return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re: anthroposophy
By antigonabaires hotmail.com
RE: anthroposophy
By franksmith vdolores.com.ar
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:32:26 -0300
From: (antigonabaires hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: anthroposophy
I would like to add something else: Waldorf teachers have not been trained
to work with disabled children. They just don't know what to do. Most of
them try to do their best but that is not enough.
Agustina
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 20:17:59 -0300
From: "Frank Thomas Smith" (franksmith vdolores.com.ar)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy
) I would like to add something else: Waldorf teachers have not been trained
) to work with disabled children. They just don't know what to do. Most of
) them try to do their best but that is not enough.
)
) Agustina
Waldorf schools aren't meant for seriously disabled children. Nevertheless,
children with impairments such as hearing correctable with hearing aids as
mentioned recently here (and my granddaughter, who is in a Waldorf
kindergarten), dislexy, Down syndrome, etc., are often admitted if the
teacher in question thinks he/she can handle it. With 20 to 30 kids under
your charge, this is a serious decision. There are, however, many
anthropsophical schools and institutions for more seriously handicapped
children. I don't know how many there are in the U.S. where, I can imagine,
financing is a problem because of the pupil-teacher ratio. There are many
such instituions in Europe where the state covers most of the costs. Then
there is the Camphill movement, worldwide - a subject in itself. Check out
Google if interested.
Frank
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1170
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Frank's digestion
By franksmith vdolores.com.ar
RE: anthroposophy
By jaquesdm msn.com
RE: anthroposophy
By franksmith vdolores.com.ar
re:- anthroposophy
By jaquesdm msn.com
re: anthroposophy
By jaquesdm msn.com
Seven Times the Sun
By maya_kesh yahoo.com
RE: anthroposophy
By franksmith vdolores.com.ar
RE: anthroposophy
By jaquesdm msn.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 10:34:05 -0300
From: "Frank Thomas Smith" (franksmith vdolores.com.ar)
Subject: RE: Frank's digestion
Peter wrote:
) In the continuing saga of Frank's battle with his bowels, we learn that he
) merely finds the same old stuff during his occasional visits to this list:
)
) )From: Frank Thomas Smith (franksmith vdolores.com.ar)
)
) )Hey, Gary, my digestion was bothing me again and I thought a trip to the
) )WC might help, so I checked out the recent messages to see if there was
) )anything new in the way of laxatives. Nah, all the same old stuff -
) )
) Frank is a forgetful sort. He disappeared from the list just when it
) started
) bringing him new and unfamiliar material. Last we heard from Frank, he
) insisted that Rudolf Steiner never, ever taught that that the human
) species
) is divided into lower races and higher races, that skin color is directly
) tied to spiritual disposition, that history and social existence can only
) be
) understood through racial characteristics, that humankind evolves by
) successive incarnations in progressively higher racial forms, that souls
) which fail to progress are relegated to a backward race, that souls which
) do
) progress are elevated to an advanced race, that Europeans and especially
) Germans belong to the most advanced race, that the white race is the
) spiritually creative race of the future, that intelligence is correlated
) to
) blonde hair and blue eyes, that black people belong in Africa and that
) their
) presence in Europe is a disgrace, that indigenous peoples are stunted and
) decadent and degenerated, and that the Jewish people has no reason to
) exist.
) Frank wrote categorically that "Steiner did not hold any of these beliefs,
) did not express them publicly, and did not teach them to his followers."
) (post of 7/30/03)
)
) Hoping to relieve some of Frank's intestinal distress, I helpfully
) provided
) him with full quotations from Steiner's published works, complete with
) citations, and posted them to the list. These quotations prove that each
) of
) Frank's claims was obviously mistaken. I also followed my usual practice
) of
) sending Frank a copy of the post directly (he has these bouts of
) forgetfulness rather frequently, and I wouldn't want him to miss anything
) exciting and new and potentially laxative). Frank, of course, never
) responded, and mysteriously dropped off the list again at that very
) moment.
)
) Since all of these Steiner passages are evidently new to Frank, I would
) like
) to invite him again to comment on them. Here they are once more:
)
I'm touched by your concern with my bowels, Peter, but you're not helping
at all. I expected relief in the WC, but what do I find? The same old
shinola.
I was expecting Gary to order a true-blue American gnome
(instead of a French one) but I guess he hasn't read the Patriot Act.
Instead I get a reference from you to a mail from 7/30 (took me a half hour
to find it in the archives), and find that I did answer you. For those who
weren't around, and may want to see what it was all about, see:
http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?sort=d&mid=171
3977031&start=19066
Notes: 1) This url is long and will probably be broken on receipt, so you
have to copy it in its entirety. 2) The url within my post is incorrect; it
should be:
http://southerncrossreview.org/17/editorial.htm
) In case these new revelations don't quite do the trick, Frank, feel free
) to
) ask for further samples of Rudolf Steiner's racial theories. There's lots
) more where that came from.
)
OK, bring em on. But I'll get back to you on this retread of yours, sooner
than later, I hope.
) Yours for healthy digestion,
Thanks Peter, I know I'm in the right WC for that.
Frank
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 21:01:57 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy
Frank Thomas wrote:-
Then there is the Camphill movement, worldwide - a subject in itself.
Thanks for the tip Frank, but I had already heard. In my five years of
living in, plus another two years of living out, there were many many
questions I asked which failed to get answers that were much beyond
"Steiner said..."
Perhaps you might care to offer some enlightenment on a couple of them.
Camphill, even if it is apart from Waldorf rather than being a part of
it still indulges in wet-on wet painting. Might I ask your thoughts on
why, during staff training (a euphemism for attemted indoctrination), I
had a farly heated exchange with the "tutor" since my effort was not
what she (or the cult) wanted: rather, it was (silly me) an effort at my
own interpretation. The real victims of the cultism are, for the most
part bereft of attribute nedded to either question or challenge such
control.
If I want purple spots and green stripes on my blue dragon, then I WILL
exercise my enshrined-in-law freedom to paint it like that.
How DARE the anthro mob deny our most vulnerable folk a similar freedom?
What next? Lets try the food facism shall we?
Any idea why one might be so unpopular for constantly questioning just
how come an identical high fibre, loaded with carbohydrate and through
the roof cholestorol (because it "whole food") regime is appropriate for
both the ectomorph with next to no bowel control, and the endomorph with
pica syndrome on top of her autism?
Got any thoughts on the mixture of keys and Prader-Willy sydrome?
And then there is..... but no, I did only say a couple.
You raised Camphill Frank, want to kick it around a bit more?
I'll look forward to it.
Davy
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 18:43:42 -0300
From: "Frank Thomas Smith" (franksmith vdolores.com.ar)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy
Davy wrote:
) You raised Camphill Frank, want to kick it around a bit more?
Well, no, as I don't know much more about it than that it exists. But even
if I did have expereince and knowledge about it, I think it would be futile
to discuss it with someone who uses expressions like "food fascism" (Down
with it, whatever it is.) Btw, wasn't 7 years (5 in, 2 out) enough time to
answer your own questions?
Frank
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 22:43:18 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: re:- anthroposophy
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 22:54:04 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: re: anthroposophy
Its now 22:48hrs, uk time 2nd November.
Hi Frank,
I now have your response by personal email to my post:- you know the
one, where you admit that for all you raised the topic of Camphill, you
don't know anything about it. There were also the ascerbic comments on
my time with the cult, and the refusal to enter into conversation unless
I used Anthrospeak rather than English like the rest of us use it.
Happy to pick up on your points Frank, but will you please post your
response here so eveyone might form their views.
Davy
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 16:19:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Maya Kesh (maya_kesh yahoo.com)
Subject: Seven Times the Sun
Hello,
I am not a Waldorf parent, I found the PLANS site in
time to dodge the proverbial bullet(my opinion of
course!).
I had been considering enrolling my son in a
pre-school program. Instead he is now enrolled in a
local co-op, which is a much better fit for us all.
The person who pointed me towards Waldorf also
recommends the book(for parenting young children):
_Seven Times the Sun_ by Shea Darian
I read the synopsis on amazon, it doesn't fit in my
personal philosophy. I noticed however this book was
somehow connected with Waldof(Waldorf parents
recommend the book and many who bought the book bought
Waldorf related books). I wondered if anybody had any
knowledge or insight in to this book.
Thank you!
Maya
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 21:54:03 -0300
From: "Frank Thomas Smith" (franksmith vdolores.com.ar)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy
Davy,
As far as I can tell, I didn't send you any off-list mail, in anthrospeak or
any other lingo, nor do I intend to. Here's what I wrote to the WC (check
the archives):
Davy wrote:
) You raised Camphill Frank, want to kick it around a bit more?
Well, no, as I don't know much more about it than that it exists. But even
if I did have experience and knowledge about it, I think it would be futile
to discuss it with someone who uses expressions like "food fascism" (Down
with it, whatever it is.) Btw, wasn't 7 years (5 in, 2 out) enough time to
answer your own questions?
Frank
) Its now 22:48hrs, uk time 2nd November.
) Hi Frank,
) I now have your response by personal email to my post:- you know the
) one, where you admit that for all you raised the topic of Camphill, you
) don't know anything about it. There were also the ascerbic comments on
) my time with the cult, and the refusal to enter into conversation unless
) I used Anthrospeak rather than English like the rest of us use it.
) Happy to pick up on your points Frank, but will you please post your
) response here so eveyone might form their views.
) Davy
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 10:07:50 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy
Frank Thomas Smith wrote:
)
) Davy,
) As far as I can tell, I didn't send you any off-list mail,
HI Frank,
OK, your post appeared on my wc screen overnight: I first saw it in the
junk mail box though, but I did shift it to the in box!
in anthrospeak or any other lingo,
a refusal to discuss in anything other than anthro terms is anthrospak,
nor do I intend to.
Thanks!
Here's what I wrote to the WC (check
) the archives):
)
) Davy wrote:
) ) You raised Camphill Frank, want to kick it around a bit more?
)
) Well, no, as I don't know much more about it than that it exists.
One might wonder then why the reference: "Then there is the Camphill
movement-a subject in itself." (your post of 31st Oct)
I dont think it unreasonable to take this as an invitation to further
discuss Camphill.
But even
) if I did have experience and knowledge about it, I think it would be
) futile
) to discuss it with someone who uses expressions like "food fascism"
) (Down
) with it, whatever it is.)
)
Er...Frank, I think you might have shot yourself in the foot here. I
must admit to being more than a little puzzled, although this response
has a ring of familiarity about it. Having lived with it for those
years, asked questions, got little beyond by way of answers beyond
"Steiner said......" I stand accused of rigidity?
In Gilbert Childs' antho bible on nutrition, it is noted in the preface
that little in the discipline will work unless one believes it.
Does it not then follow that imposing such a regime on special needs
folk is of itself futile?
If a claim that dumb acceptance is just as efficacous as willing
compliance, I have yet to read it. It was however spoken on many
occassions: "If its anthro, it must be good"
Seven years was more than enough to find my own answers. They just were
seldom anthro ones.
Davy
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1171
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Frank's digestion
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Frank's digestion
By franksmith vdolores.com.ar
RE: Frank's digestion
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 12:22:25 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Frank's digestion
Hello Frank,
you are evidently having some trouble paying attention to this
not-very-complex thread. In my last message I quoted a post of yours from
July 30th of this year, where you wrote that "Steiner did not hold any of
these beliefs, did not express them publicly, and did not teach them to his
followers." In your reply to my last message, which you posted yesterday,
you wrote:
)I'm touched by your concern with my bowels, Peter, but you're not helping
)at all. I expected relief in the WC, but what do I find? The same old
)shinola.
) I was expecting Gary to order a true-blue American gnome
)(instead of a French one) but I guess he hasn't read the Patriot Act.
)Instead I get a reference from you to a mail from 7/30 (took me a half hour
)to find it in the archives), and find that I did answer you. For those who
)weren't around, and may want to see what it was all about, see:
)http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?sort=d&mid=171
)3977031&start=19066
That is the very same post that I excerpted in my last message, the very
same post where you claimed that Steiner never said or wrote anything about
higher races, lower races, the spiritual significance of racial
characteristics, and so forth, the very same post in which you insisted
categorically that "Steiner did not hold any of these beliefs, did not
express them publicly, and did not teach them to his followers." Thus your
new assertion "I did answer you" makes no sense whatsoever. Did you maybe
think you had answered yourself, in the course of a single post? Maybe you
could tell the rest of us just what the two of you were discussing?
As I pointed out in my last message, you never answered my post containing
all of those quotations from Steiner that clearly disprove your claims,
which I originally posted on August 5th. In fact you never replied to any
posts at all from August 5th onward, until your sudden reappearance on the
list last week. You said absolutely nothing about the extensive Steiner
passages, taken straight from his published works, whose existence you
emphatically deny. You said absolutely nothing about what these passages
might mean for your naive understanding of anthroposophy. Apparently you
still have nothing to say about these matters, apart from pointing me to the
very same post of yours that I had just quoted myself.
Even if you are having trouble keeping your own posts straight, you might at
least have noticed that a post from 7/30/03 cannot be an answer to a post
from 8/5/03. I know that the water goes down the drain in the opposite
direction in your part of the world, but last I checked the calendars did
not run backwards. So perhaps you could try to explain what on earth you are
talking about?
If you believe that Rudolf Steiner never said or wrote the fifteen passages
that I brought to your attention, would you mind explaining how you reached
that remarkable conclusion? Do you think there is a vast conspiracy afoot
here, in which the editors and publishers of Steiner's collected works are
intimately involved? Do you think that each of those published texts has
been forged? Do you really not have copies of any of those Steiner books in
your own library, or were you somehow prevented from looking up the passages
I excerpted? And did some malevolent computer virus prevent you from
accessing the links I provided to the online Steiner archive?
Can you, in other words, provide any evidence at all that Steiner did not
say or write the passages in question? Failing that, can you explain why you
were unaware of the existence of these substantial texts until I brought
them to your attention? Failing that, can you tell us why you continue to
deny the existence of published works that you have read yourself in
unadulterated form?
I truly look forward to hearing from you on this subject. You might be
surprised by how a little intellectual effort can get the ol' innards
working properly again.
Yours for healthy digestion,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Send instant messages to anyone on your contact list with MSN Messenger
6.0. Try it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:40:49 -0300
From: "Frank Thomas Smith" (franksmith vdolores.com.ar)
Subject: RE: Frank's digestion
Yo, Peter,
Thanks for your efforts at irony - infantile, but at least it shows you're
trying. I told you before (don't ask for the date, this is from memory) that
I'm not entering into a Q & A ping pong match with you. Do you think I'm one
of those jerks Socrates played around with? (Don't answer that.) I already
said that I'd reply to you, so please stop foaming at the mouth, it's bad
for your blood pressure. I recommend you re-read Knowledge of Higher Worlds
and learn to meditate, with which you *may* attain the virtue of patience.
By the way, the water really does run down the drain in the opposite
direction. Come on down and I'll show you, and bring some German beer with
you. Argentine beer leaves much to be desired, but the wine is excellent,
and better for digestion.
Frank
) Hello Frank,
)
) you are evidently having some trouble paying attention to this
) not-very-complex thread. In my last message I quoted a post of yours from
) July 30th of this year, where you wrote that "Steiner did not hold any of
) these beliefs, did not express them publicly, and did not teach them to
his
) followers." In your reply to my last message, which you posted yesterday,
) you wrote:
)
)
) )I'm touched by your concern with my bowels, Peter, but you're not helping
) )at all. I expected relief in the WC, but what do I find? The same old
) )shinola.
) ) I was expecting Gary to order a true-blue American gnome
) )(instead of a French one) but I guess he hasn't read the Patriot Act.
) )Instead I get a reference from you to a mail from 7/30 (took me a half
hour
) )to find it in the archives), and find that I did answer you. For those
who
) )weren't around, and may want to see what it was all about, see:
)
)http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?sort=d&mid=17
1
) )3977031&start=19066
)
)
) That is the very same post that I excerpted in my last message, the very
) same post where you claimed that Steiner never said or wrote anything
about
) higher races, lower races, the spiritual significance of racial
) characteristics, and so forth, the very same post in which you insisted
) categorically that "Steiner did not hold any of these beliefs, did not
) express them publicly, and did not teach them to his followers." Thus your
) new assertion "I did answer you" makes no sense whatsoever. Did you maybe
) think you had answered yourself, in the course of a single post? Maybe you
) could tell the rest of us just what the two of you were discussing?
)
) As I pointed out in my last message, you never answered my post containing
) all of those quotations from Steiner that clearly disprove your claims,
) which I originally posted on August 5th. In fact you never replied to any
) posts at all from August 5th onward, until your sudden reappearance on the
) list last week. You said absolutely nothing about the extensive Steiner
) passages, taken straight from his published works, whose existence you
) emphatically deny. You said absolutely nothing about what these passages
) might mean for your naive understanding of anthroposophy. Apparently you
) still have nothing to say about these matters, apart from pointing me to
the
) very same post of yours that I had just quoted myself.
)
) Even if you are having trouble keeping your own posts straight, you might
at
) least have noticed that a post from 7/30/03 cannot be an answer to a post
) from 8/5/03. I know that the water goes down the drain in the opposite
) direction in your part of the world, but last I checked the calendars did
) not run backwards. So perhaps you could try to explain what on earth you
are
) talking about?
)
) If you believe that Rudolf Steiner never said or wrote the fifteen
passages
) that I brought to your attention, would you mind explaining how you
reached
) that remarkable conclusion? Do you think there is a vast conspiracy afoot
) here, in which the editors and publishers of Steiner's collected works are
) intimately involved? Do you think that each of those published texts has
) been forged? Do you really not have copies of any of those Steiner books
in
) your own library, or were you somehow prevented from looking up the
passages
) I excerpted? And did some malevolent computer virus prevent you from
) accessing the links I provided to the online Steiner archive?
)
) Can you, in other words, provide any evidence at all that Steiner did not
) say or write the passages in question? Failing that, can you explain why
you
) were unaware of the existence of these substantial texts until I brought
) them to your attention? Failing that, can you tell us why you continue to
) deny the existence of published works that you have read yourself in
) unadulterated form?
)
) I truly look forward to hearing from you on this subject. You might be
) surprised by how a little intellectual effort can get the ol' innards
) working properly again.
)
) Yours for healthy digestion,
)
) Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 23:46:29 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Frank's digestion
Hello Frank, you wrote:
)I told you before (don't ask for the date, this is from memory) that
)I'm not entering into a Q & A ping pong match with you.
Nobody has asked that of you. The matter at hand is a simple one, requiring
no ping-pong or Socratic dialogue. You stated categorically that Rudolf
Steiner did not hold and did not teach a wide variety of specific racist
beliefs. I provided you with extensive quotations from Steiner that disprove
your claim. You promptly disappeared from the list without a word, failing
to acknowledge your original error or adjust your views on Steiner
accordingly. When you resurfaced last week I reminded you of this, and
pointed out that it contradicts your statement that you find no new material
on this list.
In light of this straightforward situation, it isn't clear what sort of Q &
A you think I was inviting you to engage in. While I am certainly happy to
answer any questions you might have, it would probably make more sense for
the time being if you could simply stick to those questions you have already
raised. To refresh your memory, here is what you originally wrote in
response to my summary of Steiner's less appealing racial teachings:
"Steiner did not hold any of these beliefs, did not express them publicly,
and did not teach them to his followers. One could feel for a moment that
you are merely a misguided materialist. But reading that simplistic
statement, and assuming that you have studied Steiner's work, I can only
conclude that you willfully misstate facts in order to defend a preconceived
indefensible thesis. Why? I'm not your shrink, haven't a clue."
Since you can now see that my summary was in fact accurate, it would seem
that there is little need for a ping-pong match or further Q & A. But
perhaps you have a different view? By all means feel free to share it with
the rest of us, and take as much time as you need.
Yours for Argentine wine,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Shopping upgraded for the holidays! Snappier product search...
http://shopping.msn.com
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1172
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Re: anthroposophy
By diana.winters verizon.net
[from Michael Langone] Herb Rosedale dies
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Re: anthroposophy
By houseoftwyman charter.net
Re: [from Michael Langone] Herb Rosedale dies
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 17:06:47 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Re: anthroposophy
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C3A2F6.0B668AF0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I tried to send this in response to Shannon a few days ago, but was not
getting critics mail. Trying again:
Shannon wrote:
"Last week over dinner my daughter told me that another child (a very
nice, but active and bossy little girl) had kicked her
in the head at indoor playtime. She told me that she screamed and cried
in the classroom while the teacher held ice on it. I tried to get to the
bottom of it, but communicating with a five year old (also hearing
impaired) is difficult. I suddenly became very angry. As a teacher
myself I would have written a note or called the parents so they would
not have to hear this directly from the child."
Shannon,
I think you are right that in most schools, a teacher would let the
parents know about such an incident, if it was painful enough to require
ice.
A common belief among Waldorf teachers is that parents are
"over-intellectualizing" their children. By this, they often mean what
most parents would consider simply talking to their child in a normal
way. They feel parents make a child "self-conscious" by discussing
things with them. Parents think, often, that the intellectualizing thing
means talking to them in too much depth, explaining things abstractly -
well, talking *intellectually* about something. But it actually means
something most of us would consider innocuous or even desirable - simply
talking openly and directly with our children. If you talk to your
daughter about the incident, you would probably ask her to relate what
happened, how she felt about it, or say sympathetic things to her, all
of which - some Waldorf teachers believe - makes her conscious of
herself in a negative way. They don't mean "self-conscious" in the way
most of us would understand the term - they really mean conscious of her
"self" as *being* a self. The child is supposed to remain unaware of
herself as an individual for as long as possible. This can lead to some
ways of talking to (or not talking to) children that the rest of us
might find surprising. Many Waldorf teachers believe, the less said the
better if a child is hurt (physically or otherwise). Many things are
dealt with by just ignoring them, sometimes by literally looking the
other way and pretending not to see or hear a dispute going on or
someone crying. They really believe this is for the best, but in
practice, it can be quite unkind, and since it is usually not how the
parents treat the child at home, it is very confusing to children.
If you don't even know such an incident happened, of course, you
wouldn't be able to talk to her about it. I have heard Waldorf teachers
discuss this strategy - don't tell the parent, then the parent can't
talk to the child about it. In other words, it can be a means of dealing
with what they view as parental incompetence. You might ask her directly
if this is the case. She may have been hoping your daughter wouldn't
even tell you - going on the theory that at this age, they don't carry
memories or consciousness of such events very long anyway. I think this
is incorrect and a rather cold approach, personally, and I think parents
have a right to be angry when they find out information has been kept
from them.
To the extent they individualize their approach at all, they may base it
on Steiner's "temperaments." A "melancholic" child gets fussed over for
an illness or injury, may get to sit in the teacher's lap, whereas a
child with another temperament but the same injury may be largely
ignored. The only way to get *you* to ignore it, and thus react
correctly, would be to try to keep you from knowing about it. You might
ask the teacher what temperament she believes your daughter is and that
may shed light on how she handled the situation.
The same may apply to her attitude toward your daughter's hearing
problems. She may not want to discuss her approach with you for fear you
will then discuss it with your daughter.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 20:15:52 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: [from Michael Langone] Herb Rosedale dies
I am saddened to tell you that Herb Rosedale, who has been such an
important and beloved person to so many of us, died Tuesday morning,
November 4th. He had been diagnosed with cancer in the spring and
did well until late summer. A few days before our Connecticut
conference a couple of weeks ago, he had had tests, the results of
which came in during the conference. Many of you who were there
undoubtedly noticed that he was jaundiced. With typical Herb courage
and energy, he continued to do what he always does at conferences,
talking to as many people as possible and welcoming new comers.
After the conference it became clear that the cancer had spread to
vital organs and his deterioration was rapid. We will miss him
terribly.
A funeral service will take place at Temple Beth El of Northern
Westchester, 220 S. Bedford Rd., Chappaqua (914-238-3928) on Thursday
at 1:00. His wife, Ethel, has requested that people who wish to
send something give a donation to AFF in lieu of flowers. The family
will receive condolence visits on Thursday night (7:30 - 9:00) ,
Saturday night (7:30 - 9:00), and Sunday (2:00 - 5:00; 7:30 -9:00) at
their home: 34 Hilltop Drive, Chappaqua, NY 10514.
It has been suggested that we post a memorial page on our Web site.
If you would like to submit reflections, remembrances, or words of
gratitude, please e-mail or mail them to me.
Michael Langone
AFF (American Family Foundation)
P.O. Box 2265
Bonita Springs, FL 34133
Phone: 239-514-3081 (new area code)
fax: 732-352-6818
E-mail: (mailto:aff affcultinfoserve.com)aff affcultinfoserve.com
Web site: (http://www.culticstudies.org/)www.culticstudies.org (also,
(http://www.csj.org/)www.csj.org)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:41:21 -0800
From: "Shannon Twyman" (houseoftwyman charter.net)
Subject: Re: Re: anthroposophy
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C3A324.C4BFA530
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Diana
Thank you so much for your response. I need to process it and
reflect on how it relates to my experience. You really nailed some
of what I have observed there.
Shannon
----- Original Message -----
From: Diana Winters
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 2:06 PM
Subject: RE: Re: anthroposophy
I tried to send this in response to Shannon a few days ago, but was
not getting critics mail. Trying again:
Shannon wrote:
"Last week over dinner my daughter told me that another child (a
very nice, but active and bossy little girl) had kicked her
in the head at indoor playtime. She told me that she screamed and
cried in the classroom while the teacher held ice on it. I tried to
get to the bottom of it, but communicating with a five year old (also
hearing impaired) is difficult. I suddenly became very angry. As a
teacher myself I would have written a note or called the parents so
they would not have to hear this directly from the child."
Shannon,
I think you are right that in most schools, a teacher would let the
parents know about such an incident, if it was painful enough to
require ice.
A common belief among Waldorf teachers is that parents are
"over-intellectualizing" their children. By this, they often mean
what most parents would consider simply talking to their child in a
normal way. They feel parents make a child "self-conscious" by
discussing things with them. Parents think, often, that the
intellectualizing thing means talking to them in too much depth,
explaining things abstractly - well, talking *intellectually* about
something. But it actually means something most of us would consider
innocuous or even desirable - simply talking openly and directly with
our children. If you talk to your daughter about the incident, you
would probably ask her to relate what happened, how she felt about
it, or say sympathetic things to her, all of which - some Waldorf
teachers believe - makes her conscious of herself in a negative way.
They don't mean "self-conscious" in the way most of us would
understand the term - they really mean conscious of her "self" as
*being* a self. The child is supposed to remain unaware of herself as
an individual for as long as possible. This can lead to some ways of
talking to (or not talking to) children that the rest of us might
find surprising. Many Waldorf teachers believe, the less said the
better if a child is hurt (physically or otherwise). Many things are
dealt with by just ignoring them, sometimes by literally looking the
other way and pretending not to see or hear a dispute going on or
someone crying. They really believe this is for the best, but in
practice, it can be quite unkind, and since it is usually not how the
parents treat the child at home, it is very confusing to children.
If you don't even know such an incident happened, of course, you
wouldn't be able to talk to her about it. I have heard Waldorf
teachers discuss this strategy - don't tell the parent, then the
parent can't talk to the child about it. In other words, it can be a
means of dealing with what they view as parental incompetence. You
might ask her directly if this is the case. She may have been hoping
your daughter wouldn't even tell you - going on the theory that at
this age, they don't carry memories or consciousness of such events
very long anyway. I think this is incorrect and a rather cold
approach, personally, and I think parents have a right to be angry
when they find out information has been kept from them.
To the extent they individualize their approach at all, they may
base it on Steiner's "temperaments." A "melancholic" child gets
fussed over for an illness or injury, may get to sit in the teacher's
lap, whereas a child with another temperament but the same injury may
be largely ignored. The only way to get *you* to ignore it, and thus
react correctly, would be to try to keep you from knowing about it.
You might ask the teacher what temperament she believes your daughter
is and that may shed light on how she handled the situation.
The same may apply to her attitude toward your daughter's hearing
problems. She may not want to discuss her approach with you for fear
you will then discuss it with your daughter.
Diana
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 23:00:12 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: [from Michael Langone] Herb Rosedale dies
Thanks for forwarding this sad news, Dan. The AFF web site was a big part
of my own healing - post Waldorf. I needed to make sense of what my family
had been involved with for years and the Cult Information Service was always
there for us. VERY difficult to fathom in the beginning but so very
important to understand if one is really interested in dealing with these
difficult issues. I had some brief correspondence with Herb Rosedale and
found him to be a very caring and generous person.
I am sorry to hear of his death.
-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 1173
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Frank's digestion
By franksmith vdolores.com.ar
Re: The Flickering Mind by Todd Oppenheimer
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 18:03:44 -0300
From: "Frank Thomas Smith" (franksmith vdolores.com.ar)
Subject: RE: Frank's digestion
Hi, Peter,
) In the continuing saga of Frank's battle with his bowels, we learn that
he merely finds the same old stuff during his occasional visits to this
list:
)
Well, yes, the old stuff are the excerpts you keep posting - literally a
few words extracted out of context in order to try to prove a fixed idea, to
wit, that Rudolf Steiner was a racist, an anti-semite and would have been
a Nazi had he lived long enough. All this, in my opinion at least, in order
to unjustly discredit Waldorf education and anthroposophy, the latter
falsely
described as a cult by some on this list. I say "a few words", because they
constitute an infinitesimal portion of his complete published works (6,000
lectures, around 30 books, plus articles). I know you've heard the
out-of-context argument before. Nevertheless, it's justified, because when
one follows up and sees what conclusion Steiner was really arriving at,
it is the complete opposite to what you allege. It is that racism and
anti-Semitism are evil, that racial attitude must disappear - in fact the
very concept of human differentiation because of race must and will
disappear.
Although I disapprove of your out-of-context extractions, I find myself
forced to do the same because you insist. I therefore invite you to
examine some extracts which indicate Steiner's conclusive thoughts on this
issue
at http://southerncrossreview.org/steiner-race.htm . A translation of a
whole
book on the racial issue (Anthroposophie und der Rassismus-vorwurf) is
under preparation and will appear on the above site as soon as I have it.
I'll
let you know.
As far as the anti-semitism accusation - really far-out and inexcusable
for anyone with the facts - an English translation of the book
"Anthroposophy
and Anti-semitism" , which demolishes this witch hunt is available free of
charge at http://southerncrossreview.org/Ebooks/ebantisemitism.htm
If I remember correctly, Peter, you already ordered this book some time ago,
so I
assume you've had time to read it. But let's be honest, this isn't
a conversation between us two. For that I'm still waiting for your visit -
the
wine is ready, white for me, red for you :-). We're both talking to the
gallery, to the lurkers. I those who are open-minded and earnestly seeking
the truth to request the book and check out the other url. For those who are
interested in Waldorf education and prefer a list with a less polluted
atmosphere (in fact, fresh air) I recommend:
http://www.waldorfworld.net/waldorflist
Hasta la vista,
Frank
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 18:32:39 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Cc: Arthur Fink (arthur ARTHURFINK.COM)
Subject: Re: The Flickering Mind by Todd Oppenheimer
Open letter to the moderator of the SJU Waldorf School List:
Dear Arthur, PLANS has been mentioned in a dialogue on your list.
Ordinarily the proper place to respond would be on the list itself.
However, I am forbidden from posting there, so I will respond here on
waldorf-critics and copy to you. I quote postings by Sune Nordwall
and by you, Arthur Fink.
SUNE NORDWALL
))I haven't seen any mentioning of the new book The Flickering Mind: The
))False Promise of Technology in the Classroom and How Learning Can Be Saved,
)
)For those interested, you can find it on Amazon as
)http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400060443/qid=1068117000
)
))The book has gotten good editorial reviews . . . But it also has gotten a
))number of customer reviews (21 as of today),
))especially from a number of people who seem to have have fallen for
))themythologies cultivated at the site of the small anti-Waldorf hate type
))group PLANS.
Nordwall calls PLANS a "small anti-Waldorf hate type group." Tell me,
Arthur, what is your list's policy regarding libelous statements?
ARTHUR FINK
)This is certainly a book worth checking out, and I thank Sune for the
)reference.
)
)Looking at the Amazon customer reviews, they are divided between 4 and 5
)stars from readers who found the book really engaging, and 0 or 1 from
)people with a polemic axe to grind. It's quite clear to anybody which are
)"real" reviews. We won't help the author of this book, or the cause of
)Waldorf education, by turning that Amazon customer review section into a
)forum with Plans. If you have read the book, by all means post a review.
People who think Oppenheimer's uncritical promotion of Waldorf is is
a crock aren't "real"? I'll pinch myself to check.
)Instead of responding with a customer "review" of a book I've not yet read,
)I sent the following note to Amazon customer service:
)
)) I'm very troubled by the customer reviews of "The Flickering Mind:
)) The False Promise of Technology in the Classroom and How Learning
)) Can Be Saved" by Todd Oppenheimer.
))
)) Many of them are "real" reviews, talking about the content of the
)) book (and generally praising it).
))
)) But a good number are diatribes about the supposed racism of Steiner,
)) who figures prominently in the book. It's clear that these reviews
)) represent an organized campaign by the group 'Plans'. They are not
)) "real" reviews of the book. I am concerned that they hurt the author,
)) mislead your potential readers, and turn your customer review section
) ) into a forum -- which is not what it is supposed to be.
If you look around, you'll see that the customer reviews on
amazon.com -are- often a forum with opposing views. You say it's
clear to you, but in fact PLANS did not organize any campaign to
write reviews. I assure you that nothing of the sort has happened. I
don't know any of the people who wrote the 22 reviews that were on
the site today. What is your list's policy about unintentional false
statements? Now that you know your suspicion was wrong, do you think
a correction is in order for your false accusation?
)Other such notes to Amazon may be helpful.
Now -you- are calling for a letter writing campaign, not to the
public forum, but to its publishers, in a transparent attempt to
quash public discussion.
)Since Sune provided a number of links to the Plans sites, I'd like to
)remind all that this list is for a discussion of Waldorf Education, and not
)about the strategy and tactics of that particular group. The "List
)Guidelines" that all of us received when we first subscribed to the list,
)explain:
)
)) The Waldorf List is a resource for parents of children in Waldorf
)) schools and others interested in Waldorf education. The Waldorf
)) List presumes an attitude of good will of its subscribers toward
)) Waldorf education. Its primary goal is to increase knowledge and
)) understanding, and to explore the possibilities of this pedagogy.
)) The list is neither intended to focus on defending Waldorf
) ) education, nor to advocate Waldorf education to those considering
)) it. This list presupposes a level of maturity and mutual tolerance
) ) from its participants.
)
)Arthur Fink
)List "manager" of the month
I don't think that's an adquate response for a libelous statement, Arthur.
-Dan Dugan
Secretary, PLANS, Inc.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1174
-- Topica Digest --
[NNA] Rudolf Steiner in the coffee house
By dan dandugan.com
Head of Anthroposophical Society on the Waldorf teacher's job
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Frank's digestion
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
(was: RE: Frank's digestion)
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: (was: RE: Frank's digestion)
By diana.winters verizon.net
Frank's version of Steiner, take 2
By pstaud hotmail.com
Frank's version of Steiner, take 3
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: [NNA] Rudolf Steiner in the coffee house
By spectmore yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:59:15 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: [NNA] Rudolf Steiner in the coffee house
Copyright 2003 News Network Anthroposophy Limited. All rights reserved.
The following material may be republished without the prior consent
of News Network Anthroposophy. News Network Anthroposophy does,
however, require acknowledgement of the source and, if provided, the
author of the material.
+ + + + +
NNA-N E W S
Rudolf Steiner in the coffee house
By Ursa Krattiger
Basle, 7 November (NNA) - From 9 January to 29 February 2004,
visitors to the Unternehmen Mitte centre in Basle will have the
opportunity to meet "Rudolf Steiner in the coffee house".
Under this motto the Rudolf Steiner Archive, the Unternehmen Mitte
centre and the Freie Gemeinschaftsbank BCL bank have organised an
exhibition of 44 + 1 blackboard drawings by Rudolf Steiner - one
original and 44 full-size facsimiles. Guided tours and concerts,
lectures and discussions will provide deeper insights and bring the
exhibition to life.
Rudolf Steiner held more than 6000 lectures on his many lecture tours
and on over a thousand occasions he elaborated them with colourful
blackboard drawings - his visions, inspirations and imaginations are
fresh, bold and unrestricted, having caused a stir on the art scene
worldwide for well over a decade.
Next to the drawings, the extracts from the lectures to which they
refer can be read - and those who wish to investigate further can go
to the Rudolf Steiner Archive, which will set up shop locally for the
duration, to delve further into the complete works, an edition of
which will be freely available in full.
The exhibition is supplemented by a comprehensive supporting
programme with lectures by Guido Magnaguagno, director of the Jean
Tinguely museum and Walter Kugler director of the Rudolf Steiner
Archive on 9 January. The "info3" columnist Jens R. Prochnow will
host a discussion every Tuesday, his most prominent guest on 10
February being the Josef Beuys master pupil Johannes St?ttgen
discussing Beuys' concept of "Art and capital". The Freie
Gemeinschaftsbank will hold a symposium on "The art of dealing with
money " on 16 Fenruary. The author Wolfgang Zumdick (Aachen) will
present Rudolf Steiner and the artists under the motto "a youth -
1000 years old" on 11 January.
On 18 January, the complete works of Rudolf Steiner on the Internet
and on DVD will be demonstrated as an instrument for online research.
A performance related to the blackboard drawings, "Like breathing in
light" , will take place on 15 February, and on the previous day the
Youth Section at the Goetheanum has organised an open forum, "Youth
reloaded", for young people.
ENDS
Ursa Krattiger is head of the Swiss Anthroposophical Media Office
www.mitte.ch
www.rudolf-steiner.com
+ + + + +
Item reference number:
Date:
More NNA reports at: http://www.nna-news.org/content/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:46:51 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Head of Anthroposophical Society on the Waldorf teacher's job
A friend found this interesting text on the web. It's a dialogue
between Arthur Zajonc, chair of the Anthroposophical Society in
America, and William Irwin Thompson, contributing editor of the
Lindisfarne journal "Annals of Earth."
Full text at:
http://www.williamirwinthompson.nstemp.com/Interviews/witazint.htm
)AZ: It's very interesting, looking at the anthroposophical world. If
)the anthroposophical movement had only entailed Rudolf Steiner's
)knowledge, if it had been an initiatic tradition, it would have
)died. You'd have had the Gesamtausgabe being produced by the
)Nachlass like a kind of artifact, like Jung or Freud, produced as a
)scholarly testament. As long as the copyrights are still there and
)you're still selling books, you can do the next volume. When the
)copyright runs out, eventually you also disappear. But the thing
)that seems to have given Steiner's work some life is the fact that
)there are these Waldorf schools and you can be employed (in the
)service of his ideas).
)
)WIT: Also, there is the Weleda factory, and things of that sort.
)
)AZ: Right, you can be an employee. You are being paid to think and
)to live an esoteric life. When you look at the children you teach,
)you are supposed to think about their subtle bodies, their past
)lives, your karmic relationship to this child, your karmic
)relationship to your colleagues at the children's parents. You get
)paid to do this....
)
)WIT: But do they really get paid? According to Steiner's dictum,
)don't they only get paid "according to their needs," so all the
)teachers in effect get underpaid?
)
)AZ: Well, everybody would love to get properly paid, but that's more
)a question of how you fund these things. In Europe, you're paid just
)as well as any other teacher, but in America, all private schools
)pay less than public schools pay. But if you want to live a life of
)the spirit you don't only have to do it one night a week where you
)come together in a cabal.
Got that? Waldorf teachers have such a privilege, being paid for
thinking about karma. I'd rather they were paid to think about how
best to educate their students.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:21:41 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Frank's digestion
Frank wrote:
) Well, yes, the old stuff are the excerpts you keep posting - literally a
) few words extracted out of context in order to try to prove a fixed idea,
to
) wit, that Rudolf Steiner was a racist, an anti-semite and would have been
) a Nazi had he lived long enough. All this, in my opinion at least, in
order
) to unjustly discredit Waldorf education and anthroposophy, the latter
) falsely
) described as a cult by some on this list. I say "a few words", because
they
) constitute an infinitesimal portion of his complete published works (6,000
) lectures, around 30 books, plus articles). I know you've heard the
) out-of-context argument before. Nevertheless, it's justified, because when
) one follows up and sees what conclusion Steiner was really arriving at,
) it is the complete opposite to what you allege.
I'll attempt to respond as I have probably been perceived (by Frank) as
posting a few words (from Steiner) extracted "out of context," as well.
This claim pops up from time to time and must be dealt with. First, what I
see posted when it comes to Steiner and racism is way more than "a few
words." Secondly, how on earth can any of these quotes - and there are more
than a few quotes - possibly be taken "out of context?" The entire issue of
race and future epochs are the foundation on which this anthroposophical
view of the world is built!
Hint: If you want to be taken seriously you will have to do more than wish
Steiner's racist passages simply did not exist. Deal with it. Please.
) It is that racism and
) anti-Semitism are evil, that racial attitude must disappear - in fact the
) very concept of human differentiation because of race must and will
) disappear.
So, are we simply to trust Steiner and his visions for the future - until
such time as race will disappear? What about Indigenous peoples, Frank?
Are we to accept Steiner's word that they must simply accept their destiny
as a race and die out? Should people from Africa clear out of Europe
because Steiner says so? (if you want the quotes, let me know) "Relax and
meditate and in a few thousand years all will be well...." Is that any way
to really DEAL with racism? Please take a breath and think about what I
said here. This is not an offhand jab at you - I would sincerely appreciate
a response to my questions - above.
) Although I disapprove of your out-of-context extractions, I find myself
) forced to do the same because you insist. I therefore invite you to
) examine some extracts which indicate Steiner's conclusive thoughts on this
) issue
) at http://southerncrossreview.org/steiner-race.htm .
Who is "forcing" you to use a tactic you disagree with? Why not deal with
the passages Peter posted? Why not deal with exactly what Steiner says?
You know, I spent quite a while not wanting to understand, because it just
did not fit my view of the world. I tried to fit anthroposophy into MY
life. I never felt "forced" to play tit-for-tat with Steiner quotes but I
did feel compelled to dig a little deeper when it became obvious
anthroposophy was part of my children's lives as they attended a Waldorf
school. My questions about anthroposophy were not always dealt with.
"Steiner is difficult," I was told. "Hey, I'm fairly bright and I have the
time - explain it to me." "You'll have to live into it...." As I read and
read and read some more, the only thing I felt to do was to wake up. No
need to read snippets from the Critics web site or Southern Cross or
anywhere else. Read Steiner.
Let me seek some common ground. Here: Yes, there is more to anthroposophy
than racism. I know anthroposophists who are not racists and do not sprout
horns. I think there is much in Waldorf schools to be applauded. I
actually like one of Steiner's lectures to the first Waldorf parents! I am
not suggesting these schools be shut down. Surprised? Don't be. I suggest
Waldorf looks at its roots and shares those roots - the entire system of
roots (complete with root races) with parents and educators. What I find
very frustrating is the denial I see when it comes to discussing the subject
of race and anthroposophy. I find it frustrating to see Waldorf schools
advertised as something they clearly are not. Why the denial and fear of
real discussion?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 16:37:32 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: (was: RE: Frank's digestion)
Frank asserts that Steiner thought:
"that racial attitude must disappear"
Steiner thought racial attitudes will disappear *millions of years* in
the future. To me, that hardly counts as the anti-racist agenda with
which you wish to credit him. How about racial attitudes *today*? Since
he expressed racial attitudes himself, very firm and detailed ones, I
don't see it as a credible conclusion that he wished racial attitudes to
disappear today.
" - in fact the very concept of human differentiation because of race
must and will disappear."
Exactly, Frank - how do you miss that Steiner thought racial
differentiation should disappear - not racism? A desire for racial
differentiation to disappear is a priori racist. Steiner taught that the
human differentation into races was itself a mistake of cosmic history.
His defenders would like to recast his anti-racial differentiation as
anti-racism but his statements denigrating races other than his own and
ranking them according to level of spiritual advancement make clear he
meant precisely the opposite of your very charitable interpretations.
"As far as the anti-semitism accusation - really far-out and inexcusable
for anyone with the facts"
Steiner:
"Jewry itself has long since outlived its time; it has no more
justification within the modern life of peoples, and the fact that it
continues to exist is a mistake of world history whose consequences are
unavoidable. We do not mean the forms of the Jewish religion alone, but
above all the spirit of Jewry, the Jewish way of thinking." (Steiner,
Gesammelte Aufs?tze zur Literatur p. 152)
"Far out" to consider that statement anti-Semitic?
What other "facts" would make such a statement not anti-Semitic?
)I those who are open-minded and earnestly seeking the truth to request
the book and check out the other url.
I also urge everyone to check out the url or the book. Often, the
materials that anthroposophists feel exonerate Steiner on the racism
charge seem to read exactly the opposite to his critics. It is not a
question of going to Frank's url to see Frank or Peter proven right or
wrong. Neither side has facts or truth inaccessible to the other side -
what they have is a very different interpretation of Steiner's racial
doctrines.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 16:39:35 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: (was: RE: Frank's digestion)
Sorry, I meant to re-title that, and forgot. A little tired of getting
six-monthly updates on Frank's digestion.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 20:28:27 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Frank's version of Steiner, take 2
Hello Frank,
I am glad to see you acknowledge, in your charmigly obstreperous fashion,
that Rudolf Steiner was indeed the author of those fifteen texts that I
brought to your attention several months ago. At the same time I am puzzled
by your continued insistence that this is all old hat to you; if you were
aware of those texts all along, why did you deny that they exist for so
long?
In any case, let's recap: I take it that you now recognize that Rudolf
Steiner did teach that the human species is divided into lower races and
higher races, that skin color is directly tied to spiritual disposition,
that history and social existence can only be understood through racial
characteristics, that humankind evolves by successive incarnations in
progressively higher racial forms, that souls which fail to progress are
relegated to a backward race, that souls which do progress are elevated to
an advanced race, that Europeans and especially Germans belong to the most
advanced race, that the white race is the spiritually creative race of the
future, that intelligence is correlated to blonde hair and blue eyes, that
black people belong in Africa and that their presence in Europe is a
disgrace, that indigenous peoples are stunted and decadent and degenerated,
and that the Jewish people has no reason to exist.
Now that we've finally gotten that out of the way, you just need to answer
the very simple question that I asked you four months back: Could you
clarify why you think these doctrines are not instances of racism?
It isn't a trick question, Frank. I have not asked you to make claims about
Steiner as a person or Waldorf as an educational system or about the proper
classification of anthroposophy; I simply asked you to explain why you think
the above views are not racist. Now would be a good time to answer that
query, don't you think?
As for the rest of your latest post, more in a moment.
Peter Staudenmaier
)Well, yes, the old stuff are the excerpts you keep posting - literally a
)few words extracted out of context
_________________________________________________________________
Crave some Miles Davis or Grateful Dead? Your old favorites are always
playing on MSN Radio Plus. Trial month free!
http://join.msn.com/?page=offers/premiumradio
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 20:33:28 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Frank's version of Steiner, take 3
Hello again Frank,
I think most of the rest of your latest post is based on inaccurate
assumptions about my work, as well as on several misconceptions about
intellectual history as such. I am trying to keep in mind that you are not a
historian, as you helpfully remind me every once in a while, and that the
segments of Steiner's work that each of us knows well are not necessarily
the same. That said, here are my thoughts:
)Well, yes, the old stuff are the excerpts you keep posting - literally a
)few words extracted out of context in order to try to prove a fixed idea
I posted full paragraphs from Steiner's published works, including several
passages that extend over multiple pages. With some of Steiner's important
texts (The Apocalypse of John, for example, which you have excerpted at your
own site) I have posted considerable portions of entire chapters to this
list. None of these passages was taken out of context, which you can easily
see for yourself simply by reading the surrounding text (which is what the
word "context" means; you might want to look that one up in a
dictionary...). These passages are accurately rendered and are
representative of Steiner's other writings on the same themes. Unless you
have some sort of grudge against quotation in and of itself, you'll need to
explain what it is about these passages in particular that you find
unsatisfactory.
)that Rudolf Steiner was a racist, an anti-semite and would have been
)a Nazi had he lived long enough.
Nowhere do I suggest that Rudolf Steiner would have been a Nazi if he'd had
the chance. It is indeed the case that Steiner was a racist, according to my
understanding of the term, and at several points in his career an antisemite
as well. But he was never a Nazi, and there is no reason to believe that he
would ever have become one (though he did, as it happens, live long enough;
the Nazi party was founded five years before Steiner died). All of my work
on Steiner is quite explicitly predicated on the fact that Nazism and
anthroposophy were distinct movements. The German right in the first decades
of the twentieth century was a remarkably variegated continuum of mutually
antagonistic groupings; the fact that many of these groups shared broad
ideological elements hardly means that all of them were identical. This is a
very well studied phenomenon, and my take on it is quite conventional among
scholars of the topic. If you have reasons to dispute anything I just said,
perhaps you could state them.
)All this, in my opinion at least, in order
)to unjustly discredit Waldorf education and anthroposophy,
I am not in the discrediting business, I am in the criticism business. But
even if I were, none of my work discredits Waldorf as such. At most it
discredits those aspects of Waldorf that have yet to free themselves of
anthroposophical racism and ethnocentrism. As for discrediting
anthroposophy, it seems to me that it is anthroposophists themselves who do
this, precisely through their refusal to confront their own history in an
honest manner.
)the latter
)falsely
)described as a cult by some on this list.
I am always amused by how much that word bugs all you anthro types. People
who believe in Atlantis, clairvoyance, initiation, higher worlds,
root-races, national souls, and occult science shouldn't be shocked when
others conclude that they're a little loony.
)I say "a few words", because they
)constitute an infinitesimal portion of his complete published works (6,000
)lectures, around 30 books, plus articles).
Yes, that is how quotation works, Frank. You choose small portions of a
larger text in order to convey the general meaning. Get it? None of the
quotes I have presented is meant to stand on its own; they are meant to spur
you and other would-be defenders of Steiner to consult the full texts. Why
are none of you interested in doing so, by the way? Every single time this
comes up, I offer to send complete copies of the full lecture, chapter,
whatever to anybody who asks, and absolutely no anthroposophist has ever
taken me up on the offer. What exactly are you all afraid of?
)I know you've heard the
)out-of-context argument before.
Yes, and I have explained to you before what the term "out of context"
means. According to your understanding of the term, all quotes would be out
of context by definition. I take it this never occurred to you?
)Nevertheless, it's justified, because when
)one follows up and sees what conclusion Steiner was really arriving at,
)it is the complete opposite to what you allege.
Beautifully put. I think this is exactly why you have such trouble
understanding Steiner's texts: instead of reading them to see what the texts
themselves actually say, you imagine yourself in direct supernatural contact
with the author, who whispers to you through the ether what he was really
arriving at. That's the difference between scholars and believers, Frank. We
pay attention to the evidence, and you pretend you can read a dead guy's
mind.
)It is that racism and
)anti-Semitism are evil, that racial attitude must disappear - in fact the
)very concept of human differentiation because of race must and will
)disappear.
That certainly would take care of the unpleasant necessity of sharing the
world with people of different races, wouldn't it?
)Although I disapprove of your out-of-context extractions, I find myself
)forced to do the same because you insist. I therefore invite you to
)examine some extracts which indicate Steiner's conclusive thoughts on this
)issue
)at http://southerncrossreview.org/steiner-race.htm .
Not only have I examined them, I have quoted every single one of those texts
here on this list, and commented on each of them extensively. But as always,
I am happy to comment some more. If I understand you correctly, you think
that one group of quotes from Rudolf Steiner magically cancels out another
group of quotes from Rudolf Steiner (feel free to re-state your position if
you think that characterization unfair).
I think that's silly. Steiner held both racist beliefs and anti-racist
beliefs. He taught both racist doctrines and anti-racist doctrines. While
this isn't really all that odd -- lots of authors and thinkers have done the
same thing over the years -- it does present us readers with an interesting
conundrum: how do we make sense of this contradictory textual record? Do we
throw up our hands and say, gosh, that Steiner fellow sure was an incoherent
thinker? Or do we try to come up with an interpretive framework that can
account for his various inconsistencies? Or do we simply pretend that half
of his doctrines don't exist? I vote for the second option myself. How about
you?
)A translation of a
)whole
)book on the racial issue (Anthroposophie und der Rassismus-vorwurf) is
)under preparation and will appear on the above site as soon as I have it.
)I'll
)let you know. [...]
)- an English translation of the book
)"Anthroposophy
)and Anti-semitism" , which demolishes this witch hunt is available free of
)charge at http://southerncrossreview.org/Ebooks/ebantisemitism.htm
)
)If I remember correctly, Peter, you already ordered this book some time
)ago,
)so I
)assume you've had time to read it.
Sometimes I think you really do have a memory problem, Frank. You and I
discussed both books last summer; why are you still wondering whether I have
read them? As for the content of both volumes, I realize that this isn't
your area of expertise, but it shouldn't be that difficult for you to
comprehend that no historian takes buffoons like Bader and Ravagli
seriously. Even anthroposophist historians like Ralf Sonnenberg make fun of
this stuff. What is it about these works that you find convincing?
)As far as the anti-semitism accusation - really far-out and inexcusable
)for anyone with the facts
I don't think you know nearly enough about those facts to be able to make
such a judgement. Why, may I enquire, is this small point difficult for you
to grasp? You don't really consider yourself a qualified analyst of the
history of antisemitism in Germanophone Europe in the Wilhelmine and Weimar
eras, do you? Wouldn't it make sense, then, to be just a teeny bit more
tentative in your conclusions?
But let's set that aside and simply take a good look at the Steiner
quotations about Jews that I brought to your attention. He says the Jews
have a negative influence on European culture. He says the Jews have no
reason to exist. He says the whole Jewish people is obsolete, an
anachronism, a mistake of world history. He says Jewish existence should
have terminated several thousand years ago. He says the Jews today should
disappear. He hopes "that Jewry as a people would simply cease to exist" in
his own words. Can you explain why you do not consider these sentiments,
which Steiner taught to his followers, to be antisemitic?
)But let's be honest, this isn't
)a conversation between us two. For that I'm still waiting for your visit -
)the
)wine is ready, white for me, red for you :-). We're both talking to the
)gallery, to the lurkers.
I've never understood this talking-to-the-lurkers thing. Are you really
trying to say that you prefer talking to people who don't talk back? I
suppose that might explain the difficulty you sometimes have responding to
other people's arguments... But if you are writing primarily for the
lurkers, aren't you being a bit unfair to them? Do you think they're all too
stupid to be able to track down the Steiner texts we're discussing and see
for themselves? Do you believe that you are somehow winning friends and
influenceing people by categorically insisting that Steiner never said those
things, or if he did say them he didn't mean them, or if he did mean them
you just need to do the right mental exercises and it will all seem okay
eventually?
)I those who are open-minded and earnestly seeking
)the truth to request the book and check out the other url. For those who
)are
)interested in Waldorf education and prefer a list with a less polluted
)atmosphere (in fact, fresh air) I recommend:
I don't have any recommendations for the lurkers, but I do have one for
Frank: Could you maybe try to engage with what I've actually written, and
what other critics have written, just this once? I put in a fair bit of
effort trying to understand what you say, and sometimes I get the sense that
you're not returning the favor. Why not look over this exchange one more
time and tell me specifically what it is that I've gotten wrong about
Steiner's racial doctrines, and show me some evidence to support your
argument? I bet you a bottle of my favorite red wine that you'll find this
approach very new and refreshing indeed.
Your for fresh air,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
From Beethoven to the Rolling Stones, your favorite music is always playing
on MSN Radio Plus. No ads, no talk. Trial month FREE!
http://join.msn.com/?page=offers/premiumradio
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 08:05:46 +0000
From: (spectmore yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: [NNA] Rudolf Steiner in the coffee house
Can someone who knows elaborate on the relationship between Beuys (who
admired Steiner) and Steiner with regards to these blackboard drawings?
Did Bueys -point blank- copy this idea?
Thanks, Jeanne
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) Copyright 2003 News Network Anthroposophy Limited. All rights reserved.
)
) The following material may be republished without the prior consent
) of News Network Anthroposophy. News Network Anthroposophy does,
) however, require acknowledgement of the source and, if provided, the
) author of the material.
)
) + + + + +
)
) NNA-N E W S
)
) Rudolf Steiner in the coffee house
)
) By Ursa Krattiger
)
) Basle, 7 November (NNA) - From 9 January to 29 February 2004,
) visitors to the Unternehmen Mitte centre in Basle will have the
) opportunity to meet "Rudolf Steiner in the coffee house".
)
) Under this motto the Rudolf Steiner Archive, the Unternehmen Mitte
) centre and the Freie Gemeinschaftsbank BCL bank have organised an
) exhibition of 44 + 1 blackboard drawings by Rudolf Steiner - one
) original and 44 full-size facsimiles. Guided tours and concerts,
) lectures and discussions will provide deeper insights and bring the
) exhibition to life.
)
) Rudolf Steiner held more than 6000 lectures on his many lecture tours
) and on over a thousand occasions he elaborated them with colourful
) blackboard drawings - his visions, inspirations and imaginations are
) fresh, bold and unrestricted, having caused a stir on the art scene
) worldwide for well over a decade.
)
) Next to the drawings, the extracts from the lectures to which they
) refer can be read - and those who wish to investigate further can go
) to the Rudolf Steiner Archive, which will set up shop locally for the
) duration, to delve further into the complete works, an edition of
) which will be freely available in full.
)
) The exhibition is supplemented by a comprehensive supporting
) programme with lectures by Guido Magnaguagno, director of the Jean
) Tinguely museum and Walter Kugler director of the Rudolf Steiner
) Archive on 9 January. The "info3" columnist Jens R. Prochnow will
) host a discussion every Tuesday, his most prominent guest on 10
) February being the Josef Beuys master pupil Johannes St?ttgen
) discussing Beuys' concept of "Art and capital". The Freie
) Gemeinschaftsbank will hold a symposium on "The art of dealing with
) money " on 16 Fenruary. The author Wolfgang Zumdick (Aachen) will
) present Rudolf Steiner and the artists under the motto "a youth -
) 1000 years old" on 11 January.
)
) On 18 January, the complete works of Rudolf Steiner on the Internet
) and on DVD will be demonstrated as an instrument for online research.
)
) A performance related to the blackboard drawings, "Like breathing in
) light" , will take place on 15 February, and on the previous day the
) Youth Section at the Goetheanum has organised an open forum, "Youth
) reloaded", for young people.
)
) ENDS
)
) Ursa Krattiger is head of the Swiss Anthroposophical Media Office
)
) www.mitte.ch
)
) www.rudolf-steiner.com
)
) + + + + +
)
) Item reference number:
)
) Date:
)
) More NNA reports at: http://www.nna-news.org/content/
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1175
-- Topica Digest --
Re: The Flickering Mind by Todd Oppenheimer
By dan dandugan.com
RE: The Flickering Mind by Todd Oppenheimer
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: The Flickering Mind by Todd Oppenheimer
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: The Flickering Mind by Todd Oppenheimer
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Frank's version of Steiner, take 3
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: Seven Times the Sun
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Steiner, the Initiate....
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 00:33:30 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: The Flickering Mind by Todd Oppenheimer
))Open letter to the moderator of the SJU Waldorf School List:
))
))Dear Arthur, PLANS has been mentioned in a dialogue on your list.
))Ordinarily the proper place to respond would be on the list itself.
))However, I am forbidden from posting there, so I will respond here
))on waldorf-critics and copy to you. I quote postings by Sune
))Nordwall and by you, Arthur Fink.
). . .
)
)Dear Dan Dugan,
)
)I'll reply just to indicate receipt of your note, and to indicate
)that my post was an accurate reflection of my understanding and
)experience.
)
)Also, it was private correspondance to our list. You should know
)that it's improper for you to post my note on your list -- with our
)without your response.
)
)Arthur Fink
Arthur, first you allowed Nordwall to libel our organization on your
list without so much as a wrist-slap, and when I complained publicly
you ignored me. Second, you wrote to Amazon.com complaining that
PLANS had organized a review-writing campaign. PLANS didn't do that,
but when you're informed of the truth of the matter, you say it's
your "understanding." Who's behaving improperly here?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 12:50:47 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: The Flickering Mind by Todd Oppenheimer
Arthur Fink wrote to Dan:
)I'll reply just to indicate receipt of your note, and to indicate
)that my post was an accurate reflection of my understanding and
)experience.
There isn't any possible way Arthur "experienced" or "understood"
anything to lead him to his erroneous conclusion. He owes PLANS an
apology, as well as the individuals who wrote to amazon whose comments
have been censored. Some nerve. Unbelievable that amazon allowed it.
Amazon reviews are often contentious, and it is absolutely an
appropriate forum for people to write critical reviews of Oppenheimer
because they don't like Rudolf Steiner. People have lots of reasons for
liking or disliking a book and the amazon reader reviews are intended
for exactly this purpose. However, PLANS didn't organize those people;
in fact we were very interested in figuring out who they all were, which
got more difficult after the reviews were removed.
It is apparently hard for the SJU moderators, who moved so quickly to
squelch discussion of the criticism of Oppenheimer not only on their own
list but in another public forum (the amazon site) as well, to grasp
that members of PLANS - that small, disgruntled "hate" "anti-" group
consisting only of a few cranky people in California (sarcasm) - are
not, in fact, the only people in the world to whom Rudolf Steiner is an
unattractive character, and who feel a need to protest when his
worldview is unthinkingly promoted. The few individuals who are most
often the public face of PLANS are not the only people, worldwide, who
became repulsed by Steiner's worldview the more familiar we became with
it and the more we saw of the way institutions founded to promote
Steiner's views operate. This is inevitable and isn't going to change no
matter how many critical reviews of books praising Waldorf you smack
down on the Web. It may be that some of those people had read the PLANS
web site, so PLANS may indirectly have some credit for the letter
writers' comments, in fact this seems likely, or they could be other
people disillusioned with anthroposophy with whom we have never had
contact. We don't really know since some of them are anonymous. Perhaps
if any of them read this list they'll identify themselves. Perhaps they
do not yet realize their reviews have been removed.
The action of attempting to have reviews that they disagree with
*removed* from amazon says a lot about the typical anthroposophist
response to criticism. A less totalitarian approach might have been for
Arthur to request other SJU members to write their own reviews at
amazon, rebutting the critical reviews.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 17:45:32 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: The Flickering Mind by Todd Oppenheimer
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Arthur, first you allowed Nordwall to libel our organization on your
) list without so much as a wrist-slap, and when I complained publicly
) you ignored me. Second, you wrote to Amazon.com complaining that
) PLANS had organized a review-writing campaign. PLANS didn't do that,
) but when you're informed of the truth of the matter, you say it's
) your "understanding." Who's behaving improperly here?
And some people wonder where the "cult" label comes from with regards to
anthroposophy? An off topic post at a Pro-Waldorf list libelling a
non-profit organization, followed by a letter written to Amazon with more
outrageous, libellous claims. Another day at SJU....
Try posting only one Steiner quote (from the myriad of "disturbing" ideas)
on the same list asking for an explanation from the experts and watch
censorship in action. Paranoia, anger, denial.... What about "Visons of
Love" and a "Philosophy of Freedom?" (two Steiner books)
Where is the Love? Where is the Freedom? Find them and accountability
might follow. Maybe.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 18:57:53 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: The Flickering Mind by Todd Oppenheimer
I wrote:
What about "Visons of
) Love" and a "Philosophy of Freedom?" (two Steiner books)
Correction: "Vision of Love - Spiritual Science and the Logic of the
Heart." Just pulled it off my book shelf - been a while since I read it.
Interesting book for those interested in reading Steiner "in context." The
Steiner elib is another excellent source:
http://www.elib.com/Steiner/index.php
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 07:03:33 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Frank's version of Steiner, take 3
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) Hello again Frank,
) I am not in the discrediting business, I am in the criticism business.
P:
Now you state you do criticize! Interesting. I thought you wrote you are
not criticizing.
As for discrediting
) anthroposophy, it seems to me that it is anthroposophists themselves who
) do
) this, precisely through their refusal to confront their own history in
) an
) honest manner.
P:
Honest manner! If you have always used honest manners and you should get
fair answers.
Anyway, to a person like you who thinks that PoF is not related to the
following thirty years of RS life and teachings, no one can give credit
to discuss the spiritual science.
So far the spiritual experiences of people following the spiritual
science path has confirmed the validity of that path, from the first
steps to the initiation and beyond that. (which means that not only RS
was an initiate of the spiritual science, but there were some others).
To refuse parts of RS teachings is simply absurd for those who follow
the spiritual science as far as their experience is confirming those
teachings.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 01:03:20 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Seven Times the Sun
Hi Maya,
Welcome aboard. Nice to know the co-op is working for you and your son -
the most wonderful thing about this choice, IMO, is that you can *still*
bake bread with the children, play co-operative games, draw (straight lines,
too!), paint (using the imagination if desired), eat healthy food and go for
nice walks all together... without feeling obliged to convince the children
that gnomes are real. Freedom. Good choice.
Shea Darian was/is a Waldorf teacher and lectures with anthroposophists. I
glanced through this book once. There is a reason it book was recommended
to you. Looks pretty Waldorfy, doesn't it? Here's to open minds and
critical thoughts....
-Walden
) Hello,
)
) I am not a Waldorf parent, I found the PLANS site in
) time to dodge the proverbial bullet(my opinion of
) course!).
)
) I had been considering enrolling my son in a
) pre-school program. Instead he is now enrolled in a
) local co-op, which is a much better fit for us all.
)
) The person who pointed me towards Waldorf also
) recommends the book(for parenting young children):
)
) _Seven Times the Sun_ by Shea Darian
)
)
) I read the synopsis on amazon, it doesn't fit in my
) personal philosophy. I noticed however this book was
) somehow connected with Waldof(Waldorf parents
) recommend the book and many who bought the book bought
) Waldorf related books). I wondered if anybody had any
) knowledge or insight in to this book.
)
) Thank you!
)
) Maya
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 01:34:48 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Steiner, the Initiate....
I am always pleased to see accurate portrayals of Steiner - as opposed to
the watered down pabulum versions we see at Waldorf school web sites.
Perhaps these schools could post this bio of the Waldorf founder:
From the back of "Vision of Love," by Rudolf Steiner, Rudolf Steiner Press:
"Rudolf Steiner was a modern Initiate, who revealed the deep truths of human
evolution, the reality of spiritual worlds, and, above all, the transforming
power of love. The greatest of all acts of love was the Mystery of
Golgatha, the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ."
The problem of painting many different faces on the same person is that the
*real* person is difficult to see. When a freind hands me a copy of the
Bible I am not expecting to learn of a fellow named Jesus who played left
field for the '63 Dodgers. I have a strong sense of what to expect when I
open the book. When Waldorf tells me that Steiner is an artist, an
educator, a scientist. etc. (web sites) and completely omits anything about
a turn of the century occultist, a modern Initiate, clairvoyant, etc., I am
left wondering... why?
-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 1176
-- Topica Digest --
Admin: ad hominem warning [RE: Frank's version of Steiner, take 3]
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Frank's version of Steiner, take 3
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 09:58:03 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: ad hominem warning [RE: Frank's version of Steiner, take 3]
Percedol, you addressed Peter Staudenmaier,
)Honest manner! If you have always used honest manners and you should get
)fair answers.
If you think anything written by a subscriber is not honest, you
should quote that text and comment on it. General denigrations of
another subscriber are out of order.
)Anyway, to a person like you who thinks that PoF is not related to the
)following thirty years of RS life and teachings, no one can give credit
)to discuss the spiritual science.
Please address the issues being discussed, not the personality of
your fellow subscriber.
-Dan Dugan, Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 21:40:33 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Frank's version of Steiner, take 3
Hello Percedol,
welcome to the Waldorf Critics tag-team debate. Does this mean that Frank
has once again dropped out of sight? One of these days we've got to get the
two of you in synch, and maybe try to get Soren back in the ring as well,
just to have the full range of anthroposophical race thinking fairly
represented. Anyway, you wrote:
)Now you state you do criticize! Interesting. I thought you wrote you are
)not criticizing.
I got a good chuckle out of that. You think I've written any number of
things that I never actually wrote. For example, last I heard, you thought I
wrote Steiner's lectures on national souls. But in this case it sounds like
you're thinking of our exchange from late September, in which you opined
that I was "attacking" anthroposophy. I explained to you that this is a
foolish way of avoiding critique, just as foolish as Frank's whining about
"discrediting" and so forth. In my reply to your post about my "attacks" I
wrote:
"I am not an enemy of anthroposophy, I am a critic of its racial theories,
its ethnic teachings, and its esoteric politics." (post of 9/30/03)
As you can see, Percedol, your memory is playing tricks on you. The reason I
joined this list is that I am a critic of several central aspects of
anthroposophy. By the way, in that same post I noted that you consistently
have trouble distinguishing description from criticism, and I further
remarked:
"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."
Since the very notion that there is a difference between description and
critique seemed to baffle you, I tried to explain how reasonable people
approach this simple distinction, and offered a few comments about my own
perspective on this material. Here they are again:
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.
I hope you'll read those sentences this time around, and maybe even respond
to them.
)Honest manner! If you have always used honest manners and you should get
)fair answers.
I'm not sure I understand that passage. What do you mean by "fair answers"?
Most of the time my honest questions to anthroposophists don't get any
answers at all, fair or otherwise. But that's to be expected; you think
you're protecting a form of Higher Knowledge, so the notion of legitimate
criticism doesn't fit into your mindset.
)Anyway, to a person like you who thinks that PoF is not related to the
)following thirty years of RS life and teachings, no one can give credit
)to discuss the spiritual science.
Steiner's 1894 book The Philosophy of Freedom is integrally related to the
following six years of his life and teachings. Steiner remained a
rationalist and an individualist until his conversion to Theosophy in 1901.
From that point on, however, everything he taught was based squarely on the
esoteric principles that he had sharply rejected in the 1890's. There is no
anthroposophy in PoF. If you'd like to prove me wrong, there's a very simple
way to do so: just quote a passage from PoF that has anything to do with
Initiation, Higher Worlds, clairvoyance, Atlantis, Lemuria, archangels,
occult science, or occult anything. I have asked you to provide such quotes
several times before. What's the problem? Can't find any? Ever wonder why?
)So far the spiritual experiences of people following the spiritual
)science path has confirmed the validity of that path, from the first
)steps to the initiation and beyond that.
If you knew what the rest of us mean by "validity" and "confirm", you'd know
just how humorous that sentence is.
)(which means that not only RS
)was an initiate of the spiritual science, but there were some others).
Indeed, lots and lots of people believe they have access to Initiate
Knowledge. The cure for this mistaken belief is to treat your own experience
with skepticism, instead of confusing subjective experience with objective
reality.
)To refuse parts of RS teachings is simply absurd for those who follow
)the spiritual science as far as their experience is confirming those
)teachings.
Quite so. This is another cardinal difference between critics and believers:
believers are profoundly afraid of analyzing the actual content of the
"teachings" they follow, because analysis could indeed render these
teachings absurd. That is exactly why people like you and Frank
systematically misunderstand anthroposophy. Once you recognize that
anthroposophy exists in the real world, and not just inside of your own
'experience', we'll be able to have a meaningful conversation about it.
Looking forward to that day,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
From Beethoven to the Rolling Stones, your favorite music is always playing
on MSN Radio Plus. No ads, no talk. Trial month FREE!
http://join.msn.com/?page=offers/premiumradio
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1177
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Seven Times the Sun
By maya_kesh yahoo.com
RE: Frank's version of Steiner, take 3
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: Admin: ad hominem warning [RE: Frank's version of Steiner, take 3]
By Percedol netscape.net
RE: Frank's version of Steiner, take 3
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:09:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Maya Kesh (maya_kesh yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Seven Times the Sun
) Welcome aboard. Nice to know the co-op is working
) for you and your son -
Thank you!!
)
) nice walks all together... without feeling obliged
) to convince the children
) that gnomes are real. Freedom. Good choice.
I completely agree. My husband and I are nontheists,
we almost joined the Waldorf pre-school because it was
the only place which had openings. Fortunately, we
found PLANS and Dan was kind enough to answer my
questions.
My son loves playing pre-school computer games, loves
to have stories read to him,pretends to read and loves
to count. I shudder to think how all this natural
curiousity and quest for knowledge could have been
squelched all because I was in a rush to get him in a
pre-school.
The PLANS site is invaluable, not to mention all of
you. You do a great service. I've pointed people to
your group any time Waldorf is mentioned to me.
)
) to you. Looks pretty Waldorfy, doesn't it? Here's
) to open minds and
) critical thoughts....
HEAR HEAR!!
Thank you!
Maya
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:16:56 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Frank's version of Steiner, take 3
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) Hello Percedol,
) )Honest manner! If you have always used honest manners then you should
) )get
) )fair answers.
)
) I'm not sure I understand that passage. What do you mean by "fair
) answers"?
P:
Or just answers.
) Most of the time my honest questions to anthroposophists don't get any
) answers at all, fair or otherwise. But that's to be expected; you think
) you're protecting a form of Higher Knowledge, so the notion of
) legitimate
) criticism doesn't fit into your mindset.
P:
No, today it is allowed to through pearls to the swines, so I am not
protecting anything, but there should at least be a basic understanding
without distortions of the subject, and I don't see that.
) )Anyway, to a person like you who thinks that PoF is not related to the
) )following thirty years of RS life and teachings, no one can give credit
) )to discuss the spiritual science.
)
) Steiner's 1894 book The Philosophy of Freedom is integrally related to
) the
) following six years of his life and teachings. Steiner remained a
) rationalist and an individualist until his conversion to Theosophy in
) 1901.
) From that point on, however, everything he taught was based squarely on
) the
) esoteric principles that he had sharply rejected in the 1890's. There is
) no
) anthroposophy in PoF. If you'd like to prove me wrong, there's a very
) simple
) way to do so: just quote a passage from PoF that has anything to do with
)
) Initiation, Higher Worlds, clairvoyance, Atlantis, Lemuria, archangels,
) occult science, or occult anything. I have asked you to provide such
) quotes
) several times before. What's the problem? Can't find any? Ever wonder
) why?
P:
I know why. Because in PoF it is given the way to reach those
experiences, not the results. And today the path of PoF is in fact the
only one that can nost likely give results. Which means that KOHW per se
would not be enough today. One has to follow PoF if he or she follews
the inner path of A. Times are quite changed since a century ago, and
today the experience of thinking in itself cannot be skipped. This is
what PoF is about. The experience of thinking, which is the basis of A.
'The first half of PoF deals with a stage of consciousness that may be
characterized by the fact that, at this stage, the contents of
consciousness are given through observation. In particular, this field
of consciousness is more suited for the observation of thinking.
"I am moreover, in the same position when I enter into the exceptional
state and reflect on my own thinking."(PoF)
'The addendum to the eight chapter and the beginning of the ninth
chapter of PoF concern themselves explicitly with the experience of
living thinking.
Intuition is here characterized as an' "experience - in pure spirit - of
a purely spiritual content." 'RS describes this experience in the second
addendum to the chapetr called the consequences of monism: "For although
on the one hand intuitively experienced thinking is an active process
taking place in the human spirit, on the other hand it is also a
spiritual percept grasped without a physical sense organ. It is a
percept in which the perceiver is himself active, and a self-activity
which is at the same time perceived. In intuitively experienced
thinking, man is carried into a spiritual world as a perceiver." (PoF)
I wonder if you have read PoF at all, or if you were reading a different
book. Or simply you were looking for specific reference to 'occult'
terms. RS was well aware when he wrote PoF of the needs of humanity to
experience the spiritual worlds and so he wrote this book.
)
) )So far the spiritual experiences of people following the spiritual
) )science path has confirmed the validity of that path, from the first
) )steps to the initiation and beyond that.
)
) If you knew what the rest of us mean by "validity" and "confirm", you'd
) know
) just how humorous that sentence is.
P:
It means that RS was not the only Teacher of A. in this time.
)
) )(which means that not only RS
) )was an initiate of the spiritual science, but there were some others).
)
) Indeed, lots and lots of people believe they have access to Initiate
) Knowledge. The cure for this mistaken belief is to treat your own
) experience
) with skepticism, instead of confusing subjective experience with
) objective
) reality.
P:
Actually, very few individuals had access to initiate knowledge after
RS. And a few more to higher knowledge. Objective experiences can be
confronted among those who experience it indipendently.
)
) )To refuse parts of RS teachings is simply absurd for those who follow
) )the spiritual science as far as their experience is confirming those
) )teachings.
)
) Quite so. This is another cardinal difference between critics and
) believers:
) believers are profoundly afraid of analyzing the actual content of the
) "teachings" they follow, because analysis could indeed render these
) teachings absurd. That is exactly why people like you and Frank
) systematically misunderstand anthroposophy. Once you recognize that
) anthroposophy exists in the real world, and not just inside of your own
) 'experience', we'll be able to have a meaningful conversation about it.
P:
My experience with A. in the real world is so far positive, but not
conclusive.
You would like to discuss subjects as 'races' per se with no reference
to the rest of A., i.e. the inner path, etc.
This is problematic. You say PoF is not related to A., it belongs to a
phase of RS life that was independent from what he wrote after 1902 and
you miss the fact that PoF is the basis for everything else. But it is
not so. Maybe you should start over and re-read PoF.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:28:04 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Admin: ad hominem warning [RE: Frank's version of Steiner, take 3]
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) Percedol, you addressed Peter Staudenmaier,
)
) )Honest manner! If you have always used honest manners and you should get
) )fair answers.
)
) If you think anything written by a subscriber is not honest, you
) should quote that text and comment on it. General denigrations of
) another subscriber are out of order.
P:
If he used honest manner where is the denigration? Or you think that he
did not use honest manner and so you foresee a denigration here?
And what about Bader and Ravagli? Did you intervene when PS addressed
them: *no historian takes buffoons like Bader and Ravagli seriously*?
(http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1715144224)
Where were you DD then? Are you applying a double standard here?
)
) )Anyway, to a person like you who thinks that PoF is not related to the
) )following thirty years of RS life and teachings, no one can give credit
) )to discuss the spiritual science.
)
) Please address the issues being discussed, not the personality of
) your fellow subscriber.
)
) -Dan Dugan, Moderator
P:
In this case is not the personality but the competence about a specific
subject. Which may change, by studying and rethinking the subject in
question. I already wrote about this.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 23:45:23 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Frank's version of Steiner, take 3
Hello Percedol, you wrote:
)Or just answers.
I still don't understand what you're saying. Why do you suppose my questions
to anthroposophists, including you, so rarely get any answers at all,
whether just or unjust, fair or unfair? Any ideas?
)No, today it is allowed to through pearls to the swines,
In this case, you have misjudged both the pearls and the swine.
)so I am not
)protecting anything, but there should at least be a basic understanding
)without distortions of the subject, and I don't see that.
You *can't* see that, because you have no critical distance from the
subject. As far as I can tell, you consider virtually all external inquiry
that does not simply take anthroposophy at its word to be nothing more than
"attacks" and "discrediting". People who believe they have special access to
The Truth are ill-suited to discerning truths, plural and with a small t.
But those small-t truths are the only ones I've discussed. Given your
relationship to anthroposophy, how would you be able to recognize
distortions at this level?
) ) There is no
) ) anthroposophy in PoF. If you'd like to prove me wrong, there's a very
) ) simple
) ) way to do so: just quote a passage from PoF that has anything to do with
) ) Initiation, Higher Worlds, clairvoyance, Atlantis, Lemuria, archangels,
) ) occult science, or occult anything. I have asked you to provide such
) ) quotes
) ) several times before. What's the problem? Can't find any? Ever wonder
) ) why?
)
)P:
)I know why. Because in PoF it is given the way to reach those
)experiences, not the results.
You are once again mixng up anthroposophy and Percedolosophy. Everybody else
who talks about anthroposophy means "the results", not "the way". I don't
see why this simple fact is so difficult to grasp. The rest of us aren't
somehow trying to fool you on this score. We use the word to mean a specific
set of doctrines. If you would like to coin a term that means "the way" that
you believe is laid out in Philosophy of Freedom, then you'll make things a
lot easier if you come up with a word other than "anthroposophy", since that
word already means something else. Why pretend otherwise?
)today the experience of thinking in itself cannot be skipped. This is
)what PoF is about. The experience of thinking, which is the basis of A.
Everybody experiences thinking. Very few people become anthroposophists. It
thus makes extremely little sense to say that the first is the basis of the
second.
)I wonder if you have read PoF at all, or if you were reading a different
)book.
No, we are talking about the same book, although you are apparently unaware
that Steiner revised it in 1918 (you just quoted the revised version, not
the 1894 original). I am not sure how this managed to escape your attention,
since Steiner went to the trouble of adding a new Preface to the revised
edition. In that Preface he acknowledges that "in one sense this book
occupies a position completely independent of my writings on actual
spiritual scientific matters", and anticipates that readers may be
"astonished at not finding in this book any reference to that region of the
world of spiritual experience described in my later writings". Part of my
job as a historian is to pay attention to telltale remarks like these and
see what they might reveal about the text itself and the circumstances under
which it was composed.
)Or simply you were looking for specific reference to 'occult'
)terms. RS was well aware when he wrote PoF of the needs of humanity to
)experience the spiritual worlds and so he wrote this book.
No, at the time Steiner wrote the original edition of this book, he rejected
the very notion of "spiritual worlds" separate from this world. The only
world he discusses in Philosophy of Freedom is the one we all live in. He
never even uses the word "spiritual" in the sense you mean; every time he
uses "Geist" it refers simply to mental or intellectual activities, not to
higher spiritual realities. I once again encourage you to find a single
counterexample.
)It means that RS was not the only Teacher of A. in this time.
In 1894 there were no teachers of anthroposophy anywhere, because
anthroposophy was not invented until a decade later. As far as we know, the
only person who even used the term "Anthroposophie" in the 1890s was Robert
Zimmermann, and he obviously meant something entirely different by it, as
Steiner himself recognized when he later borrowed the word from Zimmermann,
who had once been an instructor of his. I am not making up stories to mess
with your mind, Percedol; there are several anthroposophical biographies
that you could consult about all of this, if you are genuinely interested in
learning about what sort of beliefs Steiner held in the 1890s. I recommend
starting with Christoph Lindenberg's two-volume biography, as well as
Gerhard Wehr's work. Why, may I ask, are you so reticent to find out basic
information about a figure whom you hold in such high esteem?
)Actually, very few individuals had access to initiate knowledge after
)RS. And a few more to higher knowledge. Objective experiences can be
)confronted among those who experience it indipendently.
There is nothing objective about the idea of "initiate knowledge" and
"higher knowledge". These terms refer to purely subjective phenomena.
) ) Once you recognize that
) ) anthroposophy exists in the real world, and not just inside of your own
) ) 'experience', we'll be able to have a meaningful conversation about it.
)
)P:
)My experience with A. in the real world is so far positive, but not
)conclusive.
I am not particularly concerned with whether your experience with
anthroposophy is positive or negative. All I care about is whether your
perceptions of anthroposophy are accurate. In order to be able to tell the
difference, you really will need to comprehend that description and
evaluation are not at all the same thing. Until you manage to disentangle
the two, I think you're going to have a very hard time making sense of
anything I write.
)You would like to discuss subjects as 'races' per se with no reference
)to the rest of A.
No, the only way I discuss the subject of race here is in reference to the
rest of anthroposophy. Anthroposophy, as it exists in the real world, is a
set of doctrines that includes extensive teachings about racial hierarchy
and related matters. That is why the topic of race keeps coming up on this
list.
)This is problematic. You say PoF is not related to A., it belongs to a
)phase of RS life that was independent from what he wrote after 1902
Yes, that is indeed what I say. If you would bother to read PoF a little
more carefully, you would see that Steiner says exactly the same thing
himself. In the 1918 preface he wrote that PoF is "completely independent"
of his anthroposophical works (see above). Perhaps you think I forged that
text too?
)If he used honest manner where is the denigration?
If you were trying to denigrate me, it isn't working very well; I still have
very little idea what you mean by this. My manner with you and with all the
other anthroposophists I have encountered here has been unfailingly honest,
and I still don't get answers to most of my questions. Hence your original
claim is obviously erroneous. Perhaps you could reformulate it?
)And what about Bader and Ravagli? Did you intervene when PS addressed
)them: *no historian takes buffoons like Bader and Ravagli seriously*?
I didn't address Bader or Ravagli, since neither one of them is on this
list. The comment you quote was addressed to Frank. It really is true that
no historian takes their nonsense seriously, for obvious reasons. As I
pointed out to Frank, even other anthroposophists ridicule their work.
There's a new book out from SteinerBooks (formerly Anthropsophical Press)
which includes an abridged article by a German anthroposophist dismantling
the juvenile arguments regarding antisemitism put forth by people like
Ravagli. The book is titled Judaism and Anthroposophy, and the article in
question forms the final chaper, by Dirk Lorenz. I especially recommend this
piece to Frank, who will find some appropriately caustic comments about the
notion that Steiner's egregious remarks on Jews have been "taken out of
context".
)In this case is not the personality but the competence about a specific
)subject.
I'm not sure which subject you mean. The only subjects I address on this
list are ones in which I have competence, and in the last few instances
(Steiner's pre-anthroposophical worldview, history of antisemitism, etc) my
competence is a good deal more solid than your own. That doesn't mean you
should hold back from offering your opinions on those topics, of course, but
it does mean that every once in a while I'll have a critical response for
you.
)Which may change, by studying and rethinking the subject in
)question.
Studying and rethinking the subject in question means getting over the idea
that anthroposophy constitutes a special privileged path to Truth. It means
acknowledging that anthroposophy is a historical phenomenon, and that
Steiner was a historical figure. It means paying more attention to the
textual evidence and less attention to your own "experience". It means
correcting your claims when they are shown to be false. Are you willing to
do those things, Percedol?
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account is over
limit? Get Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1178
-- Topica Digest --
[NNA] Last-ditch attempt to stop fusion of anthroposophical
societies
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:21:13 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: [NNA] Last-ditch attempt to stop fusion of anthroposophical
societies
Copyright 2003 News Network Anthroposophy Limited. All rights reserved.
The following material may be republished without the prior consent
of News Network Anthroposophy. News Network Anthroposophy does,
however, require acknowledgement of the source and, if provided, the
author of the material.
+ + + + +
NNA-N E W S
Last-ditch attempt to stop fusion of anthroposophical societies
By Christian von Arnim
Dornach, 11 November (NNA) - A group of activists opposed to plans to
merge the General Anthroposophical Society (GAS) with the newly
reactivated Anthroposophical Society (Foundation Meeting) - the
so-called Foundation Meeting Society - has made a last ditch attempt
to stop the planned fusion of the two entities.
An extraordinary general meeting has been specifically called by the
GAS executive council for 15 and 16 November to approve the fusion of
the two societies and empower the council to go ahead with such a
move at the appropriate time.
In a two-pronged attempt to put the fusion on hold until the
substantive claim against the merger plans of the GAS is finally
settled in court, the nine-member "Group for the Renewal and Defence
of the Anthroposophical Society" has launched a further legal
challenge asking the local court in Dornach-Thierstein to rule that
the Anthroposophical Society should refrain from all further action
in this respect until the outcome of the substantive hearing early
next year is known.
According to the court, its decision as to whether it will grant such
an interim injunction is likely to be announced by tomorrow
(Wednesday) evening.
The GAS has told NNA that it is waiting for the ruling on the interim
injunction before saying what its next moves will be. However, a
letter commenting on the legal action from the executive council to
the general secretaries of national anthroposophical societies and
national representatives expressed confidence that the extraordinary
general meeting would go ahead.
If this latest legal challenge should fail, the opposition group has
put forward two resolutions for the forthcoming extraordinary general
meeting this coming weekend calling for the fusion to be debated but
for a decision to be delayed until the substance of its claim against
the GAS is finally settled in court.
In an interview in the most recent edition of the journal "Das
Goetheanum", executive council member Paul Mackay, who acts as
spokesman on the constitutional issue for the council, said the
reason why the society had decided not to wait for the substantive
judgement was that, having approved the reactivation of the
foundation meeting society at the general meeting in December 2002,
members should be given a chance in advance of the main court hearing
to voice their opinion on the fusion as well.
It was important for the executive council to know now whether it had
the full support of the membership in its chosen course, Mackay said.
Although opponents initially managed to put the fusion plans on hold
with their successful court action almost a year ago, an appeal by
the GAS reversed that decision on the grounds that there was no basis
for the injunction in Swiss law. A series of further actions by
opposition activists right up to the Swiss supreme court failed to
reverse that decision of the appeal court, leaving the GAS executive
council free to proceed with its fusion plans.
The dispute over the fusion plans has been ongoing since March 2002,
when the council of the General Anthroposophical Society announced
its far-reaching constitutional plans to restructure the society with
the intention of resolving long-standing issues connected with its
disputed constitutional status and making its legal position more
transparent.
The constitutional debate revolves around the issue whether or not
the society re-founded by Rudolf Steiner as the General
Anthroposophical Society at the Christmas conference of 1923 to be
the vehicle for the spiritual tasks of anthroposophy - the Foundation
Meeting Society -still legally exists or whether it disappeared
through merger with the original, administrative Johannes Building
Association which was also renamed the General Anthroposophical
Society on 8 February 1925.
At the end of December 2002, 1,600 members from all over the world
adopted with an overwhelming majority the amended statutes of the
Foundation Meeting Society of 1923, thus reactivating it, despite
vociferous opposition from a small group of protestors.
ENDS
+ + + + +
Item reference number: N031111-01EN
Date: 11 November 2003
More NNA reports at: http://www.nna-news.org/content/
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1179
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Frank's version of Steiner, take 3
By Percedol netscape.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:14:23 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: Frank's version of Steiner, take 3
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) Hello Percedol, you wrote:
) )so I am not
) )protecting anything, but there should at least be a basic understanding
) )without distortions of the subject, and I don't see that.
)
) You *can't* see that, because you have no critical distance from the
) subject. As far as I can tell, you consider virtually all external
) inquiry
) that does not simply take anthroposophy at its word to be nothing more
) than
) "attacks" and "discrediting".
P:
You don't know this because the only place you know about me is on this
list, where there are attacks and discrediting.
People who believe they have special access to
) The Truth are ill-suited to discerning truths, plural and with a small
) t.
) But those small-t truths are the only ones I've discussed.
P:
Are t-truths those not concerning spiritual topics?
Given your
) relationship to anthroposophy, how would you be able to recognize
) distortions at this level?
P:
From practice and confrontation with other sources and people. Actually,
also PLANS helped me to support my views.
)
) ) ) There is no
) ) ) anthroposophy in PoF. If you'd like to prove me wrong, there's a very
) ) ) simple
) ) ) way to do so: just quote a passage from PoF that has anything to do with
) ) ) Initiation, Higher Worlds, clairvoyance, Atlantis, Lemuria, archangels,
) ) ) occult science, or occult anything. I have asked you to provide such
) ) ) quotes
) ) ) several times before. What's the problem? Can't find any? Ever wonder
) ) ) why?
) )
) )P:
) )I know why. Because in PoF it is given the way to reach those
) )experiences, not the results.
)
) You are once again mixng up anthroposophy and Percedolosophy. Everybody
) else
) who talks about anthroposophy means "the results", not "the way".
P:
The results that one can learn are quite useless. It is what have
already been thought. It is doctrine, dead words. It is of value what
one can find afresh, from experience that counts. It is quite negative
to hear so often 'doctor said'. If people would focus on the method, I
guess PLANS would see less problems with A.
One talks about atlantis and races. Can he or she experience that? If he
or she cannot, should not talk about it. It would be much better to
stick to personal experience.
I don't
) see why this simple fact is so difficult to grasp. The rest of us aren't
)
) somehow trying to fool you on this score. We use the word to mean a
) specific
) set of doctrines. If you would like to coin a term that means "the way"
) that
) you believe is laid out in Philosophy of Freedom, then you'll make
) things a
) lot easier if you come up with a word other than "anthroposophy", since
) that
) word already means something else. Why pretend otherwise?
P:
RS wrote in 1910 in 'occult science' chapter V :
"(The path that leads to sense-free thinking by way of the
communications of spiritual science is thoroughly reliable and sure.
There is however another that is even more sure, and above all more
exact; at the same time, it is for many people also more difficult. The
path in question is set forth in my books The Theory of Knowledge
implicit in Goethe's World-Conception and The Philosophy of Spiritual
Activity [The Philosophy of Freedom]. These books tell of what man's
thinking can achieve when directed, not to impressions that come from
the outer world of the physical senses, but solely upon itself. When
this is so, we have within us no longer the kind of thinking that
concerns itself merely with memories of the things of sense; we have
instead pure thinking which is like a being that has life within itself.
In the above-mentioned books you will find nothing at all that is
derived from communications of spiritual science. They testify to the
fact that pure thinking, working within itself alone, can throw light on
the great questions of life ? questions concerning the universe and man.
The books thus occupy a significant intermediate position between
knowledge of the sense world and knowledge of the spiritual world. What
they offer is what thinking can attain, when it rises above
sense-observation, yet still holds back from entering upon spiritual,
supersensible research. One who wholeheartedly pursues the train of
thought indicated in these books is already in the spiritual world; only
it makes itself known to him as a thought-world. Whoever feels ready to
enter upon this intermediate path of development will be taking a safe
and sure road, and it will leave him a feeling in regard to the higher
world that will bear rich fruit through all time to come.)"
PoF deals with living thinking which is basis for spiritual experience
today. As per above there is no description of angels or lemuria. But is
the first step towards spiritual knowledge.
From 'Stages of consciousness' p.30, by GK (Lindisfarne Press):
'the second half of PoF describes the step that brings observation out
of its 'standing over against' what has been already thought into
experience, the direct participation in thinking in the present.
Observation must be directed to living thinking and the experience of
living thinking. Living thinking is the process of supersensory power
out of which the already-thought appears. What we usually call thinking
is really the appearance. - The ordinary consciousness, grounded in what
has been already thought, cannot experience living thinking. Compared to
ordinary consciousness, living thinking is preconscious.'
)
) )today the experience of thinking in itself cannot be skipped. This is
) )what PoF is about. The experience of thinking, which is the basis of A.
)
) Everybody experiences thinking.
P:
The light -M.Scaligero p.90 (Lindisfarne books)
'Thinking must be experienced as an incorporeal current of life, which
is not the simple intuition of its dialectical movement emerging
specifically as dialectical thought.'
) )I wonder if you have read PoF at all, or if you were reading a different
) )book.
)
) No, we are talking about the same book, although you are apparently
) unaware
) that Steiner revised it in 1918 (you just quoted the revised version,
) not
) the 1894 original). I am not sure how this managed to escape your
) attention,
) since Steiner went to the trouble of adding a new Preface to the revised
)
) edition. In that Preface he acknowledges that "in one sense this book
) occupies a position completely independent of my writings on actual
) spiritual scientific matters", and anticipates that readers may be
) "astonished at not finding in this book any reference to that region of
) the
) world of spiritual experience described in my later writings". Part of
) my
) job as a historian is to pay attention to telltale remarks like these
) and
) see what they might reveal about the text itself and the circumstances
) under
) which it was composed.
P:
This is in every edition:
'I am moreover, in the same posotion when I enetr into the exceptional
state and reflect on my own thinking. I can never observe my present
thinking; I can only subsequently take my experiences of my own thinking
process as the object of fresh thinking.' 'For everyone, however, who
has the ability to observe thinking-and with good will every normal man
has this ability-this observation is the most important one he can
possibly make.'
The light -MScaligero, p70:
'Whether one accepts or rejects it, the path to the supersensible
inevitably passe through "sense-free thinking". Any other path
necessarily leads toward subsensible realms. These other paths are
essentially forms of mediumism, with gradations ranging from vulgar
spiritism to the magical and yogic culminations in which there cannot be
anything more than the caricarures of magic and yoga, even if
well-presented with an arsenal of words.'
)
) )Or simply you were looking for specific reference to 'occult'
) )terms. RS was well aware when he wrote PoF of the needs of humanity to
) )experience the spiritual worlds and so he wrote this book.
)
) No, at the time Steiner wrote the original edition of this book, he
) rejected
) the very notion of "spiritual worlds" separate from this world.
P:
Through what is described in PoF one can understand that through
perceiving one can experience reality as a monism, not as a dualism.
The only
) world he discusses in Philosophy of Freedom is the one we all live in.
) He
) never even uses the word "spiritual" in the sense you mean; every time
) he
) uses "Geist" it refers simply to mental or intellectual activities, not
) to
) higher spiritual realities. I once again encourage you to find a single
) counterexample.
P:
It does not matter that he does not use spiritual words. He shows the
way to get there, by using philosophical terms.
He addresses sense-free thinking in a philosophical language.
)
) )It means that RS was not the only Teacher of A. in this time.
)
) In 1894 there were no teachers of anthroposophy anywhere, because
) anthroposophy was not invented until a decade later.
P:
I did not mean in his time, I meant XX century.
)
) )Actually, very few individuals had access to initiate knowledge after
) )RS. And a few more to higher knowledge. Objective experiences can be
) )confronted among those who experience it indipendently.
)
) There is nothing objective about the idea of "initiate knowledge" and
) "higher knowledge". These terms refer to purely subjective phenomena.
P:
Here I should post all PoF that addresses the problem of objectivity
/subjectivity and thinking.
Enough for today.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New threads are always welcome.
End