have figured this
much out, why you'd have any interest left in Steiner is puzzling.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 20:56:40 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
)Michael C:
)It is questionable whether or not the concept race has
)much or any basis in nature. Species is more solid
)because ther are certain test that can be done to
)substantiate (nearly 100% of the time)that two life
)form are different. All humans are the same species
)and except for a few cases like the Australian
)Aborigines that have been isolated for a long time,
)the blur between "races" is great. Who invented
)"race"? Humans did. Once the concept of race is used
)the inevitable result will be racism. It is some
)scientists and academics that keep the idea of race
)alive and respectable although for the most part it is
)not done with bad intentions.
This boils down to semantic drivel again. Steiner viewed each
individual human being as an independent species. Animals belong to
group species, but humans don't. But we may have been through that
stage of group species that the animals are experiencing. But "human
races" in plural has become an anachronism. We can talk about the
human race today, but not human races because human beings are to
complicated for such categorizations. I find the idea of each
individual being a species fascinating, however.
We have, however, evolved from races (in plural).
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:58:16 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
I wrote;
))I'm not terribly interested in the circumstances of Steiner's
))burial, but I would have to say, if I were really hoping to get to
))the bottom of it, that Sharon's citing of a recognized source
)Recognized by whom? Steiner was cremated, not buried. Besides, he was never
)a member of OTO. What this means is that the "source" in
)question has no serious credibility. But you say it is "recognized."
)By whom?
I'm out of time, Tarjei, maybe I'll try to find the old thread later. Like I
said, it doesn't interest me much, I remember Sharon quoting a book by an
occult researcher, and she was asked for the details on the author, and
yessir, I found it more credible than you. Why would *you* know whether
Steiner was cremated?
)I said the theosophical/anthroposophical outline of evolution is not
)racist. The ultimate conclusion of such a claim would be to say that
)evolution itself is racist because it has produced different races.
Oh come on, you are capable of far better argumentation than this. The
theory hardly limits itself to a statement that there are "different races."
The racist part is the different levels of spiritual attainment ascribed to
different races, and the many little snippets of bogus racial
characterizations (like one of Sune's favorites, that Ethiopians are not so
good at "head-based thinking").
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 15:35:56 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites and info on WE
andanthroposophy o
Sune you wrote in response to Bea
)
) The great standard source of information about all and
) everything in UK probably is Encyclopedia Britannica.
)
) Looking it up on 'Rudolf Steiner', in probably all school
) brochures on WE described as the originator of WE,
) it (containing some errors like 'Waldorf School movement,
) derived from his experiments with the Goetheanum'), says:
) (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=71361&tocid=0)
)
) Steiner, Rudolf
) EncyclopÊdia Britannica Article
)
) born Feb. 27, 1861, Kraljevic, Austria
) died March 30, 1925, Dornach, Switz.
)
) Austrian-born scientist, editor, and founder of
) anthroposophy, a movement based on the notion that there is
) a spiritual world comprehensible to pure thought but
) accessible only to the highest faculties of mental
) knowledge.
and etc.
Newpaul
Sharon wasn't it you who said that Steiner had earned a place in Who's
Who in the Occult? When you unpack that book, I hope you will post his
Occult Bio. I would really like to have it for PR purposes.
PS By the way, Where's Robert Flannery? Wasn't he going to come back
and rebuke your mystery center findings as soon as school was out?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 21:46:14 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Diana Winters wrote:
) Sune about Dan:
) )- who being pointed to the untruthfulness spread in contributions at
) ) )PLANS' site, does not take away the contributions in question, but )keeps
) )them and only washes his hands and says he takes no )reponsibility for the
) )untruths that can be found at the contributions )he puts at the site of
) )PLANS,
Diana:
) Sune, anyone who's been reading here any length of time has read at least
) one of the endless mega-discussions about your so-called "untruths" at the
) PLANS site and understands that these are differences of opinions, not
) "untruths."
What my comment primarily referred to with 'washing the hands' was what to
my memory happened after Jelle Schottelndreier commented on the way Toos
Jeurissen has constructed something that looks like a quote from Steiner in
the article 'Waldorf Salad with Aryan Mayonnaise' at PLANS' site.
If I'm not mistaken it was after that being pointed out and commented on in
December 1999 that Dan put the comment that PLANS does not 'vouch for the
veracity of everything posted in this section.'
As to 'mega-discussions about your [my] so-called [comments on] 'untruths'
at PLANS site' what you probably mainly refer to are my comments on the
first article by Staudenmaier
(http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html) in three
postings to this list on 1 May 2001 on 'THE CARELESS MIXTURE OF TRUTH AND
UNTRUTH IN THE ARTICLE BY PETER STAUDENMAIER AT PLANS' SITE'
(http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier-1.htm)
with a following discussion.
As the lecture series that I put up at my site
(http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/Folkspirits/Folkspirits.htm)
demonstrate, Staudenmaier has constructed an untruthful story about it -
based on clearly unreliable secondary sources - to fit his views of Steiner
and anthroposophy as the introducing lead story of his article, with the
lecture series arguing centrally the opposite of what Staudenmaier writes
that it does.
That is not a matter of 'differences of opinion'. One year after publishing
his article at PLANS' site, PS told the list he hadn't (even] read the
original (yet), clearly not bothering to spend even some 10 bucks on
ordering it from http://www.amazon.de
(http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/3727461314/qid%3D992979729/302-4361055-3301669)
which would have given him the opportunity after few days to finally read
what he described in the introduction to his article. Instead he makes up a
new story about what he writes being found in an to everybody but himself
unknown imaginary 'lecture' by Steiner.
In this he clearly has no interest.
And he refers to his work as 'scholary'.
Some jest 'scholar'.
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 21:38:45 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
I wrote:
))Recognized by whom? Steiner was cremated, not buried. Besides, he
))was never a member of OTO. What this means is that the "source" in
))question has no serious credibility. But you say it is "recognized."
))By whom?
Diana wrote:
)I'm out of time, Tarjei, maybe I'll try to find the old thread
)later. Like I said, it doesn't interest me much, I remember Sharon
)quoting a book by an occult researcher, and she was asked for the
)details on the author, and yessir, I found it more credible than
)you. Why would *you* know whether Steiner was cremated?
It's on record. Friedrich Rittelmeyer was the priest of the service.
But if you prefer to "believe" in an unsubstantiated quote from a
book you apparently know nothing about and whose author nobody has
heard of because it pleases you, that's fine.
))I said the theosophical/anthroposophical outline of evolution is not
))racist. The ultimate conclusion of such a claim would be to say that
))evolution itself is racist because it has produced different races.
)
)Oh come on, you are capable of far better argumentation than this.
)The theory hardly limits itself to a statement that there are
)"different races." The racist part is the different levels of
)spiritual attainment ascribed to different races, and the many
)little snippets of bogus racial characterizations (like one of
)Sune's favorites, that Ethiopians are not so good at "head-based
)thinking").
Human beings have evolved through group consciousness provided by
races, tribes, nations, and so on. And they've all had their ups and
downs through the ages. It seems that the only non-racist view would
be that we all are, and have always been, one grey homogenous mass.
--
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 20:44:24 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
) Michael C wrote:
)
) )Laws often come from moral intuitions and the law
) )recognizes the difference between published ideas that
) )cannot be substantiated that have been published and
) )ideas that attack a living person that cannot be
) )substantiated that have been published.
Diana replied:
)Huh? Maybe you want to try that sentence again? Your distinction is . .? I
) hope the law is in fact much clearer than that.
Charlie:
The sentence seems clear enough to me. It's ok to publish unsubstantiated
material so long as this material is not attacking another person. Where's
the problem?
warm regards,
charlie.)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 13:12:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
--- Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com) wrote:
) )Michael C:
) )It is questionable whether or not the concept race
) has
) )much or any basis in nature. Species is more solid
) )because ther are certain test that can be done to
) )substantiate (nearly 100% of the time)that two life
) )form are different. All humans are the same
) species
) )and except for a few cases like the Australian
) )Aborigines that have been isolated for a long time,
) )the blur between "races" is great. Who invented
) )"race"? Humans did. Once the concept of race is
) used
) )the inevitable result will be racism. It is some
) )scientists and academics that keep the idea of race
) )alive and respectable although for the most part it
) is
) )not done with bad intentions.
)
) This boils down to semantic drivel again. Steiner
) viewed each
) individual human being as an independent species.
Michael C:
Yes on a spiritual level but I was talking about
materialistic anthropological theory that doesn't
recognise spirit , reincarnation etc.
) Animals belong to
) group species, but humans don't. But we may have
) been through that
) stage of group species that the animals are
) experiencing. But "human
) races" in plural has become an anachronism. We can
) talk about the
) human race today, but not human races because human
) beings are to
) complicated for such categorizations. I find the
) idea of each
) individual being a species fascinating, however.
)
) We have, however, evolved from races (in plural).
Maybe yes and maybe no. What is more important to note
for the moment is that this theory of races and racism
didn't start with Steiner. It is also important to
note that races and racism is taught in the science
and history of the secular humanist education along
with cultural chauvanism.
)
) --
) Tarjei
)
) http://uncletaz.com/
)
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 23:46:01 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Sune wrote,
) )Sharon, couldn't you consider tuning down somewhat on your reading for a
) )time. I'm not fully aware of the climate where you live, but here in
) )Sweden, summer has arrived. Everybody needs to take a break in between to
) )get a perspective on things. You can always come back to your reading later
) )if you feel the need for it. And we're both young, at least you ;-),
) )there's plenty of time to come back to your studies at a later time.
Dan:
) I'm falling down laughing! Usually Anthropops say you should study
) more and then you'll understand. The problem with Sharon is that she
) actually -read- the books!
No, the problem isn't that she reads books. She recently told this list
that she every day - for the last three years - has spent her time reading
books on subjects describing what finds to be unreal, today adding a
description about her fascination with "The Head of God", how she is 'blown
away by all that I've read on the ancient severed head cults having to do
with Moses who was Akhenaten ...', how she has different people pouring
books over her, and makes confused, confusing and outraged comments on this
list when I question what she writes on even small points.
To me it makes the impression that she maybe would feel somewhat better if
she took a brake for a time from her intensive daily reading on subjects
that she finds to be unreal, or at least tuned it down somewhat and did
more of other things to get some more down to earth perspective on things.
This small suggestion makes you tell the list that it makes you 'falling
down laughing!'.
Well ... I don't quite know how to comment on that on this list.
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 20:10:24 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites and info on WE
andanthroposop
)PS By the way, Where's Robert Flannery? Wasn't he going to come back
)and rebuke your mystery center findings as soon as school was out?
Interesting that the very day I rejoin the list this comes right up.
Actually, I'm up to my ass in final reports and have no business being here
yet. However, here I am.
NewPaul, I don't want to start out my first day in the middle of another
controversy, so I'll correct your inaccurate recollection of what I said.
I told Sharon I would take the time this summer to go over her sources, so
that I could make an informed judgment about what she was saying. That's a
little different than what you're reporting, above.
In fact, I have to finish my New York State-accredited Sunbridge College
Master's thesis before fall. That will take priority this summer over any
research on Sharon's stuff. I will get to it eventually, I suppose.
And if I don't, you'll remind me.
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:42:44 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Robert Flannery's Waldorf Education thesis
)In fact, I have to finish my New York State-accredited Sunbridge College
)Master's thesis before fall.
)
)Robert Flannery
)Spring Valley, NY
)litvas icu.com
Hello, Robert,
Perhaps you could share with us some information about your thesis.
Is this a research thesis?
Do you have a thesis adviser?
Who is the adviser, is he or she on the staff at Sunbridge, and what are
his or her qualifications? (Generally speaking, that is; I doubt that names
or personalities matter, unless the person is a figure in these debates or
the Waldorf movement, like Eugene Schwartz, but feel free to name the
adviser if they don't mind.)
Was the topic set for you or did you choose from a range of suggested or
mandated topics or did you have free range?
Did your adviser have to approve your thesis plan?
Would you be willing to let us see the plan (or whatever you had to submit
to your adviser for approval to proceed) or a synopsis or precis of it?
If it is a research thesis, is it literature research (and what body of
literature would it be), or is it some other form of research such as
classroom observation or experiments?
At masters level, do you have to defend the thesis before a committee, and
who would they be?
Nice to have you back -- you'll raise the tone of the discussion here by
several degrees, I imagine.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 02:19:17 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Sune:
)What my comment primarily referred to with 'washing the hands' was )what to
)my memory happened after Jelle Schottelndreier commented on )the way Toos
)Jeurissen has constructed something that looks like a )quote from Steiner
)in the article 'Waldorf Salad with Aryan )Mayonnaise' at PLANS' site.
Well, your memory serves you very poorly. After Jelle's complaint about the
Jeurissen article, I read the article and Jelle's criticisms of it and wrote
a *long* and - if I say so myself - pretty damn thorough explication of why
Jelle's criticisms do not detract substantially from the point Jeurissen was
making. I mean, I spent *hours*. I explained that although Jeurissen quoted
a third party who had put two quotes in reverse order of how they appeared
in Steiner's original, the interpretation of Steiner's meaning would, to
most people, be the same, and was reinforced by other material in the same
article, not to mention numerous other anthroposophic sources.
I will pull it back up and re-post the whole bloody thing if you are going
to repeat every 6 months that PLANS is full of "lies." Sure, just ignore the
discussion that follows your accusations, every time, and repeat yourself
every few months; maybe newcomers will at least believe it and won't have
access to the rebuttals. I don't find this at all ethical or admirable of
you.
)If I'm not mistaken it was after that being pointed out and commented )n in
)December 1999 that Dan put the comment that PLANS does not 'vouch )or the
)veracity of everything posted in this section.'
Yeah, and so, I repeat my question to you, do you vouch for the veracity of
everything at your site? Did you interview the same spirits Steiner
interviewed, in order to verify that he quoted them all correctly?
I can't go anywhere near the Peter Staudenmaier topic. I am sure serious
readers of this list, if they read his material, can see his seriousness and
integrity through your bluster.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 02:28:44 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Tarjei - re: Steiner's burial (asking myself why I ever brought this up):
)It's on record. Friedrich Rittelmeyer was the priest of the service.
)But if you prefer to "believe" in an unsubstantiated quote from a
)book you apparently know nothing about and whose author nobody has
)heard of because it pleases you, that's fine.
Tarjei, I truly do not care. I will leave to Sharon, if she wishes sometime,
to pull the book out again, if anyone else is truly interested in this
author's credibility.
Talk about cult behavior. I was talking to a woman this afternoon whose
daughter is graduating from high school and she was saying she attributes
her daughter's successes and self-confidence to her early Montessori
schooling. I tried to imagine this woman or any of the parents of her
daughter's friends' kids actually finding it meaningful to know whether
Maria Montessori was buried or cremated, and who was the priest at her
funeral . . . and passionately arguing the point on the Internet . . . The
passion for Steiner is *not normal*.
)Human beings have evolved through group consciousness provided by
)races, tribes, nations, and so on. And they've all had their ups and
)downs through the ages. It seems that the only non-racist view would
)be that we all are, and have always been, one grey homogenous mass.
How sad, Tarjei. How about, we are individuals? We are people? I do not find
people to be one gray homogenous mass at all, I find that far less
imaginative than accepting people I meet as individuals rather than assuming
I know something about them based on their skin color.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 23:10:58 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Robert Flannery's Waldorf Education thesis
)Hello, Robert,
)
)Perhaps you could share with us some information about your thesis.
)
)Is this a research thesis?
Yes. I'll be doing book research and relying on classroom experience.
)
)Do you have a thesis adviser?
Yes.
)
)Who is the adviser, is he or she on the staff at Sunbridge, and what are
)his or her qualifications? (Generally speaking, that is; I doubt that names
)or personalities matter, unless the person is a figure in these debates or
)the Waldorf movement, like Eugene Schwartz, but feel free to name the
)adviser if they don't mind.)
Stephen Sagarin is the advisor. He's got a doctorate in education from
Columbia University. He replaced Douglas Sloan as the administrator of the
Master's Program here at Sunbridge last year, when Douglas retired.
Steve's also a class teacher at the Great Barrington Waldorf School in
Massachusetts, whose class is currently about to begin eighth grade.
)
)Was the topic set for you or did you choose from a range of suggested or
)mandated topics or did you have free range?
I had free range on the topic, which had to be approved by the advisor.
)
)Did your adviser have to approve your thesis plan?
)
)Would you be willing to let us see the plan (or whatever you had to submit
)to your adviser for approval to proceed) or a synopsis or precis of it?
No. I'm not coming back to this list for dissection.
I will tell you what it's going to be about, so this will in fact suffice
as some sort of summary.
It concerns the relationship of "handedness" to learning. There are all
sorts of dominance involved in the sense organs and limbs: we have a
dominant hand, eye, ear, and foot. What are the consequences of mixed
dominance in learning? Are there occasions when the dominant hand should
be switched? Does being left- or right-handed in the elementary education
years matter?
)
)If it is a research thesis, is it literature research (and what body of
)literature would it be), or is it some other form of research such as
)classroom observation or experiments?
Here's the list of titles I've compiled as a preliminary resource set. I'm
sure this will expand quickly over a short period of time:
The Necessity of Experience
Edward S. Reed
Yale University Press, 1996
Lucifer's Legacy: The Meaning of Asymmetry
Frank Close
Oxford University Press, 2000
The Feeling of What Happens
Antonio Damasio
Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1999
The Left-Hander Syndrome
Stanley Coren
Vintage Books, 1993
The Dual Brain: Hemispheric Specialization in Humans
D. Frank Benson
Guilford Press, 1988
Awareness Through Movement
Moshe Feldenkrais
Harper Collins, 1972
The Hand
Frank R. Wilson
Pantheon, 1998
Is the Left Brain Always Right?
Clare Cherry
Fearon Teacher Aids, 1989
The Right Mind
Robert Ornstein
Harcourt Brace and Company, 1997
The Dominance Factor
Carla Hannaford
Great Ocean Publishers, 1997
The Out-of-Sync Child
Carol Stock Kranowitz
Penguin Putnam, Inc. 1998
No controlled experiments are involved, save what is presented in the
literature.
)
)At masters level, do you have to defend the thesis before a committee, and
)who would they be?
I'll submit it to Stephen when I'm finished. I don't know if he'll vet it
as part of any group or not. It would not surprise me if Douglas were
still involved at this stage.
)
)Nice to have you back -- you'll raise the tone of the discussion here by
)several degrees, I imagine.
Thanks, Michael.
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 03:06:22 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Robert Flannery's Waldorf Education thesis
Robert Flannery on his masters thesis topic:
)It concerns the relationship of "handedness" to learning. There are )all
)sorts of dominance involved in the sense organs and limbs: we have )a
)dominant hand, eye, ear, and foot. What are the consequences of )mixed
)dominance in learning? Are there occasions when the dominant )hand should
)be switched? Does being left- or right-handed in the )elementary education
)years matter?
This will certainly be fascinating, I will be very interested to hear of
your conclusions if you will post them later. Do you plan to conduct
interviews (or include the reports of others who have done such interviews)
with people who were indeed forced to switch hands, by parents or teachers,
and/or any literature on the psychological effects of such an intervention?
Also glad to have you back.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 00:07:40 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Robert Flannery's Waldorf Education thesis
)Robert Flannery on his masters thesis topic:
)
))It concerns the relationship of "handedness" to learning. There are )all
))sorts of dominance involved in the sense organs and limbs: we have )a
))dominant hand, eye, ear, and foot. What are the consequences of )mixed
))dominance in learning? Are there occasions when the dominant )hand should
))be switched? Does being left- or right-handed in the )elementary education
))years matter?
)
)This will certainly be fascinating, I will be very interested to hear of
)your conclusions if you will post them later. Do you plan to conduct
)interviews (or include the reports of others who have done such interviews)
)with people who were indeed forced to switch hands, by parents or teachers,
)and/or any literature on the psychological effects of such an intervention?
I'll be happy to post the whole thing to the list, once it's finished and
accepted.
I plan to include case studies of various children who present issues in
this area. The initial study will concern one of my daughters--she was
switched to her right hand just before starting first grade.
I would love to be put in touch with anyone who would be willing to share
first-hand information of any sort with me on this. The psychological
aspects are certainly relevant, but I'm not planning to go too deeply into
that, as it's not an area of specialization for me. I'll rely broadly on
the literature/studies in that area.
)
)Also glad to have you back.
)Diana
Thank you.
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 21:24:10 -0700
From: Harvey Bornfield (earlyfire earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
Earlyfire throws in two Hebraic Sheckles:
An old story is told of three students who violated the commandment that one must
be 40 years old to study Kabbalah, the esoteric foundation of knowledge that is
before the world was created. the term for which is known in mystery schools as
the "Ancient of Days".
One student went insane, another committed suicide and the third entered
Paradise.
This old story, like so many other immortal warnings that has good reason to
endure being repeated often with no loss of freshness or appropriateness, suffers
no expiration date, and applies to all students of the mysteries. The secrets are
not trivial arsenals or stashes of knowledge that sport mystique and fascination,
like fizzing soda, and make intellectual buckshot and other spice, but the
epicenters which focus and evidence a longstanding commitment to achieve a
permanent transformation of scope and depth and level of illumination which
reflects a willingness to assume responsibility for matters beyond the grave.
They can anchor or derange, depending upon whether ambition drives or aspiration
invites the metaphysical quest. This is a much greater Caveat Emptor than any
dangers a Waldorf shopper ever dreamt of.
But have no fear, these sheckles will self-destruct.
Harvey
Sune Nordwall wrote:
) Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) ) Sune wrote,
) ) )Sharon, couldn't you consider tuning down somewhat on your reading for a
) ) )time. I'm not fully aware of the climate where you live, but here in
) ) )Sweden, summer has arrived. Everybody needs to take a break in between to
) ) )get a perspective on things. You can always come back to your reading later
) ) )if you feel the need for it. And we're both young, at least you ;-),
) ) )there's plenty of time to come back to your studies at a later time.
)
) Dan:
) ) I'm falling down laughing! Usually Anthropops say you should study
) ) more and then you'll understand. The problem with Sharon is that she
) ) actually -read- the books!
)
) No, the problem isn't that she reads books. She recently told this list
) that she every day - for the last three years - has spent her time reading
) books on subjects describing what finds to be unreal, today adding a
) description about her fascination with "The Head of God", how she is 'blown
) away by all that I've read on the ancient severed head cults having to do
) with Moses who was Akhenaten ...', how she has different people pouring
) books over her, and makes confused, confusing and outraged comments on this
) list when I question what she writes on even small points.
)
) To me it makes the impression that she maybe would feel somewhat better if
) she took a brake for a time from her intensive daily reading on subjects
) that she finds to be unreal, or at least tuned it down somewhat and did
) more of other things to get some more down to earth perspective on things.
)
) This small suggestion makes you tell the list that it makes you 'falling
) down laughing!'.
)
) Well ... I don't quite know how to comment on that on this list.
)
) Sune Nordwall
) Stockholm, Sweden
)
) http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
) - some comments on PLANS
)
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 350
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Who's Who in the Occult
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Some hubris
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Some hubris
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Some hubris
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Some hubris
By soma mwt.net
RE: Some hubris
By dingman mindspring.com
Re: Robert Flannery's Waldorf Education thesis
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Some hubris
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Some hubris
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Some hubris
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Some hubris
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Some hubris
By litvas icu.com
Re: Who's Who in the Occult
By litvas icu.com
Re: Some hubris
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Some hubris
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Some hubris
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Some hubris
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Hubris
By raymon_ford yahoo.com.au
Re: Some hubris
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Hubris
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Some hubris
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Some hubris
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Re: Hubris
By litvas icu.com
Re: Some hubris
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Some hubris
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Some hubris
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Hubris
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Some hubris
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Some hubris
By tastraum uncletaz.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:41:19 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
I wrote:
))Human beings have evolved through group consciousness provided by
))races, tribes, nations, and so on. And they've all had their ups and
))downs through the ages. It seems that the only non-racist view would
))be that we all are, and have always been, one grey homogenous mass.
Diana wrote:
)How sad, Tarjei. How about, we are individuals? We are people? I do
)not find people to be one gray homogenous mass at all, I find that
)far less imaginative than accepting people I meet as individuals
)rather than assuming I know something about them based on their skin
)color.
Nobody on this list has expressed any assumptions about anyone based
on skin color. In another post I also pointed out that Steiner
regarded each individual human being representing a separate species,
but perhaps you missed that.
--
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 08:07:26 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: Who's Who in the Occult
Newpaul
)
) )PS By the way, Where's Robert Flannery? Wasn't he going to come back
) )and rebuke your mystery center findings as soon as school was out?
)
Robert
) Interesting that the very day I rejoin the list this comes right up.
)
Newpaul
Its either my celestrial clairvoyance or its my dogged determination.
I'm not sure.
)
Robert
)I will get to it eventually, I suppose.
)
) And if I don't, you'll remind me.
)
)
Newpaul
Oh I am sure Sharon will take care of any further reminders. Do you
have a copy of Steiner's Bio from Who's Who in the Occult that you could
post ? Welcome back.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 14:01:33 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
Harvey colorfully describes the dangers of reading too much Steiner (you may
find paradise, or you may just go insane), and comments:
)The secrets are not trivial arsenals or stashes of knowledge that )sport
)mystique and fascination, like fizzing soda, and make )intellectual
)buckshot and other spice, but the epicenters which focus )and evidence a
)longstanding commitment to achieve a permanent )transformation of scope and
)depth and level of illumination which )reflects a willingness to assume
)responsibility for matters beyond the )grave.
)They can anchor or derange, depending upon whether ambition drives or
) )aspiration invites the metaphysical quest. This is a much greater )Caveat
)Emptor than any dangers a Waldorf shopper ever dreamt of.
Indeed.
Hey, Harvey, are you going to descend from the heights some day and tell us
what you actually know about Waldorf education? Have you had kids in
Waldorf? Taught in Waldorf? Or just found paradise reading Steiner?
You are so right that some of us are not, and were not, on a metaphysical
quest when we enrolled our children in Waldorf.
This thing about getting a little deranged from spending too much time
reading Steiner: this is one of those teensy little problems that shows up
in Waldorf classrooms - teachers on a metaphysical quest seeking
illumination. I have been so happy to find teachers outside of Waldorf who
do not bring their concerns with "matters beyond the grave" into the
classroom, but work on reading, writing, and math with the children.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:18:58 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
Diana wrote:
)Hey, Harvey, are you going to descend from the heights some day and
)tell us what you actually know about Waldorf education? Have you had
)kids in Waldorf? Taught in Waldorf? Or just found paradise reading
)Steiner?
)
)You are so right that some of us are not, and were not, on a
)metaphysical quest when we enrolled our children in Waldorf.
)
)This thing about getting a little deranged from spending too much
)time reading Steiner: this is one of those teensy little problems
)that shows up in Waldorf classrooms - teachers on a metaphysical
)quest seeking illumination. I have been so happy to find teachers
)outside of Waldorf who do not bring their concerns with "matters
)beyond the grave" into the classroom, but work on reading, writing,
)and math with the children.
My 2 c:
It doesn't look like Harvey had Waldorf education or classroom
activities in mind when he mentioned "responsibility for matters
beyond the grave," but reading Steiner's lectures about topics
relevant to the spiritual and philosophical concerns of interested
adult listeners and readers. In this context, I see nothing wrong
with what you describe as finding paradise when reading Steiner, or
with being on a metaphysical quest where one finds Steiner's works
helpful and inspiring. If PLANS and its WC list was only interested
in criticizing Waldorf education, I wouldn't be here. What I am
reacting to is the hostility and allegations aimed at people who read
Steiner and applaud his work.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 07:33:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
--- Diana Winters (winters_diana hotmail.com) wrote:
)
) Harvey colorfully describes the dangers of reading
) too much Steiner (you may
) find paradise, or you may just go insane), and
) comments:
)
Michael C:
You can read Steiner every day for 1000 years and you
still will not be initiated (Although 1000 years of
living may bring you right to the door, but you still
must step through as an act of free will) How ever
reading any genuine spirirtual literature can assist a
person seeking initiation. Doing spiritual execises
can accelerate the journey to initiation but can also
be that fast track to insanity.
)
) )The secrets are not trivial arsenals or stashes of
) knowledge that )sport
) )mystique and fascination, like fizzing soda, and
) make )intellectual
) )buckshot and other spice, but the epicenters which
) focus )and evidence a
) )longstanding commitment to achieve a permanent
) )transformation of scope and
) )depth and level of illumination which )reflects a
) willingness to assume
) )responsibility for matters beyond the )grave.
)
) )They can anchor or derange, depending upon whether
) ambition drives or
) ) )aspiration invites the metaphysical quest. This
) is a much greater )Caveat
) )Emptor than any dangers a Waldorf shopper ever
) dreamt of.
)
) Indeed.
)
) Hey, Harvey, are you going to descend from the
) heights some day and tell us
) what you actually know about Waldorf education? Have
) you had kids in
) Waldorf? Taught in Waldorf? Or just found paradise
) reading Steiner?
)
) You are so right that some of us are not, and were
) not, on a metaphysical
) quest when we enrolled our children in Waldorf.
Michael C:
Waldorf Education is not a metaphysical quest. The
teacher may be working toward initiation. If the
teachers quest for initiation is interfering with
her/his teaching than it is not correct acording to
RS. If some one would be good enough to find one or
more sources for this, I know that this is in
Knowledge of Higher Worlds, but not the page. Waldorf
Education will help prepare the child for living in a
time where we are being propelled towards initiation
whether we like it or not. Of course the final choice
as to whether to walk through the door or not is one
that can only be made by the individual.
)
) This thing about getting a little deranged from
) spending too much time
) reading Steiner: this is one of those teensy little
) problems that shows up
) in Waldorf classrooms - teachers on a metaphysical
) quest seeking
) illumination. I have been so happy to find teachers
) outside of Waldorf who
) do not bring their concerns with "matters beyond the
) grave" into the
) classroom, but work on reading, writing, and math
) with the children.
)
) Diana
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:01:40 -0700
From: soma (soma mwt.net)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
earlyfire earthlink.net wrote:
) Earlyfire throws in two Hebraic Sheckles:
) An old story is told of three students who violated the commandment that one must
) be 40 years old to study Kabbalah,
Sharon:
....and married. I've often wondered if Waldorf was breaking this law by allowing
children to participate in Eurythmy, where Kabbalah is imposed. My Jewish friend and
I have puzzled this. I need to ask a rabbi.
) Earlyfire:
) They can anchor or derange, depending upon whether ambition drives or aspiration
) invites the metaphysical quest. This is a much greater Caveat Emptor than any
) dangers a Waldorf shopper ever dreamt of.
Sharon:
So I should just shut up and go away so that Anthroposophists can continue to dupe
parents? I am inspired by Ida B. Wells, the African American woman who took on the
Klu Klux Clan at the age of 20 and put a stop to lynching, also by lovely Barbara
Walker who is very sane even after a lifetime of reading and debunking fantasy. In
my case, the beauty of being a nonbeliever is sanity of mind. BTW, you know a whole
lot don't ya Earlyfire?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 11:05:19 -0400
From: Newpaul (dingman mindspring.com)
Subject: RE: Some hubris
Harvey
)
) Harvey colorfully describes the dangers of reading too much Steiner (you may
) find paradise, or you may just go insane), and comments:
)
)
)
) The secrets are not trivial arsenals or stashes of knowledge that )sport
) mystique and fascination, like fizzing soda, and make )intellectual
) buckshot and other spice, but the epicenters which focus )and evidence a
) longstanding commitment to achieve a permanent )transformation of scope and
) depth and level of illumination which )reflects a willingness to assume
) responsibility for matters beyond the )grave.
)
)
)
) They can anchor or derange, depending upon whether ambition drives or
)
) aspiration invites the metaphysical quest. This is a much greater )Caveat
)
) Emptor than any dangers a Waldorf shopper ever dreamt of.
)
Diana
) Indeed.
)
) Hey, Harvey, are you going to descend from the heights some day and tell us
) what you actually know about Waldorf education?
Newpaul
Perhaps Harvey has transcended to the highest order of the 3 folding
process. He and the spirit world are at one with the sun god. If so,
we will need to rely on experienced anthroposophical teachers to
interprete his rambling muses. Only those who have experienced this
initiation can truly understand what lies between his lines.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 08:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Robert Flannery's Waldorf Education thesis
Michael C:
Robert,
Michael Kopp wrote that he was glad to have you back.
then Diana wrote the following
) )Also glad to have you back.
) )Diana
)
Michael C:
I am not familiar with your previous contributions to
this list but I am looking foward to reading your new
ones. Anybody that is working towards a master degree
in Waldorf Education and is warmly recieved by Michael
Kopp and Diana must be an articulate intelligent
person that is capable of facilitating the bridging of
gaps in understanding.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 17:01:24 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
Michael C wrote:
)Waldorf Education is not a metaphysical quest. The teacher may be
)working toward initiation. If the teachers quest for initiation is
)interfering with
)her/his teaching than it is not correct acording to RS.
I get the impression from later posts that one of the major concerns
among critics is that the teachers are working on their paths to
initiation and that they use the kids for their own egoistical
spiritual purposes. If that were truly the case, I would not have
given my consent to my son attending Waldorf school.
I cannot repeat it often enough that I am extremely cautious about
discussing pedagogy because I am not a teacher myself, and likewise
reticent about discussing medicine because this is also off my turf.
My major reason for being happy about my son attending Waldorf
school, however, is that its pedagogy is derived from an insight
based upon the "notional system" with which I agree. Like the
seven-year cycles, the physical, etheric, and the astral, and the I
and so on. This insight, or "notional system" if you like, should be
used to understand children better and to adjust the tuition
accordingly.
Personally, I think rigidity and conformity to rules and regulations
and systems and so on always represents a threat against, or an
obstacle to, the unfolding of freedom and flexibility, but I
certainly don't think Waldorf schools have a monopoly on such
problems. What it boils down to is the individuals who teach in a
given school and what kind of environment they create. This is more
important, in my mind, than what kind of pedagogical system or method
they use.
When Rudolf Steiner visited the first Waldorf school, he talked to
the children and asked them repeatedly: "Do you love your teachers?"
He applied the principle of love also when he tutored the mentally
handicapped or retarded boy - who actually became a doctor of
medicine. In his autobiography, Steiner wrote that significant
progress was first made when he succeeded in winning the child's
affection.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:31:28 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
Tarjei:
)It doesn't look like Harvey had Waldorf education or classroom
)activities in mind when he mentioned "responsibility for matters
)beyond the grave"
No indeed, Tarjei, he may not have. I do, however, because I have observed
that Waldorf teachers often have these things in mind in the classroom. I
figure other parents and their children may benefit from hearing about this
in advance.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 08:32:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
--- soma mwt.net wrote:
)
)
) earlyfire earthlink.net wrote:
)
) ) Earlyfire throws in two Hebraic Sheckles:
) ) An old story is told of three students who
) violated the commandment that one must
) ) be 40 years old to study Kabbalah,
)
) Sharon:
) ....and married. I've often wondered if Waldorf was
) breaking this law by allowing
) children to participate in Eurythmy, where Kabbalah
) is imposed. My Jewish friend and
) I have puzzled this. I need to ask a rabbi.
Michael C:
The level of the "law' (halacha) is beneath the level
of Kabbalah. There was a suggestion that a man be 40
years old have a full belly and have children before
beginning the study of kabbalah. Howevwer many master
of orthodox Kabbalah started the study of the writings
and the practice of the methods (special meditations)
at a much younger age. A prime example is the ARI
(Issac Luria).
To the best of my knowledge elements of Kabbalistic
practice that are incorperated into eurythmy are
totaly save and appropriate for children.
)
) ) Earlyfire:
) ) They can anchor or derange, depending upon whether
) ambition drives or aspiration
) ) invites the metaphysical quest. This is a much
) greater Caveat Emptor than any
) ) dangers a Waldorf shopper ever dreamt of.
)
) Sharon:
) So I should just shut up and go away so that
) Anthroposophists can continue to dupe
) parents?
Michael C:
No stick around, but I think the advice that Sune gave
you was not entirely due to his frustration about the
content of your posts. It is possible to burn out from
reading too much, but this is not anything like the
insanity that Earlyfire is warning you about.
)I am inspired by Ida B. Wells, the African
) American woman who took on the
) Klu Klux Clan at the age of 20 and put a stop to
) lynching, also by lovely Barbara
) Walker who is very sane even after a lifetime of
) reading and debunking fantasy. In
) my case, the beauty of being a nonbeliever is sanity
) of mind. BTW, you know a whole
) lot don't ya Earlyfire?
Michael C:
If you want to stay sane through intitiation being a
non believer is a must. But you are like every one
else on the list including me. You have a lot of
emotional attachtment to many beliefs. If these
beliefs were swept away by direct experience you would
might easily panic and replace these beliefs with even
worse ones like all of the dogma of an
Anthroposophical fundemantalist. In one of the gospel
stories of Jesus he says something about how after an
evil spirit is cast out of a man, it goes out and
finds 10 more and brings them all back into the person
who is now in worse shape. Can somebody please find
the bible qoute.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:34:38 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
Michael C. wrote:
)Waldorf Education will help prepare the child for living in a
)time where we are being propelled towards initiation
)whether we like it or not.
Another little tiny point it might be nice to explain to parents in advance
- that the teachers will help prepare your child to be propelled towards
initiation . . .
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:04:05 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
)Hey, Harvey, are you going to descend from the heights some day and tell us
)what you actually know about Waldorf education? Have you had kids in
)Waldorf? Taught in Waldorf? Or just found paradise reading Steiner?
)
)You are so right that some of us are not, and were not, on a metaphysical
)quest when we enrolled our children in Waldorf.
)
)This thing about getting a little deranged from spending too much time
)reading Steiner: this is one of those teensy little problems that shows up
)in Waldorf classrooms - teachers on a metaphysical quest seeking
)illumination. I have been so happy to find teachers outside of Waldorf who
)do not bring their concerns with "matters beyond the grave" into the
)classroom, but work on reading, writing, and math with the children.
)
)Diana
I apologize for butting in, and if I'm too presumptuous, just say so and
I'll back off.
The general tone of your response was the subject of a thread some years
ago on this list, which might be referred to as the "snide prick"
discussion.
I understand the frustration and anger that we all feel when we've spent
any time at all on this list, and Harvey may have instigated your current
approach. I don't know.
You were very cordial and friendly to me yesterday upon my return, and I
appreciate it very much. I think we can continue that way.
The arch, dismissive stance doesn't lead to any valuable dialogue. It's
the hallmark of a conversation that is going nowhere. We've all spent far
too much time in that sort of a pursuit.
I don't mean to single you out, Diana--it's just that your post today
reminded me of this. I've been as guilty of it as anyone else, but it's
one of the things that I wanted to try to change when I came back.
regards,
Robert
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:04:36 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Who's Who in the Occult
)Newpaul
)Oh I am sure Sharon will take care of any further reminders. Do you
)have a copy of Steiner's Bio from Who's Who in the Occult that you could
)post ? Welcome back.
I don't have that book. I have something called, "The Occult: A History"
(Colin Wilson, Barnes and Noble Books, 1971/1995) that has one very oblique
mention of Rudolph (sic) Steiner in its 603 pages.
Sorry I can't be of more help to you.
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 08:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
--- Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com) wrote:
) Michael C wrote:
)
) )Waldorf Education is not a metaphysical quest. The
) teacher may be
) )working toward initiation. If the teachers quest
) for initiation is
) )interfering with
) )her/his teaching than it is not correct acording to
) RS.
)
) I get the impression from later posts that one of
) the major concerns
) among critics is that the teachers are working on
) their paths to
) initiation and that they use the kids for their own
) egoistical
) spiritual purposes. If that were truly the case, I
) would not have
) given my consent to my son attending Waldorf school.
)
) I cannot repeat it often enough that I am extremely
) cautious about
) discussing pedagogy because I am not a teacher
) myself, and likewise
) reticent about discussing medicine because this is
) also off my turf.
) My major reason for being happy about my son
) attending Waldorf
) school, however, is that its pedagogy is derived
) from an insight
) based upon the "notional system" with which I agree.
) Like the
) seven-year cycles, the physical, etheric, and the
) astral, and the I
) and so on. This insight, or "notional system" if you
) like, should be
) used to understand children better and to adjust the
) tuition
) accordingly.
)
) Personally, I think rigidity and conformity to rules
) and regulations
) and systems and so on always represents a threat
) against, or an
) obstacle to, the unfolding of freedom and
) flexibility, but I
) certainly don't think Waldorf schools have a
) monopoly on such
) problems. What it boils down to is the individuals
) who teach in a
) given school and what kind of environment they
) create. This is more
) important, in my mind, than what kind of pedagogical
) system or method
) they use.
)
) When Rudolf Steiner visited the first Waldorf
) school, he talked to
) the children and asked them repeatedly: "Do you love
) your teachers?"
) He applied the principle of love also when he
) tutored the mentally
) handicapped or retarded boy - who actually became a
) doctor of
) medicine. In his autobiography, Steiner wrote that
) significant
) progress was first made when he succeeded in winning
) the child's
) affection.
)
) --
) Tarjei
)
Michael C:
Bravo Tajei
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:44:49 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
Tarjei:
)I get the impression from later posts that one of the major concerns
)among critics is that the teachers are working on their paths to
)initiation and that they use the kids for their own egoistical
)spiritual purposes. If that were truly the case, I would not have
)given my consent to my son attending Waldorf school.
(snip etc. about how he would really hate it if teachers were rigid . . .
hmmmmm)
Tarjei, at some risk of causing offense here, does your son not attend a
school in another city? How often do you stop in on his classroom? Blow me
off if you wish, as it's a rather personal question; we just so often hear
from people who idealize Waldorf and haven't set foot in a Waldorf classroom
in a blue moon if ever (not saying that's the case
with you).
(This being one reason I am glad to see Robert Flannery again, as he does
indeed spend September thru June in a Waldorf classroom!)
)My major reason for being happy about my son attending Waldorf
)school, however, is that its pedagogy is derived from an insight
)based upon the "notional system" with which I agree
You may be interested to hear that I found the "notional system" very
exciting also when we first enrolled our son. It was a couple years in the
classroom that soured me on the notional system. As you state later in your
own post, the school's "notional system" tells you very little about the
teachers' competence or the education a child is receiving.
Determined to talk about the real world, not metaphysical quests or notions,
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 08:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
--- Diana Winters (winters_diana hotmail.com) wrote:
) Michael C. wrote:
)
) )Waldorf Education will help prepare the child for
) living in a
) )time where we are being propelled towards
) initiation
) )whether we like it or not.
)
) Another little tiny point it might be nice to
) explain to parents in advance
) - that the teachers will help prepare your child to
) be propelled towards
) initiation . . .
) Diana
)
Michael C:
Waldorf teachers should not be helping to prepare your
child to be propelled towards initiation. Please re
read what I said above, or read it again in different
words here. Because of the breakdown of family of
tradition of sociciety, because of rapid advances in
technology in other words because of the modern and
post modern world in which we are living we are all
being propelled towards initiation.In theory Waldorf
Education will help them to prepare them to live in
these times.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:20:36 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
Diana wrote:
)Tarjei, at some risk of causing offense here, does your son not
)attend a school in another city?
What's offensive about that?
)How often do you stop in on his classroom?
I haven't been there for years.
)Blow me off if you wish, as it's a rather personal question; we just
)so often hear from people who idealize Waldorf and haven't set foot
)in a Waldorf classroom in a blue moon if ever (not saying that's the
)case with you).
I'm only there for special occasions. My son's mother used to teach
there, however, which gave me occasion to get to know some of the
teachers at private get-togethers and so on. We seem to see eye to
eye about a lot of things. Like I repeat ad nauseum, I am not really
competent to discuss pedagogy or medicine.
)You may be interested to hear that I found the "notional system"
)very exciting also when we first enrolled our son. It was a couple
)years in the classroom that soured me on the notional system. As you
)state later in your own post, the school's "notional system" tells
)you very little about the teachers' competence or the education a
)child is receiving.
Judging from the boy's communication skills in Norwegian and English,
and seeing some of his creative work he's done in school, I'd say the
school he attends is at least as good as any other. He is progressing
just fine.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 03:33:02 +1000 (EST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Raymon=20Ford?= (raymon_ford yahoo.com.au)
Subject: Hubris
Robert said:
The arch, dismissive stance doesn't lead to any
valuable dialogue. It's the hallmark of a conversation
that is going nowhere. We've all spent far too much
time in that sort of a pursuit.
Raymon:
Robert thank you for pointing this out. 'Talking
down' to others, as if they are mentally retarded, and
use of sarcasm etc, does sabotage somewhat the
arguments of those who utilize this style.
_____________________________________________________________________________
http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Messenger
- Voice chat, mail alerts, stock quotes and favourite news and lots more!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 17:55:31 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
You guys are just too much. Michael says I misunderstood him when he said:
)Waldorf Education will help prepare the child for living in a
)time where we are being propelled towards initiation
)whether we like it or not.
because what he really meant was:
)Waldorf teachers should not be helping to prepare your
)child to be propelled towards initiation.
and:
)because of the modern and post modern world in which we are living we )are
)all being propelled towards initiation.
This is a new one. Oh, Waldorf doesn't aim to initiate anybody. We're all
going to be initiated whether we like it or not - now how's that going to
happen? - and Waldorf kids are the only ones who will be ready, I guess?
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:03:55 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Hubris
I am chided for my tone in response to early-fire.
Robert said:
)The arch, dismissive stance doesn't lead to any
)valuable dialogue. It's the hallmark of a conversation
)that is going nowhere. We've all spent far too much
)time in that sort of a pursuit.
and Raymon says:
)Robert thank you for pointing this out. 'Talking
)down' to others, as if they are mentally retarded, and
)use of sarcasm etc, does sabotage somewhat the
)arguments of those who utilize this style.
This is truly hilarious. Do you guys read early-fire's posts? *I* am talking
down to others?
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:07:25 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
Michael C.:
)To the best of my knowledge elements of Kabbalistic
)practice that are incorperated into eurythmy are
)totaly save and appropriate for children.
Michael, what do you base this statement on? Who has decided - aside from
Waldorf teachers - that eurythmy is safe and appropriate for children? Have
you read studies or analyses of it from outside anthroposophy?
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 20:07:46 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
michael C wrote:
) ... I think the advice that Sune gave
) you was not entirely due to his frustration about the
) content of your posts.
It was a purely human comment, based on the nature of Sharon's recent
comments on this list and her description of the nature of her reading.
Michael:
) In one of the gospel
) stories of Jesus he says something about how after an
) evil spirit is cast out of a man, it goes out and
) finds 10 more and brings them all back into the person
) who is now in worse shape. Can somebody please find
) the bible qoute.
Matthew 12:43-45 and Luke 11:24-26; (7, not 10)
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~jduthie/bible/evilspir.htm
Regards,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:05:06 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Hubris
)This is truly hilarious. Do you guys read early-fire's posts? *I* am talking
)down to others?
)
)Diana
I'll repost part of what started this; I was being very careful to avoid
this very misunderstanding:
)I understand the frustration and anger that we all feel when we've spent
)any time at all on this list, and Harvey may have instigated your current
)approach. I don't know.
You see what you want to imagine, and you read what you believe to be true.
I'm sorry Diana, but you're way too defensive. I was only trying to be
helpful, and was also very particular in pointing out that this was not
just about you.
)I don't mean to single you out, Diana--it's just that your post today
)reminded me of this. I've been as guilty of it as anyone else, but it's
)one of the things that I wanted to try to change when I came back.
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 20:42:40 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
Diana wrote:
)You guys are just too much. Michael says I misunderstood him when he said:
)
))Waldorf Education will help prepare the child for living in a
))time where we are being propelled towards initiation
))whether we like it or not.
)
)because what he really meant was:
)
))Waldorf teachers should not be helping to prepare your
))child to be propelled towards initiation.
)
)and:
)
))because of the modern and post modern world in which we are living
))we )are all being propelled towards initiation.
)
)This is a new one. Oh, Waldorf doesn't aim to initiate anybody.
)We're all going to be initiated whether we like it or not - now
)how's that going to happen? - and Waldorf kids are the only ones who
)will be ready, I guess?
Methinks certain cards are being mixed here, partly due to Michael's
lack of clarity. The general view of evolution from an
anthroposophical perspective is that in ancient times, humanity was
clairvoyant. This is also called pre-religious times because there
was no need for religion when the spiritual world was wide open to
everyone. As the external world of the physical senses - which you
may also call "the real world" if you prefer - dawned, atavistic
clairvoyance faded and disappeared. Through the external world of the
senses, humanity has acquired objective self-consciousness, which
makes it possible for a new kind of clairvoyance to awaken which will
not be dreamy like the old, but aware and awake. So the evolutionary
prospect for the future is that clairvoyance, or initiation, will
occur. The question then is not whether or not, but _how_, each
individual will be initiated during the course of the following
millennia.
Personally, I think the expression "being propelled towards initiation
whether we like it or not" is misleading and unnecessarily
provocative especially when linked to WE. I am reminded of the
meeting I attended in Austin, Texas, in 1987 where I met Henry
Barnes, who was the president of the AP in America at that time.
(About Henry Barnes, Waldorf, and Hitler, see
http://home.no.net/tastraum/henrystory.html.) I was discussing
economy, alternative banking, and real estate with mr. Barnes, who
was keenly interested in the topic, when a younger man burst out:
"Well, from real estate to the heavens!" Then he started talking
about the "initiation of mankind" that was supposed to occur in a
year or two when all the planets lined up in a certain pattern.
Barnes just smiled kindly and changed the subject.
Waldorf children are not being propelled into initiation or
clairvoyance by the teachers or the pedagogy. The evolutionary view
outlined above is simply a reminder that growing children and youth
should not have their latent capacities for higher cognition stifled.
According to Steiner's view, Ahriman intends to make humanity
clairvoyant in such a way that each individual ends up in a universe
of his or her own that is shared by nobody else. In other words,
separation through the forces of egoism. This is the "ahrimanic
initiation." I think it's reasonable to assume that we will witness
initiations that are various mixtures of such extremes, but I also
hold the opinion that the path suggested by Steiner is one of the
safest imaginable because it is grounded in Christ.
--
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
Jeder von uns ist berufen zum freien Geiste, wie jeder Rosenkeim
berufen ist, Rose zu werden.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 20:42:53 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
)Michael C.:
)
))To the best of my knowledge elements of Kabbalistic
))practice that are incorperated into eurythmy are
))totaly save and appropriate for children.
Diana:
)Michael, what do you base this statement on? Who has decided - aside
)from Waldorf teachers - that eurythmy is safe and appropriate for
)children? Have you read studies or analyses of it from outside
)anthroposophy?
If eurythmy is unsafe, so is ballet.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 11:45:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
--- Diana Winters (winters_diana hotmail.com) wrote:
) Michael C.:
)
) )To the best of my knowledge elements of Kabbalistic
) )practice that are incorperated into eurythmy are
) )totaly save and appropriate for children.
)
) Michael, what do you base this statement on? Who has
) decided - aside from
) Waldorf teachers - that eurythmy is safe and
) appropriate for children? Have
) you read studies or analyses of it from outside
) anthroposophy?
) Diana
)
Michael C:
I doubt that there are any studies outside of
Anthroposophy about the appropriateness and saftey of
various eurythmy practices for children. Many people
would assume that eurythymy is nothing more than a
placebo and has no real effect other than some
physical exercise and that perhaps it is good for
creating a sense of esprit de corps among a group of
practicing children.
I consider my self to have a very good understanding
of the potential effects of eurythmy. I have studied
and taught Tai Chi Chuan and Chi Kung for many years
starting in 1977. I have study Kabbalah since 1989 and
inherited the Cohen gene from my father although my
mother is not Jewish and neither am I. When I took the
first year of teacher training I asked my euryrthmy
instructor to describe the nature of the practice for
the children. I don't remeber all of the details but
only that it seemed to to be safe and reasonable. Can
it have a positive benefit for the children? That I
don't know.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 18:57:55 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Hubris
RF:
)I'm sorry Diana, but you're way too defensive. I was only trying to be
)helpful, and was also very particular in pointing out that this was not
)just about you.
Ok, never mind, I am not really taking it the way it may have sounded, I am
just spending way too much time on this computer and the air conditioning
doesn't seem to be working too well.
I still have a fair idea you have not read any of early-fire's posts, if you
just logged back on yesterday.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:18:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
--- Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com) wrote:
) )Michael C.:
) )
) ))To the best of my knowledge elements of
) Kabbalistic
) ))practice that are incorperated into eurythmy are
) ))totaly save and appropriate for children.
)
) Diana:
)
) )Michael, what do you base this statement on? Who
) has decided - aside
) )from Waldorf teachers - that eurythmy is safe and
) appropriate for
) )children? Have you read studies or analyses of it
) from outside
) )anthroposophy?
)
) If eurythmy is unsafe, so is ballet.
)
) --
) Tarjei
Michael C:
First off Tarjei thanks for clearing up the "propelled
toward inititiation" remarks I made. Now let me try to
clear this one up a little bit. Ballet is not healthy.
Many persons practicing this form of dance have
developed spinal problem, leg problems (especially
knee problems) and foot problems. However if it
practiced correctly these problems would be minimized.
When discussing saftey Eurythmy is better compared to
modern dance. Of course this comparison does not take
into account the esoteric elements. For most people it
is meaningless nonesense to talk about these elements
anyway.
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 21:51:50 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
)Michael C:
)Ballet is not healthy. Many persons practicing this form of dance have
)developed spinal problem, leg problems (especially knee problems)
)and foot problems.
How about football, rodeo and boxing?
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 351
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Sensitivity
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Some hubris
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Some hubris
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Some hubris
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Re: Some hubris, ask a rabbi
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Individual and species
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Re: Some hubris, the Sequel
By earlyfire earthlink.net
Re: Some hubris
By earlyfire earthlink.net
Re: Sensitivity
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Sensitivity
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Sensitivity
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: Sensitivity
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Sensitivity
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:07:30 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Tarjei, you wrote,
)I also pointed out that Steiner regarded each individual human being
)representing a separate species,
And I'd like to point out that that would indicate Steiner didn't
understand what the word species means.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:10:51 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
Michael C., you wrote,
)Waldorf
)Education will help prepare the child for living in a
)time where we are being propelled towards initiation
)whether we like it or not. Of course the final choice
)as to whether to walk through the door or not is one
)that can only be made by the individual.
That's the hidden agenda not mentioned in the brochure or the open house talks.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:38:39 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Dan Dugan wrote:
)Tarjei, you wrote,
)
))I also pointed out that Steiner regarded each individual human
))being representing a separate species,
)
)And I'd like to point out that that would indicate Steiner didn't
)understand what the word species means.
You're jumping to unwarrented conclusions here. From a
spiritual-scientific prespective, each animal species is guided by a
higher intelligence somewhere in the hierarchies. This is the
intelligence behind the instincts that are obeyed by the physical
representatives of a given species. Because man is a god in the
making so to speak, he/she has become so autonomous individually that
*if* the term "species" should be applied to homo sapiens, it is
appropriate to define each individual representative of humanity as a
species in its own right, or a species in the making. This does not
mean that Steiner was unfamiliar with the "secular" meaning of the
word and the fact that this utterance of his would elicit confusion
or ridicule among people who insist upon a less specific and less
modified definition.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
--- Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
) Michael C., you wrote,
)
) )Waldorf
) )Education will help prepare the child for living in
) a
) )time where we are being propelled towards
) initiation
) )whether we like it or not. Of course the final
) choice
) )as to whether to walk through the door or not is
) one
) )that can only be made by the individual.
)
) That's the hidden agenda not mentioned in the
) brochure or the open house talks.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
Your right it should be openly discused. It may be
mentioned now in more commonly acceptable language
that also makes this idea seem a lot less signficant.
This is just a made up example but something like this
could have been used and might be used now to express
this idea in a much less shocking way. Example in
quotes "Waldorf Education helps the child develop a
healthy sense of self. This sense of self is such that
the child can imerse her/his attention deeply onto an
idea or activity without becoming lost in the
process." Even though this is less shocking this is
essentially the preparation for intitiation. I think
most mental health professionals would think that this
goal is a healthy one.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:38:49 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
In a reply to Michael, Dan wrote:
) That's the hidden agenda not mentioned in the brochure or the open house
talks.
)
) -Dan Dugan
charlie:
In a letter to the Guardian (UK newspaper) earlier this year, a Scandinavian
parent asks if there is any alternative to state schools or independent
schools (which they viewed as too strict) in London. Among the replies there
was one from the spokeswoman for the Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship who
gave a short description of WE. Her answer begins, 'Steiner education
recognises the child as a spiritual being.'
This seems like an open and honest answer to me. I am optimistic that the
people who represent WE do listen to justified, constructive criticism and
try to learn from it. (Although I'm not saying that the spokeswoman was ever
anything but open and honest).
Rudolf Steiner stated that the attributes which are the foundation for an
art of education are 'love, devotion and unselfishness' (A Modern Art of
Education). These attributes do not leave room for hidden agendas. If any
Waldorf schools do have a hidden agenda they will have to change in order to
stay in line with Steiner.
warm regards,
charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 15:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris, ask a rabbi
--- soma mwt.net wrote:
)
)
) earlyfire earthlink.net wrote:
)
) ) Earlyfire throws in two Hebraic Sheckles:
) ) An old story is told of three students who
) violated the commandment that one must
) ) be 40 years old to study Kabbalah,
)
) Sharon:
) ....and married. I've often wondered if Waldorf was
) breaking this law by allowing
) children to participate in Eurythmy, where Kabbalah
) is imposed. My Jewish friend and
) I have puzzled this. I need to ask a rabbi.
)
Michael C:
I found this link "Who is allowed to study Kabbalah"
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/03-Torah-Halacha/section-55.html
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 01:30:21 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Individual and species
Tarjei wrote:
) Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) )Tarjei, you wrote,
) ))I also pointed out that Steiner regarded each individual human
) ))being representing a separate species,
Dan:
) )And I'd like to point out that that would indicate Steiner didn't
) )understand what the word species means.
Tarjei:
) You're jumping to unwarrented conclusions here. From a
) spiritual-scientific prespective, each animal species is guided by a
) higher intelligence somewhere in the hierarchies. This is the
) intelligence behind the instincts that are obeyed by the physical
) representatives of a given species. Because man is a god in the
) making so to speak, he/she has become so autonomous individually that
) *if* the term "species" should be applied to homo sapiens, it is
) appropriate to define each individual representative of humanity as a
) species in its own right, or a species in the making. This does not
) mean that Steiner was unfamiliar with the "secular" meaning of the
) word and the fact that this utterance of his would elicit confusion
) or ridicule among people who insist upon a less specific and less
) modified definition.
The main discussion you refer to can possibly be found at
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Books/GA009/English/GA009_c02.html;mark=515,47,54#WN_mark
Greetings!
Sune
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:27:02 -0700
From: Harvey Bornfield (earlyfire earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Some hubris, the Sequel
DISCLAIMER:
Those who cannot present a recent Poetry Immunization Certificate and a Wolf
Blitzer Sacks Fifth Avenue beige pith helmet are warned that entry into the
allegorically quarantined area of the parentheses zone below is at your own
risk. ;-D
PROLOGUE,
which intends to please, must remember to source a memo to the Jury to
disregard:
( ( ( (
Truth has both a bottom line and a top line, a Father Sky and a Mother Earth,
anchor and flight. It is love which 'descends' dream down into thought. It is
imagination which gives wings, 'de-gravitys', makes music of mere description.
We, a noble human race, each courageously emerging individual a species unto
him/herself are the appointed go-betweens, who on one hand, spawn enchantment,
then again, who work truth, and through this breathlike rhythm, 'wachs on,
wachs off", are ever inlaying the rungs of Jacob's ladder for ourselves, and
more importantly, for others to climb, for our own time, again more
importantly, for unborn ages to traverse. ((hears from the Quran) "Which of
the bounties of your Lord shall ye deny?")
Before we continue, a word from our sponsor:
This skyfill presented to you through ACV (Agency for Creative Visualization),
empowering non-sense with impact, creating filaments in God's skullless,
glassless light-bulbs.
"Cap'n, titanically ominous, bladelike, chilling, iceberg up ahead, out to
scar my maiden voyage: got to radio the AP humor polizei to summon help from
the Pteridactyl-copter........... "
And, somewhere in the braided cloud shroud of the North Atlantis sea, most
pregnant with mythology, swears he hears the scrawl of robust gashmarks gently
inscribing upon his page of wrought-iron hull:
"Everything I know about Waldorf, but am without a doubt, afraid to reveal,
I learned before the age of Zero"
(slap) This is Darth the Landlord: Arise, Earlyfire, your genius bounced: We
need a real' check .
and hears chopper blades coming to nip this magic in the bud........
parentheses over and out
) ) ) )
*******************************************************************
And, now, our featured presentation, the Post:
*******************************************************************
The simultaneously good news and the bad news, (which, truth to swell, truth
to tell, one can sell and voice as well in allegorical overflow of tide and
undertow) is, that is it undesirable, indeed, surely impossible to divorce
the level of consciousness and conscience of a teacher from the matter and
spirit of their intent. And also from the pedagogical processes through which
the intent is "stepped down", i.e., clothed into a collection of concrete
goals and deeds which in their aggregate, comprise the daily fabric which the
Waldorf teacher weaves into the whats and whys of the classroom. All the goals
and deeds of Waldorf education lie downstream of that intent. The intent is a
metaphysical impulse, an ancestor which dwells upstream of authoring an act of
will. Can we robe that intent in words, as if to speak of a kernal of AP and
Waldorf, phrasing it in a terse aphorism? Earlyfire presents for
consideration, none other than A RESPONSE TO
*** "The Word made Flesh" ***
Christ, a Spirit of Living Truth becomes briefly impressed, freeze-framed,
dressed in treadmarks of a mortal guise, accepts such solemn, wingless
handcuffs as the perils of gravity, suffering and death all for the purpose of
enabling the human race to identify themselves, as those who now have a pair
of His Shoes to wear, to supply footing no earthly ground dare rival, and so
to raise him up as a breed apart from the animals. To be a creature who can
choose to regard himself as noble, as rat-race-proof, therefore..... THE R E
F O R E ! of bearing noble tasks beyond the food-chain instinct
circuit which drives the earthbound, the crave-bound.
Then, armed with the miraculous capacity to 'unaddict' from all
obsessive-compulsive acts and frameworks which rivet him/her to the blind
torque of such acts, begins, - shhhh! ...... modestly on tiptoe, begins,
patiently begins, confidently begins, to unfold and work with elements of
worlds beyond this one, worlds within this one. Virtue itself is integral to
these worlds, is accessed through the light of these worlds, and shines into
human consciousness. And into the temple of this consciousness, of the human
Sanctuary or Grail, people discover in art and science and acts of courage and
release from all prejudice and the tyranny of preconceived notions, a means to
migrate their way home, to retell, to self-author their own Exodus. In his own
gypsy way, the wandering Russian Jew whose name whall remain undisclosed,
equates this to learning to self-evidence first-hand spiritual experience. The
capability of initiating self-transformation, of achieving God-consciousness,
Self-consciousness, is, to use a phrase most strange upon my own ears,
'arguably' ;-) another way of saying to embark to quest out in search of
'knowledge of higher worlds'. If this equation seems strange, consider its
parallel: "And be ye not like those who forget God, and whom He hath therefore
caused to forget their own selves" (Quran) In literature, its a journey theme,
and has been around since Don Quixote.
To go on, as if imagining what it would be like to be the first amphibian on
his/her block to leave pawprints on ivory, to discover the word 'dry', in
Earlyfire's peasant-like view, Christ enables a human response, an invitation
to participate in reversing the notion of "The word made flesh" which, thank
you, Aristotle, etc, (Onegnoresis and Parepateia) equates to "The Flesh made
(once again) Word" How does Steiner disguise it? 'The literal made
imaginative'. Doubles, Roll again, dear Earlyfire: 'The vibrationally flatline
made ethereal' This invitation is always considered a"Prime Directive" the
sine qua non of Waldorf education, which makes every specific well-menued act
its footnote, rippling echo and disciple. Find another variation for your over
two thousand year old overdue borrowed theme: The Flesh made Word is an
impulse to awaken within the surface events of the world's circumstance,
within the topography of the actual, what magic lies hid. It is as easy as
making a purchase on a fresh zero balance credit card, to assert the
impossibility of learning to hunch-intuit-reveal (the words blur!) what
significances underlie, underwrite, speak to us from beneath the surface of
the obvious. Repeat the theme backward: it is as difficult a challenge as the
word 'Uphill', to acknowledge it lies within human power to aspire to
acquiring and perfecting that capacity.
Shakespeare veils this wondrous, expansive invitation:
"And take upon 's the mystery of things,
As if we were God's spies;" (Lear III, sc V)
( ( ( (
And before untying everybody's shoelaces, goin' fishing with a few
well-vocalized symphonic meows to schedule a lyrical most ungermanic minute of
quality-time purrs with his Siamese cat, before opening up the billowing
tidal-buttered popcorn stand and the the ice-cream bar for intermission,
concludes:
) ) ) )
We are all playing 'catch up', repairing the Tower of Babel, reconstructing
the one allegorical language from which every literal language is, as if
through a prism fractured, made multiple.
*****************************************************************
THE FLESH MADE WORD - PART TWO
So now, consider the Sleeping Beauty myth. That childhood, at the onset of
maturity, abstracts herself from the physical, ascending to the attic of the
mind, of brain-based abstractions, and paralyzing her vitality and
enchantment, her imaginative power, that forte and genius of children, pierced
upon the shock of a spinning wheel's needle, puts her enchantment into a coma,
'gets real'.
Dante's Inferno was written for the living: At the entrance to Sleeping
Beauty's attic, laced into the spray of the cobweb, the same condemnation,
witness-relocated from the doors of Hell: "Abandon all Hope, Ye who enter
here!" Now machines have become our miracles, and we, their captive audience.
Now enter Prince Charming,, love, which caresses, retrieves, renews the
clairvoyance, the powers of imagination, inspiration and intuition from
drydock, carries it down from the aloof attic of abstraction, where it lies
pricked and paralyzed, and places it on the ground floor, makes it available
to the world again! It is a story which lives in every human. Why take a quiz
on the outcome of the story, We are our own grade books: there are as many
happy endings as there are individuals who wish to welcome the Prince. A new
book: Knowledge of Prince Charming: How is it Atttained. Waldorf: A Mystery
School for Children. A fate ............... (text breaks off)........ than
Death! Buyers beware, we are not, at this moment, advocating for or against AP
or WE. We are looking at tasks for our age, such as, for example, to learn the
secret of de-entrapping, de-opinionizing ourselves, and thus dissolving
barriers to ................
(this Waldorf doll face intentionally left blank for formatting purposes)
( ( ( ( (
NOW from our sponsor, another titanic relapse:
(securing pith helmet) A cooperative banal-retentive analysis of the original
Aramaic phonymes recently unearthed from an Encore of Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls
confirm that the ACV, Agency for Creative Visualization indeed stood for
"Alternatives to Creative Visualization"
) ) ) ) )
So, how to describe the reawakening process in other metaphor, in more
omni-cultural contexts. What follows is not an opinion, but an imagination.
(who protests, must be prepared to distinguish the two) A Waldorf teacher,
seeking to source ideas to share with their students, ideas which mirror the
AP foundation which invites, and therefore invites advocating as the highest
responsibility of the teacher, the reawakening of living ideas from the
confines of abstract and sterile concepts in which they are imprisoned and
defined as sense-quantifiable phenomena, is ever thrown back upon their own
artistic license. This capacity is congruent with the art of 'reading between
the lines', of evoking and summoning a mysterious oral tradition energy whose
mystique surrounds, complements, choreographs and buoys up the more brittle
and literal artifact-like well-literalized written-tradition. It is the
difference between thoughts which plod and those which hop-scotch, between
what is anchored in hard and fast and safe labels and what trembles with
implication, elusive, volatile, openended. The fear of improvisation is a
Xenophobia. Diligence and meticulous focus are required for science, courage
to confront, embrace and master the unknown, the unrehearsed. And for
...............(gap in text).........both!
So one asks, where is the Bureau of Artistic License which confers such
capacity? Get out your cell phones. It is fast approaching. A classical
pianist or a Shakespearean actor will refuse to regard and equate the
mechanics of sight-reading or recitation, with what requires subtlty and
rhapsody and fire of interpretive performance finesse. In order to get, to
achieve a quantum level leap from one eschalon/dimension to the other, to
bridge from the literal to the artistic, from the military mimicing of
mathematically bound temporal durations and the obediance to prescribed
pitches, to absorption and expression, he/she must undertake to manifest
imagination, inspiration and intuition, talents which invite, as aspirational
priorities, lifeling commitment, and which become the basis for the natural
authority Steiner regards as the philosophical bedrock for the relationship of
trust, love, awe, upon which the teacher bases his justifiable right to
influence the interior and exterior life of the student. Earlyfire regards
imagination, inspiration and intuition and names them out loud - 'stars, hear
it!' - as the "Not-by-bread-alone" capacities, and henceforth declares them
trustworthy and reliable metaphoric tender valid in all cultural circles,
philosophical, religious, and artistic.
(This is the captain: Please turn all cell phones off: The passengers in this
flight are also asked not to exit their seats until the Space Shuttle has
taxied to a complete swerveless, politically correct halt and the brute glare
of the "No dreaming" signs heralding the successful splashdown into the
battlefield of the molecules have been rudely turned on!)
THE REHEARSAL OF AN EPILOGUE
Methinks, this be the whole essence of how to teach Waldorf; thankfully, many
teachers who have never ever drank or inhaled a single drop of Waldorf
pedagogy much less set foot inside one of the 'many' Goetheanums which conduit
AP philosophy out into the world, can and do present to themselves the
all-important task of making of themselves husbandmen and midwives to kindle
and fructify imagination, inspiration and intuition. Self-reflection, inner
moral work, vigilance and a sense of the patience required for transformation
defy all turf and franchise.
When Waldorf philosophy doesn't work, it's because its being hawked rather
than lived, marketed rather then manifested, advocated rather then embraced.
To loosely paraphrase a recent, but 'somewhat' undocumented conversation with
Little Red Riding Hood: You can dress up a Conquistador in the Shroud of
Turin, but will he die for you? A new agenda for the 21st century: Bringing
Lazarus back, inviting science to Camelot for the purpose of renewing an
abandoned dialogue with the art which he left behind 500 years ago when he
sacrificed his intimate rapport with nature in return for pursuing an
intellectual ascent to perfect ts external control.
( ( ( (
Congratulations: You are now successfully immunized against poetry! (Kneel,
then ask your pharmacist if ACV is right for you. Side effects may include
loss of acuity to the literal objects of sense associated with heightened
trust level, receptivity to non-verbal experience, and in rare cases the acute
onset of uncontrollable joy) Pith helmets provided courtesy of Sacks Fifth
Avenue ;-D
) ) ) ) )
Harvey Bornfield
Diana Winters wrote:
) Tarjei:
)
) )It doesn't look like Harvey had Waldorf education or classroom
) )activities in mind when he mentioned "responsibility for matters
) )beyond the grave"
)
) No indeed, Tarjei, he may not have. I do, however, because I have observed
) that Waldorf teachers often have these things in mind in the classroom. I
) figure other parents and their children may benefit from hearing about this
) in advance.
)
) Diana
) _________________________________________________________________
) Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 17:37:05 -0700
From: Harvey Bornfield (earlyfire earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
Hi Diana,
Mark your calendar, a solstice treat! real facts from Bornfield. What is this
world coming to!
No offense taken. I was a member of the founding school board of the Pine
Forest Waldorf school in Flagstaff, in 1993, before it went charter, and had a
lot of experience at the neighborhood garlic counter practicing crossing
Abrahan Van Helsing's timbers to ward off the bloodthirsty Christian
fundamentalists and other Sinai-intoxicated Charlton Hestons
If someone had given me a nickel for every milepost I crossed on I-10 and I-17,
I would be filling up your yacht refrigerators on a regular basis with halavah,
bachlava, and batter for Belgian Waffles made with Mountain High Yogurt and
Mexican Vanilla 10 times the 'swoon-potency' of anything sold in America.
Earlyfire knows and regularly shares warmth, ideas and initiatives with all the
several circles of AP communities in Arizona, having lived in all the metro
areas of the state since he moved here in '74, as well as having taught public
school10 years over the Northern Az res since '89, I have often known and
maintained ongoing friendships with anywhere from a few to a half of each of
theWaldorf faculties in each of the five schools in Arizona (Flag, Sedona,
Prescott, Phoenix, Tucson), and know many of these teachers to be devout,
sincere, conscientious, lofty and magical people whom I cherish being around.
Bear in mind, that these younger schools "enjoying the struggle" of living more
on faith than on the hard-core machinery of well-established financial
infrastructures in BMW and Volvo land are, I would guess, almost too imperiled
by material exigencies, to dare coagulate partially dishonest front-end
behaviors, boasty conspiracies of mystique, pomp, power-broking, and other
diseases of invulnerability by which organizations inadvertantly inhibit or
bunkered in the house arrest of their own metaphysically-induced paranoia,
tragically even intentionally suffocate dialogue between individuals.
Often the matter of the lack of correspondence between the focal areas of AP
and WE comes up, and often, I and other friends in the society have observed
that WE teachers are placed under such time pressure that there seems to be, I
might fairly observe over many years, a conspicuous lack of occasion or energy
to dip into metaphysical dimensions, necessary to sustain an inspiration level
vital to self-renewal. It is terrifying to admit that Waldorf teachers, who
have such an elevating source of inner composure at their disposal, not a one
of them are automatically immune to falling prey to vacuums of insincerety,
meteoric crash and burnout, authoritarian egotism, and even laundered forms of
malice lile dogmatic assertion in place of real clarity. The healing of these
offenses is always of greater value than the diagnosing of them. Criticism
creates clarity, and gets you halfway there to unlocking the skeleton in the
closets but if the approach to awakening the other, whether group or
individual, is rude or psychologically violent, then efforts to inspire
compassion required for turnaround become extremely difficult.
Earlyfire has studied AP with Karl Ege (in 1972, an original faculty member at
the first school in Germany), known teachers at the Rudolf Steiner school in
New York, worked briefly at a Waldorf school in upstate New York, taken a half
a dozen seminars on teaching,, improvised piano music for the Advent Spiral
ceremony in Flagstaff. One of his kids graduated Sunbridge, but as a music
teacher.
When Gustav Mahler, who arrives at Ellis Island in 1910, to take over the baton
of the New York Philharmonic, was asked to fill in his religion, he, (who
previously, upon converting from Jewish to Roman Catholic, and writing the
Resurrection symphony, was 'suddenly' given the coveted conductorship of the
Vienna opera several years earlier), writes down "Musician" Motion seconded.
Beethoven says "Music is a higher revelation of wisdom than all religion or
philosophy" Earlyfire, who prefers performing truth to studying it, imagines
that Shakespeare, Goethe, JS Bach and Mozart are all qualified to teach one how
to acquire the knowledge of higher worlds.
Bahaullah,
"We have made music a ladder for those who wish to ascend to the Realms on
High"
Description today, Allegory tomorrow,
All my best,
Harv
Robert Flannery wrote:
) )Hey, Harvey, are you going to descend from the heights some day and tell us
) )what you actually know about Waldorf education? Have you had kids in
) )Waldorf? Taught in Waldorf? Or just found paradise reading Steiner?
) )
) )You are so right that some of us are not, and were not, on a metaphysical
) )quest when we enrolled our children in Waldorf.
) )
) )This thing about getting a little deranged from spending too much time
) )reading Steiner: this is one of those teensy little problems that shows up
) )in Waldorf classrooms - teachers on a metaphysical quest seeking
) )illumination. I have been so happy to find teachers outside of Waldorf who
) )do not bring their concerns with "matters beyond the grave" into the
) )classroom, but work on reading, writing, and math with the children.
) )
) )Diana
)
) I apologize for butting in, and if I'm too presumptuous, just say so and
) I'll back off.
)
) The general tone of your response was the subject of a thread some years
) ago on this list, which might be referred to as the "snide prick"
) discussion.
)
) I understand the frustration and anger that we all feel when we've spent
) any time at all on this list, and Harvey may have instigated your current
) approach. I don't know.
)
) You were very cordial and friendly to me yesterday upon my return, and I
) appreciate it very much. I think we can continue that way.
)
) The arch, dismissive stance doesn't lead to any valuable dialogue. It's
) the hallmark of a conversation that is going nowhere. We've all spent far
) too much time in that sort of a pursuit.
)
) I don't mean to single you out, Diana--it's just that your post today
) reminded me of this. I've been as guilty of it as anyone else, but it's
) one of the things that I wanted to try to change when I came back.
)
) regards,
) Robert
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 16:39:48 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
TARJEI
)))I also pointed out that Steiner regarded each individual human
)))being representing a separate species,
DAN
))And I'd like to point out that that would indicate Steiner didn't
))understand what the word species means.
TARJEI
)You're jumping to unwarrented conclusions here. From a
)spiritual-scientific prespective, each animal species is guided by a
)higher intelligence somewhere in the hierarchies. This is the
)intelligence behind the instincts that are obeyed by the physical
)representatives of a given species. Because man is a god in the
)making so to speak, he/she has become so autonomous individually
)that *if* the term "species" should be applied to homo sapiens, it
)is appropriate to define each individual representative of humanity
)as a species in its own right, or a species in the making. This does
)not mean that Steiner was unfamiliar with the "secular" meaning of
)the word and the fact that this utterance of his would elicit
)confusion or ridicule among people who insist upon a less specific
)and less modified definition.
"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone,
'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.'"
[Through the Looking-Glass, ch. 5]
Re-definition of common words with cult meanings is one of the tricks
Anthroposophists play on parents. "Child development," for example,
or "imagination."
It's a pity Steiner never had a dog; a relationship with an animal
might have modified his antiquated strict separation of "kingdoms."
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 21:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Links to PLANS at anthroposophical sites
--- "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
wrote:
)
) ) dottie -
) )
) ) I think it is more on the side of be accountable
) for
) ) your actions.
) )
) ) dottie
)
) are you saying the waldorf schools should be
) accountable for their actions?
)
dottie-
Absolutely!
dottie
)
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 21:48:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Diana about Peter S.)
) Well, since he *has*, at great length, backed up his
) claims, I guess he'd
) have no problem.
)
dottie -
No Diana, he has not backed any of his claims up. He
has told a pack of inuendos and not very good ones at
that.
He has tried to revise History without even consulting
the true facts. He has made up his own with no
inference of Truth. He has tried to make Jews who
assimilate into men who do not respect their own
people. Having researched his paper and his sources
including the Weisnethal Center it is really clear the
Critics have made a huge mistake.
I actually think he has confused Ariosophy with
Anthroposophy, and that is being kind. I say kind
because that would give him a way out of the pack of
baloney he has passed onto the very hungry Critics
looking and willing to swollow anything critical of
Dr. Steiner.
Diana -
)
I don't think there are any
) unsubstantiated attacks against
) Steiner on the PLANS website, though there is a
) great deal of critical
) analysis of his theories, as well as testimony to
) the experiences people
) have had with his schools. I realize that to many
) anthroposophists, that is
) the same thing as an "attack."
dottie -
No it is not about attacks it is about outright
untruths that are throughout Peters paper and also
through a few of Dans. They may be Dans opinion but
there is definite evidence that shows his opinions to
not be based on what Dr. Steiner has put forth.
ie: The reason Dr. STeiner did not want Krishnamurti
to be the reincarnation of Christ is because he is
brown. Fits into the racist ideology PLANS is trying
to conform and twist Dr. Steiner in, but it is not
true.
Diana -
) No, it is not in the interest of a "well rounded
) story." It is in the
) interest of the *children*.
dottie -
Since when is putting forth lies to achieve your goal
in the best interest of children?
dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:35:05 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Dottie Zold is back to her old methods. Talking about Peter Staudenmaier,
she says:
)he has not backed any of his claims up.
To the contrary. Dottie simply refuses to accept the evidence, so she says
it doesn't exist.
)He has told a pack of inuendos and not very good ones at that.
Dottie is being careful here, because of her unsubbing warning; usually she
would say "pack of lies".
)He has tried to revise History without even consulting
)the true facts.
Known only to Dottie, of course, but not passed on to us in refutation of
Peter Staudenmaier's claims.
)He has made up his own with no
)inference of Truth.
What is an "inference of Truth" (with a capital T, no less)?
[...]
)Having researched his paper and his sources
)including the Weisnethal Center it is really clear the
)Critics have made a huge mistake.
Is this an attack on the "Weisnethal" (sic) Centre? I presume she means the
Wiesenthal Centre. Can Dottie mean that she only became aware of the
Wiesenthal Centre upon reading Peter Staudenmaier's work? Wow.
And what is the mistake "the Critics" have made? In fact, who are "the
Critics"?
Is it that we give some credence to the work of a person who states clearly
his biases and agenda and that his scholarship is intended to be polemical?
Gee, maybe we should all listen to the ravings and rantings of Dottie,
instead.
)[...] the pack of
)baloney he has passed onto the very hungry Critics
)looking and willing to swollow anything critical of
)Dr. Steiner.
The critics have been searching for six years for _knowledge_ about
Steiner, mainly to explain the incredibly negative and damaging experiences
many of us have had when we made the mistake of enrolling our kids in a
Steiner, Waldorf or Anthroposophical school. It is natural for people to
try to make sense out of their experience (except for Anthroposophists, who
try to make sense out of the nonsense of their imaginations of "higher
worlds").
Dottie misuses the word "critical", meaning pejorative, damaging, damning.
We keep telling Dottie that this is a CRITICISM list, for people outside
the cult of Rudolf Steiner. We're not here to dig up dirt to throw at
Steiner; we already know he's so covered in it that there's no need to.
We're here to make some sense of the mud, codify it into an understanding
of SWA *from outside*, and pass it on to people who haven't a clue about
SWA, before they invest time, money and their childrens' lives in a cult
which may harm them all.
Now, leaving aside the fact that most of Dottie's rant doesn't make any
sense at all in terms of the English language that most of US know, I think
it's pretty clear that the innuendo is all on Dottie's side of the equation.
Dottie has rarely backed up any of her insults to Peter Staudenmaier's
scholarly work. It appears she's not about to start now.
So, since she has never refuted, with any evidence meeting any test of
criticism that equals the quality of the work she's attacking, the things
she claims Peter Staudenmaier has said (she rarely understands what he HAS
said, so she invents what she would like to think he did say), therefore
her post represents an ad hominem attack on Peter S.
I call for the moderator to unsubscribe Dottie with a final warning. If she
can come back and discuss issues here with reason and evidence, then she
can come back. Otherwise she's a drain on our time, energy, and emotions,
and represents the worst Steiner, Waldorf and Anthroposophist attempts to
disrupt our discussion.
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:16:46 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Dottie, you wrote about Peter S.,
)He has tried to revise History without even consulting
)the true facts. He has made up his own with no
)inference of Truth. He has tried to make Jews who
)assimilate into men who do not respect their own
)people. Having researched his paper and his sources
)including the Weisnethal Center it is really clear the
)Critics have made a huge mistake.
)
)I actually think he has confused Ariosophy with
)Anthroposophy, and that is being kind. I say kind
)because that would give him a way out of the pack of
)baloney he has passed onto the very hungry Critics
)looking and willing to swollow anything critical of
)Dr. Steiner.
The only credible way you can refute Peter's arguments is to quote
them and then cite sources that contradict them. All you give here is
your opinion, hardly worth the electrons needed to transmit it.
)No it is not about attacks it is about outright
)untruths that are throughout Peters paper and also
)through a few of Dans. They may be Dans opinion but
)there is definite evidence that shows his opinions to
)not be based on what Dr. Steiner has put forth.
Stop talking in generalities and be specific.
)ie: The reason Dr. STeiner did not want Krishnamurti
)to be the reincarnation of Christ is because he is
)brown. Fits into the racist ideology PLANS is trying
)to conform and twist Dr. Steiner in, but it is not
)true.
Now when you're specific, you're wrong. Who said that? Not me.
(snip)
)Since when is putting forth lies to achieve your goal
)in the best interest of children?
What "lies" Dottie?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:21:21 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
michael:
) I call for the moderator to unsubscribe Dottie with a final warning. If she
) can come back and discuss issues here with reason and evidence, then she
) can come back. Otherwise she's a drain on our time, energy, and emotions,
) and represents the worst Steiner, Waldorf and Anthroposophist attempts to
) disrupt our discussion.
thank you michael for taking the time to answer dotties post in an
intelligent way, and I second everything you've said (in this post!!!)
bea
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 352
-- Topica Digest --
Sensitivity
By raymon_ford yahoo.com.au
Re: Sensitivity
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
The brain
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: The brain
By litvas icu.com
Science and Crazy Ideas
By litvas icu.com
Re: The brain
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Sensitivity
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Some hubris
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: The brain
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By litvas icu.com
Sunny glasses
By Sune.Nordwall home.se
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: The brain
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: Sensitivity
By dan dandugan.com
Re: The brain
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Sensitivity
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Some hubris
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Some hubris
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Some hubris
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: The brain
By earlyfire earthlink.net
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:03:08 +1000 (EST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Raymon=20Ford?= (raymon_ford yahoo.com.au)
Subject: Sensitivity
Dan said:
Re-definition of common words with cult meanings is
one of the tricks Anthroposophists play on parents.
"Child development," for example, or "imagination."
Raymon:
Redefinition of common words is usual enough when new
theories are being promulgated - it's more convenient
than inventing altogether new words. Freud's 'ego'
probably had a specific meaning within his theories,
different to what the common conception of the word
had meant at the time.
I doubt that Anthroposophists sit around thinking up
new ways to 'trick' parents. Dan's comment does
however highlight the need for WE schools to give
parents the option up front to be educated in
'anthrospeak' along with the method in general.
_____________________________________________________________________________
http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Messenger
- Voice chat, mail alerts, stock quotes and favourite news and lots more!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 13:21:35 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
raymon:
)
) I doubt that Anthroposophists sit around thinking up
) new ways to 'trick' parents.
The problem at michael hall was that they never had enough pupils so they
did think of ways to trick parents
bea
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 00:15:45 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: The brain
A suggestion for where all of Saint Rudi's visions of the higher worlds
came from is contained in the reference below. I have said many times on
this list that there is no evidence for a supernature, and that everything
in nature -- including the human brain -- is ultimately knowable and
explainable in physical terms. While it may seem that this research lends
credence to the epistemological view that we create our worlds (I think,
therefore the world exists), I think it does the opposite. Physics beats
metaphysics every time.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
"The walls come alive and begin to dance with colour. A tunnel of light
leads into the distance as spirals of stars whirl over the ceiling.
Cobwebs grow across the room as the floor becomes a giant honeycomb.
This is a typical LSD trip. And according to Jack Cowan, there's nothing
transcendental about it. A "trip" is really a journey into the brain,
says the mathematician and neuroscientist at the University of Chicago.
The "psychedelic experience" is "just the innate tendency of the brain
to make patterns when it goes unstable". Cowan and his team are
confident that there is nothing in the brain that science can't
ultimately deal with. After more than two decades, and with the help of
an extraordinary computer, they believe they have found where
hallucinations really come from. They may also have discovered a route
to the more profound depths of the mind, emotions and conscious
thought..."
http://www.newscientist.com/newsletter/features.jsp?id=ns22962
--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:50:06 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: The brain
)A suggestion for where all of Saint Rudi's visions of the higher worlds
)came from is contained in the reference below. I have said many times on
)this list that there is no evidence for a supernature, and that everything
)in nature -- including the human brain -- is ultimately knowable and
)explainable in physical terms. While it may seem that this research lends
)credence to the epistemological view that we create our worlds (I think,
)therefore the world exists), I think it does the opposite. Physics beats
)metaphysics every time.
)
)Cheers from Godzone,
)
)Michael Kopp
Thanks for the reference. I think it's interesting that they focused on
geometrical patterns at the outset--RS spent quite a bit of time working in
geometry in the years preceding his work with the Theosophical Society.
I also appreciate the reference to New Scientist. What's your impression
of the magazine?
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:54:32 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Science and Crazy Ideas
Since we're on the subject of science and it's relation to odd ideas
(visions or hallucinations), this might be of interest.
Nine Crazy Ideas in Science
A Few Might Even Be True
Robert Ehrlich
For more information and author interview, visit:
http://www.pup.princeton.edu/titles/7022.html
AIDS is not caused by HIV. Coal and oil are not fossil
fuels. Radiation exposure is good for you. Distributing more
guns reduces crime. These ideas make headlines, but most
educated people scoff at them. Yet some of science's most
important concepts-from gravity to evolution-have surfaced
from the pool of crazy ideas. In fact, a good part of
science is distinguishing between useful crazy ideas and
those that are just plain nutty. In this book, a well-known
physicist with an affinity for odd ideas applies his open
mind to nine controversial propositions on topical subjects.
Some, it turns out, are considerably lower on the cuckoo
scale than others.
Robert Ehrlich evaluates, for the general reader or student,
nine seemingly far-out propositions culled from physics,
biology, and social science. In the process, he demonstrates
in easy-to-understand terms how to weigh an argument, judge
someone's use of statistics, identify underlying
assumptions, and ferret out secret agendas. His conclusions
are sometimes surprising. For instance, he finds that while
HIV does cause AIDS and the universe almost certainly
started with a big bang, our solar system could have two
suns, faster-than-light particles might exist, and time
travel can't be ruled out as mere science fiction.
Anyone interested in unorthodox ideas will get a kick out of
this book. And, as a fun way of learning how to think like a
scientist, it has enormous educational value. Of course,
only time will tell whether any of these nine ideas will be
the next continental drift-the now orthodox account of the
Earth's geology that was for years just a crazy idea.
Robert Ehrlich is Professor of Physics at George Mason
University. His books include Why Toast Lands Jelly-Side
Down and Turning the World Inside Out and 174 Other Simple
Physics Demonstrations (both Princeton).
To read an interview with the author, visit:
http://www.pup.princeton.edu/releases/m7022.html
0-691-07001-6 Cloth $24.95 US and L16.50 UK
254 pages, 4 halftones, 43 line illus. 5 x 8
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 07:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: The brain
--- Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz) wrote:
) A suggestion for where all of Saint Rudi's visions
) of the higher worlds
) came from is contained in the reference below. I
) have said many times on
) this list that there is no evidence for a
) supernature, and that everything
) in nature -- including the human brain -- is
) ultimately knowable and
) explainable in physical terms. While it may seem
) that this research lends
) credence to the epistemological view that we create
) our worlds (I think,
) therefore the world exists), I think it does the
) opposite. Physics beats
) metaphysics every time.
)
) Cheers from Godzone,
)
) Michael Kopp
) Wellington, New Zealand
)
)
) "The walls come alive and begin to dance with
) colour. A tunnel of light
) leads into the distance as spirals of stars whirl
) over the ceiling.
) Cobwebs grow across the room as the floor becomes a
) giant honeycomb.
) This is a typical LSD trip. And according to Jack
) Cowan, there's nothing
) transcendental about it. A "trip" is really a
) journey into the brain,
Michael C:
Just one question, who is making the journey into the
brain?
) says the mathematician and neuroscientist at the
) University of Chicago.
) The "psychedelic experience" is "just the innate
) tendency of the brain
) to make patterns when it goes unstable". Cowan and
) his team are
) confident that there is nothing in the brain that
) science can't
) ultimately deal with. After more than two decades,
) and with the help of
) an extraordinary computer, they believe they have
) found where
) hallucinations really come from. They may also have
) discovered a route
) to the more profound depths of the mind, emotions
) and conscious
) thought..."
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 07:29:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
dottie)
) )he has not backed any of his claims up.
)
Michael
) To the contrary. Dottie simply refuses to accept the
) evidence, so she says
) it doesn't exist.
dottie-
No Michael, he has no evidence. Have you even thought
to look at that paper with a discerning eye? My
computer is down so I am unable to spend longer than
fifteen minutes on. It should be back up tomorrow and
I will begin sending the info I found on the net that
refutes most of what Peter has written in regards to
Anthroposophy and Nazism.
)
dottie
) )He has tried to revise History without even
) consulting
) )the true facts.
)
Michael
) Known only to Dottie, of course, but not passed on
) to us in refutation of
) Peter Staudenmaier's claims.
)
dottie -
Well Michael it seems that most of the people on this
list and elsewhere who have a good understanding of
Dr. Steiner and Anthroposophy realize that Peters
writings are fantasy. I am sure if you used your
journalist skills you could know it also.
dottie
) )Having researched his paper and his sources
) )including the Weisnethal Center it is really clear
) the
) )Critics have made a huge mistake.
)
Michael
) Is this an attack on the "Weisnethal" (sic) Centre?
) I presume she means the
) Wiesenthal Centre. Can Dottie mean that she only
) became aware of the
) Wiesenthal Centre upon reading Peter Staudenmaier's
) work? Wow.
)
dottie -
I checked the centre as they have a concentrated
library on the war history and its participants. It
was through them that I was able to see how Peter
began with a point in History and decided to find a
way to make his theory fit into this neat little
context of Anthroposophy and its collusion with the
Nazis.
I will share what I found in a few days.
dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 10:39:17 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
on 6/20/01 11:05 AM, Newpaul at dingman mindspring.com wrote:
) Newpaul
) Perhaps Harvey has transcended to the highest order of the 3 folding
) process. He and the spirit world are at one with the sun god. If so,
) we will need to rely on experienced anthroposophical teachers to
) interprete his rambling muses.
Or sunglasses...
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 17:19:11 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: The brain
Michael Kopp wrote:
)A suggestion for where all of Saint Rudi's visions of the higher worlds
)came from is contained in the reference below. I have said many times on
)this list that there is no evidence for a supernature, and that everything
)in nature -- including the human brain -- is ultimately knowable and
)explainable in physical terms. While it may seem that this research lends
)credence to the epistemological view that we create our worlds (I think,
)therefore the world exists), I think it does the opposite. Physics beats
)metaphysics every time.
For physics to beat metaphysics, the latter has to be at odds with
the former. That is not always the case. The idea that nothing exists
that cannot be demonstrated by material science or perceived by the
physical senses is a philosophical opinion derived from the
individual interpretation of available information. Otherwise, you
will be making the claim that the notions of all Christians, Hindus,
Muslims, Buddhists and so on are proven false by science and that all
religious people are simply ignorant of scientific truth.
)"The walls come alive and begin to dance with colour. A tunnel of light
)leads into the distance as spirals of stars whirl over the ceiling.
)Cobwebs grow across the room as the floor becomes a giant honeycomb.
)This is a typical LSD trip. And according to Jack Cowan, there's nothing
)transcendental about it. A "trip" is really a journey into the brain,
)says the mathematician and neuroscientist at the University of Chicago.
)The "psychedelic experience" is "just the innate tendency of the brain
)to make patterns when it goes unstable". Cowan and his team are
)confident that there is nothing in the brain that science can't
)ultimately deal with. After more than two decades, and with the help of
)an extraordinary computer, they believe they have found where
)hallucinations really come from. They may also have discovered a route
)to the more profound depths of the mind, emotions and conscious
)thought..."
This is reminiscent of the Newsweek story I mentioned in an earlier
post, where a couple of California brain surgeons claimed to have
discovered the spot in the brain from which originates the illusion
that man has a spiritual self or an I. This elicited reactions from
professors of philosophy and religion and Buddhist monks and so on
across the world.
The problem I have with this is that researchers like this may
someday conclude that all religion and spirituality are
hallucinations that need to be treated with medication or surgery.
Such people can be much more ominous gurus than the likes of Rudolf
Steiner.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:13:32 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
)dottie -
)
)I checked the centre as they have a concentrated
)library on the war history and its participants. It
)was through them that I was able to see how Peter
)began with a point in History and decided to find a
)way to make his theory fit into this neat little
)context of Anthroposophy and its collusion with the
)Nazis.
Here's another interesting new book, in light of our continuing discussion.
Social Outsiders in Nazi Germany
Edited by Robert Gellately and Nathan Stoltzfus
http://www.pup.princeton.edu/titles/7083.html
When Hitler assumed power in 1933, he and other Nazis had
firm ideas on what they called a racially pure "community of
the people." They quickly took steps against those whom they
wanted to isolate, deport, or destroy. In these essays,
informed by the latest research, leading scholars offer rich
histories of the people branded as "social outsiders" in
Nazi Germany: Communists, Jews, "Gypsies," foreign workers,
prostitutes, criminals, homosexuals, and the homeless,
unemployed, and chronically ill. Although many works have
concentrated exclusively on the relationship between Jews
and the Third Reich, this collection also includes often-
overlooked victims of Nazism while reintegrating the
Holocaust into its wider social context.
The Nazis knew what attitudes and values they shared with
many other Germans, and most of their targets were
individuals and groups long regarded as outsiders,
nuisances, or "problem cases." The identification, the
treatment, and even the pace of their persecution of
political opponents and social outsiders illustrated that
the Nazis attuned their law-and-order policies to German
society, history, and traditions. Hitler's personal
convictions, Nazi ideology, and what he deemed to be the
wishes and hopes of many people, came together in deciding
where it would be politically most advantageous to begin.
The first essay explores the political strategies used by
the Third Reich to gain support for its ideologies and
programs, and each following essay concentrates on one group
of outsiders. Together the contributions debate the
motivations behind the purges. For example, was the
persecution of Jews the direct result of intense, widespread
antisemitism, or was it part of a more encompassing and
arbitrary persecution of "unwanted populations" that
intensified with the war? The collection overall offers a
nuanced portrayal of German citizens, showing that many
supported the Third Reich while some tried to resist, and
that the war radicalized social thinking on nearly
everyone's part.
In addition to the editors, the contributors are Frank
Bajohr, Omer Bartov, Doris L. Bergen, Richard J. Evans,
Henry Friedlander, Geoffrey J. Giles, Marion A. Kaplan,
Sybil H. Milton, Alan E. Steinweis, Annette F. Timm, and
Nikolaus Wachsmann.
Robert Gellately holds the Strassler Family Chair for the
Study of Holocaust History in the Center for Holocaust
Studies at Clark University. His books include Backing
Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany and The Gestapo
and German Society: Enforcing Racial Policy, 1933-1945.
Nathan Stoltzfus, Associate Professor in the Department of
History at Florida State University, is the author of
Resistance of the Heart: Intermarriage and the Rosenstrasse
Protest in Nazi Germany.
0-691-08684-2 Paper $19.95 US and L12.95 UK
0-691-00748-9 Cloth $59.50 US and L40.00 UK
320 pages, 6 x 9
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:14:28 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Sunny glasses
Gary wrote:
) on 6/20/01 11:05 AM, Newpaul at dingman mindspring.com wrote:
) ) Perhaps Harvey has transcended to the highest order of the 3 folding
) ) process. He and the spirit world are at one with the sun god. If so,
) ) we will need to rely on experienced anthroposophical teachers to
) ) interprete his rambling muses.
Gary:
) Or sunglasses...
Yes, three sunglasses; one for Red (Sulfur), one for Green (Watery-Mercury)
and one for Blue (Earthy-Salty). Want to buy a triple (they are standard
precaution in every serious spiritual investigation)? The problem is
changing them in co-rhythm with the rhytmical change in spiritual
radiation, to not get burned or starting to hallucinate :-))((
For you, special price; just 99$ ...
And they're reusable ...
Guaranteed to work for ...
at least three years ;-)))
Sune Nordwall, CEO
Threefold Sunglasses Inc.
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 19:11:02 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Robert Flannery wrote:
)Here's another interesting new book, in light of our continuing discussion.
)
)
)Social Outsiders in Nazi Germany
)Edited by Robert Gellately and Nathan Stoltzfus
)http://www.pup.princeton.edu/titles/7083.html
This book looks very interesting. I should have liked to have read it
five years ago when I was doing research for my article about Nazi
occultism - an article where I also touched other aspects of Nazism,
but the topic is so exhaustive that you cannot get to everything.
I did however read one of the books that Peter Staudenmaier likes to
refer to, namely "The Occult Roots of Nazism" by Nicholas
Goodrick-Clarke. Frankly, I find no support there for Staudenmaier's
allegations about Steiner and anthroposophy. The other evening I was
listening to Goodrick-Clarke in a British documentary about the ideas
that led to the holocaust that was aired on the "Sweden 1" channel.
He said something quite significant about the "v=F6lkisch" ideology
that counters Staudenmaier=E6s claim in a significant way: He said that
one concept that _all_ the "v=F6lkisch" ideas had in common from a very
early stage was the glorification of heathenism and the rejection of
Christianity as an alien element that had been imposed upon the
Europeans but did not belong there. This attutude to Christianity is
the diametrical opposite of Steiner's view. There are several other
elements that likewise separate these streams quite radically.
It is my distinct impression from the material I have read about this
subject that the Nazis rejected anthroposophy precisely because of
its Judeo-Christian elements and constructed their ideology on the
basis of Blavatsky, who was vehemently anti-Christian, and Darwin,
who believed in survival of the fittest, and Jesuitism with its
demand for unquestioned obedience and discipline adorned with various
rituals and inner hierarchies.
What also needs to be kept in mind is that Hitler himself developed a
method of reading that consisted of "remembering the essential and
forgetting the unessential completely". In practice, this meant
defining what is essential, which did not entail logical analysis in
Hitler's case, but an intuitive and emotional process of
comprehension which he skillfully united with whatever appealed to
his own prejudices.
This is why it is fruitless to make Hitler and the Holocaust into an
ethical-ideological football. I have seen plenty of that on various
newsgroups where Christian fundamentalists blame the Holocaust on
Darwin and atheism, and the atheists reciprocate by blaming it on
Christianity. Or they blame it on Nietzsche, Wagner or whoever. And
here it's being blamed on Lemuria and Atlantis. One might blame it on
Plato, but I would prefer to blame it on Julius Caesar.
--
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 08:06:00 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: The brain
)The problem I have with this is that researchers like this may
)someday conclude that all religion and spirituality are
)hallucinations that need to be treated with medication or surgery.
)Such people can be much more ominous gurus than the likes of Rudolf
)Steiner.
)
)--
)Tarjei
--
Glad to hear you including Saint Rudi in the class of people known as
"ominous gurus", Tarjei.
Your typical anti-science Anthroposophical bias is glowing like Rudolph's
red nose, Tarjei, and it's not even winter there in Scandihoovia, though it
is here in Godzone. (The Rudolph referred to is a reindeer, for those
non-U.S. readers who've never been exposed to an American anarchist fable.)
I think it's unlikely that science will descend to Lysenkoism. It's not
beyond the state to misuse science, but that's a political matter we can
prevent by making sure that pseudoscience is always seen for what it is,
and refusing to allow politicians to do things that are anti-democratic or
anti-human rights.
The rise of the irrationalists, with gurus like Steiner, in movements like
Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education, is much more likely to subvert human
minds than science is likely to enslave them.
Why don't you, Tarjei, and Sune Nordwall, tell us about your European
Anthroposophists' efforts to politically infiltrate the European Union
political structure and press threefolding on it?
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 13:24:02 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Tarjei, Peter's off the list for the summer, so you'll have to wait
for his response.
)I did however read one of the books that Peter Staudenmaier likes to
)refer to, namely "The Occult Roots of Nazism" by Nicholas
)Goodrick-Clarke. Frankly, I find no support there for Staudenmaier's
)allegations about Steiner and anthroposophy. The other evening I was
)listening to Goodrick-Clarke in a British documentary about the ideas
)that led to the holocaust that was aired on the "Sweden 1" channel.
)He said something quite significant about the "v=F6lkisch" ideology
)that counters Staudenmaier=E6s claim in a significant way: He said that
)one concept that _all_ the "v=F6lkisch" ideas had in common from a very
)early stage was the glorification of heathenism and the rejection of
)Christianity as an alien element that had been imposed upon the
)Europeans but did not belong there. This attutude to Christianity is
)the diametrical opposite of Steiner's view.
The "Christianity" in Steiner is not the same Christianity that
everybody else talks about. Steiner was hostile to the Christian
churches, especially Roman Catholicism, and he certainly glorified
heathenism, i.e."the gods" he speaks about so often. This is by no
means black and white as you would like it to be.
)There are several other
)elements that likewise separate these streams quite radically.
)
)It is my distinct impression from the material I have read about this
)subject that the Nazis rejected anthroposophy precisely because of
)its Judeo-Christian elements and constructed their ideology on the
)basis of Blavatsky, who was vehemently anti-Christian,
But Steiner built his system on the basis of Blavatsky, also. Given
that he fails to give credit where it is due, you could say he
plagiarized it.
)and Darwin,
)who believed in survival of the fittest,
"Evolution" was a hot buzzword in Steiner's time, and he made heavy
use of it, redefining it for his own purposes, of course.
)and Jesuitism with its
)demand for unquestioned obedience and discipline adorned with various
)rituals and inner hierarchies.
And Steiner also provided a system of unquestioned obedience (dressed
in exclamations about "freedom") adorned with various rituals and
inner hierarchies.
(snip)
)This is why it is fruitless to make Hitler and the Holocaust into an
)ethical-ideological football. I have seen plenty of that on various
)newsgroups where Christian fundamentalists blame the Holocaust on
)Darwin and atheism, and the atheists reciprocate by blaming it on
)Christianity. Or they blame it on Nietzsche, Wagner or whoever. And
)here it's being blamed on Lemuria and Atlantis. One might blame it on
)Plato, but I would prefer to blame it on Julius Caesar.
Some part of the blame can be laid on Blavatsky and Steiner for
providing the philosophical and ideological base on which Naziism was
built. See chapter 8 note 39 for a smoking gun. The failure of
Anthroposophy to own up to it continues to discredit the Steiner cult.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:49:37 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: The brain
Michael Kopp wrote:
)Glad to hear you including Saint Rudi in the class of people known as
)"ominous gurus", Tarjei.
He is obviously very ominous to several people on this list.
)Your typical anti-science Anthroposophical bias is glowing like Rudolph's
)red nose, Tarjei, and it's not even winter there in Scandihoovia, though it
)is here in Godzone. (The Rudolph referred to is a reindeer, for those
)non-U.S. readers who've never been exposed to an American anarchist fable.)
You're back to your good old argumentation style, Michael. The above
really sheds a lot of light on the content of my former post, getting
straight to the point. Hats off to you.
)I think it's unlikely that science will descend to Lysenkoism. It's not
)beyond the state to misuse science, but that's a political matter we can
)prevent by making sure that pseudoscience is always seen for what it is,
)and refusing to allow politicians to do things that are anti-democratic or
)anti-human rights.
The problem appears to be that pseudoscience is not always recognized
for what it is if it is promoted by highly educated individuals whose
philosophy embraces atheism. What I am saying is that religious or
spiritually oriented people do not have a monopoly on kooky
scientific notions. They never have.
)The rise of the irrationalists, with gurus like Steiner, in movements like
)Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education, is much more likely to subvert human
)minds than science is likely to enslave them.
Communism was based upon ultra-rationalism and science. It still
enslaved people. As an antidote against enslavement and against the
temptation to control the minds and lives of other people, I highly
recommend "the Philosophy of Freedom." If you wish to express your
disagreement with this opinion, I suggest you read and analyze the
book first. It is, after all, St. Rudy's major philosophical work.
)Why don't you, Tarjei, and Sune Nordwall, tell us about your European
)Anthroposophists' efforts to politically infiltrate the European Union
)political structure and press threefolding on it?
You forget that Norway is not a member of the European Union. (Sweden
is, but I honestly don't have any information about Sune's political
activities.) Besides, can you cite an example of when and where a
proponent of threefolding has tried to press or enforce his or her
ideas on anyone? Can you explain the difference between explaining a
social theory in a public debate and pressing it on people, and how
"threefolders" have tried to coerce political leaders in Europe and
elsewhere, Michael?
--
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
Wenn ich aber in dem Sinne, in dem solche Dinge entschieden werden
k=F6nnen, sagen sollte, ob das Wort 'individualistischer Anarchist' auf
mich anwendbar ist, so m=FC=DFte ich mit einem bedingungslosen 'Ja'
antworten.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 23:19:41 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Dan Dugan wrote:
)The "Christianity" in Steiner is not the same Christianity that
)everybody else talks about. Steiner was hostile to the Christian
)churches, especially Roman Catholicism,
Because it was based upon authority and obedience. But he also
supported a lot of Catholic theology - even to the point of being
approached by some Catholic clergymen who tried to persuade him to
join the church because his teachings were so similar. Steiner's
response was that it was his task to speak to people outside the
church because they also had the right to be led to Christ.
)and he certainly glorified heathenism, i.e."the gods" he speaks
)about so often.
He did not glorify heathenism. He did not promote the worship of Odin
or Zeus or anytghing like that. He spoke of the gods as the
architects of creation and evolution. He spoke of Christ as the
rightful leader of humanity.
)This is by no means black and white as you would like it to be.
Have I represented this topic as "black and white"? On the contrary,
I have made it clear that Nazism and its occult roots is such an
expremely complicated and exhaustive topic that I could only cover a
few basics with my article.
)But Steiner built his system on the basis of Blavatsky, also. Given
)that he fails to give credit where it is due, you could say he
)plagiarized it.
He did not fail to give Blavatsky credit, though he dis say that her
books were very badly written and unclear. Steiner always spoke on
the basis of his own spiritual investigations. Blavatsky's visions
coincided with a lot of it. His approach to Biblical topics and
events was the same. He investigated it independently before he
consulted the writings afterwords. As a matter of fact, Steiner gave
greater credit to Blavatsky and the Biblical seers than anyone else
has done, because he truly recognized their talents and the results
of their work.
)"Evolution" was a hot buzzword in Steiner's time, and he made heavy
)use of it, redefining it for his own purposes, of course.
The purpose was not Steiner's alone, but on behalf of the section of
humanity that strives to spiritualize an objective understanding of
evolution and science. The idea that not only the physical body
evolves, but also the soul and spirit, is certainly a lot bigger than
Steiner, and more important to humanity than to one man alone.
))and Jesuitism with its
))demand for unquestioned obedience and discipline adorned with various
))rituals and inner hierarchies.
)
)And Steiner also provided a system of unquestioned obedience (dressed
)in exclamations about "freedom") adorned with various rituals and
)inner hierarchies.
There are no inner hierarhies among anthroposophists with the
exception of bureaucratic positions in various institutions that also
exist in business and government, trusts, foundations and so on such
as chairman, president etc. PLANS has the same kind of "inner
hierarchy." What rituals are concerned, we're taling about the
Christian Community Church and its festivals, weddings, etc. This
church is no power structure. It does not moralize or tell people how
to live. The priests don't tell people not to have sex before
marriage or any of that stuff. It does not impose authority upon
anyone. Besides, the CCC is an orgainzation that is separate from
anthroposophy per se, althoug it grew out of it. Steiner made that
clear in one of his lectures immediately before the fire.
)Some part of the blame can be laid on Blavatsky and Steiner for
)providing the philosophical and ideological base on which Naziism was
)built.
And so can Darwin and Nietzsche and Ignatius Loyola and so on and so on.
)See chapter 8 note 39 for a smoking gun. The failure of
)Anthroposophy to own up to it continues to discredit the Steiner
)cult.
The "Steiner cult" is discredited only in the minds of the PLANS
people and their cohorts. Insisting that something is discredited
does not make it so - especially when the sole reason for the notion
is that anthroposophists won't agree with your judgement.
--
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
Jeder von uns ist berufen zum freien Geiste, wie jeder Rosenkeim
berufen ist, Rose zu werden.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Dan -
Some part of the blame can be laid on Blavatsky and
) Steiner for
) providing the philosophical and ideological base on
) which Naziism was
) built.
dottie
Dan, the spiritual realities were here
lonnnnnnnnnngggggggggg before Dr. Steiner and
Blatvaski arrived on planet Earth.
Naziism was built from the occult realities that
Hitler and his crew were able to gleam from various
cultures who had been at work thousands of years
before. Hitler tried to manipulate the spiritual
realities in his agenda to make himself King of this
world and all its inhabitants. He wanted to control
this physical world to its detriment and his favor.
Dan
See chapter 8 note 39 for a smoking gun. The
) failure of
) Anthroposophy to own up to it continues to discredit
) the Steiner cult.
)
dottie
Sune or Tarjei, do you have the reference that Dan
says is 'the smoking gun' in chapter 8? If so can you
please post it.
dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 19:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
dottie
) )ie: The reason Dr. STeiner did not want
) Krishnamurti
) )to be the reincarnation of Christ is because he is
) )brown. Fits into the racist ideology PLANS is
) trying
) )to conform and twist Dr. Steiner in, but it is not
) )true.
)
Dan
) Now when you're specific, you're wrong. Who said
) that? Not me.
)
dottie
Sorry, you are right it was not you, it was Peter
Staudenmaier in his Eco paper on the Waldorf Critics
web page.
Dan
) What "lies" Dottie?
)
dottie
I find that Peters paper is full of two word quotes
hooked onto his opinion of what the author meant. He
not only applied this method to Dr. Steiner he also
applied it to Mr Waage and myself.
My computer is up and running and I told Michael that
I will be able to put forth some quotes to refute
Peters claim of Anthroposophy and its supposed
collusion with the Nazis.
BTW I was checking out some of your writings on the
PLANS site and found it to be pretty accurate in
quoting Dr. Steiner. It goes to show how two people
can read something and come to two completely
different understandings of the material according to
their own belief system. I was pleasantly surprised.
Thanks,
dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 05:20:28 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
)
)
) In a reply to Michael, Dan wrote:
)) That's the hidden agenda not mentioned in the brochure or the open house
) talks.
))
)) -Dan Dugan
)
) charlie:
) In a letter to the Guardian (UK newspaper) earlier this year, a Scandinavian
) parent asks if there is any alternative to state schools or independent
) schools (which they viewed as too strict) in London. Among the replies there
) was one from the spokeswoman for the Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship who
) gave a short description of WE. Her answer begins, 'Steiner education
) recognises the child as a spiritual being.'
)
) This seems like an open and honest answer to me. I am optimistic that the
) people who represent WE do listen to justified, constructive criticism and
) try to learn from it. (Although I'm not saying that the spokeswoman was ever
) anything but open and honest).
Well charlie, this is certainley not what I'm talking about as open and
honest, our local comprehensive schools says they try to nurture the
childrens sprirtual side, and they mean something completely different I'm
sure.
What do you mean by "I am optimistic"? do you mean they do? or you hope they
do? I would like you to put this "I am optimistic..." statement question to
the mothers at michael hall and they would laugh at you, even when I was
involved in the school we didnt think anyone took any notice at all of our
contructive criticisms and certainley DID NOT try to learn from it, and
meeting mothers from kings langley and canterbury we discovered the exact
same thing, in fact the same problems seemed to sapring up at all the
schools, and then coming on to the web I see the same problems happen in
other countries too...(except where sune comes from they dont appear to have
any problems there)
if you are interested I will again write where i think the schools are NOT
open and honest and I'm sure all the other EX-WE parents on here will too
but let me say it again :it is NOT about saying waldorf recognises the child
as a spiritual being.
bea
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 05:22:53 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
)
) Among the replies there
) was one from the spokeswoman for the Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship who
) gave a short description of WE. Her answer begins, 'Steiner education
) recognises the child as a spiritual being.'
also charlie: what other bits did the spokeswoman mention..?
bea
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 21:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
Bea
) Well charlie, this is certainley not what I'm
) talking about as open and
) honest, our local comprehensive schools says they
) try to nurture the
) childrens sprirtual side, and they mean something
) completely different I'm
) sure.
dottie -
What is the difference in their meanings in your
opinion?
Bea
even when I was
) involved in the school we didnt think anyone took
) any notice at all of our
) contructive criticisms and certainley DID NOT try to
) learn from it, and
) meeting mothers from kings langley and canterbury we
) discovered the exact
) same thing,
dottie
What constructive criticisms did you and the other
parents offer to Michael Hall?
dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:23:53 -0700
From: Harvey Bornfield (earlyfire earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: The brain
Michael:
Kant made a very interesting comparison to the critical role of
sub-ordination vs. co-ordination as models, categories was his choice of
words for comparing polarities. If one brings opposites into a place where
comparison has value in dialogue, opposites such as the notions of physics
and metaphysics the model of 'co-ordination' will prove more value to
revealing the similarities and differences, than the competitive and warlike
'subordination'
And interesting example of a relatively recent (late 19th century) attempt to
introduce to humanity, in the balance of a bias-free altruism is the
conscious impulse to seek to maintain a harmony, or balance of opposites. The
prophet-founder of the Bahai Faith, oops, bahai faith invites, simply,
"Science and Religion must agree, or they are both wrong!"
The challenge of our age is to create an epic, trustworthy, ongoing theater
dialogue between the objective requirements of sense and concrete modalities
of the exercise of reason, and the powers, talents and capacities which
unfold and flower in human subjectivity, imagination, inspiration and
intuition, the capacities which contemporary educational philosophy outside
of WE already acknowledges and identifies as "Higher Order Thinking" To pit
objective and subjective perspectives and powers against each other, so that
one realm has to 'triumph' over the other, is to implicitly support an
interior warlike model of human nature. Of course, no one is even thinking,
much less whispering that this is an amazingly emotionally immature stance to
take.
Do bear in mind that what gives racism such an arrogant, ugly and universally
repulsive and offensive face, is the decision, the pre-judged view, the
prejudicial view that one of the alternatives is right and the other is
wrong. If I wished to keep the human race in the dark for a few more
centuries, I would just 'go abstract' and substitute the term "Chosen World
View" for "Chosen People". Then we could keep perpetuating winners and
losers, manufacturing Jericho-quality trumpets and other Star-wars
malice-fantasies, sell them to terrorists, do real well for ourselves
economically and could succeed in trivializing making the leap to light into
the New Testament Perspective, by inventing "Theoretical Christianity"
("Churches, churches everywhere, and not an ounce of holiness")
The point is that as long as a confrontative and advarsarial attitude is
believed necessary between the demands of the exterior world, and the
internal human capacities, so long will the idea of dialogue and human
wholeness remain but a theoretical Camelot.
Harvey
Michael Kopp wrote:
) A suggestion for where all of Saint Rudi's visions of the higher worlds
) came from is contained in the reference below. I have said many times on
) this list that there is no evidence for a supernature, and that everything
) in nature -- including the human brain -- is ultimately knowable and
) explainable in physical terms. While it may seem that this research lends
) credence to the epistemological view that we create our worlds (I think,
) therefore the world exists), I think it does the opposite. Physics beats
) metaphysics every time.
)
) Cheers from Godzone,
)
) Michael Kopp
) Wellington, New Zealand
)
) "The walls come alive and begin to dance with colour. A tunnel of light
) leads into the distance as spirals of stars whirl over the ceiling.
) Cobwebs grow across the room as the floor becomes a giant honeycomb.
) This is a typical LSD trip. And according to Jack Cowan, there's nothing
) transcendental about it. A "trip" is really a journey into the brain,
) says the mathematician and neuroscientist at the University of Chicago.
) The "psychedelic experience" is "just the innate tendency of the brain
) to make patterns when it goes unstable". Cowan and his team are
) confident that there is nothing in the brain that science can't
) ultimately deal with. After more than two decades, and with the help of
) an extraordinary computer, they believe they have found where
) hallucinations really come from. They may also have discovered a route
) to the more profound depths of the mind, emotions and conscious
) thought..."
)
) http://www.newscientist.com/newsletter/features.jsp?id=ns22962
) --
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 07:53:04 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
)dottie
)
)Sune or Tarjei, do you have the reference that Dan
)says is 'the smoking gun' in chapter 8? If so can you
)please post it.
I tried POF Chapter Eight: The Factors of Life. There is only one
note added to this chapter [in 1918] that reads as follows:
"Author's addition, 1918
"The difficulty of grasping the essential nature of thinking by observation
lies in this, that it has all too easily eluded the introspecting soul by
the time the soul tries to bring it into the focus of attention. Nothing
then remains to be inspected but the lifeless abstraction, the corpse of the
living thinking. If we look only at this abstraction, we may easily find
ourselves compelled to enter into the mysticism of feeling or perhaps the
metaphysics of will, which by contrast appear so "full of life". We should
then find it strange that anyone should expect to grasp the essence of
reality in "mere thoughts". But if we once succeed in really finding life in
thinking, we shall know that swimming in mere feelings, or being intuitively
aware of the will element, cannot even be compared with the inner wealth and
the self-sustaining yet ever moving experience of this life of thinking, let
alone be ranked above it. It is owing precisely to this wealth, to this
inward abundance of experience, that the counter-image of thinking which
presents itself to our ordinary attitude of soul should appear lifeless and
abstract. No other activity of the human soul is so easily misunderstood as
thinking. Will and feeling still fill the soul with warmth even when we live
through the original event again in retrospect. Thinking all too readily
leaves us cold in recollection; it is as if the life of the soul had dried
out. Yet this is really nothing but the strongly marked shadow of its real
nature -- warm, luminous, and penetrating deeply into the phenomena of the
world. This penetration is brought about by a power flowing through the
activity of thinking itself -- the power of love in its spiritual form.
There are no grounds here for the objection that to discern love in the
activity of thinking is to project into thinking a feeling, namely, love.
For in truth this objection is but a confirmation of what we have been
saying. If we turn towards thinking in its essence, we find in it both
feeling and will, and these in the depths of their reality; if we turn away
from thinking towards "mere" feeling and will, we lose from these their true
reality. If we are ready to experience thinking intuitively, we can also do
justice to the experience of feeling and of will; but the mysticism of
feeling and the metaphysics of will are not able to do justice to the
penetration of reality by intuitive thinking -- they conclude all too
readily that they themselves are rooted in reality, but that the intuitive
thinker, devoid of feeling and a stranger to reality, forms out of "abstract
thoughts" a shadowy, chilly picture of the world."
This could be a smoking gun to the epistemological challengers, but
the problem is that there is no "note 39" there. So I tried "Cosmic
Memory, Part VIII: The Last Periods before the Division into Sexes."
It may be a smoking gun to Darwinists and creationists alike, but
there are no notes. Then I moved on to the autobiography. Chapter
VIII:1886-1889-Vienna. There is a note 39 in the autobiography, but
it refers to Chapter II: 1872-1879-Wiener-Neustadt, where Steiner
speaks about his eminent teacher in arithmetic, geometry, and
physics: Laurenz Jelinek. Footnote 39 reminds the reader that Steiner
many years later felt something passing through his soul when he
thought of that teacher. Maybe Jelinek had a gun, I don't know.
Trying to guess what Dan had in mind, I finally consulted "Mein
Kampf" by Adolf Hitler, "Chapter VIII: The Beginning of My Political
Activity." Still no dice. No note 39. But the site that hosts the
book, "Hitler Historical Museum" (http://www.hitler.org/), writes on
its main page:
"Ideological Statement:
"The teaching of history should convey only facts and be free from
political motives, personal opinions, biases, propaganda, and other
common tactics of distortion. Every claim that is made about history
should also be accompanied by documentation proving its basis. Only
responsible scholarship and teaching should be permitted. Those who
intend to support particular political interests and agendas should
have their biased historical interpretations criticized for lacking
proof."
An appropriate reminder.
--
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 20:44:28 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Dan Dugan:
))and he certainly glorified heathenism, i.e."the gods" he speaks
))about so often.
)
Tarjei Straume:
)He did not glorify heathenism. He did not promote the worship of Odin
)or Zeus or anytghing like that. He spoke of the gods as the
)architects of creation and evolution. He spoke of Christ as the
)rightful leader of humanity.
)
Michael Kopp:
I don't claim special knowledge of this area, having left church behind at
an early age (about 10). I followed the agnostic path for some years, but
left that behind as well. Now I'm not an atheist, but a skeptic: there is
no evidence, and I won't take anything on faith alone, certainly not
something like the idea of a deity (or deities). Even Christ demonstrated
his divinity to doubters, according to the Gospels (a point which I use
only for its logical value, but which I do not accept as historical
evidence for the claimed divinity.
But it seems Tarjei's point is oxymoronic, given that, at least from the
point of view of the definition of Christ by himself, as told in the
Christian Gospels, Christ cannot be "the rightful leader of humanity" if
other gods are believed to exist and have a place in the lives of people
who profess to believe in Christ. A position also taken by the God of the
Old Testament, who was rather more vengeful about the matter than his
putative son. This seems to be a trait of most gods (or at least their
human interpreters).
So Steiner's idea of Christ is NOT Christian, but something else (it's been
explicated and rehashed and deconstructed here many times, and I don't want
to, and won't get into a religious argument).
My point is not one of religion, but one of Steiner's hubris verging on
megalomania.
For Steiner to be right about the gods and the "higher worlds", and to
place "the Christ" in the service of or beneath the other gods, he would
have to know more about the issue than Christ, and his attitude towards
Christ would have to be one of disbelief that Christ was divine.
So, in fact, in theological terms, Steiner DID promote the worship of
heathen gods, never before announced or installed in the human pantheon.
And therefore, the claim of Steiner, Waldorf and Anthrposophical schools
that their education is "Christian-based" is totally backwards and
demonstrably a lie and fraud on the consuming public.
Thanks, Tarjei, for confirming the evidence Waldorf critics have gathered
from personal experience.
Straume:
)There are no inner hierarhies among anthroposophists with the
)exception of bureaucratic positions in various institutions that also
)exist in business and government, trusts, foundations and so on such
)as chairman, president etc.
[...[
)What rituals are concerned, we're taling about the
)Christian Community Church and its festivals, weddings, etc.
Kopp:
So what does go on in that chamber in the basement of the Goetheanum which
Steiner designed for special initiation ceremonies?
I doubt it's Christian Community Church services, and I doubt its financial
committee meetings of the Vorstand (the central governing body of the
General Anthroposophical Society, which is in some internal strife, and has
been since Steiner died, over the temporal control of the cult by two
different factions).
Straume:
)PLANS has the same kind of "inner
)hierarchy."
Bwaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!
Yeah, and you should see THEIR initiation rites, held in a secret chamber
in a crypt created by the Great San Francisco Earthquake on the San Andreas
fault, where the spirits of the underworld seeped up from the interior of
the earth on their mission of conquest of the higher worlds and Steiner's
gods, heirs, successors and assigns, such as Tarjei.
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:40:12 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Michael Kopp wrote:
)So Steiner's idea of Christ is NOT Christian, but something else (it's been
)explicated and rehashed and deconstructed here many times, and I don't want
)to, and won't get into a religious argument).
Many evangelical protestants claim that Catholics are not Christian
and that the pope is the beast and that the entire church is
Babylonic and decadent and evil. Catholic fundamentalists claim that
no non-Catholic is a Christian and that they're all going to hell
unless they've been baptised in the Catholic church. Even infants who
die go to hell. So opinions about Steiner's Christianity not being
real Christianity are rather boring and of little consequence.
)My point is not one of religion, but one of Steiner's hubris verging on
)megalomania.
That's what Dietrich Eckart and the other early Nazis said, in
addition to the idea that Steiner was an agent for Moscow and for the
Zionists.
)For Steiner to be right about the gods and the "higher worlds", and to
)place "the Christ" in the service of or beneath the other gods, he would
)have to know more about the issue than Christ, and his attitude towards
)Christ would have to be one of disbelief that Christ was divine.
That's an interesting theological theory. But can you please give me
a quote where Steiner says that Christ is not divine please?
)So, in fact, in theological terms, Steiner DID promote the worship of
)heathen gods, never before announced or installed in the human pantheon.
The terms would indeed have to be theological and abstract, because
you cannot give me a quote to support the notion that Steiner
worshipped, or encouraged worship of, Zeus, Wotan, Odin, Thor,
Balder, or even Yahve - or any other heathen or "pre-Christian"
deities. In Christian tradition, the hierarchies that Steiner talked
about were usually referred to as ranks of angels.
)And therefore, the claim of Steiner, Waldorf and Anthrposophical schools
)that their education is "Christian-based" is totally backwards and
)demonstrably a lie and fraud on the consuming public.
That would also have to be demonstrated theologically I assume. The
problem is that theology is abstract, and one viewpoint can be
"proven" as easily as the exact opposite. When orthodox
Bible-believing Christians argue, they "prove" their point by citing
verses. the opposing views are "proven in the same manner, by citing
other verses and so on. This does not demonstrate anything at all
except subjective viewpoints and beliefs.
)Thanks, Tarjei, for confirming the evidence Waldorf critics have gathered
)from personal experience.
The pleasure is all mine, like always.
)So what does go on in that chamber in the basement of the Goetheanum which
)Steiner designed for special initiation ceremonies?
Tell me about it. I have never been there.
)I doubt it's Christian Community Church services, and I doubt its financial
)committee meetings of the Vorstand (the central governing body of the
)General Anthroposophical Society, which is in some internal strife, and has
)been since Steiner died, over the temporal control of the cult by two
)different factions).
Then please tell me, because I don't know.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 353
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Some hubris
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Sensitivity
By soma mwt.net
Re: bringing back the Bacon
By soma mwt.net
Re: Sensitivity
By soma mwt.net
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By wildcardmichael yahoo.com
Re: Some hubris
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Re: Some hubris
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Re: Sensitivity
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Sensitivity
By earlyfire earthlink.net
Re: Sensitivity
By earlyfire earthlink.net
Keeping it simple/was "sensitivity"
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Atlantis
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Sensitivity
By litvas icu.com
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By litvas icu.com
ooops!!!
By tastraum uncletaz.com
"The Spirit of Waldorf Education"
By litvas icu.com
Re: Sensitivity
By paixs yahoo.com.br
Re: "The Spirit of Waldorf Education"
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Sensitivity
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Sensitivity
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Sensitivity
By winters_diana hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:56:18 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
Thanks, Harvey, for sharing your story.
)Bear in mind, that these younger schools "enjoying the struggle" of )living
)more on faith than on the hard-core machinery of well-)established
)financial infrastructures in BMW and Volvo land are, I )would guess, almost
)too imperiled by material exigencies, to dare )coagulate partially
)dishonest front-end behaviors, boasty conspiracies )of mystique, pomp,
)power-broking, and other diseases of )invulnerability
Um, I think you're saying things are better in younger schools, but the
school we were involved with was quite young and struggling, with nothing
resembling a financial infrastructure (not in BMW and Volvo land).
We hear it both ways here: "Oh, you must have been with a very young school,
immature, teachers not trained properly, that's why there were some
irregularities" (that's one of Sune's angles; most of the US Waldorf schools
fit his criteria for young and immature, and then of course they're American
and it is still the Wild West over here anyway; but I digress); then there
is your version in which more established schools have "diseases of
invulnerability."
)and often, I and other friends in the society have observed that WE
) )teachers are placed under such time pressure that there seems to be, I
)might fairly observe over many years, a conspicuous lack of occasion )or
)energy to dip into metaphysical dimensions, necessary to sustain an
) )inspiration level vital to self-renewal.
Right, I know, they complain they need *more* time to study Steiner or
meditate or whatever. I agree they work very hard and often need a break. I
am skeptical adding further "metaphysical dimensions" will relieve them or
help them in the classroom much; perhaps instead taking courses on the
subject areas they are teaching, and learning teaching methods, classroom
management, and real child development (and maybe throw in a good anger
management workshop). The last thing the Waldorf teachers I knew needed was
more "inspiration."
)It is terrifying to admit that Waldorf teachers, who have such an
) )elevating source of inner composure at their disposal, not a one
)of them are automatically immune to falling prey to vacuums of
) )insincerety, meteoric crash and burnout, authoritarian egotism, and )even
)laundered forms of malice lile dogmatic assertion in place of )real
)clarity.
)The healing of these offenses is always of greater value than the
) )diagnosing of them.
Sure, if your concern is promoting the school or promoting Waldorf, but my
concern was my son, and the other kids.
)Criticism creates clarity, and gets you halfway there to unlocking the
) )skeleton in the closets but if the approach to awakening the other,
) )whether group or individual, is rude or psychologically violent, then
) )efforts to inspire compassion required for turnaround become extremely
) )difficult.
I agree, and frankly I have absolutely found your posts psychologically
violent, Harvey. They are a bombardment, an onslaught.
I take your last paragraph as a suggestion that I should have more
compassion for teachers having problems such as authoritarian egotism,
malice, dogmatism (an excellent summary, BTW) etc., and if I did maybe I, or
others who have found problems in Waldorf, could help turn them around? I
have little interest in "turnaround" for incompetent or mean Waldorf
teachers, and more interest in helping other parents avoid these disasters
for their children. The instances I know of where people tried to stay "in
the system" and fix things had unpleasant outcomes. Few people in Waldorf
think anything needs to be fixed; they don't want to hear it. "Compassion"
often helps abusers go on abusing. The compassion is better directed toward
the victims.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:32:55 -0700
From: soma (soma mwt.net)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) The "Christianity" in Steiner is not the same Christianity that
) everybody else talks about. Steiner was hostile to the Christian
) churches, especially Roman Catholicism, and he certainly glorified
) heathenism, i.e."the gods" he speaks about so often. This is by no
) means black and white as you would like it to be.
Sharon:
Steiner knew that if he didn't incorporate Christ into his system, his
religion would have no chance of catching on in the West.
Steiner:
"For eastern initiations must of necessity leave untouched the Christ as
the central cosmic factor of evolution. But without this principle the
theosophical movement will have no decisive influence on western
cultures, which trace their beginnings back to Christ's life on Earth. If
taken on their own, the revelations of oriental initiation would have to
stand aside from the living culture in the West in a sectarian manner.
They could only hope for success within evolution if the principle of
Christianity were to be eradicated from western culture. But this would
be the same as eradicating the essential meaning of the Earth, which lies
in the recognition and realisation of the intentions of the living
Christ. To reveal these intentions in the form of complete wisdom, beauty
and activity is, however the deepest aim of Rosicrucianism. Regarding the
value of eastern wisdom as the subject of study, one can only say that
this study is of the highest value, because western cultures have lost
their sense of esotericism, while the eastern ones have preserved theirs.
But equally it should be understood that the introduction of a correct
esotericism in the West can only be of the Rosicrucian-Christian type,
because this latter gave birth to western life and because by its loss
mankind would deny the meaning and destiny of the Earth." [p 18,
Correspondence and Documents 1901-1925 Rudolf Steiner and Marie von
Sivers. c Rudolf Steiner Press, London 1988]
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:54:38 -0700
From: soma (soma mwt.net)
Subject: Re: bringing back the Bacon
I stumbled across this today, had to share it .
Steiner in a letter to Marie von Sievers 13 April, 1901:
"Thank you very much for the 'Theosophical Review'. I am sending it to
you under separate cover. The article about Bacon is very interesting. It
has given me food for thought in all kinds of directions. But I feel
rather strongly that the writer treats the whole matter somewhat lightly,
as I cannot share the view that Bacon's philosophical writings have an
esoteric meaning. This is surely necessary if he is to be treated as a
Rosicrucian. I must apologise sincerely for the delay". [p 23
Correspondence and Documents 1901-1925 Rudolf Steiner and Marie von
Sivers. c Rudolf Steiner Press, London 1988.]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:08:38 -0700
From: soma (soma mwt.net)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Tarjei Straume wrote:
)
) He did not fail to give Blavatsky credit, though he dis say that her
) books were very badly written and unclear. Steiner always spoke on
) the basis of his own spiritual investigations. Blavatsky's visions
) coincided with a lot of it. His approach to Biblical topics and
) events was the same. He investigated it independently before he
) consulted the writings afterwords. As a matter of fact, Steiner gave
) greater credit to Blavatsky and the Biblical seers than anyone else
) has done, because he truly recognized their talents and the results
) of their work.
Steiner:
"They - these eastern initiators - wanted to imprint their form of
spiritual knowledge, which had been preserved through the ages, on the
western world. Under the influence of this stream the Theosophical Society
took on its eastern character, and in the same influence was the
inspiration for Sinnett's 'Esoteric Buddhism' and Blavatsky's 'Secret
Doctrine'. But both of these again became distortions of the truth.
Sinnett's work distorts the high teaching of the initiators through an
extraneous and inadequate philosophical intellectualism and Blavatsky's
'Secret Doctrine' does the same because of her chaotic soul." [p 18
Correspondence and Documents 1901-1925 Rudolf Steiner and Marie von Sivers.
c 1988 Rudolf Steiner Press, London]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:53:31 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
)Tarjei Straume wrote:
)
))
)) He did not fail to give Blavatsky credit, though he dis say that her
)) books were very badly written and unclear. Steiner always spoke on
)) the basis of his own spiritual investigations. Blavatsky's visions
)) coincided with a lot of it. His approach to Biblical topics and
)) events was the same. He investigated it independently before he
)) consulted the writings afterwords. As a matter of fact, Steiner gave
)) greater credit to Blavatsky and the Biblical seers than anyone else
)) has done, because he truly recognized their talents and the results
)) of their work.
)
)Steiner:
)"They - these eastern initiators - wanted to imprint their form of
)spiritual knowledge, which had been preserved through the ages, on the
)western world. Under the influence of this stream the Theosophical Society
)took on its eastern character, and in the same influence was the
)inspiration for Sinnett's 'Esoteric Buddhism' and Blavatsky's 'Secret
)Doctrine'. But both of these again became distortions of the truth.
)Sinnett's work distorts the high teaching of the initiators through an
)extraneous and inadequate philosophical intellectualism and Blavatsky's
)'Secret Doctrine' does the same because of her chaotic soul." [p 18
)Correspondence and Documents 1901-1925 Rudolf Steiner and Marie von Sivers.
)c 1988 Rudolf Steiner Press, London]
Exactly. This quote corroborates my point: Blavatsky's writing style
was chaotic because of her hot temper and emotionalism. Steiner once
said that for Blavatsky's books to be fully comprehensible, four
fifths of her written works would have to be edited out and the
remaining fifth completely re-written. But he did praise her occult
gift, her honesty, integrity, perserverance, courage, and
ground-breaking pioneering achievement.
The most informative lecture cycle about this topic is "The Occult
Movement in the Nineteenth Century and its Relation to Modern
Culture" (Dornach 10-25 Oct. 1915, GA #254). In the fourth of these
lectures he explains the distortion of the the comprehension of the
eighth sphere through Sinett and Blavatsky and the backgrounds for
this distortion.
What needs to be kept in mind is that Blavatsky did not intend to
distort anything - she became a tool for higher occult powers that
intended to bring such distortions about. In other words, Blavtsky's
role in this distortion does not mean that she was not a scrupulously
honest individual.
The eighth sphere has to do with the Old Moon and with the influence
of Yahve. Blavatsky perceived Yahve to be a retarding, opposing
spirit, and Lucifer to be the true leader of humanity (more or less).
This is a too complicated and too deeply esoteric topic to explain
much further in this post, but the following quote from lecture four
of the above-mentioned cycle should give you a general idea:
******************************************************
You see by this how the spiritual Movement was wedged as it were
between two set purposes, one intent upon distorting the truth
concerning the Moon, the other upon distorting the truth concerning
the planets. - That was the situation at the end of the nineteenth
century. H.P Blavatsky and Sinnett were to distort the truth about
the Moon; the others set out to distort the truth about the
connection of the planets with the evolution of the Earth. Do not
imagine that it is an easy position to be wedged between two such
currents; for here we have to do with occultism, and where occultism
is involved a stronger force is necessary for grasping its truths
than for grasping the ordinary truths of the physical plane. But
consequently there is also at work a far stronger force of deception
which it is essential to see through. This is not easy, because of
the strong force required to counter it. On the one side, the truth
about the Moon is veiled by the distortion, and on the other, the
truth about the planets. One was therefore wedged between two
fallacies committed in the interests of materialism. First, it was a
matter of reckoning with the materialism emanating from the oriental
side, which was responsible for promoting the fallacy about the Moon
in order to introduce the oriental teaching of reincarnation. The
teaching of the fact of reincarnation was of course correct, but we
shall soon see what a strong concession had been made to materialism
in _Esoteric Buddhism_ - as the book was called. On the other side
there was the desire that a certain form of Catholic Esotericism
should be protected from the assault of the Indian influence, and
there, more than ever, the tendency was at work to allow all
spiritual reality connected with the evolution of the planetary
system as a whole to be submerged in materialism. The mission of
Spiritual Science was wedged between these two currents. This was the
situation with which one was confronted. Everywhere there were strong
forces at work, intent upon making the one or the other influence
effective.
And now it is a matter of showing in what respect this distorted
teaching about the Moon is a very special concession to materialism,
and how the way in which it was then corrected by H.P. Blavatsky
actually made matters even worse, because on the one side, with a
great talent for ocultism - which Sinnett did not possess - she
amended his statements but on the other side made use of particular
methods whereby the error could be preserved with even greater
certainty.
******************************************************
After this, Steiner sets out to explain how far Sinnett's teaching
about the Eighth Sphere is a fallacy. There is not much point in
extending this quote, because "The Occult Movement in the Nineteenth
Century and its Relation to Modern Culture" is a deep and demanding
piece of reading, and like Steiner mentions above, "where occultism
is involved a stronger force is necessary for grasping its truths
than for grasping the ordinary truths of the physical plane."
--
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
Jeder von uns ist berufen zum freien Geiste, wie jeder Rosenkeim
berufen ist, Rose zu werden.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:24:15 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Tarjei:
)What needs to be kept in mind is that Blavatsky did not intend to
)distort anything - she became a tool for higher occult powers that
)intended to bring such distortions about. In other words, Blavtsky's
)role in this distortion does not mean that she was not a scrupulously
)honest individual.
LOL! The spirits made her do it!
Really, Tarjei, this is beyond pathetic. What *is* an honest individual
then? I thought it was a person who did *not* lie and distort.
Is this the ethics of anthroposophy?
I once picked up a New Age-type book purporting to explain how to handle
abandoning your spouse and family when you have found the person whom your
karma *really* intended you to be with - how although this would normally be
not such a nice thing to do, and how you are likely to have to listen to all
sorts of recriminations from the pissed-off spouse, who typically isn't as
far along on his or her spiritual path, the laws are different when we
consider spiritual realities, not clear to the everyday consciousness blah
blah blah. (It noted that the wronged spouse was not likely to want to hear
your explanations about karma.)
And wait a minute, didn't you say it would be silly to accuse the spirits of
being racist? If they sometimes lie and distort, maybe they are racist too .
. . They obviously don't have such good morals, do they?
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 19:51:19 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
)Dan Dugan wrote:
)
))
)) The "Christianity" in Steiner is not the same Christianity that
)) everybody else talks about. Steiner was hostile to the Christian
)) churches, especially Roman Catholicism, and he certainly glorified
)) heathenism, i.e."the gods" he speaks about so often. This is by no
)) means black and white as you would like it to be.
)
)Sharon:
)Steiner knew that if he didn't incorporate Christ into his system, his
)religion would have no chance of catching on in the West.
)
)Steiner:
)"For eastern initiations must of necessity leave untouched the Christ as
)the central cosmic factor of evolution. But without this principle the
)theosophical movement will have no decisive influence on western
)cultures, which trace their beginnings back to Christ's life on Earth. If
)taken on their own, the revelations of oriental initiation would have to
)stand aside from the living culture in the West in a sectarian manner.
)They could only hope for success within evolution if the principle of
)Christianity were to be eradicated from western culture. But this would
)be the same as eradicating the essential meaning of the Earth, which lies
)in the recognition and realisation of the intentions of the living
)Christ. To reveal these intentions in the form of complete wisdom, beauty
)and activity is, however the deepest aim of Rosicrucianism. Regarding the
)value of eastern wisdom as the subject of study, one can only say that
)this study is of the highest value, because western cultures have lost
)their sense of esotericism, while the eastern ones have preserved theirs.
)But equally it should be understood that the introduction of a correct
)esotericism in the West can only be of the Rosicrucian-Christian type,
)because this latter gave birth to western life and because by its loss
)mankind would deny the meaning and destiny of the Earth." [p 18,
)Correspondence and Documents 1901-1925 Rudolf Steiner and Marie von
)Sivers. c Rudolf Steiner Press, London 1988]
I have no idea what you expect people to read into this, because it
would seem out of character for a dedicated "critic" to post such a
lucid and eloquent quote for the purpose of clearing up
misuderstandings and distortions about Steiner. The problem is that
if occultism is regarded as nonsense or something dangerous and
destructive, such texts will appear to be gibberish; they won't make
any sense at all.
In Chapter 26 of his autobiography, Steiner writes as follows:
***************************************************
Certain things I said and wrote at this period [ca. 1898] appear to
contradict my later descriptions of Christianity. The reason is the
following: In those days the doctrine of a world beyond penetrated
all Christian teachings and it was these teachings I had in mind when
I used the word "Christianity." All religious experiences pointed to
a world of spirit, supposedly unattainable for man's intellect. The
content of religion, its precepts for moral life, were supposed to
stem from revelations bestowed upon man from a world external to his
being and beyond the reach of his consciousness. For me this was
disproved by my direct, inner perception of spirit. I had to maintain
that not only is the sense-world experienced through what is
perceptible in man and in nature, but so also is the spiritul world.
And my direct experience of the individual nature of man's ethical
life (ethical individualism) proved to me that morality is not the
outcome of commandments instilled from outside, but the result of the
inner development of man's soul and spirit, wherein lives the divine.
At that time my experience of Christianity underwent a severe test.
This lasted from the time of my departure from Weimar, where I had
completed my task, to the period when I wrote my book 'Das
Christentum als mystische Tatsache,' Christianity as Mystical Fact.
Tests of this nature are obstacles placed in one's path by destiny
(karma); they have to be overcome in the course of spiritual
development.
I recognized that the thinking-activity based upon science could
become the basis - though this was then not the case - for spiritual
insight. Therefore I particularly stressed the study of the
fundamental structure of nature which inevitably must lead to a
recognition of spirit. A person occupying himself with such study,
who has no direct perception of the spiritual world will experience
the process of being immersed in a trend of thoughts merely as mental
activity. When the spiritual world is directly perceived, the
experience becomes essentially different. One enters a realm of
spiritual beings who are intent upon making just that trend of
thought the only valid one. It is a realm where onesidedness in
knowledge causes more than abstract deviations. What is error in the
human world becomes there a vivid spiritual relationship with certain
beings. Later I pointed in this direction when speaking of Ahrimanic
beings. For them it is an absolute reality that the world must be a
machine. Their realm borders directly upon the sense-world.
I never for a moment fell prey to influences from this realm in my
world of ideas - not even unconsciously. For I took the greatest care
that all my spiritual investigations were carried out in _clear,
waking consciousness_. Consequently, all the more conscious was my
inner struggle with the demonic powers who strove to develop
scientific knowledge, not into perception of spirit, but into a
mechanical, materialistic way of thinking.
These realms must be experienced consciously by those who strive to
attain knowledge of spirit; to know of them merely in theory does not
suffice. I was obliged at that time to rescue my spiritual
world-conception through inner battles. These inner struggles took
place behind the scenes of everyday experience.
I could only make progress during this period of testing by
contemplating the evolution of Christianity with spiritual
perception. The insight thus gained is described in my book
_Christianity as Mystical Fact_. Prior to this, my comments regarding
Christianity merely referred to the various Christian denominations.
The same also applies to Nietzsche.
Earlier in this autobiography I have described a discussion I had
concerning the Being of Christ with a learned Cistercian and
professor of the Catholic Faculty of Theology in Vienna. His whole
approach to this subject was sceptical. I never found the
Christianity I sought in any of the existing denominations. I found
it necessary to enter into a direct and living experience of
Christianity - and indeed into the world of spirit itself, after the
severe inner struggles during the time of testing.
My relationship to Christianity should make it clear that my science
of spirit is not attained through research of the kind ascribed to me
by many people. They insinuate that I have put together a theory of
spirit on the basis of ancient traditions. I am supposed to have
elaborated Gnosticism and other teachings. The spiritual insight
gained in _Christianity as Mystical Fact_ is brought directly out of
the world of spirit. It was only because I wished to demonstrate to
the audience at these lectures, and to the readers of the book, the
harmony between what can be perceived in spirit and the records of
history that I examined the latter and incorporated them in the
content. But I took nothing from these documents unless I had _first_
experienced it in the spirit.
During the period when my statements about Christianity seemingly
contradict my later ones, a conscious knowledge of true Christianity
began to dawn within me. Around the turn of the century this
knowledge grew deeper. The inner test described above occurred
shortly before the turn of the century. This experience culminated in
my standing in the spiritual presence of the Mystery of Golgotha in a
most profound and solemn festival of knowledge.
*********************************************************
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 20:13:21 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
)Tarjei:
)
))What needs to be kept in mind is that Blavatsky did not intend to
))distort anything - she became a tool for higher occult powers that
))intended to bring such distortions about. In other words, Blavtsky's
))role in this distortion does not mean that she was not a
))scrupulously honest individual.
Diana wrote:
)LOL! The spirits made her do it!
)
)Really, Tarjei, this is beyond pathetic.
Sounds like a cheap-shot cop-out for lack of comprehension when it
comes to complicated occult topics. It's also abusive.
)What *is* an honest individual then? I thought it was a person who
)did *not* lie and distort.
)
)Is this the ethics of anthroposophy?
Nonsense. Blavatsky did not lie. She honestly communicated what she
experienced and understood. But she made mistakes, errors. There is a
difference between errors made in everyday life on the physical plane
and errors made in the spiritual realm at an advanced leval by
occultists. In the latter case, there are intelligent spirit-beings
behind the deception. In a sense, this is the case with all human
error, but when it comes to occultism, it is more important to point
them out.
)And wait a minute, didn't you say it would be silly to accuse the
)spirits of being racist? If they sometimes lie and distort, maybe
)they are racist too . . . They obviously don't have such good
)morals, do they?
Error and evil is a product of man, of human nature. It is caused by
opposing spirits, but it is not appropriate to ascribe such human
qualities to cosmic beings who simply pursue their own aims. There is
a connection between racism, nationalism, etc. and ahrimanic beings.
This does not mean that the ahrimanic beings are racist, but that
they use such forces in human nature to cause chaos.
In a lecture held in Zurich, 27th October, 1919. entitled "The
Ahrimanic Deception," GA #193,
(http://home.no.net/tastraum/ahrimandec.html), Rudolf Steiner says:
"And so, in order to create dissensions, Ahriman also makes use of
what develops from the old conditions of heredity which man has
really outgrown in the Fifth Post-Atlantean Epoch. The Ahrimanic
powers use all that is derived from old circumstances of heredity in
order to set men against each other in conflicting groups. All that
comes from old differences of family, race, tribe, peoples, is used
by Ahriman to create confusion"
To get back to my original point: The allegations of racism on this
list have been pushed so far that our creator(s) will soon be accused
of being racist(s) by bringing about so much ethnic diversity instead
of one homogenous mass to begin with.
--
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
It is impossible to understand a human being completely if
one takes the concept of genus as the basis of one's judgment.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:35:21 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Tarjei:
)What needs to be kept in mind is that Blavatsky did not intend to
)distort anything - she became a tool for higher occult powers that
)intended to bring such distortions about. In other words, Blavtsky's role
)in this distortion does not mean that she was not a
)))scrupulously honest individual.
I wrote:
)LOL! The spirits made her do it!
)Really, Tarjei, this is beyond pathetic.
Tarjei:
)Sounds like a cheap-shot cop-out for lack of comprehension when it
)comes to complicated occult topics. It's also abusive.
Bullshit. I understand it, it isn't complicated. It's total garbage. You can
excuse anyone anything if you claim they can't always help themselves
because of spiritual interventions and manipulations. Where does this stop,
and how does one *know* whether a person should be held responsible for
their actions, or fingers should be pointed at certain spirits? . . . oh, I
know - if you're advanced enough spiritually, you'll "just know." You
wouldn't be able to explain it to someone like me, right?
Ugh. I just can't go on with it, this is so repulsive.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 21:17:41 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
I wrote:
))What needs to be kept in mind is that Blavatsky did not intend to
))distort anything - she became a tool for higher occult powers that
))intended to bring such distortions about. In other words,
))Blavtsky's role in this distortion does not mean that she was not
))ascrupulously honest individual.
)
)Diana wrote:
)
))LOL! The spirits made her do it!
)
))Really, Tarjei, this is beyond pathetic.
)
)Tarjei:
)
))Sounds like a cheap-shot cop-out for lack of comprehension when it
))comes to complicated occult topics. It's also abusive.
Diana:
)Bullshit. I understand it, it isn't complicated. It's total garbage.
)You can excuse anyone anything if you claim they can't always help
)themselves because of spiritual interventions and manipulations.
)Where does this stop, and how does one *know* whether a person
)should be held responsible for their actions, or fingers should be
)pointed at certain spirits? . . . oh, I know - if you're advanced
)enough spiritually, you'll "just know." You wouldn't be able to
)explain it to someone like me, right?
)
)Ugh. I just can't go on with it, this is so repulsive.
Tarjei:
It looks like passions get in the way of thinking and understanding
here. We are all subjected to subconscious influences. The
subsonscious consists of the intentions and activities of spiritual
beings. The more conscious we become, the more control we acquire in
our own lives. The less conscious or self-controlled we are, the more
we are guided or manipulated by others, humans and non-humans. The
idea that spiritual beings stand behind our subconscious impluses is
not only found in New Age and classical occultism, but also in major
religions. Demonology etc. is a common denominator in all religious
systems.
Besides, I have not suggested that we are not responsible for our
actions even if we unaware of the forces that compel them. We have
been equipped with conscience and a sense of ethics to pass judgement
on our inclinations before we act.
Still, when it comes to personalities like Blavatsky, we are dealing
with advanced occultism, where matters are far more complicated. You
may write it all off as nonsense and incomprehensible gibberish, but
when you constantly express strong passions of repulsion, hostility,
disdain, and arrogant, patronizing condescension and so on, you make
it extremely difficult to sustain a dialogue about ideas, philosophy,
religion, epistemology, and science, which requires an exchange of
_thoughts_.
--
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
Jeder von uns ist berufen zum freien Geiste, wie jeder Rosenkeim
berufen ist, Rose zu werden.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 20:23:08 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
tarjei:
) it extremely difficult to sustain a dialogue about ideas, philosophy,
) religion, epistemology, and science, which requires an exchange of
) _thoughts_.
Tarjei:have you ever thought that you're on the wrong site...?
bea
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 21:29:32 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
)tarjei:
)) it extremely difficult to sustain a dialogue about ideas, philosophy,
)) religion, epistemology, and science, which requires an exchange of
)) _thoughts_.
)
)Tarjei:have you ever thought that you're on the wrong site...?
)bea
Could you please explain what you mean by that?
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 12:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: michael C (wildcardmichael yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
--- Diana Winters (winters_diana hotmail.com) wrote:
)
) Tarjei:
)
) )What needs to be kept in mind is that Blavatsky did
) not intend to
) )distort anything - she became a tool for higher
) occult powers that
) )intended to bring such distortions about. In other
) words, Blavtsky's role
) )in this distortion does not mean that she was not a
) )))scrupulously honest individual.
)
) I wrote:
)
) )LOL! The spirits made her do it!
)
) )Really, Tarjei, this is beyond pathetic.
)
) Tarjei:
)
) )Sounds like a cheap-shot cop-out for lack of
) comprehension when it
) )comes to complicated occult topics. It's also
) abusive.
)
) Bullshit. I understand it, it isn't complicated.
Michael C:
Many genuine spiritual writings and concepts are very
complicated. Understanding them (occult writings and
concepts) form an intelectual pesrpective is difficult
but for the most part within reach of normal adults
that are willing to make a sincere effort.
In the case of the orthodox approach to the
intelectual study of Kabbalah it was restricted to
person that had demonstrated the abilty to understand
the Halacha (Jewish law). As far a the practice of
mind expanding exercises this was usually restriced to
person that demonstarted the a sober personality. This
was necessary for their own saftey as the danger of
insanity was just a real as a bad acid trip. As far a
intrepting the experience, this was the most difficult
part and for the most part was riddled with errors and
distortion. Only the most sober and centered person
could visit the upper chambers and return with
anything that was meaningful.
) It's total garbage. You can
) excuse anyone anything if you claim they can't
) always help themselves
) because of spiritual interventions and
) manipulation Where does this stop,
) and how does one *know* whether a person should be
) held responsible for
) their actions,
Michael C:
In mainstrain science there is the widely accepted
belief that a person could be insane in a way that
they are not legally responsible for their actions. My
answer, let the courts decide as they do now.
) or fingers should be pointed at
) certain spirits? . . . oh, I
) know - if you're advanced enough spiritually, you'll
) "just know." You
) wouldn't be able to explain it to someone like me,
) right?
)
) Ugh. I just can't go on with it, this is so
) repulsive.
)
It sounds like you are fighting off spirits that are
distorting thinking and blaming the line of thought
for your problem. You are kind of hot like Blavatsky
only in recognition of this you have decided to stop
transmitting. Look at all of the troubles that you are
having and you haven't travelled beyound the world of
intellect.
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 22:35:17 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
I (charlie) said:
))...spokeswoman for the Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship who
) )gave a short description of WE. Her answer begins, 'Steiner education
) )recognises the child as a spiritual being.'...
))I am optimistic that the people who represent WE do listen to justified,
))constructive criticism and try to learn from it...
Bea said:
Well charlie, this is certainley not what I'm talking about as open and
honest, our local comprehensive schools says they try to nurture the
childrens sprirtual side, and they mean something completely different I'm
sure.
charlie:
I, too, am sure they do. To 'nurture the childrens spiritual side' is a
pretty vague statement that doesn't say a lot. Do they mean religious side,
mental side, moral side, or what? But to say that someone is a 'spiritual
being' implies that they are more than an earthly human being. This is not
just an attribute tagged on to the person, but has to do with their very
existence.
Bea said:
What do you mean by "I am optimistic"? do you mean they do? or you hope they
do? I would like you to put this "I am optimistic..." statement to the
mothers at michael hall and they would laugh at you...
charlie:
To believe that ALL WE representatives take heed would be far too
optimistic, but I'm sure there are a lot of dedicated, open minded people
out there who do. It's almost worth going down to Michael Hall to see all
the mothers laughing in unison.
Bea said:
...even when I was involved in the school we didnt think anyone took any
notice at all of our contructive criticisms and certainley DID NOT try to
learn from it, and meeting mothers from kings langley and canterbury we
discovered the exact same thing...
charlie:
I wonder how you phrased your 'constructive criticisms'.
Are you speaking for all the mothers at Michael Hall, Kings Langley and
Canterbury? Do ALL mothers who have kids at Waldorf schools find they are
not being listened to?
Bea said
...if you are interested I will again write where i think the schools are
NOT open and honest and I'm sure all the other EX-WE parents on here will
too but let me say it again :it is NOT about saying waldorf recognises the
child as a spiritual being.
bea
charlie:
I'm sure I can find this in the previous posts, but feel free to remind us
if you care too.
warm regards,
charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 22:40:39 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
----- Original Message -----
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 5:22 AM
Subject: Re: Some hubris
charlie wrote:
) ) Among the replies there
) ) was one from the spokeswoman for the Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship
who
) ) gave a short description of WE. Her answer begins, 'Steiner education
) ) recognises the child as a spiritual being.'
)
) also charlie: what other bits did the spokeswoman mention..?
) bea
charlie:
This is the full quote as far as I know,Bea.
'Steiner education recognises the child as a spiritual being. This informs
the respect Steiner teachers have for the children; the child won't notice
any difference, but he or she goes to school happily, and it's a very
conducive environment to learning. Each child has a teacher who moves up
with the class for a daily two-hour lesson, which gives the child a feeling
of security. Yes means yes, and no means no: children look up to their
teacher for a moral example.
Our schools have mixed-ability classes. They are not just for children with
special needs, nor for gifted children; admission is for any child, by
interview. In the UK, pupils follow exam curricula. Our results don't appear
in the league tables, but they are in fact double the national average. Our
curriculum is broad, but we don't believe in introducing things like
computers too early, so there is something to look forward to; this means
pupils retain the enthusiasm for learning that is the essence of lifelong
learning.'
warm regards,
charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 22:05:09 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
I wrote:
)You can excuse anyone anything if you claim they can't always help
)themselves because of spiritual interventions and manipulations.
and:
)Ugh. I just can't go on with it, this is so repulsive.
Tarjei:
)It looks like passions get in the way of thinking and understanding
)here.
And I am being condescending? Look, you said that Blavatsky was not to blame
for untruths if the spirits manipulated her, and I think that is totally and
completely absurd, and you can analyze my passions all you like, it is a
goofy statement at best and since it potentially excuses anything, it is
morally corrupt as well.
)The more conscious we become, the more control we acquire in
)our own lives. The less conscious or self-controlled we are, the more we
)are guided or manipulated by others, humans and non-humans.
Well, even accepting your theory, it would hardly make someone like
Blavatsky worth her cult following, if she had so little control and was a
puppet with evil spirits pulling her strings? I guess this is a more
attractive theory to occultists than that she was a blatant con artist and
fraud.
)Still, when it comes to personalities like Blavatsky, we are dealing
)with advanced occultism,
"Advanced occultism," my eye. Advanced fraud and chicanery. Even Steiner
insisted morality had to precede spiritual enlightenment, am I correct?
Blavatsky was not a person to admire, Tarjei.
)you make it extremely difficult to sustain a dialogue about ideas,
)philosophy, religion, epistemology, and science, which requires an
) )exchange of _thoughts_.
Here's my take on the philosophy, religion, epistemology and science at
issue here: To blame human actions on spirits is morally bankrupt on a bad
day, little more than childish on a good day.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:31:58 -0700
From: Harvey Bornfield (earlyfire earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Bea and others:
No one of us here, yourself included wants to conduct this forum in
"Thought Optional" Mode.
Zeal, passion, beauty, even obsessive-compulsive forms of militaristic,
DarthVader-esque, warlordlike, rust-red Martian energy, 'Jihad',
"crusade", even the smug ferocious arrogance which imagines itself
righteous and 'therefore' privileged to scathe, let these, whether born of
blind or intentionally ferocious loyalties of love and political
alignment, joustlike, play INTO the mix, of what ideas we metabolize, and
never be denied their spin and spike of drama in the larger task of
achieving, of stabilising, of promoting, of sustaining human
communication.
However, entertain a swig from Earlyfire's peasant-like thought: it is
wise not to allow one's less-than-enchanting exchanges of recoil and
manifestations of preemptive first-strike mentality wage campaigns which
UPSTAGE the search to focus Truth via clarity.
We're 400 years downstream of when the Bard speaks of the noble value of
tolerance amidst incendiary attitudes. When does this prophecy become
overdue? Where the chivalry to champion now what was invited then?
((hears)"If not now, when?")
O for a muse of fire
that would ascend the highest heaven of invention
A kingdom for a stage, princes to act, and monarchs to behold the swelling
scene
===.)
Then would the warlike Harry, like himself, assume the port of Mars,
and at his heels, leashed in like hounds, would famine, sword and fire
crouch for employment.
((Editor), 'behold the Antidote')
But pardon gentles all, the flat unraised spirits who have dared upon this
unworthy scaffold
to bring forth so great an object.....
(Prologue, Henry the V)
(whispers to self, tiptoeing off-rage, offstage)
All of us, on "both sides" are striving cooperatively to create purity and
justice here. None of us can afford even to think, much less settle for
promulgating verbal exchange predicated upon an eschalon of sub-reasoning
prompted by "May the strongest revulsion win"
Harvey
"mypostbox.formail" wrote:
) tarjei:
) ) it extremely difficult to sustain a dialogue about ideas, philosophy,
) ) religion, epistemology, and science, which requires an exchange of
) ) _thoughts_.
)
) Tarjei:have you ever thought that you're on the wrong site...?
) bea
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:33:17 -0700
From: Harvey Bornfield (earlyfire earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Bea and others:
No one of us here, yourself included wants to conduct this forum in
"Thought Optional" Mode.
Zeal, passion, beauty, even obsessive-compulsive forms of militaristic,
DarthVader-esque, warlordlike, rust-red Martian energy, 'Jihad',
"crusade", even the smug ferocious arrogance which imagines itself
righteous and 'therefore' privileged to scathe, let these, whether born of
blind or intentionally ferocious loyalties of love and political
alignment, joustlike, play INTO the mix, of what ideas we metabolize, and
never be denied their spin and spike of drama in the larger task of
achieving, of stabilising, of promoting, of sustaining human
communication.
However, entertain a swig from Earlyfire's peasant-like thought: it is
wise not to allow one's less-than-enchanting exchanges of recoil and
manifestations of preemptive first-strike mentality wage campaigns which
UPSTAGE the search to focus Truth via clarity.
We're 400 years downstream of when the Bard speaks of the noble value of
tolerance amidst incendiary attitudes. When does this prophecy become
overdue? Where the chivalry to champion now what was invited then?
((hears)"If not now, when?")
O for a muse of fire
that would ascend the highest heaven of invention
A kingdom for a stage, princes to act, and monarchs to behold the swelling
scene
===.)
Then would the warlike Harry, like himself, assume the port of Mars,
and at his heels, leashed in like hounds, would famine, sword and fire
crouch for employment.
((Editor), 'behold the Antidote')
But pardon gentles all, the flat unraised spirits who have dared upon this
unworthy scaffold
to bring forth so great an object.....
(Prologue, Henry the V)
(whispers to self, tiptoeing off-rage, offstage)
All of us, on "both sides" are striving cooperatively to create purity and
justice here. None of us can afford even to think, much less settle for
promulgating verbal exchange predicated upon an eschalon of sub-reasoning
prompted by "May the strongest revulsion win"
Harvey
"mypostbox.formail" wrote:
) tarjei:
) ) it extremely difficult to sustain a dialogue about ideas, philosophy,
) ) religion, epistemology, and science, which requires an exchange of
) ) _thoughts_.
)
) Tarjei:have you ever thought that you're on the wrong site...?
) bea
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:37:00 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Keeping it simple/was "sensitivity"
Lisa here: (scratching her head) .... huh? This is what folks in my business
call "purple prose." Harvey, may I suggest that you take a lesson from
American writer-master E.B. White and keep it simple? That way, someone
other than yourself might understand what you are saying.
) Bea and others:
) No one of us here, yourself included wants to conduct this forum in
) "Thought Optional" Mode.
) Zeal, passion, beauty, even obsessive-compulsive forms of militaristic,
) DarthVader-esque, warlordlike, rust-red Martian energy, 'Jihad',
) "crusade", even the smug ferocious arrogance which imagines itself
) righteous and 'therefore' privileged to scathe, let these, whether born of
) blind or intentionally ferocious loyalties of love and political
) alignment, joustlike, play INTO the mix, of what ideas we metabolize, and
) never be denied their spin and spike of drama in the larger task of
) achieving, of stabilising, of promoting, of sustaining human
) communication.
)
) However, entertain a swig from Earlyfire's peasant-like thought: it is
) wise not to allow one's less-than-enchanting exchanges of recoil and
) manifestations of preemptive first-strike mentality wage campaigns which
) UPSTAGE the search to focus Truth via clarity.
)
) We're 400 years downstream of when the Bard speaks of the noble value of
) tolerance amidst incendiary attitudes. When does this prophecy become
) overdue? Where the chivalry to champion now what was invited then?
) ((hears)"If not now, when?")
)
) O for a muse of fire
) that would ascend the highest heaven of invention
) A kingdom for a stage, princes to act, and monarchs to behold the swelling
) scene
)
) ===.)
) Then would the warlike Harry, like himself, assume the port of Mars,
) and at his heels, leashed in like hounds, would famine, sword and fire
) crouch for employment.
)
) ((Editor), 'behold the Antidote')
) But pardon gentles all, the flat unraised spirits who have dared upon this
) unworthy scaffold
) to bring forth so great an object.....
) (Prologue, Henry the V)
)
) (whispers to self, tiptoeing off-rage, offstage)
) All of us, on "both sides" are striving cooperatively to create purity and
) justice here. None of us can afford even to think, much less settle for
) promulgating verbal exchange predicated upon an eschalon of sub-reasoning
) prompted by "May the strongest revulsion win"
)
) Harvey
)
)
) "mypostbox.formail" wrote:
)
)) tarjei:
)) ) it extremely difficult to sustain a dialogue about ideas, philosophy,
)) ) religion, epistemology, and science, which requires an exchange of
)) ) _thoughts_.
))
)) Tarjei:have you ever thought that you're on the wrong site...?
)) bea
))
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:50:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Atlantis
Last night on the Discovery Channel they featured a
story on Atlantis and its possible existance in three
different locations in the world. I was wondering if
anyone from the list had seen it?
dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 19:54:27 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Hello, Diana:
)And I am being condescending? Look, you said that Blavatsky was not to blame
)for untruths if the spirits manipulated her, and I think that is totally and
)completely absurd, and you can analyze my passions all you like, it is a
)goofy statement at best and since it potentially excuses anything, it is
)morally corrupt as well.
Suppose I say, as I believe, that people should be open to learn from their
mistakes. That statement could be construed to "potentially excuse
anything." Is it a morally corrupt statement?
I agree with a lot of what you write. I agree with a lot of what Sharon
writes. I agree with a lot of what Bea writes. But I think (my opinion,
opinion, opinion) that the lot of you (and a lot of us who stand on the
"other" side, as well) let too much of the strong emotional content that
brought us here in the first place get in the way of the good points we
make.
Then we end up arguing about the emotional content, disguised as contextual
information. If I may take the liberty, I think this is what Tarjei was
getting at. I think he was pretty clear, too, but a strong emotional
response blocked your vision of that. It doesn't strike me that he's
trying to excuse anything.
)Well, even accepting your theory, it would hardly make someone like
)Blavatsky worth her cult following, if she had so little control and was a
)puppet with evil spirits pulling her strings? I guess this is a more
)attractive theory to occultists than that she was a blatant con artist and
)fraud.
I personally don't care if she was a blatant con artist and a fraud, if
people can learn something positive from their experience with her work, or
what comes out of her work (I'll head into the bomb shelter now). Maybe
all they get is a chance to recognize a blatant con artist. That's still
an important lesson.
Part of development is about learning to filter the noise and clutter from
the signal. Put another way, it's about learning to recognize
manipulation. This is one of the big reasons why we try to withhold media
from young children in waldorf schools. The marketing involved is just too
pervasive and clever, and it takes a more mature mind to see it for what it
is.
(snip)
)Here's my take on the philosophy, religion, epistemology and science at
)issue here: To blame human actions on spirits is morally bankrupt on a bad
)day, little more than childish on a good day.
)Diana
Okay. Let's blame them on either emotions or reason or experience, or some
combination. Then, anyone who wants to can believe our reasoning and our
emotions and our experiences are influenced by some form of spiritual
activity and we're all cozy.
Deal?
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 01:29:38 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Diana wrote:
)And I am being condescending? Look, you said that Blavatsky was not
)to blame for untruths if the spirits manipulated her, and I think
)that is totally and completely absurd, and you can analyze my
)passions all you like, it is a goofy statement at best and since it
)potentially excuses anything, it is morally corrupt as well.
It is not morally corrupt to make a honest mistakes. Besides,
Blavatsky struggled like a tiger throughout her life against people,
organizations, and spirits that endeavored to manipulate her. You're
passing judgement on something you're not acquainted with.
)Well, even accepting your theory, it would hardly make someone like
)Blavatsky worth her cult following, if she had so little control and
)was a puppet with evil spirits pulling her strings?
They did _not_ succeed in manipulating her in spite of her being led
into error in certain areas. In the first place, the Western occult
brotherhoods wanted to silence her because they did not want the idea
of reincarnation to become a part of Western culture. When she
refused to obey, they imposed a so-called "occult imprisonment" on
her. This measure, that was severely criticized in occult circles,
had the effect of making her occult work impossible. The only way for
Blavatsky to be liberated from this "occult imprisonment" by Western
occult brotherhoods was to accept an offer of assistance from an
Indian brotherhood. They liberated Blavatsky from her occult
imprisonment, but they also sought to use her for their own purposes.
The aim of the Western occultists was to spread a more pure Oriental
wisdom and to suppress and reject Christianity. Blavatsky had already
strong anto-Christian sentiments of her own, but her teaching was
even more Orientalized in this way.
When we're talking about Blavatsky's honesty and strength of
character and so on, it's because she fought like a tiger against all
these manipulations throughout her life. She travelled all over the
world and studied all religious and folklore she could get hold of.
She even rode with Mexican bandits with a gun on her hip. She was an
honest outlaw who fled from her entrapment in an early marriage in
Russia as a teenager. Her biography is absolutely fascinating. One
makes a grave error by saying that she was morally corrupt because
she was manipulated, because any weaker person with less stamina and
integrity would have buckled under. No wonder Steiner admired her and
spoke well of her in spite of his criticism of her writing style and
the uncritical way her followers approached her work. Blavatsky was a
hero.
)"Advanced occultism," my eye. Advanced fraud and chicanery. Even
)Steiner insisted morality had to precede spiritual enlightenment, am
)I correct? Blavatsky was not a person to admire, Tarjei.
Have it your way. Blavatsky and Steiner were assholes, and
theosophists and anthroposophists are sick and repulsive and morally
corrupt people. And I am a pickpocket and a con artist and perhaps
even a sadist, who knows.
)Here's my take on the philosophy, religion, epistemology and science
)at issue here: To blame human actions on spirits is morally bankrupt
)on a bad day, little more than childish on a good day.
I have not _blamed_ anything on anyone. I have endeavored to explain
how extremely complicated and difficult advanced occult work can be,
and how easy it is to make mistakes in this field, and why. A person
who really struggles to discover the truth at all costs and to share
it with humanity is not morally bankrupt. Quite the contrary.
--
Tarjei
http://home.no.net/tastraum/
Jeder von uns ist berufen zum freien Geiste, wie jeder Rosenkeim
berufen ist, Rose zu werden.
- Rudolf Steiner
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 19:59:10 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
)O for a muse of fire
)that would ascend the highest heaven of invention
)A kingdom for a stage, princes to act, and monarchs to behold the swelling
)scene
)
)===.)
)Then would the warlike Harry, like himself, assume the port of Mars,
)and at his heels, leashed in like hounds, would famine, sword and fire
)crouch for employment.
)
)((Editor), 'behold the Antidote')
)But pardon gentles all, the flat unraised spirits who have dared upon this
)unworthy scaffold
)to bring forth so great an object.....
)(Prologue, Henry the V)
)
)(whispers to self, tiptoeing off-rage, offstage)
)All of us, on "both sides" are striving cooperatively to create purity and
)justice here. None of us can afford even to think, much less settle for
)promulgating verbal exchange predicated upon an eschalon of sub-reasoning
)prompted by "May the strongest revulsion win"
)
)Harvey
Ever done time around the stage, Harv?
I think your next gig might be waiting for you in NYC. Maybe Brooklyn, or
downtown.
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 01:34:27 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: ooops!!!
I wrote:
"The aim of the Western occultists was to spread a more pure Oriental
wisdom...."
Please read:
"The aim of the Indian occultists was to spread a more pure Oriental
wisdom...."
--
Tarjei
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 20:29:42 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: "The Spirit of Waldorf Education"
Has the recent article dated 20 June in Education Week been mentioned on
the list?
If not, here's the URL:
http://educationweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=41Waldorf.h20
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:33:49 -0300
From: "CP" (paixs yahoo.com.br)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Michael C wrote:
|
| Laws often come from moral intuitions and the
law
| recognizes the difference between published
ideas that
| cannot be substantiated that have been published
and
| ideas that attack a living person that cannot be
| substantiated that have been published. The
second one
| is illegal and is called slander. If Steiner was
alive
| and wished to he could haul Peter S. into a
court. If
| Peter S. could not back up his claims he could
be
| found guilty of slander. Although it is not
illegal it
| seems that a person should respect the memory of
a
| dead person by not publishing unsubstatiated
attacks
| against them. But by all means if it will help
| somebody tell them negative truths about Steiner
but
| be prepared to back up any negative assertions
with
| some reasonable evidence.
|
Clara here:
"If Steiner was alive and wished to he could haul
Peter S. into a court" - this is one of the most
incredible things I have ever heard (read).
Honestly I suggest you guys need to take a serious
decision, because a deep contradiction is in play
here.
Anthroposophers take Steiner to be a thinker, a
phylosopher, a "scientist"; but they repudiate
critical reflection on Steiner¥s works -
sometimes, like you say above Michael,
suggesting that some of that reflection is
criminal.
How come then - if Steiner is a scientist, a
"spiritual scientist" albeit, shouldn¥t it be
expected that his ideas are debated?
Who on this earth has ever heard of supporters of
a scientific theory suggesting that criticizing it
should be considered a crime ?
Can religious fundamentalists who propose the
untruthfulness of the Evolutionary theory be sued
in court on the basis that they¥d be slandering
Darwin and being "disrespectful of his memory"?
Do Freudian psichotherapeuts sue other specialists
who write in psichiatric journals criticizing
Freud and his theories, on the basis that those
constitute unsusbstantiated attacks on Freud and
thus are ilegal?
Have you ever heard of a Nitzchean phylosopher
getting all worked up and fuming with indignation
in a court room, when historians suggest the link
between N¥s theories and Germanic supremacy?
Or even, to be extreme in my examples and stepping
into less accredited fields - do homeopaths claim
that scientific medicine¥s criticism on homeopahty
is a blunder on Heineman¥s memory and should be
stopped immediately lest the old man turns in his
grave?
Of course not... Those issues are worked out in
form of debate - sometimes hot fierce debate - but
certainly not as criminal cases, or even as
instances of someone¥s memory being disrespected.
In general neither Darwin, nor Freud, nor
Nietzche, nor even Heinemman - as far as I know -
are
followed with religious unquestioning fervour as
gurus whose Words are Sacred and should remain
Impolluted. The people who support the theories
proposed by each of them are ready to defend them
with arguments - in some cases scientific
arguments or phylosophical debate, with varying
degrees of sound argumentation (the merit not
being the point here).
If anthroposophers want to mantain that Steiner
was a philosopher or, even, a scientist, then they
too will have to be ready to accept when his work
is brought to debate and criticized. They may
agree or disagree with the critics; but certaninly
not claim that criticism cannot be made (not to
mention claiming it to be criminal) and publicized
by who ever wishes to do so.
It does not matter *what* critics say about
Steiner; this is not my point. My point is,
expressing critical opinions on a theory (that
professes to be scientific) is only expected!!!
If you don¥t agree with the criticism, or even, if
you find it unsusbstantiated, etc. - by all means
present the counter-arguments. Shout at the top of
your brains, give us brilliant arguments and
debate...
But don¥t claim that people cannot utter the
criticism because it "disrespects the memory of
Steiner" ...
It makes your supposition that anthroposophy is a
science look very debilitated.
Clara
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 22:13:50 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: "The Spirit of Waldorf Education"
Very well done, I would say. Did anyone notice that, yet again, Eugene
Schwarz says that he was "fired" for criticizing the way Waldorf has moved
into the public sector, and for questionable reasons. He also reiterated how
"religious" Waldorf education is.
Reading Schwartz's words again made me want to have another discussion with
my younger daughter's last teacher at our former WS. She *insisted* that
Schwartz's change of position from head of teacher training at Sunbridge to
class teacher had *nothing* to do with the Dan Dugan lecture there!
If more of the Waldorf establishment were as honest as is Schwartz, Waldorf
schools would be up front about their overtly religious nature and purpose,
and there could be no public WS. All of us could spend the time we spend
here on this list doing something fun, like sleeping! (g)
Lisa
) Has the recent article dated 20 June in Education Week been mentioned on
) the list?
)
)
) If not, here's the URL:
)
)
) http://educationweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=41Waldorf.h20
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Robert Flannery
) Spring Valley, NY
) litvas icu.com
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 02:35:07 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Robert:
)Suppose I say, as I believe, that people should be open to learn from
) )their mistakes. That statement could be construed to "potentially
) )excuse anything." Is it a morally corrupt statement?
Learning from your mistakes is precisely the opposite of blaming them on
somebody else. Polar opposites.
)But I think (my opinion, opinion, opinion) that the lot of you (and a )lot
)of us who stand on the "other" side, as well) let too much of the )strong
)emotional content that brought us here in the first place get )in the way
)of the good points we make.
)Then we end up arguing about the emotional content, disguised as
) )contextual information. If I may take the liberty, I think this is )what
)Tarjei was getting at. I think he was pretty clear, too, but a )strong
)emotional response blocked your vision of that. It doesn't )strike me that
)he's trying to excuse anything.
He was excusing Blavatasky, a known fraud and counterfeit, from
responsibility for her fraudulence and counterfeiting. He said she was an
honest person even though she was known to have lied; this was due to the
machinations of spiritual beings and shouldn't be blamed on her. Now,
Robert, what would it look like to you if he *were* trying to excuse
something? Good grief.
I agree that I have a strong emotional response to the spiritual excuses for
bad behavior, but I think that is an appropriate response. Nothing disguised
about it. Yes, we are arguing about emotional content. Really why else
*would* we be arguing? The only reason bad behavior is bad behavior is
because somebody gets hurt (I am thinking of the karma justification Waldorf
teachers fall back on, which seems more or less equivalent to "the spirits
made me do it") and when you've seen a lot of it, you tend to have an
emotional reaction to it. If you don't, you don't really care how anybody
justifies anything.
Robert:
)I personally don't care if she was a blatant con artist and a fraud, if
)people can learn something positive from their experience with her )work,
Well, that would really be fine with me, Robert, no need to hit the bomb
shelter. Personally I don't know *how* you would learn anything from someone
who was a fraud, but be my guest.
I wrote:
)To blame human actions on spirits is morally bankrupt on a bad
)day, little more than childish on a good day.
Robert:
)Okay. Let's blame them on either emotions or reason or experience, or
) )some combination. Then, anyone who wants to can believe our reasoning
) )and our emotions and our experiences are influenced by some form of
) )spiritual activity and we're all cozy.
You don't see a difference? If you blame it on your own emotions or reason
or experience, it is within you to do something about these things, or at
least try. If you blame it on a spirit, who you gonna call?
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 02:48:53 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Clara wrote:
)Who on this earth has ever heard of supporters of
)a scientific theory suggesting that criticizing it
)should be considered a crime ?
)Can religious fundamentalists who propose the
)untruthfulness of the Evolutionary theory be sued
)in court on the basis that they¥d be slandering
)Darwin and being "disrespectful of his memory"?
No, because this is cult behavior. As is the deep personal concern over
where or how the man's remains were disposed of, and the name of the
clergyman who performed the service . . . The man himself is reverenced,
quite different from interest or agreement with his philosophy.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 03:11:32 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Tarjei wrote, about Blavatsky:
)It is not morally corrupt to make a honest mistakes.
Okay. It comes down to whether you believe humans can, in fact, be
manipulated by spirits to do things they would not otherwise do. To me, this
is a big fat old cop-out (or sometimes it's mental illness). To you, it's a
great sacred truth. Go figure.
Good night,
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 354
-- Topica Digest --
Re: "The Spirit of Waldorf Education"
By litvas icu.com
Re: Sensitivity
By litvas icu.com
Re: Some hubris
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Some hubris
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Sensitivity
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: Sensitivity
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Sensitivity
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 00:50:29 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: "The Spirit of Waldorf Education"
)Very well done, I would say. Did anyone notice that, yet again, Eugene
)Schwarz says that he was "fired" for criticizing the way Waldorf has moved
)into the public sector, and for questionable reasons. He also reiterated how
)"religious" Waldorf education is.
I sure noticed. Eugene hasn't changed his tune one iota, in public or in
private.
I don't imagine David Ruenzel tried to ask anyone at Sunbridge what their
opinion was in the matter. Doesn't really make any difference, because the
way employment confidentiality works in this country, employers probably
can't say a thing without inviting liability, even after an ex-employee has
gone public with his version.
The more play it gets in publication, the more Eugene's version will just
have to stand. It's already approaching the level of folk mythology.
I also thought it was a well-written article, and more balanced in its
presentation than most I've seen.
)
)Reading Schwartz's words again made me want to have another discussion with
)my younger daughter's last teacher at our former WS. She *insisted* that
)Schwartz's change of position from head of teacher training at Sunbridge to
)class teacher had *nothing* to do with the Dan Dugan lecture there!
)
)If more of the Waldorf establishment were as honest as is Schwartz, Waldorf
)schools would be up front about their overtly religious nature and purpose,
)and there could be no public WS. All of us could spend the time we spend
)here on this list doing something fun, like sleeping! (g)
Now, I've never had any cause to believe that Eugene is dishonest, but what
makes you so quick to make him some kind of a paragon in this area? From
my point of view, it looks as if the only qualification he needs is that
his version suits your needs, or matches your opinion. How informed are
you?
If more in the waldorf establishment were anything like Eugene, we'd be
pulling them in like Ringling Brothers.
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 01:12:34 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
)Robert:
)
))Suppose I say, as I believe, that people should be open to learn from
)) )their mistakes. That statement could be construed to "potentially
)) )excuse anything." Is it a morally corrupt statement?
)
)Learning from your mistakes is precisely the opposite of blaming them on
)somebody else. Polar opposites.
That wasn't the point I was trying to make, but that's okay. It's not
really that important.
(snip)
)He was excusing Blavatasky, a known fraud and counterfeit, from
)responsibility for her fraudulence and counterfeiting. He said she was an
)honest person even though she was known to have lied; this was due to the
)machinations of spiritual beings and shouldn't be blamed on her. Now,
)Robert, what would it look like to you if he *were* trying to excuse
)something? Good grief.
Well, first of all, I didn't notice Tarjei saying she lied (requiring
intent to deceive), but I may not have read closely enough.
I'm not in a position to say what it would look like to me if Tarjei were
trying to excuse something. From where I sit, it always reads like he's
trying to explain something.
He doesn't strike me as the type to make excuses.
)
)I agree that I have a strong emotional response to the spiritual excuses for
)bad behavior, but I think that is an appropriate response. Nothing disguised
)about it. Yes, we are arguing about emotional content. Really why else
)*would* we be arguing?
Maybe to try to find a compromise position in view of mutually acceptable
facts?
Sorry, it was just a wild guess.
)The only reason bad behavior is bad behavior is
)because somebody gets hurt (I am thinking of the karma justification Waldorf
)teachers fall back on, which seems more or less equivalent to "the spirits
)made me do it") and when you've seen a lot of it, you tend to have an
)emotional reaction to it. If you don't, you don't really care how anybody
)justifies anything.
Sorry, but I'll part ways with you here. Remember, I buy into a lot of
this anthropop stuff, so I happen to believe that just thinking nasty
things is bad behavior, even if you don't act on them. From the point of
view of a secular empiricist, that's nonsense. Nobody gets hurt, right?
)
)Robert:
)
))I personally don't care if she was a blatant con artist and a fraud, if
))people can learn something positive from their experience with her )work,
)
)Well, that would really be fine with me, Robert, no need to hit the bomb
)shelter. Personally I don't know *how* you would learn anything from someone
)who was a fraud, but be my guest.
Our paths split once again. I've had a lot of encounters with people that
would be labelled in various unpleasant ways by common society (I've been
there once or twice myself, justifiably on the receiving end), and usually
they teach me more than the civilians. YMMV.
)
)I wrote:
)
))To blame human actions on spirits is morally bankrupt on a bad
))day, little more than childish on a good day.
)
)Robert:
)
))Okay. Let's blame them on either emotions or reason or experience, or
)) )some combination. Then, anyone who wants to can believe our reasoning
)) )and our emotions and our experiences are influenced by some form of
)) )spiritual activity and we're all cozy.
)
)You don't see a difference? If you blame it on your own emotions or reason
)or experience, it is within you to do something about these things, or at
)least try. If you blame it on a spirit, who you gonna call?
)Diana
Doesn't really make any difference who you blame it on. Blame is beside
the point. You can complain about your shitty boss or your selfish spouse
or the guy in the apartment below you who likes to listen to "Stairway to
Heaven" when he comes home from the graveyard shift, but it all comes down
to the same thing: out of your own free will, what are you going to do with
the rest of your life?
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 07:21:47 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
)
) charlie:
) This is the full quote as far as I know,Bea.
)
) 'Steiner education recognises the child as a spiritual being. This informs
) the respect Steiner teachers have for the children;
I dont consider steiner teachers have any more respect for children than any
other teacher...some do some dont.
bea
the child won't notice
) any difference, but he or she goes to school happily,
again not neccesarily...there are many many steiner pupils who are
wretchedly unhappy
bea
and it's a very
) conducive environment to learning. Each child has a teacher who moves up
) with the class for a daily two-hour lesson, which gives the child a feeling
) of security.
security? do children feel insecure in ordinary schools?
a very conducive enviroment for learning? why? how come they dont seem to
learn anything then
bea
Yes means yes, and no means no: children look up to their
) teacher for a moral example.
again...this is a some do some dont situation again, depending on the
teacher state or waldorf.
In ordinary school does yes not mean yes?etc
bea
) Our schools have mixed-ability classes. They are not just for children with
) special needs, nor for gifted children; admission is for any child, by
) interview.
I found mixed ability in the older clases to be a nightmare, the quicker
brained ones got bored and the slower ones thought they were stupid.
In the UK, pupils follow exam curricula. Our results don't appear
) in the league tables, but they are in fact double the national average.
what!!!!! I DONT think so!!! convenient that they dont appear so you cant
check it, but when I checked it while I was at MH they had a 33% pass rate
at GCSE and the national average was 54% and they private school (middle
class advantaged families) was more like 90%
bea
Our
) curriculum is broad, but we don't believe in introducing things like
) computers too early, so there is something to look forward to;
look forward to computors...what??? why should they? what is too early?
16yrs? again disadvataged in the world with no computor skills
bea
this means
) pupils retain the enthusiasm for learning that is the essence of lifelong
) learning.'
and please, what does this mean?? do they?? is that tested??this is not what
I have experienced with my lot in their 20's and the many ex steiner pupils
who hang round my house,
bea
) warm regards,
) charlie.
charlie: this is exactly the sort of non specific nonsense which makes me
cross when I hear them spouting it, all sounds wonderful but is all fluff
no substance and definately NOT my experience with the waldorf school
I dont care about steiner, blavatsky or any of the dead ones, I'm not
interested if they're right or wrong, but I do care about the school duping
the parents with this sort of rubbish
bea
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 07:28:19 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
) charlie:
) I, too, am sure they do. To 'nurture the childrens spiritual side' is a
) pretty vague statement that doesn't say a lot. Do they mean religious side,
) mental side, moral side, or what? But to say that someone is a 'spiritual
) being' implies that they are more than an earthly human being. This is not
) just an attribute tagged on to the person, but has to do with their very
) existence.
As a novice , in fact a parent looking for an artsy progressive private
school for her children I'm afraid I wouldent destinguish the difference.
bea
)
) Bea said:
) What do you mean by "I am optimistic"? do you mean they do? or you hope they
) do? I would like you to put this "I am optimistic..." statement to the
) mothers at michael hall and they would laugh at you...
)
) charlie:
) To believe that ALL WE representatives take heed would be far too
) optimistic, but I'm sure there are a lot of dedicated, open minded people
) out there who do. It's almost worth going down to Michael Hall to see all
) the mothers laughing in unison.
I was also sure at one stage until it was proved to me otherwise by being in
the waldorf school
bea
)
) Bea said:
) ...even when I was involved in the school we didnt think anyone took any
) notice at all of our contructive criticisms and certainley DID NOT try to
) learn from it, and meeting mothers from kings langley and canterbury we
) discovered the exact same thing...
)
) charlie:
) I wonder how you phrased your 'constructive criticisms'.
) Are you speaking for all the mothers at Michael Hall, Kings Langley and
) Canterbury? Do ALL mothers who have kids at Waldorf schools find they are
) not being listened to?
How can I be speaking for ALL mothers I am only me, but this was my
impression, and believe me I did NOT want tobe disolussioned, I really
wanted to beleive waldorf was the answer, I really wanted to keep all the
rainbows and pretty ideas
bea
)
) Bea said
) ...if you are interested I will again write where i think the schools are
) NOT open and honest and I'm sure all the other EX-WE parents on here will
) too but let me say it again :it is NOT about saying waldorf recognises the
) child as a spiritual being.
) bea
)
) charlie:
) I'm sure I can find this in the previous posts, but feel free to remind us
) if you care too.
I will have to come back to this...run out of time
bea
)
) warm regards,
) charlie.
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 10:41:15 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Tarjei Straume is telling off Diana Winters:
)when you constantly express strong passions of repulsion, hostility,
)disdain, and arrogant, patronizing condescension and so on, you make
)it extremely difficult to sustain a dialogue about ideas, philosophy,
)religion, epistemology, and science, which requires an exchange of
)_thoughts_.
It needs to be said again and again that the purpose of this list is not
"dialogue about ideas, philosophy, religion, epistemology, and science".
The Waldorf critics understand enough about Steiner, Waldorf and
Anthroposophy and its effect on unsuspecting children and defrauded parents
in its schools to discuss critically the subject.
This is not a Steiner study group, like the brainwashing sessions held for
parents at Waldorf schools.
This is not about reaching accommodation with people who have very
different ideas about the Universe than the critics do.
This is not a forum for Anthroposophists to waffle on interminably with
they incoherent style of Humpty-Dumpty explanations of things metaphysical
(words mean whatever the Defenders of the Faith [DoFs -- TM] want them to
and can change at will).
This is not a place for Waldorf critics and Anthroposophists to exchange
ideas, because no SWA DoF here has ever taken on board any criticism in
such a way as to alter their cultish adherence to Steiner -- it's supposed
to be a one-way street where us poor ignorant infidels get eddicated to
just enough of the spiritual realities that we can see the error of our
critical ways.
This is not a place for SWA apologists to define the agenda and control the
discussion, as they constantly attempt to do.
This is not a place for dialogue as defined by DoFs, because that is no
real dialogue.
In the early days of this list many critics did indeed try to have a
dialogue about the things Tarjei mentions: ideas, philosophy, religion,
epistemology and science. The result was always negative because the world
view of SWA DoFs is completely immutable.
The purpose of this list is criticism from a rational point of view of
Waldorf education and the evidence for Anthroposophy's total control of it
for subversive purposes, both personal, in stealing children's minds for
the irrational world-view, and political, for control of adults' economy,
society, culture and personal freedoms.
To continually descend into wanking about the spiritual world's control of
the Universe is to debase the discussion into kindergarten for dummy
non-adherents -- which is exactly the purpose of all the DoF apologia,
along with obfuscation of the real agenda of criticism.
There will always be a ready supply of SWA foot soldiers to do battle with
the critics and waste their time, as Tarjei does.
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 10:28:35 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
)) tarjei:
))) it extremely difficult to sustain a dialogue about ideas, philosophy,
))) religion, epistemology, and science, which requires an exchange of
))) _thoughts_.
))
)) Tarjei:have you ever thought that you're on the wrong site...?
)) bea
)
) Could you please explain what you mean by that?
)
) --
) Tarjei
this is the wrong list for dialogue over these things, I for one am here
becasue I am a critic about waldorf schools, if I want to discuss philosophy
I will go to a list where they are discussing in
bea
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 21:45:23 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Robert Flannery writes:
)I agree with a lot of what you write. I agree with a lot of what Sharon
)writes. I agree with a lot of what Bea writes. But I think (my opinion,
)opinion, opinion) that the lot of you (and a lot of us who stand on the
)"other" side, as well) let too much of the strong emotional content that
)brought us here in the first place get in the way of the good points we
)make.
--
Michael Kopp:
Does "strong emotional content" refer to the content of this list as the
reason we are here, or does it refer to personal emotions?
If the latter, I wonder if you could please tell us, especially recent
subscribers who don't know your history, to whom you're a new subscriber,
something about your own "strong emotional content" that brought you to
this list?
You're a Waldorf teacher and parent, an Anthroposophist if your one-time
statement that most Waldorf teachers are, and you've been an extremely
vocal opponent of Waldorf critics for a long time.
Enquiring minds would like to know about your emotions, Robert.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 355
- Topica Digest --
Re: Sensitivity
By litvas icu.com
Re: Sensitivity
By alice javanet.com
Re: Sensitivity
By alice javanet.com
Re: Some hubris
By alice javanet.com
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By litvas icu.com
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
on or off topic?
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: on or off topic?
By litvas icu.com
Re: on or off topic?
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: on or off topic?
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Schwartz's version/was "re: The Spirit of Waldorf Ed"
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Sensitivity
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 07:47:51 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Michael asks:
)If the latter, I wonder if you could please tell us, especially recent
)subscribers who don't know your history, to whom you're a new subscriber,
)something about your own "strong emotional content" that brought you to
)this list?
I first joined the list in December of 1995, when I bought this computer.
I was in the last year of teacher training at Sunbridge, and Eugene
Schwartz was co-directing with Norman Davidson. Eugene came to us in class
one day, and began talking about the SJU list with regard to a parent from
the Cape Ann Waldorf School who was trashing her class teacher on the net.
This I had to see.
I signed on to the SJU list and waited for something to happen. Nothing,
until one day someone began talking about some "other" list (I don't recall
exactly how it was originally characterized to me). I asked for
directions, and joined in.
It was quite a different list back then. Dan was here, of course. I'm not
even sure if Debra was on-board yet. You had not yet arrived. Stephen
Tonkin (the original "snide prick", and only other waldorf teacher ever to
post regularly) was very active.
I lurked for a few weeks, and was appalled. How dare these people say such
things about the schools my children were enrolled in and I was training
for? It was all clearly so biased. There was so much projection. What a
load of stereotyping, so broad it could only be called caricature in kinder
moments!
So, I climbed on my white charger and dove right in. All my work here was
driven by the emotions of anger and happiness. I was angry at what was
being said about my beloved waldorf schools, and I was happy when I scored
what I perceived to be direct hits on the arguments of the critics.
Pretty flawed.
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 08:06:16 -0400
From: alice (alice javanet.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Robert Flannery wrote:
)
) Hello, Diana:
)
) Suppose I say, as I believe, that people should be open to learn from their
) mistakes. That statement could be construed to "potentially excuse
) anything." Is it a morally corrupt statement?
)
) I agree with a lot of what you write. I agree with a lot of what Sharon
) writes. I agree with a lot of what Bea writes. But I think (my opinion,
) opinion, opinion) that the lot of you (and a lot of us who stand on the
) "other" side, as well) let too much of the strong emotional content that
) brought us here in the first place get in the way of the good points we
(multiple snips..)
[alice here]
I wonder if you believe in rehabilitation for criminals...if they sit in
prison, for say, forty years, and eventually feel remorse and learn
something from their crime, does it make the crime justifiable?
) )Well, even accepting your theory, it would hardly make someone like
) )Blavatsky worth her cult following, if she had so little control and was a
) )puppet with evil spirits pulling her strings? I guess this is a more
) )attractive theory to occultists than that she was a blatant con artist and
) )fraud.
)
) I personally don't care if she was a blatant con artist and a fraud, if
) people can learn something positive from their experience with her work, or
) what comes out of her work (I'll head into the bomb shelter now). Maybe
) all they get is a chance to recognize a blatant con artist. That's still
) an important lesson.
)
) Part of development is about learning to filter the noise and clutter from
) the signal. Put another way, it's about learning to recognize
) manipulation. This is one of the big reasons why we try to withhold media
) from young children in waldorf schools. The marketing involved is just too
) pervasive and clever, and it takes a more mature mind to see it for what it
) is.
)
) (snip)
)
) )Here's my take on the philosophy, religion, epistemology and science at
) )issue here: To blame human actions on spirits is morally bankrupt on a bad
) )day, little more than childish on a good day.
) )Diana
)
) Okay. Let's blame them on either emotions or reason or experience, or some
) combination. Then, anyone who wants to can believe our reasoning and our
) emotions and our experiences are influenced by some form of spiritual
) activity and we're all cozy.
)
) Deal?
)
) Robert Flannery
) Spring Valley, NY
) litvas icu.com
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 08:20:21 -0400
From: alice (alice javanet.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Robert Flannery wrote:
) many snips(
It was all clearly so biased. There was so much projection. What a
) load of stereotyping, so broad it could only be called caricature in kinder
) moments!
)
) So, I climbed on my white charger and dove right in. All my work here was
) driven by the emotions of anger and happiness. I was angry at what was
) being said about my beloved waldorf schools, and I was happy when I scored
) what I perceived to be direct hits on the arguments of the critics.
)
) Pretty flawed.
[Alice here]
I am interested in your characterization of this dynamic.. it sounds
like it addresses a question that I have had concerning WE for a long
time... how are EMOTIONS viewed?
It seems to me that to deny one's emotions only leads to major illness
and repressive disorders.. and I would say that children know all to
well the shadow that particularly a class teacher is trying to hide..
What did Steiner have to say about full expression of one's human self?
Isn't it true that although heady,cognitive respectful dialogue may lead
to greater mutual understandings, to withhold the "free child" aspect of
oneself and to withhold genuine feelings would not be fully human?
Could it be that this level of self-discipline produces the sensation of
"higher consciousness" and helps one believe that he/she would be
expressing from the spiritual world?
Personally, I find that my spiritual/moral self is like a muscle and
must be exercised by example. Interacting fully, learning to recognize
and admit mistakes, checking in with all that I am, sometimes taking
time to ponder...etc.
I don't believe that my "spiritual" self could ever be expressed by
denying my human-ness..
Isn't that what the tower of Babel was all about?
just some thoughts....
alice
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 08:32:57 -0400
From: alice (alice javanet.com)
Subject: Re: Some hubris
charlie morrison wrote:
)snips(
[Alice here... weighing in...]
I guess I will add my two cents based on what I am hearing from my now
seventh grader...
) This is the full quote as far as I know,Bea.
)
) 'Steiner education recognises the child as a spiritual being. This informs
) the respect Steiner teachers have for the children; the child won't notice
) any difference, but he or she goes to school happily,
My daughter had been unhappy at her school for almost an entire school
year. Things got very bad at Christmastime - her teacher had the flu
for a few days, and camp back much changed, in her opinion. He grew a
beard, and was much more strict.. so much for consistency. the faculty
talks about "the sixth grade crisis" but they have refused to address
the "phenomenon" with the parents or come up with coping strategies to
support the class when it happens...
and it's a very
) conducive environment to learning. Each child has a teacher who moves up
) with the class for a daily two-hour lesson, which gives the child a feeling
) of security.
My daughter has felt that the main lesson is so boring.. she says that
MAYBE she learns something every three or four days.. She is SO sick of
the same thing day after day...
Yes means yes, and no means no: children look up to their
) teacher for a moral example.
Please explain how many stories of W. teachers getting pregnant out of
wedlock... having affairs, etc.
) Our schools have mixed-ability classes. They are not just for children with
) special needs,
In our school we are now faced with the dilemma of over half the class
being diagnosed with learning disabilities...One child left this year,
he was very far behind. He will attend a local school for dislexics
which costs nearly $15,000.00 per year. The rest of us left are worried
about how much extra we are paying for tutoring for our children... My
daughter will attend a local Lindemood-bell summer school tutoring
program along with quite a few others from her class...We are trying to
get the school to commit to helping these kids... maybe substituting a
spec. ed. teacher for french... but they have refused to pay... once
again, we pay above and beyond....
nor for gifted children; admission is for any child, by
) interview. In the UK, pupils follow exam curricula. Our results don't appear
) in the league tables, but they are in fact double the national average. Our
) curriculum is broad, but we don't believe in introducing things like
) computers too early, so there is something to look forward to;
This implies that there are not enough advances through technologically
based learning and/or life to keep a child interested??? I find this
statement strange...
this means
) pupils retain the enthusiasm for learning that is the essence of lifelong
) learning.'
)
) warm regards,
) charlie.
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 15:05:32 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Michael Kopp wrote:
)There will always be a ready supply of SWA foot soldiers to do battle with
)the critics and waste their time, as Tarjei does.
If my posts are a waste of your time, don't read them. When I have
written to explain Steiner's epistemology, it has been in response to
expressed misconsceptions and distortions of this epistemology. The
same goes for philosophy, religion, and the definition of science.
The initiative to discuss these topics has come from critics, time
and time again. For instance: A critic posts a quote from some
private correspondence of Rudolf Steiner about Blavatky and Sinnett.
When I explain the background for Steiner's statements by pointing to
what he has said about the topic in some of his public lectures, I
don't think I waste anyone's time more than the critic does who
posted the quote to begin with.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 15:22:55 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Diana wrote (to Robert about Tarjei):
)He was excusing Blavatasky, a known fraud and counterfeit,
Tarjei:
I do not consider Blavatsky a fraud and a counterfeit. Those claims
were not what I was talking about. I tried to explain the background
of Steiner's statements about Sinnett and Blavatsky. In Blavatsky's
case, fraud or counterfeit had nothing to do with it. Steiner
described it as a distortion of truth, but this distortion was not
deliberate in Blavatsky's case. What she believed to be true was, in
Steiner's view, error.
)from responsibility for her fraudulence and counterfeiting.
We haven't even scratched the surface of those allegations against
Blavatsky. You're probably referring to the scandalous
Mahatma-letters that were produced in conjunction with the Indian
occultists. It will take us too far off field to get into that here.
The point is that I have not raised the issue, and I have not made
any comments about Blavatsky's culpability or absence of such in this
regard.
)He said she was an honest person even though she was known to have lied;
I don't think Blavatky lied, and neither did Steiner think so. If I
tell you something I believe to be true, but that turns out not to be
true later, I haven't lied to you. I would tell you that the
information I gave you was wrong. To lie means to tell someone
something you know not to be true.
)this was due to the machinations of spiritual beings and shouldn't
)be blamed on her. Now, Robert, what would it look like to you if he
)*were* trying to excuse something? Good grief.
I just wonder what kind of teacher you would be if a child was late
for school one day and tried to offer an excuse. Good grief.
)I agree that I have a strong emotional response to the spiritual
)excuses for bad behavior,
What bad behavior ? I have not mentioned anything about anyone's bad
behavior in this thread.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 15:30:06 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
)Clara wrote:
)
))Who on this earth has ever heard of supporters of
))a scientific theory suggesting that criticizing it
))should be considered a crime ?
)
))Can religious fundamentalists who propose the
))untruthfulness of the Evolutionary theory be sued
))in court on the basis that they=B4d be slandering
))Darwin and being "disrespectful of his memory"?
Diana wrote:
)No, because this is cult behavior. As is the deep personal concern
)over where or how the man's remains were disposed of,
Nonsense. A critic claimed that Steiner was buried in "OTO regalia"
by quoting a some sensationalist author about occultism. Sune posted
a correction where he mentioned that Steiner was cremated, not
buried. "Deep personal concern over where or how the man's remains
were disposed of?" Where did you get that from?
)and the name of the clergyman who performed the service . . .
=46riedrich Rittelmeyer was one of Steiner's best friends for two
decades and the founder of CCC. His name is common knowledge.
)The man himself is reverenced, quite different from interest or
)agreement with his philosophy.
That would depend upon how you define "reverence."
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 15:34:04 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
)Tarjei wrote, about Blavatsky:
)
))It is not morally corrupt to make a honest mistakes.
Diana wrote:
)Okay. It comes down to whether you believe humans can, in fact, be
)manipulated by spirits to do things they would not otherwise do.
In the context at hand, we're not talking about _doing_ something,
but about _perceiving_ something. Perceptions can be misleading. We
are not obviously talking about the same thing here.
)To me, this is a big fat old cop-out (or sometimes it's mental illness).
Perhaps I'm mentally ill, Diana.
)To you, it's a great sacred truth. Go figure.
It comes with the pathology. The brain surgeons haven't gotten to me
yet. I'm hiding out.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 15:40:36 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
bea:
) ) Tarjei
)this is the wrong list for dialogue over these things, I for one am here
)becasue I am a critic about waldorf schools, if I want to discuss philosophy
)I will go to a list where they are discussing in
Like I pointed out in another post, it is the critics who bring up
the topic of Steiner's philosophy on this list. You're suggesting
that I should post my comments about and responses to such
philosophical posts from critics on this list, to other lists
instead. If philosophy should not be discussed here, all we need to
do is refrain from mentioning it, even in the case of Steiner.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 10:31:56 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
)[alice here]
)
)I wonder if you believe in rehabilitation for criminals...if they sit in
)prison, for say, forty years, and eventually feel remorse and learn
)something from their crime, does it make the crime justifiable?
Not in my opinion.
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 16:10:35 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
) )[alice here]
))
))I wonder if you believe in rehabilitation for criminals...if they sit in
))prison, for say, forty years, and eventually feel remorse and learn
))something from their crime, does it make the crime justifiable?
Robert Flannery:
)Not in my opinion.
Tarjei:
Is it a crime for a scientific researcher to arrive at conclusions
that are proven to be erroneous by posterity? Can this be compared to
"bad behavior" or lying, deceptions, con artistry, or to other
misdeeds that warrant prison sentences?
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 17:00:46 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: on or off topic?
The suggestion has been made that philosophy and epistemology is
off-topic for this list. The problem with this is that the repeated
claims that anthroposophy is morally bankrupt, epistemologically
unjustifiable, anti-scientific, misanthropic and so on can hardly be
commented at all if philosophy, which is closely linked to ethics,
religious history etc. is off-topic. One cannot even discuss or
comment upon the allegation that Anthroposophy is some kind of Nazi
ideology if philosophy is a non-topic that is appropriate only for
other lists.
I would like a clear and unequivocal feedback on this, because if the
philosophical and epistemological basis for Anthroposophy and Waldorf
education is not supposed to be discussed on this list, I'm outta
here.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 11:37:02 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: on or off topic?
)I would like a clear and unequivocal feedback on this, because if the
)philosophical and epistemological basis for Anthroposophy and Waldorf
)education is not supposed to be discussed on this list, I'm outta
)here.
)--
)Tarjei
I think that was an isolated comment on whoever's part.
I certainly appreciate discussions of the type outlined above (though I
have lost interest in some of the more interminably circular threads on
racism and whether or not there is a spiritual dimension to our lives).
I also would like to say that I was glad to see you participating again
when I returned. I've always enjoyed your stuff particularly.
If you left, I also think I'd understand why. Any feeling person needs a
break from this now and again (don't take that too personally if you're
long-term on the list).
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 17:42:52 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: on or off topic?
Robert Flannery wrote:
)I think that was an isolated comment on whoever's part.
Miohael Kopp says I'm wasting everybody;s time here, Bea says I
should bring my philosophical arguments to other lists because this
is not the appropriate one, and my repulsive notions have apparently
made Diana ill.
)If you left, I also think I'd understand why. Any feeling person needs a
)break from this now and again (don't take that too personally if you're
)long-term on the list).
I came back on May 11 after in connection with my translations of
Peter Normann Waage's responses to Peter Staudenmaier's articles.
What brought me back here was the layout of Staudenmaier's
"Anthroposophy and Ecofascism" in the Norwegian magazine "Humanist,"
which sported a swastika on a photo of the Goethanum and a photo of
the Nazi death camp Dachau next to a photo of a prominent Oslo
Waldorf school. In other words, I came here because Staudemnaier had
brought the PLANS smear campaign to my doorstep here in Oslo.
In the three weeks of May alone (from May 11), I wrote 250 posts. I
never intend to linger here, and I'm as tired as anyone about the
endless debates about racism and spirituality and pseudoscience and
so on. But the allegations cannot go unopposed, especially when they
are tied to Adolf Hitler.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 18:23:42 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
) bea:
)
))) Tarjei
)) this is the wrong list for dialogue over these things, I for one am here
)) becasue I am a critic about waldorf schools, if I want to discuss philosophy
)) I will go to a list where they are discussing in
)
) Like I pointed out in another post, it is the critics who bring up
) the topic of Steiner's philosophy on this list. You're suggesting
) that I should post my comments about and responses to such
) philosophical posts from critics on this list, to other lists
) instead. If philosophy should not be discussed here, all we need to
) do is refrain from mentioning it, even in the case of Steiner.
Tarjei, I did NOT say philosopy shoudent be discussed, I was responding to
you complaints about it not being a fruitful discussion
bea
)
) --
) Tarjei
)
) http://uncletaz.com/
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 18:26:32 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: on or off topic?
)
) Miohael Kopp says I'm wasting everybody;s time here, Bea says I
) should bring my philosophical arguments to other lists because this
) is not the appropriate one,
no, I suggested complaining about it was fruitless because this is a waldorf
critics list
bea
and my repulsive notions have apparently
) made Diana ill.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 17:18:55 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Schwartz's version/was "re: The Spirit of Waldorf Ed"
In a post about the recent "Education Week" article examining the debate
about whether or not Waldorf education is religious, Robert Flannery
questions my assertion that Eugene Schwartz's candor about the religious
nature of WE is commendable.
Flannery says:
((Now, I've never had any cause to believe that Eugene is dishonest, but
what makes you so quick to make him some kind of a paragon in this area?
)From my point of view, it looks as if the only qualification he needs is
that his version suits your needs, or matches your opinion. How informed
are you?))
Lisa here: Robert, I am not sure I "get" your question. In one breath, you
say that you have never had "any cause" to believe that Schwartz is
"dishonest," and then you question whether, in fact, he is.
Do you think Schwartz was lying when he stated that he lost his position
as head of teacher training because of the opinions he expressed about WE --
that it is profoundly *religious* and that the Waldorf establishment has
moved into the public sector for $$$ -- during the "debate" with Dan Dugan
more than a year ago?
You ask me how informed I am. About what? I believe I am fully informed
about what Eugene Schwartz said during the Sunbridge conference in question,
as I have the entire thing, unedited, on videotape.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 08:49:01 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Robert Flannery says:
)So, I climbed on my white charger and dove right in. All my work here was
)driven by the emotions of anger and happiness. I was angry at what was
)being said about my beloved waldorf schools, and I was happy when I scored
)what I perceived to be direct hits on the arguments of the critics.
)
)Pretty flawed.
WHAT was or is pretty flawed, Robert. Finish your sentences please.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 356
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Sensitivity
By litvas icu.com
Re: Schwartz's version/was "re: The Spirit of Waldorf Ed"
By litvas icu.com
Re: Sensitivity
By litvas icu.com
Re: on or off topic?
By litvas icu.com
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: on or off topic?
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By alice javanet.com
Re: Sensitivity
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Sensitivity
By litvas icu.com
Re: Sensitivity
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Sensitivity
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Eugene Schwartz
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: on or off topic?
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Sensitivity
By alice javanet.com
Re: Sensitivity
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Eugene Schwartz
By canndw netzero.net
Re: Sensitivity
By litvas icu.com
Re: Eugene Schwartz
By litvas icu.com
Re: Sensitivity
By litvas icu.com
Re: on or off topic?
By litvas icu.com
Re: Eugene Schwartz
By snell gv.net
Re: Eugene Schwartz
By litvas icu.com
Education Week: The Spirit of Waldorf Education
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Schwartz's version/was "re: The Spirit of Waldorf Ed"
By snell gv.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 08:46:35 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
)Robert Flannery says:
)
))So, I climbed on my white charger and dove right in. All my work here was
))driven by the emotions of anger and happiness. I was angry at what was
))being said about my beloved waldorf schools, and I was happy when I scored
))what I perceived to be direct hits on the arguments of the critics.
))
))Pretty flawed.
)
)WHAT was or is pretty flawed, Robert. Finish your sentences please.
)
My approach was pretty flawed. My sense of gratification was pretty
flawed. Being so angry about what was said on the internet was pretty
flawed.
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 08:46:57 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Schwartz's version/was "re: The Spirit of Waldorf Ed"
)In a post about the recent "Education Week" article examining the debate
)about whether or not Waldorf education is religious, Robert Flannery
)questions my assertion that Eugene Schwartz's candor about the religious
)nature of WE is commendable.
No. That's not what I was questioning.
Here's your message again, in its entirety:
)Very well done, I would say. Did anyone notice that, yet again, Eugene
)Schwarz says that he was "fired" for criticizing the way Waldorf has moved
)into the public sector, and for questionable reasons. He also reiterated how
)"religious" Waldorf education is.
)
)Reading Schwartz's words again made me want to have another discussion with
)my younger daughter's last teacher at our former WS. She *insisted* that
)Schwartz's change of position from head of teacher training at Sunbridge to
)class teacher had *nothing* to do with the Dan Dugan lecture there!
)
)If more of the Waldorf establishment were as honest as is Schwartz, Waldorf
)schools would be up front about their overtly religious nature and purpose,
)and there could be no public WS. All of us could spend the time we spend
)here on this list doing something fun, like sleeping! (g)
)
)Lisa
You're talking about Eugene's characterization of the terms of his
"firing". That's the first thing you mention, and it takes up the major
portion of the initial two paragraphs. You then compare the rest of the
waldorf movement to Schwartz, as though Eugene was a model for his ability
to discern the truth.
In my reading of this, you're making at least a strong implication that
Eugene stands as a noble beacon of the truth, unlike the rest of the
movement. All I see is that he says things you agree with, whether it
concerns religious aspects of waldorf education or the knee-jerk way in
which many in the schools react to PLANS.
)
)Flannery says:
)
)((Now, I've never had any cause to believe that Eugene is dishonest, but
)what makes you so quick to make him some kind of a paragon in this area?
)From my point of view, it looks as if the only qualification he needs is
)that his version suits your needs, or matches your opinion. How informed
)are you?))
)
)Lisa here: Robert, I am not sure I "get" your question. In one breath, you
)say that you have never had "any cause" to believe that Schwartz is
)"dishonest," and then you question whether, in fact, he is.
I'm not questioning his honesty. I do question his perspective and degree
of objectivity in this matter.
) Do you think Schwartz was lying when he stated that he lost his position
)as head of teacher training because of the opinions he expressed about WE --
)that it is profoundly *religious* and that the Waldorf establishment has
)moved into the public sector for $$$ -- during the "debate" with Dan Dugan
)more than a year ago?
He's not lying (there's no intent to deceive, so far as I am able to
discern), but all he's talking about is his version of what happened to him
in the six months following the Dugan conference. Is your acceptance of
this version as the truth a balanced approach?
Eugene is a very talented man. He's brilliant. He's a showman. His
self-image is strongly tied to these characteristics. Do you believe he's
totally objective under the circumstances, if what I've just said is also
true?
) You ask me how informed I am. About what? I believe I am fully informed
)about what Eugene Schwartz said during the Sunbridge conference in question,
)as I have the entire thing, unedited, on videotape.
I've never questioned the particulars of what words have come out of
Eugene's mouth, then or now.
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 08:47:04 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
)What did Steiner have to say about full expression of one's human self?
)Isn't it true that although heady,cognitive respectful dialogue may lead
)to greater mutual understandings, to withhold the "free child" aspect of
)oneself and to withhold genuine feelings would not be fully human?
)Could it be that this level of self-discipline produces the sensation of
)"higher consciousness" and helps one believe that he/she would be
)expressing from the spiritual world?
I have no idea how Steiner weighs in on this, though I know that equanimity
(the balancing of emotions) is a key to clear consciousness.
I don't think I've ever noticed any "higher consciousness" arising from the
denial of emotions. I've noticed the opposite.
)
)Personally, I find that my spiritual/moral self is like a muscle and
)must be exercised by example. Interacting fully, learning to recognize
)and admit mistakes, checking in with all that I am, sometimes taking
)time to ponder...etc.
)I don't believe that my "spiritual" self could ever be expressed by
)denying my human-ness..
Agreed.
)Isn't that what the tower of Babel was all about?
I don't see the connection. According the Biblical version, the Tower of
Babel was about God punishing man for his hubris.
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 08:55:51 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: on or off topic?
)Miohael Kopp says I'm wasting everybody;s time here, Bea says I
)should bring my philosophical arguments to other lists because this
)is not the appropriate one, and my repulsive notions have apparently
)made Diana ill.
)
I suppose what you're really waiting for is Dan's take on this. He usually
encourages free dialogue, but I think I know why he might want you to get
lost.
I find Dan's silences as informative as his words. It's worth it to pay
some attention to the timing of his posts.
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 15:01:51 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
bea wrote:
) ))) Tarjei
))) this is the wrong list for dialogue over these things, I for one am here
))) becasue I am a critic about waldorf schools, if I want to discuss
)))philosophy
))) I will go to a list where they are discussing in
I wrote:
) ) Like I pointed out in another post, it is the critics who bring up
)) the topic of Steiner's philosophy on this list. You're suggesting
)) that I should post my comments about and responses to such
)) philosophical posts from critics on this list, to other lists
)) instead. If philosophy should not be discussed here, all we need to
)) do is refrain from mentioning it, even in the case of Steiner.
bea wrote:
)Tarjei, I did NOT say philosopy shoudent be discussed, I was responding to
)you complaints about it not being a fruitful discussion
I did not make any such complaints. Michael Kopp did by saying I was
wasting people's time here. And you wrote:
"this is the wrong list for dialogue over these things,"
- which has nothing to do with the perceived fruitfulness of the
discussion, but with the topical contents of my posts.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 15:10:05 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: on or off topic?
I wrote:
) ) Miohael Kopp says I'm wasting everybody;s time here, Bea says I
)) should bring my philosophical arguments to other lists because this
)) is not the appropriate one,
bea wrote:
)no, I suggested complaining about it was fruitless because this is a waldorf
)critics list
)bea
If it is fruitless, critics should refrain from mentioning their
perceptions of and opinions about the philosophical, epistemological,
and religious-spiritual aspects of anthroposophy and stick to
classroom and curriculum issues only, and American law and
constitution and so on. If it is recognized to be fruitless, critics
should also refrain from philosophical arguments that seek to link
Steiner to Hitler. As long as such topics and arguments are posted by
the critics, it seems counterproductive to their cause to complain
when anthroposophists participate in such dialogues and offer other
views avout the matters at hand, and to tell them to take their
arguments elsewhere because they're off-topic.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 09:10:03 -0400
From: alice (alice javanet.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Robert Flannery wrote:
)
) )What did Steiner have to say about full expression of one's human self?
) )Isn't it true that although heady,cognitive respectful dialogue may lead
) )to greater mutual understandings, to withhold the "free child" aspect of
) )oneself and to withhold genuine feelings would not be fully human?
) )Could it be that this level of self-discipline produces the sensation of
) )"higher consciousness" and helps one believe that he/she would be
) )expressing from the spiritual world?
)
) I have no idea how Steiner weighs in on this, though I know that equanimity
) (the balancing of emotions) is a key to clear consciousness.
)
) I don't think I've ever noticed any "higher consciousness" arising from the
) denial of emotions. I've noticed the opposite.
[Alice here]
This is my point from your earlier postings, worried about the "flaws"
that you had in your initial foray onto this list..
I would say within bounds, that this speaks more to your integrating
anthroposophical thinking into your sense of self...don't you think?
) )Personally, I find that my spiritual/moral self is like a muscle and
) )must be exercised by example. Interacting fully, learning to recognize
) )and admit mistakes, checking in with all that I am, sometimes taking
) )time to ponder...etc.
) )I don't believe that my "spiritual" self could ever be expressed by
) )denying my human-ness..
)
) Agreed.
)
) )Isn't that what the tower of Babel was all about?
)
) I don't see the connection. According the Biblical version, the Tower of
) Babel was about God punishing man for his hubris.
[alice}
Wasn't it also about trying to be too "god-like" ?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 13:16:54 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Tarjei:
)I just wonder what kind of teacher you would be if a child was late
)for school one day and tried to offer an excuse. Good grief.
Well, I wouldn't buy "the spirits made me late" any more than "the dog ate
my homework." :)
)What bad behavior ? I have not mentioned anything about anyone's bad
)behavior in this thread.
The bad behavior under disucssion was lying. (I think we've covered it,
though, in terms of whether Blavatsky was a liar or not. I understand that
if you honestly *believe* the spirits manipulate people into untruths, er,
excuse me, "errors," it wouldn't be logical to call her a liar.)
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 09:46:57 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
)) I have no idea how Steiner weighs in on this, though I know that equanimity
)) (the balancing of emotions) is a key to clear consciousness.
))
)) I don't think I've ever noticed any "higher consciousness" arising from the
)) denial of emotions. I've noticed the opposite.
)
)
)[Alice here]
)This is my point from your earlier postings, worried about the "flaws"
)that you had in your initial foray onto this list..
)I would say within bounds, that this speaks more to your integrating
)anthroposophical thinking into your sense of self...don't you think?
I've felt for some time that I was something of an anthroposophist before I
had ever heard of Steiner. What I mean by that is that when I began
reading Steiner for the first time in the early '90s, I discovered that
there were many things he touched on that I had been aware of for some
years in a very personal way.
)
)) )Personally, I find that my spiritual/moral self is like a muscle and
)) )must be exercised by example. Interacting fully, learning to recognize
)) )and admit mistakes, checking in with all that I am, sometimes taking
)) )time to ponder...etc.
)) )I don't believe that my "spiritual" self could ever be expressed by
)) )denying my human-ness..
))
)) Agreed.
))
)) )Isn't that what the tower of Babel was all about?
))
)) I don't see the connection. According the Biblical version, the Tower of
)) Babel was about God punishing man for his hubris.
)
)[alice}
)Wasn't it also about trying to be too "god-like" ?
I see your point. Thank you.
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 13:21:01 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Alice:
)I wonder if you believe in rehabilitation for criminals...if they sit in
)prison, for say, forty years, and eventually feel remorse and learn
)something from their crime, does it make the crime justifiable?
Robert:
)Not in my opinion.
Tarjei:
)Is it a crime for a scientific researcher to arrive at conclusions
)that are proven to be erroneous by posterity? Can this be compared to "bad
)behavior" or lying, deceptions, con artistry, or to other
)misdeeds that warrant prison sentences?
No, but no one suggested Steiner or Blavatsky had committed crimes or should
have been imprisoned. (Actually I guess this *has* been suggested for
Blavatasky, but it wasn't what we were talking about here.) We were talking
about whether blaming the spirits for - whatever, errors, lies, whatever you
want to call it - excuses humans from accountability. (At least that's what
I was talking about, I don't think I actually understand where Alice was
going with her thoughts about rehabilitating criminals.)
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 13:24:46 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Robert Flannery:
)Suppose I say, as I believe, that people should be open to learn from
) )their mistakes. That statement could be construed to "potentially
) )excuse anything." Is it a morally corrupt statement?
Alice:
)I wonder if you believe in rehabilitation for criminals...if they sit )in
)prison, for say, forty years, and eventually feel remorse and learn
)something from their crime, does it make the crime justifiable?
I don't think they're rehabilitated if they continue to believe their crime
was justifiable. If they continue to say a spirit made them do it, they are
probably still a danger to society.
This is exactly the distinction that seems to escape Robert. If you are open
to learning from your mistakes, you will *not* go on blaming someone else.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 13:27:24 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Eugene Schwartz
Robert wrote:
)Eugene hasn't changed his tune one iota, in public or in private.
You seem surprised that he wouldn't "change his tune." Assuming he is
telling the truth, that's called integrity. Having different public and
private "truths" is dishonest - unless this is one of those "advanced"
occult matters . . . Something like this? It may *appear* to the uninitiated
that he was fired, he may even have *felt* fired, heck they may even have
said, "Clean out your desk," but of course that is only a superficial
understanding of matters. It was actually Eugene's karma, or Sunbridge's
karma, or spiritual necessities unfolding according to unseen laws . . .
Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are *not* playing these games,
I guess you are suggesting Eugene's "version" is not true.
)The more play it gets in publication, the more Eugene's version will )just
)have to stand. It's already approaching the level of folk )mythology.
So are you going to tell us the truth, or leave it at innuendo?
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 15:40:06 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Diana wrote:
)The bad behavior under disucssion was lying.
It was not. That's your own invention.
)(I think we've covered it, though, in terms of whether Blavatsky was
)a liar or not. I understand that if you honestly *believe* the
)spirits manipulate people into untruths, er, excuse me, "errors," it
)wouldn't be logical to call her a liar.)
The role of spirits or absence of such has nothing to do with the
definition of lying. If a person says something he or she is
convinced is the truth, it is not lying, even if what was said is
proven later to be untrue. It's that simple.
The topic had nothing to do with bad behavior of any kind, but with
occult research where it is easy to make mistakes. A researcher who
arrives at an erroneous conclusion that looks concvincing at the
time, does not behave badly or lie or anything else that you are
reading into this that has nothing to do with the subject or the
problem.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 13:41:00 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Robert:
)Suppose I say, as I believe, that people should be open to learn from
)their mistakes. That statement could be construed to "potentially
)excuse anything." Is it a morally corrupt statement?
I wrote:
)Learning from your mistakes is precisely the opposite of blaming them )on
)somebody else. Polar opposites.
Robert:
)That wasn't the point I was trying to make, but that's okay. It's not
)really that important.
It's my entire point, and I think it's important. It is really a very
fundamentally different world view, where unseen forces *outside of humans*
are blamed for human actions. You obviously felt it was *not* morally
corrupt since you could not see the distinction between that and "learning
from one's mistakes." If a spirit did it, it was *not* that person's
mistake. (Tarjei is correct, if one actually *believes* the spirit did it,
the person is truly not responsible, it is in fact illogical to blame the
person.) These two trains are on completely different tracks and would never
meet.
Robert:
)Well, first of all, I didn't notice Tarjei saying she lied (requiring
)intent to deceive), but I may not have read closely enough.
Splitting hairs. Of course he didn't say she lied. He describes the *same
behavior* most of us would recognize as lying as the responsibility of
certain malevolent spirits. *By definition* she did not lie. It's fool
proof. She can't be blamed.
Robert:
)I'm not in a position to say what it would look like to me if Tarjei )were
)trying to excuse something.
Well, I'm in a position. When a person says the spirits caused a person to
do something deceitful, that's trying to excuse something. The mumbo jumbo
about how complicated "advanced" occultism is would be funny except that
it's actually a dangerous line of thought.
Robert:
)Remember, I buy into a lot of this anthropop stuff, so I happen to )believe
)that just thinking nasty things is bad behavior, even if you )don't act on
)them. From the point of view of a secular empiricist, )that's nonsense.
)Nobody gets hurt, right?
It's not only nonsense, it's dangerous nonsense. It is absolutely dreadful
to raise children thinking their bad thoughts are the same as bad behavior.
Unless you happen to be a saint, and never have bad thoughts, it is
practically a road to madness or abuse. It explains a lot of the
difficulties I saw Waldorf teachers had with controlling their own anger.
Now later Alice wrote that the children are aware of the teacher's "shadow."
I watched this in the classroom. It is absolute poison for children. The
teacher spends the entire day trying to be a saint, smiling and singing
through clenched teeth, chanting platitudes to themselves and the students
to convince themselves and everyone that everything is sunny and cheerful
all the time, they feel "love," they are "holding everyone in the light"
etc. An explosion becomes inevitable, self-flagellation follows, and a new
attempt to stuff the rage down inside begins.
If the teacher cannot own his or her own emotions and thoughts, but has to
deny them or project them onto spirits, what happens is the children are
then forced to act them out. The teacher of course gets angrier still . . .
It's a very sick system.
I do realize that if you were taught as a child that your bad thoughts make
you a bad person deserving punishment, it is very difficult to change it.
But aren't anthroposophists supposed to strive? The striving seems to be
directed toward denial.
I wrote:
)If you blame it on your own emotions or reason or experience, it is )within
)you to do something about these things, or at least try. If you )blame it
)on a spirit, who you gonna call?
Robert:
)Doesn't really make any difference who you blame it on. Blame is )beside
)the point. You can complain about your shitty boss or your )selfis spouse
)or the guy in the apartment below you who likes to )listen to "Stairway to
)Heaven" when he comes home from the graveyard )shift, but it all comes down
)to the same thing: out of your own free )will, what are you going to do
)with the rest of your life?
It makes a huge difference whether you take responsibility for your own
actions or blame others. Thinkng of the serenity poem, the thing about the
courage to change the things I can change, the serenity to accept the things
I can't change, and the wisdom to know the difference? What a fantastically
different world view from anthroposophy.
The shitty boss or bad neighbor is *outside* your control, to some extent
anyway. (In anthroposophy, the shitty boss is your karma.) The distinction
here is really crucial, though I realize if you buy into karma, which can
strike at any time! there just isn't one. You aren't responsible for how
loud the guy plays his stereo, but you can take responsibility for your
*own* behavior.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 15:43:59 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
)Alice:
))I wonder if you believe in rehabilitation for criminals...if they
))sit in prison, for say, forty years, and eventually feel remorse
))and learn something from their crime, does it make the crime
))justifiable?
)
)Robert:
)
))Not in my opinion.
)
)Tarjei:
)
))Is it a crime for a scientific researcher to arrive at conclusions
))that are proven to be erroneous by posterity? Can this be compared
))to "bad behavior" or lying, deceptions, con artistry, or to other
))misdeeds that warrant prison sentences?
Diana:
)No, but no one suggested Steiner or Blavatsky had committed crimes
)or should have been imprisoned. (Actually I guess this *has* been
)suggested for Blavatasky, but it wasn't what we were talking about
)here.) We were talking about whether blaming the spirits for -
)whatever, errors, lies, whatever you want to call it - excuses
)humans from accountability.
Not according to the Bible. Not according to Buddhism or Islam. And
not according to Theosophy or Anthroposophy. Still, all these
notional systems take account of spirits influencing and acting
through humans.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 13:43:54 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: on or off topic?
Robert wrote:
)I find Dan's silences as informative as his words. It's worth it to )pay
)some attention to the timing of his posts.
Except when he's out of town and not reading his email, which I think is the
case at the moment. It's actually a pretty bad idea to read into peoples'
silences (unless of course you're talking about Sune's pointed silences when
I ask him specific questions . . . :))
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 15:49:26 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Diana wrote:
)(Tarjei is correct, if one actually *believes* the spirit did it,
)the person is truly not responsible,
Will you please stop saying that I have said things I have not said,
Diana? I said a person is not lying if he or she is convinced that it
is the truth. I have _not_ said that a person is not responsible or
culpable it he or she believes "the spirit did it."
If I indeed did say what you claim that I said, will you please quote me on it?
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 13:56:58 -0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
I wrote:
)The bad behavior under disucssion was lying.
tarjei:
)It was not. That's your own invention.
Tarjei, it's unresolvable. I call it lying, you call it channeling a spirit
who happened to be lying. The problem I see with it, is your version lets
anyone get away with anything, and you can always claim that anyone who
disputes it just doesn't have the advanced awareness to recognize the
spirits behind the scenes.
)The topic had nothing to do with bad behavior of any kind, but with
)occult research where it is easy to make mistakes. A researcher who
)arrives at an erroneous conclusion that looks concvincing at the
)time, does not behave badly or lie or anything else that you are
)reading into this that has nothing to do with the subject or the
)problem.
I guess my point is the system of belief whereby the spirits sometimes pull
peoples' strings, or manipulate their thoughts, has this potential for
excusing virtually anything. It would be impossible to determine when a
person was "lying" versus when they were simply the victim of naughty
spirits doing their mischief. If you admire this person, as you admire
Blavatsky, there would simply be nothing she could do or say that you
couldn't excuse.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 16:42:48 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
)I wrote:
)
))The bad behavior under disucssion was lying.
)
)tarjei:
))It was not. That's your own invention.
Diana:
)Tarjei, it's unresolvable. I call it lying, you call it channeling a
)spirit who happened to be lying.
Nonsense. I call it not lying only because Blavatsky was convinced
that what she wrote was true. If I tell you there's been an eartquake
in Italy because I've heard it on the news, I'm not lying to you even
if the earthquake turns out to have been in Russia. Even if the
report was right and did say Russia, I am not lying to you if I was
convinced they said Italy. Lying means deliberately saying something
you know not to be true. I'm not calling you a liar when you (or
someone else) say I've said things I did not say, because I assume
you believe it's true.
)I guess my point is the system of belief whereby the spirits
)sometimes pull peoples' strings, or manipulate their thoughts, has
)this potential for excusing virtually anything.
If that is the problem, all theistic religions and similar notional
systems share it. It's a matter of interpretation. I do not share
your conclusions from the premises at hand.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 10:52:11 -0400
From: alice (alice javanet.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Robert Flannery wrote:
)
) many snips(
) I personally don't care if she was a blatant con artist and a fraud, if
) people can learn something positive from their experience with her work, or
) what comes out of her work (I'll head into the bomb shelter now). Maybe
) all they get is a chance to recognize a blatant con artist. That's still
) an important lesson.
)
) (snip)
)
[Alice here]
I think that what I am questioning is whether or not someone can
eventually learn from a bad experience justifies anyone's criminal
behavior.
Is it just sour grapes when one has been duped? Lemons into lemonade?
Of course it is part of healing and removal from the victim role after
one has been harmed, to value the learning that came from being harmed..
but does it justify the existence of the criminal and their evil OR
misguided intentions?
I suppose it is a deeper philosophical question of why evil
exists...didn't Steiner lecture on that too?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 17:05:30 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
Alice wrote:
)I suppose it is a deeper philosophical question of why evil
)exists...didn't Steiner lecture on that too?
"The Origin of Suffering and the Origin of Evil, Illness, and Death,"
three lectures in Berlin, Nov.8 and 22, and Dec. 13, 1906, GA #55.
Because this subject is apparently off-topic for this list and may
lead to the waste of time for its subscribers, I recommend that its
further pursuit should be taken off-list or to another list.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 11:08:36 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: Eugene Schwartz
Diana to Robert F:
) Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are *not* playing these
games,
) I guess you are suggesting Eugene's "version" is not true.
)
...or not *completely* true...
) )The more play it gets in publication, the more Eugene's version will
)just
) )have to stand. It's already approaching the level of folk )mythology.
)
) So are you going to tell us the truth, or leave it at innuendo?
Robert, as a board member (or former board member) at Sunbridge, is limited
in what he can say. Speaking purely from conjecture, I can think of a
variety of "other" things that may have entered into Eugene Schwartz'
removal as director of teacher training, even if one large contributing
factor was his talk in November of 1999.
Examples (all hypothetical, but possible) could be:
-- he may have been fighting with the board of Sunbridge already about this
and that,
-- the teacher training programs may have been "underperforming" and he may
have been in trouble over that,
-- complaints from school over Sunbridge graduates
-- Perhaps the class teacher job at Green Meadow opening up gave Eugene the
impetus to *not* smooth things over with aggrieved parties after the speech.
David
NetZero Platinum
No Banner Ads and Unlimited Access
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://www.netzero.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 12:03:38 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
)Robert Flannery:
)
))Suppose I say, as I believe, that people should be open to learn from
)) )their mistakes. That statement could be construed to "potentially
)) )excuse anything." Is it a morally corrupt statement?
)
)Alice:
)
))I wonder if you believe in rehabilitation for criminals...if they sit )in
))prison, for say, forty years, and eventually feel remorse and learn
))something from their crime, does it make the crime justifiable?
)
)I don't think they're rehabilitated if they continue to believe their crime
)was justifiable. If they continue to say a spirit made them do it, they are
)probably still a danger to society.
)
)This is exactly the distinction that seems to escape Robert. If you are open
)to learning from your mistakes, you will *not* go on blaming someone else.
)Diana
You're misreading me badly.
I wasn't and haven't been talking about blame of any sort.
I was simply talking about your view of excusing oneself in certain ways as
being morally corrupt. You were interepreting it broadly, while I'm saying
that blaming others (if you are the actor in whatever has occurred) is
counterproductive, and one should fundamentally realize what one has done
wrong and learn from it.
And yes, there are obligations beyond that realization.
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 12:03:52 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Eugene Schwartz
)Robert wrote:
)
))Eugene hasn't changed his tune one iota, in public or in private.
)
)You seem surprised that he wouldn't "change his tune." Assuming he is
)telling the truth, that's called integrity.
This is the same point I was trying to make with Lisa. Why do you assume
he's telling the truth?
)Having different public and
)private "truths" is dishonest - unless this is one of those "advanced"
)occult matters . . . Something like this? It may *appear* to the uninitiated
)that he was fired, he may even have *felt* fired, heck they may even have
)said, "Clean out your desk," but of course that is only a superficial
)understanding of matters. It was actually Eugene's karma, or Sunbridge's
)karma, or spiritual necessities unfolding according to unseen laws . . .
)From what I know, it wasn't any of those things. The institution felt it
was time for a change in the structure of his existing position, given the
circumstances (and so far as I know, it had nothing to do with the Dugan
conference or Eugene's statements about the religious aspects of waldorf
education). I can speak with some authority on the matter because I have
experience in four critical areas: 1) I've been deeply involved with
Sunbridge for a number of years, 2) I was directly involved in the
conference and bringing the parties together initially, 3) I live within
the community where all this transpired, and 4) I've been closely
associated with Eugene on a professional and personal level since 1995.
I've got coverage in the matter, which isn't approached by anyone else on
the list.
)
)
)Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are *not* playing these games,
)I guess you are suggesting Eugene's "version" is not true.
Yes.
)
))The more play it gets in publication, the more Eugene's version will )just
))have to stand. It's already approaching the level of folk )mythology.
)
)So are you going to tell us the truth, or leave it at innuendo?
)
)Diana
I've said this a number of times before, but I'll say it again.
I'm a member of the Board at Sunbridge. What I know about the situation
involves Eugene's private employment history. I have a legal
responsibility to refrain from discussing the particulars of that. Eugene
is free to say whatever he likes about it, and it is unfortunate under
these circumstances that the institution or its agents does not have the
same freedom.
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 12:04:04 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Sensitivity
)Robert:
))Remember, I buy into a lot of this anthropop stuff, so I happen to )believe
))that just thinking nasty things is bad behavior, even if you )don't act on
))them. From the point of view of a secular empiricist, )that's nonsense.
))Nobody gets hurt, right?
)
)It's not only nonsense, it's dangerous nonsense. It is absolutely dreadful
)to raise children thinking their bad thoughts are the same as bad behavior.
It's a matter of degree. I'm not saying thinking about murder is the same
as murdering someone.
Do you think thinking about murdering someone is okay? That it doesn't
make any difference, and it's not an area of concern?
How about when the clerk in the store gives you back too much change? You
notice it. You think about saying nothing and walking away with the extra
money.
If you walk, you've done something bad.
If the clerk notices his error before you start walking and asks for the
money back, are you good or bad?
)Unless you happen to be a saint, and never have bad thoughts, it is
)practically a road to madness or abuse. It explains a lot of the
)difficulties I saw Waldorf teachers had with controlling their own anger.
Are you saying that the belief that bad thoughts aren't good things leads
to problems with anger management?
)
)Now later Alice wrote that the children are aware of the teacher's "shadow."
)I watched this in the classroom. It is absolute poison for children.
You're right. It's also poison for children when they are aware of the
shadow side of their parents, and their ministers, and their day-care
providers. The thoughts and morality and worldview of everyone in steady
contact with a child affects that child in some way. Sometimes it's direct
and obvious; sometimes it's communicated indirectly, in an unseen way. You
might even describe it as spiritual activity, if you were so inclined.
)The
)teacher spends the entire day trying to be a saint, smiling and singing
)through clenched teeth, chanting platitudes to themselves and the students
)to convince themselves and everyone that everything is sunny and cheerful
)all the time, they feel "love," they are "holding everyone in the light"
)etc. An explosion becomes inevitable, self-flagellation follows, and a new
)attempt to stuff the rage down inside begins.
I agree with you, but I don't see many teachers faking it. Most everyone
I've come into contact with teaches primarily because they love children,
so their time in the classroom is their best time of the day, even if they
have other problems.
The type you're describing shouldn't be teaching at all, at least until
they get their life straightened out.
)
)If the teacher cannot own his or her own emotions and thoughts, but has to
)deny them or project them onto spirits, what happens is the children are
)then forced to act them out. The teacher of course gets angrier still . . .
)It's a very sick system.
I know no one who has an emotional problem and attributes it to spirits. I
haven't even heard of anyone who does this, save psychotics.
)
)I do realize that if you were taught as a child that your bad thoughts make
)you a bad person deserving punishment, it is very difficult to change it.
)But aren't anthroposophists supposed to strive? The striving seems to be
)directed toward denial.
I don't see that this has anything to do with anthroposophy. I think it
has a lot to do with Catholicism, though; or perhaps your version of
anthroposophy.
)
)I wrote:
))If you blame it on your own emotions or reason or experience, it is )within
))you to do something about these things, or at least try. If you )blame it
))on a spirit, who you gonna call?
)
)Robert:
))Doesn't really make any difference who you blame it on. Blame is )beside
))the point. You can complain about your shitty boss or your )selfis spouse
))or the guy in the apartment below you who likes to )listen to "Stairway to
))Heaven" when he comes home from the graveyard )shift, but it all comes down
))to the same thing: out of your own free )will, what are you going to do
))with the rest of your life?
)
)It makes a huge difference whether you take responsibility for your own
)actions or blame others. Thinkng of the serenity poem, the thing about the
)courage to change the things I can change, the serenity to accept the things
)I can't change, and the wisdom to know the difference? What a fantastically
)different world view from anthroposophy.
I've been there, so I know this one, too. The conclusion you reach about
anthroposophy above is simply the conclusion you reach about your version
of anthroposophy.
One of the most beautiful things about anthroposophy is that it is
materially different for every person who comes into contact with it. It
quickly becomes deeply personalized.
)
)The shitty boss or bad neighbor is *outside* your control, to some extent
)anyway. (In anthroposophy, the shitty boss is your karma.) The distinction
)here is really crucial, though I realize if you buy into karma, which can
)strike at any time! there just isn't one. You aren't responsible for how
)loud the guy plays his stereo, but you can take responsibility for your
)*own* behavior.
)
)Diana
I've certainly no problem with any of that.
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 13:35:15 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: on or off topic?
)Robert wrote:
)
)
))I find Dan's silences as informative as his words. It's worth it to )pay
))some attention to the timing of his posts.
)
)Except when he's out of town and not reading his email, which I think is the
)case at the moment. It's actually a pretty bad idea to read into peoples'
)silences (unless of course you're talking about Sune's pointed silences when
)I ask him specific questions . . . :))
)Diana
I've known any number of occasions when Dan has been out of town and posted
from his laptop connection. Don't excuse him (smiley face).
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 15:42:58 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: Eugene Schwartz
))Robert wrote:
)I've said this a number of times before, but I'll say it again.
)
)I'm a member of the Board at Sunbridge. What I know about the situation
)involves Eugene's private employment history. I have a legal
)responsibility to refrain from discussing the particulars of that. Eugene
)is free to say whatever he likes about it, and it is unfortunate under
)these circumstances that the institution or its agents does not have the
)same freedom.
Debra:
First, Robert, a big welcome back! I hope your school year went well.
Second, I have served on several boards and I understand and respect your
position. You CAN'T discuss it. Period. Eugene doesn't seem to be holding
any grudges, and I suspect his maverick personality brings many challenges.
That said, Schwartz's position matches PLANS position in many areas. It is
difficult not to hold him up as a good example of the forthrightness many
of us wish was standard in Waldorf's sales pitch.
I got the nonsectarian speech that went on to make all the usual claims
about art/music/preserving childhood. (I mean, who wouldn't want their kids
to knit?) What we were told and what we experienced was very different. The
difference was Anthroposophy, the hidden secret of the faculty. (Much later
a teacher told me Anthro was hidden on purpose because "this community
doesn't support Anthroposophy.")
Earlier you wrote about the frustration of many of the critics anger which
makes discussions difficult. Robert, how much more invasive can a group
get? How angry would you be if you believed that someone *tricked* you
into *allowing* them to *harm* your children? Many of us believe Waldorf
truly did harm our children. Can you not understand in the least bit WHY
the anger exists? Do you believe Anthroposophy has any responsibility for
the survivors?
I think many Waldorf schools justify everything with "karma."
Anthroposophy's version of karma allows many things to happen that
shouldn't occur in any classroom or any playground. "Karma" can be used to
justify gross negligence too easily.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 23:24:40 -0400
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Eugene Schwartz
)))Robert wrote:
))I've said this a number of times before, but I'll say it again.
))
))I'm a member of the Board at Sunbridge. What I know about the situation
))involves Eugene's private employment history. I have a legal
))responsibility to refrain from discussing the particulars of that. Eugene
))is free to say whatever he likes about it, and it is unfortunate under
))these circumstances that the institution or its agents does not have the
))same freedom.
)
)Debra:
)
)First, Robert, a big welcome back! I hope your school year went well.
)Second, I have served on several boards and I understand and respect your
)position. You CAN'T discuss it. Period. Eugene doesn't seem to be holding
)any grudges, and I suspect his maverick personality brings many challenges.
)That said, Schwartz's position matches PLANS position in many areas. It is
)difficult not to hold him up as a good example of the forthrightness many
)of us wish was standard in Waldorf's sales pitch.
Thanks, Debra. I agree completely with your last sentence.
The real problem I have with embracing Eugene is this business about "he
was fired because he brought Dugan in." That (or something similar) keeps
popping up on this list and through Eugene's own pronouncements. I'm
certain he believes it to be true.
However, if you accept that as fact, it gives the impression that waldorf
is not willing to look at itself critically (another bomb shelter comment
here, so I'm leaving the door ajar). That's simply not the case.
Sunbridge received several significant donations in the weeks following
Dan's visit--the donors were specific in saying the reason for their
largesse was the Dugan visit, that they appreciated the openness and the
willingness to hear opposing points of view. Many teachers and
administrators spoke to either myself or Eugene about how much they
appreciated Dan being here. I didn't hear a single negative comment
(though I did hear secondhand about one knee-jerk reaction from a teacher I
would characterize as extremely dogmatic).
To give the impression that the movement was appalled by Dan's visit is
wrong. That said, I'm certain that some of the "old guard" didn't like it
a bit. Fortunately, that didn't include anyone in a decision-making
capacity at Sunbridge.
)
)I got the nonsectarian speech that went on to make all the usual claims
)about art/music/preserving childhood. (I mean, who wouldn't want their kids
)to knit?) What we were told and what we experienced was very different. The
)difference was Anthroposophy, the hidden secret of the faculty. (Much later
)a teacher told me Anthro was hidden on purpose because "this community
)doesn't support Anthroposophy.")
While I don't think that last comment represents a general condition in
most waldorf schools, I do think we have to take a harder look at how we
present ourselves to the paying customers (better yet, the *potential*
paying customers). In that, we are in perfect agreement. I think most
waldorf supporters on this list would also agree.
)
)Earlier you wrote about the frustration of many of the critics anger which
)makes discussions difficult. Robert, how much more invasive can a group
)get? How angry would you be if you believed that someone *tricked* you
)into *allowing* them to *harm* your children? Many of us believe Waldorf
)truly did harm our children. Can you not understand in the least bit WHY
)the anger exists? Do you believe Anthroposophy has any responsibility for
)the survivors?
I don't think I was talking about feeling frustrated with the anger of the
critics. I was limiting my comments to my own anger, and that was related
to what I saw and see as overblown and ridiculous attacks that have more to
do with emotion than reality. Don't get me wrong--I take a lot of this
stuff to heart--but I think there are many things that come over on this
list as criticism that are simply fantasies, or exaggeration that is so
pronounced as to be fantastic.
I should also add that I believe some situations describe misunderstandings
or failures in communicating that began in a school and continue to have a
life here. You can see how easily we misunderstand one another on this
list, so why wouldn't it also happen in a school setting, where children
are directly involved and ratchet up the emotional stakes?
I don't have any difficulty understanding why you, or those with similar
experiences, are angry. That's why I can respond with a certain amount of
empathy to angry or dismissive posts--I'm generally sympathetic. I've
never experienced most of what you and others describe, but I've been on
the receiving end of some things that have shown me the dysfunctional side
of waldorf education. I know we've got plenty of work to do before the
education is truly living up to its potential, across the board. There are
communication issues, and there are quality-control issues.
)
)I think many Waldorf schools justify everything with "karma."
)Anthroposophy's version of karma allows many things to happen that
)shouldn't occur in any classroom or any playground. "Karma" can be used to
)justify gross negligence too easily.
If karma is used to excuse any negative behavior, its wrong. If karma
promotes negligence, its wrong.
I've heard a couple of stories of "karma" being used as part of a pick-up
line by anthropops, but I have no experience with karma being used to
justify playground or bullying issues. I understand that some here have
had different experiences, and I'm sorry for that. If I ever saw it
happening or heard of it happening where I was employed, I'd have something
to say about it pretty quickly and strongly.
Robert Flannery
Spring Valley, NY
litvas icu.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 21:33:27 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Education Week: The Spirit of Waldorf Education
Education Week, June 20, 2001
http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=3D41Waldorf.h20
The Spirit of Waldorf Education
By David Ruenzel
Grass Valley, Calif.
=46or a small but growing number of critics, the allure of public
Waldorf schools is profoundly deceptive.
The K-8 Yuba River Charter School here is, like many Waldorf schools,
a place of astonishing beauty. Located in the heart of gold-rush
country in the foothills of the Sierras, the wood-paneled school and
pristine grounds, shaded by pine and fir trees, are more reminiscent
of a Zen retreat than a public school. Inside classrooms painted in
the soft pastels of sky and clouds are luxuriant student paintings of
flowers exploding with stamens; in the corridors are more student
displays, including one of exacting hexagons and pentagons. Below a
hexagon, a caption reads: "Just as in the earth's heart lies the
flower are sources that bind in form." Below, a pentagon reads:
"Since ancient times, the 5-pointed star has been a true picture of
the human being."
Outside in the grassy quad, boys and girls twirl arm in arm in a
medieval folk dance; a classmate plays the violin. When it's time to
return to the classroom, a teacher jingles a bell.
=46or the parents who send their children to Yuba River, one of about
10 public schools in California-and roughly 20 nationwide-that take
the Waldorf approach, their school is a sanctuary of art, music, and
protected childhood. "This school protects the innocence," says Barry
Peake, a college professor with two children in the 250-student
charter school in Grass Valley. "And the children learn to do
everything well, from playing a musical instrument to painting."
=46ifty miles up the road at John Morse Waldorf Methods Magnet School
in Sacramento, a K-8 school of about 210 students, parent Kathy
Lazzarone concurs. "My child was in kindergarten at another public
school, getting worksheets and the alphabet pounded into him before
he was ready," she says. "Here, the children are given the gift of
childhood, beautiful artwork and fairy tales instead of junk."
Indeed, Waldorf education has received glowing national attention in
recent years-a 1999 Atlantic Monthly feature story, for instance,
described it as a unique blend of progressive and traditional
teaching methods. Other newspapers and magazines have also written
largely positive reviews of the Waldorf approach. ("A School With
Balance," Oct. 18, 1995.)
But, for a small but growing number of critics, the allure of public
Waldorf schools like Yuba River and John Morse is profoundly
deceptive. The schools, they say, may be tantalizingly beautiful, but
they are in fact abusing the freedom granted to magnets and charters
by promoting anthroposophy-which, according to the Encyclopedia
Britannica, is "a philosophy based on the premise that the human
intellect has the ability to contact spiritual worlds." The critics
see anthroposophy as a New Age, cult-like religion.
Debra Snell, a former Waldorf parent who also served as one of the
founding board members of Yuba River in 1994, likens Waldorf
education to the tale of Hansel and Gretel. "Your critical thinking
is suspended because the window dressings are so beautiful, but once
you get inside, well, anthroposophy informs every second of every
day," she says.
A loosely organized group of critics of Waldorf schools, including
Snell, filed a lawsuit claiming the Yuba River and John Morse schools
were introducing religion into classrooms, but a federal judge last
month rejected the lawsuit because the group didn't have legal
standing. The ruling is being appealed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Created by the Austrian-born scholar, spiritualist, and educator
Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) in the early 20th century, anthroposophy
is, to the outsider at least, an intimidating admixture of paganism,
Christianity, nature worship, and Zoroastrianism, the latter an
ancient religion featuring astrology and magic. Dipping into Steiner,
one reads of the soul qualities of animals, the healing qualities of
color, and the absorption of the astral body into children.
Waldorf educators insist that anthroposophy is never presented in
Waldorf public schools. Critics argue that it's implicit in the
curriculum.
In 1919, Steiner founded a school at the Waldorf-Astoria cigarette
factory in Stuttgart, Germany, for the children of workers, giving
birth to an educational movement that has grown to about 750 schools
worldwide and nearly 200 in the United States. Only about 20 Waldorf
schools are public-no organization is able to provide a precise
number- though Waldorf advocates suggest that number may grow as more
parents turn to this model of learning because they are turned off by
the increasing emphasis on standardized testing in regular public
schools. As it is, an increasing number of parents and school
districts have become interested in Waldorf education since the first
public Waldorf school was founded in Milwaukee in 1991. And, several
years ago, Rudolf Steiner College in Fair Oaks, Calif., began
training Waldorf public school teachers.
Waldorf educators insist that anthroposophy is never presented in
Waldorf public schools. But critics such as Snell argue that
Steiner's anthroposophy is implicit in the curriculum and educational
philosophy.
"One night, as we were about to say grace," Snell recalls, "my son
said to me, 'Why do we pray to the same God each night? I want to
pray to Hermes,' " referring to the god from Greek mythology who
served as a messenger to other gods.
"The mythology he was learning at the Waldorf school was treated as
fact," Snell maintains.
In 1997, Snell joined forces with a longtime Waldorf opponent, Dan
Dugan, and several others to form an organization called People for
Legal and Nonsectarian education, or PLANS. Rallying support through
a Web site that soon included a by-subscription-only "Waldorf
Survivors Support Group," PLANS has charged that Yuba River Charter
School and the John Morse magnet school espouse anthroposophy and
hence are in violation of the First Amendment clause forbidding a
government establishment of religion. In May 1998, PLANS launched a
lawsuit against their sponsoring school districts, Twin Ridges
Elementary and Sacramento Unified, respectively.
But last month, a federal court in Sacramento dismissed the lawsuit,
citing as precedent a recently dismissed Massachusetts case in which
Roman Catholic parents had sued a public school district that they
believed was engaging in New Age religious practices. The federal
judge in Massachusetts rejected the case, in part, because the
plaintiffs' children no longer attended the schools.
In a statement released by the defendants from both districts in the
California case, George Hoffecker, who oversees charter services for
the Twin Ridges Elementary School District, which includes 12 charter
schools scattered around the state and three regular public schools,
said he hoped that the recent ruling had sent a "clear signal" that
there was "no basis whatsoever for a lawsuit against these
award-winning educational programs."
Still, the arguments about whether Waldorf public schools are
overstepping their bounds are unlikely to go away soon. PLANS is now
appealing the dismissal of the California case to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 9th Circuit. It could take years to resolve the
dispute. "If this ruling stands, a school district could open a
'Catholic-inspired' charter school staffed by priests and nuns, and
no one would have the standing to challenge it," Scott Kendall, a
lawyer representing PLANS, argued in a statement released to the
press.
Some experts who are watching the case from a national vantage point
say the legal situation is highly unusual. "I don't know if I've seen
anything like this: school districts being sued for allowing schools
to follow a philosophy that is not overtly religious," says Edwin
Darden, the senior staff attorney for the National School Boards
Association in Alexandria, Va.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indisputably, Dugan is the brainchild behind both the lawsuit and the
Waldorf backlash. An erudite and soft-spoken San Francisco sound
engineer and inventor, who lives in a Spartan loft above a studio
lined with computer cables, Dugan sent his 6th grade son to a private
Waldorf school in 1987.
'Like most parents, I was impressed with the beautiful environment,
the dedicated teachers, the integration of art into everything. But
over time, I came across a number of disturbing things.'
Dan Dugan,
=46ormer Waldorf parent
Co-Founder of PLANS
That might seem like an unusual choice for a self-proclaimed "secular
humanist," but back then, Dugan says, he knew nothing about how
Waldorf education is rooted in anthroposophy. "Like most parents, I
was impressed with the beautiful environment, the dedicated teachers,
the integration of art into everything. But over time, I came across
a number of disturbing things."
Among other causes of concern was the teaching of what his son called
"baby science." He came home one day complaining that a 6th grade
teacher, in the course of a chemistry unit, had said that the four
elements were earth, air, fire, and water. That was followed, Dugan
says, by other excursions into pseudo-science: The planets influence
the growth of plants, light is "pure spirit," the heart doesn't pump
blood.
"The school had told me that they were teaching using a conventional
science curriculum, using Steiner's teaching methods," Dugan recalls.
"But this was all in fact Steiner content-anthroposophical doctrine."
The school, Dugan says, gave him an ultimatum: Stop asking difficult
questions or leave. He pulled his son out of the school after the 7th
grade and embarked upon what became a decade-long study of Steiner,
anthroposophy, and Waldorf education, collecting rafts of books and
periodicals that constitute a small library at the back of his
studio. He concluded that it was easier to split the atom than
separate anthroposophy from Waldorf education.
The prolific Steiner wrote 58, mostly esoteric books and gave more
than 6,000 lectures on a stupefying number of topics-he set out
positions on everything from medicine and agriculture to politics and
history-and so it is risky to summarize any one position. However,
his thoughts regarding Waldorf education and its relationship to
anthroposophy are perhaps most clearly spelled out in the 1924 book
The Kingdom of Childhood, a staple of Waldorf teacher training
consisting of seven talks Steiner gave to teachers in England in the
process of starting a Waldorf school. The book's introduction,
written by Christopher Bamford, the current editorial director of the
Anthroposophic Press in Herndon, Va., asserts that "there is no other
form of education which affirms the eternal being of the child in the
spiritual world before birth, which regards childhood as a gradual
process of incarnation, and sees all physical processes as the result
of spiritual powers."
Throughout The Kingdom of Childhood, Steiner explains how those
themes are to be embedded in Waldorf schools. Central is his
insistence that the child, "accustomed to the spiritual substance
from which it drew life," must only very gradually be exposed to the
concerns of the adult world. In particular, children before the age
of 7, when the loss of teeth begins to occur-a crucial event in
anthroposophy-must not deal with abstract ideas, as learning
"directly through the head" will make people "thought-tired" in later
life.
Children at Waldorf schools are given no direct reading instruction
in the early grades. Instead, instruction is oral, consisting
primarily of a steady diet of fairy tales, legends, and myths.Hence,
children at Waldorf schools today are given no direct reading
instruction in the early grades, as Steiner doctrine suggests that
premature reading can impair the soul. Instead, instruction is oral,
consisting primarily of a steady diet of fairy tales, legends, and
myths that endow everything with feeling and nourish the "instinctive
soul qualities of the imagination." Children often transcribe the
tales into a main lesson book; they also fill the books with
beautiful artwork tied to a given theme or subject.
The idea behind that approach, as Steiner put it, is that "it is
quite wrong to teach reading before writing," and that writing is
best developed from drawing and painting in which "the whole being"
is active.
Steiner also wrote that before the age of 12, children should not
hear about causes and effects; therefore, the study of "lifeless
sciences" such as physics should be postponed. Intellectual teaching
given too early can cause the child "to suffer effects in the blood
vessels and circulation."
Emphatically, Steiner stated that "one who seeks knowledge of the
human being must find it in anthroposophy." He also criticized his
supporters who "propagate an education without letting it be known
that anthroposophy is behind it."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, there is no necessary relationship between what Steiner
said in 1924 and what occurs in Waldorf schools today. Nevertheless,
a number of teachers say they left their Waldorf public schools
because of the training they received at Rudolf Steiner College or
the troubling experiences they had at their schools.
Several of those teachers, who were contacted by Education Week,
asked not to be identified, as they still teach in the sponsoring
school districts.
One former teacher, who taught at John Morse, the magnet school in
Sacramento, in the mid-1990s (the school was then called Oak Ridge),
says that she was drawn to the Waldorf program because of its
emphasis on art and music, but that she had found some of the
kindergarten training objectionable. "A lot of the training was very
nature-driven, even animistic," she recalls. "Once, for instance, we
participated in a ceremony in which we were told to 'thank' a tree,
the presumption being that there's a spirit in the tree. When I
objected, they told me that I wouldn't be successful."
She also objected to a ceremony in which birthdays were celebrated by
having the child dress in white clothing and sit upon a throne. "We
were to walk around the child as many times as he was old, while the
supervising teacher talked about the child as a 'spirit come down to
earth,' " she says. "I said that I didn't believe in reincarnation,
and I was again told I wouldn't do well."
Barbara Roemer, who taught 5th grade at Yuba River, the Grass Valley
charter school, in 1995-96 before resigning, but still works as an
occasional grant writer for the school, says that she was troubled by
some of the math and science instruction.
"Math was almost all calculation, with little time for exploring
topics like spatial concepts, or the construction of algorithms," she
says. "And anthroposophy underpins much of the science instruction.
All the texts I had in my training were Steinerian. There was also
too much emphasis on demonstration, when I felt students needed
engagement with scientific ideas."
One former teacher objected to a ceremony in which birthdays were
celebrated by having the child dress in white clothing and sit upon a
throne. Even so, Roemer emphasizes that there is much she admires
about Waldorf education that she wishes could be a part of all public
schools: the art and the music, the downplaying of standardized
testing, the reverence for nature. But she concedes that reverence
for nature, so powerful for young children, has its limitations for
older ones. "It limits what's done in the upper grades, when students
are ready for instruction in critical thinking-critical thinking that
in a Waldorf school is delayed until the 8th grade."
The school, she believes, has curtailed some of its more questionable
practices, such as the celebration of Christian festivals. At one
festival during the 1995-96 school year, for instance, she remembers
the students were given lumps of magnetite "to imbue them with the
power of St. Michael."
But it's not altogether clear that such practices have completely
stopped. In a December 2000 memo secured by PLANS, the Yuba River
school invites parents to a "Winter Solstice Candle Spiral Ceremony."
The description reads in part: "The room will be dark and filled with
a mood of wonder and quiet anticipation. ... As the group sings, each
child in turn, holding a red apple with a small unlit candle inserted
into it, slowly walks along the spiral path and lights the candle
from the center light."
PLANS hired a private detective to videotape the Dec. 21 festival,
and Dugan plays the tape on a VCR in his San Francisco home. It's
dark and grainy tape, of the old home-movie variety, but it's easy to
see the children walking along a spiral path and lighting the candle.
After viewing the tape for about 10 minutes, Dugan simply says: "You
can't do this. It's a public school."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most Waldorf public school educators contest the notion that their
schools propagate anthroposophy. "There's just nothing to it," says
Betty Staley, the director of teacher training at Rudolf Steiner
College. "Our training for public school teachers is very
conservative with regard to the First Amendment. We'll present
Steiner's ideas on child development, but that is all. Our public
school teachers don't get courses on anthroposophy and the spiritual
life unless they take them on their own."
The Waldorf teachers at John Morse, all of whom have had extensive
Waldorf training at the college, support Staley's assertions. "We all
know of anthroposophy, of course, but it never comes into the
training," says Chris Whetstone, an 8th grade teacher.
What's more, he says, he was "thinking about leaving teaching before
this Waldorf program-it's rejuvenated me. I'm emboldened to do new
things, like teaching history from my own acquired knowledge instead
of from a textbook."
This is essentially the message of all the teachers at John Morse
Waldorf Methods Magnet School: Their Waldorf training not only
provided them with a new picture of child development and innovative
teaching methods, but also re-energized their teaching careers. When
asked if they would teach somewhere else if they could no longer
teach in a Waldorf school, a roomful of teachers responds with an
emphatic "no."
As an example of how Waldorf teachers approach early writing and
teaching differently from most other teachers, 1st grade teacher Beth
Lee explains how, in a typical public school, a teacher might have
students learn the consonant "m" by having the students write out the
word "mountain" and then sound out the beginning consonant. Instead,
Lee, always working from the whole to the part, started with a
Swedish story in which the central image involved a door in the heart
of a mountain. After talking about the story, the students then drew
a mountain out of the shape of the letter "m." "Only at the very end
of the lesson," Lee says, "would I have students sound out 'm' and
write it in their lesson books."
When asked if anthroposophy could possibly creep into the teaching at
the school, kindergarten teacher Katherine Lehman exclaims, "Good
God, no!" After rolling her eyes in exasperation, she adds, "that's
just lunacy. Steiner was not writing about public schools in the 21st
century. Yes, we have to know Steiner's point of view to teach in a
Waldorf school, but that doesn't mean we follow everything he said.
And we play it very safe in terms of bringing in anything that could
be considered religious."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over at Yuba River Charter School, George Hoffecker, the director of
charter services for the Twin Ridges Elementary district, takes the
teachers' arguments a step further. He not only insists that
anthroposophy is not practiced in his district's schools, but
disputes the contention that it is a religion.
"Anthroposophy a religion? Well, that's a red herring," says
Hoffecker, sitting in the sun-dazzled school library. "Anthroposophy
doesn't have a priesthood or dogma. And Steiner himself said over and
over again, 'Don't take what I say as truth.' He was a modern-day
renaissance man who dabbled in everything. People would come to him
and say, 'What do you think about agriculture?' He'd say, 'I'll tell
you what I think, take it or leave it.'"
Hoffecker, who once studied with the famous child psychologist Bruno
Bettelheim before becoming a private Waldorf teacher and then a
school administrator, acknowledges that some Waldorf educators can be
dogmatic, but he attributes that not to Steiner or anthroposophy, but
to flawed human nature. "We look for a leader, guru, divine prophet,"
Hoffecker says. "But Steiner himself was not prescriptive-people are
prescriptive."
As an example of how someone can be a Waldorf educator without being
an anthroposophist, Hoffecker points to himself: "I embrace Waldorf
pedagogy, but I don't embrace everything Steiner said. I'm not going
to be labeled, boxed in. Look, I use Jungian psychology, too, but I
don't espouse Jung, the man, who was often racist. But that doesn't
mean we should throw out all of Jung."
Hoffecker, who has met with Dan Dugan of PLANS, says Dugan doesn't
understand how adaptive a Waldorf education can be. And he believes
the private Waldorf school Dugan's son attended could have done a
better job addressing Dugan's concerns.
During a tour through the Yuba River school and some of its
classrooms, Hoffecker, a middle-aged man with an acute intellect,
strikes up pithy conversations with everyone he encounters and uses
the language of cognitive psychology to speak of Waldorf education.
Noting, for example, how all the students play the recorder, knit,
draw, and participate in movement exercises, Hoffecker cites Howard
Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences; everyone at Yuba River,
he says, is learning in visual, auditory, verbal, and kinesthetic
ways.
At one point during the tour, Hoffecker and his visitor come across a
class of 8th graders gathered outside, on a veranda, where they are
watching their teacher conduct a sequence of chemistry experiments.
In one, the teacher is about to pour sulfuric acid into a beaker
containing water. "Sulfuric acid is 'water friendly,' that is,
attracted to water," he explains. "And so, the sulfuric acid will
take the water away."
After twice reminding his students to observe everything that
happens, paying particular attention to color changes, the teacher
pours the sulfuric acid into the beaker. This creates a small
explosion during which a dramatic transformation occurs: The water
vanishes, leaving behind only a chunk of steaming carbon. The
students are clearly impressed; several "ooh" and "ah" as they
examine the carbon and jot their observations into their notebooks.
'[A]t a Waldorf school, experience is always first, abstraction last.'
George Hoffecker,
Director of Charter Services,
Twin Ridges Elementary District
Hoffecker sees the science experiment as a kind of object lesson in
Waldorf education. "At most schools, teachers will provide the
scientific law first, but here we provide it last," he says.
"Instead, we have students minutely observe each step of the
experiment, and only at the very end will they acquire an
understanding of the law. So at a Waldorf school, experience is
always first, abstraction last."
That emphasis upon observation is vintage Steiner, who writes in The
Kingdom of Childhood "that thinking must never, never be separated
from visual experience, from what the children can see, for otherwise
intellectualism and abstractions are brought to the children in early
life and thereby ruin their whole being."
But Hoffecker says that does not mean that such an experiment is
anthroposophist or even "Steinerian." Making meticulous observation a
first principle is a legitimate pedagogical approach and, Waldorf
educators would say, an approach that can easily be divorced from
anthroposophy.
Indeed, the issue of determining what practices at the public Waldorf
schools may have their roots in anthroposophy is extremely difficult.
Much is in the eyes of the beholder.
At Sacramento's John Morse, for instance, there is a table in each
classroom that has upon it objects such as seashells, branches, pine
cones, and flowers. Waldorf teachers refer to such tables as "nature
tables," inducing in children "a feeling for nature." Dugan and other
members of PLANS, on the other hand, refer to the tables as "nature
altars," saying they are reflective of the pantheism-or a belief that
God and the universe are one and the same-that they argue is inherent
in anthroposophy.
Some teaching practices at John Morse can perhaps be interpreted as
being more rooted in anthroposophy than others. Earlier this school
year, for instance, 4th graders had just completed a standard Waldorf
unit called "Human Beings and Animals." In their lesson books, the
students had transcribed, along with pastoral lyricisms such as "Now
the gentle cows are standing knee deep in dewy grass," this
statement: "The limbs of animals are very specialized. Some are
perfect tools for digging and grasping." That notion of animals was
contrasted with this conception of people: "Human hands and feet are
the least specialized. But human hands can make tools that do
whatever animals do."
Steiner, as part of anthroposophy, spoke similarly, maintaining that
"the whole animal kingdom is a giant human being, not brought
together in a synthesis but analyzed out into single examples."
Children must come to learn that human beings have a little bit of
each animal being within them, he believed; the proper goal of each
person is "to have the proper dose of lion- ness, sheep-ness,
tiger-ness, donkey-ness, and so on."
In another classroom, there was a poem in a workbook about how a
rainbow-almost an icon in anthroposophy-could beat back an evil
dragon.
At the same time, students had also written about such common
concerns as drunk drivers and family problems, none of which appeared
to have the slightest connection to anthroposophy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Dugan and PLANS have an accidental ally of sorts in a prominent
Waldorf educator and author named Eugene Schwartz, who stirred up a
hornets' nest when he invited Dugan to a 1999 conference at Sunbridge
College, a Waldorf institution in Spring Valley, N.Y. Schwartz says
he did so because Dugan was feared as a demagogue within the Waldorf
community when, in reality, Schwartz argues, the Waldorf critic was
pointing out genuine inconsistencies within the movement. "I've
discovered that many Waldorf teachers actually agree with much of
what Dugan has to say, but are afraid of speaking out on account of
the leadership," Schwartz says.
Schwartz himself says he's well aware of the dangers of speaking out.
Shortly after the Dugan invitation, he was fired from his position as
the director of teacher training at Sunbridge College following his
criticism of the way in which Waldorf educators, in his view, were
denying the movement's religious essence in order to move into public
education.
'Anthroposophy, true enough, is not sectarian, but we're lying if we
say we're not bringing religious experiences to children.'
Eugene Schwartz,
Waldorf educator and advocate
"Anthroposophy, true enough, is not sectarian, but we're lying if we
say we're not bringing religious experiences to children," Schwartz
says. "The way a Waldorf education speaks to children evokes
religious experiences in them that are similar or identical to those
they would have in a religious setting. Anthroposophy wants to make
everything sacramental, and this can't help impacting the way we
teach almost everything."
As an example, Schwartz mentions the "three-fold human," which in
anthroposophy represents the three essential "soul forces" of
willing, feeling, and thinking. Waldorf teachers, he explains, try to
arrange each lesson so that all three soul forces are brought into
play.
As for the argument that you can be a Waldorf educator without being
an anthroposophist, Schwartz argues that the leaders of the Waldorf
movement are serious anthroposophists, and that anthroposophy