return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Veneration and early steiner
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Re: ? for Peter S - Z
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: ? for Peter S - Z correction
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: ? for Peter S - Z correction
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: ? for Peter S - Z correction
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 13:20:14 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: Veneration and early steiner
Charlie Frey said:
He was mistakenly labelled a follower of this man's
)philosophy, when all he was doing was trying to have sympathy for
)another's
)philosophy and walk a mile in his shoes. The ability to do this was one
)of
)the things that made Steiner a great man.
Dan Dugan said:
Steiner's early book about Nietzsche (1895). It's a strange book, for
large parts of it Steiner seems to paraphrase Nietzsche, but doesn't
make it clear for whom he is speaking. Sometimes he celebrates him,
sometimes analyzes. I don't doubt he was "mistakenly labeled a
follower." Perhaps this statement is a way of covering up Steiner
having changed his mind.
Is this Nietzsche, or Steiner?
"The strong personality which creates goals is disdainful of the
execution of them. The weak personality, on the other hand, carries
our only what the Divine Will, the 'voice of conscience' or the
'categorical imperative' says *Yes* to. That which is in accordance
with this *Yes*, the weak person describes as *good*, that which is
contrary to this *Yes*, it describes as *evil*. The strong
personality cannot acknowledge this 'good and evil,' for he does not
acknowledge that power from which the weak person allows his 'good
and evil' to be determined. What the strong person wills is for him
good; he carries it through in spite of all opposing powers. ... The
free spirit takes his stand *opposite to what tradition considers to
be good and evil*. He creates his own good and evil for himself."
[pp. 99-101]
-Dan Dugan
I thought there was a discussion a while ago where it was pointed out
that early in his "career", Steiner actually toyed with the idea of
atheism. It was part of his development into a "spiritual scientist".
I believe that explains why he wrote about Nietzche. I believe this was
in his early 20's, when he dabbled in N's ideas.
-Su
It's not over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:44:09 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: ? for Peter S - Z
on 1/30/02 9:13 AM, Peter Staudenmaier at pstaud hotmail.com wrote:
)
) I only know Eadie's name as a fixture on the New Age scene, but I don't
) know much else about her. One interesting twist is that I think she's
) Lakota, which complicates my standard critique of New Age thought as, among
) other things, a white people's misappropriation of Native American
) traditions.
Sharon: Thanks for your response. Do you know much about Mormonism? Joseph
Smith preached that Jesus rose from the dead and came to America to
establish the Mormon Church thousands of years before Columbus arrived.
Mormons believe that they are descendants of Native Americans, and Native
Americans and Mayans are featured in their doctrine. (Though the church
forbade dark skinned members of the human race to be members). I urge you to
read "The Power and the Promise, Mormon America" by Richard and Joan
Ostling. In fact I urge all Anthroposophy critics to read this book, you
will not be sorry, I promise! (G) In fact, while reading this book I kept
thinking of you Peter, and saying to myself, "Peter needs to write a book
like this about Anthroposophy". So many parallels.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 14:25:43 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: ? for Peter S - Z correction
on 1/31/02 10:44 AM, mysplum at mysplum earthlink.net wrote:
Joseph
) Smith preached that Jesus rose from the dead and came to America to
) establish the Mormon Church thousands of years before Columbus arrived.
Sharon: Whoops, should say *hundreds* of years.
Also another book just out which I've not read yet - "Reenchanted Science"
by Harvard Hist. of Science prof. Ann Harrington.
About "Holism" as Nazism.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 20:10:18 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: ? for Peter S - Z correction
Hi Sharon,
I tried to read the Book of Mormon once but didn't get too far. You're
right, for creatively whacky cosmology, they're right up there with the
anthroposophists. Harrington's book is full of interesting stuff. I disagree
with some of her interpretations, but she's a good scholar and the topic
deserves more attention. Take care,
Peter
) Joseph
) ) Smith preached that Jesus rose from the dead and came to America to
) ) establish the Mormon Church thousands of years before Columbus arrived.
)
)Sharon: Whoops, should say *hundreds* of years.
)
)Also another book just out which I've not read yet - "Reenchanted Science"
)by Harvard Hist. of Science prof. Ann Harrington.
)
)About "Holism" as Nazism.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 18:45:50 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: ? for Peter S - Z correction
Sharon, you wrote,
)Also another book just out which I've not read yet - "Reenchanted Science"
)by Harvard Hist. of Science prof. Ann Harrington.
)
)About "Holism" as Nazism.
A very interesting book. No mention of Steiner or Anthroposophy, but
a very good look into the context of pseudoscience in Germany. She
tells how holists rode the crest of the Nazi take-over into power,
suppressing one of the world's greatest scientific communities. Their
productivity was nil, and the realities of war gradually brought
about a reversal to normal science again.
The language the holists used to denounce "materialistic science"
will sound very familiar to anyone who's read Anthroposophical
writing on science.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 614
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Steiner a philosopher? (was: On the cultivated paranoia on
the WC-list)
By koala noos.fr
Re: Steiner a philosopher?
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Steiner a philosopher? (was: On the cultivated paranoia onthe
WC-list)
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Steiner a philosopher? (was: On the cultivated paranoia on
the WC-list); sm
By koala noos.fr
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 17:31:44 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: Steiner a philosopher? (was: On the cultivated paranoia on
the WC-list)
le 29/01/02 21:01, Dan Dugan ý dan dandugan.com a ÈcritÝ:
) Koala, talking about the anti-cult commission in France, you wrote,
)
)) Jeanine Tavernier herself says it is not a cult but a philosophical school
)) (I laugh, any philosophy teacher should teach her what philophical ideas are
)) really, calling either Steiner or Blavatsky philosophers is ludicrous, and
)) certainly for people who have never read a book by Platon, Nietzsche,
)) Spinoza, Montaigne, Sartres, Wittgenstein, Russel and many others). Nothing
)) is proven in theosophy or anthroposophy, just admitted without any
)) controversy.
)
) I'm not sure that the philosophers you mention "prove" anything
) either, though I agree that their arguments are more cogent than
) Steiner's rambling. And certainly we don't have a school system based
) on the belief that, say, Montaigne's writings reveal truths that
) can't be disputed!
)
) Could you elaborate more on your opinion why Steiner should not be
) considered a philosopher?
)
) -Dan
The philosophy is the exact contrary of paralogism.
Anthroposophy and theosophy are paralogical ("paralogic" or "paralogisms"
is the words exist).
)
What I meant is that, whatever you may think about the philosophers I
mentionned earlier on (that is to say agree or disagree with what they say,
which is not the point of the discussion), their writings is based on a
corpus of other philosophers' writings, on logical assertions, inferences,
deductive theories based on different hypothesis such as:
proposal 1: (if)
and
proposal 2: (if)
and proposal 3: (if)
etc...
leading to a conclusion such as:
(then).
which can also lead to the reject of those other philosophers' writings to
which they refer.
Thus, you can say that "existentialism" is a philosophy, that
"phenomenology" is a philosophy, that the concept of "Dasein" by Heidegger,
or of "will to power" by Nietzsche, are philosophies as well, based on
constant harkings back to previous philosophers, either developping the idea
or denying the idea that was before them stated and developped logically by
inferences.
For instance to contend such a simple apparent evidence such as:
"any consciousness is conscious of something" by Sartres
which is the conclusion of the 160 page book "The imagination", leading to
the acknowledgement that necessarily the consciousness needs an object to be
what it is, Sartres is demonstrating step by step the process getting to
this conclusion by basing itself on quotations and accurate reasonnings of
other philosophers.
It is the same with the too famous proposition "I think therefore I am".
It is the same thing in mathematics.
The use you can make or can't make out of it is not the issue.
Saying like Steiner that there are superior races, or Atlantis existed are
assertions which are not provable by any factual elements (therefore are not
taught as truths in schools, just discussed), likewise with the existence of
ghosts that was often proven by the theosophists (see RenÈ GuÈnon: "le
thÈosophisme") in faking photographs, or admitted without any philosophical
discussion about that.
Those are fancy theories which were never backed up by any consistent fact,
that is why they tried to make believe it was true by false experiments in
order to get the appearence of scientificity.
There are no discussions in either Steiner's writings or Blavatsky's about
stating first the two possibilities which are the basis of any debate in
philosophy: arguments in favor of, and arguments against it. It is just
simply admitted and backed up by supposed old traditions which are not
provable as well.
The myth is demonstrated by using another myth which is groundless. The
naÔve side of it is even further developped by referring to a bigger myth or
supposedly more important wisdom that would even be older (therefore true
for the Beotian).
It is paralogism.
Taken from the book "the mecanism of cults" by the doctor Jean Marie Abgrall
and translated literally by me:
An example of paralogism:
"the adept of a cult has developped in front of us the following reasonning:
the 100 year war started in 1337. The war is a manifestation of the devil
which number is 666. 1337 + 666 = 2003. Thus, that year will be the
beginning of a new conflict which will last 100 years.
One of the first signs of the future conflict is the opening of the Channel
Tunnel, which is the intrusion of the earth element into the water element,
representing the beginning of the elemental chaos..." etc...
Another example of paralogism in the ThulÈ group:
"The founding myth of this group comes from the existence of ThulÈ, magical
center of a disappeared nordic civilisation, which secrets, kept by a
minority of "unknown superiors" are accessible exclusively through
initiation.
For the adepts of the thulÈ group and the nazi esotericists, there would be
between the men and the extraterrestial beings, some other intermediary
beings who would put at the disposal of the initiates the colossal and
surpernatural forces necessary to the proper accomplishment of their
primordial mission, which is to fulfil the spiritual fate of the humanity.
However, only people capable of abilities of a medium, like Hitler, could
be used as bridges between those invisible forces and the common run of
people. And this is the aryan race, fundamental core of the humanity, still
according to ThulÈ, that is designated to assume the destiny of the earth
and govern the advent of the future millenium. For this reason, the nazi
Germany was, under the aegis of this group, to run the world."
and bla bla bla...
(...)
other excerpts (philosophical this time):
"For a choice to be, it is necessary to establish a judgment from different
data, sometimes contradictory; the monolithic and exclusive character of the
cult information forbids the clarified choice and reinforce the imposed
norm."
(...)
"The imitation is a factor of social learning. In a normal society, the
phenomena is limited by the multiplicity of choices and proposed models"
(...)
"The symbolism is a triggering factor of behaviors which pre-exist to the
analysis and annihilate it".
(end of quotes)
Blavatsky says there would be tunnels or people living in the center of the
earth, without any other backing up than the myths she constructed and to
which she is constantly refering to as a supposed "truth".
You clearly showed in one of your earlier post, the far fetched complexity
of the explanation given by Steiner about the number 666 (where each letter
is a number, and where Steiner has to find a way to make it match his
delirium) whereas it is simply the mathematical adding up of the first 36
numbers (I can tell you, nobody knows it). It is just a mathematical thing.
I agree there can be interpretations of why this number is in the Bible and
what it means; the problem is that I have never met an anthroposophist of a
theosophist knowing this very simple mathematical thing which should be the
very beginning of the interpretation.
On the contrary, they invent false matching between letters and numbers and
try to make it sound as the great revelation of an ancient knowledge.
Therefore they add more and more delirium to something they are not even
aware of, and try to teach it in schools !
Science fiction is no philosophy.
koala
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 11:22:37 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner a philosopher?
Dan to Koala:
) ) Could you elaborate more on your opinion why Steiner should not be
) ) considered a philosopher?
KOALA
)The philosophy is the exact contrary of paralogism.
)
) Anthroposophy and theosophy are paralogical ("paralogic" or "paralogisms"
)is the words exist).
))
)What I meant is that, whatever you may think about the philosophers I
)mentionned earlier on (that is to say agree or disagree with what they say,
)which is not the point of the discussion), their writings is based on a
)corpus of other philosophers' writings, on logical assertions, inferences,
)deductive theories...
Thank you for pointing out the distinction. My dictionary says
paralogism is "a reasoning false in point of form, that is, contrary
to logical rules or formulas." I agree that Anthroposophy deserves
that description.
)...The use you can make or can't make out of it is not the issue.
I understand, it's a matter of form, not content.
)...Those are fancy theories which were never backed up by any consistent fact,
)that is why they tried to make believe it was true by false experiments in
)order to get the appearence of scientificity.
Yes, Steiner claims that anyone can verify his conclusions, but this
isn't true. The method for verifying his conclusions is to accept
them, and then see how you feel. Neither logical nor scientific.
)There are no discussions in either Steiner's writings or Blavatsky's about
)stating first the two possibilities which are the basis of any debate in
)philosophy: arguments in favor of, and arguments against it. It is just
)simply admitted and backed up by supposed old traditions which are not
)provable as well.
Critical discussion is antithetical to the Anthroposophical mindset.
One must be reverent.
) The myth is demonstrated by using another myth which is groundless. The
)naÔve side of it is even further developped by referring to a bigger myth or
)supposedly more important wisdom that would even be older (therefore true
)for the Beotian).
)
)It is paralogism.
So if one must be logical to be a philosopher, Steiner is not a
philosopher but a religious leader.
)Science fiction is no philosophy.
L. Ron Hubbard was explicitly a science fiction writer, but people
still believe his myths!
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 23:41:00 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner a philosopher? (was: On the cultivated paranoia onthe
WC-list)
koala noos.fr wrote:
a lot of stuff insisting Steiner was not a philosopher
Dear Koala,
Have you read any of these books by Rudolf Steiner:
1) Truth and Science
2) A Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World Conception
or
3) The Philosophy of Freedom?
warm regards,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 07:59:31 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: Steiner a philosopher? (was: On the cultivated paranoia on
the WC-list); small corrections to english mistakes.
Small corrections to mistakes I made in my rough translation in english
(there may be other mistakes as I am not a professionnal translator):
Notice: the doctor Jean Marie Abgrall is a psychiatrist.
)
) Anthroposophy and theosophy are paralogical ("paralogic" or "paralogisms"
) is the words exist).
Of course it was "if the words exist" and not "is..."
))
) Another example of paralogism in the ThulÈ group:
)
) "The founding myth of this group comes from the existence of ThulÈ, magical
) center of a disappeared nordic civilisation, which secrets, kept by a
) minority of "unknown superiors" are accessible exclusively through
) initiation.
)
) For the adepts of the thulÈ group and the nazi esotericists
it was no the word "adepts" but "followers" instead...
), there would be
) between the men and the extraterrestial beings, some other intermediary
) beings who would put at the disposal of the initiates the colossal and
) surpernatural forces necessary to the proper accomplishment of their
) primordial mission, which is to fulfil the spiritual fate of the humanity.
)
) However, only people capable of abilities of a medium, like Hitler, could
) be used as bridges between those invisible forces and the common run of
) people. And this is the aryan race, fundamental core of the humanity, still
) according to ThulÈ, that is designated to assume the destiny of the earth
) and govern the advent of the future millenium. For this reason, the nazi
) Germany was, under the aegis of this group, to run the world."
)
) and bla bla bla...
)
) (...)
koala.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 615
-- Topica Digest -
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: learning religions by immersion--Suzanne Fields
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 09:14:12 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3095486053_201728_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Dear Joel,
Have you read Steiner's Esoteric Cosmology? This rare and priceless sermon
can be found in English at:
http://www.SouthernCrossReview.org .
Once again Steiner is promulgating his own personal religious beliefs that
he cobbled together from bits and pieces he picked up along the way. In
Esoteric Cosmology (1904) he sermonizes that Blavatsky's fiction is truth,
and he lays out his prophesies and angelic revelations which he continued to
preach for the rest of his life. Steiner was a New Age evangelist, a New Age
clergyman, A New Age minister, a New Age parson, a New Age reverend, a New
Age churchman, a New Age preacher, a New Age mystagogue, a New Age
Guru...not a philosopher!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 17:30:41 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Cc: jdaar concentric.net
Subject: Re: learning religions by immersion--Suzanne Fields
Judy Daar commented off-list:
)You may also point out to your group that "Hymie and
)Abie" are not Hasidic Jewish names. I do think that religion can and
)should be be taught in schools--very carefully.
FIELDS
) ) Can anyone imagine asking children to wear black curls in front of
)) their ears, black suits and hats and assume Hasidic Jewish names like
)) Hymie and Abie? Could a class pretend to be crusaders setting out to
)) the Middle East to kill Islamic infidels? What about a pretend
)) revival meeting? Could a teacher take her students down to the lake
)) for mock baptism by immersion? Or assign the boys to sit bare legged
)) with white cloths covering their loins, humming a Buddhist mantra?
) ) And if not, why not?
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 616
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Walt to Alice on the personal effect of anthroposophy, etc.
By koala noos.fr
Re: Walt to Alice on the personal effect of anthroposophy, etc.
By dan dandugan.com
waldorf & rassismus
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 14:20:50 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: Walt to Alice on the personal effect of anthroposophy, etc.
)le 2/01/02 19:35, Su ý sufrito53 yahoo.com a ÈcritÝ:
) 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."
)
This is NLP (neuro linguistic programmings). You have always people in front
of you just being like you, thinking like you etc... there is no
confrontation whatsoever.
In fourth way groups or gurdjieff groups, it is constantly used. You can't
argue about anything: an example, if I say: "this group is a cult", the
person in front of me will say: "yes it is a cult".
If I say: "can I have a coffee with cream", the person will say : "oh I
love coffee with cream", though she doesn't like it.
It would be like if, in a simple discussion, the person in front of you
would always say that you are intelligent, bright, witty, beautiful every
day and that all what you say she agrees with.
There is absolutly not critical point of view and no dissonance at all. It
is constantly boring, the discussion is pointless but aimed at something
which is to have you progressively thinking the same way, and using the
same methods.
If you don't know about it, step by step you'll be taken into it. That is
the method. It is also used in commercials, or by people selling kitchens
and so all.
This is a very dangerous technics. Thus the people using it on a regular
basis (like a conditioned reflex) have absolutly no chance at all to get
out of it, and you will not be able to make them realize a critical point of
view.
Everything will appear like synchronicity, as if the person in front of you
was miraculously your double.
Originally it was used to defuse conflicts during board meetings for example
when people are arguing about a project or a decision to be taken.
Nowadays, it has become a very sophisticated device or weapon for cults, a
kind of metalangage or jargon they want you to understand prior to your
indoctrination. By that time, it is already too late...
koala.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 09:17:49 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Walt to Alice on the personal effect of anthroposophy, etc.
Koala, you wrote,
)It would be like if, in a simple discussion, the person in front of you
)would always say that you are intelligent, bright, witty, beautiful every
)day and that all what you say she agrees with.
Another name for this technique is "love-bombing."
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 11:29:52 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: waldorf & rassismus
I got a note in German from Peter Bierl. Peter Staudenmaier
interpreted it for me:
***
Peter Bierl says that at the last several public talks he's given on
anthroposophy, anthros in the audience have claimed that the
Education Ministry in the state of North-Rhine-Westphalia (Germany's
most populous state) recently conducted a thorough study of all the
Waldorf schools in the state, of which there are nearly 50. This
study, according to the claim, was spurred by the recent media
attention to racism in Waldorf schools, and was based on a review of
students' notebooks. In one version of the claim, advanced by an
anthroposophist in Trier last week, the Ministry reviewed all student
notebooks from the past ten years. All the anthros who have mentioned
this study say that the result was clear: the Ministry found no
racist passages in any of the students' notebooks.
Peter says that got him wondering: How could they possibly have
tracked down all of these notes in the first place? So he contacted
the Ministry and inquired about this new study. They say they know
nothing about it. Peter then reminds us that a few years ago German
anthroposophists claimed that the Dutch government had sponsored an
independent investigation of Steiner's works; it turned out they
meant the Dutch anthroposophist commission's report. At this point
Peter doesn't know if any sort of Waldorf study has been conducted by
anybody in North-Rhine-Westphalia. His closing line is: "The great
guru Steiner once said that liars get bad karma."
***
Can anybody on the list fill us in on the existence or non-existence
of a study or investigation in North-Rhine-Westphalia?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 617
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By hermit tiac.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 19:44:49 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
Good find, Sharon! I recommend everyone check out this lecture. I like
Steiner's term "esoteric Darwinism" - a fine description of his work. For
those of you who know your Goethe or alchemy, what this text translates as
"selected relationships" is usually called elective affinities in English.
Peter S.
)Dear Joel,
)Have you read Steiner's Esoteric Cosmology? This rare and priceless sermon
)can be found in English at:
)
)http://www.SouthernCrossReview.org .
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 22:54:28 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
Dear Lurkers to the W-C list,
Peter S. and Sharon have been using a post of mine from which to spin
their point of view on a set of Steiner's lectures. Because my words
are being used, I will remind those without an axe to grind and who
might not already have their minds made up, what my position is (I've
done this before, but sometimes when one's name is being used, the
original context gets forgotten).
First some matters of qualification. I have degrees in philosophy (BA)
and Law (JD). I've been reading Steiner for over twenty years and have
many disagreements with both the anthroposophical movement and waldorf
schools (see Outlaw Anthroposophy, at:
http://www.tiac.net/users/hermit/otlwa.html )
My main issues with the critics is that they don't actually know
anything about anthroposophy. On the contrary, the critics are most
like those who believe in something I would call "Steinerism", which is
something quite distinct from anthroposophy.
Anthroposophy is based upon Steiner's philosophical writings, which are
clearly excellant discussions of fundamental philosophical questions
(Truth and Science, A Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World
Conception, and the Philosophy of Freedom). I have yet to have a
conversation with a critic who understands these works to any degree.
The main thing that distinguishes these works from more academic
approaches to philosophical questions is that these works require an
experiential approach. One simply cannot understand their content
without undertaking a rigorous program of introspection. These books
are the map, and the own inner life is the territory.
The result of traveling this path (the Path of Cognition) is to begin
to have spiritual experiences. It is from these experiences that
Steiner has drawn what appears later in lectures and books. But the
basis for the experiences is found in the philosophical writings. You
can't really understand how to deal with the lectures and later books
without appreciating the practical and experiential aspects of one's
inner life for which the philosophic works are the map and guide.
But the critics want to read the lectures and then make fun of them
without doing the well understood prepatory work. In this they follow
the path of the believers in Steinerism that they have met in some
Waldorf Schools and end up actually not knowing anything about
anthroposophy (the Path of Cognition).
Now, when a certain party named Koala alleged that Steiner was not a
philosopher, I asked this person if they had read the philosophy books
refered to above. This person has chosen not to reply, at least at this
time (its been about a week now).
Personally, I don't want to repeat this message. But I will as long as
people mistake Steinerism for anthroposophy or insist they know what
anthroposophy is when obviously they haven't the least idea. If folks
on this list want not to hear this anymore, then they shouldn't use my
posts as an excuse to make speeches that don't actually have any
relationship to that about which I am posting.
warm regards,
joel
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) Good find, Sharon! I recommend everyone check out this lecture. I like
) Steiner's term "esoteric Darwinism" - a fine description of his work. For
) those of you who know your Goethe or alchemy, what this text translates as
) "selected relationships" is usually called elective affinities in English.
)
) Peter S.
)
) )Dear Joel,
) )Have you read Steiner's Esoteric Cosmology? This rare and priceless sermon
) )can be found in English at:
) )
) )http://www.SouthernCrossReview.org .
)
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 618
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By steve premofine.com
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By dan dandugan.com
Re: denying Anthroposophy (was: On the cultivated paranoia on the
WC-list)
By snell gv.net
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By hermit tiac.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 08:52:40 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
on 2/4/02 7:54 PM, Joel Wendt at hermit tiac.net wrote:
)
) My main issues with the critics is that they don't actually know
) anything about anthroposophy. On the contrary, the critics are most
) like those who believe in something I would call "Steinerism", which is
) something quite distinct from anthroposophy.
Sharon: Nonsense Joel, I know a lot about Anthroposophy and your put downs
won't work! Grant it, I haven't studied him for 20 years as you have, (don't
intend to either) and I'm not a Gnostic, Hermeticist, occultist, alchemist,
New Ager, etc. but I have had years of experience being a Waldorf mom, and
after leaving the school because of it's Anthroposophical base, I have read
Steiner for a good three years. I am currently in the religious studies
department at university, the philosophy department steered me there.
)
) Anthroposophy is based upon Steiner's philosophical writings, which are
) clearly excellant discussions of fundamental philosophical questions
) (Truth and Science, A Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World
) Conception, and the Philosophy of Freedom). I have yet to have a
) conversation with a critic who understands these works to any degree.
Sharon: Joel is a believer in Steiner's esotericism. (Just as Jerry Falwell
is a believer in exoteric Christian fundamentalism). Steiner believed Goethe
had "a lofty Rosicrucian Initiation", and Steiner promulgated Anthroposophy
as a spiritually complete Rosicrucianism. Why do you think I'm in the
religious studies department and not the philosophy department? Because
Steiner was a religious teacher, not a philosopher and I'm studying him.
Here's a little experiment you can try. Go to a large book store and look
for Steiner's work...if you can find his books they will most likely be in
the New Age section. Our local Barnes and Nobles has a huge section on
philosophy, and a very tiny New Age section, however they do not carry *any*
books by Steiner at all. In Wisconsin Barnes and Nobles did carry Steiner,
not in the philosophy section, but in the New Age department. If you can
find Steiner's books at a book store, check out the publishers, just about
all of Steiner's work has been published from within the enclosed,
intramural world of Anthroposophy. In other words, Anthroposophists have to
publish Steiner themselves because no one else could be bothered. Another
point to consider - why hasn't anything been written about this "great
philosopher" from a critical perspective in English with high
historographical standards? Very odd for a guy who is supposed to be such a
great thinker to go unnoticed! Scholars are more likely to write about
Blavatsky's Theosophy which spawned Steiner's schismatic sect of
Anthroposophy, although there are a couple of Anthroposophy scholars in
Europe at the moment. One is Helmut Zanders who is likely to be the future
leading expert on Anthroposophy, let's hope he gets a book published in
English!
The New Age is not new, it was already deeply entrenched in Colonial
America. It is a sincretic mixture largely of Gnostic origins. Although the
occult expresses itself in scientific or quasi scientific terminology, most
modern occult movements such as Anthroposophy - whose adherents promote
Steiner as a scientist - do not find science relevant to their reality.
) The result of traveling this path (the Path of Cognition) is to begin
) to have spiritual experiences. It is from these experiences that
) Steiner has drawn what appears later in lectures and books. But the
) basis for the experiences is found in the philosophical writings. You
) can't really understand how to deal with the lectures and later books
) without appreciating the practical and experiential aspects of one's
) inner life for which the philosophic works are the map and guide.
In the vogue of their times, Mary Bakker Eddy, Madame Blavatsky, Alister
Crowley, Annie Bessant, Alice Baily, Charles Leadbeater, Rudolf Steiner and
others all provided lengthy treatises and systematic investigations
proposing a host of methods for personal verification and "evidence" for
their claims. All differing from each other because we are talking religion,
not science.
)
) But the critics want to read the lectures and then make fun of them
) without doing the well understood prepatory work. In this they follow
) the path of the believers in Steinerism that they have met in some
) Waldorf Schools and end up actually not knowing anything about
) anthroposophy (the Path of Cognition).
Some of the critics were included in Steiner's religious movement with out
their understanding or sanction. The experience was bizarre. They began to
read Steiner to try and figure out what had happened. Steiner's work is so
wacky that they can't help but poke fun at it.
) Now, when a certain party named Koala alleged that Steiner was not a
) philosopher, I asked this person if they had read the philosophy books
) refered to above. This person has chosen not to reply, at least at this
) time (its been about a week now).
Sharon: Right Joel...like you always reply to posts!!
)
) Personally, I don't want to repeat this message. But I will as long as
) people mistake Steinerism for anthroposophy or insist they know what
) anthroposophy is when obviously they haven't the least idea. If folks
) on this list want not to hear this anymore, then they shouldn't use my
) posts as an excuse to make speeches that don't actually have any
) relationship to that about which I am posting.
Sharon: We really don't mind answering your posts Joel and hearing your
religious message. As a US citizen you are entitled to your religious views.
Keep them coming, just try not to confuse religion with science!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 13:56:51 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
Dear lurkers,
As you can see Sharon already knows everything. Must make life easy to
put people in such nice clear boxes, regardless of what the truth might
be.
This is why I don't respond to such posts, as it would be a waste of
effort. I've also deleted her response so as to not waste bandwidth.
warm regards,
joel
mysplum wrote:
her quite predictable rant
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 19:01:59 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
Joel wrote:
) But the critics want to read the lectures and then make fun of )them
)without doing the well understood prepatory work. In this they )follow the
)path of the believers in Steinerism that they have met in )some Waldorf
)Schools and end up actually not knowing anything about
)anthroposophy (the Path of Cognition).
Joel, the *whole point* is what these "believers in Steinerism" in "some
Waldorf schools" believe and do, and how it affects Waldorf children.
Really, whether yours or somebody else's "Path of Cognition" is the right
one, is not of interest to most Waldorf parents. We never asked to take a
walk down an Anthroposophic Path of Cognition. We saw a sign marked,
"Progressive, Holistic Arts-Based Education for Your Children, this way."
Path was badly mismarked; they need to pass out new, improved maps, and post
a big sign at the entrance to Anthroposophy Land.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 16:44:43 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Joel wrote:
)
) ) But the critics want to read the lectures and then make fun of )them
) )without doing the well understood prepatory work. In this they )follow the
) )path of the believers in Steinerism that they have met in )some Waldorf
) )Schools and end up actually not knowing anything about
) )anthroposophy (the Path of Cognition).
)
) Joel, the *whole point* is what these "believers in Steinerism" in "some
) Waldorf schools" believe and do, and how it affects Waldorf children.
)
) Really, whether yours or somebody else's "Path of Cognition" is the right
) one, is not of interest to most Waldorf parents. We never asked to take a
) walk down an Anthroposophic Path of Cognition. We saw a sign marked,
) "Progressive, Holistic Arts-Based Education for Your Children, this way."
) Path was badly mismarked; they need to pass out new, improved maps, and post
) a big sign at the entrance to Anthroposophy Land.
Dear Diana,
I agree with much of what you said. But that is not my point.
In the process of criticising Waldorf the critics make comments about
the nature of anthroposophy that are false. This has to be pointed
out. Moreover, it is possible (I do it) to be critical of Waldorf and,
at the same time, have an accurate picture of anthroposophy. So it
clearly isn't necessary to trash anthroposophy to point out flaws in
Waldorf.
When the critics start making accurate and knowledgable statements
about anthropsophy, you will hear less from me.
warm regards,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:58:32 -0800
From: "Steve Premo" (steve premofine.com)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
Hi everybody! Good to see y'all again.
On 5 Feb 2002 at 19:01, Diana Winters wrote:
) Joel wrote:
)
) ) But the critics want to read the lectures and then make fun of )them
) )without doing the well understood prepatory work. In this they )follow
) )the path of the believers in Steinerism that they have met in )some
) )Waldorf Schools and end up actually not knowing anything about
) )anthroposophy (the Path of Cognition).
)
) Joel, the *whole point* is what these "believers in Steinerism" in "some
) Waldorf schools" believe and do, and how it affects Waldorf children.
Right you are, Diana. Joel has probably covered this recently, but his
position (correct me if I'm wrong, Joel) is that Anthroposophy is a
method for investigating "spiritual reality," and not the beliefs or ideas
that Steiner came up with by applying that method. This may be true
enough, in the same sense that science is a method for investigating
physical reality, and not the theories and concepts that were developed
using the scientific method.
But it is the application of Steiner's ideas that form the basis for Waldorf
schools, and it is that application that concerns us. Nobody cares if
some Anthroposophist wants to sit in his room and read the Akashic
record. (Even most Waldorf people don't seem to care much about the
"findings" of "spiritual scientists" other than Steiner.) But when the
school is telling parents that, say, Waldorf is based on scientific theories
of child development, and those child development theories are actually
based on a fringe interpretation of the religious concept of reincarnation,
that's deception. And fraud. And that's a problem.
--
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"Life is just a leap of faith. Spread your arms, and
hold your breath, and always trust your cape." - Guy Clark
http://www.premofine.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 18:33:37 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
I get a kick out of Joel, who doesn't answer posts addressed to him but then
hallucinates posts that aren't addressed to him. But let's pretend that my
last post was a reply to Joel:
)I've been reading Steiner for over twenty years and have
)many disagreements with both the anthroposophical movement and waldorf
)schools
But not with Steiner's racist fantasies, which you explicitly endorse.
) My main issues with the critics is that they don't actually know
)anything about anthroposophy.
That's true of some critics, but obviously untrue of Sharon and me, which
raises the interesting question of why you felt compelled to make this
irrelevant observation in this context.
) On the contrary, the critics are most
)like those who believe in something I would call "Steinerism", which is
)something quite distinct from anthroposophy.
You think the critics get the anthroposophist phases of Steiner's teachings
mixed up with the pre-anthroposophist phases? Any examples?
)Anthroposophy is based upon Steiner's philosophical writings,
You just failed your own test, Joel. Most of Steiner's formal philosophical
works pre-date, and contradict, his mature anthroposophist stance. How did
you manage to miss that in your decades of reading Steiner?
)I have yet to have a
)conversation with a critic who understands these works to any degree.
Maybe you need to stop avoiding conversations with informed critics.
) The main thing that distinguishes these works from more academic
)approaches to philosophical questions is that these works require an
)experiential approach. One simply cannot understand their content
)without undertaking a rigorous program of introspection.
How does this distinguish Steiner from anybody? Are there philosophical
texts which don't require introspection?
) The result of traveling this path (the Path of Cognition) is to begin
)to have spiritual experiences.
You didn't have spiritual experiences before you read these three books?
)It is from these experiences that
)Steiner has drawn what appears later in lectures and books.
Wrong again. Quite a few of his lectures, including the one Sharon pointed
to, are taken straight from other theosophists.
) But the critics want to read the lectures and then make fun of them
)without doing the well understood prepatory work.
Nope. We reject the claim that this "prepatory work" somehow alters the
manifest content of Steiner's lectures. Would you like to offer a defense of
that claim?
)If folks
)on this list want not to hear this anymore, then they shouldn't use my
)posts as an excuse to make speeches that don't actually have any
)relationship to that about which I am posting.
You must have spent too much time studying philosophy and law to notice how
email discussions work. This is called a "thread", Joel, and is a
commonplace element in forums such as this one. Does this practice trouble
you in some way? Could you explain why?
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 22:14:48 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
Dear Peter,
I've stuck some replies in [brackets] in your rant below.
warm regards,
joel
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) I get a kick out of Joel, who doesn't answer posts addressed to him but then
) hallucinates posts that aren't addressed to him. But let's pretend that my
) last post was a reply to Joel:
[It is clear from my post that I understood it was not addressed to me,
but the two of you were batting back and forth, as an apparent reference
point, a post with my name on it. I consider such use of my words fair
game for a response.]
)
) )I've been reading Steiner for over twenty years and have
) )many disagreements with both the anthroposophical movement and waldorf
) )schools
)
) But not with Steiner's racist fantasies, which you explicitly endorse.
)
[But I don't call them racist fantasies, that's your claim to fame. Nor
do I endorse the "racist" misinterpretation of them either.]
) ) My main issues with the critics is that they don't actually know
) )anything about anthroposophy.
)
) That's true of some critics, but obviously untrue of Sharon and me,
[On the contrary, it is more true of you and Sharon. You show your own
ignorance below.]
which
) raises the interesting question of why you felt compelled to make this
) irrelevant observation in this context.
)
) ) On the contrary, the critics are most
) )like those who believe in something I would call "Steinerism", which is
) )something quite distinct from anthroposophy.
)
) You think the critics get the anthroposophist phases of Steiner's teachings
) mixed up with the pre-anthroposophist
{What does "pre-anthroposophist" mean? Sounds like a fantasy to me,
kind of like your misinterpretation of Steiner's meanings concerning
"race".]
phases? Any examples?
)
) )Anthroposophy is based upon Steiner's philosophical writings,
)
) You just failed your own test, Joel. Most of Steiner's formal philosophical
) works pre-date, and contradict, his mature anthroposophist stance.
[Here's where you show your own ignorance. Your distinction between
Steiner's philosophical works, and what you call his "mature
anthroposophist stance" doesn't exist. All you have to do is read the
three texts which I refered to, and in the various introductions and
prefixes (they were revised, some as far into his career as 1924-5) and
you will find exactly how Steiner connected these different phases of
his work. If you read Steiner's Leading Thoughts, you will find in the
First Leading Thought a definition of "anthroposophy" as: "...a path of
cognition from the spiritual in man to the Spiritual in the Universe."
This "path" is what is outlined in Philosophy of Freedom and the other
two philosophical works I have referenced. This path leads to spiritual
experience (something confirmed by many contemporary anthroposophists),
and the later lectures and books are derived from the experiences gained
through the developments coming from the introspection. Here are some
of Steiner's own words, from the 1918 preface to Philosophy of Freedom:
"If anyone should be astonished at not finding in this book any
reference to that regdion of the world of spiriutal experience described
in my later writings, I would ask him to bear in mind that it was not my
purpose at that time to set down the results of spiritual research, but
first to lay the foundations on which such results can rest."]
How did
) you manage to miss that in your decades of reading Steiner?
)
) )I have yet to have a
) )conversation with a critic who understands these works to any degree.
)
) Maybe you need to stop avoiding conversations with informed critics.
[They don't exist, as you have just demonstrated.]
)
) ) The main thing that distinguishes these works from more academic
) )approaches to philosophical questions is that these works require an
) )experiential approach. One simply cannot understand their content
) )without undertaking a rigorous program of introspection.
)
) How does this distinguish Steiner from anybody? Are there philosophical
) texts which don't require introspection?
[Most are quite superficial with respect to the level of introspection
called for. Steiner's work is quite a breakthrough, for it requires a
very deep and brutally self honest kind of inner effort, which you would
know if you actually knew what anthroposphy was about.]
)
) ) The result of traveling this path (the Path of Cognition) is to begin
) )to have spiritual experiences.
)
) You didn't have spiritual experiences before you read these three books?
[Actually I did. Before ever reading the Philosophy of Freedom, I
confirmed its general principles myself in my early thirties (this is
described in my essay "pragmatic moral psychology", which can be found
at: http://www.tiac.net/users/hermit/stgfr5.html ) But this was rather
instinctive in nature, and my later encounter with Steiner's philosophic
works allowed me to make the whole process more exact, both in
understanding and in practice.]
)
) )It is from these experiences that
) )Steiner has drawn what appears later in lectures and books.
)
) Wrong again. Quite a few of his lectures, including the one Sharon pointed
) to, are taken straight from other theosophists.
[Only if you don't read the text carefully, or place the whole situation
honestly within the social dynamic. But in the fantasy version of the
Waldorf-critics, anything is possible, even this kind of erroneous
interpretation.]
)
) ) But the critics want to read the lectures and then make fun of them
) )without doing the well understood prepatory work.
)
) Nope. We reject the claim that this "prepatory work" somehow alters the
) manifest content of Steiner's lectures. Would you like to offer a defense of
) that claim?
[Of course you reject it. The philosophical material scares you to your
bones, since you recognize your own inability to penetrate it. But
your self-serving rejection is entirely without support, and I need not
defend what you call my "claim". You are the one who claims to know
what anthroposophy is, and every word out of your mouth demonstrates
that you don't.
But for the lurkers, I will say this, which has been said by me before,
and appears to be needed to be said again. The thought-content of the
later lectures and books has a particular meaning when read in the light
of the changes in thinking made possible by the study of the philosophic
works. This new thinking then apprehends this content in a different
way, since the new thinking is much more awake when it approaches
concepts and imaginations (picture thoughts). In the light of this new
thinking then the content of the lectures has no need to be believed or
not believed (turned into either Steinerism, or the weird invented and
non-existent anthroposophy of the critics), but is approached in freedom
and then worked with in a disciplined way in practice.]
) )If folks
) )on this list want not to hear this anymore, then they shouldn't use my
) )posts as an excuse to make speeches that don't actually have any
) )relationship to that about which I am posting.
)
) You must have spent too much time studying philosophy and law to notice how
) email discussions work. This is called a "thread", Joel, and is a
) commonplace element in forums such as this one. Does this practice trouble
) you in some way? Could you explain why?
[I quite understand what a thread is, but this list seldom follows this
convention. Certainly I am entitled to comment on a thread which
contains my words, and as well I can ignore "rants" which are not really
part of threads, but just emotional outbursts in which the author has no
intention of participating in a dialogue. Frequently I have offered
dialogue to no avail on this list. What's the point when people's minds
are already made up, and when they pretend to a knowledge they don't
possess.]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 02:22:19 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
Joel wrote:
)On the contrary, the critics are most like those who believe in )something
)I would call "Steinerism", which is something quite distinct )from
)anthroposophy.
Peter S.:
)You think the critics get the anthroposophist phases of Steiner's teachings
)mixed up with the pre-anthroposophist phases? Any examples?
I think Joel just means to distinguish himself, the "outlaw"
anthroposophist, from the "fundamentalist" anthroposophists with whom he
disagrees (although he has in common with the fundamentalists a complete
certainty that he is right and everyone else is wrong). You are a
"Steinerite" if you just believe everything Steiner wrote (focus on
content), and you don't deserve the title "anthroposophist" unless you
understand that anthroposophy is a *method* and not content. (This is behind
his constant impatience with critics saying things like, "Anthroposophists
believe . . ." because they aren't *real* anthroposophists if they just
"believe" Steiner without the "preparatory work.")
Sniping from the sidelines as usual,
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 22:38:02 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
) Joel wrote:
)
)) But the critics want to read the lectures and then make fun of )them
))without doing the well understood prepatory work. In this they )follow the
))path of the believers in Steinerism that they have met in )some Waldorf
))Schools and end up actually not knowing anything about
))anthroposophy (the Path of Cognition).
)
) Joel, the *whole point* is what these "believers in Steinerism" in "some
) Waldorf schools" believe and do, and how it affects Waldorf children.
)
) Really, whether yours or somebody else's "Path of Cognition" is the right
) one, is not of interest to most Waldorf parents. We never asked to take a
) walk down an Anthroposophic Path of Cognition. We saw a sign marked,
) "Progressive, Holistic Arts-Based Education for Your Children, this way."
) Path was badly mismarked; they need to pass out new, improved maps, and post
) a big sign at the entrance to Anthroposophy Land.
) Diana
)
Lisa here: I second what Diana said, one million percent.
Just make sure your signage is clear and correct, Joel. That's all we ask.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 22:04:20 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
Joel writes:
)[It is clear from my post that I understood it was not addressed to me,
)but the two of you were batting back and forth, as an apparent reference
)point, a post with my name on it. I consider such use of my words fair
)game for a response.]
Wouldn't it make more sense to respond to posts that ask you direct
questions?
)[But I don't call them racist fantasies,
Yes, that's the point. Why do you have difficulty recognizing fantasies and
racism when you encounter them? Is this something specific to your
relationship with Steiner, or do you have trouble acknowledging the racist
fantasies of, say, Blavatsky or Haeckel as well?
)[On the contrary, it is more true of you and Sharon. You show your own
)ignorance below.]
I guess I could wait 'til below, but you're being silly here. Ignorance of
your personal views on anthroposophy is, obviously, different from ignorance
of anthroposophy. Why do you have a hard time distinguishing the two?
){What does "pre-anthroposophist" mean?
Before anthroposophy.
) Sounds like a fantasy to me,
You think Steiner was an anthroposophist all his life?
)[Here's where you show your own ignorance. Your distinction between
)Steiner's philosophical works, and what you call his "mature
)anthroposophist stance" doesn't exist.
I don't think mean what you just said. Surely you recognize the distinction
between Steiner's pre-anthroposophist writings and his anthroposophist
writings, even if you consider that distinction unimportant or beside the
point.
) All you have to do is read the
)three texts which I refered to,
I have. Are you sure you've read them? The first is from 1892, the second
from 1886 and the third from 1894. None of them is an anthroposophical work,
of course, as Steiner did not become a theosophist, much less an
anthroposophist, until years later. Were you unaware of that, or do you
think it doesn't matter?
)and in the various introductions and
)prefixes (they were revised, some as far into his career as 1924-5) and
)you will find exactly how Steiner connected these different phases of
)his work.
An author's ex post facto harmonization of prior works is always
interesting, but hardly crucial to understanding the works themselves. You
must have encountered this phenomenon at some point in your philosophy
studies. Did you forget when it came to reading Steiner?
) the later lectures and books are derived from the experiences gained
)through the developments coming from the introspection.
Steiner didn't learn about Darwin or Sinnet from introspection.
) Here are some
)of Steiner's own words, from the 1918 preface to Philosophy of Freedom:
)"If anyone should be astonished at not finding in this book any
)reference to that regdion of the world of spiriutal experience described
)in my later writings, I would ask him to bear in mind that it was not my
)purpose at that time to set down the results of spiritual research, but
)first to lay the foundations on which such results can rest."]
Indeed. The anthroposophist Steiner re-interpreted his own
pre-anthroposophist works to make them fit into his new framework. Most
authors do this routinely. Where did you get the idea that Steiner was
different from the rest of us in this regard?
) ) Maybe you need to stop avoiding conversations with informed critics.
)
)[They don't exist, as you have just demonstrated.]
You might plausibly claim that I have demonstrated that I'm not an informed
critic myself (though you haven't made an argument to that effect yet), but
I certainly haven't demonstrated that no informed critics exist. Could you
explain your logic here?
)[Most are quite superficial with respect to the level of introspection
)called for.
Most philosophical works? Neither you nor I have read most of the
philosophical works in existence. Which ones did you have in mind?
) Steiner's work is quite a breakthrough, for it requires a
)very deep and brutally self honest kind of inner effort, which you would
)know if you actually knew what anthroposphy was about.]
Maybe, but the question remains, what about this brutal honesty
distinguishes Steiner from other philosophers?
) ) Quite a few of his lectures, including the one Sharon pointed
) ) to, are taken straight from other theosophists.
)
)[Only if you don't read the text carefully, or place the whole situation
)honestly within the social dynamic.
I don't understand that sentence. What social dynamic? You seem to be
denying that Steiner adopted many of his core concepts from other
theosophists. Is that really what you're trying to say? If so, why exactly
do you think you have "understood" his writings when you are unaware of
their sources? Is this how you usually approach texts that you take to be
philosophical?
) But in the fantasy version of the
)Waldorf-critics, anything is possible, even this kind of erroneous
)interpretation.]
What interpretation? I didn't offer any above, I merely pointed to the
provenance of some of Steiner's lectures. Surely you are familiar with the
distinction between genesis and validity? Tracing a text's origins is a very
different thing from formulating an interpretation of that text.
) ) We reject the claim that this "prepatory work" somehow alters the
) ) manifest content of Steiner's lectures. Would you like to offer a
)defense of
) ) that claim?
)
)[Of course you reject it. The philosophical material scares you to your
)bones,
It does? Why? How? Is there some way that I might overcome my fear? Would I
then believe, as you appear to, that "prefatory work" changes the manifest
content of published texts?
)since you recognize your own inability to penetrate it.
Now that's certainly true.
) But
)your self-serving rejection is entirely without support,
Huh? You think the philosophical tradition frowns on reading what an author
has actually written, rather than focusing on one's own subjective
"experiences" provoked by said writings? Care to cite any corroboration for
this curious notion?
)and I need not
)defend what you call my "claim".
Sure, if you don't want anyone else to take you seriously. But if you'd like
to engage in discussions with informed critics, or in any philosophical
discussions for that matter, then I'm sorry to say that you will indeed need
to substantiate the claims you make.
) You are the one who claims to know
)what anthroposophy is,
Don't we both claim this? Did I misunderstand you earlier? You're now
admitting that you don't know what it is?
)The thought-content of the
)later lectures and books has a particular meaning when read in the light
)of the changes in thinking made possible by the study of the philosophic
)works.
Indeed it does. Could you clarify what you think this adds to the question
of Steiner's early and late periods? Are you saying that one must read the
later works "in the light of" the earlier ones? What would that mean, and
why do you think it would help in understanding Steiner?
)In the light of this new
)thinking then the content of the lectures has no need to be believed or
)not believed
You mean we don't have to try to understand Steiner, we should just sit back
and see what "picture thoughts" come in to our heads? Is this how you came
to your understanding of Steiner? Do you recommend such an approach with
other authors as well?
)[I quite understand what a thread is, but this list seldom follows this
)convention.
Say what? Perhaps you and I haven't been on the list at the same times, but
as long as I've been here we've used threads, and the only other person who
ever complained about it was Dottie.
)Certainly I am entitled to comment on a thread which
)contains my words,
You're entitled to comment on any thread whatsoever. Paying attention to
which ones contain your words is a little childish, don't you think?
)and as well I can ignore "rants" which are not really
)part of threads, but just emotional outbursts in which the author has no
)intention of participating in a dialogue.
Sure, but why do you keep ignoring people whose intention is to participate
in a dialogue with you? Is dialogue with people whose ideas differ from your
own a prospect you find worrisome or unappealing?
) Frequently I have offered
)dialogue to no avail on this list. What's the point when people's minds
)are already made up, and when they pretend to a knowledge they don't
)possess.]
Because you might change their minds and increase their knowledge,
naturally. Some of us are willing to take this chance with you; why not
return the favor?
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 06:41:30 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
G'day Steve,
some of us care about a whole host of other issues. For example I am
concerned about the rise of baseless practices in alternative medicine. In
so far as these things are supported by activities such as sitting in a room
and reading the Akashic (sp?) record, I am prepared to enter the argument.
And this is the whole point at least for me. As soon as anyone takes their
thinking outside of their skulls and turns it into word or deed, (word in
the form of claim of some ability or improvement, deed in the form of quasi
medical practise or education, or agricultural practise for example) then it
becomes capable of testing via modern scientific practices.
I am tempted to repeat the joke about the philosopher and the wastepaper
basket, but I'm sure everyone knows it. If not it is in the archive.
See you, Peter Farrell
)From: Steve Premo (steve premofine.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
)Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 12:58:32 -0800
)
)Hi everybody! Good to see y'all again.
)
)On 5 Feb 2002 at 19:01, Diana Winters wrote:
)
) ) Joel wrote:
) )
) ) ) But the critics want to read the lectures and then make fun of )them
) ) )without doing the well understood prepatory work. In this they )follow
) ) )the path of the believers in Steinerism that they have met in )some
) ) )Waldorf Schools and end up actually not knowing anything about
) ) )anthroposophy (the Path of Cognition).
) )
) ) Joel, the *whole point* is what these "believers in Steinerism" in "some
) ) Waldorf schools" believe and do, and how it affects Waldorf children.
)
)Right you are, Diana. Joel has probably covered this recently, but his
)position (correct me if I'm wrong, Joel) is that Anthroposophy is a
)method for investigating "spiritual reality," and not the beliefs or ideas
)that Steiner came up with by applying that method. This may be true
)enough, in the same sense that science is a method for investigating
)physical reality, and not the theories and concepts that were developed
)using the scientific method.
)
)But it is the application of Steiner's ideas that form the basis for
)Waldorf
)schools, and it is that application that concerns us. Nobody cares if
)some Anthroposophist wants to sit in his room and read the Akashic
)record. (Even most Waldorf people don't seem to care much about the
)"findings" of "spiritual scientists" other than Steiner.) But when the
)school is telling parents that, say, Waldorf is based on scientific
)theories
)of child development, and those child development theories are actually
)based on a fringe interpretation of the religious concept of reincarnation,
)that's deception. And fraud. And that's a problem.
)
)--
)Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
)"Life is just a leap of faith. Spread your arms, and
)hold your breath, and always trust your cape." - Guy Clark
) http://www.premofine.com
)
)
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 07:00:43 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
)From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
)Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 22:54:28 -0500
))
) My main issues with the critics is that they don't actually know
)anything about anthroposophy. On the contrary, the critics are most
)like those who believe in something I would call "Steinerism", which is
)something quite distinct from anthroposophy.
)
)
G'day Joel,
you don't need to know too much about physics to understand that training in
physics leads to real understanding and the ability to do real things, at
least in most cases. I don't need to know anything much about Anthroposophy
to know whether it is useful as a philosophy. I need only look at the claims
of practitioners, pick out those claims that have consequences in the "real"
world and test them. The details may be tricky, but the idea is simple.
Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 00:25:41 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
Joel Wendt, you wrote,
) My main issues with the critics is that they don't actually know
)anything about anthroposophy. On the contrary, the critics are most
)like those who believe in something I would call "Steinerism", which is
)something quite distinct from anthroposophy.
Yes, Joel, we know that you not only feel superior to
non-Anthroposophists as an Anthroposophist, but superior to most
Anthroposophists, too.
) Anthroposophy is based upon Steiner's philosophical writings, which are
)clearly excellant discussions of fundamental philosophical questions
)(Truth and Science, A Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World
)Conception, and the Philosophy of Freedom).
Clearly excellent to you, Joel, a devotee. Ignored by philosophers. I
wonder why? Could it be that the the arguments are weak?
)I have yet to have a
)conversation with a critic who understands these works to any degree.
Do you think it's possible that someone could both understand
Steiner's "philosophical" books and disagree with them?
) The main thing that distinguishes these works from more academic
)approaches to philosophical questions is that these works require an
)experiential approach. One simply cannot understand their content
)without undertaking a rigorous program of introspection. These books
)are the map, and the own inner life is the territory.
Aha, here's a clue. These books aren't philosophical treatises.
They're special. One has to prepare in a certain way. Not philosophy,
religion.
) The result of traveling this path (the Path of Cognition) is to begin
)to have spiritual experiences.
Very good for those who like that sort of thing. Nothing to do with philosophy.
)It is from these experiences that
)Steiner has drawn what appears later in lectures and books.
Yes, it's obvious his fantasies aren't based on scientific or
historical research, or any kind of logical extrapolation from known
facts. If you've read in the occultism before and around
Anthroposophy, you'll know that Steiner cribbed much of his stuff
from other occultists.
)But the
)basis for the experiences is found in the philosophical writings. You
)can't really understand how to deal with the lectures and later books
)without appreciating the practical and experiential aspects of one's
)inner life for which the philosophic works are the map and guide.
Anthroposophists told me I had to read the "basic four" books. I read
them. I didn't get any smarter.
) But the critics want to read the lectures and then make fun of them
)without doing the well understood prepatory work. In this they follow
)the path of the believers in Steinerism that they have met in some
)Waldorf Schools and end up actually not knowing anything about
)anthroposophy (the Path of Cognition).
So Steiner can't be held responsible for the silly pseudoscience and
egregious racism in his lectures, because we haven't prepared
properly? I know what proper preparation consists of, Joel. Preparing
to read Steiner the "right" way, the Anthroposophical way, requires
giving up all critical thinking and accepting him with...blind faith.
) Now, when a certain party named Koala alleged that Steiner was not a
)philosopher, I asked this person if they had read the philosophy books
)refered to above. This person has chosen not to reply, at least at this
)time (its been about a week now).
I had been willing to call Steiner a philosopher until Koala made the
argument that Steiner cannot be ranked in the company of philosophers
because he isn't logical. It would be worthwhile, Joel, for you to
address -that- argument, and not try to deflect the discussion with
an ad hominem argument about how superior your knowledge is, and how
people who haven't read certain books in a certain way aren't
qualified to discuss Steiner.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 00:49:01 -0800
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: denying Anthroposophy (was: On the cultivated paranoia on the
WC-list)
) I'm really beginning to wonder how long this sleight of hand
)marketing approach can sustain itself.
)
)Kathy
)
Debra:
Yes! They are very good. I am left in a state of constant wonderment.
Maybe this can account for my time. . .
--
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 08:22:20 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
Lisa Ercolano wrote:
) Lisa here: I second what Diana said, one million percent.
) Just make sure your signage is clear and correct, Joel. That's all we ask.
Dear Lisa,
My dictionary doesn't have the word "signage" in it. Could you help
out here and say what you mean by it.
Thanks,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 08:28:24 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
Dear Steve.
I've been wondering where you were off to. Glad to see you back.
You've basically got it right (there are some subtleties, but they are
not crucial at this point), and I fully agree with you that the
application is frequently flawed. Not always though, as some members of
the list have tried to suggest (e.g. David Cann).
warm regards,
joel
Steve Premo wrote:
)
) Hi everybody! Good to see y'all again.
)
) On 5 Feb 2002 at 19:01, Diana Winters wrote:
)
) ) Joel wrote:
) )
) ) ) But the critics want to read the lectures and then make fun of )them
) ) )without doing the well understood prepatory work. In this they )follow
) ) )the path of the believers in Steinerism that they have met in )some
) ) )Waldorf Schools and end up actually not knowing anything about
) ) )anthroposophy (the Path of Cognition).
) )
) ) Joel, the *whole point* is what these "believers in Steinerism" in "some
) ) Waldorf schools" believe and do, and how it affects Waldorf children.
)
) Right you are, Diana. Joel has probably covered this recently, but his
) position (correct me if I'm wrong, Joel) is that Anthroposophy is a
) method for investigating "spiritual reality," and not the beliefs or ideas
) that Steiner came up with by applying that method. This may be true
) enough, in the same sense that science is a method for investigating
) physical reality, and not the theories and concepts that were developed
) using the scientific method.
)
) But it is the application of Steiner's ideas that form the basis for Waldorf
) schools, and it is that application that concerns us. Nobody cares if
) some Anthroposophist wants to sit in his room and read the Akashic
) record. (Even most Waldorf people don't seem to care much about the
) "findings" of "spiritual scientists" other than Steiner.) But when the
) school is telling parents that, say, Waldorf is based on scientific theories
) of child development, and those child development theories are actually
) based on a fringe interpretation of the religious concept of reincarnation,
) that's deception. And fraud. And that's a problem.
)
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 619
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Steiner a philosopher? (was: On the cultivated paranoia onthe
WC-list)
By koala noos.fr
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By sarina bainbridge.net
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Steiner a philosopher? (was: On the cultivated paranoia
ontheWC-list)
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By pstaud hotmail.com
[from Chris] Re: Your experience at Meadowbrook Waldorf...
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By snell gv.net
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By winters_diana hotmail.com
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By feetapparel hotmail.com
a conversation with a former W. teacher
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: a conversation with a former W. teacher
By sarina bainbridge.net
Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 09:05:54 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
Dear Dan,
I've placed some remarks within [brackets] below.
warm regards,
joel
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) Joel Wendt, you wrote,
)
) ) My main issues with the critics is that they don't actually know
) )anything about anthroposophy. On the contrary, the critics are most
) )like those who believe in something I would call "Steinerism", which is
) )something quite distinct from anthroposophy.
)
) Yes, Joel, we know that you not only feel superior to
) non-Anthroposophists as an Anthroposophist, but superior to most
) Anthroposophists, too.
[Isn't this an ad homenim (please excuse the misspelling)? Be that as
it may, if crticism of another's views means that one feels "superior"
then you also must feel superior to all manner of doctors, nurses,
teachers, and other professionals who practice "anthroposophy". Seems
like the pot is calling the kettle black. However, since I don't feel
superior (actually I often "feel" inferior, but that's my problem), and
I don't really believe you feel superior to other human beings, maybe it
would be best to leave out the assumptions.]
)
) ) Anthroposophy is based upon Steiner's philosophical
writings, which are
) )clearly excellant discussions of fundamental philosophical questions
) )(Truth and Science, A Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World
) )Conception, and the Philosophy of Freedom).
)
) Clearly excellent to you, Joel, a devotee. Ignored by philosophers. I
) wonder why? Could it be that the the arguments are weak?
[If it was a matter of "argument" that observation of yours might make
sense Dan, but the real problem has to do with whether there is a will
to make the "experience". Making the experience doesn't make one
"superior" by the way, since the nature of the experience means to
confront one's most intimate failings with brutal honesty, so that one
is often left "feeling" quite inadequate and unworthy. Facing one's
shadow is a quite shattering experience, but also quite necessary. This
necessity is often implied in certain statements concerning traveling a
spiritual path, which is why people frequently turn away from it - they
aren't ready to confront their own nature. There is also the opposite
danger, which Steiner discusses, of inflating the ego. But one can find
inflated egos in all manner of places besides those trying some form of
spiritual development, just as one can find brutal self honesty in
people who would never consider themselves on a spiritual journey.]
)
) )I have yet to have a
) )conversation with a critic who understands these works to any degree.
)
) Do you think it's possible that someone could both understand
) Steiner's "philosophical" books and disagree with them?
[Anything is possible (in a way) Dan, so your question doesn't really
have much meaning as a hypothetical. However, I would like to meet
someone who can demonstrate "understanding" the philosophical books and
simultaneously disagree with them. Since the whole thing is about self
examination, for which the books are the map and not the territory, this
would be quite a feat since one would have to be disagreeing with one's
self.]
)
) ) The main thing that distinguishes these works from more academic
) )approaches to philosophical questions is that these works require an
) )experiential approach. One simply cannot understand their content
) )without undertaking a rigorous program of introspection. These books
) )are the map, and the own inner life is the territory.
)
) Aha, here's a clue. These books aren't philosophical treatises.
) They're special. One has to prepare in a certain way. Not philosophy,
) religion.
[Dan, I know you have spent years trying not to get it, and I almost
admire your own beliefs (definitely a kind of religion by the way).
Let's get down to cases, if you have the stuff for it. Epistomology is
a well understood philosophical discipline/study. It concerns the
questions of how do we know what we know and how do we know that we
know. From your expertise, would you care to make a statement about
this well known problem in a way that justifies you views as a secular
humanist?]
)
) ) The result of traveling this path (the Path of Cognition) is to begin
) )to have spiritual experiences.
)
) Very good for those who like that sort of thing. Nothing to do with
philosophy.
[Well, lets see. Don't just make assertions, let's see you demonstrate
your "philosophic" knowledge from which you offer to make such a
judgment ("Nothing to do with philosophy).]
)
) )It is from these experiences that
) )Steiner has drawn what appears later in lectures and books.
)
) Yes, it's obvious his fantasies aren't based on scientific or
) historical research, or any kind of logical extrapolation from known
) facts. If you've read in the occultism before and around
) Anthroposophy, you'll know that Steiner cribbed much of his stuff
) from other occultists.
[Sure, Dan, sure. Another "belief" in your anti-steinerism religion.]
)
) )But the
) )basis for the experiences is found in the philosophical writings. You
) )can't really understand how to deal with the lectures and later books
) )without appreciating the practical and experiential aspects of one's
) )inner life for which the philosophic works are the map and guide.
)
) Anthroposophists told me I had to read the "basic four" books. I read
) them. I didn't get any smarter.
[Well Dan, there is reading and then there is "reading". As I suggested
in a previous post, careful introspection will reveal that one's
intention makes a great deal of difference as to how meaning arises from
the reading of text. Not just a text, by the way, but the whole world
has a quality much like a mirror - you get back what you put out. If
you read Steiner looking to find fault with it, you will find fault with
it. If you read Steiner ready to believe it, you will end up believing
it. But, if you read Steiner understanding the nature of "thinking"
from an active practice of introspection, then to believe or not becomes
irrelevant and whole other processes arise.]
)
) ) But the critics want to read the lectures and then make fun of them
) )without doing the well understood prepatory work. In this they follow
) )the path of the believers in Steinerism that they have met in some
) )Waldorf Schools and end up actually not knowing anything about
) )anthroposophy (the Path of Cognition).
)
) So Steiner can't be held responsible for the silly pseudoscience and
) egregious racism in his lectures, because we haven't prepared
) properly? I know what proper preparation consists of, Joel. Preparing
) to read Steiner the "right" way, the Anthroposophical way, requires
) giving up all critical thinking and accepting him with...blind faith.
[No Dan, you don't have a clue what "preparation" involves, and you
won't until you make the experiences only possible through brutally self
honest introspection.]
)
) ) Now, when a certain party named Koala alleged that Steiner was not a
) )philosopher, I asked this person if they had read the philosophy books
) )refered to above. This person has chosen not to reply, at least at this
) )time (its been about a week now).
)
) I had been willing to call Steiner a philosopher until Koala made the
) argument that Steiner cannot be ranked in the company of philosophers
) because he isn't logical. It would be worthwhile, Joel, for you to
) address -that- argument, and not try to deflect the discussion with
) an ad hominem argument about how superior your knowledge is, and how
) people who haven't read certain books in a certain way aren't
) qualified to discuss Steiner.
[Whose deflecting who? My "argument" to Koala is clear. Have the
"philosophic" works been read on the way to making a judgment about
whether Steiner is a philosopher. The lectures aren't meant to be
"philosophic", but have a whole other purpose.]
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 09:15:37 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
Joel writes:
Here we go again. Peter accuses me of not following threads, and then
Diana snipes from the sidelines (doesn't even address me), and what am I
supposed to do with this. Respond to it? Why? Will Diana reply to my
response? If not, then what is the point in beginning a dialogue? Yet,
clearly Diana has made comments on what I wrote, comments which are in a
sense contrary arguments to what I wrote. So do I share my position
with respect to her sniping, or not? Since this is not the first time
this has happened on this list (sniping from the sidelines and not
addressing people is a frequent mode of operation here), I am going to
take the position that the sniper just wants to rant and isn't
interested in a discussion (since they don't address the person they've
sniped about), and therefore a reply is not wanted, thus being
unnecessary.
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Joel wrote:
)
) )On the contrary, the critics are most like those who believe in )something
) )I would call "Steinerism", which is something quite distinct )from
) )anthroposophy.
)
) Peter S.:
) )You think the critics get the anthroposophist phases of Steiner's teachings
) )mixed up with the pre-anthroposophist phases? Any examples?
)
) I think Joel just means to distinguish himself, the "outlaw"
) anthroposophist, from the "fundamentalist" anthroposophists with whom he
) disagrees (although he has in common with the fundamentalists a complete
) certainty that he is right and everyone else is wrong). You are a
) "Steinerite" if you just believe everything Steiner wrote (focus on
) content), and you don't deserve the title "anthroposophist" unless you
) understand that anthroposophy is a *method* and not content. (This is behind
) his constant impatience with critics saying things like, "Anthroposophists
) believe . . ." because they aren't *real* anthroposophists if they just
) "believe" Steiner without the "preparatory work.")
)
) Sniping from the sidelines as usual,
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 14:51:35 +0100
From: (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: Steiner a philosopher? (was: On the cultivated paranoia onthe
WC-list)
)le 2/02/02 5:41, Joel Wendt ý hermit tiac.net a ÈcritÝ:
) koala noos.fr wrote:
)
) a lot of stuff insisting Steiner was not a philosopher
)
) Dear Koala,
)
) Have you read any of these books by Rudolf Steiner:
)
) 1) Truth and Science
)
) 2) A Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World Conception
)
) or
) 3) The Philosophy of Freedom?
)
) warm regards,
) joel
Dear Joel, I don't know you (meaning I don't know all your posts), and your
opinions.
Here is my answer:
)
I suppose the translation of the books you mention much be pretty similar in
french. I have to look in my cellar whether I have a copy of them in french
or not (which would mean I wasn't impressed by them - but there are so many
books I wasn't impressed by, including philosophers' books).
If not, I will try to get hold of one copy of each of them and will come
back with my comments (but, of course, you understand it will take time...)
I'd like nevertheless to point out some texts still quoted in the book by
Paul Aries in "Anthroposophie, enquÍte sur un pouvoir occulte" (litteral
translation: "anthroposophy, an investigation into an occult power"
(certainly a better translation that my previous mistake "anthroposophy, an
investigation about an occult power")
From now on, I think it is better to quote the text in french and then my
rough approximate translation:
p 60
" Je me suis rendu rÈcemment ý B’le o˜ j'ai trouvÈ la liste des derniËres
parutions: il y avait un roman nËgre qui s'inscrit tout ý fait dans la ligne
d'une infiltration progressive de la civilisation africaine dans la
civilisation europÈenne contemporaine. Partout on exÈcute des danses nËgres,
partout on sautille comme des nËgres. On va mÍme jusqu'ý produire ce roman
nËgre. Celui-ci est mortellement ennuyeux, abominablement ennuyeux, mais les
gens le dÈvorent ! Eh bien, je suis pour ma part convaincu que s'il sort
encore un certain nombre de romans nËgres et que nous en donnons ý lire aux
femmes enceintes notamment dans les tout premiers temps de leur grossesse,
o˜ elles manifestent parfois de telles envies aujourd'hui - si nous leur
donnons des romans nËgres, il n'est absolument pas nÈcessaire que des noirs
viennent en Europe pour qu'il y ait des mul’tres; l'esprit spirituel de ces
lectures donnera naissance en Europe ý un bon nombre d'enfants tout gris,
qui auront des cheveux mul’tres, des enfants qui auront l'apparence
d'enfants mul’tres " (R.steiner, confÈrence du 30 DÈcembre 1922)
(translation) thanks for correcting the mistakes:
I went recently to B’les where I found the list of the recent publications:
there was a neger novel which comes quite within the framework (fits in
with, is in line with, keeping with) of a progressive infiltration into the
contemporary european civilisation of the african civilisation.
Everywhere, they perform neger dances, everywhere they skip like negers.
They even go so far as producing this neger novel. This latter is deadly
boring, frightfully boring, but people devour it!
Well, as for me, I am convinced that if some neger novels still come out and
that we give them to read to pregnant women, notably during the very first
times of their pregnancy, where, nowadays, they indicate (signify,
demonstrate) sometimes such cravings - if we give them some neger novels, it
is absolutly not necessary that black people come to Europe for some
mulattos to be; the spiritual mind of these readings will give birth in
Europe to a fair number of very grey children, mulatto-haired children,
mulatto-looking children " (R.Steiner, December the 30th 1922 lecture).
Does that look like philosophy to you ?
p 62
"Le gouvernement des Pays Bas finira par ordonner une enquÍte judiciaire
aprËs qu'un maÓtre ešt demandÈ ý ses ÈlËves d'Ècrire dans leurs cahiers que
"les gens de race noire ont des lËvres Èpaisses et qu'ils en sont ý une
phase de dÈveloppement infantile" (citÈ notamment par le GEMPPI)."
(translation):
"the Dutch government will eventually order a judiciary investigation,
after a teacher asked his pupils to write in their notebooks that:
"black-raced people have thick lips and they have reached the child-stage
development" (quoted notably by the GEMPPI)
To teach such things, which Steiner's books do you think they have read?
And would you recommend such readings?
p 71
According to Steiner and quoted by Paul AriËs in his demonstration - NDLR
(notes) are by me, those are my comments.
(...)
"L'Africain serait un Èternel enfant, l'Asiatique demeurerait un adolescent.
Le Peau-rouge appartiendrait ý une race dÈgÈnÈrÈe (ou vieillie) alors que le
blanc EuropÈen correspondrait, bien sšr, ý l'’ge de la maturitÈ.
(sic)"
(NDLR: on est triste de savoir que LÈopold Senghor vient de mourir ý 95 ans
et que ce grand intellectuel ne doit devoir sa subsistance qu'ý un
exceptionnel concours de circonstance. Il est sans doute le dernier des
derniers reprÈsentants d'une race infantile. D'ailleurs, ý quoi bon avoir
des universitÈs en CÙte d'Ivoire, des jardins d'enfants ý la rigueur, mais
des universitÈs, si Steiner disait la vÈritÈ ?)
(translation):
"The African would be an eternal (perpetual) child, the Asiatic would remain
an adolescent. The Red Indian would belong to a degenerate (or aged) race
whereas the white european would correspond, of course, to the age of
maturity"
(NDLR: we are sad to know that the african Leopold Senghor just died at the
age of 95, and that this great intellectual must owe his subsistence to an
exceptionnel combination of circonstances. He is certainly the last of the
last representative of a child-stage race. Besides, what is the use having
universities in CÙte-d'Ivoire, kindergartens possibly, but universities if
Steiner was telling the truth?)
(...)
Cette gradation serait due au fait que certaines races se seraient
ossifiÈes. La race malaise ne pourrait avoir un cerveau dÈveloppÈ car son
systËme nerveux se serait durci prÈmaturÈment; la race mongole aurait ÈtÈ
bloquÈe dans son progrËs parce que le "Moi" se serait durci dans le sang.
(NDLR: quel mÈdecin ce Steiner !).
(translation):
This gradation would be due to the fact that certain races would have become
ossified. The Malay race couldn't have a developped brain because its
nervous system would have hardened prematurely; the Mongolian race would
have been blocked during its progress because the "I" would have hardened in
the blood.
(NDLR: what a doctor this Steiner!)
(...)
"La race noire serait dÈchue parce que son systËme nutritif se serait durci.
MÍme l'art des peaux rouges montrerait la dÈgÈnÈrescences de leur race."
(NDLR: dommage que Steiner n'est pas pu nous en dire autant des crÈateurs
contemporains... cela aurait ravi le Front National)
(translation):
"The black race would be fallen because its nutritive system would have
hardened. Even the art of the Red Indian would show the degeneration of
their race"
(NDLR: too bad that Steiner couldn't say the same of the contemporary
creators... this would have pleased the extreme right wing parties)
(...)
"Ils seraient ainsi les derniers survivants d'une race dÈgÈnÈrÈe et dÈchue,
car ils appartiendraient ý ces groupes d'humains trop tÙt ossifiÈs.
Incapables de s'adapter aux Èpoques ý venir, ils devaient donc disparaÓtre."
(R.Steiner, l'Univers, la terre et l'homme pp 120-121).
(NDLR: oubliant au passage de dire que les indiens furent exterminÈs, mais
c'est un dÈtail, pour reprendre une expression dÈsormais
familiËre !! Mais ce n'est pas un darwinisme social mais son
dÈpassemement... Èvidemment)
(translation):
Thus they would be the last survivors of a degenerated and fallen race,
because they would belong to human groups that would have ossified too soon;
Unable to adapt themselves to the times (epochs) to come, they were to
disappear."
(R.Steiner, the Universe, the Earth and Man )
(NDLR: forgetting to say that the Red Indians were exterminated, but it is a
detail, to take up again a familiar expression !! But it is not a social
Darwinism, but its surpassing... of course)
(end of quote)
Now I give you the point of view of the defence, which must have cost a
certain number of intellectual interminable discussions, to manage to bite
their tail to the price of gigantic contorsions ( I'd like to point out that
those arguments are rationalised afterwards, and not by Steiner, of course!
But by his interposed intellectual alibi, Pietro Archati:
"l'anthroposophie serait donc le seul antiracisme consÈquent
puisqu'elle refuse d'identifier le seul Ítre humain ý sa seule corporÈitÈ
(cf Pietro Archati). Le siËge de l'humanitÈ serait donc l'esprit et pas
l'’me ou le corps du sujet."
(Note: les juifs sont rassurÈs par cette interprÈtation. On avait compris,
l'homme dÈgÈnÈrÈ n'est pas l'homme auquel nous, pauvres infÈrieurs que nous
sommes, nous rÈfÈrons sans cesse. Avec ce dogme, nous avons donc la
possibilitÈ de faire ce que bon nous semble avec celui-ci, mÍme le tuer).
(translation):
" Anthroposophy would be the only consistent anti-racism since it refuses to
identify the sheer human being to his own corporeity (see if the word
exists, it would mean the character of the body) (see Pietro Archati). The
centre of the humanity would be then the spirit and not the soul or the body
of the subject.
(Note: jewish people are reassured by this interpretation. We had understood
that the degenerated man is not the man to which we, poor inferiors that we
are, refer constantly. With this dogma, we have the possibility to do what
we want with the latter, even kill him)
(...)
"La nature authentique d'un homme ( son esprit) ne serait Ítre ni "anglaise"
ni "jaune", ni "blanc", car son esprit ne saurait Ítre " blanc", "jaune",
"noir" ou "rouge".
(NDLR: miracle du sophisme et des passe-passes de la didactique, comment
aurions pu Ítre dupÈs !!)
"The genuine nature of a man (his spirit) would be neither "english", nor
"yellow", nor "white", because his spirit could never be "white", "yellow",
"black" or "red".
(Note: miracle of sophism and mere didactic sleight of hand, how could we
have been fooled!!)
(...)
Let's go back to Steiner:
"Les EuropÈens ont pris sur eux tout ce qui concerne la civilisation
extÈrieure, la maÓtrise des forces physiques, tandis que les races jaunes
retardÈes,
(NDLR: l'exemple est flagrant pour le Japon, deuxiËme puissance mondiale...)
" Europeans have taken upon themselves all that concerns the external
(outside) civilisation, the mastery of the physical forces, while retarded
yellow races,
(NDLR: the example is blatant for Japan, second industrial world power...)
... prolongeant la culture atlantÈenne, ont quelque chose de stationnaire
qui les rend comme ÈtrangËres ý notre civilisation post atlantÈennes; les
qualitÈs particuliËres que ces races avaient conservÈes tout d'abord ont
ensuite dÈgÈnÈrÈes. On entend dire souvent, de nos jours, que les Japonais
Èvoluent d'une maniËre frappante et transforment les caractÈristiques de
leur race, mais c'est une illusion.
(NDLR: nous sommes convaincus, cela va sans dire...)
... extending the atlantean culture, have something stationary which makes
them like having nothing to do with our post-atlantean civilisation; the
specific qualities those races had retained in the first place, later
degenerated. You often hear people saying, nowadays, that japanese people
evolve strikingly and transform the characteristics of their race, but this
is an illusion.
(Note: we are convinced, it goes without saying...)
Demonstration by Paul Aries:
"Archiati Ècrit que lorsque une forme corporelle n'entre plus en compte pour
l'Èvolution gÈnÈrale de l'humanitÈ, elle serait condamnÈe ý disparaÓtre, sur
la dÈcision d'Ítres spirituels...(#)
(NDLR: auxquels doivent s'identifier Archati, les anthroposophes et les
nazis...)
"Archiati writes that when a body shape is not taken into account for the
overall evolution of the humanity, it would be doomed to disappear,
according to spiritual beings' decision...
(Note: to which Archiati must identify himself, anthroposophists and nazis
as well...)
What a luck for us that beings, looking like ourselves, take decisions
instead of us, and that, just by chance, they espouse our racist ideas.
"God made man to his own image, and man did exactly the same with God"
(Voltaire)
We go back to the text:
(#) ...beaucoup plus ÈvoluÈs que l'Ítre humain."
(NDLR: donc incomprÈhensible. Si tuer mon prochain me semble
incomprÈhensible, qu'aurais je ý y redire puisque des " Ítres beaucoup plus
ÈvoluÈs que moi" ont pris des dÈcisions que je ne comprend pas...
(#)...more evolved than the human being."
(Note: therefore incomprehensible. If killing my fellow man seems to me
incomprehensible, why would I have a complaint with that, since some "beings
much more evolved than me" have taken decisions that I don't understand...
Therefore, my behaviour would be obviously logical, in the sense of " as
illogical as spiritual beings much more evolved than me"). Which allows to
act totally irrationally, according to the myth that has been fabricated for
me ( which is not explainable rationally, and for a very good reason!)
Let's go back to the demonstration of Paul AriËs:
"Les Indiens d'AmÈrique seraient morts, non pas ý cause du gÈnocide, mais
parce qu'ils Ètaient les derniers survivants d'une race dÈgÈnÈrÈe et dÈchue.
Il Ètait donc normal (bÈnÈfique ?) qu'ils meurent au regard de l'histoire !
Cette condamnation collective de la race rouge ne signifierait pas, bien sšr
que les indiens Ètaient tous individuellement mauvais ou tarÈs. Ce rejet de
leur enveloppe corporelle ne dirait rien au sujet de leur esprit. Ils se
seraient depuis rÈincarnÈs dans d'autre races (dont la race blanche)."
(NDLR: quelle chance, ils vont survivre alors... mais qu'est ce que la vie
au regard de milliers d'annÈes... On frÈmit ý l'idÈe de penser quelle
interprÈtation aurait donnÈe Steiner, s'il Ètait toujours vivant, du
gÈnocide juif...)
(translation)
"American Indians would be dead, not because of the genocide, but because
they were the last survivors of a fallen and degenerated race. It was
therefore normal (beneficial?) for them to die in the sight of history! This
collective comdemnation of the red race would not signify, of course, that
the Indians were all individually bad or with a defect. This rejection of
their corporeal (bodily) shroud would say nothing as to their spirit. They
would have reincarnated since into other races (among which the white
race)."
(Note: What a stroke of good luck, they are going to survive then... but
what is life in the sight of thousand of years... We shiver to the idea of
thinking which interpretation would have given Steiner, if he was still
alive, of the jewish genocide...)
(...)
Let's go back to Steiner quoted by AriËs:
"Ce n'est pas pour le plaisir des EuropÈens que la population indienne a
pÈri, mais parce que la population indienne devait acquÈrir les forces
nÈcessaires pour l'amener ý pÈrir" (Steiner, confÈrence du 10 Juin 1910)
(NDLR: Ah, non, cela ne me fera pas plaisir de tuer mon prochain, mais c'est
pour son bien, alors tout va bien...)
(translation)
"This is not for the pleasure of the Europeans that the Indian population
has perished, but because the Indian population was to acquire the necessary
forces to bring it to perish" (Steiner, lecture, June the tenth 1910)
(Note: this will not please me to kill my fellow man, but it is for his own
good, then all is well...)
I must admit that I would go without the full discharge of Mr Jack Lang
(Education ministry) as to the situaton of the Waldorf schools in France, to
whom I recommend the thorough and complete reading ( apparently 89 000
pages) of Mr Steiner's whole corpus.
But without this discharge, how carrying on a job as teacher in a Waldorf
school, when they drag behing them such insanities!
Was Plato needing Mr Jack Lang's discharge? And Spinoza? And Hegel? And
Einstein? To mention just a few of them...
koala.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 09:20:04 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
on 2/6/02 5:28 AM, Joel Wendt at hermit tiac.net wrote:
) Dear Steve.
)
) I've been wondering where you were off to. Glad to see you back.
) You've basically got it right (there are some subtleties, but they are
) not crucial at this point), and I fully agree with you that the
) application is frequently flawed. Not always though, as some members of
) the list have tried to suggest (e.g. David Cann).
Sharon: Yes, hello Steve, nice to hear from you again!
Actually Joel, David Cann demonstrated that his school is indeed fraudulent.
If you remember, shortly before he left this list....he mentioned that he
measures the pulse of new parents to monitor how they are feeling about the
school and that he did not think it was necessary to inform the parents that
Waldorf is a magical, mystery school. This deception is what bugs me most
about Waldorf.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 07:01:17 -0800
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarina bainbridge.net)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
) Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
Hi, Steve! *waving*
You said:
"This may be true enough, in the same sense that science is a method
for investigating physical reality, and not the theories and concepts
that were developed using the scientific method."
Righty-o.
But the question that this thread has made me ponder - and which is
even more unlikely to be answered in the affirmative (as Peter Farrel
apparently concurs) - is, "Was Steiner a scientist?"
I think this is even sillier than calling him a philosopher... don't
you?
Sarina "not much to add, just haven't posted in a while" McDonald
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 10:08:20 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
on 2/5/02 10:56 AM, Joel Wendt at hermit tiac.net wrote:
) Dear lurkers,
)
) As you can see Sharon already knows everything. Must make life easy to
) put people in such nice clear boxes, regardless of what the truth might
) be.
Sharon: What, that you are an Anthroposophist? That Steiner's books can be
found in the New Age section of Barnes and Nobles and not the philosophy
section? That most books by Steiner are published from within the enclosed,
intramural world of Anthroposophy? That not much has been written in English
about Steiner from outside the movement?
I've never said I know everything, on the contrary...I always say that "The
more you know, the more you know you don't know". I am a student because I
want to learn.
RE the "clear box"....I have visited your site and have read many of your
posts on various Anthroposophy lists, (the ones where you are fighting with
other Anthros like Starman (G)) surely you're not implying above that you
aren't an Anthroposophist and that I am wrong for calling you one?).
I can confidently say that I do know quite a bit about Anthroposophy. Wasn't
it you who said that I didn't know *anything* about Anthroposophy? What does
a statement like that show about your opinion? You've got to admit Joel that
I know more than the average Joe when it comes to WSA.
) This is why I don't respond to such posts, as it would be a waste of
) effort. I've also deleted her response so as to not waste bandwidth.
Sharon: I always try to respond to your posts Joel and will continue to do
so. Some day I will tell you, even if you delete my posts, what I've learned
about Bullwer Lytton's book Zanoni, though I bet you already know all about
it. Recently I learned that Eliphas Levi was Lytton's pupil!!!! Fancy that!
Coincidence....or....not!! I've discovered where Steiner and Blavatsky got
their prophesies about black and white magicians from! ( Lytton's book
entitled "The Coming Race"). So much to learn, so little time. Funny how
Steiner prophesied that Sorath the high level black magician would incarnate
in 1998 (3x666) and a war against white magicians would ensue. Something I
still need to learn....is this the war of "All Against All" where black
humanity who hasn't taken the spirit deep into their flesh will fight white
humanity or is it a different war altogether? I am a little confused about
whether the black magicians are also "colored" humanity?
) mysplum wrote:
) her quite predictable rant
Sharon: Yes indeed. Don't you wish Waldorf hadn't duped me? Don't you wish
Waldorf would get out of the public system? That way PLANS could pack up
their bags, we'd like to do that.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 15:46:12 +0000
From: "Diana Winters" (winters_diana hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
Lisa:
)Just make sure your signage is clear and correct, Joel. That's all we )ask.
Joel:
)Dear Lisa,
) My dictionary doesn't have the word "signage" in it. Could
you )help out
)here and say what you mean by it.
I'll help. An editor would change "signage" to "signs" (whether "signage" is
a real word or not), the way we change words like "methodology" to
"methods." Did I originally use "signage"? Slap my wrist. (I think Lisa's
implication was that more than one sign in the neighborhood is incorrect;
that I was not the only one who had some trouble finding my way around based
on the signs posted in Anthroposophy Land, hence wandering foolishly down
the wrong Path of Cognition.)
I'll be back to snipe at you some more later, Joel, no time this morning.
Diana
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 13:41:27 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
Peter Farrell wrote:
) G'day Joel,
) you don't need to know too much about physics to understand that training in
) physics leads to real understanding and the ability to do real things, at
) least in most cases. I don't need to know anything much about Anthroposophy
) to know whether it is useful as a philosophy. I need only look at the claims
) of practitioners, pick out those claims that have consequences in the "real"
) world and test them. The details may be tricky, but the idea is simple.
Dear Peter,
Well, g'day to you too. How's the weather down there? Let's see, if
we are deep in winter, you must be in the dog days of summer. Got air
conditioning?
Can't disagree with anything you say (mostly - don't you just love
those qualifiers), but must admit I like especially a couple of
statements: "...to real things, at least in most cases" is one; and "The
details may be tricky,..." is another.
Of course, if you didn't duck the philosophical questions (which deal
very much with real things), then all that "in most cases" stuff, and
those "tricky details" get to be a lot more fun.
warm regards,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 12:55:10 -0400
From: "Lisa Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
) Lisa Ercolano wrote:
)
)) Lisa here: I second what Diana said, one million percent.
)) Just make sure your signage is clear and correct, Joel. That's all we ask.
)
) Dear Lisa,
)
) My dictionary doesn't have the word "signage" in it. Could you help
) out here and say what you mean by it.
)
) Thanks,
) joel
)
Lisa here: C'mon, Joel ... if you are a native speaker of English (which I
believe you are), I have trouble believing that my incorrect use of the word
"signage" confused you!
Certainly you must know that I should have said/meant to say "signs." As
in: "Just make sure your signs are clear and accurate." By the way, I am not
talking about "signs" as in invisible portents or symbols of *that* kind. I
am referencing *signs* that point the way to something or some place.
If you honestly had no idea what I was talking about, well, then it
become a little clearer why we critics have so much trouble communicating
with followers of Steiner. One word can mean so many things .....
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 13:57:57 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner a philosopher? (was: On the cultivated paranoia
ontheWC-list)
koala noos.fr wrote:
)
) Dear Joel, I don't know you (meaning I don't know all your posts), and your
) opinions.
)
) Here is my answer:
) )
)
) I suppose the translation of the books you mention much be pretty similar in
) french. I have to look in my cellar whether I have a copy of them in french
) or not (which would mean I wasn't impressed by them - but there are so many
) books I wasn't impressed by, including philosophers' books).
)
) If not, I will try to get hold of one copy of each of them and will come
) back with my comments (but, of course, you understand it will take time...)
Dear Koala,
Since you confess to having no familiarity with Steiner's philosophic
writings, I don't see how you can claim he is not a philosopher.
As to your rant on Steiner's so-called racism, whatever one decides on
those matters, this has no relationship to his qualities as regards
questions of philosophy. I see no reason to discuss the "quotes" with
you, until you make yourself familiar with the philosophic material,
since that material is the key to understanding Steiner's remarks on
race and the development of peoples that you appear to have quoted (I
say "appear to" since it seems that you are not using the original
sources, but rather someone elses material).
warm regards,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 14:05:06 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
mysplum wrote:
David Cann demonstrated that his school is indeed fraudulent.
) If you remember, shortly before he left this list....he mentioned that he
) measures the pulse of new parents to monitor how they are feeling about the
) school and that he did not think it was necessary to inform the parents that
) Waldorf is a magical, mystery school. This deception is what bugs me most
) about Waldorf.
Dear Sharon,
Yes, you have a point of view about Waldorf. Others don't have the
same point of view.
warm regards,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 12:32:39 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
Hi again Joel,
It's getting harder for me to take your position seriously, but let's see if
I've got it right. Steve wrote (welcome back, Steve!):
)Joel has probably covered this recently, but his
)position (correct me if I'm wrong, Joel) is that Anthroposophy is a
)method for investigating "spiritual reality," and not the beliefs or ideas
)that Steiner came up with by applying that method.
And you replied:
)You've basically got it right (there are some subtleties, but they are
)not crucial at this point)
Are you saying that what you call "anthroposophy" is a method that lacks any
content, any concrete claims, any arguments or propositions? If so, why are
you calling it a philosophy? And for that matter, why are you using the word
"anthroposophy" for it, since that word already means something else
(namely, "the beliefs or ideas that Steiner came up with by applying that
method", which is to say the beliefs held by anthroposophists)? And if this
really is your position, then how can you argue that anyone else has
"misunderstood anthroposophy" or is "ignorant of anthroposophy"? What would
such phrases mean, if what you're calling anthroposophy contains no ideas
that one could understand or be aware of?
What would these sentences of yours mean, for example:
"In the process of criticising Waldorf the critics make comments about the
nature of anthroposophy that are false." How can anyone make false claims
about an open-ended method that has no positive content? What would be false
about such claims?
"I would like to meet someone who can demonstrate "understanding" the
philosophical books and simultaneously disagree with them." If it's possible
to either understand or disagree with Steiner's philosophical books, then
those books must contain actual arguments, not mere methods.
"Epistomology is a well understood philosophical discipline/study. It
concerns the questions of how do we know what we know and how do we know
that we know." Are you now saying that what you call anthroposophy is a
branch of epistemology? How do you reconcile that with the empty-method
definition?
"there is reading and then there is "reading". As I suggested
in a previous post, careful introspection will reveal that one's
intention makes a great deal of difference as to how meaning arises from
the reading of text." So there are meanings to be found in Steiner's texts?
But these "meanings" are not "beliefs or ideas"? Then what are they?
Yours for philosophical rigor,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 14:31:06 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
Lisa Ercolano wrote:
) If you honestly had no idea what I was talking about, well, then it
) become a little clearer why we critics have so much trouble communicating
) with followers of Steiner. One word can mean so many things .....
Dear Lisa,
I honestly had no idea what you meant. As to miscommunications, that
is a basically common human element in all kinds of circumstances - it
doesn't just take critics and defenders of the faith. My experience is
that e-mail lists actually aggravate the problem (didn't we talk about
this a month ago?).
warm regards,
joel
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 12:38:30 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
)Joel writes:
)
)Here we go again. Peter accuses me of not following threads,
I did? Where?
)what is the point in beginning a dialogue?
You already began a dialogue with me. Why not complete it?
)I am going to
)take the position that the sniper just wants to rant and isn't
)interested in a discussion (since they don't address the person they've
)sniped about), and therefore a reply is not wanted, thus being
)unnecessary.
Aside from the fact that you're being a bit obtuse about Diana's post,
several other list members have tried to engage you in discussion recently,
but you don't seem willing to oblige. Why is that?
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:16:36 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: [from Chris] Re: Your experience at Meadowbrook Waldorf...
[This update was sent to several of us by Chris Bostrup-Jensen
C_Brostrup-Jensen postoffice.brown.edu -dD-]
Hi all,
Back in December Gary and David both independently
wrote to me. Apparently my name came up in connection
with some discussion of the Meadowbrook School, where
my son Brian went last year. The rest of you were either
referenced or cc'ed on one of those emails. I meant to
respond at the time, but was ultimately deterred by a
combination of distractions (both work and seasonal) and
lingering aversion. My experience on the Waldorf Critics
list was interesting and informative, but also very frustrating
and emotionally exhausting. So I put off responding and,
as so often happens, action deferred is action not taken.
I doubt my views on Meadowbrook and our experience
there are of burning fascination to any of the involved
parties any more; the action on Waldorf Critics tends
to be pretty fast-moving! :-)
FWIW, though, we left the school not in fear or anger,
but with regret and frustration. Our feeling is that the
Waldorf educational model has some great strengths
and potential; it also has a number of pointless and
archaic elements. Whether those elements derive
from a relatively ordinary failure to grow and adapt
or from some great theocratic conspiracy is a matter
of some debate -- I hardly need to tell you that.
All of that is somewhat beside the point in our case
anyway. Brian was only in pre-school. He liked his
teacher and loved certain of the rituals associated with
the school day; we still make "Brian Bread" based on
the recipe used at Meadowbrook on a pretty regular
basis. But he had a lot of trouble making social
connection with other students and we had a terrible
time getting the teacher to help him in this area.
Indeed, communication problems were at the heart
of our dissatisfaction with Meadowbrook. We tried
hard to open lines of communication between home
and school, but were repeatedly dismayed at the
kinds of information that were not being conveyed
to us. Most of what we ever found out about Brian's
problems at school came from Brian himself and the
parents of classmates. And sometimes we were told
one thing and others were told another. As I think I
told David at the time, the biggest single improvement
I could think of suggesting for Meadowbrook would
be to move away from using "informal networks"
(aka the grapevine) for transmitting important information
and relying more on formal communications like
newsletters and such. Of course, we did get periodic
updates from the teacher, but they never seemed to
deal with the substantive issues we were concerned
with.
Anyway, enough about that. Our other major concern
was safety. Our standards for what constituted a safe
environment for pre-school age children and the teacher's
standards diverged a fair amount. We found the amount
and consistency of adult oversight inadequate; we felt
that too many hazards (suspended wires, uncovered
outlets, play areas near parking, etc) were left unresolved;
and we felt that there were inadequate restraints on
potentially dangerous or bullying kinds of play. Not that
we felt Brian was in constant danger; obviously we would
have pulled him out in that case. But things just kept
coming up, and when they did our concerns did not seem
to be shared. And even that could probably have been
solved but in the end we simply no longer trusted that
we would be kept informed of what was happening.
The decision to leave Meadowbrook was not an easy
or obvious one for us. We kept looking back over our
shoulders for quite a while. We liked a lot of the folks
there, David very much among them. Hopefully we did
the right thing for our family.
Hope you all are well and that the repartee around the
old list remains at an elevated level! :-)
Peace,
Chris
Chris Brostrup-Jensen
24 Mill Rd.
Foster, RI 02825
USA
phone: 1-401-647-2399 (home)
1-401-863-3682 (work)
email: C_Brostrup-Jensen Brown.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 11:38:09 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
)Joel writes:
)
)Here we go again. Peter accuses me of not following threads, and then
)Diana snipes from the sidelines (doesn't even address me), and what am I
)supposed to do with this. Respond to it? Why? Will Diana reply to my
)response? If not, then what is the point in beginning a dialogue? Yet,
)clearly Diana has made comments on what I wrote, comments which are in a
)sense contrary arguments to what I wrote. So do I share my position
)with respect to her sniping, or not? Since this is not the first time
)this has happened on this list (sniping from the sidelines and not
)addressing people is a frequent mode of operation here), I am going to
)take the position that the sniper just wants to rant and isn't
)interested in a discussion (since they don't address the person they've
)sniped about), and therefore a reply is not wanted, thus being
)unnecessary.
OK, so in the future will you make your "unnecessary" replies shorter?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 19:02:02 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
Dear Peter,
I've written some comments below in [brackets].
warm regards,
joel
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) )Joel writes:
) )
) )Here we go again. Peter accuses me of not following threads,
)
) I did? Where?
[Here: "You must have spent too much time studying philosophy and law to
notice how email discussions work. This is called a "thread", Joel, and
is a commonplace element in forums such as this one. Does this practice
trouble you in some way? Could you explain why?]
)
) )what is the point in beginning a dialogue?
)
) You already began a dialogue with me. Why not complete it?
[Your last post on the thread we have been having was received by me on
2/5/02 at 10:30 pm (less than 24 hours ago), following which you
interjected yourself into two other conversations I was having (Steve:
recv'd 2/06/02 12:32 pm and Diana - this one - recv'd 2/06/02 12:38 pm)
If you want me to have the time to respond (I have a life you know) how
about you give me a day or so sometimes, and then not add to the
correspondence by sticking your nose in other conversations - especially
since you didn't like it when I seemed to do it (you wrote: "I get a
kick out of Joel, who doesn't answer posts addressed to him but then
hallucinates posts that aren't addressed to him. But let's pretend that
my last post was a reply to
Joel:"]
)
) )I am going to
) )take the position that the sniper just wants to rant and isn't
) )interested in a discussion (since they don't address the person they've
) )sniped about), and therefore a reply is not wanted, thus being
) )unnecessary.
)
) Aside from the fact that you're being a bit obtuse about Diana's post,
) several other list members have tried to engage you in discussion recently,
) but you don't seem willing to oblige. Why is that?
[Please give the exact case you are curious about and I will be glad to
explain my reasons which are are situation specific.]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 19:39:08 -0500
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Was Steiner a philosopher?
Dear Peter,
I have placed some remarks below in [brackets].
warm regards,
joel
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) Hi again Joel,
)
) It's getting harder for me to take your position seriously, but let's see if
) I've got it right. Steve wrote (welcome back, Steve!):
)
) )Joel has probably covered this recently, but his
) )position (correct me if I'm wrong, Joel) is that Anthroposophy is a
) )method for investigating "spiritual reality," and not the beliefs or ideas
) )that Steiner came up with by applying that method.
)
) And you replied:
)
) )You've basically got it right (there are some subtleties, but they are
) )not crucial at this point)
)
) Are you saying that what you call "anthroposophy" is a method that lacks any
) content, any concrete claims, any arguments or propositions? If so, why are
) you calling it a philosophy? And for that matter, why are you using the word
) "anthroposophy" for it, since that word already means something else
) (namely, "the beliefs or ideas that Steiner came up with by applying that
) method", which is to say the beliefs held by anthroposophists)? And if this
) really is your position, then how can you argue that anyone else has
) "misunderstood anthroposophy" or