return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re: rant on education
By Buhdumpdum aol.com
Re: rant on education
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: rant on education
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: social dysfunction in the anthroposophical movement
By hermit tiac.net
RE: Responses to Paul's Questions for Walt Stone
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Thanks Kathy/Was Responses to Paul's Questions for Walt Stone
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: Thanks Kathy/Was Responses to Paul's Questions for Walt Stone
By sjgreen seidata.com
RE: Thanks Kathy/Was Responses to Paul's Questions for Walt Stone
By sjgreen seidata.com
OT for Jennifer
By sarina bainbridge.net
RE: OT for Jennifer
By sjgreen seidata.com
Re: Thanks Kathy/Was Responses to Paul's Questions for Walt Stone
By Buhdumpdum aol.com
Walt's response to Kathy
By waltstone hotmail.com
Re: Admin: RE: why animal fat is good for you/biodynamics OT
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Walt to Alice on the personal effect of anthroposophy, etc.
By waltstone hotmail.com
Re: Walt to Alice on the personal effect of anthroposophy, etc.
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Walt/Kathy cont.
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Walt's response to Kathy
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Thanks Kathy/Was Responses to Paul's Questions for Walt Stone
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Re: Walt's response to Kathy
By waldorf_kh hotmail.com
Re: Walt/Kathy cont.
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: OT/Butt Powder
By snell gv.net
Re: Walt's response to Kathy
By sarina bainbridge.net
Re: Walt's response to Kathy
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Walt to Alice on the personal effect of anthroposophy, etc.
By alice javanet.com
Re: Walt's response to Kathy
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: On the cultivated paranoia on the WC-list
By waldorf_kh hotmail.com
Re: social dysfunction in the anthroposophical movement
By waldorf_kh hotmail.com
Re: On the cultivated paranoia on the WC-list
By winters_diana hotmail.com
RE: Walt to Alice on the personal effect of anthroposophy, etc.
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Re: On the cultivated paranoia on the WC-list
By momof2gals mindspring.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 20:46:10 EST
From: Buhdumpdum aol.com
Subject: Re: rant on education
In a message dated 12/31/01 12:22:31 PM, sarina bainbridge.net writes:
)Just my .02 -
)
)I do think that e-mail removes some inhibitions, so I mostly agree
)with Joel. I myself have posted things I would *never* say to
)someone's face. (I am remembering one post in particular. I so
)regretted my mean-spiritedness, I had to call Deby on the phone to
)apologize personally! I was simply mortified with myself... but she
)forgave me. We even discussed the tendency of this list to bring out
)the worst in otherwise nice people.)
DL: I would whole heartedly agree. I realize I have also said things in a
manner more harsh than I would have if I'd been face to face. I can only
hope the same is true for some of the harsh things said to or about me on
this list. :o)
)Sarina:
)But to say that e-mail "isn't real" or has a "dead" feel, is not quite
)right either - the written word can provide a very real sense of
)contact. A person's thoughtful words can be a tremendous source of
)genuine emotional support. (And here I am thinking in particular about
)Diana's support, by e-mail, during my rough pregnancy this past
)summer. She made a difference to me, Joel, and I smile when I think of
)her because of it. I don't even know what she looks like, and I often
)disagree with her regarding things Waldorf, but she really did help
)me. Isn't that real?)
DL: Again, I think what Joel was trying to say was that the manner in which
the exchanges take place does not provide for immediacy of feedback - a give
and take as it were. I don't recall him saying that emails aren't real -
that was someone else responding to his post.
As far as email not being dead - I agree - and beyond just the emotions the
written word can bring out. I've done some experiments with whether or not
emotions can be transmitted via email and have discovered that often the
emotion the person is feeling can come though *even when the words they are
saying don't necessarily reflect the emotions the writer was feeling when
writing the email*
I had a friend who opened an email from me and she immediately felt an
overwhelming sadness (before she had even read the email). Interestingly
enough, the substance of the email was pretty sad. In this particular case,
the subject line wasn't indicative of what I wrote - nor was she aware I was
going through any sort of personal crisis. Coincidence? Maybe. But I've
played around with this a bit and have found in many other cases a certain
amount of "empathetic response" existed when the recipient read the
messages. I've played with typing fairly neutral messages but from a
certain feeling or emotional state and tried to see if the reciever could
feel what the sender was feeling when they typed the message. Generally -
they could. Depending on the "receptiveness" of the receiver, that is. Even
face to face there are some people who are so emotionally unaware that they
wouldn't be able to guess an emotion if it was standing right in front of
them.
Happy New Years
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 14:40:12 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: rant on education
Happy New Year to all! Let's hope 2002 is better worldwide than 2001, not so
sorry to see the end of 2001. I know a lot of people feel a let-down (or a
hangover), but I always feel so positive and hopeful on New Year's Day.
(Especially when everyone but me is still sleeping at 9:45 a.m.! :)
Sarina -
)here I am thinking in particular about Diana's support, by e-mail, )during
)my rough pregnancy this past summer. She made a difference to )me, Joel,
)and I smile when I think of her because of it. I don't even )know what she
)looks like, and I often disagree with her regarding )things Waldorf, but
)she really did help
)me. Isn't that real?)
I hope so. Thank you Sarina, I am smiling too, that is an *awfully* nice
thing to say :)
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 14:56:02 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: rant on education
DL:
)Again, I think what Joel was trying to say was that the manner in which the
)exchanges take place does not provide for immediacy of )feedback -
That's certainly true, but I don't understand why people act as if
this is new to the history of humanity or something. There was far
less "immediacy of feedback" in the many centuries before planes and trains,
when people wrote letters to friends or family that would not be read till
many weeks later. Perhaps expecting "immediacy of feedback" in all
relationships is actually what's new, and e-mail is actually fairly well
line with our expectations after all?
re DL's interesting experiments:
)I've done some experiments with whether or not emotions can be transmitted
)via email and have discovered that often the emotion the person is feeling
)can come though *even when the words they
))are saying don't necessarily reflect the emotions the writer was
)feeling when writing the email*
I suspect this occurs simply because the person you are writing to
knows you well? When my husband says, "My flight is at 7 tomorrow" - which
it is (sigh) -I know what emotion that conveys, even though it isn't
technically "in the words." Now you guys don't know what emotion it conveys
because you don't know my husband. Is it excitement, enthusiasm, fear,
dread, or ... ???
)I had a friend who opened an email from me and she immediately felt an
)overwhelming sadness (before she had even read the email). Interestingly
)enough, the substance of the email was pretty sad
I know you'll think I'm throwing a wet blanket on this, because you
want to believe there was something special and unexplainable in
your friend picking up your sadness, but there is probably a simple
explanation. Like her eye caught a couple of words in the body of
the message in the split-second she opened the mail. Especially if
it is from a friend, there are lots of ways we pick things up
without words - like maybe she hadn't heard from you for awhile and
had unconsciously begun to wonder or worry . . . and then looking back it
*feels* as if we knew something in advance . .
To me that's enough, it's wonderful that friendships can work that way, I
don't need the supernatural explanations. But of course that could just say
something about me, I'm not sure what (I'm sure you'll have your theories,
DL :)
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 11:35:54 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: social dysfunction in the anthroposophical movement
Dear Liz,
Thanks for your reply below. I have been sick with the flu and not
able to think very well for several days, so I waited to reply, or
better perhaps, to take the dialogue a bit further.
I think I didn't state my question very well, and it was mostly in my
hands. You did quite well with how I framed the question. Even so, I
would like to return to the basic question and reframe it again, plus
confess to my own views.
Originally I asked: "can any education exclude the spiritual dimension
of the human being?"
I think the threshold problem is what can we mean by the word
"education". If we go by "tradition" we think of what "schools" have
done in our own past (or not done). If we expand our idea of
"education", then we run into various older standards and points of view
(such as the trivium and quadravivium - "classical" in some folks
terms). Into this mix we get all manner of confusing issues, such as do
we "educate" to make someone able to work (that is to serve the economic
realm), or educate to make them good citizens (that is to serve the
social), or do we educate to serve them, that is there something about
the individual essential being that is more important than what either
the needs of commerce or civility require.
In one case education seems directed at the ideas and needs of the
community, in in the other case education seems directed at the
potential in the individual. I would guess most systems (public,
parochial, waldorf etc) have some mix involved, since perhaps you can't
really do one without the other.
The problem is made all the more difficult when we factor in that the
parent has to make decisions for the child up until the time that the
child can make choices for itself. The parent, at some point, has to
trust the educators, who can't seem to agree with each other, and who
are more and more dominated by politicians who make decisions so as to
look like they are doing something, but don't actually know anything
about "education".
Then, of course, there is the word "spiritual", which also makes the
original question vary according to what is meant by that term. People
have quiet different ideas and experiences about this, with some folks
not thinking the human being has a "spirit" and "soul", others thinking
we do, and many others in some inbetween stage where they suspect, or
have faith, or want it to be true.
So, if I write the sentence: "can any education exclude the spiritual
dimension of the human being?", then all of a sudden the words education
and spiritual become quite complex and the whole thing not easy to pin
down or to forge into a concrete form of answer.
Waldorf is an attempt to take the answer in a certain direction, a
direction quite at odds with much of the present understanding of these
matters. Waldorf in this sense is very radical, and frankly frequently
fails to achieve what it sets out to do. This failure is not so much
with the idea of Waldorf, but rather with its all too human expression.
Now sometimes on this list we discuss one thing, but are really butting
up against something else. For example, there is a difference between
the pedagogy as a set of ideas, and its execution by people. So if a
certain failure is occuring in a class room, how do we know it is the
pedagogy or the execution? I am not saying there is an easy answer to
this, just that it helps to keep certain fundamentals in mind and not go
for easy or glib answers that satisfy our emotions, but not our reason.
warm regards,
joel
Liz Reid&Errol Strelnikoff wrote:
)
) ) The real question would be - can any education exclude
) ) the spiritual
) ) dimension of the human being?
) )
) ) Care to discuss the pros and cons of this question?
)
) To all intents and purposes public school does a pretty efficient job of
) taking out the spiritual. Of course ideology is still involved but when
) the goal of that ideology is to get a test score there is not much room
) for anything else.
)
) Free schools or democratic schools leave the whole thing up to the child
) to follow their own inner spirit or not. So while it is not excluded,
) it is also not being molded ;-)
)
) Unschooling can be similar to free schools.
)
) Even some Parochial schools, while they may require a prayer at the
) beginning of the day are far from being spiritual. Test scores are what
) it is about.
)
) )From what I understand the whole foundation of what happens in WE is
) spiritual. The teachers are the authority because Steiner has said that
) children need to be directed until a certain age. The goal of this is
) not to score well on tests.
)
) I have no experience with other forms than those above.
)
) Of course you could find a spiritual dimension to test scoring, but it
) would probably not be a dimension that people like Dan would
) acknowledge.
)
) Liz who is not lisa.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 17:30:02 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Responses to Paul's Questions for Walt Stone
Buhdumpdum aol.com wrote:
) In a message dated 12/29/01 7:05:30 PM, sufrito53 yahoo.com writes:
)
) )Joel Wendt wrote:
) )snip)))
) )) As to being abused on this list - the last time I unsubed, I had been
) )) sharing certain experiences of mine with respect to my children being in
) )) Waldorf. I was then accused by a member of this list of "child abuse",
) )) on the basis of what I shared. If you have ever been around here
) )
) )snip)))
) )Su:
) )Just to correct, Joel, you were accused of neglect, and what I (the one
) )who did the dastardly deed) said, was that since you left your child in
) )an untenable situation, one you described yourself, and admitted to,
) )then you were totally responsible for it, and still are.
) )By your own acknowledgement. Perhaps it was your child's Karma?
) )
) )Sorry, but going through these self-serving posts, I felt it necessary
) )to clarify these comments for the record.
) )
) )Should we dig up the post for the record?
) )
) )Thanks,
) )Merry Christmas,
) )Su
)
) To which Joel replied with the post:
)
) Yes, lets, here is what you wrote:
)
) "Su wrote:
)
) ) So you let this go on for 5 years? Unbelievable. Public school might
) ) have provided a school bus or a social worker to arrange something.
) ) It seems like something akin to child abuse, of the neglect type, IMHO.
)
)
) DL: So, Su, it seems that Joel was correct. Hope getting hoisted on
) your own
) petard didn't hurt too badly. Will you be as quick to take back your
) statement as you were to try and add "clarity"?
)
) I found it interesting that you wished to "clarify" Joel's accurate
) post.
) Where was your need for clarification when I asked you months ago to
) clarify
) your own misleading and incorrect statements?
)
) Waiting patiently for more "clarity" from you.
)
) David Lind
Hi David, and Joel,
Hoisted on my petard? I actually waited for you to post the quote for me
because I didn't have time to search for it. Thanks! I think Joel is the
one who hoisted himself.
Clarity ? Naaahh. I think whatever happed is self explanatory regarding
that whole interchange. Nothing more to say.
As for misleading and inaccurate posts. I don't have time to search. Nor
to explain. You explain Rudolf Steiner as well as the Critics, and then
I might respect your comments. So far, no cigar...
-Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 17:57:47 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: Thanks Kathy/Was Responses to Paul's Questions for Walt Stone
Thanks Kathy for putting up the whole post. It was quite out of
context,in Joel's post. It's self explanatory. Best, Su
Kathy H wrote:
) I was just too curious so I found the original post.
)
) Kathy
)
) Newpaul wrote:
) I couldn't help but notice that this kid has some creative talent. I
) can see why he hated his Waldorf School. What do you say Joel??
) Newpaul
)
) Joel Wendt wrote:
) Oh my gosh, an actual question without an assumption (almost).
)
) Dear Newpaul,
)
) Adam wasn't reacting to Waldorf as an educational experience. During
) the five years he attended Pine Hill, I worked the graveyard shift at a
) mental hospital. This brought it about that I arrived home after my
) wife had taken the children to school and gone to work. Adam's mother
) (we are now separated for six years) is a person who is chronically
) late, seriously chronically late. As a result Adam almost never arrived
) at school on time. Sometimes only five minutes late, but frequently
) over 15 minutes late.
)
) Morever, his mother was/is something of a hypochondriac. She treated
) the children the same way. If Adam had a runny nose she kept him home.
)
) This caused problems with his socialization with the other children,
) problems eventually so serious that the teacher was pointing them out at
) parent teacher conferences as becoming quite intractable. The other
) children, as children will do, mercilessly teased Adam about this
) situation, and essentially isolated him from their community.
)
) Now before someone jumps in and suggests that the teacher should have
) found a way to overcome the failure of the parents in this case, lets be
) real. The true cause was outside his control, and the parents (myself
) included) share the fundamental responsibility.
)
) Adam would have had the same experience whether it was public or
) private school, given the set up his mother provided him, and which I
) was unable to stop.
)
) warm regards,
) joel
)
) Su wrote:
)
) So you let this go on for 5 years? Unbelievable. Public school might
) have provided a school bus or a social worker to arrange something.
) It seems like something akin to child abuse, of the neglect type, IMHO.
)
) It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
)
)
) )From: Buhdumpdum aol.com
) )In a message dated 12/29/01 7:05:30 PM, sufrito53 yahoo.com writes:
) )
) ) )Joel Wendt wrote:
) ) )snip)))
) ) )) As to being abused on this list - the last time I unsubed, I had been
) ) )) sharing certain experiences of mine with respect to my children being
) )in
) ) )) Waldorf. I was then accused by a member of this list of "child abuse",
) ) )) on the basis of what I shared. If you have ever been around here
) ) )
) ) )snip)))
) ) )Su:
) ) )Just to correct, Joel, you were accused of neglect, and what I (the one
) ) )who did the dastardly deed) said, was that since you left your child in
) ) )an untenable situation, one you described yourself, and admitted to,
) ) )then you were totally responsible for it, and still are.
) ) )By your own acknowledgement. Perhaps it was your child's Karma?
) ) )
) ) )Sorry, but going through these self-serving posts, I felt it necessary
) ) )to clarify these comments for the record.
) ) )
) ) )Should we dig up the post for the record?
) ) )
) ) )Thanks,
) ) )Merry Christmas,
) ) )Su
) )
) )To which Joel replied with the post:
) )
) )Yes, lets, here is what you wrote:
) )
) )"Su wrote:
) )
) ) ) So you let this go on for 5 years? Unbelievable. Public school might
) ) ) have provided a school bus or a social worker to arrange something.
) ) ) It seems like something akin to child abuse, of the neglect type, IMHO.
) )
) )
) )DL: So, Su, it seems that Joel was correct. Hope getting hoisted on
) )your
) )own
) )petard didn't hurt too badly. Will you be as quick to take back your
) )statement as you were to try and add "clarity"?
) )
) )I found it interesting that you wished to "clarify" Joel's accurate
) )post.
) )Where was your need for clarification when I asked you months ago to
) )clarify
) )your own misleading and incorrect statements?
) )
) )Waiting patiently for more "clarity" from you.
) )
) )David Lind
)
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
)
)
)
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 13:48:19 -0500
From: "Green Family" (sjgreen seidata.com)
Subject: RE: Thanks Kathy/Was Responses to Paul's Questions for Walt Stone
Happy New Year everyone! We have returned home.
I am jumping into the middle of a discussion, so I may be way off base. In
regards to what I read of the Waldorf child whose mother kept him home from
school/hypochondriac, always late to school, etc.:
I would like to remind everyone of our Waldorf experience. Perhaps some
there (and here?) think we are hypochondriacs because we believe that sick
children (anything more serious than mild cold symptoms) belong at home,
both for that child's health, as well as the health and comfort of the sick
child's classmates and their families, if contagious. We believe that many
bacterial infections should be treated with antibiotics, especially
contagious illnesses. We believe that no child or family should be placed
in a school where the school does not disclose the abnormally high number of
unvaccinated children/families. We believe that children should use warm,
soapy water to wash hands and then, while at school, use disposable paper
towels or hand dryer, as opposed to a shared germ-ridden bowl of water and a
shared germ-ridden cloth towel. Perhaps the mom who kept her child home a
lot shared our concerns and was of the opinion that their Waldorf school was
unsanitary and/or unhealthy. Perhaps that mother was always late bringing
her child to school because she and/or her child felt uneasy about the
school in general or disliked the school. Perhaps it was a display of
passive aggression against a school they disliked. Or maybe I am totally
off base and the mom thought Waldorf was just peachy. I just have to wonder
if, deep down, she did not like the school.
Jennifer
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 13:53:42 -0500
From: "Green Family" (sjgreen seidata.com)
Subject: RE: Thanks Kathy/Was Responses to Paul's Questions for Walt Stone
To clarify: we believe that warm, *running* water with soap is important.
Jennifer
my previous post:
..."We believe that children should use warm,
soapy water to wash hands..."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 13:36:14 -0800
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: OT for Jennifer
Welcome back!
I was thinking about you yesterday as I smeared Weleda diaper cream on
my little guy's rash - (grin) - and it hit me: Jennifer needs diaper
cream! You wanted to find another one that was natural but not Weleda,
and I think I have a recommendation for you. (BTW, this may have come
from another list, but you never know if someone lurking here is in a
similar position of wanting to avoid Weleda, so I suppose it's
relevant...)
My favorite diaper seller recommends "Boudreaux's Butt Paste" (I swear
that is the name). I haven't tried it yet, but as I am almost out of
the Weleda myself, thought I would give it a try.
The diaper seller who carries this stuff is a work at home mom:
http://www.weebees.com
I really like her diapers and service, and have found all of her
advice *very* helpful too. So, I figure if she likes this Boudreaux's
stuff, then it's probably good.
Shall we both purchase and compare notes? ;-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sarina McDonald
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 16:55:21 -0500
From: "Green Family" (sjgreen seidata.com)
Subject: RE: OT for Jennifer
THANKS, Sarina! I'll check into it tomorrow! You are so thoughtful and
sweet.
I actually just bought some Weleda, having not had the time to look into
anything else. As I used it on my daughter, I kept reminding myself of what
you said about not caring if the manufacturers chanted by full moon, etc. I
laughed out loud! Anyway, I'll look into the Butt Paste tomorrow.
Thanks!
Love,
Jennifer
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 17:07:36 EST
From: Buhdumpdum aol.com
Cc: (buhdumpdum aol.com)
Subject: Re: Thanks Kathy/Was Responses to Paul's Questions for Walt Stone
New Year's Resolution #1:
Don't bother with individuals who play fast and loose with the truth.
New Year's Resolution #2:
Avoid hypocrisy when at all possible.
New Year's Resolution #3:
Unsubscribe from Waldorf Critics list (individuals like Su make it
difficult to stay on the list and also keep resolution #1) (and the
"make em up as you go" rules that the Moderator plays with and the
attitudes of other Critics to his loose policies often make it hard
to keep resolution #2)
To those Critics who the above doesn't apply to - I wish you a happy
new year. I just get tired of Su's holier than thou attitude and
her tendency to distort the truth. And every time I see anonymous
posters and individuals who post under aliases, it reminds me how
idiotic Dan's invented rules are.
DL
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 17:12:07 -0500
From: "Walt Stone" (waltstone hotmail.com)
Subject: Walt's response to Kathy
Kathy: First of all, nice ad for anthroposophy and WE. Sounds like you
definitely bought in hook, line and sinker. You left for the same reasons
many leave but it sounds like you haven't come to terms with it yet. You'd
like to believe all the wonderful things you think WE is but it isn't any of
those things. IMHO of course.
Walt: Kathi, do you believe that I "bought in hook, line and sinker" and
that I "haven't come to terms with it yet" because I don't completely
renounce A/WE? In other words, that one can't consider some, even much, of
what Steiner brought as valid, without completely being taken in by it?
Kathy: In regards to your statement above I would disagree with several
items. My husband and I are extremely spiritual people. That's why we find
Steiner's view of the world to be absolute poppycock. Ever read Scientology,
watched the local public access channel or browsed the new age section at
Borders? Blah, blah, blah. I know many people find spiritual motivation down
these avenues. Hopefully one leaves it at that and then goes on living their
life. Anthroposophy and WE strives to be the embodiment of Steiner's
worldview. People that really believe it think he had all the answers. See
where this leading? It's why I personally have so many issues with organized
religion of all kinds.
Walt: Kathy, I am somewhat baffled from your passage as to what your and
your husband's spiritual path is. Not that this is any of my business - it
clearly isn't! And I am not asking you to go into it. It's just that you
blast several "fringe" spiritual paths, and then seem to dismiss organized
religion as well. I am trying hard not to read into your statements that
your path involves dismissing other spiritual paths as poppycock and blah
blah blah. I have learned over the years that people tend to be just where
they need to be, and that they tend to find the teaching that is most
helpful to them at the stage they are at. Part of my worldview is the core
belief that all paths which are sincerely seeking truth, and don't fall into
harming others (you know, Aztec sacrifices, the Inquisition, Nazism, Charlie
Manson, etc.), have something worthwhile to offer. For me the myriad forms
of spiritual seeking say much for the longing of the human soul, and
whatever truths people from all times and climes have been able to discover
about themselves and the world is a type of treasure which can only increase
my own life's abundance.
Kathy: I find Steiner's writings to be racist which I do believe to be
dangerous. Hate speak in spiritual clothing is a threat and deserves loud
criticism.
Walt: This is an extremely serious issue, and one of the major topics I hope
to explore on this list. I very much appreciate the qualified nature of your
statement above.
Kathy: I also don't find anthroposophy to be all that complex. Steiner liked
to say it was. You'll find much of his stuff to be a rehash of all the
spiritual movements that came before him. Interesting how you equate
criticism of Steiner and WE with rejection of spiritual truth. I actually
think that for many of us our own spiritual truth is what gave us the
strength and perseverance to become open about our criticism and advocate
for our kids.
Walt: Kathy, I hear that for you A isn't complex. I completely accept that.
My statement about complexity was intended to point out how easy it is to
get his system wrong. I didn't realize that I had equated criticism of A/WE
with rejection of spiritual truth. What I meant was that, logically, if one
has rejected the possibility of spiritual truth, rejection of A would
automatically follow, since A claims to be a body of research into spiritual
truth. However, the reverse does not follow; if one has rejected A, it does
not imply at all that one has rejected spiritual truth. Spiritual truth has
many flavors, and A is just one of them. Its flavor is bitter tea indeed for
many. However, for some the bitter tea of A may be just the medicine they
need. Hope that can be accepted. I believe "intolerance" is the word for
denying any positive attributes to paths which don't happen to appeal to
oneself. This isn't to say that we shouldn't try to improve any given path.
That is why I am involved in this list - I want to understand what the
weaknesses in A/WE are, and attempt to help bring about an addressing of
these weaknesses.
"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right
as God gives us to see the rightÖ"
Walt
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 17:35:12 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: RE: why animal fat is good for you/biodynamics OT
You're absolutely correct, Dan! I apologize to you and to the others onlist
who had no interest in SCD. Guess I got carried away because the SCD
approach to eating has given my 12 year old her health back.
I will be more careful in future.
Glad you're back, Dan!
xoxo Lisa
) Excuse me, but the SCD diet discussion, while interesting, should now
) be in private email, or on a list about that.
)
) -Dan Dugan
) Moderator
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 19:41:47 -0500
From: "Walt Stone" (waltstone hotmail.com)
Subject: Walt to Alice on the personal effect of anthroposophy, etc.
)From: Alice Klinge (alice javanet.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: Responses to Paul's Questions for Walt Stone
)Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 09:40:47 -0800
Walden:
Looks like you made an impact Alice. From up here on the fence the Joel
post was almost entirely provocative. I hope Walt ignores it with regards
to your dialogue.
Alice here:
I am looking forward to Walt's response as well. I would rather bring
compassion than provocation. I am trying to define W subculture and the
level of discomfort, judgement and criticism which has been discussed among
parents for years at our school. Granted, it is a small sub-sample, but
similar stories have been told - as they have on this and the survivors
list..
I would like to know if this is an intentional by-product of steiner
spiritual discipline or if this comes from the exclusivity of being a
religious/philosophical educational institution without full disclosure to
all.
Walt: Alice, the discomfort, judgment, and criticism you mention certainly
are not intentional by-products of RS's spiritual discipline (per anything I
have read or come across in A), though they may for many be unavoidable
ones. Waldorf teaching is one of the most demanding activities I am aware
of, and given its difficulty level, I believe it would stress-out
practitioners even under the best of conditions. The stress can easily turn
negative in a Waldorf community whose shadow (Jungian sense) remains
unrecognized, or even if recognized remains untransformed. Since it demands
the willingness of those involved, and is often unpleasant to boot, shadow
work can be tough going for an individual, and very tough going for a
community. Those teachers caught in a pattern of negativity may be
struggling with their own shortcomings as well as the discomfort, judgment,
and criticism of the community they are a part of.
Even if there is some correlation between the spiritual discipline of RS and
discomfort, judgment, and criticism in a Waldorf faculty (for instance, a
correlation between being faced with one's shortcomings and the resulting
negativity one exhibits), I think that the negative qualities you mention
couldn't consistently be attributed to RS's spiritual discipline simply
because only a portion of Waldorf teachers, maybe not even a majority (I
wonder if a survey has ever been done), do actively practice the spiritual
discipline outlined by RS.
Full disclosure is one of the most important and solid suggestions for
change that I believe we can bring to the WE movement. Though I have not
experienced there being an attempt to conceal what lies behind WE in the
schools I have been involved in, I can well imagine that if such concealment
were perpetrated by a school or faculty, this lack of integrity would lend
itself to magnifying the negative qualities you mentioned.
Alice: I would like to know from an anthroposophical convert, how did your
life improve after beginning to follow steiner's recommended spiritual path?
Did you notice a change in relationships with others outside of the "faith"?
Did your skills improve in certain areas and achievements never before
thought possible reached?
I am seriously curious about these queries.. thanks to all who consider
answering them.
Walt: Alice, I will offer a response to your questions. I hope others will
as well. (I do get a sense that you are searching for answers, and not just
for confirmations of what you already believe, which is refreshing in this
passionate WC world.) I wonder if you noticed that you asked your questions
with what could be taken as a certain tone of bias. You used the word
"convert," and you talked about "outside the 'faith.'" Both are religious
terms, and I wonder if you have concluded that A is a religion. In my
experience most people involved in A don't consider it a religion, and to
characterize it that way clues them in to a perspective that is probably
revolting to them. Their response to a perspective characterizing their
discipline that way is predictable: they tend to simply dismiss perspectives
which announce themselves this way, reasoning that if the perspective were
worth giving attention to, it would not miss the essence of their discipline
so profoundly as to call A a religion. It would be similar to referring to
Christians as "cult members" because they revere Jesus so profoundly, or
calling modern Western medicine practitioners artists rather than scientists
because much of what they do is intuitive. In both cases, as in the case of
calling A a religion, there may be some truth to the matter. But many of the
practitioners of these disciplines would probably not be engaged in these
practices if these characterizations were the essence of the truth about
their practices.
Personally I grant that A does have a religious overtone to it, just as
Christianity does have a cult overtone (it was originally considered a cult,
but it's hard to call a belief system with a billion followers a "cult"!)
and Western medicine does have an artistic overtone (as does all medicine,
as does all science!). This question of the religious nature of A is the
first of my questions about A/WE to explore for presenting to AWSNA, and
when I get a chance I want to begin that discussion in depth. In a nutshell,
at this point I believe it has a religious overtone because A deals with
what are at this time, for most human beings, invisible worlds, and because
inquiry into such worlds has traditionally been the domain of religion.
The reason most anthroposophists (A's) do not consider A a religion is
because it is not based on belief and faith, but on corroboration of the
initial findings of RS through further research. (That is what most A's
would say is its essense, even if this is not the experience non-A's have
with A or A's.) When religious people came to RS in the early 1920s for
insights into their work, RS was extremely clear that their work (which
became the Christian Community) was not to be associated with his work (A),
because his work was not to be based on accepted belief, but reproducible
results (even if we as yet have no instruments fine enough to measure the
paths from cause to effect in most of the phenomena he described). Indeed,
RS conducted his research in part, he said, because at this point in the
evolution of the consciousness of humanity faith is no longer adequate for
human beings in general (there are of course always exceptions to these
general characterizations). Through our penetration of the secrets of the
natural world, we know so much that our intellect and our heart start being
at odds with one another. "How could the Bible" (for instance) "be true,
given what we know about the world?" asks the intellect. "We just have to
accept it is true, even if it contradicts what we know about the world"
answers the heart. The heart may be satisfied, but the head is left hungry.
Faith can become hypocrisy when what we actually know in our daily lives
contradicts our faith. RS experienced that there was no contradiction
between what is true as described by religion and what is true as discovered
by science. That knowing, through sense-free thinking, could penetrate into
those realms that up till now have been the sole domain of faith. Because of
how far our intellect has developed, in order to remain whole human beings
(rather than human beings torn between our head and our heart) faith must be
permeated with clear knowing, and the only way to do this, per RS, is to
penetrate, with full consciousness and scientific precision, the realms that
up to this point only faith has been able to access.
Anyway, I don't mind when you refer to A as a religion, because I think I
understand why you would believe that, but I didn't know if you were clear
as to why that perspective would not hold much water in many A circles.
How did my life improve after beginning to follow RS's recommended spiritual
path?
At first my life actually became much more difficult, perhaps like a person
who takes a homeopathic medicine may begin to display symptoms of the unease
in their organism that they are trying to address. Eventually my life took
on a depth it had previously lacked. I felt a deep sense of understanding
events that met me, both in the world and personal events, and the despair,
the fear, the bafflement regarding life faded away. I overcame longtime
maladies such as a nasty temper and criticalness, a debilitating
nervousness, etc. Many people I know have experienced similar results
through following the spiritual path indications of RS.
Did I notice a change in relationships with others outside of the "faith"?
Again, at first my relationships were significantly and negatively impacted.
I was a zealot. I believed that A would save the world. My loved ones,
friends, and colleagues for the most part kindly put up with such nonsense,
until I was eventually able to mellow out. Until this happened, I did
alienate several important former relationships. Now I know I do not need to
bring up the A perspective at all in my relationships, though I willingly do
so if I am asked. Just by living the truth about life that I have gained
through A and many other perspectives, just by being me and being mindful
and respectful of, and grateful for, all my relationships, I have found that
my relationships have changed incredibly for the better, as challenging as
they can be at times.
It's interesting - in writing this I realize that this same pattern may have
something to do with why most Waldorf schools do not go the full-disclosure
route about what lies behind WE, but choose the non-concealment route, the
willingness to share when questioned route. It can come across as
proselytizing and zealousness, which are for most people a real turnoff, if
A is trumped up. I'm not saying this is a conscious decision, nor am I
saying that there aren't other reasons, maybe entirely different reasons,
for why full-disclosure about what lies behind WE isn't practiced more.
(Can't wait to get into that discussion!)
Did my skills improve in certain areas and achievements never before thought
possible reached?
I believe so. The ability to concentrate completely on a subject for hours,
the level of detail I am able to be impeccable with in a project, the
standards of integrity which I hold in my work, have all benefited from my
involvement with A. I have experienced achievements in my life due to these
improvements in myself that I imagine would not have been likely given who I
was prior to these improvements.
Walt
With malice towards noneÖ
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 02:12:55 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Walt to Alice on the personal effect of anthroposophy, etc.
Walt wrote:
)most Waldorf schools do not go the full-disclosure route about what )lies
)behind WE, but choose the non-concealment route, the willingness )to share
)when questioned route.
Walt: "Willingness to share when questioned" may work in your personal life,
if an acquaintance is simply curious about your spiritual path. Willingness
to share when questioned is NOT an acceptable approach for a religious
school to take in dealing with parents and prospective parents. *Honesty* -
up front, answering questions before parents ask them, since most do not
know enough about anthroposophy to ask, because they have never heard of it
- is the only ethical approach for any school.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 02:56:57 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Walt/Kathy cont.
Just want to clarify. I wrote:
)*Honesty* - up front, answering questions before parents ask them, )since
)most do not know enough about anthroposophy to ask, because they )have
)never heard of it - is the only ethical approach for any school.
This means, the brochures and websites should describe anthroposophy -
first, before "head heart hands" yada yada. Not just say this guy Steiner, a
"philosopher and educator," founded Waldorf. Posters put up around town
announcing open houses (etc.) at the Waldorf school should uses phrases such
as "anthroposophic education." The first thing those making presentations at
the open house should talk about is anthroposophy, and the fact that the
curriculum derives largely from anthroposophy, the teachers study
anthroposophy intensively, and that Waldorf is an outreach arm of
anthroposophy.
After that, there will be plenty of questions from the audience. Perhaps at
that point, "willingness to share when questioned" will cover the rest of
it.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 22:52:11 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Walt's response to Kathy
on 1/1/02 2:12 PM, Walt Stone at waltstone hotmail.com wrote:
I believe "intolerance" is the word for
) denying any positive attributes to paths which don't happen to appeal to
) oneself. This isn't to say that we shouldn't try to improve any given path.
) That is why I am involved in this list - I want to understand what the
) weaknesses in A/WE are, and attempt to help bring about an addressing of
Sharon: Two weaknesses, no make that three. 1) Waldorf violates the
Constitution. If Waldorf can obtain public funding in a Democracy, so can
Heaven's Gate.
2) Waldorf is not forthright about who they are and what they are doing.
3) Steiner's work is racist.
Don't you understand that Waldorf is the intolerant party? Don't you
understand that imposing a set of religious beliefs surreptitiously on the
uninformed is an act of intolerance? This is not about "happening" to find
Anthroposophy "unappealing", this outcry is due to occultism being imposed
on us without our sanction. I object to critics being labeled "intolerant".
We make noise because Waldorf dupes.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 04:47:56 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Thanks Kathy/Was Responses to Paul's Questions for Walt Stone
Buhdumpdum aol.com wrote:
) New Year's Resolution #1:
) Don't bother with individuals who play fast and loose with the truth.
)
) New Year's Resolution #2:
) Avoid hypocrisy when at all possible.
)
) New Year's Resolution #3:
) Unsubscribe from Waldorf Critics list (individuals like Su make it
) difficult to stay on the list and also keep resolution #1) (and the
) "make em up as you go" rules that the Moderator plays with and the
) attitudes of other Critics to his loose policies often make it hard to
) keep resolution #2)
)
) To those Critics who the above doesn't apply to - I wish you a happy new
) year. I just get tired of Su's holier than thou attitude and her
) tendency to distort the truth. And every time I see anonymous posters
) and individuals who post under aliases, it reminds me how idiotic Dan's
) invented rules are.
)
) DL
Hi there, you tired 'ole DL.
I guess you tire easily since I haven't posted more than a few times and
have been away for weeks!
I guess I should admit I am tired of your "more spiritual than thou"
attitude.
It seems you reappear when I am here. Or is it my imagination? I won't
go back and check. I have too much to do. You will check the posts for
me; I know that.
And I think Dan's rules are just dan-dy.
-Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 22:16:18 -0700
From: "Kathy Harlan" (waldorf_kh hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Walt's response to Kathy
I've add my responses in [brackets].
Kathy
)From: Walt Stone (waltstone hotmail.com)
)Kathy: First of all, nice ad for anthroposophy and WE. Sounds like you
)definitely bought in hook, line and sinker. You left for the same reasons
)many leave but it sounds like you haven't come to terms with it yet. You'd
)like to believe all the wonderful things you think WE is but it isn't any
)of
)those things. IMHO of course.
)
)Walt: Kathi, do you believe that I "bought in hook, line and sinker" and
)that I "haven't come to terms with it yet" because I don't completely
)renounce A/WE? In other words, that one can't consider some, even much, of
)what Steiner brought as valid, without completely being taken in by it?
[Kathy: When I describe someone as being ëtaken in by ití that would mean to
me that someone is following a spiritual path in a very specific way that
has been outlined by another individual (RS in this case). I think you
believe that RS had special knowledge about the world that can only be
accessed by following his teachings. When I say ëhook, line and sinkerí it
means that you believe everything that RS wrote. In your response you are
saying that you donít believe everything RS professed. Since RS was a
mystic, I admittedly find it difficult to then determine why an
anthroposophist would find one thing to be truth and not another.
When I say ëyou havenít come to terms with it yetí, it seems that you
believe your experience was somehow a failure of execution of RSís theories
vs. the reality of life (ie, that people behave as they behave, spiritual
beliefs aside]. Did you expect that people would behave differently because
all of you had a spiritual path in common? I hear a lot of ëif only people
were executing RS as he had intended then all would be right in the world of
WEí. To me this is not very realistic. People behave as *they* choose. I
make decisions about friendships and trust based on people's actions, not
ideologies they associate with. Associating with a spiritual path is not an
indication of how (W teachers specifically) will act. Any disappointment in
how people behaved because they were all associated with the same spiritual
path, to me, is not coming to terms with the reality of the situation. Itís
like saying that if the teachers had been able to somehow execute in a more
authentic way then your experience would have been what you thought it
should be.]
)
)Kathy: In regards to your statement above I would disagree with several
)items. My husband and I are extremely spiritual people. That's why we find
)Steiner's view of the world to be absolute poppycock. Ever read
)Scientology,
)watched the local public access channel or browsed the new age section at
)Borders? Blah, blah, blah. I know many people find spiritual motivation
)down
)these avenues. Hopefully one leaves it at that and then goes on living
)their
)life. Anthroposophy and WE strives to be the embodiment of Steiner's
)worldview. People that really believe it think he had all the answers. See
)where this leading? It's why I personally have so many issues with
)organized
)religion of all kinds.
)
)Walt: Kathy, I am somewhat baffled from your passage as to what your and
)your husband's spiritual path is. Not that this is any of my business - it
)clearly isn't! And I am not asking you to go into it. It's just that you
)blast several "fringe" spiritual paths, and then seem to dismiss organized
)religion as well. I am trying hard not to read into your statements that
)your path involves dismissing other spiritual paths as poppycock and blah
)blah blah. I have learned over the years that people tend to be just where
)they need to be, and that they tend to find the teaching that is most
)helpful to them at the stage they are at. Part of my worldview is the core
)belief that all paths which are sincerely seeking truth, and don't fall
)into
)harming others (you know, Aztec sacrifices, the Inquisition, Nazism,
)Charlie
)Manson, etc.), have something worthwhile to offer. For me the myriad forms
)of spiritual seeking say much for the longing of the human soul, and
)whatever truths people from all times and climes have been able to discover
)about themselves and the world is a type of treasure which can only
)increase
)my own life's abundance.
Kathy:[I do see anthroposophy as harming others. Maybe this is where we
diverge. When I read RS it is so laden with racism that I canít see past
that. It invalidates the whole thing for me. Not sure what else to say in
regards to that. I donít necessarily disagree with other things you mention
in this paragraph and wish we had the opportunity to share a cup of tea to
discuss it. Why I have a problem with any self-contained religious
philosophy, fringe or ëmainstreamí (do the number of people practicing a
religion have anything to do with this categorization?), is quite a
discussion in itself. In a nutshell, I have lots of issues with picking and
choosing and then still following the philosophy as a whole. I believe it
(spiritual truth) really is within each of us. I have even more issues with
a school movement saying itís not sectarian when in fact it is. Pushing
religious beliefs, ala anthroposophy via WE, on someone else without their
knowledge is not OK. I think this is a legitimate criticism of
anthroposophy.]
)
)Kathy: I find Steiner's writings to be racist which I do believe to be
)dangerous. Hate speak in spiritual clothing is a threat and deserves loud
)criticism.
)
)Walt: This is an extremely serious issue, and one of the major topics I
)hope
)to explore on this list. I very much appreciate the qualified nature of
)your
)statement above.
)
[Kathy: Agreed.]
)Kathy: I also don't find anthroposophy to be all that complex. Steiner
)liked
)to say it was. You'll find much of his stuff to be a rehash of all the
)spiritual movements that came before him. Interesting how you equate
)criticism of Steiner and WE with rejection of spiritual truth. I actually
)think that for many of us our own spiritual truth is what gave us the
)strength and perseverance to become open about our criticism and advocate
)for our kids.
)
)Walt: Kathy, I hear that for you A isn't complex. I completely accept that.
)My statement about complexity was intended to point out how easy it is to
)get his system wrong. I didn't realize that I had equated criticism of A/WE
)with rejection of spiritual truth. What I meant was that, logically, if one
)has rejected the possibility of spiritual truth, rejection of A would
)automatically follow, since A claims to be a body of research into
)spiritual
)truth. However, the reverse does not follow; if one has rejected A, it does
)not imply at all that one has rejected spiritual truth. Spiritual truth has
)many flavors, and A is just one of them. Its flavor is bitter tea indeed
)for
)many. However, for some the bitter tea of A may be just the medicine they
)need. Hope that can be accepted. I believe "intolerance" is the word for
)denying any positive attributes to paths which don't happen to appeal to
)oneself. This isn't to say that we shouldn't try to improve any given path.
)That is why I am involved in this list - I want to understand what the
)weaknesses in A/WE are, and attempt to help bring about an addressing of
)these weaknesses.
)
[Kathy: To me, spiritual truth is not bitter at all. In fact, it is quite
satisfying. I have a hard time being tolerant of anthroposophy because it
was served to me in on a platter of progressive, arts based educational
philosophy called WE. If it had been presented as it is I could have said
ëno thanksí and respected it as the spiritual beliefs of others. I
certainly wouldnít be on an e-mail list spending energy criticizing it. Iím
a critic because it was forced into my life and on my child. Now Iím
supposed to be ëtolerantí? Itís too personal. Itís too late to ask for
understanding. That opportunity was given during the enrollment period and
that time has passed. It has greatly affected my family in negative ways.
I hope, by participating on this list, other families can be informed and
make decisions that are in line with their values.]
)"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right
)as God gives us to see the rightÖ"
)
)Walt
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 00:50:36 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Walt/Kathy cont.
on 1/1/02 6:56 PM, Diana Winters at winters_diana hotmail.com wrote:
)
) This means, the brochures and websites should describe anthroposophy -
) first, before "head heart hands" yada yada. Not just say this guy Steiner, a
) "philosopher and educator," founded Waldorf. Posters put up around town
) announcing open houses (etc.) at the Waldorf school should uses phrases such
) as "anthroposophic education." The first thing those making presentations at
) the open house should talk about is anthroposophy, and the fact that the
) curriculum derives largely from anthroposophy, the teachers study
) anthroposophy intensively, and that Waldorf is an outreach arm of
) anthroposophy.
Sharon: Because Anthroposophy is not known very well in this century in this
country, Anthroposophists need to go further. Until "Anthroposophy" is a
household word like "Mormonism" or "Scientology" Anthropops need to give
more details to prospective customers. Unfortunately, very little has been
written about Anthroposophy from outside Steiner's movement, and many people
are oblivious to esoteric belief systems. I knew very little about hermetic
magic, occultism, etc. before my Waldorf awakening.
BTW do you know what "head heart hands" really means in Anthro speak?
Imagination, Inspiration and Intuition! It's the fruits of Steiner's
meditative spiritual path.
To his adult pupils he said: "When this knowledge [Rosicrucian] flows into
all our members, from head to heart and thence into the hand, into all that
we do and create, then we have grasped the foundation of spiritual science.
Then we have grasped the great task of civilization which is laid in our
hands...Rosicrucian Theosophy does not wish to revel in feelings, it wishes
to bring the facts of the spirit before your eyes. The pupil must take part,
must let himself be stimulated by the facts aroused in him through them. In
this sense Spiritual Science should become a powerful impulse for the sphere
of of feeling, but at the same time be that which leads us direct into the
facts of supersensible perceptions, which lets them first arise as thoughts
and then leads the seeker upward into the higher worlds." (Steiner,
Theosophy of the Rosicrucian. Rudolf Steiner Press London, reprint 1981,
lecture from 1907, p 167-168)
Head = Imagination. Brings awareness of one's subjectivity. Purifies the
feelings and will of the astral body transforming it into a higher more
spiritual self. The human aura becomes purified.
Heart = Inspiration. Reveals what happens between death and rebirth. Frees
thinking from concepts. Objective spirit world appears.
Hands = Intuition. Enables one to see the spiritual hierarchies and karma.
Leads to a conscious union with spirit within and beyond the body. Man
becomes aware of being one with the macrocosm.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 21:59:22 -0800
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: OT/Butt Powder
On Tuesday, January 1, 2002, at 01:55 PM, Green Family wrote:
)
) THANKS, Sarina! I'll check into it tomorrow! You are so thoughtful and
) sweet.
) I actually just bought some Weleda, having not had the time to look into
) anything else. As I used it on my daughter, I kept reminding myself of
) what
) you said about not caring if the manufacturers chanted by full moon,
) etc. I
) laughed out loud! Anyway, I'll look into the Butt Paste tomorrow.
) Thanks!
) Love,
) Jennifer
)
Debra, whose farmer roots are showing: My kids grew up with plain old
cornstarch "butt" powder. I swear by it! When Aimee was a baby (1970),
my mother told me to brown it in a cast iron frying pan. I did that
then, but by the time Max came along, I used it straight out of the box,
off the grocery store shelf. It worked the same, and there is something
about brown butt powder that seemed un appealing. . .
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 05:54:15 -0800
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: Re: Walt's response to Kathy
[Sharon wrote] "Don't you understand that imposing a set of religious
beliefs surreptitiously on the uninformed is an act of intolerance?"
[Sarina]
You know, Sharon, I think this happens because many Waldorf people are
in total denial about this! How can they fess up to something they
don't believe - or won't believe - exists?
When I brought up the religious nature of Anthroposophy to one of my
son's ex-school's board members, she was shocked I would say such a
thing! She actually *believed* it was not a religion, truly.
We were discussing PLANS concerns about WE, and I was trying to
explain why it was important to avoid enrolling "Sharons" (this was
before your time on the list, but it illustrates the point I was
trying to make to her). Basically I was preaching honesty is the best
policy, a la Eugene Schwartz.
The board member exclaimed, incredulous, "But it's _not_ a religion!"
We had a big discussion about it, during which she claimed
Anthroposophy is not a religion; one of the reasons she gave was
because it can be embraced by people of many faiths. She remained firm
in her belief that studying Anthroposophy in no way defined,
interfered with, or took the place of practice of her religion.
*sigh*
Until we can convince people like her to see that Anthroposophy
contains a set of religious beliefs, regardless of whatever other
religion folks adhere to, Waldorf schools will continue to be vague in
their descriptions of Anthroposophy... These people aren't evil
cult-members out to brainwash people, no! I honestly believe that most
of them are not trying to "dupe" anyone - they just don't get it, they
really don't.
Maybe PLANS will finally help them to see the light? (LOL!) If enough
people object to WE on religious grounds, perhaps they will gradually
begin to see that it IS a religious issue.
Sarina McDonald
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 15:10:51 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Walt's response to Kathy
Sarina (re: conversation with a Waldorf teacher):
)Until we can convince people like her to see that Anthroposophy
)contains a set of religious beliefs, regardless of whatever other
)religion folks adhere to, Waldorf schools will continue to be vague in
)their descriptions of Anthroposophy... These people aren't evil
)cult-members out to brainwash people, no! I honestly believe that most
)of them are not trying to "dupe" anyone - they just don't get it, they
)really don't.
Although I agree with you that Waldorf teachers are not generally evil and
don't set out with an agenda to brainwash people, I don't think waiting for
people like her to understand, or arguing with them, will change anything.
Only public exposure will. Simply making sure new parents get an earful of
what Steiner said and wrote will do it. If parents then decide "nothing
religious here, go ahead, mold my child," then fine.
It's weird - we know that people in a cult generally do not recognize they
are in a cult. But it's really weird to hear religious people denying they
are in a religion. Something cult-like about *that*.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 10:33:28 -0800
From: Alice K (alice javanet.com)
Subject: Re: Walt to Alice on the personal effect of anthroposophy, etc.
on 1/1/02 4:41 PM, Walt Stone at waltstone hotmail.com wrote:
:
)
) Alice here:
)
) I am looking forward to Walt's response as well. I would rather bring
) compassion than provocation. I am trying to define W subculture and the
) level of discomfort, judgement and criticism which has been discussed among
) parents for years at our school. Granted, it is a small sub-sample, but
) similar stories have been told - as they have on this and the survivors
) list..
)
) I would like to know if this is an intentional by-product of steiner
) spiritual discipline or if this comes from the exclusivity of being a
) religious/philosophical educational institution without full disclosure to
) all.
)
) Walt: Alice, the discomfort, judgment, and criticism you mention certainly
) are not intentional by-products of RS's spiritual discipline (per anything I
) have read or come across in A), though they may for many be unavoidable
) ones. Waldorf teaching is one of the most demanding activities I am aware
) of, and given its difficulty level, I believe it would stress-out
) practitioners even under the best of conditions.
Alice here:
I think I am referring more to the paren't perspective. It has been common
to experience discomfort while stepping onto school property. It has been
discussed frequently among parents. It is not experienced by just a few. I
am wondering if it comes from parents who are not anthroposophical followers
feeling somehow "left out"... that there are basically two (separate) groups
The stress can easily turn
) negative in a Waldorf community whose shadow (Jungian sense) remains
) unrecognized, or even if recognized remains untransformed. Since it demands
) the willingness of those involved, and is often unpleasant to boot, shadow
) work can be tough going for an individual, and very tough going for a
) community. Those teachers caught in a pattern of negativity may be
) struggling with their own shortcomings as well as the discomfort, judgment,
) and criticism of the community they are a part of.
Alice here:
Shadow work has been a foundation of my personal work for almost ten years.
I have often felt courageous in stating the unstateable in certain
situations. I do get a strong sense of the unspoken at our WS(even before
our tragedy with them..) I know that part of it comes from the "sleeping
children" approach and it becomes almost second nature for teachers to lull
people into not fully seeing something. I believe that this is done with an
intention of something "for your own good" (I think of Alice Miller's
analysis of Germanic pedagogy) In my letter to the board and faculty I talk
about "shadow" and not wanting to hold this in the darkness of shame. They
refused to publicly exonerate our family and my son. They INTENTIONALLY
supported a shadow of shame and untruth.
)
) Even if there is some correlation between the spiritual discipline of RS and
) discomfort, judgment, and criticism in a Waldorf faculty (for instance, a
) correlation between being faced with one's shortcomings and the resulting
) negativity one exhibits), I think that the negative qualities you mention
) couldn't consistently be attributed to RS's spiritual discipline simply
) because only a portion of Waldorf teachers, maybe not even a majority (I
) wonder if a survey has ever been done), do actively practice the spiritual
) discipline outlined by RS.
Alice here:
I wonder if WS would agree to disclose how many of their faculty and board
members actually practice RS spiritual practices. Short of disclosure for
the public, this would be a very valuable thing to know as a parent.
Although our US laws protect our religious beliefs, I would certainly want
to know, for instance, if one of my children's teachers is a practicing
satanist. (excuse me to all the satanists..)It is about relationship and in
a classroom - particularly a W classroom, it DOES become a kind of family.
In W, it seems that the boundaries around teachers sharing deeper parts of
themselves are shmushy..I would worry that beliefs would leak out onto my
child.
)
) Full disclosure is one of the most important and solid suggestions for
) change that I believe we can bring to the WE movement. Though I have not
) experienced there being an attempt to conceal what lies behind WE in the
) schools I have been involved in, I can well imagine that if such concealment
) were perpetrated by a school or faculty, this lack of integrity would lend
) itself to magnifying the negative qualities you mentioned.
Alice here:
HURRAY!I believe this too, and I think that the school I am involved with is
deeply effected by this lack of integrity. It seems they become so
incestuously involved with one another - and exclusive of most of the
parents, that they can no longer see the corruption within..and they
desperately need the system to function, they are dependent on the salary.
)
) Alice: I would like to know from an anthroposophical convert, how did your
) life improve after beginning to follow steiner's recommended spiritual path?
) Did you notice a change in relationships with others outside of the "faith"?
) Did your skills improve in certain areas and achievements never before
) thought possible reached?
)
) I am seriously curious about these queries.. thanks to all who consider
) answering them.
)
) Walt: Alice, I will offer a response to your questions.
Alice here:
Thank you for responding.
I hope others will
) as well. (I do get a sense that you are searching for answers, and not just
) for confirmations of what you already believe, which is refreshing in this
) passionate WC world.) I wonder if you noticed that you asked your questions
) with what could be taken as a certain tone of bias.
Alice here:
I use these terms because they seem to best convey the meaning based on what
the dialogue has been on this list for the year or so that I have been here.
I do not mean to be biased, but I am not coming to these questions with an
open hearted approach. My heart has been broken by W. I am capable of
keeping an open mind, however. And that is where my curiousity exists.(my
hands are just busy typing):)
You used the word
) "convert," and you talked about "outside the 'faith.'" Both are religious
) terms, and I wonder if you have concluded that A is a religion. In my
) experience most people involved in A don't consider it a religion, and to
) characterize it that way clues them in to a perspective that is probably
) revolting to them.
Alice here:
It seems to inform and change the fundamental beliefs of people. I know
families who attend anthroposophical services.. they are children of
anthroposophical followers (interestingly, the second generations seem more
"normalized" and much less zealous IMO of course.)
Their response to a perspective characterizing their
) discipline that way is predictable: they tend to simply dismiss perspectives
) which announce themselves this way, reasoning that if the perspective were
) worth giving attention to, it would not miss the essence of their discipline
) so profoundly as to call A a religion.
Alice here:
This sounds like the judgemental quality I was referring to before. No
wonder there is such discomfort in the parking lot at school. My
understanding of the definition of a religion involves faith and explaining
the unexplainable...does this involve the insistence of RS followers to
believe that this is a "science"? (I believe the German word can be
translated into either "science" or "knowledge")
It would be similar to referring to
) Christians as "cult members" because they revere Jesus so profoundly, or
) calling modern Western medicine practitioners artists rather than scientists
) because much of what they do is intuitive.
Alice here:
In my experience, either of these could be true. As my father always said,
remember physicians are "practicing"...(and I am not sure I believe that
much of what they do is intuitive. I am thinking about my GP - pretty "left
brain"..)
In both cases, as in the case of
) calling A a religion, there may be some truth to the matter. But many of the
) practitioners of these disciplines would probably not be engaged in these
) practices if these characterizations were the essence of the truth about
) their practices.
Alice here:
? does this imply as degree of self deception?
)
) Personally I grant that A does have a religious overtone to it, just as
) Christianity does have a cult overtone (it was originally considered a cult,
) but it's hard to call a belief system with a billion followers a "cult"!)
) and Western medicine does have an artistic overtone (as does all medicine,
) as does all science!). This question of the religious nature of A is the
) first of my questions about A/WE to explore for presenting to AWSNA, and
) when I get a chance I want to begin that discussion in depth. In a nutshell,
) at this point I believe it has a religious overtone because A deals with
) what are at this time, for most human beings, invisible worlds, and because
) inquiry into such worlds has traditionally been the domain of religion.
)
) The reason most anthroposophists (A's) do not consider A a religion is
) because it is not based on belief and faith, but on corroboration of the
) initial findings of RS through further research. (That is what most A's
) would say is its essense, even if this is not the experience non-A's have
) with A or A's.) When religious people came to RS in the early 1920s for
) insights into their work, RS was extremely clear that their work (which
) became the Christian Community) was not to be associated with his work (A),
) because his work was not to be based on accepted belief, but reproducible
) results (even if we as yet have no instruments fine enough to measure the
) paths from cause to effect in most of the phenomena he described). Indeed,
) RS conducted his research in part, he said, because at this point in the
) evolution of the consciousness of humanity faith is no longer adequate for
) human beings in general (there are of course always exceptions to these
) general characterizations). Through our penetration of the secrets of the
) natural world, we know so much that our intellect and our heart start being
) at odds with one another. "How could the Bible" (for instance) "be true,
) given what we know about the world?" asks the intellect. "We just have to
) accept it is true, even if it contradicts what we know about the world"
) answers the heart. The heart may be satisfied, but the head is left hungry.
) Faith can become hypocrisy when what we actually know in our daily lives
) contradicts our faith. RS experienced that there was no contradiction
) between what is true as described by religion and what is true as discovered
) by science. That knowing, through sense-free thinking, could penetrate into
) those realms that up till now have been the sole domain of faith. Because of
) how far our intellect has developed, in order to remain whole human beings
) (rather than human beings torn between our head and our heart) faith must be
) permeated with clear knowing, and the only way to do this, per RS, is to
) penetrate, with full consciousness and scientific precision, the realms that
) up to this point only faith has been able to access.
Alice here:
I can't help but simply ask "why?" spiritual evolution?
)
) Anyway, I don't mind when you refer to A as a religion, because I think I
) understand why you would believe that, but I didn't know if you were clear
) as to why that perspective would not hold much water in many A circles.
)
) How did my life improve after beginning to follow RS's recommended spiritual
) path?
)
) At first my life actually became much more difficult, perhaps like a person
) who takes a homeopathic medicine may begin to display symptoms of the unease
) in their organism that they are trying to address. Eventually my life took
) on a depth it had previously lacked. I felt a deep sense of understanding
) events that met me, both in the world and personal events, and the despair,
) the fear, the bafflement regarding life faded away. I overcame longtime
) maladies such as a nasty temper and criticalness, a debilitating
) nervousness, etc. Many people I know have experienced similar results
) through following the spiritual path indications of RS.
Alice here:
THank you for your disclosure of your personal issues. What had you tried
before finding A? Were you seeking something to help when you discovered the
A spiritual path?
)
) Did I notice a change in relationships with others outside of the "faith"?
)
) Again, at first my relationships were significantly and negatively impacted.
) I was a zealot. I believed that A would save the world.
Alice here:
Do you still believe that A could save the world?
My loved ones,
) friends, and colleagues for the most part kindly put up with such nonsense,
) until I was eventually able to mellow out. Until this happened, I did
) alienate several important former relationships. Now I know I do not need to
) bring up the A perspective at all in my relationships, though I willingly do
) so if I am asked. Just by living the truth about life that I have gained
) through A and many other perspectives, just by being me and being mindful
) and respectful of, and grateful for, all my relationships, I have found that
) my relationships have changed incredibly for the better, as challenging as
) they can be at times.
Alice here:
Do you notice a difference in relationships "outside the faith" now?
I am wondering about how "A people" (I'll avoid the term convert) relate to
one another..is there a kind of recognition without overtly identifying each
other?(I don't mean a secret handshake or something, I mean do you
communicate differntly?)
)
) It's interesting - in writing this I realize that this same pattern may have
) something to do with why most Waldorf schools do not go the full-disclosure
) route about what lies behind WE, but choose the non-concealment route, the
) willingness to share when questioned route. It can come across as
) proselytizing and zealousness, which are for most people a real turnoff, if
) A is trumped up. I'm not saying this is a conscious decision, nor am I
) saying that there aren't other reasons, maybe entirely different reasons,
) for why full-disclosure about what lies behind WE isn't practiced more.
) (Can't wait to get into that discussion!)
)
) Did my skills improve in certain areas and achievements never before thought
) possible reached?
)
) I believe so. The ability to concentrate completely on a subject for hours,
) the level of detail I am able to be impeccable with in a project, the
) standards of integrity which I hold in my work, have all benefited from my
) involvement with A. I have experienced achievements in my life due to these
) improvements in myself that I imagine would not have been likely given who I
) was prior to these improvements.
Alice here:
How much time have you devoted to A community? How interrelated is your
personal growth and the increased identification with and support of an
A community? Do you have a spiritual mentor? (one who is alive..) Do you
ever feel disconnected from those of us who are not on an A spiritual path?
I will tell you that I don't think I could ever actually be intimate friends
with a follower of an A path. It seems that there is a resistance to
authentic closeness. There may be an overt sense of comraderie, but then a
certain disconnect.( and this is before our W controversy. I had been at the
same school for seven years) I have heard first hand stories of extreme
judgement on the part of W teachers...essentially how to counteract the
karmic/genetic and personal impact of the parents on their offspring.
I am actually amazed that you are able and willing to communicate what you
have with a sense of benevolent spirit. And I find myself wondering about
your level of authenticity. As I have found out, I may be valued as a spirit
by an A follower, but I may not be known or accepted for who I am.
)
) Walt
)
) With malice towards noneÖ
Alice here:
Much food for thought, Walt.
Thank you again for your considerate responses.
Happy New Year.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 16:17:53 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Walt's response to Kathy
on 1/2/02 5:54 AM, Sarina McDonald at sarina bainbridge.net wrote:
) [Sharon wrote] "Don't you understand that imposing a set of religious
) beliefs surreptitiously on the uninformed is an act of intolerance?"
)
) [Sarina]
)
) You know, Sharon, I think this happens because many Waldorf people are
) in total denial about this! How can they fess up to something they
) don't believe - or won't believe - exists?
Sharon: It's really weird how that works, it took me years before the
reality sank in. Fascinating. I can't wait to get my paper finished because
it will hopefully put to rest the notion that Waldorf is not teaching
Anthroposophy in the classroom. It's murder for me to write because I'm not
a writer, and the subject is tedious....but slowly and surely I plug away.
Put it this way....my religious studies teacher did not believe me when I
first walked into his office....now he does. The paper is illustrated with
lesson book examples which really helps clarify things.
)
) When I brought up the religious nature of Anthroposophy to one of my
) son's ex-school's board members, she was shocked I would say such a
) thing! She actually *believed* it was not a religion, truly.
Sharon: My paper will hopefully prove that it is.
) We were discussing PLANS concerns about WE, and I was trying to
) explain why it was important to avoid enrolling "Sharons" (this was
) before your time on the list, but it illustrates the point I was
) trying to make to her). Basically I was preaching honesty is the best
) policy, a la Eugene Schwartz.
Sharon: Absolutely. I cannot fathom why Waldorf continues on this path of
denial. It's ludicrous.
)
) The board member exclaimed, incredulous, "But it's _not_ a religion!"
) We had a big discussion about it, during which she claimed
) Anthroposophy is not a religion; one of the reasons she gave was
) because it can be embraced by people of many faiths. She remained firm
) in her belief that studying Anthroposophy in no way defined,
) interfered with, or took the place of practice of her religion.
Sharon: That's the myth that people parrot out of ignorance. Steiner's
religious system is specific - in his attempt to "unify" all religions he
made up his own. Anthroposophy can't be embraced by all because it doesn't
mesh with all religious ideological beliefs or non beliefs. It's religion,
no way to get around it. It fits all the criteria - supernatural beings,
destiny, spiritual path, community, life after death, ritual, etc. Now a
Catholic or Atheist could *choose* to attend a Mormon school and go along
with all the rituals and religious instruction if he so chooses, but not me
thanks!
)
) *sigh*
)
) Until we can convince people like her to see that Anthroposophy
) contains a set of religious beliefs, regardless of whatever other
) religion folks adhere to, Waldorf schools will continue to be vague in
) their descriptions of Anthroposophy... These people aren't evil
) cult-members out to brainwash people, no! I honestly believe that most
) of them are not trying to "dupe" anyone - they just don't get it, they
) really don't.
Sharon: I've never called them evil because most of them are just going
along with the flow and parroting what they have heard. (Unfortunately I did
the same thing.) But don't you think that there's something "evil" about not
being forthright? Some people know what lies behind Waldorf, in fact many
people at our ex-school know a *whole* lot. An insider told me that at a
faculty meeting after I sent my letter to the local paper about Waldorf's
deception, one of the Anthro teacher's said something like "Sharon knows her
Anthroposophy quite well, she's right much of the time". But they think I
have an axe to grind...personally I think it's more about honor. I refuse to
just go away and be quiet, to me that would be wrong. My family's lives were
completely altered by Waldorf's little trickery and fraud. My child's
teacher is a devout Anthroposophist, she knew perfectly well what informs
Waldorf and that she was deceiving us. It's just so strange that Waldorf
sells itself as nonsectarian and art based, it's so clear to me that it is
neither.
)
) Maybe PLANS will finally help them to see the light? (LOL!) If enough
) people object to WE on religious grounds, perhaps they will gradually
) begin to see that it IS a religious issue.
Sharon: PLANS and I keep trying though I wish Anthropops would hurry up and
make changes because I'd like to get on with my life. (There's an umbrella
cult in South Africa that I've become very interested in (G). I want to hear
what it sounds like to have thousands of black umbrellas open and close
while people dance and sing!)
Ages ago I filed a religious discrimination complaint with the United
Nations. Today I found an unopened letter (when I cleaned up my closet) from
September. The letter said that my narrative will become part of
Anti-Discrimination Support Network's report Against Non-Believers in the
United States of America. Unfortunately Anthros are the darlings of the UN,
but at least I put my two cents in! They also offered other help...legal,
secular counseling, support for others who had similar experiences and they
offered to write a letter on my behalf. I may just take them up on their
very charitable offer. Man, if I was running any institution and was
confronted to make simple beneficial changes, I would act immediately to
avoid a scandal.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 17:32:43 -0700
From: "Kathy Harlan" (waldorf_kh hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: On the cultivated paranoia on the WC-list
Diana wrote:
)I find it disingenuous when people deeply involved with the school (in
)particular teachers, but also some parents), who are committed to doing
)everything the anthroposophically "correct" way, and whose lives and
)fortunes are wrapped up in the school, claim *not* to be anthroposophists.
)For practical purposes, it seems to me you're an anthroposophist if large
)chunks of your life are devoted to this anthroposophic project - a Waldorf
)school!
It's interesting that you bring up the anthroposophist denial thing. At a
meeting I attended after we left the school the head of the college of
teachers talked about how he had studied Steiner for many years. He
emphatically stated that he was not an anthroposophist. He then 'admitted'
that he had not even read Steiner's biography. He also looked me in the eye
and said he was not familiar with the fact that some of Steiner's writings
contained racist statements. He'd never even heard of the controversy.
Obviously on the last point he was lying. He signed a letter to our family
which contained an entire set of articles denying all this controversy about
racism that we had raised. I did find the denial of being an
anthroposophist interesting. The only reason I could come to for him saying
that was a conversation I had with another parent the next day. She was
trying to convince me that the teachers didn't really believe all that
stuff. "Look, even the head of the college of teachers isn't an
anthroposophist and hasn't even read Steiner's biography." She equated not
being an anthroposophist with not believing any of Steiner's wacky ideas.
Of course, from my perspective, all this continued beating around the bush
and unwillingness to explain WE to the parent community just raises my
suspicions. Exactly why do they exert so much energy trying to deflect
attention away from anthroposophy and Steiner when WE is based on it.
Unfortunately, I think it gives parents another reason to rationalize
keeping their kids in the school. Once again, enrollment=money=viable
operating budget so anthros can practice their religious beliefs. What a
scam.
Kathy
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 18:06:53 -0700
From: "Kathy Harlan" (waldorf_kh hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: social dysfunction in the anthroposophical movement
Joel wrote:
) Waldorf is an attempt to take the answer in a certain direction, a
)direction quite at odds with much of the present understanding of these
)matters. Waldorf in this sense is very radical, and frankly frequently
)fails to achieve what it sets out to do. This failure is not so much
)with the idea of Waldorf, but rather with its all too human expression.
)
Kathy here:
I would argue that possibly the whole idea behind Waldorf is flawed and that
the frequent failure of the method is caused by just that, a flawed method.
If I look at the method from my perspective I see the following:
- An educational philosophy defined by a spiritual mystic. This mystic had
the ability to look backwards and tell us how everything in the world has
evolved since the beginning of time. He also had the ability to look
forward into the future until the end of time.
- Everything a W school does is based on the writings of this mystic. He
wrote the educational components of his spiritual beliefs all in a time span
of several years before he died. Not much in the way of feedback on how
successful the method was but since he had spiritual sight we should just
trust that this is a good method by which to educate our children.
- Individuals are deemed teachers eligible to take our children through 8
years of formative education once they have completed 2 years of reading
this mysticís writings at an unaccredited college founded and run by others
that have spent many years reading this mysticís writings.
- The ëteachersí are not required to do any other training in what many of
us would consider traditional educational methods. In fact, many Waldorf
teachers have had an interesting array of odd jobs prior to getting hired at
a Waldorf school. If youíre a lucky parent these jobs will have somewhat
prepared them to take your children through 8 years of formative education.
- The developmental model used to assess your childís progress and readiness
throughout their elementary education is based on the development of their
etheric and astral spirits. This is rather complex but Steiner made it
quite easy by mapping this spirit development with chronological ages of the
child.
- Your child will be categorized into one of 4 temperaments as defined by
this mystic based on his spiritual sight. This temperament will determine
many of the ways in which the teacher relates to and treats your child in
the classroom.
- Reincarnation and karma are integral components of the education of your
child. The teacher is an expert in these things and will therefore
correctly use them to form opinions and make decisions about how to teach
your child.
- Parents are not educated in the method which makes the job of the teacher
somewhat more challenging.
Given the method I can certainly see why it becomes difficult to execute. I
wouldnít be so hard on all the dysfunctional teachers it seems to create.
Kathy
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 02:01:55 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: On the cultivated paranoia on the WC-list
Kathy wrote:
)the head of the college of teachers talked about how he had studied
) )Steiner for many years. He emphatically stated that he was not an
) )anthroposophist. He then 'admitted' that he had not even read )Steiner's
)biography. He also looked me in the eye and said he was )not familiar
)with the fact that some of Steiner's writings contained )racist statements.
) He'd never even heard of the controversy.
)Obviously on the last point he was lying.
Yeah, I think so. Some Waldorf teachers might be telling the truth to claim
never to have heard of the controversy, but someone who has studied Steiner
for many years has heard about it.
Furthermore, you can't tell me there's a Waldorf school where *none* of the
faculty has heard about the controversy or read any of the racist Steiner.
There'd be somebody they could refer you to, if they wanted to.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 03:35:53 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Walt to Alice on the personal effect of anthroposophy, etc.
Thanks for this post. It is compassionate and confusing. I would like to
point out a few of your points and comment on what I find to be the
questions and issues.
Walt Stone wrote:
)
) Walt: Alice, the discomfort, judgment, and criticism you mention
) certainly
) are not intentional by-products of RS's spiritual discipline (per
) anything I
) have read or come across in A), though they may for many be unavoidable
) ones.
Here you refer to unavoidable discomfort. The body responding to the
mind's confusion and struggle to accept this body of beliefs, that the
*mind* is *told* is *not* a religion.
) Waldorf teaching is one of the most demanding activities I am aware
) of, and given its difficulty level, I believe it would stress-out
) practitioners even under the best of conditions. The stress can easily
) turn
) negative in a Waldorf community whose shadow (Jungian sense) remains
) unrecognized, or even if recognized remains untransformed.
Why the difficulty? Why does a cosmology--a belief system, demand such
strenuous mental energy in order to put the mind and the soul at ease?
Why the intellectual acrobatics? What wisdom is there in making this so
difficult to understand?
Since it demands
) the willingness of those involved, and is often unpleasant to boot,
) shadow
) work can be tough going for an individual, and very tough going for a
) community.
So Anthroposophy is Shadow work? It is unpleasant? What would this offer
a community?
I have heard about the "autobiography" process that occurs in becoming
Anthro. Seems like psychotherapy to me. There is much self-revelation to
the group. Rather like group therapy.
Those teachers caught in a pattern of negativity may be
) struggling with their own shortcomings as well as the discomfort,
) judgment,
) and criticism of the community they are a part of.
I am truly in wonder that such a system of belief is of value to a
community, when it causes distress, irritability, discomfort, and
negativity.
In the next paragraph, I will have to break the sentence down, in order
to get the meaning, which I think is somewhat cloudy:
)
) Even if there is some correlation between the spiritual discipline of RS
) and
) discomfort, judgment, and criticism in a Waldorf faculty (for instance,
) a
) correlation between being faced with one's shortcomings and the
) resulting
) negativity one exhibits),
OK, so you have to sit and focus on your shortcomings, and feel all that
discomfort...Is there any respite, relief or sense of self-validation?
I think that the negative qualities you mention
) couldn't consistently be attributed to RS's spiritual discipline
But RS did devise or "discover" this spiritual discipline, did he not?
simply
) because only a portion of Waldorf teachers, maybe not even a majority (I
)
) wonder if a survey has ever been done), do actively practice the
) spiritual
) discipline outlined by RS.
Yes, in fact, it was devised, and is practiced as it was reccommended.
) Full disclosure is one of the most important and solid suggestions for
) change that I believe we can bring to the WE movement. Though I have not
)
) experienced there being an attempt to conceal what lies behind WE in the
)
) schools I have been involved in, I can well imagine that if such
) concealment
) were perpetrated by a school or faculty, this lack of integrity would
) lend
) itself to magnifying the negative qualities you mentioned.
Certainly the process of hiding the knowledge of what they are doing
would be a source of discomfort for WE teachers. That is a point well
taken.
)
) Alice: I would like to know from an anthroposophical convert, how did
) your
) life improve after beginning to follow steiner's recommended spiritual
) path?
) Did you notice a change in relationships with others outside of the
) "faith"?
) Did your skills improve in certain areas and achievements never before
) thought possible reached?
)
) I am seriously curious about these queries.. thanks to all who consider
) answering them.
) Walt: Alice, I will offer a response to your questions. I hope others
) will
) as well. (I do get a sense that you are searching for answers, and not
) just
) for confirmations of what you already believe, which is refreshing in
) this
) passionate WC world.) I wonder if you noticed that you asked your
) questions
) with what could be taken as a certain tone of bias.
Perhaps Alice, as many of us, realized at some point that a change of
her own views was absolutely necessary in order to accept certain
principles or messages she was getting in her W community.
You used the word
) "convert," and you talked about "outside the 'faith.'" Both are
) religious
) terms, and I wonder if you have concluded that A is a religion. In my
) experience most people involved in A don't consider it a religion, and
) to
) characterize it that way clues them in to a perspective that is probably
)
) revolting to them.
Is that because the concept of religion is a revolting one? What is
difficult about the terminology, do you suppose. It would be interesting
to explore what it is that this term evokes in people who are deeply
involved in new age belief systems.
Margaret Singer, in her book, "Cults in Our Midst" describes this
phenomenon of recruiting members to a particular group. She describes
how potential members are led to believe that a group mirrors their
particular interests, and "appearing non-threatening, learns something
about the potential recruit in order to put into play the idea that the
recruiter and the recruit are alike, that they share commonalites and
are in sync." She then goes on to say that the recruiter gets the
potential recruit to feel that he or she is resonating with this nice
person who is showing such personal care and interest." And then
finally, "...the recruiter mirrors the interests and attitudes of the
potential recruit, whther these interests aare spirituality, nursing,
political change, music, or any other area. The recruiter then
demonstrates that he has something to offer the potential recruit by
extending averbal invitation to an event, a class, or a dinner."
If one understands Singer's analysis of the recruiting process, one can
understand how this denial of Anthroposophy and WE to actually *admit*
it's intentions will play out. If you deny your actual intentions and
single-mindedness, you can catch more fish in one net. You will not
eliminate, but you will include more possible recruits. It is an
inclusion process.
)Their response to a perspective characterizing their
) discipline that way is predictable: they tend to simply dismiss
) perspectives
) which announce themselves this way,
People who have been drawn into a belief system so deeply that they
cannot stand back and look at it through another's eyes, *will* dismiss
the idea of religion. The process by which they were recruited was one
in which they were told that A is NOT a religion, and then everything
else that they learned connected to that premise. Nevermind that A *is*
a religion. They were told from the get-go that it *is not* a religion.
) reasoning that if the perspective were
) worth giving attention to, it would not miss the essence of their
) discipline
) so profoundly as to call A a religion.
This is called "thought reform" , which means that one's way of thinking
has been changed so that the concept of religion has been eliminated
from the language.
) It would be similar to referring to
) Christians as "cult members" because they revere Jesus so profoundly, or
)
) calling modern Western medicine practitioners artists rather than
) scientists
) because much of what they do is intuitive.
Good try; the analogy is almost possible but the concept of Christianity
in parallel to Anthroposophy is not possible, because Christanity is a
multitude of religions, whereas A is only one that I know of.
Christianity *does* have cults within it, however! Though not all
denominations would be termed cultic in nature.
As for medical practitioners of Western medicine, they are well-trained
in a factual scientific base of knowledge, and practice a heck of a lot
before making so-called "intuitive" evaluations of patients. There is
intuition based on experience, and quickened thought processes, which
may differ from your own concept of intuition being some magical
"spiritual process."
In both cases, as in the case of
) calling A a religion, there may be some truth to the matter. But many of
) the
) practitioners of these disciplines would probably not be engaged in
) these
) practices if these characterizations were the essence of the truth about
)
) their practices.
No, because most practitioners have to some degree been convinced that
what they believe is not a religion just because someone told them it
wasn't. Not because it isn't. I would like to see what the criteria are
for a "non-religion" such as Anthroposophy.
)
) Personally I grant that A does have a religious overtone to it, just as
) Christianity does have a cult overtone (it was originally considered a
) cult,
) but it's hard to call a belief system with a billion followers a
) "cult"!)
) and Western medicine does have an artistic overtone (as does all
) medicine,
) as does all science!). This question of the religious nature of A is the
)
) first of my questions about A/WE to explore for presenting to AWSNA, and
)
) when I get a chance I want to begin that discussion in depth.
Really, it would be interesting to explore the process by which *you*
were educated into the belief that A was *not* a religion. I venture to
say that you do not know the criteria.
I will not pursue the discussion on Christianity and Western Medicine
again, since I have already discussed that above. Suffice to say that A
is not equal to Christianity or Western Medicine.
In a nutshell,
) at this point I believe it has a religious overtone because A deals with
)
) what are at this time, for most human beings, invisible worlds, and
) because
) inquiry into such worlds has traditionally been the domain of religion.
Any belief system that inquires into these domains *is* by its very
nature religious.
)
) The reason most anthroposophists (A's) do not consider A a religion is
) because it is not based on belief and faith, but on corroboration of the
)
) initial findings of RS through further research. (That is what most A's
) would say is its essense, even if this is not the experience non-A's
) have
) with A or A's.)
It is a belief system based on Rudolf Steiner's findings, and his
rendition of Rosicrucian beliefs. There is very little that RS really
brought into this belief system. It is all derived from occult knowledge
derived from other religions. It's all in the books Sharon has been
quoting to you ad infinitum.
I would like to know *what* RS "corroborated?" What followers of
Steiner *get* is whatever he told them to get. It's all written down in
hundreds--maybe thousands of books.
When religious people came to RS in the early 1920s for
) insights into their work, RS was extremely clear that their work (which
) became the Christian Community) was not to be associated with his work
) (A),
) because his work was not to be based on accepted belief, but
) reproducible
) results (even if we as yet have no instruments fine enough to measure
) the
) paths from cause to effect in most of the phenomena he described).
This is a confusing statement. My own knowledge of the Christian
Community is that it is where the Anthroposophical religion is
practiced. It is where the rituals are performed. I believe it is
another way in which Anthroposophy "gave" those "religious people" what
they wanted to here, as Singer described.
If we can't measure a path, what are you talking about?
Indeed,
) RS conducted his research in part, he said, because at this point in the
)
) evolution of the consciousness of humanity faith is no longer adequate
) for
) human beings in general (there are of course always exceptions to these
) general characterizations).
Faith is no longer adequate? So what is the way of verifying this
"science". This makes no sense. It is not a religion, but it is not a
verifiable science. It is a spiritual science, with no verification?
Through our penetration of the secrets of the
) natural world, we know so much that our intellect and our heart start
) being
) at odds with one another.
Is this a commentary on us heathens in the "outside" or are you
referring to Anthros? Our heads and hearts are quite mislead, I surmise.
) "How could the Bible" (for instance) "be true,
) given what we know about the world?" asks the intellect. "We just have
) to
) accept it is true, even if it contradicts what we know about the world"
) answers the heart. The heart may be satisfied, but the head is left
) hungry.
) Faith can become hypocrisy when what we actually know in our daily lives
)
) contradicts our faith.
This sounds like agnosticism, or atheism.
RS experienced that there was no contradiction
) between what is true as described by religion and what is true as
) discovered
) by science.
Now you are contradicting yourself.
)That knowing, through sense-free thinking, could penetrate into
) those realms that up till now have been the sole domain of faith.
So Steiner explored realms of religion using his spiritual science to
verify the immeasureable, with means that do not exist?
Because of
) how far our intellect has developed, in order to remain whole human
) beings
) (rather than human beings torn between our head and our heart) faith
) must be
) permeated with clear knowing, and the only way to do this, per RS, is to
)
) penetrate, with full consciousness and scientific precision, the realms
) that
) up to this point only faith has been able to access.
So according to Steiner, we are not full and whole humban beings,
because we are torn between our head and our hearts. I guess this makes
us quite wretched, and in need of something to somehow connect the head
and heart. So as not to have any boundaries between the two.
)
) Anyway, I don't mind when you refer to A as a religion, because I think
) I
) understand why you would believe that, but I didn't know if you were
) clear
) as to why that perspective would not hold much water in many A circles.
Thanks for the explanation. I am afraid it is clear as mud, but somehow
that is a bit clearer than it was before. I believe RS was trying to
redefine the terminology because it suited him to change the rules of
the game. He has done a good job of confusing people.
)
) How did my life improve after beginning to follow RS's recommended
) spiritual
) path?
)
) At first my life actually became much more difficult, perhaps like a
) person
) who takes a homeopathic medicine may begin to display symptoms of the
) unease
) in their organism that they are trying to address. Eventually my life
) took
) on a depth it had previously lacked. I felt a deep sense of
) understanding
) events that met me, both in the world and personal events, and the
) despair,
) the fear, the bafflement regarding life faded away.
That is what RS wants you to believe. I wonder really, what you have
gotten from this belief. I would imagine that the concept of Karma has
explained away many of your questions about why things happen the way
they do.
) I overcame longtime
) maladies such as a nasty temper and criticalness, a debilitating
) nervousness, etc. Many people I know have experienced similar results
) through following the spiritual path indications of RS.
What particular beliefs have put your mind to rest?
)
) Did I notice a change in relationships with others outside of the
) "faith"?
)
) Again, at first my relationships were significantly and negatively
) impacted.
) I was a zealot. I believed that A would save the world. My loved ones,
) friends, and colleagues for the most part kindly put up with such
) nonsense,
) until I was eventually able to mellow out. Until this happened, I did
) alienate several important former relationships. Now I know I do not
) need to
) bring up the A perspective at all in my relationships, though I
) willingly do
) so if I am asked.
Have you been able to marry? I understand many Anthros are celibate.
Just by living the truth about life that I have gained
) through A and many other perspectives, just by being me and being
) mindful
) and respectful of, and grateful for, all my relationships, I have found
) that
) my relationships have changed incredibly for the better, as challenging
) as
) they can be at times.
In what way have they changed, specifically?
)
) It's interesting - in writing this I realize that this same pattern may
) have
) something to do with why most Waldorf schools do not go the
) full-disclosure
) route about what lies behind WE, but choose the non-concealment route,
) the
) willingness to share when questioned route. It can come across as
) proselytizing and zealousness, which are for most people a real turnoff,
) if
) A is trumped up.
Is it perhaps embarrassing to discuss the beliefs of A, and is that
perhaps why it is downplayed or hidden?
I'm not saying this is a conscious decision, nor am I
) saying that there aren't other reasons, maybe entirely different
) reasons,
) for why full-disclosure about what lies behind WE isn't practiced more.
) (Can't wait to get into that discussion!)
I look forward to it!
)
) Did my skills improve in certain areas and achievements never before
) thought
) possible reached?
)
) I believe so. The ability to concentrate completely on a subject for
) hours,
) the level of detail I am able to be impeccable with in a project, the
) standards of integrity which I hold in my work, have all benefited from
) my
) involvement with A. I have experienced achievements in my life due to
) these
) improvements in myself that I imagine would not have been likely given
) who I
) was prior to these improvements.
)
) Walt
It would be interesting to hear more specifically what aspects of A
improved important aspects of your life.
-Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 23:27:43 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: On the cultivated paranoia on the WC-list
)
) Kathy wrote:
)
))the head of the college of teachers talked about how he had studied
)) )Steiner for many years. He emphatically stated that he was not an
)) )anthroposophist. He then 'admitted' that he had not even read )Steiner's
))biography. He also looked me in the eye and said he was )not familiar
))with the fact that some of Steiner's writings contained )racist statements.
)) He'd never even heard of the controversy.
)
))Obviously on the last point he was lying.
)
) Yeah, I think so. Some Waldorf teachers might be telling the truth to claim
) never to have heard of the controversy, but someone who has studied Steiner
) for many years has heard about it.
)
) Furthermore, you can't tell me there's a Waldorf school where *none* of the
) faculty has heard about the controversy or read any of the racist Steiner.
) There'd be somebody they could refer you to, if they wanted to.
)
) Diana
)
Lisa here: Though I never asked about this particular issue during my
children's time at our former Waldorf school, a friend of mine did. (This
guy's daughter was in my youngest daughter's kindergarten class. Though this
child's mother adored the school and was convinced her child should continue
on to first grade there, the dad disagreed. He was convinced that the school
was religious, rabidly anti-intellectual and was based on the writings of a
wacko.)
Armed with the list of questions sent to me by Michael Kopp, this guy
requested an interview with one of the school's longstanding faculty
members. When he brought up the fact that some people felt the some of
Steiner's writings promoted racist ideology, she acknowledged that some
people felt that way. She then added that, instead of talking about various
people's "race," *she* preferred to think in terms of "folk souls." When my
friend asked what she meant by "folk souls," she apparently said that the
term describes the way a certain group speaks, interacts, dresses, eats and
so on. My friend asked why she did not simply use the word "culture." She
told him that "it goes deeper than that."
(Postscript: the parents enrolled the girl at a very well regarded
private college preparatory school instead of at our former WS for first
grade.)
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 577
-- Topica Digest --
Re: social dysfunction in the anthroposophical movement
By hermit tiac.net
RE: On the cultivated paranoia on the WC-list
By dirtwitch sympatico.ca
Re: social dysfunction in the anthroposophical movement
By winters_diana hotmail.com
RE: On the cultivated paranoia on the WC-list
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: social dysfunction in the anthroposophical movement
By waldorf_kh hotmail.com
Re: social dysfunction in the anthroposophical movement
By awaldenpond home.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 20:01:21 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: social dysfunction in the anthroposophical movement
Kathy H wrote:
)
) I would argue that possibly the whole idea behind Waldorf is flawed and that
) the frequent failure of the method is caused by just that, a flawed method.
Dear Kathy,
This assumes you actually know what the method is, or have actually
seen it in action.
This is the second time you have taken a post of mine, quoted some of
it and made a speech. Are you interested in a dialogue or is it just
important to you to state your view of things?
warm regards,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 00:18:12 +0000
From: (dirtwitch sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: On the cultivated paranoia on the WC-list
Lisa Ercolano wrote:
*she* preferred to think in terms of "folk souls." When my
) friend asked what she meant by "folk souls," she apparently said that
) the
) term describes the way a certain group speaks, interacts, dresses, eats
) and
) so on. My friend asked why she did not simply use the word "culture."
) She
) told him that "it goes deeper than that."
You know this might very well be true. There *are* things that follow
people wether they grow up in a "racially based" culture of origin or
are transplanted into one that is a melting pot, mosaic, or is simply
completely different. Sickle cell anemia for instance, lactose
intolerance, several other diseases (some of which are easily controlled
by a traditional cultural diet)..other little things that affect life in
a culture - for instance eastern european women on average carry their
babies a week longer before birthing than asian women do. I think its
ridiculous to pretend that their aren't some things that are different
between groups of people that go beyond colour of skin. It would be
silly to test ALL people for sickle cell anemia when only those of
African, Mediterranean, Indian, and Middle Eastern heritage have the
disease...regardless of what culture they live in.
I have met anthroposophists who look at the issue of folk souls this way
and I understand that. I simply can't buy germanic culture as the
pinnacle of evolution, or that ANY culture stands ahead of another
spiritually or intellectually.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 01:39:45 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: social dysfunction in the anthroposophical movement
Kathy wrote:
)I would argue that possibly the whole idea behind Waldorf is flawed )and
)that the frequent failure of the method is caused by just that, a )flawed
)method.
Joel:
) This assumes you actually know what the method is, or have
)actually seen
)it in action.
Gosh Joel, who *has* seen the method in action, if not Waldorf parents?
(Considering the kids aren't usually here to explain it themselves.) How
often have *you* seen the method in action?
) This is the second time you have taken a post of mine, quoted
)some of it
)and made a speech. Are you interested in a dialogue or is )it just
)important to you to state your view of things?
I suppose this is one of those cases where you will feel someone jumped in
from the sidelines to make snide remarks, but hey. Joel, we are always
getting guilt-tripped by you that we apparently fail at the all-important
"dialogue." We aren't all here to satisfy your need for "dialogue."
I for one am happy to hear Kathy make speeches and I do think it's important
for Kathy to state her view of things. (Thanks Kathy.)
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 01:50:27 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: On the cultivated paranoia on the WC-list
Lisa quotes a Waldorf teacher:
)*she* preferred to think in terms of "folk souls." When my
)friend asked what she meant by "folk souls," she apparently said that
)the term describes the way a certain group speaks, interacts, dresses,
) )eats and so on. My friend asked why she did not simply use the word
) )"culture." She told him that "it goes deeper than that."
Kerr:
)You know this might very well be true.
I'm sure it's true this teacher believes this, but it's racist garbage.
Kerr says:
)There *are* things that follow people wether they grow up in a )"racially
)based" culture of origin or are transplanted into one that )is a melting
)pot, mosaic, or is simply completely different.
and proceeds to give *medical* examples - sickle cell anemia, lactose
intolerance
Kerr, those are not cultural or spiritual differences, but physical. Nobody
argues there are not physical differences between the races. The question is
whether there are *spiritual* differences, an issue that has been covered
here exhaustively many times. It's an absurd and racist claim. It's not the
claim you're making here, of course, but it's too bad you don't see the
difference, and are willing to defend anthroposophy in this confused way.
)I have met anthroposophists who look at the issue of folk souls this )way
I guess they can look at it however they like, but when Steiner spoke of
folk souls, he didn't mean genetic differences. I guess it makes them feel
better about Steiner to misunderstand him.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 23:28:09 -0700
From: "Kathy Harlan" (waldorf_kh hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: social dysfunction in the anthroposophical movement
)Kathy H wrote:
) )
) ) I would argue that possibly the whole idea behind Waldorf is flawed and
)that
) ) the frequent failure of the method is caused by just that, a flawed
)method.
)
Joel responded:
)Dear Kathy,
)
) This assumes you actually know what the method is, or have actually
)seen it in action.
)
) This is the second time you have taken a post of mine, quoted some of
)it and made a speech. Are you interested in a dialogue or is it just
)important to you to state your view of things?
)
)warm regards,
)joel
Thanks for the opportunity to begin a dialogue on this issue. I really do
question the ëmethodí of Waldorf education. I think it is seriously flawed.
When I step back from the many things that people complain about, both on
this list (myself included) and friends still at the school, the
conversation always leads to the same point. Parents talking about the
disconnect that exists between what they thought Waldorf was and how it is
being experienced by their kids and their family. In my experience, this is
true regardless of how much someone thinks they understand the ëmethodí.
When I started thinking about what the ëmethodí was I first started thinking
about some of the basic components of WE. Thus my post was born. I do have
a sense of humor. When I thought about some of the components of the
ëmethodí I did have to laugh out loud. I was actually sending my child to a
school that was based on such notions. Of course, the darker sides of
anthroposophy are much too depressing to dwell on and no one seems to want
to discuss those things anyway.
I apologize if you think Iím using your posts as a launching pad. I just
found it interesting that both you and Walt contributed posts recently
stating that you thought a problem with WE was not the method but that the
teachers couldnít execute it. Iím merely countering with the theory that if
the teachers have a problem executing the ëmethodí then maybe the ëmethodí
itself is flawed. This theory also derives from the pattern Iíve seen at my
school. The teacher turnover rate and occurrence of teachers that canít
seem to execute the ëmethodí seems extremely high. All of this seems to
correlate to the attrition rate of students in any given class from year to
year. Some teachers keep all of their students from one year to the next,
others seem to hemorrhage class members.
I am a parent of a former W student. Iíve read as much of Steiner as I can
find time for. Both to speak about my opinions of the W movement in an
informed way and to understand some of the more wacky moments my family and
I experienced while enrolled in a W school. Not sure what you are getting
at about ëknowing what the method isí from a parent perspective. Iím sure
you donít infer that ex-W parents are somehow disqualified from looking at
WE critically because weíre not anthroposophists or trained in WE.
Of course, as an ex-Waldorf parent, I find this list extremely liberating.
It gives me a chance to voice opinions that were denied, and were frowned at
for voicing, at my former school.
Kathy
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 23:00:14 -0800
From: "walden" (awaldenpond home.com)
Subject: Re: social dysfunction in the anthroposophical movement
Kathy:
I'm merely countering with the theory that if
) the teachers have a problem executing the 'method' then maybe the 'method'
) itself is flawed. This theory also derives from the pattern I've seen at
my
) school. The teacher turnover rate and occurrence of teachers that can't
) seem to execute the 'method' seems extremely high. All of this seems to
) correlate to the attrition rate of students in any given class from year
to
) year. Some teachers keep all of their students from one year to the next,
) others seem to hemorrhage class members.
Walden: I don't know if the method is flawed *for those who truly WANT the
method.* The problem, of course, is that very few parents (and perhaps
teachers) actually understand the foundation of the pedagogy until they
spend some time in a school - where they are expected to accept and *live
into* the many questions that would naturally form in their minds.
Kathy:
) Of course, as an ex-Waldorf parent, I find this list extremely liberating.
) It gives me a chance to voice opinions that were denied, and were frowned
at
) for voicing, at my former school.
Walden:
Ditto on the liberating. A friend I had in our old school who was very
socially conscious and had been part of many social scenes - housing
co-ops, real commune - ity life -- used to say to me, "There is something
disturbing about this place (Waldorf school community) that I just cannot
put my finger on. I have never been part of a *community* that feels so
little like a *community*...."
This list has helped me see that the foundation of that *community* was
hidden from those of us who tried to make it work. Maybe we did not really
*seek* it (we could philosophize over that forever!) but the reality is that
Waldorf is simply not forthright with parents. I have been guilty of having
been duped by false advertising when purchasing consumer goods or ice cream.
This Waldorf deception, however, involved my children and many others I see
daily. We were tricked and then hurt. It involved our children. Being
duped over ice cream - I can live with. Deceptive cult-like movements
preying on the good will of decent people stinks. Yes - I find Kathy's
posts and this list very liberating.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 578
-- Topica Digest --
Re: social dysfunction in the anthroposophical movement
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Walt to Alice on the personal effect of anthroposophy, etc.
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 16:43:01 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: social dysfunction in the anthroposophical movement
Diana,
I have placed some remarks below in [brackets].
warm regards,
joel
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Kathy wrote:
)
) )I would argue that possibly the whole idea behind Waldorf is flawed )and
) )that the frequent failure of the method is caused by just that, a )flawed
) )method.
)
) Joel:
) ) This assumes you actually know what the method is, or have
)actually seen
) )it in action.
)
) Gosh Joel, who *has* seen the method in action, if not Waldorf parents?
) (Considering the kids aren't usually here to explain it themselves.) How
) often have *you* seen the method in action?
[Again, do you want to discuss, or just comment. The reason I ask this
question is not about guilt tripping anyone, but to make sure I don't
misinterpret comments based on my posts. If you just want to comment
fine, if you want dialogue fine. I am just seeking clarity as to what
your message means. For example, you asked a question just above, but
do you really want an answer, or is it a rhetorical question?]
)
) ) This is the second time you have taken a post of mine,
quoted )some of it
) )and made a speech. Are you interested in a dialogue or is )it just
) )important to you to state your view of things?
)
) I suppose this is one of those cases where you will feel someone jumped in
) from the sidelines to make snide remarks, but hey. Joel, we are always
) getting guilt-tripped by you that we apparently fail at the all-important
) "dialogue." We aren't all here to satisfy your need for "dialogue."
)
) I for one am happy to hear Kathy make speeches and I do think it's important
) for Kathy to state her view of things. (Thanks Kathy.)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 12:42:42 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Walt to Alice on the personal effect of anthroposophy, etc.
Walt Stone, you wrote,
)Personally I grant that A does have a religious overtone to it, just
)as Christianity does have a cult overtone (it was originally
)considered a cult, but it's hard to call a belief system with a
)billion followers a "cult"!) and Western medicine does have an
)artistic overtone (as does all medicine, as does all science!). This
)question of the religious nature of A is the first of my questions
)about A/WE to explore for presenting to AWSNA, and when I get a
)chance I want to begin that discussion in depth. In a nutshell, at
)this point I believe it has a religious overtone because A deals
)with what are at this time, for most human beings, invisible worlds,
)and because inquiry into such worlds has traditionally been the
)domain of religion.
Good for you, Walt, you're opening the door a crack.
)The reason most anthroposophists (A's) do not consider A a religion
)is because it is not based on belief and faith, but on corroboration
)of the initial findings of RS through further research. (That is
)what most A's would say is its essense, even if this is not the
)experience non-A's have with A or A's.)
This, Walt, is what we irreverent outsiders call a "guru trick." Has
your personal "research" verified that Ahriman split from the other
six elohim to go to the moon? That there were two Jesus children? Not
very likely. Anthroposophy is really a huge body of doctrine that
-is- based on belief and faith, despite the elaborate pretense that
it is otherwise. Faith in Steiner's "observations." Calling
meditation "research" is an unacceptable re-definition of the term
for people outside Anthroposophy.
) When religious people came to RS in the early 1920s for insights
)into their work, RS was extremely clear that their work (which
)became the Christian Community) was not to be associated with his
)work (A), because his work was not to be based on accepted belief,
)but reproducible results (even if we as yet have no instruments fine
)enough to measure the paths from cause to effect in most of the
)phenomena he described).
When I read the jealous way that Steiner talked about Christian
Community, I see him being careful that they didn't start a rival
cult. He said CC was a kind of bridge for people who wanted to be
enlightened by Anthroposophy but weren't ready for it in pure form.
He forbade them from recruiting among Anthroposophists! Nowadays the
relationship has evolved into the CC being the ritual-services organ
of Anthroposophy.
) Indeed, RS conducted his research in part, he said, because at this
)point in the evolution of the consciousness of humanity faith is no
)longer adequate for human beings in general (there are of course
)always exceptions to these general characterizations).