return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Stunted imagination
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
Re: Waldorf roll call
By BarleySinger creative-interweb.com
Re: Stunted imagination
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
Re: Stunted imagination
By BarleySinger creative-interweb.com
OOPS Re: Stunted imagination
By BarleySinger creative-interweb.com
Re: Stunted imagination
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Stunted imagination
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Waldorf roll call
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Heindel, future human form
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Anthroposophical Christmas Tree
By mysplum earthlink.net
Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
By BarleySinger creative-interweb.com
Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: Stunted imagination
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
By dan dandugan.com
Admin: Re: Stunted imagination
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Stunted imagination
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: Stunted imagination
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Stunted imagination
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: Stunted imagination
By nmfoss hotmail.com
grades/was stunted imagination
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: grades/was stunted imagination
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: grades/was stunted imagination
By nmfoss hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 23:09:57 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
At 12-11-02 11:16 AM Tuesday, Alice wrote:
)on 11/11/02 6:29 PM, Nicole Foss at nmfoss hotmail.com wrote:
)Imagination is a wonderful thing and a powerful tool when harnessed for
)learning. I do think too much emphasis on cold, hard facts dulls a child's
)interest in the world around them (which is not to say that facts should
)be avoided, just that a creative approach enhances their impact).
)Children learn best when they really connect with the material they're
)working with. Perhaps a well developed imagination in a young child can
)facilitate lateral thinking later in life. In our case we'll have to wait
)and see.
) )many snips(
)
)Alice here:
)My nine-year old son, current Montessori student, former 2plus years at W.
)school (his big sister, nine years there..) lost a tooth last night. He
)was completely convinced and thrilled at the tooth fairy 's kind attention
)and gifts this morning.
)Despite the montessori emphasis on science and cognition, the gift of
)magical thinking is still powerful in this age group.
I've never really thought that children were "age groups" - I think they're
just kids. Maybe that's because I've never really fit the developmental
model in many ways, ESPECIALLY in terms of mental aspects of my
development; if that's the case, my daughter's development is doing
nothing to change my views, so she must be as weird as I am. (LOL)
She too just lost a tooth - her first. She LOVED "playing the tooth fairy
game", but she has always been a very concrete child when it comes to her
sense of reality.
She LOVES playing pretend games, preferring them to all other forms of
play, and has a very creative imagination that draws on ALL of the sources
to which she is exposed (including the many quality educational and
children's shows which we watch on public TV - she loves many of the
upper-level educational shows, and is fascinated by volcanoes, states of
matter, and paleobiology (dinosaurs and the bird-ruled era that followed
them in particular), as well as her lifelong fascination with space, which
last isn't surprising, as she's planned to be an astronaut since before she
was 2). She also creates her own stories, which she loves to write down
(with our help, of course, since she limits her writing to single words
such as her name at this point, by her own choice - we provide learning
opportunities and gentle encouragement at the tasks she chooses to take on,
she chooses for herself what she is interested in and ready to learn).
However, at the same time, what makes HER comfortable with playing pretend
is the knowledge of the very clear line between "pretend" and
"reality". We do not worry about carrying the teddy bear by it's ear or
swinging the baby doll around by one leg - we are not allowed to, because
they are not real, they are just toys, as she has repeatedly informed us
when we told her that "if that were a real ____, you wouldn't want to treat
it like that".
)He was thrilled to be somehow "blessed" by this magical being..
This is very different from my daughter - she does not believe in that sort
of thing, and finds it rather disturbing. She likes stage magic, not
invisible people who are, at *best*, only semi-real. The one exception to
this is things like "wishing on thistledown" - she likes to do it, but she
doesn't expect it to work. Still, it's a fun "pretend".
)Personally, I think this is a sacred duty of parenting...to keep this
)alive as long as possible.. a child's personal connection to certain
)powers outside themselves.
She has a connection to powers outside of herself - us, and the very real
natural laws, such as the laws of physics.
)It is not the same, however, as W. theory on otherwordly thinking..it
)is psychological support for my children... another reassurance and
)connection to a benevolent influence outside themselves. NOT literal
)belief in the world of fairies and intrusion into trying to pry into the
)spirit world.
For our daughter, the psychological support comes from the fact that she
knows that we, her parents, will ALWAYS be honest with her, to the limits
of our knowledge, and will admit when we run into those limits. We tell
her when we don't know, and we tell her when our knowledge is more
theoretical than concrete. She prefers this, and does not understand why
some parents choose to lie to their children, telling them that there
really are people like Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny and the Tooth
Fairy, when the parents know full well that there aren't. She'd rather
know that her parents love her enough to give her the joy and celebration
and gifts themselves, AND the gift of their honesty, than be given the idea
that something is real and later become disillusioned and left to wonder
what other things we might have lied to her about.
In short, it's not the age, it's the kid, and/or how they're raised. It's
also one of many reasons why Waldorf was totally unsuitable for our child -
in our home, the only ultimate authority is reality, we acknowledge that
people are fallible, and that conflicts with the Waldorf approach of
"imitation, authority, reverence". Where is there room in that for the
development of the capacity for independent thought??? We still "mess with
her" from time to time, to ensure that she questions anything that doesn't
sound right (no, there are NOT giant purple wombats in the bedroom, that
noise is really Daddy...), but only long enough to get her to say "are you
messing with me??", at which point we say "yes", and tell her the
truth. In my opinion, THAT is far more likely to ground her in the reality
in which she will live her whole life, child AS WELL as adult, than an
indoctrination into a codified recipe for so-called "imaginative play", or
a required participation in a fantasy life where she is asked to claim that
she sees through walls, has thoughts planted in her head by gnomes, or that
little tiny winged people steal her body parts from her bedroom at night.
Besides - is it just me, or are these concepts rather creepy (AS WELL as
being thoroughly disconnected from reality)?? Having someone "see you when
your sleeping, and know when you're awake" has always sounded to me more
like someone who works for the NSA, than someone I want to encourage my
child to venerate. Ditto someone who sneaks into her room at night to
steal parts of her body, discarded or otherwise. That is the behaviour of
a stalker - what would YOU call it, if someone snuck into your home to
steal your discarded nail clippings and tossed some money on the night
stand as they left? The idea of anyone sneaking into a child bedroom at
night and rummaging around under their pillow for discarded body parts is
pretty freaky.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 23:23:46 +1030
From: BarleySinger (BarleySinger creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf roll call
At 15-11-02 01:18 PM Friday, you wrote:
)Ah, roll call. Should have been called
)"let's-make-the-children-squirm-with-impatience-and-drive-them-crazy" call.
)This morning "task" was the last thing my daughter wanted to do first thing
)in the morning with all that early morning energy. Another tedious
)slow-down-you're-in-our-control-now ritual was the shake the teacher's hand
)and look into her eyes every morning and at the end of the day.
Waldorf teachers do not seem to get the idea that it is OK for children to
act like children. The whole idea of the "calming" kindy space creeps me
out. Children are full of life and the joy of living and the joy of
moving. They need "fun" movement, not Steiner's weird eurythmy. They need
to have real conversations with people and to be addressed AS people.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 23:32:33 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
At 12-11-02 11:47 AM Tuesday, you wrote:
)Nicole: I know many wonderfully gifted, successful and well-adjusted
)Waldorf graduates, and also some who are struggling. I think it critically
)depends on who the child has for a teacher.
I suppose it would.
It would also be very helpful if the "teacher" actually was a teacher, with
the kind of knowledge that a teacher needs, not just somebody who was
taught all about Steiner. The only qualifications to be a Waldorf teacher
at the school here, is being trained at the college of teachers with 2
years of really bad metaphysical theories and completely incorrect ideas
about child development.
The only GOOD teacher I knew at the Waldorf school here was constantly at
odds with the "science" (what science?) curriculum. Where other children
have had lessons in science since they were very young, Waldorf children do
not. Real schools teach the periodic table of the elements, not the 4
elements of metaphysics as actual elements. He wanted to teach them the
truth (actual facts), but there is no room for the truth in Waldorf.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 23:34:02 +1030
From: BarleySinger (BarleySinger creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
Sorry again folks, I sent this message not my wife.
At 15-11-02 11:09 PM Friday, you wrote:
)At 12-11-02 11:16 AM Tuesday, Alice wrote:
))on 11/11/02 6:29 PM, Nicole Foss at nmfoss hotmail.com wrote:
))Imagination is a wonderful thing and a powerful tool when harnessed for
))learning. I do think too much emphasis on cold, hard facts dulls a
))child's interest in the world around them (which is not to say that facts
))should be avoided, just that a creative approach enhances their impact).
))Children learn best when they really connect with the material they're
))working with. Perhaps a well developed imagination in a young child can
))facilitate lateral thinking later in life. In our case we'll have to wait
))and see.
)) )many snips(
))
))Alice here:
))My nine-year old son, current Montessori student, former 2plus years at
))W. school (his big sister, nine years there..) lost a tooth last night.
))He was completely convinced and thrilled at the tooth fairy 's kind
))attention and gifts this morning.
))Despite the montessori emphasis on science and cognition, the gift of
))magical thinking is still powerful in this age group.
)
)
)I've never really thought that children were "age groups" - I think
)they're just kids. Maybe that's because I've never really fit the
)developmental model in many ways, ESPECIALLY in terms of mental aspects of
)my development; if that's the case, my daughter's development is doing
)nothing to change my views, so she must be as weird as I am. (LOL)
)
)She too just lost a tooth - her first. She LOVED "playing the tooth fairy
)game", but she has always been a very concrete child when it comes to her
)sense of reality.
)
)She LOVES playing pretend games, preferring them to all other forms of
)play, and has a very creative imagination that draws on ALL of the sources
)to which she is exposed (including the many quality educational and
)children's shows which we watch on public TV - she loves many of the
)upper-level educational shows, and is fascinated by volcanoes, states of
)matter, and paleobiology (dinosaurs and the bird-ruled era that followed
)them in particular), as well as her lifelong fascination with space, which
)last isn't surprising, as she's planned to be an astronaut since before
)she was 2). She also creates her own stories, which she loves to write
)down (with our help, of course, since she limits her writing to single
)words such as her name at this point, by her own choice - we provide
)learning opportunities and gentle encouragement at the tasks she chooses
)to take on, she chooses for herself what she is interested in and ready to
)learn).
)
)However, at the same time, what makes HER comfortable with playing pretend
)is the knowledge of the very clear line between "pretend" and
)"reality". We do not worry about carrying the teddy bear by it's ear or
)swinging the baby doll around by one leg - we are not allowed to, because
)they are not real, they are just toys, as she has repeatedly informed us
)when we told her that "if that were a real ____, you wouldn't want to
)treat it like that".
))He was thrilled to be somehow "blessed" by this magical being..
)
)This is very different from my daughter - she does not believe in that
)sort of thing, and finds it rather disturbing. She likes stage magic, not
)invisible people who are, at *best*, only semi-real. The one exception to
)this is things like "wishing on thistledown" - she likes to do it, but she
)doesn't expect it to work. Still, it's a fun "pretend".
))Personally, I think this is a sacred duty of parenting...to keep this
))alive as long as possible.. a child's personal connection to certain
))powers outside themselves.
)
)She has a connection to powers outside of herself - us, and the very real
)natural laws, such as the laws of physics.
))It is not the same, however, as W. theory on otherwordly thinking..it
))is psychological support for my children... another reassurance and
))connection to a benevolent influence outside themselves. NOT literal
))belief in the world of fairies and intrusion into trying to pry into the
))spirit world.
)
)For our daughter, the psychological support comes from the fact that she
)knows that we, her parents, will ALWAYS be honest with her, to the limits
)of our knowledge, and will admit when we run into those limits. We tell
)her when we don't know, and we tell her when our knowledge is more
)theoretical than concrete. She prefers this, and does not understand why
)some parents choose to lie to their children, telling them that there
)really are people like Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny and the Tooth
)Fairy, when the parents know full well that there aren't. She'd rather
)know that her parents love her enough to give her the joy and celebration
)and gifts themselves, AND the gift of their honesty, than be given the
)idea that something is real and later become disillusioned and left to
)wonder what other things we might have lied to her about.
)
)In short, it's not the age, it's the kid, and/or how they're raised. It's
)also one of many reasons why Waldorf was totally unsuitable for our child
)- in our home, the only ultimate authority is reality, we acknowledge that
)people are fallible, and that conflicts with the Waldorf approach of
)"imitation, authority, reverence". Where is there room in that for the
)development of the capacity for independent thought??? We still "mess
)with her" from time to time, to ensure that she questions anything that
)doesn't sound right (no, there are NOT giant purple wombats in the
)bedroom, that noise is really Daddy...), but only long enough to get her
)to say "are you messing with me??", at which point we say "yes", and tell
)her the truth. In my opinion, THAT is far more likely to ground her in
)the reality in which she will live her whole life, child AS WELL as adult,
)than an indoctrination into a codified recipe for so-called "imaginative
)play", or a required participation in a fantasy life where she is asked to
)claim that she sees through walls, has thoughts planted in her head by
)gnomes, or that little tiny winged people steal her body parts from her
)bedroom at night.
)
)Besides - is it just me, or are these concepts rather creepy (AS WELL as
)being thoroughly disconnected from reality)?? Having someone "see you
)when your sleeping, and know when you're awake" has always sounded to me
)more like someone who works for the NSA, than someone I want to encourage
)my child to venerate. Ditto someone who sneaks into her room at night to
)steal parts of her body, discarded or otherwise. That is the behaviour of
)a stalker - what would YOU call it, if someone snuck into your home to
)steal your discarded nail clippings and tossed some money on the night
)stand as they left? The idea of anyone sneaking into a child bedroom at
)night and rummaging around under their pillow for discarded body parts is
)pretty freaky.
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 23:35:02 +1030
From: BarleySinger (BarleySinger creative-interweb.com)
Subject: OOPS Re: Stunted imagination
I really should just go to bed. This message really is from Willow. I
replied to a different message in the thread.
At 15-11-02 11:09 PM Friday, you wrote:
)At 12-11-02 11:16 AM Tuesday, Alice wrote:
))on 11/11/02 6:29 PM, Nicole Foss at nmfoss hotmail.com wrote:
))Imagination is a wonderful thing and a powerful tool when harnessed for
))learning. I do think too much emphasis on cold, hard facts dulls a
))child's interest in the world around them (which is not to say that facts
))should be avoided, just that a creative approach enhances their impact).
))Children learn best when they really connect with the material they're
))working with. Perhaps a well developed imagination in a young child can
))facilitate lateral thinking later in life. In our case we'll have to wait
))and see.
)) )many snips(
))
))Alice here:
))My nine-year old son, current Montessori student, former 2plus years at
))W. school (his big sister, nine years there..) lost a tooth last night.
))He was completely convinced and thrilled at the tooth fairy 's kind
))attention and gifts this morning.
))Despite the montessori emphasis on science and cognition, the gift of
))magical thinking is still powerful in this age group.
)
)
)I've never really thought that children were "age groups" - I think
)they're just kids. Maybe that's because I've never really fit the
)developmental model in many ways, ESPECIALLY in terms of mental aspects of
)my development; if that's the case, my daughter's development is doing
)nothing to change my views, so she must be as weird as I am. (LOL)
)
)She too just lost a tooth - her first. She LOVED "playing the tooth fairy
)game", but she has always been a very concrete child when it comes to her
)sense of reality.
)
)She LOVES playing pretend games, preferring them to all other forms of
)play, and has a very creative imagination that draws on ALL of the sources
)to which she is exposed (including the many quality educational and
)children's shows which we watch on public TV - she loves many of the
)upper-level educational shows, and is fascinated by volcanoes, states of
)matter, and paleobiology (dinosaurs and the bird-ruled era that followed
)them in particular), as well as her lifelong fascination with space, which
)last isn't surprising, as she's planned to be an astronaut since before
)she was 2). She also creates her own stories, which she loves to write
)down (with our help, of course, since she limits her writing to single
)words such as her name at this point, by her own choice - we provide
)learning opportunities and gentle encouragement at the tasks she chooses
)to take on, she chooses for herself what she is interested in and ready to
)learn).
)
)However, at the same time, what makes HER comfortable with playing pretend
)is the knowledge of the very clear line between "pretend" and
)"reality". We do not worry about carrying the teddy bear by it's ear or
)swinging the baby doll around by one leg - we are not allowed to, because
)they are not real, they are just toys, as she has repeatedly informed us
)when we told her that "if that were a real ____, you wouldn't want to
)treat it like that".
))He was thrilled to be somehow "blessed" by this magical being..
)
)This is very different from my daughter - she does not believe in that
)sort of thing, and finds it rather disturbing. She likes stage magic, not
)invisible people who are, at *best*, only semi-real. The one exception to
)this is things like "wishing on thistledown" - she likes to do it, but she
)doesn't expect it to work. Still, it's a fun "pretend".
))Personally, I think this is a sacred duty of parenting...to keep this
))alive as long as possible.. a child's personal connection to certain
))powers outside themselves.
)
)She has a connection to powers outside of herself - us, and the very real
)natural laws, such as the laws of physics.
))It is not the same, however, as W. theory on otherwordly thinking..it
))is psychological support for my children... another reassurance and
))connection to a benevolent influence outside themselves. NOT literal
))belief in the world of fairies and intrusion into trying to pry into the
))spirit world.
)
)For our daughter, the psychological support comes from the fact that she
)knows that we, her parents, will ALWAYS be honest with her, to the limits
)of our knowledge, and will admit when we run into those limits. We tell
)her when we don't know, and we tell her when our knowledge is more
)theoretical than concrete. She prefers this, and does not understand why
)some parents choose to lie to their children, telling them that there
)really are people like Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny and the Tooth
)Fairy, when the parents know full well that there aren't. She'd rather
)know that her parents love her enough to give her the joy and celebration
)and gifts themselves, AND the gift of their honesty, than be given the
)idea that something is real and later become disillusioned and left to
)wonder what other things we might have lied to her about.
)
)In short, it's not the age, it's the kid, and/or how they're raised. It's
)also one of many reasons why Waldorf was totally unsuitable for our child
)- in our home, the only ultimate authority is reality, we acknowledge that
)people are fallible, and that conflicts with the Waldorf approach of
)"imitation, authority, reverence". Where is there room in that for the
)development of the capacity for independent thought??? We still "mess
)with her" from time to time, to ensure that she questions anything that
)doesn't sound right (no, there are NOT giant purple wombats in the
)bedroom, that noise is really Daddy...), but only long enough to get her
)to say "are you messing with me??", at which point we say "yes", and tell
)her the truth. In my opinion, THAT is far more likely to ground her in
)the reality in which she will live her whole life, child AS WELL as adult,
)than an indoctrination into a codified recipe for so-called "imaginative
)play", or a required participation in a fantasy life where she is asked to
)claim that she sees through walls, has thoughts planted in her head by
)gnomes, or that little tiny winged people steal her body parts from her
)bedroom at night.
)
)Besides - is it just me, or are these concepts rather creepy (AS WELL as
)being thoroughly disconnected from reality)?? Having someone "see you
)when your sleeping, and know when you're awake" has always sounded to me
)more like someone who works for the NSA, than someone I want to encourage
)my child to venerate. Ditto someone who sneaks into her room at night to
)steal parts of her body, discarded or otherwise. That is the behaviour of
)a stalker - what would YOU call it, if someone snuck into your home to
)steal your discarded nail clippings and tossed some money on the night
)stand as they left? The idea of anyone sneaking into a child bedroom at
)night and rummaging around under their pillow for discarded body parts is
)pretty freaky.
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:07:05 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C28C7D.FCBF6EC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Nicole wrote, among many other interesting points:
)Her current teacher came from the public system, but left as
that system became increasingly )stifling. It left him no room to be
creative and to ensure that the children had really understood the
)material before moving on to another topic. Our government doesn't
trust its public school teachers )and so feels the need to script
every moment of their day. Many are very demoralized and come to
)teach in schools like ours where the curriculum is given in very
general terms and they have a lot of )freedom in terms of
presentation and pace.
I think this is a good point, I'm sure there are others teaching
in Waldorf for this reason or similar reasons - or who are at least
attracted to Waldorf because they think they will have this sort of
freedom. But often these people are slowly pressured to "come to
anthroposophy." Our school aimed to be very anthroposophical, yet
with one crisis after another, they can't control what new people are
doing. When the latest crisis was surmounted, attention would return
to getting that new guy or gal to "come to anthroposophy."
)I like the crafts that they do at our school - I made a lot of
little felt things as well as Waldorf dolls )in the craft group in
the days when I was still personally involved. I was quite free to
design as well )as to copy the designs of others, indeed new designs
were particularly welcome.
This does seem unusual. Our crafts were quite controlled by the
very anthroposophical handwork teacher. I remember a mother who was
knitting socks, and had brought in some patterns she thought others
might like, perhaps to sell at a craft fair, and they had some kind
of design - checks or plaids or something. She was told that socks
like that would be too stimulating for children. Socks should be
solid colors.
)I also find value in recitation. It is reminiscent of an earlier
oral culture which modern people seem to )have lost. People used to
commit their entire cultural repertoire to memory, whereas these days
we )have difficulty remembering anything if we haven't written it
down. The ability to retain and relate or )apply large amounts of
complex information given orally does not develop to any great extent
)without practice (I remember back to my child development course
from university), but it is very )useful as a life skill. My younger
children (who do not have hearing problems to interfere with an oral
)learning style) can recite epic poems and perform long parts in
plays (even in foreign languages, with )a faultless accent) or tell
long stories in a spellbinding way. I could not do this if my life
depended on )it because my brain was never trained this way.
But I think some of this is genetic, or innate. I never had
training in recitation, but I find it easy and enjoyable to memorize
things, even long passages. I haven't found it to be a particularly
useful life skill, though; I guess it would be for actors or other
performers, maybe politicians. (Or Waldorf teachers.) (hm - a theme
- people who use oral language to entertain, manipulate, persuade . .
.)
Also - though there will be howls from Waldorfers - frankly, TV
works just as well. My son remembers dialogue from TV and movie
scripts months later, and we all know how hard it is to get
commercials or songs off the radio out of our heads. (My college
roommate used to say, if only they would read her organic chemistry
notes over the radio. . .) Of course there isn't much value to
memorizing TV commercials. But I'm not sure the recitation thing is
really much different. Isn't understanding the meaning the point?
What's the point of having epic poems in your head if you don't
understand them?
I have a theory that recitation actually works against literacy
in a way. You're actually *encouraging* kids to disconnect the words
from the meaning, and parrot things they don't understand, in an
uncurious way. Just my theory, I have nothing to back it up, but as
you say, our literate culture replaced the older oral one. It's easy
to romanticize oral culture but we don't live in one.
)If this means they learn to read later, then so be it (my older
two, who 9 and 11, read voraciously )already).
No reason they couldn't learn both together - unless of course
one really does impede the other - and yes, I think that's probably
what Steiner intended.
You said a lot of other interesting stuff Nicole, but I'm
supposed to be working . . .
.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:25:22 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
Willow wrote -
)She too just lost a tooth - her first. She LOVED "playing the tooth fairy
)game", but she has always been a very concrete child when it comes to her
)sense of reality.
This is so interesting - they really are individuals - I'm the mother of one
like Alice's - a 9 year old who still believes fully in Santa Claus or the
Tooth Fairy, as far as I can tell.
)Besides - is it just me, or are these concepts rather creepy (AS WELL as
)being thoroughly disconnected from reality)?? Having someone "see you when
)your sleeping, and know when you're awake" has always sounded to me more
)like someone who works for the NSA,
LOL!! You do have a point. I always felt a tad uncomfortable with that "he
sees you when you're sleeping" line too. We never chose to emphasize the
whole Santa-as-disciplinarian thing, only bringing toys to "good" children,
watching you all year long etc. We just portrayed Santa as a fellow who
wants to make children happy and bring presents. We never said "Santa won't
bring you anything if you do that" or that kind of crap.
)Ditto someone who sneaks into her room at night to
)steal parts of her body, discarded or otherwise.
Hmm, put that way, it does sound pretty creepy. Never thought of that one
like that, either, but my son *did* get the creeps when I tried telling him
(when he was much younger, in Waldorf), that angels checked on him while he
was sleeping. I had to do a lot of back-tracking on that one. He did *not*
want anyone flying by his window looking in.
I guess if they're going to leave him a present in the morning, that's
different. :)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:25:40 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf roll call
)Another tedious slow-down-you're-in-our-control-now ritual was the shake
)the teacher's hand and look into her eyes every morning
This line cracked me up. ;)
)The whole idea of the "calming" kindy space creeps me
)out.
It doesn't work. It isn't a natural kind of calm. Kids are calm when the
adults are geuninely calm, not just because the adults are frantically
repeating supposedly calming verses or mantras to themselves or each other.
It had an
obsessive-compulsive quality to it - "If I just say the right words and do
everything in the right order, everyone will calm down. They. Will. Calm.
Down. Now." The kids were driven wild by the anxiety of the teacher trying
to calm them.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 09:28:26 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Heindel, future human form
on 11/15/02 4:04 AM, Willow Firesong at
willow.firesong creative-interweb.com wrote:
) At 12-11-02 06:25 PM Tuesday, you wrote:
)
)) mysplum wrote:
))) Too bad I can't find
))) Steiner's illustrations of future man, would particularly love to see
))) exactly how the wings will look growing off one's nose area!
)))
)) Klaudia:
)) Isn't here any artists to draw that?
)
) I'm willing to have a go at it, if only for my own amusement (and that of
) my daughter, who likes having me draw weird things for her, including a
) face on a stem, with leaves - a "face-plant", inspired by her repeated
) "faceplants" into the bed; we also draw her things like a "shoe-tree", and
) a pilloried "overworked servant of the Thing upstairs", which aficionados
) of "Trap Door" will recognize as a "Berk - in stocks") - but I'll need a
) more complete description. Any other little details I should include,
) Sharon and other Steiner experts?
Sharon: The problem is that we don't know how big the wings will be, nor
their color or shape. The wings might also be two antennae. We might also
lose that special Anthro quality - unless you have a nack for imitation and
forgeries! (G). Might I suggest that you get a hold of Fletcher's "Art
Inspired by Rudolf Steiner" in order to try to capture this in an
Anthroposophic way. Remember to use the wet-on-wet technique and keep the
paint as transparent as you can, so that the beings of color can shine in
their own light. You might also use a few sacred Anthro sigils for over the
heart. Also remember that the colors you choose are very telling
esoterically. You might find some tips from studying Steiner's apocalyptic
seals, if you can't find Steiner's seals, then use Eliphas Levi's for
reference because Steiner copied his. (G) Have fun, can't wait to see!
The description: At the root of the nose, beneath the forehead, lies the
two-petalled lotus-flower. This is an undeveloped astral organ which will
one day evolve into either two antennae or wings. These can already be seen
by the horns represented on the head of Moses.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 09:32:12 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophical Christmas Tree
on 11/15/02 12:33 AM, Willow Firesong at
willow.firesong creative-interweb.com wrote:
)
) Since the origins of the Christmas tree are far more interesting (and
) entertaining - those who are interested may do their own research into the
) tradition whereby the Roman followers of the god "Attis" would castrate
) themselves and fling their genitals through the windows of random
) individuals, "blessing" them by allowing their severed parts to lodge in
) the trees conveniently displayed in their windows during this festival -
Sharon: LOL! Busting my seams!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 01:13:19 +1030
From: BarleySinger (BarleySinger creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
At 12-11-02 04:13 PM Tuesday, you wrote:
)Very well put Alice. I agree with you on both points. I also think that
)magical thinking in young children is something to be cherished while it
)lasts, but, as you say, this is not the same thing as adults believing
)that myths and fairytales are literally true.
I guess that I am the fly in the ointment here. I totally disagree. I
look at it this way. At what age is it OK to lie to kids about reality,
and when does it become an abuse of the trust? My answer is that it is
always an abuse of trust.
Children go to their parents to learn about the world. This is a very
important relationship. It is what parents are there for - to teach their
kids about reality, not to trick them into believing in things that they
know are not the truth. If I wanted my kid to believe in fairies then she
would still be in a Waldorf school. I want my daughter to know that I will
never lie to her, so that she can trust the things that I tell her.
Children love to play pretend and they have no problem with intentional and
organized "pretend" games. They can play "tooth fairy" or "Santa" without
believing in it and have lots of fun. I think that parents are just
attached to the idea that it is somehow "cute" for their kids to be
deluded. I do not think that teaching children to have a serious mental
separation from reality is ever cute. In psychology a significant
separation from reality such as believing in mythical beings could indicate
schizophrenia.
The world is filled with wonder. There are no dry facts and there is no
dry science, there are just bad teachers who have no joy or excitement for
what they do. If science class is boring it is because the teacher is
bored with teaching science (and needs a different job). The world of
quantum physics is full of weird and magical things that are real (like
having the same photon in two different places). I don't need to make
things up in order to make the world an amazing place.
Why would I possibly want to lie to my kid about the nature of reality
anyway?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:06:26 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
Barley wrote:
)I guess that I am the fly in the ointment here. I totally disagree. I
)look at it this way. At what age is it OK to lie to kids about reality,
)and when does it become an abuse of the trust? My answer is that it is
)always an abuse of trust.
Nah, not if their minds really don't work the way ours do. I think that's
the case. There isn't anything wrong with magical thinking in a 3 year old.
There isn't any need to say, "This is just a story." However, they grow and
develop and become more reality-oriented, much earlier than Waldorf wants to
allow.
)Children go to their parents to learn about the world.
The way I see it, when they say, "Mom, is this true?" you answer
straightforwardly.
)The world of quantum physics is full of weird and magical things that are
real (like
)having the same photon in two different places). I don't need to make
)things up in order to make the world an amazing place.
This is a good point, maybe we just still have traditions like Santa Claus
because it is a holdover from ages when we didn't have all this amazing
knowledge. I still don't think the stories hurt children, however, unless
adults refuse to simply allow them to outgrow this stage.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:09:43 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
I wrote:
)The way I see it, when they say, "Mom, is this true?" you answer
)straightforwardly.
What I mean is, *until* they are asking you this sort of question, the
distinction doesn't really exist in their minds yet, between whether
something is a "story" versus "true." Stories do often have truths that are
not literal in them, but these things are not separate categories in young
children's minds, I believe.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:42:56 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C28C93.C1EE5B60
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Nicole:
I like to take my cues from children as to how their minds are
working. I believe that young children think differently, but that
you can tell when they're ready to move on mentally by the questions
they ask and that this happens at different ages for different
children. There comes a point where you can either come clean or you
can spin a very complicated web of falsehoods to cover up the holes
that they're picking in the story. In my opinion, if their old enough
to pick out logical inconsistencies in a myth, then they're old
enough for the truth, what ever chronological age they may be at the
time. Conversely, if they still need to believe in the mythology for
a while longer, provided that they're not already in junior high
school by then :-), then who am I to strip away their illusions
prematurely?
----- Original Message -----
From: Diana Winters
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 10:05 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
Barley wrote:
)I guess that I am the fly in the ointment here. I totally disagree. I
)look at it this way. At what age is it OK to lie to kids about reality,
)and when does it become an abuse of the trust? My answer is that it is
)always an abuse of trust.
Nah, not if their minds really don't work the way ours do. I think that's
the case. There isn't anything wrong with magical thinking in a 3 year old.
There isn't any need to say, "This is just a story." However, they grow and
develop and become more reality-oriented, much earlier than Waldorf wants to
allow.
)Children go to their parents to learn about the world.
The way I see it, when they say, "Mom, is this true?" you answer
straightforwardly.
)The world of quantum physics is full of weird and magical things that are
real (like
)having the same photon in two different places). I don't need to make
)things up in order to make the world an amazing place.
This is a good point, maybe we just still have traditions like Santa Claus
because it is a holdover from ages when we didn't have all this amazing
knowledge. I still don't think the stories hurt children, however, unless
adults refuse to simply allow them to outgrow this stage.
Diana
FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:04:26 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
------=_NextPart_001_0002_01C28C96.C30409C0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Willow wrote:
It would also be very helpful if the "teacher" actually was a teacher, with
the kind of knowledge that a teacher needs, not just somebody who was
taught all about Steiner.
Nicole:
Some of the teachers at our school, including the one that my
daughter has, do have conventional teaching qualifications. They
haven't all done the Steiner 'teaching course', although many have.
We even had a wonderful, no-nonsense science teacher with a PhD in
biology. Her students graduated knowing more about (very real)
science than anyone from the local public school. Some of her board
drawings were more reminiscent of medical school than junior high.
The teacher makes all the difference.
FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:08:07 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C28C97.46C8A4A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Nicole:
Conversely, if they still need to believe in the mythology for a
while longer, provided that they're not already in junior high school
by then :-), then who am I to strip away their illusions prematurely?
I agree. It hardly seems possible to me that my son (age 9) has
not thought about how Santa Claus comes up with the same stuff that
is in the Lego catalogs - he will stand in the aisle of the toy
store, copying the model numbers down in a notebook so that he can
put them in his letter to Santa - okey doke. He has never asked me
any probing questions about any of this so we carry on. My husband
thinks he knew years ago, and somehow feels he is shielding his
mother from the truth. :)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:00:01 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
Diana, you wrote,
)There isn't anything wrong with magical thinking in a 3 year old.
)There isn't any need to say, "This is just a story." However, they grow and
)develop and become more reality-oriented, much earlier than Waldorf wants to
)allow.
Exactly. Magical thinking is innate. It has to be educated out of us.
) )Children go to their parents to learn about the world.
)
)The way I see it, when they say, "Mom, is this true?" you answer
)straightforwardly.
Amen. Doesn't mean a straight answer can't be playful, though. Kids
love to kid.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:02:35 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
Diana, you wrote,
)It hardly seems possible to me that my son (age 9) has not thought
)about how Santa Claus comes up with the same stuff that is in the
)Lego catalogs - he will stand in the aisle of the toy store, copying
)the model numbers down in a notebook so that he can put them in his
)letter to Santa - okey doke. He has never asked me any probing
)questions about any of this so we carry on. My husband thinks he
)knew years ago, and somehow feels he is shielding his mother from
)the truth. :)
I remember that game. Of course he knows, but the game is profitable,
isn't it? It's in his interest to continue it as long as possible!
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:53:13 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: Re: Stunted imagination
)Sorry again folks, I sent this message not my wife.
Please sign your name at the bottom of your messages.
-Dan Dugan
moderator
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 15:42:30 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
Dan:
)Exactly. Magical thinking is innate. It has to be educated out of us.
I'm not even sure it has to be "educated out." It's not a bad thing you have
to get rid of. I think kids just start to be able to understand things that
are more complex and abstract as their brains develop. That's why you keep
explanations for little kids simple, and preferably pictorial - they don't
think abstractly, they need an illustration. This is what I thought Waldorf
meant when they told me to "avoid intellectualizing" my child - talk at his
level, don't try to make a little genius out of him, don't explain your
political views till he's a little older. :) - I really hate seeing little
kids carrying political signs.
I didn't know they meant don't talk to him much; if he is really curious
about something, put him off; don't read to him; answer his questions by
saying, "Hmmmm, there goes a butterfly . . ."
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 15:50:01 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
)It hardly seems possible to me that my son (age 9) has not thought
)about how Santa Claus comes up with the same stuff that is in the
)Lego catalogs - he will stand in the aisle of the toy store, copying
)the model numbers down in a notebook so that he can put them in his
)letter to Santa - okey doke. He has never asked me any probing
)questions about any of this so we carry on. My husband thinks he
)knew years ago, and somehow feels he is shielding his mother from
)the truth. :)
Dan:
)I remember that game. Of course he knows, but the game is profitable,
)isn't it? It's in his interest to continue it as long as possible!
Ah! You're probably right. Maybe I should casually mention that when you get
older, your parents still get you presents . . .
I dunno Dan. He said recently that we needed to come up with something
better to leave as a present for Santa. We've always just left cookies, and
carrots for the reindeer. He feels this is getting old. Is he completely
pulling my chain? quite possibly. If so he's quite poker-faced about it.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:18:22 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C28CC2.9E6D4320
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Diana wrote:
Our crafts were quite controlled by the very anthroposophical
handwork teacher. I remember a mother who was knitting socks, and had
brought in some patterns she thought others might like, perhaps to
sell at a craft fair, and they had some kind of design - checks or
plaids or something. She was told that socks like that would be too
stimulating for children. Socks should be solid colors.
Nicole:
How ridiculous! That level of control freakery is so petty and
annoying. If my hard work had got that kind of response, it would
have been the very last thing I ever made for them.
Diana wrote:
I have a theory that recitation actually works against literacy in a
way. You're actually *encouraging* kids to disconnect the words from
the meaning, and parrot things they don't understand, in an uncurious
way. Just my theory, I have nothing to back it up, but as you say,
our literate culture replaced the older oral one. It's easy to
romanticize oral culture but we don't live in one. Isn't
understanding the meaning the point? What's the point of having epic
poems in your head if you don't understand them?
Nicole:
I don't think recitation necessarily works against literacy, but it
depends who is teaching it and with what goal in mind. I've seen
recitation done as a completely lifeless drone or in a foreign
language where the kids clearly had no idea what they were talking
about, and I wouldn't presume to defend such a practice. However, it
doesn't have to be that way. My son learned a wonderful old Scottish
selkie story in grade 2 and a couple of poems (by a well known poet
whose name currently escapes me) about the French-Canadian voyageurs
in grade 3. These works had considerable literary merit and were
performed with feeling and a keen interest in the subject matter. I
love to hear him recite things like that - they clearly speak to him
and to me.
I think kids learn best in an oral milieu when they are young
(perhaps until the age of seven, although it depends on the child)
and need to reach a certain level of mental maturity before they can
learn well through the medium of the written word (which involves a
greater degree of abstraction). A gradual transition from oral to
written lessons therefore seems to me to be an effective educational
strategy. I didn't like the enforced (very) early literacy programme
that we experienced in England. For many children it was a prolonged
and demoralizing battle (akin to trying to toilet-train a 6-month
old) that put them off reading for years.
Diana wrote:
I never had training in recitation, but I find it easy and enjoyable
to memorize things, even long passages. But I think some of this is
genetic, or innate. My son remembers dialogue from TV and movie
scripts months later, and we all know how hard it is to get
commercials or songs off the radio out of our heads.
Nicole:
I know what you mean. I remember walking past the playroom and hearing
my son (who was 3 at the time) reciting the shipping forecast that
he'd heard on BBC Radio 4. He's obviously much more of an oral
learner than I am (I couldn't do that if my life depended on it).
----- Original Message -----
From: Diana Winters
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 8:07 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
REE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 16:42:47 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
) 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_3120223368_508604_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
on 11/13/02 6:28 PM, Nicole Foss at nmfoss hotmail.com wrote:
Her current teacher came from the public system, but left as that system
became increasingly stifling. It left him no room to be creative and to
ensure that the children had really understood the material before moving on
to another topic. Our government doesn't trust its public school teachers
and so feels the need to script every moment of their day. Many are very
demoralized and come to teach in schools like ours where the curriculum is
given in very general terms and they have a lot of freedom in terms of
presentation and pace.
Sharon: Your government is different than ours since you are in Canada I
think, but I've heard the same accusations, mainly from American Waldorfers,
many times before. I supposed those in charge of education are in a tough
position, wanting to have a certain standard etc. I think it's not such a
shabby idea to hold teachers and schools responsible, but I also understand
how this could be stifling. Too much freedom can lead to lunacy in the
classroom. My child's Waldorf lessons certainly reflect a lot of nonsense. I
preferred her public school lessons, and now her private school lessons. In
my heart I'm a supporter of what I think the public schools stand for, I
don't believe that they are as bad as everyone makes out. There are some
wonderful dedicated teachers in the public schools that I admire. I've had
good and bad experiences with them, but mostly good. Public school reflects
life. My daughter *loved* her public school and teachers. I write this with
a certain amount of hypocrisy and guilt because my child is not in public
school at the moment. Had we stayed in rural Wisconsin she would be. (We are
now in a huge city where the public schools are rated last or second to last
in the nation and the school she would attend is enormous). Still, I've
heard some good things about some of them. (My husband is the one who
insists on private school down here in Miami). I was always a fan of Jimmy
Carter's egalitarian ideals and I always thought I would send my child to
public school, as the Carter's did. Instead of bashing public schools, I'd
rather be useful and try to make them better, which I plan to do. Several
ex-Waldorfers that I know are trying to do just this. I always find it
interesting that public schools produced many Waldorf parents and
alternative, counter-culture folks like us, so they can't be that bad (G).
When I wrote my letter to the newspaper about Waldorf's deception, and there
was a flurry of responses, one person wrote a very touching letter in
support of the public schools which tugged at my old heart strings. (Chokes
me up every time I read it). I'll quote some of her letter here:
"....When my first son was born, I imagined that he would receive the
highest quality upbringing that I could offer him, and in my mind this
included the plan of sending my son to the Waldorf school...Before my son
ever reached "school age", however, he was diagnosed as autistic. The
medical experts who diagnosed him told us that the only known treatment for
autism is early and intensive special education. They specifically advised
us against "alternative" type schools...
Miracles are in the heart of the beholder, but I consider the changes in all
of our lives that came after Jay began attending school...to be miraculous.
Jay receives occupational therapy, physical therapy and speech therapy.
Other skillful professionals with caring hearts and dedicated minds work
with him in special ed and he is "mainstreamed" for part of the day with his
peers who are non-disabled. I cannot say enough good about the special
education program...or praise each and every teacher there enough.
There are many ways to measure greatness (my son has taught me so much about
that!) Private schools may be great if you meet their criteria. Public
schools stand with doors open to everyone, as if to say, "Bring us your
tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..." Public
schools embrace the great truth that "All...are created equal"...Societies
measure can be accorded by how it treats the least of its citizens.
My vote goes wholeheartedly to public schools." (P. Roth. Vernon County
Broadcaster March 1 2001).
Nicole: What is beautiful is beautiful, and art, by its very nature, means
different things to different people. None of it meant anything otherwordly
to my children. I want them to learn to put in the effort that it takes to
produce something of quality for its own inherent value, not just because
someone might give them an A for it.
Sharon: Beauty is in the heart of the beholder it is true. I did not find
the Waldorf aaesthetic beautiful in any way. I did notice my daughter's
frustration at not being able to artistically express herself. I had given
her tools for creating with since she was able to hold a pencil, so by the
time she entered kindergarten, she was used expressing herself artistically,
and very good at it. Waldorf squelched that.
I'm not accusing you here, but just want to point out that many
Waldorf-critics share your sentiments. Be careful not to make the mistake of
thinking we care about attaining A's. My child's Waldorf "art" was a waste
of good paper. There was no free artistic expression at all. I have piles of
Anthro/Rosicrucian-based color exercises. That is the evidence of "art" that
I have, that was our experience with Waldorf. Many people come onto
W-critics and assume that because we are critical of Waldorf, that we
somehow condone mediocrity, or we get accused of being pop tart-
eating-materialists. This is really not the case...(although I don't mean to
be self righteous about pop tarts.) I'm sure you would find that you have
far more in common with ex-Waldorfers than you might think.
Nicole: I also find value in recitation. It is reminiscent of an earlier
oral culture which modern people seem to have lost.
Sharon: I think that's a bit of a stretch. I think the oral tradition is
alive and well in the modern world. Chanting things you don't understand
doesn't help you much, which is what I believe goes on in Waldorf.
Nicole:
If, however, I sent them to public school, I am quite sure that I would be
allowing them to be trained as the next generation of consumers - part of
the me-first generation - not just through the education itself (although I
do find very superficial), but through peer-group association with the
mainstream values I object to.
Sharon: I guess I just think that you can send your child to public school
and raise kids that are alternative. I don't hate public school. Sure there
is always room for improvement.
Nicole: We live on a farm and aspire to be as self-sufficient as possible. I
want my children to know where everything comes from and understand just how
much work went into producing it (no instant gratification, everything worth
having is worth waiting for and working hard for). I want them to know how
to work with their hands as well as with their minds, which is something
else they are getting from the Waldorf school. They are developing an
appreciation for the simple life that I think will serve them well in the
future.
Sharon: I sat on a piece of land that we reforested (planted 50 thousand
trees) for nine years and am very happy to be swimming once again with
humanity, in a large city. I sense a tinge of millenarianism in what you
say. Civilizations rise and civilizations fall...shrug. I expect that if we
are bombed to the stone age, or run out of oil, or whatever the calamity is
that hits us, people will adapt.
We are all consumers. Every time I get out of my *car* and go into our local
"natural" food store, I'm always struck by this fact. So, some products
might be a bit better for the environment, or for people and animals, but
they are also bottled or canned, boxed, shipped around for distribution...
Nicole: I believe that, in many ways, the future is more likely to resemble
the past than it is to resemble the present, hence the relevance of the
practical skills they are learning.
Sharon: If it resembles the past, magic based religions will survive (so
some religion scholars say). By the sound of you, next you'll be buying a
Mormon survival kit (G)! I have to laugh every time I think of the hoopla
the Waldorfers at our ex-school made a year before Y2K. I didn't but a
generator, or stock up on food or sprouting kits. Lots of people made lots
of money with their survival seminars and sales of survival goods.
Nicole: I have spent many years studying economics and finance (I was a
research fellow at Oxford University when I lived in England), specifically
the history of financial markets and the large swings of positive feedback
inherent in them (bubbles, manias, panics, crashes and other manifestations
of the herd instinct). We have just lived through the largest credit bubble
since the 1720s, exceeding the extent of the one whose demise marked the
beginning of the Great Depression by a considerable margin. Debt has
ballooned to historic proportions, while both stocks and real estate are
grossly overvalued and the futures market is a house of cards. I fully
expect that my children will grow up in a deflationary era where there will
generally be very little material wealth of any kind. It is extremely
important therefore that they not have unrealistic material expectations,
expectations that may be unavoidable if we were to become part of the
mainstream. I know I sound like a crackpot, but I don't have the time or the
space here to fully explain my logic, nor do I want to bore others with
something they would probably consider off-topic.
Sharon: Perhaps being raised in South Africa, by parents who were poor,
gives me assurance that life will go on - rich or poor. People adapt. I
guess I just have faith in people, they are generally quite adaptable, kind
and caring. I certainly don't buy into the botox culture, nor do I condone
"materialism" (my definition), but I don't feel I have to prepare my child
for the end of the world.
Nicole:
I would rather that my children did not have to study biblical stories,
although my son really enjoyed learning about the saints (particularly the
one whose name he shares).
Sharon: I was a bit shocked when I discovered that my child was being taught
violent, patriarchal Bible stories and other grim tales. I thought Waldorf
would be "new paradigm".
Nicole: It's something I put up with just as I put up with daily worship at
our previous (state) school in England, where there was no choice but to be
subjected to religion at school.
Sharon: In South Africa we had this problem as well, though Jehova Witnesses
were allowed to sit outside during morning prayers. My child did not have to
pray or say the pledge at public school, nor does she have to now at her
*nonsectarian* private school.
Nicole: I have always filtered dogma out of their education by dealing with
the issues at home. As for Christ the Sun Being (which I don't recall ever
having seen a reference to in their lesson books or heard them speak about),
I don't find that any more (or less) strange than mainstream religious
dogma.
Sharon: No suns? No morning prayer? No lessons depicting angelic beings or
gnomes mining in metal mines? (G) How odd for a Waldorf school! I don't
discriminate between religions, I'm opposed to them all (G). Certain ones
are wackier than others. I am much more interested in the really wacky ones
for some reason. (G)
Nicole: My older daughter has spent time learning about ancient India,
Babylon, Greece and Rome, but I have been present at some of those lessons
and they were not based on religion. It seemed to me like a way of bringing
history to life, giving modern children a sense of what it meant to have
lived in ancient times. Greek Olympics was a particularly positive
experience. If at any time I felt that they were being steeped in Aryan
superiority (and I am watching carefully), I would withdraw them.
Sharon: We left in fourth grade, so didn't get that far. I have looked at
lesson books from older kids that were very religious. (Not history). A
fellow poster here on list found the Aryan Atlantis myth in one of his
child's books. Dutch parents also found some racist stereotyping, which
prompted the Dutch Report, which consisted oof a panel of Anthroposophists
who determined that Steiner's works aren't racist! What a joke that report
is!
Nicole: I am grateful to the members of this list for sharing their
experiences in order that others, such as myself, will have a better idea of
what to watch out for. There are many outstanding issues with our school.
Its governance structure is a closed shop and demonstrates very little
administrative competence. Although we have been very lucky with our
children's teachers, others have not. I am no longer personally involved
with the school because of the conflicts we have had. It has been a very
painful experience for me, although fortunately not for my children. I don't
plan to stop working to change what is wrong with the place (that would be
hypocritical), so I suppose they will probably get tired of us eventually
and ask us to leave. If there were any viable alternative, we may very well
have left already. There are still many positives, but the negatives are
mounting and may soon tip the balance.
Sharon: At least you have a clue about the subtext, which is more than I
had. I just couldn't unite in Anthroposophy now that I understand it. My
advice to you is not to read too much Steiner, or you might become an ardent
critic like me (G).
I don't think Threefolding works very well, I'd love to hear what you think
of it since you have a background in economics. Just remember that Waldorf
feeds people's fears. Good luck to you. I'll close with a few words from a
couple of ex-Waldorf teachers:
"I think most parents get "attached" to their kids being in the Waldorf
schools and they just want to look the other way when something
uncomfortable comes up. Or, they view the teaching as somehow -superior-
because it is not of this "materialistic" world we live in. Especially when
a parent starts their child in the younger grades. By the time the child is
in the school for a number of years, the school has become -so- much a part
of their -identity- that they cannot face the possibility of letting go.
It's very subtle but one begins to feel it is more and more difficult to
relate to others outside the Waldorf circle. Eventually I felt I was living
on some sort of "Anthroposophical island." This alienation, coupled with my
troubling questions finally convinced me that something was very wrong."
(Heather, fax to Dan Dugan of May 8, 1996).
And a few words from Charmaine Usher Paulson who recently filed a
discrimination suit against the NY school. (She said I could quote her):
"I realized today, that we all are in mourning. We mourn the loss of what
could, should have been. The sorrow, anguish, and anger that are laced
within our words demonstrate the sincerity of our aspirations for true
community and our reaction to deception. I believe that we will utilize our
strength, integrity, vision and hope towards true renewal. The Waldorf
movement does not "own" beauty, art, songs, and the idea of reverence for
the earth. These ideals belong to us all and we will impart these principles
to our own family and community. Furthermore, we will impart these things to
others in a way the Waldorf movement could never do. We will impart these
things with love. That is the thing that is missing from them, love".
Sharon: You cannot love people if you are duping them. It is my hope that
Waldorf schools become forthright about who they are and what their mission
is, and that they respect the First Amendment. It is also my hope, that
Steiner's racism is repudiated by the Goetheanum.
Church and state, keep them separate!
==^==^=============================================================
This email was sent to: nmfoss hotmail.com
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dkiG.b3gycV.bm1mb3Nz
Or send an email to: waldorf-critics-unsubscribe topica.com
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^==^=============================================================
==^==^=============================================================
This email was sent to: mysplum earthlink.net
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dkiG.b2JmGo.bXlzcGx1
Or send an email to: waldorf-critics-unsubscribe topica.com
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^==^=============================================================
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 17:20:17 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
------=_NextPart_001_0002_01C28CCB.44E67980
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sharon wrote:
I'm not accusing you here, but just want to point out that many
Waldorf-critics share your sentiments. Be careful not to make the
mistake of thinking we care about attaining A's. My child's Waldorf
"art" was a waste of good paper. There was no free artistic
expression at all. I have piles of Anthro/Rosicrucian-based color
exercises. That is the evidence of "art" that I have, that was our
experience with Waldorf. Many people come onto W-critics and assume
that because we are critical of Waldorf, that we somehow condone
mediocrity, or we get accused of being pop tart- eating-materialists.
This is really not the case...(although I don't mean to be self
righteous about pop tarts.) I'm sure you would find that you have far
more in common with ex-Waldorfers than you might think.
Nicole:
I wouldn't dream of suggesting that Waldorf critics were shallow,
materialistic, pop-tart-eating, mediocity-condoning people. On the
contrary, I agree with a great deal of what I read and find the
debates you have quite fascinating. You are all clearly thinking
people whose opinions I value. I am merely trying to explain why we
are still at the school I have had so many problems with and why it
has been so difficult for us to find an alternative. I have no
intention of being an apologist for anthroposophy. I'm sure I have a
great deal in common with ex-Walforfers, more in fact than I have
with many current ones, but nevertheless there are still positive
aspects for my children at their current school that I have yet to
find anywhere else. There is good and bad in every system.
Sharon wrote:
If the future resembles the past, magic based religions will survive
(so some religion scholars say). By the sound of you, next you'll be
buying a Mormon survival kit (G)! I have to laugh every time I think
of the hoopla the Waldorfers at our ex-school made a year before Y2K.
I didn't but a generator, or stock up on food or sprouting kits. Lots
of people made lots of money with their survival seminars and sales
of survival goods.
Nicole:
I am not a survivalist, I am an academic. I don't believe anything
that I haven't got very solid, logical reasons for believing. The
lessons of history are there for anyone who cares to learn from them
and I would rather learn from those experiences in advance than be
condemned to repeat them. Financial bubbles are a product of human
nature and as such will always occur from time to time (often just as
the last one is passing out of living memory and everyone has assured
themselves thatit could never happen again). The results are always
unpleasant (just ask the Japanese, the Argentines or anyone who was
an adult in the 1930s).
----- Original Message -----
From: mysplum
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 4:27 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
on 11/13/02 6:28 PM, Nicole Foss at nmfoss hotmail.com wrote:
Her current teacher came from the public system, but left as that
system became increasingly stifling. It left him no room to be
creative and to ensure that the children had really understood the
material before moving on to another topic. Our government doesn't
trust its public school teachers and so feels the need to script
every moment of their day. Many are very demoralized and come to
teach in schools like ours where the curriculum is given in very
general terms and they have a lot of freedom in terms of presentation
and pace.
Sharon: Your government is different than ours since you are in
Canada I think, but I've heard the same accusations, mainly from
American Waldorfers, many times before. I supposed those in charge of
education are in a tough position, wanting to have a certain standard
etc. I think it's not such a shabby idea to hold teachers and schools
responsible, but I also understand how this could be stifling. Too
much freedom can lead to lunacy in the classroom. My child's Waldorf
lessons certainly reflect a lot of nonsense. I preferred her public
school lessons, and now her private school lessons. In my heart I'm a
supporter of what I think the public schools stand for, I don't
believe that they are as bad as everyone makes out. There are some
wonderful dedicated teachers in the public schools that I admire.
I've had good and bad experiences with them, but mostly good. Public
school reflects life. My daughter *loved* her public school and
teachers. I write this with a certain amount of !
hypocrisy and guilt because my child is not in public school at the
moment. Had we stayed in rural Wisconsin she would be. (We are now in
a huge city where the public schools are rated last or second to last
in the nation and the school she would attend is enormous). Still,
I've heard some good things about some of them. (My husband is the
one who insists on private school down here in Miami). I was always a
fan of Jimmy Carter's egalitarian ideals and I always thought I would
send my child to public school, as the Carter's did. Instead of
bashing public schools, I'd rather be useful and try to make them
better, which I plan to do. Several ex-Waldorfers that I know are
trying to do just this. I always find it interesting that public
schools produced many Waldorf parents and alternative,
counter-culture folks like us, so they can't be that bad (G). When I
wrote my letter to the newspaper about Waldorf's deception, and there
was a flurry of responses, one person wrote a very tou!
ching letter in support of the public schools which tugged at my old
heart strings. (Chokes me up every time I read it). I'll quote some
of her letter here:
"....When my first son was born, I imagined that he would receive the
highest quality upbringing that I could offer him, and in my mind
this included the plan of sending my son to the Waldorf
school...Before my son ever reached "school age", however, he was
diagnosed as autistic. The medical experts who diagnosed him told us
that the only known treatment for autism is early and intensive
special education. They specifically advised us against "alternative"
type schools...
Miracles are in the heart of the beholder, but I consider the changes
in all of our lives that came after Jay began attending school...to
be miraculous. Jay receives occupational therapy, physical therapy
and speech therapy. Other skillful professionals with caring hearts
and dedicated minds work with him in special ed and he is
"mainstreamed" for part of the day with his peers who are
non-disabled. I cannot say enough good about the special education
program...or praise each and every teacher there enough.
There are many ways to measure greatness (my son has taught me so
much about that!) Private schools may be great if you meet their
criteria. Public schools stand with doors open to everyone, as if to
say, "Bring us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to
breathe free..." Public schools embrace the great truth that
"All...are created equal"...Societies measure can be accorded by how
it treats the least of its citizens.
My vote goes wholeheartedly to public schools." (P. Roth. Vernon
County Broadcaster March 1 2001).
Nicole: What is beautiful is beautiful, and art, by its very nature,
means different things to different people. None of it meant anything
otherwordly to my children. I want them to learn to put in the effort
that it takes to produce something of quality for its own inherent
value, not just because someone might give them an A for it.
Sharon: Beauty is in the heart of the beholder it is true. I did not
find the Waldorf aaesthetic beautiful in any way. I did notice my
daughter's frustration at not being able to artistically express
herself. I had given her tools for creating with since she was able
to hold a pencil, so by the time she entered kindergarten, she was
used expressing herself artistically, and very good at it. Waldorf
squelched that.
Nicole: I also find value in recitation. It is reminiscent of an
earlier oral culture which modern people seem to have lost.
Sharon: I think that's a bit of a stretch. I think the oral tradition
is alive and well in the modern world. Chanting things you don't
understand doesn't help you much, which is what I believe goes on in
Waldorf.
Nicole:
If, however, I sent them to public school, I am quite sure that I
would be allowing them to be trained as the next generation of
consumers - part of the me-first generation - not just through the
education itself (although I do find very superficial), but through
peer-group association with the mainstream values I object to.
Sharon: I guess I just think that you can send your child to public
school and raise kids that are alternative. I don't hate public
school. Sure there is always room for improvement.
Nicole: We live on a farm and aspire to be as self-sufficient as
possible. I want my children to know where everything comes from and
understand just how much work went into producing it (no instant
gratification, everything worth having is worth waiting for and
working hard for). I want them to know how to work with their hands
as well as with their minds, which is something else they are getting
from the Waldorf school. They are developing an appreciation for the
simple life that I think will serve them well in the future.
Sharon: I sat on a piece of land that we reforested (planted 50
thousand trees) for nine years and am very happy to be swimming once
again with humanity, in a large city. I sense a tinge of
millenarianism in what you say. Civilizations rise and civilizations
fall...shrug. I expect that if we are bombed to the stone age, or run
out of oil, or whatever the calamity is that hits us, people will
adapt.
We are all consumers. Every time I get out of my *car* and go into
our local "natural" food store, I'm always struck by this fact. So,
some products might be a bit better for the environment, or for
people and animals, but they are also bottled or canned, boxed,
shipped around for distribution...
Nicole: I believe that, in many ways, the future is more likely to
resemble the past than it is to resemble the present, hence the
relevance of the practical skills they are learning.
Nicole: I have spent many years studying economics and finance (I was
a research fellow at Oxford University when I lived in England),
specifically the history of financial markets and the large swings of
positive feedback inherent in them (bubbles, manias, panics, crashes
and other manifestations of the herd instinct). We have just lived
through the largest credit bubble since the 1720s, exceeding the
extent of the one whose demise marked the beginning of the Great
Depression by a considerable margin. Debt has ballooned to historic
proportions, while both stocks and real estate are grossly overvalued
and the futures market is a house of cards. I fully expect that my
children will grow up in a deflationary era where there will
generally be very little material wealth of any kind. It is extremely
important therefore that they not have unrealistic material
expectations, expectations that may be unavoidable if we were to
become part of the mainstream. I know I sound like a crackp!
ot, but I don't have the time or the space here to fully explain my
logic, nor do I want to bore others with something they would
probably consider off-topic.
Sharon: Perhaps being raised in South Africa, by parents who were
poor, gives me assurance that life will go on - rich or poor. People
adapt. I guess I just have faith in people, they are generally quite
adaptable, kind and caring. I certainly don't buy into the botox
culture, nor do I condone "materialism" (my definition), but I don't
feel I have to prepare my child for the end of the world.
Nicole:
I would rather that my children did not have to study biblical
stories, although my son really enjoyed learning about the saints
(particularly the one whose name he shares).
Sharon: I was a bit shocked when I discovered that my child was being
taught violent, patriarchal Bible stories and other grim tales. I
thought Waldorf would be "new paradigm".
Nicole: It's something I put up with just as I put up with daily
worship at our previous (state) school in England, where there was no
choice but to be subjected to religion at school.
Sharon: In South Africa we had this problem as well, though Jehova
Witnesses were allowed to sit outside during morning prayers. My
child did not have to pray or say the pledge at public school, nor
does she have to now at her *nonsectarian* private school.
Nicole: I have always filtered dogma out of their education by
dealing with the issues at home. As for Christ the Sun Being (which I
don't recall ever having seen a reference to in their lesson books or
heard them speak about), I don't find that any more (or less) strange
than mainstream religious dogma.
Sharon: No suns? No morning prayer? No lessons depicting angelic
beings or gnomes mining in metal mines? (G) How odd for a Waldorf
school! I don't discriminate between religions, I'm opposed to them
all (G). Certain ones are wackier than others. I am much more
interested in the really wacky ones for some reason. (G)
Nicole: My older daughter has spent time learning about ancient
India, Babylon, Greece and Rome, but I have been present at some of
those lessons and they were not based on religion. It seemed to me
like a way of bringing history to life, giving modern children a
sense of what it meant to have lived in ancient times. Greek Olympics
was a particularly positive experience. If at any time I felt that
they were being steeped in Aryan superiority (and I am watching
carefully), I would withdraw them.
Sharon: We left in fourth grade, so didn't get that far. I have
looked at lesson books from older kids that were very religious. (Not
history). A fellow poster here on list found the Aryan Atlantis myth
in one of his child's books. Dutch parents also found some racist
stereotyping, which prompted the Dutch Report, which consisted oof a
panel of Anthroposophists who determined that Steiner's works aren't
racist! What a joke that report is!
Nicole: I am grateful to the members of this list for sharing their
experiences in order that others, such as myself, will have a better
idea of what to watch out for. There are many outstanding issues with
our school. Its governance structure is a closed shop and
demonstrates very little administrative competence. Although we have
been very lucky with our children's teachers, others have not. I am
no longer personally involved with the school because of the
conflicts we have had. It has been a very painful experience for me,
although fortunately not for my children. I don't plan to stop
working to change what is wrong with the place (that would be
hypocritical), so I suppose they will probably get tired of us
eventually and ask us to leave. If there were any viable alternative,
we may very well have left already. There are still many positives,
but the negatives are mounting and may soon tip the balance.
Sharon: At least you have a clue about the subtext, which is more
than I had. I just couldn't unite in Anthroposophy now that I
understand it. My advice to you is not to read too much Steiner, or
you might become an ardent critic like me (G).
I don't think Threefolding works very well, I'd love to hear what you
think of it since you have a background in economics. Just remember
that Waldorf feeds people's fears. Good luck to you. I'll close with
a few words from a couple of ex-Waldorf teachers:
"I think most parents get "attached" to their kids being in the
Waldorf schools and they just want to look the other way when
something uncomfortable comes up. Or, they view the teaching as
somehow -superior- because it is not of this "materialistic" world we
live in. Especially when a parent starts their child in the younger
grades. By the time the child is in the school for a number of years,
the school has become -so- much a part of their -identity- that they
cannot face the possibility of letting go. It's very subtle but one
begins to feel it is more and more difficult to relate to others
outside the Waldorf circle. Eventually I felt I was living on some
sort of "Anthroposophical island." This alienation, coupled with my
troubling questions finally convinced me that something was very
wrong." (Heather, fax to Dan Dugan of May 8, 1996).
And a few words from Charmaine Usher Paulson who recently filed a
discrimination suit against the NY school. (She said I could quote
her):
"I realized today, that we all are in mourning. We mourn the loss of
what could, should have been. The sorrow, anguish, and anger that are
laced within our words demonstrate the sincerity of our aspirations
for true community and our reaction to deception. I believe that we
will utilize our strength, integrity, vision and hope towards true
renewal. The Waldorf movement does not "own" beauty, art, songs, and
the idea of reverence for the earth. These ideals belong to us all
and we will impart these principles to our own family and community.
Furthermore, we will impart these things to others in a way the
Waldorf movement could never do. We will impart these things with
love. That is the thing that is missing from them, love".
Sharon: You cannot love people if you are duping them. It is my hope
that Waldorf schools become forthright about who they are and what
their mission is, and that they respect the First Amendment. It is
also my hope, that Steiner's racism is repudiated by the Goetheanum.
Church and state, keep them separate!
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
REE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 22:06:41 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C28CF3.46F81440
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Walden wrote:
Tell me - what are your thoughts on Steiner's Threefolding? If you
are familiar with his social/economic model I would be interested in
your views. Some folks say that is what Waldorf is all about.
Nicole:
I am not particularly familiar with what Steiner meant by the
threefold order. I've heard the term bandied about of course, but no
one ever tried to explain what it referred to. I must admit, my eyes
tended to glaze over when I was subjected to Steiner readings for any
length of time - they're just so convoluted and impenetrable. If you
can pass on a synopsis or a link to one of his lectures on the
subject, I'll try to digest it.
----- Original Message -----
From: walden
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 2:34 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^=^==============================================================Get
more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 22:28:39 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: grades/was stunted imagination
In what is an increasingly interesting exchange between Nicole Foss, Sharon
Lombard and others here on how children's imaginations are stunted -- or not
-- in Waldorf and other school systems (public and other private,
non-Waldorf schools), Sharon points out to Nicole that many of the things
she (Nicole) values --- children being taught to appreciate and recognize
beauty, avoidance of the consumer culture, creativity -- are not exclusive
to Waldorf schools.
Sharon says: ((I'm not accusing you here, but just want to point out that
many Waldorf-critics share your sentiments. Be careful not to make the
mistake of thinking we care about attaining A's.))
Lisa here: I second much of what Sharon said. But I also admit that I
certainly *do* care about my children's achievement, and part of the measure
of that achievement involves -- at least in my daughters' school --
receiving a written grade. I would be lying if I did not say that I prefer
to see an "A" after "Science, Math, English, French, etc." more often than a
B or a C!
A "A" (or a B or a C, etc.) on my child's report card gives me (and
her!) information we need to understand how she is doing. These letter
grades are further enhanced by the extensive comments on effort,
participation in class, critical thinking skills, creativity in approaching
tasks, etc. that each class teacher adds to the report card.
As a child, I absolutely loved seeing all those A's lined up on my report
card not only because it made my parents proud of me, but also because it
showed me that I had tackled what was often hard work and conquered it, made
it mine.
Though we came into Waldorf thinking that the no grades thing would be
great, that maybe it would do what the school said (encourage children to
learn for its own sake), having no real yardstick with which to measure our
daughter's achievement and mastery of subjects ended up being quite a
problem for her when we withdrew her from the school in the middle of fourth
grade. We did not know what she knew, and what she did not know. (Though we
were sure she had an extensive knowledge of the world of fairies and gnomes!
) It took having her evaluated by an educational pyschologist to reveal the
truth depth of the disparity between her ability and her level of
achievement -- a gap the expert identified as the result of our child not
being offered the information and challenges she needed.
Now that my children are enrolled in a school where they do get report
cards, I find it much easier to quickly understand how they are doing and to
use that as a taking off point for my questions on their true level of work.
And A's? Bring 'em on. I love them!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 20:30:35 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: grades/was stunted imagination
Lisa wrote: (snip)
) Though we came into Waldorf thinking that the no grades thing would be
) great, that maybe it would do what the school said (encourage children to
) learn for its own sake), having no real yardstick with which to measure
our
) daughter's achievement and mastery of subjects ended up being quite a
) problem for her when we withdrew her from the school in the middle of
fourth
) grade. We did not know what she knew, and what she did not know. (Though
we
) were sure she had an extensive knowledge of the world of fairies and
gnomes!
) ) It took having her evaluated by an educational pyschologist to reveal
the
) truth depth of the disparity between her ability and her level of
) achievement -- a gap the expert identified as the result of our child not
) being offered the information and challenges she needed.
Snarly Old Walden simply must reply: Experts are people like the rest of us
(dime a dozen in as many fields) but I think I hear you saying that your
daughter was stifled in Waldorf rather than the "expert" felt she needed to
be *pushed academically?*
) Now that my children are enrolled in a school where they do get report
) cards, I find it much easier to quickly understand how they are doing and
to
) use that as a taking off point for my questions on their true level of
work.
) And A's? Bring 'em on. I love them!
Walden: Easier to understand how your children are doing based on a letter
grade from a teacher? Which teacher? What if a student has trouble
learning because a teacher has trouble teaching? (Not just *you* Lisa - it
is a hypothetical question as your post pushed buttons here at Walden Pond
(g)) Do we base our understanding on how they compare with other children
in the same age range? If so - totally unfair methinks. Who decides the
material to be learned and why? Slightly off topic but I have a problem
with *experts* deciding what should be memorized/studied to later be
regurgitated by children in the form of a test in order for society to
decide how *well* they are doing. I realize that Gatto, Holt, etc. are not
favorites of many here - but I just don't know about these so-called
measuring sticks for kids... UNLESS the children enjoy the challenge and
are comfortable with the concepts behind such systems.
If a report card helps us to work *with* our kids and their teachers and
*if* the kids can write report cards for the teachers... I might agree.
Respect is a two way street, n'est ce pas?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 00:49:04 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: grades/was stunted imagination
------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C28D09.F67CEEC0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lisa wrote:
As a child, I absolutely loved seeing all those A's lined up on my report
card not only because it made my parents proud of me, but also because it
showed me that I had tackled what was often hard work and conquered it, made
it mine.
A "A" (or a B or a C, etc.) on my child's report card gives me (and
her!) information we need to understand how she is doing. These letter
grades are further enhanced by the extensive comments on effort,
participation in class, critical thinking skills, creativity in approaching
tasks, etc. that each class teacher adds to the report card.
Nicole:
As a young child, my report cards were usually covered in D's. I
almost failed every grade from grade 1 to grade 8 and no one knew
what to do with me. I was a strange and disturbed child with little
comprehension of the social rules others lived by. I had no interest
in what was being taught and never brought homework home. No one ever
thought why I might have been doing so badly, they just felt sorry
for the little misfit. Uninspired teaching and relentless bullying
made school a constant nightmare. They eventually suggested, at the
end of grade eight, that I should take high school classes in the
lowest stream and maybe go to trade school. I didn't listen,
fortunately, and now have four degrees (I was top graduate in all of
them so I did get my share of A's in the end).
My point is that if one is doing well, those comments on the report
card are not hard to write and the grades are fairly transparent. If,
however, one is doing badly, there may be a multitude of reasons,
none of which seem to be explored in any depth. One tends to be
written off with no attempt made to delve deeper into the reasons for
underachievement, even if those reasons should be relatively obvious.
These days, my public school teacher friends tell me that they aren't
even allowed to write their own comments any more - they're just
supposed to tick the most appropriate comment box on the
computer-generated report card! I find this system to be of rather
limited appeal to say the least. Perhaps it's better where you come
from (if you are happy there then it must be).
I have found that my children learn for the love of learning, which
is a wonderful thing for a parent to see. They have enquiring minds and
are mentally resourceful, as well as being happy, which is a huge
relief for me considering my own background. The lack of grades has
contributed to this state of affairs, in my opinion, by removing the
pressure and allowing their interest to flourish. I don't propose for
a moment that Waldorf has a monopoly on these things, indeed from
what I have seen in other classes (and read of your collective
experiences here) this is clearly not the case, but there are
positive aspects that have worked for us which would be difficult to
find elsewhere (at least in this area).
It seems to me that grades have value in high school and beyond, over
the years when achievement really needs to be measured objectively,
whereas for younger children a much greater degree of subjectivity is
appropriate. Grades are all too often a poor reflection of a young
child's potential and contribute to a culture of counter-productive
labelling which limits young children before they have had a chance
to demonstrate their true capabilities. Older children and young
adults, in contrast, seem to find them empowering. Grades give them
the feedback they need to balance the energy and degree of commitment
devoted to their education versus that to be reserved for other
aspects of their increasingly complex lives.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lisa D. Ercolano
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 10:28 PM
To: waldorf-critics
Subject: grades/was stunted imagination
==^================================================================Get
more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 877
-- Topica Digest --
Re: grades/was stunted imagination
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: grades/was stunted imagination
By momof2gals mindspring.com
re: grades/was stunted imagination
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: grades/was stunted imagination
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: grades/was stunted imagination
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
re: stunted imagination
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: grades/was stunted imagination
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: stunted imagination
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: Heindel, future human form
By fractalfrydaddy comcast.net
Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
By fractalfrydaddy comcast.net
To the moderator
By BarleySinger creative-interweb.com
Re: grades/was stunted imagination
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 09:42:57 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: grades/was stunted imagination
Lisa:
) And A's? Bring 'em on. I love them!
and snarly old Walden (g) has some problems with grades . . .
There *is* a middle ground. My son's school doesn't use letter grades and
yet is academically rigorous. They do score tests - a spelling test comes
back marked 12/15 for instance, if there were 15 words and he got 12 right.
I don't see how you avoid this altogether, if you want to know if the kids
have learned to spell the words. Homework gets a check for being completed,
and comments (like, "If you write slower, I'll be able to read it better").
They totally expect him to do the work assigned, so it is not a "free" style
type school at all, but it is small enough and personal enough and I have
practically daily contact with the teacher so I have no doubts about how
he's doing. It *can* be done without grades.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 11:04:29 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: grades/was stunted imagination
)
)
)
) Lisa:
)) And A's? Bring 'em on. I love them!
)
) and snarly old Walden (g) has some problems with grades . . .
)
) There *is* a middle ground. My son's school doesn't use letter grades and
) yet is academically rigorous. They do score tests - a spelling test comes
) back marked 12/15 for instance, if there were 15 words and he got 12 right.
) I don't see how you avoid this altogether, if you want to know if the kids
) have learned to spell the words. Homework gets a check for being completed,
) and comments (like, "If you write slower, I'll be able to read it better").
) They totally expect him to do the work assigned, so it is not a "free" style
) type school at all, but it is small enough and personal enough and I have
) practically daily contact with the teacher so I have no doubts about how
) he's doing. It *can* be done without grades.
) Diana
)
Lisa: After reading Walden's, Nicole's and Diana's responses, I feel I
should have been clearer in my original post!
My daughters' current school -- a very mainstream college prep school
that offers kindergarten through 12th grades -- uses the following policy
regarding grades, and I endorse this policy:
* children in grades kindergarten through the end of third grade do
*not* get letter grades on their report cards (they are called "progress
reports"). Instead, there is a description of what the class has been
covering, subject-wise (addition and subtraction of numbers 20 and less;
regrouping; identifying parts of speech, etc.) followed by each teacher's
comments on the child's progress. There also is a place where the teachers
"score" (for lack of a better word!) the child's work habits, effort, etc.
with a "U" for "usually," an "S" for "sometimes" and an "O" for
"occasionally."
* beginning in fourth grade, children earn letter grades in the main
subjects of Language Arts/Reading; Math; Science and Social Studies.
Progress in French or Spanish (the girls take half a year of each beginning
in kindergarten through the end of third grade, and then choose which one
they want to pursue), art, music, dance (the school has a fabulous dance
department and the girls take dance all the way through high school as a
required course!) physical education, etc. all are "marked" as above.
* beginning in grade 6, the girls get letter grades for the core
subjects, including foreign languages and Latin, which are required, and get
"effort" grades for phys ed, drama, dance, art, etc.
In short, it sounds as if the system used in Diana's son's school (he is
in elementary or what we call "Lower School") is identical to what is done
at my daughters' school's lower school. My second grader has weekly spelling
"tests" of 15 words, and there is NO letter grade on them when they come
home ... instead, the paper might read "14/15" -- "Fantastic work, Juliet!"
or something similar. Same with the weekly "Mad Minute" math drills the
girls are given.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 11:28:42 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: re: grades/was stunted imagination
During an exchange about the value (or lack of value) of using grades to
evaluate how a student is doing, I recalled what had happened when we
withdrew our older girl from Waldorf school in the middle of the fourth
grade and had her "evaluated" by what I called an "expert."
My snarly buddy boy Walden felt he "simply must" reply thus:
(( Experts are people like the rest of us
(dime a dozen in as many fields) but I think I hear you saying that your
daughter was stifled in Waldorf rather than the "expert" felt she needed to
be *pushed academically?))
Lisa: Yes, experts are people too. And yes, some are not worth the paper
their degrees (if they have 'em!) are printed on.
On the other hand, there *are* experts who are, well, expert in their
fields. My children's pediatrician, for instance. Yes, he is just a person
like you and me, but unlike us, he spent years working his way through an
excellent medical school and did post-doctoral work with the World Health
Organization providing care for refugee children in Thailand.
Just the other day, I needed someone who knows a lot about politics on
the neighborhood level to help me put something done by the city council
here in perspective (they will be redistricting) for a story, so I did not
just grab someone off the sidewalk to consult on this: instead, I called
Johns Hopkins University's political science department and tracked down Dr.
Matthew Crenson, who is what I might call an "expert" observer of local
politics.
The same goes for the "expert" we consulted to help us decide where
Olivia was, educationally speaking, and what we ought to do with her
regarding school placement.
In this case, the "expert" was an educational psychologist who was able
not only to speak at length with Olivia to take a look at how she felt about
school, etc. but also administered (in what I can assure you was a really
pleasant, even fun way!) a battery of tests that, in the end, identified
that there was a startlingly large "gap" between Olivia's ability (IQ, etc.
etc.) and her level of achievement (what she knows, etc.)
Based on those results, the psychologist concluded that yes, Olivia had
been stifled at Waldorf (of which the doc knew little to nothing until we
stumbled, confused, into her office). More than stifled, however, Olivia
(the doctor said ) had simply not been given AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO USE HER
BRAIN, TO LEARN MORE THAN THE BAREST BASICS at Waldorf. The psychologist
basically called what was revealed in the test a "teaching disability."
The doctor concluded that far from Waldorf not "pushing" Olivia to
learn, the teacher there had actually been HOLDING her BACK from learning,
which lines up exactly with what that teacher had constantly told us, in one
way or another: "We need to move Olivia from her head into her trunk area.
She is too much in her head."
I can assure you that while my daughter is intelligent, she is *not*
some kind of Einstein who was working on a theory of relativity in her spare
time and who had an obvious need for "balance." She is, and was, simply a
very smart child -- gifted in the arena of language and verbal stuff -- who
liked to ask questions and to learn things because, well, that's what
children do, right?
Not at Waldorf, they don't.
For a child like my daughter, Waldorf was a disaster. And I daily thank
our "expert" for helping us navigate the confusion and pain of what we were
confronted with when we finally yanked our poor child from that quagmire of
esotericism and needed help figuring out not only where our child stood
emotionally and intellectually, but also where to go from there.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 11:30:40 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: grades/was stunted imagination
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C28D63.97C453A0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Nicole:
The grades policy in your school and in Diana's sounds good. I agree
that if someone has a spelling test of 15 words and spells 12
correctly, it makes perfect sense to score it numerically. One could
never escape from all forms of grading, nor would one want to, but a
progression over the years towards more rigorous and objective
assessment makes sense to me.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lisa D. Ercolano
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 11:05 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: grades/was stunted imagination
==^================================================================Get
more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 11:41:27 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: grades/was stunted imagination
Lisa:
) In short, it sounds as if the system used in Diana's son's school (he
is
)in elementary or what we call "Lower School") is identical to what is done
)at my daughters' school's lower school. My second grader has weekly
spelling
)"tests" of 15 words, and there is NO letter grade on them when they come
)home ... instead, the paper might read "14/15" -- "Fantastic work, Juliet!"
)or something similar. Same with the weekly "Mad Minute" math drills the
)girls are given.
Well, he's in fourth, so he'd be getting letter grades by now at your kids'
school. My son's school is K-6 and unless I'm mistaken no one gets letter
grades. I'm not speaking in favor or against grades, personally - it seems
to me the personal touch is what counts - the detailed reports and close
communication between parents and teachers. My son's teacher called my
husband at work yesterday because he noticed our son had been stuttering
*that morning* and the teacher wondered whether our child was under some
kind of stress. Whether there's a letter grade to accompany all this seems
almost moot.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 11:43:19 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: re: stunted imagination
In a discussion of the value (or lack thereof) of recitation as a learning
tool, Nicole says:
I don't think recitation necessarily works against literacy, but it depends
who is teaching it and with what goal in mind. I've seen recitation done as
a completely lifeless drone or in a foreign language where the kids clearly
had no idea what they were talking about, and I wouldn't presume to defend
such a practice ..
Lisa: You have just described the way French and German was taught at my
children's former Waldorf school and, from what I hear, at many others.
My daughter Olivia emerged from Waldorf in the middle of fourth grade
knowing little to no French or German beyond how to say "hello" and perhaps
(and I am being generous here!) counting to ten.
My former neighbor, whose step children used to attend Washington
Waldorf School in the suburbs of D.C., recounted going to that school to
watch one of them in a German class play and asking the boy afterwards "What
was that about? I don't speak any German" and having him reply "We have no
idea what we are saying. We just memorize the words."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 11:47:54 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: grades/was stunted imagination
) Lisa:
)
)) In short, it sounds as if the system used in Diana's son's school (he
) is
))in elementary or what we call "Lower School") is identical to what is done
))at my daughters' school's lower school. My second grader has weekly
) spelling
))"tests" of 15 words, and there is NO letter grade on them when they come
))home ... instead, the paper might read "14/15" -- "Fantastic work, Juliet!"
))or something similar. Same with the weekly "Mad Minute" math drills the
))girls are given.
)
)
) Well, he's in fourth, so he'd be getting letter grades by now at your kids'
) school. My son's school is K-6 and unless I'm mistaken no one gets letter
) grades. I'm not speaking in favor or against grades, personally - it seems
) to me the personal touch is what counts - the detailed reports and close
) communication between parents and teachers. My son's teacher called my
) husband at work yesterday because he noticed our son had been stuttering
) *that morning* and the teacher wondered whether our child was under some
) kind of stress. Whether there's a letter grade to accompany all this seems
) almost moot.
) Diana
)
Lisa: Agreed, 100%. We have almost daily contact with Juliet's teachers (she
is the one in second grade) and Olivia's teachers (she is in 7th) are
accessible pretty much all the time, as well, by either phone or e-mail.
I think one of the big advantages of a private school such as my kids' is
that close interaction with the teachers and their accessibility, though I
daresay there must certainly be public schools where this is so, too.
I will note, however, that there *is* a "culture" of achievement at my
daughters' school; in other words, most of the children there (and their
parents) value doing well, so it is not "nerdy" to be smart, to do well on
your tests, etc. This works with our own value system.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:58:19 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: stunted imagination
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C28D6F.D6832380
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In a discussion of the value (or lack thereof) of recitation as a learning
tool, Nicole says:
I don't think recitation necessarily works against literacy, but it depends
who is teaching it and with what goal in mind. I've seen recitation done as
a completely lifeless drone or in a foreign language where the kids clearly
had no idea what they were talking about, and I wouldn't presume to defend
such a practice ..
Lisa: You have just described the way French and German was taught at my
children's former Waldorf school and, from what I hear, at many others.
My daughter Olivia emerged from Waldorf in the middle of fourth grade
knowing little to no French or German beyond how to say "hello" and perhaps
(and I am being generous here!) counting to ten.
My former neighbor, whose step children used to attend Washington
Waldorf School in the suburbs of D.C., recounted going to that school to
watch one of them in a German class play and asking the boy afterwards "What
was that about? I don't speak any German" and having him reply "We have no
idea what we are saying. We just memorize the words."
Nicole:
My son loves his language classes. In England, they don't study
foreign languages until year 6 (age 11), so he didn't know a word of
anything but English when we came. In two years he has made a huge
amount of progress and is in his element. He's very proud of the
language strip badges he earned at cubs a couple of weeks ago in
French and German. My daughter's teacher (the best teacher I've ever
met anywhere) used to be the German teacher (he's the gym teacher
now) and has a reputation for being the highlight of most kids' days.
They certainly didn't just recite things (they did that occasionally
for plays and always knew exactly what they were saying), but there
was a strong oral emphasis in the class, especially for the younger
children. If French was taught like that in our local public schools,
kids wouldn't be looking forward to the day they could drop the
subject, which most of them do at the earliest possible opportunity
(and this is in a bilingual city where French mat!
ters for almost all professional job prospects).
I have also seen language taught extremely badly at our school -
based totally on recitation with the maddening drone, the
lifelessness, the lack of comprehension - indeed it's probably the
subject with the greatest variability in terms of standards. It seems
to be the subject where teaching talent and grasp of the subject
matter more than any other. A teacher can make a language come to
life, or they can kill it completely.
My daughter doesn't study languages at all because of her hearing
problem (she has enough trouble with English). An oral approach could
never work for her, so she spends her time doing a staggering array
of craft work with a very talented woman in the Tobias class. If she
learns another language it will be through a written approach when
she's much older. She doesn't like recitation at all, even in
English, which is hardly surprising. It doesn't work for everyone. My
son, on the other hand, loves to learn long poems which 'speak to
him' and perform them for an (inevitably) appreciative audience. I
think he's destined for a life on the stage - I can't wait to see him
do Shakespeare when he's older (whatever school he's in by then).
----- Original Message -----
From: Lisa D. Ercolano
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 11:44 AM
To: waldorf-critics
Subject: re: stunted imagination
FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 18:14:04 -0800
From: Ray Fulk (fractalfrydaddy comcast.net)
Subject: Re: Heindel, future human form
Sharon writes:
) The description: At the root of the nose, beneath the forehead,
) lies the
) two-petalled lotus-flower. This is an undeveloped astral organ
) which will
) one day evolve into either two antennae or wings. These can
) already be seen
) by the horns represented on the head of Moses.
Regarding Moses, the key word is "represented" as in symbolically
represented as opposed to an actual phenomenon. Biblical scholars
attribute the horns on Moses as a mistranslation of Hebrew into Latin
by Jerome ("qaran" meaning rays or beams of light into "qeren" meaning
horns) due to the absence of vowels. The translation refers to Moses
descending Mt Sinai with the tablets of the covenant. His face was said
to glow or radiate light compelling him to wear a veil amongst his
people.
Alongside the scholarly interpretation is the understanding that the
horns of Moses symbolise the status of High Priest/Potentiate in the
mystery school traditions of ancient Egypt which Moses was, as the
Bible reports, a magi in Pharoah's court prior to his exile. The horns
come from the god Amon-Ra which, if memory serves, was a later
representation of Thoth the moon-god, the enlightener (which, btw,is
similar to the moon-god Sin of the Euphrates). This is First Dynasty
Egypt stuff.
What I find interesting is the literal interpretation of horns (and
other organs) as a physical manifestation. Seems Steiner was the
fundamentalist-literalist of the occult.
Ray
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2002 18:32:53 -0800
From: Ray Fulk (fractalfrydaddy comcast.net)
Subject: Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
Barley writes:
) )The world of quantum physics is full of weird and magical things
) that are
) real (like
) )having the same photon in two different places). I don't need to
) make)things up in order to make the world an amazing place.
Diana:
) This is a good point, maybe we just still have traditions like
) Santa Claus
) because it is a holdover from ages when we didn't have all this
) amazingknowledge. I still don't think the stories hurt children,
) however, unless
) adults refuse to simply allow them to outgrow this stage.
Santa Claus is the Patron Saint of sailors. He was a Christian monk who
would give the families of Sailors food and treats anonymously during
the lean months when the dads/husbands were out to sea. Became a
tradition that was embellished over time. Current myth has some basis
in historical truth. Told this to my six year old when she asked if
Santa was real in response to my threat that "Santa's spies are
everywhere" when she was being particularly nasty (yes, I admit I am
quilty).
Ray
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 04:21:36 +0000
From: (BarleySinger creative-interweb.com)
Subject: To the moderator
I have regularly been posing to this list, by accident, under my wifes
email. This is because I have serious health problems that effect my
memory. This is disability issue, not laziness on my part. There is no
way that I can take any steps to make sure that this does not happen on
an irregular basis
With this in mind, I am going to drop my subscription to this list. I
do not want to be the source of constant confusion and conflict. Since
I cannot take steps to ensure that I no longer post as my wife (or even
steps to remember to sign my posts), the only choice I really have is to
leave.
I wish you all well.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 00:40:34 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: grades/was stunted imagination
Lisa wrote: (snip) The doctor concluded that far from Waldorf not
"pushing" Olivia to
) learn, the teacher there had actually been HOLDING her BACK from learning,
) which lines up exactly with what that teacher had constantly told us, in
one
) way or another: "We need to move Olivia from her head into her trunk area.
) She is too much in her head."
) I can assure you that while my daughter is intelligent, she is *not*
) some kind of Einstein who was working on a theory of relativity in her
spare
) time and who had an obvious need for "balance." She is, and was, simply a
) very smart child -- gifted in the arena of language and verbal stuff --
who
) liked to ask questions and to learn things because, well, that's what
) children do, right?
) Not at Waldorf, they don't.
) For a child like my daughter, Waldorf was a disaster. And I daily
thank
) our "expert" for helping us navigate the confusion and pain of what we
were
) confronted with when we finally yanked our poor child from that quagmire
of
) esotericism and needed help figuring out not only where our child stood
) emotionally and intellectually, but also where to go from there.
Thanks for clarifying. To test or not to test... that is (not) the
question. My concerns have more to do with children and their place in
their community and our society. My oldest child enjoys the occasional
test - either keyboarding tests on the computer or at school. It is not a
big deal with him - what is a important is that he feels he is part of the
system which is ostensibly for and about... him. We speak of "democracy"
and beat our chests for all the world to see - yet we deny many of our young
people a single sniff of that same democracy we expect them to embrace in
their future. How many children truly feel involved - really involved - in
*their* education? That is a big part of my beef with Waldorf. The PR has
nothing to do with "nurturing the child" etc. Nonsense. It is about
control. Hell, even close to a hundred years ago some folks had clued into
the concept of democracy actually meaning democracy - *especially* at an
early age.
Look at John Dewey's "Democracy and Education" (New York: Macmillan, 1916)
In the chapter "The Democratic Conception in Education" Dewey says that a
democratic society "must have a type of education which gives individuals a
personal interest in social relationships and control, and the habits of
mind which secure social change without introducing disorder" (p. 115).
Many schools these days, it seems, do not embrace this ideal in the least.
I (stupidly) thought Waldorf had something to do with freedom, etc. I
thought it had to do with respect and I thought it had to do with
children.... Wrong. It had to do with reincarnation and occultism and
control. We look at voter turnout in our *democracy* and we look at how
disillusioned we have become with the "system" and we wonder why? I wonder
if too many real lessons in too many schools have more to do with control
than learning? We are coping. Teachers and students. "Is it 3 o'clock
yet....?" How can a child learn when she/he feels controlled and/or
disenfranchised in their own community? I suppose there are lessons to be
learned from those who control our learning but what *exactly* are those
lessons? How can one feel like an important part of a community (and we all
are - despite our age) when one has no voice in that community? How can one
ask so many redundant questions in the same post....? (g)
-Walden
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 878
-- Topica Digest --
Re: To the moderator
By nmfoss hotmail.com
National Post (Canada) article by Carol Milstone
By dan dandugan.com
RE: National Post (Canada) article by Carol Milstone
By klaudiaypma1960 hotmail.com
Re: National Post (Canada) article by Carol Milstone
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: To the moderator
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: To the moderator
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
Re: Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy I, Shakespeare
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
Water Colour -sample
By klaudiaypma1960 hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 09:24:26 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: To the moderator
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C28E1B.1F6D1960
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Nicole:
Please reconsider. Your contributions to the on-going debate are very valuable.
----- Original Message -----
From: BarleySinger creative-interweb.com
Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 11:21 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: To the moderator
I have regularly been posing to this list, by accident, under my wifes
email. This is because I have serious health problems that effect my
memory. This is disability issue, not laziness on my part. There is no
way that I can take any steps to make sure that this does not happen on
an irregular basis
With this in mind, I am going to drop my subscription to this list. I
do not want to be the source of constant confusion and conflict. Since
I cannot take steps to ensure that I no longer post as my wife (or even
steps to remember to sign my posts), the only choice I really have is to
leave.
I wish you all well.
FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 11:45:45 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: National Post (Canada) article by Carol Milstone
Original with photos:
http://www.nationalpost.ca/search/site/story.asp?id=6563AA5E-E55F-49F5-AB72-ABD3AB5B892B
Text only:
Sunday ? November 17 ? 2002 NATIONAL POST
Gnomes and critics at Waldorf schools
Carol Milstone
National Post
[photo caption] Three gnomes hang from the ceiling in the house of a
child formerly enrolled at a Waldorf school in North Vancouver. The
schools were founded by Rudolf Steiner, an Austrian philosopher, who
believed in reincarnation, destiny and gnomes as life forms.
[photo caption] Drawing gnomes...is popular with children enrolled in
Waldorf schools. Gnomes are blamed for mistakes people make, one
critic says.
Waldorf schools claim to be North America's fastest-growing chain of
alternative independent schools. Parents praise them for encouraging
pupils' artistic expression and keeping pressure and competition to a
minimum. But critics are troubled by the schools' underlying
philosophy. It rejects modern medicine and psychiatry and promotes
belief in astrology and the existence of gnomes in the woods.
- - -
Last spring, Helen and Cam Dorion (not their real names) were
thrilled with the alternative school they had just selected for their
children.
"I've been looking into schools for about a year now, and the second
I walked in the door I just knew," said Helen, of the Ottawa Waldorf
School. "In the three weeks that the two boys have been here, they
have improved tremendously."
Helen and Cam were so impressed they moved their family from Ottawa's
west end to the outlying suburb of Stittsville, Ont., to be closer to
their newly chosen school.
"I go a lot on gut feelings," reported Cam with great fervour. "The
stuff they can do in the yard here is great -- it's the stuff I grew
up with. I'm from the country, and so I like the teeter-totter in the
yard made out of a stump," he says. "And from what I understand, the
school's main goal is to raise a nice person. They will fulfill their
own dreams, but they are not out to get someone else. It's not
dog-eat-dog [at Waldorf], and I think that's important."
The Dorions were not alone in their enthusiasm for Waldorf schools.
According to the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America,
Waldorf schools recently have become North America's fastest-growing
alternative independent schools. With their reputation for artistic
expression and non-conformity, it is hardly surprising that pop
psychologist David Elkind gives Waldorf schools full endorsement in
his best-seller, The Hurried Child.
Started more than 80 years ago in Europe (where they are called
Steiner Schools), there are more than 600 Waldorf schools in over 30
countries, with 20 in Canada. Named after a German cigarette factory
where the first school opened, Waldorf schools were founded by Rudolf
Steiner, a prominent New Age-style Austrian philosopher and
self-styled clairvoyant who started a movement called Anthroposophy.
Waldorf schools have no computers or high-tech gadgetry, and all
classroom supplies are made of natural fibre (cotton, wood, wool,
etc.). To keep pressure and competition to a minimum, there are no
clocks, drill cards, textbooks or tests. No mirrors of any kind are
allowed in Waldorf schools (they promote too much self-focus), nor
are black crayons in early grades (a harsh and undesirable colour).
To its supporters, Waldorf is a gentle antidote to today's
preoccupation with early achievement, inflated commercialism and
undue pressure on children. Many parents are particularly happy that
Waldorf teachers stay with the same students from preschool until
Grade 8 -- a process called looping. The teachers believe this
practice promotes security and trust in the classroom.
As with any non-conventional school, Waldorf has its critics.
To its detractors, Waldorf's apparent humility and security are only
a veneer. They point to the philosophy (some call it a religion)
called Anthroposophy, developed by Steiner, and forming the
cornerstone of all Waldorf schools.
Although not officially part of the Waldorf curriculum, Anthroposophy
is pushed in brochures, newsletters and pamphlets that are scattered
throughout the schools. Waldorf teachers are trained and well versed
in Anthroposophy, and local Anthroposophy study groups are
established at the schools. Waldorf classrooms include prayer tables,
where the children recite daily incantations about spirits and
rhythms in nature.
The critics view Anthroposophy as a potentially dangerous religion
that is New Age-like and mystical. They are troubled, for example, by
how Anthroposophy rejects modern medicine and psychiatry and believes
(among other things) in astrology, reincarnation and the existence of
little gnomes in the woods. A contingent of Waldorf critics charges
that some of Steiner's Anthroposophical writings are racist, while
others are simply bothered by the feeling of exclusion Waldorf
schools create.
Anthroposophy is based on the prolific lectures and writings of
Steiner. Described as a body of beliefs called "spiritual mysticism,"
some key elements of Anthroposophy are reincarnation, destiny,
biodynamics, eurythmy and Anthroposophical medicine.
According to an Anthroposophy brochure, biodynamics is a "scientific
and spiritual approach" to organic farming and gardening, considering
such things as "life rhythms of sun and moon," and the "cosmic
forces" of other planets. ("By learning how to strengthen and
harmonize these influences," says the brochure, "we can enhance the
nutritional value of our food.") Waldorf school gardens are managed
according to biodynamics, and most parents could easily appreciate
the schoolyard's freedom from pesticides and chemicals.
Eurythmy is a system of rhythmic, dance-like movements that are
taught to all Waldorf children and performed at school concerts.
According to another Anthroposophy brochure, eurythmy is based on
"the movement language of the soul," and is seen by many Waldorf
parents as a form of artistic expression that they are pleased to see
their children acquire.
Others, however, say eurythmy is much more than artistic expression.
"Eurythmy is taken from the magical lodge tradition of gestures and
signs," warns Sharon Lombard in a letter on the Internet to
prospective Waldorf parents. "It has a secret language which Steiner
lifted from the Cabbala (via the Rosicrucians), and the children in
Waldorf are made to communicate to the spirit world."
Lombard, a vocal critic of Waldorf education, happily sent her
daughter to her local Waldorf school in Wisconsin until her daughter
came home with what she felt were some disturbing aspects of the
curriculum. Lombard decided to investigate.
She found the curriculum riddled with "alchemy, magic, astrology and
all the bizarre and weird ideas of the occult." Lombard, who is also
a regular contributor to an online discussion group whose aim is to
bring concerns about Waldorf out in the open, believes there are
elements of a "secret society" in how the schools are run. "Most of
the parents go along with the program without a clue. Waldorf schools
are not the progressive, liberal, artistic image that they are very
good at portraying."
The "secret society" Lombard refers to takes the form of
Anthroposophy study groups held by Waldorf staff for the true
believers. There are many philosophical and esoteric issues that are
discussed in these groups, including the topic of the gnomes.
Look on the floors, walls, shelves, window sills, prayer tables,
snack tables, play areas or just about anywhere in a Waldorf
classroom and you will see the gnomes. There are cotton-felt gnomes,
hand-knit wool gnomes and gnomes drawn with pastels and water
colours. Small, handcrafted gnomes are also the mainstay of most
Waldorf school fundraisers. While many parents believe the gnomes
simply provide flights of fancy for imaginative play,
Anthroposophists believe gnomes are a true life form.
"As in little dwarf-like people who live in the interior of the
Earth?" one concerned new Waldorf parent posted in a recent online
Waldorf discussion group.
"Our lead kindergarten teacher is very upfront that she believes in
gnomes," responded another parent. "Before their weekly walk in the
forest, the kindergartens ask the gnomes (who, after all, live there)
for permission to enter."
"But do they really believe in gnomes?" persisted the first parent.
"Trust me, they believe it," Diane Winters asserted. She's a former
Waldorf classroom aide in Philadelphia and now a vocal critic of
Waldorf education because of her growing concerns with the schools'
philosophy.
"Do you believe in gnomes?" I asked Waldorf parent Leah Spilchen at
an Ottawa Waldorf school open house last spring. "Yes, I do,"
answered Spilchen unequivocally. "But I don't believe that they would
look like what we think of as gnomes because they are spirits, and we
can't see them."
I received similar responses from the half-dozen other Waldorf
supporters whom I queried on the topic. Ernst Von Bezold, who
represents Waldorf schools on the board of directors for the Ontario
Federation of Independent Schools, believes gnomes are "nature's
spirits" and says he is open to believing that some people have seen
them. He claims he has seen angels.
"Steiner taught that if you didn't make spiritual progression over
successive lifetimes, you come back as a gnome," explains
Philadelphia's Diana Winters.
Reincarnation, spiritual progression, and karma (destiny) are a big
part of Anthroposophy's spiritual mysticism and Steiner has written
volumes on these topics.
"We must see this lawful and regular connection between an earlier
existence and a later one as the 'law of destiny'," wrote Steiner.
"We usually apply the term 'karma'. "
Steiner explains that "each incarnating spirit brings its destiny
along with it from previous incarnations, and this destiny determines
its previous life."
"Only a real cynic would not fall in love with the Waldorf gnomes [at
first]," Winters elaborates. "But it's another thing to live and
breathe gnome culture day in and day out."
References to gnomes in school literature are hard to find, but
references to incarnation and destiny can be found in the online
newsletter of the Toronto Waldorf School, which states, "Child
development is regarded by the Waldorf educator as a process whereby
an individual incarnates into earthly existence.... We see it as our
task to facilitate the development of each individual on the path to
their destiny".
Waldorf's approach to literacy is another controversial aspect of the
school's philosophy. Believing that too much early learning can
hamper spiritual development, the schools have strict policies to
curtail early literacy. These policies include the complete exclusion
of books in the early grades, and postponing reading and writing
until the child is around eight years old -- depending on when the
child's permanent teeth emerge.
"It is a very bad thing to be able to write early," Steiner said.
"Reading and writing are really not suited to the human being until a
later age -- the eleventh or twelfth year."
While Waldorf supporters see delayed reading as a positive step in a
child's development; others are not as impressed. Vancouver's Wendy
Van Reisen was a conventionally trained teacher when she sent her two
sons to Vancouver Waldorf School at different times from 1989 to
1999. When Van Reisen's younger son, Duncan, still couldn't read in
Grade 3 at the Waldorf school, Van Reisen became sufficiently alarmed
to withdraw him from the school. "He had a slight learning
disability," reports Van Reisen, "but he certainly wasn't
intellectually slow, and he soon became a great reader once he left
Waldorf and worked at home with me."
Another aspect of the Waldorf approach is its rejection of
traditional medicine in favour of the Anthroposophical herbal
remedies that are often sold in the schools. An Anthroposophical
medicine newsletter on display at the Ottawa Waldorf School contains
articles on curing cancer with mistletoe, treating diabetes with
herbs and homeopathy and "the spiritual psychology of chronic
illness." Waldorf children who are diagnosed with attention deficit
disorder, autism and other serious disorders are often taken off
their medication and parents are urged to withdraw their children
from any psychiatric or psychological services they may be receiving.
"As I said to one set of parents who came to us with a child
diagnosed with serious behavioural disorders," reports Ottawa Waldorf
School teacher Mel Belanson, "you must bring your child here right
away. This is a rescue operation. Take him off the meds and get him
away from the therapists."
On this point, Waldorf parents who believe today's children are
over-medicated for behaviour disorders are in good company, with many
reputable physicians claiming that far too many of today's children
are given medication.
But Waldorf's rejection of modern medicine is largely based on
Anthroposophy, which according to Eugenie Scott of the National
Center for Science Education in the United States, is not scientific.
"Anthroposophical medicine claims that disease is caused primarily by
a disturbance of the 'vital essence,' the heart does not pump blood,
and there are twelve senses corresponding to signs of the zodiac,"
she says.
Other Waldorf critics are more concerned with the seemingly racist
contents of Rudolf Steiner's writings, some of which have been found
in teacher training material.
"In the truest sense," wrote Steiner in 1904, "everyone receives his
allotted task from his family, national or racial group soul."
"The Ancestors of the Atlanteans lived in a religion which has
disappeared," elaborated Steiner. "In theosophical writings they are
called the Lemurians.... From this part the Atlanteans were
formed.... The greatest part of the Atlantean population declined,
and from a small portion are descended the so-called Aryans who
comprise present-day civilized humanity."
In public lectures during the same year (1904), Steiner declared,
"Ever since the Atlantean Race began slowly to disappear, the great
Aryan Race has been the dominant one on Earth."
"That is a terrible thing the French people are doing to other
people," Steiner wrote from Germany in 1923. "[From] the frightful
cultural brutality of transplanting black people to Europe ... the
French nation will become weakened as a race."
These passages from Steiner's works are posted at the Web site of
PLANS, People for Legal and Non-sectarian Schools, which was founded
by former Waldorf parents and teachers in order to take the
Sacramento, Calif., public school district to court for funding
Waldorf schools -- schools that PLANS alleges in the ongoing legal
case are religious and therefore in violation of the U.S.
Constitution.
Closer to home, a group of former Waldorf parents from Montreal filed
a complaint with the Quebec government that their local Waldorf
school was not sufficiently upfront about Anthroposophy, prompting
Montreal researcher Yves Casgrain to recently begin a book on the
issue.
The American concerns go further. In the PLANS Web site, which draws
about 30 posts a day, are extracts from pro-apartheid material
written by South African Anthroposophists in the 1980s, and passages
that PLANS claims are from recent Waldorf teacher training manuals in
the United States, including: "When it was time for Zarathustra to
leave the Earth, he climbed the mountain.... As he turned to look
back at the Earth, he had a vision of things to happen in the future.
He saw the Aryan peoples marching on victoriously towards the west."
Charges against Waldorf have ebbed and flowed across Europe and North
America over the past 60 years. But actual cases or formal complaints
of racism have never surfaced in any Waldorf school.
"I've encountered a claim once that Steiner's writings are
troubling," says Von Bezold. He has sent four of his children to the
Toronto Waldorf School. "I examined it, and found the concern to be
without merit."
Von Bezold says he has never seen anything that resembles racism or
anti-Semitism from his experience, and if he did he would become
alarmed. "Steiner's views are Steiner's views. And a Waldorf teacher
is free to accept or reject his views," says Von Bezold, also
pointing out there are no allegations of racism or anti-Semitism in
Canadian Waldorf schools.
"From what I've seen," he says, "I would not conclude that Steiner
does anything but respect human rights. So to the critics, I would
say, 'I haven't seen it. Show me.' The critics just don't understand
Steiner," Von Bezold contends. "He is actually an intellectual giant."
Von Bezold bases his defence of Steiner and Waldorf schools on his
own study of Anthroposophy, his experience as a supply teacher in
Waldorf schools and 53 years of Waldorf education that have been
accumulated by his four children. Von Bezold has no problems with
Waldorf's mystical views regarding things such as karma and
reincarnation, and he points out many mainstream religions have
questionable or objectionable elements to them, yet society accepts
them without question.
Using Von Bezold's logic, one could view the publication of
horoscopes in the daily newspapers as weird or objectionable, or the
religious teachings of any non-secular school in mainstream society.
Telling children about Santa (which is objectionable to many
Anthroposophists), the Easter bunny, or the tooth fairy could also be
held up to moral scrutiny.
To further their defence, Waldorf supporters could also point out
they are not the only schools with disenchanted parents. Rates of
dissatisfaction and attrition are much higher in French immersion
programs than Waldorf schools, for example, and significant numbers
of parents withdraw their children from Montessori schools due to
school pressure for early literacy.
Nor is there a shortage of highly satisfied Waldorf graduates.
Elegwen O Maoileoin, 21, of Vancouver expresses a strong attachment
to his 13 years as a student at the Vancouver Waldorf School.
"Honestly, sending me to Waldorf was the best thing my parents ever
did for me," says O Maoileoin. "I would love to be able to go back to
teach in a Waldorf one day."
O Maoileoin is one of only six graduating students at Vancouver
Waldorf School in 1999, and in many ways O Maoileoin could be
considered the quintessential Waldorfian proteg?.
O Maoileoin recalls with fondness the spiritual rituals of his early
Waldorf years, including the group blessings of fresh fruit; the
staring at tree roots for gnomes; and his school's prohibition
against black clothing or black crayons in the early years. O
Maoileoin is particularly grateful for learning that "there is
credibility to less popular beliefs," and he also appreciates his
lessons on native American culture, Norse mythology, Egyptian history
and the stories of the Bible.
As with many Waldorf parents, O Maoileoin's parents were not ones to
embrace a wholly conventional belief system. When they decided to
send their son to Waldorf 16 years ago, they were both practicing
transcendental meditation. Since then O Maoileoin's mother has worked
as a professional astrologist. As a child, O Maoileoin was taught
about telekinesis and astral travel.
While a teenager at Waldorf, O Maoileoin spent six years practicing
Wicca (modern witchcraft), after which he said he became an agnostic
and then an atheist. As with many of his classmates, O Maoileoin
rejected Steiner and Anthroposophy as a teen, although now he is a
follower. Recently, O Maoileoin also converted to Catholicism.
After graduating from Waldorf, O Maoileoin studied linguistics at a
local college, and has read Rudolf Steiner's works on Anthroposophy
extensively. On charges that Steiner was racist, O Maoileoin echoes
Toronto Waldorf parent Ernst Von Bezold by claiming he was never
taught anything racist at his Waldorf school and the critics
misunderstand Steiner. (On a personal level, O Maoileoin conveys
sincerity in his conviction that the white race is "definitely not"
superior to any other, and that "all races have a lot to learn from
each other.")
In storybook fashion, O Maoileoin recently became engaged to a woman
who was in his Grade One class at the Vancouver Waldorf School. He
now sets his sights on a master's degree in divinity at Vancouver
School of Theology and his dream is to eventually teach at a Waldorf
school.
While Waldorf graduates such as O Maoileoin feel they have thrived
from their unconventional and spiritual education, disenchanted
Waldorf parents express a common sense of being misled by the
school's wholesome image.
"There is nothing in the [school brochures] about incarnating
children's souls," says a Waldorf parent-turned-critic in British
Columbia who requests anonymity due to pending legal action with a
local Waldorf school. "How many parents even know that Waldorf
teachers study Steiner's occultism in order to teach at a Waldorf?"
"When our son started in the San Francisco Waldorf," recalls critic
Dan Dugan, "I thought it was a progressive, artistic school. The
teachers said they teach a standard curriculum, just based on
Steiner's teaching methods. In fact, it is more than that. Waldorf
schools are actually about Anthroposophy."
? Copyright 2002 National Post
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 20:43:55 +0000
From: Klaudia (klaudiaypma1960 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: National Post (Canada) article by Carol Milstone
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Original with photos:
)
)
http://www.nationalpost.ca/search/site/story.asp?id=6563AA5E-E55F-49F5-AB72-ABD3AB5B892B
)
National Post:
Waldorf classrooms include prayer tables,
where the children recite daily incantations about spirits and
rhythms in nature.
Klaudia:
Which prayer tables? I've never heard about them?
National Post:
"Steiner taught that if you didn't make spiritual progression over
successive lifetimes, you come back as a gnome," explains
Philadelphia's Diana Winters.
Klaudia:
Did Doctor Steiner really say so? If it is true, I want to get further
quote and references.
National Post:
References to gnomes in school literature are hard to find, but
references to incarnation and destiny can be found in the online
newsletter of the Toronto Waldorf School, which states, "Child
development is regarded by the Waldorf educator as a process whereby
an individual incarnates into earthly existence.... We see it as our
task to facilitate the development of each individual on the path to
their destiny".
Klaudia:
Why National Post don't tell this with real names: Reincarnation and
Karma.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 17:36:47 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: National Post (Canada) article by Carol Milstone
on 11/17/02 12:43 PM, Klaudia at klaudiaypma1960 hotmail.com wrote:
National Post:
"Steiner taught that if you didn't make spiritual progression over
successive lifetimes, you come back as a gnome," explains
Philadelphia's Diana Winters.
) Klaudia:
) Did Doctor Steiner really say so? If it is true, I want to get further
) quote and references.
Sharon: Yes, those that don't advance will become "subordinate nature
spirits". See the book: "Nature Spirits", Selected lectures by Rudolf
Steiner. Rudolf Steiner Press. Compiled and edited by Wolf-Ulrich Klunker.
Published 1995.
Read the chapter entitled Gnomes, Undines, Sylphs and Salamanders.
Pg. 70-71 Steiner: "They must cut cut themselves off entirely from the
progress of evolution. Why have they deserved this? By reason of the fact
that they have not made use of life! The world is around them; they have
possessed senses in order to perceive the world, to enrich the life-kernel
and mould it to a higher stage. They do not advance with world evolution,
they remain behind at a certain stage. Beings that stay behind at such
stages appear in a later epoch with approximately the character of the
earlier age. They have grown together with it, but not in the forms of the
later epoch. They appear in a later epoch as subordinate nature spirits. In
fact the human race will furnish a whole number of such new nature spirits
in the second half of the Jupiter evolution, for man will have completed his
fifth principle at the Jupiter stage. For those who have not used the
opportunity on earth to develop the fifth principle, there will be no
available form. They will appear as nature spirits, and they will appear
then with four principles, the fourth being the highest. Whereas the
normally advanced man will have the principles 5,4,3,2 at the Jupiter stage,
these people will have 4,3,2,1."
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:16:20 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: To the moderator
) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3120401781_322961_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
From: BarleySinger creative-interweb.com
There is no
way that I can take any steps to make sure that this does not happen on
an irregular basis
With this in mind, I am going to drop my subscription to this list. I
do not want to be the source of constant confusion and conflict. Since
I cannot take steps to ensure that I no longer post as my wife (or even
steps to remember to sign my posts), the only choice I really have is to
leave.
Sharon: I don't think you've caused any conflict or confusion. I have
appreciated your contributions here, and your perspective. If your wife
doesn't mind you using her e-mail address, I don't see what the big deal is.
Dan has often called for signing posts, don't take it personally. Like you I
also forget , despite the fact that Dan has asked people to do so more than
once. Dan just tries to keep things in order. (He's an engineer (G)).
Whoops, nearly forgot...Sharon Lombard
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 19:55:03 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: To the moderator
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_GATltJG5cMsv9uSmuQI5nQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Re: To the moderatorSharon: I don't think you've caused any conflict
or confusion. I have appreciated your contributions here, and your
perspective. If your wife doesn't mind you using her e-mail address,
I don't see what the big deal is. Dan has often called for signing
posts, don't take it personally.
Walden replies: Barley Singer - I echo Sharon's thoughts. Your
contributions to this list are valuable. The moderator is doing the
moderator's job - that is all. I really appreciate your posts and
your honesty. That is the truth. :)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 20:02:16 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
At 16-11-02 06:32 PM Saturday, Ray wrote:
)Santa Claus is the Patron Saint of sailors. He was a Christian monk who
)would give the families of Sailors food and treats anonymously during
)the lean months when the dads/husbands were out to sea. Became a
)tradition that was embellished over time. Current myth has some basis
)in historical truth. Told this to my six year old when she asked if
)Santa was real in response to my threat that "Santa's spies are
)everywhere" when she was being particularly nasty (yes, I admit I am
)quilty).
May I ask your sources on this, Ray? Because this does not accord with
what I learned from either my historical research or my hagiography
(dictionary of Saints), during the years when I was a student of Christian
theology and myth cycles.
My understanding was that "Santa Claus" was a corruption of the reference
to Saint Nicholas, who became associated with gift giving as a result of
his having anonymously donated bags of gold to provide dowries for a few
young women who would have been unable to marry without them. While there
are references to Saint Nicholas as having been the patron saint of
Sailors, this is not generally linked to his evolution into "Santa Claus",
which is tied instead to his legendary generosity in saving these girls
from the career as prostitutes which lay before them, had the dowries not
been provided. He was a clergyman, according to the traditional beliefs,
but not a monk, and there is a marked difference of opinion between
historians and religious scholars as to the historical accuracy of the
references, or even whether he lived at all.
(BEGIN DOCUMENTATION QUOTE)
Saint Nicholas... Santa Claus
The 6th December is the feast day of St. Nicholas. Regarded by historians
as a purely legendary character, Nicholas is supposed to have lived in the
fourth century AD. Born in Patara (Turkey) from a wealthy family Nicholas
was made priest by his uncle the Archbishop of Myra. At the death of his
parents Nicholas gave all his havings to the poor and went to Palestine.
Returning to Myra he was made Bishop. According to legend the Archbishop of
that seaport had just died and the local clergy had decided that the first
priest entering the church on the following morning would be made bishop.
That was Nicholas who then became the Bishop of Myra.
Many are the stories around the figure of St. Nicholas, indeed made saint
because of his generosity, modesty and miracles...
A famous story tells that visiting a certain inn Nicholas discovered that
the innkeeper had the habit of stealing small children, kill them and serve
them to his guests. Finally Nicholas found a case containing the bodies of
three kids and on the sign of the cross rescued them back to life. In
honour of this story Nicholas became the patron saint of small children.
The reason why Nicholas became patron saint of sailors and travellers is
that on a voyage to the Holy Land the boat on which Nicholas was sailing
was about to be wreck by the violent waves of a sea storm. Nicholas made
the storm calm down, saving the boat.
But the most famous story is the one that generate the legend of Santa
Claus! Having heard about a nobleman who had lost all his havings, Nicholas
decided to provide a dowry for his three daughters. He secretly threw,
through a window of the man's house, a bag full of gold for each girl .
Nicholas was discovered while throwing the third bag, but begged the
nobleman not to reveal the truth. For this story Nicholas became also the
patron saint of girls without dowry.
(END DOCUMENTATION QUOTE)
The cited article continues, with more information about "Saint Nicholas", at:
http://www.nerone.cc/newslett/claus.htm
Please see also:
http://www.ethicsdaily.com/article_detail.cfm?AID=1379
http://www.growley.com/history.html
Although I am not Christian, I still find that the years I spent studying
the belief system (not to mention the years spent proofreading my
step-father's theological papers, for his studies at the Diocesan School of
Theology, before he went on to Seminary - oddly enough, at the same
Vancouver School of Theology cited in the recent National Post article
posted here as the goal of a "Waldorf success story", whose entire life is
now dedicated to, and revolves around, the Waldorf Schools and
Anthroposophy), still come in handy, when it comes to this type of subject
matter.
I'm also in accordance with the historians mentioned in the quoted excerpt
above: I don't accept this type of tradition as being proof of the
existence of such an historical figure. After all, many of the "Saints"
found in the Christian lists (especially in the medieval period) are
demonstrably non-authentic, in terms of having been real living breathing
historical figures. For instance, Saints Brigid and Dionysus, who were
both (pretty obviously) simply Christianized versions of the local
pre-Christian deities...
But I still like to get both the traditional story and the question of its
historical authenticity correct.
"Willow Firesong"
my "nom de web"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 20:11:12 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy I, Shakespeare
At 14-11-02 09:00 PM Thursday, Sharon wrote:
)Next time I'll finish summarizing Steiner's chapter. Then next week I'll go
)into Shakespeare, Elizabeth, Frederick et al - a great story. Elizabeth's
)dad was King James (think Bible). He did not accept his daughter's religion.
)(G)
So I take it that you are NOT speaking of Elizabeth I here, when you speak
of Princess Elizabeth? I found your posts somewhat confusing on this
point. I didn't think so, since you kept referring to her "marriage", but
it did kind of confuse me, as I believe it was her Majesty rather than her
Highness who was the first Elizabeth to act as Shakespeare's patron (matron?).
This is just a side question, after all; I've been quite interested to
follow this thread, as I've found the "Baconian" theories an entertaining
annoyance over the years since my first paper on Shakespeare's life, in
school. (I believe that in the long run I determined that Shakespeare was
neither Bacon nor Her Majesty Elizabeth I, but was instead a
goldfish... (LOL) ...but that was only intended as a humorous footnote to
a reasonably comprehensive overview of the known historical facts of the
real Shakespeare's real life.) I've seen the purported "evidence" put
forth by the Baconians, and it's pretty unconvincing, to say the least.
Willow
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:19:35 +0000
From: Klaudia (klaudiaypma1960 hotmail.com)
Subject: Water Colour -sample
Here is one very typical waldorf-picture.
Please give explanations what is esoteric meaning of picture. And tell
also eksoteric meaning.
http://www.waldorf-swlondon.ndo.co.uk/gallery/p.html
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 879
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Water Colour -sample
By mysplum earthlink.net
Harvard Crimson's "take" on Waldorf
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy I, Shakespeare
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: The wedding of Elizabeth and Frederick
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
By fractalfrydaddy comcast.net
Waldorf - Enforced belief in fairies
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 07:54:10 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Water Colour -sample
on 11/18/02 3:19 AM, Klaudia at klaudiaypma1960 hotmail.com wrote:
)
) Here is one very typical waldorf-picture.
) Please give explanations what is esoteric meaning of picture. And tell
) also eksoteric meaning.
Sharon: Person throwing yellow ball. Just kidding. Could it be a picture of
an Anthroposophist worshipping Christ the Sun Being? (G)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 07:41:38 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Harvard Crimson's "take" on Waldorf
Following is an article that was written by a Waldorf grad and printed in
The Harvard Crimson. She has some good things to say about Waldorf, but some
not-so-good ones, too.
Waldorf advocates will point to this and say "See? This kid got into
Harvard!" Once they read the article, however, they will note that she
explicitly mentions the fact that she was reading *before* entering Waldorf
(she would hide a book under her desk to read while the rest of the children
were reciting their alphabet!) and she considers her Waldorf high school
classes laughable compared to those of her classmates.
Still ... well, you be the judge!
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=254787
Lisa
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:09:24 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy I, Shakespeare
on 11/18/02 1:41 AM, Willow Firesong at
willow.firesong creative-interweb.com wrote:
) At 14-11-02 09:00 PM Thursday, Sharon wrote:
)) Next time I'll finish summarizing Steiner's chapter. Then next week I'll go
)) into Shakespeare, Elizabeth, Frederick et al - a great story. Elizabeth's
)) dad was King James (think Bible). He did not accept his daughter's religion.
)) (G)
)
) So I take it that you are NOT speaking of Elizabeth I here, when you speak
) of Princess Elizabeth?
Sharon: You are correct, I'm speaking about princess Elizabeth Stuart,
daughter of James I (King of Great Briton) who married Frederick V, Elector
Palatinate of the Rhine. I am not speaking of Queen Elizabeth the virgin,
who had her own cult, although she is also an important player in this
drama.
I found your posts somewhat confusing on this
) point.
Sharon: Sorry. (Not my fault the Royals are all named after each other (G)).
I will try to be clearer.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:33:57 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: The wedding of Elizabeth and Frederick
Sharon: Renaissance historian Francis Yates (1899-1991) begins her history
of the Rosicrucian Enlightenment as such: "In the old Europe, a royal
wedding was a diplomatic event of the first importance, and royal wedding
festivities were a statement of policy". I will be telling Yate's history
taken from her book "The Rosicrucian Enlightenment", reprinted in 1998 by
Routledge, c by F. Yates 1972.
First part of Chapter 1:
I now begin the story of Elizabeth and Frederick V, who were married in
February 1613. "...London went wild with joy at what seemed a continuation
of the Elizabethan age in this alliance of a new, young Elizabeth with the
leader of the German Protestants and a grandson of William the Silent". The
old Virgin Queen's era was implicit in this event, as the "old Elizabeth had
been the support of Europe against Hapsburg aggression, allied to Catholic
reaction; her foreign alliances had been with the rebellious Netherlands and
their leader and with German and French protestants". The old Elizabeth
represented in religion a reformed imperialism, she was "the Just Virgin of
the Golden Age". Unlike the old Elizabethan-Virgin, the young princess
Elizabeth was to cement these sacred policies through her marriage to the
Elector Palatine Frederick V. The court bankrupted itself with this
marriage, vast sums were spent on jewelry, clothing, feasts and
entertainment.
Setting the scene: Shakespeare was still alive and living in London. He and
the old Elizabeth had been close. The Globe was not burned down yet. Francis
Bacon's "The Advancement of Learning" had been published. The Catholics were
preparing for a new assault on heresy which was connected to the House of
Hapsburg. Informed people thought war would break out in Germany. (Frederick
and Elizabeth would be caught up in this in a few years time). Frederick and
Elizabeth actually did fall in love with each other and their relationship
endured through the hard times to come. The bride's brother Prince Henry of
Wales also opposed the Hapsburg powers and had planned to go to Germany with
his sister to find a wife, wanting to end "the jars in religion". He died,
causing the wedding to be postponed. Henry would have been able to influence
his dad James I, which would have influenced what happened to Elizabeth and
Frederick... (without Henry, James was to cut off the newly weds due to
conflicts over religion).
Elizabeth loved the theater and had her own company of actors. At Christmas
time Shakespeare's company, called the King's men, gave 20 plays at the
court. Many of Shakespeare's plays, including "Much Ado About Nothing",
"Othello", "Julius Caesar", and "The Tempest" were presented to Elizabeth
and her fianc?e Frederick before the wedding.
Because Frederick was soon to be married to the daughter of the King of
Great Briton, he was invested with the "Order of the Garter" on 7 December
1612. On the 7th of February, a week before the wedding, Frederick was
invested at Windsor with a jewel studded George, given by the king to his
future son-in-law. He became a knight of the Order of the Garter which was
an Elizabethan tradition. The old Virgin Elizabeth had used the Order as a
way to draw noblemen together in service to the Crown. When Frederick became
a Garter Knight he enlisted under the banner of the Red Cross of St George,
pledging to fight in defense of the monarch, fighting the Dragon of Wrong.
At the wedding, there was a reenactment of St George saving the queen
imprisoned by a necromancer. St George killed a dragon while riding over a
bridge between the Queen's pavilion and the necromancer's tower. There were
lots of fireworks and the show did not go off too well. Some people were
injured due to "thwacking" and fire. Readers of Spensor's Faerie Queen
watching the show would have thought of the Red Cross Knight who had saved
Una in the allegory honoring the old Virgin Elizabeth. Now the young
Elizabeth had her own allegory written in fire.
On February 14, the wedding took place at the chapel at Whitehall. The
bridegroom was Calvinist, but the ceremony was Anglican and performed by
Arch Bishop of Canterbury George Abbot. The Rhine was joined with the
Thames, Germany united with Great Briton, the people were joined in "one
religious cult and in simple love."
Sharon digresses: A few years ago, I sat on a hard bench at the
reconstructed Globe Theater in London watching an English-African-actor
perform the lead role in Julius Caesar. I have also slept in an Arch Bishop
of Canterbury's bed (G) after a terrible snow storm (he was not in the bed
at the time! (G)). Sorry, I'm digressing but this story is quite personal in
*many* ways but I don't wish to go into it here...more on Fred and Liz
coming your way soon...
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 21:00:28 -0800
From: Ray Fulk (fractalfrydaddy comcast.net)
Subject: Re: Believing in myths : was Re: Stunted imagination
Me:
) At 16-11-02 06:32 PM Saturday, Ray wrote:
) )Santa Claus is the Patron Saint of sailors. He was a Christian
) monk who
) )would give the families of Sailors food and treats anonymously during
) )the lean months when the dads/husbands were out to sea. )
Willow:
) May I ask your sources on this, Ray? Because this does not accord
) with
) what I learned from either my historical research or my
) hagiography
) (dictionary of Saints), during the years when I was a student of
) Christian
) theology and myth cycles.
Hi Willow.
Continuing in the oral tradition, vatied as it is, my source is from an
elderly, West Indian gentleman by the name of "Santa" from the British
island of Antigua. I was leaving on a long solo voyage and he dropped
by with some food, a bag of shackles and a St.Nick pendant necklace. A
good a source as any.
(snip)
) The 6th December is the feast day of St. Nicholas. Regarded by
) historians
) as a purely legendary character, Nicholas is supposed to have
) lived in the
) fourth century AD. Born in Patara (Turkey) from a wealthy family
) Nicholas
) was made priest by his uncle the Archbishop of Myra. At the death
) of his
) parents Nicholas gave all his havings to the poor and went to
) Palestine.
) Returning to Myra he was made Bishop. According to legend the
) Archbishop of
) that seaport had just died and the local clergy had decided that
) the first
) priest entering the church on the following morning would be made
) bishop.
) That was Nicholas who then became the Bishop of Myra.
He was also given credit for siezing a cargo of grain from an Eqyptian
ship bound for Byzantine, thus saving Myra from starvation (hence the
feast of St.Nick). The theft went unnoticed and was therefore deemed a
myracle, as it were.
Who knows, maybe 1600 years from now historians will view our
contemporary myth just as feasible (smack me).
Ray
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:10:53 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Waldorf - Enforced belief in fairies
As of yesterday, my husband and daughter went shopping (as usual) for our
medically-mandated organic diet at the shop run by our local Waldorf
School, which has the best prices in the local area - this is important,
since we're currently managing on a pension while determining whether or
not my husband will be able to go back to work outside of the home (which
is looking doubtful at this time).
While there, they had an encounter which was both disturbing and very
clear-cut, and which I think others deserve to know about, as it's very
representative of the atmosphere of the locations run by the Waldorf Schools.
It began with a conversation between a young girl, age 7, whom my daughter
was playing with, and asked her age; this girl was doing store-related
work putting stamps on envelopes (acting as free child labour for the
school, in effect, which I believe is illegal here as it is in the US), and
an older woman who was giving her some nominal supervision.
I should note here that I believe that the girl's mother also works at the
store, as do many of the parents at the school - fees are so high, and
parents are encouraged to school all of their children at the school, that
many if not most parents seem to wind up working for the school or one of
its various enterprises, in what begins to resemble a form of indentured
servitude. I've seen work study programs before, and am a fan of barter,
but I'm disturbed at the way that the school seems to assume the rights to
ALL of these families' resources, both financial and physical.
At the same time, I find it noteworthy that those resources are only
welcome within the regimented systems of the Waldorf World: women (a group
which includes ALL Waldorf Kindy teachers) are to sew, while fathers are to
do woodworking and make wooden toys for sale at the many school fundraising
events. My offer to become involved with the woodworking portion of this
effort was overlooked with the polite silence of a duchess ignoring a noisy
fart, while my husband's presence at the sewing and handicraft sessions was
noteworthy, as only one other father was present at them, and he was one of
the more rebellious types, whom I recall rather fondly for his efforts to
expand the children's exposure to science, and on behalf of their safety
and well-being - including that of our daughter when she was harassed and
bullied in the kindy.
In any case, on this occasion, the girl was being expected to take the
envelopes and stamps home with her, and finish up the task there. The
supervising older woman was surprised to see that she'd been so industrious
as to go through the entire supply of stamps, and commented that she'd have
to get more. The stamps were a set of fairy designs, and she specifically
wished to lay in a supply before that design went out of fashion.
My daughter (who is very friendly and loves to chat with people while we're
shopping at the store - a feeling which has generally been reciprocated by
the staff members at the various natural foods stores we've shopped at
since she was born) joined in the conversation at this point, commenting
that "there's no such thing as fairies!"
The woman insistently replied that fairies are indeed real. My daughter
replied by saying "Fairies aren't real, they're just pretend!" By then,
the older woman had become very obviously upset and overbearing, and told
our daughter "If you don't believe in fairies, they won't come to your house."
As you can imagine, it was rather distressing to our not-yet-6-year-old
daughter to have this large adult looming over her in a state of increasing
agitation, and insisting that she should believe in something that she
knows to be a fun pretend game - rather the way that you or I would feel if
confronted by a large wild-eyed individual who was becoming agitated and
insisting that they'd been abducted by aliens, and there was something
wrong with us for not believing in aliens, which would result in bad things
happening to us. My daughter was not scared of the fairies, any more than
you or I would be scared of the aliens in the analogous situation, but was
instead becoming very upset by the confrontation with this large agitated
person who was becoming very confrontational in her manner, over an issue
that my daughter knows to be a simple question of reality. People who are
out of touch with reality are FRIGHTENING, especially when they're bigger
than you are, and becoming very insistent and hostile.
It was at this point that my husband intervened, and explained in a loud
voice that we do not believe in lying to children.
He describes the woman as reacting the way people do when their religious
views have just been dismissed as a made-up story, in a public place - and
worse yet, by a small child who finds them amusing. She wasn't necessarily
trying to be nasty, but if you can picture a Bible-thumping preacher being
told that his God is a pretend fantasy from a story-book, and that
everybody knows there's no such thing as an invisible man in the sky,
that's how this woman was acting. It's a very harsh and unpleasant
reaction for a child to have to deal with.
It was also, in my opinion, highly inappropriate behaviour on the part of a
store employee interacting with the child of a customer. The only
encounter I've ever had which comes close to this, in nature or severity,
was the encounter I once had with a chiropractor's receptionist who,
*during my treatment* (the doctor was attempting to relieve a migraine
which was being aggravated by the tendency my joints have to become
misaligned due to certain connective tissue problems in combination with
muscle spasticity - making stress anathema to any benefit from the
treatment), informed my family that we were doomed to - AND DESERVING OF -
eternal torment (my then-3-year-old daughter, who was *present and
listening*, included) for not sharing her brand of religious beliefs.
I believe that in both cases it is equally clear that this is not
professional behaviour, nor acceptable behaviour for a person operating in
a customer-service position in a public business, WITHOUT SECTARIAN OR
RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION. I consider it equally reprehensible in an
environment devoted to education or healing. I might view it differently
had such an encounter occurred on-campus at a religious seminary, or in an
established place of worship of any religion, or in any other setting which
had known and acknowledged religious beliefs as a fundamental element.
I do not like my daughter's having to face this kind of treatment, simply
for us to be able to afford food that we can actually eat.
At the same time, I am VERY glad that she is not facing it every day, in
the school which was supposed to be educating her about the real world into
which she had been born.
Willow
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 880
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy I, Shakespeare
By mysplum earthlink.net
meditation
By bradmartin sbcglobal.net
Re: meditation
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Waldorf - Enforced belief in fairies
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: charlie true or false
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: meditation
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
Re: Stunted imagination
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 09:58:17 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy I, Shakespeare
Sharon: Before I send the last section of Steiner's lecture on Shakespeare,
I'd like to draw your attention once again to something Steiner said which I
may have already posted:
Steiner: "Goethe's spirit can be linked inwardly to the spirit of
Shakespeare. For Goethe himself described quite intimately how he allowed
Shakespeare's spirit to work on him. Goethe liked to receive Shakespeare,
not by seeing his plays acted on stage, but by having them read to him in
simple, quiet recitation. He would sit listening - his eyes closed - lifting
himself out of the sphere of everyday intellectual life and sinking deeply
into the fullness of his inner humanity. Such was the way in which Goethe
wanted the Shakesperean spirit to enter into him" (204).
I get the sense that Goethe is channeling Shakespeare's spirit. Steiner then
goes on to say:
Steiner: "In Dornach, we are endeavoring to work in the spirit of Goethe.
The High School of Spiritual Science there, which has been founded by the
anthroposophical world movement, has been given the name of the Goetheanum -
not because I personally wished it so but above all (and this can be
emphasized here) on account of the wishes of our English friends - because
the Goethean spirit is to be cultivated in Dornach" (204).
Steiner spent time in England, he would pop in to various secret societies
there with which he was affiliated, (plus he worked for the German/Austrian
section of Theosophy for 10 years from 1902-1912 which had a hub in
England). I am fascinated by the remark above because it shows that Steiner
was heeding the wishes of his "English friends" and I'd really like to know
exactly who he was referring to. Anyone know? One other question, does
anyone know who Steiner said Shakespeare or Goethe were in a past life?
If you remember, Steiner was in Stratford -on-Avon 1922, speaking at the
Shakespearean festival. He told his audience that Shakespeare was inspired
by the ancient mysteries, and that his plays are mystery plays.
Steiner: "Thus, in a wonderful way, we see in Shakespeare's own person a
development that we can call a mystery development" (230).
"So, having seen the art of drama derive from the ancient mysteries whose
purpose was the living evolution of humanity, we can understand how it is
that such an educational power goes out from Shakespeare's plays. We can see
how Shakespeare's work, which arose out of a kind of self education given by
nature herself, which he then lifted to the highest spirituality, can work
in our schools and penetrate the living education of our youth. Once we have
thus experienced their full cosmic spirituality, Shakespeare's dramas must
be livingly present with us when we consider the great educational questions
of the day. But we must be active with all of the means at our disposal, for
only by the deepest spirituality shall we find in Shakespeare the answer to
these questions.
Such are the ideals that humanity needs sorely...So we ask whether the
religious ideal has a real force, adequate to the needs of the civilized
world today. But it has not. We must regain this real force by rising to the
spiritual world. Only then, by spiritual knowledge and not by mere belief,
shall we find the strength in our ideals to overcome all material aspects in
the cosmos. We must be able to lift ourselves up to the power that creates
from truly religious ideals, the power to overcome the world of matter in
the universe.
We can do this only if we yield ourselves to the spiritual conception of the
world and, for this, Shakespeare can be a great leader. Moreover, it is an
intense social need that there be a spiritual conception of the world
working in our time. Do not think that I am speaking out of egoism when I
refer once again to Dornach in Switzerland, where we are cultivating what
can lead humanity once more into the reality of the spiritual, into the true
spiritual nature of the world (...)
Therefore, let me close on this festival day with these words of Goethe,
words that Goethe was impelled to speak when he felt the fullness of the
spirituality in Shakespeare. There then arose from his heart a saying that,
I think, must set its stamp on all our understanding of the great poet, who
will remain an eternal source of inspiration to all. Conscious of this,
Goethe uttered these words on Shakespeare with which we may close our
thoughts today: "It is the nature of spirit to inspire spirit eternally".
Hence, we may rightly say, "Shakespeare forever and without end!"
(231-232 Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy. 1 Public Lectures 1921-22.
Foundations of Waldorf Education. Anthroposophic Press 1995. lectures from
1921-22).
From now on I will focus on Francis Yate's history of the Rosicrucian
Enlightenment and you will begin to understand the roots of this religious
tradition.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 09:39:55 -0600
From: Brad Martin (bradmartin sbcglobal.net)
Subject: meditation
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C28FAF.9E61E620
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Question, please.
Are children in Waldorf schools taught to meditate?
If so, is it a local option, or a part of the overall
curriculum at the national level?
Brad
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 12:21:37 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: meditation
) 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_3120553297_1156244_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
on 11/19/02 7:39 AM, Brad Martin at bradmartin sbcglobal.net wrote:
Question, please.
Are children in Waldorf schools taught to meditate?
If so, is it a local option, or a part of the overall
curriculum at the national level?
Sharon: I doubt that teachers would say, "Now children I am going to teach
you to meditate" but the answer is yes, children are taught to meditate as
part of the overall curriculum. Pupils devote themselves to color, paint
mandalas and talismans as well as Anthroposophic icons, do form drawings,
they start the day with circle time next to the nature altar, light candles,
copy Anthroposophic pictures, pray to the Sun Being, soak up Anthroposophic
stories, do Eurythmy, etc.
Not a local option, part of the overall curriculum.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:27:24 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf - Enforced belief in fairies
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C28FE8.8B246CC0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Willow wrote:
At the same time, I find it noteworthy that those resources are only
welcome within the regimented systems of the Waldorf World: women (a group
which includes ALL Waldorf Kindy teachers) are to sew, while fathers are to
do woodworking and make wooden toys for sale at the many school fundraising
events. My offer to become involved with the woodworking portion of this
effort was overlooked with the polite silence of a duchess ignoring a noisy
fart.....
Nicole: At our school we have two kindergarten teachers, a man and a
woman. Our woodwork teacher was a woman.
Willow wrote:
My daughter was not scared of the fairies, any more than
you or I would be scared of the aliens in the analogous situation, but was
instead becoming very upset by the confrontation with this large agitated
person who was becoming very confrontational in her manner, over an issue
that my daughter knows to be a simple question of reality. People who are
out of touch with reality are FRIGHTENING, especially when they're bigger
than you are, and becoming very insistent and hostile.
Nicole: I have also seen examples of behaviour like this, and I
agree it is completely inexcusable. People who behave that way should
not have dealings with children.Get more from the Web. FREE MSN
Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 15:58:39 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: charlie true or false
) Charlie:
) I'm not ignoring you Walden. I'll share my thoughts when I find the time.
)
) Warm regards,
) Charlie.
Walden: Hi Charlie. Just wondering (again) when you might be able to find
the time? Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 15:10:50 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Re: meditation
At 19-11-02 12:21 PM Tuesday, you wrote:
)on 11/19/02 7:39 AM, Brad Martin at bradmartin sbcglobal.net wrote:
)Question, please.
)
)Are children in Waldorf schools taught to meditate?
)If so, is it a local option, or a part of the overall
)curriculum at the national level?
)
)
)Sharon: I doubt that teachers would say, "Now children I am going to teach
)you to meditate" but the answer is yes, children are taught to meditate as
)part of the overall curriculum. Pupils devote themselves to color, paint
)mandalas and talismans as well as Anthroposophic icons, do form drawings,
)they start the day with circle time next to the nature altar, light
)candles, copy Anthroposophic pictures, pray to the Sun Being, soak up
)Anthroposophic stories, do Eurythmy, etc.
)
)Not a local option, part of the overall curriculum.
And, after all, what is Eurhythmy but a form of moving meditation, where
the thoughts and movement are all supposed to be focused on embodying a
sound? I've studied a few different forms of "gentle meditative exercise"
as well as more stationary forms of meditation and visualization (in my
case, with an orientation toward pain management and relaxation), and those
forms of exercise which are working with focus on specific mental imagery,
and the attempt to embody that in motion, tend to have no qualms about
admitting to their meditative qualities. I'll check the materials we were
given by the school, but I'm fairly certain that I've seen the term used
(by the school) in that context.
Willow
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 00:48:41 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_MOqgmXo6K3/PZlhlTEBc4w)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Walden wrote: Tell me - what are your thoughts on Steiner's
Threefolding? If you are familiar with his social/economic model I
would be interested in your views. Some folks say that is what
Waldorf is all about.
Nicole replied:
I am not particularly familiar with what Steiner meant by the
threefold order. I've heard the term bandied about of course, but no
one ever tried to explain what it referred to. I must admit, my eyes
tended to glaze over when I was subjected to Steiner readings for any
length of time -they're just so convoluted and impenetrable. If you
can pass on a synopsis or a link to one of his lectures on the
subject, I'll try to digest it.
Walden now says: The following will give you a taste of what
Steiner talks about with his Threefold Social Order (which should
have been translated as "Organism") This is from the Steiner elib...
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/RelArtic/MasonRS/Ahriman/index.html Here:
On the socio-political level, the antidote for this poison of empty
words is the liberation of cultural life, especially education, from
political and economic power. (As outlined in Steiner's concept of
the "threefold commonwealth": the separation of the political-rights
state, the spiritual-cultural sphere, and the economic sector --
along with the elimination of egotism and coercion from the economy.)
On the individual-personal level, the antidote is the infusion of
active, creative thought into language, thus creating a language in
which the words point to the thoughts, evoking living thinking in the
listeners. If we do not put our wills into creating our original
thoughts, then ready-made pseudo-thoughts, trite words and phrases,
come automatically to mind and carry us along with them, resulting in
"thinking almost entirely without thoughts". We can at least make the
effort to resist these ready-made phrases and generalizations that
effortlessly come to mind, and to for!
m mental pictures of particular people, things, and events -- and
further, to make original word-formations describing these things and
pictures from varying points of view. The essential point is that we
not let our speaking and writing be determined by unconscious
influences, but that we call forth through our own efforts new,
original thought-creations and convey them with original, fluid,
artistic word-formations. We will not always fully succeed; we are not
all poets all the time; but if we consciously make this effort, then
we will go far toward recovering the lost human-spirituality of
language, and consequently, toward the humanization of culture. --
And, not incidentally, we will thus progress toward living
consciously in the thinking-free-of-literal-words that is the
"language" of the spirit-soul world in which we will live after death.
Walden: I was interested in threefolding for a while - I do think
a new way of wealth distribution is called for on planet earth. When
I began to dig deeper into Steiner's version, however, I almost got
lost. It's a slippery slope. Gotta be careful where you land.
Occultism or basic human needs? Back to Waldorf ... here is a blurb
from another Anthro site:
From the Anthroposophical Society in Florida...
Steiner (to the first Waldorf teachers) "we shall only be able to
achieve our task if we see it as not only to do with the intellect
and feeling-life, but with the sphere of the moral and spiritual in
the highest sense." The task was the following: to help the
soul-and-spirit being of the child, which has at birth descended to
earth from a pre-earthly existence, to find its place in the physical
world and to make it competent for life . . . . Rudolf Steiner shows
how the developing human being on the long and arduous path into the
physical world passes through a series of clearly defined stages,
which make definite inner and outer demands. Both the curriculum and
the methods of teaching of the new school, as he now described them,
were designed to meet these demands as well as possible through the
right pedagogical measures . . . This was Waldorf pedagogy. The
campaign for a new social order had been especially well received in
the big Waldorf Astoria cigarette-factory at!
Stuttgart.
Walden: Nicole - I strongly suggest your read the entire article
and as much as you can handle elsewhere at Steiner elib - it is an
excellent place to research many of the subjects your children are
soaking up day after day. I can relate when you say "my eyes tended
to glaze over when I was subjected to Steiner readings for any length
of time -they're just so convoluted and impenetrable." I was of that
mindset for years. I respectfully submit, however, children in a
Waldorf school do not have the luxury of ignoring this stuff. It
might be dished out via a more palatable recipe - but the ingredients
are the same... even if some of the chefs (teachers) are unaware.
Read... read... read and ask plenty of questions at your school.
Been there - done that. This is soul work and this is a New Social
Order according to the self professed guru and clairvoyant... Rudolf
Steiner.
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 881
-- Topica Digest --
Re: meditation
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Stunted imagination
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: the wedding of Elizabeth and Frederick
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: the wedding of Elizabeth and Frederick
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: the wedding of Elizabeth and Frederick
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Believing in myths
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Believing in myths (Maria)
By klaudiaypma1960 hotmail.com
no DOFs
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: no DOFs
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: no DOFs
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: no DOFs
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: no DOFs
By dan dandugan.com
Re: no DOFs
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: PLANS
By dan dandugan.com
Falsehoods
By dan dandugan.com
Re: no DOFs
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: no DOFs
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: PRIVATE OFF LIST RE: no DOFs
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 07:35:07 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: meditation
Willow: I'll check the materials we were
) given by the school, but I'm fairly certain that I've seen the term used
) (by the school) in that context.
Sharon: The schools have done an *excellent* job of secularizing all
vocabulary. Quite **brilliantly** done actually. What a scam! During my
family's years at our ex-Waldorf school, we did not hear the words "mystic,
spiritual science, magic, occultism, mandala, talisman, reincarnation,
sectarian, meditation, prayer, astral bodies, etheric bodies, psychic sight,
Rosicrucianism, Theosophy, I bodies, Kamaloca...etc, etc".
Instead we heard words like "scientist, science, new education, philosophy,
theory, multiculturalism, verse, nonsectarian, art, painting, dance,
imagination..."
It's time for the schools to start using religious vocabulary so that people
can put Waldorf into context.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:05:33 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C29073.FB9240A0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Nicole:
Thanks for the information. I will do as you suggest and research the
subject according to Steiner. I feel an attack of mental indigestion
coming on :-).
----- Original Message -----
From: walden
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 3:48 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
REE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:50:12 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: the wedding of Elizabeth and Frederick
Sharon continues with Frances Yates' history of the Rosicrucian
Enlightenment...
If you remember, Frederick and Elizabeth just got married.
Francis Bacon took the wedding very seriously and devised the entertainment.
He was very supportive of the alliance which it represented. "The wedding
and the wedding festivals were seen as a statement of religious policy, a
firm indication that Great Briton would support the Elector Palatine
(Frederick) as leader against the reactionary Catholic powers now massing in
preparation for the end of the truce". People believed that this wedding was
a statement of policy and that England was continuing the old Elizabethan
role of supporting European Protestant powers with encouragement from
Frederick's father-in-law, King James. At the time it was not realized that
James did not hold this view at all. James didn't see himself as the one to
further policies of his mother's executioner. He planned to balance things
out by marrying his son to a Spanish Catholic Princess to avoid war with the
dreaded Hapsburg powers. Frederick and his advisers didn't understand this
and rushed into dangerous anti-Hapsburg policies.
Elizabeth and her Garter Knight left England on 25 April 1613 and sailed for
the Hague. The Dutch threw great parties for them and an alliance was formed
with the Netherlands. Frederick went on to his country to prepare for his
new wife's reception while Elizabeth floated up the Rhine in a fancy barge
to Oppenheim in the Palatinate. A well known chap called Johann Theodore De
Bry had just moved his publishing business to Oppenheim and during the reign
of Frederick and Elizabeth in the Palatinate (1613-1619) De Bry churned out
publications, especially from a guy called **Robert Fludd** who was an
Englishman. (Fludd is extremely significant when it comes to occult
worldviews and you will learn a lot about his ideas later on in the book).
Elizabeth finally got to her capital city on 7 June 1613. Lots of partying.
William the Silent, Fred's dad, was thrilled. In one show, Frederick was
dressed up as Jason sailing with Argonaughts in the quest of the Golden
Fleece. Alluding to the Order of the Golden Fleece, which was an imperial
Order of which Frederick was a member. He was also a member of the English
Order of the Garter to which he'd recently been invested. (Remember, King
James gave him a jewel studded George pendant depicting St George slaying
the Dragon).
Meanwhile the Catholics were stewing about the German Protestant alliance
gaining strength. They were pissed.
Elizabeth's brother Henry, who had recently died, was very interested in
Renaissance garden design, mechanical fountains which could play music,
speaking statues etc, the taste for which had been stimulated by ancient
texts describing the marvels of Hero of Alexandria and his school. Since
Henry had died, his core of engineers, architects and designers went to work
for Frederick and went to town developing spectacular geometric gardens and
improving the castle with architectural additions. The garden was considered
the "eighth wonder of the world", lots of talking statues, and musical
fountains. It was the beginning of the application of science to technology.
De Caus, the guy who devised the mechanics of the statues etc. is said to
have used power from steam, anticipating the nineteenth century.
The Shakespearean couple continued the London drama in their new setting. As
you know, Elizabeth was addicted to drama and literally brought in English
actors to perform in Heidelburg and Frankfurt. There was a constant coming
and going between England and the Palatinate as servants and other
emissaries traveled to and fro from Heidelburg and London. New publications
were taken back and forth. The couple had most likely read Francis Bacon's
"The Advancement of Learning" and Fludd. In later life, Elizabeth was very
interested in Bacon's work. Frederick was a mystic, deeply interested in
architecture and music. In the heart of Germany was an outpost of Jacobean
England, but the marriage of the Thames and the Rhine was to have no future.
The brief reign of Frederick and Elizabeth as King and Queen of Bohemia,
ended in 1620 in events leading to the Thirty Years War which devastated the
Palatinate and destroyed all the lovely gardens and talking statues at
Heidelburg. A fierce propaganda war was launched against the couple, such as
them in their garden with a path leading to hell. They were turned into
witches by hostile propaganda. In their happier days, "they had watched the
magic of Shakespeare's Tempest". (Taken from Francis Yates "The Rosicrucian
Enlightenment", reprinted in 1998 by Routledge, c by F. Yates 1972. End of
chapter 1.)
Sharon: Are people listening and enjoying? If not I won't bother to
continue. It really is a fascinating history.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:50:25 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: the wedding of Elizabeth and Frederick
)If you remember, Frederick and Elizabeth just got married.
(snip)
)Sharon: Are people listening and enjoying? If not I won't bother to
)continue. It really is a fascinating history.
Thought it reminds me unpleasantly of 10th grade, you are making it much
more interesting than my modern European history teacher managed to do. :) I
hope you continue, I'm trying to grasp the point you are making. I certainly
think you established your case about the special place of Shakespeare in
the Waldorf curriculum.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:06:05 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: the wedding of Elizabeth and Frederick
on 11/20/02 6:50 AM, Diana Winters at Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net wrote:
I'm trying to grasp the point you are making. I certainly
) think you established your case about the special place of Shakespeare in
) the Waldorf curriculum.
Sharon: (G) You will grasp the point in the history that will unfold...we
learn about the origins of Christian Rosenkreutz, and about the character
John Dee who was a major contributor to Freemasonry and occultism, and Dee's
side kick Edward Kelly. We learn about special documents in *Stuttgart* and
we learn more about Shakespeare...
"A pooh with any other name, will stink just the same" (G).
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 13:18:02 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Believing in myths
on 11/18/02 9:00 PM, Ray Fulk at fractalfrydaddy comcast.net wrote:
)
) Hi Willow.
) Continuing in the oral tradition, vatied as it is, my source is from an
) elderly, West Indian gentleman by the name of "Santa" from the British
) island of Antigua. I was leaving on a long solo voyage and he dropped
) by with some food, a bag of shackles and a St.Nick pendant necklace. A
) good a source as any.
)
) Who knows, maybe 1600 years from now historians will view our
) contemporary myth just as feasible (smack me).
Sharon: LOL, I'll remember that one if in future I undergo a conversion
experience and start my own cult. (G)
Our written tradition is just as shaky as the oral one. Did you know that
the scholars of Septuagint started something quite big when they
mistranslated the Hebrew word for "young woman" into the Greek word for
"virgin". Thence the prophecy "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a
son..." (G).
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 20:46:27 +0000
From: Klaudia (klaudiaypma1960 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Believing in myths (Maria)
mysplum wrote:
) Our written tradition is just as shaky as the oral one. Did you know
) that
) the scholars of Septuagint started something quite big when they
) mistranslated the Hebrew word for "young woman" into the Greek word for
) "virgin". Thence the prophecy "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a
) son..." (G).
)
Klaudia:
I heard from one theosophist, that Greek word for Maria was "parthenos",
which is translated as "virgin". At ancient times "parthenos" meant
especially "virgins of temples". Those were hired (as prostitutus) by
temples to sexual use for priests.
This is told in talmudistic tradition. This I have not read on
anthro-sources. Yet.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 02:04:27 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: no DOFs
I may have missed something, but the last DOF post I can find is 22nd
October 02 and that was a hit and run from Coalesceus. Before that it seemed
to me to be equally empty of input from DOFs. The one sided conversation
strikes me as somewhat shallow. I am of the view that the more vigourous
debating style some of us are occasionally guilty of is not good for the
health of the discussion since it appears to have driven the DOFs away. How
can we get any back? I for one miss Joel's posts, everyone one of which
contained any amount of material for discussion and argument, althoighy I
admit it was difficult to pin him down in any way.
Walden's attempts to bring Charlie back seem to be only a reminder that we
are hearing one side of this story.
Peter Farrell
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 21:15:07 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: no DOFs
------=_NextPart_001_0003_01C290D9.E71F8220
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Nicole: Please, forgive my ignorance, but what's a DOF?
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Farrell
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 9:03 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: no DOFs
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:00:02 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: no DOFs
Peter F. wrote:
)I may have missed something, but the last DOF [Nicole: it means "defender
of the faith" and refers to )Waldorf supporters] post I can find is 22nd
October 02
(snip)
) I am of the view that the more vigourous debating style some of us are
occasionally guilty of is not good )for the health of the discussion since
it appears to have driven the DOFs away.
No, they're doing it on purpose. It is an organized strategy to shut down
discussion here. It wasn't something we said. :) It's a boycott. They think
we'll get bored and go away.
)How can we get any back? I for one miss Joel's posts, everyone one of which
)contained any amount of material for discussion and argument, althoighy I
)admit it was difficult to pin him down in any way.
)Walden's attempts to bring Charlie back seem to be only a reminder that we
)are hearing one side of this story.
I don't think we can get them back, they've got their own plans. I suspect
they're quite busy, and those who are tempted to post are being advised that
in the service of the grander cause, they should not engage the critics, I
think. Besides, let's face it, when they engage us, they don't help their
own cause much.
Case in point: Sune had posted the Mission of the Folk Souls lecture cycle
(or parts of it) on his website, along with a long harangue accusing Peter
Staudenmaier of "forgery" of a Steiner lecture. Sune eventually realized his
mistake, that there was no forgery, just some confusion over which lectures
were being cited, and slight differences between the spoken lecture and a
later printed version which Steiner apparently edited for publication.
Interestingly, the link to the lecture - which Sune posted, apparently, so
that readers could check it out and see for themselves that Peter had
"forged" something by comparing it with the actual lecture - is now gone.
(You get a message in Swedish, at least I guess it's Swedish, that seems to
say sorry, not found, or some such.) No explanation. I noticed that e-lib,
which also used to have the lecture available, also took it down, around the
same time. It just caused them too much trouble. It is not actually in their
interests to have this material publically accessible, or to debate it - if
they actually point people to certain Steiner material, it appears
shockingly stupid to most people. The argument was about Steiner's racism,
of course, and the lectures contain some of Steiner's more outrageous
embarrassing nonsense about "missions" and "destinies" of various nations
and races, as directed by the archangels and various high-ranking spiritual
entities.
In short, the DoF's are laying low these days, they've got their reasons.
Personally I am not nostalgic for all the adrenaline-soaked arguments, a
little peace and quiet to get things done can be nice. :)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:02:33 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: no DOFs
) 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_3120674553_20657_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
DOF: defender of the faith. In other words, a Waldorf/anthroposophy true
believer.
Nicole: Please, forgive my ignorance, but what's a DOF?
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Farrell
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 9:03 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: no DOFs
==^==^=============================================================
This email was sent to: momof2gals mindspring.com
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1dkiG.b1IpcO.bW9tb2Yy
Or send an email to: waldorf-critics-unsubscribe topica.com
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^==^=============================================================
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 18:20:18 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: no DOFs
Peter Farrell wrote:
)I may have missed something, but the last DOF post I can find is
)22nd October 02 and that was a hit and run from Coalesceus. Before
)that it seemed to me to be equally empty of input from DOFs. The one
)sided conversation strikes me as somewhat shallow. I am of the view
)that the more vigourous debating style some of us are occasionally
)guilty of is not good for the health of the discussion since it
)appears to have driven the DOFs away.
I suspect they've agreed among themselves to stay away.
)How can we get any back?
Engraved invitations?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 22:45:24 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: no DOFs
) Peter Farrell wrote:
)
))I may have missed something, but the last DOF post I can find is
))22nd October 02 and that was a hit and run from Coalesceus. Before
))that it seemed to me to be equally empty of input from DOFs. The one
))sided conversation strikes me as somewhat shallow. I am of the view
))that the more vigourous debating style some of us are occasionally
))guilty of is not good for the health of the discussion since it
))appears to have driven the DOFs away.
)
) I suspect they've agreed among themselves to stay away.
)
))How can we get any back?
)
) Engraved invitations?
)
) -Dan Dugan
Lisa: My guess is they are not entirely absent ... just not posting. I am
sure a provocative comment or two could bring them out of hiding ....
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 23:42:16 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Cc: "Erica Hffstrom Divalicous" (bluerazzberry1313 hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: PLANS
Dear Erica, you wrote the following message to PLANS. I'm replying on
the waldorf-critics discussion list. Please subscribe immediately so
that you can participate in any subsequent discussion. You can
subscribe easily at:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/critics.html
"Erica Hffstrom Divalicous" (bluerazzberry1313 hotmail.com) wrote,
)PLANS,
) Thanks! for spreading fear and hate, we need more of it in our
)culture! I thought the First Amendmendment references fit in well.
)It is so frightening, all those religious fanatics trying to take
)over the world. Thank you, for bringing this Waldorf education
)system to our attention, and I thought those Fundamentalists and
)Catholics were bad! Thank god we have people like you that no how
)to expose the rare extremist so we can begin our fight to censor
)them, I mean exterminate them, along with their wicked thoughts that
)do not align with ours. What would we do without people that lack
)the concept of minding ones own business?
)Ms. Hoffstrom
Sarcasm is tricky in email; people often take it literally,
especially people for whom English is not a native language.
I take it you are accusing us of bigotry against Anthroposophy, a
minority religion. PLANS has no problem with Anthroposophists
practicing their faith; we do have a problem with deceiving parents
about the spiritual nature of Waldorf education. Our solution to that
is to provide an alternative source of information to Waldorf
propaganda.
We have a bigger problem with public funding for Waldorf schools. Tax
money is collected involuntarily. It's very divisive to force people
to pay for other people's religious activities. We're dealing with
that by informing school boards and pursuing a lawsuit against two
school districts with publicly-funded Waldorf schools.
Waldorf education is my business because I'm a former Waldorf parent.
What do you have to do with Waldorf?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:09:09 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Cc: David Gill (vaslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: Falsehoods
David Gill (vaslavnijinsky shaw.ca), you wrote the following message
to PLANS. I'm posting the reply on the waldorf-critics discussion
list. Please subscribe immediately so you can participate in any
subsequent discussion. To subscribe, go to:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/critics.html
)An article off of the PLANS website:
)
)From Anthroposophy: by Fredrik Bendz, July 4, 1997, last update January 28,
)2001.
)
)" Steiner has written many books about Atlantis and Lemuria. He claimed to
)have received information about these myths through his clairvoyant ability.
)According to Steiner the population on Atlantis could not speak, but thought
)in pictures and communicated through telepathy. The most developed
)individuals gathered in Central Asia under a great leader. Anthroposophy
)claims that the Aryan race comes from that group, and that racial
)intermixing is bad:
)
) "We have seen that blood united to blood in the case of but remotely
)connected species of animals, kills; blood united to blood in the case of
)more closely allied species of animals does not kill. The physical organism
)of man survives when strange blood comes in contact with strange blood,
)[except, of course, in the case of incompatible blood types, which mutually
)coagulate one another,] but clairvoyant power perishes under the influence
)of this mixing of blood, or exogamy." -- Rudolf Steiner (Occult Significance
)of Blood, 1906) "
)
) Now David Gill shows you the REAL context of the quote, where Steiner in
)fact *advocates* the mixing of blood:
)
)"In earlier times tribes held aloof from each other, and the individual
)members of families intermarried. You will find this to have been the case
)with all races and with all peoples; and it was an important moment for
)humanity when this principle was broken through, when foreign blood was
)introduced, and when marriage between relations was replaced by marriage
)with strangers, when endogamy gave place to exogamy. Endogamy preserves the
)blood of the generation; it permits of the same blood flowing in the
)separate members as flows for generations through the entire tribe or the
)entire nation. Exogamy inoculates man with new blood, and this breaking-down
)of the tribal principle, this mixing of blood, which sooner or later takes
)place among all peoples, signifies the birth of the external understanding,
)the birth of the intellect.
)
)The important thing to bear in mind here is that in olden times there was a
)hazy clairvoyance, from which the myths and legends originated. This
)clairvoyance could exist in the nearly related blood, just as our
)present-day consciousness comes about owing to the mingling of blood. The
)birth of logical thought, the birth of the intellect, was simultaneous with
)the advent of exogamy. Surprising, as this may seem, it is nevertheless
)true. It is a fact which will be substantiated more and more by external
)investigation; indeed, the initial steps along this line have already been
)taken.
)
)But this mingling of blood which comes about through exogamy is also that
)which at the same time obliterates the clairvoyance of earlier days, in
)order that humanity may evolve to a higher stage of development; and just as
)the person who has passed through the stages of occult development regains
)this clairvoyance, and transmutes it into a new form, so has our waking
)consciousness of the present day been evolved out of that dim and hazy
)clairvoyance which [was] obtained in times of old. "
It appears to me that by "exogamy" here, Steiner is means marriage
outside the family or tribe, not between races. I agree that this
isn't a good choice to illustrate Steiner's racism, though it does
show his typical preoccupation with blood.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 00:34:05 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: no DOFs
) Peter F. wrote:
) ) I am of the view that the more vigourous debating style some of us are
) occasionally guilty of is not good )for the health of the discussion since
) it appears to have driven the DOFs away.
Diana replied:
) No, they're doing it on purpose. It is an organized strategy to shut down
) discussion here. It wasn't something we said. :) It's a boycott. They
think
) we'll get bored and go away.
Walden: But I thought *they* all thought independently? I thought that was
what this is all about? I seem to remember a few Steiner quotes in our
Waldorf Newsletter - all about independent thinking. Perhaps I am
mistaken.... but I have received off list notes from well intentioned Anthro
types in the past (when I sat on the fence) and I suspect, Diana - you are
correct. Too bad. It does not bode well for the party line. So much for
independent will. Philosophy of "Freedom?"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:27:52 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: no DOFs
I find the tern "DOF" offensive, both in the vulgar and pejorative
vocalisation of the acronym and in the words themselves -- Anthroposophy
is not a faith, it's an Occult philosophy upon which the philosophy of
Waldorf Education is based; a philosophy, I might add, which encourages
scepticism and questioning in all who study it.
I respectfully ask you to refrain from using this term in the future.
David Gill
Waldorf Alumnus
Lisa D. Ercolano wrote:
) DOF: defender of the faith. In other words, a Waldorf/anthroposophy
) true
) believer.
)
)
)
) Nicole: Please, forgive my ignorance, but what's a DOF?
)
)
)
)
) ----- Original Message -----
)
) From: Peter Farrell
)
) Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 9:03 PM
)
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)
) Subject: no DOFs
)
)
) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)
) Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
) http://explorer.msn.com
)
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:41:25 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
I agree that shedding light on and giving opinions of *any* of Steiner's
work is a good thing.
Of course, Steiner's work is taken out of context and mangled by
translation all of the time; his racial beliefs were basically that each
race had a spiritual task in the ancient world, and that in the modern
world, the mixing and mingling of races was a part of the path to
individuality, freedom and spiritual growth.
His ideas (which can be taken literaly or seen as complex metaphor)
on folk souls are expressions of distinct cultural myths,legends
languages and religion and how they define the psyche of a culture.
Sadly, although valuable, these discussions are in the end
irrelevant to a certain degree. We don't stop performing Shakespeare
simply because he was racist, nor take our children out of boy scouts
because its founder enjoyed young boys. Steiner may have had conscious
or unconscious racist beliefs, perhaps even arising from the German
"folk soul" (a little facetiousness there).
Even if that were true, every Waldorf teacher, Anthroposophist or
otherwise, must examine Steiner's philosophies himself, and decide what
the truth of them is for him or her.
During my Waldorf education -- which lasted from Grade 5 to Grade
12 -- I never encountered the slightest hint of racism; in fact, quite
the opposite was true. Just as one example, in Ancient History in Grade
10 we learned the religious and cultural histories of India, Persia,
Mesopotamia, the Hebrews, Romans, Greeks and Celts. The only cultures
missing were those of the far East and Africa. Notable exceptions, to be
sure, and certainly the curriculum should be constantly improved, but it
is markedly wider than any a morally staggering public school could
provide.
A letter to the editor responding to the National Post's article on
Waldorf as a racist gnome cult pointed out:
"An evaluation of public schools in Sweeden in the early 1990s
showed that 52% of pupils felt that the country let in too many
immigrants. The corresponding figure at Sweedish Waldorf schools was
12%.
"When discussing South Africa, the article neglects to mention that
Waldorf schools were the only ones where black and white students
attended the same classes. Plus, the school for Waldorf teacher training
in Cape Town was praised by the United Nations as an organization of
tremendous consequence in the conquest of apartheid.
One of the basises of Anthroposophy is that morality imposed from
without is sure to fail. Only by stimulating a human being's own moral
impulse can one be sure that he or she will make conscious decisions
when the situation demands it. Steiner's metaphor for this impulse was
the "higher self" or even the "Christ impulse", although this
philisophical Christ is far different from any religious one you may be
familiar with.
Thus, Waldorf education seeks to create individuals capable of
thinking for themselves, of looking at the racist beliefs of *anyone*
and saying, "I know too much of the diversity of humanity to believe
that there is one true way, or one set of genes that is superior to any
other".
In conclusion: all people involved in the Waldorf movement are free
to take what they want from Steiner. In fact, he discourages them taking
his word as dogma, and advocates individuals coming to their own
conclusions about what he says or anything else they encounter in life.
I hope this clarifies the issue, and I thank you for asking hard
questions that demand answers.
David Gill
Alumnus, Vancouver Waldorf School.
walden wrote:
) lumiere wrote:
) ) Walden and Peter Staudenmaier rightly want the unforthcoming Charlie
) ) Morrison to pony up the goods on his view of Steiner's racist statements
) and
) ) their interpretation, perpetuation and unquestioning belief by
) Anthroposophists
) ) of today.
) )
) ) However, these arguments about Steiner-said-No-he-didn't (or at least he
) didn't
) ) mean it) can go on for as long as there are people of opposing
) ) viewpoints
) and
) ) new cannon-fodder from the Antroposophical rank and file to be drafted
) into duty
) ) against the heathens of the critics list -- and little will be solved,
) proved or
) ) progressed towards agreement.
) )
) ) But there is a larger question that gets lost in these historically and
) ) contemporarily important, but ultimately academic, arguments about
) Steiner's
) ) racism.
) )
) ) What about the children?
) )
) ) What about the beliefs of Steiner that are transmitted to the children
) ) in
) Waldorf
) ) schools, through an esoteric, occult, magical brainwashing curriculum
) parroted
) ) by Steiner's acolytes and priests and priestesses? Otherwise known as
) ) teachers -- a misnomer if ever there was one. (snip)
)
) Exactly. " What about the children," indeed. That is what we need to
) focus on. I think that by shedding as much light (lumiere!) on
) Anthroposophy/Waldorf from as many sources as possible - the children
) will
) ultimately be well served. Obviously, many parents do not see Waldorf
) in
) the same light as many critics. Many parents have simply not had the
) opportunity (or taken it) to understand what it is they have involved
) their
) children in. I have walked in those shoes as have many here.
)
) I believe we need to explore Steiner's beliefs including the
) "Steiner-said-No-he-didn't (or at least he didn't
) mean it)" angle as it is part of the process - albeit a time consuming
) and
) very frustrating process. I remember my days of wearing rose colored
) glasses whilst ignoring the *uncomfortable stuff* at our old school. I
) just
) wanted *those quotes* (for example) to go away because they nagged at me
) and
) would ultimately force me to rethink my sense of *community.* I wanted
) to
) accept that I had "taken them out of context" when I knew darn well I
) was
) fooling myself. But that is what I was told. "You mustn't take Steiner
) out
) of context." Right.
)
) What was that school really all about? What about the children?
)
) I still grapple with these questions and hope to help shed light on
) them. I
) am sincerely hoping that the Charlies of the anthro world can help us
) shed
) light from their particular angle.
)
) -Walden
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:25:49 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: PRIVATE OFF LIST RE: no DOFs
) You have my permission to forward my reply to you to the Waldorf Critics
) list if you wish, as I am no longer subscribed to it and do not post
) there.
It's lucky you do not post there, because the sheer volume of ad
hominem attacks in your diatribe are overwhelming...
) You are a brainwashed, ignorant impudent fool.
I bow to your obviously superior intellect and intimate knowledge of my
being.
) Philosophy? Crackpot spiritualist bullshit from a megalomaniacal fraud.
You are entitled to your opinion. It is spiritual in nature, but it is
not meant to be viewed as dogma, and indeed, I do not subscribe to all
of his spiritual "science". Therefore, I see it as more philosophy than
religion.
) Waldorf "education" is not "based on" Anthroposophy; it IS living
) Anthroposophy, occult magical ritual practiced by you every moment of
) every
) day you were in a Waldorf school.
However, the fact remains that children are not taught the tenets of
Anthroposophy as Dogma -- those tenets guide the curriculum.
) Your false "respect" is transparent; a Waldorf education does not teach
) respect for anything save one's own perfection -- else you would
) criticise
) your own education and yourself, not the critics.
I do question Waldorf education constantly -- the lack of a good Music
history program at my school, for example, teachers that are out of
touch with reality, or Anthroposophists who treat bad translations of
Steiner as holy scripture. I was simply making a request for you to
avoid using an offensive term that I thought didn't apply to me or many
others who might seek to defend *their* experience of Waldorf education.
) My children were seriously damaged by your "philosophy of Waldorf
) education".
I'm sorry to hear that. Perhaps you could elaborate on this damage? I
cannot judge your experience, perhaps you have a valid claim.
)You have been too, from the look of your actions as a perfect example of
) what you claim to be an untrue picture of Waldorf acolytes: Defenders of
) the Faith (DoFs -- Trademark).
I'm not sure what to make of the above sentence, especially the
"Trademark"?
) That term has served a long and honorable life of critical and accurate
) definition of folks like yourself on the Waldorf Critics list since I
) coined it and first used it there, several years ago. I can't claim to
) have
) invented it: it's an age-old and accepted scholastic, religious -- and
) yes,
) even philosophical -- term of long-standing.
I'm sorry its life has been so long, but surely it was not honourable
(though there are those Anthroposophists fit your description). Please
stop using it. It is inaccurate, as I do not have faith in Steiner or
Anthroposophy; I simply think that they provide useful metaphors for
existence, and that the results of Waldorf education speak for
themselves.
) On the other hand, you may remain blinded by faith and your brainwashing
) all your life.
)
) That would be fine if it had been your choice, or you were now capable
) of
) sceptical enquiry and choice. But it was not, and you are not. It was
) imposed on you -- like all religions -- by your parents decision to send
) you to a Steiner-Waldorf-Anthroposophical mystery school. Whether they
) were
) Anthroposophists themselves and chose knowingly, or were duped as I and
) many others on the Waldorf Critics list were, does not matter. What
) matters
) is that you were inculcated with irrational thinking, not critical,
) skeptical thinking.
Actually, it was my decision to go to a Waldorf school in Grade 5 after
a public school teacher told me I would never be able to hand-write.
There, I was taught by a non-Anthroposophist Waldorf teacher who hated
the dogma of Anthroposophy and made his own decisions about Steiner's
curriculum. He taught me not only that I could hand-write with great
skill, but also the value of story, metaphor and critical thinking in
relating to life. I hate religion, and I would hate anyone who would
impose Anthroposophical or any beliefs on anyone. I take those pieces of
Anthroposophy which I think provide a useful metaphor or rich image, and
use them as I see fit. The rest I discard or dispute.
As to my capacity to reason or think critically, please sample my Grade
12 Project. (http://www.goodknights.org/projects/phoenix/home.asp)
) Go peddle your papers, sonny. You have no right to ask anyone,
) respectfully
) or not, to "refrain" from using the term DoF. I resent your attempt to
) squelch plain, accurate language.
I'm not really peddling anything... (well, I do sell Ballet Pointe
shoes, but certainly not here), but I have *every* right to ask everyone
to stop referring to me by such a trite, offensive term (with
etymological associations to "duffer" "daft" and "doff"). It has
nothing to do with "plain, accurate language" it sounds like a fantasy
trading card, or a bad Christian movie epic. It also seeks to divide
lines between "us" and "them" (which is possibly what you are seeking to
do), and precludes any concessions from either side, at least until one
of "us" wins the honour of losing that title. I'm looking for
constructive dialogue -- I wish you would do the same.
I'm asking for respect -- not "you're with us or against us".
) You have my permission to forward my reply to you to the Waldorf Critics
) list if you wish, as I am no longer subscribed to it and do not post
) there.
) But you should quote my entire message if you do.
)
) Michael Kopp
) Wellington, New Zealand
I will, thank you.
Sincerely,
David Gill.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Kopp" (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
To: "David" (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 2:27 AM
Subject: PRIVATE OFF LIST RE: no DOFs
)
) At 9:27 +0000 21/11/02, David Gill wrote to Waldorf Critics:
)
) ))) Nicole wrote: Please, forgive my ignorance, but what's a DOF?
)
) ))Lisa D. Ercolano wrote:
) )) DOF: defender of the faith. In other words, a
) ))Waldorf/anthroposophy true believer.
)
) David Gill wrote:
)
) )I find the tern "DOF" offensive, both in the vulgar and pejorative
) )vocalisation of the acronym and in the words themselves -- Anthroposophy
) )is not a faith, it's an Occult philosophy upon which the philosophy of
) )Waldorf Education is based; a philosophy, I might add, which encourages
) )scepticism and questioning in all who study it.
) )
) )I respectfully ask you to refrain from using this term in the future.
)
)
) Michael Kopp replies:
)
) I am replying to your message on the Waldorf Critics list.
)
) You are a brainwashed, ignorant impudent fool.
)
) A spade is a spade is a spade.
)
) Philosophy? Crackpot spiritualist bullshit from a megalomaniacal fraud.
)
) Waldorf "education" is not "based on" Anthroposophy; it IS living
) Anthroposophy, occult magical ritual practiced by you every moment of
) every
) day you were in a Waldorf school.
)
) Not a religion? If not, words have no meaning. Which is precisely what
) you
) have learnt -- anything you say is valid because you thought it.
)
) Skeptical? Questioning? Bwahahahaha.
)
) A guru trick for the brainwashed.
)
) Your false "respect" is transparent; a Waldorf education does not teach
) respect for anything save one's own perfection -- else you would
) criticise
) your own education and yourself, not the critics.
)
) My children were seriously damaged by your "philosophy of Waldorf
) education".
)
) You have been too, from the look of your actions as a perfect example of
) what you claim to be an untrue picture of Waldorf acolytes: Defenders of
) the Faith (DoFs -- Trademark).
)
) That term has served a long and honorable life of critical and accurate
) definition of folks like yourself on the Waldorf Critics list since I
) coined it and first used it there, several years ago. I can't claim to
) have
) invented it: it's an age-old and accepted scholastic, religious -- and
) yes,
) even philosophical -- term of long-standing.
)
) You may outgrow your DoF status -- a few people so called on this list
) have done so, including the person you are responding to, Lisa.
)
) On the other hand, you may remain blinded by faith and your brainwashing
) all your life.
)
) That would be fine if it had been your choice, or you were now capable
) of
) skeptical enquiry and choice. But it was not, and you are not. It was
) imposed on you -- like all religions -- by your parents decision to send
) you to a Steiner-Waldorf-Anthroposophical mystery school. Whether they
) were
) Anthroposophists themselves and chose knowingly, or were duped as I and
) many others on the Waldorf Critics list were, does not matter. What
) matters
) is that you were inculcated with irrational thinking, not critical,
) skeptical thinking.
)
) Go peddle your papers, sonny. You have no right to ask anyone,
) respectfully
) or not, to "refrain" from using the term DoF. I resent your attempt to
) squelch plain, accurate language.
)
) You have my permission to forward my reply to you to the Waldorf Critics
) list if you wish, as I am no longer subscribed to it and do not post
) there.
) But you should quote my entire message if you do.
)
) Michael Kopp
) Wellington, New Zealand
)
)
)
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 882
-- Topica Digest --
Re: no DOFs
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: The Jedi Code
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Falsehoods
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: Falsehoods
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Falsehoods
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Falsehoods
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: no DOFs
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: no DOFs
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Something we can all agree on
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: no DOFs
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By nmfoss hotmail.com
RE: no DOFs
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: no DOFs
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: no DOFs
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
RE: no DOFs
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: no DOFs
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 07:48:51 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: no DOFs
on 11/21/02 12:34 AM, walden at awaldenpond shaw.ca wrote:
)) Peter F. wrote:
)
))) I am of the view that the more vigourous debating style some of us are
)) occasionally guilty of is not good )for the health of the discussion since
)) it appears to have driven the DOFs away.
Sharon: I read a note from "Mike" on one of the other lists stating that
"Sune" had asked him not to post on critics.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:34:24 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: The Jedi Code
What's really ironic is that Lucas' kids went to a Waldorf school...
Kate Booth wrote:
) THE JEDI CODE
) Jedi are guardians of peace in the galaxy.
) Jedi use their powers to defend and protect,never to
) attack others.
) Jedi respect all life,in any form.
) Jedi serve others rather than rule over them,for the
) good of the galaxy.
) Jedi seek to improve themselves through knowledge and
) training.
)
) From "I am a Jedi" published by Scholastic and owned
) by my son who was introduced to Starwars through his
) Waldorf Buddies.
)
)
) --- TJGarrity (Tjgarr859 aol.com) wrote: ) Diana
) )
) ) Comparing Star Wars to some of the Brother's Grimm
) ) stories where people are
) ) actually beheaded and burned at the stake (a lot of
) ) woman....) I wonder what
) ) the long term harm would be.
) ) You are right though, the more you keep your child
) ) away from anything, the
) ) more they want it. My son was fixated on guns and
) ) shooting games (A Waldorf
) ) No No...) and the more we tried to change the
) ) subject or get him interested
) ) in something else more "constructive" the more he
) ) kept it up, until I gave
) ) him a old cap gun from a garage sale which he played
) ) with for three weeks
) ) until he just discarded it and moved on to his
) ) bike. My Wife was, needless
) ) to say, VERY upset with me at first, but in a month
) ) she also saw the benifit.
) )
) ) I wonder what Steiner would think of Star Wars with
) ) all that Jedi mind stuff?
) ) Does anyone know if Gene Rodenberry (Star Trek)
) ) borrowed the "Vulcan" thing
) ) from Steiner?
) )
) ) Tom
) )
) )
) )
)
) http://travel.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Travel
) - Plan and book your dream holiday online!
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:09:56 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
David wrote:
)Of course, Steiner's work is taken out of context and mangled by
)translation all of the time;
Why does this seem to be such a problem with Steiner? For all the adoring
attention his followers and interpreters lavish on him, why the heck can't
they just hire some competent translators and take care of all these
supposedly "mangled" translations? They've had 77 years since his death,
it's time to get this taken care of. Or stop complaining, we are only
commenting on *your own* (anthroposophists')
translations of *your own* guru.
)his racial beliefs were basically that each
)race had a spiritual task in the ancient world, and that in the modern
)world, the mixing and mingling of races was a part of the path to
)individuality, freedom and spiritual growth
Thank you, that's a very clear encapsulation of his views I think. When I
first read your post I assumed you were a critic of Steiner, I had to
re-read that you were explaining this so cogently in *defense* of Steiner.
What you have summarized there is blatantly racist, in fact it is a bedrock
belief on which any racist ideology is established. Races do not have
"spiritual tasks," David, that is bunk. These two things are flip sides of
the same coin - the races having "spiritual tasks" "way back when" in
Lemuria or whenever, and now the races being required to mix it up a bit, in
the name of spiritual progress or growth. "Progress" does not come from
"mixing" races for a supposed cause, even an enlightened one, any more than
the idea that "not mixing" races preserved clairvoyance. We do not have our
"modern consciousness" because the races began to mingle. We do not follow
"paths" that require us in one era of civilization to hang out only with
others of our own race and in another era, suddenly the spirits have decreed
that it is time to "mingle." These ideas are so ignorant it is frightening,
it is very scary that Waldorf grads can come out
spouting stuff like this.
Diana.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:34:17 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Falsehoods
Ok, so first we have the Atlanteans who were clairvoyant, telepathic etc.
(We'll accept this premise for now, since David Gill wants to debunk
Steiner's racism on the basis of this myth, so let's just work with it to
start.)
))According to Steiner the population on Atlantis could not speak, but
thought
))in pictures and communicated through telepathy. The most developed
))individuals gathered in Central Asia under a great leader. Anthroposophy
))claims that the Aryan race comes from that group, and that racial
))intermixing is bad:
David is here to set us straight - Steiner didn't claim that today's "racial
intermixing" is bad. We are misunderstanding Steiner, he says. I agree,
David, that Steiner wanted the races to "mix" now, and that he believed
there was good for humanity to be achieved from this.
)clairvoyant power perishes under the influence
))of this mixing of blood, or exogamy." -- Rudolf Steiner (Occult
Significance
))of Blood, 1906) "
The mistake David thinks we are making is to assume that it is bad our
clairvoyant power vanished as a result of the "mixing" of blood. In fact,
Steiner thinks this was necessary, because we had to lose this clairvoyance
to develop modern consciousness. (Again we will leave aside the
preposterousness of any claim that we were once clairvoyant or that "blood"
made us clairvoyant or that "blood" makes us not clairvoyant . . . I know,
it's really hard to leave it aside, but try temporarily, because whether the
ideology is racist doesn't really have anything to do with whether anyone is
clairvoyant or whether clairvoyance is good or bad.)
)) Now David Gill shows you the REAL context of the quote, where Steiner
in
))fact *advocates* the mixing of blood:
) Exogamy inoculates man with new blood, and this breaking-down
)of the tribal principle, this mixing of blood, which sooner or later takes
)place among all peoples, signifies the birth of the external understanding,
)the birth of the intellect.
David - whether he said clairvoyance is good or bad, intellect is good or
bad, is irrelevant. What is racist is any claim that such abilities or any
types of consciousness are based on racial types, whether isolated racial
types, or intermingling of racial types, does not matter. Racism = claiming
that peoples' race has *anything* to do inherently with their mode of
thinking or their level of spiritual development, past, present, or future.
))But this mingling of blood which comes about through exogamy is also that
))which at the same time obliterates the clairvoyance of earlier days, in
))order that humanity may evolve to a higher stage of development;
Dan:
)It appears to me that by "exogamy" here, Steiner is means marriage
)outside the family or tribe, not between races.
Doesn't matter which he means, it is the same basic thinking. Stick with
your group, or go out and mingle a bit, times are a' changin'. Steiner will
explain your heritage to you, the history and destiny of the group you were
born into, its mission since eons past, how your group helped (or hindered)
humanity to evolve cosmically. Talk of superseding it now, transcending,
etc., is hypocrisy, when you have written many volumes exhorting and
encouraging a sick preoccupation with racial heritage.
)I agree that this isn't a good choice to illustrate Steiner's racism,
though it does
)show his typical preoccupation with blood.
Dan, what is a preoccupation with blood, if not racist? All racist ideology
is built on assigning peoples' "blood" a meaning and significance and
cause-and-effect that it doesn't have. Suggesting innocently that none of it
matters now, I-was-only-talking-about-a-long-time-ago,
we-all-mingle-now-and-we-love-everyone, doesn't change this.
I think it's a perfect illustration of Steiner's racism.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:57:09 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
on 11/21/02 2:41 AM, David at valslavnijinsky shaw.ca wrote:
) I agree that shedding light on and giving opinions of *any* of Steiner's
) work is a good thing.
Sharon: Good David, then we agree on something.
)
) Of course, Steiner's work is taken out of context and mangled by
) translation all of the time;
Sharon: Now you are parroting Anthro. propaganda. I've been reading Steiner
for quite some time now and have to admit that I ALWAYS check which press
has published the book. I have come across one book published by a non
Anthro press, all the rest have been either the Anthroposophic Press,
Mercury Press, Rudolf Steiner Press etc. (all Anthro presses). Why would
they mangle translations, put their stamp of approval on them, then publish
them?
his racial beliefs were basically that each
) race had a spiritual task in the ancient world, and that in the modern
) world, the mixing and mingling of races was a part of the path to
) individuality, freedom and spiritual growth.
Sharon: No, it was not. Again, you are parroting Anthro. propaganda. I will
give you a nice little synopsis of Steiner's racist doctrine from Peter
Staudenmeir. Your job is to try to read it with an open mind. What if
critics are right? Believers often have a really hard time putting beliefs
aside, a truly fascinating human foible IMO. It is one of the things that
spurs me on to study cults annd people who are manipulated by them...
Alice wrote:
)Let me try and pick through this interesting quote of Steiner's..
)
)so what he is saying is equating intelligence and beauty with racial
)characteristics...He seems also to be saying that "survival of the fittest"
)thinking would say that races whom Steiner considered stupid and ugly would
)be not more highly evolved, but some loss of evolution.
Peter S: Hi Alice,
I like your interpretation of this quote. The lecture that Walden quoted was
given relatively early in Steiner's anthroposophical career, while he was
still a prominent figure within the Theosophical movement. He often assumed
that his audience was familiar with basic theosophical teachings. The notion
that intelligence and beauty are correlated with "racial characteristics" is
something he took to be obvious, and he tied this to the classical
theosophical notion that various supposedly 'primitive' peoples are in fact
the "degenerate" remnants of older "racial forms". To give some background
on this, here is what Steiner said in a similar context in 1904 (translated
by Frank, as it happens):
"During the middle of the Lemurian age the great event occurred which
allowed man to become a human being. The human beings who came over from
previous planetary states were not all at the same level of development.
Those who had reached a normal evolution during the previous misty earth
cycle were able to incarnate during the third epoch. Among them, however,
there were some who had already reached a higher stage; they could not
incorporate during the third race at all. During every Round there are
humans who develop to a normal stage and others who are more advanced. These
are the masters. They are more highly developed individuals. In Theosophy
they are called solar pitris or sun pitris. They had reached a higher
spirituality, but could no more incarnate in the bodies of the men of those
times than a contemporary person could incarnate in a plant. They waited for
further evolution until the appropriate time had come, during the fourth
race, when their incarnation could take place. Thus a spiritually highly
developed humanity arose. [...] After Atlantis was destroyed by water,
continued evolution resulted in our contemporary fifth race, during which
deductive reasoning was a special achievement. This enabled the human race
to bring art and science to a high level of development, which previously
had not been possible. During the fifth sub-race of the fourth Round
humanity reached a high-point: control by the spirit, which had incarnated
in matter, so that humanity could ascend to higher and higher stages of
evolution."
(Rudolf Steiner, Berlin, June 9, 1904) from:
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19040609p01.html
What Steiner was doing in the quote Walden presented was not so much
dismissing Darwinism as giving it an esoteric spin (what Steiner referred to
as "esoteric Darwinism"), and highlighting the racist elements within
traditional theosophical thinking. For Steiner, the ostensibly inferior
"races" that he believed populated much of the earth during his lifetime
were the unfortunate descendants of the earlier Lemurian and Atlantean
root-races; instead of evolving onward toward "higher spirituality", instead
of "ascending to higher stages of evolution", they had devolved, both
physically and spiritually. Along with other theosophists, Steiner held that
these "lower races" were devolving toward an animal state, while the fifth
root-race, the Aryans, continued to evolve higher toward universal humanity.
)So, Steiner would say that the darker adaptation actually indicates some
)kind of spiritual regression? I don't understand how that relates to the
)tone of skin? Or the body's response to sunlight?
I don't understand it either, but yes, that's what Steiner taught. There are
two later lectures in particular that address this question, both of which
we've discussed recently here. Unfortunately neither text is available in
English, though both do appear in German in Steiner's Collected Works. In a
1915 lecture in Stuttgart, Steiner explained that "profound differences in
spiritual culture" are "tied to external skin color", and elaborated on this
theme by claiming that white skin is a sign of the successful integration of
the physical and the spiritual:
"This carrying down, this thorough impregnation of the flesh by the spirit,
this is characteristic of the mission, the whole mission of white humanity.
People have white skin color because the spirit works within the skin when
it wants to descend to the physical plane. That the external physical body
will become a container for the spirit, that is the task of our fifth
cultural epoch, which has been prepared by the four other cultural epochs.
And our task must be to acquaint ourselves with those cultural impulses that
tend to introduce the spirit into the flesh and into the ordinary. If we
recognize this completely, then it will become clear to us that where the
spirit is still supposed to function as spirit, where in a certain way the
spirit is supposed to be retarded in its development -- because in our time
its task is to descend into the flesh -- that where the spirit is retarded,
where it takes on a demonic character and does not fully penetrate the
flesh, then white skin color does not appear, because atavistic powers are
present that do not allow the spirit to achieve complete harmony with the
flesh."
(Rudolf Steiner, Stuttgart, February 13, 1915; GA 174b p. 37)
In a 1923 lecture in Dornach, Steiner thoroughly discussed the theme "color
and human races" (the title of the lecture in his Collected Works). Here he
goes into repulsive detail about why "negroes" have dark skin, complete with
drawings of a black person, a yellow person, and a white person. According
to Steiner, blacks are marked by their "instinctual life", while "mongolian
people" are marked by their "emotional life", and whites by their
"intellectual life". Here is some of what he has to say about black people
in particular:
"Let us look first at the blacks in Africa. These blacks in Africa have the
peculiar characteristic that they absorb all light and all warmth from
space. They take it in. And this light and warmth in space, it cannot
penetrate through the whole body, because after all a human is always a
human, even if he is black. It does not penetrate through the whole body,
but lingers on the surface of the skin, and the skin itself thus turns
black. So a black in Africa is therefore a person who absorbs as much warmth
and light as possible from space and assimilates it within himself. In this
way the energies of the cosmos affect the whole person. Everywhere he takes
in light and warmth, everywhere. He assimilates it inside of himself. There
must be something there that helps him in this assimilation. Now you see,
what helps him in this assimilation is his rear-brain. In the negro the
rear-brain is therefore especially developed. It goes through his spinal
cord. And this is able to assimilate all the light and warmth that are
inside a person. Therefore everything connected to the body and the
metabolism is strongly developed in the negro. He has, as they say, powerful
physical drives, powerful instincts. The negro has a powerful instinctual
life. And because he actually has the sun, light, and warmth on his body
surface, in his skin, his whole metabolism operates as if he were being
cooked inside by the sun. That is where his instinctual life comes from. The
negro is constantly cooking inside, really, and what feeds this fire is his
rear-brain."
(Rudolf Steiner, Dornach, March 3, 1923; GA 349 p. 55)
This lecture is the same one where Steiner made several of his most
notorious racist remarks, including "The Negro race does not belong in
Europe, and it is of course utter nonsense that it is currently playing such
a major role in Europe" (p. 53), and "The white race is the race of the
future, the spiritually creative race" (p. 67).
Although anthroposophists don't like to be reminded of it, the purported
connection between skin color and evolutionary advancement, between race and
spiritual maturity, was absolutely crucial to Steiner's belief system.
Peter Staudenmaier
) His ideas (which can be taken literaly or seen as complex metaphor)
) on folk souls are expressions of distinct cultural myths,legends
) languages and religion and how they define the psyche of a culture.
Sharon: Steiner took his own ideas literally, so it's hard for me to see
them as a metaphor. BTW, how much Steiner have you actually read? How much
do you know about Theosophy and Rosicrucianism?
) Sadly, although valuable, these discussions are in the end
) irrelevant to a certain degree. We don't stop performing Shakespeare
) simply because he was racist, nor take our children out of boy scouts
) because its founder enjoyed young boys. Steiner may have had conscious
) or unconscious racist beliefs, perhaps even arising from the German
) "folk soul" (a little facetiousness there).
Sharon: These discussions are completely relevant. We must discuss racism in
order to wipe it out. Steiner's racist doctrine was conscious, some of us
make a stand against racist ideology. I was an anti Apartheid activist, and
I am now an Anthroposophy critic. (As an aside...The New South African board
of education has decided to limit the amount of Shakespeare taught to
children as there are other authors in the world besides Shakespeare).
) Even if that were true, every Waldorf teacher, Anthroposophist or
) otherwise, must examine Steiner's philosophies himself, and decide what
) the truth of them is for him or her.
Sharon: There you go parroting Anthro. Propaganda again. It's funny when you
read messages like yours over and over again here on critics because
"parroters" don't even choose their own words. You are saying what you've
been taught to say. Teachers teach Anthroposophy to children, I have my
daughter's lesson books as evidence. I also documented other children's work
from the same school. Children are seen from Steiner's worldview, Steiner's
"Child development model" is an Anthroposophic scheme which is based on
reincarnating astral, etheric, and I bodies. Children pray to Steiner's Sun
Being in the morning, they devote themselves to color which will according
to Steiner, help them see spiritual beings. Color, which Steiner says is the
organ of spiritual beings, can also heal.
.
) During my Waldorf education -- which lasted from Grade 5 to Grade
) 12 -- I never encountered the slightest hint of racism; in fact, quite
) the opposite was true. Just as one example, in Ancient History in Grade
) 10 we learned the religious and cultural histories of India, Persia,
) Mesopotamia, the Hebrews, Romans, Greeks and Celts. The only cultures
) missing were those of the far East and Africa. Notable exceptions, to be
) sure, and certainly the curriculum should be constantly improved, but it
) is markedly wider than any a morally staggering public school could
) provide.
Sharon: Were they *really* histories or were they religious myths like the
ones recorded in the lesson books at our ex-Waldorf school that I studied
and documented? I wish I could sit with you and go through your lesson
books. See, you were duped, you were taught those specific religions as a
mystery initiation. You were passed through Steiner's path of the spiritual
evolution of the Aryan, which is why Africa and China were missing.
) A letter to the editor responding to the National Post's article on
) Waldorf as a racist gnome cult pointed out:
) "An evaluation of public schools in Sweeden in the early 1990s
) showed that 52% of pupils felt that the country let in too many
) immigrants. The corresponding figure at Sweedish Waldorf schools was
) 12%.
Sharon: The "gnome cult" (hey, I like that, you won't mind if I use it?!)
article made that point, but failed to mention the reasons for the Dutch
report, nor the recent racial discrimination suit filed against the NY
school by an ex-Waldorf teacher, nor that a fellow poster here on critics
found the Aryan myth in his child's lesson book.RE the Dutch report:
A group of parents in Holland complained about racist lessons found in their
children's books. Some Anthroposophists today, continue to uphold Steiner?s
racist teachings claiming that there is "no question of a racial doctrine".
On April Fool?s day, 2000, the "Anthroposophy and the Question of Race"
Commission, comprised of a panel of Anthroposophists appointed to study and
report on whether or not Steiner?s doctrine is racist, presented a 720 ?
page final report to the public. The report "confirmed the findings of its
1998 interim report, that Rudolf Steiner?s complete works contain neither a
racial doctrine nor racist comments" (Anthroposophy Worldwide 4/2000 p 3).
Critics who have studied the report observed that notably racist works were
not included in the study, as well as racist passages from included works.
**NOTE** The Commission however, did find sixteen discriminatory remarks by
Steiner that "would be illegal in the Netherlands" today if proclaimed
publicly. The Commission recommended that "these sixteen quotes, as well as
sixty-seven, easily misunderstood remarks" should be published with
accompanying explanations in the future. The Commission didn?t find any
racism in Dutch Waldorf schools, "*only* some use of stereotypes in
ethnology lessons". Some Anthroposophists in Europe have placed adds in
major daily newspapers distancing themselves from Steiner?s racism, while
other Anthroposophical Society members criticized them for doing so. Ted von
Baarda, head of the Commission, was concerned about facing these questions
due to Anthroposophists "loyalty to Steiner". *NOTE* The Commission was not
to "evaluate spiritual science but rather the effect of such remarks on the
public". *NOTE* The report was to "identify the facts in order to develop a
strategy for dealing with attacks", because, as Baarde pointed out "We
cannot afford to lose". (Presumably he means by "we cannot afford to lose"
that initiates are obligated to deny Steiner's racism, secretively
proselytize Steiner?s new secret wisdom of the ages for society?s redemption
and the fulfillment of Steiner?s prophesies when his cult will inhabit the
earth).
) "When discussing South Africa, the article neglects to mention that
) Waldorf schools were the only ones where black and white students
) attended the same classes. Plus, the school for Waldorf teacher training
) in Cape Town was praised by the United Nations as an organization of
) tremendous consequence in the conquest of apartheid.
Sharon: Again David, this is all Anthro. propaganda you are spouting. Go
research what you are saying, you will find that you are wrong. I lived in
Apartheid South Africa, my father worked in "African, Coloured, Indian, and
White" schools (those are the Apartheid categories for people, not mine). I
spent many hours accompanying my father and witnessed non-Waldorf
multi-racial classrooms. In the early days of Apartheid there were no mixed
classrooms. However, there were many people, from all "categories" that
fought Apartheid despite the government's policies. I know many people who
did this. In the 1970s there were some schools that defied racist
segregation policies, I witnessed some of them. Treverton in
Pietermaritzburg, and Our Lady of Fatima are two examples. In the eighties,
there was a large movement by *private* schools to integrate in order to
educate children for the new South Africa that we all knew was inevitable,
this basically amounted to church schools having segregated classrooms, or
in more liberal areas, multi racial classrooms, but the classes did not
reflect reality because you would see a few "melanine-rich" kids with a
majority of "melanine-poor" children. (A true reflection of the population
would have shown the opposite). There were even a few white kids attending
"Blacks only" schools. In the 1970s, there were also children from
prestigious Indian and African families, such as Chief Butalezi's kids who
attended St. Mary's Catholic school. (I lived next to the school and
witnessed this). Diplomat children from Africa and America (with dark skins)
had special permission to attend private schools. *Public schools* were
never integrated until Mandela took over. So you see, your statement is
utterly false. The article you mention was written by an Anthro.
organization...the name is on the tip of my tongue...it begins with an "N".
Dan will remember. Please stop parroting what you are told to say and dig a
little deeper into the South African organization (N) that wrote Anthros
were "praised by the UN" - you might be embarrassed by some of the racist
things its members have written, I know I was. South Africa is a big
country, most of us had never even heard of Anthroposophy, Waldorf or
Steiner, if there were any contributions by Anthroposophists, they were a
spit in the bucket.
)
) One of the basises of Anthroposophy is that morality imposed from
) without is sure to fail. Only by stimulating a human being's own moral
) impulse can one be sure that he or she will make conscious decisions
) when the situation demands it.
Sharon: Too bad Steiner didn't practice what he preached, too bad his
devotees imposed Steiner's religion on my family without our sanction.
Steiner's metaphor for this impulse was
) the "higher self" or even the "Christ impulse", although this
) philisophical Christ is far different from any religious one you may be
) familiar with.
It's not a metaphore David, and yes, Steiner's Christ sure is different to
the other one I know about. (That's why Anthros shouldn't claim to be
Christian which they sometimes do). Steiner's Christ is a Sun Being that
lives in the threefold sun. This spirit inhabited Jesus of Nazareth's body
for three years, and other "great" spiritual leaders of mankind like
Zarathustra.
) Thus, Waldorf education seeks to create individuals capable of
) thinking for themselves,
Sharon: Well they haven't done a good job with you now have they (G)? You
sure know how to parrot the party line.
of looking at the racist beliefs of *anyone*
) and saying, "I know too much of the diversity of humanity to believe
) that there is one true way, or one set of genes that is superior to any
) other".
Sharon: You need to study Steiner.He offers one true way and a doctrine
centered on a racist premise.
) In conclusion: all people involved in the Waldorf movement are free
) to take what they want from Steiner. In fact, he discourages them taking
) his word as dogma, and advocates individuals coming to their own
) conclusions about what he says or anything else they encounter in life.
Sharon: It would be easier for people to take what they want to from Waldorf
if Waldorf would be more responsible in the way that they present
themselves. You see David, they are far from being **NONSECTARIAN**, they
are instead hopelessly sectarian. Actually, here's what the ol' mystagogue
says:
Steiner: "The occultist will never dream of imposing dogmas. He is one who
tells what he has seen and tested in the astral and spiritual worlds or what
has been revealed to him by trustworthy and reliable teachers. He does not
desire to convert but to quicken in others the sense that has awakened in
him and to enable them to see likewise". (Steiner, An Esoteric Cosmology, X
The Astral World, p 1. GA0092)
Sharon: In other words, Steiner wishes to "impose" religion on people
without their conscious sanction, to prepare them for the Sixth epoch,
Jupiter, Venus and Vulcan, as was done to my child and family as we "united
in Anthroposophy" which was sold to us as an art-based **NONSECTARIAN**
school.
) I hope this clarifies the issue, and I thank you for asking hard
) questions that demand answers.
Sharon: It certainly makes it clear, once again, that believer's don't use
critical thinking skills.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:57:56 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
) )his racial beliefs were basically that each
) )race had a spiritual task in the ancient world, and that in the modern
) )world, the mixing and mingling of races was a part of the path to
) )individuality, freedom and spiritual growth
)
) Thank you, that's a very clear encapsulation of his views I think. When
) I
) first read your post I assumed you were a critic of Steiner, I had to
) re-read that you were explaining this so cogently in *defense* of
) Steiner.
I'm not interested in covering up for or defending Steiner.
)
) What you have summarized there is blatantly racist, in fact it is a
) bedrock
) belief on which any racist ideology is established. Races do not have
) "spiritual tasks," David, that is bunk. These two things are flip sides
) of
) the same coin - the races having "spiritual tasks" "way back when" in
) Lemuria or whenever, and now the races being required to mix it up a
) bit, in
) the name of spiritual progress or growth. "Progress" does not come from
) "mixing" races for a supposed cause, even an enlightened one, any more
) than
) the idea that "not mixing" races preserved clairvoyance. We do not have
) our
) "modern consciousness" because the races began to mingle. We do not
) follow
) "paths" that require us in one era of civilization to hang out only with
) others of our own race and in another era, suddenly the spirits have
) decreed
) that it is time to "mingle." These ideas are so ignorant it is
) frightening,
) it is very scary that Waldorf grads can come out
) spouting stuff like this.
) Diana.
What's scary is your inability to read an entire article. Where did I
ever say that I shared Steiner's views? I suppose they have some merit
from a certain point of view (i.e. that certain cultures advanced
certain aspects of human excellence by their very nature) but I
certainly don't believe that one's destiny is defined by one's race. My
point was that each person can decide for him or herself which parts of
Steiner's obviously dated philosophy to use, and which to discard.
Do you know how much I learned of these philosophies I learned of in
school? None! I read Steiner because I wanted to examine the basis of
the education I loved so much.
It seems you're determined to damn me without keeping an open mind.
Please prove me wrong.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:07:21 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Falsehoods
I admit that these writings are pretty far out there -- I was accepting
Steiner's premise here to show that he didn't think that any race was
"supreme", and to show the danger of randomly quoting Steiner without
thinking -- something which Anthropops and sceptics alike do all too
often.
I like to interpret this myth as talking about the mixing of *cultural*
streams as opposed to racial ones -- perhaps not what Steiner intended,
but who said he knew everything?
Who cares if he was racist? Those teachings are certainly not applied in
Waldorf schools. They don't have racial profiling to determine what kind
of essays they should write.
Steiners writings are (or should be) the resource on which Waldorf
education is based -- not its holy texts.
Diana Winters wrote:
) Ok, so first we have the Atlanteans who were clairvoyant, telepathic
) etc.
) (We'll accept this premise for now, since David Gill wants to debunk
) Steiner's racism on the basis of this myth, so let's just work with it
) to
) start.)
)
) ))According to Steiner the population on Atlantis could not speak, but
) thought
) ))in pictures and communicated through telepathy. The most developed
) ))individuals gathered in Central Asia under a great leader. Anthroposophy
) ))claims that the Aryan race comes from that group, and that racial
) ))intermixing is bad:
)
) David is here to set us straight - Steiner didn't claim that today's
) "racial
) intermixing" is bad. We are misunderstanding Steiner, he says. I agree,
) David, that Steiner wanted the races to "mix" now, and that he believed
) there was good for humanity to be achieved from this.
)
) )clairvoyant power perishes under the influence
) ))of this mixing of blood, or exogamy." -- Rudolf Steiner (Occult
) Significance
) ))of Blood, 1906) "
)
)
) The mistake David thinks we are making is to assume that it is bad our
) clairvoyant power vanished as a result of the "mixing" of blood. In
) fact,
) Steiner thinks this was necessary, because we had to lose this
) clairvoyance
) to develop modern consciousness. (Again we will leave aside the
) preposterousness of any claim that we were once clairvoyant or that
) "blood"
) made us clairvoyant or that "blood" makes us not clairvoyant . . . I
) know,
) it's really hard to leave it aside, but try temporarily, because whether
) the
) ideology is racist doesn't really have anything to do with whether
) anyone is
) clairvoyant or whether clairvoyance is good or bad.)
)
) )) Now David Gill shows you the REAL context of the quote, where Steiner
) in
) ))fact *advocates* the mixing of blood:
)
) ) Exogamy inoculates man with new blood, and this breaking-down
) )of the tribal principle, this mixing of blood, which sooner or later
) )takes
) )place among all peoples, signifies the birth of the external
) )understanding,
) )the birth of the intellect.
)
)
) David - whether he said clairvoyance is good or bad, intellect is good
) or
) bad, is irrelevant. What is racist is any claim that such abilities or
) any
) types of consciousness are based on racial types, whether isolated
) racial
) types, or intermingling of racial types, does not matter. Racism =
) claiming
) that peoples' race has *anything* to do inherently with their mode of
) thinking or their level of spiritual development, past, present, or
) future.
)
)
) ))But this mingling of blood which comes about through exogamy is also
) ))that
) ))which at the same time obliterates the clairvoyance of earlier days, in
) ))order that humanity may evolve to a higher stage of development;
)
) Dan:
)
) )It appears to me that by "exogamy" here, Steiner is means marriage
) )outside the family or tribe, not between races.
)
) Doesn't matter which he means, it is the same basic thinking. Stick with
) your group, or go out and mingle a bit, times are a' changin'. Steiner
) will
) explain your heritage to you, the history and destiny of the group you
) were
) born into, its mission since eons past, how your group helped (or
) hindered)
) humanity to evolve cosmically. Talk of superseding it now, transcending,
) etc., is hypocrisy, when you have written many volumes exhorting and
) encouraging a sick preoccupation with racial heritage.
)
) )I agree that this isn't a good choice to illustrate Steiner's racism,
) though it does
) )show his typical preoccupation with blood.
)
)
) Dan, what is a preoccupation with blood, if not racist? All racist
) ideology
) is built on assigning peoples' "blood" a meaning and significance and
) cause-and-effect that it doesn't have. Suggesting innocently that none
) of it
) matters now, I-was-only-talking-about-a-long-time-ago,
) we-all-mingle-now-and-we-love-everyone, doesn't change this.
) I think it's a perfect illustration of Steiner's racism.
) Diana
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:29:50 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Falsehoods
on 11/21/02 6:34 AM, Diana Winters at Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net wrote:
) Ok, so first we have the Atlanteans who were clairvoyant, telepathic etc.
) (We'll accept this premise for now, since David Gill wants to debunk
) Steiner's racism on the basis of this myth, so let's just work with it to
) start.)
Sharon: Not only is David accepting a fable, a *belief* that clairvoyant
Steiner could see thousands of years further back into the past than mere
academics (historians and scientists) but he is also using "the" very Aryan
myth to try to debunkSteiner's racism! He obviously doesn't understand
Steiner's doctrine, which demands that all people become a spiritually
advanced, pure white race in order to evolve into a unified Anthro. spirit
on Vulcan.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:20:23 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
I find your tone offensive and patronising, and find it ironic that you
accuse me of parroting when you simply spout out the same answers to
everyone who tries to engage you in discussions. I'm not going to waste
any more time being verbose, so here's my reply:
-- Steiner was racist.
--I am not, and I don't agree with Steiner on this and many other
things.
--Waldorf education enabled me to be a functioning, enlightned human
being in the world
--I don't care if I was "secretly initiated": it worked for me.
-- I agree that Waldorf Schools shouldn't try to pass themselves of as
non-spiritual schools
-- I use Steiner's ideas as metaphor, not fact.
mysplum wrote:
) on 11/21/02 2:41 AM, David at valslavnijinsky shaw.ca wrote:
)
) ) I agree that shedding light on and giving opinions of *any* of Steiner's
) ) work is a good thing.
)
) Sharon: Good David, then we agree on something.
) )
) ) Of course, Steiner's work is taken out of context and mangled by
) ) translation all of the time;
)
) Sharon: Now you are parroting Anthro. propaganda. I've been reading
) Steiner
) for quite some time now and have to admit that I ALWAYS check which
) press
) has published the book. I have come across one book published by a non
) Anthro press, all the rest have been either the Anthroposophic Press,
) Mercury Press, Rudolf Steiner Press etc. (all Anthro presses). Why would
) they mangle translations, put their stamp of approval on them, then
) publish
) them?
)
) his racial beliefs were basically that each
) ) race had a spiritual task in the ancient world, and that in the modern
) ) world, the mixing and mingling of races was a part of the path to
) ) individuality, freedom and spiritual growth.
)
) Sharon: No, it was not. Again, you are parroting Anthro. propaganda. I
) will
) give you a nice little synopsis of Steiner's racist doctrine from Peter
) Staudenmeir. Your job is to try to read it with an open mind. What if
) critics are right? Believers often have a really hard time putting
) beliefs
) aside, a truly fascinating human foible IMO. It is one of the things
) that
) spurs me on to study cults annd people who are manipulated by them...
)
) Alice wrote:
)
) )Let me try and pick through this interesting quote of Steiner's..
) )
) )so what he is saying is equating intelligence and beauty with racial
) )characteristics...He seems also to be saying that "survival of the
) )fittest"
) )thinking would say that races whom Steiner considered stupid and ugly
) )would
) )be not more highly evolved, but some loss of evolution.
)
) Peter S: Hi Alice,
)
) I like your interpretation of this quote. The lecture that Walden quoted
) was
) given relatively early in Steiner's anthroposophical career, while he
) was
) still a prominent figure within the Theosophical movement. He often
) assumed
) that his audience was familiar with basic theosophical teachings. The
) notion
) that intelligence and beauty are correlated with "racial
) characteristics" is
) something he took to be obvious, and he tied this to the classical
) theosophical notion that various supposedly 'primitive' peoples are in
) fact
) the "degenerate" remnants of older "racial forms". To give some
) background
) on this, here is what Steiner said in a similar context in 1904
) (translated
) by Frank, as it happens):
)
) "During the middle of the Lemurian age the great event occurred which
) allowed man to become a human being. The human beings who came over from
) previous planetary states were not all at the same level of development.
) Those who had reached a normal evolution during the previous misty earth
) cycle were able to incarnate during the third epoch. Among them,
) however,
) there were some who had already reached a higher stage; they could not
) incorporate during the third race at all. During every Round there are
) humans who develop to a normal stage and others who are more advanced.
) These
) are the masters. They are more highly developed individuals. In
) Theosophy
) they are called solar pitris or sun pitris. They had reached a higher
) spirituality, but could no more incarnate in the bodies of the men of
) those
) times than a contemporary person could incarnate in a plant. They waited
) for
) further evolution until the appropriate time had come, during the fourth
) race, when their incarnation could take place. Thus a spiritually highly
) developed humanity arose. [...] After Atlantis was destroyed by water,
) continued evolution resulted in our contemporary fifth race, during
) which
) deductive reasoning was a special achievement. This enabled the human
) race
) to bring art and science to a high level of development, which
) previously
) had not been possible. During the fifth sub-race of the fourth Round
) humanity reached a high-point: control by the spirit, which had
) incarnated
) in matter, so that humanity could ascend to higher and higher stages of
) evolution."
)
) (Rudolf Steiner, Berlin, June 9, 1904) from:
)
) http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19040609p01.html
)
) What Steiner was doing in the quote Walden presented was not so much
) dismissing Darwinism as giving it an esoteric spin (what Steiner
) referred to
) as "esoteric Darwinism"), and highlighting the racist elements within
) traditional theosophical thinking. For Steiner, the ostensibly inferior
) "races" that he believed populated much of the earth during his lifetime
) were the unfortunate descendants of the earlier Lemurian and Atlantean
) root-races; instead of evolving onward toward "higher spirituality",
) instead
) of "ascending to higher stages of evolution", they had devolved, both
) physically and spiritually. Along with other theosophists, Steiner held
) that
) these "lower races" were devolving toward an animal state, while the
) fifth
) root-race, the Aryans, continued to evolve higher toward universal
) humanity.
)
)
) )So, Steiner would say that the darker adaptation actually indicates some
) )kind of spiritual regression? I don't understand how that relates to the
) )tone of skin? Or the body's response to sunlight?
)
) I don't understand it either, but yes, that's what Steiner taught. There
) are
) two later lectures in particular that address this question, both of
) which
) we've discussed recently here. Unfortunately neither text is available
) in
) English, though both do appear in German in Steiner's Collected Works.
) In a
) 1915 lecture in Stuttgart, Steiner explained that "profound differences
) in
) spiritual culture" are "tied to external skin color", and elaborated on
) this
) theme by claiming that white skin is a sign of the successful
) integration of
) the physical and the spiritual:
)
) "This carrying down, this thorough impregnation of the flesh by the
) spirit,
) this is characteristic of the mission, the whole mission of white
) humanity.
) People have white skin color because the spirit works within the skin
) when
) it wants to descend to the physical plane. That the external physical
) body
) will become a container for the spirit, that is the task of our fifth
) cultural epoch, which has been prepared by the four other cultural
) epochs.
) And our task must be to acquaint ourselves with those cultural impulses
) that
) tend to introduce the spirit into the flesh and into the ordinary. If we
) recognize this completely, then it will become clear to us that where
) the
) spirit is still supposed to function as spirit, where in a certain way
) the
) spirit is supposed to be retarded in its development -- because in our
) time
) its task is to descend into the flesh -- that where the spirit is
) retarded,
) where it takes on a demonic character and does not fully penetrate the
) flesh, then white skin color does not appear, because atavistic powers
) are
) present that do not allow the spirit to achieve complete harmony with
) the
) flesh."
)
) (Rudolf Steiner, Stuttgart, February 13, 1915; GA 174b p. 37)
)
) In a 1923 lecture in Dornach, Steiner thoroughly discussed the theme
) "color
) and human races" (the title of the lecture in his Collected Works). Here
) he
) goes into repulsive detail about why "negroes" have dark skin, complete
) with
) drawings of a black person, a yellow person, and a white person.
) According
) to Steiner, blacks are marked by their "instinctual life", while
) "mongolian
) people" are marked by their "emotional life", and whites by their
) "intellectual life". Here is some of what he has to say about black
) people
) in particular:
)
) "Let us look first at the blacks in Africa. These blacks in Africa have
) the
) peculiar characteristic that they absorb all light and all warmth from
) space. They take it in. And this light and warmth in space, it cannot
) penetrate through the whole body, because after all a human is always a
) human, even if he is black. It does not penetrate through the whole
) body,
) but lingers on the surface of the skin, and the skin itself thus turns
) black. So a black in Africa is therefore a person who absorbs as much
) warmth
) and light as possible from space and assimilates it within himself. In
) this
) way the energies of the cosmos affect the whole person. Everywhere he
) takes
) in light and warmth, everywhere. He assimilates it inside of himself.
) There
) must be something there that helps him in this assimilation. Now you
) see,
) what helps him in this assimilation is his rear-brain. In the negro the
) rear-brain is therefore especially developed. It goes through his spinal
) cord. And this is able to assimilate all the light and warmth that are
) inside a person. Therefore everything connected to the body and the
) metabolism is strongly developed in the negro. He has, as they say,
) powerful
) physical drives, powerful instincts. The negro has a powerful
) instinctual
) life. And because he actually has the sun, light, and warmth on his body
) surface, in his skin, his whole metabolism operates as if he were being
) cooked inside by the sun. That is where his instinctual life comes from.
) The
) negro is constantly cooking inside, really, and what feeds this fire is
) his
) rear-brain."
)
) (Rudolf Steiner, Dornach, March 3, 1923; GA 349 p. 55)
)
) This lecture is the same one where Steiner made several of his most
) notorious racist remarks, including "The Negro race does not belong in
) Europe, and it is of course utter nonsense that it is currently playing
) such
) a major role in Europe" (p. 53), and "The white race is the race of the
) future, the spiritually creative race" (p. 67).
)
) Although anthroposophists don't like to be reminded of it, the purported
) connection between skin color and evolutionary advancement, between race
) and
) spiritual maturity, was absolutely crucial to Steiner's belief system.
)
) Peter Staudenmaier
)
)
) ) His ideas (which can be taken literaly or seen as complex metaphor)
) ) on folk souls are expressions of distinct cultural myths,legends
) ) languages and religion and how they define the psyche of a culture.
)
) Sharon: Steiner took his own ideas literally, so it's hard for me to see
) them as a metaphor. BTW, how much Steiner have you actually read? How
) much
) do you know about Theosophy and Rosicrucianism?
)
) ) Sadly, although valuable, these discussions are in the end
) ) irrelevant to a certain degree. We don't stop performing Shakespeare
) ) simply because he was racist, nor take our children out of boy scouts
) ) because its founder enjoyed young boys. Steiner may have had conscious
) ) or unconscious racist beliefs, perhaps even arising from the German
) ) "folk soul" (a little facetiousness there).
)
) Sharon: These discussions are completely relevant. We must discuss
) racism in
) order to wipe it out. Steiner's racist doctrine was conscious, some of
) us
) make a stand against racist ideology. I was an anti Apartheid activist,
) and
) I am now an Anthroposophy critic. (As an aside...The New South African
) board
) of education has decided to limit the amount of Shakespeare taught to
) children as there are other authors in the world besides Shakespeare).
)
)
) ) Even if that were true, every Waldorf teacher, Anthroposophist or
) ) otherwise, must examine Steiner's philosophies himself, and decide what
) ) the truth of them is for him or her.
)
) Sharon: There you go parroting Anthro. Propaganda again. It's funny when
) you
) read messages like yours over and over again here on critics because
) "parroters" don't even choose their own words. You are saying what
) you've
) been taught to say. Teachers teach Anthroposophy to children, I have my
) daughter's lesson books as evidence. I also documented other children's
) work
) from the same school. Children are seen from Steiner's worldview,
) Steiner's
) "Child development model" is an Anthroposophic scheme which is based on
) reincarnating astral, etheric, and I bodies. Children pray to Steiner's
) Sun
) Being in the morning, they devote themselves to color which will
) according
) to Steiner, help them see spiritual beings. Color, which Steiner says is
) the
) organ of spiritual beings, can also heal.
) .
) ) During my Waldorf education -- which lasted from Grade 5 to Grade
) ) 12 -- I never encountered the slightest hint of racism; in fact, quite
) ) the opposite was true. Just as one example, in Ancient History in Grade
) ) 10 we learned the religious and cultural histories of India, Persia,
) ) Mesopotamia, the Hebrews, Romans, Greeks and Celts. The only cultures
) ) missing were those of the far East and Africa. Notable exceptions, to be
) ) sure, and certainly the curriculum should be constantly improved, but it
) ) is markedly wider than any a morally staggering public school could
) ) provide.
)
) Sharon: Were they *really* histories or were they religious myths like
) the
) ones recorded in the lesson books at our ex-Waldorf school that I
) studied
) and documented? I wish I could sit with you and go through your lesson
) books. See, you were duped, you were taught those specific religions as
) a
) mystery initiation. You were passed through Steiner's path of the
) spiritual
) evolution of the Aryan, which is why Africa and China were missing.
)
) ) A letter to the editor responding to the National Post's article on
) ) Waldorf as a racist gnome cult pointed out:
) ) "An evaluation of public schools in Sweeden in the early 1990s
) ) showed that 52% of pupils felt that the country let in too many
) ) immigrants. The corresponding figure at Sweedish Waldorf schools was
) ) 12%.
)
) Sharon: The "gnome cult" (hey, I like that, you won't mind if I use
) it?!)
) article made that point, but failed to mention the reasons for the Dutch
) report, nor the recent racial discrimination suit filed against the NY
) school by an ex-Waldorf teacher, nor that a fellow poster here on
) critics
) found the Aryan myth in his child's lesson book.RE the Dutch report:
)
) A group of parents in Holland complained about racist lessons found in
) their
) children's books. Some Anthroposophists today, continue to uphold
) Steiner?s
) racist teachings claiming that there is "no question of a racial
) doctrine".
) On April Fool?s day, 2000, the "Anthroposophy and the Question of Race"
) Commission, comprised of a panel of Anthroposophists appointed to study
) and
) report on whether or not Steiner?s doctrine is racist, presented a 720 ?
) page final report to the public. The report "confirmed the findings of
) its
) 1998 interim report, that Rudolf Steiner?s complete works contain
) neither a
) racial doctrine nor racist comments" (Anthroposophy Worldwide 4/2000 p
) 3).
) Critics who have studied the report observed that notably racist works
) were
) not included in the study, as well as racist passages from included
) works.
) **NOTE** The Commission however, did find sixteen discriminatory remarks
) by
) Steiner that "would be illegal in the Netherlands" today if proclaimed
) publicly. The Commission recommended that "these sixteen quotes, as well
) as
) sixty-seven, easily misunderstood remarks" should be published with
) accompanying explanations in the future. The Commission didn?t find any
) racism in Dutch Waldorf schools, "*only* some use of stereotypes in
) ethnology lessons". Some Anthroposophists in Europe have placed adds in
) major daily newspapers distancing themselves from Steiner?s racism,
) while
) other Anthroposophical Society members criticized them for doing so. Ted
) von
) Baarda, head of the Commission, was concerned about facing these
) questions
) due to Anthroposophists "loyalty to Steiner". *NOTE* The Commission was
) not
) to "evaluate spiritual science but rather the effect of such remarks on
) the
) public". *NOTE* The report was to "identify the facts in order to
) develop a
) strategy for dealing with attacks", because, as Baarde pointed out "We
) cannot afford to lose". (Presumably he means by "we cannot afford to
) lose"
) that initiates are obligated to deny Steiner's racism, secretively
) proselytize Steiner?s new secret wisdom of the ages for society?s
) redemption
) and the fulfillment of Steiner?s prophesies when his cult will inhabit
) the
) earth).
)
)
) ) "When discussing South Africa, the article neglects to mention that
) ) Waldorf schools were the only ones where black and white students
) ) attended the same classes. Plus, the school for Waldorf teacher training
) ) in Cape Town was praised by the United Nations as an organization of
) ) tremendous consequence in the conquest of apartheid.
)
) Sharon: Again David, this is all Anthro. propaganda you are spouting. Go
) research what you are saying, you will find that you are wrong. I lived
) in
) Apartheid South Africa, my father worked in "African, Coloured, Indian,
) and
) White" schools (those are the Apartheid categories for people, not
) mine). I
) spent many hours accompanying my father and witnessed non-Waldorf
) multi-racial classrooms. In the early days of Apartheid there were no
) mixed
) classrooms. However, there were many people, from all "categories" that
) fought Apartheid despite the government's policies. I know many people
) who
) did this. In the 1970s there were some schools that defied racist
) segregation policies, I witnessed some of them. Treverton in
) Pietermaritzburg, and Our Lady of Fatima are two examples. In the
) eighties,
) there was a large movement by *private* schools to integrate in order to
) educate children for the new South Africa that we all knew was
) inevitable,
) this basically amounted to church schools having segregated classrooms,
) or
) in more liberal areas, multi racial classrooms, but the classes did not
) reflect reality because you would see a few "melanine-rich" kids with a
) majority of "melanine-poor" children. (A true reflection of the
) population
) would have shown the opposite). There were even a few white kids
) attending
) "Blacks only" schools. In the 1970s, there were also children from
) prestigious Indian and African families, such as Chief Butalezi's kids
) who
) attended St. Mary's Catholic school. (I lived next to the school and
) witnessed this). Diplomat children from Africa and America (with dark
) skins)
) had special permission to attend private schools. *Public schools* were
) never integrated until Mandela took over. So you see, your statement is
) utterly false. The article you mention was written by an Anthro.
) organization...the name is on the tip of my tongue...it begins with an
) "N".
) Dan will remember. Please stop parroting what you are told to say and
) dig a
) little deeper into the South African organization (N) that wrote Anthros
) were "praised by the UN" - you might be embarrassed by some of the
) racist
) things its members have written, I know I was. South Africa is a big
) country, most of us had never even heard of Anthroposophy, Waldorf or
) Steiner, if there were any contributions by Anthroposophists, they were
) a
) spit in the bucket.
) )
) ) One of the basises of Anthroposophy is that morality imposed from
) ) without is sure to fail. Only by stimulating a human being's own moral
) ) impulse can one be sure that he or she will make conscious decisions
) ) when the situation demands it.
)
) Sharon: Too bad Steiner didn't practice what he preached, too bad his
) devotees imposed Steiner's religion on my family without our sanction.
)
) Steiner's metaphor for this impulse was
) ) the "higher self" or even the "Christ impulse", although this
) ) philisophical Christ is far different from any religious one you may be
) ) familiar with.
)
) It's not a metaphore David, and yes, Steiner's Christ sure is different
) to
) the other one I know about. (That's why Anthros shouldn't claim to be
) Christian which they sometimes do). Steiner's Christ is a Sun Being that
) lives in the threefold sun. This spirit inhabited Jesus of Nazareth's
) body
) for three years, and other "great" spiritual leaders of mankind like
) Zarathustra.
)
) ) Thus, Waldorf education seeks to create individuals capable of
) ) thinking for themselves,
)
) Sharon: Well they haven't done a good job with you now have they (G)?
) You
) sure know how to parrot the party line.
)
) of looking at the racist beliefs of *anyone*
) ) and saying, "I know too much of the diversity of humanity to believe
) ) that there is one true way, or one set of genes that is superior to any
) ) other".
)
) Sharon: You need to study Steiner.He offers one true way and a doctrine
) centered on a racist premise.
)
) ) In conclusion: all people involved in the Waldorf movement are free
) ) to take what they want from Steiner. In fact, he discourages them taking
) ) his word as dogma, and advocates individuals coming to their own
) ) conclusions about what he says or anything else they encounter in life.
)
) Sharon: It would be easier for people to take what they want to from
) Waldorf
) if Waldorf would be more responsible in the way that they present
) themselves. You see David, they are far from being **NONSECTARIAN**,
) they
) are instead hopelessly sectarian. Actually, here's what the ol'
) mystagogue
) says:
)
) Steiner: "The occultist will never dream of imposing dogmas. He is one
) who
) tells what he has seen and tested in the astral and spiritual worlds or
) what
) has been revealed to him by trustworthy and reliable teachers. He does
) not
) desire to convert but to quicken in others the sense that has awakened
) in
) him and to enable them to see likewise". (Steiner, An Esoteric
) Cosmology, X
) The Astral World, p 1. GA0092)
)
) Sharon: In other words, Steiner wishes to "impose" religion on people
) without their conscious sanction, to prepare them for the Sixth epoch,
) Jupiter, Venus and Vulcan, as was done to my child and family as we
) "united
) in Anthroposophy" which was sold to us as an art-based **NONSECTARIAN**
) school.
)
) ) I hope this clarifies the issue, and I thank you for asking hard
) ) questions that demand answers.
)
) Sharon: It certainly makes it clear, once again, that believer's don't
) use
) critical thinking skills.
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:50:08 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
on 11/21/02 7:20 AM, David at valslavnijinsky shaw.ca wrote:
) I find your tone offensive and patronising, and find it ironic that you
) accuse me of parroting when you simply spout out the same answers to
) everyone who tries to engage you in discussions. I'm not going to waste
) any more time being verbose, so here's my reply:
Sharon: Beliefs tend to make people ultra sensitive. Try reading my post
again in a few days. I am trying to make you think! I don't *always* "spout"
the same answers. Who has time to rewrite the Book of Steiner every 5
minutes?
) -- Steiner was racist.
Sharon: Good, you've come a long way in just a few posts.
) --I am not, and I don't agree with Steiner on this and many other
) things.
Sharon: Hurray!
) --Waldorf education enabled me to be a functioning, enlightned human
) being in the world
Sharon: Ooh, I'm cringing. There you go again! (I won't say it because you
are very sensitive). Enlightened David?
) --I don't care if I was "secretly initiated": it worked for me.
Sharon: Well *I* care that my daughter was initiated by the Steiner cult. I
also care that I was used to prop up Anthroposophy without my sanction.
) -- I agree that Waldorf Schools shouldn't try to pass themselves of as
) non-spiritual schools
Sharon: Amen!
) -- I use Steiner's ideas as metaphor, not fact.
Sharon: Okie dokie David. But why?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:48:49 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
David:
)What's scary is your inability to read an entire article.
Why do you think I haven't read the entire article?
)Where did I ever say that I shared Steiner's views?
Nice backtracking. You are obviously here to defend them, what's the
difference between "sharing" them and defending them publicly?
)I suppose they have some merit
)from a certain point of view (i.e. that certain cultures advanced
)certain aspects of human excellence by their very nature)
Substituting "culture" for "race" is a common defense of Steiner. Steiner
clearly meant race, however. Did you read the quotes Sharon just posted
where Steiner explains how the spirit works into your flesh to determine
your skin color? You think that's about the achievements of different
cultures?
)but I certainly don't believe that one's destiny is defined by one's race.
Neither did Steiner. He said people reincarnate in different races
repeatedly, so an individual's destiny is not tied to his race. This
loophole allowed him to praise certain races and deride others with
impunity, he thought. Unfortunately anthroposophists today seem to accept
that uncritically as well.
)My point was that each person can decide for him or herself which parts of
)Steiner's obviously dated philosophy to use, and which to discard.
Your point was to defend that racist ideology, that is clear. You did not
say, that part is racist and I reject it.
)It seems you're determined to damn me without keeping an open mind.
)Please prove me wrong.
I don't need to prove to you that I have an open mind about you or your
Waldorf education. If you'd like to discuss whether Steiner was racist, then
post the quotes and interpret them for us, and let others judge the merits
of the arguments.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:49:40 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
mysplum wrote:
) on 11/21/02 7:20 AM, David at valslavnijinsky shaw.ca wrote:
)
) ) I find your tone offensive and patronising, and find it ironic that you
) ) accuse me of parroting when you simply spout out the same answers to
) ) everyone who tries to engage you in discussions. I'm not going to waste
) ) any more time being verbose, so here's my reply:
)
) Sharon: Beliefs tend to make people ultra sensitive. Try reading my post
) again in a few days. I am trying to make you think! I don't *always*
) "spout"
) the same answers.
Well, my answer was substantial and well thought out. Your was "There
goes that Anthropop Propaganda again".
It's your thoughtless condemnation of anything related to Steiner that
makes me sensitive. I don't believe in Steiner. I love the results of
Waldorf education.
)Who has time to rewrite the Book of Steiner every 5
) minutes?
Everyone who can think for themselves does it constantly, as with every
other book.
)
) ) -- Steiner was racist.
)
) Sharon: Good, you've come a long way in just a few posts.
Well, you enlightened me there, thank you. But it doesn't change much.
)
) ) --I am not, and I don't agree with Steiner on this and many other
) ) things.
)
) Sharon: Hurray!
See-- so quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater and force me to
say that Waldorf is either all good or all evil.
)
) ) --Waldorf education enabled me to be a functioning, enlightned human
) ) being in the world
)
) Sharon: Ooh, I'm cringing. There you go again! (I won't say it because
) you
) are very sensitive). Enlightened David?
Thank you for sparing my feelings. (patronising me)
Enlightened: 2 a : to furnish knowledge to : INSTRUCT b : to give
spiritual insight to
As in: shown beliefs beyond my own spiritual and material ones. Shown
the world as a place larger than my limited viewpoint.
)
) ) --I don't care if I was "secretly initiated": it worked for me.
)
) Sharon: Well *I* care that my daughter was initiated by the Steiner
) cult. I
) also care that I was used to prop up Anthroposophy without my sanction.
I agree that that was unfortunate for you.
)
) ) -- I agree that Waldorf Schools shouldn't try to pass themselves of as
) ) non-spiritual schools
)
) Sharon: Amen!
There you go.
)
) ) -- I use Steiner's ideas as metaphor, not fact.
)
) Sharon: Okie dokie David. But why?
Because I think for my self!! I don't think that just because something
isn't real it isn't true! I don't take Steiner as dogma!
I do it because it is my perogative as a free-willed human being. I can
do whatever I want with Steiner or any other
philosopher/priest/initiate/cult leader/gnome king.
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:57:11 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Falsehoods
David:
)I admit that these writings are pretty far out there -- I was accepting
)Steiner's premise here to show that he didn't think that any race was
)"supreme"
Not sure where the word "supreme" came from. He thought that different races
had different spiritual tasks, different roles to play in advancing humanity
in its cosmic course, and that is a racist ideology.
)and to show the danger of randomly quoting Steiner without
)thinking -- something which Anthropops and sceptics alike do all too
)often.
David, haven't they asked you to stop posting yet? You are showing exactly
why the DoF's decided to go away and not keep embarrassing themselves.
Constantly accusing us of quoting out of context or quoting "randomly"
doesn't work anymore, because the more context is quoted, the worse Steiner
looks, and when you ask for the rest of the lecture, the rest of the lecture
is even crazier than the isolated quote suggests.
)I like to interpret this myth as talking about the mixing of *cultural*
)streams as opposed to racial ones -- perhaps not what Steiner intended,
Nope, not what Steiner intended. You can't grasp how fundamentally different
that is from what Steiner intended?
)Who cares if he was racist?
LOL! Ok, who cares? Can I quote you?
Parents of Waldorf students ought to care. Waldorf alum ought to care.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:58:57 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
Diana Winters wrote:
) David:
)
) )What's scary is your inability to read an entire article.
)
) Why do you think I haven't read the entire article?
Because you missed the point
)
) )Where did I ever say that I shared Steiner's views?
)
) Nice backtracking. You are obviously here to defend them,
Why obviously? I'm here to talk about Waldorf education, and (futiley,
it seems,) to have a reasonable conversation.
) what's the
) difference between "sharing" them and defending them publicly?
One is stating them, one is defending them. Simple enough to me.
)
) )I suppose they have some merit
) )from a certain point of view (i.e. that certain cultures advanced
) )certain aspects of human excellence by their very nature)
)
) Substituting "culture" for "race" is a common defense of Steiner.
) Steiner
) clearly meant race, however.
Well I choose to read it differently.
) Did you read the quotes Sharon just posted
) where Steiner explains how the spirit works into your flesh to determine
) your skin color? You think that's about the achievements of different
) cultures?
)
No, I think that's 19th century crap.
) )but I certainly don't believe that one's destiny is defined by one's
) )race.
)
) Neither did Steiner. He said people reincarnate in different races
) repeatedly, so an individual's destiny is not tied to his race. This
) loophole allowed him to praise certain races and deride others with
) impunity, he thought. Unfortunately anthroposophists today seem to
) accept
) that uncritically as well.
Okay, forget destiny, since that's obviously a loaded word -- I DON"T
THINK RACE HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY "incarnation" OF ANY
INDIVIDUAL!!!
)
) )My point was that each person can decide for him or herself which parts
) )of
) )Steiner's obviously dated philosophy to use, and which to discard.
)
)
) Your point was to defend that racist ideology, that is clear. You did
) not
) say, that part is racist and I reject it.
Don't presume to tell me what my point is!! My point is that I and any
others can reject anythng that Steiner said or anybody else said.
For instance THAT PART IS CLEARLY RACIST and I unequivocly reject it.
)
)
)
) )It seems you're determined to damn me without keeping an open mind.
) )Please prove me wrong.
)
)
) I don't need to prove to you that I have an open mind about you or your
) Waldorf education. If you'd like to discuss whether Steiner was racist,
) then
) post the quotes and interpret them for us, and let others judge the
) merits
) of the arguments.
) Diana
)
Nope, DIdn't think so. And you wonder why people don't like to talk to
you on your board. I'm trying to show you that I have an open mind,
engendered in part by Waldorf. It would be courteous for you to do the
same.
David, gnome drone
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:11:24 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
)And you wonder why people don't like to talk to
)you on your board.
I didn't wonder that, that seems very simple to me. When folks like you come
along and naively say, "Oh you guys are quoting Steiner out of context,
Steiner thought all the races were good," it prompts critics like Sharon to
post long, embarrassing Steiner passages about the white race being creative
and being the race of the spirit. Further "context" turns out to be about
nonexistent mythical continents and humans living on other planets and
communicating telepathically and it gets more and more embarrassing. Our
former DOF friends have sensibly concluded it is wiser to avoid this sort of
thing in public when possible.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:33:47 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: no DOFs
on 11/21/02 1:27 AM, David at valslavnijinsky shaw.ca wrote:
) I find the tern "DOF" offensive, both in the vulgar and pejorative
) vocalisation of the acronym and in the words themselves -- Anthroposophy
) is not a faith, it's an Occult philosophy upon which the philosophy of
) Waldorf Education is based; a philosophy, I might add, which encourages
) scepticism and questioning in all who study it.
)
) I respectfully ask you to refrain from using this term in the future.
Sharon: Sorry David, but I don't find the term "defender of the faith"
pejorative and I will continue to use it. Sorry you are so sensitive, must
be that school you went to. Anthroposophy is a religion, defined as such by
religion scholars (see various Encyclopedias of Religion). Religion requires
"faith". (Simple examples: belief that gnomes actually exist is "faith" or
that you will reincarnate). Anthroposophy has all the necessary ingredients
that are needed to define a religion, ie: worship of supernatural beings
like the Sun and Michael, community, a destiny for followers such as
reincarnating in core groups in the Sixth Epoch and inheriting all the
goodies when Steiner's cult inhabits the world - "Earth and all it can yield
will belong to those who develop their I, the promise of eternal life for
followers - reincarnating and evolving towards Jupiter, Venus and Vulcan, a
doctrine...etc. This makes it a religion, and consequently "a faith".
PS: Occultism is a religion.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:40:39 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: no DOFs
) Sharon: Sorry David, but I don't find the term "defender of the faith"
) pejorative and I will continue to use it.
Well I'm glad you're comfortable with the name you're calling me. I
guess that's all that matters.
)Sorry you are so sensitive, must
) be that school you went to.
Yep, that's right. Made me sensitive to injustice and ignorance.
)Anthroposophy is a religion, defined as such by
) religion scholars (see various Encyclopedias of Religion).
Doesn't make it true. The Earth was defined as flat by geology scholars,
and the (non-existant) Aryan race was defined as supreme by biology
scholars... not true.
)Religion requires
) "faith". (Simple examples: belief that gnomes actually exist )is "faith"
) or
) that you will reincarnate).
Philosophy requires faith as well (see Kirkegard). And see Star Wars for
how things exist from a certain point of view. I don't think that Gnomes
physically exist. Most Anthropops don't. It's the *idea* of Gnomes that
is important.
However, discussing Waldorf education does not involve defending faith
of any kind. You're saying that because the CHronicles of Narnia are
heavily based on Christianity, that they were written to subversively
convert children. I say: nonsense.
) PS: Occultism is a religion.
Main Entry: oc?cult?ism
Pronunciation: &-'k&l-"ti-z&m, ?-; '?-"k&l-
Function: noun
Date: 1881
: occult theory or practice : belief in or study of the action or
influence of supernatural or supernormal powers
Nope, not a religion. No specific dogma or belief system. By your
definition, astrology is a religion. It is not. It is superstition, and
it is myth that enriches our imaginations.
mysplum wrote:
) on 11/21/02 1:27 AM, David at valslavnijinsky shaw.ca wrote:
)
) ) I find the tern "DOF" offensive, both in the vulgar and pejorative
) ) vocalisation of the acronym and in the words themselves -- Anthroposophy
) ) is not a faith, it's an Occult philosophy upon which the philosophy of
) ) Waldorf Education is based; a philosophy, I might add, which encourages
) ) scepticism and questioning in all who study it.
) )
) ) I respectfully ask you to refrain from using this term in the future.
)
) Sharon: Sorry David, but I don't find the term "defender of the faith"
) pejorative and I will continue to use it. Sorry you are so sensitive,
) must
) be that school you went to. Anthroposophy is a religion, defined as such
) by
) religion scholars (see various Encyclopedias of Religion). Religion
) requires
) "faith". (Simple examples: belief that gnomes actually exist is "faith"
) or
) that you will reincarnate). Anthroposophy has all the necessary
) ingredients
) that are needed to define a religion, ie: worship of supernatural beings
) like the Sun and Michael, community, a destiny for followers such as
) reincarnating in core groups in the Sixth Epoch and inheriting all the
) goodies when Steiner's cult inhabits the world - "Earth and all it can
) yield
) will belong to those who develop their I, the promise of eternal life
) for
) followers - reincarnating and evolving towards Jupiter, Venus and
) Vulcan, a
) doctrine...etc. This makes it a religion, and consequently "a faith".
)
) PS: Occultism is a religion.
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:47:29 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
Great. Well, you have enlightened me (oooh, there's that word again)
concerning Steiner's racist bunk, and I thank you for that. However, I
don't reject the entirty of Descartes just because he tortured animals
for his own twisted experiments.
You, however, want me to either say "Steiner is God", to which you
reply, "you poor brainwashed fool" or, "Steiner is Evil and so is all of
Waldorf education", to which you would reply, "okay, now we're getting
somewhere".
I reside in the middle, neither blindly accepting nor blindly rejecting.
I make my own decisions. I am a sceptic, but I can also appreciate how
we can make up our own minds.
Diana Winters wrote:
) )And you wonder why people don't like to talk to
) )you on your board.
)
) I didn't wonder that, that seems very simple to me. When folks like you
) come
) along and naively say, "Oh you guys are quoting Steiner out of context,
) Steiner thought all the races were good," it prompts critics like Sharon
) to
) post long, embarrassing Steiner passages about the white race being
) creative
) and being the race of the spirit. Further "context" turns out to be
) about
) nonexistent mythical continents and humans living on other planets and
) communicating telepathically and it gets more and more embarrassing. Our
) former DOF friends have sensibly concluded it is wiser to avoid this
) sort of
) thing in public when possible.
) Diana
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:57:34 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: Something we can all agree on
1 Waldorf Schools should not be publicly funded
2 Anthroposophy should be clearly stated as the underlying philosophy of
a Waldorf school, and details of where it is in the curriculum should be
available on request
3 Anthroposophists should take a clear stand on what of Steiner they
accept and what of Steiner the reject.
If these things are done, then you should have nothing to complain
about.
I am clear in my conviction that Waldorf education (whatever its
failings) produces free thinking human beings. One of my Waldorf friends
is a Catholic priest. Another is an atheist studying to be a Doctor or
biologist. Another is an agnostic studying Cognitive science at Simon
Fraser University (with an average of 98%). The results speak for
themselves -- and I am the only one in my former class to take the
slightest intrest in Anthroposophy. If schools were clearer, then those
of you who want to find alternatives could do so and leave the bounty of
Waldorf education (and the decisions about what the hell Steiner was
talking about) to theose of us who want it.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:17:46 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: no DOFs
David:
)You're saying that because the CHronicles of Narnia are
)heavily based on Christianity, that they were written to subversively
)convert children. I say: nonsense.
The Chronicles of Narnia *are* heavily based on Christianity, and of course
they were written to put across these principles to children. Is that
controversial? They're good stories, though I found the author's obvious
didactic purpose rather grating, and didn't finish reading the series to my
son. A very good analogy to Waldorf.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:19:59 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C29158.4F671360
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
David wrote:
You, however, want me to either say "Steiner is God", to which you
reply, "you poor brainwashed fool" or, "Steiner is Evil and so is all of
Waldorf education", to which you would reply, "okay, now we're getting
somewhere".
I reside in the middle, neither blindly accepting nor blindly rejecting.
I make my own decisions. I am a sceptic, but I can also appreciate how
we can make up our own minds.
Nicole:
David has a valid point here. He's trying to share his perspective,
which is what you invited him to do. Can we raise the tone of the
debate (real debate is interesting - diatribes are not)? We are meant
to be defending free thought and intellectualism here, aren't we? In
my book that means hearing someone out (whether you agree with them
or not), then discussing the points they raise in a calm and rational
manner rather than jumping down their throats. Can we have more light
and less heat?
----- Original Message -----
From: David
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 11:46 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:22:13 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: no DOFs
Diana Winters wrote:
) David:
) )You're saying that because the CHronicles of Narnia are
) )heavily based on Christianity, that they were written to subversively
) )convert children. I say: nonsense.
)
)
) The Chronicles of Narnia *are* heavily based on Christianity, and of
) course
) they were written to put across these principles to children. Is that
) controversial? They're good stories, though I found the author's obvious
) didactic purpose rather grating, and didn't finish reading the series to
) my
) son. A very good analogy to Waldorf.
) Diana
)
)
)
I agree. However, I don't think that putting these principles out to
children is the same thing as brainwashing them.
Your response has made your position clearer to me, thank you.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:27:02 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
)However, I don't reject the entirty of Descartes just because he tortured
animals
)for his own twisted experiments.
Your imprecise thinking is very important, actually. What would it mean to
"reject the entity of Descartes"? Do you think we want you to "reject the
entity of Steiner"? We aim to clarify what Steiner's thought was all about,
which is helpful in understanding what Waldorf is all about today - what the
teachers read and study, and how it does (or does not) affect the curriculum
and the experiences of Waldorf students. If there were similar schools based
on a guru/disciple sort of cult around the historical figure of Descartes,
we might be doing similar analyses of Descartes. (I think it's been done,
though.)
)You, however, want me to either say "Steiner is God
Like most of our interlocutors here, you take it personally. We don't care
if you think Steiner is God or not and aren't trying to "get you" to say
this or that. We're interested in sharing the information of what Steiner
was all about with prospective Waldorf parents, since we feel it is relevant
to a parent's decision to choose Waldorf education for their child.
Discussions like this are one way to do that.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:33:12 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: no DOFs
)The Chronicles of Narnia *are* heavily based on Christianity, and of
)course they were written to put across these principles to children. Is
that
)controversial? They're good stories, though I found the author's obvious
)didactic purpose rather grating, and didn't finish reading the series to
)my son. A very good analogy to Waldorf.
David:
)I agree. However, I don't think that putting these principles out to
)children is the same thing as brainwashing them.
)Your response has made your position clearer to me, thank you.
It is interesting - no, I don't think CS Lewis aimed to "brainwash" children
with the Chronicles of Narnia, and I didn't use that word. I do feel it is a
useful analogy - I did experience a similar sort of feeling reading them
aloud to my son (not having read them myself as a child, I didn't really
know what they were about). Wondering why I felt a bit yanked around. "Why
is this bothering me? What is the subtext here?" which is not spelled out,
but allegorical. I am not religious and didn't aim to read a religious
allegory to my son. CS Lewis is not a "brainwasher" - he's got every right
to write children's books, and I know some people love them. I felt put off
by a subtext that I wasn't aware of before I started reading them, and it
colored my appreciation of them. I felt the same about Madeleine l'Engle
(Wrinkle in Time).
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:48:46 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: no DOFs
on 11/21/02 8:40 AM, David at valslavnijinsky shaw.ca wrote:
)
)) Sharon: Sorry David, but I don't find the term "defender of the faith"
)) pejorative and I will continue to use it.
)
) Well I'm glad you're comfortable with the name you're calling me. I
) guess that's all that matters.
Sharon: What would you prefer, defender of Anthroposophy? Defender of
Steiner? Defender of Waldorf? How is "defender of the faith" name-calling?
)
)) Sorry you are so sensitive, must
)) be that school you went to.
)
) Yep, that's right. Made me sensitive to injustice and ignorance.
Sharon: So you are calling me ignorant and unjust? Is that not name-calling?
)
)) Anthroposophy is a religion, defined as such by
)) religion scholars (see various Encyclopedias of Religion).
)
) Doesn't make it true.
Sharon: Oh please!
The Earth was defined as flat by geology scholars,
) and the (non-existant) Aryan race was defined as supreme by biology
) scholars... not true.
Sharon: It was defined as flat because the Bible says so. And in **1996**
the Pope finally admitted that the Catholic church was wrong, changed church
doctrine and apologized for the way they treated one of the first
scientists, Galileo. Science has proven itself wrong about race. Of course
one has to sort out "truth" from "fiction" which is why academics refute
each other's work.
)
)) Religion requires
)) "faith". (Simple examples: belief that gnomes actually exist )is "faith"
)) or
)) that you will reincarnate).
)
) Philosophy requires faith as well (see Kirkegard). And see Star Wars for
) how things exist from a certain point of view. I don't think that Gnomes
) physically exist. Most Anthropops don't. It's the *idea* of Gnomes that
) is important.
Sharon: *Most* Anthroposophists? Where did you get your statistic? May I see
the study please? Steiner believed in gnomes, sylphs, salamanders and
Undines as actual lifeforms. (Beings that live in Earth, Air, Fire and
Water). Tell me why the idea of gnomes is "important".
)
) However, discussing Waldorf education does not involve defending faith
) of any kind. You're saying that because the CHronicles of Narnia are
) heavily based on Christianity, that they were written to subversively
) convert children. I say: nonsense.
Sharon: I don't remember mentioning the Chronicles of Narnia at all. I am
saying that Waldorf schools are Anthroposophic parochial schools, Mystery
Schools with occult initiation to prepare children for future reincarnations
in Steiner's prophetic future. Incidentally, I'm not a fan of C,S. Lewis.
)
)) PS: Occultism is a religion.
)
) Main Entry: oc?cult?ism
) Pronunciation: &-'k&l-"ti-z&m, ?-; '?-"k&l-
) Function: noun
) Date: 1881
) : occult theory or practice : belief in or study of the action or
) influence of supernatural or supernormal powers
Sharon: Where's this definition from? "Belief" and "supernatural" would put
occultism in the religion category according to your definition.
)
) Nope, not a religion. No specific dogma or belief system. By your
) definition, astrology is a religion. It is not. It is superstition, and
) it is myth that enriches our imaginations.
Sharon: Yup, Astrology *is* a religion and also part of Steiner's religion.
(Though Steiner reworked it a tad. Read "Anthroposophy and Astrology" by
Elizabeth Vreede, ANTHROPOSOPHIC PRESS 2001 for a better understanding of
Steiner's astrology). Astrology and Steiner's mumbo jumbo is superstition
all right! Sure doesn't enrich my imagination...do you use the term
"Imagination" in Steiner's veiled way, meaning "psychic sight" or the
regular way?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:38:58 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) )However, I don't reject the entirty of Descartes just because he
) )tortured
) animals
) )for his own twisted experiments.
)
)
) Your imprecise thinking is very important, actually. What would it mean
) to
) "reject the entity of Descartes"? Do you think we want you to "reject
) the
) entity of Steiner"? We aim to clarify what Steiner's thought was all
) about,
) which is helpful in understanding what Waldorf is all about today - what
) the
) teachers read and study, and how it does (or does not) affect the
) curriculum
) and the experiences of Waldorf students. If there were similar schools
) based
) on a guru/disciple sort of cult around the historical figure of
) Descartes,
) we might be doing similar analyses of Descartes. (I think it's been
) done,
) though.)
My point here is that the teachers don't have to accept Steiner's
questionable racial philosophies in order to utilise his pedagogical
ones. And they do not, in my experience.
)
) )You, however, want me to either say "Steiner is God
)
) Like most of our interlocutors here, you take it personally. We don't
) care
) if you think Steiner is God or not and aren't trying to "get you" to say
) this or that.
You may not care, but you don't leave much room for middle ground. What
I take personally are the dismissals of my points as brainwashing or
"just like all them other gnomes"
)We're interested in sharing the information of what Steiner
) was all about with prospective Waldorf parents, since we feel it is
) relevant
) to a parent's decision to choose Waldorf education for their child.
) Discussions like this are one way to do that.
) Diana
I couldn't agree more. This is the one place where you have a very valid
point. I just want it to be a discussion rather than a yelling match.
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 12:48:54 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
)My point here is that the teachers don't have to accept Steiner's
)questionable racial philosophies in order to utilise his pedagogical
)ones. And they do not, in my experience.
I take your point - I doubt most Waldorf teachers accept the more extreme
and explicit of Steiner's racist statements - some do not even know of them.
However, the larger point is that even for them not to know is alarming.
Steiner's schemes of cosmic history and the values he assigned to different
races and cultures are the basis of how the curriculum is organized, and
tidbits of his so-called "occult truths" are everywhere in the Waldorf
curriculum. His theories of how humanity has evolved in the past and should
evolve for the future are the basis of how children are to be treated.
Teachers *should* be interested in this if they're not.
)You may not care, but you don't leave much room for middle ground. What
)I take personally are the dismissals of my points as brainwashing or
)"just like all them other gnomes"
I missed if anyone called your posts "brainwashing" or called you a gnome. I
apologize on behalf of the critics if anyone called you a gnome, that's not
nice. :) Gnomes, actually, are not nice.
)I couldn't agree more. This is the one place where you have a very valid
)point. I just want it to be a discussion rather than a yelling match.
I haven't been yelling, but I haven't read all the other posts people have
written to you too closely, did someone yell at you?
Unfortunately I gotta go put in a few hours that I can bill somebody for. :)
it's been interesting.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:53:37 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: no DOFs
mysplum wrote:
) on 11/21/02 8:40 AM, David at valslavnijinsky shaw.ca wrote:
)
) )
) )) Sharon: Sorry David, but I don't find the term "defender of the faith"
) )) pejorative and I will continue to use it.
) )
) ) Well I'm glad you're comfortable with the name you're calling me. I
) ) guess that's all that matters.
)
) Sharon: What would you prefer, defender of Anthroposophy? Defender of
) Steiner? Defender of Waldorf? How is "defender of the faith"
) name-calling?
I would prefer to be called "David", my name, actually. Or if you must
have a title, how about "Discusser of issues concerning Waldorf
Education." I don't appreciate being labeled and thrown in a box.
) )
) )) Sorry you are so sensitive, must
) )) be that school you went to.
) )
) ) Yep, that's right. Made me sensitive to injustice and ignorance.
)
) Sharon: So you are calling me ignorant and unjust? Is that not
) name-calling?
Nope -- I'm calling your *comment* ignorant and unjust. I'm sure that
you as a person are not. That's why I've bothered to stay around.
) )
) )) Anthroposophy is a religion, defined as such by
) )) religion scholars (see various Encyclopedias of Religion).
) )
) ) Doesn't make it true.
)
) Sharon: Oh please!
Well, it doesn't.
)
) The Earth was defined as flat by geology scholars,
) ) and the (non-existant) Aryan race was defined as supreme by biology
) ) scholars... not true.
)
) Sharon: It was defined as flat because the Bible says so. And in
) **1996**
) the Pope finally admitted that the Catholic church was wrong, changed
) church
) doctrine and apologized for the way they treated one of the first
) scientists, Galileo. Science has proven itself wrong about race. Of
) course
) one has to sort out "truth" from "fiction" which is why academics refute
) each other's work.
Indeed. But some Anthropops belong to religions themselves.
Christianity, Islam, and yes, Anthroposophy does have its own religion,
the "Christian Community", which I don't find attractive at all. But it
is not a religion in and of itself. It does not have irrefutable tenets.
) )
) )) Religion requires
) )) "faith". (Simple examples: belief that gnomes actually exist )is "faith"
) )) or
) )) that you will reincarnate).
) )
) ) Philosophy requires faith as well (see Kirkegard). And see Star Wars for
) ) how things exist from a certain point of view. I don't think that Gnomes
) ) physically exist. Most Anthropops don't. It's the *idea* of Gnomes that
) ) is important.
)
) Sharon: *Most* Anthroposophists? Where did you get your statistic? May I
) see
) the study please? Steiner believed in gnomes, sylphs, salamanders and
) Undines as actual lifeforms. (Beings that live in Earth, Air, Fire and
) Water). Tell me why the idea of gnomes is "important".
Well, I can only speak from experience -- the idea of Gnomes is
important for the same reason that all stories or symbols are important
-- they allow us to express aspects of outselves. Just ask Joseph
Campbell.
And I've *Never* spoken to a waldorf teacher who beleived that gnomes
were real, physical creatures.
) )
) ) However, discussing Waldorf education does not involve defending faith
) ) of any kind. You're saying that because the CHronicles of Narnia are
) ) heavily based on Christianity, that they were written to subversively
) ) convert children. I say: nonsense.
)
) Sharon: I don't remember mentioning the Chronicles of Narnia at all. I
) am
) saying that Waldorf schools are Anthroposophic parochial schools,
) Mystery
) Schools with occult initiation to prepare children for future
) reincarnations
) in Steiner's prophetic future. Incidentally, I'm not a fan of C,S.
) Lewis.
Well, that explains a lot. I respect your ideas, but the aim of Waldorf
schools is, yes, perhaps to give students some insight into the
"spiritual world", but ultimately to create free-thinking human beings.
) )
) )) PS: Occultism is a religion.
) )
) ) Main Entry: oc?cult?ism
) ) Pronunciation: &-'k&l-"ti-z&m, ?-; '?-"k&l-
) ) Function: noun
) ) Date: 1881
) ) : occult theory or practice : belief in or study of the action or
) ) influence of supernatural or supernormal powers
)
) Sharon: Where's this definition from? "Belief" and "supernatural" would
) put
) occultism in the religion category according to your definition.
) )
) ) Nope, not a religion. No specific dogma or belief system. By your
) ) definition, astrology is a religion. It is not. It is superstition, and
) ) it is myth that enriches our imaginations.
)
) Sharon: Yup, Astrology *is* a religion and also part of Steiner's
) religion.
) (Though Steiner reworked it a tad. Read "Anthroposophy and Astrology" by
) Elizabeth Vreede, ANTHROPOSOPHIC PRESS 2001 for a better understanding
) of
) Steiner's astrology). Astrology and Steiner's mumbo jumbo is
) superstition
) all right! Sure doesn't enrich my imagination...do you use the term
) "Imagination" in Steiner's veiled way, meaning "psychic sight" or the
) regular way?
)
)
)
Definition from the Miriam Webster Dictionary.
My definition of religion is blind adherence to a set of tenets which
are taken literally and given no room for change.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:05:07 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: no DOFs
on 11/21/02 9:33 AM, Diana Winters at Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net wrote:
CS Lewis is not a "brainwasher" - he's got every right
) to write children's books, and I know some people love them. I felt put off
) by a subtext that I wasn't aware of before I started reading them, and it
) colored my appreciation of them. I felt the same about Madeleine l'Engle
Sharon: C.S. Lewis made no bones about his religious beliefs. He was an
exoteric Christian. I certainly know that his Chronicles of Narnia are
Christian parables. I've read them as well as some of his other books such
as "Screwtape Letters".
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 18:02:14 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) )My point here is that the teachers don't have to accept Steiner's
) )questionable racial philosophies in order to utilise his pedagogical
) )ones. And they do not, in my experience.
)
)
) I take your point - I doubt most Waldorf teachers accept the more
) extreme
) and explicit of Steiner's racist statements - some do not even know of
) them.
) However, the larger point is that even for them not to know is alarming.
) Steiner's schemes of cosmic history and the values he assigned to
) different
) races and cultures are the basis of how the curriculum is organized, and
) tidbits of his so-called "occult truths" are everywhere in the Waldorf
) curriculum. His theories of how humanity has evolved in the past and
) should
) evolve for the future are the basis of how children are to be treated.
) Teachers *should* be interested in this if they're not.
Agreed.
)
) )You may not care, but you don't leave much room for middle ground. What
) )I take personally are the dismissals of my points as brainwashing or
) )"just like all them other gnomes"
)
)
) I missed if anyone called your posts "brainwashing" or called you a
) gnome. I
) apologize on behalf of the critics if anyone called you a gnome, that's
) not
) nice. :) Gnomes, actually, are not nice.
Thanks for having a sense of humour...
"You are a brainwashed, ignorant impudent fool. " Says Kopp... ah yes,
it was not from the board, sorry, but I posted his response here.
I use the term "gnome" now in a rather silly way to refer to "followers
of Steiner".
What you did say is I was "spouting Anthro Propaganda", which I didn't
feel I was.
)
) )I couldn't agree more. This is the one place where you have a very valid
) )point. I just want it to be a discussion rather than a yelling match.
)
)
) I haven't been yelling, but I haven't read all the other posts people
) have
) written to you too closely, did someone yell at you?
Just tried to put words in my mouth, and tried to force an adversarial
stance.
)
)
) Unfortunately I gotta go put in a few hours that I can bill somebody
) for. :)
) it's been interesting.
) Diana
)
)
)
It has, at that...
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 883
-- Topica Digest --
RE: no DOFs
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Something we can all agree on
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Something we can all agree on
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Something we can all agree on
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Something we can all agree on
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: no DOFs
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: no DOFs
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: no DOFs
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: no DOFs
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: no DOFs
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: no DOFs
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: no DOFs
By momof2gals mindspring.com
to David
By momof2gals mindspring.com
again, for David
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: no DOFs
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
arts-based? Nah!
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
RE: no DOFs
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: arts-based? Nah!
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: arts-based? Nah!
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 18:04:59 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: no DOFs
mysplum wrote:
) on 11/21/02 9:33 AM, Diana Winters at Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
) wrote:
)
) CS Lewis is not a "brainwasher" - he's got every right
) ) to write children's books, and I know some people love them. I felt put
) ) off
) ) by a subtext that I wasn't aware of before I started reading them, and
) ) it
) ) colored my appreciation of them. I felt the same about Madeleine l'Engle
)
) Sharon: C.S. Lewis made no bones about his religious beliefs. He was an
) exoteric Christian. I certainly know that his Chronicles of Narnia are
) Christian parables. I've read them as well as some of his other books
) such
) as "Screwtape Letters".
)
)
)
Interestingly, he was an atheist for his early life, and then converted
to Christianity later on in Adulthood.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:30:52 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Something we can all agree on
Walden: Interesting chat we have here. Nice to have you on board, David.
Welcome.
David wrote:
) I am clear in my conviction that Waldorf education (whatever its
) failings) produces free thinking human beings. One of my Waldorf friends
) is a Catholic priest. Another is an atheist studying to be a Doctor or
) biologist. Another is an agnostic studying Cognitive science at Simon
) Fraser University (with an average of 98%). The results speak for
) themselves -- and I am the only one in my former class to take the
) slightest intrest in Anthroposophy. If schools were clearer, then those
) of you who want to find alternatives could do so and leave the bounty of
) Waldorf education (and the decisions about what the hell Steiner was
) talking about) to theose of us who want it.
A *school* that "produces free thinking human beings?" I would not want my
children's school to produce anything of the sort. Human beings *are* free.
A school cannot "produce" freedom. I understand the *impulse* behind the
concept as I have seen it written many times in Waldorf PR. Gives me the
creeps.
Delighted to hear some grads are following such interesting paths
post-Waldorf. I wonder if it had to do with Waldorf? Maybe. While looking
at these examples, however, demographics must always be taken into account.
This is about context. Since you brought it up, David...
"The results speak for themselves...." Since you cite these examples
(above) can you share some other examples? You joined Waldorf in grade 5.
What happened to your grade 5 class? Where are the children from that
class? Or grade 6? Any idea how many children joined your Waldorf school
in various grades and how many stay? What was the size of your graduating
class? Enrolment/retention numbers would be more valid than telling of a
few ex-Waldorfers who attend university, don't you think? Those results
might "speak for themselves."
Incidentally, these questions are asked of other Waldorfers who find this
list. The answers are rarely forthcoming and AWSNA is not willing to help
although recently there seems to be some pressure on them to produce some
stats or tone down their success claims. We can't be taking anything *out
of context,* can we?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 18:40:26 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Something we can all agree on
walden wrote:
) Walden: Interesting chat we have here. Nice to have you on board,
) David.
) Welcome.
)
) David wrote:
) ) I am clear in my conviction that Waldorf education (whatever its
) ) failings) produces free thinking human beings. One of my Waldorf friends
) ) is a Catholic priest. Another is an atheist studying to be a Doctor or
) ) biologist. Another is an agnostic studying Cognitive science at Simon
) ) Fraser University (with an average of 98%). The results speak for
) ) themselves -- and I am the only one in my former class to take the
) ) slightest intrest in Anthroposophy. If schools were clearer, then those
) ) of you who want to find alternatives could do so and leave the bounty of
) ) Waldorf education (and the decisions about what the hell Steiner was
) ) talking about) to theose of us who want it.
)
) A *school* that "produces free thinking human beings?" I would not want
) my
) children's school to produce anything of the sort. Human beings *are*
) free.
) A school cannot "produce" freedom. I understand the *impulse* behind
) the
) concept as I have seen it written many times in Waldorf PR. Gives me
) the
) creeps.
)
) Delighted to hear some grads are following such interesting paths
) post-Waldorf. I wonder if it had to do with Waldorf? Maybe. While
) looking
) at these examples, however, demographics must always be taken into
) account.
) This is about context. Since you brought it up, David...
)
) "The results speak for themselves...." Since you cite these examples
) (above) can you share some other examples? You joined Waldorf in grade
) 5.
) What happened to your grade 5 class? Where are the children from that
) class? Or grade 6? Any idea how many children joined your Waldorf
) school
) in various grades and how many stay? What was the size of your
) graduating
) class? Enrolment/retention numbers would be more valid than telling of
) a
) few ex-Waldorfers who attend university, don't you think? Those results
) might "speak for themselves."
)
) Incidentally, these questions are asked of other Waldorfers who find
) this
) list. The answers are rarely forthcoming and AWSNA is not willing to
) help
) although recently there seems to be some pressure on them to produce
) some
) stats or tone down their success claims. We can't be taking anything
) *out
) of context,* can we?
)
) -Walden
)
No indeed...
The graduates in question have all expressed to me how Waldorf education
has benefited them in University...
My Grade 5 class was in a different city, where the school only went
'till grade 9, but in that class, I think the number lost was 4 or 5
from grade 1 to 9.
In my High school class, we lost 3 or four students from Grade 9 to 12.
I think the impulse behind "producing" free thinking human beings is
more to give them options, to show them avenues to explore to *keep*
them free, not to *make* them free.
Thanks for the welcome...
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:57:43 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Something we can all agree on
) In my High school class, we lost 3 or four students from Grade 9 to 12.
Trying to get a picture of how successful these schools might be apart from
the *anecdotal evidence* we see in the brochures. I know the early grades
attract a certain clientele - there is much enthusiasm coming from well
intentioned parents. I wonder, however, what happens as parents *live into
the curriculum/school/community* (or not). You missed one question - What
was the size of your graduating class?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:06:37 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Something we can all agree on
walden wrote:
) ) In my High school class, we lost 3 or four students from Grade 9 to 12.
)
) Trying to get a picture of how successful these schools might be apart
) from
) the *anecdotal evidence* we see in the brochures. I know the early
) grades
) attract a certain clientele - there is much enthusiasm coming from well
) intentioned parents. I wonder, however, what happens as parents *live
) into
) the curriculum/school/community* (or not). You missed one question -
) What
) was the size of your graduating class?
)
) -Walden
)
)
)
22 -- With two new students in Grade 12.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 11:28:57 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: no DOFs
David wrote;
Well, that explains a lot. I respect your ideas, but the aim of Waldorf
) schools is, yes, perhaps to give students some insight into the
) "spiritual world", but ultimately to create free-thinking human beings.
Walden: I suspect we are all almost on the same page here. I do appreciate
your candid comments with regards to Waldorf. Your points are well taken
with your previous comments about Waldorf false advertising and this - "the
aim of Waldorf schools is, yes, perhaps to give students some insight into
the "spiritual world", but ultimately to create free-thinking human beings."
Would it not be advantageous for Waldorf to advertise as you did here above?
Comments like these would go a long way in helping parents understand the
mission *before* they sign up. Forget the non-sectarian, arts based PR and
cut to the chase. You are using strong words here, David. Help them write
more honest PR material: Waldorf Education will give your child some
insight into the spiritual world. Your child's teacher will "create a
free-thinking human being" according to the principles of reincarnation and
soul work given to us by the Austrian mystic, Rudolf Steiner. Your child is
not quite human and therefore cannot be free ... yet - and we will expect
you to understand our work and authority. We will create her/him. The
teacher will incarnate that soul in accordance with an Anthro version of
karma.
I am not trying to be flippant here - you clearly have an understanding of
Anthro/Waldorf and I think we agree here?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:52:40 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: no DOFs
walden wrote:
) David wrote;
) Well, that explains a lot. I respect your ideas, but the aim of Waldorf
) ) schools is, yes, perhaps to give students some insight into the
) ) "spiritual world", but ultimately to create free-thinking human beings.
)
) Walden: I suspect we are all almost on the same page here. I do
) appreciate
) your candid comments with regards to Waldorf. Your points are well
) taken
) with your previous comments about Waldorf false advertising and this -
) "the
) aim of Waldorf schools is, yes, perhaps to give students some insight
) into
) the "spiritual world", but ultimately to create free-thinking human
) beings."
)
) Would it not be advantageous for Waldorf to advertise as you did here
) above?
) Comments like these would go a long way in helping parents understand
) the
) mission *before* they sign up. Forget the non-sectarian, arts based PR
) and
) cut to the chase. You are using strong words here, David. Help them
) write
) more honest PR material: Waldorf Education will give your child some
) insight into the spiritual world. Your child's teacher will "create a
) free-thinking human being" according to the principles of reincarnation
) and
) soul work given to us by the Austrian mystic, Rudolf Steiner. Your
) child is
) not quite human and therefore cannot be free ... yet - and we will
) expect
) you to understand our work and authority. We will create her/him. The
) teacher will incarnate that soul in accordance with an Anthro version of
) karma.
)
) I am not trying to be flippant here - you clearly have an understanding
) of
) Anthro/Waldorf and I think we agree here?
)
Not in the exact wording, but generally, yes...
I wouln't say "not quite human"... I would say "vulnerable as a
developing human being". And not "we will create her/him", but "we will
provide a rich, artistic environment for him or her to develop in". The
rest is fine, only I don't know about including reincarnation -- most
teachers are concerned with the "present incarnation" than future ones,
though I suppose it is a consideration for them.
One of my points in mentioning the scientific paths of Waldorf graduates
is that though Waldorf teaches science through a progression of refuted
theories, arriving at the latest theory, graduates do not become
confused upon entering university. They do not laugh at their science
professor. THey understand proven scientific theory for what it is; they
know of the theories that preceded it, and which contradicted it (i.e.
Goethe v.s. Newton). THey are left to decide how much value each one
has, and high school kids are sceptics by nature. They do not adhere to
wierd science.
THis is all in my experience of course, but it seems to be true in
Canada, in any case.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:29:49 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
on 11/21/02 9:19 AM, Nicole Foss at nmfoss hotmail.com wrote:
Nicole:
David has a valid point here.
Sharon: Yes, and I am listening, and I'm not calling him "gnome" or "DOF"
though I am pointing out that he is parroting what he has been taught to
say. He came on in defense of Steiner's racism, and within a few posts he
changed his mind and started saying that Steiner was a racist, (which he
was). David accuses me of being "patronizing" and "offensive". Quite
frankly, I find some of the things he says to be just that. I responded to
his posts and he takes the easy way out by accusing me of being "patronizing
and offensive" instead of refuting what I have said.
Nicole: He's trying to share his perspective, which is what you invited him
to do.
Sharon: And he is sharing his perspective, and we are responding with ours.
If you notice, I have been quoting Steiner and Anthroposophists with some of
my responses.
Nicole: Can we raise the tone of the debate (real debate is interesting -
diatribes are not)?
Sharon: So by that am I to deduce that you believe David's posts are not
diatribe, but that the rest of our posts are? And I might add, that yours
isn't?
Nicole: We are meant to be defending free thought and intellectualism here,
aren't we?
Sharon: Oh, is that what you think we are doing? I think Steiner was a
fascist, racist, kook. I do not defend his nonsense as free thought or
intellectualism, so when David comes on critics waving a racist Steiner
lecture and yelling "falsehoods" at PLANS activists, I respond with passion.
He calls my "comments" "ignorant" when it is his defense of racist Steiner
that is sorely ignorant. His denials that Anthroposophy is not a religion is
also pure ignorance.
Nicole: In my book that means hearing someone out (whether you agree with
them or not), then discussing the points they raise in a calm and rational
manner rather than jumping down their throats. Can we have more light and
less heat?
Sharon: What is wrong with passion? I am very calm in my responses. I am
listening, I am not yelling. I have been calling David "David", not "DOF" as
he claims, (I merely defended my right to use the term which I don't find
offensive.) I have not called him "gnome". Frankly I tire of Waldorfer's
"tone" of superiority. If you don't like heat, press delete. I wouldn't tell
you how to debate or to "raise your tone".
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:25:28 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
mysplum wrote:
) on 11/21/02 9:19 AM, Nicole Foss at nmfoss hotmail.com wrote:
)
)
) Nicole:
)
)
) David has a valid point here.
)
) Sharon: Yes, and I am listening, and I'm not calling him "gnome" or
) "DOF"
Thank you.
) though I am pointing out that he is parroting what he has been taught to
) say. He came on in defense of Steiner's racism, and within a few posts
) he
) changed his mind and started saying that Steiner was a racist, (which he
) was).
As you showed me.
)David accuses me of being "patronizing" and "offensive". Quite
) frankly, I find some of the things he says to be just that. I responded
) to
) his posts and he takes the easy way out by accusing me of being
) "patronizing
) and offensive" instead of refuting what I have said.
I just got tired of being called a parrot -- I was taught to say
nothing, and my willingness to change viewpoints should be proof of
that.
)
) Nicole: He's trying to share his perspective, which is what you invited
) him
) to do.
)
) Sharon: And he is sharing his perspective, and we are responding with
) ours.
) If you notice, I have been quoting Steiner and Anthroposophists with
) some of
) my responses.
)
) Nicole: Can we raise the tone of the debate (real debate is interesting
) -
) diatribes are not)?
)
)
) Sharon: So by that am I to deduce that you believe David's posts are not
) diatribe, but that the rest of our posts are? And I might add, that
) yours
) isn't?
)
) Nicole: We are meant to be defending free thought and intellectualism
) here,
) aren't we?
)
) Sharon: Oh, is that what you think we are doing? I think Steiner was a
) fascist, racist, kook. I do not defend his nonsense as free thought or
) intellectualism, so when David comes on critics waving a racist Steiner
) lecture and yelling "falsehoods" at PLANS activists, I respond with
) passion.
) He calls my "comments" "ignorant" when it is his defense of racist
) Steiner
) that is sorely ignorant. His denials that Anthroposophy is not a
) religion is
) also pure ignorance.
And so are your ad hominem attacks on Steiner, as opposed to what's
really going on in Waldorf schools.
)
) Nicole: In my book that means hearing someone out (whether you agree
) with
) them or not), then discussing the points they raise in a calm and
) rational
) manner rather than jumping down their throats. Can we have more light
) and
) less heat?
)
) Sharon: What is wrong with passion? I am very calm in my responses. I am
) listening, I am not yelling. I have been calling David "David", not
) "DOF" as
) he claims, (I merely defended my right to use the term which I don't
) find
) offensive.)
Thank you for that. (the gnome was a joke)
)I have not called him "gnome". Frankly I tire of Waldorfer's
) "tone" of superiority. If you don't like heat, press delete. I wouldn't
) tell
) you how to debate or to "raise your tone".
)
Right... so what would you have me do? Renounce my evil ways and join
you in attacking one of the only good arts-based schools (whatever else
it may be) around?
I think I'm wasting my time -- I came here to make peace, but some of
you seem to be on a bit of a witch hunt...
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:30:22 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: no DOFs
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C29172.E7D39E60
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Nicole:
Welcome, David, from one Canadian to another.
As one who has been delving into Steiner's writings, how have you
found the content of his work and the intellectual caliber of his
arguments? Do you find him convincing? How many times in a lecture
would you say you came across a valid point? Does anything you've
read bear any relation to what you learned in high school? Did you
learn, for example, that the heart is not a pump? I'm genuinely
interested to know more about the high school curriculum.
I ask this because I was subjected to weekly Steiner sessions in our
faculty meetings and I could hardly believe my ears. My first
impression was, 'What was he smoking when he wrote that!'. He seems
to be in the habit of pulling preposterousassertions out of thin air
without ever feeling the need to back them up with examples. His
logic is circular and his tone arrogant. His dismissal of science was
almost total and most of his assertions as to the physical nature of
the human body were simply wrong (or occasionally, complicatedly
wrong). There were teachers (not all) at our school who took every
word he said literally, as if it were the gospel. Considering how
many odious opinions those pages contained, this is very disturbing.
I had to sift through an awful lot to find anything I could even
vaguely agree with - the proverbial needle in a haystack.
I am interested in your views if you would like to share them with us.
----- Original Message -----
From: David
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 2:52 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: no DOFs
==^===============================================================------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:32:38 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0011_01C29173.394FE8C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Nicole:
)David has a valid point here. He's trying to share his
perspective, which is what you invited him to )do. Can we raise the
tone of the debate (real debate is interesting - diatribes are not)?
We are )meant to be defending free thought and intellectualism here,
aren't we? In my book that means )hearing someone out (whether you
agree with them or not), then discussing the points they raise in )a
calm and rational manner rather than jumping down their throats. Can
we have more light and less )heat?
Nicole, I felt the same the first few times round, it's just that
some of us have had these same debates a number of times now, and we
do tend to respond rather quickly to the same old arguments. I don't
think anyone jumped down David's throat this morning (I guess Michael
did, last night.) I'm sorry if it doesn't sound calm and rational to
you, I don't have patience any more for "Steiner out of context" and
"anthroposophy not a religion" and "anthroposophy not taught to
Waldorf students" and "Steiner not a racist, he said all the races
played a role in history" - all absolutely anthroposophist
propaganda, Sharon is absolutely right, which David did not think up
on his own. David has obviously done Steiner study groups or Internet
discussions, and is repeating stuff he has heard anthroposophists say
to each other whenever there is criticism of Steiner. Sorry if our
responses seem abrupt and as if we did not sit around mulling things
over a lot before replying, we know the !
drill. It appears to me David knows the drill as well. David is quite
welcome to share his perspective here if he doesn't mind having it
promptly and unsparingly critiqued.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:44:52 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Nicole:
)
) )David has a valid point here. He's trying to share his perspective,
) )which is what you invited him to )do. Can we raise the tone of the
) )debate (real debate is interesting - diatribes are not)? We are )meant
) )to be defending free thought and intellectualism here, aren't we? In my
) )book that means )hearing someone out (whether you agree with them or
) )not), then discussing the points they raise in )a calm and rational
) )manner rather than jumping down their throats. Can we have more light
) )and less )heat?
)
) Nicole, I felt the same the first few times round, it's just that some
) of us have had these same debates a number of times now, and we do tend
) to respond rather quickly to the same old arguments. I don't think
) anyone jumped down David's throat this morning (I guess Michael did,
) last night.) I'm sorry if it doesn't sound calm and rational to you, I
) don't have patience any more for "Steiner out of context" and
) "anthroposophy not a religion" and "anthroposophy not taught to Waldorf
) students" and "Steiner not a racist, he said all the races played a role
) in history" - all absolutely anthroposophist propaganda, Sharon is
) absolutely right, which David did not think up on his own. David has
) obviously done Steiner study groups or Internet discussions, and is
) repeating stuff he has heard anthroposophists say to each other whenever
) there is criticism of Steiner. Sorry if our responses seem abrupt and as
) if we did not sit around mulling things over a lot before replying, we
) know the drill. It appears to me David knows the drill as well. David is
) quite welcome to share his perspective here if he doesn't mind having it
) promptly and unsparingly critiqued.
) Diana
)
I am a newly graduated waldorf student, my conclusions are my own, based
on what I was *not* taught in school, my objective definition of
Religion (compared to yours, which would call just about everything not
provable a religion) and my own (admitedly limited) study of Steiner and
other Occultists. I have never attended a study group, and never been to
an Anthropop list server. I actually don't consider myself an
Anthroposophist. My personal philosophies are based on Jung ,Campbell,
Einstein and Jane Yolen -- that scientific truth is one thing, but that
Story, Myth, Archytype and Legend are important components of
understanding the world, and that, in Einstein's words, "Imagination is
more important than Knowledge". Anthroposophy provides me with another
Mythological model that allows me to interact with the world in a
meaningful way. Just because something isn't real doesn't mean it isn't
true.
I just can't stand to see people attacking something out of emotion or
ignorance without first seeking to understand it, and that's what
prompted me to post here.
I agree with you thet Waldorf should not be publicly funded, that it
should be more forthcoming with it's Occult base, and that Steiner was
obviously wrong about many things. Isn't that enough for you?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:55:10 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: no DOFs
Nicole Foss wrote:
) Nicole:
)
) Welcome, David, from one Canadian to another.
)
) As one who has been delving into Steiner's writings, how have you found
) the content of his work and the intellectual caliber of his arguments?
) Do you find him convincing? How many times in a lecture would you say
) you came across a valid point? Does anything you've read bear any
) relation to what you learned in high school? Did you learn, for example,
) that the heart is not a pump? I'm genuinely interested to know more
) about the high school curriculum.
)
) I ask this because I was subjected to weekly Steiner sessions in our
) faculty meetings and I could hardly believe my ears. My first impression
) was, 'What was he smoking when he wrote that!'. He seems to be in the
) habit of pulling preposterous assertions out of thin air without ever
) feeling the need to back them up with examples. His logic is circular
) and his tone arrogant. His dismissal of science was almost total and
) most of his assertions as to the physical nature of the human body were
) simply wrong (or occasionally, complicatedly wrong). There were teachers
) (not all) at our school who took every word he said literally, as if it
) were the gospel. Considering how many odious opinions those pages
) contained, this is very disturbing. I had to sift through an awful lot
) to find anything I could even vaguely agree with - the proverbial needle
) in a haystack.
)
) I am interested in your views if you would like to share them with us.
)
) ----- Original Message -----
) From: David
) Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 2:52 PM
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: RE: no DOFs
)
)
) ==^================================================================Get
) more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
)
)
)
You are my ideal Waldorf teacher. You obviously have some respect for
Steiner's educational model, or you wouldn't be where you are (or
were?). If all teachers questioned as you did, we'd be in a much better
position. I learned about the twelve senses in high school, (which are
just as arbitrary as the five senses, and can actually co-exist with
them) but I learned that the heart pumps blood through the circulatory
system. Steiner's 'odd science' should be kept out of schools, but I
agree with the way I was taught : thowing each successive physical
atomic model, for example, passing through the Newtonian orbital model
before arriving at the present quantum one.
Teachers should feel free to bring up any odious Steiner material they
find, and if they feel uncomfortable with it, then they should feel free
not to use it.
Just don't condemn it all without considering it, and read it on the
slant; that is, not literally, as some do.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:01:14 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: no DOFs
David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca) wrote:
)I would prefer to be called "David", my name, actually. Or if you must
)have a title, how about "Discusser of issues concerning Waldorf
)Education." I don't appreciate being labeled and thrown in a box.
)
Peter replies.
When I used the term DOF recently I was unaware of your existence and as far
as I am aware you have never posted to the list before that. My use of DOF
could only refer to you acausally. You seem to be confusing comments made to
and about you by people who are mebmers of this list and others who may be
posting to you privately but who have no posting rights here. Some of these
may be excluded for what I termed earlier a too vigourous a debating style.
I am unconvinced by your claim that you find the term offensive. But then I
am an Australian and we find hardly anything offensive. In particular I find
your claim of taking offense at odds with your claim of an open mind. An
open mind might be able to see that DOF is a simple shorthand on this list
that carries, at least in my mind, at most an affectionate lack of respect.
I too claim an open mind, and my open mind is asking for more evidence of
your sensitivity to this term.
See you, Peter Farrell
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:22:01 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
on 11/21/02 12:25 PM, David at valslavnijinsky shaw.ca wrote:
)
) I just got tired of being called a parrot -- I was taught to say
) nothing,
Sharon: Now we are getting somewhere. You were taught to say nothing? This
makes me sad. I understand what you are saying and I think it's wrong.
and my willingness to change viewpoints should be proof of
) that.
Sharon: Your willingness to change viewpoints so quickly makes me very sad
indeed, I would rather you passionately defended what you were taught to say
because then I would know that you have put a lot of thought into it. You
changed what you thought originally because you were taught to say one thing
without really investigating it, and then all of a sudden you are shown that
perhaps what you were taught isn't true. I had a similar experience when I
emerged out of the Waldorf plane wreck.
) And so are your ad hominem attacks on Steiner, as opposed to what's
) really going on in Waldorf schools.
)
Sharon: I have studied Steiner and believe that his ideas are kooky, racist
and fascist. I have also studied what is going on in Waldorf schools, which
are a hub for Steiner's ideas. I've had experience being part of waldorf
because my daughter was enrolled in a Waldorf school from KG to the
beginning of 4th grade.
)
)) I have not called him "gnome". Frankly I tire of Waldorfer's
)) "tone" of superiority. If you don't like heat, press delete. I wouldn't
)) tell
)) you how to debate or to "raise your tone".
))
)
) Right... so what would you have me do? Renounce my evil ways and join
) you in attacking one of the only good arts-based schools (whatever else
) it may be) around?
Sharon: Actually, I was speaking to Nicole there. See, I don't think Waldorf
is Arts based, the way I use that word. It is indeed based on "The Art" (of
magic). Waldorf is based on Anthroposophy first and foremost, and if Waldorf
would be open about that, I would not be here and neither would PLANS. (BTW
I don't think you are evil nor other people duped by Waldorf. I do think
it's wrong for Anthroposophists to dupe people though).
)
) I think I'm wasting my time -- I came here to make peace, but some of
) you seem to be on a bit of a witch hunt...
Sharon: No, I'm not on a witch hunt at all, you just got my passion fired
up. I think we can make friends if we keep trying. I don't think you are
wasting your time, we are talking aren't we? Lets see if we can make peace
and be friends? I'll start by saying I'm sorry I made you feel bad with my
passionate responses. I definitely don't think you are evil, quite sweet if
truth be told.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:12:08 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: no DOFs
My objection is centered around the objectification of those who would
bring another perspective here. There's nothing to be gained by calling
each other DoFs or WCs; can't we just have a respectful dialogue? I'm
critical of aspects of Waldorf education as well, but I also see the
value in it. Some folks here seem surprised and angry when
non-disillusioned Waldorfians post the same defensive things here; no
suprise -- they're responding to the same attacks. If we could endeavor
to have a discussion without drawing battle lines, I think we would all
benefit more.
I'm willing to work with you folks.
Peter Farrell wrote:
) David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca) wrote:
)
) )I would prefer to be called "David", my name, actually. Or if you must
) )have a title, how about "Discusser of issues concerning Waldorf
) )Education." I don't appreciate being labeled and thrown in a box.
) )
)
) Peter replies.
) When I used the term DOF recently I was unaware of your existence and as
) far
) as I am aware you have never posted to the list before that. My use of
) DOF
) could only refer to you acausally. You seem to be confusing comments
) made to
) and about you by people who are mebmers of this list and others who may
) be
) posting to you privately but who have no posting rights here. Some of
) these
) may be excluded for what I termed earlier a too vigourous a debating
) style.
)
) I am unconvinced by your claim that you find the term offensive. But
) then I
) am an Australian and we find hardly anything offensive. In particular I
) find
) your claim of taking offense at odds with your claim of an open mind. An
)
) open mind might be able to see that DOF is a simple shorthand on this
) list
) that carries, at least in my mind, at most an affectionate lack of
) respect.
) I too claim an open mind, and my open mind is asking for more evidence
) of
) your sensitivity to this term.
)
) See you, Peter Farrell
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
) http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:20:34 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
mysplum wrote:
) on 11/21/02 12:25 PM, David at valslavnijinsky shaw.ca wrote:
)
) )
) ) I just got tired of being called a parrot -- I was taught to say
) ) nothing,
)
) Sharon: Now we are getting somewhere. You were taught to say nothing?
) This
) makes me sad. I understand what you are saying and I think it's wrong.
(I knew this would cause problems) I should have said that I wasn't
taught to say anything in particular.
)
) and my willingness to change viewpoints should be proof of
) ) that.
)
) Sharon: Your willingness to change viewpoints so quickly makes me very
) sad
) indeed, I would rather you passionately defended what you were taught to
) say
) because then I would know that you have put a lot of thought into it.
) You
) changed what you thought originally because you were taught to say one
) thing
) without really investigating it, and then all of a sudden you are shown
) that
) perhaps what you were taught isn't true. I had a similar experience when
) I
) emerged out of the Waldorf plane wreck.
)
I obviously couldn't retain my previous opinion in response to your
evidence of dated, racist comments by Steiner which were, for once, not
taken out of context.
)
) ) And so are your ad hominem attacks on Steiner, as opposed to what's
) ) really going on in Waldorf schools.
) )
) Sharon: I have studied Steiner and believe that his ideas are kooky,
) racist
) and fascist. I have also studied what is going on in Waldorf schools,
) which
) are a hub for Steiner's ideas. I've had experience being part of waldorf
) because my daughter was enrolled in a Waldorf school from KG to the
) beginning of 4th grade.
)
I can only say that those were not my experiences.
) )
) )) I have not called him "gnome". Frankly I tire of Waldorfer's
) )) "tone" of superiority. If you don't like heat, press delete. I wouldn't
) )) tell
) )) you how to debate or to "raise your tone".
) ))
) )
) ) Right... so what would you have me do? Renounce my evil ways and join
) ) you in attacking one of the only good arts-based schools (whatever else
) ) it may be) around?
)
) Sharon: Actually, I was speaking to Nicole there. See, I don't think
) Waldorf
) is Arts based, the way I use that word. It is indeed based on "The Art"
) (of
) magic). Waldorf is based on Anthroposophy first and foremost, and if
) Waldorf
) would be open about that, I would not be here and neither would PLANS.
) (BTW
) I don't think you are evil nor other people duped by Waldorf. I do think
) it's wrong for Anthroposophists to dupe people though).
I agree. the time for secret mysteries is all but over.
However, the truth remains that Waldorf does have an integrated arts
program -- or at least mine did. Writing and illustrating one's own
"textbooks" as an example.
) )
) ) I think I'm wasting my time -- I came here to make peace, but some of
) ) you seem to be on a bit of a witch hunt...
)
) Sharon: No, I'm not on a witch hunt at all, you just got my passion
) fired
) up. I think we can make friends if we keep trying. I don't think you are
) wasting your time, we are talking aren't we? Lets see if we can make
) peace
) and be friends? I'll start by saying I'm sorry I made you feel bad with
) my
) passionate responses. I definitely don't think you are evil, quite sweet
) if
) truth be told.
)
I accept your apology, and I apologise in return for being as
passionately defensive as I was.
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:23:20 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject:
I must be off now, but it's been better than I expected my Kopp's first
email.
Ill see ya' back here...
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:56:47 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: no DOFs
David,
As my teenage daughter would say: Get real! DoF -- defender of the faith --
is a perfectly good one that accurately describes many who come here to
defend Waldorf and anthroposophy.
It seems to me you are being needlessly defensive; the term is neither
vulgar nor pejorative. It is simply a statement of fact.
As for anthroposophy encouraging skepticism, well, tell that to me and the
countless other critics here who voiced our skepticism and criticism while
within the hallowed walls of Waldorf!
Lisa
) I find the tern "DOF" offensive, both in the vulgar and pejorative
) vocalisation of the acronym and in the words themselves -- Anthroposophy
) is not a faith, it's an Occult philosophy upon which the philosophy of
) Waldorf Education is based; a philosophy, I might add, which encourages
) scepticism and questioning in all who study it.
)
) I respectfully ask you to refrain from using this term in the future.
)
) David Gill
) Waldorf Alumnus
)
) Lisa D. Ercolano wrote:
)) DOF: defender of the faith. In other words, a Waldorf/anthroposophy
)) true
)) believer.
))
))
))
)) Nicole: Please, forgive my ignorance, but what's a DOF?
))
))
))
))
)) ----- Original Message -----
))
)) From: Peter Farrell
))
)) Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 9:03 PM
))
)) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
))
)) Subject: no DOFs
))
))
)) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
))
))
)) Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
)) http://explorer.msn.com
))
))
))
))
))
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:13:31 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: to David
David, I just wanted to say how much I am enjoying having you here to speak
to/debate with.
Lisa
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:36:13 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: again, for David
david,
Forgive me if you have already mentioned this, but what Waldorf school did
you attend, and for how long?
You said you are newly graduated. Does that mean you are now in college? It
would interest me to hear where you go to college and what you are studying,
as well as how you believe Waldorf prepared you, or did not, for the studies
you undertake now.
Ciao!
Lisa
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:37:40 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: no DOFs
)There's nothing to be gained by calling each other DoFs or WCs; can't we
)just have a respectful dialogue?
You can call me a WC if you like, in fact some of our DOF friends really
like that one since it also refers to "water closets" and some people get a
chortle out of bathroom humor. And some of them are *not* just 18 years old.
:)
Peter's right, DOF is actually used with some affection on this list.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:39:43 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
David wrote: ) I just can't stand to see people attacking something out of
emotion or
) ignorance without first seeking to understand it, and that's what
) prompted me to post here.
Walden: Glad you arrived for the chat, David but if you check the thread
you'll find that those involved in the discussion are far from ignorant when
it comes to the subject. *That* comment was insulting but I doubt Sharon,
Diana et al will object. I have found critics to be more interested in the
message than shooting the messenger. You seem to have gained some
understanding of the subject in one short day here - that is a good thing.
You might want to check the archives to see what many of us *did* like about
Waldorf just so you have this in context.
You are learning what many of us have been studying for years. I know it is
impossible to glimpse the dark side of Steiner in a Waldorf school. The
endless stream of *appropriate* Steiner quotes in newsletters and Steiner
"verses" in classrooms and at meetings for years and years lead one to
believe the guy was a genius. I have heard him called everything from an
artist to an educator to an intellectual giant. I am waiting to hear
someone tell me Steiner had already broken Gretzky's NHL (ice hockey)
records before either of them were born. It wouldn't surprise me. He was
an occultist and he started a religion called Anthroposophy. Plain and
simple. His racist dogma and spiritual hierarchy and *impulse* behind his
religions are next to impossible to see in a Waldorf school. But his ideas
are all there as is an idolatry of his ideology.
Ever seen Steiner criticized in a Waldorf school - ever seen *any* of his
many racist quotes spoken or dealt with in a Waldorf school? Ever seen
anyone *deal* with issues of concern to parents in a Waldorf school? Yet
I'll bet there is a photo of Steiner in your school and I bet his Name is
spoken with reverence.
Agreed, some critics speak out of emotion - children were hurt. It gets
emotional. Many many children and families have been hurt. Can you
understand that? But to accuse those same critics of ignorance is way off
base. It is good to have you participate and voice your opinions. This is
the only place where such free discussion is allowed. Other lists are
censored but I suppose you knew that. I wonder why the *free individuals*
who support Waldorf and Anthroposophy feel the need to control and suppress
critical thought? Fascinating.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:32:24 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: arts-based? Nah!
David, our new list member, asks Sharon:
Right... so what would you have me do? Renounce my evil ways and join
) you in attacking one of the only good arts-based schools (whatever else
) it may be) around?
Lisa: I would argue that Waldorf schools are not truly arts-based. Where is
the "art" in creating wet-on-wet, formless talismans, or being prohibited
from drawing with outlines?
My daughter attended a Waldorf school for six years -- from preschool
through the first half of fourth grade -- and she found that far from
nurturing her creativity and imagination, Waldorf stifled it. I still have
stacks and stacks of same-looking wet-on-wet exercises, which look like the
stacks and stacks of wet-on-wets all the other children made at her school
and, for that matter, at Waldorf schools all over the world.
Art is about creativity and individuality. Waldorf nurtures neither.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:43:23 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
I wasn't accusing you folks of ignorance -- you've read more Steiner
than I have. I was speaking of the writer of the original article that
prompted me to post here.
walden wrote:
) David wrote: ) I just can't stand to see people attacking something out
) of
) emotion or
) ) ignorance without first seeking to understand it, and that's what
) ) prompted me to post here.
)
) Walden: Glad you arrived for the chat, David but if you check the
) thread
) you'll find that those involved in the discussion are far from ignorant
) when
) it comes to the subject. *That* comment was insulting but I doubt
) Sharon,
) Diana et al will object. I have found critics to be more interested in
) the
) message than shooting the messenger. You seem to have gained some
) understanding of the subject in one short day here - that is a good
) thing.
) You might want to check the archives to see what many of us *did* like
) about
) Waldorf just so you have this in context.
)
) You are learning what many of us have been studying for years. I know
) it is
) impossible to glimpse the dark side of Steiner in a Waldorf school. The
) endless stream of *appropriate* Steiner quotes in newsletters and
) Steiner
) "verses" in classrooms and at meetings for years and years lead one to
) believe the guy was a genius. I have heard him called everything from
) an
) artist to an educator to an intellectual giant. I am waiting to hear
) someone tell me Steiner had already broken Gretzky's NHL (ice hockey)
) records before either of them were born. It wouldn't surprise me. He
) was
) an occultist and he started a religion called Anthroposophy. Plain and
) simple. His racist dogma and spiritual hierarchy and *impulse* behind
) his
) religions are next to impossible to see in a Waldorf school. But his
) ideas
) are all there as is an idolatry of his ideology.
) Ever seen Steiner criticized in a Waldorf school - ever seen *any* of
) his
) many racist quotes spoken or dealt with in a Waldorf school? Ever seen
) anyone *deal* with issues of concern to parents in a Waldorf school?
) Yet
) I'll bet there is a photo of Steiner in your school and I bet his Name
) is
) spoken with reverence.
)
) Agreed, some critics speak out of emotion - children were hurt. It gets
) emotional. Many many children and families have been hurt. Can you
) understand that? But to accuse those same critics of ignorance is way
) off
) base. It is good to have you participate and voice your opinions. This
) is
) the only place where such free discussion is allowed. Other lists are
) censored but I suppose you knew that. I wonder why the *free
) individuals*
) who support Waldorf and Anthroposophy feel the need to control and
) suppress
) critical thought? Fascinating.
)
) -Walden
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 17:46:59 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
)I am waiting to hear someone tell me Steiner had already broken Gretzky's
NHL (ice hockey)
)records before either of them were born.
Walden, anything is possible on the astral plane. :)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:51:16 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: no DOFs
G'day David,
I accidentally left out my standard greeting in my previous post. I think I
(nearly) always contribute to a respectful dialogue. I may have failed once
or twice but then a careful search of the archive will find several
apologies from me.
I don't think objectification is the object of DOF. As I said before it is a
simple shorthand, and it accurately portrays many former contributors to
this list, Sune, Joel and Tarjei come to mind. I don't know yet whether it
accurately portrays you. I should point out that we have had contributors to
the list who have transformed from DOFs to WCs although I am unaware of any
who have gone the other way. Hands up any volunteers for either of these
categories. I am unabashedly a WC mostly because if I read Steiner and I
collect any statement or claim which can be independently tested I find it
is just plain wrong. I don't beleive Steiner made any original contribution
to anything that was in fact correct. On this basis I think it is simple
foolishness to construct a system of medicine, a system of pedagogy, or a
system of agriculture based on his "indications". Secondly I beleive the
methods he uses to present argument in his lectures and writings are
intellectually dishonest and I further believe he knew this. I don't beleive
these assertions I have made are disrespectful. I am very happy for you to
refute them. I have an open mind. It is open to evidence, not to opinion.
Whether a Waldorf School gives a good education is an open question. One
can't tell without some sort of statistical analysis of the outcomes based
on the measures that you (not me) care about. Anecdotes about movie stars,
novelists and scientists can only be indicators for measures you might be
interested in, not evidence in themselves. Such an analysis seems to be
sadly lacking.
If you go back to the post which first mentioned DOFs you will find it was a
call to the WCs to treat the DOFs more gently. The WCs are not a monolithic
bunch any more than the DOFs are. My advice is if you think you can't change
someone's mind because it is closed, don't bother talking to them. I am
happy to tell you what you have to do to change mine.
See you,
Peter Farrell
)From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: RE: no DOFs
)Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 21:12:08 +0000
)
)My objection is centered around the objectification of those who would
)bring another perspective here. There's nothing to be gained by calling
)each other DoFs or WCs; can't we just have a respectful dialogue? I'm
)critical of aspects of Waldorf education as well, but I also see the
)value in it. Some folks here seem surprised and angry when
)non-disillusioned Waldorfians post the same defensive things here; no
)suprise -- they're responding to the same attacks. If we could endeavor
)to have a discussion without drawing battle lines, I think we would all
)benefit more.
)I'm willing to work with you folks.
)
)Peter Farrell wrote:
) ) David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca) wrote:
) )
) ) )I would prefer to be called "David", my name, actually. Or if you must
) ) )have a title, how about "Discusser of issues concerning Waldorf
) ) )Education." I don't appreciate being labeled and thrown in a box.
) ) )
) )
) ) Peter replies.
) ) When I used the term DOF recently I was unaware of your existence and as
) ) far
) ) as I am aware you have never posted to the list before that. My use of
) ) DOF
) ) could only refer to you acausally. You seem to be confusing comments
) ) made to
) ) and about you by people who are mebmers of this list and others who may
) ) be
) ) posting to you privately but who have no posting rights here. Some of
) ) these
) ) may be excluded for what I termed earlier a too vigourous a debating
) ) style.
) )
) ) I am unconvinced by your claim that you find the term offensive. But
) ) then I
) ) am an Australian and we find hardly anything offensive. In particular I
) ) find
) ) your claim of taking offense at odds with your claim of an open mind. An
) )
) ) open mind might be able to see that DOF is a simple shorthand on this
) ) list
) ) that carries, at least in my mind, at most an affectionate lack of
) ) respect.
) ) I too claim an open mind, and my open mind is asking for more evidence
) ) of
) ) your sensitivity to this term.
) )
) ) See you, Peter Farrell
) )
) ) _________________________________________________________________
) ) Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
) ) http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
) )
) )
) )
)
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:57:20 +0000
From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: arts-based? Nah!
Lisa D. Ercolano wrote:
)
)
) David, our new list member, asks Sharon:
)
) Right... so what would you have me do? Renounce my evil ways and join
) ) you in attacking one of the only good arts-based schools (whatever else
) ) it may be) around?
)
) Lisa: I would argue that Waldorf schools are not truly arts-based. Where
) is
) the "art" in creating wet-on-wet, formless talismans, or being
) prohibited
) from drawing with outlines?
That's not art, that's an exercise.
Thae art I'm talking about occurs in main lesson books, and increased in
creativity through the high school.
) My daughter attended a Waldorf school for six years -- from preschool
) through the first half of fourth grade -- and she found that far from
) nurturing her creativity and imagination, Waldorf stifled it. I still
) have
) stacks and stacks of same-looking wet-on-wet exercises, which look like
) the
) stacks and stacks of wet-on-wets all the other children made at her
) school
) and, for that matter, at Waldorf schools all over the world.
) Art is about creativity and individuality. Waldorf nurtures neither.
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:00:59 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
DAvid wrote: I wasn't accusing you folks of ignorance -- you've read more
Steiner
) than I have. I was speaking of the writer of the original article that
) prompted me to post here.
Walden: OK - sorry. But do you really think Carol Milstone was emotional
and ignorant in her article? Really? It was not a bad piece but missed
some key points. Facts, in fact. Racism - for example *IS* and has been
an issue in Waldorf schools. Check the PLANS site to see the latest suit
from an African American teacher in New York. There were other oddities in
the piece but at least this writer had the courage to dig deeper than most
in her article.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 23:58:23 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: arts-based? Nah!
G'day All,
what evidence exists to support assertions that art teaching in Waldorf is
good bad or indifferent. The only study I can find is
Maureen V Cox and Anna Rowlands, ?The effect of three different educational
approaches on children?s drawing ability: Steiner, Montessori and
traditional? British Journal of educational psychology (2000) 70, 485-503.
This study suggests that that Steiner schools do better than the other
choices in the study. The authors warn that this may be due to the choice
the parents have made regarding an art based education rather than anything
the school does. I recommend people read it. I don't know anything about the
authors and any association they might have with Waldorf or Anthroposophy.
They are at the University of York in the UK.
Contact me off list if you have trouble locating it.
I should warn readers that the children involved numbered 20 from each of
the three types of school. I have not made a judgement of the paper in terms
of its accuracy or its methodology. I am unaware of any published follow up
or criticism.
See you, Peter Farrell
)From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: RE: arts-based? Nah!
)Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:57:20 +0000
)
)Lisa D. Ercolano wrote:
) )
) )
) ) David, our new list member, asks Sharon:
) )
) ) Right... so what would you have me do? Renounce my evil ways and join
) ) ) you in attacking one of the only good arts-based schools (whatever
)else
) ) ) it may be) around?
) )
) ) Lisa: I would argue that Waldorf schools are not truly arts-based. Where
) ) is
) ) the "art" in creating wet-on-wet, formless talismans, or being
) ) prohibited
) ) from drawing with outlines?
)
)That's not art, that's an exercise.
)
)Thae art I'm talking about occurs in main lesson books, and increased in
)creativity through the high school.
)
) ) My daughter attended a Waldorf school for six years -- from
)preschool
) ) through the first half of fourth grade -- and she found that far from
) ) nurturing her creativity and imagination, Waldorf stifled it. I still
) ) have
) ) stacks and stacks of same-looking wet-on-wet exercises, which look like
) ) the
) ) stacks and stacks of wet-on-wets all the other children made at her
) ) school
) ) and, for that matter, at Waldorf schools all over the world.
) ) Art is about creativity and individuality. Waldorf nurtures neither.
) )
) )
) )
)
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 884
-- Topica Digest --
RE: arts-based? Nah!
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: charlie true or false
By charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk
Re: the wedding of Elizabeth and Frederick
By fractalfrydaddy comcast.net
Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By nmfoss hotmail.com
science teaching in Waldorf schools
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 00:21:49 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: arts-based? Nah!
The abstract of the article I alluded to below can be seen at
http://isacco.ingentaselect.com/vl=8072367/cl=14/nw=1/rpsv/catchword/bpsoc/00070998/v70n4/s2/p485
where those of you sufficiently wealthy can also purchase the article. A
university with an education or philosophy department in the vicinity is
likely to have this journal available for public perusal.
)From: Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: RE: arts-based? Nah!
)Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 23:58:23 +0000
)
)G'day All,
)what evidence exists to support assertions that art teaching in Waldorf is
)good bad or indifferent. The only study I can find is
)
)Maureen V Cox and Anna Rowlands, ?The effect of three different educational
)approaches on children?s drawing ability: Steiner, Montessori and
)traditional? British Journal of educational psychology (2000) 70, 485-503.
)
)This study suggests that that Steiner schools do better than the other
)choices in the study. The authors warn that this may be due to the choice
)the parents have made regarding an art based education rather than anything
)the school does. I recommend people read it. I don't know anything about
)the authors and any association they might have with Waldorf or
)Anthroposophy. They are at the University of York in the UK.
)Contact me off list if you have trouble locating it.
)
)I should warn readers that the children involved numbered 20 from each of
)the three types of school. I have not made a judgement of the paper in
)terms of its accuracy or its methodology. I am unaware of any published
)follow up or criticism.
)See you, Peter Farrell
)
))From: David (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
))Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
))To: waldorf-critics topica.com
))Subject: RE: arts-based? Nah!
))Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:57:20 +0000
))
))Lisa D. Ercolano wrote:
)) )
)) )
)) ) David, our new list member, asks Sharon:
)) )
)) ) Right... so what would you have me do? Renounce my evil ways and join
)) ) ) you in attacking one of the only good arts-based schools (whatever
))else
)) ) ) it may be) around?
)) )
)) ) Lisa: I would argue that Waldorf schools are not truly arts-based.
))Where
)) ) is
)) ) the "art" in creating wet-on-wet, formless talismans, or being
)) ) prohibited
)) ) from drawing with outlines?
))
))That's not art, that's an exercise.
))
))Thae art I'm talking about occurs in main lesson books, and increased in
))creativity through the high school.
))
)) ) My daughter attended a Waldorf school for six years -- from
))preschool
)) ) through the first half of fourth grade -- and she found that far from
)) ) nurturing her creativity and imagination, Waldorf stifled it. I still
)) ) have
)) ) stacks and stacks of same-looking wet-on-wet exercises, which look like
)) ) the
)) ) stacks and stacks of wet-on-wets all the other children made at her
)) ) school
)) ) and, for that matter, at Waldorf schools all over the world.
)) ) Art is about creativity and individuality. Waldorf nurtures
))neither.
)) )
)) )
)) )
))
)
)
)_________________________________________________________________
)Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
)http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
)
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 01:15:21 -0000
From: "Charlie Morrison" (charlie morrison5.fsnet.co.uk)
Subject: Re: charlie true or false
Charlie:
Thanks for your patience, Walden. I will try to post something soon. I
haven't gone away.
warm regards,
Charlie.
----- Original Message -----
From: "walden" (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: charlie true or false
) ) Charlie:
) ) I'm not ignoring you Walden. I'll share my thoughts when I find the
time.
) )
) ) Warm regards,
) ) Charlie.
)
) Walden: Hi Charlie. Just wondering (again) when you might be able to
find
) the time? Thanks.
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:29:42 -0800
From: Ray Fulk (fractalfrydaddy comcast.net)
Subject: Re: the wedding of Elizabeth and Frederick
) Sharon: Are people listening and enjoying? If not I won't bother to
) continue. It really is a fascinating history.
A sign of a good meal is silence. I'm enjoying the appetiser and
looking forward to the entre. Don't stop now!
Ray
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 01:04:46 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C291C3.25E65EE0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Nicole:
I don't begrudge you your passion Sharon - you have earned it. You
are also very knowledgeable on the subject of Steiner. Did anyone
ever tell you that you were choleric :-) ?
I just don't like to see a group of experienced adults ganging up on
someone who hasn't been around the block as many times as the rest of
us, or had the formative experiences which led us to become critics.
I know you, and others here, have heard it all before, and probably
have less patience each time it comes around, but I think we still
need to make the effort to listen and then respond calmly,
particularly to young people. The cause of shedding light on
Steiner's views in order that people should be fully informed is not
served if debates degenerate to the Did Not/Did Too level and people
are driven away before a real discussion can take place. Thankfully
that has not happened in this case and an interesting discussion
seems to be shaping up.
----- Original Message -----
From: mysplum
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 3:14 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:53:42 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: science teaching in Waldorf schools
Dear David,
in response to Nicole Foss you wrote:
You are my ideal Waldorf teacher. You obviously have some respect for
Steiner's educational model, or you wouldn't be where you are (or
were?). If all teachers questioned as you did, we'd be in a much better
position. I learned about the twelve senses in high school, (which are
just as arbitrary as the five senses, and can actually co-exist with
them) but I learned that the heart pumps blood through the circulatory
system. Steiner's 'odd science' should be kept out of schools, but I
agree with the way I was taught : thowing each successive physical
atomic model, for example, passing through the Newtonian orbital model
before arriving at the present quantum one.
Teachers should feel free to bring up any odious Steiner material they
find, and if they feel uncomfortable with it, then they should feel free
not to use it.
Just don't condemn it all without considering it, and read it on the
slant; that is, not literally, as some do.
End of quote.
Peter responds:
Imagine a teacher who does not understand modern physics or modern chemistry
or modern biology or modern mathematics. In the standard school system I
think these might be the norm rather than the exception. I think the
situation in Waldorf Schools is probably worse but my opinion might be
changed by appropriate evidence. Imagine further The scientific scientific
"education" of Waldorf teachers comes from Steiner.
You are Canadian. Imagine yourself transported to the southern states of the
US in particular where anti evolution propoganda holds sway.
Now ask yourself in any of these circumstances how you might get a proper
education in the sciences. In the US it is difficult to find a high school
text which talks about evoulution in anything like the way serious
biologists do. This is because what I refer to as lunatic fringe
Christianity holds political power. (Is that disrespectful? My own view is
that it is understated if anything.)
You are claiming your own education in the sciences was OK (see quote from
you above). How do you know your education in the sciences was ok? What
might have been done to make it better? What was bad about it? You were only
educated in approximately one school and by a very small sample of teachers.
I should point out that I am a former university academic (read hack) in
physics (now attracted by filthy lucre to the private sector) and I am
critical of science teaching in traditional schools. If science teaching in
Waldorf schools is based on what Steiner had to say then only in so far as
Waldorf schools ignore and refute what Steiner had to say is the science
teaching ok. Your experience might be good, or it might not. I'd have to
talk with you further before I was prepared to make a judgement about that,
but right now I am skeptical of your opinion of the value of your scientific
education.
Let me try and draw these threads together. Imagine a Waldorf teacher who
was not open minded but enthralled by what Steiner had to say. What sort of
education in the sciences might in the worst case come from such a mind?
Compare and contrast this with the worst that might come from a
fundamentalist christian or a fundamentalist moslem or (insert favourite
fundamentalist here) engaged as a science teacher. Imagine that some people
who contribute to this list on the critics side have had first hand
experience of any of these masquerading as Waldorf teachers. Now forgive the
critics with this experience for their sins and try to convince them that
they have only seen the worst of Waldorf and not the best.
I want to add my voice to those who have said what a pleasure it is to hear
your voice in this forum. I implore you to ignore the worst of us as critics
and to come to understand the best. Stay and tell us where we are wrong and
where we are right. You will know no peace if you do. Remember that we
disagree amongst ourselves almost as much as we disagree with DOFs. Allow me
also to draw your attention to the Bohr Einstein debates which lasted to
their deaths and which are probably the most productive debates in 20th
century physics. They disagreed mightily and without mercy but they clearly
loved each other.
I hope you are enjoying winter while we are embraced by summer.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 885
-- Topica Digest --
"civilized" discourse/was Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: science teaching in Waldorf schools
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: science teaching in Waldorf schools
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: "civilized" discourse
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: "civilized" discourse
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
RE: science teaching in Waldorf schools
By klaudiaypma1960 hotmail.com
Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By mysplum earthlink.net
Occult Significance of Blood, reprise
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: the wedding of Elizabeth and Frederick
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Something we can all agree on
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By nmfoss hotmail.com
re: arts based? nah
By jaquesdm msn.com
Soccer (especially to Debra Snell)
By klaudiaypma1960 hotmail.com
reply to David
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: Soccer (especially to Debra Snell)
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: Stunted imagination
By j-marshall earthlink.net
Spatial Dynamics
By klaudiaypma1960 hotmail.com
Re: Stunted imagination
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Spatial Dynamics
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: Stunted imagination
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: Occult Significance of Blood, reprise
By pstaud hotmail.com
Philosophy (was: RE: no DOFs)
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
By dan dandugan.com
Waldorf science teaching (was:RE: no DOFs)
By dan dandugan.com
Waldorf science teaching (was: RE: no DOFs)
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Something we can all agree on
By dan dandugan.com
Re: PRIVATE OFF LIST RE: no DOFs
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
RE: no DOFs
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
Re: Something we can all agree on
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
definition of religion - was RE: no DOFs
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 07:46:43 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: "civilized" discourse/was Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
Nicole responds to the way some of us here on critics have responded to
David, the list's new DoF (just kidding you, Dave! (g)). Ever kind and
patient, Nicole states:
I just don't like to see a group of experienced adults ganging up on someone
who hasn't been around the block as many times as the rest of us, or had the
formative experiences which led us to become critics.
Lisa: Nicole, I have to say I admire your patience and have found myself
marvelling at your steady, amiable tone. You, ma'am, are not "choleric;"
what would you call yourself: sanguine? (g) (says the choleric/melancholic
hybrid!)
That said, I feel the need to point out that this *is* the Waldorf
CRITICS list, which means that most anyone who comes here ought to realize
they are in for debate and even argument. Especially if that person comes to
defend (such as it is) Waldorf and anthroposophy.
Certainly people should not insult each other personally, though fuzzy
logic and shallow thinking are, and should be, fair game.
And I worry that excessive preoccupation with "civilized discourse" --
saying things nicely, making sure no one is offended by what is said, etc.
-- on a list such as this will frankly be the death knell to worthwhile
debate.
What's the use of a critics list if critics, and others, cannot take the
gloves off and go a few rounds, giving it their all?
As to whether or not David has had the "formative" experiences that led
some of us to become critics, well, we don't really know that, do we? He has
told us only that he attended a Waldorf school from grade five through 12,
which means he was taught to read and basic math, etc. *before* entering the
hallowed Waldorfian halls (significant fact there. I wonder if he would be
as Waldorf friendly if he was still struggling to read, etc. today ...)
I don't know about anyone else, but I enjoy a debate that gets my heart
pounding faster (yes, I do believe the heart pumps blood! (g)) and makes my
fingers fly over the keyboard composing a response.
This is no tea party, folks, and it is not supposed to be.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:11:54 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: science teaching in Waldorf schools
on 11/22/02 12:53 AM, Peter Farrell at feetapparel hotmail.com wrote:
Imagine yourself transported to the southern states of the
) US in particular where anti evolution propoganda holds sway.
Sharon: It's not just the southern states any more. Ohio has recently
included "intelligent design" as part of the curriculum. There is a huge
"ID" lobby to get creationism back in the schools. Several states have it
now. Scientists lead an amazing battle in CO a couple years ago and
fortunately won.
This is because what I refer to as lunatic fringe
) Christianity holds political power. (Is that disrespectful?
Sharon: NO. (G) And if Anthros knew what was best for them they would get
out of the public system and help PLANS with the church and state separation
battle, after all, Steiner's gang is a spit compared to Falwell's.
As an aside: Bin has ordered Americans to convert to Islam...LOL! Somehow I
can't imagine the skimpily clad Botox ladies here in Miami donning birkas. I
myself would only find one useful in the mornings when somebody is at the
door and I'm not dressed yet (G). It's a fascinating time and one can really
get a sense of what it must have been like during the religious crusades of
old.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 07:58:05 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: science teaching in Waldorf schools
) on 11/22/02 12:53 AM, Peter Farrell at feetapparel hotmail.com wrote:
)
) Imagine yourself transported to the southern states of the
)) US in particular where anti evolution propoganda holds sway.
)
) Sharon: It's not just the southern states any more. Ohio has recently
) included "intelligent design" as part of the curriculum. There is a huge
) "ID" lobby to get creationism back in the schools. Several states have it
) now. Scientists lead an amazing battle in CO a couple years ago and
) fortunately won.
)
) This is because what I refer to as lunatic fringe
)) Christianity holds political power. (Is that disrespectful?
)
) Sharon: NO. (G) And if Anthros knew what was best for them they would get
) out of the public system and help PLANS with the church and state separation
) battle, after all, Steiner's gang is a spit compared to Falwell's.
)
) As an aside: Bin has ordered Americans to convert to Islam...LOL! Somehow I
) can't imagine the skimpily clad Botox ladies here in Miami donning birkas. I
) myself would only find one useful in the mornings when somebody is at the
) door and I'm not dressed yet (G). It's a fascinating time and one can really
) get a sense of what it must have been like during the religious crusades of
) old.
)
Lisa: Yeah, except during the religious crusades of old, they did not have
dirty bombs and could not fly jetliners into skyscrapers. But there is no
question about it: extremists of any stripe or persuasion are dangerous to
the health and wellbeing of those who disagree with them.
Sharon, I adore your description of the "botox ladies." What a riot!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:17:47 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: "civilized" discourse
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C291FF.A3DC3180
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lisa wrote:
I worry that excessive preoccupation with "civilized discourse" --
saying things nicely, making sure no one is offended by what is said, etc.
-- on a list such as this will frankly be the death knell to worthwhile
debate.
Nicole:
I think hard-boiled anthroposophists can look after themselves - by
all means take them to task (although it's a more edifying spectacle
if we don't just shout them down). It's important to ask hard
questions, and there's nothing wrong with being passionate. I do,
however, think that young people who are just embarking on their
intellectual voyage of discovery deserve our patience. If we push
them away by making them feel that they have no right their opinions
from the outset, rather than explaining why we differ, we may push
them right into the arms of that with which we disagree.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lisa D. Ercolano
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 7:47 AM
To: waldorf-critics
Subject: "civilized" discourse/was Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:36:09 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: "civilized" discourse
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C29202.34B8A060
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Nicole:
I think hard-boiled anthroposophists can look after themselves -
by all means take them to task (although it's a more edifying
spectacle if we don't just shout them down). It's important to ask
hard questions, and there's nothing wrong with being passionate. I
do, however, think that young people who are just embarking on their
intellectual voyage of discovery deserve our patience. If we push
them away by making them feel that they have no right their opinions
from the outset, rather than explaining why we differ, we may push
them right into the arms of that with which we disagree.
Perhaps I am really turning into a curmudgeon, but I just did
not see it this way at all. Why do you say "rather than explaining
why we differ"? Several people explained to David in *great* detail
why they differed, I put a couple of hours into this yesterday, as
did Sharon - Sharon posted copiously from Steiner and we really layed
it out there what the arguments are. It was heated but in fact nobody
called him a gnome, that was a joke *he* was making. I agree that
young people like David, really just starting his education, deserve
more patience than the people who usually defend anthroposophy here -
who are often people who are making a career out of Waldorf in some
way. They ought to have done their homework and they deserve to get a
lot of scorn if they say, Oh I've really never heard about this
racial stuff, it's all about love and light . . .
Still, David seems like a confident, well-spoken guy, I guess
you are about 18 David? I presume you are in college? He seemed quite
able to hold his own. He's certainly old enough to know that there
are serious criticisms of the education he received and to start to
look into why there are people who say Steiner was a guru and not a
real educator, and that he was educated in a system that is basically
the missionary arm of a religious movement. He can cope. Lots of
people by age 18 are evaluating the systems they were raised in,
religious, educational, etc., and sometimes that is painful. David
seemed to be doing just fine. He needs to broaden his horizons a bit,
like maybe put away Steiner till after college and see how big the
world is out there, that Steiner is not taken seriously *outside* the
(yes) cult he was educated in. He's a grown-up. He posted his own
opinions quite emphatically and I see no reason to treat him with kid
gloves.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:38:18 +0000
From: Klaudia (klaudiaypma1960 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: science teaching in Waldorf schools
mysplum wrote:
Somehow I
) can't imagine the skimpily clad Botox ladies here in Miami donning
) birkas.
Klaudia:
Anthroposophy developes imagination (at least so they are exoterically
telling). Se keep on your exercises. And please report of your spiritual
development.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:54:00 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
) 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_3120800040_346872_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
on 11/21/02 10:04 PM, Nicole Foss at nmfoss hotmail.com wrote:
I just don't like to see a group of experienced adults ganging up on someone
who hasn't been around the block as many times as the rest of us, or had the
formative experiences which led us to become critics.
Sharon: In all honesty, when David first appeared I did not realize that he
was as young as he now seems to be - that only came through to me later,
which is why I was able to see through the Anthro BS and see him as quite
sweet in the end. But I think he understands that we were dueling with
ideas, and you nor he may not see it yet, but I *swear*, he **was**
parroting what he had been groomed to say. For us it's like a bad dream
playing over and over and over because the *same* script is being used. I
really don't think our sparring did him any harm, rather some good. I think
he probably learned a lot, and he is still with us as far as I know. We are
making friends. What he needs to understand is that many of us are heretics,
which means we probably have more in common with Anthros than not.
You asked if I had been categorized as "choleric" - a term from Galen's
"psychology" from 3 thousand BCE. (It is actually even older than that).
When I studied the four temperaments, after leaving Waldorf, I realized
that Waldorf was even older than I had already guessed (I was saying Middle
Ages) (G). The answer is "no", but I did hear teachers classifying children
with this archaic tool for putting people in boxes. At the time I was very
confused by it, I asked "Isn't that outdated?" I was told that Waldorf is
so new, and in future everyone will be using the Waldorf method! LOL!!! Even
funnier, I believed them!!!! (shrieking with laughter).
I was however categorized as "spacey and ditzy" by the homeopathic doctor on
my first visit. NEVER in my entire life had I'd ever been thought of in this
way. NOT ONCE. I asked my mother about this and she shook her head "NO WAY".
At school I did well, and my reports say things like "a leader",
"bright"....so it was very surprising. I did not know the doctor from a bar
of soap, he was just having a little clairvoyant moment there in the
doctor's office and needless to say I never went back to him. (My extremely
ill daughter was later to see the woman homeopath in the town, and we lost a
lot of precious time screwing around with her and other Waldorf "doctors".)
Those were the days when I thought homeopathy was scientific medicine.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 08:58:43 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Occult Significance of Blood, reprise
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0027_01C29205.5BD87780
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
The argument that brought David here was about the Bendz article,
which David wanted to show us contains an error. Bendz said that
Steiner thought racial mixing was bad. David quoted further from the
Occult Significance of Blood article to show that Steiner in fact
felt the mixing of blood had led to the birth of the intellect, a
somehow necessary progression from the earlier era when humans (or
whatever we were - we weren't quite human as humans exist today,
apparently, in old Atlantis) had a "hazy clairvoyance."
I think the confusion actually points to the ambivalence in Steiner.
Bendz can be forgiven for thinking the whole piece was a diatribe
*against* racial mixing. This is in fact generally where someone is
going when they start talking about the good old days when everyone
stuck to his or her own tribe or race. Clearly this supposed age of
clairvoyance -- tied *explicitly* to blood, with your powers
surviving only as long as you kept to your own kind -- is
romanticized in anthroposophy, a Golden Age - both Steiner and his
followers today obviously yearn for such a time and wish they could
develop this supposed clairvoyant thing too. Hazy clairvoyance sounds
really cool (admit it, if it was true you'd love to go back and see
what it was like.) Yes, he said we can't go back, and he's got new
tricks to teach us so we can become clairvoyant in our own right (or,
actually, he usually admits that most of us won't actually achieve
this, but, conveniently, just believing what Steiner te!
lls us is the next best thing).
Steiner rails and rails against the intellect and all the evil it has
supposedly wrought, and knew very well that his stories of the
ancients and their mystical powers and visions and rites, communing
with spirits, perceiving of auras, "instinctive wisdom" - who
wouldn't want instinctive wisdom? (not to mention the neat chariots
the Atlanteans drove) would fascinate and intrigue and draw a huge
following. We are right to be suspicious, or to just kind of *miss*
this little piece of incoherence, when he says the "birth of the
intellect" was actually a good thing achieved by this mingling of
races, since this is actually contrary to the rest of anthroposophy
which is *overwhelmingly* anti-intellectual.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 11:36:01 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: the wedding of Elizabeth and Frederick
Ray: A sign of a good meal is silence. I'm enjoying the appetiser and
looking forward to the entre. Don't stop now!
Sharon: Yes, it gets even better...if you remember it was 1620 and we'd just
got to the part mentioning the Thirty Years War. We learned that Fred and
Liz were about to "get it" from the mean ol' Catholics (G). They were about
to have their nice talking sculptures and musical fountains "thwacked" and
their lovely garden and castle smashed. (Kinda like what Bin did to our nice
Twin Towers)....Any way, we now go back about a hundred years, we are in the
*1500s*, 1577 to be exact:
A chap called Philip Sidney was sent to tell the new emperor, Rudolph II,
that the old Elizabeth sent her condolences for the death of Rudolph's dad,
Maximilian II, who was the previous emperor. On his way over to Rudolph's
pad, Philip popped in to say hello to German Protestant princes,
particularly the Calvinist rulers of the Palatinate in order to explore the
possibility of a Protestant League in Europe. Phillip had already honed his
political and religious position based on his uncle's, the Earl of
Leicester. He wanted a policy of "activism" against Spain, a policy much
more daring than the old Queen Elizabeth was prepared to support. (Sort of
like Bush and the UN). Philip found a "kindred spirit" at Heidelburg -John
Caimir- who was the brother of the then Elector Palatinate, kinda like
George (Bush) and Tony (Blair) (G). He also found another friend Landgrave
William of Hesse, but unfortunately Philip Sydney died suddenly and became a
legend as the beau ideal of Protestant chivalry. The old Queen Elizabeth's
cult and the trappings of revived chivalry were associated with him in
people's minds. Because Casimer of the Palatinate had been a close friend,
there was a link between the court of Heidelberg and the Sidney tradition in
England, and this is what "facilitated the build up of the young Elector
Palatine as paladin of Anglo-German Protestant chivalry."
The Palatinate's "activist" tradition offered support to Henry IV of France
for an invasion of Germany, but Henry IV got assassinated before the deed
was accomplished. Christian of Anhalt was the brains behind Palatinate
policy, Anhalt was chief adviser to the Heidelberg court who had been eager
to aid Henry IV and couldn't wait to wipe out the Hapsburg power (Catholics)
in Europe. When Henry IV died, Anhalt did not give up on his idea, in fact
he had another idea... our little Frederick V (the one who married our young
princess Elizabeth) began to be groomed as leader of Protestant resistance
against the Hapsburg powers. You see, because Fred and Liz tied the knot,
supporters believed that ol' King James could be counted on to assist
Frederick because he was married to Jame's daughter. (But we know better).
Between the 16th century wars of religion and the Thirty Years War there was
a tense atmosphere in Europe, and when Rudolph II died in 1612 a moment of
crisis was marked. Funnily enough, Rudolph was a member of the House of
Hapsburg but he stayed aloof from his nephew Philip II of Spain because he
was enjoying studying something that people on the Waldorf critics list like
to study. Rudolph II had moved the imperial court from Vienna to Prague
which became a center for alchemy, astrology, and magico-scientific studies
of all kinds. Rudolph II just sunk himself in books and withdrew from the
problems raised by his fantatical and intolerant Catholic nephew, hiding
himself in his great palace in Prague which had libraries and "wonder rooms"
of magico-mechanical marvels such as talking sculptures. Prague was the
Mecca for esoterics and those interested in early science.
So guess who comes along to Prague? That's right...John Dee (a major figure
in Freemasonry who you will learn more about later) and his pal Edward
Kelley who was a trickster. Kelley ended up getting John Dee written out of
Freemasonry and in all sorts of trouble. We also get old Giordano Bruno
pitching up who some of us see as one of the first scientists, but in
reality he was an occultist.(G) (He could be considered a hero to WCs and
DOFs alike). Also, Johannes Kepler showed up and they had a grand old time.
At that time, Prague was a very tolerant city and Jews were running around
pursuing their cabalist studies. In fact, Rudolph's favorite religious
adviser was Pistorius, a Cabalist. The first reformed Church of Bohemia
founded by John Huss had Rudolph's sanction, as well as the Bohemian
Bretheran which was a mystical brotherhood attached to the church's
teachings. Prague was a Renaissance city, a melting pot of ideas.
But the forces of reaction were gathering...the most likely next candidate
for the imperal and Bohemian thrones was the fanatical Catholic-Hapsburg
Archduke Ferdinand of Styria, a pupil of the Jesuits who wanted nothing more
than to stamp out heresy.
(Now I'm just popping in for a sec to share a couple interesting
tidbits...as it happens, our Rudolf the Anthroposophist was born in Styria
some centuries later and his first mystical temple, the Goetheanum was burnt
down. We don't really know for sure who did it, but Anthroposophists say it
was the Jesuits!! Fancy that! Those damn Jesuits!)
OK, back to the story....In 1617 Ferdinand of Styria became King of Bohemia,
and true to his training he immediately put a stop to Rudolph's policy of
religious toleration. He started by suppressing the Bohemian church, and
some people say this is where the true beginning of the Thirty Years war and
intolerant policies in Bohemia lie. Liberal Catholics in Bohemia tried to
stop Ferdinand and his Jesuit advisers, but couldn't, and Ferdinand started
"thwacking" the Bohemian clergy. Two Catholics got chucked out of a window
at a meeting and violent opposition was aroused. This is known as the
Defenstration of Prague, another event leading to the Thirty Years War.
Bohemians were ticked off big time and refused to give the crown to
Ferdinand the Hapsberg sovereign. They said the crown of Bohemia was an
elective crown and not hereditary as Hapsburg powers claimed. So, in
rebellion, on 26 August 1619 they gave the crown to our young Frederick V,
the elector Palatine, (our Fred we are learning about (G). Just trying to
keep things straight here) which is how Fred and Liz became king and queen
of Bohemia in the first place. Well, as you can imagine, ol' Ferdinand and
the Catholics were really pissed now, but our friend Christian Anhalt was
delighted. Now... our little Frederick was terrified to accept the crown,
but he thought King James would help him out, and he had the German, French
and Dutch as alliances. But, he was after all a very religious man and felt
that it was his destiny, and not to accept the crown would be a slap in the
face of God. The Arch Bishop of Canterbury wrote the Shakespearean pair a
letter telling them to accept the crown. And so they did on 28 September
1619. (Fred's mom said "don't do it Freddy my son, those Catholics are mean
and powerful and they will beat you up royally".)
As we will see, it was a big mistake not to listen to mommy...
More soon...
(Retold from Francis Yates "The Rosicrucian Enlightenment", reprinted in
1998 by Routledge, c by F. Yates 1972. Beginning of chapter 2.)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 10:49:10 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Something we can all agree on
Walden asked:
)You missed one question - What was the size of your graduating class?
David answered: ) 22 -- With two new students in Grade 12.
Walden: Thanks, David. The article in the National Post stated that there
were 6 grads from your school in 1999. Your year (whenever that was) seems
to have had many more than that. Interesting food for thought.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 14:20:33 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C29232.5186BD00
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sharon wrote:
You asked if I had been categorized as "choleric" - a term from
Galen's "psychology" from 3 thousand BCE.
Nicole:
I was teasing you Sharon - I don't believe in the concept of
temperaments ? la Steiner (or Galen). My emoticon vocabulary is
rather limited and not always up to the task of substituting for tone
of voice. Does anyone know which emoticon would convey a tease?
----- Original Message -----
From: mysplum
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 8:39 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 20:29:17 +0000
From: (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: re: arts based? nah
Just thought I might add a wee anecdote of my own experience here.
During my time of "staff training" - what I used to protest was not
training at all, more Anthroposophical Indoctrination- we were tasked to
produce one of these wet on wet splodges, the subject being St. George
and the dragon.
I'm no artist, but I had a bash anyway. After about 15 mins, I was
content that what I had done was as much as I could get from it. The
tutor (or whatever she was) moaned like hell: I ought to have used this
colour here, such snd such a shape there, in short, i was supposed to
have produced an interpretation more in accord with the approved line.
My protestation that beind asked to present my interpretation was
different from being asked to present my interpretation of someone
else's view was met with the usual patronising/pitying responses.
The ensuing fairly heated exchange (for me at least) just summed up
Anthroposophy's approach to the world: keep the edges blurred, the image
unclear. That makes it so much easier to "move the goal posts"
and avoid clarity at all costs.
Davy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 22:38:14 +0000
From: Klaudia (klaudiaypma1960 hotmail.com)
Subject: Soccer (especially to Debra Snell)
Debra Snell wrote on 20th September, 2001:
)
) Did I mention that he has played soccer since he was 6 yrs. old? Heaven
) forbid. (I have a great explanation (quote) of why soccer is
) Anthroposophically incorrect if anyone is interested.)
Klaudia:
I'm very interested to read that great explanation. Maybe it's already
somewhere at the list, but I couldn't find it.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 18:21:04 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: reply to David
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C29253.EB699020
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Nicole:
I don't think you'd really want to be in my class David, not unless
you harbor a passion for handwork anyway :-). I used to teach at our
local Waldorf school, but they fired me for daring to try to hold
another teacher (a devout anthroposophist)accountable for his
inappropriate behaviour. He's still there. Some of them also
explained that they were working at the level of the archangels and
that my non-believing presence in faculty meetings was impeding the
necessary flow of energy. A visiting Waldorf guru gave us a talk
where he said that there were many important souls waiting to
reincarnate in this century, but they wouldn't be able to do it if
there weren't enough Waldorf schools. Staff meetings often felt like
visiting day at the asylum. Not all the teachers believe this sort of
thing, but many do. When you look for accountability, it isn't
there. Someone on this list recently said that trying to hold them
accountable is like trying to nail a bowl of jello to a tree, and!
that seems an apt comparison to me.
Having said all that, I have to tell you that my children still
attend the school, although I don't personally have anything to do
with it anymore. There are many things I like about the way they are
taught and their own teachers are perfectly sane individuals. One of
them in particular is the best teacher I've ever come across
anywhere. I assisted in his class for a year, and enjoyed the
experience a great deal. Who a child gets for a teacher is critically
important.
I like the emphasis on oral culture in the younger grades, and the
instruction in practical skills. Learning by direct experience from
first principles is very effective, much more effective than
following the standard-curriculum-from-Mars at our local public
school. I also like the main lesson artwork, the drama programme, the
lack of commercialism and the availability of a peer group whose
lives do not revolve around TV and Nintendo. There have been many
positives for my children, but I'm looking for alternatives (so far
in vane, but I am looking) because the negative aspects are also very
important.
I'd love to hear about your Waldorf experience. Waldorf high school
isn't an option for us, but I'd be really interested to find out
about what you learned and how you learned it in the higher grades.
I'm sure I would understand what you enjoyed so much about it, but
I'd also like to know how well you feel it prepared you for whatever
you're doing now. I'm currently tutoring Waldorf grade 8 graduates
and I find there are some very marked gaps in their education (math
and science), although they are also very significantly ahead in
other areas (English and drama). Is that your experience?
----- Original Message -----
From: David
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 11:46 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 18:24:56 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Soccer (especially to Debra Snell)
------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C29254.7588C140
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Debra wrote:
I have a great explanation (quote) of why soccer is
Anthroposophically incorrect if anyone is interested.
Nicole:
Apparently, according to a visiting spatial dynamics teacher, hockey
is also anthroposophically incorrect. I'd love to hear the soccer
quote - does it cover hockey too?
From: Klaudia
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 5:36 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Soccer (especially to Debra Snell)
Debra Snell wrote on 20th September, 2001:
)
) Did I mention that he has played soccer since he was 6 yrs. old? Heaven
) forbid. (
Klaudia:
I'm very interested to read that great explanation. Maybe it's already
somewhere at the list, but I couldn't find it.
FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 15:38:11 -0800
From: "J. Marshall Knight" (j-marshall earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
) 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_3120824291_462880_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
on 11/13/02 6:28 PM, Nicole Foss at nmfoss hotmail.com wrote:
Nicole wrote:
I am also a freethinker. Waldorf should be honest about their religion and
they are not. They should be respectful of parents and other outsiders and
they are not. You make a very good point about propping up an abhorrent
ideology merely through passive participation, while leaving others to
suffer the ill-effects. I do not wish to support their ideology, but nor do
I wish to support the mainstream value system based on an endless quest for
more material wealth and instant personal gratification, a value system that
also discards the disadvantaged. If I thought I was allowing my children to
be trained as racists, I would remove them immediately, but I honestly don't
find that to be the case. If, however, I sent them to public school, I am
quite sure that I would be allowing them to be trained as the next
generation of consumers - part of the me-first generation - not just through
the education itself (although I do find very superficial), but through
peer-group association with the mainstream values I object to.
JMK:
The racist topic comes up quite often on this list. There is a lack of
communication about how racism is transmitted in Waldorf schools. Moreover,
there is apparent confusion about racism vs. bigotry. One can be a racist
without being a bigot.
When I review my son's stay at a Waldorf school, I begin anew beating myself
up. It was not until I read Cosmic Memory, (He was in the eighth grade
then.) that I comprehended the racism inherent in Waldorf stemming from
Anthroposophy. In CM Steiner lays out the folk soul stuff that many Waldorf
teachers apparently believe and practice. I know this because I attempted to
talk to "lead' teachers who were steeped in Anthroposophy about what I had
read. Their responses were something like: "Steiner could see into the
akashic records and that is what he saw."
The folk soul stuff and the manner in which "ancient history" is taught are
key to Waldorf's racism. There is no getting around it. Their continued
teaching of the Nordic myths, filled with Nordic heroes and avoiding as much
as they can teaching about heroes and heroines in other cultures should
tell you something. When Ancient India, Ancient Persia, Ancient Egypt, etc.
are taught the slant is on the thread of the Aryans that brought forward the
"spiritual truths" from Atlantis. One of the books that is used as
background thinking for this "history" is Edouard Shure's book "THE GREAT
INITIATES." (If you have not already done so I suggest strongly that you do
so.) Racism is taught in this history by idolizing one race and
depreciating--giving less time to-- others. Here is America often Native
American history is taught with a bias toward the White man's plight. Just
as you learned about racism through osmosis without anyone actually telling
you. This is how children who attend Waldorf are learning it. They are not
necessarily learning how to hate, they are learning superiority of one race
over another just as the Anthroposophers see it and Steiner wrote about it.
This superiority mindset could be negated easily if only they would teach
children how to observe and think for themselves and not through the
Steiner/Waldorf lens.
If you look closely at the Waldorf class room, especially in the fourth and
fifth grades, and ask questions about the roots of the history and why it is
taught as it is you may come away with a totally different attitude about
racism in Waldorf. Racism IMHO is perpetuated through so called "holy"
books and here I include all of Steiner's books. (His followers treat them
as such.) People who are steeped in the religion of a holy book usually
will not question what the book says about anything let alone the
superiority of their race over others. It is sad but I think
Waldorf students learn in effect how to observe and relate to the races
according to the way Steiner has laid out his race theory.
I think many Anthroposophists on this list get their ire up because they
associate racism with bigotry. This is not to be overlooked. There are
many racial bigots and I think Steiner's race theory bodes well with these
people. There are people who, I believe, have their children in Waldorf
just because they perceive the racism in it. I personal do not care what
another person's racial attitudes are. I do care if those attitudes
interfere with others, especially my children. However, as I intimated
above, if you want to really examine racism in the Waldorf movement, you
will have also to examine the mindsets of the teachers. Many of them carry
Steiner's madness with them. Those of you who have been around Waldorf
teachers, especially kindergarten teachers, that have had multicultural
classrooms, you perhaps have observed the different treatments of kids from
different races. You perhaps have observed that when an African American
child is being "admired" the teacher will pat the child on the head, when an
Asian or Hispanic child is likewise being admired the teacher will
invariably pinch the child's cheeks, and when a Caucasian child is being
admired the teacher will gently stroke the child under the chin or caress
the child's face. They do this to the Caucasian child without adding the
words "she's so cute" as they add with other races. (For those of you who
are in other countries, please forgive this American slant here.)
I agree that there are teachers and families involved in Waldorf who despise
racism in any form. However, I do not believe they will take a stance
against Waldorf teaching practices. They want to believe in the New Age
tenets of Waldorf where people are evolving and getting beyond pettiness.
From what we are discovering genetically about us humans, it is extremely
petty to continue to advocate for and teach the superiority of one race over
another. Ford Motor Company had a TV advertisement that said: "The closer
you look the better we look." The opposite is true for Waldorf. Please
look closer.
J. Marshall
--
"Mistakes live in the neighborhood of truth and therefore delude
us."---Tagore.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 23:42:52 +0000
From: Klaudia (klaudiaypma1960 hotmail.com)
Subject: Spatial Dynamics
Nicole Foss wrote:
) Apparently, according to a visiting spatial dynamics teacher, hockey is
) also anthroposophically incorrect.
Klaudia:
I want to know more about spatial dynamics. I have understood that it is
US-based version of Eurythmy & Bothmer. Is it so or something totally
different? Is spatial dynamics used at Waldorf Schools?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 15:59:28 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_7b+Bbby6F0GqZ1d2/2CXcw)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Re: Stunted imaginationJMK:
The racist topic comes up quite often on this list. There is a lack
of communication about how racism is transmitted in Waldorf schools.
Moreover, there is apparent confusion about racism vs. bigotry. One
can be a racist without being a bigot. (snip)
Walden: This is an excellent point - I enjoyed the rest of your
post, as well. This point is very important, IMO. Thanks for
raising it here.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:25:41 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Spatial Dynamics
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C2925C.F2011940
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Klaudia wrote:
I want to know more about spatial dynamics. I have understood that it is
US-based version of Eurythmy & Bothmer. Is it so or something totally
different? Is spatial dynamics used at Waldorf Schools?
Nicole:
They tell me that spatial dynamics and eurythmy are completely
different - that spatial dynamics is related to gym (something to do
with being aware of and using the space around you) and eurythmy is a
form of curative dance (their words, not mine). Eurythmy always
seemed particularly pointless to me. Does anyone else have anything
to add? I'd like to know more.
----- Original Message -----
From: Klaudia
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 6:47 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Spatial Dynamics
Nicole Foss wrote:
) Apparently, according to a visiting spatial dynamics teacher, hockey is
) also anthroposophically incorrect.
FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:43:10 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C2925F.631BA620
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Nicole:
Very interesting perspective - food for thought. My reading list is
getting longer!
----- Original Message -----
From: J. Marshall Knight
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 6:32 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: Stunted imagination
==^==^=============================================================Get
more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 19:20:03 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Occult Significance of Blood, reprise
Thanks to David, Sharon, Diana and others for a very interesting discussion
of my favorite topic, Steiner's racial doctrines. Is David still on the
list? It was refreshing to have a pro-anthroposophy voice join the
conversation who didn't flatly deny the racist elements in Steiner's work
once confronted with textual evidence. I have a couple of comments about the
Steiner article that started this all off, "The Occult Significance of
Blood" aka "Blood is a Very Special Fluid". I agree with Dan and Diana that
Steiner's argument about "blood mixing" is far from clear in this text, and
I have to take issue with David's suggestion that only ignorance or an
anti-Steiner bias could lead readers to conclude that the article warns
against "blood mixing". One of the chief problems here is one that David
raised himself:
)Of course, Steiner's work is taken out of context and mangled by
)translation all of the time;
I agree that this is a serious (if somewhat exaggerated) concern, but the
trouble is that it is typically anthroposophists themselves who are guilty
of such mangled translations and neglect of context. The "Blood" text offers
a fine example of both errors, in one single sentence: in the current
English translation (to be found at the elib on-line Rudolf Steiner Archive,
for example), one of the sentences reads as follows: "How can an utterly
barbaric savage become civilized?" (p. 5) To some readers, myself included,
this passage alone sounds patently racist, especially in its context. For
the textual context (Steiner's discussion of colonialism), I recommend
reading the full paragraph. Just as important is the historical context,
which no English translation of this text seems to mention: in 1906, when
most Germans thought of "utterly barbaric savages", they thought of the Nama
and Herero peoples of German South-West Africa, who were at that very time
being massacred by German troops in the first genocidal campaign of the
twentieth century. Steiner's occasional references to "Hottentots" draw on
the same shared cultural background, which is by no means obvious to English
speaking readers. For anyone who would like to learn more about this
attempted annihilation of the indigenous inhabitants of Germany's colony, I
recommend the recent book by Mark Cocker, Rivers of Blood, Rivers of Gold:
Europe's Conquest of Indigenous Peoples, part 4 of which is all about the
genocide in German South-West Africa.
But in fact the original sentence from Steiner is considerably worse than
the above translation reveals. I was recently alerted to an earlier English
translation, which gives an accurate rendering of the full sentence; it was
published by the Anthroposophical Publishing Company in London (no date, my
guess would be the 1930's or 1940's). Here the sentence reads: "How can a
negro or an utterly barbaric savage become civilised?" (p. 13) That is
indeed exactly what Steiner said; the modified current translation simply
omits the "negro" part, although the rest of the translation is essentially
identical to the earlier version. An interesting omission: what Steiner
implies here is that "negroes" in general are the same thing as "utterly
barbaric savages", and that "negroes" in general need to be civilized by
Europeans. In fact, at the very time that Steiner came up with this
formulation, it was Europeans who were acting as utterly barbaric savages in
Africa, and "negroes" who were trying to defend their civilizations against
this murderous onslaught. None of this mattered to Steiner, for the simple
reason that it didn't fit into his cosmic scheme of racial-spiritual
hierarchies.
Thus in light of the anthroposophical predilection for doctoring their
translations of Steiner's texts and ignoring or denying their contexts, it's
perhaps understandable that an unsuspecting reader would see this text as a
critique of racism and a call for racial mixing. But when we reconstruct the
original text and restore it to its context, its racist thrust becomes
unavoidably obvious.
I think that this one small example, from a text chosen by David himself,
sheds new light on David's larger question: "Who cares if he was racist?"
Lots of anthroposophists evidently care very passionately about this
question, and are willing to do what they deem necessary -- including
fiddling with the otherwise holy writ of their founder -- in order to avoid
an honest answer to it. I'm encouraged to see that David has resisted this
response, and I hope that others who admire Steiner will follow suit.
Peter Staudenmaier
)The argument that brought David here was about the Bendz article, which
)David wanted to show us contains an error. Bendz said that Steiner thought
)racial mixing was bad. David quoted further from the Occult Significance of
)Blood article to show that Steiner in fact felt the mixing of blood had led
)to the birth of the intellect, a somehow necessary progression from the
)earlier era when humans (or whatever we were - we weren't quite human as
)humans exist today, apparently, in old Atlantis) had a "hazy clairvoyance."
)
)I think the confusion actually points to the ambivalence in Steiner. Bendz
)can be forgiven for thinking the whole piece was a diatribe *against*
)racial mixing. This is in fact generally where someone is going when they
)start talking about the good old days when everyone stuck to his or her own
)tribe or race. Clearly this supposed age of clairvoyance -- tied
)*explicitly* to blood, with your powers surviving only as long as you kept
)to your own kind -- is romanticized in anthroposophy, a Golden Age - both
)Steiner and his followers today obviously yearn for such a time and wish
)they could develop this supposed clairvoyant thing too. Hazy clairvoyance
)sounds really cool (admit it, if it was true you'd love to go back and see
)what it was like.) Yes, he said we can't go back, and he's got new tricks
)to teach us so we can become clairvoyant in our own right (or, actually, he
)usually admits that most of us won't actually achieve this, but,
)conveniently, just believing what Steiner tells us is the next best thing).
)
)Steiner rails and rails against the intellect and all the evil it has
)supposedly wrought, and knew very well that his stories of the ancients and
)their mystical powers and visions and rites, communing with spirits,
)perceiving of auras, "instinctive wisdom" - who wouldn't want instinctive
)wisdom? (not to mention the neat chariots the Atlanteans drove) would
)fascinate and intrigue and draw a huge following. We are right to be
)suspicious, or to just kind of *miss* this little piece of incoherence,
)when he says the "birth of the intellect" was actually a good thing
)achieved by this mingling of races, since this is actually contrary to the
)rest of anthroposophy which is *overwhelmingly* anti-intellectual.
)Diana
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:35:28 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Philosophy (was: RE: no DOFs)
SHARON
)Religion requires "faith". (Simple examples: belief that gnomes
)actually exist is "faith" or that you will reincarnate).
DAVID
)Philosophy requires faith as well (see Kirkegard).
Not if it's based on reason (see Popper).
)And see Star Wars for
)how things exist from a certain point of view.
Sure, from the viewpoint of New Age religion.
)I don't think that Gnomes
)physically exist. Most Anthropops don't. It's the *idea* of Gnomes that
)is important.
I disagree. Steiner taught that Elemental Spirits were quite real,
and Waldorf teachers are instructed to believe in them, also. In any
case, why is the idea of Gnomes important?
)However, discussing Waldorf education does not involve defending faith
)of any kind. You're saying that because the CHronicles of Narnia are
)heavily based on Christianity, that they were written to subversively
)convert children. I say: nonsense.
I think they -were- written to subversively convert children; I don't
think that damages their value as literature, but it's something
parents should be aware of. Similarly, Steiner designed Waldorf to
subversively convert children to the Anthroposophic world-view,
something parents should be aware of, also. Neither is evil, as long
as everybody knows what's going on.
SHARON
) ) PS: Occultism is a religion.
)
)Main Entry: oc?cult?ism
)Pronunciation: &-'k&l-"ti-z&m, ?-; '?-"k&l-
)Function: noun
)Date: 1881
): occult theory or practice : belief in or study of the action or
)influence of supernatural or supernormal powers
DAVID
)Nope, not a religion. No specific dogma or belief system.
Something Anthroposophists argue endlessly with us about.
Anthroposophy has a large body of specific dogma, a sectarian
world-view, in the writings and lectures of Rudolf Steiner.
)By your
)definition, astrology is a religion. It is not. It is superstition, and
)it is myth that enriches our imaginations.
If you make the useful division of thought between rational and
belief-based, superstitions like Astrology fall on the religious
side. U.S. courts consider anything spiritual/supernatural to be
covered by the Establishment Clause. For example, a public school
claimed teaching Transcendental Meditation was science. A court ruled
it was religion. It will be the same with Spiritual Science.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 13:24:24 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Walden, Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
David, you wrote,
)I agree that shedding light on and giving opinions of *any* of Steiner's
)work is a good thing.
)
)Of course, Steiner's work is taken out of context and mangled by
)translation all of the time;
Of course, Anthroposophists quote Steiner all of the time; do you
consider that out of context also?
Regarding mangled translations, critics use texts from official
Anthroposophic translations. Are you saying these are mangled? Please
give an example of a German original and a mangled translation.
We do know that some of the official translations are bowdlerized.
Some of the most egregious racial stuff is glossed over or omitted in
the English editions.
)his racial beliefs were basically that each
)race had a spiritual task in the ancient world, and that in the modern
)world, the mixing and mingling of races was a part of the path to
)individuality, freedom and spiritual growth.
That's part of it. Another part is that according to the plans of the
gods the non-Aryan races were supposed to have died out when their
tasks were done, but due to Lucifer and Ahriman mucking with the
world, they're still hanging around.
) His ideas (which can be taken literaly or seen as complex metaphor)
The metaphor argument is a weak defense. Steiner himself said that he
made exact scientific observations in the spiritual world.
) [His ideas] on folk souls are expressions of distinct cultural myths,legends
)languages and religion and how they define the psyche of a culture.
A more succinct description, IMHO, is that he teaches racial stereotypes.
) Sadly, although valuable, these discussions are in the end
)irrelevant to a certain degree. We don't stop performing Shakespeare
)simply because he was racist, nor take our children out of boy scouts
)because its founder enjoyed young boys. Steiner may have had conscious
)or unconscious racist beliefs, perhaps even arising from the German
)"folk soul" (a little facetiousness there).
) Even if that were true, every Waldorf teacher, Anthroposophist or
)otherwise, must examine Steiner's philosophies himself, and decide what
)the truth of them is for him or her.
But every Waldorf teacher must study Steiner, and there is no
critical discussion of Steiner's racism within the
movement--officially they just deny it. The party line is that these
truths about race are "difficult," i.e. not politically correct but
nonetheless true.
) During my Waldorf education -- which lasted from Grade 5 to Grade
)12 -- I never encountered the slightest hint of racism; in fact, quite
)the opposite was true. Just as one example, in Ancient History in Grade
)10 we learned the religious and cultural histories of India, Persia,
)Mesopotamia, the Hebrews, Romans, Greeks and Celts.
Your example refutes, rather than supports, your point! The sequence
of ancient history that you list, taught first in grades 5 and 6 and
revisited in grade 10, is Steiner's "evolution of consciousness"
through the developmental stages of the Aryan Root Race, taken
originally from Blavatsky.
"We are within the great Root Race of humanity, which has peopled the
earth, since the land on which we now live rose up out of the
inundations of the ocean. Ever since the Atlantean Race began slowly
to disappear, the great Aryan Race has been the dominant one on
earth. If we contemplate ourselves, we here in Europe are thus the
fifth Sub-Race of the great Aryan Root Race. The first Sub-Race lived
in the distant past in Ancient India. And the present-day Indians are
descendants of that first Sub-Race, whose spiritual life is still
extant in the ancient Indian Vedas. The Vedas are indeed only echoes
of the ancient culture of the Rishis. At that time there was of
course no writing yet - there was only tradition. Then came the
second, third and fourth Sub-Races. The fourth Sub-Race adopted
Christianity. Then, halfway through the Middle Ages, we see that the
fifth Sub-Race formed itself, to which we and the neighboring nations
belong." [Steiner, 1905, TL p. 220]
)The only cultures
)missing were those of the far East and Africa. Notable exceptions, to be
)sure, and certainly the curriculum should be constantly improved,
Yes, just missing four whole continents and Oceania! There's a reason
for the exceptions, as explained above.
)but it
)is markedly wider than any a morally staggering public school could
)provide.
This is a double put-down of public schools, first for being narrow
in ancient history (please substantiate with quotations from a state
framework), and second calling them "morally staggering." What makes
you think Waldorf is so "moral"?
) A letter to the editor responding to the National Post's article on
)Waldorf as a racist gnome cult pointed out:
) "An evaluation of public schools in Sweeden in the early 1990s
)showed that 52% of pupils felt that the country let in too many
)immigrants. The corresponding figure at Sweedish Waldorf schools was
)12%.
How about the corresponding figure at Swedish Catholic schools? That
would be a better comparison.
) "When discussing South Africa, the article neglects to mention that
)Waldorf schools were the only ones where black and white students
)attended the same classes.
Simply not true, as a person who was there at the time has pointed out.
)Plus, the school for Waldorf teacher training
)in Cape Town was praised by the United Nations as an organization of
)tremendous consequence in the conquest of apartheid.
Thanks only to good publicity. The South African Anthroposophists
have their own press, Novalis, and before Apartheid fell they
published the opinion that Apartheid was a "law of nature" (Picard,
1987), and, following Steiner's teaching, that black people have
"childhood characteristics." And these essays were sold in the U.S.
for the benefit of teachers wanting to study about Africa. Is that
moral, do you think?
) One of the basises of Anthroposophy is that morality imposed from
)without is sure to fail. Only by stimulating a human being's own moral
)impulse can one be sure that he or she will make conscious decisions
)when the situation demands it. Steiner's metaphor for this impulse was
)the "higher self" or even the "Christ impulse", although this
)philisophical Christ is far different from any religious one you may be
)familiar with.
) Thus, Waldorf education seeks to create individuals capable of
)thinking for themselves, of looking at the racist beliefs of *anyone*
)and saying, "I know too much of the diversity of humanity to believe
)that there is one true way, or one set of genes that is superior to any
)other".
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your argument. Just how does
Waldorf education "seek" to create individuals capable of thinking
for themselves? One argument that I've heard is that devotion to the
authority of the teacher from age 7 to 14 somehow teaches independent
thinking. Do you believe that?
) In conclusion: all people involved in the Waldorf movement are free
)to take what they want from Steiner. In fact, he discourages them taking
)his word as dogma, and advocates individuals coming to their own
)conclusions about what he says or anything else they encounter in life.
This is a guru trick. Steiner says to his devotees, don't believe me,
try these methods of self-development and see for yourself. But the
methods of self-development require the suppression of critical
thinking!
)I hope this clarifies the issue, and I thank you for asking hard
)questions that demand answers.
)
)David Gill
)Alumnus, Vancouver Waldorf School.
You're welcome, and I look forward to your answers.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 18:03:27 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Waldorf science teaching (was:RE: no DOFs)
At 8:55 PM +0000 11/21/02, David wrote:
)I learned about the twelve senses in high school, (which are
)just as arbitrary as the five senses, and can actually co-exist with
)them)
There's your relativist stance again. All ideas aren't of equal
value. Steiner's twelve senses (it's telling that you say "the"
twelve senses) aren't science.
)but I learned that the heart pumps blood through the circulatory
)system.
That's good, you had a reasonable teacher. I think very few teachers
teach "the heart is not a pump," because it would start parents
questioning, but they usually teach around it so the children "can
make up their own minds." What grade was this, and do you have your
lesson book?
)Steiner's 'odd science' should be kept out of schools, but I
)agree with the way I was taught : thowing each successive physical
)atomic model, for example, passing through the Newtonian orbital model
)before arriving at the present quantum one.
)
)Teachers should feel free to bring up any odious Steiner material they
)find, and if they feel uncomfortable with it, then they should feel free
)not to use it.
I think if teachers are going to teach Anthroposophy rather than
science, they'll have to confine themselves to teaching the children
of Anthroposophists.
)Just don't condemn it all without considering it, and read it on the
)slant; that is, not literally, as some do.
Oh, you mean "the heart is not a pump" is a metaphor? Not to Steiner,
and not to the teacher at my son's school who specialized in science,
and not to the teachers I heard tell it to the Twin Ridges school
board. Anyway, what good is it as a metaphor?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:53:53 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Waldorf science teaching (was: RE: no DOFs)
David, you wrote,
)One of my points in mentioning the scientific paths of Waldorf graduates
)is that though Waldorf teaches science through a progression of refuted
)theories,
My son was taught that Goethe was right, and Newton was wrong about color.
) arriving at the latest theory, graduates do not become
)confused upon entering university. They do not laugh at their science
)professor. THey understand proven scientific theory for what it is; they
)know of the theories that preceded it, and which contradicted it (i.e.
)Goethe v.s. Newton). THey are left to decide how much value each one
)has, and high school kids are sceptics by nature.
It isn't the job of a school to teach both sense and nonsense as
having equal value, and let the children decide. There's far too much
nonsense! The moral position for a teacher is to teach what is known
to be true, and to point out common errors.
)They do not adhere to
)wierd science.
How do you know that?
)THis is all in my experience of course, but it seems to be true in
)Canada, in any case.
I really don't think you've done a study.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 17:42:29 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Something we can all agree on
David, you wrote,
)1 Waldorf Schools should not be publicly funded
We agree.
)2 Anthroposophy should be clearly stated as the underlying philosophy of
)a Waldorf school, and details of where it is in the curriculum should be
)available on request
Rather I think details of where it is in the curriculum should be
clearly stated in descriptions of the curriculum. For example, 4th
grade zoology should be described as based on Spiritual Science, not
on biological science.
)3 Anthroposophists should take a clear stand on what of Steiner they
)accept and what of Steiner the reject.
An excellent suggestion.
)If these things are done, then you should have nothing to complain
)about.
Except for the racism and the quack medicine...
)I am clear in my conviction that Waldorf education (whatever its
)failings) produces free thinking human beings.
This assertion lacks evidence.
)One of my Waldorf friends
)is a Catholic priest. Another is an atheist studying to be a Doctor or
)biologist. Another is an agnostic studying Cognitive science at Simon
)Fraser University (with an average of 98%). The results speak for
)themselves -- and I am the only one in my former class to take the
)slightest intrest in Anthroposophy.
It would take a real survey of graduates of many schools, compared to
graduates of private schools with similar tuition, to convince me of
that.
)If schools were clearer, then those
)of you who want to find alternatives could do so and leave the bounty of
)Waldorf education (and the decisions about what the hell Steiner was
)talking about) to theose of us who want it.
Agreed.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 14:47:03 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Re: PRIVATE OFF LIST RE: no DOFs
At 21-11-02 11:25 AM Thursday, David wrote:
) ) Waldorf "education" is not "based on" Anthroposophy; it IS living
) ) Anthroposophy, occult magical ritual practiced by you every
) ) moment of every day you were in a Waldorf school.
)
)However, the fact remains that children are not taught the tenets of
)Anthroposophy as Dogma -- those tenets guide the curriculum.
This is the point that I keep coming back to, in this discussion. In the
end, if the tenets of Anthroposophy do not influence the education that the
children receive, why can they not be removed from the educational system
entirely? If they DO influence that education, does it truly matter
whether they are taught in an explicit and cogent fashion, given that they
are the one truly inextricable defining aspect of Waldorf?
Most of those taught Christianity as their religious belief system (as
opposed to those who come to it as adults by their own free choice) are not
taught it in the kind of step-by-step chronological and objective sort of
approach found in, for instance, a Seminary or theological school, yet they
are still believers and practicioners, on the basis of the more indirect
method of education by example that characterizes the social
Christianization of those nations strongly influenced by some form of
Christianity as a state religion.
It is the assumed references to Noah, Eden, the crucifixion and
resurrection, which demonstrate clearly that many Western nations still
operate in an atmosphere of assumed Christianity. You don't have to study
the Albigensian heresy in order to be affected by constant exposure to
messages such as "In God We Trust" on your money, or the requirement to
take oaths on the Bible in order to give one's sworn account in a legal
court. These things, on the other hand, tend to be much more noticeable to
those individuals who have not accepted some tacit degree of accommodation
with the elements of Christianity which still pervade Western society.
May I ask if you've considered the possibility that you, like a Christian
in a Western nation, may not have noticed the permeating elements of
Anthroposophy throughout your worldview, simply because it informed and
guided each step and element of the learning process as well as the
material taught within the school where you learned about all of life and
the world, including your critical faculties and capacity to assess and
evaluate that environment and teaching process?
It might help to remember that in many places throughout the world,
education is used as a lure to get poor people to send their children into
religious schools, where they are taught religious ideas. This has a very
long history.
On another note, I think that teaching the children that fairies an gnomes
are real goes a bit beyond "guiding the curriculum". As soon as any school
embraces the idea of teaching "as real beings" anything that isn't based in
science, they have departed into the land of religious education. Teaching
the kids that these creatures are real *is* teaching them Anthroposophy.
Further, does it matter whether Anthroposophy is directly taught to the
children within the school, if their education is geared in such a way as
to attract them a significant percentage of Waldorf Graduates to
Anthroposophy, often to the point of becoming Waldorf Teachers or taking on
one of the other "priest-like" (Steiner's description of the role of
Waldorf teachers, not original to me) roles within the Anthroposophical
movement?
Because I can't really see that point as relevant, if both the goal and the
result are that children who would not otherwise have become
Anthroposophists become students of Anthroposophy - supposedly on their
own, but in classes taught by school teachers, often on the school campus,
in which they became interested as a result of the nature and content of
their education within the school's hours of formal operation.
Personally, I see this method as "slicker" - it creates the desired result
while providing the institution with a greater degree of plausible
deniability, as it continues to gain the recruits to the belief system,
which are one of its stated goals (again in the inceptive materials, namely
the writings of the founder, as taught in the extremely focused and limited
range of material taught in the teacher's colleges which train the modern
practicioners of the system in its methods).
As for the writings of Steiner himself, again - if these are outdated, or
otherwise irrelevant to the instruction offered, why are notes to this
effect not made? Why are these materials taught in the teacher's college
at all, if they are being disclaimed, much less constituting the entirety
of the subject matter covered in the curriculum of the ONLY training method
which can produce a *fully* trained and certified Waldorf Teacher?
One cannot simultaneously prioritize and disclaim the same material. If
you disclaim what they prioritize, I would have to respectfully state that
it appears clear to me that you are at odds with the leadership within the
educational system itself. This does not prove your claim that they have
not influenced your thinking, it only proves that they are the rule from
which your noteworthy departures remain the exception, until such time as
the powers-that-be within Waldorf Education themselves make the same
disclaimers AND REMOVE THE MATERIAL FROM THEIR TRAINING COURSES. To
disclaim it while continuing to use it as part of the training is
hypocritical at best, and leads me to strongly suspect deception.
)I do question Waldorf education constantly -- the lack of a good Music
)history program at my school, for example, teachers that are out of
)touch with reality, or Anthroposophists who treat bad translations of
)Steiner as holy scripture. I was simply making a request for you to
)avoid using an offensive term that I thought didn't apply to me or many
)others who might seek to defend *their* experience of Waldorf education.
What are you defending, then, if NOT your faith in the Waldorf Experience
as it manifested within your life? I'm not trying to justify this term
here, but I must admit that it appears to me to fit. I am perfectly
willing, in turn, to accept the term "Defender of Faith" on those points
where my own faith in my beliefs is the point under discussion, but that's
not particularly relevant here, as the beliefs and faith in question in my
case are not the topics of discussion here - at least, not for the most
part. Instead, in this context, my own beliefs simply manifest as more of
the quirks which demonstrate just how broad the range of beliefs NOT in
accordance with Anthroposophy and its manifestation within Waldorf
Education truly is, as embodied by the critics present here.
So, I repeat - what are you defending here, if not your belief that Waldorf
has kept faith with you, if not your faith in Waldorf - if not, in other
words, a matter of faith?
) ) My children were seriously damaged by your "philosophy of Waldorf
) ) education".
)I'm sorry to hear that. Perhaps you could elaborate on this damage? I
)cannot judge your experience, perhaps you have a valid claim.
I'm not the person who made this statement, but I would definitely consider
myself to have a valid claim, as my daughter was daily physically injured
by the bullying and physical abuse she suffered at the hands of other
children at the Waldorf school, in which the teachers would not intervene,
and we were told that we would have to "pray to the children's angels" to
ensure their well-being. That is a VERY clear case in which it is the
philosophy and belief system underlying Waldorf which directly caused the
suffering experienced by, in this case, a 5 year old girl. It is her right
to expect the adults entrusted with the job of ensuring her safety to
actually take action on her behalf, rather than abdicating that job to
invisible beings whose very existence is a matter of faith, belief, and not
accepted by the adults holding primary responsibility for her safety,
including in the eyes of the law. We only reluctantly transferred our
responsibility for her safety to the school's teachers and staff members -
they had no right to abdicate that responsibility in favour of mythological
beings.
At the same time, my daughter was suffering nightmares, bedwetting, and
other stressors - because they were attempting to undermine the
parent-child bond which had been the one point of stability in a life
marked by events such as an international move at the age of 2, while
simultaneously discouraging her from exercising her capacity to think and
talk about her feelings and experiences. This, as any reputable child
specialist will attest, is essentially a guaranteed way to cause exactly
the type of psychological damage done to my daughter in her brief time at
that school, before we removed her for her own safety. She was regressing,
in other words, because they were making a deliberate attempt to regress
her to a less intellectual and verbal state. Their reasons for this were
rooted, once again, in the tenets of Anthroposophy, the writings of
Steiner, and the claims of his so-called "Spiritual Science". Once again,
it was the philosophy of the school directly affecting the student, in what
was clearly a damaging and detrimental fashion.
) )You have been too, from the look of your actions as a perfect example of
) ) what you claim to be an untrue picture of Waldorf acolytes: Defenders of
) ) the Faith (DoFs -- Trademark).
)
)I'm not sure what to make of the above sentence, especially the
)"Trademark"?
A trademark is a claim made upon a logo, word, or phrase, allowing a
business entity to use that trademarked item for the purpose of marketing
their product without allowing it to be confused with that of any other
entity. Since your actions were in keeping with those described by the
critics, as being characteristic of children indoctrinated in the tenets of
Anthroposophy through the indirect methods espoused by Waldorf as being
highly effective, you were acting as a perfect example of the end product
of the Waldorf method of manufacturing a life-long student of Anthroposophy.
You thereby embodied a classical marketing representation of their methods,
suitable for trademarking, thanks to its clear and definitive nature as
exemplifying only itself and other members of its subgroup, and being
impossible to confuse with a representation of any other group. No other
group so far has put forth the arguments you have made here, so they might
as well be "trademarked" officially by the "Defenders of the(ir) Faith (in
Waldorf)", given that they are so inextricably linked.
I believe it was these traits to which Michael was referring in this
portion of his letter.
On this point, I agree with him - you are a very articulate and interesting
individual, but based on what I've read of your writing here so far, I
would have to say that you appear to also be a very classic and
recognizable member of a clearly defined subsection of society, namely
Waldorf alumni on the path to further Anthroposophical studies, and a
career most likely oriented around Waldorf and/or Anthroposophy. I would
find more credible the argument that the near cookie-cutter similarity
between the members of this group was NOT intentional, were it not so
consistent and ubiquitous.
) ) That term has served a long and honorable life of critical and
) ) accurate definition of folks like yourself on the Waldorf Critics
) ) list since I coined it and first used it there, several years ago.
) ) I can't claim to have invented it: it's an age-old and accepted
) ) scholastic, religious -- and yes, even philosophical -- term of
) ) long-standing.
)
)I'm sorry its life has been so long, but surely it was not honourable
)(though there are those Anthroposophists fit your description).
What I am finding confusing is why you find so much dishonour in being
described as both firm in your convictions, and willing to stand up for
what you believe? Isn't that what a Defender of Faith does? I seem to
recall that even the act of dragon-slaying (as so universally portrayed by
Waldorf schools in their Michaelmas traditions) was held to be a
representation of this kind of faith-inspired defense of what was important
to one.
)Please stop using it. It is inaccurate, as I do not have faith
)in Steiner or Anthroposophy; I simply think that they provide
)useful metaphors for existence, and that the results of
)Waldorf education speak for themselves.
So, in other words, you have faith in your Waldorf Education, based on your
experience with it and the results that you have perceived in its
alumni. Would that be a correct understanding of your perspective?
) ) On the other hand, you may remain blinded by faith and your
) ) brainwashing all your life.
This isn't a monopoly of Waldorf, but unfortunately is true of a surprising
number of belief systems, in my experience. I'm currently in the process
of recovering from a long-term chronic health problem (related to
Environmental Illness) which serves as an effective "litmus test" for
certain manifestations of this. It is truly amazing to me how many people
can be walked through the logic of discussing how poisonous many of the
products in use in the standard home and office environment have been
tested and demonstrated to be, can acknowledge the health problems that
have resulted in others from exposure to those poisons, and yet can arrive
at the conclusion that there is no need for them to stop using those
products in their own homes, often on the basis that "they wouldn't sell
them if they weren't safe", or justified by some other statement completely
at odds with the logic chain of simple syllogisms with which they have
completely agreed moments previously.
It's rather like the ex-Christians who become atheists, because they know
quite clearly just what God they don't believe in, but it would be heresy
to them to consider any other possible belief set other than "Christian" or
"rejecter of Christianity". Or, like someone who concludes that because
they are not having sandwiches for their picnic lunch, they must not be
having a picnic, because it never occurs to them that a picnic can exist
without sandwiches. In other words, whether accepting it or rejecting it,
the belief system continues to define their view of reality.
) ) That would be fine if it had been your choice, or you were
) ) now capable of sceptical enquiry and choice. But it was
) ) not, and you are not. It was imposed on you -- like all
) ) religions -- by your parents decision to send you to a
) ) Steiner-Waldorf-Anthroposophical mystery school. Whether
) ) they were Anthroposophists themselves and chose
) ) knowingly, or were duped as I and many others on the
) ) Waldorf Critics list were, does not matter. What matters
) ) is that you were inculcated with irrational thinking, not
) ) critical, skeptical thinking.
)
)Actually, it was my decision to go to a Waldorf school in
)Grade 5 after a public school teacher told me I would never
)be able to hand-write.
I have to respectfully differ with you. You did not have the legal right
in either of the Vancouvers I know of (BC or Washington State) to withdraw
yourself from school at that age, or otherwise to determine certain aspects
of your own life, such as by entering into binding legal contracts, or
participating in sexual acts, and your parents were ultimately responsible
for the choice. They did NOT have to allow you to attend that school, they
DID have to pay for your attendance, and if they had not made those two
decisions, you would not have attended that school. In other words, your
decision alone did not determine your school attendance. You didn't have
that power at that age. Your parents had the power, as they also had the
final legal responsibility.
Also, speaking as the same person who began college at age 9, and wrote her
first paper on hemispheric laterality in the brain at age 6, I would have
to add that you did not have the knowledge and experience of the world
which would make it reasonable for that power and responsibility to be
vested in you at that age. Some of that knowledge and experience can be
gained at an accelerated rate. The rest cannot.
I can best demonstrate this by an otherwise off-topic analogy with my own
life. As a child prodigy, I was weird enough that, in the social
environment of the late 1970s, it was not recognized by the adults in power
in my life when I was made the victim of incestuous sexual abuse as a young
child (before the age of 10). Some years later, the problems resulting
from this caused me to be easily manipulated by an older man (in his late
20s) into a sexual relationship which was highly illegal under the laws of
our state - it was not only statutory rape, but illegal under several other
aspects of the rape laws. While my parents did not have the knowledge of
some of those latter aspects, they DID know that the relationship was
sexual and illegal, and that they would have to prosecute under the
statutory rape laws in order for the police to enforce them and protect me
(something which by that point I was unable to do for myself - among other
reasons, due to some of the repercussions of a violent rape (by another
older man, this time of my father's age) in my early teens). If my parents
had exercised their legal rights and responsibility with regard to ensuring
my safety, at least one of the individuals in question would have been
prosecuted - something which has a demonstrable record of reducing the
number of ongoing assaults in cases similar to mine. It would also have
prevented a series of violent assaults some years later, when I was
repeatedly strangled unconscious by a young man (with a criminal record and
a history of failed anger management counseling) whom my parents moved into
our home. When it came down to it, although I had choices which influenced
the outcome in this circumstances, the legal responsibility for the
situation lay with my parents, who were also the people with the power to
make change. Without their choice to do so, the multitudes of officials,
legal and otherwise, whom I spoke to about the situation, were all unable
to make change and protect me.
If your parents had exercised their legal rights and responsibilities, they
would have done their research into the Waldorf school, and made an
informed decision about your schooling. They may have done this, but in
that case, they knowingly chose to send you to a
"Steiner-Waldorf-Anthroposophical mystery school". If they did not take
such action and make such an investigation, leaving the choice up to you,
that does nothing to absolve them of their responsibility for your
schooling. They allowed you to attend, and they paid the bills, so in the
end, they are responsible for the fact that you attended, regardless of
whatever decisions you may have made at the age of 11.
For what it's worth, when I had a similar problem in school, with my
hand-writing (a problem stemming from spastic problems in the muscles of my
hands and thumbs). It was caught by my public school teacher when I was 6,
and I was given school-funded tutoring after school, in italics, by a
school-trained and funded tutor. That wound up being the beginning of my
studies of calligraphy. It can be frustrating and painful for me, but I
have a rather nice hand in uncial and black-letter styles, after a couple
of decades or more of practising calligraphy and illumination, all stemming
from that public school start. However, it didn't relieve the spasticity
problem, and I still have pain and deterioration of my handwriting, to the
point of eventual illegibility, within a half a page of hand-writing. My
history of being skipped forward in school caused me to have an unusual
homework burden for my chronological age, and when I first entered 9th
grade (at age 10), a very simple accommodation was made by the
openly-religious Episcopal school I attended that year - I was allowed to
bring a portable electrical typewriter to school, and type my school-work.
I think that this was the most reasonable combination of solutions - I was
given assistance to make hand-writing as attainable a goal as possible, for
me, and for those occasions when the content was the important part, I was
given the means to get the concepts from the inside of my head to the
outside, where other people could perceive and interact with them. I think
it would have been highly inappropriate to focus on the means of putting my
thoughts on paper, to the point of discriminating against a person with a
disability by focusing me on my limitations rather than my existing
strengths and mental capacities, and my ability to accommodate that
disability. Yet the Waldorf school approach is such that if my daughter
were to manifest that same health problem (one which can be seen in a
number of other members of my family, as well as in her father's line), I
asked and was told that she would be restricted from using the mechanical
aids which make this task return to the status of achievable challenge,
rather than impassable barrier.
I consider this attitude to be just as unhealthy as that of the abusive
teacher who told you that you would be unable to handwrite, driving you,
quite understandably, to seek a less abusive and discriminatory educational
option.
)There, I was taught by a non-Anthroposophist Waldorf teacher who hated
)the dogma of Anthroposophy and made his own decisions about Steiner's
)curriculum.
So, once again, the strong suit of Waldorf schools seems to be those
teachers who rebel against the underlying philosophy and tenets, and do not
allow their educational approach to be "guided" and "informed" by
Anthroposophy. I submit for your consideration the concept that perhaps
this accounts for the dissimilarity between your experiences and those of
the critics here on the list - your schooling, by your own account, took
place at the hands of a class teacher who was antithetical to the very
foundations of Waldorf, together with its methods.
I also submit for your consideration that there are tremendous flaws in a
system where the only people supporting it are those whose interaction has
been with teachers are completely unrepresentative of the system itself,
and are indeed often at odds with it to the point of being antithetical.
)He taught me not only that I could hand-write with great skill,
)but also the value of story, metaphor and critical thinking in
)relating to life. I hate religion, and I would hate anyone who
)would impose Anthroposophical or any beliefs on anyone. I
)take those pieces of Anthroposophy which I think provide a
)useful metaphor or rich image, and use them as I see fit. The
)rest I discard or dispute.
Am I then incorrect in my impression that you are an ongoing student of
Anthroposophy and Steiner? My understanding was that you had come to the
study of Anthroposophy on your own, and cited that as evidence that the
school was not teaching Anthroposophy to its students, because your
knowledge of it was from studies which purported to be independent. I
differ with you strongly with regard to the "independence" of the
omnipresent opportunities for "independent" study of Steiner and
Anthroposophy, given that these are found in EVERY Waldorf community I have
encountered thus far, and that their "independence" is highly questionable,
as a result of the involvement of the school at every level from providing
the instructor or facilitator for each workshop or study group, and the
venue in which these studies take place.
)As to my capacity to reason or think critically, please sample
)my Grade 12 Project.
)(http://www.goodknights.org/projects/phoenix/home.asp)
I'm currently looking this over; my initial assessment is that it actually
sounds rather familiar in both its conceptualization and presentation, but
then, as Ecclesiastes is often quoted as saying, "there is nothing new
under the sun", and there are only so many ways to present a certain view,
whether one is parroting the thoughts of others, or completely original in
one's approach to the recurring themes of history and human experience.
) ) Go peddle your papers, sonny. You have no right to ask anyone,
) ) respectfully or not, to "refrain" from using the term DoF. I resent
) ) your attempt to squelch plain, accurate language.
)
)I'm not really peddling anything... (well, I do sell Ballet Pointe
)shoes, but certainly not here), but I have *every* right to ask
)everyone to stop referring to me by such a trite, offensive term
)(with etymological associations to "duffer" "daft" and "doff").
I actually differ with Michael here; I grew up under the Free Speech laws
of the United States, and I would say that you have *every* right to make
such a request, just as those others posting have every right to use the
term regardless. If your chosen mode of self-expression is to ask others
to alter theirs, it does not change the fact that both parties retain the
right to such self-expression, subject of course to restrictions such as
laws against libel and defamation of character.
I do, however, find it somewhat interesting as an internal inconsistency -
you stand on your right to make the request, but expect others to forfeit
their right to speak plainly using a term which they consider to be a
reasonable and accurate description of what they are seeing, perhaps in
part because they do not view it as being emotionally loaded in the same
way that you do.
I would further say that I find somewhat questionable the etymological
associations you cited here. Would you like to trace their derivation, or
would you please clarify whether you meant, perhaps, that they carry
linguistic echoes of the other term, especially when used in oral speech?
)It has nothing to do with "plain, accurate language"
As you perceive it... but as you have pointed out that you do not share
the perceptions of the critics here on this list in other respects, perhaps
it will not surprise you to learn that you do not share their perception of
this term, either.
)it sounds like a fantasy trading card,
(chuckle) Funny, I would have personally made that comment about a number
of things I encountered at the Waldorf School, but perhaps the
two-dimensional archetype, as of decoupage people, is the result of the way
that they have presented themselves to the critics who thus described
them. Has this possibility occurred to you? It is very hard to describe
the elements of a setting which so thoroughly incorporates the symbols and
language of the magical and mystical without inadvertently echoing the many
other modern uses of those symbols and terminology.
I would have thought that a student of myth would recognize that... Our
problem here, if I may put it this way, is thus not one of
misrepresentation, but one of myth-representation. (wry chuckle)
)or a bad Christian movie epic.
Again, perhaps the reason that these things appear to be echoed in the
descriptions the critics have made of the Waldorf system is because that is
how the Waldorf system has worked to portray itself - as a vehicle for the
Christ impulse to touch the lives of the students through education that
speaks to the spirit, which smacks strongly of many of the same images and
metaphors used in those self-same "bad Christian movie epics". Steiner and
the Waldorf Schools chose the symbols and the language - we, here on this
list, simply reference them.
)It also seeks to divide lines between "us" and "them" (which
)is possibly what you are seeking to do),
Again - has it occurred to you that the fact that those lines have indeed
been drawn, and the critics are attempting to describe them, having finally
discerned them clearly enough to do so, does not itself imply that the ones
who drew the lines were the critics themselves? It was my experience of
the Waldorf school that they very clearly saw themselves as an "us", and
anyone who disagreed with their fundamental principles and the writings
which define those principles, as "them". Were I to describe that, I would
HAVE to describe the lines dividing the two groups - but that would not
mean that I had created those lines, or occasioned the division, myself.
)and precludes any concessions from either side, at least until
)one of "us" wins the honour of losing that title.
In the interest of that constructive dialogue, may I ask why you see this
this way? I don't share your view, and I'm interested in better
understanding it. So, why do you feel that you (or another person coming
here to air the differences between their views and those of the critics
who post here) must lose this particular term of reference before
"concessions" can be won from either side?
For that matter, I'm not entirely sure that I view the situation as one in
which "concessions" are appropriate. Acknowledgement of the truth is the
only kind of concession I think anyone here is interested in (unless
someone wants to put up a hot dog kiosk that I don't know about, or perhaps
sell souvenirs...), and to couch it in such terms would seem to highlight
even more the adversarial basis on which you seem to be approaching the
issues raised here (I will not that you are not alone in that, by the by -
for many, the frustration of feeling that they were "duped" by a system
which harmed their children does seem to have left them feeling that they
are in an ongoing conflict with that system, seeing it as an adversary from
whom they wish to save others).
)I'm looking for constructive dialogue -- I wish you would do the same.
Hmm... I have a question here which I'm afraid may sound sarcastic, but I
truly do not intend it that way. That is, what, in your view, would
constitute constructive dialogue? By what traits would you recognize it,
and what would you consider to preclude it?
)I'm asking for respect -- not "you're with us or against us".
That is a reasonable position. At the same time, it is the same position
which many, if not all, of the critics represented here have taken, in
their dealings with the Waldorf schools, and you will almost certainly find
them rather frustrated with the total lack of respect that has been shown
for their views and their perceptions of the material underlying their
childrens' educations. Likewise, I would have to ask if some of that
perception of "you're with us or against us" might not stem from your own
end of the conversation, as we've repeatedly seen a pattern in the posts of
others in your position, which I believe I see echoed in your own posts,
which suggests that to disagree with any of the fundamental elements of the
Waldorf schools is to automatically become an attacker bent on destroying
them, in the eyes of those who choose to accept them, and all of their
sub-text and spiritual focus, as part and parcel of something in which they
find some value, somewhere.
I don't think Waldorf, or anything else, is that "Black and White" - if
you'll pardon my use of the phrase in a context which has so recently been
dedicated to a discussion of Steiner's racism. However, what I do believe
is that the thing which defines Waldorf is the Anthroposophical element,
and the writings and beliefs propounded by Steiner. The other elements of
the educational system may be found elsewhere. Please have a look at other
examples such as http://www.marbury.sa.edu.au/ , and tell me what you think
that they are missing, of the things that contributed to the value you
place on your educational experience, OTHER than the Anthroposophical
Mystery School elements derived exclusively from Steiner's works?
My view is that while Waldorf is not without positive qualities, those
positive qualities may be found elsewhere, and indeed many of the people
currently working in support of Waldorf would be delighted to be expending
their resources in support of yet more schools embodying those positive
qualities, were they fully aware of the extent of the weirdness within
Waldorf and the possibility of supporting either new or existing
alternative schools which retain the positive elements while lacking the
weirdness.
Many parents within Waldorf have asked the question of why Waldorf doesn't
do just that, and at every turn, they are met with the answer that you
can't take those elements out, and still have a Waldorf school when you're
done, because those are the elements that truly make a school a Waldorf
school - and I think that the people giving those answers are quite
correct. Given that that is the case, it is my belief that those of us NOT
interested in Waldorf's weirdnesses should not have to do like your first
Waldorf teacher, and work in opposition to the system from within
it; instead, we should be spending our time and energy in support of a
school system that does NOT stem from precisely those elements to which we
object, one based in the qualities we actually seek in a school, rather
than those that we revile. You and your non-anthroposophical teacher sound
like you would have greatly enjoyed such an environment. So would we.
The difference is that we, as adults with a greater range of life
experiences than the Waldorf schools can provide a young person growing up
within them, have determined that from an outsider's perspective, the
qualities with which we disagree are both too central and too pervasive
within Waldorf, for us to have any comfort having any contact with it. In
addition, like many other parents here, I am greatly disturbed by the
deliberate deception preached by Steiner in order to render this guru-led
system more acceptable to parents. I would prefer to see students like my
daughter, teachers like the one you describe, and parents like those
represented here, all made more aware both of the central nature of the
Anthroposophical elements within Waldorf, and of the many schools which
truly are oriented around child-appropriate education.
Let Waldorf continue to be itself, if there is truly a market for what they
have to offer. But, I don't think that they, or you, should be treating as
crusading destroyers those of us who want to see them marketed ONLY to
those who want what they are truly about, rather than deceptively, to those
of us more interested in those elements which lie at the heart of certain
other schools, while being only peripheral to the central Mystery Teachings
at a Waldorf / Steiner school.
We send children to school IN ORDER to gain an education; they should not
have to gain one IN SPITE of their school, instead. I also cannot
understand how any person, from a truly independent viewpoint, can reach
the conclusion that it is appropriate to praise a school whose central
tenets you had to violate in order to receive an education from it.
Thank you for your efforts to address these points with the list, and I
look forward to a fruitful discussion.
Willow
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 15:10:17 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: RE: no DOFs
At 21-11-02 04:40 PM Thursday, David wrote:
)However, discussing Waldorf education does not involve defending faith
)of any kind. You're saying that because the CHronicles of Narnia are
)heavily based on Christianity, that they were written to subversively
)convert children. I say: nonsense.
Oh, dear, David, I think you may have put your foot in it on this one. I
used to share that opinion of the Chronicles of Narnia, but since that
time, I've read more of the writings of C.S. Lewis, who is a Christian
theologian, who specifically wrote the Chronicles of Narnia in order to
present Christian theology in a more palatable form (which might easily be
described as a subversive action) to children.
Mind, that doesn't mean that I don't enjoy those, and several other of his
books, it simply means that I acknowledge their source and intent as being
what they are, and that they vary in their resulting impact on the
individuals who read them, because of that source and intent. I first read
them as a child who knew nothing of "the dark side" of Christianity (which
I now know has both kind followers and cruel ones, both positive and
negative subsets of the belief system, and likewise practicioners both nice
and nasty, like any other belief or practise of humans) - I wasn't raised
in a hell-focused denomination, but instead one focused on love and life
and sunshine, rainbows, and butterflies, at least among the children.
As a result, the books impacted me very differently from my husband, who
was raised in a condemnatory fundamentalist hell-focused Baptist
church-oriented household; he saw their (intended and deliberate) parallel
with the theology he was being taught in a condemnatory form, in
thrice-weekly church services, while I simply saw yet another story from
yet another myth cycle (I was reading my way through the library's folk and
fairy tale section the year that I first read the Narnia chronicles, so
they fit in with the many other sources that fed my love of myths).
However, the fact remains that the books were written by a Christian
theologian with the intent of presenting Christian theology to children in
an indirect form, theology which is easily perceptible within them, and
obvious in its Christian nature to any student of Christian theology,
regardless of their youth.
As for me, I still think that C.S. Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters" belong on
the shelf right next to Twain's "Letters from the Earth"... ...a good
read, but, like Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia, inarguably oriented around the
Christian theology that was their inspiration and source material. Whether
or not they were intended to "subversively convert children" is a matter of
semantics at that point, and perspective.
Willow
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 15:30:48 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: Re: Something we can all agree on
At 21-11-02 04:57 PM Thursday, you wrote:
)1 Waldorf Schools should not be publicly funded
)
)2 Anthroposophy should be clearly stated as the underlying philosophy of
)a Waldorf school, and details of where it is in the curriculum should be
)available on request
)
)3 Anthroposophists should take a clear stand on what of Steiner they
)accept and what of Steiner the reject.
)
)If these things are done, then you should have nothing to complain
)about.
For the most part, I can agree with you here. However, my daughter's
situation brings up one further point - I would be complaining regardless
of those elements, as long as any of the schools continue to be physically
unsafe places for children.
It is completely unacceptable to me for an educational institute to be
physically unsafe for children.
)I am clear in my conviction that Waldorf education (whatever its
)failings) produces free thinking human beings.
I am still interested in learning whether there are any Waldorf alumni who
can make such a statement, who have not ALSO got a maverick teacher or
parents who went against the curriculum to educate them despite the
anthroposophical roots underlying Waldorf education. I find it interesting
that you, like the other individuals who have recently posted here in
support of their experiences with the educational system, had a teacher who
was described as being "good regardless of the school, indeed almost
antithetical to it in that he was very strongly anti-Anthroposophy", or
parents who were similarly unusual within the Waldorf community.
)(snip)
)If schools were clearer, then those
)of you who want to find alternatives could do so and leave the bounty of
)Waldorf education (and the decisions about what the hell Steiner was
)talking about) to theose of us who want it.
Exactly. Were we given accurate information, we could make the informed
decisions necessary to any act requiring informed consent.
Willow
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 15:47:41 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: definition of religion - was RE: no DOFs
At 21-11-02 05:53 PM Thursday, David wrote:
)Definition from the Miriam Webster Dictionary.
)
)My definition of religion is blind adherence to a set of tenets which
)are taken literally and given no room for change.
Aha! I think we have put our collective finger on the problem here. I
have a friend who begins nearly every discussion with "first, define your
terms". I'm much the same myself, by nature; I find that some people
react as though they think that I am equivocating or avoiding answering,
but in simple truth people use the language so differently that I cannot be
sure what I am discussing until I know what is intended by each of the
principle terms required for the discussion. Because of this, I
particularly tend to avoid answering questions without a very clear
understanding of what is being asked, and clear definition of the primary
points of my answer and the language used to give it.
In this case, your definition of religion, while similar to many people's
gut reaction to the concept of a religion, is not in very close accordance
with the more common usages of the word. I think that this has been
causing a great deal of unnecessary confusion here, and I strongly
recommend that you either reconsider your nomenclature, or begin each
discussion on this topic by explaining what you mean by the terms you
choose to use.
In the meantime, I would like to ask how you explain your definition of
"religion" in light of the term's etymology, and its latinate roots in
words such as "ligio", meaning "linking", combined with the prefix "re",
meaning "to do again". There doesn't seem to be much connection between
your definition and a word meaning "re-linking".
Thank you,
Willow
------------------------------
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 886
-- Topica Digest --
diversity or witch hunts on the critics list - was RE: Walden,
Peter S, Charli
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
RE: arts-based? Nah!
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
RE: science teaching in Waldorf schools
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
Conveying emotional tone in email - was Re: Walden, Peter S,
Charlie, racism &
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
cultural vocabulary and ball sports - was Re: Soccer
(especially to Debra Snel
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
Re: cultural vocabulary and ball sports - was Re: Soccer
(especially to Debra
By willow.firesong creative-interweb.com
Re: Waldorf class sizes.
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 16:22:19 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: diversity or witch hunts on the critics list - was RE: Walden,
Peter S, Charlie, racism & kids
At 21-11-02 08:25 PM Thursday, you wrote:
)Right... so what would you have me do? Renounce my evil ways and join
)you in attacking one of the only good arts-based schools (whatever else
)it may be) around?
Actually, though I may be a little slower to find time to respond fully to
your posts, I am quite interested in reading them. I'm very interested in
the students' perspective of what it is like to attend a Waldorf school,
though I will also admit that I'm still wondering what your position would
be if you were asked to determine your opinion of the relative value of a
Waldorf Education versus an education in one of those other schools, good
arts-based schools, not just the run of the mill to which many Waldorf
parents were seeking an alternative.
)I think I'm wasting my time -- I came here to make peace, but some of
)you seem to be on a bit of a witch hunt...
Well, as Sharon suggests, if you don't feel comfortable with a certain post
or poster, there is always the delete key; you're free to talk to the rest
of us, and I hope you will do us the courtesy of pointing out our
individual flaws in communicating with you, should you encounter them,
rather than lumping us together as an indistinguishable mass. I've found
the critics here to be a very diverse group; while we attempt to respect
one another's views and rights to hold those views, it is very difficult to
discuss controversial issues without occasionally rousing a passionate
response from one person or another within the discussion. That doesn't
always mean that the rest share those views.
I can assure you, I am not here to participate in a witch
hunt... (LOL) If you're wondering why I find that idea so laughable, feel
free to have a look back through the archives for my previous posts on the
subject of Anthroposophy and religion. I assure you, I find the idea
highly ironic.
Willow
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 16:59:22 +1030
From: Willow Firesong (Willow.Firesong creative-interweb.com)
Subject: RE: arts-based? Nah!
At 21-11-02 10:57 PM Thursday, David wrote:
) ) Lisa: I would argue that Waldorf schools are not truly arts-based.
) ) Where is the "art" in creating wet-on-wet, formless talismans,
) ) or being prohibited from drawing with