return to WCA Archive
Index
-- Topica Digest --
(NNA) Interim injunctions on General Anthroposophical Society
(Foundation Meeti
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 10:51:41 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: (NNA) Interim injunctions on General Anthroposophical Society
(Foundation Meeting) lifted
This is a one-sided (how Anthroposophists love that expression!) look
into the flap that's been going on in the Anthroposophical Society
over the past few years. Swiss corporation laws are very strict, and
it appears one faction took advantage of that, for a while.
-Dan Dugan
***
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-N E W S
Interim injunctions on General Anthroposophical Society (Foundation
Meeting) lifted
By Christian von Arnim
Solothurn/Dornach, 31 May (NNA) - In the dispute about the existence
in law of the "General Anthroposophical Society (Foundation
Meeting)", which was newly recorded in the Swiss commercial register
in January of this year, the Society has regained its capacity to act
in law.
Following the appeal by the executive council of the Society, called
the Foundation Meeting Society (FMS) for short, against two interim
injunctions preventing the FMS from undertaking legal transactions
until the substantive case had been decided, the Solothurn Superior
Court lifted the injunction earlier this month.
The injunctions had been lifted "because they have no basis in
Solothurn's code of civil procedure," the court said in a press
release.
The interim injunctions - which for the duration of the substantive
proceedings in the dispute over the constitution of the
Anthroposophical Society had banned any kind of activity such as the
holding of general meetings, adoption of resolutions on fusion or
extensions of the association - prevented the fusion of the
Foundation Meeting Society with the General Anthroposophical Society
which was to have taken place in Dornach at Easter 2003.
The substantive case is concerned with the issue whether or not the
society which was founded at the Christmas Foundation Meeting in 1923
exists under the law governing associations.
The decision of the superior court was welcomed by the executive
council of the Anthroposophical Society. But whether, when and to
what extent the FMS will make use of its newly regained capacity to
act has not yet been decided: ìWe have yet to discuss that in the
council," executive council member Paul Mackay said, speaking on
behalf of the council.
It is also not clear when judgement will be delivered in the
substantive case. Final written submissions have been made, but it is
thought that the judge may not produce a ruling until the autumn.
According to the judgement of the superior court, there was no basis
in law for the interim injunctions - either with regard to the
declaratory application that the FMS did not exist as an association
or the application to have decisions of the association quashed. The
declaration that the FMS did not exist could not be the subject of an
interim injunction in accordance with the relevant articles of Swiss
law, the superior court judges ruled.
But if the plaintiffs had not intended a declaratory application but
had intended to have decisions of the association quashed, the first
requirement was that they should be members of the association whose
decisions they were challenging. ìBut members of the defendant is
precisely what the plaintiffs are not according to their own
argument," the ruling said. Hence this challenge also had to be
rejected due to incapacity.
ENDS
+ + + + +
Item reference number: N030531-01EN
Date: 31 May 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 1061
-- Topica Digest --
Admin: web counter 119,382
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 10:51:28 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: web counter 119,382
On June 1, 2003, the PLANS web site had registered 119,382 visitors
since August 12, 1996. (Visitors, not hits. Repeats on the same day
are not counted. Thanks to Web-Counter: http://www.digits.com.)
We had 3510 visitors in May, averaging 117 per day. This matches April.
Hit counters give much higher but less meaningful numbers, because
they count every page and image viewed. The hits on our site in the
month of May totaled 388,545, averaging 12,951 per day.
-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 1062
-- Topica Digest --
no posts
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: no posts
By dan dandugan.com
Steiner's racial doctrines
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: no posts
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Steiner's racial doctrines
By mysplum earthlink.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 07:41:44 -0400
From: Lisa Ercolano (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: no posts
I have not been getting any posts on this list. ‘s it just quiet right now,
or am I missing something?
Lisa
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:50:52 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: no posts
)I have not been getting any posts on this list. ‘s it just quiet right now,
)or am I missing something?
)
)Lisa
Don't worry, Lisa, sometimes we just get quiet for a while.
-Dan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 13:03:00 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Steiner's racial doctrines
Hello critics,
Over the past month or so I have been posting regularly at the openwaldorf
site in a thread about Steiner's racial doctrines. I've tried to pull
together some of Steiner's major statements on race and its spiritual
significance; the posts consist largely of direct quotations from Steiner,
without much commentary. I tried to include material that isn't otherwise
easily accessible on-line (so as not to simply replicate the PLANS site, for
example); much of it will be familiar to long-time members of this list, but
I did translate some substantial passages that haven't been available before
in English. If others are interested in an overview of Steiner's published
work on this theme, I encourage you to check it out:
http://pub21.ezboard.com/fopenwaldorffrm7.showMessage?topicID=10.topic
I also encourage others to post their own relevant quotes from Steiner.
Warning: to read all of the material in the thread, you will have to slog
through several interminable posts from our old friend Sune Nordwall. They
have little to do with the topic of the thread, but I recommend them as
fascinating documentation of the anthroposophist mindset at work.
I will soon be moving in to my usual summer phase, when I can't be a
particularly active member of this list, but I'll try to be back in the
fall.
Happy June to everybody,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:54:47 -0400
From: Lisa Ercolano (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: no posts
Quiet is not in my nature! (g) Besides, a friend update my computer systems
and installed a new Outlook Express version, which is a bit different from
my old one. As a result, my address book is lost (er, misplaced
temporarily?) and I get double copies of each message. I am trying to
straighten that out. I just wanted to be sure that the list was quiet, and
that I was not actually missing anything.
LDE
) From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 10:50:52 -0700
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: Re: no posts
)
)) I have not been getting any posts on this list. ‘s it just quiet right now,
)) or am I missing something?
))
)) Lisa
)
) Don't worry, Lisa, sometimes we just get quiet for a while.
)
) -Dan
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 18:02:38 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner's racial doctrines
on 6/4/03 2:03 PM, Peter Staudenmaier at pstaud hotmail.com wrote:
) Hello critics,
)
) Over the past month or so I have been posting regularly at the openwaldorf
) site in a thread about Steiner's racial doctrines. I've tried to pull
) together some of Steiner's major statements on race and its spiritual
) significance; the posts consist largely of direct quotations from Steiner,
) without much commentary. I tried to include material that isn't otherwise
) easily accessible on-line (so as not to simply replicate the PLANS site, for
) example); much of it will be familiar to long-time members of this list, but
) I did translate some substantial passages that haven't been available before
) in English. If others are interested in an overview of Steiner's published
) work on this theme, I encourage you to check it out:
)
) http://pub21.ezboard.com/fopenwaldorffrm7.showMessage?topicID=10.topic
Sharon: Whewf! You've been busy. Thanks so much for doing that Peter.
)
) I will soon be moving in to my usual summer phase, when I can't be a
) particularly active member of this list, but I'll try to be back in the
) fall.
Sharon: Bye! I hope you have a great Anthro-free summer! (G).
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1063
-- Topica Digest --
Review of Theosophy book (1995)
By bus98 hotmail.com
Re: Review of Theosophy book (1995)
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Steiner's racial doctrines
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Steiner's racial doctrines
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Review of Theosophy book (1995)
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Review of Theosophy book (1995)
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Steiner's racial doctrines
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 22:34:20 +0000
From: pecunia (bus98 hotmail.com)
Subject: Review of Theosophy book (1995)
Came across a review (1995) of the Washington book below during an
unrelated search for something else (not related to Theosophy or
Waldorf). Review or actual book might be interesting to any who haven't
already read it.
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9506/reviews/johnson.html
Madame Blavatsky's Baboon: A History of the Mystics, Mediums, and
Misfits Who Brought Spiritualism to America. By Peter
Washington.
Schocken. 470 pp $27.50.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 16:26:02 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Review of Theosophy book (1995)
Pecunia wrote:
) Came across a review (1995) of the Washington book below during an
) unrelated search for something else (not related to Theosophy or
) Waldorf). Review or actual book might be interesting to any who haven't
) already read it.
)
) http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9506/reviews/johnson.html
)
)
) Madame Blavatsky's Baboon: A History of the Mystics, Mediums, and
) Misfits Who Brought Spiritualism to America. By Peter
) Washington.
) Schocken. 470 pp $27.50.
I read this book a couple of years ago. Good book. Interesting review you
found here. This bit is bound to elicit a response - from the review:
"You are making a monkey of yourself if you are not skeptical of people who
claim to be in communication with a spirit world, but it may be equally
foolish to believe that a science based upon materialism can explain
everything."
Seems to me that Waldorf promoters try to have it both ways - hoping to
deflect criticism from all angles. "No, there is no Anthroposophy in the
classroom and even if there *were* a tidbit here and there one must remember
this is Spiritual *SCIENCE.*"
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 12:03:38 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Steiner's racial doctrines
Peter wrote:
) Hello critics,
)
) Over the past month or so I have been posting regularly at the openwaldorf
) site in a thread about Steiner's racial doctrines. I've tried to pull
) together some of Steiner's major statements on race and its spiritual
) significance; the posts consist largely of direct quotations from Steiner,
) without much commentary. I tried to include material that isn't otherwise
) easily accessible on-line (so as not to simply replicate the PLANS site,
for
) example); much of it will be familiar to long-time members of this list,
but
) I did translate some substantial passages that haven't been available
before
) in English. If others are interested in an overview of Steiner's published
) work on this theme, I encourage you to check it out:
)
) http://pub21.ezboard.com/fopenwaldorffrm7.showMessage?topicID=10.topic
Walden: Thanks for that, Peter. Always eager to learn about this topic. I
don't have much time for another list these days.
) I also encourage others to post their own relevant quotes from Steiner.
) Warning: to read all of the material in the thread, you will have to slog
) through several interminable posts from our old friend Sune Nordwall. They
) have little to do with the topic of the thread, but I recommend them as
) fascinating documentation of the anthroposophist mindset at work.
Walden: I don't understand the roots of Sune's problem. He seems like a
bright, well intentioned person. Something about what you are doing is
clearly bothering him. Is he on his this list? I would be interested to
know what the real problem is all about. In any case, Peter, I too had a
problem with the content of your writing some years ago. Seriously. I had
only ever read nice cheery Steiner quotes for years at our Waldorf school.
Imagine the shock of discovering a different version of Steiner!
"What the...?!"
The world tilts slightly and we are forced to rethink our position. Ouch.
Time to wake up. To be totally honest, however, I can't give you all of the
credit. It only took a couple of hours at the Steiner elib. A few more
hours/days/weeks/months of research and the picture is very clear.
Is Steiner's religion drenched in racism? Don't simply believe Peter
Staudenmaier. Read Steiner.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 18:26:16 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's racial doctrines
Peter Staudenmaier, you wrote,
) I did translate some substantial passages that haven't been available before
) ) in English.
Can you send those here, too? I'd like to get them into my database.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 19:18:14 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Review of Theosophy book (1995)
on 6/5/03 6:34 PM, pecunia at bus98 hotmail.com wrote:
) Came across a review (1995) of the Washington book below during an
) unrelated search for something else (not related to Theosophy or
) Waldorf). Review or actual book might be interesting to any who haven't
) already read it.
)
) http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9506/reviews/johnson.html
)
)
) Madame Blavatsky's Baboon: A History of the Mystics, Mediums, and
) Misfits Who Brought Spiritualism to America. By Peter
) Washington.
) Schocken. 470 pp $27.50.
Sharon: One of my absolute *favorites*, it's a great read. Dan also
recommends it to people, and I think it's advertised on the PLANS site. Do
yourself a favor and read it. The book is written by an English professor
(who are known to be lots of fun and often irreverent (G)). I've given the
book as a present quite often because I think it's great.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 20:31:07 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Review of Theosophy book (1995)
Pecunia, you wrote:
)Came across a review (1995) of the Washington book below during an
)unrelated search for something else (not related to Theosophy or
)Waldorf). Review or actual book might be interesting to any who haven't
)already read it.
)
)http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9506/reviews/johnson.html
)
)
)Madame Blavatsky's Baboon: A History of the Mystics, Mediums, and
) Misfits Who Brought Spiritualism to America. By Peter
)Washington.
) Schocken. 470 pp $27.50.
Thanks, interesting review. The book is for sale in the PLANS bookstore:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/bookstore.html
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 23:57:11 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Steiner's racial doctrines
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1064
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Steiner's racial doctrines
By mysplum earthlink.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 07:45:32 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner's racial doctrines
on 6/5/03 3:03 PM, walden at awaldenpond shaw.ca wrote:
)
) Walden: I don't understand the roots of Sune's problem. He seems like a
) bright, well intentioned person. Something about what you are doing is
) clearly bothering him. Is he on his this list? I would be interested to
) know what the real problem is all about. In any case, Peter, I too had a
) problem with the content of your writing some years ago. Seriously. I had
) only ever read nice cheery Steiner quotes for years at our Waldorf school.
) Imagine the shock of discovering a different version of Steiner!
)
) "What the...?!"
)
) The world tilts slightly and we are forced to rethink our position. Ouch.
) Time to wake up. To be totally honest, however, I can't give you all of the
) credit. It only took a couple of hours at the Steiner elib. A few more
) hours/days/weeks/months of research and the picture is very clear.
)
) Is Steiner's religion drenched in racism? Don't simply believe Peter
) Staudenmaier. Read Steiner.
Sharon: I remember crawling out of Waldorf and ordering books from
inter-library-loans. Among the first books I read was Christianity as
Mystical Fact. The title alone was shocking to me...but then on pages 44-45
I read the following and my mouth went dry:
Steiner: "Our natural sciences take much credit to themselves for having
banished miracle from our views of organic life. David Frederich Strauss, in
his Old and New Faith,* considers it a great achievement of our day that we
no longer think that a perfect organic being is a miracle issuing from
nothing. We comprehend perfection when we are able to explain it as a
development from imperfection. The structure of an ape is no longer a
miracle if we assume its ancestors to have been primitive fishes that have
been gradually transformed. Let us accept as reasonable in the domain of
spirit what seems to us to be right in the domain of nature! Is the perfect
spirit to have the same antecedents as the imperfect one? Does a Goethe have
the same antecedents as any Hottentot? The antecedants of an ape are as
unlike those of a fish as are the antecedents of Goethe's spirit unlike
those of a savage. The spiritual ancestry of Goethe's spirit is a different
one from that of a savage. The spirit has evolved as has the body. The
spirit in Goethe has more progenitors than the one in a savage. Let us take
the doctrine of reincarnation in this sense and we shall no longer find it
unscientific. We shall be able to explain in the right way what we find in
our soul, and we shall not take what we find as if it were created by a
miracle. If I can write, it is owing to the fact that I learned to write. No
one who has a pen in his hand for the first time can sit down and write
offhand. But one who has come into the world with the stamp of genius, must
he owe it to a miracle? No, even the stamp of genius must be acquired. It
must have been learned. And when it appears in a person we call it spirit.
This spirit too must have gone to school; its capacities in a later life
were acquired in a former one. * David Friedrich Strauss, Alter und Neuer
Glaube" (Steiner, Christianity as Mystical Fact, pp. 44-45).
Sharon: The more you read, the more you understand. But I'd like to say
special thanks to Peter for being such a great teacher over the years, and
for recommending great books to read, translating Steiner's work that has
not been written in English, and for debating with Anthroposophists so we
could see how they think (G). It's unfortunate that Anthroposophist haven't
just dealt with Steiner's racism squarely, like the Mormons did with Smith's
work in the 1970s. By not addressing the racial doctrine honestly,
Anthroposophists have put themselves in a very bad position.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1065
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Reincarnation globally
By mysplum earthlink.net
Admin: ad hominem warning
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Admin: ad hominem warning
By mysplum earthlink.net
Re: Reincarnation globally
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Admin: ad hominem warning
By Percedol netscape.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 10:56:57 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation globally
Sune sent the following to me off-list and I'm replying publicly (hope you
don't mind Dan).
on 6/6/03 6:14 PM, Sune Nordwall at Sune.Nordwall home.se wrote:
) Hi Sharon,
)
) I see that you recently in a posting
)
(http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1713151028)
) commented on a mail I sent you at one time, pointing to a translation I
) have put up at my site at
) http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/reincarnation-globally.htm
)
) You comment that you didn't post it because it seemed like a set-up.
Sharon: Hi Sune, it did seem like that to me. I found your note threatening
and I also find you threatening because of the way you treat Peter S and
other critics like myself.
) The quotes that I have translated and put up at
) http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/reincarnation-globally.htm are
) quote 137, 138, 141, 142, 143 and 144 found on the pages 290-91 and
) 292-95 in the Dutch interim report on Anthroposophy and the question of
) races (http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/Holland/index.html).
)
) Peter Staudenmaier probably has the report in German. You can ask him
) for info on the existence of the quotes in question according to the
) report, and if he has any comments on my translation in terms of not
) being correct.
Sharon: He's leaving shortly for summer so I won't trouble him now, besides,
I believe we've all been through this many times before. Whenever I read
your threats and charges against Peter, they just reek of deflection to me.
I've been alive long enough to recognize some of the old tricks in the
book--attack the messenger--damage a person's character to deflect away from
the issue at hand, and that Sune, is your tactic. As far as I'm concerned,
Peter's got far more integrity than you, and far more integrity than the
organization which you support (that duped me).
Don't tell me that Steiner's doctrine isn't racist because I will call you a
liar. I am not a fool Sune, I can read and comprehend. And don't tell me
that Waldorf doesn't teach Anthroposophy in the classroom because again, I
will call you a liar. I'm not stupid Sune, I can understand my daughter's
Waldorf lesson books. And don't tell me that Steiner's Anthroposophy isn't a
religion because once again, I will call you a liar. I've studied
Anthroposophy Sune, and it meets all criteria for being classified as
such...belief in eternal life...promise of a good reincarnation for those
who follow the path...belief in supernatural beings like angels and
demons...belief in Michael, Christ the Sun Being, and Renaissance magic's
elemental beings / nature spirits...Anthroposophy also offers a Rosicrucian
guarantee to see spiritual beings if one practices Steiner's spiritual
exercises...there is also a promise of getting all the goodies in future if
one develops one's "I"...and the promise of community...shall I go on?
Besides, religion scholars have already classified Anthroposophy as a
religion.
)
) You need not take a note claiming copyright to the translation as being
) threatening, Sharon. It's just a matter of principle, that the one who
) has copyright to a text has the right to decide where his or her
) specific words are allowed to be published.
Sharon: When it comes to educational purposes, the law allows for quotations
with references. Anyway, why did you cross post from critics on Open Waldorf
without permission if this is such a big deal to you? If this is a matter of
principle?
)
) But the text is fully available and accessible to anyone who uses the
) link to it. It is free to describe and comment, but not quote the
) translation. Nothing strange about that, as it is available for free to
) anyone to read at the page at my site, if you give the link to it.
Sharon: This whole thing is as strange as it gets Sune. In my 40 years on
earth, NOTHING has been stranger than finding myself involved in
Anthroposophy without my conscious choice. I WISH I HAD NEVER HEARD OF
WALDORF( STEINER OR ANTHROPOSOPHY! Steiner's esoteric religion is bizarre
to me, but the way the organization tricks people is even more peculiar. You
fuss about Peter's so called "fraud" but completely ignore the VERY REAL
fraud being perpetrated by the movement you support. Here's a recent example
of Anthroposophist's fraud. The recent Utne ad contains a bunch of false
advertising like this example:
"Opponents of Waldorf education, which is based on Steiner's insights into
child development, equate the curriculum with anthroposophy, which they
claim to be a religion. Waldorf advocates respond that Rudolf Steiner's
anthroposophy is deteminedly nonreligious and isn't taught in Waldorf
schools anyway. The Waldorf curriculum stands on its own, they say, no
matter what else Steiner taught or believed. "Anthroposophy is a founding
philosophy, not a curriculum," says John Miller, a teacher at Watershed High
School in Minneapolis (Utne, June 2003, 11-12).
Look, I couldn't care less if you or anyone else wants to embrace
Anthroposophy, but don't foist it on unsuspecting people without their
sanction. And don't be using public monies to advance it, and don't be
selling racist Steiner books in public schools. I know you love Steiner with
all of your heart, I know you are defending his doctrine out of loyalty to
him, but it's very strange to me, that an Anthroposophist all the way in
Switzerland cares so deeply that PLANS is suing two public schools in CA,
that he devotes his life to denigrating a critic who I find to be of high
moral character and intellect. This is not the way "spiritual" people
usually behave. If I were to have to choose between Peter, Steiner or you
for a teacher, I'd pick Peter any day.
The following might make you feel better... PLANS isn't even suing the
Anthroposophical Society, or Anthroposophists, we are suing two public
schools in CA for violating the First Amendment.
)
) Feel free to quote this mail in full on the WC-list.
Sharon: I have.
Thou shalt love thy First Amendment!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 10:47:34 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: ad hominem warning
Sharon, you wrote,
)As far as I'm concerned,
)Peter's got far more integrity than you, and far more integrity than the
)organization which you support (that duped me).
Please address your arguments to the subject, not the people involved
in the discussion.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 19:06:45 -0400
From: mysplum (mysplum earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Admin: ad hominem warning
on 6/7/03 1:47 PM, Dan Dugan at dan dandugan.com wrote:
) Sharon, you wrote,
)
)) As far as I'm concerned,
)) Peter's got far more integrity than you, and far more integrity than the
)) organization which you support (that duped me).
)
) Please address your arguments to the subject, not the people involved
) in the discussion.
Sharon: I'm sorry, that was bad of me (tail between legs). I was reading
Sune's goings on and I began to froth.
As some of you already know, I am about to leave my computer for a large
chunk of the summer, and it's a good thing, because at the rate I'm going,
I'd be chucked off WCritics. Soooo, ululations and astral celebrations,
toodle loo for now. Have a great summer everyone.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 18:55:31 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation globally
Thanks to Sharon for forwarding the latest from Sune:
) ) You comment that you didn't post it because it seemed like a set-up.
) ) The quotes that I have translated and put up at
) ) http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/reincarnation-globally.htm are
) ) quote 137, 138, 141, 142, 143 and 144 found on the pages 290-91 and
) ) 292-95 in the Dutch interim report on Anthroposophy and the question of
) ) races (http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/Holland/index.html).
) )
) ) Peter Staudenmaier probably has the report in German. You can ask him
) ) for info on the existence of the quotes in question according to the
) ) report, and if he has any comments on my translation in terms of not
) ) being correct.
) ) But the text is fully available and accessible to anyone who uses the
) ) link to it. It is free to describe and comment, but not quote the
) ) translation. Nothing strange about that, as it is available for free to
) ) anyone to read at the page at my site, if you give the link to it.
I don't see how I could possibly offer any meaningful comments on Sune's
translations without being able to quote those translations. Either this
didn't occur to Sune, or his message to Sharon really was a set-up. I am not
sure which of these two possibilities is actually the case, and I'm not sure
that it even matters. Sune's message makes perfectly clear that he finds
"nothing strange" (ooops, did I just quote him??) about this approach to
public discussion. What a surprise.
Since I can't make specific comments, suffice it to say that I don't think
there's any significant language problem here. (At the risk of focusing on
language skills rather than arguments, it might make sense to acknowledge
that a list like this one demands a certain extra effort on the part of
non-native speakers of English, and we shouldn't allow that aspect to cloud
our discussions of the material. Sune's style in English may not be
particularly felicitous, but it mostly gets the job done. His German, on the
other hand, is not very good -- he and I had an exchange on a
German-language list last year -- but I don't think that plays much of a
role in this case.)
In my view, the problem here isn't linguistic, it's conceptual. Steiner's
teachings on the role of successive reincarnations through higher and higher
racial forms are clearly laid out in his major works, including Knowledge of
Higher Worlds. Many anthroposophists cannot recognize that the very notion
of "higher racial forms" and "lower racial forms" is the epitome of racism.
These anthroposophists are not suffering from any language difficulties,
faulty translations, or unreliable textual sources; they are suffering from
a basic inability to recognize racist thinking.
When non-anthroposophists who have a better grasp of the concept of racism
point out this uncomfortable fact to such anthroposophists, they frequently
get abuse, threats, and insults in response. To my mind, this pattern is
itself very revealing; it suggests that perhaps these anthroposophists do
actually comprehend the racist components in Steiner's doctrine, and that
they are willing to go to great lengths to keep those components under wraps
rather than confronting them directly -- precisely because they recognize
the true import of these aspects of anthroposophy's worldview.
All of this makes it increasingly difficult to distinguish the
non-racist-but-clueless anthroposophists from the openly racist
anthroposophists. How much easier all this would be if those
anthroposophists who genuinely oppose racism would simply start to do some
long overdue housecleaning. Maybe this would even get them a little bit
further in their next incarnation.
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 05:48:21 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Admin: ad hominem warning
Then I suppose you will be around Madison at the end of July, right?
26th or 27th perhaps?
I am quite busy now, but I'll resume at the beginning of July.
P.&Co.
mysplum wrote:
) As some of you already know, I am about to leave my computer for a large
) chunk of the summer, and it's a good thing, because at the rate I'm
) going,
) I'd be chucked off WCritics. Soooo, ululations and astral celebrations,
) toodle loo for now. Have a great summer everyone.
)
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1066
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Admin: ad hominem warning
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Admin: ad hominem warning
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 23:12:29 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Admin: ad hominem warning
Percedol, you wrote:
) Then I suppose you will be around Madison at the end of July, right?
) 26th or 27th perhaps?
) I am quite busy now, but I'll resume at the beginning of July.
)
) P.&Co.
I believe this is the second time you have informed us that "Percedol" is
actually more than one person. Would you be so kind as to let us know the
reasoning behind such a tactic? Is it not possible for each of you to post
as individuals? I would welcome each of you to step into the light (so to
speak). Thanks.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 08:16:09 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: ad hominem warning
I am at least a lttle relieved to hear percedol is more than one person. I
found it difficult to understand how one person could be so self
contradictory.
See you, Peter
)From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: Admin: ad hominem warning
)Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 23:12:29 -0700
)
)Percedol, you wrote:
)
)
) ) Then I suppose you will be around Madison at the end of July, right?
) ) 26th or 27th perhaps?
) ) I am quite busy now, but I'll resume at the beginning of July.
) )
) ) P.&Co.
)
)I believe this is the second time you have informed us that "Percedol" is
)actually more than one person. Would you be so kind as to let us know the
)reasoning behind such a tactic? Is it not possible for each of you to post
)as individuals? I would welcome each of you to step into the light (so to
)speak). Thanks.
)
)-Walden
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
)New threads are always welcome.
)
)
)
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/signup.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 1067
-- Topica Digest --
many subscribers under one name?
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: many subscribers under one name?
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:18:09 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: many subscribers under one name?
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C32F31.39D0E400
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Peter F. wrote:
I am at least a lttle relieved to hear percedol is more than one person.
I
found it difficult to understand how one person could be so self
contradictory.
It's the usual cast of characters. I think their aim is to keep the
subscriber count and activity on the list down. Old-timers here know who
these individuals are who are obsessed with monitoring these numbers
and, from that, deriving bogus statistics purportedly showing that
Waldorf critics are dwindling, a tiny group of disgruntled etc. etc.
etc. to whom nobody listens. Guys, you are not improving your scores on
the crackpot index with this collective anonymity thing.
It's a little creepy to expect that Sharon would actually arrange to
meet "Percedol" in person without having any idea who he/she/they might
be, male or female, or even how many people she was meeting! Sure, meet
'ya in Madison on the 26th.
(Maybe about 10 of us, male and female, should show up and all introduce
ourselves as "Sharon.") :-)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 12:42:40 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: many subscribers under one name?
Peter F. wrote,
)It's the usual cast of characters. I think their aim is to keep the
)subscriber count and activity on the list down. Old-timers here know
)who these individuals are who are obsessed with monitoring these
)numbers and, from that, deriving bogus statistics purportedly
)showing that Waldorf critics are dwindling, a tiny group of
)disgruntled etc. etc. etc. to whom nobody listens. Guys, you are not
)improving your scores on the crackpot index with this collective
)anonymity thing.
Traffic on our web site continues to increase, I post the monthly
figures here. I haven't checked the list subscriptions in a long
time; we had plateaued at around 110 for a couple of years, but now
it's up again. Subtracting the "off" subscriptions, today there are
156 people on this list.
-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 1068
-- Topica Digest --
Steiner's Science
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Steiner's Science
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:26:52 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Steiner's Science
I found a curious recap of Steiner's life and Steiner's "Philosophy of
Freedom." This short bio is written by Michael Wilson and can be found at:
http://www.elib.com/Steiner/Books/GA004/TPOF/pofint.html
Curious in that there seems to be a glaring omission. I did not see any
mention of Helena Blavatsky or Theosophy. I am lost for an explanation.
Clearly, this woman and Theosophy played a major role in Steiner's life.
I am interested in the word "science" as well as other words that seem to
take on different meanings to various people. How can humans communicate
when we do not understand the meaning behind our words? When I say "the sky
is blue" and you hear "the ocean is green" do we not have an obligation to
clear up the misunderstanding? The following is from the above reference
and I mention it here to illustrate the point of my own research. When one
believes he has "direct experience" it seems to become *truth.* Then, if
one is clever with words and/or a good speaker, this truth becomes
*science.*
"The rest of his life was devoted to building up a complete science of the
spirit, to which he gave the name Anthroposophy. Foremost amongst his
discoveries was his direct experience of the reality of the Christ, which
soon took a central place in his whole teaching. The many books and lectures
which he published set forth the magnificent scope of his vision. (see fn 2)
From 1911 he turned also to the arts -- drama, painting, architecture,
eurythmy -- showing the creative forming powers that can be drawn from
spiritual vision. As a response to the disaster of the 1914-18 war, he
showed how the social sphere could be given new life through an insight into
the nature of man, his initiative bearing practical fruit in the fields of
education, agriculture, therapy and medicine. After a few more years of
intense activity, now as the leader of a world-wide movement, he died,
leaving behind him an achievement that must allow his recognition as the
first Initiate of the age of science. (see fn 3) Anthroposophy is itself a
science, firmly based on the results of observation, and open to
investigation by anyone who is prepared to follow the path of development he
pioneered -- a path that takes its start from the struggle for inner freedom
set forth in this book."
Anthroposophists seem to use many words in ways alien to most people.
"Science" is the tip of the iceberg. I wonder if it has to do with
translations or is it common to the thought process of Anthroposophy?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:17:09 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's Science
walden wrote
)
)I am interested in the word "science" as well as other words that seem to
)take on different meanings to various people. How can humans communicate
)when we do not understand the meaning behind our words? When I say "the
)sky
)is blue" and you hear "the ocean is green" do we not have an obligation to
)clear up the misunderstanding? The following is from the above reference
)and I mention it here to illustrate the point of my own research. When one
)believes he has "direct experience" it seems to become *truth.* Then, if
)one is clever with words and/or a good speaker, this truth becomes
)*science.*
Peter F responds:
I think the most fundamental difference between what I might call 20th
century science and what passes for science in Anthroposophy concerns this
notion of "direct experience". Mainstream science looks for and demands
evidence which goes beyond any individual's direct experience. The reason
for this is so absurdly simple. Different individuals report their direct
experience of the same or similar events differently. No two experience of a
cold are the same. But measurements and statistical analysis can tease out
of many experiences of multiple individuals what is common and what is not,
what is unusual and what is not and so on.
I don't know what Steiner experienced but we do have a ton of words he
either wrote himself or he was reported as saying which presumably arose as
a result of those experiences. Contrary to the assertions of various DOFs, I
continue to argue that one can search those writings for independently
testable hypotheses, theories, and assertions, undertake the appropriate
testing, and come to a judgement of the value of Anthroposophy without
attempting to recreate Steiner's experience personally. As I have said
before I have yet to see a single novel verifiable statement of any sort in
Steiner's work which has been demonstrated to be true. Those that I have
found that are within my own areas of expertise are simply wrong.
Walden continues:
)Anthroposophists seem to use many words in ways alien to most people.
)"Science" is the tip of the iceberg. I wonder if it has to do with
)translations or is it common to the thought process of Anthroposophy?
)
Peter F reponds:
I don't think it is translation, at least not in the sense of from German to
English. It is also true that mainstream scientists use words in ways that
are alien to most people. The difference is that mainstream scientists are
upfront about this, whereas it is abundantly clear from many people who have
contributed to this list that Anthroposophists are not. One of the words
used by Anthroposophists which is worthy of a discussion here is "Christ",
usually preceded by the definite article. I have little doubt that what
Anthroposphist mean by this would not sit comfortably with the vast majority
of Christians.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Get mobile Hotmail. Go to http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/signup.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 1069
-- Topica Digest --
Waldorf-critics
By jkdirk yahoo.de
we're here
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Waldorf-critics
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 03:16:43 +0000
From: Dirk Klose (jkdirk yahoo.de)
Subject: Waldorf-critics
I have been reading some of the messages on the home page and I am
having a problem with the statement that anthroposophy is called a
religion.
I am myself working out of anthroposophy and have developed my own
style. Very much aware I am about the tendency of some anthroposophist
to become dogmatic. I have had my own experiences with them and clashes.
It is a dangerous development. Yet it is not in Steiner's spirit to
become dogmatic. This he repeatedly stressed. If I could not be free
with that way of thinking which anthroposophy represents for me and not
being a religion I couldn't breathe.
I am fighting against these tedencies within this movement by being
myself a free thinker. I may fail with that fight. My positive
experiences with anthroposophical endeavours within the social realm
outweigh those bad experiences in quantity. The latter ones were much
more shattering.
There is a lot of awareness among some who call themselves
anthroposophists that the movement is in danger of becoming a religion
in the sense that it is becoming an institution. Unfortunately those
members are prone to be expelled or to be ignored.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 21:32:40 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: we're here
)Just testing if the list is gone dead, havent had anything from this
)list for a week.
Not to worry, just a quiet time. I've just returned from three days
of nature recording in the Sierras.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:00:58 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Waldorf-critics
Hello and welcome. You did not leave a name to your post. You wrote:
) I have been reading some of the messages on the home page and I am
) having a problem with the statement that anthroposophy is called a
) religion.
Outside of Anthroposophic endeavours, Anthroposophy is known as a religion.
Most people on the planet have no problem with the word "religion." If the
shoe fits....
) I am myself working out of anthroposophy and have developed my own
) style.
Your own style of Anthroposophy? Does it have anything to do with Rudolf
Steiner, his theories on race , clairvoyance, the importance of *his* style
of Anthroposophy? If not, why would you even call it Anthroposophy?
Very much aware I am about the tendency of some anthroposophist
) to become dogmatic. I have had my own experiences with them and clashes.
) It is a dangerous development.
I would not disagree you there.
Yet it is not in Steiner's spirit to
) become dogmatic.
Do you believe the dangerous, dogmatic Anthroposophists have it all wrong
and you have managed to understand Steiner's spirit?
This he repeatedly stressed. If I could not be free
) with that way of thinking which anthroposophy represents for me and not
) being a religion I couldn't breathe.
) I am fighting against these tedencies within this movement by being
) myself a free thinker. I may fail with that fight.
Especially when Sharon returns. Free thinking and Anthroposophy.... (Ouch)
My positive
) experiences with anthroposophical endeavours within the social realm
) outweigh those bad experiences in quantity.
I hear you there. Seems like yesterday I used those exact words. I still
wish it to be so. Wishing, unfortunately, does not turn the dream into
reality. I had to call the dream by it's real name. Nightmare. Perhaps
our experiences really are different. Maybe not.
)The latter ones were much
) more shattering.
) There is a lot of awareness among some who call themselves
) anthroposophists that the movement is in danger of becoming a religion
) in the sense that it is becoming an institution. Unfortunately those
) members are prone to be expelled or to be ignored.
You seem to believe you understand the real impulse of Anthroposophy while
many other Anthroposophists do not have this knowledge. Would you care to
expand on this assumption? I trust you understand the intent of my post - I
would appreciate any input you might find or like to add in order to foster
a better understanding of these issues - for all.
Again, welcome aboard.
- 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 1071
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Waldorf-critics
By jkdirk yahoo.de
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 04:58:47 +0200 (CEST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Dirk=20Klose?= (jkdirk yahoo.de)
Subject: Re: Waldorf-critics
Hello Walden,
you got many questions that I wouldn't be able to
answer all now.
It was Steiner's intention to establish a new way of
thinking that is as scientific as natural science. It
is different in the way that the terms that are used
are flexible and thus confusing and contradicting.
They could also be called living terms in contrast to
the dead logical thinking which becomes dogmatic and
leave you with the choice "Either or" whereas with a
living thinking the choice is "as well as". Many don't
like this flexibility also among anthroposophists. So
I don't claim to have understood Steiner in the true
sense since that would be already dogmatic. That is
also not important for me. I want to understand the
world and myself in my individual way without having
to believe anything. Religion has to do with believing
something that otherwise can't be explained. Anthrop.
is about knowing. that can also be the experience of
something that was described before in words and
addressed the thinking.
My name is Dirk Klose and I thought the name would
appear also on the posting.
Dirk
__________________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Logos und Klingelt–ne f¸rs Handy bei http://sms.yahoo.de
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1072
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Waldorf-critics
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:35:08 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Waldorf-critics
Hi Dirk,
You wrote:
Hello Walden,
you got many questions that I wouldn't be able to
answer all now.
It was Steiner's intention to establish a new way of
thinking that is as scientific as natural science. It
is different in the way that the terms that are used
are flexible and thus confusing and contradicting.
Me: Good point. And that, in my opinion, is the real problem. If we
(human beings on planet earth) are tying to communicate, why not simply use
words which are clear and concise? For example, when Anthroposophists use
the term "Science" (as in Spiritual Science) it carries a completely
different meaning from the same word used by Mr. and Mrs. Public down the
street. The term is an oxymoron, IMO. Why would a group of people on any
particular *path* use terms that are "flexible, confusing and
contradicting?" In the real scientific community I can understand a need
for a certain language amongst peers because of the complexity and nature of
various fields of study. In a movement ostensibly concerned with *social
renewal,* however, this strange redefinition of words only serves to add to
the confusion.
You wrote:
So I don't claim to have understood Steiner in the true
sense since that would be already dogmatic. That is
also not important for me. I want to understand the
world and myself in my individual way without having
to believe anything. Religion has to do with believing
something that otherwise can't be explained. Anthrop.
is about knowing. that can also be the experience of
something that was described before in words and
addressed the thinking.
Me: Again, I ask you: if you "want to understand the
world and myself in my individual way without having
to believe anything" what is it that attracts you to Anthroposophy? I would
not disagree with your interpretation of "Religion" (above). One could use
the word "faith." When I read Steiner or the transcripts of lectures I
clearly see religion. This is a clearly defined mission complete with
occultist beliefs and stages of spiritual hierarchy. The only way to make
sense of Anthroposophy is to have faith in those concepts. Clearly, those
concepts cannot be explained. I am not speaking simply about meditation or
finding comfort in immaterial realms. I am talking about Anthroposophy -
from Atlantis to the Aryans to future epochs and Ahriman and
Lucifer...according to Steiner. I'll stop and hope that you are able to
touch on my previous questions. Thanks.
-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 1073
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Waldorf-critics
By jkdirk yahoo.de
Re: Waldorf-critics
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Waldorf-critics
By jkdirk yahoo.de
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 20:50:30 +0200 (CEST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Dirk=20Klose?= (jkdirk yahoo.de)
Subject: Re: Waldorf-critics
) Me: Good point. And that, in my opinion, is the
) real problem. If we
) (human beings on planet earth) are tying to
) communicate, why not simply use
) words which are clear and concise? For example,
) when Anthroposophists use
) the term "Science" (as in Spiritual Science) it
) carries a completely
) different meaning from the same word used by Mr. and
) Mrs. Public down the
) street. The term is an oxymoron, IMO. Why would a
) group of people on any
) particular *path* use terms that are "flexible,
) confusing and
) contradicting?" In the real scientific community I
) can understand a need
) for a certain language amongst peers because of the
) complexity and nature of
) various fields of study. In a movement ostensibly
) concerned with *social
) renewal,* however, this strange redefinition of
) words only serves to add to
) the confusion.
What would life be boring if everything could be
explained by concise terms. Life is confusing and
contradicting and in this way exciting. The terms that
are used in anthroposophy are also in this sens alive
and make understanding the world exciting and leave me
much more satisfied than conventional science. It is
more of an artistic thinking. Art explains things much
better than science.But anthroposophy is also a
science and not a religion. One of these terms that
are used for something and that's it. No further
development possible! Anthroposophy is not a religion.
It doesn't make me believe in anything and it leaves m
e free to do so. In your defintion physics would also
be a religion since there are many elements in it that
can't be seen and are just taken for granted. Without
any proof. A collection of theories. Sometimes quite
exciting and helpful but without logical proof.
) You wrote:
) So I don't claim to have understood Steiner in the
) true
) sense since that would be already dogmatic. That is
) also not important for me. I want to understand the
) world and myself in my individual way without having
) to believe anything. Religion has to do with
) believing
) something that otherwise can't be explained.
) Anthrop.
) is about knowing. that can also be the experience of
) something that was described before in words and
) addressed the thinking.
)
) Me: Again, I ask you: if you "want to understand
) the
) world and myself in my individual way without having
) to believe anything" what is it that attracts you to
) Anthroposophy? I would
) not disagree with your interpretation of "Religion"
) (above). One could use
) the word "faith." When I read Steiner or the
) transcripts of lectures I
) clearly see religion. This is a clearly defined
) mission complete with
) occultist beliefs and stages of spiritual hierarchy.
) The only way to make
) sense of Anthroposophy is to have faith in those
) concepts. Clearly, those
) concepts cannot be explained. I am not speaking
) simply about meditation or
) finding comfort in immaterial realms. I am talking
) about Anthroposophy -
) from Atlantis to the Aryans to future epochs and
) Ahriman and
) Lucifer...according to Steiner. I'll stop and hope
) that you are able to
) touch on my previous questions. Thanks.
)
) -Walden
)
)
==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like
) here, no matter how basic. New threads are always
) welcome.
)
)
)
)
)
)
__________________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Logos und Klingelt–ne f¸rs Handy bei http://sms.yahoo.de
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 00:36:18 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf-critics
)From: Dirk Klose (jkdirk yahoo.de)
)Art explains things much
)better than science.
Peter F responds.
This is a simple assertion unassisted by any evidence or examples. I would
say instead that art doesn't explain at all. That does not mean it does not
lead to understanding but not through explanation.
)But anthroposophy is also a
)science and not a religion. One of these terms that
)are used for something and that's it. No further
)development possible! Anthroposophy is not a religion.
)It doesn't make me believe in anything and it leaves m
)e free to do so. In your defintion physics would also
)be a religion since there are many elements in it that
)can't be seen and are just taken for granted.
Peter F asks for an example of one of these things which cannot be seen and
which is taken for grantd.
)Without
)any proof. A collection of theories. Sometimes quite
)exciting and helpful but without logical proof.
Peter F reponds.
Logical proof is essentially impossible. What is available in modern science
is a coherent set of theories, techniques and measurements which has a
demonstrated, repeat demonstrated ability to enable understanding, create
new technologies, make art. That is not to say there are not hole and flaws.
As far as I can tell nothing has been demonstrated by or as a result of
Steiner. Instead, it is clear that much of what he said and wrote is just
plain wrong.
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/signup.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 05:40:52 +0200 (CEST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Dirk=20Klose?= (jkdirk yahoo.de)
Subject: Re: Waldorf-critics
--- Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) schrieb:
)
)
)
) )From: Dirk Klose (jkdirk yahoo.de)
)
)
)
) )Art explains things much
) )better than science.
)
) Peter F responds.
) This is a simple assertion unassisted by any
) evidence or examples. I would
) say instead that art doesn't explain at all. That
) does not mean it does not
) lead to understanding but not through explanation.
With art I can learn to understand what love or
happiness is all about. I dare to assert that I can
even explain these phenomena through a different way
of thinking. They are not logical but with a thinking
that is flexible they become so in another sense. With
logical thinking I may explain what love is about and
not manage at all to love. With an artistic thinking I
can practice love and experience it.
)
) )But anthroposophy is also a
) )science and not a religion. One of these terms that
) )are used for something and that's it. No further
) )development possible! Anthroposophy is not a
) religion.
) )It doesn't make me believe in anything and it
) leaves m
) )e free to do so. In your defintion physics would
) also
) )be a religion since there are many elements in it
) that
) )can't be seen and are just taken for granted.
)
) Peter F asks for an example of one of these things
) which cannot be seen and
) which is taken for grantd.
There is big confusion what light is. On one hand it
is supposed to be made out of photons, on the other
hand it is just energy. This is a nice contradiction.
The whole theory of the atomic build up of matter is
very handy and makes a lot of sense for physics and
chemistry but it is not possible to actually perceive
atoms or electrons. We can't see angels either but
they make sense in the same way.
Gravity is taken for granted but there is a confusion
in science what it actually is all about and a big
search for a force that would explain certain
phenomenon in the universe.
The Big Bang makes sense too yet also it doesn't.
)
) )Without
) )any proof. A collection of theories. Sometimes
) quite
) )exciting and helpful but without logical proof.
)
) Peter F reponds.
) Logical proof is essentially impossible. What is
) available in modern science
) is a coherent set of theories, techniques and
) measurements which has a
) demonstrated, repeat demonstrated ability to enable
) understanding, create
) new technologies, make art. That is not to say there
) are not hole and flaws.
) As far as I can tell nothing has been demonstrated
) by or as a result of
) Steiner. Instead, it is clear that much of what he
) said and wrote is just
) plain wrong.
This last statement is clearly as much a prejudice as
it would be if I would say that the atomic theory is
wrong. It needs courage to allow a different way of
thinking.
There are contexts that have been described by Steiner
and been proven later on by conventional science but
that would need time on my side to do research and an
unbiased attitude from your side which I don't
perceive at present.
__________________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Logos und Klingelt–ne f¸rs Handy bei http://sms.yahoo.de
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1074
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1074
By barry-c ntlworld.com
Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1074
By Gary goodwinter.com
Re: Waldorf-critics
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Waldorf-critics
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Waldorf-critics
By jkdirk yahoo.de
Re: Waldorf-critics
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Waldorf-critics
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 12:27:13 +0100
From: "Barry Cooney" (barry-c ntlworld.com)
Subject: Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1074
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00C5_01C33CA7.70378E80
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Dear members
I unsubscribed from the group at Yahoo groups but I still keep
getting these digest mails.
Anyone got any idea how to stop them?
Regards
Barry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 10:33:56 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1074
) 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_3139554837_5108401_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
this list is run by Topica, not YahooGroups. I'm removing you now.
...Gary
on 6/27/03 7:27 AM, Barry Cooney at barry-c ntlworld.com wrote:
Dear members
I unsubscribed from the group at Yahoo groups but I still keep getting these
digest mails.
Anyone got any idea how to stop them?
Regards
Barry
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:26:46 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf-critics
)From: Dirk Klose (jkdirk yahoo.de)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: Waldorf-critics
)Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 05:40:52 +0200 (CEST)
)
) --- Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) schrieb:
) )
) )
) )
) ) )From: Dirk Klose (jkdirk yahoo.de)
) )
) )
) )
) ) )Art explains things much
) ) )better than science.
) )
) ) Peter F responds.
) ) This is a simple assertion unassisted by any
) ) evidence or examples. I would
) ) say instead that art doesn't explain at all. That
) ) does not mean it does not
) ) lead to understanding but not through explanation.
)
)With art I can learn to understand what love or
)happiness is all about. I dare to assert that I can
)even explain these phenomena through a different way
)of thinking. They are not logical but with a thinking
)that is flexible they become so in another sense. With
)logical thinking I may explain what love is about and
)not manage at all to love. With an artistic thinking I
)can practice love and experience it.
Peter F responds.
So are you saying that because I am a scientist and I believe that the world
is mechanical as opposed to material that I don't appreciate art? That I
don't or can't love my family? I don't accept thaty you understand anything
about these things any better than I do.
)
) )
) ) )But anthroposophy is also a
) ) )science and not a religion. One of these terms that
) ) )are used for something and that's it. No further
) ) )development possible! Anthroposophy is not a
) ) religion.
) ) )It doesn't make me believe in anything and it
) ) leaves m
) ) )e free to do so. In your defintion physics would
) ) also
) ) )be a religion since there are many elements in it
) ) that
) ) )can't be seen and are just taken for granted.
) )
) ) Peter F asks for an example of one of these things
) ) which cannot be seen and
) ) which is taken for grantd.
)
)There is big confusion what light is. On one hand it
)is supposed to be made out of photons, on the other
)hand it is just energy. This is a nice contradiction.
)The whole theory of the atomic build up of matter is
)very handy and makes a lot of sense for physics and
)chemistry but it is not possible to actually perceive
)atoms or electrons. We can't see angels either but
)they make sense in the same way.
)Gravity is taken for granted but there is a confusion
)in science what it actually is all about and a big
)search for a force that would explain certain
)phenomenon in the universe.
)The Big Bang makes sense too yet also it doesn't.
Peter F responds.
From the perspective of physics this confusion of light is not a confusion
at all. Quantum Electrodynamics so far describes and predicts every
phenomenon associated with light that humanity has been able to observe or
generate. Of course it is possible to directly see atoms, even single atoms
in exactly the same way as one experiences a chair. The direct experience of
single electrons is a little more problematic. Of course you don't have any
direct experince of me either but I suspect you don't doubt my existence.
In what sense does the big bang not make sense?
) )
) ) )Without
) ) )any proof. A collection of theories. Sometimes
) ) quite
) ) )exciting and helpful but without logical proof.
) )
) ) Peter F reponds.
) ) Logical proof is essentially impossible. What is
) ) available in modern science
) ) is a coherent set of theories, techniques and
) ) measurements which has a
) ) demonstrated, repeat demonstrated ability to enable
) ) understanding, create
) ) new technologies, make art. That is not to say there
) ) are not hole and flaws.
) ) As far as I can tell nothing has been demonstrated
) ) by or as a result of
) ) Steiner. Instead, it is clear that much of what he
) ) said and wrote is just
) ) plain wrong.
)
)This last statement is clearly as much a prejudice as
)it would be if I would say that the atomic theory is
)wrong. It needs courage to allow a different way of
)thinking.
)There are contexts that have been described by Steiner
)and been proven later on by conventional science but
)that would need time on my side to do research and an
)unbiased attitude from your side which I don't
)perceive at present.
Peter F reponds.
It is not prejudice. Steiner's writings on light and warmth are simply
wrong! They do not correpond to what is directly observable. It would be
prejudice if I had decided Steiner was wrong before the evidence was in.
I am unbiased. I have to be. It's my job. I just believe in evidence. Show
me one context described by Steiner and proven later by conventional
science. I lot of my openness to this has been ground down by people like
yourself who have contributed similar statements to this list. Don't tell me
I'm not worth it, or you don't have time to do the research. Either you know
this to be a fact from research you have already done or you don't know it
at all. I have been shifted by evidence before. But I am angered by repeated
empty and unsubstantiated claims to understanding and knowledge.
)See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/signup.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:26:48 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf-critics
)From: Dirk Klose (jkdirk yahoo.de)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: Waldorf-critics
)Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 05:40:52 +0200 (CEST)
)
) --- Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) schrieb:
) )
) )
) )
) ) )From: Dirk Klose (jkdirk yahoo.de)
) )
) )
) )
) ) )Art explains things much
) ) )better than science.
) )
) ) Peter F responds.
) ) This is a simple assertion unassisted by any
) ) evidence or examples. I would
) ) say instead that art doesn't explain at all. That
) ) does not mean it does not
) ) lead to understanding but not through explanation.
)
)With art I can learn to understand what love or
)happiness is all about. I dare to assert that I can
)even explain these phenomena through a different way
)of thinking. They are not logical but with a thinking
)that is flexible they become so in another sense. With
)logical thinking I may explain what love is about and
)not manage at all to love. With an artistic thinking I
)can practice love and experience it.
Peter F responds.
So are you saying that because I am a scientist and I believe that the world
is mechanical as opposed to material that I don't appreciate art? That I
don't or can't love my family? I don't accept thaty you understand anything
about these things any better than I do.
)
) )
) ) )But anthroposophy is also a
) ) )science and not a religion. One of these terms that
) ) )are used for something and that's it. No further
) ) )development possible! Anthroposophy is not a
) ) religion.
) ) )It doesn't make me believe in anything and it
) ) leaves m
) ) )e free to do so. In your defintion physics would
) ) also
) ) )be a religion since there are many elements in it
) ) that
) ) )can't be seen and are just taken for granted.
) )
) ) Peter F asks for an example of one of these things
) ) which cannot be seen and
) ) which is taken for grantd.
)
)There is big confusion what light is. On one hand it
)is supposed to be made out of photons, on the other
)hand it is just energy. This is a nice contradiction.
)The whole theory of the atomic build up of matter is
)very handy and makes a lot of sense for physics and
)chemistry but it is not possible to actually perceive
)atoms or electrons. We can't see angels either but
)they make sense in the same way.
)Gravity is taken for granted but there is a confusion
)in science what it actually is all about and a big
)search for a force that would explain certain
)phenomenon in the universe.
)The Big Bang makes sense too yet also it doesn't.
Peter F responds.
From the perspective of physics this confusion of light is not a confusion
at all. Quantum Electrodynamics so far describes and predicts every
phenomenon associated with light that humanity has been able to observe or
generate. Of course it is possible to directly see atoms, even single atoms
in exactly the same way as one experiences a chair. The direct experience of
single electrons is a little more problematic. Of course you don't have any
direct experince of me either but I suspect you don't doubt my existence.
In what sense does the big bang not make sense?
) )
) ) )Without
) ) )any proof. A collection of theories. Sometimes
) ) quite
) ) )exciting and helpful but without logical proof.
) )
) ) Peter F reponds.
) ) Logical proof is essentially impossible. What is
) ) available in modern science
) ) is a coherent set of theories, techniques and
) ) measurements which has a
) ) demonstrated, repeat demonstrated ability to enable
) ) understanding, create
) ) new technologies, make art. That is not to say there
) ) are not hole and flaws.
) ) As far as I can tell nothing has been demonstrated
) ) by or as a result of
) ) Steiner. Instead, it is clear that much of what he
) ) said and wrote is just
) ) plain wrong.
)
)This last statement is clearly as much a prejudice as
)it would be if I would say that the atomic theory is
)wrong. It needs courage to allow a different way of
)thinking.
)There are contexts that have been described by Steiner
)and been proven later on by conventional science but
)that would need time on my side to do research and an
)unbiased attitude from your side which I don't
)perceive at present.
Peter F reponds.
It is not prejudice. Steiner's writings on light and warmth are simply
wrong! They do not correpond to what is directly observable. It would be
prejudice if I had decided Steiner was wrong before the evidence was in.
I am unbiased. I have to be. It's my job. I just believe in evidence. Show
me one context described by Steiner and proven later by conventional
science. I lot of my openness to this has been ground down by people like
yourself who have contributed similar statements to this list. Don't tell me
I'm not worth it, or you don't have time to do the research. Either you know
this to be a fact from research you have already done or you don't know it
at all. I have been shifted by evidence before. But I am angered by repeated
empty and unsubstantiated claims to understanding and knowledge.
)See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail is now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/signup.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 06:07:07 +0200 (CEST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Dirk=20Klose?= (jkdirk yahoo.de)
Subject: Re: Waldorf-critics
) Peter F responds.
) So are you saying that because I am a scientist and
) I believe that the world
) is mechanical as opposed to material that I don't
) appreciate art? That I
) don't or can't love my family? I don't accept thaty
) you understand anything
) about these things any better than I do.
I am an artist as you may have realised and I could
say the same about you. I am as fascinated by science
as by art. I am a trained artist as much as you must
be a trained scientist so there is a difference in
perceiving art and science. I am not getting the
difference between mechanical and material.
)
) Peter F responds.
) From the perspective of physics this confusion of
) light is not a confusion
) at all. Quantum Electrodynamics so far describes and
) predicts every
) phenomenon associated with light that humanity has
) been able to observe or
) generate. Of course it is possible to directly see
) atoms, even single atoms
) in exactly the same way as one experiences a chair.
) The direct experience of
) single electrons is a little more problematic. Of
) course you don't have any
) direct experince of me either but I suspect you
) don't doubt my existence.
) In what sense does the big bang not make sense?
I guess you can see atoms through a microscope but not
directly. You can also not perceive other peoples
feelings directly. Only indirectly throuhg their
mimics and such. Yet you may never be 100 % sure that
they are not faking.
A direct experience of God or whatever you want to
call it is also not possible but for billions of
people it makes very much sense or they sense
something like God.
As far as I know the Big Bang is still not accepted by
all physicists in the world. I think Hawking
mathematically proved it. Then there all these
descriptions about what happened 0,000...1 s after the
Big Bang. Yet for me this is totally abstract. They go
further back and back and won't ever come to Point
Zero which is the exciting thing. What about the space
around that point Zero. For common sense this is as
much a mystery as God. It can't be proven and that is
nice.
) Peter F reponds.
) It is not prejudice. Steiner's writings on light and
) warmth are simply
) wrong! They do not correpond to what is directly
) observable. It would be
) prejudice if I had decided Steiner was wrong before
) the evidence was in.
) I am unbiased. I have to be. It's my job. I just
) believe in evidence. Show
) me one context described by Steiner and proven later
) by conventional
) science. I lot of my openness to this has been
) ground down by people like
) yourself who have contributed similar statements to
) this list. Don't tell me
) I'm not worth it, or you don't have time to do the
) research. Either you know
) this to be a fact from research you have already
) done or you don't know it
) at all. I have been shifted by evidence before. But
) I am angered by repeated
) empty and unsubstantiated claims to understanding
) and knowledge.
I am fascinated how you don't understand thatI could
make again the same statement. You are not willing to
enter a different way of thinking that needs
practice.Therefore your claims are also
unsubstantiated and empty.Of course it needs patience
and the willingness to undertake such a training. You
are free not to do so if you are happy with yours.
Other people are happy with other ways of thinking. I
am. I don't have time to do that research for you and
I am pretty sure that it wouldn't convince you. I
could give you a lesson in my artistic exercises.
You would quickly realise that there is something else
than mechanics.
Surely Steiner made mistakes. After all he is a human
being as you who I hope also makes mistakes. He
himself admitted of making mistakes.
I don't believe in evidence, I want to know or
experience and through art I can experience many
contexts that with mere thinking I wouldn't. It is
interesting that you say "believe". Then science for
you is something like a religion?
So long
Dirk
__________________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Logos und Klingelt–ne f¸rs Handy bei http://sms.yahoo.de
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 00:05:14 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Waldorf-critics
Hello Dirk,
Would you be willing to at least *try* to explain what, exactly, it is that
draws you to Anthroposophy? You mentioned you have your "own style of
Anthroposophy" and I am very curious.
Does your style of Anthroposophy have anything to do with Rudolf
Steiner, his theories on race , clairvoyance and occultism?
It seems to me that Steiner's theories simply cannot be explained - by a
scientist or an artist. I have friends in both camps and they have no
explanation. It seems that faith is the only explanation. How would *you*
explain these things, Dirk? I am not speaking simply about meditation or
finding comfort in immaterial realms. I am talking about Anthroposophy -
from Atlantis to the Aryans to future epochs and Ahriman and
Lucifer...according to Steiner.
Thanks for your insight.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:58:07 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf-critics
G'day Dirk,
I apologise for my brusque response previously. It is too easy to forget
there is a real person on the end of an email. I argue in my defense that I
have heard all that you say (at least so far) before from other defenders of
Anthroposophy on this list and none of them have been able to say anything
coherent about the scientific aspects. I admit to being tired of hearing the
same nonsense about science being repeated. I would like to suggest to you
that if your knowledge of science has come from Steiner then perhaps you
should question it.
I object to being labelled as close minded. I am not. But I do require
evidence and argument to change my mind. Simple assertions won't do it.
I reiterate that I am unaware of any assertion of Steiner's that was
original and that has been corrobated by scientists since. Please suggest
one, and point me to the scientific corroboration. In turn I can show you
some that are mistaken.
I have read your email again and I suspect we might have some language
difficulties. In so far as this discussion goes I did not mean to
distinguish between material and mechanical. I am not sure what you would
say to me as an artist that would be the same thing that I have said to you.
You use the word "trained". In science as in art one rises above the
training to be creative. The training is mostly about what has been done.
But there is a difference between science and art. I will quote C. P. Snow
whose last book, "The Physicists" I have just finished. He says "There is no
progress in art, just change. Today's writers write differently from Homer
and Aeschylus, but they don't write better." I should say that Snow wrote
this as a comparison to physics, a subject which he claims is subject to
improvement generation by generation.
See you, Peter.
)From: Dirk Klose (jkdirk yahoo.de)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: Waldorf-critics
)Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 06:07:07 +0200 (CEST)
)
) ) Peter F responds.
) ) So are you saying that because I am a scientist and
) ) I believe that the world
) ) is mechanical as opposed to material that I don't
) ) appreciate art? That I
) ) don't or can't love my family? I don't accept thaty
) ) you understand anything
) ) about these things any better than I do.
)
)I am an artist as you may have realised and I could
)say the same about you. I am as fascinated by science
)as by art. I am a trained artist as much as you must
)be a trained scientist so there is a difference in
)perceiving art and science. I am not getting the
)difference between mechanical and material.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) )
) ) Peter F responds.
) ) From the perspective of physics this confusion of
) ) light is not a confusion
) ) at all. Quantum Electrodynamics so far describes and
) ) predicts every
) ) phenomenon associated with light that humanity has
) ) been able to observe or
) ) generate. Of course it is possible to directly see
) ) atoms, even single atoms
) ) in exactly the same way as one experiences a chair.
) ) The direct experience of
) ) single electrons is a little more problematic. Of
) ) course you don't have any
) ) direct experince of me either but I suspect you
) ) don't doubt my existence.
) ) In what sense does the big bang not make sense?
)
)
)I guess you can see atoms through a microscope but not
)directly. You can also not perceive other peoples
)feelings directly. Only indirectly throuhg their
)mimics and such. Yet you may never be 100 % sure that
)they are not faking.
)A direct experience of God or whatever you want to
)call it is also not possible but for billions of
)people it makes very much sense or they sense
)something like God.
)As far as I know the Big Bang is still not accepted by
)all physicists in the world. I think Hawking
)mathematically proved it. Then there all these
)descriptions about what happened 0,000...1 s after the
)Big Bang. Yet for me this is totally abstract. They go
)further back and back and won't ever come to Point
)Zero which is the exciting thing. What about the space
)around that point Zero. For common sense this is as
)much a mystery as God. It can't be proven and that is
)nice.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) ) Peter F reponds.
) ) It is not prejudice. Steiner's writings on light and
) ) warmth are simply
) ) wrong! They do not correpond to what is directly
) ) observable. It would be
) ) prejudice if I had decided Steiner was wrong before
) ) the evidence was in.
) ) I am unbiased. I have to be. It's my job. I just
) ) believe in evidence. Show
) ) me one context described by Steiner and proven later
) ) by conventional
) ) science. I lot of my openness to this has been
) ) ground down by people like
) ) yourself who have contributed similar statements to
) ) this list. Don't tell me
) ) I'm not worth it, or you don't have time to do the
) ) research. Either you know
) ) this to be a fact from research you have already
) ) done or you don't know it
) ) at all. I have been shifted by evidence before. But
) ) I am angered by repeated
) ) empty and unsubstantiated claims to understanding
) ) and knowledge.
)
)I am fascinated how you don't understand thatI could
)make again the same statement. You are not willing to
)enter a different way of thinking that needs
)practice.Therefore your claims are also
)unsubstantiated and empty.Of course it needs patience
)and the willingness to undertake such a training. You
)are free not to do so if you are happy with yours.
)Other people are happy with other ways of thinking. I
)am. I don't have time to do that research for you and
)I am pretty sure that it wouldn't convince you. I
)could give you a lesson in my artistic exercises.
)You would quickly realise that there is something else
)than mechanics.
)
)Surely Steiner made mistakes. After all he is a human
)being as you who I hope also makes mistakes. He
)himself admitted of making mistakes.
)I don't believe in evidence, I want to know or
)experience and through art I can experience many
)contexts that with mere thinking I wouldn't. It is
)interesting that you say "believe". Then science for
)you is something like a religion?
)
)
)So long
)
)Dirk
)
)
)__________________________________________________________________
)
)Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
)Logos und Klingelt–ne f¸rs Handy bei http://sms.yahoo.de
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
)New threads are always welcome.
)
_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/share/redir/adTrack.asp?mode=click&clientID=174&referral=Hotmail_taglines_plain&URL=http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.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 1075
-- Topica Digest --
Steiner's scientific prophecies
By dan dandugan.com
Re: (Steiner's scientific prophecies) waldorf in Southafrica
By ulfva telia.com
Re: waldorf in Southafrica
By snell gv.net
Re: waldorf in Southafrica
By ulfva telia.com
General remarks
By jkdirk yahoo.de
Re: General remarks
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: (Steiner's scientific prophecies) waldorf in Southafrica
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:20:25 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Steiner's scientific prophecies
Peter Farrell, you wrote,
)I am unaware of any assertion of Steiner's that was original and
)that has been corrobated by scientists since.
Out of Steiner's twenty books and 6000 lectures, Anthroposophists
have managed to cull a maximum of, I believe, -two- things he said
that they point to as scientific prophecies.
He said something about cyanide being present in comets, purportedly
before this was discovered by spectrography. Perhaps Mr. Klose can
find us the references.
Then there's the purported prophecy of mad cow disease:
"Therefore, if an ox were suddenly to turn into a meat eater, it
would fill itself with all kinds of harmful substances such as uric
acid and urates...they would enter the brain, and the ox would go
crazy." [Steiner, 1923, HI2 p. 85]
This one is quite a stretch, because all the details are wrong.
Are these the claims you're talking about, Mr. Klose?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 21:38:33 +0200
From: "Ylva Eliasson" (ulfva telia.com)
Subject: Re: (Steiner's scientific prophecies) waldorf in Southafrica
This is not an answer to this mail. But unfortunately I¥m unable to
find the entrance to the list. So I try this way.
I¥m from Sweden, new member of the list.
I have some personal experience of the waldorf school. As I realised
I was not told the truth about this movement I decided to learn more.
I¥ve understood it¥s very conservative (or fascistic) When asking
antroposophists certainly deny this, and as an example I was told
that during the apartheid period in Southafrica waldorf schools had
mixed classes due to authotities protests. Does anyone here know
anything about this?
During my waldorf period two people from SA visited the school. It
was one "dark" male and a white lady - and they did not act as equals.
I did not feel comfortable at all after this occation.
Ylva Eliasson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Dugan" (dan dandugan.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 7:20 PM
Subject: Steiner's scientific prophecies
) Peter Farrell, you wrote,
)
) )I am unaware of any assertion of Steiner's that was original and
) )that has been corrobated by scientists since.
)
) Out of Steiner's twenty books and 6000 lectures, Anthroposophists
) have managed to cull a maximum of, I believe, -two- things he said
) that they point to as scientific prophecies.
)
) He said something about cyanide being present in comets, purportedly
) before this was discovered by spectrography. Perhaps Mr. Klose can
) find us the references.
)
) Then there's the purported prophecy of mad cow disease:
)
) "Therefore, if an ox were suddenly to turn into a meat eater, it
) would fill itself with all kinds of harmful substances such as uric
) acid and urates...they would enter the brain, and the ox would go
) crazy." [Steiner, 1923, HI2 p. 85]
)
) This one is quite a stretch, because all the details are wrong.
)
) Are these the claims you're talking about, Mr. Klose?
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
) )
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 12:47:52 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: waldorf in Southafrica
)This is not an answer to this mail. But unfortunately I¥m unable to
)find the entrance to the list. So I try
)this way.
Debra:
Looks like it worked! Well, I am *finally* back on this list after
lots of hassles from my ISP, who blocked all Topica emails with their
spam filters, but said they didn't. ("It must be your problem. . .")
I pay annually and when my bill became due, I refused to pay it until
they resolved the problem. Amazingly it was resolved in a day. . .
)
)I¥m from Sweden, new member of the list.
Debra:
Welcome!
)I have some personal experience of the waldorf school. As I realised
)I was not told the truth about this movement I decided to learn
)more. I¥ve understood it¥s very conservative (or fascistic)
Debra:
Were you a Waldorf student?
)When asking antroposophists certainly deny this, and as an example I
)was told that during the apartheid period in Southafrica waldorf
)schools had mixed classes due to authotities protests. Does anyone
)here know anything about this?
Debra:
This is a common testimony that is seemingly repeated at every
Waldorf school who is questioned about racism. I don't know how one
could check on the story.
)
)During my waldorf period two people from SA visited the school. It
)was one "dark" male and a white lady - and they did not act as
)equals.
Debra:
They didn't *act* as equals, or weren't *treated* as equals? I'm not
sure what you are trying to say here.
)I did not feel comfortable at all after this occation.
)
)Ylva Eliasson
Debra:
I'd like to hear more details about this. Welcome again!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:19:59 +0200
From: "Ylva Eliasson" (ulfva telia.com)
Subject: Re: waldorf in Southafrica
The man did not speak much, but when he did he looked at the lady as
to ask wheather it was okey or not. And she treated him as not beeing
an adult. That¥s what made me feel uncomfortable about the situation.
I was a teacher student but realised soon enough that this was a
religious movement - and I am not! Later I was told about the
rascisism and began to read more about the thing.
I think it was G–ring who said that if you repeat something several
times it becomes a truth! I guess that¥s what antroposophists are
doing!
Ylva
----- Original Message -----
From: "Debra Snell" (snell gv.net)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: waldorf in Southafrica
) )This is not an answer to this mail. But unfortunately I¥m unable to
) )find the entrance to the list. So I try
) )this way.
)
)
) Debra:
)
) Looks like it worked! Well, I am *finally* back on this list after
) lots of hassles from my ISP, who blocked all Topica emails with their
) spam filters, but said they didn't. ("It must be your problem. . .")
) I pay annually and when my bill became due, I refused to pay it until
) they resolved the problem. Amazingly it was resolved in a day. . .
)
)
)
)
) )
) )I¥m from Sweden, new member of the list.
)
) Debra:
)
) Welcome!
)
)
)
) )I have some personal experience of the waldorf school. As I realised
) )I was not told the truth about this movement I decided to learn
) )more. I¥ve understood it¥s very conservative (or fascistic)
)
) Debra:
)
) Were you a Waldorf student?
)
)
)
)
) )When asking antroposophists certainly deny this, and as an example I
) )was told that during the apartheid period in Southafrica waldorf
) )schools had mixed classes due to authotities protests. Does anyone
) )here know anything about this?
)
)
) Debra:
)
) This is a common testimony that is seemingly repeated at every
) Waldorf school who is questioned about racism. I don't know how one
) could check on the story.
)
)
) )
) )During my waldorf period two people from SA visited the school. It
) )was one "dark" male and a white lady - and they did not act as
) )equals.
)
)
) Debra:
)
) They didn't *act* as equals, or weren't *treated* as equals? I'm not
) sure what you are trying to say here.
)
)
)
) )I did not feel comfortable at all after this occation.
) )
) )Ylva Eliasson
)
)
)
) Debra:
)
) I'd like to hear more details about this. Welcome again!
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
) )
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 23:03:35 +0200 (CEST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Dirk=20Klose?= (jkdirk yahoo.de)
Subject: General remarks
A lot of the criticism here about Waldorf etc. seems
to be caused by personal experiences that were pretty
bad. I have worked in many anthroposphical
institutions with children and disabled adults. Once I
also went through a bad experience where I met a
dogmatic attitude and was basically mobbed out. This
was a weird one and I couldn't understand why so
called anthroposophist could act like that. I
explained the situation with the personal ambition of
those people that made them loose contact with basic
human feelings. Their understanding of anthroposophy
is in my view distorted. I am sure and I know that
there are many who consider anthroposophy as a
religion. Yet again I must say it was not meant to be
one. The students of it often made a religion out of
it.
There are many institutions on the world that work
with the methods of anthroposophy. I have great
experiences with Waldorf too. One is that I am always
touched how the children love to go to school and hate
to miss a day. Or that they even loved their teachers.
That is the case with the majority of students. This
is for me the justification of Waldorf: that the
children are happy. Of course there are also great
teachers in public schools but I think only a minority
of students love to go to school. Anthroposophical
thinking also helped a great deal in understanding the
disabled person.The work of the special schools is
much appreciated by the authorities.
Anthroposophists are individual striving people and
there are good and bad representatives. In that sense
I think it is even good that there are people like you
in the world that address these issues. Yet criticism
can be destructive and there is a lot of good work
being done. A critic tends to stress the bad things
and overlook the good ones. Please at least recognize
it that there are many children that love their
school. Why don't you visit once one and just relax?
Dirk
__________________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Logos und Klingelt–ne f¸rs Handy bei http://sms.yahoo.de
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 15:31:23 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: General remarks
Dirk wrote:
There are many institutions on the world that work
with the methods of anthroposophy. I have great
experiences with Waldorf too. One is that I am always
touched how the children love to go to school and hate
to miss a day. Or that they even loved their teachers.
That is the case with the majority of students. This
is for me the justification of Waldorf: that the
children are happy.
Me: Dirk, your gross generalizations do not fit with reality. I am trying
to be respectful here but you arrive with these types of claims and should
not be surprised to be questioned. Please supply some data to back up your
claim. How many Waldorf (past/present) children have you interviewed? Do
you have access to the elusive enrolment/retention stats for Waldorf
Education? If you cannot supply this data I suggest you rethink making
claims about the majority of students in Waldorf schools.
Dirk Wrote:
A critic tends to stress the bad things
and overlook the good ones. Please at least recognize
it that there are many children that love their
school. Why don't you visit once one and just relax?
Me: Actually, a critic is a critic and tends to be "critical." You have
managed to define this word very well. On this list, however, we have often
spoken of those elements of Waldorf that were very rewarding and even
"good." I think you will find more "critical thinking" here than simply a
group of people out to demonize or simply criticize Waldorf Education. As
far as relaxing goes... I will relax when Waldorf Education learns how to be
accountable and honest with children and parents and prospective teachers.
Also, I might even relax when you find a minute to touch on the questions I
asked about your previous posts - instead of lecturing the list on all the
happy children who love their Waldorf teachers. Can we have a discussion?
Please? It's the social thing to do, n'est ce pas?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:06:12 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: (Steiner's scientific prophecies) waldorf in Southafrica
Hi Ylva and welcome.
You wrote:
I¥m from Sweden, new member of the list.
I have some personal experience of the waldorf school. As I realised I was
not told the truth about this movement I decided to learn more. I¥ve
understood it¥s very conservative (or fascistic) When asking antroposophists
certainly deny this, and as an example I was told that during the apartheid
period in Southafrica waldorf schools had mixed classes due to authotities
protests. Does anyone here know anything about this?
I know there is a thread on this subject in the archives. It is similar to
what is told about the Nazis shutting down all Waldorf schools, etc. As if
a more favourable light shines on Steiner and all the racist, anti-Semitic
*Anthrospeak* conveniently goes away.... Not so. A little digging reveals
a slightly different story. It is so important to critically think and ask
questions. It looks as if you have asked questions based on observation and
experience. I, too, find it curious and disturbing to see questions either
unanswered or deflected. I wonder this points to the real answers.
I would appreciate hearing more of your Waldorf/Anthroposophy experience in
Sweden. Again, welcome.
-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 1076
-- Topica Digest --
Re: waldorf in Southafrica
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: General remarks
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: waldorf in Southafrica
By ulfva telia.com
Re: waldorf in Southafrica
By dan dandugan.com
Kimberton Waldorf School graduates
By dan dandugan.com
=?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FChlewind?= on "Star Children"
By dan dandugan.com
Re: General remarks
By jkdirk yahoo.de
Re: General remarks
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: General remarks
By snell gv.net
Re: General remarks
By ulfva telia.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 13:46:20 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: waldorf in Southafrica
Welcome to the waldorf critics list, Ylva Eliasson. You wrote of a visiting
Waldorf delegation from South Africa that included "one 'dark' male and a
white lady - and they did not act as equals." You further explained:
)The man did not speak much, but when he did he looked at the lady as to ask
)wheather it was okey ) or not. And she treated him as not beeing an adult.
)That¥s what made me feel uncomfortable about ) the situation.
This incident is, unfortunately, quite consistent with anthroposophical
teachings on race relations. Rudolf Steiner taught that black people are
indeed childlike, and a number of his followers have adopted that belief and
applied it to Waldorf.
One of Steiner's earliest students, a prominent anthroposophist named
Richard Karutz, wrote a whole book in 1938 about "the African soul", which
detailed at length the anthroposophical understanding of black people's
childlike nature and argued that Europeans must be the "educators" of the
African soul (Karutz, Die Afrikanische Seele, p. 347). In other writings,
Karutz expanded on this point: "The Negro is an imitator and fundamentally
persists in his unconscious rhythm, while the Aryan is the creative one".
The Waldorf movement still recommends Karutz's work today; see:
http://www.waldorfkindergarten.org/deutsch/paedagogik/literatur.html
The anthroposophical view of blacks and Africans didn't change much after
World War II. Another very prominent anthroposophist, F.W. Zeylmans van
Emmichoven, wrote in 1950:
"While lecturing on the human soul to the School of Theology of Howard
University in Washington, D.C. (one of the universities for Blacks) I not
only found a very attentive audience, but a particularly sensitive one. The
manner in which these young Blacks listened to the lecture and put their
questions afterward, reminded me of the manner in which very intelligent but
still rather immature children react in similar situations. One could _see_
them thinking with deep earnestness and devotion to the subject, while their
questions and remarks were just as well put as they were deep."
As for followers of Steiner in South Africa itself, the record is equally
troubling. A pamphlet published by Novalis Press, the major anthroposophist
publisher in South Africa, tells us that "the black negro race is determined
by these childhood characteristics." When the author Geoffrey Ahern visited
various anthroposophist institutions in South Africa during the apartheid
era, he reported: ìThere are no black or, it seems, coloured people; I was
told this was not because of conscious exclusion but because of the enormous
culture gap." (Ahern, Sun at Midnight, 1984)
One of the most influential founders of the Waldorf movement in South Africa
was the Dutch anthroposophist Max Stibbe, who spent the last decade of his
life in apartheid South Africa. Stibbe was an outspoken racist, and helped
design the "racial ethnography" courses that were part of the standard
Waldorf curriculum in the Netherlands until the 1990's. Stibbe was a
defender of apartheid. One of the Waldorf schools in South Africa is named
after him today.
Perhaps another quote from South African anthroposophists will make their
basic orientation toward racial questions clearer. This one is from another
Novalis Press book titled Invisible Africa, published in 1987, in the waning
years of the apartheid regime:
"The Aryan type works through the European race in general althrough he may
incarnate within another race as a sacrificial gesture to assist in the
destiny of that race. This can happen to assist the
individualizing of personalities in that race so that their unique qualities
are freed to contribute towards mankind's future. The immediate cultural
task lies with the Aryan."
Similar passages can be found throughout the central anthroposophical
literature on racial topics, beginning with Rudolf Steiner's own major
works. Thus the incident you witnessed was not, sadly, particularly
surprising. I hope you will have an opportunity to tell us more about your
experience in Sweden.
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 14:01:58 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: General remarks
Hello Dirk,
I'd like to point out that the first and last sentences of your latest post
directly contradict one another. You begin by writing:
) A lot of the criticism here about Waldorf etc. seems
)to be caused by personal experiences that were pretty
)bad.
And then conclude with the following:
)Why don't you visit once one and just relax?
Critics of Waldorf who have become skeptical of the schools because of their
own personal experiences obviously don't need to relax and visit one of
them. They already know Waldorf schools intimately and from the inside, as
former Waldorf parents and teachers. May I ask why this didn't occur to you
while writing your post?
I'm also curious about your avoidance of the questions that Walden has asked
you. His questions didn't seem particularly unusual to me. Does your
reluctance to address such questions have anything to do with your dismissal
of evidence and your suspiciousness toward critical thinking? Yesterday you
hypothesized that critics of anthroposophy "are not willing to enter a
different way of thinking". But it seems to me that the problem here is
exactly the opposite. We can't say much about your preferred way of thinking
unless you are willing to share it with us and enter into public discussion
of it. How about giving that a try?
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 23:59:01 +0200
From: "Ylva Eliasson" (ulfva telia.com)
Subject: Re: waldorf in Southafrica
Thank¥s for your answer.
After breaking up from my studies with the antroposophists I read two
of your articles publisched at www.folkvett.nu - and of course the
answer from G–ran Fant. I also wrote some about my experiences in the
magasin "Humanisten"
After that I have read many books about waldorfschools, nazism
occultism and so on.
I don`t know exactly what to tell about my experiences, but I¥ll
certainly be back on this list. I¥ll try to figure out what could be
interesting for people to know. I¥ve got lots of questions of course,
and the more I learn the more I want to know!
I found Karutz as one of the recommended authors as you said. I have
not yet read anything from the Akasha cronicle but I¥ve heard it too
is questioned as rasistic. And it¥s still recommened as well though
antroposophists always claim theese thoughts must be understood as
accepted in the past. But I¥ve come to wonder if me and an
antroposophist indeed mean the same thing when we talk about
rasicism. A black person is more childish but not less worth I¥ve
heard ant...say - and for me that is rascism- for an antr...it¥s not!
It is late and time for good night (in Sweden)
But I guess there¥s more to come
Ylva Eliasson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2003 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: waldorf in Southafrica
) Welcome to the waldorf critics list, Ylva Eliasson. You wrote of a visiting
) Waldorf delegation from South Africa that included "one 'dark' male and a
) white lady - and they did not act as equals." You further explained:
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:30:27 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: waldorf in Southafrica
Ylva, you wrote,
)I have not yet read anything from the Akasha cronicle but I¥ve heard
)it too is questioned as rasistic. And it¥s still recommened as well
)though antroposophists always claim theese thoughts must be
)understood as accepted in the past.
Well, I don't expect you will read the akasha chronicle, because it's
imaginary! Steiner claimed to be able to read the "akasha chronicle"
that records spiritual activities in the past, present, and future.
)But I¥ve come to wonder if me and an antroposophist indeed mean the
)same thing when we talk about rasicism. A black person is more
)childish but not less worth I¥ve heard ant...say - and for me that
)is rascism- for an antr...it¥s not!
Exactly, they think racisim is only disliking other races, they don't
realize that pseud-scientific beliefs about the history and races of
humanity, in which different races are assigned cosmic roles, as also
racist.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:52:18 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Kimberton Waldorf School graduates
Kimberton Waldorf School has a list of their 2003 high school
graduating class's destinations on their web page,
http://www.kimberton.org.
What I find interesting is that four out of the twenty-three
graduates will be going on to Anthroposophical institutions. That's a
17% recruitment rate. I wonder what percentage of a Catholic high
school's graduates go on to a seminary.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 18:10:58 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FChlewind?= on "Star Children"
The Research Bulletin of the Research Institute for Waldorf Education
(sounds scientific, doesn't it!) Vol. VIII No. 2 (June 2003) has an
article by Georg K¸lewind "In What Respect are Star Children
Different? Studies concering the extension of Childhood." The article
is translated from Das Goetheanum, 30 March, 2003. K¸lewind writes:
"The separation from the world--spiritual from physical--is in many
cases less pronounced than used to be the case with children of the
same age in an earlier generation; as a result, the separating forces
take effect later or slower. In this respect, these children are late
compared to 'normal' children; due to this lateness in development
these children are fundamentally different in nature. Sympathy forces
predominate, resulting in numerous 'deviations' from the usual
capacities and achievements required at school, in the kindergarten,
or at home.
"These new children live in a picture-like or feeling 'thinking'
instead of a linear, conceptual thinking (we can feel the meaning of
a picture; it speaks to us aesthetically). Being strongly connected
with things, also with their own inner gestures of consciousness,
they have difficulties forming concepts, which is the central aim of
education in most schools." [p. 20]
Seems like a convenient out for Waldorf teachers. If the kids don't
learn anything, don't worry, it's their destiny, they're star
children, they don't need materialistic "concepts."
"When this difference in constitution is not understood by the
parents and teachers, these children will quickly be labeled as
'retarded,' 'challenged' or in similar terms. In reality, these
children are simply different..." [p. 20]
Making children slow down their development and stay in infantile
magical thinking has always been a goal of Waldorf education.
K¸lewind continues:
"These children retain the capacities of small children, and with it
the childlike relationship to the spiritual and physical world,
longer, often much longer than grown-ups do. In this sense one can
speak of a slowing down or retardation. On the one hand this means a
more spiritual soul structure, on the other hand an adaptation to the
world of the grown-ups which is initially slower or more measured. By
making the wrong judgment and taking inappropriate measures, the
former can be destroyed, the latter made impossible." [p. 21]
I suppose "inappropriate measures" might include help in learning to read.
"It is hardly possible to understand these fundamental differences
without a spiritually oriented psychology..."
Yeah, I bet. In a footnote on methods and therapies for dealing with
"star children," K¸lewind writes:
"[F]or people who don't speak, supported communication ("Facilitated
Communication"--FC) is the only way to communicate and this method
has been in existence for about 14 years." [p. 22]
K¸lewind is out of touch with his field; Facilitated Communication
was thoroughly debunked in 1994. It was shown that the communications
come from the facilitators, not from the disabled person. He also
praises "holding therapy," a technique that proves only that torture
is an effective method of behavior modification.
-Dan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 05:16:05 +0200 (CEST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Dirk=20Klose?= (jkdirk yahoo.de)
Subject: Re: General remarks
)
) Me: Dirk, your gross generalizations do not fit
) with reality. I am trying
) to be respectful here but you arrive with these
) types of claims and should
) not be surprised to be questioned. Please supply
) some data to back up your
) claim. How many Waldorf (past/present) children
) have you interviewed? Do
) you have access to the elusive enrolment/retention
) stats for Waldorf
) Education? If you cannot supply this data I suggest
) you rethink making
) claims about the majority of students in Waldorf
) school.
Your gross generalizations do not fit with reality.
How many children have you interviewed etc. The same
questions I can ask you.
It is my own experience what I wrote. And I am
grateful that I could make those experiences. I don't
believe you guys here really want to perceive anything
but the negative. So I don't really feel like sharing
any of my personal views. I doubt that you want to
know them. Rather do I spend my time with the
practical work than theorizing.
Why don't you all make the step beyond critcizing and
offer a healthy alternative to Waldorf. Education is
really a tough job. Maybe you already you and in this
case I wish you good luck.Yet I doubt it and in this
case I am prejudiced.
Anything that will improve the education of the
children is good work.
I already imagine what you all think now. Go ahead and
post it. It seems to me that you don't get anywhere
here.
Peace
Dirk
__________________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Logos und Klingelt–ne f¸rs Handy bei http://sms.yahoo.de
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:00:09 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: General remarks
Dirk wrote:
Your gross generalizations do not fit with reality.
How many children have you interviewed etc. The same
questions I can ask you.
It is my own experience what I wrote.
Me: No, Dirk, I made no such claim. You did. Now you are trying to deflect
the discussion instead of dealing with it. I did not claim, nor have I ever
heard a critic of Waldorf claim that the majority of Waldorf students hate
their schools or teachers. This diversionary tactic is typical of those who
join this list to make a speech and refuse to engage in dialogue. I feel
quite sad when I read this. I have no doubt your intentions are good, mind
you. But this is the problem and I sincerely hope that one day you are able
to see it for what it just might be: Faith.
Listen carefully to my claim: Waldorf Education is based on the thoughts of
Rudolf Steiner, an Austrian occultist who coined the term "Anthroposophy" to
describe a spiritual path involving reincarnation, racial and spiritual
hierarchy as well as a myriad of beliefs stemming mostly from Theosophy.
Waldorf Education is inexorably entwined in Anthroposophy - from teacher
training to the content and management (or lack thereof) in the classroom.
The Waldorf teacher is taught to work with the child's *soul.* While not
every person involved in Anthroposophy/Waldorf consciously misrepresents the
reality behind the Anthro-Waldorf connection, there is a disturbing pattern
of denial within the Waldorf *community* often resulting in upset parents,
children and teachers leaving the *movement* feeling confused, hurt and
angry. That is my claim and I invite your comment.
Dirk wrote:
And I am grateful that I could make those experiences. I don't
believe you guys here really want to perceive anything
but the negative.
Me: Again, you are wrong. I already told you that many critics (including
me) think there are positive elements to our Waldorf experience. Check the
archives if you do not believe me. Briefly: baking bread, knitting, lack
of television/computers in the early grades, healthy snacks, playing outside
daily, lack of academic testing for young children, I think there is
tremendous potential for this *type* of education. Waldorf does not, of
course, have a monopoly on these activities. But the first thing needed is
honesty and integrity, IMO. Keep Waldorf for the Anthroposophists or those
who are at least forewarned about the reality behind the movement instead of
trying to be all things to all people.
Dirk wrote: So I don't really feel like sharing any of my personal views. I
doubt that you want to know them.
Me: Why do you "doubt" this? You have already been asked for these views.
I truly would enjoy knowing your personal views. That is what this is all
about, Dirk. People arrive with different experiences and we share our
views. Maybe we can all learn something.
Dirk wrote: Rather do I spend my time with the practical work than
theorizing.
Me: I am in favour of "practical work," as well.
Dirk wrote: Why don't you all make the step beyond critcizing and
offer a healthy alternative to Waldorf. Education is
really a tough job. Maybe you already you and in this
case I wish you good luck.Yet I doubt it and in this
case I am prejudiced.
Me: You "doubt" again. How about listening to what is said on this list and
engaging in conversation. Prejudice often grows from poor communication
skills, IMO.
Dirk wrote: Anything that will improve the education of the
children is good work. I already imagine what you all think now. Go ahead
and
post it. It seems to me that you don't get anywhere here.
Me: Now you "imagine" everyone thinking.... I urge you again to try to
engage in conversation. There is no need to "doubt: or "imagine" what
people are thinking. You are being told what I think. Listen. It is not
really that difficult. I try hard to be very clear. I am willing to give
you the same opportunity. Try.
Dirk wrote: Peace
Me: Peace will accompany open, honest communication. Give peace a chance.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:20:17 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: General remarks
)Dirk, performing the classic counter attack, verses answering
)questions asked, wrote:
)
)Your gross generalizations do not fit with reality.
)How many children have you interviewed etc. The same
)questions I can ask you.
)It is my own experience what I wrote. And I am
)grateful that I could make those experiences. I don't
)believe you guys here really want to perceive anything
)but the negative. So I don't really feel like sharing
)any of my personal views. I doubt that you want to
)know them. Rather do I spend my time with the
)practical work than theorizing.
)Why don't you all make the step beyond critcizing and
)offer a healthy alternative to Waldorf. Education is
)really a tough job. Maybe you already you and in this
)case I wish you good luck.Yet I doubt it and in this
)case I am prejudiced.
Debra:
I *did* create an alternative to Waldorf, post our Waldorf
experience. Please feel free to check out the school I am very proud
to have been a part of creating. Go to:
http://www.ncsa.tresd.k12.ca.us/ , and be prepared to see what real
kids' art looks like.
I am sorry you think we are just vested in the negative. Forming this
school was the first thing I thought to do, post Waldorf. PLANS was
second on the list. I had to square away my kids first. . .
) Anything that will improve the education of the
)children is good work.
Debra:
Thank you. I agree.
)I already imagine what you all think now. Go ahead and
)post it. It seems to me that you don't get anywhere
)here.
Debra:
Come on, You are treating us as non-humans. We are good people with
high ideals, just like you.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:05:19 +0200
From: "Ylva Eliasson" (ulfva telia.com)
Subject: Re: General remarks
Very interesting alternative Debra. I¥ll read more later on.
Let me mention another pedagogic method, namely Freinet CelestÌn. He
was a socialist and fought against fascism. I think this could be
what waldorf claim to be but certainly not is! I don¥t know if this
pedagogy is (well)-known in the USA?
Paolo Freire was inspired and developed the method for latinamerica.
Dirk wrote:
It is my own experience what I wrote. And I am
grateful that I could make those experiences. I don't
believe you guys here really want to perceive anything
but the negative. So I don't really feel like sharing
any of my personal views. I doubt that you want to
know them/
Me: My experience is that this is typicall for antroposophic arguing.
I have experienced and you should just believe me - or try to
experience yourself. I¥ve met many of theese claims - we are and have
always fought against rascism. We mixed black and White in SA. And I
say - whn and where - never an answer, but often a new question! I
believe this is just tactics - and very sect-look-alike
Ylva
----- Original Message -----
From: "Debra Snell" (snell gv.net)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: General remarks
) )Dirk, performing the classic counter attack, verses answering
) )questions asked, wrote:
) )
) )Your gross generalizations do not fit with reality.
) )How many children have you interviewed etc. The same
) )questions I can ask you.
) )It is my own experience what I wrote. And I am
) )grateful that I could make those experiences. I don't
) )believe you guys here really want to perceive anything
) )but the negative. So I don't really feel like sharing
) )any of my personal views. I doubt that you want to
) )know them. Rather do I spend my time with the
) )practical work than theorizing.
) )Why don't you all make the step beyond critcizing and
) )offer a healthy alternative to Waldorf. Education is
) )really a tough job. Maybe you already you and in this
) )case I wish you good luck.Yet I doubt it and in this
) )case I am prejudiced.
)
) Debra:
)
) I *did* create an alternative to Waldorf, post our Waldorf
) experience. Please feel free to check out the school I am very proud
) to have been a part of creating. Go to:
) http://www.ncsa.tresd.k12.ca.us/ , and be prepared to see what real
) kids' art looks like.
)
) I am sorry you think we are just vested in the negative. Forming this
) school was the first thing I thought to do, post Waldorf. PLANS was
) second on the list. I had to square away my kids first. . .
)
)
)
)
) ) Anything that will improve the education of the
) )children is good work.
)
)
)
) Debra:
)
) Thank you. I agree.
)
) )I already imagine what you all think now. Go ahead and
) )post it. It seems to me that you don't get anywhere
) )here.
)
)
) Debra:
)
) Come on, You are treating us as non-humans. We are good people with
) high ideals, just like you.
)
) ==^================================================================
) 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.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1077