return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 02:16:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Cc: Macintyre (atlantic nii.net)
Subject: Re: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
--0-419172439-1075716975=:49807
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Dan....
can you elaborate on this...
"First, because public funding of Waldorf education violates the
Establishment Clause of our constitution."
I don't get the violation here. What are considered "public funds" ?
Parents money? Because they are paying tuition with after-tax income?
The other part of this amendment is the Free Exercise Clause...
Freedom to have a Waldorf School.
Thanks
Mark
Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
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.
---------------------------------
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1244
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
By Gary goodwinter.com
Re: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
RE: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
By dan dandugan.com
camphill and special ed
By Jan-Christoph_Kolb web.de
=?iso-8859-1?Q?=C9coles?= Waldorf-suite a l'article du journal le Devoir
le 6
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: camphill and special ed
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
RE: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
By diana.winters verizon.net
doing your homework
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: Critics are a wrecking ball swinging against humanity
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
RE: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
RE: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Admin: Re: camphill and special ed
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 07:56:23 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C3E962.11882DF0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
"'First, because public funding of Waldorf education violates the
Establishment Clause of our constitution.'
I don't get the violation here. What are considered 'public funds'?
Parents money? Because they are paying tuition with after-tax income?"
No, Mark - public funds are tax money. "Public" schools in the US are
schools funded by tax money, not parents paying private tuition. The money
going there is NOT "after-tax income." Everybody in the neighborhood is
paying for the local public schools, whether they have children attending
them or not, and whether they *want* to be paying for them or not. The
"Establishment Clause" refers to the constitutional separation of church and
state in the US. Public funds may not be spent to promote religion.
Religious schools promote religion to a captive audience - schoolchildren -
and thus in the US religious schools must be private schools; they are not
eligible for public funds. The local public school often serves families of
many different faiths, and in fairness to all of them the deal is that no
particular religion may be promoted by the state school. The overall purpose
is peace and tolerance - the state must not fund one religion because in
fairness it would then need to fund them all, or conflict would (does)
result. Ironically, the bottom line is that the US is very religious and
separation of church and state helps to *keep* it religious; separation of
church and state was originally intended to protect the freedom of every
religious sect, large and small (popular and unpopular) to worship as they
choose and provide religious instruction for their children as they see fit
(rather than having the public school teaching the kids something the
parents do not believe).
"The other part of this amendment is the Free Exercise Clause...
Freedom to have a Waldorf School."
Yes, there is "Freedom to have a Waldorf school," there is freedom to do
lots of things - you just can't ask the government for the money to do it,
because the government is sworn to neutrality among all the hundreds of
different religions. Religious schools must be private institutions, paid
for by families of *that* religion and/or families to whom it is acceptable
to pay fees to the religious school. The problem with the tax money is that
nobody has a choice about whether to pay it.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:05:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
--0-1647777625-1075745119=:61646
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
what you are saying makes sense then because Waldorf is funded by private money
NOT public. I have looked into this and the Waldorf school is NOT paid by our taxes but rather private tutition.
Therefore your argument holds no water.... Waldorf can do whaterver it wants as it is not being funded by the gov't.
Your info is wrong about funding therefore all aguments dependent on it are void.
Thx
Mark
Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net) wrote:
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
“’First, because public funding of Waldorf education violates the
Establishment Clause of our constitution.’
I don't get the violation here. What are considered ‘public funds’?
Parents money? Because they are paying tuition with after-tax income?”
No, Mark – public funds are tax money. “Public” schools in the US are schools funded by tax money, not parents paying private tuition. The money going there is NOT “after-tax income.” Everybody in the neighborhood is paying for the local public schools, whether they have children attending them or not, and whether they *want* to be paying for them or not. The “Establishment Clause” refers to the constitutional separation of church and state in the US. Public funds may not be spent to promote religion. Religious schools promote religion to a captive audience – schoolchildren – and thus in the US religious schools must be private schools; they are not eligible for public funds. The local public school often serves families of many different faiths, and in fairness to all of them the deal is that no particular religion may be promoted by the state school. The overall purpose is peace and tolerance – the state must not fund one religion because in fairness it would then need to fund them
all, or conflict would (does) result. Ironically, the bottom line is that the US is very religious and separation of church and state helps to *keep* it religious; separation of church and state was originally intended to protect the freedom of every religious sect, large and small (popular and unpopular) to worship as they choose and provide religious instruction for their children as they see fit (rather than having the public school teaching the kids something the parents do not believe).
“The other part of this amendment is the Free Exercise Clause...
Freedom to have a Waldorf School.”
Yes, there is “Freedom to have a Waldorf school,” there is freedom to do lots of things – you just can’t ask the government for the money to do it, because the government is sworn to neutrality among all the hundreds of different religions. Religious schools must be private institutions, paid for by families of *that* religion and/or families to whom it is acceptable to pay fees to the religious school. The problem with the tax money is that nobody has a choice about whether to pay it.
Diana
==^================================================================You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:10:41 -0500
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
Don't get excited, Mark.
PLANS lawsuit is against publicly funded *charter* schools who are using the
Waldorf curriculum, not private Waldorf schools (though we also have many
concerns with those too, including deceptive advertising, flawed curriculum,
etc. etc. etc.).
You need to read our web site more deeply and carefully, I think.
Cheers!
...Gary
on 2/2/04 1:05 PM, Mark Fitzpatrick at fitzcandoservices yahoo.com wrote:
what you are saying makes sense then because Waldorf is funded by private
money
NOT public. I have looked into this and the Waldorf school is NOT paid by
our taxes but rather private tutition.
Therefore your argument holds no water.... Waldorf can do whaterver it wants
as it is not being funded by the gov't.
Your info is wrong about funding therefore all aguments dependent on it are
void.
Thx
Mark
Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net) wrote:
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
“’First, because public funding of Waldorf education violates the
Establishment Clause of our constitution.’
I don't get the violation here. What are considered ‘public funds’?
Parents money? Because they are paying tuition with after-tax income?”
No, Mark – public funds are tax money. “Public” schools in the US are
schools funded by tax money, not parents paying private tuition. The money
going there is NOT “after-tax income.” Everybody in the neighborhood is
paying for the local public schools, whether they have children attending
them or not, and whether they *want* to be paying for them or not. The
“Establishment Clause” refers to the constitutional separation of church and
state in the US. Public funds may not be spent to promote religion.
Religious schools promote religion to a captive audience – schoolchildren –
and thus in the US religious schools must be private schools; they are not
eligible for public funds. The local public school often serves families of
many different faiths, and in fairness to all of them the deal is that no
particular religion may be promoted by the state school. The overall purpose
is peace and tolerance – the state must not fund one religion because in
fairness it would then need to fund them all, or conflict would (does)
result. Ironically, the bottom line is that the US is very religious and
separation of church and state helps to *keep* it religious; separation of
church and state was originally intended to protect the freedom of every
religious sect, large and small (popular and unpopular) to worship as they
choose and provide religious instruction for their children as they see fit
(rather than having the public school teaching the kids something the
parents do not believe).
“The other part of this amendment is the Free Exercise Clause...
Freedom to have a Waldorf School.”
Yes, there is “Freedom to have a Waldorf school,” there is freedom to do
lots of things – you just can’t ask the government for the money to do it,
because the government is sworn to neutrality among all the hundreds of
different religions. Religious schools must be private institutions, paid
for by families of *that* religion and/or families to whom it is acceptable
to pay fees to the religious school. The problem with the tax money is that
nobody has a choice about whether to pay it.
Diana
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:13:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
ok
Gary Bonhiver (Gary GoodWinter.com) wrote:Don't get excited, Mark.
PLANS lawsuit is against publicly funded *charter* schools who are using the Waldorf curriculum, not private Waldorf schools (though we also have many concerns with those too, including deceptive advertising, flawed curriculum, etc. etc. etc.).
You need to read our web site more deeply and carefully, I think.
Cheers!
...Gary
on 2/2/04 1:05 PM, Mark Fitzpatrick at fitzcandoservices yahoo.com wrote:
what you are saying makes sense then because Waldorf is funded by private money
NOT public. I have looked into this and the Waldorf school is NOT paid by our taxes but rather private tutition.
Therefore your argument holds no water.... Waldorf can do whaterver it wants as it is not being funded by the gov't.
Your info is wrong about funding therefore all aguments dependent on it are void.
Thx
Mark
Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net) wrote:
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
“’First, because public funding of Waldorf education violates the
Establishment Clause of our constitution.’
I don't get the violation here. What are considered ‘public funds’?
Parents money? Because they are paying tuition with after-tax income?”
No, Mark – public funds are tax money. “Public” schools in the US are schools funded by tax money, not parents paying private tuition. The money going there is NOT “after-tax income.” Everybody in the neighborhood is paying for the local public schools, whether they have children attending them or not, and whether they *want* to be paying for them or not. The “Establishment Clause” refers to the constitutional separation of church and state in the US. Public funds may not be spent to promote religion. Religious schools promote religion to a captive audience – schoolchildren – and thus in the US religious schools must be private schools; they are not eligible for public funds. The local public school often serves families of many different faiths, and in fairness to all of them the deal is that no particular religion may be promoted by the state school. The overall purpose is peace and tolerance – the state must not fund one religion because in fairness it would then need to fund them
all, or conflict would (does) result. Ironically, the bottom line is that the US is very religious and separation of church and state helps to *keep* it religious; separation of church and state was originally intended to protect the freedom of every religious sect, large and small (popular and unpopular) to worship as they choose and provide religious instruction for their children as they see fit (rather than having the public school teaching the kids something the parents do not believe).
“The other part of this amendment is the Free Exercise Clause...
Freedom to have a Waldorf School.”
Yes, there is “Freedom to have a Waldorf school,” there is freedom to do lots of things – you just can’t ask the government for the money to do it, because the government is sworn to neutrality among all the hundreds of different religions. Religious schools must be private institutions, paid for by families of *that* religion and/or families to whom it is acceptable to pay fees to the religious school. The problem with the tax money is that nobody has a choice about whether to pay it.
Diana
==^================================================================
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: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:23:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
--0-583133460-1075775012=:24884
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com) wrote:" I have looked into this and the Waldorf school is NOT paid by our taxes but rather private tutition."
Schools that are chartered through a public school are supported by public monies. Therefore, if a Waldorf school is a charter school it is publically funded and must not violate federal or state laws governing public schools.
Deborah
---------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:02:08 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=C9coles?= Waldorf-suite a l'article du journal le Devoir
le 6 =?iso-8859-1?Q?d=E9cembre?= 2003 (3 articles)
Quand une soirée d'information devient séance de
recrutement - Un reflet des préjugés et non de la
réalité
Philip van Leeuwen
Parent-fondateur et membre du comité de
coordination du groupe EWM pour une école
publique inspirée de la pédagogie Waldorf à
Montréal
...dition du vendredi 19 décembre
(http://www.ledevoir.com/2003/12/19/index.html)
2003
Dans son article sur la pédagogie Waldorf publié
dans Le Devoir du samedi 6 décembre 2003,
Isabelle Roberge mentionne l'importance des
contes et de la mythologie dans les écoles
Waldorf. Mme Roberge nous apparaît comme un
raconteur par excellence avec sa façon de tisser
et d'entrelacer divers mythes, rumeurs et
vieilles histoires portant sur cette pédagogie
pour produire une fiction du plus bel effet qui
semble refléter davantage les préjugés de Mme
Roberge que la réalité. Mais où sont son sens
critique et sa rigueur scientifique, qualités qui
nous apparaissent essentielles pour un
journaliste, surtout lorsque celui-ci publie sous
la bannière de l'Agence Science-Presse?
Permettez-nous quelques conseils.
Conseil no 1 : parler aux principaux intéressés
concernés et non seulement à ceux qui ont un
certain point de vue sur le sujet. Mme Roberge
mentionne le projet d'école du groupe ...lan
Waldorf Montréal à plusieurs reprises et accuse
ce groupe de parents de «soigneusement éviter»
les questions; or c'est plutôt Mme Roberge qui a
soigneusement évité de poser les questions qui la
préoccupent aux responsables du groupe.
Permettez-moi de répondre à l'une de ses
questions : pourquoi ne parlons-nous pas
d'anthroposophie dans nos documents ou à des
réunions publiques ? La réponse est très simple :
nous ne sommes pas des anthroposophes, et
l'anthroposophie n'est pas enseignée dans une
école Waldorf; nous ne sommes que de simples
parents qui reconnaissons les bénéfices de la
pédagogie Waldorf et qui voulons offrir ce choix
pédagogique aux familles de Montréal.
Conseil no 2 : vérifier les faits. Dans son
article «recyclé» (le même article a déjà été
publié presque intégralement par l'Agence
Science-Presse en août 2002 et en avril 2003),
Mme Roberge fait plusieurs erreurs. Par exemple :
- depuis plus d'un an, le nom du groupe de
parents est EWM et non ...lan Waldorf Montréal (le
mot «Waldorf» est une marque de commerce du
Waldorf School Association of Ontario et le
groupe EWM n'est pas autorisé à utiliser ce mot
dans son nom);
- la Commission scolaire de Montréal n'a jamais
offert -- et le groupe EWM n'a jamais refusé --
des locaux à partager avec une autre école;
- le jardin d'enfants L'Oiseau d'or est situé
dans les Cantons-de-l'Est et non à Montréal.
Et j'en passe...
Une demande
Mme Roberge choisit aussi soigneusement ses mots
pour raconter son histoire. Sous sa plume, une
simple soirée d'information devient une «séance
de recrutement». À l'occasion de ces séances, les
parents tentent de «convaincre» d'autres parents.
La vérité est moins excitante : le groupe EWM
reçoit beaucoup de demandes d'information de
parents intéressés et ces soirées sont tenues à
la demande de ces parents qui veulent en savoir
davantage sur la pédagogie.
De plus, l'intérêt pour ce projet est tellement
grand que nous continuons à recevoir chaque
semaine plusieurs inscriptions à notre liste
d'appui, malgré le fait que nous ayons cessé
toute activité de sensibilisation auprès du
public depuis plus d'un an. À ce jour, plus de
750 personnes ont déjà signé une déclaration
d'appui à la création d'une école publique
inspirée de la pédagogie Waldorf à Montréal. Plus
de 350 familles (500 enfants) attendent la
création d'une telle école. En fait, toutes les
écoles publiques inspirées de cette pédagogie
sont en croissance au Québec et ont toutes des
listes d'attente.
Pourquoi ce grand intérêt ? Parce que la
pédagogie Waldorf répond aux besoins des élèves
d'aujourd'hui. La pédagogie non seulement nourrit
la soif intellectuelle des élèves mais reconnaît
et développe aussi leurs capacités physiques,
émotives et sociales. La pédagogie respecte le
caractère unique de chaque enfant, ses rythmes de
développement, ses forces et ses capacités. La
majorité des élèves Waldorf aiment l'école; peu
décrochent.
En Europe, où plusieurs pays reconnaissent et
financent des écoles Waldorf, les résultats sont
impressionnants. En Allemagne, par exemple, selon
les résultats publiés par le ministère de
l'...ducation, seulement 3 % des élèves Waldorf ont
décroché en 1999-2000 par rapport à la moyenne
générale du pays, qui s'établit à 9 % (le taux de
décrochage à Montréal dépasse les 35 % !).
Cette pédagogie a aussi été reconnue par des
éducateurs, des scientifiques, des artistes et
des politiciens aussi bien que par des
organisations comme l'UNESCO. Lors d'une
conférence sur l'éducation à Genève en 1994, à
laquelle les ministres de l'...ducation de tous les
pays participaient, l'UNESCO a entièrement
cautionné cette pédagogie.
Il y a quelques années, les écoles Waldorf
(appelées aussi écoles Steiner) de France ont été
menacées par des propos semblables à ceux que
tient Mme Roberge. Voici ce qu'Albert Jacquard,
le célèbre généticien, écrivait au journal Le
Monde à ce sujet en mai 2001 : «J'apprends que
les écoles Steiner sont menacées. Je constate que
les méthodes pédagogiques qui y sont employées
sont dans le droit fil des réflexions que
j'essaie de diffuser par tous mes livres : la
finalité du système éducatif est de métamorphoser
un individu fait par la nature en une personne
faite par la société. Cette métamorphose
nécessite avant tout les rencontres : l'école est
le lieu où l'on apprend l'art de la rencontre.
Comment accepter que, par des tracasseries
administratives ou par des accusations sans
fondement, le magnifique élan apporté par les
écoles Steiner soit mis en péril ? J'appelle tous
ceux qui sont passionnés par les problèmes de
l'éducation à manifester leur soutien.»
http://www.ledevoir.com/2003/12/19/43216.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
...coles Waldorf - Ridiculiser plutôt qu'expliquer
Un nombre grandissant de parents québécois se tournent vers les écoles Waldorf
Louis Taillefer
Parent de deux enfants à l'école Les Enfants de
la Terre et professeur de physique à l'Université
de Sherbrooke
...dition du
(http://www.ledevoir.com/2003/12/19/index.html)
vendredi 19 décembre 2003
Il est navrant de constater qu'un journal comme
Le Devoir consacre une page entière de sa section
...ducation aux écoles Waldorf, un mouvement
international qui regroupe plus de 900 écoles sur
cinq continents et qui a fait l'objet d'une
conférence de l'UNESCO, sans s'intéresser
d'aucune façon à l'essentiel: la pédagogie qu'on
y enseigne. L'article d'Isabelle Roberge paru le
6 décembre dernier n'est manifestement que le
fruit d'un préjugé et n'éclairera en rien les
lecteurs qui s'intéressent vraiment à l'éducation
et seraient curieux d'en savoir plus sur ce type
d'école.
Il existe ici-même au Québec quatre écoles
Waldorf, et un nombre grandissant de parents se
tournent vers ce mode d'éducation, au point où
trois de ces écoles ont maintenant des listes
d'attente. Mais Mme Roberge n'a pas cru bon de
joindre qui que soit à ces écoles québécoises :
pas un seul parent, pas un seul élève, pas un
seul professeur, ni un seul directeur, ni un seul
commissaire.
Elle a bien réussi à dénicher deux parents
mécontents en Amérique du Nord : un à Montréal,
qui a retiré ses enfants dans les années 90, et
un autre à San Francisco, qui intente une
poursuite, sur un bassin de 165 écoles Waldorf.
Sur la base de quelques mécontentements de ce
genre, elle déclare en sous-titre que «les écoles
Waldorf soulèvent plus que leur part de
controverse en Amérique du Nord». S'il faut juger
de l'ampleur de ladite controverse à l'urgence
avec laquelle Le Devoir a publié son article,
soit 15 mois après sa rédaction, le mot
«controverse» est bien grand.
Puisqu'on me cite comme parent dans le bref
article de Pascal Lapointe publié dans la même
page («Un physicien parmi les parents»),
j'aimerais avoir la chance de combler un peu le
vide d'information. Mon offre de faire parvenir à
M. Lapointe toutes sortes d'information sur la
pédagogie Waldorf à la suite de notre entrevue
est restée sans réponse.
Les mathématiques
Sans jamais avoir visité une seule classe ou
échangé avec un seul professeur, Mme Roberge
tente de ridiculiser l'enseignement Waldorf. «Les
mathématiques sont également revues à travers le
tricot», se moque-t-elle. C'est vrai, quoi,
soyons sérieux ! Les mathématiques, c'est
scientifique. Comment le tricot, avec toutes ces
mailles et ces rangs qu'il faut aligner et
ajouter, pourrait-il bien aider un enfant à
apprendre les maths ? Et pourquoi pas la musique,
tant qu'à y être, avec toutes ces notes groupées
par gamme ? Et l'aquarelle, où on représenterait
les sept couleurs de l'arc-en-ciel ?
Et tandis qu'on y est, pourquoi ne pas ramener
toutes sortes de saletés de dehors, comme des
cailloux (qui contiennent peut-être de la pyrite
cubique), des branches (de pin blanc, à cinq
aiguilles), de la neige (des flocons à six
pointes) ou des bibittes (des araignées à huit
pattes) ? Et la danse, sorte de perte de temps
artistique, qui n'est qu'affaire d'harmonie, de
synchronie et de rythme ? Soyons sérieux !
Et si toutes ces manifestations mathématiques de
l'activité humaine et de la nature pouvaient
aider certains enfants, voire tous les enfants, à
apprendre de mille façons que les mathématiques
sont un reflet fondamental de la réalité qui les
entoure et non pas seulement une invention
abstraite des adultes ?
Comment le Québec va-t-il affronter le défi
gigantesque et pressant du décrochage en masse
des jeunes, qui frise actuellement 40 % chez les
garçons, si ce n'est en explorant des voies
pédagogiques alternatives ? Des milliers de
parents de par le monde choisissent de s'engager
dans une de ces voies alternatives, la pédagogie
Waldorf. C'est ce que ma conjointe et moi avons
fait en inscrivant nos deux enfants à l'école Les
Enfants de la Terre, l'école Waldorf de l'Estrie,
et en appuyant son développement le plus
activement possible. Des familles de partout
viennent s'installer dans la région pour la même
raison (le nombre d'élèves a triplé en cinq ans).
Nous croyons qu'en respectant le rythme de
développement de l'enfant (et de chaque enfant),
en favorisant le développement de toutes ses
facultés, et non pas seulement l'intellect, et en
travaillant à ce que les connaissances soient
enracinées dans la réalité, les enfants aimeront
apprendre. Cet intérêt est fondamental pour la
suite des études, pour la vie -- et c'est sans
doute un des meilleurs antidotes contre le
décrochage.
Et si c'est par les arts qu'on réussit le mieux à
éveiller cette curiosité chez le jeune enfant,
que ce soit du tricot, du modelage en cire
d'abeille, du jardinage, de l'artisanat ou des
travaux manuels -- autant d'approches ridicules
aux yeux de Mme Roberge --, eh bien, pourquoi pas
?
J'aimerais inviter les journalistes du journal Le
Devoir à contribuer de façon constructive et
approfondie à l'étude des voies pédagogiques
alternatives au Québec et à renseigner leurs
lecteurs sur la pédagogie Waldorf en faisant
appel aux gens qui en savent quelque chose.
http://www.ledevoir.com/2003/12/19/43217.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Les auteurs répondent - Waldorf : l'inconnu
Collectif
Isabelle Roberge, Pascal Lapointe et Isabelle Burgun - Agence Science-Presse
...dition du vendredi 19 décembre
(http://www.ledevoir.com/2003/12/19/index.html)
2003
Si la bonne volonté des parents n'est pas mise en
doute, il est permis de se poser des questions
sur la qualité de leurs renseignements lorsqu'ils
se prononcent sur les orientations pédagogiques
des écoles Waldorf et la prétendue absence de
l'anthroposophie (réincarnation, anges,
Atlantide... ). Car il y a bel et bien
anthroposophie, même si celle-ci n'est pas
inscrite noir sur blanc dans le programme: elle
sous-tend la raison même pour laquelle les écoles
Waldorf ont été créées, et il existe une
formation complémentaire de un à trois ans pour
les professeurs.
Nous n'avons pas trouvé «seulement» deux
mécontents à travers l'Amérique : nous avons
trouvé au moins deux poursuites en justice, un
site Internet (www.waldorfcritics.org)
rassemblant des milliers de mécontents, de
sceptiques et de critiques, ainsi que des
accusations de racisme étalées sur des décennies.
En réalité, le coeur de ce reportage est bien
simple : si un citoyen ne dispose pas de toute
l'information relative à une pédagogie et aux
philosophies qui la sous-tendent, peut-il décider
en connaissance de cause ? Les répliques des
parents ne permettent malheureusement pas de
trancher cette question.
http://www.ledevoir.com/2003/12/19/43215.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 18:02:59 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
) 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_3158589779_27839_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Mark,
Hard to believe, I know, but your private Waldorf school is NOT the only
Waldorf school in the US.
In fact, there *are* publicly funded Waldorf schools ... they are called
"charter schoolsm" and they are paid for by taxpayer's money.
PLANS asserts that as religious schools, Waldorf schools cannot be publicly
funded because that is a violation of the Constitutional separation of
church and state.
PLANS also is concerned, however, about the habit many private Waldorf
schools have of not revealing their religious natures to the parents
enrolling their children.
Two issues, Mark. Do your homework, man.
Lisa
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:05:19 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
what you are saying makes sense then because Waldorf is funded by private
money
NOT public. I have looked into this and the Waldorf school is NOT paid by
our taxes but rather private tutition.
Therefore your argument holds no water.... Waldorf can do whaterver it wants
as it is not being funded by the gov't.
Your info is wrong about funding therefore all aguments dependent on it are
void.
Thx
Mark
Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net) wrote:
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
“’First, because public funding of Waldorf education violates the
Establishment Clause of our constitution.’
I don't get the violation here. What are considered ‘public funds’?
Parents money? Because they are paying tuition with after-tax income?”
No, Mark – public funds are tax money. “Public” schools in the US are
schools funded by tax money, not parents paying private tuition. The money
going there is NOT “after-tax income.” Everybody in the neighborhood is
paying for the local public schools, whether they have children attending
them or not, and whether they *want* to be paying for them or not. The
“Establishment Clause” refers to the constitutional separation of church and
state in the US. Public funds may not be spent to promote religion.
Religious schools promote religion to a captive audience – schoolchildren –
and thus in the US religious schools must be private schools; they are not
eligible for public funds. The local public school often serves families of
many different faiths, and in fairness to all of them the deal is that no
particular religion may be promoted by the state school. The overall purpose
is peace and tolerance – the state must not fund one religion because in
fairness it would then need to fund them all, or conflict would (does)
result. Ironically, the bottom line is that the US is very religious and
separation of church and state helps to *keep* it religious; separation of
church and state was originally intended to protect the freedom of every
religious sect, large and small (popular and unpopular) to worship as they
choose and provide religious instruction for their children as they see fit
(rather than having the public school teaching the kids something the
parents do not believe).
“The other part of this amendment is the Free Exercise Clause...
Freedom to have a Waldorf School.”
Yes, there is “Freedom to have a Waldorf school,” there is freedom to do
lots of things – you just can’t ask the government for the money to do it,
because the government is sworn to neutrality among all the hundreds of
different religions. Religious schools must be private institutions, paid
for by families of *that* religion and/or families to whom it is acceptable
to pay fees to the religious school. The problem with the tax money is that
nobody has a choice about whether to pay it.
Diana
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:54:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
Thanks Dan for the info....
what is this with so much credibility being weighted on things being verified
by scientific findings??
Where has science left us? We have alienated ourselves from the earth, nature and ourselves with science!
In our society we place so little emphasis on "gut", instinct, spirit and faith.
Dan ...these are all about that little voice in our that says this is right or this is ok...
without needing science to back it up. Science only serving to take away from an innate intelligence that we are all born with....and always have but ending losing touch with when society places to much pressure on us to think and process different. This process causes us to doubt our own instinct. Gut , spirit and instinct requires nil, absolutely nil science. Science , in this way is a hindrance, in coming to know the true sense fo reality, life and nature.
As such, Steiner likely felt that he needed to put a scientific bent on his beliefs and understandings to have others stand and listen. Does not make his findings and methids any less or more valuable and advantageous for child development.
When PLANS drops the need to have everything proven then made it will open their eyes to new ways of doing things. Do you really need to have proven to you that oxygen is good for you? I don't .....that is a built in intelligence of my organs...my brain, heart, liver, muscles all seem to just accept the wisdom WITHOUT NEEDING scientific proof to make it all right....
When you PLANS people get this ....maybe your will "get" Steiner and Waldorf.
Good luck
Mark
an.com) wrote:
Mark Fitzpatrick, you wrote,
)can you elaborate on this...
)"First, because public funding of Waldorf education violates the
)Establishment Clause of our constitution."
)
)I don't get the violation here. What are considered "public funds" ?
)Parents money? Because they are paying tuition with after-tax income?
There are three kinds of Waldorf school funding in the U.S. 1)
private schools, where the parents pay for everything; 2)
"Waldorf-inspired" charter schools, managed by an independent board
like a private school but funded by the state; 3) "Waldorf-method"
public schools managed by a public school board and funded by the
state. PLANS alleges that 2) and 3) violate the Establishment Clause.
)The other part of this amendment is the Free Exercise Clause...
)Freedom to have a Waldorf School.
PLANS' position on private Waldorf schools is that parents have every
right to give their children Waldorf education, but that they
shouldn't be defrauded by false claims made about it. When Waldorf
schools tell parents up front that it's a religious system, and stop
pretending that Steiner's child development theory is scientific,
PLANS will have no argument with them.
-Dan Dugan
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 22:01:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
and Dan...really put some effort into thinking about when did "we" stop
relying on our gut?
When we started seeing "scientific proof" as a God....that's when.
Gut's better
Mark
Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
Mark Fitzpatrick, you wrote,
)can you elaborate on this...
)"First, because public funding of Waldorf education violates the
)Establishment Clause of our constitution."
)
)I don't get the violation here. What are considered "public funds" ?
)Parents money? Because they are paying tuition with after-tax income?
There are three kinds of Waldorf school funding in the U.S. 1)
private schools, where the parents pay for everything; 2)
"Waldorf-inspired" charter schools, managed by an independent board
like a private school but funded by the state; 3) "Waldorf-method"
public schools managed by a public school board and funded by the
state. PLANS alleges that 2) and 3) violate the Establishment Clause.
)The other part of this amendment is the Free Exercise Clause...
)Freedom to have a Waldorf School.
PLANS' position on private Waldorf schools is that parents have every
right to give their children Waldorf education, but that they
shouldn't be defrauded by false claims made about it. When Waldorf
schools tell parents up front that it's a religious system, and stop
pretending that Steiner's child development theory is scientific,
PLANS will have no argument with them.
-Dan Dugan
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
---------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 20:52:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
--0-1460173012-1075783978=:72406
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Jan...
can you elaborate on what are houseparents?
and sepcial ed kids?
and apricate?
What year of journalism school are you in?
Mark
Jan-Christoph Kolb (Jan-Christoph_Kolb web.de) wrote:
p {margin: 0px}
Dear Dan, dear Deborah,
I'm a former Waldorf student, now studying journalism and writing my masters thesis on special ed in camphill communities. I would really like to get some input from waldorf critics on the steiner-based special ed. I would really apricate your comments and contacts. I'm specifically looking for former parents of sepcial ed kids, former camphill co-workers and houseparents.
best, Jan-Christoph
==^================================================================You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
______________________________________________________________________________
Erdbeben im Iran: Zehntausende Kinder brauchen Hilfe. UNICEF hilft den
Kindern - helfen Sie mit! https://www.unicef.de/spe/spe_03.php
---------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 16:59:03 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
Mark wrote:
)what you are saying makes sense then because Waldorf is funded by private
money
)NOT public. I have looked into this and the Waldorf school is NOT paid by
our taxes but rather private )tutition.
)Therefore your argument holds no water.... Waldorf can do whaterver it
wants as it is not being funded by the )gov't.
)Your info is wrong about funding therefore all aguments dependent on it are
void.
Mark, I'm not sure where you're located, or who you're asking for info, but
try again. There are about 150 Waldorf schools in the US, some public
(tax-funded) and some private (parent tuition-funded).
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 21:07:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: doing your homework
Lisa ...
tell me ...why do you say it's hard to believe there are more Waldorf's in US?
It's almost common knowledge 900 or so are scattered around the world.
Second...Waldorf does not assert itself as a religious school....you assert that.
Does not make it true. Do your homework - sweetie.
Concerning your statement - "Two Issues, Mark. Do your homework, man."
What's the second issue in this directive?
1) is "do my homework, man"
2) second in this directive is where???
Lisa...I suggest you do your homework....your 2nd Grade math homework as it seem \s you failed the first time around. 1+1 =2 . 1 + nothing = 1. Adding is basic relates to logic...maybe your missing that also. Lisa - one issue - Do your homework man...( 2nd grade math that is.
Mark
"Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com) wrote:
Mark,
Hard to believe, I know, but your private Waldorf school is NOT the only Waldorf school in the US.
In fact, there *are* publicly funded Waldorf schools ... they are called "charter schoolsm" and they are paid for by taxpayer's money.
PLANS asserts that as religious schools, Waldorf schools cannot be publicly funded because that is a violation of the Constitutional separation of church and state.
PLANS also is concerned, however, about the habit many private Waldorf schools have of not revealing their religious natures to the parents enrolling their children.
Two issues, Mark. Do your homework, man.
Lisa
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:05:19 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
what you are saying makes sense then because Waldorf is funded by private money
NOT public. I have looked into this and the Waldorf school is NOT paid by our taxes but rather private tutition.
Therefore your argument holds no water.... Waldorf can do whaterver it wants as it is not being funded by the gov't.
Your info is wrong about funding therefore all aguments dependent on it are void.
Thx
Mark
Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net) wrote:
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
“’First, because public funding of Waldorf education violates the
Establishment Clause of our constitution.’
I don't get the violation here. What are considered ‘public funds’?
Parents money? Because they are paying tuition with after-tax income?”
No, Mark – public funds are tax money. “Public” schools in the US are schools funded by tax money, not parents paying private tuition. The money going there is NOT “after-tax income.” Everybody in the neighborhood is paying for the local public schools, whether they have children attending them or not, and whether they *want* to be paying for them or not. The “Establishment Clause” refers to the constitutional separation of church and state in the US. Public funds may not be spent to promote religion. Religious schools promote religion to a captive audience – schoolchildren – and thus in the US religious schools must be private schools; they are not eligible for public funds. The local public school often serves families of many different faiths, and in fairness to all of them the deal is that no particular religion may be promoted by the state school. The overall purpose is peace and tolerance – the state must not fund one religion because in fairness it would then need to fund them
all, or conflict would (does) result. Ironically, the bottom line is that the US is very religious and separation of church and state helps to *keep* it religious; separation of church and state was originally intended to protect the freedom of every religious sect, large and small (popular and unpopular) to worship as they choose and provide religious instruction for their children as they see fit (rather than having the public school teaching the kids something the parents do not believe).
“The other part of this amendment is the Free Exercise Clause...
Freedom to have a Waldorf School.”
Yes, there is “Freedom to have a Waldorf school,” there is freedom to do lots of things – you just can’t ask the government for the money to do it, because the government is sworn to neutrality among all the hundreds of different religions. Religious schools must be private institutions, paid for by families of *that* religion and/or families to whom it is acceptable to pay fees to the religious school. The problem with the tax money is that nobody has a choice about whether to pay it.
Diana
==^================================================================
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: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 00:03:18 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Critics are a wrecking ball swinging against humanity
And now for something completely... similar.
Hey Diana - now the critics are on crack.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/1631
"I mean, are these people on crack???"
-Christine
This fascinating little thread at Anthroposophy Tomorrow was sparked when
Tarjei posted a relatively mild Sharon (critic) quote - from years ago at
the Critics list - about Steiner-the-guru.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 20:43:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
--0-1819305247-1075783394=:6023
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
thanks
Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com) wrote:
Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com) wrote: " I have looked into this and the Waldorf school is NOT paid by our taxes but rather private tutition."
Schools that are chartered through a public school are supported by public monies. Therefore, if a Waldorf school is a charter school it is publically funded and must not violate federal or state laws governing public schools.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 23:02:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
--0-1977302277-1075791758=:69255
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
i am learning mark
Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net) wrote:
Mark wrote:
)what you are saying makes sense then because Waldorf is funded by private money
)NOT public. I have looked into this and the Waldorf school is NOT paid by our taxes but rather private )tutition.
)Therefore your argument holds no water.... Waldorf can do whaterver it wants as it is not being funded by the )gov't.
)Your info is wrong about funding therefore all aguments dependent on it are void.
Mark, I’m not sure where you’re located, or who you’re asking for info, but try again. There are about 150 Waldorf schools in the US, some public (tax-funded) and some private (parent tuition-funded).
Diana
==^================================================================You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 23:02:37 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Why don't you guys just walk away...?
i am learning mark
Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net) wrote:
Mark wrote:
)what you are saying makes sense then because Waldorf is funded by private money
)NOT public. I have looked into this and the Waldorf school is NOT paid by our taxes but rather private )tutition.
)Therefore your argument holds no water.... Waldorf can do whaterver it wants as it is not being funded by the )gov't.
)Your info is wrong about funding therefore all aguments dependent on it are void.
Mark, I’m not sure where you’re located, or who you’re asking for info, but try again. There are about 150 Waldorf schools in the US, some public (tax-funded) and some private (parent tuition-funded).
Diana
==^================================================================You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 00:46:15 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: Re: camphill and special ed
Mark Fitzpatrick, you wrote:
)can you elaborate on what are houseparents?
)and sepcial ed kids?
)and apricate?
)
)What year of journalism school are you in?
In order not to distract the conversation into personal squabbles and
put-downs, we avoid ad-hominem arguments. It's best just to ignore
spelling and grammar and stick to the topic being discussed.
-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 1245
-- Topica Digest --
Re: camphill and special ed
By dan dandugan.com
RE: camphill and special ed
By jaquesdm msn.com
Re: camphill and special ed
By momof2gals mindspring.com
re: Mark and homework
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: camphill and special ed
By momof2gals mindspring.com
once more on science
By pstaud hotmail.com
[NNA] Ruling in legal dispute over existence of "General
Anthroposophical Socie
By dan dandugan.com
Re: camphill and special ed
By antigonabaires hotmail.com
Re: camphill and special ed
By jk2332 columbia.edu
Re: camphill and special ed
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: camphill and special ed
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: camphill and special ed
By jk2332 columbia.edu
Re: camphill and special ed
By jk2332 columbia.edu
re: Mark and homework
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: camphill and special ed
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: camphill and special ed
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
RE: camphill and special ed
By jk2332 columbia.edu
Re: camphill and special ed
By antigonabaires hotmail.com
Re: camphill and special ed
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: camphill and special ed
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: camphill and special ed
By jaquesdm msn.com
RE: camphill and special ed
By jk2332 columbia.edu
reporting on Camphill/was Camphill and special ed
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: camphill and special ed
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: camphill and special ed
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
RE: camphill and special ed
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
RE: camphill and special ed
By jaquesdm msn.com
Re: camphill and special ed
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 00:41:07 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
Jan-Christoph Kolb wrote:
)I'm a former Waldorf student, now studying journalism and writing my
)masters thesis on special ed in camphill communities. I would really
)like to get some input from waldorf critics on the steiner-based
)special ed. I would really apricate your comments and contacts. I'm
)specifically looking for former parents of sepcial ed kids, former
)camphill co-workers and houseparents.
I think there are some here. Try asking your questions.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 12:18:11 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: camphill and special ed
Jan-Christoph Kolb wrote:
)
) p {margin: 0px}Dear Dan, dear Deborah, I'm a former Waldorf student, now
) studying journalism and writing my masters thesis on special ed in
) camphill communities. I would really like to get some input from waldorf
) critics on the steiner-based special ed. I would really apricate your
) comments and contacts. I'm specifically looking for former parents of
) sepcial ed kids, former camphill co-workers and houseparents. best,
) Jan-Christoph
) Hello Jan-Christoph,
I am a former co-worker, onetime called Houseparent. My own exposure to
anthroposophy was in the adult residential area, in an independent
anthro community. How may I help?
Davy
________________________________________________________________Erdbeben
im Iran: Zehntausende Kinder brauchen Hilfe. UNICEF hilft denKindern -
helfen Sie mit! https://www.unicef.de/spe/spe_03.php
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:17:03 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
) 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_3158641023_144374_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Mark, I would advise you (and I mean this sincerely) not to make fun of
others spelling, etc. unless your own sentence structure, punctuation, etc.
are perfect.
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 20:52:58 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
Jan...
can you elaborate on what are houseparents?
and sepcial ed kids?
and apricate?
What year of journalism school are you in?
Mark
Jan-Christoph Kolb (Jan-Christoph_Kolb web.de) wrote:
p {margin: 0px}
Dear Dan, dear Deborah,
I'm a former Waldorf student, now studying journalism and writing my masters
thesis on special ed in camphill communities. I would really like to get
some input from waldorf critics on the steiner-based special ed. I would
really apricate your comments and contacts. I'm specifically looking for
former parents of sepcial ed kids, former camphill co-workers and
houseparents.
best,
Jan-Christoph==^============================================================
====
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always
welcome.____________________________________________________________________
__________
Erdbeben im Iran: Zehntausende Kinder brauchen Hilfe. UNICEF hilft den
Kindern - helfen Sie mit! https://www.unicef.de/spe/spe_03.php
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:14:51 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: re: Mark and homework
) 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_3158640891_136426_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Member Mark stated that the critics' assertion that public money is being
spent on Waldorf schools was wrong, so I and others here pointed out to him
that in addition to private Waldorf schools (such as the one my daughter
attended) there also are *public* Waldorf schools opened as charters.
I suggested that Mark do his homework, meaning he ought to research the
topic a little more thoroughly before making blanket statements. (Gary
suggested the same thing, only in more polite terms! (g)
Mark then says:
((tell me ...why do you say it's hard to believe there are more Waldorf's in
US?
It's almost common knowledge 900 or so are scattered around the world.).
Lisa: Huh? I don't find it "hard to believe" that there are a number of
Waldorf schools -- public and private -- in the US and around the world.
Did I say that I didn't believe that?
No, I did not. I said that there are both private Waldorf schools (those
funded by parents' tuition and, I would surmise, funds from varous
Anthroposophic endeavors here and abroad) and *public* Waldorf schools,
which opened as something called "charter schools."
Believe me, Mark: I fully understand not only that there are "900 or
so" of these magical mystery schools scattered around the globe, with a
heavy concentration in Europe and Scandinavia.
Mark then says: ((Second...Waldorf does not assert itself as a religious
school....you assert that.
Does not make it true. Do your homework - sweetie.))
Lisa: How did you know that I am partial to the term "sweetie?" (g) In fact,
I *have* done my homework; I have spent the last 4+ years not only reading
Steiner lectures and every book about Waldorf education that I can lay my
hands on (and some I cannot ... but which are available through the Steiner
eLib), but also discussing Waldorf and other Anthroposophic endeavors
(Triodos bank, Camphill, etc.) with people all over the globe via internet
discussion lists. I am sad to report that these people daily apply to become
part of the Waldorf Survivors Only email discussion list, which has more
than 80 members from around the world already. These people either attended
or had children who attended many, many different Waldorf schools the world
over, yet their stories (and very bad experiences) are eerily similar.
Now, about Waldorf being religious. Mark, even Waldorf *insiders* and
*teachers* admit that Waldorf schools are religious, though they only admit
that amongst themselves. The noteable exception (which caused quite a stir
in the Waldorf world) was when master Waldorf teacher Eugene Schwartz said
in a public lecture that Waldorf schools are religious and that he
personally sent his own daughter to one so she could have "one religious
experience after another."
Anthroposophy forms the spine, muscles, sinew and tendon of Waldorf:
almost everything about a Waldorf school -- from the colors of the classroom
walls to the stories the children hear to what snack they eat on what day to
the way they learn to paint and draw -- is dictated by the tenets of
Anthroposophy.
I am not surprised that you don't believe that yet, however. Back when I
was in your shoes (an enthusiastic parent of a young child at Waldorf), I,
too, bought Waldorf's claim of being non religious and progressive hook,
line and sinker. (It was easy to buy. First of all, I *wanted* to believe
that I had found this perfect, utopian school for my child -- a place where
her creativity and individuality would not be squished under a load of
standardized testing and forced, early intellectualization. Second, Waldorf
schools generally do a terrific job of hiding the esoteric and religious
stuff from parents behind a more plausible sounding explanation. A parent
asks "why must the children use those rounded, block crayons to draw?" and
the teacher will calmly explain "they are easier for children to hold than
the stick crayons," when, in reality, Waldorf teachers generally adhere to
Steiner's dictum that lines do not exist, that they are a lie and that
drawing them is not conducive to healthy spiritual development in children.
It's very hard for most parents to twig onto the Anthro. reality of what is
right in front of them both because the teachers generally hide it so well
and because the Anthro explanation sounds so bizarre, crazy and far fetched
that the parent might not believe it right away even if the teacher was
brave enough to explain it.
Mark, with all due respect, I wish you would take the time to read
through the PLANS website -- at least read the transcript of Eugene
Schwartz's public lecture on this very topic. This man is a master Waldorf
teacher, a leader in the Waldorf movement, the author of a book considered
essential for Waldorf teachers, and HE admits Waldorf is religious. It
stands to reason that he knows more about Waldorf than you do; after all, it
is his livelihood. Why not read what he said?
Mark then said:
Concerning your statement - "Two Issues, Mark. Do your homework, man."
What's the second issue in this directive?
1) is "do my homework, man"
2) second in this directive is where???
Lisa...I suggest you do your homework....your 2nd Grade math homework as it
seem \s you failed the first time around. 1+1 =2 . 1 + nothing = 1. Adding
is basic relates to logic...maybe your missing that also. Lisa - one issue -
Do your homework man...( 2nd grade math that is.))
Lisa: Very funny. I appreciate your humor. The "directive" was for you to do
a little reading and research on the topic we all are discussing. After all,
you stated with great conviction that Waldorf schools do NOT receive public
funding, when they do. That is incontrovertible. It's a fact. Yet you denied
it because you simply did not have that information.
I simply directed you (suggested!) that you bone up a bit on the topic.
If you don't do so, well, then it will be easy for those of us who have to
dismiss your arguments, and I am sure you do not want that to happen.
As for your assertions about my math skills, logic, etc.: well, I think I
will leave that alone for now. In my experience, such gratuitious insults
often take the place of actual reason and facts in an argument.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 08:17:33 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
) 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_3158641053_146180_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Also, I believe this individual's first language is German. He is writing to
us in English. Have some decency and respect, please.
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 20:52:58 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
Jan...
can you elaborate on what are houseparents?
and sepcial ed kids?
and apricate?
What year of journalism school are you in?
Mark
Jan-Christoph Kolb (Jan-Christoph_Kolb web.de) wrote:
p {margin: 0px}
Dear Dan, dear Deborah,
I'm a former Waldorf student, now studying journalism and writing my masters
thesis on special ed in camphill communities. I would really like to get
some input from waldorf critics on the steiner-based special ed. I would
really apricate your comments and contacts. I'm specifically looking for
former parents of sepcial ed kids, former camphill co-workers and
houseparents.
best,
Jan-Christoph==^============================================================
====
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always
welcome.____________________________________________________________________
__________
Erdbeben im Iran: Zehntausende Kinder brauchen Hilfe. UNICEF hilft den
Kindern - helfen Sie mit! https://www.unicef.de/spe/spe_03.php
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 10:22:13 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: once more on science
I think Mark Fitzpatrick got one thing right:
)Steiner likely felt that he needed to put a scientific bent on his beliefs
)and understandings to have others stand and listen.
That sounds fairly accurate to me. The question, of course, remains: in
light of the strong antagonism toward science among anthroposophists today,
why do so many of them continue to insist that their worldview constitutes a
science of its own? I think this puzzle has less to do with disagreements
among contemporary anthroposophists and more to do with Steiner's
ambivalence on the topic of 'science'. This original ambivalence seems to
have left fans of anthroposophical thinking in an interesting bind,
simultaneously claiming scientific status for their own beliefs while
deprecating science as a hindrance to true knowledge of the cosmos and a
primary source of alienation. Thus many of them still view critical inquiry
as sacrilege, psychic violence, or an instance of Ahrimanic deception.
Another of the difficulties in trying to talk with anthroposophists.
Peter S.
)Where has science left us? We have alienated ourselves from the earth,
)nature and ourselves with science!
)Science only serving to take away from an innate intelligence that we are
)all born with....and always have but ending losing touch with when society
)places to much pressure on us to think and process different. This process
)causes us to doubt our own instinct. Gut , spirit and instinct requires
)nil, absolutely nil science. Science , in this way is a hindrance, in
)coming to know the true sense fo reality, life and nature.
_________________________________________________________________
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: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:34:13 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: [NNA] Ruling in legal dispute over existence of "General
Anthroposophical Society (Christmas Conference)" expected by end of week
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
Ruling in legal dispute over existence of "General Anthroposophical
Society (Christmas Conference)" expected by end of week
Dornach, 3 February (NNA) - In a marathon session lasting more than
eleven hours, the Dorneck-Thierstein district court in Switzerland
yesterday heard the case disputing the legal existence of the
"General Anthroposophical Society (Christmas Conference)".
The summary judgement is expected by the end of the week with a
detailed ruling following about a month later.
The outcome of the case will also determine whether the extraordinary
general meeting of the Christmas Conference 2002 is allowed to stand
and whether the resolutions adopted at the general meetings last
November with regard to the planned fusion of the "General
Anthroposophical Society" (GAS) and the "General Anthroposophical
Society (Christmas Conference)" can enter into force.
While the "Gelebte Weihnachtstagung" grouping disputes the continued
separate existence of the Christmas Conference society because it
became one in February 1925 with the administrative Building
Association which then continued under the name of General
Anthroposophical Society, another group of plaintiffs associated with
Andreas Wilke and Karl Buchleitner claims that the Christmas
Conference society ceased to exist altogether and only remains as a
historical event.
END/cva
+ + + + +
Item reference number: N040203-01EN
Date: 3 February 2004
More NNA reports at: http://www.nna-news.org/content/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:53:42 -0300
From: (antigonabaires hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C3EA7E.A9268A40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Re: camphill and special edLisa wrote:
"Also, I believe this individual's first language is German. He is writing to us in English. Have some decency and respect, please."
I agree with Lisa in every respect. I am a foreigner myself and I hate that arrogant attitude. Even if his grammar and spelling were perfect in every possible language.
Warm (literally!) regards from Buenos Aires
Agustina
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 19:34:24 -0500
From: Jan-Christoph Kolb (jk2332 columbia.edu)
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
Que te paso a ti?
Como podia saber que hablan aleman. No tengo ni idea de donde son.
Para saber, puedas escribirme en aleman, ingles y tambien en
espanol, portena. Vivia en Cordoba!!!!!
Tranquilizate, vos sos la que es orgullosa.
Chris
--
Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University
Jan-Christoph Kolb
530 W 112th St.
New York, NY 10025
Tel: 1 646 234 0565
Quoting antigonabaires hotmail.com:
) Re: camphill and special edLisa wrote:
)
) "Also, I believe this individual's first language is German. He
) is writing to us in English. Have some decency and respect,
) please."
)
) I agree with Lisa in every respect. I am a foreigner myself and I
) hate that arrogant attitude. Even if his grammar and spelling
) were perfect in every possible language.
) Warm (literally!) regards from Buenos Aires
) Agustina
)
)
==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter
) how basic. New threads are always welcome.
-
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 16:37:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
--0-1006060582-1075855055=:48652
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I have visited Brazil for 3 months...I know about respect... I took the the time to respect the Brazilian by learning and speaking Portuguese.
So don't tell me about respect. Respect is, if your are going to be a journalist, take the time to learn spelling and grammar.
antigonabaires hotmail.com wrote:
Lisa wrote:
"Also, I believe this individual's first language is German. He is writing to us in English. Have some decency and respect, please."
I agree with Lisa in every respect. I am a foreigner myself and I hate that arrogant attitude. Even if his grammar and spelling were perfect in every possible language.
Warm (literally!) regards from Buenos Aires
Agustina
==^================================================================You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:02:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
--0-1732788200-1075856524=:83000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Como esta? Tudo bem? Tudo Bem.
Fala Portuguese, Sim? Fala espanol?
Muito prazer em conhece-lo.
Tenho muito bom a dia!
Marcos
Certified iNet Webmaster - Sysoft
Masters Comp Sci - NJIT
Experienced Developer ( 10 years )
Jan-Christoph Kolb (jk2332 columbia.edu) wrote:
Que te paso a ti?
Como podia saber que hablan aleman. No tengo ni idea de donde son.
Para saber, puedas escribirme en aleman, ingles y tambien en
espanol, portena. Vivia en Cordoba!!!!!
Tranquilizate, vos sos la que es orgullosa.
Chris
--
Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University
Jan-Christoph Kolb
530 W 112th St.
New York, NY 10025
Tel: 1 646 234 0565
Quoting antigonabaires hotmail.com:
) Re: camphill and special edLisa wrote:
)
) "Also, I believe this individual's first language is German. He
) is writing to us in English. Have some decency and respect,
) please."
)
) I agree with Lisa in every respect. I am a foreigner myself and I
) hate that arrogant attitude. Even if his grammar and spelling
) were perfect in every possible language.
) Warm (literally!) regards from Buenos Aires
) Agustina
)
)
==^================================================================
) 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: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:05:28 -0500
From: Jan-Christoph Kolb (jk2332 columbia.edu)
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
Mark,
Sprecht Ihr nun Englisch, Deutsch oder irgenwelche andere Sprachen?
Die Webseite ist in Englisch, also gehe ich davon aus, dass man in
Englisch kommuniziert. Mir ist das natuerlich total egal. Ich bin
nur auf der Suche nach enttaeuschten Waldorf Lehrern und Eltern,
die schlechte Erfahrungen mit Anthroposophischen
Behinderteneinrichtungen gemacht haben.
Gruss, Jan-Christoph
--
Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University
Jan-Christoph Kolb
530 W 112th St.
New York, NY 10025
Tel: 1 646 234 0565
Quoting "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com):
) Also, I believe this individual's first language is German. He is
) writing to
) us in English. Have some decency and respect, please.
)
) From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 20:52:58 -0800 (PST)
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
)
)
) Jan...
)
) can you elaborate on what are houseparents?
) and sepcial ed kids?
) and apricate?
)
) What year of journalism school are you in?
)
) Mark
)
) Jan-Christoph Kolb (Jan-Christoph_Kolb web.de) wrote:
) p {margin: 0px}
)
) Dear Dan, dear Deborah,
)
) I'm a former Waldorf student, now studying journalism and writing
) my masters
) thesis on special ed in camphill communities. I would really like
) to get
) some input from waldorf critics on the steiner-based special ed.
) I would
) really apricate your comments and contacts. I'm specifically
) looking for
) former parents of sepcial ed kids, former camphill co-workers
) and
) houseparents.
)
)
)
) best,
) Jan-
Christoph==^========================================================
====
) ====
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter
) how basic.
) New threads are always
)
welcome.____________________________________________________________
________
) __________
) Erdbeben im Iran: Zehntausende Kinder brauchen Hilfe. UNICEF
) hilft den
) Kindern - helfen Sie mit! https://www.unicef.de/spe/spe_03.php
)
)
)
) 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: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:07:34 -0500
From: Jan-Christoph Kolb (jk2332 columbia.edu)
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
oi, no fala portuguese
todo ligao?
Si, converso en espanol.
Chris
--
Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University
Jan-Christoph Kolb
530 W 112th St.
New York, NY 10025
Tel: 1 646 234 0565
Quoting Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com):
) Como esta? Tudo bem? Tudo Bem.
) Fala Portuguese, Sim? Fala espanol?
) Muito prazer em conhece-lo.
)
) Tenho muito bom a dia!
)
) Marcos
) Certified iNet Webmaster - Sysoft
) Masters Comp Sci - NJIT
) Experienced Developer ( 10 years )
)
)
)
) Jan-Christoph Kolb (jk2332 columbia.edu) wrote:
) Que te paso a ti?
) Como podia saber que hablan aleman. No tengo ni idea de donde
) son.
) Para saber, puedas escribirme en aleman, ingles y tambien en
) espanol, portena. Vivia en Cordoba!!!!!
) Tranquilizate, vos sos la que es orgullosa.
)
) Chris
) --
) Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University
) Jan-Christoph Kolb
) 530 W 112th St.
) New York, NY 10025
) Tel: 1 646 234 0565
)
)
) Quoting antigonabaires hotmail.com:
)
) ) Re: camphill and special edLisa wrote:
) )
) ) "Also, I believe this individual's first language is German.
) He
) ) is writing to us in English. Have some decency and respect,
) ) please."
) )
) ) I agree with Lisa in every respect. I am a foreigner myself and
) I
) ) hate that arrogant attitude. Even if his grammar and spelling
) ) were perfect in every possible language.
) ) Warm (literally!) regards from Buenos Aires
) ) Agustina
) )
) )
)
==^================================================================
) ) 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! 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: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:12:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: re: Mark and homework
--0-348187060-1075857169=:88325
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
ok.
Member Mark stated that the critics' assertion that public money is being spent on Waldorf schools was wrong, so I and others here pointed out to him that in addition to private Waldorf schools (such as the one my daughter attended) there also are *public* Waldorf schools opened as charters.
I suggested that Mark do his homework, meaning he ought to research the topic a little more thoroughly before making blanket statements. (Gary suggested the same thing, only in more polite terms! (g)
Mark then says:
((tell me ...why do you say it's hard to believe there are more Waldorf's in US?
It's almost common knowledge 900 or so are scattered around the world.).
Lisa: Huh? I don't find it "hard to believe" that there are a number of Waldorf schools -- public and private -- in the US and around the world.
Did I say that I didn't believe that?
No, I did not. I said that there are both private Waldorf schools (those funded by parents' tuition and, I would surmise, funds from varous Anthroposophic endeavors here and abroad) and *public* Waldorf schools, which opened as something called "charter schools."
Believe me, Mark: I fully understand not only that there are "900 or so" of these magical mystery schools scattered around the globe, with a heavy concentration in Europe and Scandinavia.
Mark then says: ((Second...Waldorf does not assert itself as a religious school....you assert that.
Does not make it true. Do your homework - sweetie.))
Lisa: How did you know that I am partial to the term "sweetie?" (g) In fact, I *have* done my homework; I have spent the last 4+ years not only reading Steiner lectures and every book about Waldorf education that I can lay my hands on (and some I cannot ... but which are available through the Steiner eLib), but also discussing Waldorf and other Anthroposophic endeavors (Triodos bank, Camphill, etc.) with people all over the globe via internet discussion lists. I am sad to report that these people daily apply to become part of the Waldorf Survivors Only email discussion list, which has more than 80 members from around the world already. These people either attended or had children who attended many, many different Waldorf schools the world over, yet their stories (and very bad experiences) are eerily similar.
Now, about Waldorf being religious. Mark, even Waldorf *insiders* and *teachers* admit that Waldorf schools are religious, though they only admit that amongst themselves. The noteable exception (which caused quite a stir in the Waldorf world) was when master Waldorf teacher Eugene Schwartz said in a public lecture that Waldorf schools are religious and that he personally sent his own daughter to one so she could have "one religious experience after another."
Anthroposophy forms the spine, muscles, sinew and tendon of Waldorf: almost everything about a Waldorf school -- from the colors of the classroom walls to the stories the children hear to what snack they eat on what day to the way they learn to paint and draw -- is dictated by the tenets of Anthroposophy.
I am not surprised that you don't believe that yet, however. Back when I was in your shoes (an enthusiastic parent of a young child at Waldorf), I, too, bought Waldorf's claim of being non religious and progressive hook, line and sinker. (It was easy to buy. First of all, I *wanted* to believe that I had found this perfect, utopian school for my child -- a place where her creativity and individuality would not be squished under a load of standardized testing and forced, early intellectualization. Second, Waldorf schools generally do a terrific job of hiding the esoteric and religious stuff from parents behind a more plausible sounding explanation. A parent asks "why must the children use those rounded, block crayons to draw?" and the teacher will calmly explain "they are easier for children to hold than the stick crayons," when, in reality, Waldorf teachers generally adhere to Steiner's dictum that lines do not exist, that they are a lie and that drawing them is not conducive to
healthy spiritual development in children. It's very hard for most parents to twig onto the Anthro. reality of what is right in front of them both because the teachers generally hide it so well and because the Anthro explanation sounds so bizarre, crazy and far fetched that the parent might not believe it right away even if the teacher was brave enough to explain it.
Mark, with all due respect, I wish you would take the time to read through the PLANS website -- at least read the transcript of Eugene Schwartz's public lecture on this very topic. This man is a master Waldorf teacher, a leader in the Waldorf movement, the author of a book considered essential for Waldorf teachers, and HE admits Waldorf is religious. It stands to reason that he knows more about Waldorf than you do; after all, it is his livelihood. Why not read what he said?
Mark then said:
Concerning your statement - "Two Issues, Mark. Do your homework, man."
What's the second issue in this directive?
1) is "do my homework, man"
2) second in this directive is where???
Lisa...I suggest you do your homework....your 2nd Grade math homework as it seem \s you failed the first time around. 1+1 =2 . 1 + nothing = 1. Adding is basic relates to logic...maybe your missing that also. Lisa - one issue - Do your homework man...( 2nd grade math that is.))
Lisa: Very funny. I appreciate your humor. The "directive" was for you to do a little reading and research on the topic we all are discussing. After all, you stated with great conviction that Waldorf schools do NOT receive public funding, when they do. That is incontrovertible. It's a fact. Yet you denied it because you simply did not have that information.
I simply directed you (suggested!) that you bone up a bit on the topic. If you don't do so, well, then it will be easy for those of us who have to dismiss your arguments, and I am sure you do not want that to happen.
As for your assertions about my math skills, logic, etc.: well, I think I will leave that alone for now. In my experience, such gratuitious insults often take the place of actual reason and facts in an argument.
==^================================================================You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:14:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
i did not ask for your advice...but thanks.
offer advice when asked for.
Mark
"Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com) wrote:
Mark, I would advise you (and I mean this sincerely) not to make fun of others spelling, etc. unless your own sentence structure, punctuation, etc. are perfect.
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 20:52:58 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
Jan...
can you elaborate on what are houseparents?
and sepcial ed kids?
and apricate?
What year of journalism school are you in?
Mark
Jan-Christoph Kolb (Jan-Christoph_Kolb web.de) wrote:
p {margin: 0px}
Dear Dan, dear Deborah,
I'm a former Waldorf student, now studying journalism and writing my masters thesis on special ed in camphill communities. I would really like to get some input from waldorf critics on the steiner-based special ed. I would really apricate your comments and contacts. I'm specifically looking for former parents of sepcial ed kids, former camphill co-workers and houseparents.
best, Jan-Christoph==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.______________________________________________________________________________
Erdbeben im Iran: Zehntausende Kinder brauchen Hilfe. UNICEF hilft den
Kindern - helfen Sie mit! https://www.unicef.de/spe/spe_03.php
---------------------------------
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: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:15:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
see my prev post...
second....what are houseparents?
sincerely
mark
"Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com) wrote:
Also, I believe this individual's first language is German. He is writing to us in English. Have some decency and respect, please.
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 20:52:58 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
Jan...
can you elaborate on what are houseparents?
and sepcial ed kids?
and apricate?
What year of journalism school are you in?
Mark
Jan-Christoph Kolb (Jan-Christoph_Kolb web.de) wrote:
p {margin: 0px}
Dear Dan, dear Deborah,
I'm a former Waldorf student, now studying journalism and writing my masters thesis on special ed in camphill communities. I would really like to get some input from waldorf critics on the steiner-based special ed. I would really apricate your comments and contacts. I'm specifically looking for former parents of sepcial ed kids, former camphill co-workers and houseparents.
best, Jan-Christoph==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.______________________________________________________________________________
Erdbeben im Iran: Zehntausende Kinder brauchen Hilfe. UNICEF hilft den
Kindern - helfen Sie mit! https://www.unicef.de/spe/spe_03.php
---------------------------------
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: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 20:27:04 -0500
From: Jan-Christoph Kolb (jk2332 columbia.edu)
Subject: RE: camphill and special ed
Hi David,
Finally some constructive response beyond the sad and childish
antics of some replies.
David, I was a co-worker, too and left with a deep feeling of
appreciation but more so, a suitcase full of nagging questions.
Recently, I have visisted a Camphill here in the U.S. and despite
the apparent change in terms of decision-making and the take-over
by a younger, less dogmatic generation of co-workers, the whole
appraoch seems problematic.
1. Integration yes, but does it have to take place behind the
closed doors of a rural community?
2. Does the mental stress endured, inhibit the development of those
with special needs?
3. Indeed, does the stress create resentments on behalf of the co-
workers?
4. What about the therapies? Despite some positive effects I have
seen, there seems to be a kind of laissez-faire approach.
5. Are Camphill kids or young adults really apt to survive outside
the fairytale world of wood-carving and story-telling? Can they
fill out a disbility claim?
I would like to interview you over the phone, you can call me under
646 234 0565 or send me your number.
kind regards, Jan-Christoph
--
Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University
Jan-Christoph Kolb
530 W 112th St.
New York, NY 10025
Tel: 1 646 234 0565
Quoting David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com):
)
) Jan-Christoph Kolb wrote:
) )
) ) p {margin: 0px}Dear Dan, dear Deborah, I'm a former Waldorf
) student, now
) ) studying journalism and writing my masters thesis on special ed
) in
) ) camphill communities. I would really like to get some input
) from waldorf
) ) critics on the steiner-based special ed. I would really
) apricate your
) ) comments and contacts. I'm specifically looking for former
) parents of
) ) sepcial ed kids, former camphill co-workers and
) houseparents. best,
) ) Jan-Christoph
)
)
) ) Hello Jan-Christoph,
) I am a former co-worker, onetime called Houseparent. My own
) exposure to
) anthroposophy was in the adult residential area, in an
) independent
) anthro community. How may I help?
) Davy
)
________________________________________________________________Erdb
eben
)
) im Iran: Zehntausende Kinder brauchen Hilfe. UNICEF hilft
) denKindern -
) helfen Sie mit! https://www.unicef.de/spe/spe_03.php
) )
)
)
==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter
) how basic. New threads are always welcome.
-
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:18:53 -0300
From: (antigonabaires hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
Well, well, I think this has gone completely off topic.
I must say it was you, Chris, who didn't understand my message. I meant to
say that, in my humble opinion, Mark's questions regarding spelling and such
were not kind to YOU.
Besides, this is not a contest about who's been to more countries, who can
speak more languages and who is the most sympathethic to foreigners and
aliens. I don't think it is polite to post messages in languages other than
English (unless, of course, it is a quote) since by joining this list we
have tacitly agreed to use English, which we all understand. I am sure many
of us here are fluent in more than one language but I don't recall anyone's
boasting about such qualifications if that fact did not help to the
understanding of Waldorf or anthroposophy. After all, that's what we are all
here for, isn't it?
And I suggest you moderate your tone about calling anyone "porteña" the way
you are doing it here.
Regards,
Agustina
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan-Christoph Kolb" (jk2332 columbia.edu)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
) Que te paso a ti?
) Como podia saber que hablan aleman. No tengo ni idea de donde son.
) Para saber, puedas escribirme en aleman, ingles y tambien en
) espanol, portena. Vivia en Cordoba!!!!!
) Tranquilizate, vos sos la que es orgullosa.
)
) Chris
) --
) Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University
) Jan-Christoph Kolb
) 530 W 112th St.
) New York, NY 10025
) Tel: 1 646 234 0565
)
)
) Quoting antigonabaires hotmail.com:
)
) ) Re: camphill and special edLisa wrote:
) )
) ) "Also, I believe this individual's first language is German. He
) ) is writing to us in English. Have some decency and respect,
) ) please."
) )
) ) I agree with Lisa in every respect. I am a foreigner myself and I
) ) hate that arrogant attitude. Even if his grammar and spelling
) ) were perfect in every possible language.
) ) Warm (literally!) regards from Buenos Aires
) ) Agustina
) )
) )
) ==^================================================================
) ) 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: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 21:38:23 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
) 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_3158689103_24075_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Say what? I honestly am not sure what "offer advice when asked for" means.
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:14:43 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
i did not ask for your advice...but thanks.
offer advice when asked for.
Mark
"Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com) wrote:
Mark, I would advise you (and I mean this sincerely) not to make fun of
others spelling, etc. unless your own sentence structure, punctuation, etc.
are perfect.
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 20:52:58 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
Jan...
can you elaborate on what are houseparents?
and sepcial ed kids?
and apricate?
What year of journalism school are you in?
Mark
Jan-Christoph Kolb (Jan-Christoph_Kolb web.de) wrote:
p {margin: 0px}
Dear Dan, dear Deborah,
I'm a former Waldorf student, now studying journalism and writing my masters
thesis on special ed in camphill communities. I would really like to get
some input from waldorf critics on the steiner-based special ed. I would
really apricate your comments and contacts. I'm specifically looking for
former parents of sepcial ed kids, former camphill co-workers and
houseparents.
best,
Jan-Christoph==^============================================================
====
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always
welcome.____________________________________________________________________
__________
Erdbeben im Iran: Zehntausende Kinder brauchen Hilfe. UNICEF hilft den
Kindern - helfen Sie mit! https://www.unicef.de/spe/spe_03.php
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: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 21:43:43 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
Thank you for making the post below, Agustina. I, for one, had NO idea what
was transpiring between Jan-Christoph and Mark, other than the fact that the
posters seemed to be showing off how many languages they could speak.
English is the language of this list. Let's all try to use it to communicate
here as clearly as we can. I think we all agree that NO ONE is immune from
spelling errors (sometimes, they are actually typographical errors!) or
other lapses of perfect grammar and syntax.
I strongly believe that even people who vociferously disagree with one
another can engage in reasoned and civilized debate.
Lisa
) From: antigonabaires hotmail.com
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:18:53 -0300
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
)
)
) Well, well, I think this has gone completely off topic.
) I must say it was you, Chris, who didn't understand my message. I meant to
) say that, in my humble opinion, Mark's questions regarding spelling and such
) were not kind to YOU.
) Besides, this is not a contest about who's been to more countries, who can
) speak more languages and who is the most sympathethic to foreigners and
) aliens. I don't think it is polite to post messages in languages other than
) English (unless, of course, it is a quote) since by joining this list we
) have tacitly agreed to use English, which we all understand. I am sure many
) of us here are fluent in more than one language but I don't recall anyone's
) boasting about such qualifications if that fact did not help to the
) understanding of Waldorf or anthroposophy. After all, that's what we are all
) here for, isn't it?
)
) And I suggest you moderate your tone about calling anyone "porteña" the way
) you are doing it here.
) Regards,
) Agustina
)
) ----- Original Message -----
) From: "Jan-Christoph Kolb" (jk2332 columbia.edu)
) To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
) Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 9:34 PM
) Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
)
)
)) Que te paso a ti?
)) Como podia saber que hablan aleman. No tengo ni idea de donde son.
)) Para saber, puedas escribirme en aleman, ingles y tambien en
)) espanol, portena. Vivia en Cordoba!!!!!
)) Tranquilizate, vos sos la que es orgullosa.
))
)) Chris
)) --
)) Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University
)) Jan-Christoph Kolb
)) 530 W 112th St.
)) New York, NY 10025
)) Tel: 1 646 234 0565
))
))
)) Quoting antigonabaires hotmail.com:
))
))) Re: camphill and special edLisa wrote:
)))
))) "Also, I believe this individual's first language is German. He
))) is writing to us in English. Have some decency and respect,
))) please."
)))
))) I agree with Lisa in every respect. I am a foreigner myself and I
))) hate that arrogant attitude. Even if his grammar and spelling
))) were perfect in every possible language.
))) Warm (literally!) regards from Buenos Aires
))) Agustina
)))
)))
)) ==^================================================================
))) 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.
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 03:02:57 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: camphill and special ed
Jan-Christoph Kolb wrote:
)
) Hi David,
) Finally some constructive response beyond the sad and childish
) antics of some replies.
Entirely happy to help Jan-Christoph.
) David, I was a co-worker, too and left with a deep feeling of
) appreciation but more so, a suitcase full of nagging questions.
The "deep feeling of appreciation" is quite common in one's early days
I think. For myself, I blundered into anthroposophy from the dole after
twenty-five years in aerospce-defence. During that twenty-five years, I
always felt that industry was my job, but my *work* was in
Scouting...you know, teamwork, helping my lads to be all they could,
leaving the land as we had found it, all that stuff. On first coming to
the "community" I was exquisitely happy: the nagging questions arose for
me after about nine months. Eventually, I sought professional help-
anxiety stemming from Cultural Alienation was the diagnosis. I had only
moved about 40 miles, believing what they had told me that my degree in
The Humanities, and my various bits of long-term voluntary work would
have some value.
It was as early as my second week there that I was informed "your *real*
education starts now". Of course I knew that anthroposophy was a bit
alternative, but I never expected to feel a stranger in my own land!
I recently read Geoffrey Ahern's Ph.D thesis (London School of
Economics, 1981). On descibing his impressions of a visit to The
Goetheanum, he spoke of "the plastic lampshades, not obviously
plastic"...and that, in a nutshell said it all for me.
) Recently, I have visisted a Camphill here in the U.S. and despite
) the apparent change in terms of decision-making and the take-over
) by a younger, less dogmatic generation of co-workers, the whole
) appraoch seems problematic.
Yep
1. Integration yes, but does it have to take place behind the
) closed doors of a rural community?
Not sure what you mean by "integration." With wider society? It rather
seems to me that the movement as a whole is becoming more adept at
securing public funding, but still wants to be a part (for the money)
apart from society. While the greater part of such centres remain in a
rural setting- presumably distanced from the Ahrimanic infuences of
cities, there are some inner city initiatives, often, but not always
carrying out commercial businesses.
) 2. Does the mental stress endured, inhibit the development of those
) with special needs?
Depends on the individual. Autistic folk tend to do well in the
*rhythmic* regime- the condition demands "straight lines". Others, well
it depends on their personality. One lad I worked with was given St.
John's Wort, and later Prozac to alleviate his depression. The lad had
no speech, could write and recognise twenty-seven words, but did have
some communicative skills using Sign Maketon. It always seemed to me
that the lad was *not* depressed, he was simply bored bored bored. Bored
out of his skull with the same thing every day- the key being that while
our man was disabled, he was by no means unintelligent. Eventually, he
was kicked out.
I think the short answer to your question is that any "successes" are
due to Steiner's Curative Course, and "failures" are down to the
individual.
) 3. Indeed, does the stress create resentments on behalf of the co-
) workers?
Do you doubt it??? The Great and the Good manage to protect themselves
a bit from the emotional demands of attending to the special folk by
attending those interminable meetings, or by securing "independent"
tasks- which means 9-5ish working day, with two hours for lunch and
"rest hour"
The brunt of emotional demands are borne by less experienced staff.
) 4. What about the therapies? Despite some positive effects I have
) seen, there seems to be a kind of laissez-faire approach.
I remain still a big fan of einreibung massage. Other therapies? I
don't know that much is unique to anthroposophy. They seem to do much
the same as others, sometimes just with a mystical articulation giving
it an occult bent. Take for example Colour Light Therapy. Other
non-anthro places use it too, but its just called relaxation. Thes other
places of course dont attach the same occult significance to particular
colours, its a more simple psychology.
) 5. Are Camphill kids or young adults really apt to survive outside
) the fairytale world of wood-carving and story-telling? Can they
) fill out a disbility claim?
Same as any other centre: some can, some can't. My own experience
indicates that the more able people do eventually move out to Sheltered
Housing and work.
)
) I would like to interview you over the phone, you can call me under
) 646 234 0565 or send me your number.
I don't mind, but I'm in Scotland..+5 hrs on E.S.T. I work nights, and
even when I'm off I find it difficult to adjust to anything like regular
hours. (It's almost 3:00 am now: still wide awake, but it isnt always
so.) I also spend a few days a week with my old dad, so while I am in no
way trying to avoid you, a mutually convenient time is a bit tricky.
Feel free to email me offlist if you want to arrange a telecon. For all
the list is called Waldorf Critics, I'm pretty sure the owners would
have no objection to further Camphill discussions here.
Davy
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:29:10 -0500
From: Jan-Christoph Kolb (jk2332 columbia.edu)
Subject: RE: camphill and special ed
David,
thank you so much indeed. let me digest that information after
completing a hectic day in our news room here. I will get back to
you tomorrow though, and we'll see if I can give you a call. Thank
you very much indeed.
Of course some of my questions seem obvious, but I have to leave my
own opinion as much in the background as possible to produce a
credible piece of journalism.
good night, Jan-Christoph
--
Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University
Jan-Christoph Kolb
530 W 112th St.
New York, NY 10025
Tel: 1 646 234 0565
Quoting David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com):
)
) Jan-Christoph Kolb wrote:
) )
) ) Hi David,
) ) Finally some constructive response beyond the sad and childish
)
) ) antics of some replies.
)
) Entirely happy to help Jan-Christoph.
)
) ) David, I was a co-worker, too and left with a deep feeling of
) ) appreciation but more so, a suitcase full of nagging
) questions.
)
) The "deep feeling of appreciation" is quite common in one's
) early days
) I think. For myself, I blundered into anthroposophy from the dole
) after
) twenty-five years in aerospce-defence. During that twenty-five
) years, I
) always felt that industry was my job, but my *work* was in
) Scouting...you know, teamwork, helping my lads to be all they
) could,
) leaving the land as we had found it, all that stuff. On first
) coming to
) the "community" I was exquisitely happy: the nagging questions
) arose for
) me after about nine months. Eventually, I sought professional
) help-
) anxiety stemming from Cultural Alienation was the diagnosis. I
) had only
) moved about 40 miles, believing what they had told me that my
) degree in
) The Humanities, and my various bits of long-term voluntary work
) would
) have some value.
) It was as early as my second week there that I was informed "your
) *real*
) education starts now". Of course I knew that anthroposophy was a
) bit
) alternative, but I never expected to feel a stranger in my own
) land!
) I recently read Geoffrey Ahern's Ph.D thesis (London School of
) Economics, 1981). On descibing his impressions of a visit to The
)
) Goetheanum, he spoke of "the plastic lampshades, not obviously
) plastic"...and that, in a nutshell said it all for me.
)
) ) Recently, I have visisted a Camphill here in the U.S. and
) despite
) ) the apparent change in terms of decision-making and the
) take-over
) ) by a younger, less dogmatic generation of co-workers, the whole
)
) ) appraoch seems problematic.
)
) Yep
)
) 1. Integration yes, but does it have to take place behind the
) ) closed doors of a rural community?
)
) Not sure what you mean by "integration." With wider society? It
) rather
) seems to me that the movement as a whole is becoming more adept
) at
) securing public funding, but still wants to be a part (for the
) money)
) apart from society. While the greater part of such centres remain
) in a
) rural setting- presumably distanced from the Ahrimanic infuences
) of
) cities, there are some inner city initiatives, often, but not
) always
) carrying out commercial businesses.
)
) ) 2. Does the mental stress endured, inhibit the development of
) those
) ) with special needs?
)
) Depends on the individual. Autistic folk tend to do well in the
)
) *rhythmic* regime- the condition demands "straight lines".
) Others, well
) it depends on their personality. One lad I worked with was given
) St.
) John's Wort, and later Prozac to alleviate his depression. The
) lad had
) no speech, could write and recognise twenty-seven words, but did
) have
) some communicative skills using Sign Maketon. It always seemed
) to me
) that the lad was *not* depressed, he was simply bored bored
) bored. Bored
) out of his skull with the same thing every day- the key being
) that while
) our man was disabled, he was by no means unintelligent.
) Eventually, he
) was kicked out.
) I think the short answer to your question is that any
) "successes" are
) due to Steiner's Curative Course, and "failures" are down to the
)
) individual.
)
) ) 3. Indeed, does the stress create resentments on behalf of the
) co-
) ) workers?
)
) Do you doubt it??? The Great and the Good manage to protect
) themselves
) a bit from the emotional demands of attending to the special folk
) by
) attending those interminable meetings, or by securing
) "independent"
) tasks- which means 9-5ish working day, with two hours for lunch
) and
) "rest hour"
) The brunt of emotional demands are borne by less experienced
) staff.
)
) ) 4. What about the therapies? Despite some positive effects I
) have
) ) seen, there seems to be a kind of laissez-faire approach.
)
) I remain still a big fan of einreibung massage. Other therapies?
) I
) don't know that much is unique to anthroposophy. They seem to do
) much
) the same as others, sometimes just with a mystical articulation
) giving
) it an occult bent. Take for example Colour Light Therapy. Other
) non-anthro places use it too, but its just called relaxation.
) Thes other
) places of course dont attach the same occult significance to
) particular
) colours, its a more simple psychology.
)
) ) 5. Are Camphill kids or young adults really apt to survive
) outside
) ) the fairytale world of wood-carving and story-telling? Can they
)
) ) fill out a disbility claim?
)
) Same as any other centre: some can, some can't. My own experience
)
) indicates that the more able people do eventually move out to
) Sheltered
) Housing and work.
) )
) ) I would like to interview you over the phone, you can call me
) under
) ) 646 234 0565 or send me your number.
)
) I don't mind, but I'm in Scotland..+5 hrs on E.S.T. I work
) nights, and
) even when I'm off I find it difficult to adjust to anything like
) regular
) hours. (It's almost 3:00 am now: still wide awake, but it isnt
) always
) so.) I also spend a few days a week with my old dad, so while I
) am in no
) way trying to avoid you, a mutually convenient time is a bit
) tricky.
) Feel free to email me offlist if you want to arrange a telecon.
) For all
) the list is called Waldorf Critics, I'm pretty sure the owners
) would
) have no objection to further Camphill discussions here.
)
) Davy
) )
) )
)
)
==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter
) how basic. New threads are always welcome.
-
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:46:28 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: reporting on Camphill/was Camphill and special ed
Jan-Christoph,
I am wondering: do you think you *can* produce an unbiased piece of
reporting on Camphill, if you were (as you seem to have been) involved in it
in some way in the past?
Perhaps the better question is: SHOULD you chose as your topic something
with which you have had personal involvement?
I have been a newspaper reporter for more than 20 years and in the ethical
canon wherever I have worked (from a large metropolitan daily paper to a
national magazine to a chain of weekly newspapers) was an unwritten rule
that said a reporter should recuse himself or herself from covering a topic
with which he or she has had personal involvement. (This rule does not apply
to the writing of editorials or opinion pieces, obviously.)
As I am sure you know, the *appearance* of bias is just as damaging to a
reporter's credibility (and to the credibility of his or her news
organization) as actual bias would be.
But perhaps I am misunderstanding the purpose of your piece. Is it an actual
feature story or news article, or is it a paper for a class?
Respectfully,
Lisa
) From: Jan-Christoph Kolb (jk2332 columbia.edu)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:29:10 -0500
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: RE: camphill and special ed
)
) David,
)
) thank you so much indeed. let me digest that information after
) completing a hectic day in our news room here. I will get back to
) you tomorrow though, and we'll see if I can give you a call. Thank
) you very much indeed.
) Of course some of my questions seem obvious, but I have to leave my
) own opinion as much in the background as possible to produce a
) credible piece of journalism.
)
) good night, Jan-Christoph
) --
) Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University
) Jan-Christoph Kolb
) 530 W 112th St.
) New York, NY 10025
) Tel: 1 646 234 0565
)
)
) Quoting David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com):
)
))
)) Jan-Christoph Kolb wrote:
)))
))) Hi David,
))) Finally some constructive response beyond the sad and childish
))
))) antics of some replies.
))
)) Entirely happy to help Jan-Christoph.
))
))) David, I was a co-worker, too and left with a deep feeling of
))) appreciation but more so, a suitcase full of nagging
)) questions.
))
)) The "deep feeling of appreciation" is quite common in one's
)) early days
)) I think. For myself, I blundered into anthroposophy from the dole
)) after
)) twenty-five years in aerospce-defence. During that twenty-five
)) years, I
)) always felt that industry was my job, but my *work* was in
)) Scouting...you know, teamwork, helping my lads to be all they
)) could,
)) leaving the land as we had found it, all that stuff. On first
)) coming to
)) the "community" I was exquisitely happy: the nagging questions
)) arose for
)) me after about nine months. Eventually, I sought professional
)) help-
)) anxiety stemming from Cultural Alienation was the diagnosis. I
)) had only
)) moved about 40 miles, believing what they had told me that my
)) degree in
)) The Humanities, and my various bits of long-term voluntary work
)) would
)) have some value.
)) It was as early as my second week there that I was informed "your
)) *real*
)) education starts now". Of course I knew that anthroposophy was a
)) bit
)) alternative, but I never expected to feel a stranger in my own
)) land!
)) I recently read Geoffrey Ahern's Ph.D thesis (London School of
)) Economics, 1981). On descibing his impressions of a visit to The
))
)) Goetheanum, he spoke of "the plastic lampshades, not obviously
)) plastic"...and that, in a nutshell said it all for me.
))
))) Recently, I have visisted a Camphill here in the U.S. and
)) despite
))) the apparent change in terms of decision-making and the
)) take-over
))) by a younger, less dogmatic generation of co-workers, the whole
))
))) appraoch seems problematic.
))
)) Yep
))
)) 1. Integration yes, but does it have to take place behind the
))) closed doors of a rural community?
))
)) Not sure what you mean by "integration." With wider society? It
)) rather
)) seems to me that the movement as a whole is becoming more adept
)) at
)) securing public funding, but still wants to be a part (for the
)) money)
)) apart from society. While the greater part of such centres remain
)) in a
)) rural setting- presumably distanced from the Ahrimanic infuences
)) of
)) cities, there are some inner city initiatives, often, but not
)) always
)) carrying out commercial businesses.
))
))) 2. Does the mental stress endured, inhibit the development of
)) those
))) with special needs?
))
)) Depends on the individual. Autistic folk tend to do well in the
))
)) *rhythmic* regime- the condition demands "straight lines".
)) Others, well
)) it depends on their personality. One lad I worked with was given
)) St.
)) John's Wort, and later Prozac to alleviate his depression. The
)) lad had
)) no speech, could write and recognise twenty-seven words, but did
)) have
)) some communicative skills using Sign Maketon. It always seemed
)) to me
)) that the lad was *not* depressed, he was simply bored bored
)) bored. Bored
)) out of his skull with the same thing every day- the key being
)) that while
)) our man was disabled, he was by no means unintelligent.
)) Eventually, he
)) was kicked out.
)) I think the short answer to your question is that any
)) "successes" are
)) due to Steiner's Curative Course, and "failures" are down to the
))
)) individual.
))
))) 3. Indeed, does the stress create resentments on behalf of the
)) co-
))) workers?
))
)) Do you doubt it??? The Great and the Good manage to protect
)) themselves
)) a bit from the emotional demands of attending to the special folk
)) by
)) attending those interminable meetings, or by securing
)) "independent"
)) tasks- which means 9-5ish working day, with two hours for lunch
)) and
)) "rest hour"
)) The brunt of emotional demands are borne by less experienced
)) staff.
))
))) 4. What about the therapies? Despite some positive effects I
)) have
))) seen, there seems to be a kind of laissez-faire approach.
))
)) I remain still a big fan of einreibung massage. Other therapies?
)) I
)) don't know that much is unique to anthroposophy. They seem to do
)) much
)) the same as others, sometimes just with a mystical articulation
)) giving
)) it an occult bent. Take for example Colour Light Therapy. Other
)) non-anthro places use it too, but its just called relaxation.
)) Thes other
)) places of course dont attach the same occult significance to
)) particular
)) colours, its a more simple psychology.
))
))) 5. Are Camphill kids or young adults really apt to survive
)) outside
))) the fairytale world of wood-carving and story-telling? Can they
))
))) fill out a disbility claim?
))
)) Same as any other centre: some can, some can't. My own experience
))
)) indicates that the more able people do eventually move out to
)) Sheltered
)) Housing and work.
)))
))) I would like to interview you over the phone, you can call me
)) under
))) 646 234 0565 or send me your number.
))
)) I don't mind, but I'm in Scotland..+5 hrs on E.S.T. I work
)) nights, and
)) even when I'm off I find it difficult to adjust to anything like
)) regular
)) hours. (It's almost 3:00 am now: still wide awake, but it isnt
)) always
)) so.) I also spend a few days a week with my old dad, so while I
)) am in no
)) way trying to avoid you, a mutually convenient time is a bit
)) tricky.
)) Feel free to email me offlist if you want to arrange a telecon.
)) For all
)) the list is called Waldorf Critics, I'm pretty sure the owners
)) would
)) have no objection to further Camphill discussions here.
))
)) Davy
)))
)))
))
))
) ==^================================================================
)) 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: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:01:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
--0-932414146-1075870867=:90744
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Say what Girlfriend???
This your comment to me and I quote -
"Mark, I would advise you (and I mean this sincerely) not to make fun of others..."
read the words "I would advise you" very carefully and see if you can figure it out.
People do not appreciate unsolicited advise. If I ask for advise then you can politely and tactfully deliver it. All else makes others defensive.
Cheers
Mark
"Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com) wrote:
Say what? I honestly am not sure what "offer advice when asked for" means.
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 17:14:43 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
i did not ask for your advice...but thanks.
offer advice when asked for.
Mark
"Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com) wrote:
Mark, I would advise you (and I mean this sincerely) not to make fun of others spelling, etc. unless your own sentence structure, punctuation, etc. are perfect.
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 20:52:58 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
Jan...
can you elaborate on what are houseparents?
and sepcial ed kids?
and apricate?
What year of journalism school are you in?
Mark
Jan-Christoph Kolb (Jan-Christoph_Kolb web.de) wrote:
p {margin: 0px}
Dear Dan, dear Deborah,
I'm a former Waldorf student, now studying journalism and writing my masters thesis on special ed in camphill communities. I would really like to get some input from waldorf critics on the steiner-based special ed. I would really apricate your comments and contacts. I'm specifically looking for former parents of sepcial ed kids, former camphill co-workers and houseparents.
best, Jan-Christoph==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.______________________________________________________________________________
Erdbeben im Iran: Zehntausende Kinder brauchen Hilfe. UNICEF hilft den
Kindern - helfen Sie mit! https://www.unicef.de/spe/spe_03.php
---------------------------------
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: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:10:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
--0-1452977751-1075871412=:37022
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Surely we can find a way to get Lisa to lighten up...
life is not THAT serious Lisa...
"All the worlds a stage ..
and all the men and women, merely players.
They have their exits and their entrances,
and each one in their time plays many parts."
Lighten up sweetie lissie
"Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com) wrote:
Thank you for making the post below, Agustina. I, for one, had NO idea what
was transpiring between Jan-Christoph and Mark, other than the fact that the
posters seemed to be showing off how many languages they could speak.
English is the language of this list. Let's all try to use it to communicate
here as clearly as we can. I think we all agree that NO ONE is immune from
spelling errors (sometimes, they are actually typographical errors!) or
other lapses of perfect grammar and syntax.
I strongly believe that even people who vociferously disagree with one
another can engage in reasoned and civilized debate.
Lisa
) From: antigonabaires hotmail.com
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:18:53 -0300
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
)
)
) Well, well, I think this has gone completely off topic.
) I must say it was you, Chris, who didn't understand my message. I meant to
) say that, in my humble opinion, Mark's questions regarding spelling and such
) were not kind to YOU.
) Besides, this is not a contest about who's been to more countries, who can
) speak more languages and who is the most sympathethic to foreigners and
) aliens. I don't think it is polite to post messages in languages other than
) English (unless, of course, it is a quote) since by joining this list we
) have tacitly agreed to use English, which we all understand. I am sure many
) of us here are fluent in more than one language but I don't recall anyone's
) boasting about such qualifications if that fact did not help to the
) understanding of Waldorf or anthroposophy. After all, that's what we are all
) here for, isn't it?
)
) And I suggest you moderate your tone about calling anyone "porteña" the way
) you are doing it here.
) Regards,
) Agustina
)
) ----- Original Message -----
) From: "Jan-Christoph Kolb"
) To:
) Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 9:34 PM
) Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
)
)
)) Que te paso a ti?
)) Como podia saber que hablan aleman. No tengo ni idea de donde son.
)) Para saber, puedas escribirme en aleman, ingles y tambien en
)) espanol, portena. Vivia en Cordoba!!!!!
)) Tranquilizate, vos sos la que es orgullosa.
))
)) Chris
)) --
)) Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University
)) Jan-Christoph Kolb
)) 530 W 112th St.
)) New York, NY 10025
)) Tel: 1 646 234 0565
))
))
)) Quoting antigonabaires hotmail.com:
))
))) Re: camphill and special edLisa wrote:
)))
))) "Also, I believe this individual's first language is German. He
))) is writing to us in English. Have some decency and respect,
))) please."
)))
))) I agree with Lisa in every respect. I am a foreigner myself and I
))) hate that arrogant attitude. Even if his grammar and spelling
))) were perfect in every possible language.
))) Warm (literally!) regards from Buenos Aires
))) Agustina
)))
)))
)) ==^================================================================
))) 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.
)
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:12:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: camphill and special ed
--0-1679336122-1075871566=:59307
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
has anyone ever heard of "sometimes less is MORE!"
it really is...a quicker exhange of thoughts could happen if we all wrote a bit less...
David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com) wrote:
Jan-Christoph Kolb wrote:
)
) Hi David,
) Finally some constructive response beyond the sad and childish
) antics of some replies.
Entirely happy to help Jan-Christoph.
) David, I was a co-worker, too and left with a deep feeling of
) appreciation but more so, a suitcase full of nagging questions.
The "deep feeling of appreciation" is quite common in one's early days
I think. For myself, I blundered into anthroposophy from the dole after
twenty-five years in aerospce-defence. During that twenty-five years, I
always felt that industry was my job, but my *work* was in
Scouting...you know, teamwork, helping my lads to be all they could,
leaving the land as we had found it, all that stuff. On first coming to
the "community" I was exquisitely happy: the nagging questions arose for
me after about nine months. Eventually, I sought professional help-
anxiety stemming from Cultural Alienation was the diagnosis. I had only
moved about 40 miles, believing what they had told me that my degree in
The Humanities, and my various bits of long-term voluntary work would
have some value.
It was as early as my second week there that I was informed "your *real*
education starts now". Of course I knew that anthroposophy was a bit
alternative, but I never expected to feel a stranger in my own land!
I recently read Geoffrey Ahern's Ph.D thesis (London School of
Economics, 1981). On descibing his impressions of a visit to The
Goetheanum, he spoke of "the plastic lampshades, not obviously
plastic"...and that, in a nutshell said it all for me.
) Recently, I have visisted a Camphill here in the U.S. and despite
) the apparent change in terms of decision-making and the take-over
) by a younger, less dogmatic generation of co-workers, the whole
) appraoch seems problematic.
Yep
1. Integration yes, but does it have to take place behind the
) closed doors of a rural community?
Not sure what you mean by "integration." With wider society? It rather
seems to me that the movement as a whole is becoming more adept at
securing public funding, but still wants to be a part (for the money)
apart from society. While the greater part of such centres remain in a
rural setting- presumably distanced from the Ahrimanic infuences of
cities, there are some inner city initiatives, often, but not always
carrying out commercial businesses.
) 2. Does the mental stress endured, inhibit the development of those
) with special needs?
Depends on the individual. Autistic folk tend to do well in the
*rhythmic* regime- the condition demands "straight lines". Others, well
it depends on their personality. One lad I worked with was given St.
John's Wort, and later Prozac to alleviate his depression. The lad had
no speech, could write and recognise twenty-seven words, but did have
some communicative skills using Sign Maketon. It always seemed to me
that the lad was *not* depressed, he was simply bored bored bored. Bored
out of his skull with the same thing every day- the key being that while
our man was disabled, he was by no means unintelligent. Eventually, he
was kicked out.
I think the short answer to your question is that any "successes" are
due to Steiner's Curative Course, and "failures" are down to the
individual.
) 3. Indeed, does the stress create resentments on behalf of the co-
) workers?
Do you doubt it??? The Great and the Good manage to protect themselves
a bit from the emotional demands of attending to the special folk by
attending those interminable meetings, or by securing "independent"
tasks- which means 9-5ish working day, with two hours for lunch and
"rest hour"
The brunt of emotional demands are borne by less experienced staff.
) 4. What about the therapies? Despite some positive effects I have
) seen, there seems to be a kind of laissez-faire approach.
I remain still a big fan of einreibung massage. Other therapies? I
don't know that much is unique to anthroposophy. They seem to do much
the same as others, sometimes just with a mystical articulation giving
it an occult bent. Take for example Colour Light Therapy. Other
non-anthro places use it too, but its just called relaxation. Thes other
places of course dont attach the same occult significance to particular
colours, its a more simple psychology.
) 5. Are Camphill kids or young adults really apt to survive outside
) the fairytale world of wood-carving and story-telling? Can they
) fill out a disbility claim?
Same as any other centre: some can, some can't. My own experience
indicates that the more able people do eventually move out to Sheltered
Housing and work.
)
) I would like to interview you over the phone, you can call me under
) 646 234 0565 or send me your number.
I don't mind, but I'm in Scotland..+5 hrs on E.S.T. I work nights, and
even when I'm off I find it difficult to adjust to anything like regular
hours. (It's almost 3:00 am now: still wide awake, but it isnt always
so.) I also spend a few days a week with my old dad, so while I am in no
way trying to avoid you, a mutually convenient time is a bit tricky.
Feel free to email me offlist if you want to arrange a telecon. For all
the list is called Waldorf Critics, I'm pretty sure the owners would
have no objection to further Camphill discussions here.
Davy
)
)
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:32:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
--0-1208606567-1075872762=:93823
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
science is hindrance...take a look around at how science has created massive destruction, alienation from nature, pollution, isolation( look at this me typing alone on my high tech tool ( product of science ) ) ,....
we must address approaching the problems of life, raising and schooling children, being human, being alive, caring for the planet.... by re-learning how to be with nature again!
We used to know how to do that before mechanization of the planet.
We must do it or we will extinct ourselves. And it must start by getting our kids there also.
Mark
Peter Staudenmaier (pstaud hotmail.com) wrote:
I think Mark Fitzpatrick got one thing right:
)Steiner likely felt that he needed to put a scientific bent on his beliefs
)and understandings to have others stand and listen.
That sounds fairly accurate to me. The question, of course, remains: in
light of the strong antagonism toward science among anthroposophists today,
why do so many of them continue to insist that their worldview constitutes a
science of its own? I think this puzzle has less to do with disagreements
among contemporary anthroposophists and more to do with Steiner's
ambivalence on the topic of 'science'. This original ambivalence seems to
have left fans of anthroposophical thinking in an interesting bind,
simultaneously claiming scientific status for their own beliefs while
deprecating science as a hindrance to true knowledge of the cosmos and a
primary source of alienation. Thus many of them still view critical inquiry
as sacrilege, psychic violence, or an instance of Ahrimanic deception.
Another of the difficulties in trying to talk with anthroposophists.
Peter S.
)Where has science left us? We have alienated ourselves from the earth,
)nature and ourselves with science!
)Science only serving to take away from an innate intelligence that we are
)all born with....and always have but ending losing touch with when society
)places to much pressure on us to think and process different. This process
)causes us to doubt our own instinct. Gut , spirit and instinct requires
)nil, absolutely nil science. Science , in this way is a hindrance, in
)coming to know the true sense fo reality, life and nature.
_________________________________________________________________
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
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 06:15:26 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: camphill and special ed
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
) has anyone ever heard of "sometimes less is MORE!"
)
) it really is...a quicker exhange of thoughts could happen if we all
) wrote a bit less...
)
)
)
) David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com) wrote:
)
) Jan-Christoph Kolb wrote:
) )
) ) Hi David,
) ) Finally some constructive response beyond the sad and childish
) ) antics of some replies.
)
) Entirely happy to help Jan-Christoph.
)
) ) David, I was a co-worker, too and left with a deep feeling of
) ) appreciation but more so, a suitcase full of nagging questions.
)
Mark, do you really think that Survivors have no experience of dealing
with this shut-up technique?
Jan-Christoph asked some questions in a reasonable, courteous manner.
I responded in kind.
I remain unmoved that anthroposophists dont like people going into
anything other than "approved" detail.
Davy
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 00:46:36 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
Mark wrote:
) has anyone ever heard of "sometimes less is MORE!"
)
) it really is...a quicker exhange of thoughts could happen if we all wrote
a bit less...
I appreciate this thread very much and find it odd that you (Mark) would
tell people to write less. If you do not like the subject matter and are
otherwise uncomfortable with light being shed on Camphill and special ed -
especially from a list member who has experience - don't read this thread.
It really is that simple. Thanks very much to Davy for taking the time to
share his knowledge and experience.
-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 1246
-- Topica Digest --
Re: camphill and special ed
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: once more on science
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Switching left-handed children in Waldorf schools
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: camphill and special ed
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: camphill and special ed
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: reporting on Camphill/was Camphill and special ed
By jk2332 columbia.edu
Re: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: once more on science
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
What Anthroposophy is not:
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: What Anthroposophy is not:- therefore making the argument that Waldorf is
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: reporting on Camphill/was Camphill and special ed
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: once more on science
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: once more on science
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
[NNA] Court rules against reactivation of "General
Anthroposophical Society (Ch
By dan dandugan.com
Admin: [Re: once more on science]
By dan dandugan.com
Re: once more on science
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: once more on science
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 07:44:37 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
) 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_3158725477_25660_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
LOL!
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:10:12 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
Surely we can find a way to get Lisa to lighten up...
life is not THAT serious Lisa...
"All the worlds a stage ..
and all the men and women, merely players.
They have their exits and their entrances,
and each one in their time plays many parts."Lighten up sweetie lissie
"Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com) wrote:
Thank you for making the post below, Agustina. I, for one, had NO idea what
was transpiring between Jan-Christoph and Mark, other than the fact that the
posters seemed to be showing off how many languages they could speak.
English is the language of this list. Let's all try to use it to communicate
here as clearly as we can. I think we all agree that NO ONE is immune from
spelling errors (sometimes, they are actually typographical errors!) or
other lapses of perfect grammar and syntax.
I strongly believe that even people who vociferously disagree with one
another can engage in reasoned and civilized debate.
Lisa
) From: antigonabaires hotmail.com
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:18:53 -0300
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
)
)
) Well, well, I think this has gone completely off topic.
) I must say it was you, Chris, who didn't understand my message. I meant to
) say that, in my humble opinion, Mark's questions regarding spelling and such
) were not kind to YOU.
) Besides, this is not a contest about who's been to more countries, who can
) speak more languages and who is the most sympathethic to foreigners and
) aliens. I don't think it is polite to post messages in languages other than
) English (unless, of course, it is a quote) since by joining this list we
) have tacitly agreed to use English, which we all understand. I am sure many
) of us here are fluent in more than one language but I don't recall anyone's
) boasting about such qualifications if that fact did not help to the
) understanding of Waldorf or anthroposophy. After all, that's what we are all
) here for, isn't it?
)
) And I suggest you moderate your tone about calling anyone "porteña" the way
) you are doing it here.
) Regards,
) Agustina
)
) ----- Original Message -----
) From: "Jan-Christoph Kolb"
) To:
) Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 9:34 PM
) Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
)
)
)) Que te paso a ti?
)) Como podia saber que hablan aleman. No tengo ni idea de donde son.
)) Para saber, puedas escribirme en aleman, ingles y tambien en
)) espanol, portena. Vivia en Cordoba!!!!!
)) Tranquilizate, vos sos la que es orgullosa.
))
)) Chris
)) --
)) Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University
)) Jan-Christoph Kolb
)) 530 W 112th St.
)) New York, NY 10025
)) Tel: 1 646 234 0565
))
))
)) Quoting antigonabaires hotmail.com:
))
))) Re: camphill and special edLisa wrote:
)))
))) "Also, I believe this individual's first language is German. He
))) is writing to us in English. Have some decency and respect,
))) please."
)))
))) I agree with Lisa in every respect. I am a foreigner myself and I
))) hate that arrogant attitude. Even if his grammar and spelling
))) were perfect in every possible language.
))) Warm (literally!) regards from Buenos Aires
))) Agustina
)))
)))
)) ==^================================================================
))) 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 Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 07:52:27 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
) 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_3158725947_53932_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
You seem to have such a one-sided, one-dimensional view of science, Mark!
Think of all the amazing and wonderful things science has given us, from the
understanding that the world is round and rotates around the SUN (and is not
the ONLY planet out there!) to the understanding that matter is comprised of
tiny particles called molecules. Think of what medical science has done:
people who would have died from various diseases a century ago now live
long, productive lives. (Diabetes is a great example.) Without science, many
people would die each year from preventable illnesses such as tetanus. Think
about maternal and fetal healthcare: a century ago, it was not at all
unusual for women giving birth to die in the process, or for young babies to
perish from a host of reasons. (Two hundred years ago, parents *expected* to
lose some of their children.)
I always find it interesting when Waldorf enthusiasts and Anthroposophers
diss science, claiming it causes humanity to be spiritually bankrupt and
mechanistic. Over the years, I have interviewed and gotten to know many
scientists, and many of them will -- when pressed -- admit that their
scientific inquiries have made them *more* spiritual people. As one medical
researcher told me that the more he learned about the human body, the more
he acknowledged the existence of a higher power who created it and planned
it out so exquisitely.
Science does not take away from the beauty and mystery of life and living
things. It only attempts to explain it. What's wrong with that?
Lisa
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:32:42 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
science is hindrance...take a look around at how science has created massive
destruction, alienation from nature, pollution, isolation( look at this me
typing alone on my high tech tool ( product of science ) ) ,....
we must address approaching the problems of life, raising and schooling
children, being human, being alive, caring for the planet.... by re-learning
how to be with nature again!
We used to know how to do that before mechanization of the planet.
We must do it or we will extinct ourselves. And it must start by getting our
kids there also.
Mark
Peter Staudenmaier (pstaud hotmail.com) wrote:
I think Mark Fitzpatrick got one thing right:
)Steiner likely felt that he needed to put a scientific bent on his beliefs
)and understandings to have others stand and listen.
That sounds fairly accurate to me. The question, of course, remains: in
light of the strong antagonism toward science among anthroposophists today,
why do so many of them continue to insist that their worldview constitutes a
science of its own? I think this puzzle has less to do with disagreements
among contemporary anthroposophists and more to do with Steiner's
ambivalence on the topic of 'science'. This original ambivalence seems to
have left fans of anthroposophical thinking in an interesting bind,
simultaneously claiming scientific status for their own beliefs while
deprecating science as a hindrance to true knowledge of the cosmos and a
primary source of alienation. Thus many of them still view critical inquiry
as sacrilege, psychic violence, or an instance of Ahrimanic deception.
Another of the difficulties in trying to talk with anthroposophists.
Peter S.
)Where has science left us? We have alienated ourselves from the earth,
)nature and ourselves with science!
)Science only serving to take away from an innate intelligence that we are
)all born with....and always have but ending losing touch with when society
)places to much pressure on us to think and process different. This process
)causes us to doubt our own instinct. Gut , spirit and instinct requires
)nil, absolutely nil science. Science , in this way is a hindrance, in
)coming to know the true sense fo reality, life and nature.
_________________________________________________________________
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software — optimizes dial-up to the max!
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:14:34 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: Switching left-handed children in Waldorf schools
I am replying here to Daniel Hindes from "anthroposophy tomorrow," in a
discussion about the practice of forcing left-handed children to use their
right hands. To anyone (probably most everyone) not following or interested
in that discussion, I apologize - just delete now.
Daniel says, "Diana left because every point of fact she alleged I
demonstrated conclusively to be mistaken." It seems Daniel's boast was not
meant to be public, but someone helpfully copied his words to the
"anthroposophy tomorrow" list. My "anthroposophy tomorrow" friends spent
some time musing over various reasons I may have left their list (there even
seemed to be some ambivalence about the appropriateness of the "trailer
trash" remarks) and they seem to think that because I left their list I have
nothing more to say on the topic.
)I only attack you because you claim the mantle of science for your
opinions.
I claim no such thing. I claim that science doesn't support the practice of
forcing left-handed children to switch hands. Personally, I don't feel we
need "attack" one another, and don't feel attacked myself until people begin
inserting comments about "trailer trash" and birds "flying over and crapping
on you" into the discussion.
I don't claim science answers every question in the world, or that science
is always right (replying partly to other comments by Christine here). My
claim is simple and it is not a scientist's claim; it is a claim about the
existing science as far as I understand it, and Daniel has shown nothing to
the contrary. He claims "the jury is still out," but there's no jury
deliberating on this.
It got silly - I stated casually that Steiner spoke "against science," was
hotly challenged to back up this claim, it was so offensive to see anyone
suggest Steiner and science weren't compatible. Then they had a good time
chortling among themselves about how I'm some kind of zealot for the
Religion of Science, I follow men in white coats around or something - even
though I tried hard to avoid even having a conversation about science, since
it doesn't interest me much. It was funny to see Christine explain patiently
to me that science sometimes makes mistakes and tosses out old, incorrect
knowledge. (Like - left handed children should be forced to switch hands?)
)You stated that scientists have objected to Steiner's pedagogy. I said that
would be )atypical and asked you to give examples. Can you?
I don't believe I stated that scientists have objected to Steiner's
pedagogy. Steiner is mostly ignored.
)YOU have made the initial claim, not I.
I make no claim other than that because the practice is unsupported (and
reportedly causes some children pain), it should be stopped. To reply to a
point you made earlier, if we are going to cause children pain, we'd better
have a good reason - not wait for neuroscience to come up with one.
There is a difference between "making a claim" and starting a discussion,
about, in this case, what claims are made by other people - how scientists'
claims, or in this case lack thereof, contrast with Waldorf educators'
confusion about left-handedness. I do not make scientific claims, not being
a scientist. My claim that science does not support forcing left-handed
children to use their right hands is correct.
Here is my last take on your interpretation of the study about literacy in
children with asymmetric laterality. It's interesting, as are your
interpretations, and there's no reason to take offense that I do not agree
with your reasoning. Accusing me of not reading it is not productive. I read
fast - and now I've had a few days to read it again.
)which hand a child writes with could influence cognitive development.
Daniel, is that a "claim"?
I'm not a scientist, so I don't make claims about what influences cognitive
development. But, if handedness can influence cognitive development, this is
a far cry from suggesting anyone try to change a child's handedness. That's
a leap not suggested or supported by the study you mentioned. There would be
many reasons to think twice before making that leap- such as possible
psychological effects on the child - and although switching left handers was
a common practice in earlier decades, perhaps it is quite telling that the
researchers do *not* even consider it.
It is far less radical to suggest changing a child's "literacy environment"
than suggesting trying to change the child's inborn physical capabilities.
The study was broadly about *helping children read* and Daniel wants us to
believe he found something to support switching children's hands.
Theoretically, it could happen that science could change its collective mind
on this, though I think it is unlikely we will again see a practice endorsed
that there is a wide consensus (a cultural consensus, yes) is unkind, which
some people (myself included) actually consider a form of child abuse and an
expression of sadism.
There are counterexamples - it could happen. Some people see the practice of
electroshock therapy for depression this way, for instance. Many people
considered it abusive and horrifying, and yet now there is research backing
up its usefulness sometimes and it is used often again.
But Waldorf is on solider ground simply making clear to parents that the
reasons to switch hands come from Steiner's spiritual research. The relevant
excerpts from Steiner's published statements on left-handedness should be
xeroxed and handed to parents as part of an admissions package at any
Waldorf school where teachers consider *in any way* interfering with
children's handedness.
They have every right to implement this as part of Waldorf pedagogy in
private schools. (Unfortunately. I feel sorry for children whose handedness
is interfered with; but do not dispute that parents have the right to choose
their children's education.) Parents need full, forthright information about
the practice before enrolling a child. Statements that "neuroscience" or
"cognitive development" are somehow implicated are irresponsible.
I wrote previously:
)The suggestion that this is never done without the parents' consent is
belied by many )reports from Waldorf parents.
Daniel:
)Earlier you said that you agreed that the current practice of informing
parents seemed to )be the more common one. Do you have new information that
caused you to change your mind? If )so, please share it.
I don't think I said that. Perhaps you remember that I said I am fairly sure
the practice of switching children in general is less common now than in the
past. (I don't base this on anything but impressions; but since it favors
Waldorf, I suspect you will not object to my not backing it up.)
Furthermore, even if I had said what you attribute to me there, it wouldn't
mean I had changed my mind about anything. I said the suggestion it is
"never" done is incorrect based on parents' reports. Getting the parents'
informed consent may be more common; that is not contradictory. I don't
think there is any valid information out there about how many Waldorf school
still do this or how they explain it to parents.
)Diana: About eurythmy:
)(Mis)quoting Daniel:
)I am not aware of any [evidence] one way or the other.
)Diana:
)If there is no evidence of it one way or another, an MD who prescribes it
is a quack.
)Daniel:
)Nice twist on my words.
There was no twist. Your "I am not aware of any" was in reply to my question
about "evidence." My putting [evidence] in brackets was not a
misrepresentation - the brackets show it is my insertion and not your
original words, but was inserted to clarify what the word "any" referred to,
without repeating the entire dialogue.
Thanks for all the info about Steiner's tutoring. I notice your claim that
Steiner "spent a decade supporting himself by tutoring" is not repeated; now
we hear simply that Steiner "derived money from tutoring." (Various web
sites refer to Steiner supporting himself through school with "scholarships
and tutoring.")
Diana
P.S. to Christine - I think you are right that science has to continually
admit that it was wrong, and that this is in fact a better procedure than
believing one guy's pronouncements because he said he was "clairvoyant."
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:17:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
--0-1541764091-1075925830=:71323
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
true...but my suggestion still stands as valuable.
Mark
walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca) wrote:
Mark wrote:
) has anyone ever heard of "sometimes less is MORE!"
)
) it really is...a quicker exhange of thoughts could happen if we all wrote
a bit less...
I appreciate this thread very much and find it odd that you (Mark) would
tell people to write less. If you do not like the subject matter and are
otherwise uncomfortable with light being shed on Camphill and special ed -
especially from a list member who has experience - don't read this thread.
It really is that simple. Thanks very much to Davy for taking the time to
share his knowledge and experience.
-Walden
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:18:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
--0-1343524023-1075925899=:94844
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
yeah! it worked! LOL
"Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com) wrote:LOL!
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:10:12 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
Surely we can find a way to get Lisa to lighten up...
life is not THAT serious Lisa...
"All the worlds a stage ..
and all the men and women, merely players.
They have their exits and their entrances,
and each one in their time plays many parts."Lighten up sweetie lissie
"Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com) wrote:
Thank you for making the post below, Agustina. I, for one, had NO idea what
was transpiring between Jan-Christoph and Mark, other than the fact that the
posters seemed to be showing off how many languages they could speak.
English is the language of this list. Let's all try to use it to communicate
here as clearly as we can. I think we all agree that NO ONE is immune from
spelling errors (sometimes, they are actually typographical errors!) or
other lapses of perfect grammar and syntax.
I strongly believe that even people who vociferously disagree with one
another can engage in reasoned and civilized debate.
Lisa
) From: antigonabaires hotmail.com
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 23:18:53 -0300
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
)
)
) Well, well, I think this has gone completely off topic.
) I must say it was you, Chris, who didn't understand my message. I meant to
) say that, in my humble opinion, Mark's questions regarding spelling and such
) were not kind to YOU.
) Besides, this is not a contest about who's been to more countries, who can
) speak more languages and who is the most sympathethic to foreigners and
) aliens. I don't think it is polite to post messages in languages other than
) English (unless, of course, it is a quote) since by joining this list we
) have tacitly agreed to use English, which we all understand. I am sure many
) of us here are fluent in more than one language but I don't recall anyone's
) boasting about such qualifications if that fact did not help to the
) understanding of Waldorf or anthroposophy. After all, that's what we are all
) here for, isn't it?
)
) And I suggest you moderate your tone about calling anyone "porteña" the way
) you are doing it here.
) Regards,
) Agustina
)
) ----- Original Message -----
) From: "Jan-Christoph Kolb"
) To:
) Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 9:34 PM
) Subject: Re: camphill and special ed
)
)
)) Que te paso a ti?
)) Como podia saber que hablan aleman. No tengo ni idea de donde son.
)) Para saber, puedas escribirme en aleman, ingles y tambien en
)) espanol, portena. Vivia en Cordoba!!!!!
)) Tranquilizate, vos sos la que es orgullosa.
))
)) Chris
)) --
)) Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University
)) Jan-Christoph Kolb
)) 530 W 112th St.
)) New York, NY 10025
)) Tel: 1 646 234 0565
))
))
)) Quoting antigonabaires hotmail.com:
))
))) Re: camphill and special edLisa wrote:
)))
))) "Also, I believe this individual's first language is German. He
))) is writing to us in English. Have some decency and respect,
))) please."
)))
))) I agree with Lisa in every respect. I am a foreigner myself and I
))) hate that arrogant attitude. Even if his grammar and spelling
))) were perfect in every possible language.
))) Warm (literally!) regards from Buenos Aires
))) Agustina
)))
)))
)) ==^================================================================
))) 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 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: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:02:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
--0-890848753-1075928570=:14938
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
It seems it's you and other's in this forum that have such a one sided view of science, Lisa!!!
1. Who says "we" did not know about the Sun and it's revolution before science? Are you this closed-off to other ways? Do you think the Native American Indian
a. needed to know this fact to survive and thrive? NOT. They gauged their lives by the movement of the Sun and Moon without science entering it's intrusive and disruptive head. They knew how to live with nature and heal themselves without science but with herbs, spirits and nature! (not science)
b. the Indian was deprived in somehow not knowing this?
c. don't make any assumptions that he did not know it...even without science.
Summary: true knowledge of the universe can and has be obtained without scientific methods...and without all the detriment that science brings with it...
like for one ...revereing it as a God above all else, like much of the mass revere Dr.'s as Gods. Taking their word as Holy when "we" already have all the wisdom in ourselves to heal ourselves without outside forces like Dr's(science) and Antibiotics (science).
Science causes us to LOSE touch with ourselves and nature....and that my friend is it's BIGGEST danger!
2. Who cares that matter is comprised of molecules? what does that do for you or I? Einstein discovered that e = mc2. That energy is neither destroyed nor created - merely transferred. We are all this energy and in this way we are all one. As such, separation is the grand illusion that the eye causes to play this trick But the reality is there is no separation between me, and the desk and the keyboard...and the tree outside...it's all ONE. Even though it does not seem that way. My point here is that the Zen masters ( who did not employ science in anyway ) KNEW of this fact 1000's years BEFORE Einstein! Einstein served ONLY to confirm what was already known!
How frustrating for Einstein and the scientific community to know that are just spinning wheels. Fortunately for Einstein he was also a humanist and a philosopher and could be lighter in this world.
See the Zen community KNEW they did not need science to KNOW the true nature of things , of REALITY.
As for curing diseases...yes wonderful that we have science that cures them.
But I ask you several questions:
1. isn't it idiotic that we must cure diseases with science that are offten created by the science itself??? When we lived in the natural world ( Native Indians as an example ) we knew how to cure without science and we did not have the diseases of the "white man" ...so we had no need to find "scientific cures"
*** Philosophical ques: someone gets ill and dies....who is to say that this is not the natural order of things? Are we meant , as a species to save these weaker ones? My grandfather in Ireland lived till 93 with hardly any medical attention. He had absolutely no dental probles even though he never brushed his teeth. Japanese women don't get breats cancer.
WHY are we NOT more interested in what CAUSES the problem rather than WHAT new fantasmical drugs is going to cure it???
Should we not look at the root?? I say the Root is science itself. Science alienates us from nature and narrows our view so we can't "see"
THAT THERE are OTHER WAYS to negotiate this life!!!!!
Are you aware of the power of herbs in their root form???
Power of meditation??
Yoga - 5000 year old practice.
Tell me...what do we need science for we the above traditions could allow us to live on the planet more peacefully, healthfully, in more harmony?
You are so blind that you cannot see that science has created most of the tremendous human problems that it purports to solve. Now that seems like a huge waste of time.
Notice the equation - where A = science and B = human problems.
A cause B then we use A to solve B
Duh....take away A and then B is not a problem and therefore A is NOT Needed.
"claiming it causes humanity to be spiritually bankrupt and mechanistic"
Right on! - you for example!
"Over the years, I have interviewed and gotten to know many scientists, and many of them will -- when pressed -- admit that their scientific inquiries have made them *more* spiritual people. As one medical researcher told me that the more he learned about the human body, the more he acknowledged the existence of a higher power who created it and planned it out so exquisitely."
this is the waste i am speaking about .... I am spiritual and acknowledge the higher power ALREADY ....and I don't need to be a scientist or medical researcher to feel this way!! We don't need science to "make" us more spiritual... we just need to "BE" period. we must learn how to be...not always think that to verify our existence we must alway be "doing".
Just "being" is mush more harmonic with the planet and the universe.
There is already enough "going on" ...we don't need to complicate by adding more!
Nothing wrong with trying to explain things... but
a. science does not stop there...it gets greedy and uses it to clone or create the "a bomb" for instance.
b. we can explain things without science ...and also what's wrong with not having to explain things?
I ask you Lisa...what's wrongs with mystery in our lives? We need more of it!!! The zest of life is gone when we have no surprise... and science does this..it takes away surprise. Make it's all cut and dry. a + b = c.
Nothing special anymore when every stone is turned ...leave some of the stones turned and then we are left to our imagination and mystery of wondering what's under them.
You are so one-sided Lisa...I doubt you will get any of this. Sad to say.
Mark
Think of all the amazing and wonderful things science has given us, from the understanding that the world is round and rotates around the SUN (and is not the ONLY planet out there!) to the understanding that matter is comprised of tiny particles called molecules. Think of what medical science has done: people who would have died from various diseases a century ago now live long, productive lives. (Diabetes is a great example.) Without science, many people would die each year from preventable illnesses such as tetanus. Think about maternal and fetal healthcare: a century ago, it was not at all unusual for women giving birth to die in the process, or for young babies to perish from a host of reasons. (Two hundred years ago, parents *expected* to lose some of their children.)
I always find it interesting when Waldorf enthusiasts and Anthroposophers diss science, claiming it causes humanity to be spiritually bankrupt and mechanistic. Over the years, I have interviewed and gotten to know many scientists, and many of them will -- when pressed -- admit that their scientific inquiries have made them *more* spiritual people. As one medical researcher told me that the more he learned about the human body, the more he acknowledged the existence of a higher power who created it and planned it out so exquisitely.
Science does not take away from the beauty and mystery of life and living things. It only attempts to explain it. What's wrong with that?
Lisa
You seem to have such a one-sided, one-dimensional view of science, Mark!
Think of all the amazing and wonderful things science has given us, from the understanding that the world is round and rotates around the SUN (and is not the ONLY planet out there!) to the understanding that matter is comprised of tiny particles called molecules. Think of what medical science has done: people who would have died from various diseases a century ago now live long, productive lives. (Diabetes is a great example.) Without science, many people would die each year from preventable illnesses such as tetanus. Think about maternal and fetal healthcare: a century ago, it was not at all unusual for women giving birth to die in the process, or for young babies to perish from a host of reasons. (Two hundred years ago, parents *expected* to lose some of their children.)
I always find it interesting when Waldorf enthusiasts and Anthroposophers diss science, claiming it causes humanity to be spiritually bankrupt and mechanistic. Over the years, I have interviewed and gotten to know many scientists, and many of them will -- when pressed -- admit that their scientific inquiries have made them *more* spiritual people. As one medical researcher told me that the more he learned about the human body, the more he acknowledged the existence of a higher power who created it and planned it out so exquisitely.
Science does not take away from the beauty and mystery of life and living things. It only attempts to explain it. What's wrong with that?
Lisa
You seem to have such a one-sided, one-dimensional view of science, Mark!
Think of all the amazing and wonderful things science has given us, from the understanding that the world is round and rotates around the SUN (and is not the ONLY planet out there!) to the understanding that matter is comprised of tiny particles called molecules. Think of what medical science has done: people who would have died from various diseases a century ago now live long, productive lives. (Diabetes is a great example.) Without science, many people would die each year from preventable illnesses such as tetanus. Think about maternal and fetal healthcare: a century ago, it was not at all unusual for women giving birth to die in the process, or for young babies to perish from a host of reasons. (Two hundred years ago, parents *expected* to lose some of their children.)
I always find it interesting when Waldorf enthusiasts and Anthroposophers diss science, claiming it causes humanity to be spiritually bankrupt and mechanistic. Over the years, I have interviewed and gotten to know many scientists, and many of them will -- when pressed -- admit that their scientific inquiries have made them *more* spiritual people. As one medical researcher told me that the more he learned about the human body, the more he acknowledged the existence of a higher power who created it and planned it out so exquisitely.
Science does not take away from the beauty and mystery of life and living things. It only attempts to explain it. What's wrong with that?
Lisa
You seem to have such a one-sided, one-dimensional view of science, Mark!
Think of all the amazing and wonderful things science has given us, from the understanding that the world is round and rotates around the SUN (and is not the ONLY planet out there!) to the understanding that matter is comprised of tiny particles called molecules. Think of what medical science has done: people who would have died from various diseases a century ago now live long, productive lives. (Diabetes is a great example.) Without science, many people would die each year from preventable illnesses such as tetanus. Think about maternal and fetal healthcare: a century ago, it was not at all unusual for women giving birth to die in the process, or for young babies to perish from a host of reasons. (Two hundred years ago, parents *expected* to lose some of their children.)
I always find it interesting when Waldorf enthusiasts and Anthroposophers diss science, claiming it causes humanity to be spiritually bankrupt and mechanistic. Over the years, I have interviewed and gotten to know many scientists, and many of them will -- when pressed -- admit that their scientific inquiries have made them *more* spiritual people. As one medical researcher told me that the more he learned about the human body, the more he acknowledged the existence of a higher power who created it and planned it out so exquisitely.
Science does not take away from the beauty and mystery of life and living things. It only attempts to explain it. What's wrong with that?
Lisa
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:32:42 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
science is hindrance...take a look around at how science has created massive destruction, alienation from nature, pollution, isolation( look at this me typing alone on my high tech tool ( product of science ) ) ,....
we must address approaching the problems of life, raising and schooling children, being human, being alive, caring for the planet.... by re-learning how to be with nature again!
We used to know how to do that before mechanization of the planet.
We must do it or we will extinct ourselves. And it must start by getting our kids there also.
Mark
Peter Staudenmaier (pstaud hotmail.com) wrote:
I think Mark Fitzpatrick got one thing right:
)Steiner likely felt that he needed to put a scientific bent on his beliefs
)and understandings to have others stand and listen.
That sounds fairly accurate to me. The question, of course, remains: in
light of the strong antagonism toward science among anthroposophists today,
why do so many of them continue to insist that their worldview constitutes a
science of its own? I think this puzzle has less to do with disagreements
among contemporary anthroposophists and more to do with Steiner's
ambivalence on the topic of 'science'. This original ambivalence seems to
have left fans of anthroposophical thinking in an interesting bind,
simultaneously claiming scientific status for their own beliefs while
deprecating science as a hindrance to true knowledge of the cosmos and a
primary source of alienation. Thus many of them still view critical inquiry
as sacrilege, psychic violence, or an instance of Ahrimanic deception.
Another of the difficulties in trying to talk with anthroposophists.
Peter S.
)Where has science left us? We have alienated ourselves from the earth,
)nature and ourselves with science!
)Science only serving to take away from an innate intelligence that we are
)all born with....and always have but ending losing touch with when society
)places to much pressure on us to think and process different. This process
)causes us to doubt our own instinct. Gut , spirit and instinct requires
)nil, absolutely nil science. Science , in this way is a hindrance, in
)coming to know the true sense fo reality, life and nature.
_________________________________________________________________
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software — optimizes dial-up to the max! 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: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:36:38 -0500
From: Jan-Christoph Kolb (jk2332 columbia.edu)
Subject: Re: reporting on Camphill/was Camphill and special ed
lisa, don't worry about the ethics regarding my earlier involvement
at a camphill. This was not entirely volntarily as it was an
alternative service aborad instead of going to the army. At the
same time, I have no preconceived aversion toward Anthroposophy. I
know about the ethics of jouranlism myself. This is a class project
and then will be published at a major U.S. paper. My ethics teacher
is Jim Carey. Trust me, this as good as it gets.
I would rather like to get some opinion on camphill and their
approach to special ed than lectures on how to approach my work.
best Chris
--
Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University
Jan-Christoph Kolb
530 W 112th St.
New York, NY 10025
Tel: 1 646 234 0565
Quoting "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com):
) Jan-Christoph,
)
) I am wondering: do you think you *can* produce an unbiased piece
) of
) reporting on Camphill, if you were (as you seem to have been)
) involved in it
) in some way in the past?
)
) Perhaps the better question is: SHOULD you chose as your topic
) something
) with which you have had personal involvement?
)
) I have been a newspaper reporter for more than 20 years and in
) the ethical
) canon wherever I have worked (from a large metropolitan daily
) paper to a
) national magazine to a chain of weekly newspapers) was an
) unwritten rule
) that said a reporter should recuse himself or herself from
) covering a topic
) with which he or she has had personal involvement. (This rule
) does not apply
) to the writing of editorials or opinion pieces, obviously.)
)
) As I am sure you know, the *appearance* of bias is just as
) damaging to a
) reporter's credibility (and to the credibility of his or her
) news
) organization) as actual bias would be.
)
) But perhaps I am misunderstanding the purpose of your piece. Is
) it an actual
) feature story or news article, or is it a paper for a class?
)
) Respectfully,
)
) Lisa
)
)
) ) From: Jan-Christoph Kolb (jk2332 columbia.edu)
) ) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) ) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:29:10 -0500
) ) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) ) Subject: RE: camphill and special ed
) )
) ) David,
) )
) ) thank you so much indeed. let me digest that information after
) ) completing a hectic day in our news room here. I will get back
) to
) ) you tomorrow though, and we'll see if I can give you a call.
) Thank
) ) you very much indeed.
) ) Of course some of my questions seem obvious, but I have to
) leave my
) ) own opinion as much in the background as possible to produce a
) ) credible piece of journalism.
) )
) ) good night, Jan-Christoph
) ) --
) ) Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University
) ) Jan-Christoph Kolb
) ) 530 W 112th St.
) ) New York, NY 10025
) ) Tel: 1 646 234 0565
) )
) )
) ) Quoting David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com):
) )
) ))
) )) Jan-Christoph Kolb wrote:
) )))
) ))) Hi David,
) ))) Finally some constructive response beyond the sad and
) childish
) ))
) ))) antics of some replies.
) ))
) )) Entirely happy to help Jan-Christoph.
) ))
) ))) David, I was a co-worker, too and left with a deep feeling
) of
) ))) appreciation but more so, a suitcase full of nagging
) )) questions.
) ))
) )) The "deep feeling of appreciation" is quite common in one's
) )) early days
) )) I think. For myself, I blundered into anthroposophy from the
) dole
) )) after
) )) twenty-five years in aerospce-defence. During that
) twenty-five
) )) years, I
) )) always felt that industry was my job, but my *work* was in
) )) Scouting...you know, teamwork, helping my lads to be all they
) )) could,
) )) leaving the land as we had found it, all that stuff. On first
) )) coming to
) )) the "community" I was exquisitely happy: the nagging
) questions
) )) arose for
) )) me after about nine months. Eventually, I sought professional
) )) help-
) )) anxiety stemming from Cultural Alienation was the diagnosis.
) I
) )) had only
) )) moved about 40 miles, believing what they had told me that my
) )) degree in
) )) The Humanities, and my various bits of long-term voluntary
) work
) )) would
) )) have some value.
) )) It was as early as my second week there that I was informed
) "your
) )) *real*
) )) education starts now". Of course I knew that anthroposophy was
) a
) )) bit
) )) alternative, but I never expected to feel a stranger in my
) own
) )) land!
) )) I recently read Geoffrey Ahern's Ph.D thesis (London School
) of
) )) Economics, 1981). On descibing his impressions of a visit to
) The
) ))
) )) Goetheanum, he spoke of "the plastic lampshades, not
) obviously
) )) plastic"...and that, in a nutshell said it all for me.
) ))
) ))) Recently, I have visisted a Camphill here in the U.S. and
) )) despite
) ))) the apparent change in terms of decision-making and the
) )) take-over
) ))) by a younger, less dogmatic generation of co-workers, the
) whole
) ))
) ))) appraoch seems problematic.
) ))
) )) Yep
) ))
) )) 1. Integration yes, but does it have to take place behind the
) ))) closed doors of a rural community?
) ))
) )) Not sure what you mean by "integration." With wider society?
) It
) )) rather
) )) seems to me that the movement as a whole is becoming more
) adept
) )) at
) )) securing public funding, but still wants to be a part (for
) the
) )) money)
) )) apart from society. While the greater part of such centres
) remain
) )) in a
) )) rural setting- presumably distanced from the Ahrimanic
) infuences
) )) of
) )) cities, there are some inner city initiatives, often, but not
) )) always
) )) carrying out commercial businesses.
) ))
) ))) 2. Does the mental stress endured, inhibit the development
) of
) )) those
) ))) with special needs?
) ))
) )) Depends on the individual. Autistic folk tend to do well in
) the
) ))
) )) *rhythmic* regime- the condition demands "straight lines".
) )) Others, well
) )) it depends on their personality. One lad I worked with was
) given
) )) St.
) )) John's Wort, and later Prozac to alleviate his depression.
) The
) )) lad had
) )) no speech, could write and recognise twenty-seven words, but
) did
) )) have
) )) some communicative skills using Sign Maketon. It always
) seemed
) )) to me
) )) that the lad was *not* depressed, he was simply bored bored
) )) bored. Bored
) )) out of his skull with the same thing every day- the key being
) )) that while
) )) our man was disabled, he was by no means unintelligent.
) )) Eventually, he
) )) was kicked out.
) )) I think the short answer to your question is that any
) )) "successes" are
) )) due to Steiner's Curative Course, and "failures" are down to
) the
) ))
) )) individual.
) ))
) ))) 3. Indeed, does the stress create resentments on behalf of
) the
) )) co-
) ))) workers?
) ))
) )) Do you doubt it??? The Great and the Good manage to protect
) )) themselves
) )) a bit from the emotional demands of attending to the special
) folk
) )) by
) )) attending those interminable meetings, or by securing
) )) "independent"
) )) tasks- which means 9-5ish working day, with two hours for
) lunch
) )) and
) )) "rest hour"
) )) The brunt of emotional demands are borne by less experienced
) )) staff.
) ))
) ))) 4. What about the therapies? Despite some positive effects I
) )) have
) ))) seen, there seems to be a kind of laissez-faire approach.
) ))
) )) I remain still a big fan of einreibung massage. Other
) therapies?
) )) I
) )) don't know that much is unique to anthroposophy. They seem to
) do
) )) much
) )) the same as others, sometimes just with a mystical
) articulation
) )) giving
) )) it an occult bent. Take for example Colour Light Therapy.
) Other
) )) non-anthro places use it too, but its just called relaxation.
) )) Thes other
) )) places of course dont attach the same occult significance to
) )) particular
) )) colours, its a more simple psychology.
) ))
) ))) 5. Are Camphill kids or young adults really apt to survive
) )) outside
) ))) the fairytale world of wood-carving and story-telling? Can
) they
) ))
) ))) fill out a disbility claim?
) ))
) )) Same as any other centre: some can, some can't. My own
) experience
) ))
) )) indicates that the more able people do eventually move out to
) )) Sheltered
) )) Housing and work.
) )))
) ))) I would like to interview you over the phone, you can call
) me
) )) under
) ))) 646 234 0565 or send me your number.
) ))
) )) I don't mind, but I'm in Scotland..+5 hrs on E.S.T. I work
) )) nights, and
) )) even when I'm off I find it difficult to adjust to anything
) like
) )) regular
) )) hours. (It's almost 3:00 am now: still wide awake, but it
) isnt
) )) always
) )) so.) I also spend a few days a week with my old dad, so while
) I
) )) am in no
) )) way trying to avoid you, a mutually convenient time is a bit
) )) tricky.
) )) Feel free to email me offlist if you want to arrange a
) telecon.
) )) For all
) )) the list is called Waldorf Critics, I'm pretty sure the
) owners
) )) would
) )) have no objection to further Camphill discussions here.
) ))
) )) Davy
) )))
) )))
) ))
) ))
) )
)
==^================================================================
) )) 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.
-
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:26:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
--0-1275080564-1075933609=:4300
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
in summary...
what I am is that what we call "progress" has not been progress at all.
Your folks clainm that we are "better off" now with science.
I am countering and saying we are worse off.
And if we had stayed on course for tuning in with nature , integrating with nature rather than trying to control(and this is not possible) and dominate nature that we would be in much, much better shape now. Science and man together has created tremendous problems on this planet and now man is panicing and scrambling to undo or "fix" the very damage he created with science he is trying to undo with science.
We need to "undo or fix" it with aligning ourselves with nature again. Letting ( not controlling ) the huge power of nature do it's things to correct this mess.
Until, we as humans figure this out we are in deep sh--!
Peace
Mark
ps....check out Alan Watts "Man in Nature" and "Work as Play"
Here Watts discusses a congress (1973) of great thinkers ( scientists, philosophers, academia, experts etc... ) for the purpose of answering one question.
What do we do about the state of affairs ( referring to the runaway train that SCIENCE and man has created ) ? And the state of affairs is pollution, ozone, environmental, social problems the human race is having (mostly due to the industrial revolution created by SCIENCE ) .
The question posed was "what do we do about the impending doom of the planet caused by science and technology?"
Watts conveys - that among all these great thinkers they had nothing to say!
Wow! Why did they have nothing to say? Because, amazingly these great thinkers were at loss of what TO DO!
Why, Watts responds, what needs to be done interestingly is nothing. But nothing like keep going on about our business but rather nothing...back off! ...let nature go about it's bizness....it has FAR more wisdom built-in to it's every little cell than all the greatest scientific minds together could muster. Proof in this congress.
The question is...can we as human's have what it takes to drop our ego's and allow nature to do it's work??? So far, we have not been very good about that!!
You seem to have such a one-sided, one-dimensional view of science, Mark!
Think of all the amazing and wonderful things science has given us, from the understanding that the world is round and rotates around the SUN (and is not the ONLY planet out there!) to the understanding that matter is comprised of tiny particles called molecules. Think of what medical science has done: people who would have died from various diseases a century ago now live long, productive lives. (Diabetes is a great example.) Without science, many people would die each year from preventable illnesses such as tetanus. Think about maternal and fetal healthcare: a century ago, it was not at all unusual for women giving birth to die in the process, or for young babies to perish from a host of reasons. (Two hundred years ago, parents *expected* to lose some of their children.)
I always find it interesting when Waldorf enthusiasts and Anthroposophers diss science, claiming it causes humanity to be spiritually bankrupt and mechanistic. Over the years, I have interviewed and gotten to know many scientists, and many of them will -- when pressed -- admit that their scientific inquiries have made them *more* spiritual people. As one medical researcher told me that the more he learned about the human body, the more he acknowledged the existence of a higher power who created it and planned it out so exquisitely.
Science does not take away from the beauty and mystery of life and living things. It only attempts to explain it. What's wrong with that?
Lisa
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:32:42 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
science is hindrance...take a look around at how science has created massive destruction, alienation from nature, pollution, isolation( look at this me typing alone on my high tech tool ( product of science ) ) ,....
we must address approaching the problems of life, raising and schooling children, being human, being alive, caring for the planet.... by re-learning how to be with nature again!
We used to know how to do that before mechanization of the planet.
We must do it or we will extinct ourselves. And it must start by getting our kids there also.
Mark
Peter Staudenmaier (pstaud hotmail.com) wrote:
I think Mark Fitzpatrick got one thing right:
)Steiner likely felt that he needed to put a scientific bent on his beliefs
)and understandings to have others stand and listen.
That sounds fairly accurate to me. The question, of course, remains: in
light of the strong antagonism toward science among anthroposophists today,
why do so many of them continue to insist that their worldview constitutes a
science of its own? I think this puzzle has less to do with disagreements
among contemporary anthroposophists and more to do with Steiner's
ambivalence on the topic of 'science'. This original ambivalence seems to
have left fans of anthroposophical thinking in an interesting bind,
simultaneously claiming scientific status for their own beliefs while
deprecating science as a hindrance to true knowledge of the cosmos and a
primary source of alienation. Thus many of them still view critical inquiry
as sacrilege, psychic violence, or an instance of Ahrimanic deception.
Another of the difficulties in trying to talk with anthroposophists.
Peter S.
)Where has science left us? We have alienated ourselves from the earth,
)nature and ourselves with science!
)Science only serving to take away from an innate intelligence that we are
)all born with....and always have but ending losing touch with when society
)places to much pressure on us to think and process different. This process
)causes us to doubt our own instinct. Gut , spirit and instinct requires
)nil, absolutely nil science. Science , in this way is a hindrance, in
)coming to know the true sense fo reality, life and nature.
_________________________________________________________________
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software — optimizes dial-up to the max! 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: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:21:27 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: once more on science
Mark wrote:
)And if we had stayed on course for tuning in with nature , integrating with
nature rather than trying to control(and this is not possible) and
)dominate nature that we would be in much, much better shape now. Science
and man together has created tremendous problems on this )planet and now man
is panicing and scrambling to undo or "fix" the very damage he created with
science he is trying to undo with science.
)We need to "undo or fix" it with aligning ourselves with nature again.
Letting ( not controlling ) the huge power of nature do it's things to
correct )this mess.
In some ways I believe we *are* better off now with what humans have
accomplished with "science." In other ways, we are worse off. It's an
interesting question - one I think is off topic here, other than what
anthroposophists might think of when they use the word, "science." In any
case, I cannot blame "science," per se as much as I can question the motives
of various humans along the way. I would (and do) question people and their
motives (scientifically derived or otherwise) as opposed to peering into the
past for obscure, occult lectures/indications. I have more faith (g) in
human beings understanding their (our) place in the natural world by
critically questioning and making decisions based on science and integrity
than I do in Steiner and his version of "karma."
In an attempt to get back to Waldorf in this thread, I can point to how
confused I felt to learn that my child had, as a main lesson in Waldorf, a
book titled, "Man and Animal." Far from the idea of Man being part of
nature on this planet, Anthroposophy teaches that Man is not part of the
animal world. I think this belief is not healthy - and should not be part
of any school program. But that is only my opinion. Of course, the word
"Nature," not unlike "Science," means one thing to anthroposophists and
another to the rest of us. When we speak the same language communication is
much more likely to happen... naturally.
-Walden
Until, we as humans figure this out we are in deep sh--!
Peace
Mark
ps....check out Alan Watts "Man in Nature" and "Work as Play"
Here Watts discusses a congress (1973) of great thinkers ( scientists,
philosophers, academia, experts etc... ) for the purpose of answering one
question.
What do we do about the state of affairs ( referring to the runaway train
that SCIENCE and man has created ) ? And the state of affairs is pollution,
ozone, environmental, social problems the human race is having (mostly due
to the industrial revolution created by SCIENCE ) .
The question posed was "what do we do about the impending doom of the planet
caused by science and technology?"
Watts conveys - that among all these great thinkers they had nothing to say!
Wow! Why did they have nothing to say? Because, amazingly these great
thinkers were at loss of what TO DO!
Why, Watts responds, what needs to be done interestingly is nothing. But
nothing like keep going on about our business but rather nothing...back off!
...let nature go about it's bizness....it has FAR more wisdom built-in to
it's every little cell than all the greatest scientific minds together could
muster. Proof in this congress.
The question is...can we as human's have what it takes to drop our ego's and
allow nature to do it's work??? So far, we have not been very good about
that!!
You seem to have such a one-sided, one-dimensional view of science, Mark!
Think of all the amazing and wonderful things science has given us, from the
understanding that the world is round and rotates around the SUN (and is not
the ONLY planet out there!) to the understanding that matter is comprised of
tiny particles called molecules. Think of what medical science has done:
people who would have died from various diseases a century ago now live
long, productive lives. (Diabetes is a great example.) Without science, many
people would die each year from preventable illnesses such as tetanus. Think
about maternal and fetal healthcare: a century ago, it was not at all
unusual for women giving birth to die in the process, or for young babies to
perish from a host of reasons. (Two hundred years ago, parents *expected* to
lose some of their children.)
I always find it interesting when Waldorf enthusiasts and Anthroposophers
diss science, claiming it causes humanity to be spiritually bankrupt and
mechanistic. Over the years, I have interviewed and gotten to know many
scientists, and many of them will -- when pressed -- admit that their
scientific inquiries have made them *more* spiritual people. As one medical
researcher told me that the more he learned about the human body, the more
he acknowledged the existence of a higher power who created it and planned
it out so exquisitely.
Science does not take away from the beauty and mystery of life and living
things. It only attempts to explain it. What's wrong with that?
Lisa
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:32:42 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
science is hindrance...take a look around at how science has created massive
destruction, alienation from nature, pollution, isolation( look at this me
typing alone on my high tech tool ( product of science ) ) ,....
we must address approaching the problems of life, raising and schooling
children, being human, being alive, caring for the planet.... by re-learning
how to be with nature again!
We used to know how to do that before mechanization of the planet.
We must do it or we will extinct ourselves. And it must start by getting our
kids there also.
Mark
Peter Staudenmaier (pstaud hotmail.com) wrote:
I think Mark Fitzpatrick got one thing right:
)Steiner likely felt that he needed to put a scientific bent on his beliefs
)and understandings to have others stand and listen.
That sounds fairly accurate to me. The question, of course, remains: in
light of the strong antagonism toward science among anthroposophists today,
why do so many of them continue to insist that their worldview constitutes a
science of its own? I think this puzzle has less to do with disagreements
among contemporary anthroposophists and more to do with Steiner's
ambivalence on the topic of 'science'. This original ambivalence seems to
have left fans of anthroposophical thinking in an interesting bind,
simultaneously claiming scientific status for their own beliefs while
deprecating science as a hindrance to true knowledge of the cosmos and a
primary source of alienation. Thus many of them still view critical inquiry
as sacrilege, psychic violence, or an instance of Ahrimanic deception.
Another of the difficulties in trying to talk with anthroposophists.
Peter S.
)Where has science left us? We have alienated ourselves from the earth,
)nature and ourselves with science!
)Science only serving to take away from an innate intelligence that we are
)all born with....and always have but ending losing touch with when society
)places to much pressure on us to think and process different. This process
)causes us to doubt our own instinct. Gut , spirit and instinct requires
)nil, absolutely nil science. Science , in this way is a hindrance, in
)coming to know the true sense fo reality, life and nature.
_________________________________________________________________
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software - optimizes dial-up to the max!
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: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:59:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
--0-1992012970-1075939165=:2918
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Good points Walden...
one thing that stands out making no sense...
and that is making the statement
"In some ways I believe we *are* better off now with what humans have
accomplished with "science." In other ways, we are worse off"
No good Walden...why? You can't possibly know whether we are better off. Why?
Becasue we did not take the "OTHER" path ( non-science path) and thus we have nothing to compare where we are now to.
Only way to know is not with science but with "gut" or "instinct" ...something we in the "western" world so contemptuously reject. Funny..thing this is where the answer lies.
Or if we do get back on track and reject the destructiveness of science and embrace the all powerful nature then and only will we be able to compare...to how it is to how it was when we revered science as a God.
How is this connected to Waldorf ...that we are having a closed off mind towards Waldorf and Steiner not becasue it makes no sense but becasue we don't connect with it...and why?
because as lover's of science ...we are closed and living in our "heads" and "logic"
like most scientists....are cutoof from living in our hearts, spirits and instincts.
When the folks in this thread begin at least getting in their hearts and then viewing Steiner from this new angle then they will see more clearly.
The heart is far wiser than the logical and scientific mind
The spirit much more infinte.
Good luck getting out of your heads and to somewhere much bigger and greater.
walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca) wrote:
Mark wrote:
)And if we had stayed on course for tuning in with nature , integrating with
nature rather than trying to control(and this is not possible) and
)dominate nature that we would be in much, much better shape now. Science
and man together has created tremendous problems on this )planet and now man
is panicing and scrambling to undo or "fix" the very damage he created with
science he is trying to undo with science.
)We need to "undo or fix" it with aligning ourselves with nature again.
Letting ( not controlling ) the huge power of nature do it's things to
correct )this mess.
In some ways I believe we *are* better off now with what humans have
accomplished with "science." In other ways, we are worse off. It's an
interesting question - one I think is off topic here, other than what
anthroposophists might think of when they use the word, "science." In any
case, I cannot blame "science," per se as much as I can question the motives
of various humans along the way. I would (and do) question people and their
motives (scientifically derived or otherwise) as opposed to peering into the
past for obscure, occult lectures/indications. I have more faith in
human beings understanding their (our) place in the natural world by
critically questioning and making decisions based on science and integrity
than I do in Steiner and his version of "karma."
In an attempt to get back to Waldorf in this thread, I can point to how
confused I felt to learn that my child had, as a main lesson in Waldorf, a
book titled, "Man and Animal." Far from the idea of Man being part of
nature on this planet, Anthroposophy teaches that Man is not part of the
animal world. I think this belief is not healthy - and should not be part
of any school program. But that is only my opinion. Of course, the word
"Nature," not unlike "Science," means one thing to anthroposophists and
another to the rest of us. When we speak the same language communication is
much more likely to happen... naturally.
-Walden
Until, we as humans figure this out we are in deep sh--!
Peace
Mark
ps....check out Alan Watts "Man in Nature" and "Work as Play"
Here Watts discusses a congress (1973) of great thinkers ( scientists,
philosophers, academia, experts etc... ) for the purpose of answering one
question.
What do we do about the state of affairs ( referring to the runaway train
that SCIENCE and man has created ) ? And the state of affairs is pollution,
ozone, environmental, social problems the human race is having (mostly due
to the industrial revolution created by SCIENCE ) .
The question posed was "what do we do about the impending doom of the planet
caused by science and technology?"
Watts conveys - that among all these great thinkers they had nothing to say!
Wow! Why did they have nothing to say? Because, amazingly these great
thinkers were at loss of what TO DO!
Why, Watts responds, what needs to be done interestingly is nothing. But
nothing like keep going on about our business but rather nothing...back off!
...let nature go about it's bizness....it has FAR more wisdom built-in to
it's every little cell than all the greatest scientific minds together could
muster. Proof in this congress.
The question is...can we as human's have what it takes to drop our ego's and
allow nature to do it's work??? So far, we have not been very good about
that!!
You seem to have such a one-sided, one-dimensional view of science, Mark!
Think of all the amazing and wonderful things science has given us, from the
understanding that the world is round and rotates around the SUN (and is not
the ONLY planet out there!) to the understanding that matter is comprised of
tiny particles called molecules. Think of what medical science has done:
people who would have died from various diseases a century ago now live
long, productive lives. (Diabetes is a great example.) Without science, many
people would die each year from preventable illnesses such as tetanus. Think
about maternal and fetal healthcare: a century ago, it was not at all
unusual for women giving birth to die in the process, or for young babies to
perish from a host of reasons. (Two hundred years ago, parents *expected* to
lose some of their children.)
I always find it interesting when Waldorf enthusiasts and Anthroposophers
diss science, claiming it causes humanity to be spiritually bankrupt and
mechanistic. Over the years, I have interviewed and gotten to know many
scientists, and many of them will -- when pressed -- admit that their
scientific inquiries have made them *more* spiritual people. As one medical
researcher told me that the more he learned about the human body, the more
he acknowledged the existence of a higher power who created it and planned
it out so exquisitely.
Science does not take away from the beauty and mystery of life and living
things. It only attempts to explain it. What's wrong with that?
Lisa
From: Mark Fitzpatrick
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:32:42 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
science is hindrance...take a look around at how science has created massive
destruction, alienation from nature, pollution, isolation( look at this me
typing alone on my high tech tool ( product of science ) ) ,....
we must address approaching the problems of life, raising and schooling
children, being human, being alive, caring for the planet.... by re-learning
how to be with nature again!
We used to know how to do that before mechanization of the planet.
We must do it or we will extinct ourselves. And it must start by getting our
kids there also.
Mark
Peter Staudenmaier
wrote:
I think Mark Fitzpatrick got one thing right:
)Steiner likely felt that he needed to put a scientific bent on his beliefs
)and understandings to have others stand and listen.
That sounds fairly accurate to me. The question, of course, remains: in
light of the strong antagonism toward science among anthroposophists today,
why do so many of them continue to insist that their worldview constitutes a
science of its own? I think this puzzle has less to do with disagreements
among contemporary anthroposophists and more to do with Steiner's
ambivalence on the topic of 'science'. This original ambivalence seems to
have left fans of anthroposophical thinking in an interesting bind,
simultaneously claiming scientific status for their own beliefs while
deprecating science as a hindrance to true knowledge of the cosmos and a
primary source of alienation. Thus many of them still view critical inquiry
as sacrilege, psychic violence, or an instance of Ahrimanic deception.
Another of the difficulties in trying to talk with anthroposophists.
Peter S.
)Where has science left us? We have alienated ourselves from the earth,
)nature and ourselves with science!
)Science only serving to take away from an innate intelligence that we are
)all born with....and always have but ending losing touch with when society
)places to much pressure on us to think and process different. This process
)causes us to doubt our own instinct. Gut , spirit and instinct requires
)nil, absolutely nil science. Science , in this way is a hindrance, in
)coming to know the true sense fo reality, life and nature.
_________________________________________________________________
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software - optimizes dial-up to the max!
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.
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:05:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: What Anthroposophy is not:
What Anthroposophy is not:
a) It is not a mystic movement or set of ideas. Mysticism is essentially based upon feelings and is transmitted under the form of images and metaphors. Anthroposophy is transmitted to the conscious thinking under the form of concepts.
b) It is not a religion. It has no cults. It is cultivated individually, in open study groups and in the institutions where it is practised.
walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca) wrote:Mark wrote:
)And if we had stayed on course for tuning in with nature , integrating with
nature rather than trying to control(and this is not possible) and
)dominate nature that we would be in much, much better shape now. Science
and man together has created tremendous problems on this )planet and now man
is panicing and scrambling to undo or "fix" the very damage he created with
science he is trying to undo with science.
)We need to "undo or fix" it with aligning ourselves with nature again.
Letting ( not controlling ) the huge power of nature do it's things to
correct )this mess.
In some ways I believe we *are* better off now with what humans have
accomplished with "science." In other ways, we are worse off. It's an
interesting question - one I think is off topic here, other than what
anthroposophists might think of when they use the word, "science." In any
case, I cannot blame "science," per se as much as I can question the motives
of various humans along the way. I would (and do) question people and their
motives (scientifically derived or otherwise) as opposed to peering into the
past for obscure, occult lectures/indications. I have more faith in
human beings understanding their (our) place in the natural world by
critically questioning and making decisions based on science and integrity
than I do in Steiner and his version of "karma."
In an attempt to get back to Waldorf in this thread, I can point to how
confused I felt to learn that my child had, as a main lesson in Waldorf, a
book titled, "Man and Animal." Far from the idea of Man being part of
nature on this planet, Anthroposophy teaches that Man is not part of the
animal world. I think this belief is not healthy - and should not be part
of any school program. But that is only my opinion. Of course, the word
"Nature," not unlike "Science," means one thing to anthroposophists and
another to the rest of us. When we speak the same language communication is
much more likely to happen... naturally.
-Walden
Until, we as humans figure this out we are in deep sh--!
Peace
Mark
ps....check out Alan Watts "Man in Nature" and "Work as Play"
Here Watts discusses a congress (1973) of great thinkers ( scientists,
philosophers, academia, experts etc... ) for the purpose of answering one
question.
What do we do about the state of affairs ( referring to the runaway train
that SCIENCE and man has created ) ? And the state of affairs is pollution,
ozone, environmental, social problems the human race is having (mostly due
to the industrial revolution created by SCIENCE ) .
The question posed was "what do we do about the impending doom of the planet
caused by science and technology?"
Watts conveys - that among all these great thinkers they had nothing to say!
Wow! Why did they have nothing to say? Because, amazingly these great
thinkers were at loss of what TO DO!
Why, Watts responds, what needs to be done interestingly is nothing. But
nothing like keep going on about our business but rather nothing...back off!
...let nature go about it's bizness....it has FAR more wisdom built-in to
it's every little cell than all the greatest scientific minds together could
muster. Proof in this congress.
The question is...can we as human's have what it takes to drop our ego's and
allow nature to do it's work??? So far, we have not been very good about
that!!
You seem to have such a one-sided, one-dimensional view of science, Mark!
Think of all the amazing and wonderful things science has given us, from the
understanding that the world is round and rotates around the SUN (and is not
the ONLY planet out there!) to the understanding that matter is comprised of
tiny particles called molecules. Think of what medical science has done:
people who would have died from various diseases a century ago now live
long, productive lives. (Diabetes is a great example.) Without science, many
people would die each year from preventable illnesses such as tetanus. Think
about maternal and fetal healthcare: a century ago, it was not at all
unusual for women giving birth to die in the process, or for young babies to
perish from a host of reasons. (Two hundred years ago, parents *expected* to
lose some of their children.)
I always find it interesting when Waldorf enthusiasts and Anthroposophers
diss science, claiming it causes humanity to be spiritually bankrupt and
mechanistic. Over the years, I have interviewed and gotten to know many
scientists, and many of them will -- when pressed -- admit that their
scientific inquiries have made them *more* spiritual people. As one medical
researcher told me that the more he learned about the human body, the more
he acknowledged the existence of a higher power who created it and planned
it out so exquisitely.
Science does not take away from the beauty and mystery of life and living
things. It only attempts to explain it. What's wrong with that?
Lisa
From: Mark Fitzpatrick
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:32:42 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
science is hindrance...take a look around at how science has created massive
destruction, alienation from nature, pollution, isolation( look at this me
typing alone on my high tech tool ( product of science ) ) ,....
we must address approaching the problems of life, raising and schooling
children, being human, being alive, caring for the planet.... by re-learning
how to be with nature again!
We used to know how to do that before mechanization of the planet.
We must do it or we will extinct ourselves. And it must start by getting our
kids there also.
Mark
Peter Staudenmaier
wrote:
I think Mark Fitzpatrick got one thing right:
)Steiner likely felt that he needed to put a scientific bent on his beliefs
)and understandings to have others stand and listen.
That sounds fairly accurate to me. The question, of course, remains: in
light of the strong antagonism toward science among anthroposophists today,
why do so many of them continue to insist that their worldview constitutes a
science of its own? I think this puzzle has less to do with disagreements
among contemporary anthroposophists and more to do with Steiner's
ambivalence on the topic of 'science'. This original ambivalence seems to
have left fans of anthroposophical thinking in an interesting bind,
simultaneously claiming scientific status for their own beliefs while
deprecating science as a hindrance to true knowledge of the cosmos and a
primary source of alienation. Thus many of them still view critical inquiry
as sacrilege, psychic violence, or an instance of Ahrimanic deception.
Another of the difficulties in trying to talk with anthroposophists.
Peter S.
)Where has science left us? We have alienated ourselves from the earth,
)nature and ourselves with science!
)Science only serving to take away from an innate intelligence that we are
)all born with....and always have but ending losing touch with when society
)places to much pressure on us to think and process different. This process
)causes us to doubt our own instinct. Gut , spirit and instinct requires
)nil, absolutely nil science. Science , in this way is a hindrance, in
)coming to know the true sense fo reality, life and nature.
_________________________________________________________________
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software - optimizes dial-up to the max!
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.
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:30:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: What Anthroposophy is not:- therefore making the argument that Waldorf is
--0-695912583-1075941015=:50518
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
nor in any violation of the Establishment Clause.
cheers
Mark
Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com) wrote:
What Anthroposophy is not:
a) It is not a mystic movement or set of ideas. Mysticism is essentially based upon feelings and is transmitted under the form of images and metaphors. Anthroposophy is transmitted to the conscious thinking under the form of concepts.
b) It is not a religion. It has no cults. It is cultivated individually, in open study groups and in the institutions where it is practised.
walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca) wrote: Mark wrote:
)And if we had stayed on course for tuning in with nature , integrating with
nature rather than trying to control(and this is not possible) and
)dominate nature that we would be in much, much better shape now. Science
and man together has created tremendous problems on this )planet and now man
is panicing and scrambling to undo or "fix" the very damage he created with
science he is trying to undo with science.
)We need to "undo or fix" it with aligning ourselves with nature again.
Letting ( not controlling ) the huge power of nature do it's things to
correct )this mess.
In some ways I believe we *are* better off now with what humans have
accomplished with "science." In other ways, we are worse off. It's an
interesting question - one I think is off topic here, other than what
anthroposophists might think of when they use the word, "science." In any
case, I cannot blame "science," per se as much as I can question the motives
of various humans along the way. I would (and do) question people and their
motives (scientifically derived or otherwise) as opposed to peering into the
past for obscure, occult lectures/indications. I have more faith in
human beings understanding their (our) place in the natural world by
critically questioning and making decisions based on science and integrity
than I do in Steiner and his version of "karma."
In an attempt to get back to Waldorf in this thread, I can point to how
confused I felt to learn that my child had, as a main lesson in Waldorf, a
book titled, "Man and Animal." Far from the idea of Man being part of
nature on this planet, Anthroposophy teaches that Man is not part of the
animal world. I think this belief is not healthy - and should not be part
of any school program. But that is only my opinion. Of course, the word
"Nature," not unlike "Science," means one thing to anthroposophists and
another to the rest of us. When we speak the same language communication is
much more likely to happen... naturally.
-Walden
Until, we as humans figure this out we are in deep sh--!
Peace
Mark
ps....check out Alan Watts "Man in Nature" and "Work as Play"
Here Watts discusses a congress (1973) of great thinkers ( scientists,
philosophers, academia, experts etc... ) for the purpose of answering one
question.
What do we do about the state of affairs ( referring to the runaway train
that SCIENCE and man has created ) ? And the state of affairs is pollution,
ozone, environmental, social problems the human race is having (mostly due
to the industrial revolution created by SCIENCE ) .
The question posed was "what do we do about the impending doom of the planet
caused by science and technology?"
Watts conveys - that among all these great thinkers they had nothing to say!
Wow! Why did they have nothing to say? Because, amazingly these great
thinkers were at loss of what TO DO!
Why, Watts responds, what needs to be done interestingly is nothing. But
nothing like keep going on about our business but rather nothing...back off!
...let nature go about it's bizness....it has FAR more wisdom built-in to
it's every little cell than all the greatest scientific minds together could
muster. Proof in this congress.
The question is...can we as human's have what it takes to drop our ego's and
allow nature to do it's work??? So far, we have not been very good about
that!!
You seem to have such a one-sided, one-dimensional view of science, Mark!
Think of all the amazing and wonderful things science has given us, from the
understanding that the world is round and rotates around the SUN (and is not
the ONLY planet out there!) to the understanding that matter is comprised of
tiny particles called molecules. Think of what medical science has done:
people who would have died from various diseases a century ago now live
long, productive lives. (Diabetes is a great example.) Without science, many
people would die each year from preventable illnesses such as tetanus. Think
about maternal and fetal healthcare: a century ago, it was not at all
unusual for women giving birth to die in the process, or for young babies to
perish from a host of reasons. (Two hundred years ago, parents *expected* to
lose some of their children.)
I always find it interesting when Waldorf enthusiasts and Anthroposophers
diss science, claiming it causes humanity to be spiritually bankrupt and
mechanistic. Over the years, I have interviewed and gotten to know many
scientists, and many of them will -- when pressed -- admit that their
scientific inquiries have made them *more* spiritual people. As one medical
researcher told me that the more he learned about the human body, the more
he acknowledged the existence of a higher power who created it and planned
it out so exquisitely.
Science does not take away from the beauty and mystery of life and living
things. It only attempts to explain it. What's wrong with that?
Lisa
From: Mark Fitzpatrick
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:32:42 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
science is hindrance...take a look around at how science has created massive
destruction, alienation from nature, pollution, isolation( look at this me
typing alone on my high tech tool ( product of science ) ) ,....
we must address approaching the problems of life, raising and schooling
children, being human, being alive, caring for the planet.... by re-learning
how to be with nature again!
We used to know how to do that before mechanization of the planet.
We must do it or we will extinct ourselves. And it must start by getting our
kids there also.
Mark
Peter Staudenmaier
wrote:
I think Mark Fitzpatrick got one thing right:
)Steiner likely felt that he needed to put a scientific bent on his beliefs
)and understandings to have others stand and listen.
That sounds fairly accurate to me. The question, of course, remains: in
light of the strong antagonism toward science among anthroposophists today,
why do so many of them continue to insist that their worldview constitutes a
science of its own? I think this puzzle has less to do with disagreements
among contemporary anthroposophists and more to do with Steiner's
ambivalence on the topic of 'science'. This original ambivalence seems to
have left fans of anthroposophical thinking in an interesting bind,
simultaneously claiming scientific status for their own beliefs while
deprecating science as a hindrance to true knowledge of the cosmos and a
primary source of alienation. Thus many of them still view critical inquiry
as sacrilege, psychic violence, or an instance of Ahrimanic deception.
Another of the difficulties in trying to talk with anthroposophists.
Peter S.
)Where has science left us? We have alienated ourselves from the earth,
)nature and ourselves with science!
)Science only serving to take away from an innate intelligence that we are
)all born with....and always have but ending losing touch with when society
)places to much pressure on us to think and process different. This process
)causes us to doubt our own instinct. Gut , spirit and instinct requires
)nil, absolutely nil science. Science , in this way is a hindrance, in
)coming to know the true sense fo reality, life and nature.
_________________________________________________________________
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software - optimizes dial-up to the max!
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.
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:21:09 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: reporting on Camphill/was Camphill and special ed
Thanks for the answer, Jan-Christoph, and I apologize if you took my inquiry
as insulting or as an affront. I just frankly felt that your statement that
you were involved in Camphill in the past and now was writing an article on
it begged the question.
That's wonderful that you already know that whatever article you write will
be published in a "major US paper." How does that work? Does Columbia have
an agreement with a number of news organizations in which they promise to
print students' work?
You say I ought to trust you. Trust -- whether readers could trust what you
write if you were, indeed, involved in Camphill -- is what my question was
all about.
I am trusting that your story will contain some background so that readers
are made aware of your previous involvement. Voluntary or not, you *were*
involved, and readers deserve to know that.
Lisa
) From: Jan-Christoph Kolb (jk2332 columbia.edu)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:36:38 -0500
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: Re: reporting on Camphill/was Camphill and special ed
)
) lisa, don't worry about the ethics regarding my earlier involvement
) at a camphill. This was not entirely volntarily as it was an
) alternative service aborad instead of going to the army. At the
) same time, I have no preconceived aversion toward Anthroposophy. I
) know about the ethics of jouranlism myself. This is a class project
) and then will be published at a major U.S. paper. My ethics teacher
) is Jim Carey. Trust me, this as good as it gets.
) I would rather like to get some opinion on camphill and their
) approach to special ed than lectures on how to approach my work.
)
) best Chris
) --
) Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University
) Jan-Christoph Kolb
) 530 W 112th St.
) New York, NY 10025
) Tel: 1 646 234 0565
)
)
) Quoting "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com):
)
)) Jan-Christoph,
))
)) I am wondering: do you think you *can* produce an unbiased piece
)) of
)) reporting on Camphill, if you were (as you seem to have been)
)) involved in it
)) in some way in the past?
))
)) Perhaps the better question is: SHOULD you chose as your topic
)) something
)) with which you have had personal involvement?
))
)) I have been a newspaper reporter for more than 20 years and in
)) the ethical
)) canon wherever I have worked (from a large metropolitan daily
)) paper to a
)) national magazine to a chain of weekly newspapers) was an
)) unwritten rule
)) that said a reporter should recuse himself or herself from
)) covering a topic
)) with which he or she has had personal involvement. (This rule
)) does not apply
)) to the writing of editorials or opinion pieces, obviously.)
))
)) As I am sure you know, the *appearance* of bias is just as
)) damaging to a
)) reporter's credibility (and to the credibility of his or her
)) news
)) organization) as actual bias would be.
))
)) But perhaps I am misunderstanding the purpose of your piece. Is
)) it an actual
)) feature story or news article, or is it a paper for a class?
))
)) Respectfully,
))
)) Lisa
))
))
))) From: Jan-Christoph Kolb (jk2332 columbia.edu)
))) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
))) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 22:29:10 -0500
))) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
))) Subject: RE: camphill and special ed
)))
))) David,
)))
))) thank you so much indeed. let me digest that information after
))) completing a hectic day in our news room here. I will get back
)) to
))) you tomorrow though, and we'll see if I can give you a call.
)) Thank
))) you very much indeed.
))) Of course some of my questions seem obvious, but I have to
)) leave my
))) own opinion as much in the background as possible to produce a
))) credible piece of journalism.
)))
))) good night, Jan-Christoph
))) --
))) Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University
))) Jan-Christoph Kolb
))) 530 W 112th St.
))) New York, NY 10025
))) Tel: 1 646 234 0565
)))
)))
))) Quoting David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com):
)))
))))
)))) Jan-Christoph Kolb wrote:
)))))
))))) Hi David,
))))) Finally some constructive response beyond the sad and
)) childish
))))
))))) antics of some replies.
))))
)))) Entirely happy to help Jan-Christoph.
))))
))))) David, I was a co-worker, too and left with a deep feeling
)) of
))))) appreciation but more so, a suitcase full of nagging
)))) questions.
))))
)))) The "deep feeling of appreciation" is quite common in one's
)))) early days
)))) I think. For myself, I blundered into anthroposophy from the
)) dole
)))) after
)))) twenty-five years in aerospce-defence. During that
)) twenty-five
)))) years, I
)))) always felt that industry was my job, but my *work* was in
)))) Scouting...you know, teamwork, helping my lads to be all they
)))) could,
)))) leaving the land as we had found it, all that stuff. On first
)))) coming to
)))) the "community" I was exquisitely happy: the nagging
)) questions
)))) arose for
)))) me after about nine months. Eventually, I sought professional
)))) help-
)))) anxiety stemming from Cultural Alienation was the diagnosis.
)) I
)))) had only
)))) moved about 40 miles, believing what they had told me that my
)))) degree in
)))) The Humanities, and my various bits of long-term voluntary
)) work
)))) would
)))) have some value.
)))) It was as early as my second week there that I was informed
)) "your
)))) *real*
)))) education starts now". Of course I knew that anthroposophy was
)) a
)))) bit
)))) alternative, but I never expected to feel a stranger in my
)) own
)))) land!
)))) I recently read Geoffrey Ahern's Ph.D thesis (London School
)) of
)))) Economics, 1981). On descibing his impressions of a visit to
)) The
))))
)))) Goetheanum, he spoke of "the plastic lampshades, not
)) obviously
)))) plastic"...and that, in a nutshell said it all for me.
))))
))))) Recently, I have visisted a Camphill here in the U.S. and
)))) despite
))))) the apparent change in terms of decision-making and the
)))) take-over
))))) by a younger, less dogmatic generation of co-workers, the
)) whole
))))
))))) appraoch seems problematic.
))))
)))) Yep
))))
)))) 1. Integration yes, but does it have to take place behind the
))))) closed doors of a rural community?
))))
)))) Not sure what you mean by "integration." With wider society?
)) It
)))) rather
)))) seems to me that the movement as a whole is becoming more
)) adept
)))) at
)))) securing public funding, but still wants to be a part (for
)) the
)))) money)
)))) apart from society. While the greater part of such centres
)) remain
)))) in a
)))) rural setting- presumably distanced from the Ahrimanic
)) infuences
)))) of
)))) cities, there are some inner city initiatives, often, but not
)))) always
)))) carrying out commercial businesses.
))))
))))) 2. Does the mental stress endured, inhibit the development
)) of
)))) those
))))) with special needs?
))))
)))) Depends on the individual. Autistic folk tend to do well in
)) the
))))
)))) *rhythmic* regime- the condition demands "straight lines".
)))) Others, well
)))) it depends on their personality. One lad I worked with was
)) given
)))) St.
)))) John's Wort, and later Prozac to alleviate his depression.
)) The
)))) lad had
)))) no speech, could write and recognise twenty-seven words, but
)) did
)))) have
)))) some communicative skills using Sign Maketon. It always
)) seemed
)))) to me
)))) that the lad was *not* depressed, he was simply bored bored
)))) bored. Bored
)))) out of his skull with the same thing every day- the key being
)))) that while
)))) our man was disabled, he was by no means unintelligent.
)))) Eventually, he
)))) was kicked out.
)))) I think the short answer to your question is that any
)))) "successes" are
)))) due to Steiner's Curative Course, and "failures" are down to
)) the
))))
)))) individual.
))))
))))) 3. Indeed, does the stress create resentments on behalf of
)) the
)))) co-
))))) workers?
))))
)))) Do you doubt it??? The Great and the Good manage to protect
)))) themselves
)))) a bit from the emotional demands of attending to the special
)) folk
)))) by
)))) attending those interminable meetings, or by securing
)))) "independent"
)))) tasks- which means 9-5ish working day, with two hours for
)) lunch
)))) and
)))) "rest hour"
)))) The brunt of emotional demands are borne by less experienced
)))) staff.
))))
))))) 4. What about the therapies? Despite some positive effects I
)))) have
))))) seen, there seems to be a kind of laissez-faire approach.
))))
)))) I remain still a big fan of einreibung massage. Other
)) therapies?
)))) I
)))) don't know that much is unique to anthroposophy. They seem to
)) do
)))) much
)))) the same as others, sometimes just with a mystical
)) articulation
)))) giving
)))) it an occult bent. Take for example Colour Light Therapy.
)) Other
)))) non-anthro places use it too, but its just called relaxation.
)))) Thes other
)))) places of course dont attach the same occult significance to
)))) particular
)))) colours, its a more simple psychology.
))))
))))) 5. Are Camphill kids or young adults really apt to survive
)))) outside
))))) the fairytale world of wood-carving and story-telling? Can
)) they
))))
))))) fill out a disbility claim?
))))
)))) Same as any other centre: some can, some can't. My own
)) experience
))))
)))) indicates that the more able people do eventually move out to
)))) Sheltered
)))) Housing and work.
)))))
))))) I would like to interview you over the phone, you can call
)) me
)))) under
))))) 646 234 0565 or send me your number.
))))
)))) I don't mind, but I'm in Scotland..+5 hrs on E.S.T. I work
)))) nights, and
)))) even when I'm off I find it difficult to adjust to anything
)) like
)))) regular
)))) hours. (It's almost 3:00 am now: still wide awake, but it
)) isnt
)))) always
)))) so.) I also spend a few days a week with my old dad, so while
)) I
)))) am in no
)))) way trying to avoid you, a mutually convenient time is a bit
)))) tricky.
)))) Feel free to email me offlist if you want to arrange a
)) telecon.
)))) For all
)))) the list is called Waldorf Critics, I'm pretty sure the
)) owners
)))) would
)))) have no objection to further Camphill discussions here.
))))
)))) Davy
)))))
)))))
))))
))))
)))
))
) ==^================================================================
)))) 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.
) -
))
))
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:21:47 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
) 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_3158770908_38849_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
If it were not for science, you would not be able to challenge our views via
the Internet and computers!
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:26:49 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
in summary...
what I am is that what we call "progress" has not been progress at all.
Your folks clainm that we are "better off" now with science.
I am countering and saying we are worse off.
And if we had stayed on course for tuning in with nature , integrating with
nature rather than trying to control(and this is not possible) and dominate
nature that we would be in much, much better shape now. Science and man
together has created tremendous problems on this planet and now man is
panicing and scrambling to undo or "fix" the very damage he created with
science he is trying to undo with science.
We need to "undo or fix" it with aligning ourselves with nature again.
Letting ( not controlling ) the huge power of nature do it's things to
correct this mess.
Until, we as humans figure this out we are in deep sh--!
Peace
Mark
ps....check out Alan Watts "Man in Nature" and "Work as Play"
Here Watts discusses a congress (1973) of great thinkers ( scientists,
philosophers, academia, experts etc... ) for the purpose of answering one
question.
What do we do about the state of affairs ( referring to the runaway train
that SCIENCE and man has created ) ? And the state of affairs is pollution,
ozone, environmental, social problems the human race is having (mostly due
to the industrial revolution created by SCIENCE ) .
The question posed was "what do we do about the impending doom of the planet
caused by science and technology?"
Watts conveys - that among all these great thinkers they had nothing to say!
Wow! Why did they have nothing to say? Because, amazingly these great
thinkers were at loss of what TO DO!
Why, Watts responds, what needs to be done interestingly is nothing. But
nothing like keep going on about our business but rather nothing...back off!
...let nature go about it's bizness....it has FAR more wisdom built-in to
it's every little cell than all the greatest scientific minds together could
muster. Proof in this congress.
The question is...can we as human's have what it takes to drop our ego's and
allow nature to do it's work??? So far, we have not been very good about
that!!
You seem to have such a one-sided, one-dimensional view of science, Mark!
Think of all the amazing and wonderful things science has given us, from the
understanding that the world is round and rotates around the SUN (and is not
the ONLY planet out there!) to the understanding that matter is comprised of
tiny particles called molecules. Think of what medical science has done:
people who would have died from various diseases a century ago now live
long, productive lives. (Diabetes is a great example.) Without science, many
people would die each year from preventable illnesses such as tetanus. Think
about maternal and fetal healthcare: a century ago, it was not at all
unusual for women giving birth to die in the process, or for young babies to
perish from a host of reasons. (Two hundred years ago, parents *expected* to
lose some of their children.)
I always find it interesting when Waldorf enthusiasts and Anthroposophers
diss science, claiming it causes humanity to be spiritually bankrupt and
mechanistic. Over the years, I have interviewed and gotten to know many
scientists, and many of them will -- when pressed -- admit that their
scientific inquiries have made them *more* spiritual people. As one medical
researcher told me that the more he learned about the human body, the more
he acknowledged the existence of a higher power who created it and planned
it out so exquisitely.
Science does not take away from the beauty and mystery of life and living
things. It only attempts to explain it. What's wrong with that?
Lisa
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:32:42 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
science is hindrance...take a look around at how science has created massive
destruction, alienation from nature, pollution, isolation( look at this me
typing alone on my high tech tool ( product of science ) ) ,....
we must address approaching the problems of life, raising and schooling
children, being human, being alive, caring for the planet.... by re-learning
how to be with nature again!
We used to know how to do that before mechanization of the planet.
We must do it or we will extinct ourselves. And it must start by getting our
kids there also.
Mark
Peter Staudenmaier (pstaud hotmail.com) wrote:
I think Mark Fitzpatrick got one thing right:
)Steiner likely felt that he needed to put a scientific bent on his beliefs
)and understandings to have others stand and listen.
That sounds fairly accurate to me. The question, of course, remains: in
light of the strong antagonism toward science among anthroposophists today,
why do so many of them continue to insist that their worldview constitutes a
science of its own? I think this puzzle has less to do with disagreements
among contemporary anthroposophists and more to do with Steiner's
ambivalence on the topic of 'science'. This original ambivalence seems to
have left fans of anthroposophical thinking in an interesting bind,
simultaneously claiming scientific status for their own beliefs while
deprecating science as a hindrance to true knowledge of the cosmos and a
primary source of alienation. Thus many of them still view critical inquiry
as sacrilege, psychic violence, or an instance of Ahrimanic deception.
Another of the difficulties in trying to talk with anthroposophists.
Peter S.
)Where has science left us? We have alienated ourselves from the earth,
)nature and ourselves with science!
)Science only serving to take away from an innate intelligence that we are
)all born with....and always have but ending losing touch with when society
)places to much pressure on us to think and process different. This process
)causes us to doubt our own instinct. Gut , spirit and instinct requires
)nil, absolutely nil science. Science , in this way is a hindrance, in
)coming to know the true sense fo reality, life and nature.
_________________________________________________________________
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software — optimizes dial-up to the max!
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: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:35:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
Touche!
Again, I challenge you to see how great it would be if we all spent more time at out neighbors chatting face to face experiencing human contact. People tend to be more real in these situations.
I challenge you to see that it is possible that we would have NO need to discuss this over the internet because there would be nothing to discuss.
Ex... there is no problem of fixing an GPS ( Global Positioning System )
in your car if it had not been invented yet by scienece and technology.
Or toxic dumping... there is no issue of toxic dumping if we do not create the products
( done by science ) that cause a off-load of toxic waste that must be dumped somewhere on some perfectly good mand that nature made.
We are only haveing a need to discuss ...because there has been a problem created by science and logic reasoning ( limited by nature of it's parameters ).
Inject more heart and spirit in your thought....and then you will see someting outside your own very , very narrow point of view.
If it were not for science, you would not be able to challenge our views via the Internet and computers!
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:26:49 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
in summary...
what I am is that what we call "progress" has not been progress at all.
Your folks clainm that we are "better off" now with science.
I am countering and saying we are worse off.
And if we had stayed on course for tuning in with nature , integrating with nature rather than trying to control(and this is not possible) and dominate nature that we would be in much, much better shape now. Science and man together has created tremendous problems on this planet and now man is panicing and scrambling to undo or "fix" the very damage he created with science he is trying to undo with science.
We need to "undo or fix" it with aligning ourselves with nature again. Letting ( not controlling ) the huge power of nature do it's things to correct this mess.
Until, we as humans figure this out we are in deep sh--!
Peace
Mark
ps....check out Alan Watts "Man in Nature" and "Work as Play"
Here Watts discusses a congress (1973) of great thinkers ( scientists, philosophers, academia, experts etc... ) for the purpose of answering one question.
What do we do about the state of affairs ( referring to the runaway train that SCIENCE and man has created ) ? And the state of affairs is pollution, ozone, environmental, social problems the human race is having (mostly due to the industrial revolution created by SCIENCE ) .
The question posed was "what do we do about the impending doom of the planet caused by science and technology?"
Watts conveys - that among all these great thinkers they had nothing to say!
Wow! Why did they have nothing to say? Because, amazingly these great thinkers were at loss of what TO DO!
Why, Watts responds, what needs to be done interestingly is nothing. But nothing like keep going on about our business but rather nothing...back off! ...let nature go about it's bizness....it has FAR more wisdom built-in to it's every little cell than all the greatest scientific minds together could muster. Proof in this congress.
The question is...can we as human's have what it takes to drop our ego's and allow nature to do it's work??? So far, we have not been very good about that!!
You seem to have such a one-sided, one-dimensional view of science, Mark!
Think of all the amazing and wonderful things science has given us, from the understanding that the world is round and rotates around the SUN (and is not the ONLY planet out there!) to the understanding that matter is comprised of tiny particles called molecules. Think of what medical science has done: people who would have died from various diseases a century ago now live long, productive lives. (Diabetes is a great example.) Without science, many people would die each year from preventable illnesses such as tetanus. Think about maternal and fetal healthcare: a century ago, it was not at all unusual for women giving birth to die in the process, or for young babies to perish from a host of reasons. (Two hundred years ago, parents *expected* to lose some of their children.)
I always find it interesting when Waldorf enthusiasts and Anthroposophers diss science, claiming it causes humanity to be spiritually bankrupt and mechanistic. Over the years, I have interviewed and gotten to know many scientists, and many of them will -- when pressed -- admit that their scientific inquiries have made them *more* spiritual people. As one medical researcher told me that the more he learned about the human body, the more he acknowledged the existence of a higher power who created it and planned it out so exquisitely.
Science does not take away from the beauty and mystery of life and living things. It only attempts to explain it. What's wrong with that?
Lisa
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:32:42 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
science is hindrance...take a look around at how science has created massive destruction, alienation from nature, pollution, isolation( look at this me typing alone on my high tech tool ( product of science ) ) ,....
we must address approaching the problems of life, raising and schooling children, being human, being alive, caring for the planet.... by re-learning how to be with nature again!
We used to know how to do that before mechanization of the planet.
We must do it or we will extinct ourselves. And it must start by getting our kids there also.
Mark
Peter Staudenmaier (pstaud hotmail.com) wrote:
I think Mark Fitzpatrick got one thing right:
)Steiner likely felt that he needed to put a scientific bent on his beliefs
)and understandings to have others stand and listen.
That sounds fairly accurate to me. The question, of course, remains: in
light of the strong antagonism toward science among anthroposophists today,
why do so many of them continue to insist that their worldview constitutes a
science of its own? I think this puzzle has less to do with disagreements
among contemporary anthroposophists and more to do with Steiner's
ambivalence on the topic of 'science'. This original ambivalence seems to
have left fans of anthroposophical thinking in an interesting bind,
simultaneously claiming scientific status for their own beliefs while
deprecating science as a hindrance to true knowledge of the cosmos and a
primary source of alienation. Thus many of them still view critical inquiry
as sacrilege, psychic violence, or an instance of Ahrimanic deception.
Another of the difficulties in trying to talk with anthroposophists.
Peter S.
)Where has science left us? We have alienated ourselves from the earth,
)nature and ourselves with science!
)Science only serving to take away from an innate intelligence that we are
)all born with....and always have but ending losing touch with when society
)places to much pressure on us to think and process different. This process
)causes us to doubt our own instinct. Gut , spirit and instinct requires
)nil, absolutely nil science. Science , in this way is a hindrance, in
)coming to know the true sense fo reality, life and nature.
_________________________________________________________________
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software — optimizes dial-up to the max! 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: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 18:11:25 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: once more on science
Hey Mark,
Seems to me you confuse "science" with something else - maybe human greed?
I have no quarrel with your disdain of toxic dumps, etc. But while you
blame "science," I would point at human greed - short sighted, at that.
Products are not "done by science." Products are manufactured by human
beings - often at the expense of human and/or natural resources. You might
want to consider the root cause - not the conduit.
BTW, I find your judgements here a little off base. You have no idea how
many face to face chats people have in the course of a day. Going on to say
that someone should ..."inject more heart and spirit in your thought," etc.
is more than a little preachy... of the religious variety. Following such
advice with an explanation that by doing as you instruct one "will see
something outside your own very , very narrow point of view" can only be
construed as old fashioned ... rude. Do you speak like this to your
neighbours during your face to face chats? Curious.
-Walden
Mark wrote:
)Touche!
)Again, I challenge you to see how great it would be if we all spent more
time at out neighbors chatting face to face experiencing human contact.
People tend to be more real in these situations.
I challenge you to see that it is possible that we would have NO need to
discuss this over the internet because there would be nothing to discuss.
Ex... there is no problem of fixing an GPS ( Global Positioning System )
in your car if it had not been invented yet by scienece and technology.
Or toxic dumping... there is no issue of toxic dumping if we do not create
the products
( done by science ) that cause a off-load of toxic waste that must be dumped
somewhere on some perfectly good mand that nature made.
)We are only haveing a need to discuss ...because there has been a problem
created by science and logic reasoning ( limited by nature of it's
parameters ).
)Inject more heart and spirit in your thought....and then you will see
someting outside your own very , very narrow point of view.
If it were not for science, you would not be able to challenge our views via
the Internet and computers!
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:26:49 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
in summary...
what I am is that what we call "progress" has not been progress at all.
Your folks clainm that we are "better off" now with science.
I am countering and saying we are worse off.
And if we had stayed on course for tuning in with nature , integrating with
nature rather than trying to control(and this is not possible) and dominate
nature that we would be in much, much better shape now. Science and man
together has created tremendous problems on this planet and now man is
panicing and scrambling to undo or "fix" the very damage he created with
science he is trying to undo with science.
We need to "undo or fix" it with aligning ourselves with nature again.
Letting ( not controlling ) the huge power of nature do it's things to
correct this mess.
Until, we as humans figure this out we are in deep sh--!
Peace
Mark
ps....check out Alan Watts "Man in Nature" and "Work as Play"
Here Watts discusses a congress (1973) of great thinkers ( scientists,
philosophers, academia, experts etc... ) for the purpose of answering one
question.
What do we do about the state of affairs ( referring to the runaway train
that SCIENCE and man has created ) ? And the state of affairs is pollution,
ozone, environmental, social problems the human race is having (mostly due
to the industrial revolution created by SCIENCE ) .
The question posed was "what do we do about the impending doom of the planet
caused by science and technology?"
Watts conveys - that among all these great thinkers they had nothing to say!
Wow! Why did they have nothing to say? Because, amazingly these great
thinkers were at loss of what TO DO!
Why, Watts responds, what needs to be done interestingly is nothing. But
nothing like keep going on about our business but rather nothing...back off!
...let nature go about it's bizness....it has FAR more wisdom built-in to
it's every little cell than all the greatest scientific minds together could
muster. Proof in this congress.
The question is...can we as human's have what it takes to drop our ego's and
allow nature to do it's work??? So far, we have not been very good about
that!!
You seem to have such a one-sided, one-dimensional view of science, Mark!
Think of all the amazing and wonderful things science has given us, from the
understanding that the world is round and rotates around the SUN (and is not
the ONLY planet out there!) to the understanding that matter is comprised of
tiny particles called molecules. Think of what medical science has done:
people who would have died from various diseases a century ago now live
long, productive lives. (Diabetes is a great example.) Without science, many
people would die each year from preventable illnesses such as tetanus. Think
about maternal and fetal healthcare: a century ago, it was not at all
unusual for women giving birth to die in the process, or for young babies to
perish from a host of reasons. (Two hundred years ago, parents *expected* to
lose some of their children.)
I always find it interesting when Waldorf enthusiasts and Anthroposophers
diss science, claiming it causes humanity to be spiritually bankrupt and
mechanistic. Over the years, I have interviewed and gotten to know many
scientists, and many of them will -- when pressed -- admit that their
scientific inquiries have made them *more* spiritual people. As one medical
researcher told me that the more he learned about the human body, the more
he acknowledged the existence of a higher power who created it and planned
it out so exquisitely.
Science does not take away from the beauty and mystery of life and living
things. It only attempts to explain it. What's wrong with that?
Lisa
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:32:42 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
science is hindrance...take a look around at how science has created massive
destruction, alienation from nature, pollution, isolation( look at this me
typing alone on my high tech tool ( product of science ) ) ,....
we must address approaching the problems of life, raising and schooling
children, being human, being alive, caring for the planet.... by re-learning
how to be with nature again!
We used to know how to do that before mechanization of the planet.
We must do it or we will extinct ourselves. And it must start by getting our
kids there also.
Mark
Peter Staudenmaier (pstaud hotmail.com) wrote:
I think Mark Fitzpatrick got one thing right:
)Steiner likely felt that he needed to put a scientific bent on his beliefs
)and understandings to have others stand and listen.
That sounds fairly accurate to me. The question, of course, remains: in
light of the strong antagonism toward science among anthroposophists today,
why do so many of them continue to insist that their worldview constitutes a
science of its own? I think this puzzle has less to do with disagreements
among contemporary anthroposophists and more to do with Steiner's
ambivalence on the topic of 'science'. This original ambivalence seems to
have left fans of anthroposophical thinking in an interesting bind,
simultaneously claiming scientific status for their own beliefs while
deprecating science as a hindrance to true knowledge of the cosmos and a
primary source of alienation. Thus many of them still view critical inquiry
as sacrilege, psychic violence, or an instance of Ahrimanic deception.
Another of the difficulties in trying to talk with anthroposophists.
Peter S.
)Where has science left us? We have alienated ourselves from the earth,
)nature and ourselves with science!
)Science only serving to take away from an innate intelligence that we are
)all born with....and always have but ending losing touch with when society
)places to much pressure on us to think and process different. This process
)causes us to doubt our own instinct. Gut , spirit and instinct requires
)nil, absolutely nil science. Science , in this way is a hindrance, in
)coming to know the true sense fo reality, life and nature.
_________________________________________________________________
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software - optimizes dial-up to the max!
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: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 18:41:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
--0-537720636-1075948898=:2897
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Walden..
perhaps it is you who is confused. To ever see anything ( and this includes science...which is really just a method or a way of thinking ) as "part" which is isolated somehow from the "whole". This is a problem always holistic in nature...ie guns by themselves are not dangerous or "bad" ..... it is always the combo of the "evil" person and the gun.
Science in and of itself is not evil. I never purported that. Thought it was obvious to all concerned but I guess not. It is not science itself that is the problem...it's the thinking that goes on initially to bring about and support the ongoing of science....
Tell me...would we even have to ask the question...."is it alright to clone humans?"
if we did not have the science to do the cloning? Of course NOT!
This is my point... we don't need to be bringing science to this point. It is not cloning that is the problem...it's the journey of science that brought us to that point!
If the scientist was required to be a bit of a humanist, psychologist, philosopher and congressed with others before taking this journey...then they might say...
NO...we have no reason to set out on this ridiculous journey of creating a clone.
So...in this way it's the human thinking that goes with science that is most disturbing.
It's the greed/science combo, it's the ego/science combo, evil/science combo ....
that is causing the problems. We take away the science out of above combos...and we are only left with personality traits that have NO tools to carry out their missions and goals.
So we drop the ego...and we no longer need to clone ourselves....( the ultimate in egoism ... us human beings thinking we are so important!!!.( we are ..i am embrassed to be associated with that..but it is a part of the human condition) We have evil but it is left only with handmade tools to fight because ( technology did not exist because science did not exist ) we are left with the last samurai....what and honorable way to fight your fight. Dropping high tech bombs is the ultimate in cowardice.
Yes... technology has isolated most of us...Walden just look around...kids ( when I was ) used to play outside everyday till 9 - 10 at night...instead these poor kids are inside playing on the stupid xbox and computer.
Yes...i would give these points of view ( and i do ) to my neighbors. Would I say exactly what I say here....no but then again...I doubt people would behave as you do or Lisa does in a face to face with me.
Takes two to tango my friend.
Encouraging one to be spiritual and haviong heart is neither religious
definition of religion: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs.
Religious: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances.
Key word here is institutionalized. I am NOT an institution Walden...can you see that??
Therefore I am not professing any religion. Being spiritual and having is NOT religion.
Check your definitions and understanding of the meaning of religion. Associated with dogma, rituals, preachiness, institutions and interpretations.
I only encouraged the opening of the heart and spirit. No scriptues, no middlemen,
no charlatans .....
Mark
BTW... I also find your judgements to be off base just a bit or maybe more.
walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca) wrote:
Hey Mark,
Seems to me you confuse "science" with something else - maybe human greed?
I have no quarrel with your disdain of toxic dumps, etc. But while you
blame "science," I would point at human greed - short sighted, at that.
Products are not "done by science." Products are manufactured by human
beings - often at the expense of human and/or natural resources. You might
want to consider the root cause - not the conduit.
BTW, I find your judgements here a little off base. You have no idea how
many face to face chats people have in the course of a day. Going on to say
that someone should ..."inject more heart and spirit in your thought," etc.
is more than a little preachy... of the religious variety. Following such
advice with an explanation that by doing as you instruct one "will see
something outside your own very , very narrow point of view" can only be
construed as old fashioned ... rude. Do you speak like this to your
neighbours during your face to face chats? Curious.
-Walden
Mark wrote:
)Touche!
)Again, I challenge you to see how great it would be if we all spent more
time at out neighbors chatting face to face experiencing human contact.
People tend to be more real in these situations.
I challenge you to see that it is possible that we would have NO need to
discuss this over the internet because there would be nothing to discuss.
Ex... there is no problem of fixing an GPS ( Global Positioning System )
in your car if it had not been invented yet by scienece and technology.
Or toxic dumping... there is no issue of toxic dumping if we do not create
the products
( done by science ) that cause a off-load of toxic waste that must be dumped
somewhere on some perfectly good mand that nature made.
)We are only haveing a need to discuss ...because there has been a problem
created by science and logic reasoning ( limited by nature of it's
parameters ).
)Inject more heart and spirit in your thought....and then you will see
someting outside your own very , very narrow point of view.
If it were not for science, you would not be able to challenge our views via
the Internet and computers!
From: Mark Fitzpatrick
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:26:49 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
in summary...
what I am is that what we call "progress" has not been progress at all.
Your folks clainm that we are "better off" now with science.
I am countering and saying we are worse off.
And if we had stayed on course for tuning in with nature , integrating with
nature rather than trying to control(and this is not possible) and dominate
nature that we would be in much, much better shape now. Science and man
together has created tremendous problems on this planet and now man is
panicing and scrambling to undo or "fix" the very damage he created with
science he is trying to undo with science.
We need to "undo or fix" it with aligning ourselves with nature again.
Letting ( not controlling ) the huge power of nature do it's things to
correct this mess.
Until, we as humans figure this out we are in deep sh--!
Peace
Mark
ps....check out Alan Watts "Man in Nature" and "Work as Play"
Here Watts discusses a congress (1973) of great thinkers ( scientists,
philosophers, academia, experts etc... ) for the purpose of answering one
question.
What do we do about the state of affairs ( referring to the runaway train
that SCIENCE and man has created ) ? And the state of affairs is pollution,
ozone, environmental, social problems the human race is having (mostly due
to the industrial revolution created by SCIENCE ) .
The question posed was "what do we do about the impending doom of the planet
caused by science and technology?"
Watts conveys - that among all these great thinkers they had nothing to say!
Wow! Why did they have nothing to say? Because, amazingly these great
thinkers were at loss of what TO DO!
Why, Watts responds, what needs to be done interestingly is nothing. But
nothing like keep going on about our business but rather nothing...back off!
...let nature go about it's bizness....it has FAR more wisdom built-in to
it's every little cell than all the greatest scientific minds together could
muster. Proof in this congress.
The question is...can we as human's have what it takes to drop our ego's and
allow nature to do it's work??? So far, we have not been very good about
that!!
You seem to have such a one-sided, one-dimensional view of science, Mark!
Think of all the amazing and wonderful things science has given us, from the
understanding that the world is round and rotates around the SUN (and is not
the ONLY planet out there!) to the understanding that matter is comprised of
tiny particles called molecules. Think of what medical science has done:
people who would have died from various diseases a century ago now live
long, productive lives. (Diabetes is a great example.) Without science, many
people would die each year from preventable illnesses such as tetanus. Think
about maternal and fetal healthcare: a century ago, it was not at all
unusual for women giving birth to die in the process, or for young babies to
perish from a host of reasons. (Two hundred years ago, parents *expected* to
lose some of their children.)
I always find it interesting when Waldorf enthusiasts and Anthroposophers
diss science, claiming it causes humanity to be spiritually bankrupt and
mechanistic. Over the years, I have interviewed and gotten to know many
scientists, and many of them will -- when pressed -- admit that their
scientific inquiries have made them *more* spiritual people. As one medical
researcher told me that the more he learned about the human body, the more
he acknowledged the existence of a higher power who created it and planned
it out so exquisitely.
Science does not take away from the beauty and mystery of life and living
things. It only attempts to explain it. What's wrong with that?
Lisa
From: Mark Fitzpatrick
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:32:42 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
science is hindrance...take a look around at how science has created massive
destruction, alienation from nature, pollution, isolation( look at this me
typing alone on my high tech tool ( product of science ) ) ,....
we must address approaching the problems of life, raising and schooling
children, being human, being alive, caring for the planet.... by re-learning
how to be with nature again!
We used to know how to do that before mechanization of the planet.
We must do it or we will extinct ourselves. And it must start by getting our
kids there also.
Mark
Peter Staudenmaier
wrote:
I think Mark Fitzpatrick got one thing right:
)Steiner likely felt that he needed to put a scientific bent on his beliefs
)and understandings to have others stand and listen.
That sounds fairly accurate to me. The question, of course, remains: in
light of the strong antagonism toward science among anthroposophists today,
why do so many of them continue to insist that their worldview constitutes a
science of its own? I think this puzzle has less to do with disagreements
among contemporary anthroposophists and more to do with Steiner's
ambivalence on the topic of 'science'. This original ambivalence seems to
have left fans of anthroposophical thinking in an interesting bind,
simultaneously claiming scientific status for their own beliefs while
deprecating science as a hindrance to true knowledge of the cosmos and a
primary source of alienation. Thus many of them still view critical inquiry
as sacrilege, psychic violence, or an instance of Ahrimanic deception.
Another of the difficulties in trying to talk with anthroposophists.
Peter S.
)Where has science left us? We have alienated ourselves from the earth,
)nature and ourselves with science!
)Science only serving to take away from an innate intelligence that we are
)all born with....and always have but ending losing touch with when society
)places to much pressure on us to think and process different. This process
)causes us to doubt our own instinct. Gut , spirit and instinct requires
)nil, absolutely nil science. Science , in this way is a hindrance, in
)coming to know the true sense fo reality, life and nature.
_________________________________________________________________
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software - optimizes dial-up to the max!
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.
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:14:28 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: [NNA] Court rules against reactivation of "General
Anthroposophical Society (Christmas Conference)"
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
Court rules against reactivation of "General Anthroposophical Society
(Christmas Conference)"
Dornach, 4 February (NNA) - In the legal dispute over the existence
of the recently reactivated "General Anthroposophical Society
(Christmas Conference)", the Dorneck-Thierstein district court in
Switzerland has ruled against the executive council of the General
Anthroposophical Society.
A statement from one of the plaintiff groups, which claims that the
Christmas Conference society has ceased to exist and thus cannot be
reactivated, said it had been informed by the court that the judge
had found against the defendant and that "the General
Anthroposophical Society (Christmas Conference) shall be removed from
the commercial register."
In a first response from the Anthroposophical Society, Isabell von
Heymann from the Goetheanum press office told NNA: "We have noted the
judgement. We are currently discussing the next steps and are waiting
to receive the judge's reasoning."
In November, members attending the extraordinary general meetings of
the General Anthroposophical Society (GAS) and the recently
reactivated General Anthroposophical Society (Christmas Conference)
at the Goetheanum approved the plan to merge the GAS with the
so-called Christmas Conference Society, giving the GAS executive
council discretion as to when to go ahead with the fusion.
Those plans will now have to be put on hold.
END/cva
+ + + + +
Item reference number: N040204-01EN
Date: 4 February 2004
More NNA reports at: http://www.nna-news.org/content/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:51:17 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: [Re: once more on science]
Mark (and everyone else, I single you out because you are the worst),
please quote only the text you need to explain what you are replying
to. Please do not quote a whole message just to make a one-line
comment on it. Your current practice is filling up the digests and
archives with meaningless repetition.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:46:52 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
) 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_3158776012_40975_MIME_Part
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Well, much of what you say is true: I fear that face to face human contact
*is* not as valued as it should be or once was.
HOWEVER (and take note that this is a big however! (g))
Without science and technology -- which make it easier for people to move
around, to travel, to explore -- our society would be a much less diverse
one. (I am sure one could make the case that that would solve a lot of
problems in and of itself, and that is probably right.) But diversity of
ethnicity, race, culture and religion bring with them many gifts. We now
live in a culture where we can enjoy Asian food, African art, Caribbean
dance, and so on. People of many nations live side by side and often mix. I
can be in Los Angeles in the morning and in Beijing in less than a day. I
think that's wonderful.
Walden made what I think is an excellent point, which Shakespeare also
offered up to us when he had Hamlet say "Nothing is good nor bad, but
thinking makes it so."
Whether science in and of itself is good or bad depends on how one thinks
about it. I look at the good science has done. (Mark, you say that maybe if
people die from tetanus or diabetes or cancer that perhaps that was meant to
be. Would you be so blase and philosophical about saying that if the person
dying were someone near and dear to you? Would you just accept it and say
"Oh, it was just his time?" I doubt it.)
Lisa
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:35:48 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
Touche!
Again, I challenge you to see how great it would be if we all spent more
time at out neighbors chatting face to face experiencing human contact.
People tend to be more real in these situations.
I challenge you to see that it is possible that we would have NO need to
discuss this over the internet because there would be nothing to discuss.
Ex... there is no problem of fixing an GPS ( Global Positioning System )
in your car if it had not been invented yet by scienece and technology.
Or toxic dumping... there is no issue of toxic dumping if we do not create
the products
( done by science ) that cause a off-load of toxic waste that must be dumped
somewhere on some perfectly good mand that nature made.
We are only haveing a need to discuss ...because there has been a problem
created by science and logic reasoning ( limited by nature of it's
parameters ).
Inject more heart and spirit in your thought....and then you will see
someting outside your own very , very narrow point of view.
If it were not for science, you would not be able to challenge our views via
the Internet and computers!
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:26:49 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
in summary...
what I am is that what we call "progress" has not been progress at all.
Your folks clainm that we are "better off" now with science.
I am countering and saying we are worse off.
And if we had stayed on course for tuning in with nature , integrating with
nature rather than trying to control(and this is not possible) and dominate
nature that we would be in much, much better shape now. Science and man
together has created tremendous problems on this planet and now man is
panicing and scrambling to undo or "fix" the very damage he created with
science he is trying to undo with science.
We need to "undo or fix" it with aligning ourselves with nature again.
Letting ( not controlling ) the huge power of nature do it's things to
correct this mess.
Until, we as humans figure this out we are in deep sh--!
Peace
Mark
ps....check out Alan Watts "Man in Nature" and "Work as Play"
Here Watts discusses a congress (1973) of great thinkers ( scientists,
philosophers, academia, experts etc... ) for the purpose of answering one
question.
What do we do about the state of affairs ( referring to the runaway train
that SCIENCE and man has created ) ? And the state of affairs is pollution,
ozone, environmental, social problems the human race is having (mostly due
to the industrial revolution created by SCIENCE ) .
The question posed was "what do we do about the impending doom of the planet
caused by science and technology?"
Watts conveys - that among all these great thinkers they had nothing to say!
Wow! Why did they have nothing to say? Because, amazingly these great
thinkers were at loss of what TO DO!
Why, Watts responds, what needs to be done interestingly is nothing. But
nothing like keep going on about our business but rather nothing...back off!
...let nature go about it's bizness....it has FAR more wisdom built-in to
it's every little cell than all the greatest scientific minds together could
muster. Proof in this congress.
The question is...can we as human's have what it takes to drop our ego's and
allow nature to do it's work??? So far, we have not been very good about
that!!
You seem to have such a one-sided, one-dimensional view of science, Mark!
Think of all the amazing and wonderful things science has given us, from the
understanding that the world is round and rotates around the SUN (and is not
the ONLY planet out there!) to the understanding that matter is comprised of
tiny particles called molecules. Think of what medical science has done:
people who would have died from various diseases a century ago now live
long, productive lives. (Diabetes is a great example.) Without science, many
people would die each year from preventable illnesses such as tetanus. Think
about maternal and fetal healthcare: a century ago, it was not at all
unusual for women giving birth to die in the process, or for young babies to
perish from a host of reasons. (Two hundred years ago, parents *expected* to
lose some of their children.)
I always find it interesting when Waldorf enthusiasts and Anthroposophers
diss science, claiming it causes humanity to be spiritually bankrupt and
mechanistic. Over the years, I have interviewed and gotten to know many
scientists, and many of them will -- when pressed -- admit that their
scientific inquiries have made them *more* spiritual people. As one medical
researcher told me that the more he learned about the human body, the more
he acknowledged the existence of a higher power who created it and planned
it out so exquisitely.
Science does not take away from the beauty and mystery of life and living
things. It only attempts to explain it. What's wrong with that?
Lisa
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:32:42 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
science is hindrance...take a look around at how science has created massive
destruction, alienation from nature, pollution, isolation( look at this me
typing alone on my high tech tool ( product of science ) ) ,....
we must address approaching the problems of life, raising and schooling
children, being human, being alive, caring for the planet.... by re-learning
how to be with nature again!
We used to know how to do that before mechanization of the planet.
We must do it or we will extinct ourselves. And it must start by getting our
kids there also.
Mark
Peter Staudenmaier (pstaud hotmail.com) wrote:
I think Mark Fitzpatrick got one thing right:
)Steiner likely felt that he needed to put a scientific bent on his beliefs
)and understandings to have others stand and listen.
That sounds fairly accurate to me. The question, of course, remains: in
light of the strong antagonism toward science among anthroposophists today,
why do so many of them continue to insist that their worldview constitutes a
science of its own? I think this puzzle has less to do with disagreements
among contemporary anthroposophists and more to do with Steiner's
ambivalence on the topic of 'science'. This original ambivalence seems to
have left fans of anthroposophical thinking in an interesting bind,
simultaneously claiming scientific status for their own beliefs while
deprecating science as a hindrance to true knowledge of the cosmos and a
primary source of alienation. Thus many of them still view critical inquiry
as sacrilege, psychic violence, or an instance of Ahrimanic deception.
Another of the difficulties in trying to talk with anthroposophists.
Peter S.
)Where has science left us? We have alienated ourselves from the earth,
)nature and ourselves with science!
)Science only serving to take away from an innate intelligence that we are
)all born with....and always have but ending losing touch with when society
)places to much pressure on us to think and process different. This process
)causes us to doubt our own instinct. Gut , spirit and instinct requires
)nil, absolutely nil science. Science , in this way is a hindrance, in
)coming to know the true sense fo reality, life and nature.
_________________________________________________________________
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software — optimizes dial-up to the max!
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: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 19:10:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
Lisa...
Alot if "I's" in your missive. This represents ego ( The "I" ) . It is ego that gets us in trouble.
Your comments about death are also ego based. Seeing ourselves as so importnat is a very dangerous way to view reality. Do I want to prolong someone's life who is close to me? Depends...how will there quality of life be if they are "saved" by science?
I can't say these people who are saved are doing so well after being cured or saved.
Ever read the Lance Armstrong story? He saved himself by mentally, physically and spiritual strengthening himself with 50 miles of biking a day DURING chemo!
Some have the strenght to live and some don't.....live and let live. If it's there time then let them go. We are all living and dying in every moment ...this fear with death is absurd...it's yet another trap of the ego and logical mind. If we know the spirit lives on ..then why fear the body dying?? The spirit is not the body and never ends.
We will never know for sure but it is reasonalbly possible that Lance could have sent his cancer into remission without science ( chemo) using what he did.... spirit and mental strength. This is much more natural and admirable than relying on the crutch called
"science". The way humans were meant to live...I believe.
Shakespeare aside.... what is so great about littering the planet with airplanes and all the pollution that they spew???
Are we better of because of the mix of people's ...I say yes...hooray!
But we still have no need for combustion engines to make this happen Lisa...
man your box is tightly shut.
We can and have migrated as man from the beginning of time....and we had no need for
polluting the enviromnent to do so!!
Examples of how we could still mix and mingle without sacrificing the environment by way of high tech engines:
- sailing ships ( no engine polluting )
- horse
- walk and hike
- camel
- boats
Open that mind up Lisa.... we don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water.
It is that impulsive need ( to fly from LA to Beiing in a day ) that is at the root of the problem. Why do you need to do this? You don't! Fact is you WANT it....much like a baby wants it's bottle. Wants are based in self-centeredness and ego....the root causes of suffering.
Mark
Well, much of what you say is true: I fear that face to face human contact *is* not as valued as it should be or once was.
HOWEVER (and take note that this is a big however! (g))
Without science and technology -- which make it easier for people to move around, to travel, to explore -- our society would be a much less diverse one. (I am sure one could make the case that that would solve a lot of problems in and of itself, and that is probably right.) But diversity of ethnicity, race, culture and religion bring with them many gifts. We now live in a culture where we can enjoy Asian food, African art, Caribbean dance, and so on. People of many nations live side by side and often mix. I can be in Los Angeles in the morning and in Beijing in less than a day. I think that's wonderful.
Walden made what I think is an excellent point, which Shakespeare also offered up to us when he had Hamlet say "Nothing is good nor bad, but thinking makes it so."
Whether science in and of itself is good or bad depends on how one thinks about it. I look at the good science has done. (Mark, you say that maybe if people die from tetanus or diabetes or cancer that perhaps that was meant to be. Would you be so blase and philosophical about saying that if the person dying were someone near and dear to you? Would you just accept it and say "Oh, it was just his time?" I doubt it.)
Lisa
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:35:48 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
Touche!
Again, I challenge you to see how great it would be if we all spent more time at out neighbors chatting face to face experiencing human contact. People tend to be more real in these situations.
I challenge you to see that it is possible that we would have NO need to discuss this over the internet because there would be nothing to discuss.
Ex... there is no problem of fixing an GPS ( Global Positioning System )
in your car if it had not been invented yet by scienece and technology.
Or toxic dumping... there is no issue of toxic dumping if we do not create the products
( done by science ) that cause a off-load of toxic waste that must be dumped somewhere on some perfectly good mand that nature made.
We are only haveing a need to discuss ...because there has been a problem created by science and logic reasoning ( limited by nature of it's parameters ).
Inject more heart and spirit in your thought....and then you will see someting outside your own very , very narrow point of view.
If it were not for science, you would not be able to challenge our views via the Internet and computers!
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:26:49 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
in summary...
what I am is that what we call "progress" has not been progress at all.
Your folks clainm that we are "better off" now with science.
I am countering and saying we are worse off.
And if we had stayed on course for tuning in with nature , integrating with nature rather than trying to control(and this is not possible) and dominate nature that we would be in much, much better shape now. Science and man together has created tremendous problems on this planet and now man is panicing and scrambling to undo or "fix" the very damage he created with science he is trying to undo with science.
We need to "undo or fix" it with aligning ourselves with nature again. Letting ( not controlling ) the huge power of nature do it's things to correct this mess.
Until, we as humans figure this out we are in deep sh--!
Peace
Mark
ps....check out Alan Watts "Man in Nature" and "Work as Play"
Here Watts discusses a congress (1973) of great thinkers ( scientists, philosophers, academia, experts etc... ) for the purpose of answering one question.
What do we do about the state of affairs ( referring to the runaway train that SCIENCE and man has created ) ? And the state of affairs is pollution, ozone, environmental, social problems the human race is having (mostly due to the industrial revolution created by SCIENCE ) .
The question posed was "what do we do about the impending doom of the planet caused by science and technology?"
Watts conveys - that among all these great thinkers they had nothing to say!
Wow! Why did they have nothing to say? Because, amazingly these great thinkers were at loss of what TO DO!
Why, Watts responds, what needs to be done interestingly is nothing. But nothing like keep going on about our business but rather nothing...back off! ...let nature go about it's bizness....it has FAR more wisdom built-in to it's every little cell than all the greatest scientific minds together could muster. Proof in this congress.
The question is...can we as human's have what it takes to drop our ego's and allow nature to do it's work??? So far, we have not been very good about that!!
You seem to have such a one-sided, one-dimensional view of science, Mark!
Think of all the amazing and wonderful things science has given us, from the understanding that the world is round and rotates around the SUN (and is not the ONLY planet out there!) to the understanding that matter is comprised of tiny particles called molecules. Think of what medical science has done: people who would have died from various diseases a century ago now live long, productive lives. (Diabetes is a great example.) Without science, many people would die each year from preventable illnesses such as tetanus. Think about maternal and fetal healthcare: a century ago, it was not at all unusual for women giving birth to die in the process, or for young babies to perish from a host of reasons. (Two hundred years ago, parents *expected* to lose some of their children.)
I always find it interesting when Waldorf enthusiasts and Anthroposophers diss science, claiming it causes humanity to be spiritually bankrupt and mechanistic. Over the years, I have interviewed and gotten to know many scientists, and many of them will -- when pressed -- admit that their scientific inquiries have made them *more* spiritual people. As one medical researcher told me that the more he learned about the human body, the more he acknowledged the existence of a higher power who created it and planned it out so exquisitely.
Science does not take away from the beauty and mystery of life and living things. It only attempts to explain it. What's wrong with that?
Lisa
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:32:42 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
science is hindrance...take a look around at how science has created massive destruction, alienation from nature, pollution, isolation( look at this me typing alone on my high tech tool ( product of science ) ) ,....
we must address approaching the problems of life, raising and schooling children, being human, being alive, caring for the planet.... by re-learning how to be with nature again!
We used to know how to do that before mechanization of the planet.
We must do it or we will extinct ourselves. And it must start by getting our kids there also.
Mark
Peter Staudenmaier (pstaud hotmail.com) wrote:
I think Mark Fitzpatrick got one thing right:
)Steiner likely felt that he needed to put a scientific bent on his beliefs
)and understandings to have others stand and listen.
That sounds fairly accurate to me. The question, of course, remains: in
light of the strong antagonism toward science among anthroposophists today,
why do so many of them continue to insist that their worldview constitutes a
science of its own? I think this puzzle has less to do with disagreements
among contemporary anthroposophists and more to do with Steiner's
ambivalence on the topic of 'science'. This original ambivalence seems to
have left fans of anthroposophical thinking in an interesting bind,
simultaneously claiming scientific status for their own beliefs while
deprecating science as a hindrance to true knowledge of the cosmos and a
primary source of alienation. Thus many of them still view critical inquiry
as sacrilege, psychic violence, or an instance of Ahrimanic deception.
Another of the difficulties in trying to talk with anthroposophists.
Peter S.
)Where has science left us? We have alienated ourselves from the earth,
)nature and ourselves with science!
)Science only serving to take away from an innate intelligence that we are
)all born with....and always have but ending losing touch with when society
)places to much pressure on us to think and process different. This process
)causes us to doubt our own instinct. Gut , spirit and instinct requires
)nil, absolutely nil science. Science , in this way is a hindrance, in
)coming to know the true sense fo reality, life and nature.
_________________________________________________________________
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software — optimizes dial-up to the max! 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: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 23:17:49 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: once more on science
Mark wrote:
) definition of religion: a personal set or institutionalized system of
religious attitudes, beliefs.
)
) Religious: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or
observances.
Thanks, very good - and now for another dictionary definition:
Mirriam-Webster Online
Main Entry: an·thro·pos·o·phy
Pronunciation: "an(t)-thr&-'pä-s&-fE
Function: noun
: a 20th century religious system growing out of theosophy and centering on
human development
Now, I really don't need a dictionary to tell me that anthroposophy is a
religious system. I have been around it for long enough to form my own
opinion. I know anthroposophists who have no problem thinking of it as a
religion. This confusion, IMO, lies buried in the roots of the
Waldorf/Anthro/Critics/Survivors dilemma. We are talking about "faith" and
when one's faith is perceived to be under attack or light or Ahriman's
microscope, the potential for hurt feelings is huge. And very real. So is
the pain experienced by many families who feel swindled by misleading
Waldorf public relations. Unnecessary pain in both corners -
anthroposophists and critics/survivors
We just do not see the same volatile situation surrounding Montessori
schools, Summerhill type schools or any other alternative schools I know of
which work with various philosophies. We don't even see this weird
controversy with "religious schools," perhaps because they have the decency
to actually call themselves... "religious schools."
So... what's the deal with Waldorf? It affords students the opportunity to
have one religious experience after another (Eugene Schwartz, master Waldorf
teacher), is based on a religious system ( "Anthroposophy" - Mirriam
Websters), aims to incarnate children's souls and connect them to the spirit
world, etc.
If it quacks like a duck....
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 23:54:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
--0-1137333462-1075967647=:43839
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Walden...
you are all mixed up.
My definitions about religion were completely unrelated Anthrosophy.
They were referring to comments you ade about my writings...that I was being religious
and preachy.
I encouraged Lisa to be spiritual and live from the heart.
and I stated that this was not an encouragment to be religious.
I still say it is not...based on the below dic definition.
Are you still quacking Walden??
read carefully...next time....and you won't compare apples to oranges
Mark
Mark wrote:
) definition of religion: a personal set or institutionalized system of
religious attitudes, beliefs.
)
) Religious: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or
observances.
Thanks, very good - and now for another dictionary definition:
Mirriam-Webster Online
Main Entry: an·thro·pos·o·phy
Pronunciation: "an(t)-thr&-'pä-s&-fE
Function: noun
: a 20th century religious system growing out of theosophy and centering on
human development
Now, I really don't need a dictionary to tell me that anthroposophy is a
religious system. I have been around it for long enough to form my own
opinion. I know anthroposophists who have no problem thinking of it as a
religion. This confusion, IMO, lies buried in the roots of the
Waldorf/Anthro/Critics/Survivors dilemma. We are talking about "faith" and
when one's faith is perceived to be under attack or light or Ahriman's
microscope, the potential for hurt feelings is huge. And very real. So is
the pain experienced by many families who feel swindled by misleading
Waldorf public relations. Unnecessary pain in both corners -
anthroposophists and critics/survivors
We just do not see the same volatile situation surrounding Montessori
schools, Summerhill type schools or any other alternative schools I know of
which work with various philosophies. We don't even see this weird
controversy with "religious schools," perhaps because they have the decency
to actually call themselves... "religious schools."
So... what's the deal with Waldorf? It affords students the opportunity to
have one religious experience after another (Eugene Schwartz, master Waldorf
teacher), is based on a religious system ( "Anthroposophy" - Mirriam
Websters), aims to incarnate children's souls and connect them to the spirit
world, etc.
If it quacks like a duck....
-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.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1247
-- Topica Digest --
Re: once more on science
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
School Spirit(s): Just ask the gnome: It's hard to get a good
read on the Waldo
By dan dandugan.com
Houston Waldorf Article
By snell gv.net
Re: Admin: [Re: once more on science]
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: Admin: [Re: once more on science]
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Admin: [Re: once more on science]
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: Admin: [Re: once more on science]
By dan dandugan.com
Re: once more on science
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: once more on science
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: once more on science
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: once more on science
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: once more on science
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: once more on science
By snell gv.net
Re: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: once more on science
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: once more on science
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: once more on science
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: once more on science
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: once more on science
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: once more on science
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: once more on science
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 09:19:55 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: once more on science
HI Mark,
I am willing to ignore your misguided (and frankly, rude) comments toward me
and Lisa, etc. but it would be helpful to me if you could at least keep
with the topic. Telling Lisa to "inject more heart and spirit in your
thought....and then you will see someting outside your own very , very
narrow point of view" really adds nothing to the conversation, IMO. Telling
me I am "all mixed up" and asking if I "quack like a duck" when you are
having problems following the conversation is really not helpful. Add to
that the fact that you have trouble understanding why some of your comments
seem preachy ... I don't know how I can help facilitate a more meaningful
dialogue. But I will try. This type of comment, IMO, adds nothing to the
conversation and makes you, IMO, sound judgemental while proselytizing:
"When the folks in this thread begin at least getting in their hearts and
then viewing Steiner from this new angle then they will see more clearly.
The heart is far wiser than the logical and scientific mind
The spirit much more infinte.
Good luck getting out of your heads and to somewhere much bigger and
greater."
FYI, Mark, some critics/survivors live deeply spiritual lives - just not a
l'anthroposophie. Can we dispense with the spiritual hierarchy? Let's go
through this again: You wrote:
)My definitions about religion were completely unrelated Anthrosophy.
)They were referring to comments you ade about my writings...that I was
being religious
)and preachy.
Mark, in a previous post your wrote:
"What Anthroposophy is not:
a) It is not a mystic movement or set of ideas. Mysticism is essentially
based upon feelings and is transmitted under the form of images and
metaphors. Anthroposophy is transmitted to the conscious thinking under the
form of concepts.
b) It is not a religion."
Then you offered a definition of religion in another post. This is
helpful - helps me understand where you are coming from. I then posted a
dictionary definition:
Mirriam-Webster Online
Main Entry: an·thro·pos·o·phy
Pronunciation: "an(t)-thr&-'pä-s&-fE
Function: noun
: a 20th century religious system growing out of theosophy and centering on
human development
See, your dictionary definition of "religion" added to my understanding of
your thoughts. We found common ground - a good thing. Would you now be
willing to share your thoughts on why Eugene Schwartz (and he is certainly
not alone in this respect) sees Waldorf as one religious experience after
another and the dictionary describes Anthroposophy as a "religious system?"
If you still see me as being "all mixed up," can you explain your reasons?
Thanks.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 10:53:57 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: School Spirit(s): Just ask the gnome: It's hard to get a good
read on the Waldorf teachings
Originally published by Houston Press Feb 05, 2004
http://www.houstonpress.com/issues/2004-02-05/news.html/1/index.html
(c)2004 New Times, Inc. All rights reserved.
School Spirit(s)
Just ask the gnome: It's hard to get a good read on the Waldorf teachings
BY MICHAEL SERAZIO
(cartoon by Al Cameron)
The gnome says no to the bad TV spirits.
Like little butterflies, the children have been
fluttering in for half an hour. School starts at
8:30, but that's not a hard and fast rule.
Parents drop them off and they join the others in
free playtime, building forts with sheets and
blocks and small wooden chairs in the middle of
the room. A white-haired woman in a grandmotherly
apron stands nearby; the children call her Miss
Dorothy. Miss Dorothy drops off a packet with the
curriculum and remarks, "We're part of a much
bigger picture here."
Shining Star Kindergarten in northwest Houston is
indeed part of something much larger: Waldorf
methods, a philosophy based in part on spirits
and the cosmos at large. The watercolors on the
wall hint at the gentle, pastel, Monet-like
existence that Shining Star, now three years old,
strives to cultivate. There are no TVs, no
computers and no commercial toys. In a childhood
world painted Pokémon, Shining Star is a burst of
Little House on the Prairie. "We don't use
plastics, we don't use play cloth -- all our
cloths are cotton or silk -- and we don't use any
nylon," says Miss Dorothy. "A lot of things are
very toxic to our children." These toxic things
include worksheets, testing and learning how to
read.
A parent of a prospective student sits down at a
low table, and Miss Dorothy brings over a basket
of sandpaper and blocks and a sheet of paper. It
reads "No spectators in our Kindergarten Room"
and explains how the visitor must be engaged in a
task that can be imitated by the children. The
visitor goes to work, rubbing at the tree block.
A few minutes later, sure enough, three children
float over to the coarse sawing noise. They, too,
begin sanding without instruction.
"Clean our room, clean our room." Miss Dorothy's
singsong voice loops over their giggles and
chatter like wind chimes. She gets the room in
order, as both parents and children gather in a
circle around a violet candle.
"Let's see what Dusty Gnome says," Miss Dorothy
asks, pressing her ear to a small hooded doll.
Ten feet away, Dusty Gnome's response is not
audible. The children and adults raise their
hands toward the ceiling. "I reach high into the
sky and bring golden sunlight into my heart,"
they recite. A child lights the candle and the
group bows before it. "Good morning, dear earth!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Shining Star brochure claims the Waldorf
approach "allows the fantasy world of the child
to develop, giving full reign to creative and
individualistic expression." About ten children,
ages three and a half to six, attend the school
for up to five days a week. Their monthly tuition
varies from $285 to $530, depending on whether
they stay for the afternoon session. To a
neurotic outsider, the day's schedule might look
like it was designed by The Dude from The Big
Lebowski (sans joint and white Russians):
playtime in the morning, maybe a bit of
watercolor or modeling with beeswax, snack time,
free play outside, some storytelling, lunch, a
nap, then back outside for more play.
"We've brought so much academics down to the K
and pre-K level, they're miserable," says Miss
Dorothy, whose last name is Ogle and who has been
teaching Waldorf methods for more than 20 years.
She bemoans the idea of "ditto sheets" -- wincing
at the very mention of the copy-and-repeat
exercises -- and stands firm against teaching
children to read too early, exposing them to
media and technology or giving them tests before
high school. Waldorf believes children learn by
imitation up to age seven, then advance into the
feeling realm until they reach age 14, when they
finally enter the thinking realm.
Although their classroom is located in the back
corner of the Unitarian Fellowship church, school
leaders say the connection is in rent alone.
"We're not religious at all, no, because we teach
no dogma, we teach no certain way to believe,"
says Ogle. "I, as a teacher, recognize that these
children came from the spirit world -- but I
don't teach them that. That's a lot different."
They've learned a verse that's recited before
they eat: "Earth, who gives to us this food, sun
who makes it ripe and good. Dear sun, dear earth,
by you we live, our loving thanks to you we give."
"So there's never at any time any type of dogma," she adds in a sunny voice.
Some are not so sure. The underpinning for the
Waldorf education comes from a spiritual movement
known as anthroposophy, developed by an Austrian
named Rudolf Steiner. Steiner opened the first
Waldorf school in Germany in 1919. According to
the Association of Waldorf Schools of North
America, there are now more than 850 schools
worldwide, including 169 in North America -- they
claim it is "the fastest-growing nonsectarian
independent school movement in the world."
Waldorf methods such as delayed reading and
removing competition from school have never been
tested quantitatively against public schools.
"It's hard to describe the value of this
education," says Ogle. Waldorf educators and
parents argue that the very nature of the
curriculum makes it impossible to measure
according to traditional standards, pointing
instead to the anecdotal evidence of recent
graduates.
"We're quite comfortable with the fact that
children are seven or eight years old by the time
reading clicks with them," says David Darcy, an
administrator at The Harvest, a Waldorf school in
Spring that opened two years ago. "In the public
school, those would be considered
learning-disabled."
"It sounds like voodoo to say something like
that, and yet the person who started Waldorf
education, he had some insights."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critics of Waldorf question how forthcoming the
schools are with those insights. They wonder if
teachers trained primarily in anthroposophy wind
up applying it in the classroom.
"My daughter was in a Waldorf school for about a
year, and I noticed after a while there were a
lot of things going on that were kind of curious
and mysterious," says John Holland, a parent in
Berkeley who established www.openwaldorf.com as a
forum for discussion. He gives one example: "At
the holiday craft fair, there were gnomes
everywhere. There were no Santas, snowmen or
anything. It was all gnomes."
Ogle recognizes that "there are elemental beings
out there in natureŠbeings who take care of the
air and the water and the soil."
"I've never ever tried to teach them that," she
says. "I'll tell you what they have done. I will
sometimes, if I think they're not having the
right respect for things in the room, I will have
them take a gnome and, say, put it where the
gnome is comfortable."
The TV and computer blackout is based upon the
anthroposophic belief that a dark spirit called
ahriman inhabits electronic media and binds
people to the earth. "All of these things like
computers and televisions can lead us into this
pseudo-reality to live as though there's a whole
world there," says Darcy, who acknowledges that
he's open to the idea of gnomes. He also points
out that Waldorf's stance on reading has to do
with the fact that the body needs to push out the
hardest force, the teeth, during the first period
of physical transformation. "Illnesses later in
life can be traced to this premature
intellectuality that comes in childhood."
Holland had no problem with a religious
foundation forming the basis of Waldorf methods
-- he just felt they weren't open enough about
it. "They say, 'We don't teach anthroposophy,'
but anthroposophy forms the educational basis,"
he says. "I had this feeling from the very first
day that something was going on that I wasn't
quite getting."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In February 1998, PLANS, a Waldorf critics group,
filed a federal lawsuit against two Northern
California school districts, claiming that the
Waldorf approach in public schools violates the
First Amendment separation of church and state.
The trial is set for September.
"It's hard to get out once you get in," says
Debra Snell, president of PLANS and a former
Waldorf parent. "It's a closed system." Snell
says that through their Web site she has been in
contact with about 100 Waldorf "survivors" --
although she would not disclose their identities,
citing confidentiality concerns.
Scott Olmsted, administrative director for the
Waldorf schools association, dismisses the merit
of PLANS' lawsuit, claiming that any bad
experiences are the fault of the individual
teacher and not the system as a whole. "I think
that the criticisms are based on anecdotal
evidence and they in no way reflect the policies
of the school," he says, later conceding that
Waldorf praise is also based on anecdotal
evidence. "With the critics, you have to wonder
what their real issue is."
Some parents at Shining Star, a private
institution not yet accredited, have no problem
with the "spiritual plane" from which the school
operates. Several say that they would have
considered homeschooling, but prefer the artistic
and social exposure that Waldorf provides.
Monette Chilson calls Shining Star "a breath of
fresh air" after her daughter's public school
experience. She's fascinated by some of the ideas
about gnomes and teeth, even as those in her
family wonder if it's not a little odd and
hippie-ish. "My sister, she thinks we're crazy,
so you have to be really strong in your
convictions," says Chilson. Her only worry is
that they won't be able to achieve the vision of
eight full grades in coming years.
"There is some stuff that made me go, 'That
sounds weird,' " says Carol Denson, a mother at
Shining Star who is in Waldorf training and plans
to teach its new first grade next year. Denson
uses a comment she once heard to explain her
view: "Sometimes you'll read something and think,
'That's really strange,' but if you just stay
open to it and use it in working with the
children, it just fits okay."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in the school's playroom, the parent of the
prospective student joins in the circle of
children for "music and movement" time. Their
chants become song: "I came from the heavens to
be here on this earth."
They march around the candle, miming the motion
of chopping wood. It's a "spirit recital of
Mother Earth" where "seeds and flowers await new
birth."
Outside the window, the yard offers a pastoral
panorama of forest, contrasting with the grocery
store and strip mall across the street. Inside
this room, the children look spacey and relaxed
as they imitate tai chi stretches set to fairy
tale musings.
And from a shelf nearby, Dusty Gnome watches over
them with a blank expression, giving nothing away.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:00:10 -0800
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Houston Waldorf Article
Be sure to visit the web site to check out the wonderful cartoon that
goes with the article.
Debra
) http://www.houstonpress.com/issues/2004-02-05/news.html/1/index.html
)
)
) School Spirit(s)
) Just ask the gnome: It's hard to get a good read on the Waldorf
) teachings
) BY MICHAEL SERAZIO
) feedback houstonpress.com
)
) Like little butterflies, the children have been fluttering in for half
) an hour. School starts at 8:30, but that's not a hard and fast rule.
) Parents drop them off and they join the others in free playtime,
) building forts with sheets and blocks and small wooden chairs in the
) middle of the room. A white-haired woman in a grandmotherly apron
) stands nearby; the children call her Miss Dorothy. Miss Dorothy drops
) off a packet with the curriculum and remarks, "We're part of a much
) bigger picture here."
)
) Shining Star Kindergarten in northwest Houston is indeed part of
) something much larger: Waldorf methods, a philosophy based in part on
) spirits and the cosmos at large. The watercolors on the wall hint at
) the gentle, pastel, Monet-like existence that Shining Star, now three
) years old, strives to cultivate. There are no TVs, no computers and no
) commercial toys. In a childhood world painted Pokémon, Shining Star is
) a burst of Little House on the Prairie. "We don't use plastics, we
) don't use play cloth -- all our cloths are cotton or silk -- and we
) don't use any nylon," says Miss Dorothy. "A lot of things are very
) toxic to our children." These toxic things include worksheets, testing
) and learning how to read.
)
) A parent of a prospective student sits down at a low table, and Miss
) Dorothy brings over a basket of sandpaper and blocks and a sheet of
) paper. It reads "No spectators in our Kindergarten Room" and explains
) how the visitor must be engaged in a task that can be imitated by the
) children. The visitor goes to work, rubbing at the tree block. A few
) minutes later, sure enough, three children float over to the coarse
) sawing noise. They, too, begin sanding without instruction.
)
) "Clean our room, clean our room." Miss Dorothy's singsong voice loops
) over their giggles and chatter like wind chimes. She gets the room in
) order, as both parents and children gather in a circle around a violet
) candle.
)
) "Let's see what Dusty Gnome says," Miss Dorothy asks, pressing her ear
) to a small hooded doll. Ten feet away, Dusty Gnome's response is not
) audible. The children and adults raise their hands toward the ceiling.
) "I reach high into the sky and bring golden sunlight into my heart,"
) they recite. A child lights the candle and the group bows before it.
) "Good morning, dear earth!"
)
) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
)
) A Shining Star brochure claims the Waldorf approach "allows the fantasy
) world of the child to develop, giving full reign to creative and
) individualistic expression." About ten children, ages three and a half
) to six, attend the school for up to five days a week. Their monthly
) tuition varies from $285 to $530, depending on whether they stay for
) the afternoon session. To a neurotic outsider, the day's schedule might
) look like it was designed by The Dude from The Big Lebowski (sans joint
) and white Russians): playtime in the morning, maybe a bit of watercolor
) or modeling with beeswax, snack time, free play outside, some
) storytelling, lunch, a nap, then back outside for more play.
)
) "We've brought so much academics down to the K and pre-K level, they're
) miserable," says Miss Dorothy, whose last name is Ogle and who has been
) teaching Waldorf methods for more than 20 years. She bemoans the idea
) of "ditto sheets" -- wincing at the very mention of the copy-and-repeat
) exercises -- and stands firm against teaching children to read too
) early, exposing them to media and technology or giving them tests
) before high school. Waldorf believes children learn by imitation up to
) age seven, then advance into the feeling realm until they reach age 14,
) when they finally enter the thinking realm.
)
) Although their classroom is located in the back corner of the Unitarian
) Fellowship church, school leaders say the connection is in rent alone.
)
) "We're not religious at all, no, because we teach no dogma, we teach no
) certain way to believe," says Ogle. "I, as a teacher, recognize that
) these children came from the spirit world -- but I don't teach them
) that. That's a lot different."
)
) They've learned a verse that's recited before they eat: "Earth, who
) gives to us this food, sun who makes it ripe and good. Dear sun, dear
) earth, by you we live, our loving thanks to you we give."
)
) "So there's never at any time any type of dogma," she adds in a sunny
) voice.
)
) Some are not so sure. The underpinning for the Waldorf education comes
) from a spiritual movement known as anthroposophy, developed by an
) Austrian named Rudolf Steiner. Steiner opened the first Waldorf school
) in Germany in 1919. According to the Association of Waldorf Schools of
) North America, there are now more than 850 schools worldwide, including
) 169 in North America -- they claim it is "the fastest-growing
) nonsectarian independent school movement in the world." Waldorf methods
) such as delayed reading and removing competition from school have never
) been tested quantitatively against public schools.
)
) "It's hard to describe the value of this education," says Ogle. Waldorf
) educators and parents argue that the very nature of the curriculum
) makes it impossible to measure according to traditional standards,
) pointing instead to the anecdotal evidence of recent graduates.
)
) "We're quite comfortable with the fact that children are seven or eight
) years old by the time reading clicks with them," says David Darcy, an
) administrator at The Harvest, a Waldorf school in Spring that opened
) two years ago. "In the public school, those would be considered
) learning-disabled."
)
) "It sounds like voodoo to say something like that, and yet the person
) who started Waldorf education, he had some insights."
)
) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
)
) Critics of Waldorf question how forthcoming the schools are with those
) insights. They wonder if teachers trained primarily in anthroposophy
) wind up applying it in the classroom.
)
) "My daughter was in a Waldorf school for about a year, and I noticed
) after a while there were a lot of things going on that were kind of
) curious and mysterious," says John Holland, a parent in Berkeley who
) established www.openwaldorf.com as a forum for discussion. He gives one
) example: "At the holiday craft fair, there were gnomes everywhere.
) There were no Santas, snowmen or anything. It was all gnomes."
)
) Ogle recognizes that "there are elemental beings out there in
) nature…beings who take care of the air and the water and the soil."
)
) "I've never ever tried to teach them that," she says. "I'll tell you
) what they have done. I will sometimes, if I think they're not having
) the right respect for things in the room, I will have them take a gnome
) and, say, put it where the gnome is comfortable."
)
) The TV and computer blackout is based upon the anthroposophic belief
) that a dark spirit called ahriman inhabits electronic media and binds
) people to the earth. "All of these things like computers and
) televisions can lead us into this pseudo-reality to live as though
) there's a whole world there," says Darcy, who acknowledges that he's
) open to the idea of gnomes. He also points out that Waldorf's stance on
) reading has to do with the fact that the body needs to push out the
) hardest force, the teeth, during the first period of physical
) transformation. "Illnesses later in life can be traced to this
) premature intellectuality that comes in childhood."
)
) Holland had no problem with a religious foundation forming the basis of
) Waldorf methods -- he just felt they weren't open enough about it.
) "They say, 'We don't teach anthroposophy,' but anthroposophy forms the
) educational basis," he says. "I had this feeling from the very first
) day that something was going on that I wasn't quite getting."
)
) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
)
) In February 1998, PLANS, a Waldorf critics group, filed a federal
) lawsuit against two Northern California school districts, claiming that
) the Waldorf approach in public schools violates the First Amendment
) separation of church and state. The trial is set for September.
)
) "It's hard to get out once you get in," says Debra Snell, president of
) PLANS and a former Waldorf parent. "It's a closed system." Snell says
) that through their Web site she has been in contact with about 100
) Waldorf "survivors" -- although she would not disclose their
) identities, citing confidentiality concerns.
)
) Scott Olmsted, administrative director for the Waldorf schools
) association, dismisses the merit of PLANS' lawsuit, claiming that any
) bad experiences are the fault of the individual teacher and not the
) system as a whole. "I think that the criticisms are based on anecdotal
) evidence and they in no way reflect the policies of the school," he
) says, later conceding that Waldorf praise is also based on anecdotal
) evidence. "With the critics, you have to wonder what their real issue
) is."
)
) Some parents at Shining Star, a private institution not yet accredited,
) have no problem with the "spiritual plane" from which the school
) operates. Several say that they would have considered homeschooling,
) but prefer the artistic and social exposure that Waldorf provides.
)
) Monette Chilson calls Shining Star "a breath of fresh air" after her
) daughter's public school experience. She's fascinated by some of the
) ideas about gnomes and teeth, even as those in her family wonder if
) it's not a little odd and hippie-ish. "My sister, she thinks we're
) crazy, so you have to be really strong in your convictions," says
) Chilson. Her only worry is that they won't be able to achieve the
) vision of eight full grades in coming years.
)
) "There is some stuff that made me go, 'That sounds weird,' " says Carol
) Denson, a mother at Shining Star who is in Waldorf training and plans
) to teach its new first grade next year. Denson uses a comment she once
) heard to explain her view: "Sometimes you'll read something and think,
) 'That's really strange,' but if you just stay open to it and use it in
) working with the children, it just fits okay."
)
) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
)
) Back in the school's playroom, the parent of the prospective student
) joins in the circle of children for "music and movement" time. Their
) chants become song: "I came from the heavens to be here on this earth."
)
) They march around the candle, miming the motion of chopping wood. It's
) a "spirit recital of Mother Earth" where "seeds and flowers await new
) birth."
)
) Outside the window, the yard offers a pastoral panorama of forest,
) contrasting with the grocery store and strip mall across the street.
) Inside this room, the children look spacey and relaxed as they imitate
) tai chi stretches set to fairy tale musings.
)
) And from a shelf nearby, Dusty Gnome watches over them with a blank
) expression, giving nothing away.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:19:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: [Re: once more on science]
--0-224901316-1076012387=:6887
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Dan.....my emails have been much shorter than many others on here...in fact i made
suggestions to shorten
"sometimes less is more"
Always meaning... no meaninglessness.
Mark
Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
Mark (and everyone else, I single you out because you are the worst),
please quote only the text you need to explain what you are replying
to. Please do not quote a whole message just to make a one-line
comment on it. Your current practice is filling up the digests and
archives with meaningless repetition.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 17:51:53 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: [Re: once more on science]
I think Dan was suggesting that when a board member responds to a previous
post, the person ought to copy and paste the part being referred to in an
entirely new email envelope. In other words, quote only the pertinent part
of the message you are responding to. Much cleaner and more concise.
Lisa
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:19:47 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: Admin: [Re: once more on science]
Dan.....my emails have been much shorter than many others on here...in fact
i made
suggestions to shorten
"sometimes less is more"
Always meaning... no meaninglessness.
Mark
Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 14:57:52 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: [Re: once more on science]
--0-843458196-1076021872=:70678
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
makes sense of course
"Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com) wrote:I think Dan was suggesting that when a board member responds to a previous post, the person ought to copy and paste the part being referred to in an entirely new email envelope. In other words, quote only the pertinent part of the message you are responding to. Much cleaner and more concise.
Lisa
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 12:19:47 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: Admin: [Re: once more on science]
Dan.....my emails have been much shorter than many others on here...in fact i made
suggestions to shorten
"sometimes less is more"
Always meaning... no meaninglessness.
Mark
Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=22055/*http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html)
==^================================================================You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 15:43:04 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: [Re: once more on science]
)I think Dan was suggesting that when a board member responds to a
)previous post, the person ought to copy and paste the part being
)referred to in an entirely new email envelope.
The easiest way is to just delete all the excess quoted text from the
message you're composing.
)In other words, quote only the pertinent part of the message you are
)responding to. Much cleaner and more concise.
)
)Lisa
Exactly, Thanks, Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 05:59:54 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote)
)science is hindrance...take a look around at how science has created
)massive destruction, alienation from nature, pollution, isolation( look at
)this me typing alone on my high tech tool ( product of science ) ) ,....
)
Peter F responds:
Rubbish! Science has NOT created massive destruction, alienation from
nature, pollution, isolation ...
People acting with greed and insufficient foresight have. Science has
delivered some tools to those people (you and me) to aid in the process of
making a mess. One might also blame Christianity of course. What's that
verse about dominion over nature?
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 06:09:56 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
)This is my point... we don't need to be bringing science to this point. It
)is not cloning that is the problem...it's the journey of science that
)brought us to that point!
)If the scientist was required to be a bit of a humanist, psychologist,
)philosopher and congressed with others before taking this journey...then
)they might say...
)NO...we have no reason to set out on this ridiculous journey of creating a
)clone.
)
Peter F responds.
This kind of rubbish really gets up my nose. Where do you get off telling me
to be more of a humanist or philosopher. I am a scientist and I know many
hundreds of scientists. They don't need to be required to be some of these
good things you're talking about. They are already!! They are because they
are human and have families and have all sorts of interests apart from their
work.
Go and have a look at the degree programs for scientists and engineers in
Universities around the world. They very commonly if not universally include
some kind of philosphy of science and ethics in engineering course. As well
students are ENCOURAGED to do subjects outside of the core discipline, and
they have been for at least decades.
On the other hand if you are talking about politicians or captains of
industry...
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 22:16:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
--0-1704089450-1076048168=:36339
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Rubbish back at cha...
Science has so. To be more succinct.... it is really the thinkng behind science... in other words the thinking that supports scientific approach
( which is the same as science itself because science could not exist without the human thinking that grows it and supports it and starts it. )
So ...yes science has done it...in fact greed supports the furthering of science ( Pharma industry for example...Pharma and Wall St are so closely tied it's a joke ) ...and this way science it not separate from greed but rather arising mutually supporting each other.
People acting out of greed and no foresight could NOT have accomplished the amount of damage and destruction without the tools that science and technology have so willingly provided...thus making science and technology just as evil as greed is.
Peter F responds:
Rubbish! Science has NOT created massive destruction, alienation from
nature, pollution, isolation ...
People acting with greed and insufficient foresight have. Science has
delivered some tools to those people (you and me) to aid in the process of
making a mess. One might also blame Christianity of course. What's that
verse about dominion over nature?
________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 22:34:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
This is the kind of crap gets up my.....
Where do you get off telling me I have no right to an opinion???
Tell me Peter. Where?
I am also a scientist. I was NOT commenting about YOU specifically you ego-cented
man! I was making philosophical statements about the nature, direction and place of science in our world.
Frankly it sucks! It's friggin mess. If "we" scientists stood up and chose not to support mass development of science that doesn't serve the human condition and the planet..but rather furthers our demise...we would all be better off.
Leave nature and the planet ALONE!!!!!!! And it's majesty, power, beauty will go into self correcting mode.....ALL BY ITSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You guys piss me of with your CLOSED MINDS!!!! AGGGHHHHH!
I know about universities...but great if that extended to the work and business world.
Mark Fitzpatrick
Certified iNet Webmaster
Master's Computer Science - NJIT 1998
10 years programming and computer development
Peter F responds.
This kind of rubbish really gets up my nose. Where do you get off telling me
to be more of a humanist or philosopher. I am a scientist and I know many
hundreds of scientists. They don't need to be required to be some of these
good things you're talking about. They are already!! They are because they
are human and have families and have all sorts of interests apart from their
work.
Go and have a look at the degree programs for scientists and engineers in
Universities around the world. They very commonly if not universally include
some kind of philosphy of science and ethics in engineering course. As well
students are ENCOURAGED to do subjects outside of the core discipline, and
they have been for at least decades.
On the other hand if you are talking about politicians or captains of
industry...
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: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 06:47:18 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
Complete rubbish back at you.
The people I know personally and well who work in research establishments do
so partly because they are good at it, partly because they think that they
are doing good, and partly to pay the mortgage and raise the kids.
I think that your descriptions of science can only be based on ignorance.
The only common kind of thinking is science is based on the common notions
of logical argument and evidence. This may be driven by gut feelings and led
by the heart. Those notions that fail the tests of evidence and argument
fail. It's that simple. Of course this is being done by large numbers of
people, so mistakes get made, wrong paths get taken, evidence is sometimes
unclear and complicated arguments are complicated.
Your alternative appears to rely on following one's heart and on gut feel.
The problem is that this is even less reliable than science. Go and ask the
survivors from Easter Island. Oh sorry, there aren't any.
Let me put it another way. There isn't anything wrong with pharmaceuticals
per se. There may well be something wrong with the pharmaceutical industry,
at least as it works in the US.
Let me say one more thing. If your knowledge of science comes from Steiner,
get another teacher.
See you, peter
_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 23:00:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
Total rubbish back at you... I am a scientists and have been so for 10 years.
I am convinced your ego and self-centered nature prevents you from offering up interesting and reasonable viewpoints.
Your view point illustrate massive ignorance. Get new teachers.
Peter...wake up! We have created a bomb that's killed millions...
tell me what so great about that? Created by science and executed by
ego-centered humanity.
I could give to list that goes on and on...but why...you are so closed off it's disgusting.
...toxic dumps
...excessive pharma
...over technology
...over consumer abundance ( only possible due to support by technology ) and all the garbage that gets created by throwing out the new to replace it with the newer.
Don't you care about our grandkids to over pompous self inflated ego centered person!!!????? We are destroting the planet with science, technology, ego-centeredness and greed....don't you care? Take away science and technology in the above summation...and we left with no way to be destruction. Greed will always exist...but it has mush less power without the TOOLS for destruction...which are science and technology.
Mark F. - Computer Scientist
Masters Computer Science NJIT
Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) wrote:
Complete rubbish back at you.
The people I know personally and well who work in research establishments do
so partly because they are good at it, partly because they think that they
are doing good, and partly to pay the mortgage and raise the kids.
I think that your descriptions of science can only be based on ignorance.
The only common kind of thinking is science is based on the common notions
of logical argument and evidence. This may be driven by gut feelings and led
by the heart. Those notions that fail the tests of evidence and argument
fail. It's that simple. Of course this is being done by large numbers of
people, so mistakes get made, wrong paths get taken, evidence is sometimes
unclear and complicated arguments are complicated.
Your alternative appears to rely on following one's heart and on gut feel.
The problem is that this is even less reliable than science. Go and ask the
survivors from Easter Island. Oh sorry, there aren't any.
Let me put it another way. There isn't anything wrong with pharmaceuticals
per se. There may well be something wrong with the pharmaceutical industry,
at least as it works in the US.
Let me say one more thing. If your knowledge of science comes from Steiner,
get another teacher.
See you, peter
_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 07:00:55 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
You were talking about me! It was very clear. I agree that it wasn't just
me. I have no doubt that Dan will be having a go at you for ad hominem when
he gets around to it. It strikes me as odd that so many of the DOFs seem to
want to do this here. Why? You are entitled to an opinion, but any
expression of an opinion here is likely to get you into an argument. In
fact, it should be taken as a complement that I consider your opinion worth
arguing with.
The problem with your argument is that scientists do not have a single
opinion about what does constitute the best approach or even a good approach
to many problems. I claim to do exactly what you say I should do. I only
work on projects and problems that I think are good. Others may disagree.
Some people work for the nuclear industry because they truly believe that is
the only technology which will allow us to save the planet.
So which mess do you want to fix?
I do have an open mind. It's open to logical argument and evidence. I have
even changed my mind once or twice when I have been shown the argument and
the evidence. It does not open more by you telling me I am egocentric. As
far as I know I am the only current contributor to this list who is a
practising scientist. It is reasonably well known on the list that that is
so.
Let's test whether you have an open mind. We already discussed Steiner's
honesty and I suggested you read something. Have you had a look? Is it how
I described it? Is it consistent with Steiner being honest or dishonest?
Following this up might be a real test of how open your mind is.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Get less junk mail with ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 07:24:19 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
More ad hominems instead of reasoned argument and evidence. How am I meant
to take you seriously?
Let's talk about the bombs (I guess you mean nuclear). They were developed
by scientists during the Second World War who acted from their hearts. They
really and truly thought they were doing the right thing in the fight
against Hitler. One can argue with them (except most are dead now) but they
were in fact doing what you are suggesting that scientists do. The
developers of the H bomb after the war (Teller and von Neumann for example)
also thought they were doing the right thing, this time to make sure that
Stalin couldn't take over the world. Perhaps they were wrong but they were
doing just what you asked them to do. Since then, many more scientists have
worked to remove nuclear weapons from the world than have worked to produce
them. The difficulty is that it is possible to be sound of mind and
personally moral and work on nuclear weapons. It is also possible to be
sound of mind, personally moral and be a soldier.
Nuclear weapons have not killed millions. At most the death toll from
nuclear weapons is a few hundred thousand. Many more people have died from
conventional weapons and I think they are just as dead. One can die from a
punch in the face, or by being hit by a rock, or by being cut with a sharp
rock, or by a spear or an arrow, or a cross bow, or a bullet, or a cannon,
or a sword, or even an overdose. All of these will make you dead.
I happen to think that we would be better off without nuclear weapons. I
also think we are better off having at least one nuclear reactor, rather
than none, at least at the moment.
The problem with the pharmaceutical industry is not the scientists. It's the
fact that the US government doesn't want to regulate the industry in an
appropriate way. As far as I am aware, the only pharmaceuticals we are
overusing in a serious way to the detriment of our environment are
antibiotics. Our children and grandchildren will probably pay the price.
That is a problem that arises from the industry. Not from the science or the
scientists that developed and continue to develop antibiotics.
So you are the ten year scientist. Computer scientist it seems. What are you
doing in your backyard to fix one of the issues you have some control over?
How do you exercise this working from the heart within that discipline?
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:)
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
E-mail just got a whole lot better. New ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 23:27:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
--0-1995933333-1076052477=:40132
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Peter...
this is how self-absorbed and ego-centered you are.
Peter -) "As far as I know I am the only current contributor to this list who is a
practising scientist. It is reasonably well known on the list that that is
so."
I have TOLD you at least 3 times in the last emails that I am also a scientist ( Computer Scientist ) and here you state that you are the ONLY one on the list when i have made it abundantantly clear that I make it at LEAST 2!!!
This is the closed minded thing I am talking about...you are not even really listening to me!!! Why? Because your ego-centered mind is much more focused on talking and defending rather than TRULY listening to what I am saying!!
What do I want to fix???
Nothing...Nothing...until awareness takes place ...nothing can be "fixed"
Second ...my goal is to be ego-less. In other words the greatest thing I can do , we can do...is leave the Earth alone! That means there is nothing for me to do except learn how to live with nature again... is this so far gone from you that you can't even imagine that their have been cultures and peoples ( and still are ) that know how to live with reverence for nature and no need for tech and sci...
They live in harmony with the planet and we do not. You will notice I am not poiting the finger at you..i am holding the whole human race responsible...collectively we have done this....collectively we can reverse it.
problem is awareness....10 emails and you still , in all your ignorance cannot se and acknowledge the huge sh-- our planet is in?/!!!
You have no awareness...but most don't ..so don't feel alone.
Talk to some compassionate environmental scientists....watch Alan Watts...
"Man in Nature" - "Work as Play".
Let's test how open your mind is....give it two days...I will give you my evaluation of Steiner and you give me your eval of Watts - "Man in Nature" - "Work as Play".
I doubt you will meet my challenge...you are too closed off... worried about your little world and your ego centered existence...your mortgage.....blah blah.
"You can’t start a fire worrying about your little world falling apart" - Sprinsteen
Mark
ps...what a bunch crap..about ad hominem....
can't stand up for yourself...it's get a little passionate and you must tattle to Daddy ( Dan).... poor Peter....meow..
Besides...it was you first who became nasty using words like Rubbish .and taking my comments personally...when I was only referring to science and the human condition....
not you ...you ego-centered person.
Peter Farrell (feetapparel hotmail.com) wrote:
You were talking about me! It was very clear. I agree that it wasn't just
me. I have no doubt that Dan will be having a go at you for ad hominem when
he gets around to it. It strikes me as odd that so many of the DOFs seem to
want to do this here. Why? You are entitled to an opinion, but any
expression of an opinion here is likely to get you into an argument. In
fact, it should be taken as a complement that I consider your opinion worth
arguing with.
The problem with your argument is that scientists do not have a single
opinion about what does constitute the best approach or even a good approach
to many problems. I claim to do exactly what you say I should do. I only
work on projects and problems that I think are good. Others may disagree.
Some people work for the nuclear industry because they truly believe that is
the only technology which will allow us to save the planet.
So which mess do you want to fix?
I do have an open mind. It's open to logical argument and evidence. I have
even changed my mind once or twice when I have been shown the argument and
the evidence. It does not open more by you telling me I am egocentric. As
far as I know I am the only current contributor to this list who is a
practising scientist. It is reasonably well known on the list that that is
so.
Let's test whether you have an open mind. We already discussed Steiner's
honesty and I suggested you read something. Have you had a look? Is it how
I described it? Is it consistent with Steiner being honest or dishonest?
Following this up might be a real test of how open your mind is.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
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: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 23:39:21 -0800
From: Debra Snell (snell gv.net)
Subject: Re: once more on science
On Thursday, February 5, 2004, at 10:09 PM, Peter Farrell wrote:
) Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
)) This is my point... we don't need to be bringing science to this
)) point. It is not cloning that is the problem...it's the journey of
)) science that brought us to that point!
)) If the scientist was required to be a bit of a humanist, psychologist,
)) philosopher and congressed with others before taking this
)) journey...then they might say...
)) NO...we have no reason to set out on this ridiculous journey of
)) creating a clone.
))
)
) Peter F responds.
) This kind of rubbish really gets up my nose. Where do you get off
) telling me to be more of a humanist or philosopher. I am a scientist
) and I know many hundreds of scientists. They don't need to be required
) to be some of these good things you're talking about. They are
) already!! They are because they are human and have families and have
) all sorts of interests apart from their work.
) Go and have a look at the degree programs for scientists and engineers
) in Universities around the world. They very commonly if not universally
) include some kind of philosphy of science and ethics in engineering
) course. As well students are ENCOURAGED to do subjects outside of the
) core discipline, and they have been for at least decades.
) On the other hand if you are talking about politicians or captains of
) industry...
) See you, Peter
)
Max, my former Waldorf student (who exited early and on his own
command), is fast becoming a science junkie. He is in 10th grade now
(Long days and short years), getting A's in Chemistry and thinking big
time about his future. (Totally Max.) He loves his classes. History,
math and science in particular. He doesn't love english, but he scores
very high (99%) on his standardized testing and gets A's in the subject
so that isn't much of a conversation here at home...
Max is seriously looking at a career in science, of some sort. Next
year's class schedule has so many 'AP' courses in it that I find myself
cautioning, "Don't worry if you need to drop a class..., "Are you sure
this is what you want to sign up for?" (He is certain. His reasoning is
almost bullet proof.)
That said about Max & science, Max is also a passionate film maker and
photographer. This is his medium for most of his work. Be it history,
english or science, his photography/film is his expression. He spends
weekends helping his buddies out making films in Spanish, what-have-you.
Science and art communicate well on a daily basis, from where I stand.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 23:56:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
--0-1660912527-1076054187=:67107
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
It is much more honorable to wage war ( be a warrior ) face to face.
a sword, knife , a fist or foot is 1000 times more honorable.
Why? Face to Face...level playing field.
Technology and Bombs are for back stabbing terrorists and COWARDS!!!
Disgusting cowards.
Meet me face to face and fight and I will have respect and honor.
Scientists that make boobs are cowards as much as the ones who drop them.
Ever heard of Tibet? The peoples of Tibet have so much honor that they are willing
to receive violence unreturned...why...because they have the heart and principle to stand for what they believe in - non-violence - even if it means their own death.
Would you be willing to die for a cause you believe in Peter?
Can you imagine if all the peoples on the Earth were this honorable and principled?
You are so lost...you probabaly cant even imagine.
What am I doing in my own backyard? I live life by example...
- I have been using bicycle (human non-polluting power ) to transport myself everywhere that is possible. For 2 years I have been doing this. I am doing this to show support for human power and non-pollution of the environment ( as opposed to the avg lazy American who uses auto and contributes to accelerated tech and pollution of the environ. )
- I am a volunteer on the committee to develop bike pathways in and around MPLS.
another way to promote non-pollute and pro-environ. ( making me also for simple tools ( bicycles ) that don't require excessive science or excessive tech )
- I use only herbs, roots and teas to keep my health. I have not taken antibiotics ( this not supporting the science that produces pharma's. ) in ten years and my health is better than it has ever been! Antibiotics are evil... our own body is capable of producing all the antibiotics it needs as it needs it...naturally!! Try it..you will like it.
- I have done everything posible to reduce use of science and tech in my life
- serve as an example to my daughter..so she can se it can be done.
- if i can do it...others can also. if we all take a stand against tech and science...the world would have to change...for the better I believe.
That's plenty of backyard stuff I do for now.. There is more though.
And Peter...trust me... this all comes from the heart..it is a compassionate heart for the planet...and my unborn grandchildren
If we think about where our grand kids are in for ...it's plain scary.
do you care Peter?
Mark
More ad hominems instead of reasoned argument and evidence. How am I meant
to take you seriously?
Let's talk about the bombs (I guess you mean nuclear). They were developed
by scientists during the Second World War who acted from their hearts. They
really and truly thought they were doing the right thing in the fight
against Hitler. One can argue with them (except most are dead now) but they
were in fact doing what you are suggesting that scientists do. The
developers of the H bomb after the war (Teller and von Neumann for example)
also thought they were doing the right thing, this time to make sure that
Stalin couldn't take over the world. Perhaps they were wrong but they were
doing just what you asked them to do. Since then, many more scientists have
worked to remove nuclear weapons from the world than have worked to produce
them. The difficulty is that it is possible to be sound of mind and
personally moral and work on nuclear weapons. It is also possible to be
sound of mind, personally moral and be a soldier.
Nuclear weapons have not killed millions. At most the death toll from
nuclear weapons is a few hundred thousand. Many more people have died from
conventional weapons and I think they are just as dead. One can die from a
punch in the face, or by being hit by a rock, or by being cut with a sharp
rock, or by a spear or an arrow, or a cross bow, or a bullet, or a cannon,
or a sword, or even an overdose. All of these will make you dead.
I happen to think that we would be better off without nuclear weapons. I
also think we are better off having at least one nuclear reactor, rather
than none, at least at the moment.
The problem with the pharmaceutical industry is not the scientists. It's the
fact that the US government doesn't want to regulate the industry in an
appropriate way. As far as I am aware, the only pharmaceuticals we are
overusing in a serious way to the detriment of our environment are
antibiotics. Our children and grandchildren will probably pay the price.
That is a problem that arises from the industry. Not from the science or the
scientists that developed and continue to develop antibiotics.
So you are the ten year scientist. Computer scientist it seems. What are you
doing in your backyard to fix one of the issues you have some control over?
How do you exercise this working from the heart within that discipline?
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:)
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
E-mail just got a whole lot better. 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: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 23:58:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
it's not science itself that's evil.... it's the thinking that tends to go along with it , before it, behind it...and that supports it...
Debra Snell (snell gv.net) wrote:
On Thursday, February 5, 2004, at 10:09 PM, Peter Farrell wrote:
) Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
)) This is my point... we don't need to be bringing science to this
)) point. It is not cloning that is the problem...it's the journey of
)) science that brought us to that point!
)) If the scientist was required to be a bit of a humanist, psychologist,
)) philosopher and congressed with others before taking this
)) journey...then they might say...
)) NO...we have no reason to set out on this ridiculous journey of
)) creating a clone.
))
)
) Peter F responds.
) This kind of rubbish really gets up my nose. Where do you get off
) telling me to be more of a humanist or philosopher. I am a scientist
) and I know many hundreds of scientists. They don't need to be required
) to be some of these good things you're talking about. They are
) already!! They are because they are human and have families and have
) all sorts of interests apart from their work.
) Go and have a look at the degree programs for scientists and engineers
) in Universities around the world. They very commonly if not universally
) include some kind of philosphy of science and ethics in engineering
) course. As well students are ENCOURAGED to do subjects outside of the
) core discipline, and they have been for at least decades.
) On the other hand if you are talking about politicians or captains of
) industry...
) See you, Peter
)
Max, my former Waldorf student (who exited early and on his own
command), is fast becoming a science junkie. He is in 10th grade now
(Long days and short years), getting A's in Chemistry and thinking big
time about his future. (Totally Max.) He loves his classes. History,
math and science in particular. He doesn't love english, but he scores
very high (99%) on his standardized testing and gets A's in the subject
so that isn't much of a conversation here at home...
Max is seriously looking at a career in science, of some sort. Next
year's class schedule has so many 'AP' courses in it that I find myself
cautioning, "Don't worry if you need to drop a class..., "Are you sure
this is what you want to sign up for?" (He is certain. His reasoning is
almost bullet proof.)
That said about Max & science, Max is also a passionate film maker and
photographer. This is his medium for most of his work. Be it history,
english or science, his photography/film is his expression. He spends
weekends helping his buddies out making films in Spanish, what-have-you.
Science and art communicate well on a daily basis, from where I stand.
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:03:45 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: once more on science
Peter F. wrote:
) Let's talk about the bombs (I guess you mean nuclear). They were developed
) by scientists during the Second World War who acted from their hearts.
They
) really and truly thought they were doing the right thing in the fight
) against Hitler. One can argue with them (except most are dead now) but
they
) were in fact doing what you are suggesting that scientists do. The
) developers of the H bomb after the war (Teller and von Neumann for
example)
) also thought they were doing the right thing, this time to make sure that
) Stalin couldn't take over the world. Perhaps they were wrong but they were
) doing just what you asked them to do.
Excellent point. Many years ago I worked with group called the Canadian
Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR). One of my chosen tasks was to
visit with high school kids and talk about Nuclear Energy. A tool I used
from time to time was a video of a debate between our national chairman, Dr.
Gordon Edwards and... Edward Teller (so-called father of the H bomb). I
knew and liked Gordon very much - a kinder, more intelligent person I have
rarely since found. Here's the catch. On the video, Teller comes across as
an extremely nice guy - he lost the debate - but my point is that he really
believed in what he was doing. And he was human. He certainly was no idiot
and was very passionate about his "work." So was Einstein.
Why I chose that tool (the video) for high school students was not
necessarily because it furthered "my cause" but because it clearly showed a
human side to the father of the H Bomb. It helped students see that here
are two human beings talking about the ethical implications of this
particular science. They debated and we all learned. "Science" is not the
culprit. Preconceived judgements are far worse, IMO.
What role did "science" play in the genocide of First Nations around the
globe. Well, if you count sailing ships as a scientific discovery, I
suppose you might have a case but are they really scientific? Are they the
cause? What did those ships carry? Among other things... Missionaries.
And religion. See how slippery this slope can become?
- Walden
P.S. Hey Mark - you left my previous questions unanswered... when you find
the time.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:07:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
--0-293554183-1076054832=:8556
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
which one walden?
mark
walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca) wrote:
Peter F. wrote:
) Let's talk about the bombs (I guess you mean nuclear). They were developed
) by scientists during the Second World War who acted from their hearts.
They
) really and truly thought they were doing the right thing in the fight
) against Hitler. One can argue with them (except most are dead now) but
they
) were in fact doing what you are suggesting that scientists do. The
) developers of the H bomb after the war (Teller and von Neumann for
example)
) also thought they were doing the right thing, this time to make sure that
) Stalin couldn't take over the world. Perhaps they were wrong but they were
) doing just what you asked them to do.
Excellent point. Many years ago I worked with group called the Canadian
Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR). One of my chosen tasks was to
visit with high school kids and talk about Nuclear Energy. A tool I used
from time to time was a video of a debate between our national chairman, Dr.
Gordon Edwards and... Edward Teller (so-called father of the H bomb). I
knew and liked Gordon very much - a kinder, more intelligent person I have
rarely since found. Here's the catch. On the video, Teller comes across as
an extremely nice guy - he lost the debate - but my point is that he really
believed in what he was doing. And he was human. He certainly was no idiot
and was very passionate about his "work." So was Einstein.
Why I chose that tool (the video) for high school students was not
necessarily because it furthered "my cause" but because it clearly showed a
human side to the father of the H Bomb. It helped students see that here
are two human beings talking about the ethical implications of this
particular science. They debated and we all learned. "Science" is not the
culprit. Preconceived judgements are far worse, IMO.
What role did "science" play in the genocide of First Nations around the
globe. Well, if you count sailing ships as a scientific discovery, I
suppose you might have a case but are they really scientific? Are they the
cause? What did those ships carry? Among other things... Missionaries.
And religion. See how slippery this slope can become?
- Walden
P.S. Hey Mark - you left my previous questions unanswered... when you find
the time.
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 08:08:49 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
Dear Mark,
I accept you are a scientist. I said so later in the post. The sentence I
wrote "As far as I know I am the only current contributor to this list who
is a practising scientist" might better have been written in the past tense,
but I didn't mean it to deny you your status as scientist. The sentence was
meant to refer to a time when you had just informed me of your status.
)
)Nothing...Nothing...until awareness takes place ...nothing can be "fixed"
)
)Second ...my goal is to be ego-less. In other words the greatest thing I
)can do , we can do...is leave the Earth alone! That means there is nothing
)for me to do except learn how to live with nature again... is this so far
)gone from you that you can't even imagine that their have been cultures and
)peoples ( and still are ) that know how to live with reverence for nature
)and no need for tech and sci...
Peter F responds.
You are welcome to your opinion. I happen to think there are better things
that you could be doing. Of course I could be wrong. I happen to believe
that you and I and science are as much a part of nature as anything else.
There is nothing that is unnatural. From this perspective, your view can
only be described as nonsense. However, it is probably pretty harmeless.
)
)They live in harmony with the planet and we do not. You will notice I am
)not poiting the finger at you..i am holding the whole human race
)responsible...collectively we have done this....collectively we can reverse
)it.
)
Peter F responds:
This is simply false. It is not true that other cultures have lived in
harmony or do live in harmony with nature in the sense you mean. Australia
is one of the most interesting examples. Humans came here something like
60000 years ago. At that time the flora and fauna were quite different. The
humans who came dramatically changed the environment with their hunting and
gathering practices. Many plants and animals became extinct. In so far as
they did live in harmony when Europeans came two hundred years ago, they did
so through low birth rates, low infant survival rates, short lifetimes due
to disease and so on. Had Australia been a much smaller island they may well
have become extinct as happened on Easter Island for example. You might like
to hang on to a false romantic notion that is not supported by any evidence.
)problem is awareness....10 emails and you still , in all your ignorance
)cannot se and acknowledge the huge sh-- our planet is in?/!!!
Peter F responds:
whose posts are you reading? I did not say the world was not in a mess. My
argument is that you cannot lay the blame on science and scientists. The
blame must be layed on humanity as a whole. The kind of wrecking of the
environment you are talking about is not a recent phenomenon. This is what
people do. The only solution is more science not less, so we can understand
how it is that we can construct societies together that are sustainable.
)
)You have no awareness...but most don't ..so don't feel alone.
Peter F.
Ad hominem. I am aware.
)
)Talk to some compassionate environmental scientists....watch Alan Watts...
)"Man in Nature" - "Work as Play".Peter F.
Peter F.
What makes you think I am not familar with Alan Watts? I have at least two
of his books on my shelf. I haven't read that one.
)
)Let's test how open your mind is....give it two days...I will give you my
)evaluation of Steiner and you give me your eval of Watts - "Man in Nature"
)- "Work as Play".
Peter F.
It won't happen in the next two days, but I will look at it. I asked you to
look at one Steiner Lecture, approximately one eighth of a book some time
ago. You are asking me to read a whole book. I am also in the middle of
writing a response to Joel about a book he asked me to read. I have read
that book twice, and I would like to read it again before I finish what I
would like to say to Joel about it. It has taken me some months.
)
)I doubt you will meet my challenge...you are too closed off... worried
)about your little world and your ego centered existence...your
)mortgage.....blah blah.
Peter F.
More ad hominems. My mortgage is part of the process of looking after my
children. Should I render them homeless?
)
)"You can’t start a fire worrying about your little world falling apart" -
)Sprinsteen
)
)Mark
)ps...what a bunch crap..about ad hominem....
)can't stand up for yourself...it's get a little passionate and you must
)tattle to Daddy ( Dan).... poor Peter....meow..
Peter F responds.
I only care because the ad hominems take the signal to noise ratio down. I
am standing up for myself.
)Besides...it was you first who became nasty using words like Rubbish .and
)taking my comments personally...when I was only referring to science and
)the human condition....
)not you ...you ego-centered person.
Peter F.
Describing an argument as "rubbish" is not nasty. Equally it was not first.
You were describing me, personally, (and yourself of course as well) as a
scientist as being a world wrecker. That's nasty. Responding to that with
"Rubbish" is not nasty. It means that the evidence and the argument are
sadly lacking. I don't have to run to Dan. Dan will spot them without any
comment from me. The no ad hominems is a well known rule of behaviour in
the list. It is an attempt to avoid the foolishness that arises as a result
of criticising a person rather than the argument. It makes no difference
whether I am open minded or closed minded, egocentric or not, good arguments
and good evidence are convincing. Your use of ad hominems indicates that you
do not have good arguments or evidence, and that somehow you feel personally
attacked (perhaps in the ego you are trying to remove) when your arguments
are attacked.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 08:24:18 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
Mark Fitzpatrick :
)It is much more honorable to wage war ( be a warrior ) face to face.
)a sword, knife , a fist or foot is 1000 times more honorable.
Peter F.
I don't like fighting at all.
)
)Why? Face to Face...level playing field.
Peter F.
The Los Alamos scientists were concerned that Hitler was developing nuclear
weapons. They were attempting to generate a level playing field in the face
of a monster. I don't care whether you think they were right or wrong. The
fact is that they did that work in good conscience.
)
)Technology and Bombs are for back stabbing terrorists and COWARDS!!!
)Disgusting cowards.
Peter F.
Your view. Other people of sound mind and good conscience might differ.
)
)Meet me face to face and fight and I will have respect and honor.
)Scientists that make boobs are cowards as much as the ones who drop them.
Peter F.
Don't you love Freudean slips. Janet Jackson eat your heart out. In so far
as it is possible for me I am meeting you face to face, not with fists but
with argument. I am treating you with sufficient respect that I am prepared
to do this.
)
)Ever heard of Tibet? The peoples of Tibet have so much honor that they are
)willing
)to receive violence unreturned...why...because they have the heart and
)principle to stand for what they believe in - non-violence - even if it
)means their own death.
)Would you be willing to die for a cause you believe in Peter?
Peter F.
I have heard of Tibet. I have known several refugees from Tibet who live in
Australia.
)
)Can you imagine if all the peoples on the Earth were this honorable and
)principled?
)You are so lost...you probabaly cant even imagine.
Peter F.
What you seem to not understand is that honorable people can have values and
principles which are different to the ones you hold. By what right do you
say you are right and they are wrong?
)
)What am I doing in my own backyard? I live life by example...
)
)- I have been using bicycle (human non-polluting power ) to transport
)myself everywhere that is possible. For 2 years I have been doing this. I
)am doing this to show support for human power and non-pollution of the
)environment ( as opposed to the avg lazy American who uses auto and
)contributes to accelerated tech and pollution of the environ. )
Peter F.
you have several years to catch up to me in the bicycle stakes.
)- I am a volunteer on the committee to develop bike pathways in and around
)MPLS.
)another way to promote non-pollute and pro-environ. ( making me also for
)simple tools ( bicycles ) that don't require excessive science or excessive
)tech )
Peter F.
MPLS?
)- I use only herbs, roots and teas to keep my health. I have not taken
)antibiotics ( this not supporting the science that produces pharma's. ) in
)ten years and my health is better than it has ever been! Antibiotics are
)evil... our own body is capable of producing all the antibiotics it needs
)as it needs it...naturally!! Try it..you will like it.
Peter F.
I beg to differ. I have had the misfortune to require antibiotics for
continued existence once or twice in my life. They are not evil. The way
they are used by the medical profession and in vetinary practice could be a
lot better. If my children really need them they will have them.
)- I have done everything posible to reduce use of science and tech in my
)life
)- serve as an example to my daughter..so she can se it can be done.
)- if i can do it...others can also. if we all take a stand against tech and
)science...the world would have to change...for the better I believe.
Peter F.
Is it consistent to work as a computer scientist? Surely this is
hypocritical.
)
)That's plenty of backyard stuff I do for now.. There is more though.
)
)And Peter...trust me... this all comes from the heart..it is a
)compassionate heart for the planet...and my unborn grandchildren
Peter F.
You think I am less passionate and compassionate. We simply differ in
method.
)
)If we think about where our grand kids are in for ...it's plain scary.
)
)do you care Peter?
Peter F.
Of course. I care so much I am prepared to attempt to convince you that path
you are taking does nothing more that to remove a useful mind and useful
hands from tasks that are truly effective.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Get some great ideas here for your sweetheart on Valentine's Day - and
beyond. http://special.msn.com/network/celebrateromance.armx
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:27:41 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: once more on science
Mark wrote:
)That means there is nothing for me to do except learn how to live with
nature again... is this so far gone from you that you can't even imagine
)that their have been cultures and peoples ( and still are ) that know how
to live with reverence for nature and no need for tech and sci...
)They live in harmony with the planet and we do not. You will notice I am
not poiting the finger at you..i am holding the whole human race
)responsible...collectively we have done this....collectively we can reverse
it.
Not only are your comments vis a vis Indigenous People judgemental - "know
how to live with nature and no need for tech and sci..." (the noble savage
myth - a few of my First Nations friends growl at such platitudes) but you
also seem to imply that these people are not members of the human race
(above). Care to elaborate?
Mark went on to froth at Peter F. and continued to make a case for the
continuation of at least some pharmaceutical companies staying in business.
Well intentioned suggestion, Mark. Relax. It's just a conversation and the
planet ain't dead yet. I am with you in that we need to pitch in to help.
Hey - a Peace Offering... I just saw a good film you might like:
The Corporation http://www.thecorporation.tv/splash.php (lots of links to
help people to walk their talk)
Deep Breath.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 08:35:10 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
G'day Walden,
it's interesting that you say Teller lost the debate. It seems to me he won.
After all, we do have H bombs. A fascinating book on this topic is "John von
Neumann and Norbert Wiener : From Mathematics to the Technologies of Life
and Death" by Steve Joshua Heims. These two were among the most important
mathematicians of the 20th century. Everybody in computer science should
know John von Neumann. Among other things he invented the basic architecture
of modern computers. These two found themselves on opposite sides of the
scientific debate about whether H bombs should be developed. The author
discusses their life histories and their psychology in an attempt to
understand this difference of opinion. There is no question that one was a
saint and the other a sinner. They were both honorable men, albeit with
human failings. Who was right? Might the world have been taken over by
Stalin in the absence of the american nuclear armoury? Would that have been
a good thing? Would it have been prevented by non violent non cooperation? I
don't know the answers to any of those questions, and guess what? Neither
does Mark?
See you, Peter
)From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
)Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)To: waldorf-critics topica.com
)Subject: Re: once more on science
)Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:03:45 -0800
)
)Peter F. wrote:
) ) Let's talk about the bombs (I guess you mean nuclear). They were
)developed
) ) by scientists during the Second World War who acted from their hearts.
)They
) ) really and truly thought they were doing the right thing in the fight
) ) against Hitler. One can argue with them (except most are dead now) but
)they
) ) were in fact doing what you are suggesting that scientists do. The
) ) developers of the H bomb after the war (Teller and von Neumann for
)example)
) ) also thought they were doing the right thing, this time to make sure
)that
) ) Stalin couldn't take over the world. Perhaps they were wrong but they
)were
) ) doing just what you asked them to do.
)
)Excellent point. Many years ago I worked with group called the Canadian
)Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR). One of my chosen tasks was to
)visit with high school kids and talk about Nuclear Energy. A tool I used
)from time to time was a video of a debate between our national chairman,
)Dr.
)Gordon Edwards and... Edward Teller (so-called father of the H bomb). I
)knew and liked Gordon very much - a kinder, more intelligent person I have
)rarely since found. Here's the catch. On the video, Teller comes across
)as
)an extremely nice guy - he lost the debate - but my point is that he
)really
)believed in what he was doing. And he was human. He certainly was no
)idiot
)and was very passionate about his "work." So was Einstein.
)
)Why I chose that tool (the video) for high school students was not
)necessarily because it furthered "my cause" but because it clearly showed a
)human side to the father of the H Bomb. It helped students see that here
)are two human beings talking about the ethical implications of this
)particular science. They debated and we all learned. "Science" is not
)the
)culprit. Preconceived judgements are far worse, IMO.
)
)What role did "science" play in the genocide of First Nations around the
)globe. Well, if you count sailing ships as a scientific discovery, I
)suppose you might have a case but are they really scientific? Are they the
)cause? What did those ships carry? Among other things... Missionaries.
)And religion. See how slippery this slope can become?
)
)- Walden
)P.S. Hey Mark - you left my previous questions unanswered... when you find
)the time.
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
)New threads are always welcome.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_________________________________________________________________
Get less junk mail with ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:36:32 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
--0-66498395-1076056592=:89248
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Peter...
Dear Mark,
I accept you are a scientist. I said so later in the post. The sentence I
wrote "As far as I know I am the only current contributor to this list who
is a practising scientist" might better have been written in the past tense,
but I didn't mean it to deny you your status as scientist. The sentence was
meant to refer to a time when you had just informed me of your status.
Mark - ok
)
)Nothing...Nothing...until awareness takes place ...nothing can be "fixed"
)
)Second ...my goal is to be ego-less. In other words the greatest thing I
)can do , we can do...is leave the Earth alone! That means there is nothing
)for me to do except learn how to live with nature again... is this so far
)gone from you that you can't even imagine that their have been cultures and
)peoples ( and still are ) that know how to live with reverence for nature
)and no need for tech and sci...
Peter F responds.
You are welcome to your opinion. I happen to think there are better things
that you could be doing. Of course I could be wrong. I happen to believe
that you and I and science are as much a part of nature as anything else.
There is nothing that is unnatural. From this perspective, your view can
only be described as nonsense. However, it is probably pretty harmeless.
Peter...ad hominen
your view is total nonsense....
so you think plastic surgery and putting silicon is natural? If you do...then you have been so brain washed that you can't recognize what is natural and what is not....
Look at nature in it's raw form...it is much more beautiful than anything man has made with science.
By virture of the fact that the being able to use the word unnatural we know that the opposite must exist...which would be natural. In this way we know that hot only exists with knowing cold by contrast. Therefore..if there is unnatural there is also natural.
Therefore ...not everything can't be all natural or all unnatual....must be some of each...
from this point of view....your statement is complete nonsense.
Where is the line drawn? Difficult to say. I believe it comes from instinct to know the what is natural and what is not.....a gut feeling let's see. For instance,... I don't believe all this automation we have in the world in natrual...rather very unnatural.
)
)They live in harmony with the planet and we do not. You will notice I am
)not poiting the finger at you..i am holding the whole human race
)responsible...collectively we have done this....collectively we can reverse
)it.
)
Peter F responds:
This is simply false. It is not true that other cultures have lived in
harmony or do live in harmony with nature in the sense you mean. Australia
is one of the most interesting examples. Humans came here something like
60000 years ago. At that time the flora and fauna were quite different. The
humans who came dramatically changed the environment with their hunting and
gathering practices. Many plants and animals became extinct. In so far as
they did live in harmony when Europeans came two hundred years ago, they did
so through low birth rates, low infant survival rates, short lifetimes due
to disease and so on. Had Australia been a much smaller island they may well
have become extinct as happened on Easter Island for example. You might like
to hang on to a false romantic notion that is not supported by any evidence.
Mark - there is large evidence that many peoples around the world have lived inn harmony and balance with the natural world...not romanve...just facts Peter. Read up on this...you can find it..trust me. Your writings are both cynical and closed off.
)problem is awareness....10 emails and you still , in all your ignorance
)cannot se and acknowledge the huge sh-- our planet is in?/!!!
Peter F responds:
whose posts are you reading? I did not say the world was not in a mess. My
argument is that you cannot lay the blame on science and scientists. The
blame must be layed on humanity as a whole. The kind of wrecking of the
environment you are talking about is not a recent phenomenon. This is what
people do. The only solution is more science not less, so we can understand
how it is that we can construct societies together that are sustainable.
)
)You have no awareness...but most don't ..so don't feel alone.
Peter F.
Ad hominem. I am aware.
Mark - not.
)
)Talk to some compassionate environmental scientists....watch Alan Watts...
)"Man in Nature" - "Work as Play".Peter F.
Peter F.
What makes you think I am not familar with Alan Watts? I have at least two
of his books on my shelf. I haven't read that one.
)
)Let's test how open your mind is....give it two days...I will give you my
)evaluation of Steiner and you give me your eval of Watts - "Man in Nature"
)- "Work as Play".
Peter F.
It won't happen in the next two days, but I will look at it. I asked you to
look at one Steiner Lecture, approximately one eighth of a book some time
ago. You are asking me to read a whole book. I am also in the middle of
writing a response to Joel about a book he asked me to read. I have read
that book twice, and I would like to read it again before I finish what I
would like to say to Joel about it. It has taken me some months.
Mark - Alan Watts video will take you 60 minutes... rather than reading the book...
will you do that?
)
)I doubt you will meet my challenge...you are too closed off... worried
)about your little world and your ego centered existence...your
)mortgage.....blah blah.
Peter F.
More ad hominems. My mortgage is part of the process of looking after my
children. Should I render them homeless?
Mark - can't start a fire worrying about your liitle world fallin apart Peter!!
what are you teaching your children by prostituting yourself to for the sake of money??
when you stand for a cause you must give something up man! Your kids will be so proud of a Dad who stood up even if the family as a whole must makes sacrifices to carry it out. So ...the answer yes! make your children homeless....and start a fire ...
...ah you don't have the guts...what am I wasting my breath for ...
)"You can’t start a fire worrying about your little world falling apart" -
)Sprinsteen
)
)Mark
)ps...what a bunch crap..about ad hominem....
)can't stand up for yourself...it's get a little passionate and you must
)tattle to Daddy ( Dan).... poor Peter....meow..
Peter F responds.
I only care because the ad hominems take the signal to noise ratio down. I
am standing up for myself.
)Besides...it was you first who became nasty using words like Rubbish .and
)taking my comments personally...when I was only referring to science and
)the human condition....
)not you ...you ego-centered person.
Peter F.
Describing an argument as "rubbish" is not nasty. Equally it was not first.
You were describing me, personally, (and yourself of course as well) as a
scientist as being a world wrecker. That's nasty. Responding to that with
"Rubbish" is not nasty. It means that the evidence and the argument are
sadly lacking. I don't have to run to Dan. Dan will spot them without any
comment from me. The no ad hominems is a well known rule of behaviour in
the list. It is an attempt to avoid the foolishness that arises as a result
of criticising a person rather than the argument. It makes no difference
whether I am open minded or closed minded, egocentric or not, good arguments
and good evidence are convincing. Your use of ad hominems indicates that you
do not have good arguments or evidence, and that somehow you feel personally
attacked (perhaps in the ego you are trying to remove) when your arguments
are attacked.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 00:46:31 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: once more on science
Mark wrote:
) )Scientists that make boobs are cowards as much as the ones who drop them.
)
) Peter F.
) Don't you love Freudean slips. Janet Jackson eat your heart out.
LOL!! I raise my glass to a little levity. But I think I remember Dottie
saying something about Steiner's Anthroposophy increasing her breast size.
Anyone remember? And Steiner *was* a scientist... wasn't he? But did Freud
really wear a slip?
-Walden
(time for some sleep - how can ya tell? (g))
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 08:46:32 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
Mark Fitzpatrick
)
)Mark - can't start a fire worrying about your liitle world fallin apart
)Peter!!
)what are you teaching your children by prostituting yourself to for the
)sake of money??
)when you stand for a cause you must give something up man! Your kids will
)be so proud of a Dad who stood up even if the family as a whole must makes
)sacrifices to carry it out. So ...the answer yes! make your children
)homeless....and start a fire ...
)...ah you don't have the guts...what am I wasting my breath for ...
Peter F.
Guess what. I like what I do. I am proud of it. I would do some of it even
if I didn't get paid. I think it is better for my children to have a home
rather than not. On the other hand you haven't responded to me about the
apparent hypocrisy of working as a web master (Is that right I've forgotten
exactly). I'm comfortable about the morality of my own position. It seems to
me that it is you who is uncomfortable about your own position.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:54:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
--0-526386986-1076057641=:53712
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mark Fitzpatrick :
)It is much more honorable to wage war ( be a warrior ) face to face.
)a sword, knife , a fist or foot is 1000 times more honorable.
Peter F.
I don't like fighting at all.
Mark - - fair enough...but war is a part of life...only question is how can we do so with honor? ( hint: NOT with science and tech....for COWARDS only!! )
watch the" Last Samurai"
)Why? Face to Face...level playing field.
Peter F.
The Los Alamos scientists were concerned that Hitler was developing nuclear
weapons. They were attempting to generate a level playing field in the face
of a monster. I don't care whether you think they were right or wrong. The
fact is that they did that work in good conscience.
Mark - Maybe so...but it's dtill not to late to change the world
)
)Technology and Bombs are for back stabbing terrorists and COWARDS!!!
)Disgusting cowards.
Peter F.
Your view. Other people of sound mind and good conscience might differ.
Mark - rubbish... and only cowards would think so.
)Meet me face to face and fight and I will have respect and honor.
)Scientists that make boobs are cowards as much as the ones who drop them.
Peter F.
Don't you love Freudean slips. Janet Jackson eat your heart out. In so far
as it is possible for me I am meeting you face to face, not with fists but
with argument. I am treating you with sufficient respect that I am prepared
to do this.
Mark - not a Freudian slip...a typo my friend. Once again Peter...no need for you to take personally...i was saying I respect a warrior who will meet for a face to face much more. The general "you"...not you.
)Ever heard of Tibet? The peoples of Tibet have so much honor that they are
)willing
)to receive violence unreturned...why...because they have the heart and
)principle to stand for what they believe in - non-violence - even if it
)means their own death.
)Would you be willing to die for a cause you believe in Peter?
Peter F.
I have heard of Tibet. I have known several refugees from Tibet who live in
Australia.
)
)Can you imagine if all the peoples on the Earth were this honorable and
)principled?
)You are so lost...you probabaly cant even imagine.
Peter F.
What you seem to not understand is that honorable people can have values and
principles which are different to the ones you hold. By what right do you
say you are right and they are wrong?
Mark f - i was right...you have no imagination...you can't even put yourself in their shoes... also it's my opinion.
)
)What am I doing in my own backyard? I live life by example...
)
)- I have been using bicycle (human non-polluting power ) to transport
)myself everywhere that is possible. For 2 years I have been doing this. I
)am doing this to show support for human power and non-pollution of the
)environment ( as opposed to the avg lazy American who uses auto and
)contributes to accelerated tech and pollution of the environ. )
Peter F.
you have several years to catch up to me in the bicycle stakes.
Mark f - oh yeah
)- I am a volunteer on the committee to develop bike pathways in and around
)MPLS.
)another way to promote non-pollute and pro-environ. ( making me also for
)simple tools ( bicycles ) that don't require excessive science or excessive
)tech )
Peter F.
MPLS?
Mark - Minneapolis
)- I use only herbs, roots and teas to keep my health. I have not taken
)antibiotics ( this not supporting the science that produces pharma's. ) in
)ten years and my health is better than it has ever been! Antibiotics are
)evil... our own body is capable of producing all the antibiotics it needs
)as it needs it...naturally!! Try it..you will like it.
Peter F.
I beg to differ. I have had the misfortune to require antibiotics for
continued existence once or twice in my life. They are not evil. The way
they are used by the medical profession and in vetinary practice could be a
lot better. If my children really need them they will have them.
Mark f - so i know we have what we need all inside our bodies. Our children have it too. It's a shame you are so brainwashed.
)- I have done everything posible to reduce use of science and tech in my
)life
)- serve as an example to my daughter..so she can se it can be done.
)- if i can do it...others can also. if we all take a stand against tech and
)science...the world would have to change...for the better I believe.
Peter F.
Is it consistent to work as a computer scientist? Surely this is
hypocritical.
Mark f. - Not at all.. being a scientist has taught me to know my enemy...- science and i do despise it more everyday....becoming a scientist has been my greatest teacher in learning how much we can and need to find a way to live without it... and this is what will be passed to my daughter.
)
)That's plenty of backyard stuff I do for now.. There is more though.
)
)And Peter...trust me... this all comes from the heart..it is a
)compassionate heart for the planet...and my unborn grandchildren
Peter F.
You think I am less passionate and compassionate. We simply differ in
method.
)
)If we think about where our grand kids are in for ...it's plain scary.
)
)do you care Peter?
Peter F.
Of course. I care so much I am prepared to attempt to convince you that path
you are taking does nothing more that to remove a useful mind and useful
hands from tasks that are truly effective.
Mark f - way off Peter. Useful mind??? My friend...what's so useful about it??
The Egyptians ( recognized as a great civilization)
"believed the heart was the center of intelligence and emotion. They also thought so little of the brain that during mummification, they removed the brain entirely from bodies. "
Peter.... use your heart more then your "real" intelligence will shine though eh??
The heart is way more "useful" than the mind my friend!!
Mark
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Get some great ideas here for your sweetheart on Valentine's Day - and
beyond. http://special.msn.com/network/celebrateromance.armx
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 00:55:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
--0-445250074-1076057742=:76059
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
thanks for the sugestions walden
Peace
Mark
walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca) wrote:
Mark wrote:
)That means there is nothing for me to do except learn how to live with
nature again... is this so far gone from you that you can't even imagine
)that their have been cultures and peoples ( and still are ) that know how
to live with reverence for nature and no need for tech and sci...
)They live in harmony with the planet and we do not. You will notice I am
not poiting the finger at you..i am holding the whole human race
)responsible...collectively we have done this....collectively we can reverse
it.
Not only are your comments vis a vis Indigenous People judgemental - "know
how to live with nature and no need for tech and sci..." (the noble savage
myth - a few of my First Nations friends growl at such platitudes) but you
also seem to imply that these people are not members of the human race
(above). Care to elaborate?
Mark went on to froth at Peter F. and continued to make a case for the
continuation of at least some pharmaceutical companies staying in business.
Well intentioned suggestion, Mark. Relax. It's just a conversation and the
planet ain't dead yet. I am with you in that we need to pitch in to help.
Hey - a Peace Offering... I just saw a good film you might like:
The Corporation http://www.thecorporation.tv/splash.php (lots of links to
help people to walk their talk)
Deep Breath.
-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.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1248
-- Topica Digest --
Re: once more on science
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Admin: ad hominem warning [Re: once more on science]
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 01:01:05 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: once more on science
Peter F. wrote:
) G'day Walden,
) it's interesting that you say Teller lost the debate. It seems to me he
won.
) After all, we do have H bombs.
Agreed. I was referring to the televised debate whereby the audience was
asked prior to the event how they felt about Nuclear Energy. Their
responses were gathered (scientifically!) and they were asked the same
question after the debate. There was a major shift from pro to con
Nuclear - based on the audience reaction to the debate.
I think that is one reason I stay at this list. Sharing knowledge, ideas,
feelings and experience is a wonderful way to learn. Debate is not a bad
thing. I could do without the anger from some people, but I cannot do much
about it. Thanks for the book recommendation - I'll see if our library has
it.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 01:06:04 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
--0-1625160304-1076058364=:54123
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mark Fitzpatrick
)
)Mark - can't start a fire worrying about your liitle world fallin apart
)Peter!!
)what are you teaching your children by prostituting yourself to for the
)sake of money??
)when you stand for a cause you must give something up man! Your kids will
)be so proud of a Dad who stood up even if the family as a whole must makes
)sacrifices to carry it out. So ...the answer yes! make your children
)homeless....and start a fire ...
)...ah you don't have the guts...what am I wasting my breath for ...
Peter F.
Guess what. I like what I do. I am proud of it. I would do some of it even
if I didn't get paid. I think it is better for my children to have a home
rather than not. On the other hand you haven't responded to me about the
apparent hypocrisy of working as a web master (Is that right I've forgotten
exactly). I'm comfortable about the morality of my own position. It seems to
me that it is you who is uncomfortable about your own position.
Mark f... glad to hear are comfortable...but not really. You are right...i am uncomforatble and ashamed to live in a country that does what it does countries smaller and weaker than us. I am ashamed about our what our media, politicians, greedy power brokers do in the name of country and God.
and I wish more people would be uncomforatble and dissappointed...then maybe we could rise up and change this crap around but the problem is ...too many people are "comfortable" in this little worlds. Including you..as you stated.
Yes...I di answer your hypocrisy question...here is the dialogue -
"Peter F.
Is it consistent to work as a computer scientist? Surely this is
hypocritical.
Mark f. - Not at all.. being a scientist has taught me to know my enemy...- science and i do despise it more everyday....becoming a scientist has been my greatest teacher in learning how much we can and need to find a way to live without it... and this is what will be passed to my daughter. No hypocrisy here"
Mark
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 01:54:56 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: ad hominem warning [Re: once more on science]
Mark Fitzpatrick, you wrote to Peter Farrell,
)I am convinced your ego and self-centered nature prevents you from
)offering up interesting and reasonable viewpoints.
This is an ad-hominem argument, and violates the rules of this
discussion list. Please address your arguments to the subject being
discussed, not the personalities doing the discussing.
Sincerely, 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 1249
-- Topica Digest --
Re: once more on science
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: once more on science
By momof2gals mindspring.com
evils of humanity and their ignorant use of science...
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
Re: once more on science
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
RE: once more on science
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: evils of humanity and their ignorant use of science...
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
RE: once more on science
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
RE: evils of humanity and their ignorant use of science...
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
RE: once more on science
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: evils of humanity and their ignorant use of science...
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
RE: once more on science
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
RE: evils of humanity and their ignorant use of science...
By fitzcandoservices yahoo.com
ADMIN: Mark Fitzpatrick Suspended
By gary goodwinter.com
Re: ADMIN: Mark Fitzpatrick Suspended
By dan dandugan.com
Re: ADMIN: Mark Fitzpatrick Suspended
By Gary goodwinter.com
Admin: please don't encode list posts with HTML
By dan dandugan.com
Re: ADMIN: Mark Fitzpatrick Suspended
By antigonabaires hotmail.com
Admin: Re: evils of humanity and their ignorant use of science...
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Admin: please don't encode list posts with HTML
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 17:21:10 +0000 (GMT+00:00)
From: momof2gals mindspring.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
Mark,
Your comments to Peter are completely inappropriate. Completely. Personal attacks are the last refuge, apparently, of those who cannot argue with reason.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Sent: Feb 6, 2004 9:06 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
(DIV)
(BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid")
(P)Mark Fitzpatrick(BR)>(BR)>Mark - can't start a fire worrying about your liitle world fallin apart (BR)>Peter!!(BR)>what are you teaching your children by prostituting yourself to for the (BR)>sake of money??(BR)>when you stand for a cause you must give something up man! Your kids will (BR)>be so proud of a Dad who stood up even if the family as a whole must makes (BR)>sacrifices to carry it out. So ...the answer yes! make your children (BR)>homeless....and start a fire ...(BR)>...ah you don't have the guts...what am I wasting my breath for ...(BR)(BR)Peter F.(BR)Guess what. I like what I do. I am proud of it. I would do some of it even (BR)if I didn't get paid. I think it is better for my children to have a home (BR)rather than not. On the other hand you haven't responded to me about the (BR)apparent hypocrisy of working as a web master (Is that right I've forgotten (BR)exactly). I'm comfortable about the morality of my own position. It seems to
(BR)me that it is you who is uncomfortable about your own position.(BR)(/P)
(P)Mark f... glad to hear are comfortable...but not really. You are right...i am uncomforatble and ashamed to live in a country that does what it does countries smaller and weaker than us. I am ashamed about our what our media, politicians, greedy power brokers do in the name of country and God. (/P)
(P)and I wish more people would be uncomforatble and dissappointed...then maybe we could rise up and change this crap around but the problem is ...too many people are "comfortable" in this little worlds. Including you..as you stated.(/P)
(P)Yes...I di answer your hypocrisy question...here is the dialogue - (/P)
(P)(FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #aea945")"Peter F.(BR)Is it consistent to work as a computer scientist? Surely this is (BR)hypocritical.(/FONT)(/P)
(P)(FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #aea945")Mark f. - Not at all.. being a scientist has taught me to know my enemy...- science and i do despise it more everyday....becoming a scientist has been my greatest teacher in learning how much we can and need to find a way to live without it... and this is what will be passed to my daughter. No hypocrisy here"(/FONT)(/P)
(P) (/P)
(P)Mark(/P)
(P) (/P)
Do you Yahoo!?(br)
Yahoo! Finance: (a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=22055/*http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html")Get your refund fast by filing online(/a)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 11:31:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
--0-1143548004-1076095918=:9125
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I can argue better than either of you and it was Peter who consistently made personal attacks under the guise of passive-aggressive. You did the same Lisa when you diagnosed me with having a reaction-formation.
The fact that you are making it personal once again shows you lack the mettle to tackle my superior reason and arguments. You are obviuosly frightened of my superior intellect and reasoning powers.
Best wishes
Mark
momof2gals mindspring.com wrote:
Mark,
Your comments to Peter are completely inappropriate. Completely. Personal attacks are the last refuge, apparently, of those who cannot argue with reason.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Fitzpatrick
Sent: Feb 6, 2004 9:06 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
Mark Fitzpatrick
)
)Mark - can't start a fire worrying about your liitle world fallin apart
)Peter!!
)what are you teaching your children by prostituting yourself to for the
)sake of money??
)when you stand for a cause you must give something up man! Your kids will
)be so proud of a Dad who stood up even if the family as a whole must makes
)sacrifices to carry it out. So ...the answer yes! make your children
)homeless....and start a fire ...
)...ah you don't have the guts...what am I wasting my breath for ...
Peter F.
Guess what. I like what I do. I am proud of it. I would do some of it even
if I didn't get paid. I think it is better for my children to have a home
rather than not. On the other hand you haven't responded to me about the
apparent hypocrisy of working as a web master (Is that right I've forgotten
exactly). I'm comfortable about the morality of my own position. It seems to
me that it is you who is uncomfortable about your own position.
Mark f... glad to hear are comfortable...but not really. You are right...i am uncomforatble and ashamed to live in a country that does what it does countries smaller and weaker than us. I am ashamed about our what our media, politicians, greedy power brokers do in the name of country and God.
and I wish more people would be uncomforatble and dissappointed...then maybe we could rise up and change this crap around but the problem is ...too many people are "comfortable" in this little worlds. Including you..as you stated.
Yes...I di answer your hypocrisy question...here is the dialogue -
"Peter F.
Is it consistent to work as a computer scientist? Surely this is
hypocritical.
Mark f. - Not at all.. being a scientist has taught me to know my enemy...- science and i do despise it more everyday....becoming a scientist has been my greatest teacher in learning how much we can and need to find a way to live without it... and this is what will be passed to my daughter. No hypocrisy here"
Mark
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 11:34:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
--0-2131009341-1076096073=:94118
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
debate is enjoyable, stimulating and productive...and yes I could do without the personal attacks...started initially by others...won't mention any names..
Mark
walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca) wrote:
Peter F. wrote:
) G'day Walden,
) it's interesting that you say Teller lost the debate. It seems to me he
won.
) After all, we do have H bombs.
Agreed. I was referring to the televised debate whereby the audience was
asked prior to the event how they felt about Nuclear Energy. Their
responses were gathered (scientifically!) and they were asked the same
question after the debate. There was a major shift from pro to con
Nuclear - based on the audience reaction to the debate.
I think that is one reason I stay at this list. Sharing knowledge, ideas,
feelings and experience is a wonderful way to learn. Debate is not a bad
thing. I could do without the anger from some people, but I cannot do much
about it. Thanks for the book recommendation - I'll see if our library has
it.
-Walden
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 20:25:12 +0000 (GMT+00:00)
From: momof2gals mindspring.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
How did you know that I was trembling? Is my typing shaky? (g)
One thing I can say for you, Mark: you sure don't suffer fromlow self esteem! (g)
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Sent: Feb 6, 2004 7:31 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
(DIV)I can argue better than either of you and it was Peter who consistently made personal attacks under the guise of passive-aggressive. You did the same Lisa when you diagnosed me with having a reaction-formation.(/DIV)
(DIV) (/DIV)
(DIV)The fact that you are making it personal once again shows you lack the mettle to tackle my superior reason and arguments. You are obviuosly frightened of my superior intellect and reasoning powers.(/DIV)
(DIV) (/DIV)
(DIV)Best wishes(/DIV)
(DIV)Mark(BR)(BR)(B)(I)momof2gals mindspring.com(/I)(/B) wrote:(/DIV)
(BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid")Mark,(BR)(BR)Your comments to Peter are completely inappropriate. Completely. Personal attacks are the last refuge, apparently, of those who cannot argue with reason.(BR)(BR)Lisa(BR)(BR)(BR)(BR)-----Original Message-----(BR)From: Mark Fitzpatrick (FITZCANDOSERVICES YAHOO.COM)(BR)Sent: Feb 6, 2004 9:06 AM(BR)To: waldorf-critics topica.com(BR)Subject: Re: once more on science(BR)(BR)
(DIV)(BR)
(BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid")(BR)
(P)Mark Fitzpatrick(BR)>(BR)>Mark - can't start a fire worrying about your liitle world fallin apart (BR)>Peter!!(BR)>what are you teaching your children by prostituting yourself to for the (BR)>sake of money??(BR)>when you stand for a cause you must give something up man! Your kids will (BR)>be so proud of a Dad who stood up even if the family as a whole must makes (BR)>sacrifices to carry it out. So ...the answer yes! make your children (BR)>homeless....and start a fire ...(BR)>...ah you don't have the guts...what am I wasting my breath for ...(BR)(BR)Peter F.(BR)Guess what. I like what I do. I am proud of it. I would do some of it even (BR)if I didn't get paid. I think it is better for my children to have a home (BR)rather than not. On the other hand you haven't responded to me about the (BR)apparent hypocrisy of working as a web master (Is that right I've forgotten (BR)exactly). I'm comfortable about the morality of my own position. It seems
to(BR)(BR)me that it is you who is uncomfortable about your own position.(BR)(/P)(BR)
(P)Mark f... glad to hear are comfortable...but not really. You are right...i am uncomforatble and ashamed to live in a country that does what it does countries smaller and weaker than us. I am ashamed about our what our media, politicians, greedy power brokers do in the name of country and God. (/P)(BR)
(P)and I wish more people would be uncomforatble and dissappointed...then maybe we could rise up and change this crap around but the problem is ...too many people are "comfortable" in this little worlds. Including you..as you stated.(/P)(BR)
(P)Yes...I di answer your hypocrisy question...here is the dialogue - (/P)(BR)
(P)(FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #aea945")"Peter F.(BR)Is it consistent to work as a computer scientist? Surely this is (BR)hypocritical.(/FONT)(/P)(BR)
(P)(FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #aea945")Mark f. - Not at all.. being a scientist has taught me to know my enemy...- science and i do despise it more everyday....becoming a scientist has been my greatest teacher in learning how much we can and need to find a way to live without it... and this is what will be passed to my daughter. No hypocrisy here"(/FONT)(/P)(BR)
(P) (/P)(BR)
(P)Mark(/P)(BR)
Do you Yahoo!?(br)
Yahoo! Finance: (a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=22055/*http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html")Get your refund fast by filing online(/a)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 12:15:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: evils of humanity and their ignorant use of science...
--0-1657572269-1076098521=:93069
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to human activities, NOT natural causes. Over millions of years, animals and plants lived, died and were compressed to form huge deposits of oil, gas and coal. In little more than 300 years, however, we have burned a large amount of this storehouse of carbon to supply energy. Today, the by-products of fossil fuel use - billions of tons of carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) methane, and other greenhouse gases - add to the layer of greenhouse gasses that form a blanket around the Earth, trapping more heat, unnaturally raising temperatures on the ground, and steadily changing our climate.
The impacts associated with this deceptively small change in temperature are evident in all corners of the globe. There is heavier rainfall in some areas, and droughts in others. Glaciers are melting, spring is arriving earlier, oceans are warming, and coral reefs are dying.
walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca) wrote:Peter F. wrote:
) G'day Walden,
) it's interesting that you say Teller lost the debate. It seems to me he
won.
) After all, we do have H bombs.
Agreed. I was referring to the televised debate whereby the audience was
asked prior to the event how they felt about Nuclear Energy. Their
responses were gathered (scientifically!) and they were asked the same
question after the debate. There was a major shift from pro to con
Nuclear - based on the audience reaction to the debate.
I think that is one reason I stay at this list. Sharing knowledge, ideas,
feelings and experience is a wonderful way to learn. Debate is not a bad
thing. I could do without the anger from some people, but I cannot do much
about it. Thanks for the book recommendation - I'll see if our library has
it.
-Walden
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 12:37:19 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: once more on science
Mark wrote:
) which one walden?
This one:
Mark, in a previous post your wrote:
"What Anthroposophy is not:
a) It is not a mystic movement or set of ideas. Mysticism is essentially
based upon feelings and is transmitted under the form of images and
metaphors. Anthroposophy is transmitted to the conscious thinking under the
form of concepts.
b) It is not a religion."
Then you offered a definition of religion in another post. This is
helpful - helps me understand where you are coming from. I then posted a
dictionary definition:
Mirriam-Webster Online
Main Entry: an·thro·pos·o·phy
Pronunciation: "an(t)-thr&-'pä-s&-fE
Function: noun
: a 20th century religious system growing out of theosophy and centering on
human development
See, your dictionary definition of "religion" added to my understanding of
your thoughts. We found common ground - a good thing. Would you now be
willing to share your thoughts on why Eugene Schwartz (and he is certainly
not alone in this respect) sees Waldorf as one religious experience after
another and the dictionary describes Anthroposophy as a "religious system?"
If you still see me as being "all mixed up," can you explain your reasons?
Thanks.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 12:49:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
--0-15687736-1076100588=:63811
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Thanks. How do you know that I don't suffer low self-esteem?
Your words are not shaky just misguided. Find a way to address the subject or argument I present and debate in an interesting and stimulating manner.
Keep the focus on that, not these side subjects about personal attacks.
That's between Peter and I and I think Peter can fend for himself anyway. I would say it was about even...he was taking shots at me and I at him......both detracting from the core subject matter. Why be like Peter or I ...mayke your efforts to stick to the core subject matter. ok? My bet is you are intimidated by my superior intellect and reasoning. Also... you don't know how to make it NOT personal. You bring what you want to do and your personal preferences. It is ego-centered behavior like this that has gotten our planet into the trouble it is in.
I am ashamed to be a part of a race that is destroying a planet. I can say that because I know my own ego is in my way. The greatest thing a being can do is to be ego less and recognize the power of "no-thing"
Do the the non-damaging things today and then stop and appreciate.
- breath in an out
- mediatate
- live
- walk
and work on being aware when you are just another contributor to the death of our green Earth like
- driving a car ( polluting the crap out of the Earth ) ( not just driving is causing it either..it's all the support you give to the industry ( which pollutes much more ) when you purchase and drive a car )
- use chemicals for cleaning thus supporting toxic dumping
- use antibiotics
- eat meat - ( supporting cruelty we do to cattle and the earth in these areas where these cattle are raised and abused ) and we are supporting conglomerate chains like McDonald's.
- buy new consumer products before old ones are defunct. ( this trashes our land ...not everything is recycled today much to your surprise
Awareness is first step.... do you care about what our Grandkids will live with if at all???
Mark
Mark
How did you know that I was trembling? Is my typing shaky?
One thing I can say for you, Mark: you sure don't suffer fromlow self esteem!
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Fitzpatrick
Sent: Feb 6, 2004 7:31 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
I can argue better than either of you and it was Peter who consistently made personal attacks under the guise of passive-aggressive. You did the same Lisa when you diagnosed me with having a reaction-formation.
The fact that you are making it personal once again shows you lack the mettle to tackle my superior reason and arguments. You are obviuosly frightened of my superior intellect and reasoning powers.
Best wishes
Mark
momof2gals mindspring.com wrote:
Mark,
Your comments to Peter are completely inappropriate. Completely. Personal attacks are the last refuge, apparently, of those who cannot argue with reason.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Fitzpatrick
Sent: Feb 6, 2004 9:06 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
Mark Fitzpatrick
)
)Mark - can't start a fire worrying about your liitle world fallin apart
)Peter!!
)what are you teaching your children by prostituting yourself to for the
)sake of money??
)when you stand for a cause you must give something up man! Your kids will
)be so proud of a Dad who stood up even if the family as a whole must makes
)sacrifices to carry it out. So ...the answer yes! make your children
)homeless....and start a fire ...
)...ah you don't have the guts...what am I wasting my breath for ...
Peter F.
Guess what. I like what I do. I am proud of it. I would do some of it even
if I didn't get paid. I think it is better for my children to have a home
rather than not. On the other hand you haven't responded to me about the
apparent hypocrisy of working as a web master (Is that right I've forgotten
exactly). I'm comfortable about the morality of my own position. It seems
to
me that it is you who is uncomfortable about your own position.
Mark f... glad to hear are comfortable...but not really. You are right...i am uncomforatble and ashamed to live in a country that does what it does countries smaller and weaker than us. I am ashamed about our what our media, politicians, greedy power brokers do in the name of country and God.
and I wish more people would be uncomforatble and dissappointed...then maybe we could rise up and change this crap around but the problem is ...too many people are "comfortable" in this little worlds. Including you..as you stated.
Yes...I di answer your hypocrisy question...here is the dialogue -
"Peter F.
Is it consistent to work as a computer scientist? Surely this is
hypocritical.
Mark f. - Not at all.. being a scientist has taught me to know my enemy...- science and i do despise it more everyday....becoming a scientist has been my greatest teacher in learning how much we can and need to find a way to live without it... and this is what will be passed to my daughter. No hypocrisy here"
Mark
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:55:07 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: once more on science
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C3ECC9.9B14F750
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Mark wrote to Lisa:
)I can argue better than either of you and it was Peter who consistently
made personal attacks under the guise of )passive-aggressive.
)The fact that you are making it personal once again shows you lack the
mettle to tackle my superior reason and )arguments. You are obviuosly
frightened of my superior intellect and reasoning powers.
)Best wishes
)Mark
No, we are just hoping to wear you all down and eventually some unwary
anthroposophist with a superior intellect like yours will reveal the heart
of the secret anthroposophic doctrines: anthroposophic breast enhancement.
Dottie once slipped and almost gave it away, and I keep asking her, but she
isn't talking. Tarjei has given a few hints, and even some illustrations,
and now we have Mark slipping up and talking about scientists making boobs.
Obviously he is afraid the scientists will compete with the anthroposophists
in making of boobs. Just a short step from there to cloning a whole human.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:56:19 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: evils of humanity and their ignorant use of science...
Mark wrote:
)Glaciers are melting, spring is arriving earlier,
Where? Not where I live, that's for sure.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:05:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
--0-128411951-1076101541=:59381
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
My all mixed up reply was sent to Peter....my apologies...
But to answer you ...
I disagree with the dictionary.
To be spirittual, seek within the self to connect to the cosmos...( as Steiner expounds)
disagrees with definitions of religion ( which are about dogma, institutions, interpretation middlemen (preachers and priests), good and bad judgements, "club" mentality...if you are in the club we accept you if not then we know who to hate?! etc... )
None of this stikes me as Steinerisms or being spiritual ( which Steiner supports )
So I disagree and do believe tha Anthroposophy is a 'religious system'
read below..
"Rudolf Steiner referred many times to the fact that one should not believe in what he expounded, but take it as a working hypothesis awaiting for personal observation. In particular, one should always verify if what he transmitted agrees with what one observes in nature, forms a coherent whole, and does not contradict scientific facts. "
"Anthroposophy embraces a spiritual view of the human being and the cosmos, but its emphasis is on knowing, not faith. It is a path in which the human heart and hand, and especially our capacity for thinking, are essential. It leads, in Steiner's words, "from the spirit in the human being to the spirit in the universe," because only if we first come to experience the spirit in ourselves can we know the cosmic spirit. But anthroposophy is more than self-development. Through it we recognize our humanity. Humanity (anthropos) has the inherent wisdom (Sophia) to transform both itself and the world."
Thanks Mark
Mark wrote:
) which one walden?
This one:
Mark, in a previous post your wrote:
"What Anthroposophy is not:
a) It is not a mystic movement or set of ideas. Mysticism is essentially
based upon feelings and is transmitted under the form of images and
metaphors. Anthroposophy is transmitted to the conscious thinking under the
form of concepts.
b) It is not a religion."
Then you offered a definition of religion in another post. This is
helpful - helps me understand where you are coming from. I then posted a
dictionary definition:
Mirriam-Webster Online
Main Entry: an·thro·pos·o·phy
Pronunciation: "an(t)-thr&-'pä-s&-fE
Function: noun
: a 20th century religious system growing out of theosophy and centering on
human development
See, your dictionary definition of "religion" added to my understanding of
your thoughts. We found common ground - a good thing. Would you now be
willing to share your thoughts on why Eugene Schwartz (and he is certainly
not alone in this respect) sees Waldorf as one religious experience after
another and the dictionary describes Anthroposophy as a "religious system?"
If you still see me as being "all mixed up," can you explain your reasons?
Thanks.
-Walden
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 16:11:11 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: once more on science
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0003_01C3ECCB.D9775AE0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Mark wrote:
)To be spirittual, seek within the self to connect to the cosmos...( as
Steiner expounds)
)disagrees with definitions of religion ( which are about dogma,
institutions, interpretation middlemen (preachers and )priests), good and
bad judgements, "club" mentality
Well yes Mark, but ever notice that each religion thinks this about the
*other* ones - one's own religion is never dogmatic, never open to
interpretation, never dependent on middlemen, it's always the others that
are. Calling oneself "spiritual" but not "religious" seems common today but
seems to me a new version of an old song.
)"Anthroposophy embraces a spiritual view of the human being and the cosmos,
but its emphasis is on knowing, not )faith.
Yup, more of the same - the other guy just takes it on faith, but me, I
"know" I am right.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:11:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: once more on science
--0-2092686378-1076101905=:89764
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
thanks Diane....
maybe you say something intelligent and stimulating on your next post.
the "boobs" was a simple typo...from "bombs"
Diane....meet my argumenst head on and you will gain infinitley more respect.
good luck
Mark
ps... if you have nice boobs maybe your scientist friends could help you clone them...
that way when you get older...you could plant them on your chest instead of choosing to grow old with grace, dignity, pride and honor. That's what science can do for you...allows you to fake everybody but yourself...that you have to deal with when you get home and look in the mirror....don't think science can help you with that...sorry...bet you wish it could??
Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net) wrote:
Mark wrote to Lisa:
)I can argue better than either of you and it was Peter who consistently made personal attacks under the guise of )passive-aggressive.
)The fact that you are making it personal once again shows you lack the mettle to tackle my superior reason and )arguments. You are obviuosly frightened of my superior intellect and reasoning powers.
)Best wishes
)Mark
No, we are just hoping to wear you all down and eventually some unwary anthroposophist with a superior intellect like yours will reveal the heart of the secret anthroposophic doctrines: anthroposophic breast enhancement.
Dottie once slipped and almost gave it away, and I keep asking her, but she isn’t talking. Tarjei has given a few hints, and even some illustrations, and now we have Mark slipping up and talking about scientists making boobs. Obviously he is afraid the scientists will compete with the anthroposophists in making of boobs. Just a short step from there to cloning a whole human.
Diana
==^================================================================You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:12:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: evils of humanity and their ignorant use of science...
--0-1842586119-1076101967=:5128
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
is your mind really that .......small???
Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net) wrote:
Mark wrote:
)Glaciers are melting, spring is arriving earlier,
Where? Not where I live, that’s for sure.
Diana
==^================================================================You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 16:14:54 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: once more on science
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C3ECCC.5EB83580
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Mark:
)thanks Diane....
)maybe you say something intelligent and stimulating on your next post.
Oh maybe, but don't count on it.
)the "boobs" was a simple typo...from "bombs"
Oh. Didn't think of that.
)Diane....meet my argumenst head on and you will gain infinitley more
respect.
)good luck
)Mark
)ps... if you have nice boobs maybe your scientist friends could help you
clone them...
)that way when you get older...you could plant them on your chest instead of
choosing to grow old with grace, )dignity, pride and honor. That's what
science can do for you...allows you to fake everybody but yourself...that
you )have to deal with when you get home and look in the mirror....don't
think science can help you with that...sorry...bet )you wish it could??
Whew, you guys really know how to hurt a girl.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 16:17:24 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: evils of humanity and their ignorant use of science...
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
is your mind really that .......small???
Maybe it shrunk, it's cold here. With your superior intellect can you teach
me to do neat tricks like use big type to show I have a big mind, and small
type to show other people have small minds?
Diana
Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net) wrote:
Mark wrote:
)Glaciers are melting, spring is arriving earlier,
Where? Not where I live, that's for sure.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:21:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: once more on science
Mark wrote:
)To be spirittual, seek within the self to connect to the cosmos...( as Steiner expounds)
)disagrees with definitions of religion ( which are about dogma, institutions, interpretation middlemen (preachers and )priests), good and bad judgements, "club" mentality
Well yes Mark, but ever notice that each religion thinks this about the *other* ones – one’s own religion is never dogmatic, never open to interpretation, never dependent on middlemen, it’s always the others that are. Calling oneself “spiritual” but not “religious” seems common today but seems to me a new version of an old song.
Mark - sorry ...not so... spirit is the only truth always was and will always be...the spiritual include all...no clubs... no middlemen....NO DOGMA...Zen for example has NO scriptures....being spiritual has no scriptures....this is what makes it wide open to all and CLEARLY makes it different from religions ( as religions are clubs with scriptures ( ie. rules) that serve to segregate..who's in who's out )...
with Spirtuality...there is not in OR out....there is only whole....which encompasses are things.
The fact that you know you are "right" is the same crap religions purport and hence "holy wars" - all crap....associated with self-importantizing and ego centered view points
Drop your self-mportantance and ego...and don't focus on what or who is "right" or "wrong" for these are illusions of the ego...
get it...? course not...you are operating with an extensive ego.
Mark
)"Anthroposophy embraces a spiritual view of the human being and the cosmos, but its emphasis is on knowing, not )faith.
Yup, more of the same – the other guy just takes it on faith, but me, I “know” I am right.
Diana
==^================================================================You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:24:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: once more on science
i won't...and happy to assist
M
Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net) wrote:
Mark:
)thanks Diane....
)maybe you say something intelligent and stimulating on your next post.
Oh maybe, but don’t count on it.
)the "boobs" was a simple typo...from "bombs"
Oh. Didn’t think of that.
)Diane....meet my argumenst head on and you will gain infinitley more respect.
)good luck
)Mark
)ps... if you have nice boobs maybe your scientist friends could help you clone them...
)that way when you get older...you could plant them on your chest instead of choosing to grow old with grace, )dignity, pride and honor. That's what science can do for you...allows you to fake everybody but yourself...that you )have to deal with when you get home and look in the mirror....don't think science can help you with that...sorry...bet )you wish it could??
Whew, you guys really know how to hurt a girl.
Diana
==^================================================================You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:30:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: evils of humanity and their ignorant use of science...
Diane..
you need to up your dosage of Prozac or Zoloft....
it's not working...you are exhibiting serious symptoms of
sarcasm pathology, severe apathyism condition, ignoramousism,
inability to formulate intelligent and sincere commentism syndrome...
or maybe it's your fake "bombs" blocking your brain cell activity?
M
Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net) wrote:
is your mind really that .......small???
Maybe it shrunk, it’s cold here. With your superior intellect can you teach me to do neat tricks like use big type to show I have a big mind, and small type to show other people have small minds?
Diana
Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net) wrote:
Mark wrote:
)Glaciers are melting, spring is arriving earlier,
Where? Not where I live, that’s for sure.
Diana
==^================================================================You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:43:11 -0500
From: Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com)
Cc: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: ADMIN: Mark Fitzpatrick Suspended
After enduring Mark Fitzpatrick's "superior intellect" in the form of
repeated ad hominem attacks on other list subscribers, I've suspended Mark
for a time-out, so that he can reflect and meditate on his nasty behavior
toward others.
He can re-subscribe in 1 week if he feels that he can behave himself and
debate the list topics using reason and facts without resorting to attacks
on others.
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:10:16 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Cc: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: ADMIN: Mark Fitzpatrick Suspended
Gary, you wrote,
)After enduring Mark Fitzpatrick's "superior intellect" in the form of
)repeated ad hominem attacks on other list subscribers, I've suspended Mark
)for a time-out, so that he can reflect and meditate on his nasty behavior
)toward others.
)
)He can re-subscribe in 1 week if he feels that he can behave himself and
)debate the list topics using reason and facts without resorting to attacks
)on others.
Thanks, co-moderator. It looked like Mark was going to run through
his third-strike-you're-out quota with me in a couple of days, but
you ran out of patience first.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 18:31:15 -0500
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
Cc: Waldorf-Critics (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Subject: Re: ADMIN: Mark Fitzpatrick Suspended
) 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_Ovb//PSOSitKGfegy1FU0w)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
You were explicitly warned by Dan earlier, and your attacks continued to
escalate, getting very personal and misogynistic.
Just calm down, reflect, and we will welcome you back next week if you want
to play nice.
...Gary
on 2/6/04 5:47 PM, Mark Fitzpatrick at fitzcandoservices yahoo.com wrote:
what about the attacks on me Gary???
seems very one-sided
Mark
Gary Bonhiver (gary goodwinter.com) wrote:
After enduring Mark Fitzpatrick's "superior intellect" in the form of
repeated ad hominem attacks on other list subscribers, I've suspended Mark
for a time-out, so that he can reflect and meditate on his nasty behavior
toward others.
He can re-subscribe in 1 week if he feels that he can behave himself and
debate the list topics using reason and facts without resorting to attacks
on others.
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:11:09 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Cc: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Admin: please don't encode list posts with HTML
MARK:
)is your mind really that .......small???
DIANA:
)Maybe it shrunk, it's cold here. With your superior intellect can
)you teach me to do neat tricks like use big type to show I have a
)big mind, and small type to show other people have small minds?
Actually, it's because Mark is posting in HTML. Mark, please set your
mail software to send plain text. HTML clogs up the archives with all
kinds of unnecessary junk that will make your posts very difficult to
read in the future.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 20:46:24 -0300
From: (antigonabaires hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: ADMIN: Mark Fitzpatrick Suspended
Thanks, thanks, thanks!
A.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Bonhiver" (Gary GoodWinter.com)
To: "Waldorf-Critics" (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Cc: "Mark Fitzpatrick" (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 6:43 PM
Subject: ADMIN: Mark Fitzpatrick Suspended
) After enduring Mark Fitzpatrick's "superior intellect" in the form of
) repeated ad hominem attacks on other list subscribers, I've suspended Mark
) for a time-out, so that he can reflect and meditate on his nasty behavior
) toward others.
)
) He can re-subscribe in 1 week if he feels that he can behave himself and
) debate the list topics using reason and facts without resorting to attacks
) on others.
)
) ...Gary
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:11:00 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Cc: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Admin: Re: evils of humanity and their ignorant use of science...
Mark Fitzpatrick, you wrote:
)There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming
)over the last 50 years is due to human activities, NOT natural
)causes. Over millions of years, animals and plants lived, died and
)were compressed to form huge deposits of oil, gas and coal. In
)little more than 300 years, however, we have burned a large amount
)of this storehouse of carbon to supply energy. Today, the
)by-products of fossil fuel use - billions of tons of carbon (in the
)form of carbon dioxide) methane, and other greenhouse gases - add to
)the layer of greenhouse gasses that form a blanket around the Earth,
)trapping more heat, unnaturally raising temperatures on the ground,
)and steadily changing our climate.
)
)The impacts associated with this deceptively small change in
)temperature are evident in all corners of the globe. There is
)heavier rainfall in some areas, and droughts in others. Glaciers are
)melting, spring is arriving earlier, oceans are warming, and coral
)reefs are dying.
Dear Mark, this argument is off-topic. It has no relationship to
Waldorf or Anthroposophy. The philosophy of science is relevant,
given that Anthroposophy opposes science as we know it, but specific
issues like this that don't relate to Waldorf or Anthroposophy are
off-topic.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 16:56:17 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Cc: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Admin: please don't encode list posts with HTML
)Actually, it's because Mark is posting in HTML. Mark, please set
)your mail software to send plain text. HTML clogs up the archives
)with all kinds of unnecessary junk that will make your posts very
)difficult to read in the future.
Oops, sorry Mark, as you pointed out in a private email, it's Diana
who'd posting in HTML. Diana?
-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 1250
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Admin: please don't encode list posts with HTML
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: evils of humanity...
By sarinamcdonald msn.com
Re: once more on science
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: once more on science
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: evils of humanity...
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: once more on science
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: once more on science
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: once more on science
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: once more on science
By Gary goodwinter.com
RE: Admin: Re: evils of humanity and their ignorant use of science...
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Kind request for interview
By jk2332 columbia.edu
Re: Kind request for interview
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Kind request for interview
By jk2332 columbia.edu
Re: Kind request for interview
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: once more on science
By momof2gals mindspring.com
brainwashed
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Kind request for interview
By jk2332 columbia.edu
Looking for former "Camphillers"
By jk2332 columbia.edu
Re: Kind request for interview
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Kind request for interview
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: evils of humanity...
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
main lesson
By madpark nildram.co.uk
football and brain damage
By madpark nildram.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 08:15:19 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Admin: please don't encode list posts with HTML
)Oops, sorry Mark, as you pointed out in a private email, it's Diana
)who'd posting in HTML. Diana?
It doesn't have anything to do with my email settings. The post that came to
my mailbox from Mark said "is your mind really that .......small???"
The first part of the sentence was in huge letters and then the word "small"
was very tiny - presumably he was making a point. Looking at the topica list
I see it doesn't appear that way, so perhaps not everyone saw what I saw.
But I take part of the blame, I did egg him on.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 08:25:01 -0800
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarinamcdonald msn.com)
Subject: Re: evils of humanity...
Wow, I stop paying attention for a day or two, and look what happens! At
least things got lively for a while.
It's rather a shame that many pro-Waldorf folks have stopped posting here.
Now instead of having non-stop debate, we go from boring non-discussion, to
really "out there" WE supporters who flip out online...
I almost miss Sune. :-)
I haven't seen Diana's boobs, but I must say that I found the suggestion
that having or wanting breast implants means that one is unwilling to "grow
old with grace, dignity, pride and honor" was a little over the top! I
intend to grow old with all five - grace, dignity, pride, honor, AND boobs.
LOL - What a wacky conversation!
Sarina
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:15:41 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
What does that mean? Do you meand "meditate?" or "mediate?" It is not clear
...
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 12:49:48 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: once more on science
mediatate
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 12:16:35 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
It's "Diana."
From: Mark Fitzpatrick (fitzcandoservices yahoo.com)
Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 13:11:45 -0800 (PST)
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: once more on science
thanks Diane....
maybe you say something intelligent and stimulating on your next post.
the "boobs" was a simple typo...from "bombs"
Diane....meet my argumenst head on and you will gain infinitley more
respect.
good luck
Mark
ps... if you have nice boobs maybe your scientist friends could help you
clone them...
that way when you get older...you could plant them on your chest instead of
choosing to grow old with grace, dignity, pride and honor. That's what
science can do for you...allows you to fake everybody but yourself...that
you have to deal with when you get home and look in the mirror....don't
think science can help you with that...sorry...bet you wish it could??
Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net) wrote:
Mark wrote to Lisa:
)I can argue better than either of you and it was Peter who consistently made
personal attacks under the guise of )passive-aggressive.
)The fact that you are making it personal once again shows you lack the mettle
to tackle my superior reason and )arguments. You are obviuosly frightened of
my superior intellect and reasoning powers.
)Best wishes
)Mark
No, we are just hoping to wear you all down and eventually some unwary
anthroposophist with a superior intellect like yours will reveal the heart
of the secret anthroposophic doctrines: anthroposophic breast enhancement.
Dottie once slipped and almost gave it away, and I keep asking her, but she
isn’t talking. Tarjei has given a few hints, and even some illustrations,
and now we have Mark slipping up and talking about scientists making boobs.
Obviously he is afraid the scientists will compete with the anthroposophists
in making of boobs. Just a short step from there to cloning a whole human.
Diana
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 14:00:44 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: evils of humanity...
Sarina:
)Wow, I stop paying attention for a day or two, and look what happens! At
)least things got lively for a while.
Goodness!! I'm sorry everyone. Mark shouldn't have been unsubbed IMO - at
least not for what he said to me. I totally goaded him. Dottie reminded me
recently of her secret Steiner exercise for getting "bigger boobs," and when
Mark inadvertently wrote "boobs" instead of "bombs," it just became
irresistible.
Sorry sorry sorry!
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:42:12 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
Dear Mark,
I have made no personal attack on you whatsoever. I called your argument
"rubbish" which I maintain it is. I included argument and evidence to
support that claim. You on the other hand called me egocentric, close minded
and unaware. These ARE personal attacks. They were and are unwarranted. If
my claims and argument are incorrect, attack them not me.
See you, Peter.
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote
)I can argue better than either of you and it was Peter who consistently
)made personal attacks under the guise of passive-aggressive. You did the
)same Lisa when you diagnosed me with having a reaction-formation.
_________________________________________________________________
Hot chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilemania/default.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:00:43 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
I hope Mark will return.
I wanted to comment on the argument that Mark made about the unnatural
nature of silicon implants and plastic surgery. I admit that my personal
experience with such things is precisely zero at least as far as I know. I
do not accept that plastic surgery is unnatural or that it is immoral. There
is any amount of plastic surgery performed through out the world the goal of
which of to repair people who have been disfigured through the mischance of
birth, or accident and injury. A common example is the repair of the faces
of children born with cleft palate. I think this is wholly honorable and
entirely natural.
It is not obvious to me that silicon breast implants differ in any important
qualitative way from a large variety of body alterings that people in
various cultures do. I am thinking of ear rings, various nose piercings,
tattoos, the raising of permanent welts, lip stretching, neck stretching and
so on. The list is very long. The motivations for some of these are sexual
attractiveness, fashion, power, much the same as the motivation for breast
implants and similar activities.
This is a specific argument. My general argument is that human beings are
part of nature or a product of nature. So is our intelligence, understanding
and technology. How can any product of that be unnatural? I will accept
artificial.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
E-mail just got a whole lot better. New ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:32:54 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
I have also had a chance to consider Mark's discussion of honorable battle.
I find his argument unconvincing. The only honorable battle I admit (at
least at the moment) is the battle to protect those who cannot protect
themselves from bullies. I really don't mind if those who do that protecting
use what Mark refers to as cowardly weapons. Here are some examples. If you
see an old lady being attacked and robbed in the street by some strong young
male is it ok to hit that strong young male from behind without warning with
a hefty stick. I say yes. In recent times we have seen UN peace keeping
forces operating in probably too few situations (and too late) rather than
too many. Close to my own home that would include a lengthy stay by
Australian forces among others in East Timor. Is their use of cowardly
weapons according to Mark appropriate? I say yes.
The alternative is the sort of nonsense we see depicted in earlier films
such as the seven samurai. I have yet to see Samurai and I probably won't on
any short time scale. While it is true that police forces around the world
suffer from many faults, it is also true that the end result of police
forces using cowardly weapons is a keeping of the peace, and a much safer
world for people. This is acheived by the control of bullies.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 18:48:27 -0500
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
Excellent points, Peter.
Taking Mark's obsession with "natural" a bit further...
We've already covered the hypocrisy of his training as a "computer
scientist" and his use of the evil unnatural Ahrimanic computers to earn a
living and to chew us out for our evil unnatural ways via this discussion
list.
Did his bicycle grow on a tree?
Does he use a refrigerator to preserve his fresh organic food? (I believe
science enabled refrigeration, eh?)
Does he enjoy eating fresh food in New Jersey during wintertime? (polluting
trucks and planes carry them in from southern climates)
Does he read books that have been printed and bound by modern printing,
paper and ink technologies?
Does he send/receive mail via the US Postal service (using amazing sorting
and transportation technology)
Does he use the telephone?
Does he have a dentist take care of his teeth? (or have them yanked when
cavities form)
How did he discover his beloved Steiner, Anthroposophy and Waldorf (I'm
guessing on the internet)
Etc. etc. etc.
...Gary
on 2/7/04 6:00 PM, Peter Farrell at feetapparel hotmail.com wrote:
) I hope Mark will return.
) I wanted to comment on the argument that Mark made about the unnatural
) nature of silicon implants and plastic surgery. I admit that my personal
) experience with such things is precisely zero at least as far as I know. I
) do not accept that plastic surgery is unnatural or that it is immoral. There
) is any amount of plastic surgery performed through out the world the goal of
) which of to repair people who have been disfigured through the mischance of
) birth, or accident and injury. A common example is the repair of the faces
) of children born with cleft palate. I think this is wholly honorable and
) entirely natural.
) It is not obvious to me that silicon breast implants differ in any important
) qualitative way from a large variety of body alterings that people in
) various cultures do. I am thinking of ear rings, various nose piercings,
) tattoos, the raising of permanent welts, lip stretching, neck stretching and
) so on. The list is very long. The motivations for some of these are sexual
) attractiveness, fashion, power, much the same as the motivation for breast
) implants and similar activities.
) This is a specific argument. My general argument is that human beings are
) part of nature or a product of nature. So is our intelligence, understanding
) and technology. How can any product of that be unnatural? I will accept
) artificial.
) See you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:56:08 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Admin: Re: evils of humanity and their ignorant use of science...
Dan Dugan wrote in response to Mark on global warming:
)Dear Mark, this argument is off-topic. It has no relationship to Waldorf or
)Anthroposophy. The philosophy of science is relevant, given that
)Anthroposophy opposes science as we know it, but specific issues like this
)that don't relate to Waldorf or Anthroposophy are off-topic.
)
)-Dan Dugan
)Moderator
G'day Dan,
perhaps we have strayed from the topic. I'm not so sure. I am interested in
this from Mark because it illustrates the selective nature of the acceptance
of scientific opinion among supporters of Anthroposophy. I might put it as
that with which we already agree is good science while that with which we
don't agree is the product of evil materialism. In the particular case of
global warming it seems to me that it is quite likely we are changing the
climate although I don't agree that it is a closed question. There is
evidence of climatic change of similar size to the current change happening
in preindustrial times. It is less clear that human activity has not had a
serious impact on the local environment in the past. The real problem is not
science or technology but the fact that people continue to behave as though
they are a small population of hunter gatherers when they are in fact part
of a large population in technologically advanced societies. Mark and I seem
to agree that people need to understand themselves better. We only differ in
how that might or should be done.
I hope we can discuss this further when Mark returns.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
E-mail just got a whole lot better. New ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 20:15:33 -0500
From: Jan-Christoph Kolb (jk2332 columbia.edu)
Cc: president waldorfcritics.org, secretary waldorfcritics.org
Subject: Kind request for interview
Dear Dabra, dear Dan,
I would really like to interview you over the phone for my project
on Camphill life and special eduaction. Of course, so-called
Curative Eduaction comes from Steiner and penetrates the whole
Camphill approach. Debra, you as a former Waldorf teacher, and you
Dan, as a Waldorf parent are especially familiar with the
anthroposophic approach to teaching and learning. I would very
much appreciate your professional advice and critical evaluation of
such holistic approach to eduaction.
May I call you on Monday?
Kind regards, Jan-Christoph
--
Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University
Jan-Christoph Kolb
530 W 112th St.
New York, NY 10025
Tel: 1 646 234 0565
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:50:20 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Kind request for interview
Hi Jan-Christoph,
Nice to have you have you here - a good place to look for information.
Unfortunately, I don't know how much information you will find for your
piece. In my experience, most people involved in anything stemming from
Anthroposophy will either espouse the virtues of Waldorf, Camphill, etc.
while attending Steiner study groups (so-called "DOFs" - Defenders of the
Faith) or they will trust that this method is simply better than any
alternative. "Better the devil I know," offered a Waldorf dad to me
recently.
I know a woman (Anthroposophist) who had her son in a Camphill facility for
many years. Last year, after a very stressful period, she pulled her
(adult) son from Camphill and told me, that in her opinion, he had been
pushed too hard to work there as opposed to being cared for. It was a very
difficult decision for her to remove her son, as she (the mom) is very
Anthrosophically inclined, yet she felt she had no choice. Is she willing
to speak about that decision publicly or her son's involvement with
Camphill? No.
Are most ex-Waldorf parents willing to speak of their Waldorf experiences?
No. The vast majority of ex-Anthro involved people simply want to move on -
especially when our children are involved. Many of us have been shunned by
others still in the "community." I speak from experience.
I have very little knowledge of what happens in a Camphill (type) facility
other than anecdotal offerings from various acquaintances and from reading
Steiner. I do know, however, how frustrating it can be to elicit
information from people who just ...want ...to ...move ...on. I have been
told this - regarding Waldorf - by more than one journalist in more than one
country.
BTW, I don't think Lisa was trying to lecture or patronize you with her
advice. Seems to me she was speaking as an experienced newspaper person who
also happens to have a wealth of knowledge vis-a-vis Waldorf.
I wish you success with your project.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 20:56:52 -0500
From: Jan-Christoph Kolb (jk2332 columbia.edu)
Subject: Re: Kind request for interview
Hi Walden,
thanks for your interesting and detailed response. I understand
that many ex-anthros want to move on, but why not sharing your
experience. I mean, you're still here, discussing Waldorf
education. The woman you mentioned, you don't think she would talk
to me. She's exactly the person I have been looking for. The reason
why she pulled out her kid does not surprise me. Would you be so
kind and at least ask her?
Jan-Christoph
--
Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University
Jan-Christoph Kolb
530 W 112th St.
New York, NY 10025
Tel: 1 646 234 0565
Quoting walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca):
) Hi Jan-Christoph,
)
) Nice to have you have you here - a good place to look for
) information.
) Unfortunately, I don't know how much information you will find
) for your
) piece. In my experience, most people involved in anything
) stemming from
) Anthroposophy will either espouse the virtues of Waldorf,
) Camphill, etc.
) while attending Steiner study groups (so-called "DOFs" -
) Defenders of the
) Faith) or they will trust that this method is simply better than
) any
) alternative. "Better the devil I know," offered a Waldorf dad to
) me
) recently.
)
) I know a woman (Anthroposophist) who had her son in a Camphill
) facility for
) many years. Last year, after a very stressful period, she
) pulled her
) (adult) son from Camphill and told me, that in her opinion, he
) had been
) pushed too hard to work there as opposed to being cared for. It
) was a very
) difficult decision for her to remove her son, as she (the mom) is
) very
) Anthrosophically inclined, yet she felt she had no choice. Is
) she willing
) to speak about that decision publicly or her son's involvement
) with
) Camphill? No.
)
) Are most ex-Waldorf parents willing to speak of their Waldorf
) experiences?
) No. The vast majority of ex-Anthro involved people simply want
) to move on -
) especially when our children are involved. Many of us have been
) shunned by
) others still in the "community." I speak from experience.
)
) I have very little knowledge of what happens in a Camphill (type)
) facility
) other than anecdotal offerings from various acquaintances and
) from reading
) Steiner. I do know, however, how frustrating it can be to
) elicit
) information from people who just ...want ...to ...move ...on. I
) have been
) told this - regarding Waldorf - by more than one journalist in
) more than one
) country.
)
) BTW, I don't think Lisa was trying to lecture or patronize you
) with her
) advice. Seems to me she was speaking as an experienced newspaper
) person who
) also happens to have a wealth of knowledge vis-a-vis Waldorf.
)
) I wish you success with your project.
)
) -Walden
)
)
==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter
) how basic. New threads are always welcome.
-
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:37:46 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Kind request for interview
Debra is not a former Waldorf teacher. She is a former Waldorf parent, as is
Dan.
) From: Jan-Christoph Kolb (jk2332 columbia.edu)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 20:15:33 -0500
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Cc: president waldorfcritics.org, secretary waldorfcritics.org
) Subject: Kind request for interview
)
) Dear Dabra, dear Dan,
)
) I would really like to interview you over the phone for my project
) on Camphill life and special eduaction. Of course, so-called
) Curative Eduaction comes from Steiner and penetrates the whole
) Camphill approach. Debra, you as a former Waldorf teacher, and you
) Dan, as a Waldorf parent are especially familiar with the
) anthroposophic approach to teaching and learning. I would very
) much appreciate your professional advice and critical evaluation of
) such holistic approach to eduaction.
) May I call you on Monday?
)
) Kind regards, Jan-Christoph
) --
) Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University
) Jan-Christoph Kolb
) 530 W 112th St.
) New York, NY 10025
) Tel: 1 646 234 0565
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:38:53 -0500
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: once more on science
Good points, all, Gary.
) From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary GoodWinter.com)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 18:48:27 -0500
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: Re: once more on science
)
) Excellent points, Peter.
)
) Taking Mark's obsession with "natural" a bit further...
)
) We've already covered the hypocrisy of his training as a "computer
) scientist" and his use of the evil unnatural Ahrimanic computers to earn a
) living and to chew us out for our evil unnatural ways via this discussion
) list.
)
) Did his bicycle grow on a tree?
)
) Does he use a refrigerator to preserve his fresh organic food? (I believe
) science enabled refrigeration, eh?)
)
) Does he enjoy eating fresh food in New Jersey during wintertime? (polluting
) trucks and planes carry them in from southern climates)
)
) Does he read books that have been printed and bound by modern printing,
) paper and ink technologies?
)
) Does he send/receive mail via the US Postal service (using amazing sorting
) and transportation technology)
)
) Does he use the telephone?
)
) Does he have a dentist take care of his teeth? (or have them yanked when
) cavities form)
)
) How did he discover his beloved Steiner, Anthroposophy and Waldorf (I'm
) guessing on the internet)
)
) Etc. etc. etc.
)
) ...Gary
)
)
) on 2/7/04 6:00 PM, Peter Farrell at feetapparel hotmail.com wrote:
)
)) I hope Mark will return.
)) I wanted to comment on the argument that Mark made about the unnatural
)) nature of silicon implants and plastic surgery. I admit that my personal
)) experience with such things is precisely zero at least as far as I know. I
)) do not accept that plastic surgery is unnatural or that it is immoral. There
)) is any amount of plastic surgery performed through out the world the goal of
)) which of to repair people who have been disfigured through the mischance of
)) birth, or accident and injury. A common example is the repair of the faces
)) of children born with cleft palate. I think this is wholly honorable and
)) entirely natural.
)) It is not obvious to me that silicon breast implants differ in any important
)) qualitative way from a large variety of body alterings that people in
)) various cultures do. I am thinking of ear rings, various nose piercings,
)) tattoos, the raising of permanent welts, lip stretching, neck stretching and
)) so on. The list is very long. The motivations for some of these are sexual
)) attractiveness, fashion, power, much the same as the motivation for breast
)) implants and similar activities.
)) This is a specific argument. My general argument is that human beings are
)) part of nature or a product of nature. So is our intelligence, understanding
)) and technology. How can any product of that be unnatural? I will accept
)) artificial.
)) See you, Peter
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 03:52:40 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: brainwashed
Mark Fitzpatrick wrote:
- I use only herbs, roots and teas to keep my health. I have not taken
antibiotics ( this not supporting the science that produces pharma's. ) in
ten years and my health is better than it has ever been! Antibiotics are
evil... our own body is capable of producing all the antibiotics it needs
as it needs it...naturally!! Try it..you will like it.
I responded earlier with:.
I beg to differ. I have had the misfortune to require antibiotics for
continued existence once or twice in my life. They are not evil. The way
they are used by the medical profession and in vetinary practice could be a
lot better. If my children really need them they will have them.
And Mark responded:
- so i know we have what we need all inside our bodies. Our children have it
too. It's a shame you are so brainwashed.
Peter F responds:
What is it that you are saying Mark? That it is a figment of my imagination
that people die from infections and simple ones at that? In the absence of
antibiotics virtually no one survives any kind of abdominal injury. To
suggest otherwise can only come from a combination of wishful thinking and
ignorance. The problem with antibiotics is that we waste their effectiveness
on trivialities as opposed to seriously life threatening injuries and
illnesses. The historical evidence is clear. One need only read histories of
hospitals to find out that they used to have extensive isolation wards full
of infected people many of whom died and those who didn't had extensive
recovery periods at great personal cost. The wide spread availability of
antibiotics stopped that. Note that in this argument I have attempted to
provide supporting evidence. You have made unsubstantiated claims and then
accused me of being brainwashed.
In summary it is simply false to claim that our bodies make all the
antibiotics they need. Unless staying alive isn't a priority of course.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Get less junk mail with ninemsn Premium. Click here
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 23:09:55 -0500
From: Jan-Christoph Kolb (jk2332 columbia.edu)
Subject: Re: Kind request for interview
Ok Lisa, thanks for bringing me up to date.
Chris
--
Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University
Jan-Christoph Kolb
530 W 112th St.
New York, NY 10025
Tel: 1 646 234 0565
Quoting "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com):
) Debra is not a former Waldorf teacher. She is a former Waldorf
) parent, as is
) Dan.
)
) ) From: Jan-Christoph Kolb (jk2332 columbia.edu)
) ) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) ) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 20:15:33 -0500
) ) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) ) Cc: president waldorfcritics.org, secretary waldorfcritics.org
) ) Subject: Kind request for interview
) )
) ) Dear Dabra, dear Dan,
) )
) ) I would really like to interview you over the phone for my
) project
) ) on Camphill life and special eduaction. Of course, so-called
) ) Curative Eduaction comes from Steiner and penetrates the whole
) ) Camphill approach. Debra, you as a former Waldorf teacher, and
) you
) ) Dan, as a Waldorf parent are especially familiar with the
) ) anthroposophic approach to teaching and learning. I would
) very
) ) much appreciate your professional advice and critical
) evaluation of
) ) such holistic approach to eduaction.
) ) May I call you on Monday?
) )
) ) Kind regards, Jan-Christoph
) ) --
) ) Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University
) ) Jan-Christoph Kolb
) ) 530 W 112th St.
) ) New York, NY 10025
) ) Tel: 1 646 234 0565
) )
) )
)
==^================================================================
) ) 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: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 23:46:01 -0500
From: Jan-Christoph Kolb (jk2332 columbia.edu)
Subject: Looking for former "Camphillers"
Dear all,
I'm looking for former co-workers and parents of children with
developmental disabilities who have experience with so-called
Camphill communities. These are sedentary and close-knit communties
where people with and without disabilities share a communal
lifestyle based on Steiner's approach to special education
(Curative Eduaction.)
kind regards, Jan-Christoph
--
Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University
Jan-Christoph Kolb
530 W 112th St.
New York, NY 10025
Tel: 1 646 234 0565
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 19:25:45 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Cc: president waldorfcritics.org, secretary waldorfcritics.org
Subject: Re: Kind request for interview
Jan-Christoph Kolb wrote:
)Dear Dabra, dear Dan,
)
)I would really like to interview you over the phone for my project
)on Camphill life and special eduaction. Of course, so-called
)Curative Eduaction comes from Steiner and penetrates the whole
)Camphill approach. Debra, you as a former Waldorf teacher, and you
)Dan, as a Waldorf parent are especially familiar with the
)anthroposophic approach to teaching and learning. I would very
)much appreciate your professional advice and critical evaluation of
)such holistic approach to eduaction.
)May I call you on Monday?
)
)Kind regards, Jan-Christoph
Sure. I start around 10:00 AM PST. (415) 821-9776.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 23:24:25 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Kind request for interview
Jan-Christoph - you wrote:
) Hi Walden,
) thanks for your interesting and detailed response. I understand
) that many ex-anthros want to move on, but why not sharing your
) experience. I mean, you're still here, discussing Waldorf
) education. The woman you mentioned, you don't think she would talk
) to me. She's exactly the person I have been looking for. The reason
) why she pulled out her kid does not surprise me. Would you be so
) kind and at least ask her?
Hi Jan-Christoph,
I already stated: "Is she willing to speak about that decision publicly or
her son's involvement with
Camphill? No."
While I did not ask her specifically to grant you an interview, I did
suggest she consider sharing her experience after-the-fact, and I know that
this issue is difficult for her. Remember, this woman is still
Anthroposophically inclined and not interested in anything which might be
construed as "Steiner bashing." I realize this is not your intention but as
I hope you can appreciate by hanging out here for a while (or searching
through the archives), *perception* of critique is oven misconstrued, imo,
as
*attacks* - either taken personally or worse - against Steiner.
I see the distinction as one of *religion or faith* as opposed to
*philosophy - ideas,* etc. For example, I suspect you would not have any
problem
tracking down people who have something to say about a negative experience
in
mainstream hospitals or public schools. The deeply religious (or spiritual)
nature of Camphill or Waldorf, however, make those criticisms much more
difficult for you (for example) to solicit because:
a) People exiting Anthroposophic initiatives are often, imo, going through a
difficult, confusing emotional transition (unlike simply leaving a "bad"
hospital or school)
b) once closure happens and we are ready to move on, "looking back" i.e. to
help a journalist - especially when children are involved - is rarely high
on the "to do" list. The family comes first.
c) In our society (at this time) any criticism of spirituality and/or
religion is not considered socially acceptable.
Obviously, there are exceptions and I, for one, applaud critical thought
with inquiring minds (and not just with Anthroposophy) and would go so far
as to say such action (sharing experiences, knowledge and feelings) are
absolutely socially acceptable. Such action, imo, displays a level of
social responsibility I hope to see magnified in the near future ... but I
*can* empathize with people who simply feel the need to be quiet and move on
with their lives.
Again, I wish you success with your project.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:44:16 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: evils of humanity...
Hi Sarina,
You wrote:
) It's rather a shame that many pro-Waldorf folks have stopped posting here.
) Now instead of having non-stop debate, we go from boring non-discussion,
to
) really "out there" WE supporters who flip out online...
)
) I almost miss Sune. :-)
I agree but if you are looking for some balance you might want to check the
anthroposopy tomorrow list
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/messages
Some of the pro-Waldorf, ex-Critics list people are there and in very good
form, indeed. I enjoy reading some threads there mainly because I can learn
some Anthro stuff I didn't know. Some of them really know their Steiner. I
don't get too caught up in the mean posts - and some are pretty cruel...
though anger does have a way of shining light into the shadows. Diana's
recent foray there was a classic lesson in the art of deflection. She made
a valid point and welcomed a response. Surprise. The responses had very
little to do with her point. After some very lengthy and interesting posts
which had little to do with the point she was making (as well as off the
wall insults) from various members of the list, Diana decided to leave. But
she was not forgotten...
Here's bit of a recent post (under the subject line of... "disrespect")
"Basically, Diana Winters, Sharon Lombard, Dan Dugan, Peter Staudemeir and
others involved in the Waldorf Critics or PLANS movements operate from a
double
standard. They challenge the premises, findings and applications of
Anthropsophy and its "daughter" movements of Waldorf Education,
Anthroposophical
Medicine*, Eurythmy, etc. to provide justification and backup for assertions
and
practices, yet they do not believe themselves to be responsible for
providing
such back up for their criticisms. Their arguments and assertions are full
of holes
and when discussed point for point by proponents of Rudolf Steiner's work,
they side-step specific issues and try to distract the conversation to
unrelated
and emotional elements of statements torn out of context and unrelated to
the
subject under consideration."
Walden: I do believe this member is honest with this perception. But I see
it as a mirror. Clearly. When I see Anthroposophists make various claims -
from Eurythmy (curative or otherwise) to (in Diana's example) the usefulness
of forcing children to become right handed, is it not the *claim maker's*
responsibility to back up the claim? If anyone feels so inclined, I would
love a second or third opinion. Read the thread and explain what I am
missing.
The post continues:
"To conclude, I personally take great offense at the tactics which have been
used and are currently being used to attempt to discredit all work arising
from
Rudolf Steiner's directions and teachings as well as the direct attacks on
students of Anthropsophy who have been portrayed as a uniform group of
brainless
"followers" of a cult leader or "guru." The amount of disrespect and
denigration of the wide variety of people actively engaged in understanding
and
applying the work of Rudolf Steiner would not be tolerated by proponents of
other educational philosophies such as those of Maria Montessori, other
research
establishments such as the American Cancer Society or other religious
institutions such as the churches of leaders such as Billy Graham, John
Hagee, Dr. James
Kennedy, etc.."
Walden: If any of the people mentioned above spoke about Indigenous
peoples, Africans, Jews, Orientals or the race of the future (whites) in the
same manner as did Rudolf Steiner, and if any of the above mentioned people
and/or their followers contributed in any way to the deception of well
intentioned families regarding the education of children... I sincerely hope
any criticisms of those people would not only be "tolerated" but would be
welcomed - especially in the Land of the Free.
One particular sentence in this post is worth repeating - it tells me that
she cannot understand Diana's logic. I have seen this time and time again
on this list and others - instead of explaining *exactly* where one is
confused with an idea, the tactic is to throw a big wet wool Steinerian
blanket over the idea - confuse it - and not let any of it filter through.
Did she really mean "hide ignorance?" And don't forget to shoot the
messenger:
(Speaking of Diana) "She, in my opinion, hides a great deal
of ignorance and lack of ability to think through a particular question by
couching her statements in a pseudo-intellectual writing style and the use
of
many "buzz words" that I do not believe she really understands the meaning
of."
The post ends with:
"I would ask that the members of Waldorf Critics and PLANS desist in these
offense tactics and either concentrate on their legal agenda or engage in a
fair, respectful and open debate on specific issues.
Christine Natale
February 5, 2004"
(who recently suggested that Waldorf Critics are on crack)
I must say, however, when the posts at the anthroposophy tomorrow have
nothing to do with Waldorf Critics (and many people there do seem fascinated
with critics) there are some excellent posts from very bright, well informed
people (including Christine) when it comes to Steiner and Anthroposophy.
Ain't life just one big learning experience?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 10:45:57 +0000
From: madpark nildram.co.uk (madpark nildram.co.uk)
Subject: main lesson
I am wondering if someone can translate this for me: this is from a
report card for a class 10 (age15/16) student at michael hall school
(east sussex england)
Mathematics main lesson:
The central theme of the main lesson was irrationality both in numbers
and geometry. We studied circle theorems, the golden section, spiral
forms and Fibonacci sequences.
Mechanics ML
The subject of mechanics is studied with the aim of experiencing that
the physical world can be understood and predicted in terms of
mathematical relationships. To this end movement of inorganic objects
and the forces which act upon them are studied. The relationships of the
forces and the movements are sort in mathematical formulae and these are
then used to predict the outcome of new situations.
My question is: what does this mean? is it normal mathematics or
mechanics? would this be studied in a normal school during mathematics?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:02:45 +0000
From: madpark nildram.co.uk (madpark nildram.co.uk)
Subject: football and brain damage
another question: again at Michael Hall Waldorf school (east sussex
england) The sports teachers said:
" 34% of recreational footballers have suffered brain or retinal damage.
Soccer in schools represents a physical danger to our children. In
addititon there is a high risk of knee injury."
can anyone tell me if this is true? or where I could check that
statistic.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1251
-- Topica Digest --
RE: football and brain damage
By jaquesdm msn.com
Re: evils of humanity...
By sarinamcdonald msn.com
Re: football and brain damage
By Gary goodwinter.com
RE: football and brain damage
By madpark nildram.co.uk
Re: football and brain damage
By Gary goodwinter.com
RE: main lesson
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: football and brain damage
By antigonabaires hotmail.com
RE: football and brain damage
By jaquesdm msn.com
RE: football and brain damage
By jaquesdm msn.com
Re: Kind request for interview
By snell gv.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 17:28:49 +0000
From: David Dodds (jaquesdm msn.com)
Subject: RE: football and brain damage
madpark nildram.co.uk wrote:
)
) another question: again at Michael Hall Waldorf school (east sussex
) england) The sports teachers said:
) " 34% of recreational footballers have suffered brain or retinal damage.
)
) Soccer in schools represents a physical danger to our children. In
) addititon there is a high risk of knee injury."
)
) can anyone tell me if this is true? or where I could check that
) statistic.
I believe that there has been some serious suggestion of a link between
old fashioned, unpainted footballs and incidence of various dementias.
34% seems a bit excessive though:- it might be worthwhile asking the
teacher for the source of his claim, and ask if that also applies to
modern footbals which remain broadly the same weight whatever the
climatic conditions.
Injury? Of course there is a risk, just as there is with any other
contact sport.
The bottom line is that anthroposophy is pretty disdainful of sport in
general, as most of us understand the word, because of the element of
competition. If we have competition, there will be winners and losers,
successes and failures, and that would never do.
Davy
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:48:12 -0800
From: "Sarina McDonald" (sarinamcdonald msn.com)
Subject: Re: evils of humanity...
) Ain't life just one big learning experience?
Yup. :-)
Thanks for the suggestion, Walden, but I don't think I will spend too much
time on anthroposophy tomorrow. I am very busy these days and I have put the
whole Waldorf thing behind me. I still like taking my kids to the local
school for fun festivals and stuff, because I know I can count on them for a
certain kind of event, but I no longer have nearly as much parental angst
about figuring out what's best for my kids. Kid #1 is in a non-Waldorf
school which works for him, and kid #2 will probably benefit from his
mother's greater experience...
Actually, the only reason I am still on this list is because I am curious to
see how the PLANS lawsuit turns out.
Also, I have participated on WC for... jeez... seven years (has it really
been that long?)! I almost feel like I know Diana, Deby, Dan, and a few
old-time peeps who are no longer here, and the critics have always been in
my computer, to the point where my In-box would feel naked without them!
Weird, eh?
Sarina
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 16:19:44 -0500
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: football and brain damage
on 2/8/04 12:28 PM, David Dodds at jaquesdm msn.com wrote:
) The bottom line is that anthroposophy is pretty disdainful of sport in
) general, as most of us understand the word, because of the element of
) competition. If we have competition, there will be winners and losers,
) successes and failures, and that would never do.
But this seems to contradict Anthro support of bullies and victims working
out their karma...are they also not "winners and losers"?
...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 22:44:58 +0000
From: madpark nildram.co.uk (madpark nildram.co.uk)
Subject: RE: football and brain damage
the sports teachers at Michael hall school say: "It is important that
competition is brought to the children when they have developed
appropriate moral and cognitive skills. (what does that mean??)
Games should reflect ‘our’ ideals. A game where young people use their
heads as a limb doesn’t." (hmmm... still contemplating that one...)
BTW: I had 2 replies to my previous question direct to me rather than
posted here, one specifically asked me not to post it here, why? For
future ref: I prefer to talk here and not privately...
Gary Bonhiver wrote:
)
) on 2/8/04 12:28 PM, David Dodds at jaquesdm msn.com wrote:
)
) ) The bottom line is that anthroposophy is pretty disdainful of sport in
) ) general, as most of us understand the word, because of the element of
) ) competition. If we have competition, there will be winners and losers,
) ) successes and failures, and that would never do.
)
) But this seems to contradict Anthro support of bullies and victims
) working
) out their karma...are they also not "winners and losers"?
)
) ...Gary
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 18:38:53 -0500
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: football and brain damage
on 2/8/04 5:44 PM, madpark nildram.co.uk at madpark nildram.co.uk wrote:
) the sports teachers at Michael hall school say: "It is important that
) competition is brought to the children when they have developed
) appropriate moral and cognitive skills. (what does that mean??)
) Games should reflect ‘our’ ideals. A game where young people use their
) heads as a limb doesn’t." (hmmm... still contemplating that one...)
As you know, "football" in the UK is known as "soccer" in the USA. The game
often involves bouncing/deflecting the ball off players' heads, hence the
comment about using it "