return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Another anthroposophist approves of genocide
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Steiner's War
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 23:13:24 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Another anthroposophist approves of genocide
Hi Barnaby,
You wrote:
) I used to think of myself as 'alternative', but had always felt vaguely
) uncomfortable with the 'alternative' milieu. I moved to a very new-agey
) town in England a few years ago and regularly encountered people with
) very strange ideas indeed. Then David Icke, the antisemitic new-age
) conspiracy nut, gave a lecture here to two or three hundred people. That
) really piqued my interest in the origins of new-age thought and I found
) I didn't have to look hard to find authoritarian, racist ideas under the
) sugar coating.
)
) About the same time I noticed the penchant for all things (American)
) 'Indian' in this town, and felt rather queasy as I began to learn about
) Indian history from books that didn't have purple covers or the words
) 'dancer', 'dreamer', 'eagle', 'wolf' or 'wind' in the author's name.
)
) I joined some lists and learned more. One of them is
)
) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nafps/
)
) A week or two ago Joel Wendt popped up there, insinuating that people
) here are lying about him, so I started reading messages here, having
) been made aware of Waldorfcritics in the past by Deborah, and having
) read 'Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience' a few years ago,
) and so being aware of some of Peter Staudenmaier's work.
Thanks for the information - especially the link to the nafps list. I just
spent some time there - interesting place! I was intreagued by the response
Joel received after people read some of his "work." There are some very
informative posts there. I guess Waldorf Critics are not the only people
concerned about the concept of genocide with a spiritual twist.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 23:59:06 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Steiner's War
So, I'm doing my Epiphany reading a la Steiner and come across something I
often wonder about (the upcoming big War) and as I remember Joel saying he'e
be back around this time after some seasonal prayers and such, I would like
Joel to offer commentary on this particular passage from:
The Work of Secret Societies in the World
The Atom as Coagulated Electricity
A lecture by
Rudolf Steiner
Berlin, December 23, 1904
GA 93
"It is impossible to conceive what might happen in such circumstances if
mankind has not, by then, reached selflessness. The attainment of
selflessness alone will enable humanity to be kept from the brink of
destruction. The downfall of our present epoch will be caused by lack of
morality. The Lemurian epoch was destroyed by fire, the Atlantean by water;
our epoch and its civilisation will be destroyed by the War of All against
All, by evil. Human beings will destroy each other in mutual strife. And the
terrible thing - more desperately tragic than other catastrophes - will be
that the blame will lie with human beings themselves.
A tiny handful of men will make good and thus insure their survival in the
sixth epoch of civilisation. This tiny handful will have attained
selflessness. The others will develop every imaginable skill and subtlety in
the manipulation and use of the physical forces of nature, but without the
essential degree of selflessness.
In the seventh epoch of civilisation, this War of All against All will break
out in the most terrible form. Great and mighty forces will be let loose by
the discoveries, turning the whole earth-globe into a kind of
[self-functioning] live electric mass. In a way that cannot be discussed,
the tiny handful will be protected and preserved."
Joel, what kind of war can our future relatives expect and who do you think
the "tiny handful" will be? Steiner sounds pretty sure about this event.
Thanks in advance for any insight you might offer.
-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 1219
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Another anthroposophist approves of genocide
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
Re: Another anthroposophist approves of genocide
By koala noos.fr
Re: Steiner's War
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: Steiner's War
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:48:32 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Another anthroposophist approves of genocide
) Thanks for the information - especially the link to the nafps list. I
) just
) spent some time there - interesting place! I was intreagued by the
) response
) Joel received after people read some of his "work." There are some very
) informative posts there. I guess Waldorf Critics are not the only
) people
) concerned about the concept of genocide with a spiritual twist.
)
) -Walden
I'm not Indian myself, in case anyone's wondering.
A good place to start learning about 'plastic medicine people' is with
Ward Churchill's essays 'Spiritual Hucksterism' and 'Indians R Us?'.
They're both anthologised in 'From A Native Son: Selected Essays On
Indigenism, 1985-1995' (South End Press 1995). And of course the nafps
folks are happy to help with non-wise-ass questions, as you'll have
seen.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 16:00:16 +0100
From: koala (koala noos.fr)
Subject: Re: Another anthroposophist approves of genocide
NOTICE: my previous post wasn't posted to the list. Therefore, both my
private and initial question to Peter S. and Peter S.'s answer are on the
same post.
You wrote:
)I have a question. Feel free to answer on the list if you don't like this
)private email.
)
)Do you think that if theosophy hadn't existed that Nazism would have
)existed?
)
)I mean if theosophy hadn't existed, there could have been a totalitarian
)regime in Germany, but not necessarily in the exact form it took, that is
)to
)say specifically a racist and anti-semitic one. All the main ideas of
)Nazism
)are deeply rooted in the theosophy "theories" (but can we call that
)theories?). There was no esotericism in Nazism except the one stolen or
)borrowed to theosophy.
I'd disagree with several of those claims. A number of the most influential
racists and antisemites within the Nazi movement had no esoteric background
and did not derive their racist and antisemitic beliefs from theosophical or
other esoteric sources. I do agree, however, that the esoteric currents
within Nazism drew heavily, though not exclusively, on theosophical
precedents. These currents were not necessarily typical of Nazism as a
whole, though, and they were frequently controversial within the party.
Also, some of the most formidable champions of esotericism within Nazi
circles fiercely rejected Theosophy and most of its offshoots, while
simultaneously sharing several of their basic assumptions. In general, I
think that the widespread ideological links at work here were the result of
a shared cultural consensus centered around esoteric racial doctrines, in
both theosophical and neo-pagan forms; in many cases this consensus operated
without the specific, direct, or overt influence of one faction of
esotericists on another -- that is, people like Rosenberg and Himmler often
ended up agreeing with Blavatsky or Steiner or List without even being
consciously aware of the connection, though there are also certainly cases
of deliberate appropriation and re-working of older esoteric themes. But for
every Rosenberg or Himmler there were other theorists of "racial hygiene"
who scorned esotericism and embraced what they saw as scientific, rather
than occult, confirmations of their views. As a result, esoteric topics were
among the most lively internal controversies within the Nazi movement, which
is one reason why Nazi attitudes toward anthroposophy varied so widely.
To answer your question at last: Yes, I think Nazism would have existed
without Theosophy, and it would still have been racist and antisemitic; but
it would have lacked some of the most striking and peculiar features that
continue to make it such an important case study for those concerned with
the legacy of esoteric politics. I would make a similar argument about
Italian Fascism; it would have existed without Evola or the School of
Mystical Fascism, for example, but its historical profile would have been
substantially different. I would be interested to hear what you think on
these matters.
)By the way, have you had time to read René Guénon and the translation
)"theosophy" in English?
No, I still haven't gotten around to any more Guenon, though I think I'll
need to at some point for comparative purposes. For now I am very focused on
early anthroposophical periodicals and some of Steiner's less accessible
works; in addition I'm working on an article about Steiner's philosemitic
and antisemitic phases. I hope to be able to broaden my scope by this
summer. We'll see. Thanks for your consistently interesting insights. Take
care,
Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Get reliable dial-up Internet access now with our limited-time introductory
offer. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 13:09:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner's War
--0-1485315903-1073423364=:31735
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
blah ..blah ..blah....
doomsayer's everywhere...loving the drama...
we are not so important in the scheme of things.
we are so small in the whole scheme...
begin speaking from the non-ego and your missive will become
more interesting...
walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca) wrote:
So, I'm doing my Epiphany reading a la Steiner and come across something I
often wonder about (the upcoming big War) and as I remember Joel saying he'e
be back around this time after some seasonal prayers and such, I would like
Joel to offer commentary on this particular passage from:
The Work of Secret Societies in the World
The Atom as Coagulated Electricity
A lecture by
Rudolf Steiner
Berlin, December 23, 1904
GA 93
"It is impossible to conceive what might happen in such circumstances if
mankind has not, by then, reached selflessness. The attainment of
selflessness alone will enable humanity to be kept from the brink of
destruction. The downfall of our present epoch will be caused by lack of
morality. The Lemurian epoch was destroyed by fire, the Atlantean by water;
our epoch and its civilisation will be destroyed by the War of All against
All, by evil. Human beings will destroy each other in mutual strife. And the
terrible thing - more desperately tragic than other catastrophes - will be
that the blame will lie with human beings themselves.
A tiny handful of men will make good and thus insure their survival in the
sixth epoch of civilisation. This tiny handful will have attained
selflessness. The others will develop every imaginable skill and subtlety in
the manipulation and use of the physical forces of nature, but without the
essential degree of selflessness.
In the seventh epoch of civilisation, this War of All against All will break
out in the most terrible form. Great and mighty forces will be let loose by
the discoveries, turning the whole earth-globe into a kind of
[self-functioning] live electric mass. In a way that cannot be discussed,
the tiny handful will be protected and preserved."
Joel, what kind of war can our future relatives expect and who do you think
the "tiny handful" will be? Steiner sounds pretty sure about this event.
Thanks in advance for any insight you might offer.
-Walden
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 23:49:37 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Steiner's War
Hi Mark,
Welcome. You wrote:
) blah ..blah ..blah....
) doomsayer's everywhere...loving the drama...
) we are not so important in the scheme of things.
) we are so small in the whole scheme...
)
) begin speaking from the non-ego and your missive will become
) more interesting...
I am confused by what you write here. Interesting entrance but I have no
idea what you are talking about. Would you be willing to elaborate?
-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 1220
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Laurel High School
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
What is Waldorf? (wasRE: Laurel High School)
By Percedol netscape.net
Re: What is Waldorf? (wasRE: Laurel High School)
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 10:00:19 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Laurel High School
Hi Deborah,
I wanted to welcome you back to this list.
You wrote:
) It's a long story and one that nearly claimed my daughter's life,
literally. (It reminds me of what Sharon and Amos and their daughter went
)through.)
So sorry to hear of this. I cannot imagine what your family must have gone
through. Many of us have painful Waldorf stories. I know Sharon's story
and I feel sad to hear of yours, as well.
) All in all LHS is just like any other Waldorf school I've read and heard
about, i.e. the purpose is not education, but initiation.
Yes, and some people might say the difference between education and
initiation is not important. If, at the end of the day, the kids know that
2+2=4 and have completed enough eurythmy and wet on wet to be incarnated a
la Steiner (even if the parents do not follow that particular spiritual
path) - what is the problem? I recently heard an anthroposophist state, "as
long as it works, leave it alone." The question is - " does it work and if
so, who does it *work* for?" I have come to think that human beings often
"succeed" despite their formal education. I think the value of
institutionalized education is overblown - whatever the flavor. I know
many home-school and *unschooled* kids who are extremely bright, articulate,
socially competent people. I digress....
While I would not expect the Waldorf PR people to use words like
"initiation," I would (and do) expect them to fully inform prospective
parents of the occult nature of the education. Is Waldorf a religious
exercise? Absolutely. Is anthroposophy in the classroom. Absolutely.
Time to call it like it is and end the denial. IMO.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 03:06:21 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: What is Waldorf? (wasRE: Laurel High School)
walden wrote:
)
) ) All in all LHS is just like any other Waldorf school I've read and heard
) about, i.e. the purpose is not education, but initiation.
P:
Waldorf is not about initiation. It could not be. You have to be
twenty-one years old to be able to follow the initiation discipline in
the path of the anthroposophically oriented spiritual science .
Before you are twenty-one the individuality is not yet ready for the
dicipline. Therefore, Waldorf is not about initiation.
)
) Yes, and some people might say the difference between education and
) initiation is not important.
P:
I think you might say that the difference of W education compared to
other schools is about giving an education that does not destroy the
potential ability to perceive the spiritual directly. So it's not about
teaching 'occultism', but about not spoiling the potentials.
I wonder if behind these attacks against W schools there is not an
attempt to prevent human beings from perceiving the spiritual. This
attack would be in the interest of many groups that don't want man to
become free. They want to avoid to mankind the direct experience of the
spiritual, because they want people to be believers: in a doctrine
(materialist, marxist, etc), or in a religion (which requires acts of
faith, instead of direct experience).
Is Waldorf a religious
) exercise? Absolutely. Is anthroposophy in the classroom. Absolutely.
) Time to call it like it is and end the denial. IMO.
)
) -Walden
P:
It would be surprising if the powers of darkness would leave something
like W education free from attacks, since through W education children
avoid to be exposed to a schooling system that damages or prevents the
ability to perceive the spiritual.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 00:37:24 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: What is Waldorf? (wasRE: Laurel High School)
) P:
) Waldorf is not about initiation. It could not be.
Did you not once state that you knew very little about Waldorf education?
You have to be
) twenty-one years old to be able to follow the initiation discipline in
) the path of the anthroposophically oriented spiritual science .
) Before you are twenty-one the individuality is not yet ready for the
) dicipline.
And how can you be sure of this? If you are sure - how about a twenty year
old? Must it be *exactly* twenty-one? I am not trying to be facetious, P,
just pointing to the dogma surrounding this point of view. And remembering
a *teacher* staring into my child's mouth, peering at his gums to see if he
was ready for the next stage of his initiation/education. Do the teeth need
to be fully visible - what if the teeth appeared the next day and my son was
forced to remain behind a grade. How would this affect his karma?
)Therefore, Waldorf is not about initiation.
Are you sure?
Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: ini·ti·a·tion
Pronunciation: i-"ni-shE-'A-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 1583
1 a : the act or an instance of initiating b : the process of being
initiated c : the rites, ceremonies, ordeals, or instructions with which one
is made a member of a sect or society or is invested with a particular
function or status
2 : the condition of being initiated into some experience or sphere of
activity :
Moving right along...
From the Anthroposophical Society in Florida...
"Steiner (to the first Waldorf teachers) 'We shall only be able to achieve
our task if we see it as not only to do with the intellect and feeling-life,
but with the sphere of the moral and spiritual in the highest sense.' The
task was the following: to help the soul-and-spirit being of the child,
which has at birth descended to earth from a pre-earthly existence, to find
its place in the physical world and to make it competent for life . . . .
Rudolf Steiner shows how the developing human being on the long and arduous
path into the physical world passes through a series of clearly defined
stages, which make definite inner and outer demands. Both the curriculum and
the methods of teaching of the new school, as he now described them, were
designed to meet these demands as well as possible through the right
pedagogical measures . . . This was Waldorf pedagogy. The campaign for a new
social order had been especially well received in the big Waldorf Astoria
cigarette-factory at Stuttgart."
) P:
) I think you might say that the difference of W education compared to
) other schools is about giving an education that does not destroy the
) potential ability to perceive the spiritual directly.
No, *you* might say that - not me. What about "other schools" that believe
they too are helping children to perceive the spiritual directly? Lots of
spiritual schools besides Waldorf. And many wonderful schools that allow
children the freedom (real freedom) to explore their interests and their
environment (a la Sudbury Valley, for example) Are they, in your opinion,
out to "destroy potential abilities of children to perceive spiritual
directly?" Is Steiner's view of spirituality the only real view? I
remember this elitist view of spirituality - it bounced around the halls of
a certain Waldorf school and I am so very happy to be free of it.
So it's not about
) teaching 'occultism', but about not spoiling the potentials.
You know, we would probably agree that mass media, sugar drinks, donuts and
consumerism should not be part of a child's education. I gotta tell ya,
though... Waldorf does not have a monopoly on providing a non-material,
natural type of education. Matter of fact, kids see right through much of
the pretending that goes on in many of these schools.
) I wonder if behind these attacks against W schools there is not an
) attempt to prevent human beings from perceiving the spiritual. This
) attack would be in the interest of many groups that don't want man to
) become free. They want to avoid to mankind the direct experience of the
) spiritual, because they want people to be believers: in a doctrine
) (materialist, Marxist, etc), or in a religion (which requires acts of
) faith, instead of direct experience).
"Attacks?" Again we see the melodramatic black and white world of
anthroposophy. I want to talk about my direct experience with Waldorf
education and about the research I have done for the past few years. That's
it, P - nothing more than that. Pretty simple. In doing this, I am accused
of "attacking" Waldorf. Better yet - this is done by me in an attempt to
"prevent human beings from perceiving the spiritual." Let's not stop
there... I "don't want man to become free."
My goodness. You really believe those who try to help Waldorf with it's
shabby PR campaign have the power to prevent human beings from perceiving
the spiritual? And you believe I espouse the virtues of Marxism *and*
materialism! I wonder about the "etc." How can you possibly arrive at such
a judgement, P?
Reality check (you could simply have asked): I meditate. I eat organic
veggie food. I volunteer with groups like Amnesty International, PLAN
International (hungry kids version - not related to PLANS), I climb
mountains and have *spiritual moments* when I reach the top, I work with
enviro groups, I have wonderful friends who follow very spiritual paths, I
enjoy deep conversations with my kids about respect and power and religion
and philosophy and materialism and consumerism and politics and how *I*
certainly do not have any of the answers. I listen to my kids. Etc.
I doubt even the Dan's and Diana's and Peter's of the Waldorf Critics world
have any interest in transforming Waldorf kids into Marxists. What do you
think?
) It would be surprising if the powers of darkness would leave something
) like W education free from attacks, since through W education children
) avoid to be exposed to a schooling system that damages or prevents the
) ability to perceive the spiritual.
Would you be willing to think that "the powers of darkness" might just be a
concept that exists only in you mind? Please consider that question - as I
phrased it - and let me know the result. Thanks.
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1221
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1221
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1219
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: Of critics and cynics...
By dkimble mystrotv.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 08:47:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1221
--0-848970637-1073580458=:54555
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: walden
Subject: Re: Laurel High School
Hi Deborah,
I wanted to welcome you back to this list.
You wrote:
) It's a long story and one that nearly claimed my daughter's life,
literally. (It reminds me of what Sharon and Amos and their daughter went
)through.)
So sorry to hear of this. I cannot imagine what your family must have gone
through. Many of us have painful Waldorf stories. I know Sharon's story
and I feel sad to hear of yours, as well.
This community as a whole is wholly unhealthy - we refer to it as toxic actually - and the presence of the anthrops has made it even more so. It's a small, absolutely white town and even without the anthrops it is like living in the 1950s. This town is anti-intellectual in the extreme and, of course, bigoted (particularly as concerns race and color) in the extreme, which is why the anthrops fit in so well. The rivalries between the locals (who act if they are the indigenous people of this land, e.g. they refer to themselves as "natives") and the anthrops are just that, rivalries. The few locals who are concerned with the increasing presence of the anthrops base their concerns on financial reasons, e.g. inflated land prices, anthrop businesses (not all of which are new age) taking profits from local businesses, the heavy anthrop presence in the public school (and especially the fact that they have their own publically funded school) which translates into power to influence school
board decisions, their clear presence within the health care system, including the local hospital and clinics, and the fear that the anthrops will "become" situated in local governmental positions (too, late - they are already there).
I have spoken with some of the local fundamentalist christians and they focus on what they perceive as the devil-worship of the anthrops; the bigotry and occult nature of anthroposophy doesn't seem to bother them at all.
Yes, and some people might say the difference between education and
initiation is not important. If, at the end of the day, the kids know that
2+2=4 and have completed enough eurythmy and wet on wet to be incarnated a
la Steiner (even if the parents do not follow that particular spiritual
path) - what is the problem?
Few of the local Waldorf graduates have made it outside of this area. Several have left here for college and many if not most have wound up back here, working in their parents' businesses or not working at all. I do know of three LHS graduates (who were Pleasant Ridge graduates) who apparently have seemed to break out of here; two of them were extremely anxious to leave this area and as far as we know haven't reappeared. Unfortunately, it seemed to be more their parents' behaviors (marrying, divorcing, marrying, divorcing, etc.) that drove them away.
Last year my daughter was babysitting for an eight-year old girl who found a note from one of my daughter's LHS classmates. (He was 15 years old at the time.) This girl took the note and corrected the spelling and other mistakes as a joke, but in actuality it is a good illustration of the general lack of basic education we have noted among the Waldorf graduates.
While I would not expect the Waldorf PR people to use words like
"initiation," I would (and do) expect them to fully inform prospective
parents of the occult nature of the education. Is Waldorf a religious
exercise? Absolutely. Is anthroposophy in the classroom. Absolutely.
Time to call it like it is and end the denial. IMO.
LHS had a large amount of grant money remaining during my daughter's first year there. We were both on the advisory committee and asked about that money and requesting its use for, for example, field trips, speakers, camcorder(s) and other audio-visual equipment. We were repeatedly told that it could not be spent for those items and when I asked where in the charter contract it stated that, I was informed by the bookkeeper that a copy of that contract was not available. It took over a year for me to obtain a copy of that contract and I had to use an "open records" request. Of course, nothing in that contract supported the bookkeeper's assertions. There was a deadline by which the money had to be spent or lost. Two weeks before that deadline the teacher took it soley upon herself to spend the money with no input, that I know of, from anyone else. I remember walking into the school several weeks later, opening a cupboard and finding skeins of yarn and thread that were purchased
with the grant money. Some books were also purchased, but they were all purchased from the local bookstore which is heavily new age and owned and staffed by anthrops.
By the way, one of LHS's students and her entire family are involved in the new movie, "Troy," as actors. The LHS student plays one of the princesses and her brother is a stand-in for Brad Pitt. Not surprising that they chose this particular movie to be involved with.
Deborah
---------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 09:03:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1219
--0-1213542950-1073581417=:70053
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: walden
Subject: Re: Another anthroposophist approves of genocide
Thanks for the information - especially the link to the nafps list. I just
spent some time there - interesting place! I was intreagued by the response
Joel received after people read some of his "work." There are some very
informative posts there. I guess Waldorf Critics are not the only people
concerned about the concept of genocide with a spiritual twist.
-Walden
Over the past three years I have posted quite a bit to the nafps list re: anthroposophy. (Much of it is lost because yahoo summarily deleted the first two nafps groups, because of pressure from several new agers who were exposed there.) From my first exposure to anthrops six years ago I made a connection to new ageism, but it took several years for me to find definitive and demonstrable links. Actually, it was Joel W.'s juxtaposed with Peter S.'s writings and what I learned from nafps that helped immensely in that regard.
Until I moved to rural Wisconsin I had had no direct contact with either new agers or anthrops, even though Minneapolis (from where we moved) has a Waldorf school and certainly its fair amount of new agers. Living in the inner city community we were fortunately isolated from them. I cannot imagine anyone promoting either new age or anthroposophy feeling comfortable or safe there. That is why I just cannot fathom what is wrong with the Black people of Milwaukee or the people of Pine Ridge who are allowing their children to be immersed in that stuff, unless it is a case of absolute corruption of those in leadership positions.
Deborah
---------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 17:37:09 -0700
From: "Dave Kimble" (dkimble mystrotv.com)
Subject: RE: Of critics and cynics...
Instead of contributing to the interesting discussion, I'd like to point
out that actually, in 1897 the *Indiana* State House did vote (67-0 no
less!) to pass a bill redefining pi to be 3.2. The bill died in the
Senate. There is interesting information about this at:
http://www.urbanlegends.com/legal/pi_indiana.html
It occurs to me that it may be instructive to note that others of our
species are capable of such nonsense (maybe a small contribution after
all).
To err is human, to err for personal gain particularly so,
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: joel [mailto:hermit tiac.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:57 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: Of critics and cynics...
[stuff deleted]
[No, its a kind of inside joke. There is a story that the State
Legislature in North Dakota once tried to pass a law declaring that Pi
was a more simple number. Its what is called in America an Urban Myth
(never really happened).
[stuff deleted]
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1222
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Steiner's War
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Another anthroposophist approves of genocide
By hermit tiac.net
RE: Of critics and cynics...
By hermit tiac.net
Re: Steiner's War
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
indigenous america speaks
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 09 Jan 2004 15:16:17 -0700
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Steiner's War
On Tue, 2004-01-06 at 00:59, walden wrote:
) Joel, what kind of war can our future relatives expect and who do you think
) the "tiny handful" will be? Steiner sounds pretty sure about this event.
) Thanks in advance for any insight you might offer.
Dear Walden,
Actually I don't think about such things very much. I understand a
little what is being said, mostly in that I can see in modern social
existence the seed forms of such strife, with this list and the nafps
list being typical examples, although one can find this phenomena
everywhere.
Human beings produce individualized thought contents, based upon
individualized experiences, but then proceed to assume that if
differences in point of view exist, then one person must be right and
another wrong.
Extremists from the political left hate extremists from the political
right, neither side willing to consider that both could be right and
both wrong in some fashion. As I tried to point out before, when
discussing "ego's collection", that to introspection this phenomena of
individualized points of view is quite understandable, and that it
wouldn't hurt us socially to come to an appreciation of this fact. But,
people love their "collection", and the resulting vanity as regards its
value makes it hard to let it go.
So, if we look about us socially, and watch how people make smaller and
smaller communities, sometimes just communities of one, in order to
preserve their "collection" (favorite ideas and feelings), then we can
see how even in our time there already exists a mini-war of all against
all. It is far easier to hate that which is radically different from
our own favorite views, than to face our own shadow.
Its all about the beam and the mote, something we were taught about
2000 years ago, and are quite far from understanding.
By the way, I am not entirely sure I will be here much longer. As I
considered my life, and what work I want to do in the future, over the
Holy Nights, playing word games in a war zone hardly seemed to be
something worth spending the time and emotional energy that would be
required.
warm regards,
joel
------------------------------
Date: 09 Jan 2004 15:19:10 -0700
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: Re: Another anthroposophist approves of genocide
On Sun, 2003-12-28 at 06:18, Barnaby McEwan wrote:
) At least Joel has a use for Indians: for him, they evolved to keep
) America 'pristine' until white people arrived.
This is not a true statement of what I have written. But, then I don't
expect people to be interested in the truth here.
joel
------------------------------
Date: 09 Jan 2004 15:49:33 -0700
From: Joel Wendt (hermit tiac.net)
Subject: RE: Of critics and cynics...
Dear Diana,
This is nothing new here.
An ancient mid-east aphorism is as follows:
Guard your thoughts, for they will become words
Guard you words, for they will become deeds
Guard your deeds, for they will become character
Guard your character, for it will become destiny
Then there is what Christ said, at:Matthew 5:28 "But I say to you that
anyone who so much as looks with lust a woman has already committed
adultery with her in his heart."
Then there is 12 Step work.
Of course, to introspection, the will element of thinking becomes quite
plain and obvious - thoughts arise from our will, conscious or
unconscious, although of course we don't want to admit to being
responsible for this part of existence, unless we have received in life
those hard lessons that make the aphorism above quite clear to us in
practice.
Anyone who wants to make serious changes in their life has to begin
with what they allow to arise in their thought life first. This very
frequently requires learning about the emotional life, because much
thinking is driven by emotions (not reason).
But then, being responsible in the invisible world of thought is a
place a lot of folks don't want to go, so being in denial of the truth
here is very human, although this denial does not come from actual
knowledge of the realities.
joel
On Tue, 2003-12-23 at 21:20, Diana Winters wrote:
) Joel wrote:
)
) "Thoughts are as much a deed as any other activity."
)
) I think this way lies madness - and I hate, in particular, to see
) children tormented with such superstitions. Encouraging children to
) believe their thoughts are the same as deeds is shaming, confusing,
) punitive, and cruel. As well as intrusive - the child's thoughts are
) their own business and this busybody moralism leads the child to fear
) his/her thoughts are everyone else's business too.
) If every passing thought, whether good or bad, had the same moral weight
) or effect as something a person actually did, one effect is that when
) the thought is bad enough, the person must disown it (blame the gnomes
) for instance???), rather than realizing it is just a thought and can't
) actually hurt anyone. Living this way all the time would be very
) painful. In a way it makes sense, though it is very sad, that you would
) feel you would have to kill yourself if (paraphrasing here; apologies if
) I am not quoting you precisely) it turned out a lot of people agreed
) with the critics that your interpretations of Steiner were wrong. Joel -
) your thoughts are not your "deeds." Your thoughts are your thoughts.
) This is so sad! It makes it a devastating tragedy to ever be wrong -
) rather than simply a part of being human!
)
)
)
) "Thinking really can't be kept separate from feelings, although people
) in habitual denial of their feeling life believe this to be possible."
)
) Of course thoughts are connected to feelings, but I think if you can't
) sort out the two - tell which is which, and realize they are not the
) same thing - it would cause a person to frequently get into chaotic and
) angry interactions with others.
)
) If thoughts really were the same as deeds, there would be no possibility
) of civil society. Every day would be mayhem and murder. No trivial
) disagreement could pass without violence. In fact every trivial
) disagreement *is* violence in your scenario. Imagine what the roads
) would be like - think road rage is bad now? :) It's bad enough when
) people *do* act out certain thoughts - if just thinking them had exactly
) the same effect, it would not be safe to leave the house.
)
) In fact sometimes it seems like you think thoughts have *worse* effects
) than actions. Genocide is "destiny" and, hey, everyone should just get
) over it - but challenging or disagreeing with Joel Wendt, now *that* is
) vicious and unforgivable. :)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:20:30 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Steiner's War
Steiner wrote:
"In the seventh epoch of civilisation, this War of All against All will
break
out in the most terrible form. Great and mighty forces will be let loose by
the discoveries, turning the whole earth-globe into a kind of
[self-functioning] live electric mass. In a way that cannot be discussed,
the tiny handful will be protected and preserved."
Walden wrote:
) ) Joel, what kind of war can our future relatives expect and who do you
think
) ) the "tiny handful" will be? Steiner sounds pretty sure about this
event.
) ) Thanks in advance for any insight you might offer.
Joel replied:
) Actually I don't think about such things very much. I understand a
) little what is being said....
Walden now asks: Then please share what you know about the pending war
because I really am interested. Also, in the same lecture, when Steiner
speaks about the sixth epoch he states:
"A tiny handful of men will make good and thus insure their survival in the
sixth epoch of civilisation."
I wonder why he would state that in the sixth epoch, a handful of "men" will
survive and then he omits the word "men" for the seventh epoch? Could have
been a typo or sloppy translation but these sorts of things are interesting.
Any ideas?
Joel continued ...) mostly in that I can see in modern social
) existence the seed forms of such strife, with this list and the nafps
) list being typical examples, although one can find this phenomena
) everywhere.
Quite the judgement, Joel. When I read your thoughts I feel confused
because it seems you see "strife" when I see inquisitive, thoughtful people
attempting to communicate. For example, where is the "seed form of such
strife" in this post from a member of the nafps list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nafps/message/3298
"Dear Mr. Wendt,
I took the time to go to the links in order to read some of your
writings. I went with an open mind and tried sincerely to see your
points. Now I do agree that you are entitled to your opinions as long
as they do not interfere with the rights of anyone else, and the same
is true for anyone.
While your words have the glossiness of academia, the thinking
process reminds me of schizophrenics I have worked with. They have a
tendency to draw the most bizarre associations and conclusions from
an assortment of sources, and their conclusions are not often based
in reality. It seems to me that much of what you write is mere
opinion and speculation, disjointed at best. That is my opinion, and
as you are entitled to yours, I am entitled to mine.
I'm not sure that you understand that Native people are perfectly
capable of maintaining/determining their own culture/lifeways and
interpreting their own history/prophecies. Condescension, well-
meaning or not, is considered insulting by many people.
Who knows, if we were to meet I might like you personally, but I
would still disagree with many of your ideas."
Walden again: There again you see that people (just like on this list) take
issue with your "ideas" and not against you as a person. I wonder if and
when you come to understand this healthy part of human discourse, your
frustration level will all but disappear? I understand you feel frustrated
that some us do not seem to respect your life's work and that you have been
at this for many years. But respect cannot be demanded. I think one earns
respect by being respectful. When you talk about genocide as a necessity
and then patronize those those who find this concept disturbing, can you
really expect us to respect your years of work?
) By the way, I am not entirely sure I will be here much longer. As I
) considered my life, and what work I want to do in the future, over the
) Holy Nights, playing word games in a war zone hardly seemed to be
) something worth spending the time and emotional energy that would be
) required.
Again, if you are convinced you will find a "war zone," you might just find
such a beast. If, on the other hand, you are willing to accept that your
*ideas* are being questioned (you have made your ideas very public, btw) as
opposed to Joel-the-man being attacked, you might be surprised to see your
perceived "war zone" change into a field of possibilities. I really hope
you are willing to try.
All the Best for 2004.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 12:52:51 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: indigenous america speaks
Re our discussion of Anthroposophy and Native Americans, the
following announcement comes from Rudolf Steiner College in Fair
Oaks, CA:
Indigenous America Speaks
January 31, Saturday 7:30-9:30 PM
Join us for a winter renewal to warm our hearts in preparation for
Spring. Stan Padilla, a multi-media community artist, will bring the
Spoken Word of the Elders, weaving together the native drumming of
the women's group called Awend/s (Iroquois word meaning "New Day")
and the haunting sounds of the Native American flute played by Grammy
Award-winning artist, Mary Youngblood.
$15 General, $10 Students and Seniors, $5 Children under 12
-Dan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1223
-- Topica Digest --
Joel's writng on Indians
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
RE: What is Waldorf? (wasRE: Laurel High School)
By Percedol netscape.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 13:21:31 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: Joel's writng on Indians
I wrote:
) At least Joel has a use for Indians: for him, they evolved to keep
) America 'pristine' until white people arrived.
Joel replied:
) This is not a true statement of what I have written.
Here's what you wrote, at http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/wkslg.html
)Certain peoples left Atlantis and went to the West. This stream was a
)race destined to die out, carrying traditions which also in time would
)pass away. Their task was to live in a spiritual way in this new land,
)as stewards, preserving its pristine nature for a far future time, when
)the further demands of evolution would bring other peoples with other
)needs.(
Please explain succinctly how I've misunderstood your statement.
) But, then I don't expect people to be interested in the truth here.
*The* truth? Steady, Joel.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 04:44:35 +0000
From: Percedol (Percedol netscape.net)
Subject: RE: What is Waldorf? (wasRE: Laurel High School)
walden wrote:
)
) ) P:
) ) Waldorf is not about initiation. It could not be.
)
) Did you not once state that you knew very little about Waldorf
) education?
P:
The problem we are dealing with here is if one can follow a path of
initiation since he/she is in first grades, and the answer is no.
Whether is twenty or twenty-one it is not related to w schools anymore,
since at twenty one is most likely already out of it.
)
) You have to be
) ) twenty-one years old to be able to follow the initiation discipline in
) ) the path of the anthroposophically oriented spiritual science .
) ) Before you are twenty-one the individuality is not yet ready for the
) ) dicipline.
)
) And how can you be sure of this? If you are sure - how about a twenty
) year
) old? Must it be *exactly* twenty-one? I am not trying to be facetious,
) P,
) just pointing to the dogma surrounding this point of view. And
) remembering
) a *teacher* staring into my child's mouth, peering at his gums to see if
) he
) was ready for the next stage of his initiation/education. Do the teeth
) need
) to be fully visible - what if the teeth appeared the next day and my son
) was
) forced to remain behind a grade.
P:
This is a question that relates specifically to W education. I don't
know.
How would this affect his karma?
P:
I think one should look at each case.
)
) )Therefore, Waldorf is not about initiation.
)
) Are you sure?
)
) Merriam Webster:
)
) Main Entry: ini·ti·a·tion
) Pronunciation: i-"ni-shE-'A-sh&n
) Function: noun
) Date: 1583
) 1 a : the act or an instance of initiating b : the process of being
) initiated c : the rites, ceremonies, ordeals, or instructions with which
) one
) is made a member of a sect or society or is invested with a particular
) function or status
) 2 : the condition of being initiated into some experience or sphere of
) activity :
P:
This is a generic definition of initiation, not what is meant by
initiation in A.
)
) Moving right along...
)
) From the Anthroposophical Society in Florida...
)
) "Steiner (to the first Waldorf teachers) 'We shall only be able to
) achieve
) our task if we see it as not only to do with the intellect and
) feeling-life,
) but with the sphere of the moral and spiritual in the highest sense.'
) The
) task was the following: to help the soul-and-spirit being of the child,
) which has at birth descended to earth from a pre-earthly existence, to
) find
) its place in the physical world and to make it competent for life . . .
) .
) Rudolf Steiner shows how the developing human being on the long and
) arduous
) path into the physical world passes through a series of clearly defined
) stages, which make definite inner and outer demands. Both the curriculum
) and
) the methods of teaching of the new school, as he now described them,
) were
) designed to meet these demands as well as possible through the right
) pedagogical measures . . . This was Waldorf pedagogy. The campaign for a
) new
) social order had been especially well received in the big Waldorf
) Astoria
) cigarette-factory at Stuttgart."
)
)
) ) P:
) ) I think you might say that the difference of W education compared to
) ) other schools is about giving an education that does not destroy the
) ) potential ability to perceive the spiritual directly.
)
) No, *you* might say that - not me. What about "other schools" that
) believe
) they too are helping children to perceive the spiritual directly? Lots
) of
) spiritual schools besides Waldorf. And many wonderful schools that
) allow
) children the freedom (real freedom) to explore their interests and their
) environment (a la Sudbury Valley, for example) Are they, in your
) opinion,
) out to "destroy potential abilities of children to perceive spiritual
) directly?"
P:
I referred to public schools in Italy or for what I know in the US, plus
montesori schools. There may be other schools that are good as well. I
don't know every school system.
Is Steiner's view of spirituality the only real view? I
) remember this elitist view of spirituality - it bounced around the halls
) of
) a certain Waldorf school and I am so very happy to be free of it.
P:
I think that any view that points out that the first step of knowledge
is the liberation of thinking to achieve sense-free thinking or living
thought is correct for our time. Do you know any?
)
) So it's not about
) ) teaching 'occultism', but about not spoiling the potentials.
)
) You know, we would probably agree that mass media, sugar drinks, donuts
) and
) consumerism should not be part of a child's education.
P:
What's wrong with donuts? Mass media are important in the right measure
and 'cum grano salis'. For example there are important movies that
should be seen by people. News are also important, although we should be
careful and seek for alternative sources of information, possibly from
several different channels (books, newspapers, web, tv, radio) and
countries. Unfortunately, most media are in the hands of just a few
groups today.
I gotta tell ya,
) though... Waldorf does not have a monopoly on providing a non-material,
) natural type of education. Matter of fact, kids see right through much
) of
) the pretending that goes on in many of these schools.
P:
Or you may say non exclusively materialistic type of education.
But studying Darwin's theory very well, for example, is in my opinion
very important. And also weaknesses to this theory and underlying that
is a theory.
)
) ) I wonder if behind these attacks against W schools there is not an
) ) attempt to prevent human beings from perceiving the spiritual. This
) ) attack would be in the interest of many groups that don't want man to
) ) become free. They want to avoid to mankind the direct experience of the
) ) spiritual, because they want people to be believers: in a doctrine
) ) (materialist, Marxist, etc), or in a religion (which requires acts of
) ) faith, instead of direct experience).
)
) "Attacks?" Again we see the melodramatic black and white world of
) anthroposophy. I want to talk about my direct experience with Waldorf
) education and about the research I have done for the past few years.
) That's
) it, P - nothing more than that. Pretty simple. In doing this, I am
) accused
) of "attacking" Waldorf. Better yet - this is done by me in an attempt
) to
) "prevent human beings from perceiving the spiritual." Let's not stop
) there... I "don't want man to become free."
P:
I can believe that some of the criticisms are correct, but that the
dimension of this whole attack rises doubts about what's behind, no
matter if people is aware of it or only used.
)
) My goodness. You really believe those who try to help Waldorf with it's
) shabby PR campaign have the power to prevent human beings from
) perceiving
) the spiritual?
P:
It is not only going after W schools. It is attacking the figure of RS.
And you believe I espouse the virtues of Marxism *and*
) materialism! I wonder about the "etc." How can you possibly arrive at
) such
) a judgement, P?
P:
It is not about you. In Europe there is still a lot of left wing people
(in a marxist sense).
)
) Reality check (you could simply have asked): I meditate. I eat organic
) veggie food. I volunteer with groups like Amnesty International, PLAN
) International (hungry kids version - not related to PLANS), I climb
) mountains and have *spiritual moments* when I reach the top, I work with
) enviro groups, I have wonderful friends who follow very spiritual paths,
) I
) enjoy deep conversations with my kids about respect and power and
) religion
) and philosophy and materialism and consumerism and politics and how *I*
) certainly do not have any of the answers. I listen to my kids. Etc.
)
) I doubt even the Dan's and Diana's and Peter's of the Waldorf Critics
) world
) have any interest in transforming Waldorf kids into Marxists. What do
) you
) think?
P:
Again, this is more of a problem in Europe since in the US, marxism is
poorly represented.
)
) ) It would be surprising if the powers of darkness would leave something
) ) like W education free from attacks, since through W education children
) ) avoid to be exposed to a schooling system that damages or prevents the
) ) ability to perceive the spiritual.
)
) Would you be willing to think that "the powers of darkness" might just
) be a
) concept that exists only in you mind? Please consider that question -
) as I
) phrased it - and let me know the result. Thanks.
)
) -Walden
P:
I can think it. Thinking that there is no personified evil does not give
me an answer.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1224
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Math with a New Age Flavour
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:36:14 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Math with a New Age Flavour
I found this article very interesting for two main reasons:
1) It is one of a few relatively well researched pieces on Waldorf I have
seen in a newspaper
2) It shows that far from the view (held by some vocal anthroposophists)
that critics of Waldorf exist only within a tiny group of people in
California, the same Waldorf problems also exist on the other side of North
America.
I'll list a few items that I found of particular interest. First are the
very honest thoughts of Vincent Breton, founder
of the Rudolf Steiner Association of Quebec. This type of honesty is sadly
lacking in Waldorf outreach material.
From the article:
"The children do not hear directly about reincarnation. But the
pedagogy is based on this fact" acknowledges Vincent Breton, founder
of the Rudolf Steiner Association of Quebec. The anthroposophic
association has tried for 20 years to launch a private Waldorf school
in Quebec. Since 1994, it has organized a congress of information on
Waldorf pedagogy and anthroposophy. Without reprimanding the silence
that Elan Waldorf Montreal chooses to maintain on the subject of
anthroposophy, Vincent Breton says that the parents know that the
project is directly based on this philosophy and enrol their children
there in full knowledge rather than discovering it after the fact.
A child without a soul
According to Mr Breton, himself the father of four children, if the
letters are assimilated in second grade rather than first grade, it
is because the spirit, which lives before the birth of the child, has
not yet finished "incarnating into the physical body."
Walden: I look forward to the upcoming book by cult researcher, Yves
Casgrain, who has spent years researching this subject.
Percedol might be interested in how Yves tell us that the 'pedagogy has an
"initiating" character.' From the article:
'Yves Casgrain, ex-director of research at Info-Cult and author of a
book on cults, is preparing a book specifically on Waldorf schools.
The result of three years of interviews with teachers of numerous
private schools: "They are taught to be evasive, to know to whom it
is safe to talk, and about what to be silent." Without describing
anthroposophy as sectarian, Yves Casgrain reports the aims of a
former student: "If I decide to practice anthroposophy myself, it
would be via eurythmy [the 'science of movement'], which is a means
to enter into contact with the hereafter." This same student also
told him that at school they maintain that "when we do math, there
are angels who walk in the class."
Even if, continues Yves Casgrain, "the goal of these schools is not
to transform young people into anthroposophists," the pedagogy has an
"initiating" character: "The teachers have a long-term vision: to
prepare the child according to his karma and equip him for his future
lives, in three or four lives. It's more or less without the
knowledge of parents."'
Walden: We also learn of the silence observed by a certain Waldorf school
in Quebec. Why would one feel the need to remain silent when questioned
about a school? And once again, we learn about Waldorf schools and left
handed children. Seems this archaic practise continues in some Waldorf
schools. From the article:
"The fact that the organizers of Elan Montreal are so discreet about
the philosophy of Rudolf Steiner is explained perhaps by the fact
that they've already had a brush with the media. Since 1998, the
parents of the school La Roseliere de Chambly have observed a
moratorium of silence. At the time, the minister Pauline Marois had
not wanted to renew the permit for a special-focus school: the school
didn't use approved educational material, its director was also the
superintendent, and some parents had left, shocked by its esoteric
character (shown by a prayer to the sun). One mother complained that
the specialist had suggested as a treatment for her left-handed
daughter that she should write with her right hand."
Walden: Le Devoir is considered a decent, well respected newspaper in the
province of Quebec. This article, IMO, does not prove that Waldorf
education is "good" or "bad." Rather, the writer courageously looks behind
the silk curtains and smiling faces we so often are lead to imagine via
similar articles on education. Well done. I would welcome any other views
or reviews of this article.
-Walden
What follows is a translation by a volunteer of the December 6
article in Le Devoir: Les maths à la sauce nouvel âge
http://www.ledevoir.com/2003/12/06/42279.html
***
Math with a New Age Flavour
Waldorf schools, which many would like to see multiply in Quebec,
attract more than their share of controversy in North America.
"One, two, three, four. Five, six, seven, eight." They were ten
adults in a circle, standing and counting while tossing a beanbag
from the left hand (nine) to the right hand (ten), then to the left
(eleven), then to the neighbour on the right (twelve). With this
ballet, the parents experienced...the four times table. At least as
it would have been taught to their children if they had sent them for
first grade to a school following Waldorf pedagogy.
The dominant characteristic of this pedagogy: "the rhythms of
development" of children. That is why one teaches only through games
and imitation before seven years of age...because the soul is not yet
incarnated into the body. Between seven and fourteen years, the
emphasis is on oral instruction. Fairy tales, legends and myths are
therefore the focus of history courses...and biology!
Math is also reviewed through knitting. History, by modelling with
beeswax. The idea is that the afternoon subjects--such as gardening,
handwork or art--consolidate the learning of the morning. There are
no textbooks here. There are no computers or electronic media before
secondary school because of the conviction that these "stifle the
imagination" of young people.
A request had been presented to the school boards of Montreal and
Marguerite-Bourgeoys with the intention of introducing "the first
special-focus public school based on the Waldorf pedagogy in
Montreal."
After studying the project, called Elan Waldorf of Montreal, the two
school boards declined the request for schools years beginning in
September 2002 and 2003. The Montreal school board offered only
shared locations, although Elan Waldorf wanted a school entirely
dedicated to its own pedagogy. Marguerite-Bourgeoys justified its
decision citing school reform, which required all the attention of
its staff. But this was only a partial refusal: the Waldorf dossier
still sits on its list of projects to study. And Elan Waldorf pursues
its goal of opening a school by September 2003.
During the summer of 2002, eleven parents had attempted during
three-hour information sessions, to convince other parents to rally
to their cause. The atmosphere was warm and welcoming. The room
sighed with envy as three Waldorf graduates in their twenties
reminisced about the "non-competitive" atmosphere of their classes
(no graded tests in primary school). But questions were carefully
avoided. During the three hours, devoted in large part to stories,
dramas and songs, no one said the word "anthroposophy". Nor was it
mentioned in the twenty-three pages of documents given to the school
boards in November 2001. It is behind this term that all the
philosophy created in 1919 by the founder of Waldorf schools, Rudolf
Steiner, is concealed.
Saturating the whole educational thought process, anthroposophy
includes, among other things, the thesis of reincarnation and karma.
The "rhythms of development" of the child are based on the successive
arrival of three "bodies" which, according to Steiner, compose the
human being: the physical body, which incarnates at birth, followed
by the "etheric body" with the change of teeth (at about 7 years of
age) and the "astral body" which initiates puberty at 14 years of
age. Steiner was convinced that humans had already lived on Atlantis
and would one day live on Venus, Jupiter and Vulcan (sic) once, in a
future life, they had attained a more elevated stage of this
"development."
"The children do not hear directly about reincarnation. But the
pedagogy is based on this fact" acknowledges Vincent Breton, founder
of the Rudolf Steiner Association of Quebec. The anthroposophic
association has tried for 20 years to launch a private Waldorf school
in Quebec. Since 1994, it has organized a congress of information on
Waldorf pedagogy and anthroposophy. Without reprimanding the silence
that Elan Waldorf Montreal chooses to maintain on the subject of
anthroposophy, Vincent Breton says that the parents know that the
project is directly based on this philosophy and enrol their children
there in full knowledge rather than discovering it after the fact.
A child without a soul
According to Mr Breton, himself the father of four children, if the
letters are assimilated in second grade rather than first grade, it
is because the spirit, which lives before the birth of the child, has
not yet finished "incarnating into the physical body."
"They spoke to us about child development, but never that the soul
incarnates at the age of seven," insists a father who withdrew his
two children from the private Rudolf Steiner school in the 1990s--the
only Waldorf school on the island of Montreal--and wishes to remain
anonymous. Because children do not bring home homework, parents
ignore what is really happening. Once this father had looked through
anthroposophic works at the school library he had become
disillusioned.
He remembers meetings with the teachers: "Everything is very
controlled. The teacher speaks. One doesn't ask questions."
The teachers speak well of anthroposophy. They complete their Quebec
teaching certification with a special three-year training in
California, in France, at the training seminary of the Rudolf Steiner
school in Montreal, or at the Rudolf Steiner Centre at Thornhill in
Ontario. On their internet site, one can read that they do "intensive
work in anthroposophy for an education in depth," that they study
"the wisdom of fairytales" or they learn of the existence of "the
twelve senses."
Yves Casgrain, ex-director of research at Info-Cult and author of a
book on cults, is preparing a book specifically on Waldorf schools.
The result of three years of interviews with teachers of numerous
private schools: "They are taught to be evasive, to know to whom it
is safe to talk, and about what to be silent." Without describing
anthroposophy as sectarian, Yves Casgrain reports the aims of a
former student: "If I decide to practice anthroposophy myself, it
would be via eurythmy [the 'science of movement'], which is a means
to enter into contact with the hereafter." This same student also
told him that at school they maintain that "when we do math, there
are angels who walk in the class."
Even if, continues Yves Casgrain, "the goal of these schools is not
to transform young people into anthroposophists," the pedagogy has an
"initiating" character: "The teachers have a long-term vision: to
prepare the child according to his karma and equip him for his future
lives, in three or four lives. It's more or less without the
knowledge of parents."
The fact that the organizers of Elan Montreal are so discreet about
the philosophy of Rudolf Steiner is explained perhaps by the fact
that they've already had a brush with the media. Since 1998, the
parents of the school La Roseliere de Chambly have observed a
moratorium of silence. At the time, the minister Pauline Marois had
not wanted to renew the permit for a special-focus school: the school
didn't use approved educational material, its director was also the
superintendent, and some parents had left, shocked by its esoteric
character (shown by a prayer to the sun). One mother complained that
the specialist had suggested as a treatment for her left-handed
daughter that she should write with her right hand.
For the moment, the only primary and secondary Waldorf school on the
island of Montreal is a private school. There exist three public
primary schools in Quebec, in Waterville, Vistoriaville and Chambly.
One of these was mentioned several times on the news when Louis
Taillefer, a specialist in superconductors from the university of
Sherbrooke, received scientific honours and had used the publicity to
emphasize that his children were enrolled there. There are also
nurseries, such as L'Oiseau dâor (The Golden Bird) in Montreal. Each
time, the promoters of the school are parents like Mr Taillefer.
In the last year and a half, about ten initiatives have converged to
relaunch the defunct Association for Waldorf Pedagogy of Quebec. The
Chambly school wishes to expand into secondary education. Others are
working to establish themselves in Abitibi, in Adamsville and in
districts of Montreal. In Quebec, anthroposophist parents held a
public conference in January. "Since the parents are the prime movers
within the establishment councils," explains Vincent Breton, "we see
more and more of these initiatives for a different kind of
education." Elan Waldorf Montreal plans also to stage public
conferences.
Steiner and anthroposophy
Described in turn as a scientist, philosopher, artist and pedagogue,
the Austrian Rudolf Steiner lived from 1861 to 1925. He said himself
that he was endowed with clairvoyance. In 1913, he left the German
branch of theosophy, from which he borrowed certain dogmas such as
reincarnation, to found a new discipline--anthroposophy.
According to this belief, humans have existed in spirit form since
the creation of the world; they have progressed by traversing various
different stages, for instance that of Atlantis, and created the
animals.
Fairy tales, the Old Testament, Norse myths and the studies of the
Indian, Persian, Egyptian and Greek civilisations take on a whole new
significance when one reads Steiner. "In order to be effective, it is
essential to believe in these parables as absolute truths," he wrote
in The Education of the Child in the Light of Anthroposophy.
In forty books and 6000 lectures, Steiner detailed what he affirmed
were applications of anthroposophy, for instance anthroposophical
medicine, where are mixed the essences of arts and of homeopathy, and
a biodynamic agriculture, for which there are many organizations
today. But the best known of these applications are the Waldorf
schools, from the name of the Waldorf-Astoria cigarette factory where
Steiner created his pedagogy in 1919. More than 850 schools and
between 1200 and 2000 nurseries around the world use it.
Activities in the United States
PLANS, People for Legal and Non-Sectarian Schools, a group based in
California, is pursuing legal action against two public Waldorf
schools in America. It lists on its website dubious teachings it
attributes to anthroposophy: planets influence the growth of plants,
the Egyptians moved the blocks for the pyramids with the power of
sound. "They taught my son that Newton was wrong when he said the
spectrum of light was composed of many colours. And a teacher told me
that the heart does not pump blood," affirms Dan Dugan, one of the
members of PLANS, expelled from a school in San Francisco at the end
of the 1980s because he asked too many questions.
On the 10th of last February, PLANS suit was judged to be valid by an
appeal court in California. PLANS alleges that in using public funds
to promote anthroposophy, the school violates a basic rule of the
American constitution that says that religion has no place in public
schools.
The fact of allowing few or no questions during recruitment meetings
is typical, according to Mr Dugan. "Everything is programmed. The
parents are invited to play students. This intimidates them, thereby
avoiding adult questions and discussions."
AWSNA, the association of Waldorf schools and institutes of North
America, sells books on its internet site that explain how the Norse
myths explain the future of human evolution. AWSNA is also the object
of a lawsuit for racism and discrimination, an accusation that has
stuck to anthroposophy for a long time.
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1225
-- Topica Digest --
contemporary anthroposophists on race I
By pstaud hotmail.com
contemporary anthroposophists on race II
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:00:00 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: contemporary anthroposophists on race I
Contemporary anthroposophists on race, part I: "Hitler was a bad guy but not
entirely inaccurate."
While waiting patiently for an eventual reply from Joel (and Frank, and
Percedol, and so on), I got to perusing some of the lively exchanges on
several anthroposophical email lists, where the topic of race takes up a
remarkable amount of space. Two things in particular caught my attention: A
discussion from a year ago on the yahoo list "anthroposophy", and a couple
of posts from yesterday on the yahoo list "anthroposophy tomorrow". I'll
address each in turn.
In late 2002 a number of subscribers to the "anthroposophy" list responded
to several quotes from Steiner about race, including the
blondeness-bestows-intelligence passage. Some of their reactions can be
summed up in the line "Hitler was a bad guy but not entirely inaccurate."
What follows is a selection from these posts.
On Nov 28, 2002 "Br. Ron" wrote:
"I think this Steiner quote is only disturbing to those aspects of ourselves
that
have fallen prey to 'political correctness' and other over reactions to the
discoveries made about human genetics.
Hitler was a bad guy but not entirely inaccurate.
Multiculturalism is fine as long as we don't try to gloss over the fact
that even the most liberal scientists must confess to the deterministic
qualities of DNA.
Why is it we can recognize the unique qualities of certain breeds of animals
and try hard to keep those bloodlines pure but are so terrified of
recognizing
the same principles within the human species?
Let's face it. Breeding a miniature poodle with a St. Bernard obviously
effects the abilities of the offspring to get those kegs up those Alpine
peaks to those stranded climbers. Nor do we add English Bulldogs to
the racing roster at the dog track.
Likewise, with us god-monkeys, the northern races have greater
Stanford-Binet
ratings than do the darker races (the number of Mensa members decreases
proportionately to the population the closer we get to the equator)
But the lighter races lack the visceral and rhythmic qualities of their
darker counterparts."
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy/message/6482)
This was followed by a post from "Sheila", also Nov 28, 2002:
"When one reads Steiner's teachings about the various races, this is not
"racist" as the word has come to be interpreted in these days of "Political
Correctness" but refers to the many races of mankind existing on the
physical early planet, such as the red race, the brown race, the white race,
the yellow race or the black race, etc.. It is a distinct fact that some
people are born with blue eyes [mine are blue], some with brown, black,
hazel, yellowish or green eyes, just as some people are born with blonde
hair, or brown, red, chestnut, auburn, black or brown/black hair as I was.
All these various colors bring with them certain definite mental, psychic
and physical talents and abilities no one race alone at this time in
evolution is able to give to the world, but put all together upon the
physical plane as we ourselves chose before incarnating, mankind as a whole
is able to cover all spectrums of his missions while working together in
unison, if he would stop warring for all the dumb reasons used as excuses."
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy/message/6496)
And then a post from "Dr. Starman" on Dec 2, 2002:
"I've been saying for many years now that it was impossible to rationally
discuss race in the 20th century, because of Hitler and the Nazis. Now that
we're in the 21st, I wonder if we can finally start. I doubt it can be done
among many people--- but race HAS an esoteric significance. Of course, as
you know, these days it's required by the intolerant religion of the ruling
paradigm that you say that an individual is an individual and equal to every
other individual, and that it makes no difference if he's male or female,
European or African, or what have you, and anyone who does notice
differences is evil and has to be shouted down. This of course ignores what
everybody knows from personal experience, that there are definite character
traits of different nationalities, that the members of them generally show
regardless of the individual. The result of this Ahrimanic deception is
that these obvious truths are only discussed privately, with the result that
honest discussion of them is prohibited and therefore they can't be
understood scientifically or rationally. Anyone who tries to do so is
accused of unconsciously following stereotypes. So strong is this desire to
be politically correct that a clairvoyant like Rudolf Steiner is assumed to
have been doing the same thing, because it's unthinkable that he might have
been telling the truth. But different parts of the human being ARE
accentuated in the different races. To believe otherwise is to pursue a
political ideal of "equality" so much that reality is obscured.
As I say, I'm not sure we're ready to really talk about the occult side
of these things as it can be found in the Edgar Cayce readings,
Anthroposophy etc.. Perhaps it's better done outside of public discussion.
The quotes above don't actually have to do with race, but with ethnicity,
anyway. Anthroposophy does not hover in abstractions, but its pure ideas are
brought down to sensible reality, for instance in recognizing how the
different parts of the soul will be stronger in one type of people or
another. A "folk" or people is not just an abstraction, but rather a folk
spirit or folk soul, a being higher than a human being, lives in all the
members of one. This is a reality which can be perceived, politically
incorrect as that may be. Individuals by their karma will incarnate into
this or that group so that they may use the abilities they will be born
with. Rudolf Steiner could not have come anywhere except to the German
people, for instance. What you've quoted here should be part of reflecting
what it means to be an English speaking person, a Caucasian, etc. (Blond and
red hair of course, like blue eyes, occur only in the Caucasian race.)
Naturally, however, this subject cannot be scientifically examined so long
as it is surrounded by political hysteria. It only comes up frequently
because the enemies of Anthroposophy take these quotes and spread them far
and wide to discredit Steiner. There are many truths that can only be
understood properly on the path of initiation, and, when revealed to the
unprepared and uninitiated, are bound to be misunderstood."
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy/message/6532)
Dr. Starman's next post celebrated the book The Bell Curve.
I will continue with part II, on the Aryan myth, in a moment.
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up — fast & reliable Internet access with prime
features! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=dialup/home&ST=1
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:16:31 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: contemporary anthroposophists on race II
Contemporary anthroposophists on race, part II: "After the Holocaust"
In a couple of recent posts to the "anthroposophy tomorrow" list, Tarjei
Straume took issue with my observation that the myth of the "Aryan race" did
not first become racist within the context of Nazi ideology, but was already
racist for decades before the founding of the Nazi party. In contrast,
Tarjei argues that it was the Nazis who first "brought this expression into
infamy", and that it was widely recognized as racist only "after the
Holocaust". His post can be read here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/1190
Since this same view has been expressed recently on the waldorf critics list
as well, by both Percedol and Soren, I thought I'd take this opportunity to
explain once more the history of the Aryan myth. The notion that this myth
first became racist under the Nazis is completely false, and the fact that
it persists among a wide range of contemporary anthroposophists suggests a
woeful lack of basic knowledge about the history of racist thought.
The very idea of an "Aryan race" was flatly nonsensical from the very
beginning. It is based on an obvious conflation of linguistics and biology,
and does not refer to anything in the real world. Moreover, the concept of
an "Aryan race", in the form which it typically took within European culture
in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, was inescapably racist. It
posited a superior Aryan stock who colonized the ancient world and founded
the great civilizations of antiquity. This is, by the way, exactly how
Rudolf Steiner used the term.
All of this was recognized by scholars and critics long before there were
any Nazis anywhere. The Nazi movement did not emerge until the 1920s and did
not come to power until 1933. But the basic confusion between language and
race had been pointed out by E.B. Tylor, the pioneer of cultural
anthropology, by the mid-1800's. Even Max Mueller and T.H. Huxley, who
contributed substantially to other aspects of the Aryan myth, ridiculed the
mixing up of language and race as early as 1870. By the time the Nazi party
was formed, there were numerous detailed critiques of Aryanism and related
racial concepts, written by German, French, British, American. and other
analysts, from Jean Finot to Franz Boas to WEB DuBois.
That Aryan supremacism was not a Nazi innovation has been a mainstay of
research on the topic for decades, including those works whose analysis of
racial ideology is closely circumscribed. Hannah Arendt's seminal essay on
"Race-Thinking Before Racism" (chapter 6 in The Origins of Totalitarianism,
1951) begins with the following remarks: "If race-thinking were a German
invention, as it has been sometimes asserted, then "German thinking"
(whatever that may be) was victorious in many parts of the spiritual world
long before the Nazis started their ill-fated attempt at world conquest."
The prominent archeologist J.P. Mallory begins his epilogue on the Aryan
myth as follows: "We cannot examine the legacy of the Indo-Europeans without
first dispelling the spectre of the 'Aryan Myth'. The world is all too
familiar with how the concept of racial supremacy was implemented by the
National Socialists in Germany, and we would be quite mistaken to imagine
that this grotesque obsession with the Indo-Europeans or, as they were then
more popularly known, the Aryans, was merely the creation of a handful of
Nazi fanatics." (Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans, 1989) Indeed the
notion of an "Aryan race" was hardly specific to German thought; the British
made extensive use of this absurd concept during their colonial
administration of India, and a number of the most crucial theorists of Aryan
supremacy were French.
The best comprehensive account of this phenomenon remains Leon Poliakov's
1971 book The Aryan Myth. Poliakov writes in his Introduction : "In its
various forms, the Aryan theory nearly always involved a value-judgement in
favour of the Aryans, and the ideologists of the Third Reich did no more
than stress this bias out of all proportion." While it was at least
hypothetically possible for non-racists to use the term "Aryan race" without
supremacist meaning (Moses Hess comes to mind as a potential example), the
racist interpretation of the term had become predominant, indeed virtually
exclusive, many years before the rise of Nazism. Consider the following
examples:
Arthur de Gobineau, the "father of racist ideology", arguably did more than
anyone to promote the explicitly racist version of Aryanism, and was perhaps
the single most influential racist theorist of the 19th century. He died in
1882, a full half-century before the Nazis assumed power. Another important
popularizer of the racist conception of "Aryans" was Ernest Renan, whose
publications on this topic date back to 1848. Renan died in 1892, thirty
years before the term "Nazi" was even coined. The composer Richard Wagner,
probably the most famous 19th century racist and Aryan supremacist, died in
1883. Julius Langbehn and Ludwig Woltmann, who respectively represented the
'spiritual' and the 'scientific' versions of Aryan supremacy, both died in
1907, more than three decades before the Holocaust began. Edouard Drumont, a
"foremost popularizer of the Aryan myth", died in 1917. Numerous other
propagandists of the Aryan myth, from Ludwig Schemann to Houston Stewart
Chamberlain to Willibald Hentschel, achieved their dubious fame while Adolf
Hitler was still a child. And of course Helena Blavatsky, whose "Secret
Doctrine" was Steiner's chief source for the racist version of Aryanism that
anthroposophy adopted from theosophy, died in 1891.
Nor was the spread of racist Aryanism merely a matter of individuals. Even
excluding the rest of Europe, not to mention North America, the following
organizations propagated the racist Aryan myth in Germany, Austria, and
Switzerland before the appearance of the Nazis: the Deutschbund, the
Alldeutscher Verband, the Mazdaznan movement, the various Ariosophist
associations, the Deutscher Orden, the Artamanenbund, the Germanenorden, the
Hammerbund, the Thule Society, the Kampfbund fuer deutsche Kultur, and many
others. While Steiner's peculiarly esoteric variant of this ideology
differed significantly from some of these other versions, it shared the same
racist premises that marked the Aryan myth as a whole for decades prior to
the rise of Nazism.
There is an enormous range of excellent scholarship available in English on
this question. Aside from the books by Poliakov, Arendt, Mallory, and others
already mentioned, the following are highly recommended, and probably ought
to be on the reading list of any anthroposophist who still believes that the
notion of an "Aryan race" was innocent and harmless before 1933. On Gobineau
see Michael Bidiss, Father of Racist Ideology. On Chamberlain see Geoffrey
Field, Evangelist of Race. On Langbehn see Fritz Stern, The Politics of
Cultural Despair. On Woltmann see Michael Hawkins, Social Darwinism in
European and American Thought pp. 158-159. On Renan see Jacob Katz, From
Prejudice to Destruction pp. 135-138. On Drumont see William Brustein, Roots
of Hate, pp. 121-122. For more general treatments that are relevant to
Steiner and anthroposophy see Joscelyn Godwin, Arktos: The Polar Myth in
Science, Symbolism, and Nazi Survival; Edward Said, Orientalism; and George
Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology, particularly chapter 5, "Racism".
Mosse's other recognized classic, Toward the Final Solution: A History of
European Racism, includes a crucial chapter titled "Nation, Language, and
History" which offers a fine precis of the Aryan myth. I am continually
baffled that anthroposophists remain steadfastly ignorant of this latter
book, an acknowledged standard work within the field, especially because it
contains a very rosy assessment of Steiner and anthroposophy. A mere five
minutes with this text would disabuse any anthroposophist of the
preposterous notion that it was the Nazis who made the Aryan myth obviously
racist.
Once we get past the nonsense about how "Hitler was a bad guy but..." and
the Aryan race idea only became dubious "after the Holocaust", it would be
nice to have a real discussion of racist thinking with some anthroposophist
out there. Any takers?
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
High-speed users—be more efficient online with the new MSN Premium Internet
Software. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1226
-- Topica Digest --
[NNA] Argentinian Waldorf school fighting for survival
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:48:10 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: [NNA] Argentinian Waldorf school fighting for survival
Copyright 2004 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
Argentinian Waldorf school fighting for survival
London, 13 January (NNA) - A small but thriving rural Waldorf school
in the Argentinean province of Córdoba faces closure unless it can
raise the US$7000 (£3776, ¤5454) it needs to keep going this year.
According to a report in "Southern Cross Review" with an appeal for
donations, the Escuela El Trigal in Villa de las Rosas about 500
miles north-west of Buenos Aires will not survive unless it receives
outside help: "It will not always be so, but that it the reality
now," the appeal says.
The school, whose catchment area covers 25 kilometres, currently has
32 pupils - an increase of 100 percent from the previous year. It is
situated in a region where parents are often only able to pay minimum
fees, if any, although that is made up to some extent by a number of
families who pay considerably more than the current fees of US$16
(£9, ¤12) per month. This situation, combined with the country's
economic crisis of two years ago, from which Argentina is only slowly
recovering, has led to the current financial difficulties.
According to the report, teachers at the school earn about US$150
(£80, ¤116) per month, but social security payments increase the cost
to the school to about $220 (£118, ¤171). Then there are
administrative, building maintenance, construction and other costs.
Parents are building a new classroom themselves right at this moment.
The cost of building materials comes from a donation. The additional
classroom is needed because of an increase in pupils in 2004.
The situation is all the more urgent as the school has received an
outstanding inspection report from the provincial education ministry.
"I visited the fourth, second and first grades," the inspector
writes. "In all three grades the teachers demonstrated a high degree
of commitment and qualification for the specific task at hand and for
the Waldorf methodology.
"The children demonstrate a high degree of participation. They
respond with coherence, interest and they communicate with a very
special spontaneity and harmony. I observed a personalized
communication style, finely tuned to the pace and personality needs
of each pupil."
In another section she comments: "It is important to mention the
parents' dedication in respect to construction, maintenance and
improvements in all areas of the schoolŠ These tasks are undertaken
systematically by themselves or together with teachers and pupils."
The inspector concludes her assessment: "I congratulate the principal
and the team of teachers for the work they are doing and their
dedication to education, encouraging them to continue on their chosen
path."
end/cva
To make a donation see end of report at:
(http://southerncrossreview.org/gift.html)http://southerncrossreview.org/gift.html
+ + + + +
Item reference number: N040113-01EN
Date: 13 January 2004
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 1227
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1226
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Portland Waldorf School
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Portland Waldorf School
By momof2gals mindspring.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:16:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1226
--0-1981433679-1074107763=:1405
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
"I think this Steiner quote is only disturbing to those aspects of
ourselves that have fallen prey to 'political correctness' and other over reactions to the discoveries made about human genetics.
Hitler was a bad guy but not entirely inaccurate.
Multiculturalism is fine as long as we don't try to gloss over the fact
that even the most liberal scientists must confess to the deterministic
qualities of DNA.”
I’ve noticed over the years that only people I recall using the phrase “political correctness” are those who otherwise show themselves to be people attempting to quash the speech of others. If I am correctly counting here I believe this phrase is used three times (at least once in all three posts). Also, this person clearly has no understanding of even basic genetics. Genetics is a complex discipline – one that I once considered entering – and there is no pseudo-science involved in it at least not on the laboratory level. I’ve known many geneticists and as crazy as I found most of them I don’t recall any of them “confessing” to the “deterministic qualities of DNA.” There was a lot of banter between them and the animal behaviorists re: “nature versus nurture” but that one or the other wholly determined the outcome of an individual was not something I ever heard posited by either side.
Also, multiculturalism has nothing to do with genetics. But then, knowing anthrops I suppose they have their own definition of “multiculturalism” just as they have their own definition of “culture.”
“Why is it we can recognize the unique qualities of certain breeds of
Animals and try hard to keep those bloodlines pure but are so terrified of recognizing the same principles within the human species?”
Slaveowners did attempt to breed humans for certain traits; that was an important impetus behind their raping of Black women. Apparently, anthops have no better understanding of biology and genetics than, for example, Thomas Jefferson.
“Likewise, with us god-monkeys, the northern races have greater
Stanford-Binet ratings than do the darker races”
The Stanford-Binet and its precursors were designed by white, European males and used by eugenicists to “prove” their dogma. Of course, someone isn’t going to design and publish a test the results of which place him at the bottom. It’s noteworthy that these tests were promulgated to get a measure of innate intelligence (which presumably made them scientific measures) and eugenicists and anthrops refer to them as reinforcing their beliefs re: “race” for which there is no scientific basis whatsoever.
"When one reads Steiner's teachings about the various races, this is
not "racist" as the word has come to be interpreted in these days of
"Political Correctness" but refers to the many races of mankind existing on the physical early planet, such as the red race, the brown race, the white race, the yellow race or the black race, etc.. It is a distinct fact that some people are born with blue eyes [mine are blue], some with brown, black, hazel, yellowish or green eyes, just as some people are born with blonde hair, or brown, red, chestnut, auburn, black or brown/black hair as I was.”
Well, even the U.S. Supreme Court confuses “race” with “color,” even though every civil rights statute I have read (which I assume would be all of them considering that is the area of law I specialized in during law school) makes a clear distinction between them. “Color” does have a biological basis; “race” does not.
“Of course, as you know, these days it's required by the intolerant religion of the ruling paradigm that you say that an individual is an individual and equal to every other individual, and that it makes no difference if he's male or female, European or African, or what have you, and anyone who does notice differences is evil and has to be shouted down.”
Where did he/she get this? For the past few decades the people I know and have read re: civil rights have spoken in the language of “equity,” not “equality.” The change came when it occurred to individuals and groups that we don’t want to be equal with anyone. Rather we want an even playing-field. That was the purpose of affirmative action (which does not exist without the base of non-discrimination), i.e. to even the field as much as is possible.
I have a personal observation re: our interaction with the Viroqua area anthrops. My daughter and I are African-American, Irish and my daughter is also Anishiinabeg (“Indian”). I quickly noticed that when we told them this, they became noticeably uncomfortable. Some became extremely uncomfortable. My daughter was actually told to her face that she couldn’t be “Black” because to them she doesn’t look Black. One Waldorf kid each time she crossed his path would state, “So. Do you still think you’re Black?” At first we thought it was just another instance of people outside the community from whence we came, where no one ever made any such statement, being so isolated from people of color that they were strictly operating under assumptions of the dominant culture. We eventually learned that by defining ourselves as we do, that we were undermining their very beliefs (their anthrop beliefs), particularly as concerns their own personal ancestries. The fact is that most if not all
people have no way of proving who their biological ancestors were. (In our culture we have a saying, “Mama’s baby. Papa’s maybe.”) After we realized where they were coming from, I brought it up as often as I could. I suppose it’s a bit perverse, but I do enjoy watching them squirm.
There has been so much written lately in novels and non-fiction re: genetics as it pertains to “race” and color that I have to wonder how anthrops could miss it. (Today, I am ordering “White Chocolate” through interlibrary loan; I just finished “Caucasia” this morning.) But then, I have noticed that they are not in tune with much of the rest of the world, including the nearest city. It must follow from their aversion to TV and any other source of outside information. A number of the local anthrops are protesting the current war/occupation in Iraq, but their understanding of Middle East history is almost non-existent. I believe they are protesting 1) to mainstream into other movements so as to appear credible and 2) because they do fear that the world won’t be here or won’t be to their liking when they next reincarnate.
Deborah
Deborah
---------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:23:12 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Portland Waldorf School
From the Portland Oregonian,
http://www.oregonlive.com/metrosouth/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/metro_south_news/1074084988175220.xml
(Milwaukie is a town in the state of Oregon, not to be confused with
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.)
-Dan
***
Private school will greet public this week
The Portland Waldorf School, thriving but still little-known in
Milwaukie, offers an open house
01/14/04
TOM QUINN
MILWAUKIE -- More than two years after it won a contentious bidding
war for the former Milwaukie Middle School, the Portland Waldorf
School is becoming an established and thriving part of the community.
Enrollment at the private school is at a high of almost 350 students,
and plans are in the works to open a satellite
pre-kindergarten/kindergarten on Southeast 23rd Avenue in Milwaukie.
A first class of eight seniors graduated in June. Fourteen seniors
are due to graduate this spring, with 19 students in the freshman
class.
Still, many parents of school-age children don't know what goes on
behind the building's red brick walls, or that the Portland Waldorf
School offers a high school education. For those parents, the school
will hold an open house at 7 p.m. Thursday.
The event includes classroom tours, talks with teachers and a
presentation on the school's philosophy of experiential learning,
which is based on the teachings of an Austrian educator and
scientist, Rudolf Steiner.
Maya Muir, the school's enrollment and outreach coordinator, said
she's "getting more and more calls from public school parents who are
interested (in Waldorf) because we have the things that public
schools are cutting."
Muir said first-graders at the school learn about music and the arts,
and take instruction in two foreign languages as well as physical
education. It's all part of an unhurried approach to education that
encourages children to learn at their own pace.
"We believe very strongly that imaginative play is key, and is in
fact the foundation for later success," Muir said. "If they're doing
worksheets in kindergarten, they are going to be turned off. The
business of early childhood is play."
The school has a faculty and staff of 63, and class sizes average 28
students for first- through eighth-grades. Muir said that strikes
some parents as high, but the students also have special teachers for
lessons in areas such as the arts.
Classroom teachers act as administrators at Waldorf, and teachers
also make decisions about which students to accept into their
classrooms. Muir said applying generally involves a student visiting
campus to attend classes for three days.
Tuition at the school runs from $5,500 for preschool to $7,400 for
grades one through eight and $10,650 for high school. About 50
percent of students receive tuition assistance, Muir said.
"It's really a self-selection process," she said about applying to
Waldorf. "If people understand what happens here, and they want that,
then we're happy to have them.
"It's amazing how clear it is to everyone after a visit."
Tom Quinn: 503-294-5918; thomasquinn news.oregonian.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:37:06 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Portland Waldorf School
I would like to ask reporter Quinn why he considers the narrative below an
*article.* It is clearly a press release and promotional; the only thing the
reporter did was get a quote or two from the school's enrollment person. I
have been a newspaper reporter for more than 20 years, and I cannot recall a
time when I have put my byline on a piece like this that is really no more
than an advertisement for the school. In fact, our newspaper chain will not
even run Open House notices for free in the community bulletin board;
private schools have to pay advertising rates to do so.
If I were Mr. Quinn, I would be embarrassed to call this journalism.
Lisa
) From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:23:12 -0800
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: Portland Waldorf School
)
) From the Portland Oregonian,
) http://www.oregonlive.com/metrosouth/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/metro_south_new
) s/1074084988175220.xml
) (Milwaukie is a town in the state of Oregon, not to be confused with
) Milwaukee, Wisconsin.)
)
) -Dan
)
) ***
)
) Private school will greet public this week
)
) The Portland Waldorf School, thriving but still little-known in
) Milwaukie, offers an open house
)
) 01/14/04
) TOM QUINN
)
) MILWAUKIE -- More than two years after it won a contentious bidding
) war for the former Milwaukie Middle School, the Portland Waldorf
) School is becoming an established and thriving part of the community.
)
) Enrollment at the private school is at a high of almost 350 students,
) and plans are in the works to open a satellite
) pre-kindergarten/kindergarten on Southeast 23rd Avenue in Milwaukie.
)
) A first class of eight seniors graduated in June. Fourteen seniors
) are due to graduate this spring, with 19 students in the freshman
) class.
)
) Still, many parents of school-age children don't know what goes on
) behind the building's red brick walls, or that the Portland Waldorf
) School offers a high school education. For those parents, the school
) will hold an open house at 7 p.m. Thursday.
)
) The event includes classroom tours, talks with teachers and a
) presentation on the school's philosophy of experiential learning,
) which is based on the teachings of an Austrian educator and
) scientist, Rudolf Steiner.
)
) Maya Muir, the school's enrollment and outreach coordinator, said
) she's "getting more and more calls from public school parents who are
) interested (in Waldorf) because we have the things that public
) schools are cutting."
)
) Muir said first-graders at the school learn about music and the arts,
) and take instruction in two foreign languages as well as physical
) education. It's all part of an unhurried approach to education that
) encourages children to learn at their own pace.
)
) "We believe very strongly that imaginative play is key, and is in
) fact the foundation for later success," Muir said. "If they're doing
) worksheets in kindergarten, they are going to be turned off. The
) business of early childhood is play."
)
) The school has a faculty and staff of 63, and class sizes average 28
) students for first- through eighth-grades. Muir said that strikes
) some parents as high, but the students also have special teachers for
) lessons in areas such as the arts.
)
) Classroom teachers act as administrators at Waldorf, and teachers
) also make decisions about which students to accept into their
) classrooms. Muir said applying generally involves a student visiting
) campus to attend classes for three days.
)
) Tuition at the school runs from $5,500 for preschool to $7,400 for
) grades one through eight and $10,650 for high school. About 50
) percent of students receive tuition assistance, Muir said.
)
) "It's really a self-selection process," she said about applying to
) Waldorf. "If people understand what happens here, and they want that,
) then we're happy to have them.
)
) "It's amazing how clear it is to everyone after a visit."
)
) Tom Quinn: 503-294-5918; thomasquinn news.oregonian.com
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1228
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1228
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1228
By momof2gals mindspring.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:47:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1228
--0-2130775986-1074174466=:31193
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Lisa wrote:
"I would like to ask reporter Quinn why he considers the narrative below
an
*article.* It is clearly a press release and promotional; the only
thing the
reporter did was get a quote or two from the school's enrollment
person."
This is how the Viroqua and La Crosse (Wisconsin) print media write about the local Waldorf schools. Also, several years ago when Sharon, Amos, I and another couple wrote letters to the editor of the Broadcaster (the local paper) re: an article done on PRWS, the editor first sent our letters to the PRWS soliciting response letters from them before our letters were ever printed. I called the editor (who is a ridgie) about what he had done and he insisted that it was standard policy for newspapers that are published only once per week. However, of course, this policy was only honored when it came to letters re: PRWS. I reported him to the "ethics" person of Lee Enterprises (the corporation that owns the paper) and not surprisingly there was no meaningful response.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:20:44 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1228
) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3157010445_81796_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
If an editor has a child at a certain school, he needs to recuse himself
(and assign another editor who does not have personal involvement) when it
comes to stories or letters to the editor. In the journalism business we
call this "a conflict of interest" and those of us who care about doing our
jobs well not only avoid real conflicts of interest (like belonging to a
group and then writing about it, or writing about friends and family), but
also avoiding the *appearance* of conflict of interest. When newspapers or
radio and television stations allow this kind of pseudo and biased reporting
on any subject, they lose credibility with their readers/listeners/viewers,
and once you lose your audiences' trust, what do you have? Nothing, in my
opinion.
Sadly, it seems, a number of smaller newspapers seem unable or unwilling to
have their reporters put in the time and effort it would take to transform
an ordinary promotional press release that comes into their office
unsolicited (as I imagine the Portland Waldorf School open house release
came in, probably intended as a calendar item) into a real story. Perhaps in
this case, the reporter was told to write a story on the open house. (Hard
to imagine a town so slow and devoid of real news that a school open house
is news, but let's use our imaginations. We all know how much Waldorf
schools value imaginations! (g)) It those were the reporter's marching
orders, his first step would have been to find out if there is a real story
buried somewhere in the ad. That means he would probably have done an
internet search on "Waldorf education," which inevitably (if the reporter
was sharp) would have made him aware of PLANS and controversy surrounding
Waldorf schools elsewhere in the country and even the world. He could then
have proceeded to find out whether any such controversy exists in his town
over his school, etc. *That* would be news. (To be fair, a new school
opening after years of people trying to make that happen is also newsworthy,
as would be the reopening of a school that had closed, etc. But to make
something worth covering, it has to have something happening! A private
school holding an ordinary open house does not cut it.)
Sorry for the rant.
Lisa
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:47:46 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1228
Lisa wrote:
"I would like to ask reporter Quinn why he considers the narrative below
an
*article.* It is clearly a press release and promotional; the only
thing the
reporter did was get a quote or two from the school's enrollment
person."
This is how the Viroqua and La Crosse (Wisconsin) print media write about
the local Waldorf schools. Also, several years ago when Sharon, Amos, I and
another couple wrote letters to the editor of the Broadcaster (the local
paper) re: an article done on PRWS, the editor first sent our letters to the
PRWS soliciting response letters from them before our letters were ever
printed. I called the editor (who is a ridgie) about what he had done and
he insisted that it was standard policy for newspapers that are published
only once per week. However, of course, this policy was only honored when
it came to letters re: PRWS. I reported him to the "ethics" person of Lee
Enterprises (the corporation that owns the paper) and not surprisingly there
was no meaningful response.
Deborah
==^================================================================
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 1229
-- Topica Digest --
Benicia school board holds forum on possibilities of charter
school
By dan dandugan.com
Steiner quote
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:22:48 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Benicia school board holds forum on possibilities of charter
school
Vallejo Times-Herald Friday January 16, 2004
http://www.timesheraldonline.com/articles/2004/01/16/news/news04.txt
Benicia school board holds forum on possibilities of charter school
By MARYANN MASLAN, Times-Herald staff writer
BENICIA - The Benicia Unified School District board heard pros and
cons Thursday for what could become the district's first charter
school.
Members of the Carquinez Charter School Foundation addressed public
and district concerns about financial impact on the district,
curriculum content and first amendment violations.
Charter schools receive Average Daily Attendance (ADA) funding, as do
public schools, which could have a negative impact on the district's
state funding.
"The bottom line impact to our school district is (whether the
school) is taking ADA away from our schools," said Denise Driscoll,
finance chairperson for the charter school.
Services purchased from the district would balance the loss of ADA
and add revenue to the district's coffers.
The 33 Benicia students who would attend the school would cost the
district $151,800 in lost ADA, Driscoll said. With services purchased
from the district, the district would show a positive balance of
$8,320.
Based on the Waldorf method, the Benicia charter school foundation
will use a teaching model that integrates the arts into all subjects.
The first Waldorf school opened in 1919 by Austrian philosopher,
scientist and artist Rudolf Steiner based on "educating the whole
child - head, heart and hands."
Dan Dugan, secretary of the People for Legal Nonsectarian Schools,
presented documentation to the board supporting the organization's
objections to the Waldorf method taught in public schools.
Dugan said that Waldorf schools become religious schools, and as a
former parent of a Waldorf student, he questioned curriculum based on
the founding principals of Steiner.
Charter school member Katie Berryhill assured the board that the
school was "not based on any religion, (nor) will any dogma be
taught."
"This is a public school!" Berryhill said.
Copies of the Carquinez Charter school's charter have been reviewed
by the board since submitted to the district in December.
Board members Shirin Samiljan and Jamie Blomdal asked for more
detailed curriculum to be presented to the board.
Although it began as a private school, the Waldorf method has been
adopted by charter schools in California since 1992. More than 100
local families in the area have shown interest in enrolling children
in the school.
- E-mail Maryann Maslan at mmaslan thnewsnet.com or call 553-6832.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 00:06:32 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Steiner quote
Whilst reading from the Steiner elib, I came across an interesting Steiner
quote. There is no source for the quote and I am wondering if anyone here
knows where Steiner actually said this? While I *do* try to read Steiner
objectively, I find this particular quote disturbing, although it might
explain some of my problems in trying to converse with anthroposophists here
and elsewhere. I read it to mean, "check your critical thinking faculties
at the door before entering," though I suspect others will view this quote
in another light. Anyhooo... if anyone knows the source, please post it
here. Thanks.
-Walden
Archive Caveat
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Books/GA010/English/GA010_appendix.html ("read
me first" pop-up)
The online Rudolf Steiner Archive includes works of Rudolf Steiner and
related materials. This is a major, ongoing volunteer effort to acquire
materials and convert them to electronic form. Texts are presented as
published. Many are early translations from the original German or from
other languages. We have included as many versions as we have been able to
obtain, particularly the original language publications.
The Reader is encouraged to keep in mind the conventions of the time of the
writings and/or translations. Many terms have come to be used differently
now, and newer translations would phrase things differently. For example,
early translations refer to "Man," which at the time meant "All Mankind."
Newer translations use the term, "Human Being."
It is neither the intent nor the purpose of the Archive to alter the texts,
other than to correct typographic/scanning errors. Again, the Reader is
asked to remember when the texts were originally written, translated, and
published.
Rudolf Steiner has given the following prefatory words for all of his
writings:
No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work, who
has not acquired - through the School of Spiritual Science itself or in an
equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science - the
requisite preliminary knowledge. Other opinions will be disregarded: the
authors decline to take them as a basis for discussion.
When reading Steiner's works, be prepared to think. It is a first step to
understanding. It is a first step to opening oneself to myriad
possibilities. It is the first step in thinking, feeling, and willing.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1230
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Steiner quote
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Steiner quote
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Benicia school board holds forum on possibilities of charter
school
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Just left & confused about what happened
By rockus5 msn.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 01:23:30 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner quote
walden, you wrote:
)Whilst reading from the Steiner elib, I came across an interesting Steiner
)quote. There is no source for the quote and I am wondering if anyone here
)knows where Steiner actually said this? While I *do* try to read Steiner
)objectively, I find this particular quote disturbing, although it might
)explain some of my problems in trying to converse with anthroposophists here
)and elsewhere. I read it to mean, "check your critical thinking faculties
)at the door before entering," though I suspect others will view this quote
)in another light. Anyhooo... if anyone knows the source, please post it
)here. Thanks.
snip
)Rudolf Steiner has given the following prefatory words for all of his
)writings:
)
)No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work, who
)has not acquired - through the School of Spiritual Science itself or in an
)equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science - the
)requisite preliminary knowledge. Other opinions will be disregarded: the
)authors decline to take them as a basis for discussion.
Yes, that's the official language that I've seen in several books.
)When reading Steiner's works, be prepared to think. It is a first step to
)understanding. It is a first step to opening oneself to myriad
)possibilities. It is the first step in thinking, feeling, and willing.
Those lines are the anonymous elib editor's conclusion to his or her
instructions to the reader. I found the pop-up on elib's pages--the
quote is indented there, which makes it clear.
I found another version of it on file:
Privately printed for the members of the College of Spiritual Science
at the Goetheanum. No one is considered competent to pass judgment
upon these writings who has not acquired the prerequisite knowledge
demanded by this school, either through the school itself or in a
manner approved by it. Opinions expressed by other persons will be
disregarded; the authors of the writings in question will engage in
no discussion of them. [Steiner, Rudolf. "Cosmic Ego & Human Ego"
Lecture in Munich, January 9, 1912, GA 130]
The different versions tip us the original is probably in German. It
may not be possible to pin it down to an original source; maybe at
some point the editors started using it on all publications.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:34:22 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner quote
Hi Walden, hi Dan,
)Rudolf Steiner has given the following prefatory words for all of his
)writings:
)
)No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work, who
)has not acquired - through the School of Spiritual Science itself or in an
)equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science - the
)requisite preliminary knowledge. Other opinions will be disregarded: the
)authors decline to take them as a basis for discussion.
I have seen the same passage in German in some volumes from the
Gesamtausgabe, the official edition of Steiner's complete works, but I don't
have a copy of GA 130 at hand so I can't check the citation that Dan
provided. The "all of his writings" part is obviously wide of the mark, but
this does represent the attitude that many anthroposophists bring to
Steiner's theosophical and anthroposophical texts. There is a similar
passage in chapter 35 of Steiner's autobiography, about the proper and
improper way to approach the lecture transcripts; this passage is also often
reprinted in Gesamtausgabe editions. I agree with Walden that provisos like
this reflect the standard anthroposophist suspicion toward critical
thinking, but I think the main function these caveats serve is to ward off
non-esoteric interpretations of the texts by declaring them a priori
inadmissible. This helps to explain why so many anthroposophists think that
non-anthroposophists have taken Steiner's teachings "out of context"; what
they mean is that non-anthroposophists have failed to read these teachings
in the proper anthroposophical light. Even relatively sophisticated
anthroposophists fall into this trap fairly frequently; it is a common
feature of esoteric movements. One more built-in barrier to meaningful
public discussion.
Subarctic greetings to all,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Check out the new MSN 9 Dial-up — fast & reliable Internet access with prime
features! http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=dialup/home&ST=1
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 15:31:16 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Benicia school board holds forum on possibilities of charter
school
Uh!
) From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:22:48 -0800
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: Benicia school board holds forum on possibilities of charter school
)
) Vallejo Times-Herald Friday January 16, 2004
)
) http://www.timesheraldonline.com/articles/2004/01/16/news/news04.txt
)
) Benicia school board holds forum on possibilities of charter school
) By MARYANN MASLAN, Times-Herald staff writer
)
) BENICIA - The Benicia Unified School District board heard pros and
) cons Thursday for what could become the district's first charter
) school.
)
) Members of the Carquinez Charter School Foundation addressed public
) and district concerns about financial impact on the district,
) curriculum content and first amendment violations.
)
) Charter schools receive Average Daily Attendance (ADA) funding, as do
) public schools, which could have a negative impact on the district's
) state funding.
) "The bottom line impact to our school district is (whether the
) school) is taking ADA away from our schools," said Denise Driscoll,
) finance chairperson for the charter school.
)
) Services purchased from the district would balance the loss of ADA
) and add revenue to the district's coffers.
)
) The 33 Benicia students who would attend the school would cost the
) district $151,800 in lost ADA, Driscoll said. With services purchased
) from the district, the district would show a positive balance of
) $8,320.
)
) Based on the Waldorf method, the Benicia charter school foundation
) will use a teaching model that integrates the arts into all subjects.
) The first Waldorf school opened in 1919 by Austrian philosopher,
) scientist and artist Rudolf Steiner based on "educating the whole
) child - head, heart and hands."
)
) Dan Dugan, secretary of the People for Legal Nonsectarian Schools,
) presented documentation to the board supporting the organization's
) objections to the Waldorf method taught in public schools.
)
) Dugan said that Waldorf schools become religious schools, and as a
) former parent of a Waldorf student, he questioned curriculum based on
) the founding principals of Steiner.
)
) Charter school member Katie Berryhill assured the board that the
) school was "not based on any religion, (nor) will any dogma be
) taught."
) "This is a public school!" Berryhill said.
)
) Copies of the Carquinez Charter school's charter have been reviewed
) by the board since submitted to the district in December.
)
) Board members Shirin Samiljan and Jamie Blomdal asked for more
) detailed curriculum to be presented to the board.
)
) Although it began as a private school, the Waldorf method has been
) adopted by charter schools in California since 1992. More than 100
) local families in the area have shown interest in enrolling children
) in the school.
)
) - E-mail Maryann Maslan at mmaslan thnewsnet.com or call 553-6832.
)
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 09:27:10 +0000
From: An cazares (rockus5 msn.com)
Subject: Just left & confused about what happened
Hello,
This is a discussion group I thought I would never join! Five years
after discovering Waldorf education, participating in a Waldorf Teacher
Training Program & and sending all of my young children to Waldorf or
Waldorf inspired schools - I decided to cut my losses and run. I
believe that my 5 year old's last Waldorf teacher is a kind,
well-meaning, gifted person - with absolutely no skill in dealing with
the social development of children and adheres strictly to a philosophy
that very strongly discourages assisting children in the social 'realm'.
My son complained of headaches, stomache aches, began wetting the bed,
knashing his teeth in his sleep & became increasingly violently
aggressive in his heart breakingly beautiful kindergarten setting. All
of these symptoms almost completely vanished during vacation breaks.
The teacher told me that my son had and would probably always have
difficulty in the social realm & that we needed to just let him work
though it. Days later, it came into the open that a group of children
had been engaging in very disturbing 'play' unbeknownst to the teachers.
I pulled my son out immediately & he has been in public school for the
past 2 1/2 months.... and his teacher has said that he is performing at
the top of his class (social skills are a large part of kindergarten
'performance'). At home, he truly has blossomed into the wonderful kid
I always knew he was (i.e. he stopped hacking at everything & everyone
with sticks & wooden swords). He has been tested since leaving the
Waldorf World and has been idnetified a 'gifted' learner. At his
Waldorf school I was told to hide all his science books and to
discourage his asking questions to avoid 'waking him up'.
We will never go back (to that school at leat) and yet we so miss the
beauty, the rhythm of the day, the richness of the festival life... I
guess I just want my Waldorf expereince minus the hypocracy, the
ignorance born of isolationism and the insanity of blindly clinging to
every one of Steiner's indications for education.
I guess I was just looking for a forum in which to share. Thanks for
that.
A.C.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1231
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Just left & confused about what happened
By SHARMAINEBARONE aol.com
Re: Just left & confused about what happened
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: Just left & confused about what happened
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Just left & confused about what happened
By dan dandugan.com
Re: What is Waldorf? (wasRE: Laurel High School)
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:06:24 EST
From: SHARMAINEBARONE aol.com
Subject: Re: Just left & confused about what happened
--part1_1e0.17a01ce5.2d3c1710_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thank you for your letter. I am in the process of leaving a Waldorf School.
I have a 5th grader and a Kindergartener. My 5th grader has a wonderful
teacher. She taught in public and private prep schools before becoming a Waldorf
teacher. So, my son has received a wonderful education while with her for the
past year and a half. Unfortunately, the new Board of Trustees at our school
is chaired by an anthroposophist that has destroyed this teachers career and
character because her anthroposophical interpretations differ from this
"person in power"'s interpretation. My kindergartener's teacher is constantly
communing with her angels and not in touch with the reality of her students and
what they are doing in her classroom. My son complains constantly about a child
that pushes, hits, etc with no reprimand from the teacher. Needless to say my
son is home with me more than at school. I too feel confused. We
unfortunately have to move. Our current towns public school is a bit rough. Best of
luck to you and thanks for sharing. It's comforting to know I'm not alone in
this madness.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:09:15 -0500
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Just left & confused about what happened
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_07EB_01C3DDD5.0A0247C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sharmaine Barone wrote: It's comforting to know I'm not alone in this madness.
Nicole: Neither you nor the writer of the post you responded to are 'alone in this madness' as you so aptly put it. There are many stories like yours from all over the world. In my experience, Waldorf schools just don't operate by the same rules as other schools. Issues that would be raised, discussed and dealt with in the normal way in other educational environments instead become huge obstacles in a Waldorf context as the 'insiders' circle their wagons round to repel perceived attacks from the 'outsiders' (parents who may have mentioned a legitimate concern for instance, or a teacher with experience in public and prep schools before becoming a Waldorf teacher). It has a lot to do with power as you say, and the refusal of that power to be even minimally accountable.
Some one with state teaching qualifications and previous experience teaching in a non-anthroposophical institution will naturally have ideas about what works in the classroom and what doesn't arising from that experience. These ideas will have nothing to do with Rudolph Steiner, and that is a problem for anthroposophical fundamentalists. For them, Steiner said everything there was to say of value pertaining to education, and nothing that has been learned or written since his death (especially by non-anthroposophists) has any further contribution to make. I have sat through faculty meetings where Steiner readings discussing the nervous system were being done (in the usual mode of reverence) which contained elementary errors from a medial perspective. As a non-anthroposophist new to teaching there, I tried discuss the material and explain how knowledge in that area had advanced (based on my previous experience as a graduate student in the neuro-anatomy department of the local medical school). What I got was a patronizing expression and an admonishment that the scientific perspective was so blinkered and limited that it was unable to perceive the truth of Steiner's words (my paraphrase of what was said), derived as they were by clairvoyant research into the Akasha Chronicle of which only Steiner (conveniently) was capable. We were later told by a visiting anthroposophist that there were many important souls waiting to reincarnate in this century, but they would be unable to do so if there weren't enough Waldorf schools to do the necessary soul work in preparation. To say that I was unimpressed with the way things were run would be a huge understatement.
My older daughter also had a wonderful teacher from a non-anthroposophist background, and I was initially loath to remove her from the school as she has a disability (hearing impairment) that takes time for a teacher to understand and to compensate for. I didn't want her to have to go through that learning curve every year with a succession of teachers in public school. What finally precipitated my family's departure, and made me realize that the price I was paying for the benefits we were getting was far too high, was a failure of governance at the school. Many parents had expressed concerns relating to one particular teacher, but those concerns were disregarded and parents were accused of slander for having shared their experiences and those of their children with each other and with the college of teachers.
There was a meeting at the end of the year where the assembled parents (more than half the parent body) were told that this teacher would no longer be undertaking certain duties as many parent incident reports had been investigated and substantiated. At the beginning of the next year, this teacher was right back doing the things we had been promised he would not be doing. Conveniently, the faculty had no meeting notes and denied ever having made those promises (despite the notes others had taken at the time and the memories of many people). When they were called on it by irate parents feeling very let down they said that they'd reconsidered the matter over the summer and decided our concerns were unfounded after all. They had unilaterally repudiated the promises they had made and felt no need to inform the parents of this fact. The siege mentality was a completely ridiculous response to a group of dedicated parents raising legitimate concerns, but then the teacher in question explicitly refers to parents as 'the enemy'. Waldorf was not the place for us. My children now attend a conventional private school where there is no hidden agenda, no occult religion, no siege mentality and plenty of accountability. Rest assured you are not 'alone in this madness'.
Try reading this about the experiences of one educator who praises Waldorf methods, but has suffered more than most at the hands of Steiner's followers:
http://members.aol.com/WaldorfEdu/experiences.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:46:44 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Just left & confused about what happened
An Cazares, you wrote,
)This is a discussion group I thought I would never join! Five years
)after discovering Waldorf education, participating in a Waldorf Teacher
)Training Program & and sending all of my young children to Waldorf or
)Waldorf inspired schools - I decided to cut my losses and run. I
)believe that my 5 year old's last Waldorf teacher is a kind,
)well-meaning, gifted person - with absolutely no skill in dealing with
)the social development of children and adheres strictly to a philosophy
)that very strongly discourages assisting children in the social 'realm'.
It's tragic. The Waldorf system takes beautiful, idealistic people
and mis-educates them to be bad caregivers and teachers. Many manage
to do good in spite of the system, but it's an uphill battle.
)My son complained of headaches, stomache aches, began wetting the bed,
)knashing his teeth in his sleep & became increasingly violently
)aggressive in his heart breakingly beautiful kindergarten setting. All
)of these symptoms almost completely vanished during vacation breaks.
)The teacher told me that my son had and would probably always have
)difficulty in the social realm & that we needed to just let him work
)though it.
We thought school was supposed to socialize children...
)Days later, it came into the open that a group of children
)had been engaging in very disturbing 'play' unbeknownst to the teachers.
)
)I pulled my son out immediately & he has been in public school for the
)past 2 1/2 months.... and his teacher has said that he is performing at
)the top of his class (social skills are a large part of kindergarten
)'performance'). At home, he truly has blossomed into the wonderful kid
)I always knew he was (i.e. he stopped hacking at everything & everyone
)with sticks & wooden swords). He has been tested since leaving the
)Waldorf World and has been idnetified a 'gifted' learner. At his
)Waldorf school I was told to hide all his science books and to
)discourage his asking questions to avoid 'waking him up'.
We thought school was supposed to develop our kids' intellectual life...
) We will never go back (to that school at leat)
The Waldorf experience depends most on the individual teacher, and
then on the culture of the particular school. Unfortunately,
experiences like yours are common.
)and yet we so miss the
)beauty, the rhythm of the day, the richness of the festival life... I
)guess I just want my Waldorf expereince minus the hypocracy, the
)ignorance born of isolationism and the insanity of blindly clinging to
)every one of Steiner's indications for education.
This desire motivates parents to found "Waldorf Method" charter
schools, thinking that the supervision of a public school system will
curb the flakiness. Unfortunately, there's little supervision of
charters, and too often the Waldorf teachers take over and have their
way in everything at the taxpayer's expense.
)I guess I was just looking for a forum in which to share. Thanks for
)that.
You're welcome, thanks for speaking up.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:55:49 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Just left & confused about what happened
Sharmaine, you wrote,
)Thank you for your letter. I am in the process of leaving a Waldorf
)School. I have a 5th grader and a Kindergartener. My 5th grader
)has a wonderful teacher. She taught in public and private prep
)schools before becoming a Waldorf teacher. So, my son has received
)a wonderful education while with her for the past year and a half.
) Unfortunately, the new Board of Trustees at our school is chaired
)by an anthroposophist that has destroyed this teachers career and
)character because her anthroposophical interpretations differ from
)this "person in power"'s interpretation.
What have they done to her? My son had a good teacher, too, but after
a while I just couldn't stand the weird stuff that was inherent in
the system and impacted his education despite her talent.
)My kindergartener's teacher is constantly communing with her angels
)and not in touch with the reality of her students and what they are
)doing in her classroom. My son complains constantly about a child
)that pushes, hits, etc with no reprimand from the teacher.
It's sad that Waldorf teacher training continues to promote this
hands-off handling of young children's behavior. It's when they need
adult attention most!
) Needless to say my son is home with me more than at school. I too
)feel confused. We unfortunately have to move. Our current towns
)public school is a bit rough. Best of luck to you and thanks for
)sharing. It's comforting to know I'm not alone in this madness.
Thanks to you, Sharmaine, too.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 12:20:55 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: What is Waldorf? (wasRE: Laurel High School)
WALDEN:
) ) ) All in all LHS is just like any other Waldorf school I've read and heard
) ) about, i.e. the purpose is not education, but initiation.
)
)PERCEDOL:
)Waldorf is not about initiation. It could not be. You have to be
)twenty-one years old to be able to follow the initiation discipline in
)the path of the anthroposophically oriented spiritual science .
)Before you are twenty-one the individuality is not yet ready for the
)dicipline. Therefore, Waldorf is not about initiation.
OK, let's correct the detail: Waldorf education is the best
-preparation- for initiation. Would you agree with that?
) ) Yes, and some people might say the difference between education and
)) initiation is not important.
)
)P:
)I think you might say that the difference of W education compared to
)other schools is about giving an education that does not destroy the
)potential ability to perceive the spiritual directly. So it's not about
)teaching 'occultism', but about not spoiling the potentials.
You're saying that only Waldorf schools give children the right
environment for their spiritual development. But Catholics, for
example, will certainly dispute that, their schools pay a lot of
attention to spiritual matters. Your argument implies that Waldorf is
a sectarian education, that it inculcates -the one and only correct-
spiritual attitude, according to your religious sect, Anthroposophy.
)I wonder if behind these attacks against W schools there is not an
)attempt to prevent human beings from perceiving the spiritual.
This sounds like a paranoid attitude; saying criticism is attacking.
)This
)attack would be in the interest of many groups that don't want man to
)become free.
More paranoia, they're all out to get you!
)They want to avoid to mankind the direct experience of the
)spiritual, because they want people to be believers: in a doctrine
)(materialist, marxist, etc), or in a religion (which requires acts of
)faith, instead of direct experience).
A silly position, Percedol. It's obvious to everyone that
Anthroposophy is full of doctrine, and that a huge amount of faith is
required to believe in it. You don't claim to have "direct
experience" of Atlantis, do you? When was your last visit?
WALDEN:
) Is Waldorf a religious
)) exercise? Absolutely. Is anthroposophy in the classroom. Absolutely.
) ) Time to call it like it is and end the denial. IMO.
)
)P:
)It would be surprising if the powers of darkness would leave something
)like W education free from attacks, since through W education children
)avoid to be exposed to a schooling system that damages or prevents the
)ability to perceive the spiritual.
Another statement that appears to be paranoid. People who criticize
Waldorf are working for "the powers of darkness." Sounds like a
fundamentalist sect to me.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1232
-- Topica Digest --
Progress
By harlangilbert optonline.net
Re: Just left & confused about what happened
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Steiner Education quote of the day
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Steiner Education and psychology
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
What Waldorf *IS*
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:48:30 -0500
From: Harlan Gilbert (harlangilbert optonline.net)
Subject: Progress
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_bYs3b8MWKHnWK/ySt6OR3Q)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
NNA-N E W S
Alternative Nobel Price for anthroposophical activists
Sekem-Initiative honoured for "economics of love" and Nicanor Perlas and
Walden Bello for working to achieve a more just world economic order
Stockholm, 15 December (NNA) - The Right Livelihood Award (RLA) - better
known as the Alternative Nobel Prize - was awarded to four individuals
and organisations at a ceremony in the Swedish parliament last week,
three of whom belong to the global anthroposophical movement.
The awards went to the Egyptian Sekem initiative, the life's work of Dr.
Ibrahim Abouleish, as well as to the founder of the Centre for
Alternative Development Initiatives (CADI), Nicanor Perlas, together
with his colleague Prof. Walden Bello, both civil society activists in
the Philippines.
A further prize winner is The Citizens' Coaltion for Economic Justice
(CCEJ) from South Korea, which has worked successfully since 1989 to
make Korean economic development more just, inclusive and democratic.
The prize comprises 2m Swedish kroner (£156,000, $260,000). It is
presented each year ahead of the Nobel Prize awards and in contrast to
them for outstanding work in meeting the human challenges of today's
world.
In his address at the award ceremony in the overflowing chamber of the
Swedish parliament, Jakob von Uexkuell, chairman of the RLA Foundation
who established the prize, emphasised the contribution made by Perlas
and Bello to the creation of a more just world order which benefited all
people. Through their work to develop the theoretical and practical
basis for peace and human rights they had contributed to finding a
"creative answer" to the challenges of globalisation. "The challenges we
face demand a deeper, ethical and spiritual response: we are facing a
systems, not just a management crisis," von Uexkuell quoted Nicanor
Perlas. In theory and practice Perlas had created important foundations
for an active citizens' culture which was of special importance today.
The Sekem initiative in Egypt was praised for establishing a blueprint
"for the healthy corporation of the twenty-first century" in which
economic success went hand in hand with social and cultural development.
Its founders had recognised that the first question to justify any
undertaking should not be "will it make a profit?" but "will it serve my
community?" von Uexkuell said. Sekem, an internationally renowned market
leader for ecological products combined economic success with projects
in the field of education and health. A statement of the Right
Livelihood Award Foundation described the initiative as an example of
the "economics of love".
(Christian von Arnim)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:27:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Just left & confused about what happened
--0-1035980903-1074536851=:4615
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
"This desire motivates parents to found "Waldorf Method" charter
schools, thinking that the supervision of a public school system will
curb the flakiness. Unfortunately, there's little supervision of
charters, and too often the Waldorf teachers take over and have their
way in everything at the taxpayer's expense."
That is what has happened at the Laurel High School in Viroqua. It was meant from the beginning - I later learned - to be a covert Waldorf school. Not all of the students were Waldorf graduates; a few homeschoolers were enrolled I believe to throw off community suspicions. The public school authorities were ready to charter and openly Waldorf school - it's all about the money - but Sharon L. called the superintendent and informed him that the district would be subject to a lawsuit if that happened.
There is no accountability re: Laurel. When I asked direct questions re: what was going on there the reaction was immediate. Although the Laurel teacher is not trained in Waldorf, she was exceedingly cozy with the local PRWS parents and I later learned was indeed attempting to bring in Waldorf curriculum into Laurel. The last Laurel newsletter I have is the most blatant in terms of the insertion of the Waldorf curriculum and people. Several PRWS teachers and/or parents had been invited to do classes there without any such proposal going through the Advisory Committee of which my daughter and I were members. I informed the teacher and administrators (the public school administrators were also admins. of Laurel) that my daughter was not to be exposed to anything having to do with a religious, including new age, nature. In reaction to that the teacher had the director of the Youth Initiative High School (a Waldorf-inspired institution) come in to talk about Life Force Counseling.
The battle with Laurel began within the first week of my daughter's attendance there. Eventually, the teacher told my daughter that I was not to come to anymore meetings. That she had no power to decide who attended meetings apparently didn't occur to her and my daughter pointed that out. Needless to say, not only I but my daughter became the targets of intense retaliation by this teacher and the public school, which continues to see $$$ in Laurel. I provided a large amount of material to the Laurel teacher and the high school principal (who actually asked for such material) re: anthroposophy, Waldorf "Education" and PRWS in particular. The last month my daughter was in Laurel the teacher communicated to her that she considered my daughter to be a failure, worthless and incapable of amounting to anything of worth. The day we went to pick up my daughter's personal belongings at Laurel (some of which was in the garbage) - the teacher was supposed to be there, but wasn't - we
arrived home to two messages on our answering machine from the teacher. I have never heard an adult speak to a child as she did. She told my daughter that she was going to erase everything of hers from the Laurel hard drive and that she was not allowed anywhere near Laurel again. I contacted members of the school board and the principal letting them know that if my daughter's intellectual property was destroyed, that we would sue them. I also played into several school answering machines the answering machine messages.
My daughter's propert was eventually returned and after 1 1/2 years we finally received a copy of her transcripts, albeit incorrect. (The Laurel teacher kept no track of what the students were doing and therefore had no transcripts to provide.)
Many Laurel students were habitually truant and seen about town - this is a very small town - during the school day. Several Laurel students were gone on "vacation" weeks at a time. The teacher provided little if any instruction, but rather sat on one of the couches the majority of the day reading. Whenever my daughter asked for assistance the teacher told her that she (the teacher) was there only to guide the students who were otherwise "in charge" of their own educations. The charter contract states that each student was to have an "Individual Student Plan." I never saw one of those and when I asked repeatedly about it, I was told that it was in a file somewhere. Odd, since according to the contract the student, teacher and sponsor/parent were the people responsible for designing the ISP.
The lies upon lies are so numerous that I wouldn't take up space here to share them. My point in writing this is to illustrate the sneakiness and relentless pursuit - at the expense of a child - that I find endemic to those involved in anthroposophy, including those who don't even know what they are involved in. My daughter was the only student of color in Laurel and that, in addition to our confrontation with the teacher and administrators, is why she was so despised and retaliated against. I remember one day my daughter momentarily "flipped out" on another Laurel student (a Waldorf graduate) screaming, "You people believe that I should be dead anyway!"
It was a horrible 2 years at Laurel and my daughter bore the brunt of the abuse. The teacher did something far worse than what I have so far shared and I have been encouraged by two social workers to attempt to file criminal charges against her for not reporting a crime against a student, which she is mandated by law to do. I have another year within which to do that before the statute of limitations runs. What I have seen of anthroposophists makes it clear to the me that they are without souls or decency - for all their talk about souls and spirituality - who will stop at nothing to accomplish their goals. What I find particularly troubling is those people who aren't even directly involved with Waldorf "Education" so readily defend anthroposophists even when they do understand what they are about.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:17:03 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Steiner Education quote of the day
"In the future all teaching must be founded on a real psychology - a
psychology which has been gained through an anthroposophical knowledge of
the world."
Rudolf Steiner, The Study of Man, LECTURE II
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:10:51 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Steiner Education and psychology
"Now how can we gain an understanding of the growth forces from the point of
view of the soul? For this we must turn to a better kind of psychology than
that current to-day. This better psychology tells us that all that
accelerates the growing forces of the human being, or makes him shoot up too
rapidly, is related to a certain aspect of memory formation. Now, if we
over-stimulate the memory, we cause the human being, within certain limits,
to grow tall and thin. And if we over-stimulate his imagination and fantasy
we retard his growth. Memory and imaginative fantasy have a certain secret
relation to the forces of life development in man. And we must acquire the
power of perceiving such a relation. For example the teacher should be able
to do as follows: At the beginning of the school year he must pass his
pupils through his mind in a comprehensive review; this is particularly
important for those turning points of the ninth and twelfth year which I
have described to you. (see Practical Course for Teachers) He must, then,
hold a review, so to speak, of the bodily development of his children, and
he must notice what they look like. And then at the end of the school year,
or of some definite period, he must pass them once more in review and see
what changes have taken place. And the result of these two reviews must be
that he knows if some child or other has not grown as much as he should
during that time; or perhaps another has shot up too much. Then the teacher
must ask himself: How can I get the right balance between imagination and
memory in the next school year, or period, so that I can counteract this
irregularity?"
Rudolf Steiner, The Study of Man, LECTURE X
(read by Waldorf teachers in training)
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:54:54 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: What Waldorf *IS*
So, I was chatting with a fellow ex-Waldorf parent the other day and we were
reminiscing about various things we both enjoyed during our time associated
with Waldorf education - mainly the connection with other wonderful families
(most of whom have left the school) and this particular parent sighed and
commented on how she "misses the pedagogy."
Well, there was a long silence followed by my question: "Just what is it
you miss about the pedagogy?" She smiled and said that it was actually that
she felt her son was missing out on the pedagogy and she felt that was a
shame. More silence. I had to ask what it was about the pedagogy she felt
her son was missing? She immediately listed things like: no computers in
the early grades, no idolatry of Disney characters in the school, no junk
food machines.... I interrupted to ask again what it was in the pedagogy
she felt her son was missing - as opposed to those things she mentioned that
Waldorf did *not* have. I asked exactly: What do you believe Waldorf
*IS* - not what do believe Waldorf *IS NOT?*
Deafening Silence.
I am not suggesting that Waldorf does not stand for anything - that the
pedagogy is an empty cavern. Au contraire.
While I would be the first to agree with many aspects of what Waldorf is
*not* - I find it a shame that more people are unaware of what Waldorf
really... *is.* Should prospective Waldorf parents need to dig through
books like "The Study of Man," "Theosophy," or "The Education of the Child
in the Light of Anthroposophy" in order to understand what Waldorf *is*?
Would it not make more sense (and create less pain, problems and
antagonistic behaviour between Anthroposophists and Waldorf critics) for
Waldorf promoters to help non-Anthroposophists understand that which they
believe is the impulse of Waldorf Education? For example, a simple first
step would be to inform people that Rudolf Steiner was an occultist. Why do
we never seen this fact mentioned at Waldorf school web sites (where he was
an "educator, thinker, artist," etc.) when it is clearly stated as *fact* at
Anthroposophy web sites? Curious. Just thought I'd share this anecdote and
musings from here at Walden Pond.
-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 1233
-- Topica Digest --
Re: What Waldorf *IS*
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: What Waldorf *IS*
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 07:51:04 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: What Waldorf *IS*
Thanks for the Walden Ponderings.
) From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:54:54 -0800
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: What Waldorf *IS*
)
) So, I was chatting with a fellow ex-Waldorf parent the other day and we were
) reminiscing about various things we both enjoyed during our time associated
) with Waldorf education - mainly the connection with other wonderful families
) (most of whom have left the school) and this particular parent sighed and
) commented on how she "misses the pedagogy."
)
) Well, there was a long silence followed by my question: "Just what is it
) you miss about the pedagogy?" She smiled and said that it was actually that
) she felt her son was missing out on the pedagogy and she felt that was a
) shame. More silence. I had to ask what it was about the pedagogy she felt
) her son was missing? She immediately listed things like: no computers in
) the early grades, no idolatry of Disney characters in the school, no junk
) food machines.... I interrupted to ask again what it was in the pedagogy
) she felt her son was missing - as opposed to those things she mentioned that
) Waldorf did *not* have. I asked exactly: What do you believe Waldorf
) *IS* - not what do believe Waldorf *IS NOT?*
)
) Deafening Silence.
)
) I am not suggesting that Waldorf does not stand for anything - that the
) pedagogy is an empty cavern. Au contraire.
)
) While I would be the first to agree with many aspects of what Waldorf is
) *not* - I find it a shame that more people are unaware of what Waldorf
) really... *is.* Should prospective Waldorf parents need to dig through
) books like "The Study of Man," "Theosophy," or "The Education of the Child
) in the Light of Anthroposophy" in order to understand what Waldorf *is*?
) Would it not make more sense (and create less pain, problems and
) antagonistic behaviour between Anthroposophists and Waldorf critics) for
) Waldorf promoters to help non-Anthroposophists understand that which they
) believe is the impulse of Waldorf Education? For example, a simple first
) step would be to inform people that Rudolf Steiner was an occultist. Why do
) we never seen this fact mentioned at Waldorf school web sites (where he was
) an "educator, thinker, artist," etc.) when it is clearly stated as *fact* at
) Anthroposophy web sites? Curious. Just thought I'd share this anecdote and
) musings from here at Walden Pond.
)
) -Walden
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:30:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: What Waldorf *IS*
--0-1412588595-1074637831=:91086
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Focusing on what something "is NOT" is exceedingly powerful.
The power of "nothing" vs "something".
Ex. We are something and all the space around us is nothing.
The of the nothing is that to be this something...we need the nothing all around it for the very something to exist. We only KNOW the something BY contrast to the nothing.
So , in this way "Waldorf" can be defined very succinctly by discussing all the no-things that it is.
Peace
Mark
"Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com) wrote:
Thanks for the Walden Ponderings.
) From: walden
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 23:54:54 -0800
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: What Waldorf *IS*
)
) So, I was chatting with a fellow ex-Waldorf parent the other day and we were
) reminiscing about various things we both enjoyed during our time associated
) with Waldorf education - mainly the connection with other wonderful families
) (most of whom have left the school) and this particular parent sighed and
) commented on how she "misses the pedagogy."
)
) Well, there was a long silence followed by my question: "Just what is it
) you miss about the pedagogy?" She smiled and said that it was actually that
) she felt her son was missing out on the pedagogy and she felt that was a
) shame. More silence. I had to ask what it was about the pedagogy she felt
) her son was missing? She immediately listed things like: no computers in
) the early grades, no idolatry of Disney characters in the school, no junk
) food machines.... I interrupted to ask again what it was in the pedagogy
) she felt her son was missing - as opposed to those things she mentioned that
) Waldorf did *not* have. I asked exactly: What do you believe Waldorf
) *IS* - not what do believe Waldorf *IS NOT?*
)
) Deafening Silence.
)
) I am not suggesting that Waldorf does not stand for anything - that the
) pedagogy is an empty cavern. Au contraire.
)
) While I would be the first to agree with many aspects of what Waldorf is
) *not* - I find it a shame that more people are unaware of what Waldorf
) really... *is.* Should prospective Waldorf parents need to dig through
) books like "The Study of Man," "Theosophy," or "The Education of the Child
) in the Light of Anthroposophy" in order to understand what Waldorf *is*?
) Would it not make more sense (and create less pain, problems and
) antagonistic behaviour between Anthroposophists and Waldorf critics) for
) Waldorf promoters to help non-Anthroposophists understand that which they
) believe is the impulse of Waldorf Education? For example, a simple first
) step would be to inform people that Rudolf Steiner was an occultist. Why do
) we never seen this fact mentioned at Waldorf school web sites (where he was
) an "educator, thinker, artist," etc.) when it is clearly stated as *fact* at
) Anthroposophy web sites? Curious. Just thought I'd share this anecdote and
) musings from here at Walden Pond.
)
) -Walden
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
)
)
)
)
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1234
-- Topica Digest --
[NNA] Obituary: Lawrence Edwards
By dan dandugan.com
trying to talk with anthroposophists
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: What Waldorf *IS*
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: What Waldorf *IS*
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Wanting my perfect Waldorf School
By rockus5 msn.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 11:33:48 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: [NNA] Obituary: Lawrence Edwards
Copyright 2004 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-O B I T U A R Y
Lawrence Edwards
The mathematician Lawrence Edwards died on 3 January 2004. Nick
Thomas gives an appreciation of his life and work.
London, 22 January (NNA) - Lawrence Edwards died on 3 January 2004
after a very full working life. He was born in 1912, was an inspired
teacher and mathematician, and was also decorated with the Military
Cross for bravery in the 1939-45 war. He was a member of the
Anthroposophical Society and both taught and did research on the
basis of the insights received from Rudolf Steiner. He was married to
Barbara and had five sons.
Lawrence Edwards was widely known in scientific circles within the
Anthroposophical Society for his work in applying projective geometry
to botany and physiology. He was also known in wider circles, but the
timidity of materialism prevented his work from receiving the
recognition it deserved. He was gifted at mathematics which he taught
at the Edinburgh Rudolf Steiner School for many years, and this gift
led him to study projective geometry with George Adams.
Every year he would spend a whole week with Adams, and learned about
some remarkable curves discovered by Felix Klein in the nineteenth
century which are now called path curves. Adams was researching them
and had lifted them out of their academic limbo into the "grubby"
practical world, having found that some of them closely resemble eggs
and vortices. This is true not only in outline but also for the
spiralling forms we see for example on pine cones.
Lawrence told us that for many years he taught this to the children,
until one day a question took root in his soul: are the forms in
nature actually path curves, or do they merely resemble them? He
found he could no longer teach this without further investigation!
Such a question is beset with philosophical overtones of course, but
we might also phrase it thus: are there processes in nature which
inevitably give rise to path curves per se, as a parabola is
essentially related to the path of a thrown stone, or is their
appearance merely fortuitous?
It was in this spirit that he set to work scientifically in the hope
of answering this question. His approach was based firmly on the
search for process rather than mere form-fitting, a fact which should
be borne in mind by pedants who are inclined to dismiss his work or
point to "better" methods of analysis. George Adams had laid a firm
mathematical foundation for Rudolf Steiner's discovery of negative
space, and the processes we have in mind here weave between the two
spaces.
Apparently the house was transformed into a laboratory, with egg
profiles being projected onto walls and measured! The initial
findings were so promising that better methods were devised, both for
measuring and for mathematical analysis. He developed a method for
determining the deviation of an egg form from the ideal, and
photographic methods for studying tiny plant buds (which are also
egg-shaped). The analysis was based on the path-curve process for
reasons already stated, which proved to be more sensitive than
conventional methods of error analysis. Do all rose buds, for
example, have the same type of path curve? That type is characterised
by a number which is named 'lambda' after the Greek letter used to
symbolise it.
He studied many species but found that lambda varied within each, so
although the ranges of variation were characteristic, it was not
possible to relate species directly to lambda values. But, variation
or no, they fitted the ideal mathematical forms in general very well.
He also found that the profiles of the uterus during pregnancy and
the left ventricle of the heart are path curves, the latter indeed a
varying one! Together with collaborators he showed that water
vortices have a path curve profile.
In the early 1980's he was occupied with the question: does the
closeness of a form to the ideal relate to the strength of the life
forces at work in it? For this he measured the sap content, and used
leaf buds on trees through the winter as they are dormant until
spring, and thus should provide a stable basis for comparison. To his
surprise they proved to be less dormant than expected, the lambda
value varying with an approximately two-weekly rhythm. He was quick
to relate this to the two-weekly cycle of conjunctions and
oppositions of the Moon and planets, which led to an investigation
lasting until the end of his working life.
Early on he described the investigation to us at a conference, and I
remember asking how he could be sure it was one planet rather than
another e.g. Mars for oak trees. Fortuitously the alignments of the
Moon coincided with the peaks and troughs of the graph showing the
variation in lambda, but as the years went by there was a 'slippage'
which he called the 'phase shift', whereby the rhythm remained the
same but the alignments did not occur at peaks or troughs of the
graph. We did not know at the time how long it would take for
synchronisation to be re-established; it turned out to be a
seven-year cycle. Interestingly it was the same for all trees
measured, different ones relating to different planets. Here was hard
scientific evidence for the traditional relationship between trees
and planets!
Lawrence measured thousands of buds in the course of this
investigation, which initially were picked in groups of ten from each
tree and photographed, the lambda being taken as the average of the
ten. We bought him a video camera and computer, which with suitable
software made the task much easier and quicker. The results of all
this work were firstly to confirm the existence of the rhythm as an
objective fact, secondly to show that the phase shift had a seven
year cycle, and thirdly to answer the question quite definitively as
to which planet related to which tree. His faithfulness in pursuing
the work every day when possible is reminiscent of the work of Tycho
Brahe who likewise faithfully measured the courses of the planets
over very many years, yielding a factual basis indispensable for the
work of Kepler.
One tree, however, did not show the rhythm, and it turned out that it
was very close to a large electrical distribution transformer. It
would not be easy to confirm this scientifically by planting more
trees near transformers! Instead he worked with Knapweed and those
growing under electrical cables also had a suppressed rhythm. In 1994
comet Shoemaker-Levy crashed into Jupiter, and as Knapweed is related
to Jupiter he took many extra measurements that year and found that
its behaviour was quite different from the norm, a most significant
discovery. The results seemed to show that the buds anticipated the
collision, as their abnormal behaviour started well before it.
Perhaps his most brilliant discovery was a way of describing the
shapes of seed-pods, which are not path curves. He invented the
'pivot-transform' for this with remarkably successful results. He
also used it to transform vortices into embryonic forms.
Lawrence Edwards inspired many people to take up the work he started,
and it is to be hoped that it will continue. A group has been formed
for that purpose. His lectures and courses were among the best I have
ever heard: warm, inspiring and informative. Indeed he gave his first
lecture, on astronomy, at the age of 16 and at that early age showed
his genius for communicating science to others. He also answered
letters, and helped many of us with his apposite replies full of
insight.
He wrote up his results in two books: The Field of Form in 1982, and
then The Vortex of Life in 1993. He also wrote Projective Geometry,
and as a very young man a book on astronomy with a forward by the
then Astronomer Royal. In addition he wrote seven Supplements and
Sequels to The Vortex of Life giving invaluable practical details and
results of his research and that of collaborators.
Finally perhaps it is worth mentioning that for the last decades of
his life he lived and worked in Strontian in Scotland, where
strontium 90 was discovered, taking its name from the place. His
spiritually-based research was perhaps an antidote to the kind of
science associated with radioactivity.
END/cva
Nick Thomas is general secretary of the Anthroposophical Society in
Great Britain
+ + + + +
Item reference number: N040122-01EN
Date: 22 January 2004
More NNA reports at: http://www.nna-news.org/content/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:20:20 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Cc: diana.winters verizon.net
Subject: trying to talk with anthroposophists
Hello critics,
perhaps other list members have been following some of the recent exchanges
between Diana and a number of anthroposophists on the "anthroposophy
tomorrow" list, whose archive can be read here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/messages
I was particularly interested in the discussion of Steiner's deeply
ambivalent attitude toward modern science, not just because the topic itself
is compelling, but also because the way the discussion evolved offered a
fascinating glimpse of the difficulties involved when non-anthroposophists
try to talk with anthroposophists. Here's a quick recap:
In a post from January 18, Diana remarked in passing that "Steiner, of
course, spoke against modern science frequently". This elicited a couple of
posts from Tarjei Straume and Daniel Hindes about Steiner's skepticism
toward materialistic thinking within modern science, pretty much standard
anthro fare. But then something peculiar happened: each time Diana replied
with a more nuanced and specific explanation of her original remark,
Tarjei's and Daniel's responses got less nuanced and less specific. Although
Diana never offered any generalized characterization of Steiner's views on
science as such, on January 19 Tarjei imputed to her the claim that Steiner
"opposed modern science" altogether. Diana took the opportunity to clarify
her position again on January 20, writing to Tarjei:
"If a person says two contradictory things, one doesn't negate the other,
it's the contradiction that would need explanation. And the way I read many
of your favorite Steiner-on-science quotes, he is not speaking as a
supporter of modern science, but trying to give"spiritual science"
legitimacy and respectability. It doesn't matter if someone *says* they
support modern science when they continue proclaiming many things that
directly contradict it, espouse a method that is plainly not scientific, or,
when asked to show how or where science backs up spiritual claims, suddenly
insist the scientific method is all wrong."
Instead of clarifying the dispute, however, this simply lead to further
misunderstanding; in his next post, Daniel said "I would like to see the
quotes that show Steiner to be against science." Thus within the space of a
few days, the topic had shifted from 'Steiner frequently spoke against
modern science' to 'Steiner was against science pure and simple'. To top it
all off, Daniel went on to give Diana a little lecture on choosing one's
words carefully, admonishing her that "Simply stating that "Steiner was
against science" is a misrepresentation of Steiner's own position." But
Diana did not state this; what she said was merely that Steiner often spoke
against modern science, not that this was all he ever had to say on the
topic, much less that his own expressed position could be summed up as
simply "against science" overall.
What Daniel and Tarjei managed to overlook, moreover, is that Diana's
original claim is accurate. Steiner did indeed speak against modern science
frequently, just as he frequently claimed the mantle of modern science for
his own system. This was the standard paradigm among Theosophists, who often
praised the achievements of the contemporary natural sciences and insisted
that their own doctrines were entirely compatible with scientific methods,
while simultaneously disparaging the materialistic assumptions and
mechanistic methodologies which supposedly afflict the scientific mindset.
Steiner adopted this contradictory approach, and added his own
anthroposophical spin to it, while sometimes virtually equating "science"
and "materialism". Here are a few selections from Steiner's less approving
remarks on modern science.
In a 1915 lecture on "Preparing for the Sixth Epoch" Steiner warned that
"Beginning with the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, science
and materialistic consciousness have laid hold of the human being." At times
he associated this unwelcome development with the British national soul,
which was inappropriate for Central Europeans, and at other times he
associated it with Ahriman. Two of his favorite targets were Darwin and
Einstein. In a 1918 lecture in Zurich he declared: "Ahriman is in truth the
teacher par excellence of materialistic Darwinism." He considered Einstein's
theories a prime example of "extreme abstraction" which has "deviated from
actuality". A number of Steiner's observations along these lines can be
found in the text "Man: Hieroglyph of the Universe", which can be read at
the online Steiner archive; in particular, see here:
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19200424p01.html
and
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19200515p01.html
On other occasions Steiner offered a more sweeping negative assessment of
the "scientific attitude"; here is one example from 1912:
"Modern science, recognising only those abstract laws which it calls the
“laws of Nature,” will certainly be prone, where these laws prove
inapplicable, to speak of “mere chance,” of something, that is to say, in
regard to which conformity to law cannot be admitted. When modern science
speaks of “chance” in cases to which its laws do not apply, it really puts a
ban upon any suggestion of conformity to law. Both generally and in
particulars, there is hardly anything more intolerant in human life than the
“scientific attitude.” I do not, of course, refer to scientific facts, for
they are presented in a way which does science the very highest credit, and
intolerance does not come into question here. I am speaking of the
“scientific attitude” which arises on the foundation of these facts. The
attitude of materialistic thought today is an example of almost the greatest
intolerance to be found in history."
The full lecture can be found here:
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Festivals/Easter/19120326p01.html
At times Steiner extended this negative verdict to "the whole of modern
science", declaring in a 1919 lecture on "The Ahrimanic Deception":
"A right attitude in regard to the whole of modern science, insofar as it
thinks along these lines, will recognize that its knowledge is illusion.
Now, in order that his incarnation may take the most profitable form, it is
of the utmost interest to Ahriman that people should perfect themselves in
all our illusory modern science, but without knowing that it is illusion.
Ahriman has the greatest possible interest in instructing men in
mathematics, but not in instructing them that mathematical-mechanistic
concepts of the universe are merely illusions. He is intensely interested in
bringing men chemistry, physics, biology and so on, as they are presented
today in all their remarkable effects, but he is interested in making men
believe that these are absolute truths, not that they are only points of
view, like photographs from one side. If you photograph a tree from one
side, it can be a correct photograph, yet it does not give a picture of the
whole tree. If you photograph it from four sides, you can in any case get an
idea of it. To conceal from mankind that in modern intellectual,
rationalistic science with its supplement of a superstitious empiricism, one
is dealing with a great illusion, a deception — that men should not
recognize this is of the greatest possible interest to Ahriman. It would be
a triumphant experience for him if the scientific superstition which grips
all circles today and by which men even want to organize their social
science, should prevail into the third millennium. He would have the
greatest success if he could then come as a human being into Western
civilization and find the scientific superstition."
Steiner goes on to say, somewhat incongruously, that such illusions are
nevertheless necessary and that the natural sciences are worthy of study.
The full lecture can be found here
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/AhrDec_index.html
Another of Steiner's favorite tropes was to juxtapose "scientific thought"
to "the spirit", as in this comment from 1909:
"Today it is in every sense an ideal to explain the world from the
mechanical standpoint, as a mechanism, from which all spirit is eliminated.
This is due to the fact that those portions of the human brain which are the
instrument and organ of scientific thought are today so deadened that they
are unable to convey new life to the conceptions they form, and the latter
becomes ever poorer and poorer. As things are, it is a fact that science has
not grown richer in ideas. The ideas of antiquity are far more replete with
life, far loftier and grander. The ideas of Darwinism are like a squeezed
lemon. Darwin merely collected data and connected these with the now
impoverished concepts. This trend of science distinctly points to a process
of gradual atrophy. There is a part of the human brain in process of decay —
namely, the part which functions in modern scientific thought. And this is
due to the fact that the part of the etheric body which should enliven this
atrophied brain has not yet attained the Christ-impulse. Science will remain
lifeless until the Christ-impulse flows into this part of the human brain
also, whose function it is to serve science. This is grounded in the great
laws of the universe. If science continues as heretofore, it will become
increasingly poor in ideas. Ideas will die out more and more."
The full text can be found here:
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19090705p01.html
In an attempt to overcome the inconsistencies and incompatibilities in
Steiner's contradictory claims about science, some latter-day
anthroposohists draw a distinction between "Baconian science" and "Goethean
science"; they consider the former, based on empirical observation and the
various methodologies typically associated with mainstream scientific
inquiry, to be essentially Ahrimanic in inspiration. Steiner's "occult
science", on the other hand, is concerned with precisely those phenomena
that are inaccessible to sensory perception, and its methods are at odds
with the basic parameters of what is usually called "modern science". For a
critical overview of these issues, I recommend the article "Is Anthroposophy
Science?" by Sven Ove Hansson, which can be found at the waldorfcritics
site:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Hansson.html
In the hope of someday achieving a meaningful dialogue with anthroposophists
about the published views of their founder, I commend Diana for her
fortitude.
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Learn how to choose, serve, and enjoy wine at Wine MSN.
http://wine.msn.com/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:56:21 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: What Waldorf *IS*
Hi again Mark. You wrote:
) Focusing on what something "is NOT" is exceedingly powerful.
) The power of "nothing" vs "something".
)
) Ex. We are something and all the space around us is nothing.
) The of the nothing is that to be this something...we need the nothing all
around it for the very something to exist. We only KNOW the something BY
contrast to the nothing.
) So , in this way "Waldorf" can be defined very succinctly by discussing
all the no-things that it is.
Well, I had asked if you might try to elaborate on your previous post as I
did not understand your point. There was no response. So, with your latest
offering I took your advice and tried to focus on the lack of meaning
("nothing") as I suspect your post is a clever trick-type question - not
unlike something Yoda might mention to nobody in particular. I had a hard
time focusing, however, on all that is missing from your post - the
substance, for example. Care to try again? Thanks.
-Walden
Walden wrote: So, I was chatting with a fellow ex-Waldorf parent the other
day and we were
) ) reminiscing about various things we both enjoyed during our time
associated
) ) with Waldorf education - mainly the connection with other wonderful
families
) ) (most of whom have left the school) and this particular parent sighed
and
) ) commented on how she "misses the pedagogy."
) )
) ) Well, there was a long silence followed by my question: "Just what is it
) ) you miss about the pedagogy?" She smiled and said that it was actually
that
) ) she felt her son was missing out on the pedagogy and she felt that was a
) ) shame. More silence. I had to ask what it was about the pedagogy she
felt
) ) her son was missing? She immediately listed things like: no computers in
) ) the early grades, no idolatry of Disney characters in the school, no
junk
) ) food machines.... I interrupted to ask again what it was in the pedagogy
) ) she felt her son was missing - as opposed to those things she mentioned
that
) ) Waldorf did *not* have. I asked exactly: What do you believe Waldorf
) ) *IS* - not what do believe Waldorf *IS NOT?*
) )
) ) Deafening Silence.
) )
) ) I am not suggesting that Waldorf does not stand for anything - that the
) ) pedagogy is an empty cavern. Au contraire.
) )
) ) While I would be the first to agree with many aspects of what Waldorf is
) ) *not* - I find it a shame that more people are unaware of what Waldorf
) ) really... *is.* Should prospective Waldorf parents need to dig through
) ) books like "The Study of Man," "Theosophy," or "The Education of the
Child
) ) in the Light of Anthroposophy" in order to understand what Waldorf *is*?
) ) Would it not make more sense (and create less pain, problems and
) ) antagonistic behaviour between Anthroposophists and Waldorf critics) for
) ) Waldorf promoters to help non-Anthroposophists understand that which
they
) ) believe is the impulse of Waldorf Education? For example, a simple first
) ) step would be to inform people that Rudolf Steiner was an occultist. Why
do
) ) we never seen this fact mentioned at Waldorf school web sites (where he
was
) ) an "educator, thinker, artist," etc.) when it is clearly stated as
*fact* at
) ) Anthroposophy web sites? Curious. Just thought I'd share this anecdote
and
) ) musings from here at Walden Pond.
) )
) ) -Walden
) )
) ) ==^================================================================
) ) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New
) ) threads are always welcome.
) )
) )
) )
) )
) )
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
)
)
)
) ---------------------------------
) Do you Yahoo!?
) Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:03:32 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
Peter Staudenmaier discussed some of the pitfall's Diana Winters encountered
in trying to talk to Anthroposophists about science elsewhere. I would like
to draw your attention to something below about Einstein that Peter has
extracted for us.
Peter S wrote
)He considered Einstein's theories a prime example of "extreme abstraction"
)which has "deviated from actuality".
and Peter pointed to here where the full text may be found
)http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19200424p01.html
Peter F. continues. Within this lecture the first example that Steiner uses
as an argument against Einstein concerns various stones and a person in a
box far away from any other object (such as a planet). This is a rudimentary
description of one of the essential ideas in Einstein's theory of general
relativity which is about the indistinguishability of gravity and
acceleration. The time this lecture was given (1918) predates the first
serious experimental test of General Relativity by Eddington in 1919 (see
http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp for a popular account).
Many other tests have been carried out in the subsequent 85 years. Was it ok
for Steiner to argue in 1918 that Einstein's theories differed from the
actual before this test? Is it still ok for Anthroposophists to accept these
arguments in the years after? Steiner also talked about Einstein's theory of
special relativity (that's the one with time dilation and the twin paradox
and things getting shorter in the direction of travel and so on) in the same
lectures that Peter S has quoted from. At the time of these lectures by
Steiner (1918) there had been numerous experimental tests of special
relativity (some examples are available here
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#2.
early experiments).
The reason I bring these issues up concerns another thread in anthroposphy
tomorrow which concerned Steiner's personal moral character. It is argued
(correctly in my view but others may differ) that whether Steiner was a sado
masochist or not has no bearing on the value of his scientific or
philosophical writings. Honesty is a different matter. If Steiner was
dishonest (and I believe this can be demonstrated in his writings and
recorded lectures) then it can only be through independent verification (or
falsification) of each his claims that we can judge his work in
contradiction to the claim available at the Steiner archive:
"No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work, who
has not acquired — through the School of Spiritual Science itself or in an
equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science — the
requisite preliminary knowledge."
The argument for Steiner's dishonesty comes in two parts. Firstly there are
examples, particularly where Steiner is lecturing to people who are not
educated in the sciences where he misleads them on topics about which
Steiner was evidently well read (the lecture on Einstein in "From Elephants
to Einstein" is a good example of this), presumably for the purposes of
convincing them to be Anthroposophists. Secondly, the instructions given to
the organisers of Waldorf schools to keep the true nature of them from the
parents and children who are participating. This is of course a clear
example of the end justifying the means.
Peter F.
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:07:11 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: What Waldorf *IS*
--0-145438062-1074848831=:13837
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi Walden...
did not get your response the first time.
To answer you....care to try again?
Try what again. My point was made very clearly. What do you suppose I could say to help you get it this time?
What meaning are you looking for?
To focus on "nothing" ( and this does not need to be in quotes)...
Nothing is nothing. However, nothing is not a synonom for "lack of meaning"
How can I help you get that defining something by what it is not is an excellent way ( in some cases ) to define what it is.
ex. I could go into a dark room and decribe it as a dark room
OR I could say it a room that has NO light in it.
I am defining it by the negative or the "no-thing"
Try not to search for great meaning in this...philosophy may not be your strong suit.
But if you were...then you could see the exceedingly powerful nature of the nothing, the negative of what something "is not".
In the case of Waldorf...this is a powerful way to describe because....it is often so NOT like mainstream public education that it is quite advantageuos to summarize in the the ways it is NOT mainstream.
We must always stirve to view life from a different point of view....give a go Walden.
You do not exist without contrast to all the "nothing" that is a around. You only exist by contrast.
Cheers Matey
Mark
Hi again Mark. You wrote:
) Focusing on what something "is NOT" is exceedingly powerful.
) The power of "nothing" vs "something".
)
) Ex. We are something and all the space around us is nothing.
) The of the nothing is that to be this something...we need the nothing all
around it for the very something to exist. We only KNOW the something BY
contrast to the nothing.
) So , in this way "Waldorf" can be defined very succinctly by discussing
all the no-things that it is.
Well, I had asked if you might try to elaborate on your previous post as I
did not understand your point. There was no response. So, with your latest
offering I took your advice and tried to focus on the lack of meaning
("nothing") as I suspect your post is a clever trick-type question - not
unlike something Yoda might mention to nobody in particular. I had a hard
time focusing, however, on all that is missing from your post - the
substance, for example. Care to try again? Thanks.
-Walden
Walden wrote: So, I was chatting with a fellow ex-Waldorf parent the other
day and we were
) ) reminiscing about various things we both enjoyed during our time
associated
) ) with Waldorf education - mainly the connection with other wonderful
families
) ) (most of whom have left the school) and this particular parent sighed
and
) ) commented on how she "misses the pedagogy."
) )
) ) Well, there was a long silence followed by my question: "Just what is it
) ) you miss about the pedagogy?" She smiled and said that it was actually
that
) ) she felt her son was missing out on the pedagogy and she felt that was a
) ) shame. More silence. I had to ask what it was about the pedagogy she
felt
) ) her son was missing? She immediately listed things like: no computers in
) ) the early grades, no idolatry of Disney characters in the school, no
junk
) ) food machines.... I interrupted to ask again what it was in the pedagogy
) ) she felt her son was missing - as opposed to those things she mentioned
that
) ) Waldorf did *not* have. I asked exactly: What do you believe Waldorf
) ) *IS* - not what do believe Waldorf *IS NOT?*
) )
) ) Deafening Silence.
) )
) ) I am not suggesting that Waldorf does not stand for anything - that the
) ) pedagogy is an empty cavern. Au contraire.
) )
) ) While I would be the first to agree with many aspects of what Waldorf is
) ) *not* - I find it a shame that more people are unaware of what Waldorf
) ) really... *is.* Should prospective Waldorf parents need to dig through
) ) books like "The Study of Man," "Theosophy," or "The Education of the
Child
) ) in the Light of Anthroposophy" in order to understand what Waldorf *is*?
) ) Would it not make more sense (and create less pain, problems and
) ) antagonistic behaviour between Anthroposophists and Waldorf critics) for
) ) Waldorf promoters to help non-Anthroposophists understand that which
they
) ) believe is the impulse of Waldorf Education? For example, a simple first
) ) step would be to inform people that Rudolf Steiner was an occultist. Why
do
) ) we never seen this fact mentioned at Waldorf school web sites (where he
was
) ) an "educator, thinker, artist," etc.) when it is clearly stated as
*fact* at
) ) Anthroposophy web sites? Curious. Just thought I'd share this anecdote
and
) ) musings from here at Walden Pond.
) )
) ) -Walden
) )
) ) ==^================================================================
) ) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
basic. New
) ) threads are always welcome.
) )
) )
) )
) )
) )
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
)
)
)
) ---------------------------------
) Do you Yahoo!?
) Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
)
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 01:44:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
--0-1268101772-1074851083=:93079
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
ever heard of what you don't know won't hurt you?
Do you think the average person driving a car understand all the complexities under the hood? the hydraulics system? fuel system? combustion engine? principles of pistons firing translating to wheels moving? the transmission?
No the average driver gets in with a sense of trust that that so and so put together something right ( in this case the car). The driver does not have concern or need to know...he needs to know pedal, steering wheel etc....
Same holds true for Waldorf, Steiner knew that it was not in the best interest for parents to know the inner working of Waldorf philosophy...only thing to know was results...
how wonderful is your child doing. He understood that trying to explain would only serve to alienate and confuse a parent.
everybody wins.
Peace
Mark
Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) wrote:
Peter Staudenmaier discussed some of the pitfall's Diana Winters encountered
in trying to talk to Anthroposophists about science elsewhere. I would like
to draw your attention to something below about Einstein that Peter has
extracted for us.
Peter S wrote
)He considered Einstein's theories a prime example of "extreme abstraction"
)which has "deviated from actuality".
and Peter pointed to here where the full text may be found
)http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19200424p01.html
Peter F. continues. Within this lecture the first example that Steiner uses
as an argument against Einstein concerns various stones and a person in a
box far away from any other object (such as a planet). This is a rudimentary
description of one of the essential ideas in Einstein's theory of general
relativity which is about the indistinguishability of gravity and
acceleration. The time this lecture was given (1918) predates the first
serious experimental test of General Relativity by Eddington in 1919 (see
http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp for a popular account).
Many other tests have been carried out in the subsequent 85 years. Was it ok
for Steiner to argue in 1918 that Einstein's theories differed from the
actual before this test? Is it still ok for Anthroposophists to accept these
arguments in the years after? Steiner also talked about Einstein's theory of
special relativity (that's the one with time dilation and the twin paradox
and things getting shorter in the direction of travel and so on) in the same
lectures that Peter S has quoted from. At the time of these lectures by
Steiner (1918) there had been numerous experimental tests of special
relativity (some examples are available here
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#2.
early experiments).
The reason I bring these issues up concerns another thread in anthroposphy
tomorrow which concerned Steiner's personal moral character. It is argued
(correctly in my view but others may differ) that whether Steiner was a sado
masochist or not has no bearing on the value of his scientific or
philosophical writings. Honesty is a different matter. If Steiner was
dishonest (and I believe this can be demonstrated in his writings and
recorded lectures) then it can only be through independent verification (or
falsification) of each his claims that we can judge his work in
contradiction to the claim available at the Steiner archive:
"No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work, who
has not acquired — through the School of Spiritual Science itself or in an
equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science — the
requisite preliminary knowledge."
The argument for Steiner's dishonesty comes in two parts. Firstly there are
examples, particularly where Steiner is lecturing to people who are not
educated in the sciences where he misleads them on topics about which
Steiner was evidently well read (the lecture on Einstein in "From Elephants
to Einstein" is a good example of this), presumably for the purposes of
convincing them to be Anthroposophists. Secondly, the instructions given to
the organisers of Waldorf schools to keep the true nature of them from the
parents and children who are participating. This is of course a clear
example of the end justifying the means.
Peter F.
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 10:51:38 +0000
From: An cazares (rockus5 msn.com)
Subject: Wanting my perfect Waldorf School
My five year old - who was having incredible physical & behavioral
stress reactions during his time in Waldorf kindergarten which totally
disappeared within days of being removed from school (during vacations,
illness & finally when we left the school)- wistfully began talking
about how much he missed his Waldorf Kindergarten & teachers. He loved
going to school then & he dislikes his new public school - just never
wants to go - even though he is demonstrating a completely positive
behavioral transformation in this new environment & is doing so very
well socially and academically.
I miss so many things for him- of course the soft, soothing, homey
environment, the tea, the children quietly eating luch while the teacher
told wonderful, entertaining stories, the walks & outdoor play in all
kinds of weather, the stilts, the chickens, the tree climbing, the love
& concern the teacher showed for the children, the list is practically
endless.
I want that back! However- NOT if it must come with the Lord of Flies
mentality that permeated the children's play - & which, quite frankly, I
believed mystified our very, very experienced (well over 10 yrs)
teacher, whom I greatly admire.
If only Waldorf educators would accept input from the outside, for
example from social and educational psychology! A very clear "Steiner"
guideline I integrated during my time in Waldorf Teacher Training was
that he communicated the following - don't take any instruction (even
his own) on faith - open up to the point of view, try it & if it does
not prove true, valuable, useful in practice, disregard it. Use only
what works and take that as true.
This model for education is not growing & developing because is it so
stuck on adhereing to "Steiner said..." Where can I find my perfect
Wladorf school? The one that brings forth the practical aspects of
Waldorf education AND learns/changes/grows based upon experience &
research?
AN
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1235
-- Topica Digest --
Waldorf's arrogance/was "trying to talk with Anthroposophists"
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By leshoffman earthlink.net
Re: What Waldorf *IS*
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: What Waldorf *IS*
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: Waldorf's arrogance/was "trying to talk with Anthroposophists"
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By leshoffman earthlink.net
Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By leshoffman earthlink.net
Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By sarinamcdonald msn.com
Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Admin: [Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists]
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:12:19 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Waldorf's arrogance/was "trying to talk with Anthroposophists"
Member Mark tells us why the Waldorf school movement's deception of parents
(not telling them that they are enrolling their children in a religious
school) is GOOD and BENEFICIAL.
He says that "what you don't know won't hurt you," and that:
((Same holds true for Waldorf, Steiner knew that it was not in the best
interest for parents to know the inner working of Waldorf philosophy...only
thing to know was results...
how wonderful is your child doing. He understood that trying to explain
would only serve to alienate and confuse a parent.
everybody wins.))
Lisa: Forgive me for being blunt but: give me a break! What you don't know
*can* hurt you -- witness the thousands of people who were infected with the
HIV virus before it was understood to be transmitted by bodily fluids as
just one relevant example.
Furthermore, how DARE a school and its teachers and assorted other people
assume that they know what is good for me and my child and not tell me?
It's fallacious to argue that the school and Steiner (who one could argue
was not the most mentally healthy person in the world, as he "saw" things
that are not there) know better than a child's own parents what is in the
child's best interests.
That is arrogance in the extreme, and sadly very typical (imo) of the
whole Waldorf movement, which purports to hold the key to the "truth" and
thus feels it has a mandate for not revealing its "inner workings" to the
very people who are paying the teachers' (and administrators, etc.)
salaries. (That would be the parents, by the way.)
I mean, how arrogant is it to assume that parents (many of whom are
arguably better educated than the teachers in the Waldorf schools) would be
"alienated" and "confused" if they were told that Waldorf's entire fabric is
woven of Anthroposophy? It's the *height* of arrogance. How dare they assume
that I or any other parent will not understand, and that it is their
responsibility (I am sure they deceive themselves into thinking they are
only being kind) to shield me from all that intellectual confusion!
Mark, I am afraid the truth is much more straightforward: Waldorf schools
and their people hide the truth of their inner workings from parents because
Steiner said so (and whatever he said, goes, no matter how wild or out there
or just plain crazy!) and because they believe that if they tell parents the
Anthro beliefs that govern everything about a Waldorf school, parents will
run screaming into the night and enroll their children elsewhere. (I
disagree. I firmly believe that if Waldorf schools shouted their belief
system and its applications in the schools to the heavens, many, many people
would enroll -- probably more than they do now. Furthermore, those people
would be those that actually buy into the approach and philosophy, and not
people like me who do not.)
Finally, Mark, your assertion that "everbody wins" is tragically wrong.
My child certainly did not "win," and neither did the children of the many,
many people I have met since Waldorf went wrong for our family and I began
communicating with families all over the world who had similar experiences.
How is being relentlessly bullied while teachers stand by, loathe to
interfere in the bully-victim "karma," winning?
How is it "winning" for a child to be in the fourth grade and barely able
to read?
How can teaching science that is not, well, science helpful and "winning"
to children who then need to go out into the world able to think?
I could go on and on.
There is no question that Waldorf works well for some people. That's not
in dispute.
What is in dispute is your assertion that Waldorf schools basically have
the right not to tell parents about their inner workings because parents are
too stupid to understand and might be confused. That puts Waldorf in the
position of an allmightly parent or guardian figure who is charged with
making decisions for us less capable, more immature beings.
Hogwash doesn't come near to describing how angry that makes me.
Shame on you for buying into such an argument.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:49:39 -0800
From: Leslie Hoffman (leshoffman earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
--------------020203080308060406020409
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Continuing with your car metaphor -- when the car doesn't work, you
generally do want more information about the inner workings of your car.
If not, you feel cheated in driving something that just doesn't work
with no understanding of why.
I am sure I don't need to spell this out, but here goes. If your child
is not thriving. If your child comes home saying the atmosphere is
chaotic and that they just aren't learning, then you need to talk to the
mechanic, whoops, teacher. Then hearing that as a parent you just
wouldn't understand the inner workings of the world you pay for and
trust is healthy, well, it makes you wonder. Teachers and parents in
any school setting should be working together to create the best
learning environment for all children. If the teachers, and the
college, feel they are above the parent, the relationship is doomed.
Leslie
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
) ever heard of what you don't know won't hurt you?
)
) Do you think the average person driving a car understand all the
) complexities under the hood? the hydraulics system? fuel system?
) combustion engine? principles of pistons firing translating to wheels
) moving? the transmission?
)
) No the average driver gets in with a sense of trust that that so and
) so put together something right ( in this case the car). The driver
) does not have concern or need to know...he needs to know pedal,
) steering wheel etc....
)
) Same holds true for Waldorf, Steiner knew that it was not in the best
) interest for parents to know the inner working of Waldorf
) philosophy...only thing to know was results...
) how wonderful is your child doing. He understood that trying to
) explain would only serve to alienate and confuse a parent.
)
) everybody wins.
)
) Peace
) Mark
)
) Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) wrote:
)
) Peter Staudenmaier discussed some of the pitfall's Diana Winters
) encountered
) in trying to talk to Anthroposophists about science elsewhere. I
) would like
) to draw your attention to something below about Einstein that
) Peter has
) extracted for us.
)
) Peter S wrote
) )He considered Einstein's theories a prime example of "extreme
) abstraction"
) )which has "deviated from actuality".
)
) and Peter pointed to here where the full text may be found
)
) )http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19200424p01.html
)
) Peter F. continues. Within this lecture the first example that
) Steiner uses
) as an argument against Einstein concerns various stones and a
) person in a
) box far away from any other object (such as a planet). This is a
) rudimentary
) description of one of the essential ideas in Einstein's theory of
) general
) relativity which is about the indistinguishability of gravity and
) acceleration. The time this lecture was given (1918) predates the
) first
) serious experimental test of General Relativity by Eddington in
) 1919 (see
) http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp for a popular
) account).
) Many other tests have been carried out in the subsequent 85 years.
) Was it ok
) for Steiner to argue in 1918 that Einstein's theories differed
) from the
) actual before this test? Is it still ok for Anthroposophists to
) accept these
) arguments in the years after? Steiner also talked about Einstein's
) theory of
) special relativity (that's the one with time dilation and the twin
) paradox
) and things getting shorter in the direction of travel and so on)
) in the same
) lectures that Peter S has quoted from. At the time of these
) lectures by
) Steiner (1918) there had been numerous experimental tests of special
) relativity (some examples are available here
) http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#2.
)
) early experiments).
)
) The reason I bring these issues up concerns another thread in
) anthroposphy
) tomorrow which concerned Steiner's personal moral character. It is
) argued
) (correctly in my view but others may differ) that whether Steiner
) was a sado
) masochist or not has no bearing on the value of his scientific or
) philosophical writings. Honesty is a different matter. If Steiner was
) dishonest (and I believe this can be demonstrated in his writings and
) recorded lectures) then it can only be through independent
) verification (or
) falsification) of each his claims that we can judge his work in
) contradiction to the claim available at the Steiner archive:
)
) "No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this
) work, who
) has not acquired -- through the School of Spiritual Science itself
) or in an
) equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science --
) the
) requisite preliminary knowledge."
)
)
) The argument for Steiner's dishonesty comes in two parts. Firstly
) there are
) examples, particularly where Steiner is lecturing to people who
) are not
) educated in the sciences where he misleads them on topics about which
) Steiner was evidently well read (the lecture on Einstein in "From
) Elephants
) to Einstein" is a good example of this), presumably for the
) purposes of
) convincing them to be Anthroposophists. Secondly, the instructions
) given to
) the organisers of Waldorf schools to keep the true nature of them
) from the
) parents and children who are participating. This is of course a clear
) example of the end justifying the means.
) Peter F.
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium.
) Click here Do you Yahoo!?
) Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
) (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21608/*http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:33:15 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: What Waldorf *IS*
Hi Mark - you wrote:
) Try what again. My point was made very clearly.
Obviously not. Thus my enquiry.
)What do you suppose I could say to help you get it this time?
No idea - that's your task.
) What meaning are you looking for?
Nothing other than that which you are trying to express. I look for clarity
and understanding. I value your presence here and appreciate your input.
When I do not understand what you write (because I might be a little slow or
because your comments might not be clearly expressed), I ask for
clarification. That is the nature of conversation, IMO. The good news is
that you *did* continue (in this post and your next post) to articulate your
thoughts - helping me make sense of your previously ambiguous (to me)
comments. See how it works? I am grateful for the time you take to help me
understand your thoughts.
) To focus on "nothing" ( and this does not need to be in quotes)...
) Nothing is nothing. However, nothing is not a synonom for "lack of
meaning"
)
) How can I help you get that defining something by what it is not is an
excellent way ( in some cases ) to define what it is.
) ex. I could go into a dark room and decribe it as a dark room
) OR I could say it a room that has NO light in it.
) I am defining it by the negative or the "no-thing"
)
) Try not to search for great meaning in this...philosophy may not be your
strong suit.
Actually, I *do* get it now that you have explained it to me. And
philosophy is *not* even my strong suit! (g) Still, I find that your
philosophical musings have little to do with "what Waldorf is."
) In the case of Waldorf...this is a powerful way to describe because....it
is often so NOT like mainstream public education that it is quite
advantageuos to summarize in the the ways it is NOT mainstream.
I completely disagree with you there, Mark. I would agree if we were
speaking of a particular philosophy course in university - or a New Age
workshop on a lovely little island somewhere but what we are discussing here
is a system of education for children, the parents of whom need to have at
least a brief understanding of what that education entails - from the "what
it is not" to the "what it *is.*" We're talking about children and families
and teachers. Communication. When I enter a Catholic church on Sunday I
expect more than "this is not about Buddhism." But the Catholic church (in
this example) is not afraid to share the "what it is" part with me.
Waldorf/Anthro has a hard time in the communication department - and you
suggest that parents need to accept "what it is not" as a reason to send
their children to these schools? Wow. I'd rather spend time at the
Catholic church (I don't, btw) - at least those folks share what they are
all about.
) We must always stirve to view life from a different point of view....give
a go Walden.
I gave it a go during our Waldorf Daze. Different point of view?
Absolutely. Anthroposophic point of view, in fact. And there is much more
to Anthroposophy than "nothing."
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:08:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: What Waldorf *IS*
--0-1103116670-1074888492=:93494
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi Walden...
what does this have to do with Waldorf?
I was answering a post about how Waldorf was being described by what it IS NOT.
My comment was to say why this is an excellent way to describe something ( in this case Waldorf) . At this same time, I took the time to illustrate the power of "nothing".
or "negative" and using the power of "nothing" and the "negative" to illustrate.
Are my comments so much about Waldorf? Maybe or maybe not.
But yes... Waldorf brings children up with out computers for all the beginning years...am I right?
Well there it is...the huge power of "nothing" ...Waldorf choose "no - computers" in the classroom. They choose the negative. In choosing the negative Waldorf and the children gain the positive perspective of NOT ( the negative or "nothing" ) having computers in their lives.
Summarize:
Main point is help one see the power of "no-thing" or "nothing"
- it's power in using it to illustrate
- it's power in explaining Waldorf better
- and illustrating how it is already used in Waldorf's philosophy.
You may have to go back to that post to understand my point...it is a reply to that post.
Thanks
Mark
walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca) wrote:
Hi Mark - you wrote:
) Try what again. My point was made very clearly.
Obviously not. Thus my enquiry.
)What do you suppose I could say to help you get it this time?
No idea - that's your task.
) What meaning are you looking for?
Nothing other than that which you are trying to express. I look for clarity
and understanding. I value your presence here and appreciate your input.
When I do not understand what you write (because I might be a little slow or
because your comments might not be clearly expressed), I ask for
clarification. That is the nature of conversation, IMO. The good news is
that you *did* continue (in this post and your next post) to articulate your
thoughts - helping me make sense of your previously ambiguous (to me)
comments. See how it works? I am grateful for the time you take to help me
understand your thoughts.
) To focus on "nothing" ( and this does not need to be in quotes)...
) Nothing is nothing. However, nothing is not a synonom for "lack of
meaning"
)
) How can I help you get that defining something by what it is not is an
excellent way ( in some cases ) to define what it is.
) ex. I could go into a dark room and decribe it as a dark room
) OR I could say it a room that has NO light in it.
) I am defining it by the negative or the "no-thing"
)
) Try not to search for great meaning in this...philosophy may not be your
strong suit.
Actually, I *do* get it now that you have explained it to me. And
philosophy is *not* even my strong suit! Still, I find that your
philosophical musings have little to do with "what Waldorf is."
) In the case of Waldorf...this is a powerful way to describe because....it
is often so NOT like mainstream public education that it is quite
advantageuos to summarize in the the ways it is NOT mainstream.
I completely disagree with you there, Mark. I would agree if we were
speaking of a particular philosophy course in university - or a New Age
workshop on a lovely little island somewhere but what we are discussing here
is a system of education for children, the parents of whom need to have at
least a brief understanding of what that education entails - from the "what
it is not" to the "what it *is.*" We're talking about children and families
and teachers. Communication. When I enter a Catholic church on Sunday I
expect more than "this is not about Buddhism." But the Catholic church (in
this example) is not afraid to share the "what it is" part with me.
Waldorf/Anthro has a hard time in the communication department - and you
suggest that parents need to accept "what it is not" as a reason to send
their children to these schools? Wow. I'd rather spend time at the
Catholic church (I don't, btw) - at least those folks share what they are
all about.
) We must always stirve to view life from a different point of view....give
a go Walden.
I gave it a go during our Waldorf Daze. Different point of view?
Absolutely. Anthroposophic point of view, in fact. And there is much more
to Anthroposophy than "nothing."
-Walden
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:10:39 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Waldorf's arrogance/was "trying to talk with Anthroposophists"
Lisa wrote: (snip)
) Furthermore, how DARE a school and its teachers and assorted other
people
) assume that they know what is good for me and my child and not tell me?
) It's fallacious to argue that the school and Steiner (who one could
argue
) was not the most mentally healthy person in the world, as he "saw" things
) that are not there) know better than a child's own parents what is in the
) child's best interests.
) That is arrogance in the extreme, and sadly very typical (imo) of the
) whole Waldorf movement, which purports to hold the key to the "truth" and
) thus feels it has a mandate for not revealing its "inner workings" to the
) very people who are paying the teachers' (and administrators, etc.)
) salaries. (That would be the parents, by the way.)
) I mean, how arrogant is it to assume that parents (many of whom are
) arguably better educated than the teachers in the Waldorf schools) would
be
) "alienated" and "confused" if they were told that Waldorf's entire fabric
is
) woven of Anthroposophy? It's the *height* of arrogance. How dare they
assume
) that I or any other parent will not understand, and that it is their
) responsibility (I am sure they deceive themselves into thinking they are
) only being kind) to shield me from all that intellectual confusion!
All valid points. The answer to your question, Lisa, is simply because
Steiner said so:
"You will have to take over children for their education and instruction -
children who will have received already (as you must remember) the
education, or mis-education given them by their parents. Indeed our
intentions will only be fully accomplished when we, as humanity, will have
reached the stage where parents, too, will understand that special tasks are
set for mankind to-day, even for the first years of the child's education.
But when we receive the children into the school we shall still be able to
make up for many things which have been done wrongly, or left undone, in the
first years of the child's life. For this we must fill ourselves with the
consciousness through which alone we can truly teach and educate."
-Rudolf Steiner, The Study of Man, LECTURE I
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 12:30:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
--0-1750465247-1074889821=:80559
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
if the school is chaotic does this translate to the NOT learning?
What is chaos? Webster's says : the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a natural system
This, Leslie is life! It seems like somethings are predictable like the sun rising.
Why? because we have seen it every morning? But even that we cannot count on...it could blow up into 1 mill stars today! Wow...wouldn't that be chaos!?
Wouldn't that be - : the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a natural system???
So in the "chaos" your child claims she is not learning. On the contrary...she is learning EVERYTHING I purported above and more. For instance...that the natural state of things is unpredicable, in fact it's inherent in the universe ( or nature...same thing). Most importantly...to know that we are not separate from nature ...but that we are the very nature that we see as chaotic.
It is amazing that we saw all this "over order" schools ( Catholic schools where my dad went and public schools ) as somehow more real or preparing for the "chaos" that is the "real world" more beneficial than "chaotic" or "real" Waldorf schools??
The "real world" is CHAOTIC! Look around and wake up!
"911", Iraqi war, Vietnam, plane crashes, murders, accidents, shootings, hurricanes, tornados , economies ups and downs, weather....life and death, sickness and health.....shall I go on?????
Maybe this "chaos" that your child sees as not learning you can help her/him see how she can be learning...if she opens her ears, heart, eyes and spirit to what is actually going on around her ( ie classroom )
But this is your job as a parent...to encourage the child ...not third-degree the teacher.
"You" is fighting words... I am sure this word was used and as a result the teacher was put on the defense.
Open your heart, spirit , mind and maybe you can begin thinking outside the box that your in.
Cheers
Mark
Continuing with your car metaphor -- when the car doesn't work, you generally do want more information about the inner workings of your car. If not, you feel cheated in driving something that just doesn't work with no understanding of why.
I am sure I don't need to spell this out, but here goes. If your child is not thriving. If your child comes home saying the atmosphere is chaotic and that they just aren't learning, then you need to talk to the mechanic, whoops, teacher. Then hearing that as a parent you just wouldn't understand the inner workings of the world you pay for and trust is healthy, well, it makes you wonder. Teachers and parents in any school setting should be working together to create the best learning environment for all children. If the teachers, and the college, feel they are above the parent, the relationship is doomed.
Leslie
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
ever heard of what you don't know won't hurt you?
Do you think the average person driving a car understand all the complexities under the hood? the hydraulics system? fuel system? combustion engine? principles of pistons firing translating to wheels moving? the transmission?
No the average driver gets in with a sense of trust that that so and so put together something right ( in this case the car). The driver does not have concern or need to know...he needs to know pedal, steering wheel etc....
Same holds true for Waldorf, Steiner knew that it was not in the best interest for parents to know the inner working of Waldorf philosophy...only thing to know was results...
how wonderful is your child doing. He understood that trying to explain would only serve to alienate and confuse a parent.
everybody wins.
Peace
Mark
Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) wrote:
Peter Staudenmaier discussed some of the pitfall's Diana Winters encountered
in trying to talk to Anthroposophists about science elsewhere. I would like
to draw your attention to something below about Einstein that Peter has
extracted for us.
Peter S wrote
)He considered Einstein's theories a prime example of "extreme abstraction"
)which has "deviated from actuality".
and Peter pointed to here where the full text may be found
)http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19200424p01.html
Peter F. continues. Within this lecture the first example that Steiner uses
as an argument against Einstein concerns various stones and a person in a
box far away from any other object (such as a planet). This is a rudimentary
description of one of the essential ideas in Einstein's theory of general
relativity which is about the indistinguishability of gravity and
acceleration. The time this lecture was given (1918) predates the first
serious experimental test of General Relativity by Eddington in 1919 (see
http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp for a popular account).
Many other tests have been carried out in the subsequent 85 years. Was it ok
for Steiner to argue in 1918 that Einstein's theories differed from the
actual before this test? Is it still ok for Anthroposophists to accept these
arguments in the years after? Steiner also talked about Einstein's theory of
special relativity (that's the one with time dilation and the twin paradox
and things getting shorter in the direction of travel and so on) in the same
lectures that Peter S has quoted from. At the time of these lectures by
Steiner (1918) there had been numerous experimental tests of special
relativity (some examples are available here
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#2.
early experiments).
The reason I bring these issues up concerns another thread in anthroposphy
tomorrow which concerned Steiner's personal moral character. It is argued
(correctly in my view but others may differ) that whether Steiner was a sado
masochist or not has no bearing on the value of his scientific or
philosophical writings. Honesty is a different matter. If Steiner was
dishonest (and I believe this can be demonstrated in his writings and
recorded lectures) then it can only be through independent verification (or
falsification) of each his claims that we can judge his work in
contradiction to the claim available at the Steiner archive:
"No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work, who
has not acquired — through the School of Spiritual Science itself or in an
equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science — the
requisite preliminary knowledge."
The argument for Steiner's dishonesty comes in two parts. Firstly there are
examples, particularly where Steiner is lecturing to people who are not
educated in the sciences where he misleads them on topics about which
Steiner was evidently well read (the lecture on Einstein in "From Elephants
to Einstein" is a good example of this), presumably for the purposes of
convincing them to be Anthroposophists. Secondly, the instructions given to
the organisers of Waldorf schools to keep the true nature of them from the
parents and children who are participating. This is of course a clear
example of the end justifying the means.
Peter F.
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Click here Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
==^================================================================You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:09:14 -0800
From: Leslie Hoffman (leshoffman earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
--------------080502040600090001020402
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Wow, Mark. Not once did I say I was third-degreeing the teacher. As a
matter of fact I haven't. And, I too believe that part of the learning
that happens in any school is social and chaos is a part of the social
order.
I rarely respond to these posts - my point in my response was to add to
the car metaphor used by a previous message. As parents, we do want to
understand more....
peace to you.
Leslie
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
) if the school is chaotic does this translate to the NOT learning?
)
) What is chaos? Webster's says : the inherent unpredictability in
) the behavior of a natural system
)
) This, Leslie is life! It seems like somethings are predictable
) like the sun rising.
)
) Why? because we have seen it every morning? But even that we
) cannot count on...it could blow up into 1 mill stars today!
) Wow...wouldn't that be chaos!?
)
) Wouldn't that be - : the inherent unpredictability in the
) behavior of a natural system???
)
) So in the "chaos" your child claims she is not learning. On the
) contrary...she is learning EVERYTHING I purported above and more.
) For instance...that the natural state of things is unpredicable,
) in fact it's inherent in the universe ( or nature...same thing).
) Most importantly...to know that we are not separate from nature
) ...but that we are the very nature that we see as chaotic.
)
) It is amazing that we saw all this "over order" schools (
) Catholic schools where my dad went and public schools ) as somehow
) more real or preparing for the "chaos" that is the "real world"
) more beneficial than "chaotic" or "real" Waldorf schools??
)
) The "real world" is CHAOTIC! Look around and wake up!
)
) "911", Iraqi war, Vietnam, plane crashes, murders, accidents,
) shootings, hurricanes, tornados , economies ups and downs,
) weather....life and death, sickness and health.....shall I go on?????
)
) Maybe this "chaos" that your child sees as not learning you can
) help her/him see how she can be learning...if she opens her ears,
) heart, eyes and spirit to what is actually going on around her (
) ie classroom )
)
) But this is your job as a parent...to encourage the child ...not
) third-degree the teacher.
)
) "You" is fighting words... I am sure this word was used and as a
) result the teacher was put on the defense.
)
) Open your heart, spirit , mind and maybe you can begin thinking
) outside the box that your in.
)
) Cheers
)
) Mark
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Continuing with your car metaphor -- when the car doesn't work,
) you generally do want more information about the inner workings of
) your car. If not, you feel cheated in driving something that just
) doesn't work with no understanding of why.
)
) I am sure I don't need to spell this out, but here goes. If your
) child is not thriving. If your child comes home saying the
) atmosphere is chaotic and that they just aren't learning, then you
) need to talk to the mechanic, whoops, teacher. Then hearing that
) as a parent you just wouldn't understand the inner workings of the
) world you pay for and trust is healthy, well, it makes you
) wonder. Teachers and parents in any school setting should be
) working together to create the best learning environment for all
) children. If the teachers, and the college, feel they are above
) the parent, the relationship is doomed.
)
) Leslie
)
) Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
)
)) ever heard of what you don't know won't hurt you?
))
)) Do you think the average person driving a car understand all the
)) complexities under the hood? the hydraulics system? fuel system?
)) combustion engine? principles of pistons firing translating to
)) wheels moving? the transmission?
))
)) No the average driver gets in with a sense of trust that that so
)) and so put together something right ( in this case the car). The
)) driver does not have concern or need to know...he needs to know
)) pedal, steering wheel etc....
))
)) Same holds true for Waldorf, Steiner knew that it was not in the
)) best interest for parents to know the inner working of Waldorf
)) philosophy...only thing to know was results...
)) how wonderful is your child doing. He understood that trying to
)) explain would only serve to alienate and confuse a parent.
))
)) everybody wins.
))
)) Peace
)) Mark
))
)) Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) wrote:
))
)) Peter Staudenmaier discussed some of the pitfall's Diana
)) Winters encountered
)) in trying to talk to Anthroposophists about science
)) elsewhere. I would like
)) to draw your attention to something below about Einstein that
)) Peter has
)) extracted for us.
))
)) Peter S wrote
)) )He considered Einstein's theories a prime example of
)) "extreme abstraction"
)) )which has "deviated from actuality".
))
)) and Peter pointed to here where the full text may be found
))
)) )http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19200424p01.html
))
)) Peter F. continues. Within this lecture the first example
)) that Steiner uses
)) as an argument against Einstein concerns various stones and a
)) person in a
)) box far away from any other object (such as a planet). This
)) is a rudimentary
)) description of one of the essential ideas in Einstein's
)) theory of general
)) relativity which is about the indistinguishability of gravity
)) and
)) acceleration. The time this lecture was given (1918) predates
)) the first
)) serious experimental test of General Relativity by Eddington
)) in 1919 (see
)) http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp for a
)) popular account).
)) Many other tests have been carried out in the subsequent 85
)) years. Was it ok
)) for Steiner to argue in 1918 that Einstein's theories
)) differed from the
)) actual before this test? Is it still ok for Anthroposophists
)) to accept these
)) arguments in the years after? Steiner also talked about
)) Einstein's theory of
)) special relativity (that's the one with time dilation and the
)) twin paradox
)) and things getting shorter in the direction of travel and so
)) on) in the same
)) lectures that Peter S has quoted from. At the time of these
)) lectures by
)) Steiner (1918) there had been numerous experimental tests of
)) special
)) relativity (some examples are available here
)) http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#2.
))
)) early experiments).
))
)) The reason I bring these issues up concerns another thread in
)) anthroposphy
)) tomorrow which concerned Steiner's personal moral character.
)) It is argued
)) (correctly in my view but others may differ) that whether
)) Steiner was a sado
)) masochist or not has no bearing on the value of his
)) scientific or
)) philosophical writings. Honesty is a different matter. If
)) Steiner was
)) dishonest (and I believe this can be demonstrated in his
)) writings and
)) recorded lectures) then it can only be through independent
)) verification (or
)) falsification) of each his claims that we can judge his work in
)) contradiction to the claim available at the Steiner archive:
))
)) "No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of
)) this work, who
)) has not acquired -- through the School of Spiritual Science
)) itself or in an
)) equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual
)) Science -- the
)) requisite preliminary knowledge."
))
))
)) The argument for Steiner's dishonesty comes in two parts.
)) Firstly there are
)) examples, particularly where Steiner is lecturing to people
)) who are not
)) educated in the sciences where he misleads them on topics
)) about which
)) Steiner was evidently well read (the lecture on Einstein in
)) "From Elephants
)) to Einstein" is a good example of this), presumably for the
)) purposes of
)) convincing them to be Anthroposophists. Secondly, the
)) instructions given to
)) the organisers of Waldorf schools to keep the true nature of
)) them from the
)) parents and children who are participating. This is of course
)) a clear
)) example of the end justifying the means.
)) Peter F.
))
)) _________________________________________________________________
)) Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn
)) Premium. Click here Do you Yahoo!?
)) Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
)) (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21608/*http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/)
))
))
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
)
) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
) Do you Yahoo!?
) Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
) (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21608/*http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:11:15 -0800
From: Leslie Hoffman (leshoffman earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
--------------050105050500080304070703
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Oh, btw, my child is very open to what is going around him - it is
difficult not to be when it is physical aggression and verbal assaults -
but yes, that is the world we live in. And, yes, it does disrupt
learning.
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
) if the school is chaotic does this translate to the NOT learning?
)
) What is chaos? Webster's says : the inherent unpredictability in
) the behavior of a natural system
)
) This, Leslie is life! It seems like somethings are predictable
) like the sun rising.
)
) Why? because we have seen it every morning? But even that we
) cannot count on...it could blow up into 1 mill stars today!
) Wow...wouldn't that be chaos!?
)
) Wouldn't that be - : the inherent unpredictability in the
) behavior of a natural system???
)
) So in the "chaos" your child claims she is not learning. On the
) contrary...she is learning EVERYTHING I purported above and more.
) For instance...that the natural state of things is unpredicable,
) in fact it's inherent in the universe ( or nature...same thing).
) Most importantly...to know that we are not separate from nature
) ...but that we are the very nature that we see as chaotic.
)
) It is amazing that we saw all this "over order" schools (
) Catholic schools where my dad went and public schools ) as somehow
) more real or preparing for the "chaos" that is the "real world"
) more beneficial than "chaotic" or "real" Waldorf schools??
)
) The "real world" is CHAOTIC! Look around and wake up!
)
) "911", Iraqi war, Vietnam, plane crashes, murders, accidents,
) shootings, hurricanes, tornados , economies ups and downs,
) weather....life and death, sickness and health.....shall I go on?????
)
) Maybe this "chaos" that your child sees as not learning you can
) help her/him see how she can be learning...if she opens her ears,
) heart, eyes and spirit to what is actually going on around her (
) ie classroom )
)
) But this is your job as a parent...to encourage the child ...not
) third-degree the teacher.
)
) "You" is fighting words... I am sure this word was used and as a
) result the teacher was put on the defense.
)
) Open your heart, spirit , mind and maybe you can begin thinking
) outside the box that your in.
)
) Cheers
)
) Mark
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Continuing with your car metaphor -- when the car doesn't work,
) you generally do want more information about the inner workings of
) your car. If not, you feel cheated in driving something that just
) doesn't work with no understanding of why.
)
) I am sure I don't need to spell this out, but here goes. If your
) child is not thriving. If your child comes home saying the
) atmosphere is chaotic and that they just aren't learning, then you
) need to talk to the mechanic, whoops, teacher. Then hearing that
) as a parent you just wouldn't understand the inner workings of the
) world you pay for and trust is healthy, well, it makes you
) wonder. Teachers and parents in any school setting should be
) working together to create the best learning environment for all
) children. If the teachers, and the college, feel they are above
) the parent, the relationship is doomed.
)
) Leslie
)
) Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
)
)) ever heard of what you don't know won't hurt you?
))
)) Do you think the average person driving a car understand all the
)) complexities under the hood? the hydraulics system? fuel system?
)) combustion engine? principles of pistons firing translating to
)) wheels moving? the transmission?
))
)) No the average driver gets in with a sense of trust that that so
)) and so put together something right ( in this case the car). The
)) driver does not have concern or need to know...he needs to know
)) pedal, steering wheel etc....
))
)) Same holds true for Waldorf, Steiner knew that it was not in the
)) best interest for parents to know the inner working of Waldorf
)) philosophy...only thing to know was results...
)) how wonderful is your child doing. He understood that trying to
)) explain would only serve to alienate and confuse a parent.
))
)) everybody wins.
))
)) Peace
)) Mark
))
)) Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) wrote:
))
)) Peter Staudenmaier discussed some of the pitfall's Diana
)) Winters encountered
)) in trying to talk to Anthroposophists about science
)) elsewhere. I would like
)) to draw your attention to something below about Einstein that
)) Peter has
)) extracted for us.
))
)) Peter S wrote
)) )He considered Einstein's theories a prime example of
)) "extreme abstraction"
)) )which has "deviated from actuality".
))
)) and Peter pointed to here where the full text may be found
))
)) )http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19200424p01.html
))
)) Peter F. continues. Within this lecture the first example
)) that Steiner uses
)) as an argument against Einstein concerns various stones and a
)) person in a
)) box far away from any other object (such as a planet). This
)) is a rudimentary
)) description of one of the essential ideas in Einstein's
)) theory of general
)) relativity which is about the indistinguishability of gravity
)) and
)) acceleration. The time this lecture was given (1918) predates
)) the first
)) serious experimental test of General Relativity by Eddington
)) in 1919 (see
)) http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp for a
)) popular account).
)) Many other tests have been carried out in the subsequent 85
)) years. Was it ok
)) for Steiner to argue in 1918 that Einstein's theories
)) differed from the
)) actual before this test? Is it still ok for Anthroposophists
)) to accept these
)) arguments in the years after? Steiner also talked about
)) Einstein's theory of
)) special relativity (that's the one with time dilation and the
)) twin paradox
)) and things getting shorter in the direction of travel and so
)) on) in the same
)) lectures that Peter S has quoted from. At the time of these
)) lectures by
)) Steiner (1918) there had been numerous experimental tests of
)) special
)) relativity (some examples are available here
)) http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#2.
))
)) early experiments).
))
)) The reason I bring these issues up concerns another thread in
)) anthroposphy
)) tomorrow which concerned Steiner's personal moral character.
)) It is argued
)) (correctly in my view but others may differ) that whether
)) Steiner was a sado
)) masochist or not has no bearing on the value of his
)) scientific or
)) philosophical writings. Honesty is a different matter. If
)) Steiner was
)) dishonest (and I believe this can be demonstrated in his
)) writings and
)) recorded lectures) then it can only be through independent
)) verification (or
)) falsification) of each his claims that we can judge his work in
)) contradiction to the claim available at the Steiner archive:
))
)) "No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of
)) this work, who
)) has not acquired -- through the School of Spiritual Science
)) itself or in an
)) equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual
)) Science -- the
)) requisite preliminary knowledge."
))
))
)) The argument for Steiner's dishonesty comes in two parts.
)) Firstly there are
)) examples, particularly where Steiner is lecturing to people
)) who are not
)) educated in the sciences where he misleads them on topics
)) about which
)) Steiner was evidently well read (the lecture on Einstein in
)) "From Elephants
)) to Einstein" is a good example of this), presumably for the
)) purposes of
)) convincing them to be Anthroposophists. Secondly, the
)) instructions given to
)) the organisers of Waldorf schools to keep the true nature of
)) them from the
)) parents and children who are participating. This is of course
)) a clear
)) example of the end justifying the means.
)) Peter F.
))
)) _________________________________________________________________
)) Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn
)) Premium. Click here Do you Yahoo!?
)) Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
)) (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21608/*http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/)
))
))
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
)
) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
) Do you Yahoo!?
) Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
) (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21608/*http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:40:11 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
Waldorf teachers apparently care very little if a child's learning (in the
sense that most of us non Anthros mean it/reading, writing, math) is
disrupted. Their main concern apparently is whether the child is "learning"
what Steiner deemed appropriate for that age and stage vis a vis soul
development.
That's fine for the child of Anthros who are being brought up as Anthros. It
is not fine, in my judgment, for children whose parents value learning to
read, to write, to think critically, etc.
I am amazed anew at what some Waldorf supporters will say to justify what I
deem is very bad behavior by their schools and the people who run them.
First I am told that parents do not need to know the inner workings of
Waldorf schools because it would confuse and upset us, and besides, Steiner
said they shouldn't tell. They should just "take over" the children. Then I
am told that a chaotic school environment is really a great way for children
to learn that the universe is basically chaotic. Trouble is, that does not
jive with Waldorf's emphasis on "rhythm" and predictability in children's
lives. (It also does not jive with common sense.)
Do you really believe the things you are saying on this list, Mark? Really?
Elaborate, please. I also would appreciate your answering the concerns I
expressed in a message called "Waldorf's arrogance." Come on, let's talk.
Lisa
From: leshoffman earthlink.net
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:11:15 -0800
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
Oh, btw, my child is very open to what is going around him - it is difficult
not to be when it is physical aggression and verbal assaults - but yes, that
is the world we live in. And, yes, it does disrupt learning.
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
if the school is chaotic does this translate to the NOT learning?
What is chaos? Webster's says : the inherent unpredictability in the
behavior of a natural system
This, Leslie is life! It seems like somethings are predictable like the sun
rising.
Why? because we have seen it every morning? But even that we cannot count
on...it could blow up into 1 mill stars today! Wow...wouldn't that be
chaos!?
Wouldn't that be - : the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a
natural system???
So in the "chaos" your child claims she is not learning. On the
contrary...she is learning EVERYTHING I purported above and more. For
instance...that the natural state of things is unpredicable, in fact it's
inherent in the universe ( or nature...same thing). Most importantly...to
know that we are not separate from nature ...but that we are the very nature
that we see as chaotic.
It is amazing that we saw all this "over order" schools ( Catholic schools
where my dad went and public schools ) as somehow more real or preparing for
the "chaos" that is the "real world" more beneficial than "chaotic" or
"real" Waldorf schools??
The "real world" is CHAOTIC! Look around and wake up!
"911", Iraqi war, Vietnam, plane crashes, murders, accidents, shootings,
hurricanes, tornados , economies ups and downs, weather....life and death,
sickness and health.....shall I go on?????
Maybe this "chaos" that your child sees as not learning you can help her/him
see how she can be learning...if she opens her ears, heart, eyes and spirit
to what is actually going on around her ( ie classroom )
But this is your job as a parent...to encourage the child ...not
third-degree the teacher.
"You" is fighting words... I am sure this word was used and as a result the
teacher was put on the defense.
Open your heart, spirit , mind and maybe you can begin thinking outside the
box that your in.
Cheers
Mark
Continuing with your car metaphor -- when the car doesn't work, you
generally do want more information about the inner workings of your car. If
not, you feel cheated in driving something that just doesn't work with no
understanding of why.
I am sure I don't need to spell this out, but here goes. If your child is
not thriving. If your child comes home saying the atmosphere is chaotic and
that they just aren't learning, then you need to talk to the mechanic,
whoops, teacher. Then hearing that as a parent you just wouldn't understand
the inner workings of the world you pay for and trust is healthy, well, it
makes you wonder. Teachers and parents in any school setting should be
working together to create the best learning environment for all children.
If the teachers, and the college, feel they are above the parent, the
relationship is doomed.
Leslie
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
ever heard of what you don't know won't hurt you?
Do you think the average person driving a car understand all the
complexities under the hood? the hydraulics system? fuel system? combustion
engine? principles of pistons firing translating to wheels moving? the
transmission?
No the average driver gets in with a sense of trust that that so and so put
together something right ( in this case the car). The driver does not have
concern or need to know...he needs to know pedal, steering wheel etc....
Same holds true for Waldorf, Steiner knew that it was not in the best
interest for parents to know the inner working of Waldorf philosophy...only
thing to know was results...
how wonderful is your child doing. He understood that trying to explain
would only serve to alienate and confuse a parent.
everybody wins.
Peace
Mark
Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) (mailto:feetapparel hotmail.com)
wrote:
Peter Staudenmaier discussed some of the pitfall's Diana Winters encountered
in trying to talk to Anthroposophists about science elsewhere. I would like
to draw your attention to something below about Einstein that Peter has
extracted for us.
Peter S wrote
)He considered Einstein's theories a prime example of "extreme abstraction"
)which has "deviated from actuality".
and Peter pointed to here where the full text may be found
)http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19200424p01.html
Peter F. continues. Within this lecture the first example that Steiner uses
as an argument against Einstein concerns various stones and a person in a
box far away from any other object (such as a planet). This is a rudimentary
description of one of the essential ideas in Einstein's theory of general
relativity which is about the indistinguishability of gravity and
acceleration. The time this lecture was given (1918) predates the first
serious experimental test of General Relativity by Eddington in 1919 (see
http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp for a popular account).
Many other tests have been carried out in the subsequent 85 years. Was it ok
for Steiner to argue in 1918 that Einstein's theories differed from the
actual before this test? Is it still ok for Anthroposophists to accept these
arguments in the years after? Steiner also talked about Einstein's theory of
special relativity (that's the one with time dilation and the twin paradox
and things getting shorter in the direction of travel and so on) in the same
lectures that Peter S has quoted from. At the time of these lectures by
Steiner (1918) there had been numerous experimental tests of special
relativity (some examples are available here
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#2.
early experiments).
The reason I bring these issues up concerns another thread in anthroposphy
tomorrow which concerned Steiner's personal moral character. It is argued
(correctly in my view but others may differ) that whether Steiner was a sado
masochist or not has no bearing on the value of his scientific or
philosophical writings. Honesty is a different matter. If Steiner was
dishonest (and I believe this can be demonstrated in his writings and
recorded lectures) then it can only be through independent verification (or
falsification) of each his claims that we can judge his work in
contradiction to the claim available at the Steiner archive:
"No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work, who
has not acquired ‹ through the School of Spiritual Science itself or in an
equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science ‹ the
requisite preliminary knowledge."
The argument for Steiner's dishonesty comes in two parts. Firstly there are
examples, particularly where Steiner is lecturing to people who are not
educated in the sciences where he misleads them on topics about which
Steiner was evidently well read (the lecture on Einstein in "From Elephants
to Einstein" is a good example of this), presumably for the purposes of
convincing them to be Anthroposophists. Secondly, the instructions given to
the organisers of Waldorf schools to keep the true nature of them from the
parents and children who are participating. This is of course a clear
example of the end justifying the means.
Peter F.
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Click here
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:52:44 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
Thanks, Peter Staudenmaier and Peter Farrell. As you know, I worship in the
great Cult of Peter, so you have my undying gratitude for saving my butt on
this one. What sort of tribute should I offer? :)
I can hear Sune snorting all the way from Sweden.
I'll resume my exhausting dialogue with the anthroposophy_tomorrow crowd
shortly. They've been very nice to me, other than calling me a demon,
follower of a dark god, Opposing Power, parasite, pipsqueak, gremlin, troll,
vampire, Wormtongue, minions of Sauron and other Lord of the Rings-derived
insults. Today, I'm not sure but I think Bradford called me a hyena.
They've had far darker things to say about Peter S. and Dan, of course. :)
It all relates to my arguments with Tarjei, at least 2 years ago, about the
switching of left-handed children in Waldorf. Tarjei claimed that Michaela
Glockler had "distanced" Waldorf from this practice, and has recently gotten
an actual communication dated January 2004 from her which I certainly do not
interpret as "distancing" Waldorf from this practice. Eventually, I'll
manage to post some kind of summary of this here, and maybe even the
communique from Glockler herself if I can manage to avoid the usual round of
threats for copyright violation.
Diana
)Hello critics,
perhaps other list members have been following some of the recent exchanges
between Diana and a number of anthroposophists on the "anthroposophy
tomorrow" list,
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:11:04 -0800
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarinamcdonald msn.com)
Subject: Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
(sarcasm)
Lay off, Lisa...
I'm sure Mark was simply giving us his best impression of what it is like to
try to talk with an anthroposophist, eh?
(/sarcasm)
;-)
Sarina
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:40:09 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
Diana wrote:
) Thanks, Peter Staudenmaier and Peter Farrell. As you know, I worship in
the
) great Cult of Peter, so you have my undying gratitude for saving my butt
on
) this one. What sort of tribute should I offer? :)
) I can hear Sune snorting all the way from Sweden.
) I'll resume my exhausting dialogue with the anthroposophy_tomorrow crowd
) shortly. They've been very nice to me, other than calling me a demon,
) follower of a dark god, Opposing Power, parasite, pipsqueak, gremlin,
troll,
) vampire, Wormtongue, minions of Sauron and other Lord of the Rings-derived
) insults. Today, I'm not sure but I think Bradford called me a hyena.
)
) They've had far darker things to say about Peter S. and Dan, of course. :)
To clarify - for those who do no know - certain anthroposophically inclined
people like to place others who question anthroposophy into what they call
the "PLANS cult" or the "Cult of Peter" (Staudenmaier). "Takes one to know
one," my mom used to say. When I first heard this "PLANS Cult" stuff I
thought it was a joke. As time passed, I saw that label seemed not to be
mentioned in jest. Rather odd but there you go. As for the insults and ad
hominems - it seems to go with the territory. Seems some folks get
downright ornery and feel personally attacked when their (or Steiner's)
ideas are questioned.
It's as if one were questioning their faith. . . but that would mean we are
discussing religion, wouldn't it?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:23:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
--0-962534312-1074929013=:79058
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Ok..
Take Care
Mark
leshoffman earthlink.net wrote:
Wow, Mark. Not once did I say I was third-degreeing the teacher. As a matter of fact I haven't. And, I too believe that part of the learning that happens in any school is social and chaos is a part of the social order.
I rarely respond to these posts - my point in my response was to add to the car metaphor used by a previous message. As parents, we do want to understand more....
peace to you.
Leslie
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
if the school is chaotic does this translate to the NOT learning?
What is chaos? Webster's says : the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a natural system
This, Leslie is life! It seems like somethings are predictable like the sun rising.
Why? because we have seen it every morning? But even that we cannot count on...it could blow up into 1 mill stars today! Wow...wouldn't that be chaos!?
Wouldn't that be - : the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a natural system???
So in the "chaos" your child claims she is not learning. On the contrary...she is learning EVERYTHING I purported above and more. For instance...that the natural state of things is unpredicable, in fact it's inherent in the universe ( or nature...same thing). Most importantly...to know that we are not separate from nature ...but that we are the very nature that we see as chaotic.
It is amazing that we saw all this "over order" schools ( Catholic schools where my dad went and public schools ) as somehow more real or preparing for the "chaos" that is the "real world" more beneficial than "chaotic" or "real" Waldorf schools??
The "real world" is CHAOTIC! Look around and wake up!
"911", Iraqi war, Vietnam, plane crashes, murders, accidents, shootings, hurricanes, tornados , economies ups and downs, weather....life and death, sickness and health.....shall I go on?????
Maybe this "chaos" that your child sees as not learning you can help her/him see how she can be learning...if she opens her ears, heart, eyes and spirit to what is actually going on around her ( ie classroom )
But this is your job as a parent...to encourage the child ...not third-degree the teacher.
"You" is fighting words... I am sure this word was used and as a result the teacher was put on the defense.
Open your heart, spirit , mind and maybe you can begin thinking outside the box that your in.
Cheers
Mark
Continuing with your car metaphor -- when the car doesn't work, you generally do want more information about the inner workings of your car. If not, you feel cheated in driving something that just doesn't work with no understanding of why.
I am sure I don't need to spell this out, but here goes. If your child is not thriving. If your child comes home saying the atmosphere is chaotic and that they just aren't learning, then you need to talk to the mechanic, whoops, teacher. Then hearing that as a parent you just wouldn't understand the inner workings of the world you pay for and trust is healthy, well, it makes you wonder. Teachers and parents in any school setting should be working together to create the best learning environment for all children. If the teachers, and the college, feel they are above the parent, the relationship is doomed.
Leslie
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
ever heard of what you don't know won't hurt you?
Do you think the average person driving a car understand all the complexities under the hood? the hydraulics system? fuel system? combustion engine? principles of pistons firing translating to wheels moving? the transmission?
No the average driver gets in with a sense of trust that that so and so put together something right ( in this case the car). The driver does not have concern or need to know...he needs to know pedal, steering wheel etc....
Same holds true for Waldorf, Steiner knew that it was not in the best interest for parents to know the inner working of Waldorf philosophy...only thing to know was results...
how wonderful is your child doing. He understood that trying to explain would only serve to alienate and confuse a parent.
everybody wins.
Peace
Mark
Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) wrote:
Peter Staudenmaier discussed some of the pitfall's Diana Winters encountered
in trying to talk to Anthroposophists about science elsewhere. I would like
to draw your attention to something below about Einstein that Peter has
extracted for us.
Peter S wrote
)He considered Einstein's theories a prime example of "extreme abstraction"
)which has "deviated from actuality".
and Peter pointed to here where the full text may be found
)http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19200424p01.html
Peter F. continues. Within this lecture the first example that Steiner uses
as an argument against Einstein concerns various stones and a person in a
box far away from any other object (such as a planet). This is a rudimentary
description of one of the essential ideas in Einstein's theory of general
relativity which is about the indistinguishability of gravity and
acceleration. The time this lecture was given (1918) predates the first
serious experimental test of General Relativity by Eddington in 1919 (see
http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp for a popular account).
Many other tests have been carried out in the subsequent 85 years. Was it ok
for Steiner to argue in 1918 that Einstein's theories differed from the
actual before this test? Is it still ok for Anthroposophists to accept these
arguments in the years after? Steiner also talked about Einstein's theory of
special relativity (that's the one with time dilation and the twin paradox
and things getting shorter in the direction of travel and so on) in the same
lectures that Peter S has quoted from. At the time of these lectures by
Steiner (1918) there had been numerous experimental tests of special
relativity (some examples are available here
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#2.
early experiments).
The reason I bring these issues up concerns another thread in anthroposphy
tomorrow which concerned Steiner's personal moral character. It is argued
(correctly in my view but others may differ) that whether Steiner was a sado
masochist or not has no bearing on the value of his scientific or
philosophical writings. Honesty is a different matter. If Steiner was
dishonest (and I believe this can be demonstrated in his writings and
recorded lectures) then it can only be through independent verification (or
falsification) of each his claims that we can judge his work in
contradiction to the claim available at the Steiner archive:
"No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work, who
has not acquired — through the School of Spiritual Science itself or in an
equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science — the
requisite preliminary knowledge."
The argument for Steiner's dishonesty comes in two parts. Firstly there are
examples, particularly where Steiner is lecturing to people who are not
educated in the sciences where he misleads them on topics about which
Steiner was evidently well read (the lecture on Einstein in "From Elephants
to Einstein" is a good example of this), presumably for the purposes of
convincing them to be Anthroposophists. Secondly, the instructions given to
the organisers of Waldorf schools to keep the true nature of them from the
parents and children who are participating. This is of course a clear
example of the end justifying the means.
Peter F.
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Click here Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
==^================================================================You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
==^================================================================You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:25:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
--0-153239562-1074929120=:70485
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
It does not disrupt learning - it IS learning - ALL experience IS learning.
leshoffman earthlink.net wrote:Oh, btw, my child is very open to what is going around him - it is difficult not to be when it is physical aggression and verbal assaults - but yes, that is the world we live in. And, yes, it does disrupt learning.
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
if the school is chaotic does this translate to the NOT learning?
What is chaos? Webster's says : the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a natural system
This, Leslie is life! It seems like somethings are predictable like the sun rising.
Why? because we have seen it every morning? But even that we cannot count on...it could blow up into 1 mill stars today! Wow...wouldn't that be chaos!?
Wouldn't that be - : the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a natural system???
So in the "chaos" your child claims she is not learning. On the contrary...she is learning EVERYTHING I purported above and more. For instance...that the natural state of things is unpredicable, in fact it's inherent in the universe ( or nature...same thing). Most importantly...to know that we are not separate from nature ...but that we are the very nature that we see as chaotic.
It is amazing that we saw all this "over order" schools ( Catholic schools where my dad went and public schools ) as somehow more real or preparing for the "chaos" that is the "real world" more beneficial than "chaotic" or "real" Waldorf schools??
The "real world" is CHAOTIC! Look around and wake up!
"911", Iraqi war, Vietnam, plane crashes, murders, accidents, shootings, hurricanes, tornados , economies ups and downs, weather....life and death, sickness and health.....shall I go on?????
Maybe this "chaos" that your child sees as not learning you can help her/him see how she can be learning...if she opens her ears, heart, eyes and spirit to what is actually going on around her ( ie classroom )
But this is your job as a parent...to encourage the child ...not third-degree the teacher.
"You" is fighting words... I am sure this word was used and as a result the teacher was put on the defense.
Open your heart, spirit , mind and maybe you can begin thinking outside the box that your in.
Cheers
Mark
Continuing with your car metaphor -- when the car doesn't work, you generally do want more information about the inner workings of your car. If not, you feel cheated in driving something that just doesn't work with no understanding of why.
I am sure I don't need to spell this out, but here goes. If your child is not thriving. If your child comes home saying the atmosphere is chaotic and that they just aren't learning, then you need to talk to the mechanic, whoops, teacher. Then hearing that as a parent you just wouldn't understand the inner workings of the world you pay for and trust is healthy, well, it makes you wonder. Teachers and parents in any school setting should be working together to create the best learning environment for all children. If the teachers, and the college, feel they are above the parent, the relationship is doomed.
Leslie
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
ever heard of what you don't know won't hurt you?
Do you think the average person driving a car understand all the complexities under the hood? the hydraulics system? fuel system? combustion engine? principles of pistons firing translating to wheels moving? the transmission?
No the average driver gets in with a sense of trust that that so and so put together something right ( in this case the car). The driver does not have concern or need to know...he needs to know pedal, steering wheel etc....
Same holds true for Waldorf, Steiner knew that it was not in the best interest for parents to know the inner working of Waldorf philosophy...only thing to know was results...
how wonderful is your child doing. He understood that trying to explain would only serve to alienate and confuse a parent.
everybody wins.
Peace
Mark
Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) wrote:
Peter Staudenmaier discussed some of the pitfall's Diana Winters encountered
in trying to talk to Anthroposophists about science elsewhere. I would like
to draw your attention to something below about Einstein that Peter has
extracted for us.
Peter S wrote
)He considered Einstein's theories a prime example of "extreme abstraction"
)which has "deviated from actuality".
and Peter pointed to here where the full text may be found
)http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19200424p01.html
Peter F. continues. Within this lecture the first example that Steiner uses
as an argument against Einstein concerns various stones and a person in a
box far away from any other object (such as a planet). This is a rudimentary
description of one of the essential ideas in Einstein's theory of general
relativity which is about the indistinguishability of gravity and
acceleration. The time this lecture was given (1918) predates the first
serious experimental test of General Relativity by Eddington in 1919 (see
http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp for a popular account).
Many other tests have been carried out in the subsequent 85 years. Was it ok
for Steiner to argue in 1918 that Einstein's theories differed from the
actual before this test? Is it still ok for Anthroposophists to accept these
arguments in the years after? Steiner also talked about Einstein's theory of
special relativity (that's the one with time dilation and the twin paradox
and things getting shorter in the direction of travel and so on) in the same
lectures that Peter S has quoted from. At the time of these lectures by
Steiner (1918) there had been numerous experimental tests of special
relativity (some examples are available here
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#2.
early experiments).
The reason I bring these issues up concerns another thread in anthroposphy
tomorrow which concerned Steiner's personal moral character. It is argued
(correctly in my view but others may differ) that whether Steiner was a sado
masochist or not has no bearing on the value of his scientific or
philosophical writings. Honesty is a different matter. If Steiner was
dishonest (and I believe this can be demonstrated in his writings and
recorded lectures) then it can only be through independent verification (or
falsification) of each his claims that we can judge his work in
contradiction to the claim available at the Steiner archive:
"No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work, who
has not acquired — through the School of Spiritual Science itself or in an
equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science — the
requisite preliminary knowledge."
The argument for Steiner's dishonesty comes in two parts. Firstly there are
examples, particularly where Steiner is lecturing to people who are not
educated in the sciences where he misleads them on topics about which
Steiner was evidently well read (the lecture on Einstein in "From Elephants
to Einstein" is a good example of this), presumably for the purposes of
convincing them to be Anthroposophists. Secondly, the instructions given to
the organisers of Waldorf schools to keep the true nature of them from the
parents and children who are participating. This is of course a clear
example of the end justifying the means.
Peter F.
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Click here Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
==^================================================================You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
==^================================================================You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:44:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
--0-830739896-1074930269=:6696
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Of course I do Lisa...the lessons of nature and chaos, aggression, randomess, non-linear perspective and "disruptions" are all nature ( or a part of nature...same thing ).
To teach anything that's incongruent with nature seems non-sensical.
Setting up order as a facade teaches children what?
The children are taught the lesson of nature when they experience a disruption.
Tell me.... where has is our society gotten now that "we" ( meaning you and I ...us older folks ) have all learned our ABC's????
It is pretty clear that things are not working so well in this world...the ozone is melting,
many have weapons to blow the world up ( this is science and starts with leanring math and reading well !!!!!! )
If we don't teache how children how "to be" in this world....all the math and reading skills will do squat for the future adults .
What is actually MORE important is teaching about real life as it is, spirituality etc...in concert with the practical pursuits like math and reading. The way is integrating children with nature and the nature of things. Math in isolation of this is just math. Not enough.
I am amazed at the lack of passion found at public schools...passion for integration, for looking at the problem with a fresh perspective.
Have you noticed the state of things now? This is a direct reflection of (majority)adults who were brought up in public schooling. Lisa ...this folks are running things...and they are not doing a very good job. Can we attribute it to being taught the ABC's in a quite sterile way, propagandish way with no connection to nature?
I think so.
Does Waldorf answer this issue?
I think so.
Mark
ote:
Waldorf teachers apparently care very little if a child's learning (in the sense that most of us non Anthros mean it/reading, writing, math) is disrupted. Their main concern apparently is whether the child is "learning" what Steiner deemed appropriate for that age and stage vis a vis soul development.
That's fine for the child of Anthros who are being brought up as Anthros. It is not fine, in my judgment, for children whose parents value learning to read, to write, to think critically, etc.
I am amazed anew at what some Waldorf supporters will say to justify what I deem is very bad behavior by their schools and the people who run them. First I am told that parents do not need to know the inner workings of Waldorf schools because it would confuse and upset us, and besides, Steiner said they shouldn't tell. They should just "take over" the children. Then I am told that a chaotic school environment is really a great way for children to learn that the universe is basically chaotic. Trouble is, that does not jive with Waldorf's emphasis on "rhythm" and predictability in children's lives. (It also does not jive with common sense.)
Do you really believe the things you are saying on this list, Mark? Really? Elaborate, please. I also would appreciate your answering the concerns I expressed in a message called "Waldorf's arrogance." Come on, let's talk.
Lisa
From: leshoffman earthlink.net
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:11:15 -0800
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
Oh, btw, my child is very open to what is going around him - it is difficult not to be when it is physical aggression and verbal assaults - but yes, that is the world we live in. And, yes, it does disrupt learning.
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
if the school is chaotic does this translate to the NOT learning?
What is chaos? Webster's says : the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a natural system
This, Leslie is life! It seems like somethings are predictable like the sun rising.
Why? because we have seen it every morning? But even that we cannot count on...it could blow up into 1 mill stars today! Wow...wouldn't that be chaos!?
Wouldn't that be - : the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a natural system???
So in the "chaos" your child claims she is not learning. On the contrary...she is learning EVERYTHING I purported above and more. For instance...that the natural state of things is unpredicable, in fact it's inherent in the universe ( or nature...same thing). Most importantly...to know that we are not separate from nature ...but that we are the very nature that we see as chaotic.
It is amazing that we saw all this "over order" schools ( Catholic schools where my dad went and public schools ) as somehow more real or preparing for the "chaos" that is the "real world" more beneficial than "chaotic" or "real" Waldorf schools??
The "real world" is CHAOTIC! Look around and wake up!
"911", Iraqi war, Vietnam, plane crashes, murders, accidents, shootings, hurricanes, tornados , economies ups and downs, weather....life and death, sickness and health.....shall I go on?????
Maybe this "chaos" that your child sees as not learning you can help her/him see how she can be learning...if she opens her ears, heart, eyes and spirit to what is actually going on around her ( ie classroom )
But this is your job as a parent...to encourage the child ...not third-degree the teacher.
"You" is fighting words... I am sure this word was used and as a result the teacher was put on the defense.
Open your heart, spirit , mind and maybe you can begin thinking outside the box that your in.
Cheers
Mark
Continuing with your car metaphor -- when the car doesn't work, you generally do want more information about the inner workings of your car. If not, you feel cheated in driving something that just doesn't work with no understanding of why.
I am sure I don't need to spell this out, but here goes. If your child is not thriving. If your child comes home saying the atmosphere is chaotic and that they just aren't learning, then you need to talk to the mechanic, whoops, teacher. Then hearing that as a parent you just wouldn't understand the inner workings of the world you pay for and trust is healthy, well, it makes you wonder. Teachers and parents in any school setting should be working together to create the best learning environment for all children. If the teachers, and the college, feel they are above the parent, the relationship is doomed.
Leslie
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
ever heard of what you don't know won't hurt you?
Do you think the average person driving a car understand all the complexities under the hood? the hydraulics system? fuel system? combustion engine? principles of pistons firing translating to wheels moving? the transmission?
No the average driver gets in with a sense of trust that that so and so put together something right ( in this case the car). The driver does not have concern or need to know...he needs to know pedal, steering wheel etc....
Same holds true for Waldorf, Steiner knew that it was not in the best interest for parents to know the inner working of Waldorf philosophy...only thing to know was results...
how wonderful is your child doing. He understood that trying to explain would only serve to alienate and confuse a parent.
everybody wins.
Peace
Mark
Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) (mailto:feetapparel hotmail.com) wrote:
Peter Staudenmaier discussed some of the pitfall's Diana Winters encountered
in trying to talk to Anthroposophists about science elsewhere. I would like
to draw your attention to something below about Einstein that Peter has
extracted for us.
Peter S wrote
)He considered Einstein's theories a prime example of "extreme abstraction"
)which has "deviated from actuality".
and Peter pointed to here where the full text may be found
)http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19200424p01.html
Peter F. continues. Within this lecture the first example that Steiner uses
as an argument against Einstein concerns various stones and a person in a
box far away from any other object (such as a planet). This is a rudimentary
description of one of the essential ideas in Einstein's theory of general
relativity which is about the indistinguishability of gravity and
acceleration. The time this lecture was given (1918) predates the first
serious experimental test of General Relativity by Eddington in 1919 (see
http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp for a popular account).
Many other tests have been carried out in the subsequent 85 years. Was it ok
for Steiner to argue in 1918 that Einstein's theories differed from the
actual before this test? Is it still ok for Anthroposophists to accept these
arguments in the years after? Steiner also talked about Einstein's theory of
special relativity (that's the one with time dilation and the twin paradox
and things getting shorter in the direction of travel and so on) in the same
lectures that Peter S has quoted from. At the time of these lectures by
Steiner (1918) there had been numerous experimental tests of special
relativity (some examples are available here
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#2.
early experiments).
The reason I bring these issues up concerns another thread in anthroposphy
tomorrow which concerned Steiner's personal moral character. It is argued
(correctly in my view but others may differ) that whether Steiner was a sado
masochist or not has no bearing on the value of his scientific or
philosophical writings. Honesty is a different matter. If Steiner was
dishonest (and I believe this can be demonstrated in his writings and
recorded lectures) then it can only be through independent verification (or
falsification) of each his claims that we can judge his work in
contradiction to the claim available at the Steiner archive:
"No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work, who
has not acquired ‹ through the School of Spiritual Science itself or in an
equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science ‹ the
requisite preliminary knowledge."
The argument for Steiner's dishonesty comes in two parts. Firstly there are
examples, particularly where Steiner is lecturing to people who are not
educated in the sciences where he misleads them on topics about which
Steiner was evidently well read (the lecture on Einstein in "From Elephants
to Einstein" is a good example of this), presumably for the purposes of
convincing them to be Anthroposophists. Secondly, the instructions given to
the organisers of Waldorf schools to keep the true nature of them from the
parents and children who are participating. This is of course a clear
example of the end justifying the means.
Peter F.
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Click here Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
==^================================================================
==^================================================================You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 00:01:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
--0-937233717-1074931276=:72400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Is that what i was doing Sarina? is this how you manage when you are unable to engage intellectually one on one or head to head? With sarcasm?
Sarcasm is a defense mechanism and also just about the lowest form of wit. Unfortunately for you it's is difficult to reverse first impressions - try as you may.
-:(
Lay off, Lisa...
I'm sure Mark was simply giving us his best impression of what it is like to
try to talk with an anthroposophist, eh?
;-)
Sarina
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:08:07 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: [Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists]
Mark Fitzpatrick, it isn't necessary to quote the whole thread of
messages when you are making a one-line comment. Please only quote as
much of the message you're replying to as you need to make it clear
what you're talking about. This avoids repetitious material in the
digests and archives.
Thanks, Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1236
-- Topica Digest --
Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By jaquesdm msn.com
RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: [NNA] Obituary: Lawrence Edwards
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Peter F chimes in.
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By Gary goodwinter.com
Re: Peter F chimes in
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Moral bunkruptcy
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 13:28:33 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
)To clarify - for those who do no know - certain anthroposophically inclined
)people like to place others who question anthroposophy into what they call
)the "PLANS cult" or the "Cult of Peter" (Staudenmaier).
I think the Cult of Peter idea emerged when there were three Peters active
on this list -- Peter Farrell, Peter Zegers, and me. In fact one of the
originators of the Cult of Peter idea (she may even have coined the term)
consistently got me and Peter Zegers mixed up, often with very amusing
results. The oddest part is that the PLANS folks, as far as I can tell, had
reached their own conclusions about anthroposophy long before I joined the
list, and before I began publishing on the topic, based on their own
experience with anthroposophical institutions and anthroposophical writings.
My work focuses on anthroposophy's history, after all, not on Waldorf
education as such.
The Cult of Peter idea also ignores all those areas that Diana, Dan, Sharon,
Lisa, Walden, etc etc know considerably better than this Peter does (which
is quite a bit of the substance of this list), and furthermore overlooks all
the topics on which various critics disagree. To an extent, I think the
whole idea boils down to the undeserved credit that is all too often given
to pointy-headed intellectuals like me, as well as to the intense antipathy
toward critical thought that is so widespread in anthroposophical circles.
In any case, I think that what this theme points to is that movements and
worldviews that are relatively far from the mainstream often get extremely
protective when outside analysts decide to study their doctrines and
traditions. This certainly happens among anarchists, a
far-from-the-mainstream tendency that I belong to, and it seems likely to me
that something similar is the case with anthroposophists. Since they already
feel misunderstood by the rest of the world, they don't always take kindly
to close scrutiny from those who do not share their beliefs. I think Walden
got it exactly right:
)As for the insults and ad
)hominems - it seems to go with the territory. Seems some folks get
)downright ornery and feel personally attacked when their (or Steiner's)
)ideas are questioned.
From an anthroposophical perspective, external criticism of Steiner's
teachings does indeed count as sacrilege and blasphemy. Furthermore, many
anthroposophists can't figure out why an non-anthroposophist would study
their worldview in the first place. Hence the extraordinary difficulties
involved in trying to talk with anthroposophists.
Snowy greetings to all,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
There are now three new levels of MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! Learn more.
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 17:10:55 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3157809055_22421_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Then being involved in an automobile crash or coming down with syphilis also
could be considered "learning" experiences, eh? Trouble is, not the ones I
want for my kids to have. And I sure would not pay someone to give my kids
*those* experiences.
Lisa
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:25:20 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
It does not disrupt learning - it IS learning - ALL experience IS learning.
leshoffman earthlink.net wrote:
Oh, btw, my child is very open to what is going around him - it is difficult
not to be when it is physical aggression and verbal assaults - but yes, that
is the world we live in. And, yes, it does disrupt learning.
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
if the school is chaotic does this translate to the NOT learning?
What is chaos? Webster's says : the inherent unpredictability in the
behavior of a natural system
This, Leslie is life! It seems like somethings are predictable like the sun
rising.
Why? because we have seen it every morning? But even that we cannot count
on...it could blow up into 1 mill stars today! Wow...wouldn't that be
chaos!?
Wouldn't that be - : the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a
natural system???
So in the "chaos" your child claims she is not learning. On the
contrary...she is learning EVERYTHING I purported above and more. For
instance...that the natural state of things is unpredicable, in fact it's
inherent in the universe ( or nature...same thing). Most importantly...to
know that we are not separate from nature ...but that we are the very nature
that we see as chaotic.
It is amazing that we saw all this "over order" schools ( Catholic schools
where my dad went and public schools ) as somehow more real or preparing for
the "chaos" that is the "real world" more beneficial than "chaotic" or
"real" Waldorf schools??
The "real world" is CHAOTIC! Look around and wake up!
"911", Iraqi war, Vietnam, plane crashes, murders, accidents, shootings,
hurricanes, tornados , economies ups and downs, weather....life and death,
sickness and health.....shall I go on?????
Maybe this "chaos" that your child sees as not learning you can help her/him
see how she can be learning...if she opens her ears, heart, eyes and spirit
to what is actually going on around her ( ie classroom )
But this is your job as a parent...to encourage the child ...not
third-degree the teacher.
"You" is fighting words... I am sure this word was used and as a result the
teacher was put on the defense.
Open your heart, spirit , mind and maybe you can begin thinking outside the
box that your in.
Cheers
Mark
Continuing with your car metaphor -- when the car doesn't work, you
generally do want more information about the inner workings of your car. If
not, you feel cheated in driving something that just doesn't work with no
understanding of why.
I am sure I don't need to spell this out, but here goes. If your child is
not thriving. If your child comes home saying the atmosphere is chaotic and
that they just aren't learning, then you need to talk to the mechanic,
whoops, teacher. Then hearing that as a parent you just wouldn't understand
the inner workings of the world you pay for and trust is healthy, well, it
makes you wonder. Teachers and parents in any school setting should be
working together to create the best learning environment for all children.
If the teachers, and the college, feel they are above the parent, the
relationship is doomed.
Leslie
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
ever heard of what you don't know won't hurt you?
Do you think the average person driving a car understand all the
complexities under the hood? the hydraulics system? fuel system? combustion
engine? principles of pistons firing translating to wheels moving? the
transmission?
No the average driver gets in with a sense of trust that that so and so put
together something right ( in this case the car). The driver does not have
concern or need to know...he needs to know pedal, steering wheel etc....
Same holds true for Waldorf, Steiner knew that it was not in the best
interest for parents to know the inner working of Waldorf philosophy...only
thing to know was results...
how wonderful is your child doing. He understood that trying to explain
would only serve to alienate and confuse a parent.
everybody wins.
Peace
Mark
Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) (mailto:feetapparel hotmail.com)
wrote:
Peter Staudenmaier discussed some of the pitfall's Diana Winters encountered
in trying to talk to Anthroposophists about science elsewhere. I would like
to draw your attention to something below about Einstein that Peter has
extracted for us.
Peter S wrote
)He considered Einstein's theories a prime example of "extreme abstraction"
)which has "deviated from actuality".
and Peter pointed to here where the full text may be found
)http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19200424p01.html
Peter F. continues. Within this lecture the first example that Steiner uses
as an argument against Einstein concerns various stones and a person in a
box far away from any other object (such as a planet). This is a rudimentary
description of one of the essential ideas in Einstein's theory of general
relativity which is about the indistinguishability of gravity and
acceleration. The time this lecture was given (1918) predates the first
serious experimental test of General Relativity by Eddington in 1919 (see
http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp for a popular account).
Many other tests have been carried out in the subsequent 85 years. Was it ok
for Steiner to argue in 1918 that Einstein's theories differed from the
actual before this test? Is it still ok for Anthroposophists to accept these
arguments in the years after? Steiner also talked about Einstein's theory of
special relativity (that's the one with time dilation and the twin paradox
and things getting shorter in the direction of travel and so on) in the same
lectures that Peter S has quoted from. At the time of these lectures by
Steiner (1918) there had been numerous experimental tests of special
relativity (some examples are available here
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#2.
early experiments).
The reason I bring these issues up concerns another thread in anthroposphy
tomorrow which concerned Steiner's personal moral character. It is argued
(correctly in my view but others may differ) that whether Steiner was a sado
masochist or not has no bearing on the value of his scientific or
philosophical writings. Honesty is a different matter. If Steiner was
dishonest (and I believe this can be demonstrated in his writings and
recorded lectures) then it can only be through independent verification (or
falsification) of each his claims that we can judge his work in
contradiction to the claim available at the Steiner archive:
"No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work, who
has not acquired — through the School of Spiritual Science itself or in an
equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science — the
requisite preliminary knowledge."
The argument for Steiner's dishonesty comes in two parts. Firstly there are
examples, particularly where Steiner is lecturing to people who are not
educated in the sciences where he misleads them on topics about which
Steiner was evidently well read (the lecture on Einstein in "From Elephants
to Einstein" is a good example of this), presumably for the purposes of
convincing them to be Anthroposophists. Secondly, the instructions given to
the organisers of Waldorf schools to keep the true nature of them from the
parents and children who are participating. This is of course a clear
example of the end justifying the means.
Peter F.
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Click here
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 14:32:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
I have 5 year old girl and I know how that feels.
However...hurray you have got it! Yes those "events" ( crash and disease ) are a very much apart of life as death is....and yes these are all important experiences to learn from.
My 36 years old sister was in a car accident 7 years ago.... it changed her life ...she beacame a holistic practicioner. She says...no way would she have learned what she learned without the accident..so she is eternally grateful for this "lesson" and experience.
She is now in a profession where she is honored to serve others in being healthy.
She find joy now. Prior she did not expereince joy as much.
The wise one does not judge circumstances as "bad" or "good" but rather just "is".
Neither bad or good.
Someday you will realize that it may be the "bad" experiences in life ( like the disruptive classroom ) that teash us THE MOST!
Your children probably already know this...( often they are much smarter than we are as they are not "filtering" nearly as much ).
We should not want "good" or "bad experiences...we should only strive and thrive on
ALL experienvce as there is NO "good" and "bad".
In this way we get to see life for how it "really" is.
Hope you can too someday....all it takes is open heart, open spirit and open mind.
See a movie called "Bus 174" - this may open your mind a bit to the nature and way of this life. You must strive to get out of your box. Your children will not benefit from this. They will benefit from being exposed rather than isolated from what is happening.
And you too of course.
It is better to focus on what we "need" rather then what we "want" as we often have no control over getting things that we don't "want"....but we always get what we "NEED"!
Which is of course - the "lessons"
check out a great site www.abraham-hicks.com
Best wishes
Mark
"Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com) wrote:
Then being involved in an automobile crash or coming down with syphilis also could be considered "learning" experiences, eh? Trouble is, not the ones I want for my kids to have. And I sure would not pay someone to give my kids *those* experiences.
Lisa
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 23:25:20 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
It does not disrupt learning - it IS learning - ALL experience IS learning.
leshoffman earthlink.net wrote:
Oh, btw, my child is very open to what is going around him - it is difficult not to be when it is physical aggression and verbal assaults - but yes, that is the world we live in. And, yes, it does disrupt learning.
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
if the school is chaotic does this translate to the NOT learning?
What is chaos? Webster's says : the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a natural system
This, Leslie is life! It seems like somethings are predictable like the sun rising.
Why? because we have seen it every morning? But even that we cannot count on...it could blow up into 1 mill stars today! Wow...wouldn't that be chaos!?
Wouldn't that be - : the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a natural system???
So in the "chaos" your child claims she is not learning. On the contrary...she is learning EVERYTHING I purported above and more. For instance...that the natural state of things is unpredicable, in fact it's inherent in the universe ( or nature...same thing). Most importantly...to know that we are not separate from nature ...but that we are the very nature that we see as chaotic.
It is amazing that we saw all this "over order" schools ( Catholic schools where my dad went and public schools ) as somehow more real or preparing for the "chaos" that is the "real world" more beneficial than "chaotic" or "real" Waldorf schools??
The "real world" is CHAOTIC! Look around and wake up!
"911", Iraqi war, Vietnam, plane crashes, murders, accidents, shootings, hurricanes, tornados , economies ups and downs, weather....life and death, sickness and health.....shall I go on?????
Maybe this "chaos" that your child sees as not learning you can help her/him see how she can be learning...if she opens her ears, heart, eyes and spirit to what is actually going on around her ( ie classroom )
But this is your job as a parent...to encourage the child ...not third-degree the teacher.
"You" is fighting words... I am sure this word was used and as a result the teacher was put on the defense.
Open your heart, spirit , mind and maybe you can begin thinking outside the box that your in.
Cheers
Mark
Continuing with your car metaphor -- when the car doesn't work, you generally do want more information about the inner workings of your car. If not, you feel cheated in driving something that just doesn't work with no understanding of why.
I am sure I don't need to spell this out, but here goes. If your child is not thriving. If your child comes home saying the atmosphere is chaotic and that they just aren't learning, then you need to talk to the mechanic, whoops, teacher. Then hearing that as a parent you just wouldn't understand the inner workings of the world you pay for and trust is healthy, well, it makes you wonder. Teachers and parents in any school setting should be working together to create the best learning environment for all children. If the teachers, and the college, feel they are above the parent, the relationship is doomed.
Leslie
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
ever heard of what you don't know won't hurt you?
Do you think the average person driving a car understand all the complexities under the hood? the hydraulics system? fuel system? combustion engine? principles of pistons firing translating to wheels moving? the transmission?
No the average driver gets in with a sense of trust that that so and so put together something right ( in this case the car). The driver does not have concern or need to know...he needs to know pedal, steering wheel etc....
Same holds true for Waldorf, Steiner knew that it was not in the best interest for parents to know the inner working of Waldorf philosophy...only thing to know was results...
how wonderful is your child doing. He understood that trying to explain would only serve to alienate and confuse a parent.
everybody wins.
Peace
Mark
Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) (mailto:feetapparel hotmail.com) wrote:
Peter Staudenmaier discussed some of the pitfall's Diana Winters encountered
in trying to talk to Anthroposophists about science elsewhere. I would like
to draw your attention to something below about Einstein that Peter has
extracted for us.
Peter S wrote
)He considered Einstein's theories a prime example of "extreme abstraction"
)which has "deviated from actuality".
and Peter pointed to here where the full text may be found
)http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19200424p01.html
Peter F. continues. Within this lecture the first example that Steiner uses
as an argument against Einstein concerns various stones and a person in a
box far away from any other object (such as a planet). This is a rudimentary
description of one of the essential ideas in Einstein's theory of general
relativity which is about the indistinguishability of gravity and
acceleration. The time this lecture was given (1918) predates the first
serious experimental test of General Relativity by Eddington in 1919 (see
http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp for a popular account).
Many other tests have been carried out in the subsequent 85 years. Was it ok
for Steiner to argue in 1918 that Einstein's theories differed from the
actual before this test? Is it still ok for Anthroposophists to accept these
arguments in the years after? Steiner also talked about Einstein's theory of
special relativity (that's the one with time dilation and the twin paradox
and things getting shorter in the direction of travel and so on) in the same
lectures that Peter S has quoted from. At the time of these lectures by
Steiner (1918) there had been numerous experimental tests of special
relativity (some examples are available here
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#2.
early experiments).
The reason I bring these issues up concerns another thread in anthroposphy
tomorrow which concerned Steiner's personal moral character. It is argued
(correctly in my view but others may differ) that whether Steiner was a sado
masochist or not has no bearing on the value of his scientific or
philosophical writings. Honesty is a different matter. If Steiner was
dishonest (and I believe this can be demonstrated in his writings and
recorded lectures) then it can only be through independent verification (or
falsification) of each his claims that we can judge his work in
contradiction to the claim available at the Steiner archive:
"No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work, who
has not acquired — through the School of Spiritual Science itself or in an
equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science — the
requisite preliminary knowledge."
The argument for Steiner's dishonesty comes in two parts. Firstly there are
examples, particularly where Steiner is lecturing to people who are not
educated in the sciences where he misleads them on topics about which
Steiner was evidently well read (the lecture on Einstein in "From Elephants
to Einstein" is a good example of this), presumably for the purposes of
convincing them to be Anthroposophists. Secondly, the instructions given to
the organisers of Waldorf schools to keep the true nature of them from the
parents and children who are participating. This is of course a clear
example of the end justifying the means.
Peter F.
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Click here Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
==^================================================================You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 01:03:36 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
) I have 5 year old girl and I know how that feels.
)
) However...hurray you have got it! Yes those "events" ( crash and disease
) ) are a very much apart of life as death is....and yes these are all
) important experiences to learn from.
My 36 years old sister was in a car accident 7 years ago.... it changed
her life ...she beacame a holistic practicioner. She says...no way would
she have learned what she learned without the accident..so she is
eternally grateful for this "lesson" and experience.
Mark, I don't have a lot of problems with this. Where I did find myself
at odds with anthroposophy though was at those instances where such
things were mysticised as though only Steiner could bring such
realisation. In everyday parlance its what we call life experience:
Seneca's Letters articulated such things a couple of thousand years ago.
) She is now in a profession where she is honored to serve others in being
) healthy.
) She find joy now. Prior she did not expereince joy as much.
I'm glad for her. So too am I. The joy I experience comes from finally
having broken free of the more nonsensical constraints of Camphill. The
care I now deliver is tailored to meet the needs of the individual:
there is no consideration given to trying to make the care recipient
comply with any - lets call it "ethos" other than that to which the
individual has attached themselves.
)
) The wise one does not judge circumstances as "bad" or "good" but rather
) just "is".
) Neither bad or good.
)
Out of darkness cometh light? We all know that.
I would however contest your conention that there is neither bad or
good. If an experience transpires to be damging, and you can take this
at any level you like: physical, spiritual, etheric, astral, moral,
psychological...whatever, it is *not* simply a case of just shrugging.
Someday you will realize that it may be the "bad" experiences in life (
like the disruptive classroom ) that teash us THE MOST!
Well, they teach us. One of the worst experiences of my life was
anthroposophy. I have learned from that experience to work toward
apraising those in a position of advocacy for our special needs people
some of the stuff Steiner wrote, but Camphill won't reveal, about their
special people. Maybe its my karma to so do.
)
) Your children probably already know this...( often they are much smarter
) than we are as they are not "filtering" nearly as much ).
)
) We should not want "good" or "bad experiences...we should only strive
) and thrive on
) ALL experienvce as there is NO "good" and "bad".
)
) In this way we get to see life for how it "really" is.
)
Well, I respect your right to hold your point of view.
However I do believe that Waldorf, Camphill et al, would be left high
and dry were theis to be included in publicity/recruitment/fundraising
material.
) Hope you can too someday....all it takes is open heart, open spirit and
) open mind.
)
) See a movie called "Bus 174" - this may open your mind a bit to the
) nature and way of this life. You must strive to get out of your box.
) Your children will not benefit from this. They will benefit from being
) exposed rather than isolated from what is happening.
) And you too of course.
)
) It is better to focus on what we "need" rather then what we "want" as we
) often have no control over getting things that we don't "want"....but we
) always get what we "NEED"!
All very fine and noble, but it doesn't really happen in communities
does it? A former co-worker needed specialist help- not uncommon in
anthro residential settings. On expressing his disappointment that
"community" hadn't really given as much support as he had expected, the
psychiatrist snapped shut her notes, and said "Oh for goodness sake
don't be so naive. No matter what they call themselves, you are still
dealing with *people*."
Its part of Camphill life to remit any "needs" to a community meeting.
A wonderful setting to find glaring examples of "my cut finger hurts me
more than your broken leg does"
)
)Peace and light
Davy
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 17:24:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
--0-1996212589-1074993861=:78931
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
) I have 5 year old girl and I know how that feels.
)
) However...hurray you have got it! Yes those "events" ( crash and disease
) ) are a very much apart of life as death is....and yes these are all
) important experiences to learn from.
My 36 years old sister was in a car accident 7 years ago.... it changed
her life ...she beacame a holistic practicioner. She says...no way would
she have learned what she learned without the accident..so she is
eternally grateful for this "lesson" and experience.
Mark, I don't have a lot of problems with this. Where I did find myself
at odds with anthroposophy though was at those instances where such
things were mysticised as though only Steiner could bring such
realisation. In everyday parlance its what we call life experience:
Seneca's Letters articulated such things a couple of thousand years ago.
Interesting.
) She is now in a profession where she is honored to serve others in being
) healthy.
) She find joy now. Prior she did not expereince joy as much.
I'm glad for her. So too am I. The joy I experience comes from finally
having broken free of the more nonsensical constraints of Camphill. The
care I now deliver is tailored to meet the needs of the individual:
there is no consideration given to trying to make the care recipient
comply with any - lets call it "ethos" other than that to which the
individual has attached themselves.
That works.
)
) The wise one does not judge circumstances as "bad" or "good" but rather
) just "is".
) Neither bad or good.
)
Out of darkness cometh light? We all know that.
I would however contest your conention that there is neither bad or
good. If an experience transpires to be damging, and you can take this
at any level you like: physical, spiritual, etheric, astral, moral,
psychological...whatever, it is *not* simply a case of just shrugging.
Disagree - define "damaging". Where is the line drawn. Sister was in car accident and sustained many injuries but her spirit was lifted. If we see only half the picture ( the physical injuries ) then we can say Celine was "damaged" but if we view holistically then we can see her spirit was lifted and not damaged at all. On the whole she was not damage but rather a better self emerged. This being true then we can say that any situation can be viewed holistically and have the benefits cancel out the damage. In this way ...ALL experience is not only important but essential.
Someday you will realize that it may be the "bad" experiences in life (
like the disruptive classroom ) that teash us THE MOST!
Well, they teach us. One of the worst experiences of my life was
anthroposophy. I have learned from that experience to work toward
apraising those in a position of advocacy for our special needs people
some of the stuff Steiner wrote, but Camphill won't reveal, about their
special people. Maybe its my karma to so do.
This experience was unfortunate or fortunate for you, I don't know - we shall wait and see.
)
) Your children probably already know this...( often they are much smarter
) than we are as they are not "filtering" nearly as much ).
)
) We should not want "good" or "bad experiences...we should only strive
) and thrive on
) ALL experienvce as there is NO "good" and "bad".
)
) In this way we get to see life for how it "really" is.
)
Well, I respect your right to hold your point of view.
However I do believe that Waldorf, Camphill et al, would be left high
and dry were theis to be included in publicity/recruitment/fundraising
material.
Probably
) Hope you can too someday....all it takes is open heart, open spirit and
) open mind.
)
) See a movie called "Bus 174" - this may open your mind a bit to the
) nature and way of this life. You must strive to get out of your box.
) Your children will not benefit from this. They will benefit from being
) exposed rather than isolated from what is happening.
) And you too of course.
)
) It is better to focus on what we "need" rather then what we "want" as we
) often have no control over getting things that we don't "want"....but we
) always get what we "NEED"!
All very fine and noble, but it doesn't really happen in communities
does it? A former co-worker needed specialist help- not uncommon in
anthro residential settings. On expressing his disappointment that
"community" hadn't really given as much support as he had expected, the
psychiatrist snapped shut her notes, and said "Oh for goodness sake
don't be so naive. No matter what they call themselves, you are still
dealing with *people*."
Its part of Camphill life to remit any "needs" to a community meeting.
A wonderful setting to find glaring examples of "my cut finger hurts me
more than your broken leg does"
Read www.abraham-hicks.com
We bring exactly what we "need" into our lives...
"You are a creator; you create with your every thought.
You often create by default, for you are getting what you are giving your attention to wanted or unwanted but you know by how it feels if what you are getting (creating) is what you are wanting or if it is not what you are wanting. (Where is your attention focused?) "
Peace
Mark
excerpt -
)
)Peace and light
Davy
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 02:15:38 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
I am responding to this after seeing some continuing dialog that resulted.
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote in reponse to my claim that Steiner was dishonest:
"ever heard of what you don't know won't hurt you?"
and
"everybody wins."
I can only interpret this as Mark agreeing that Steiner was dishonest as I
claim and Mark arguing that this kind of public dishonesty is a good thing.
I guess it must be ok for our politicians as well.
Walden posted a delicious quotation from Steiner relating height to fantasy
the other day. How can we tell whether this is another bit of Steiner
dishonesty?
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 02:48:21 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: [NNA] Obituary: Lawrence Edwards
Dan posted an obituary of Lawrence Edwards written by Nick Thomas from which
I extract the following passage.
)
)Early on he described the investigation to us at a conference, and I
)remember asking how he could be sure it was one planet rather than another
)e.g. Mars for oak trees. Fortuitously the alignments of the Moon coincided
)with the peaks and troughs of the graph showing the variation in lambda,
)but as the years went by there was a 'slippage' which he called the 'phase
)shift', whereby the rhythm remained the same but the alignments did not
)occur at peaks or troughs of the graph. We did not know at the time how
)long it would take for synchronisation to be re-established; it turned out
)to be a seven-year cycle. Interestingly it was the same for all trees
)measured, different ones relating to different planets. Here was hard
)scientific evidence for the traditional relationship between trees and
)planets!
)
It may be that Nick Thomas has described this badly but this looks like
evidence of complete independence to me. Consider two clocks both running
badly. If you have a third independent "good" clock and you record the times
on the good clock at which the hour hands on the two bad clocks go past 12,
you will find exactly this kind of behaviour where you see the clocks in
phase and then they drift out of phase and over some longish period they
drift back in. Sounds like Lawrence Edwards has disproved the connection
between trees and planets to me.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
ninemsn Premium transforms your e-mail with colours, photos and animated
text. Click here http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 04:00:30 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Peter F chimes in.
In another place
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/1431 Tarjei
takes me to task for accusing Steiner of being dishonest. Tarjei's defense
of Steiner is clearly based on the premise that what Steiner was talking
about was religious and not scientific, and as a result I have no argument
with Tarjei.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Get less junk mail with ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 00:35:27 -0500
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--Boundary_(ID_4mgG55z9Ix5bE6gOhlLaZQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
So Mark, given your "everything is a lesson" perspective, how do you react
to the rampant bullying that occurs in Waldorf schools, which is usually
undeterred by teachers and other Anthro adults because they believe the kids
are working out their karma? Do you believe they are justified in this tact
of noninterference with bullying? Do you think that prospective (and
current) parents should be told about this Anthroposphically-inspired school
policy? Or is your view "what they don't know won't hurt them?"
I suppose you'll try to respond that bullying occurs in public schools too.
Of course it does! But the difference is in how school authorities deal
with it. Our experience (and those of MANY ex-waldorf parents from around
the world) is that Waldorf schools generally hide and ignore bullying, and
if a parent finds out about it and tries to get the school to deal with it,
the school "circles the wagons" around the teachers, rather than dealing the
the bully. And if the parent continues to push for action, they and their
children are frequently ostracized by the so-called Waldorf "community".
Do a search on "bully" in our archives to see how frequently this comes up.
...Gary
on 1/24/04 5:32 PM, Mark Fitzpatrick at fitzcandoservices yahoo.com wrote:
I have 5 year old girl and I know how that feels.
However...hurray you have got it! Yes those "events" ( crash and disease )
are a very much apart of life as death is....and yes these are all important
experiences to learn from.
My 36 years old sister was in a car accident 7 years ago.... it changed her
life ...she beacame a holistic practicioner. She says...no way would she
have learned what she learned without the accident..so she is eternally
grateful for this "lesson" and experience.
She is now in a profession where she is honored to serve others in being
healthy.
She find joy now. Prior she did not expereince joy as much.
The wise one does not judge circumstances as "bad" or "good" but rather just
"is".
Neither bad or good.
Someday you will realize that it may be the "bad" experiences in life ( like
the disruptive classroom ) that teash us THE MOST!
Your children probably already know this...( often they are much smarter
than we are as they are not "filtering" nearly as much ).
We should not want "good" or "bad experiences...we should only strive and
thrive on
ALL experienvce as there is NO "good" and "bad".
In this way we get to see life for how it "really" is.
Hope you can too someday....all it takes is open heart, open spirit and open
mind.
See a movie called "Bus 174" - this may open your mind a bit to the nature
and way of this life. You must strive to get out of your box. Your children
will not benefit from this. They will benefit from being exposed rather than
isolated from what is happening.
And you too of course.
It is better to focus on what we "need" rather then what we "want" as we
often have no control over getting things that we don't "want"....but we
always get what we "NEED"!
Which is of course - the "lessons"
check out a great site www.abraham-hicks.com (http://www.abraham-hicks.com)
Best wishes
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:08:49 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Peter F chimes in
I should also comment on this response from Tarjei:
"This argument is correct in Farrell's view? In other words, he would have
no compunctions about learning philosophy from a sado-masochist? As for
science, he would have mo moral scruples about adopting and continuing
medical research originating from Nazi concentration camps?"
What I wrote was:
"It is argued (correctly in my view but others may differ) that whether
Steiner was a
sado masochist or not has no bearing on the value of his scientific or
philosophical writings."
I have no scruples about making my own judgement about some claim in physics
for example where the person who is the originator of the claim has some
moral failings. Let's take Johannes Stark as an example. See
http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/1919a.html and
http://www.clarkson.edu/~postnl/HP201/NaziScience%20-%20Stark%204.htm for
example. No doubt there are other sources on Stark available on the web.
Peter Staudenmaier may have additional good sources. I probably would not
have liked to have had a cup of tea with Stark, but the Stark effect has at
various times played an important part in my own research. It is ludicrous
to think that we should ignore the existence, reality and utility of the
Stark effect because its discoverer was a committed Nazi.
The Nazi medical data is more problematic. This was obtained through the
forced participation and suffering of people. This is a problem in itself. I
most certainly do not believe that any experiments should by done on people
without their consent, and further without some independent and
knowledgeable external review. (An interesting recent article considering
some of these issues may be found here
http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CA34A.htm)
On the other hand the data exists. In so far as it is reliable, is it ok to
use (for example) data from the concentration camps on how people die from
freezing to assist in the revival of someone who has almost frozen to death?
The answer to this seems to me to be much less clear. So continuing is out
of the question. I am not certain what Tarjei means by "adopting" but if it
means making use of the data that already exists for "good" purposes then I
would consider each case on its merits.
Here is another example. William Shockley received the Nobel prize for the
invention of the transistor. He was also a famous Eugenicist (See
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1878465031/inktomi-bkasin-20/ref%3Dnosim/103-7511228-8322222).
Does that mean we should throw transistors away? However the evident value
of the transistor should not convince us to take eugenics as an appropriate
philosophy. People (philosophers, scientists included) can be wrong about
one thing and right about another.
It is even simpler in mathematics. The proof of a theorem is a proof
regardless of the morality of the the person who discovered the proof. How
do we know it is a proof if the mathematician has some moral failing such as
dishonesty? By independent checking and test.
Peter F.
_________________________________________________________________
ninemsn Premium transforms your e-mail with colours, photos and animated
text. Click here http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:20:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
--0-1706263153-1075011638=:71216
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
No...i don't agree. What was he dishonest about?
Making opinions about something cannot be dishonest...a statement of opinion cannot be construed to be dishonest.
Even if I say that water is not made of H20 cannot being seen as dishonest.
Why? it's my opinion...I may be wrong but not dishonest.
Lying is a part of life.... do we tell our spouse everything we are thinking?
No! of course we discriminate...so as to not offend.
Mark
I am responding to this after seeing some continuing dialog that resulted.
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote in reponse to my claim that Steiner was dishonest:
"ever heard of what you don't know won't hurt you?"
and
"everybody wins."
I can only interpret this as Mark agreeing that Steiner was dishonest as I
claim and Mark arguing that this kind of public dishonesty is a good thing.
I guess it must be ok for our politicians as well.
Walden posted a delicious quotation from Steiner relating height to fantasy
the other day. How can we tell whether this is another bit of Steiner
dishonesty?
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 07:16:07 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
)
)No...i don't agree. What was he dishonest about?
)
)Making opinions about something cannot be dishonest...a statement of
)opinion cannot be construed to be dishonest.
Peter F. responds.
Making opinions about something can be dishonest, if you claim using some
other authority that those opinions are facts. In the article on Einstein in
"From Elephants to Einstein"
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1855840812/inktomi-bkasin-20/ref%3Dnosim/103-7511228-8322222)
Steiner reponds to a question from one of the workers at the Goethaneaum
about the theories of relativity. After taking some days to get around to it
Steiner starts the reply with a description of Galilean relativity and
leads on from that to a brief description of Einstein's theory. He goes on
to say that this must be nonsense (in fact both Einstein's and Gailileo's
versions of relativity) because any sensible person (such as the workers
standing before him) can tell whether they have been on a journey or not,
and that the scientists must be fools if they don't know this. I believe
this to be a fair paraphrase of this lecture. Steiner could only say this
honestly if he was ignorant of relativity and of thermodynamics. Of course
he was not. He has just given a perfectly reasonable description of at least
some of the issues associated with relativity, and he has published the
warmth course, which is at least partly an anthroposophical criticism of
thermodynamics. He has misled the workers at the Goethaneum by telling them
that Einstein and other scientists had not considerd the efforts required to
undertake a jouney when he knew full well that they had, and that this had
no bearing on the accuracy or utility of the various theories of relativity
he was expounding. I call this dishonest particularly in the case when he
had every reason to believe through his position of authority that the
workers would believe him.
See you, Peter F.
_________________________________________________________________
Get less junk mail with ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:17:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
--0-1097831555-1075015065=:40435
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Bullying goes on everywhere life...later in life it will be only yourself that can defend.
How is it beneficial for a teacher to interfere?
Is'nt it better for children to cultivate their own strategies for defense?
Ever heard for the movie "My Bodyguard?"
I was bullied as child...what did i do? Tattle to teach?
No...ends in more bullying when teach is not looking.
So yes, I do believe they are justified in their tact for noninterference.
Maybe the parents should be told...but where is the line drawn?
The teacher need to have a sense that they can use their own judgement else they are undermined.
Why, in this whole scenario do we not question the parents ability to know what is right?
What makes parents so much more qualified to decide what should or should not be done? Becasue they are parents? This is not a qualification.
Bullying goes on everywhere. Waldorf has an approach and so do public schools.
Whose to say which approach is better?
I will do a search later.
Mark
Gary Bonhiver (Gary GoodWinter.com) wrote:
So Mark, given your "everything is a lesson" perspective, how do you react to the rampant bullying that occurs in Waldorf schools, which is usually undeterred by teachers and other Anthro adults because they believe the kids are working out their karma? Do you believe they are justified in this tact of noninterference with bullying? Do you think that prospective (and current) parents should be told about this Anthroposphically-inspired school policy? Or is your view "what they don't know won't hurt them?"
I suppose you'll try to respond that bullying occurs in public schools too.
Of course it does! But the difference is in how school authorities deal with it. Our experience (and those of MANY ex-waldorf parents from around the world) is that Waldorf schools generally hide and ignore bullying, and if a parent finds out about it and tries to get the school to deal with it, the school "circles the wagons" around the teachers, rather than dealing the the bully. And if the parent continues to push for action, they and their children are frequently ostracized by the so-called Waldorf "community".
Do a search on "bully" in our archives to see how frequently this comes up.
...Gary
on 1/24/04 5:32 PM, Mark Fitzpatrick at fitzcandoservices yahoo.com wrote:
I have 5 year old girl and I know how that feels.
However...hurray you have got it! Yes those "events" ( crash and disease ) are a very much apart of life as death is....and yes these are all important experiences to learn from.
My 36 years old sister was in a car accident 7 years ago.... it changed her life ...she beacame a holistic practicioner. She says...no way would she have learned what she learned without the accident..so she is eternally grateful for this "lesson" and experience.
She is now in a profession where she is honored to serve others in being healthy.
She find joy now. Prior she did not expereince joy as much.
The wise one does not judge circumstances as "bad" or "good" but rather just "is".
Neither bad or good.
Someday you will realize that it may be the "bad" experiences in life ( like the disruptive classroom ) that teash us THE MOST!
Your children probably already know this...( often they are much smarter than we are as they are not "filtering" nearly as much ).
We should not want "good" or "bad experiences...we should only strive and thrive on
ALL experienvce as there is NO "good" and "bad".
In this way we get to see life for how it "really" is.
Hope you can too someday....all it takes is open heart, open spirit and open mind.
See a movie called "Bus 174" - this may open your mind a bit to the nature and way of this life. You must strive to get out of your box. Your children will not benefit from this. They will benefit from being exposed rather than isolated from what is happening.
And you too of course.
It is better to focus on what we "need" rather then what we "want" as we often have no control over getting things that we don't "want"....but we always get what we "NEED"!
Which is of course - the "lessons"
check out a great site www.abraham-hicks.com (http://www.abraham-hicks.com)
Best wishes
Mark
==^================================================================You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:27:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
--0-643141209-1075015635=:44593
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Good point... I agree with you in this case...that this is possible.
If it's true then it's a bit disturbing.
Mark
Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) wrote:
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
)
)No...i don't agree. What was he dishonest about?
)
)Making opinions about something cannot be dishonest...a statement of
)opinion cannot be construed to be dishonest.
Peter F. responds.
Making opinions about something can be dishonest, if you claim using some
other authority that those opinions are facts. In the article on Einstein in
"From Elephants to Einstein"
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1855840812/inktomi-bkasin-20/ref%3Dnosim/103-7511228-8322222)
Steiner reponds to a question from one of the workers at the Goethaneaum
about the theories of relativity. After taking some days to get around to it
Steiner starts the reply with a description of Galilean relativity and
leads on from that to a brief description of Einstein's theory. He goes on
to say that this must be nonsense (in fact both Einstein's and Gailileo's
versions of relativity) because any sensible person (such as the workers
standing before him) can tell whether they have been on a journey or not,
and that the scientists must be fools if they don't know this. I believe
this to be a fair paraphrase of this lecture. Steiner could only say this
honestly if he was ignorant of relativity and of thermodynamics. Of course
he was not. He has just given a perfectly reasonable description of at least
some of the issues associated with relativity, and he has published the
warmth course, which is at least partly an anthroposophical criticism of
thermodynamics. He has misled the workers at the Goethaneum by telling them
that Einstein and other scientists had not considerd the efforts required to
undertake a jouney when he knew full well that they had, and that this had
no bearing on the accuracy or utility of the various theories of relativity
he was expounding. I call this dishonest particularly in the case when he
had every reason to believe through his position of authority that the
workers would believe him.
See you, Peter F.
_________________________________________________________________
Get less junk mail with ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 08:18:00 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
G'day Mark,
I encourage you to read the lecture, note the audience to which it was
given, and comment on my summary.
See you, Peter
)From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
)Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:27:15 -0800 (PST)
)
)Good point... I agree with you in this case...that this is possible.
)If it's true then it's a bit disturbing.
)
_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 00:28:33 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Moral bunkruptcy
Interesting exchange over at anthroposophy tomorrow. I am grateful to
Tarjei, for example, for clearly sharing his feelings when he hears or reads
about Anthroposophy questioned. Really. I believe it actually *does* feel
painful to hear critics question Anthroposophy - especially with some of the
added flavor to the questions (what anthroposophists might call "bashing").
While I can empathise with those hurt feelings and *do* question my own
intent with certain posts, I wonder if the Tarjei's of the world are able to
empathize with parents who feel deeply upset and hurt and duped after being
lead to believe that Waldorf is *not* as a religious experience as Tarjei so
aptly explains?
It's not that fifty thousand people (??) call themselves "anthroposophists"
and speak about Vulcan and Aryans and Christ in the same breath that really
bothers me. It's the marketing of Waldorf that really bothers me.
Anthroposophy is connected to Waldorf - stuck together forever by super
crazy glue - no, born as one and joined at the belly button. Yet, Waldorf
PR barely mentions Anthroposophy, Steiner the occultist, or anything else
that even vaguely describes the real relationship between Waldorf Education
and the spiritual impulse that was and still very much is it's
mother/father/creator.
Why?
And speaking of disingenuous marketing and various claims... here's another
thing that bothers me. I subscribe to this list and to the Waldorf
Survivors list. I feel very sad each time another Waldorf Survivor joins
the other list. Most people from that list do not (I believe) follow the
critics list - they are there for a reason. There is a common theme and
that theme is all too familiar. A sad, painful Waldorf experience. We are
parents with children. For obvious reasons the Survivors list is private
and one needs to apply for membership. The list clearly states it's raison
d'etre at the web site and provides a very valuable service. This list -
the Waldorf Critics list - also hears it's share of Waldorf tragedies along
with stories of how Waldorf seems to work well for other people. We also
learn - from every angle - about anthroposophy. There is open discussion
about the subject and this list provides, I believe, a very valuable
service
At the anthroposophy tomorrow list, Tarjei recently wrote:
"If it is important for the PLANS-WC cult to
establish that Anthroposophy is a religion and not a science, they should
treat Anthroposophy as a religion all the way, in a way that a religion
deserves to be treated: With respect and honor. Otherwise, they defeat
their owm purpose with their utterly depicable and morally bankrupt
conduct."
Again, I understand the sentiment and appreciate the passion at the root
(perceived faith attack). But as Tarjei raises the issue of "moral
bankruptcy" I am curious about the action he took while trying to mock many
Waldorf survivors with the following bit of boasting at his own web site:
http://www.uncletaz.com/culthelp.html
"On January 26 1999, I decided to subscribe to Dan Dugan's Waldorf Critics
List which is featured on the PLANS website. Judging from the content of
this website, which is dedicated not only to criticism of Waldorf education,
classroom activities, curriculum and so on, but to the brown-baiting
nazification of Rudolf Steiner and the portrayal of the anthroposophical
movement as a brainwashing cult, I decided to introduce myself as a cult
victim asking for help. One of the critics accused me later of having
crashed the party under false pretenses by pretending to be something I
wasn't, but I disagree. Judge for yourselves:
Dear fellow subscribers,
I wonder if someone may be able to tell me where to get the help I need to
get out of the Steiner-cult. To begin with, I would like to talk to an exit
counsellor and then seek therapy. I don't know if there are such exit
counsellors here in Norway, so I was hoping with this post to be directed to
one in my area.
I have been a victim of the Steiner-cult for a very long time - since
childhood. When I now want to get out at age fifty, a deprogrammer may be
called for, but I don't know how to locate one, and I'm very afraid of the
whole thing." (snip)
And those of us who have had painful Waldorf experiences *with our children*
and have managed to come to terms with what we had been involved in
(sometimes for many years) by studying, thinking, meditating (!), asking
questions and asking more questions ... are "labelled morally bankrupt?"
What's wrong with this picture?
Shame.
-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 1237
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Moral bunkruptcy
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Bullying and how it is handled
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Peter F chimes in
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: Moral bunkruptcy
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: Bullying and how it is handled
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: Bullying and how it is handled
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: Bullying and how it is handled
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: Bullying and how it is handled
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Peter F chimes in
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By jaquesdm msn.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 08:03:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Moral bunkruptcy
--0-1402981304-1075046584=:4104
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca) wrote:
I subscribe to this list and to the Waldorf
Survivors list.
Is that list strictly for those who have been enrolled and/or had a child(ren) enrolled in a Waldorf school? My daughter was enrolled in a covert Waldorf school, but perhaps more importantly because of the public stance I have taken re: the local anthroposophists my employers have been contacted resulting in lost income and employment opportunities. We do refer to ourselves as "Waldorf Survivors" because of that.
Also, when we first moved to this area we were immediately approached re: the enrollment of my daughter at the Pleasant Ridge Waldorf School. We went to an informational meeting and immediately knew that something was very wrong and it took a lot of research on my part and time before I understood what instigated that perception.
Deborah
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:28:25 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Bullying and how it is handled
) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3157874905_126980_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Waldorf defending superhero Mark said:
((Bullying goes on everywhere life...later in life it will be only yourself
that can defend.
How is it beneficial for a teacher to interfere?))
Lisa: Please tell me you are joking here, Mark! Yes, bullying goes on
everywhere in life, and one of the reasons is that someone older and wiser
and more in control did *not* interfere when it happens among children!
Children learn what they live: I think we all agree on that. If a child
is the victim or perpetrator of bullying in his or her school and an adult
does not step in to tell the perpetrator "No, you are not allowed to treat
another human being/living thing this way; it is not respectful and you
would not want to be treated that way, either," the children learn that the
law of the world is "might makes right."
I don't know about you, Mark, but that is NOT what I believe (despite
global politics!) and not what I want my children to learn.
Mark then said:
((Is'nt it better for children to cultivate their own strategies for
defense?))
Lisa: Yes and no. (Like many things in life, it is not that
straightforward.) Certainly children must learn how to cope with and to
handle a variety of situations with other people, including how to deal with
people who are aggressive both physically and psychologically. Those people
we will always have with us, sadly.
It's a question of *how* they are to learn this. You seem to be
suggesting that it is a positive life lesson for a child at school to be
pummelled by his classmates, have his lunch money taken from him by force,
etc. etc. You also seem to suggest that the child who is being the bully/the
aggressor, is doing the victimized child a favor, because he is teaching the
subjugated child how to defend himself.
In truth, the victimized child is learning a host of lessons we would all
be better off not learning, such as feelings of low self worth and feelings
of intense anger at the fact that the victim cannot control what happens to
him. Ever heard of what happened at Colombine High School and a number of
other schools in America, Canada and England? THAT is what happens when
adults stand by and allow bullying to go on. (Just for the record, I realize
those are not Waldorf schools. I get that. I am just pointing out the result
of bullying.)
Mark tells us: ((I was bullied as child...what did i do? Tattle to teach?
No...ends in more bullying when teach is not looking))
Lisa: Ah, the explains it, Mark! I think what you are doing is called, in
psychological terms (and if any mental health professionals on this list
could correct me if I am wrong, I would appreciate it!) reaction formation.
You basically are explaining away/justifying the bad things that happened
to you as a way of dealing with them. As I understand it, this is a way that
human beings can mentally and emotionally take control of out of control
situations, regaining their sense of power.
So that: if my boss screams at me for no real reason, I tell myself that
I deserved it even when that is not the case. (For the record, I don't think
any situation in adult life warrants people screaming at each other.) That
way, the incident (screaming) seems less random and, in fact, "under my
control." I mean, if my boss screamed at me for no reason, well, then the
world is a random, chaotic place with no cause and effect. Too frightening.
So I will take the blame and defend my boss's irrational and bullying
action.
Also, just the fact that you used the phrase "tattle to teach" seems to
indicate that you have contempt for children who *do* alert the teacher (or
parent or other adult in charge) when others treat them unfairly.
With that attitude, don't be surprised if there are many things your own
young child will decide not to share with you.
Mark said: ((
Maybe the parents should be told...but where is the line drawn?
The teacher need to have a sense that they can use their own judgement else
they are undermined.
Why, in this whole scenario do we not question the parents ability to know
what is right?
What makes parents so much more qualified to decide what should or should
not be done? Becasue they are parents? This is not a qualification.))
Lisa: Yes, parents *should* be able to rely on teachers to use their own
(teachers's judgment) in how to deal with bullying. But that is contigent
upon the parents knowing that the teachers believe as they do, and that is
that bullying is absolutely unacceptable behavior that must be dealt with
each and every time it happens. (We can later discuss the definition of
"bullying" if you want. I am not talking about every time a child takes a
toy from another child, etc. I am talking about very aggressive and
intimidating encounters between children, in which one child has all the
power and the other is virtually powerless.)
If Waldorf teachers do not believe in interfering (and that very choice
of words tells me something ...) in bullying incidents, then parents like me
who firmly believe bullying must be dealt with as I mention above cannot and
should not trust those teachers. The trouble is, many parents of Waldorf
children are completely clueless regarding the Anthro belief system of karma
(and how situations between human souls in the past life affect the present
day) and thus, do not know that it is (in some cases) the "Waldorf way" to
allow this stuff to go on. (Please note here I do not believe that *every*
Waldorf teacher in every school allows bullying. I don't. But I am told that
enough do -- becuase of the Steiner teachings on karma -- that it has been
an issue of discussion in Waldorf circles. As a moderator of the survivors'
list, I also have heard story upon story of children being bullied at
Waldorf schools: enough to convince me there is a problem there.)
Finally, you ask why parents are more "qualified" than Waldorf teachers
to decide how bullying should be handled.
Because IT IS MY KID, THAT'S WHY. Period. As a parent, it is MY right to
decide what my child should be exposed to, whether we are talking about
bullying or stories of how the world was created. My child is MY
responsibility and until that child is of legal age, I am the one in charge
of her care, feeding and upbringing.
It is frightening to me that you even ask that question, Mark! It sounds
to me as if you would be a very good Waldorf parent, because you seem quite
willing to buy into the myth that Waldorf teachers know something/have some
special knowledge, that you don't and that that qualified them, over you, to
make decisions regarding the handling of your child.
That was one of the things that, in the end, disturbed me most about how
things were handled at our former Waldorf schools. Parents seemed all too
willing (and I am sad to say that I was among these in several situations)
to defer to the teachers' authority on a number of issues that, imo, had
little to nothing to do with the child's education. (Examples: what color to
paint the child's bedroom; should the child eat meat?; should the child take
soccer or ballet after school? should the child get a shot for chickenpox?)
Scary, scary, scary. But let's face it: that is what Steiner meant when
he told teachers to "take over" the raising of the children.
Not mine. No way.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 08:33:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Peter F chimes in
Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) wrote:
What I wrote was:
"It is argued (correctly in my view but others may differ) that whether
Steiner was a
sado masochist or not has no bearing on the value of his scientific or
philosophical writings."
I think there is a huge and critical distinction between scientific and philosophical writings as there is between scientific (e.g. biochemical) research and pseudo-scientific (e.g. correlational sociological studies) "research." Evidencing a cause-and-effect relationship in a study which follows the accepted experimental design or protocol is subject to bona fide questioning, i.e. variables have been controlled, the groups and all terms have been defined, the experiment can be replicated. A correlational study falls completely outside of that paradigm, however; the best they do is to suggest a cause-and-effect relationship, which perhaps may then lead to a hypothesis and subsequent controlled study. Correlational and similar studies are therefore influenced by the personal beliefs and history of the "researcher" and because of that I do find it critical to at least consider that when judging such a study.
The Bell Curve may be an example of that. (I say "may be" because anyone with a modicum of a understanding re: the scientific method quickly ascertains Murray's beliefs and intentions.) Murray does not define his groups, which automatically invalidates everything coming after that omission. Years ago I happened to hear Murray who was a guest on Wisconsin Public Radio speaking about his book. Someone called in and asked him how he defined "African-American" in his study. Murray's reply was, "Well, we all know an African-American person when we see one." and it was on that basis that he defined African-Americans in his study and book. That single statement by its author serves to write-off his "research" (because there was no research) and to illustrate his beliefs and motivation. Now if Murray has done other studies, including controlled studies, then I certainly would immediately be suspect and would take into account the Bell Curve.
Deborah
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:07:24 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Moral bunkruptcy
Walden quoted a recent passage from the anthroposophy tomorrow list:
)"If it is important for the PLANS-WC cult to
)establish that Anthroposophy is a religion and not a science, they should
)treat Anthroposophy as a religion all the way, in a way that a religion
)deserves to be treated: With respect and honor. Otherwise, they defeat
)their owm purpose with their utterly depicable and morally bankrupt
)conduct."
Taking a somewhat different tack from Walden's, I'd say there are several
things wrong with this picture. First, on general principles: it is a very
bad idea to say that all religions as such deserve to be treated with
respect and honor. One obvious example is The Creativity Movement, formerly
the World Church of the Creator, which urges its adherents to engage in
"Racial Holy War" against Jews and people of color. The doctrines of this
religion deserve neither respect nor honor.
Second, even for less aggressively violent religions, public discourse in a
secular society depends on the opportunity to criticize and reject, or
support and affirm, specific religious beliefs when these beliefs are made
public. There is nothing wrong with criticizing particular examples of
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and so forth, when these examples
have been put forward by their adherents for public consideration.
Third, the demand for blanket respect and honor misconstrues existing
arguments about anthroposophy's religious nature (which are in any case not
unanimously shared by the "WC cult"), and is moreover obviously incompatible
with the self-conception of many anthroposophists that they are engaged in
science. A few lines earlier in the same message that Walden quoted, we read
that for some anthroposophists, religion and science are in fact the same
thing:
"What's the difference? It's our approach to the holy of holies: An
understanding of Christ and the Gospels, and of God as a Being of unalloyed,
absolute love. This is sacred, and every insult against it is
sacrilege. Whether you call it religion or spiritual science is totally
irrelevant."
This is a remarkable instance of self-misrecognition. If anthroposophy were
a science, it would demand public scrutiny and welcome critique and
refutation of its central claims, it would encourage skepticism and rigorous
doubt, state its own conditions of falsifiability, and treat its tenets as
hypotheses subject to constant modification by others. All of these things,
of course, have been adamantly rejected by anthroposophists on this list and
elsewhere, who do indeed consider their own beliefs to be exempt from the
standards of public discourse, and who occasionally become apoplectic when
non-anthroposophists decline to grant them this exemption.
Which brings us back to the chronic difficulties involved in trying to talk
with anthroposophists...
Sacreligious greetings to all,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software — optimizes dial-up to the max!
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/plus&ST=1
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 08:53:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
--0-1503970175-1075049603=:36795
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Gary Bonhiver (Gary GoodWinter.com) wrote:
"I suppose you'll try to respond that bullying occurs in public schools too.
Of course it does! But the difference is in how school authorities deal with it."
I have taught in seven different school districts and with confidence can state that it is how the administrators and thus the rest of the school employees treat bullying that determines what sort of school environment exists and it is the school environment that in turn determines whether or not it truly is an educational institution. Perhaps the most important aspect of discrimination law within educational institutions focuses on the creation of a "hostile environment" because a hostile environment interferes with a student's education. That evolution of the law has occurred just within my lifetime; before that one had to show that the discriminatory conduct (often referred to under the broad category of "bullying") was intentional and created direct harm to a particular student who was thus the only one who had legal standing to sue.
My current sub teaching is solely at one school now. (The other six schools hover around awful and intolerable primarily because of their hostile environments and therefore I stay away from them now.) That school from the administration on down has a zero-tolerance policy re: bullying. Teachers stand in the hallways before and after school and in between classes as part of that policy. Anyone seen engaging in bullying or any other inappropriate behavior is immediately sent to the principal's office or In-School Suspension. As a result there is very little bullying, including racial or sexual harassment, happening at that school. When I tell people about that their typical immediate reaction is that that school must be prison-like and anti-student. In fact, the students, administrators and teachers have the best relationships I have ever seen within any school; there is a general atmosphere of mutual respect. The principal and assistant principal are in the cafeteria at all
times during lunch during which time they talk and laugh with the students.
The other aspect of this issue is that bullying may not per se be illegal, but harassment based on race, gender, ancestry, color (and in Wisconsin, sexual orientation), national origin is illegal and it isn't the harasser (if a student) who is held liable - it is the school district. That means that a school that allows such harassment is violating the law and from my experience bullying is often actually a case of impermissible harassment.
Deborah
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:58:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Bullying and how it is handled
--0-605596189-1075060721=:91963
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
No reaction formation going on here. Are you a qualified psychologist to diagnos me?
Even if..this is not the setting for you do do so and I find it offensive.
I hold my ground...there are great lessons to be learned in defending yourself.
Later in like the adult won't know how to do it...because they have never done it before...
always being coddled and protected by another....real life dictates ....in the end you must defend your on position ( proof ) ...you and I are doing it right this second.
Defending and standing your position is part of the game of life.
Maybe we have too many coddled adults running around... passive and complacent about matters that should be attended to. Maybe they are that way becasue too many teachers and parents interfered and did'nt let the kid stand UP for THEMSELVES!
Make efforst to state your arguments withiut making it personal Lisa...no pointing fingers and accusing others of having psychological whatever. State your argument clearly and objectively withiut making it personal. Making it personal skews your ability to deliver a logical and reasonable missive.
It may be fair to say...that our world today is very screwed up because of the poor jobs parents ( specifically the "upstanding" ones ) are doing in bring up children...addicted to the xBox, materialistic pursuits etc... rather than the teachres.
I can say in my childhood...that is was the teachers that were better influences than the parents ( of course this was a generality ) but a disturbing fact.
It's parents that have the powerful role of shaping their kids...and you know what they are screwing up big time by seeing the condition of out nation. In this way I question the credibility of the parents in this forum more than any teacher.
Mark
Mark
"Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com) wrote:
Waldorf defending superhero Mark said:
((Bullying goes on everywhere life...later in life it will be only yourself
that can defend.
How is it beneficial for a teacher to interfere?))
Lisa: Please tell me you are joking here, Mark! Yes, bullying goes on
everywhere in life, and one of the reasons is that someone older and wiser
and more in control did *not* interfere when it happens among children!
Children learn what they live: I think we all agree on that. If a child
is the victim or perpetrator of bullying in his or her school and an adult
does not step in to tell the perpetrator "No, you are not allowed to treat
another human being/living thing this way; it is not respectful and you
would not want to be treated that way, either," the children learn that the
law of the world is "might makes right."
I don't know about you, Mark, but that is NOT what I believe (despite
global politics!) and not what I want my children to learn.
Mark then said:
((Is'nt it better for children to cultivate their own strategies for
defense?))
Lisa: Yes and no. (Like many things in life, it is not that
straightforward.) Certainly children must learn how to cope with and to
handle a variety of situations with other people, including how to deal with
people who are aggressive both physically and psychologically. Those people
we will always have with us, sadly.
It's a question of *how* they are to learn this. You seem to be
suggesting that it is a positive life lesson for a child at school to be
pummelled by his classmates, have his lunch money taken from him by force,
etc. etc. You also seem to suggest that the child who is being the bully/the
aggressor, is doing the victimized child a favor, because he is teaching the
subjugated child how to defend himself.
In truth, the victimized child is learning a host of lessons we would all
be better off not learning, such as feelings of low self worth and feelings
of intense anger at the fact that the victim cannot control what happens to
him. Ever heard of what happened at Colombine High School and a number of
other schools in America, Canada and England? THAT is what happens when
adults stand by and allow bullying to go on. (Just for the record, I realize
those are not Waldorf schools. I get that. I am just pointing out the result
of bullying.)
Mark tells us: ((I was bullied as child...what did i do? Tattle to teach?
No...ends in more bullying when teach is not looking))
Lisa: Ah, the explains it, Mark! I think what you are doing is called, in
psychological terms (and if any mental health professionals on this list
could correct me if I am wrong, I would appreciate it!) reaction formation.
You basically are explaining away/justifying the bad things that happened
to you as a way of dealing with them. As I understand it, this is a way that
human beings can mentally and emotionally take control of out of control
situations, regaining their sense of power.
So that: if my boss screams at me for no real reason, I tell myself that
I deserved it even when that is not the case. (For the record, I don't think
any situation in adult life warrants people screaming at each other.) That
way, the incident (screaming) seems less random and, in fact, "under my
control." I mean, if my boss screamed at me for no reason, well, then the
world is a random, chaotic place with no cause and effect. Too frightening.
So I will take the blame and defend my boss's irrational and bullying
action.
Also, just the fact that you used the phrase "tattle to teach" seems to
indicate that you have contempt for children who *do* alert the teacher (or
parent or other adult in charge) when others treat them unfairly.
With that attitude, don't be surprised if there are many things your own
young child will decide not to share with you.
Mark said: ((
Maybe the parents should be told...but where is the line drawn?
The teacher need to have a sense that they can use their own judgement else
they are undermined.
Why, in this whole scenario do we not question the parents ability to know
what is right?
What makes parents so much more qualified to decide what should or should
not be done? Becasue they are parents? This is not a qualification.))
Lisa: Yes, parents *should* be able to rely on teachers to use their own
(teachers's judgment) in how to deal with bullying. But that is contigent
upon the parents knowing that the teachers believe as they do, and that is
that bullying is absolutely unacceptable behavior that must be dealt with
each and every time it happens. (We can later discuss the definition of
"bullying" if you want. I am not talking about every time a child takes a
toy from another child, etc. I am talking about very aggressive and
intimidating encounters between children, in which one child has all the
power and the other is virtually powerless.)
If Waldorf teachers do not believe in interfering (and that very choice
of words tells me something ...) in bullying incidents, then parents like me
who firmly believe bullying must be dealt with as I mention above cannot and
should not trust those teachers. The trouble is, many parents of Waldorf
children are completely clueless regarding the Anthro belief system of karma
(and how situations between human souls in the past life affect the present
day) and thus, do not know that it is (in some cases) the "Waldorf way" to
allow this stuff to go on. (Please note here I do not believe that *every*
Waldorf teacher in every school allows bullying. I don't. But I am told that
enough do -- becuase of the Steiner teachings on karma -- that it has been
an issue of discussion in Waldorf circles. As a moderator of the survivors'
list, I also have heard story upon story of children being bullied at
Waldorf schools: enough to convince me there is a problem there.)
Finally, you ask why parents are more "qualified" than Waldorf teachers
to decide how bullying should be handled.
Because IT IS MY KID, THAT'S WHY. Period. As a parent, it is MY right to
decide what my child should be exposed to, whether we are talking about
bullying or stories of how the world was created. My child is MY
responsibility and until that child is of legal age, I am the one in charge
of her care, feeding and upbringing.
It is frightening to me that you even ask that question, Mark! It sounds
to me as if you would be a very good Waldorf parent, because you seem quite
willing to buy into the myth that Waldorf teachers know something/have some
special knowledge, that you don't and that that qualified them, over you, to
make decisions regarding the handling of your child.
That was one of the things that, in the end, disturbed me most about how
things were handled at our former Waldorf schools. Parents seemed all too
willing (and I am sad to say that I was among these in several situations)
to defer to the teachers' authority on a number of issues that, imo, had
little to nothing to do with the child's education. (Examples: what color to
paint the child's bedroom; should the child eat meat?; should the child take
soccer or ballet after school? should the child get a shot for chickenpox?)
Scary, scary, scary. But let's face it: that is what Steiner meant when
he told teachers to "take over" the raising of the children.
Not mine. No way.
==^================================================================You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:03:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: trying to talk with anthroposophists
--0-919471693-1075061015=:8538
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
school enviroment is a sort of pseudo representation of life.
A reflection of sorts.... should we not be focusing on why are these kids so angry?
hostile?
Could it be the state of affairs? I think so...they are not blind to what is happening all around?
I encourage everyone here to rent and watch "American Beauty" if they have not seen it
Mark
Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com) wrote:
Gary Bonhiver (Gary GoodWinter.com) wrote:
"I suppose you'll try to respond that bullying occurs in public schools too.
Of course it does! But the difference is in how school authorities deal with it."
I have taught in seven different school districts and with confidence can state that it is how the administrators and thus the rest of the school employees treat bullying that determines what sort of school environment exists and it is the school environment that in turn determines whether or not it truly is an educational institution. Perhaps the most important aspect of discrimination law within educational institutions focuses on the creation of a "hostile environment" because a hostile environment interferes with a student's education. That evolution of the law has occurred just within my lifetime; before that one had to show that the discriminatory conduct (often referred to under the broad category of "bullying") was intentional and created direct harm to a particular student who was thus the only one who had legal standing to sue.
My current sub teaching is solely at one school now. (The other six schools hover around awful and intolerable primarily because of their hostile environments and therefore I stay away from them now.) That school from the administration on down has a zero-tolerance policy re: bullying. Teachers stand in the hallways before and after school and in between classes as part of that policy. Anyone seen engaging in bullying or any other inappropriate behavior is immediately sent to the principal's office or In-School Suspension. As a result there is very little bullying, including racial or sexual harassment, happening at that school. When I tell people about that their typical immediate reaction is that that school must be prison-like and anti-student. In fact, the students, administrators and teachers have the best relationships I have ever seen within any school; there is a general atmosphere of mutual respect. The principal and assistant principal are in the cafeteria at all
times during lunch during which time they talk and laugh with the students.
The other aspect of this issue is that bullying may not per se be illegal, but harassment based on race, gender, ancestry, color (and in Wisconsin, sexual orientation), national origin is illegal and it isn't the harasser (if a student) who is held liable - it is the school district. That means that a school that allows such harassment is violating the law and from my experience bullying is often actually a case of impermissible harassment.
Deborah
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 12:46:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Bullying and how it is handled
--0-702473212-1075063606=:280
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com) wrote:
"I hold my ground...there are great lessons to be learned in defending yourself."
Doesn't "learning" involve "teaching" and thus may involve teachers? One lesson in being left to learn on one's own to defend oneself is that one is alone in the world. That sort of isolation can lead to internal aggression (leading to "cutting," excessive drinking, etc.) or external aggression, e.g. bullying. From my experience many (if not all) bullies 1) were taught bullying by adults and 2) believe they are acting defensively - that is they don't see themselves as being on the offensive and/or perceive themselves to be within a pecking order, i.e. someone is bullying them and they are passing it down.
"Later in like the adult won't know how to do it...because they have never done it before..."
Doing something, even repeatedly, does not result in one doing it well. Someone who defends her/himself from verbal bullying by stabbing the bully is not learning how to safely defend her/himself. That children can use some assistance in learning to defend or stand up for themselves and/or others is the impetus behind many schools instituting student arbitration and conflict resolution procedures.
I don't understand how you can state concern about how the world is with entire Nations "defending" themselves - the word "defense" in and of itself has been defined into the ridiculous - at the expense of the defenseless (e.g. women and children) and then posit as acceptable what has to leave to chaos, i.e. children having at one another no-holds-barred.
"Defending and standing your position is part of the game of life."
Perhaps therein lies part of the problem here. I don't think it is the norm to view life as a "game." Particularly in a discussion re: children and their futures, "game" seems quite inappropriate. If one views life as a game, then what sense does it make to bring another being into it? It seems like such a jaded view of life in general.
I teach primarily in Special Education classes and it strikes me as especially problematic that you and other anthrops see "disabled" children in general as able to learn in isolation how to defend themselves.
"Maybe they are that way becasue too many teachers and parents interfered and did'nt let the kid stand UP for THEMSELVES!"
How far do you take this? To the global stage? Would interfering with genocide be considered inappropriate? What then of the U.N?
"It may be fair to say...that our world today is very screwed up because of the poor jobs parents ( specifically the "upstanding" ones ) are doing in bring up children...addicted to the xBox,"
Aren't the fellow who in the post immediately preceding this one suggested that we watch a movie?
"It's parents that have the powerful role of shaping their kids."
However, once children are in school, parents actually see them very little as compared with their teachers. The teachers stand in loco parentis, which has never been interpreted as far as I know to mean that teachers become the parents. Rather they function at the behest of the parents and are therefore accountable to them. It is telling how much people in the U.S. have lost our communities, which when I was still a child considered to be an important and supportive part of a person's childhood - as important and necessary as the parents. This belief is still held in some cultural groups and when a child within such a group is having problems the immediate reaction is not to "blame" the parent(s). In fact, "blame" is not even part of the language of those groups, because it is nonsensical. It would be like my brain telling my broken leg that it is its fault that it is broken and is therefore going to have to fix itself.
The anthrops I know consistently throw out the word "community" and so it strikes me as odd to hear you speak of children learning anything, particularly something as basic as self-preservation, in isolation from others.
Deborah
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 14:33:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Bullying and how it is handled
--0-1792686603-1075069999=:84377
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sincerely Gideon... I choose this word sincerely rather than seriously because life is NOT that serious. It is not jaded at all to see the game of life.
In this way we can truly embrace play in our lifes.
I am paraphasing but wasn't it Shakespeare who said " all the world's a stage and we are merely players" ????
You don't really get this do you?
The powerful play goes on... what will your verse be?
The issue of lessons and teaching....
Yes if there are lessons then certaining there must be a teacher.
But define teacher - Here are examples of teacher that are persons and non-persons ( because a teacher does not have to be a person...but rather an event, situation, book, place, moment ....etc...)
Examples of Great Teachers of Life: the weather, the changing world, relationships, Zen Masters, coaches, friends, situations, events, karate instructors, the water, the wind, the camera, the mirror, necessity, hunger, pain, pleasure, sleep, wakefulness, meditation, loss, gains, profit, friendship, talk............ shall I go on? If we limit and define teachers as persons who went to school to become teachers then aren't we limiting
much of our learning?
Gideon..if you can find a way to view the play in life then you can also see the game going on...if we view life as something to drag on through...then we teach our kids this and they will lose their sense of wonderful, imaginative play.
Life is a game...having fun! Otherwise what is the point? Why bring more here?
The basis of your life is Freedom; the purpose of your life is Joy.
You are free to choose to discover new avenues for joy. In your joy you will grow, and in your joyous growth you will add to the growth experience of All-That-Is. (However, you are also free to choose bondage or pain.)
Check "American Beauty" ( yes that was me and me again) - this is not xBox
and I am not encoraging coach potatism... I am recommending an excellent film that does commentary on how "things really are" in good ole America. Great film...if it's a true reflection...which I think it is...shouldn't we be looking at what is going on at home? The encouragements that are happening there....kids don't play outside anymore with their friends. Parents allow them to stare like zombies at PC's and TV's.
Suggesting you watch one or even two movies should not invite an intellgent person to draw parallells....that's an illogical extrapolation.
Mark
ps... Happy to hear you are doing Spec Ed... I am consdiering the same type of teaching.
"I hold my ground...there are great lessons to be learned in defending yourself."
Doesn't "learning" involve "teaching" and thus may involve teachers? One lesson in being left to learn on one's own to defend oneself is that one is alone in the world. That sort of isolation can lead to internal aggression (leading to "cutting," excessive drinking, etc.) or external aggression, e.g. bullying. From my experience many (if not all) bullies 1) were taught bullying by adults and 2) believe they are acting defensively - that is they don't see themselves as being on the offensive and/or perceive themselves to be within a pecking order, i.e. someone is bullying them and they are passing it down.
"Later in like the adult won't know how to do it...because they have never done it before..."
Doing something, even repeatedly, does not result in one doing it well. Someone who defends her/himself from verbal bullying by stabbing the bully is not learning how to safely defend her/himself. That children can use some assistance in learning to defend or stand up for themselves and/or others is the impetus behind many schools instituting student arbitration and conflict resolution procedures.
I don't understand how you can state concern about how the world is with entire Nations "defending" themselves - the word "defense" in and of itself has been defined into the ridiculous - at the expense of the defenseless (e.g. women and children) and then posit as acceptable what has to leave to chaos, i.e. children having at one another no-holds-barred.
"Defending and standing your position is part of the game of life."
Perhaps therein lies part of the problem here. I don't think it is the norm to view life as a "game." Particularly in a discussion re: children and their futures, "game" seems quite inappropriate. If one views life as a game, then what sense does it make to bring another being into it? It seems like such a jaded view of life in general.
I teach primarily in Special Education classes and it strikes me as especially problematic that you and other anthrops see "disabled" children in general as able to learn in isolation how to defend themselves.
"Maybe they are that way becasue too many teachers and parents interfered and did'nt let the kid stand UP for THEMSELVES!"
How far do you take this? To the global stage? Would interfering with genocide be considered inappropriate? What then of the U.N?
"It may be fair to say...that our world today is very screwed up because of the poor jobs parents ( specifically the "upstanding" ones ) are doing in bring up children...addicted to the xBox,"
Aren't the fellow who in the post immediately preceding this one suggested that we watch a movie?
"It's parents that have the powerful role of shaping their kids."
However, once children are in school, parents actually see them very little as compared with their teachers. The teachers stand in loco parentis, which has never been interpreted as far as I know to mean that teachers become the parents. Rather they function at the behest of the parents and are therefore accountable to them. It is telling how much people in the U.S. have lost our communities, which when I was still a child considered to be an important and supportive part of a person's childhood - as important and necessary as the parents. This belief is still held in some cultural groups and when a child within such a group is having problems the immediate reaction is not to "blame" the parent(s). In fact, "blame" is not even part of the language of those groups, because it is nonsensical. It would be like my brain telling my broken leg that it is its fault that it is broken and is therefore going to have to fix itself.
The anthrops I know consistently throw out the word "community" and so it strikes me as odd to hear you speak of children learning anything, particularly something as basic as self-preservation, in isolation from others.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 17:41:03 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Bullying and how it is handled
) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3157897263_91558_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Sorry to have offended you, Mark! I am NOT a psychologist; I am a newspaper
reporter. I did not, however, "diagnose" you. I merely said that it seemed
to me you might be engaging in what in mental health terms is known as
reaction formation. (Just for the record, "reaction formation" is not a
diagnosis. It is something people do -- an action or a reaction. A diagnosis
is something that comes from a big book called the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual -- DSM -- and contains clinical descriptions of mental
illnesses, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder or depression.)
Nevertheless, it was not my intention to offend you, though your assertion
that our children will learn great and important life lessons by being
bullied (or bullying) and therefore, Waldorf teachers are justified in just
standing by and watching this happen offend me!
I am further offended by your assertion (which I addressed by asking you
some questions, etc. in an earlier post, which you ignored!) that it is OK
for Waldorf schools to hide their Anthroposophical nature and workings from
parents because (you assert) parents will just get confused and besides, the
teachers know more about what is good for the kids than the parents do. Can
we talk about that? That goes to the crux of many Waldorf critics'
complaints about Waldorf: we want Waldorf to come clean and to publicly own
who and what they are. We assert that if Waldorf schools would shout to the
heavens that they are Anthroposophical institutions and what that means,
people would rush to enroll their children and people who are not OK with
that approach (people like me!) will stay away.
Let's talk about that.
Lisa
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:58:41 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: Bullying and how it is handled
No reaction formation going on here. Are you a qualified psychologist to
diagnos me?
Even if..this is not the setting for you do do so and I find it offensive.
I hold my ground...there are great lessons to be learned in defending
yourself.
Later in like the adult won't know how to do it...because they have never
done it before...
always being coddled and protected by another....real life dictates ....in
the end you must defend your on position ( proof ) ...you and I are doing it
right this second.
Defending and standing your position is part of the game of life.
Maybe we have too many coddled adults running around... passive and
complacent about matters that should be attended to. Maybe they are that way
becasue too many teachers and parents interfered and did'nt let the kid
stand UP for THEMSELVES!
Make efforst to state your arguments withiut making it personal Lisa...no
pointing fingers and accusing others of having psychological whatever.
State your argument clearly and objectively withiut making it personal.
Making it personal skews your ability to deliver a logical and reasonable
missive.
It may be fair to say...that our world today is very screwed up because of
the poor jobs parents ( specifically the "upstanding" ones ) are doing in
bring up children...addicted to the xBox, materialistic pursuits etc...
rather than the teachres.
I can say in my childhood...that is was the teachers that were better
influences than the parents ( of course this was a generality ) but a
disturbing fact.
It's parents that have the powerful role of shaping their kids...and you
know what they are screwing up big time by seeing the condition of out
nation. In this way I question the credibility of the parents in this forum
more than any teacher.
Mark
Mark
"Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com) wrote:
Waldorf defending superhero Mark said:
((Bullying goes on everywhere life...later in life it will be only yourself
that can defend.
How is it beneficial for a teacher to interfere?))
Lisa: Please tell me you are joking here, Mark! Yes, bullying goes on
everywhere in life, and one of the reasons is that someone older and wiser
and more in control did *not* interfere when it happens among children!
Children learn what they live: I think we all agree on that. If a child
is the victim or perpetrator of bullying in his or her school and an adult
does not step in to tell the perpetrator "No, you are not allowed to treat
another human being/living thing this way; it is not respectful and you
would not want to be treated that way, either," the children learn that the
law of the world is "might makes right."
I don't know about you, Mark, but that is NOT what I believe (despite
global politics!) and not what I want my children to learn.
Mark then said:
((Is'nt it better for children to cultivate their own strategies for
defense?))
Lisa: Yes and no. (Like many things in life, it is not that
straightforward.) Certainly children must learn how to cope with and to
handle a variety of situations with other people, including how to deal with
people who are aggressive both physically and psychologically. Those people
we will always have with us, sadly.
It's a question of *how* they are to learn this. You seem to be
suggesting that it is a positive life lesson for a child at school to be
pummelled by his classmates, have his lunch money taken from him by force,
etc. etc. You also seem to suggest that the child who is being the bully/the
aggressor, is doing the victimized child a favor, because he is teaching the
subjugated child how to defend himself.
In truth, the victimized child is learning a host of lessons we would all
be better off not learning, such as feelings of low self worth and feelings
of intense anger at the fact that the victim cannot control what happens to
him. Ever heard of what happened at Colombine High School and a number of
other schools in America, Canada and England? THAT is what happens when
adults stand by and allow bullying to go on. (Just for the record, I realize
those are not Waldorf schools. I get that. I am just pointing out the result
of bullying.)
Mark tells us: ((I was bullied as child...what did i do? Tattle to teach?
No...ends in more bullying when teach is not looking))
Lisa: Ah, the explains it, Mark! I think what you are doing is called, in
psychological terms (and if any mental health professionals on this list
could correct me if I am wrong, I would appreciate it!) reaction formation.
You basically are explaining away/justifying the bad things that happened
to you as a way of dealing with them. As I understand it, this is a way that
human beings can mentally and emotionally take control of out of control
situations, regaining their sense of power.
So that: if my boss screams at me for no real reason, I tell myself that
I deserved it even when that is not the case. (For the record, I don't think
any situation in adult life warrants people screaming at each other.) That
way, the incident (screaming) seems less random and, in fact, "under my
control." I mean, if my boss screamed at me for no reason, well, then the
world is a random, chaotic place with no cause and effect. Too frightening.
So I will take the blame and defend my boss's irrational and bullying
action.
Also, just the fact that you used the phrase "tattle to teach" seems to
indicate that you have contempt for children who *do* alert the teacher (or
parent or other adult in charge) when others treat them unfairly.
With that attitude, don't be surprised if there are many things your own
young child will decide not to share with you.
Mark said: ((
Maybe the parents should be told...but where is the line drawn?
The teacher need to have a sense that they can use their own judgement else
they are undermined.
Why, in this whole scenario do we not question the parents ability to know
what is right?
What makes parents so much more qualified to decide what should or should
not be done? Becasue they are parents? This is not a qualification.))
Lisa: Yes, parents *should* be able to rely on teachers to use their own
(teachers's judgment) in how to deal with bullying. But that is contigent
upon the parents knowing that the teachers believe as they do, and that is
that bullying is absolutely unacceptable behavior that must be dealt with
each and every time it happens. (We can later discuss the definition of
"bullying" if you want. I am not talking about every time a child takes a
toy from another child, etc. I am talking about very aggressive and
intimidating encounters between children, in which one child has all the
power and the other is virtually powerless.)
If Waldorf teachers do not believe in interfering (and that very choice
of words tells me something ...) in bullying incidents, then parents like me
who firmly believe bullying must be dealt with as I mention above cannot and
should not trust those teachers. The trouble is, many parents of Waldorf
children are completely clueless regarding the Anthro belief system of karma
(and how situations between human souls in the past life affect the present
day) and thus, do not know that it is (in some cases) the "Waldorf way" to
allow this stuff to go on. (Please note here I do not believe that *every*
Waldorf teacher in every school allows bullying. I don't. But I am told that
enough do -- becuase of the Steiner teachings on karma -- that it has been
an issue of discussion in Waldorf circles. As a moderator of the survivors'
list, I also have heard story upon story of children being bullied at
Waldorf schools: enough to convince me there is a problem there.)
Finally, you ask why parents are more "qualified" than Waldorf teachers
to decide how bullying should be handled.
Because IT IS MY KID, THAT'S WHY. Period. As a parent, it is MY right to
decide what my child should be exposed to, whether we are talking about
bullying or stories of how the world was created. My child is MY
responsibility and until that child is of legal age, I am the one in charge
of her care, feeding and upbringing.
It is frightening to me that you even ask that question, Mark! It sounds
to me as if you would be a very good Waldorf parent, because you seem quite
willing to buy into the myth that Waldorf teachers know something/have some
special knowledge, that you don't and that that qualified them, over you, to
make decisions regarding the handling of your child.
That was one of the things that, in the end, disturbed me most about how
things were handled at our former Waldorf schools. Parents seemed all too
willing (and I am sad to say that I was among these in several situations)
to defer to the teachers' authority on a number of issues that, imo, had
little to nothing to do with the child's education. (Examples: what color to
paint the child's bedroom; should the child eat meat?; should the child take
soccer or ballet after school? should the child get a shot for chickenpox?)
Scary, scary, scary. But let's face it: that is what Steiner meant when
he told teachers to "take over" the raising of the children.
Not mine. No way.
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 05:08:51 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Peter F chimes in
Deborah (Gideon Mills) wrote
)
)I think there is a huge and critical distinction between scientific and
)philosophical writings as there is between scientific (e.g. biochemical)
)research and pseudo-scientific (e.g. correlational sociological studies)
)"research." Evidencing a cause-and-effect relationship in a study which
)follows the accepted experimental design or protocol is subject to bona
)fide questioning, i.e. variables have been controlled, the groups and all
)terms have been defined, the experiment can be replicated. A correlational
)study falls completely outside of that paradigm, however; the best they do
)is to suggest a cause-and-effect relationship, which perhaps may then lead
)to a hypothesis and subsequent controlled study. Correlational and similar
)studies are therefore influenced by the personal beliefs and history of the
)"researcher" and because of that I do find it critical to at least consider
)that when judging such a study.
)
)The Bell Curve may be an example of that. (I say "may be" because anyone
)with a modicum of a understanding re: the scientific method quickly
)ascertains Murray's beliefs and intentions.) Murray does not define his
)groups, which automatically invalidates everything coming after that
)omission. Years ago I happened to hear Murray who was a guest on Wisconsin
)Public Radio speaking about his book. Someone called in and asked him how
)he defined "African-American" in his study. Murray's reply was, "Well, we
)all know an African-American person when we see one." and it was on that
)basis that he defined African-Americans in his study and book. That single
)statement by its author serves to write-off his "research" (because there
)was no research) and to illustrate his beliefs and motivation. Now if
)Murray has done other studies, including controlled studies, then I
)certainly would immediately be suspect and would take into account the Bell
)Curve.
)
)
Peter F responds:
Where the science is weak look for who benefits. This is good advice. On the
other hand if the science is strong, who benefits is almost certainly
immaterial. I think your example is pretty similar to the example I gave of
Shockley, except that Shockley's work on the transistor and related objects
and the physics of them was outstanding.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:59:12 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
) Interesting.
)
) ) She is now in a profession where she is honored to serve others in being
) )
) ) healthy.
) ) She find joy now. Prior she did not expereince joy as much.
)
) I'm glad for her. So too am I. The joy I experience comes from finally
) having broken free of the more nonsensical constraints of Camphill. The
) care I now deliver is tailored to meet the needs of the individual:
) there is no consideration given to trying to make the care recipient
) comply with any - lets call it "ethos" other than that to which the
) individual has attached themselves.
)
)
) That works.
)
Yes Mark, it does work. But it was in trying to follow this approach
that I found myself cast as the antithesis of the Camphill approach.
This is the closest I have ever found an anthro come to conceding that
because Steiner forged a worthwhile inter-personal relationship with
Otto Specht, it does NOT follow that what was appropriate for young Otto
is right for everyone else. One size does NOT fit all.
)
)
) ) The wise one does not judge circumstances as "bad" or "good" but rather
) ) just "is".
) ) Neither bad or good.
) )
) Out of darkness cometh light? We all know that.
) I would however contest your conention that there is neither bad or
) good. If an experience transpires to be damging, and you can take this
) at any level you like: physical, spiritual, etheric, astral, moral,
) psychological...whatever, it is *not* simply a case of just shrugging.
)
)
) Disagree - define "damaging". Where is the line drawn. Sister was in
) car accident and sustained many injuries but her spirit was lifted. If
) we see only half the picture ( the physical injuries ) then we can say
) Celine was "damaged" but if we view holistically then we can see her
) spirit was lifted and not damaged at all. On the whole she was not
) damage but rather a better self emerged. This being true then we can
) say that any situation can be viewed holistically and have the benefits
) cancel out the damage. In this way ...ALL experience is not only
) important but essential.
)
Let me refer this back to you Mark: You draw the line.
I cant imagine anyone imagining that a family burned to death in
Bosnia-Herzogovina as part of an ethnic cleansing program welcomed the
experience as a necessary rite of passage to a higher spiritual plane.
What say you?
Someday you will realize that it may be the "bad" experiences in life (
) like the disruptive classroom ) that teash us THE MOST!
)
) Well, they teach us. One of the worst experiences of my life was
) anthroposophy. I have learned from that experience to work toward
) apraising those in a position of advocacy for our special needs people
) some of the stuff Steiner wrote, but Camphill won't reveal, about their
) special people. Maybe its my karma to so do.
)
) This experience was unfortunate or fortunate for you, I don't know - we
) shall wait and see.
)
And was my former centre's experience of me fortunate or otherwise.
I still don't know at precisely what point "Questioning is good for us:
keeps us on our toes" became "negative criticism". Anthroposophy has its
lines drawn too, but the placing of them is a bit personal- just like a
real world not especially spiritual employer in fact.
) )
) ) Your children probably already know this...( often they are much smarter
) )
) ) than we are as they are not "filtering" nearly as much ).
) )
) ) We should not want "good" or "bad experiences...we should only strive
) ) and thrive on
) ) ALL experienvce as there is NO "good" and "bad".
) )
) ) In this way we get to see life for how it "really" is.
) )
) Well, I respect your right to hold your point of view.
) However I do believe that Waldorf, Camphill et al, would be left high
) and dry were theis to be included in publicity/recruitment/fundraising
) material.
)
) Probably
Thanks
) ) Hope you can too someday....all it takes is open heart, open spirit and
) ) open mind.
) )
) ) See a movie called "Bus 174" - this may open your mind a bit to the
) ) nature and way of this life. You must strive to get out of your box.
) ) Your children will not benefit from this. They will benefit from being
) ) exposed rather than isolated from what is happening.
) ) And you too of course.
) )
) ) It is better to focus on what we "need" rather then what we "want" as we
) )
) ) often have no control over getting things that we don't "want"....but we
) )
) ) always get what we "NEED"!
)
) All very fine and noble, but it doesn't really happen in communities
) does it? A former co-worker needed specialist help- not uncommon in
) anthro residential settings. On expressing his disappointment that
) "community" hadn't really given as much support as he had expected, the
) psychiatrist snapped shut her notes, and said "Oh for goodness sake
) don't be so naive. No matter what they call themselves, you are still
) dealing with *people*."
) Its part of Camphill life to remit any "needs" to a community meeting.
) A wonderful setting to find glaring examples of "my cut finger hurts me
) more than your broken leg does"
)
)
) We bring exactly what we "need" into our lives...
)
) "You are a creator; you create with your every thought.
) You often create by default, for you are getting what you are giving
) your attention to wanted or unwanted but you know by how it feels if
) what you are getting (creating) is what you are wanting or if it is not
) what you are wanting. (Where is your attention focused?)
)
)
Mostly on keeping faith with those and that who have sustained me and
mine throughout my life. Anthroposophy has in no way persuaded me to
break faith with my church, with Scouting, neither of which features
t.v. or computers, but both of which do have very clear guidelines on
steering people away from anti-social practices. Nor have I been
persuaded to break faith with the women and men with whom I kept vigil
for every minute of every hour of every day for five years.
It wasn't complicated Mark. Just that simply we had Government officers
trying to tell us that we no longer had an identity of our own. The
little people had had enough of this simply drawing their own line and
saying "this far and no further".
It escaped the attention of most of the world Mark, because
Constitutional reform was brought about with no bombs, no guns, no
riots, nobody got killed.
I will not break faith with them simply because a dead Austrian informs
us that really we ought to aspire to an "Anglo-Saxon (ie Germanic) Soul
Consciousness"
Our own Soul Consciousness does us fine: it sets us above no one.
Equally, it leaves us second to none.
I don't know just what is meant by "The American Way", but I am
infinitely more inclined to trust this than to trust an "esoteric"
approach.
This does NOT leave me feeling either a child of a lesser god, or a
lesser child of the same god.
Oh, and by the way, its also a crucial part of my attention focus to
protect your right to hold your own faiths too- jus dont try to
undermine in the process.
Peace and light.
Davy
)
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how
) basic. New threads are always welcome.
)
)
)
) ---------------------------------
) Do you Yahoo!?
) Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1238
-- Topica Digest --
RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By jaquesdm msn.com
RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Moral bunkruptcy
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Moral bunkruptcy
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:20:52 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
I might also add that I too subscribe to the Waldorf Survivors list.
The openess, honesty and integrity of these people means that I won't
break faith there either.
Happily, openess, honesty and integrity are not purely American things
any more than supercilious esotericsm is exclusively European.
Davy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:44:39 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: trying to talk with anthroposophists
Mark wrote:
) The wise one does not judge circumstances as "bad" or "good" but rather
) just "is".
For our children? Like hell we don't.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:48:33 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Moral bunkruptcy
Peter wrote, in reply to Tarjei who said that religion deserved special
respect and honor:
"There is nothing wrong with criticizing particular examples of
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and so forth, when these examples
have been put forward by their adherents for public consideration."
Diana adds: Or even when they haven't.
I don't agree with putting religion in a "special" category where it gets
special honor and respect just "because."
Education - politics - government - medicine - academia - science - law -
art - professions - you name it: in a free society we criticize it. We
argue, we say we agree or we disagree, we believe or we don't believe and
we're not afraid to say why. We are free to (and required to) stand up for
what we think is right and criticize what we think is wrong. Religion should
not be an exception.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 23:42:48 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Moral bunkruptcy
Diana wrote - in reply to Peter S's comment on my post about Tarjei's
feelings vis a vis his religion (following this so far? Why do I imagine
John Cleese?!):
) I don't agree with putting religion in a "special" category where it gets
) special honor and respect just "because."
)
) Education - politics - government - medicine - academia - science - law -
) art - professions - you name it: in a free society we criticize it. We
) argue, we say we agree or we disagree, we believe or we don't believe and
) we're not afraid to say why. We are free to (and required to) stand up for
) what we think is right and criticize what we think is wrong. Religion
should
) not be an exception.
As a supporter of clarity in these threads (and a card carrying member of
the Cult of Peter(g)) I would like to add that my original post was not
intended to support non critical analysis of any particular religion - i.e.
I agree with Diana that religion does not deserve extra helpings of respect
over that which is heaped on other belief systems common to human beings.
What I was getting at is how (in this case) Tarjei tells us he *feels* when
he sees his religion criticized. I do believe him and while I can
absolutely try to empathize with him, I do not believe it is healthy for me
to empathize to the point of undermining (or neglecting) my own set of
values, especially when his religion - anthroposophy - is involved in
so-called non-sectarian schools. I *still* hear from people who feel their
families were sucked into Waldorf with no understanding of the
Anthroposophical roots which permeate the schools.
While the Tarjei's of the Anthro world seem to feel duty bound to defend
what they perceive as "attacks" on Anthroposophy, I also feel obliged to ask
questions, engage in discussion and share information with those who seek
such information. Unfortunately (for all of us), a healthy discussion often
takes a weird twist when Anthroposophists seem to feel that they are being
attacked personally when it is *ideas* that are being placed out into the
light. It has become a question of having one's "faith" questioned. And
that - obviously - causes problems. I still do not understand, however,
why name calling and anger becomes part of the equation. The anger I see in
some anthroposophically inclined people on other lists confuses and disturbs
me. Anger will not be part of the solution, IMO. Do ex-Waldorf parents
feel betrayed, duped, swindled, sad, disenfranchised, confused... angry?
You bet. I try hard, however, to reach beyond anger to a place whereby I
might find some answers and in the process help with the solution as opposed
to being part of the problem. Can we not discuss these issues with logic,
reason and a little bit of empathy? We're all human. Hey - maybe I am a
spiritual person after all. Who knows?
-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 1239
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Moral bunkruptcy
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Moral bunkruptcy
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Critics are a wrecking ball swinging against humanity
By diana.winters verizon.net
Steiner said there's nothing in space?
By diana.winters verizon.net
[NNA] "Fair Trade for All" conference in Switzerland
By dan dandugan.com
Waldorf on swimming
By antigonabaires hotmail.com
Re: Critics are a wrecking ball swinging against humanity
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:31:48 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Moral bunkruptcy
Thank you Walden, can I join the Cult of Walden now? We could have a whole
bunch of cults, why does Peter get his own? :) There is also reference on
"anthroposophy tomorrow" now to the Cult of Sharon, and I have proposed a
Cult of Lisa Ercolano and a Cult of Debra Snell. (The Cult of Dan Dugan, of
course, being long established.) I don't think the men should get all of
them. We are all gurus in our own way :)
)I still do not understand, however, why name calling and anger becomes part
)of the equation.
The "anthroposophy tomorrow" crowd finally started to get to me, a couple of
cute posts about wrestling with pigs in mud, and sometimes nastier
("uneducated TRAILER PARK wanna be Christians"), which, while not bearing my
name specifically, seemed aimed in my general direction (my punishment for
insisting that there is no reason to force left-handed children to use their
right hands). I would write a post for instance on left-handedness, and
Bradford, while he doesn't really stoop to discussing points other people
raise, then writes one of his long word salad posts, and I get a little
nervous seeing references to the "WC" and allusions to points that I made,
mixed in with Karl Rove, the Right Wing, Hitler, Enron, and the raping of
altar boys.
I think it's best to let them get on with their discussions in peace.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:16:12 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Moral bunkruptcy
My own cult! I love it!
) From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:31:48 -0500
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: RE: Moral bunkruptcy
)
)
) Thank you Walden, can I join the Cult of Walden now? We could have a whole
) bunch of cults, why does Peter get his own? :) There is also reference on
) "anthroposophy tomorrow" now to the Cult of Sharon, and I have proposed a
) Cult of Lisa Ercolano and a Cult of Debra Snell. (The Cult of Dan Dugan, of
) course, being long established.) I don't think the men should get all of
) them. We are all gurus in our own way :)
)
)) I still do not understand, however, why name calling and anger becomes part
)) of the equation.
)
) The "anthroposophy tomorrow" crowd finally started to get to me, a couple of
) cute posts about wrestling with pigs in mud, and sometimes nastier
) ("uneducated TRAILER PARK wanna be Christians"), which, while not bearing my
) name specifically, seemed aimed in my general direction (my punishment for
) insisting that there is no reason to force left-handed children to use their
) right hands). I would write a post for instance on left-handedness, and
) Bradford, while he doesn't really stoop to discussing points other people
) raise, then writes one of his long word salad posts, and I get a little
) nervous seeing references to the "WC" and allusions to points that I made,
) mixed in with Karl Rove, the Right Wing, Hitler, Enron, and the raping of
) altar boys.
) I think it's best to let them get on with their discussions in peace.
) Diana
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:42:24 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: Critics are a wrecking ball swinging against humanity
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C3E516.12762640
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Here, for example, is Bradford Riley talking about me on the "anthroposophy"
list (not "anthroposophy tomorrow"; here he is talking to someone on
"anthroposophy" about things I said on "anthroposophy tomorrow"). The "you
know who" means me. I'm not sure why he can't mention my name, maybe I
should be flattered.
"The utter hypocrisy and soul disgust I felt when (you
know who) didn't like the brainwashing of singing Risen Sun or Rising
Sun or some such, clear brainwashing of a child at Easter time.
Golden, if these, whom we are speaking about... MOOSE-hyena-porcupine
and Squirrel, weren't part of the same wrecking crew that has the
ball swinging at the foundations of humanity, the Earth and calling
themselves, alert and Intelligent people, I would be Bradford LITE."
Now I am a moose-hyena-porcupine and squirrel. :-)
Okay, okay, but does it ever stop? Bradford feels "soul disgust" when he
reads my posts.
Bradford is referring to a little song the kindergarteners sing about a
butterfly, where the last line, "The sun is risen," can also be heard as
"The Son is risen." I quoted this song and suggested that I had become
uncomfortable when I realized the meanings of this song, because parents
were assured the school was not Christian.
Furthermore Bradford misunderstands how much I enjoyed my time in the
Waldorf kindergartens and what a pretty song it is. I made no reference to
"brainwashing."
I kept my sense of humor for awhile over there, but I don't really like
being described as part of a wrecking ball swinging at the foundations of
humanity. I am rather pessimistic about the possibility of "talking with
anthroposophists." We ask them to be honest with the public about the
sectarian foundations of the schools and we are wrecking balls against
humanity.
We can yammer on for years about methods of reading instruction, gaping
holes in science curriculum, outdated practices such as switching left
handers, health and safety issues such as the filthy wash bowl (please let
them use hot water from the tap, there's a lot of flu going around this
year) . . . and to them we will always be swinging a wrecking ball at their
spiritual holy stuff. (And still, the party line is that the Waldorf schools
are not religious.) Don't anybody tell me these guys, cute and silly on a
good day, aren't actually sorta scary folks.
Definitely I've given up talking to them, but not necessarily quoting them
here.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 20:43:02 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: Steiner said there's nothing in space?
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C3E516.2BB59EB0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
This is somebody on the "anthroposophy" list last week:
"According to Steiner, there is nothing physical in outer space beyond
the earth, but the lights we see in the sky as stars are living beings
reaching out to us with love. When we look to the sun, we look out of space
into the flow of time, whence Christ was born, who gave time back to man,
who
had become a space being. In other words, everything we imagine and
theorize about the heavenly bodies, and make grand plans about at NASA, are
illusions, because the real universe is inside ourselves."
It is in a Bradford post and I think he may be quoting Tarjei, though I'm
not sure.
Does anyone know if Steiner really said there is nothing physical in outer
space beyond the earth? If it's true or even if they only *think* it's true
(that Steiner said this), all the indignation over my describing Steiner as
"speaking against science" is really hilarious.
Bradford refers to being "NASA illusion free," and I'm not sure if he's
sorta criticizing NASA (not unreasonable, suggesting that they promote
illusions about the feasibility or desirability of space exploration), or if
he actually believes that there really is nothing up there, it's all a big
hoax from the moon landing to the little rovers on Mars. It's hard to know
when to take Bradford literally.
But I'm not sure Steiner actually said this - anyone?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:53:03 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: [NNA] "Fair Trade for All" conference in Switzerland
Copyright 2004 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
"Fair Trade for All" conference in Switzerland
"Special Prize 2004 for Geatest Social Competence" awarded to Sekem
founder Ibrahim Abouleisch
Herzber/AG, 27 January (NNA) - "We cannot reinvent the world, but we
can change it," the management consultant Udo Herrmannstorfer told
participants at the "Fair Trade for All" conference in Herzberg,
Switzerland, at the weekend.
According to a report from the Swiss Anthroposophical Media Centre
(MAS), Herrmannstorfer took the up to 100 Demeter consumers attending
the conference on a journey which led them from "waking up to their
responsibilities as consumers" to their "new role as contract
partners" who together with producers and retailers had to seek an
appropriate balance and fairness: "The end consumers must not see
themselves simply as the victims of economic circumstances, but as
initiators of economic action who act with responsibility in that
capacity."
Profit maximisation for producers and "the cheapest" for consumers
should be replaced by "working together" which achieves the optimum
for everyone involved.
According to MAS, the initiator of the Sekem project in Egypt,
Ibrahim Abouleish , who received the Alternative Nobel Prize last
December, took time off from the World Economic Forum in Davos to
visit the Demeter consumers in Herzberg and receive the "Special
Prize 2004 for Greatest Social Competence" from them.
Associative economics: how and where?
Alongside bio-dynamic agriculture, the Demeter consumers also wanted
to support associative economics, MAS further reports. That this is
already being practiced today in certain contexts was illustrated by
leading representatives from the Demeter Association and Weleda
among others.
The rapid growth of the fair trade label "Max Havelaar" reflected the
wish of many people to support both the environment and social
justice as well as their willingness to bear the cost of that. New
forms of handling money and profit were illustrated by the Freie
Gemeinschaftsbank BCL bank in Basle und the CoOpera project in Bern
which comprises an alternative pension fund as well as an investment,
property and leasing company.
Such approaches could turn business back into "a true school of life
in which we practice dealing with our fellow human beings and the
environment in an ever more resourceful and social way," the lecturer
in agriculture Michael Rist concluded.
END/cva
+ + + + +
Item reference number: N040127-01EN
Date: 27 January 2004
More NNA reports at: http://www.nna-news.org/content/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:51:46 -0300
From: "antigonabaires" (antigonabaires hotmail.com)
Subject: Waldorf on swimming
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0062_01C3E530.863BE910
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hi everybody.
Not long ago, at my daughter's Waldorf school, I overheard a conversation between two teachers. They were discussing how swimming could damage children's bodies and souls.
I'm planning to leave the school soon and I prefer to have as little contact as possible with the teachers unless it's absolutely necessary; that's why i didn't inquire further into the matter. Does anyboy have any idea what Steiner might have said about swimming? I can't possibly imagine.
Best regards,
Agustina
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:31:25 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Critics are a wrecking ball swinging against humanity
Thanks for sharing your experience on the anthroposophy tomorrow list,
Diana. Would my glass be more than half full if I suggested it was a good
"learning experience?"
Always one to seek common ground, I found another post from that list - part
of which I simply must share with fellow critics because I find it very
thoughtful and sincere. Perhaps this person could help AWSNA market Waldorf
Education? Anyway, it was refreshing to see a pleasant, articulate post to
Diana from a Waldorf teacher I might agree to disagree with in some
areas -but not in the area of integrity.
From "Christine:"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/1494
(snip) But I agree totally and whole heartedly that Catholics and Christian
fundamentalists should have their own schools and not be in control of any
Public school. And I agree also that no parent should put their child in a
Waldorf
School without having as much information as possible presented beforehand.
After
making the choice, I don't think that any parent should accept what a
teacher
says "on faith." There has to be constant communication. Waldorf teachers do
have to study and keep abreast of current educational and developmental
ideas
and be prepared to factor them into the equation. Parents' concerns and
criticisms should be taken seriously and addressed. But there also has to be
some trust involved on the part of the parents that the school and its
teachers are
doing there very best to know and understand each child as an individual. A
parent who constantly invades the classroom in a hostile way and becomes
disruptive
yet refuses to study the very available literature and attend the lectures
and
workshops (given by every Waldorf school I have ever known), this kind of
parent does not belong in the school. Not because he or she is asking
questions!
But because he or she is not IN TRUTH seeking answers. Waldorf schools do
have
a working theory, a recognizable form and methodology. An individual parent
cannot mold a whole school to suit his or her personal preferences. There is
much room for communication and compromise. There is in most cases a spirit
of
compassion and real concern for both the individual child and the family
unit.
But there is also a great deal of committment on the part of Waldorf Schools
and Waldorf Teachers to the unique view of the world, the development of the
human being and the Spirit of Anthroposophy that Waldorf Schools are but one
expression of. This Spirit of Anthroposophy is NOT occult. It has taken (and
continues to take) many things that have been specifically Occult throughout
the
history of civilization and brings them to light. It continually seeks to
uncover the occult, or hidden secrets of human evolution and bring them out
into
the open. It rejects whole heartedly the dominant theory found throughout
Western Civilization that the best knowledge and the best fruits of
knowledge
should belong to an exclusive, priveleged few. It seeks to donate freely,
without
proselytizing, the open secrets of the human being, the material world and
the
spiritual world to all who ask and are willing to listen with open ears,
look
with open eyes and feel with open hearts. (snip)
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1240
-- Topica Digest --
Egyptian firm is clean, green, and in the black
By Neil.wc faiman.org
Re: Critics are a wrecking ball swinging against humanity
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: Steiner said there's nothing in space?
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: Bullying and how it is handled
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: Critics are a wrecking ball swinging against humanity
By jaquesdm msn.com
Re: Critics are a wrecking ball swinging against humanity
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
anthroposophy tomorrow
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Anthro Med Article in Jan Mothering Mag-
By anjhale yahoo.com
Re: Anthro Med Article in Jan Mothering Mag-
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Lazure
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Steiner Education quote of the day
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 07:16:00 -0500
From: Neil Faiman (Neil.wc faiman.org)
Subject: Egyptian firm is clean, green, and in the black
BELBEIS, EGYPT – Egypt, or even the Arab world, isn't noted as a hotbed
of social capitalism. In fact, the companies most famous for their
do-gooder business products - The Body Shop, Ben & Jerry's, Starbucks -
are best-known for catering to first-world customers and tastes.
That's part of what makes the Sekem Group's desert experiment so
remarkable.
Last year, this environmentally friendly agro-business defied gravity
within Egypt's sagging economy, and produced a 25 percent boost in
profits. It made $14 million and supplied quality schooling,
healthcare, and vocational training to its 2,000 employees, plus tens
of thousands of members of the local residents. Sekem also donates 15
to 20 percent of its profits to social development.
Christian Science Monitor
(http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0127/p01s03-wome.html)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:20:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Critics are a wrecking ball swinging against humanity
--0-594558376-1075306859=:48067
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From "Christine:"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/1494
"Not because he or she is asking
questions! . . .
But because he or she is not IN TRUTH seeking answers."
Does this mean that some are asking questions because they don't want answers? Who decides that someone "in truth" is not really seeking answers? That sounds wholly subjective to me. Is similar to a game of Jeopardy wherein one who is given an answer is then expected to provide the correct question?
Deborah
---------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:27:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner said there's nothing in space?
--0-1446217767-1075307241=:51404
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
"This is somebody on the “anthroposophy” list last week:
“According to Steiner, there is nothing physical in outer space beyond
the earth, but the lights we see in the sky as stars are living beings
reaching out to us with love."
So when a piece of metal detritus (garbage) that clearly is a piece of a spacecraft falls to the earth - which is not at all uncommon - what does that signify. Are the living beings throwing stuff at us?
Deborah
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:53:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Bullying and how it is handled
--0-296181652-1075308825=:27307
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com) wrote:
"I choose this word sincerely rather than seriously because life is NOT that serious."
Is this what you would say to the survivors in Iraq, as just one example of how your statement strikes me.
"I am paraphasing but wasn't it Shakespeare who said " all the world's a stage and we are merely players" ????"
I remember just a bit about Shakespeare, but I believe you have quoted something from one of his plays out of context.
"The issue of lessons and teaching....
Yes if there are lessons then certaining there must be a teacher.
But define teacher. . ."
One who instructs or teaches. What I have inferred from your posts re: bullying is that in Waldorf schools bullies are allowed to teach certain lessons, e.g. lessons of life.
"Gideon..if you can find a way to view the play in life then you can also see the game going on...if we view life as something to drag on through...then we teach our kids this and they will lose their sense of wonderful, imaginative play."
So life is either a "game" or it is something "to drag on through?" Those are the only two choices you perceive?
"The basis of your life is Freedom; the purpose of your life is Joy.
You are free to choose to discover new avenues for joy."
First you define what we all should base our lives on and what our purpose in life is, but then state that we are free to choose. You defined the box we believe we should all be in and then assert that we have choices. What about those of us who make choices outside of that box?
" In your joy you will grow, and in your joyous growth you will add to the growth experience of All-That-Is. (However, you are also free to choose bondage or pain.)"
There's that "either/or" thinking again.
Deborah
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:24:53 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: Critics are a wrecking ball swinging against humanity
Gideon Mills wrote:
) From "Christine:"
) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/1494
)
) "Not because he or she is asking
) questions! . . .
)
) But because he or she is not IN TRUTH seeking answers."
)
) Does this mean that some are asking questions because they don't want
) answers? Who decides that someone "in truth" is not really seeking
) answers? That sounds wholly subjective to me. Is similar to a game of
) Jeopardy wherein one who is given an answer is then expected to provide
) the correct question?
)
) Deborah
)
Thats pretty much it Deborah; approved questions only leading one to
the same conclusions as the gur...er founder. Its a prime indicator of a
cult v a religion.
Davy
)
) ---------------------------------
) Do you Yahoo!?
) Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 15:00:15 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Critics are a wrecking ball swinging against humanity
Good point, Deborah. I still think the post to Diana was thoughtful and
sincere. Your comments are a prime example of where I do not agree with
her. I think what Christine was getting at is that a parent who has no
time for anything spiritual, can only find things wrong with the school and
tells the teacher how to better do his/her job... should really wonder if
that school is the right place for the child. Of course, if the school had
clearly spelled out the Anthroposophic nature of the school, how the
teachers might feel they work under the guardianship of Lucifer combined
with a clear explanation of the very real religious nature of the school...
there would be no need for any parent to be"in truth seeking answers."
For example, *I* could have avoided our family's Waldorf journey in grade
one when I asked a question: "I could have sworn I heard the kids chanting
a prayer this morning as I stood outside the classroom. What is this all
about?"
Standing in the office with two experienced teachers. I was told: "No no,
no... it is a lovely verse they recite each morning."
Should I have accepted this answer? No. Should I have been told the prayer
is a "verse?" NO.
Should I have I listened to my child tell me how upset the little Japanese
boy in the class feels because he is not allowed a black crayon to color
some hair in his picture? Yes. Should the school have explained the reason
the child must not use black crayons to the parents? YES. Should I have
put up with eurythmy for years and worse - should I have even let my child
(who did not like it at all) participate in this spiritual practise? No.
But then again - I was told it was a form of dance....
Etc.
-Walden
) From "Christine:"
) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/1494
)
) "Not because he or she is asking
) questions! . . .
)
) But because he or she is not IN TRUTH seeking answers."
)
) Does this mean that some are asking questions because they don't want
answers? Who decides that someone "in truth" is not really seeking answers?
That sounds wholly subjective to me. Is similar to a game of Jeopardy
wherein one who is given an answer is then expected to provide the correct
question?
)
) Deborah
)
)
)
)
)
)
) ---------------------------------
) Do you Yahoo!?
) Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 03:26:15 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: anthroposophy tomorrow
G'day Diana,
I wanted to thank you for sharing some of your experiences at anthroposophy
tomorrow. I had a quick look through a lot of the messages there and it
cured me of some of my desire to see some of the DOFs contributing here. One
thing that struck me was that Joel seems to be treated pretty roughly over
there amongst the supporters. This seems pretty odd to me given all the
complaints about the lack of respect of the critics. Perhaps Joel might be
more comfortable over here after all.
It's also interesting how small the online community appears to be.
The last observation I wanted to make was that Tarjei made reference to a
wonderful website featuring what some might call rabid (and others moderate)
quotations from a variety of US right wing politicians and tele evangelists.
He points us to http://moose-and-squirrel.com/bozo/bozo.html for some of
these gems. Of course this kind of selective quotation is exactly what he
says is inappropriate for Steiner. Couldn't expect Tarjei to be consistent
could we.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:26:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Jessica Hale (anjhale yahoo.com)
Subject: Anthro Med Article in Jan Mothering Mag-
Did anyone else read it? Ughhh... full of so much
misinformation/pseudoscience- and I avoid vaccinations
and pharmeceutical treatments for my child if/when at
all possible, so I should have been a sympathetic
reader but quite frankly the author struck me as
simply off her rocker! Enemas, glycerin suppositories
and laxatives as treatments for 1 year old babies with
sore throats/colds? How bizarre... and Mothering
printed it without so much as a disclaimer. I'll be
writing a letter to the editor as I had come to expect
a higher standard of journalistic quality from them,
even though they do print quite a lot of
Waldorf/Steiner propaganda (they should note as well
for their mostly "hippie" readership that anthro docs
frown on breastfeeding past 6 months and vehemently
oppose "co-sleeping").
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:39:14 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Anthro Med Article in Jan Mothering Mag-
It's sad that a magazine that is apparently as well respected as Mothering
would print such blatant (and perhaps, dangerous) nonsense at all, much less
without even a sidebar/disclaimer telling the reader that some mainstream
doctors would oppose those treatments and why.
I've been a reporter for more than 20 years and very few, if any, credible
publications would allow the one-sided story you describe below (in all
fairness, I have not seen or read it) to be published without at least a
short paragraph or two (if not much more!) from a physician or nurse
practitioner (or other medical health professional) with an opposing view.
Simple journalistic integrity demands that kind of balance!
But let's face it, kids: Waldorf and Anthroposophy (they are hand in glove)
promotes pseudoscience, both in the education of children and the medical
care thereof. I vividly recall overhearing -- in my Waldorf days -- a very
earnest discussion between a parent and a teacher over whether a child
should eat meat at this time, or whether a diet including meat was "too
incarnating."
Shame on Mothering. They have to know there are parents out there who will
take what is written there as gospel. But shame, also, on parents who are
willing to allow a publication -- or a teacher, or any other so called
expert -- to tell them how to parent.
That's one big lesson I learned at Waldorf (well, I also learned all the
different kinds of fairies and that gnomes abhor frogs, but ... (g)): don't
let anyone take the parenting reins from you. You are in charge of your
child.
Lisa
) From: Jessica Hale (anjhale yahoo.com)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:26:32 -0800 (PST)
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: Anthro Med Article in Jan Mothering Mag-
)
)
) Did anyone else read it? Ughhh... full of so much
) misinformation/pseudoscience- and I avoid vaccinations
) and pharmeceutical treatments for my child if/when at
) all possible, so I should have been a sympathetic
) reader but quite frankly the author struck me as
) simply off her rocker! Enemas, glycerin suppositories
) and laxatives as treatments for 1 year old babies with
) sore throats/colds? How bizarre... and Mothering
) printed it without so much as a disclaimer. I'll be
) writing a letter to the editor as I had come to expect
) a higher standard of journalistic quality from them,
) even though they do print quite a lot of
) Waldorf/Steiner propaganda (they should note as well
) for their mostly "hippie" readership that anthro docs
) frown on breastfeeding past 6 months and vehemently
) oppose "co-sleeping").
)
) __________________________________
) Do you Yahoo!?
) Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
) http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:59:29 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Lazure
The Art of Lazure ... or Anthroposophy *is* the Classroom
Someone asked about colors of classrooms and I knew I had the following
article somewhere. This might have been posted before but it is always good
to keep this in mind - especially for any lurkers considering Waldorf for
your children. I remember asking and nobody seemed to know why we lazured
the classrooms. I must say that I like the effect over a boring white wall
but I would have appreciated a deeper understanding of the reason behind the
Waldorf wall story. This article touches on the epochs (according to
Steiner) which the child will follow year after year during his
incarnation/education which also correspond to the colors of the wall.
Anthroposophy is not only in the classroom - Look around and you'll see that
Anthroposophy *is* the classroom.
-Walden
From: Lazure Painting by Robert Logsdon
http://www.lazurebylogsdon.com/lazure.html
COLORS IN WALDORF SCHOOL'S CLASSROOMS
When you observe that each subsequent year the children experience a
different colored room you begin to realize there is a sequence of colors.
It begins with peach blossom in kindergarten (the children's garden) to
red-vermilion in the first grade. Moving on through the grades the children
experience the rainbow sequence of color ending with blue-violet in the
eighth grade. The high school colors are subtler in their sequence of
violet, reddish violet, red violet and peach blossom. The peach blossom of
the 12th grade is usually lighter or more delicate than the rich color found
on the kindergarten walls. In this way the child experiences, in an
unconscious fashion, all the basic moods of soul forming a whole. Naturally
we are reminded of the biblical description of the rainbow as God's covenant
with man (humanity) as it appeared to Noah when the waters were divided
between heaven and earth. With the sun's light behind us we look toward the
darkness to behold the rainbow. It is the water element in the atmosphere
that enables the colors to appear. It is, one might say, the water of life.
The Waldorf curriculum is based on large phases of human development as
reflected in the major cultural epochs throughout the ages. The colors
suggested for the classrooms bear a relationship to the qualities of
consciousness revealed in these great cultures of our ancient history. Just
as we move through the zodiac in the course of a year-so we have moved
through phases of human development in a greater cycle. In a general way one
can view the child as gradually descending into the physical body. The body
is not immediately adapted to earth conditions but is gradually prepared;
so, too, is the soul of each child. The red vermilion, orange, and yellow
colors provide warmth and protection a child needs. The red colors calm a
child, for until the approximate age of 9 the opposite, or complimentary,
color is experienced intensely inwardly. As the child awakens intellectually
to the sense world, his or her experience of color changes. The red colors
become more stimulating while the cool colors relax and calm. In ancient
India the consciousness was more at home in the spiritual world than on
earth. Red is at the top of the rainbow and descends through orange, yellow,
green, blue, indigo and violet. Children are most drawn to red. They are at
home with red. A wholeness is contained in red - a culmination of an
intensification process moving through the other colors. Add red to blue and
to yellow, they are enhanced or intensified toward red. Red is related in
quality to ancient India. It is also related to the abundant life force
pulsating through the child. Circular forms, rhythmical games, and fairy
tales dominate. The circle implies wholeness-encompassing all humanity, the
globe, the zodiac, the entire cosmos. All forms evolving from the circle or
sphere are further articulations. As we define, we make smaller, separate
out from the whole. In red is contained the whole, the culmination of light
and darkness. In the second grade we progress to orange. In the ancient
Persian culture, Zanathustra led the people to a greater experience of light
and darkness. They learned to impose their will on the earth. They began to
cultivate and grow food. The mysteries of light and dark work upon growing
plants. In the third grade, yellow is recommended and relates to the
Egyptian/Babylonian epoch. The experience of light dominates. The building
of the pyramids was the first major architectural achievement. The light
filled being of the child begins a major transition around the age of nine.
Their questioning seeks answers with ever more emphasis on the
natural-physical world while at the same time the spiritual holds true as
conveyed through the fairy tales and fables of the first and second grades
and biblical stories of the third grade. Yellow to green is recommended in
the fourth grade reflecting this transition. Green in the fifth grade
reveals human consciousness arriving fully on earth. The Greek culture,
studied in the fifth grade, experienced balance, gracefulness and beauty.
This is revealed through their sculpture and paints. The mythological,
image-filled consciousness reveals also the awareness of two worlds in
one-the spiritual and the physical. Green is the color of balance between
light and darkness. It is the transition from the warm side of the spectrum
to the cool side. The plant kingdom is studied and again the meeting of
light and dark merge to create the green-exemplified in the world of plants.
The sixth grade enters a blue green room and one feels the weight of earth.
The Roman culture was firmly rooted on the earth. They studied physical
laws. The gymnastics of the fifth grade continue and help bring balance. It
is helpful when the room for this is colored in orange to balance the weight
of the blue green. The forces of puberty enter around the age in which
children enter the seventh grade. Here one finds an indigo blue classroom.
It is the darkest color and contains the greatest capacity for light and
dark. A fact based consciousness is further developed through all the
subjects. Spatial perspective, from an earthly standpoint, characterizes the
Renaissance lessons. With blue violet in the eighth grade, the students
complete the color circle and prepare to cross the threshold into high
school and begin a new seven year cycle of maturation. As described earlier
the colors for the high school are more subtly articulated, ranging from
violet to peach blossom. Greater discernment in thinking and in perception
are called forth in the upper grades. Violet leads the soul inward and helps
the child to introvert his soul life and find his own self. The ability to
judge grows with the developing ego and is mirrored by the intensifying red
within the violet which is found in the tenth and eleventh grades. At this
age the child strives to become a free human being in a free community.
Peach blossom, in the twelfth grade crowns the color circle. Quoting from
John Fletcher's book Art Inspired by Rudolf Steiner "containing all the
other colors, peach blossom exits in the balance that the human ego always
needs to create between the active red-yellow colors, which lead outward,
and the blue-purple colors, which lead inward".
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 00:34:31 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Steiner Education quote of the day
Extracts from "Education as a Social Problem, " Rudolf Steiner
Page 12: "The great problem of the future will be that of education. How
will we have to deal with children so that they, as adults, can grow into
the social, democratic, and spiritually free areas of living in the most
comprehensive way?"
Page 13: "In the past when man's life was more instinctive he could rely
instinctively on this imitation. This will not be the case in the future.
Then care will have to be taken that a child be an imitator. In education
the question will have to be answered: How can we best shape the life of a
child so that he may imitate his surroundings in the best possible way? What
has happened in the past in regard to this imitation will have to become
increasingly intensive and conscious in the future. For people will have to
make clear to themselves that when children are grown to adulthood in the
social organism they will have to be free human beings, and one can become
free only if as a child one has been a most intensive imitator. This natural
power of a child must be strongly developed precisely for the time when
socialism will break in upon us. People will not become free human beings,
in spite of all declaiming and political wailing about freedom, if the power
of imitation is not implanted in them in the age of childhood. Only if this
is done will they as adults have the basis for social freedom.
"From the seventh year of life until puberty, until the fourteenth or
fifteenth year, there lives in a child what may be called action based on
authority. When a child undertakes what he does because a revered
personality in his surroundings says to him, "This is right, this should be
done" then it is the greatest blessing that could happen to him. Nothing is
worse than for a child to get accustomed to making his so-called judgements
too early, prior to puberty. A feeling for authority between the ages of
seven and fourteen will in future have to be developed more intensively than
has been done in the past. All education in this period of life will have to
be consciously directed toward awakening in a child a pure, beautiful
feeling for authority; for what is to be implanted in him during these years
is to form the foundation for what the adult is to experience in the social
organism as the equal rights of men. Equal rights amoung men will not come
into existence in any other way, because people will never become ripe for
these equal rights if in childhood regard for authority has not been
implanted in them. In the past a lesser degree of feeling for authority
might have sufficed; in future it will not be so."
Me: I am so very glad to have spared my children most of this Steiner
"education." I spend oodles of time with my kids these days and I truly am
amazed at their natural ability to engage in wonderful meaningful
conversations with me about anything and everything. I learn a great deal
from children. Freedom is theirs to teach. And I learn. I think the word
"freedom" carries a different meaning for me and Steiner. His "feeling for
authority" until puberty in order for the adult to understand her/his
freedom - to be honest, gives me the creeps. Sounds like a way to foster
insecurity - something (I am sad to report) I have seen with Waldorf
teenagers over the years. "Nothing is worse than for a child to get
accustomed to making his so-called judgements too early, prior to puberty."
Right - just look for that "revered personality" to tell you all the
answers... then, miraculously you will understand democracy and rights and
social issues and community when you reach adulthood. Get real. And when
the "revered personality" tells you to "work it out" with the bully who
smacks you at the playground you must trust that this is simply your lot in
life....and... and.. and....
Are there well intentioned, decent Waldorf teachers? I have no doubt. I
sure hope, however, they do not see themselves as "revered personalities"
who are blessed to follow such arrogant, misguided drivel that Steiner
spouts above. Steiner was not an educator, had virtually no experience with
children and should be taken with a lot more than a grain of salt. Children
deserve better.
-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 1241
-- Topica Digest --
RE: anthroposophy tomorrow
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Steiner Education quote of the day
By gideonmills yahoo.com
to my anthro-tomorrow friends
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Anthro Med Article in Jan Mothering Mag-
By gideonmills yahoo.com
confusion
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: confusion
By momof2gals mindspring.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:05:42 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: anthroposophy tomorrow
Peter F. wrote:
"G'day Diana,
I wanted to thank you for sharing some of your experiences at anthroposophy
tomorrow. I had a quick look through a lot of the messages there and it
cured me of some of my desire to see some of the DOFs contributing here."
I only did it because Tarjei kept baiting us, we were all cowards and
low-lifes if we wouldn't debate them on their own ground (etc.) It got
tiresome faster than I expected. Too much juvenile behavior. People ignore
you, go on talking and refer to you as TRAILER TRASH in another post.
Their refusal to participate here is mainly because they are very upset that
Waldorf critics archives are posted twice on the Web - once at Topica and
once at the PLANS website. Stuff has a double shot at coming up on a google
search, in other words, and they don't want to add to it. I think it's
rather childish to complain about this, it's not as if the pro-Waldorf stuff
on the web isn't 600 times in volume of the criticism. 800 Waldorf schools
world wide, each puts up a web site, do we complain we are being treated
unfairly because the quote from Steiner about receiving the child in love
and reverence etc. is repeated 800 times on the World Wide Web?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:04:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner Education quote of the day
--0-1580910089-1075392246=:56492
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca) wrote:
'Extracts from "Education as a Social Problem, " Rudolf Steiner
Page 12: "The great problem of the future will be that of education. How
will we have to deal with children so that they, as adults, can grow into
the social, democratic, and spiritually free areas of living in the most
comprehensive way?"'
He wasn't really speaking of "education" as we understand that word. I think it is his code word for "initiation." I am reading "How to Know Higher Worlds" and in the index it has "education. See knowledge." as if those are synonymous. I know that Steiner's "knowledge" represents spiritual knowledge and is once again another code word. I've gone through some of other Steiner writings and find that he doesn't really speak of "education" and in fact I have found that particular word used very little by him.
Deborah
Page 13: "In the past when man's life was more instinctive he could rely
instinctively on this imitation. This will not be the case in the future.
Then care will have to be taken that a child be an imitator. In education
the question will have to be answered: How can we best shape the life of a
child so that he may imitate his surroundings in the best possible way? What
has happened in the past in regard to this imitation will have to become
increasingly intensive and conscious in the future. For people will have to
make clear to themselves that when children are grown to adulthood in the
social organism they will have to be free human beings, and one can become
free only if as a child one has been a most intensive imitator. This natural
power of a child must be strongly developed precisely for the time when
socialism will break in upon us. People will not become free human beings,
in spite of all declaiming and political wailing about freedom, if the power
of imitation is not implanted in them in the age of childhood. Only if this
is done will they as adults have the basis for social freedom.
"From the seventh year of life until puberty, until the fourteenth or
fifteenth year, there lives in a child what may be called action based on
authority. When a child undertakes what he does because a revered
personality in his surroundings says to him, "This is right, this should be
done" then it is the greatest blessing that could happen to him. Nothing is
worse than for a child to get accustomed to making his so-called judgements
too early, prior to puberty. A feeling for authority between the ages of
seven and fourteen will in future have to be developed more intensively than
has been done in the past. All education in this period of life will have to
be consciously directed toward awakening in a child a pure, beautiful
feeling for authority; for what is to be implanted in him during these years
is to form the foundation for what the adult is to experience in the social
organism as the equal rights of men. Equal rights amoung men will not come
into existence in any other way, because people will never become ripe for
these equal rights if in childhood regard for authority has not been
implanted in them. In the past a lesser degree of feeling for authority
might have sufficed; in future it will not be so."
Me: I am so very glad to have spared my children most of this Steiner
"education." I spend oodles of time with my kids these days and I truly am
amazed at their natural ability to engage in wonderful meaningful
conversations with me about anything and everything. I learn a great deal
from children. Freedom is theirs to teach. And I learn. I think the word
"freedom" carries a different meaning for me and Steiner. His "feeling for
authority" until puberty in order for the adult to understand her/his
freedom - to be honest, gives me the creeps. Sounds like a way to foster
insecurity - something (I am sad to report) I have seen with Waldorf
teenagers over the years. "Nothing is worse than for a child to get
accustomed to making his so-called judgements too early, prior to puberty."
Right - just look for that "revered personality" to tell you all the
answers... then, miraculously you will understand democracy and rights and
social issues and community when you reach adulthood. Get real. And when
the "revered personality" tells you to "work it out" with the bully who
smacks you at the playground you must trust that this is simply your lot in
life....and... and.. and....
Are there well intentioned, decent Waldorf teachers? I have no doubt. I
sure hope, however, they do not see themselves as "revered personalities"
who are blessed to follow such arrogant, misguided drivel that Steiner
spouts above. Steiner was not an educator, had virtually no experience with
children and should be taken with a lot more than a grain of salt. Children
deserve better.
-Walden
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:04:59 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: to my anthro-tomorrow friends
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C3E657.BF962FE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hey, anthro-tomorrow buddies, I didn't unsub because I don't want to "eat
crow." I have a reply coming for Daniel, not to worry. I work, too, and
can't always fire back in 20 minutes like you guys do.
What is anthro-pirates? I find I am being talked about on yet another list I
didn't know the existence of. :-)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:14:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Anthro Med Article in Jan Mothering Mag-
--0-2004533238-1075392879=:71606
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Jessica Hale (anjhale yahoo.com) wrote:
Re: Mothering magazine
' Enemas, glycerin suppositories
and laxatives as treatments for 1 year old babies with
sore throats/colds? '
Those can be extremely dangerous for babies and young children who, because of their small sizes in particular, can dehydrate very quickly.
Deborah
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:16:34 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: confusion
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C3E659.602151A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Dottie writes on anthroposophy_tomorrow that when she speaks with critics
she is really "sending a message" to Staudenmaier:
"I think we can not forget he really is our main target. He is the big fish.
When I respond to Diana I am really targeting slick Staudenmaier (snip) He
is my target in my little way that I can."
Well no wonder it is so hard to communicate then, if people writing posts
that begin, "Dear Diana," are actually addressing Peter Staudenmaier.
Fascinating. In the entire discussion of left-handedness, Peter hasn't said
a word, and has never expressed an opinion on this as far as I recall, I
wonder who is really obssessed with Peter Staudenmaier?!
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:17:47 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: confusion
) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
--MS_Mac_OE_3158241467_120374_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Just another example of the way some Anthroposophers or Waldorf enthusiasts
(or both) refuse to be forthright!
Why write to you, Diana, when they really want to speak with Peter
Staudemaier? You want to speak with Peter, address him, for goodness sake!
I am not surprised at this, however. In my opinion, Anthros are experts at
this kind of thing. They say to the public Waldorf schools are not
religious; amongst themselves they talk about esoteric education and Steiner
being an occultist. They write to Diana on a list, when they really want to
speak to someone else.
Listen up, Waldorf folks: why not try being direct and honest for a change?
Aren't y'all worried about the karma of all this untruthfulness?
Lisa
From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 11:16:34 -0500
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: confusion
Dottie writes on anthroposophy_tomorrow that when she speaks with critics
she is really ³sending a message² to Staudenmaier:
³I think we can not forget he really is our main target. He is the big fish.
When I respond to Diana I am really targeting slick Staudenmaier (snip) He
is my target in my little way that I can.²
Well no wonder it is so hard to communicate then, if people writing posts
that begin, ³Dear Diana,² are actually addressing Peter Staudenmaier.
Fascinating. In the entire discussion of left-handedness, Peter hasn¹t said
a word, and has never expressed an opinion on this as far as I recall, I
wonder who is really obssessed with Peter Staudenmaier?!
Diana
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1242
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Anthro Med Article in Jan Mothering Mag-
By anjhale yahoo.com
Waldorf reading conference
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 16:23:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Jessica Hale (anjhale yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Anthro Med Article in Jan Mothering Mag-
Exactly... except that this anthro doc has convinced
the deluded anthro mom who wrote the article that such
treatments will "cleanse" the "toxins" that are
causing the illness.... haven't these people heard of
*viruses* before? The best way to treat chilhood viral
infections is supportive care- quiet rest, plenty of
fluids and love. In my opinion this pseudo-medical
advice is fantasy along the same lines as the fairies
and elves but much more dangerous.
--- Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com) wrote:
)
)
) Jessica Hale (anjhale yahoo.com) wrote:
) Re: Mothering magazine
)
) ' Enemas, glycerin suppositories
) and laxatives as treatments for 1 year old babies
) with
) sore throats/colds? '
)
) Those can be extremely dangerous for babies and
) young children who, because of their small sizes in
) particular, can dehydrate very quickly.
)
)
)
) Deborah
)
)
)
) ---------------------------------
) Do you Yahoo!?
) Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool.
) Try it!
)
)
==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like
) here, no matter how basic. New threads are always
) welcome.
)
)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:15:54 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Waldorf reading conference
The Chicago Waldorf School and the Waldorf Early Childhood
Association of North America (WECAN) in association with LifeWays
North America are sponsoring "an Early Childhood Conference for
teachers, parents and early childhood professionals."
human literacy
Learning to read the world...before learning to read the word.
March 19-20, 2004 at the Chicago Waldorf School
Keynote: Rebeca Itzkowich, Faculty, Erickson Institute of Loyola University
Keynote: Rena Osmer, Director, Early Childhood Education, Rudolf
Steiner College
Information: 773 465 8630
Looks like a bid for legitimacy for Waldorf's delayed reading policy.
The theme previously was the title of a lecture given at Rudolf
Steiner College. Itzkowich has an MA, Erickson is a graduate school
specializing in early child development.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 23:18:56 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Cc: "Macintyre" (atlantic nii.net)
Subject: Re: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
Gavin Macintyre, you wrote to PLANS. I'm replying on our public
discussion list. Please subscribe if you want to participate in
subsequent discussion.
)Why don't you guys just walk away and let the general public make up their
)own minds about Waldorf Education?
First, because public funding of Waldorf education violates the
Establishment Clause of our constitution. Parents who want Waldorf
are happy to have the public pay for it. The "general public" doesn't
know what's going on.
Second, because Waldorf schools, both public and private, make
deceptive claims about the nature of their philosophy and their
practices. The general public needs some assistance to avoid consumer
fraud.
)If you no longer have children in a Waldorf School, why are you spending so
)much time on putting down Waldorf Education.
Because I have experience with it, and it's interesting. I've been
studying it for fifteen years now.
)Have you visited all the
)Waldorf Schools in the U.S., or elsewhere in the world?
I've visited quite a few, but what difference would that make?
)I am not sure what you mean by a cult? Note that the biggest cult in the
)U.S. is the Church. It is just not called a cult as it has millions of
)members.
There are religious cults, and there are legitimate religions. Cult
scholars debate where to draw the line, because they overlap. I
suggest you read some articles in the Cultic Studies Review, at
http://www.csj.org/. Also Margaret Singer's book "Cults in our Midst"
discusses the difference between a cult and a legitimate
organization. When someone joins a church, they can find out ahead of
time what they're getting into. Cults get people committed before
they know what the're in for.
Anthroposophy, in my opinion, was a cult while Steiner was alive. Now
it's a cult-like religious sect.
)Sincerely,
)Gavin Macintyre
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1243