return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re: FW: behind the veil...
By jaquesdm msn.com
Re: spiral question
By mysplum earthlink.net
Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: happy birthday, Rudi!
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Theosophy of the R
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: behind the veil...
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Theosophy of the R
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: Theosophy of the R
By Percedol netscape.net
SV: behind the veil...
By gbg2013 minpost.nu
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By oscar001 earthlink.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:51:40 +0000
From: "David Dodds" (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: Re: FW: behind the veil...
)From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary GoodWinter.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: Waldorf-Critics (waldorf-critics topica.com)
)CC: Jesus G Villela (jervill juno.com)
)Subject: FW: behind the veil...
)Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:54:36 -0500
)
)Jesus, if you'd like to clarify your statement with specifics, or engage in
)a discussion, I invite you go join the waldorf-critics discussion forum,
)accessible from our web site that you so eloquently reviewed...
)
)...Gary Bonhiver
)
)www.waldorfcritics.org webmaster
)
)----------
) ) From: Jesus G Villela (jervill juno.com)
) ) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:05:07 -0800
) ) To: webmaster waldorfcritics.org
) ) Subject: behind the veil...
) )
) ) Dear Puppets
) )
) ) I can see through your disinformation campaign. Your masters must be
) ) worried that more people are discovering that alternative education is
) ) not only superior to public schools but that it maybe vital to their
) ) children's welfare, spiritually, emotionally, and physically. No doubt
) ) your whimsical questions and accusations about waldorf or any other form
) ) of alternative education are nothing compared to the atrocities that
)have
) ) occurred in your public schools.(Mcmartin Daycare ritual child abuse
) ) scandal that happened in Los Angeles during the 1980's for example) I
) ) doubt there was anyone who so enthusiastically warned against the perils
) ) of daycare centers as you are so passionately fighting against
) ) waldorf.(you must pay a high fee for getting your website place amongst
) ) search engines) Your masters are against spiritual knowledge for they
) ) know it is the key to freeing the human mind from their control. Public
) ) school indoctrination is so very vital to their plans to keep the people
) ) uninformed and enslaved. I have news for you. Though you people are in
) ) control right now, it can never stay that way.
) )
) ) The light of truth will always prevail!
) )
) ) WE ARE ALL ONE,
) ) WE ARE ALL LOVE,
) ) VICTORY!!!!
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
)New threads are always welcome.
)
Thanks Jesus, at last I understand. Dont ask questions, blind adherence,
dumb aqcuiescence...the way to a better world of
Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer.
Hang on though- thats been tried before. What was his name now........?
Ah well, just have another attempt eh?
Pax vobiscum.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger - fast, easy and FREE! http://messenger.msn.co.uk
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:15:49 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: spiral question
on 2/27/03 9:59 PM, Nicole Foss at nmfoss hotmail.com wrote:
) Nicole: In a lecture called The Birth of Light, Steiner wrote,
)
) "Whenever an important event occurs in the world, whenever one stage of
) evolution is superseded by another thereby bringing something new into the
) world, two such spiral movements intertwine. One spiral of the sign of
) Cancer indicates the end of the Atlantean culture; the other, the beginning
) of the Aryan culture."
)
) Children walk one spiral in and the other spiral during the advent spiral
) ceremony. The symbolism seems to come from Steiner's writing about the
) endings and beginnings of evolutionary stages. I suggest you have a look at
) openwaldorf.com/adventspiral.html for more information and interesting links
) on this topic.
)
) Would some of the other Critics (who know more about this than I do) like to
) add something else? Did we have a discussion on this topic earlier? I
) vaguely remember something, but I can't remember how long ago it was or what
) the thread would have been called.
Sharon: That's a great quote you've found there Nicole, another layer of
meaning to the ritual perhaps? Traditionally the spiral represents death and
rebirth. Going into the womb and out. Into the earth and out. I think the
advent spiral is about reincarnation. Waldorfers are giving children another
"mighty picture" of life, death and rebirth, or light, darkness, light.
Seasonal "festivals" (symbolizing life, death, rebirth) play a big role in
Waldorf because they reinforce the idea of cycles. Reincarnation, which is a
dominant theme in Waldorf, was supposedly a recurring theme in other mystery
schools. The evergreens symbolize everlasting life. The child walks into the
spiral and back out. The apples symbolize the fruit of knowledge,
immortality, eternal life. (Occultists tend to believe that Eve got the
knowledge of reincarnation from the sacred serpent guarding the Tree of
Life). Crystals represent spirit.
After leaving Waldorf, I found out about this occasion (somehow we missed
it) and I asked my daughter if she'd ever done the Advent walk. She wrote
down what they had to do, Dan has a copy of that. I was amazed, they prepare
days in advance, make wax animals, light candles, cover windows with black
paper...there was also a description of an angel who either took the apple
with the candle in it or gave it, can't remember. PLANS has a fabulous video
tape of this event at a public Waldorf school.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:30:52 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_009F_01C2DF03.B444D120
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I'm forwarding some correspondence I've had with someone who wrote to
PLANS recently (she gave permission - I suggested she subscribe to
critics but don't know if she's done so). She suggested to us that
the picture of Thomas Jefferson on the PLANS website is problematic,
if we are going to criticize Steiner's racism, since Jefferson also
held racial views and owned slaves. We are interested in hearing
others' thoughts on this - do you think use of Jefferson's picture is
justified? Or hypocritical? The correspondence follows for those who
are interested.
*************************
KAY BOLDEN WROTE:
Dear friends,
Thank you for a most interesting site. I'm involved with a group of
parents looking to create an exciting, creative preschool for our
kids, and we have been researching many method schools, including the
Waldorf model. All information you provide gives us a little more to
chew on.
However, I feel bound to point this out: As a Black parent, I tend to
be suspicious of groups who label someone racist (R. Steiner) when it
helps their agenda, and completely ignore the issue when it does not
(Thomas Jefferson).
Steiner's beliefs about the intellectual superiority of Whites was
common in his time (indeed, it is quite common today, although not
often spoken aloud!). Thomas Jefferson -- prominently featured on
your site -- also has many racist remarks to his credit and of
course, he actually owned slaves. You obviously don't think his
buying and selling of human beings negates all his other
contributions. Should I now discount all of your assertions because
of your reverence for Jefferson, a racist? Of course not.
In my experience, there is racism running rampant in the public and
parochial schools, and I would not be a bit surprised to find it at a
Waldorf school or anywhere else.
Our parent group is looking for teaching methods and preschool models
to nurture our children. We need data we can use to judge whether the
method itself would be adaptable for us.
Thanks for listening to my 2 cents ...
Kay Bolden
**************************************
DIANA REPLIED:
Thanks for your note to PLANS, we appreciate your interest, and your
comments about Jefferson and Steiner. We will take them into
consideration - we have had similar feedback before. It is really
worth considering whether we ought to feature Jefferson's picture and
you've sparked a discussion.
Our feeling is - though it is open to change - that it is not exactly
analogous between Steiner schools and PLANS having Jefferson's
picture on the website, however. Waldorf teachers study mainly
Steiner in their teacher training, and follow his "indications" and
instructions very rigidly, about even the smallest details of school
activities and school life, what color to paint the classroom walls,
which grain to each on which day of the week. Some Waldorf teachers
don't even know about Steiner's racism, but many do, and are very
uncomfortable dealing with it. The movement as a whole won't deal
with it. If there were "Jefferson" schools designed entirely on
Thomas Jefferson's writings, and the teachers studied only Jefferson
in preparation for teaching, and refused to repudiate slavery just
because Jefferson owned slaves . . . then Jefferson's racism would be
relevant to those schools as Steiner's is to Waldorf.
Yes, Steiner's beliefs were common in his day, and so were
Jefferson's, but we don't normally hold onto and defend Jefferson's
racist views today. Steiner has a cult-type following. His followers
*could* simply toss out the racism, without it negating his other
contributions, but they don't, because he is their guru and they
believe he was clairvoyant, so he can't be wrong about anything.
(Needless to say, this leads to lots of other problems in these
schools.) And yes, there can be racists in any school, but isn't it a
particular problem if the school's founder was racist, and racism is
central to his views?
I'd be interested if that analogy clears up our position somewhat
about Steiner's racism, or if you have other questions or comments
about it we would certainly be interested in hearing them.
I wasn't sure if you were hoping to get other types of information on
Waldorf from us? If so, let me know more specifically what questions
you have. Thanks for writing.
**************************************
KAY THEN REPLIED:
Diana,
Thanks for your response. You make a valid distinction between
Steiner and Jefferson. It's just that racism -- and sexism -- were
also central to the views of our founding fathers. If I dismiss the
entire Waldorf model on the basis of Steiner's racism -- if I dismiss
the whole of ANYTHING on that basis -- then I will have to give up my
love of the Declaration of Independence, Ernest Hemingway novels, and
pecan pie!
And no, we don't normally defend Jefferson's views today -- we do
something far more hypocritical. We pretend he didn't have them.
MY real concern about Waldorf, is the difficulty of getting straight
answers about things. The curriculum is so vague, the beliefs and
goals of the teacher/staff become extremely important.
Others in our parent group are also concerned about the so-called
hidden religious aspects. We've talked to parents who had wonderful
Waldorf experiences, and others who went on and on about prayers and
music that sounded perfectly innocent to us.
Do you think it's possible that there are just some bad Waldorf
schools, run by religious extremists? And that others are warm,
nurturing places, run by people without a hidden agenda? And if we
visit one (which we will be doing in the next couple of weeks), how
can we tell the difference?
Thanks again Diana, I appreciate any additional info you can offer.
**********************
Diana then replied asking if she'd like to discuss it on critics, and
continued in response to Kay's last question above:
In brief, the schools do vary depending on who is running them, some
anthroposophists are very dogmatic and others less so. The
dogmatically minded do tend to end up running the schools just
because they feel most strongly about doing things a certain way,
usually rather rigidly. It would be hard to tell "how to tell"
exactly in a brief visit, but if you like I'll try to put together
some questions you could ask or tips on what you're looking at in the
classroom. Your group is concerned mainly with preschool, right? My
best advice would be to take the activities you see in a Waldorf
kindergarten, like baking bread, knitting, songs, puppetry etc., and
do it your own way. It's the rigidity in Waldorf that messes up their
good ideas.
Diana
**********************************
KAY SAID:
Hi Diana,
Feel free to share my email with the rest of your group and with your
critics mailing list.
The info on your site really sparked a discussion among our parent
group as well! We have decided to handle the Waldorf visit like this:
2 of us will take specific notes about what we see and hear; 2 of us
will concentrate on atmosphere, feelings, and non-verbal cues in the
environment; 2 of us will directly engage in questions/answers. We've
got the senses covered :-)!
Can we contact you after the visit and share our experience, get some
feedback from you?
Thanks again,
Kay
********************
(I'm responding again this morning and will post that later.) Since
she said it was ok to forward her mail, I assume it is ok for people
to write to her directly if they want: kbolden ameritech.net
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:38:01 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: happy birthday, Rudi!
) Today is Rudolf Steiner's 142nd birthday (1861).
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
Lisa here: Maybe he has already reincarnated as a fair haired, blue eyed
child who attends a Waldorf school somewhere "hilly and green in America."
Waldorf teachers: keep your eyes out! (g)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:47:01 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Theosophy of the R
on 2/27/03 10:51 PM, Percedol at Percedol netscape.net wrote:
Peter:
)
) In conjunction with his rigidly hierarchical conception of racial
)) and national categories, this doctrine yields some distinctly unpleasant
))
)) results.
)
) Percedol:
) The idea that there can be Archangels that are national spirits does not
) imply anything negative, it implies that there are spirits that take
) part in our evolution. Better than a materialistc world where everything
) happens just by chance and where there is nothing after death. That must
) be quite a difficult idea to live with if taken seriously.
Sharon: That's because you are a nationalist/Anthroposophist Percedol. I
can't help but wonder who or what makes the "beings" tick, surely there
needs to be an explanation for what lies behind the spiritual world...and
behind that world...?I find the "materialist" worldview preferable to an
animistic world with strange beings watching me, out to get me or help me,
manipulating all that transpires, including skin color. In my world, things
don't just happen by chance, there is nature. Nothingness / death is eternal
bliss. Life is wonderful as long as I don't have to be saved by Jesus to
avoid burning in hell, or saved by Steiner in order to strive to avoid
Steiner's hells (plural) such as his prophetic Sixth Epoch where his cult
inhabits the world...ruling others in "core groups" and enforcing what they
may "think, feel, will and do." Or in his Jupiter hell where those of us who
don't comply become damned to a *subordinate* gnome existence while the
"advanced" become plant-like, then bee-like on Venus, then give birth by
speaking on Vulcan. Sounds like a terrible lose-lose situation to me.
Eternal. Even Steiner's promise of getting all the goodies ("the earth and
all it will yield") doesn't seem like a good enough carrot on a stick. I
prefer death. Accepting Steiner's dictums would make my life utterly
pointless which is why I'm not an Anthroposophist.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:32:05 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: behind the veil...
on 2/27/03 9:54 PM, Gary Bonhiver at Gary GoodWinter.com wrote:
)) From: Jesus G Villela (jervill juno.com)
)) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:05:07 -0800
)) To: webmaster waldorfcritics.org
)) Subject: behind the veil...
))
)) Dear Puppets
Sharon: Hi there Jesus!
))
)) I can see through your disinformation campaign. Your masters must be
)) worried that more people are discovering that alternative education is
)) not only superior to public schools but that it maybe vital to their
)) children's welfare, spiritually, emotionally, and physically.
Sharon: Um? Which masters are we talking about Jesus? Ahriman? The Devil?
Sorath? Koot Hoomi? Lucifer??
No doubt
)) your whimsical questions and accusations about waldorf or any other form
)) of alternative education are nothing compared to the atrocities that have
)) occurred in your public schools.(Mcmartin Daycare ritual child abuse
)) scandal that happened in Los Angeles during the 1980's for example)
Sharon: Oh the Satanic cult scare of the 1980s...haven't you heard? That was
just a bunch of bogus accusations. People who study cults use that as an
example of a "Satanic cult scare" where media-cult-hype reinforced cult
stereotypes like "cults are places of mass suicide, "Satanic" or "Voodoo"
ritual abuse, violence, child abuse and sex abuse". There have been many of
these scares throughout the last century, hardly any of them valid. I
recommend that you read Philip Jenkin's book "Mystics and Messiahs, Cults
and new Religions in American History." I think you've missed the entire
point of PLANS. It seems like you are the one being manipulated.
I
)) doubt there was anyone who so enthusiastically warned against the perils
)) of daycare centers as you are so passionately fighting against
)) waldorf.(you must pay a high fee for getting your website place amongst
)) search engines) Your masters are against spiritual knowledge for they
)) know it is the key to freeing the human mind from their control.
Sharon: Get it straight...we are working to get Waldorf to uphold the First
Amendment and to be forthright to parents. So are you talking about Ahriman?
Public
)) school indoctrination is so very vital to their plans to keep the people
)) uninformed and enslaved. I have news for you. Though you people are in
)) control right now, it can never stay that way.
Sharon: Church and State separation (if "you people" means Church-State
separationists) is hardly in control, in fact, there are more violations of
the First Amendment today than ever! The American Pope is working hard on
"faith based" initiatives and whittling away the wall. We might as well be
living in a Theocracy with the way things are going, so your "news" is not
news to me! Who's spiritual knowledge are we talking about anyway Jesus,
yours? Mormons? Christians? Anthroposophists? "Moonies"? Rosicrucians?...
Let's get clear about that first, which "truth" is "truth"? You have a very
bleak picture of public school don't you. I don't hear Waldorf-critics
defending it very much. Many people chose Waldorf for their children because
they don't love public schools. Personally, my daughter's post Waldorf
public school experience was very positive, so I don't hold such a negative
view of it, though there is always room for improvement.
))
)) The light of truth will always prevail!
))
)) WE ARE ALL ONE,
)) WE ARE ALL LOVE,
)) VICTORY!!!!
Sharon: You sound a little conflicted there Jesus. One? Love? Victory? Hmmm.
Again, which light of truth is it Jesus?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:34:50 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
) Peter F responds:
) The materialist position is not that everything happens by chance.
P:
Meaning that there is not a spiritual reason behind each event. For
spiritualism the physical plane is a plane of effects. Causes are
elesewhere. I think that's the difference.
The position of most (but not
) all) materialists is that there is nothing after death. The materialist
) position may or may not be a difficult idea to live with but that's not
) the
) point. The point is what makes more sense in the light of the evidence.
P:
There is no clear evidence for either positions. Each person's
experience may help to choose one or the other as more likely.
) Percedol is strong on making assertions and claims but weak in coming up
)
) with any evidence to support those claims.
P:
I doubt there could be incontrovertible proof of the spiritual otherwise
there would be no freedom to choose the spiritual. It's a personal
matter.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:40:09 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
mysplum wrote:
) Sharon: That's because you are a nationalist/A. Percedol.
P:
A nationalist? No way. It would be a little bit hard in Italy. There is
little sense of nation here.
I find the "materialist" worldview preferable to an
) animistic world with strange beings watching me, out to get me or help
) me,
) manipulating all that transpires, including skin color. In my world,
) things
) don't just happen by chance, there is nature. Nothingness / death is
) eternal
) bliss. Life is wonderful as long as I don't have to be saved by Jesus to
) avoid burning in hell, or saved by S. in order to strive to avoid
) S.'s hells (plural) such as his prophetic Sixth Epoch where his cult
) inhabits the world...ruling others in "core groups" and enforcing what
) they
) may "think, feel, will and do." Or in his Jupiter hell where those of us
) who
) don't comply become damned to a *subordinate* gnome existence while the
) "advanced" become plant-like, then bee-like on Venus, then give birth by
) speaking on Vulcan. Sounds like a terrible lose-lose situation to me.
) Eternal. Even S.'s promise of getting all the goodies ("the earth and
) all it will yield") doesn't seem like a good enough carrot on a stick. I
) prefer death. Accepting S.'s dictums would make my life utterly
) pointless which is why I'm not an A.
P:
That's OK.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 23:40:07 +0100
From: "Lennart Sundstr=?ISO-8859-1?B?9g==?=m" (gbg2013 minpost.nu)
Subject: SV: behind the veil...
) Thanks Jesus, at last I understand. Dont ask questions, blind adherence,
) dumb aqcuiescence...the way to a better world of
) Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer.
) Hang on though- thats been tried before. What was his name now........?
George W Bush?
George W Bush?
George W Bush!!!
He must be the reincarnation of Rudi, or am I just plain stupid?
) Ah well, just have another attempt eh?
) Pax vobiscum.
Pax Americana regards,
Lennart
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 01:04:47 -0800
From: "NJS" (oscar001 earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00AA_01C2DF8E.8D8BE1A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Diana:
I'm forwarding some correspondence I've had with
someone who wrote to PLANS recently (she gave
permission - I suggested she subscribe to critics but
don't know if she's done so). She suggested to us that
the picture of Thomas Jefferson on the PLANS website
is problematic, if we are going to criticize Steiner's
racism, since Jefferson also held racial views and
owned slaves. We are interested in hearing others'
thoughts on this - do you think use of Jefferson's
picture is justified? Or hypocritical? The
correspondence follows for those who are interested.
Jeanine:
I think Kay has a good point, not only on the racism
issue but I found the Jefferson imagery and
religion/public school issue distracting as a
prospective Waldorf parent. I initially found the
site in 1999 and, if I recall correctly, it was
primarily Dan Dugan's site, and the main issue it was raising
against Waldorf education was its entry into the
public domain. Believing it was created by activist
civil libertarians I moved on. Obviously a mistake
because it probably contained a lot of valuable
information that may have helped me avoid Waldorf; but
as many internet users do, I quickly scanned the site
to evaluate it and moved on. Although I certainly
sympathize with PLANS lawsuit, my main concern, even
post Waldorf, is to force more honesty from the
schools about anthroposophy and how it is deeply
embedded in the school's culture and curriculum.
However, when one reviews even the current PLANS site,
the religious freedom aspect looms large (see photo in
front of Independence Hall).
But Kay's point deserves some attention: how can PLANS
critique Steiner's racism if they are waving Thomas
Jefferson around as a symbol? This is not to disparage
Thomas Jefferson or his contributions, but only to
suggest it poses a bit of a quandry and conveys
political, ideological, and national concerns as
opposed to more personal stories and the negative
impact Waldorf deception has upon the lives of the
children and parents involved, stories that have
impact beyond national borders. As we all know,
complaints about Waldorf are international in scope.
From my perpsective as a former parent, this issue is
first personal and then ideological. Waldorf deception
has taken advantage of well-meaning parents, abused
their trust and disrupted the lives of their children,
the real people behind the rhetoric. So it seems to
come down to what message PLANS wants to convey: the
issues involved in the political/ideological battle;
or its desire to force Waldorf to become more honest and to help
prospective parents/teachers/students assess Waldorf
education and it's pitfalls.
I realize that all of these issues overlap to some degree, and that
the PLANS lawsuit, if won, will help to force more transparency in
Waldorf recruitment.
But is it possible for the site to convey both messages? Does PLANS
see itself as primarily serving one need over the other? Or are both
concerns of equal weight?
IMHO Jefferson's photo on the homepage places emphasis upon the political.
Jeanine
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 980
-- Topica Digest --
Re: FW: behind the veil...
By jaquesdm msn.com
Re: spiral question
By mysplum earthlink.net
Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: happy birthday, Rudi!
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Theosophy of the R
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: behind the veil...
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Theosophy of the R
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: Theosophy of the R
By Percedol netscape.net
SV: behind the veil...
By gbg2013 minpost.nu
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By oscar001 earthlink.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 13:51:40 +0000
From: "David Dodds" (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: Re: FW: behind the veil...
)From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary GoodWinter.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: Waldorf-Critics (waldorf-critics topica.com)
)CC: Jesus G Villela (jervill juno.com)
)Subject: FW: behind the veil...
)Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 00:54:36 -0500
)
)Jesus, if you'd like to clarify your statement with specifics, or engage in
)a discussion, I invite you go join the waldorf-critics discussion forum,
)accessible from our web site that you so eloquently reviewed...
)
)...Gary Bonhiver
)
)www.waldorfcritics.org webmaster
)
)----------
) ) From: Jesus G Villela (jervill juno.com)
) ) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:05:07 -0800
) ) To: webmaster waldorfcritics.org
) ) Subject: behind the veil...
) )
) ) Dear Puppets
) )
) ) I can see through your disinformation campaign. Your masters must be
) ) worried that more people are discovering that alternative education is
) ) not only superior to public schools but that it maybe vital to their
) ) children's welfare, spiritually, emotionally, and physically. No doubt
) ) your whimsical questions and accusations about waldorf or any other form
) ) of alternative education are nothing compared to the atrocities that
)have
) ) occurred in your public schools.(Mcmartin Daycare ritual child abuse
) ) scandal that happened in Los Angeles during the 1980's for example) I
) ) doubt there was anyone who so enthusiastically warned against the perils
) ) of daycare centers as you are so passionately fighting against
) ) waldorf.(you must pay a high fee for getting your website place amongst
) ) search engines) Your masters are against spiritual knowledge for they
) ) know it is the key to freeing the human mind from their control. Public
) ) school indoctrination is so very vital to their plans to keep the people
) ) uninformed and enslaved. I have news for you. Though you people are in
) ) control right now, it can never stay that way.
) )
) ) The light of truth will always prevail!
) )
) ) WE ARE ALL ONE,
) ) WE ARE ALL LOVE,
) ) VICTORY!!!!
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
)New threads are always welcome.
)
Thanks Jesus, at last I understand. Dont ask questions, blind adherence,
dumb aqcuiescence...the way to a better world of
Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer.
Hang on though- thats been tried before. What was his name now........?
Ah well, just have another attempt eh?
Pax vobiscum.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger - fast, easy and FREE! http://messenger.msn.co.uk
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:15:49 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: spiral question
on 2/27/03 9:59 PM, Nicole Foss at nmfoss hotmail.com wrote:
) Nicole: In a lecture called The Birth of Light, Steiner wrote,
)
) "Whenever an important event occurs in the world, whenever one stage of
) evolution is superseded by another thereby bringing something new into the
) world, two such spiral movements intertwine. One spiral of the sign of
) Cancer indicates the end of the Atlantean culture; the other, the beginning
) of the Aryan culture."
)
) Children walk one spiral in and the other spiral during the advent spiral
) ceremony. The symbolism seems to come from Steiner's writing about the
) endings and beginnings of evolutionary stages. I suggest you have a look at
) openwaldorf.com/adventspiral.html for more information and interesting links
) on this topic.
)
) Would some of the other Critics (who know more about this than I do) like to
) add something else? Did we have a discussion on this topic earlier? I
) vaguely remember something, but I can't remember how long ago it was or what
) the thread would have been called.
Sharon: That's a great quote you've found there Nicole, another layer of
meaning to the ritual perhaps? Traditionally the spiral represents death and
rebirth. Going into the womb and out. Into the earth and out. I think the
advent spiral is about reincarnation. Waldorfers are giving children another
"mighty picture" of life, death and rebirth, or light, darkness, light.
Seasonal "festivals" (symbolizing life, death, rebirth) play a big role in
Waldorf because they reinforce the idea of cycles. Reincarnation, which is a
dominant theme in Waldorf, was supposedly a recurring theme in other mystery
schools. The evergreens symbolize everlasting life. The child walks into the
spiral and back out. The apples symbolize the fruit of knowledge,
immortality, eternal life. (Occultists tend to believe that Eve got the
knowledge of reincarnation from the sacred serpent guarding the Tree of
Life). Crystals represent spirit.
After leaving Waldorf, I found out about this occasion (somehow we missed
it) and I asked my daughter if she'd ever done the Advent walk. She wrote
down what they had to do, Dan has a copy of that. I was amazed, they prepare
days in advance, make wax animals, light candles, cover windows with black
paper...there was also a description of an angel who either took the apple
with the candle in it or gave it, can't remember. PLANS has a fabulous video
tape of this event at a public Waldorf school.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:30:52 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_009F_01C2DF03.B444D120
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I'm forwarding some correspondence I've had with someone who wrote to
PLANS recently (she gave permission - I suggested she subscribe to
critics but don't know if she's done so). She suggested to us that
the picture of Thomas Jefferson on the PLANS website is problematic,
if we are going to criticize Steiner's racism, since Jefferson also
held racial views and owned slaves. We are interested in hearing
others' thoughts on this - do you think use of Jefferson's picture is
justified? Or hypocritical? The correspondence follows for those who
are interested.
*************************
KAY BOLDEN WROTE:
Dear friends,
Thank you for a most interesting site. I'm involved with a group of
parents looking to create an exciting, creative preschool for our
kids, and we have been researching many method schools, including the
Waldorf model. All information you provide gives us a little more to
chew on.
However, I feel bound to point this out: As a Black parent, I tend to
be suspicious of groups who label someone racist (R. Steiner) when it
helps their agenda, and completely ignore the issue when it does not
(Thomas Jefferson).
Steiner's beliefs about the intellectual superiority of Whites was
common in his time (indeed, it is quite common today, although not
often spoken aloud!). Thomas Jefferson -- prominently featured on
your site -- also has many racist remarks to his credit and of
course, he actually owned slaves. You obviously don't think his
buying and selling of human beings negates all his other
contributions. Should I now discount all of your assertions because
of your reverence for Jefferson, a racist? Of course not.
In my experience, there is racism running rampant in the public and
parochial schools, and I would not be a bit surprised to find it at a
Waldorf school or anywhere else.
Our parent group is looking for teaching methods and preschool models
to nurture our children. We need data we can use to judge whether the
method itself would be adaptable for us.
Thanks for listening to my 2 cents ...
Kay Bolden
**************************************
DIANA REPLIED:
Thanks for your note to PLANS, we appreciate your interest, and your
comments about Jefferson and Steiner. We will take them into
consideration - we have had similar feedback before. It is really
worth considering whether we ought to feature Jefferson's picture and
you've sparked a discussion.
Our feeling is - though it is open to change - that it is not exactly
analogous between Steiner schools and PLANS having Jefferson's
picture on the website, however. Waldorf teachers study mainly
Steiner in their teacher training, and follow his "indications" and
instructions very rigidly, about even the smallest details of school
activities and school life, what color to paint the classroom walls,
which grain to each on which day of the week. Some Waldorf teachers
don't even know about Steiner's racism, but many do, and are very
uncomfortable dealing with it. The movement as a whole won't deal
with it. If there were "Jefferson" schools designed entirely on
Thomas Jefferson's writings, and the teachers studied only Jefferson
in preparation for teaching, and refused to repudiate slavery just
because Jefferson owned slaves . . . then Jefferson's racism would be
relevant to those schools as Steiner's is to Waldorf.
Yes, Steiner's beliefs were common in his day, and so were
Jefferson's, but we don't normally hold onto and defend Jefferson's
racist views today. Steiner has a cult-type following. His followers
*could* simply toss out the racism, without it negating his other
contributions, but they don't, because he is their guru and they
believe he was clairvoyant, so he can't be wrong about anything.
(Needless to say, this leads to lots of other problems in these
schools.) And yes, there can be racists in any school, but isn't it a
particular problem if the school's founder was racist, and racism is
central to his views?
I'd be interested if that analogy clears up our position somewhat
about Steiner's racism, or if you have other questions or comments
about it we would certainly be interested in hearing them.
I wasn't sure if you were hoping to get other types of information on
Waldorf from us? If so, let me know more specifically what questions
you have. Thanks for writing.
**************************************
KAY THEN REPLIED:
Diana,
Thanks for your response. You make a valid distinction between
Steiner and Jefferson. It's just that racism -- and sexism -- were
also central to the views of our founding fathers. If I dismiss the
entire Waldorf model on the basis of Steiner's racism -- if I dismiss
the whole of ANYTHING on that basis -- then I will have to give up my
love of the Declaration of Independence, Ernest Hemingway novels, and
pecan pie!
And no, we don't normally defend Jefferson's views today -- we do
something far more hypocritical. We pretend he didn't have them.
MY real concern about Waldorf, is the difficulty of getting straight
answers about things. The curriculum is so vague, the beliefs and
goals of the teacher/staff become extremely important.
Others in our parent group are also concerned about the so-called
hidden religious aspects. We've talked to parents who had wonderful
Waldorf experiences, and others who went on and on about prayers and
music that sounded perfectly innocent to us.
Do you think it's possible that there are just some bad Waldorf
schools, run by religious extremists? And that others are warm,
nurturing places, run by people without a hidden agenda? And if we
visit one (which we will be doing in the next couple of weeks), how
can we tell the difference?
Thanks again Diana, I appreciate any additional info you can offer.
**********************
Diana then replied asking if she'd like to discuss it on critics, and
continued in response to Kay's last question above:
In brief, the schools do vary depending on who is running them, some
anthroposophists are very dogmatic and others less so. The
dogmatically minded do tend to end up running the schools just
because they feel most strongly about doing things a certain way,
usually rather rigidly. It would be hard to tell "how to tell"
exactly in a brief visit, but if you like I'll try to put together
some questions you could ask or tips on what you're looking at in the
classroom. Your group is concerned mainly with preschool, right? My
best advice would be to take the activities you see in a Waldorf
kindergarten, like baking bread, knitting, songs, puppetry etc., and
do it your own way. It's the rigidity in Waldorf that messes up their
good ideas.
Diana
**********************************
KAY SAID:
Hi Diana,
Feel free to share my email with the rest of your group and with your
critics mailing list.
The info on your site really sparked a discussion among our parent
group as well! We have decided to handle the Waldorf visit like this:
2 of us will take specific notes about what we see and hear; 2 of us
will concentrate on atmosphere, feelings, and non-verbal cues in the
environment; 2 of us will directly engage in questions/answers. We've
got the senses covered :-)!
Can we contact you after the visit and share our experience, get some
feedback from you?
Thanks again,
Kay
********************
(I'm responding again this morning and will post that later.) Since
she said it was ok to forward her mail, I assume it is ok for people
to write to her directly if they want: kbolden ameritech.net
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:38:01 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: happy birthday, Rudi!
) Today is Rudolf Steiner's 142nd birthday (1861).
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
Lisa here: Maybe he has already reincarnated as a fair haired, blue eyed
child who attends a Waldorf school somewhere "hilly and green in America."
Waldorf teachers: keep your eyes out! (g)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:47:01 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Theosophy of the R
on 2/27/03 10:51 PM, Percedol at Percedol netscape.net wrote:
Peter:
)
) In conjunction with his rigidly hierarchical conception of racial
)) and national categories, this doctrine yields some distinctly unpleasant
))
)) results.
)
) Percedol:
) The idea that there can be Archangels that are national spirits does not
) imply anything negative, it implies that there are spirits that take
) part in our evolution. Better than a materialistc world where everything
) happens just by chance and where there is nothing after death. That must
) be quite a difficult idea to live with if taken seriously.
Sharon: That's because you are a nationalist/Anthroposophist Percedol. I
can't help but wonder who or what makes the "beings" tick, surely there
needs to be an explanation for what lies behind the spiritual world...and
behind that world...?I find the "materialist" worldview preferable to an
animistic world with strange beings watching me, out to get me or help me,
manipulating all that transpires, including skin color. In my world, things
don't just happen by chance, there is nature. Nothingness / death is eternal
bliss. Life is wonderful as long as I don't have to be saved by Jesus to
avoid burning in hell, or saved by Steiner in order to strive to avoid
Steiner's hells (plural) such as his prophetic Sixth Epoch where his cult
inhabits the world...ruling others in "core groups" and enforcing what they
may "think, feel, will and do." Or in his Jupiter hell where those of us who
don't comply become damned to a *subordinate* gnome existence while the
"advanced" become plant-like, then bee-like on Venus, then give birth by
speaking on Vulcan. Sounds like a terrible lose-lose situation to me.
Eternal. Even Steiner's promise of getting all the goodies ("the earth and
all it will yield") doesn't seem like a good enough carrot on a stick. I
prefer death. Accepting Steiner's dictums would make my life utterly
pointless which is why I'm not an Anthroposophist.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:32:05 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: behind the veil...
on 2/27/03 9:54 PM, Gary Bonhiver at Gary GoodWinter.com wrote:
)) From: Jesus G Villela (jervill juno.com)
)) Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:05:07 -0800
)) To: webmaster waldorfcritics.org
)) Subject: behind the veil...
))
)) Dear Puppets
Sharon: Hi there Jesus!
))
)) I can see through your disinformation campaign. Your masters must be
)) worried that more people are discovering that alternative education is
)) not only superior to public schools but that it maybe vital to their
)) children's welfare, spiritually, emotionally, and physically.
Sharon: Um? Which masters are we talking about Jesus? Ahriman? The Devil?
Sorath? Koot Hoomi? Lucifer??
No doubt
)) your whimsical questions and accusations about waldorf or any other form
)) of alternative education are nothing compared to the atrocities that have
)) occurred in your public schools.(Mcmartin Daycare ritual child abuse
)) scandal that happened in Los Angeles during the 1980's for example)
Sharon: Oh the Satanic cult scare of the 1980s...haven't you heard? That was
just a bunch of bogus accusations. People who study cults use that as an
example of a "Satanic cult scare" where media-cult-hype reinforced cult
stereotypes like "cults are places of mass suicide, "Satanic" or "Voodoo"
ritual abuse, violence, child abuse and sex abuse". There have been many of
these scares throughout the last century, hardly any of them valid. I
recommend that you read Philip Jenkin's book "Mystics and Messiahs, Cults
and new Religions in American History." I think you've missed the entire
point of PLANS. It seems like you are the one being manipulated.
I
)) doubt there was anyone who so enthusiastically warned against the perils
)) of daycare centers as you are so passionately fighting against
)) waldorf.(you must pay a high fee for getting your website place amongst
)) search engines) Your masters are against spiritual knowledge for they
)) know it is the key to freeing the human mind from their control.
Sharon: Get it straight...we are working to get Waldorf to uphold the First
Amendment and to be forthright to parents. So are you talking about Ahriman?
Public
)) school indoctrination is so very vital to their plans to keep the people
)) uninformed and enslaved. I have news for you. Though you people are in
)) control right now, it can never stay that way.
Sharon: Church and State separation (if "you people" means Church-State
separationists) is hardly in control, in fact, there are more violations of
the First Amendment today than ever! The American Pope is working hard on
"faith based" initiatives and whittling away the wall. We might as well be
living in a Theocracy with the way things are going, so your "news" is not
news to me! Who's spiritual knowledge are we talking about anyway Jesus,
yours? Mormons? Christians? Anthroposophists? "Moonies"? Rosicrucians?...
Let's get clear about that first, which "truth" is "truth"? You have a very
bleak picture of public school don't you. I don't hear Waldorf-critics
defending it very much. Many people chose Waldorf for their children because
they don't love public schools. Personally, my daughter's post Waldorf
public school experience was very positive, so I don't hold such a negative
view of it, though there is always room for improvement.
))
)) The light of truth will always prevail!
))
)) WE ARE ALL ONE,
)) WE ARE ALL LOVE,
)) VICTORY!!!!
Sharon: You sound a little conflicted there Jesus. One? Love? Victory? Hmmm.
Again, which light of truth is it Jesus?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:34:50 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
) Peter F responds:
) The materialist position is not that everything happens by chance.
P:
Meaning that there is not a spiritual reason behind each event. For
spiritualism the physical plane is a plane of effects. Causes are
elesewhere. I think that's the difference.
The position of most (but not
) all) materialists is that there is nothing after death. The materialist
) position may or may not be a difficult idea to live with but that's not
) the
) point. The point is what makes more sense in the light of the evidence.
P:
There is no clear evidence for either positions. Each person's
experience may help to choose one or the other as more likely.
) Percedol is strong on making assertions and claims but weak in coming up
)
) with any evidence to support those claims.
P:
I doubt there could be incontrovertible proof of the spiritual otherwise
there would be no freedom to choose the spiritual. It's a personal
matter.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 19:40:09 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
mysplum wrote:
) Sharon: That's because you are a nationalist/A. Percedol.
P:
A nationalist? No way. It would be a little bit hard in Italy. There is
little sense of nation here.
I find the "materialist" worldview preferable to an
) animistic world with strange beings watching me, out to get me or help
) me,
) manipulating all that transpires, including skin color. In my world,
) things
) don't just happen by chance, there is nature. Nothingness / death is
) eternal
) bliss. Life is wonderful as long as I don't have to be saved by Jesus to
) avoid burning in hell, or saved by S. in order to strive to avoid
) S.'s hells (plural) such as his prophetic Sixth Epoch where his cult
) inhabits the world...ruling others in "core groups" and enforcing what
) they
) may "think, feel, will and do." Or in his Jupiter hell where those of us
) who
) don't comply become damned to a *subordinate* gnome existence while the
) "advanced" become plant-like, then bee-like on Venus, then give birth by
) speaking on Vulcan. Sounds like a terrible lose-lose situation to me.
) Eternal. Even S.'s promise of getting all the goodies ("the earth and
) all it will yield") doesn't seem like a good enough carrot on a stick. I
) prefer death. Accepting S.'s dictums would make my life utterly
) pointless which is why I'm not an A.
P:
That's OK.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 23:40:07 +0100
From: "Lennart Sundstr=?ISO-8859-1?B?9g==?=m" (gbg2013 minpost.nu)
Subject: SV: behind the veil...
) Thanks Jesus, at last I understand. Dont ask questions, blind adherence,
) dumb aqcuiescence...the way to a better world of
) Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer.
) Hang on though- thats been tried before. What was his name now........?
George W Bush?
George W Bush?
George W Bush!!!
He must be the reincarnation of Rudi, or am I just plain stupid?
) Ah well, just have another attempt eh?
) Pax vobiscum.
Pax Americana regards,
Lennart
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 01:04:47 -0800
From: "NJS" (oscar001 earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00AA_01C2DF8E.8D8BE1A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Diana:
I'm forwarding some correspondence I've had with
someone who wrote to PLANS recently (she gave
permission - I suggested she subscribe to critics but
don't know if she's done so). She suggested to us that
the picture of Thomas Jefferson on the PLANS website
is problematic, if we are going to criticize Steiner's
racism, since Jefferson also held racial views and
owned slaves. We are interested in hearing others'
thoughts on this - do you think use of Jefferson's
picture is justified? Or hypocritical? The
correspondence follows for those who are interested.
Jeanine:
I think Kay has a good point, not only on the racism
issue but I found the Jefferson imagery and
religion/public school issue distracting as a
prospective Waldorf parent. I initially found the
site in 1999 and, if I recall correctly, it was
primarily Dan Dugan's site, and the main issue it was raising
against Waldorf education was its entry into the
public domain. Believing it was created by activist
civil libertarians I moved on. Obviously a mistake
because it probably contained a lot of valuable
information that may have helped me avoid Waldorf; but
as many internet users do, I quickly scanned the site
to evaluate it and moved on. Although I certainly
sympathize with PLANS lawsuit, my main concern, even
post Waldorf, is to force more honesty from the
schools about anthroposophy and how it is deeply
embedded in the school's culture and curriculum.
However, when one reviews even the current PLANS site,
the religious freedom aspect looms large (see photo in
front of Independence Hall).
But Kay's point deserves some attention: how can PLANS
critique Steiner's racism if they are waving Thomas
Jefferson around as a symbol? This is not to disparage
Thomas Jefferson or his contributions, but only to
suggest it poses a bit of a quandry and conveys
political, ideological, and national concerns as
opposed to more personal stories and the negative
impact Waldorf deception has upon the lives of the
children and parents involved, stories that have
impact beyond national borders. As we all know,
complaints about Waldorf are international in scope.
From my perpsective as a former parent, this issue is
first personal and then ideological. Waldorf deception
has taken advantage of well-meaning parents, abused
their trust and disrupted the lives of their children,
the real people behind the rhetoric. So it seems to
come down to what message PLANS wants to convey: the
issues involved in the political/ideological battle;
or its desire to force Waldorf to become more honest and to help
prospective parents/teachers/students assess Waldorf
education and it's pitfalls.
I realize that all of these issues overlap to some degree, and that
the PLANS lawsuit, if won, will help to force more transparency in
Waldorf recruitment.
But is it possible for the site to convey both messages? Does PLANS
see itself as primarily serving one need over the other? Or are both
concerns of equal weight?
IMHO Jefferson's photo on the homepage places emphasis upon the political.
Jeanine
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 980
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By oscar001 earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Theosophy of the R
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 11:38:22 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
) 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_3129363502_825689_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
on 3/1/03 1:04 AM, NJS at oscar001 earthlink.net wrote:
But Kay's point deserves some attention: how can PLANS
critique Steiner's racism if they are waving Thomas
Jefferson around as a symbol?
Sharon: Litigation is what causes change more than any other tool in this
country. PLANS case is important for many reasons, including 1) to cause
Waldorf to be open to parents about their esoteric mission, 2) to stop the
schools expanding using public monies and 3) to set a precedent for other
church state cases. I am not a lawyer, nor an official spokesperson for
PLANS, but this is how I see it. PLANS is anti-racism, (consequently anti
Steiner doctrine) but pro church and state separation. We want the State and
Waldorf to uphold the First Amendment. We admit that Jefferson was a racist
(most Anthroposophists won't admit that Steiner or his doctrine was/is
racist) but even though we would agree that Jefferson was a racist, we use
Jefferson as a symbol because of his contributions to establishing church
state separation / religious freedom in the early days of this country. What
he wrote still applies today in First Amendment cases. An important modern
precedent, Everson vs. Board of Education of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) still
stands, it has not been struck down. In the Supreme Court's 1947 Everson
decision, forbidding New Jersey to spend state education funds for religious
education Justice Black cited the phrase "wall of separation between Church
& State" from Jefferson's Jan. 1, 1802 letter to a group of Baptists in
Massachusetts .
Justice David Souter is a proponent of the First Amendment and upholds
church/state separation. In 2002, regarding Ohio's voucher program, Souter
said :
"...The applicability of the Establishment Clause to public funding of
benefits to religious schools was settled in Everson vs. Board of Education
of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), which inaugurated the modern era of
establishment doctrine. The Court stated the principle in words from which
there was no dissent:
"No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any
religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or
whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion".
The Court has never in so many words repudiated this statement, let alone,
in so many words, over ruled Everson." (Freethought Today, August 22002 p
11).
Sharon: The conservative court (Scalia et al) are trying to undermine this
ruling, but it still has not been struck down as Souter notes. Jefferson is
part of all this whether we like it or not. Our case *is* political.
Jeanine:
This is not to disparage
Thomas Jefferson or his contributions, but only to
suggest it poses a bit of a quandry and conveys
political, ideological, and national concerns as
opposed to more personal stories and the negative
impact Waldorf deception has upon the lives of the
children and parents involved, stories that have
impact beyond national borders. As we all know,
complaints about Waldorf are international in scope.
Sharon: You bring up some very good points, but I suppose we have decided to
take a more public stance. The public, political stance grew out of the
personal negative harm caused by Waldorf's deception. Many people don't want
to share their personal stories or publish them on the net, we've certainly
asked people if they would be willing to come forward, but most people don't
want to--even I , who has blabbed on about Waldorf for years all over the
internet--don't tell some of the really personal stuff because I want to
protect my daughter's privacy, plus I don't want to slander some of the
teachers etc. at our ex-school. It's complicated. Waldorf still affects my
family and extended family to this day, years after leaving, and not just
because I decided to help PLANS, but I seldom talk about the very personal.
PLANS case, if we win, will *cause* change. The personal stories, and
negative impact the schools had on many of us, translates into ideological,
political and national concerns. In order to cause change within Waldorf, we
have to litigate, how else? Dan tried to get his school to address Steiner's
racist work which was being sold at his school, and he was kicked out.
Eugene Schwartz tried to get Waldorf to be more open and he was fired. It
was because of Waldorf's move into the public sector that Dan and Debra took
the plunge and filed suit, realizing that the State has no business
advancing Anthroposophy. What Debra, Dan and the other PLANS people did was
huge in scope! The commitment is enormous, we're talking *years* of their
lives (could be 15 years!), not to mention the financial commitment and the
day to day stress. What they heave done on behalf of all of us
Waldorf-survivors is incredible and I am grateful for their time, commitment
and their bravery in being whistleblowers and making a public stand. It
isn't an easy undertaking, it requires a huge amount of commitment and time,
daily. We aren't going to get anywhere without a legal ruling, hopefully in
our favor. PLANS bandies Jefferson around because the PLANS case is a First
Amendment issue, that is what it boils down to. It becomes a personal issue
when a private person sues Waldorf for consumer fraud. We are alleging First
Amendment violations because we believe that the public should not be
forced to advance Anthroposophy. We are a bunch of ex-Waldorfers working our
fingers to the bone trying to cause change, we do the best we know how. A
lot of thought went into the case, but we are just " ordinary people who had
an extraordinary Waldorf experience" as Debra would say. We could use help
in bringing attention to Waldorf's deception. At the moment we are
collecting lessons that document Anthroposophy in the classroom, which we
will display on the PLANS site. This takes *vast* amounts of time which we
all give as volunteers. Perhaps you have some lessons to contribute? If you
have a personal story that you wish to share, we'd love to have a section on
our site that people could easily access. Maybe you would volunteer to
collect such stories and organize a more "personal" approach?
J: From my perpsective as a former parent, this issue is
first personal and then ideological. Waldorf deception
has taken advantage of well-meaning parents, abused
their trust and disrupted the lives of their children,
the real people behind the rhetoric. So it seems to
come down to what message PLANS wants to convey: the
issues involved in the political/ideological battle;
or its desire to force Waldorf to become more honest and to help
prospective parents/teachers/students assess Waldorf
education and it's pitfalls.
Sharon: Because it is a matter of religion, in which Waldorf is free to
practice, the personal comes down to a church state separation issue, unless
a private individual would sue on grounds of consumer fraud. Some of us have
talked about a class action suit on these grounds, but nothing has come of
it yet. Extremely complex.
J:I realize that all of these issues overlap to some degree, and that the
PLANS lawsuit, if won, will help to force more transparency in Waldorf
recruitment.
But is it possible for the site to convey both messages?
Sharon: Yes, if people would come forward with their stories and someone
would volunteer to organize it. It would also be good if people would put
their name to their stories, but few people want to make that stand.
J: Does PLANS see itself as primarily serving one need over the other? Or
are both concerns of equal weight?
IMHO Jefferson's photo on the homepage places emphasis upon the political.
Sharon: I think both concerns are of equal weight, but the personal
translates to the bigger, more political, public cause. Our case is
political, we are suing two public Waldorf schools as citizens, for
violating the First Amendment. We do not deny that Jefferson was a racist,
perhaps we should include a statement acknowledging this, but what we try
to show is that Steiner's doctrine is racist and that the government has no
business advancing and establishing religion (be it racist or not) with tax
payer's money. The government has to be neutral when it comes to religion.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 05:23:56 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
mysplum wrote:
We do not deny that Jefferson was a racist,
P:
And you have no problem with it!
Interesting.
) perhaps we should include a statement acknowledging this, but what we
) try
) to show is that Steiner's doctrine is racist
P:
Which is not but you distort and interpret to make the case.
and that the government has no
) business advancing and establishing religion (be it racist or not) with
) tax
) payer's money.
P:
The day A. becomes a religion we will follow RS teachings under a
different name taking the distance from it.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 01:02:38 -0500
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
on 3/2/03 12:23 AM, Percedol at Percedol netscape.net wrote:
) P:
) The day A. becomes a religion we will follow RS teachings under a
) different name taking the distance from it.
Very interesting choice of words, Percedol...
"we will follow RS teachings"
"Following" indicates subservience. Interesting that you don't include
teachings of other legendary Anthroposophists who have expanded on Steiner's
original ideas (are there any?). And you don't frame Anthroposophy as a
philosphy that stands on its own, without frequently invoking Steiner.
Sounds like you are a religious follower to me, Percedol.
A religion by any other name...would still be a religion!
...Gary
"What?s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell
as sweet". Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet [1594-1595]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 22:15:27 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Sharon wrote:
perhaps we should include a statement acknowledging this, but what we try
to show is that Steiner's doctrine is racist
P replied::
Which is not but you distort and interpret to make the case.
Do we *once again* need to display Steiner's racist passages and disturbing
racial theories? P, *who* here has distorted *what* - exactly? Further -
how has anything been misinterpreted? You have made this accusation (above)
and we deserve an explanation. Please try.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 23:58:13 -0800
From: "NJS" (oscar001 earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C2E04E.6B34F9A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS websiteSharon, let me start
by saying that PLANS has been a true savior in my journey post
Waldorf. It has provided me the resources and information that led
me out of the post Waldorf fog and helped me to understand
anthroposophy; you, Dan, both Peters, Diana, Lisa, and Debra being
the steadfast providers of a valuable resource and incisive arguments
to anyone curious about Waldorf education. Most importantly, it has
been a digital petrie dish for assessing the strengths and weaknesses
on both sides of the Waldorf debate; in the end I have yet to see one
coherent or even responsive argument from supporters of Waldorf
education. I personally thank you and all PLANS members for this. I
hope my comments are taken without offense and seen as a good faith
attempt to convey my perception of the site several years ago and
today. Several years ago I was a harried parent looking for personal
experiences with Waldorf education and for various!
reasons those personal stories did not leap out at me in 1999. If
PLANS has made a conscious decision to project only a "political"
face so be it. If, however, PLANS also desires to convey a more
personal, human side of the impact of Waldorf deception then perhaps
exploring how this can be done would be useful.
Sharon:
You bring up some very good points, but I suppose we have decided
to take a more public stance. The public, political stance grew out
of the personal negative harm caused by Waldorf's deception. Many
people don't want to share their personal stories or publish them on
the net, we've certainly asked people if they would be willing to
come forward, but most people don't want to--even I , who has blabbed
on about Waldorf for years all over the internet--don't tell some of
the really personal stuff because I want to protect my daughter's
privacy, plus I don't want to slander some of the teachers etc. at
our ex-school. It's complicated.
Jeanine:
I think you raise a key point here, slander. The word frightens
many former parents including myself not because we think we are
slandering (which assumes untruth) but because we don't want to get
caught up in a public legal battle when we can barely keep up with
our personal lives. Perhaps if PLANS could give some professional
advice to former parents/teachers/students about the parameters of
slander and what exactly the risk is of placing personal stories
on-line, with bylines and/or anonymously this would help allay some
fears. Or are the fears warranted? I've heard that some parents
were threatened with legal action if they discussed their experiences
outside Waldorf.
Sharon:
PLANS case, if we win, will *cause* change. The personal stories,
and negative impact the schools had on many of us, translates into
ideological, political and national concerns. In order to cause
change within Waldorf, we have to litigate, how else?
Jeanine:
I see completely how the lawsuit will help force Waldorf's hand
(but perhaps not their heart or head). And I understand completely
why PLANS is suing. But the cost for this strategy is that somefolks
will think you have a specific agenda and will discount what is said
in this and other PLANS forums. The reward, if you win, is
priceless. :) As for a parallel strategy that would force more
accountability and honesty from Waldorf schools: the PLANS site,
along with OpenWaldorf will make strides toward this same end.
People forget that the internet is still a relatively new phenomena,
it is mind boggling to think how much has changed in just a few short
years and how much more ubiquitous it has become. I believe due to
PLANS efforts as well as Open Waldorf parents are much more informed
today than was the case just a couple of years ago. The other day I
was in a park with my kids and got into a conversation with a
complete stranger. I happened to mention that one of my !
children went to Waldorf and his response was "Oh, you mean that cult?".
Sharon:
What Debra, Dan and the other PLANS people did was huge in scope!
The commitment is enormous, we're talking *years* of their lives
(could be 15 years!), not to mention the financial commitment and the
day to day stress. What they heave done on behalf of all of us
Waldorf-survivors is incredible and I am grateful for their time,
commitment and their bravery in being whistleblowers and making a
public stand. It isn't an easy undertaking, it requires a huge amount
of commitment and time, daily. We are a bunch of ex-Waldorfers
working our fingers to the bone trying to cause change, we do the
best we know how. A lot of thought went into the case, but we are
just " ordinary people who had an extraordinary Waldorf experience"
as Debra would say.
Jeanine:
If my post was in any way taken as a slight please know this was
not intended. All of your efforts are much appreciated! Debra's
solicitation simply reminded me of why PLANS' site didn't capture me
the first time around. Unless it is critical to PLANS to have
Jefferson's and Steiner's picture on the site I don't think it adds
much to the arguments. I guess it also depends on what is the first
message you want to convey to visitors? Is it the lawsuit, or is it
the resources available at the site for assessing Waldorf? The
pictures scream lawsuit and are the first images users see.
We could use help in bringing attention to Waldorf's deception. At
the moment we are collecting lessons that document Anthroposophy in
the classroom, which we will display on the PLANS site. This takes
*vast* amounts of time which we all give as volunteers. Perhaps you
have some lessons to contribute? If you have a personal story that
you wish to share, we'd love to have a section on our site that
people could easily access. Maybe you would volunteer to collect such
stories and organize a more "personal" approach?
Jeanine: Perhaps we could discuss this off line. I may be
interested in assisting with this.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 10:49:13 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
NJS (oscar001 earthlink.net) wrote:
)Sharon, let me start by saying that PLANS has been a true savior in my
) )journey post Waldorf. It has provided me the resources and )information
)that led me out of the post Waldorf fog and helped me to )understand
)anthroposophy; you, Dan, both Peters, Diana, Lisa, and )Debra being the
)steadfast providers of a valuable resource and )incisive arguments to
)anyone curious about Waldorf education.
G'day NJS,
I suspect I am one of the both Peters,and, if so, thanks for the praise. I
just wanted to make it clear that I am not a member of PLANS, and unlikely
ever to be so, since I see Plans as purely a US organisation, and I am
fortunate enough to be Australian. I am here purely for my own interests,
one of which is the dangers of the sort of antiscience which appears to be
fundamental to anthroposophy.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 11:00:55 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
Percedol wrote in response to me:
)){Peter] The position of most (but not all) materialists is that there ))is
))nothing after death. The materialist position may or may not be a
)) ))difficult idea to live with but that's not the point. The point is what
))makes more sense in the light of the ))evidence.
)
Percedol:
)There is no clear evidence for either positions. Each person's experience
)may help to choose one or the other as more likely.
Peter responds:
I am pleased to hear that Percedol accepts that there is no clear evidence
for the Anthroposophical positions. This seems to be in contrast to some
previous correspondents on this list who made claims of certainty for
Anthroposophy.
I had the pleasure to be visiting Turin a few years ago on the day that
Ferrari won the manufacturer's championship in Grand Prix. I saw plenty of
evidence of nationalistic fervour that day.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 981
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By mysplum earthlink.net
RE: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By oscar001 earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Theosophy of the R
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 11:38:22 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
) 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_3129363502_825689_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
on 3/1/03 1:04 AM, NJS at oscar001 earthlink.net wrote:
But Kay's point deserves some attention: how can PLANS
critique Steiner's racism if they are waving Thomas
Jefferson around as a symbol?
Sharon: Litigation is what causes change more than any other tool in this
country. PLANS case is important for many reasons, including 1) to cause
Waldorf to be open to parents about their esoteric mission, 2) to stop the
schools expanding using public monies and 3) to set a precedent for other
church state cases. I am not a lawyer, nor an official spokesperson for
PLANS, but this is how I see it. PLANS is anti-racism, (consequently anti
Steiner doctrine) but pro church and state separation. We want the State and
Waldorf to uphold the First Amendment. We admit that Jefferson was a racist
(most Anthroposophists won't admit that Steiner or his doctrine was/is
racist) but even though we would agree that Jefferson was a racist, we use
Jefferson as a symbol because of his contributions to establishing church
state separation / religious freedom in the early days of this country. What
he wrote still applies today in First Amendment cases. An important modern
precedent, Everson vs. Board of Education of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) still
stands, it has not been struck down. In the Supreme Court's 1947 Everson
decision, forbidding New Jersey to spend state education funds for religious
education Justice Black cited the phrase "wall of separation between Church
& State" from Jefferson's Jan. 1, 1802 letter to a group of Baptists in
Massachusetts .
Justice David Souter is a proponent of the First Amendment and upholds
church/state separation. In 2002, regarding Ohio's voucher program, Souter
said :
"...The applicability of the Establishment Clause to public funding of
benefits to religious schools was settled in Everson vs. Board of Education
of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), which inaugurated the modern era of
establishment doctrine. The Court stated the principle in words from which
there was no dissent:
"No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any
religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or
whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion".
The Court has never in so many words repudiated this statement, let alone,
in so many words, over ruled Everson." (Freethought Today, August 22002 p
11).
Sharon: The conservative court (Scalia et al) are trying to undermine this
ruling, but it still has not been struck down as Souter notes. Jefferson is
part of all this whether we like it or not. Our case *is* political.
Jeanine:
This is not to disparage
Thomas Jefferson or his contributions, but only to
suggest it poses a bit of a quandry and conveys
political, ideological, and national concerns as
opposed to more personal stories and the negative
impact Waldorf deception has upon the lives of the
children and parents involved, stories that have
impact beyond national borders. As we all know,
complaints about Waldorf are international in scope.
Sharon: You bring up some very good points, but I suppose we have decided to
take a more public stance. The public, political stance grew out of the
personal negative harm caused by Waldorf's deception. Many people don't want
to share their personal stories or publish them on the net, we've certainly
asked people if they would be willing to come forward, but most people don't
want to--even I , who has blabbed on about Waldorf for years all over the
internet--don't tell some of the really personal stuff because I want to
protect my daughter's privacy, plus I don't want to slander some of the
teachers etc. at our ex-school. It's complicated. Waldorf still affects my
family and extended family to this day, years after leaving, and not just
because I decided to help PLANS, but I seldom talk about the very personal.
PLANS case, if we win, will *cause* change. The personal stories, and
negative impact the schools had on many of us, translates into ideological,
political and national concerns. In order to cause change within Waldorf, we
have to litigate, how else? Dan tried to get his school to address Steiner's
racist work which was being sold at his school, and he was kicked out.
Eugene Schwartz tried to get Waldorf to be more open and he was fired. It
was because of Waldorf's move into the public sector that Dan and Debra took
the plunge and filed suit, realizing that the State has no business
advancing Anthroposophy. What Debra, Dan and the other PLANS people did was
huge in scope! The commitment is enormous, we're talking *years* of their
lives (could be 15 years!), not to mention the financial commitment and the
day to day stress. What they heave done on behalf of all of us
Waldorf-survivors is incredible and I am grateful for their time, commitment
and their bravery in being whistleblowers and making a public stand. It
isn't an easy undertaking, it requires a huge amount of commitment and time,
daily. We aren't going to get anywhere without a legal ruling, hopefully in
our favor. PLANS bandies Jefferson around because the PLANS case is a First
Amendment issue, that is what it boils down to. It becomes a personal issue
when a private person sues Waldorf for consumer fraud. We are alleging First
Amendment violations because we believe that the public should not be
forced to advance Anthroposophy. We are a bunch of ex-Waldorfers working our
fingers to the bone trying to cause change, we do the best we know how. A
lot of thought went into the case, but we are just " ordinary people who had
an extraordinary Waldorf experience" as Debra would say. We could use help
in bringing attention to Waldorf's deception. At the moment we are
collecting lessons that document Anthroposophy in the classroom, which we
will display on the PLANS site. This takes *vast* amounts of time which we
all give as volunteers. Perhaps you have some lessons to contribute? If you
have a personal story that you wish to share, we'd love to have a section on
our site that people could easily access. Maybe you would volunteer to
collect such stories and organize a more "personal" approach?
J: From my perpsective as a former parent, this issue is
first personal and then ideological. Waldorf deception
has taken advantage of well-meaning parents, abused
their trust and disrupted the lives of their children,
the real people behind the rhetoric. So it seems to
come down to what message PLANS wants to convey: the
issues involved in the political/ideological battle;
or its desire to force Waldorf to become more honest and to help
prospective parents/teachers/students assess Waldorf
education and it's pitfalls.
Sharon: Because it is a matter of religion, in which Waldorf is free to
practice, the personal comes down to a church state separation issue, unless
a private individual would sue on grounds of consumer fraud. Some of us have
talked about a class action suit on these grounds, but nothing has come of
it yet. Extremely complex.
J:I realize that all of these issues overlap to some degree, and that the
PLANS lawsuit, if won, will help to force more transparency in Waldorf
recruitment.
But is it possible for the site to convey both messages?
Sharon: Yes, if people would come forward with their stories and someone
would volunteer to organize it. It would also be good if people would put
their name to their stories, but few people want to make that stand.
J: Does PLANS see itself as primarily serving one need over the other? Or
are both concerns of equal weight?
IMHO Jefferson's photo on the homepage places emphasis upon the political.
Sharon: I think both concerns are of equal weight, but the personal
translates to the bigger, more political, public cause. Our case is
political, we are suing two public Waldorf schools as citizens, for
violating the First Amendment. We do not deny that Jefferson was a racist,
perhaps we should include a statement acknowledging this, but what we try
to show is that Steiner's doctrine is racist and that the government has no
business advancing and establishing religion (be it racist or not) with tax
payer's money. The government has to be neutral when it comes to religion.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 05:23:56 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
mysplum wrote:
We do not deny that Jefferson was a racist,
P:
And you have no problem with it!
Interesting.
) perhaps we should include a statement acknowledging this, but what we
) try
) to show is that Steiner's doctrine is racist
P:
Which is not but you distort and interpret to make the case.
and that the government has no
) business advancing and establishing religion (be it racist or not) with
) tax
) payer's money.
P:
The day A. becomes a religion we will follow RS teachings under a
different name taking the distance from it.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 01:02:38 -0500
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
on 3/2/03 12:23 AM, Percedol at Percedol netscape.net wrote:
) P:
) The day A. becomes a religion we will follow RS teachings under a
) different name taking the distance from it.
Very interesting choice of words, Percedol...
"we will follow RS teachings"
"Following" indicates subservience. Interesting that you don't include
teachings of other legendary Anthroposophists who have expanded on Steiner's
original ideas (are there any?). And you don't frame Anthroposophy as a
philosphy that stands on its own, without frequently invoking Steiner.
Sounds like you are a religious follower to me, Percedol.
A religion by any other name...would still be a religion!
...Gary
"What?s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell
as sweet". Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet [1594-1595]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 22:15:27 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Sharon wrote:
perhaps we should include a statement acknowledging this, but what we try
to show is that Steiner's doctrine is racist
P replied::
Which is not but you distort and interpret to make the case.
Do we *once again* need to display Steiner's racist passages and disturbing
racial theories? P, *who* here has distorted *what* - exactly? Further -
how has anything been misinterpreted? You have made this accusation (above)
and we deserve an explanation. Please try.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 23:58:13 -0800
From: "NJS" (oscar001 earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C2E04E.6B34F9A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS websiteSharon, let me start
by saying that PLANS has been a true savior in my journey post
Waldorf. It has provided me the resources and information that led
me out of the post Waldorf fog and helped me to understand
anthroposophy; you, Dan, both Peters, Diana, Lisa, and Debra being
the steadfast providers of a valuable resource and incisive arguments
to anyone curious about Waldorf education. Most importantly, it has
been a digital petrie dish for assessing the strengths and weaknesses
on both sides of the Waldorf debate; in the end I have yet to see one
coherent or even responsive argument from supporters of Waldorf
education. I personally thank you and all PLANS members for this. I
hope my comments are taken without offense and seen as a good faith
attempt to convey my perception of the site several years ago and
today. Several years ago I was a harried parent looking for personal
experiences with Waldorf education and for various!
reasons those personal stories did not leap out at me in 1999. If
PLANS has made a conscious decision to project only a "political"
face so be it. If, however, PLANS also desires to convey a more
personal, human side of the impact of Waldorf deception then perhaps
exploring how this can be done would be useful.
Sharon:
You bring up some very good points, but I suppose we have decided
to take a more public stance. The public, political stance grew out
of the personal negative harm caused by Waldorf's deception. Many
people don't want to share their personal stories or publish them on
the net, we've certainly asked people if they would be willing to
come forward, but most people don't want to--even I , who has blabbed
on about Waldorf for years all over the internet--don't tell some of
the really personal stuff because I want to protect my daughter's
privacy, plus I don't want to slander some of the teachers etc. at
our ex-school. It's complicated.
Jeanine:
I think you raise a key point here, slander. The word frightens
many former parents including myself not because we think we are
slandering (which assumes untruth) but because we don't want to get
caught up in a public legal battle when we can barely keep up with
our personal lives. Perhaps if PLANS could give some professional
advice to former parents/teachers/students about the parameters of
slander and what exactly the risk is of placing personal stories
on-line, with bylines and/or anonymously this would help allay some
fears. Or are the fears warranted? I've heard that some parents
were threatened with legal action if they discussed their experiences
outside Waldorf.
Sharon:
PLANS case, if we win, will *cause* change. The personal stories,
and negative impact the schools had on many of us, translates into
ideological, political and national concerns. In order to cause
change within Waldorf, we have to litigate, how else?
Jeanine:
I see completely how the lawsuit will help force Waldorf's hand
(but perhaps not their heart or head). And I understand completely
why PLANS is suing. But the cost for this strategy is that some
folks will think you have a specific agenda and will discount what is
said in this and other PLANS forums. The reward, if you win, is
priceless. :) As for a parallel strategy that would force more
accountability and honesty from Waldorf schools: the PLANS site,
along with OpenWaldorf will make strides toward this same end.
People forget that the internet is still a relatively new phenomena,
it is mind boggling to think how much has changed in just a few short
years and how much more ubiquitous it has become. I believe due to
PLANS efforts as well as Open Waldorf parents are much more informed
today than was the case just a couple of years ago. The other day I
was in a park with my kids and got into a conversation with a
complete stranger. I happened to mention that one of my !
children went to Waldorf and his response was "Oh, you mean that cult?".
Sharon:
What Debra, Dan and the other PLANS people did was huge in scope!
The commitment is enormous, we're talking *years* of their lives
(could be 15 years!), not to mention the financial commitment and the
day to day stress. What they heave done on behalf of all of us
Waldorf-survivors is incredible and I am grateful for their time,
commitment and their bravery in being whistleblowers and making a
public stand. It isn't an easy undertaking, it requires a huge amount
of commitment and time, daily. We are a bunch of ex-Waldorfers
working our fingers to the bone trying to cause change, we do the
best we know how. A lot of thought went into the case, but we are
just " ordinary people who had an extraordinary Waldorf experience"
as Debra would say.
Jeanine:
If my post was in any way taken as a slight please know this was
not intended. All of your efforts are much appreciated! Debra's
solicitation simply reminded me of why PLANS' site didn't capture me
the first time around. Unless it is critical to PLANS to have
Jefferson's and Steiner's picture on the site I don't think it adds
much to the arguments. I guess it also depends on what is the first
message you want to convey to visitors? Is it the lawsuit, or is it
the resources available at the site for assessing Waldorf? The
pictures scream lawsuit and are the first images users see.
We could use help in bringing attention to Waldorf's deception. At
the moment we are collecting lessons that document Anthroposophy in
the classroom, which we will display on the PLANS site. This takes
*vast* amounts of time which we all give as volunteers. Perhaps you
have some lessons to contribute? If you have a personal story that
you wish to share, we'd love to have a section on our site that
people could easily access. Maybe you would volunteer to collect such
stories and organize a more "personal" approach?
Jeanine: Perhaps we could discuss this off line. I may be
interested in assisting with this.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 10:49:13 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
NJS (oscar001 earthlink.net) wrote:
)Sharon, let me start by saying that PLANS has been a true savior in my
) )journey post Waldorf. It has provided me the resources and )information
)that led me out of the post Waldorf fog and helped me to )understand
)anthroposophy; you, Dan, both Peters, Diana, Lisa, and )Debra being the
)steadfast providers of a valuable resource and )incisive arguments to
)anyone curious about Waldorf education.
G'day NJS,
I suspect I am one of the both Peters,and, if so, thanks for the praise. I
just wanted to make it clear that I am not a member of PLANS, and unlikely
ever to be so, since I see Plans as purely a US organisation, and I am
fortunate enough to be Australian. I am here purely for my own interests,
one of which is the dangers of the sort of antiscience which appears to be
fundamental to anthroposophy.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 11:00:55 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
Percedol wrote in response to me:
)){Peter] The position of most (but not all) materialists is that there ))is
))nothing after death. The materialist position may or may not be a
)) ))difficult idea to live with but that's not the point. The point is what
))makes more sense in the light of the ))evidence.
)
Percedol:
)There is no clear evidence for either positions. Each person's experience
)may help to choose one or the other as more likely.
Peter responds:
I am pleased to hear that Percedol accepts that there is no clear evidence
for the Anthroposophical positions. This seems to be in contrast to some
previous correspondents on this list who made claims of certainty for
Anthroposophy.
I had the pleasure to be visiting Turin a few years ago on the day that
Ferrari won the manufacturer's championship in Grand Prix. I saw plenty of
evidence of nationalistic fervour that day.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 981
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Pledge ruling stands
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By mysplum earthlink.net
Percedol!!!! Pssst!
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By mysplum earthlink.net
"The task of education"
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
To Chrystabel
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: To Chrystabel
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By oscar001 earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By oscar001 earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Theosophy of the R
By Percedol netscape.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 08:13:27 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Pledge ruling stands
Sharon: On Friday the Appeals Court refused to reconsider their summer
ruling which declared the Pledge "unconstitutional" due to the words "under
God". The court ruled it violates the separation of church and state
mandated by the Constitution. Some legal experts speculate that some judges
voted against the case simply to hasten a Supreme Court review. Attorney
General Ashcroft announced :"The Justice Department will spare no effort to
preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American
flag. We will defend the ability of Americans to declare their patriotism
through time-honored tradition of voluntarily reciting the pledge." Judge
Reinhardt wrote: "Any suggestion, wherever made, that federal judges should
be encouraged by the approval of the majority or deterred by popular
disfavor is fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution and must be
firmly rejected." (In other words, the majority can't force the Pledge on
someone. Freedom of religion is a basic human right and it has nothing to do
with majority rule). The difference with the PLANS case is that Waldorf's
entire curriculum, pedagogy and "child development model"--better known by
Anthrioposophists as "The True nature of Man"--is based on a
religion--Anthroposophy. We aren't talking about a mere pledge or prayer,
(which Waldorf also has). I keep wondering what was Waldorf thinking when
they ignored Eugene Schwartz who warned them not to go into the public
sector?!
We'll see what the Supreme Court says about the Pledge. What I don't
understand is why they just don't go back to the pre 1954 version, and say
it the way it was written, using the word "indivisible" instead of "under
God." "One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"...hey I
like that (G).
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 08:23:45 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
on 3/1/03 9:23 PM, Percedol at Percedol netscape.net wrote:
)
)
) mysplum wrote:
) We do not deny that Jefferson was a racist,
)
) P:
) And you have no problem with it!
) Interesting.
Sharon: This is a stupid argument Percedol. Of course I think it was wrong
for Jefferson to own slaves. I think that all kinds of slavery is wrong,
including mental slavery of the Anthroposophical variety. As it happens, the
US Constitution mandated liberty and equality for **all**, consequently,
slaves were freed. Sure I'd agree that America has a long way to go when it
comes to racism, which is one of the reasons I feel so strongly about the
State not advancing and establishing an Aryan Supremacist Teutonic Mystery
school. (Waldorf).
)) perhaps we should include a statement acknowledging this, but what we
)) try
)) to show is that Steiner's doctrine is racist
)
) P:
) Which is not but you distort and interpret to make the case.
Sharon: Yes it is and no we don't! You are the ones who deny and destort.
)
)
) and that the government has no
)) business advancing and establishing religion (be it racist or not) with
)) tax
)) payer's money.
)
) P:
) The day A. becomes a religion we will follow RS teachings under a
) different name taking the distance from it.
Sharon: LOL! That's a classic Percedol!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 08:37:06 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Percedol!!!! Pssst!
Sharon: Percedol please answer me. Why do you edit my posts? Why do you
substitute the letters S and A for the words Steiner and Anthroposophy which
I write in full? It seems a bit rude to me, I mean, I don't go and edit
your spelling. I think I know why you do it but I want you to fess up and
stop doing it. I can write Anthroposophy and Steiner in full if I want to,
even if your religion doesn't permit it!
Vickers: "Words are treated as if they are equivalent to things and can be
substituted for them. Manipulate the one and you can manipulate the other.
Analogies, instead of being, as they are in the scientific tradition,
explanatory devices subordinate to argument and proof, or heuristic tools to
make models that can be tested, corrected, and abandoned if necessary, are,
instead, modes of conceiving relationships in the universe that reify,
rigidify, and ultimately come to dominate thought. One no longer uses
analogies: One is used by them. They become the only way in which one can
think or experience the world (p. 95 Vickers, Brian. Occult and Scientific
Mentalities in the Renaissance, 1984).
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 11:17:24 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
) 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_3129448644_815107_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
on 3/1/03 11:58 PM, NJS at oscar001 earthlink.net wrote:
Sharon, let me start by saying that PLANS has been a true savior in my
journey post Waldorf. It has provided me the resources and information that
led me out of the post Waldorf fog and helped me to understand
anthroposophy;
Sharon: PLANS helped me tremendously as well, which is why I decided to help
them. I really don't think Anthroposophists understand how it feels to try
to function in an Anthroposophic environment without esoteric knowledge. And
the hurt and sadness that one feels when one delves into Steiner's lectures
as you come to terms with what transpired. Emerging from Waldorf is a very
difficult experience and they need to get open so that people like us don't
have to suffer.
NJS: Most importantly, it has been a digital petrie dish for assessing the
strengths and weaknesses on both sides of the Waldorf debate;
Sharon: Yes, listening to the various arguments is a good way to sort
through your own beliefs and feelings. I listened in on WC for a long, long
time before I began to post. Time heals and with knowledge comes confidence.
Confusion slowly dissipates. Now, for example, when Percedol says things
like "A. is not a religion" I just want to howl! (G) Because I *know* it is.
Before, I used to believe them...sort of.
NJS: I hope my comments are taken without offense and seen as a good faith
attempt to convey my perception of the site several years ago and today.
Several years ago I was a harried parent looking for personal experiences
with Waldorf education and for various reasons those personal stories did
not leap out at me in 1999. If PLANS has made a conscious decision to
project only a "political" face so be it. If, however, PLANS also desires
to convey a more personal, human side of the impact of Waldorf deception
then perhaps exploring how this can be done would be useful.
Sharon: No there's no offense, you have brought up some very good points
which we should address. It does help to get feedback.
Jeanine:
I think you raise a key point here, slander. The word frightens many former
parents including myself not because we think we are slandering (which
assumes untruth) but because we don't want to get caught up in a public
legal battle when we can barely keep up with our personal lives. Perhaps if
PLANS could give some professional advice to former
parents/teachers/students about the parameters of slander and what exactly
the risk is of placing personal stories on-line, with bylines and/or
anonymously this would help allay some fears. Or are the fears warranted?
I've heard that some parents were threatened with legal action if they
discussed their experiences outside Waldorf.
Sharon: I think people should be cautious, some parents have been
threatened. A lawyer that deals in cultic studies told us that we *can*
publish our stories but of course, truth is the best defense against libel.
I think if the stories had names of people (like teachers) removed and names
of places and schools and children, then it would be ok, but I'm not an
expert and we would have to consult a lawyer for guidance. If all the
stories are anonymous, then we'll get asked why people won't put their names
to their testimonies which is why I think it's better to have people own
their stories. Then you have the difficulty of some people not wanting
others to know that they were involved in Waldorf...I mean...it could be
embarrassing on many fronts.
If you are serious about helping in this way, by gathering stories, editing
them etc. then perhaps PLANS could seek council as to how to approach this.
I suppose it's up to the board whether they want to do this (which I'm not
part of). Obviously we do want to help ex-Waldorfers...we understand what it
feels like to be duped because we were once uninformed-Waldorfers...so if
there are ways to improve the PLANS site we are all ears. I think Open
Waldorf is doing a wonderful job and fills in some of the gaps. I also think
their more "positive" approach is useful for people who are either
Anthroposophists or questioning-Waldorfers, not quite ready for a blatant
critique. Because PLANS is a supposed "anti cult org" we tend to be frowned
upon in this day and age, even though PLANS supports Waldorf's right to
exist, (but just not in the public sector). In the end I suppose you just
can't be all things to all men.
Jeanine:
I see completely how the lawsuit will help force Waldorf's hand (but perhaps
not their heart or head). And I understand completely why PLANS is suing.
But the cost for this strategy is that some folks will think you have a
specific agenda and will discount what is said in this and other PLANS
forums. The reward, if you win, is priceless. :)
Sharon: Waldorfers are guided by their hearts and heads, they are *true
believers* and think they are above the law because they have the "truth" so
the results of the law suit will probably never change their hearts or
heads, even if PLANS wins. Some people love Waldorf, Anthroposophy, and want
to follow Steiner, and that is their right. People who discount what PLANS
is saying are people who don't really want to hear because they like or want
to like Waldorf...don't you think? They want to believe the false promises.
If you want to believe that Steiner's doctrine isn't racist, then you'll
hone in on the Jefferson picture on the PLANS site...know what I mean? I
don't feel it's PLANS role to prevent people from liking Waldorf if they
want to. But I do think we need stop Waldorf from expanding with public
monies and we can also help provide some answers for unsuspecting Waldorf
parents who are scratching their heads wondering "what is going on?" or
those thinking of going into Waldorf who would be out of place. We really
have no right to stop people being Anthroposophists or choosing private
Waldorf schools for their kids. . I mean...if people want to send their kids
to a mystery school, or a Mormon school, or a Christian school etc, they
should. So I don't see my role as trying to stop people from being believers
if they want to be, my role is just to provide arguments so that people can
figure things out for themselves. Plus I support the lawsuit goals. I also
think it's good to have orgs like PLANS that help people get out of
something they don't wish to support, or help prevent them from going into
something they wouldn't suit by providing information. I think PLANS'
specific agenda of getting Waldorf out of the public sector really is key, I
really see this as a first step to getting Waldorf to be more open about
their esoteric subtext.
J: As for a parallel strategy that would force more accountability and
honesty from Waldorf schools: the PLANS site, along with OpenWaldorf will
make strides toward this same end. People forget that the internet is still
a relatively new phenomena, it is mind boggling to think how much has
changed in just a few short years and how much more ubiquitous it has
become. I believe due to PLANS efforts as well as Open Waldorf parents are
much more informed today than was the case just a couple of years ago.
Sharon: Yes, the internet is an amazing place. I think we all are helping
each other. If you search Anthroposophy or Steiner you sure can find lots to
read (G) I would have gulped had I done that years ago, before choosing
Waldorf (G). The two "critical"Waldorf sites not only help parents, but
they are helping Waldorf get more open as well.
Jeanine:
If my post was in any way taken as a slight please know this was not
intended.
Sharon: No, I value your input, I was just trying to reiterate that there
are just little ordinary people who are trying their best to cause necessary
change within Waldorf. I am merely "mommy the duped" doing the best she
knows how. It helps to hear people's responses, so thank-you.
J: All of your efforts are much appreciated! Debra's solicitation simply
reminded me of why PLANS' site didn't capture me the first time around.
Sharon: Debra's solicitation is probably more useful for someone exiting
than someone going in, but she is as clear as a bell!! (Read below).
So....basically you ignored PLANS because their information didn't quite
grab you and consequently you had a bad Waldorf experience? You think PLANS
could be better with the way they present information so that people like
you would listen and avoid being duped? The Jefferson picture threw you off
so you didn't read Debra's opening lines or read the mission statement?
J: Unless it is critical to PLANS to have Jefferson's and Steiner's picture
on the site I don't think it adds much to the arguments. I guess it also
depends on what is the first message you want to convey to visitors? Is it
the lawsuit, or is it the resources available at the site for assessing
Waldorf? The pictures scream lawsuit and are the first images users see.
Sharon: Thanks for sharing that, I think it's something the PLANS board
should talk about. The mission statement supports both.
Maybe you would volunteer to collect such stories and organize a more
"personal" approach?
Jeanine: Perhaps we could discuss this off line. I may be interested in
assisting with this.
Sharon: Great. Let's see what PLANS people think about your idea, which btw
is something we've already talked about many times before, so I'm sure they
will be open to doing this, especially if you are willing to take the time
to organize it and collect the stories. Thanks for your input.
Here's PLANS' mission:
People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools will:
1. Provide parents, teachers, and school boards with views of Waldorf
education from outside the cult of Rudolf Steiner.
2. Expose the illegality of public funding for Waldorf school programs in
the US.
3. Litigate against schools violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment in the US.
Here's Debra's opening lines, the first thing you read when you go to the
PLANS site....
Welcome! People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools (PLANS) is a world-wide
network of former Waldorf parents, teachers, students, administrators and
trustees who come from a variety of backgrounds with a common goal: to
educate the public about the reality behind Waldorf's facade of progressive,
arts-based education. Waldorf is the most visible activity of Anthroposophy,
an occultist sect founded by Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925).
Together, we have performed exhaustive research on Waldorf schools and
Anthroposophy, the esoteric, occult religion that both guides and inspires
Waldorf teachers. PLANS affirms the right of all religious groups to
practice and to teach their beliefs. But we expect those groups -- including
Anthroposophy -- to tell the truth about their missionary efforts.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 11:28:47 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: "The task of education"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_ItE//9XgKNw74M+tE31VlA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website Has anyone ever
found information like this (below) in any Waldorf brochures? Would
this type of honest information - Steiner's task of education - not
help prospective parents make an informed, conscious decision
regarding their family's participation in such schools? The entire
lecture is worth a read.
-Walden
From Study of Man Lecture One
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Education/19190821a01.html;mark=237,35,39#WN_mark
You will have to take over children for their education and
instruction - children who will have received already (as you must
remember) the education, or mis-education given them by their
parents. Indeed our intentions will only be fully accomplished when
we, as humanity, will have reached the stage where parents, too, will
understand that special tasks are set for mankind to-day, even for
the first years of the child's education. But when we receive the
children into the school we shall still be able to make up for many
things which have been done wrongly, or left undone, in the first
years of the child's life. For this we must fill ourselves with the
consciousness through which alone we can truly teach and educate. ...
...Now when the child has come forth on to the physical plane, we
must realise what has really happened for him in the transition from
a spiritual to a physical plane. Firstly, we must recognise that the
human being is really composed of two members. Before the human being
comes down to earth a union is entered into between the spirit and
the soul - meaning by spirit what for the physical world of to-day is
still entirely hidden, and what in Spiritual Science we call
Spirit-Man, Life-Spirit, Spirit-Self. These three members of man's
being are present in a certain way in the supersensible sphere to
which we must now work our way through. And between death and a new
birth we do already stand in a certain relationship to Spirit-Man,
Life-Spirit, Spirit-Self. Now the force which proceeds from this
trinity permeates the Soul element in man: Consciousness Soul,
Intellectual or Mind Soul, and Sentient Soul. And if you were to
observe the human being when, having passed through the e!
xistence between death and a new birth, he is just preparing to
descend into the physical world, then you would find the spiritual
which we have just described united with the soul. Man descends, as
it were, as Spirit-Soul or Soul-Spirit from a higher sphere into
earthly existence. He clothes himself with earthly existence. ...
...If you regard with an open mind the child who has found his way
into earthly life, you will observe that here in the child,
Soul-Spirit or Spirit-Soul is as yet dis-united from the Life-Body.
The task of education conceived in the spiritual sense is to bring
the Soul-Spirit into harmony with the Life-Body. They must come into
harmony with one another. They must be attuned to one another; for
when the child is born into the physical world, they do not as yet
fit one another. The task of the educator, and of the teacher too, is
the mutual attunement of these two members.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:30:29 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: To Chrystabel
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Chrystabel, you wrote,
)
) )Last night my husband and I looked through many posts on this site
) )and others. He agrees that communities of Anthros are dogmatic and,
) )sometimes, a bit crazed. But I think there are cultural and
) )philosophical differences that separate the German Anthros from
) )their American counterparts.
)
) Less than you think. It's funny the way American Waldorf teachers say
) they are enlightened and the German teachers are dogmatic, and the
) German Waldorf teachers say just the opposite.
)
) )...I wonder why the schools here hide their views. My husband said
) )that in Germany Waldorf school reall do try to be non-sectarian and
) )encourage separate religious instruction. The school in Hamburg had
) )separate classes for their various student body. If you were
) )Catholic you received Catholic instruction and support, Buddhist the
) )same, etc.
)
) This is in accordance with how it was done at the original Waldorf
) school. Religion instruction is traditional in German schools, and
) Waldorf follows that tradition. Most American schools omit religion
) classes.
)
) )So, my question is, what is this contention about Waldorf schools
) )not bein non-sectarian? Does mentioning a belief in higher powers
) )or deity automatically disqualify a school as sectarian?
)
) Waldorf is clearly sectarian because the methodology and the
) curriculum are based on the religious world-view of Anthroposophy, an
) occultist sect.
)
) )Does a school need to be agnostic or atheistic in doctrine and
) )teaching in order to be non-sectarian?
)
) Being agnostic or atheistic would be sectarian. Non-sectarian means
) neutral.
)
) )Would anthroposophists in US Waldorf schools try to circumvent my
) )own childrens religious education in their or would they support
) )their native beliefs?
)
) They will support the family's religion when relating to the parents,
) but they will undermine it in favor of Anthroposophy when they have
) the children alone. They justify this by their belief that
) Anthroposophy is a philosophy that embraces the whole truth about the
) relationship of humans to the spiritual world, whereas other
) religions only have fragments of it. Therefore to teach the children
) Anthroposophical ideas is, in their view, to complete their spiritual
) education or to correct their erroneous education.
)
) -Dan Dugan
Su here: I want to add to Dan's answer in somewhat broader terms.
Steiner came out of a culture of German Catholicism and Lutheranism,
with all its traditions and philosophical bent. It seems that it was and
is much easier to blend, and to "fit" the Anthroposophical philosophy
and religion into German society, because it is culturally tied in with
pre-existing institutions (religion taught in the schools, etc) and it
supports lots of the Germanic, "folk" or "Volk" traditions,trends in
pedagogy and cultural awareness.
Steiner was part of a late 19th century movement towards Germanic or
Germano-centric thinkers, that included people like Fichte,LaGarde,
Langbehn and Van den Bruck and others, who all had very similar
interests in promoting German culture, both ancient and modern. That's
why Steiner is well tolerated in Germany. He fit right in to a
pre-existing movement to elevate Germanic beliefs.
In the US, it's a different story. Anthroposophy here wants to gain its
authority by associating with the likes of Whitman, Emerson, Thoreau,
etc. so as to fit into American philosophy and thought. In many ways
they are attempting to appropriate an identity here that is not quite
real, though there is the thread of theosophy that is also present in
these thinkers that Anthroposophy is banking on.
It is in this way that they will try to legitimize their position in
American culture.
The problem is that American society and culture is much more dynamic
than German culture, and that's why the likes of Waldorf Critics has
sprung up in the USA and not in Germany. I imagine there has been some
resistance to Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in Germany, but not in
the same way as here. The idea that the US is a heterogeneous society
is quite different from German tradition, which accepts diversity with
great societal pain and mistrust.
Anthroposophists "say" that they promote "diversity" and "art" and other
American tenets. However, their intent is to promote what they teach in
the schools, in a cloaked manner, so as not to arouse the awareness of
the laity of the *real* philosophy. It's kind of a Trojan Horse
mentality.
And it works, too, because people like you, Chrystabel, and your husband
who are tolerant and well-intentioned, and believe the outward trappings
of this philosophy will not see the undercurrent and the motive for the
school....Unless you dig as deeply as the researchers here and elsewhere
have done, and examine the actual negative effects that the schools and
the pedagogy have had on numerous individuals, both children and
families.
You may say, well that is a minority opinion, but in the Good 'Ole US of
A, we rule by both the majority and we *protect the minority* which may
be suffering, which is a totally different stance than that taken in the
Old World, where Majority rules fairly firmly. Of course this is
changing gradually all over the world, because multiculturalism is a
wave covering all continents, or it has been an historical phenomenon
that is comming into acceptance because humanity realizes that if we
don't we may not be able to maintain an intact planet...
Sorry for the rambling....
Waldorf teachers, Eurythmy teachers, and all of the different
functionaries in the school are promoting Steiner's sectarian doctrine,
*a priori* which means that though it is not *directly* spoken, it is
the basis upon which they build their pedagogy and their relationship to
the students and parents. So many a priori assumptions become reality,
when one believes them without questioning them. They are brought to
bear on the children by suggestion, by ritual, and by belief that these
ideas will eventually permeate the child's life in deeper ways. They are
promoted in all the ways that have been discussed:wet-on-wet art
meditations, prayers in the morning to the Sun, the Rainbow celebrations
of birthdays, the lazure pink-washed classrooms, the secret pedagogical
meetings where the children's etheric and astral bodies are discussed
along with their "temperaments".
The assumptions that are accepted as developmental doctrine, are
figments of Steiner's imagination.
This is the same way that Madison Avenue convinces you to buy certain
products or appreciate certain types of beauty or even how the
government promotes certain ideas and actions.
In other words, the soft sell, the assumption, and the a priori belief
that something will succeed, or that it is real, will then become
accepted belief, through action. The premise on which we base are
beliefs is the most powerful way to convince ourselves of the so-called
"truth" of something.
In modern psychology it is called acting "as if" something were already
true. It is also used by magicians, and palm-readers, and sooth-sayers,
and self-help gurus.
"As if" behavior *can* be very helpful in coping with verious challenges
in life, but should not be used to deceive. This is what critics of
Waldorf Education are working to expose; the deception.
Best, Su
************
[a pri?o?ri
(click to hear the word) (? pr-?r, -r, pr-?r, -r)
adj.
Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related
effect; deductive.
Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to
particular facts or experience.
Knowable without appeal to particular experience.
Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study.]
It ain't over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:39:41 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: To Chrystabel
)
) "As if" behavior *can* be very helpful in coping with verious***
***Spelling error correction: Various instead of verious...
Also:
Please see the book The Politics of Cultural Despair; Study in the rise
of Germanic Ideology, by Fritz Stern, University of California Press,
Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 1961. (An excellent book...)
-Su
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 12:11:29 -0800
From: "NJS" (oscar001 earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C2E0B4.DAE3EA20
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Sharon: Debra's solicitation is probably more useful for someone
exiting than someone going in, but she is as clear as a bell!! (Read
below). So....basically you ignored PLANS because their information
didn't quite grab you and consequently you had a bad Waldorf
experience? You think PLANS could be better with the way they present
information so that people like you would listen and avoid being
duped? The Jefferson picture threw you off so you didn't read Debra's
opening lines or read the mission statement?
The Plans site was much different, as I recall, when we looked at it
in 1999. I don't think you or Debra were even part of PLANS yet? I
could be wrong but I simply recall Dan Dugan's name, reading the home
page about the lawsuit and getting the impression it was created by
civil libertarian activists. This tainted the information for me that
would come from PLANS so I looked for 3rd party sources.
When we are trying to determine crediblity we all carry individual
biases about who is believable. Pre Waldorf the best information for
helping me determine whether Waldorf was appropriate would not come
from AWSNA or PLANS, but from other parents like me. Post Waldorf
when I was trying to understand anthroposophy and our experience the
best sources were the most well-read, and that included you and both
Peters, as well as my own research into Steiner's writing. The depth
of the knowledge all of you conveyed shamed most anthroposophists!
And the coherence in those views and your willingness to engage in
the debate juxtaposed against supporters who shut down discussion at
SJU, and ran into the ether when asked to explain their positions in
this forum, convinced me of the profound weaknesses in athroposophy
and deception in Waldorf education.
As a prospective parent I was looking specifically for former parents
and their experiences, and not seeing any, I moved on. I also recall
that the site was much, much smaller and did not have the number of
resources, links, and 3rd party perspectives that it has today. Today
when you look at Plans it is clear there are former parents involved
and parent testimonials are easier to find. In 1999 I only recall
Dan Dugan's name and I didn't leave with the impression that former
parents were part of the site and it's mission. This sort of quick
scanning is typical of users on the internet, by the way. There is
so much information that we must wade through day to day to find what
is relevant and credible. The home page of any site is key for
capturing your audience. So, if PLANS wishes to convey the 3 concepts
in your mission statement on the homepage in the order in which they
are listed, then the homepage should reflect this as well.
Currently, it seems to promote items 2 a!
nd 3 in your list (the lawsuit) most prominently.
I don't believe Debra's statement was on the site when I viewed it in
1999. Let me also say that my "missing the boat" at that time is in
no way a reflection of Dan and his efforts, but perhaps a confluence
of my specific needs and the site's layout. He opened our eyes and
we all owe him our gratitude and admiration. It's hard to be the
lone voice but he no longer is, and his courage brought other
disaffected parents out of the woodwork. Thank you Dan.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 13:34:48 -0800
From: "NJS" (oscar001 earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
) G'day NJS,
) I suspect I am one of the both Peters,and, if so, thanks for the praise. I
) just wanted to make it clear that I am not a member of PLANS, and unlikely
) ever to be so, since I see Plans as purely a US organisation, and I am
) fortunate enough to be Australian. I am here purely for my own interests,
) one of which is the dangers of the sort of antiscience which appears to be
) fundamental to anthroposophy.
) See you, Peter
I know Peter that you and Peter S. are not technically part of PLANS, but
your contributions have been so valuable that I needed to mention your name,
hope you don't mind. I think having the academic acumen both of you provide
draws in those of us who are too much "in our head". Your perspectives have
helped me over the past year, thank you.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 23:00:12 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
NJS at oscar001 earthlink.net wrote:
When we are trying to determine crediblity we all carry individual biases
about who is believable. Pre Waldorf the best information for helping me
determine whether Waldorf was appropriate would not come from AWSNA or
PLANS, but from other parents like me. Post Waldorf when I was trying to
understand anthroposophy and our experience the best sources were the most
well-read, and that included you and both Peters, as well as my own research
into Steiner's writing. The depth of the knowledge all of you conveyed
shamed most anthroposophists! And the coherence in those views and your
willingness to engage in the debate juxtaposed against supporters who shut
down discussion at SJU, and ran into the ether when asked to explain their
positions in this forum, convinced me of the profound weaknesses in
athroposophy and deception in Waldorf education.
Peter responds:
While I can't claim any great knowledge of Anthroposophy (I don't have
anything like Sharon's or Peter S's or Dan's patience to wade through that
much gibberish), I wonder about the Anthroposophical knowledge of the DOFs
who have appeared on this list. Is it that we just haven't had any serious
Anthroposophists on this list? Are there some out there who could make
reasoned arguments based on evidence that would at least temper some of the
critics views? It may be that someone like Arthur Zajonc could do a good job
of this, even though I found his book about light unconvincing.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 06:43:42 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
) Peter responds:
) I am pleased to hear that Percedol accepts that there is no clear
) evidence
) for the Anthroposophical positions. This seems to be in contrast to some
)
) previous correspondents on this list who made claims of certainty for
) Anthroposophy.
P:
There is no clear evidence for any position. Materialist or
spiritualist. Otherwise everybody would quickly become all materialists
or spiritualists. This does not mean that if one can experience the
reality of the spirit it makes any difference. That experience cannot be
simply transmitted to another person. So each person is free to choose.
)
) I had the pleasure to be visiting Turin a few years ago on the day that
) Ferrari won the manufacturer's championship in Grand Prix. I saw plenty
) of
) evidence of nationalistic fervour that day.
)
) See you, Peter
P:
If they had the same nationalistic fervour for their nation as they have
for sports. It does not go beyond sports, unfortunately. And I don't
even care about sports, of course (sports and spiritualism are quite
diverging).
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 982
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Pledge ruling stands
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By mysplum earthlink.net
Percedol!!!! Pssst!
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By mysplum earthlink.net
"The task of education"
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
To Chrystabel
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: To Chrystabel
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By oscar001 earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By oscar001 earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Theosophy of the R
By Percedol netscape.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 08:13:27 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Pledge ruling stands
Sharon: On Friday the Appeals Court refused to reconsider their summer
ruling which declared the Pledge "unconstitutional" due to the words "under
God". The court ruled it violates the separation of church and state
mandated by the Constitution. Some legal experts speculate that some judges
voted against the case simply to hasten a Supreme Court review. Attorney
General Ashcroft announced :"The Justice Department will spare no effort to
preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American
flag. We will defend the ability of Americans to declare their patriotism
through time-honored tradition of voluntarily reciting the pledge." Judge
Reinhardt wrote: "Any suggestion, wherever made, that federal judges should
be encouraged by the approval of the majority or deterred by popular
disfavor is fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution and must be
firmly rejected." (In other words, the majority can't force the Pledge on
someone. Freedom of religion is a basic human right and it has nothing to do
with majority rule). The difference with the PLANS case is that Waldorf's
entire curriculum, pedagogy and "child development model"--better known by
Anthrioposophists as "The True nature of Man"--is based on a
religion--Anthroposophy. We aren't talking about a mere pledge or prayer,
(which Waldorf also has). I keep wondering what was Waldorf thinking when
they ignored Eugene Schwartz who warned them not to go into the public
sector?!
We'll see what the Supreme Court says about the Pledge. What I don't
understand is why they just don't go back to the pre 1954 version, and say
it the way it was written, using the word "indivisible" instead of "under
God." "One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"...hey I
like that (G).
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 08:23:45 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
on 3/1/03 9:23 PM, Percedol at Percedol netscape.net wrote:
)
)
) mysplum wrote:
) We do not deny that Jefferson was a racist,
)
) P:
) And you have no problem with it!
) Interesting.
Sharon: This is a stupid argument Percedol. Of course I think it was wrong
for Jefferson to own slaves. I think that all kinds of slavery is wrong,
including mental slavery of the Anthroposophical variety. As it happens, the
US Constitution mandated liberty and equality for **all**, consequently,
slaves were freed. Sure I'd agree that America has a long way to go when it
comes to racism, which is one of the reasons I feel so strongly about the
State not advancing and establishing an Aryan Supremacist Teutonic Mystery
school. (Waldorf).
)) perhaps we should include a statement acknowledging this, but what we
)) try
)) to show is that Steiner's doctrine is racist
)
) P:
) Which is not but you distort and interpret to make the case.
Sharon: Yes it is and no we don't! You are the ones who deny and destort.
)
)
) and that the government has no
)) business advancing and establishing religion (be it racist or not) with
)) tax
)) payer's money.
)
) P:
) The day A. becomes a religion we will follow RS teachings under a
) different name taking the distance from it.
Sharon: LOL! That's a classic Percedol!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 08:37:06 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Percedol!!!! Pssst!
Sharon: Percedol please answer me. Why do you edit my posts? Why do you
substitute the letters S and A for the words Steiner and Anthroposophy which
I write in full? It seems a bit rude to me, I mean, I don't go and edit
your spelling. I think I know why you do it but I want you to fess up and
stop doing it. I can write Anthroposophy and Steiner in full if I want to,
even if your religion doesn't permit it!
Vickers: "Words are treated as if they are equivalent to things and can be
substituted for them. Manipulate the one and you can manipulate the other.
Analogies, instead of being, as they are in the scientific tradition,
explanatory devices subordinate to argument and proof, or heuristic tools to
make models that can be tested, corrected, and abandoned if necessary, are,
instead, modes of conceiving relationships in the universe that reify,
rigidify, and ultimately come to dominate thought. One no longer uses
analogies: One is used by them. They become the only way in which one can
think or experience the world (p. 95 Vickers, Brian. Occult and Scientific
Mentalities in the Renaissance, 1984).
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 11:17:24 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
) 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_3129448644_815107_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
on 3/1/03 11:58 PM, NJS at oscar001 earthlink.net wrote:
Sharon, let me start by saying that PLANS has been a true savior in my
journey post Waldorf. It has provided me the resources and information that
led me out of the post Waldorf fog and helped me to understand
anthroposophy;
Sharon: PLANS helped me tremendously as well, which is why I decided to help
them. I really don't think Anthroposophists understand how it feels to try
to function in an Anthroposophic environment without esoteric knowledge. And
the hurt and sadness that one feels when one delves into Steiner's lectures
as you come to terms with what transpired. Emerging from Waldorf is a very
difficult experience and they need to get open so that people like us don't
have to suffer.
NJS: Most importantly, it has been a digital petrie dish for assessing the
strengths and weaknesses on both sides of the Waldorf debate;
Sharon: Yes, listening to the various arguments is a good way to sort
through your own beliefs and feelings. I listened in on WC for a long, long
time before I began to post. Time heals and with knowledge comes confidence.
Confusion slowly dissipates. Now, for example, when Percedol says things
like "A. is not a religion" I just want to howl! (G) Because I *know* it is.
Before, I used to believe them...sort of.
NJS: I hope my comments are taken without offense and seen as a good faith
attempt to convey my perception of the site several years ago and today.
Several years ago I was a harried parent looking for personal experiences
with Waldorf education and for various reasons those personal stories did
not leap out at me in 1999. If PLANS has made a conscious decision to
project only a "political" face so be it. If, however, PLANS also desires
to convey a more personal, human side of the impact of Waldorf deception
then perhaps exploring how this can be done would be useful.
Sharon: No there's no offense, you have brought up some very good points
which we should address. It does help to get feedback.
Jeanine:
I think you raise a key point here, slander. The word frightens many former
parents including myself not because we think we are slandering (which
assumes untruth) but because we don't want to get caught up in a public
legal battle when we can barely keep up with our personal lives. Perhaps if
PLANS could give some professional advice to former
parents/teachers/students about the parameters of slander and what exactly
the risk is of placing personal stories on-line, with bylines and/or
anonymously this would help allay some fears. Or are the fears warranted?
I've heard that some parents were threatened with legal action if they
discussed their experiences outside Waldorf.
Sharon: I think people should be cautious, some parents have been
threatened. A lawyer that deals in cultic studies told us that we *can*
publish our stories but of course, truth is the best defense against libel.
I think if the stories had names of people (like teachers) removed and names
of places and schools and children, then it would be ok, but I'm not an
expert and we would have to consult a lawyer for guidance. If all the
stories are anonymous, then we'll get asked why people won't put their names
to their testimonies which is why I think it's better to have people own
their stories. Then you have the difficulty of some people not wanting
others to know that they were involved in Waldorf...I mean...it could be
embarrassing on many fronts.
If you are serious about helping in this way, by gathering stories, editing
them etc. then perhaps PLANS could seek council as to how to approach this.
I suppose it's up to the board whether they want to do this (which I'm not
part of). Obviously we do want to help ex-Waldorfers...we understand what it
feels like to be duped because we were once uninformed-Waldorfers...so if
there are ways to improve the PLANS site we are all ears. I think Open
Waldorf is doing a wonderful job and fills in some of the gaps. I also think
their more "positive" approach is useful for people who are either
Anthroposophists or questioning-Waldorfers, not quite ready for a blatant
critique. Because PLANS is a supposed "anti cult org" we tend to be frowned
upon in this day and age, even though PLANS supports Waldorf's right to
exist, (but just not in the public sector). In the end I suppose you just
can't be all things to all men.
Jeanine:
I see completely how the lawsuit will help force Waldorf's hand (but perhaps
not their heart or head). And I understand completely why PLANS is suing.
But the cost for this strategy is that some folks will think you have a
specific agenda and will discount what is said in this and other PLANS
forums. The reward, if you win, is priceless. :)
Sharon: Waldorfers are guided by their hearts and heads, they are *true
believers* and think they are above the law because they have the "truth" so
the results of the law suit will probably never change their hearts or
heads, even if PLANS wins. Some people love Waldorf, Anthroposophy, and want
to follow Steiner, and that is their right. People who discount what PLANS
is saying are people who don't really want to hear because they like or want
to like Waldorf...don't you think? They want to believe the false promises.
If you want to believe that Steiner's doctrine isn't racist, then you'll
hone in on the Jefferson picture on the PLANS site...know what I mean? I
don't feel it's PLANS role to prevent people from liking Waldorf if they
want to. But I do think we need stop Waldorf from expanding with public
monies and we can also help provide some answers for unsuspecting Waldorf
parents who are scratching their heads wondering "what is going on?" or
those thinking of going into Waldorf who would be out of place. We really
have no right to stop people being Anthroposophists or choosing private
Waldorf schools for their kids. . I mean...if people want to send their kids
to a mystery school, or a Mormon school, or a Christian school etc, they
should. So I don't see my role as trying to stop people from being believers
if they want to be, my role is just to provide arguments so that people can
figure things out for themselves. Plus I support the lawsuit goals. I also
think it's good to have orgs like PLANS that help people get out of
something they don't wish to support, or help prevent them from going into
something they wouldn't suit by providing information. I think PLANS'
specific agenda of getting Waldorf out of the public sector really is key, I
really see this as a first step to getting Waldorf to be more open about
their esoteric subtext.
J: As for a parallel strategy that would force more accountability and
honesty from Waldorf schools: the PLANS site, along with OpenWaldorf will
make strides toward this same end. People forget that the internet is still
a relatively new phenomena, it is mind boggling to think how much has
changed in just a few short years and how much more ubiquitous it has
become. I believe due to PLANS efforts as well as Open Waldorf parents are
much more informed today than was the case just a couple of years ago.
Sharon: Yes, the internet is an amazing place. I think we all are helping
each other. If you search Anthroposophy or Steiner you sure can find lots to
read (G) I would have gulped had I done that years ago, before choosing
Waldorf (G). The two "critical"Waldorf sites not only help parents, but
they are helping Waldorf get more open as well.
Jeanine:
If my post was in any way taken as a slight please know this was not
intended.
Sharon: No, I value your input, I was just trying to reiterate that there
are just little ordinary people who are trying their best to cause necessary
change within Waldorf. I am merely "mommy the duped" doing the best she
knows how. It helps to hear people's responses, so thank-you.
J: All of your efforts are much appreciated! Debra's solicitation simply
reminded me of why PLANS' site didn't capture me the first time around.
Sharon: Debra's solicitation is probably more useful for someone exiting
than someone going in, but she is as clear as a bell!! (Read below).
So....basically you ignored PLANS because their information didn't quite
grab you and consequently you had a bad Waldorf experience? You think PLANS
could be better with the way they present information so that people like
you would listen and avoid being duped? The Jefferson picture threw you off
so you didn't read Debra's opening lines or read the mission statement?
J: Unless it is critical to PLANS to have Jefferson's and Steiner's picture
on the site I don't think it adds much to the arguments. I guess it also
depends on what is the first message you want to convey to visitors? Is it
the lawsuit, or is it the resources available at the site for assessing
Waldorf? The pictures scream lawsuit and are the first images users see.
Sharon: Thanks for sharing that, I think it's something the PLANS board
should talk about. The mission statement supports both.
Maybe you would volunteer to collect such stories and organize a more
"personal" approach?
Jeanine: Perhaps we could discuss this off line. I may be interested in
assisting with this.
Sharon: Great. Let's see what PLANS people think about your idea, which btw
is something we've already talked about many times before, so I'm sure they
will be open to doing this, especially if you are willing to take the time
to organize it and collect the stories. Thanks for your input.
Here's PLANS' mission:
People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools will:
1. Provide parents, teachers, and school boards with views of Waldorf
education from outside the cult of Rudolf Steiner.
2. Expose the illegality of public funding for Waldorf school programs in
the US.
3. Litigate against schools violating the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment in the US.
Here's Debra's opening lines, the first thing you read when you go to the
PLANS site....
Welcome! People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools (PLANS) is a world-wide
network of former Waldorf parents, teachers, students, administrators and
trustees who come from a variety of backgrounds with a common goal: to
educate the public about the reality behind Waldorf's facade of progressive,
arts-based education. Waldorf is the most visible activity of Anthroposophy,
an occultist sect founded by Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925).
Together, we have performed exhaustive research on Waldorf schools and
Anthroposophy, the esoteric, occult religion that both guides and inspires
Waldorf teachers. PLANS affirms the right of all religious groups to
practice and to teach their beliefs. But we expect those groups -- including
Anthroposophy -- to tell the truth about their missionary efforts.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 11:28:47 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: "The task of education"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_ItE//9XgKNw74M+tE31VlA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website Has anyone ever
found information like this (below) in any Waldorf brochures? Would
this type of honest information - Steiner's task of education - not
help prospective parents make an informed, conscious decision
regarding their family's participation in such schools? The entire
lecture is worth a read.
-Walden
From Study of Man Lecture One
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Education/19190821a01.html;mark=237,35,39#WN_mark
You will have to take over children for their education and
instruction - children who will have received already (as you must
remember) the education, or mis-education given them by their
parents. Indeed our intentions will only be fully accomplished when
we, as humanity, will have reached the stage where parents, too, will
understand that special tasks are set for mankind to-day, even for
the first years of the child's education. But when we receive the
children into the school we shall still be able to make up for many
things which have been done wrongly, or left undone, in the first
years of the child's life. For this we must fill ourselves with the
consciousness through which alone we can truly teach and educate. ...
...Now when the child has come forth on to the physical plane, we
must realise what has really happened for him in the transition from
a spiritual to a physical plane. Firstly, we must recognise that the
human being is really composed of two members. Before the human being
comes down to earth a union is entered into between the spirit and
the soul - meaning by spirit what for the physical world of to-day is
still entirely hidden, and what in Spiritual Science we call
Spirit-Man, Life-Spirit, Spirit-Self. These three members of man's
being are present in a certain way in the supersensible sphere to
which we must now work our way through. And between death and a new
birth we do already stand in a certain relationship to Spirit-Man,
Life-Spirit, Spirit-Self. Now the force which proceeds from this
trinity permeates the Soul element in man: Consciousness Soul,
Intellectual or Mind Soul, and Sentient Soul. And if you were to
observe the human being when, having passed through the e!
xistence between death and a new birth, he is just preparing to
descend into the physical world, then you would find the spiritual
which we have just described united with the soul. Man descends, as
it were, as Spirit-Soul or Soul-Spirit from a higher sphere into
earthly existence. He clothes himself with earthly existence. ...
...If you regard with an open mind the child who has found his way
into earthly life, you will observe that here in the child,
Soul-Spirit or Spirit-Soul is as yet dis-united from the Life-Body.
The task of education conceived in the spiritual sense is to bring
the Soul-Spirit into harmony with the Life-Body. They must come into
harmony with one another. They must be attuned to one another; for
when the child is born into the physical world, they do not as yet
fit one another. The task of the educator, and of the teacher too, is
the mutual attunement of these two members.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:30:29 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: To Chrystabel
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Chrystabel, you wrote,
)
) )Last night my husband and I looked through many posts on this site
) )and others. He agrees that communities of Anthros are dogmatic and,
) )sometimes, a bit crazed. But I think there are cultural and
) )philosophical differences that separate the German Anthros from
) )their American counterparts.
)
) Less than you think. It's funny the way American Waldorf teachers say
) they are enlightened and the German teachers are dogmatic, and the
) German Waldorf teachers say just the opposite.
)
) )...I wonder why the schools here hide their views. My husband said
) )that in Germany Waldorf school reall do try to be non-sectarian and
) )encourage separate religious instruction. The school in Hamburg had
) )separate classes for their various student body. If you were
) )Catholic you received Catholic instruction and support, Buddhist the
) )same, etc.
)
) This is in accordance with how it was done at the original Waldorf
) school. Religion instruction is traditional in German schools, and
) Waldorf follows that tradition. Most American schools omit religion
) classes.
)
) )So, my question is, what is this contention about Waldorf schools
) )not bein non-sectarian? Does mentioning a belief in higher powers
) )or deity automatically disqualify a school as sectarian?
)
) Waldorf is clearly sectarian because the methodology and the
) curriculum are based on the religious world-view of Anthroposophy, an
) occultist sect.
)
) )Does a school need to be agnostic or atheistic in doctrine and
) )teaching in order to be non-sectarian?
)
) Being agnostic or atheistic would be sectarian. Non-sectarian means
) neutral.
)
) )Would anthroposophists in US Waldorf schools try to circumvent my
) )own childrens religious education in their or would they support
) )their native beliefs?
)
) They will support the family's religion when relating to the parents,
) but they will undermine it in favor of Anthroposophy when they have
) the children alone. They justify this by their belief that
) Anthroposophy is a philosophy that embraces the whole truth about the
) relationship of humans to the spiritual world, whereas other
) religions only have fragments of it. Therefore to teach the children
) Anthroposophical ideas is, in their view, to complete their spiritual
) education or to correct their erroneous education.
)
) -Dan Dugan
Su here: I want to add to Dan's answer in somewhat broader terms.
Steiner came out of a culture of German Catholicism and Lutheranism,
with all its traditions and philosophical bent. It seems that it was and
is much easier to blend, and to "fit" the Anthroposophical philosophy
and religion into German society, because it is culturally tied in with
pre-existing institutions (religion taught in the schools, etc) and it
supports lots of the Germanic, "folk" or "Volk" traditions,trends in
pedagogy and cultural awareness.
Steiner was part of a late 19th century movement towards Germanic or
Germano-centric thinkers, that included people like Fichte,LaGarde,
Langbehn and Van den Bruck and others, who all had very similar
interests in promoting German culture, both ancient and modern. That's
why Steiner is well tolerated in Germany. He fit right in to a
pre-existing movement to elevate Germanic beliefs.
In the US, it's a different story. Anthroposophy here wants to gain its
authority by associating with the likes of Whitman, Emerson, Thoreau,
etc. so as to fit into American philosophy and thought. In many ways
they are attempting to appropriate an identity here that is not quite
real, though there is the thread of theosophy that is also present in
these thinkers that Anthroposophy is banking on.
It is in this way that they will try to legitimize their position in
American culture.
The problem is that American society and culture is much more dynamic
than German culture, and that's why the likes of Waldorf Critics has
sprung up in the USA and not in Germany. I imagine there has been some
resistance to Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in Germany, but not in
the same way as here. The idea that the US is a heterogeneous society
is quite different from German tradition, which accepts diversity with
great societal pain and mistrust.
Anthroposophists "say" that they promote "diversity" and "art" and other
American tenets. However, their intent is to promote what they teach in
the schools, in a cloaked manner, so as not to arouse the awareness of
the laity of the *real* philosophy. It's kind of a Trojan Horse
mentality.
And it works, too, because people like you, Chrystabel, and your husband
who are tolerant and well-intentioned, and believe the outward trappings
of this philosophy will not see the undercurrent and the motive for the
school....Unless you dig as deeply as the researchers here and elsewhere
have done, and examine the actual negative effects that the schools and
the pedagogy have had on numerous individuals, both children and
families.
You may say, well that is a minority opinion, but in the Good 'Ole US of
A, we rule by both the majority and we *protect the minority* which may
be suffering, which is a totally different stance than that taken in the
Old World, where Majority rules fairly firmly. Of course this is
changing gradually all over the world, because multiculturalism is a
wave covering all continents, or it has been an historical phenomenon
that is comming into acceptance because humanity realizes that if we
don't we may not be able to maintain an intact planet...
Sorry for the rambling....
Waldorf teachers, Eurythmy teachers, and all of the different
functionaries in the school are promoting Steiner's sectarian doctrine,
*a priori* which means that though it is not *directly* spoken, it is
the basis upon which they build their pedagogy and their relationship to
the students and parents. So many a priori assumptions become reality,
when one believes them without questioning them. They are brought to
bear on the children by suggestion, by ritual, and by belief that these
ideas will eventually permeate the child's life in deeper ways. They are
promoted in all the ways that have been discussed:wet-on-wet art
meditations, prayers in the morning to the Sun, the Rainbow celebrations
of birthdays, the lazure pink-washed classrooms, the secret pedagogical
meetings where the children's etheric and astral bodies are discussed
along with their "temperaments".
The assumptions that are accepted as developmental doctrine, are
figments of Steiner's imagination.
This is the same way that Madison Avenue convinces you to buy certain
products or appreciate certain types of beauty or even how the
government promotes certain ideas and actions.
In other words, the soft sell, the assumption, and the a priori belief
that something will succeed, or that it is real, will then become
accepted belief, through action. The premise on which we base are
beliefs is the most powerful way to convince ourselves of the so-called
"truth" of something.
In modern psychology it is called acting "as if" something were already
true. It is also used by magicians, and palm-readers, and sooth-sayers,
and self-help gurus.
"As if" behavior *can* be very helpful in coping with verious challenges
in life, but should not be used to deceive. This is what critics of
Waldorf Education are working to expose; the deception.
Best, Su
************
[a pri?o?ri
(click to hear the word) (? pr-?r, -r, pr-?r, -r)
adj.
Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related
effect; deductive.
Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to
particular facts or experience.
Knowable without appeal to particular experience.
Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study.]
It ain't over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 19:39:41 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: To Chrystabel
)
) "As if" behavior *can* be very helpful in coping with verious***
***Spelling error correction: Various instead of verious...
Also:
Please see the book The Politics of Cultural Despair; Study in the rise
of Germanic Ideology, by Fritz Stern, University of California Press,
Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 1961. (An excellent book...)
-Su
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 12:11:29 -0800
From: "NJS" (oscar001 earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C2E0B4.DAE3EA20
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Sharon: Debra's solicitation is probably more useful for someone
exiting than someone going in, but she is as clear as a bell!! (Read
below). So....basically you ignored PLANS because their information
didn't quite grab you and consequently you had a bad Waldorf
experience? You think PLANS could be better with the way they present
information so that people like you would listen and avoid being
duped? The Jefferson picture threw you off so you didn't read Debra's
opening lines or read the mission statement?
The Plans site was much different, as I recall, when we looked at it
in 1999. I don't think you or Debra were even part of PLANS yet? I
could be wrong but I simply recall Dan Dugan's name, reading the home
page about the lawsuit and getting the impression it was created by
civil libertarian activists. This tainted the information for me that
would come from PLANS so I looked for 3rd party sources.
When we are trying to determine crediblity we all carry individual
biases about who is believable. Pre Waldorf the best information for
helping me determine whether Waldorf was appropriate would not come
from AWSNA or PLANS, but from other parents like me. Post Waldorf
when I was trying to understand anthroposophy and our experience the
best sources were the most well-read, and that included you and both
Peters, as well as my own research into Steiner's writing. The depth
of the knowledge all of you conveyed shamed most anthroposophists!
And the coherence in those views and your willingness to engage in
the debate juxtaposed against supporters who shut down discussion at
SJU, and ran into the ether when asked to explain their positions in
this forum, convinced me of the profound weaknesses in athroposophy
and deception in Waldorf education.
As a prospective parent I was looking specifically for former parents
and their experiences, and not seeing any, I moved on. I also recall
that the site was much, much smaller and did not have the number of
resources, links, and 3rd party perspectives that it has today. Today
when you look at Plans it is clear there are former parents involved
and parent testimonials are easier to find. In 1999 I only recall
Dan Dugan's name and I didn't leave with the impression that former
parents were part of the site and it's mission. This sort of quick
scanning is typical of users on the internet, by the way. There is
so much information that we must wade through day to day to find what
is relevant and credible. The home page of any site is key for
capturing your audience. So, if PLANS wishes to convey the 3 concepts
in your mission statement on the homepage in the order in which they
are listed, then the homepage should reflect this as well.
Currently, it seems to promote items 2 a!
nd 3 in your list (the lawsuit) most prominently.
I don't believe Debra's statement was on the site when I viewed it in
1999. Let me also say that my "missing the boat" at that time is in
no way a reflection of Dan and his efforts, but perhaps a confluence
of my specific needs and the site's layout. He opened our eyes and
we all owe him our gratitude and admiration. It's hard to be the
lone voice but he no longer is, and his courage brought other
disaffected parents out of the woodwork. Thank you Dan.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 13:34:48 -0800
From: "NJS" (oscar001 earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
) G'day NJS,
) I suspect I am one of the both Peters,and, if so, thanks for the praise. I
) just wanted to make it clear that I am not a member of PLANS, and unlikely
) ever to be so, since I see Plans as purely a US organisation, and I am
) fortunate enough to be Australian. I am here purely for my own interests,
) one of which is the dangers of the sort of antiscience which appears to be
) fundamental to anthroposophy.
) See you, Peter
I know Peter that you and Peter S. are not technically part of PLANS, but
your contributions have been so valuable that I needed to mention your name,
hope you don't mind. I think having the academic acumen both of you provide
draws in those of us who are too much "in our head". Your perspectives have
helped me over the past year, thank you.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 23:00:12 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
NJS at oscar001 earthlink.net wrote:
When we are trying to determine crediblity we all carry individual biases
about who is believable. Pre Waldorf the best information for helping me
determine whether Waldorf was appropriate would not come from AWSNA or
PLANS, but from other parents like me. Post Waldorf when I was trying to
understand anthroposophy and our experience the best sources were the most
well-read, and that included you and both Peters, as well as my own research
into Steiner's writing. The depth of the knowledge all of you conveyed
shamed most anthroposophists! And the coherence in those views and your
willingness to engage in the debate juxtaposed against supporters who shut
down discussion at SJU, and ran into the ether when asked to explain their
positions in this forum, convinced me of the profound weaknesses in
athroposophy and deception in Waldorf education.
Peter responds:
While I can't claim any great knowledge of Anthroposophy (I don't have
anything like Sharon's or Peter S's or Dan's patience to wade through that
much gibberish), I wonder about the Anthroposophical knowledge of the DOFs
who have appeared on this list. Is it that we just haven't had any serious
Anthroposophists on this list? Are there some out there who could make
reasoned arguments based on evidence that would at least temper some of the
critics views? It may be that someone like Arthur Zajonc could do a good job
of this, even though I found his book about light unconvincing.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 06:43:42 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
) Peter responds:
) I am pleased to hear that Percedol accepts that there is no clear
) evidence
) for the Anthroposophical positions. This seems to be in contrast to some
)
) previous correspondents on this list who made claims of certainty for
) Anthroposophy.
P:
There is no clear evidence for any position. Materialist or
spiritualist. Otherwise everybody would quickly become all materialists
or spiritualists. This does not mean that if one can experience the
reality of the spirit it makes any difference. That experience cannot be
simply transmitted to another person. So each person is free to choose.
)
) I had the pleasure to be visiting Turin a few years ago on the day that
) Ferrari won the manufacturer's championship in Grand Prix. I saw plenty
) of
) evidence of nationalistic fervour that day.
)
) See you, Peter
P:
If they had the same nationalistic fervour for their nation as they have
for sports. It does not go beyond sports, unfortunately. And I don't
even care about sports, of course (sports and spiritualism are quite
diverging).
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 982
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Theosophy of the R
By mysplum earthlink.net
Classical education vs. Waldorf
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Classical education vs. Waldorf
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Classical education vs. Waldorf
By audreyallison hotmail.com
RE: Classical education vs. Waldorf
By spectmore yahoo.com
Re: Classical education vs. Waldorf
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Classical education vs. Waldorf
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
RE: Classical education vs. Waldorf
By LimScoggins hotmail.com
RE: Classical education vs. Waldorf
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: Classical education vs. Waldorf
By nmfoss hotmail.com
RE: Classical education vs. Waldorf
By spectmore yahoo.com
RE: Classical education vs. Waldorf
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: Classical education vs. Waldorf
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Classical education vs. Waldorf
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Backwards writing
By audreyallison hotmail.com
Re: Backwards writing
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
RE: Theosophy of the R
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Backwards writing
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: Backwards writing
By audreyallison hotmail.com
RE: Backwards writing
By dkimble mystrotv.com
RE: Theosophy of the R
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: Theosophy of the R
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Theosophy of the R
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 08:04:17 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Theosophy of the R
on 3/2/03 10:43 PM, Percedol at Percedol netscape.net wrote:
)
)) Peter responds:
)) I am pleased to hear that Percedol accepts that there is no clear
)) evidence
)) for the Anthroposophical positions. This seems to be in contrast to some
))
)) previous correspondents on this list who made claims of certainty for
)) Anthroposophy.
)
) P:
) There is no clear evidence for any position. Materialist or
) spiritualist. Otherwise everybody would quickly become all materialists
) or spiritualists. This does not mean that if one can experience the
) reality of the spirit it makes any difference. That experience cannot be
) simply transmitted to another person. So each person is free to choose.
)
))
)) I had the pleasure to be visiting Turin a few years ago on the day that
)) Ferrari won the manufacturer's championship in Grand Prix. I saw plenty
)) of
)) evidence of nationalistic fervour that day.
))
)) See you, Peter
)
) P:
) If they had the same nationalistic fervour for their nation as they have
) for sports. It does not go beyond sports, unfortunately.
Sharon: Unfortunately? Hmmm, I thought you said you aren't a nationalist?
(G)
And I don't
) even care about sports, of course (sports and spiritualism are quite
) diverging).
Sharon: Not that different if you deconstruct.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:34:11 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Classical education vs. Waldorf
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C2E15F.AA930620
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
I thought I'd put out some information on classical education, as
I've noticed Waldorf supporters and some Waldorf school websites
comparing Waldorf to classical education or using the terms almost
synonymously. Classical education is big again, or at least it's a
buzzword floating around a lot . . . and Waldorf likes to jump on
these bandwagons, or just appear to. In some cases this is simply
igorance of what the terms actually mean; maybe some Waldorf parents
really think their children are getting a classical education.
Waldorf is *not* classical education, the entire focus and pedagogy
are actually opposed.
Classical education rests on what they call the three stages or
"trivium" - grammar, logic and rhetoric. "Grammar" doesn't mean only
grammar of the language, like parts of speech, but the "grammar" of
knowledge, acquiring building blocks. "Logic" refers to the stage
where abstract thought begins to mature and the student learns to
compare, criticize, analyze, not simply absorb information.
"Rhetoric" refers to learning to write and speak clearly and
forcefully and with originality. The three stages are as follows:
GRAMMAR stage (grades 1-4) -
Phonics, spelling, grammer, poetry, foreign language, history and
literature (this does *not* mean only Grimms fairy tales and Norse
myths)
Descriptions of plants and animals and human body
Arithmetic
LOGIC stage (grades 5-8) -
Child's mind begins to think analytically, in terms of cause and effect
Explore relationships among fields of knowledge and the way facts fit
together in a logical framework
Introduce scientific method
Require criticism and analysis of texts
Learn how to support a thesis
Begin to think about the "why's" of history, not just facts
RHETORIC stage (high school) -
Greater specialization in subject areas
The biggest difference is that a classical education is
language-focused: learning is accomplished through words, written and
spoken, rather than images. Waldorf is largely image-based, even
though they discourage TV and movies. (Waldorf just wants to
substitute their own carefully selected images for the children and
doesn't want competition for their hearts and minds from the popular
culture.) Delayed literacy is not a feature of classical education.
In fact, if you want to understand how Waldorf differs from classical
education, just reverse or avoid virtually everything listed above in
the first two stages (logic and grammar). (Steiner did agree with
teaching math in the elementary grades.) Any other similarities would
be superficial. Waldorf children draw plants and animals and people,
for instance, but the teacher will insist the drawings and
descriptions be fanciful and not get too accurate or detailed. She is
not helping them acquire facts but *avoid* those facts as long as
possible and preserve childlike misunderstandings which are seen as
"more spiritual," as the children are seen as being still in touch
with the spirit world and not yet fully "incarnated" on this planet
yet.
Steiner was also in favor of introducing foreign languages, although
preferably the child should merely hear it and repeat it but not
necessarily understand it. On every other point in the classical
approach, he would be strongly opposed, particularly to the
analytical, thinking part, and the emphasis on learning to write
well, and the scientific method (oh well, as I said, most everything
listed above).
There are a few similarities - both Waldorf and the classical
approach stress memorization and taking in of material
straightforwardly without analyis in the early years. Both place less
emphasis on self-expression and creative writing in the early grades
than is found in other schools these days.
The underlying purposes of Waldorf and classical education are quite
different, however; the the analysis and critical thinking phase
starts years earlier in the classical approach, and the types of
facts and images the children may acquire are not rigidly limited as
they are in Waldorf.
Diana
(Info from the Well-Trained Mind, Jessie Wise and Susan Wise Bauer;
New York: WW Norton & Co., 1999), a book being used by a lot of
people homeschooling in the classical tradition nowdays.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 10:09:00 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
) 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_3129530941_543118_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
on 3/2/03 12:11 PM, NJS at oscar001 earthlink.net wrote:
The Plans site was much different, as I recall, when we looked at it in
1999. I don't think you or Debra were even part of PLANS yet?
Sharon: That explains it. Yes, the site was very different in those days. I
left Waldorf at the end of 1998, I came across PLANS in 1999. Debra and Dan
had joined forces at that time. Before PLANS was formed, Dan was doing
research to write a book about Waldorf, and Debra, who had helped found a
Waldorf school, realized what she had done and decided to "right a wrong".
Her organization and Dan got together and PLANS was formed because Waldorf
had entered the public sector. Gary, PLANS' webmaster, helped us revamp the
site and as I said before, we are working on a section that will document
Anthroposophy in the classroom which will be a nice little cherry on the top
(G).
J: I could be wrong but I simply recall Dan Dugan's name, reading the home
page about the lawsuit and getting the impression it was created by civil
libertarian activists. This tainted the information for me that would come
from PLANS so I looked for 3rd party sources.
Sharon: Do you think a large title such as "Read about people's Waldorf
experiences" would have made you more receptive or do you think you might
have read such stories and thought we were just "disgruntled parents?"
When we left the school in Dec, I wrote a short "thanks but we need to move
on" sort of letter to the school, we decided to just be polite and get the
heck out, we had had enough, the Anthro doctor's woo woo was the final straw
. Then the school called us in February asking us for an exit interview
which I refused to do because I wouldn't sit before that faculty again. I
did say we'd write our responses to their questions in letter form which my
husband and I did. Here's the opening refrain:
February 17, 1999
We feel that a clearer distinction should be made to prospective
parents on the sectarian nature of Pleasant Ridge Waldorf School. It
would be helpful if the institution were more responsible in clarifying
the "mystic Christian" character of the school. Had we known that the
curriculum and operation of the school were based exclusively on Rudolf
Steiner's insight, clairvoyance, aesthetics, eurocentricity, and religious
beliefs (as interpreted by his disciples) Pleasant Ridge
Waldorf School would not have been our choice for X.
We touched on *everything*, but we wrote this still without esoteric
information or reading any Steiner. We still did not know that thousands of
sermons were recorded and published by his followers. We still had never
heard of the Goetheanum in Dornach or Steiner's Rosicrucian temples. We
still did not know Steiner's connection with Theosophy. We did not know
about astral bodies etc. We still had not entered the occult world
consciously. We wrote the above just based on our experiences. We came to
the old PLANS site months after we had left, and after we had written our
"exit letter", so I was "receptive" to what the early site said. I'll never
forget how it made me feel. (Better after I had absorbed it). When I started
to read, I just shook and cried. Everything I had been saying was validated.
I stayed up virtually all night reading PLANS. I then started to order
Steiner books from the library to check that what PLANS was saying was
true..."Exiting" was an extraordinary experience, and I know that many
ex-Waldorfers have had similar experiences.
J: When we are trying to determine crediblity we all carry individual biases
about who is believable. Pre Waldorf the best information for helping me
determine whether Waldorf was appropriate would not come from AWSNA or
PLANS, but from other parents like me.
Sharon: I think we should listen to you and try to add more personal
stories, we should talk off list. I think the new site is better, certainly
easier to navigate...but there's always room for improvement (G)..
J: Post Waldorf when I was trying to understand anthroposophy and our
experience the best sources were the most well-read, and that included you
and both Peters, as well as my own research into Steiner's writing. The
depth of the knowledge all of you conveyed shamed most anthroposophists!
Sharon: I also value the two Peter's contributions. I always read their
posts. Steiner is horrible to read, and I really don't think most self
professed Anthroposophists have read that much. They just go along with the
group, much like we did. (Though most of them do know the Steiner basics
which we were not privy to while Waldorf parents, such as his reincarnation
teachings). My first attempt with Outline of Occult Science was so
frustrating, I remember reading it with tears just streaming down my face
because I couldn't make heads or tails of it. My mother found me in this
state and gave me confidence that I could do it. She also started reading
and we would discuss content, take notes etc. I reread books because I was
determined to get a handle on Steiner's doctrine. Never in all my life have
I been so determined! Something inside just made me grab the beast by the
scruff of the neck and look it in the eyes (G). I was *not* going to just
walk away once I started to read Steiner. Then after a while I started to
understand. Once you nail down Steiner's epochs and rounds, and understand
his perspective on reincarnation it gets much easier. But it was like
learning a foreign language at first, it was a whole new worldview that I
knew nothing about. I was starting from scratch. I decided to share what I
was learning on list, as I went along. To "release" Steiner's secrets. What
is interesting with Steiner is his layers that you can delve into and keep
peeling until you hit a wall of secrecy. I believe that there is an actual
secret, magic system that Eurythmists and Anthro doctors study. (Priests and
high priestesses). I do think Steiner deserves recognition for his ability
to layer and veil. It is amazing.
My days of reading Steiner are pretty much over now, I know that there is a
whole lot more there, but I'm weary.....I would like to learn more about
Sorath though...(G)
J: As a prospective parent I was looking specifically for former parents and
their experiences, and not seeing any, I moved on. I also recall that the
site was much, much smaller and did not have the number of resources, links,
and 3rd party perspectives that it has today. Today when you look at Plans
it is clear there are former parents involved and parent testimonials are
easier to find. In 1999 I only recall Dan Dugan's name and I didn't leave
with the impression that former parents were part of the site and it's
mission. This sort of quick scanning is typical of users on the internet,
by the way. There is so much information that we must wade through day to
day to find what is relevant and credible. The home page of any site is key
for capturing your audience. So, if PLANS wishes to convey the 3 concepts in
your mission statement on the homepage in the order in which they are
listed, then the homepage should reflect this as well. Currently, it seems
to promote items 2 and 3 in your list (the lawsuit) most prominently.
Sharon: Thanks for pointing this out.
J: I don't believe Debra's statement was on the site when I viewed it in
1999. Let me also say that my "missing the boat" at that time is in no way
a reflection of Dan and his efforts, but perhaps a confluence of my specific
needs and the site's layout. He opened our eyes and we all owe him our
gratitude and admiration. It's hard to be the lone voice but he no longer
is, and his courage brought other disaffected parents out of the woodwork.
Thank you Dan.
Sharon: Debra's statements are a new addition. After finding the first site
I also saw Dan more as a lone voice, but I knew so many other voices
existed, including mine. I'm glad that the site is starting to show that
there are ex-parents etc involved besides Dan. I remember getting an e-mail
from Dan after the new site was launched thanking everyone for making it
"not just Dan's site anymore."
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 11:00:23 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Classical education vs. Waldorf
) 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_3129534023_728491_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
on 3/3/03 5:34 AM, Diana Winters at Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net wrote:
She is not helping them acquire facts but *avoid* those facts as long as
possible and preserve childlike misunderstandings which are seen as "more
spiritual," as the children are seen as being still in touch with the spirit
world and not yet fully "incarnated" on this planet yet.
Sharon: In our Waldorf KG, children did not write or draw things, they did
however make talismans with wet paper and color. Here's a hint as to why
linear expression is banned in the early years and exposure to color
encouraged.
Steiner: "You see, when the soul arrives on earth in order to enter its
body, it has come down from spirit-soul worlds in which there are no spacial
forms. Thus the soul knows spacial forms only after its bodily experience,
only while the after-effects of space still linger on. But though the world
from which the soul descends has no spacial forms or lines, it does have
color intensities, color qualities" (Steiner, The Arts and Their Mission,
Anthroposophic Press, New York 1964, p 23).
Sharon: In Anthroposophy, beings come to earth on the wings of color, color
is the organ for spiritual beings. The spirit world is color. In first grade
children have to make smudgy drawings as they start their transition into
the physical world (linear world). These first grade drawings are supposed
to be line free, thus the smudgy, faceless stuff copied of the boards. The
block crayons help prevent line-making.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 08:22:10 -0800
From: "Audrey Allison" (audreyallison hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Classical education vs. Waldorf
Could anyone give me an idea as to why my step-daughter writes her name
backwards (Kindergarten) ... she writes the letters in mirror image.
Thanks .... Audrey
p.s. thanks for your comments regarding accommodating religions.
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:49:38 +0000
From: (spectmore yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Classical education vs. Waldorf
Can you expand on the topic of foreign languagesnot needing to be
understood?
And, are certain languages better than others?
Thanks.
)
) Steiner was also in favor of introducing foreign languages, although
) preferably the child should merely hear it and repeat it but not
) necessarily understand it.
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:50:47 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Classical education vs. Waldorf
)Can you expand on the topic of foreign languagesnot needing to be
)understood?
)And, are certain languages better than others?
)Thanks.
I'm not necessarily the best person for this one, since my child didn't have
foreign language instruction in Waldorf. But from what I understand, they
will learn songs and poems but there isn't much emphasis on knowing what the
words mean.
One of our kindergarten teachers taught the kids some Spanish using finger
games, like Itsy Bitsy Spider sung first in English then in Spanish. I
thought this was a good approach, but it apparently isn't always the way
it's done.
Steiner did make statements about the soul qualities of various languages,
but I'm afraid I don't know the specifics. German often seems to be
preferred.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:46:47 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Classical education vs. Waldorf
Audrey:
)Could anyone give me an idea as to why my step-daughter writes her name
)backwards (Kindergarten) ... she writes the letters in mirror image.
It's common. Some kids continue to reverse certain letters for several
years. It doesn't usually indicate a problem, it's just that there's a lot
to learn, and "d's" really do look like "b's" the first few hundred times
you look at them. Adults have just forgotten. :)
You don't need to worry about this unless your stepdaughter shows no
improvement over time (say, a year or two). She just needs practice and
gentle correction. She won't get it from a Waldorf kindergarten teacher,
though, since they don't believe she should be writing letters at all. You
can just show her yourself, but don't make a big deal out of it, continue to
give her positive feedback for her writing, even if you can't understand
half of it. :) Make jokes about letters standing on their heads or standing
"backwards," so you can show her how they're supposed to stand "forwards."
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 17:23:54 +0000
From: "Lim Scoggins" (limscoggins hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Classical education vs. Waldorf
Hey, interesting! I went to a Waldorf spring festival where a group of
children recited a poem in German for the folks there. Everyone was pretty
impressed and it sounded well-spoken. I asked one of the kids what the poem
meant in English and they didn't have a clue. Pretty funny. Not paying
attention in class I thought. I asked another and they didn't know either.
Told me the teacher just had them repeat the sounds until they sounded good.
)From: spectmore yahoo.com
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: RE: Classical education vs. Waldorf
)Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:49:38 +0000
)
)Can you expand on the topic of foreign languagesnot needing to be
)understood?
)And, are certain languages better than others?
)Thanks.
)
)
) )
) ) Steiner was also in favor of introducing foreign languages, although
) ) preferably the child should merely hear it and repeat it but not
) ) necessarily understand it.
) )
) )
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
)New threads are always welcome.
)
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 17:40:49 +0000
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Classical education vs. Waldorf
Nicole: I find that it depends on the language teacher whether or not they
find actual comprehension to be important. I have seen it taught both ways
in our school. We were lucky enough to have one of the best language
teachers (German) I've ever seen, and comprehension was definitely part of
his approach. That is not to say he didn't have the children recite things
as well, but his students did understand what they were saying. They also
learned a faultless accent. I can only say that more native English speakers
would speak foreign languages if they had teachers like him. This year he's
busy doing other things, but his replacement also seems to be able to teach
the language effectively.
At the other extreme, I've also seen language (French) taught at our school
as badly as I've ever seen it done anywhere - completely devoid of
comprehension and of every shred of interesting content. At that time it was
being taught by a teacher with relatively little grasp of the language, a
teacher who summed up his own attitude towards it by saying, "I don't know
why I ever bothered to learn French - I hate the language and I hate the
people". Needless to say, very little learning occurred in his class. He was
also given to correcting children's work in front of their peers with
gratuitous editorial comments relating to their intelligence or ability. I
saw children just shrivel up in humiliation. The same teacher would also
become very angry with students who could not answer correctly, even if
there was a perfectly valid reason. My own daughter (who was 9 at the time)
could not grasp the language at all as she had never studied it before and
is partially hearing, yet she was shouted at for not being able to answer
questions. Fortunately, French is now being taught by a native speaker, who
could hardly fail to be vastly more effective (although I have never
personally observed his lessons).
The biggest difference, I would say, is that language teaching is almost
entirely oral in the early grades - more like the way one would learn a
native language. Young children are not taught grammar, per se (especially
in writing), as grammar is an intellectual abstraction. Personally, I agree
that this approach is more effective in the long run (except for children
with hearing problems like my daughter of course), even if children don't
understand absolutely everything to begin with. I have taught French myself
and have found that children don't seem to relate to explicit grammar
lessons until they are about 12. At that stage they need it and are ready
for it, but before that it seems to turn them off or go over their heads, or
both. Other more experienced language teachers may have a different opinion
on this point.
One thing (among many) that I have found troubling in Steiner's writing is
his attitude towards French. He wrote that French corrupted the mind
(Sharon, Dan or Peter S can no doubt supply the quote). I have often
wondered if his attitude may be reflected in the effort (or lack thereof)
that goes into teaching French in some Waldorf schools. In our area, French
is essential for many kinds of employment, but very few Waldorf graduates
that I know seem to have a good grounding in it (mind you, one could say the
same about public school graduates, so language teaching isn't just a
Waldorf problem).
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 18:01:13 +0000
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Classical education vs. Waldorf
Audrey wrote: Could anyone give me an idea as to why my step-daughter
writes her name backwards (Kindergarten) ... she writes the letters in
mirror image.
Nicole: Is your step-daughter left-handed? Left-handers often do this, but
in other schools it would be corrected (in Waldorf kindergarten writing
would be discouraged so there would be no attempt to correct the problem at
that stage). Waldorf schools seem to have an ambivalent attitude toward
left-handedness because Steiner wrote that left-handedness should be changed
(a common attitude at the time), but it is no longer considered acceptable
to do so. My younger daughter is left-handed and is generally left alone to
be so, although she had to learn to knit right-handed because there was no
left-handed handwork teacher working with her class.
If it is just a case of mirror-imaging certain letters, don't worry as this
is very common in young children. It takes time to be able to distiguish
between shapes which are the same except for reflection (d versus b) or
rotation (d versus p). Young children often see these letters as the same,
and therefore interchangeable, because they are the same except for the
effect of reflection or rotation. It takes them time to learn that the same
shape in a different position takes on a different meaning.
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 18:19:46 +0000
From: (spectmore yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Classical education vs. Waldorf
In my experience, after third grade in WE when the children have had 5
years of both Japanese and Spanish and they can still not understand a
word of either language, they seem to file their eagerness to learn
language into ambivilance- much like many do with reading and math.
I am not suggesting that the younger children should be learning
grammar, but surely repeating songs and verses with no idea of what they
are saying is possibly the biggest form of abstraction with nothing to
keep young minds engaged.
Nicole Foss wrote:
) The biggest difference, I would say, is that language teaching is almost
)
) entirely oral in the early grades - more like the way one would learn a
) native language. Young children are not taught grammar, per se
) (especially
) in writing), as grammar is an intellectual abstraction. Personally, I
) agree
) that this approach is more effective in the long run (except for
) children
) with hearing problems like my daughter of course), even if children
) don't
) understand absolutely everything to begin with.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 20:06:41 +0000
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Classical education vs. Waldorf
Spectmore wrote: In my experience, after third grade in WE when the
children have had 5 years of both Japanese and Spanish and they can still
not understand a word of either language, they seem to file their eagerness
to learn language into ambivilance- much like many do with reading and math.
I am not suggesting that the younger children should be learning grammar,
but surely repeating songs and verses with no idea of what they are saying
is possibly the biggest form of abstraction with nothing to keep young minds
engaged.
Nicole: I wouldn't say that was an abstraction, because it is a completely
non-intellectual activity in my view. I agree that if children understand
nothing, then they have learned nothing, and this is far too common in
Waldorf. I merely suggested that there may be value in learning to recite
verses or songs as part of a language curriculum, even if one does not
understand every word at all times, provided that comprehension, as well as
pronunciation, is a goal. My son, who spoke only English when we moved to
Canada from England, has learned a great deal of German and some French in
his three years at Waldorf, but then he was well taught, on the whole, and
is naturally interested in languages. My younger daughter is also making
considerable progress in my view, but my older daughter, who is partially
hearing, could not function in a Waldorf language class at all because of
the oral focus.
I have studied several languages for fun (I speak four in addition to
English with varying degrees of proficiency) and have found that the best
courses were always taught by native speakers who never uttered a word of
English (comprehension would be achieved through charades or in other
indirect ways). This was true no matter what the age of the recipients
(French immersion in public elementary school through to university level
courses in my case). Language taught by translation had much less impact.
Comprehension takes time, but it will come if the teacher wants it to and
makes the effort to ensure that it does. In Waldorf, I'm not convinced that
comprehension is always a goal, although it clearly is for some teachers, as
in the example I gave. As with everything at Waldorf, the teacher is
critical. They may or may not be qualified, and their abilities could range
from stellar to appalling.
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:40:55 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Classical education vs. Waldorf
)Nicole: I agree that if children understand nothing, then they have
learned nothing, and )this is far too common in Waldorf. I merely suggested
that there may be value in )learning to recite verses or songs as part of a
language curriculum, even if one does )not understand every word at all
times,
I agree with Nicole, and since the critics are so often accused of having
nothing good to say about Waldorf ever, I'd like to say that the Waldorf
teacher I saw teaching songs with finger movements to kindergarteners in
Spanish was doing a neat thing. The gestures communicate what is going on
(the Itsy Bitsy Spider going up the pipe, the rain coming down). With very
simple songs or nursery rhymes, especially if they already know them in
English, they *did* know what they were learning and enjoyed it, and I
thought it was exactly the right approach for very early language
instruction.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:47:20 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Classical education vs. Waldorf
spectmore wrote:
)surely repeating songs and verses with no idea of what they
)are saying is possibly the biggest form of abstraction with nothing to
)keep young minds engaged.
You're right, but it's a question of how long they go on repeating it
without understanding it. There is some value to experiencing how the
language sounds, getting familiar with its rhythms, pronouncing the sounds,
without having to get meaning out of it at the same time. But if the meaning
*never* comes, then there wasn't much point in the end.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 12:54:24 -0800
From: "Audrey Allison" (audreyallison hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Backwards writing
No she's not left-handed. She actually writes the full name backwards, not
just the letters. It is common to write the letters backwards but not so
much the word. I was just curious if there was a reason for this or if it
is just something she does that is left for now.
Thanks for the response. Audrey
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:11:29 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Backwards writing
Writing the *whole* word backwards? You might want to get a professional
opinion, like a reading specialist or educational psychologist.
It is probably easily remedied - there are many forms of early intervention
available. The Waldorf teacher will *not* want you to do this, they will say
it is too "intellectual" for her. When my son started speech therapy in
first grade, Waldorf had me convinced it would be dreadful for him, dry and
intellectual, and instead the speech therapist was a wonderful, warm person
who knew just how to make exercises, games and even tests fun and not
stressful. Professionals who work with young children usually do know how to
make them feel comfortable and make the sessions fun - Waldorf is simply
wrong about this.
Diana
)No she's not left-handed. She actually writes the full name backwards, not
)just the letters. It is common to write the letters backwards but not so
)much the word. I was just curious if there was a reason for this or if it
)is just something she does that is left for now.
)
)Thanks for the response. Audrey
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 21:50:54 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
Percedol wrote:
)There is no clear evidence for any position. Materialist or
)spiritualist. Otherwise everybody would quickly become all materialists
)or spiritualists. This does not mean that if one can experience the
)reality of the spirit it makes any difference. That experience cannot be
)simply transmitted to another person. So each person is free to choose.
)
Peter responds:
This view that there is no clear evidence to choose between the spiritual
and the materialist views is true in general (at least I think so), but not
necessarily true in specific cases. In the case of Anthroposophy, as I have
argued before with Joel, I think the position is much clearer.
Scientists routinely criticise each other's work. The work typically has the
form of an appeal to an existing body of work plus some additional features
derived from further mathematical analysis, further logical argument and
more experimental or observational evidence or some combination of these.
One can refute or at least call into question such work by demonstrating
that the mathematical analysis is flawed, the logical argument is incorrect,
or by pointing out failures or weaknesses in the experimental method or the
observational techniques. Anthroposophy leaves itself open to such methods
of refutation because it claims a method which has consequences in that part
of the world where materialistic science has a record of success. In
particular I am referring to Anthroposophical medical practice and to
biodynamic agriculture, but also to Steiner's claims about the nature of
light, heat and astronomy. I assert that the evidence is in on sufficent of
those claims and that Steiner and subsequent Anthroposophists got it wrong.
In so far as those claims are a consequence of the appeal to clairvoyance
and spiritual science, then the claims of clairvoyance and spiritual science
are seriously in doubt. Percedol appears to recognise the validity of this
argument because he continues to attack Darwinian evolution on the basis
that it is immoral rather than on appeal to any supposed scientific
failings.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 21:54:01 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
NJS wrote:
)We touched on *everything*, but we wrote this still without esoteric
)information or reading any Steiner. We still did not know that thousands of
)sermons were recorded and published by his followers.
Peter responds. Very nice referring to the lectures as sermons. I will
follow this practice as well.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 22:05:13 +0000
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Backwards writing
Nicole: As far as I know, there's no anthroposophical reason why she would
do this, other than the general point about delayed reading and writing
meaning that aberrations would not be corrected in kindergarten. Mirror
writing of whole words is much more common in left-handers or in the
ambidextrous. I haven't heard of it in anyone who is firmly right-handed
before (not that I'm an expert, but I did write my bachelors thesis on
functional asymmetry in the brain so I'm interested in this field). I
suspect it will pass, but you might want to get it checked out
professionally if it worries you.
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 14:06:31 -0800
From: "Audrey Allison" (audreyallison hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Backwards writing
Thanks ... I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a Waldorf oddity.
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:57:40 -0700
From: "Dave Kimble" (dkimble mystrotv.com)
Subject: RE: Backwards writing
Audrey,
We had the same experience when we home-schooled our son (now 21).
He would write words with all manner of permutations, "normal", whole
words mirror-imaged, words with some individual letters mirrored, whole
words upside-down (some backwards, some not), words with some letters
upside-down.
The approach we took was to not mention it explicitly, except on how
amazed we were that he could write letters so many different ways. On
letters that he seemed to more consistently write "non-standard"
(usually backwards), we would make sure to include those in examples we
gave him so he would be exposed to how we wrote them.
I often talked with him about how arbitrary the letter shapes are (we
would sometimes make up new shapes and pretend they were new letters).
The message that seemed to work best for him was that using one of these
shapes in a particular orientation was not any "better" than any other,
it was just the common usage, and so preferred if you want to avoid
confusing other people.
Our six-year old is now doing some of the same things (although not
quite so extensively as our son did). The same approach seems to be
working for her as well.
I'm no child-development expert, but it seemed/seems to be helpful for
them to play with the letters purely as shapes.
Any deviation from the norm might be evidence of creativity instead of a
developmental problem.
Hope this helps,
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Audrey Allison [mailto:audreyallison hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 3:07 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: Backwards writing
Thanks ... I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a Waldorf oddity.
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 00:02:52 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
Peter Farrell wrote:
) Peter responds:
) This view that there is no clear evidence to choose between the
) spiritual
) and the materialist views is true in general (at least I think so), but
) not
) necessarily true in specific cases. In the case of Anthroposophy, as I
) have
) argued before with Joel, I think the position is much clearer.
) Scientists routinely criticise each other's work. The work typically has
) the
) form of an appeal to an existing body of work plus some additional
) features
) derived from further mathematical analysis, further logical argument and
)
) more experimental or observational evidence or some combination of
) these.
) One can refute or at least call into question such work by demonstrating
)
) that the mathematical analysis is flawed, the logical argument is
) incorrect,
) or by pointing out failures or weaknesses in the experimental method or
) the
) observational techniques. Anthroposophy leaves itself open to such
) methods
) of refutation because it claims a method which has consequences in that
) part
) of the world where materialistic science has a record of success. In
) particular I am referring to Anthroposophical medical practice and to
) biodynamic agriculture, but also to Steiner's claims about the nature of
)
) light, heat and astronomy. I assert that the evidence is in on sufficent
) of
) those claims and that Steiner and subsequent Anthroposophists got it
) wrong.
) In so far as those claims are a consequence of the appeal to
) clairvoyance
) and spiritual science, then the claims of clairvoyance and spiritual
) science
) are seriously in doubt. Percedol appears to recognise the validity of
) this
) argument because he continues to attack Darwinian evolution on the basis
)
) that it is immoral rather than on appeal to any supposed scientific
) failings.
)
) See you, Peter
P:
The superior cannot derive from the inferior.
I don't see morality or immorality in this sentence.
So the question is not about the existance of evolution but its
direction: from up to down or from down up.
But still this does not prove anything. Some people may just feel that
the opposite is right. So anybody is free to follow their ideas.
And in terms of A. I doubt that one can find an incontrovertable proof.
It will always remain at the level of personal experience, not of
worldwide recognition. Therefore individual freedom of choice is
preserved.
If A. was be totally rejected. it would be a problem either, it would
just disappear from the scene.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 01:26:49 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
Percedol wrote:
)The superior cannot derive from the inferior.
Peter reponds:
This is not an incontrovertible fact. It is only an opinion, and I think
there is evidence to support the exact opposite. Although I might put it
that the more complex can derive from the simpler.
Percedol continues:
)I don't see morality or immorality in this sentence.
)So the question is not about the existance of evolution but its
)direction: from up to down or from down up.
Peter responds:
The sort of directionality in evolution is not part of the scientific
theory.
Percedol continues:
)But still this does not prove anything. Some people may just feel that
)the opposite is right. So anybody is free to follow their ideas.
Peter responds:
People are free to pursue their ideas as you say. But equally others are
free to question and criticise those ideas. I don't understand what you are
saying here. Are you saying that there is independently verifiable evidence
that supports the notion that the heart doesn't pump blood, that there is
independently verifiable evidence that there is a force of levity, that
there is independently verifiable evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy
consistent with the claims of Anthroposphical medical practioners? If you
are saying these things, then I would say to you that it is not possible to
honestly hold these beliefs except in ignorance, any more than it is
possible to believe the earth to be flat.
Percedol continues:
)And in terms of A. I doubt that one can find an incontrovertable proof.
)It will always remain at the level of personal experience, not of
)worldwide recognition. Therefore individual freedom of choice is
)preserved.
)If A. was be totally rejected. it would be a problem either, it would
)just disappear from the scene.
Peter responds:
It is rare in science to find incontrovertible evidence. What one usually
finds is a weight of evidence against a particular theory or proposition.
What I am asserting is that the weight of evidence against the claims
arising from Anthroposophy in the material domain is very large. Much larger
in fact than any scientific theory of which I am aware would be able to bear
and be acceptable to the community of scientists. I do not wish to remove
the freedom of anybody to believe what they wish, and, with some
limitations, to pursue the consequences of those beliefs. I don't believe
that public statements which the available evidence suggests are wrong
should go unchallenged.
Note these arguments do not apply to all claims that the material arises
from the spiritual.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 21:27:47 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
Sorry to be a little late weighing in on this; I've been out of town since
last Thursday. Percedol wrote:
)It is not clear what that sentence means. Why is not written 'under his
)own control'? I will try to find the Italian version to see how it was
)translated.
The sentence is perfectly clear in the original. The only reason the English
translation is potentially unclear is that the antecedent of "his" is
ambiguous, which is not the case in the German text. For comparison's sake,
here are both versions of the passage side by side:
"A whole people, although it has not a common physical body, has a common
astral body and the rudiments of a common etheric body. This lives within a
kind of astral cloud and is the "body" of the Folk-Spirit. Of this nature
are the Beings who guide the ether-formations around the human being who is
thus no longer entirely under his control." (Rudolf Steiner, Theosophy of
the Rosicrucian, p. 48)
"So hat ein ganzes Volk gemeinschaftlich zwar nicht einen physischen Leib,
wohl aber einen Astralleib und die Ansaetze zu einem Aetherleibe. Es lebt
wie in einer astralischen Wolke, und das ist der Leib fuer den Volksgeist.
Das sind die Lenker der Aetherbildungen um den Menschen herum, und so hat
der Mensch sich nicht mehr selbst in der Gewalt." (Rudolf Steiner, Die
Theosophie des Rosenkreuzers, p. 51)
The word "sich" is the reflective particle in German; it can only refer to
the subject of the clause. (You'll also notice that Steiner emphasizes the
reflective object of the clause by adding "selbst" or 'self' three words
later; the meaning couldn't possibly be any more explicit.) The final clause
thus means, as I said last week, "the human being no longer has control of
himself." Since the sentence is not the least bit ambiguous in the original,
I suspect that the potential for misinterpretation simply didn't occur to
the translator.
)Actually no, it is actually emancipation. It was not just written or
)said by RS, but also taught by other teachers of A. even when commenting
)HKHW. If you propose such a different version, no one in A. would follow
)it.
The passages from Knowledge of Higher Worlds that you think are about
emancipation are in fact about racial and national "destinies"; Steiner says
there that individuals are merely the "executive organs" of national souls
and race spirits (KHW p. 198). Each time we bring this to your attention,
you pretend that these passages do not exist. Why do you believe that you
are showing Steiner respect by ignoring what he wrote? What you mistake for
an emancipatory teaching is in reality a description of "the evolution of
man through reincarnations in ever higher ethnic and racial forms" (KHW p.
208).
It is hardly surprising, then, that many other "teachers of Anthroposophy"
have reiterated forthrightly racist and nationalist versions of Steiner's
doctrines. We've given you countless examples of this on the list. Last
year, for example, I recommended Pietro Archiati's recent book on Steiner's
racial views, about as clear a statement of the official internal
anthroposophist position as one might find anywhere, and all you said was
that you had no intention of reading it. You can't know what other
anthroposophist have to say on this question if you refuse to read their
work.
) )In conjunction with his rigidly hierarchical conception of racial
) ) and national categories, this doctrine yields some distinctly unpleasant
) )
) ) results.
)
)P:
)Actually, quite pleasant.
I didn't mean that these results would be unpleasant for someone like you,
Percedol; as Sharon has pointed out, you are exactly the kind of person that
Steiner's more reactionary doctrines appeal to. What I meant was that these
doctrines and their implications are unpleasant for much of the target
audience of Waldorf schools -- parents who are progressive, tolerant,
liberal, enlightened, whatever. Most of those folks aren't looking for an
education founded upon a theory of racial progress and ethnic hierarchies.
You, on the other hand, believe that:
)Hierarchy is the way of our world.
And:
)Races exists for now, but this does not imply that one has to be racist.
And:
)The idea that there can be Archangels that are national spirits does not
)imply anything negative, it implies that there are spirits that take
)part in our evolution.
People who are opposed to ethnic prejudice and racial stereotypes reject the
notion of "national spirits" who steer the evolution of every individual
based on her or his skin color and biological heritage. In contrast, people
who do believe in national spirits and racial character, who believe that
ethnic and racial groups are ranked hierarchically, and who believe that
evolution is proceeding in a certain direction according to a divinely
ordained cosmic plan toward the Universal Human, guided all the while by
spirits who determine our racial and national destiny, have fallen for an
old racist ideology. This ideology lies at the very center of
anthroposophical doctrine, and for those of us who dislike racism, it is a
most unpleasant ideology indeed.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 22:54:54 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
I've just read through this thread; thanks to all of you for a very
interesting exchange. I'm a little reluctant to toss in my two cents worth
on Jefferson, since the racism of the American "founding fathers" is far
from my area of expertise, and since I don't think it's my role to tell
PLANS how to present their message to the public. But I do think that Kay
Bolden made several compelling arguments about the perils of relying on
icons whose historical significance is conflicted and compromised. I suppose
if it were up to me, I'd do without the portrait of Jefferson.
I think I disagree with Kay, however, on the question of whether critics of
Waldorf and Anthroposophy demand a take-it-or-leave-it attitude; quite a few
of the most vocal critics associated with PLANS have shared their positive
experiences with some of what Waldorf stands for. I don't know whether any
of that comes across on the PLANS site, or whether it ought to, but I do
think it's important to keep it in mind here.
I also think it's important not to collapse two different historical
periods; it isn't obvious to me that Jefferson's racism and Steiner's racism
occupied similar contexts or fulfilled similar functions within their
respective eras. Virginia in 1776-1809 and Germany in 1902-1913 were
importantly distinct places: the one at the very beginning of
nation-building and imperial ambition, based on both genocide of the native
population and systematic chattel slavery; the other at the end of its
imperial ambitions, engaged in genocide in its short-lived colonies but
without the legacy of institutionalized slavery. The century that separated
Jefferson and Steiner, as well as their very different philosophical
orientations, are both crucial to understanding the two figures and the
unsavory aspects of their beliefs.
The decisive distinction, it seems to me, is the one Diana raised about
anthroposophists' attitudes toward Steiner's belief system. Many admirers of
Jefferson, from historians to biographers to social theorists to politicans,
have focused intense critical scrutiny on his racist views and practices.
There are scores of studies on this topic, many of them by writers
sympathetic to Jefferson. Even those scholars whose basic perspective on
Jefferson is negative do not have to contend with the claim that his
writings are the result of supernatural powers and the source of revealed
occult truths.
Serious examinations of Steiner's racism, in stark contrast, have so far
come from outside of anthroposophy, and Steiner's followers have almost
unanimously refused to deal with the issue in anything other than a
deflective and apologetic way. For that reason alone, the parallel between
the two breaks down (though I'm not sure that Kay meant to draw the parallel
in this way in the first place; her arguments about Jefferson, it seems to
me, hold up on their own, even without specific reference to Steiner).
All of which makes it amusing to watch the would-be defenders of Steiner's
honor misunderstand what is at stake here. Both Lennart and Percedol appear
to have concluded that those who are skeptical of Steiner are uncritical of
all other public figures. A worldview this cut off from reality cannot
really be expected to attend to its own disfigured history. One more reason
for external observers to keep the spotlight shining in Steiner's direction.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 983
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
RE: To Chrystabel
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: To Chrystabel
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: To Chrystabel
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: To Chrystabel
By nmfoss hotmail.com
RE: Theosophy of the R
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: Theosophy of the R
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By oscar001 earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 08:32:03 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
on 3/3/03 8:54 PM, Peter Staudenmaier at pstaud hotmail.com wrote:
I'm a little reluctant to toss in my two cents worth
) on Jefferson, since the racism of the American "founding fathers" is far
) from my area of expertise, and since I don't think it's my role to tell
) PLANS how to present their message to the public. But I do think that Kay
) Bolden made several compelling arguments about the perils of relying on
) icons whose historical significance is conflicted and compromised. I suppose
) if it were up to me, I'd do without the portrait of Jefferson.
Sharon: I'm glad you tossed in your two cents Peter because what you say
does matter to me, and I bet to most of the people behind PLANS. I vote to
remove Jefferson's picture because Jefferson was a racist, thus compromising
and conflicting with PLANS' critique of Steiner's racist doctrine.
Kay and Jeanine, thank you for pointing out our inconsistency.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 08:21:23 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
) on 3/3/03 8:54 PM, Peter Staudenmaier at pstaud hotmail.com wrote:
)
) I'm a little reluctant to toss in my two cents worth
)) on Jefferson, since the racism of the American "founding fathers" is far
)) from my area of expertise, and since I don't think it's my role to tell
)) PLANS how to present their message to the public. But I do think that Kay
)) Bolden made several compelling arguments about the perils of relying on
)) icons whose historical significance is conflicted and compromised. I suppose
)) if it were up to me, I'd do without the portrait of Jefferson.
)
) Sharon: I'm glad you tossed in your two cents Peter because what you say
) does matter to me, and I bet to most of the people behind PLANS. I vote to
) remove Jefferson's picture because Jefferson was a racist, thus compromising
) and conflicting with PLANS' critique of Steiner's racist doctrine.
)
) Kay and Jeanine, thank you for pointing out our inconsistency.
)
Lisa here: I think you all make several good points. I do think, however,
that the whole issue is troublesome because no matter what we might put on
the site, it could be open to interpretation and "spin" by anyone.
Example: if we refer to the Constitution, people could rightly say that
when it was written, women and minority groups were not included in the
early document and it is thus racist and sexist. They could also point out
that many of the framers of the Constitution were sexists and racists.
Does that man we ought not to refer to the Constitution? I personally
don't think so.
I am not particularly impassioned one way or the other about the image
of Thomas Jefferson, though there are many things that I admire about him as
a figure of importance in the early days of my country. (Concerns about
seeming un-PC compel me here to mention that his slave-owning is NOT one of
the things I admire.)
Perhaps it is just me, but I think it is the same with many historical
figures. Ought we not to hold up Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a model for
his role in civil rights because he was a less than faithful husband?
My fear is that in making sure every image is not offense to someone, we
water things down to a point that no image is OK for anyone. That would be a
shame, at least in my view.
PLANS used the image of Jefferson because he is a symbol of the founding
of America and the Constitution of the United States, which we assert is
being breached by publicly funded Waldorf schools. We are not, by placing
that image on our Website, saying we believe we or anyone else ought to
model him or herself after Jefferson, much less create a school system
modeled on his every dream or thought, as is the case with Waldorf.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 08:53:20 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
)) We touched on *everything*, but we wrote this still without esoteric
)) information or reading any Steiner. We still did not know that thousands of
)) sermons were recorded and published by his followers.
)
) Peter responds. Very nice referring to the lectures as sermons. I will
) follow this practice as well.
) See you, Peter
Sharon: In Waldorf, Anthroposophists deliberately use secular words so that
an uninformed person doesn't quickly put Waldorf into the context in which
it belongs. It's a duping tool. In Waldorf-speak, Steiner's "sermons" become
"lectures", "prayer" becomes "verse", "occultist" becomes "scientist", "True
Nature of Man/reincarnation scheme" becomes "Child development model", "the
Art (of magic) becomes "art", "sectarian" becomes "nonsectarian",
"Anthroposophist" becomes "philosopher", "mystagogue" becomes "educator",
etc. I try to put Waldorf back into the context it belongs. Waldorf is not
an artbased, nonsectarian school, it is an Anthroposophy school based on
Steiner's occultism.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:40:32 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Lots of interesting feedback in this thread, thanks to Kay, Jeanine, Peter,
Sharon, Lisa. I think I'm with Lisa at this point, though I hope others will
still contribute.
Lisa:
)We are not, by placing that image on our Website, saying we believe we or
)anyone else ought to model him or herself after Jefferson, much less create
)a school system modeled on his every dream or thought, as is the case with
Waldorf.
I take Lisa's point that if we throw out every possible person of historical
importance because of his or her failings, we'd have nothing left. Exploring
the legacy honestly is what counts. And the picture gives us the chance for
exactly this sort of conversation - it is fine to explain why Jefferson is
there, which parts of his legacy we are are pointing to and which parts we
reject. It provides a useful contrast to the way in which Steiner is
idealized and his flaws denied because his role in Waldorf is not just
"founding father" but guru.
I had written one more message to Kay Bolden which I'll copy in here (I
haven't heard from her since and don't know if she's reading this list).
Kay wrote:
)If I dismiss the entire Waldorf model on the basis of Steiner's racism --
if I dismiss the )whole of ANYTHING on that basis -- then I will have to
give up my love of the )Declaration of Independence, Ernest Hemingway
novels, and pecan pie!
I wrote:
We don't dismiss the entire Waldorf model because of Steiner's racism - it's
one problem among others, but it is indicative of the cult mentality - they
refuse to deal with it - and there is a tendency in Waldorf to circle the
wagons against anyone who questions anything Steiner said. Steiner was what
I think of as a "soft" racist and I believe this exists in Waldorf schools -
it is not that Waldorf teachers dislike people of color or will treat them
badly - they think race is part of karma, and the Waldorf teacher is helping
children improve their karma over many lifetimes. Steiner believed that
people incarnate as different races in different lifetimes. They won't hold
your race against you; a black person might be white in the next lifetime,
and a white person black. Steiner held a similar logic about male versus
female - we alternate male and female incarnations in order to experience
the different types of spirituality that he felt pertained to gender (women
are more spiritual, men more materialistic!). In other words he held
essentialist views about both sex and race. Gender stereotypes are highly
visible in Waldorf, far more so than race. Women teachers are often required
to wear dresses, for instance.
)And no, we don't normally defend Jefferson's views today -- we do something
far )more hypocritical. We pretend he didn't have them.
Good point - sort of swept under the carpet.
)MY real concern about Waldorf, is the difficulty of getting straight
answers about )things. The curriculum is so vague, the beliefs and goals of
the teacher/staff become )extremely important.
)Others in our parent group are also concerned about the so-called hidden
religious )aspects. We've talked to parents who had wonderful Waldorf
experiences, and )others who went on and on about prayers and music that
sounded perfectly innocent )to us.
It's not that the prayers and music are anything sinister -I look back
fondly on some of the Waldorf songs my son still remembers. It's that people
are angry when they realize they've been deceived, that the school had an
agenda that wasn't explained. Waldorf parents are doled out little tiny bits
of anthroposophy on a sort of "need to know" basis as determined by the
teachers. They try to be "discreet" because (Waldorf teachers have told me
this literally) they know anthroposophy turns people off. Well, people are
even more turned off when they realize they've been part of something they
didn't understand, and that this was deliberate.
Certainly you can get back to us after your visit. You may find that they
don't want you to take notes. They feel that it isn't wholesome for children
to see grownups doing subversive things like taking notes. :) You may be
asked to wind a ball of yarn or help with preparing food or something
instead.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 10:53:51 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: To Chrystabel
Speaking of comparing the US and Germany.... While I don't completely agree
with Su's assessment of the differences between American and German public
culture, I do very much second the recommendation of Fritz Stern's book The
Politics of Cultural Despair. It's an invaluable analysis of the ideological
context that gave rise to Steiner's core ideas, and one of the two
acknowledged classics in the field I work in (the other is George Mosse's
book The Crisis of German Ideology). For people looking to explore the
broader themes that constantly re-appear in Steiner's more troubling
writings, it's a very good place to start.
I'd also like to invite Chrystabel to tell us more about her sense of the
differences between German and North American anthroposophists. I found her
comments interesting and plausible, and in some respects her impressions
match my own. I'm also wondering if her husband has any interest in joining
this list; it would be good to have a philosophically trained
anthroposophist participate in some of the discussions.
Peter S.
)Please see the book The Politics of Cultural Despair; Study in the rise
)of Germanic Ideology, by Fritz Stern, University of California Press,
)Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 1961. (An excellent book...)
)
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 17:38:04 +0000
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: To Chrystabel
Nicole: I don't think Chystabel is with us any longer. She said at Open
Waldorf that she had ended her brief association with the critics list as
she found email lists to be intrusive and the discussion here myopic.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:20:50 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: To Chrystabel
)Nicole: I don't think Chystabel is with us any longer. She said at Open
)Waldorf that she had ended her brief association with the critics list as
)she found email lists to be intrusive and the discussion here myopic.
oh, yeah. you can never get anyone here interested in longer-term views,
deeper analysis, context, history, the critics never want to hear multiple
views or perspectives on anything. a complacent and uncurious group.
(sarcasm)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 00:55:26 +0000
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: To Chrystabel
Diana wrote: oh, yeah. you can never get anyone here interested in
longer-term views,deeper analysis, context, history, the critics never want
to hear multiple views or perspectives on anything. a complacent and
uncurious group.(sarcasm)
Nicole: It's frustrating (sigh). I think part of the problem is the
disconnect that someone mentioned (was it Dave Kimble?) between what people
see at Waldorf and what we tell them from our own experiences. They just
can't bring themselves to believe that the reality could possibly be so
different from the public front. Some also think we have an agenda and so
can't be trusted (double sigh). At least if we inform people in advance,
they may recognize aspects of what we've said at their own schools and
realize that we weren't just making it up for you own nefarious purposes. It
might help them not to get too deeply drawn into something which isn't a
good fit for their family. Forewarned is forearmed.
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 02:52:11 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
Peter Farrell wrote:
) Percedol wrote:
) )The superior cannot derive from the inferior.
)
) Peter reponds:
) This is not an incontrovertible fact. It is only an opinion, and I think
)
) there is evidence to support the exact opposite. Although I might put it
)
) that the more complex can derive from the simpler.
P:
I did not write complex or simpler. I wrote superior and inferior.
And of course it' is not an incontrovertible fact, as I state below.
)
) Percedol continues:
) )I don't see morality or immorality in this sentence.
) )So the question is not about the existance of evolution but its
) )direction: from up to down or from down up.
)
) Peter responds:
) The sort of directionality in evolution is not part of the scientific
) theory.
P:
But it has a direction. For example man that would derive from apes and
not vice versa.
)
) Percedol continues:
) )But still this does not prove anything. Some people may just feel that
) )the opposite is right. So anybody is free to follow their ideas.
)
) Peter responds:
) People are free to pursue their ideas as you say. But equally others are
)
) free to question and criticise those ideas. I don't understand what you
) are
) saying here. Are you saying that there is independently verifiable
) evidence
) that supports the notion that the heart doesn't pump blood, that there
) is
) independently verifiable evidence that there is a force of levity, that
) there is independently verifiable evidence for the efficacy of
) homeopathy
) consistent with the claims of Anthroposphical medical practioners? If
) you
) are saying these things, then I would say to you that it is not possible
) to
) honestly hold these beliefs except in ignorance, any more than it is
) possible to believe the earth to be flat.
P:
There is a method a knowledge given to experience whether this is true
or not. It is up to the individual to verify by experience or to deny
it. It is not a matter of belief, but of experience.
)
) Percedol continues:
) )And in terms of A. I doubt that one can find an incontrovertable proof.
) )It will always remain at the level of personal experience, not of
) )worldwide recognition. Therefore individual freedom of choice is
) )preserved.
) )If A. was be totally rejected. it would be a problem either, it would
) )just disappear from the scene.
)
) Peter responds:
) It is rare in science to find incontrovertible evidence. What one
) usually
) finds is a weight of evidence against a particular theory or
) proposition.
) What I am asserting is that the weight of evidence against the claims
) arising from Anthroposophy in the material domain is very large. Much
) larger
) in fact than any scientific theory of which I am aware would be able to
) bear
) and be acceptable to the community of scientists. I do not wish to
) remove
) the freedom of anybody to believe what they wish, and, with some
) limitations, to pursue the consequences of those beliefs. I don't
) believe
) that public statements which the available evidence suggests are wrong
) should go unchallenged.
P:
Opposition was expected.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 04:01:00 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
Percedol writes::
) ) Peter responds:
) ) The sort of directionality in evolution is not part of the scientific
) ) theory.
)
)P:
)But it has a direction. For example man that would derive from apes and
)not vice versa.
)
Peter responds:
This is one example. There are other examples where simplification occurs
through evolution. An example of this is that parasites which have evolved
from non parasitic forms lose functions that are costly and no longer
advantageous, and in so doing become simpler. The apparent directionality
you refer to is a product of the fact that the living things which human
beings take most notice of are complex, and they have necessarily evolved
from simpler creatures because of the time taken to evolve. The notion of
superiority is not part of the scientific theory of evolution. I should
point out that with appropriate changes in the environment there is nothing
in the theroy of evolution which would prevent something which is ape like
evolving from present day humans.
) )
) ) Percedol continues:
) ) )But still this does not prove anything. Some people may just feel that
) ) )the opposite is right. So anybody is free to follow their ideas.
) )
) ) Peter responds:
) ) People are free to pursue their ideas as you say. But equally others are
) )
) ) free to question and criticise those ideas. I don't understand what you
) ) are
) ) saying here. Are you saying that there is independently verifiable
) ) evidence
) ) that supports the notion that the heart doesn't pump blood, that there
) ) is
) ) independently verifiable evidence that there is a force of levity, that
) ) there is independently verifiable evidence for the efficacy of
) ) homeopathy
) ) consistent with the claims of Anthroposphical medical practioners? If
) ) you
) ) are saying these things, then I would say to you that it is not possible
) ) to
) ) honestly hold these beliefs except in ignorance, any more than it is
) ) possible to believe the earth to be flat.
)
)P:
)There is a method a knowledge given to experience whether this is true
)or not. It is up to the individual to verify by experience or to deny
)it. It is not a matter of belief, but of experience.
Peter responds:
I take it you are describing the content free method that Joel Wendt talked
about at length previously on this list. If that is so then I argue again I
don't need to try that method myself in order to test the validity of the
method. I reassert I can test the claims of Anthroposophy in the material
domain. This test is superior to the test you are suggesting because it is
objective, and can be done without learning this method.
)
) )
) ) Percedol continues:
) ) )And in terms of A. I doubt that one can find an incontrovertable proof.
) ) )It will always remain at the level of personal experience, not of
) ) )worldwide recognition. Therefore individual freedom of choice is
) ) )preserved.
) ) )If A. was be totally rejected. it would be a problem either, it would
) ) )just disappear from the scene.
) )
) ) Peter responds:
) ) It is rare in science to find incontrovertible evidence. What one
) ) usually
) ) finds is a weight of evidence against a particular theory or
) ) proposition.
) ) What I am asserting is that the weight of evidence against the claims
) ) arising from Anthroposophy in the material domain is very large. Much
) ) larger
) ) in fact than any scientific theory of which I am aware would be able to
) ) bear
) ) and be acceptable to the community of scientists. I do not wish to
) ) remove
) ) the freedom of anybody to believe what they wish, and, with some
) ) limitations, to pursue the consequences of those beliefs. I don't
) ) believe
) ) that public statements which the available evidence suggests are wrong
) ) should go unchallenged.
)
)P:
)Opposition was expected.
)
Peter responds:
It is more a matter of disagreement than of opposition.
See you,
Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:45:14 -0800
From: "NJS" (oscar001 earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Lisa:
) )We are not, by placing that image on our Website, saying we believe we or
) )anyone else ought to model him or herself after Jefferson, much less
create
) )a school system modeled on his every dream or thought, as is the case
with
) Waldorf.
)
Diana:
I take Lisa's point that if we throw out every possible person of
historical
) importance because of his or her failings, we'd have nothing left.
Exploring
) the legacy honestly is what counts. And the picture gives us the chance
for
) exactly this sort of conversation - it is fine to explain why Jefferson
is
) there, which parts of his legacy we are are pointing to and which parts we
) reject. It provides a useful contrast to the way in which Steiner is
) idealized and his flaws denied because his role in Waldorf is not just
) "founding father" but guru.
It sounds like PLANS must weigh the importance of Jefferson to its image and
message vs. the risk you entail at offending some, opening yourself up to
the accusation of hypocrisy, and presenting a parochial face to the world.
If the lawsuit is the primary thrust of what PLANS is about then I think
what you have is appropriate, as long as it is done with the knowledge that
it is very American in focus (Waldorf complaints are world wide, if my
tenure on this list and Survivors is indicative).
I don't agree with Lisa that mentioning the Constitution would make you
vulnerable to the same sort of attack since your lawsuit makes the
Constitution issue unavoidable; Thomas Jefferson is not an imperative part
of the conversation about Waldorf enroaching into public schools, but more
of a symbol, no? Unless you feel strongly Thomas Jefferson is the only or
most appropriate image that you'd like to project to the world, perhaps some
brainstorming could come up with something that works equally well?
Personally, I almost expect the Steiner and Jefferson to start duking it out
a la MTV's Celebrity Death Match. :)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 23:46:46 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
) Lisa:
)) )We are not, by placing that image on our Website, saying we believe we or
)) )anyone else ought to model him or herself after Jefferson, much less
) create
)) )a school system modeled on his every dream or thought, as is the case
) with
)) Waldorf.
))
) Diana:
) I take Lisa's point that if we throw out every possible person of
) historical
)) importance because of his or her failings, we'd have nothing left.
) Exploring
)) the legacy honestly is what counts. And the picture gives us the chance
) for
)) exactly this sort of conversation - it is fine to explain why Jefferson
) is
)) there, which parts of his legacy we are are pointing to and which parts we
)) reject. It provides a useful contrast to the way in which Steiner is
)) idealized and his flaws denied because his role in Waldorf is not just
)) "founding father" but guru.
)
) It sounds like PLANS must weigh the importance of Jefferson to its image and
) message vs. the risk you entail at offending some, opening yourself up to
) the accusation of hypocrisy, and presenting a parochial face to the world.
) If the lawsuit is the primary thrust of what PLANS is about then I think
) what you have is appropriate, as long as it is done with the knowledge that
) it is very American in focus (Waldorf complaints are world wide, if my
) tenure on this list and Survivors is indicative).
)
) I don't agree with Lisa that mentioning the Constitution would make you
) vulnerable to the same sort of attack since your lawsuit makes the
) Constitution issue unavoidable; Thomas Jefferson is not an imperative part
) of the conversation about Waldorf enroaching into public schools, but more
) of a symbol, no? Unless you feel strongly Thomas Jefferson is the only or
) most appropriate image that you'd like to project to the world, perhaps some
) brainstorming could come up with something that works equally well?
)
) Personally, I almost expect the Steiner and Jefferson to start duking it out
) a la MTV's Celebrity Death Match. :)
)
Lisa: Point well taken, Jeannine. Jefferson's image is not central to PLANS'
message, while Steiner's is.
It certainly was never PLANS' intention to offend anyone via
Jefferson's image; the portrait was placed there as a symbol of the US
Constitution, etc.
Up until the recent discussion about Jefferson, we have not, to my
knowledge, received any other complaints about it. Even so, the discussion
that has been generated has been useful and worthwhile.
One of the best things to come out of the discussion is your imaginary
wrestling match between Tom and Rudi. I love the idea! LOL!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 05:41:42 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
I meant to reply to this a little while ago but I guess it's better late
than never.
Sharon wrote:
)think people should be cautious, some parents have been
)threatened. A lawyer that deals in cultic studies told us that we *can*
)publish our stories but of course, truth is the best defense against libel.
Peter responds:
This is US law. The law in other countries is quite different. As I
understand the legal situation in Australia, the publication on the web of
articles which libel or slander an Australian or a resident of Australia are
subject to Australian law regardless of the site of the server. So if it is
downloadable in OZ, the author and possibly the publisher (however that
might be determined) may be subject to Australian law (truth is not a
defense). I have no legal training so don't take my word for this. There is
a short article about the Australian High Court decision at
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/s744705.htm
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 984
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
RE: To Chrystabel
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: To Chrystabel
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: To Chrystabel
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: To Chrystabel
By nmfoss hotmail.com
RE: Theosophy of the R
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: Theosophy of the R
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By oscar001 earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 08:32:03 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
on 3/3/03 8:54 PM, Peter Staudenmaier at pstaud hotmail.com wrote:
I'm a little reluctant to toss in my two cents worth
) on Jefferson, since the racism of the American "founding fathers" is far
) from my area of expertise, and since I don't think it's my role to tell
) PLANS how to present their message to the public. But I do think that Kay
) Bolden made several compelling arguments about the perils of relying on
) icons whose historical significance is conflicted and compromised. I suppose
) if it were up to me, I'd do without the portrait of Jefferson.
Sharon: I'm glad you tossed in your two cents Peter because what you say
does matter to me, and I bet to most of the people behind PLANS. I vote to
remove Jefferson's picture because Jefferson was a racist, thus compromising
and conflicting with PLANS' critique of Steiner's racist doctrine.
Kay and Jeanine, thank you for pointing out our inconsistency.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 08:21:23 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
) on 3/3/03 8:54 PM, Peter Staudenmaier at pstaud hotmail.com wrote:
)
) I'm a little reluctant to toss in my two cents worth
)) on Jefferson, since the racism of the American "founding fathers" is far
)) from my area of expertise, and since I don't think it's my role to tell
)) PLANS how to present their message to the public. But I do think that Kay
)) Bolden made several compelling arguments about the perils of relying on
)) icons whose historical significance is conflicted and compromised. I suppose
)) if it were up to me, I'd do without the portrait of Jefferson.
)
) Sharon: I'm glad you tossed in your two cents Peter because what you say
) does matter to me, and I bet to most of the people behind PLANS. I vote to
) remove Jefferson's picture because Jefferson was a racist, thus compromising
) and conflicting with PLANS' critique of Steiner's racist doctrine.
)
) Kay and Jeanine, thank you for pointing out our inconsistency.
)
Lisa here: I think you all make several good points. I do think, however,
that the whole issue is troublesome because no matter what we might put on
the site, it could be open to interpretation and "spin" by anyone.
Example: if we refer to the Constitution, people could rightly say that
when it was written, women and minority groups were not included in the
early document and it is thus racist and sexist. They could also point out
that many of the framers of the Constitution were sexists and racists.
Does that man we ought not to refer to the Constitution? I personally
don't think so.
I am not particularly impassioned one way or the other about the image
of Thomas Jefferson, though there are many things that I admire about him as
a figure of importance in the early days of my country. (Concerns about
seeming un-PC compel me here to mention that his slave-owning is NOT one of
the things I admire.)
Perhaps it is just me, but I think it is the same with many historical
figures. Ought we not to hold up Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a model for
his role in civil rights because he was a less than faithful husband?
My fear is that in making sure every image is not offense to someone, we
water things down to a point that no image is OK for anyone. That would be a
shame, at least in my view.
PLANS used the image of Jefferson because he is a symbol of the founding
of America and the Constitution of the United States, which we assert is
being breached by publicly funded Waldorf schools. We are not, by placing
that image on our Website, saying we believe we or anyone else ought to
model him or herself after Jefferson, much less create a school system
modeled on his every dream or thought, as is the case with Waldorf.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 08:53:20 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
)) We touched on *everything*, but we wrote this still without esoteric
)) information or reading any Steiner. We still did not know that thousands of
)) sermons were recorded and published by his followers.
)
) Peter responds. Very nice referring to the lectures as sermons. I will
) follow this practice as well.
) See you, Peter
Sharon: In Waldorf, Anthroposophists deliberately use secular words so that
an uninformed person doesn't quickly put Waldorf into the context in which
it belongs. It's a duping tool. In Waldorf-speak, Steiner's "sermons" become
"lectures", "prayer" becomes "verse", "occultist" becomes "scientist", "True
Nature of Man/reincarnation scheme" becomes "Child development model", "the
Art (of magic) becomes "art", "sectarian" becomes "nonsectarian",
"Anthroposophist" becomes "philosopher", "mystagogue" becomes "educator",
etc. I try to put Waldorf back into the context it belongs. Waldorf is not
an artbased, nonsectarian school, it is an Anthroposophy school based on
Steiner's occultism.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:40:32 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Lots of interesting feedback in this thread, thanks to Kay, Jeanine, Peter,
Sharon, Lisa. I think I'm with Lisa at this point, though I hope others will
still contribute.
Lisa:
)We are not, by placing that image on our Website, saying we believe we or
)anyone else ought to model him or herself after Jefferson, much less create
)a school system modeled on his every dream or thought, as is the case with
Waldorf.
I take Lisa's point that if we throw out every possible person of historical
importance because of his or her failings, we'd have nothing left. Exploring
the legacy honestly is what counts. And the picture gives us the chance for
exactly this sort of conversation - it is fine to explain why Jefferson is
there, which parts of his legacy we are are pointing to and which parts we
reject. It provides a useful contrast to the way in which Steiner is
idealized and his flaws denied because his role in Waldorf is not just
"founding father" but guru.
I had written one more message to Kay Bolden which I'll copy in here (I
haven't heard from her since and don't know if she's reading this list).
Kay wrote:
)If I dismiss the entire Waldorf model on the basis of Steiner's racism --
if I dismiss the )whole of ANYTHING on that basis -- then I will have to
give up my love of the )Declaration of Independence, Ernest Hemingway
novels, and pecan pie!
I wrote:
We don't dismiss the entire Waldorf model because of Steiner's racism - it's
one problem among others, but it is indicative of the cult mentality - they
refuse to deal with it - and there is a tendency in Waldorf to circle the
wagons against anyone who questions anything Steiner said. Steiner was what
I think of as a "soft" racist and I believe this exists in Waldorf schools -
it is not that Waldorf teachers dislike people of color or will treat them
badly - they think race is part of karma, and the Waldorf teacher is helping
children improve their karma over many lifetimes. Steiner believed that
people incarnate as different races in different lifetimes. They won't hold
your race against you; a black person might be white in the next lifetime,
and a white person black. Steiner held a similar logic about male versus
female - we alternate male and female incarnations in order to experience
the different types of spirituality that he felt pertained to gender (women
are more spiritual, men more materialistic!). In other words he held
essentialist views about both sex and race. Gender stereotypes are highly
visible in Waldorf, far more so than race. Women teachers are often required
to wear dresses, for instance.
)And no, we don't normally defend Jefferson's views today -- we do something
far )more hypocritical. We pretend he didn't have them.
Good point - sort of swept under the carpet.
)MY real concern about Waldorf, is the difficulty of getting straight
answers about )things. The curriculum is so vague, the beliefs and goals of
the teacher/staff become )extremely important.
)Others in our parent group are also concerned about the so-called hidden
religious )aspects. We've talked to parents who had wonderful Waldorf
experiences, and )others who went on and on about prayers and music that
sounded perfectly innocent )to us.
It's not that the prayers and music are anything sinister -I look back
fondly on some of the Waldorf songs my son still remembers. It's that people
are angry when they realize they've been deceived, that the school had an
agenda that wasn't explained. Waldorf parents are doled out little tiny bits
of anthroposophy on a sort of "need to know" basis as determined by the
teachers. They try to be "discreet" because (Waldorf teachers have told me
this literally) they know anthroposophy turns people off. Well, people are
even more turned off when they realize they've been part of something they
didn't understand, and that this was deliberate.
Certainly you can get back to us after your visit. You may find that they
don't want you to take notes. They feel that it isn't wholesome for children
to see grownups doing subversive things like taking notes. :) You may be
asked to wind a ball of yarn or help with preparing food or something
instead.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 10:53:51 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: To Chrystabel
Speaking of comparing the US and Germany.... While I don't completely agree
with Su's assessment of the differences between American and German public
culture, I do very much second the recommendation of Fritz Stern's book The
Politics of Cultural Despair. It's an invaluable analysis of the ideological
context that gave rise to Steiner's core ideas, and one of the two
acknowledged classics in the field I work in (the other is George Mosse's
book The Crisis of German Ideology). For people looking to explore the
broader themes that constantly re-appear in Steiner's more troubling
writings, it's a very good place to start.
I'd also like to invite Chrystabel to tell us more about her sense of the
differences between German and North American anthroposophists. I found her
comments interesting and plausible, and in some respects her impressions
match my own. I'm also wondering if her husband has any interest in joining
this list; it would be good to have a philosophically trained
anthroposophist participate in some of the discussions.
Peter S.
)Please see the book The Politics of Cultural Despair; Study in the rise
)of Germanic Ideology, by Fritz Stern, University of California Press,
)Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 1961. (An excellent book...)
)
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 17:38:04 +0000
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: To Chrystabel
Nicole: I don't think Chystabel is with us any longer. She said at Open
Waldorf that she had ended her brief association with the critics list as
she found email lists to be intrusive and the discussion here myopic.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:20:50 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: To Chrystabel
)Nicole: I don't think Chystabel is with us any longer. She said at Open
)Waldorf that she had ended her brief association with the critics list as
)she found email lists to be intrusive and the discussion here myopic.
oh, yeah. you can never get anyone here interested in longer-term views,
deeper analysis, context, history, the critics never want to hear multiple
views or perspectives on anything. a complacent and uncurious group.
(sarcasm)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 00:55:26 +0000
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: To Chrystabel
Diana wrote: oh, yeah. you can never get anyone here interested in
longer-term views,deeper analysis, context, history, the critics never want
to hear multiple views or perspectives on anything. a complacent and
uncurious group.(sarcasm)
Nicole: It's frustrating (sigh). I think part of the problem is the
disconnect that someone mentioned (was it Dave Kimble?) between what people
see at Waldorf and what we tell them from our own experiences. They just
can't bring themselves to believe that the reality could possibly be so
different from the public front. Some also think we have an agenda and so
can't be trusted (double sigh). At least if we inform people in advance,
they may recognize aspects of what we've said at their own schools and
realize that we weren't just making it up for you own nefarious purposes. It
might help them not to get too deeply drawn into something which isn't a
good fit for their family. Forewarned is forearmed.
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 02:52:11 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
Peter Farrell wrote:
) Percedol wrote:
) )The superior cannot derive from the inferior.
)
) Peter reponds:
) This is not an incontrovertible fact. It is only an opinion, and I think
)
) there is evidence to support the exact opposite. Although I might put it
)
) that the more complex can derive from the simpler.
P:
I did not write complex or simpler. I wrote superior and inferior.
And of course it' is not an incontrovertible fact, as I state below.
)
) Percedol continues:
) )I don't see morality or immorality in this sentence.
) )So the question is not about the existance of evolution but its
) )direction: from up to down or from down up.
)
) Peter responds:
) The sort of directionality in evolution is not part of the scientific
) theory.
P:
But it has a direction. For example man that would derive from apes and
not vice versa.
)
) Percedol continues:
) )But still this does not prove anything. Some people may just feel that
) )the opposite is right. So anybody is free to follow their ideas.
)
) Peter responds:
) People are free to pursue their ideas as you say. But equally others are
)
) free to question and criticise those ideas. I don't understand what you
) are
) saying here. Are you saying that there is independently verifiable
) evidence
) that supports the notion that the heart doesn't pump blood, that there
) is
) independently verifiable evidence that there is a force of levity, that
) there is independently verifiable evidence for the efficacy of
) homeopathy
) consistent with the claims of Anthroposphical medical practioners? If
) you
) are saying these things, then I would say to you that it is not possible
) to
) honestly hold these beliefs except in ignorance, any more than it is
) possible to believe the earth to be flat.
P:
There is a method a knowledge given to experience whether this is true
or not. It is up to the individual to verify by experience or to deny
it. It is not a matter of belief, but of experience.
)
) Percedol continues:
) )And in terms of A. I doubt that one can find an incontrovertable proof.
) )It will always remain at the level of personal experience, not of
) )worldwide recognition. Therefore individual freedom of choice is
) )preserved.
) )If A. was be totally rejected. it would be a problem either, it would
) )just disappear from the scene.
)
) Peter responds:
) It is rare in science to find incontrovertible evidence. What one
) usually
) finds is a weight of evidence against a particular theory or
) proposition.
) What I am asserting is that the weight of evidence against the claims
) arising from Anthroposophy in the material domain is very large. Much
) larger
) in fact than any scientific theory of which I am aware would be able to
) bear
) and be acceptable to the community of scientists. I do not wish to
) remove
) the freedom of anybody to believe what they wish, and, with some
) limitations, to pursue the consequences of those beliefs. I don't
) believe
) that public statements which the available evidence suggests are wrong
) should go unchallenged.
P:
Opposition was expected.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 04:01:00 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
Percedol writes::
) ) Peter responds:
) ) The sort of directionality in evolution is not part of the scientific
) ) theory.
)
)P:
)But it has a direction. For example man that would derive from apes and
)not vice versa.
)
Peter responds:
This is one example. There are other examples where simplification occurs
through evolution. An example of this is that parasites which have evolved
from non parasitic forms lose functions that are costly and no longer
advantageous, and in so doing become simpler. The apparent directionality
you refer to is a product of the fact that the living things which human
beings take most notice of are complex, and they have necessarily evolved
from simpler creatures because of the time taken to evolve. The notion of
superiority is not part of the scientific theory of evolution. I should
point out that with appropriate changes in the environment there is nothing
in the theroy of evolution which would prevent something which is ape like
evolving from present day humans.
) )
) ) Percedol continues:
) ) )But still this does not prove anything. Some people may just feel that
) ) )the opposite is right. So anybody is free to follow their ideas.
) )
) ) Peter responds:
) ) People are free to pursue their ideas as you say. But equally others are
) )
) ) free to question and criticise those ideas. I don't understand what you
) ) are
) ) saying here. Are you saying that there is independently verifiable
) ) evidence
) ) that supports the notion that the heart doesn't pump blood, that there
) ) is
) ) independently verifiable evidence that there is a force of levity, that
) ) there is independently verifiable evidence for the efficacy of
) ) homeopathy
) ) consistent with the claims of Anthroposphical medical practioners? If
) ) you
) ) are saying these things, then I would say to you that it is not possible
) ) to
) ) honestly hold these beliefs except in ignorance, any more than it is
) ) possible to believe the earth to be flat.
)
)P:
)There is a method a knowledge given to experience whether this is true
)or not. It is up to the individual to verify by experience or to deny
)it. It is not a matter of belief, but of experience.
Peter responds:
I take it you are describing the content free method that Joel Wendt talked
about at length previously on this list. If that is so then I argue again I
don't need to try that method myself in order to test the validity of the
method. I reassert I can test the claims of Anthroposophy in the material
domain. This test is superior to the test you are suggesting because it is
objective, and can be done without learning this method.
)
) )
) ) Percedol continues:
) ) )And in terms of A. I doubt that one can find an incontrovertable proof.
) ) )It will always remain at the level of personal experience, not of
) ) )worldwide recognition. Therefore individual freedom of choice is
) ) )preserved.
) ) )If A. was be totally rejected. it would be a problem either, it would
) ) )just disappear from the scene.
) )
) ) Peter responds:
) ) It is rare in science to find incontrovertible evidence. What one
) ) usually
) ) finds is a weight of evidence against a particular theory or
) ) proposition.
) ) What I am asserting is that the weight of evidence against the claims
) ) arising from Anthroposophy in the material domain is very large. Much
) ) larger
) ) in fact than any scientific theory of which I am aware would be able to
) ) bear
) ) and be acceptable to the community of scientists. I do not wish to
) ) remove
) ) the freedom of anybody to believe what they wish, and, with some
) ) limitations, to pursue the consequences of those beliefs. I don't
) ) believe
) ) that public statements which the available evidence suggests are wrong
) ) should go unchallenged.
)
)P:
)Opposition was expected.
)
Peter responds:
It is more a matter of disagreement than of opposition.
See you,
Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:45:14 -0800
From: "NJS" (oscar001 earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Lisa:
) )We are not, by placing that image on our Website, saying we believe we or
) )anyone else ought to model him or herself after Jefferson, much less
create
) )a school system modeled on his every dream or thought, as is the case
with
) Waldorf.
)
Diana:
I take Lisa's point that if we throw out every possible person of
historical
) importance because of his or her failings, we'd have nothing left.
Exploring
) the legacy honestly is what counts. And the picture gives us the chance
for
) exactly this sort of conversation - it is fine to explain why Jefferson
is
) there, which parts of his legacy we are are pointing to and which parts we
) reject. It provides a useful contrast to the way in which Steiner is
) idealized and his flaws denied because his role in Waldorf is not just
) "founding father" but guru.
It sounds like PLANS must weigh the importance of Jefferson to its image and
message vs. the risk you entail at offending some, opening yourself up to
the accusation of hypocrisy, and presenting a parochial face to the world.
If the lawsuit is the primary thrust of what PLANS is about then I think
what you have is appropriate, as long as it is done with the knowledge that
it is very American in focus (Waldorf complaints are world wide, if my
tenure on this list and Survivors is indicative).
I don't agree with Lisa that mentioning the Constitution would make you
vulnerable to the same sort of attack since your lawsuit makes the
Constitution issue unavoidable; Thomas Jefferson is not an imperative part
of the conversation about Waldorf enroaching into public schools, but more
of a symbol, no? Unless you feel strongly Thomas Jefferson is the only or
most appropriate image that you'd like to project to the world, perhaps some
brainstorming could come up with something that works equally well?
Personally, I almost expect the Steiner and Jefferson to start duking it out
a la MTV's Celebrity Death Match. :)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 23:46:46 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
) Lisa:
)) )We are not, by placing that image on our Website, saying we believe we or
)) )anyone else ought to model him or herself after Jefferson, much less
) create
)) )a school system modeled on his every dream or thought, as is the case
) with
)) Waldorf.
))
) Diana:
) I take Lisa's point that if we throw out every possible person of
) historical
)) importance because of his or her failings, we'd have nothing left.
) Exploring
)) the legacy honestly is what counts. And the picture gives us the chance
) for
)) exactly this sort of conversation - it is fine to explain why Jefferson
) is
)) there, which parts of his legacy we are are pointing to and which parts we
)) reject. It provides a useful contrast to the way in which Steiner is
)) idealized and his flaws denied because his role in Waldorf is not just
)) "founding father" but guru.
)
) It sounds like PLANS must weigh the importance of Jefferson to its image and
) message vs. the risk you entail at offending some, opening yourself up to
) the accusation of hypocrisy, and presenting a parochial face to the world.
) If the lawsuit is the primary thrust of what PLANS is about then I think
) what you have is appropriate, as long as it is done with the knowledge that
) it is very American in focus (Waldorf complaints are world wide, if my
) tenure on this list and Survivors is indicative).
)
) I don't agree with Lisa that mentioning the Constitution would make you
) vulnerable to the same sort of attack since your lawsuit makes the
) Constitution issue unavoidable; Thomas Jefferson is not an imperative part
) of the conversation about Waldorf enroaching into public schools, but more
) of a symbol, no? Unless you feel strongly Thomas Jefferson is the only or
) most appropriate image that you'd like to project to the world, perhaps some
) brainstorming could come up with something that works equally well?
)
) Personally, I almost expect the Steiner and Jefferson to start duking it out
) a la MTV's Celebrity Death Match. :)
)
Lisa: Point well taken, Jeannine. Jefferson's image is not central to PLANS'
message, while Steiner's is.
It certainly was never PLANS' intention to offend anyone via
Jefferson's image; the portrait was placed there as a symbol of the US
Constitution, etc.
Up until the recent discussion about Jefferson, we have not, to my
knowledge, received any other complaints about it. Even so, the discussion
that has been generated has been useful and worthwhile.
One of the best things to come out of the discussion is your imaginary
wrestling match between Tom and Rudi. I love the idea! LOL!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 05:41:42 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
I meant to reply to this a little while ago but I guess it's better late
than never.
Sharon wrote:
)think people should be cautious, some parents have been
)threatened. A lawyer that deals in cultic studies told us that we *can*
)publish our stories but of course, truth is the best defense against libel.
Peter responds:
This is US law. The law in other countries is quite different. As I
understand the legal situation in Australia, the publication on the web of
articles which libel or slander an Australian or a resident of Australia are
subject to Australian law regardless of the site of the server. So if it is
downloadable in OZ, the author and possibly the publisher (however that
might be determined) may be subject to Australian law (truth is not a
defense). I have no legal training so don't take my word for this. There is
a short article about the Australian High Court decision at
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/s744705.htm
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 984
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
RE: Backwards writing
By audreyallison hotmail.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
RE: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By jaquesdm msn.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: Theosophy of the R
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: Theosophy of the R
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By oscar001 earthlink.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:35:15 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Jeanine:
)It sounds like PLANS must weigh the importance of Jefferson to its image
and
)message vs. the risk you entail at offending some, opening yourself up to
)the accusation of hypocrisy, and presenting a parochial face to the world.
Whew. Well, if you put it that way . . .
Yes, Jefferson is just a symbol. Perhaps it is my argumentative nature, but
the more backed into a corner I feel defending the use of the symbol . . . I
don't think for Americans to file suit in America, and publicize those
efforts - with the broader aim of forcing some transparency (I think that
was your phrase, Jeanine, I liked it) in the schools not only here but
worldwide - is "parochial." It is simply a fact that it was two Americans,
Dan and Deby, who started PLANS in order to file this lawsuit, and it is the
most visible, public thing PLANS has done. I truly don't think that makes
the group "parochial." American Waldorf parents can't file lawsuits against
Waldorf schools in other countries . . .
And as for hypocrisy, I just don't think so. I think it's been clearly
explained that Jefferson is not to PLANS as Steiner is to Waldorf - the
analogy is wrong. It is not a guru relationship. I don't mind being "open"
to charges of hypocrisy when I have no problem explaining why the charges
are incorrect.
I suspect we'll end up taking the picture down, as this sort of thing is a
distraction from the issues, but I will find it regrettable if it's done to
avoid charges of "hypocrisy" since I don't think it's hypocritical.
)If the lawsuit is the primary thrust of what PLANS is about then I think
)what you have is appropriate, as long as it is done with the knowledge that
)it is very American in focus (Waldorf complaints are world wide, if my
)tenure on this list and Survivors is indicative).
The lawsuit is simply the most public, visible thing PLANS has done. It
invariably leads to an American focus since, obviously, it is a lawsuit in
US courts and based on US law. (Waldorf schools receiving public funding in
other countries aren't risking the same types of violations.) I don't see
why we should apologize for that or remove symbols of that as if they were
embarrassing, and I don't think it's in conflict with an international
focus. PLANS *does* hear from people in many parts of the world and it is
usually to say thank you, not to complain that a picture of Thomas Jefferson
is on the website.
Darn it, if Waldorf parents in other countries start filing lawsuits, we'll
put pictures of their "founding fathers" up too, how's that? :)
And if we take it down, immediately our own critics will announce that we
have "backed off" on our claims or have now admitted we are hypocrites, or
something like that.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 08:26:38 -0800
From: "Audrey Allison" (audreyallison hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Backwards writing
Thank you so much for the insight. I was more concerned that it was a way
of teaching but I entirely agree that it might relate entirely to creativity
rather than developmental issues.
We have little time to work with the kids at our house because of the every
other weekend schedule .. but my two year old is catching up to the older
two in the alphabet and numbers. Oh well.
Audrey
Audrey Allison
5307 Timble Lane
Kelowna BC, V1W 4T9
(250) 764-2913
audreyallison hotmail.com
)From: Dave Kimble (dkimble mystrotv.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: RE: Backwards writing
)Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:57:40 -0700
)
)Audrey,
)
)We had the same experience when we home-schooled our son (now 21).
)
)He would write words with all manner of permutations, "normal", whole
)words mirror-imaged, words with some individual letters mirrored, whole
)words upside-down (some backwards, some not), words with some letters
)upside-down.
)
)The approach we took was to not mention it explicitly, except on how
)amazed we were that he could write letters so many different ways. On
)letters that he seemed to more consistently write "non-standard"
)(usually backwards), we would make sure to include those in examples we
)gave him so he would be exposed to how we wrote them.
)
)I often talked with him about how arbitrary the letter shapes are (we
)would sometimes make up new shapes and pretend they were new letters).
)The message that seemed to work best for him was that using one of these
)shapes in a particular orientation was not any "better" than any other,
)it was just the common usage, and so preferred if you want to avoid
)confusing other people.
)
)Our six-year old is now doing some of the same things (although not
)quite so extensively as our son did). The same approach seems to be
)working for her as well.
)
)I'm no child-development expert, but it seemed/seems to be helpful for
)them to play with the letters purely as shapes.
)
)Any deviation from the norm might be evidence of creativity instead of a
)developmental problem.
)
)Hope this helps,
)
)Dave
)
)-----Original Message-----
)From: Audrey Allison [mailto:audreyallison hotmail.com]
)Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 3:07 PM
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: Backwards writing
)
)Thanks ... I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a Waldorf oddity.
)
)
)
)_________________________________________________________________
)The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
)http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
)basic. New threads are always welcome.
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
)New threads are always welcome.
)
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:34:30 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Diana:
) And if we take it down, immediately our own critics will announce that we
) have "backed off" on our claims or have now admitted we are hypocrites, or
) something like that.
Or those same critics of Waldorf Critics might just see that the folks at
PLANS are listening to comments and suggestions and are *thinking
critically* about those comments. I do not see the Jefferson photo as a
"claim" in the first place. The claim, as I see it, is that Anthroposophy
is a religion, Waldorf are religious schools and Waldorf public relations is
deceptive, manipulative and less than honest with prospective new parents
and children. I see no hypocrisy whatsoever in removing the photo.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:43:34 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Diana:
) And if we take it down, immediately our own critics will announce that we
) have "backed off" on our claims or have now admitted we are hypocrites, or
) something like that.
Walden:
)Or those same critics of Waldorf Critics might just see that the folks at
)PLANS are listening to comments and suggestions and are *thinking
)critically* about those comments. (snip)
) I see no hypocrisy whatsoever in removing the photo.
I didn't mean it would be hypocritical to remove it. I just meant that
removing it may be interpreted by our critics as an admission that it was
hypocritical to have it there in the first place.
I don't personally feel strongly about it being there or not being there.
The picture's presence, or the removal of the picture, can both be occasions
for these discussions, which *in themselves* demonstrate that PLANS listens
to comments and thinks critically about them. I don't mind explaining again
why it was not hypocritical either to have it or to remove it.
I am just feeling weary already picturing our usual antagonists summarizing
the incident something like, "PLANS now admits they are racist." "PLANS
removes racist material from web site under pressure."
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:08:59 +0000
From: (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Diana:
)
) ) And if we take it down, immediately our own critics will announce that
) ) we
) ) have "backed off" on our claims or have now admitted we are hypocrites,
) ) or
) ) something like that.
)
)
) Walden:
)
) )Or those same critics of Waldorf Critics might just see that the folks
) )at
) )PLANS are listening to comments and suggestions and are *thinking
) )critically* about those comments. (snip)
)
) ) I see no hypocrisy whatsoever in removing the photo.
)
) I didn't mean it would be hypocritical to remove it. I just meant that
) removing it may be interpreted by our critics as an admission that it
) was
) hypocritical to have it there in the first place.
)
) I don't personally feel strongly about it being there or not being
) there.
) The picture's presence, or the removal of the picture, can both be
) occasions
) for these discussions, which *in themselves* demonstrate that PLANS
) listens
) to comments and thinks critically about them. I don't mind explaining
) again
) why it was not hypocritical either to have it or to remove it.
) I am just feeling weary already picturing our usual antagonists
) summarizing
) the incident something like, "PLANS now admits they are racist." "PLANS
) removes racist material from web site under pressure."
) Diana
)
)
)
Seems to me that while PLANS has no difficulty in acknowledging that the
world has moved on since Jefferson's time, and freely repudiates aspects
of his life, times etc. critics of the Critics wont make the same
concessions on Steiner. We have all seen excuses, justifications,
"contextualisations" ad nauseam, but demonstrable repudiation? Hardly.
From this side of the Atlantic, Jefferson signifies noble things.
Day
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 17:41:51 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
) Diana:
)) And if we take it down, immediately our own critics will announce that we
)) have "backed off" on our claims or have now admitted we are hypocrites, or
)) something like that.
)
) Or those same critics of Waldorf Critics might just see that the folks at
) PLANS are listening to comments and suggestions and are *thinking
) critically* about those comments. I do not see the Jefferson photo as a
) "claim" in the first place. The claim, as I see it, is that Anthroposophy
) is a religion, Waldorf are religious schools and Waldorf public relations is
) deceptive, manipulative and less than honest with prospective new parents
) and children. I see no hypocrisy whatsoever in removing the photo.
)
) -Walden
)
Lisa: I don't think it would be hypocritical to remove the image of Thomas
Jefferson from the PLANS Website, but I do think it would be stupid to do
so.
The image of Thomas Jefferson was chosen for our Website because
Jefferson was not only a founding father of the United States, but also one
of those whose ideals framed the Constitution, which is the blueprint for
the American system.
Jefferson's picture has been on our Website for some time now, and until
this week, not a single person that I know of was offended by it or brought
up Jefferson's slave-owning past. It only became an issue after a woman
wrote PLANS' officers claiming that Jefferson was a racist and wondering why
we chose him for our Website when we were claiming that Steiner was a
racist.
My response is simple: Jefferson is a symbol of the US Constitution.
PLANS is NOT saying that schools should be modeled after him or that
schoolteachers, parents and other human beings should model their lives and
try to shape their souls according to what Jefferson said, taught or
thought.
Rudolf Steiner, however, is another story. There *are* schools --
Waldorf schools! -- all over the world which are modeled as exactingly as
possible on visions and thoughts that Steiner had. Waldorf teachers try to
model themselves in the image of Steiner, and they try to mold and shape the
children in their classes according to things that Steiner made up.
Anyone who engages in a quick bit of critical thinking will quickly
conclude that comparing Jefferson and Steiner is like the old comparison
between apples and oranges.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 02:07:57 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
Peter Farrell wrote:
) )P:
) )But it has a direction. For example man that would derive from apes and
) )not vice versa.
) )
)
) Peter responds:
) This is one example. There are other examples where simplification
) occurs
) through evolution. An example of this is that parasites which have
) evolved
) from non parasitic forms lose functions that are costly and no longer
) advantageous, and in so doing become simpler. The apparent
) directionality
) you refer to is a product of the fact that the living things which human
)
) beings take most notice of are complex, and they have necessarily
) evolved
) from simpler creatures because of the time taken to evolve.
P:
What I mean is that higher hierarchies can create lower hierarchical
beings, not the opposite. From the spiritual can be formed matter, not
the opposite. Shakti and Maya.
The notion of
) superiority is not part of the scientific theory of evolution. I should
) point out that with appropriate changes in the environment there is
) nothing
) in the theroy of evolution which would prevent something which is ape
) like
) evolving from present day humans.
P:
Just looking at where humans are going it is easy to think that they may
fall under the human level.
) )P:
) )There is a method a knowledge given to experience whether this is true
) )or not. It is up to the individual to verify by experience or to deny
) )it. It is not a matter of belief, but of experience.
)
)
) Peter responds:
) I take it you are describing the content free method that JW talked
) about at length previously on this list. If that is so then I argue
) again I
) don't need to try that method myself in order to test the validity of
) the
) method. I reassert I can test the claims of Anthroposophy in the
) material
) domain. This test is superior to the test you are suggesting because it
) is
) objective, and can be done without learning this method.
P:
I don't know what JW posted. The methods have been described and are
widely available.
Your method, that is science, has failed. It should have realized that
what it missed it's most important element, which is thinking. Now,
people stick to science that as the highest achievement, but it's a
failure. It's the new religion.
)
) Peter responds:
) It is more a matter of disagreement than of opposition.
) See you,
) Peter
P:
Be free to disagree. I doesn't make any difference.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 03:13:36 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
Percedol :
)What I mean is that higher hierarchies can create lower hierarchical
)beings, not the opposite. From the spiritual can be formed matter, not
)the opposite. Shakti and Maya.
Peter responds:
This is a simple statement of a religious beleif. I am perfectly happy for
you to believe it but it has nothing to do with the scientific theory of
evolution. It does no good to tell me because I don't believe any such
hierarchical beings exist.
)
)P:
)Just looking at where humans are going it is easy to think that they may
)fall under the human level.
)
Peter responds:
This may be so, but from the perspective of the scientific theory the words
"fall under" are meaningless.
)P:
)I don't know what JW posted. The methods have been described and are
)widely available.
)
)Your method, that is science, has failed. It should have realized that
)what it missed it's most important element, which is thinking. Now,
)people stick to science that as the highest achievement, but it's a
)failure. It's the new religion.
)
Peter responds:
I would put it to you instead that the method you refer to has failed. I
know it has failed since the people who use the method make predictions
which can be demonstrated to be false. The anthroposophists who have
contributed to this list have amply demonstrated that they know nothing more
about thinking than any other contributor to this list. If you wish to make
the claim that Anthroposophy has some contribution to make to the the
understanding of thinking then I suggest that you provide evidence.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:04:44 -0800
From: "NJS" (oscar001 earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00A6_01C2E35A.D90C02C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lisa wrote:
) My response is simple: Jefferson is a symbol of the US Constitution.
) PLANS is NOT saying that schools should be modeled after him or that
) schoolteachers, parents and other human beings should model their lives and
) try to shape their souls according to what Jefferson said, taught or
) thought.
) Rudolf Steiner, however, is another story. There *are* schools --
) Waldorf schools! -- all over the world which are modeled as exactingly as
) possible on visions and thoughts that Steiner had. Waldorf teachers try to
) model themselves in the image of Steiner, and they try to mold and shape the
) children in their classes according to things that Steiner made up.
) Anyone who engages in a quick bit of critical thinking will quickly
) conclude that comparing Jefferson and Steiner is like the old comparison
) between apples and oranges.
Hi Lisa, I just wanted to clarify my concerns. The issue is not
really comparing Jefferson with Steiner; instead Jefferson's picture
makes it more difficult for PLANS to take a stance critical of
Steiner for his racist ideas since Jefferson owned slaves. Nor is it
accusing PLANS of racism, at least that was not my view, but that the
use of Jefferson's image was problematic on a few fronts: the
hypocrisy just noted; the enthnocentric message it conveys; and how
it emphasizes (due to its location, and being only one of two images
on the home page) the lawsuit over and above the #1 item on your
mission statement: providing parents, teachers, and school boards
with views of Waldorf education from outside the cult of Rudolf
Steiner.
I bring up the enthnocentricity issue only because it is common and
all to easy for Americans to forget we are not the center of the
universe, and often web sites make this same mistake, forgetting they
are part of a global network.
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 985
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
RE: Backwards writing
By audreyallison hotmail.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
RE: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By jaquesdm msn.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: Theosophy of the R
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: Theosophy of the R
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By oscar001 earthlink.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:35:15 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Jeanine:
)It sounds like PLANS must weigh the importance of Jefferson to its image
and
)message vs. the risk you entail at offending some, opening yourself up to
)the accusation of hypocrisy, and presenting a parochial face to the world.
Whew. Well, if you put it that way . . .
Yes, Jefferson is just a symbol. Perhaps it is my argumentative nature, but
the more backed into a corner I feel defending the use of the symbol . . . I
don't think for Americans to file suit in America, and publicize those
efforts - with the broader aim of forcing some transparency (I think that
was your phrase, Jeanine, I liked it) in the schools not only here but
worldwide - is "parochial." It is simply a fact that it was two Americans,
Dan and Deby, who started PLANS in order to file this lawsuit, and it is the
most visible, public thing PLANS has done. I truly don't think that makes
the group "parochial." American Waldorf parents can't file lawsuits against
Waldorf schools in other countries . . .
And as for hypocrisy, I just don't think so. I think it's been clearly
explained that Jefferson is not to PLANS as Steiner is to Waldorf - the
analogy is wrong. It is not a guru relationship. I don't mind being "open"
to charges of hypocrisy when I have no problem explaining why the charges
are incorrect.
I suspect we'll end up taking the picture down, as this sort of thing is a
distraction from the issues, but I will find it regrettable if it's done to
avoid charges of "hypocrisy" since I don't think it's hypocritical.
)If the lawsuit is the primary thrust of what PLANS is about then I think
)what you have is appropriate, as long as it is done with the knowledge that
)it is very American in focus (Waldorf complaints are world wide, if my
)tenure on this list and Survivors is indicative).
The lawsuit is simply the most public, visible thing PLANS has done. It
invariably leads to an American focus since, obviously, it is a lawsuit in
US courts and based on US law. (Waldorf schools receiving public funding in
other countries aren't risking the same types of violations.) I don't see
why we should apologize for that or remove symbols of that as if they were
embarrassing, and I don't think it's in conflict with an international
focus. PLANS *does* hear from people in many parts of the world and it is
usually to say thank you, not to complain that a picture of Thomas Jefferson
is on the website.
Darn it, if Waldorf parents in other countries start filing lawsuits, we'll
put pictures of their "founding fathers" up too, how's that? :)
And if we take it down, immediately our own critics will announce that we
have "backed off" on our claims or have now admitted we are hypocrites, or
something like that.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 08:26:38 -0800
From: "Audrey Allison" (audreyallison hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Backwards writing
Thank you so much for the insight. I was more concerned that it was a way
of teaching but I entirely agree that it might relate entirely to creativity
rather than developmental issues.
We have little time to work with the kids at our house because of the every
other weekend schedule .. but my two year old is catching up to the older
two in the alphabet and numbers. Oh well.
Audrey
Audrey Allison
5307 Timble Lane
Kelowna BC, V1W 4T9
(250) 764-2913
audreyallison hotmail.com
)From: Dave Kimble (dkimble mystrotv.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: RE: Backwards writing
)Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:57:40 -0700
)
)Audrey,
)
)We had the same experience when we home-schooled our son (now 21).
)
)He would write words with all manner of permutations, "normal", whole
)words mirror-imaged, words with some individual letters mirrored, whole
)words upside-down (some backwards, some not), words with some letters
)upside-down.
)
)The approach we took was to not mention it explicitly, except on how
)amazed we were that he could write letters so many different ways. On
)letters that he seemed to more consistently write "non-standard"
)(usually backwards), we would make sure to include those in examples we
)gave him so he would be exposed to how we wrote them.
)
)I often talked with him about how arbitrary the letter shapes are (we
)would sometimes make up new shapes and pretend they were new letters).
)The message that seemed to work best for him was that using one of these
)shapes in a particular orientation was not any "better" than any other,
)it was just the common usage, and so preferred if you want to avoid
)confusing other people.
)
)Our six-year old is now doing some of the same things (although not
)quite so extensively as our son did). The same approach seems to be
)working for her as well.
)
)I'm no child-development expert, but it seemed/seems to be helpful for
)them to play with the letters purely as shapes.
)
)Any deviation from the norm might be evidence of creativity instead of a
)developmental problem.
)
)Hope this helps,
)
)Dave
)
)-----Original Message-----
)From: Audrey Allison [mailto:audreyallison hotmail.com]
)Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 3:07 PM
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: Backwards writing
)
)Thanks ... I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a Waldorf oddity.
)
)
)
)_________________________________________________________________
)The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
)http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
)basic. New threads are always welcome.
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
)New threads are always welcome.
)
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:34:30 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Diana:
) And if we take it down, immediately our own critics will announce that we
) have "backed off" on our claims or have now admitted we are hypocrites, or
) something like that.
Or those same critics of Waldorf Critics might just see that the folks at
PLANS are listening to comments and suggestions and are *thinking
critically* about those comments. I do not see the Jefferson photo as a
"claim" in the first place. The claim, as I see it, is that Anthroposophy
is a religion, Waldorf are religious schools and Waldorf public relations is
deceptive, manipulative and less than honest with prospective new parents
and children. I see no hypocrisy whatsoever in removing the photo.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:43:34 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Diana:
) And if we take it down, immediately our own critics will announce that we
) have "backed off" on our claims or have now admitted we are hypocrites, or
) something like that.
Walden:
)Or those same critics of Waldorf Critics might just see that the folks at
)PLANS are listening to comments and suggestions and are *thinking
)critically* about those comments. (snip)
) I see no hypocrisy whatsoever in removing the photo.
I didn't mean it would be hypocritical to remove it. I just meant that
removing it may be interpreted by our critics as an admission that it was
hypocritical to have it there in the first place.
I don't personally feel strongly about it being there or not being there.
The picture's presence, or the removal of the picture, can both be occasions
for these discussions, which *in themselves* demonstrate that PLANS listens
to comments and thinks critically about them. I don't mind explaining again
why it was not hypocritical either to have it or to remove it.
I am just feeling weary already picturing our usual antagonists summarizing
the incident something like, "PLANS now admits they are racist." "PLANS
removes racist material from web site under pressure."
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 22:08:59 +0000
From: (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Diana:
)
) ) And if we take it down, immediately our own critics will announce that
) ) we
) ) have "backed off" on our claims or have now admitted we are hypocrites,
) ) or
) ) something like that.
)
)
) Walden:
)
) )Or those same critics of Waldorf Critics might just see that the folks
) )at
) )PLANS are listening to comments and suggestions and are *thinking
) )critically* about those comments. (snip)
)
) ) I see no hypocrisy whatsoever in removing the photo.
)
) I didn't mean it would be hypocritical to remove it. I just meant that
) removing it may be interpreted by our critics as an admission that it
) was
) hypocritical to have it there in the first place.
)
) I don't personally feel strongly about it being there or not being
) there.
) The picture's presence, or the removal of the picture, can both be
) occasions
) for these discussions, which *in themselves* demonstrate that PLANS
) listens
) to comments and thinks critically about them. I don't mind explaining
) again
) why it was not hypocritical either to have it or to remove it.
) I am just feeling weary already picturing our usual antagonists
) summarizing
) the incident something like, "PLANS now admits they are racist." "PLANS
) removes racist material from web site under pressure."
) Diana
)
)
)
Seems to me that while PLANS has no difficulty in acknowledging that the
world has moved on since Jefferson's time, and freely repudiates aspects
of his life, times etc. critics of the Critics wont make the same
concessions on Steiner. We have all seen excuses, justifications,
"contextualisations" ad nauseam, but demonstrable repudiation? Hardly.
From this side of the Atlantic, Jefferson signifies noble things.
Day
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 17:41:51 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
) Diana:
)) And if we take it down, immediately our own critics will announce that we
)) have "backed off" on our claims or have now admitted we are hypocrites, or
)) something like that.
)
) Or those same critics of Waldorf Critics might just see that the folks at
) PLANS are listening to comments and suggestions and are *thinking
) critically* about those comments. I do not see the Jefferson photo as a
) "claim" in the first place. The claim, as I see it, is that Anthroposophy
) is a religion, Waldorf are religious schools and Waldorf public relations is
) deceptive, manipulative and less than honest with prospective new parents
) and children. I see no hypocrisy whatsoever in removing the photo.
)
) -Walden
)
Lisa: I don't think it would be hypocritical to remove the image of Thomas
Jefferson from the PLANS Website, but I do think it would be stupid to do
so.
The image of Thomas Jefferson was chosen for our Website because
Jefferson was not only a founding father of the United States, but also one
of those whose ideals framed the Constitution, which is the blueprint for
the American system.
Jefferson's picture has been on our Website for some time now, and until
this week, not a single person that I know of was offended by it or brought
up Jefferson's slave-owning past. It only became an issue after a woman
wrote PLANS' officers claiming that Jefferson was a racist and wondering why
we chose him for our Website when we were claiming that Steiner was a
racist.
My response is simple: Jefferson is a symbol of the US Constitution.
PLANS is NOT saying that schools should be modeled after him or that
schoolteachers, parents and other human beings should model their lives and
try to shape their souls according to what Jefferson said, taught or
thought.
Rudolf Steiner, however, is another story. There *are* schools --
Waldorf schools! -- all over the world which are modeled as exactingly as
possible on visions and thoughts that Steiner had. Waldorf teachers try to
model themselves in the image of Steiner, and they try to mold and shape the
children in their classes according to things that Steiner made up.
Anyone who engages in a quick bit of critical thinking will quickly
conclude that comparing Jefferson and Steiner is like the old comparison
between apples and oranges.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 02:07:57 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
Peter Farrell wrote:
) )P:
) )But it has a direction. For example man that would derive from apes and
) )not vice versa.
) )
)
) Peter responds:
) This is one example. There are other examples where simplification
) occurs
) through evolution. An example of this is that parasites which have
) evolved
) from non parasitic forms lose functions that are costly and no longer
) advantageous, and in so doing become simpler. The apparent
) directionality
) you refer to is a product of the fact that the living things which human
)
) beings take most notice of are complex, and they have necessarily
) evolved
) from simpler creatures because of the time taken to evolve.
P:
What I mean is that higher hierarchies can create lower hierarchical
beings, not the opposite. From the spiritual can be formed matter, not
the opposite. Shakti and Maya.
The notion of
) superiority is not part of the scientific theory of evolution. I should
) point out that with appropriate changes in the environment there is
) nothing
) in the theroy of evolution which would prevent something which is ape
) like
) evolving from present day humans.
P:
Just looking at where humans are going it is easy to think that they may
fall under the human level.
) )P:
) )There is a method a knowledge given to experience whether this is true
) )or not. It is up to the individual to verify by experience or to deny
) )it. It is not a matter of belief, but of experience.
)
)
) Peter responds:
) I take it you are describing the content free method that JW talked
) about at length previously on this list. If that is so then I argue
) again I
) don't need to try that method myself in order to test the validity of
) the
) method. I reassert I can test the claims of Anthroposophy in the
) material
) domain. This test is superior to the test you are suggesting because it
) is
) objective, and can be done without learning this method.
P:
I don't know what JW posted. The methods have been described and are
widely available.
Your method, that is science, has failed. It should have realized that
what it missed it's most important element, which is thinking. Now,
people stick to science that as the highest achievement, but it's a
failure. It's the new religion.
)
) Peter responds:
) It is more a matter of disagreement than of opposition.
) See you,
) Peter
P:
Be free to disagree. I doesn't make any difference.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 03:13:36 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
Percedol :
)What I mean is that higher hierarchies can create lower hierarchical
)beings, not the opposite. From the spiritual can be formed matter, not
)the opposite. Shakti and Maya.
Peter responds:
This is a simple statement of a religious beleif. I am perfectly happy for
you to believe it but it has nothing to do with the scientific theory of
evolution. It does no good to tell me because I don't believe any such
hierarchical beings exist.
)
)P:
)Just looking at where humans are going it is easy to think that they may
)fall under the human level.
)
Peter responds:
This may be so, but from the perspective of the scientific theory the words
"fall under" are meaningless.
)P:
)I don't know what JW posted. The methods have been described and are
)widely available.
)
)Your method, that is science, has failed. It should have realized that
)what it missed it's most important element, which is thinking. Now,
)people stick to science that as the highest achievement, but it's a
)failure. It's the new religion.
)
Peter responds:
I would put it to you instead that the method you refer to has failed. I
know it has failed since the people who use the method make predictions
which can be demonstrated to be false. The anthroposophists who have
contributed to this list have amply demonstrated that they know nothing more
about thinking than any other contributor to this list. If you wish to make
the claim that Anthroposophy has some contribution to make to the the
understanding of thinking then I suggest that you provide evidence.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:04:44 -0800
From: "NJS" (oscar001 earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00A6_01C2E35A.D90C02C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lisa wrote:
) My response is simple: Jefferson is a symbol of the US Constitution.
) PLANS is NOT saying that schools should be modeled after him or that
) schoolteachers, parents and other human beings should model their lives and
) try to shape their souls according to what Jefferson said, taught or
) thought.
) Rudolf Steiner, however, is another story. There *are* schools --
) Waldorf schools! -- all over the world which are modeled as exactingly as
) possible on visions and thoughts that Steiner had. Waldorf teachers try to
) model themselves in the image of Steiner, and they try to mold and shape the
) children in their classes according to things that Steiner made up.
) Anyone who engages in a quick bit of critical thinking will quickly
) conclude that comparing Jefferson and Steiner is like the old comparison
) between apples and oranges.
Hi Lisa, I just wanted to clarify my concerns. The issue is not
really comparing Jefferson with Steiner; instead Jefferson's picture
makes it more difficult for PLANS to take a stance critical of
Steiner for his racist ideas since Jefferson owned slaves. Nor is it
accusing PLANS of racism, at least that was not my view, but that the
use of Jefferson's image was problematic on a few fronts: the
hypocrisy just noted; the enthnocentric message it conveys; and how
it emphasizes (due to its location, and being only one of two images
on the home page) the lawsuit over and above the #1 item on your
mission statement: providing parents, teachers, and school boards
with views of Waldorf education from outside the cult of Rudolf
Steiner.
I bring up the enthnocentricity issue only because it is common and
all to easy for Americans to forget we are not the center of the
universe, and often web sites make this same mistake, forgetting they
are part of a global network.
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 985
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By oscar001 earthlink.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By mysplum earthlink.net
SV: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By gbg2013 minpost.nu
RE: SV: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By jaquesdm msn.com
XXX on Good Friday
By jaquesdm msn.com
Re: XXX on Good Friday
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 07:31:23 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
) 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_3129780683_30092_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Lisa wrote:
) My response is simple: Jefferson is a symbol of the US Constitution.
) PLANS is NOT saying that schools should be modeled after him or that
) schoolteachers, parents and other human beings should model their lives and
) try to shape their souls according to what Jefferson said, taught or
) thought.
) Rudolf Steiner, however, is another story. There *are* schools --
) Waldorf schools! -- all over the world which are modeled as exactingly as
) possible on visions and thoughts that Steiner had. Waldorf teachers try to
) model themselves in the image of Steiner, and they try to mold and shape the
) children in their classes according to things that Steiner made up.
) Anyone who engages in a quick bit of critical thinking will quickly
) conclude that comparing Jefferson and Steiner is like the old comparison
) between apples and oranges.
Hi Lisa, I just wanted to clarify my concerns. The issue is not really
comparing Jefferson with Steiner; instead Jefferson's picture makes it more
difficult for PLANS to take a stance critical of Steiner for his racist
ideas since Jefferson owned slaves. Nor is it accusing PLANS of racism, at
least that was not my view, but that the use of Jefferson's image was
problematic on a few fronts: the hypocrisy just noted; the enthnocentric
message it conveys; and how it emphasizes (due to its location, and being
only one of two images on the home page) the lawsuit over and above the #1
item on your mission statement: providing parents, teachers, and school
boards with views of Waldorf education from outside the cult of Rudolf
Steiner.
I bring up the enthnocentricity issue only because it is common and all to
easy for Americans to forget we are not the center of the universe, and
often web sites make this same mistake, forgetting they are part of a global
network.
Lisa here: All points well taken, for certain. But at this point, PLANS *is*
comprised of Americans primarily, if not exclusively. The main officers --
president, vice president and secretary, are *all* US citizens. The lawsuit
(as you note, not our only concern, but certainly an important one!) is
based on what we assert is Waldorf's breach of the US Constitution's
guarantee of separation of church and state. In other words, the legal
action, at least, is centered on an American concern.
So to my way of thinking, the American-centric (is there such a word?
(g)) appearance, etc. of the PLANS' Website makes logical sense at this
point. Perhaps individuals from outside the US might want to join PLANS'
organization *and* efforts, and then we can rethink our appearance,
approach, wording, etc.
Until that happens, well, I think this is much ado about nothing (to
quote one of my favorite non-Americans!).
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 07:58:08 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
on 3/5/03 2:41 PM, Lisa D. Ercolano at momof2gals mindspring.com wrote:
) Lisa: I don't think it would be hypocritical to remove the image of Thomas
) Jefferson from the PLANS Website, but I do think it would be stupid to do
) so.
) The image of Thomas Jefferson was chosen for our Website because
) Jefferson was not only a founding father of the United States, but also one
) of those whose ideals framed the Constitution, which is the blueprint for
) the American system.
Sharon: And Jefferson was the proponent of religious freedom / church and
state separation, because he was well aware of religious persecution and the
Catholic ban on Masonry. His picture on PLANS web site once symbolized
religious freedom / church and state separation for me, but the more I think
about it, the more I realize that Jefferson was a hypocrite on this
important issue of religious freedom. He spouted religious freedom but
imposed his esoteric beliefs on the likes of me by sanctioning occult
symbols on government seals, government buildings, monuments, etc. Not only
do I have to expose myself to the stuff daily, (such as the " long lost
Egyptian woo woo" on the dollar bills), I also have to help pick up the tab
for secret religious symbols. Heck, Jefferson's own memorial was designed by
Russell Pope, the guy who built the most esoteric structure in Washington,
D.C., known to Masons as the "House of the Temple," (Scottish Rite
Temple)...now known as the "Supreme Council", (Southern Jurisdiction). I say
let's give Tom the boot for being a racist and a church-state-separationist-
hypocrite. (G) Like Rudolf, Tom was a racist. He was also a Freemason, which
Rudolf was for a time, until he developed his own brand of occultism and
became an Anthroposophist instead (G). Both men were interested in politics.
Steiner clairvoyantly came up with a religious doctrine, Jefferson helped
frame this country's political doctrine. Jefferson did not write an outline
of occult science with human evolution based on one's skin color, nor did he
base a school system on such a religious doctrine. Jefferson was just a
believer in a different, older "strand" of mystery religion. PLANS will be
using Jefferson's separationist doctrine to keep Steiner's racist, Teutonic,
religious doctrine out of the public system, despite Jefferson's hypocrisy.
) Jefferson's picture has been on our Website for some time now, and until
) this week, not a single person that I know of was offended by it or brought
) up Jefferson's slave-owning past.
Sharon: Well, you've missed some previous posts then. This *has* come up
more than once before which is why I say: "who needs Tom's picture and
hypocrisy when we have his church and state separationist doctrine?"(G)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 08:08:22 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C2E3B7.8E3D5660
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Jeanine:
)Hi Lisa, I just wanted to clarify my concerns. The issue is not
really comparing Jefferson with )Steiner; instead Jefferson's picture
makes it more difficult for PLANS to take a stance critical )of
Steiner for his racist ideas since Jefferson owned slaves.
I disagree. I strongly suspect the picture is going to come down,
but I am determined to make this point whether it is heard or not. It
does not make it difficult for us to criticize Steiner for his racist
ideas, because the *analogy between Jefferson and Steiner is wrong*.
If it causes confusion I don't mind explaining the difference, though
it does seem to fall on deaf ears. Steiner is the guru in Waldorf.
Lisa explained it perfectly. The picture of Jefferson is there in
reference to the US constitution and separation of church and state,
not because we are an organization who follows Thomas Jefferson.
I mean, we have Steiner's picture there too!! Obviously people
don't think that means we follow Steiner????
I don't mind pointing to the symbolism repeatedly. Is the
separation of church and state offensive to non-Americans? Perhaps
so. In most other countries, there hasn't been the same attempt to
demarcate church and state so strongly.
)Nor is it accusing PLANS of racism, at least that was not my
view, but that the use of )Jefferson's image was problematic on a few
fronts: the hypocrisy just noted;
See above. Look, if you are really saying it is hypocrisy, then
you must believe that we *are* racists, that the picture of Jefferson
*does* convey our approval of his racism. It seems that you buy the
analogy between Jefferson and Steiner even if you say you don't. I
guess a picture is worth a thousand words. If we put the picture
there, it seems to be speaking all on its own. It seems to do us no
good to have intellectual discussions about the meaning of the
symbolism. Perhaps this is just the power of images.
Apparently Jefferson's lips appear to be moving and he is saying,
"We're Americans, we do it our way, screw the world."
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 11:13:15 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Sharon: Maybe we should use a picture of Steiner's death mask instead? It's
facing the right direction (left). (G)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:24:14 -0800
From: "NJS" (oscar001 earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00D3_01C2E3C2.2772F100
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Note: the boldface is to enhance ease of reading and not to suggest yelling.
Diana wrote:
I disagree. I strongly suspect the picture is going to come down,
but I am determined to make this point whether it is heard or not. It
does not make it difficult for us to criticize Steiner for his racist
ideas, because the *analogy between Jefferson and Steiner is wrong*.
If it causes confusion I don't mind explaining the difference, though
it does seem to fall on deaf ears. Steiner is the guru in Waldorf.
Lisa explained it perfectly. The picture of Jefferson is there in
reference to the US constitution and separation of church and state,
not because we are an organization who follows Thomas Jefferson.
Jeanine:
What you are saying is that your are not followers of Jefferson,
but only supporters of SOME of his ideas and not others? Does this
argument sound familiar?
Diana:
I mean, we have Steiner's picture there too!! Obviously people
don't think that means we follow Steiner????
Jeanine:
No but the pictures are placed in such a way as to suggest they
are in opposing camps, wouldn't you agree? As if to say that Steiner
is on one end of the debate, and Jefferson the other? Even if you
don't intend to suggest you are followers of Thomas Jefferson can you
see how this impression may occur? If you look at the pros and cons
for having his image:
Pros:
He represents an American idea that is central to the Plans
lawsuit: the seperation of church and state.
Cons:
1. Some visitors to your site may come away offended.
2. For pro-Waldorf supporters it gives them ammunition to say
that you have no credibilty in criticising Steiner's racism.
3. It is U.S. specific.
Diana:
I don't mind pointing to the symbolism repeatedly. Is the
separation of church and state offensive to non-Americans?
Jeanine:
I never suggested this, only that it is regional issue that may
not capture the interests of non-Americans. As an example, if I'm in
France and I'm looking for info on Waldorf education as a prospective
parent and I come to your home page, the first impression I may get
is that your lawsuit over church-state separation is your utmost
concern and agenda. If that is the message you want to convey that
is perfectly legitimate, it just doesn't match the order of
importance of your mission statement. You are Americans, you do
have a lawsuit over church-state separation, and Thomas Jefferson is
a central figure in U.S. history. I only wanted to suggest that if
you are trying to reach as broad an audience as possible there may be
room for improvement. And, unless you feel very strongly that
Jefferson's image is important, why take the risk in offending those
sensitive about his slave-owning past?
Diana:
See above. Look, if you are really saying it is hypocrisy, then
you must believe that we *are* racists, that the picture of Jefferson
*does* convey our approval of his racism. It seems that you buy the
analogy between Jefferson and Steiner even if you say you don't.
Jeanine:
I don't agree. That's like saying ALL Waldorf teachers who
follow Steiner are racists. I truly think some disavow his racist
ideas or justify their support of Steiner in other ways (i.e., he was
a product of his time, despite Peter S. arguments that this is a
questionable assertion). In fact Diana, you've said this yourself in
Open Waldorf that many parents and teachers following Steiner are not
racists, so why doesn't it apply to PLANS? I certainly am not
accusing PLANS of being racist. The hypocrisy comes in only when you
accuse Steiner of being racist while a having a slave owner on your
website, it puts you in a weaker rhetorical position.
Whew. Look, I really didn't intend to offend any of you. I
admire PLANS and all of you for what you've done to bring Waldorf
deception to light. You've helpled me in tremendous and profound
ways. My background is in user interface design which is designing
web sites and software for usability, effectiveness, etc., I simply
see some areas that could use improvement on the current site. As
I've indicated before, most users scan sites VERY quickly looking for
information that they are seeking. So the images you put forth,
especially at the top right and left corners, are key. They give
users their first impression of your site, and if they are in a big
hurry they may not read Diana's letter, or all the other wonderful
information on the site. The homepage is central to capturing your
intended audience, and it's generally a good idea not to display
potentially offensive imagery if you are trying to broaden your
reach. Even if you don't agree that Jefferson's image is !
offensive.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 10:22:30 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_Zzo9q3Udoc6iJEmwA1Qjjg)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Jeanine wrote: (snip)
Whew. Look, I really didn't intend to offend any of you. I admire
PLANS and all of you for what you've done to bring Waldorf deception
to light. You've helpled me in tremendous and profound ways. My
background is in user interface design which is designing web sites
and software for usability, effectiveness, etc., I simply see some
areas that could use improvement on the current site. As I've
indicated before, most users scan sites VERY quickly looking for
information that they are seeking. So the images you put forth,
especially at the top right and left corners, are key. They give
users their first impression of your site, and if they are in a big
hurry they may not read Diana's letter, or all the other wonderful
information on the site. The homepage is central to capturing your
intended audience, and it's generally a good idea not to display
potentially offensive imagery if you are trying to broaden your
reach. Even if you don't agree that Jefferson's image is offe!
nsive.
Walden:
I do not see anything offensive in your remarks. Au contraire...
very insightful. I have enjoyed this open honest dialogue and see
it as very positive. There is work to be done with regards to
shedding light on Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy. Prospective
parents (and children) need to understand the religious
(Anthroposophic) nature of the schools and Waldorf needs to
understand why they are being asked to change their public relations
methods. This "type" of discussion simply would not happen on
pro-Waldorf lists - it would be censored and stopped. Therefore,
IMO, it must happen here.
We *all* win with this type of conversation.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 15:12:33 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
) 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_3129808353_68438_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
on 3/6/03 9:24 AM, NJS at oscar001 earthlink.net wrote:
Jeanine:
I only wanted to suggest that if you are trying to reach as broad an
audience as possible there may be room for improvement. And, unless you
feel very strongly that Jefferson's image is important, why take the risk in
offending those sensitive about his slave-owning past?
Sharon: I think instead of Jefferson, we should have pictures of Steiner's
temples, each and every one we know about, (The Rosicrucian temples and the
two Goetheanums) plus a picture of the first Waldorf school which resembles
the second Goetheanum. All these in a long line next to a picture of
Steiner, as an older man. In a sense that will convey his life's work.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 21:07:42 +0100
From: "Lennart Sundstr=?ISO-8859-1?B?9g==?=m" (gbg2013 minpost.nu)
Subject: SV: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Walden wrote:
) We *all* win with this type of conversation.
Dear Friends,
I think this quote is worth reading, even for the nonamericans:
"The People cannot be safe without information. When the press is free, and
every man is able to read, all is safe." (Thomas Jefferson)
Keep up the good work and best of all,
Lennart, the lurking swedish waldorf teacher
P.S. Impeach Bush :-)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:37:55 +0000
From: (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: SV: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Lennart Sundstr=?ISO-8859-1?B?9g==?=m wrote:
)
) Walden wrote:
)
) ) We *all* win with this type of conversation.
)
) Dear Friends,
)
) I think this quote is worth reading, even for the nonamericans:
)
) "The People cannot be safe without information. When the press is free,
) and
) every man is able to read, all is safe." (Thomas Jefferson)
)
)
Quite so Lennart. So doesn't that then emphasise just how sinister were
Steiner's exhortations to keep from the public that which he knew would
be unpalettable? Why is so much kept under wraps?
Davy
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:22:18 +0000
From: (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: XXX on Good Friday
I wonder if anyone can explain the 'how come' of Good Friday always
being an XXX day in biodynamics, XXX meaning that it is neither a plant,
root or leaf day- don't plant anything because it just won't grow.
Easter Sunday can be any date between 22nd March and 25th April.
How do the plants and the earth know its Easter?
Davy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 01:04:39 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: XXX on Good Friday
Davy wrote:
)
) I wonder if anyone can explain the 'how come' of Good Friday always
)being an XXX day in biodynamics, XXX meaning that it is neither a plant,
)root or leaf day- don't plant anything because it just won't grow.
)Easter Sunday can be any date between 22nd March and 25th April.
)How do the plants and the earth know its Easter?
)Davy
Peter responds:
Not to mention there are at least two Good Fridays depending omn whether one
uses the Julian or Gregorian calendars.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 986
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By oscar001 earthlink.net
RE: Theosophy of the R
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: Theosophy of the R
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 08:38:01 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0030_01C2E484.DD0B0C60
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Jeanine, I appreciate your comments and am not offended
(just stubborn). Your points are well taken about how to reach the
widest audience. The power of images - Steiner on one side, Jefferson
on the other, appears to be a visual statement: choose one - Steiner
or Jefferson.You're saying the pictures overrule the written
statements. And a picture of one of the "founding fathers" of the US
seems to say, "This site by, for, and about Americans."
A picture is worth a thousand words . . . you all knew I
could work this around to editorialize about Waldorf pedagogy, didn't
you? :)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:52:25 -0800
From: "NJS" (oscar001 earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C2E4B0.C8B24AE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Walden:
I do not see anything offensive in your remarks. Au contraire...
very insightful. I have enjoyed this open honest dialogue and see
it as very positive. There is work to be done with regards to
shedding light on Waldorf Education and Anthroposophy. Prospective
parents (and children) need to understand the religious
(Anthroposophic) nature of the schools and Waldorf needs to
understand why they are being asked to change their public relations
methods. This "type" of discussion simply would not happen on
pro-Waldorf lists - it would be censored and stopped. Therefore,
IMO, it must happen here.
We *all* win with this type of conversation.
Jeanine:
Thank you Walden for your kind words. I've enjoyed your keen
insights over these last several months as well. You always have a
way of eloquently stating how you feel, and making even your
negative experiences sound almost poetic :) I agree with what you
said above. I think the wilingness to keep open minds in this forum
highlights the important differences between the climate at Waldorf
Critics vs. SJU. The discussions may get heated, but in the end
they are welcomed and considered thoughtfully.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 01:46:27 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
Peter Farrell wrote:
) Percedol :
) )What I mean is that higher hierarchies can create lower hierarchical
) )beings, not the opposite. From the spiritual can be formed matter, not
) )the opposite. Shakti and Maya.
)
) Peter responds:
) This is a simple statement of a religious beleif. I am perfectly happy
) for
) you to believe it
P:
Actually, I don't believe it. But this a traditional view. Believing if
for weak people. The will has to be put into motion. Not abstract
believe. Or useless emotional faith that is powerless.
There is no power there.
Traditional views are used only as means. One can be as well a
materialist. It's the same. Any idea is equivalent to another. God and
dog have the same value. Are just dead thoughts.
but it has nothing to do with the scientific theory of
) evolution.
P:
Because the scientific theory is materialistic. I haven't seen so far
any scientific evidence in contrast with a spiritual view of evolution.
Actually it would fill the gap that science so far is unable to fill.
It does no good to tell me because I don't believe any such
) hierarchical beings exist.
P:
I gues you saw that they don't exist.
) )P:
) )Just looking at where humans are going it is easy to think that they may
) )fall under the human level.
) )
)
) Peter responds:
) This may be so, but from the perspective of the scientific theory the
) words
) "fall under" are meaningless.
P:
Because science is out of morality.
)
)
) )P:
) )I don't know what JW posted. The methods have been described and are
) )widely available.
) )
) )Your method, that is science, has failed. It should have realized that
) )what it missed it's most important element, which is thinking. Now,
) )people stick to science that as the highest achievement, but it's a
) )failure. It's the new religion.
) )
)
) Peter responds:
) I would put it to you instead that the method you refer to has failed. I
)
) know it has failed since the people who use the method make predictions
) which can be demonstrated to be false. The anthroposophists who have
) contributed to this list have amply demonstrated that they know nothing
) more
) about thinking than any other contributor to this list.
P:
And this would be a proof?
If you wish to make
) the claim that Anthroposophy has some contribution to make to the the
) understanding of thinking then I suggest that you provide evidence.
)
) See you, Peter
P:
Evidence can only be found as the fruit of hard personal work.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 12:04:11 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Theosophy of the R
)Percedol wrote:
)Actually, I don't believe it. But this a traditional view. Believing if
)for weak people. The will has to be put into motion. Not abstract
)believe. Or useless emotional faith that is powerless.
)There is no power there.
)Traditional views are used only as means. One can be as well a
)materialist. It's the same. Any idea is equivalent to another. God and
)dog have the same value. Are just dead thoughts.
Peter resonds:
I have no idea what any of this means.
)
)Peter wrote:
)but it has nothing to do with the scientific theory of
) ) evolution.
)
)Percedol:
)Because the scientific theory is materialistic. I haven't seen so far
)any scientific evidence in contrast with a spiritual view of evolution.
)Actually it would fill the gap that science so far is unable to fill.
Peter responds:
Yes, the scientific theory is materialistic. I don't understand the second
sentence. I am not sure what you think the gap is.
)
)Peter wrote:
) It does no good to tell me because I don't believe any such
) ) hierarchical beings exist.
)
)P:
)I gues you saw that they don't exist.
)
)
)
) ) )P:
) ) )Just looking at where humans are going it is easy to think that they
)may
) ) )fall under the human level.
) ) )
) )
) ) Peter responds:
) ) This may be so, but from the perspective of the scientific theory the
) ) words
) ) "fall under" are meaningless.
)
)P:
)Because science is out of morality.
Peter responds:
I don't absolutely agree with this. I think materialistic science has plenty
to say about morality.
)
) )
) )
) ) )P:
) ) )I don't know what JW posted. The methods have been described and are
) ) )widely available.
) ) )
) ) )Your method, that is science, has failed. It should have realized that
) ) )what it missed it's most important element, which is thinking. Now,
) ) )people stick to science that as the highest achievement, but it's a
) ) )failure. It's the new religion.
) ) )
) )
) ) Peter responds:
) ) I would put it to you instead that the method you refer to has failed. I
) )
) ) know it has failed since the people who use the method make predictions
) ) which can be demonstrated to be false. The anthroposophists who have
) ) contributed to this list have amply demonstrated that they know nothing
) ) more
) ) about thinking than any other contributor to this list.
)
)P:
)And this would be a proof?
Peter responds:
Not proof, but evidence. Or I should say lack of it. To make it clearer, I
have heard other Anrthoposophists on this list make the claim that they have
studied and understand thought. Their contributions to this list show little
evidence of this study or understanding.
)
)Percedol:
)Evidence can only be found as the fruit of hard personal work.
Peter responds:
Absolute nonsense. Evidence can be really easy, and it can be really hard.
I'll give you an example. If someone tells me that they have a computer
program which generates only prime numbers and the third number it generates
is 6 I have all the evidence I need to dismiis that person's claim. This
does not require a lot of hard personal work.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 987
-- Topica Digest --
Steiner the occultist
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Joel Wendt running for President
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Joel Wendt running for President
By spectmore yahoo.com
RE: Joel Wendt running for President
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 12:10:36 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Steiner the occultist
I am interested in the transformation of Steiner-the-thinker to
Steiner-the-occultist. The "uproar at a lecture" (below) must have been
quite the scene! I wonder why Steiner felt compelled to take a spiritual
path while looking for social change rather than a path involving critical
thought and logic? Did he suddenly remember seeing his dead aunt floating
through the wall as a child or was this shift more a result of not being
taken seriously as a philosopher? Did he feel the need for an audience?
Did the audience need him at that time in Europe? I wonder if it was one of
those *Eureka!* moments or more of a gradual progression into occultism...?
And, of course... why do his followers *still* refer to him as a
philosopher, scientist, etc. when the bulk of his *work* has nothing to do
with science or philosophy and has everything to do with religion and
occultism? If *I* were a turn of the century occultist I would find these
labels disrespectful. But that's me.
-Walden
From:
http://www.eurythmy.org.uk/reading/art_jd1.html
Quite soon, Steiner is speaking regularly to groups of Theosophists, which
upsets and bewilders many of his former friends. There is uproar at a
lecture on the medieval scholastics which he delivers to the Giordano Bruno
Society. The respectable if often radical scholar, historian, scientist,
writer and philosopher is emerging as an 'occultist'. It is truly shocking
to many of those around him. Steiner knows he is running risks of isolation.
Only in the fringe culture, the Theosophists at first have an ear for what
he now wants to say. Yet he sees around him a culture in decay, and profound
crises to come. Much later, he writes: "In the spiritual domain, a new light
upon the evolution of humanity was seeking to break through into the
knowledge gained during the last third of the nineteenth century. But the
spiritual sleep caused by the materialistic interpretation of these
acquisitions in knowledge prevented any inkling of this, much less any
awareness of it. Thus the very time arrived which ought to have developed in
a spiritual direction of its own nature, but which belied its own nature --
the time which began actually to bring about the impossibility of life."
Steiner's decision to speak directly of his own spiritual research was not
prompted by a desire to set up as a spiritual teacher, to feed curiosity or
to revive some form of 'ancient wisdom'. It was born out of a perception of
the needs of the time. As we approach the end of our century, it is perhaps
easier to appreciate what Steiner meant by times which 'begin to bring about
the impossibility of life'. This lay behind what he described as "my
heartfelt desire to introduce into life the impulses from the world of the
spirit...but for this, there was no understanding. "
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:58:59 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Joel Wendt running for President
Former w-c subscriber Joel Wendt has announced his candidacy for
President of the United States. Read an interview with him at:
http://SouthernCrossReview.org/24/wendt.htm
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 06:42:00 +0000
From: (spectmore yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Joel Wendt running for President
And when I 'google' him (apparently an illegal term according to the
google team so I apologize) this link will not stick
www.bobnancy.com/steiner/oaj-1-0.html
It bounces here ++IMMEDIATELY++
http://www.bobnancy.com/bobnancy.html
Why?
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Former w-c subscriber Joel Wendt has announced his candidacy for
) President of the United States. Read an interview with him at:
)
) http://SouthernCrossReview.org/24/wendt.htm
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 00:32:31 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Joel Wendt running for President
spectmore yahoo.com wrote:
)And when I 'google' him (apparently an illegal term according to the
)google team so I apologize) this link will not stick
)www.bobnancy.com/steiner/oaj-1-0.html
)It bounces here ++IMMEDIATELY++
)http://www.bobnancy.com/bobnancy.html
)Why?
I've had problems trying to reference their site, too. It has to do
with the way the site is built with frames. You can't get a URL for a
particular page; you have to reference their main page and give
navigation instructions.
They probably paid extra for that bad design.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 988
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Joel Wendt running for President
By jaquesdm msn.com
RE: Joel Wendt running for President
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By dkimble mystrotv.com
Re: Steiner the occultist
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Joel Wendt running for President
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Joel Wendt running for President
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Waldorf and Enki Education
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Steiner the occultist
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:24:47 +0000
From: (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: Joel Wendt running for President
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Former w-c subscriber Joel Wendt has announced his candidacy for
) President of the United States. Read an interview with him at:
)
) http://SouthernCrossReview.org/24/wendt.htm
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
Does this offer an opportunity to "out" the whole movement; occultism,
agendas, *langue du bois*, etc? Could be interesting seeing an
Anthroposophist trying to communicate in a language everyone else
understands.
Davy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:10:53 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Joel Wendt running for President
) ) Former w-c subscriber Joel Wendt has announced his candidacy for
)) President of the United States. Read an interview with him at:
))
)) http://SouthernCrossReview.org/24/wendt.htm
))
)) -Dan Dugan
))
)Does this offer an opportunity to "out" the whole movement; occultism,
)agendas, *langue du bois*, etc? Could be interesting seeing an
)Anthroposophist trying to communicate in a language everyone else
)understands.
)Davy
Dunno about that, read his article; he's so vague and waffly I
couldn't find one pithy quote to include in my post! Maybe you'll
have better luck.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:41:47 -0700
From: "Dave Kimble" (dkimble mystrotv.com)
Subject: RE: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
I've been disconnected from e-mail for almost a week, so forgive this
late addition to a fading thread...
===
I think the earlier comments about what the site is trying to achieve
are quite relevant.
When I first came upon the website (the result of a web-search for
something like "waldorf problems"), my initial impression was of
pictures of two dead white guys on the top with a lot of text
underneath.
I spend up to 40 hours a week on the web (Waldorf may not approve, but
it's a living). The context of my first impression comes from my
experience of the web as being full of sites where extreme positions are
supported with nothing more substantial than emotional venom.
Coincidently, many of these sites have dead white guys as icons (many of
whom have ideas that make Steiner look tame).
This does not distract from the important legacy of Jefferson (however
flawed). And one can legitimately take the position that the ideas
expressed by Jefferson are so important to the goals of this website,
that his picture will continue to be on prominent display, and anyone
having a problem with it will just have to get over it (to emphasize
this position, suggestions might also be made as to where one can go,
activities one might engage in, or other actions one might take with
one's self...).
But the web can be thought of as a marketplace for eyeballs (now there's
some gruesome imagery). Different approaches to this market have
varying degrees of effectiveness.
While it is certainly not the responsibility of the website to mollify
potential viewers purely for the purposes of public relations, it may
better suit the goals to do so.
My two cents with probably even less sense,
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:30:35 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner the occultist
Hi Walden,
that's a great question, and I'm sorry to say that I for one don't have much
in the way of an answer. There was a general tendency in turn of the century
European culture toward taking "a spiritual path while looking for social
change rather than a path involving critical thought and logic"; this
tendency has been explored in great detail, especially in the German
cultural context, but there aren't a lot of clues about why Steiner in
particular chose to take this path at the moment that he did.
I tend to side with the sudden conversion explanations rather than the
gradual progression ones. I think that something fundamental shifted in
Steiner's thinking around 1901, culminating in a thoroughgoing makeover by
1902. Departing radically from his former stance (which was equally critical
of Theosophy and Christianity, for example), the first two books that
Steiner published on mysticism appeared in 1901 and 1902. The same period,
however, also included Steiner's association with the social democratic
left, as well as his brief bit vocal denunciations of antisemitism. In other
words, it was a transitional phase, when the early and the later Steiners
overlapped.
As for why anthroposophists today typically fail to account for this
profound turn in Steiner's worldview, I think that has to do with several
factors: his anthroposophist biographers, with a few exceptions, don't do
justice to this development, thus many anthroposophists have at best a dim
sense that Steiner's views before 1900 were somehow different from those he
espoused after embracing theosophy; and even if this biographical fact were
more clearly understood, it wouldn't necessarily have much impact, given the
credulous attitude so many anthroposophists take toward their founder; and
last but not least, Steiner himself systematically obscured, downplayed, and
re-interpreted the turn of the century transformation in his later writings,
including the autobiography.
I don't think that the later Steiner would have found labels like
'philosopher' and 'scientist' disrespectful; indeed he appears to have
cultivated this very perception. He saw his own project (as did many other
Theosophists) as an attempt to bridge science and mysticism, philosophy and
esotericism. He insisted on calling his system an "occult science". That, in
part, is what made Steiner's otherwise unoriginal syncretism so much more
influential over the long term than most of his competitors' doctrines. A
good way to get a sense of where this marriage of science and occultism came
from -- a combination that strikes us as utterly peculiar today -- is to
take a look at the work of Blavatsky or the other leading Theosophists, the
material out of which Steiner constructed his own worldview.
Peter S.
)I am interested in the transformation of Steiner-the-thinker to
)Steiner-the-occultist. The "uproar at a lecture" (below) must have been
)quite the scene! I wonder why Steiner felt compelled to take a spiritual
)path while looking for social change rather than a path involving critical
)thought and logic? Did he suddenly remember seeing his dead aunt floating
)through the wall as a child or was this shift more a result of not being
)taken seriously as a philosopher? Did he feel the need for an audience?
)Did the audience need him at that time in Europe? I wonder if it was one
)of
)those *Eureka!* moments or more of a gradual progression into occultism...?
)
)And, of course... why do his followers *still* refer to him as a
)philosopher, scientist, etc. when the bulk of his *work* has nothing to do
)with science or philosophy and has everything to do with religion and
)occultism? If *I* were a turn of the century occultist I would find these
)labels disrespectful. But that's me.
)
)-Walden
)
)From:
)http://www.eurythmy.org.uk/reading/art_jd1.html
)Quite soon, Steiner is speaking regularly to groups of Theosophists, which
)upsets and bewilders many of his former friends. There is uproar at a
)lecture on the medieval scholastics which he delivers to the Giordano Bruno
)Society. The respectable if often radical scholar, historian, scientist,
)writer and philosopher is emerging as an 'occultist'. It is truly shocking
)to many of those around him. Steiner knows he is running risks of
)isolation.
)Only in the fringe culture, the Theosophists at first have an ear for what
)he now wants to say. Yet he sees around him a culture in decay, and
)profound
)crises to come. Much later, he writes: "In the spiritual domain, a new
)light
)upon the evolution of humanity was seeking to break through into the
)knowledge gained during the last third of the nineteenth century. But the
)spiritual sleep caused by the materialistic interpretation of these
)acquisitions in knowledge prevented any inkling of this, much less any
)awareness of it. Thus the very time arrived which ought to have developed
)in
)a spiritual direction of its own nature, but which belied its own nature --
)the time which began actually to bring about the impossibility of life."
)
)Steiner's decision to speak directly of his own spiritual research was not
)prompted by a desire to set up as a spiritual teacher, to feed curiosity or
)to revive some form of 'ancient wisdom'. It was born out of a perception of
)the needs of the time. As we approach the end of our century, it is perhaps
)easier to appreciate what Steiner meant by times which 'begin to bring
)about
)the impossibility of life'. This lay behind what he described as "my
)heartfelt desire to introduce into life the impulses from the world of the
)spirit...but for this, there was no understanding. "
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:32:12 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Joel Wendt running for President
)read his article; he's so vague and waffly I couldn't find one pithy quote
)to include in my post!
Perhaps Joel's campaign is a method without content.
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 05:06:06 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Joel Wendt running for President
Joel does have an announcement of his own. It may be read at
http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/gmg7a.html
I was struck by this comment. "I am plain spoken and would rather use one
word if five can be avoided."
No doubt Dan will find some pity comments.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:54:08 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Waldorf and Enki Education
The following message was forwarded to the SJU Waldorf list. Beth
Sutton requested that it be posted on web discussion sites where
there has been discussion of Enki and Waldorf Education:
-Dan Dugan
***
From Beth Sutton:
I recently received some selections from a couple of Waldorf websites
that had been posted over the last few months regarding "Waldorf
Lite" and Enki Education. While these were clearly sent by people who
have looked over the Enki materials and I appreciate their effort to
bring our work to others, there were some misleading statements in
regard to both Waldorf and Enki. As the developer and director of
Enki Education, and as a certified and experienced Waldorf teacher
and a parent of 3 Waldorf-educated, grown children, I would like to
offer a brief clarification of some central points, in support of
both Waldorf and Enki. Since this is a Waldorf web site, my interest
here is simply to clarify confusions - details on Enki Education can
be found on our website,
(http://www.enkieducation.org)www.enkieducation.org.
The main issues of concern to us, raised on the various websites,
have to do with the notions of: 1) "Waldorf Lite;" 2) "Replacing
Anthroposophy with Shambhala Buddhism;" and 3) "Enki growing out of
issues with Christianity."
ISSUE #1) Waldorf Lite: This is an oxymoron. The brilliance and power
of Waldorf Education is that it is not and cannot be "lite." The same
is true of Enki Education. Certainly individuals or even schools can
use stories, songs, activities and the like from either Enki or
Waldorf, but those things alone are not what make up the approach.
Why? Because both Waldorf and Enki express very complete and deep
"ecosystems" - all aspects are consciously worked with in relation to
the whole. Taken separately, it is not the stories or activities or
even the view of child development that gives either approach its
power to reach children. Rather, it is the conscious understanding of
and work with all these and every detail of the classroom to bring
the children an experience of a particular world view or belief
system - one which is in harmony with the children's wellbeing. By
definition that is not "lite." The Enki approach is different from
Waldorf in many ways as it brings forth a different world view, but
both Enki and Waldorf share an understanding that it is not possible
to educate a profound or "spiritual" connectedness in the child
without a deep, broad, and detailed pedagogy.
Over the years quite a few people have come to Enki Education in
search of a light and packagable way to "have" Waldorf Education.
They leave unhappy, but hopefully understanding that "lite " and
"meaningful" do not make good bedfellows.
ISSUE #2) Replacing Anthroposophy with Shambhala Buddhism: For the
reasons listed above, it is not possible to have Waldorf without
Anthroposophy - that is its strength and its heart. Enki does not
"replace" anything, but rather draws from many approaches to bring
forward a particular world view which we feel is shared by the
contemplative arm of the major world traditions. Some refer to this
as the Perennial Philosophy. In this sense we are most deeply
influenced by the United Nations International School in which I
spent all my childhood years.
There are many influences in Enki Education, Waldorf is certainly
high among those, as is Shambhala Buddhism. We are very grateful for
all we have learned from each of these, but Enki is not either of
them, nor any one of a myriad of other philosophies or pedagogues
from which we draw. The Enki website article, "Soup of Wellbeing,"
describes this more fully, and the Monthly Q & A describes the
functional differences between the two approaches more fully.
3) Enki growing out of issues with Christianity: this issue is deeply
connected with the preceding one. It is a huge topic and a very
easily misunderstood one. Still, it appears necessary to offer some
clarification on the matter and we hope that those interested in the
issue will speak with both myself as core developer of Enki
Education, and with a committed Anthroposophist.
In brief, and greatly oversimplified: Waldorf expresses a
hierarchical view of the evolution of consciousness - that different
cultures, religions, and traditions evolve in a hierarchical
sequence. Each culture of the past, including its religious base, is
seen as an important but earlier step in that evolution, an evolution
which freed man to have critical or independent thinking. In the
progression described by Anthroposophy, the "Christ event" or
crucifixion is seen as the "turning point in time," the moment in
which man's consciousness was freed for higher evolution. This is
often described as a parabola or "U" shape in which early cultures
descend downwards like steps into a well, changing direction to
ascend after, and as a result of, the "Christ event." Because of this
perspective, Waldorf is a multicultural approach which views all
cultures and religions through the lens of a hierarchical
evolutionary process.
The Enki philosophical differences with Waldorf center around this
issue of the evolution of consciousness through cultures and
traditions. From our perspective it does not matter whether that
"turning point of time" is seen as happening through Christ or Buddha
or Mohammed or anyone else. All these and many other traditions are
part of our curriculum; at several points over the years this
includes the study of the Torah or beginning of the Old Testament and
the study of Christ's life and contribution to mankind. Furthermore,
the Enki approach does not view the Anthroposophic perspective as
either right or wrong - we don't have the tools of perception
(historical clairvoyance) to say one way or the other. What we
believe is that there is a more important and underlying base for
children to experience.
The Enki view holds central the belief that all people, in all
cultures, through all times have had, and today have, an
indestructible wisdom and vitality that is their birthright. Each
culture has and has had its own, equally valid, ways to access and
nurture this "birthright." One could see this as a circular model
similar to the Native American Medicine Wheel or the Eastern Mandala
- the center is always there and equally reachable from any point on
the circumference. Just as we neither agree or disagree with
Steiner's view of evolution, I believe, Steiner would not disagree
with our underlying belief. However,it is not the focal source of
Anthroposophy. For us it is. Therefore, we soak the children in
examples of the developmentally appropriate, human experience of this
connecting process, from many cultures each year. We believe this
gives the children the experience: a) of being part of the family of
mankind; b) that all paths lead up the mountain; and c) that this
core gift of wisdom and vitality is not owned by anyone and cannot be
lost or stolen - it is the human birthright. In short, we have a
non-hierarchical, spiritually informed, multi-culturalism as our
base. Over the years we have had many conversations with serious
practitioners of contemplative branches of many traditions. We find
this outlook to be a meeting point.
I hope this helps to clarify a little of both Waldorf and Enki. Both
of these approaches are complex, broad, and very detailed. There are
tremendous similarities and pivotal differences. Preserving clarity
and integrity requires great care. To avoid misunderstanding, I hope
that those interested in Waldorf will take up any issues raised here
with a committed Anthroposophist, and that those interested in Enki
Education will bring those issues directly to us through
(mailto:enkied conknet.com)enkied conknet.com.
Sincerely,
Beth Sutton
Director, Enki Education, Inc.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:31:39 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner the occultist
I don't know the answer to Waldens's question about what led to the
tranformation of Steiner-the-thinker to Steiner-the-occultist, but I am
prepared to suggest a possibility, for which there seems to me to be some
evidence in his writing. It is possible Steiner made a decision based on the
likelihood as he saw it of having a serious following in the two camps. He
could have seen it as being more likely for him to have a following as an
Occultist and as the inventor of Anthroposophy than as a thinker. What I am
suggesting is that Steiner took this approach as a career move.
I mentioned evidence before so I better front some. I find it difficult to
believe that Steiner could expect mainstream philosophers to take his style
of argument in the Anthroposophical works seriously. Steiner was clearly
aware of this, for he mixes up his arguments, such as they are, with
rhetorical flourishes to muddy the waters, a tactic unlikely to appeal to
mainstream philosophers.
An alternative explanation is that he actually believed what he wrote and
said. This does not answer Walden's question, since we do not know what led
Steiner to these beliefs. Nor does it explain the style of his works, since
he must have known they would only be effective with people who were already
converted in some sense.
The out on a limb Peter.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 989
-- Topica Digest --
infomation please
By cliddle hotmail.com
Re: infomation please
By ickyickyzobang hotmail.com
re:Steiner the occultist
By jaquesdm msn.com
Re: infomation please reply daniel
By cliddle hotmail.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By sarinamcdonald msn.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By antigonabaires hotmail.com
Nonsectarian Waldorf???
By Gary GoodWinter.com
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Nonsectarian Waldorf???
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: Nonsectarian Waldorf???
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
RE: To Chrystabel/Peter S
By sufrito53 yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:54:45 +0000
From: cameron (cliddle hotmail.com)
Subject: infomation please
Dear All
My wife is about to send my 5yr old son to a Steiner school here in
Australia and I have been trying to find out as much as possible about
it all. Very easy to find the warm fuzzy bits on the Net but would like
to get more especially from ex students
regards
cameron
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 23:50:13 +1030
From: "Dan ." (ickyickyzobang hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: infomation please
Dear Cameron, I am a ex student from Australia my advice would be not to
send your child to a steiner school, this is from my personal experiences at
a waldorf school and my brother who is five years my senior, if you want me
to tell you specifics about my specifics about my experinces please do I am
only to happy.
regards, Daniel
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:30:17 +0000
From: (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: re:Steiner the occultist
I don't know the answer to the question either Steve, but taking Peter
F,s lead, maybe I might throw in my own musings on Rudi's "Road to
Damascus" conversion.
In Reformation Europe and thereafter, religion and nationalism became
fairly inextrcably intertwined. One example would be that of Stenn Sture
in Scandanavia. Finding no great momentum of a nationalist kind, Sture
deliberately picked a quarrel with the bishop of Upsalla, and managed to
turn it into a 'national' issue.
So lets remind ourselves of just what point in its own evolution
Germany was at immediatelt before he was born and in his formative
years:
1790's -1814. Under French domination. This domination under Napoleon's
influence begins the unification process. In 1792, germany consisted of
between 300 and 400 independent units, but by 1817, this had reduced to
around thirty. Some German states joined in the Russian pursuit of
Napoleonic armies. First sign of a 'common enemy' unity among German
states.
1848. German Nationalists call National Assembly in Frankfurt. Decide to
strive toward 'Klein Deutschland'- little germany:- a Germany of ethnic
Germans under Prussian leadership rather than that of multi-ethnic
Austria-Hungary. Johenn Gustav Droysden, at the assembly claims "already
Prussia is Germany in embryo. She will merge with Germany"
1862. Otto von Bismarck becomes Prussian Minister President.
1864. German Federation together with Austria-Hungary siezes
Shleswig-Holstein from Denmark.
1866. Prussian challenge to Austrian occupation of Holstein. Seven weeks
war leads to utter defeat of Austria. Huge chunks of ethnic German
territories ceded to Prussia.
1870. Franco-Prussian war. Paris occupied. Alsace-Lorraine ceded by
France.
1871. At Versailles, German Empire is declared. Willhelm I, King of
Prussia becomes Emperor of Germany.
With a modicum of feeling for Romanticsm, it isnt difficult to imagine
how a young, educated German with the least sense of recent, let alone
ancient history, would have FELT that Germany's time had come, and that
the Anglo-Saxon of the region was about to start a (self-evident?)
ascenency.
Of course, such things were difficult to demonstrate, quantify or
measure, so, how to proceed with converting these feelings into (ahem)
science?
Invoke the mystical!
Move over a bit Peter, I'm sure there is room for two on that limb!
Davy
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:29:50 +0000
From: "cameron liddle" (cliddle hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: infomation please reply daniel
Daniel
Thankyou for reply yes would like to know as much as possible so as to
provide a spirited defence to stop my son going to Steiner school. This
school is in sydney at Middle Cove as you said you were a student
here. Again thankyou and please give me as much information as possible
Cameron
)From: Daniel (ickyickyzobang hotmail.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: infomation please
)Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 23:50:13 +1030
)
)
)
)Dear Cameron, I am a ex student from Australia my advice would be not to
)send your child to a steiner school, this is from my personal experiences
)at a waldorf school and my brother who is five years my senior, if you want
)me to tell you specifics about my specifics about my experinces please do I
)am only to happy.
)
)regards, Daniel
)
)
)_________________________________________________________________
)MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
)http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
)New threads are always welcome.
)
)
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:07:27 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Dave:
)But the web can be thought of as a marketplace for eyeballs (now there's
)some gruesome imagery). Different approaches to this market have
)varying degrees of effectiveness.
)While it is certainly not the responsibility of the website to mollify
)potential viewers purely for the purposes of public relations, it may
)better suit the goals to do so.
Thanks Dave, I think we are resignedly getting the point - the web is a
markektplace for eyeballs - rather than brains. We shouldn't imagine
reasoned arguments interest anyone, or stacks of evidence. Well, maybe
(hopefully) if eyeballs are led in, brains will engage at some point?
Except, wait a minute, it doesn't seem that people are ignoring all the
school websites with Steiner's picture, even though he's a dead white guy? I
guess it is balanced by actual visits to the school where the senses are
enticed by the music, the beautiful colors, the baskets of yarn you can
squeeze, the aroma of baking bread etc. In other words, they've got
head-heart-hands and on the web we are not able to compete with that, at
least in any way that would be honest and not (IMO) manipulative.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:55:03 -0800
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarinamcdonald msn.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
) Except, wait a minute, it doesn't seem that people are ignoring all the
) school websites with Steiner's picture, even though he's a dead white guy?
I
) guess it is balanced by actual visits to the school where the senses are
) enticed by the music, the beautiful colors, the baskets of yarn you can
) squeeze, the aroma of baking bread etc. In other words, they've got
) head-heart-hands and on the web we are not able to compete with that, at
) least in any way that would be honest and not (IMO) manipulative.
Hi Diana,
In the Waldorf schools that I've visited (obviously limited in number,
perhaps only three or four) they didn't post a photo of Steiner anywhere
that I could see, and I don't remember ever seeing him on a school website,
either (and I've visited a lot more of those!).
In fact, the Seattle Waldorf School didn't even mention Steiner in their
prospective parent information packet, the last time I looked... No kidding!
All they had was a single quote from the 'good doctor' at the top of the
first page. I thought that was just completely weird. It would be like
running a Montessori school without mentioning who she was...
Sarina
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:01:06 -0300
From: "Agustina C.Eiff" (antigonabaires hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
I'm (still) a "Waldorf mother" from Argentina. In our school, the first
thing you see as you step inside is Steiner's portrait. The children are
taught his poems and the teachers give us copies of the poems so that we can
learn them too, if we want. Steiner is definitely considered an
unquestionable guru, and that's one of the many things that have started to
smell funny to me...
A.E.,
Buenos Aires, Argentina
)From: Sarina McDonald (sarinamcdonald msn.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
)Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:55:03 -0800
)
) ) Except, wait a minute, it doesn't seem that people are ignoring all the
) ) school websites with Steiner's picture, even though he's a dead white
)guy?
)I
) ) guess it is balanced by actual visits to the school where the senses are
) ) enticed by the music, the beautiful colors, the baskets of yarn you can
) ) squeeze, the aroma of baking bread etc. In other words, they've got
) ) head-heart-hands and on the web we are not able to compete with that, at
) ) least in any way that would be honest and not (IMO) manipulative.
)
)Hi Diana,
)
)In the Waldorf schools that I've visited (obviously limited in number,
)perhaps only three or four) they didn't post a photo of Steiner anywhere
)that I could see, and I don't remember ever seeing him on a school website,
)either (and I've visited a lot more of those!).
)
)In fact, the Seattle Waldorf School didn't even mention Steiner in their
)prospective parent information packet, the last time I looked... No
)kidding!
)All they had was a single quote from the 'good doctor' at the top of the
)first page. I thought that was just completely weird. It would be like
)running a Montessori school without mentioning who she was...
)
)Sarina
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
)New threads are always welcome.
)
)
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:03:12 -0500
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Nonsectarian Waldorf???
I heard from an ex-Waldorf parent recently who described how their school
rallied whenever a student or person related to the local Waldorf community
died. She said "the Waldorf way" is to have someone sitting vigil with the
body continuously reading from the 4 Gospels 24 hours per day for 3 days,
usually in 3 hour shifts. Anthro version of a wake, I guess.
My curiosity was piqued though, since "Waldorf is non-sectarian", I
performed an internet search to see if other schools had similar rituals.
Here's a vivid description in classic Anthrospeak that I found on the web of
a Waldorf community sitting with a dead child. I've removed names to protect
their privacy (though they DO have this posted on the internet...I found it
didn't I?).
Please feel free to comment. I found it nauseating and cruel in
places...let's see if others react the same way.
...Gary
http://www.waldorflibrary.org/Journal_Articles/GW3012.pdf
) From the Children
)
) Helping children face death has been a recurring theme in conversations with
) kindergarten teachers in recent years. A number of schools have experienced
) deaths in their school communities, the deaths of children and of parents.
) Such moments bring grief and sadness, but in such times one also finds inner
) strength and the richness of community life. When (CHILD1), a first grader at
) the Washington Waldorf School, died last fall in a car accident, it also
) became a time when many of her friends came to the realization that death was
) not an end, but a continuation of the life they know and love here.
)
) (CHILD1) and my daughter, (CHILD2), were first acquainted as three year olds
) in Acorn Hill's two-day class. (CHILD1) went to the Waldorf School
) kindergarten for a couple of years. They were reacquainted again in September
) in the first grade. A few days into the school year, (CHILD1) was in a fatal
) car accident. She was on life support for a day or so, and after she crossed
) the threshold she was brought home to lie in her bedroom for three days. The
) children had so many questions, which were finally answered, it seemed, by
) (CHILD1) herself as she lay in her bedroom, surrounded by family, friends,
) food and a lot of children running around and playing. Although it
was so very
) sad, the experience was so beautiful.
)
) Earlier, the children in my carpool had asked so many questions. I told them
) that perhaps (CHILD1) had chosen her time to die when she was in
the spiritual
) world and was choosing her mom and dad. This comforted me, I know. But all
) questions stopped after the children made the long trip up the stairs to
) (CHILD1)'s room. They stood there in her room, full of flowers and incense.
)
) Someone was sitting vigil in prayer. The children looked at her from just
) inside the door with so much respect, and a little fear and nervousness. She
) was (CHILD1) but she looked so different that it was obvious that there was
) but an empty vessel there. The children turned, and reverently, wordlessly,
) left the room after about a minute.
)
) Later that night, after story and prayers as I lay with (CHILD2), she looked
) at me with tears in her eyes. She asked me why (CHILD1) had to die.
"She liked
) to sing the Michael song and to play her flute even when teacher said to put
) it away." I just looked at (CHILD2), so sad. Then (CHILD2) said, very
) earnestly, "I know why (CHILD1) had to die... because I had a hard time to
) believe in God".
)
) She answered her own question and there were no more questions. The next day
) we went to (CHILD1)'s home again. The first graders would play, then troop up
) to (CHILD1)'s room to "visit (CHILD1)". Soon they were sitting on her bed
) patting her cold hand into which they placed beeswax gifts and flowers. They
) would adjust the garland on her head and her clothes and just chat with each
) other, laughing too. I noticed the adult sitting vigil look at them
in wonder.
)
) There was such a spirit in the house, so many people, coming and going, and
) children everywhere, playing and running around, the table laden with food.
) The neighbors thought there was a party going on at first. (CHILD1)'s mother
) was comforted by all the support of the Waldorf community and we
were drawn to
) the house to be comforted too. At one point, I asked (CHILD2) if
she wanted to
) give (CHILD1) a small toy bird. (CHILD2) said, "Mommy, she's dead. She can't
) play with it," and she looked at me as if asking, "Did you forget?" At the
) funeral I was crying, and my ten year old also. She said, "I hardly knew
) (CHILD1), and I can't stop crying." Her classmate, (CHILD1)'s brother, wasn't
) very sad. He saw her in eurythmy class and asked the kids to make a space for
) her. (CHILD2) looked at her sister and me crying. With a smile on
her face she
) looked at us as if asking, "Did you forget?"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:55:53 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Sarina:
)In the Waldorf schools that I've visited (obviously limited in number,
)perhaps only three or four) they didn't post a photo of Steiner anywhere
)that I could see, and I don't remember ever seeing him on a school website,
)either (and I've visited a lot more of those!).
I've seen him here and there on websites - or maybe I'm thinking of other
anthroposophy-related sites.
So it comes down to, take down the dead white guys. One of them was racist,
and the other so obscure and unappealing that not even many Waldorf parents
like him. Of course we should have realized what the schools all know, that
putting Steiner front and center, either his words or his picture, does not
draw people in, he's creepy and nothing special to look at either.
Anyway I'm accepting this better now - if Jefferson goes, Steiner goes too.
:)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:14:03 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
)) Except, wait a minute, it doesn't seem that people are ignoring all the
)) school websites with Steiner's picture, even though he's a dead white guy?
) I
)) guess it is balanced by actual visits to the school where the senses are
)) enticed by the music, the beautiful colors, the baskets of yarn you can
)) squeeze, the aroma of baking bread etc. In other words, they've got
)) head-heart-hands and on the web we are not able to compete with that, at
)) least in any way that would be honest and not (IMO) manipulative.
)
) Hi Diana,
)
) In the Waldorf schools that I've visited (obviously limited in number,
) perhaps only three or four) they didn't post a photo of Steiner anywhere
) that I could see, and I don't remember ever seeing him on a school website,
) either (and I've visited a lot more of those!).
)
) In fact, the Seattle Waldorf School didn't even mention Steiner in their
) prospective parent information packet, the last time I looked... No kidding!
) All they had was a single quote from the 'good doctor' at the top of the
) first page. I thought that was just completely weird. It would be like
) running a Montessori school without mentioning who she was...
)
) Sarina
)
Lisa: Steiner's picture certainly *was* present at our former Waldorf
school; as I recall, it was in the big eurythmy room, which was considered
the "heart" of the school.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:24:44 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Nonsectarian Waldorf???
There actually is a book about the death (and life) of a child who was a
student at the Waldorf School of Washington (D.C. area) that deals in large
part with this. The book, called "Alison's Gift" (I am blanking out on the
author and can't put my hands on the book right now, though I do own it!)
and it is the true story of a little girl from that school who died as a
result of a car accident and how the Anthro community rallied around the
family, the child, etc. during what they called Alison's "crossing." The
mother kept the child's body at her house and in her bedroom, and people sat
with it. (Similar things were done at the hospital, when the child was on
life support but was apparently brain dead.) As a result of this experience,
the girl's mother started a business called "Crossings" which helps people
care for their dead loved ones at home. I will try to lay my hands on the
book within the next day or so and post from it, because as I recall the
cost of a "Crossings" consultation includes certain services and supplies,
including lengths of (as I recall) white linen (though I am not sure for
what) and so on.
I should say here that I actually am acquainted with the step-mother of the
child. The step mother and dad lived up the road from me, with their own
little girl, until last fall, when they moved to another neighborhood. The
father is well known because after the accident that killed his daughter
Alison, he sued the automobile manufacturer because the child apparently had
been killed by the airbags in the front passenger seat. Because of the dad's
efforts in court and all the resultant publicity, we now know that small
children should NOT sit in the front seat, because air bags can cause them
horrible harm and even death. (Alison was apparently killed not by the
accident itself -- I believe the cars were only traveling at about 25 mph on
impact -- but by the detonation of the air bag, which snapped her neck.)
The whole story is very, very sad. But like Gary, I found the parts about
how the death was dealt with with the child's classmates, etc. very strange
and creepy.
Lisa
) I heard from an ex-Waldorf parent recently who described how their school
) rallied whenever a student or person related to the local Waldorf community
) died. She said "the Waldorf way" is to have someone sitting vigil with the
) body continuously reading from the 4 Gospels 24 hours per day for 3 days,
) usually in 3 hour shifts. Anthro version of a wake, I guess.
)
) My curiosity was piqued though, since "Waldorf is non-sectarian", I
) performed an internet search to see if other schools had similar rituals.
)
) Here's a vivid description in classic Anthrospeak that I found on the web of
) a Waldorf community sitting with a dead child. I've removed names to protect
) their privacy (though they DO have this posted on the internet...I found it
) didn't I?).
)
) Please feel free to comment. I found it nauseating and cruel in
) places...let's see if others react the same way.
)
) ...Gary
)
) http://www.waldorflibrary.org/Journal_Articles/GW3012.pdf
)
)) From the Children
))
)) Helping children face death has been a recurring theme in conversations with
)) kindergarten teachers in recent years. A number of schools have experienced
)) deaths in their school communities, the deaths of children and of parents.
)) Such moments bring grief and sadness, but in such times one also finds inner
)) strength and the richness of community life. When (CHILD1), a
first grader at
)) the Washington Waldorf School, died last fall in a car accident, it also
)) became a time when many of her friends came to the realization
that death was
)) not an end, but a continuation of the life they know and love here.
))
)) (CHILD1) and my daughter, (CHILD2), were first acquainted as three year olds
)) in Acorn Hill's two-day class. (CHILD1) went to the Waldorf School
)) kindergarten for a couple of years. They were reacquainted again
in September
)) in the first grade. A few days into the school year, (CHILD1) was in a fatal
)) car accident. She was on life support for a day or so, and after she crossed
)) the threshold she was brought home to lie in her bedroom for three days. The
)) children had so many questions, which were finally answered, it seemed, by
)) (CHILD1) herself as she lay in her bedroom, surrounded by family, friends,
)) food and a lot of children running around and playing. Although it was so
very
)) sad, the experience was so beautiful.
))
)) Earlier, the children in my carpool had asked so many questions. I told them
)) that perhaps (CHILD1) had chosen her time to die when she was in the
spiritual
)) world and was choosing her mom and dad. This comforted me, I know. But all
)) questions stopped after the children made the long trip up the stairs to
)) (CHILD1)'s room. They stood there in her room, full of flowers and incense.
))
)) Someone was sitting vigil in prayer. The children looked at her from just
)) inside the door with so much respect, and a little fear and nervousness. She
)) was (CHILD1) but she looked so different that it was obvious that there was
)) but an empty vessel there. The children turned, and reverently, wordlessly,
)) left the room after about a minute.
))
)) Later that night, after story and prayers as I lay with (CHILD2), she looked
)) at me with tears in her eyes. She asked me why (CHILD1) had to die. "She
liked
)) to sing the Michael song and to play her flute even when teacher said to put
)) it away." I just looked at (CHILD2), so sad. Then (CHILD2) said, very
)) earnestly, "I know why (CHILD1) had to die... because I had a hard time to
)) believe in God".
))
)) She answered her own question and there were no more questions. The next day
)) we went to (CHILD1)'s home again. The first graders would play,
then troop up
)) to (CHILD1)'s room to "visit (CHILD1)". Soon they were sitting on her bed
)) patting her cold hand into which they placed beeswax gifts and flowers. They
)) would adjust the garland on her head and her clothes and just chat with each
)) other, laughing too. I noticed the adult sitting vigil look at them in
wonder.
))
)) There was such a spirit in the house, so many people, coming and going, and
)) children everywhere, playing and running around, the table laden with food.
)) The neighbors thought there was a party going on at first. (CHILD1)'s mother
)) was comforted by all the support of the Waldorf community and we were drawn
to
)) the house to be comforted too. At one point, I asked (CHILD2) if she wanted
to
)) give (CHILD1) a small toy bird. (CHILD2) said, "Mommy, she's dead. She can't
)) play with it," and she looked at me as if asking, "Did you forget?" At the
)) funeral I was crying, and my ten year old also. She said, "I hardly knew
)) (CHILD1), and I can't stop crying." Her classmate, (CHILD1)'s
brother, wasn't
)) very sad. He saw her in eurythmy class and asked the kids to make
a space for
)) her. (CHILD2) looked at her sister and me crying. With a smile on her face
she
)) looked at us as if asking, "Did you forget?"
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
) New threads are always welcome.
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 04:49:09 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Nonsectarian Waldorf???
Gary Bonhiver wrote:
snip))))))))))
Thanks for this passage, Gary. I am not incensed by the actual death
rites which are somewhat like an Irish wake, and perhaps they were
intended to be, having the body laid out for three days and people
getting used to the child's death, and talking about her. That isn't
really bad at all. It is one way to have a wake, which is a common
ritual of death. Even though it seems quite strange in this day and age.
It is not the most disturbing thing, however.
What disturbs me as a person who works with children is the way the
adult in this story gave these children the suggestion that the dead
child had chosen her death, and later in the story, the suggestion to
the one girl that she was responsible for the death.
) ) Earlier, the children in my carpool had asked so many questions. I told
) ) them
) ) that perhaps (CHILD1) had chosen her time to die when she was in the
) ) spiritual
) ) world and was choosing her mom and dad. This comforted me, I know. But
) ) all
) ) questions stopped after the children made the long trip up the stairs to
) ) (CHILD1)'s room.
This statement, that this event and explanation comforted the *adult*,
is disturbing because the adult should be trying to comfort the children
with more non-threatening explanations. Imagine a child wondering if he
or she could will her own death?
They stood there in her room, full of flowers and incense.
) )
) ) Someone was sitting vigil in prayer. The children looked at her from
) ) just
) ) inside the door with so much respect, and a little fear and nervousness.
) ) She
) ) was (CHILD1) but she looked so different that it was obvious that there
) ) was
) ) but an empty vessel there. The children turned, and reverently,
) ) wordlessly,
) ) left the room after about a minute.
Probably a little terrified.....with no one to calm and soothe their
fears.
) )
) ) Later that night, after story and prayers as I lay with (CHILD2), she
) ) looked
) ) at me with tears in her eyes. She asked me why (CHILD1) had to die. "She
) ) liked
) ) to sing the Michael song and to play her flute even when teacher said to
) ) put
) ) it away." I just looked at (CHILD2), so sad. Then (CHILD2) said, very
) ) earnestly, "I know why (CHILD1) had to die... because I had a hard time
) ) to
) ) believe in God".
The common thing for children to do in any unfortunate circumstance (ie,
divorce, accident, any kind of loss) is to blame themselves, especially
the more sensitive children. This adult just fed the child's guilt and
did nothing to clarify why the child really died. This is sadistic and
cruel.
) )
) ) She answered her own question and there were no more questions.
By whose logic does a child answer the deep questions of how or why one
dies?? I am appalled at this adult's answer. And yet those of us who
have studied the literature of Steiner understand that this is a
particular attitude towards death.
Yes, of course, the Waldorf/Anthro Way would be to treat the child as if
she is an adult, and has all the answers. It's the child's karma, or
clairvoyant knowledge of why her friend died?
This is horrible. Imagine this child living for many years with the
belief that she was responsible for another child's death because she
did not believe in God. What a terrible burden to allow a child to
carry. Absolutely cruel and mean.
The next day
) ) we went to (CHILD1)'s home again. The first graders would play, then
) ) troop up
) ) to (CHILD1)'s room to "visit (CHILD1)". Soon they were sitting on her
) ) bed
) ) patting her cold hand into which they placed beeswax gifts and flowers.
) ) They
) ) would adjust the garland on her head and her clothes and just chat with
) ) each
) ) other, laughing too.
I wonder how much familiarity with the dead body is actually a good
thing...
I noticed the adult sitting vigil look at them in wonder.
) )
) ) There was such a spirit in the house, so many people, coming and going,
) ) and
) ) children everywhere, playing and running around, the table laden with
) ) food.
) ) The neighbors thought there was a party going on at first. (CHILD1)'s
) ) mother
) ) was comforted by all the support of the Waldorf community and we were
) ) drawn to
) ) the house to be comforted too.
This sitting vigil is most helpful to the mother, but certainly there
should be some way that the children are given some explanation and
understanding of the process. We know enough about children to help them
understand death.
At one point, I asked (CHILD2) if she wanted to
) ) give (CHILD1) a small toy bird. (CHILD2) said, "Mommy, she's dead. She
) ) can't
) ) play with it," and she looked at me as if asking, "Did you forget?" At
) ) the
) ) funeral I was crying, and my ten year old also. She said, "I hardly knew
) ) (CHILD1), and I can't stop crying." Her classmate, (CHILD1)'s brother,
) ) wasn't
) ) very sad. He saw her in eurythmy class and asked the kids to make a
) ) space for
) ) her. (CHILD2) looked at her sister and me crying. With a smile on her
) ) face she
) ) looked at us as if asking, "Did you forget?"
It doesn't seem that this writer's first language is English because
there is some fuzziness about what was actually going on here with the
boy who was not sad, but it is clear that the child who felt responsible
for the death of the girl was never comforted or told that she was
incorrect, and was left believing that she should "remember" and "not
forget" that her lack of faith was responsible for the death of the
girl.
It appears according to the writer of this piece, that the attitude of
the adult is something to be emulated. I wonder why.
Perhaps one of the anthroposophists on this board can elucidate what
this is all about.
Su
It ain't over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 05:28:28 +0000
From: Su (sufrito53 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: To Chrystabel/Peter S
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) Speaking of comparing the US and Germany.... While I don't completely
) agree
) with Su's assessment of the differences between American and German
) public
) culture, I do very much second the recommendation of Fritz Stern's book
) The
) Politics of Cultural Despair. It's an invaluable analysis of the
) ideological
) context that gave rise to Steiner's core ideas, and one of the two
) acknowledged classics in the field I work in (the other is George
) Mosse's
) book The Crisis of German Ideology). For people looking to explore the
) broader themes that constantly re-appear in Steiner's more troubling
) writings, it's a very good place to start.
)
) I'd also like to invite Chrystabel to tell us more about her sense of
) the
) differences between German and North American anthroposophists. I found
) her
) comments interesting and plausible, and in some respects her impressions
)
) match my own. I'm also wondering if her husband has any interest in
) joining
) this list; it would be good to have a philosophically trained
) anthroposophist participate in some of the discussions.
)
) Peter S.
)
)
) )Please see the book The Politics of Cultural Despair; Study in the rise
) )of Germanic Ideology, by Fritz Stern, University of California Press,
) )Berkeley, Los Angeles, London 1961. (An excellent book...)
Hi Peter, I 'd like to hear more about your disagreement with my
comments, which I thought were very generic. Not that we both aren't
critics. Still, I would like to hear how you percieve my comments. When
you have time...
I am disappointed with Chrystabel but it is logical that she might
prefer marital harmony to discussion of the conflicts we have with
Steiner's followers and their crypto attitude.
Su
It ain't over 'til it's over--Yogi Berra
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 990
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: To Chrystabel/Peter S
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: infomation please reply daniel
By ickyickyzobang hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:41:46 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson's picture on PLANS website
Augustina wrote:
) I'm (still) a "Waldorf mother" from Argentina. In our school, the first
) thing you see as you step inside is Steiner's portrait. The children are
) taught his poems and the teachers give us copies of the poems so that we
can
) learn them too, if we want. Steiner is definitely considered an
) unquestionable guru, and that's one of the many things that have started
to
) smell funny to me...
Glad to hear of your experience in Argentina. Thanks. Seems Steiner is a
guru is a guru is a guru on many continents. I remember my first inquiry as
to Steiner's guru-ness at our old school. One of the very nice Anthropops
led me down the lane... "oh, no - the teachers simply work out of
Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner's work - it is not in the school." The
subject was changed and I bit the bait because this person was just so
darned... *nice.* Why would I not believe and trust someone who is so nice
to me? It took years to clue in. If Anthroposophy is your thing and you
can relate - Waldorf is for you - hopefully for your children, as well. If
it makes little sense or makes you uneasy or your questions are not
answered - trust your instincts and fill your lungs with that "smell." If
it smells funny - chances are something is not quite right.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:24:23 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: To Chrystabel/Peter S
Hi Su,
I had to look back at your original post to remind myself what I didn't
agree with. I think you're quite right about the Germanocentric tradition
that Steiner was steeped in. It's a little off-topic, but the part that I
see differently had to do with public culture in Germany today. On that
topic you wrote:
"The problem is that American society and culture is much more dynamic
than German culture, and that's why the likes of Waldorf Critics has
sprung up in the USA and not in Germany. I imagine there has been some
resistance to Anthroposophy and Waldorf Education in Germany, but not in the
same way as here. The idea that the US is a heterogeneous society is quite
different from German tradition, which accepts diversity with great societal
pain and mistrust."
I think I'd take issue with the first sentence in particular. I don't see
contemporary US culture as more dynamic than contemporary German culture; in
fact in some respects I'd almost say the reverse is true. The breadth of
political opinion that is regularly expressed in mainstream German culture
(via the media, for example) extends well beyond what is usually available
in mainstream contexts in the US. In my experience that is true for much of
Europe, in fact. I'd also be inclined to see many Germans as better informed
about history and world affairs than their counterparts in similar
socio-economic groups in the US (to the extent that these sorts of
generalizations have any validity, that is).
On the other hand, there is an important sense in which your observations
about heterogeneity and diversity are pretty accurate, in my view. While
there is quite a bit of ethnic and cultural diversity to be found in the
major cities of Germany (and often in smaller towns as well), many resident
non-ethnic-Germans are not seen as really a part of German culture as such,
but more as pockets of other cultures existing side by side with German
neighbors. I do think there's a lot of this in the US as well, but Europe
and North America are simply different in that regard.
So overall I wouldn't conclude that general cultural differences account for
the somewhat different status of anthroposophist endeavors in Germany and in
the US. There is a lot of public criticism of anthroposophical institutions
in Germany, it's just that most folks there are used to these institutions
being an established part of the landscape. Also, as far as Waldorf schools
go, one crucial distinction is the fact that nearly all schools in Germany
are public, and there is no church-state separation in the US sense (in fact
clergy are public employees, church tithes are included in federal taxes,
and religious instruction is part of public education). So the issues that
concern many of Waldorf's critics in the US don't even arise in Germany, at
least not regarding Waldorf specifically. But this doesn't mean that
Steiner's ideas are simply taken for granted by non-anthroposophist Germans
today; on the issue of racism, for example, there is quite a bit of public
scrutiny and criticism, including within the mainstream press.
Hope that clarifies my brief comments from last week. Thanks for your
consistently interesting posts,
Peter S.
)Hi Peter, I 'd like to hear more about your disagreement with my
)comments, which I thought were very generic. Not that we both aren't
)critics. Still, I would like to hear how you percieve my comments. When
)you have time...
)
)I am disappointed with Chrystabel but it is logical that she might
)prefer marital harmony to discussion of the conflicts we have with
)Steiner's followers and their crypto attitude.
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:18:54 +1030
From: "Dan ." (ickyickyzobang hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: infomation please reply daniel
Hiya again, Okay I dont really know where to start but I'll do my best. I
guess I will describe my experiences and then my overall view of the waldorf
system. I started at kindergarten at Mt Barker Waldorf School in South
Australia, my brother was alread five years ahead of me and was in the same
school. I will say i was happy and I went through that year with no
complaints. Although years later i found out my best friend who i still know
whom i met in kindy was kept back a year because he hadnt developed well
enough socially skilled, which in the opinion of his parents and people that
knew him was not the truth, it was because from an early age he did fit into
a niche which everyone else did within the school system, it seems to me now
that you had to fit in or you would not be treated equally. Through out my
five years there we had to make the same things out of clay and paint the
same things with the same colours which to my mind doesnt allow the childs
character and personality to be expressed but rather withheld and hidden. My
brother also did not fit in and was treated like a mental challanged
individual and yelled at and made a point of when he forgot his bag once or
twice. Another thing that I saw recently was the parents guide, in which the
parents arent asked but really told what to do, about the colour and type of
clothing and the amount of working hours they had to do for working bee's a
year. I then left the school because my brother was caught off school
smoking pot on the same night as a school dance for the year 12's who I
might add were all drunk on school premises, my brother and several other
students were repremanded by the same teacher looking after the drunk year
twelves. I know your thinking well these are all bad experiences from one or
two people and it could merely be a single school issue but in my opinion I
think the 'system' creates the attitudes between some of the teachers and
students. I will say I had a enjoyable time from what I can remember, but I
remember having my own opinion of dislike for the school in the end of year
4 which was before my brother had got in trouble, I might add I had no idea
what he had been through, he now is a very inward person and suffers
depression. My old best friend from that school completed his schooling
there and he said said he felt betrayed and screwed over by the school. I
think if you fit in with the school you will be fine, but if you have any
differences etc you will be distanced very quickly if you do not start to
agree.
I hope this helps i haven't obviously covered everything but if you want to
know more im willing to tell, Daniel
)From: cameron (cliddle hotmail.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: infomation please reply daniel
)Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:29:50 +0000
)
)
)Daniel
)Thankyou for reply yes would like to know as much as possible so as to
)provide a spirited defence to stop my son going to Steiner school. This
)school is in sydney at Middle Cove as you said you were a student
)here. Again thankyou and please give me as much information as possible
)Cameron
)
)
)
)
)
))From: Daniel (ickyickyzobang hotmail.com)
))Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
))To: waldorf-critics topica.com
))Subject: Re: infomation please
))Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 23:50:13 +1030
))
))
))
))Dear Cameron, I am a ex student from Australia my advice would be not to
))send your child to a steiner school, this is from my personal experiences
))at a waldorf school and my brother who is five years my senior, if you
))want me to tell you specifics about my specifics about my experinces
))please do I am only to happy.
))
))regards, Daniel
))
))
))_________________________________________________________________
))MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
))http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
))
))==^================================================================
))You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
))New threads are always welcome.
))
))
)
)
)_________________________________________________________________
)MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
)http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
)New threads are always welcome.
)
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 991
-- Topica Digest --
the Rainbow Bridge of reincarnation
By mysplum earthlink.net
the Dutch Report?
By mysplum earthlink.net
Percedol
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Percedol
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:02:55 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: the Rainbow Bridge of reincarnation
Sharon: I'm happy to report that I found Lisa's description of her
daughter's magical lodge for junior's (Waldorf) birthday celebration, which
I hope she will post. It is a marvelous, detailed account of an Anthro
ritual in Waldorf. I still really don't understand how Waldorf gets away
with their nonsense...I just keep hoping that one day justice will prevail
and Waldorf will be forced to tell parents about their esoteric mission.
It's just not right that they dupe people. I had no intention of initiating
my daughter in Steiner's occultism, my family was not wishing to join a new
religious movement. I needed to know that Waldorf is a mystery school, up
front, clearly, before enrolling my daughter! The schools need to quit
duping parents. Below is a warm up for Lisa's birthday story (G).
From: Waldorf-critic's archive, snell oro.net
Subject: A Birthday in the (Waldorf) Kindergarten
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 16:33:54 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The story below was published in
a private Waldorf School's newsletter. While I would not be surprised to
learn that the author of the article, "A Birthday in the Kindergarten" was
not the author of the story, the newsletter article credited it to her. (It
is riddled with Anthroposophical indoctrination)
Deby
"A Birthday in the Kindergarten" by Marilyn Stahl, Waldorf kindergarten
teacher
"Once upon a time there was a child who lived in a beautiful garden, where
happiness ruled and flowers grew with such perfection of scent and color
that nothing could surpass them. All around this beautiful garden there was
a solid golden wall, and you could not see over it, under it or through it.
In the garden many wise things taught the children the many secrets there
were to know in the school of the sun and the moon and all of the stars.
One day when the child was playing with a golden ball it rolled into a bed
of roses. When the child bent down to pick it up, he noticed that there was
a teeny, tiny peephole in the golden wall with light streaming through it.
The child couldn't help but look, and oh what a glorious sight he saw.
There was the beautiful earth with all its splendor, and there was a field
of flowers a group of children were playing with their parents. "Oh, if
only I had a mother and a father, I would be so very happy," sighed the
child. Just then, a wise being whispered in his ear, "Would you like to
choose a mother and a father ?" "Oh yes!", was the reply from the child. So
the wise being took the child to the North
and the South and the East and the West and then suddenly the child caught
sight of the perfect mother and father for him. "They are the ones that I
want and love !", said he. "Wait here," said the wise being and went
quickly and whispered in the ear of the mother, "Soon you are to have a
child!" The mother was so excited that she whispered into the ear of her
husband, "Soon we are to have a child!"
and together they prepared for the arrival. Meanwhile the child gathered
all of the gifts he had received from the school of the sun, the moon and
all of the stars and put them into his heart, and then one very special day
said, "I am ready to go!" "Indeed you are!" said the wise being, "And I
will care for your heavenly garments while you are gone." "You have learned
much, and you will forget much of this wonderous place." "Take care not to
forget it all, though much must remain a secret!" said the wise being and
then placed his finger on the child's lip and whispered "shhhhhh", making a
tiny indentation above his mouth. The child was then led to the end of a
rainbow bridge, where he slid, and slid, and slid right into the arms of
his mother and his father and he was born...."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:06:28 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: the Dutch Report?
Sharon: Does anyone know a reference for the Dutch Report? I'm trying to
find the 720 page version, in Dutch, that was presented by the
"Anthroposophy and the Question of Race Commission" on April 1, 2000. Is it
on line anywhere? I've searched but can't find the *Dutch* version. How can
I get a copy, anyone know?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 03:34:21 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Percedol
I think Percedol has given up on us. It must be my fault although I would
prefer to say it was the other Peter's fault. Is it because we bothe claimed
he was wrong.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 23:38:48 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Percedol
Peter Farrell wrote:) I think Percedol has given up on us. It must be my
fault although I would
) prefer to say it was the other Peter's fault. Is it because we bothe
claimed
) he was wrong.
Don't take it personal, Peter(s). Some of us are *still* waiting for
promised posts from members here from months ago. Remember Jamie? Call me
stubborn or curious or patient or stupid... I am still interested in
chatting with the Anthroposophically inclined. During this lifetime.
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 992
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Percedol
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Percedol
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: Percedol
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Percedol
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Waldorf and Enki Education
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Percedol
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: the Dutch Report?
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Percedol
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Percedol
By nmfoss hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:51:41 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Percedol
on 3/13/03 11:38 PM, walden at awaldenpond shaw.ca wrote:
) Peter Farrell wrote:) I think Percedol has given up on us. It must be my
) fault
Sharon: I think it was partly my fault. I asked that he quit
"Anthro-editing" my posts. I told him I thought he was being rude and that
I could write "Anthroposophy" and "Steiner" in full, even if his esoteric
religion required that I not do so. He never answered me even though I asked
him, at least twice, to explain why he always edited my spelling of these
words.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:12:09 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Percedol
)Sharon: I think it was partly my fault. I asked that he quit
)"Anthro-editing" my posts. I told him I thought he was being rude and that
)I could write "Anthroposophy" and "Steiner" in full, even if his esoteric
)religion required that I not do so. He never answered me even though I
asked
)him, at least twice, to explain why he always edited my spelling of these
)words.
A long time ago Percedol told us a story about spirits who were displeased
with some sort of practitioner of magic for getting his name wrong. It was
supposed to be Abram and the person invoked Abraham by mistake (or vice
versa?) This resulted in the death of a child. It wasn't even the child's
mistake, but the practitioner's, and it was simply an innocent error. In
magical traditions *naming* things is of the utmost importance - knowing
something's name, in some traditions, gives you power over that thing.
(Meaning their real name, which is usually not widely known and is different
from their ordinary, everyday name.)
I don't know if this is why Percedol goes through other peoples' posts and
changes names to initials when replying, but I can't help wondering. If
getting names correct is so important, perhas it seems safer just to make a
policy of not using them at all. Or perhaps it is just a strange nervous
habit. (Comes down to the same thing.)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:52:13 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Percedol
on 3/14/03 7:12 AM, Diana Winters at Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net wrote:
)
)
) A long time ago Percedol told us a story about spirits who were displeased
) with some sort of practitioner of magic for getting his name wrong. It was
) supposed to be Abram and the person invoked Abraham by mistake (or vice
) versa?) This resulted in the death of a child. It wasn't even the child's
) mistake, but the practitioner's, and it was simply an innocent error. In
) magical traditions *naming* things is of the utmost importance - knowing
) something's name, in some traditions, gives you power over that thing.
) (Meaning their real name, which is usually not widely known and is different
) from their ordinary, everyday name.)
Sharon: Yup. In Magic, words are very very powerful indeed because "in the
beginning", God created the heaven and the earth by speaking it into
existence, also, "the Word was God." These ideas lie beneath Eurythmy
layers.
Man is a microcosm spoken from the macrocosm. "For words are form?" asserts
Anthroposophist Marjorie Spock, "All things were made by him (the Word that
was God) ? As we contemplate the world of nature which that Word made, we
find in it four elements: solids, liquids, gases, warmth--elements
rediscovered in the small microcosmic words human voices utter" (Spock,
Eurythmy, 1980, p. 36-37)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:01:31 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Percedol
on 3/14/03 10:52 AM, mysplum at mysplum earthlink.net wrote:
)
) Man is a microcosm spoken from the macrocosm. "For words are form?" asserts
) Anthroposophist Marjorie Spock, "All things were made by him (the Word that
) was God) ? As we contemplate the world of nature which that Word made, we
) find in it four elements: solids, liquids, gases, warmth--elements
) rediscovered in the small microcosmic words human voices utter" (Spock,
) Eurythmy, 1980, p. 36-37)
Sharon: To go a little deeper...earth, air, fire and water correspond to
gnomes, sylphs, salamanders and undines. (Categories of the spirits of
solids, liquids, gasses and water). Because these beings live in microcosmic
words human voices utter, words are very powerful.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:11:25 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and Enki Education
I liked this paragraph from Beth Sutton's summary of Waldorf pedagogy:
)In brief, and greatly oversimplified: Waldorf expresses a hierarchical view
)of the evolution of consciousness - that different cultures, religions, and
)traditions evolve in a hierarchical sequence. Each culture of the past,
)including its religious base, is seen as an important but earlier step in
)that evolution, an evolution which freed man to have critical or
)independent thinking. In the progression described by Anthroposophy, the
)"Christ event" or crucifixion is seen as the "turning point in time," the
)moment in which man's consciousness was freed for higher evolution. This is
)often described as a parabola or "U" shape in which early cultures descend
)downwards like steps into a well, changing direction to ascend after, and
)as a result of, the "Christ event." Because of this perspective, Waldorf is
)a multicultural approach which views all cultures and religions through the
)lens of a hierarchical evolutionary process.
Except for the misplaced descriptor "multicultural", I'd say that sounds
pretty accurate. What's missing is the recognition that this hierarchical
progression of cultures is based squarely on a hierarchical progression of
racial and ethnic groups, a doctrine which is fundamental to anthroposophy
as Steiner taught it.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:13:46 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Percedol
)Sharon: Yup. In Magic, words are very very powerful indeed because "in the
)beginning", God created the heaven and the earth by speaking it into
)existence, also, "the Word was God."
Attributing magical powers to words also serves to divorce them from their
everyday meanings, however, which is one of the sources of miscommunication
between Waldorf and its clientele. All the words with "special" mystical
meanings, combined with the attitude toward parents that what they don't
know won't hurt them, and the religious justification for using the special
language - well, in everyday language, this results in the "Why wasn't I
told?" scenarios!
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:24:50 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: the Dutch Report?
Hi Sharon,
as far as I know the full report is not available online. To order a copy of
"Antroposofie en het vraagstuk van de rassen", you can write to:
Antroposofische Vereniging in Nederland
Boslaan 15
3701 CH Zeist
The Netherlands
You want the "eindrapport", the final version. It costs $85 (I don't know
whether that includes postage); they'll probably want a direct deposit into
their account (that's normal in Europe). You can try emailing beforehand to
work out the details: secretariaat antrop-ver.nl should work. You might also
try contacting Peter Zegers; he's read the final report, though I don't
think he has a copy himself. If you do end up getting yourself a copy, could
you let me know? At some point I'd like to compare the interim version to
the final version. Thanks,
Peter S.
)Sharon: Does anyone know a reference for the Dutch Report? I'm trying to
)find the 720 page version, in Dutch, that was presented by the
)"Anthroposophy and the Question of Race Commission" on April 1, 2000. Is it
)on line anywhere? I've searched but can't find the *Dutch* version. How can
)I get a copy, anyone know?
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:38:03 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Percedol
I'm not at all sure that Percedol has really given up on us; in the past
he's had lengthy absences from the list and then returned. I think he's like
me; drops in for a while, goes away for a while, then comes back. Also he
hasn't ever been particularly consistent in following through on the threads
he starts. In any case, I don't see how his leaving could possibly be either
Peter F's fault or Sharon's fault. It would be nice to have a reliable
spokesperson for anthroposophical positions on the list, one who was used to
public debates, but at this point many of the people who could fill that
role are evidently avoiding this list deliberately (at least that's what
they've said on anthroposophist lists). I suspect that has something to do
with the longstanding anthro policy of deflecting public scrutiny when it's
not sympathetic or easily manipulable. By the way, that German Waldorf
discussion list I mentioned last year hasn't had a single posting in months.
How's the openwaldorf list doing?
Peter S.
)I think Percedol has given up on us. It must be my fault although I would
)prefer to say it was the other Peter's fault. Is it because we bothe
)claimed he was wrong.
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:01:44 +0000
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Percedol
Hi, Peter,
I'd say the OpenWaldorf forums are well worth a look at. The average so far
is 8 posts per day, most of them either in the critics corner or in the
Steiner and anthroposophy forum. It seems to be reaching people who wouldn't
post here, which is interesting. I'm having a debate on governance models
and the nature of accountability there at the moment with one
anthroposophist (I assume) who is involved in running his school. There are
others there as well who are reasonably open minded and prepared to discuss
some things, although there is a tendency to be suspicious of critics
motives. I have tried to be patient and balanced there (after all there were
things I liked a lot about Waldorf school and I'm not ashamed to say so),
although some of the anonymous posters are particularly provocative and make
it hard for me not to be disparaging in return. Most of the time I restrain
myself on the grounds that their obvious manipulations of other's statements
and obviously unfounded allegations will speak for themselves if read by
parents trying to decide if Waldorf is right for their family. I'd encourage
anyone from this board to participate in the discussion.
Nicole
)From: Peter Staudenmaier (pstaud hotmail.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: Percedol
)Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:38:03 -0600
)
)I'm not at all sure that Percedol has really given up on us; in the past
)he's had lengthy absences from the list and then returned. I think he's
)like me; drops in for a while, goes away for a while, then comes back. Also
)he hasn't ever been particularly consistent in following through on the
)threads he starts. In any case, I don't see how his leaving could possibly
)be either Peter F's fault or Sharon's fault. It would be nice to have a
)reliable spokesperson for anthroposophical positions on the list, one who
)was used to public debates, but at this point many of the people who could
)fill that role are evidently avoiding this list deliberately (at least
)that's what they've said on anthroposophist lists). I suspect that has
)something to do with the longstanding anthro policy of deflecting public
)scrutiny when it's not sympathetic or easily manipulable. By the way, that
)German Waldorf discussion list I mentioned last year hasn't had a single
)posting in months. How's the openwaldorf list doing?
)
)Peter S.
)
)
)
)
)
))I think Percedol has given up on us. It must be my fault although I would
))prefer to say it was the other Peter's fault. Is it because we bothe
))claimed he was wrong.
)
)
)_________________________________________________________________
)Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
)http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
)New threads are always welcome.
)
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 993
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Percedol
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: Percedol
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Percedol
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 04:07:53 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Percedol
P:
If it could be proven that observation from the spiritual science were
correct by means of natural science, then it would be naive to think
that this could prove that the methods of spiritual science relate to
the spiritual worlds. It would not prove the existance of higher beings,
for example. The only way to prove that there is a spiritual base for
this path is to see for yourself, to practice it.
The alternative is to criticize it, and this is a very easy approach.
But it does not bring any real knowledge of the path that is being
criticized. It is an illusion that one can criticize this path and also
know it. How can one reply to questions that arise from
misunderstanding, misconception, prejudice and criticism?
It is not possible!
Peter Farrell wrote:
) I think Percedol has given up on us.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 21:49:28 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Percedol
) P wrote:
) If it could be proven that observation from the spiritual science were
) correct by means of natural science, then it would be naive to think
) that this could prove that the methods of spiritual science relate to
) the spiritual worlds. It would not prove the existance of higher beings,
) for example. The only way to prove that there is a spiritual base for
) this path is to see for yourself, to practice it.
Would you agree that it is *possible* for one to *believe* she/he is on such
a path when perhaps the path is simply clouded in superstition and
brainwashing techniques? I say this respectfully. Some humans tend to
become lost from time to time and seem to have a need for something other
than that which can be measured and tested. At times we become vulnerable
and in our need to make sense (or find comfort) with our lot in life I
wonder if we are easily manipulated or dare I say... deceived?
) The alternative is to criticize it, and this is a very easy approach.
) But it does not bring any real knowledge of the path that is being
) criticized.
My experience is not simply to "criticize" but to think "critically" about
such paths. There is a difference. I can learn about the path while not
feeling the need to follow it. Sure is interesting! But so is the fact
that plants eat light. I can marvel at the stars on a clear winter night
with my kids and agree with them that there are plenty of mysteries. And I
actually enjoy a type of meditation that is much more like a "quiet time to
reflect" than a "spiritual path." Life makes sense to me without invisible
beings, etc. But that is me.
It is an illusion that one can criticize this path and also
) know it. How can one reply to questions that arise from
) misunderstanding, misconception, prejudice and criticism?
) It is not possible!
Are you sure? I would put the question to you: How can *you* criticize
those questions while judging their foundation to be based on
misunderstanding, misconception and prejudice? Are you the judge? I find
the questions posed to you here entirely appropriate. Those who pose such
questions are clearly, IMO, well versed in the material. Does one need to
be a drug addict to understand drugs? While you might see yourself
strolling down the middle of the path - others walk beside the path -
watching and learning and willing to think critically about the path.
Perhaps they even decide to take the path less travelled. Maybe that makes
all the difference...?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 08:51:25 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Percedol
G'day Percedol,
good to see you haven't vanished after I raised the possibility a few days
ago.
Your post below makes the assumption that there is no evidence against
spiritual science, an assumption which I believe is false. Further I believe
that I have pointed to that evidence. The reality is that observations from
the spiritual science can be demonstrated to be incorrect by means of
natural science.
I reaffirm one need not follow the path to determine its validity. One need
only check what the followers of the path say about it. If what they say is
nonsense one must doubt the validity of following the path.
)From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: RE: Percedol
)Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 04:07:53 +0000
)
)P:
)If it could be proven that observation from the spiritual science were
)correct by means of natural science, then it would be naive to think
)that this could prove that the methods of spiritual science relate to
)the spiritual worlds. It would not prove the existance of higher beings,
)for example. The only way to prove that there is a spiritual base for
)this path is to see for yourself, to practice it.
)The alternative is to criticize it, and this is a very easy approach.
)But it does not bring any real knowledge of the path that is being
)criticized. It is an illusion that one can criticize this path and also
)know it. How can one reply to questions that arise from
)misunderstanding, misconception, prejudice and criticism?
)It is not possible!
)
)Peter Farrell wrote:
) ) I think Percedol has given up on us.
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
)New threads are always welcome.
)
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 994
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Percedol
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: Waldorf and Enki Education
By mysplum earthlink.net
simple example
By feetapparel hotmail.com
simple example
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Percedol
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: simple example
By valslavnijinsky shaw.ca
Re: simple example
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
Re: simple example
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Percedol
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: Percedol
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: Percedol
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Percedol
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: Percedol
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Percedol
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Percedol
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 14:16:19 +0000
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Percedol
Percedol wrote: It is an illusion that one can criticize this path and also
know it. How can one reply to questions that arise from misunderstanding,
misconception, prejudice and criticism? It is not possible!
Nicole: So, if you 'know' the path you can't criticize it, or by extension
think critically about it, and the questions of anyone who is critical can
be disregarded because, by definition, they don't understand the path? What
basis is there then for a discussion? As a True Believer presumably you
would follow your 'path' even in the face of a mountain of contradictory
evidence, happy in your separate reality and perhaps feeling a condescending
twinge of regret for others who are less enlightened. Constructive criticism
must really be an oxymoron for you.
If anthroposophy were only a church, our paths would never cross, but
anthroposophy does not restrict itself to its circle of True Believers.
Instead it sets up schools where these disguised beliefs are foisted upon
unsuspecting parents whose opinions can be disregarded because they don't
'know the path'. These parents are expected to follow unknowingly the
requirements of a religion which denies to them that it even exists, and may
be criticized in their ignorance for anthroposophical incorrectness. No
wonder so many parents initially feel bewildered and later angry for having
been deceived.
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 10:25:56 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and Enki Education
on 3/14/03 8:11 AM, Peter Staudenmaier at pstaud hotmail.com wrote:
) I liked this paragraph from Beth Sutton's summary of Waldorf pedagogy:
)
)) In brief, and greatly oversimplified: Waldorf expresses a hierarchical view
)) of the evolution of consciousness - that different cultures, religions, and
)) traditions evolve in a hierarchical sequence. Each culture of the past,
)) including its religious base, is seen as an important but earlier step in
)) that evolution, an evolution which freed man to have critical or
)) independent thinking. In the progression described by Anthroposophy, the
)) "Christ event" or crucifixion is seen as the "turning point in time," the
)) moment in which man's consciousness was freed for higher evolution. This is
)) often described as a parabola or "U" shape in which early cultures descend
)) downwards like steps into a well, changing direction to ascend after, and
)) as a result of, the "Christ event." Because of this perspective, Waldorf is
)) a multicultural approach which views all cultures and religions through the
)) lens of a hierarchical evolutionary process.
)
) Except for the misplaced descriptor "multicultural", I'd say that sounds
) pretty accurate. What's missing is the recognition that this hierarchical
) progression of cultures is based squarely on a hierarchical progression of
) racial and ethnic groups, a doctrine which is fundamental to anthroposophy
) as Steiner taught it.
)
) Peter S.
Sharon: The schools actually use "multiculturalism" as a selling point!!
That buzz word was bandied about often at our ex-school. As an uninformed
parent one might initially interpret the "history" lessons as
"multicultural". With closer scrutiny, one sees that the "history" is not
history but rather a specific selection of Anthro sanctioned religious
myths. Then, to add insult to injury, one learns that the religion taught as
"history" is, in reality, an Aryan mystery initiation!! Children are passed
through the religions of the spiritual evolution of the Aryan. This
accomplished according to the dictates of the devious prophet, wheeler and
dealer in secret societies, Rudolf Steiner. Then one discovers that
Anthroposophic leadership denies that Steiner's doctrine is racist,
producing a 720 page report documenting Steiner's racist doctrine and
claiming that there is no racism in Anthroposophy!!! It's lunacy, and I
resent being used as I was to prop this garbage up. It's an outrage that
Waldorf thinks they can take children by stealth.
The best thing Waldorf has going for it are the dupes, but the dupes need to
wake up.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:28:44 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: simple example
I was amused by this the other day
http://mr-31238.mr.valuehost.co.uk/assets/Flash/psychic.swf
as much for its mechanism as for its Star Trek sound effects.
I encourage contributors and lurkers to have a look at this site and figure
out how it works. I have a point to make about but I will post my point in
about 24 hours to give those of you in different time zones a chance to
consider it.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:27:22 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: simple example
I was amused by this the other day
http://mr-31238.mr.valuehost.co.uk/assets/Flash/psychic.swf
as much for its mechanism as for its Star Trek sound effects.
I encourage contributors and lurkers to have a look at this site and figure
out how it works. I have a point to make about but I will post my point in
about 24 hours to give those of you in different time zones a chance to
consider it.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 01:01:09 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Percedol
Percedol wrote:
)The alternative is to criticize it, and this is a very easy approach.
)But it does not bring any real knowledge of the path that is being
)criticized. It is an illusion that one can criticize this path and also
)know it. How can one reply to questions that arise from
)misunderstanding, misconception, prejudice and criticism?
)It is not possible!
Peter responds:
People do this all the time. How can you possibly think it is impossible?
Every teacher in the world deals with this every day! The answer is so
simple. You reply using rational argument and evidence.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 03:42:04 +0000
From: David Gill (valslavnijinsky shaw.ca)
Subject: RE: simple example
Whoa... good exercise in self-deception...
Peter Farrell wrote:
) I was amused by this the other day
) http://mr-31238.mr.valuehost.co.uk/assets/Flash/psychic.swf
) as much for its mechanism as for its Star Trek sound effects.
) I encourage contributors and lurkers to have a look at this site and
) figure
) out how it works. I have a point to make about but I will post my point
) in
) about 24 hours to give those of you in different time zones a chance to
) consider it.
) See you, Peter
)
)
)
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
) http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 22:54:34 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: simple example
Somebody explain please . . . :)
Diana
)Whoa... good exercise in self-deception...
)Peter Farrell wrote:
)) I was amused by this the other day
)) http://mr-31238.mr.valuehost.co.uk/assets/Flash/psychic.swf
)) as much for its mechanism as for its Star Trek sound effects.
)) I encourage contributors and lurkers to have a look at this site and
)) figure
)) out how it works. I have a point to make about but I will post my point
)) in
)) about 24 hours to give those of you in different time zones a chance to
)) consider it.
)) See you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 21:17:57 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: simple example
David Gill wrote:
) Whoa... good exercise in self-deception...
Walden: Yes... sound familiar?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 06:02:45 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Percedol
walden wrote:
) Would you agree that it is *possible* for one to *believe* she/he is on
) such
) a path when perhaps the path is simply clouded in superstition and
) brainwashing techniques?
P:
It is not my experience or that of the people I know.
I know that what you describe happens with many false paths.
I say this respectfully. Some humans tend to
) become lost from time to time and seem to have a need for something
) other
) than that which can be measured and tested.
P:
There are things that can be experienced, not only measured. And that is
a form of testing.
At times we become vulnerable
) and in our need to make sense (or find comfort) with our lot in life I
) wonder if we are easily manipulated or dare I say... deceived?
P:
In my experience I don't rememember any time when I felt vulnerable or
in need of comfort.
) My experience is not simply to "criticize" but to think "critically"
) about
) such paths. There is a difference.
P:
From what is on this list I don't see much understanding.
I can learn about the path while not
) feeling the need to follow it.
P:
I don't have an answer for this but it looks like something is missing
in irder to grasp it, somehow.
)
) Are you sure? I would put the question to you: How can *you* criticize
) those questions while judging their foundation to be based on
) misunderstanding, misconception and prejudice? Are you the judge?
P:
No, I am just making an observation.
I find
) the questions posed to you here entirely appropriate.
P:
But it is not the kind of approach that can work.
Those who pose such
) questions are clearly, IMO, well versed in the material. Does one need
) to
) be a drug addict to understand drugs? While you might see yourself
) strolling down the middle of the path - others walk beside the path -
) watching and learning and willing to think critically about the path.
P:
I have the impression that it is always like comparing apples and
oranges here.
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 06:10:24 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Percedol
Nicole Foss wrote:
sconception, prejudice and criticism? It is not possible!
)
) Nicole: So, if you 'know' the path you can't criticize it, or by
) extension
) think critically about it, and the questions of anyone who is critical
) can
) be disregarded because, by definition, they don't understand the path?
) What
) basis is there then for a discussion?
P:
I have my criticisms and one result of that is that I am not a member.
As a True Believer presumably you
) would follow your 'path' even in the face of a mountain of contradictory
)
) evidence, happy in your separate reality and perhaps feeling a
) condescending
) twinge of regret for others who are less enlightened. Constructive
) criticism
) must really be an oxymoron for you.
P:
The basis to decide on what to do is for me my personal experience.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 06:11:28 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Percedol
)
)Percedol:
)In my experience I don't rememember any time when I felt vulnerable or
)in need of comfort.
)
Peter responds:
Percedol, I don't believe you. Either you are deliberately lying or you have
no memory, or you are not human, or you don't understand english.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 06:21:25 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Percedol
Peter responds:
) People do this all the time. How can you possibly think it is
) impossible?
) Every teacher in the world deals with this every day! The answer is so
) simple. You reply using rational argument and evidence.
P:
No, because it would give just more info for further attacks.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 06:47:41 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Percedol
)
)Peter responds:
) ) People do this all the time. How can you possibly think it is
) ) impossible?
) ) Every teacher in the world deals with this every day! The answer is so
) ) simple. You reply using rational argument and evidence.
)
)Percedol:
)No, because it would give just more info for further attacks.
)
Peter responds:
So now you are saying it's not impossible and that you could respond with
rational argument and evidence except you choose not to. So is your opinion
what you stated it to be before or what you stated it to be above, or some
other contradictory version? Is your purpose here to simply be a source of
noise?
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 23:47:51 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Percedol
) walden wrote:
)
) ) Would you agree that it is *possible* for one to *believe* she/he is on
) ) such
) ) a path when perhaps the path is simply clouded in superstition and
) ) brainwashing techniques?
)
) P replied:
) It is not my experience or that of the people I know.
)
) I know that what you describe happens with many false paths.
Walden: Curious. I would like to know how you believe you know which path
is "false" and which is not false? Have you experienced "many false paths"
in order to understand them (necessary by your own admission) or do you just
*know?* This sounds contradictory and more like a matter of faith to me.
If you would care to explain I would be grateful. Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 00:02:23 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Percedol
Nicole wrote: (snip)
) If anthroposophy were only a church, our paths would never cross, but
) anthroposophy does not restrict itself to its circle of True Believers.
) Instead it sets up schools where these disguised beliefs are foisted upon
) unsuspecting parents whose opinions can be disregarded because they don't
) 'know the path'. These parents are expected to follow unknowingly the
) requirements of a religion which denies to them that it even exists, and
may
) be criticized in their ignorance for anthroposophical incorrectness. No
) wonder so many parents initially feel bewildered and later angry for
having
) been deceived.
Absolutely right. Well stated. Clear. Foisted upon the children even
more. While I might take issue with "the path" I would defend the right of
any adult to follow that path. In fact, I find myself intrigued by the path
post-Waldorf - thus my participation here and studies elsewhere. The
problem, as was so eloquently stated (above) by Nicole and so many others in
so many ways is the deception used to advertise the path as something it
clearly *is not.* This is a serious problem causing serious and unnecessary
pain in many families and it must be addressed.
Thanks for a classic *keeper post,* Nicole.
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 995
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Percedol
By Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net
RE: simple example
By dkimble mystrotv.com
RE: simple example
By dkimble mystrotv.com
Re: simple example
By owenapp suscom-maine.net
Re: simple example
By owenapp suscom-maine.net
Re: simple example
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
a simple example with spoiler
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: simple example
By dkimble mystrotv.com
RE: simple example
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: simple example
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Percedol
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: Percedol
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: simple example
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Percedol
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Percedol
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: simple example
By feetapparel hotmail.com
[NNA-NEWS] Multi-cultural spiritual celebration of the seasons -
a video projec
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 07:11:28 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters worldnet.att.net)
Subject: Re: Percedol
Percedol:
)In my experience I don't rememember any time when I felt vulnerable or
)in need of comfort.
Peter responds:
)Percedol, I don't believe you. Either you are deliberately lying or you
have
)no memory, or you are not human, or you don't understand english.
I believe him - this is exactly what rigid belief systems are supposed to do
for you, this is why they appeal. Note that Percedol did not say he has
never felt vulnerable or in need of comfort - he said that he does not
*remember* these feelings.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:42:58 -0700
From: "Dave Kimble" (dkimble mystrotv.com)
Subject: RE: simple example
My degree is in math, so I was not surprised when it matched the symbol
for my number the first time (I hadn't bothered to work out the math at
that point).
But I have to admit, the second time it gave me the correct (but
different!) symbol it gave me a bit of a rush. Then, of course, I
noticed that it changes all the "right" symbols to something new each
time.
Pretty clever...
It reminds me of an article in Skeptical Enquirer a while back about
human credulity, and why people believe such extraordinary things
without hard evidence. The article talked about how such thinking has
real evolutionary benefits (if you ignore minor religion-associated
inconveniences like the crusades - past and present, the extermination
of the Druids, the holocaust, etc.)
Thanks for the pointer...
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Farrell [mailto:feetapparel hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 4:29 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: simple example
I was amused by this the other day
http://mr-31238.mr.valuehost.co.uk/assets/Flash/psychic.swf
as much for its mechanism as for its Star Trek sound effects.
I encourage contributors and lurkers to have a look at this site and
figure
out how it works. I have a point to make about but I will post my point
in
about 24 hours to give those of you in different time zones a chance to
consider it.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:49:07 -0700
From: "Dave Kimble" (dkimble mystrotv.com)
Subject: RE: simple example
I'm not sure if you wanted the math explained, if so:
Any two-digit number XY is really 10X + Y.
Subtract the sum of the two digits (X + Y) to get (10X + Y) - (X + Y) =
9X.
So, every time the screen replots, all the multiples of 9 get the
"right" symbol (the one that will mysteriously appear).
If not, sorry,
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Winters [mailto:Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 8:55 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: simple example
Somebody explain please . . . :)
Diana
)Whoa... good exercise in self-deception...
)Peter Farrell wrote:
)) I was amused by this the other day
)) http://mr-31238.mr.valuehost.co.uk/assets/Flash/psychic.swf
)) as much for its mechanism as for its Star Trek sound effects.
)) I encourage contributors and lurkers to have a look at this site and
)) figure
)) out how it works. I have a point to make about but I will post my
point
)) in
)) about 24 hours to give those of you in different time zones a chance
to
)) consider it.
)) See you, Peter
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:10:24 -0500
From: "Owen Appraisal" (owenapp suscom-maine.net)
Subject: Re: simple example
Ah yes, add the 2 numbers of a 2 digit number together & subtract the result
from the number, and ???................. I'll give the rest of the time
zones time to respond. How did I know this? Our son came home with this
incredibly important "math fact" from his former Waldorf school (one of the
few "math facts" he managed to absorb in his 2 1/2 years there). I'll have
to ask him if he remembers it now, at the time I seem to recall it was
presented as a mind reading game. Anyone else out there remember this
specific exercise from Waldorf? and is there some special anthro meaning to
this one too? Looking forward to Peter F's insights. Jane.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Kimble" (dkimble mystrotv.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 12:42 PM
Subject: RE: simple example
My degree is in math, so I was not surprised when it matched the symbol
for my number the first time (I hadn't bothered to work out the math at
that point).
But I have to admit, the second time it gave me the correct (but
different!) symbol it gave me a bit of a rush. Then, of course, I
noticed that it changes all the "right" symbols to something new each
time.
Pretty clever...
It reminds me of an article in Skeptical Enquirer a while back about
human credulity, and why people believe such extraordinary things
without hard evidence. The article talked about how such thinking has
real evolutionary benefits (if you ignore minor religion-associated
inconveniences like the crusades - past and present, the extermination
of the Druids, the holocaust, etc.)
Thanks for the pointer...
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Farrell [mailto:feetapparel hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 4:29 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: simple example
I was amused by this the other day
http://mr-31238.mr.valuehost.co.uk/assets/Flash/psychic.swf
as much for its mechanism as for its Star Trek sound effects.
I encourage contributors and lurkers to have a look at this site and
figure
out how it works. I have a point to make about but I will post my point
in
about 24 hours to give those of you in different time zones a chance to
consider it.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:32:02 -0500
From: "Owen Appraisal" (owenapp suscom-maine.net)
Subject: Re: simple example
Still laughing. Thanks Dave. I can assure you that our son's class was
never given the simple algebraic solution for the "trick" Course they never
got beyond fractions and long............................ division, where
the teacher spent most of the time giving them complex, multi-digit
problems - like 49.03456/23.54 or 34/57 + 28/32 - 45/98, and couldn't
understand why a sixth grader really didn't care if they got the answer
right, or decided that they really "hated" math. The ones who did get it
right were held up as shining examples, but I think you probably know the
answer to this one too - ye olde Ahrimanic calculator, which of course was
expressly forbidden, or at least we thought so. Too funny.
Which reminds me of another Ahrimanic assistant one of his classmates used.
Their French teacher was actually trying to teach them some vocabulary and
sentence structure in 6th grade (the same could not be said for the German
teacher), and mentioned that getting a French/English dictionary was a good
idea. Our son would struggle for a long time with the translation with much
assistance from me, and could never understand how one of his classmates got
it done so quickly - you all probably figured this out already too, but this
child was completely computer savvy & was just plugging it into the
translator.
So glad I can laugh about it now. Jane
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Kimble" (dkimble mystrotv.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 12:49 PM
Subject: RE: simple example
) I'm not sure if you wanted the math explained, if so:
)
) Any two-digit number XY is really 10X + Y.
) Subtract the sum of the two digits (X + Y) to get (10X + Y) - (X + Y) =
) 9X.
) So, every time the screen replots, all the multiples of 9 get the
) "right" symbol (the one that will mysteriously appear).
)
) If not, sorry,
)
) Dave
)
) -----Original Message-----
) From: Diana Winters [mailto:Diana.Winters worldnet.att.net]
) Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 8:55 PM
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: Re: simple example
)
) Somebody explain please . . . :)
) Diana
)
)
)
) )Whoa... good exercise in self-deception...
)
) )Peter Farrell wrote:
) )) I was amused by this the other day
) )) http://mr-31238.mr.valuehost.co.uk/assets/Flash/psychic.swf
) )) as much for its mechanism as for its Star Trek sound effects.
) )) I encourage contributors and lurkers to have a look at this site and
) )) figure
) )) out how it works. I have a point to make about but I will post my
) point
) )) in
) )) about 24 hours to give those of you in different time zones a chance
) to
) )) consider it.
) )) See you, Peter
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
) basic. New threads are always welcome.
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
)
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:05:11 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: simple example
Dave wrote:
My degree is in math, so I was not surprised when it matched the symbol
for my number the first time (I hadn't bothered to work out the math at
that point).
But I have to admit, the second time it gave me the correct (but
different!) symbol it gave me a bit of a rush.
Walden:
Have to admit - I was startled for a moment, as well. Four clicks later and
I got it. I asked my 12 year old to check it out without clicking. He is
by no means a genius. "Looks like a pattern," he said. Two clicks later he
smiled. "Nine."
Dave wrote:
It reminds me of an article in Skeptical Enquirer a while back about
human credulity, and why people believe such extraordinary things
without hard evidence.
Walden: My same twelve year old - a week ago stumbled on an attractive
audio cassette box at a friend's place. The cassettes were from the Deepak
Corporation. My son looked at me and asked if it was a joke? He wondered
if anyone would really believe that a person could reverse their biological
clock by listening to the cassettes, taking certain potions and doing the
meditations? I suggested he spend $38.95 to see if it works. He shook his
head and asked if it would be disrespectful to ask the owner of the
cassettes if she "believed in this stuff?" See... he had already put the
subject into the realm of religious belief. It made for a wonderful
conversation later that evening.
Dave wrote:
The article talked about how such thinking has
real evolutionary benefits (if you ignore minor religion-associated
inconveniences like the crusades - past and present, the extermination
of the Druids, the holocaust, etc.)
Walden: Do you remember the date of the article? I'd like to read it.
Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:28:29 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: a simple example with spoiler
I wrote this in advance of many of the reponses so there is some repetition.
The explanation is in horrible and complete detail just in case there are
any inumerates out there. I hope the simple point I make at the end is worth
wading through the beginning. For your efforts I have included a similar
little diversion at the end. No doubt there are more available.
I hope that some of you spent a little time thinking that little website I
posted must be psychic. I hope even more that all of you figured out how it
works. I
don't know how the Star Trek sound is generated, or where the font for the
symbols came from. I am only interested in the algorithm for arranging that
the
symbol which appears is the same one that the person who is operating is
thinking of, provided they can do arithmetic.
If you do this trick of subtracting the sum of the digits of a two digit
number
from itself you don?t get as many results as there are two digit numbers. In
fact you only get multiples of 9 smaller than 99, that is
9,18,27,36,45,54,63,72
and 81. This is easily verified by examination of the list below, which does
this bit of arithmetic for every case.
10 - 0 - 1 = 9
11 - 1 - 1 = 9
12 - 2 - 1 = 9
13 - 3 - 1 = 9
14 - 4 - 1 = 9
15 - 5 - 1 = 9
16 - 6 - 1 = 9
17 - 7 - 1 = 9
18 - 8 - 1 = 9
19 - 9 - 1 = 9
20 - 0 - 2 = 18
21 - 1 - 2 = 18
22 - 2 - 2 = 18
23 - 3 - 2 = 18
24 - 4 - 2 = 18
25 - 5 - 2 = 18
26 - 6 - 2 = 18
27 - 7 - 2 = 18
28 - 8 - 2 = 18
29 - 9 - 2 = 18
30 - 0 - 3 = 27
31 - 1 - 3 = 27
32 - 2 - 3 = 27
33 - 3 - 3 = 27
34 - 4 - 3 = 27
35 - 5 - 3 = 27
36 - 6 - 3 = 27
37 - 7 - 3 = 27
38 - 8 - 3 = 27
39 - 9 - 3 = 27
40 - 0 - 4 = 36
41 - 1 - 4 = 36
42 - 2 - 4 = 36
43 - 3 - 4 = 36
44 - 4 - 4 = 36
45 - 5 - 4 = 36
46 - 6 - 4 = 36
47 - 7 - 4 = 36
48 - 8 - 4 = 36
49 - 9 - 4 = 36
50 - 0 - 5 = 45
51 - 1 - 5 = 45
52 - 2 - 5 = 45
53 - 3 - 5 = 45
54 - 4 - 5 = 45
55 - 5 - 5 = 45
56 - 6 - 5 = 45
57 - 7 - 5 = 45
58 - 8 - 5 = 45
59 - 9 - 5 = 45
60 - 0 - 6 = 54
61 - 1 - 6 = 54
62 - 2 - 6 = 54
63 - 3 - 6 = 54
64 - 4 - 6 = 54
65 - 5 - 6 = 54
66 - 6 - 6 = 54
67 - 7 - 6 = 54
68 - 8 - 6 = 54
69 - 9 - 6 = 54
70 - 0 - 7 = 63
71 - 1 - 7 = 63
72 - 2 - 7 = 63
73 - 3 - 7 = 63
74 - 4 - 7 = 63
75 - 5 - 7 = 63
76 - 6 - 7 = 63
77 - 7 - 7 = 63
78 - 8 - 7 = 63
79 - 9 - 7 = 63
80 - 0 - 8 = 72
81 - 1 - 8 = 72
82 - 2 - 8 = 72
83 - 3 - 8 = 72
84 - 4 - 8 = 72
85 - 5 - 8 = 72
86 - 6 - 8 = 72
87 - 7 - 8 = 72
88 - 8 - 8 = 72
89 - 9 - 8 = 72
90 - 0 - 9 = 81
91 - 1 - 9 = 81
92 - 2 - 9 = 81
93 - 3 - 9 = 81
94 - 4 - 9 = 81
95 - 5 - 9 = 81
96 - 6 - 9 = 81
97 - 7 - 9 = 81
98 - 8 - 9 = 81
99 - 9 - 9 = 81
I hope there are no typos in the list. Now there are a few different things
that
could be done next. I will suggest one. You could randomly assign the
symbols to
the two digit numbers, but for all the multiples of 9 of interest you assign
the
same symbol. This is pretty easy to code. Then when you try this trick, and
you
do the arithmetic correctly, you are guaranteed to be looking at one of
these
multiples of 9 and so you will see the symbol you are thinking about. No
communication from you to the distant machine is required other than the
mouse
click (or equivalent) to reveal the symbol.
Whatever you might have been thinking about how this worked before you
figured
this solution out, it is no longer possible to honestly believe that this
web
site involves any psychic action at a distance or complex communication at
all,
after you have understood this algorithm.
Note however that this is only true if you check that all the multiples of 9
really do have the same symbol next to them. If they do not, then you must
reject the hypothesis that the program works in this way, and either give up
or
continue to search for another algorithm depending on your bent.
The point is this algorithm was found not because we were looking for a
materialistic explanation and therefore a materialistic explanation was
found as
Percedol would have us believe, but because a materialistic explanation is
the
actual mechanism. I assert contrary to Percedol that if the device were
truly
psychic we could not find a materialistic explanation that continued to
explain
its operation.
Some of you might also like to check out this
http://www.timwike.dircon.co.uk/card.html
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones.?Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:27:42 -0700
From: "Dave Kimble" (dkimble mystrotv.com)
Subject: RE: simple example
http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html
-----Original Message-----
From: walden [mailto:awaldenpond shaw.ca]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 2:05 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: simple example
[stuff deleted]
Dave wrote:
The article talked about how such thinking has
real evolutionary benefits (if you ignore minor religion-associated
inconveniences like the crusades - past and present, the extermination
of the Druids, the holocaust, etc.)
Walden: Do you remember the date of the article? I'd like to read it.
Thanks.
Dave:
The article is from the Nov-Dec/2000 issue and is available online at:
http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:17:23 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: simple example
Thanks for the skeptical article on the survival value of belief. I might
summarise it as "It is better to have an incorrect model of the world than
to have no model at all." I don't think it is possible not to have a model
at all. At least some DOFs have claimed that they don't have a model but
they have the absolute truth. If one model of the world is to give a
survival advantage to its holder over some other model, does it need to be a
more accurate representation of the world? Presumably this is sensitive to
the environment. These models may have no survival advantage in themselves
but simply be a node for sexual attraction. If you have a world view you can
mix with others of that world view, particularly of the opposite sex, and as
a result have offspring. Different world views lead to conflict, and are
probably not a good recipe for the events leading to procreation.
If you examine any particular event does your model lead you to believe that
event needs explanation? A person who believed in psychic phenomena might
look at that website and not be interested in understanding it at all,
because it is not surprising in that world view. The fact that there is an
alternative explanation might not be interesting either. Is it only events
that are not obvious in that model that require explanation?
Are some people more malleable in this repect than others? Are some people
more susceptible to changing their world view in the light of evidence or
changing fashion? Is this an inherited or learned characteristic?
I quote from http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html
"Skeptics will only win the war for rational beliefs by continuing, even in
the face of defensive responses from others, to use behavior that is
unfailingly dignified and tactful and that communicates respect and wisdom.
For the data to speak loudly, skeptics must always refrain from screaming."
Is this good advice?
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:07:50 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: simple example
Peter Farrel wrote:
) If you examine any particular event does your model lead you to believe
that
) event needs explanation? A person who believed in psychic phenomena might
) look at that website and not be interested in understanding it at all,
) because it is not surprising in that world view. The fact that there is an
) alternative explanation might not be interesting either. Is it only events
) that are not obvious in that model that require explanation?
)
) Are some people more malleable in this repect than others? Are some people
) more susceptible to changing their world view in the light of evidence or
) changing fashion? Is this an inherited or learned characteristic?
Darn good questions. I would add: How do the questions and answers affect
the greater good of the community/planet? Especially at this time. When we
mix religion (of any flavor) with weapons....? Are some people more
malleable than others... more susceptible to changing their world view,
etc...? Yep - darn good questions. Timely too.
) I quote from http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html
)
) "Skeptics will only win the war for rational beliefs by continuing, even
in
) the face of defensive responses from others, to use behavior that is
) unfailingly dignified and tactful and that communicates respect and
wisdom.
) For the data to speak loudly, skeptics must always refrain from
screaming."
)
) Is this good advice?
Yes. I must add, however, that something must be said for the outspoken
shit disturbers of the world. Those who scream from the hill tops that they
are "not going to take it any more!!" That approach, while not the most
dignified of behaviour, usually evokes a notice in the media, for example.
People tend to wake up when someone yells. It can cure lethargy. But ya -
communication generally works best, IMO, when we empathize with the other
guy before telling him his ideas are out to lunch. Years ago Saul Alinsky's
classic, Rules for Radicals was required reading for Greenpeace activists.
Walk in the other persons' shoes before you comment on his actions. That
sort of thing.
Fraud is fraud. When I see pensioners being tricked into spending their
tiny incomes on lottery tickets instead of food "because the ads say I might
win" I feel like screaming from the hilltops. Believers. Is it their right
to believe? Of course. Where do the rights of the greater good of the
community enter the picture? Who decides? The family torn apart because a
member was tricked into joining a suicidal cult.... Extrapolate to
nation(s) and the fraud becomes very serious, indeed. But these are
spiritual things - maybe I just do not understand. Or is it just karma....?
Enough. Sorry for the ramble. Off to bed with Deepak's new book, Golf for
Enlightenment - Seven Lessons for the Game of Life. Anyone hear his ideas
for avoiding war - Disney Theme Park in the Middle East. I wish I were
kidding... (sigh)
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 06:13:10 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Percedol
Diana Winters wrote:
) Percedol:
) )In my experience I don't rememember any time when I felt vulnerable or
) )in need of comfort.
)
) Peter responds:
) )Percedol, I don't believe you. Either you are deliberately lying or you
) have
) )no memory, or you are not human, or you don't understand english.
)
)
) I believe him - this is exactly what rigid belief systems are supposed
) to do
) for you, this is why they appeal. Note that Percedol did not say he has
) never felt vulnerable or in need of comfort - he said that he does not
) *remember* these feelings.
) Diana
P:
Interesting. I answered within context. The context is about choosing a
path. My replies means that I was not in a vulnerable condition or in
need of comfort when I was seeking a path.
Some people are. I was seeking for answers about existential themes. I
didn't take what appeared to be uninteresting to me or not providing
those answers (including western philosophy), until I found what I
considered satisfactory.
Your replies, people, seem always trying to dig in some dirt.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 06:27:18 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Percedol
walden wrote:
) )
) ) I know that what you describe happens with many false paths.
)
) Walden: Curious. I would like to know how you believe you know which
) path
) is "false" and which is not false?
P:
We should start to examine them one by one.
At least to even take one into consideration it should be in accord with
the tradition, but often a new path breaks the rules of a previous
tradition, therefore it is quite hard.
Maybe it's just luck.
Have you experienced "many false paths"
) in order to understand them (necessary by your own admission) or do you
) just
) *know?*
P:
I was not attracted at all by several paths.
This sounds contradictory and more like a matter of faith to me.
) If you would care to explain I would be grateful. Thanks.
P:
I was not interested in faith. But I think it varies from person to
person. I doubt one could write a manual "seeking the right path for
dummies". I suppose it must be very tricky.
Eventually it all comes down to correct practice to determine its
validity.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:31:52 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: simple example
)"Skeptics will only win the war for rational beliefs by continuing,
)even in the face of defensive responses from others, to use behavior
)that is unfailingly dignified and tactful and that communicates
)respect and wisdom. For the data to speak loudly, skeptics must
)always refrain from screaming."
)
)Is this good advice?
)See you, Peter
Yes, but it's hard for me to refrain from using the term "cult-like"
in description of Anthroposophy.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:10:30 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Percedol
G'day Percedol,
I have included the complete message below for the sake of clarity. It seems
one of my suggested reasons for not believeing Percedol was correct. The
sentence "In my experience I don't rememember any time when I felt
vulnerable or in need of comfort" cannot be interpreted as applying only to
some limited period of your life, but must be interpreted as applying to the
whole period that is accessible to your memory. SInce you are now claiming
something which contradicts this, then I conclude your understanding of
english expression is what is getting in the way of understanding. It could
be that you only want to inject noise.
See you, Peter
)From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: RE: Percedol
)Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 06:13:10 +0000
)
)Diana Winters wrote:
) ) Percedol:
) ) )In my experience I don't rememember any time when I felt vulnerable or
) ) )in need of comfort.
) )
) ) Peter responds:
) ) )Percedol, I don't believe you. Either you are deliberately lying or you
) ) have
) ) )no memory, or you are not human, or you don't understand english.
) )
) )
) ) I believe him - this is exactly what rigid belief systems are supposed
) ) to do
) ) for you, this is why they appeal. Note that Percedol did not say he has
) ) never felt vulnerable or in need of comfort - he said that he does not
) ) *remember* these feelings.
) ) Diana
)
)P:
)Interesting. I answered within context. The context is about choosing a
)path. My replies means that I was not in a vulnerable condition or in
)need of comfort when I was seeking a path.
)Some people are. I was seeking for answers about existential themes. I
)didn't take what appeared to be uninteresting to me or not providing
)those answers (including western philosophy), until I found what I
)considered satisfactory.
)Your replies, people, seem always trying to dig in some dirt.
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
)New threads are always welcome.
)
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:26:18 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Percedol
I read this post of Percedol's multiple times in absolute confusion. I asked
myself "How could anyone write such absolute contradictory nonsense,
apparently without realising it?" and then I realised Percedol doesn't see a
path in anything like the same way I see it. For Percedol, choosing a path
is much more like falling in love. Nothing rational about it whatsoever. Who
cares if someone tells you Annabelle is a much better catch than Myfanwy?
(Change names in previous sentence as appropriate.) You're in love with
Myfanwy and Annabelle's demonstrable charms or wealth or child bearing
talents don't enter into it. Evidence is absolutely irrelevant. There is no
point arguing about it.
Is this the right algorithm for understanding Percedol?
See you, Peter
)From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: RE: Percedol
)Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 06:27:18 +0000
)
)walden wrote:
)
) ) )
) ) ) I know that what you describe happens with many false paths.
) )
) ) Walden: Curious. I would like to know how you believe you know which
) ) path
) ) is "false" and which is not false?
)
)P:
)We should start to examine them one by one.
)At least to even take one into consideration it should be in accord with
)the tradition, but often a new path breaks the rules of a previous
)tradition, therefore it is quite hard.
)Maybe it's just luck.
)
)
) Have you experienced "many false paths"
) ) in order to understand them (necessary by your own admission) or do you
) ) just
) ) *know?*
)
)P:
)I was not attracted at all by several paths.
)
)
) This sounds contradictory and more like a matter of faith to me.
) ) If you would care to explain I would be grateful. Thanks.
)
)P:
)I was not interested in faith. But I think it varies from person to
)person. I doubt one could write a manual "seeking the right path for
)dummies". I suppose it must be very tricky.
)Eventually it all comes down to correct practice to determine its
)validity.
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
)New threads are always welcome.
)
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:28:52 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: simple example
G'day Dan,
how is the term "cult-like" not dignified and tactful and how does it fail
to communicate respect and wisdom when it is combined with evidence and
logic?
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:38:01 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: [NNA-NEWS] Multi-cultural spiritual celebration of the seasons -
a video project for Waldorf schools and all those interested in education
Copyright 2003 News Network Anthroposophy Limited. All rights reserved.
The following material may be republished without the prior consent
of News Network Anthroposophy. News Network Anthroposophy does,
however, require acknowledgement of the source and, if provided, the
author of the material.
+ + + + +
NNA-F E A T U R E
Multi-cultural spiritual celebration of the seasons - a video project
for Waldorf schools and all those interested in education
During Halloween 2002 a video film was made at the Waldorf school in
Boulder, Colorado (USA). The film shows how this school celebrates
Halloween or All Saints Eve with its pupils, who come from a variety
of cultural backgrounds - Christian, Jewish and Buddhist. It thus
offers a prototype for celebrating a seasonal festival with children
(and their relatives) in a way which can touch and move them
spiritually, irrespective of religious or cultural background. Now
the initiator of this film is seeking sponsors to fund German
subtitling of the video, and potential purchasers to buy this
version. Ursula Krattiger, director of the Swiss Anthroposophical
Media Office, here gives further details of this project.
Dornach, 12 March (NNA) - At Halloween (or All Saints Eve) 2002 a
video was made to show how the Waldorf School in Boulder, Colorado,
celebrates this now generally commercialised and corrupted festival
of witches and ghosts in a moving, exciting, imaginative and
compelling way. In 1999, the fifty-seven-year-old Swiss psychiatrist
and psychotherapist Roger Dreyfus was invited with his four-year-old
daughter - as were all nursery children at the school and their
parents - to attend a Halloween celebration at the Boulder Waldorf
School. Dreyfus went along feeling very sceptical, given his previous
experience of Halloween in the USA, and had no idea that what awaited
him there, as he later said looking back on it, "was the deepest
spiritual experience of my whole time in the States".
Stops on the Halloween journey
What did Roger Dreyfus experience with his daughter? As the light
faded, groups of children sat around fires and drank hot tea. Then
the first groups of young children were sent on a journey with their
parents, from stop to stop. The school in Boulder consists of small
annexes, and the paths from one to the next were lined with hundreds
of shining pumpkin lanterns, which children had prepared under the
guidance of upper school pupils. Of course, the pumpkins all came
from the school's own vegetable garden!
The first "station" was lit up like a crib in a Christmas play. There
each child received a small gift from a regal lady (probably picking
up on the tradition of giving sweets, as in the festival's more
common and materialistic version). Then came further stops on the
journey: a "wise man" (Grandfather Twilight), a dwarf who was hacking
out beautiful stones and crystals in a mine, a wise Indian, elves
dancing eurythmy and so on. As it grew darker, older and older
children - now of course without their parents! - were sent on this
journey. In 2002 the whole experience was intensified still more by
the first snow which had just fallen.
Inclusive celebrations
Forty percent of children attending the Waldorf school in Boulder
come from Christian families, and thirty percent each from Buddhist
and Jewish families. In enlightened circles in the USA - and most
Waldorf parents count among these - it is clear that no particular
confession or religion should be imposed on children, even if one
does wish to introduce them to religious content as such. It was
therefore a real challenge to parents and teachers to distil the
spiritual essence of Halloween from normal commercialised practices,
and to communicate it to children as a real experience of inclusive
spirituality rather than as some 'brand' of a particular confessional
dogma.
Why make a video?
According to Roger Dreyfus, this difficult balance was accomplished
so fully and convincingly that he wants it to become known
internationally as a model of good practice - especially in Waldorf
and Steiner school circles. He also thinks it can help encourage
similar initiatives in response to local or regional spiritual
traditions. "I believe that in our present times it is necessary to
communicate spirituality independently of all ideology. I see the
Waldorf system as the most suitable forum for giving this opportunity
to people who seek spirituality beyond the confines of confession or
religion," stresses Roger Dreyfus in his project outline.
With his friend Charles Davis, Dreyfus enthusiastically discussed the
possibility of making a professional film of this Halloween journey.
Davis is both a doctor with an independent practice and trained
filmmaker, and has two sons at the school. He works part-time in both
professions, and as a father is very committed to the school. He
immediately seized on the idea of making the film, received $10,000
from Roger Dreyfus to do so, and over two full days in the autumn
filmed the preparations and "journey stations" with a cameraman. The
video has now been released and lasts 25 minutes.
Basic themes
The basic themes of this video - seasonal spirituality for children
of differing religions, and soul-spiritually deepened celebration of
traditional festivals which commercialism has travestied - do not
just relate to Halloween and the USA. They apply equally to central
European traditions of Advent and Christmas, or the way in which we
celebrate Easter, not to mention the array of multi-cultural
festivals that could be taken up nowadays in Britain or Europe.
The video is also suitable for showing to middle and upper school
pupils, at parents' evenings or in the context of a school fair.
Education and special needs education courses could use it, both for
basic and further training. Showing the Halloween video in public
would also be a wonderful PR opportunity for developing the interest
of new groups of people in Waldorf education and its schools. The
film should therefore also be drawn to the attention of those working
in the media.
Funding sought
As project director of the Halloween video, Roger Dreyfus is
appealing for donations to fund a German version of the film, which
would enable German subtitling to be done. In addition funding would
go into producing sufficient demonstration copies and appropriate
packaging and information material.
Are you interested? Curious? Keen? If you are interested either in
acquiring an English copy or helping to fund the German version (or
both), then please contact Roger Dreyfus directly.
ENDS
Dr. med. Roger Dreyfus, Bluttrainweg 377, CH-4125 Riehen,
Switzerland. Tel/fax +41 61 601 18 88, email: roger.dreyfus bluewin.ch
+ + + + +
Item reference number: 030312-01EN
Date: 12 March 2003
More NNA reports at: http://www.nna-news.org/content/
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 996
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Percedol
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: simple example
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: simple example
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: Percedol
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Percedol
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:40:30 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Percedol
on 3/17/03 10:27 PM, Percedol at Percedol netscape.net wrote:
))
)) Walden: Curious. I would like to know how you believe you know which
)) path
)) is "false" and which is not false?
)
) P:
) We should start to examine them one by one.
) At least to even take one into consideration it should be in accord with
) the tradition, but often a new path breaks the rules of a previous
) tradition, therefore it is quite hard.
) Maybe it's just luck.
Sharon: This is what I do now, examine new religious movements, which are
all based on old religious movements (even the Raelians have some old time
religion bunged in). My interest in cults was peeked after being a Waldorf
dupe. At the moment I'm trying to examine "Emanuel's" new path, a splinter
of Mormonism, which in turn, is a path partially based on Masonry. Emanuel
is himself a replay of Joseph Smith to some degree. Last month I was
preoccupied with the Raelians who I kinda like...(G) and of course, my
fascination for Anthroposophy never wanes. All the prophets I've studied
wave a doctrine that is "true", despite the fact that they all differ from
each other considerably. "I am the way, the truth and the light, no man
cometh to the father but by me" they all say in so many words, and the
believer believes. The human mind is very strange and mysterious indeed.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:16:50 -0800
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: simple example
on 3/17/03 11:28 PM, Peter Farrell at feetapparel hotmail.com wrote:
) G'day Dan,
) how is the term "cult-like" not dignified and tactful and how does it fail
) to communicate respect and wisdom when it is combined with evidence and
) logic?
Sharon: "Cult" is not accepted by many scholars of religion because it's a
loaded term, conjuring up "brainwashing", "mass suicides", "Satanic ritual
abuse", "voodoo", etc. (themselves loaded terms) in people's minds. Today
one is supposed to say "new religious movement" rather than "cult." All
religions accepted by the mainstream were once "cults," location also
determines the status of a group, for example, a group of Hare Krishnas in
America might be considered a cult, whereas in India they would be an
accepted religious group. Most religions are started by a guy claiming to be
a prophet and waving a doctrine. (Some women and groups of people have also
started religions). I don't have a problem with the word cult, meaning
"worship", because I view all religious groups as cults and I know that most
cults don't end in mass suicide. I'm also familiar with tenets of the
"Voodoo" faith and "Satanism" which is a form of humanism, etc. and don't
freak out when I hear those religions referenced.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:47:31 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: simple example
) on 3/17/03 11:28 PM, Peter Farrell at feetapparel hotmail.com wrote:
)
)) G'day Dan,
)) how is the term "cult-like" not dignified and tactful and how does it fail
)) to communicate respect and wisdom when it is combined with evidence and
)) logic?
)
) Sharon: "Cult" is not accepted by many scholars of religion because it's a
) loaded term, conjuring up "brainwashing", "mass suicides", "Satanic ritual
) abuse", "voodoo", etc. (themselves loaded terms) in people's minds. Today
) one is supposed to say "new religious movement" rather than "cult." All
) religions accepted by the mainstream were once "cults," location also
) determines the status of a group, for example, a group of Hare Krishnas in
) America might be considered a cult, whereas in India they would be an
) accepted religious group. Most religions are started by a guy claiming to be
) a prophet and waving a doctrine. (Some women and groups of people have also
) started religions). I don't have a problem with the word cult, meaning
) "worship", because I view all religious groups as cults and I know that most
) cults don't end in mass suicide. I'm also familiar with tenets of the
) "Voodoo" faith and "Satanism" which is a form of humanism, etc. and don't
) freak out when I hear those religions referenced.
)
Lisa: Perhaps exposing my ignorance here, but I would contend that the term
"cult" and "cult like" are avoided these days because it is not Politically
Correct to "judge" another person's belief system. It sounds more respectful
to say "new religious movement."
The trouble with the words "new religious movement," however (at least
as I see it!) is that there is *no* judgement involved: in other words, that
phrase does not give the reader/listener any notion that the group may just
be up to some less-than-great practices, such as thought reform (to borrow a
term from the People's Republic of China and good ole' Chairman Mao and his
Maoism) and other coercion.
Sharon, et. al: if you would avoid the word "cult" to describe a "new
religious movement" (or an old one, for that matter) whose members are
coerced, have their thoughts and thinking processes manipulated, etc., what
words *would* you use to describe these groups?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:53:32 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Percedol
Peter F wrote:
)Evidence is absolutely irrelevant. There is no point arguing about it.
)Is this the right algorithm for understanding Percedol?
In my experience, Percedol's approach isn't fundamentally different from
that of many (possibly most) other anthroposophists. When challenged on
evidentiary or logical grounds, they will indeed insist that evidence is
absolutely irrelevant and there is no point arguing about it, since
reasoning just gets in the way of 'practice'. But much of the rest of the
time they will happily make their own arguments, present their own evidence,
and explicate their own reasoning, without realizing the contradiction. Best
of all -- and this is a particular specialty of those anthroposophists who
have taken an active interest in this list -- is when they angrily assail
the evidence and logic put forward by critics of anthroposophy, and complain
that the critics have "misunderstood" and "misrepresented" the doctrines
that anthroposophists claim as their own. It does not seem to have occurred
to any of them (and I don't think I'm overgeneralizing here) that it is
incoherent to claim simultaneously that anthroposophy is not a doctrine that
can be understood or argued about, and that all understandings of it and
arguments about it save their own are false and malicious. I therefore have
to agree with Percedol that discussions on this list are frequently like
comparing apples and oranges; critics want to talk about what Steiner
actually wrote, what contemporary anthroposophists actually do, what the
actual history of the movement is, and so forth; while Percedol (and Joel
and Tarjei and so many others before) want to discuss their private belief
systems, which they mistake for anthroposophy as a whole. I don't think this
makes these discussions a waste of time (though it does often make them
unnecessarily frustrating); it seems to me that these efforts at dialogue
are themselves interesting evidence about the anthroposophical mindset and
its real-world consequences.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:42:35 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Percedol
I think much of the misunderstanding stems from various definitions we each
give to words. I find it fascinating how difficult it is for me to
communicate with those on an Anthroposophical path.
If I say my favorite colour is blue and you point to a purple flower and
suggest that I must like the colour of that flower because it is blue... it
might suggest we do not see the flower as being the same colour. One of us
might be colour blind.
Anthroposophy is defined as "Spiritual Science." This, IMO, points to much
of the misunderstanding.
Mirriam-Webster
Main Entry: sci?ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from
scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know;
probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split --
more at SHED
Date: 14th century
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or
misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study (the
science of theology) b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be
studied or learned like systematized knowledge (have it down to a science)
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the
operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through
scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned
with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
(culinary science)
Percedol might simply look at the 4 words beside number 1 (above) and leave
"science" at that. Others might read the entire dictionary definition and
think of the same word with a deeper understanding. Percedol's *purple* is
my *blue.* What do you think, Percedol?
When I look at "child development" I do not see Steiner's occult version. I
see different models. Yet, parents are lead to believe they are one and the
same. The words "child development" when used by Anthroposophists take on a
different meaning than that given to the same words by people more familiar
with Piaget, etc. Perhaps we are talking apples and oranges and
Anthroposophists are suggesting that it does not matter because in the end -
fruit is still fruit....
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 997
-- Topica Digest --
intro + waldorf & gifted kids
By hagenaar wxs.nl
one more question: antroposophy vs. holism
By hagenaar wxs.nl
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 10:35:07 +0100
From: Edith Hagenaar (hagenaar wxs.nl)
Subject: intro + waldorf & gifted kids
Hi all,
First I would like to say I won't be on this list long, since I have
only one question to which I could not find an answer on your great
PLANS site (thanks for all the info, very enlightening). (also not on
list archives)
We're from The Netherlands. My son is in a Waldorf school now and it
appears to me that (although I do not like labels) he is gifted. He
just turned 5.
I asked in school what they do with gifted kids and they said
nothing, especially not at that age. When he is 7 they will assign
someone who will make a personal plan for him. They said the school
didn't have a special policy.
But he still has to spend a year and a half in kindergarten and even
after that I wonder whether his intellectual abilities will be
stimulated (enough).
Now, my first question is this: what is the Waldorf policy on
(academically) gifted kids and kindergarteners?
The second is: do any of you have experiences with gifted kids in
Waldorf schools?
I feel a little weird since I haven't told you the whole story so I
will. We have decided to homeschool our kids but the laws in Holland
are very strict. We had had to make that decision before we enrolled
our son in school, but unfortunately we didn't. This means we will
probably have to go to court to fight our right to homeschool and
defend 'why we changed our minds' on the Waldorf school. Therefore I
am looking at every argument which will show why the Waldorf school
is not a good option for my gifted and
intellectual-challenges-craving son.
So again, both stories from yourself as official policies on
giftedness are welcome.
Thanks for all your help!
--
Edith Hagenaar
http://www.wahm.nl - work at home moms
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 10:40:18 +0100
From: Edith Hagenaar (hagenaar wxs.nl)
Subject: one more question: antroposophy vs. holism
Well, now that I am at it...
We are holistic people and the reason we choose Waldorf is because in
our view it was the nearest schooling type to holism.
Now, I shall also have to prove that we made a mistake in judgment
and that in fact antroposophy is far from holism. I read on the PLANS
site that many holistic people are lured into Waldorf schools because
of this apparent similarity. Now, I am still browsing the website so
forgive me if I ask something which is already there.
What I am looking for, and I hope someone can help, is the difference
between antroposophy and holism. Or a (small) list on major points
where they differ.
Thanks in advance. Kind regards,
--
Edith Hagenaar
http://www.wahm.nl - work at home moms
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 998
-- Topica Digest --
RE: intro + waldorf & gifted kids
By jaquesdm msn.com
Admin: open house March 30
By dan dandugan.com
Re: intro + waldorf & gifted kids
By sarinamcdonald msn.com
Re: one more question: antroposophy vs. holism
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Admin: open house March 30
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Admin: open house March 30
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:43:17 +0000
From: (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: intro + waldorf & gifted kids
Edith Hagenaar wrote:
) Hi all,
)
) First I would like to say I won't be on this list long, since I have
) only one question to which I could not find an answer on your great
) PLANS site (thanks for all the info, very enlightening). (also not on
) list archives)
)
) We're from The Netherlands. My son is in a Waldorf school now and it
) appears to me that (although I do not like labels) he is gifted. He just
) turned 5.
)
) I asked in school what they do with gifted kids and they said nothing,
) especially not at that age. When he is 7 they will assign someone who
) will make a personal plan for him. They said the school didn't have a
) special policy.
)
) But he still has to spend a year and a half in kindergarten and even
) after that I wonder whether his intellectual abilities will be
) stimulated (enough).
)
) Now, my first question is this: what is the Waldorf policy on
) (academically) gifted kids and kindergarteners?
)
) The second is: do any of you have experiences with gifted kids in
) Waldorf schools?
)
) I feel a little weird since I haven't told you the whole story so I
) will. We have decided to homeschool our kids but the laws in Holland are
) very strict. We had had to make that decision before we enrolled our son
) in school, but unfortunately we didn't. This means we will probably have
) to go to court to fight our right to homeschool and defend 'why we
) changed our minds' on the Waldorf school. Therefore I am looking at
) every argument which will show why the Waldorf school is not a good
) option for my gifted and intellectual-challenges-craving son.
)
) So again, both stories from yourself as official policies on giftedness
) are welcome.
)
) Thanks for all your help!
) --
) Edith Hagenaar
) http://www.wahm.nl - work at home moms
)
)
) Edith,
I'm sure people better placed than I to answer your specific question
will do so. However, with a view to rei