return to WCA Archive
Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By alice javanet.com
Anthroposophy quackery site on immunization / vaccination
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: who has been duped, really?
By dirtwitch sympatico.ca
Re: vaccination and allowing children to die -michael -lisa
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Anthroposophy quackery site on immunization / vaccination
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Anthroposophy quackery site on immunization / vaccination
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
For the moderator
By sune.nordwall home.se
For the moderator
By sune.nordwall home.se
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: magic and stuff
By hermit tiac.net
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: magic and stuff
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: For the moderator
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: For the moderator
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
on a clear day you really can see forever
By hermit tiac.net
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By charliemorrison btinternet.com
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: For the moderator
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: on a clear day you really can see forever
By snell gv.net
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By dirtwitch sympatico.ca
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By dan dandugan.com
Re: more on vaccinations
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 07:56:11 -0400
From: alice (alice javanet.com)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Debra Snell wrote:
)
)snips(
) syndrom. My daughter came down wth meningitus at age 13 and her temp. WITH
) tylonal was still 104 degrees. Since Tylonol isn't as effective of a fever
) reducer as asprin, I had to alternate doses of asprin and Tylonol. If fever
) reducers affected her body's ability to get rid of meningitus, so be it.
) They saved her brain.
)
) During this time, my sister in law begged me to take my daughter to her
) homeopathist. I stuck with science based medicine. I'm glad I did. Not six
) monthe later, her son got meningitus. My sister in law did as she had
) advised me to do - she took him to her homeopathist.. Sadly, his "remedy"
) (which included opium) didn't work. Life support was turned off after
) Doctors determined he was brain dead.
)
Alice writes:
What an incredibly tragic and sad story for you and your family.
My heart goes out to you.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 01:36:14 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Anthroposophy quackery site on immunization / vaccination
Dan Dugan posted this site which is about the putative dangers of vaccination.
))http://www.lachildhood.org/vac.htm
))
--
Michael Kopp offers:
I'm not sure why you would put up a reference to a quack site, Dan, without
saying that's what it is. You're too helpful to the nuts, by half.
Not only is this an Anthroposophy front, it's egregiously wrong, probably
intentionally so.
Another example of how Steiner, Anthroposophy and Waldorf kills when its
advice for quack remedies is taken.
The following section, written to make it appear that vaccines are to blame
for all these conditions, actually shows no such thing.
"According to Mark Geier, 79 % of all infant deaths under one year of age
occur within 28 days of vaccination. Similarly, 71 % of encephalophaty in
infants under one occurs within 28 days of vaccination - as does 92 % of
reported febrile convulsions, 88 % on nonfebrile convulsions, 66 % of SIDS,
and 99 % of other neurological symptoms..."
The mere fact that infants receive vaccinations frequently during the first
year makes it more likely that ANY event that happens to them will follow a
vaccine closely in time. Substitute the term "car accident" for "infant
deaths" and you'll see what I mean.
It's a logical fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc, or "after this therefore
because of this". It is assumed that because one thing follows another that
the one thing was caused by the other.
As for the rest of it, they say that MMR has been "linked" to autism (it
hasn't), misspell "encephalopathy", and the last section appears to buy
into AIDS "heresy", ["HIV (chemotherapy"] i.e., HIV does not cause AIDS.
(We've been down that track on WC before with an AIDS denier graduate of a
Waldorf high school, Ezra Beeman, who has a fancy for Peter Duesberg's
quack science; despite a post of some hundred citations of evidence, no
Anthropop or Waldorfian on this list changed their opinion in favour of
Duesberg.)
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 10:11:01 -0400
From: Kerry Eady (dirtwitch sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: who has been duped, really?
Yup its called sing through the day. It was published in 1969 and is a
compilation of older songs from around the world.
I've also seen it in collections of nursery rhymes and circle time activities
collected by public school teachers - uncreditted.
Christopher Yavelow wrote:
) I was a student then and have many songbooks from the era since I am
) a professional music educator. I don't recall ever seeing that song.
) Could you provide a reference?
) To answer your question about "Dandy lion yellow as gold what do you
) do all day?" -- Yes, if could have started out being "just a song
) like it was..." but, like children who started out innocent (just a
) child like they were), once the Anthroposophs got hold of it, it is
) no longer "just a song," but rather, a tool for indoctrination.
)
And I think this is complete paranoia considering how few children ever come in
contact with anthroposophy, waldorf or steiner, yet how many have
been exposed to
the dandelion song. I think this totally undermines the legitimate concerns of
plans and makes you look more nutty than the "steiner says" anthropods.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 09:37:00 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: vaccination and allowing children to die -michael -lisa
Michael - I don't think you're getting what I'm saying.
) )DL says: Michael, you're right - they do seem mutually exclusive. But
)your
) )asking for someone to prove karma via scientific methods would be the
)same
) )as asking you to prove that your experiments are valid in a spiritual
) )method.
) )
)Michael replies:
)No, that argument only works in irrational relativism. That's what your
)cult did to my kids: made them think that any argument is as good as any
)other one, and that all arguments are therefore valid. Steiner, Waldorf and
)Athroposophical students (of all ages, not just the brainwashed school
)kids) are fond of saying: "You can't prove it isn't so ..."
DL replies: I never said "You can't prove it isn't so ..." - I said asking
someone to prove the NON-rational via the rational is like trying to prove
the RATIONAL via the non-rational. By the way - when did it become MY cult?
If I was truly a cult member (which I'm not), I would never have read or
even considered the posts from Diana re: Steiner and Racism (which I did, I
assure you). I've never had a blind loyalty to Waldorf. YOU seem however
to have a blind loyalty in the other direction.
Michael said:
)I never said science was precious. I said it works, it is able to
)demonstrate evidence, it is repeatable, and it changes and moves on, which
)you seem to find a disqualifier.
DL: Never said you said it was precious. BUT - that is the impression I got
as to your attitude towards it. And I don't believe that science changes
disqualifies it - but it's a good reason to not hold the "truths" from
science as "Truths." Science is also relative. What was "True" a couple of
hundred years ago - may not be True today.
Michael:
)The expression that matter is energy is an oversimplification and
)reification of the science. This is just what mystics want: use science to
)"prove" mysticism.
DL: No - that's what you seem to want Michael. That we mystics use science
to prove what we know to be true is actually true. Seems like a damned if
you do, damned if you don't scenario.
Michael wrote:
)Science doesn't "believe" anything; it postulates and hypothesises and
)falsifies and moves on.
DL: Correct - it doesn't "prove" anything - it just continually disproves.
Michael:
)It is not just another way of looking at the same world -- and your
)attempts to use it to prove that the irrational, I-created world is real
)are sly but not at all convincing.
)
)It's not a case of Western science confirming Eastern mystical cosmogeny;
)it's a case of mysticism's allegories and metaphors -- ancient attempts to
)make sense of the world -- seem as if they were real, and not simply
)thought.
DL: And how is that different from those firmly (and only) rooted in science
(if I can't see taste hear, etc it; then it doesn't exist) - they are also
just trying to make sense of the world. Different paths.
Michael:
)I do not think that science will admit that matter is imaginary or an
)illusion.
)
)But, as I have said before, if that happens, it will be demonstrable by
)evidence, and therefore totally natural, not supernatural. Or it won't be
)science.
DL: It's amazing that you continually come back to this. Are there not any
occurances that you know of that can't be explained scientifically?
Basically what I get from you is "when mysticism becomes science, I will
accept it."
)Michael says:
)We're here to deconstruct -- not study, as in learn or appreciate, but
)deconstruct -- Steiner, Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education. We want to do
)that because we've found it deceitful, brainwashing, fraudulent,
)irrational, pseudo-scientific, fascist, rigid, and so many other negative
)things, all of which have affected our children negatively.
)
DL: Or we're here because (from the plans website regearding this list):
Intended to be a networking resource for parents, teachers, school boards
and reporters interested in Waldorf education, as viewed from outside the
cult of Rudolf Steiner. It is a free-speech forum; subscription is open to
the public and postings are not reviewed. The important rules are that the
topic must be Waldorf or Anthroposophy, and that personal attacks are not
permitted.
Typical contents include: Discussions of the curriculum. The role of
Anthroposophy in Waldorf. Real science and medicine vs. quack science and
medicine. Sharing of Waldorf horror stories. Anthroposophists "defending the
faith" against PLANS philosophy warriors. News and articles about Waldorf
controversies worldwide.
Hmmmm....where was "deconstruct" in that? Must have missed it. Oh by the
way - did you happen to notice the last part of the first paragraph? Here,
let me make it easy for you: "personal attacks are not permitted. "
)Michael:
)We're here to warn others about it because it lies, cheats and steals their
)children and money and lives, and to try to keep it out of public
)education.
)Other than those goals, we couldn't care less about dialogue with
)irrationals.
)Stick to the topic of the list, D.L.
DL: I am. And how preumptious of you to speak for everyone on the list.
Everything I post has relevance to the topic. If not in the what, then to
the how. And if the "how" wasn't important, there wouldn't be even the one
guideline - it would be a no-holds barred list. If someone misquotes me -
that is relevant because it afffects the discussion - it can lead to
misperception of what what actually said.
Michael:
)Oh, and one other thing: I never said I won't accept anything unless it
)"can be proven scientifically". Never in six years. What I say about all
)things that I question the existence of is "show me the evidence".
)
DL: Again - never said you said that. Read the posts carefully. PLEASE!
But do you see the contradiction?
You said "I never said I won't accept anything unless it "can be proven
scientifically" and in the same paragraph you need to be shown the evidence.
Is there anything that you accept that can not be proven scientifically?
Michael - subscriber to the great god of "science is all there is" - try
this on. In my acting classes, we do an exercise where one actor is
blindfolded and the other stands about 3-4 feet away and either pushes or
pulls energy towards them. This causes the blindfolded actor to move AND
they move in relation to the push or pull. There is no touch. There is no
sound to guide them. Yet they feel it. This is the same energy/experience
as when one walks into a room and can pick up on the fact that there was
just a fight. I think in the 60's they were called "vibes." How do you -
with science - explain these types of things? What do you do with these
types of occurances that can not be explained scientifically?
Shalom
A figment of your imagination
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 09:40:32 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Michael wrote:
)Only the cult adherent of quackery says that science has to prove that a
)specific child who died without scientific treatment would not have died
)with scientific medicine.
)
DL says: I'd agree. Know anyone who said that?
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 09:54:11 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy quackery site on immunization / vaccination
Michael wrote:
)Dan Dugan posted this site which is about the putative dangers of
)vaccination.
)
) ))http://www.lachildhood.org/vac.htm
) ))
)
)--
)Michael Kopp offers:
)
)I'm not sure why you would put up a reference to a quack site, Dan, without
)saying that's what it is. You're too helpful to the nuts, by half.
)
)Not only is this an Anthroposophy front, it's egregiously wrong, probably
)intentionally so.
)
DL: Michael - do you actually read the posts or just click on links? Heres
how Dan's post went:
)Dear friends, here is the anti-vaccination misinformation site of Alliance
)for Childhood, a Waldorf/Anthroposophy front organization:
)http://www.lachildhood.org/vac.htm
)-Dan Dugan
DL continues.... What part of "misinformation site" or "Anthroposophy front
organiozation" did you not get?
Curious
Figment
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 03:17:59 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophy quackery site on immunization / vaccination
)DL: Michael - do you actually read the posts or just click on links? Heres
)how Dan's post went:
)
))Dear friends, here is the anti-vaccination misinformation site of Alliance
))for Childhood, a Waldorf/Anthroposophy front organization:
)
))http://www.lachildhood.org/vac.htm
)
))-Dan Dugan
)
)
)DL continues.... What part of "misinformation site" or "Anthroposophy front
)organiozation" did you not get?
)
)Curious
)
)Figment
Actually, when I wrote that, the post had been out of mind and sight for
some time, and I was reacting to a note from a friend who did not quote all
of what Dan wrote.
Now here's a curious thing: an Anthropop Defender of the Faith standing up
for Dan Dugan. Boy, is he in trouble when he needs the help of a fig newton.
Cheers from Dogzone,
Michael Kopp
The Antipodes
--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 18:23:33 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: For the moderator
Michael Kopp wrote:
) Now here's a curious thing: an Anthropop Defender of the Faith standing up
) for Dan Dugan. Boy, is he in trouble when he needs the help of a fig newton.
After what level of personal attacks and ad hominems in terms of number and
seriousness does Mr Kopp get bumpted from the list - for good this - third?
fourth? - time?
10? 30? 100? 1000?
Or he has an unlimited credit?
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, 15 Aug 2001 18:24:58 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: For the moderator
Michael Kopp wrote:
) Now here's a curious thing: an Anthropop Defender of the Faith standing up
) for Dan Dugan. Boy, is he in trouble when he needs the help of a fig newton.
After what level of personal attacks and ad hominems in terms of number and
seriousness does Mr Kopp get bumped from the list - for good this - third?
fourth? - time?
10? 30? 100? 1000?
Or he has an unlimited credit?
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, 15 Aug 2001 16:59:13 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Why is it there are no anthroposophists willing to actually explain and
defend their beliefs here when subjects such as vaccination come up?
Wouldn't it go something like this:
*******
Anthroposophists oppose vaccination because it is considered to have various
ill effects on a person. Some of these ill effects other opponents of
vaccinations also discuss, such as supposed weakening of natural immunity.
(Debatable, but a legitimate argument to put forth. How come no one's
putting it forth?) Other of these effects are spiritual in nature. The
childhood diseases that formerly killed many children are considered to be
strengthening experiences - not just physically but also spiritually - for
those who survive them.
Further, though it must be admitted that some children will die from
diseases that vaccination can almost always prevent, there are spiritual,
karmic reasons those children would die in those circumstances. Vaccines
interfere with the natural unfoldings of peoples' karma according to
spiritual laws.
A child who dies an early death, though this is very sad, dies for a reason.
We all bring whatever tragedies and illnesses we experience on ourselves,
for reasons known to our "Higher Self." This is no less true of children
than adults. The child is *choosing* to leave early. He or she has completed
the tasks they chose for themselves in this incarnation. He or she needed
the experience of this terrible suffering in order to improve as a person,
either to make up for past mistakes and character flaws or as a way of
preparing him- or herself for challenges he or she will face in future
incarnations.
**********
Now, Joel or someone will probably bitterly rip this to shreds because I've
left something out, or the terminology will be slightly "off" and will show
I am not actually hanging around with anthroposophists these days (and
Michael will think I've decided to become an anthroposophist). :) But if any
of the true believers here can show where this substantially distorts
anthroposophy, I'm all ears.
Instead we hear:
"Are you sure Waldorf teachers are usually anti-vaccination and discourage
parents from vaccination? How do you actually *KNOW* this?" (Answer: They
told us.)
"Must have just been your school."
"You don't understand anthroposophic medicine. It's very complicated."
"You can't prove Steiner actually said 'let them die'." (Why not defend the
fact that you believe letting them die is the correct course?)
or blatant denial: "You're lying." (Answer: We are not lying. Grab the
nearest Waldorf teacher and ask her if she is pro- or anti-vaccination.)
It would leave much less of a bad taste in the mouth if anthroposophists
would proudly and enthusiastically state what they believe is best for
children - that they not be vaccinated - and answer the questions, so people
understand the religious beliefs that this is based on. There are plenty of
people who agree with all of this unashamedly, or choose not to vaccinate
for other reasons, and they will be very happy having their children in the
anthroposophic system. And you would be improving your public image
immensely by demonstrating the integrity to stand up for your own beliefs.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:37:49 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Bea wrote:
) my younger children have never had antibiotics or aspirin, I have found
when
) necessary herbal remedies have been very appropiate, I was brought up
myself
) with a homeopathic doctor and found they didnt always work. When I was at
) the waldorf school they frowned on me using herbal remedies and insisted
) that the only way was the anthroposophical remedies, I tried the
erisidoron
) and melissa compounds and creams I was given to rub on at different moon
) cycles, but was not impressed, but I am of the belief that the body should
) be given a chance to heal itself
) bea
charlie:
Good for you, Bea. I wish I could say the same for my kids re antibiotics. I
am not saying that I think antibiotics should never be used, only that they
have been vastly overused. I also agree with your last statement.
warm regards,
charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:12:00 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
diana wrote:
)
) It would leave much less of a bad taste in the mouth if anthroposophists
) would proudly and enthusiastically state what they believe is best for
) children - that they not be vaccinated - and answer the questions,
it was no secret at michael hall school, we knew that no anthro mum would
dream of vaccinating their children, and frowned on any children who were
vaccinated, we had parents evenings about it. We had a measles epidemic in
the community because the children werent vaccinated, but at least it helped
them all incarnate - How I wish I could see a child who hadnt incarnated
well - does any waldorf folloewr here know how it actually affects the
children that arent incarnated properley?
bea
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 23:15:32 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Diana wrote:
)Why is it there are no anthroposophists willing to actually explain
)and defend their beliefs here when subjects such as vaccination come
)up?
That would depend upon whether or not there are anthroposophists on
the list with beliefs about vaccinations. (I don't have any.) On the
website that was posted, there is an article by Richard Moskowitz,
M.D. Looks like a topic for medical doctors to me. My suggestion is
that the topic is discussed by quoting various preferred doctors. "My
doctor is smarter than your doctor" and so on. It sure beats playing
doctor.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 18:16:56 -0400
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: magic and stuff
mysplum wrote:
) Regarding a deep discussion with you Joel, I'm sorry that you asked me this
) now, a bit late, as I would have enjoyed nothing more than to have a long
) and meaningful chat. Unfortunately my time on "W critics" will be cut short
) and sporadic for a while because I am now a student of religious studies at
) university. I want to be an expert on mystery cults and I will be devoting
) my time to serious study. I shall miss the fun and games here, and will
) check in now and again, but I haven't the time I used to have.
Dear Sharon,
well, you are going on quite an adventure. as to being an atheist, I
was certainly an agnostic/almost athesit when I started having spiritual
experiences and had to re-examine everything. all roads lead home.
you might want to eventually get a copy of Meditations on the Tarot: a
journey into Christian Hermeticism. Even if you don't buy its central
religious thesis, it remains a remarkable discussion of many spiritual
and religious thinkers.
again, good luck on your journey,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 15:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Diana imagining a conversation
) Further, though it must be admitted that some
) children will die from
) diseases that vaccination can almost always prevent,
) there are spiritual,
) karmic reasons those children would die in those
) circumstances. Vaccines
) interfere with the natural unfoldings of peoples'
) karma according to
) spiritual laws.
Dottie
Firstly, we are still waiting for the quote, and it
doesn't have to come from just Lisa, who is
overwhelmed at the moment, it could come from one of
those who support her, like you Diana or Michael, but
like I said you are not going to find that quote. All
that is going on here is deflection.
And to the unsuspecting eye, your neat little
explanation of how Anthroposophists speak, DOES NOT
say that Dr. Steiner says "do not interfere with a
cure in order to save your child from a serious
illness" as was claimed.
Diana again
) A child who dies an early death, though this is very
) sad, dies for a reason.
Dottie
Diana, if you do not understand the concept of Karma,
as it is written by many Spiritual teachers, why
comment on it? It is one thing to disagree but quite
another to speak as if you understand it when clearly
you only have disdain for it. ( I think this is the
bias that DL is speaking of, and its not just a
Waldorf thing,so you can't complain he doesn't
understand how you and others have been victimized, it
is a universal spiritual understanding to those who
wish to contemplate it)
And it is a far stretch of the imagination to connect
it to Dr. Steiner saying or encouraging one to allow
their child to die.
Can't fly, it's swimming in the soup.
Diana
Now, Joel or someone will probably bitterly rip this
) to shreds because I've
) left something out, or the terminology will be
) slightly "off" and will show
) I am not actually hanging around with
) anthroposophists these days (and
) Michael will think I've decided to become an
) anthroposophist). :) But if any
) of the true believers here can show where this
) substantially distorts
) anthroposophy, I'm all ears.
)
Dottie
You'r all ears but it seems like you only hear what
you want to. Care to comment on the post by Charlie
regarding Dr. Steiner saying how silly it was to use
Karma as an excuse to just let things happen and not
interfere when one should?
Everyone can keep doing there little interpretations
and perceptions of what they think he means, but no
one and I mean no one from PLANS is going to find a
quote that says let your child die, do not interfere.
No where no place, now how.
And what is up with the complain bitterly thing, I
never hear anyone on this list complain bitterly who
is supportive of Dr. Steiner. They may stand up for
what they believe, but complain bitterly, you do give
yourself to much credit in your arguments.
Diana
) Instead we hear:
)
) "Are you sure Waldorf teachers are usually
) anti-vaccination and discourage
) parents from vaccination? How do you actually *KNOW*
) this?" (Answer: They
) told us.)
Dottie
Nope wasn't the argument. It was about Lisa and
Michael claiming that Dr. Steiner encourages parents
to not interfere with a childs illness, just let him
die. That was the arguments true debate, not this
vaccination thing.
Diana
) "Must have just been your school."
)
) "You don't understand anthroposophic medicine. It's
) very complicated."
Dottie
It seems pretty obvious to the naked eye Diana that
you do not understand anthroposophic medicine. Joel
has asked you to express what you know but you only
come back with off the wall remarks to deflect from
the fact that you truly do not know the basis or you
would have stated otherwise, which you did not.
I am beginning to notice a pattern here; If you get
caught not knowing of what you speak, deflect it with
something else or ridicule the person or persons who
caught you in the 'not knowing' area or as Joel has
put it 'lie'.
Diana
) "You can't prove Steiner actually said 'let them
) die'." (Why not defend the
) fact that you believe letting them die is the
) correct course?)
Dottie
And would you like to explain this little remark in
another way so it can be comprehended? This is the
stickler for you and the others. You can not back up
what was claimed here, so draw a circle around the
exageration, and at all costs DEFLECT.
Diana
) or blatant denial: "You're lying." (Answer: We are
) not lying. Grab the
) nearest Waldorf teacher and ask her if she is pro-
) or anti-vaccination.)
Dottie
No, only Joel said you were lying and that was in
regards to you saying you know about Anthroposophic
medicine, when it looks like at this point (no
explanation, just cutting remarks), you do not know,
only little media bytes.
Diana
) It would leave much less of a bad taste in the mouth
) if anthroposophists
) would proudly and enthusiastically state what they
) believe is best for
) children - that they not be vaccinated - and answer
) the questions, so people
) understand the religious beliefs that this is based
) on.
Dottie
As you have stated before, it is not an isolated thing
at Waldorf or at Anthroposophy, is it? And it has
nothing to do with religion in most of my friends
choices to not have their kids vaccinated. It is about
that they are tired of following something just
because and they have seen data and many are actually
conspiritists. Its a conspiracy. Nothing to do with
religion.
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 15:44:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: magic and stuff
Sharon,
I am now a
) student of religious studies at
) ) university. I want to be an expert on mystery
) cults and I will be devoting
) ) my time to serious study.
Dottie
I am so jealous! Good luck to you Sharon in your
studies. I hope that you will be able to keep us
posted of your findings.
Love,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 11:42:20 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: For the moderator
)Michael Kopp wrote:
)
)) Now here's a curious thing: an Anthropop Defender of the Faith standing up
)) for Dan Dugan. Boy, is he in trouble when he needs the help of a fig newton.
)
)After what level of personal attacks and ad hominems in terms of number and
)seriousness does Mr Kopp get bumpted from the list - for good this - third?
)fourth? - time?
)
)10? 30? 100? 1000?
)
)Or he has an unlimited credit?
)
)Sune Nordwall
)Stockholm, Sweden
At least Kopp knows how to make dark humour with words. That's his credit.
And if you ask Dottie, you'll probably find that anyone who spends much
time around young people today learns that insult is the only currency of
critical speech amongst them. I'm just transferring the medium ...
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington
--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:51:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: For the moderator
Michael
) And if you ask Dottie, you'll probably find that
) anyone who spends much
) time around young people today learns that insult is
) the only currency of
) critical speech amongst them
And that means what in English?
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 11:56:36 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Diana Winters says (without danger of Michael Kopp's wrath):
)Why is it there are no anthroposophists willing to actually explain and
)defend their beliefs here when subjects such as vaccination come up?
)
)Wouldn't it go something like this:
)
)*******
)
)Further, though it must be admitted that some children will die from
)diseases that vaccination can almost always prevent, there are spiritual,
)karmic reasons those children would die in those circumstances. Vaccines
)interfere with the natural unfoldings of peoples' karma according to
)spiritual laws.
--
Michael Kopp says:
They don't explain karma because it's so ridiculous to rational people. It
suffers from so many logical inconsistencies that it's laughable. And there
is no evidence, of course.
For instance, IF there was such a thing, it could be said that it is the
karma of the parent to interfere with the child's karma to die.
Just as it could be said it was MY karma to interfere with my children's
Steiner Waldorf and Anthroposophical brainwashing at a Steiner school.
Or maybe that's their karma, too.
See, it's all dogma and mystery, just like the dogma and mystery of any
religion.
And they don't try to explain it to rational people because they can't, in
rational terms.
Besides, karma _belongs_ in the world of the occult esoteric: hidden and
mystical, explained by seers into higher worlds.
Dan dugan used a phrase long ago on this list that applies, whether it was
originally his or not:
"My karma ran over your dogma."
Karma is a religious concept; Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education as an
idea, and its schools, are founded on karma; therefore a Waldorf Education
is a religious education and unconstitutional on the face of it.
Thanks, Diana, for performing calm, rational deconstruction of poppycock.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:08:48 -0400
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: on a clear day you really can see forever
Dear Diana,
As one of the main PLANS cult appologists, you have requested a deeper
response as regards your false and misrepresenting comments as to
anthroposophical views on karma, vacination, - here is what your wrote:
" anthroposophic medicine says 1) diseases are your karma and 2)
vaccinations are actually bad for you."
Since I don't really expect you to even consider that you could have
lied, or be wrong, or have made any number of other kinds of errors of
judgment and thought, what is written here is not for you, but for those
lurkers who may have genuine open minds.
The supposed dichotomy between some kind of spiritualism and
materialism is false, as Tarjei has suggested. This can be understood
through the most simple observations of one's own mind. Articles I have
written giving some basics on this are as follows:
"The Idea of Mind: a Christian meditator considers the problem of
consciousness", at http://www.tiac.net/users/hermit/tidom.html ;
"this and that" - some thoughts on the Four Noble Truths, at:
http://www.tiac.net/users/hermit/thath.html ; and,
"pragmatic moral psychology" http://www.tiac.net/users/hermit/stgfr.html
Anyone with a degree of good will can verify for themselves that
"spirit" is real. Belief has nothing to do with it. While many, who
think themselves "anthroposophists", are simply people who have adopted
certain beliefs, spiritual science is a true science - that is it is
testable through one's own experience.
Members of the Critics Cult claim to have read all kinds of
anthroposophy, but universally refuse to test it on the basis of a real
personal objective self examination. No one is responsible for this
failure but themselves. Certainly one is free to not travel this path,
for it involves real work at the psychological level and many people are
basically afraid to confront who they are. But to not travel this path,
and then to insist that one is in a position to judge the truth of the
matter is just so much horse pucky.
Along this path it becomes clear that the World is a monism, rather
then a dualism, as materialism insists. If you want to know more about
this, go to SoutherCross Review at:
http://www.SouthernCrossReview.org/back12.html and read the articles by
Don Cruse.
As a monism, this means that the world we experience through the senses
is not divorced from mind, but rather is united with it. As Steiner
puts it in his very crucial book: A Theory of Knowledge Implicit in
Goethe's World Conception: "Thought is the last member of a series of
processes whereby Nature is formed."
It becomes possible then to enter, through the inwardness of our own
human nature, into the Inwardness of the World. Hundreds of thousands
of people all over the world have experiences on this level, not just
anthroposophists. What Steiner made possible was the coming at this
experience out of the scientific impulses of the modern age, so that
spiritual experience could be investigated in a more orderly (and less
"mystical") fashion.
Thus his many lectures on the results of his own research. PLANS
cultists claim that if this was so, then there would be others doing
this research, but when one suggests they read Tomberg, or Barfield, or
Ben-Aharon, all of a sudden the "argument" goes to other areas.
As a consequence of this research Steiner gave lectures on many
problems, including medicine. Books that should be read and mastered in
order to speak about these problems are: Spritual Science and Medicine
(Steiner lectures); Fundamentals of Therapy (Ita Vegman and Steiner) and
Victor Bott's Anthroposophical Medicine - the reports of a medical
doctor after many many years of practice.
It is essential to go into things in much detail given that, when one
couples the spiritual and the physical, matters become quite
complicated. For example, an important matter that needs to be
understood is the threefold nature of the human organism (nerve-sense
system, rhythmic system, and metabolic system). PLANS cult appologists
have opinions about all this, but when you ask them to read Wolfgang
Shad's Man and Mammals, then all of a sudden the conversation goes off
on a tangent.
In medical practice, from an anthroposophical view, there are several
fundamental problems the doctor has to come to terms with, but the most
basic is not learning a system of ideas, but rather learning to bring
into disciplined alignment their own faculties of sense observation and
thinking. This is because each individual has to be considered in their
totality, and the doctor must observe and think in the most careful way.
Let's just consider one problem that Steiner refers to at the beginning
of the lectures mentioned above. At the time that Steiner was teaching,
medical science had proceeded mostly on the basis of pathology, that is
on the careful study of the cadaver. But it is the living organism that
is ill, and it is the living organism that needs to be the object of
observation. A medical science that only sees the "material", the
matter, can only delve so far into the mysteries of health and illness.
It has been mentioned (with excruciating over emphasis and over
simplification) that "karma" is involved in anthroposophical medicine.
Yet, the people who use this term think it isn't real, so how could they
actually understand a concept for which they have no sympathy.
In Bott's book he discusses this problem briefly, pointing out that the
doctor needs to expect that some people he will not be able to help.
Not that he shouldn't do all he can, but that all his efforts will
fail. This will most requently occur where the doctor tries to get the
patient to undergo a lifestyle change (stop smoking, drinking etc).
Even though the doctor knows that this change is crucial for the health
of the patient, still the patient does not "will" this change in spite
of all that the doctor or the family tries. The doctor is not to take
this as a personal failure, but needs to recognize that this individual
has chosen to undergo a certain illness, as that experience is essential
to their personal development. So the doctor accepts the "karma" and
does his/her best during the course of the illness to alleviate the
symptoms, recognizing that the "spiritual freedom" of the individual is
also not to be compromised.
Of course, the PLANS Cult appologist will want to dismantle these
ideas, but if this attack is read carefully it will be seen that what is
really being rejected is the idea of the reality of spirit. It is this
that is essential to understand before even beginning to look at the
details of anthroposophical medicine.
It is important for any open minded individual to realize that
anthroposophy (and its progeny) are based on fundamental experiences and
are not in any way a system of beliefs or ideas with which one "argues".
Having said that, let me turn to Waldorf for a moment.
As I pointed out above, there are people who have adopted certain ideas
as beliefs, and made little or no effort to understand, through personal
experience, the fundamental ground out of which Steiner taught. Such
individuals become dogmatists and sectarians, and the Waldorf movement
abounds in this kind of person. PLANS cultists aside, anyone who has
had (or their children have had) raw and profoundly unnecessary
suffering experiences at the hands of such teachers and parents are
quite justified in their anger and dismay.
There does exist what Colin Wilson called "steinerism", and it is a
terrible thing to inflict on the world. At the same time, PLANS
cultists have gone to a quite unnecessary extreme in their anti-steiner,
anti-anthroposophy, war.
And, make no mistake about it - it has become a war, with all the
undesirable consequences that implies. The Waldorfian steinerism true
believers have met their counterpart in the PLANS cult true believers.
Personally, I think they deserve each other. When Steiner suggested you
put the cholerics all in the same corner of the classroom, he wasn't
just inventing something, but was, in fact, simply duplicating what
Spirit has always done socially - people with certain types of excesses
get drawn to each other and get to hash it out until they finally get it
and choose another course.
love,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 20:09:14 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
)Michael Kopp says:
)
)They don't explain karma because it's so ridiculous to rational people. It
)suffers from so many logical inconsistencies that it's laughable. And there
)is no evidence, of course.
DL: Michael for a "show me the evidence" sort of guy - you show an amazing
ESP ability. Gosh - able to read minds, now eh? You now know why they
don't explain karma?
Just curious - what are the "logical inconsistencies" with karma?
Michael:
)For instance, IF there was such a thing, it could be said that it is the
)karma of the parent to interfere with the child's karma to die.
)
)Just as it could be said it was MY karma to interfere with my children's
)Steiner Waldorf and Anthroposophical brainwashing at a Steiner school.
)
DL: Michael - you seem to either NOT understand karma or you are
intentionally trying to obfuscate.
Michael:
)Or maybe that's their karma, too.
)
)See, it's all dogma and mystery, just like the dogma and mystery of any
)religion.
)
DL: Karma is not dogma. It's not all dark and mysterious. It's cause and
effect. (At least in my understanding) But cause and effect stretched out
over more than one lifetime.
Michael:
)Karma is a religious concept; Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education as an
)idea, and its schools, are founded on karma; therefore a Waldorf Education
)is a religious education and unconstitutional on the face of it.
)
)
DL: While there may be religions that incorporate dogma - it is not
necessarily "religious" in nature. There are non-religious buddhists that
believe in karma and they do not see it as a tenet of a religion. (For
those who think all buddhism is a religion - there are those who see
buddhism as practices - not beliefs).
And let's look at your argument -
)Karma is a religious concept;
DL: As I've stated - it is not always a religious concept. Any more than
"doing good" is a religious concept.
)Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education as an
)idea, and its schools, are founded on karma;
DL: let's get it accurate. They incorporate the concept of Karma - which is
not necessarily the same as being founded on karma.
)therefore a Waldorf Education
)is a religious education and unconstitutional on the face of it.
)
DL: Let's try that one with the "doing good" example -
Growing up - my church said to always do good. At my (public)school, I was
told to always do good - therefore - my public school was religious.
Hmmmmmm. Nice try.
By the way - what is and isn't constitutional is not all cut and dried (or
there would not be court cases about it). One can just as easily see the
"establishment clause" as meaning that while the goverment can allow
religious activities to happen - they can't establish "a" state religion.
And that most of the founding fathers never meant to strip religion out of
government. They merely wanted to make sure that you have the right to
worship as you choose.
shalom
a fig newton of your imagination?
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 02:34:53 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
) Diana wrote:
)
) )Why is it there are no anthroposophists willing to actually explain
) )and defend their beliefs here when subjects such as vaccination come
) )up?
)
Tarjei replied:
) That would depend upon whether or not there are anthroposophists on
) the list with beliefs about vaccinations. (I don't have any.) On the
) website that was posted, there is an article by Richard Moskowitz,
) M.D. Looks like a topic for medical doctors to me. My suggestion is
) that the topic is discussed by quoting various preferred doctors. "My
) doctor is smarter than your doctor" and so on. It sure beats playing
) doctor.
charlie:
As Diana is so keen to talk about vaccination, I can only offer the
following comments. I have already admitted to having my kids vaccinated and
looking through my books I found this extract from 'The Incarnating Child'
by Joan Salter (founder of the Gabriel Baby Centre in Melbourne)
'Let it be said at the outset that the decision whether or not to immunize
can only be a parental one. The role of the professional is to inform on
*all* aspects of the matter - that is, the dangers associated with having
immunization and those of not having it; then to offer advice if requested.
There should be no pressure either way. Decisions relating to the well-being
of the child are the responsibility of parents alone. Here the *feelings* of
the parents must be taken seriously.'
So it is her (anthroposophical) belief that parents should decide on this
matter.
warm regards,
charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 03:54:02 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Dottie, you didn't like my explanation of karma and how (in anthroposophy)
it explains tragic childhood illnesses, but you never, anywhere in the post,
tell me what was wrong with it.
Give me just a hint, and maybe we can discuss it further. What were my
mistakes? Or maybe you could put it in your own words, how you understand
what Steiner wrote on karma and how it would relate, if a child had a
possibly fatal illness, so that I will see how it is different?
You are also unhappy (well, happy actually) that I don't provide a Steiner
quote saying Steiner said "let children die." I don't have any idea if
Steiner said this, and am really only interested in how the ideas are
*actually* played out. I certainly know religious parents, including an
anthroposophic couple, who refuse medical treatment for their children even
in very serious situations.
I wrote:
)A child who dies an early death, though this is very sad, dies for a
) )reason.
Dottie:
)Diana, if you do not understand the concept of Karma, as it is written )by
)many Spiritual teachers, why comment on it? It is one thing to )disagree
)but quite another to speak as if you understand it when )clearly you only
)have disdain for it.
Dottie, it may surprise you, but I do not have disdain for this view. I
think it is maybe very painful to see it stated clearly, perhaps? It is
agonizing. Why do terrible things happen to innocent people, especially
children?
Everyone struggles with it, the anthroposphic answer is one of many similar
religious answers. I have a great deal of sympathy for it (at the risk of
having Michael Kopp disappointed in me again . . .) Not because I subscribe
to karma, but because I understand *wanting* everything in life to have an
explanation, *wanting* a reason, preferably a noble and important reason,
for tragedies and unhappiness. I have never lost a child so I can't really
imagine it, but it seems likely to me that if I had a child die an early
death, I would search for such explanations. I would want very badly for
there to be a reason.
There's a lot of things in life I'd like explanations for, but that doesn't
mean anthroposophy has the answers.
Dottie, imagine if you asked for an explanation of this on one of your your
anthroposophic lists, and read my post believing I was actually an
anthroposophist. Ask yourself if you would be disagreeing with it then, or
feel so angry reading it.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 00:15:46 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: For the moderator
) Michael Kopp wrote:
Hey, I happen to enjoy snacking on Fig Newtons (though the strawberry ones
are better ...) ;+) Lisa
)
)) Now here's a curious thing: an Anthropop Defender of the Faith standing up
)) for Dan Dugan. Boy, is he in trouble when he needs the help of a fig newton.
)
) After what level of personal attacks and ad hominems in terms of number and
) seriousness does Mr Kopp get bumpted from the list - for good this - third?
) fourth? - time?
)
) 10? 30? 100? 1000?
)
) Or he has an unlimited credit?
)
) 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, 15 Aug 2001 22:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Diana
) Dottie, you didn't like my explanation of karma and
) how (in anthroposophy)
) it explains tragic childhood illnesses, but you
) never, anywhere in the post,
) tell me what was wrong with it.
Dottie
It's not that I didn't like the explanation, it wasn't
one, so there can't be anything wrong with it.
Diana
) Give me just a hint, and maybe we can discuss it
) further. What were my
) mistakes? Or maybe you could put it in your own
) words, how you understand
) what Steiner wrote on karma and how it would relate,
) if a child had a
) possibly fatal illness, so that I will see how it is
) different?
Dottie
Like I said there wasn't anything wrong with it
because it wasn't an explanation of Karma.
And where you appear to be going is, to explain how it
can be possible to say, that Dr. Steiner encourages
the thought that 'if your child is dying its in his
Karma and so that is okay', which than would seem to
lend credence to Lisa and Michael's claim that Dr.
Steiner encouraged not saving your child from a
serious illness because it is in his Karma.
Now I say appear because that it what it seems to me.
It reminds me of how I feel about Mr. Staudenmaiers
way of presenting his findings; Circular.
And I am not sure I am a good one to explain in
writing what the concept of Karma is, this is a very
unforgiving medium.
Diana
) You are also unhappy (well, happy actually) that I
) don't provide a Steiner
) quote saying Steiner said "let children die."
Dottie
I am neither happy nor unhappy that you didn't provide
a quote; You can't. It is impossible. And if I am
seeming to gloat, believe me I am not. When someone
brings up such a fanatical interpretation of Dr.
Steiners words as was shown here, it must be proven by
the person or at least have the courtesy or courage
(which is what it would take from me to admit I was
not correct although I may have thought so)to admit I
was not right. It is always hard to swollow ones words
and it never makes me 'happy' to see it happen. And
in this case I feel no differently.
Diana
I certainly know religious
) parents, including an
) anthroposophic couple, who refuse medical treatment
) for their children even
) in very serious situations.
Dottie
And I do not doubt that.
)
Diana
) I wrote:
)
) )A child who dies an early death, though this is
) very sad, dies for a
) ) )reason.
)
) Dottie:
)
) )Diana, if you do not understand the concept of
) Karma, as it is written )by
) )many Spiritual teachers, why comment on it? It is
) one thing to )disagree
) )but quite another to speak as if you understand it
) when )clearly you only
) )have disdain for it.
)
Dottie
Diana, we all die for a reason, not just a child,
that's the point.
Me personally, I do not feel bad if any one dies as I
know they are returning to what I consider true
reality. I may feel sad for the circumstance but I am
a little bit like St. Theresa of The Little Flower:
After supper one night, when she was very little, she
told her mother in front of a group of lady friends,
that she would wish her mother would die right away.
To the shock of everyone she was very seroius. She
later explained to her mother that she felt that was
the most beautiful wish one could wish a mother. In
her explanation was the fact that this way her mother
would be quickly with God, to her mothers
consternation.
Now that may not sound like a good thing but that is
kind of how I feel about death.
Diana
) Dottie, it may surprise you, but I do not have
) disdain for this view.
Dottie
Diana, I can only go on what you said earlier in a
post with Michael. I was not making it up. And I asked
you if you were sure what you were agreeing to in
Michael quote and you never replied.
And nothing truly surprises me more than someone
putting out a big whopper, as I called it earlier,
without any kind of proof.
Diana
I
) think it is maybe very painful to see it stated
) clearly, perhaps? It is
) agonizing. Why do terrible things happen to innocent
) people, especially
) children?
Dottie
You are speaking to a person who many terrible things
have happened to her in her childhood. And I think
that is the part of Karma that you don't understand.
It is not a human law, it is a spiritual law. And I am
not sure if you believe there are any spiritual laws.
Which is fine if you do or don't but its very hard to
correspond spiritual understandings to our human
understandings, I think.
Diana
) Everyone struggles with it, the anthroposphic answer
) is one of many similar
) religious answers. I have a great deal of sympathy
) for it (at the risk of
) having Michael Kopp disappointed in me again . . .)
) Not because I subscribe
) to karma, but because I understand *wanting*
) everything in life to have an
) explanation, *wanting* a reason, preferably a noble
) and important reason,
) for tragedies and unhappiness. I have never lost a
) child so I can't really
) imagine it, but it seems likely to me that if I had
) a child die an early
) death, I would search for such explanations. I would
) want very badly for
) there to be a reason.
Dottie
I agree with you that it would be natural for there to
be a 'need' for such explanations. I think there is a
natural 'need' to understand if there is anything else
after death. Although I may not sound or actually not
be very intellectual I am not a foolish person. I
would not want to 'need' an explanation to make me
feel better and more comfortable in this life. I have
struggled with it for many years while younger
although I had much respect and love for Jesus but I
could not "experience" Him in my mental mind, so I
could not confirm *his existance*, hence my eternal
existance was not acceptable to me. I kept asking
questions within myself, I guess like we all do, and
one day something just happened and the question was
answered.
Diana
) There's a lot of things in life I'd like
) explanations for, but that doesn't
) mean anthroposophy has the answers.
Dottie
I agree with you 100 %. Anthroposophy is not the end
all be all even if Dr. Steiner may or may not have
thought so. There are many different answers out there
and I believe they all have to do with a common
denominator called Love and with that we need to find
some understanding to respect the differences in each
other.
I agree that Anthroposophy from what I have read here
and other places may be in need of a shake up from
some of the dogma of the founders words. I also think
that he would agree with me.
Diana
) Dottie, imagine if you asked for an explanation of
) this on one of your your
) anthroposophic lists, and read my post believing I
) was actually an
) anthroposophist. Ask yourself if you would be
) disagreeing with it then, or
) feel so angry reading it.
)
Dottie
Dearest Diana,
I am not angry or not believing what you wrote in your
paper. I did not call you a liar. I said that I
believe you were offering what you believe
Anthroposophists think on Karma and the truth is that
you were not. You were offering your perception of
what you think they think. But it is jumbled up
because you are using what others think on it, versus
what you might think on it, if it existed. Or at the
very least, you did not ask. I think Tarjei is a great
one to express the thoughts on Karma. I find him to be
usually clear and unattached to if you would believe
or not.
And I am quite often asperated on my other list. I
tend to be a bit of a bull dog in a china shop, its
not all roses and chocolates for me.
I appreciate your way of debating on this list Diana,
and I have learned alot from you even if it doesn't
show in my writing.
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 23:15:01 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: on a clear day you really can see forever
Joel:
) Members of the Critics Cult claim to have read all kinds of
)anthroposophy, but universally refuse to test it on the basis of a real
)personal objective self examination. No one is responsible for this
)failure but themselves. Certainly one is free to not travel this path,
)for it involves real work at the psychological level and many people are
)basically afraid to confront who they are. But to not travel this path,
)and then to insist that one is in a position to judge the truth of the
)matter is just so much horse pucky.
)
Debra:
On the contrary, we have begged you to lead us through some exercises! Who
wouldn't want to be clairvoyant? Alone, I just can't seem to take Steiner
and his followers' musings off the comedy shelf in my head. I'm the guy
saying "Get a load of THIS" before reading another juicy (read: crazy)
quote. From where I stand, I think Steiner would have benefited from the
new medications that are available these days. They can practically make
*anyone* normal, and with very few side affects too.
Don't get me wrong, Joel. I do not usually diss on anyone's religious
beliefs, but you guys keep calling this stuff science, so it's open for
grabs. When I read this stuff like science, I think I must be reading
esoteric comedy.
I'll give you an example of something I think is just too funny, so that
you understand what I mean:
"...Just as we have the mechanisms for transforming the energy dormant in
coal into energy of motion for our locomotives, so the Atlanteans had
mechanisms in which they - so to speak - burned plant seeds, and in which
the life force was transformed into techically utilizable power. The
vehicles of the Atlanteans, which floated a short distance above the
ground, were moved in this way. The vehicles travelled at a height lower
than that of the mountain ranges of the Atlantean period, and they had
steering mechanisms by the aid of which they could rise above these
mountain ranges."
Cosmic Memory, Rudolf Steiner, Harper & Row, 1981, page 45.
Debra again:
I admit - I can't read this passage without getting that same happy little
feeling I get when I read something that is supposed to be funny. I guess
I view Anthroposophy as esoteric humor, and Steiner as a science fiction
writer... So either shoot me because I'm obsolete or try a new tactic, like
leading me through an exercise! Though I'm in the midst of (for me, anyway)
major renovations on my beloved 1912 farm house, I'll make room to pay
close attention.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 03:02:23 -0400
From: Kerry Eady (dirtwitch sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Can I ask, you lay this "because of a belief in karma you must believe you
shouldn't seek medical treatment for tragic childhood illnesses"at the feet of
ALL cultural groups that have a belief in the law of karma.. An overwelming
majority of the world's population believes in karma, and yes it is used to
explain the *inequities* in human suffering, but it doesn't mean that you don't
HELP those in need. In buddhism (and I have always understood
anthroposophy to
have taken the descriptions of this from buddhism) karma is the human law of
action - result, then there is an inorganic law (the change of
seasons), organic
law (corn seed produces corn, genetic laws), psychic law (the order of
consciousness), the law of the norm - specific natural phenomena that
accompanies the advent of a bodhisatta. No scientist decreed "fire with burn"
its a natural phenomena that scientists seek to UNDERSTAND, If you see karma as
another kind of natural law why not see it as something else scientists will
seek to understand?
BTW in all my readings I've found that anthroposophical doctors do give
vaccinations, they prefer to wait til after a child's first birthday when the
immune system is more mature, and they do not believe in vaccinating against
nuisance diseases - but do if parents request it. They are FAR from alone in a
belief in this - until the 1950's doctors freely admitted that that
there was no
way to deny the relationship between vaccinations and encephalitis, no
counterproof changed this - political pressure did - I selectively vaccinate my
children because of allthe research I did on the subject. There's TONS out
there, and the vast majority is not from anthro sources.
Diana Winters wrote:
) Dottie, you didn't like my explanation of karma and how (in anthroposophy)
) it explains tragic childhood illnesses, but you never, anywhere in the post,
) tell me what was wrong with it.
)
) Give me just a hint, and maybe we can discuss it further. What were my
) mistakes? Or maybe you could put it in your own words, how you understand
) what Steiner wrote on karma and how it would relate, if a child had a
) possibly fatal illness, so that I will see how it is different?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:47:43 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
kerr wrote:
In buddhism (and I have always understood anthroposophy
) to
) have taken the descriptions of this from buddhism)
I was told by a waldorf teacher that buddism was not appropiate for the
"western mind" and tai chi,chigung were only appropriate for orientals,
because they had energy to bring down from the head and westerners had
energy to bring up from the feet, and that was why the only appropiate form
of exercise was bothmer gym, which had been developed for western races, (we
were discussing my tai chi class at the time)
bea
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 01:17:07 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Joel Wendt, you wrote,
) This list frequently contains statements about Waldorf or Anthroposophy
)(and its other daughter movements) which are factually misrepresenting
)what those system think, know, believe etc. To not make a distinction
)between one's own interpretation of something, and to assert as a fact
)that AM, or anthroposphy or Waldorf does or believes or thinks what it
)does not, is to lie.
To state that Anthroposophical Medicine is "an extension of
scientific medicine" when it is in fact opposed to the very methods
of science itself is a lie.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 01:17:23 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: more on vaccinations
Dottie, you wrote,
)This is a very unforgiving medium, on line, and I
)personally am shocked at times when I read some of the
)things I post and how blunt or uneducated they
)sound.(not to mention my syntax.)
Is your email program set up with a "send" button that sends a
message immediately? I've found that is a bad idea. It's much better
to change your preference to "queue", where the message is put in
your out box until you give a command to send everything pending.
Then you can review your writing the next day and reconsider what
you've written.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 412
-- Topica Digest --
Re: vaccination and allowing children to die -michael -lisa
By dan dandugan.com
Re: For the moderator
By earlyfire earthlink.net
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Email aids for Dottie, etc. -- off topic
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 01:17:32 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: vaccination and allowing children to die -michael -lisa
)From a spiritual point of view, material science is not at odds with
)the spirit. On the contrary, it verifies it.
What a laugh, Tarjei. What a pity you take yourself so seriously.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 02:00:01 -0700
From: Harvey Bornfield (earlyfire earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: For the moderator
"The oldest hath born most. We who are young shall never see so much, nor
live so long"
So it is admirable to orchestrate in insult? Scathe is a pretty monotone
attitude, and betrays a fear of dialogue, Do you imagine imitating the
intent of barbed wire, will get you where you wish to go?; Go contemplate
the notion of what fruits your chronic laceration, your avowed and hideous
and compulsive campaigns of degradation shall bear, and recognize that
everyone knows you are terrified of modesty.
Michael certainly seems to have proven time after time in his blistering
posts that awe, wonder, honor, beauty, tolerance, majesty, the beverages
from the wellsprings of the Higher Worlds, which children greatly cherish,
are sheer strangers, are brutal poisons to him. But little does he know the
qualities which he shuns now are the very ones which live in abundance in
the places into which Death, "the great sponge" (Goethe's term) will suck
all of us up, steal our various kinds of Molotov Cocktails, and morph us
into a sea of dreams, all this in but a single digit's worth of decades;
Gloat on this, if you would bear most, if you dare live so long.
King Lear
dottie zold wrote:
) Michael
) ) And if you ask Dottie, you'll probably find that
) ) anyone who spends much
) ) time around young people today learns that insult is
) ) the only currency of
) ) critical speech amongst them
)
) And that means what in English?
)
) Dottie
)
) __________________________________________________
) Do You Yahoo!?
) Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
) http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:02:21 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Diana recapitulates her and Dottie's comments on karma:
)I wrote:
)
))A child who dies an early death, though this is very sad, dies for a
)) )reason.
)
)Dottie:
)
))Diana, if you do not understand the concept of Karma, as it is written )by
))many Spiritual teachers, why comment on it? It is one thing to )disagree
))but quite another to speak as if you understand it when )clearly you only
))have disdain for it.
)
)Dottie, it may surprise you, but I do not have disdain for this view. I
)think it is maybe very painful to see it stated clearly, perhaps? It is
)agonizing. Why do terrible things happen to innocent people, especially
)children?
)
)Everyone struggles with it, the anthroposphic answer is one of many similar
)religious answers. I have a great deal of sympathy for it (at the risk of
)having Michael Kopp disappointed in me again . . .)
Michael Kopp says:
No, it doesn't disappoint me, I think it's quite human and reasonable to
have sypathy for the dilemma you describe below, one of the most
fundamental about existence.
Diana says:
)Not because I subscribe
)to karma, but because I understand *wanting* everything in life to have an
)explanation, *wanting* a reason, preferably a noble and important reason,
)for tragedies and unhappiness. I have never lost a child so I can't really
)imagine it, but it seems likely to me that if I had a child die an early
)death, I would search for such explanations. I would want very badly for
)there to be a reason.
)
)There's a lot of things in life I'd like explanations for, but that doesn't
)mean anthroposophy has the answers.
Precisely.
I lost a child -- in fact, I lost two children.
To Steiner and Anthroposophy through a Waldorf school which sucked their
creative juices, deadened their critical faculties, gave them a false,
esoteric, occultist view of human existence and the history of the world,
inculcated in them pseudo-science and irrationality.
Karma? I know all about karma. I know it's a disease used by cultists --
not to explain the pain of existence, but to control other people in this
temporal existence and to direct their alleged spiritual development for
Rudolf Steiner's spiritual world and his Sixth Epoch on earth.
All without my knowledge or permission, or even the kids' knowledge or
permission.
Karma? Fascism.
If I was a parent who had a kid die because I was persuaded by an
Anthroposophical doctor not to use scientific medicine, and if it was later
shown to be an unnecessary death, and if someone said to me that it was the
kid's karma, there'd be some blood on the floor.
Karma? Irrational, imaginary, medieval -- no, probably as ancient as
thought itself -- self-delusionary, superstitious band-aid for life's cuts
and bruises.
Superseded 500 years ago by the enlightenment and reason.
Anthropops are welcome to it, except when it kills. They're welcome to use
it in educating their kids -- for now. But not in state schools. And not on
unsuspecting parents who have been intentionally duped and defrauded when
placing their kids in "holistic, progressive" schools. And maybe not at
all, someday, when the state realises it has an interest in promoting
reason instead of irrationality. At the moment, irrationality serves the
interests of a large number of control agents in society, not just
Anthroposophists.
Karma? What karma? Show it to me. Don't tell me I have to come to know it
myself through higher knowledge. Show it to me.
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:16:41 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Email aids for Dottie, etc. -- off topic
Dan Dugan says:
)Dottie, you wrote,
)
))This is a very unforgiving medium, on line, and I
))personally am shocked at times when I read some of the
))things I post and how blunt or uneducated they
))sound.(not to mention my syntax.)
)
And Dugan offers a tip:
)Is your email program set up with a "send" button that sends a
)message immediately? I've found that is a bad idea. It's much better
)to change your preference to "queue", where the message is put in
)your out box until you give a command to send everything pending.
)Then you can review your writing the next day and reconsider what
)you've written.
Michael Kopp takes it one step further:
Eudora not only has "queue", but "save-sendable", a feature where your
email is saved in your out-box, but NOT even queued for sending until you
take that extra step.
All my friends like Tarjei and Sune and Dottie -- and even older friends
like Lisa and Sarina -- would be surprised at the litter of my out box to
this day, with hundreds of emails with little dots by them telling me that
this is something that I might want to think about more than twice before
sending.
Queueing is almost as dangerous as "immediate send" because one often adds
to the queue a message that one knows is okay to send immediately, while
having in the queue messages that one wants to review. If one forgets that
one has messages that need review, and hits "send queued messages" to send
the innocuous ones, ALL the queued ones will be sent, including those
definitely needing more review. I've been burned numerous times by this.
Now I "save-sendable" everything, and review before queueing.
This is particularly helpful when replying to a threaded discussion, where
the temtation to go off your nut on the first message is often tempered by
reading someone else's already-off-their-nut response, saving you the
trouble, or where someone has clarified or all participants have clarified
the issues later in the thread that you haven't read yet.
Always glad to help, Dottie. It's the editor and teacher in me.
Cheers from Godzone
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 413
-- Topica Digest --
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: vaccination and allowing children to die -michael -lisa
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: vaccination and "science"??
By alice javanet.com
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: vaccination and Buddhist/science
By alice javanet.com
Re: vaccination and "science"??
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By alice javanet.com
Re: vaccination and Buddhist/science
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: vaccination and "science"??
By alice javanet.com
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
attacks and karma
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: on a clear day you really can see forever
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By winters_diana hotmail.com
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: vaccination and Buddhist/science
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Immunizations
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: who has been duped, really?
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Immunizations
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: attacks and karma
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: who has been duped, really?
By theosopost hotmail.com
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: attacks and karma
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By hermit tiac.net
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By hermit tiac.net
Re: vaccination and "science"??
By hermit tiac.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 13:29:43 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Dan Dugan wrote:
)To state that Anthroposophical Medicine is "an extension of
)scientific medicine" when it is in fact opposed to the very methods
)of science itself is a lie.
I assume that is a judgement for medical doctors to make.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 13:37:52 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: vaccination and allowing children to die -michael -lisa
Dan Dugan wrote:
))From a spiritual point of view, material science is not at odds
))with the spirit. On the contrary, it verifies it.
)
)What a laugh, Tarjei. What a pity you take yourself so seriously.
You may laugh all you want, Dan. Anthroposophists do not have a
monopoly on the view cited by me above. On the contrary, it is shared
by innumerable Buddhists, Catholics, and Muslims, including
professors of religious history and philosophy, and philosophy and
science.
When Tina Turner was asked in an interview why she became a Buddhist,
for instance, she said it was first of all "the scientific aspect of
it." In other words, this is a topic where many people differ. It has
nothing to do with me taking myself seriously.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:15:24 -0400
From: alice (alice javanet.com)
Subject: Re: vaccination and "science"??
Tarjei Straume wrote:
) snips(
Alice:
I found a quote in the beginning of Rudi's "Intuitive thinking as a
Spiritual Path" (formerly the philosophy of spiritual
activity)1961,1986,1995
Preface to the Revised Edition,1918
"Everything discussed in this book is organized around two root
questions of the human soul. FIRST, can we understand human nature in
such a way that this understanding serves as the basis for everything
else we may meet in the way of experience or science?(For we have the
sense that what we meet in this way cannot sustain ITSELF, because doubt
and critical thinking can drive it into the realm of uncertainty.)"
It seems clear to me that he comes at everything with his philosophers'
bias. I am not sure how he uses or comprehends the word "science" and I
would like to have more explanation about the inconsistencies that seem
to me to be incomprehensible in the way he refers often to
"spiritual-science".
thank you
Alice
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:19:14 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
)kerr wrote:
) In buddhism (and I have always understood anthroposophy
)) to
)) have taken the descriptions of this from buddhism)
Bea wrote:
)I was told by a waldorf teacher that buddism was not appropiate for the
)"western mind" and tai chi,chigung were only appropriate for orientals,
)because they had energy to bring down from the head and westerners had
)energy to bring up from the feet, and that was why the only appropiate form
)of exercise was bothmer gym, which had been developed for western races, (we
)were discussing my tai chi class at the time)
)bea
The question of what kind of spiritual exercises are appropriate or
inappropriate for peoples of the East or West is only relevant for
those who wish to pursue such exercises. And here again, each
individual will do what he or she pleases. Steiner's opinion was that
yoga was not suitable for Western peoples. It is my distinct
impression that what Steiner had in mind was (advanced) yoga as an
initiatory technique, rather than yoga practice for health purposes
or as an aid to enhance concentration. His motive was to recommend a
*safe* path across the threshold. His advice is worth reading, but it
is my (strictly personal) impression that the Waldorf teacher you
mention exaggerates the difference between Westerners and Orientals.
I believe our similarities in education and interests, coupled with
ongoing changes in modern demographics, make such differences
increasingly a thing of the past.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:28:10 -0400
From: alice (alice javanet.com)
Subject: Re: vaccination and Buddhist/science
Tarjei Straume wrote:
)
)snips(
) When Tina Turner was asked in an interview why she became a Buddhist,
) for instance, she said it was first of all "the scientific aspect of
) it." In other words, this is a topic where many people differ. It has
) nothing to do with me taking myself seriously.
)
) --
) Tarjei
)
Alice with one more thing:
I was reminded yesterday at a gathering about the Buddhist principles of
detachment. Among those things to detach from is sometimes helping
other people.
Sometimes it is the hardest thing to NOT help and to watch them struggle
to work through something difficult themselves.
It is a bit like observing on this list.
Not that I could help anyway. My ego is certainly not that large.
As a child of two scientists, grandchild of farmers, mother of two, I
believe life is both an art and a science and the trick is to balance
the two.
-Alice
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:32:44 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: vaccination and "science"??
)Alice:
)
)I found a quote in the beginning of Rudi's "Intuitive thinking as a
)Spiritual Path" (formerly the philosophy of spiritual
)activity)1961,1986,1995
)Preface to the Revised Edition,1918
)
)"Everything discussed in this book is organized around two root
)questions of the human soul. FIRST, can we understand human nature in
)such a way that this understanding serves as the basis for everything
)else we may meet in the way of experience or science?(For we have the
)sense that what we meet in this way cannot sustain ITSELF, because doubt
)and critical thinking can drive it into the realm of uncertainty.)"
)
)It seems clear to me that he comes at everything with his philosophers'
)bias. I am not sure how he uses or comprehends the word "science" and I
)would like to have more explanation about the inconsistencies that seem
)to me to be incomprehensible in the way he refers often to
)"spiritual-science".
For clarification of Steiner's definition of the relationship between
cognition (or epistemology) and science, the best point of departure
would be his doctoral thesis from 1892:
"Wahrheit und Wissenschaft, Vorspiel einer 'Philosophie der Freiheit.'"
It is translated sometimes as "Truth and Knowledge," other times as
"Truth and Science," because "Wissenschaft" means both. It is an
introduction to PoF, where Steiner explains why Kant needs to be
revised.
Equally helpful is Steiner's primary work on Goethean science from
1886, entitled "Grundlinien einer Erkenntnistheorie der Goetheschen
Weltanschauung", translated as "A Theory of Knowledge Implicit in
Goethe's World Conception."
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:32:55 -0400
From: alice (alice javanet.com)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Tarjei Straume wrote:
)multiple snips(
His advice is worth reading, but it
) is my (strictly personal) impression that the Waldorf teacher you
) mention exaggerates the difference between Westerners and Orientals.
) I believe our similarities in education and interests, coupled with
) ongoing changes in modern demographics, make such differences
) increasingly a thing of the past.
)
) --
) Tarjei
Alice:
Sounds like a refreshing waldorf reformer comment...
Would you be willing to list those things in WE that you would like to
see updated and how?
I appreciate your perspective from a creative, world religions view.
And your cross-cultural awareness...
Thanks.
Alice
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:38:52 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: vaccination and Buddhist/science
)Alice with one more thing:
)
)I was reminded yesterday at a gathering about the Buddhist principles of
)detachment. Among those things to detach from is sometimes helping
)other people.
I think Buddhism alone, or Theosophy alone, can make some people
egoistical and detached. And I think that is why the Christ-idea, or
the Christ-impulse, needs to be added. Christ represents and
exemplifies active intervention in the sufferings of others.
)As a child of two scientists, grandchild of farmers, mother of two, I
)believe life is both an art and a science and the trick is to balance
)the two.
Very well said.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:43:47 -0400
From: alice (alice javanet.com)
Subject: Re: vaccination and "science"??
Tarjei Straume wrote:
) For clarification of Steiner's definition of the relationship between
) cognition (or epistemology) and science, the best point of departure
) would be his doctoral thesis from 1892:
)
) "Wahrheit und Wissenschaft, Vorspiel einer 'Philosophie der Freiheit.'"
)
) It is translated sometimes as "Truth and Knowledge," other times as
) "Truth and Science," because "Wissenschaft" means both. It is an
) introduction to PoF, where Steiner explains why Kant needs to be
) revised.
)
) Equally helpful is Steiner's primary work on Goethean science from
) 1886, entitled "Grundlinien einer Erkenntnistheorie der Goetheschen
) Weltanschauung", translated as "A Theory of Knowledge Implicit in
) Goethe's World Conception."
)
) --
) Tarjei
Alice writes:
Could it be that many of these mis-conprehensions and misinformation
comes from this fact that in German the words" knowledge" and "science"
are not discernible?
In this era (epoch?!) I would think that this difference would be a
profound one.
It makes more sense that a philosopher would play with the notion of the
ego/cognition understanding itself and the concept of free will,
self-comprehension, what is the "I" etc.
All of these things seem very familiar- isn't that what philosophers do?
Could it be that the departure from this contemplation and dialogue came
when the "zeitgeist" of the time became destablized and the search for
meaning became more comprehensive than simply existential pondering?
It makes sense why there was an invitation of sorts to delve into every
aspect of life...medicine, farming, politics, education, arts,
etc. etc.
trying to understand the milieu...
-Alice
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:04:01 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
)Alice:
)Sounds like a refreshing waldorf reformer comment...
)Would you be willing to list those things in WE that you would like to
)see updated and how?
Frankly, I don't know if I qualify. My 11 year old son who attends
Wadorf in another city was just here with me again for two weeks, and
he seems to be developing very well, and he's cheerful, strong,
healthy and smart. But I'm not an educator myself, and I don't attend
parent meetings. This is why I have been very reticent on this list
with my comments about WE as well as medicine.
My off-the-cuff opinion about education in private schools like
Waldorf is that it should aim at serving the individual needs of
students to a greater extent than in public schools. Uniformity is
always a drawback I think, and so is rigid adherence to any system or
method. The quality of a school depends upon the teachers, who and
how they are, their skills and understanding and ability to create a
good and productive environment. The system or method on which the
education is based is always secondary to that.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 07:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
--- Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com) wrote:
) Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) )To state that Anthroposophical Medicine is "an
) extension of
) )scientific medicine" when it is in fact opposed to
) the very methods
) )of science itself is a lie.
)
Dottie
I just found the quote yesterday and will send it
later.
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 11:03:26 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: attacks and karma
Michael - you amaze me. Truly. You say you understand karma, but then you
constantly misuse the concept.
I'm going to respond from the heart this time. To everyone other than
Michael or Dan - feel free to pass on this one because as Dan "The
Moderator" Dugan does not seem willing to hold people on this post
accountable for attacks - I'll say whatever comes to mind. I dare Dan to
respond this time (as opposed to the 2 times on this post I've brought this
up and the 2 times off post - this is not counting the times others have
brought up Michael's prevelance for attacks) And Dan has even engaged in
attacks himself. (?When he said: "What a laugh, Tarjei. What a pity you
take yourself so seriously." )
So, why would I expect any better from him? Although, he does lose
credibility in my eyes when he bumps people for "holy roller" and then lets
NUMEROUS attacks against people slide though. But back to the response.....
Michael said:
)I lost a child -- in fact, I lost two children.
)
DL: Crap. This is too much. Your children are not dead. To compare your
experience to their dying seems - hmmmmm - what's the word? SENSATIONALIST?
Yes.
Michael:
)To Steiner and Anthroposophy through a Waldorf school which sucked their
)creative juices, deadened their critical faculties, gave them a false,
)esoteric, occultist view of human existence and the history of the world,
)inculcated in them pseudo-science and irrationality.
DL: Here's an idea. How about their creative juices being sucked dry by
their father?
Michael:
)Karma? I know all about karma.
DL: Do you? Let's just see....
Michael:
)I know it's a disease used by cultists --
)not to explain the pain of existence, but to control other people in this
)temporal existence and to direct their alleged spiritual development for
)Rudolf Steiner's spiritual world and his Sixth Epoch on earth.
DL: Survey says....X - wrong. Michael (AGAIN) you either have no idea what
karma is or you are intentionally lying about it. Again I ask which?
DL: Let's look at Michael's second answer.....
Michael:
)Karma? Fascism.
)
DL: Hmmmm....you are closer here - but I don't think you yet see the light.
I understand YOU believe that WE uses the concept of Karma to "control" -
but that's a seperate issue from what karma is (EVEN IF WHAT YOU ALLEGE IS
TRUE) And I'd have to say - if you believe it - SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.
Michael:
)If I was a parent who had a kid die because I was persuaded by an
)Anthroposophical doctor not to use scientific medicine, and if it was later
)shown to be an unnecessary death, and if someone said to me that it was the
)kid's karma, there'd be some blood on the floor.
)
DL: And what would that do to YOUR karma, I wonder?
Michael, the blasts on this posts aside - I do wish you well as a fellow
human being - I just want to shake some sense into you - or rather get you
to lighten up - consider other possibilities. I sense such pain in you -
and an effort to hide that by hiding in the intellect as if there was
nothing else. And I truly wish your children the best.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: on a clear day you really can see forever
)
) Debra:
)
) On the contrary, we have begged you to lead us
) through some exercises!
Dottie
That is not true. When anyone from a pro Steiner group
has said anything about trying an excersize they got
booed off the page; How dare you try and bring his
excersizes to us, we have been victimized, we are not
open to any more Steiner.
Or when Jeff brought a few excersizes he was accused
of trying to sneak something fishy anthroposophy in on
people.
So no, you have not been open to trying anthroposophy.
Only using it as a joke to laugh at.
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:28:30 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Kerry wrote:
)Can I ask, you lay this "because of a belief in karma you must believe )you
)shouldn't seek medical treatment for tragic childhood illnesses" )at the
)feet of ALL cultural groups that have a belief in the law of )karma.
Actually, I really don't blame belief systems for peoples' actions. I think
more often people don't do things *because* of their belief system, but find
belief systems - and the supportive community - to structure and explain to
themselves what they were going to do anyway.
Certainly it is not unique to anthroposophy. The parents I spoke of who
neglect medical care even in dire emergencies are Christian Scientists. I
don't think Christian Science "made them do it." I think something very sick
is going on in those families; religion can justify almost anything.
)An overwelming majority of the world's population believes in karma, )and
)yes it is used to explain the *inequities* in human suffering, but )it
)doesn't mean that you don't HELP those in need.
I understand that, and I see that it needn't *necessarily* mean "don't
help." However, I think it's contradictory then - if an accident or illness
was "needed" or actually "sought" by the person for their own
self-improvement, then it just makes sense that you should leave them alone
to get on with their self-improvement. I mean, guys, that is *precisely* the
argument against vaccination. Vaccination is "interfering." So why interfere
later?
It logically just goes up in smoke if karma means first you have an accident
or illness, then karma means next you get help, and then it's karma whether
you died, or whether you didn't die . . . so what does this explain? You're
back where you started.
)BTW in all my readings I've found that anthroposophical doctors do give
)vaccinations, they prefer to wait til after a child's first birthday )when
)the immune system is more mature, and they do not believe in )vaccinating
)against nuisance diseases - but do if parents request it.
Curious where you read this. Which anthroposophical doctors recommend
vaccinations?
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:31:32 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
This is from a few days ago, but I don't think I sent it yet. Hope not.
David:
)How will it be "remediated" without discussing it with parents, and
) )getting them to change their ways? Via the spiritual world?
I couldn't tell you the particulars, but surely David you realize they are
"remediating" left and right without discussing it in so many words with the
parents? Probably the same way they "remediate" everything else - eurythmy,
curative stories, special dietary advice, little rituals they have for
everything - this kid needs his hands in warm water a lot, this one should
wear purple every day, etc. Some parents are upset that they made the
"mistake" of vaccination, so then they can discuss remediation openly. With
others, whom they know better than to criticize, they are just doing the
little things they can do like the curative stories without anybody having
to know what the "real" purpose is.
)I'll ask her when I go to bed, but since I help her prepare her various
)communication pieces, I don't think so...
Ok, got it, it's your wife, and since your own kids are vaccinated, I
believe you she is not anti-vaccination. :)
)I am willing to accept that a significant proportion of our faculty )may
)well be anti-vaccination; I just don't think they're as extreme )as you
)think they are about evangelizing the issue. I seriously doubt )that they
)browbeat parents over it.
You could be right. It's not everybody's interest. We had one teacher who
got very emotional about the subject, but the others tried to rein her in.
Others have other issues.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:39:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Diana
) )There's a lot of things in life I'd like
) explanations for, but that doesn't
) )mean anthroposophy has the answers.
)
Michael
) Precisely.
)
) I lost a child -- in fact, I lost two children.
)
) To Steiner and Anthroposophy through a Waldorf
) school
Dottie
Michael, you did not lose them. And if you keep up
this line about losing your children, it's a good
possibility you will lose them, because you think they
are lost. They think differently than you do. Are you
so unforgiving that you can not let them live in the
same room with you because they disagree with how you
see things?
And correlating this to death is just ridiculous. When
death does come you will suddenly know the difference,
and you will be sad. Do you think you are the first
parent to have their children want to live or think
differently than their parents?
Be accountable for the fact that your children feel
lost to you. It's easy to keep blaming Waldorf and
such but that leads you nowhere.
I do get that you feel decieved and you very well may
have been if you were not aware that Anthroposophy and
Dr. Steiner are the foundations for Waldorf. And that
is why this list is important; for those lurking will
have an opportunity, to see the effects of not be
absolutely clear about the methodology, and its
founder, and the effects have been devestating to some
of the families here, if not all.
Michael
) Karma? I know all about karma. I know it's a disease
) used by cultists --
Dottie
You know nothing of Karma. You can't see it, you have
never seen any evidence (you don't seem willing to
look) and so it doesn't exist. How could you possibly
know it or understand it if you are unwilling to
contemplate it?
Michael
) Karma? Fascism.
)
Dottie
Irrational connection once again.
Michael
) If I was a parent who had a kid die because I was
) persuaded by an
) Anthroposophical doctor not to use scientific
) medicine, and if it was later
) shown to be an unnecessary death, and if someone
) said to me that it was the
) kid's karma, there'd be some blood on the floor.
Dottie
"If you were a parent who's kid has died" has not
happened. And Tarjei has repeatedly asked you to point
out a case that this did happen. All he and we got
back was a lot of dillydally about brown shirts.
Michael
) Karma? probably as ancient as thought itself --
Dottie
A little snipping here a little snapping there, and lo
and behold Michael has found a truth out about Karma.
As Ancient as thought itself.
Michael
) Anthropops are welcome to it, except when it kills.
Dottie
Michael, Michael, Michael, when are you going to stop
trying to cover up what was orriginally stated by you
and Lisa; "Dr. Steiner said to let your child die, it
is his Karma". You keep trying to get back to even
status and it is not going to happen on this point.
You were and are wrong.
Karma doesn't kill. That statement shows how
completely off you are on the concept of Karma.
Jeeezu.
Michae
) Karma? What karma? Show it to me. Don't tell me I
) have to come to know it
) myself through higher knowledge. Show it to me.
Dude, that's the only way you are gonna find it. And
not through higher knowledge per se, but by actually
contemplating the possibilities and where you see it
all around you. Nobody can show it to you, so you are
convinced, and nobody should try to convince you. Just
look for the correlations. Gosh you have such a hard
head.
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:41:33 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Dottie:
)It's not that I didn't like the explanation, it wasn't
)one, so there can't be anything wrong with it.
Honestly, Dottie, I'm not trying to be snotty with you. I wish you would
explain further so I would really know what was wrong with it. I wrote a lot
of words, so obviously there *was* an explanation there, and I'd appreciate
more help with which parts I don't understand.
Didn't Steiner say that we choose - not consciously - but somehow our Higher
Self is choosing - misfortunes, accidents, etc. - that everything that
happens to us is actually our choice? Actually, he said we should mainly
view the *bad* things that happen to us as karma, and look at good things as
"grace." (Other Christian religions say this sort of thing as well. "There
for the grace of God go I.")
Doesn't he also explain that we die at the time when we have finished the
tasks set for ourselves in the present incarnation? So you may not finish
your tasks till you are 85, or you may finish when you are 4 years old, if
you had a shorter task this time or maybe you can complete this task by
suffering a lot in a short time span - and so a child dies of leukemia or in
a car accident.
This is what I mean by a "reason" for dying young - or for that matter,
suffering abuse. You are either completing tasks you set for yourself,
trying to atone for things you did wrong, or people you hurt, in earlier
lifetimes, or trying to develop qualities you will need in future lifetimes,
possibly even learning how to help other people face these same situations.
A person who has great compassion is supposed to have suffered severe
misfortune in an earlier life - so they may have been one of the ones who
died of one of the now-preventable diseases of childhood, in the previous
life. Because of that experience they are now in a position to help others.
What's missing with this, in terms of what Steiner said? I would really like
to know. I've read a lot of Steiner, Dottie, but maybe I've missed parts you
have read.
)And where you appear to be going is, to explain how it
)can be possible to say, that Dr. Steiner encourages
)the thought that 'if your child is dying its in his
)Karma and so that is okay',
I really amd not going there; like I said, I have no idea if Steiner said
this. It wasn't me who claimed he said this, and you're right, I'm not going
to find such a quote because I'm not looking for one.
)And I asked you if you were sure what you were agreeing to in
)Michael quote and you never replied.
Sorry, I must've missed that.
)You are speaking to a person who many terrible things
)have happened to her in her childhood. And I think
)that is the part of Karma that you don't understand.
)It is not a human law, it is a spiritual law. And I am
)not sure if you believe there are any spiritual laws.
This sounds suspiciously to me like it lets humans - people who hurt you,
Dottie - off the hook for abuses. If people hurt you when you were a child,
Dottie, they didn't do it because of "spiritual laws." Your abusers don't
deserve to have you find spiritual excuses for them. Every bit of your pain
is legitimate, not one piece of it has a justification out there in the
ether somewhere.
)I agree with you 100 %. Anthroposophy is not the end
)all be all even if Dr. Steiner may or may not have
)thought so. There are many different answers out there
)and I believe they all have to do with a common
)denominator called Love and with that we need to find
)some understanding to respect the differences in each
)other.
Hey, Dottie, we agree on something! :)
)I appreciate your way of debating on this list Diana,
)and I have learned alot from you even if it doesn't
)show in my writing.
Thanks, Dottie, that's a nice thing to say!
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:46:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: vaccination and Buddhist/science
Alice
)
) I was reminded yesterday at a gathering about the
) Buddhist principles of
) detachment. Among those things to detach from is
) sometimes helping
) other people.
Dottie
This is why I have an issue with Buddhism, or at least
what I percieve of it. I have friends who are Buddhist
and their idea is to rise above the worldly problems.
And my question is well if you rise yourself above the
worldly problems how do you serve humanity.
However I did just meet a Buddhist that is close to
taking his vow. It does seem like a very extreme
thing and very different from what my friends
understanding of Buddhism is. It's almost like he is
going to be going through some initiation rights. And
I really enjoyed his understanding of it.
Although it seems that on this list when
Anthroposophists say something about not always
'saving' or 'helping' a person it is met with the cry
of 'unfeeling or even sadistic' behaviour comments. (
and I am not talking about vaccinations and
immunizations)
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Diana
) I understand that, and I see that it needn't
) *necessarily* mean "don't
) help." However, I think it's contradictory then - if
) an accident or illness
) was "needed" or actually "sought" by the person for
) their own
) self-improvement, then it just makes sense that you
) should leave them alone
) to get on with their self-improvement.
Dottie
No, it doesn't make sense. If you read Dr. Steiners
quote posted by Charlie you will see, that this is
exactly what he was against; not helping because it
was obviously their Karma that got them in that place
to begin with. Not good thinking as far as he can see.
And that is why I don't think you understand what Dr.
Steiner is saying in regards to Karma. He does not
encourage anyone to use it as an excuse while a person
is still living. We are all still to help how we can.
Diana
I mean, guys,
) that is *precisely* the
) argument against vaccination. Vaccination is
) "interfering." So why interfere
) later?
Dottie
Vaccination is interfering, and not neccesarily in a
good way, with the bodies recovery of the illness, or
so it seems to me, is what is being said, and once
again not only by Dr. Steiner. And from what I have
read here and a little elsewhere it may be true,
depending on the illness.
Diana
) It logically just goes up in smoke if karma means
) first you have an accident
) or illness, then karma means next you get help, and
) then it's karma whether
) you died, or whether you didn't die . . . so what
) does this explain?
Dottie
I am probably going to get groans from both sides as I
try to respond to this.
It explains the cause and effect of everything in the
Unverse. :) imo (all of us involved, everything and
everyone in all situations. )
Not only in the case of the child in Waldorf but
whether or not the parent pulls their child out when
not compfortable with the teachings. It involves the
teachers Karma and how they are with the parents and
with the students. Do they not tell the whole truth in
order to not scare parents off? Learning (Karma) for
them. Do they force their ideas on parents or anyone
else in their lives (as many of us do naturally, aware
or unaware). Do they judge others who are not in
agreement with them?
All of this is involved, not just the fact that as a
way of explaining Karma, teachers or administrations
may say 'oh your child chose this school' ...just as
rightly a parent can say ' oh well I guess we choose
not to go to this school'...no harm no foul...
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Diana
) Honestly, Dottie, I'm not trying to be snotty with
) you.
Dottie
Hi Diana, I know you are not being snotty with me. I
love how you are being with me. You are letting me in
the conversation where before I just felt blocked.
Diana
I wish you would
) explain further so I would really know what was
) wrong with it. I wrote a lot
) of words, so obviously there *was* an explanation
) there, and I'd appreciate
) more help with which parts I don't understand.
Dottie
Because there were alot of words did not mean you had
an explanation of Karma. And I did not say it was
wrong, I said it wasn't an explanation which I guess
in a way is saying it is wrong but...agh!!! I can't
just rattle off coherently an explanation. I
understand it internally and it is hard for me to do
the written work on it. I need someone elses help. But
I do know it when I see it written by someone else.
Diana
) Didn't Steiner say that we choose - not consciously
) - but somehow our Higher
) Self is choosing - misfortunes, accidents, etc. -
) that everything that
) happens to us is actually our choice?
Dottie
Yes, but we have actually already chosen it before we
had come down. Which I know sounds strange to many
people and why Waldorf is not for everyone. It all
depends on your world view. We lead ourselves to the
places and people we need learning from, or at least
to the lesson, irreguardless of the exact people,
according to what we had already done in a past life.
I personally think (and I am not an Anthroposophists
so please do not hold them accountable to my little
understanding of this) that we get the lessons at some
point. For me it is like being on a straight path. And
sometimes I go off the path (unawares) and the
learning I might have gotten by staying straight on
the path I will get in another way, then I went off
the path. And I will join up with my path once again
once I realize I am off the path. And it will be
further up on the line as what I had learned on the
side is still forward progression and what I would
have learned if I had just stayed on course. So I get
it anyway.
Although I must say it sounds rather circular and
ridiculous to some; I am always on my path even when I
percieve that I have gotten off it. :) whew.
Diana
Actually, he
) said we should mainly
) view the *bad* things that happen to us as karma,
) and look at good things as
) "grace." (Other Christian religions say this sort of
) thing as well. "There
) for the grace of God go I.")
Dottie
But it is all Karma and Grace is built in. imo. Once
again I remind any Anthroposophist reading this that I
do not claim this is Steiners thoughts. These are my
interpretations of how I understand things.
Diana
) Doesn't he also explain that we die at the time when
) we have finished the
) tasks set for ourselves in the present incarnation?
) So you may not finish
) your tasks till you are 85, or you may finish when
) you are 4 years old, if
) you had a shorter task this time or maybe you can
) complete this task by
) suffering a lot in a short time span - and so a
) child dies of leukemia or in
) a car accident.
Dottie
Yes, I believe so.
Diana
) This is what I mean by a "reason" for dying young -
) or for that matter,
) suffering abuse. You are either completing tasks you
) set for yourself,
) trying to atone for things you did wrong, or people
) you hurt, in earlier
) lifetimes, or trying to develop qualities you will
) need in future lifetimes,
) possibly even learning how to help other people face
) these same situations.
) A person who has great compassion is supposed to
) have suffered severe
) misfortune in an earlier life - so they may have
) been one of the ones who
) died of one of the now-preventable diseases of
) childhood, in the previous
) life. Because of that experience they are now in a
) position to help others.
)
Dottie
Yes.
Diana
) What's missing with this, in terms of what Steiner
) said? I would really like
) to know. I've read a lot of Steiner, Dottie, but
) maybe I've missed parts you
) have read.
)
Dottie
You gave your perception in regards to what Karma is.
Here you explain quite clearly how Dr. Steiner
expresses Karma. And you have done well. But when you
put it all together in a perception of his expression,
you did not do as well. It might be the fact that you
grapple with the idea of Karma and so when trying to
pin point it into an explanation you fall short.
Your expression of what he expressed, here, is great.
Now try to roll it all together is the difficult part.
What it does not mean is : It's your childs Karma so
just let it be, do not interfere. And that is what I
got from your first post of Steiners understanding
which is completely off the mark.
Dottie
) )And where you appear to be going is, to explain how
) it
) )can be possible to say, that Dr. Steiner encourages
) )the thought that 'if your child is dying its in his
) )Karma and so that is okay',
)
Dottie
) )
) )You are speaking to a person who many terrible
) things
) )have happened to her in her childhood. And I think
) )that is the part of Karma that you don't
) understand.
)
) and
) )It is not a human law, it is a spiritual law. And I
) am
) )not sure if you believe there are any spiritual
) laws.
Diana
) This sounds suspiciously to me like it lets humans -
) people who hurt you,
) Dottie - off the hook for abuses.
Dottie
No, not a chance in hell. I do not want what happened
to me to happen to any other little girl or boy. Ever.
But that is my point when you express your
understanding of Steiners concept of Karma. He is not
saying it is okay, nor am I. It is what happened
though. And I do all I can to help kids (and it is
like 75% of the kids from the streets had been abused
when children in the foster care system) who have gone
through this to heal.
It's not about the other person it is about how we
heal ourselves. And we don't heal ourselves by making
it okay what another person did to us or we will allow
others to continue doing to us. No, it is about
finding our own personal understanding of what
happened , where it changed us, and what we have
learned from that experience. Not an excuse, an
understanding.
I personally am not worried about the other persons
who may have done what they did. I am only worried
about how I deal with it. What they did, they did. I
can't change that, however I will not allow it to be
more powerful than I am.
So, no it is not an excuse.
Diana
If people hurt you
) when you were a child,
) Dottie, they didn't do it because of "spiritual
) laws."
Dottie
I agree with you. However and it is a really delicate
situation of understanding. What happened was wrong.
It defies a human explanation Diana, and it requires a
lot of thinking and mostly understanding, precious,
precious, understanding.
I think everything that has happened in my life is
for a reason. I am not worried about anyone elses
outside reasoning, I am thinking of only how it
applies to my spirit and my learning. How I react to
those things around me. And how I correlate things. I
am very alone in my beliefs, in teh way I love people,
and in the way I hold my heart to be in a forgiving
state at all times. But that does not make it right
for you to do something hurtful to me. And that does
not mean that I will be your personal friend because I
am supposed to be all loving and all forgiving. I am
not a fool. You can go and take that pain to someone
else and let them deal with it, because I will not
allow it in my life any longer, is my thought.
Although I do get that the people who do something
poopy to me( in my adult life) get all the sh*tty
aspects of it, because I am great at realizing what
happened in a situation and I ALWAYS ALWAYS grow from
it. So while I get the growth, my friend gets the
sh*tty part of the stick. And then they lose my trust
but not my love. And they don't get to hang out with
me anymore :)))))))
Diana
Your abusers don't
) deserve to have you find spiritual excuses for them.
) Every bit of your pain
) is legitimate, not one piece of it has a
) justification out there in the
) ether somewhere.
Dottie
I agree with you that all of my pain is legitimate.
Every single peice of it. But I turn my pain into
learning, and I always have. For some reason as a
child I never held onto pain. And as an adult I have
been able to express what has happened to me with
groups of young people who can see that I do not have
to become the shame or victim as society has thought I
am. And neither do they.
Thank you,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:56:51 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Immunizations
I wrote (on karma):
)I think it's contradictory then - if an accident or illness was "needed" or
)actually "sought" by the person for their own self-)improvement, then it
)just makes sense that you should leave them alone to get on with their
)self-improvement.
Dottie:
No, it doesn't make sense.
Why not? Why would I want to interfere with someone's spiritual lessons, or
prevent them from completing their life tasks, or prevent them from gaining
the wisdom or strength they would have gained from suffering? I wouldn't
want someone to interfere with *my* spiritual progress. (tongue-in-cheek,
but only partly) If you accept karma, non-interference makes perfect sense.
It even seems that if you interfered, and saved a person who was supposed to
die, they'd just have to come back *again* and suffer some more in another
lifetime, in order to complete the task you interfered with.
And if it was their karma to get helped, then what was the point of the
suffering in the first place? See what I mean? It just goes in circles!
I agree it doesn't reconcile with the quote Charlie posted. But I don't see
how to get it to reconcile. But maybe I really don't get it.
)And that is why I don't think you understand what Dr.
)Steiner is saying in regards to Karma.
Dottie, if you want to reach out across our differences, you'd have to
explain to me what I don't understand, not just say "you don't understand."
Give it a try?
)Vaccination is interfering, and not neccesarily in a
)good way, with the bodies recovery of the illness
I can't understand, Dottie, how an intervention that *prevents* the illness
in the first place, can be seen as interfering with the body recovering from
the illness . . .
re: karma:
)It explains the cause and effect of everything in the
)Unverse.
Well, this is my problem with it! If something explains everything, it
explains nothing. But I'm afraid you are just going to say I'm not spiritual
enough to get it. (sigh)
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:15:16 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: who has been duped, really?
on 8/13/01 12:53 PM, Kerr at dirtwitch sympatico.ca wrote:
) Geez they must have taken over public education in the 50's and 60's then
) because this particular song is in a book of songs my mother used
in her grade
) 2-3 classes in the 60's.
Sharon L:
Just a quick comment...True, the heretical religion (in which Anthroposophy
has it's roots), along side everything else in the world can be found
everywhere. (I just saw a great example on a film envelope.) These ideas
exist in literature, in art, in science, in music, etc... Many fairy tales
are in fact coded stories once told to adults to pass along religious ideas
that were suppressed, (remember the inquisition?) Parsival or the Fairy Land
tales are good examples of this. Waldorf specifically chooses what is taught
with an *intent* to inculcate a specific worldview, that of Anthroposophy.
Waldorf has a mission to disseminate Anthroposophy and Anthroposophical
Med., and Waldorf has a deeper mission to prepare students for a better
reincarnation, it is a parochial school, not the artsy, progressive,
multicultural school it likes to pretend to be.
Here are some examples of tales told in Waldorf for a specific reason. In
the early years children learn about the worm turning into a butterfly
specifically to illustrate to the child the concept of reincarnation. In the
older grades this concept is reinforced with other carefully chosen
religious myths which are passed off as history. In third grade children
learn about building a house. They are taught that the body is the house of
the spirit and that the spirit can go inside the house or outside the house.
Children are taught about gnomes because Steiner believed they actually
exist, they are also part of a very old system which is no longer accepted
by science, (Gnomes, Sylphs, Salamanders, Undines) which was a lesson my
daughter was taught. Everything in waldorf is a lesson in Anthroposophy.I
really don't mind if parents want to choose a parochial school for their
kids, I just think Waldorf needs to be responsible in clarifying this to
parents. Personally, I prefer a broader education for my child, I prefer a
school that doesn't have an intent to inculcate a specific worldview. I
would never send my child to a fundamental Christian school or a Catholic
school for this same reason.
) Do you not think its possible that through your veil of disagreement with
) Anthroposophy you are seeing it where it isn't? Couldn't this just be a song
) like it was when my mother had her classes singing it?
Sharon L:
I have studied many Waldorf lesson books, I have read many of Steiner's
lectures, I have years of Waldorf experience as a Waldorf parent, I have
consulted Waldorf Education books, as well as history books regarding the
source of Anthroposophy, I have read books on magical lodges and mystery
centers. I am speaking from an educated perspective. In Waldorf nothing is
"just because." I agree that the example I gave about the dandy lion song is
superficial, but there are many ideas taught in Waldorf that aren't
superficial and are actually at odds with what is accepted as fact.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 11:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Immunizations
--- Diana:
)
) I wrote (on karma):
)
) )I think it's contradictory then - if an accident or
) illness was "needed" or
) )actually "sought" by the person for their own
) self-)improvement, then it
) )just makes sense that you should leave them alone
) to get on with their
) )self-improvement.
)
) Dottie:
)
) No, it doesn't make sense.
)
Diana
) Why not? Why would I want to interfere with
) someone's spiritual lessons, or
) prevent them from completing their life tasks, or
) prevent them from gaining
) the wisdom or strength they would have gained from
) suffering?
Dottie
See, this is why I think you don't understand the
concept of Karma. We are all apart of each others.
It's universal. What I do or do not do, what you do or
do not do, it is all a part of it. You define yourself
by the choices you make at any given moment. To be
involved in a relationship or not. To pull your kids
out of Waldorf or not.
We only learn and experience things about ourselves in
relation to others, imo. Now there is another part of
that equation to the extent of those who are so
outerworldly that they only contemplate God and Its
meaning to them personally. They isolate themselves.
That is not what we naturally do. We are learning
about ourselves through others. And others are
learning about themselves through us. Karma.
And as far as suffering. Yes we may gain from it but
we also gain from other things as well. There may be
people who specifically seek out suffering. I do not
believe that seems to be the Anthroposophic way. I
have never heard Steiner say 'seek out the suffering
so you can grow' I have however heard him say ' when
you suffer and understand it, it is not suffering it
is growth. Like that old addage ' no pain no
gain'...yup it can be true, just like all those old
wives tales that we are told are just that tales. Nope
they hold truth in them most of the times but we just
dismiss them.
Diana
I wouldn't
) want someone to interfere with *my* spiritual
) progress. (tongue-in-cheek,
) but only partly) If you accept karma,
) non-interference makes perfect sense.
)
Dottie
People can not help but to interfere as you live side
by side with them. And you also interract with people
on line. Your spiritual progress and spiritual beliefs
are not one and the same. We are not fully aware of
our spiritual progress. We can be aware of what we
think is our spiritual progress according to how
society judges it or we judge it ourselves but unless
one is in touch with the spiritual realm and
completely conscious of it, there is no true way of
knowing , just interpreting.
And I do not think accepting Karma, is as you say, a
perfect excuse for non interference. Now on a medical
point of view, vaccination versus not being vaccinated
is about interfering with an illness, and many people
disagree to its effectiveness. And yes the illness
would be a part of the Karma but that doesn't mean
that vaccination is or is not the right
interference:)talk about interference, whew pushing me
to grow when I am forced(not really) to express my
self and views.
Diana
) It even seems that if you interfered, and saved a
) person who was supposed to
) die, they'd just have to come back *again* and
) suffer some more in another
) lifetime, in order to complete the task you
) interfered with.
)
Dottie
Diana, if they