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 didn't die they were not supposed to
die, in my opinion. I am sure it can get complicated.
Is there a quote you have from Steiner that says
people might interfere with anothers death and then
they have to return to get the lesson again? I mean
there may be and it seems I may recall such a thing
but I am not sure. And if there is such a thing it
would be something I would have to hold it up as a
possibility but not as a fact that such a thing could
happen.
Diana
) 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!
Dottie
Well, see that is what people who contemplate Karma
understand. They may not know the whole mystery of
life but they can see a corresponing aspect to cause
and effect. And once again it involves everyone. And
it is not any one particular thing that you come back
for, it is a myriad of things. And you so choose. And
all of this is my opinion, not fact in my mind.
Diana
) 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?
Dottie
I have tried but have not been very succefull at
explaining it either. You seem to separate the Karma
aspects when truly they can't be separated they are
like a circle as you say. I can't separate them
because it is cause and effect and my understanding is
that we never die. And we choose for whatever reason
that is, (which is what I am contemplating on) to come
back again. I have a lot of friends who say "I'm not
coming back again"...And I piss them off by saying
"yes you are, instead of learning about what is going
on you keep pushing it away, hence if you do not learn
and only block, rest assure you are coming back.
)
Diana
) 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 . . .
)
Dottie
I think Kerr and a few others have explained how it
works. If I remember in your post you weren't so
convinced.
It went something along the lines of the asparin
stream, where sometimes what appears to help the body
is actually a short term gain and in the long run does
not achieve what the body could have itself, if left
alone. Now, I am not speaking of serious illness here.
Nor am I condoning not having your children
vaccinated. I am just saying that there are myriad
points of view.
Dottie
) re: karma:
)
) )It explains the cause and effect of everything in
) the
) )Unverse.
)
Diana
) 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)
)
Dottie
Nope, I wouldn't say that nor would I ever think that.
That might be your logical conclusion because I see it
differently than you but that just goes to show how
you tie Karma aspects together; you think because this
is said, that must be true, it doesn't work that way,
its your perception not neccessarily fact.
You can't see how someone would 'interfere', as you
call it, when it is all a part of their destiny.
It is all tied together, and it is not an excuse, it
is an explanation of the cause and effect concept of
Karma.
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 23:08:53 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: attacks and karma
)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.
Fundamentalist, cultish. When the children of sect members lose faith
in their parents' religion (through the influence of a third party or
otherwise), they're considered spiritually dead, lost. The seducer is
Satan.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:59:25 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: who has been duped, really?
Sharon L wrote:
)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.
)
DL: Is there such a school? I know of many public schools that regulary
tell the children what they "should" do about "problems" in the world.
There are Public Schools that have very liberal agendas or very conservative
agendas (although they don't necessarily inform parents about their
viewpoints) Is that not the same? And would you be opposed to schools
teaching children such specific viewpoints? Truth be told - you can't have
a school without a worldview - even if the goal is to have no viewpoint -
that's a view point.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:01:25 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Diana, you seem to actually be willing to try and understand what karma is.
And for that I applaud you. Whether or not you ever "believe" in karma,
at least you seem to be making an honest effort to understand what it is.
))Dottie:
))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. 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.
DL: Ahhhh...here's where an important part of karma comes in - the idea that
those who do you wrong are actually affecting their next incarnation. Karma
can be used as an excuse - "don't blame me - it was your karma that made me
do it" - but this would be wrong. ((--IMO--)) The very use of karma as an
excuse will become something that the person will have to deal with in a
future incarnation. Karma (imo) involves me choosing the circumstances of
this life - the road I head out on for my journey. What I do with it is
what I do with it. But I am a firm believer that we draw to us what happens
to us. For me, there's a lot of comfort in that (even though at times I
would love to not be responsible for my life) - knowing that if I don't like
where my life is going - I CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:33:30 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: attacks and karma
)(x-flowed))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.
)
)Fundamentalist, cultish. When the children of sect members lose faith
)in their parents' religion (through the influence of a third party or
)otherwise), they're considered spiritually dead, lost. The seducer is
)Satan.
)
)--
)Tarjei
Bullshit.
You and DL and Dottie, to whose other crap I won't deign to reply, are
trying to blame the victim. Classic cult propaganda and mental torture.
No religion in our family.
We were not members of any sect.
We were consumers who sent our kids to a state integrated school that
contractually promised that Anthroposophy was not in the classroom.
We had nothing to do with the Anthroposphical or Steiner side of Waldorf
education.
It was imposed on us and our kids by stealth, and when I found it out, I
was fobbed off and lied to again, and then put down in the ways you and DL
and Dottie and all other Steiner Waldorf and Anthroposophy cultists are
brainwashed to do.
Tarjei, you're changing your shirt colour from brown to black.
My children haven't lost faith in me, they've just had their minds fucked
with by a cult. That's what it's called, "mind fucking".
That's what all you Defenders of the Faith are continuing to do to critics
here. Including good cop-bad cop and love-bombing, as in DL's false caring
for me and my kids, and Dottie's cool-warm breath.
My children were always brought up to question everything, including me.
They were brought up to be iconoclasts. Their Steiner "education"
brainwashing killed this. We're working on a resurrection, but it is slow
work.
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 19:44:27 -0400
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
"mypostbox.formail" wrote:
) I was told by a waldorf teacher that buddism was not appropiate for the
) "western mind"
Dear Bea,
So?
If a Waldorf teacher said it, then of course it must follow that
Steiner said it and that all anthroposophists must therefore believe it.
None of these people ever have a thought of their own, do they.
Do you think "buddhism" is appropriate for the Western mind? Do you
know what "buddhism" is? Do you know what "buddhism" to which this
person was refering? Do you actually know anything about this, other
then a Waldorf teacher told you something? And what really does that
mean, that a Waldorf teacher told you this story?
are we having fun yet?
joel
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 19:48:02 -0400
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
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.
Dear Dan,
Did I say any of the above in my post? Please quote where I said "AM
is an extension of scientific medicine".
Since you cannot show this, please tell us what the heck you are
talking about. I feel like I walked in on a conversation between Moe
and Curly.
where's the beef?
joel
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 20:09:46 -0400
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: vaccination and "science"??
Alice Klinge wrote:
) 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
Dear Alice,
I don't know what you mean by "philosophers' bias", and would need to
know that in order to make sense of what you are asking.
As a help, let me say that Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom is really a
finger pointing at your own inwardness. It is there, inside yourself,
that the whole matter of freedom unfolds. Those who study the book, and
not themselves, learn nothing.
Some translations of this book have the following as some form of
subtitle: "some results of introspective observation following the
methods of natural science".
Sometimes I think people get confused because in modern times many
people take the word "philosophy" to mean a system of beliefs or ideas.
This is not the use Steiner makes of it.
In a classical philosophic education, one begins with that part of
philosophy called epistomology, which deals with the problem of
knowledge - how do we know what we know, and how do we know we know it.
This is really one way of saying the same thing Steiner has said in the
second sentence you quoted: "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?"
That's not a bad place to start, and it is where the on-line study of
this book I participate in began almost a year ago.
epistomologically yours,
joel
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 414
-- Topica Digest --
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: attacks and karma
By tastraum uncletaz.com
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: attacks and karma
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Not rude, but honest
By dan dandugan.com
Re: For the moderator
By dan dandugan.com
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By dan dandugan.com
Re: vaccination and "science"??
By dan dandugan.com
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: vaccination and "science"??
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: For the moderator
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: vaccination and "science"??
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Not rude, but honest
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Not rude, but honest
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Not rude, but honest/
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Admin: Topica scheduled to be down on Friday 17th
By dan dandugan.com
Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
By sune.nordwall home.se
Re: For the moderator
By earlyfire earthlink.net
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice onWC-list
By firefly tpg.com.au
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: For the moderator
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: vaccination and "science"??
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice
onWC-list
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: Not rude, but honest
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: For the moderator
By tastraum uncletaz.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.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.
) )
) Dottie
)
) I just found the quote yesterday and will send it
) later.
)
Dottie:
Dan,
Who are you replying to here?
In looking at your wording here I realize that I will
not be able to find a quote in relation to Dr. Steiner
saying his medicine is an extension of science.
What I did say to Diana was that, and I quote:
Dr. Steiners remedies are not to replace the word of
the doctor but to expand it (augument is the word I
believe).
This I can find a quote on.
Please clarify when you have time.
Thanks, Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 03:00:22 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: attacks and karma
Michael Kopp wrote:
)No religion in our family.
Really? How about irrational ultra-rationalism to the point of obsession?
)Tarjei, you're changing your shirt colour from brown to black.
Full regalia with swastika and all that? You're not a very successful
comedian, Michael.
)My children haven't lost faith in me, they've just had their minds fucked
)with by a cult. That's what it's called, "mind fucking".
Perhaps they doubted your ultra-rational tenet that leaves no
qualitative difference between Jesus Christ and the Easter Bunny, or
between the Buddha and the Tooth Fairy. To you they're all the same,
right? Irrational and infuriating at the same time?
)That's what all you Defenders of the Faith are continuing to do to critics
)here. Including good cop-bad cop
Oh, that description is closer to you and Dan.
)and love-bombing, as in DL's false caring for me and my kids, and
)Dottie's cool-warm breath.
DL and Dottie love you, I'm sure, if you'll only see the Light :)-
)My children were always brought up to question everything, including me.
)They were brought up to be iconoclasts. Their Steiner "education"
)brainwashing killed this. We're working on a resurrection, but it is slow
)work.
It requires a miracle. Prayer might help.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 01:24:31 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
DL writes:
)I am a firm believer that we draw to us what happens to us.
I have a huge, insurmountable problem with this. This is fine for you to say
for yourself - it sounds very admirable to take responsibility for your life
- but according to your theory (to use the most recent example discussed
here), children dying in freak accidents or of diseases are also "drawing"
these things to them. I can't tell you what a load of *** I think that is.
(Let's just never mind for a minute the fact that the vaccine-treatable
diseases are *preventable* and this is the *parent's* choice and not the
*child's*).
Your theory states that any child who is a victim of abuse or neglect
brought it on themselves. Any child whose parent decided not to strap them
in their carseat, must have *wanted* an 18-wheeler to run them down that
afternoon. More, even *caused* the car to crash. Yeah. It makes me sick to
think anybody would look at their child dead in a car crash and decide they
must have hurt a lot of people in a previous lifetime and that's why this
happened.
I give anthroposophists credit that they probably *don't* actually think
this about their own children in such a situation. It's sort of theoretical,
I guess; it must be *other* peoples' children who sometimes have bad karma.
To me, it makes a mockery of the whole concept of human choice and
responsibility. It is moral muck.
)For me, there's a lot of comfort in that
Well, lucky you. Whatever gets you through the night. Would it be comforting
if you were homeless, or a child being beaten, or a child with AIDS?
)knowing that if I don't like where my life is going - I CAN DO )SOMETHING
)ABOUT IT.
Yes, DL, you can. What can the child being beaten or dying of AIDS do about
it? Accept karma? What a crock.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:09:16 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: attacks and karma
Michael wrote:
)You and DL and Dottie, to whose other crap I won't deign to reply, are
)trying to blame the victim. Classic cult propaganda and mental torture.
)
DL: Michael, I assure you that I am in no way trying to "blame the victim."
Of course, with my view of life - there are no victims, therefore, it would
be hard for me to actually "blame the victim."
Michael:
)
)It (Anthroposophy) was imposed on us and our kids by stealth, and when I
)found it out, I
)was fobbed off and lied to again, and then put down in the ways you and DL
)and Dottie and all other Steiner Waldorf and Anthroposophy cultists are
)brainwashed to do.
DL: One problem with your theory - I'm neither an Anthroposophist or a
member of a cult. As far as brainwashing - there may be some remnants from
a Catholic upbringing, but I'm pretty sure I'm un-washed of the brain at
this point. (At least I hope so)
Michael:
)That's what all you Defenders of the Faith are continuing to do to critics
)here. Including good cop-bad cop and love-bombing, as in DL's false caring
)for me and my kids, and Dottie's cool-warm breath.
DL: Michael - the comments I made were not "love-bombing" and I do not
extend "false caring." What I said, I meant. Nothing false about it AND
what I said holds true. If your kids suffered as a result of their
experience, I do have compassion for that. And for you as well. Do I
always show my love for fellow human beings? Nope. I'm human.
But, I do not equate love with doing that which causes the least discomfort
or pain. When I hold my daughter accountable for her actions and she gets
sad and cries because she doesn't get her way - I would love to let her
have her way. But I don't because I know that in the long run it's better
for her. On a seperate note - I also believes that everything works out for
the best. EVERYTHING. That the universe takes care of everything if we let
it. Does that mean I sit pondering my navel or walk through life in a "it's
ok - the universe will provide"? Nope - I get hooked by others, by my
misunderstandings by my humanity. But in my heart, I hold this to be true.
It's the ideal I try to live up to.
As far as being a defender of the faith - I think if you examine my posts,
you'll find more that I question arguments than I blindly support either
Steiner or Waldorf education. No defender of the faith here.
I would love to get past all the bashing, Michael, and actually have a
reasonable conversation with you. You have a passion that is truly amazing.
Although I expect that you will take this offer as some cult-inspired
"catch them off guard by lowering your defenses ploy." So, while I extend
the offer to get past the animosity, I'll understand if you choose not to.
I do ask, however, that you refrain from attacking other members. And for
anyone else reading this, I ask the same.
Shalom (Peace)
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:24:03 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Cc: Severin =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sp=F6rri?= (sevu swissonline.ch)
Subject: Re: Not rude, but honest
Severin Sp?rri, you wrote the following rant to me at PLANS. I am
answering you on the waldorf-critics mailing list. If you want to
participate in any subsequent discussion, please subscribe
immediately by sending an email to
waldorf-critics-subscribe topica.com. You won't be alone, there are
several vocal defenders of Waldorf and Anthroposophy on the list.
)Hello
)To accuse is not the only thing I can, and if you want a good
)discussion go ahead and contact me
)BUT: I' have taken a quick glance over the homepage (
)"Waldorfcritics") and read some of the articles and headlines. I am
)an insider (insider, not an anthropsophist) my short statement about
)it is: DON' T MESS WITH SUBJECTS AND THEMES SUCCEEDING YOUR MENTAL
)AND INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY.
)TAKE A COURSE IN INTERPRETING LITERATURE, READ SOME SMART BOOKS
)REGARDING THE SUBJECT, DO SOME RESEARCH, SO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR
)TALKING ABOUT. THINKING BEFORE YOU WRITE MIGHT HELP TOO.
)
)Sincerly,
)
)Sevu
Your points in detail:
)To accuse is not the only thing I can, and if you want a good
)discussion go ahead and contact me
)BUT: I' have taken a quick glance over the homepage (
)"Waldorfcritics") and read some of the articles and headlines. I am
)an insider (insider, not an anthropsophist) my short statement about
)it is: DON' T MESS WITH SUBJECTS AND THEMES SUCCEEDING YOUR MENTAL
)AND INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY.
OK, Sevu, you say I'm stupid because I disagree with you. This is
called an ad hominem argument, and says more about your lack of a
good argument than about my intelligence.
)TAKE A COURSE IN INTERPRETING LITERATURE,
I think I can read pretty well, thank you. A course in literature
won't help anybody understand Rudolf Steiner, though. I would
recommend courses in religion, cults, fantasy, and science fiction.
)READ SOME SMART BOOKS REGARDING THE SUBJECT,
I've read a lot of Steiner and later leaders of the movement. I
wouldn't call them "smart books," though.
) DO SOME RESEARCH, SO YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT.
I have been researching Waldorf and Anthroposophy for 13 years, and
I'm confident that I do know what I'm talking about. How about you?
)THINKING BEFORE YOU WRITE MIGHT HELP TOO.
Again, you sink to the ad hominem level. If you join the discussion
on waldorf-critics, you will have to restrain yourself from using
this tactic. On waldorf-critics arguments must address the topic of
discussion, not the people doing the discussing.
Also, writing in ALL CAPS is shouting, not conducive to a good
discussion, either.
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:44:43 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: For the moderator
Earlyfire, you wrote,
)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.
This ad hominem assertion doesn't make sense to me, unless you think
that Waldorf and Anthroposophy are synonymous with all good things,
and that therefore opposing them is opposing all good things. As I
read Michael, he is opposed to pretension, hypocrisy, and deceptive
marketing, all bad things which virtuous people oppose.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:47:44 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
DAN DUGAN
))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.
TARJEI STRAUME
)I assume that is a judgement for medical doctors to make.
Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of science can judge Steiner's
writings on science and medicine.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:52:08 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.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."
When these books utterly failed to convince the European intellectual
community that Steiner's epistemology had any value, he stopped
addressing the academic world and started talking only to his cult
followers.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:27:59 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
)DL writes:
)
))I am a firm believer that we draw to us what happens to us.
)
Diana responded:
)I have a huge, insurmountable problem with this.
DL: Then I won't expect any of what I write to make a difference, but feel
compelled to try anyway.
Diana:
)This is fine for you to say
)for yourself - it sounds very admirable to take responsibility for your
)life
)- but according to your theory (to use the most recent example discussed
)here), children dying in freak accidents or of diseases are also "drawing"
)these things to them.
DL: Is it better to think they happen by chance? That God makes them
happen? What? How do you explain them? How does one deal with a child
dying in a freak accident or through an illness that can't be treated? For
me, it is easier to understand that we have something to do with it than to
say it all just happened via chance. That what happens, happens for a
reason and for the betterment of all concerned.
)Diana:
)I can't tell you what a load of *** I think that is.
)(Let's just never mind for a minute the fact that the vaccine-treatable
)diseases are *preventable* and this is the *parent's* choice and not the
)*child's*).
)
DL: Well, as I understand life, the child chooses the parent, so....
Diana:
)Your theory states that any child who is a victim of abuse or neglect
)brought it on themselves. Any child whose parent decided not to strap them
)in their carseat, must have *wanted* an 18-wheeler to run them down that
)afternoon. More, even *caused* the car to crash. Yeah. It makes me sick to
)think anybody would look at their child dead in a car crash and decide they
)must have hurt a lot of people in a previous lifetime and that's why this
)happened.
DL: Actually, you distort my theory. I'm not saying that we "want" these
things to happen. Or that we "cause" these things happen. I'm saying that
something in our nature draws these things to us. Maybe we need them to
happen so that we learn some lesson of the universe. What makes me sick is
thinking that the child killed in the car crash was a random event. Why not
have it be part of that child's journey? Or rather, the soul's journey and
the soul (which is neverending) happened to be in a child at that point. Do
you believe that we have a soul? That the soul continues on after we "die"?
That makes a huge difference.
)Diana:
)I give anthroposophists credit that they probably *don't* actually think
)this about their own children in such a situation. It's sort of
)theoretical,
)I guess; it must be *other* peoples' children who sometimes have bad karma.
)
)To me, it makes a mockery of the whole concept of human choice and
)responsibility. It is moral muck.
)
DL: How does it do that? How does it make a mockery of it?
))DL from a previous post:
))For me, there's a lot of comfort in that
)
Diana:
)Would it be comforting
)if you were homeless, or a child being beaten, or a child with AIDS?
)
DL: I don't know - I've never been. And neither does anyone else who's
never been.
)
))DL from previous:
))knowing that if I don't like where my life is going - I CAN DO )SOMETHING
))ABOUT IT.
)
)Yes, DL, you can. What can the child being beaten or dying of AIDS do about
)it? Accept karma? What a crock.
)Diana
)
DL: Diana - I don't have the answer to that. What I'd like to think is that
the child's soul needs that to happen and that they will be stronger for it.
As I stated in my post to Michael, I don't equate love and kindness. This
doesn't mean that I support cruelty, but sometimes we have to do what's
unkind in the short run to be loving in the long run.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:37:58 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: vaccination and "science"??
Dan Dugan wrote:
)When these books utterly failed to convince the European intellectual
)community that Steiner's epistemology had any value, he stopped
)addressing the academic world and started talking only to his cult
)followers.
)
DL: Wanna back this up with some EVIDENCE? You may be right, I'd prefer
more then just your assertion that it's so.
Thanks
DL
P.S. Are you ever going to respond to assertions about attacks?
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:41:11 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
)DAN DUGAN
)))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.
)
)TARJEI STRAUME
))I assume that is a judgement for medical doctors to make.
)
)Dan:
)Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of science can judge Steiner's
)writings on science and medicine.
)
DL: Dan - how much is a modicum? Colege level? High school level? Junior
High? Elementary School? And are you asserting that everyone with a
modicum of knowledge of science will come to the same conclusion? Are you
speaking for the "modicums"?
Shalom
DL
P.S. Whenever you want to respond to the question of attacks, feel free....
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 22:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: For the moderator
) Earlyfire, you wrote,
)
) )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.
)
Dan
) This ad hominem assertion doesn't make sense to me,
) unless you think
) that Waldorf and Anthroposophy are synonymous with
) all good things,
) and that therefore opposing them is opposing all
) good things. As I
) read Michael, he is opposed to pretension,
) hypocrisy, and deceptive
) marketing, all bad things which virtuous people
) oppose.
)
Dan,
Can you be really clear on ad hominem and who are
allowed to use them and to whom they are forbidden. If
you will be clear and honest about defending PLANS
supporters who use them, others might stop complaining
how unfair it is that you and Michael get to use them
at will while the rest of us are reprimanded and
threatened with 'one more time and your out of here.
How do you expect this site to be credible when you,
time and time again, change the rules. I realize that
is your perogative but at least be up front about it.
What is the deal?
Also I find your defense of Michael to be the same one
you claim the Pro Waldorf and Pro Steiner use at all
times; Defenders of the Faith but the faith is of
PLANS supporters. What's up with that?
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 22:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: vaccination and "science"??
Dan
)
) When these books utterly failed to convince the
) European intellectual
) community that Steiner's epistemology had any value,
) he stopped
) addressing the academic world and started talking
) only to his cult
) followers.
)
Dottie
Excuse me? Are you trying to float this as fact or do
you recognize this is purely your opinion?
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 00:58:03 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Not rude, but honest
Dan wrote:
)Severin Sp?rri, you wrote the following rant to me at PLANS. I am
)answering you on the waldorf-critics mailing list.
DL: Dan - please tell me that you had his permission to post his email on
this site before you did so.
)If you want to
)participate in any subsequent discussion, please subscribe
)immediately by sending an email to
)waldorf-critics-subscribe topica.com.
DL: Doesn't really have a choice now, does he? He's already "participated"
thanks to your posting his email.
)You won't be alone, there are
)several vocal defenders of Waldorf and Anthroposophy on the list.
)
DL: Who are these vocal defenders? I've seen a lot of people oppose critics
arguments, but no-one I'd call a Waldorf Defender.
))Hello
))To accuse is not the only thing I can, and if you want a good
))discussion go ahead and contact me
DL: Hmmmm.....go ahead an contact me doesn't really read like "please post
my email to a bunch of people I don't know" - but maybe it's me. However -
if Dan posted this without permission of this person, anyone who has felt
that Waldorf "tricked" them or was not honest should be outraged.
Dan in response to Sevu:
)OK, Sevu, you say I'm stupid because I disagree with you. This is
)called an ad hominem argument, and says more about your lack of a
)good argument than about my intelligence.
DL: I'm truly confused Dan. There have been dozens of ad hominem arguments
on this list in the past few weeks by people who have apparently aggreed to
avoid them and you say NOTHING. But when this person emails you (and you
didn't say whether it was a personal email or to another list at PLANS) you
are very quick to point out an ad hominem argument. What gives? If this
person just wrote to you at PLANS, is there an agreement that people who
email you must not use ad hominem arguments? Or are you correcting someone
for an ad hominem who was under no obligation to honor "no ad hominem
arguments"?
)Sevu:
))THINKING BEFORE YOU WRITE MIGHT HELP TOO.
)
)Dan:
)Again, you sink to the ad hominem level. If you join the discussion
)on waldorf-critics, you will have to restrain yourself from using
)this tactic. On waldorf-critics arguments must address the topic of
)discussion, not the people doing the discussing.
DL: Why would they have to restrain themself? No one else seems to have to.
Dan - all in all - this seems like a pretty cheap shot. Of course, I
could be wrong. This person might have given permission for you to post
their words on this list. They might have even asked you to dissect their
email in a public forum. If that's the case - I apologize. If that's not
the case, perhaps the apology should come from you.
Shalom
DL
P.S. Really - anytime you want to own up to the responsibilities of being a
moderator - would love to have you do so.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 07:15:26 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
joel wrote:
) Dear Bea,
)
) So?
)
) If a Waldorf teacher said it, then of course it must follow that
) Steiner said it and that all anthroposophists must therefore believe it.
) None of these people ever have a thought of their own, do they.
)
) Do you think "buddhism" is appropriate for the Western mind? Do you
) know what "buddhism" is? Do you know what "buddhism" to which this
) person was refering? Do you actually know anything about this, other
) then a Waldorf teacher told you something? And what really does that
) mean, that a Waldorf teacher told you this story?
)
) are we having fun yet?
dear joel,
what IS your problem?
bea
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 07:24:28 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Not rude, but honest
)
))
) DL: Who are these vocal defenders? I've seen a lot of people oppose critics
) arguments, but no-one I'd call a Waldorf Defender
I am very confused by this?
bea
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 07:35:46 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Not rude, but honest/
I am amazed that you can comment on dan posting this email here and not on
the fact that dan has to put up with receiving this kind of crap from a
waldorf insider
bea
) Dan wrote:
)) Severin Sp?rri, you wrote the following rant to me at PLANS. I am
)) answering you on the waldorf-critics mailing list.
)
) DL: Dan - please tell me that you had his permission to post his email on
) this site before you did so.
)
)) If you want to
)) participate in any subsequent discussion, please subscribe
)) immediately by sending an email to
)) waldorf-critics-subscribe topica.com.
)
) DL: Doesn't really have a choice now, does he? He's already "participated"
) thanks to your posting his email.
)
)) You won't be alone, there are
)) several vocal defenders of Waldorf and Anthroposophy on the list.
))
) DL: Who are these vocal defenders? I've seen a lot of people oppose critics
) arguments, but no-one I'd call a Waldorf Defender.
)
))) Hello
))) To accuse is not the only thing I can, and if you want a good
))) discussion go ahead and contact me
) DL: Hmmmm.....go ahead an contact me doesn't really read like "please post
) my email to a bunch of people I don't know" - but maybe it's me. However -
) if Dan posted this without permission of this person, anyone who has felt
) that Waldorf "tricked" them or was not honest should be outraged.
)
) Dan in response to Sevu:
)
)) OK, Sevu, you say I'm stupid because I disagree with you. This is
)) called an ad hominem argument, and says more about your lack of a
)) good argument than about my intelligence.
)
) DL: I'm truly confused Dan. There have been dozens of ad hominem arguments
) on this list in the past few weeks by people who have apparently aggreed to
) avoid them and you say NOTHING. But when this person emails you (and you
) didn't say whether it was a personal email or to another list at PLANS) you
) are very quick to point out an ad hominem argument. What gives? If this
) person just wrote to you at PLANS, is there an agreement that people who
) email you must not use ad hominem arguments? Or are you correcting someone
) for an ad hominem who was under no obligation to honor "no ad hominem
) arguments"?
)
)) Sevu:
))) THINKING BEFORE YOU WRITE MIGHT HELP TOO.
))
)) Dan:
)) Again, you sink to the ad hominem level. If you join the discussion
)) on waldorf-critics, you will have to restrain yourself from using
)) this tactic. On waldorf-critics arguments must address the topic of
)) discussion, not the people doing the discussing.
)
) DL: Why would they have to restrain themself? No one else seems to have to.
) Dan - all in all - this seems like a pretty cheap shot. Of course, I
) could be wrong. This person might have given permission for you to post
) their words on this list. They might have even asked you to dissect their
) email in a public forum. If that's the case - I apologize. If that's not
) the case, perhaps the apology should come from you.
)
) Shalom
)
) DL
)
) P.S. Really - anytime you want to own up to the responsibilities of being a
) moderator - would love to have you do so.
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 23:53:52 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: Topica scheduled to be down on Friday 17th
The list may not function tomorrow, Friday. Topica is having a maintenance day.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:53:37 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
Dan Dugan wrote:
) I have been researching Waldorf and Anthroposophy for 13 years, and
) I'm confident that I do know what I'm talking about. ...
On your - hm - 'expertise':
Either, you did not understand the 100% untruthfulness of your own -
still at the site of PLANS kept - basic and only 'summarising description'
of the basis of waldorf education after 12 years of study.
Or, you actually knew it was untrue, but kept it for the sake of your
rhetoric on anthroposophy and need to ask about the truthfulness of another
alternative because you actually don't quite understand what you say you
are an 'expert' on.
That you still keep it - knowing it is untrue - indicates the second
alternative is the case at least since I brought up its untrufulness on
this list.
Judge Damrell also - to my memory - did not seem to approve of your
'expertise' as witness for PLANS' side, when PLANS wanted to use you as
expert in your lost trial.
In the same way Diana, after first having told the list that could
understand what 'ether body' was after 5 minutes, asked what was untruthful
about - according to my memory - your present summary.
) Again, you sink to the ad hominem level. If you join the discussion
) on waldorf-critics, you will have to restrain yourself from using
) this tactic. On waldorf-critics arguments must address the topic of
) discussion, not the people doing the discussing.
Again, how do you apply this to Michael Kopp?
Regards,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 01:10:16 -0700
From: Harvey Bornfield (earlyfire earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: For the moderator
Good day, Dan!
'Tis not the clarity of Earlfire's analysis that's brutal. rather that a
litany of offenses designed to murder peace of mind, offenses to diplomacy
and tolerance, real and continuing, are tacitly applauded. Only consider
whether what we have said is true, and whether people who wish to conduct
the exchange and metabolism of ideas with other than a compulsive barrage
of Neanderthal adjectives, are, or are not being being victimized by the
regularly-schedued tedius flair of temper tantrums live from Mr. Kopp's
highchair., Cheer up: The good news is that the numerous ones who point out
who is authoring the offenses seem, like the populace pitted against the
Electoral College, utterly incapable of stopping the airwaves of this forum
from being flooded with incendiary squalor. The emotional level of the
protagonists is being judged by a large audience who are busy determining
with each post, the ratio between the level of wisdom and the level of
terrorism in both the critics and the advocates of the integrity of
Waldorf. These fruits will be harvested and known.
Count the number of people who have made observed Michael's tone and rage,
and decide if that's the skull and crossbone you wish to fly over your
embassy. And since deeds are the only words, respond with something other
than indifference to the stampede of evidence, the commodity which
enquiring sensical minds purport to honor. If you ignore the evidence
selectively, and by so doing, continue to model for us that maintaining a
scientific frame of reference is optional, toggle-able when convenient,
you'll be proving to all of us that subjectivity, the scapegoat which you
allege contaminates and makes Anthroposophy irrational and untrustworthy,
is also alive and well in you. Good work, Dan! Soon, you'll be writing
lyric poetry. We knew we could bring you around ;-D
Seriously, you must decide whether you wish to make the interest and
embrace of ideas or the torching of passions the mainstay of exchange
here.What food do you wish to feed those out in the amphitheater? One does
not caress with a blowtorch
And remember, also
dottie zold wrote:
) ) Earlyfire, you wrote,
) )
) ) )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.
) )
) Dan
) ) This ad hominem assertion doesn't make sense to me,
) ) unless you think
) ) that Waldorf and Anthroposophy are synonymous with
) ) all good things,
) ) and that therefore opposing them is opposing all
) ) good things. As I
) ) read Michael, he is opposed to pretension,
) ) hypocrisy, and deceptive
) ) marketing, all bad things which virtuous people
) ) oppose.
) )
) Dan,
)
) Can you be really clear on ad hominem and who are
) allowed to use them and to whom they are forbidden. If
) you will be clear and honest about defending PLANS
) supporters who use them, others might stop complaining
) how unfair it is that you and Michael get to use them
) at will while the rest of us are reprimanded and
) threatened with 'one more time and your out of here.
) How do you expect this site to be credible when you,
) time and time again, change the rules. I realize that
) is your perogative but at least be up front about it.
)
) What is the deal?
)
) Also I find your defense of Michael to be the same one
) you claim the Pro Waldorf and Pro Steiner use at all
) times; Defenders of the Faith but the faith is of
) PLANS supporters. What's up with that?
)
) Dottie
)
) __________________________________________________
) Do You Yahoo!?
) Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
) http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 21:15:22 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
)Dan Dugan wrote:
)
)) I have been researching Waldorf and Anthroposophy for 13 years, and
)) I'm confident that I do know what I'm talking about. ...
)
)On your - hm - 'expertise':
)
)Either, you did not understand the 100% untruthfulness of your own -
)still at the site of PLANS kept - basic and only 'summarising description'
)of the basis of waldorf education after 12 years of study.
)
)Or, you actually knew it was untrue, but kept it for the sake of your
)rhetoric on anthroposophy and need to ask about the truthfulness of another
)alternative because you actually don't quite understand what you say you
)are an 'expert' on.
)
)That you still keep it - knowing it is untrue - indicates the second
)alternative is the case at least since I brought up its untrufulness on
)this list.
)
)Judge Damrell also - to my memory - did not seem to approve of your
)'expertise' as witness for PLANS' side, when PLANS wanted to use you as
)expert in your lost trial.
)
)In the same way Diana, after first having told the list that could
)understand what 'ether body' was after 5 minutes, asked what was untruthful
)about - according to my memory - your present summary.
)
)) Again, you sink to the ad hominem level. If you join the discussion
)) on waldorf-critics, you will have to restrain yourself from using
)) this tactic. On waldorf-critics arguments must address the topic of
)) discussion, not the people doing the discussing.
)
)Again, how do you apply this to Michael Kopp?
)
)Regards,
)
)Sune Nordwall
)Stockholm, Sweden
--
Pardon me, did you say something, Sune?
Sorry, I must have some problems with your use of English as a second language.
I can't -- despite the fact that I've been a professional writer and editor
since I was 13 -- understand what you're on about.
Perhaps if you stated your comments a little more clearly it would be worth
paying attention to what you might be trying to say.
And ... on anotheer note:
You want to set the rules, Sune, you want to start your own Waldorf Critics
list.
You want to be the moderator, you start your own Waldorf Critics list.
You want to go on wasting people's time with Anthrobabble, you start your
own Anthrobabble list or Web site.
Oh, I forgot, you already have done the latter.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:25:34 -0700
From: "Deb" (firefly tpg.com.au)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice onWC-list
"Perhaps if you stated your comments a little more clearly it would be worth
paying attention to what you might be trying to say."
Well Michael...he has got your attention!
cheers Deb
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:49:01 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
)DAN DUGAN
)))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.
)
)TARJEI STRAUME
))I assume that is a judgement for medical doctors to make.
)
)Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of science can judge Steiner's
)writings on science and medicine.
You're not only judging Steiner's writings with your above statement.
You're calling (anthroposophical) medical doctors liars.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 21:58:13 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: For the moderator
earlyfire is ... free associating in some cognitive dissonance ... I think:
Harv says:
)Good day, Dan!
)
)'Tis not the clarity of Earlfire's analysis that's brutal. rather that a
)litany of offenses designed to murder peace of mind, offenses to diplomacy
)and tolerance, real and continuing, are tacitly applauded. Only consider
)whether what we have said is true, and whether people who wish to conduct
)the exchange and metabolism of ideas with other than a compulsive barrage
)of Neanderthal adjectives, are, or are not being being victimized by the
)regularly-schedued tedius flair of temper tantrums live from Mr. Kopp's
)highchair.,
Michael Kopp replies:
Food fight! Food fight!
Can you supply me with a Neanderthal dictionary, please, so I can see which
of my adjectives are?
Diplomacy and tolerance? From the Anthropop mafia? Bwaaahahahahahahahaaaa.
Only as long as they get to set the rulz.
Harv says:
)Cheer up: The good news is that the numerous ones who point out
)who is authoring the offenses seem, like the populace pitted against the
)Electoral College, utterly incapable of stopping the airwaves of this forum
)from being flooded with incendiary squalor. The emotional level of the
)protagonists is being judged by a large audience who are busy determining
)with each post, the ratio between the level of wisdom and the level of
)terrorism in both the critics and the advocates of the integrity of
)Waldorf. These fruits will be harvested and known.
Well, at least there's a choice: "incindiary squalor" (whatever _that_ is
-- is it from the Neanderthal dictionary?) or Anthrobabble.
Left to the Anthropop cultist mafia there'd be only one song being sung here.
Oh, people could sit at the feet of the guru's acolytes and be instructed
in the meaningless of Saint Rudi's clairvoyant insights into "higher
worlds" -- as long as they didn't ask those inconvenient questions, like
"show me, please", or, worse yet, let the squalid ones speak loudly as the
guru passes, "Mommy, why doesn't that man have any clothes on?".
The fruits? More and more people aware of the real nature of Steiner
Waldorf and Anthroposphy's smoke and mirrors act.
)Count the number of people who have made observed Michael's tone and rage,
)and decide if that's the skull and crossbone you wish to fly over your
)embassy.
Embassy? Embassy? What embassy? Critics are a foreign country, now? Well, I
guess some probably think they're on a different planet from SWA -- and
Saint Rudi probably would agree. Let's see ... Saturn, is it? People only
need embassies when there's fruitful commerce. Since that's impossible with
the world of SWA, because of all the tariffs and trade barriers and local
laws and customs, there's no trade, not even in ideas.
See, there's exactly what _I_ want: a trade embargo, a barrier against the
brainwashing of an SWA "education" entering the public realm through public
schools. And revelation of just what those people outside the public realm
are getting when they buy the pup.
)And since deeds are the only words, respond with something other
)than indifference to the stampede of evidence, the commodity which
)enquiring sensical minds purport to honor.
Sorry, Harv the Inscrutable, run that by me again? Or get me that
Neanderthal dictionary. What's a "sensical mind"? I haven't run across that
in anything I've read or heard about Steiner, Waldorf or Anthroposophy for
about a decade. (I'm a few years and many feet of bookshelf behind Dan
Dugan in the expert category -- oh, and Dan didn't say he was an expert,
that's your insult; he said he knows what he's talking about when he talks
about SWA and Waldorf Education.)
)If you ignore the evidence
)selectively,
Evidence? What evidence? Where? Show me, please.
)and by so doing, continue to model for us that maintaining a
)scientific frame of reference is optional, toggle-able when convenient,
)you'll be proving to all of us that subjectivity, the scapegoat which you
)allege contaminates and makes Anthroposophy irrational and untrustworthy,
)is also alive and well in you. Good work, Dan! Soon, you'll be writing
)lyric poetry. We knew we could bring you around ;-D
Huh? As I said to Sune a few moments ago, "Did you say something?".
Is English a second language for you, too, Harv, or is this some literary
genre I haven't learned yet. Oh, yes ... Anthrobabble.
)Seriously, you must decide whether you wish to make the interest and
)embrace of ideas or the torching of passions the mainstay of exchange
)here.What food do you wish to feed those out in the amphitheater? One does
)not caress with a blowtorch
Ummm, who the hell are you, Mister Bornfield, to tell Dan, or anyone else
here, what they must decide to do?
If I understand you correctly -- Anthrobabble isn't my specialty -- you're
saying that Dan has to decide if he wants to make this list a place to
trade ideas (we'll leave out "embrace" because it prejudices reason, which
can reject ideas as well as accept them) or a place for polemic and
critical judgement and the venting of spleens gored by Anthroposphy's
ox[ymorons]. (See, I can wax words, too, Harv, but somewhat more directly
and economically than the speakers of Anthrobabble.)
I think it's typical and the height of arrogance of Anthropops to try to
set the tone here. It is impossible to have polite discussions over "ideas"
when neither side is ever going to accept the main points of the other side.
Anthrobabble is Anthrobabble, and reason is reason, and never the twain
shall meet.
)And remember, also
)
)dottie zold wrote:
)
)) ) Earlyfire, you wrote,
)) )
)) ) )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.
Oh, crap. There is no evidence of higher worlds, and those good things we
all want for our children (and give away when we reach adulthood and
realise that it's a cold, nasty, brutal world out there, full of people in
overcoats and little else luring our kids into their temples) are possible
without a "wellspring" anywhere but in the evolution of the human brain.
Neither I nor my kids are strangers to awe, wonder, honor, beauty,
tolerance, majesty, or any other good. I still have them every time I
contemplate existence -- which is where they began in the mists of time, as
we began self-awareness and thinking and trying to make sense of the world.
We just live on different planets, Harv, and they're in different
Universes, too, so, barring the development of a device to use black holes
to travel between them, or a faster-than-light telegraph, we don't need
embassies.
Tolerance? Sure, Harv. I'll tolerate Steiner's cult -- as long as it
doesn't affect secular society and stops lying, cheating and stealing
children from parents. And stays in its place, on that "higher plane" if
you want it there.
People learn a lot from each other's philosophies, when dialogue works.
Dialogue only works when there's give and take. There's no give in SWA,
though there is, of course, false advertising that it exists, and that it
promises great insights to those who "will do the work themselves". It's a
threadbare "philosophy" -- but you're welcome to it.
This is tiresome, Harv. Been there, done that, many times over for six years.
Got better things to do with my time -- explicating what we know of the
fraud and smoke and mirrors of the SWA cult for the real world -- than
going over the same ground again and again as the Anthropop mafia trots out
new warriors to dilate the critical discussion here.
I won't quote the rest of your quote of Dottie's ramblings.
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:59:25 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.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."
Dan Dugan wrote:
)When these books utterly failed to convince the European
)intellectual community that Steiner's epistemology had any value, he
)stopped addressing the academic world and started talking only to
)his cult followers.
One of the reasons why Steiner's epistemology is gaining ground today
is that it coincides with identical views arrived at through totally
different paths, like Fritjof Capra's bestseller "The Tao of
Physics" (1974). This is how many small streams, or cults if you
like, contribute to a broad worldwide movement known as New Age,
which is exerting a significant influence upon the evolution of
civilization and consciousness and the definition of reality.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 22:03:01 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
)(x-flowed))DAN DUGAN
))))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.
))
))TARJEI STRAUME
)))I assume that is a judgement for medical doctors to make.
))
))Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of science can judge Steiner's
))writings on science and medicine.
)
)You're not only judging Steiner's writings with your above statement.
)You're calling (anthroposophical) medical doctors liars.
)
)--
)Tarjei
Well, that's the definition of a quack, isn't it? And that's what
Anthropsophical doctors practice, isn't it? Quackery?
Fools.
Or fools AND knaves.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 22:09:07 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice
onWC-list
)(x-charset iso-8859-1)"Perhaps if you stated your comments a little more
)clearly it would be worth
)paying attention to what you might be trying to say."
)
)Well Michael...he has got your attention!
)
)cheers Deb
Only briefly, since it's unlikely to be possible for him to do as I suggest.
And, with the benefit of several years' exposure to Sune's Anthrobabble, I
can tell you that I've yet to see anything much worth having paid attention
to.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zild (Near Oz, eh, matey?)
--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:11:52 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Not rude, but honest
)Dan wrote:
))Severin Sp?rri, you wrote the following rant to me at PLANS. I am
))answering you on the waldorf-critics mailing list.
)
)DL: Dan - please tell me that you had his permission to post his
)email on this site before you did so.
I believe Dan has already explained that everything mailed to him
will be published on this list, and that everyone ought to know that.
He says newspaper editors have the same policy. I disagree. When I
write to a newspaper, they make a clear distinction between my letter
to the editors not for print, and the submitted article they may
publish. They even refuse to divulge your identity to the police even
when required by a court of law to do so to protect their sources.
On the other hand, whenever you write to a stranger, your mail is
free game. Dan is publishing unsolicited mail from strangers.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:22:06 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
) )(x-flowed))DAN DUGAN
)))))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.
)))
)))TARJEI STRAUME
))))I assume that is a judgement for medical doctors to make.
)))
)))Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of science can judge Steiner's
)))writings on science and medicine.
))
))You're not only judging Steiner's writings with your above statement.
))You're calling (anthroposophical) medical doctors liars.
))
))--
))Tarjei
Kopp:
)Well, that's the definition of a quack, isn't it? And that's what
)Anthropsophical doctors practice, isn't it? Quackery?
It's medicine. That's why they went to medical school. That's why
they're licenced to practice medicine, regardless of how much
passionate, irrational non-doctors may rage against it.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:43:34 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: For the moderator
Michael Kopp wrote:
)Diplomacy and tolerance? From the Anthropop mafia? Bwaaahahahahahahahaaaa.
I assume this is a classic example of a rational argument and a noble
appeal to the power of reason.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 415
-- Topica Digest --
Re: verifying the spirit world
By TTirrell1 aol.com
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: verifying the spirit world
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Not rude, but honest
By alice javanet.com
Re: For the moderator
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: vaccination and "science"??
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: For the moderator
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: verifying the spirit world
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: vaccination and "science"??
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: verifying the spirit world
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
By sune.nordwall home.se
Re: verifying the spirit world
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: Not rude, but honest
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Not rude, but honest/
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
By sune.nordwall home.se
RE: Not rude, but honest
By canndw netzero.net
Unlurking
By franksmith traslasierra.com
Re: verifying the spirit world
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Immunizations
By winters_diana hotmail.com
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: vaccination and "science"??
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Unlurking
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Immunizations
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: vaccination and "science"??
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Admin: baiting the moderator
By dan dandugan.com
Karma and fatalism
By faiman jlc.net
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By theosopost hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 07:33:23 EDT
From: TTirrell1 aol.com
Subject: Re: verifying the spirit world
--part1_66.1308e387.28ae5b03_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To Tarjie Straume from Terry: citing Tina Turner as proof of your arguement?
She is certainly one of the profound thinkers of our time.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 13:43:35 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
Michael Kopp wrote (to Sune):
)You want to set the rules, Sune, you want to start your own Waldorf Critics
)list.
It doesn't look like Sune wants to set the rules for this list,
Michael. On the contrary, he appears to be challenging Dan's
evenhandedness and consistency when enforcing his own rules. Dan has
said that ad hominems will not be tolerated on this list, and he has
enforced this policy by issuing first and second warnings to
offending parties, and by suspending third time violators. Sune is
one of those who have been targeted by by Dan's enforcement of policy.
An ad hominem is per definition an attack against the person writing
a certain post instead of the argument or opinion expressed. Your
repeated references to the color of my shirt, which is supposed to
indicate that I am a fascist or a Nazi, your remark about moths
flying out of my mouth, your allegation that I am illiterate - all of
this plus innumerable other insults you've been getting away with
without a single comment by the moderator, cause certain subscribers
to question the fairness or justice behind Dan's disciplinary
practice.
On the other hand, given Dan's own propensity for vulgarities, such
as referring to urination, he may be getting too much of a kick out
of your posts to do anything about them. That's why "good cop, bad
cop" seems to fit.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 13:50:06 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: verifying the spirit world
)To Tarjie Straume from Terry: citing Tina Turner as proof of your arguement?
) She is certainly one of the profound thinkers of our time.
Nonsense. She's a singer, not a thinker. And I did not cite her as
proof of any argument beyond the fact that Buddhism has gained broad
popular appeal in the West because it is perceived as making sense in
a scientific way. What Tina Turner said was just an echo of this
phenomenon.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:09:47 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
Sune to Dan:
)Either, you did not understand the 100% untruthfulness of your own -
)still at the site of PLANS kept - basic and only 'summarising )description'
)of the basis of waldorf education after 12 years of study.
etc. ect.
Sune, I asked you to explain, in detail, what is wrong with the "summarising
description" and you ignored me pointedly.
)In the same way Diana, after first having told the list that could
)understand what 'ether body' was after 5 minutes, asked what was
) )untruthful about - according to my memory - your present summary.
Are we having a language problem here? I asked you to explain what the heck
your problem is regarding the summary - to propose other language that would
clarify it - to pinpoint what you perceive as inaccuracies and explain how
they should be corrected. Your response it total silence. Then you wait a
few weeks and announce once again that the PLANS site is full of lies. This
is just really playing dirty, Sune.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:09:18 -0400
From: alice (alice javanet.com)
Subject: Re: Not rude, but honest
Alice writes:
It seems to me that Waldorf supporters are easily making their own case
for getting the he** out of the business of education.
If they are one by one refuting every critic as not an expert on waldorf
education, that means that the "common" parent who applies to a school
will NEVER understand waldorf education...
If we as experienced parents are not considered informed, after in my
instance, NINE years of being exposed and educated in Steiner, then WHO
but the ethereally ordained DoF's can be "qualified"?
I think this cuts to the heart of the matter..
Once again, there is a judgement about "enlightenment" and religion.
Perhaps what the many supporters don't understand is that some of us
argue cognitively, but our spiritual life is quite healthy and intact
without anthroposophical influence.
Maybe some of us have found another way...
Did Steiner have all of the answers?
Or like other philosophers, continued to value questions...and admit
humbly, no one can know everything...why did he try?
musings of the day.
Alice
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:15:04 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: For the moderator
Early-fire writes:
)'Tis not the clarity of Earlfire's analysis that's brutal. rather that )a
)litany of offenses designed to murder peace of mind, offenses to )diplomacy
)and tolerance, real and continuing, are tacitly applauded. )Only consider
)whether what we have said is true, and whether people )who wish to conduct
)the exchange and metabolism of ideas with other )than a compulsive barrage
)of Neanderthal adjectives, are, or are not )being being victimized by the
)regularly-schedued tedius flair of )temper tantrums
I would just like to mention that there are other ways to be "brutal," other
ways to "barrage" the list. Sometimes it doesn't involve "Neanderthal"
adjectives. Sometimes pretty words and complex sentence structure and
multiple literary references are also used to browbeat and intimidate.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 00:53:24 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: vaccination and "science"??
)(x-flowed))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."
)
)Dan Dugan wrote:
)
))When these books utterly failed to convince the European
))intellectual community that Steiner's epistemology had any value, he
))stopped addressing the academic world and started talking only to
))his cult followers.
)
)One of the reasons why Steiner's epistemology is gaining ground today
)is that it coincides with identical views arrived at through totally
)different paths, like Fritjof Capra's bestseller "The Tao of
)Physics" (1974). This is how many small streams, or cults if you
)like, contribute to a broad worldwide movement known as New Age,
)which is exerting a significant influence upon the evolution of
)civilization and consciousness and the definition of reality.
--
New Age equals irrationality. The Steiner Waldorf and Anthroposophy
movement fits right in.
Capra's book was a bestseller but has had little influence on the world of
science at large, except for that small corner of it called "frontier
science", where you will find people talking about things like the heart
not being a pump; and the push by religion to co-opt science, just as
Steiner did (and all you good desciples do) when you say science
recapitulates and validates spirituality.
Rubbish. Irrational rubbish.
New Age is not "influencing the evolution of civilisation and the
definition of reality"; it is an escape from reality.
It is a movement which has its roots in the Renaissance and Enlightenment
paternalistic lodges of men for whom power could be weilded and kept to an
elite by secret societies like Rosicrucianism, which is the direct father
of most things Steiner embodied in his whole-cloth emperor's clothes cult
religion.
Steiner's epistemology? Steiner's megalomaniacal, fervid imagination and
ravings.
Yes, he was a genius, far smarter than I am, far more clever (I notice that
despite the great compliments the Steiner Waldorf Anthroposophy mafia pay
to me by their incessant need to attempt to kill me -- only metaphorically,
so far -- I have not yet attracted a following of people who wish to sit at
my feet and imbibe the Universe according to Saint Kopp).
But he was also either deluded, schizophrenic, mad or a fraud -- or all of
these things. In my not so humble opinion, of course -- I have no proof
other than my common sense and logic. But then he never had any evidence of
anything he said, either -- it's all taken on faith.
The fact that he was ignored by the thinkers of his day, as he is ignored
by the vast majority of thinkers today, despite your claim to the contrary,
indicates that he must have been driven mad -- or driven to the clever
founding of a cult which would outlast him, complete with a religion that
would immortalise him.
And the fact that he tried to sway politics in Germany towards his
threefolding fascism -- and failed -- must have driven him even further
into the realms of the charlatan who will have his revenge.
Of course, it's possible he was sincere and believed all that stuff about
having seen into higher worlds.
And it's possible that pigs might fly, too.
The human mind is wonderful playground for the ravings of those wishful for
more than what is.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 01:03:10 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
))DAN DUGAN
))))))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.
))))
))))TARJEI STRAUME
)))))I assume that is a judgement for medical doctors to make.
))))
))))Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of science can judge Steiner's
))))writings on science and medicine.
)))
)))You're not only judging Steiner's writings with your above statement.
)))You're calling (anthroposophical) medical doctors liars.
)))
)))--
)))Tarjei
)
)Kopp:
)
))Well, that's the definition of a quack, isn't it? And that's what
))Anthropsophical doctors practice, isn't it? Quackery?
)
Tarjei:
)It's medicine. That's why they went to medical school. That's why
)they're licenced to practice medicine, regardless of how much
)passionate, irrational non-doctors may rage against it.
--
No, they didn't go to medical school to learn Anthroposophical medicine.
It's true that irrational "complementary" medicine is making inroads into
legitimate medicine -- but that's a political push by the alternatives,
otherwise known as quacks.
"Complementary" is the nicer word than "alternative", which rightly rings
alarm bells in rational minds. But it's still quackery.
Anthroposophical doctors with regular medical degrees and regular medical
licences are only medical doctors as far as they practice scientific
medicine.
Anthroposophical medicine is not scientific, evidence-based, but mystical
mumbo-jumbo.
Therefore, when Anthroposophical doctors use Anthroposophical medicine,
they are not doctors, but shamans.
You have the descriptions of the two types of doctors exactly backwards:
scientific, evidenced-based doctors are the rational ones; Anthroposophical
doctors are the irrational ones.
That's because everything Anthroposophical is based on irrational thinking.
You're using irrational as a pejorative; I'm not. You know what I mean,
we've talked about the difference between irrational and rational thinking
here many times. So you must be, as usual, obfuscating, using newspeak to
turn the language inside out to fit your brainwashing.
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 01:05:17 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: For the moderator
)Michael Kopp wrote:
)
))Diplomacy and tolerance? From the Anthropop mafia? Bwaaahahahahahahahaaaa.
)
)I assume this is a classic example of a rational argument and a noble
)appeal to the power of reason.
)
)--
)Tarjei
No, it's a snort whilst watching you trying to convince people that pigs fly.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 01:07:24 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: verifying the spirit world
--============_-1214068842==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To Tarjie Straume from Terry: citing Tina Turner as proof of your arguement?
She is certainly one of the profound thinkers of our time.
--
Michael Kopp adds:
Along with Shirley Maclaine and her crystals and channelling.
Wow, what authorities.
I may be able to handle Tarjei, but I quiver at the thought of going up
against Shirley and her crystals.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:20:29 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: vaccination and "science"??
Kopp wrote:
)New Age equals irrationality. The Steiner Waldorf and Anthroposophy
)movement fits right in.
Subjective opinion.
)Capra's book was a bestseller but has had little influence on the world of
)science at large, except for that small corner of it called "frontier
)science", where you will find people talking about things like the heart
)not being a pump; and the push by religion to co-opt science, just as
)Steiner did (and all you good desciples do) when you say science
)recapitulates and validates spirituality.
This opinion is expressed by innumerable highly educated people
throughout the world who have no knowledge of Steiner whatsoever, and
who do not necessarily subscribe to any organized religion or
philosophical system. In other words, it's off the mark to call such
an opinion cultism.
)Rubbish. Irrational rubbish.
Subjective, irrational opinion.
)New Age is not "influencing the evolution of civilisation and the
)definition of reality"; it is an escape from reality.
If that is the case, the evolution of civilization is escaping from
reality, just like they did centuries ago when Ptolemeic astronomy
was reality.
)It is a movement which has its roots in the Renaissance and Enlightenment
)paternalistic lodges of men for whom power could be weilded and kept to an
)elite by secret societies like Rosicrucianism, which is the direct father
)of most things Steiner embodied in his whole-cloth emperor's clothes cult
)religion.
Capra's approach was entirely different.
)Steiner's epistemology? Steiner's megalomaniacal, fervid imagination and
)ravings.
Yawn.
)Yes, he was a genius, far smarter than I am, far more clever (I notice that
)despite the great compliments the Steiner Waldorf Anthroposophy mafia pay
)to me by their incessant need to attempt to kill me -- only metaphorically,
)so far -- I have not yet attracted a following of people who wish to sit at
)my feet and imbibe the Universe according to Saint Kopp).
Attempt to kill you metaphorically? Looks like you're overestimating yourself.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:22:53 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
) )Kopp:
))
)))Well, that's the definition of a quack, isn't it? And that's what
)))Anthropsophical doctors practice, isn't it? Quackery?
))
)
)Tarjei:
)
))It's medicine. That's why they went to medical school. That's why
))they're licenced to practice medicine, regardless of how much
))passionate, irrational non-doctors may rage against it.
Dan Dugan:
)No, they didn't go to medical school to learn Anthroposophical medicine.
They learned medical practice in medical school, which makes them
qualified to diagnose and treat patients. Period.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:27:42 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: verifying the spirit world
Michael Kopp wrote:
)I may be able to handle Tarjei, but I quiver at the thought of going
)up against Shirley and her crystals.
If you had been able to handle me, you wouldn't have been driven by
the urge to hurl insults. That is why I take them as compliments,
especially from you.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:42:55 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
Michael Kopp wrote:
) Pardon me, did you say something, Sune?
)
) Sorry, I must have some problems with your use of English as a
second language.
)
) I can't -- despite the fact that I've been a professional writer and editor
) since I was 13 -- understand what you're on about.
)
) Perhaps if you stated your comments a little more clearly it would be worth
) paying attention to what you might be trying to say.
Again, this comment addresses me as a person and my ability to use the
English language and not the issues I address in the posting. Thereby it
is a personal attack on me as a person, something that according to the
description of the list by ite moderator not is allowed and for which
people normally first get warned and then expelled.
) And ... on anotheer note:
)
) You want to set the rules, Sune, you want to start your own Waldorf Critics
) list.
No, I don't want to set the rules for this list. Dan has set them. What I
and many others question is the way he applies them in your case nowadays.
) You want to be the moderator, you start your own Waldorf Critics list.
)
) You want to go on wasting people's time with Anthrobabble, you start your
) own Anthrobabble list or Web site.
Again, this is comment, not addressing any special issue except your view
of me as a person, attacking it, adding to the ever longer list of personal
attacks on participants on this, for which you have not yet got neither
warned nor expelled, yet.
Cheers,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 02:03:49 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: verifying the spirit world
)(x-flowed)Michael Kopp wrote:
)
))I may be able to handle Tarjei, but I quiver at the thought of going
))up against Shirley and her crystals.
)
)If you had been able to handle me, you wouldn't have been driven by
)the urge to hurl insults. That is why I take them as compliments,
)especially from you.
)
)--
)Tarjei
Tarjei, "hurling insults" at you is just good, clean fun.
Catharsis for all the wasted time actually talking to you.
The "insults" are not compliments. The compliments I pay you are to
deconstruct and demolish your irrational Steiner Waldorf and
Anthropospohical propaganda.
That's a compliment because you and your cult are dangerous and destructive.
I take you very, very, seriously, Tarjei, as I do the entire irrational
movement you call "New Age".
As we've said here many times before, it's NOT NEW.
It's a new DARK AGE of return to irrational superstition, spiritualism, the
occult and esoteric mumbo-jumbo.
It's as old as the hills, and as worn down.
Insult you, Tarjei? It's actually impossible, because you're impervious to
any comment about you or your thinking or your cult religion.
That's the truest sign of brainwashing.
I can have doubts about science; I can have doubt about my own thinking.
I often do. Even sometimes because of things said here (I must admit, by
more intelligent, articulate and engaging people than you or Sune). People
like Stephen Tonkin, with whom I traded barbs no less scathing, both ways,
than yours and mine. Stephen and I became reasonably good friends,
considering that we were still poles apart on epistemology and world-view.
But you know what brought us together?
Science. His appreciation for real, evidence-based science.
And his willingness to challenge Anthroposophical dogma on science.
You're a pipsqueak by comparison, Tarjei. But a dangerous one, because you
are one of the best smoke-screen newspeak artists Orwell could ever hope
have imagined.
That's why I "insult" you with a broad-brushed scathing humour.
I've already paid you the compliment of answering much of your nonsense
with serious replies -- not for you, but for the folks who want to know the
truth about Steiner Waldorf and Anthroposophy.
So now I'm allowed a little free-ranging pea-shooting.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:21:43 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Not rude, but honest
) ) DL: Who are these vocal defenders? I've seen a lot of people oppose
)critics
) ) arguments, but no-one I'd call a Waldorf Defender
)
)
)
)I am very confused by this?
)bea
)
DL: Confused? Why? Are you reading the same posts I am? For the last
month I have not seen anyone "defending the faith" as it's so quaintly put -
rather I see several people who are responding to the emotional arguments
put forth by critics under the guise of reason. Who are these "defenders of
the faith" in your opinion?
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:25:03 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Not rude, but honest/
)I am amazed that you can comment on dan posting this email here and not on
)the fact that dan has to put up with receiving this kind of crap from a
)waldorf insider
)bea
)
)
DL: And I amazed you are not outraged at Dan's apparent deceptive practice.
(And whatever disapproval I have over the content of the email was lost by
the fact that it seems it was posted without this person's permission).
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:44:23 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
Diana wrote:
I [Sune]:
) )Either, you did not understand the 100% untruthfulness of your own -
) )still at the site of PLANS kept - basic and only 'summarising )description'
) )of the basis of waldorf education after 12 years of study.
Diana:
) etc. ect.
)
) Sune, I asked you to explain, in detail, what is wrong with the
) "summarising description" and you ignored me pointedly.
I really for long kept your mail in mind, considered answering you, as you
told you felt I was neglecting you; wouldn't want to insult a lady
unjustifiably, but refrained in the end. Reason: se below.
) )In the same way Diana, after first having told the list that could
) )understand what 'ether body' was after 5 minutes, asked what was
) )untruthful about - according to my memory - your present summary.
)
) Are we having a language problem here? I asked you to explain what the heck
) your problem is regarding the summary - to propose other language that would
) clarify it - to pinpoint what you perceive as inaccuracies and explain how
) they should be corrected. Your response it total silence.
You first say that you understood in 5 minutes what 'ether body' is.
Then you ask me what is wrong with writing that '... Steiner's theory of
child development, [is] based on reincarnation of "the etheric body, ...".
If you were telling the truth in the first instance, I expect you to know
what is untruthful about it, making your question rhetorical. Even though I
often appreciate discussing with you, I'm not very attracted to such
discussion as you invite to in this case.
) Then you wait a few weeks and announce once again
) that the PLANS site is full of lies.
If you refer to the first mail by me in this thread today, it does not say
that 'PLANS site is full of lies.' It simply says that there exists
'untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site, without specifying the amount of it,
but exemplifying it in the body of the mail. Your untruthful paraphrasing
of what I write thereby is rhetorical.
Also, maybe I wouldn't describe the time of almost two months since I
brought it up last time as 'a few weeks'.
) This
) is just really playing dirty, Sune.
I don't agree, for the reason described above.
But I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings when not answering your wish to
discuss what you first indicated that you had understood in 5 minutes, then
implicitely told that you really hadn't.
Regards,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:49:31 +0000
From: David Cann (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Not rude, but honest
As an example, when they say "Defenders of the Faith", they mean me.
David
-----------------------
D L wrote:
Who are these "defenders of the faith" in your opinion?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:00:53 -0300
From: "Frank Thomas Smith" (franksmith traslasierra.com)
Subject: Unlurking
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C12714.44590B40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Critics,
I've only been lurking for a day, but after receiving over 50 mails, maybe
that's enough. First so you'll know where I'm coming from. I've been
involved in Waldorf education for many years in several continents and many
countries. I also co-founded 2 schools in Argentina, as well as the Waldorf
Teachers Training Seminar in Buenos Aires. Although I taught English in one
of the schools and anthroposophy and "social ecology" in the seminar, it was
always part-time and ad honorum. I worked for an international organization,
so never personally experienced the financial hardships that teachers do,
especially in the third world. Three of my grown children attended W-schools
K through 13 in Argentina, Switzerland and Germany. They all have
post-graduate degrees and aren't anthroposophists. They are, however,
thankful for their Waldorf experience, which they look back upon with
nostalgia and, often, humor (eurythmy). My smallest son finishes elementary
W-school this year.
On this list there seem to be several basic complaints about Waldorf
schools: 1. They are based on anthroposophy, which is a cult. 2. The
education given is religious, or anthroposophical. 3. Parents are deceived
about that. 4. Children are damaged as a result. 5. The separation of church
and state issue involving charter schools in the U.S. I will try to refute
these complaints in several mails, starting with 1. Waldorf education is
based on anthroposophy, certainly, and this is a spiritual philosophy. But I
understand "cult" as being a quasi-religious organization that indulges in
brain-washing, deception and coercion. There may also be a hidden agenda.
Although anthroposophy attracts some (or many) screwballs, reading
anthroposophical literature, listening to lectures and attending meetings of
one's own free will can hardly be called any of these. Understanding
anthroposophy also requires an certain intellectual effort and capacity not
present in cults, which prey on the ignorant and weak. There is nothing
secret about anthroposophy, practically every word Steiner ever wrote or
spoke having been published (although not all in English) and is available
to anyone interested in the subject. Everyone is free to indulge in this
material or not, as he/she pleases. There is no coercion or even pressure.
Hardly the definition of a cult. (cont.)
Frank
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:25:10 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: verifying the spirit world
Michael wrote:
)Tarjei, "hurling insults" at you is just good, clean fun.
)
DL: Or a violation of the rule to not engage in ad hominems.
Michael:
)You're a pipsqueak by comparison, Tarjei. But a dangerous one, because you
)are one of the best smoke-screen newspeak artists Orwell could ever hope
)have imagined.
DL: Dan - are you keeping count? Does it matter?
)
Michael:
)So now I'm allowed a little free-ranging pea-shooting.
)
DL: Really? Where was that written? Or did this become the Michael Koop
List? Has Dan abdicated? Was there a coup?
The following is a test - it is only a test -
Dan is a putz. Michael is a schmuck. They both are idiots. They waste
time and they spread lies.
This concludes the test. Will DL get bumped off the list? Will he get
warned? Dan has an interesting problem - if he warns DL, then he reinforces
the idea that he only warns critics. If he doesn't - then he has apparently
given up on the rule about ad hominems.
Show some guts Dan. I dare you to even warn me for the attacks. If you do
(or if you bump me from the list) - you are only showing your inconsistency.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 17:43:20 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Immunizations
Hi Dottie,
I wrote (trying to understand karma):
)Why would I want to interfere with someone's spiritual lessons, or
)prevent them from completing their life tasks, etc.
Dottie:
)See, this is why I think you don't understand the concept of Karma. We )are
)all apart of each others. etc.
and:
)People can not help but to interfere as you live side
)by side with them.
Ok, I can appreciate this we-are-all-connected-thing. . . I try to look at
the world this way too. So if I am understanding you correctly, it is okay
to try to help each other, relieve suffering etc. It is not wrong to
"interfere." So . . . why not vaccinate?
Dottie:
)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'
As I understand him, he is saying if you suffer, you are seeking it whether
you know it or not. No, I agree he is not saying, Run in front of a truck on
purpose, or something. But if you contract an illness, or whatever horrible
thing you can think of, it was always your own choice, on an unconscious
level.
And as I told DL, if you are interpreting your *own* life this way, that
seems fine to me; but when you apply this judgment to a child, it's fighting
words, to me!
In practice - not theory - it seems that people who subscribe to these
theories do indeed practice a lot of "non-interference." We've had threads
on this list before noting that strictly anthroposophic parents and teachers
are strangely lax with their children's safety. I remember a lot of kids not
fastened in car seats, not wearing bike helmets, allowed to climb to
dangerous heights on unsteady structures, or not closely supervised while
swimming - that sort of thing. In the kindergartens, my worst moments with
our most fervently anthroposophic teacher were the little kids using sharp
knives without proper supervision.
As I said, I tend to think this is just these peoples' thing anyway -
anthroposophy isn't "making" them do it. They really unconsciously do not
like kids and this lack of proper care is an outlet for their hostility.
Oddly, they interfere like crazy with silly things like keeping your head
warm at all costs to avoid catching a slight chill, but defer to karma on
the really big, life-threatening or life-changing questions.
Dottie:
)I have tried but have not been very succefull at explaining it either.
But I do appreciate your good faith efforts, Dottie. I don't think we are
going to see eye-to-eye - too many philosophical differences - but I do
thank you, sincerely, for trying! :)
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 17:45:36 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
DL (re: tragedies happening to children):
)How do you explain them? How does one deal with a child dying in a freak
)accident or through an illness that can't be treated?
Very big questions, DL, but let's start by noting that we were talking about
illnesses that *can* be treated, or usually *prevented*, and the *parents*,
not the child, chose not to.
)For me, it is easier to understand that we have something to do with )it
)than to say it all just happened via chance.
Yes, "easier." I think that's the basis of it.
)That what happens, happens for a reason and for the betterment of all
) )concerned.
It is one thing to say for *yourself* that what has happened in your life
has made you a better person, etc., it is pretty arrogant to apply it to
other people. Remember the old Native American saying about walking a mile
in a man's shoes?
DL: Well, as I understand life, the child chooses the parent, so....
Thank you, DL. So if a child's parents don't vaccinate, that child chose
those parents so that he or she could expose him/herself to various
life-threatening illnesses. What can I say? yeah, right. (sarcasm)
I wrote:
)To me, it makes a mockery of the whole concept of human choice and
)responsibility. It is moral muck.
DL:
)How does it do that? How does it make a mockery of it?
Because it obliterates *real* choices, if even getting run over by a car in
the street is a "choice." It equates the choices that a responsible adult
makes with things that adults *do to* children. It ignores the power
differential between parents and children. It blames the victim. It says
that an abuse victim and his/her abuser share responsibility for the abuse.
How much muckier can it get?
Diana:
)Would it be comforting if you were homeless, or a child being beaten, )or a
)child with AIDS?
DL:
)I don't know - I've never been.
Well, let's just hope your theory doesn't get tested then, DL.
I asked:
)What can the child being beaten or dying of AIDS do about it? Accept karma?
)What a crock.
DL:
)Diana - I don't have the answer to that. What I'd like to think is that
)the child's soul needs that to happen and that they will be )stronger for
)it.
Thank you, DL, I appreciate this because this is what I was hoping to
achieve with this thread. An acknowledgment from some of you who actually
hold these beliefs that "non-interference," such as non-vaccination and
various other health and safety lapses, are justified in part on this "bad
things are your karma anyway" basis.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 10:37:23 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: vaccination and "science"??
)Dan Dugan wrote:
))When these books utterly failed to convince the European intellectual
))community that Steiner's epistemology had any value, he stopped
))addressing the academic world and started talking only to his cult
))followers.
))
)
)DL: Wanna back this up with some EVIDENCE? You may be right, I'd
)prefer more then just your assertion that it's so.
I'm just looking at his books on the shelf. If he had been a real
philosopher, he would have been attending symposia, publishing books
from general presses, writing for journals, etc. If he had been a
real scientist, ditto. None of that happened after the turn of the
century. He did some outreach for "the threefold social order" in the
late teens, but that was missionary activity and political
manipulation, not academic publishing.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 11:07:32 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Unlurking
Welcome, Frank!
)Understanding anthroposophy also requires an certain intellectual
)effort and capacity not present in cults, which prey on the ignorant
)and weak.
Not so. Many of today's cults prey on the intelligent and
accomplished, it's much more profitable.
A universal characteristic of cult members is inability to see their
own cult membership objectively. They always say "those people over
there, that's a cult, but us, we're a movement for world peace"
(insert commonly held high goals of your choice).
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:28:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Immunizations
Diana
) Ok, I can appreciate this
) we-are-all-connected-thing. . . I try to look at
) the world this way too. So if I am understanding you
) correctly, it is okay
) to try to help each other, relieve suffering etc. It
) is not wrong to
) "interfere." So . . . why not vaccinate?
)
Dottie
It's up to the individual parents to decide. And if
they allow anyone, including Waldorf administers, to
deter them against their better judgement for their
family, who's fault is it? And I get that some of the
parents here, felt like they were ridiculed or made to
feel (which I don't think anybody can be made to feel
something from someone, you do or you do not) like
they were making bad choices. But we have all had to
face this when growing up; Stand for what you believe
or cower to the crowd in order to fit in. I mean we
are adults here, not children. And I am not blaming
the parents. I am just saying that it can be a pattern
to give into people because you don't want to feel
like an outsider. I did it almost my whole life.
Doesn't happen anymore though.
And Kerr has said she has read, and we are waiting for
her to give us some Anthroposophical doctors, who are
not against vaccination except for before the first
year, as the body has not had time to develop to the
what they believe is the standard age for giving said
vaccination.
Diana
) As I understand him, he is saying if you suffer, you
) are seeking it whether
) you know it or not. No, I agree he is not saying,
) Run in front of a truck on
) purpose, or something. But if you contract an
) illness, or whatever horrible
) thing you can think of, it was always your own
) choice, on an unconscious
) level.
)
Dottie
But I think it has (in my understanding of his words)
already been decided before you came down here. I do
not think that somewhere unconsciously you are going
"oh there is a truck, let me get my lesson here" ...it
doesn't work that way. So I think this may be the
sticking point. In my opinion our true essence (who we
truly are, that nobody can see, and, they feel mostly
when we are loving and happy and open to listening to
others and trying to find understanding)oh sh*t how do
I say this.............*****}}}}}+++++~~~~ okay, is
THAT which knows all of why we are here, and, that
which guides us to those experiences that we wouldn't
consciously choose for ourselves, because they are
very difficult and go against everything we have been
taught.
Okay a quote from 'Letters To A Young Poet by Rilke;
oops left the book at work. I will quote it later on
but it is about doing the difficult things because
those are things we can grow from. Even Christ says it
in the bible about not staying around those people who
love you for gratification, be around those who do not
love you. I think it is the same concept of the souls
growth and making us aware, that, in order to grow and
be aware we must choose that which is difficult. And
if we do not choose the difficult, these things will
come to visit us, and unfortunately we will not have
an understanding of the pain and suffering in
reference to our growth, just be in reaction to it.
Diana
) And as I told DL, if you are interpreting your *own*
) life this way, that
) seems fine to me; but when you apply this judgment
) to a child, it's fighting
) words, to me!
)
Dottie
I understand that. It seems harsh and unfeeling and I
think if this was a different medium we would be able
to discuss the pros and cons and see each others views
and be able to say, whoah, do you know how ugly that
sounds. I admit that at times when I see something
written that seems to express what DL has I can see
how someone and sometimes even me has a hard time
relating to it. However I do recognize that, if in a
conversation face to face it would be a different
reality or so I would hope.
Diana
) In practice - not theory - it seems that people who
) subscribe to these
) theories do indeed practice a lot of
) "non-interference." We've had threads
) on this list before noting that strictly
) anthroposophic parents and teachers
) are strangely lax with their children's safety. I
) remember a lot of kids not
) fastened in car seats, not wearing bike helmets,
) allowed to climb to
) dangerous heights on unsteady structures, or not
) closely supervised while
) swimming - that sort of thing.
Dottie
Well to me that seems not lax but rather stupid on
taking a chance with your childs life. I know, also,
many parents, who are not Anthroposophists, who do the
same above because they do not like being told by the
state how to handle their lives and that they know
what is best for their child. And it would be doubly
ignorant in my eyes if anyone used the idea of KARMA
as the excuse for such behaviour. That would seem
outragious to me and not at all, in my opinion what
Dr. Steiner advocated.
And I also believe there are many things that have
been mentioned here, of people who adhere to Dr.
Steiners words dogmatically, that would be not be to
his liking or his agreement. But I also know, that he
would have had to know, that others would
misunderstand his words even if they had good
intentions. It is inevitable.
Diana
In the kindergartens,
) my worst moments with
) our most fervently anthroposophic teacher were the
) little kids using sharp
) knives without proper supervision.
)
Dottie
Stupidity. I would be pissed if my child was hurt
while being unsupervised with a sharp knife.
Ridiculous. But I don't think this is, or at least I
would hope this had nothing to do with the fact that a
teacher believes in Karma and if a child gets hurt
'well that was their Karma.' I just couldn't imagine
that for any teacher, not just a Waldorf one. But I
also can imagine it could happen as nobody is perfect
and there are fevorists everywhere.
Diana
) As I said, I tend to think this is just these
) peoples' thing anyway -
) anthroposophy isn't "making" them do it. They really
) unconsciously do not
) like kids and this lack of proper care is an outlet
) for their hostility.
Dottie
I am confused here with this paragraph. Are you
suggesting that Waldorf teachers do not like little
kids? And that a teacher would use this as an outlet
of their hostility?
...oh okay you are saying that is your opinion of an
outragious act by a teacher who is a fanatic.
)
) Dottie:
) )I have tried but have not been very succefull at
) explaining it either.
)
) But I do appreciate your good faith efforts, Dottie.
) I don't think we are
) going to see eye-to-eye - too many philosophical
) differences - but I do
) thank you, sincerely, for trying! :)
Dottie
Thanks Diana, I appreciate the opportunity also.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: vaccination and "science"??
--- Dan
) )Dan Dugan wrote:
) ))When these books utterly failed to convince the
) European intellectual
) ))community that Steiner's epistemology had any
) value, he stopped
) ))addressing the academic world and started talking
) only to his cult
) ))followers.
) ))
DL
Wanna back this up with some EVIDENCE? You may
) be right, I'd
) )prefer more then just your assertion that it's so.
Dan
) I'm just looking at his books on the shelf. If he
) had been a real
) philosopher, he would have been attending symposia,
) publishing books
) from general presses, writing for journals, etc.
Dottie
But Dan, you keep putting things up here as fact and
then, when you are asked to show evidence of said
'fact', it is clear that it is only of your opinion.
It comes across as propaganda when you put it up as
fact.
And what is your opinion of what a real philospher
should do? Who is a real philospher to you?
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:37:30 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: baiting the moderator
Dear D L and others, baiting the moderator is not a good idea. If he
loses his temper he'll start chopping heads without even giving
warnings. Nor is it polite to your listmates to keep forcing them to
read time-wasting discussions of whether I am fair or not. I am
inconsistent. This is a hobby. Some days I pay a lot of attention to
it, some days I let you play by yourselves and take care of my own
business.
Please limit your correspondence to discussion of Waldorf education
and Anthroposophy.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:43:03 +0000
From: Neil Faiman (faiman jlc.net)
Subject: Karma and fatalism
Diana Winters wrote to DL:
) I asked:
) )What can the child being beaten or dying of AIDS do about it? Accept
) )karma?
) )What a crock.
)
) DL:
) )Diana - I don't have the answer to that. What I'd like to think is that
) )
) )the child's soul needs that to happen and that they will be )stronger
) )for
) )it.
)
) Thank you, DL, I appreciate this because this is what I was hoping to
) achieve with this thread. An acknowledgment from some of you who
) actually
) hold these beliefs that "non-interference," such as non-vaccination and
) various other health and safety lapses, are justified in part on this
) "bad
) things are your karma anyway" basis.
Diana,
It appears that you are going out of your way to try to read your own
preconceptions into DL's writing.
Yesterday, when DL wrote, "For me, there's a lot of comfort in [the
belief that we draw what happens to us]", you replied, "Well, lucky you.
Whatever gets you through the night. Would it be comforting if you were
homeless, or a child being beaten, or a child with AIDS?"
DL, responding to what appears to be a question about essentially random
tragedies, says that s/he doesn't have the answer, but gives offers a
tentative response: "What I'd like to think is that the child's soul
needs that to happen and that they will be stronger for it."
How that can be turned into "an acknowledgment that 'non-interference'
... [is] justified in part on this 'bad things are your own karma
anyway' basis" is way beyond me.
----
There are two very distinct questions here: (1) How can we account for
the apparently undeserved things that happen to people, and (2) what
should we do in the situations that meet us every day, especially as
they involve other people. My understanding of the concept of karma, at
least as it occurs in anthroposophy, is that question (1) is an
important question in understanding how the world works, but has
essentially nothing to do with the answer to question (2), except in the
sense that our actions today will have consequences for our own karma
tomorrow. Question (2) isn't answered by the law of karma, but by the
laws of morality, decency, common sense, fair play, the golden rule,
etc. If someone runs me down while I am crossing the street, it may be
that it was my karma to get run down, BUT THAT DOES NOT IN THE LEAST
RELIEVE THE DRIVER OF HIS RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS CARELESS DRIVING.
Indeed, he will now be burdened with the karmic consequences of the harm
he has done to me.
Every human interaction is a new moral transaction. Perhaps the
circumstances by which that interaction came about might be explained by
the principle of karma, but the karmic question for the future is not,
"How did we get here?," but "What is the right thing to do now?" If the
careless driver had been more attentive, he might have redeemed my karma
while avoiding the burden on his.
----
All this seems like simple common sense to me, but it is also the
position that Steiner took. There is a discussion of exactly these
questions in the collection of lectures published by Rudolf Steiner
Press as _At the Gates of Spiritual Science_ (Fourteen lectures given in
Stuttgart, 22 August to 4 September, 1906), GA 95. Lecture Six (August
27), pp. 57-58:
"... Someone else says, 'I shall not help anyone any more, for if he is
poor and wretched and I help him I shall be interfering with his karma.
He has earned his suffering; he must look after changing his karma by
his own efforts.'
"All these objections reveal a gross misunderstanding. The law of karma
says that all the good I may have done in this life will have its
effect, and so will everything bad. Thus in our a Book of Life there is
a kind of account-sheet, with debit and credit sides, and the balance
can be drawn at any moment. If I close the account and draw the
balance, that will show my destiny. At first this may seem a hard,
unbending law, but it is not so. A true comparison with the ledger
would run as follows: each new transaction alters the balance and each
new action alters the destiny.
"After all, a merchant does not say that since every new transaction
upsets his balance, he can do nothing about it. Just as the merchant is
not hindered by his ledger from doing new business, so in life a man is
not hindered from making a new entry in his Book of Life. And if the
merchant got into difficulties and asked a friend to lend him a thousand
marks to help him recover, it would be nonsense if the friend replied
that he really couldn't do anything because it would mean interfering
with the state of his friend's account book. IN THE SAME WAY IT WOULD
BE NONSENSE IF I REFUSED TO HELP ANOTHER MAN IN ORDER NOT TO COME INTO
CONFLICT WITH THE LAW OF KARMA. [my emphasis - nf] However firmly I
believe in the law of karma, there is nothing to prevent me from
relieving any misery and poverty. ...
" ... Our critics do not realize that free-will is not restricted by the
law of karma. The Theosophist, on his side, needs to see clearly that
because he believes in karma he does not depend entirely on self-help
and self-development; he must recognize that he can be helped by others.
..."
Regards,
Neil Faiman
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:49:19 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
)DL (re: tragedies happening to children):
)
))How do you explain them? How does one deal with a child dying in a freak
))accident or through an illness that can't be treated?
)Diana:
)Very big questions, DL, but let's start by noting that we were talking
)about
)illnesses that *can* be treated, or usually *prevented*, and the *parents*,
)not the child, chose not to.
)
DL: Actually, let's start by pointing out that I was responding to your post
where you mentioned *freak accidents* So - be straight - we may have
started talking about illnesses, but I was responding to your statement
about freak accidents.
))DL:
))For me, it is easier to understand that we have something to do with )it
))than to say it all just happened via chance.
)Diana:
)Yes, "easier." I think that's the basis of it.
)
DL: Meaning?
))DL:
))That what happens, happens for a reason and for the betterment of all
))concerned.
)Diana:
)It is one thing to say for *yourself* that what has happened in your life
)has made you a better person, etc., it is pretty arrogant to apply it to
)other people. Remember the old Native American saying about walking a mile
)in a man's shoes?
)
Diana - please trust me that you do not understand what I am trying to say.
It is not arrogant to hold the belief that what happens in life happens for
the best for all concerned. Any more than it is arrogant to believe that
all things happen by chance. And I never "applied" it to other people. Any
more than I "apply" gravity to other people.
The walking another mile in another man's shoes refers to judging another.
I'm not judging. I'm not saying your world view is wrong - I'm merely
telling you what my world view is. If either of us are judging, it's my
impression that it's you judging me.
)DL: Well, as I understand life, the child chooses the parent, so....
)
)Thank you, DL. So if a child's parents don't vaccinate, that child chose
)those parents so that he or she could expose him/herself to various
)life-threatening illnesses. What can I say? yeah, right. (sarcasm)
DL: Have you tried walking in my shoes? :o)
)Diana:
))To me, it makes a mockery of the whole concept of human choice and
))responsibility. It is moral muck.
)DL:
))How does it do that? How does it make a mockery of it?
)Diana:
)Because it obliterates *real* choices, if even getting run over by a car in
)the street is a "choice." It equates the choices that a responsible adult
)makes with things that adults *do to* children. It ignores the power
)differential between parents and children. It blames the victim. It says
)that an abuse victim and his/her abuser share responsibility for the abuse.
)
DL: Keep trying to understand karma then. Because as I understand karma -
it doesn't negate *choice* - it actually takes the idea of choice and
expands it. We *are* responsible for our choice - even beyond this present
incarnation. Here's another tack - looking at responsibility....If you need
to be on time for a meeting and your ride is late, who is responsible for
you being late? I hold that you are. This, however, does not eliminate the
responsibility of the person picking you up for being late. What other
options did you have? Did you do everything you could to make sure they
picked you up on time?
)Diana:
))Would it be comforting if you were homeless, or a child being beaten, )or
))a
))child with AIDS?
)
)DL:
))I don't know - I've never been.
)Diana:
)Well, let's just hope your theory doesn't get tested then, DL.
DL: You're assuming that I would need to have been the above for the theory
to be tested? My theory is not specifically about AIDS or being homeless or
a beaten child. My theory is tested evryday. And I've found it to be true
as far as I can see. If, however, your comment means you wish me well, then
thank you and the same to you.
)
)Diana asked:
))What can the child being beaten or dying of AIDS do about it? Accept
))karma?
))What a crock.
)
)DL:
))Diana - I don't have the answer to that. What I'd like to think is that
))the child's soul needs that to happen and that they will be stronger for
))it.
)Diana:
)Thank you, DL, I appreciate this because this is what I was hoping to
)achieve with this thread. An acknowledgment from some of you who actually
)hold these beliefs that "non-interference," such as non-vaccination and
)various other health and safety lapses, are justified in part on this "bad
)things are your karma anyway" basis.
)
DL: I guess you're STILL waiting then. You have made a huge assumption here
when you include me in the category of people who hold beliefs of
"non-interference" - I never said I don't believe in non-interference, did
I? I said I believe in Karma. The fact that you may see karma as
equivalent to "non-interference" doesn't mean I see it that way. I
vaccinate my daughter. We wear seat belts. I daily re-direct my daughter's
behaviour - these are all "interference" - from whence did you get the idea
that I believe in non-interference?
By the way - Karma is not "fate" - the law of karma doesn't say "this is
your karma - and so these things will happen" - but if we need to learn a
lesson (from this life or a previous one) - that's part of our karma - karma
(again, as I understand it) will put us in situtations that will test us.
What we do with the test is up to us.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 416
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By sune.nordwall home.se
Re: Unlurking
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: vaccination and "science"??
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: verifying the spirit world
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Judaism and W/S/A
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Unlurked 2
By franksmith traslasierra.com
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
By sune.nordwall home.se
You say you're an 'expert' on WE/Anthroposophy/Steiner? Demonstrate it!
By sune.nordwall home.se
'Expert report'
By sune.nordwall home.se
Unlurked 3
By franksmith traslasierra.com
Honest description of the subjective inconsistency of the
'moderator' of the WC-
By sune.nordwall home.se
Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Judaism and W/S/A
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Judaism and W/S/A
By theosopost hotmail.com
Correction to Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
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 dottie_z yahoo.com
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: Honest description of the subjective inconsistency of the
'moderator' of th
By dan dandugan.com
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By dan dandugan.com
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: Honest description of the subjective inconsistency of the
'moderator' of th
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Honest description of the subjective inconsistency of the
'moderator' of th
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
By winters_diana hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:46:19 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
You keep coming back to this, Sune, but you won't give us a helpful
correction. Re-write the sentence, Sune, how should it read to be
truthful in your eyes? I will correct it if you can come up with a
better version.
What's there now:
"For example, promoters will say that Waldorf is based on child
development, but Steiner's theory of child development, based on
reincarnation of "the etheric body," "the astral body," and "the I"
differs significantly from the consensus of child development
specialists."
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:01:59 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
Since Sune is obviously not willing (or able) to offer an alternative, we
should open up this request to the other Anthroposophists on the list...
...Gary
on 8/17/01 3:46 PM, Dan Dugan at dan dandugan.com wrote:
) You keep coming back to this, Sune, but you won't give us a helpful
) correction. Re-write the sentence, Sune, how should it read to be
) truthful in your eyes? I will correct it if you can come up with a
) better version.
)
) What's there now:
)
) "For example, promoters will say that Waldorf is based on child
) development, but Steiner's theory of child development, based on
) reincarnation of "the etheric body," "the astral body," and "the I"
) differs significantly from the consensus of child development
) specialists."
)
) -Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 22:10:36 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Diana Winters wrote:
) It is one thing to say for *yourself* that what has happened in your life
) has made you a better person, etc., it is pretty arrogant to apply it to
) other people.
I completely agree with you. It's up to no other individual person but a
person him- or herself to tell someone else or judge that he or she 'needs'
one or other 'problem' and then _make_ them have that problem, or not to
care what problems people have or are in because it should be their
'karma'.
...
) Thank you, DL. So if a child's parents don't vaccinate, that child chose
) those parents so that he or she could expose him/herself to various
) life-threatening illnesses. What can I say? yeah, right. (sarcasm)
This is pure rhetoric as most of the child diseases that one normally
vaccinates against _normally_ _not_ are 'life-threatening' to otherwise
reasonably well fed and healthy kids.
...
) I asked:
) )What can the child being beaten or dying of AIDS do about it? Accept karma?
) )What a crock.
)
) DL:
) )Diana - I don't have the answer to that. What I'd like to think is that
) )the child's soul needs that to happen and that they will be )stronger for
) )it.
)
) Thank you, DL, I appreciate this because this is what I was hoping to
) achieve with this thread. An acknowledgment from some of you who actually
) hold these beliefs that "non-interference," such as non-vaccination and
) various other health and safety lapses, are justified in part on this "bad
) things are your karma anyway" basis.
In relation to what _you yourself_ argued on people dying from placebo
treatment or drug treatment in double-blind studies on the effects of
experimental drugs in the treatment of cancer:
14 Jun 2001: 'there was no reason to think that those who did die, would
not have died anyway;'
your comment stands out as hypocritical.
When difference in number of deaths between 'test-group' and
'control-group' is the main criterion for judging the effects of the
'experimental' drug in relation to 'placebo'-treatment and maybe the only
accepted criterion for interrupting the test, you defend the increased
occurrence of death in one of the groups with that 'they would have died
anyway' sooner or later.
Your argument does not coincide with that of one who plans such tests; if
he or she does not think that the deaths did occur _because_ of those dying
belonged to one of the groups, there would be no reason to interrupt the
test.
One interrupts tests (before the planned end of the test period) where
survival is the main outcome criterion of the test _because_ one thinks
that the drug treatment or placebo-treatment is the cause of the deaths,
but only when and if the difference is great enough to be considered
statistically significant enough according to some chosen criterion.
I don't have the time to continue a long discussion on the use of
double-blind methodology in the study of treatments of an often deadly
disease as cancer, and on this point just wanted to point out that you
clearly accept even gambling with the life of people when done under
certain conditions and if some knowledge may be gained from it, not
benefiting those who are the losers in the game, but maybe others.
(This is not a comment on doing research in general on the effects and
outcome of different forms of treatment of diseases using different
methodologies, just the specific way of using double-blind methodology in
studies where survival time is the main used parameter!)
I haven't followed this thread on vaccinations. Maybe the problem has been
analysed before by one or several participants.
In general, it cannot be argued though that 'in general, vaccinations of
children at any time and for any reason is good', as seems to be one
possible position. Also, 'all vaccinations of children before adulthood, at
any time or for any reason, are bad' stands out as a not very reasoned
position.
Of course you have to make some sort of balanced judgement about the
possible benefits and risks in specific cases regarding age, type of
disease you vaccinate against, and type of vaccination in relation to such
factors as the general risk of getting infected and prognosis if getting
infected, which to a high degree depends on such factors as the general
living conditions in terms of nourishment, sanitary conditions and living
standard.
What is argued in Waldorf contexts, to the extent that I have encountered
it here in Sweden, is not the position: 'no vaccination under any
circumstance', but not simply accepting a sort of standard: 'all
vaccinations at all times are good', more starting to consider more
carefully the actual benefits and risks of both getting different child
diseases at different ages as well as of getting vaccinated against them at
different ages.
It's not a question of 'all or nothing', but of making more informed,
balanced choices.
As far as what Steiner's view was of treatment of different types of
diseases in different situations, in general I think it can be said that
the possible survival or not of patients in different situations cannot and
should not be made the basis for a choice to treat or not to treat a
patient therapeutically (not just keeping them alive artificially).
I also think it can be well documented that that also was Steiner's view,
if you look for a number of his comments on it.
In the long run, even if you were to die predictable of a disease as its
normal outcome, you _always_ have the possibility to benefit from actual
therapeutic treatment (without over demanding the sick person) up to an
eventual actual death occurring.
In a long term perspective (over the centuries and millennia) you can
achieve something in terms of overcoming difficulties _at all times_ and
_in every situation_, also during the experience of a deadly disease.
As to 'karma', what you on some level feel you need as challenges to
develop, you sooner or later probably will meet or find. But that is
totally up to the individual to 'decide', not anybody else.
The inherent duty of other people is _always_ to do at least what you would
reasonably expect as a human, if you were in the persons shoes that you
relate to.
Regards,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:14:53 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Unlurking
Dan wrote:
)A universal characteristic of cult members is inability to see their
)own cult membership objectively. They always say "those people over
)there, that's a cult, but us, we're a movement for world peace"
)(insert commonly held high goals of your choice).
DL: I'll bite. Try this one on:
"Those people over there, that's a cult, but us, we're the People for Legal
and Nonsectarian Schools."
Hmmm.... I guess you are right.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:17:37 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: vaccination and "science"??
))Dan Dugan wrote:
)))When these books utterly failed to convince the European intellectual
)))community that Steiner's epistemology had any value, he stopped
)))addressing the academic world and started talking only to his cult
)))followers.
)))
))
))DL: Wanna back this up with some EVIDENCE? You may be right, I'd
))prefer more then just your assertion that it's so.
)Dan replied: I'm just looking at his books on the shelf. If he had been a
)real
)philosopher, he would have been attending symposia, publishing books
)from general presses, writing for journals, etc. If he had been a
)real scientist, ditto. None of that happened after the turn of the
)century. He did some outreach for "the threefold social order" in the late
)teens, but that was missionary activity and political
)manipulation, not academic publishing.
)
DL: In othere words - it's an assumption you're making? Your opinion?
Nowhere in the above do I see EVIDENCE.
Shalom
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:19:48 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
Frank (Thomas Smith),
Since you tought Waldorf teachers and helped found several Waldorf schools,
can you offer your opinion about the accuracy of Dan's statement below?
Do you agree with Sune, and if so, will you please offer us an alternative?
Thanks (and welcome from Steiner98!)
...Gary
on 8/17/01 4:01 PM, Gary Bonhiver at Gary GoodWinter.com wrote:
) Since Sune is obviously not willing (or able) to offer an alternative, we
) should open up this request to the other Anthroposophists on the list...
)
) ...Gary
)
) on 8/17/01 3:46 PM, Dan Dugan at dan dandugan.com wrote:
)
)) You keep coming back to this, Sune, but you won't give us a helpful
)) correction. Re-write the sentence, Sune, how should it read to be
)) truthful in your eyes? I will correct it if you can come up with a
)) better version.
))
)) What's there now:
))
)) "For example, promoters will say that Waldorf is based on child
)) development, but Steiner's theory of child development, based on
)) reincarnation of "the etheric body," "the astral body," and "the I"
)) differs significantly from the consensus of child development
)) specialists."
))
)) -Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:25:51 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
)Dear D L and others, baiting the moderator is not a good idea. If he
)loses his temper he'll start chopping heads without even giving
)warnings.
DL: Excuse me?
Dan:
)Nor is it polite to your listmates to keep forcing them to
)read time-wasting discussions of whether I am fair or not. I am
)inconsistent.
DL: Is this a polite (irresponsible) way of saying you are not fair? It is
also NOT POLITE for you to ignore attacks from some, but allow them from
others.
Dan:
)This is a hobby. Some days I pay a lot of attention to
)it, some days I let you play by yourselves and take care of my own
)business.
DL: Hmmmm....you seem to have enough time to make other comments and to make
attacks yourself. If it's too much responsibility, get someone else to do
it.
)Dan:
)Please limit your correspondence to discussion of Waldorf education
)and Anthroposophy.
DL: Hard to do that when the basic groundrules aren't being followed. Why
follow the rules about the subject if you, as moderator, do not enforce the
personal attack rule?
I totally expect to be bumped from this list for speaking out - but at least
I will then have forced you to show your inconsistency.
Dan - your actions as moderator severely discredit your organization. I
came to this site to "find out" more information about Waldorf. What I've
discovered is that the (seemingly) strongest opponent (PLANS) is
inconsistent and lacks integrity. And that those who are critics rely more
on their irrational emaotional arguments than facts.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 22:35:50 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: verifying the spirit world
Michael Kopp wrote:
)Tarjei, "hurling insults" at you is just good, clean fun.
You don't seem to get it. The entertainment value of your posts to
yourself, or to Dan or any ofhte others for that matter, is
irrelevant. What is relevant is that Dan has made some rules for this
list, and that this habitual habit self-amusement of yours is a
violation of those rules.
)Catharsis for all the wasted time actually talking to you.
)
)The "insults" are not compliments.
Yes they are. They are evidence of my arguments being better than
yours. This is why I have no need to spice up my posts with insults
like you do. Your posts are 95 per cent insults and 5 per cent
substance, and the latter is seriously lacking in documentation and
evidence.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:37:39 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Judaism and W/S/A
on 8/17/01 4:25 PM, D L at theosopost hotmail.com wrote:
) Shalom
)
) DL
Are you trying to somehow imply that Waldorf/Steiner/Anthroposphy are A-OK
to Judaism by signing "Shalom?"
What strain of Judaism do you affiliate with, DL... Reform,
Reconstructionist, Conservative, Orthodox, ultra-Orthodox, Humanist? (or are
you a non-affiliated "born" Jew?)
Shabbat Shalom, "DL".
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 17:37:12 -0300
From: "Frank Thomas Smith" (franksmith traslasierra.com)
Subject: Unlurked 2
2. Some parents, as evidenced on this list, feel themselves deceived about
the anthroposophical background of W. education. I have had personal
experience with this and honestly believe that, in most cases,
self-deception is involved. I know of no school that doesn't have some kind
of brochure describing Waldorf and mentioning that it derives from Steiner's
indications. And many have web sites. And only the poorest schools have no
library with anthroposophical literature available to parents. If they are
putting their kids into kindergarten and see a reproduction of the Madonna
and Child on the wall, doesn't that say something to them? Now, what
possible reason would a school have for keeping any of this secret and
deceiving parents? It would be the height of stupidity. Who wants parents
who are opposed to the school's basic philosophy and could cause problems?
There was a case recently of a mother, founding member of a school, a child
psychologist with 2 small children. Before the school started, I gave
several talks to the group of parents about Waldorf education,
anthroposophy, Steiner, etc. A experienced teacher gave a course on details
of W. education. She was always present. A couple of years later her
husband - who had been trying to escape for a long time -- finally did. She
lost her job. She became bitter. Then she began to live with an Catholic
priesthood ex-seminarist, who instructed her on the "dangers" of
anthroposophy. Her child in kindergarten complained that another kid was
picking on him, hit him. She started to blame all her problem's on the
school. As a Board member, she ranted for several months generally ruining
meetings. Finally she resigned and took her kids with her. She deceived
herself that the school was to blame for her life crashing. Take that guy on
this list who talks about his "dead" children. Now he has problems, with
himself and his children. Many children have different viewpoints than their
parents when they grow up, or before. He blames the school for the fact that
his kids don't think the way he does. And who can blame them. Would you want
*him* for a father? I don't know all Waldorf schools of course, (especially
not U.S. schools, where I haven't lived in many years), and there may well
be instances when parents aren't sufficiently informed, but I don't believe
it's a general phenomenon. And even where it does or may happen, it could
hardly be deliberate. (cont.)
Frank
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 22:34:59 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
Gary wrote:
) Since Sune is obviously not willing (or able) to offer an alternative, we
) should open up this request to the other Anthroposophists on the list...
Of course I'm 'able'. I wrote a long posting at one time explaining why the
present 'statement' not only is probably a consciously kept untruth at
PLANS' site since long and in what way it stands out as at least as
simplified as saying that 'atoms are small balls consisting of small balls
circling a cluster of larger balls in the same way as the planets circle
the sun in our solar system'.
The degree of rhetoric on the list cutivated by its moderator and clearly
demonstrated uninterest in actually understanding most subjects related to
anthroposophy has made me refrain from sending it.
Regards,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 22:19:35 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: You say you're an 'expert' on WE/Anthroposophy/Steiner?
Demonstrate it!
Dan Dugan wrote:
) You keep coming back to this, Sune, but you won't give us a helpful
) correction. Re-write the sentence, Sune, how should it read to be
) truthful in your eyes? I will correct it if you can come up with a
) better version.
PLANS' side wanted to use you as an 'expert' on anthroposophy or WE or both
in the trial. On this list you tell that you have studied anthroposophy and
what relates to it for 13 years and that you consider yourself to be an
expert on at least WE and probably also consider yourself to be some sort
of expert on anthroposophy.
'Ether body', 'astral body', 'I' and 'Ego-organisation' constitute the
_most_ basic concepts of anthroposophy.
Why not demonstrate your understanding of them - as an expert?
Regards,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 22:22:40 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: 'Expert report'
Dan Dugan wrote:
) [Steiner] did some outreach for "the threefold social order" in the
) late teens, but that was missionary activity and political
) manipulation, not academic publishing.
Interesting comment coming from an 'expert' on 'SWA'.
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: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:21:30 -0300
From: "Frank Thomas Smith" (franksmith traslasierra.com)
Subject: Unlurked 3
3.
Critics claim that the instruction given is religious or anthroposophical:
Teaching anthroposophy in Waldorf schools is strictly tabu, for the very
good reason that Steiner gave: We don't want to be sectarian. And, in fact,
anthroposophy is not taught. Religion is also not taught. However, any
Waldorf school worthy of the name has a spiritual atmosphere. Whoever wants
to make "religious" synonymous with "spiritual" may do so, but it is only in
this sense that Waldorf education is religious. It is helpful if the
teachers are conversant with anthroposophy, but not all are. Whether or not
they accept the idea of reincarnation or Steiner's indications about the
nature of man and the universe is up to them; for many it's an open
question - even when they have attended a teacher training course. Neither
of the above are requirements. Of course they should be familiar with and in
agreement with the Waldorf educational method. Many are learning this as
they develop.
Frank
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 23:33:12 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Honest description of the subjective inconsistency of the
'moderator' of the WC-list?
Dan, you wrote:
) Dear D L and others, baiting the moderator is not a good idea. If he
) loses his temper he'll start chopping heads without even giving
) warnings. Nor is it polite to your listmates to keep forcing them to
) read time-wasting discussions of whether I am fair or not. I am
) inconsistent. This is a hobby. Some days I pay a lot of attention to
) it, some days I let you play by yourselves and take care of my own
) business.
'Baiting!!'
So, you bump me because you feel hurt and did not like a comment I made on
the list, based not on your personality, but on your arguments on the list,
and you bump Dottie for some other arbritarly chosen reason, but you
actually really don't care very much about how other than you yourself feel
treated on this list, if you disagree with their views.
If your view of and relation to this list is as you describe, then why not
write an honest description of the list for the site of Topica?
You're for 'honesty in advertising', right?
Suggestion for an honest description for topica:
*The list is a hobby activity by its moderator, set up as a forum to
slander and smear Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner and anthroposophy for
anybody who feels he like it for some reason.
It is a free-speech forum; subscription is open to the public and postings
are not reviewed in advance. The general important rules are that the topic
must be Waldorf, Anthroposophy or Rudolf Steiner, and that personal attacks
on living persons not are permitted. But the list is moderated according to
the irregular temporary situation and sentiments of the moderator and he
may therefore bump you from the list according to some rule at any time,
while applying other rules to other participants that he feels more
personal sympathy for, so don't be too sure of your presence on the list
):).
Typical contents include:
- Rhetorical attacks on any and all aspects of Waldorf education,
anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner, based on any personal dislike you may
have of people you have met in connection with Waldorf education or
anthroposophy.
- You may also do it on the basis of your secular humanist world view in
general, or any other fundamentalist world view you may have.
- The hideous role of Anthroposophy in Waldorf education.
- True science and medicine vs. irrational phenomenological 'science' and
'anthroposophical' (quack) medicine.
- Sharing of Waldorf horror stories. If you have none, use some creative
imagination!
- Irrational anthroposophists "defending the faith" against PLANS heroic
philosophy warriors.
- Slandering news and articles about Waldorf controversies worldwide.
Subscribe to the single-messages version to participate in the discussion.
Subscribe to the digest version to lurk. Please read for a few days before
jumping in so you know what's going on. Not for the overly sensitive.*
Have I understood you correctly?
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 00:12:07 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
Dan Dugan wrote:
)Dear D L and others, baiting the moderator is not a good idea. If he
)loses his temper he'll start chopping heads without even giving
)warnings. Nor is it polite to your listmates to keep forcing them to
)read time-wasting discussions of whether I am fair or not. I am
)inconsistent. This is a hobby. Some days I pay a lot of attention to
)it, some days I let you play by yourselves and take care of my own
)business.
I see. There are no rules, but the arbitrary whims and moods of the
moderator decide when we can play as dirty as we like and when "heads
are chopped without warning." In that case, you shouldn't expect
subscribers to understand why they're being warned or unsubscribed.
)Please limit your correspondence to discussion of Waldorf education
)and Anthroposophy.
and or to the color of my shirt and the crap of my brain?
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 15:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Judaism and W/S/A
Gary
)
) Are you trying to somehow imply that
) Waldorf/Steiner/Anthroposphy are A-OK
) to Judaism by signing "Shalom?"
)
Gary,
Have you nothing better to debate than ; Dottie why do
you capitilize the letter T in truth and DL why do you
sign Shalom?
Nothing?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 17:15:22 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Judaism and W/S/A
)Gary wrote:
)Are you trying to somehow imply that Waldorf/Steiner/Anthroposphy are A-OK
)to Judaism by signing "Shalom?"
)
)What strain of Judaism do you affiliate with, DL... Reform,
)Reconstructionist, Conservative, Orthodox, ultra-Orthodox, Humanist? (or
)are
)you a non-affiliated "born" Jew?)
)
)Shabbat Shalom, "DL".
)
)From DL: Not at all. I sign off on most of my emails (here and otherwise
with "Shalom" for a couple of reasons. First and foremost because I do wish
peace to others. Secondly, it's an acknowledgement of the Judaic influence
on the Christian part of my spiritual beliefs.
Todah, Gary
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 17:27:34 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Correction to Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
)DL wrote: Is this a polite (irresponsible) way of saying you are not fair?
)It is also NOT POLITE for you to ignore attacks from some, but allow them
)from others.
)
What I meant was:
Is this a polite (irresponsible) way of saying you are not fair?? It is
also NOT POLITE for you to ignore attacks from some, but NOT allow them from
others.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 23:37:00 +0100
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charliemorrison btinternet.com)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
charlie:
I'd like to thank Diana, Dottie and everyone else who has contributed to the
current discussion on karma. It shows that you do not have to believe in
something to have a sensible, adult discussion about it. It also shows up
the mud-slinging of one or two other contributers for the weak form of
arguement it is.
To add my little bit, I would just like to say that from my understanding of
karma; you don't always have to look for the reason for someone's suffering
in the past. It could be a preparation for their actions in the future. I'm
not trying to persuade people to believe in karma, or to say that this is a
fact. I'm just stating one of my beliefs about this complicated subject.
warm regards,
charlie.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:10:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Charlie
It could be a preparation for their
) actions in the future. I'm
) not trying to persuade people to believe in karma,
) or to say that this is a
) fact. I'm just stating one of my beliefs about this
) complicated subject.
Hi Charlie,
I agree, it is such a difficult subject. There are so
many questions I still have unaswered and I don't know
if they will ever be answered in this life time, to my
consternation. I am such a nosy person.
:)
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:08:54 -0400
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Diana Winters wrote:
What can the child being beaten or dying of AIDS do about
) it? Accept karma? What a crock.
Dear Diana,
Your right, as you state it, it is a crock. Suppose you try to
consider that you don't understand it at all (karma), and that not only
do you not understand it, but most people who believe in it don't
understand it.
I'll give you a run down on the reality, but pay attention because I'm
only go lay this out this one time. If you don't get it now, then too
bad.
See, there's God (remember Him/Her), and God loves human beings very
much. So God makes the material world (through very complicated
processes of course - wouldn't want Creation to be simple, would we?),
as a place where the human being can experience freedom. This means,
among other things, freedom from God. That's why science creates its
paradigm, the one without God in it.
So we lose God and only come back (the prodigal son's return) if we
choose.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch (the material sense world), human freedom
allows for evil (child abuse, the holocaust etc). But God is smart
(She'd better be, neh?), and so has created a way for this "evil" to be
dealt with.
This way is called "reincarnation and karma".
So people commit evil and then die. After death, in kamaloka, they
have to live through the experience of all the people they effected in
life. So if you beat your kid everyday for twenty years, guess what you
get to feel for a long time in kamaloka.
The spirit doesn't like this, and so vows to itself to do something
about it. Thus, when the next incarnation is being prepared for, the
incarnating spirit agrees to certain experiences as "recompense" for its
evil acts in previous incarnations. This does not mean agreeing to be
beaten by the parent for twenty years by the way. In fact, the kind of
thinking, that imagines such as how karma balances things, is "human"
thinking, not divine. She is much more intelligent, and Her helping
spirits work with the incarnating spirits in a lot more creative ways,
and further "evil" is not divine recompense for original evil.
So a child beater might have to spend a main part of an incarnation as
a teacher of children, who she knows are being beaten. She then suffers
this abuse through her empathy with the child, and this kind of
experience has a whole other kind of effect on the spirit - it learns
from this suffering, rather than being deformed by it (as the child
might well be).
Now even this is an oversimplification, because there is so much really
going on in any individual biography. Actually, when one learns to view
the social existence of humanity with all its real spiritual dynamics,
it becomes quite awesomely (even frightenly) beautiful, something like a
great storm with much destruction that ends up followed by a wonderful
sunset.
karmically yours (don't you ever wonder what our karma as members of
this list is?),
joel
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:30:53 -0400
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
"mypostbox.formail" wrote:
) dear joel,
) what IS your problem?
Dear Bea,
So, we now answer questions with questions. I take it then you have no
answer and were just typing randomly all over the place, not intending
to have actually said anything. Sorry to have intruded on your fugue.
where is daffy duck when we need him,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:31:51 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Honest description of the subjective inconsistency of the
'moderator' of the WC-
Sune, you seem to have the time to write a whole page about the
extremely tolerant policies of this list's moderator, but you can't
write one sentence to correct what you call a lie on the PLANS web
page.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 16:18:49 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
D L, about the "law of karma," you wrote,
)My theory is tested evryday. And I've found it to be true as far as
)I can see.
Would you elaborate on that, please?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 19:47:28 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
)D L, about the "law of karma," you wrote,
)
))My theory is tested evryday. And I've found it to be true as far as
))I can see.
)
)Would you elaborate on that, please?
)
)-Dan Dugan
DL: Actually, no. Most of the examples are more personal than I care to get
into on this list. But thank you for asking.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 21:10:10 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
on 8/17/01 4:34 PM, Sune Nordwall at sune.nordwall home.se wrote:
) The degree of rhetoric on the list cutivated by its moderator and clearly
) demonstrated uninterest in actually understanding most subjects related to
) anthroposophy has made me refrain from sending it.
Oh, please, Sune, please, please, Please, PLEASE!
Pretty please with sugar on top!
I'm begging you, I'm down on my knees, PLEASE...............
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 20:12:31 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Honest description of the subjective inconsistency of
the 'moderator' of th
Dan wrote:
)Sune, you seem to have the time to write a whole page about the
)extremely tolerant policies of this list's moderator, but you can't
)write one sentence to correct what you call a lie on the PLANS web
)page.
)
)-Dan Dugan
)
DL writes: Dan, you seem to have the time to write 10 posts about various
subjects, including, but not limited to:
--references to two ad hominems from non-critics - but alas, no references
to critic ad hom's (nor mine)
--threats that if members bait the moderator he may start chopping heads
--make an assertion sans evidence
--back up that assertion with more assumption
--general admin post
Yet, you use the idea that you can't address members ad homs because "This
is a hobby. Some days I pay a lot of attention to it, some days I let you
play by yourselves and take care of my own business. "
I'd say this is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. You attack Sune
(hmmmm....smells like an ad hom) because he apparently has time to write a
whole page, but not address your question - yet in just the past two days
you have had time to make ten posts (some in violation of the rules - the
"extremely tolerant policies of this list's moderator") - but NONE of them
address those making ad hominems.
And your answer? "Don't bait me or I'll kick you off." (paraphrased) Is it
baiting to ask that you hold members of this list (and yourself as well)
accountable? Accountable to the rules that *you* laid down?
You want me to stop ringing this bell? Do something about it. Apologize to
those on the list for not addressing it and boot those off who have
attacked. Myself included. My only request is that the length of the
suspensions are commensurate with the number and degree of attacks. Of
course IF you do this, *you* may find it difficult to moderate while being
kicked off the list.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Honest description of the subjective inconsistency of
the 'moderator' of th
--- Dan Dugan
) Sune, you seem to have the time to write a whole
) page about the
) extremely tolerant policies of this list's
) moderator, but you can't
) write one sentence to correct what you call a lie on
) the PLANS web
) page.
)
Dottie
He says he has written it, and after surveying the
attitude at PLANS, regarding his thoughts, decided not
to send it. So it's written, but why send it to go
round and round with you about these things.
It will probably be another year of explaining his
thoughtful response to your serious
misinterprentations to outright untruths (speaking of
Mr. Zegers and Mr. Staudnemaiers papers) regarding Dr.
Steiner and Waldorf. And most likely you will ridicule
his words, versus contemplating them to see if he is
right, that you do indeed have misinterpretations and
untruths on your site. And that is not to mention how
much fun Mr. Kopp will have with his paper, he must be
frothing at the bit.
You must have an idea where you are seriously
misinterpreting Dr. Steiner to your advantage for
points. Although I must say, there were many quotes
from him, on your site, that I found to be valid which
is a plus for PLANS.
I have pointed out about Staudenmaiers claim that
Steiner chose not to accept Krishnamurti because he
was a brown skin lad. And there are many others in
that paper, that have been picked up by Anti Waldorf
supporters, who must not realize the things they are
quoting from Staudenmaiers paper, are not true.
And I was thinking today what a shame to have to go
after the whole kit and caboodle, when what you had
was a serious issue regarding church and state (had
nothing to do with whether or not it was a cult, is it
a religion was the point)and if it violated that
issue. That is up in the air, but you will lose Mr.
Dugan, because you are not looking at that singular
most important point. You are trying to throw the
kitchen sink therefore your argument is dispersed in
the wind. Too bad you had to burn the house down and
your claim with it.
And we would all like to know the policy. Is it
unevenly structured to you and your supporters? I find
that would be understandable but you, PLANS and this
discussion group lose credibility, like Waldorf, when
not honest up front.
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 02:09:09 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
Dan, like me, begging Sune to actually explain what is wrong rather than
shout, "Lies! Lies!" about this passage:
)"For example, promoters will say that Waldorf is based on child
)development, but Steiner's theory of child development, based on
)reincarnation of "the etheric body," "the astral body," and "the I"
)differs significantly from the consensus of child development
)specialists."
If I recall, what's eating Sune here is that this implies all four members
of a person are carried from lifetime to lifetime. In fact I think it's only
the "I." Clearly the physical body does not reincarnate and I don't think
the etheric or astral body is supposed to either.
It ought to be real simply to clear it up. Is that it, Sune?
Who's taking bets on whether he answers?
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 417
-- Topica Digest --
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Unlurked 2
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Unlurked 3
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Unlurked 4
By franksmith traslasierra.com
Re: Unlurked 2
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Unlurked 5
By franksmith traslasierra.com
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
By sune.nordwall home.se
Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
By TTirrell1 aol.com
Re: Unlurked 3
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
RE: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice onWC-list
By franksmith traslasierra.com
Re: Judaism and W/S/A
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Unlurked 5
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By franksmith traslasierra.com
RE: Unlurked 2
By franksmith traslasierra.com
RE: Unlurked 3
By franksmith traslasierra.com
RE: Unlurked 3
By franksmith traslasierra.com
Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
By tastraum uncletaz.com
RE: Admin: baiting the moderator
By franksmith traslasierra.com
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Unlurked 3
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Some 'uninformed' info
By sune.nordwall home.se
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 02:29:13 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Sune:
)It's up to no other individual person but a person him- or herself to )tell
)someone else or judge that he or she 'needs' one or other )'problem' and
)then _make_ them have that problem, or not to
)care what problems people have or are in because it should be their
)'karma'.
Well, it seems to me not vaccinating, not putting kids in car seats, etc.,
all fall in that category of parental "shrug - can't stop karma."
)This is pure rhetoric as most of the child diseases that one normally
)vaccinates against _normally_ _not_ are 'life-threatening' to otherwise
)reasonably well fed and healthy kids.
Excuse me? Polio? Smallpox? Whooping cough? cough, cough, you must not have
heard about it, Sune, these were *fatal* to many children. Am I the only one
gasping at this un-informed remark?
)In relation to what _you yourself_ argued on people dying from placebo
)treatment or drug treatment in double-blind studies on the effects of
)experimental drugs in the treatment of cancer:
)14 Jun 2001: 'there was no reason to think that those who did die, )ould
)not have died anyway;'
)your comment stands out as hypocritical.
Sune, I am sorry, truly, that you cannot understand scientific testing. I
had to assume that you did not understand what I had written, and that
explained your silence, and obviously I was right. It is pointless to debate
it further. The reason to continue such a test is not that "they would have
died anyway." But I don't have time to drag this out again.
)yu defend the increased occurrence of death in one of the groups with )hat
)'they would have died anyway' sooner or later.
Just for the benefit of newcomers, that is not, remotely, what I said. You
simply do not understand what I wrote, and I can't do anything about it. I
don't "defend" the increased occurrence of death. Death frequently happens
to cancer patients, Sune.
The point of the testing is to save lives. Not everyone's can be saved - the
context is serious illness. When the drug is *known* to be effective, no
more placebos should be given. When a placebo, or drug, is *known* to be
causing terrible side effects, no more should be given. When it is NOT
KNOWN, then to continue the test, with some people receiving placebos and
some receiving the experimental drug, is the way to benefit the most people.
)One interrupts tests (before the planned end of the test period) where
)survival is the main outcome criterion of the test _because_ one thinks
)that the drug treatment or placebo-treatment is the cause of the )deaths,
)but only when and if the difference is great enough to be )considered
)statistically significant enough according to some chosen )criterion.
Do you get what statistically significant means? It isn't a "chosen
criterion" - you seem to think it's arbitrary - that pleases the
researchers. If it isn't statistically significant, then the effects are NOT
YET KNOWN.
)you clearly accept even gambling with the life of people when done )under
)certain conditions and if some knowledge may be gained from it, )not
)benefiting those who are the losers in the game, but maybe others.
The test subjects have cancer. I accept testing of drugs that may help them.
It is a fact that some cannot be helped. It is not me, or the researchers,
"gambling with their lives." They have cancer. AAARRRGH It is an effort to
find an effective treatment - if for the test subjects, great. If not for
them, for future patients, yes I think that is a good thing. The patients in
the study are not somehow being sacrificed for these future patients in some
diabolical scheme. . . THEY HAVE CANCER. They are not forced to remain in
the test and therefore they die. They have a fatal disease and are going to
die *anyway*. The drug may help. The drug may not help. What part of this
can you not grasp?
I give up.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 02:39:51 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Unlurked 2
Frank Smith:
)I know of no school that doesn't have some kind of brochure describing
) )Waldorf and mentioning that it derives from Steiner's indications.
Yes, usually so, but they are at pains to assure you that "anthroposophy"
and "Waldorf" were two separate things Steiner did, and that there is no
reason for parents to know anything at all about anthroposophy.
)If they are putting their kids into kindergarten and see a )reproduction of
)the Madonna and Child on the wall, doesn't that say )something to them?
Interesting point. Frank, I worked in a Waldorf kindergarten for parts of 3
school years (consecutive). It was about halfway through the second school
year that I noticed the tiny postcard of the Madonna and Child that the
teacher had tacked onto a bulletin board in one corner. (Admittedly it was
at eye level for the children but not for me.) It was alone on this bulletin
board, and almost appeared to be there accidentally. It took me even longer
to have the slightest clue what *that* was all about - and I was in this
classroom for hours EVERY DAY, unlike the average Waldorf parent. There is
virtually no way a parent visiting (if that were allowed) would notice this,
especially amidst the screaming and fighting.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 02:42:39 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
Sune:
)Of course I'm 'able'. I wrote a long posting at one time explaining )why
)the present 'statement' not only is probably a consciously kept )untruth at
)PLANS' site since long and in what way it stands out as at )least as
)simplified as saying that 'atoms are small balls consisting )of small balls
)circling a cluster of larger balls in the same way as )the planets circle
)the sun in our solar system'.
Well, that clears it right up. (sarcasm)
This is what you do, Sune. You tell us that it is not accurate in the same
way that something else is not accurate, but you will not explain how it
should be made accurate (in your view).
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 02:49:02 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Unlurked 3
Frank:
)anthroposophy is not taught. Religion is also not taught. However, any
)Waldorf school worthy of the name has a spiritual atmosphere.
I would say that creating the "atmosphere" is far more effective than
teaching the kids the abstract arguments of anthroposophy. Song, dance,
puppetry, beautiful surroundings . . . avoid dry facts and abstract thinking
. . .
Hey, isn't that in fact the basis of Waldorf pedagogy???
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 23:48:35 -0300
From: "Frank Thomas Smith" (franksmith traslasierra.com)
Subject: Unlurked 4
4. Critics claim that children are damaged by Waldorf education: In my
fairly wide experience, I have never seen a child damaged by these schools.
Rather the contrary is true. Parents with problem children are constantly
seeking admittance to Waldorf schools, either on their own or on the advice
of psychologists. If there's room, many are accepted, so many in fact that
in some places the rumor exists that the schools are for idiots. Very often
they are helped considerably.
Item: Johnny is in the third grade and can't read. The mother blames the
teacher and/or the school for starting them later on reading. However, any
child who can't read by the third grade wouldn't be able to read in any
school. But in other schools he/she would be browbeaten and pressured by
both the school and home. That is damaging. In the Waldorf school he would
not be pressured and in most cases reading ability will click when he's
ready. Some kids are just slower than others. There is a possibility,
however, that dyslexia (more and more common) is present. An experienced
teacher will recognize this possibility. (Not referring to the obvious
cases - inverted letters, etc., but those which are not apparent. Dyslexia
comes in levels of seriousness, and the borderline cases are hard to spot.
Psychologists can usually determine its presence by tests.) Waldorf schools
have methods to help this condition, especially form drawing often helps.
And the teacher is in a much better position to judge, because she knows the
children much better because she accompanies them from one grade to the
next. Those who think that the schools' spiritual atmosphere is damaging are
entitled to their opinion, but mine is that they are mistaken, for this is
exactly what the child's soul needs. What soul? Anyone who believes that
there is no soul and that we are only matter really shouldn't have their
children in a Waldorf school.
Item: In countries where Waldorf schools are well known (Germany,
Switzerland, Holland), Waldorf graduates find job seeking easier that
others. Some companies even actively seek them, because they have a
reputation for being innovative and being able to think for themselves. My
daughter, for example, a political scientist, works at the ILO in Geneva.
These are coveted positions and there are many candidates. She was told that
the fact she had been a Waldorf student was an important factor in her
selection. My son, a management consultant, and many others, have had
similar experiences.
Frank
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 06:10:22 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Unlurked 2
frank wrote:
)
)
) 2. Some parents, as evidenced on this list, feel themselves deceived about
) the anthroposophical background of W. education. I have had personal
) experience with this and honestly believe that, in most cases,
) self-deception is involved.
sorry, wrong.
At our school we were told the children had a pass rate at GCSE of 84% which
in fact was 34% that is a deception.
We were not told that the reason for delaying reading is because it hardens
the organs, we were not told that arriman and lucifer play a big part in
things, we were not told that ballet and football were a no no, we were not
told that the teachers wouldent necessarily be qualified, our school set out
to give the impression that it was a artsy progresive school (I helped at
open days), there is so much that wasnt said and it would never occur for
you to ask. There was a small body of the teachers who thought the school
should be totally honest about there philosophies,and just take parents who
wanted anthroposophical schooling rather than marketing it at progressive
artsy parents and loosing loads of parents, but they werent a strong enough
voice, it would have meant a lot of the teachers loosing their jobs (we had
450 ish) pupils.
bea
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 03:04:33 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Joel (and DL wrote in a similar vein):
)Suppose you try to consider that you don't understand it at all (karma),
Guys, continually repeating "You just don't understand" isn't an argument.
) So a child beater might have to spend a main part of an
)incarnation as a
)teacher of children,
Ah now this I can believe!
)who she knows are being beaten. She then suffers this abuse through )her
)empathy with the child,
The teacher "suffers the abuse" through empathy?
Joel, all I can say to this is, as you say to me on karma, where child abuse
is concerned, you just need to consider that maybe you don't understand it?
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 00:13:00 -0300
From: "Frank Thomas Smith" (franksmith traslasierra.com)
Subject: Unlurked 5
5. Separation of church and state issue in the U.S.: I've had no direct
experience with this, only know about it from what I've read, so the
following is only an opinion and probably isn't worth much. It seems to me
that the public schools that use the Waldorf method aren't Waldorf schools
at all, firstly because of the restrictions placed upon them and secondly
because a state Waldorf school is an oxymoron. One of the basic principles
of the Waldorf movement is that schools should be independent of state
control and interference - although many teachers and others involved in
Waldorf education aren't even aware of this. Public education in the whole
world is in continual crisis, and one of the principle causes is that they
are owned and controlled by political bureaucracies. So I assume that the
charter schools only use certain Waldorf aspects, such as emphasis on art,
no exams or grades, teaching in blocks, teachers accompanying their classes
through the primary school, etc. I consider this a most positive
development, but they aren't Waldorf schools (no spiritual atmosphere). So I
don't see what this has to do with the separation of church and state.
Frank
Frank Thomas Smith
http://www.SouthernCrossReview.org
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 09:04:10 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
Diana, you write:
) You tell us that it is not accurate in the same
) way that something else is not accurate, but you will not explain how it
) should be made accurate (in your view).
You ask ME to contribute to the central twisted and rhetoric smearing place
of Waldorf education, Steiner and anthroposophy in English on the net, set
up by the probably main initiator and driving force behind a legal process
against two public school districts in US for supporting Waldorf inspired
schools as charter schools - lately putting up a robot-absurd-translation
of an article on a fired former Waldorf teacher for half a year 14 years
ago, using a clearly sarcastic comment by someone at the school to the
fired teacher as 'argumentation' of the absurdity of anthroposophy - to
save the editor of the site of PLANS and main moderator of this list from
having to demonstrate the degree of untruthfulness of his by himself stated
'expertise' on anthroposophy and Waldorf education, constituting the
CENTRAL THEORETICAL 'BASIS' for the activities of PLANS and its
misinformation campaign against Waldorf education?
And YOU have told the list that you had understood in 5 minutes what 'ether
body' was, implicitly arguing that it was very simple to do understand,
then first both ask me what's wrong with something demonstrating the editor
of the site of PLANS and moderator of this list either has understood
NOTHING of the basic concepts of anthroposophy or has been consciously
lying about it for all the years he has had it on PLANS' site, your
questions indicating what you wrote on your own understanding of the
subject too was pure untruthful rhetoric.
Come on, lady. Much as I sympathise personally with your problem in
understanding anthroposophy, you ask too much.
Time for a break in the sub-hysteria on the list? to join in a garden
party? :-)
Passed Dan's personal pages recently, from which he started his disinfo
campaign on WE. After having born the disinfo body on WE and set it free on
the net, he has put up a link to his personal photo album on the net at
http://www.dandugan.com/personal/personal.html
Album 20, 21 and 22 are from Secular Humanists of the East Bay potluck
8/5/2000, Zuthpen's 4th of July celebration last year and this year, where,
Deby, Cathy Zutphen, Judy (Daar?) and others can be found, maybe half of
PLANS' members?
Would have been nice to participate but discussions on differing view
points probably would have taken some time off the partying. See no plastic
toys and Gameboys ... ;-))
Regards,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 08:41:59 EDT
From: TTirrell1 aol.com
Subject: Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
--part1_db.191cbe4b.28afbc97_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To Theosopost from Terry: no one with a living brain would believe for a
nano-second that you came to this list to learn more about Waldorf. Waldorf
is based in deceit and deception and so are your comments.
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 06:16:33 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Unlurked 3
) Religion is also not taught.
at michael hall school they have religions lessons
bea
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 11:00:05 -0300
From: "Frank Thomas Smith" (franksmith traslasierra.com)
Subject: RE: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice onWC-list
Gary wrote:
) Frank (Thomas Smith),
)
) Since you tought Waldorf teachers and helped found several Waldorf
schools,
) can you offer your opinion about the accuracy of Dan's statement below?
)
) Do you agree with Sune, and if so, will you please offer us an
alternative?
)
) Thanks (and welcome from Steiner98!)
)
) ...Gary
)
) on 8/17/01 4:01 PM, Gary Bonhiver at Gary GoodWinter.com wrote:
)
) ) Since Sune is obviously not willing (or able) to offer an alternative,
we
) ) should open up this request to the other Anthroposophists on the list...
) )
) ) ...Gary
) )
) ) on 8/17/01 3:46 PM, Dan Dugan at dan dandugan.com wrote:
) )
) )) You keep coming back to this, Sune, but you won't give us a helpful
) )) correction. Re-write the sentence, Sune, how should it read to be
) )) truthful in your eyes? I will correct it if you can come up with a
) )) better version.
) ))
) )) What's there now:
) ))
) )) "For example, promoters will say that Waldorf is based on child
) )) development, but Steiner's theory of child development, based on
) )) reincarnation of "the etheric body," "the astral body," and "the I"
) )) differs significantly from the consensus of child development
) )) specialists."
) ))
) )) -Dan Dugan
I don't know what Sune wrote, but will give you the best answer I can. What
may have exasperated Sune was the way the statement is formulated. Assuming
that Dan has really studied anthroposophy for 13 years, the inexactness of
his statement can only be interpreted as a provocation, with the intent of
making Waldorf education child development theory appear ridiculous. If the
statemented were re-formulated as follows, it could be worthy of rebuttal:
"For example, promoters say that Waldorf education is based on child
development, which includes the concept of reincarnation, and differs
significantly from the consensus of child development specialists."
I would say that it depends on which child develop specialist you ask. Dan
uses the word consensus. I can assure you that there is no consensus among
"specialists" on this issue. They, like everyone else, can have an opinion
about reincarnation - or none. But there are many such specialists
(non-anthroposophical psychologists, physicians, educators) who agree with
Waldorf education as far as not using the pressure of exams and grades,
instead using artistic tools, music, crafts, etc. and teaching in block
periods. There is certainly no consensus about the important question of
early learning. There is, of course, a general idea that the earlier you
start teaching the 3 Rs (plus computation naturally) the better they will
learn. Waldorf education rejects this, saying that the corrrect moment to
teach these things is when the child's development process has reached the
point where he/she is ready to absorb the material presented, and that in
this way the child will not only learn better, but will *want* to learn and
will be happy doing so. Yiou don't have to know anything about the etheric
body to see the comon sense in this, and if you have seen it work
succesfully in Waldorf schools, an unprejudiced "specialist" can be
convinced. In fact, there are many such specialists who who are convinced.
Please don't ask me for bibliography or proof, I am only speaking from
experience and conversations with such specialists - and not in the U.S.
Frank
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 23:53:43 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Judaism and W/S/A
on 8/17/01 6:13 PM, dottie zold at dottie_z yahoo.com wrote:
) Gary
))
)) Are you trying to somehow imply that
)) Waldorf/Steiner/Anthroposphy are A-OK
)) to Judaism by signing "Shalom?"
))
) Gary,
)
) Have you nothing better to debate than ; Dottie why do
) you capitilize the letter T in truth and DL why do you
) sign Shalom?
)
) Nothing?
I'm just following your lead re substance, Dottie.
Love,
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 16:26:03 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
Terry wrote (to DL):
)Waldorf is based in deceit and deception and so are your comments.
Sounds like a mantra to be chanted by true believers to protect them
from temptation.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 10:31:56 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
) THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3080975516_74241_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Lisa here: Not that anyone cares, but I agree wholeheartedly with Terry. I
am mystified as to why "DL" (and hey, why not use your name if you are so
het up about truth, etc.?) is so obsessed with the moderator's actions when
there are so many more interesting topics to discuss ...
But then again, many times I've noticed that some Waldorf supporters --
like a number of Waldorf teachers I encountered in our six years at a school
-- are often amazingly rigid about making sure things adhere to *their*
worldview.
And there is always the possibility that this individual is having fun
working to distract the list members from the *real* purpose of the list,
which is to examine/dissect/discuss Waldorf pedagogy and practice in a
rational manner. Tying up bandwidth with cries of "it's not fair!" takes us
all away from that pursuit. I'd much prefer to discuss all the things that
weren't "fair" about my child's WS experience ....
To Theosopost from Terry: no one with a living brain would believe for a
nano-second that you came to this list to learn more about Waldorf. Waldorf
is based in deceit and deception and so are your comments.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 10:33:25 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
) Terry wrote (to DL):
)
))Waldorf is based in deceit and deception and so are your comments.
)
) Sounds like a mantra to be chanted by true believers to protect them
) from temptation.
Lisa here: Temptation to *what*??? Give me a break!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 10:39:45 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
on 8/17/01 7:09 PM, Diana Winters at winters_diana hotmail.com wrote:
)
)
)
) Dan, like me, begging Sune to actually explain what is wrong rather than
) shout, "Lies! Lies!" about this passage:
)
)) "For example, promoters will say that Waldorf is based on child
)) development, but Steiner's theory of child development, based on
)) reincarnation of "the etheric body," "the astral body," and "the I"
)) differs significantly from the consensus of child development
)) specialists."
)
) If I recall, what's eating Sune here is that this implies all four members
) of a person are carried from lifetime to lifetime. In fact I think it's only
) the "I." Clearly the physical body does not reincarnate and I don't think
) the etheric or astral body is supposed to either.
Sharon:
Let me have a stab at this and see if my studies are paying off. I think
Sune says that Dan's statement is a lie because it implies that these bodies
reincarnate over a period of time, that they fly down from another world and
enter the growing child at various stages.
Steiner said that the child is *born with* four members, they are 1)physical
body, 2)etheric body, 3)astral body and 4)I-body. At first, these bodies are
surrounded by etheric and astral envelopes and during the change of teeth,
the etheric envelope opens allowing the body it contains (the etheric body)
to be released into the physical body. The astral envelope stays sealed
until puberty when at that time it opens and the astral is released into the
body. The child chooses the parents before reincarnating, but when the child
reincarnates she comes with all four bodies and as she grows, the envelopes
containing these bodies open and release them into the physical body.
I would say that this is a very different idea than that accepted by society
at large. In the first place, not everyone believes in reincarnation.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 08:00:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Unlurked 5
--- Frank wrote:
) I consider this amost positive development, but they
aren't Waldorf schools (no
) spiritual atmosphere). So I
) don't see what this has to do with the separation of
) church and state.
)
)
Dottie
Hi Frank,
They seem to be quite spiritual with a daily verse and
some of the festivals they celebrate. In the states,
the courts can not even display the Ten Commandments,
yet at this public charter they can say verses that
leaed one to believe this is a religious or at the
very least a spiritual school.
I personally do not believe Anthroposophy is a
religion, however with that said, the States have a
very strict system for making sure that religion does
not enter into any school system other, than it seems,
possibly charter schools and privately funded schools.
It seems the charter schools have different rules that
many of the state schools do not have the luxurey of
deciding community by community.
Wouldn't it be great if the state got out of the
school business? :) Now there is a thought. I guess
that is part of being in a society who can not be
trusted to educate its children properly or
consistantly, without the states interferende. Too
bad.
Welcome to the list,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 08:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
--- TTirrell1 aol.com wrote:
) To Theosopost from Terry: no one with a living
) brain would believe for a
) nano-second that you came to this list to learn more
) about Waldorf. Waldorf
) is based in deceit and deception and so are your
) comments.
)
)
Dottie
There you go again Terry, calling other people liars
who come to the list. What a spoil sport. How bout
adding something to the debate other than every once
in while popping up with calling someone a liar. Go
ahead, give it a try it doesn't hurt.
Thanks,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 08:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
Lisa
. Tying up bandwidth with cries of
) "it's not fair!" takes us
) all away from that pursuit.
Dottie
Lisa, we would just, well I know I would, like to know
what the deal is with ad homiens and why they are
allowed by PLANS members and not Steiner supporters.
Now I am not one who would like to see ad homiens all
over the place, however I have been threatened with
being thrown off the list for good if I am suspended
again. And I must remind you that my little
indescretions pale in compariso to Michael and also
Dans.
And it would be understandable as this is Dan's list,
that it would be more geared towards PLANS but at
least say it so we can all stop wondering what is
going on? It takes away from the discussions happening
here.
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 11:54:01 -0300
From: "Frank Thomas Smith" (franksmith traslasierra.com)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Sune:
) )This is pure rhetoric as most of the child diseases that one normally
) )vaccinates against _normally_ _not_ are 'life-threatening' to otherwise
) )reasonably well fed and healthy kids.
Diana:
) Excuse me? Polio? Smallpox? Whooping cough? cough, cough, you must not
have
) heard about it, Sune, these were *fatal* to many children. Am I the only
one
) gasping at this un-informed remark?
Frank:
Th non-fatal childhood diseases are not those mentioned above. They are
measles, mumps, and I forget what else, if any. (Are they still vaccinating
against polio and smallpox? I thought they were gone.) The
non-anthroposophical pediatrician we went to in Buenos Aires when my
youngest son was born only recommended the tetanus vaccine. He quoted
statistics showing that there is a greater danger of complications caused by
the vaccines than from the illnesses themselves - *when healthy, well
nourished childen are involved*. However, (he is really a good guy and works
mornings in a slum area with very poor children. His private practice is in
the afternoons in an upper middle class neighborhood, where he charges
accordingly in order to live.) when poor, undernourished children are
concerned, he gives the whole gamut of shots because a measles epidemic, for
example, can be devestating for them. The statistics that indicate so many
thousands of children die from measles every year, do not indicate that
these deaths occur almost exclusively in poor areas where undernourished
children are involved. He knew nothing of the anthroposophical idea that
these innocuous illnesses actually help the child's development, but he did
say that having the illness provides lifelong immunity, whereas the vaccines
are less effective in this respect. I think, though, that it is a mistake
for non-medical proffesionals, such as teachers, (or me) to get involved in
this debate with parents. If a doctor is associated with the school, he can
do so under his responsibility and accordance with his experience and expert
knowledge. Or, if the question is raised, teachers should just say that the
parents should follow the advice of their pediatrician. They should not
advise parents not to vaccinate, because they don't know enough about the
issue.
Frank
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 12:05:23 -0300
From: "Frank Thomas Smith" (franksmith traslasierra.com)
Subject: RE: Unlurked 2
Diana wrote:
) Frank Smith:
) )I know of no school that doesn't have some kind of brochure describing
) ) )Waldorf and mentioning that it derives from Steiner's indications.
)
) Yes, usually so, but they are at pains to assure you that "anthroposophy"
) and "Waldorf" were two separate things Steiner did, and that there is no
) reason for parents to know anything at all about anthroposophy.
I take your word for it, Diana, that someone told you this, but they were
either mistaken or lacked clarity - or, you misunderstood, which *can*
happen. Certainly there is a direct relation between Waldorf education and
anthroposophy. As far as the second part of the sentence is concerned, well,
I don't know what the person or persons meant who spoke to you, but in my
experience the great majority of parents who send their children to
W.schools aren't the least interested in anthroposophy, so I would have said
that you don't have to be an anthroposophist of even be interested in it to
send your kids to the school. However, for those who are interested, the
pertinent literature should be available as well as courses on pedagogy,
which would necessarilty include the anthropop background.
)
) )If they are putting their kids into kindergarten and see a )reproduction
of
) )the Madonna and Child on the wall, doesn't that say )something to them?
)
) Interesting point. Frank, I worked in a Waldorf kindergarten for parts of
3
) school years (consecutive). It was about halfway through the second school
) year that I noticed the tiny postcard of the Madonna and Child that the
) teacher had tacked onto a bulletin board in one corner. (Admittedly it was
) at eye level for the children but not for me.) It was alone on this
bulletin
) board, and almost appeared to be there accidentally. It took me even
longer
) to have the slightest clue what *that* was all about - and I was in this
) classroom for hours EVERY DAY, unlike the average Waldorf parent. There is
) virtually no way a parent visiting (if that were allowed) would notice
this,
) especially amidst the screaming and fighting.
I won't ask you which school that was - I don't want to know.
Best regards in your recuperation,
Frank
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 12:13:38 -0300
From: "Frank Thomas Smith" (franksmith traslasierra.com)
Subject: RE: Unlurked 3
)
) Frank:
)
) )anthroposophy is not taught. Religion is also not taught. However, any
) )Waldorf school worthy of the name has a spiritual atmosphere.
)
Diana:
) I would say that creating the "atmosphere" is far more effective than
) teaching the kids the abstract arguments of anthroposophy. Song, dance,
) puppetry, beautiful surroundings . . . avoid dry facts and abstract
thinking
Hmmm, a leading statement/question. If it were worded: "I would say that
creating the "atmosphere" is far more effective than teaching the kids
abstract arguments.." I leave out 'of anthroposphy' because you may be
implying that the reason for this atmosphere is to teach them anthroposophy
through atmosphere - if I am mistaken, pardon..."Song, dance, puppetry,
beautiful surroundings...avoid dry facts and abstract thinking." If that
were the statement, I would agree, but only up to a certain age, when the
facts and abstract thinking become necessary.
)
) Hey, isn't that in fact the basis of Waldorf pedagogy???
One of the elements, yes.
Frank
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 12:29:59 -0300
From: "Frank Thomas Smith" (franksmith traslasierra.com)
Subject: RE: Unlurked 3
) ) Religion is also not taught.
) at michael hall school they have religions lessons
) bea
Right, sorry. European tradition provides for religious instruction in
schools, all schools. In Germany, parents can choose between Catholic,
Protestant, "free", which usually means generalities, or nothing. And the
teachers of these faiths come to the schools. Some Waldorf schools include
the Christian Community, a church based on anthroposophy. IMO this is an
antiquated system. When I was a kid in a New York public school, we were
given Wednesday afternoon off to go to religious instruction. I was supposed
to go to a Catholic one, but usually played hooky. In Latin America, with
one exception I know of, this system isn't generally applied. I don't know
about the U.S. In any case, what I meant was that no particular religion is
taught *by* the school.
Frank
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 17:36:19 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
) ) Terry wrote (to DL):
))
)))Waldorf is based in deceit and deception and so are your comments.
))
)) Sounds like a mantra to be chanted by true believers to protect them
)) from temptation.
)
)Lisa here: Temptation to *what*???
Illoyal thoughts and sympathy with the enemy.
)Give me a break!
Any time.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 12:36:34 -0300
From: "Frank Thomas Smith" (franksmith traslasierra.com)
Subject: RE: Admin: baiting the moderator
)
) --- TTirrell1 aol.com wrote:
) ) To Theosopost from Terry: no one with a living
) ) brain would believe for a
) ) nano-second that you came to this list to learn more
) ) about Waldorf. Waldorf
) ) is based in deceit and deception and so are your
) ) comments.
Who's Theosopost? Is it me, or do I just have a guilty conscience?
Frank
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 17:45:11 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
Diana wrote:
)If I recall, what's eating Sune here is that this implies all four
)members of a person are carried from lifetime to lifetime. In fact I
)think it's only the "I." Clearly the physical body does not
)reincarnate and I don't think the etheric or astral body is supposed
)to either.
It's more complicated than that. Extracts of the etheric and the
astral are carried on to the next incarnation, i.e. the parts that
have been perfected. The imperfect is discarded. The goal of
evolution is the perfection of the whole human being, which makes
further physical incarnations unnecessary. When this perfection
reaches down to the very "phantom" of the physical body, we have the
resurrection body of Christ.
That's approximately it.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 18:11:55 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
))
) Dottie wrote:
)
) There you go again Terry, calling other people liars
) who come to the list. What a spoil sport. How bout
) adding something to the debate other than every once
) in while popping up with calling someone a liar. Go
) ahead, give it a try it doesn't hurt.
excuse me dottie, you could take the plank out of you own eye!
bea
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 18:14:38 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Unlurked 3
frank wrote:
)
))) Religion is also not taught.
)) at michael hall school they have religions lessons
)) bea
)
) Right, sorry. European tradition provides for religious instruction in
) schools, all schools. In Germany, parents can choose between Catholic,
) Protestant, "free", which usually means generalities, or nothing. And the
) teachers of these faiths come to the schools. Some Waldorf schools include
) the Christian Community, a church based on anthroposophy.
yes, there is a very strong christian community based around michael hall,
they used to hold the church ceremonies in the school, but now they have
built a church in the village
bea
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 20:04:30 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Some 'uninformed' info
Diana wrote:
Diana:
) ... if a child's parents don't vaccinate, that child chose
) those parents so that he or she could expose him/herself to various
) life-threatening illnesses. What can I say? yeah, right. (sarcasm)
I:
) )This is pure rhetoric as most of the child diseases that one normally
) )vaccinates against _normally_ _not_ are 'life-threatening' to otherwise
) )reasonably well fed and healthy kids.
Diana:
) Excuse me? Polio? Smallpox? Whooping cough? cough, cough, you must not have
) heard about it, Sune, these were *fatal* to many children. Am I the only one
) gasping at this un-informed remark?
On my 'un-iformed remark':
IN GENERAL:
The _child diseases_ that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends
vaccinating children against are
(http://www.aap.org/family/parents/immunize.htm): polio, measles, mumps,
rubella (German measles), pertussis (whooping cough), diphtheria,
chickenpox and Haemophilus influenzae type b.
It also recommends vaccinating against the _not specifically childhood
diseases_ hepatitis B, tetanus (lockjaw), and pneumococcal infections. AAP
recommends vaccinating against all of them before the age of 2 months.
While many may think that these vaccinations are mandatory, they generally
are not.
ON POLIO:
Of the typical child diseases mentioned, not even polio _normally_ is
'life-threatening'
(http://health.yahoo.com/health/diseases_and_conditions/disease_feed_data/Poliomyelitis).
Of the three forms of polio infections; subclinical, nonparalytic and
paralytic, MOST polio infections (95%) are subclinical infections, which
may even go completely unnoticed as such and often are misdiagnosed as
other types of infections.
*Prognosis:
The outcome varies with the form (subclinical, nonparalytic, or paralytic)
and the site affected. If the spinal cord and brain are not affected, which
occurs in over 90% of cases, complete recovery is likely.
Brain or spinal cord involvement is a medical emergency that may result in
paralysis or death (usually from respiratory difficulties).
Disability is more common than death. Lesions high in the spinal cord or in
the brain are associated with greater risk for respiratory difficulty.*
The last case of non-vaccine related polio acquired in the United States
was in 1979 (indicating the occurence of the vaccination-related cases
below).
The risk of getting infected in polio in US today basically is NIL. IF you
were to get infected in spite of that basic nil-risk, 9 out 10 are likely
to recover completely from the infection. Yet, AAP recommends vaccinating
ALL children againt polio, starting vaccination at age 2 months, putting
severe strain on the generally undeveloped immune system of the children at
that age.
http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/vaccine/polio.html :
*Today most cases of paralytic polio in the West are caused by the Sabin
oral vaccine, which replaced the earlier Salk injectable vaccine that was
withdrawn because of its associated dangers. According to the United States
Center for Disease Control, of the 55 cases of paralytic polio reported in
that country during the period 1980-1985, 51 were caused by the oral
vaccine and 4 occurred in people returning from undeveloped countries.
(Mortality and Mortality Weekly Report, 1986, vol. 35, pp. 671-674.)*
http://www.healthy.net/LIBRARY/Articles/Aesoph/ShootEmUp.htm :
*Even though immunizations for diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus and polio
began at two months of age, a young infant is usually protected by measles,
polio and tetanus antibodies from its mother for the first six months of
life [10: Kaye R, Oski FA, Barness LA. Core Textbook of Pediatrics (second
edition). Philadelphia: JB Lippincott Co., 1982.]. Breastfed children are
protected by immunity factors contained in breast milk [14 Lawton JWM,
Shortridge KF. Protective factors in human breast milk and colostrum
(letter). The Lancet 1977; 1: 253.].*
The extremely small risk of a few catching and being permanently harmed by
or dying from polio TODAY must be weighted against the long-term effects of
manipulating the immature immune system of large parts of the population
from the age of 2 months by a number of different types of 'vaccines'.
(Haven't had time to investigate the specific potential long-term effects
of IPV already at age 2 months more fully, but it clearly is an overkill
measure. http://www.trufax.org/vaccine/early.html points to some possible
aspects of it that I haven't tried to investigate yet and therefore have no
opinion of.)
SMALLPOX:
Answering what I wrote as:
) most of the child diseases that one normally vaccinates against
) _normally_ _not_ are 'life-threatening' to otherwise
) )reasonably well fed and healthy kids.
you mention 'smallpox'.
Smallpox is not a specifically _child_ disease. Also, one does not
generally vaccinate against smallpox at all any more in US since 30 years.
The last known naturally contracted case in the world occurred in 1977.
http://www.oehs.upenn.edu/bio/vaccinia/info.html :
*Because of the low risk of smallpox, the routine use of vaccinia vaccine
in the United States was discontinued in 1971. In 1976, the recommendation
for routine vaccination of healthcare workers was also discontinued. In
1983, the only active producer of vaccinia vaccine in the United States
discontinued distribution of vaccinia virus for civilians.
Currently, there is essentially no risk of infection with an orthopoxvirus
in the United States except in research laboratories.*
WHOPPING COUGH
You also mention 'whopping cough', writing: 'cough, cough, you must not
have heard about it, Sune,'
To my memory, I had whopping cough as a child, at age maybe 4-5.
For a short info on whopping cough/pertussis, see
http://www.healthlibrary.com/reading/nature/chap23.htm
As to mortality from pertussis,
http://www.mercola.com/2000/aug/13/vaccination_forbes.htm points to a study
by Dr. Gordon T. Stewart, published in the Lancet, January 29, 1997 showing
the death rate from pertussis was declining at the same rate before
vaccination as afterward. His conclusion: The pertussis vaccine had NO
IMPACT on the decline of the death rate from pertussis.*
Suspicions about the relation between pertussis-vaccination (DTP) and a
number of serious 'side-effects' of the vaccinations has led to the change
in the immunization policies on a national level of a number of countries,
among them Sweden.
http://www.personalmd.com/news/a1998013012.shtml :
*In countries such as Sweden, Japan, the UK, the Russian Federation,
Ireland, Italy, the former West Germany and Australia, allegations that the
vaccine itself may cause brain damage, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS),
infantile spasms, or Reye's syndrome have led to changes in national
immunization policies.*
To studies that have led to a more restricted immunization policy on
pertussis are studies like:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10714532&dopt=Abstract
(see link 'Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics,
February, 2000' at
http://www.mercola.com/2000/aug/13/vaccination_forbes.htm)
*********************************************************
*Effects of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis or tetanus vaccination on
allergies and allergy-related respiratory symptoms among children and
adolescents in the United States.
Hurwitz EL, Morgenstern H.
UCLA School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Los Angeles,
Calif 90095-1772, USA.
ehurwitz ucla.edu
BACKGROUND: Findings from animal and human studies confirm that diphtheria
and tetanus toxoids and pertussis (DTP) and tetanus vaccinations induce
allergic responses; associations between childhood vaccinations and
subsequent allergies have been reported recently.
OBJECTIVE: The association of DTP or tetanus vaccination with allergies and
allergy-related respiratory symptoms among children and adolescents in the
United States was assessed.
METHODS: Data were used from the Third National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey on infants aged 2 months through adolescents aged 16
years. DTP or tetanus vaccination, lifetime allergy history, and allergy
symptoms in the past 12 months were based on parental or guardian recall.
Logistic regression modeling was performed to estimate the effects of DTP
or tetanus vaccination on each allergy.
RESULTS: The odds of having a history of asthma was twice as great among
vaccinated subjects than among unvaccinated subjects (adjusted odds ratio,
2.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.59 to 6.74). The odds of having had any
allergy-related respiratory symptom in the past 12 months was 63% greater
among vaccinated subjects than unvaccinated subjects (adjusted odds ratio,
1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.05 to 2.54). The associations between
vaccination and subsequent allergies and symptoms were greatest among
children aged 5 through 10 years.
CONCLUSIONS: DTP or tetanus vaccination appears to increase the risk of
allergies and related respiratory symptoms in children and adolescents.
Although it is unlikely that these results are entirely because of any
sources of bias, the small number of unvaccinated subjects and the study
design limit our ability to make firm causal inferences about the true
magnitude of effect.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2000 Feb;23(2):81-90
*********************************************************
Some general sites related to the problems concerning
vaccination/non-vaccination are:
http://www.larkfarm.com/AP/vaccination.htm
http://www.thebabyregistry.co.uk/pages/child_health.htm
http://www.spearsmacleod.com/links/c/childhoo/
http://www.thinktwice.com/
http://www.gval.com/
http://www.healthy.net/vaccine/
http://www.bareware.net/vaccine.htm
http://www.healthlibrary.com/reading/nature/index.htm
http://hometown.aol.com/drdawndc/cdab.htm
http://www.immed.org/reports/autoimmune_illness/Criminal_Politics_Vaccine_Contraversy.htm
In general, IF your stance is that you in general think it is irresponsible
not to vaccinate ones children against everything they could be vaccinated
against (is that a misrepresentaion of your view and you want to
differentiate your view?), it would seem like a simplified stance in
relation to the issue.
In summary, I think an overview of the eight child diseases against which
AAP recommends vaccination shows what I wrote on them as:
) )most of the child diseases that one normally
) )vaccinates against _normally_ _not_ are 'life-threatening' to otherwise
) )reasonably well fed and healthy kids.
not is very 'un-informed', as you write.
I:
) One interrupts tests (before the planned end of the test period)
) where survival is the main outcome criterion of the test
) _because_ one thinks that the drug treatment or placebo-treatment
) is the cause of the deaths, but only when and if the difference
) is great enough to be considered statistically significant enough
) according to some chosen criterion.
Diana:
) Do you get what statistically significant means? It isn't a "chosen
) criterion" - you seem to think it's arbitrary - that pleases the
) researchers. If it isn't statistically significant, then the effects are NOT
) YET KNOWN.
Of course I don't think that the level of significance chosen as a basis
for interrupting or not interrupting a medical study is completely
arbitrary.
I studied mathematics at the University of Stockholm 30 years ago for half
a year. It was the first subject I studied at University. The course on
'Statistical and numerical methods' was my favourite. I got 'exellent'
marks.
Maybe it to some would stand out as simplified to say that when a
correlation at some level not is 'statistically significant' that the
correlation is 'NOT YET KNOWN', as you formulate it implying that when a
correlation is statistically significant, it is 'KNOWN'.
Statistical correlations are always only indications at varying levels of
probablility of an actual casual relationship in some form between factors.
There is no absolute, god-given level of significance, below which a
correlation is 'NOT YET KNOWN' and above which it suddenly becomes 'KNOWN'.
'Significance' normally refers to the situation when there - from a purely
statistical standpoint in relation to the chosen parameters - only is a 5%
or lesser chance (p(0.05) that the found correlation between them would
occur 'by chance'.
As http://www3.oup.co.uk/jjco/Volume_27/Issue_03/html/hya040_gml.html#hd4
tells, there are also other significance levels used, like a 1% 'chance
level' (p(0.01).
An even higher level of 'significance' is the 0.5% level (p)0.005).
With 'when and if the difference is great enough to be considered
statistically significant enough according to some chosen criterion.' I
just indicated that the one responsible for the study has to choose the
level of statistical significance at which to consider a result
'significant' enough to be used as a basis for a clinical decision. One
factor influencing such a decision is the size of the studied group.
But as the authors of the page write: *if a study sample is small, quite a
large difference which fails to reach statistical significance cannot be
ignored if it is considered to be clinically (possibly) important.*,
meaning a judgement must be made that is not strictly determined by the
statistical outcome, but also another criterion or other criteria. This or
these have to be chosen by the one/s responsible for the study. That's what
I referred to.
Regards,
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 418
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
By winters_diana hotmail.com
RE: Unlurked 2
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
By sune.nordwall home.se
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: Unlurked 2
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Unlurked 3
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Karma and fatalism
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Some 'uninformed' info
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Unlurked 3
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
RE: Waldorf Grads
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: Waldorf Grads
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: Waldorf Grads
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Another lie from the moderator
By sune.nordwall home.se
More empty rhetoric by 'critic'
By sune.nordwall home.se
RE: multiple intelligences
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: tell us your Waldorf experience
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
One more lie from the moderator
By sune.nordwall home.se
RE: some basic human psychology - projection and the "mirror"
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: some basic human psychology - projection and the "mirror"
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
For Su
By sune.nordwall home.se
RE: some basic human psychology - projection and the "mirror"
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 18:21:49 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
Sune (sputter, sputter):
)You ask ME to contribute to the central twisted and rhetoric smearing
) )place of Waldorf education,
Yes, I asked YOU. You criticized it, we ask you what is wrong with it, and
you won't tell us.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 18:46:53 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Unlurked 2
I wrote:
)they are at pains to assure you that "anthroposophy" and "Waldorf" )were
)two separate things Steiner did, and that there is no reason for )parents
)to know anything at all about anthroposophy.
Frank:
)I take your word for it, Diana, that someone told you this, but they )were
)either mistaken or lacked clarity - or, you misunderstood, which )*can*
)happen.
I don't think so. I worked at the school, studied anthroposophy, and was
very involved in the life of the school for 3 years. I attended numerous
open houses, parent information evenings, lectures, and even interviews with
prospective parents on a number of occasions. When someone said, "So who was
this Steiner guy?" Or "What is anthroposophy, exactly?" The answer usually
lasted about 12 seconds - "Yes, Steiner founded anthroposophy as well, that
was his philosophy, he wrote on many topics, yes, but anthroposophy isn't
taught in Waldorf schools. No, you certainly don't need to read any
anthroposophy. Next! Did you look at our beautiful main lesson books?" I
don't think I was misunderstanding. And I find it hard to believe you
haven't heard these sorts of statements on countless occasions yourself . .
.
I was also told by the teachers *numerous* times that it was best to be
careful about who you discussed anthroposophy with, that it puts some
parents off, that parents must "come to" anthroposophy, we lose people that
way, etc. . . .
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 18:51:36 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
I wrote:
)what's eating Sune here is that this implies all four members of a )person
)are carried from lifetime to lifetime. In fact I think it's )only the "I."
)Clearly the physical body does not reincarnate and I )don't think the
)etheric or astral body is supposed to either.
Tarjei:
)It's more complicated than that. Extracts of the etheric and the
)astral are carried on to the next incarnation, i.e. the parts that
)have been perfected.
Well then, gosh, Dan got it right without even knowing it.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 20:57:11 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
Diana wrote:
) Sune (sputter, sputter):
)
) )You ask ME to contribute to the central twisted and rhetoric smearing
) ) )place of Waldorf education,
)
) Yes, I asked YOU. You criticized it, we ask you what is wrong with it, and
) you won't tell us.
My comment does not seem to reach you:
You; Dan and you, have made yourself stand out as experts on central
aspects of anthroposophy.
Step 1:
Am I to understand that you have lied about it and really don't understand
the basic concepts involved in this case, that is, that you not are what
you have said you are or have don, that is 'experts' respectively
understood in 5 minutes what 'ether body' meant?
In Dan's case that means he actually doesn't understand what he has been
talking about in any more than a very superficial sense when arguing on
anthroposophy.
He says he's an 'expert' on anthroposophy and when I tell him he clearly
isn't, he asks me to give him more trueful smearing arguments in his
'philosophical' fight anthroposophy and WE.
Feels like when someone tried to sell me a number of 5 MB Hard discs only
some few years ago, telling me 'they'll be in high demand in the future
...'
I can fly, did you know that ....
Take a tour over Stockholm every morning before people wake up ...
Tell me you've lied.
Then we can move on to step 2.
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 11:57:30 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
DIANA
))If I recall, what's eating Sune here is that this implies all four
))members of a person are carried from lifetime to lifetime. In fact
))I think it's only the "I." Clearly the physical body does not
))reincarnate and I don't think the etheric or astral body is
))supposed to either.
TARJEI
)It's more complicated than that. Extracts of the etheric and the
)astral are carried on to the next incarnation, i.e. the parts that
)have been perfected. The imperfect is discarded.
DAN
Very interesting, so it would appear that PLANS' statement about
reincarnation of the etheric and astral bodies might not be "100%
untruthful" after all! Tarjei, could you have a little dialogue with
Sune about this?
)The goal of evolution is the perfection of the whole human being,
)which makes further physical incarnations unnecessary. When this
)perfection reaches down to the very "phantom" of the physical body,
)we have the resurrection body of Christ.
Sounds a lot like the Buddhist nirvana, transformed into a
Christ-centered world. If I read the chart at the back of The Temple
Legend correctly, this would normally happen at the beginning of the
7th Root Race or Great Epoch? Given that the Root Race periods are
25,920 years long, that will be a long time hence! Of course I expect
that, due to the activities of Ahriman (Lucifer having been
redeemed), not everyone will perfect themselves on schedule, so I
suppose there will be unperfected races around then, too? Or will
Ahriman also have been redeemed by then?
-Dan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 15:02:58 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
)
) Lisa
) . Tying up bandwidth with cries of
)) "it's not fair!" takes us
)) all away from that pursuit.
)
) Dottie
)
) Lisa, we would just, well I know I would, like to know
) what the deal is with ad homiens and why they are
) allowed by PLANS members and not Steiner supporters.
) Now I am not one who would like to see ad homiens all
) over the place, however I have been threatened with
) being thrown off the list for good if I am suspended
) again. And I must remind you that my little
) indescretions pale in compariso to Michael and also
) Dans.
)
) And it would be understandable as this is Dan's list,
) that it would be more geared towards PLANS but at
) least say it so we can all stop wondering what is
) going on? It takes away from the discussions happening
) here.
)
) Dottie
Lisa here: To clarify a few points for you and others, Dottie -- 1) Michael
Kopp is not a member of PLANS; in fact, he often criticizes those of us who
actually *are* for being too faint-hearted and/or "nice" in the delivery of
our criticisms, and 2) though Dan is secretary of PLANS and one of its
founders (Debra Snell is the other), the list is not PLANS' list as much as
it is *Dan's* list ... his creation and his to manage.
I totally agree that all of this discussion about who said what to whom
and why certain people have been "punished" and others not is taking away
from more meaningful discussion!
I am sure Dan is carefully considering what -- if anything! -- to do
about this situation. In the meantime, why don't we all agree to "rise above
the situation" a bit and carry on in the most considerate and congenial
manner possible?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 12:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Unlurked 2
Frank
but in my
) experience the great majority of parents who send
) their children to
) W.schools aren't the least interested in
) anthroposophy, so I would have said
) that you don't have to be an anthroposophist of even
) be interested in it to
) send your kids to the school.
Dottie
That is a really great point Frank. I think that
somehow I lost sight of what my original thoughts were
in regards to Waldorf being a great atmosphere for
parents who want to offer their children something
other than the endless books and competitive stance
that most state run schools take. The go go go, hurry
hurry hurry, mentality...
On this site the running conscensus seems to be that
Waldorf is inducting their children into a cult
because they were not informed ahead of time about the
writings of Dr. Steiner nor of Anthroposophy.
Is it of your opinion, from your experiences, that
many parents are not interested in Anthroposophy or
that is it that they are unaware it is the foundation
of Waldorf? Which seems to be a very big deal for
everyone here who holds a different world view than
Anthroposophy.
Thanks,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 19:05:24 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
Me to Sune:
)You criticized it, we ask you what is wrong with it, and
)you won't tell us.
Sune goes on, and on . . says we don't know what we're talking about, etc.
Sune, I can't read the rest. A question has been posed to you, and you
refuse to answer. I have nothing more to contribute to the thread.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 12:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
) ) Dottie wrote:
) )
) ) There you go again Terry, calling other people
) liars
) ) who come to the list. What a spoil sport. How bout
) ) adding something to the debate other than every
) once
) ) in while popping up with calling someone a liar.
) Go
) ) ahead, give it a try it doesn't hurt.
)
) Bea
) excuse me dottie, you could take the plank out of
) you own eye!
)
Dottie
I have. After my first suspension I was able to
reevaluate my behaviour on this list. I found that I
would rather give the benefit of the doubt to the one
who I considered lied about something. The benefit
being that maybe we just see it in different ways.
Although with Mr. Staudenmaier and Mr. Zegers I do
retain my opinion that they are not telling the truth
in regards to Anthroposophy and Nazi Germany.
And of course me being one who admires Dr. STeiners
words I am not allowed to call someone a liar as I
will be kicked off the list. Kind of like a double
standard thing going on.
And although you or others may not agree that what I
have to say is rellevant I do not pop up every third
day like you or Terry and including Gary and throw one
sentence out to judge others. I do try to voice to
the best of my ability my opinion for or against what
has been said. Obviously I am not perfect, but I do
try .
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 12:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Unlurked 3
Bea
) yes, there is a very strong christian community
) based around michael hall,
) they used to hold the church ceremonies in the
) school, but now they have
) built a church in the village
Dottie
Do they have any other religion that they offer at
Michael Hall?
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 19:21:42 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Karma and fatalism
Neal - extrapolating from DL:
)tragedies, says that s/he doesn't have the answer, but gives offers a
)tentative response: "What I'd like to think is that the child's soul
)needs that to happen and that they will be stronger for it."
)How that can be turned into "an acknowledgment that 'non-interference'
)... [is] justified in part on this 'bad things are your own karma
)anyway' basis" is way beyond me.
My purpose in starting the thread was to get some acknowledgment that
Steiner's karma theories suggest that terrible tragedies happening to
children (or anyone) are karma - "for the best" "child's soul needs that,"
etc. I think the attitude that a child may die from a preventable illness
because "their soul needs that" is offensive to a lot of people, and I'd
like to see these aspects of anthroposophy made more explicit to prospective
Waldorf parents. I don't care what DL thinks of "non-interference."
Very clearly the karma theory explains the "non-interference" in so many
troublesome things non-anthroposophic parents question in Waldorf, whether
it's the antivaccination stance or simply letting the kindergarteners stack
wobbly tables and chairs atop one another and climb uninhibited, or throw
rocks at each other. The denial of the world view is what's so interesting.
They should proudly own their own beliefs so that the parents who share
these views know just where to sign up.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 21:24:25 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
)DIANA
)))If I recall, what's eating Sune here is that this implies all four
)))members of a person are carried from lifetime to lifetime. In fact
)))I think it's only the "I." Clearly the physical body does not
)))reincarnate and I don't think the etheric or astral body is
)))supposed to either.
)
)TARJEI
))It's more complicated than that. Extracts of the etheric and the
))astral are carried on to the next incarnation, i.e. the parts that
))have been perfected. The imperfect is discarded.
)
)DAN
)Very interesting, so it would appear that PLANS' statement about
)reincarnation of the etheric and astral bodies might not be "100%
)untruthful" after all! Tarjei, could you have a little dialogue with
)Sune about this?
From what I understand, Sune is raising an issue about your following
statement on your website:
"For example, promoters will say that Waldorf is based on child
development, but Steiner's theory of child development, based on
reincarnation of "the etheric body," "the astral body," and "the I"
differs significantly from the consensus of child development
specialists...."
The fact that a tiny excerpt from the higher members of the human
organization is absorbed by the ego does not mean that the etheric
body and the astral body reincarnate. The etheric body is also called
the thought body, the body of thoughts and memories, and also of
habits. If it reincarnated, we would all remember our former lives
and have the same habits and ideas and prejudices and notions and so
on. If the astral body reincarnated, we would have the same passions
etc. So Sune is right when he claims that your above statement is
misleading.
))The goal of evolution is the perfection of the whole human being,
))which makes further physical incarnations unnecessary. When this
))perfection reaches down to the very "phantom" of the physical body,
))we have the resurrection body of Christ.
)
)Sounds a lot like the Buddhist nirvana, transformed into a
)Christ-centered world. If I read the chart at the back of The Temple
)Legend correctly, this would normally happen at the beginning of the
)7th Root Race or Great Epoch? Given that the Root Race periods are
)25,920 years long, that will be a long time hence!
A long time hence, yes. Which means that the survival of the etheric
and astral bodies after death belongs to the distant future. It is
inappropriate, therefore, to speak of the reincarnation of those
members among Waldorf students today.
)Of course I expect that, due to the activities of Ahriman (Lucifer
)having been redeemed), not everyone will perfect themselves on
)schedule, so I suppose there will be unperfected races around then,
)too? Or will Ahriman also have been redeemed by then?
Ahriman and his followers will pursue a separate course of evolution
after the cessation of physical incarnation among humanity. It is
difficult to imagine what kind of course that evolution will take.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 12:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Some 'uninformed' info
Sune
) Smallpox is not a specifically _child_ disease.
) Also, one does not
) generally vaccinate against smallpox at all any more
) in US since 30 years.
) The last known naturally contracted case in the
) world occurred in 1977.
)
Dottie
Hi Sune
Thank you so very much for taking the time to post
this material. This is mind boggling. I had no idea
the choices a parent must make in regards to
vaccinating or not vaccinating their child.
With so much varying information out there I am
confused why anyone would put up such a fuss that
Waldorf isn't encouraging vaccinations? Unless of
course some may not have been made aware of the pros
and cons.
Thinking of you,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 19:29:42 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
)(Are they still vaccinating against polio and smallpox? I thought they
) )were gone.)
Polio, yes, smallpox, no. Sorry. My mistake, getting huffy. I think smallpox
is really gone altogether, or there's some small vial of it in some lab
somewhere, I think I remember reading about a controversy about whether it
should be destroyed altogether. (Can't remember what the arguments were for
*not* destroying it.)
)He quoted statistics showing that there is a greater danger of
) )complications caused by the vaccines than from the illnesses )themselves
)-
Oy. I just can't get into a big vaccine debate, but I know this argument is
a big one against vaccines. They seem to not be taking into account that the
reason the rate of the illnesses is so low is *vaccination*. Or what would
happen if everyone discontinued vaccinating.
)these deaths occur almost exclusively in poor areas where )undernourished
)children are involved.
Or in communities were a lot of families have a philosophical or religious
objection to vaccination . . . this is reported periodically, too, though
they will try to hush it up, as the Christian Scientists do.
It isn't likely those kids are undernourished or have poor hygiene, etc.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 19:39:09 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
Tarjei:
)The etheric body is also called the thought body, the body of thoughts )and
)memories, and also of habits. If it reincarnated, we would all )remember
)our former lives and have the same habits and ideas
Tarjei, I asked this once before and I don't think you were around then -
maybe you know: What do you make of the people who *do* claim to remember
former lives, then? Does anthroposophy have any explanation for this? Was
their etheric body just closer to "perfected" than most peoples', so they
brought some memories back with them?
And along similar lines - how about the stories of small children speaking
in languages they (supposedly) can't possibly have heard anywhere? Since per
Steiner we aren't supposed to bring language with us from one incarnation to
the next, what would be the anthroposophic explanation for this? I once
asked a (very serious) anthroposphist about this, and he drew a blank. Any
ideas?
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 22:07:50 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
)Tarjei:
)
))The etheric body is also called the thought body, the body of
))thoughts )and memories, and also of habits. If it reincarnated, we
))would all )remember our former lives and have the same habits and
))ideas
Diana:
)Tarjei, I asked this once before and I don't think you were around
)then - maybe you know: What do you make of the people who *do* claim
)to remember former lives, then? Does anthroposophy have any
)explanation for this? Was their etheric body just closer to
)"perfected" than most peoples', so they brought some memories back
)with them?
I don't know. I'm a skeptic when it comes to such claims, especially
when such recollections are presented as "a piece of cake" and the
alleged former lives are so close that it looks like they've been
jumping in and out of bodies. Some anthroposophists lend credence to
the story of that Swedish woman who claimed to have been Anne Frank,
for instance. I believe she's sincere, but I don't buy the claim.
There may be other explanations, but don't ask me about them, because
I'm blank.
)And along similar lines - how about the stories of small children
)speaking in languages they (supposedly) can't possibly have heard
)anywhere? Since per Steiner we aren't supposed to bring language
)with us from one incarnation to the next, what would be the
)anthroposophic explanation for this? I once asked a (very serious)
)anthroposphist about this, and he drew a blank. Any ideas?
A study among infants show that when babies make all those funny
noises and babbling, they actually reproduce every phonetical sound
found in every language throughout the world. In other words, they
are preparing to learn any language that may come along. Young
children are very good at learning different languages, an ability
that decreases when we grow older. I suspect, therefore, that young
children can surprise us in this field.
Some young children also possess certain supersensible abilities that
disappear with the awakening of the ego, usually after age 3.
These are only hints at possibilities. I'm as blank as the other guy.
Life is, after all, a mystery full of riddles.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 16:14:59 -0400
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Diana Winters wrote:
) Joel, all I can say to this is, as you say to me on karma, where child abuse
) is concerned, you just need to consider that maybe you don't understand it?
Dear Diana,
I realize that you have little time (as do we all) and this list has
many messages to read, but PLEASE read what I write. I didn't write
about child abuse itself but about the possible karma of the abuser. Of
course I didn't expect you to respond as if you understood anything,
because as a confirmed PCA (PLANS cult appologist) your "not
understanding" responses are quite predictable. Again, I was really
writing for the lurkers, just didn't feel it necessary to remind you
(since you're so sharp I figure you'd "understand" this by now);
who's on first,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 21:27:31 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Unlurked 3
not that I know of,
bea
) From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 12:15:54 -0700 (PDT)
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: Re: Unlurked 3
)
) Bea
)) yes, there is a very strong christian community
)) based around michael hall,
)) they used to hold the church ceremonies in the
)) school, but now they have
)) built a church in the village
)
) Dottie
)
) Do they have any other religion that they offer at
) Michael Hall?
)
) Dottie
)
) __________________________________________________
) Do You Yahoo!?
) Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
) http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 20:47:27 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Grads
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Takeasha, you wrote,
)
) )And I think if you really take a look at waldorf grads as a
) )whole, you will find that to be true.
)
) You hope, but no one has the data.
)
) )Hey, Paul Newman went to a waldorf school, and he seems alright! (As far
) )as I know)
)
) The celebrity grads web site doesn't list him, it says his son went to
) Waldorf.
)
) http://www.diewaldorfs.waldorf.net/listengl.html
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
)
)
Interesting, but lots of footballers, actors and actresses, and people
in cinema, arts.
That's good, but those are the people who are good at convincing you of
things, like propaganda. Lots of power here. Not necessarily good.
Any investigative journalists graduate from a Waldorf School? How about
psychologists or people in the mental health field. Or maybe people
doing medical research, on immunizations (hahaha). How about researchers
in the area of AIDS or infectious diseases, or NEUROLOGY!
Or (hahahah) psychopharmacology?
Absolutely NOT.
I don't see too many other professions so overwhelmingly represented, as
those of the Screen Actors Guild. Lord knows we need more actors!
-Su
PS sorry this is a late post. I couldn't help responding to this one!!!
Too funny!!!(nyk, nyuk, nyuk)
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 14:33:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Grads
Su
) PS sorry this is a late post. I couldn't help
) responding to this one!!!
) Too funny!!!(nyk, nyuk, nyuk)
)
)
Dottie
Oh don't worry Su, she's already decided she did not
have enough time to deal with all the negativity and
arrogance that was thrown her way by_________ fill in
the blank, on this list.
To bad seems she really did have some interesting
questions and was really looking to see what was up
with PLANS and what they were saying about Waldorf.
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 23:57:01 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Grads
--============_-1213950672==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Su wrote:
)Interesting, but lots of footballers, actors and actresses, and people
)in cinema, arts.
Reminds me of lists of famous Macintosh-users I've seen. Pointless
and childish. But if you want to play, OK:
)That's good, but those are the people who are good at convincing you of
)things, like propaganda. Lots of power here. Not necessarily good.
)
)Any investigative journalists graduate from a Waldorf School?
Peter Normann Waage.
)How about psychologists
Zeylmans van Emmichoven
)or people in the mental health field. Or maybe people
)doing medical research, on immunizations (hahaha).
They're all over the place. Check out the following PDF document:
http://www.anthroposophy.org.nz/Sections/Medical/Newsletters/MSWW0501.PDF
and check out "Spiritual immunology. Immunization and immune
system - Fundamental principles" for starters.
You may also check out
http://www.businessnewsguide.com/feb28health.htm where you can read
the following:
************************************************************
Brussels, 7 February 2001
Commission in discussion with European Parliament on Complementary
and Natural Medicine
Mr Erkki Liikanen, Commissioner responsible for Enterprise and the
Information Society will today brief the European Parliament on the
Commission's activities relating to alternative medicines in a
hearing organised by the EP Working Group on Complementary and
Natural Medicine.
Apart from so-called classical medicine, which focuses on individual
defects as causes for diseases, there are a number of different
medical concepts. These alternative medicines include in particular
homeopathy, anthroposophy and traditional phytotherapy. The
fundamental objective of all pharmaceutical legislation of the EU is
to protect public health while at the same time promoting European
industry by harmonising the national legislation. Since most of the
medicinal products to be found on the market in Europe belong to
classical medicine, the pharmaceutical legislation of the Community
is dealing primarily with this kind of medicine. The EU fully
recognises, though, that patients should have access to medical
products of their choice, including those of alternative medicines.
For a number of years now the Commission therefore has been working
on an appropriate regulatory framework for alternative medicines,
which corresponds to their particularities while bearing in mind the
indispensable requirements of quality and safety of as well as the
different medical traditions in the Member States.
The first concrete outcome of these efforts was the adoption of two
directives on homeopathic medicinal products in 1992, which have
attributed to a certain harmonisation ofthe national laws in this
sector. They apply to homeopathic medicines as well as to
anthroposophic medicines prepared in accordance with homeopathic
methods. In 1999, the Commission adopted a directive on medicines
with "well established use" with a view to facilitate and improve
registration of certain traditional medicines in the European Union.
Even if this directive may be used by classical medicines too, it is
of particular importance to alternative medicines.
Continuing this step-by-step progress, the Commission is working on
another specific directive in this sector since 2000. Especially
herbal medicinal products, which often can rely on a very long
tradition, will be eligible for a simplified registration under
certain conditions. Moreover, the Commission is currently working on
the review of the marketing authorisation procedures for medicinal
products. The possible amendments of these procedures will further
contribute to the availability of alternative medicines in Europe.
****************************************************
)How about researchers
)in the area of AIDS or infectious diseases,
Robert Gorter, M.D. (http://www.immunet.org/immunet/atn.nsf/page/a-305-10)
)or NEUROLOGY!
Dr. Francis Lefebure. (Read all of Steiner enthusiastically as a
teenager, became a medical doctor specializing in neurology and
infantile psychiatry, and wrote about yoga and the spiritual
sciences.)
)Or (hahahah) psychopharmacology?
I don't know what it is, but if it's something like the science of
developing medicines for treatment of psychological imbalances or
disorders, you can bet there are researchers attending annual medical
or therapist meetings at the Goethanum every year.
)Absolutely NOT.
How do you know that?
)I don't see too many other professions so overwhelmingly represented, as
)those of the Screen Actors Guild. Lord knows we need more actors!
)-Su
Did it ever occur to you that whoever made that list was a
movie-lover? If a medicine buff had made it, the result would have
been different.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 23:56:17 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Another lie from the moderator
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Sune, you seem to have the time to write a whole page about the
) extremely tolerant policies of this list's moderator, but you can't
) write one sentence to correct what you call a lie on the PLANS web
) page.
Another lie by you.
I have written it several times on this list:
* ... Steiner's theory of child development, based on his alleged
understanding of man as a spiritual being, reincarnating through repeated
lives on Earth and his development through three 7-year periods from birth
to adulthood, differs significantly from the consensus of child development
specialists.*
Only, you did not think it was weird and strange enough to fit your
rhetorical purposes and wish to make WE stand out as something people
should avoid.
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 00:16:47 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: More empty rhetoric by 'critic'
Tarjei wrote, answering:
) Su wrote:
)
) ) Interesting, but lots of footballers, actors and actresses, and people
) ) in cinema, arts. ...
) ) Any investigative journalists graduate from a Waldorf School? ...
) ) How about psychologists ...
) ) or people in the mental health field. Or maybe people
) ) doing medical research, on immunizations (hahaha). ...
) ) How about researchers
) ) in the area of AIDS or infectious diseases, ...
) ) or NEUROLOGY!
) ) Or (hahahah) psychopharmacology? ...
(Not specified but general answer)
) ) Absolutely NOT.
Tarjei then with examples of anthroposophical professional in the different
fields mentioned by Su demonstrates the emptiness of the rhetoric of Su.
Did you not say that you work at a waldorf school?
To my understanding, anyone else with your deeply antipathical relation to
the foundation of Waldorf education and with some inner consequence would
quite his/her job as co-worker at the school.
What do the other co-workers at the school think of your argumentation on
this list? Do you argue the same way with them?
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 22:25:46 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: multiple intelligences
Lisa Ercolano wrote:
) Kerr, in a recent post, you stated:
)
) ((... Waldorf has 80 years experience working with multiple
) intelligences in
) a classroom setting ...))
)
) Lisa here: I have to disagree, because I do not believe that "Waldorf"
) actually *does* work with "multiple intelligences." To make that claim,
) Waldorf education would have to stimulate the intellect, and I do not
) believe that happens very often in most Waldorf classrooms.
) My daughter, who is now 11 and is also considered "gifted" (though her
) IQ is not 193!!! (g)) lost all her natural zeal for learning in the
) deadening rigidity of her Waldorf classroom. Years of not being allowed
) to
) ask a teacher why something is the way it is or how it works, of copying
) the
) teachers' drawings and paintings, of following the movements that the
) eurythmy teacher did, of chanting the same verse every day, etc. took
) their
) toll, pushing my child's natural curiosity underground, as if it were
) something to be ashamed of.
Sorry Lisa, it's taken me a while to catch up, but I think the list of
Waldorf grads posted way back when shows what and whom Waldorf caters
to. Musicians, actors, politicians, performing arts people, sports.
-Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 22:33:47 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: tell us your Waldorf experience
D L wrote:
) )From: Lisa Ercolano (momof2gals mindspring.com)
) )Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) )To: waldorf-critics (waldorf-critics topica.com)
) )Subject: tell us your Waldorf experience
) )Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 00:45:02 -0400
) )
) )
) )
) )DL writes: Hmmm...my perception of this list is a forum for people to
) )knock
) )the Waldorf school system - without regard to the veracity of what they
) )are
) )saying.
) )
) )
) )Lisa here: As someone who spent six years as a parent who was very
) )involved
) )in my daughters' Waldorf school, I feel qualified to render informed
) )opinions on what occurred at the school.
) ) DL, perhaps you have already made this clear, and I have missed it. If
) )so, pardon me and point me to the post involved. But until then, could
) )you
) )answer the following for me: What is your experience/involvement with
) )Waldorf education?
) )
)
) DL responds: My experience/involvement with Waldorf education is
) simple.
) My wife and I have enrolled our daughter in a Waldorf school for
) Kindegarten this fall. I am familiar with Steiner and Anthroposophy
) through
) my work with the Michael Chekhov acting technique - Chekhov was greatly
) influenced by Steiner. I also have several friends who went to Waldorf
) schools. Without excpetion, they tell me they truly feel they
) benefitted
) from the experience.
)
) DL
I think you are so right on, DL. Waldorf produces great actors and
performance people. I think that is its strongest hand. And also its
weakest.
Unfortunately, many chilren were not born to be actors and performers
and theater arts people.
Sad, but true, that there are other professions and disciplines that are
of interest to mankind...
Sadly, Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 00:45:34 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: One more lie from the moderator
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Sune, you seem to have the time to write a whole page about the
) extremely tolerant policies of this list's moderator, but you can't
) write one sentence to correct what you call a lie on the PLANS web
) page.
Your way of bumping me for one sarcastic posting on you based on your
expressed views on this list - and Dottie for a minor irony - from the list
while tolerating innumerable personal insults from Michael Kopp against a
number of participants on this list who don't expressly support PLANS,
demonstrates the twisted untruthfulness of your statement about your
'extremely tolerant policies' on this list.
PLANS rapidly is losing its last shred of credibility as organisation.
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 22:51:30 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: some basic human psychology - projection and the "mirror"
Gary Bonhiver wrote:
) Let me get this straight, Joel.
)
) Are you saying that we should not "judge" others based upon our own
) "values"?
)
) ...Gary
)
) on 8/12/01 9:24 AM, Joel Wendt at hermit tiac.net wrote:
)
) ) As a human being posting to this list, it would be a lie for me to
) ) suggest that I have never lied, to others, or to myself. In fact, a
) ) great deal of my understanding of human nature comes from almost thirty
) ) years now of a life of introspection. This is not, by the way, navel
) ) gazing or looking at one's own peculiar personality traits, but an
) ) effort to learn to perceive the universal aspects of mind, through
) ) observation of one's own consciousness.
) )
) ) A great help in this research was a book called Seven Arrows, by
) ) Hyemeyohsts Storm. This book is many things, and includes an
) ) introduction to some elements of what might be called the psychology of
) ) the Plains Indians.
) )
) ) In this book is a recognition of "the world" as having the qualities of
) ) a mirror. Our psychology is so organized that our beginning perceptions
) ) of the world reflect not its true nature, but rather reflect something
) ) living within us. Careful self observation begins to reveal that we
) ) "color" the world with values that live in us, but which are not
) ) actually "out there". We evaluate the world, we "judge" it, but the
) ) characteristics revealed by our judgment do not show us the world,
) ) rather they only show us the nature and characteristics of our values
) ) which are used in the judging.
Dear Joel,
)From my travels, I have heard this "projection" concept bandied about by
Hindu and Buddhist ideologues too. In fact it is uncanny that I was just
talking to someone from a hindu fundamentalist cult, who said; "maybe
you are just projecting". It's such a catch-all projection to say this
to someone, and deny what they are saying might have some truth.
Aren't you also forgetting about a much more basic Psych 101 concept
called "denial?????". It won't be in Chief Horsemuster's handbook
either.
Deny what is written in Steiner's books, deny what has been
propagandized in Waldorf schools, deny that anything ever happened to
the individuals who describe numberous accounts of Anthroposophical
abuses. Deny that Eugene Schwartz has criticized his own cult and the
way the schools operate.
Deny that "Michael's sword is still Up" (gr).
-Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 22:59:36 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: some basic human psychology - projection and the "mirror"
) ) love,
) ) joel
)
)
)
Joel, your use of the word "love", a term of endearment, needs to be
questioned, because as I understand it, even the word love is subject to
a different interpretation in anthroposophical circles.
I don't think you should use the word in a sentence until you have
discussed its true and exact meaning, to you.
In cult study circles, we call the use of words, which is different than
that of everyday usage, "loading the language". I would also like to
know what your use of the term "child development" would involve.
Let's see, what other terms can we define, anthroposophically....
Personally, I don't think I want to be greeted with "love" unless I
know what it means, to you.
-Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 01:02:40 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: For Su
I wrote:
) Tarjei [...] with examples of anthroposophical professional in the different
) fields mentioned by Su demonstrates the emptiness of the rhetoric of Su.
Some questions:
) Did you not say that you work at a waldorf school[, Su]?
)
) To my understanding, anyone else with your deeply antipathical relation to
) the foundation of Waldorf education and with some inner consequence would
) quite his/her job as co-worker at the school.
)
) What do the other co-workers at the school think of your argumentation on
) this list? Do you argue the same way with them?
With your attitude and relation to Waldorf education, do you consider
yourself to be a waldorf teacher?
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 23:17:13 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: some basic human psychology - projection and the "mirror"
Hi Gary,
Sorry if I mixed yours and Joel's posts. I was responding to some of his
hidden/occult hypocrisy, previously.
As for your response, Gary, I couldn't have said it better, especially
about the the "Loooove Thing". Don't you just "feel the love" in these
posts???
) )
) ) love,
) ) joel
)
) Cut out this "love," crap Joel. (And "warm regards", "in love and
) light",
) etc. etc. ad nauseum)
)
) So, lets see, you think we shouldn't judge...
)
) Murderers should not be "judged" and punished, but rather allowed to do
) their own thing?
)
) And rapists, robbers, drunks, wife-beaters, political crooks, financial
) frauds too?
Funny, I thought that all religions are into the same moral codes and
ethics, like not killing, loving your fellow man, being kind.
If our point of views and values are so different. Maybe the "universal
god" doesn't really exist.
I guess we should see the wife-beater's point of view. I know that the
child molesters and incesting parents are actually "understood" by
anthroposophists. Because in the end, we chose our lives/karma, and so
did they.
Of course you will deny this, Joel.
)
) On the other end of the "judgement" spectrum, we all make judgements
) daily
) -- even YOU, Joel -- choosing which food to eat (meat/vegetarian/etc),
) which
) clothes to buy (cotton/leather/wool/manmade/etc), whether to drive a car
) or
) ride a bike.
)
) We also "judge" which religious/spiritual path to follow (or not), which
) moral "code" to use as our blueprint in life and to pass on to our
) children.
)
) Back to the topic of this list, we as parents are obligated to choose
) which
) school best meets our moral/religious blueprint, one which we think will
) have the most positive impact and influence upon our children's
) education,
) one to which we can entrust our precious ones each day for hours at a
) time,
) one that we "judge" will tell us the truth about the goals and methods.
)
) Yes, we all judge, Joel, and more people should take their parenting job
) more seriously, to protect their children from Waldorf's stealth
) mission.
)
) Society would be anarchy without people judging other's actions.
)
) ...Gary
)
)
)
Absolutely true. Everyone has to stop at the red light. But some people
think it's not really red!!!!!
-Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 419
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Karma and fatalism
By faiman jlc.net
Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
By canndw netzero.net
Admin: rules of the list
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
By theosopost hotmail.com
Re: Admin: rules of the list
By theosopost hotmail.com
RE: magic and stuff:for Sharon
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: Not rude, but honest
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Dear Su
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Admin: rules of the list
By earlyfire earthlink.net
Re: Admin: rules of the list
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: multiple intelligences
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: Unlurked 2
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: Unlurked 2
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Re: Admin: rules of the list
By theosopost hotmail.com
RE: For Su
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Karma and fatalism
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: Dear Su
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: Admin: rules of the list
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: multiple intelligences
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: For Su
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: For Su
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: Karma and fatalism
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: Dear Su
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: Admin: rules of the list
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: For Su
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: Unlurked 2
By theosopost hotmail.com
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By theosopost hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 20:24:41 -0400
From: Neil Faiman (faiman jlc.net)
Subject: Re: Karma and fatalism
)
) Neal - extrapolating from DL:
)
)) tragedies, says that s/he doesn't have the answer, but gives offers a
)) tentative response: "What I'd like to think is that the child's soul
)) needs that to happen and that they will be stronger for it."
)
)) How that can be turned into "an acknowledgment that 'non-interference'
)) ... [is] justified in part on this 'bad things are your own karma
)) anyway' basis" is way beyond me.
)
) My purpose in starting the thread was to get some acknowledgment that
) Steiner's karma theories suggest that terrible tragedies happening to
) children (or anyone) are karma - "for the best" "child's soul needs that,"
) etc. I think the attitude that a child may die from a preventable illness
) because "their soul needs that" is offensive to a lot of people, and I'd
) like to see these aspects of anthroposophy made more explicit to prospective
) Waldorf parents. I don't care what DL thinks of "non-interference."
Diana,
Yesterday you were thanking DL for confirming your preconceptions ("I
appreciate this because this is what I was hoping to achieve with this
thread. An acknowledgment from some of you who actually hold these beliefs
that 'non-interference,' ... are justified ..."); Now that DL and have I
pointed out that that wasn't what DL was saying at all, you suddenly "don't
care what DL thinks of 'non-interference.'"
Apparently, you would like Waldorf schools to announce to prospective
parents, "We don't think you should vaccinate your children, because if
they're meant to die of polio or whooping cough, you oughtn't to interfere."
Have you considered that perhaps the reason they won't say that is because
they *don't* believe it?
) Very clearly the karma theory explains the "non-interference" in so many
) troublesome things non-anthroposophic parents question in Waldorf ... .
) The denial of the world view is what's so interesting. They should
) proudly own their own beliefs so that the parents who share these views
) know just where to sign up.
You have apparently decided that anyone who believes in the theory of karma
must also believe in your theory of non-interference, and you are so
convinced of that that you are willing to castigate the dishonesty of anyone
who who tells you that his or her belief in karma does *not* lead to the
doctrine of non-interference. You seem unwilling even to consider that they
might actually be telling the truth.
But what is clear is that a belief in karma, at least in the
anthroposophical version, does not necessarily lead to -- indeed, may be
incompatible with -- the "non-interference doctrine" that you are
expounding.
- Neil Faiman
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 20:21:37 -0400
From: "David Cann" (canndw netzero.net)
Subject: Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
To Theosopost from Terry:
no one with a living brain would believe for a
nano-second that you came to this list to learn more about Waldorf.
David: I do!
But according to my listmates here; I'm a "secret anthroposophist" here to
do "damage control", so I may not qualify as someone with a "living brain".
David
----------------------------------------------------
NetZero Platinum
Sign Up Today - Only $9.95 per month!
http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 17:44:12 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: rules of the list
Dear Subscribers,
Given the continuing protests over list policy, I will clarify the
situation. I apologize to everyone for being inconsistent in my
enforcement. I will try harder to enforce the letter of the law, no
matter who is the offender. I am sorry that I failed to enforce the
rules consistently.
The list is a free-speech public forum, having only two main rules:
1) No ad hominem arguments. This means that you speak freely about
the topics, but not about the other subscribers.
2) All posts must be about Waldorf education or its foundation,
Anthroposophy. Do not post non-Waldorf jokes, heart-rending appeals
about the Taliban, etc.
Violation of either of these rules will result in immediate
suspension of subscription privileges for a week, and repeated
offenders may be permanently banned. Of course anyone can read the
list on the web at Topica, the postings and archives are public.
I declare an amnesty for the recent offenses and provocations, and
resolve to deal with any future violations swiftly.
In a related matter, I have received a private email from Andreas
Walter, permanently banned from this list for harassing subscribers,
threatening to post to the list again soon. Mr. Walter, if you have
snuck in, please be aware that if you post to waldorf-critics,
complaints will be made to your service provider and your school
(again).
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 20:11:12 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: baiting the moderator
)Lisa here: Not that anyone cares, but I agree wholeheartedly with Terry. I
)am mystified as to why "DL" (and hey, why not use your name if you are so
)het up about truth, etc.?) is so obsessed with the moderator's actions when
)there are so many more interesting topics to discuss ...
)
DL writes: First of all, I use DL possibly for the same reason that Dan
uses "Dan" and Terry uses "Terry" and Deb uses "Deb" and Dottie uses
"Dottie" (and I'll admit I'm making an assumption here) - it's a nickname.
Didn't realize that I had to use the legal name. Wasn't on the list of
rules (which aren't followed anyways). And for the very last time - the
moderator's lack of integrity directly affects the atmopsphere of the
discussions of this list. If he did what he said he'd do - then I believe
the atmosphere would be much more civil and people COULD focus on the "more
interesting topics."
)Lisa again:
) But then again, many times I've noticed that some Waldorf supporters --
)like a number of Waldorf teachers I encountered in our six years at a
)school
)-- are often amazingly rigid about making sure things adhere to *their*
)worldview.
)
DL: Once again - (please pay attention folks - especially Terry) - I AM NOT
a waldorf supporter. I really did come here seeking information from a
non-waldorfian source - I don't believe in getting all my information from
one source. But what I found was a group that seems to exist for the sole
purpose of bashing WE and Steiner (even though the name of their
organization has a different implication). And a group that lacks integrity
and honesty.
)Lisa:
)And there is always the possibility that this individual is having fun
)working to distract the list members from the *real* purpose of the list,
)which is to examine/dissect/discuss Waldorf pedagogy and practice in a
)rational manner.
DL: Rational manner? Please. Under what definition of rational manner is
"attack people - not the argument"? Sorry to keep talking about it - but
you set it up. You can't have a rational discussion amidst all the ad homs
that are flying around.
As far as examining/dissecting/discussing Waldorf P & P in a rational manner
- I'd love to. Unfortunately (and partly due to the hostile environs that
Dan has allowed) there's little rationality here on this list. When critics
make assumptions about me with little or no fact, where's the rationaility?
Terry has out and out called me a liar and has NO BASIS upon which to make
the assumption. Where are the critics to denounce such behaviour? I don't
think the critics want a rational discussion. I truly don't. I didn't come
here to waste people's time or to defend the faith or whatever some of the
critics ASSUME I came for - I came to find out information about the school
I enrolled my daughter in. Period. Then fact that I seem to be a "Waldorf
Defender" comes more, I believe from my "reacting" to the attacking nature
of this group than anything else. Believe it or not - if I would have found
out something credible on this list about WE that I did not agree with or
believed would HARM my daughter - I would have de-enrolled her.
)Lisa:
)Tying up bandwidth with cries of "it's not fair!" takes us
)all away from that pursuit. I'd much prefer to discuss all the things that
)weren't "fair" about my child's WS experience ....
)
DL: Read my posts - mostly I just ask Dan to deal with the issue. Anytime
Dan wants to shut me up (and save a little bandwith) - he can either boot me
or deal with the attacks.
)From Lisa:
)I am sure Dan is carefully considering what -- if anything! -- to do
)about this situation. In the meantime, why don't we all agree to "rise
)above
)the situation" a bit and carry on in the most considerate and congenial
)manner possible?
DL: You've got to be kidding. He has said himself that he is inconsistent
and that this list is just a hobby. Nowhere has he even hinted that he's
"considering" doing anything - save "chopping heads" if anyone dare bait
him.
And I would honestly take you up on you suggestion, except for the attacks
create an environmment that is not conducive to what you suggest. Why
should I cease and desist when at any time Michael or Dan may (will) decide
it's insult time? My feeling is that UNTIL such time as Dan deals with this
- he's giving tacit consent to continue. Well, until he starts booting the
critics of the critics.
)Terry wrote:
)To Theosopost from Terry: no one with a living brain would believe for a
)nano-second that you came to this list to learn more about Waldorf. Waldorf
)is based in deceit and deception and so are your comments.
)
DL: Terry - you are wrong. Period. That is EXACTLY why I came here. A
friend who knew I was enrolling my daughter in a Waldorf school had heard
some negative things. She sent me the PLANS site. I went to find out if
what was being said was true.
And Terry - upon what do you base your allegation? You don't know me - how
could you know if what I write is true or untrue?
And to Dan (if he even bothers to read this far) - Calling another person a
liar without any basis? Is that qualify as an attack?
I am off for a few days - but will check in when I can
(unless, of course, Dan decides to boot me)
Shalom
DL
(David)
Geee - is everyone going to do the legal name now?
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 20:16:04 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: rules of the list
)Dan writes:
)I declare an amnesty for the recent offenses and provocations, and
)resolve to deal with any future violations swiftly.
)
DL: As a member of this list - I applaud the fact that you finally chose to
deal with it. I am sorry it took weeks of protest both on-list and off list
for you to decide to do something.
It's also - in my opinion as a member of this list - not enough. There is
nothing stopping you from suspending for a week those who violated the
rules. To "grant amnesty" only adds insult to insult.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 01:21:25 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: magic and stuff:for Sharon
mysplum wrote:
) I do not believe that the magic practiced in Waldorf actually invokes
) planetary forces or angels or spirits because I'm not a "believer", but
) it
) did have an adverse affect on my family because we didn't understand
) what
) was "going on". Not understanding was a horrible feeling and I much
) prefer
) being "in the know".
Su here; What you've said Sharon, encapsulates what makes a cult "work".
It's not that the *magic* is particularly anything; not potent, not
*magic*, not even having anything to do with God or *anything* of that
sort, if you dissect it, and know what it is!
It's the Secret, the *process of hiding*, the secrecy, and the heavy
burden that puts on the psyche of the individual that keeps it that
affects everything they do, and affects those whom they lie to. That is
the trauma, both for the bearer of the secret, and for the other, from
whom the secret is kept, if that secret can, in any way affect the
other.
Then there are the good lieutenants, those who keep the secrets but
don't know what they are. You folks know who you are; you don't know
much about Anthroposophy! You leave the *thinking* to the gurus... When
you wake up, you will be the most angry, because you had no idea...Or
you will stay asleep, in a state of denial, permanently...
That's why psychologists and those who study family dynamics understand
that family secrets can be very damaging to children, and to other
members of the family, for generations.
I am not talking about "white lies" and childish secrets, but *big
secrets* that persons or religious leaders or politicians or parents
keep from their subjects, for the purposes of control and manipulation.
These kinds of secrets hurt the other in numerous ways, perhaps on a
number of levels, you might say.
On the one level, simply by the ommission of truth, one harms through
the withholding of information.
On another level, it is this position of superiority and control that
the secret-keeper holds over the subject,because of the *reasons* for
withholding the information, that promotes a certain body
language,attitude, a certain unspoken control over the other. The other,
the controlled one, "feels" something, but does not know what it is. It
may be a nervousness,a feeling of dread, or fear, or just plain
irritation or anger.The other or underling is very suggestible, by the
person holding the secret or lie.
On a third level, it is the content of the lie, secret, or withholding
of information, which becomes "magical" because the other, the weaker
one is made to feel powerless, helpless, and controlled.
Psychological trauma is the result. It is most insidious, and most
harmful, because one has to really work hard to uncover this type of
deception and lying. Revealing it, as is occurring on this board, is the
process of uncovering the deception.
It's what's got all of us Waldorf Critics passionately after the truth,
because of the trauma, however subtle. Anthroposophy is occult, and we
are de-occulting, demystifying it. We are deflating its power.
That's why our debating opponents have got their knickers in a twist!!!
We are deflating their power, and they are trying madly to keep up the
charade.
That is why, Sharon, you feel such great anger.You are deflating the
power this had over you and your family, as I too am. I too have
experienced it, and I understand the very deep harm it can cause.
Love your posts,
Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 01:55:28 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Not rude, but honest
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Severin Sp?rri, you wrote the following rant to me at PLANS. I am
) answering you on the waldorf-critics mailing list. If you want to
) participate in any subsequent discussion, please subscribe
) immediately by sending an email to
) waldorf-critics-subscribe topica.com. You won't be alone, there are
) several vocal defenders of Waldorf and Anthroposophy on the list.
)
) )Hello
) )To accuse is not the only thing I can, and if you want a good
) )discussion go ahead and contact me
) )BUT: I' have taken a quick glance over the homepage (
) )"Waldorfcritics") and read some of the articles and headlines. I am
) )an insider (insider, not an anthropsophist) my short statement about
) )it is: DON' T MESS WITH SUBJECTS AND THEMES SUCCEEDING
Su here: Dan I think he really meant "EXCEEDING" rather than succeeding.
YOUR MENTAL
) )AND INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY.
It seems you've exceeded in many areas, Dan!!
A little teensy grin,
-Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 22:04:57 -0400
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Dear Su
Dear Su,
You posted several messages, some of them seemed addressed to me, but
when I read more closely, I wasn't sure. It seemed more likely you were
using my posts as an excuse to make a speech, which is okay with me - I
do the same thing.
If you do actually want to converse, however, please let me know and
I'll be glad to accommodate you.
yours in war (is that better? you didn't seem to like love),
joel
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 19:14:08 -0700
From: Harvey Bornfield (earlyfire earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Admin: rules of the list
D L
The same shalom which exits, may also welcome. The cup, (even the grail) is
half full. It is time for all of us to drag the corpses of all of the insults
and outrages which have made hideous, previous attempts fo communicate, into a
mass grave, and covering our common ground with such eulogy as entertains hopes
rather than festering personal fetishes disguised as compromised and unrequited
sublime principles, say
"Tomorrow is the first day of the rest of our list"
One can get paralyzed with indignation, and hold a funeral for the death of a
placenta, or rejoice to source a celebration for the birth of a child.
Regarding how to come with tolerance to the for-the-most-part the
unacknowledged challenge of dialogue, to learn what it is apparent we have not
yet come to regard as valuable: Summoning the courage not to anticipate and
rehearse retaliation, words and thoughts not-yet-sourced. Consider that the
slavery of Egypt pales in comparison to being locked up in the invisible
prison of one's foregone conclusions.
consider Shakespeare's muses:
"But pardon, gentles all,
The flat unraised spirits that hath dared
On this unworthy scaffold to bring forth
So great an object."
Evening and morning a second day....
Earlyfire
D L wrote:
) )Dan writes:
) )I declare an amnesty for the recent offenses and provocations, and
) )resolve to deal with any future violations swiftly.
) )
)
) DL: As a member of this list - I applaud the fact that you finally chose to
) deal with it. I am sorry it took weeks of protest both on-list and off list
) for you to decide to do something.
)
) It's also - in my opinion as a member of this list - not enough. There is
) nothing stopping you from suspending for a week those who violated the
) rules. To "grant amnesty" only adds insult to insult.
)
) Shalom
)
) DL
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 22:27:43 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: rules of the list
))Dan writes:
))I declare an amnesty for the recent offenses and provocations, and
))resolve to deal with any future violations swiftly.
))
)
) DL: As a member of this list - I applaud the fact that you finally chose to
) deal with it. I am sorry it took weeks of protest both on-list and off list
) for you to decide to do something.
)
) It's also - in my opinion as a member of this list - not enough. There is
) nothing stopping you from suspending for a week those who violated the
) rules. To "grant amnesty" only adds insult to insult.
)
) Shalom
)
) DL
)
Lisa here: I applaud Dan for the posting of the list rules and the decision
to grant "amnesty" so that we can all begin again with a clean slate.
I sincerely hope all make an effort to keep their criticisms to topic,
rather than to the person posting about the topic. I also sincerely hope
that list members will accept the rules as posted by Dan, so that there need
be no further discussion on the "rules" for now.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 22:34:49 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: multiple intelligences
)
) Lisa Ercolano wrote:
)) Kerr, in a recent post, you stated:
))
)) ((... Waldorf has 80 years experience working with multiple
)) intelligences in
)) a classroom setting ...))
))
)) Lisa here: I have to disagree, because I do not believe that "Waldorf"
)) actually *does* work with "multiple intelligences." To make that claim,
)) Waldorf education would have to stimulate the intellect, and I do not
)) believe that happens very often in most Waldorf classrooms.
)) My daughter, who is now 11 and is also considered "gifted" (though her
)) IQ is not 193!!! (g)) lost all her natural zeal for learning in the
)) deadening rigidity of her Waldorf classroom. Years of not being allowed
)) to
)) ask a teacher why something is the way it is or how it works, of copying
)) the
)) teachers' drawings and paintings, of following the movements that the
)) eurythmy teacher did, of chanting the same verse every day, etc. took
)) their
)) toll, pushing my child's natural curiosity underground, as if it were
)) something to be ashamed of.
)
) Sorry Lisa, it's taken me a while to catch up, but I think the list of
) Waldorf grads posted way back when shows what and whom Waldorf caters
) to. Musicians, actors, politicians, performing arts people, sports.
) -Su
)
)
Lisa here: Well, perhaps I should have added that my daughter is a very
talented singer, natural musician (can pick up most instruments and figure
them out by ear quickly and on key), and actor, and those impulses/talents
also were thwarted during her time at Waldorf. (I would have to say that, in
particular, it was the musical side that was thwarted, via the teachers'
insistence that my daughter play violin, rather than the instrument she
wanted to play since she was in kindergarten -- the alto saxophone. Olivia
absolutely LOATHED the violin lessons and felt constricted even by the voice
of the violin; she yearned to make that full, look-at-me, bluesy saxophone
voice instead! By the time I was able to force the school to allow her to
change instruments, she was convinced that she "hated" to play anything.)
Fortunately, the wonderful music teacher at the public elementary school
she attended last year helped restore her appreciation for her own ability
to make music! She was featured as soloist in the school's winter holiday
concert, and again in the spring musical. In the fall, she will be taking
voice lessons.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 02:36:10 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Unlurked 2
Frank Thomas Smith wrote:
)
) 2. Some parents, as evidenced on this list, feel themselves deceived
) about
) the anthroposophical background of W. education. I have had personal
) experience with this and honestly believe that, in most cases,
) self-deception is involved.
Why on earth would anyone want to "self-deceive?"
What would be the motivation for this?
I know of no school that doesn't have some kind
) of brochure describing Waldorf and mentioning that it derives from
) Steiner's
) indications.
Theory and practice are two different things, my friend. If you look
back in the archives, you will read about the *practice* of Waldorf
Education in real time. What is written and what is practiced are two
different things.
Have you been to *every* Waldorf school in the US or in Germany?
Have you spoken to a "survivor" who has left the school because of the
problems and the treatment that the person's child received, and how
that parent was *treated* ???
Do you know what goes on behind closed doors in the "pedagogical
meetings" where the children are discussed at the schools, and branded
according to their temperaments? Whose parents are discussed and
analysed. Where the ejected teachers are mocked and dissected?
Did you read the Swiss article that Dan's foreign correspondent cited
for us?
You sound just like other people on this board, who are ready to mock
the experiences of people who have actually taught and had children in
schools that you have never set foot in.
My own experience is in acquaintance is with certain Waldorfers and
Anthroposophists. They are a hush-hush, mum-mum bunch, always talking
about this one being "Waldorf-friendly" and that one not being
"Waldorf-friendly". And even though I assumed these individuals were my
friends, I learned otherwise, that they were actually speaking
cryptically, in my presence. Why is that necessary if not cultic in
nature?
Other acquaintances I have had, who are involved with Anthroposophy have
nary an original word to say, only "Steiner said this" and "Steiner said
that".
I fell asleep trying to read the philosophy of Freedom, and I have two
university degrees. I have read Aristotle and Plato, Shakespeare and
Donne, and Chaucer. My reading skills are excellent. Other texts of
Steiner have been much easier of course, but the FOF seems to be the
magical core, only to be understood by the "initiates".
But I wonder how many of you know that the Philosophy of Freedom is
written something like his Calendar of the Soul, with a mathematical
sort of pyramidal type of structure, which I can't remember now, but
which was explained to me some time ago. Certain unattached paragraphs
relate to other unattached paragraphs. It's weird literature.
It's a blinking weird cult. It's a mystery cult. It uses the techniques
of secrecy as a means of control and manipulation. What you see is
definitely NOT what you get.
Sorry Frank but you seem mislead, because you are claiming to be aware
of the theory, and deny the practice.
You can't wiggle out of this one, at least not easily.
(Michael's sword is still Up!!!!!)
-Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 22:42:57 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
)
)
) Joel:
)
)) So a child beater might have to spend a main part of an )incarnation as a
)) teacher of children,
)
Sharon:
Hmmmm....I see....So.... I must have duped somebody 'royaly' in my previous
life which is why I had to experience being duped by Waldorf in this
incarnation? Now I must have empathy with the duped of Waldorf and spend
hours debating with Anthroposophists on PLANS to expose Waldorf so that my
future reincarnation will be a step up ?
I adore that little explanation about karma that you wrote Joel, thanks.
Ms. God is slightly less harsh than Mr. God who sends people to hell and
offers only one chance at life. Still.... I don't like Ms. God's system of
rewards and punishments, she sounds a bit sadistic...... then again.... at
least she lets a person have many chances at life....But what's the point?
Nah, doesn't help explain the inexplainable so I won't put my trust in
either of them.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 02:47:02 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Joel Wendt wrote:
) Diana Winters wrote:
) What can the child being beaten or dying of AIDS do about
) ) it? Accept karma? What a crock.
)
) Dear Diana,
)
) Your right, as you state it, it is a crock. Suppose you try to
) consider that you don't understand it at all (karma),
Gosh, that's rather absolutist, isn't it? It's not all that hard a
concept, next to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, or the theory of
relativity is it. I am sure all the members of this board on both sides
can understand those, and therefore can understand, gosh, *karma* !!!
and that not only
) do you not understand it, but most people who believe in it don't
) understand it.
So generous of you; we are all stupid--together!!!!
)
) I'll give you a run down on the reality, but pay attention because I'm
) only go lay this out this one time. If you don't get it now, then too
) bad.
How spiritual of you. I didn't know people who were as learned could put
things so --succinctly.
)
) See, there's God (remember Him/Her), and God loves human beings very
) much. So God makes the material world (through very complicated
) processes of course - wouldn't want Creation to be simple, would we?),
) as a place where the human being can experience freedom. This means,
) among other things, freedom from God. That's why science creates its
) paradigm, the one without God in it.
)
) So we lose God and only come back (the prodigal son's return) if we
) choose.
)
) Meanwhile, back at the ranch (the material sense world), human freedom
) allows for evil (child abuse, the holocaust etc). But God is smart
) (She'd better be, neh?), and so has created a way for this "evil" to be
) dealt with.
)
) This way is called "reincarnation and karma".
)
) So people commit evil and then die. After death, in kamaloka, they
) have to live through the experience of all the people they effected in
) life. So if you beat your kid everyday for twenty years, guess what you
) get to feel for a long time in kamaloka.
)
) The spirit doesn't like this, and so vows to itself to do something
) about it. Thus, when the next incarnation is being prepared for, the
) incarnating spirit agrees to certain experiences as "recompense" for its
) evil acts in previous incarnations. This does not mean agreeing to be
) beaten by the parent for twenty years by the way. In fact, the kind of
) thinking, that imagines such as how karma balances things, is "human"
) thinking, not divine. She is much more intelligent,
Your patronizing she-god explanation has me-- in awe.....
and Her helping
) spirits work with the incarnating spirits in a lot more creative ways,
) and further "evil" is not divine recompense for original evil.
)
) So a child beater might have to spend a main part of an incarnation as
) a teacher of children, who she knows are being beaten. She then suffers
) this abuse through her empathy with the child, and this kind of
) experience has a whole other kind of effect on the spirit - it learns
) from this suffering, rather than being deformed by it (as the child
) might well be).
)
) Now even this is an oversimplification, because there is so much really
) going on in any individual biography. Actually, when one learns to view
) the social existence of humanity with all its real spiritual dynamics,
) it becomes quite awesomely (even frightenly) beautiful, something like a
) great storm with much destruction that ends up followed by a wonderful
) sunset.
)
) karmically yours (don't you ever wonder what our karma as members of
) this list is?),
) joel
Gosh, Joel, I feel quite--karmically placed now.
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 02:58:08 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Unlurked 2
Frank Thomas Smith wrote:
There is
) ) virtually no way a parent visiting (if that were allowed) would notice
) this,
) ) especially amidst the screaming and fighting.
)
) I won't ask you which school that was - I don't want to know.
) Best regards in your recuperation,
) Frank
)
)
)
Very revealing, Frank, that you don't want to know. It wouldn't fit in
at all with your theoretical publication, in which you spread the good
news about anthroposophy. You can't do good propaganda if you are
bombarded with the cold hard, unpleasant facts.
-Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 22:06:04 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: rules of the list
I apologize to the list - this post was meant to be sent to Dan (off list) -
I forgot to change the address before mailing.
DL
))Dan writes:
))I declare an amnesty for the recent offenses and provocations, and
))resolve to deal with any future violations swiftly.
))
)
)DL: As a member of this list - I applaud the fact that you finally chose to
)deal with it. I am sorry it took weeks of protest both on-list and off
)list
)for you to decide to do something.
)
)It's also - in my opinion as a member of this list - not enough. There is
)nothing stopping you from suspending for a week those who violated the
)rules. To "grant amnesty" only adds insult to insult.
)
)Shalom
)
)DL
)
)_________________________________________________________________
)Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
)
)
)
)
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 03:13:50 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: For Su
Sune Nordwall wrote:
) I wrote:
)
) ) Tarjei [...] with examples of anthroposophical professional in the
) ) different
) ) fields mentioned by Su demonstrates the emptiness of the rhetoric of Su.
)
) Some questions:
)
) ) Did you not say that you work at a waldorf school[, Su]?
) )
) ) To my understanding, anyone else with your deeply antipathical relation
) ) to
) ) the foundation of Waldorf education and with some inner consequence
) ) would
) ) quite his/her job as co-worker at the school.
) )
) ) What do the other co-workers at the school think of your argumentation
) ) on
) ) this list? Do you argue the same way with them?
)
) With your attitude and relation to Waldorf education, do you consider
) yourself to be a waldorf teacher?
)
) 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
)
)
)
No, Sune, I never said anything of the sort. I am a gatherer of data,
and an observer of human behavior. That is all. 'nuff said.
-Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 23:31:05 -0700
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
on 8/18/01 11:57 AM, Dan Dugan at dan dandugan.com wrote:
) TARJEI
)) It's more complicated than that. Extracts of the etheric and the
)) astral are carried on to the next incarnation, i.e. the parts that
)) have been perfected. The imperfect is discarded.
)
) DAN
) Very interesting, so it would appear that PLANS' statement about
) reincarnation of the etheric and astral bodies might not be "100%
) untruthful" after all! Tarjei, could you have a little dialogue with
) Sune about this?
)
)) The goal of evolution is the perfection of the whole human being,
)) which makes further physical incarnations unnecessary. When this
)) perfection reaches down to the very "phantom" of the physical body,
)) we have the resurrection body of Christ.
Sharon:
So the perfected Anthroposophist will die and become Christ? Is Christ an
evolved larynx? Is Christ a plant-like spirit?
To further complicate matters, let's bung in the spirit-self, the
life-spirit, and the spirit-human being. These are even higher members
beyond the last batch and appear with the four members as products of
transformation. Are these three bodies the "extracts" of the etheric and
astral that Tarjei mentioned above? (for those who are a bit lost, the
spirit-self, life-spirit and spirit-man are what is to evolve from the first
four members ie:physical body, etheric body, astral body and I body.)
Steiner said that those that do not develop the "fifth principle", will
become subordinate gnomes, what a drag.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 03:26:31 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Karma and fatalism
Neil Faiman wrote:
) Diana,
)
) Yesterday you were thanking DL for confirming your preconceptions ("I
) appreciate this because this is what I was hoping to achieve with this
) thread. An acknowledgment from some of you who actually hold these
) beliefs
) that 'non-interference,' ... are justified ..."); Now that DL and have I
) pointed out that that wasn't what DL was saying at all, you suddenly
) "don't
) care what DL thinks of 'non-interference.'"
)
)
) Apparently, you would like Waldorf schools to announce to prospective
) parents, "We don't think you should vaccinate your children, because if
) they're meant to die of polio or whooping cough, you oughtn't to
) interfere."
) Have you considered that perhaps the reason they won't say that is
) because
) they *don't* believe it?
)
) ) Very clearly the karma theory explains the "non-interference" in so many
) ) troublesome things non-anthroposophic parents question in Waldorf ... .
) ) The denial of the world view is what's so interesting. They should
) ) proudly own their own beliefs so that the parents who share these views
) ) know just where to sign up.
)
) You have apparently decided that anyone who believes in the theory of
) karma
) must also believe in your theory of non-interference, and you are so
) convinced of that that you are willing to castigate the dishonesty of
) anyone
) who who tells you that his or her belief in karma does *not* lead to the
) doctrine of non-interference. You seem unwilling even to consider that
) they
) might actually be telling the truth.
)
) But what is clear is that a belief in karma, at least in the
) anthroposophical version, does not necessarily lead to -- indeed, may be
) incompatible with -- the "non-interference doctrine" that you are
) expounding.
)
) - Neil Faiman
Su here: Diana, I think that the Waldorfers like Neill, and the rest,
need concrete proof of the behavior of the teachers in specific schools,
and how they neglected the children and allowed things to happen to
them.
The difference between theory and practice is just not something that is
comprehended by those that did not experience it.
The "hidden" element of Anthroposophy is that you can *believe*
something in a hidden way, and then say publicly that you believe
something else!
That is how a hidden belief can evade public scrutiny, and evaluation
for its validity or lack thereof. No way to criticize something that you
deny believing.
This is exactly what is happening here. Naughty me; I sound so cynical
!!!!
-Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 03:46:12 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Dear Su
Joel Wendt wrote:
) Dear Su,
)
) You posted several messages, some of them seemed addressed to me, but
) when I read more closely, I wasn't sure. It seemed more likely you were
) using my posts as an excuse to make a speech, which is okay with me - I
) do the same thing.
)
) If you do actually want to converse, however, please let me know and
) I'll be glad to accommodate you.
)
) yours in war (is that better? you didn't seem to like love),
) joel
It would seem, Joel, that there is such a spectrum of human emotions and
states of being, that much exists between love and war to merit
acknowledgement.
We are opponents in a lively debate.A significant debate. I'm afraid
that does not constitute love. Nor does it constitute war. It's a
debate, on the basis of what are real experiences for those of us who
are the Critics. We are not loving, and often not even friendly--to you.
And if you were to be honest with yourselves, ye Anthros all, you would
admit you don't feel anything like "loooove" for us!!!
Why not call a spade a spade? And stop the self deception (where have I
heard that before).
We are intellectual and spiritual opponents.
It ain't love, my friend.
-Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 03:53:06 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Admin: rules of the list
earlyfire earthlink.net wrote:
) D L
) The same shalom which exits, may also welcome. The cup, (even the grail)
) is
) half full. It is time for all of us to drag the corpses of all of the
) insults
) and outrages which have made hideous, previous attempts fo communicate,
) into a
) mass grave,
Oh Hallowed one--- get real. No one has been that murderous here.
Corpses and insults? Nahhhh. It's good clean fun!
It's only outrage and hideousness to you reverent beings who cannot bear
the thought of the sacred cow of anthroposophy to be injured.
Demystification is a painful process, yes?
If it is not a religion, really, then it shouldn't be so traumatic.
What say you?
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 03:59:00 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: multiple intelligences
Lisa Ercolano wrote:
) )
) ) Lisa Ercolano wrote:
) )) Kerr, in a recent post, you stated:
) ))
) )) ((... Waldorf has 80 years experience working with multiple
) )) intelligences in
) )) a classroom setting ...))
) ))
) )) Lisa here: I have to disagree, because I do not believe that "Waldorf"
) )) actually *does* work with "multiple intelligences." To make that claim,
) )) Waldorf education would have to stimulate the intellect, and I do not
) )) believe that happens very often in most Waldorf classrooms.
) )) My daughter, who is now 11 and is also considered "gifted" (though her
) )) IQ is not 193!!! (g)) lost all her natural zeal for learning in the
) )) deadening rigidity of her Waldorf classroom. Years of not being allowed
) )) to
) )) ask a teacher why something is the way it is or how it works, of copying
) )) the
) )) teachers' drawings and paintings, of following the movements that the
) )) eurythmy teacher did, of chanting the same verse every day, etc. took
) )) their
) )) toll, pushing my child's natural curiosity underground, as if it were
) )) something to be ashamed of.
) )
This bit was from me, Lisa, trying to perhaps find some redeeming
quality in the waldorf process---
) ) Sorry Lisa, it's taken me a while to catch up, but I think the list of
) ) Waldorf grads posted way back when shows what and whom Waldorf caters
) ) to. Musicians, actors, politicians, performing arts people, sports.
) ) -Su
) )
) )
) Lisa here: Well, perhaps I should have added that my daughter is a very
) talented singer, natural musician (can pick up most instruments and
) figure
) them out by ear quickly and on key), and actor, and those
) impulses/talents
) also were thwarted during her time at Waldorf. (I would have to say
) that, in
) particular, it was the musical side that was thwarted, via the teachers'
) insistence that my daughter play violin, rather than the instrument she
) wanted to play since she was in kindergarten -- the alto saxophone.
I am not surprised, about that, since sax is probably not a classically
gender-appropriate instrument for the Waldorf school instruction.
Glad your daughter recovered from the oppression.
-Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 21:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: For Su
Su
) No, Sune, I never said anything of the sort. I am a
) gatherer of data,
) and an observer of human behavior. That is all.
) 'nuff said.
) -
Dottie
For all the opinions you throw out as fact I would
assume their would be a title. Is there?
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 04:12:10 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: For Su
dottie zold wrote:
) Su
) ) No, Sune, I never said anything of the sort. I am a
) ) gatherer of data,
) ) and an observer of human behavior. That is all.
) ) 'nuff said.
) ) -
) Dottie
)
) For all the opinions you throw out as fact I would
) assume their would be a title. Is there?
)
No Dotty: just like you, I play my hand close to my --nose!
(a bit nearsighted...)
-Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 21:18:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Karma and fatalism
)
) Su here: Diana, I think that the Waldorfers like
) Neill, and the rest,
) need concrete proof of the behavior of the teachers
) in specific schools,
) and how they neglected the children and allowed
) things to happen to
) them.
)
Dottie
Okay first of all Su, we got any kids killed or
hospitalized at any of the Waldorf schools that you
know of. How bout any complaints about abused and
neglected children reported to the State or possibly
the Police? Any evidence of said statement of supposed
fact that you might be able to produce to show that on
a grand scale Waldorf teachers abuse and neglect their
children.
And yes concrete proof would be great when making an
accusation of neglected children or children being
ignored due to some understanding of Karma.
People like DL and Takeasha come on list to find
answeres about negative things they may have heard and
what do they find here? Negative t hings about the
people complaining about WAldorf. Who is one to
believe. The propoganda you propose as facts is seen
for what it is; Fear baiting, plain and simple. It
takes away, whether the parents would agree with me or
not, from their very valid cause of making sure
parents are aware of the methodology and the question
of 'is Waldorf a religious school?
Su
) )
) The "hidden" element of Anthroposophy is that you
) can *believe*
) something in a hidden way, and then say publicly
) that you believe
) something else!
Dottie
Dr. Steiner made Anthroposophy and the occult,
unoccult. He laid it all there on the table for who
wants to study the spiritual paths.
Su
) That is how a hidden belief can evade public
) scrutiny, and evaluation
) for its validity or lack thereof. No way to
) criticize something that you
) deny believing.
)
Dottie
The only way you and others on this list have so much
information is because Anthroposophy has made it so.
They are in all bookstores. The spiritual ideas are
there for all to diseminate.
Even with Zegers and Staudenmaier, where do you
possibly think they got most of their information? And
if not from Steiner they got it from an
Anthroposophist.
You can keep crying in the night about all the hidden
stuff but it doesn't make it so. Not by a long shot.
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 21:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Dear Su
Su
. We are not loving, and often not
) even friendly--to you.
) And if you were to be honest with yourselves, ye
) Anthros all, you would
) admit you don't feel anything like "loooove" for
) us!!!
)
Dottie
Oh okay now you are proposing that we all be cookie
cutters right. We have to act like you Su, to make
you feel good about the way you handle yourself on
this list. Not gonna buy that devil.
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 21:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Admin: rules of the list
Su
No one has been that
) murderous here.
) Corpses and insults? Nahhhh. It's good clean fun!
Dottie
Then you do take lightly, the parents claim, if you
are so willing to deal them a hand made in jest. Many
of these parents here have valid reasons for being
upset with Waldorf, and if you think it is good clean
fun while their most serious parental hurts are
exposed, in order to make change, you do them a huge
disservice. Too bad.
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 21:26:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: For Su
--- ) ) Dottie
) )
) ) For all the opinions you throw out as fact I would
) ) assume their would be a title. Is there?
) )
)
) No Dotty: just like you, I play my hand close to my
) --nose!
) (a bit nearsighted...)
) -Su
)
Dottie
I didn't think so.
dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 23:57:30 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Unlurked 2
)Su wrote:
)Why on earth would anyone want to "self-deceive?"
)What would be the motivation for this?
)
)
DL: People self decieve all the time. They do it to avoid having to face a
truth that would cause them discomfort or pain. Freud talked of it, Glasser
talked of it - it is not weird or unusual for people to self deceive. It's
a defense mechanism.
Shalom and Love
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 00:13:25 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
)Joel wrote:
) ) Dear Diana,
) )
) ) Your right, as you state it, it is a crock. Suppose you try to
) ) consider that you don't understand it at all (karma),
Diana responded:
)Gosh, that's rather absolutist, isn't it?
DL interjects: How so? All he has asked you to do is to "consider" that you
don't understand karma at all. Maybe another way to say it is to ask you to
look at the idea of karma as if you had no idea what karma was.
)Diana: It's not all that hard a
)concept, next to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, or the theory of
)relativity is it.
DL: I disagree that it is not all that hard - even when compared to
Heisenberg's and Einstein's theories. Otherwise, why can't anyone on this
list pin it down exactly - I'm guessing that there are dozens of degree
holders on this list - and even so - "What is Karma?" seems to be a question
that goes without a clear cut answer.
)Joel wrote:
) and that not only
) ) do you not understand it, but most people who believe in it don't
) ) understand it.
)Diana:
)So generous of you; we are all stupid--together!!!!
) )
DL: Hmmmm....don't think he said that. The take I got from his statement is
that even those people who believe in it do not necessarily understand it.
I believe in it and I'm at a loss to say exactly what it is - I'm not sure I
fully understand it - but I try my best.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 420
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Admin: rules of the list
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
By tastraum uncletaz.com
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
By tastraum uncletaz.com
RE: For Su
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Karma and fatalism
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Admin: rules of the list
By sune.nordwall home.se
Re: Karma and fatalism
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Karma and fatalism
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
By sune.nordwall home.se
Re: For the moderator
By raymon_ford yahoo.com.au
RE: Waldorf Grads
By raymon_ford yahoo.com.au
RE: Admin: rules of the list
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
RE: Karma and fatalism
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: Admin: rules of the list
By raymon_ford yahoo.com.au
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By raymon_ford yahoo.com.au
Re: Admin: rules of the list
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
RE: Karma and fatalism
By tastraum uncletaz.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 22:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Admin: rules of the list
) Su
) No one has been that
) ) murderous here.
) ) Corpses and insults? Nahhhh. It's good clean fun!
)
) Dottie
)
) Then you do take lightly, the parents claim, if you
) are so willing to deal them a hand made in jest.
Dottie
I am wondering if anyone knows the rule for posting as
two different people on this list. Is that allowed or
is it not?
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 07:45:51 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
)Sharon:
)
)So the perfected Anthroposophist will die and become Christ?
The emulation of the Christ is, as far as I understand it, a goal for
all Christians, including Anthroposophists, Roman Catholics,
Baptists, Lutherans,Presbyterians, Quakers, Russian Orthodox etc. The
same goes for the inheritance of the Resurrection Body. It's not
exclusive to Anthroposophists. On the contrary, the anthroposophical
Christ-idea is that it is evolving in all humanity regardless of
personal beliefs, so it is in fact less exclusive than other
varieties of Christianity.
)Is Christ an
)evolved larynx? Is Christ a plant-like spirit?
That is for you to decide. He once said that the stones would cry out
to praise him if the children were forbidden to do so. Perhaps Christ
is a rock-like spirit. Rock of Ages and all that you know.
)To further complicate matters, let's bung in the spirit-self, the
)life-spirit, and the spirit-human being. These are even higher members
)beyond the last batch and appear with the four members as products of
)transformation. Are these three bodies the "extracts" of the etheric and
)astral that Tarjei mentioned above? (for those who are a bit lost, the
)spirit-self, life-spirit and spirit-man are what is to evolve from the first
)four members ie:physical body, etheric body, astral body and I body.)
To the best of my recollection - it's been quite a while since I read
this - the total human organism consists of twelve members: The four
lower have evolved (physical, etheric, astral, I), and the eight
higher belong for the most part to the future.
) Steiner said that those that do not develop the "fifth principle", will
)become subordinate gnomes, what a drag.
Perhaps subordinate gnomes will be a happy family. If not, developing
the "fifth principle" sounds like a good idea.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 07:59:57 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
I wrote:
)To the best of my recollection - it's been quite a while since I
)read this - the total human organism consists of twelve members: The
)four lower have evolved (physical, etheric, astral, I), and the
)eight higher belong for the most part to the future.
I believe I should have written seven members, three of which belong
to the future, and that Sharon mentioned: Spirit-self, life-spirit,
and spirit-man. These will evolve in future planetary incarnations or
cycles. But I thought there was also a twelve member version. Can
anyone clarify this? If not, I'm probably wrong.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 23:38:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: For Su
Sune to Sufrito
) ) Some questions:
) )
) ) ) Did you not say that you work at a waldorf
) school[, Su]?
Dottie
Hi Sune,
I thought one of the critics stated he/she was a child
psychologist didn't they, and that was the reason not
to question her motives? Wasn't that it?
Good Sunday to you,
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 07:47:22 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Karma and fatalism
)
) Dottie wrote to su:
)
) Okay first of all Su, we got any kids killed or
) hospitalized at any of the Waldorf schools that you
) know of.
bea here:
at michael hall school there was a boy who drowned whilst the class swam in
the lake, he was 13 and epileptic and no one was watching him properley, the
teacher allowed the children to go off without counting them because it was
the last lesson of the school day, so his mum waited for hours for him to
come home, they eventually found him at the bottom of the lake. The school
was charged with breaches in the health and safety laws, that was the second
drowing in the lake there had also been a drowing in the 70's.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 09:48:58 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Admin: rules of the list
D L wrote:
) )Dan writes:
) )I declare an amnesty for the recent offenses and provocations, and
) )resolve to deal with any future violations swiftly.
)
) DL: As a member of this list - I applaud the fact that you finally chose to
) deal with it. I am sorry it took weeks of protest both on-list and off list
) for you to decide to do something.
)
) It's also - in my opinion as a member of this list - not enough. There is
) nothing stopping you from suspending for a week those who violated the
) rules. To "grant amnesty" only adds insult to insult.
In the case of Michcael Kopp and his repeated personally threatening
attacks and insults against other members of the list and 2 or 3 expulsions
before for this, that would mean permanent expulsion this time.
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 01:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Karma and fatalism
) )
) ) Dottie wrote to su:
) )
) ) Okay first of all Su, we got any kids killed or
) ) hospitalized at any of the Waldorf schools that
) you
) ) know of.
)
) bea here:
) at michael hall school there was a boy who drowned
) whilst the class swam in
) the lake, he was 13 and epileptic and no one was
) watching him properley, the
) teacher allowed the children to go off without
) counting them because it was
) the last lesson of the school day, so his mum waited
) for hours for him to
) come home, they eventually found him at the bottom
) of the lake. The school
) was charged with breaches in the health and safety
) laws, that was the second
) drowing in the lake there had also been a drowing in
) the 70's.
)
Dottie
Well that is really terrible. That just struck a chord
with me as I finish level II in Reiki. My best friend
was eleven when he drowned at a lake on a camping trip
and I was just dismissing that when I read this.
When was did this happen Bea. And what kind of charges
in health and safety codes? Did they shut the school
down or do an investigation after the boys drowning?
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 09:38:47 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Karma and fatalism
))
)) bea here:
)) at michael hall school there was a boy who drowned
)) whilst the class swam in
)) the lake, he was 13 and epileptic and no one was
)) watching him properley, the
)) teacher allowed the children to go off without
)) counting them because it was
)) the last lesson of the school day, so his mum waited
)) for hours for him to
)) come home, they eventually found him at the bottom
)) of the lake. The school
)) was charged with breaches in the health and safety
)) laws, that was the second
)) drowing in the lake there had also been a drowing in
)) the 70's.
))
) Dottie wrote:
)
) Well that is really terrible. That just struck a chord
) with me as I finish level II in Reiki. My best friend
) was eleven when he drowned at a lake on a camping trip
) and I was just dismissing that when I read this.
)
) When was did this happen Bea. And what kind of charges
) in health and safety codes? Did they shut the school
) down or do an investigation after the boys drowning?
this happened when I was at the school, I guess around 6 years ago.
The school was closed on the friday, and then it was weekend.
The health and safety prosecuted the school on various points in not
following health and safety rules, such as teacher:pupil ratio, counting
pupils in and out, I'll have to find the article to answer that question
properely,
the school was fined, and in the UK you are allowed to break health and
safety three times and then they close you down. Of course they closed the
lake down, and no one is allowed to swim there without large amounts of work
on it. It is a big lake and very deep in places with lots of trees around .
The teacher resposible was allowed to continue (it was class 6 or 7).
bea
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 10:39:32 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall (Sune.Nordwall home.se)
Subject: Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on WC-list
Diana Winters wrote:
) Me to Sune:
) )You criticized it, we ask you what is wrong with it, and
) )you won't tell us.
)
) Sune goes on, and on . . says we don't know what we're talking about, etc.
_I_ don't say that you don't know what you were talking about.
YOU tell that when you said that you understood in '5 minutes' what the
'ether body' was and then ask what is wrong about saying that it
'reincarnates', and that that constitutes a part of the basis of WE, that
reveals that what you said in the first instance simply was empty,
untruthful rhetoric - once more from a central critic on this list.
But I can understand if you don't feel happy about it being demonstrated.
) Sune, I can't read the rest. A question has been posed to you, and you
) refuse to answer. I have nothing more to contribute to the thread.
As I have written several times, I have the same number of times suggested
an alternative, similar in the same vein, simple but truthful summary. That
Dan does not accept it, demonstrates - again - that he's not actually or
really interested in telling the truth about anthroposophy and WE, or
'Educating the public about Waldorf education ' as he untruthfully
describes the site of PLANS at the central anthroposophical link site at
http://www.anthroposophy.net.
His answers on this issue, when the untruthfulness of his 'education about
WE' has become too embarrassing to be possible to keep at the site of
PLANS, shows his main goal - within some not _too_ obviously untrue limit -
is to twist the understanding of WE in the public eye as much as possible
to make it go away from his sight.
It also - again - demonstrates that the site of PLANS not is an
'educational' site about WE, but primarily a propagandistic anti-Waldorf
and anti-anthroposophy site.
And you and Dan ask me to help you in making it into a more effective
anti-Waldorf and anti-anthroposophy propaganda site.
Sure, baby.
And then you complain that I don't.
I don't find the words even in Swedish to describe what I think of your
attitude.
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
- a site on science, homeopathy, cosmological cell
biology, EU, globalization and social threefolding
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 18:41:12 +1000 (EST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Raymon=20Ford?= (raymon_ford yahoo.com.au)
Subject: Re: For the moderator
Diana said:
'I would just like to mention that there are other
ways to be "brutal," other ways to "barrage" the list.
Sometimes it doesn't involve "Neanderthal"
adjectives. Sometimes pretty words and complex
sentence structure and multiple literary references
are also used to browbeat and intimidate.'
Raymon says:
Diana you are right. However Earlyfire's browbeating
and intimidation are of rather a gentle variety are
they not? Gentle enough not to warrant a reprimand.
Or were you referring to someone else.
Regards, Raymon
_____________________________________________________________________________
http://shopping.yahoo.com.au - Father's Day Shopping
- Find the perfect gift for your Dad for Father's Day
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 19:06:55 +1000 (EST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Raymon=20Ford?= (raymon_ford yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Grads
Dottie said:
) To bad seems she really did have some interesting
) questions and was really looking to see what was up
) with PLANS and what they were saying about Waldorf.
Raymon says:
Are you referring to Takeasha? Yes I too was sorry to
see him/her frightened off the list.
Regrds, Raymon
_____________________________________________________________________________
http://shopping.yahoo.com.au - Father's Day Shopping
- Find the perfect gift for your Dad for Father's Day
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 20:56:44 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: RE: Admin: rules of the list
)) Su
)) No one has been that
)) ) murderous here.
)) ) Corpses and insults? Nahhhh. It's good clean fun!
))
)) Dottie
))
)) Then you do take lightly, the parents claim, if you
)) are so willing to deal them a hand made in jest.
)
)
)Dottie
)
)I am wondering if anyone knows the rule for posting as
)two different people on this list. Is that allowed or
)is it not?
)
)Dottie
--
Just out of curiosity, Dottie, who -- or whos -- do you think is posting as
two different people?
Let's see, who are the anonymous posters at the moment:
DL, aka "theosopost", says it came here "to find out more, and different,
views of Waldorf" and stayed to give the critics a hard time from a
seemingly deeper knowledge of it than a seeker might be expected to have;
sufrito -- obviously an independent thinker and critic;
bea, aka "mypostboxformail", appears to be a survivor who is very critical;
Kerr, aka "dirtwitch", a New Ager who's into Buddhism and seems to defend
Steiner, Waldorf and Anthroposophy, except that their songbooks don't give
attribution.
And are the several new posters who give more or less real names really who
they say they are?
Is Sune Nordwall DL? Is Tarjei Straume Kerr? Is Joel Wendt Sune Nordwall?
Are any of these people me, or you, or Dan Dugan, inventing a whole cast of
characters to chat with him?
What's your point, Dottie?
Historically, we have had numerous instances of this. But the large
majority of the anonymous posters, about 80 percent of them, have been
pro-waldorf. Some of them seem to be similar.
But we know the worst Anthroposphical mafiosi ever to post here, Andreas
Walter, whom Dan Dugan has just mentioned again because he's threatening to
get up to his old tricks again, is the worst sleazebag we've ever had on
the list. He posted under a number of aliases, most prominently "Dick
Tracy", from which he unleashed a torrent of abuse at people like
Christopher Yavelow.
Walter, who is a German citizen, originaly, and perhaps still, is enrolled
as a graduate student at the Stern School of Business at New York
University. And we know he's Dick Tracy and several other pseudonyms that
have appeared here to heap ad hominems, and spout Anthrobabble, and gum up
every possibility of a serious debate between Anthroposophists and Waldorf
critics, because his posts were traced to a computer at Stern Business
School. He just keeps coming back. One of his specialities in Germany was
computer programming, and it seems that he probably has the ability to
spoof email accounts and perhaps even hack ISP's to forge mail.
Andy Walter never admitted to being Dick Tracy -- but he never denied it,
either.
Contrast that with the critics who post anonymously or pseudonymoustly,
usually with good reason, fearing retribution from Steiner, Waldorf and
Anthroposophical schools or communities in which they are still involved or
living. This retribution is documented; critics' children have been
subjected to unfair treatment at Waldorf schools, and critics have been
targeted in communities where there is a heavy Anthroposophist population.
I myself posted anonymously when I first began here, because of such
reasonable fear. And my first run in with the Anthrosophical mafia setting
the rules for discourse here was when I called a Defender of the Faith a
"snide prick" -- which was fair comment about the characterisations he was
making about me and my anonymity. (We later became pretty amiable
acquaintances off-list.)
There've even been a couple of pseudonymous critics that the Defenders of
the Faith think are me, Michael Kopp. Posters named "raison" and "warm
regards" come to mind.
But none of the anonymous or pseudonymous posters who have been critical of
SWA and DoFs have ever used their status to the obfuscatory, dilatory,
sleazy ad hominem lengths that some of the hidden SWA proponents have gone
to.
Certainly no critic -- hidden or open -- comes close to Andreas Walter. Not
even me, a guy who believes that ad hominem is fair comment and should be
allowed. And I can assure people that I'm very real, and have never posted
sleaze or lies or obfuscation either under my real name or otherwise.
So, Dottie, what are you fishing for?
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 21:17:33 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: RE: Karma and fatalism
))
)) Su here: Diana, I think that the Waldorfers like
)) Neill, and the rest,
)) need concrete proof of the behavior of the teachers
)) in specific schools,
)) and how they neglected the children and allowed
)) things to happen to
)) them.
))
)Dottie
)
)Okay first of all Su, we got any kids killed or
)hospitalized at any of the Waldorf schools that you
)know of. How bout any complaints about abused and
)neglected children reported to the State or possibly
)the Police? Any evidence of said statement of supposed
)fact that you might be able to produce to show that on
)a grand scale Waldorf teachers abuse and neglect their
)children.
)
)And yes concrete proof would be great when making an
)accusation of neglected children or children being
)ignored due to some understanding of Karma.
--
There are documented cases of sexual abuse in Waldorf schools in many
countries.
Many of these are hushed up because Anthroposophists are in positions of
power in those communities and able to protect the perpetrators, such as
being the local district attorney, or a police officer.
There probably are also documented cases of SWA school personnel being
arrested for abuse of one sort or another, and their cases being handled by
some means that produces little or no publicity, such as a quiet
resignation and moving out of town -- often to another Waldorf school.
In New Zealand, Britain, Australia, and many others outside the U.S.,
judges routinely order name suppression of sexual and child abuse
defendants because to name them would be to identify their victims through
association, and that is thought bad. However, there is a movement to
revise those laws, mainly at the behest of victims who insist that they do
not want to be "protected" if it means that their abuser is allowed to
maintain their hiding. The court documents in these cases would either be
sealed or unreportable.
I speak on this matter as a knowledgeable professional journalist who has
much experience in reporting cases which cannot be put on the public record.
There are many more _undocumented_ cases of various kinds of abuse of kids
in Waldorf schools, particularly including letting children come to harm on
playgrounds or at each others' hands because teachers wouldn't intervene or
take actions to keep kids safe.
Again, as to _documented_ cases of kids dying or seriously harmed by
Anthroposophical medicine, the same suppression mechanism protects
Anthroposophical doctors as it does scientific doctors who err or
transgress causing death. But they do exist, and we all know about them.
Doctors' name suppression is usually given for the same reason as in sex
and child abuse cases. Only where a death was ruled criminal negligence and
the doctor deregistered to practice would the doc be named.
This is not a smear campaign, Dottie, this is the common knowledge of
people who have been in Steiner, Waldorf or Anthroposophical schools or
communities.
Only someone who wanted to deny the truth would demand documentation where
common knowledge should suffice, and where documentation is so hard to
reveal because of law and protection.
This constant denial, of course, is a trademark of Anthroposphical
Defenders of the Faith here and everywhere, even to the point of denying
that they are Anthroposophists.
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 19:18:50 +1000 (EST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Raymon=20Ford?= (raymon_ford yahoo.com.au)
Subject: Re: Admin: rules of the list
Dan said:
'Given the continuing protests over list policy, I
will clarify the situation...'
Raymon says:
Dan, thanks for that. While the list is not a PLANS
list, as I had thought until recently, having more
proper debate and less vindictive letting off of steam
on this list will indirectly enhance PLANS'
credibility.
Regards, Raymon
_____________________________________________________________________________
http://shopping.yahoo.com.au - Father's Day Shopping
- Find the perfect gift for your Dad for Father's Day
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 20:03:12 +1000 (EST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Raymon=20Ford?= (raymon_ford yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
Diana wrote
' DL writes:
I am a firm believer that we draw to us what happens
to us...'
Raymon says:
I do not entirely agree with this interpretation of
Karma - I had considered it reasonable as far as the
big picture goes, but as we get more and more specific
it is surely too much to say that everything is
preordained so.
Diana says:
'...but according to your theory (to use the most
recent example discussed here), children dying in
freak accidents or of diseases are also "drawing"
these things to them...'
Raymon says:
My understanding of Karma, Steiner's version, is that
actually not all freak accidents or diseases, are
Karmically due to past actions. Your interpretation
is that they *all* are, and so I can see some of your
difficulty with the concept.
Diana writes:
'...Yeah. It makes me sick to think anybody would look
at their child dead in a car crash and decide they
must have hurt a lot of people in a previous lifetime
and that's why this happened...To me, it makes a
mockery of the whole concept of human choice and
responsibility. It is moral muck...'
Raymon says:
'You exaggerate somewhat there - it is not part of any
Karmic theory that I have seen that people killed in
car crashes must have hurt a lot of people in a
previous life time. If however the death was held to
be Karmically determined, then you clearly still would
have an issue related to choice and responsibility.
How does Steiner's version of Karma disturb you in
these respects? I was not able to understand this
from your earlier posts.
Diana said:
'What can the child being beaten or dying of AIDS do
about it? Accept karma? What a crock...'
Raymon says:
Diana I am not sure what you're saying here. Are you
saying that if one believes in Karma, one must
passively accept the outcome? This view to be sure
was once fairly widespread. I recall reading a book
on SE Asia, relating as an example how a child fell
off his parents fishing boat. No one jumped in to
save him, for it was his 'Karma' to drown...
As has been pointed out here elsewhere, in Steiner's
scheme, whether or not the child or parents has any
notions of Karma, they can still do anything they want
about a given situation. They have freedom of choice
as much as the next person.
Regards, Raymon
_____________________________________________________________________________
http://shopping.yahoo.com.au - Father's Day Shopping
- Find the perfect gift for your Dad for Father's Day
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 22:11:57 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Admin: rules of the list
)In the case of Michcael Kopp and his repeated personally threatening
)attacks and insults against other members of the list and 2 or 3 expulsions
)before for this, that would mean permanent expulsion this time.
)
)Sune Nordwall
)Stockholm, Sweden
--
You'd not like that, Sune, then you wouldn't have anyone to kick around
anymore.
Please quote any personal threats I have ever made, or quote and explain
why, and more importanly, how, you feel personally threatened by anything I
have ever said, or I will have to consider this an ad hominem attack
against me, and complain to the moderator.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 12:58:46 +0200
From: Tarjei Straume (tastraum uncletaz.com)
Subject: RE: Karma and fatalism
Michael Kopp wrote:
)There are documented cases of sexual abuse in Waldorf schools in many
)countries.
)
)Many of these are hushed up because Anthroposophists are in positions of
)power in those communities and able to protect the perpetrators, such as
)being the local district attorney, or a police officer.
)
)There probably are also documented cases of SWA school personnel being
)arrested for abuse of one sort or another, and their cases being handled by
)some means that produces little or no publicity, such as a quiet
)resignation and moving out of town -- often to another Waldorf school.
In other words, if a public school teacher commits a rape or a
similar sexual transgression, prosecution and conviction is easier
than in a case involving a Waldorf teacher because the
anthroposophical mafia is pulling strings among cops and judges to
obstruct justice on behalf of the latter?
)In New Zealand, Britain, Australia, and many others outside the U.S.,
)judges routinely order name suppression of sexual and child abuse
)defendants because to name them would be to identify their victims through
)association, and that is thought bad. However, there is a movement to
)revise those laws, mainly at the behest of victims who insist that they do
)not want to be "protected" if it means that their abuser is allowed to
)maintain their hiding. The court documents in these cases would either be
)sealed or unreportable.
So we'll never know?
)I speak on this matter as a knowledgeable professional journalist who has
)much experience in reporting cases which cannot be put on the public record.
So you cannot tell? Records are sealed?
)There are many more _undocumented_ cases of various kinds of abuse of kids
)in Waldorf schools, particularly including letting children come to harm on
)playgrounds or at each others' hands because teachers wouldn't intervene or
)take actions to keep kids safe.
)
)Again, as to _documented_ cases of kids dying or seriously harmed by
)Anthroposophical medicine, the same suppression mechanism protects
)Anthroposophical doctors as it does scientific doctors who err or
)transgress causing death. But they do exist, and we all know about them.
)Doctors' name suppression is usually given for the same reason as in sex
)and child abuse cases. Only where a death was ruled criminal negligence and
)the doctor deregistered to practice would the doc be named.
It would be very helpful if you could cite at least one documented
instance of a child - or an adult for that matter - having died or
been seriously harmed by *anthroposophical medicine*. Which
medication was given to whom, and in what way did this medicine act
like a poison on the person, what was the cause of death, how did the
medication cause it, and what did the coroner's report say?
)This is not a smear campaign, Dottie, this is the common knowledge of
)people who have been in Steiner, Waldorf or Anthroposophical schools or
)communities.
It would also be helpful if you enlightened those of us to whom such
knowledge is not common with concrete documented examples.
)Only someone who wanted to deny the truth would demand documentation where
)common knowledge should suffice,
Personally, I am not interested in denying the truth. I only have a
serious problem taking your word for "the truth," especially after
you could not document your claim that Steiner was a murderer.
)and where documentation is so hard to reveal because of law and protection.
That means that if I do not wish to deny the truth, I will have to
accept your testimony by faith. I don't know if I'm that religious.
)This constant denial, of course, is a trademark of Anthroposphical
)Defenders of the Faith here and everywhere, even to the point of denying
)that they are Anthroposophists.
It seems to me that you are a Defender of the Faith here - the faith
in rapes and murders committed and covered up by the anthroposophical
mafia in the dark that cannot be documented or spoken of. Personally,
I am not denying anything at all because I do not know what there is
to deny here.
--
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 421
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Karma and fatalism
By mkopp xtra.co.nz
Re: Karma and fatalism
By mypostbox.formail virgin.net
Screwballs
By raymon_ford yahoo.com.au
Re: Admin: rules of the list
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Dear Su
By hermit tiac.net
OT: Happy Birthday
By sarina bainbridge.net
RE: Admin: rules of the list
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By theosopost hotmail.com
RE: Waldorf Grads
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Re: OT: Happy Birthday
By theosopost hotmail.com
RE: Karma and fatalism
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Admin: rules of the list
By hermit tiac.net
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: Karma and fatalism
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Untruthful rhetoric at PLANS' site and unequal justice on
WC-list
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Admin: rules of the list
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Admin: rules of the list
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: Admin: rules of the list
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: Admin: rules of the list
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: Karma and fatalism
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: Karma and fatalism
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Karma and fatalism
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: OT: Happy Birthday
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Re: Admin: rules of the list
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: Admin: rules of the list
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: Admin: rules of the list
By dottie_z yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 23:46:53 +1200
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: RE: Karma and fatalism
Tarjei Straume writes:
)Michael Kopp wrote:
)
))There are documented cases of sexual abuse in Waldorf schools in many
))countries.
))
))Many of these are hushed up because Anthroposophists are in positions of
))power in those communities and able to protect the perpetrators, such as
))being the local district attorney, or a police officer.
))
))There probably are also documented cases of SWA school personnel being
))arrested for abuse of one sort or another, and their cases being handled by
))some means that produces little or no publicity, such as a quiet
))resignation and moving out of town -- often to another Waldorf school.
And Straume says:
)In other words, if a public school teacher commits a rape or a
)similar sexual transgression, prosecution and conviction is easier
)than in a case involving a Waldorf teacher because the
)anthroposophical mafia is pulling strings among cops and judges to
)obstruct justice on behalf of the latter?
That's right, in the United States at least, where several of the cases I'm
aware of occurred.
In New Zealand the police are not generally corrupt, because they're a
national police, although small town cops do have some discretion, and
police can, and often do, divert offenders from the justice system. Here,
once a case becomes official, it's sealed virtually forever. Even years
after a case has been concluded and the perpetrator has spent time in jail,
even if the victim is now an adult, and _wants_ to blow the whistle on this
sleaze, it's not possible. Even if the perpetrator goes out and does it
again. There've been numerous cases of multiple- or serial-offending sex
and child abusers who might have been prevented from reoffending if they
had been publicised. Child and sexual abuse in the schools -- public and
private -- here is as prevalent as anywhere, and it has been the cause of
both hysteria (innocent men in jail for impossible crimes allegedly
committed on children in creches) and a very serious attitude towards it by
the courts.
Even if you dismiss my metaphor about an Anthroposophical mafia there is
information from several places in America where Anthroposphists are able
to pervert the course of justice through "string pulling" and influence.
I wouldn't sound shocked and disbelieving, if I were you, Straume; abuse of
power happens in your country too, as you, a self-admitted anarchist, are
fond of publicising and demonstrating about. I think you have some direct
experience of it in the U.S., too, according to your story, having been
busted for drugs there, whether you were guilty or not, and deported.
))In New Zealand, Britain, Australia, and many others outside the U.S.,
))judges routinely order name suppression of sexual and child abuse
))defendants because to name them would be to identify their victims through
))association, and that is thought bad. However, there is a movement to
))revise those laws, mainly at the behest of victims who insist that they do
))not want to be "protected" if it means that their abuser is allowed to
))maintain their hiding. The court documents in these cases would either be
))sealed or unreportable.
)
)So we'll never know?
Well, if there was a case of child abuse or sexual misconduct in my local
Steiner school, I'd probably know about it, because I'm an investigative
journalist. I know there have been the usual illicit relationships between
staff and staff, and staff and parents, and the students of my kids' time
now talk openly of sexual liaisons they are certain were taking place
between teachers and students.
But proof? Of course we'll never know. If such a case ever got to the
courts here, it would be impossible to publicly identify even the school
where it happened, and if if did it anyway, and made it public, even on a
United States mailing list like this, I'd be in the slammer the next day
for contempt of court.
But, just as in the lesson I cited from Bergen Evans the other day, we
don't need proof from moon rock samples to know that the moon isn't made of
green cheese. Common sense and our own observations will tell us that there
is illegal, harmful, damaging conduct in Waldorf schools as well as
anywhere else.
For instance, I have personally observed the playground hands-off attitude
of kindergarten teachers, both to child vs. child actions and to children
taking risks. And this is in a country where child safety in playgrounds is
taken so seriously that there are whole programmes in the schools to foster
it, and playground equipment must meet rigid safety standards. But kids,
little rule-breakers that they are, and little misjudgers of risk, will do
anything to make play more sensational. I haven't seen any on the roof of
the school yet -- but my own kids climbed trees and fell out of them, and
climbed houses and fell off them, and are now serious and excellent rock
climbers -- who have fallen many times. But little children should be
protected -- from risk and from their own worst natures being reinforced by
allowing them to be bullies. But I digress.
))I speak on this matter as a knowledgeable professional journalist who has
))much experience in reporting cases which cannot be put on the public record.
)
)So you cannot tell? Records are sealed?
That's right.
))There are many more _undocumented_ cases of various kinds of abuse of kids
))in Waldorf schools, particularly including letting children come to harm on
))playgrounds or at each others' hands because teachers wouldn't intervene or
))take actions to keep kids safe.
))
))Again, as to _documented_ cases of kids dying or seriously harmed by
))Anthroposophical medicine, the same suppression mechanism protects
))Anthroposophical doctors as it does scientific doctors who err or
))transgress causing death. But they do exist, and we all know about them.
))Doctors' name suppression is usually given for the same reason as in sex
))and child abuse cases. Only where a death was ruled criminal negligence and
))the doctor deregistered to practice would the doc be named.
)
)It would be very helpful if you could cite at least one documented
)instance of a child - or an adult for that matter - having died or
)been seriously harmed by *anthroposophical medicine*. Which
)medication was given to whom, and in what way did this medicine act
)like a poison on the person, what was the cause of death, how did the
)medication cause it, and what did the coroner's report say?
Why would it be helpful, Straume? Who would it help? This is not a court of
law, or a scientific laboratory, this is an email discusison list.
If I had a world-wide investigative journalism assignment or book contract
(anybody listening?) and five years, I think I could do it, from what I've
heard on and off this list from people who've been abused in many ways by
Steiner, Waldorf and Anthroposophy. (Publishers? Anybody? A $250,000
advance?)
Sharon Lombard's case is not enough for you as direct evidence from someone
here? Just because the kid didn't die doesn't mean the act wasn't
reprehensible.
))This is not a smear campaign, Dottie, this is the common knowledge of
))people who have been in Steiner, Waldorf or Anthroposophical schools or
))communities.
)
)It would also be helpful if you enlightened those of us to whom such
)knowledge is not common with concrete documented examples.
Well, that's interesting, Straume. You do say that you don't have much
experience directly with Steiner, Waldorf or Anthroposophical schools, so
you can't comment about them.
Why would that help?
Let me ask you for the same sort of thing, just as I've been asking every
Anthroposophist or Defender of the Faith on this list for six years.
Please provide evidence of the existence of a supernatural world, spirits,
reincarnation, karma, clairvoyance .... the list is endless.
All these things are taught through disguised lessons in Waldorf schools to
unsuspecting children taken from their deluded, deceived or defrauded
parents.
We know that; most of the critics have seen it with their own eyes.
Maybe you, Straume, should go and investigate the critics' allegations of
adverse results of Anthroposhical medicine, and investigate the school your
child attends, directly.
))Only someone who wanted to deny the truth would demand documentation where
))common knowledge should suffice,
)
)Personally, I am not interested in denying the truth. I only have a
)serious problem taking your word for "the truth," especially after
)you could not document your claim that Steiner was a murderer.
(Sigh) Steiner didn't murder anyone himself, and I didn't say that.
I said that anyone who preaches a course of action which results in the
death of another is guilty of murder. That's an ethical judgement.
And it's provable in Steiner's case, and you know it.
I really don't care if you can't take my word for something, Straume.
You're the opposition here, and you'll never change your mind about
anything you believe in regarding Steiner, Waldorf and Anthroposophy.
And you know it's not a question of you taking my word, but just another
attempt to denigrate all criticism of anything SWA.
))and where documentation is so hard to reveal because of law and protection.
)
)That means that if I do not wish to deny the truth, I will have to
)accept your testimony by faith. I don't know if I'm that religious.
Well, the standard for investigative reporting, even of things and people
and places and institutions that can't be named, is that two confirmations
of the facts to the journalist are sufficient for the journalist to publish
them without the details, and for them to be accepted as fact by the
readers. I don't go around asking every critic and survivor who tells a
horror story for two independent sources of confirmation of their claims,
because that's not what I'm about. I think we have the right on this list
to assume the credibility of people who tell their negative stories, just
as we give the same credence to people who tell positive stories.
Now if you want to find me the resources, I'll do the investigation. I've
always wanted to travel all over the world.
Short of that, I and other skeptical, reasoning, rational people will take
the evidence of our own eyes and ears and listen to each others' stories,
and tell those stories to people to help them decide if they want to place
their faith and their children in the cult hands of Rudolf Steiner's
desciples.
))This constant denial, of course, is a trademark of Anthroposphical
))Defenders of the Faith here and everywhere, even to the point of denying
))that they are Anthroposophists.
)
)It seems to me that you are a Defender of the Faith here - the faith
)in rapes and murders committed and covered up by the anthroposophical
)mafia in the dark that cannot be documented or spoken of. Personally,
)I am not denying anything at all because I do not know what there is
)to deny here.
I did not say there were rapes and murders.
I said there was sexual and child abuse in Steiner, Waldorf and
Anthroposophical schools and institutions, and that it was covered up.
That's fact.
I said that Anthroposophical medicine is quackery, designed by Steiner,
which causes harm and deaths to people who use it, and that therefore
Steiner is guilty of murder.
That's fact and ethical judgement.
And if you're not denying anything, why are you bothering to not do
something at such length?
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 13:24:24 +0100
From: "mypostbox.formail" (mypostbox.formail virgin.net)
Subject: Re: Karma and fatalism
) From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
) Well, if there was a case of child abuse or sexual misconduct in my local
) Steiner school, I'd probably know about it, because I'm an investigative
) journalist. I know there have been the usual illicit relationships between
) staff and staff, and staff and parents, and the students of my kids' time
) now talk openly of sexual liaisons they are certain were taking place
) between teachers and students.
at michael hall in the uk there was a music teacher who had an affair with a
pupil of 16 which was kept hushed up until his wife made a huge fuss all
over the village, then the school was forced to sack him allthough it caused
a big rift between the "fors" and "againsts" he was a very good music
teacher. Of course then it was all blamed on the girl being too provocative
and worldly, she was called all sorts of rude names
bea
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 00:58:56 +1000 (EST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Raymon=20Ford?= (raymon_ford yahoo.com.au)
Subject: Screwballs
Frank wrote:
'Although anthroposophy attracts some (or many)
screwballs...' etc
Raymon:
Frank, what mechanisms are in place to prevent such
screwballs from starting up and running a Waldorf
school?
Regards, Raymon
_____________________________________________________________________________
http://shopping.yahoo.com.au - Father's Day Shopping
- Find the perfect gift for your Dad for Father's Day
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 08:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: rules of the list
--- Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz) wrote:
) )In the case of Michcael Kopp and his repeated
) personally threatening
) )attacks and insults against other members of the
) list and 2 or 3 expulsions
) )before for this, that would mean permanent
) expulsion this time.
) )
) )Sune Nordwall
Michael
)
) Please quote any personal threats I have ever made,
) or quote and explain
) why, and more importanly, how, you feel personally
) threatened by anything I
) have ever said, or I will have to consider this an
) ad hominem attack
) against me, and complain to the moderator.
)
Dottie
Please, Sune,
Do not take the time to show us his ugly ad homiens.
Once is enough and unfortunately there were repeated
over and over again.
Has enough of ugly remarks from Michael Kopp
Thanks Dottie
)
)
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 11:17:55 -0400
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
mysplum wrote:
) Ms. God is slightly less harsh than Mr. God who sends people to hell and
) offers only one chance at life. Still.... I don't like Ms. God's system of
) rewards and punishments, she sounds a bit sadistic...... then again.... at
) least she lets a person have many chances at life....But what's the point?
Dear Sharon,
"She" isn't even a little bit sadistic, because what happens, happens
because we choose it, not because it is "ordained". That is one of the
confusions people have about the "idea" of karma - that somehow we have
this inescapable destiny over which we have no power, when the exact
opposite is the truth.
Of course, people will say, "well I sure didn't choose for my child to
die, or for my leg to have to get cut off" or some such version of their
idea of extreme and terrible unjustified suffering. In a way I can't
really blame people for not liking to suffer. Yet, if you follow out
that "idea", that there is this terrible suffering that has no purpose,
then the Universe really does become this cold and mindless place.
Think about it carefully. Whether we find the idea of karma helpful or
not, the terrible suffering exists, doesn't it. People do evil things,
and children and all kinds of innocents pay for it.
So we could ask the Universe the question of whether this suffering
could possibly have any point. In a materialist universe, this
suffering is pointless and without meaning. But in a monist universe, a
universe in which the "law" (which is more like a musical harmony
relationship, than a cold and calculated necessity) of "karma and
reincarnation" means that even evil and suffering are turned to good as
the immortal spirits, that we all are, travel together this earth
existence, winding our individual and communal paths toward eternity.
So, among the free choices of being human, we get to decide whether we
want to belong to a universe of empty purpose and pointless suffering,
or one where these most difficult questions of meaning become resolved
in our return home to the Mystery. It is this choice that Steiner
pointed toward when he spoke of humanity becoming divided. For those
who want to deny the spirit will create a world that supports this view,
and come to live there. Modern folk wisdom well understands this when
it reminds us to be careful what we wish for.
love,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 11:20:25 -0400
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Dear Su
Dear Su,
You may choose to characterize me in the way you have below (as an
opponent in a debate), and as someone who is engaged in "self
deception", but in that characterization you would be in error.
Your whole approach assumes far too much, especially given that you
really know nothing about me at all. I am not what you imagine, either
as a member of this list, an apparent "anthroposophist" (whatever that
is), and certainly as a human being.
When you can step back from your asssumptions, and decide to seek me
out as another struggling, confused and often ignorant human being, as
someone quite like you in many fundamental ways (although of course we
each remain quite individual in our own special ways), then and only
then will you begin to actually "see" me. At that moment you will
discover that we are not opponents, but merely actors on a stage,
engaged in our roles; and, that we have more in common than in
difference.
In such circumstances (our true reality) we are much more like brothers
and friends, and so to express this community of humanness, as I
occasionally do in ending salutation, is entirely appropriate.
love,
joel
p.s. have you read any of what is on my website? If not, you might want
to start with "scenes from the eye of the heart: - a meditation on Dan
Dugan, PLANS, Waldorf Education, and the battle for the future of the
soul - " http://www.tiac.net/users/hermit/sfteh.html
Su wrote:
)
)
) It would seem, Joel, that there is such a spectrum of human emotions and
) states of being, that much exists between love and war to merit
) acknowledgement.
)
) We are opponents in a lively debate.A significant debate. I'm afraid
) that does not constitute love. Nor does it constitute war. It's a
) debate, on the basis of what are real experiences for those of us who
) are the Critics. We are not loving, and often not even friendly--to you.
) And if you were to be honest with yourselves, ye Anthros all, you would
) admit you don't feel anything like "loooove" for us!!!
)
) Why not call a spade a spade? And stop the self deception (where have I
) heard that before).
)
) We are intellectual and spiritual opponents.
)
) It ain't love, my friend.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 08:42:30 -0700
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: OT: Happy Birthday
Hi Everyone,
My baby boy was born on Monday, August 13 at 4:21 pm by cesarean
section; we named him Tyler Marcus Andrew.
For those who knew we had planned a home birth, or who want more
details, read on (those who don't can delete now):
Will was 6 pounds 10 ounces, and was born naturally with no drugs or
complications, so we were perfect candidates for a homebirth
(low-risk, "proven pelvis", etc.). Well, we ended up transferring to
the hospital after five hours of second stage (that's the "pushing"
stage) with no appreciable descent - there was never any fetal
distress, just no progress. As it turned out, Tyler decided to break
records at 9 pounds, 5 ounces and 21 inches long!!!
Did I ever mention that I am 4' 11"?! Nobody can believe he ever fit
in there in the first place.
Anyway, we're both fine and I'm recovering nicely. Our midwife was
wonderful and we tried absolutely everything before transferring, so I
feel just fine about the surgical delivery - well, except for the pain
part, which I have drugs for, which make me feel just fine. :-) Just
kidding - actually, I am doing really well and am almost off of them.
The baby is nursing very well in spite of any traces in my milk, thank
goodness.
(Deby and Diana, I hope the above details are enough for you for the
time being - I will be off the computer for a while!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sarina "Okay, back to bed STAT!" McDonald
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 08:50:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Admin: rules of the list
) )) Su
) )) No one has been that
) )) ) murderous here.
) )) ) Corpses and insults? Nahhhh. It's good clean
) fun!
) ))
) )) Dottie
) ))
) )) Then you do take lightly, the parents claim, if
) you
) )) are so willing to deal them a hand made in jest.
) )
) )
) )Dottie
) )
) )I am wondering if anyone knows the rule for posting
) as
) )two different people on this list. Is that allowed
) or
) )is it not?
) )
) )Dottie
)
)
Michael
) Just out of curiosity, Dottie, who -- or whos -- do
) you think is posting as
) two different people?
)
Dottie
Didn't say I did think anyone was, just a thought came
up and I was wondering what the rules were.
Michael
) What's your point, Dottie?
Dottie
Just wanted to know what the rules are that is all? Or
if there are any, pertaining to this issue.
Michael)
) But we know the worst Anthroposphical mafiosi ever
) to post here, Andreas
) Walter, whom Dan Dugan has just mentioned again
) because he's threatening to
) get up to his old tricks again, is the worst
) sleazebag we've ever had on
) the list.
Dottie
Well Michael I would have to disagree with you on that
point. I have found your debates much uglier than any
I had seen him put up. By a long shot. And not on
substance by the way.
Michael
) Contrast that with the critics who post anonymously
) or pseudonymoustly,
) usually with good reason, fearing retribution from
) Steiner, Waldorf and
) Anthroposophical schools or communities in which
) they are still involved or
) living.
Dottie
Okay the critics post anonymously or
pseudonymoustly,,,wow I didn't know that. OKay. But
is it allowed that they or anyone is allowed to post
as two different people?
Fearing retribution? We have any cases of people
signing complaints against those who are stalking or
harrassing them to your knowledge?
Michael
This retribution is documented; critics'
) children have been
) subjected to unfair treatment at Waldorf schools,
) and critics have been
) targeted in communities where there is a heavy
) Anthroposophist population.
Dottie
Targeted how? And evidence from articles in a paper or
anything or any kind of such fear mongering on the web
at PLANS maybe? Anywhere?
And they have been subjected to unfair treatment? What
I have seen is that parents felt like they were on the
outside of the clique if they disagreed with things
but not that they were harrassed.
You are trying to build a case like Scientology has
against it. No go. Doesn't work.
Michael
) I myself posted anonymously when I first began here,
) because of such
) reasonable fear.
Dottie
And I posted my self straight up and continued to do
so after feeling quite threatened by you not to
mentioned harrassed because I did not have the same
outlook that many on this list did. And all I came
here to find was what was up with Waldorf and the
issues facing them and also to learn about Waldorf,
which I have. I was ridiculed by PLANS president and
sent such a nasty letter all because I was ignorant of
the fact that you do not say personal things on line
or they will be used against you. And they were by
Debra and nasty does not do it justice.
Wanna talk about unfair treatment? And all for what? I
differed in opinion than the President. Please look in
the mirror of words for some of the hypocracy you are
now displaying in your statement.
Oh I got it. It's okay to mistreat others but DO NOT
MISTREAT ME AND MY FRIENDS. I got it. Loud and clear.
Michael
) But none of the anonymous or pseudonymous posters
) who have been critical of
) SWA and DoFs have ever used their status to the
) obfuscatory, dilatory,
) sleazy ad hominem lengths that some of the hidden
) SWA proponents have gone
) to.
)
Dottie
Unfortunately Michael the words are against you once
again. This list for all to see can be verified Anti
Waldorf not Anti critics. And I believe that is the
male mentality of PLANS. War strategies being planned.
Are PLANS behind the door meetings open for all to
know what is said? They want the teachers meetings to
be known but what about meetings at PLANS discussing
how to work this list among other things. Can we see
the details? Like to be a fly on the way in there, is
what we often here from critics who complain that
teachers actually discuss children and parents in
meetings. Hello...
Michael
) Certainly no critic -- hidden or open -- comes close
) to Andreas Walter. Not
) even me, a guy who believes that ad hominem is fair
) comment and should be
) allowed.
Dottie
Michael, I am sorry but I would have to disagree with
you. I do not think you are aware of how ugly and
disgusting many of your ad hominems are. I have been
on line with Walters and I had found him to be quite
direct and at times obnoxious(sp) but nothing like
what your ad hominems are. And when I was online with
him for a few months his conversations always stayed
with the debate and not off target like you go.
Also I am realizing right now that there have been a
few people that suddenly disappeared from the list who
had been thought of as possibly being Andy. If that
happens why are we not informed of the fact that he
has been found out or if it is his dialogue was not
appreciated?
Michael
) So, Dottie, what are you fishing for?
)
Dottie
Not fishing, inquiring Michael. You never show your
_________ ... hand, do you?
Dottie
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 10:52:12 -0500
From: "D L" (theosopost hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
)' DL writes:
)
)I am a firm believer that we draw to us what happens
)to us...'
)
)Raymon says:
)
)I do not entirely agree with this interpretation of
)Karma - I had considered it reasonable as far as the
)big picture goes, but as we get more and more specific
)it is surely too much to say that everything is
)preordained so.
DL: Raymon - I'm not saying that everything is preordained. More like - if
you speed and do not pay attention to what you are doing on the highway -
you draw towards you the greater possibility of an accident. Because you
speed doesn't mean that the accident is preordained.
Shalom
DL
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 08:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Grads
) Dottie said:
)
) ) To bad seems she really did have some interesting
) ) questions and was really looking to see what was
) up
) ) with PLANS and what they were saying about
) Waldorf.
)
)
) Raymon says:
)
) Are you referring to Takeasha? Yes I too was sorry
) to
) see him/her frightened off the list.
)
) Regrds, Raymon
)
)
Dottie
Yes, exactly. She was a graduate of Waldorf wasn't
she? That was the week I was suspended so I was
reading off list and it was almost like I was reading
my first week when I first arrived here. Although she
seems much more educated than I am in how she holds
her conversations.
I saw her attacked and ridiculed for no reason. I was
hoping she would stick around and give us some of her
experience as a Waldorf student. PLANS missed the
oppurtunity although maybe that is not the opportunity
they want on line for all to see.
If Michael had been warned about the ad hominem back
then she may still be on line informing what Waldorf
was like for her/him.
Dottie
_____________________________________________________________________________
) http://shopping.yahoo.com.au - Father's Day Shopping
) - Find the perfect gift for your Dad for Father's
) Day
)
)
)
)
)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 15:55:21 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: immunizations ( was: "anonymous's" school -- and others)
=?iso-8859-1?q?Raymon=20Ford?= wrote:
) Diana wrote
) ' DL writes:
)
) I am a firm believer that we draw to us what happens
) to us...'
)
) Raymon says:
)
) I do not entirely agree with this interpretation of
) Karma - I had considered it reasonable as far as the
) big picture goes, but as we get more and more specific
) it is surely too much to say that everything is
) preordained so.
)
) Diana says:
)
) '...but according to your theory (to use the most
) recent example discussed here), children dying in
) freak accidents or of diseases are also "drawing"
) these things to them...'
)
) Raymon says:
)
) My understanding of Karma, Steiner's version, is that
) actually not all freak accidents or diseases, are
) Karmically due to past actions. Your interpretation
) is that they *all* are, and so I can see some of your
) difficulty with the concept.
)
) Diana writes:
)
) '...Yeah. It makes me sick to think anybody would look
) at their child dead in a car crash and decide they
) must have hurt a lot of people in a previous lifetime
) and that's why this happened...To me, it makes a
) mockery of the whole concept of human choice and
) responsibility. It is moral muck...'
)
) Raymon says:
)
) 'You exaggerate somewhat there - it is not part of any
) Karmic theory that I have seen that people killed in
) car crashes must have hurt a lot of people in a
) previous life time. If however the death was held to
) be Karmically determined, then you clearly still would
) have an issue related to choice and responsibility.
) How does Steiner's version of Karma disturb you in
) these respects? I was not able to understand this
) from your earlier posts.
)
) Diana said:
)
) 'What can the child being beaten or dying of AIDS do
) about it? Accept karma? What a crock...'
)
) Raymon says:
)
) Diana I am not sure what you're sayi