return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By pstaud hotmail.com
(another from Soren) Re: Simplifications
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: (another from Soren) Re: Simplifications
By Gary goodwinter.com
The Abstract Nature of Modern Economic Life
By sgroth efn.org
Re: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By sgroth efn.org
Re: Simplifications
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Simplifications
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: Simplifications
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Simplifications
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By feetapparel hotmail.com
An academe trapped in Steiner land
By argeiphontes hotmail.com
Re: An academe trapped in Steiner land
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: An academe trapped in Steiner land
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: An academe trapped in Steiner land
By snell gv.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:48:28 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
Percedol opines that racism is a tenet of all esotericism:
)It's a tenet of all esotericism. Just think of Plato.
Since the concept of race did not exist in Plato's time, your example is
obviously erroneous. But I'll agree that a very large proportion of modern
esotericist movements have incorporated racist beliefs. That's one reason
why charlatans like Evola are all the rage in esoteric circles today. People
drawn to esotericism are very often politically clueless, and are either
unaware that many of their "teachers" were racists and fascists, or simply
don't care.
) ) Whether or not these basic concepts impinge on your
) ) private
) ) image of "anthroposophy", Percedol, they are integral parts of
) ) anthroposophy
) ) as it actually exists in the real world.
)
)P:
)This is the limit of your analysis of A.
I didn't really offer an analysis of anthroposophy in the paragraph you
quoted. All I offered was a straightforward description of anthroposophy's
racial theory. (Whether this description is accurate, by the way, has
nothing to do with Percedolosophy; it has only to do with anthroposophy as
it actually exists in the real world.) I think it would be great if we could
move on to a critical analysis of anthroposophy's racial theory, but the
necessary first step is to get the description right. This is the step that
seems to keep tripping you up.
)Anyone has the possibility to connect to the higher self.
)Not in the future, but in this life.
)And this is not just my personal view.
I imagine there are indeed others who share this view, and maybe even
project this view onto anthroposophy. Since you and they are mistaken
regarding anthroposophy, as a matter of mere description, such views are of
no consequence here. Anthroposophy is an entity that exists outside of your
mind, Percedol. Recognizing this fact is a prerequisite of meaningful
discussion.
)You may keep going with your criticism towards A. but this is where it
)fails completely.
Which criticism? The only criticism I offered in the post you are supposedly
responding to was that too many anthroposophists are ignorant of the history
of the Aryan myth. If you think that criticism is wide of the mark, then
you've got a lot of explaining to do regarding your last several posts, all
of which display a remarkable naivete about Aryanism. But if you prefer, we
can leave my criticism aside and focus instead on getting an adequate
picture of anthroposophy's racial doctrines. That will mean returning to
Steiner's texts, not to your personal beliefs.
)It will good for everybody to know, if someone will have to deal with
)your attacks.
I didn't attack you in that post. I didn't even attack anthroposophy. I am
not an enemy of anthroposophy, I am a critic of its racial theories, its
ethnic teachings, and its esoteric politics. But all of that is jumping
ahead a step; we still haven't clarified the logically prior question of
just what anthroposophy's racial theories are. We need to know that before
we can decide whether we are in agreement or disagreement with them. And on
that score, I think you have managed to confuse yourself rather thoroughly.
Here's how you can tell:
Go back and re-read my last post, the one you think you've just responded
to. You will see that I didn't offer any criticism of anthroposophy's
racism; I merely pointed it out and summarized it for your benefit. So far
all you have done is observed that your own private version of
"anthroposophy" differs from the version represented by Steiner's published
works, and complained that the standard of racism that I have invoked is
somehow too broad. Your first point is irrelevant, and your second point is
self-defeating.
It seems to me that you have simply mixed up the task of description with
the task of evaluation, and that this confusion accounts for two prominent
aspects of your posts: your continual insistence that real anthroposophy is
whatever you say it is, regardless of what the rest of us can see in black
and white on the pages of Steiner's books; and your constant irritation at
my recapitulation of anthroposophical race doctrine. In other words, you not
only conflate your own evaluations and descriptions, you conflate mine as
well. I can't help out much on the first score, but as for the second,
perhaps I can try to explain one more time how I approach this subject.
It is certainly true that I strongly dislike anthroposophy's racial
doctrines, but that issue is entirely separate from the job of describing
them accurately. There are lots of people in the world who do not share my
negative attitude toward racist thinking. When encountering a historical
figure like Steiner, both racists and non-racists have to first figure out
what he said about race before we can evaluate what he said and assess it
either critically or affirmatively. To call anthroposophy racist only counts
as criticism for those who are opposed to racism. It is obviously not a
criticism for racists themselves. That's why so many non-anthroposophical
racists are fans of Steiner. Although they dismiss many other elements of
anthroposophy, they enthusiastically welcome his racial teachings. Surely
even you can recognize that such people have no motive for misrepresenting
anthroposophical race theory.
)Thank you,
)good-bye!
You mean you're leaving just at the point where the argument starts to make
sense? Why, that's never happended before.......
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Get McAfee virus scanning and cleaning of incoming attachments. Get Hotmail
Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:53:11 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Cc: sgroth efn.org
Subject: (another from Soren) Re: Simplifications
Hello critics,
I got another post from Soren, below; he says he is still unable to post
directly to the list. I'll reply later today.
Peter S.
) Hi Still not able to post to the list :-(
)
)Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)))use of word "race" as descriptive term related to evolution as Steiner
)))and (according to the information you provided) Mitrinovic approaches it
)))is false.
))
))- I certainly agree that the
))
))I'm glad we agree on that. Thanks for making it clear in your posts to the
))list.
))
)))What Steiner is concerned, I find that he didn't present
)))antroposophy as a timeless "box" - that the movement in some ways have
)))become a box and have difficulties overcoming and reevaluating the
)))founding father is a "follower"problem I somehow find Steiner himself
)))tried to adress.
)))So I see no reason to reject that Steiner in cases use the term race in
)))characterising things, which in itself can contain some truth, but
)))becomes false in relation to race, as biological determination.
))
))
))I can't see your logic on this point. If it is false, isn't that reason
))enough to reject it?
)
)Well, of course, especially if you're not interested in a within
)antroposophy perspective. For antroposophy to just reject lots of what
)Steiner said won't do - it has to be reevaluated - to sort out what is
)the truth behind and where this truth becomes incorrect by the process
)of relating a clairvoyant picture to the terms of our sense-perceptible
)world, to cloth non-verbal communication into words...
)
))Though eurocentrism in itself is nothing I
))
)))endorse, I do find a point in seperating ideas contain within this
)))concept, from those that is purely based on biological racethinking.
))
))
))But the whole point is that people like Steiner and Mitrinovic did *not*
))separate these concepts. If we want to understand their work on its own
))terms, we can't wish away that crucial fact. Steiner tied spirituality and
))biology tightly together. Contemporary anthroposophy has yet to untie
))them. What's taking you all so long?
)
)Childdisease ?? :-)
)
)"The concept of race in a proper sense was only useful at the old
)Atlantis. Therefore we have, as we count with a real evolution of
)humanity, not used the concept of race for the post-Atlantean time. We
)don't speak of an Indian race and so on, as it isn't proper any more. We
)speak of an Old Indian cultural epoch, of an Old Persian cultural epoch
)and so on.
)It would have completely no sense if we were to speak of that we in our
)time were preparing for a sixth 'race'. If we in our time still see
)remains of the old Atlantean differences, remaining old group soulness,
)so that you still can speak of a differentiation into races -/ what is
)preparing itself for the sixth epoch consists specifically in getting
)rid of and leaving behind that which is 'racial character'. That is the
)important thing. /
)/Therefore it is necessary, that that movement that is called the
)anthroposophical movement, [...] in its basic character takes up
)especially this task of getting rid of that which related to 'racial
)character' and to unite people of all races, of all nations and in this
)way bridging this differentiation, these differences, this abyss, that
)exists between different groups of people. Because that which are old
)racial points of view has a physical character, and that which will
)develop into the future has a spiritual character. /
)That is the reason it is so urgently necessary that our anthroposophical
)movement is a spiritual movement, that looks at that which is spiritual
)and overcomes specifically that which is based on physical differences
)out of the force of this spirituality.
)It is completely understandable that every movement has its child
)diseases and that one at the beginning of the theosophical movement
)described what it is about as if the evolution of the Earth so to speak
)was diferrentiated into seven epochs - they were called 'main races' and
)that every 'root race' was differentiated into seven 'sub-races', and
)that everything would repeat itself that way for ever, so that you for
)ever could speak of seven 'races' and seven 'sub-races'.
)/But/ /one has to overcome this child disease and become clear about
)that the concept of race ceases to have any meaning/importance
)specifically in our time'. Something else is preparing itself -
)something that in the most eminent sense has to do with the human
)individuality - the ever more increasing individualisation of man. What
)it is about is that this development of the individuality is supported
)in the right way, and the anthroposophical movement has to support this
)development of individuality in man in the right way.''/
)4 December 1909, in: The deeper secrets of the development of humanity
)in the light of the gospels (GA 117)
)
)I find the left-rigth crossover interesting, especially as I think the
)term left-rigth isn't a fulfilling description. Who says that rascism
)per definition is rigthwing, and humanism per definition leftwing -
)Much of the left-rigth crossover is attempts to create dynamic middle,
)which in radicalism then tend to find more activism on the rigth end of
)the scale, as the leftwing has been stuck with a dogmatic materialism.
)The radical left thus alienated large groups who in classposition and in
)economic conditions would agree to socialisation of economy, but ie was
)adherents of a religion. In stead of religion being a dividing factor
)within the working class, I find that it was the dogmatic claim of
)anti-spirituality and atheism from the radical left, that scared large
)groups of potentially progressive people away - fascism and nazism then
)skillfully exploited radical social ideas.
)
)
)
)
_________________________________________________________________
Instant message in style with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE!
http://msnmessenger-download.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 14:03:40 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
Peter S. wrote to Percedol(s):
But if you prefer, we
) can leave my criticism aside and focus instead on getting an adequate
) picture of anthroposophy's racial doctrines. That will mean returning to
) Steiner's texts, not to your personal beliefs.
I think this is an important point. I often witness this *Anthro according
to my values* behaviour - as opposed to Anthro according to what Steiner
actually taught. For example: Years ago I was hosting an old friend for a
few days and I took him to our Waldorf school with the kids. As we wandered
around the halls my friend was very quiet. Finally he asked me just what
our family was doing in this school? Nothing like honest friends....(g) I
started espousing the virtues of Waldorf education and when I came my bit
about Waldorf being a "school concerned with environmental issues," my
friend laughed. Turns out he knew more about Waldorf than I did - even
though I thought I *got it.*
I had invented much of what I considered to be the Waldorf Way - including
the *environmental angle.* I also clung to the few *feel good* Steiner
quotes that helped me justify our existence in such a school. Of course, I
conveniently ignored the bulk of evidence pointing to the real *impulse*
behind Waldorf - as well as the clear message Rudolf Steiner taught his
followers. This is a movement based on clairvoyance, reincarnation and
racial/spiritual hierarchy. This movement is on a mission and has very
little to do with (in my case) environmental issues or social change based
on *human* values and needs.
It's an interesting phenomenon - this mixing of personal beliefs with
anthroposophical beliefs. It is not easy to deal with Anthroposophy while
actually learning about it - especially the racial doctrines. One way is to
simply deny the existence of anything we do not want to believe. Parents
are well advised to learn *everything you need to know about Anthroposophy
but were afraid to ask* BEFORE becoming involved in a Waldorf school. Hint:
You will not get this information from your local Waldorf School. You
*might* get a watered down version according to what someone thinks you
*want* to hear. Shame.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 16:55:01 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
CC: (sgroth efn.org)
Subject: Re: (another from Soren) Re: Simplifications
His account had hard-bounced again at Topica. I've reset it to active.
...Gary
on 9/30/03 2:53 PM, Peter Staudenmaier at pstaud hotmail.com wrote:
) Hello critics,
)
) I got another post from Soren, below; he says he is still unable to post
) directly to the list. I'll reply later today.
)
) Peter S.
)
)
)) Hi Still not able to post to the list :-(
))
)) Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
))
)))) use of word "race" as descriptive term related to evolution as Steiner
)))) and (according to the information you provided) Mitrinovic approaches it
)))) is false.
)))
))) - I certainly agree that the
)))
))) I'm glad we agree on that. Thanks for making it clear in your posts to the
))) list.
)))
)))) What Steiner is concerned, I find that he didn't present
)))) antroposophy as a timeless "box" - that the movement in some ways have
)))) become a box and have difficulties overcoming and reevaluating the
)))) founding father is a "follower"problem I somehow find Steiner himself
)))) tried to adress.
)))) So I see no reason to reject that Steiner in cases use the term race in
)))) characterising things, which in itself can contain some truth, but
)))) becomes false in relation to race, as biological determination.
)))
)))
))) I can't see your logic on this point. If it is false, isn't that reason
))) enough to reject it?
))
)) Well, of course, especially if you're not interested in a within
)) antroposophy perspective. For antroposophy to just reject lots of what
)) Steiner said won't do - it has to be reevaluated - to sort out what is
)) the truth behind and where this truth becomes incorrect by the process
)) of relating a clairvoyant picture to the terms of our sense-perceptible
)) world, to cloth non-verbal communication into words...
))
))) Though eurocentrism in itself is nothing I
)))
)))) endorse, I do find a point in seperating ideas contain within this
)))) concept, from those that is purely based on biological racethinking.
)))
)))
))) But the whole point is that people like Steiner and Mitrinovic did *not*
))) separate these concepts. If we want to understand their work on its own
))) terms, we can't wish away that crucial fact. Steiner tied spirituality and
))) biology tightly together. Contemporary anthroposophy has yet to untie
))) them. What's taking you all so long?
))
)) Childdisease ?? :-)
))
)) "The concept of race in a proper sense was only useful at the old
)) Atlantis. Therefore we have, as we count with a real evolution of
)) humanity, not used the concept of race for the post-Atlantean time. We
)) don't speak of an Indian race and so on, as it isn't proper any more. We
)) speak of an Old Indian cultural epoch, of an Old Persian cultural epoch
)) and so on.
)) It would have completely no sense if we were to speak of that we in our
)) time were preparing for a sixth 'race'. If we in our time still see
)) remains of the old Atlantean differences, remaining old group soulness,
)) so that you still can speak of a differentiation into races -/ what is
)) preparing itself for the sixth epoch consists specifically in getting
)) rid of and leaving behind that which is 'racial character'. That is the
)) important thing. /
)) /Therefore it is necessary, that that movement that is called the
)) anthroposophical movement, [...] in its basic character takes up
)) especially this task of getting rid of that which related to 'racial
)) character' and to unite people of all races, of all nations and in this
)) way bridging this differentiation, these differences, this abyss, that
)) exists between different groups of people. Because that which are old
)) racial points of view has a physical character, and that which will
)) develop into the future has a spiritual character. /
)) That is the reason it is so urgently necessary that our anthroposophical
)) movement is a spiritual movement, that looks at that which is spiritual
)) and overcomes specifically that which is based on physical differences
)) out of the force of this spirituality.
)) It is completely understandable that every movement has its child
)) diseases and that one at the beginning of the theosophical movement
)) described what it is about as if the evolution of the Earth so to speak
)) was diferrentiated into seven epochs - they were called 'main races' and
)) that every 'root race' was differentiated into seven 'sub-races', and
)) that everything would repeat itself that way for ever, so that you for
)) ever could speak of seven 'races' and seven 'sub-races'.
)) /But/ /one has to overcome this child disease and become clear about
)) that the concept of race ceases to have any meaning/importance
)) specifically in our time'. Something else is preparing itself -
)) something that in the most eminent sense has to do with the human
)) individuality - the ever more increasing individualisation of man. What
)) it is about is that this development of the individuality is supported
)) in the right way, and the anthroposophical movement has to support this
)) development of individuality in man in the right way.''/
)) 4 December 1909, in: The deeper secrets of the development of humanity
)) in the light of the gospels (GA 117)
))
)) I find the left-rigth crossover interesting, especially as I think the
)) term left-rigth isn't a fulfilling description. Who says that rascism
)) per definition is rigthwing, and humanism per definition leftwing -
)) Much of the left-rigth crossover is attempts to create dynamic middle,
)) which in radicalism then tend to find more activism on the rigth end of
)) the scale, as the leftwing has been stuck with a dogmatic materialism.
)) The radical left thus alienated large groups who in classposition and in
)) economic conditions would agree to socialisation of economy, but ie was
)) adherents of a religion. In stead of religion being a dividing factor
)) within the working class, I find that it was the dogmatic claim of
)) anti-spirituality and atheism from the radical left, that scared large
)) groups of potentially progressive people away - fascism and nazism then
)) skillfully exploited radical social ideas.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:19:38 -0700
From: Soren (sgroth efn.org)
Subject: The Abstract Nature of Modern Economic Life
--- In ecosocialism y..., S?ren Groth (sgroth b...) wrote:
It is often stated as "proof" for the height of civilisation presented
by the economic and political elite, that the more prosperity and military
force a nation has, the more civilised it is, the extend of democracy,
the quality of the civilisation is hardly ever measured - and it is to
some extend true.. The economic development in western civilisation was
necessary to seperate the individual as an independant being... from
1810 the money-market became a market of it's own, the significance of
this being the rise of democracy as a motive force which then became
extended to wider groups of individuals, than white male's with certain
amount of property ...
So when we speak about economy, it is turned around, it's not the
economic growth, the quantitative side that is important, this a
progress philosophy based on the real economic life, that became
"mercantile materialism", and as economy develops into more and more
abstract nature has become a "pro-capitalist materialism", which Marx in
full consequence make into an abstraction of everything .. Marx's
abstraction in theory was a result of an abstract economy,
that is dehumanising all participants into tools for economic development,
rather than economy being a tool for humanity's development.
This development of abstract economy served a purpose, and when we see
the purpose, it becomes clear to us, then we can turn it around, it is
not the development of economics that has produced education, health
care, education and so on, it is the need for these things to be
manifested as a spiritual life for free individuals, that has worked
through the abstract economic life... When this is realised, the
humanist values, become the consciouss purpose of the unconsciouss
processes in economic development... the "invisible" hand of God in
economic life becomes consciouss (this of course is the total opposite
of Marx, but also of modern pro-capitalist economic theories, that see
the economic development as the goal, and the humanist values as
necessary means to continue economic growth - both basically
materialist, the latter just with a dynamic, a nut in the shell).
As long as the spiritual life superconscioussly worked through the
economic life, it of course easily gave rise to the abstract idea that
it is the economic life that determine the spiritual life. And from
the 14th century onwards the spiritual life for a majority of people
was something they had no access to - the ones with piles of bread
told the hungry "man don't live by bread alone" .. this is what people
experienced, as the economy develops and more skills is needed, people
experienced they were given education only because it was necessary,
but they also became aware of the ideals of the spiritual life..
however these ideals didn't presented themselves as rights for the
majority, but as priveleges of an elite... the spiritual, economic and
political elite didn't represented rights for all individuals, but
priveleges for a few ... Marx twist this around 180 degrees and reject
the ideals (the nut), and keep the shell: economy explains everything -
Steiner don't throw the baby out with the bathing water, but want to
make the ideals into rights for everyone - to have access to a free
spiritual life, which then consciously make economy a tool for
satisfying basic human needs - and qualitative, rather than quantitative
wants
The whole point is a history about the value of money as they work in
economics... from basically being just means of exchange based on real
stuff, they became connected to value in gold, and since the seventies
they are totally freed from any material value, actually.... you know
the expression immaterial assets...
But still we think about money, our consciousness about money is that
the value is like an exchange of a sack of flour for a sack of onions...
most people wee money this way, as real material assets based on real
material things ... Of the transfers on the international money-market
4% is based on a market of production-distribution-consumtion of goods
and services - the rest is immaterial transfers .... the value of money
today is solely based on one thing - TRUST
As this value becomes consciouss the free will that now mainly works in
economic life, unconscioussly in the body, can be taken to a "higher"
level, and work consciously from the spiritual life.. the "invisible"
hand of God in the market, instead becomes the consiouss hands of
humanity, free initiatives instead of free enterprise.
This also meaning that our humanist values can manifest as a leading
motive force, a qualitative value that replaces the quantitative values
in economic life, which today usurupate's the political sphere and
spiritual
life
)From being economic transfers money can become transfers of trust,
capital invested as a visible hand where we trust it will benefit our
will,
both for production, but also regarding human rights and environmental
quality
Well most of this is splendidly illustrated in
The Abstract Nature of Modern Economic Life
http://www.associative-economics.com/links/articles/AbstractNature.html
No need to say that the abstraction is several times bigger than then
Steiner used to label different politico-economic impulses
anglo-american, french, german aso .. and that was the reality then,
when the companies was mainly national enterprises, today it is
ofcourse meaningless to put national labels on economic enterprise,
and in Social Threefolding this is excactly what Steiner's at, economy
isn't a "national" issue, in a healthy economic life there is local
and international economy ... and here's the point, as economy becomes
globalised, and the consciousness is there, what purpose does that
serve, it must be followed by the ideals of western civilisation as
rights not privileges - the spiritual goal of globalisation isn't
further abstraction and invisible workings of Gods hand - it is the
spread of the humanist ideals... the longer it is done as a privelege
for those God rewards (according to the mercantile-materialist progress
teology),
the more the working of Gods hand hits back in terror, warfare, clash
of civilisations... the conditions of late 19th century in western
european national economies is now manifest on a global
scale, and instead of abstract marxism and moderate socialism, we see
reactions rooted in less abstract forces - only vital ideals as living
realities rooted in a radical humanist view - humanity as a middle
between the material and spiritual worlds, in consciouss interaction
with the ecosphere, each other and the "beyond" can rightly call itself
a high level of civilisation .. if the western world fail to take this
step, it'll become an empty shell of high ideals exercising more and
more barbarism ...
S?ren
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/threefolding
And that's Steiners point when he says that the transition to the sixth
cultural epoch will be a battle between the "white" and the "coloured"
world. Yes if Western Civilisation fail to be permeated by the
christ-impulse, and instead continue seing itself as privileged, split
into dreaming idealism (luciferian theology), and raw materialism,
(ahrimanic mechanisation) - then there will be fierce reactions from the
"coloured world" - The spiritual answer is not HATE and WAR - It's LOVE
and COMMUNITY
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 21:22:59 -0700
From: Soren (sgroth efn.org)
Subject: Re: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) Hi Soren,
)
) thanks again for your replies. Regarding Rigby's book about
) Mitrinovic, you wrote:
)
)) The book is not published by some obscure new age publisher, but the
)) University of Columbia
)
)
) Yes, it's from Columbia's excellent series of East European
) monographs. I'm not sure why this seemed notable to you, since I
) didn't impugn Rigby's publishers in any way; what I said is that his
) study of Mitrinovic is strongly positive
And my point being that according to Columbia it is critical. I think
you have some good points, which is worth looking into, but that you
tend to be so eager to make your point, that you interpretate and become
polemic instead of argumentative. Previously we had the thing about
List, where you claim that Steiner says nice things about his novel,
while the actual quote just says, that Steiner know List wrote that
book, when I read the qoute, it can actually be so that Steiner haven't
even read the novel, he just knows that List wrote it ..... Same above,
from your description of the above mentioned book, it sounds like it is
written by a follower of Mitrinovic, while it is a independent study
published by a academeic publisher. I don't understand the necessity to
make it into a "strongly positive" study, as if that makes the points
about Mitrinovic more compromising. I find them more valid if being just
objective and unprejudiced.
) You also wrote:
)
)) Thank you for some of the background information - I however find you
)) make some simplified conclusions,
)
)
) I don't know how to convince you that my conclusions are in fact not
) simple at all, unless you are willing to look into the material more
) carefully and more thoroughly. One of the problems with our whole
) exchange is that I keep pointing out the complex and multifaceted
) nature of the topics we've touched upon, from Steiner's deeply
) conflicted politics to the context of early twentieth century racial
) ideology, whereas you keep insisting that "the central theme in
) antroposophy" is unambiguously progressive.
Yes I find individual anarchism unambigously progressive - "anarchism"
in the sense non-totalitarian. There's a dynamic in I-consciousness -
and I find it progressive that each individual have a freedom to sort
out, how to stand between the shadows of the past and the seeds of the
future. I find it progressive that Steiner points out that ideals is
seeds for the future, but that without the inner work of dealing with
the shadows of the past, it easily becomes dreaming idealism. And again
I also see that at times Steiner is not living up to the ideal, that's
the point about "followers", that antroposophy should not become
"steinerism" When Steiner isn't progressive and fail to deal with the
shadows of the past in his own sentient soul, then antroposophy need to
be able to evaluate this. There's several occassions where Steiner
adress this problem himself - truth shall prevail within antroposophy,
not the believed correctness of Rudolf Steiner.
I find your definition of fascism/nazism to be very wide, focusing on
some similarities in a variety of themes, but omitting differences in
characteristics that was cebtral to the political fascist massmovements
in the 20-30ties. The tedency to classify non-hierarchical
non-totalitarian movements with some similarities to fascism/nazism as
being fascist is more polemic than academic - especially as the terms
fascism/nazism by most people isn't perceived as objective descriptive
terms for a specifik ideology. From another angle communism is used in a
similar way - If I express a saying "from each by ability, to each by
need", a principle which can be found ie among early christians, then it
is easily connected to Marxism-Leninism, and I'm responsible for Stalins
deathcamps.
When it comes to social credit, and the relation between speculative
financial capital, and working capital, Steiner as far as I've seen did
not make an anti-semitic connection, he doesn't classify speculative
capitalism as specifik "jewish", which as you're rigth Douglas did. See
ie "The Abstract Nature of Modern Economic Life", and even my next post
on that theme
) Perhaps I misunderstood you. In the post in question you wrote: "in
) refering to people Steiner was inspiring and befriended with, there's
) more substance to claim connections to more radical persons." If that
) wasn't the point you were trying to make with the stuff about
) Mitrinovic, then what were you getting at? Hamsun and the Ordre
) Nouveau, to choose two examples, were arguably "radical" in the
) fascist sense, but that fact obviously supports my interpretation, not
) yours. I must ask again: how would this make Steiner look better? You
) don't really think that the politics of people like Knut Hamsun were
) admirable, do you?
Nope, and you make a line of connections there that I've not pointed
out. As far as I know Hamsun wasn't the least inspired by Steiner,
probably not Mitrinovic either. The connection I mainly referred to was
Kandinsky and spirituality in art, which gave birth to abstract painting
- A project like New Age had a very liberal editorial policy, in a
magazine like that you'll of course find both "nice" and "bad" guys - My
point was also that several indisputably progressive socialists had no
problem with the term Aryan at that point (1914) - your claim that the
term was used solely in a rascist context is not correct. The term
became rascist in naziideology when connected to the caucasian race,
especially in belief that the aryan culturebearers all were
germanic-nordic (there's a british tradition according to which Jesus
was blond and blueyed - angloisraelism) - In Steiners cultureepochs, you
find both caucasian as non-caucasian culturebearing cultures, and no
claims that the leaders were if a specifically "white race" -
The myths about culture bearers exist in all cultures, and the term
Mana/Manu have even worldwide spreading - Steiner is too focused on the
classical historical periods, and miss a perspective including
civilisational development without historical records. What is important
however is that both Steiner and ie Mitrinovic point out that the kind
of spiritual leadership through ie Manu leading a people ( basically
what Hitler was supposed to be for Germany, a Fuhrer) has seized to be
the way the spiritual beings guide humanity - See ie the quote in my
last post.
) -
Soren
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 00:43:30 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Cc: sgroth efn.org
Subject: Re: Simplifications
Hi Soren,
you can check out the last few days' worth of discussion on the list here:
http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read
Both Percedol and Walden replied to your last post.
In your latest you write:
))I can't see your logic on this point. If it is false, isn't that reason
))enough to reject it?
)
)Well, of course, especially if you're not interested in a within
)antroposophy perspective.
Hmmm... maybe that's a good reason to try to get an outside perspective?
)For antroposophy to just reject lots of what
)Steiner said won't do - it has to be reevaluated - to sort out what is
)the truth behind and where this truth becomes incorrect
So far that sounds good to me; this is what I was getting at with my point
that excising the racist assumptions from anthroposophy will leave big
holes, and that those holes will need to get filled in somehow.
)by the process
)of relating a clairvoyant picture to the terms of our sense-perceptible
)world, to cloth non-verbal communication into words...
That part I'm not so sure about. I suppose it's not really my business,
since I'm not an anthroposophist, but it might be more promising to leave
the whole clairvoyance business behind and treat Steiner's teachings as
spiritual values to be appraised on their own merits, rather than insisting
on their origins in some supernatural capacity of the movement's founder.
Alternatively, some contemporary anthroposophist might have to claim
clairvoyant authenticity for a reworking and correction of the racial
doctrines. But I'll gladly leave that up to folks who believe in
clairvoyance.
))But the whole point is that people like Steiner and Mitrinovic did *not*
))separate these concepts. If we want to understand their work on its own
))terms, we can't wish away that crucial fact. Steiner tied spirituality and
))biology tightly together. Contemporary anthroposophy has yet to untie
))them. What's taking you all so long?
)
)Childdisease ?? :-)
I think that's probably a partly accurate diagnosis. One of the reasons that
anthroposophy remains afflicted with some childhood diseases is that it
hasn't really grown up yet, hasn't matured as a spiritual movement; it still
jealously guards its esoteric character. My hunch is that the racist
elements won't get dealt with in a satisfactory way until anthroposophy
moves from esoteric to exoteric.
You then quoted a long passage from GA 117. We've dicussed this passage
several times before; for examples, see here;
http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1710090394
http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1706440796
http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1705775676
http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1704218686
I've always been puzzled by the fact that this passage is so popular among
anthroposophists eager to prove that Steiner's racism wasn't really such a
big deal. The lecture is one of several occasions where Steiner distances
himself from the cyclical aspects of the standard Theosophical scheme of
root-races, which repeat endlessly. This notion contradicted Steiner's
version of progressive evolution, so he abandoned the cyclical variant in
favor of a linear variant.
Many readers seem to think the passage says that race no longer has meaning
today. That reading is mistaken; what Steiner actually says in this lecture
is that "the first overcoming, the full overcoming of the race concept" will
not occur until "the sixth cultural epoch", which is thousands of years in
the future. He is very, very explicit about this: "dass der sechste
Kulturzeitraum gerade die erste Ueberwindung, voellige ueberwindung des
Rassenbegriffes ist" (p. 165). Somehow the folks who like to quote this
passage always seem to leave that part out...
But more important than this is the point of Steiner's prediction that race
will fade away many centuries from now. Why is that claim significant in the
context of this lecture? Because it shores up his peculiar conception of the
Universal Human as a kind of human existence that is shorn of all racial and
ethnic particularity, in order once again to denigrate the group whom
Steiner considered to be the paragon of anachronistic particularity and
"group-soulness", namely the Jews. (Indeed, this trope runs throughout the
book as a whole; GA 117 is one of two primary texts that other
anthroposophists typically refer to when they want to stress the
blood-based, hereditary "mission" of the ancient Hebrews; see, for instance,
Jesaiah Ben-Aharon's dreadful book on the Third Reich, The Spiritual Event
of the Twentieth Century, p. 65.) If you've read the full lecture, Soren,
this cannot possibly have escaped your attention.
From the beginning of the lecture he hammers away at this theme, comparing
the ostensibly unindividuated Jews to animal species that are similarly
trapped in group-soulness (that part is just two paragraphs before where
your chosen passage begins), and repeating the comparison near the end of
the lecture: those peoples who remain stuck in group-soulness are basically
just "higher animals", not real humans (p. 164). All of this is quite
consistent with Steiner's teachings that the very existence of 'racial'
differences is an unfortunate detour from the proper course of cosmic
evolution. In order to interpret this lecture as an admonishment against
racism, one would have to accept that premise and look forward to the day
when racism disappears because racial and ethnic diversity themselves have
been eliminated. May I suggest that this is not, in fact, the right way to
support the development of individuality?
)I find the left-rigth crossover interesting, especially as I think the
)term left-rigth isn't a fulfilling description. Who says that rascism
)per definition is rigthwing,
)and humanism per definition leftwing -
I don't know who says this, but they're off the mark. Racism is not at all
restricted to the right end of the spectrum, and there are any number of
leftists who pride themselves on their antihumanism.
)Much of the left-rigth crossover is attempts to create dynamic middle,
)which in radicalism then tend to find more activism on the rigth end of
)the scale, as the leftwing has been stuck with a dogmatic materialism.
I think that is something of a caricature, but I don't see how it might be
relevant to our discussion.
)In stead of religion being a dividing factor
)within the working class, I find that it was the dogmatic claim of
)anti-spirituality and atheism from the radical left, that scared large
)groups of potentially progressive people away
Maybe. But atheism and anti-spirituality are two different things. Anyway,
what does this have to do with our topic?
)- fascism and nazism then
)skillfully exploited radical social ideas.
Yes, they did, and they had a lot of help from people who weren't paying
very close attention to the political implications of their esoteric
doctrines. That is a grave mistake that shouldn't be repeated.
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Help protect your PC. Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 10:37:54 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
Percedol:
"As above, so below.
We are in a world of effects, not in a world of causes.
You can find this in any esoteric view. Not just A."
Yes, you're right, I realize it is not only anthroposophy ("A"), but
many esoteric traditions that proclaim "As above, so below" and the
physical as a reflection of the spiritual. I think it is a shame that
people attracted to all things mystical and New Age do not take a closer
look at this concept, because it is primitive and vengeful and
regressive (not to mention simplistic), yet somehow it is mistaken for
enlightenment. At least the major religions - to which I do not
subscribe - allow for more sophisticated contemplation of the big
questions like "why bad things happen" or "why does God allow suffering"
etc. I see karma as a spiritual version of "an eye for an eye."
I see a component of threat and judgment right below the pretty surface
of most New Age stuff, not to mention garden-variety charlatanism and
parlor stunts, and as long as we're on "materialism" again, a lot of
this snake oil has turned into pretty big bucks for some people hasn't
it? I can't seem to go anywhere these days without somebody trying to
sell me homeopathy, "flower essences" etc. whether for myself, my family
or even my dog. Tiny, expensive bottles of tinctures and creams that
contain no active ingredients.
Sorry, veering somewhat OT.
Percedol:
"It would be an unjust world, in my view, if it were all just casual."
And in your mind, karma is justice? Karma, to me, is more like admitting
there is no justice.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 11:02:08 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Simplifications
Peter S. (to Percedol):
"You then quoted a long passage from GA 117." (snip)
"I've always been puzzled by the fact that this passage is so popular
among
anthroposophists eager to prove that Steiner's racism wasn't really such
a
big deal. The lecture is one of several occasions where Steiner
distances
himself from the cyclical aspects of the standard Theosophical scheme of
root-races, which repeat endlessly. This notion contradicted Steiner's
version of progressive evolution, so he abandoned the cyclical variant
in
favor of a linear variant.
Many readers seem to think the passage says that race no longer has
meaning
today. That reading is mistaken; what Steiner actually says in this
lecture
is that "the first overcoming, the full overcoming of the race concept"
will
not occur until "the sixth cultural epoch", which is thousands of years
in
the future."
Here is another piece of this. Thousands of years may be too optimistic.
Steiner told an audience on 5 June 1907 in Munich:
"Then, inasmuch as we evolve from the fifth into the sixth *and then
into the seventh* [Diana's emphasis] epoch, the ancient connections of
race and blood will be increasingly lost. Humanity will become freer of
physical ties in order to form groups from the aspect of the spirit. It
was a bad habit in theosophy to speak of races as if they would always
remain. The concept of race will lose its meaning in the near future,
which means over the next few thousand years."
Hold tight now - not only is "near future" the "next few thousand years"
at best, but at this point footnote 34 states, "The extant notes here
say 'millions of years.'" (Rosicrucian Wisdom: An Introduction, Fourteen
Lectures by Rudolf Steiner, Forest Row, East Sussex: Rudolf Steiner
Press, 2000, reprinted 2001)
There you have it from Rudolf Steiner Press in 2001, folks: the "Sixth
Epoch" that they are looking forward to may be not quite soon enough;
the editors of official anthroposophic publications are aware that
Steiner may have meant "millions" of years from now till racial
distinctions no longer matter.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 12:40:14 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
Hi again Soren, you wrote:
)And my point being that according to Columbia it is critical.
You must have misunderstood a phrase in Columbia's marketing blurb. A
"critical biography" is simply a biography that is assembled with the tools
of scholarship, based on background research as well as on interviews; the
chief standard is that the biographer must analyze, and not merely narrate,
the chronology and events recounted. The phrase does NOT mean that the
biographer takes a critical attitude toward her or his subject; a solid
majority of "critical biographies" are sympathetic toward their subject. You
certainly needn't take my word on this; there are a number of studies of
biography as a genre. Any of them will explain what I just explained.
)I think you have some good points, which is worth looking into, but that
)you tend to be so eager to make your point, that you interpretate and
)become polemic instead of argumentative.
Polemic is a form of argument, and a venerable one at that. What do you hold
against it? And what exactly do you think is wrong with the act of
interpretation??
)Previously we had the thing about List, where you claim that Steiner says
)nice things about his novel, while the actual quote just says, that Steiner
)know List wrote that book, when I read the qoute, it can actually be so
)that Steiner haven't even read the novel, he just knows that List wrote it
That is a foolish example; you seem to have forgotten your own
"interpretation" of this quote. You said that Steiner's references to List
constituted warnings against esoteric racism and German chauvinism. I showed
you that this is an untenable reading of the passages in question. Now you
have retreated from that uncareful claim and are quibbling instead about
Steiner's take on List's early novel Carnuntum.
But even at this petty level, I still have no idea why you disagree that
Steiner is favorable toward the novel. His exact words about List are "der
ich gekannt habe, als er noch ein verstaendiger Mensch war und seinen Roman
"Carnuntum" geschrieben hatte, in dem Anfang der achtziger Jahre" (GA 176 p.
94). As I pointed out to you previously, Carnuntum was actually published in
1888 (not "at the beginning of the 80's" as Steiner says); Steiner was
either confused about the date, or he had in fact known List well enough in
the early 80's to have been privy to the latter's unpublished writings. In
either case, Steiner's quoted reference to List in this period is clearly
positive -- keep in mind that Steiner couldn't even bring himself to call
someone like Landauer "ein verstaendiger Mensch" -- and certainly suggests
familiarity with List's novel.
It is possible that Steiner never read the novel, but then why did he bring
it up? By the way, Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (who is a fan of Steiner, not a
critic) describes Lists's novel as "attractive to German nationalists in
Austria." (Occult Roots of Nazism p. 36) He adds that "Carnuntum helped to
establish List as a familiar figure in the Austrian Pan-German movement" (p.
37). Throughout the 1880's, Steiner was an active member of the pan-German
movement in Austria. I must ask one more time what basis you think you have
for your understanding of this quote.
)Same above, from your description of the above mentioned book, it sounds
)like it is written by a follower of Mitrinovic, while it is a independent
)study published by a academeic publisher.
What an extraordinarily naive claim. You don't really think that academic
publishers refuse to print sympathetic biographies, do you?? The book *is*
written by "a follower of Mitrinovic", and Rigby certainly doesn't
equivocate about this. He declares in his Introduction that "the origins of
this book" lie in his friendly relationship with Mitrinovic's heirs (p. 4),
who sought Rigby out precisely because of his ideological compatibility with
their project; and he goes out of his way to emphasize his own strong
admiration for the man and his ideas. Rigby's stance toward Mitrinovic is
wholly positive; he includes the standard caveats about how his subject
didn't have "all the answers" and offers a few demurrals about Mitrinovic's
writing style, but that's about it. Why on earth do you find this difficult
to believe? It is absolutely standard fare with biographies.
)I don't understand the necessity to make it into a "strongly positive"
)study,
Could you try to keep in mind that I have read the book and you haven't? I
didn't make it into a strongly positive study, Andrew Rigby made it into a
strongly positive study. Would you like me to send you photocopies?
)as if that makes the points about Mitrinovic more compromising. I find them
)more valid if being just objective and unprejudiced.
I think that is a gullible viewpoint in general, but in any case it is
completely out of place in this instance. When assessing empirical claims
about a historical figure contained in a secondary source, it is important
to take into account whether the source is friendly. If you genuinely
disagree with that maxim, perhaps you could explain why.
))I don't know how to convince you that my conclusions are in fact not
))simple at all, unless you are willing to look into the material more
))carefully and more thoroughly. One of the problems with our whole exchange
))is that I keep pointing out the complex and multifaceted nature of the
))topics we've touched upon, from Steiner's deeply conflicted politics to
))the context of early twentieth century racial ideology, whereas you keep
))insisting that "the central theme in antroposophy" is unambiguously
))progressive.
)
)Yes I find individual anarchism unambigously progressive
But Steiner was only an individualist anarchist for a few years in the
1890's, and left this orientation behind when he turned to Theosophy after
1900. It therefore has nothing to do with the central theme in
anthroposophy.
)"anarchism" in the sense non-totalitarian. There's a dynamic in
)I-consciousness - and I find it progressive that each individual have a
)freedom to sort out, how to stand between the shadows of the past and the
)seeds of the future. I find it progressive that Steiner points out that
)ideals is seeds for the future, but that without the inner work of dealing
)with the shadows of the past, it easily becomes dreaming idealism.
I don't really see what is specifically progressive about any of that (are
there conservatives who would dispute these platitudes?), but in any case it
still has precious little bearing on the central theme in anthroposophy, as
far as I can tell.
)And again I also see that at times Steiner is not living up to the ideal,
)that's the point about "followers", that antroposophy should not become
)"steinerism"
There is no such thing as Steinerism. Steiner changed his mind too many
times on too many crucial topics. "Steinerism" would be an even more
incoherent mess than anthroposophy.
)When Steiner isn't progressive and fail to deal with the shadows of the
)past in his own sentient soul, then antroposophy need to be able to
)evaluate this.
Okay, sounds great. How do you propose to do so?
)There's several occassions where Steiner adress this problem himself -
)truth shall prevail within antroposophy, not the believed correctness of
)Rudolf Steiner.
So far the "truths" that have prevailed within anthroposophy regarding race
have been, shall we say, rather discouraging. How come?
)I find your definition of fascism/nazism to be very wide
In that case you aren't paying attention. There is a major long-running
debate going on among historians of fascism about whether to adopt a broad
or a narrow definition, and I am in the 'narrow' camp (well, actually, I'm
in one of the two 'narrow' camps). The New York Times ran a very good
article on the topic just a couple weeks ago; it is a live issue for anyone
working in this field. I get asked to give talks and radio interviews on
exactly this question from time to time (in fact my last major article was
an encyclopedia entry on "fascism"), and every time I emphasize that the
concept of fascism has a fairly restricted meaning and that it is a big
mistake to apply it to other authoritarian rightists, or for that matter to
radical fundamentalists or mere nationalists. Much of the time a good chunk
of my audience vehemently disagrees with me on this. I have no idea how I
managed to give you the contrary impression -- indeed since I haven't
offered any definition of fascism or Nazism here, I don't really know what
you're talking about -- but my actual stance is not at all what you take it
to be.
)focusing on some similarities in a variety of themes, but omitting
)differences in characteristics that was cebtral to the political fascist
)massmovements in the 20-30ties.
Could you be more specific? I might agree or I might not, but at this
abstract level it's hard to tell. In the course of our exchange I have only
identified a few figures as fascists and fascist sympathizers -- Evola,
Rosenberg, Hamsun, Ordre Nouveau, Action Francaise, Hilaire Belloc, Cecil
Chesterton, Wyndham Lewis, Ezra Pound. Every single one of those figures
were indeed fascists or fascist sympathizers, very explicitly and
emphatically so. If you doubt that description, you simply need to look up
some basic historical information about them. A good place to start, from
historians whose perspective is significantly different from my own, would
be Ernst Nolte's classic book Three Faces of Fascism, and more recently
Roger Eatwell's book Fascism: A History.
)The tedency to classify non-hierarchical non-totalitarian movements with
)some similarities to fascism/nazism as being fascist is more polemic than
)academic
Now there's an odd juxtaposition. Much of academic writing is in the
polemical mode. But more to the point, I don't engage in the kind of
classification you just described, and I agree that it is erroneous. How did
you get the idea that I have this sort of indiscriminate notion of fascism?
)especially as the terms fascism/nazism by most people isn't perceived as
)objective descriptive terms for a specifik ideology.
Yes, that's one reason why I stick to the 'narrow' definition.
)From another angle communism is used in a similar way - If I express a
)saying "from each by ability, to each by need", a principle which can be
)found ie among early christians, then it is easily connected to
)Marxism-Leninism, and I'm responsible for Stalins deathcamps.
That would be a fallacious argument, to say the least.
)When it comes to social credit, and the relation between speculative
)financial capital, and working capital, Steiner as far as I've seen did not
)make an anti-semitic connection, he doesn't classify speculative capitalism
)as specifik "jewish", which as you're rigth Douglas did.
I'm glad to see you finally agreeing about Douglas. As for Steiner, he
didn't make the connection you mention, his followers did, and not only the
ones who joined the Social Credit movement. In fact Ludwig Thieben, who had
no interest in Social Credit as far as I've been able to discern, was
probably the worst anthroposophist offender in linking Jews to the negative
aspects of capitalism; he stressed "the large role that the Jews play in
banking and in the stock market" as an example of the "corrosive influence
of the Jewish spirit" and the "undoubtedly negative influence of the Jewish
essence" on modern life (Thieben, Das Raetsel des Judentums pp. 173-4).
))Perhaps I misunderstood you. In the post in question you wrote: "in
))refering to people Steiner was inspiring and befriended with, there's more
))substance to claim connections to more radical persons." If that wasn't
))the point you were trying to make with the stuff about Mitrinovic, then
))what were you getting at? Hamsun and the Ordre Nouveau, to choose two
))examples, were arguably "radical" in the fascist sense, but that fact
))obviously supports my interpretation, not yours. I must ask again: how
))would this make Steiner look better? You don't really think that the
))politics of people like Knut Hamsun were admirable, do you?
)
)Nope, and you make a line of connections there that I've not pointed out.
Umm... then who did point them out? It was you, wasn't it, who presented
that list of names in an attempt to show that "in refering to people Steiner
was inspiring and befriended with, there's more substance to claim
connections to more radical persons" and that "the word Aryan had another
context in prenazi Europe than afterward"? What exactly *were* you trying to
say in that post?
)As far as I know Hamsun wasn't the least inspired by Steiner, probably not
)Mitrinovic either.
Soren, I didn't pick out those names as somehow relevant to anthroposophy.
You did. Remember?
)A project like New Age had a very liberal editorial policy, in a magazine
)like that you'll of course find both "nice" and "bad" guys
You think it was merely a matter of course that British magazines promoted
racism and antisemitism and had a large coterie of pro-fascist writers on
their mastheads?
)My point was also that several indisputably progressive socialists had no
)problem with the term Aryan at that point (1914) - your claim that the term
)was used solely in a rascist context is not correct.
That is a prize-winning piece of illogic. You think that the willingness of
a handful of indisputably progressive socialists to collaborate with
infamous racists like Houston Stewart Chamberlain somehow relieves the Aryan
myth of its racist meaning??? Could you maybe re-read that sentence of
yours? In the early decades of the 20th century, far too many progressive
socialists were enthusiastic backers of eugenics. Margaret Sanger is
probably the best-known example, but there were dozens of others, I'm sorry
to say. According to your topsy-turvy logic, this shameful fact would mean
that eugenics was just fine and dandy until those nasty Nazis got their
hands on it. That doesn't make the slightest bit of historical sense, Soren.
You brought up figures like Mitrinovic and Orage in order to support your
naive hunch that Aryanism was not necessarliy a racist doctrine before the
Nazi era. I showed you that both Mitrinovic and Orage held profoundly racist
views and made them very public at the time, well before the Nazis came to
power. But you nevertheless continue to hold irrationally to your initial
guess. What on earth for? I can sort of understand why someone like Percedol
wants to keep his head in the sand regarding the actual background of the
Aryan myth, but why would you want to join him? Over the past two weeks I've
given you all sorts of sources to find out more about Aryanism in the
pre-Nazi context. Surely you can get down to a library one of these days.
)The term became rascist in naziideology when connected to the caucasian
)race,
No, Soren. The term "Aryan race" did not become racist in Nazi ideology. It
was already racist for decades before the founding of the Nazi party. Please
take a moment to learn something about this history. By the way, Steiner
himself connected the Aryans to the Caucasian race: "This applies more or
less to the Aryans, to the peoples of Asia Minor and Europe whom we regard
as members of the Caucasian race." (Steiner, Mission of the Folk Souls p.
106)
)especially in belief that the aryan culturebearers all were germanic-nordic
The Nazis did not believe that. For the Nazi racial theorists, Nordic and
Aryan were two distinct terms.
)In Steiners cultureepochs, you find both caucasian as non-caucasian
)culturebearing cultures and no claims that the leaders were if a
)specifically "white race"
I already explained to you that Alfred Rosenberg, the head Nazi ideologist,
shared a nearly identical conception of the Aryan sub-groups. Why are you
ignoring these facts? You think I make this stuff up? Steiner's version of
Aryan sub-groups is Indians, Persians, Egyptian-Chaldeans, Greeks & Romans,
and Nordic-Germanic. Rosenberg's version of Aryan sub-groups is Indians,
Persians, Greeks & Romans, and Nordic-Germanic. Notice any similiarities?
For numerous examples, see Alfred Rosenberg, Race and Race History,
particularly part I (pages 33-99). Rosenberg and Steiner were hardly alone.
According to Arthur de Gobineau, the Aryan race comprised Indians, Persians,
Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese, and Germans. See Gobineau: Selected Political
Writings, particularly pages 141-144. Allow me to point out that Gobineau,
who is often designated "the father of racism", died in 1882, forty years
before the emergence of Nazism. You might also want to consider the fact
that both Richard Wagner and Houston Stewart Chamberlain held similar views
on the make-up of the Aryans. The Aryan myth has always encompassed people
who today aren't usually considered "white". The Nazis were not pioneers in
this regard.
)The myths about culture bearers exist in all cultures
Sure. And in some cultures, these myths take on a racist form. That is the
case with the Aryan myth within European culture of the 19th and 20th
centuries. I take it you missed my recent exchange with Percedol on this
question; I recommend taking a look at it and possibly consulting one of the
scholarly sources I mentioned. You might be surprised by what you find.
Happy October to everybody,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
High-speed Internet access as low as $29.95/month (depending on the local
service providers in your area). Click here. https://broadband.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 03:53:43 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Percedol:
) "As above, so below.
) We are in a world of effects, not in a world of causes.
) You can find this in any esoteric view. Not just A."
)
)
) Yes, you're right, I realize it is not only anthroposophy ("A"), but
) many esoteric traditions that proclaim "As above, so below" and the
) physical as a reflection of the spiritual.
P:
Also Plato, I think, meant this with the myth of the cave.
And the 'as above, so below' is from hermeticism, so all of alchemy is
there.
I think it is a shame that
) people attracted to all things mystical and New Age do not take a closer
) look at this concept, because it is primitive and vengeful and
) regressive (not to mention simplistic), yet somehow it is mistaken for
) enlightenment.
P:
It's not all mystical. There is alchemy and magic, etc. And some people
know well what's there.
At least the major religions - to which I do not
) subscribe - allow for more sophisticated contemplation of the big
) questions like "why bad things happen" or "why does God allow suffering"
) etc. I see karma as a spiritual version of "an eye for an eye."
P:
But they don't give an answer. They say we cannot know divine's plan.
Karma helps man to find his way to back to the spiritual.
) I see a component of threat and judgment right below the pretty surface
) of most New Age stuff, not to mention garden-variety charlatanism and
) parlor stunts, and as long as we're on "materialism" again, a lot of
) this snake oil has turned into pretty big bucks for some people hasn't
) it?
P:
I think so. I am not a fan of New Age.
I can't seem to go anywhere these days without somebody trying to
) sell me homeopathy, "flower essences" etc. whether for myself, my family
) or even my dog. Tiny, expensive bottles of tinctures and creams that
) contain no active ingredients.
P:
In my experience homeopathy works.
) P:
)
) "It would be an unjust world, in my view, if it were all just casual."
)
) And in your mind, karma is justice? Karma, to me, is more like admitting
) there is no justice.
) Diana
P:
If you prefer that things happen by chance and that many actions just go
without balance. But then there is an umbalance.
Even in our society illegal actions are prosecuted.
But many are not.
Every action calls for a reaction to balace that action.
Without karma there would be no balance.
Of course for a materialist the problem of balance does not exist.
Different people different views.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:13:03 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Simplifications
Diana wrote:
) There you have it from Rudolf Steiner Press in 2001, folks: the "Sixth
) Epoch" that they are looking forward to may be not quite soon enough;
) the editors of official anthroposophic publications are aware that
) Steiner may have meant "millions" of years from now till racial
) distinctions no longer matter.
Walden:
And when did the races begin? The date is not clear to me (a very long time
ago in a galaxy far, far...?) but the events surrounding the event are
clear. Spiritual *Science* tells us:
"The third principal condition of the development of mankind presents itself
as the one in which the `races' first came into being. This event was
brought about by the separation of the moon from the earth. This separation
was accompanied by the originating of the two sexes. This stage of the
development of mankind has been repeatedly referred to in the descriptions
from the `Akasha Chronicle'. When the earth, still united with the moon,
split off from the sun, a male and female sex did not as yet exist within
mankind. Each human being combined the two sexes within its still highly
refined body."
Steiner, An Esoteric Cosmology pp. 223-224
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:26:54 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Simplifications
Soren wrote:
)- fascism and nazism then
)skillfully exploited radical social ideas.
Peter replied:
) Yes, they did, and they had a lot of help from people who weren't paying
) very close attention to the political implications of their esoteric
) doctrines. That is a grave mistake that shouldn't be repeated.
Agreed. A very important point. I just returned from a lecture about
genocide and indigenous people. I was constantly reminded of that which
grew out of Europe not that many years ago. Political implications
(human/environmental/community...) must be respected more than esoteric
doctrines, don't you think?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 07:45:21 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
Percedol wrote:
)In my experience homeopathy works.
)
Peter F responds:
The trouble is that your experience is not reliable. Not just yours,
everybody's self reporting of their personal experience is unreliable. There
are a host of reasons. Here are some.
1. Some people lie.
2. Some people lie to themselves (eg addicts of various sorts).
3. Some people don't understand what their own experience was. There have
been many experiments demonstrating that people are subject to suggestion
about recently observed events. One classic involves asking people to
examine a video of a car accident and asking them immediately after "where
did the green car come from?". They will then report that there was a green
car in the video even though there was not. Unscrupulous people (dare I say
like Steiner) take adantage of this.
This is why I and other scientists don't rely on your personal experience to
decide if homeopathy works or not. Appropriate testing protocols are devised
which attempt to remove the effects of self delusion and dishonesty. When
these tests are applied to homeopathy, the effectiveness is either non
existent or, at best, very much less than that claimed by the practitioners.
This lack of effectiveness combined with the clear contradiction between the
basic philosophy of homeopathy and what is well tested and well understood
about the atomic and chemical nature of matter leads to the clear result
that homeopathy does not work.
I don't expect this to change your mind. However I thnk you should recognise
as I have suggested before that you might as well write random letters as
"In my experience homeopathy works" for all that it contributes to the
discussion.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 07:47:22 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
While I'm responding, Percedol has not yet replied to my claim that it is
dishonest for him to claim that Steiner's methods have been verified.
Peter F.
_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 02:13:09 +0000
From: (argeiphontes hotmail.com)
Subject: An academe trapped in Steiner land
Greetings,
I'm Maria, and this is my first time here. I finally broke down this
evening and decided that I would check out the PLANS website. I had
avoided it for a long time, because I didn't want to be jaded before I
even gave Waldorf Education a chance. Alas, the time has come, the
Walrus said, to talk of many things. Of Steiner, and sheep, and
wax-in-ears, and Christians who think they are kings, and why the sea is
*not* boiling hot, and pigs still don't have wings.
First, a little bit of my biography. I just finished getting a Master's
degree in Classics. Like many others who become interested in Waldorf
education, I was looking for a change. While getting my Master's
degree, I taught Latin, Greek Mythology, Greek Literature and other
classes as a teaching associate. I was frustrated at the lack of
training I received. Other than a few 'meetings' and some
inter-departmental 'education' courses that were barely more than red
tape, I was offered nothing in the way of pedigogical training. In
fact, at Ohio State where I got my degree, neither Masters nor PhD
students in Classics receive any teacher training to speak of. How
could this be, I thought, that PhD candidates receive a piece of paper
that qualifies them to teach at the University level, and yet they have
never be taught to teach?
I was so frustrated with the system that I quit. I decided to do
something totally else. Up popped Waldorf Education. Sounded great.
Education that focuses on the individual. A system of learning that
encourages children to be creative. People who actually give a crap
about their students. Great! Sign me up. Sunbridge College offered me
a place in their Foundation Studies program for relatively little money
(compared to the major universities). I jumped on board, with little
knowledge of what lay ahead. All I really knew about Waldorf Education
was that the colors were pretty and some of my good friends had sent
their children there.
Now, before I get too far, I should say this. I am a very spiritual
person. I don't have a problem with a spiritual educational system, so
long as it admits to being what it is. I don't have a problem with
belief in karma or reincarnation or fairies or gnomes or even angels per
se. I do, however, have a problem with modernist, eurocentric,
colonialist, racist, fascist doctrine being taught in school, in the
year 2003, in the guise of an alternative/ hippie/granola/organic form
of education.
I cannot understand how this is not obvious to everyone who comes in
contact with anthroposophy or Waldorf education. Have they been
sleeping for the past 100 years?? Newsflash: WE LIVE IN A POSTMODERN
WORLD!! Is it just the fact that I have been overeducated that these
things are so blatantly obvious to me, but completely obscured to the
rest of the people at this school? Not even public elementary schools
still teach that Ancient Greece and the Renaissance were utopian
paradises! Worship of antiquity went out with Freud and the
behavioralists! I am at a loss. All those classes taught on Greek
Mythology in the universities, all the work modern scholars have done,
and the only thing that trickles down to anthroposophists is some warmed
over Jungian pseudo-interpretive nonsense!
In my experience, most people who walk around calling themselves
anthroposophists have had little or no training in modern thought. They
are bleeding-heart moms who read Chicken Soup for the Pathetic Christian
Soul, who want to over-protect their kids by sending them to a [rich,
white] school where the colors are all soft and the toys are made of
wood and not [the horror!] plastic. They are old bastards who are
clinging to this last bastion of modernism, where they can still claim
their British and German divine-right-of-kings. They are former hippies
and stoners who forgot the reason why they were part of the
counter-culture in the first place, and think Steiner is 'far out' but
don't read very far into it. Or question it. Or wonder why there are
no Steiner books in 'normal' bookstores, or mention of him in books
about philosophy and religion, or even history. Oh, I forgot: it's
because he's 'misunderstood'. Right.
The worst thing about it is that they all PRETEND to be terribly open
minded about the whole thing. "Steiner wanted us to think for
ourselves, Steiner didn't want us to worship him, Steiner wanted us to
find our own path." Okay. So that's why he talks about "the right way"
to think, and "the right way" to come to spiritual knowledge. Right.
The sad thing is, Steiner's work is very interesting from a historical
point of view. I would even be willing to admit that Steiner might have
had some good ideas. But this whole nightmare of anthroposophy is
totally and utterly ridiculous. I feel like I have gone back in time,
and these people are going to start WWII all over again.
So, friends, you must help me make it through this program! I've
already paid for the Foundation year, and I have a work-study job here
so I can't throw in the towel yet. Sitting through some of these
classes is terribly painful. Being the sole voice of postmodern reason
is excruciating. Throw me a line! Am I just judgemental or crazy, or
is this really what's going on here?
Yours in gratitude for this group,
Maria
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 05:15:26 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: An academe trapped in Steiner land
G'day Maria,
I'll throw in my tuppence worth. Walk away. Forget the upfront payment.
Anything you have put in already is wasted. If you continue you are wasting
valuable time you could be using to do something worthwhile. My own view is
that it has been amply demonstrated by the critics and perhaps more so by
the defenders of the faith that Steiner has nothing to offer in any field of
any value. This understates my position. I believe it is possible to show
that Steiner was a deliberate fraud from his own writings and recorded
lectures.
We could have a nice argument about the teaching role at universities but it
is off topic.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 22:56:27 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: An academe trapped in Steiner land
Hi Maria and welcome.
Nice entrance. Reminded me of John Cleese arriving at the castle wedding in
The Holy Grail (anyone remember *that* scene?).
Your observations are vivid, interesting and probably quite accurate on many
counts. Slightly judgemental - but that's fine with me. I spoke with
someone a while ago who was astounded at what he *learned* during his
Waldorf training. He jumped in for many of the reasons you cite - but he
left the seminary when reality smacked him. As for:
"So, friends, you must help me make it through this program! I've
already paid for the Foundation year, and I have a work-study job here
so I can't throw in the towel yet. Sitting through some of these
classes is terribly painful. Being the sole voice of postmodern reason
is excruciating. Throw me a line! Am I just judgemental or crazy, or
is this really what's going on here?"
You're asking the Waldorf Critics to help you make it through the terribly
painful anthro classes? Whoa. You got suckered like many before you. I am
curious, though - why the wait before checking out PLANS? Or did you not
ask for a course outline or look at books you are required to read prior to
hopping into the pot? Or were you blinded by the light...? Maybe you can
just treat it as a life experience - a study in human/gnome nature. But
here's a reminder: The folks at school will know you dumped on them and
their *training.* This list is monitored. Maybe your post will be a breath
of fresh air for the folks at Sunbridge and who knows... maybe the "bleeding
heart moms" and the "old bastards" have a sense of humor? Good luck.
Well written post, btw. I try to empathize but I have to chuckle. I hope
you're OK with that. I especially liked:
"They are former hippies
and stoners who forgot the reason why they were part of the
counter-culture in the first place, and think Steiner is 'far out' but
don't read very far into it. Or question it. Or wonder why there are
no Steiner books in 'normal' bookstores, or mention of him in books
about philosophy and religion, or even history. Oh, I forgot: it's
because he's 'misunderstood'. Right."
Again, welcome to a place where "freedom" means more than meditating on
Steiner's racial doctrines...and where honesty is valued. And as they
say... thanks for sharing.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 00:06:01 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: An academe trapped in Steiner land
On Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 07:13 PM, argeiphontes hotmail.com
wrote:
) Greetings,
)
) I'm Maria, and this is my first time here. I finally broke down this
) evening and decided that I would check out the PLANS website. I had
) avoided it for a long time, because I didn't want to be jaded before I
) even gave Waldorf Education a chance. Alas, the time has come, the
) Walrus said, to talk of many things.
Didn't the walrus say "speak of many things?" (Just pulling your chain.
Welcome to the Waldorf meanies. :+)
) Of Steiner, and sheep, and
) wax-in-ears, and Christians who think they are kings, and why the sea is
) *not* boiling hot, and pigs still don't have wings.
Just for the record, pigs do have wings at my house, but then again,
we're jewelers with artistic license. We also have 'Stinkin Badges' if
truth be told.
)
) First, a little bit of my biography. I just finished getting a Master's
) degree in Classics. Like many others who become interested in Waldorf
) education, I was looking for a change. While getting my Master's
) degree, I taught Latin, Greek Mythology, Greek Literature and other
) classes as a teaching associate. I was frustrated at the lack of
) training I received. Other than a few 'meetings' and some
) inter-departmental 'education' courses that were barely more than red
) tape, I was offered nothing in the way of pedigogical training. In
) fact, at Ohio State where I got my degree, neither Masters nor PhD
) students in Classics receive any teacher training to speak of. How
) could this be, I thought, that PhD candidates receive a piece of paper
) that qualifies them to teach at the University level, and yet they have
) never be taught to teach?
Yikes! The state of education in general is frightening.
)
) I was so frustrated with the system that I quit. I decided to do
) something totally else. Up popped Waldorf Education. Sounded great.
) Education that focuses on the individual.
Well, that *is* what they say. Unfortunately the reality of Waldorf is
this: Steiner is the *only* individual focused on.
) A system of learning that
) encourages children to be creative. People who actually give a crap
) about their students. Great! Sign me up.
Yes, I'm right there with you. The sales pitch is great! Every time I
hear it, I want to sign my kids up all over again.
) Sunbridge College offered me
) a place in their Foundation Studies program for relatively little money
) (compared to the major universities). I jumped on board, with little
) knowledge of what lay ahead. All I really knew about Waldorf Education
) was that the colors were pretty and some of my good friends had sent
) their children there.
Yes. I call this 'Waldorf window dressings'. (Who wouldn't want what
they sell?)
)
) Now, before I get too far, I should say this. I am a very spiritual
) person. I don't have a problem with a spiritual educational system, so
) long as it admits to being what it is. I don't have a problem with
) belief in karma or reincarnation or fairies or gnomes or even angels per
) se. I do, however, have a problem with modernist, eurocentric,
) colonialist, racist, fascist doctrine being taught in school, in the
) year 2003, in the guise of an alternative/ hippie/granola/organic form
) of education.
Is this the long explanation for esoteric?
)
) I cannot understand how this is not obvious to everyone who comes in
) contact with anthroposophy or Waldorf education. Have they been
) sleeping for the past 100 years?? Newsflash: WE LIVE IN A POSTMODERN
) WORLD!!
Shhh! Haven't you heard the joke?
Many people die every day. Tours of Heaven are standard. Well, the tour
guide is explaining the ropes of Heaven to the New Comers:
"On the left, we have the Baptists gathering Hall. To the right is the
Methodists. Immediately down the hall is the Catholics." The tour
continues through several Religious Denominations . . . , when the tour
guide announces, "To the right after the hall is the Anthroposophists.
Notice how the door is closed? Well, we must be very quiet when we pass
that door because they think they are the only ones here."
) Is it just the fact that I have been overeducated that these
) things are so blatantly obvious to me, but completely obscured to the
) rest of the people at this school? Not even public elementary schools
) still teach that Ancient Greece and the Renaissance were utopian
) paradises! Worship of antiquity went out with Freud and the
) behavioralists! I am at a loss. All those classes taught on Greek
) Mythology in the universities, all the work modern scholars have done,
) and the only thing that trickles down to anthroposophists is some warmed
) over Jungian pseudo-interpretive nonsense!
So we have a Waldorf teacher flunk out on our hands. I am so sorry, but
this reinforces my idea that teachers are the most duped of all.
) In my experience, most people who walk around calling themselves
) anthroposophists have had little or no training in modern thought. They
) are bleeding-heart moms who read Chicken Soup for the Pathetic Christian
) Soul, who want to over-protect their kids by sending them to a [rich,
) white] school where the colors are all soft and the toys are made of
) wood and not [the horror!] plastic. They are old bastards who are
) clinging to this last bastion of modernism, where they can still claim
) their British and German divine-right-of-kings. They are former hippies
) and stoners who forgot the reason why they were part of the
) counter-culture in the first place, and think Steiner is 'far out' but
) don't read very far into it. Or question it. Or wonder why there are
) no Steiner books in 'normal' bookstores, or mention of him in books
) about philosophy and religion, or even history. Oh, I forgot: it's
) because he's 'misunderstood'. Right.
Well, after listening to your rant, all I can say is: Welcome back to
Normal! Doesn't it feel terrible to think you finally fell for a scam?
(There are so many out there.)
)
) The worst thing about it is that they all PRETEND to be terribly open
) minded about the whole thing. "Steiner wanted us to think for
) ourselves, Steiner didn't want us to worship him, Steiner wanted us to
) find our own path." Okay. So that's why he talks about "the right way"
) to think, and "the right way" to come to spiritual knowledge. Right.
) The sad thing is, Steiner's work is very interesting from a historical
) point of view. I would even be willing to admit that Steiner might have
) had some good ideas. But this whole nightmare of anthroposophy is
) totally and utterly ridiculous. I feel like I have gone back in time,
) and these people are going to start WWII all over again.
Hon, from where I sit, Steiner needed medication. (I have a few
suggestions for what he should have tried.)
)
) So, friends, you must help me make it through this program! I've
) already paid for the Foundation year, and I have a work-study job here
) so I can't throw in the towel yet. Sitting through some of these
) classes is terribly painful. Being the sole voice of postmodern reason
) is excruciating. Throw me a line! Am I just judgemental or crazy, or
) is this really what's going on here?
)
Well, if misery likes company, you will find it here. I can compete
dollar for dollar with your tuition, to the money I gave to our school.
These guys are very good. Comfort yourself with the idea that you were
duped by the best. I hope you become a bell ringer for full disclosure.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1151
-- Topica Digest --
Re: An academe trapped in Steiner land
By owenapp suscom-maine.net
Re: An academe trapped in Steiner land
By snell gv.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 08:41:44 -0400
From: "Owen Appraisal" (owenapp suscom-maine.net)
Subject: Re: An academe trapped in Steiner land
) Greetings,
)
) I'm Maria, and this is my first time here. I finally broke down this
) evening and decided that I would check out the PLANS website. I had
) avoided it for a long time, because I didn't want to be jaded before I
) even gave Waldorf Education a chance. Alas, the time has come, the
) Walrus said, to talk of many things. Of Steiner, and sheep, and
) wax-in-ears, and Christians who think they are kings, and why the sea is
) *not* boiling hot, and pigs still don't have wings.
Greetings Maria. Your post both amuses and saddens me. Laughter really is
the best medicine however, and our family uses it often to try and deal with
the 2 1/2 years of our son's education we wasted during our Waldorf daze. I
do remember the overwhelming sense of sadness I felt when I first read the
PLANS website though, and experience it every time a new list member comes
on and has the courage to post. It is its own form of mental and spiritual
awakening, and remains the first step back to reality.
) First, a little bit of my biography. I just finished getting a Master's
) degree in Classics. Like many others who become interested in Waldorf
) education, I was looking for a change. While getting my Master's
) degree, I taught Latin, Greek Mythology, Greek Literature and other
) classes as a teaching associate. I was frustrated at the lack of
) training I received. Other than a few 'meetings' and some
) inter-departmental 'education' courses that were barely more than red
) tape, I was offered nothing in the way of pedigogical training. In
) fact, at Ohio State where I got my degree, neither Masters nor PhD
) students in Classics receive any teacher training to speak of. How
) could this be, I thought, that PhD candidates receive a piece of paper
) that qualifies them to teach at the University level, and yet they have
) never be taught to teach?
I have never met anyone so completely unqualified to teach as our son's
former Waldorf class teacher who had an undergraduate degree from a
prestigious Ivy League School, as well as a law degree.
) So, friends, you must help me make it through this program! I've
) already paid for the Foundation year, and I have a work-study job here
) so I can't throw in the towel yet. Sitting through some of these
) classes is terribly painful. Being the sole voice of postmodern reason
) is excruciating. Throw me a line! Am I just judgemental or crazy, or
) is this really what's going on here?
In an attempt to truly be your friend. All I can say is run, don't walk,
away from it all. If you do not "believe", you will be labeled as a pariah.
Some will try to save you from yourself, but if you continue to question
their absolute truths, they will attempt to burn you at the stake. We stuck
around for awhile trying to make some changes from within - didn't work and
they got back at us through our son by getting all of his friends to turn
against him. The last day of school, only one of his classmates even said
goodbye to him. Too sad. Best of luck, Jane.
) Yours in gratitude for this group,
)
) Maria
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:50:28 -0700
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: An academe trapped in Steiner land
On Friday, October 3, 2003, at 05:41 AM, Owen Appraisal wrote:
) I have never met anyone so completely unqualified to teach as our son's
) former Waldorf class teacher who had an undergraduate degree from a
) prestigious Ivy League School, as well as a law degree.
I remember one classroom in particular was woeful. Kids copied grossly
misspelled
words into their main lesson books right off the chalk board! Parents
who just dropped off their kids likely excused their child's
misspellings, thinking it was just their kid, but the kids were actually
being taught to misspell!
)
)) So, friends, you must help me make it through this program! I've
)) already paid for the Foundation year, and I have a work-study job here
)) so I can't throw in the towel yet. Sitting through some of these
)) classes is terribly painful. Being the sole voice of postmodern reason
)) is excruciating. Throw me a line! Am I just judgemental or crazy, or
)) is this really what's going on here?
)
) In an attempt to truly be your friend. All I can say is run, don't
) walk,
) away from it all. If you do not "believe", you will be labeled as a
) pariah.
If you can tolerate it, take great notes for us! We've always wondered
how they manage to obtain compliance. I have two examples of how they
bend minds to the group. I participated in a group wet on wet painting
exercise with faculty and other Anthros involved with the school. Two of
us weren't "enlightened," we'd never painted a wet on wet picture. The
paint was the consistency of water and the paper was wet. All nine of us
sat in a circle with, for me, a daunting task. Each side of my painting
must "match" the person's painting sitting at my sides.
Everyone but the two of us had lots of practice with the medium.
Controlling paint the consistency of water on very wet paper is no easy
task, as each drop of paint seemed to run on the paper under it's own
control.
On top of this problem, we had the pressure to make both sides match.
Mind you, the only two of us who had never worked with this media was
seated with wet on wet professional artists on both sides.
The process was intimidating by itself, but what happened later was just
plain looney.
The end results of this collective "exercise" was placed on the wall in
the office, sides touching, in the correct order in which we sat. The
effect was one long painting.
The two of us that took part in this "exercise" with no skills - well,
our paintings didn't *exactly* match up with the adjoining paintings on
each side, but from my prospective, they looked pretty darn good. They
*almost* matched.
The fact that our paintings didn't match was the subject of the next
meeting. We were told that we weren't cooperating with the rest of the
group. Our paintings were clear evidence!
Well, I guess they were right in the end, but we told them they were
being rediculous. The only thing our paintings suggested was that we
were inexperienced with the media. We defended ourselves well and that
was that, we thought. Until my buddy went home to his wife, who was mad
at him! Seems she'd received a call saying that he wasn't cooperating as
part of the group. I guess the Faculty felt she could get him to change.
Anyway, I'm wondering if this was a sampling of how they bend minds to
the will of the group, eventually sucking out critical thinking. . .
The other example involved a teacher who participated in a story telling
"exercise."
The teacher trainer started a story, and each person must continue on
with the story in turn. It seems this teacher got too creative when it
was her turn as she threw a twist in the story. She was accused of not
sticking with the theme...
Debra
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1152
-- Topica Digest --
Steiner ad nauseam
By argeiphontes hotmail.com
RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: An academe trapped in Steiner land
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: An academe trapped in Steiner land
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: Steiner ad nauseam
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 02:11:04 +0000
From: Maria (argeiphontes hotmail.com)
Subject: Steiner ad nauseam
Hello again,
Nice to hear from all of you. Please feel free to laugh all you want:
I'm not offended. I know all of you think of sitting through another
semester of Waldorf training as the 7th level of Hell, but I've suffered
worse. You never sat through 3 hours of Fritz Graf's Latin Survey.
*That* was the 7th level of Hell. This is merely a disappointment and
an inconvenience.
I didn't check out the PLANS site earlier because I have a
history of throwing the baby out with the bath water when it
comes to new things, and I didn't want to come in already full
of judgement and bias. Truth be told, I didn't read into Steiner
much before coming, because I had a feeling I wouldn't like it
and didn't want to become too jaded too fast. Sometimes I
find that I can be prejudiced against things that might be good
for me spiritually because of my overly intellectual nature. Alas,
with anthroposophy this was *not* the case. My intellect in fact
saved me from becoming too involved in something which I now
consider to be very backward, to say the least.
But then, this seems to be the way I need to learn things.
I wasn't sure whether I wanted to get a PhD in Classics or
not until I spent 4 years trying to do it. I quit after the
Masters knowing FOR SURE that I did not want the PhD.
Now I know FOR SURE I don't want to be a Waldorf teacher,
whereas before I was still toying with the idea.
That's very interesting that you say Sunbridge monitors this
list. I wonder who it is that does the monitoring. Because,
despite my comments about burnt-out stoners and old bastards,
the staff at Sunbridge are not bad people (and I'm not saying this
just because you told me they watch this list!) I think most of
them are probably really shocked that people like us react so
negatively to their wonderful little school. I believe that some
of you have experienced serious cult-like behavior at Waldorf,
but I haven't found that to be the case at Sunbridge. More
misguided than seriously screwed up. Don't get me wrong:
they have all swallowed Steiner hook, line, and sinker, no
doubt about it. They present Steiner in a way that we would
consider to be biased: i.e. out of context, not addressing
the modernism, racism and anti-semitism, etc. But they
think of themselves as being unbiased and objective. They
say over and over again, "Steiner didn't want people to take
his word for it; Steiner didn't preach dogma; he wanted each
person to come to 'the truth' [i.e. the absolute truth about
the spiritual world which only he was able to see] in their own way."
They don't realize that what they are saying is contradictory because
they have never been taught anything except modernist drivel. They
think they are doing something good. I would say they 'mean well,' but
we all know what that is worth. All modernists 'meant well'. Hitler
'meant well'. He thought of his work as euthanasia. Anthroposophists
think of themselves as
saving the world. Unfortunately for them and for us, the
paint which they are using to make all their pretty pictures
is tainted with the blood of the millions of victims of modernist,
eurocentric, racist thinking.
I've raised these subjects in classes, and I am going to
continue to raise them. Most of the time the answers I
get are "give it a chance" or "it's hatred and nationalism
that are the real problems" or something along those lines.
I am not afraid of being labeled a pariah or burned at
the stake for disagreeing with Steiner. Someone needs
to speak up about it. Might as well be me. I'm always
'the one who corrects the teacher all the time' anyway.
And, truth be told, there are aspects of Sbridge that I do like (I know
you're all thinking: oh no! They're reeling her in!). No, it's nothing
like that. Just that I enjoy singing and playing the recorder, I enjoy
gardening, I enjoy dancing, I enjoy handwork and I enjoy eating organic.
Even painting is cool when it's not too dogmatic. None of these things
are owned by anthroposophists, and I can enjoy them despite the fact
that they are being presented in an anthroposophic context. I have no
fear of being sucked in by Modernists: I pretty much have a 24 hr
on-call Modernist BS Detector. It comes from years of postmodernist
education, and from growing up with Republican parents. So no worries
there.
Besides, I haven't got anything else to do. If I quit Sbridge,
my student loans come due, and then I'm really screwed.
At any rate, I'm sure you'll be hearing more from me...
Maria
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 04:20:54 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
Peter Farrell wrote:
)
) Percedol wrote:
) )In my experience homeopathy works.
) )
)
) Peter F responds:
) The trouble is that your experience is not reliable. Not just yours,
) everybody's self reporting of their personal experience is unreliable.
) There
) are a host of reasons. Here are some.
) 1. Some people lie.
) 2. Some people lie to themselves (eg addicts of various sorts).
) 3. Some people don't understand what their own experience was. There
) have
) been many experiments demonstrating that people are subject to
) suggestion
) about recently observed events. One classic involves asking people to
) examine a video of a car accident and asking them immediately after
) "where
) did the green car come from?". They will then report that there was a
) green
) car in the video even though there was not. Unscrupulous people (dare I
) say
) like Steiner) take adantage of this.
)
) This is why I and other scientists
P:
May I ask you (if DD doesnt' feel this is too personal) what is your
field of study?
don't rely on your personal experience to
) decide if homeopathy works or not. Appropriate testing protocols are
) devised
) which attempt to remove the effects of self delusion and dishonesty.
) When
) these tests are applied to homeopathy, the effectiveness is either non
) existent or, at best, very much less than that claimed by the
) practitioners.
) This lack of effectiveness combined with the clear contradiction between
) the
) basic philosophy of homeopathy and what is well tested and well
) understood
) about the atomic and chemical nature of matter leads to the clear result
)
) that homeopathy does not work.
P:
It works for me so I'll keep using it until it works.
)
) I don't expect this to change your mind. However I thnk you should
) recognise
) as I have suggested before that you might as well write random letters
) as
) "In my experience homeopathy works" for all that it contributes to the
) discussion.
P:
Instead of writing random letters I say that I solved problems with
homeopathy and it is not a fact of changing my mind about it, but a
matter of healing. Or should I say, I got healed so I should not use it
again?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 04:28:02 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
Peter Farrell wrote:
)
) While I'm responding, Percedol has not yet replied to my claim that it
) is
) dishonest for him to claim that Steiner's methods have been verified.
) Peter F.
P:
Several A. who contributed articles for the group of UR and their
students over the following decades verifed the method.
They wrote about it in books and articles and someone gave thousands of
lectures (out of personal experience) as well. But this is poorly known
by A. outside Italy.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 04:49:44 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: An academe trapped in Steiner land
argeiphontes hotmail.com wrote:
)
) Greetings,
)
) I'm Maria,
I do, however, have a problem with modernist, eurocentric,
) colonialist, racist, fascist doctrine being taught in school, in the
) year 2003, in the guise of an alternative/ hippie/granola/organic form
) of education.
P:
The word 'hippie' - that is very negative to me- is quite scary about
W-schools. What is 'hippie' in W-schools in your experience?
) In my experience, most people who walk around calling themselves
) anthroposophists have had little or no training in modern thought.
P:
What do you define as 'modern thought' ?
They
) are bleeding-heart moms who read Chicken Soup for the Pathetic Christian
)
) Soul,
P:
They would probably need a more Kshattryia attitude rather than too
mystical-devotional.
Or wonder why there are
) no Steiner books in 'normal' bookstores, or mention of him in books
) about philosophy and religion, or even history.
P:
Why do you say that? You can find RS books at Borders.
In Italy almost every bookstore has RS books.
Oh, I forgot: it's
) because he's 'misunderstood'. Right.
P:
At least in Italy his figure was set aside probably because of the
Church influence.
)
) The worst thing about it is that they all PRETEND to be terribly open
) minded about the whole thing. "Steiner wanted us to think for
) ourselves, Steiner didn't want us to worship him, Steiner wanted us to
) find our own path." Okay. So that's why he talks about "the right way"
)
) to think,
P:
I don't recall of a right way to think, but rather indications to
experience thinking before it becomes cerebral.
and "the right way" to come to spiritual knowledge.
P:
Which is through pre-cerebral thought, instead of letting oneself
abandon to medianic paths like yoga, or similar.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 04:59:22 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: An academe trapped in Steiner land
Peter Farrell wrote:
I believe it is possible to show
) that Steiner was a deliberate fraud from his own writings and recorded
) lectures.
P:
It is good to see that maybe someone will follow the discipline to
disprove it. Unfortunately for you, that person would find that it
works!
(I am aware that you meant that through a work like that of PS one could
show...
Look, the guy (PS) is not even able to see that PoF gives the whole
spiritual science discipline. He thinks it was a former unrelated phase
of the author. If this is the kind of people who should debunk A. you
are in trouble.)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:10:12 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Steiner ad nauseam
Maria wrote:
) That's very interesting that you say Sunbridge monitors this
) list. I wonder who it is that does the monitoring. Because,
) despite my comments about burnt-out stoners and old bastards,
) the staff at Sunbridge are not bad people (and I'm not saying this
) just because you told me they watch this list!) I think most of
) them are probably really shocked that people like us react so
) negatively to their wonderful little school. I believe that some
) of you have experienced serious cult-like behavior at Waldorf,
) but I haven't found that to be the case at Sunbridge. More
) misguided than seriously screwed up. Don't get me wrong:
) they have all swallowed Steiner hook, line, and sinker, no
) doubt about it. They present Steiner in a way that we would
) consider to be biased: i.e. out of context, not addressing
) the modernism, racism and anti-semitism, etc. But they
) think of themselves as being unbiased and objective.
And therein lies the problem, IMO. And the major hurdle in what might
actually be a very healthy approach to education. Problem is that Waldorf
is currently the only game in town. A misguided monopoly, of sorts.
Disingenuous. That is the issue. Many people have experienced cult-like
behaviour at Waldorf schools - in my case, the behaviour had nothing to do
with "bad people," however one might define such people. There was,
however, a very odd and very real sense of denial. I wonder if you have
experienced that denial at *your* school? I would have a hard time
listening to anything about Steiner or his "indications" now that I have an
understanding of the so-called philosophy. Have you asked about root races,
the mission of Anthroposophy/Waldorf, Eurythmy, etc? Have you asked those
learned teachers of teachers for an explanation of Steiner's racist
doctrine? Perhaps they could enlighten you as to what exactly *they* think
Steiner was going on about...?
They
) say over and over again, "Steiner didn't want people to take
) his word for it; Steiner didn't preach dogma; he wanted each
) person to come to 'the truth' [i.e. the absolute truth about
) the spiritual world which only he was able to see] in their own way."
) They don't realize that what they are saying is contradictory because
) they have never been taught anything except modernist drivel. They
) think they are doing something good. I would say they 'mean well,' but
) we all know what that is worth. All modernists 'meant well'. Hitler
) 'meant well'. He thought of his work as euthanasia. Anthroposophists
) think of themselves as
) saving the world. Unfortunately for them and for us, the
) paint which they are using to make all their pretty pictures
) is tainted with the blood of the millions of victims of modernist,
) eurocentric, racist thinking.
)
) I've raised these subjects in classes, and I am going to
) continue to raise them. Most of the time the answers I
) get are "give it a chance" or "it's hatred and nationalism
) that are the real problems" or something along those lines.
HHhhmm... Those are not "answers." You have every right to raise these
issues and you deserve better than "give it chance." I would not spend much
time with someone who refused to take my issues/questions seriously. Nor
would I accept deflection techniques as an adequate response. "Ya, but look
at all those other non-Waldorf schools... it's all the materialists who
cause the real problems..." Deal with the issues. They seem to have a hard
time answering simple questions. I remembering asking questions and being
answered by a smile and something about "Anthroposohpy not being for
everyone." But I suspect you have already experienced this phenomenon.
) I am not afraid of being labeled a pariah or burned at
) the stake for disagreeing with Steiner. Someone needs
) to speak up about it. Might as well be me. I'm always
) 'the one who corrects the teacher all the time' anyway.
In this case is it really a question of "correcting" a teacher or more of a
desire to understand what the hell he/she is talking about?
"Atlantis...Jupiter...Vulcan??? Negroes are what?! What was that about
savages?! Etc."
) And, truth be told, there are aspects of Sbridge that I do like (I know
) you're all thinking: oh no! They're reeling her in!). No, it's nothing
) like that. Just that I enjoy singing and playing the recorder, I enjoy
) gardening, I enjoy dancing, I enjoy handwork and I enjoy eating organic.
) Even painting is cool when it's not too dogmatic.
)None of these things are owned by anthroposophists, and I can enjoy them
despite the fact
) that they are being presented in an anthroposophic context.
Are they being presented in an anthroposophic context? Are the "things"
really the same things you believe them to be? Most folks enjoy these
things - if that is what they are. If your "dancing" has anything to with
Eurythmy, it is more than a dance. It is occultism. If you enjoy occult
ritual while moving - go for it. Singing and recorder -I wonder....
Organic (we eat mostly organic) food is good news. If *that* is what is
happening at Sunbridge I am delighted. Or is it biodynamic gardening?
There is a difference. Painting? Wonderful. Watercolour? Oil? Mountain
scenes or still life or.... wet on wet, by any chance? Anything slightly
out of the ordinary in the *way in which you are taught to paint?* Any
special techniques, for example? Do tell.
) Besides, I haven't got anything else to do. If I quit Sbridge,
) my student loans come due, and then I'm really screwed.
Your choice. Stay real. And stay connected to the list. Invite others to
shine the light. Let's do some real learning here (g)
-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 1153
-- Topica Digest --
RE: An academe trapped in Steiner land
By argeiphontes hotmail.com
Intro and basic question
By slichte iGlide.net
RE: Intro and basic question
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Steiner ad nauseam
By argeiphontes hotmail.com
RE: Intro and basic question
By argeiphontes hotmail.com
modernism and post-modernism
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Steiner ad nauseam
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Steiner schools in UK
By stationwduk yahoo.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 18:37:55 +0000
From: Maria (argeiphontes hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: An academe trapped in Steiner land
Hi, Percedol. As in "La Dolina di Percedol"? Lei di dov'e?
Percedol wrote:
) The word 'hippie' - that is very negative to me- is quite scary about
) W-schools. What is 'hippie' in W-schools in your experience?
When you say 'that is very negative to me' do you mean you are offended
by the term, or that you don't like hippies? I take it you mean the
latter, since you say that it scares you that Waldorf schools have
hippie qualities. I don't have a problem with hippies. It's Waldorf I
have a problem with. What I was saying was that I felt like Waldorf
mascarades itself as something that might appeal to hippies, Green Party
members, earthy/crunchy organic people, etc, because it's different, and
there is an emphasis on environmentalism and the arts. The truth is,
however, that what Waldorf stands for (modernism, eurocentrism, etc) is
the antithesis of what hippie groups like the Peace Corps and Greenpeace
are all about (post-colonialism, multiculturalism, etc).
There are some people in the hippie/greenpeace community, however, who
do have something in common with anthroposophists, and this may be part
of where your fear stems from (if I may be so bold). Some hippies (not
all of them) preach a kind of grand narrative, about how we can acheive
world peace through [anarchy, total break up of the government, the
proletariat rising up, etc]. Again, I DO NOT think this is true for
everyone in the movement, and a lot of the paranoia about it stems from
smear campaigns of conservatives against liberals. Nevertheless, grand
narratives are part of the modernist regime, and whether you are buying
into the anthroposophical grand narrative, or the Marxist grand
narrative, or the Anarchist grand narrative, they are all equally
flawed. In that sense, anthroposophists do have something negative in
common with hippies, but only the ones who preach grand narratives.
Most hippies you will find are much more laid back. They do their own
thing and encourage others to do the same.
M:
) ) In my experience, most people who walk around calling themselves
) ) anthroposophists have had little or no training in modern thought.
)
) P:
) What do you define as 'modern thought' ?
Sorry to confuse the terms. I didn't mean anything to do with
modernism. I guess I really meant 'post-modern theory'. But even
post-modernism is out of date now. Basically I was implying that
anthroposophists are so busy trying to interpret Steiner that they've
completely missed the advances in the last 100 years in religion,
philosophy, child development, world politics, etc.
) P:
) They would probably need a more Kshattryia attitude rather than
) too mystical-devotional.
Kshattriya is one of the 4 Indian castes, isn't it, the warrior caste?
Did you mean to imply that anthroposophists are rigid in their beliefs?
I agree with you.
)Maria:
) Or wonder why there are
) ) no Steiner books in 'normal' bookstores, or mention of him in
)) books about philosophy and religion, or even history.
)
) P:
) Why do you say that? You can find RS books at Borders.
) In Italy almost every bookstore has RS books.
In Italy, everything is closed for a week at Easter and it's illegal to
send pictures of women in bikinis through the Vatican mail. The Pope is
still worshipped like a demigod. Never mind post-modernism: fascism is
still a legitimate political party over there! Mussolini was a hero
because he made the trains run on time! And if you are saying that the
Church wanted to discredit Steiner, well, that would be the first time
the Church and I agreed on something.
True, Borders has Steiner books. What I was getting at, however, was
that if you take a course at a 'normal' college on philosophy or
religion or even modernism, Steiner is rarely given more than a
footnote. They want to hold him up as this 'great misunderstood
clairvoyant' when it's clear to everyone else that he was just another
modernist quack.
))M:
))Okay. So that's why he talks about "the right way" to think,
)
) P:
) I don't recall of a right way to think, but rather indications to
) experience thinking before it becomes cerebral.
He says a lot about 'right thinking' in 'Practical Training and
Thought'. He may have been talking about pre-cerebral thought, but he
calls it 'richtig'. This is why I find modernist texts to be so
difficult to digest. If only anthroposophists were better at breaking
it down, getting past the modernism, being real about what he actually
said... there is probably some good stuff in there somewhere. I mean,
if 500 monkeys could eventually come up with Hamlet, some of Steiners
books must be worth something (like a good doorstop, or a target at the
firing range... hahaha)
)M:
) and "the right way" to come to spiritual knowledge.
) P:
) Which is through pre-cerebral thought, instead of letting oneself
) abandon to medianic paths like yoga, or similar.
I don't have a problem with medianic paths per se. The ancient Greek
concepts of 'enthusiasmos' [the god within] or 'ekstasis' [standing
outside of yourself] have been valid avenues for spirituality for a very
long time. Steiner and his modernists want to take every valid spirtual
experience and boil it down into something you can do while sitting in
your leather armchair, smoking your pipe and reading the Frankfurter
Allgemeine. I beg to differ.
Good questions...
-M
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 13:32:29 -0600
From: "Sonya Lichte" (slichte iGlide.net)
Subject: Intro and basic question
Hello,
I am new to this list - have been lurking the last few days. I have a
decision to make regarding my children and would love some input from the
members of this list.
I homeschool my 3 kids. I belong to a homeschool group in the area.
Several "key" people in the group are using a waldorf curriculum. My kids
have been invited to join in w/ two other families for circle time two
mornings a week. If I did this, I would consider this time as an art /
music / creative play suppliment to my regular curriculum.
This would be an great situation for many reasons: regular interaction w/
other kids, time for me to work on my own (I would probably stay one day of
the week and just drop the kids off the other day) , and a chance for my
kids to do art and music -- I was skipped over when these talents were
passed out.
I have attended a few of these circle times - and didn't find anything
offensive. In fact, on the surface, it was charming. THEN, I did a little
looking around on the internet and was SHOCKED at what I discovered to be
some of the underlying beliefs of a waldorf curriculum.
For those of you that have experienced waldorf in one way or another, I
would love to get some feedback about this situation. I am extremely
uninformed about waldorf. My only experience has been attending one or two
circle times, and what I "skimmed" on the net. Do these underlying beliefs
come out overtly to the children through circle time? other activities? I
have noticed a few of you mention that you have experienced cult-like
behavior. Would you mind providing an example? What is the deal with
wet-on-wet painting? My primary question is... would I be putting my
children at risk by taking them to circle time .... and leaving them there
w/ out me once a week?
Sonya
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2003 17:20:51 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Intro and basic question
Sonya wrote:
"For those of you that have experienced waldorf in one way or another, I
would love to get some feedback about this situation. I am extremely
uninformed about waldorf. My only experience has been attending one or
two
circle times, and what I "skimmed" on the net. Do these underlying
beliefs
come out overtly to the children through circle time? other activities?
I
have noticed a few of you mention that you have experienced cult-like
behavior. Would you mind providing an example? What is the deal with
wet-on-wet painting? My primary question is... would I be putting my
children at risk by taking them to circle time .... and leaving them
there
w/ out me once a week?"
The short answer, Sonya, in my opinion is no, you would not be putting
them at risk by taking them to this circle time once a week, or
whatever. They are almost certainly a bunch of nice people, probably
just as nice as they seem, and in fact, homeschoolers doing Waldorf
frequently have little idea what "Waldorf" means inside school walls.
Some of them may have *left* Waldorf schools disillusioned and are
trying to do Waldorf their way. They are probably just a bunch of nice
moms, and most if not all of them probably have little more idea than
you do who Rudolf Steiner was.
However, we don't really like to advise you to join a Waldorf play
group, because we don't like to see you get hooked into Waldorf. These
groups are great PR for Waldorf and end up recruiting people to the
movement. It would make the most sense to fully inform yourself about
Rudolf Steiner's occult theories and the pro's and con's of Waldorf
education - Waldorf is based on Steiner's theories - read the PLANS web
site, but also talk to as many people as you can who have had experience
at *real* Waldorf schools, and then - even more important - check out
your other educational options for your kids in your local area very
carefully - *before* investing much of your own time and energy - and
letting your children make friends, which will tie you in - in this
group.
*Not* out of fear of witchcraft or evil influences - it is just common
sense to make a long-term plan based on the most information you can
get.
No - nothing "occult" or sinister or weird is likely to be coming to the
kids attending a Waldorf homeschool group circle. They are probably
telling nursery rhymes and doing yarn crafts and having a healthy snack.
This is fine. When this leads you to enroll for the 12-year program - or
even to put your child in a first grade classroom that has no books, the
norm for a Waldorf first grade - you need to understand what this system
is: its origins in late 19th century spiritualism and how that magical,
anti-intellectual worldview defines Waldorf today; its reliance on
German childrearing principles from a century ago - what its proponents
say about Waldorf versus what its critics say about it.
Another drawback I would see, besides getting drawn in socially with
Waldorf people and ending up sending your kids to the local Waldorf
school, if there is one, is that there may be an emphasis on *avoiding*
reading and writing to or with your kids, or exploring your children's
interest in reading and writing. Dogmatic Waldorf teachers don't believe
kids younger than 7 should even *see* printed materials - literally -
and will strongly discourage you from even teaching your kids the
alphabet. For some kids, this does a real disservice. Again, the
homeschool group likely is a more diverse group of people, and you may
not encounter these extreme views. (If you do, just ignore this stuff,
at least until you've decided for yourself whether "early reading" is
good or bad - depends mainly on what your own kids need.)
My .02.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 22:39:56 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
Percedol asked:
)May I ask you (if DD doesnt' feel this is too personal) what is your
)field of study?
)
I am a physicist in a Dpertment of Electrical Engineering.
Percedol wrote:
)It works for me so I'll keep using it until it works.
Peter F responds:
Heroin addicts and alcoholics say similar things. It's called self delusion.
_________________________________________________________________
E-mail just got a whole lot better. New ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 22:41:54 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Simplifications - Re: I'm not the only one
Percedol:
)Several A. who contributed articles for the group of UR and their
)students over the following decades verifed the method.
)They wrote about it in books and articles and someone gave thousands of
)lectures (out of personal experience) as well. But this is poorly known
)by A. outside Italy.
Peter F responds:
I think what you are claiming is that they have reported that they verified
it.
_________________________________________________________________
E-mail just got a whole lot better. New ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2003 03:48:58 +0000
From: anonymous (argeiphontes hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner ad nauseam
(FYI I changed myself to 'anonymous' for the hell of it, even though the
pt is probably moot by now...)
walden wrote:
) I wonder if you have
) experienced that denial at *your* school?
Well, that's a good question. If you mean denial as in denial of the
past 100 years of history in general, well, yeah, all anthroposophists
are guilty of that. Clinical denial, though, implies knowledge of the
thing being denied: for example, I am allergic to dairy, and I know that
for a fact, but I still decide to go into denial every once in a while