return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Does anyone have any evidence of anything?
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 00:35:59 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Does anyone have any evidence of anything?
Hi Galway,
Thanks for your response. A few points jumped at me but I don't want to
inundate you with more questions - I'll comment on a couple of your
thoughts...
You wrote:
"First of all, mission statements are generally worthless political
garbage. A much better understanding of the goals of an organization can
be found by reading its publications, investigating the subject matter
it endorses, and discussing the issues with its members. I have already
discussed some of the impressions I obtained by doing this. Secondly,
you were right. The first point of the mission statement might as well
say, "we don't care about the betterment of your children, and we do
simply seek to destroy Waldorf." It says PLANS will provide views of
Waldorf from "outside the cult of Rudolph Steiner." Clearly, the
pejorative diction clues me in to what "views" I'll be receiving. How
silly of me to assume PLANS was trying to do something constructive like
improve education in this country."
Your first post - to which I took exception - involved comments and claims I
found to be unfounded. Your points seemed disjointed and coming from a
place of misunderstanding. It seemed like an emotional response as opposed
to one stemming from any real study of the PLANS web site. I see now that
you did not, in fact, read much at the site and picked and chose your points
like a Waldorf teacher picking Steiner quotes for parents. Yes, I
understand your Waldorf experience was not the same as ours. This should
not, however, blind you to the fact that there are some very real problems
within the movement dealing mainly with disingenuous public relations. As
for your sarcastic comment (above), the way I see it, PLANS has never made a
claim or tried to undertake "something constructive like improve education
in this country."
I applaud those who see a serious problem and try to fix it. In doing so,
though, I would not expect such people to fix other problems at the same
time. Years ago, Galway, I was very involved in the anti-nuke movement.
Every once in a while during my travels someone would approach me to tell me
that I *should* be working to save trees or water instead. I would usually
engage them in conversation and suggest *they* get involved in the tree or
water saving movement. Usually, these people had environmental concerns but
were attached in some way to the nuclear industry. It hurt them to see
their industry under a microscope and they wanted me to "fix something
else."
In the case of PLANS and education, however, I think the organization *has*
helped to improve education by sharing views and knowledge with Mrs. and Mr.
Joe Public. The Critics and Survivors lists have helped many, many people
understand their Waldorf experiences because the sad reality is that many
Waldorf schools seem unable or unwilling to help people understand what they
are all about. Metaphysics might label the PLANS - Waldorf phenomena as
"karma" while the physicist would see action - reaction. People feel
confused... people feel hurt... people react. PLANS, as I see it, is about
reaction. Now, in the Land of the Free those who read the web site are able
to guffaw and continue with their Waldorf education (or live with fond
memories) or they can sit back and dig deeper for a better understanding of
the subject. In either case, Waldorf might work very well for some and not
for others. We all have the freedom to choose our paths based on the best
information available to us at any given point in time. PLANS helped spark
the flame that now shines light on a movement that has a very hard time
shining light on itself... Waldorf.
"After having read some of the discussions on here, I think it's
perfectly appropriate and even desirable to investigate the role of
Steiner philosophy in Waldorf classrooms."
We agree. Steiner philosophy *is* the classroom - from the color of the
walls to the morning prayers to the main lesson books to eurythmy. Each of
these elements are steeped in occultism a la Steiner and should be clearly
explained to parents *before* they send their kids to the schools.
"But the fact that Waldorf teachers study
Steiner is irrelevant. I don't care what teachers at any school do in
their free time, as long as it's not a felony."
When what the teachers study in their free time becomes a large part of my
child's life without my knowledge I sure as hell *do* care. Parents have a
right to know what the teachers studied during their Waldorf teacher
training, what goes on at faculty meetings and what *child meditations*
might be happening and how *exactly* the teacher sees their child - as a
beautiful little boy or an incarnating soul, etc.
Example: When those who deny the holocaust begin teaching such ideas as
"history" in schools, they must be questioned and perhaps removed from such
a position of authority, IMO. When a Waldorf teacher begins teaching about
4 elements, the reality of gnomes and the existence of Atlantis, she or he
must be questioned... UNLESS such vital information about the education was
shared with the parents before the child was enrolled, IMO.
I was watching a fascinating PBS documentary with my 13 year old son a while
back. My son has been out of Waldorf for over 3 years now and is doing very
well, but....at one point during the program (about the origin of humans) my
son looked at me and asked, "when will he talk about Atlantis?"
Some aspects of Waldorf I remember with great fondness. Other areas make me
feel very uneasy. Look beyond the Rainbow Bridge and the silk curtains.
The truth is out there....
-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 1332
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Does anyone have any evidence of anything?
By nmfoss hotmail.com
RE: Does anyone have any evidence of anything?
By tomas_masviken hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 08:23:58 -0400
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Does anyone have any evidence of anything?
Galway wrote: I understand that these articles are not written by the
PLANS people, but at the beginning of the article Dan Dugan inserts a
comment: "The Waldorf schools will tell you about their famous and
successful graduates. We hear about the disasters. See the following
anonymous posting from 'Rosie'." Clearly this is an endorsement of the
claims, but I think it also implicitly suggests that many Waldorf
schools tolerate abusive teachers (as if there are two groups in every
school, the graduating and the abused).
Nicole: In my opinion, our local Waldorf school was prepared to tolerate the intolerable. I used to think our school was an aberration, but I have since heard extremely similar stories from others all over the world and now consider it a systemic problem. I am not saying that all Waldorf school are like this by any means (I believe you when you say your Waldorf experience was beneficial for instance), but it would appear that enough of them are for the issue to be aired publicly.
A large percentage of the parent body at our school collectively related incidents of poor behaviour by one teacher to the college of teachers. This list of incidents included such things as threatening to bash the heads of a group of children against the wall if they didn't get into their classroom immediately, throwing a chair in class, shouting at other teachers in front of children and shoving a child up against a wall and shouting in his face. There were many other incidents as well. These were investigated by a board member and a majority substantiated.
The parents were promised, at a community meeting, that his activities (particularly those involving supervision of children) at the school would be curtailed. However, at the beginning of the new school year he was once again undertaking these activities. When concerned parents questioned this, they received a letter saying that the college and the board had reconsidered over the summer and now saw no need to place restrictions upon him. In other words, they unilaterally repudiated their promises without even notifying the parents who had brought legitimate concerns to their attention. In my opinion, governance at the school was pathological and there was an entrenched aversion to accountability.
This teacher referred to parents as 'the enemy' long before the parents tried to hold him accountable for his behaviour. I can only describe the reaction of the college of teachers as a siege mentality. These teachers knew exactly what this man was like, yet they chose to defend him against parents with legitimate concerns. The wagons circled round. Most of the parents who raised these issues, many of whom were among the school's most dedicated volunteers, have now left in disgust. We tried to bring about constructive change for the good of the school and were met with a brick wall.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 13:18:39 +0000
From: Tomas Måsviken (tomas_masviken hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Does anyone have any evidence of anything?
walden wrote:
)
) Tomas wrote:
)
) ) I have tried to tell how
) )positive my experience with waldorf have been, but it´s hard to express
) )since english is not my mother language.
)
) Hi Tomas,
)
) I appreciate your participation here - especially the fact that you are
) taking the time to express yourself in English.
) And you do this very well, in my opinion.
)
) -Walden
)
Thank you!
Tomas Måsviken
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1333
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Does anyone have any evidence of anything?
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Does anyone have any evidence of anything?
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom (was RE: Angry)
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 19:32:38 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Does anyone have any evidence of anything?
Galway O'Mahoney, you wrote (in part),
)...everything I've
)found on the site comes well short of laying out a solid argument with
)evidence. Instead, the authors appear to place their arguments on a
)basis of negative personal experience
Since you're basing your comments on your personal experience, that
can't be a bad thing...
)or Steiner's writing itself.
Which is the stated foundation of Waldorf education. Understanding
the foundation is...fundamental.
)I
)have yet to come across an examination of the education provided to
)students and its long-term effects. Such a study could be especially
)informative if used in conjunction with similar studies examining other
)types of educational environments, such as public school, other private
)school systems, and home schooling. If such a report exists, please
)point me to it. If not, please wait to ask for my sympathy until you
)have actual evidence that the Waldorf system is wrong for children in
)general.
You and me both. I'd love to see such a study. Unfortunately, the
people who do Waldorf education aren't interested in science (real
science), and they aren't likely to do a valid study. The problem
then becomes, who on the outside cares enough to invest in finding
the truth?
)In my own experience, involving both the Waldorf and public systems, I
)found the Waldorf system to be much more conducive to healthy learning
)and emotional development. I have read a number of horror stories about
)different Waldorf schools and teachers. But what seems to be missing is
)an acknowledgement of the fact that horror stories also occur in every
)type of environment. Yes, there are some insane people who shouldn't be
)trusted with children in the Waldorf school system. But in my personal
)experience, I found that there were far more of those people in the
)public school system.
Of course (sadly) people who shouldn't be teachers are teaching in
all kinds of schools. We've heard many opinions that Waldorf has a
higher proportion of incompetent or dangerous teachers, but there are
no statistics, just opinions. Looking the the low standards for
acceptance of people into Waldorf teacher training, and for the
hiring of semi-trained or untrained teachers by the schools, I'm
inclined to believe the opinions that there are more problems in
Waldorf, rather than yours.
)Yes, there were hierarchies formed in the Waldorf
)school that led to bullying, but nothing compared to the unmoderated,
)vicious harrassment that occurs in a public middle school. No, Waldorf
)does not spend as much time on standard science or math as public
)school. But unlike public school, which focused on memorization and
)multiple-choice tests, at least Waldorf emphasized the conceptual skills
)needed to understand science and math.
I haven't studied math teaching much, but I really question whether
Goethean Science gives you the skills needed to understand science.
(snip)
)I also noticed several articles/posts criticizing Steiner's writing,
)claiming it's racist among other things (this is mostly in reference to
)the "Featured Quotes" on the site). It is utterly ridiculous to me to
)claim that the Waldorf system inherently passes this on to people.
I don't think anyone does claim that, but I felt very uncomfortable
being a parent at a school that was selling books advocating typical
1920's German racism.
)The
)people teaching at these schools ARE human beings, and CAN make
)decisions about which parts of the writing to adopt. Yes, if the person
)is racist before becoming a Waldorf teacher, perhaps they choose to
)adopt some of Steiner's less interesting passages. But the fact that
)Steiner held views that would be considered racist by today's standards
)in no way implies that Waldorf teachers are feeding your children racist
)sentiments.
No, but how they react when you ask them about those views speaks volumes.
)The man was Austrian and grew up in the late 19th century!
)You can probably dig up racist sentiment in the writing of any European
)writer of the time. It would be incredibly foolish to discredit all the
)work of a person simply because they held some views that are
)unacceptable now. While we're at it, let's throw out the work of Newton,
)Galileo, Euclid, Aristotle, Thomas Jefferson, and pretty much every
)other founder of Western society.
I would agree with you if Anthroposophy took a rational position
towards those parts of Steiner's teachings. If they said "Steiner
believed these racist theories about the evolution of humanity, past,
present, and future, but we know he was wrong. We deplore those
theories and we ignore them." But unfortunately, they don't. When I
asked the teachers at my school about disturbing passages I'd seen in
books for sale at the school, all they would say was "some of Steiner
is difficult." Unfortunately, the race-based Theosophical theory of
evolution is fundamental to Anthroposophy, so they're between a rock
and a hard place.
)I find it very ironic that the author of the site criticizes Waldorf's
)relationship with the public. He writes, "Waldorf's deceptive public
)relations and marketing techniques often involve publishing comments by
)leading mainstream educational experts and organizations to 'normalize'
)the Waldorf pedogogy." The quote portrays the Waldorf organization as an
)extremely biased inveigler.
That's the truth, as I see it. We can discuss it.
)The evidence for this claim comes in the
)form of a quote by Howard Gardner which Waldorf takes out of context for
)PR uses. But in the very next section, the author gives in the to
)temptation to do the exact same thing. He takes racist comments from
)Steiner and uses them completely out of the historical and cultural
)context in which they were written. I think this is very telling of the
)type of thought that is driving this organization, and strongly calls
)into question its motivation.
Every quote is technically out of context, but what is meant by
calling a quotation "out of context" is that it is inconsistent, when
isolated, with the meaning of the whole text. But Steiner's racist
quotes are consistent with his teachings; he says the same thing in
many different ways. His statements were racist even in the context
of his time, and this is why sometimes, after making a particularly
objectionable point, he will follow up with generic liberal
sentiments to smooth things over. I suspect these spins were in
reaction to some shocked looks in his lecture audience.
)Is PLANS interested in improving education
)for the betterment of our children, or simply destroying an institution
)that seems to be working quite well?
PLANS mission includes neither of the above. The assumption that
Waldorf "seems to be working quite well" should be examined.
Thanks for joining the discussion.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 19:29:12 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Does anyone have any evidence of anything?
Galway O'Mahony, you wrote,
)I do have
)most of my main lesson books handy, if there's anything in there you're
)interested in.
Sure, do you have your "Man and Animal"?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 19:19:26 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom (was RE: Angry)
TOMAS:
) ) )I didn*t mean that the education in my school didn¥t contain any
)) )Anthroposophy. I meant that it¥s not as prominent as in the schools you
) ) )are referring to.
DAN DUGAN:
) ) Well, then, it just might be that your school was
) ) no different from the ones others have been
)) describing; it's just a matter of how different
) ) people react to what is there.
TOMAS:
)If you honestly believe that I¥m just more receptive than others....
)) )Since i haven*t saved many lesson books at all, I
) ) )cannot give you any "evinence".
DAN DUGAN:
) ) With all due respect, your opinion doesn't carry much weight without it.
TOMAS:
)Well, since I can¥t give you any evidence, perhaps we should just face
)the facts: I like waldorf, and you don¥t, and since you wont accept that
)there are good waldorf schools, I can¥t do anything else.
I didn't say that. I've allowed as how it might
be possible that your school is quite different
from most Waldorf schools; but then I also know
that the Waldorf movement in Sweden is very
Anthroposophical, so that makes your claims
harder to believe. My son's Waldorf teacher was a
very good teacher, and I had little to disagree
with with her. I know from personal experience
that there can be good Waldorf teachers, and I
don't deny that there are good Waldorf schools
either.
) ) ) ) I presume that you studied ancient history in
)) )) fifth and sixth grades. Was the sequence ancient
)) )) India, Persia, Egypt, Greece and Rome?
)) ) ) Anthroposophy plays a big role in these lessons.
)) )
)) )I think we did, but since my knowledges about history is comparable to
)) )any others, I dont think they where very Anthroposophic.
))
)) Again, we need evidence to carry this discussion
)) any further. You may not be aware what was
) ) Anthroposophic and what was real history.
)
)So... I was thaught false history... I haven¥t noticed any fake parts.
)By the way, I was discussing history with a public history teacher, and
)he thought that I was very good at history. And what would be concidered
)as Anthroposophic history?
Most of the ancient history lesson books I've
seen have concentrated on mythical and religious
themes. The ancient India period is completely
mythical, drawn from the Vedas. The ancient
Persia period is all about Ahura Mazda and
Ahriman. Ancient Egypt is about pharaohs being
initiated into mystery religion; stories not from
history but from 18th and 19th-century fiction.
Study of Rome will cover the mythical "seven
kings." And so on. I suppose it's pointless to
ask to see your lesson books on these.
) ) (snip)
)) )What are your plans after 12th grade?
)) )
)) )I*m studying civil engineering/industrial design at KTH (The Royal
)) )University of Technology) in Stockholm. But im going to travel and work
)) )first.
))
) ) I'd like to hear more about where you plan to go and what you will do.
)
)I don¥t know where, but I would like to "know" a city and maybe learn a
)language.
Hmm, not quite the same thing as planning to go
to KTH. Have you actually been accepted there?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 19:26:29 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom
TOMAS:
) ) )The four elements and chemistry doesn*t really fit together. We had a
) ) )chemistry block in seventh grade (13/14) and we burned different
)) )materials and studied the oxidation and reaction. The four elements was
) ) )never mentioned though.
DAN DUGAN:
) ) Sounds like it might have been a better-taught
)) block, but I'd like to know more about "studied
)) the oxidation." Sorry to sound like a broken
) ) record, but do you have that lesson book?
TOMAS:
)No I don¥t have the lesson book... I -think- we studied the oxidation
)and how different materials react with fire. We talked about how and why
)they melt, burn and explode. And don¥t even think think that we used any
)Goethian Science, because we didn¥t.
Did you actually talk about the oxidation
chemical reactions? My son's combustion lessons
didn't mention real chemistry at all. The "why"
was completely missing, it was all observation.
Your description does sound like Goethean
Science, so far.
-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 1334
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom (was RE: Angry)
By tomas_masviken hotmail.com
RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom
By tomas_masviken hotmail.com
Man and Animal
By galway420 hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 20:27:24 +0000
From: Tomas Måsviken (tomas_masviken hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom (was RE: Angry)
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) TOMAS:
) ) ) )I didn*t mean that the education in my school didn¥t contain any
) )) )Anthroposophy. I meant that it¥s not as prominent as in the schools you
) ) ) )are referring to.
)
) DAN DUGAN:
) ) ) Well, then, it just might be that your school was
) ) ) no different from the ones others have been
) )) describing; it's just a matter of how different
) ) ) people react to what is there.
)
) TOMAS:
) )If you honestly believe that I¥m just more receptive than others....
) )) )Since i haven*t saved many lesson books at all, I
) ) ) )cannot give you any "evinence".
)
) DAN DUGAN:
) ) ) With all due respect, your opinion doesn't carry much weight without it.
)
) TOMAS:
) )Well, since I can¥t give you any evidence, perhaps we should just face
) )the facts: I like waldorf, and you don¥t, and since you wont accept that
) )there are good waldorf schools, I can¥t do anything else.
)
) I didn't say that. I've allowed as how it might
) be possible that your school is quite different
) from most Waldorf schools; but then I also know
) that the Waldorf movement in Sweden is very
) Anthroposophical, so that makes your claims
) harder to believe. My son's Waldorf teacher was a
) very good teacher, and I had little to disagree
) with with her. I know from personal experience
) that there can be good Waldorf teachers, and I
) don't deny that there are good Waldorf schools
) either.
I give up.
) ) ) ) ) I presume that you studied ancient history in
) )) )) fifth and sixth grades. Was the sequence ancient
) )) )) India, Persia, Egypt, Greece and Rome?
) )) ) ) Anthroposophy plays a big role in these lessons.
) )) )
) )) )I think we did, but since my knowledges about history is comparable to
) )) )any others, I dont think they where very Anthroposophic.
) ))
) )) Again, we need evidence to carry this discussion
) )) any further. You may not be aware what was
) ) ) Anthroposophic and what was real history.
) )
) )So... I was thaught false history... I haven¥t noticed any fake parts.
) )By the way, I was discussing history with a public history teacher, and
) )he thought that I was very good at history. And what would be concidered
) )as Anthroposophic history?
)
) Most of the ancient history lesson books I've
) seen have concentrated on mythical and religious
) themes. The ancient India period is completely
) mythical, drawn from the Vedas. The ancient
) Persia period is all about Ahura Mazda and
) Ahriman. Ancient Egypt is about pharaohs being
) initiated into mystery religion; stories not from
) history but from 18th and 19th-century fiction.
) Study of Rome will cover the mythical "seven
) kings." And so on. I suppose it's pointless to
) ask to see your lesson books on these.
Thats right. And since when do you speak swedish?
) ) ) (snip)
) )) )What are your plans after 12th grade?
) )) )
) )) )I*m studying civil engineering/industrial design at KTH (The Royal
) )) )University of Technology) in Stockholm. But im going to travel and work
) )) )first.
) ))
) ) ) I'd like to hear more about where you plan to go and what you will do.
) )
) )I don¥t know where, but I would like to "know" a city and maybe learn a
) )language.
)
) Hmm, not quite the same thing as planning to go
) to KTH. Have you actually been accepted there?
Thats right, dont believe a word of what I´m saying. I´m just a stupid
waldorf student. KTH i my dreams. I´m going to travel and work FIRST.
And no, I have not yet been accepted, I haven´t even graduated! I´m not
even going to try to explain!
Totally irrelevant!
Tomas Måsviken
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 20:30:27 +0000
From: Tomas Måsviken (tomas_masviken hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) TOMAS:
) ) ) )The four elements and chemistry doesn*t really fit together. We had a
) ) ) )chemistry block in seventh grade (13/14) and we burned different
) )) )materials and studied the oxidation and reaction. The four elements was
) ) ) )never mentioned though.
)
) DAN DUGAN:
) ) ) Sounds like it might have been a better-taught
) )) block, but I'd like to know more about "studied
) )) the oxidation." Sorry to sound like a broken
) ) ) record, but do you have that lesson book?
)
) TOMAS:
) )No I don¥t have the lesson book... I -think- we studied the oxidation
) )and how different materials react with fire. We talked about how and why
) )they melt, burn and explode. And don¥t even think think that we used any
) )Goethian Science, because we didn¥t.
)
) Did you actually talk about the oxidation
) chemical reactions? My son's combustion lessons
) didn't mention real chemistry at all. The "why"
) was completely missing, it was all observation.
) Your description does sound like Goethean
) Science, so far.
)
) -Dan Dugan
If you don´t believe me, fine. You don´t know anything about the swedish
educational system, and I don´t understand how this discussion could
favour any of us.
Tomas Måsviken
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 08:39:20 +0000
From: Galway O'Mahony (galway420 hotmail.com)
Subject: Man and Animal
I've seen a lot of references to the "Man and Animal" main lesson book
on here, and since I have mine I thought it might be useful to post.
Below is the entire text of my "Man and Animal" main lesson book. The
only thing in there that could possibly be construed as religious is the
division of the body into head, trunk, and limbs. But there's no
question that this division can also be viewed as a simple metaphor for
the different functions of the body. If you're really searching for
something to get worked up about, you might also claim that referring to
our ears, eyes, nostrils, and mouth as "windows" is religious. Anyway,
here it is; I left grammar/spelling errors intact, and noted them at
points.
** Man and Animal **
"Noble be Man - helpful and good. For this alone distinguishes him from
all other beings unto us known." - Goethe
Three-Fold Man:
In the human form, we see three main parts: head, trunk, and limbs.
- Head: The head is round and sits on the body. It's hardest part is
outside and the soft part is inside. It is the organ of Thinking. It
also contains 7 windows through which we perceive the world.
- Trunk: The trunk holds the balance with its curving ribs, alternating
hard bone and soft space. Our life of feeling is present through the
harmonious rhythm of heart and lungs.
- Limbs: Our limbs are straight with the hardest part within and the
softest part without. Our limbs are active and doing many things.
Because humans have arms and hands free of the ground, we can serve and
work.
The Four Kingdoms of Nature:
Though it is not living, the Mineral Kingdom gives form and structure
to the earth and all living things.
The Plant Kingdom is imbued with life. Plants take nourishment from the
earth and sun.
The Animal Kingdom has the ability to move from one place to another.
Through the sounds of animals, we can perceive their feelings. An animal
is led to act in a particular way through its instincts.
Man alone has the ability to stand upright. His hands are free to serve
and work and he can think and act out of free will. He can create
artistically and communicate through writing and speech. He cares for
the earth and all living things.
The Octopus:
The octopus is an animal without any bones. It lives in the sea. It has
a soft, bag-like head and eight arms (tentacles) which come together at
the mouth. The mouth has a hard, bird-like beak used for cracking
shell-fish. The arms each have two rows of suction cups used for holding
and drawing the prey into its mouth. When an octopus is in danger, it
shoots a black liquid behind it so it can escape. The octopus senses his
world through his body of arms. The human senses of sight, hearing,
taste, etc. are in are [sic] head so we can see the octopus as a big
swimming head.
The Mouse:
The mouse is a small, furry animal with a pointed snout, bright eyes,
and a long tail. It has special front teeth that he uses to gnaw, and
they replace themselves as many times as needed. When we look at a
mouse, we see that he is mostly trunk; with a head that is just an
extension of the body, and feet that are tiny by comparison.
The Spider Monkey:
The Spider monkey is a tree dwelling monkey that lives in Central and
South America. Its limbs are very long. Its forelegs are arm-like and
its tail is longer than its body. This "fifth leg" can be used hanging,
swinging, and even picking up small objects. They can leap up to 30 feet
from one tree to another. They feed on nuts and fruits.
The Eagle:
The eagle is a bird of prey with strong tallons [sic] and beak for
tearing flesh. The eagle possesses a power of sight far keener our own.
His wings carry him almost as fast as our thoughts can fly. The eagle
builds its nest on rocky ledges or on tall trees and can have a wing
span up to nine feet.
The Lion:
The lion has a great roar. He can run and leap thirty-five feet. Many
legends tell of his courage. The lion's favorite food is zebra and the
lionesses do most of the hunting. A full grown male lion weighs 520
pounds and is 7 to 10 feet long. The lion is the color of the golden
sun. He loves the warmth-filled air and because of his courage and
dignity is called the King of Beasts.
The Deer:
The deer is a plant-eating animal that is the prey of meat-eating
animals. The deer is mostly legs so it can bound away from danger. It
runs lightly on hooves that are actually toenails - its ankles and knees
are nearer the top of its legs.
The Shark:
The shark senses are all over its body. This makes it like the octopus
(cuttlefish). It seems all mouth and trunk like the mouse. Its long body
propells [sic] it through the sea with great power and so its whole form
is like the limb animals (ie) the deer or monkey. Sharks shed their
teeth every eight to ten days. The Lemon shark has live births, all
others lay eggs. They are known as "predators of the sea."
The Giant Panda:
The giant panda is unclassified. It may be a bear or a racoon [sic], or
or it may require its own classification. They are endangered because
they are killed for fur, money and for the land of their natural
habitat. Pandas eat 85 lbs. of bamboo shoots per day. They like honey
and dead animals especially because they are themselves poor hunters. A
panda's front paws like a human hand and can "grasp." Panda babies weigh
3-4 oz. at birth and many die before they're grown. A mother panda
successfully raises only 1 baby every 3-4 years.
A Day as a Stag (Note: we each had to write a short story from the POV
of an animal):
I'm a stag. One day I woke up and I was very thirsty so I went down to
my favorite stream. But when I got there I heard a giant rumbling and I
saw a huge garbage truck driving away and there was garbage all over the
stream. Very sad I ran away to find another stream. On my way back I
came across a campsite and there were two kids. When they saw me they
chased me away and when I was running my antlers got stuck in some tree
branches and right when the kids were behind me the branches broke and I
got away. After that I was very hungry and tired so I ate some leaves
and berries and went to bed. The End.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1335
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Man and Animal
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 22:31:07 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Man and Animal
G'day Galway,
thanks for posting your man and animal main lesson. I am sure I am not the
only one who appreciates the effort you took to post it. Thanks also for the
background on your PhD. Good luck with it. There are some excellent people
in the department there. You should do well.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Impossible is not a fact, it's an opinion. Have your say! Check out the
inspiring stories at http://www.adidas.com.au/impossible We dare you.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1336
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Man and Animal
By nmfoss hotmail.com
[NNA] Final shortlist for Anthroposophical Society in America
general secretary
By dan dandugan.com
Christine??
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Man and Animal
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 11:16:23 -0400
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Man and Animal
Dan (or anyone else who knows), could you place the Man and Animal lesson in its anthroposophical context for us please? I remember some snippets, but not enough to really understand how this lessons fits into the Waldorf curriculum.
Nicole
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 10:42:53 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: [NNA] Final shortlist for Anthroposophical Society in America
general secretary
Copyright 2004 News Network Anthroposophy Limited (NNA). All rights reserved.
NNA content on this website or distributed by NNA by any other means
may not be republished or redistributed without the prior consent of
News Network Anthroposophy. Users may use and print extracts of NNA
content without permission for their own personal and non-commercial
use only.
For republication or redistribution please contact NNA at:
(mailto:admin nna-news.org)admin nna-news.org.
+ + + + +
NNA-N E W S
Final shortlist for Anthroposophical Society in America general secretary
ANN ARBOR, MI (NNA) - At the end of a 5-month nomination process, a
final shortlist of four candidates has been drawn up for the post of
general secretary of the Anthroposophical Society in America.
According to a statement from the society, the Nominating Committee
whittled down a list of 20 nominations to propose Joan Almon, of
Maryland; Gary Lamb, of New York; Douglas Miller of Michigan and
MariJo Rogers of California.
The society's General Council will now invite the nominees to attend
its meeting in June in Ann Arbor, MI. The Council then hopes to make
its decision at that time or shortly thereafter.
The nominations and selection procedure was itself developed with the
extensive input of members and grew out of a desire from many members
for a more transparent and participatory process for general
secretary selection.
The Nominating Committee was formed in September 2003 and included
members from each region of the country in order to maximize contact
with the membership.
Of twenty individuals nominated, eight expressed an interest in being
considered for the position. The committee then met in April and
recommended four names to the General Council for consideration.
The candidates
Joan Almon, is co-founded of the Waldorf School in Baltimore and the
Waldorf Early Childhood Association. She was on the advisory circle
of the International Waldorf Kindergarten Association and has served
on the Pedagogical Section. She founded the Alliance for Childhood.
She has been a member of the General Council for the past 12 years
and is the current general secretary.
Gary Lamb, is the former production manager at Weleda in the USA. He
is the founder and executive director of the Hope Through Education
privately funded voucher program and co-founded Margaret Fuller
Corporation, he is also managing editor and essayist for The
Threefold Review. A Waldorf economics teacher, he is a member of
Social Science Section. Writings include "Social Mission of Waldorf
Education" (in press).
Douglas Miller is professor of German and art at the University of
Michigan. He has served on board of Rudolf Steiner Institute of the
Great Lakes Area and on Central Regional Council. He is editor of
News for Members and American correspondent for the journal "Das
Goetheanum".
MariJo Rogers is a former English teacher, at Sacramento Waldorf High
School. She served on the coordinating committee of the Faust Branch,
Fair Oaks, CA and on the Western Regional Council. She currently
manages a world wide program of training and awareness for
Hewlett-Packard out of its Social Responsibility group.
END/cva
The entire selection process and relevant documents are posted in the
"Governance" section of the Society's web site:
(http://www.anthroposophy.org/)http://www.anthroposophy.org.
+ + + + +
040505-01EN
5 May 2004
More NNA reports at: http://www.nna-news.org/content/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 23:31:08 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Christine??
Christine,
I really hope you are still on this list as you seem to have disappeared
before our project began. We were going to work on the Waldorf FAQs and you
mentioned mid-March. Spring has Sprung and I am still interested in working
with you on this important project. It was so nice to find common ground
and I hope to keep the connection happening.
A re-write of the famous FAQ's is really needed - a Waldorf teacher and
ex-Waldorf parent (turned researcher) would seem to be the ideal mix to
accomplish this task. I hope all is well with you.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 00:17:08 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Man and Animal
Hi Nicole,
You wrote:
)Dan (or anyone else who knows), could you place the Man and Animal lesson
in its anthroposophical context for us please? I remember some snippets, but
not )enough to really understand how this lessons fits into the Waldorf
curriculum.
I remember the first time I saw this lesson book. I thought my little guy
had made a mistake and I assumed it was supposed to say "Man *the* Animal."
Nope. Looking through the book I thought that despite the nice artwork and
printing - it was a little odd but relatively innocent. Years later I
realize the reality behind Man and Animal. Pretty important
anthroposophical principle is the distinction between "Man" and "Animal."
Steiner's "The Study of Man" is a good read that touches on the topic.
The following might shed some light, as well:
'Anatomy and physiology a la Steiner are unrecognizable by modern
scientists: the heart does not pump blood; there are 12 senses ("touch,
life, movement, equilibrium, warmth, smell," etc.) corresponding to signs of
the zodiac; there is a "rhythmic" system that mediates between the
"nerve-sense" and "metabolic-muscular" systems. Physics and chemistry are
just as bad: the "elements" are earth, air, fire, and water. The four
"kingdoms of nature" are mineral, plant, animal and man. Color is said to be
the result of the conflict of light and darkness. Typical geological stages
are Post-Atlantis, Atlantis, Mid-Lemuria, and Lemuria.
Waldorf teachers are supposed to teach Steinerian evolution. In this view,
species were specially created, rather than evolving from one another, and
"spiritual beings were the creators." "Let us start from the point that the
gods, or the divine spiritual beings, decided to create the world and man.
For this we have a good authority in the first chapter of the first book of
the Bible." (all quotes from a teachers' training manual by Roy Wilkinson,
Man and Animal, The Robinswood Press, Stourbridge, England, 1990, p. 2-3,
provided courtesy of NCSE member Dan Dugan.)
The Waldorf version of evolution is especially concerned with the
relationship of humans to animals, but this relationship is quite different
from that of mainline evolutionists. "It becomes apparent that man is a
compendium of the animal kingdom; alternatively expressed, that the animal
kingdom is the human being spread out." The human "essence" passed through a
number of "spiritual states" on the way to becoming human, which was a
relatively recent event. "Dr. Steiner considers animals to be the
by-products of human development. Man has been involved from the beginning
but not in a physical form. Man existed spiritually and the animal forms
represent physically incarnated soul forces which the human being had to
dispense with in order to mature sufficiently to receive the ego. ... As in
life ... we are trying to overcome the lower passions to evolve to something
higher, so throughout evolution, the passions were separated out from man
and these were incorporated as animals."
"We see then that man is not the result of animal evolution but that he is
at the beginning of it and is central to it. Indeed he is the cause of it.
The animal world represents soul qualities which the human being has
discarded although he still retains remnants of them."'
From:
Waldorf Schools Teach Odd Science, Odd Evolution
(c) 1994 Eugenie C. Scott
National Center for Science Education
420 40th Street, Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2509
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Eugenie_Scott_94.html
-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 1337
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Man and Animal
By nmfoss hotmail.com
Re: www.WaldorfCritics.com Feedback
By dan dandugan.com
Waldorf Schools
By woden101 yahoo.com
RE: Waldorf Schools
By galway420 hotmail.com
Re: Waldorf Schools
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Waldorf Schools
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Waldorf Schools
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Waldorf Schools
By carmine_s_lynch_jk seedfactory.be
Re: Waldorf Schools
By carmine_s_lynch_jk seedfactory.be
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 13:03:22 -0400
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Man and Animal
Thanks Walden,
I remember animals being classified as head, trunk or limb animals (a classification which no one uses outside of anthroposophy). The distinction was emphasized as if it had real biological significance in my son's class. I also vaguely remember something about (imperfect) animal forms imitating aspects of the (perfect) human form, and a great deal of spiritual significance being associated with the latter. No mention was ever made of any schema for the classification of animals which would be recognizable to biologists, even those of Steiner's era and earlier.
Does anyone have any more illuminating Steiner quotes on the subject?
Nicole
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 11:22:34 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Cc: wslep aol.com
Subject: Re: www.WaldorfCritics.com Feedback
wslep aol.com, you wrote to PLANS. I'm replying to your message on
our public discussion board, waldorf-critics, and I invite you to
subscribe to the list if you want to continue the discussion.
)Your posted letters have no content, they seem to allude to a
)problem with Waldorf but All I see is your ignorance and lack of
)ability to see a bigger picture,
I think you disrespect many people who have many years experience
with Waldorf by saying that their letters "have no content." I'd like
to hear more about the "bigger picture" that you refer to.
)If you were such Bible thumpers why did you put your kids in Waldorf
)in the first place?
Long before PLANS, Evangelical Christians were the first people to
recognize how Waldorf concealed its religious nature. See Thieves of
Innocence by Craig Branch.
I'm a Secular Humanist. I put my son in Waldorf because I loved the
integration of art into everything, and what I thought was a
classical curriculum. The board of PLANS includes Humanists, people
in main-stream religions, people with no professed religion, and a
representative of a Christian anti-cult organization.
)Whats next Montissori????
It doesn't appear that the Montessori movement needs to have a public
opposition; they don't conceal who they are and what they do. There
is, however, a chain of Montessori schools run by a religious cult,
Church Universal and Triumphant, that people should be aware of. For
more information on that, see Paolini's book
http://www.allbookstores.com/book/0966621301
)You people are just dumb.
Thanks for your opinion. What is your experience with Waldorf?
-Dan Dugan
Secretary, PLANS, Inc.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 02:07:35 +0000
From: Chris (woden101 yahoo.com)
Subject: Waldorf Schools
Greetings,
I would like to state first that, in many respects, I agree with the
philosophy pursued by organizations such as this. However, I believe
that I have some valuable perspective on this issue which deserves a
fair hearing. Although the stated purpose of this group is to be
critical of Steiner, waldorf schools, and anything anthroposophical I
hope that this does not mean that this group is composed of no-one but
extremely dogmatic detractors of Waldorf pedagogy.
I am currently entering college having from a public high school, but
this is mostly irrelevant. I attended a Steiner School from Kindergarten
through 8th Grade. Thus, I have had a substantial portion of my life in
a waldorf setting, but I do have some distance from it as well which
affords me more than enough "objectivity", as it were, to discuss the
issue of Waldorf schools.
Reading through your site would lead one to believe that Steiner schools
are composed of no-one but "the faithful" who are secretly conspiring to
push totally insane ideas upon impressionable youngsters. However, such
a picture, I believe, leaves something to be desired as I look back over
my memories and as I assess where I am today. My story does not qualify
to disprove any given doubt about Waldorf pedagogy, but it does provide
a worthwhile anecdotal account.
But where to begin....Let's start with reading. Like everyone else in
Waldorf schools, I wasn't presented with reading drills in kindergarten
nor in first grade. We did begin learning the alphabet at that time,
however. My transition into reading, like the majority of my peers, was
effortless and joyful, coming in a sort of prototypical form in second
grade and then in full power by third grade. Waldorf schools emphasize,
in the early years, an essentially oral approach to language.
Story-telling was very common as a means of engaging our attention.
These were stories drawn from a wide variety of sources, an eclectic mix
of folk-tales, myths, and more modern stories. My language abilities are
very strong, and have always been so. I can remember feeling compelled,
without outside encouragement of any sort, to write down my own version
of the story of St. Christopher. This happened between 2nd and 3rd
grade, not too long after my reading ability had clicked in to gear. In
summary, I cannot conceive of how any other approach to reading would
have been any more beneficial to me. At my public high school, my
abilities were certainly far above average and I scored an 800 on the
verbal section of the SAT. The Steiner school left me with a deep
appreciation of great stories, and a love of the word. I think that a
lot of this may have had to do with the fact that I wasn't forced into
reading before it was appropriate. In addition, my parents read to me at
bed-time a lot, and this probably helped as well. Whatever happened to
me worked. I maintain contact with many of my former class-mates, and,
with a few exceptions, they are all "above average" in this respect as
well (it is important to note, in this regard, that many of the students
who enrolled at the Steiner School were those struggling in the public
school system. In fact, of all of my class-mates who graduated 8th grade
with me who had been there from the beginning, about 12, none have any
difficulties with language abilities.
Ok, now to math. I'll keep these remarks briefer. We were all learning
math from first grade onwards. I remember drilling my times table,
something which served me quite well in higher math pursuits, and
learning number values through managing accounts of various objects.
I learned, with about half of my class-mates (most of us, upon
reflection, the "originals") Algebra I in eigth grade. I pursued math
all the way through high school calculus, consistently earning A's
without too much difficulty (I scored 700 on the math section of the
SAT). Yet again, I seem to have only benefitted under the Waldorf system
as concerns mathematics.
Music, art, theatre, and crafts are all very strong at the Waldorf
schools. The Waldorf High Schoolers continually impress with exceptional
artistic talent. Our music program was also quite good (I had the
opportunity to learn and play piano, recorder, and the violin). Some of
this activity is directed in a way influenced by Steiner's ideas about
art and how it concerns "the spiritual world", this I admit. Looking
back, and now having actively read Steiner on my own, I can see his
influence. The thing is: regardless of how one reacts to his many ideas,
some have proven remarkably true, others, no doubt, are wrong. Only
recently has traditional pedagogy been realizing the value of art-work
and music at an early age, and this, only falteringly. Steiner clearly
saw it. Even dogmatic opponents should concede this point.
I'll conclude with science and history. The history at Steiner schools
is, on the whole, more extensive than that given at public schools.
Steiner's influence is present, but in a dissimulated form. In my
experience MYTHOLOGY WAS NEVER TAUGHT AS HISTORICAL FACT. The transition
from learning mythology in the 4th grade to studying ancient mesopotamia
and greece was delineated. I have an immense appreciation for the study
of history as well as mythology. In scientific education, we encounter
an area where I, too, have some reservations, looking back on what I
learned. Our education in chemistry and physics (in 7th and 8th grades)
was pretty good, although unconventional. Other aspects are more
tentative. I remember the "heart as pump" debate featuring in our
discussion of the circulatory system (by the way, we were taught that
muscle contraction is caused by nervous system, as far as I can
remember, and not that the only nerves are sensory nerves). The
presentation of the anatomy itself was accurate. However, I am slightly
distressed by how the teacher openned up the possibility that the heart
was somehow connected to "feeling" with the "heart as pump" debate. I
vigorously argued that the heart was "nothing but an organic pump". I
was not silenced or anything, but the teacher displayed reluctance in
acquiescing to my position. Make of this what you will. On the whole my
scientific mind emerged relatively undamaged, and I plan on studying
biology in college. Graduates from the Steiner High School also do well
in life; I have known several.
I will conclude by addressing an objection which some may raise. In the
case of an individual like myself it is possible that I would have
thrived under any condition. Indeed it is. However, nobody can deny that
intelligence and learning are built in a manner highly dependant upon
the environment. If all Steiner schools were places such as one might
imagine only reading a site like this, I doubt that my intellect would
have emerged as lively, critical, and active as it did. The brain does
not develop without adequate stimulation. One way or the other, I must
have recieved that in all those years between K and 8.
Chris Wilson
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 02:58:27 +0000
From: Galway O'Mahony (galway420 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Schools
Chris wrote:
"I hope that this does not mean that this group is composed of no-one
but extremely dogmatic detractors of Waldorf pedagogy."
Don't worry, some of the members of this list are, like you, former
Waldorf students who are very satisfied with the education they
received. Unfortunately, the members of this list who ARE critical of
Waldorf generally are "extremely dogmatic" and provide little if any
evidence of the claims they make about what goes on in Waldorf
classrooms. Just know that any discussion you have will contain a great
deal of circular logic and personal accusations, and not much substance.
Christ wrote:
"In my experience MYTHOLOGY WAS NEVER TAUGHT AS HISTORICAL FACT"
I couldn't agree with you more. In my Waldorf experience, mythology was
presented as just that, and there was a clear distinction between it and
the history lessons we had (Oregon state history in 5th grade).
Have fun,
Galway
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 23:33:41 -0400
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Schools
Galway, no offense, but the "evidence" that you provide of Waldorf education
being effective and of value is just as anecdotal as the "evidence" provided
by those of us whose own experiences or whose children's experiences
revealed the opposite!
You and Chris tell us that Waldorf worked well for you, and please believe
me when I say we are happy about that. I wish that I (and dozens of the
other Waldorf survivor families I know) could say the same; after all, we
enrolled our children in Waldorf schools because their pitch/what they
promised to do, appealed to us. The sad truth is that the reality, for us
(and again, for the 80+ families currently on our survivors' list from
around the world) was far, far different. If it had, we wouldn't be calling
ourselves "survivors."
Most of the critics on this list were, at one time, Waldorf supporters and
even promoters. We believed we had stumbled upon something wonderful for our
kids: a school system that would nurture our kids' creativity and
individuality while instilling in them a love of learning. We believed it
when they told us that Waldorf provided a non religious education in a
multicultural, arts-based environment. So imagine how sad, disappointed, and
yes, angry we were when we encountered, instead, a rigid, authoritarian,and
often anti intellectual environment where most everything revolved around an
esoteric religion many of us had never heard of or been told about.
Because Waldorf schools refuse to conduct actual studies of their retention
rates, standardized test scores, etc., no hard "evidence" of either
Waldorf's successes or failures is available. All we can do is talk about
what it was like for us. That is what you and Chris are doing: you are
offering your experiences to show Waldorf works. On the flip side, many of
us offer our or our children's experiences to show Waldorf does not work.
Lisa
) From: Galway O'Mahony (galway420 hotmail.com)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 02:58:27 +0000
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: RE: Waldorf Schools
)
) ===========================================================
) Empower your Team with Remote Access. GoToMyPC Pro
) provides your organization with instant remote access to
) email,files, applications and network resources in real
) time. FREE TRIAL:
) http://click.topica.com/caaccMSb1dkiGb1IpcOa/ ExpertCity
) ===========================================================
)
) Chris wrote:
) "I hope that this does not mean that this group is composed of no-one
) but extremely dogmatic detractors of Waldorf pedagogy."
)
) Don't worry, some of the members of this list are, like you, former
) Waldorf students who are very satisfied with the education they
) received. Unfortunately, the members of this list who ARE critical of
) Waldorf generally are "extremely dogmatic" and provide little if any
) evidence of the claims they make about what goes on in Waldorf
) classrooms. Just know that any discussion you have will contain a great
) deal of circular logic and personal accusations, and not much substance.
)
) Christ wrote:
) "In my experience MYTHOLOGY WAS NEVER TAUGHT AS HISTORICAL FACT"
)
) I couldn't agree with you more. In my Waldorf experience, mythology was
) presented as just that, and there was a clear distinction between it and
) the history lessons we had (Oregon state history in 5th grade).
)
) Have fun,
) Galway
)
) ===========================================================
) Sponsor a child today through Children International.
) Give a desperately poor child hope for a brighter future.
) For only $18 a month you can make a difference!
) http://click.topica.com/caaccM4b1dkiGb1IpcOf/ Children's Int'l
) ===========================================================
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 23:59:02 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Schools
Hi Chris,
I'm pleased to know that Waldorf worked well for you and that you have
taken time now to share your opinions here.
Chris wrote:
"I hope that this does not mean that this group is composed of no-one
but extremely dogmatic detractors of Waldorf pedagogy."
And Galway replied:
)Don't worry, some of the members of this list are, like you, former
)Waldorf students who are very satisfied with the education they
)received. Unfortunately, the members of this list who ARE critical of
)Waldorf generally are "extremely dogmatic" and provide little if any
)evidence of the claims they make about what goes on in Waldorf
)classrooms. Just know that any discussion you have will contain a great
)deal of circular logic and personal accusations, and not much substance.
Speaking of "circular logic...." Ironic, n'est ce pas? And Galway can
predict the future, too!
Maybe it's a Waldorf grad thing to know about discussions before they
happen...? (g) Sorry to disappoint but I
enjoyed your post, Chris and I do believe that Waldorf worked for you - or
at least you have fond memories of your Waldorf experience.
I echo much of what Lisa wrote in response to your post and I suspect you
are correct when you mention that you might have become who you are
had you not attended a Waldorf school. Personally, I think too much
emphasis is placed on institutions like schools when it comes to pointing to
how an individual becomes later in life. I know plenty of home learners and
"un-schoolers" who are extremely bright, articulate, thinking individuals...
happy with their lot in life. Your parents read to you as a lad. I think
that's important. Eurythmy? Not quite as important, IMO. Unless you are
an anthroposophist.
I must add, however, that I know many families who have had very bad Waldorf
experiences. Our school had groups of people leave en masse on more than
one occasion. Incompetence and lack of accountability resulting in a
circling of the teacher's wagons are the common theme. My own kids will not
even consider going close to their old school. There are very real
emotional scars.
When I discovered the Internet and saw similar stories, it did not take the
akashic record to tell me there is a pattern. Are there problems in
non-Waldorf schools, too? No doubt. Waldorf is unique for a few reasons,
IMO. This is a clearly defined system of education based entirely on the
ideas of a turn of the century Austrian occultist. This fact is
indisputable yet most parents are kept in the dark by Waldorf PR.
My #1 concern has to do with the disingenuous nature of Waldorf public
relations. This is at the root of the Waldorf controversy. Until such time
as Waldorf shines a light on itself and trusts that parents will make the
right choice for the children in their care, people will continue to be
critical of the movement. Of course, when Waldorf teachers cling to every
word Steiner ever said and treat Him as One Not Be Questioned... the problem
is compounded. For example - to the first teachers:
"You will have to take over children for their education and instruction -
children who will have received already (as you must remember) the
education, or mis-education given them by their parents."
Steiner, The Study of Man, Lecture One
I don't begrudge you your fond memories of your particular Waldorf school,
Chris. I just wish I had known what it was all about prior to having taken
the bait some years ago. I know I am not alone in that regard.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 00:21:50 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Schools
In the event that I be accused of taking Steiner out of context with my
previous post and a quote from The Study of Man, I will add a couple of
important bits to help place Steiner's thoughts *in context.* I was
alluding to the fact that Waldorf teachers, during their training, are
immersed in Steiner's occultism. I'm not passing judgment (now) on these
concepts of soul work and reincarnation but they are extremely important
with regards to how a Waldorf teacher is supposed to view the student in the
classroom.
Helping to put Steiner in context:
"If you regard with an open mind the child who has found his way into
earthly life, you will observe that here in the child, Soul-Spirit or
Spirit-Soul is as yet dis-united from the Life-Body. The task of education
conceived in the spiritual sense is to bring the Soul-Spirit into harmony
with the Life-Body. They must come into harmony with one another. They must
be attuned to one another; for when the child is born into the physical
world, they do not as yet fit one another. The task of the educator, and of
the teacher too, is the mutual attunement of these two members."
Steiner, The Study of Man, Lecture One
Again, this stuff is what makes Waldorf...Waldorf, yet parents are not privy
to such vital information until they might join *study groups* at the
school. Instead we are told that Steiner was an educator, a scientist, an
artist, etc. Why do you think this happens, Chris ...or Galway?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 03:25:34 -0400
From: carmine_s_lynch_jk seedfactory.be
Subject: Re: Waldorf Schools
This is an autoresponder. I'll never see your message.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 03:00:47 -0400
From: carmine_s_lynch_jk seedfactory.be
Subject: Re: Waldorf Schools
This is an autoresponder. I'll never see your message.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1338
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Waldorf Schools
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: Waldorf Schools
By carmine_s_lynch_jk seedfactory.be
Some issues
By woden101 yahoo.com
Re: Some issues
By carmine_s_lynch_jk seedfactory.be
Re: Some issues
By Gary goodwinter.com
RE: Waldorf Schools
By galway420 hotmail.com
Re: Some issues
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 11:32:57 -0300
From: "Bruce Angus" (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Schools
Galway wrote: ".the members of this list who ARE critical of Waldorf generally are "extremely dogmatic" and provide little if any evidence of the claims. Just know that any discussion you have will contain a great deal of circular logic and personal accusations, and not much substance."
Circular logic implies looking at issues from all sides. I'd personally call it "back and forth" discussion. You're right, though, about the personal accusations: "extremely dogmatic" is about as personal and accusatory as it gets. Galway, take some advice from a used-to-be-a-Waldorf-teacher: the fighting part isn't worth it. Just state your truth, be kind, and when you're surrounded by people who drive you kooky, realize it's time to boogie. Because at that point it's your problem, and not theirs.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 10:37:00 -0400
From: carmine_s_lynch_jk seedfactory.be
Subject: Re: Waldorf Schools
This is an autoresponder. I'll never see your message.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 11:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Woden (woden101 yahoo.com)
Subject: Some issues
To address a couple of things.
First: I don't wish to take part in any flaming or
useless pontificating.
Second: Walden, you ask a very poignant question which
does, I agree, deserve an answer. It is very important
to preliminarily re-state, such that everyone is very
clear, that anthroposophy, per se, is not taught in
the class-room. Many of the activities which make
waldorf "waldorf" have, as you so correctly stated, a
basis in anthroposophy. However, I think that the most
important thing which you all need to think about is
whether or not that is a bad thing. It seems, and I
may be misreading your position, that because of some
of this influence you think that waldorf is therefore,
a priori, corrupt or inadequate...not appropriate as a
pedagogy. This is like saying that nutritional
approaches to preventing cancer are bad because the
Nazi's happened to have advocated them, perhaps on
shaky ground. That is flawed--argument by association.
After examining the differential between anthroposophy
and the content of waldorf schools one should only
then cast a value judgement on what Waldorf has to
offer. If you disagree, for good reason, with the
waldorf curriculum then fine, that's your call. I just
don't think you should dismiss it because you do not
agree with some/much/all of anthroposophy. To conclude
this broad commentary around your question I'd like to
offer that Waldorf schools, in fact, are not
particularly religious. Yes, verses are recited. Some
holidays celebrated. If one examines the content of
these events, they mostly are inter-denominational.
Their is some anthroposophical influence. If one finds
the particular content of any of these events
objectionable that's fine.
Your question was more specifically about evasiveness.
I suspect that their is, in fact, reluctance to
discuss anthroposophy with the layman. As to why this
is so, I do not really know. I can speculate that the
anthroposophist would be hard-pressed to formulate the
spiritual content in a way which wouldn't foster
misunderstanding...even to themselves! I also think
tha t a lot of this problem is highly contingent upon
the particular set of teachers you were exposed to.
The best book from an outsiders perspective about the
movement is Ahern's "Sun at Midnight". Perhaps the
cliche adage "don't throw the baby out with the
bath-water" is appropriate here.
Chris
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 14:54:42 -0400
From: carmine_s_lynch_jk seedfactory.be
Subject: Re: Some issues
This is an autoresponder. I'll never see your message.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 17:01:29 -0400
From: Gary Bonhiver (Gary goodwinter.com)
Subject: Re: Some issues
I've just turned off carmine's subscription so we won't get his
autoresponder message after each post. He can ask to turn it back on when
he returns.
...Gary
on 5/7/04 2:54 PM, carmine_s_lynch_jk seedfactory.be at
carmine_s_lynch_jk seedfactory.be wrote:
) ===========================================================
) Empower your Team with Remote Access. GoToMyPC Pro
) provides your organization with instant remote access to
) email,files, applications and network resources in real
) time. FREE TRIAL:
) http://click.topica.com/caaccMSb1dkiGb1IpcHa/ ExpertCity
) ===========================================================
)
) This is an autoresponder. I'll never see your message.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 03:38:04 +0000
From: Galway O'Mahony (galway420 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Schools
Lisa D. Ercolano wrote:
"Galway, no offense, but the "evidence" that you provide of Waldorf
education being effective and of value is just as anecdotal as the
"evidence" provided by those of us whose own experiences or whose
children's experiences revealed the opposite"
I have provided no evidence other than the text of my "Man and Animal"
book. In all my other posts, all of my information is provided with
qualifying statements to make it clear that it is my personal experience
or opinion and nothing more. I've approached this discussion list with
nothing but an open mind, politely requesting that people explain their
positions. Although the majority of the people contributing are quite
polite and respectful in their replies, I feel that there are people who
are less than civil.
Galway
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 May 2004 01:29:42 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Some issues
Hi Chris,
You wrote:
"Second: Walden, you ask a very poignant question which
does, I agree, deserve an answer. It is very important
to preliminarily re-state, such that everyone is very
clear, that anthroposophy, per se, is not taught in
the class-room."
As such - I would agree. I do not believe the curriculum includes mention
of racial or spiritual hierarchies, post Atlantean epochs or the future war
of all against all (anthro teachings) but I trust you would agree that
anthroposophy forms the basis of the curriculum as set forth by the
indications of Rudolf Steiner and that Waldorf teachers are expected to
participate in learning and meditating on these "indications?"
You wrote:
"Many of the activities which make
waldorf "waldorf" have, as you so correctly stated, a
basis in anthroposophy. However, I think that the most
important thing which you all need to think about is
whether or not that is a bad thing."
Not if the Waldorf folks completely and honestly inform parents as to the
reality behind that "basis in anthroposophy." That is "the most important
thing."
When I asked, I was told that this "philosophy" simply meant, "the wisdom of
man." Well, that sounded all well and fine - how can the "wisdom of man" be
a bad thing? Little did I know....
You wrote:
"It seems, and I may be misreading your position, that because of some
of this influence you think that waldorf is therefore,
a priori, corrupt or inadequate...not appropriate as a
pedagogy. This is like saying that nutritional
approaches to preventing cancer are bad because the
Nazi's happened to have advocated them, perhaps on
shaky ground. That is flawed--argument by association."
Slow down. Yes, you have misread my position. I might have voiced concern
regarding the weirdness of Waldorf pedagogy at some point but I cannot
expect any school to live by my expectations - thus my wariness of any
educational institution. I certainly do not have the answers to the
question of what constitutes a "good" education. There are no clear
answers.
My position is this: When Waldorf PR informs the public that Waldorf
education is based on anthroposophical concepts and goes on to explain those
concepts and includes a thorough explanation of why Waldorf teaches the
post-Atlantean epochs as history, the reality of Eurythmy, why the walls are
"lazured" certain colors, why the morning prayer is called a "verse," why
black crayons might be missing in the early grades. etc.... I'll get back to
spending much more time with activities that bring me more meaning and/or
laughs than hanging out here. For now... I accept this as my karma.
Something like that (g)
You wrote:
"After examining the differential between anthroposophy
and the content of waldorf schools one should only
then cast a value judgement on what Waldorf has to
offer. If you disagree, for good reason, with the
waldorf curriculum then fine, that's your call. I just
don't think you should dismiss it because you do not
agree with some/much/all of anthroposophy."
See my comments above regarding any value judgments.
"To conclude this broad commentary around your question I'd like to
offer that Waldorf schools, in fact, are not
particularly religious."
I disagree and so does ex-master Waldorf teacher, Eugene Schwartz. I
respectfully submit that he has been around more Waldorf schools than you.
See: http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/schwartz.html
You wrote:
"Yes, verses are recited."
The word "verse" really does sound innocent, doesn't it? I remember
standing outside my grade one child's classroom and hearing what I could
only understand as a "prayer" being chanted by the children. I felt very
confused and uncomfortable listening to the chanting. I was so enamored
with the lack of pop machines and pop (s'cuse the pun) culture of the school
that I was willing to accept that my child was simply reciting a "verse"
when it was explained to me later that day. I suppose the teacher did not
think I was ready to understand that which Steiner told the first teachers
many years ago:
"We will also talk about a prayer. But there is just one thing
I should like to ask you. You know, with these things the outer form is of
the utmost importance. Never call the verse a 'prayer' but a 'school opening
verse'. Do see to it that people do not hear the expression 'prayer' used by
a teacher. This will go a long way towards overcoming the prejudice that
this is an anthroposophical school."
Steiner, Rudolf. Conferences with the Teachers of the Waldorf School
in Stuttgart 1919 to 1920: Volume One: The First and Second Years of
the Waldorf School, Stuttgart. (1920) Forest Row, U.K.: Steiner
Schools Fellowship Publications, 1986, p. 45
You wrote:
"Some holidays celebrated. If one examines the content of
these events, they mostly are inter-denominational.
Their is some anthroposophical influence. If one finds
the particular content of any of these events
objectionable that's fine."
Is Michaelmas a "holiday" where you live? Which inter-denominational
holidays did your Waldorf school celebrate? Now you have me curious. How
many African or Chinese holidays were celebrated? Which celebrations
involved the local First Nations?
You wrote:
"Your question was more specifically about evasiveness."
Yes.
You wrote:
"I suspect that their is, in fact, reluctance to
discuss anthroposophy with the layman. As to why this
is so, I do not really know. I can speculate that the
anthroposophist would be hard-pressed to formulate the
spiritual content in a way which wouldn't foster
misunderstanding...even to themselves!"
I can't disagree with you there. Your suspicion is right. Seen it happen.
Pretty odd way to run a school movement, don't you think? "Sorry, we can't
explain it to you because we can't explain it to ourselves.... or we choose
not to."
You wrote:
"I also think that a lot of this problem is highly contingent upon the
particular set of teachers you were exposed to."
Clearly this is not the case as I explained in a previous post. The problem
is systemic, Chris. Thus, this international discussion, too many people on
the Waldorf Survivor's email list and a whole lot more who have simply put
their disturbing Waldorf experiences behind them. Again, I do not doubt
your personal experience. I can only hope to help to shed light on what I
see as your misunderstandings of the bigger picture.
-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 1339
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Waldorf Schools
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Some issues
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: Some issues
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 07:36:56 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Schools
I don't know who Galway considers "extremely dogmatic" here, but I don't
think the replies to Galway have been dogmatic. Frankly, they've all been
quite civil too. The critics seem to be accused of dogmatism if we don't
immediately declare we have been all wrong about Waldorf the moment someone
posts a story about their happy Waldorf experience. I certainly believe that
some kids have very positive experiences in Waldorf schools, there are good
teachers in Waldorf schools etc. Is it dogmatic to believe this (it would be
absurd to deny it), yet also think that there are serious systemic
deficiencies in the education, and that the education is permeated with
elements of esoteric doctrine that parents are not informed of in a
systematic way? I don't need more than "anecdotal" evidence to tell me that
this happens, as at our school, I was specifically requested not to discuss
anthroposophy with parents because it "puts them off".
Is it dogmatic to be skeptical, and ask for evidence, when told by a Waldorf
student that "no anthroposophy was taught"? We are skeptical because it
usually happens that the student or former student insists they never
learned any anthroposophy, yet when/if they post any of their lesson
material, it is a lesson derived straight from Steiner's esoteric
indications (as was Galway's "Man and Animal" lesson). Even the order of the
animals was straight from anthroposophic texts. The "four kingdoms of
nature" and "threefold man" have no basis in "biology" and don't belong in a
science lesson. (It's a shame they didn't mention man is an animal too.) The
thrust of the lesson is the separation between "man and animal" and the
various "head, trunk and limb" animals representing, respectively,
"thinking, feeling, and willing" a la "threefold man," and, as Walden
explained, anthroposophists believe these qualities are divided up among the
animal kingdom and finally united in man. That is Steiner dogma (and rather
pernicious dogma at that). The "Man and Animal" lesson is Steiner dogma and
very little more (though I liked the story you wrote, Galway). :)
Sorry if this post was dogmatic . . .
Diana
Galway wrote: ".the members of this list who ARE critical of Waldorf
generally are "extremely dogmatic" and provide little if any evidence of the
claims. Just know that any discussion you have will contain a great deal of
circular logic and personal accusations, and not much substance."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 17:24:49 -0300
From: "Bruce Angus" (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Some issues
Chris: "Waldorf schools, in fact, are not particularly religious."
Walden: "I disagree and so does ex-master Waldorf teacher, Eugene Schwartz."
Eugene Schwartz: "I would say we are religious schools. Religious schools plus; religious schools with a difference; religious schools light--whatever you want to call it. But we are, we are schools that inculcate religion in children. But it's a different kind of religion, because it leaves them free to find their own religious path or not."
People can discuss back and forth: Is Waldorf religious? Or a circular, spiraling type of dialogue can take place regarding the question: What is Eugene Schwartz referring to when he says "different kind of religion"?
That's the first time I've read the famous E.S. speech. You know, he isn't actually saying that Waldorf schools are religious. He's saying the term 'religious' as it's understood by most people, doesn't apply in the same way. In a roundabout way, he's really saying Waldorf schools are simply reverential (and non-denominational). And he's correct to a degree regarding the 'reverence versus religion' aspect. But schools take a very Christianized approach even to that, which I see E.S. himself wasn't ready to admit.
Hi Galway -- Your last note was very truthful and quite kind. Where'd you learn that technique? Hey, I didn't mean to suggest you have a problem (from my last note). I was just saying that I've learned from experience that whenever I'm feeling frustrated, it always comes down to me and what I need to be doing.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 00:50:49 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Some issues
Hi Bruce,
You quoted:
Eugene Schwartz: "I would say we are religious schools. Religious schools
plus; religious schools with a difference; religious schools light--whatever
you want to call it. But we are, we are schools that inculcate religion in
children. But it's a different kind of religion, because it leaves them free
to find their own religious path or not."
Then Bruce adds:
"That's the first time I've read the famous E.S. speech. You know, he isn't
actually saying that Waldorf schools are religious."
What he says is *exactly* that, Bruce. You just quoted him.
Schwartz continues his speech:
"I have a 9-year-old daughter; she's in third grade at Green Meadow Waldorf
school. And these are some of my experiences. I know every morning she says
a verse, and, as Dan pointed out, it's a verse that speaks to God. I would
call it a prayer: that's what I used to tell my class. You're speaking a
prayer. I want you to stand still, I don't want you to move around, I want
you to really be respectful because we're talking to God now. And a child
said, "You mean we're praying?", and I said yes, we're praying."
And...
"She's learned that God created the world in seven days; she's learning
about Abraham, and the terrible existential struggle he had when he was
asked by God to sacrifice his son. She's going to learn about the king, the
battles, the Israelites. Does she learn from her teacher? Well,
archaeological evidence has pointed out recently that the size of David's
empire might have been severely exaggerated by the scriptures. Not at all:
she's learning it as truth."
I remember a similar discussion with a Waldorf teacher - asking if he
teaches the old testament stories as "stories" or "fact." My child would
come home feeling quite confused. Really. The answer from the teacher was
"fact." This is history and this is "the truth." This is Waldorf
education - a religious education.
Schwartz:
"That's why I send her to a Waldorf school. She can have a religious
experience. A religious experience. I'll say it again: I send my daughter to
a Waldorf school so that she can have a religious experience. So that she
learns something about reverence. So that she learns something about
respecting a higher being. If she didn't learn that, she'd be out the door
in a minute. I don't want her to go to a school that calls itself Waldorf,
and denies her a religious experience."
And...
"The time has come for us to stop pussyfooting around [theories] that will
sound too strange if we tell parents what we are really doing. Don't say I
didn't tell you guys--10 years ago!. Stop pussyfooting around. Tell
everybody what we are about. The day they walk into the school, let them
know then.
If we are really to be a movement for cultural renewal, it is our
responsibility to share with the parents those elements of Anthroposophy
which will help them understand their children and fathom the mysterious
ways in which we work Yes, we are giving the children a version of
Anthroposophy in the classroom; whether we mean to or not, it's there. So
let's at least do it the right way."
Bruce wrote:
"He's saying the term 'religious' as it's understood by most people, doesn't
apply in the same way. In a roundabout way, he's really saying Waldorf
schools are simply reverential (and non-denominational). And he's correct to
a degree regarding the 'reverence versus religion' aspect. But schools take
a very Christianized approach even to that, which I see E.S. himself wasn't
ready to admit."
I hear what you're saying, Bruce and to be honest, the debate around
Anthroposophy -is it or is it not a religion... does not interest me as much
as the need to correct the shoddy Waldorf outreach material. I suspect we
would be in agreement when it comes to suggesting that Waldorf schools
really need to prepare parents for what their children will be doing on a
daily basis in these schools. Personally, I do believe it to be more
"religious" than any other description or perhaps a NRM (new religious
movement). I tend to agree with Merriam Webster:
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
And I also agree with Schwartz that this religious system is "in the
classroom." I have always found it bizarre that this fact has ever been in
question. It is blatantly obvious, IMO. The word "occult" is sadly lacking
in this discussion - perhaps out of fear of a misconstrued meaning. Steiner
was an occultist and had no problem with that word. You mention that you
think Schwartz was speaking in a "roundabout way." Funny how that seems to
happen a lot in anthroposophic circles. What a shame, don't you think?
-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 1340
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Some issues
By madpark nildram.co.uk
Re: Some issues
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Waldorf Schools
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Some issues
By momof2gals mindspring.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 12:24:41 +0100
From: madpark (madpark nildram.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Some issues
Hello walden
You often ask for statistics from the waldorf schools, I have some "leavers"
statistics here from 1996 '97 '98 from Michael Hall School, Forest Row, east
sussex england.
1996 school pupil numbers: 514 leavers jul 96: 118
1997 school pupil numbers: 466 leavers jul 97 :159
1998 school pupil numbers:466 leavers jul 98: 111
The 'communications' lady used to say they had no trouble attracting new
pupils they just had trouble holding onto them.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 11:08:51 -0300
From: "Bruce Angus" (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Some issues
Walden wrote: "And I also agree with Schwartz that this religious system is "in the classroom." I have always found it bizarre that this fact has ever been in question. It is blatantly obvious, IMO. The word "occult" is sadly lacking in this discussion - perhaps out of fear of a misconstrued meaning."
Hi Steve - I agree with the points you make, and that it (some sort of religious "something") is in the classroom. But what is it that's actually in the classroom? That's the thing I'm interested in uncovering - and I understand and accept that most people here have no interest in these questions whatsoever.
Your occult comment is telling I think. Steiner meant for this stuff to be treated in an occult way - Anthroposophy is his attempt at creating a modern stream of occult knowledge. But it's generally taken up in a quasi-religious manner by teachers. People, to put it bluntly, worship Steiner and his philosophy-specific lecture-sermons, whereas the occult tradition is all about self-won knowledge of the universal variety.
To be fair, many teachers are too overworked to put much thought into occult self-development and occult study. It's so much easier to simply join a faculty morning circle, recite a Steiner verse, and then head off to the classroom. That's the extent of most teachers' occult development - with the exception of a Thursday afternoon Steiner reading in which half the faculty usually nods off. People end up just following along, and presto - a religious (follow the priest) rather than occult (follow the self) relationship to the philosophy.
E. S. quote from your post: "Yes, we are giving the children a version of Anthroposophy in the classroom; whether we mean to or not, it's there. So let's at least do it the right way." I still believe he's really saying in his lecture: "This is all about developing a "true" relationship with Anthroposophy - working with occult knowledge in an open and correct manner. It's not really about religion, because "religion" in the normal sense of the word doesn't apply here."
One thing he's definitely not saying, is that Anthroposophy takes a Christian-specific occult approach to things. I'd suggest he and others (unconsciously?) don't want to mention that reality, given it would throw quite a monkey wrench into the "different kind of religion" argument.
.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 21:58:05 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Schools
G'day Galway,
I don't recall seing an uncivil post to you. Can you point one out please.
See you, Peter.
_________________________________________________________________
SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 18:33:15 -0400
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Some issues
That looks like an understatement, at least for Michael Hall!
) From: "madpark nildram.co.uk" (madpark nildram.co.uk)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 12:24:41 +0100
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: Re: Some issues
)
) ===========================================================
) Cancel your low-carb diet. Lose weight. Choose your own
) foods. Learn more about our program at:
) http://click.topica.com/caaccM7b1dkiGb1IpcOa/ Dr. Smith
) ===========================================================
)
) Hello walden
) You often ask for statistics from the waldorf schools, I have some "leavers"
) statistics here from 1996 '97 '98 from Michael Hall School, Forest Row, east
) sussex england.
) 1996 school pupil numbers: 514 leavers jul 96: 118
) 1997 school pupil numbers: 466 leavers jul 97 :159
) 1998 school pupil numbers:466 leavers jul 98: 111
) The 'communications' lady used to say they had no trouble attracting new
) pupils they just had trouble holding onto them.
)
) ===========================================================
) Give Your Team Access to Their PCs from Anywhere. Increase
) productivity with a secure remote-access solution from
) GoToMyPC Pro. Stay in touch with your office. FREE TRIAL:
) http://click.topica.com/caaccMVb1dkiGb1IpcOf/ ExpertCity
) ===========================================================
)
) ==^================================================================
) 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 1341
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Waldorf Schools
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Steiner and the Occult
By woden101 yahoo.com
RE: Steiner and the Occult
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Waldorf Schools
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Man and Animal
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Some issues
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Steiner and the Occult
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 07:42:29 -0400
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Schools
Galway, I was merely pointing out that the only "evidence" that *anyone* on
this list (for or against Waldorf) has provided is anecdotal. *You* say
Waldorf education worked well for you, and I (and others) say that it did
not work well for our children.
I said this because, in a previous message, you stated that no one on this
list provided anything other than their own opinions or experiences to
bolster their viewpoint. My objective was simply to point out that that was
all you had offered yourself.
Please do not take this as confrontational; within the limits of email, I am
merely trying to point out that we *all* can only speak from our own
experiences about Waldorf, as there are no studies that anyone here knows
about to reveal whether Waldorf graduates are well prepared for further
education, how they do on tests, whether the Waldorf schools are able to
retain the students they enroll, etc. No one has, to my knowledge, done
these studies.
We *can*, however, examine Waldorf lesson blocks and materials to see
whether or not they are based on/communicate/otherwise teach the tenets of
Anthroposophy. We *can*, and do, read Steiner and how his words and ideas
have been applied for decades in Waldorf school classrooms around the world.
I also am puzzled by your comment that some people here have been "less than
civil." Who? When? I have read every post, I believe, since you came onto
the list and I am baffled by your comment. In fact, I recall noting with
amazement just how civil and polite/friendly this discussion has been.
Lisa
) From: Galway O'Mahony (galway420 hotmail.com)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 03:38:04 +0000
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: RE: Waldorf Schools
)
) ===========================================================
) Domains as low as $4.95!
) Limited Time! ICANN Accredited GoDaddy!
) http://click.topica.com/caaccM5b1dkiGb1IpcOa/ GoDaddy
) ===========================================================
)
)
)
) Lisa D. Ercolano wrote:
) "Galway, no offense, but the "evidence" that you provide of Waldorf
) education being effective and of value is just as anecdotal as the
) "evidence" provided by those of us whose own experiences or whose
) children's experiences revealed the opposite"
)
) I have provided no evidence other than the text of my "Man and Animal"
) book. In all my other posts, all of my information is provided with
) qualifying statements to make it clear that it is my personal experience
) or opinion and nothing more. I've approached this discussion list with
) nothing but an open mind, politely requesting that people explain their
) positions. Although the majority of the people contributing are quite
) polite and respectful in their replies, I feel that there are people who
) are less than civil.
)
) Galway
)
) ===========================================================
) Empower your Team with Remote Access. GoToMyPC Pro
) provides your organization with instant remote access to
) email,files, applications and network resources in real
) time. FREE TRIAL:
) http://click.topica.com/caaccMSb1dkiGb1IpcOf/ ExpertCity
) ===========================================================
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 13:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Woden (woden101 yahoo.com)
Subject: Steiner and the Occult
Hello all,
Some recent posts have stimulated me to write a few
words about the nature of anthroposophy, as I
understand it, and how it, and other things deemed
"religious" by this organization, and thereby
condemned as over and against the interests and values
of mainstream society, relates to the education of our
young and a good way of "approaching the world". It
is, in fact, these latter considerations which I think
this list and organization ought to grapple with, and
I did mention this in my original post to this list.
The basic thing to keep in mind, along the lines of
the question of what exactly the Occult influence is
in the classroom, is that Steiner was himself
well-versed in the conventional philosophy and science
of his day (he had a PhD). Much of this science is
still pretty modern , although he missed the
Einsteinian and Quantum Mechanical revolutions.
Perhaps most importantly, Steiner was influenced by
the relatively obscure scientific work of Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe. Goethe himself is a whole other
subject and deserves a re-evaluation in light of where
science has come to, and where it was in his day. His
most readily graspable and applicable insight was his
commitment to first-hand observation and his deeply
worked-out phenomenology which derived therefrom,
whose ultimate completion was to be found in what he
called the Archetype, the most famous example being
the archetypal-plant, die Ur-Pflanze auf Deutsch.
Goethe wrote a volume entitled the Metamorphosis of
Plants which derived entirely from his independant,
first-hand research. He also made a practical
contribution to anatomy discovering the "goethe bone"
(i.e. I believe it's called the intermaxillary bone,
in the jaw) purely from his phenomenological grasp of
the skeleton. In any case, Steiner, who was appointed
to manage the Goethe archives because of his
widely-recognized scholarly revival of Goethe,
integrated Goethe's ideas and methods into his own
experiences of the Spiritual world. He wrote a book
entitled "The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's
World-View", which, along with "The Philosophy of
Freedom", forms a really top-notch contribution to the
field of epistemology.
This early work also forms what I think is an
indispensable basis for understanding where Steiner
went, which was Anthroposophy. Goethe's science is not
dead, although it was widely ignored because he dared
to take on Isaac Newton (a good, although highly
speculative book entitled "Goethe's way of science"
contains a collection of essays by various
contemporary scholars on how Goethe may help to
revivify science today). I urge anyone who wants to
give Steiner and/or Anthroposophy a fair hearing to
approach these foundational works and influences in an
open-minded way. Our current cultural approach to
science has many deep issues which are not even
admitted, much less resolved. But this is a topic for
a lengthy essay. Suffice it to say that in addition to
the "research aspect" of science hardly being closed
to benefit from new ideas, the epistemological and
philosophical foundations of what passes as
"scientific knowledge" today are also not as firm as
those who do not wish to think about them presume. I
think that it is in this context that one should
approach Steiner and Anthroposophy.
As I've said, a good portion of what Steiner thought
has been shown to be at least somewhat true, or at
least true in an unexpected way, if not straight-up
true. This is not to say that Steiner was infallible.
I find his vestigial views deriving from theosophy
somewhat troubling myself, but I don't use that as an
excuse to abandon the whole corpus of his work.
I have been able to determine, however, that many
people on this list are most put-off by what is being
perceived as deception and dishonesty, and perhaps
even subterfuge, emanating from Waldorf schools and
their patron Anthroposophists. Indeed this troubles me
as well, which is why I've given some time in making
contributions here. I agree with the person who said
that it seems antithetical to the directions Steiner
himself gave, especially in his earlier, foundational
work. I think that what happened is that as he became
more and more at the center of attention in the occult
following he gathered around himself he also became
more and more savvy to the idea that he 'needed' to
exert control and influence over other people, if by
no other means than subtle dissimulation. In any case,
I have my doubts as to whether any original research
is being done, in the manner Steiner pursued it, by
latter-day anthroposophists, which is, I think, the
source of this problem. Anthroposophists have taken
too much to Steiner as a cult guru, and are unwilling
to critically examine themselves in this light. And
quite frankly, most people do not, in their current
state, have the intellectual calibre to comprehend
what Steiner was doing, although this is remediable.
This whole situation creates, among other things, the
following two-fold problem: a problem within the
Waldorf ranks of not really understanding what they're
doing or Steiner himself, and a problem with the
outside, with those interested in Waldorf, who,
through some combination of lack of intellect and/or
the constriction of rigid beliefs, would not be able
to understand anyways, and are therefore susceptible
to whoever appeals most to their emotions and/or prior
beliefs. Note that I AM NOT reverting to a typical
cultish position of denying contrary views simply on
the basis that I consider the people who hold these
views to be incapable of correct comprehension.
Rather, I am stating that as with any intellectually
involved venture, there are those who will not
understand, or misunderstand, or whose prior beliefs
prevent them from even considering something
(cognitive dissonance). The simple fact of the
matter is that main-stream, or conventional beliefs
are not, in their mainstreamness or conventionality,
any more correct than marginalized beliefs, an
epistemological observation which seems to me
necessary in attempting to honestly assess any issue
which comes down to the nature of human knowledge. The
application of this observation is often subtle,
requiring tact and discrimination lest we become
embroiled in useless circular debate which diverges
from the assertion at hand (which, BTW, has happened
to me many times in Internet discussions).
Okay, I think I've said what needs to be said. I am
willing to clarify and discuss points which I've
brought up here-- but, in the interest of effectively
budgeting my time, I will not pursue what I see to be
fruitless lines of debate, or debate with those whose
points of contention with me do not rest in any valid
form of reasoning, or are not to be found in what I've
actually said.
A final question: would those here be willing, instead
of pursuing this dogmatically critical position, no
matter how well-founded their experiences of deception
might be, to pursue a more honest, open-minded and
open-ended inquiry into that upon which Steiner built
Anthroposophy?
Chris Wilson
(Thank you to all those who pursued this lengthy post
all the way through)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 00:22:23 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner and the Occult
Chris wrote:
)The basic thing to keep in mind, along the lines of
)the question of what exactly the Occult influence is
)in the classroom, is that Steiner was himself
)well-versed in the conventional philosophy and science
)of his day (he had a PhD). Much of this science is
)still pretty modern , although he missed the
)Einsteinian and Quantum Mechanical revolutions.
Peter F responds:
There has been considerable discussion about this on the list. I don't
believe any longer that he was well versed in the science of the time. He
did not miss the Einsteinian revolution, and he caught at least the first
part of the quantum revolution. I have posted several times about his
misrepresentation of the then current status of the scientific understanding
of thermal expansion in his warmth course (lecture 2). I have also commented
that he misrepresented Einstein and others in the lecture on Einstein in
"From Elephants to Einstein".
His PhD was awarded for a philosophical work under somewhat unusual
circumstances as I understand it. That is not to say that I don't believe
that he deserved it. It is no evidence that he was well versed in science.
Chris continues after I have removed a bit.
)Suffice it to say that in addition to
)the "research aspect" of science hardly being closed
)to benefit from new ideas, the epistemological and
)philosophical foundations of what passes as
)"scientific knowledge" today are also not as firm as
)those who do not wish to think about them presume. I
)think that it is in this context that one should
)approach Steiner and Anthroposophy.
Peter F replies.
I think this is a commonly heard criticism of modern science with very
little if any foundation. There are many examples of new and unwelcome ideas
being incorporated into the mainstream of science, both recently and in the
past. Usually this argument comes from those whose ideas do not come with
the requisite supporting evidence. I also believe that this story about the
infirmity of the epistemological and philosophical foundations is greatly
overrated again mostly by those with a vested interest in being able to push
some line for which they do not have the requisite evidence. You may quote
Kuhn and others if you wish but I would point out that there is a
considerable body of work which is rightly critical of Kuhn's views.
)
)As I've said, a good portion of what Steiner thought
)has been shown to be at least somewhat true, or at
)least true in an unexpected way, if not straight-up
)true. This is not to say that Steiner was infallible.
Peter F asks. Please give examples. I am hard pressed to find something that
Steiner had to say that is original and has been independently verified. Dan
gave a trivial example once.
)I find his vestigial views deriving from theosophy
)somewhat troubling myself, but I don't use that as an
)excuse to abandon the whole corpus of his work.
Peter F responds:
I agree with this absolutely. One should not abandon the whole of his work.
One should pick and choose those hypotheses and insights which one can
verify with independent evidence. Of course this applies to everyone else as
well. Given that we have finite resources how much of those resources should
we spend on a single source of hypotheses before we give up and move onto
some evidently more fruitful source?
)
The simple fact of the
)matter is that main-stream, or conventional beliefs
)are not, in their mainstreamness or conventionality,
)any more correct than marginalized beliefs, an
)epistemological observation which seems to me
)necessary in attempting to honestly assess any issue
)which comes down to the nature of human knowledge. The
)application of this observation is often subtle,
)requiring tact and discrimination lest we become
)embroiled in useless circular debate which diverges
)from the assertion at hand (which, BTW, has happened
)to me many times in Internet discussions).
)
Peter F responds:
I agree that mainstream or conventional beliefs are not necessarily any more
correct than marginalised beliefs. I continue to assert that the only even
remotely reliable method of obtaining useful knowledge that we have is to
demand evidence and logical argument. This can break the useless circular
debate.
)
)A final question: would those here be willing, instead
)of pursuing this dogmatically critical position, no
)matter how well-founded their experiences of deception
)might be, to pursue a more honest, open-minded and
)open-ended inquiry into that upon which Steiner built
)Anthroposophy?
Peter F responds:
I reject the notion that I pursue a dogmatically critical position. The
position that I have with respect to Steiner's work has come through an
increasing understanding of what he wrote and what he is recorded to have
said. The result of that is that I am critical of his work. I think he was
deliberately intellectually dishonest. I think he misled others over whom he
held a position of authority to further his own ends. I think he attempted
to cover this up using arguments that only those versed in the occult could
criticise the work.
You seem to be suggesting that somehow I could be more honest in my approach
to Steiner's work. I don't see how but I am willing to listen to
suggestions. I don't think that I approach his work without an open mind.
The problem is I think that the evidence of intellectual dishonesty is very
clear. I don't know what you mean by open ended.
)
)Chris Wilson
)
)(Thank you to all those who pursued this lengthy post
)all the way through)
)
)
I enjoyed your post even though we seem to disagree.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Best Restaurant Giveaway Ever! Vote for your favorites for a chance to win
$1 million! http://local.msn.com/special/giveaway.asp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 17:16:59 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom
) ) TOMAS:
)) ) ) )The four elements and chemistry doesn*t really fit together. We had a
)) ) ) )chemistry block in seventh grade (13/14) and we burned different
)) )) )materials and studied the oxidation and reaction. The four elements was
)) ) ) )never mentioned though.
))
)) DAN DUGAN:
)) ) ) Sounds like it might have been a better-taught
)) )) block, but I'd like to know more about "studied
)) )) the oxidation." Sorry to sound like a broken
)) ) ) record, but do you have that lesson book?
))
)) TOMAS:
)) )No I don*t have the lesson book... I -think- we studied the oxidation
)) )and how different materials react with fire. We talked about how and why
)) )they melt, burn and explode. And don*t even think think that we used any
)) )Goethian Science, because we didn*t.
))
)) Did you actually talk about the oxidation
)) chemical reactions? My son's combustion lessons
)) didn't mention real chemistry at all. The "why"
)) was completely missing, it was all observation.
)) Your description does sound like Goethean
) ) Science, so far.
)If you don¥t believe me, fine. You don¥t know anything about the swedish
)educational system, and I don¥t understand how this discussion could
)favour any of us.
Instead of answering reasonable questions about
the details of your lessons, you are taking my
questions as personal attacks and acting
offended. What did you expect on "waldorf
critics," Tomas? You are offered an opportunity
to defend Waldorf as you know it, and I hope you
will rise to the occasion.
Whether or not the chemistry of oxidation was in
your lesson on burning is a very important
question in light of your insistence that
Goethean Science is not in Swedish Waldorf
schools, or at least not in your school. Again,
since you're still in school, you could borrow a
lesson book from the current seventh-grade
teacher, or from your former class teacher, to
provide the evidence this discussion needs.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 19:12:51 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Schools
)Chris wrote:
)"In my experience MYTHOLOGY WAS NEVER TAUGHT AS HISTORICAL FACT"
and Galway responded,
)I couldn't agree with you more. In my Waldorf experience, mythology was
)presented as just that, and there was a clear distinction between it and
)the history lessons we had (Oregon state history in 5th grade).
I wouldn't be so sure. Do you have your 5th-grade ancient history lesson books?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 19:10:06 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Man and Animal
Galway O'Mahoney, you wrote,
)I've seen a lot of references to the "Man and Animal" main lesson book
)on here, and since I have mine I thought it might be useful to post.
)Below is the entire text of my "Man and Animal" main lesson book. The
)only thing in there that could possibly be construed as religious is the
)division of the body into head, trunk, and limbs. But there's no
)question that this division can also be viewed as a simple metaphor for
)the different functions of the body. If you're really searching for
)something to get worked up about, you might also claim that referring to
)our ears, eyes, nostrils, and mouth as "windows" is religious. Anyway,
)here it is; I left grammar/spelling errors intact, and noted them at
)points.
Thank you very much for transcribing your lesson book, Galway.
)** Man and Animal **
)"Noble be Man - helpful and good. For this alone distinguishes him from
)all other beings unto us known." - Goethe
We're off to a bad start right there. Goethe's distinction between
humans and the other animals is false. There are many examples of
animal behavior that embody "helpfulness" and "goodness." And many
examples of the bad things humans do, too.
)Three-Fold Man:
) In the human form, we see three main parts: head, trunk, and limbs.
)- Head: The head is round and sits on the body. It's hardest part is
)outside and the soft part is inside. It is the organ of Thinking. It
)also contains 7 windows through which we perceive the world.
)- Trunk: The trunk holds the balance with its curving ribs, alternating
)hard bone and soft space. Our life of feeling is present through the
)harmonious rhythm of heart and lungs.
)- Limbs: Our limbs are straight with the hardest part within and the
)softest part without. Our limbs are active and doing many things.
)Because humans have arms and hands free of the ground, we can serve and
)work.
This is a brief sketch of the Anthroposophical anatomy lesson that's
often given in much more detail in the seventh grade. Everything it
says it true, but it's irrelevant to scientific study. It's all about
forms and the symbolism of forms. It's religion, not science.
I recommend Antonio Damasio's fascinating books for contemporary
science on "the life of feeling."
)The Four Kingdoms of Nature:
) Though it is not living, the Mineral Kingdom gives form and structure
)to the earth and all living things.
) The Plant Kingdom is imbued with life. Plants take nourishment from the
)earth and sun.
) The Animal Kingdom has the ability to move from one place to another.
)Through the sounds of animals, we can perceive their feelings. An animal
)is led to act in a particular way through its instincts.
) Man alone has the ability to stand upright. His hands are free to serve
)and work and he can think and act out of free will. He can create
)artistically and communicate through writing and speech. He cares for
)the earth and all living things.
The concept of "the four kingdoms of nature" is 19th-century science.
Schools stopped teaching this a couple of generations ago. To
continue to teach such a lesson today indicates a serious
disconnection from the real world, such as might occur in a cult. It
is, thinly veiled, teaching the Anthroposophic concept of "fourfold
man": the physical body (the mineral kingdom), the etheric body
("plant man"), the astral body ("feelings"), and the "I", ("upright,"
"free will).
The notions that only "man" is upright, only man can think, and only
man has free will is Anthroposophy, not science. Not only is there no
longer a human "kingdom" in today's zoology, even the definition of
"genus homo" is fast eroding. For more about this, I recommend
reading "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond.
The rest of the lesson, the descriptions of various animals that
Steiner chose as examples of different "qualities," continues the
theme of Goethean description without theory. You're quite mistaken
to characterize this lesson as not being religious; if it isn't
science, and it's things only Anthroposophists believe, what is it?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 17:08:26 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Anthroposophy in the classroom
) ) TOMAS:
)) )Well, since I can*t give you any evidence, perhaps we should just face
)) )the facts: I like waldorf, and you don*t, and since you wont accept that
) ) )there are good waldorf schools, I can*t do anything else.
DAN DUGAN:
) ) I didn't say that. I've allowed as how it might
)) be possible that your school is quite different
)) from most Waldorf schools; but then I also know
)) that the Waldorf movement in Sweden is very
)) Anthroposophical, so that makes your claims
)) harder to believe. My son's Waldorf teacher was a
)) very good teacher, and I had little to disagree
)) with with her. I know from personal experience
)) that there can be good Waldorf teachers, and I
)) don't deny that there are good Waldorf schools
)) either.
)
)I give up.
Because I want evidence to back up your claims?
What's wrong with asking the fourth-grade teacher
if you can borrow a copy of a Man and Animal
lesson book to help you with an internet
discussion?
)You may not be aware what was
) ) ) ) Anthroposophic and what was real history.
)) )
)) )So... I was thaught false history... I haven*t noticed any fake parts.
)) )By the way, I was discussing history with a public history teacher, and
)) )he thought that I was very good at history. And what would be concidered
)) )as Anthroposophic history?
))
)) Most of the ancient history lesson books I've
)) seen have concentrated on mythical and religious
)) themes. The ancient India period is completely
)) mythical, drawn from the Vedas. The ancient
)) Persia period is all about Ahura Mazda and
)) Ahriman. Ancient Egypt is about pharaohs being
)) initiated into mystery religion; stories not from
)) history but from 18th and 19th-century fiction.
)) Study of Rome will cover the mythical "seven
)) kings." And so on. I suppose it's pointless to
) ) ask to see your lesson books on these.
)
)Thats right.
So if you want to defend your assertion that your
school is better than those others here have
experience with, something that I acknowledge is
quite possible, you'll have to look outside of
your personal collection for that evidence.
)And since when do you speak swedish?
I'm sorry I don't, and I'm impressed with your
command of English. My impression of Swedish
Waldorf schools comes from the extensive
Anthroposophical web sites that I've seen from
Sweden. For example,
http://antroposofi.org
and the propaganda pages
http://www.waldorfanswers.org that attempt to
counteract the influence of PLANS.
What I see on these sites makes me believe that
Swedish Waldorf schools are at least as
Anthroposophical, if not more so, as the schools
elsewhere.
) ) ) ) (snip)
)) )) )What are your plans after 12th grade?
)) )) )
)) )) )I*m studying civil engineering/industrial design at KTH (The Royal
)) )) )University of Technology) in Stockholm. But im going to travel and work
)) )) )first.
)) ))
)) ) ) I'd like to hear more about where you plan to go and what you will do.
)) )
)) )I don*t know where, but I would like to "know" a city and maybe learn a
)) )language.
))
)) Hmm, not quite the same thing as planning to go
)) to KTH. Have you actually been accepted there?
)
)Thats right, dont believe a word of what I¥m saying. I¥m just a stupid
)waldorf student. KTH i my dreams. I¥m going to travel and work FIRST.
)And no, I have not yet been accepted, I haven¥t even graduated! I¥m not
)even going to try to explain!
)Totally irrelevant!
Not really. What Waldorf students make of the
rest of their lives says something about Waldorf,
doesn't it? First you said you were going to the
technical university; then you said you really
were more or less aimless.
I don't see anything wrong with wandering for a
year or so and then going to the University. I
hope you keep in touch and let us know what
happens with you.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 23:34:09 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Some issues
Howdy Bruce,
You asked:
I agree with the points you make, and that it (some sort of religious
"something") is in the classroom. But what is it that's actually in the
classroom? That's the thing I'm interested in uncovering - and I understand
and accept that most people here have no interest in these questions
whatsoever.
I'm not sure you're right about that - I suspect many people here are very
interested. While I would be the first to agree with the idea that each
Waldorf teacher is an individual and comes with her/his own way of teaching,
I think it important to look at what is expected of those teachers during
their time spent with students. What is in the classroom? Anthroposophy.
Pure and simple. Souls are guided into their hosts and the new social order
is the flavor of the day. But you're the ex-Waldorf teacher, Bruce - what's
your take?
You wrote:
"Your occult comment is telling I think. Steiner meant for this stuff to be
treated in an occult way - Anthroposophy is his attempt at creating a modern
stream of occult knowledge. But it's generally taken up in a quasi-religious
manner by teachers. People, to put it bluntly, worship Steiner and his
philosophy-specific lecture-sermons, whereas the occult tradition is all
about self-won knowledge of the universal variety."
Yes, the "worship" part always gave me the creeps. Steiner also commented
that people should not take him as the "truth," but should do their own
inner work... and hopefully arrive at his conclusions... a l'anthroposophie.
You wrote;
"To be fair, many teachers are too overworked to put much thought into
occult self-development and occult study. It's so much easier to simply join
a faculty morning circle, recite a Steiner verse, and then head off to the
classroom. That's the extent of most teachers' occult development - with the
exception of a Thursday afternoon Steiner reading in which half the faculty
usually nods off. People end up just following along, and presto - a
religious (follow the priest) rather than occult (follow the self)
relationship to the philosophy."
Yes, I *do* agree with the "overworked" bit. Burn-out is a common theme -
keep them working, attending meetings... it keeps teachers from being able
to take the time necessary to reflect on what exactly is happening in their
lives. Having problems? Read Steiner....
Re: Eugene Schwartz, you wrote:
"One thing he's definitely not saying, is that Anthroposophy takes a
Christian-specific occult approach to things. I'd suggest he and others
(unconsciously?) don't want to mention that reality, given it would throw
quite a monkey wrench into the "different kind of religion" argument."
I wonder about the "unconscious" bit, too. Is Anthroposophy really *that*
difficult to explain to non-Anthros...or for anthroposophists to discuss
openly amongst themselves? I realize there is a lot to chew on but the
Christian-specific occult approach (good line) is a healthy way to start.
The Mystery of Golgotha is as important as the root races. In any case,
parents deserve to understand that anthroposophy *is* Waldorf.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 00:23:51 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Steiner and the Occult
Hi Chris,
You wrote:
"Some recent posts have stimulated me to write a few
words about the nature of anthroposophy, as I
understand it, and how it, and other things deemed
"religious" by this organization, and thereby
condemned as over and against the interests and values
of mainstream society, relates to the education of our
young and a good way of "approaching the world". It
is, in fact, these latter considerations which I think
this list and organization ought to grapple with, and
I did mention this in my original post to this list."
Error. I need to correct your generalization. This list is hosted by the
folks at PLANS.
Not every person on this list critical of Waldorf is a member of PLANS.
Please be clear on
that point. Furthermore, I do not see how you draw your conclusions
(above). The board of PLANS
is not made up of atheists, materialists or followers of "mainstream
society" or Ahriman. A simple check of the board shows that
there is at least one openly Christian board member. Dan Dugan considers
himself a secular humanist. So what? Why not look at what people write or
say rather than where you think their spiritual or philosophical allegiances
should lie?
So, you think we should all cut with the criticism or Waldorf and get on
with furthering what you consider to be a healthy system of education....
This is a Waldorf Critics email list. You want to talk various type of
healthy education - there are plenty of discussions to be found. I belong
to a few such groups. When you arrive there, though, don't start telling
them they should be discussing something else. They might feel confused -
or insulted.
Next...
You wrote:
"The basic thing to keep in mind, along the lines of
the question of what exactly the Occult influence is
in the classroom, is that Steiner was himself
well-versed in the conventional philosophy and science
of his day (he had a PhD). Much of this science is
still pretty modern , although he missed the
Einsteinian and Quantum Mechanical revolutions."
If Steiner was well versed in science it certainly did not show in his
schools. I very much liked the fact that my kids spent time outside and
not in front of computers but this does not make for a science lesson.
As as been demonstrated, Waldorf science is quite different from
what many parents might expect from a school in this century.
You wrote:
"As I've said, a good portion of what Steiner thought
has been shown to be at least somewhat true, or at
least true in an unexpected way, if not straight-up
true."
Examples please.
You wrote:
"I have been able to determine, however, that many
people on this list are most put-off by what is being
perceived as deception and dishonesty, and perhaps
even subterfuge, emanating from Waldorf schools and
their patron Anthroposophists. Indeed this troubles me
as well, which is why I've given some time in making
contributions here. I agree with the person who said
that it seems antithetical to the directions Steiner
himself gave, especially in his earlier, foundational
work. I think that what happened is that as he became
more and more at the center of attention in the occult
following he gathered around himself he also became
more and more savvy to the idea that he 'needed' to
exert control and influence over other people, if by
no other means than subtle dissimulation. In any case,
I have my doubts as to whether any original research
is being done, in the manner Steiner pursued it, by
latter-day anthroposophists, which is, I think, the
source of this problem."
What kind of research do you speak of here?
"Anthroposophists have taken
too much to Steiner as a cult guru, and are unwilling
to critically examine themselves in this light."
I agree that many anthroposophists also have a hard time examining what
Steiner actually wrote and said when it does not conform to what they want
to believe he "meant" with his words.
"Andquite frankly, most people do not, in their current
state, have the intellectual calibre to comprehend
what Steiner was doing, although this is remediable."
Well, I can hear a chorus of "no, no, no... the intellect is *the* problem!"
Might I assume that *you* have the intellect to comprehend what Steiner was
doing? If so, how can one who does not have this intellectual caliber
remedy the situation?
(snip a bunch....)
You wrote:
"Okay, I think I've said what needs to be said. I am
willing to clarify and discuss points which I've
brought up here-- but, in the interest of effectively
budgeting my time, I will not pursue what I see to be
fruitless lines of debate, or debate with those whose
points of contention with me do not rest in any valid
form of reasoning, or are not to be found in what I've
actually said."
I wish I'd read this (above) part before I took my time to respond to your
post, Chris. I hope my intellect meets your standards and that your
budgeted time allows you to consider continuing with the discussion.
You wrote:
"A final question: would those here be willing, instead
of pursuing this dogmatically critical position, no
matter how well-founded their experiences of deception
might be, to pursue a more honest, open-minded and
open-ended inquiry into that upon which Steiner built
Anthroposophy?"
What do you see as a "dogmatically critical position?" It really helps us
all to see clear examples when you ask these types of questions or make
generalizations.
I appreciate your participation and hope you will be able to better
articulate the concerns you seem to have with individual members of this
list. This approach really does make public discourse a more meaningful
experience for everyone. Telling the list in general to be more honest and
open-minded adds very little to the discussion and sounds, to be honest
(since you asked for honesty) ... condescending.
-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 1342
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Steiner and the Occult
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Steiner and the Occult
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: Some issues
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Steiner and the Occult
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Steiner and the Occult
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Steiner and the Occult
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Koetzsch review of Kohler's "Difficult Children"
By dan dandugan.com
Fwd: Queries about Plans
By dan dandugan.com
Clarification
By woden101 yahoo.com
RE: Clarification
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Clarification
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Steiner and the Occult
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Steiner and the Occult
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Clarification
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 08:52:18 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Steiner and the Occult
Chris wrote:
"Some recent posts have stimulated me to write a few words about the nature
of anthroposophy, as I understand it, and how it, and other things deemed
"religious" by this organization, and thereby condemned as over and against
the interests and values of mainstream society, relates to the education of
our young and a good way of 'approaching the world.'"
Walden pointed one of your generalizations and here's another: there is no
condemnation of religion per se as "against mainstream society" here. I
would not argue that, and haven't heard anyone here lately argue that
either. (As Walden pointed out, Dan calls himself a secular humanist, but I
can't recall hearing Dan argue that religion is actually bad for society.)
The argument here is more about how people decide which religion, if any,
they want to raise their children in, and whether a school can or should
contribute (and religious schools are certainly legitimate, in my view, and
in no way opposed to the interests of society), and what the
responsibilities of the school are toward the students and the parents in
this regard. In a word? Honesty. The school has a responsibility to be
honest. A very central value in most world religious, by the way. In
esoteric religions, though, where a high value is placed on things that are
"hidden" from everyday consciousness, it seems inevitable there will be some
unclearness around who "needs to know" what and when.
It's a civics issue - the fact that there are many religions, and how to
help them get along. Respecting people's freedom of choice.
Over time I've also come to understand it as a religious issue as well. When
any faith is imposed, I think, faith itself becomes meaningless. People have
to be free to believe, and that is actually based on the freedom *not* to
believe as well.
"I urge anyone who wants to give Steiner and/or Anthroposophy a fair hearing
to approach these foundational works and influences in an open-minded way."
Just curious. Why do you speak as if you are certain others here have not
done this?
"As I've said, a good portion of what Steiner thought has been shown to be
at least somewhat true, or at least true in an unexpected way, if not
straight-up true."
Others have asked, so I will join the chorus of those who would be delighted
if you would supply a few examples of these things Steiner said that have
been shown to be true . . .
I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt - but I've so often seen
people insist Steiner supports their pet views and theories, and when the
supposedly relevant Steiner passage is quoted, the connections are
practically invisible to the non-anthroposophist. A couple of recent
examples from another list, someone recently claimed that when Steiner said
the native American population "had to die" (karmically), Steiner was
actually talking about their genetic susceptibility to diseases brought by
Europeans. Huh? Steiner, of course, said nothing about diseases brought by
the Europeans. But they are telling each other that what Steiner said has
"proved true." Another fellow stated happily that obviously anthroposophy is
opposed to the death penalty. I read the Steiner passage he posted in
support of this, very carefully, and couldn't find any statement at all
about the death penalty.
I've read some very creepy passages from Steiner hinting at horrible
diseases and plagues coming from sexual perversions, which I don't doubt
some anthroposophists take as showing that Steiner predicted the AIDS
epidemic. (As if there isn't *always* some clown ranting that plagues are a
punishment for sexual deviance.)
So I've just given you a couple of examples of the type of thing I'm
personally *not* going to buy as evidence that a lot of stuff Steiner said
has proved true :)
You cite:
"a problem with the outside, with those interested in Waldorf, who, through
some combination of lack of intellect and/or the constriction of rigid
beliefs, would not be able to understand anyways, and are therefore
susceptible to whoever appeals most to their emotions and/or prior
beliefs."
An interesting, and false, duality. You've got people "inside" and people
"outside" and you forget many of those "outside" were once "inside. We did
not, in most cases, approach Steiner/Waldorf with rigid beliefs, or why else
would we have gotten involved? I, for one, am like most others here in
having been very willing to learn what anthroposophy was, in fact to study
it closely and give it the benefit of the doubt that it was an enlightened,
progressive, and noble set of beliefs as touted. It was experience that
taught me otherwise.
"Note that I AM NOT reverting to a typical cultish position of denying
contrary views simply on the basis that I consider the people who hold these
views to be incapable of correct comprehension. Rather, I am stating that as
with any intellectually involved venture, there are those who will not
understand, or misunderstand, or whose prior beliefs prevent them from even
considering something (cognitive dissonance)."
Run that by me again. I can't see how those two things differ - how it is
that you are "NOT reverting to a typical cultish position of denying
contrary views simply on the basis that I consider the people who hold these
views to be incapable of correct comprehension." You state above quite
clearly that part of the problem is "lack of intellect" causing those who
don't like Waldorf to "not be able to understand anyways."
"The simple fact of the matter is that main-stream, or conventional beliefs
are not, in their mainstreamness or conventionality, any more correct than
marginalized beliefs, an epistemological observation which seems to me
necessary in attempting to honestly assess any issue which comes down to the
nature of human knowledge."
"Necessary"? I'd say you're playing a big word game, and I'm not surprised
if it's gotten you into skirmishes in other discussions. Yeah - a belief is
neither true nor not true just because it is conventional, or just because
it is *not* conventional. So what? That's an argument that will certainly go
nowhere.
"The application of this observation is often subtle, requiring tact and
discrimination lest we become embroiled in useless circular debate which
diverges from the assertion at hand (which, BTW, has happened
to me many times in Internet discussions)."
LOL. Guess that's what I meant . . .
"A final question: would those here be willing, instead of pursuing this
dogmatically critical position, no matter how well-founded their experiences
of deception might be, to pursue a more honest, open-minded and open-ended
inquiry into that upon which Steiner built Anthroposophy?"
Why, Chris, do you assume that people here have not done that? (Years ago?)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 09:54:10 -0300
From: "Bruce Angus" (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Steiner and the Occult
Chris wrote: "This whole situation creates, among other things, the following two-fold problem: a problem within the Waldorf ranks of not really understanding what they're doing or Steiner himself, and a problem with the outside, with those interested in Waldorf, who, through some combination of lack of intellect and/or the constriction of rigid beliefs, would not be able to understand anyways, and are therefore susceptible to whoever appeals most to their emotions and/or prior beliefs."
Hi Chris - That's exactly it, and thanks for the confirmation. Now, I personally would say that the problem with those interested in Waldorf has to do with "some combination of lack of thorough understanding and/or due to their own personal convictions."
On the other hand, your "some combination of lack of intellect and/or the constriction of rigid beliefs" sounds like some of the teachers I worked with. It's the people who are leading the community that should be held accountable when it comes to their (often self-professed) intellectual capacity and philosophical openness. But I get your insight, and it's a great insight.
No question: at least 75% of the people I worked with had little or no understanding of the occult foundation of the work. And so the work had a "quasi-religious" quality to it. People tend to fall back on what they know and understand, and what's comfortable for them. And that wouldn't be bad, actually, except they were almost always too proud or unconscious to admit all that, and instead passed themselves off as educated and enlightened spiritual community development experts.
And such a school then evolves into a "quasi-Waldolf" school - which is probably why Eugene Schwartz believes at least 20% of the teachers should be anthroposophists (occult investigators). Personally, I think "quasi-Waldolf" is refreshing (minus the religious stuff).
Chris wrote: "I think that what happened is that as he became more and more at the center of attention in the occult following he gathered around himself he also became more and more savvy to the idea that he 'needed' to exert control and influence over other people, if by no other means than subtle dissimulation. In any case, I have my doubts as to whether any original research is being done, in the manner Steiner pursued it, by latter-day anthroposophists, which is, I think, the source of this problem. Anthroposophists have taken too much to Steiner as a cult guru, and are unwilling to critically examine themselves in this light. And quite frankly, most people do not, in their current state, have the intellectual calibre to comprehend what Steiner was doing, although this is remediable."
I apologize for quoting so much, but it's all too brilliant. Wow. All I can say is: agreed.
Bruce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 09:55:54 -0300
From: "Bruce Angus" (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Some issues
Walden wrote: "What is in the classroom? Anthroposophy. Pure and simple. Souls are guided into their hosts and the new social order is the flavor of the day. But you're the ex-Waldorf teacher, Bruce - what's your take?"
Hi Steve - A religious (rather than occult) version of Anthroposophy is most often in the classroom and community, because that's how most teachers interpret and apply Steiner's indications. No question: their intent is to "imbue thy curriculum with the Spirit of Anthroposophy". But they're doing it from that "quasi" place I've been mentioning, so it's a half-baked loaf that comes out of the oven as a result. The moment Waldorf schools admit what they're really all about will be the day they can actually begin to do the work Steiner wanted them to be doing all along.
Bruce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 09:41:54 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Steiner and the Occult
Chris wrote that there is . . .
"a problem with the outside, with those interested in Waldorf, who, through
some combination of lack of intellect and/or the constriction of rigid
beliefs, would not be able to understand anyways"
And Bruce nods in agreement:
"Hi Chris - That's exactly it, and thanks for the confirmation. Now, I
personally would say that the problem with those interested in Waldorf has
to do with "some combination of lack of thorough understanding and/or due to
their own personal convictions."
Diana says: Sheesh! You guys just don't hear that we *were in Waldorf
schools* and had certain experiences there? You're really determined, no
matter what you hear, that our criticisms come from our own lack of
understanding or prior convictions? Do you hear the disconnect going on in
this conversation?!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:04:30 -0400
From: "Lisa D. Ercolano" (momof2gals mindspring.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner and the Occult
Speak up, honey: I can't hear what you're saying! (g)
Lisa
) From: Diana Winters (Diana.Winters verizon.net)
) Reply-To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 09:41:54 -0400
) To: waldorf-critics topica.com
) Subject: RE: Steiner and the Occult
)
) ===========================================================
) Domains as low as $4.95!
) Limited Time! ICANN Accredited GoDaddy!
) http://click.topica.com/caaccM5b1dkiGb1IpcOa/ GoDaddy
) ===========================================================
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Chris wrote that there is . . .
)
) "a problem with the outside, with those interested in Waldorf, who, through
) some combination of lack of intellect and/or the constriction of rigid
) beliefs, would not be able to understand anyways"
)
)
) And Bruce nods in agreement:
)
) "Hi Chris - That's exactly it, and thanks for the confirmation. Now, I
) personally would say that the problem with those interested in Waldorf has
) to do with "some combination of lack of thorough understanding and/or due to
) their own personal convictions."
)
) Diana says: Sheesh! You guys just don't hear that we *were in Waldorf
) schools* and had certain experiences there? You're really determined, no
) matter what you hear, that our criticisms come from our own lack of
) understanding or prior convictions? Do you hear the disconnect going on in
) this conversation?!
)
)
)
) ===========================================================
) Let University of Phoenix make 2004 your year. Evening,
) weekend or FlexNet? classes ? over 130 locations. Look
) into our programs and get the degree that gets you going!
) http://click.topica.com/caaccMPb1dkiGb1IpcOf/ UOP
) ===========================================================
)
)
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New
) threads are always welcome.
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 12:52:45 -0300
From: "Bruce Angus" (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Steiner and the Occult
"Diana says: Sheesh! You guys just don't hear that we *were in Waldorf schools* and had certain experiences there? You're really determined, no matter what you hear, that our criticisms come from our own lack of understanding or prior convictions? Do you hear the disconnect going on in this conversation?!"
Hi Diana - That was my mistake: I was trying to be diplomatic. I meant to say the following: Parents aren't told anything in the first place, so how can they be called intellectually deficient? Theirs is often a lack of knowledge and understanding, a result of a lack of information and even misinformation in some cases. My "personal convictions" remark actually means "parents should be supported in their various beliefs, and those beliefs should be integrated into the workings of the community." And there's no "outside" and "inside" in my opinion. There's just people (it's a "community" I kept telling my colleagues) who should all be participating on the same level playing field.
Bozo (not the sexual deviance plague-preaching one, though)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 00:19:39 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Koetzsch review of Kohler's "Difficult Children"
In the Spring/Summer 2004 issue of Renewal, editor Ronald Koetzsch
reviews a book by Henning Kohler, "Difficult Children--There is No
Such Thing: An Appeal for the Transformation of Educational
Thinking." In his review, Koetzsch writes a refreshingly clear
summary of Steiner's child development theory:
)Kohler's approach is founded on Rudolf Steiner's view of the child,
)the same view that is the foundation of Waldorf Education. According
)to this view, the child is the incarnation into a physical body of a
)preexisting spiritual being. This individuality has chosen to leave
)the spiritual world and to come to earth to continue its
)evolution--to "work on something"--and also to contribute to the
)evolution of humanity as a whole. The child has willed himself into
)earthly existence for a particular purpose and destiny and has
)chosen parents and other adults who will help him fulfill it.
Koetzsch also writes,
)According to Kohler, the cause of difficult behaviors in children
)lies largely in the world into which they come. It is a world in
)which family life and child rearing practices have lost the warmth,
)love, and trust of former times;
Really? It seems to me that today's child-rearing practices are much
more warm and loving compared with earlier times, say the 19th
century; and medieval practices were, well, medieval.
)in which education assesses, evaluates, and dehumanizes children and
)destroys imagination and soul; in which children are viewed as
)commodities to be trained to suit the purposes of the economy and
)the state;
Where does Kohler come from, Orwell's 1984? I just visited a
beautiful public school in Lagunitas, California, that had everything
Waldorf offers and more--gardens all around, a pond and chickens in
the yard, classrooms full of books, and all the children's paintings
weren't the same!
)and it is a world in which children are abused and exploited and
)subjected, through the media, to violence and crass sexuality.
I agree about the damaging effects of exposure to violence and crass
sexuality; but then it's the very existence of mass communication
media that has greatly reduced the abuse and exploitation of children
that people got away with in "the good old days" that Kohler longs
for.
)Difficult behaviors result from a closing down in the face of the
)modern world and the death of love, of true thought, feeling, and
)action.
OK, so the answer is to blame modernity. I wonder how secure children
felt during the Hundred Years War.
Koetzsch gives a summary list of advice on dealing with "so-called
difficult children," including:
)* Give up the idea that we have the right and the ability to make a
)child into this or that type of person.
Well, I agree we don't have the -ability-, but don't parents and
teachers have a duty to -try- to guide the children in their care
into becoming, as much as they are able, competent and ethical people?
)* Do not submit children to evaluations and assessments that will
)result in a label of dysfunction.
)
)* Do not be intimidated by pedagogues and therapists who live by
)assessment and therapy.
As if Anthroposophical theory doesn't label children! This advice is
intended to insulate the Waldorf world from accountability.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:43:21 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Cc: mettahome yahoo.com.au
Subject: Fwd: Queries about Plans
)Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 22:02:14 +1000 (EST)
)From: Anne May (mettahome yahoo.com.au)
)Subject: Queries about Plans
)To: dan dandugan.com
)
)Hello Dan,
)I have been trying to join the Waldorf-critics list and I'm doing
)something wrong, don't know what. I've registered with Topica
)(several times?!) and tried to join the list but nothing happens. Do
)you have any suggestions please?
I've sent a subscription invitation to you, please follow the
instructions therein. In the meantime I'm forwarding this to the
list. You can read the list on Topica whether you're registered or
not, it's public.
)Specifically I want to ask (sorry if these have already been
)discussed) how Steiner's Anthroposophy may actually
)encourage/support bullying in the schools?
Steiner said teachers shouldn't interfere with the children's karma.
Many, it seems, take it literally.
) My son was severely bullied at a Steiner preschool and it seemed to
)me the teachers did nothing to stop or address it.
Sadly, we hear this report over and over from different schools.
)In the end we withdrew him from the school. He is now attending
)another Steiner school and as I investigate more I get more anxious
)about that decision. He is not being bullied and declares that he
)loves every bit of it but I have alarm bells ringing on a few fronts
)and am trying to decide what to do. Any change will cause huge
)domestic disruption so I need to get my picture clear before I move.
This is tough for you.
)Secondly I want to know about the methodology used to teach literacy
)and numeracy (I have asked to sit in on a main lesson and the
)teacher is going to "get back to me"). My son is in class one and
)seems to me to be going backward in his understanding and his trust
)in what he knows from his own experience. Yesterday he came home and
)told me "we did our first sum" then went on to say that 12 + 10 = 2
)and nothing I could do or show him would persuade him otherwise.
)When I checked his main lesson book today I found they had written
)12 = 10 + 2 and firstly I couldn't understand why it was presented
)in that "reverse" way and how it was presented that he so completely
)didn't get it,
Waldorf teaches math formulae backwards. It's supposed to be
holistic, considering the whole first, then the parts. It's supposed
to be more moral, less materialistic. Personally I think it's a
reflection of the occultist penchant for doing things in reverse.
) even though he had very advanced numeracy skills when we were home
)educating last year. I haven't had a chance to explore it fully with
)his teacher but I feel the need to have my thinking clear on it in
)advance.
You've "pre-awakened" him in Waldorf terms. She may want to regress
his existing literacy and numeracy skills because they are too
advanced for his age and will cause illness later in life.
)Finally I would like to know more on Steiner's view on Karma - are
)there any references you can point me to please.
Whew, there are currently available ten volumes of Steiner's lectures
on karma, and a search for that keyword at the press brings up 56
books. See http://www.anthropress.org
)Thanks for any help you can offer. I'm quite happy for you to post
)this on the list for open discussion (since I can't seem to!).
Done.
)Anne
)
)Life is learning, learning is life
-Dan Dugan (school of hard knocks)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 13:29:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Woden (woden101 yahoo.com)
Subject: Clarification
Okay, it happened, as I thought it would. My comments
about "intellectual calibre" sounded too high-hat and
haughty. I also wish to retract my comments about
open-mindedness, seeing as how they were construed to
be a condescending approach to this list. My basic
point connecting these two comments was that one can
rely on what one thinks off-hand all day, and thereby
come to criticize Steiner quite a bit. One can also
take choice snippets of Steiner at his worst, the
cult-guru Steiner. One can take Steiner in a critical
way believing him to have nothing original to add and
to have been an intellectual fraud. I like to quote
Blake:
Any man of mechanical talents may, from the writings
of Paracelsus or Jacob Boehme, produce a thousand
volumes of equal worth to Swedenborg's, and from those
of Dante and Shakespeare, an infinite. But when he has
done this let him not say that he knows better than
his master, for he only holds a candle in sunshine.
(Marriage of Heaven and Hell)
Thus we can see Steiner, but Blake's comments stray a
bit from the situation at hand here. I simply wanted
to say that in honest endeavor some of what Steiner
wrote can be of worth, even great worth (see the works
which I referenced, and also "How to Know Higher
Worlds", and others). Instead of taking everything
critically at face value, one can ask oneself, 'what
does what Steiner is saying here reveal about his
world-view, and the nature of the knowledge he
claimed'? As a practicing Buddhist and hybrid
philosopher I find what Steiner writes immensely
fascinating, especially on the subjects of spiritual
practise and knowledge, and his talks about the
history of such things (he seems to have displayed
quite a bit of familiarity with earlier Gnostic
movements about which I find it hard to believe he
could have simply read).
More specifically, he did have valuable insights into
good pedagogy. He saw the immense value of music and
art for young children, which research is now bearing
out in many surprising ways. For instance, early
musical instruction increases auditory memory as far
as high school. He also saw that children of a certain
age respond essentially imaginatively to the world,
and encouraged curriculum desinged thereto. He also
extended this into a view of how children learn, which
states that attempts at abstract reasoning and
learning by rote in early ages is totally infeasible,
and that as part of engaging the children's
imagination in lessons, the content of these lessons
should have many levels, including a preparation for
thinking at latter ages. Many of the stories we would
learn contained lessons which introduced us into the
collective world and history of humanity. This
developmental view seems to me to jive with what was
essentially Piagets model (which only came later). I
could mention more, but this should give one a good
feel.
In medicine, he introduced the value of Mistletoe as a
treatment for cancer. Studies have been done
confirming the benefit of Iscador (its trade name) in
cancer patients. Show me the historical precedent for
this? How could he have come this belief by
'intellectual fraud'?
On the subject of current science. Where, in our
current paradigm, could one even begin to explain the
phenomena of the sense of being stared at? Or
independantly verified cases of animals anticipating
their owners arrival without any possible sensory
cues, pattern-recognition, etc. (i.e. they only seem
to have responded to the owners 'intent' to come
home)? These phenomena have been recently well-studied
by the British scientist Rupert Sheldrake, and, in
many cases, independantly verified (sheldrake.org),
even by committed skeptics. With astronomically low
probability of this phenomena occuring at chance, the
current scientific paradigm has just been blown open.
Also see the research done by an American with EEG and
other physiological measures of arousal which showed a
consistent, 200 or so millisecond anticipation of
highly arousing photographs coming up in line at
random in a computer-sequence. Also, look at what is
considered common knowledge in Quantum Mechanics these
days. The fabric of our rationalistic view of the
world has been undermined by the very contents of
empirical research. I am not trying to advance an
agenda on you, anthroposophical or otherwise (I don't
even consider myself an anthroposophist). In fact, the
best thing is to remain deconditioned from any
particular agenda. Trust me, the widely accepted
rationalistic view of things has many flaws,
fundamental ones. No, don't trust me! Trust yourself.
Follow the research I've indicated. It is all fairly
top-notch stuff.
Chris
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 00:22:45 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Clarification
Chris wrote:
)In medicine, he introduced the value of Mistletoe as a
)treatment for cancer. Studies have been done
)confirming the benefit of Iscador (its trade name) in
)cancer patients. Show me the historical precedent for
)this? How could he have come this belief by
)'intellectual fraud'?
G'day Chris:
Please give references to these studies. As far as I am aware no such
reputable studies exist. Misteltoe has not been shown to have any value for
the treatment of cancer in a properly controlled test.
)
)On the subject of current science. Where, in our
)current paradigm, could one even begin to explain the
)phenomena of the sense of being stared at? Or
)independantly verified cases of animals anticipating
)their owners arrival without any possible sensory
)cues, pattern-recognition, etc. (i.e. they only seem
)to have responded to the owners 'intent' to come
)home)? These phenomena have been recently well-studied
)by the British scientist Rupert Sheldrake, and, in
)many cases, independantly verified (sheldrake.org),
)even by committed skeptics. With astronomically low
)probability of this phenomena occuring at chance, the
)current scientific paradigm has just been blown open.
)Also see the research done by an American with EEG and
)other physiological measures of arousal which showed a
)consistent, 200 or so millisecond anticipation of
)highly arousing photographs coming up in line at
)random in a computer-sequence. Also, look at what is
)considered common knowledge in Quantum Mechanics these
)days. The fabric of our rationalistic view of the
)world has been undermined by the very contents of
)empirical research. I am not trying to advance an
)agenda on you, anthroposophical or otherwise (I don't
)even consider myself an anthroposophist). In fact, the
)best thing is to remain deconditioned from any
)particular agenda. Trust me, the widely accepted
)rationalistic view of things has many flaws,
)fundamental ones. No, don't trust me! Trust yourself.
)Follow the research I've indicated. It is all fairly
)top-notch stuff.
G'day again Chris,
The work you cite above is at best controversial, both in the acceptance of
the actual experimental results, and their interpretations. . I do not
accept your suggestion that the "current scientific paradigm has just been
blown open" on the basis of the evidence you cite. I also do not accept the
notion that "The fabric of our rationalistic view of the world has been
undermined by the very contents of empirical research". It is interesting
that you seem to be willing to accept claims which are widely contested in
preference to claims which are widely accepted. I suggest you wait and see
what happens after there have been serious attempts at replication. I put
it to you that Sheldrake in particular is not taken seriously because
replication of his work has largely failed despite your claims to the
contrary above. I also suggest that there are a large number of examples of
unexpected and surprising results which have been accepted because they came
with the appropriate evidence, they were repeatable by others and so on.
Equally there are a lot of examples of work which looked promising but
failed replication or were found to be flawed in some other way.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 00:27:29 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Clarification
Chris also wrote:
)
)Okay, it happened, as I thought it would. My comments
)about "intellectual calibre" sounded too high-hat and
)haughty. I also wish to retract my comments about
)open-mindedness, seeing as how they were construed to
)be a condescending approach to this list. My basic
)point connecting these two comments was that one can
)rely on what one thinks off-hand all day, and thereby
)come to criticize Steiner quite a bit.
G'day Chris,
I don't accept that my criticism of Steiner's work relies on what I think
offhand.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 20:24:58 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner and the Occult
Thanks to Chris Wilson for an interesting set of reflections on Steiner and
the occult. I'd like to take issue with several of Chris's claims about
Goethe, science, and occultism. A couple of preliminary remarks might be in
order: I'm skeptical that these disagreements have much to do with the
distance between 'mainstream' and 'marginal' approaches; a number of the
more vocal critics of anthroposophy hold a range of beliefs that are far
from mainstream. I also think that the notion of a 'dogmatically critical
position' is self-contradictory. Last, I think that Chris's post repeats a
pattern common among fans of Steiner, namely amalgamating Steiner's earlier
philosophical work and his later theosophical/anthroposophical work after
the turn of the century. That is a major mistake, in my view, and it
routinely bedevils those who wish to defend Steiner's later occult doctrines
by way of his pre-anthroposophical writings.
Chris wrote:
)The basic thing to keep in mind, along the lines of
)the question of what exactly the Occult influence is
)in the classroom, is that Steiner was himself
)well-versed in the conventional philosophy and science
)of his day (he had a PhD). Much of this science is
)still pretty modern , although he missed the
)Einsteinian and Quantum Mechanical revolutions.
There are excellent reasons to doubt Steiner's grasp of the science current
in his day; Peter Farrell has presented several. But the more important
question, to my mind, is that of the relation between Steiner's putatively
scientific claims and his occult framework. The two varieties of argument
are incompatible. As soon as Steiner began to cast his teachings in the
format of an "occult science", those teachings became more or less
inaccessible to the standards of public scrutiny, reasoned assessment, and
critique.
)Perhaps most importantly, Steiner was influenced by
)the relatively obscure scientific work of Johann
)Wolfgang von Goethe.
That is certainly true (though Goethe's scientific work wasn't all that
obscure in late 19th century Germany, and Steiner's editorial work on one
edition of Goethe's publications was not nearly as pathbreaking as Chris
suggests). Steiner's first book, A Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's
World Conception (1886), expounds an epistemological stance that Steiner
developed further in Truth and Knowledge (1891) and The Philosophy of
Freedom (1894). The only problem is that Steiner's proffered epistemological
theory has very little to do with Goethe's actual views, much less with
Goethe's practice as a gentleman scientist. Steiner rarely quotes Goethe in
the 1886 book, and doesn't even refer to him very often in the course of the
text. Steiner seems to have believed that he had discovered an
epistemological framework "implicit" in Goethe's works; but many of Goethe's
explicit statements are difficult to reconcile with Steiner's construct.
While there are some parallels between Goethe's approach and the early
Steiner's extrapolations, they hardly amount to a "theory of knowledge"
shared by the two authors. Goethe described himself in 1796 as "an
empiricist and a realist", and he was scornful of the idea that observing
one's own process of thinking was a promising basis for understanding the
natural world. Goethe thus largely rejected the focus on self-reflective
thought that the young Steiner propagated so forcefully; and much of what
Steiner imputes to Goethe has considerably more resonance with the nature
philosophy of German Romanticism than it does with Goethe's scientific
endeavors. Latter-day admirers of Steiner are basically barking up the wrong
tree when they attempt to enlist Goethe as a sort of intellectual
predecessor to Steiner.
)Goethe himself is a whole other
)subject and deserves a re-evaluation in light of where
)science has come to, and where it was in his day.
There is an extensive literature on this very question, and much of it does
not concur with anthroposophical accounts on quite a few crucial points. One
of the most perceptive studies, in my estimation, is Alfred Schmidt's 1984
book Goethes herrlich leuchtende Natur, which provides numerous occasions to
doubt the consistency between Goethe's epistemological assumptions and
Steiner's, even the early Steiner's. Another study, R.H. Stephenson's 1995
book Goethe's Conception of Knowledge and Science, argues that Steiner's
epistemology is "much closer to Schelling than to Goethe." (p. 30)
)In any case, Steiner, who was appointed
)to manage the Goethe archives because of his
)widely-recognized scholarly revival of Goethe,
)integrated Goethe's ideas and methods into his own
)experiences of the Spiritual world. He wrote a book
)entitled "The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's
)World-View", which, along with "The Philosophy of
)Freedom", forms a really top-notch contribution to the
)field of epistemology.
I can't agree with the top-notch part, but it is true that these works
develop a fairly conventional philosophical account of epistemology within
the tradition of German Idealism, taking aim at Kant's conclusions in
particular. But these two early Steiner books are in large measure
irrelevant to the questions at hand; they have very little to do with
Goethe's forays into natural science, and moreover display few significant
commonalities with Steiner's mature theosophical/anthroposophical position.
There is nothing occult about Steiner's pre-1900 works.
)This early work also forms what I think is an
)indispensable basis for understanding where Steiner
)went, which was Anthroposophy.
You're definitely not alone among Steiner fans on that score, Chris, but I'd
be very interested to hear why you believe this. In what sense do either of
the texts you mention constitute the basis of anthroposophy? And what might
any of this have to do with Goethe's scientific writings, in your view?
)I urge anyone who wants to
)give Steiner and/or Anthroposophy a fair hearing to
)approach these foundational works and influences in an
)open-minded way.
That's always a good idea. I think it's also helpful to approach these works
and influences in an informed way, by paying attention to the development of
Steiner's ideas over time, and examining whether and how they related to
other ideas current in his day.
)Our current cultural approach to
)science has many deep issues which are not even
)admitted, much less resolved. But this is a topic for
)a lengthy essay. Suffice it to say that in addition to
)the "research aspect" of science hardly being closed
)to benefit from new ideas, the epistemological and
)philosophical foundations of what passes as
)"scientific knowledge" today are also not as firm as
)those who do not wish to think about them presume. I
)think that it is in this context that one should
)approach Steiner and Anthroposophy.
Maybe, but what would that have to do with Steiner's pre-anthroposophical
works? Before his theosophical turn, Steiner vigorously defended what he
called "western science" against occult claims to knowledge. His position
then was the contrary of his post-1900 stance. Isn't it important to keep
such distinctions in mind?
)I find his vestigial views deriving from theosophy
)somewhat troubling myself, but I don't use that as an
)excuse to abandon the whole corpus of his work.
Of course not. Do you think there are people, presumably critics of
anthroposophy, who do fall for this error? Which ones?
)And
)quite frankly, most people do not, in their current
)state, have the intellectual calibre to comprehend
)what Steiner was doing, although this is remediable.
I don't think I agree with that, but it still isn't entirely clear to me
what you're getting at here, even after your clarification. Bruce, for
example, seems to read this portion of your message rather differently, and
I'm not sure if I'm missing something or not. It seems to me that
intellectual caliber simply isn't germane to our disagreement; lots of
Steiner's admirers and lots of Steiner's critics are perfectly intelligent
people. They just don't see eye to eye on issues like occultism.
)This whole situation creates, among other things, the
)following two-fold problem: a problem within the
)Waldorf ranks of not really understanding what they're
)doing or Steiner himself, and a problem with the
)outside, with those interested in Waldorf, who,
)through some combination of lack of intellect and/or
)the constriction of rigid beliefs, would not be able
)to understand anyways, and are therefore susceptible
)to whoever appeals most to their emotions and/or prior
)beliefs. Note that I AM NOT reverting to a typical
)cultish position of denying contrary views simply on
)the basis that I consider the people who hold these
)views to be incapable of correct comprehension.
)Rather, I am stating that as with any intellectually
)involved venture, there are those who will not
)understand, or misunderstand, or whose prior beliefs
)prevent them from even considering something
)(cognitive dissonance). The simple fact of the
)matter is that main-stream, or conventional beliefs
)are not, in their mainstreamness or conventionality,
)any more correct than marginalized beliefs, an
)epistemological observation which seems to me
)necessary in attempting to honestly assess any issue
)which comes down to the nature of human knowledge.
Necessary perhaps, but pretty banal, don't you think? How does this general
observation coincide with or corroborate the specific claims you have
advanced about Steiner, about Goethe, about science, about occultism, and so
forth?
)A final question: would those here be willing, instead
)of pursuing this dogmatically critical position, no
)matter how well-founded their experiences of deception
)might be, to pursue a more honest, open-minded and
)open-ended inquiry into that upon which Steiner built
)Anthroposophy?
I'd be delighted to do that, though it sounds like you and I fundamentally
disagree on just what it was that Steiner built anthroposophy upon. For what
it's worth, I have no experiences of deception with Waldorf. It would help
me make sense of your various arguments if you could say a little more about
your thinking on Steiner's early philosophy and his later occult teachings.
Thanks for the dialogue,
Peter Staudenmaier
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 01:43:38 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Steiner and the Occult
Good to see you contributing Peter, and I hope you have recovered from your
stint at AT.
See you, Peter F.
_________________________________________________________________
What's your house worth? Click here to find out:
http://www.ninemsn.realestate.com.au
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 07:54:38 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Clarification
Chris wrote:
)Also see the research done by an American with EEG and
)other physiological measures of arousal which showed a
)consistent, 200 or so millisecond anticipation of
)highly arousing photographs coming up in line at
)random in a computer-sequence.
G'day Chris,
I have seen many discussions of some work which is like this, particularly
the work of Libet which you will find discussed by Daniel Dennett and Marcel
Kinsbourne here (http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/time&obs.htm) but I
don't recall seeing any references to experiments which are exactly as you
describe, nor could I find any when I did an admittedly unexhaustive search.
Can you point me to a reference which describes these experiments?
Thanks in advance, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Find love today with ninemsn personals. Click here:
http://ninemsn.match.com?referrer=hotmailtagline
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1343
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Steiner and the Occult
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Clarification
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Clarification
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: Clarification
By danielsabsay pacbell.net
RE: Clarification
By diana.winters verizon.net
Humility
By woden101 yahoo.com
Re: Humility
By danielsabsay pacbell.net
RE: Humility
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Science
By einmalig optonline.net
RE: Science
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Science
By einmalig optonline.net
RE: Science
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Science
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Science
By einmalig optonline.net
RE: Science
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 08:13:09 -0300
From: "Bruce Angus" (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Steiner and the Occult
Chris wrote: "And quite frankly, most people do not, in their current state, have the intellectual calibre to comprehend what Steiner was doing, although this is remediable people. They just don't see eye to eye on issues like occultism."
Peter wrote: "Bruce, for example, seems to read this portion of your message rather differently, and I'm not sure if I'm missing something or not. It seems to me that intellectual caliber simply isn't germane to our disagreement; lots of Steiner's admirers and lots of Steiner's critics are perfectly intelligent.
"For what it's worth, I have no experiences of deception with Waldorf."
Ouch and ouch. Hi Peter - Great post, and I particularly appreciated the Goethe stuff. I guess I sometimes fall back into old patterns of categorizing people and things. What I believe Chris is trying to say has nothing to do with "intellectual", although I can't speak for him. It's about how one views life. I have a sort of alchemical-occult perspective of things, other people take a different approach, and that's all.
And I honestly don't believe my approach is any better, or more intelligent, than anyone else's perspective - just different. And maybe that's why I can sometimes understand what Steiner was getting at. For example, I've researched Atlantis, from several different occult traditions and perspectives. How many non-occult oriented people have done that? Not very many, probably. But all that demonstrates is that I'm personally interested in the subject, while others aren't.
Bruce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 08:26:58 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Clarification
Chris wrote about all the top-notch research that is supposedly proving
Steiner right on various points.
I figured someone else would take you up on mistletoe, etc., thanks Peter F.
As long as I'm in a mood to debunk silliness (see anthroposophy_tomorrow
list) :) I checked out the sheldrake.org website quickly and saw enough
blatant silliness to dissuade me that it is "top-notch" research, Chris.
Pets with psychic powers? Cats "predict" earthquakes not because they are
psychic, but because they have more acute sensory perception than we do and
can sense changes in the atmosphere, hear sounds we can't hear, etc.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 10:46:09 -0300
From: "Bruce Angus" (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Clarification
"Sheldrake argues for a new concept of the mind - one not bounded by the brain, but operating through fields of influence that he believes are present throughout nature. He suggests these "morphic fields" organize the development and behavior of animals, plants, social groups and mental activity, from human and animal telepathy to such everyday mysteries as the synchronized swooping of flocks of birds. "I don't claim to explain all these things or to understand them," Sheldrake said. "I say, here's what seems to be going on."
Hi Diana - It's hard to believe most people these days wouldn't give some thought at least to these observations. At any rate, I appreciate someone who says "I don't claim to know." That's pretty refreshing after twenty years of "spiritual fact".
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 07:35:25 -0700
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay pacbell.net)
Subject: Re: Clarification
) Chris wrote:
)) Also see the research done by an American with EEG and
)) other physiological measures of arousal which showed a
)) consistent, 200 or so millisecond anticipation of
)) highly arousing photographs coming up in line at
)) random in a computer-sequence.
)
) Peter Ferrell wrote:
) I have seen many discussions of some work which is like this,
) particularly the work of Libet which you will find discussed by Daniel
) Dennett and Marcel Kinsbourne here
) (http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/time&obs.htm) but I don't recall
) seeing any references to experiments which are exactly as you
) describe, nor could I find any when I did an admittedly unexhaustive
) search. Can you point me to a reference which describes these
) experiments?
These are bogus unreplicated "experiments" by tireless telepathy
advocate, and prolific author Dean Radin. The physiological measures
were galvanic skin resistance, not EEG. Before he joined Marilyn
Shlitz at the Noetic Institute, he was working on a project at Interval
Research, the future-product research hobby business of Paul Alan, the
billionaire cofounder of Microsoft. Radin was trying for a few years
to control computers with telepathy. He was very enthusiastic about
this work until Alan shut down this, and several other unproductive
projects a year or two ago. A quick Internet search turned up this
inspiring talk by Shlitz and Radin in 2003: "Deepening Ways of Knowing
& Becoming: Science & Spirit" Contrary to Chris' characterization,
this is not actually science.
-- Daniel Sabsay http://home.pacbell.net/sabsay/home
Cybernetic Moments
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 10:59:41 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Clarification
Bruce quoted:
"Sheldrake argues for a new concept of the mind - one not bounded by the
brain, but operating through fields of influence that he believes are
present throughout nature. He suggests these "morphic fields" organize the
development and behavior of animals, plants, social groups and mental
activity, from human and animal telepathy to such everyday mysteries as the
synchronized swooping of flocks of birds. "I don't claim to explain all
these things or to understand them," Sheldrake said. "I say, here's what
seems to be going on."
)Hi Diana - It's hard to believe most people these days wouldn't give some
)thought at least to these observations. At any rate, I appreciate someone
)who says "I don't claim to know." That's pretty refreshing after twenty
)years of "spiritual fact".
I agree, I don't see why anyone shouldn't give some thought to these
observations. The question was whether they are top-notch research, as Chris
asserted. They are obviously nothing of the kind.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 12:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Woden (woden101 yahoo.com)
Subject: Humility
In looking over the responses to what I said I found
quite a bit of disagreement. It seems that when I
intended to simply be very clear and explicit about
how I think one should approach the subject(s) people
here interpreted it as me specifically critiquing
them. That was not intended.
In order to avoid confusion, as I have said I have
born witness to in the past, I tried to be fairly
complete with what I was talking about: some read this
as a criticism, others as "banal" observations. My
intent was to undercut what I saw as potential
misunderstandings, or approaches to what we were doing
which I consider short-sighted and which happen all
too frequently. My folly was thinking that by making
my comments general enough I could avoid provoking a
sense of attack, to slash out the seemingly "inherent"
or "implied" criticism. I failed, and I admit my
error.
I will, from now on, abandon that line of exhortation
because of this, and because my point should be fairly
clear.
Moving on. Examining the evolution of Steiner's
thought. I'm glad that at least one of you seems to
have done this (notice how I used the word 'seems' so
that you don't take this as implying that I am in a
position to know, with any certainty, how many of you
have actually done this). Since people here are big on
specifics I'd like to request this: what examples are
there of Steiner not understanding the philosophy or
science of his day? How many?
I found studies conducted in Europe on Iscador on the
pubmed database. It seems to have a very consistent
effect on quality of life, and, with some cancers, it
lengthens life-span. As I said, type in pubmed.org and
look under mistletoe, Iscador, etc. The evidence is
far from conclusive, I'll concede. It is known,
however, to improve quality of life, and boost the
immune system.
Here's one study:
Use of Iscador, an extract of European mistletoe
(Viscum album), in cancer treatment: prospective
nonrandomized and randomized matched-pair studies
nested within a cohort study.
Grossarth-Maticek R, Kiene H, Baumgartner SM, Ziegler
R.
As I said. Their is some evidence, and a bit of
clinical experience. It HAS AN EFFECT. It appears to
be meaningful. I feel justified in asking: how did
Steiner know?
Their was some mention that Sheldrake's studies were
not replicated by a third party. Where? Show me the
reference. I followed this issue fairly closely as it
developed, including the articles in "Skeptic"
magazine, and the "studies" commisioned by CSICOP.
These criticisms have all been responded to, in
convincing depth, by Sheldrake himself. Is there
something else?
In the mean time, read this page:
http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Staredatexperiments/sofbstat.html
I took a strong stance on this issue, because, in
fact, this is the only empirical evidence
investigating this sense of being stared at, and it
points to something earth-shattering. The phenomena
exists, and it appears to be empirically verifiable.
The only way you can refute the empiricism of this
claim is to show me the contradicting, empirical data
(and the CSICOP studies do not count, read Sheldrakes
replies please, before asking me why).
I do not feel obligated to pursue my claims any
further until more substantive objections have been
made. Again, please do not construe this as an insult,
but as my observing the content of the replies.
Please, as I said, if you have evidence to the
contrary, tell me. Otherwise, to return to Steiner. If
you have already pursued an honest inquiry into
Steiner, and the evolution of his thinking, than you
can disregard my comments. I would, however,
appreciate whatever their is to report from these
investigations.
Chris
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2'
http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 15:45:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay pacbell.net)
Subject: Re: Humility
Chris wrote:
) Their was some mention that Sheldrake's studies were
) not replicated by a third party. Where? Show me the
) reference. I followed this issue fairly closely as
) it
) developed, including the articles in "Skeptic"
) magazine, and the "studies" commisioned by CSICOP.
) These criticisms have all been responded to, in
) convincing depth, by Sheldrake himself. Is there
) something else?
) In the mean time, read this page:
)
http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Staredatexperiments/sofbstat.html
)
) I took a strong stance on this issue, because, in
) fact, this is the only empirical evidence
) investigating this sense of being stared at, and it
) points to something earth-shattering. The phenomena
) exists, and it appears to be empirically verifiable.
) The only way you can refute the empiricism of this
) claim is to show me the contradicting, empirical
) data (and the CSICOP studies do not count, read
) Sheldrakes replies please, before asking me why).
I have read enough Sheldrake replies to last a
lifetime; This is what Sheldrake does best. His
rhetoric does not constitute evidence. The counter
evidence can be observed in Las Vegas every day where
security cameras are big business simply because
people cannot tell when they are being observed.
Parapsychologist Marilyn Shlitz did a well publicized
study on staring and observation by TV cameras that
she claimed showed an effect. She repeated this
experiment with another researcher, and got the
opposite result. I was soooo surprised. Let's face
it, if this effect is real, Marilyn and Rupert are not
the only people smart enough to find this out.
Actually, they are the only people insensitive enough
to claim this no matter how thin the evidence is.
)
) I do not feel obligated to pursue my claims any
) further until more substantive objections have been
) made. Again, please do not construe this as an
) insult, but as my observing the content of the
replies.
) Please, as I said, if you have evidence to the
) contrary, tell me. Otherwise, to return to
Steiner...
-- Daniel Sabsay http://home.pacbell.net/sabsay/home
Cybernetic Moments
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 23:10:48 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Humility
Chris wrote:
)
)In looking over the responses to what I said I found
)quite a bit of disagreement. It seems that when I
)intended to simply be very clear and explicit about
)how I think one should approach the subject(s) people
)here interpreted it as me specifically critiquing
)them. That was not intended.
)In order to avoid confusion, as I have said I have
)born witness to in the past, I tried to be fairly
)complete with what I was talking about: some read this
)as a criticism, others as "banal" observations. My
)intent was to undercut what I saw as potential
)misunderstandings, or approaches to what we were doing
)which I consider short-sighted and which happen all
)too frequently. My folly was thinking that by making
)my comments general enough I could avoid provoking a
)sense of attack, to slash out the seemingly "inherent"
)or "implied" criticism. I failed, and I admit my
)error.
)I will, from now on, abandon that line of exhortation
)because of this, and because my point should be fairly
)clear.
Peter F. responds:
I for one do not know what your point was. I didn't feel any sense of
attack. I simply disagree with what you are claiming.
)
)Moving on. Examining the evolution of Steiner's
)thought. I'm glad that at least one of you seems to
)have done this (notice how I used the word 'seems' so
)that you don't take this as implying that I am in a
)position to know, with any certainty, how many of you
)have actually done this). Since people here are big on
)specifics I'd like to request this: what examples are
)there of Steiner not understanding the philosophy or
)science of his day? How many?
Peter F responds:
I have been specific about two cases. One is the second lecture of the
Warmth course which is available at
(http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/GA/GA0321/19200302a01.html) Steiner
misstates and distorts well known science of the time. Steiner claims that
the expansion of materials with temperature is linear and makes what I think
is a silly and trivial argument that the volume expansion must depend on the
third power of the temperature. Steiner ignores higher order terms in the
expansion with temperature which were well known at the time, with Nobel
prizes being awarded for work in this area in 1910 and 1920. Johannes van
der
Waals won the 1910 Nobel Prize for his work on the equation of state for
gases (see http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1910/waals-lecture.pdf) His
work gave the higher order corrections for gases that Steiner neglects.
Another Nobel Laureate of the time, Guillaume (see
http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1920/guillaume-lecture.pdf ) woked on
the higher order corrections for this kind of expansion for alloys.
Evidently Steiner didn't think that he needed to do any research to get
himself up to date.
I think his behaviour in the talk he gave to wokers at the Goethaneum which
is recorded in "From Elephants to Einstein" (not available on the web as far
as I know) is worse. In the last lecture which is given in response to a
question which was asked by one of the workers some days before about
Einstein and relativity, Steiner first gives an explanation of what I would
call Galilean relativity with some comparisons to Special and General
relativity. He then treats the whole topic as though Einstein and other
scintists working on this were stupid, clearly not as clever as the workers
at the Goethaneum because the workers could tell through the effort that
they had to take to undertake travel that both Galilean and Einstienian
relativity must both be wrong. I suggest that since Steiner had a duty of
care over these workers who were effectively working for him, he had a
responsibility to get this right. Instead he misrepresented this work to his
own advantage.
)
)I found studies conducted in Europe on Iscador on the
)pubmed database. It seems to have a very consistent
)effect on quality of life, and, with some cancers, it
)lengthens life-span. As I said, type in pubmed.org and
)look under mistletoe, Iscador, etc. The evidence is
)far from conclusive, I'll concede. It is known,
)however, to improve quality of life, and boost the
)immune system.
)Here's one study:
)
)Use of Iscador, an extract of European mistletoe
)(Viscum album), in cancer treatment: prospective
)nonrandomized and randomized matched-pair studies
)nested within a cohort study.
)
)Grossarth-Maticek R, Kiene H, Baumgartner SM, Ziegler
)R.
)
)As I said. Their is some evidence, and a bit of
)clinical experience. It HAS AN EFFECT. It appears to
)be meaningful. I feel justified in asking: how did
)Steiner know?
Peter F. responds:
When I checked pubmed a few minutes ago I found 112 references to Iscador.
The first with a clinically controlled trial was number 2 in the list (see
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14746858)
which showed no efficacy. I didn't go far enough down in the list to find
your reference.
If you do twenty trials at a confidence level of 95% the chances are you
will find an experiment which will demontrate efficacy. There is no
acceptance of the efficacy of Iscador against cancer outside
anthroposophical circles.
)
)Their was some mention that Sheldrake's studies were
)not replicated by a third party. Where? Show me the
)reference. I followed this issue fairly closely as it
)developed, including the articles in "Skeptic"
)magazine, and the "studies" commisioned by CSICOP.
)These criticisms have all been responded to, in
)convincing depth, by Sheldrake himself. Is there
)something else?
)In the mean time, read this page:
)http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Staredatexperiments/sofbstat.html
Peter F. responds:
What I found most interesting about this is that all the experimental
studies were given the same weight by Sheldrake, whereas my reading of his
paper suggested to me that the more experienced the experimenter, the less
likely it was that a positive effect would be seen.
)
)I took a strong stance on this issue, because, in
)fact, this is the only empirical evidence
)investigating this sense of being stared at, and it
)points to something earth-shattering. The phenomena
)exists, and it appears to be empirically verifiable.
)The only way you can refute the empiricism of this
)claim is to show me the contradicting, empirical data
)(and the CSICOP studies do not count, read Sheldrakes
)replies please, before asking me why).
Peter F. replies.
Once again these results are contested not accepted, and you will find
discussion that went futher at the CSICOP site (I recommend doing a search
on sheldrake at http://www.csicop.org). I'll slightly paraphrase a cliche
from the skeptics. Earth shattering claims require earth shattering
evidence.
)
)I do not feel obligated to pursue my claims any
)further until more substantive objections have been
)made. Again, please do not construe this as an insult,
)but as my observing the content of the replies.
)Please, as I said, if you have evidence to the
)contrary, tell me. Otherwise, to return to Steiner. If
)you have already pursued an honest inquiry into
)Steiner, and the evolution of his thinking, than you
)can disregard my comments. I would, however,
)appreciate whatever their is to report from these
)investigations.
)
Peter F. responds:
There are more substantive comments above. Peter Staudenmaier has made
substantive comments. Dan Dugan has described how the "Man and Animal"
lesson is Anthroposophical belief, not science. I can't recall who it was
that described the discussion of "heart is not a pump" in a classroom.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 02:03:19 +0000
From: H Wayne (einmalig optonline.net)
Subject: Science
Dear Friends,
Some of the science discussed here is intriguing, but a few
clarifications may be in order. I offer these here in the hope that
there may be some people genuinely interested in science per se, that
is, in better understanding the world we live in, and not in its uses to
defend and/or attack any point of view.
1) The expansion of solids, much mentioned of late in this list. Most
textbooks still treat solids as expanding linearly, because this is
essentially true over normal temperature ranges (tens or even hundreds
of degrees, but not over thousands of degrees or approaching absolute
zero). In other words, linear expansion is an excellent approximation
for normal purposes. Some materials maintain linearity over vast ranges,
for example wrought iron.
For most purposes, thus, to say that (solid) materials expand
linearly is reasonably true, and such statements are made by physicists
regularly when they are speaking of ranges where linearity is
essentially accurate.
That's the science. Now, if we want to find out if someone is
speaking accurately about linear expansion, we need to know what
temperature ranges are spoken of and/or what materials are in question.
I took the trouble to look at the link to the Warmth Course. Steiner is
talking about warming things up; it's not clear to me if he was using a
candle or just his finger, but it is clear that this was not 1000 or
even 400 degrees F, but just a mild warming. In this range, he was fully
justified in talking about linear expansion, and every physics course's
first treatment of the subject would restrict itself to this.
The third power terms he mentions, also brought up by someone here,
are the result of looking at volume (rather than linear) expansion. It's
pretty trivial; if you heat something that expands linearly in all
directions (as most substances would do) and you want to calculate the
change in volume, you arrive at a third-degree expression in terms of
temperature. This is pretty basic algebra and absolutely valid physics.
2) Mistletoe therapy. I went to the link offered (PubMed) and did a
search using the keywords "Mistletoe cancer". Of the first 10 results, 7
included studies of the effect of mistletoe extracts on cancer and 3 did
not. Of the 7 studies, all 7 found significant effects. The only
conclusion I can draw is that mistletoe treatments have been extensively
tested (not just in the one test mentioned in this discussion). The
reports state that they improve both survival rates and life quality.
One of the studies examined one particular substance contained in
Mistletoe extract and demonstrated a biochemical path for its
effectiveness against cancer.
I then checked the next 10 studies, hoping to find at least one that
was negative. Of the next 10, 1 was negative, 2 were supportive and 1
was inconclusive (the authors admitted that it was poorly designed due
to inconsistencies in the patient base).
Obviously further studies need to be done, but out of the 20 studies
I examined in this database, 9 were positive about a beneficial effect
for cancer patients from mistletoe extract and 1 was negative.
Let's keep the science sound here!!!
H. Wayne
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 02:45:15 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Science
H Wayne wrote:
)Some of the science discussed here is intriguing, but a few
)clarifications may be in order. I offer these here in the hope that
)there may be some people genuinely interested in science per se, that
)is, in better understanding the world we live in, and not in its uses to
)defend and/or attack any point of view.
)
)1) The expansion of solids, much mentioned of late in this list. Most
)textbooks still treat solids as expanding linearly, because this is
)essentially true over normal temperature ranges (tens or even hundreds
)of degrees, but not over thousands of degrees or approaching absolute
)zero). In other words, linear expansion is an excellent approximation
)for normal purposes. Some materials maintain linearity over vast ranges,
)for example wrought iron.
) For most purposes, thus, to say that (solid) materials expand
)linearly is reasonably true, and such statements are made by physicists
)regularly when they are speaking of ranges where linearity is
)essentially accurate.
) That's the science. Now, if we want to find out if someone is
)speaking accurately about linear expansion, we need to know what
)temperature ranges are spoken of and/or what materials are in question.
)I took the trouble to look at the link to the Warmth Course. Steiner is
)talking about warming things up; it's not clear to me if he was using a
)candle or just his finger, but it is clear that this was not 1000 or
)even 400 degrees F, but just a mild warming. In this range, he was fully
)justified in talking about linear expansion, and every physics course's
)first treatment of the subject would restrict itself to this.
) The third power terms he mentions, also brought up by someone here,
)are the result of looking at volume (rather than linear) expansion. It's
)pretty trivial; if you heat something that expands linearly in all
)directions (as most substances would do) and you want to calculate the
)change in volume, you arrive at a third-degree expression in terms of
)temperature. This is pretty basic algebra and absolutely valid physics.
)
)
Peter F responds.
If you do this algebra to determine how the volume changes, the higher order
volume changes depend on the relative sizes of the higher order effects.
Generally what is done in an introductory physics or engineering text then
and now is to use only the linear term in a length expansion and correctly
limit the volume expansion to the lowest order, linear term in the
temperature. It is incorrect to say that there are higher order terms for
volume temperature expansion than there are for single dimension expansion
regardless of the temperature range. The reason is that you can't just use
algebra, you have to use notions of calculus as well. So it is not valid
physics and the mathematics is inappropriate.
I will get back to the Iscador later.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 05:30:37 +0000
From: H Wayne (einmalig optonline.net)
Subject: RE: Science
The standard presentation is to show that the volume calculation indeed
has higher order effects (second and third degree powers of the product
of the linear coefficient of expansion and the change of temperature)
and then to point out that these are negligible in comparison with the
linear terms. Thus, the coefficient of volumetric expansion is
effectively three times that of linear expansion. Nevertheless, it is
certainly more accurate, if overly fussy for practical engineering, to
say that those higher order terms exist than to say that they do not
exist.
I am puzzled how calculus comes in. The higher order terms are not
infinitesimally small, simply relatively smaller. They do not fall away,
as in a limit employed in calculus, but are ignored because most
engineering and physical situations are effectively modeled without
them. (If I were designing the space shuttle, I might like to include
them just in case...)
Please show what sort of calculus formula you mean here, if you have
something particular in mind at all.
I have now read the whole of the lecture to be sure of the larger
context. The only thing that is unusual is that the above-mentioned
special significance is given to mathematical terms that normally are
allowed to fall away, but Steiner certainly gives full weight to the
fact that they do fall away numerically. He says that they are
nevertheless important and then - without explaining this further - goes
on to a quite interesting comparison of solid, liquid and gaseous
expansion generally. I have never encountered this comparison before,
but it would certainly be a great topic to take up at high school level.
He doesn't seem to ever explain why he thinks the higher order effects
are important. No conclusions can be drawn about his statement in the
absence of a further statement of the actual way they are claimed to be
important. It's simply impossible to say what he's getting at here, or
does someone understand? The rest of the presentation is certainly very
solid and quite interesting. I think he picks on modern science a bit,
given that we still pay attention to phase changes, but we certainly
don't normally emphasize the particular distinction he makes here, so I
might grudgingly admit his point in this very particular context.
I am getting interested enough to work my way through some of the other
scientific topics mentioned in this list (I've been reading my way
back). Some interesting themes!!!
Peter Farrell wrote:
)
) H Wayne wrote:
) )Some of the science discussed here is intriguing, but a few
) )clarifications may be in order. I offer these here in the hope that
) )there may be some people genuinely interested in science per se, that
) )is, in better understanding the world we live in, and not in its uses to
) )defend and/or attack any point of view.
) )
) )1) The expansion of solids, much mentioned of late in this list. Most
) )textbooks still treat solids as expanding linearly, because this is
) )essentially true over normal temperature ranges (tens or even hundreds
) )of degrees, but not over thousands of degrees or approaching absolute
) )zero). In other words, linear expansion is an excellent approximation
) )for normal purposes. Some materials maintain linearity over vast ranges,
) )for example wrought iron.
) ) For most purposes, thus, to say that (solid) materials expand
) )linearly is reasonably true, and such statements are made by physicists
) )regularly when they are speaking of ranges where linearity is
) )essentially accurate.
) ) That's the science. Now, if we want to find out if someone is
) )speaking accurately about linear expansion, we need to know what
) )temperature ranges are spoken of and/or what materials are in question.
) )I took the trouble to look at the link to the Warmth Course. Steiner is
) )talking about warming things up; it's not clear to me if he was using a
) )candle or just his finger, but it is clear that this was not 1000 or
) )even 400 degrees F, but just a mild warming. In this range, he was fully
) )justified in talking about linear expansion, and every physics course's
) )first treatment of the subject would restrict itself to this.
) ) The third power terms he mentions, also brought up by someone here,
) )are the result of looking at volume (rather than linear) expansion. It's
) )pretty trivial; if you heat something that expands linearly in all
) )directions (as most substances would do) and you want to calculate the
) )change in volume, you arrive at a third-degree expression in terms of
) )temperature. This is pretty basic algebra and absolutely valid physics.
) )
) )
)
) Peter F responds.
) If you do this algebra to determine how the volume changes, the higher
) order
) volume changes depend on the relative sizes of the higher order effects.
)
) Generally what is done in an introductory physics or engineering text
) then
) and now is to use only the linear term in a length expansion and
) correctly
) limit the volume expansion to the lowest order, linear term in the
) temperature. It is incorrect to say that there are higher order terms
) for
) volume temperature expansion than there are for single dimension
) expansion
) regardless of the temperature range. The reason is that you can't just
) use
) algebra, you have to use notions of calculus as well. So it is not valid
)
) physics and the mathematics is inappropriate.
) I will get back to the Iscador later.
) See you, Peter
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:
) http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
)
H. Wayne
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 05:43:08 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Science
Let me make this thermal expansion story clear. I need to define some
notation first.
* means multiply
T^2 = T*T
T^3=T*T*T
and so on
If we consider a metal rod with length L0 and we increase its temperature it
will usually get longer. Most introductory texts talk about a linear
coefficient of thermal exapnsion which I will call a1. If the temperature
change is T, and the original length is L0, the new length will be
L = L0*(1+a1*T) (equation 1)
Now this is known to be an approximation and it was known to be an
approximation in 1919. Instead, of the expansion equation above we should
have
L=L0*(1+a1*T+a2*T^2+a3*T^3+...) (equation 2)
on and on as far as we like. In practice, it is almost impossible to get an
accurate measure beyond a2 or a3. That does not mean that there is not a
term in T^3 for the linear expansion but only that there is little point in
including it because it is very difficult to measure and it plays no part in
any practical device that was known about then.To find the volume expansion
of a cube of metal we simply multiply L by itself three times, ie
V=L*L*L=L^3 (equation 3)
We can use equation 1 as Steiner to find the temperatue dependence of this
and we get
V=L0^3*(1+3*a1*T+a1^2*T^2+a1^3*T^3) (equation 4)
This is usually truncated correctly to give
V=L0^2*(1+3*a1*T) (equation 5)
which shows a linear increase in the volume three times that of the single
dimension expansion. It is correct to truncate these terms because we have
ignored the higher order terms that are shown in equation 2 but which are
missing in equation 1 to produce equation 4, and the products which arise
from including those could be (and indeed are ) larger than those terms we
do get. Please note they could also have an opposite sign. If I use equation
2 rather than equation 1 in equation 3 to make explicit the temperature
dependence of the volume I get
V/L0^3=1+3*a1*T+(3*a1^2+3*a2)*T^2+(a1^3+3*a3+6*a1*a2)*T^3+... (equation 6)
up to terms in T^3. There are of course still higher order terms. Note that
we get the same order term (3*a1*T) as before, but for all the other terms
we get additional factors many of which are likely to be more important than
the ones that I claim are usually neglected.
So here is a theorem which I haven't proved here but which is provable If
you start with terms up to a power T^n , then it is incorrect to include
terms in higher powers which arise from the use of simple algebra. It is
even more incorrect to make some argument that including these incorrect
terms gives some physical insight. However mostly I object to the suggestion
in Steiner's article that the scientists of the day somehow missed the
"important" (wrong) consequences of Steiner's version.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 06:43:59 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Science
G'day H Wayne
our other emails passed each other.
)
)The standard presentation is to show that the volume calculation indeed
)has higher order effects (second and third degree powers of the product
)of the linear coefficient of expansion and the change of temperature)
)and then to point out that these are negligible in comparison with the
)linear terms. Thus, the coefficient of volumetric expansion is
)effectively three times that of linear expansion. Nevertheless, it is
)certainly more accurate, if overly fussy for practical engineering, to
)say that those higher order terms exist than to say that they do not
)exist.
Peter F responds:
It matters which higher order terms you say there are. Please see my other
post. Equally it matters that you say that the higher order terms exist in
the volume expansion but do not exist in the expansion of a single
dimension. It also matters if it is claimed that there are are spiritual or
occult differences between gases and solids which can be seen as a result of
this, when the actual differences are well explained (and accurately
explained) by the theories which were available at the time, and the
mathematical differences Steiner refers to are entirely spurious.
)
)I am puzzled how calculus comes in. The higher order terms are not
)infinitesimally small, simply relatively smaller. They do not fall away,
)as in a limit employed in calculus, but are ignored because most
)engineering and physical situations are effectively modeled without
)them. (If I were designing the space shuttle, I might like to include
)them just in case...)
In the space shuttle you probably wouldn't care. You would be more concerned
with the different approximately linear expansion coefficients of materal
which were bonded together and the stresses that would result as the
temperature changed. If you were designing a laser cavity, or a high
precision interferometer you probably would care although typically in these
cases you would use some sort of active temperature control to make sure
that the device did not change temperature. You might also use a low
coefficient of thermal expansion material like invar (see Giullaume again).
The point is that the terms you are talking about are the wrong ones. You
could get a less correct answer for the expansion than if you left them out.
)
)Please show what sort of calculus formula you mean here, if you have
)something particular in mind at all.
You may use calculus because that is the easiest way to find the terms which
are most significant, next most significant and so on. Have a look at things
like Taylor series and Mclaurin series.
)
)
)I have now read the whole of the lecture to be sure of the larger
)context. The only thing that is unusual is that the above-mentioned
)special significance is given to mathematical terms that normally are
)allowed to fall away, but Steiner certainly gives full weight to the
)fact that they do fall away numerically. He says that they are
)nevertheless important and then - without explaining this further - goes
)on to a quite interesting comparison of solid, liquid and gaseous
)expansion generally. I have never encountered this comparison before,
)but it would certainly be a great topic to take up at high school level.
Steiner is simply wrong to say that those terms have special significance.
Other higher order terms which also appear in the single dimension case are
more significant. The point I am making is that the mathematical form of the
volume expansion is not different to the mathematical form of the single
dimension expansion in the sense that these higher order terms appear in
both. The discussion of higher order terms would be a great topic in high
school, but it would be wrong if it were done in the way Steiner does it.
)
)
)He doesn't seem to ever explain why he thinks the higher order effects
)are important. No conclusions can be drawn about his statement in the
)absence of a further statement of the actual way they are claimed to be
)important. It's simply impossible to say what he's getting at here, or
)does someone understand? The rest of the presentation is certainly very
)solid and quite interesting. I think he picks on modern science a bit,
)given that we still pay attention to phase changes, but we certainly
)don't normally emphasize the particular distinction he makes here, so I
)might grudgingly admit his point in this very particular context.
In my opinion Steiner never explains. When he talks about science he muddies
the waters and then moves to some spiritual non sequitor. This is precisely
what happens here. I should say that his conclusions in the first lecture
are almost completely incorrect as well, although it is not so clear that he
had access to the kinds of analysis that are commonplace today for the
design of measuring instruments. I will get around to posting a more
detailed criticism of this first lecture one of these days. One of the
important points is to realise that contrary to what Steiner says about
humans having no reference level or reference point for temperature, we do
have such a reference point. If we are alive and not sick, our body
temperature is rarely much different from 37 degrees celsius.
)
)
)I am getting interested enough to work my way through some of the other
)scientific topics mentioned in this list (I've been reading my way
)back). Some interesting themes!!!
)
)
I am very pleased to hear of your interest. I hope you continue to
contribute.
See you, Peter
.
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp?banner=emailtag&referrer=hotmail
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 07:12:50 +0000
From: H Wayne (einmalig optonline.net)
Subject: RE: Science
Of course, both the nonlinearity and the volume calculation introduce
higher order terms. I question whether the nonlinearity of temperature
expansion is invariably the larger; materials differ considerably in
this; some have effectively no significant divergence from linearity
over quite a wide range of temperatures, which would mean that the
volume effect of higher order terms would be larger (though still
insignificant for any practical purpose), while others diverge from
linearity quite significantly, which would mean that this would be the
larger effect (and this is more generally the case, merely not
universably so).
Where I don't quite follow your argument is that Steiner explicitly
mentions that it is a numerically insignificant effect. Then he throws
in a line about it being important anyway. It's a line I can't do
anything with, as I said in a previous mail, since he doesn't say why it
is important (having pointed out its numerical insignificance).
I certainly wouldn't make a fuss about the nonlinearity; what I find to
be the interesting point (and this is what I was referring to in the
above mail) is rather his characterization of the difference in the
behavior of solids, liquids and gases. They are all studied in physics,
but it would be rather effective (especially at high school level) to
bring out this rather interesting difference in character. It goes
beyond merely calculating the expansion for various circumstances to an
noticing essential difference between all substances in their solid
state, in the liquid and all in the gaseous state. Its not a huge point,
just a nice one to bring out when approaching the subject.
I don't think we are disagreeing at all...any of us, you, me or Steiner.
(Though I still don't know what he found significant about the higher
order terms, and probably never will...)
Peter Farrell wrote:
)
)
) G'day H Wayne
) our other emails passed each other.
) )
) )The standard presentation is to show that the volume calculation indeed
) )has higher order effects (second and third degree powers of the product
) )of the linear coefficient of expansion and the change of temperature)
) )and then to point out that these are negligible in comparison with the
) )linear terms. Thus, the coefficient of volumetric expansion is
) )effectively three times that of linear expansion. Nevertheless, it is
) )certainly more accurate, if overly fussy for practical engineering, to
) )say that those higher order terms exist than to say that they do not
) )exist.
)
) Peter F responds:
) It matters which higher order terms you say there are. Please see my
) other
) post. Equally it matters that you say that the higher order terms exist
) in
) the volume expansion but do not exist in the expansion of a single
) dimension. It also matters if it is claimed that there are are spiritual
) or
) occult differences between gases and solids which can be seen as a
) result of
) this, when the actual differences are well explained (and accurately
) explained) by the theories which were available at the time, and the
) mathematical differences Steiner refers to are entirely spurious.
)
) )
) )I am puzzled how calculus comes in. The higher order terms are not
) )infinitesimally small, simply relatively smaller. They do not fall away,
) )as in a limit employed in calculus, but are ignored because most
) )engineering and physical situations are effectively modeled without
) )them. (If I were designing the space shuttle, I might like to include
) )them just in case...)
)
) In the space shuttle you probably wouldn't care. You would be more
) concerned
) with the different approximately linear expansion coefficients of
) materal
) which were bonded together and the stresses that would result as the
) temperature changed. If you were designing a laser cavity, or a high
) precision interferometer you probably would care although typically in
) these
) cases you would use some sort of active temperature control to make sure
)
) that the device did not change temperature. You might also use a low
) coefficient of thermal expansion material like invar (see Giullaume
) again).
) The point is that the terms you are talking about are the wrong ones.
) You
) could get a less correct answer for the expansion than if you left them
) out.
) )
) )Please show what sort of calculus formula you mean here, if you have
) )something particular in mind at all.
)
) You may use calculus because that is the easiest way to find the terms
) which
) are most significant, next most significant and so on. Have a look at
) things
) like Taylor series and Mclaurin series.
) )
) )
) )I have now read the whole of the lecture to be sure of the larger
) )context. The only thing that is unusual is that the above-mentioned
) )special significance is given to mathematical terms that normally are
) )allowed to fall away, but Steiner certainly gives full weight to the
) )fact that they do fall away numerically. He says that they are
) )nevertheless important and then - without explaining this further - goes
) )on to a quite interesting comparison of solid, liquid and gaseous
) )expansion generally. I have never encountered this comparison before,
) )but it would certainly be a great topic to take up at high school level.
)
) Steiner is simply wrong to say that those terms have special
) significance.
) Other higher order terms which also appear in the single dimension case
) are
) more significant. The point I am making is that the mathematical form of
) the
) volume expansion is not different to the mathematical form of the single
)
) dimension expansion in the sense that these higher order terms appear in
)
) both. The discussion of higher order terms would be a great topic in
) high
) school, but it would be wrong if it were done in the way Steiner does
) it.
) )
) )
) )He doesn't seem to ever explain why he thinks the higher order effects
) )are important. No conclusions can be drawn about his statement in the
) )absence of a further statement of the actual way they are claimed to be
) )important. It's simply impossible to say what he's getting at here, or
) )does someone understand? The rest of the presentation is certainly very
) )solid and quite interesting. I think he picks on modern science a bit,
) )given that we still pay attention to phase changes, but we certainly
) )don't normally emphasize the particular distinction he makes here, so I
) )might grudgingly admit his point in this very particular context.
)
) In my opinion Steiner never explains. When he talks about science he
) muddies
) the waters and then moves to some spiritual non sequitor. This is
) precisely
) what happens here. I should say that his conclusions in the first
) lecture
) are almost completely incorrect as well, although it is not so clear
) that he
) had access to the kinds of analysis that are commonplace today for the
) design of measuring instruments. I will get around to posting a more
) detailed criticism of this first lecture one of these days. One of the
) important points is to realise that contrary to what Steiner says about
) humans having no reference level or reference point for temperature, we
) do
) have such a reference point. If we are alive and not sick, our body
) temperature is rarely much different from 37 degrees celsius.
)
) )
) )
) )I am getting interested enough to work my way through some of the other
) )scientific topics mentioned in this list (I've been reading my way
) )back). Some interesting themes!!!
) )
) )
) I am very pleased to hear of your interest. I hope you continue to
) contribute.
) See you, Peter
) .
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) Protect your inbox from harmful viruses with new ninemsn Premium. Go to
)
) http://ninemsn.com.au/premium/landing.asp?banner=emailtag&referrer=hotmail
)
)
H. Wayne
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 08:17:44 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Science
G'day H Wayne
)
)Of course, both the nonlinearity and the volume calculation introduce
)higher order terms. I question whether the nonlinearity of temperature
)expansion is invariably the larger; materials differ considerably in
)this; some have effectively no significant divergence from linearity
)over quite a wide range of temperatures, which would mean that the
)volume effect of higher order terms would be larger (though still
)insignificant for any practical purpose), while others diverge from
)linearity quite significantly, which would mean that this would be the
)larger effect (and this is more generally the case, merely not
)universably so).
One of the difficulties with this is that modern solid state physics doesn't
talk about the higher order terms in the way I have but in terms of another
parameter, the Gruneisen paramater. I don't have a great list of the values
of these parameters iopen n front of me although I do have a few texts which
list them and I am insufficently motivated to sort this out to that detail.
The question is which is larger (a2 or a1) and what are their relative
signs. Note that all of these are very much less than 1 in the form I have
given them so a2 is very likely to be larger than a1^2 and so on. There may
well be materials with a2 almost zero in some ranges. I am not aware of any,
and I expect they might be quite special. However I am speaking generally
and so was Steiner.
)
)Where I don't quite follow your argument is that Steiner explicitly
)mentions that it is a numerically insignificant effect. Then he throws
)in a line about it being important anyway. It's a line I can't do
)anything with, as I said in a previous mail, since he doesn't say why it
)is important (having pointed out its numerical insignificance).
As far as I can tell it is important because it shows some occult
significance. I say that is nonsense because its mere presence is not
enough. As I have tried to show a term in T^3 already exists in the one
dimensional case. It's not up to me to make what Steiner is trying to say
clear. Why didn't he say it clearly in the first place.
)
)I certainly wouldn't make a fuss about the nonlinearity; what I find to
)be the interesting point (and this is what I was referring to in the
)above mail) is rather his characterization of the difference in the
)behavior of solids, liquids and gases. They are all studied in physics,
)but it would be rather effective (especially at high school level) to
)bring out this rather interesting difference in character. It goes
)beyond merely calculating the expansion for various circumstances to an
)noticing essential difference between all substances in their solid
)state, in the liquid and all in the gaseous state. Its not a huge point,
)just a nice one to bring out when approaching the subject.
)
What is this difference? The molecules in gases are generally so far apart
and so small that the interaction between the molecules and their finite
size doesn't matter very much in determining what the pressure will be
given some volume and temperature. However we can determine both from
experiment and from modern understandings of the forces between molecules
and their known dimensions the corrections to PV=nRT which arise as a result
of them. For this reason all gases behave the same way to a good
approximation. For liquids the constituent atoms and molecules are
sufficiently close together so that their size and their interactions become
important. Different liquids behave differently. However, they have
sufficient kinetic energy to keep the bonds from becoming "permanent" as
they are in a solid. All of this could be and sometimes is dealt with in
high school science classes. This would be anathema to anthroposophists
because I am talking about supposedly abstract quantities like atoms and
molecules and because I am leaving out the possibility of the spiritual
nature of heat (warmth).
Steiner claims that there is some spiritual or occult difference between
gases and liquids and solids, and some occult significance to temperature
which one can discern starting from this point about terms in T^3. I claim
this is absolute nonsense.
)I don't think we are disagreeing at all...any of us, you, me or Steiner.
(Though I still don't know what he found significant about the higher
order terms, and probably never will...)
I am pretty sure I am disagreeing with Steiner. I am not sure I am
disagreeing with you. Steiner's algebra is misapplied pure and simple. It is
just wrong even though the arithmetic is correct. It is similar to saying
6+4=10, therefore it must be raining outside. Both of these may be true but
the argument is still crap. Notice also that you agree that Steiner gave
scientists a bit of criticism throughout this lecture on the basis of not
noticing this supposedly profound insight among other things. That's just
rubbish. Notice also that Steiner says
"No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work, who
has not acquired — through the School of Spiritual Science itself or in an
equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science — the
requisite preliminary knowledge. Other opinions will be disregarded: the
authors decline to take them as a basis for discussion."
This is also rubbish. Is this any more than a device to shield his followers
from criticisms that he can't answer?
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1344
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Humility
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: Humility
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Steiner and Science and Illness
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Testing and Spiritual Science
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Humility
By einmalig optonline.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 10:40:17 -0300
From: "Bruce Angus" (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Humility
Chris wrote: "My folly was thinking that by making my comments general enough I could avoid provoking a sense of attack, to slash out the seemingly "inherent" or "implied" criticism. I failed, and I admit my error."
"I feel justified in asking: how did Steiner know?"
Hi Chris - Steiner knew, in the same way every other mystical, occult, spiritual, and/or alchemical investigator knows. As a practicing Buddhist, I assume you understand this. Are you trying to convince people here of all that? If you are, you might end up writing an awful lot of sentences that begin with "My folly was thinking."
The reason I dare post my mostly unimportant thoughts on this site, is because I've reached a point in my life where I realize it's not about what you know or believe, it's about whether you are able to understand and get along with people. Just state your truth. If your words seem to provoke a sense of attack, re-word them differently and hope for a positive response.
It used to drive me goofy, the way we teachers would analyze our dialogue in the middle of the dialogue. We wouldn't get any practical work done because we so busy figuring out if we were shaping the conversation correctly. And now, thanks to Peter S's historical summary, nobody can pin the blame on Goethean conversation - Goethe has little to do with it. It's called obsessing, and obsessing over "seemingly inherent or implied things" can be one aspect.
By the way: there is no failure or error, just outcome. You might want to switch over to Taoism - it's a really forgiving way of being in the world. I'm of course kidding, but what I'm really saying is just avoid the negative and emphasize the constructive. And go ahead and feel justified - just don't make a point of it, if you want my opinion. There's a whole bunch of that in the Waldorf movement and, as a result, it doesn't really go over too well in some circles.
Bruce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 01:56:47 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Humility
Bruce Angus wrote in reponse to Chris:
)
)
)The reason I dare post my mostly unimportant thoughts on this site, is
)because I've reached a point in my life where I realize it's not about what
)you know or believe, it's about whether you are able to understand and get
)along with people. Just state your truth. If your words seem to provoke a
)sense of attack, re-word them differently and hope for a positive response.
)
)
Peter F responds:
I really don't understand this sense of attack stuff. Why is it that saying
something like "I believe a particular statement you made is incorrect for
the following reasons" should be seen as an attack? I don't see it as an
attack. I guess Chris came here thinking he might be able to change
somebody's mind about something. I think he might be able to change
someone's mind, perhaps even mine. But this can only be done by talking a
language that is satisfactory to both of us. Chris said for example that
Steiner was well versed in the science of his time. I don't believe this is
true. While we have a great deal of common agreement (I suspect we both
enjoy looking at blue skies, there's one out my window now and it's very
nice through the autumn leaves), this is a point of disagreement. We may
come to some agreement on this point by discussion of Steiner's writings and
recorded statements about science of the time, and, to that end, I have made
references to two lectures which I think contain statements which could only
be made by someone who was ignorant or someone who was dishonest. I hope
that I have demonstrated that there are serious problems with Steiner's
methods in lecture 2 of the warmth course, and I have indicated a simple
fact (the near constancy and equality of human core temperature) which is
well known and was well known which contradicts a claim of Steiner's in the
first warmth lecture and on which claim he bases his argument. Here is
Steiner from that lecture (out of context):
"Do not imagine for a moment that this is of no consequence. Our whole life
process is bound up with this fact that we have in us no temperature
reference point. If we could establish such a reference point within
ourselves, it would necessitate an entirely different state of
consciousness, a different soul life. It is precisely because the reference
point is hidden or us that we lead the kind of life we do."
Of course we do have a reference point, it is not hidden from us and we do
have access to it, and we do access it. We can tell whether things are
hotter or colder than us. Parents routinely check children for fevers by
touching forheads and cheeks and so on. We decide on our clothing on the
basis of our access to that reference point.
This is not an attack on Chris or on Bruce. Perhaps Chris has changed his
view of Steiner's scientific prowess after this small exchange, perhaps not.
I haven't heard yet. Perhaps he has new and more cogent arguments and
evidence than what I have already presented which will change my mind.
Perhaps not. In any case, what is clear is that this point of disagreement
cannot be used by Chris to convince me of anything other than we disagree.
Presumably if I have managed to change Chris's mind about Steiner and
science, we can move onto some other point of disagreement which we can
clarify until either one or more of us changes our views or we agree to
differ.
See you both, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 22:48:33 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Steiner and Science and Illness
"If an individual engaged in medical, physiological-phenomenological
research in the direction I can only suggest in this short course of
lectures, he would be led to the insight that it is possible for forces in
the human organism[,] that should actually enter the soul-spiritual at the
proper turning-point in life instead[,] to remain below in the physical
organization. Then what I spoke to you about yesterday occurs. If the normal
degree of organization-forces is transformed with the change of teeth, then
in later life we have the proper degree of forces in the organism to
organize this organism in accord with its normal shape and normal structure.
If we have not done this, however, if we have transformed too little, then
the organizing forces that remain below appear somewhere and we encounter
new formations, carcinomatous formations, about which I spoke yesterday. In
this way - just as Troxler suggested in the first half of the nineteenth
century - we can study the process of becoming ill or of illness that occurs
in the moments of transition in later life.
We can then compare this with childhood illnesses, for obviously childhood
illnesses cannot have the same origin, because they appear in an early stage
of life when absolutely nothing has yet been transformed. If one has learned
the origin of illnesses in later life, however, one has also acquired a
capacity to observe what underlies the origin of illnesses in childhood. One
finds the same thing, in a certain way, only from another side. One finds
that there is too much of the soul-spiritual force of organization in the
human organism when childhood illnesses arise. To an individual who has
acquired the capacity to perceive along these lines, such things appear
especially significant when considering the phenomena of scarlet fever or
measles in childhood. With these he can see in the child's organism how the
soul-spiritual, which otherwise functions in a normal way, begins to stir;
he sees how it is more active than it should be. The whole course of these
illnesses becomes comprehensible the moment one really sees this restless
stirring of the soul-spiritual in the organism as the basis of illness.
Now, I beg you to consider my next sentence very precisely, for I never go a
step further than is justified by the deliberations preceding it, even if
much may be suggested only sketchily; everywhere I merely indicate how far
one can go, so I am not drawing a conclusion here. I am simply saying that
now one is not far from recognizing something that is extraordinarily
important to recognize for a true knowledge. First we must arrive at the
point of recognizing that in an illness of the human organism during later
life, one that goes in the direction of new formations, there is too much of
the organizing force that results in an island of organization, so to speak.
When we have reached this point we are not far from saying that, if the
later period of life points in this way back to earliest childhood, this
indicates ultimately that what reveals itself in childhood points back to
the time before birth or, let us say, before conception; it points back to
the soul-spiritual existence of the human being before he was clothed with a
physical body. A person suffering from childhood illnesses is simply someone
who brought along too much of the soul-spiritual from his prehuman,
pre-earthly life; this excess then lives itself out in the childhood
illnesses."
Rudolf Steiner, Physiology and Therapeutics
Lecture II
Dornach, October 8, 1920
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 23:24:21 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Testing and Spiritual Science
I have enjoyed recent threads and am pleased to see new voices and offerings
here. From time to time I come across Steiner speaking about "testing"
Spirtual Science. The following snippet from a Steiner lecture is very
useful to Waldorf parents - especially those who will be considering the
school's local anthroposophic doctor for their child. I think it's
extremely important for parents to understand how their doctor sees her/his
patient and how that patient has materialized on planet earth.
I am especially interested in testing Spirtual Science so if anyone has any
idea what this actually means... let me know. Thanks
-Walden
"It will be remembered from the last lecture that in the events which take
place between death and a new birth, particular forces are taken into the
human individuality. During the period in kamaloca the events of a person's
last life, the good and evil deeds he has done, the qualities of his
character, etc., come before his soul, and through the vision of his own
life he acquires the tendency to bring about the remedy and compensation for
all that is imperfect in him and which has manifested as wrong action. He is
moved to acquire those qualities which will bring him nearer to perfection
in various directions. He forms intentions and tendencies during the time up
to a new birth, and goes into existence again with these intentions.
Further, he himself works upon the new body which he acquires for his new
life, and he builds in conformity with the forces he has brought from
previous earthly lives, and from the time between death and re-birth. He is
furnished with these forces, and builds them into his new body. From this it
may be seen that this new body will be weak or strong according as the
person is in the position to build weak or strong forces into it.
Now it must be clearly understood that a certain consequence will come when,
for example, during the life in kamaloca, a person sees that in the last
life, he did many actions under the influence of the emotions of anger,
fear, aversion, etc. These actions now stand vividly before his soul in
kamaloca, and in his soul is formed the thought (the expressions which we
have to use for these forces are of course coined from the physical life):
'You must do something to yourself, so that you will become more perfect in
this respect, so that in the future you will no longer be inclined to commit
such actions under the dominance of your emotions.' This thought becomes an
integral part of the human-soul individuality, and during the passage
through to a new birth, it is imprinted still further as a force in the new
body. Thus this new body is penetrated with the tendency so to act on the
whole organisation of the physical body, the etheric body and astral body,
that it will be prevented from performing certain actions resulting from the
emotions of anger, hate, envy, etc. He will be impelled to fresh actions
which will compensate for previous ones. Thus from a reason which extends
far beyond his ordinary rationality, the person is imbued with a strong
desire for a higher perfection in certain directions, and with the desire
also to compensate for certain deeds. If we consider how manifold life is,
and how day by day we perform actions which require compensation of this
sort, we shall understand that when the soul enters into a next existence on
earth, it contains many such thoughts waiting to be balanced, and that these
manifold thoughts and tendencies cross one another, making the human
physical body and etheric body receive a complex warp and woof of such
tendencies and desires. To illustrate this, let us take a striking case, and
I must again repeat that I avoid speaking from any sort of theory or
hypothesis, and that when I give examples I give only those that have been
tested by Spiritual Science."
From: Rudolf Steiner, Manifestations of Karma
LECTURE 4 THE CURABILITY AND INCURABILITY OF DISEASES IN RELATION TO KARMA
The entire lecture is at:
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19100519p01.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 06:12:43 -0400
From: H Wayne (einmalig optonline.net)
Subject: Re: Humility
Dear Peter Farrell,
I don't know what you have been discussing with anyone else, but I have
examined this lecture rather completely now and it has only one sentence in
it that does not belong in any presentation about its subjects in any school
or college; the one I can't figure out about the third-degree terms'
significance. As I thought we'd agreed, the whole section of their existence
is fine and solid; he's just doing the math that any student listening could
do and would come up with the higher order terms as well. Its important to
mention them, not to sweep them under the table, and then to show how the
ratio of these to the primary terms (1+3α ∆) are normally so slight as to be
ignorable. He mentions this fact, too. The whole presentation is
unexceptionable. I am concerned with the science here, not the other levels
you seem to be very concerned about, but scientifically its all pretty
normal and conventional, if viewed from an in some way new perspective (the
overview of the behavior of the various states in temperature-driven
expansion).
You mention here the temperature reference point. Are you referring to a
biological or psychological reference point. Its obvious that we have a
biological homeostasis around a relatively fixed temperature, which varies
only slightly from person to person (and somewhat more over the course of
human life, young children having a somewhat higher basal temperature as
'normal' than adults). It is equally standard science that we don't have a
psychological basal temperature in the sense that our perception of cold or
warm weather, for instance, is highly determined by our recent experience.
It is the same with our sensory perception of the temperature of a given
material; if I am washing the dishes in very hot water, the plate I pick up
to wash next feels quite cool by comparison, though it is at room
temperature, while when I am chilled coming back from a winter walk, my
son's forehead feels burning hot when I touch it (and I have unnecessarily
worried that he has fever due to this). I don't know what the quote you are
referring to is, but I can't believe that anyone would deny that we have a
standard or reference temperature to which our body tends to bring us back
when we are warmed or chilled, whereas the other effect is clear.
Does this clarify anything? Is it worth checking in the author you refer to
to see if it was the biological or psychological reference point that he was
speaking about?
Harlan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: Humility
) ===========================================================
) Looking for a Promotional or Marketing Gift? Discover
) Crazy Aaron's Thinking Putty in grown up handfuls. It's
) the creativity unleashing, mood enhancing desk toy
) customized with your corporate image!
) http://click.topica.com/caaceBcb1dkiGb7Kbh2a/ Crazy Aaron Enterprises
) ===========================================================
)
) Bruce Angus wrote in reponse to Chris:
) )
)
) )
) )The reason I dare post my mostly unimportant thoughts on this site, is
) )because I've reached a point in my life where I realize it's not about
what
) )you know or believe, it's about whether you are able to understand and
get
) )along with people. Just state your truth. If your words seem to provoke a
) )sense of attack, re-word them differently and hope for a positive
response.
) )
) )
) Peter F responds:
) I really don't understand this sense of attack stuff. Why is it that
saying
) something like "I believe a particular statement you made is incorrect for
) the following reasons" should be seen as an attack? I don't see it as an
) attack. I guess Chris came here thinking he might be able to change
) somebody's mind about something. I think he might be able to change
) someone's mind, perhaps even mine. But this can only be done by talking a
) language that is satisfactory to both of us. Chris said for example that
) Steiner was well versed in the science of his time. I don't believe this
is
) true. While we have a great deal of common agreement (I suspect we both
) enjoy looking at blue skies, there's one out my window now and it's very
) nice through the autumn leaves), this is a point of disagreement. We may
) come to some agreement on this point by discussion of Steiner's writings
and
) recorded statements about science of the time, and, to that end, I have
made
) references to two lectures which I think contain statements which could
only
) be made by someone who was ignorant or someone who was dishonest. I hope
) that I have demonstrated that there are serious problems with Steiner's
) methods in lecture 2 of the warmth course, and I have indicated a simple
) fact (the near constancy and equality of human core temperature) which is
) well known and was well known which contradicts a claim of Steiner's in
the
) first warmth lecture and on which claim he bases his argument. Here is
) Steiner from that lecture (out of context):
)
) "Do not imagine for a moment that this is of no consequence. Our whole
life
) process is bound up with this fact that we have in us no temperature
) reference point. If we could establish such a reference point within
) ourselves, it would necessitate an entirely different state of
) consciousness, a different soul life. It is precisely because the
reference
) point is hidden or us that we lead the kind of life we do."
)
) Of course we do have a reference point, it is not hidden from us and we do
) have access to it, and we do access it. We can tell whether things are
) hotter or colder than us. Parents routinely check children for fevers by
) touching forheads and cheeks and so on. We decide on our clothing on the
) basis of our access to that reference point.
)
) This is not an attack on Chris or on Bruce. Perhaps Chris has changed his
) view of Steiner's scientific prowess after this small exchange, perhaps
not.
) I haven't heard yet. Perhaps he has new and more cogent arguments and
) evidence than what I have already presented which will change my mind.
) Perhaps not. In any case, what is clear is that this point of disagreement
) cannot be used by Chris to convince me of anything other than we disagree.
) Presumably if I have managed to change Chris's mind about Steiner and
) science, we can move onto some other point of disagreement which we can
) clarify until either one or more of us changes our views or we agree to
) differ.
)
)
) See you both, Peter
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:
) http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
)
) ===========================================================
) Buy Stocks and Index Funds for just $4 No Account or
) Investment Minimums and No Inactivity Fees Automatically
) invest weekly or monthly and build your future.
) http://click.topica.com/caaccMMb1dkiGb7Kbh2f/ Sharebuilder
) ===========================================================
)
) ==^================================================================
) 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 1345
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Humility
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Testing and Spiritual Science
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: Humility
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Clarification
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Humility
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: Humility
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Humility
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Clarification
By einmalig optonline.net
Re: Humility
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 08:20:59 -0300
From: "Bruce Angus" (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Humility
Peter wrote: "Of course we do have a reference point, it is not hidden from us and we do have access to it, and we do access it. We can tell whether things are hotter or colder than us. Parents routinely check children for fevers by touching forheads an cheeks and so on. We decide on our clothing on the basis of our access to that reference point."
Hi Peter - That's a great point, and exactly what I was trying to say to Chris. To me, conversation is all about finding communication reference points - I just don't have much I need to convince people of anymore.
This touches upon a subject that I found particularly dysfunctional in some schools. Teachers seemed intent on the activity of convincing, as opposed to a seeking out and sharing of various perspectives. I'll suggest that part of this mindset has to do with the mostly unspoken belief about never questioning Steiner. It sets up a subtle (and sometimes abusive) hierarchical chain of command, based on whether or not someone's a Steiner knower and follower, or merely a spiritual dabbler. Particularly telling are the countless anthroposophical references to "true versus false" knowledge, and true versus false "spiritual" knowledge.
Bruce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 12:49:09 -0300
From: "Bruce Angus" (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: Testing and Spiritual Science
Walden quoting Steiner: "To illustrate this, let us take a striking case, and I must again repeat that I avoid speaking from any sort of theory or hypothesis, and that when I give examples I give only those that have been tested by Spiritual Science."
Walden wrote: "I am especially interested in testing Spiritual Science so if anyone has any idea what this actually means... let me know."
Hi Steve - "Tested by Spiritual Science" refers to Steiner's personal clairvoyant investigations, I'll suggest. He also spoke of reading the historical akashic record, which I've always understood as a different form of spiritual scientific investigation. The path to spiritual scientific clairvoyance is outlined in 'Knowledge of the Higher Worlds' and other books. While I understand the process and intention, I don't believe there's ever going to be one way - one definitive test result - to fully answer any specific question.
Take the Steiner quote from your other post as an example: "A person suffering from childhood illnesses is simply someone who brought along too much of the soul-spiritual from his prehuman, pre-earthly life; this excess then lives itself out in the childhood illnesses." While this may (or may not) be true in some cases, I would suggest that childhood illnesses today are often a result of a child's current physical, emotional and psychic environment. And those are the obvious influences. Environmental pollution, noise pollution, excess movement (media exposure mostly), transmission waves, and other influences all contribute to childhood illness.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 10:29:43 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Humility
Chris, you wrote about Iscador
)As I said. Their is some evidence, and a bit of
)clinical experience. It HAS AN EFFECT. It appears to
)be meaningful.
It causes local irritation and/or a bacterial infection (the
mistletoe juice is fermented).
)I feel justified in asking: how did
)Steiner know?
He didn't know. He imagined things and foolishly believed his
imagination was a source of knowledge.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 10:25:52 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Clarification
Chris, you wrote admiringly of Steiner,
)In medicine, he introduced the value of Mistletoe as a
)treatment for cancer. Studies have been done
)confirming the benefit of Iscador (its trade name) in
)cancer patients. Show me the historical precedent for
)this? How could he have come this belief by
)'intellectual fraud'?
He came to this belief by just making it up. He "read the gesture" of
mistletoe, which grows radially, like cancer. Unfortunately, nature
doesn't speak symbolically like that. There's a big Anthroposophical
medicine establishment in Europe, and they can be expected to produce
studies in favor of their theory. I'm sure their many unsuccessful
trials are not reported, because they didn't get the "right" answer.
Nobody else believes it. Iscador is, to be blunt, quack medicine.
)On the subject of current science. Where, in our
)current paradigm, could one even begin to explain the
)phenomena of the sense of being stared at? Or
)independantly verified cases of animals anticipating
)their owners arrival without any possible sensory
)cues, pattern-recognition, etc. (i.e. they only seem
)to have responded to the owners 'intent' to come
)home)? These phenomena have been recently well-studied
)by the British scientist Rupert Sheldrake, and, in
)many cases, independantly verified (sheldrake.org),
)even by committed skeptics.
Sheldrake is deceiving himself, and real scientists don't pay any
attention to him.
)With astronomically low
)probability of this phenomena occuring at chance, the
)current scientific paradigm has just been blown open.
Not.
)Also see the research done by an American with EEG and
)other physiological measures of arousal which showed a
)consistent, 200 or so millisecond anticipation of
)highly arousing photographs coming up in line at
)random in a computer-sequence.
I think you misunderstand the research. Please give me a pointer to a
source for your story and I'll comment further.
)Also, look at what is
)considered common knowledge in Quantum Mechanics these
)days. The fabric of our rationalistic view of the
)world has been undermined by the very contents of
)empirical research.
Not. On the subject of quantum physics, I recommend David Lindley's
"Where Does the Weirdness Go? Why Quantum Mechanics is Strange, But
Not As Strange As You Think."
)I am not trying to advance an
)agenda on you, anthroposophical or otherwise (I don't
)even consider myself an anthroposophist). In fact, the
)best thing is to remain deconditioned from any
)particular agenda. Trust me, the widely accepted
)rationalistic view of things has many flaws,
)fundamental ones.
Name some, beyond the silly things you've mentioned above.
)No, don't trust me! Trust yourself.
)Follow the research I've indicated. It is all fairly
)top-notch stuff.
You're kidding yourself about that.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 16:16:53 -0300
From: "Bruce Angus" (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Humility
Dan wrote: "He didn't know. He imagined things and foolishly believed his imagination was a source of knowledge."
Hi Dan - As kooky as anthroposophy can appear, there's a lot more to it than that. Mystics throughout the ages have been tapping into something much more substantial than their foolish imaginations, certainly. And the truth is, the imagination *can* be a pathway to this source of knowing and understanding.
Bruce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 13:37:01 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Humility
Dan wrote: "He didn't know. He imagined things and foolishly believed his
imagination was a source of knowledge."
Bruce replied:
"Hi Dan - As kooky as anthroposophy can appear, there's a lot more to it
than that. Mystics throughout the ages have been tapping into something much
more substantial than their foolish imaginations, certainly. And the truth
is, the imagination *can* be a pathway to this source of knowing and
understanding."
Now we're arriving at the tofu (meat) of the matter, IMO. Clearly, the
majority of people on planet earth *do* believe in some sort of spirituality
or God. Those who do not believe or have no time for such things are in the
minority and while this does not make the majority *right* it does point to
the need for good communication between the two camps. One might also say
that the various versions of spiritual thought or religion and the constant
fighting (some terribly violent) between such groups are the primary *cause*
of miscommunication between human beings. Or one might insist that more
spirituality and religion in it's many forms will add to better
communication and respect amongst us - helping us rid ourselves of
materialism, consumerism and other yucky "isms."
In any case, all I can really do is base my thoughts and actions on
experience and an ability to reason. And feel. Yes, I love to "imagine"
but I would not suggest that I can offer sick people a cure because of my
imagination. I would word it thus: "People who *believe* they are mystics
believe they have been tapping into something much more substantial...." I
am not being disrespectful with that line while maintaining my own important
values - voicing that which stems from thinking critically. I try to have
an open mind and I try to think critically. It is possible, IMO.
I know a lonely elderly woman who occasionally spends $50.00 which she
really cannot afford (fixed income) to have a "psychic" tell her how so many
people (especially men) have treated her poorly in her life. This does not
make her happy and seems leave her wanting to hear more but is this 15
minute validation of her feelings really worth a week's groceries? You
might say this is her business and the guy really is a Mystic. From where I
sit, it's called "fraud."
The Steiner-as-a-mystic thing is more problematic, IMO. He is being
packaged and sold in as many different flavors as the promoters seem to
think will further the movement... whatever that is! Was He really a
mystic? Could he really tap into the akashic record if there is such a
thing? If so, to what degree and can we/should we study his words day in
day out to enhance our own lives and have a better one during our next
incarnation....?
I don't know. What I do know is that we need much better communication so
that more parents will understand that the real Rudolf Steiner was not
merely an educator, artist, thinker, etc. He was an occultist. Or call him
a "Mystic" - fine by me.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 14:57:49 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Humility
)Dan wrote: "He didn't know. He imagined things and foolishly
)believed his imagination was a source of knowledge."
)BRUCE ANGUS:
)Hi Dan - As kooky as anthroposophy can appear, there's a lot more to
)it than that. Mystics throughout the ages have been tapping into
)something much more substantial than their foolish imaginations,
)certainly. And the truth is, the imagination *can* be a pathway to
)this source of knowing and understanding.
As I like to say, at the bottom this argument comes down to
epistemology. How is reliable knowledge obtained?
You're welcome to your belief in higher sources of knowledge; I hope
you will acknowledge that it's a matter of faith, not science, as
Steiner claimed.
I value imagination for what it produces: ideas. Ideas for art, ideas
for the real world. The latter, if they are important, can be tested
for validity.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 May 2004 21:00:34 -0400
From: H Wayne (einmalig optonline.net)
Subject: Re: Clarification
Dear Dan,
This mistletoe business seems quite a theme here. When Peter Farrell
mentioned it a few days ago I looked up the keywords 'mistletoe cancer' in
the National Library of Medicine's medical reference site
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi). Out of the first 20 medical
articles listed in this search, nine were definite in finding positive
effects: significantly longer survival times and improvements in quality of
life (which for cancer patients is a huge issue). One article investigated
the claim of irritation and infection and found no evidence of this: the
conclusion was that there was no such effect. One article found no positive
effects from mistletoe. The others did not study whether mistletoe had
positive or negative effects.
It would seem that the scientific evidence is clearly in favor of such an
effect, by a long shot. When speaking of scientific proof, it is always
advisable to have experimental evidence to back one up. Though intuitions
have led to many a scientific discovery, intuition or opinion is not
science; it needs to be checked first.
H Wayne
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 06:53:07 -0300
From: "Bruce Angus" (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Humility
Walden wrote: "Now we're arriving at the tofu of the matter, IMO."
Dan wrote: "I hope you will acknowledge that it's a matter of faith, not science, as Steiner claimed."
Hi Walden and Dan - Good points. I would call it faith or belief, and suggest there are countless paths to it. Really, any anthroposophist who wishes to call it science would first need to have had the identical spiritual-scientific insights that Steiner supposedly had.
Steve, you might be on to something with your comment. I'll wager that 99.99% of anthroposophists haven't had one actual spiritual-scientific Steiner-vision. 100% actually, because the truth is only he could have had one of those. Yet many will defend their faith or belief as loudly as I do. But mine is based on my personal individual relationship with that source. I'd suggest theirs is based on their personal individual relationship with Steiner's relationship to that source. That's an important difference. If someone is going to insist we're in the fifth post-Atlantean epoch, they need to have had a spiritual vision of it themselves, first. Otherwise it's simply intellectualizing, conceptualizing, and parroting.
Bruce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1346
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Clarification
By woden101 yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 16:47:22 +0000
From: Chris (woden101 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Clarification
Dan,
May I recommend two things to you. First, do not be so hasty to label
what lies beyond the ken of your current beliefs/understanding as
"self-deceiving" or "foolish imagination". Second, look at your
responses. For one who is so verbally committed to "epistemology" these
responses show a surprising lack of substance beyond a simple assertive
denial. You have chosen to disregard the evidence at hand without
referencing it or discussing it, and, I assume, and I may be wrong,
without even investigating it.
However, I request that you not reply to this post without first reading
this: I have no interet whatsoever in engaging in an online shouting
match with you, with counter-accusations-of-the-same galore.
I will only engage you should you decide to follow suit and give me
specific references to why the research I submitted to you is wrong (and
see some of the posts which Wayne and Bruce posted in response to the
Iscador issue)and avoid the personal nature of such comments as "you
wrote admiringly of Steiner", a judgement which infers too much about my
relationship to Steiner...an issue which, by all accounts, you have
almost no way of judging...
Chris
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) Chris, you wrote admiringly of Steiner,
)
) )In medicine, he introduced the value of Mistletoe as a
) )treatment for cancer. Studies have been done
) )confirming the benefit of Iscador (its trade name) in
) )cancer patients. Show me the historical precedent for
) )this? How could he have come this belief by
) )'intellectual fraud'?
)
) He came to this belief by just making it up. He "read the gesture" of
) mistletoe, which grows radially, like cancer. Unfortunately, nature
) doesn't speak symbolically like that. There's a big Anthroposophical
) medicine establishment in Europe, and they can be expected to produce
) studies in favor of their theory. I'm sure their many unsuccessful
) trials are not reported, because they didn't get the "right" answer.
) Nobody else believes it. Iscador is, to be blunt, quack medicine.
)
) )On the subject of current science. Where, in our
) )current paradigm, could one even begin to explain the
) )phenomena of the sense of being stared at? Or
) )independantly verified cases of animals anticipating
) )their owners arrival without any possible sensory
) )cues, pattern-recognition, etc. (i.e. they only seem
) )to have responded to the owners 'intent' to come
) )home)? These phenomena have been recently well-studied
) )by the British scientist Rupert Sheldrake, and, in
) )many cases, independantly verified (sheldrake.org),
) )even by committed skeptics.
)
) Sheldrake is deceiving himself, and real scientists don't pay any
) attention to him.
)
) )With astronomically low
) )probability of this phenomena occuring at chance, the
) )current scientific paradigm has just been blown open.
)
) Not.
)
) )Also see the research done by an American with EEG and
) )other physiological measures of arousal which showed a
) )consistent, 200 or so millisecond anticipation of
) )highly arousing photographs coming up in line at
) )random in a computer-sequence.
)
) I think you misunderstand the research. Please give me a pointer to a
) source for your story and I'll comment further.
)
) )Also, look at what is
) )considered common knowledge in Quantum Mechanics these
) )days. The fabric of our rationalistic view of the
) )world has been undermined by the very contents of
) )empirical research.
)
) Not. On the subject of quantum physics, I recommend David Lindley's
) "Where Does the Weirdness Go? Why Quantum Mechanics is Strange, But
) Not As Strange As You Think."
)
) )I am not trying to advance an
) )agenda on you, anthroposophical or otherwise (I don't
) )even consider myself an anthroposophist). In fact, the
) )best thing is to remain deconditioned from any
) )particular agenda. Trust me, the widely accepted
) )rationalistic view of things has many flaws,
) )fundamental ones.
)
) Name some, beyond the silly things you've mentioned above.
)
) )No, don't trust me! Trust yourself.
) )Follow the research I've indicated. It is all fairly
) )top-notch stuff.
)
) You're kidding yourself about that.
)
) -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 1347
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Humility
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Humility
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Clarification
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Clarification
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Clarification
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Clarification
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Clarification
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Clarification
By einmalig optonline.net
Re: Clarification
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Steiner and Science and Illness
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Clarification
By dan dandugan.com
RE: cult v religion
By mettahome yahoo.com.au
Re: Humility
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Steiner and Science and Illness
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Clarification
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Steiner and Science and Illness
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Clarification
By einmalig optonline.net
Re: Clarification
By einmalig optonline.net
Re: cult v religion
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Clarification
By einmalig optonline.net
Re: cult v religion
By mettahome yahoo.com.au
RE: Clarification
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Clarification
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Clarification
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Clarification
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Clarification
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: cult v religion
By foncteur yahoo.fr
Re: Clarification
By einmalig optonline.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 23:38:13 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Humility
H Wayne wrote:
)
)I don't know what you have been discussing with anyone else, but I have
)examined this lecture rather completely now and it has only one sentence in
)it that does not belong in any presentation about its subjects in any
)school
)or college; the one I can't figure out about the third-degree terms'
)significance. As I thought we'd agreed, the whole section of their
)existence
)is fine and solid; he's just doing the math that any student listening
)could
)do and would come up with the higher order terms as well. Its important to
)mention them, not to sweep them under the table, and then to show how the
)ratio of these to the primary terms (1+3α ∆) are normally so slight as
)to be
)ignorable. He mentions this fact, too. The whole presentation is
)unexceptionable. I am concerned with the science here, not the other levels
)you seem to be very concerned about, but scientifically its all pretty
)normal and conventional, if viewed from an in some way new perspective (the
)overview of the behavior of the various states in temperature-driven
)expansion).
Dear Harlan,
I don't agree at all. The initial question about this was whether Steiner
was well versed in the science of his day. While I agree that a high school
student might well come up with this derivation, I assert that no one well
versed in the science of the day would. That application of the mathematics
is incorrect. The correct mathematics is top realise that the higher order
terms arrived at by this method lie beyond the level of approximation in the
expression for one dimensional linear expansion, and no physical conclusion
can be drawn from them. The continual criticism of the scientists of the day
is also incorrect. The science is not conventional.
)
)You mention here the temperature reference point. Are you referring to a
)biological or psychological reference point. Its obvious that we have a
)biological homeostasis around a relatively fixed temperature, which varies
)only slightly from person to person (and somewhat more over the course of
)human life, young children having a somewhat higher basal temperature as
)'normal' than adults). It is equally standard science that we don't have a
)psychological basal temperature in the sense that our perception of cold or
)warm weather, for instance, is highly determined by our recent experience.
)It is the same with our sensory perception of the temperature of a given
)material; if I am washing the dishes in very hot water, the plate I pick up
)to wash next feels quite cool by comparison, though it is at room
)temperature, while when I am chilled coming back from a winter walk, my
)son's forehead feels burning hot when I touch it (and I have unnecessarily
)worried that he has fever due to this). I don't know what the quote you are
)referring to is, but I can't believe that anyone would deny that we have a
)standard or reference temperature to which our body tends to bring us back
)when we are warmed or chilled, whereas the other effect is clear.
Let me suggest a different experiment you might like to consider which is
much closer to the way thermometers and other measuring devices are
calibrated. Imagine a few buckets of water which are held at some different
constant temperature. First of all let's imagine there are three. One ate 45
degrees C, another at 20 degrees C and a third at 5 degrees C. Now imagine
asking people independently to rank these in order from coldest to hottest.
I put it to you that with few exceptions, (very young children, some very
old people, some sick people), we would find that people would arrive at the
same order. If you made it 5 buckets more or less equally spaced in
temperature between 5 degrees C and 45 degrees C again people would not have
any difficulty. If you made it 100 buckets, I expect there might be some
disagreement about some buckets, but we would get the coldest buckets down
one end and the hottest at the other. If we tried the same thing between 80
degrees C and 95 degrees C we would not get people to do the experiment.
Similarly with very cold buckets. If we were foolish enough not to wait
until our measurement sytem had not properly equlibrated, something well
understood by scientists with the use and calibration of standard
thermometers then we would get the same problems you are describing with
human experience. Consider for a moment taking your own temperature with a
mercury thermometer you might puchase from a pharmacist for the puprose.
Typically you would place the appropriate end under your tongue for some
period. perhaps a minute ot two, after shaking it to return the mercury to
the reservoir. For a human this preparation process might include putting a
hand under their clothes for a few minutes to gain access to the core
tmeperature again. You would not expect to get a good measurement if you
took the thermometer from its case, stuck in your mouth for a second,
removed it, and then read the temperature. What I am arguing is that ALL
thermometers are dependent on their history. We are more complicated than
most of the objects we use for thermometry so it is not surprising that the
effects of our history are more complicated. When you are uncertain about
your son's temperature, what might you do? How about wait until your
extremities have warmed again after your winter walk and test your son
again? I am not arguing that human beings should use only their own
temperature sense as a measure. Fahrenheit, when he was inventing
thermometers in the 17th century, used frozen salt water (to get -32 degrees
C as the coldest temperature he could achieve), boiling water (to get 212
degrees C at the hot end), AND human body temperature which he initially put
at 96F. As themometry improved this was revised upwards slightly. Evidently,
fahrenheit thought we had a temperature reference that was imprtant enough
to include in his scale.
)
)Does this clarify anything? Is it worth checking in the author you refer to
)to see if it was the biological or psychological reference point that he
)was
)speaking about?
The quote from Steiner I gave last time was from the first warmth lecture.
You would have to explain to me what you think a psychological temperature
reference is. I say there is a physical temperature reference (biological if
you like), and we are aware of it. We have understood for some long time
that fever is ia sign of illness.
See you, Peter.
_________________________________________________________________
Personalise your mobile chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ringtones.com.au/ninemsn/control?page=/ninemsn/main.jsp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 00:34:03 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Humility
G'day again Harlan,
Let me give another quote from Steiner from the warmth couse lecture 2.
"We see indeed, that for all gases known to us on earth, the property of
being a gas gathers together into a unity this property of expanding. Keep
in mind now that the facts of expansion under the influence of heat oblige
us to say that as we proceed from solid bodies to gases, the different
expansion values found in the case of solids are transformed into a kind of
unity, or single power of expansion for gases. Thus if I may express myself
cautiously, the solid condition may be said to be associated with an
individualization of material condition. Modern physics pays scant attention
to this circumstance. No attention is paid to it because the most important
things are obscured by the fact of striking out certain values which cannot
be adequately handled."
Modern physics (at the time of Steiner) did not pay scant attention to the
issues Steiner was talking about. As I have explained before and given
references for, two Nobel Prizes were awarded for work in this area in the
decade in which Steiner recorded this lecture. That work showed in detail
how the same physical processes were responsible for the way solids liquids
and gases all expanded. Contrary to what Steiner claims, scientists not only
paid much more than scant attention to the issues that Steiner was
discussing, they made measurements and theroretical advances and discoveries
that showed that the same kind of "individualisation" that Steiner is
talking about is present in gases and can be measured, and can be understood
in the same way that the "individualisation" in solids and liquids can be
understood. I described this in a post last week. Either Steiner didn't know
about the work of van der Waals and Guillaume and others working in this
area, or he did not understand it, or he is being deliberately misleading.
That is either he was not well versed in the science of his time or he was
dishonest.
Let me go on to the third lecture. Here is another section from Steiner that
might sound correct to those with a limited education in the sciences but
which is in fact simply wrong and, in Steiner's hands, misleading.
"We have, thus, a peculiar situation. When we try to grasp the heat
condition, in so far as the temperature shows this condition, by means of an
ordinary geometrical line, we find it cannot be done. Now this has another
bearing. Imagine for a moment that I have a line. This line has a certain
length: l (Fig. 9) I square this line, and then I can represent this l2 by a
square surface. Assume that I obtain l3 then I can represent the third power
by a cube, a solid body. But suppose I obtain the fourth power, l4. How can
I represent that? I can pass over from the line to the surface, from the
surface to the solid, but what can I do by following this same method if I
wish to represent the fourth power? I cannot do anything if I remain in our
three-dimensional space. The mathematical consideration shows this. But we
have seen that the heat condition in so far as it is revealed by temperature
is not expressible in space terms. There is something else in it. If there
were not, we could conceive of the heat condition passing along a rod as
confined entirely to the rod. This, however, is impossible. The consequence
of this is that when I really wish to work in this realm, I ought not to
look upon the powers of ‘t’ in the same manner as the powers of a quantity
measured in space. I cannot think about the powers of ‘t’ in the same way as
those of ‘l’ or of any other mere space quantity. When, for instance, and I
will consider this tomorrow hypothetically, when I have the first power and
find it not expressible as a line, then the second power t2 cannot be
expressed as a surface and certainly the third power t3 cannot be expressed
as a solid. In purely mathematical space, it is only after I have obtained
the third power that I get outside of ordinary space, but in this other case
I am quite outside of ordinary space in the case of the second power and the
third as well."
(http://gopher.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/WarmthCrse/19200303p01.html)
Let's consider the expression for the volume expansion again. It is
V=L^3*(1+a1*t+a2*t^2+a3*t^3+....)
In this expression we have V which has dimensions of length cubed (cubic
metres or cubic feet) and we have L on the right hand side which has
dimensions of length and is cubed, giving the same dimensions on both sides
of this equation. All the terms in the bracket are dimensionless. 1 is
simply a number with no units. a1*t is a number with no units. a2*t^2 is a
number with no units and so on. Indeed I could rewrite the equation above in
terms of a series of ratios of temperatures, each ratio raised to a power.
V=L^3*(1+(t/t1) + (t/t2)^2 + (t/t3)^2 + ....)
In each term, there is no increase in any dimension, because in each term we
have a ratio of temperatures, which is simply a number, and which gives
rise to another number when it is squared or cubed or raised to some higher
power as appropriate.
Steiner continues with
"Therefore, you must realize that you have to conceive of t as different
entirely in its nature from space quantities. You must consider t as
something already squared, as a second power and the squared t you must
think of as of the third power, the cubed t as of the fourth power. This
takes us out of ordinary space. Consider now how this gives our formula a
very special aspect. For the last member, which is in this super-space,
forces me to go out of ordinary space. In such a case when I confine myself
to reckoning I must go beyond three dimensional space for the last member of
the formula. There is such a possibility in purely mathematical formulae."
The first sentence is correct. Temperature does not have the dimensions of
length. It is not a length. The rest is absolute nonsense which as I have
tried to show above does not follow in a logical or mathematical sense. It
makes no sense to consider t as a quantity already squared from Steiner's
argument. Either Steiner does not know what he is talking about or he is
deliberately muddying the waters.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage!
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 00:43:23 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Clarification
H Wayne wrote:
)It would seem that the scientific evidence is clearly in favor of such an
)effect, by a long shot. When speaking of scientific proof, it is always
)advisable to have experimental evidence to back one up. Though intuitions
)have led to many a scientific discovery, intuition or opinion is not
)science; it needs to be checked first.
)
Recent advice (late 2003) from the National Cancer Institute is available at
http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/pdq/cam/mistletoe/HealthProfessional
This summary contains the following key information:
Mistletoe is a semiparasitic plant that has been used for centuries to treat
numerous human ailments.
Extracts of mistletoe have been shown to kill cancer cells in the laboratory
and to stimulate the immune system.
Mistletoe is used mainly in Europe, where a variety of different extracts
are manufactured and marketed as injectable prescription drugs. These
extracts are not available commercially in the United States.
Although mistletoe plants and berries are considered poisonous to humans,
few serious side effects have been associated with mistletoe extract use.
The use of mistletoe as a treatment for cancer has been investigated in more
than 30 clinical studies. Reports of improved survival and/or quality of
life have been common, but nearly all of the studies had major weaknesses
that raise doubts about the reliability of the findings.
At present, the use of mistletoe cannot be recommended outside the context
of well-designed clinical trials. Such trials will be valuable to determine
more clearly whether mistletoe can be useful in the treatment of specific
subsets of cancer patients.
End of summary.
This does not sound to me like those in a position to understand these
studies agree that the scientific evidence is in by a long shot.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Personalise your mobile chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to
http://ringtones.com.au/ninemsn/control?page=/ninemsn/main.jsp
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 02:10:01 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Clarification
"No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work, who
has not acquired — through the School of Spiritual Science itself or in an
equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science — the
requisite preliminary knowledge. Other opinions will be disregarded: the
authors decline to take them as a basis for discussion."
Let's try a variation on this wonderful quotation.
No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work, who
has not acquired a higher degree in an appropriate discipline from a
tertiary institution recognised by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (or the Royal Society etc). Other opinions will be
disregarded: the authors decline to take them as a basis for discussion.
Does anyone find this acceptable? Does the scientific community behave in
this way? I admit that there is a certain amount of appeal to authority in
most discussions of scientific matters between experts and the laity.
However, the academic status of the authors of scientific paper contributed
to a peer reviewed scientific journal is not considered.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 19:42:13 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Clarification
Hi Peter,
I'm enjoying this thread - thanks to all for taking the time.
I need clarification on the clarification. You quoted someone:
"No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work, who
has not acquired - through the School of Spiritual Science itself or in an
equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science - the
requisite preliminary knowledge. Other opinions will be disregarded: the
authors decline to take them as a basis for discussion."
Can you source this quote please? Thanks in advance.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 03:07:50 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Clarification
walden asks:
)I need clarification on the clarification. You quoted someone:
)
)"No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work,
)who
)has not acquired - through the School of Spiritual Science itself or in an
)equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science - the
)requisite preliminary knowledge. Other opinions will be disregarded: the
)authors decline to take them as a basis for discussion."
)
)Can you source this quote please? Thanks in advance.
)
If you got to any of the articles on the Steiner elib, for example
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Books/GA008/English/RPC1961/GA008_index.html, you
will notice a link at the top (READ ME FIRST). I have taken the liberty of
pasting the whole of that below. The quote I gave above is attributed to
Steiner.
The online Rudolf Steiner Archive includes works of Rudolf Steiner and
related materials. This is a major, ongoing volunteer effort to acquire
materials and convert them to electronic form. Texts are presented as
published. Many are early translations from the original German or from
other languages. We have included as many versions as we have been able to
obtain, particularly the original language publications.
The Reader is encouraged to keep in mind the conventions of the time of the
writings and/or translations. Many terms have come to be used differently
now, and newer translations would phrase things differently. For example,
early translations refer to “Man,” which at the time meant “All Mankind.”
Newer translations use the term, “Human Being.”
It is neither the intent nor the purpose of the Archive to alter the texts,
other than to correct typographic/scanning errors. Again, the Reader is
asked to remember when the texts were originally written, translated, and
published.
Rudolf Steiner has given the following prefatory words for all of his
writings:
No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work, who
has not acquired — through the School of Spiritual Science itself or in an
equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science — the
requisite preliminary knowledge. Other opinions will be disregarded: the
authors decline to take them as a basis for discussion.
When reading Steiner's works, be prepared to think. It is a first step to
understanding. It is a first step to opening oneself to myriad
possibilities. It is the first step in thinking, feeling, and willing.
End of (READ ME FIRST)
I think this is an absolutely amazing preface. I'd be very interested in
hearing Walden's views.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Get Extra Storage in 10MB, 25MB, 50MB and 100MB options now! Go to
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-au&page=hotmail/es2
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 22:50:21 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Clarification
Hi Peter,
My views...? Well, I am delighted to see such a quote at the "read me
first" section. It speaks volumes to nature of the problems we so often
encounter on this list and elsewhere. Yes it amazes me, as well. And some
people wonder where the "cult" or "cult-like" label comes from...?
Is there any other "philosopher" who comes close to outlining this type of
prerequisite to understanding her/his ideas?
I'd like to see this quote given to all prospective Waldorf parents during
their (allow me a pleasant dream....) mandatory information meeting where
they will learn about the *real* eurythmy, reincarnation, soul work,
prayers, etc. The quote would help prepare them for subsequent bizarre
conversations with anthroposophists at the school. Aside from being quite
outrageous in it's arrogance, the quote is actually pretty funny. Look:
Rudolf Steiner has given the following prefatory words for all of his
writings:
"No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work, who
has not acquired - through the School of Spiritual Science itself or in an
equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science - the
requisite preliminary knowledge. Other opinions will be disregarded: the
authors decline to take them as a basis for discussion."
And the very next sentence:
"When reading Steiner's works, be prepared to think."
LOL!! He seems to have forgotten the rest of the sentence.... "When
reading Steiner's works, be prepared to think..." *exactly* like Steiner -
no matter how weird or nonsensical those works might seem and whatever you
do - make sure you do not actually *think* your own thoughts or those
thoughts will be "disregarded."
Moving right along...
"It is a first step to understanding...." that you are no longer an
individual with individual beliefs and an ability to think critically and
honour your own unique values.
" It is a first step to opening oneself to myriad possibilities...." each
and every one being derived from occult concepts of creation and life in
general.
"It is the first step in thinking, feeling, and willing...." yourself into a
delusional period of denial and groupthink where the only game in town is
called Follow the Leader.
Alright, I'll apologize right now for the flippant comments and offending
anyone... but that's how I feel.
-Walden
walden asks:
)I need clarification on the clarification. You quoted someone:
)
)"No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work,
)who
)has not acquired - through the School of Spiritual Science itself or in an
)equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science - the
)requisite preliminary knowledge. Other opinions will be disregarded: the
)authors decline to take them as a basis for discussion."
)
)Can you source this quote please? Thanks in advance.
)
If you got to any of the articles on the Steiner elib, for example
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Books/GA008/English/RPC1961/GA008_index.html, you
will notice a link at the top (READ ME FIRST). I have taken the liberty of
pasting the whole of that below. The quote I gave above is attributed to
Steiner.
The online Rudolf Steiner Archive includes works of Rudolf Steiner and
related materials. This is a major, ongoing volunteer effort to acquire
materials and convert them to electronic form. Texts are presented as
published. Many are early translations from the original German or from
other languages. We have included as many versions as we have been able to
obtain, particularly the original language publications.
The Reader is encouraged to keep in mind the conventions of the time of the
writings and/or translations. Many terms have come to be used differently
now, and newer translations would phrase things differently. For example,
early translations refer to "Man," which at the time meant "All Mankind."
Newer translations use the term, "Human Being."
It is neither the intent nor the purpose of the Archive to alter the texts,
other than to correct typographic/scanning errors. Again, the Reader is
asked to remember when the texts were originally written, translated, and
published.
Rudolf Steiner has given the following prefatory words for all of his
writings:
No person is qualified to form a judgment on the contents of this work, who
has not acquired - through the School of Spiritual Science itself or in an
equivalent manner recognized by the School of Spiritual Science - the
requisite preliminary knowledge. Other opinions will be disregarded: the
authors decline to take them as a basis for discussion.
When reading Steiner's works, be prepared to think. It is a first step to
understanding. It is a first step to opening oneself to myriad
possibilities. It is the first step in thinking, feeling, and willing.
End of (READ ME FIRST)
I think this is an absolutely amazing preface. I'd be very interested in
hearing Walden's views.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Get Extra Storage in 10MB, 25MB, 50MB and 100MB options now! Go to
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-au&page=hotmail/es2
===========================================================
Empower your Team with Remote Access. GoToMyPC Pro
provides your organization with instant remote access to
email,files, applications and network resources in real
time. FREE TRIAL:
http://click.topica.com/caaccMSb1dkiGb2QZUTf/ ExpertCity
===========================================================
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 05:56:25 +0000
From: H Wayne (einmalig optonline.net)
Subject: RE: Clarification
Dear Peter Farrell,
I would like to issue a friendly caution here. It would not do to call a
person, such as yourself, dishonest or intellectually incompetent
because that person neglected to mention in a discussion of
temperature-driven expansion that there is considerable variation in
different substances' (coal, steel, aluminum, silicon crystals, etc.)
coefficients of expansion, and even in the extent of the nonlinearity of
their expansion. That this ignored variation far outweighs another
variation which was emphasized in the presentation (that of the
nonlinearity of the expansion equation for any individual substance)
does not serve to discredit an author. I personally would assume that
the presenter either:
1) was unaware of the relative magnitude of the two variations, in which
case I might mention it in a friendly way, or
2) was choosing to present a particular aspect of the subject (one
cannot present all aspects simultaneously).
Or, to take another example, you mention in one post that "There may
well be materials with a2 almost zero in some ranges. I am not aware of
any...", yet you quote the work of Guillame. If you are familiar with
his work, you should surely know that his Nobel Prize related to the
creation of a material that had not only a2, but even a1 almost zero
across a large range: a material suitable for establishing an invariant
standard length measure. It would be bad form for someone to begin
harping on how this was evidence of your actual unfamiliarity with what
you are talking about, or your dishonesty; it is especially bad form to
do so when the person has no chance to reply. I am sure that you are
genuinely familiar with this work, and simply did not make the
connection at the time.
When not well-founded, such accusations as have been made in this list
can rebound, often with considerable force, upon the accuser. When there
are genuine differences, normal discourse in science is to regard one's
own contribution as supplementary to previous work. Copernicus did not
accuse Ptolemy of dishonesty or incompetence, but merely presented his
further work as an (in his case, giant) step forward in our
understanding of planetary motion.
I am concerned about much that I see in this list in the way of
scientific discussion. Even great scientists and mathematicians have
grown vituperative in their discourse - think of Leibniz and Newton -
but we recall this side of them with sadness and moral compassion. If
Walden is right in his recent presentation, which I found interesting,
such excesses would be something to overcome in a next life. (I am not
asserting here that this is the case, of course. It is not something
that is easily susceptible to scientific investigation, pace Arthur
Conan Doyle.)
Once more, the Warmth Course's 2nd lecture's presentation is completely
straightforward scientifically. If you are fulminating against it
because Steiner himself fulminates a bit, this has nothing to do with
the scientific thought presented there.
The third lecture presents some interesting thoughts, I must say, as
well. This is certainly a lecturer who likes coming to things from
unusual perspectives -- not in itself a bad (or necessarily a good)
thing, but it takes some getting used to even to figure out where the
lecturer is coming from. As far as I can understand, he is using a
certain amount of analogy in the quote you bring about temperature being
like linearity squared. He is trying to point out that temperature is a
complex entity; on the one hand, it does not change with heat added in a
linear way (specifically, where a phase change takes place); on the
other hand, both temperature and heat imply an interaction with the
whole surroundings (to be accurate, it is primarily of course the
difference in temperature between an object and its surroundings that is
significant for this interaction).
Is there a significance or basis for comparing temperature to a
more-dimensional reality? The lecture makes a reasonable case that its
effects and interactions are always multi-dimensional. The
mathematically nonsensical 'square of t, which is itself a square, being
a cube' and 'cube of the square t being a fourth power'(I am
paraphrasing) I take to be an indication of the increasing
multi-dimensionality by analogy rather than a bizarre revision of
mathematical thought. Mathematically it is indefensible, of course.
An interesting line of thought. I'm not sure I take to it completely. At
the moment, I tend to pass over it as an acceptable but not obviously
fruitful analogy (though I don't know where it is taken...is this line
of thought carried forward in the next lecture or dropped here?)
You are certainly making me think about some interesting questions in
this discussion.
Best wishes,
H Wayne
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 19:48:11 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Clarification
H Wayne, you addressed me:
)This mistletoe business seems quite a theme here.
The business of a cancer "remedy" is a very serious business, I'm
sure you agree.
)When Peter Farrell
)mentioned it a few days ago I looked up the keywords 'mistletoe cancer' in
)the National Library of Medicine's medical reference site
)(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi). Out of the first 20 medical
)articles listed in this search, nine were definite in finding positive
)effects: significantly longer survival times and improvements in quality of
)life (which for cancer patients is a huge issue). One article investigated
)the claim of irritation and infection and found no evidence of this: the
)conclusion was that there was no such effect.
I suspect they used "cleaner" Iscador.
)One article found no positive
)effects from mistletoe. The others did not study whether mistletoe had
)positive or negative effects.
)
)It would seem that the scientific evidence is clearly in favor of such an
)effect, by a long shot. When speaking of scientific proof, it is always
)advisable to have experimental evidence to back one up. Though intuitions
)have led to many a scientific discovery, intuition or opinion is not
)science; it needs to be checked first.
We're in total agreement on that; but we disagree on the evidence. I
think that, in the European Anthroposophical medicine establishment,
there is a high demand for scientific evidence "proving" Iscador's
presumed efficacy. It isn't hard to get a poorly-controlled study to
show the result you're trying to get; you just have to discard the
"defective" data, or throw out the studies that don't get the result
you want.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 20:42:40 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Steiner and Science and Illness
)Rudolf Steiner, Physiology and Therapeutics
)Lecture II
)Dornach, October 8, 1920
Walden, can you give us the bibliographic information for this quote?
Publisher, date, page, GA number if available, URL and download date?
Thanks, Dan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 20:27:33 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Clarification
Chris, you wrote, addressing me:
)May I recommend two things to you. First, do not be so hasty to label
)what lies beyond the ken of your current beliefs/understanding as
)"self-deceiving" or "foolish imagination".
I'm not quick to do so. I've been interested in the process of
self-deception in cults and quack medicine for over twenty years. I
understand how it works and I know the signs.
)Second, look at your
)responses. For one who is so verbally committed to "epistemology" these
)responses show a surprising lack of substance beyond a simple assertive
)denial. You have chosen to disregard the evidence at hand without
)referencing it or discussing it, and, I assume, and I may be wrong,
)without even investigating it.
Sorry, it's just that I'm familiar with this kind of soft evidence,
and I don't give it credibility.
)However, I request that you not reply to this post without first reading
)this: I have no interet whatsoever in engaging in an online shouting
)match with you, with counter-accusations-of-the-same galore.
)I will only engage you should you decide to follow suit and give me
)specific references to why the research I submitted to you is wrong (and
)see some of the posts which Wayne and Bruce posted in response to the
)Iscador issue)
Peter Farrell posted the National Cancer Institute's take on the
subject, thank you, Peter.
)and avoid the personal nature of such comments as "you
)wrote admiringly of Steiner", a judgement which infers too much about my
)relationship to Steiner...an issue which, by all accounts, you have
)almost no way of judging...
You wrote:
)In medicine, he introduced the value of Mistletoe as a treatment for
)cancer. Studies have been done confirming the benefit of Iscador
)(its trade name) in cancer patients.
Sorry, it's only Steiner-admirers who believe this.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 16:32:39 +1000 (EST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Anne=20May?= (mettahome yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: cult v religion
Hi all,
I'm new to the list, forgive me if my questions are too basic.
1) What (if anything) distinguishes a cult from a religion?
2) Are all religions cults?
3) What distinguishes valid knowledge from "flights of fancy" - somethings are able to be empirically proven to be true, but other things which may not yet have been proven to be "not true" even if they are not yet proven true.
TIA for responses.
Anne
Life is learning, learning is life
---------------------------------
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 23:29:40 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Humility
Hi Bruce,
You wrote:
"Steve, you might be on to something with your comment. I'll wager that
99.99% of anthroposophists haven't had one actual spiritual-scientific
Steiner-vision. 100% actually, because the truth is only he could have had
one of those. Yet many will defend their faith or belief as loudly as I do.
But mine is based on my personal individual relationship with that source.
I'd suggest theirs is based on their personal individual relationship with
Steiner's relationship to that source. That's an important difference. If
someone is going to insist we're in the fifth post-Atlantean epoch, they
need to have had a spiritual vision of it themselves, first. Otherwise it's
simply intellectualizing, conceptualizing, and parroting."
Interesting. Very. Or how about ... their personally individual
relationship with how they *perceive* Steiner's relationship to that source?
And yes - I would agree that they would need to have had the spiritual
vision for it to become more than parroting. Of course, I do not feel
comfortable commenting on someone's spiritual path... but that's never
stopped me before(g):
I love to go on strenuous hikes and climb mountains. Always have. I
clearly remember the first time I slept in a snow cave as a teenager. I was
overwhelmed by a feeling of intense happiness and fulfillment. I was at
peace with myself and the world. When I returned from the trip I was
convinced that if everyone slept in a snow cave one night every year... the
world would be a happier, healthier place. I became a bit of an evangelical
nature preaching loony. But ... I had the answer to so many problems!!
Since that time I have had many such wonderful experiences in the outdoors -
those near surreal *eureka* moments that I might even call "spiritual." I
cannot really explain those feelings. Kinda like watching your first child
being born. So I guess I might have had what some might best understand or
relate to as... spiritual experiences.
At our old Waldorf school there was much talk of "spirit" and being
"spiritual." But it always seemed just that - talk. Steiner was absolutely
100% infallible and His words opened every meeting - always. Next came the
people who claimed to best understand those Steiner words - though there
were often stern glances between the Knowledgeable Ones when discussing the
Words. Next came the wannabees - some parents or newer teachers who tried to
get whatever it was they were supposed to *get* but were really more
comfortable in their own church or New Age group. Next came the few
teachers who smiled and put up with the weirdness and simply tried to offer
what they had to offer in a kind, gentle way because they believed their
style of teaching would be even more unwelcome in schools other than Waldorf
(hint: these teachers had little interest in anthroposophy but played
along - shhh...) Next came the parents who took deep breaths each morning
and dropped their kids off at the school hoping that the lack of pop
machines and tests would outweigh the oddity they had come to learn as
"spiritual science."
And then there are the children. I digress.
I think you're right, Bruce. Even when I was slipping into anthro-land, I
found it odd how little the "movement" had changed since Steiner. When one
has a spiritual moment, does that experience not move him or her to try to
move others? What *is* a spiritual movement?
You know, people really *should* try sleeping in a snow cave.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 23:45:58 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Steiner and Science and Illness
Sure. Here:
PHYSIOLOGY AND THERAPEUTICS
Four Lectures by
Rudolf Steiner
Dornach, October 7 - 9, 1920
GA 314
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19201008p01.html (lecture two)
-Walden
)Rudolf Steiner, Physiology and Therapeutics
)Lecture II
)Dornach, October 8, 1920
)Walden, can you give us the bibliographic information for this quote?
)Publisher, date, page, GA number if available, URL and download date?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 23:24:24 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Clarification
H. Wayne, you wrote,
)When there
)are genuine differences, normal discourse in science is to regard one's
)own contribution as supplementary to previous work. Copernicus did not
)accuse Ptolemy of dishonesty or incompetence, but merely presented his
)further work as an (in his case, giant) step forward in our
)understanding of planetary motion.
But Steiner accused the scientists of his day of being incompetent.
Before his followers, of course, not in any scientific meeting (he
never went to one in his life).
When I read Steiner's scientific writings, he appears to me to be a
poseur; he could get away with pretending to be an authority on
scientific matters to his naive followers, but not to anybody
actually in science.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 23:55:48 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Steiner and Science and Illness
And from the same lecture:
"If we are looking for the cause of physical illness, we must ultimately
seek it in the spirit going astray in the organism. This should certainly
not be pursued abstractly. Anyone who does not understand the relationship
between the soul-spiritual and the physical organism should really stay
quiet about these matters."
If we send our child to an anthroposophic doctor are allowed to ask
questions about the health of our child or the treatment or must we "really
stay quiet?"
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 02:58:37 -0400
From: H Wayne (einmalig optonline.net)
Subject: Re: Clarification
Dear Peter,
Mistletoe extracts have been approved for use as an anti-cancer agaent in
Europe, and have been approved for clinical trials in the USA.
This would seem to be an accurate summary of the situation. I hesitate to
compare these objective facts with some of the posts on the subject that I
have seen in this discussion. Medicine is a science.
H Wayne
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 03:05:16 -0400
From: H Wayne (einmalig optonline.net)
Subject: Re: Clarification
Dear Dan,
See my posted reply to Peter above. Mistletoe extract seems to have been
approved for clinical trials in the USA, and to have been approved as a
cancer remedy in Europe. Both of those steps follow considerable scrutiny by
the appropriate agencies (in the USA, the FDA). These bodies examine
clinical evidence.
One of the studies I found in the PubMed site was a summary of the clinical
studies done on Iscador to date. I identified problems with many of these
regarding methodology, but stated that, on the other hand, three studies
with proper methodology showed evidence of a positive working.
We shall have to await the further clinical studies in the USA with an open
mind, shan't we?
H Wayne
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 00:06:37 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: cult v religion
Hi Anne and welcome.
I found some good answers to your questions a few years ago by searching the
Internet and/or visiting a library. I don't have all the sources but one
that I found very useful (because it has no religious affiliations) is the
AFF
http://www.csj.org
Also, at that site (at the cultic studies review section) is a good article
by Waldorf critic, Sharon Lombard
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/lombard_sharon_csr0202j.htm
I hope that helps and you find what you are looking for.
-Walden
Hi all,
I'm new to the list, forgive me if my questions are too basic.
1) What (if anything) distinguishes a cult from a religion?
2) Are all religions cults?
3) What distinguishes valid knowledge from "flights of fancy" - somethings
are able to be empirically proven to be true, but other things which may not
yet have been proven to be "not true" even if they are not yet proven true.
TIA for responses.
Anne
Life is learning, learning is life
---------------------------------
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
===========================================================
Empower your Team with Remote Access. GoToMyPC Pro
provides your organization with instant remote access to
email,files, applications and network resources in real
time. FREE TRIAL:
http://click.topica.com/caaccMSb1dkiGb2QZUTf/ ExpertCity
===========================================================
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 03:11:15 -0400
From: H Wayne (einmalig optonline.net)
Subject: Re: Clarification
Dear Dan,
Farrell and Steiner (and Dugan, and probably Wayne) seem all prone to
fulminate. It is as if we, like Newton and Leibniz, are not only scientists,
but .... perhaps... human beings as well (and well in need for purification
of our lesser aspects, whether in this life or another).
Sigh.
H Wayne
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 17:17:38 +1000 (EST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Anne=20May?= (mettahome yahoo.com.au)
Subject: Re: cult v religion
Hi Walden,
thanks for that, I'll have a look. I was also interested in personal responses from those who care to give them.
Cheers
Anne
Life is learning, learning is life
---------------------------------
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 07:35:53 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Clarification
Dear Harlan,
you wrote:
)
)I would like to issue a friendly caution here. It would not do to call a
)person, such as yourself, dishonest or intellectually incompetent
)because that person neglected to mention in a discussion of
)temperature-driven expansion that there is considerable variation in
)different substances' (coal, steel, aluminum, silicon crystals, etc.)
)coefficients of expansion, and even in the extent of the nonlinearity of
)their expansion. That this ignored variation far outweighs another
)variation which was emphasized in the presentation (that of the
)nonlinearity of the expansion equation for any individual substance)
)does not serve to discredit an author. I personally would assume that
)the presenter either:
)1) was unaware of the relative magnitude of the two variations, in which
)case I might mention it in a friendly way, or
)2) was choosing to present a particular aspect of the subject (one
)cannot present all aspects simultaneously).
I am afraid you have come to this discussion late. I include the possibility
(not certainty) that Steiner was dishonest because this has been a topic of
ongoing discussion on this list, particularly in response to accusations
from defenders of Steiner that some critics have been dishonest. Please
check out the history of this in the archives. I accept the possibility that
Steiner was unaware. If he was unaware, I find it difficult to understand
how he could have felt he could have given a dozen or so lectures on warmth
without making himself aware. This kind of behaviour is sometimes called
intellectual dishonesty. Your option 2 only makes sense if what Steiner was
saying was correct, or if he pointed out that he was doing something which
was formally incorrect to make a pedagogical point. This latter possibility
would only be ok if he gave some sort of indication of what was correct and
what was incorrect.
)Or, to take another example, you mention in one post that "There may
)well be materials with a2 almost zero in some ranges. I am not aware of
)any...", yet you quote the work of Guillame. If you are familiar with
)his work, you should surely know that his Nobel Prize related to the
)creation of a material that had not only a2, but even a1 almost zero
)across a large range: a material suitable for establishing an invariant
)standard length measure. It would be bad form for someone to begin
)harping on how this was evidence of your actual unfamiliarity with what
)you are talking about, or your dishonesty; it is especially bad form to
)do so when the person has no chance to reply. I am sure that you are
)genuinely familiar with this work, and simply did not make the
)connection at the time.
You are right. I forgot a2 varies with temperature for invar, and changes
sign at some temperature where it goes from positive to negative. I agree
both are small, but not enormously so, and not nearly as small as would be
predicted by Steiner's calculation. I have used invar and other similar
alloys for laser cavities and interferometers, but not for standard clocks.
I know that a1 is about 1.6 x 10^(-6) per degree c compared to numbers maybe
50 times bigger for other metals. a2 has values at various temperatures
between about 30 x 10^(-8) and -10 x 10^(-8) per degree C^2. If Steiner's
method of calulation were correct, a2 would always be positive and about
10^(-12) per degree C^2. So what you see here is that while you might think
both of these are small, and indeed that was Guillaume's goal, the value of
a2 obtained is gigantic compared to Steiner's calculation except in this
small region where it crosses zero. Equally, note that Invar is a special
material, it is unusual to be able to operate it at the point whre a2 goes
through 0 and even then there is a non zero a1 and probably a3 at that
temperature. But you are right. I forgot about Invar's change of sign of a2.
I was trying to think of a material that had a2 zero at all temperatures.
)
)When not well-founded, such accusations as have been made in this list
)can rebound, often with considerable force, upon the accuser. When there
)are genuine differences, normal discourse in science is to regard one's
)own contribution as supplementary to previous work. Copernicus did not
)accuse Ptolemy of dishonesty or incompetence, but merely presented his
)further work as an (in his case, giant) step forward in our
)understanding of planetary motion.
In the cases I am talking about, we are not talking about Steiner having
been shown to have been incorrect by subsequent work. We are talking about
Steiner misrepresenting previous and contemporary work by others, to people
not in a position to easily check, and indeed warned off from checking by
constant references to scientists being materialists and rejecting a
spiritual view, and by the sentiment in the preface I posted and that Walden
enjoyed so much.
)
)I am concerned about much that I see in this list in the way of
)scientific discussion. Even great scientists and mathematicians have
)grown vituperative in their discourse - think of Leibniz and Newton -
)but we recall this side of them with sadness and moral compassion. If
)Walden is right in his recent presentation, which I found interesting,
)such excesses would be something to overcome in a next life. (I am not
)asserting here that this is the case, of course. It is not something
)that is easily susceptible to scientific investigation, pace Arthur
)Conan Doyle.)
)
)Once more, the Warmth Course's 2nd lecture's presentation is completely
)straightforward scientifically. If you are fulminating against it
)because Steiner himself fulminates a bit, this has nothing to do with
)the scientific thought presented there.
I am sorry to have to tell you again you are incorrect. It is not
straightforward scientifically. Here are points where it is wrong.
1. L=L0*(1+at) is not the complete scientific understanding of the linear
exapnsion of any material at the time Steiner was writing. It should have
been L=L0*(1+a1*t+a2*t^2+a3*t^2+...).
2. Since L=L0*(1+a*t) is known to be an approximation the correct cube is
L^2=L0^3*(1+3*a*t) to the same order of approximation. It is mathematically
incorrect to claim otherwise.
3. The correct expression for the volume contains higher order terms which
are not the terms Steiner claims.
4. These were not paid scant attention by scientists of the time.
5. The differences between gases, liquids and solids were well understood,
and were due to the same processes in each material, contrary to what
Steiner claims.
Please tell me which of these you have a problem with and we can discuss
them further. If you accept all of these, it seems to me that there is not
much left in the lecture of a scientific nature that Steiner was correct
about.
I don't think I am I fulminating or being vituperative.
)
)The third lecture presents some interesting thoughts, I must say, as
)well. This is certainly a lecturer who likes coming to things from
)unusual perspectives -- not in itself a bad (or necessarily a good)
)thing, but it takes some getting used to even to figure out where the
)lecturer is coming from. As far as I can understand, he is using a
)certain amount of analogy in the quote you bring about temperature being
)like linearity squared. He is trying to point out that temperature is a
)complex entity; on the one hand, it does not change with heat added in a
)linear way (specifically, where a phase change takes place); on the
)other hand, both temperature and heat imply an interaction with the
)whole surroundings (to be accurate, it is primarily of course the
)difference in temperature between an object and its surroundings that is
)significant for this interaction).
I don't think this is a fair characterisation of what Steiner does in this
lecture. I would be happy if he said heat and temperature are complicated
phenomena. Instead he engages in a lot of mathematical hoop la, the purpose
of which in my opinion is to convince his scientifically uneducated audience
of his knowledge and wisdom, and makes claims about spiritual matters on the
basis of this mathematical hoop la.
)
)Is there a significance or basis for comparing temperature to a
)more-dimensional reality? The lecture makes a reasonable case that its
)effects and interactions are always multi-dimensional. The
)mathematically nonsensical 'square of t, which is itself a square, being
)a cube' and 'cube of the square t being a fourth power'(I am
)paraphrasing) I take to be an indication of the increasing
)multi-dimensionality by analogy rather than a bizarre revision of
)mathematical thought. Mathematically it is indefensible, of course.
I don't think the lecture makes a reasonable case for the interactions being
multidimensional. The only thing that's clear is that temperature is not
measured in units of length. This does raise the issue of how heat does
propagate in materials not in thermal equilibrium. I should point out that
this was also well studied previoulsy although one would not guess it from
Steiner's lectures on warmth. Fourier worked out the mathematics of heat
flow in bodies with temperature gradients using the method now known as
Fourier series in the first decade of the 19th century, more than a hundred
years before Steiner's lecture. Strangely enough, this theory is often
presented as a one spatial dimension problem in mathematical texts, and the
three dimensional heat flow problem is written in terms of the flow in three
orthogonal directions. I'd be interested in knowing what part of Crookes'
work Steiner was referring to. I don't have any clue and of course Steiner
rarely gives references for anything.
)
)An interesting line of thought. I'm not sure I take to it completely. At
)the moment, I tend to pass over it as an acceptable but not obviously
)fruitful analogy (though I don't know where it is taken...is this line
)of thought carried forward in the next lecture or dropped here?)
)
)You are certainly making me think about some interesting questions in
)this discussion.
)
I am pleased. You are making me work harder than I have time for to get all
the details of this sorted out.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 07:42:00 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Clarification
G'day Harlan,
)
)Mistletoe extracts have been approved for use as an anti-cancer agaent in
)Europe, and have been approved for clinical trials in the USA.
Fine. Homoepathic remedies have been approved for use in Europe and they
don't work. A clinical trial is just that. A trial. Hopefully we will see
some well designed studies that manage to obtain a clear answer.
)
)This would seem to be an accurate summary of the situation. I hesitate to
)compare these objective facts with some of the posts on the subject that I
)have seen in this discussion. Medicine is a science.
I posted the most recent advice availaible. I should say medicine should be
a science but it is regulalry not. This is partly due to problems with
medical training in various places, but also due to the desire by medical
practitioners to be able to do something even when they can't.
See you, peter
_________________________________________________________________
SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 07:47:01 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Clarification
Dear Harlan,
I don't think I have fulminated.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
What's your house worth? Click here to find out:
http://www.ninemsn.realestate.com.au
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 08:06:54 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Clarification
G'day Walden,
I am pleased you enjoyed that quote so much. I have an interesting paper
which is a translation from the german. Unfortunately I don't have the
reference to the english translation, only to the original publication and
to a book where the german original is reprinted. The paper is by Max von
Laue, who won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1914 for work on X-ray
diffraction in crystals. He wrote a criticism of some of Steiner's work in
1922. As far as I know Steiner never responded to it. I am unaware if any
one else rose to Steiner's defense.
The paper is "Steiner und die Naturwissenschaft" by Max von Laue. It was
first published in Deutscher Revue (47) 1922, pp41-49. It was reprinted in
Max Von Laue, Gesammelte Schriften und Vortrage 1961, vol 3, pp48-56. I
have a translation by Peter King entitled "Steiner and Natural Science" but
I have not been able to figure out where I got it.
The interesting thing is here is this Nobel Laureate entering into
conversation, and apparently Steiner ignored it, evidently following his own
advice in that preface. I would have to say the paper does not praise
Steiner's work very highly.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers! http://youroffers.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 08:28:32 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Clarification
Harlan wrote:
)
)Dear Dan,
)
)Farrell and Steiner (and Dugan, and probably Wayne) seem all prone to
)fulminate. It is as if we, like Newton and Leibniz, are not only
)scientists,
)but .... perhaps... human beings as well (and well in need for purification
)of our lesser aspects, whether in this life or another).
)
)Sigh.
)
)H Wayne
)
I already said I don't think I have fulminated on this list, at least in
recent times. I do admit to being human. I am sure Steiner criticised and
insulted scientists in his day with a smile on his face and quietly. I don't
think there was any table thumping. So I guess he wasn't fulminating either.
But I wasn't there. I wonder if anyone ever spoke out.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 10:28:14 +0000
From: Foncteur (foncteur yahoo.fr)
Subject: RE: cult v religion
Yes, all religions are dangerous cults, especially Islam nowadays, this
cult which causes antisemitic hate (see the recent case of Nick Berg for
instance)
- "flights of fancy" can be a good thing : Whitehead said that all
scientific and philosophical discoveries begin with imagination,
similar to the flight of a plane.
=?iso-8859-1?q?Anne=20May?= wrote:
)
) Hi all,
) I'm new to the list, forgive me if my questions are too basic.
) 1) What (if anything) distinguishes a cult from a religion?
) 2) Are all religions cults?
) 3) What distinguishes valid knowledge from "flights of fancy" -
) somethings are able to be empirically proven to be true, but other
) things which may not yet have been proven to be "not true" even if they
) are not yet proven true.
) TIA for responses.
)
)
)
) Anne
)
) Life is learning, learning is life
)
)
)
) ---------------------------------
) Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
)
) --
) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 06:39:13 -0400
From: H Wayne (einmalig optonline.net)
Subject: Re: Clarification
Based upon these two lectures, which may not be representative, Steiner
strikes me as either:
1) a philosopher discussing science from a philosophical perspective, in
which case he's better grounded in the details of the sciences than many
such. Compare Husserl, for example, whose writings on science I read with
great interest but who does not touch on detail very much. Or,
2) A scientist waxing philosophical in front of a lay audience, rather
than speaking about his or her narrow specialty before peers. This always
has its dangers; compare Edward Teller's 'Conversations on the Dark Secrets
of Physics'. Teller was one of the great physicists of the 20th century, but
in these lectures he made statements that were challenged by his (friendly)
editors as being misleading, one-sided or in need of clarification (read:
would mislead listeners). The difference there, of course, is that they
allowed him to respond to the challenges (both challenge and response have
been included in footnotes). Lectures, especially unedited, are never full
representations of a scientists work.
I certainly would not think he is a specialist in thermodynamics from these
two lectures. But what he has to say about it is interesting. Nonspecialists
are allowed to say interesting things about specialized fields (as long as
they don't get in the way of the work too much).
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1348
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Clarification
By einmalig optonline.net
Re: cult v religion
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: Clarification
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Clarification
By dan dandugan.com
RE: cult v religion
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Clarification
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Clarification
By dan dandugan.com
Re: cult v religion
By mettahome yahoo.com.au
Re: Clarification
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Clarification
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Re: Clarification
By einmalig optonline.net
Re: Clarification
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 07:11:36 -0400
From: H Wayne (einmalig optonline.net)
Subject: Re: Clarification
Dear Peter,
I think that our positions on this differ because I am treating this lecture
as given to an audience for whom this is a first introduction to the
material (the care to present basic experiments of which anyone with a
physics background would already be aware makes it seem so).
) 1. L=L0*(1+at) is not the complete scientific understanding of the linear
) expansion of any material at the time Steiner was writing. It should have
) been L=L0*(1+a1*t+a2*t^2+a3*t^2+...).
)
In a first presentation, I would probably ignore the third-degree effects
(and my teachers did so when they first presented expansion to me).
) 2. Since L=L0*(1+a*t) is known to be an approximation the correct cube is
) L^2=L0^3*(1+3*a*t) to the same order of approximation. It is
mathematically
) incorrect to claim otherwise.
If I was calculating the volumetric expansion in front of an audience, I
would have to take (1+at) and cube it, giving second and third-order values.
That's the simple algebra I keep mentioning; you can't avoid getting those
values on the way to the 3at term when you do the maths. It must then be
mentioned that the higher order terms are numerically disproportionately
small and thus can be effectively ignored for practical purposes. Steiner
does this. The exposition is perfectly straightforward. I will not repeat
this again, it feels thoroughly hashed and rehashed.
) 3. The correct expression for the volume contains higher order terms which
) are not the terms Steiner claims.
This is so, but Steiner was not covering the corresponding variations from
linearity. (see the first point above);.in a presentation to lay people, you
would not necessarily do so. The only quibble I can see here is that when he
does mention the significance of higher-order terms, he assigns this
significance to the volumetric calculation; you could make a case that he
recognized that third-order terms were important in the sense that we now
accept this but mistook where they came from. Since he doesn't explain why
he thinks they are important, though, this is pure hypothesis. It seems to
be a question to pose (that must remain unanswered given his own phase
transformation) rather than a devastating critique. At best, you can say:
'If he meant this, which I think he might have, then it was really bad
physics.' This is evident. It is only not evident that he meant 'this'.
(Sorry, the scientist here.)
) 4. These were not paid scant attention by scientists of the time.
Once again, the third-order effects you and I would refer to (nonlinear
linear expansion coefficients) were covered by scientists of the time. He
seems to be determined to talk about the volumetric further terms, which
were not so covered (and we would respond, 'with good reason'...except we
are not really quite sure what he is making out of all this since he never
pins it down). I don't see what he could make out of it, but until I know
what he wanted to, I can't really judge the whole business.
) 5. The differences between gases, liquids and solids were well understood,
) and were due to the same processes in each material, contrary to what
) Steiner claims.
In light of the third lecture, Steiner seems to be focusing on an overview
of the different phases per se. I don't know that anyone had done this in
just this way before. Richard Feynman used to delight in finding a totally
new formulation for what everyone already knew (his 'diagrams' are an
example). This was sometimes quite fruitful. I'm happy to consider a new
point of view as something new, even if we are still looking at the same old
reality. The two lectures seems to me fundamentally lectures on the
philosophy of science, not on science. Taken in this light, for me they're
ok and interesting. We aren't learning any new science, but we are (or at
least I am) discovering new and in some ways refreshing ways of looking at
the tired old phenomena.
You may respond to all this, of course, but if they're are no new points
perhaps we can slowly go on to other themes. My interest wanes.
Wayne
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 08:48:09 -0300
From: "Bruce Angus" (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: cult v religion
Anne wrote: "What distinguishes valid knowledge from "flights of fancy" - somethings are able to be empirically proven to be true, but other things which may not yet have been proven to be "not true" even if they are not yet proven true."
Walden wrote: "Since that time I have had many such wonderful experiences in the outdoors - those near surreal *eureka* moments that I might even call "spiritual." I cannot really explain those feelings."
Hi Anne and Steve - After thirty five years of living a mostly and sometimes exclusively spiritual-investigative existence (or however one puts that) I've come to the conclusion that it's all about what's true - for you. Knowledge is transitory: our understanding is forever evolving. What remains constant is our ability to have an in-the-moment relationship to an experience.
Valid knowledge has to do with those inspired epiphanies we usually refer to as spiritual experiences. I personally don't call them that, because I've realized we're capable of having a highly inspired relationship with life in every moment. So for me, it's more an experience of placing one's self in a state of continual union with universal creative energies.
Steiner believed all that could be systemized, and created spiritual scientific exercises to teach people how to have these personal epiphany experiences. (And at the same time warning of the evils of human beings evolving a materialist view of life, but that's another discussion.) I've no problem with his exercises, because they've be known to mystics for millennia.
My issue is Steiner's Christian-specific schema, and with the countless anthroposophical warnings concerning valid versus invalid personal spiritual experience. All personal mystical experience is valid. I don't believe in the concept of flights of fancy either. Perhaps the very meaning of life is to spend our days having flights of fancy. Sincerely, who knows?
Yes, mine is a human-oriented spiritual view of things. I'm proud of that, actually. I've struggled to overcome a number of personal demons - and a few that were presented as spiritual fact - to reach this point in my life where I truly like myself. And I happen to believe that's a great spiritual step on my part. Any experience that honours our goodness and leaves us free is valid. Any experience that shames me and tries to coerce me into following specific and set beliefs isn't valid for me.
Bruce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 11:26:52 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Clarification
H. Wayne, you wrote,
))Mistletoe extracts have been approved for use as an anti-cancer agaent in
))Europe, and have been approved for clinical trials in the USA.
)
)Fine. Homoepathic remedies have been approved for use in Europe and
)they don't work. A clinical trial is just that. A trial. Hopefully
)we will see some well designed studies that manage to obtain a clear
)answer.
I agree. If the study is being done by the National Center for
Complementary and Alternative Medicine, it won't likely be definitive
because that government agency was corrupted from day one by an
ideological agenda. In ten years of operation they haven't proved or
disproved any alternative medication or therapy.
See Sampson's editorial in The Scientific Review of Alternative
Medicine and Aberrant Medical Practices, 7:1 Spring/Summer 2003.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 12:00:37 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Clarification
H. Wayne, you wrote,
) 1) a philosopher discussing science from a philosophical perspective, in
)which case he's better grounded in the details of the sciences than many
)such. Compare Husserl, for example, whose writings on science I read with
)great interest but who does not touch on detail very much. Or,
) 2) A scientist waxing philosophical in front of a lay audience, rather
)than speaking about his or her narrow specialty before peers.
If you read more, I think you'll find 1) to be true.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 11:43:20 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: cult v religion
Foncteur,
)Yes, all religions are dangerous cults, especially Islam nowadays,
I can't tell if you're making a gross exaggeration or being
sarcastic. Scholars of cults don't consider religions to be cults,
though cults often form within religions, like the violent islamists.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 11:13:24 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Clarification
H. Wayne, you wrote,
)Farrell and Steiner (and Dugan, and probably Wayne) seem all prone to
)fulminate. It is as if we, like Newton and Leibniz, are not only scientists,
)but .... perhaps... human beings as well (and well in need for purification
)of our lesser aspects, whether in this life or another).
If we didn't care passionately about these things, we wouldn't be here.
)Sigh.
Nothing sad about that.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 11:30:55 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Clarification
Peter Farrell, you wrote,
)I have an interesting paper which is a translation from the german.
)Unfortunately I don't have the reference to the english translation,
)only to the original publication and to a book where the german
)original is reprinted. The paper is by Max von Laue, who won the
)Nobel Prize for Physics in 1914 for work on X-ray diffraction in
)crystals. He wrote a criticism of some of Steiner's work in 1922. As
)far as I know Steiner never responded to it. I am unaware if any one
)else rose to Steiner's defense.
)
)The paper is "Steiner und die Naturwissenschaft" by Max von Laue. It
)was first published in Deutscher Revue (47) 1922, pp41-49. It was
)reprinted in Max Von Laue, Gesammelte Schriften und Vortrage 1961,
)vol 3, pp48-56. I have a translation by Peter King entitled
)"Steiner and Natural Science" but I have not been able to figure out
)where I got it.
)The interesting thing is here is this Nobel Laureate entering into
)conversation, and apparently Steiner ignored it, evidently following
)his own advice in that preface. I would have to say the paper does
)not praise Steiner's work very highly.
What a find! Let's put it on the PLANS web site so everybody can read it.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 10:57:31 +1000 (EST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Anne=20May?= (mettahome yahoo.com.au)
Subject: Re: cult v religion
Bruce wrote:
((Hi Anne and Steve - After thirty five years of living a mostly and
sometimes exclusively spiritual-investigative existence (or however one
puts that) I've come to the conclusion that it's all about what's true -
for you. Knowledge is transitory: our understanding is forever evolving.
What remains constant is our ability to have an in-the-moment
relationship to an experience.
Anne replies: I agree that knowledge is transitory and subject to change when new information comes along or is understood. But what about wisdom? Wisdom is not something based on facts so much as on perception and understanding. Is there an enduring unchanging wisdom that we simply need to "locate" or "access". In other words is there some external source of this in your opinion - which may be expressed by a "being", such as a god or a guru?
((Valid knowledge has to do with those inspired epiphanies we usually
refer to as spiritual experiences. I personally don't call them that,
because I've realized we're capable of having a highly inspired
relationship with life in every moment. So for me, it's more an experience of placing one's self in a state of continual union with universal creative
energies.
Anne replies: knowledge to me is "stuff" facts etc that can potentially be verified and agreed on and even experienced by more than one person, we can assign a measure and/or a vocabulary to discuss points of knowledge (eg temperatures measured in degrees etc) and we all know what is being referred to, or at least we can find out.
((Steiner believed all that could be systemized, and created spiritual
scientific exercises to teach people how to have these personal epiphany experiences. (And at the same time warning of the evils of human beings evolving a materialist view of life, but that's another discussion.)
I've no problem with his exercises, because they've be known to mystics
for millennia.
Anne replies: Is the problem for you that he tried (and his devotees continue to try) through the schools to impose them without explanation or consent on unsuspecting victims?
((My issue is Steiner's Christian-specific schema, and with the countless anthroposophical warnings concerning valid versus invalid personal spiritual experience. All cis valid. I don't believe in the concept of flights of fancy either. Perhaps the very meaning of life is to spend our days having flights of fancy. Sincerely, who knows?
Anne replies: then what would distinguish "personal mystical experience" from, say, a psychotic episode in your opinion? Einstein imagined himself riding on beams of light and from that produced a theory that was able to be discussed, challenged etc by others. But if one were to have a similar vision and was not able to translate it into a theory that others can explore/challenge is this valid or useful - even to the one having the vision?
Can you please explain more about what you mean on "Steiner's Christian-specific schema, and with the countless anthroposophical warnings concerning valid versus invalid personal spiritual experience"
Thanks for your thoughtful response, Bruce.
Cheers
Anne
---------------------------------
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 05:35:10 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Clarification
G'day Harlan,
)Dear Peter,
)
)I think that our positions on this differ because I am treating this
)lecture
)as given to an audience for whom this is a first introduction to the
)material (the care to present basic experiments of which anyone with a
)physics background would already be aware makes it seem so).
I agree he is giving this lecture to an audience for whom this may well be
the first introduction to this material. As well throughout the lecture he
criticises scientists of the day for not appreciating the supposedly
wonderful insights that he is bringing to this material. As well, he adds a
preface which is meant to have the affect of distancing the people in the
audience who will become his followers from external criticism of the sort I
am giving.
)
) ) 1. L=L0*(1+at) is not the complete scientific understanding of the
)linear
) ) expansion of any material at the time Steiner was writing. It should
)have
) ) been L=L0*(1+a1*t+a2*t^2+a3*t^2+...).
) )
)
)In a first presentation, I would probably ignore the third-degree effects
)(and my teachers did so when they first presented expansion to me).
Quite rightly, because the effects are small and they were trying to teach
the ideas of physics and not unnecessarily bog you down with detail.
)
) ) 2. Since L=L0*(1+a*t) is known to be an approximation the correct cube
)is
) ) L^2=L0^3*(1+3*a*t) to the same order of approximation. It is
)mathematically
) ) incorrect to claim otherwise.
)
)If I was calculating the volumetric expansion in front of an audience, I
)would have to take (1+at) and cube it, giving second and third-order
)values.
)That's the simple algebra I keep mentioning; you can't avoid getting those
)values on the way to the 3at term when you do the maths. It must then be
)mentioned that the higher order terms are numerically disproportionately
)small and thus can be effectively ignored for practical purposes. Steiner
)does this. The exposition is perfectly straightforward. I will not repeat
)this again, it feels thoroughly hashed and rehashed.
I will repeat again. You might well do as you say and you would be wrong. I
have now informed you that you would be wrong several times and I will
explain again why. It would be correct if and only if (1+a*t) was the EXACT
expansion factor. If I include one further term in the expansion I might
write (1+at+bt^2). If I cube this and collect the terms in t^2 I get
(3a^2+3*b)*t^2 and terms in higher powers. This compares to the term I get
from cubing (1+at) which is 3a^2*t^2. Note that b might not be the same sign
as a, and that the magnitude of b could be very much greater than a^2. Thus
we can get a very different answer by correctly including the next highest
order term, as opposed to incorrectly suggesting that the terms that both
you and Steiner are including are an improved approximation. I can only tell
you that if you wrote this on a maths or physics exam at a tertiary
institution it would be marked incorrect. You may choose not to believe
this.
It's not just that they are disproportianately small. It is that there are
other terms which you have already ignored which could be very much larger.
)
) ) 3. The correct expression for the volume contains higher order terms
)which
) ) are not the terms Steiner claims.
)
)This is so, but Steiner was not covering the corresponding variations from
)linearity. (see the first point above);.in a presentation to lay people,
)you
)would not necessarily do so. The only quibble I can see here is that when
)he
)does mention the significance of higher-order terms, he assigns this
)significance to the volumetric calculation; you could make a case that he
)recognized that third-order terms were important in the sense that we now
)accept this but mistook where they came from. Since he doesn't explain why
)he thinks they are important, though, this is pure hypothesis. It seems to
)be a question to pose (that must remain unanswered given his own phase
)transformation) rather than a devastating critique. At best, you can say:
)'If he meant this, which I think he might have, then it was really bad
)physics.' This is evident. It is only not evident that he meant 'this'.
)(Sorry, the scientist here.)
You appear to be giving him an enormous amount of latitude here. Remember,
he is not speaking off the cuff. This is a series of a dozen or so lectures
that he has prepared. He would have had the opportunity to obtain advice
about technical detail he was unsure of. He appears not to have obtained any
appropriate advice, or perhaps he ignored it. He is also pushing an
argument, and he is pushing that argument to an audience not in a position
to understand that there might be serious flaws in the detail.
His interest in the volumetric terms seems to be related to his similarly
spurious argument about the dimensions of temperature.
)
)
) ) 4. These were not paid scant attention by scientists of the time.
)
)Once again, the third-order effects you and I would refer to (nonlinear
)linear expansion coefficients) were covered by scientists of the time. He
)seems to be determined to talk about the volumetric further terms, which
)were not so covered (and we would respond, 'with good reason'...except we
)are not really quite sure what he is making out of all this since he never
)pins it down). I don't see what he could make out of it, but until I know
)what he wanted to, I can't really judge the whole business.
)
I think he does pin it down. As I said he was pushing an argument, and
apparently an argument for which he did not have good evidence. His argument
is this spurious thing about heat having some high order dimensinality that
takes it into the spiritual realm. The physics and mathematics he uses to
back up this argument contains all the right terminology but none of the
rigor or substance that should be there. He is taking advantage of the
ignorance of his audience.
)
) ) 5. The differences between gases, liquids and solids were well
)understood,
) ) and were due to the same processes in each material, contrary to what
) ) Steiner claims.
)
)In light of the third lecture, Steiner seems to be focusing on an overview
)of the different phases per se. I don't know that anyone had done this in
)just this way before. Richard Feynman used to delight in finding a totally
)new formulation for what everyone already knew (his 'diagrams' are an
)example). This was sometimes quite fruitful. I'm happy to consider a new
)point of view as something new, even if we are still looking at the same
)old
)reality. The two lectures seems to me fundamentally lectures on the
)philosophy of science, not on science. Taken in this light, for me they're
)ok and interesting. We aren't learning any new science, but we are (or at
)least I am) discovering new and in some ways refreshing ways of looking at
)the tired old phenomena.
In 1920, this was not tired old phenomena. This was still exciting and new.
Bear in mind that Steiner is not finding a new way of looking at these
things. He is denying van der Waals work in particular. He is arguing that
gases are fundamentally different from solids beyond their relative
sparcity.
)
)You may respond to all this, of course, but if they're are no new points
)perhaps we can slowly go on to other themes. My interest wanes.
)
I am sorry if your interest is waning, but it is evident to me that you are
hanging on to some misunderstandings. This may be my fault in that I have
not yet explained some of the physics and mathematics in sufficient detail
to demonstrate how Steiner is wrong. Perhaps I acheived that above.
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 05:40:50 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Clarification
Harlan wrote:
)
)Based upon these two lectures, which may not be representative, Steiner
)strikes me as either:
) 1) a philosopher discussing science from a philosophical perspective,
)in
)which case he's better grounded in the details of the sciences than many
)such. Compare Husserl, for example, whose writings on science I read with
)great interest but who does not touch on detail very much. Or,
You may be right that Steiner is better grounded in the sciences than some
other philosophers. My view is this is not saying very much.
) 2) A scientist waxing philosophical in front of a lay audience, rather
)than speaking about his or her narrow specialty before peers. This always
)has its dangers; compare Edward Teller's 'Conversations on the Dark Secrets
)of Physics'. Teller was one of the great physicists of the 20th century,
)but
)in these lectures he made statements that were challenged by his (friendly)
)editors as being misleading, one-sided or in need of clarification (read:
)would mislead listeners). The difference there, of course, is that they
)allowed him to respond to the challenges (both challenge and response have
)been included in footnotes). Lectures, especially unedited, are never full
)representations of a scientists work.
The difference between Teller and Steiner is that Teller listened to his
editors and was open to criticism. Have another look at Steiner's approach.
He would not consider criticism from anyone outside of occult circles.
)
)I certainly would not think he is a specialist in thermodynamics from these
)two lectures. But what he has to say about it is interesting.
)Nonspecialists
)are allowed to say interesting things about specialized fields (as long as
)they don't get in the way of the work too much).
)
Anybody is allowed to say anything that they like. It is perfectly
appropriate to question Steiner's followers' claims that he was a scientist,
or that he was wll grounded in it. I agree that these lectures demonstrate
that he is not a specialist in thermodynamics. It would have been
intellectually honest to consult one before he prepared the lectures.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 03:29:21 -0400
From: H Wayne (einmalig optonline.net)
Subject: Re: Clarification
Dear Peter,
What happens at the phase change? There is surely a discontinuity, as a
expansion/contraction takes place in the material without change of
temperature (as when water freezes to ice and bursts its container).
Presumably then, there is a new expansion equation, or perhaps I should say
a new set of coefficients for the equation of expansion for each phase. The
phase change itself is not explicable by the law of expansion, then; that a
discontinuity occurs at 0 degrees C, and another at 100 degrees, is
presumably not predictable from liquid water's set of coefficients for its
expansion equation.
What explains the discontinuity if, as you say, there is a single force that
explains expansion and contraction in all phases? What suddenly changes the
way that this force acts?
I would suggest that there are indeed, if not forces per se, constellations
of forces unique to each solid. This is the basis of crystallography. These
constellations (which are structural in nature, which are characteristic of
the structure of the material) determine the point at which the energy of
the molecules frees the molecules from the matrix in which they exist.
In a gas, on the other hand, there are no such matrices; the molecules are
essentially free of structure. The individual nature of solids lies in the
individualized structure; the generalized nature of gases lies in the lack
of structure.
I'd have to think about liquids in this regard; they tend to form
2-dimensional structures that flow over one another. Perhaps you have some
thoughts as to their nature in this regard.
Quite aside from any historical references, do you find this description
plausible? Feel free to criticize; I welcome the chance to explore this with
a specialist.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 09:31:52 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Clarification
G'day Harlan,
)Dear Peter,
)
)What happens at the phase change? There is surely a discontinuity, as a
)expansion/contraction takes place in the material without change of
)temperature (as when water freezes to ice and bursts its container).
)Presumably then, there is a new expansion equation, or perhaps I should say
)a new set of coefficients for the equation of expansion for each phase. The
)phase change itself is not explicable by the law of expansion, then; that a
)discontinuity occurs at 0 degrees C, and another at 100 degrees, is
)presumably not predictable from liquid water's set of coefficients for its
)expansion equation.
Well now we have to get serious and it depends whether you want to
understand what is happening or if an engineering solution will do. The
engineering solution consists of moving to a new set of coefficients as you
suggest. What really happens is more complicated and you have to think about
how atoms are bonded to form solids, and I can't use diagrams
(aaarrrggghhh). OK. Consider a diatomic molecule. CO or H2 are both
examples, except I am going to try to speak generally and not deal with any
specific issues which arise. I am also going to sweep some issues under the
carpet. The two atoms share the electrons in some way either by a complete
swap or a sharing or some combination. The effect is that the nuclei of the
atoms are some characteristic distance apart. This distance could be
calculated if you knew the shape of the potential function that the atoms
feel. Typically this will be have a shape with a minimum for each nucleus
somewhere and the nuclei will prefer to sit in the minima. Of course these
nuclei are not at zero degrees kelvin so they have some thermal energy and
they are wiggling around in this potential well. From a quantum mechanical
perspective they would be wiggling to some minimum amount even as the
temperature approached zero degrees kelvin. Let's say the shape of the
potential curve is symmetric around these minima. One can think of the
nucleus riding up and down the potential function through the minimum, the
higher the temperature the higher they go up the potential well. If the
shape is symmetric it doesn't matter how far up the potential function they
go, because they go equal distances from the minimum on each side, their
average position is stiil at the minimum. The bond length of a molecule like
this wouldn't get any larger with temperature. However if the shape is
asymmetric, one side must have a higher slope than the other, and when the
nuclei goes up that slope it doesn't go as far from the minimum as it does
going up the other side. Now as the thermal energy gets larger the average
position of the nucleus is no longer at the minimum, and you can get
expansion or contraction. Now imagine transferring those ideas to each atom
in a 3 dimensional array with the possibilty that the potential functions
differ in different directions.
Phase changes occur when the thermal energy is sufficient to move the atoms
into another minimum of the potential function at some other distance. This
will have a different shape in general and so different thermal expansion
will result.
I hope that's clear.
)
)What explains the discontinuity if, as you say, there is a single force
)that
)explains expansion and contraction in all phases? What suddenly changes the
)way that this force acts?
The complicated shape of the potential function between the atoms.
)
)I would suggest that there are indeed, if not forces per se, constellations
)of forces unique to each solid. This is the basis of crystallography. These
)constellations (which are structural in nature, which are characteristic of
)the structure of the material) determine the point at which the energy of
)the molecules frees the molecules from the matrix in which they exist.
I think this is not spectacularly different to what I have said.
)
)In a gas, on the other hand, there are no such matrices; the molecules are
)essentially free of structure. The individual nature of solids lies in the
)individualized structure; the generalized nature of gases lies in the lack
)of structure.
I don't think this is ok in so far as the extremes go. If you have a not
very dense gas at not too high a temperature, and you compare this to NaCl
at room temperature, what you say is pretty right. But as you go to other
extremes the picture is not so clear. The potential functions are distorted
by the proximity of other atoms and so on, but this is still all continuous
even if very complicated, and difficult to predict in detail, because the
potential functions are so difficult to calculate in practice. One might say
that the potential functions in a gas are extremely shallow so that the
atoms don't care too much where they are. As you cool them down and make
them more dense these potential functions can get deeper and more well
defined. The phase change happens when the energies of the atoms are not
sufficient to jump over the maxima in these potential functions. There are
also a lot of issues about how the thermal energy is distributed among the
atoms and I haven't got into the quantum mechanical detail. There's a lot of
handwaving in this desciption and not much rigor.
)
)I'd have to think about liquids in this regard; they tend to form
)2-dimensional structures that flow over one another. Perhaps you have some
)thoughts as to their nature in this regard.
Again, I don't see these as different in the sense you want to. As well, the
splitting into solids, liquids and gases isn't the end of the story. There
are phase changes within the solid state, where the material is still solid
but has quite different thermal properties, requiring different coefficients
as you suggested above. Also there are plasmas which are like gases but
where long range electromagnetic forces between the constituent particles
dominate over those considered in the ideal gas equation. There are exotic
phases of matter such as bose einstein condensates which have properties
which don't naturally separate the way a simplistic approach might suggest.
)
)Quite aside from any historical references, do you find this description
)plausible? Feel free to criticize; I welcome the chance to explore this
)with
)a specialist.
I hope I have pointed to some of the complications. I am really a
specialistic optical physicist, with a background in atomic spectroscopy,
optical communications, microscopy, and optical fibre sensors. I have to
worry about some of these issues but not to the point of being a specialist
in condensed matter physics.
See you, Peter
_________________________________________________________________
SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1349
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Testing and Spiritual Science - a slightly angry reply
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: cult v religion
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: cult v religion
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: cult v religion
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: cult v religion
By lioncell gmx.net
Re: cult v religion
By dan dandugan.com
[NNA] Book review: Coming into the world - from where and how?
By dan dandugan.com
[NNA] European Council for Steiner Waldorf Education meets in
Edinburgh
By dan dandugan.com
Re: cult v religion
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: Clarification
By einmalig optonline.net
Re: cult v religion
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 08:41:45 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Testing and Spiritual Science - a slightly angry reply
Bruce wrote:
"Take the Steiner quote from your other post as an example: 'A person
suffering from childhood illnesses is simply someone who brought along too
much of the soul-spiritual from his prehuman, pre-earthly life; this excess
then lives itself out in the childhood illnesses.' While this may (or may
not) be true in some cases, I would suggest that childhood illnesses today
are often a result of a child's current physical, emotional and psychic
environment. And those are the obvious influences. Environmental pollution,
noise pollution, excess movement (media exposure mostly), transmission
waves, and other influences all contribute to childhood illness."
An interesting, but not comprehensive, list, Bruce. I've heard of little
things called bacteria, that also sometimes play a role. (attempt at dry
humor) For instance, Bordetella pertussis, nasty little microbe that causes
whooping cough.(Oh - excuse me - plays a role along with media exposure in
causing whooping cough!!! Yeah right. It was media exposure. (Sarcasm)) Kids
pass it around, you know, COUGHING on each other????? (It's the kind of
cough where it's hard not to spit on people in close quarters!) Nasty,
wracking coughing fits, many times a day, for several weeks. Sometimes so
bad you throw up. You can't sleep for coughing, or if you drift off, you're
awoken in a coughing fit, several times a night. *Unvaccinated kids* pass it
around at school (and bring it home to family members).
The cure: trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, twice daily for 10 days, and cough
syrup with codeine, for the pain at night.
How did Steiner, in his clairvoyant flights-of-fancy, miss these
remedies?????
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if Steiner ever said anything about
the spiritual causes or significance of an adult getting one of the
"childhood" illnesses?
If it isn't evident from the bitter tone of this post, my family has just
gone through this.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 09:10:53 -0300
From: "Bruce Angus" (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: cult v religion
Anne wrote: "But what about wisdom? Wisdom is not something based on facts so much as on perception and understanding. Is there an enduring unchanging wisdom that we simply need to "locate" or "access". What would distinguish "personal mystical experience" from, say, a psychotic episode in your opinion? Can you please explain more about what you mean on 'Steiner's Christian-specific schema, and with the countless anthroposophical warnings concerning valid versus invalid personal spiritual experience'."
Hi Anne - I'd suggest many religious, spiritual and mystical people would agree with the idea of an enduring unchanging wisdom. And you seem to be acknowledging it in your own way. Locating and accessing that source can be accomplished through prayer, meditation, ritual and countless other methods. Steiner understood all that obviously, and anthroposophical spiritual science is yet another method and means. But that's all it is, whereas Steiner and his emphatic (as opposed to the many laid back and casual) followers insist that, for modern human seekers of wisdom, anthroposophy is the one and only true method of accessing that source. And that accessing that wisdom and source via other means and paths is actually and somehow dangerous.
Your "psychotic episode" question is a good one; I just don't feel very qualified to respond. I'm talking here about things as ordinary and mundane as meditating. However, it does serve as a great segue into my "Christian-specific schema" comment - ha! Just kidding: I have nothing against Christianity, and understand there's much to all of it. I just personally don't feel that stating (as Steiner did) that St. Michael became the time spirit of our age in 1879, and so on and so forth, does anything to advance an understanding of universal wisdom, and the difference between it and personal subjective knowledge and belief. Steiner's countless spiritual facts can only verified by him, so I suppose I'll just have to talk to him myself at some future date.
Anne wrote: "Is the problem for you that he tried (and his devotees continue to try) through the schools to impose them without explanation or consent on unsuspecting victims?"
It was always problem for me when the philosophy was imposed on unsuspecting adults who were lead to believe they were simply building a community together. A threefold anthroposophical educational initiative is what it is, but it's not what most parents want and desire: an eclectic gathering of human hearts and voices, focused solely on the children's needs and well-being.
Bruce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 12:49:35 -0400
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: cult v religion
At 08:10 AM 5/18/2004, Bruce Angus wrote:
)[...] I'd suggest many religious, spiritual and mystical people would
)agree with the idea of an enduring unchanging wisdom. And you seem to be
)acknowledging it in your own way. Locating and accessing that source can
)be accomplished through prayer, meditation, ritual and countless other methods.
Or contact with the source can simply be a matter of grace, without "methods."
) Steiner understood all that obviously, and anthroposophical spiritual
) science is yet another method and means. But that's all it is, whereas
) Steiner and his emphatic (as opposed to the many laid back and casual)
) followers insist that, for modern human seekers of wisdom, anthroposophy
) is the one and only true method of accessing that source. And that
) accessing that wisdom and source via other means and paths is actually
) and somehow dangerous.
It's pretty clear that there are some followers who assert (or imply) the
"one and only true method" stuff. But this is true of all religions and
philosophies.
Now, some religions seem to encourage this exclusivism at the source, some
may not, but more often there is sufficient source material (whether
actually authentic or not) which can be used to justify exclusivism or,
alternatively, a wider view.
It's pretty clear to me that there is a lot of dangerous stuff out there
masquerading as religion, so, rather obviously, some warnings are
appropriate. And there *are* unjust criticisms of anthroposophy and
Steiner, just as there are unjust criticisms of other paths and methods.
It seems to me that Steiner's work, on the face, encourages critical
thinking at the same time as there are tendencies within it which would
have the opposite effect. But critical thinking seems to be fundamental,
whereas the opposite tendencies ("shut up and listen") would seem to be
more situational. If you are going to learn something new, shutting up and
listening may well be a good idea. Children learn quickly in the early
absorptive phases precisely because they learn uncritically. But if they
never develop mature critical faculties, they never become adult thinkers.
Children *do* challenge what they are told, but the bulk of what they learn
is not about what they are "told," but what they observe. My daughter's
favorite word, at two and a half, is "Why?" But it is not exactly a
challenge, unless she is being told not to do something she wants to do;
rather it is simply something she has discovered will cause adults,
sometimes, to talk to her more.
The *same* "religion" can be a cult for some and not for others.
It's pretty clar to me, also, that Steiner made lots of mistakes. Yet he
also did some great things, and Waldorf education may be the greatest. To
me, then, the task is to tease out what is great from what is not. I don't
accept that Steiner was superhuman and without flaw. So, to me, for
Steiner's greatness not to be lost, it is essential for his mistakes to be
acknowledged.
It is easier for me to relate to a living person; and I've been reading
Dennis Klocek, who also uses a lot of science metaphor in his work, Seeking
Spirit Vision. And he makes a total goof quite early in the book, when he
gives his description of the Bohr atom and the phenomenon of heat, and it
is blatantly obvious that (1) he didn't understand the physics and (2) his
work was not critically edited and (3) if it was widely read in ms. by his
students before being published, they either did not have an understanding
of physics -- worrisome in itself for a body of students some of whom will
go on to teach science -- or they did not speak up, or they *did* speak up
and they were ignored.
Now, Dennis Klocek is not unlike Steiner in certain ways. Among others, it
seems that he "improvises," somewhat like a musician might improvise, on
themes. Like Steiner, he uses images and parallels from science, and he
likewise tends to characterize science as limited, as, of course, it is.
But some of the limitation, the alleged "materialism" of science, he has
projected onto science, it is not necessarily there in the original work.
The Bohr atom material is an example.
Dennis Klocek may also be a good example because his work actually places
heavy emphasis on critical thinking. He's quite a good speaker, and I think
that one can expect, among those who are studying with him or studying his
work, an increase in critical thinking. At least I'd hope that! It seems
that he welcomes criticism far more warmly than what has been reported of
Steiner.
And that is how it should be, in a living spiritual science, as in any
science: the students should surpass the teachers. Once that becomes
effectively "forbidden," the so-called "science" is dead.
Now, there is an exception. None of us will surpass the Teacher. But humans
are not the Teacher (Christians might seem to differ on this, but, in fact,
one finds that there is a distinction made in sophisticated Christianity
between Christ as Man and Christ as God. Christ as Man -- i.e., as "one of
us," -- is not perfect, he explicitly denies perfection in what has been
reported from him.) Rather, humans reflect what they have from the Teacher,
some better, some worse; like any reflection, something is lost. And then
the enemies of Truth will proceed in two ways. Some will point to the
imperfections and claim that they are the True Teaching, and others will
attack the teacher because his work is imperfect, throwing out the baby
with the bathwater. Really, these two groups are in cahoots, esoterically.
Relevant to my own religion, and as an example, both the enemies of Islam
(such as certain fanatic Christians) and the so-called fundamentalists
agree on certain points. They both agree that Islam requires its followers
to kill unbelievers. Both of them interpret the Qur'aan according to what
they desire to find in it. Both of them ignore all the source materials
that contradict their beliefs. Esoterically, Satan's desire is toward
everything that abases the human, and he does everything he can do in an
attempt to prevent people from finding and living their true relationship
with God (which also means finding such relationship with other people as
well). He loves that people hate each other.
There was a photo last wekk on the cover of the local free events
newspaper. It showed a rather large and threatening-looking man, wearing
dark glasses, the very image of oppressive hatred, holding up a sign that
spells down the left GAY, and then which spells out God Abhors You. And
facing him is a pleasant-looking woman with a smile on her face, holding up
a sign "LOVE." Let's see, I might find certain grounds in Islam, as can be
done in Christianity, to consider homosexual behavior unlawful (that is,
prohibited by God). But which side of this picture should I choose to be
on? The one in which God allegedly abhors *people* or one which is
proclaiming "love", however naive that might be? Does the man with the
sunglasses imagine that he is a Christian? Does he know that he has become
a direct servant of Satan?
Hmm... this is the internet. So I looked for and found a URL with the cover
of that newspaper. It may change even as early as today, but you might
catch it (and it might be archived, I don't know).
http://valleyadvocate.com/gbase/Cover/index.html
You'll see that my description of the photo was biased.... I've chosen not
to edit it.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 15:50:25 -0300
From: "Bruce Angus" (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: cult v religion
"Or contact with the source can simply be a matter of grace, without "methods."
Hi There - Absolutely, and this is pretty much where I'm at these days. I'd substitute "experiential knowledge" for the word "grace", but it amounts to the same thing from my perspective. Thanks for the Klocek observations - very interesting, enlightened and balanced comments I thought.
"I don't accept that Steiner was superhuman and without flaw."
Agreed, and this is a hurdle anthroposophists must jump over in order to begin developing an enlightened and balanced perception of him and his philosophy, I feel.
"You'll see that my description of the photo was biased.... I've chosen not to edit it."
You mean the comment: "Does he know that he has become a direct servant of Satan?" I don't mean to offend, but do you actually believe in Satan? I find that fascinating as well for some reason. Thanks for the great post.
Bruce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 21:13:08 +0100
From: Akua Desta (lioncell gmx.net)
Subject: RE: cult v religion
Dan,
in response to Foncteur's post stating
) Yes, all religions are dangerous cults, especially Islam nowadays,
this cult which causes antisemitic hate (see the recent case of Nick
Berg for instance)
you responded:
) I can't tell if you're making a gross exaggeration or being
sarcastic. Scholars of cults don't consider religions to be cults,
though cults often form within religions, like the violent islamists.
I would like to add that to use of terms such as antisemitism in
conjunction with Islam strikes me as sort of contradictory, at least to
the extent where Arab Muslims are concerned. Following western
definitions of race/ethnicity I am tempted to point out that Arabs could
mostly be 'classified' as Semites. Yet, anitsemitism in its most common
perception is exclusively dealing with issues regarding Jews. People
tend to forget that many Jews themselves are not of Semitic heritage as
quite a number of them are descendents of converts from the Caucasus
etc. I know using terminology such as antijudaism does not offer a
satisfactory solution either as it might inadequately address concerns
of those Jewish individuals who define their life in more secular terms.
For various reasons would prefer a more critical and differentiated
approach than accusing Muslim of antisemitism per se. No doubt certain
Muslims have expressed feeling of hate towards Jews and no doubt the
underlying issues pose a major threat but that is not limited to Muslims
and Jews as hatred has a tendency to spread amongst any kind of religion
or ethnic group. Hate begets hate and violence begets violence, no
matter which groups are involved.
Akua Desta
P.S. sorry, I am a bit late with my response.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 12:49:38 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: cult v religion
Abdul Rahman Lomax, welcome to the discussion. You wrote (in part):
)It seems to me that Steiner's work, on the face, encourages critical
)thinking at the same time as there are tendencies within it which
)would have the opposite effect. But critical thinking seems to be
)fundamental, whereas the opposite tendencies ("shut up and listen")
)would seem to be more situational.
As I read him, Steiner presents a facade of critical thinking, in
order to assuage liberals in his audience. But he doesn't really mean
it. He says "test everything," but his prescription for testing
Anthroposophy is to try it -uncritically- for a couple of years, and
then -see how you feel about it-. That's a guru trick, not critical
thinking.
) If you are going to learn something new, shutting up and listening
)may well be a good idea. Children learn quickly in the early
)absorptive phases precisely because they learn uncritically. But if
)they never develop mature critical faculties, they never become
)adult thinkers.
Indeed. I disagree emphatically with Steiner about what age children
need to be taught critical thinking. Steiner says puberty; I think it
starts around 4 years of age, and if it's missed it may never be
acquired.
(snip)
)It is easier for me to relate to a living person; and I've been
)reading Dennis Klocek, who also uses a lot of science metaphor in
)his work, Seeking Spirit Vision. And he makes a total goof quite
)early in the book, when he gives his description of the Bohr atom
)and the phenomenon of heat, and it is blatantly obvious that (1) he
)didn't understand the physics and (2) his work was not critically
)edited and (3) if it was widely read in ms. by his students before
)being published, they either did not have an understanding of
)physics -- worrisome in itself for a body of students some of whom
)will go on to teach science -- or they did not speak up, or they
)*did* speak up and they were ignored.
Welcome to the insulated world of Goethean Science--insulated from reality.
)Now, Dennis Klocek is not unlike Steiner in certain ways. Among
)others, it seems that he "improvises," somewhat like a musician
)might improvise, on themes. Like Steiner, he uses images and
)parallels from science, and he likewise tends to characterize
)science as limited, as, of course, it is. But some of the
)limitation, the alleged "materialism" of science, he has projected
)onto science, it is not necessarily there in the original work. The
)Bohr atom material is an example.
)
)Dennis Klocek may also be a good example because his work actually
)places heavy emphasis on critical thinking. He's quite a good
)speaker, and I think that one can expect, among those who are
)studying with him or studying his work, an increase in critical
)thinking. At least I'd hope that! It seems that he welcomes
)criticism far more warmly than what has been reported of Steiner.
Perhaps Dennis has mellowed with age. I had an encounter with him
years ago at the San Francisco Waldorf School where he gave a lecture
to the parents about how wonderful science was in Waldorf. He made
some assertions about Goethe having refuted Newton which I challenged
as "Steiner cult beliefs" in the question period. He lost his temper
at being challenged, and when we continued the discussion after the
lecture, he ended it by sputtering at me "you should go to church!"
Not exactly a scientific argument.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 12:56:24 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: [NNA] Book review: Coming into the world - from where and how?
Copyright 2004 News Network Anthroposophy Limited (NNA). All rights reserved.
NNA content on this website or distributed by NNA
by any other means may not be republished or
redistributed without the prior consent of News
Network Anthroposophy. Users may use and print
extracts of NNA content without permission for
their own personal and non-commercial use only.
For republication or redistribution please
contact NNA at:
(mailto:admin nna-news.org)admin nna-news.org.
+ + + + +
NNA-B O O K S
Coming into the world - from where and how?
By Ursa Krattiger
DORNACH (NNA) - Anthroposophical medicine is
based on the conviction that there is life before
birth and after death.
Yet ordinary help books about pregnancy and birth
rarely go back beyond conception - and when they
do they only to discuss contraception or about
the timings of a planned pregnancy. The growth in
the number of couples who cannot but would like
to have children means that the practices of
reproductive technology and artificial
insemination are also set out. But the question
which moves many mothers and fathers to be -
namely who is it who wants to come to us, where
does this being come from, growing invisibly, why
has it come to us? - such questions are rarely
discussed outside the circle of the family and
close friends.
In 2001, the Swiss anthroposophical patient
association "anthrosana" become involved in the
public debate about death and dying with its
brochure "Dying is also a birth. Reports and
thoughts about dying and death". The unequivocal
view expressed in the brochure that dying
represented a transition into another state of
being in which the deceased person continues his
or her development received widespread attention
and resulted in direct changes in the way that
dying people were supported.
But if we talk about the "departure" of a person
from this earth it also raises the question about
his or her "return". In its recently published
brochure No. 208, "Coming into the world",
anthrosana builds on the previous brochure and
describes the incarnation of the human being as a
"decision in favour of earth". Once a soul
decides to re-incarnate, it moves from the life
after death into the life before birth and begins
its "journey to earth". Such ideas can deepen the
experience of pregnancy and birth in mothers -
and, indeed, in involved fathers - and change the
support for the pregnant mother and her family in
the maternity clinic or other birth facility.
“Coming into the world" comprises reports of
experiences of mothers and fathers, philosophical
essays, conversations with gynaecologists and
paediatricians, with a sex therapist and a
psychiatrist as well as brief reports about
maternity facilities which provide additional
complementary medical support on the basis of
conventional medical practice. The brochure
concludes with a section listing addresses and
relevant literature.
END/cva
Ursa Krattiger is head of the Swiss Anthroposophical Media Centre
The “anthrosana" brochure No. 208 “Coming into
the world" costs CHF7 and can be ordered from
anthrosana, Postplatz 5, 4144 Arlesheim,
Switzerland. Tel +41 (0)61 701 15 14, Fax +41
(0)61 701 03,
(mailto:info anthrosana.ch)info anthrosana.ch and
www.anthrosana.ch
+ + + + +
040518-02EN
18 May 2004
More NNA reports at: http://www.nna-news.org/content/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 12:12:10 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: [NNA] European Council for Steiner Waldorf Education meets in
Edinburgh
Copyright 2004 News Network Anthroposophy Limited (NNA). All rights reserved.
NNA content on this website or distributed by NNA by any other means
may not be republished or redistributed without the prior consent of
News Network Anthroposophy. Users may use and print extracts of NNA
content without permission for their own personal and non-commercial
use only.
For republication or redistribution please contact NNA at:
(mailto:admin nna-news.org)admin nna-news.org.
+ + + + +
NNA-N E W S
European Council for Steiner Waldorf Education meets in Edinburgh
EDINBURGH (NNA) - The European Council for Steiner Waldorf Education
(ECSWE), which groups Waldorf associations from the majority of
European countries with North America as an associate member, held
its six-monthly meeting in Edinburgh at the weekend.
As well as hearing reports from member associations about the
situation in their countries, the council discussed the convergence
in education policy across Europe which has become evident over the
years.
"So we're trying to see in what way does that affect Waldorf
education," sources at the meeting said. "Is it detrimental, is it
positive, should we participate, should we react, do we need further
research, do we involve ourselves in countries' affairs and
politics?"
In a related subject, there was also a report on developments with
regard to the EU lobbying work in Brussels, as well as future tasks
in this respect such as joining UNESCO and the OECD to represent
Waldorf ideas and ideals - both to learn what is going on and for the
Waldorf schools to have a voice.
Education working groups were being set up by Brussels with all the
members of the European Education Area to develop convergence of
education systems. "The point of the council is to be ready for the
right moment," the sources added.
Although ECSWE has been refused formal inclusion in these working
groups on the grounds that they are already big enough, it will be
invited to particular meetings to set out the areas of concern for
the Waldorf movement. ECSWE is developing contacts with the
facilitators of the relevant committees.
Another international area the meeting considered is the effect of
the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) on education.
Other topics on a very full agenda for the meeting, which ended on
Sunday, include internal topics such as school administration and
governance, where quality can vary considerably between schools, the
admission of new members Spain and Ukraine, the development of a
European post-graduate degree for Waldorf education which will be
formally launched next year, the issue of formal learning in early
years and how to develop an innovative upper school to meet the needs
to today's teenagers.
END/cva
+ + + + +
040518-01EN
18 May 2004
More NNA reports at: http://www.nna-news.org/content/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 18:46:50 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: cult v religion
At 03:49 PM 5/18/2004, Dan Dugan wrote:
)Abdul Rahman Lomax, welcome to the discussion. You wrote (in part):
)
))It seems to me that Steiner's work, on the face, encourages critical
))thinking at the same time as there are tendencies within it which would
))have the opposite effect. But critical thinking seems to be fundamental,
))whereas the opposite tendencies ("shut up and listen") would seem to be
))more situational.
)
)As I read him, Steiner presents a facade of critical thinking, in order to
)assuage liberals in his audience. But he doesn't really mean it. He says
)"test everything," but his prescription for testing Anthroposophy is to
)try it -uncritically- for a couple of years, and then -see how you feel
)about it-. That's a guru trick, not critical thinking.
So perhaps it is a case of "do as he says, not as he does." Personally, I
find it rather presumptuous to divine the intention of a man like Steiner
and to characterize his whole work as deceptive, using language like
"facade," and "trick." Instead, I'd suggest that perhaps Steiner was quite
sincere in proposing critical thinking, but personally not so able to
accept criticism; further the matter is more complicated than that:
Sure it is an old "guru trick." It happens to be necessary (or at least
traditional) in many fields of study. If the period of uncritical
absorption, for an adult, is as long as "a couple of years" I consider it
fairly dangerous. But for a few hours or a few days, especially if it is
merely a matter of contemplation, not of morally questionable action, I'd
consider it pretty safe.
But I'll simply tell you on my own authority. There are certain things,
that if one wants to learn them, one needs to suspend criticism, the kind
of criticism that is quick to find fault, that seems to prefer to find
fault than to find truth. To suspend criticism is not to quash it, but
rather to set it aside for a time, as one allows oneself to consider things
from a different perspective than the one which has come to characterize
one's self.
I'll give an example. I read the Qur'aan in the original Arabic. I've never
studied Arabic formally, nor can I speak Arabic or understand a
conversation in Arabic, except a little. But I can read the Qur'aan. I
learned to do this by simply learning the alphabet and starting to read,
i.e., making the sounds. And I used an interlinear Qur'aan, which had
translation side-by-side with the original, so I could follow at least one
person's opinion of the meaning as I made the sounds. By the time I had
gone through the whole Qur'aan this way, and began my second reading, I
found I was understanding more than half of it. Eventually I started to
memorize the text. Memorization is not very popular in the west, it does
not accord with concepts of education wrapped up in "critical thinking."
But once I had memorized a body of text, I could then read an Arabic
grammar and understand what they were talking about, since I had a body
material to which to apply the grammar.
People try to learn Arabic analytically, at the college level. The language
is famous for defeating this; people take two years of university-level
Arabic and then drop out when they realize that they can't even read a
newspaper. If you want to learn a language, it may be necessary to suspend
judgement and simply absorb the material, as a child will. That is, if you
want to learn quickly and the language is from a different language family
than the language(s) you know. (Let me tell you, Sanskrit was much easier....)
But there is more. I'm an American, I think like an American in many ways.
There is material in the Qur'aan which, on first contact, seemed pretty
strange to me, even ... wrong. Really, much less of such material than one
might expect in a work fourteen hundred years old, but definitely the book
was not free of defects (in *my* eyes). Anyway, I decided to suspend
judgement. For one thing, there were three possibilities, logically. First,
the original text might be wrong. A Muslim, traditionally, rules this out a
priori. Second, it might be translated poorly -- or might be misunderstood
even if being read in the original. And finally, I might be wrong. Without
even approaching the first possibility, there is plenty of room in the
other two!!!
And what I found when I suspended judgement was that improved facility with
the language, improved knowledge of the overall teaching of the Qur'aan,
and perhaps general maturity, all conspired to lead me to understandings of
the text that did *not* appear wrong to me any more, in fact, they appeared
to be very much right.
Are my new understandings of the text -- which can be quite different from
what one often finds in translations -- more true to the original *intent*
than my original view of it as wrong? From an Islamic point of view, I can
say, definitely, and the revised understandings have often been validated
by people with a lot more knowledge than me. But from a simple human point
of view, do I care? The text is like flint, striking against my mind,
making a spark. I'm much more interesting in the spark than in the exact
characteristics of the flint. The Qur'aan is quite clear about its purpose:
its purpose is to remind us of our relationship with God. It is also
explicit that its content can be used to mislead, and the same content can
be used to guide.
)) If you are going to learn something new, shutting up and listening may
)) well be a good idea. Children learn quickly in the early absorptive
)) phases precisely because they learn uncritically. But if they never
)) develop mature critical faculties, they never become adult thinkers.
)
)Indeed. I disagree emphatically with Steiner about what age children need
)to be taught critical thinking. Steiner says puberty; I think it starts
)around 4 years of age, and if it's missed it may never be acquired.
Perhaps. There are different kinds of critical thinking. Some kinds of
criticism require a maturity that is not going to be present in a 4-year
old. Even in older children than that, often the best answer to the child's
Why? is Because I'm your parent and I say so. It's important for children
to learn, however, relatively young, that their parents can be wrong.
The real question: are children emerging from Waldorf Schools damaged, with
an inability to think critically? From the graduates I've met, I'd have to
say no, but I can't claim to have done a study. Is there such a study?
)(snip)
))It is easier for me to relate to a living person; and I've been reading
))Dennis Klocek [...] it is blatantly obvious that (1) he didn't understand
))the physics [that he describes in his book] and (2) his work was not
))critically edited and (3) if it was widely read in ms. by his students
))before being published, they either did not have an understanding of
))physics -- worrisome in itself for a body of students some of whom will
))go on to teach science -- or they did not speak up, or they *did* speak
))up and they were ignored.
)
)Welcome to the insulated world of Goethean Science--insulated from reality.
Perhaps. It is an affliction not confined to Goethean Science, however.
Insulation from reality is a human problem, and sometimes the most
insulated are those who consider themselves hard-headed realists.... As we
read in that excellent net-ism: Pot, Kettle, Black.
)Perhaps Dennis has mellowed with age.
Mr. Dugan impresses me, he is capable of making comments that are not
solely designed to attack or refute anthroposophy and anthroposophists.
This "perhaps", if allowed to exist in many areas of investigation, can
allow the truth to be sifted from the dross.
) I had an encounter with him years ago at the San Francisco Waldorf
) School where he gave a lecture to the parents about how wonderful science
) was in Waldorf. He made some assertions about Goethe having refuted
) Newton which I challenged as "Steiner cult beliefs" in the question
) period. He lost his temper at being challenged, and when we continued the
) discussion after the lecture, he ended it by sputtering at me "you should
) go to church!" Not exactly a scientific argument.
It's a human statement, made to one human being by another.... Of course it
is not an argument, it is a suggestion. If it was made in anger, well, it
could mean that Mr. Klocek has not followed the process he teaches to its
end. Or it could mean that the process is simply bosh. What is important to
me about Mr. Klocek is that *now*, he seems to be actively encouraging his
students to *think*. And that includes criticism.
I may encourage my reader to check out anything I say, to take what I
write, and if it reminds you of something true, accept it, and if it seems
wrong or deluded, then please correct me if possible. But that doesn't mean
that I'll actually let you correct me!!! Some scientists, in particular --
even famous ones --, can be quite nasty when it comes to being corrected by
others, why should we expect "spiritual scientists" to be better?
-- We might expect it because spiritual science, if I may presume to say
what it is, deals with the subject of the spirit and in particular with the
self and its manifestations, thus a "spiritual scientist" would be expected
to understand himself. However, as addicts find to their chagrin, knowledge
of the self does not necessarily change the self, the old behaviors
continue until something higher comes in, hence the whole Alcoholics
Anonymous method which involves both knowledge *and* surrender to a Higher
Power. "Science" means "Knowledge." Practice can be something quite
different. Hence the saying of Jesus quoted at the beginning of this post,
Do as they say (i.e., what they know of true guidance) not as they do
(i.e., their actual practice.)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 22:01:57 -0400
From: H Wayne (einmalig optonline.net)
Subject: Re: Clarification
Dear Peter,
We are making good progress. There is something missing however. We have
explained phases and their changes as reflecting a variety of energy minima
and escapes from the minima due to increasing energy. Well and good. Two
things remain unexplained, however, by this model:
1) Why do certain leaps over minima basins suddenly result in a shift from
a) a three-dimensional lattice (solid) where each molecule is 'locked in'
with others in every direction, to
b) a two-dimensional laminar flow (liquids), where molecules are closely
associated with others in a two-dimensional flow surface and much less
bonded to molecules outside this surface, to
c) a one-dimensional flow (gases) in which molecules are closely bonded
with others along one linear dimension and much less so to those outside
this dimension? I am treating gaseous motion here as if it were made up of
multiple strands or strings of wind, each of which slips by the others
freely. I know that this differs from the usual presentation of randomly
moving molecules; I feel that the latter fits a gas inside an (unheated)
enclosed volume reasonably well (where there are no larger scale flows, just
random motion) but not a gas where there are larger flow patterns. If you
want to take the case of a gas of randomly moving, largely unlinked
molecules, we can skip my strands.
In other words, why do these particular dimensional changes result from
the shifting energies, which are not directional in nature?
And, related,
2) Why are there exactly 3 (or 4, if we count plasmas) distinct phases for
every material (across any reasonable temperature and pressure range,
Bose-Einstein condensates being rather exceptionable - in your words,
exotic)? I realize that I am lumping together any changes of expansion
characteristics within the solid phase; I am doing so because these have
enough in common with each other that we call them all by the same name,
though perhaps I should be more open to accepting their diversity. I also
wonder if they are as 'catastrophic' transitions as the transitions between
solid (--) liquid (--) gas? I am also purposely ignoring some special phase
states achievable by certain liquid crystals (mesophases) and composite
substances. I also realize that there are some materials that do not
normally achieve a solid state at all (is solid helium possible? I have
never heard of it being proposed.)
I am slightly dissatisfied with a model that does not explain the
fundamentally different nature of solids, liquids and gases. Perhaps you can
show me how it does so when we follow it a bit further!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 01:36:12 -0300
From: "Bruce Angus" (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: cult v religion
Abdul-Rahman Lomax wrote: "There are certain things, that if one wants to learn them, one needs to suspend criticism, the kind of criticism that is quick to find fault, that seems to prefer to find fault than to find truth. To suspend criticism is not to quash it, but rather to set it aside for a time, as one allows oneself to consider things from a different perspective than the one which has come to characterize one's self."
Hi Again - That was another fascinating post, thanks. Your "suspend criticism" description is quite brilliant. I suspended (surrendered, in many ways) my criticism for two decades or so. But at some point in the process we need to gather our self back together so to speak and determine what it is we've been considering.
So much - way too much - of anthroposophical "truth" is painfully contrived. To say nothing of the fact that a large portion of it is simply regurgitated esoteric wisdom. Steiner offered an enlightened view on many subjects - much of it just wasn't "his" wisdom. Which really begs the question: Why would he call IT, Anthroposophy?
Anthroposophy is Steiner's Christian esoteric take on spiritual possibilities and probabilities. No amount of suspending criticism can change that. For Christian esoteric investigators, Steiner is a fantastic read. For those who prefer a less religious-specific approach to wisdom and enlightenment, Anthroposophy can be interesting, certainly.
Bruce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1350
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Clarification
By einmalig optonline.net
Re: Clarification
By einmalig optonline.net
Re: Clarification
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: cult v religion
By abd lomaxdesign.com
The Pub Med references referred to by H. Wayne on mistletoe - part I
By diana.winters verizon.net
The Pub Med references referred to by Wayne on mistletoe - part II
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Clarification
By diana.winters verizon.net
One more mistletoe update
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: cult v religion
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: cult v religion
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Clarification
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: cult v religion
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: cult v religion
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Clarification
By dan dandugan.com
RE: cult v religion
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: cult v religion
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: The Pub Med references referred to by H. Wayne on mistletoe - part
I
By einmalig optonline.net
Re: The Pub Med references referred to by H. Wayne on mistletoe - part
I
By einmalig optonline.net
Re: Clarification
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: The Pub Med references referred to by H. Wayne on mistletoe - part
I
By einmalig optonline.net
Re: Clarification
By einmalig optonline.net
Re: Clarification
By einmalig optonline.net
Re: Clarification
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: cult v religion
By mettahome yahoo.com.au
Re: Clarification
By dan dandugan.com
Re: cult v religion
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Clarification
By einmalig optonline.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 07:09:10 -0400
From: H Wayne (einmalig optonline.net)
Subject: Re: Clarification
Ok, I will have to begin adding new phases, or at least sub-phases.
Superfluids occur to me right away. In addition, a search for solid helium
reveals that a solid or pseudo-solid state (it differs from usual solids in
some ways) does exist in unusual circumstances, so perhaps all substances
can achieve some form of the 3-4 main phases.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 07:45:06 -0400
From: H Wayne (einmalig optonline.net)
Subject: Re: Clarification
Dear Peter,
One obvious determinant of the phase transitions:
When the electrical attractions alone are sufficient to hold the molecules
together, we have a solid
When the energy level of the molecules is sufficient to overcome the
electrical attraction, but not the force of gravity, we have a liquid (but
there are still some complex questions of viscosity and surface tension
here)
When the energy level is sufficient to overcome the electrical attractions
and gravity we have a gas.
Laminar flow and aerodynamics still need to be clarified.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 5:31 AM
Subject: Re: Clarification
) ===========================================================
) Give Your Team Access to Their PCs from Anywhere. Increase
) productivity with a secure remote-access solution from
) GoToMyPC Pro. Stay in touch with your office. FREE TRIAL:
) http://click.topica.com/caaccMVb1dkiGb7Kbh2a/ ExpertCity
) ===========================================================
)
) G'day Harlan,
) )Dear Peter,
) )
) )What happens at the phase change? There is surely a discontinuity, as a
) )expansion/contraction takes place in the material without change of
) )temperature (as when water freezes to ice and bursts its container).
) )Presumably then, there is a new expansion equation, or perhaps I should
say
) )a new set of coefficients for the equation of expansion for each phase.
The
) )phase change itself is not explicable by the law of expansion, then; that
a
) )discontinuity occurs at 0 degrees C, and another at 100 degrees, is
) )presumably not predictable from liquid water's set of coefficients for
its
) )expansion equation.
)
) Well now we have to get serious and it depends whether you want to
) understand what is happening or if an engineering solution will do. The
) engineering solution consists of moving to a new set of coefficients as
you
) suggest. What really happens is more complicated and you have to think
about
) how atoms are bonded to form solids, and I can't use diagrams
) (aaarrrggghhh). OK. Consider a diatomic molecule. CO or H2 are both
) examples, except I am going to try to speak generally and not deal with
any
) specific issues which arise. I am also going to sweep some issues under
the
) carpet. The two atoms share the electrons in some way either by a
complete
) swap or a sharing or some combination. The effect is that the nuclei of
the
) atoms are some characteristic distance apart. This distance could be
) calculated if you knew the shape of the potential function that the atoms
) feel. Typically this will be have a shape with a minimum for each nucleus
) somewhere and the nuclei will prefer to sit in the minima. Of course these
) nuclei are not at zero degrees kelvin so they have some thermal energy and
) they are wiggling around in this potential well. From a quantum mechanical
) perspective they would be wiggling to some minimum amount even as the
) temperature approached zero degrees kelvin. Let's say the shape of the
) potential curve is symmetric around these minima. One can think of the
) nucleus riding up and down the potential function through the minimum, the
) higher the temperature the higher they go up the potential well. If the
) shape is symmetric it doesn't matter how far up the potential function
they
) go, because they go equal distances from the minimum on each side, their
) average position is stiil at the minimum. The bond length of a molecule
like
) this wouldn't get any larger with temperature. However if the shape is
) asymmetric, one side must have a higher slope than the other, and when the
) nuclei goes up that slope it doesn't go as far from the minimum as it does
) going up the other side. Now as the thermal energy gets larger the average
) position of the nucleus is no longer at the minimum, and you can get
) expansion or contraction. Now imagine transferring those ideas to each
atom
) in a 3 dimensional array with the possibilty that the potential functions
) differ in different directions.
) Phase changes occur when the thermal energy is sufficient to move the
atoms
) into another minimum of the potential function at some other distance.
This
) will have a different shape in general and so different thermal expansion
) will result.
) I hope that's clear.
) )
) )What explains the discontinuity if, as you say, there is a single force
) )that
) )explains expansion and contraction in all phases? What suddenly changes
the
) )way that this force acts?
)
) The complicated shape of the potential function between the atoms.
) )
) )I would suggest that there are indeed, if not forces per se,
constellations
) )of forces unique to each solid. This is the basis of crystallography.
These
) )constellations (which are structural in nature, which are characteristic
of
) )the structure of the material) determine the point at which the energy of
) )the molecules frees the molecules from the matrix in which they exist.
)
) I think this is not spectacularly different to what I have said.
) )
) )In a gas, on the other hand, there are no such matrices; the molecules
are
) )essentially free of structure. The individual nature of solids lies in
the
) )individualized structure; the generalized nature of gases lies in the
lack
) )of structure.
)
) I don't think this is ok in so far as the extremes go. If you have a not
) very dense gas at not too high a temperature, and you compare this to NaCl
) at room temperature, what you say is pretty right. But as you go to other
) extremes the picture is not so clear. The potential functions are
distorted
) by the proximity of other atoms and so on, but this is still all
continuous
) even if very complicated, and difficult to predict in detail, because the
) potential functions are so difficult to calculate in practice. One might
say
) that the potential functions in a gas are extremely shallow so that the
) atoms don't care too much where they are. As you cool them down and make
) them more dense these potential functions can get deeper and more well
) defined. The phase change happens when the energies of the atoms are not
) sufficient to jump over the maxima in these potential functions. There are
) also a lot of issues about how the thermal energy is distributed among the
) atoms and I haven't got into the quantum mechanical detail. There's a lot
of
) handwaving in this desciption and not much rigor.
)
) )
) )I'd have to think about liquids in this regard; they tend to form
) )2-dimensional structures that flow over one another. Perhaps you have
some
) )thoughts as to their nature in this regard.
)
) Again, I don't see these as different in the sense you want to. As well,
the
) splitting into solids, liquids and gases isn't the end of the story. There
) are phase changes within the solid state, where the material is still
solid
) but has quite different thermal properties, requiring different
coefficients
) as you suggested above. Also there are plasmas which are like gases but
) where long range electromagnetic forces between the constituent particles
) dominate over those considered in the ideal gas equation. There are exotic
) phases of matter such as bose einstein condensates which have properties
) which don't naturally separate the way a simplistic approach might
suggest.
) )
) )Quite aside from any historical references, do you find this description
) )plausible? Feel free to criticize; I welcome the chance to explore this
) )with
) )a specialist.
)
) I hope I have pointed to some of the complications. I am really a
) specialistic optical physicist, with a background in atomic spectroscopy,
) optical communications, microscopy, and optical fibre sensors. I have to
) worry about some of these issues but not to the point of being a
specialist
) in condensed matter physics.
) See you, Peter
)
) _________________________________________________________________
) SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:
) http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
)
) ===========================================================
) Looking for a Promotional or Marketing Gift? Discover
) Crazy Aaron's Thinking Putty in grown up handfuls. It's
) the creativity unleashing, mood enhancing desk toy
) customized with your corporate image!
) http://click.topica.com/caaceBcb1dkiGb7Kbh2f/ Crazy Aaron Enterprises
) ===========================================================
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 09:12:49 -0300
From: "Bruce Angus" (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: Clarification
Wayne wrote: "When the electrical attractions alone are sufficient to hold the molecules together, we have a solid. When the energy level of the molecules is sufficient to overcome the electrical attraction, but not the force of gravity, we have a liquid (but there are still some complex questions of viscosity and surface tension here). When the energy level is sufficient to overcome the electrical attractions and gravity we have a gas."
Hi Wayne - And of course you realize you're describing the activity of Love, and its relationship to and interaction with Life (for all us neophytes).
Bruce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 19:49:16 -0400
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: cult v religion
At 02:50 PM 5/18/2004, Bruce Angus wrote:
)[I wrote:]
)"You'll see that my description of the photo was biased.... I've chosen
)not to edit it."
)
)You mean the comment: "Does he know that he has become a direct servant of
)Satan?"
No, that was not biased. It is intuited, which is a little different, and
it is a question, not a description, though it does include an incorporated
presumption. The bias shows in how I represented the image of the woman. In
the real photo she is not smiling, her gaze is more neutral. There is
another woman next to her who is yelling at the man, it appears.
) I don't mean to offend, but do you actually believe in Satan? I find
) that fascinating as well for some reason.
Yes, I actually believe in Satan, in fact, it is more than belief, it is
certain knowledge. But that knowledge, however certain it may be, does not
extend to informing me that Satan is a literal person with literal horns,
etc. Rather Satan is [at least] the name of a force, an archetype if you
will. The force is real, just as the words on this page really do have
meaning, even though that meaning exists in the mind, not in the physical
phenomena that allow you to read the shapes on your screen, or the ink on
the page if it has been printed.
Now, the word "belief" is a little bit of a problem for me. I dislike fixed
opinions, I have some aversion to credo (though I'm willing to accept credo
as socially necessary at times). The Truth fixed into a statement,
especially into one which is analytically precise, is dead, it is at best a
reflection, often a pale reflection. Reflections can be quite useful, even
essentially, in finding the truth, but they are not the Truth.
Further, "believe in" really implies "trust." Do I trust Satan? Hardly! The
problem is, he can be rather hard to identify. He, in the Qur'aanic
language, "speaks to us from where we do not recognise him," whereas the
very easy temptation is to identify him with the other. Especially the
other with whom we disagree. The man in the picture hates, it would appear.
He feels justified in his hatred. As does Satan. His sign says God Abhors
You, as if the knowledge of God and the love of God -- and his alleged
hatred -- is fully revealed to him.
Whoever tells you that God Abhors You, you can know that his voice is the
voice of Satan. Satan's basic plan is to demonstrate that the human is
worthless, essentially that God was wrong when he commanded the angels --
including Satan -- to bow down to man. And you can be sure that some among
those at whom he was aiming his sign similarly are consumed by hatred, they
too have fallen for the trap.
As to my own relationship to that man, I'll say that I abhor what he
represents, and I'll also say that God has warned us against the kind of
judgement his sign shows. That man is at great risk of the permanent loss
of his own soul, not only because of his hubris, which is dangerous enough
by itself, but because allowing ourselves to focus on the alleged sins of
others distracts us most effectively from the only sins which can truly
harm us, our own. If the man's sign had read "God Warns Us," the matter
might have been very different. A person can feel a duty to convey
warnings. But God Abhors You is a message of hatred.
I don't really want to get into a discussion of homosexuality, but I will
note that there is nothing in the Bible or the Qur'aan to forbid two people
of the same sex from forming a conractual life-union. It can be argued that
*sex* between such people is prohibited in the texts, but, then again, so
is sex outside of marriage, usury, and a whole series of sins that somehow
are taken to be less important than the sins of *those* people. By
stretching things a bit, and ignoring context, it is possible to take the
events of Sodom as a general condemnation of homosexuality, but this
strange confusion between sex and marriage has arisen.
As I wrote to the local newspaper today, that two people are married does
not imply that they are having sex. Unfortunately!!! :-)
So, as it is said, honi soit qui mal y pense. My guess is that quite a few
of the same-sex couples getting married in Massachusetts, where I sit at
the moment, are not having sex. In fact, the majority of them seem to be
women, and the strict meaning of sex doesn't really allow for sex between
women at all. Not physically possible, though it could be simulated.
Clinton was not entirely beyond the pale, when he claimed that he "did not
have sex with that woman," as far as the old law is concerned (Biblical and
Talmudic, if I'm correct), he was telling the truth. (But he was also
hoping to deceive, to avoid revealing the truth.) So what is the basis for
claiming that God abhors *them*? -- i.e., the gay women, wanting to marry,
who aren't having sex in the Biblical sense.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:20:58 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: The Pub Med references referred to by H. Wayne on mistletoe - part I
H. Wayne told us on May 14th that he had searched "mistletoe cancer" on Pub
Med, and he reports thusly:
"Out of the first 20 medical articles listed in this search, nine were
definite in finding positive effects: significantly longer survival times
and improvements in quality of life (which for cancer patients is a huge
issue). One article investigated
the claim of irritation and infection and found no evidence of this: the
conclusion was that there was no such effect. One article found no positive
effects from mistletoe. The others did not study whether mistletoe had
positive or negative effects.
It would seem that the scientific evidence is clearly in favor of such an
effect, by a long shot."
I did the same search, using the same terms, on Pub Med, and read all the
abstracts. Unless new papers have been added in the past few days (which,
judging by dates, I don't think), I know which 20 studies you're talking
about, and find your conclusion *completely* at odds with the reality of
what is in those papers. The majority are not even human clinical studies,
and of those that are, the rigorously conducted ones are not promising
(which probably explains why there haven't been many lately). Others are
mainly about mistletoe as "complementary" therapy (i.e., they are starting
from the assumption that this stuff is not actually treating the cancer; to
put it really bluntly, this is about humoring patients who are taking
alternative stuff whether their doctor likes it or not). Several are about
"quality of life." Yes, quality of life is important - quality of life is
*not* cancer treatment, however.
I have no qualifications to say what the state-of-the-art is in any type of
cancer treatment or the effectiveness of any particular agent, and even if I
did, summarizing the first 20 things Pub Med coughs up in response to the
query "mistletoe cancer" is not exactly the way to do it. I'm a medical
editor, however, and know how to make some sense of the literature, at least
to the point of understanding what is being claimed and what is not being
claimed, and what sort of weight different types of studies carry. The
argument here is limited to refuting Wayne's statement above, because it
simply fails to describe the content of the 20 references he found.
Here is a summary of what these references actually are, divided in half
(first 10 here, next 10 to come in a later post):
#1 A quality of life (QOL)-related study - attempt to help develop an
instrument (questionnaire) for measuring quality of life relating to
mistletoe treatment. (Not a claim about mistletoe and QOL, even.)
Kirchberger et al., Qual Life Res. 2004 Mar;13(2):463-79.
#2 Also QOL. Piao et al., Anticancer Res. 2004 Jan-Feb;24(1):303-9.
#3 This is about "postoperative complementary" treatment. These patients
have had surgery to remove the tumor; this is not a study about the efficacy
of mistletoe in cancer treatment. (Look for that little word
"complementary," which is supposed to be a nicer, more respectful name for
what used to be called "alternative.") Conclusion: "Complementary treatment
of breast cancer patients with lectin-standardized mistletoe extract (sME)
proved to be a well tolerated optimization of standard tumor-destructive
therapies, mainly improving quality of life and relapse-free intervals in
defined UICC [Union Internationale Contre le Cancer] stages."
Schumacher et al., Anticancer Res. 2003 Nov-Dec;23(6D):5081-7.
#4 This one's just a report on preparation methods for the capsules.
Lyu et al., Arch Pharm Res. 2004 Jan;27(1):118-26.
#5 This is a lab study. Lab studies suggest things to possibly test in
humans - a lab study is never a statement about treatment efficacy in
humans. That requires randomized, controlled clinical trials, ideally
double-blind. Many things (perhaps most) that show effects in the lab, or in
animals, don't end up getting recommended for humans. This lab study does
suggest mistletoe may be useful as a chemotherapeutic agent for cancer
cells.
Choi et al., Arch Pharm Res. 2004 Jan;27(1):118-26.
#6 A rabbit study. Mistletoe showed some effect but rather dubious in
comparison to other substances it was compared with. (Poor rabbits.)
Bayazit, Saudi Med J. 2004 Feb;25(2):156-63.
#7 An examination of oncology professionals' attitudes toward complementary
therapies, in Norway.
Risberg et al., Eur J Cancer. 2004 Mar;40(4):529-35.
#8 This was in melanoma patients, and it is the only one of these first 10
that involved treatment of human patients with mistletoe in a randomized,
controlled fashion. "The results show no clinical benefit for adjuvant
treatment with low dose rIFN-alpha2b or rIFN-gamma or with Iscador M in
high-risk melanoma patients."
Kleeberg et al., Eur J Cancer. 2004 Feb;40(3):390-402.
#9 This was a preliminary study to help derive a model for the study of
drug-botanical interactions (i.e., doctors worry some of this stuff patients
are taking that is not prescribed by the physician can be interacting
negatively with prescribed medications). Mistletoe is identified in this
study as a good agent to use to derive such a model. (In other words, this
study has nothing whatsoever to do with whether mistletoe has any effect on
anything.)
Mansky et al., Integr Cancer Ther. 2003 Dec;2(4):345-52.
#10 This one is positive. It concludes, "Viscum fraxini-2 seems to be
particularly promising in patients with advanced HCC, it shows antitumor
activity and low toxicity profile." But it was not apparently a controlled,
randomized study. Such things carry very little weight in terms of treatment
recommendation - what they do is suggest the need for controlled, randomized
studies.
Mabed et al., Br J Cancer. 2004 Jan 12;90(1):65-9. (Note that #8 above, was
published almost simultaneously.)
Okay - to summarize, out of the first 10, there is *one* study (#8 above)
that involved testing mistletoe in a randomized, controlled fashion as
*treatment of cancer* in humans (rather than as a "quality of life"
enhancement, a.k.a. "complement" to medical treatment). This type of study
is the type on which treatment recommendations are based. It is negative;
it showed "no clinical benefit" for mistletoe.
On to the next 10.
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:24:56 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: The Pub Med references referred to by Wayne on mistletoe - part II
Continuing with the next 10:
#11 This is simply a survey to determine how many patients are actually
taking this stuff, and why they are taking it. No relevance to clinical
efficacy. Concludes that the oncologist should certainly know what else the
patient may be taking. Quotes "patients' perceptions" that mistletoe is
improving their quality of life and immune functioning.
Schonekaes et al., Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2003
Dec;10(6):304-8. German.
#12 A study in tumor cell lines (i.e., not a clinical study, in patients)
showing that - apparently unlike some other reports - mistletoe extract
didn't actually stimulate tumor growth. Whew! Suggests "antiproliferative
activity" - such a finding might or might not mean it will be useful in
treating cancer.
Burger et al., Anticancer Res. 2003 Sep-Oct;23(5A):3801-6.
#13 The title is "Complementary therapies for cancer, more good than harm?"
but no abstract is available, unfortunately, though the title might suggest
the author thinks they do more good than harm..
Ernst, Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2003 Oct 31;115(19-20):676-7. No abstract
available.
#14 Another one in melanoma patients, retrospective, without a clearly
defined control group. Authors state: "The 5-year survival rate of the
mistletoe-treated patients is comparable to that of patients without
mistletoe therapy while the 10-year survival rate is a little bit lower."
Finally another clinical study and it's negative. (It is also not too
meaningful, due to various limitations the authors describe.)
Stumpf et al., Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2003
Oct;10(5):248-55. German.
#15 This is the one, out of these first 20, that would carry the most
weight, because it is a review of randomized trials (10 in all). It
concludes:
"Most of the studies had considerable weaknesses in terms of study design,
reporting or both. Some of the weaker studies implied benefits of mistletoe
extracts, particularly in terms of quality of life. None of the
methodologically stronger trials exhibited efficacy in terms of quality of
life, survival or other outcome measures. Rigorous trials of mistletoe
extracts fail to demonstrate efficacy of this therapy." Got that? Not
*even* in the much-vaunted quality of life, so dear to the hearts of
complementary therapy advocates, could any true efficacy be shown. (Think
placebo effect.)
Ernst et al., Int J Cancer. 2003 Nov 1;107(2):262-7.
#16 This was a test of an assay for quantification of proteins. No real
relevance.
Adler et al., Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003 Aug 22;308(2):240-50.
#17 Another positive study in tumor cell lines (not patients), showed that a
component of Korean mistletoe "induced the generation of pro-oxidants and
thus resulted in the apoptotic death of human myeloleukemic U937 cells."
Kim et al., Life Sci. 2003 Jul 25;73(10):1231-43.
#18 No abstract available, report of a 2002 symposium on molecular targets
and cancer therapeutics.
Patterson, IDrugs. 2003 Jan;6(1):27-9.
#19 Mice this time, with leukemia. Suggested some promising effects in cell
lines - not even in little live mousies, in other words.
Stoika et al., Acta Biochim Pol. 2003;50(2):497-508.
#20 Another one kind of like #11, assessing the "prevalence of and the
motivation for alternative therapy use in a rural area of Switzerland."
van der Weg and Streuli, Swiss Med Wkly. 2003 Apr 19;133(15-16):233-40.
To sum up: out of the first 20 references coughed up by Pub Med in response
to the query "mistletoe cancer," there is not even one unqualified positive
study, regarding treatment efficacy for mistletoe in human cancers. Positive
effects were shown in some lab investigations, so the door is not closed to
further human studies, but the rigorously conducted human trials thus far
have been largely negative.
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:37:29 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Clarification
H. Wayne:
"One of the studies I found in the PubMed site was a summary of the clinical
studies done on Iscador to date. I identified problems with many of these
regarding methodology, but stated that, on the other hand, three studies
with proper methodology showed evidence of a positive working."
Can you please provide the full citation for this? I wonder if we did the
same search after all. In the first 20 I found, there was not one *clinical*
study (as opposed to laboratory studies) showing "positive working" except
in the area of "quality of life," and the review of randomized trials cast
doubt on even the quality-of-life claims.
I continue to be flabbergasted by H. Wayne's claim:
"Out of the first 20 medical articles listed in this search, nine were
definite in finding positive effects: significantly longer survival times
and improvements in quality of life (which for cancer patients is a huge
issue)."
Not one of the 20 studies in the search I did, using the exact terms H.
Wayne reported, showed longer survival times for mistletoe patients. The
only one that even mentioned survival times had the opposite finding - at
the 10-year mark, more of the mistletoe patients than non-mistletoe patients
had died. (One did claim "improved" relapse-free intervals, but since it
didn't translate into longer survival, I suspect the "improvement" may have
been in patient-reported quality of life during those intervals, rather than
actual *time* spent in remission.)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:39:47 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: One more mistletoe update
I looked around on the web to see whether abstracts were available elsewhere
for the ones that had missing abstracts on the Pub Med search.
For this one: Patterson, IDrugs. 2003 Jan;6(1):27-9.
I did not find an abstract, but I did find, at the website for the American
Society for Clinical Oncology, a summary of the papers presented at this
meeting (2002) that made no mention of mistletoe, so it is unlikely this
paper presented promisng new information on mistletoe. Searching the ASCO
site for "mistletoe" and related terms yielded only a (predictable) report
from 2000 on the increased use of various alternative therapies among cancer
patients.
I found the entire text of this, which turns out to be an editorial:
Ernst, Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2003 Oct 31;115(19-20):676-7. No abstract
available.
It states: " . . . the current best evidence on mistletoe is fairly
straightforward: 'Rigorous trials of mistletoe extracts fail to demonstrate
efficacy of this therapy'" (a quote from one of the other studies, in fact
from Ernst's own work).
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 12:46:07 -0400
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: cult v religion
At 12:36 AM 5/19/2004, Bruce Angus wrote:
)[...] I suspended (surrendered, in many ways) my criticism for two decades
)or so. But at some point in the process we need to gather our self back
)together so to speak and determine what it is we've been considering.
Two decades is way, way too long. A lot of damage can be done in two
decades.... Now, what I think is that a social environment that encourages
such a long suspension of criticism is not fully healthy.
(Of course, a lot of people really don't care about details, they want a
certain social connection with people, and criticism can be socially
destabilizing. But this state where everyone is avoiding rocking the boat
is hardly the situation of a vibrant spiritual community, which
anthroposophy theoretically should encourage. And, to be fair, if the boat
is always rocking, everyone will get seasick.)
Here is the dilemma I face: it is easy to find ways to criticize Waldorf
education. But of the educational options available to us, Waldorf seems,
by good measure, the best. We have a couple of years to decide, our
daughter is under age three.
Perhaps at a Waldorf school, there are going to be some teachers who take
anthroposophy as their religion. These teachers may present some aspects of
anthroposophical teaching as dogma. That's not healthy. But, suppose we
send our daughter to a public school. There are going to be teachers at
that school as well, some of whom might be dogmatic adherents to a religion
(or to atheism, for that matter). Regardless of rules, their views will
come across to their students.
I'm thinking that the situation is likely to be different from school to
school. At some schools, anthroposophy is going to be treated as a source
of material, as a guiding principle for education, not dogmatically, but as
"indications." There *ought* to be a huge difference between an
"indication" and a "dogma." An indication is an invitation to reflect and
explore, to open a door and see what is on the other side. A dogma is a
closed door.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 13:09:20 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: cult v religion
Abdul wrote:
"Here is the dilemma I face: it is easy to find ways to criticize Waldorf
education. But of the educational options available to us, Waldorf seems,
by good measure, the best. We have a couple of years to decide, our
daughter is under age three."
Call the school and request that you be allowed to spend time *in the
classrooms*. Significant periods of time, like an entire morning, on more
than one occasion, in more than one classroom, observing main lesson, or an
entire morning in the kindergarten. Note that this is very different from
attending a public event such as an open house, lecture, parent information
session, puppet play, or festival. These events are carefully stage managed
for parent consumption, and trust me, everything you will see there you will
eat up. What you need to see is what is going on on an average school-day in
an average classroom, with average Waldorf kids. At the public events,
candle lighting, storytelling, harp music, soft lights and pastel colors,
and quaint old-fashioned toys are utterly enchanting and the effects magical
- mainly because it is all novel to most of the children in the room - who
aren't Waldorf kids. What you need to observe is how this works in a roomful
of kids who are *used* to candle lighting and magical blah blah blah blah,
day after day.
Just a few words of unsolicited advice.
If they *won't* allow this sort of visit, think long and hard. Call other
schools, and discover that other schools allow this routinely. Note also
that it should not take 6 weeks of negotiations to arrange for this, and you
should not be put off repeatedly, or made to feel you are inconveniencing
them. It should be routine, you are a potential customer. They should say to
you, "How about next Tuesday?" Any kind of reluctance or complication is a
red flag at any school. Last but not least, they should not place absurd
restrictions on your behavior in the classroom, such as telling you you may
not take notes or speak to the children.
"Perhaps at a Waldorf school, there are going to be some teachers who take
anthroposophy as their religion. These teachers may present some aspects of
anthroposophical teaching as dogma. That's not healthy. But, suppose we
send our daughter to a public school. There are going to be teachers at
that school as well, some of whom might be dogmatic adherents to a religion
(or to atheism, for that matter). Regardless of rules, their views will
come across to their students."
That's unlikely. My son spent 3 years in public school and doubtless his
teachers were of a variety of religious faiths. (The actual likelihood that
the teacher is an atheist is slim.) I have no clue what their religious
beliefs were, nor did my son, as it wasn't mentioned. It wasn't the *point*.
What you perhaps don't understand is the level of obsession in a Waldorf
school with their endless rituals. In other schools, teachers really don't
have time, they have a very busy day filled with reading, writing,
'rithmetic, sports, music etc.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 14:16:27 -0400
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: Clarification
At 07:45 AM 5/19/2004, H Wayne wrote:
)One obvious determinant of the phase transitions:
)
)When the electrical attractions alone are sufficient to hold the molecules
)together, we have a solid
I don't think this is a good description of a solid. That is, solids are
not held together by "electrical attractions," unless that term is
understood differently than it would seem to imply, i.e., charge attraction.
)When the energy level of the molecules is sufficient to overcome the
)electrical attraction, but not the force of gravity, we have a liquid (but
)there are still some complex questions of viscosity and surface tension
)here)
Gravity is not relevant to the formation of the liquid state. The forces of
gravity between molecules are so small as to be completely negligible.
)When the energy level is sufficient to overcome the electrical attractions
)and gravity we have a gas.
)
)Laminar flow and aerodynamics still need to be clarified.
Indeed. If the most basic forces that attract and bind molecules are not
understood, then higher-level phenomena are going to be, to say the least,
elusive.
Mr. Wayne was responding to a post from Mr. Farrell which used potential
functions to explain phase changes. I don't think Mr. Wayne has the
foggiest idea of what Mr. Farrell was talking about. To be fair, Mr.
Farrell did not present his descriptions in a way that would be easily
accessible to non-physicists. And I'm not sure that I could do better, not
in the time I have available....
But I'll make a little stab at it. Atoms are no longer understood as little
billiard balls, or as assemblages of even smaller billiard balls. For
convenience, however, we often conceive of particles as if they were
objects with a precise location, but this is not the case. Rather particles
are energies distributed in space according to certain probability
patterns. As such, two particles, even if "separated," overlap to some
degree, they will exert forces on each other. Depending on the nature of
the particles, there will be attractive and repulsive forces.
One can graph the force between two atoms vs. the distance between them.
The force, unlike simple electrical or gravitational forces, is not a
simple inverse square relationship, but it will, for example, be repulsive
at very small distances and perhaps attractive at some greater distance.
Now, if instead of graphing the force, we graph the potential energy
resulting from the forces, we will get a potential function. Mr. Farrell, I
hope, will correct me if I stray. The potential function may display
minima. A minimum is a place -- a distance in this case -- where the forces
are zero; it will take energy to increase the separation and it will take
energy to decrease it.
When you try to push two non-ionized atoms close together, at a certain
point their electron clouds will start to exert repulsive forces, so
"electrical attraction" is relevant -- though it is here repulsive. But
electrical attraction is not what binds non-ionized atoms together. What
binds them together is the attractive force I mentioned without specifying
what it is, other than its being produced by the "overlap" of the atoms.
Perhaps they share electrons in some way, my chemistry and physics are very
old and rusty.
Suffice it to say, however, that there is at least one distance where the
attractive and repulsive forces cancel out, a minimum in the potential
function. This minimum is enough to explain the solid state. When the
temperature of the material is sufficient, the atoms can escape from being
trapped at that minimum. But this does not explain phase change to me, not
completely. Hmmm..... the temperature of a material is a measure of the
average kinetic energy of the atoms. So those atoms with sufficient kinetic
energy can escape the minimum, they are no longer bound in place. As energy
is added to the material -- i.e., it continues to be heated -- the free
atoms have excess energy which they can transfer by collision to those
atoms remaining in bound states. Freedom is contagious. Note that it takes
energy to convert a solid to a liquid. The temperature of the material does
not rise as the conversion takes place.
Okay, so that is the solid-liquid transition. In a liquid there are still
inter-atomic forces, there is still an attractive force operating on the
atoms. They are much less strongly bound together than are atoms in solids,
but I don't think I have any kind of good understanding of the liquid
state. Clearly, however, there is, once again, a potential minimum
involved, and it takes energy to convert the liquid state to a gaseous state.
In the gaseous state, the atoms are at distances such that the attractive
forces between them are negligible. They have completely broken free of
each other. Gases are much easier to understand because the complex
structure and interrelationship of the atoms or molecules can pretty much
be neglected. They might as well be little billiard balls. The atoms
approach each other frequently, but with such velocity, on average, that
they are not trapped by the minima.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 15:55:26 -0300
From: "Bruce Angus" (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: Re: cult v religion
Abdul-Rahman Lomax wrote: "allowing ourselves to focus on the alleged sins of others distracts us most effectively from the only sins which can truly harm us, our own."
Diana Wrote: "Any kind of reluctance or complication is a red flag at any school. Last but not least, they should not place absurd restrictions on your behavior in the classroom, such as telling you you may not take notes or speak to the children."
Hi - Diana's observations and recommendations are not only wise (and accurate), they're a great example of just how focused Waldorf teachers can be with regards to "outside" sins. Parents visiting the classroom should be an exciting, fun experience for the children. Too often, it's treated as a potential distraction and a real disturbance: "Please hide in the corner and make sure you don't move a muscle as your presence here could affect the children."
I personally attribute this "sins of the outside" attitude directly to the tenets of anthroposophical philosophy. There's just so much evil in the anthroposophical cosmos - so much so that Steiner had to create two satanic beings, just to deal with all of it. Personally, my idea of "sin" would be my failure as a teacher to offer a joyful, warm (and noisy!) celebratory welcome to any adult and human being who happened to be visiting my classroom. Why? Because education is mostly about children witnessing and experiencing the enthusiasm, sharing and caring of the adults around them. Another adult visiting my class would become part of the content of that morning's lesson.
Bruce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:46:56 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: cult v religion
Bruce Angus, you wrote,
)Valid knowledge has to do with those inspired epiphanies we usually
)refer to as spiritual experiences. I personally don't call them
)that, because I've realized we're capable of having a highly
)inspired relationship with life in every moment. So for me, it's
)more an experience of placing one's self in a state of continual
)union with universal creative energies.
This is the epistemological error that drives Anthroposophy and other
mystical philosophies. You're linking validity with personal
feelings. New Agers put it this way: "if it feels right, it must be
true." The political equivalent was Barry Goldwater's campaign slogan
"in your heart you know he's right."
The world doesn't work that way.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:39:58 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Clarification
H. Wayne, you wrote,
(snip)
)I am slightly dissatisfied with a model that does not explain the
)fundamentally different nature of solids, liquids and gases. Perhaps you can
)show me how it does so when we follow it a bit further!
I'm interested in this physics, but it's off topic here unless you
can bring it around to Steiner or Waldorf. H., do proceed if you are
offering an alternative model according to Steiner.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 16:52:29 -0400
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: RE: cult v religion
At 01:09 PM 5/19/2004, Diana Winters wrote:
)Call the school and request that you be allowed to spend time *in the
)classrooms*. Significant periods of time, like an entire morning, on more
)than one occasion, in more than one classroom, observing main lesson, or an
)entire morning in the kindergarten.
Sounds good to me.
) Note that this is very different from
)attending a public event such as an open house, lecture, parent information
)session, puppet play, or festival. These events are carefully stage managed
)for parent consumption, and trust me, everything you will see there you will
)eat up.
I find "carefully stage managed for parent consumption" to be, likely, a
paranoid view. It would indicate that there is an active conspiracy to
conceal what a Waldorf school is really like from parents. Now, that does
not mean that the view of the school that one will get from public events
as described is going to be accurate. Those are special events, where
people put their best foot forward.
I should mention, by the way, that it is pretty likely that the school we
choose is going to be one where my wife would be teaching. If there is a
conspiracy to fool the parents, she'd certainly know about it!
(My wife has taken the foundation year at Emerson College, and is currently
studying Eurythmy here in the U.S., finishing up her second year of a
four-year course. She might take longer than two more years, though. The
plan is for her to take a position as a Eurythmy teacher at a school where
our daughter attends. So we will very likely move to near a school that has
an open position -- and that also passes our "inspection.")
) What you need to see is what is going on on an average school-day in
)an average classroom, with average Waldorf kids. At the public events,
)candle lighting, storytelling, harp music, soft lights and pastel colors,
)and quaint old-fashioned toys are utterly enchanting and the effects magical
)- mainly because it is all novel to most of the children in the room - who
)aren't Waldorf kids. What you need to observe is how this works in a roomful
)of kids who are *used* to candle lighting and magical blah blah blah blah,
)day after day.
Yes. However, note that ordinary schools don't seem to have the knack for
presenting themselves as "utterly enchanting." Why not?
The whole point of Waldorf education, as I understand it, is attention paid
to what might be called "extra-ordinary sensitivities." I consider this
attention and the sensitivity itself to be healthy, quite apart from the
actual content of courses, etc. In other words, the very fact that there
would be concern about the color of the walls is good, the exact opinion as
to what color is best for what purpose is another matter. If the
sensitivity has degenerated into "Steiner said it should be this way, so
that's that," well, something has been lost. Still, I'd expect some benefit
from following Steiner's indications without understanding, on average. It
is a step above paying no attention whatever to these things, but far
inferior to intelligent awareness.
)Just a few words of unsolicited advice.
)
)If they *won't* allow this sort of visit, think long and hard. Call other
)schools, and discover that other schools allow this routinely. Note also
)that it should not take 6 weeks of negotiations to arrange for this, and you
)should not be put off repeatedly, or made to feel you are inconveniencing
)them. It should be routine, you are a potential customer. They should say to
)you, "How about next Tuesday?" Any kind of reluctance or complication is a
)red flag at any school.
Yes, a red flag. But not a final No. We have our daughter in day care now,
while my wife is in school. It was very difficult to arrange to observe the
day care. The provider really dislikes having visitors. Eventually, a visit
was allowed one afternoon. My wife did not like some things she saw. But in
this world, one does not necessarily find the ideal. She did choose this
day care, and it has turned out, so far, to be quite good.
("Waldorf-oriented," by the way.)
The original day-care that we used was with a woman who basically provides
the anthropop care in the community. We could drop in any time. It was
pretty impressive: home-made bread, organic applesauce, made from local
apples. But then there were the rough edges, not so visible at first. Our
daughter is Chinese, so, naturally, she has black hair. She has an Asian
doll, it's a Waldorf doll, but it was made for her with black hair. The
woman commented that the doll should have blonde hair, because dolls
represent the angelic.... We also found that the woman was at least
borderline abusive to the kids, when no one was looking. Except the kids,
of course.
Our experience with the first day care has been a wedge for us into the
darker side of the anthroposophical community, both in terms of the
provider herself and in terms of how some community members reacted to
hearing about what is going on.
) Last but not least, they should not place absurd
)restrictions on your behavior in the classroom, such as telling you you may
)not take notes or speak to the children.
Not allowing notes would be absurd, at least that is my first impression.
Not speaking to the children might be legitimate.
)"Perhaps at a Waldorf school, there are going to be some teachers who take
)anthroposophy as their religion. These teachers may present some aspects of
)anthroposophical teaching as dogma. That's not healthy. But, suppose we
)send our daughter to a public school. There are going to be teachers at
)that school as well, some of whom might be dogmatic adherents to a religion
)(or to atheism, for that matter). Regardless of rules, their views will
)come across to their students."
)
)That's unlikely. My son spent 3 years in public school and doubtless his
)teachers were of a variety of religious faiths. (The actual likelihood that
)the teacher is an atheist is slim.) I have no clue what their religious
)beliefs were, nor did my son, as it wasn't mentioned. It wasn't the *point*.
Of course not. I didn't say that the teachers would mention their religion.
But some will. And for some, their religion will affect their teaching. A
teacher, rather helplessly, is going to convey *attitudes*. To me,
entrusting my child to a person for the bulk of the child's time, for the
better part of a year, without even knowing what is the religion of the
teacher is.... a serious disconnect.
As it happens, an old friend of mine, who accepted Islam way back (largely
under my influence, I could say), became the follower of a Turkish shaykh,
and became the caretaker of a mosque that is just down the road from a
Waldorf school. The shaykh told all of his followers to send their children
to the Waldorf school. My friend had three children in the school at one
time. His wife worked in the school office and they received tuition
remission as a result. My friend has told me of the relationship they
developed with their children's teacher at the Waldorf school. The teacher,
one summer, visited Turkey with them (my friend's wife is Turkish).
Rather obviously, the exact religion of the teacher may not be important.
But the *teacher* is important. And this is something about Waldorf
education that has the potential for being really great, i.e., the single
teacher through the grades. Yes, there are risks. What if that one teacher
is ... the wrong person?
)What you perhaps don't understand is the level of obsession in a Waldorf
)school with their endless rituals. In other schools, teachers really don't
)have time, they have a very busy day filled with reading, writing,
)'rithmetic, sports, music etc.
I find the rituals attractive. I don't want my daughter to "have a very
busy day filled with" the three Rs. I want there to be attention to inner
states, which is what ritual is generally about (when it's healthy).
By the way, we went to California for a few weeks earlier this year. I have
a granddaughter in a Waldorf school there. Since we were going to be in the
area, and since my wife was assigned the task of observing a Eurythmy
teacher, she spent a few days in the Eurythmy classes at the school, and
she wrote a paper about her observations. It was an excellent paper, in my
opinion. Her teacher at the Eurythmy school disliked it, however, because
it was allegedly "critical." (In fact, it had simply observed what was
working in the classes, and, yes, what was not working.) Yes, my friends,
there are problems in the anthroposophical community.
In my view, it is absolutely essential that criticism become acceptable, or
else what is good about Steiner's insights is going to be buried in his
errors (or, what amounts to the same, early errors of interpretation by his
followers). If the errors are uncritically accepted, they will come to
dominate, the situation will get worse with time.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 18:01:34 -0400
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: cult v religion
At 01:46 PM 5/19/2004, Dan Dugan wrote:
)Bruce Angus, you wrote,
)
))Valid knowledge has to do with those inspired epiphanies we usually refer
))to as spiritual experiences. I personally don't call them that, because
))I've realized we're capable of having a highly inspired relationship with
))life in every moment. So for me, it's more an experience of placing one's
))self in a state of continual union with universal creative energies.
)
)This is the epistemological error that drives Anthroposophy and other
)mystical philosophies. You're linking validity with personal feelings.
Naively, yes, it could be stated that way. But, as they say, the devil is
in the details. Everyone links validity with personal feelings *of some
kind*. How do we recognize truth? Very definitely, the human organism uses
feelings for this purpose quite routinely.
) New Agers put it this way: "if it feels right, it must be true." The
) political equivalent was Barry Goldwater's campaign slogan "in your heart
) you know he's right."
And he was, of course. Right, that is. :-) ... in more ways than one.
)The world doesn't work that way.
True, notice that Barry Goldwater was *not* elected President. People don't
go for "right," they go for feelings, almost entirely. Hence Ronald Reagan,
a man who could not even stay on topic long enough to answer questions in
his debates with Carter, was elected over Carter because Reagan made people
feel good. This is not merely a "New Age" phenomenon.
Valid knowledge *does* "have to do" with spiritual experience. There is
indeed a relationship with how we feel about a proposition and the truth of
the proposition, though it is not as simple as "if it feels good, it is
good." Sometimes it is possible to proceed with open and complete logic
from known assumptions to clear conclusions, but in real life, it is pretty
rare. Instead, we *must* rely upon feelings, which integrate all our
experience into a body reaction.
How do I know if a word is spelled correctly? The NLP people came up with
something pretty interesting. Poor spellers attempt to apply logic and
rules to spelling and, in English, it fails miserably. Good spellers look
at the word and notice how it makes them feel. If they feel good, the word
is spelled correctly. If it feels wrong, the word is spelled incorrectly
and the speller will try out alternate spellings. Until it feels right. I
am a good speller and, yes, that is what I do, and apparently this is the
norm among good spellers. Spelling errors in what I write are *usually*
simply typographical errors.
So how do we recognize truth? Same way, really.
Now it is important to distinguish between truth, which I trust is
absolute, that is, not dependent upon the person, and how we recognize
truth, which is necessarily personal. Our judgement of truth can be clouded
by many factors that will cause our feelings to deceive us.
This is *much* more likely to be active in criticism than in assertion. I
may believe something, and someone says something that appears to
contradict what I believe. Because it appears to contradict, it seems wrong
to me. So I search for what is wrong. Since language is fluid and
susceptible to alternate interpretation, I can almost always find ways to
interpret what has been said to make it incorrect. And so I can criticize,
but my criticism may be only of my own projection onto the material, a
pursuit of my original feeling of wrongness, which was rooted in my
adherence to a belief. When a belief is challenged, it is upsetting. That
is a feeling.
However, the reverse, when we recognize truth, something different is
happening. We experience a positive feeling in connection with a statement,
it triggers memories of aha! moments, the joy of insight, all those things.
Most basically, we feel a certain safety with the truth. Does this mean
that the statement is true? Not exactly. But it *does* mean that, very
likely, there is *something* true about the statement.
My conclusion? Self-knowledge, which includes knowledge of the darker sides
of the self, is essential for any seeker of truth, because without
self-knowledge (and action upon the knowledge as well) one's mechanisms for
distinguishing truth from falsehood are going to be impaired. One so
impaired may very well still be able to follow logic, and may even think of
himself as a logical person, but where logic fails the person will be at
the mercy of every inner impulse. Logic will be turned into the servant of
implicit and unquestioned beliefs, it will be used to build a
superstructure of firm conclusions that can make it very, very difficult
for the person to recognize truth, to emerge from the prison of his own
construction.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 21:03:41 -0400
From: H Wayne (einmalig optonline.net)
Subject: Re: The Pub Med references referred to by H. Wayne on mistletoe - part
I
Wow. I'm somewhat impressed by our divergent impressions. What follows is
the complete content of the first link I found. What I think it says sure
differs from what you think it says. I don't wish to reprint all 20 here,
but anyone can and should look for the references.
I will send another message which will include the summary of research that
I referred to and you could not find. It was not in the list of 20; I found
it as number 23 and mentioned it because it surveyed the entire literature
and seemed quite objective, describing problems with the general level of
the research. The key phrase in this one was: As several reasonably well
conducted studies indicate beneficial effects, further properly designed
trials should be encouraged.
Development and validation of an instrument to measure the effects of a
mistletoe preparation on quality of life of cancer patients: the Life
Quality Lectin-53 (LQL-53) Questionnaire.
Kirchberger I, Wetzel D, Finger T.
QUALI-team, Research & Consulting in Health and Social Sciences, Augsburg,
Germany. inge.kirchberger t-online.de
Mistletoe preparations standardised to the content of mistletoe lectin are
supposed to improve quality of life (QoL) in patients with cancer. To obtain
a validated and sensitive research instrument, the Life Quality Lectin-53
(LQL-53) Questionnaire was developed in three phases: item generation via
interviews with 42 patients, item selection by means of a study with 109
cancer patients, and psychometric testing. The LQL-53 includes 46 items
assigned to the subscales 'General well-being', 'Emotional well-being',
'Vitality' 'Hope', 'Locus of control', Social relationships', and 'Physical
complaints', plus seven items dealing with possible adverse effects of
mistletoe treatment. Psychometric testing was carried out in a study with
112 patients with solid tumours who were treated with a mistletoe
preparation standardised to mistletoe lectins for 12 weeks. Internal
consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was between 0.72 and 0.94. Test-retest
reliability was ) or = r of 0.72. Subscales correlated highly with external
criteria. Construct validity, as determined by Multitrait Scaling Analysis,
resulted in an optimal assignment of items to subscales (scaling success)
for four of the subscales. During the course of the therapy, significant
improvement in QoL was found in all subscales. In two of the subscales,
effect size was high ()0.80), and in five other subscales it varied between
0.53 and 0.78.
Mistletoe in cancer - a systematic review on controlled clinical trials.
Kienle GS, Berrino F, Bussing A, Portalupi E, Rosenzweig S, Kiene H.
Institute for Applied Epistemology and Medical Methodology, Bad
Krozingen/Freiburg, Germany. Gunver.Kienle ifaemm.de
BACKGROUND: Mistletoe preparations are among the most widely used
unconventional cancer therapies in Central Europe. Their clinical
effectiveness, however, is controversial. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether
prospective controlled clinical trials provide evidence for efficacy of
mistletoe therapy in cancer. DESIGN: Systematic review. MATERIAL AND
METHODS: Search of 11 electronic databases, reference lists and expert
consultations. Criteria based analysis was performed to assess
methodological quality of the studies. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were
identified: 16 randomized, 2 quasi-randomized and 5 non-randomized. Cancer
sites included breast, lung, stomach, colon, rectum, head and neck, kidney,
bladder, melanoma, glioma, and genital. Among these studies, statistically
significant positive outcomes were reported for survival (n = 8), tumor
remission (n = 1), overall quality of life (QOL) (n = 3), and QOL in
relation to side effects during cytoreductive therapy (n = 3). Further,
positive trends were reported for survival (n = 8), disease-free-survival (n
= 1), and tumor remission (n = 2). Several studies reported no effect on
survival (n = 4), disease-free-survival (n = 1), recurrence (n = 2),
remission (n = 3), and QOL (n = 1). One study showed a negative trend for
disease-free-survival. However, methodological quality of the studies was
sometimes far below the standard that is today regarded as optimal or
necessary. In view of substantial heterogeneity of the studies and potential
positive and negative biases, we considered effect size estimation by
quantitative synthesis to be unreliable and decided on a non-quantitative
synthesis and discussion. Mistletoe therapy was well tolerated, and no major
side effects were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Among 23 identified studies evaluated
for clinically relevant outcome measures, 12 studies showed one or more
statistically significant, positive results, another 7 studies showed at
least one positive trend, 3 showed no effect and 1 had a negative trend. All
studies, however, suffered from methodological shortcomings to some degree,
and many of the studies are not conclusive. As several reasonably well
conducted studies indicate beneficial effects, further properly designed
trials should be encouraged. Future controlled studies should take into
account the methodological limitations and potential biases of these past
mistletoe trials.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 21:04:23 -0400
From: H Wayne (einmalig optonline.net)
Subject: Re: The Pub Med references referred to by H. Wayne on mistletoe - part
I
This is the second article, the summary:
Mistletoe in cancer - a systematic review on controlled clinical trials.
Kienle GS, Berrino F, Bussing A, Portalupi E, Rosenzweig S, Kiene H.
Institute for Applied Epistemology and Medical Methodology, Bad
Krozingen/Freiburg, Germany. Gunver.Kienle ifaemm.de
BACKGROUND: Mistletoe preparations are among the most widely used
unconventional cancer therapies in Central Europe. Their clinical
effectiveness, however, is controversial. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether
prospective controlled clinical trials provide evidence for efficacy of
mistletoe therapy in cancer. DESIGN: Systematic review. MATERIAL AND
METHODS: Search of 11 electronic databases, reference lists and expert
consultations. Criteria based analysis was performed to assess
methodological quality of the studies. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were
identified: 16 randomized, 2 quasi-randomized and 5 non-randomized. Cancer
sites included breast, lung, stomach, colon, rectum, head and neck, kidney,
bladder, melanoma, glioma, and genital. Among these studies, statistically
significant positive outcomes were reported for survival (n = 8), tumor
remission (n = 1), overall quality of life (QOL) (n = 3), and QOL in
relation to side effects during cytoreductive therapy (n = 3). Further,
positive trends were reported for survival (n = 8), disease-free-survival (n
= 1), and tumor remission (n = 2). Several studies reported no effect on
survival (n = 4), disease-free-survival (n = 1), recurrence (n = 2),
remission (n = 3), and QOL (n = 1). One study showed a negative trend for
disease-free-survival. However, methodological quality of the studies was
sometimes far below the standard that is today regarded as optimal or
necessary. In view of substantial heterogeneity of the studies and potential
positive and negative biases, we considered effect size estimation by
quantitative synthesis to be unreliable and decided on a non-quantitative
synthesis and discussion. Mistletoe therapy was well tolerated, and no major
side effects were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Among 23 identified studies evaluated
for clinically relevant outcome measures, 12 studies showed one or more
statistically significant, positive results, another 7 studies showed at
least one positive trend, 3 showed no effect and 1 had a negative trend. All
studies, however, suffered from methodological shortcomings to some degree,
and many of the studies are not conclusive. As several reasonably well
conducted studies indicate beneficial effects, further properly designed
trials should be encouraged. Future controlled studies should take into
account the methodological limitations and potential biases of these past
mistletoe trials.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 21:54:34 -0400
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: Clarification
At 03:11 AM 5/17/2004, H Wayne wrote:
)Farrell and Steiner (and Dugan, and probably Wayne) seem all prone to
)fulminate. It is as if we, like Newton and Leibniz, are not only scientists,
)but .... perhaps... human beings as well (and well in need for purification
)of our lesser aspects, whether in this life or another).
Right on. Let's put it this way: if we think that we are above criticism,
we are, simply, wrong. That doesn't mean that we are wrong in the rest of
what we think, certainly it does not mean that we are wrong in what we see,
but it does mean that our expression is never going to be perfect, and thus
we can *always* profit from good criticism, even if it is coming from our
"enemies," not to mention if it comes from people well-disposed towards us.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 22:14:48 -0400
From: H Wayne (einmalig optonline.net)
Subject: Re: The Pub Med references referred to by H. Wayne on mistletoe - part
I
Perhaps it will be helpful to quote from the first 10 PubMed articles. These
are exact excerpts, cut and pasted in here. They give a sense of what my
summary: 7 positive articles, 1 negative, 2 irrelevant, was based. I am sure
that further clinical studies are vital. These seem to be well underway,
both in the US and in many other countries. In addition, given what seems to
be very widespread usage of mistletoe extract, going far beyond small
clinical samples, in many parts of Europe, I would expect there to be quite
good evaluations of its effects coming out in the very near future.
I was not trying to do a critical analysis of the articles; I assumed that
peer review, which is normally quite good in medical journals, had filtered
out poor research methodology. I would suggest that Diana write to the
appropriate journals with her criticisms; I am sure that they would be glad
to hear about any concerns and would work towards improving their publishing
standards wherever these are inadequate. In the meantime, I personally am
willing to accept that what they are publishing is a reasonable basis for
evaluating the present state of research.
1) During the course of the therapy, significant improvement in QoL was
found in all subscales. In two of the subscales, effect size was high
()0.80), and in five other subscales it varied between 0.53 and 0.78.
2)Quality of life (QoL) was significantly (p(0.05) improved for patients who
were complementarily treated with sME, as determined by the questionnaires
FLIC (Functional Living Index-Cancer), TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine
Index) and the KPI (Karnofsky Performance Index) in comparison to the
control group. Additionally, the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) was less
frequent in the sME than in the control group (total number of AEs 52 versus
90 and number of serious AEs 5 versus 10 in study and control group, most of
them due to chemotherapy). Only one serious AE was allocated to
complementary treatment in each group (1 angioedema in sME group). All other
side-effects of the sME (7 harmless local inflammatory reactions at
subcutaneous injection site, 4 cases with fever) were self-limiting and did
not demand therapeutic intervention. This study showed that complementary
treatment with sME can beneficially reduce the side-effects of chemotherapy
in cancer patients and thus improve quality of life.
3)As compared to breast cancer patients without complementary treatment
(control group), the administration of sME (therapy group) resulted in a
significant reduction of adverse reactions induced by the tumor-destructive
therapies (e.g. nausea, gastro-intestinal tract symptoms, depression,
fatigue, mental symptoms) and prolonged relapse-free intervals, most
pronounced for UICC stages IIa and IIb. The rate of sME-associated adverse
reactions was 12.8%. All side-effects were mild to moderate, predominantly
local skin reactions and self-limiting without therapeutic intervention.
Complementary treatment of breast cancer patients with lectin-standardized
mistletoe extract (sME) proved to be a well tolerated optimization of
standard tumor-destructive therapies, mainly improving quality of life and
relapse-free intervals in defined UICC stages.
4) not relevant
5) From these results, together with our previous studies, we suggest that
VCA triggers molecular changes that resulting in the inhibition of cell
growth and the induction of apoptotic cell death of cancer cells, which
suggest that VCA may be useful as chemotherapeutic agent for cancer cells.
6)This data suggest that some biological extracts and chemicals tested may
be useful chemotherapeutic agents to inhibit the growth of cancer cells.
This study sheds some light for new anti cancerogenic experiments preventing
various cancers on humans.
7) not relevant
8) The results show no clinical benefit for adjuvant treatment with low dose
rIFN-alpha2b or rIFN-gamma or with Iscador M in high-risk melanoma patients.
(I listed this as a negative evaluation.)
9) (Not a clinical study, but includes the following evaluation:)
Plant extracts of the European mistletoe (MTE), Viscum album, the most
widely used cancer treatment in Germany, have been used in European
countries as sole intervention or as adjunct to conventional cancer
therapies for more than 80 years. Preclinical data suggest immunostimulatory
and cytotoxic effects of MTE.
10)Viscum fraxini-2 seems to be particularly promising in patients with
advanced HCC, it shows antitumor activity and low toxicity profile.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 22:25:07 -0400
From: H Wayne (einmalig optonline.net)
Subject: Re: Clarification
) )When the electrical attractions alone are sufficient to hold the
molecules
) )together, we have a solid
)
) I don't think this is a good description of a solid. That is, solids are
) not held together by "electrical attractions," unless that term is
) understood differently than it would seem to imply, i.e., charge
attraction.
It sure isn't the gravitational attractions doing it!! Do you propose the
strong or the weak nuclear force? Physics recognizes only these three...oh,
yes, and the electromagnetic force, but you don't care for that one. What's
your preference?
)
) )When the energy level of the molecules is sufficient to overcome the
) )electrical attraction, but not the force of gravity, we have a liquid
(but
) )there are still some complex questions of viscosity and surface tension
) )here)
)
) Gravity is not relevant to the formation of the liquid state. The forces
of
) gravity between molecules are so small as to be completely negligible.
Why does a liquid, spilled, flow out horizontally and not vertically as
well? It's gravity that prevents it from vertical motion. Indeed, not
gravitational interaction between the liquid's molecules, but the rather
greater gravitational field of the earth.
)
) )When the energy level is sufficient to overcome the electrical
attractions
) )and gravity we have a gas.
) )
) )Laminar flow and aerodynamics still need to be clarified.
)
) Indeed. If the most basic forces that attract and bind molecules are not
) understood, then higher-level phenomena are going to be, to say the least,
) elusive.
)
) Mr. Wayne was responding to a post from Mr. Farrell which used potential
) functions to explain phase changes. I don't think Mr. Wayne has the
) foggiest idea of what Mr. Farrell was talking about. To be fair, Mr.
) Farrell did not present his descriptions in a way that would be easily
) accessible to non-physicists. And I'm not sure that I could do better, not
) in the time I have available....
)
No, I'm afraid I have very few foggy ideas. Give it your best stab.
) But I'll make a little stab at it. Atoms are no longer understood as
little
) billiard balls, or as assemblages of even smaller billiard balls. For
) convenience, however, we often conceive of particles as if they were
) objects with a precise location, but this is not the case. Rather
particles
) are energies distributed in space according to certain probability
) patterns. As such, two particles, even if "separated," overlap to some
) degree, they will exert forces on each other. Depending on the nature of
) the particles, there will be attractive and repulsive forces.
)
) One can graph the force between two atoms vs. the distance between them.
) The force, unlike simple electrical or gravitational forces, is not a
) simple inverse square relationship, but it will, for example, be repulsive
) at very small distances and perhaps attractive at some greater distance.
) Now, if instead of graphing the force, we graph the potential energy
) resulting from the forces, we will get a potential function. Mr. Farrell,
I
) hope, will correct me if I stray. The potential function may display
) minima. A minimum is a place -- a distance in this case -- where the
forces
) are zero; it will take energy to increase the separation and it will take
) energy to decrease it.
)
) When you try to push two non-ionized atoms close together, at a certain
) point their electron clouds will start to exert repulsive forces, so
) "electrical attraction" is relevant -- though it is here repulsive. But
) electrical attraction is not what binds non-ionized atoms together. What
) binds them together is the attractive force I mentioned without specifying
) what it is, other than its being produced by the "overlap" of the atoms.
) Perhaps they share electrons in some way, my chemistry and physics are
very
) old and rusty.
)
) Suffice it to say, however, that there is at least one distance where the
) attractive and repulsive forces cancel out, a minimum in the potential
) function. This minimum is enough to explain the solid state. When the
) temperature of the material is sufficient, the atoms can escape from being
) trapped at that minimum. But this does not explain phase change to me, not
) completely. Hmmm..... the temperature of a material is a measure of the
) average kinetic energy of the atoms. So those atoms with sufficient
kinetic
) energy can escape the minimum, they are no longer bound in place. As
energy
) is added to the material -- i.e., it continues to be heated -- the free
) atoms have excess energy which they can transfer by collision to those
) atoms remaining in bound states. Freedom is contagious. Note that it takes
) energy to convert a solid to a liquid. The temperature of the material
does
) not rise as the conversion takes place.
)
) Okay, so that is the solid-liquid transition. In a liquid there are still
) inter-atomic forces, there is still an attractive force operating on the
) atoms. They are much less strongly bound together than are atoms in
solids,
) but I don't think I have any kind of good understanding of the liquid
) state. Clearly, however, there is, once again, a potential minimum
) involved, and it takes energy to convert the liquid state to a gaseous
state.
)
) In the gaseous state, the atoms are at distances such that the attractive
) forces between them are negligible. They have completely broken free of
) each other. Gases are much easier to understand because the complex
) structure and interrelationship of the atoms or molecules can pretty much
) be neglected. They might as well be little billiard balls. The atoms
) approach each other frequently, but with such velocity, on average, that
) they are not trapped by the minima.
)
) ===========================================================
) Buy Stocks and Index Funds for just $4 No Account or
) Investment Minimums and No Inactivity Fees Automatically
) invest weekly or monthly and build your future.
) http://click.topica.com/caaccMMb1dkiGb7Kbh2f/ Sharebuilder
) ===========================================================
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 22:27:49 -0400
From: H Wayne (einmalig optonline.net)
Subject: Re: Clarification
Dear Dan,
It may not be apparent, because we are trying to explore this without
getting entangled in arguments about the text, but we are actually
discussing the issues of Steiner's Warmth Course. Do you mind if we continue
to do so, even if we don't always identify it as such? (We could always
continue off-site if it is tedious or irrelevant to the rest of the folks
here.)
H. Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Dugan" (dan dandugan.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: Clarification
) ===========================================================
) Give Your Team Access to Their PCs from Anywhere. Increase
) productivity with a secure remote-access solution from
) GoToMyPC Pro. Stay in touch with your office. FREE TRIAL:
) http://click.topica.com/caaccMVb1dkiGb7Kbh2a/ ExpertCity
) ===========================================================
)
) H. Wayne, you wrote,
)
) (snip)
) )I am slightly dissatisfied with a model that does not explain the
) )fundamentally different nature of solids, liquids and gases. Perhaps you
can
) )show me how it does so when we follow it a bit further!
)
) I'm interested in this physics, but it's off topic here unless you
) can bring it around to Steiner or Waldorf. H., do proceed if you are
) offering an alternative model according to Steiner.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
) ===========================================================
) Buy Stocks and Index Funds for just $4 No Account or
) Investment Minimums and No Inactivity Fees Automatically
) invest weekly or monthly and build your future.
) http://click.topica.com/caaccMMb1dkiGb7Kbh2f/ Sharebuilder
) ===========================================================
)
) ==^================================================================
) You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 00:27:17 -0400
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: Clarification
At 10:25 PM 5/19/2004, H Wayne wrote:
) ) )When the electrical attractions alone are sufficient to hold the
)molecules
) ) )together, we have a solid
) )
) ) I don't think this is a good description of a solid. That is, solids are
) ) not held together by "electrical attractions," unless that term is
) ) understood differently than it would seem to imply, i.e., charge
)attraction.
)
)It sure isn't the gravitational attractions doing it!! Do you propose the
)strong or the weak nuclear force? Physics recognizes only these three...oh,
)yes, and the electromagnetic force, but you don't care for that one. What's
)your preference?
My preference is for the truth; but, given that the truth is sometimes
elusive, my preference may find expression in a dislike of obfuscation as
well as of visible error. It is a lot easier, as I've noted elsewhere, to
detect error (correctly or incorrectly) than it is to know truth.
I was, in what I wrote, distinguishing between charge attraction and
repulsion and the kinds of forces that are at work in covalent bonding; but
this distinction, I now think, was incorrect. I found some material on the
web that does discuss the issues rather clearly, and I'll quote it at the
end of this post.
In summary, however, the same *force* explains both the solid and liquid
state. It is not unfair to describe this force as electrostatic, hence my
criticism of the first part of Mr. Wayne's post was incorrect. But the
criticism of the second part stands.
)Why does a liquid, spilled, flow out horizontally and not vertically as
)well? It's gravity that prevents it from vertical motion. Indeed, not
)gravitational interaction between the liquid's molecules, but the rather
)greater gravitational field of the earth.
Mr. Wayne has confused the behavior of a liquid under the influence of
gravity with the nature of a liquid itself, which is liquid whether or not
it is subject to a gravitational field effect. The discussion was of phase
changes and of the forces that bind molecules together in a liquid. Those
forces are not gravitational, as was claimed by Mr. Wayne.
What does all this have to do with Waldorf? One would have to look earlier
in the thread, but there is a connection. I'm not the one to point it out,
I'd have to research back in the thread and possibly look in other places
as well, but it seems to me that, as with the parallel discussion of
mistletoe, there is an attempt to justify certain statements of Rudolf
Steiner which have met with criticism on scientific grounds.
If we take what Steiner says as an indication that, at the time, might
possibly suggest a line of inquiry, then we might profit from it. But
Steiner, even in presenting "indications," was subject to error. If the
inquiry is strongly biased toward Steiner being correct, it is less likely
to be profitable. Rather, I'd take Steiner's indications as weak evidence,
all the more so if they are not well-understood.
What a correct investigation would do is to assume, indeed, that there is
something right about Steiner's indications, and it would then attempt to
find it. It would come up with possible interpretations consistent with the
indications, and then these interpretations would be checked against what
can be known or determined. If they don't pan out, perhaps (1) the time of
value for the indications has passed, or (2) the indications were rooted in
some error of Steiner's rather than his insight, or (3) we've missed
something. A sound investigator would try to avoid premature conclusions
about which of these possibilities is the correct one.
What is truly dangerous, however, are arguments in support of Steiner's
work that are essentially rationalizations of it, without being soundly
rooted in understanding not only of Steiner, but of the science.
Steiner uses the term "Science" not in a way that I like. He uses it to
mean "Knowledge," which is not how I think we should view Science, at least
not essentially. Rather, Science is a method, and learning by absorption
from a teacher is not Science, even though one might be learning material
that is "scientific" in some way. It is not Science that I memorize a
collection of "scientific facts." And it is not Science that I accept this
or that theory of how things work, regardless of how true that theory might
be or of how prestigious is the one from whom I learn the theory. Still, we
loosely call these things "science."
And this afflicts public schools quite as much, if not more, than it
afflicts Waldorf schools. If Waldorf schools generally teach Steinerian
physics as if such physics has some special authority or claim to trutrh,
shame on them. But this would only be damaging for the child if the child
does not have other resources, and if substantial inquiry is repressed. I
don't think there is any good substitute for parent involvement in the
child's education.
I just took a look for the first time at the Warmth lectures, which were
the basis for the discussion in this thread. I have a number of immediate
impressions. One is that, as Wayne or someone else stated in other post,
Steiner shows a remarkable knowledge of the current science of his day as
compared to other persons writing in spiritual fields. Secondly, he makes
plenty of statements that are going to be difficult to support and which
may well be wrong. If one takes his statements as *indications* and
investigates them in the light of what is now well-known, one is likely to
learn a great deal. If one takes his statements as simple truths, to be
accepted uncritically, one is quite likely to be led astray. For
convenience, the Warmth lectures are found at
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/GA/GA0321/19200301p01.html
And now, the discussion I promised from the web:
http://www.chemistry.mcmaster.ca/esam/Chapter_7/section_5.html
)Interaction Between Molecules
)
)The properties observed for matter on the macroscopic level are determined
)by the properties of the constituent molecules and the interactions
)between them. The polar or non-polar character of a molecule will clearly
)be important in determining the nature of its interactions with other
)molecules. There will be relatively strong forces of attraction acting
)between molecules with large dipole moments. To a first approximation, the
)energy of interaction between dipolar molecules can be considered as
)completely electrostatic in origin, the negative end of one molecule
)attracting the positive end of another.
)
) The presence of intermolecular forces accounts for the existence of
) solids and liquids. A molecule in a condensed phase is in a region of low
) potential energy, a potential well, as a result of the attractive forces
) which the neighbouring molecules exert on it. By supplying energy in the
) form of heat, a molecule in a solid or liquid phase can acquire
) sufficient kinetic energy to overcome the potential energy of attraction
) and escape into the vapour phase. The vapour pressure (the pressure of
) the vapour in equilibrium with a solid or liquid at a given temperature)
) provides a measure of the tendency of a molecule in a condensed phase to
) escape into the vapour; the larger the vapour pressure, the greater the
) escaping tendency. The average kinetic energy of the molecule in the
) vapour is directly proportional to the absolute temperature. Thus the
) observation of a large vapour pressure at a low temperature implies that
) relatively little kinetic energy is required to overcome the potential
) interactions between the molecules in the condensed phase.
)
) The only potential interactions possible between non-polar, covalently
) bonded molecules are of the van der Waals' type as previously discussed
) for the interaction between two helium atoms at large internuclear
) separations. Molecules such as H2 and N2 have closed shell electronic
) structures in the same sense that helium does; all of the valence
) electrons are paired and no further chemical bonding may occur. The small
) polarizations of the charge densities induced by the long-range
) interactions of closed shell atoms or molecules result in only weak
) forces of attraction. The low boiling points (the temperature at which
) the vapour pressure above the liquid phase equals one atmosphere)
) observed for substances composed of molecules which can interact only
) through a van der Waals' type force are, therefore, understandable.
And there is also a really nice presentation regarding van der Waals
forces, including animations, at
http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/senese/101/liquids/faq/h-bonding-vs-london-forces.shtml
van der Waals forces are elecrostatic in nature.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 14:38:01 +1000 (EST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Anne=20May?= (mettahome yahoo.com.au)
Subject: Re: cult v religion
Hi,
))Here is the dilemma I face: it is easy to find ways to criticize
Waldorf education. But of the educational options available to us, Waldorf seems, by good measure, the best.
Reply: It may "seem" the best, as it did to us up until a few weeks ago when we withdrew our children from the Waldorf school which we chose above all the local schools and which involved us in lots of extra money in fees and also in travel costs to and fro. But it wasn't the best, by a long shot. And when I asked permission to sit in on a main lesson (in any class), to assess for myself what was causing our older son to come home with strange ideas, I was not "allowed". I have been "allowed" in to assist with craft time etc but not when I wanted to evaluate the teaching methodolgy and content at first hand.
))Perhaps at a Waldorf school, there are going to be some teachers who take anthroposophy as their religion. These teachers may present some aspects of anthroposophical teaching as dogma. That's not healthy. But, suppose we send our daughter to a public school. There are going to be teachers at that school as well, some of whom might be dogmatic adherents to a religion (or to atheism, for that matter). Regardless of rules, their views will come across to their students.
Reply: This was exactly our position to, that all teachers in all schools would have a life view which would influence their class, and I still believe this is true. The HUGE difference with Waldorf is that it's not about the teacher's views it's about the WAY things are done and taught and what is done and taught. My older son was perpetually frustrated at being given wax and told what to make with it, given paints and told what to paint and in what colours, the very method and content of all the teaching IS Anthroposophy in action. The children don't do art, they do ritualised paintings/drawings of specific symbols. They don't sing just any songs but songs that affirm the spiritual perspective of Steiner & co.
))I'm thinking that the situation is likely to be different from school
to school. At some schools, anthroposophy is going to be treated as a
source of material, as a guiding principle for education, not dogmatically,
but as "indications." There *ought* to be a huge difference between an
"indication" and a "dogma." An indication is an invitation to reflect
and explore, to open a door and see what is on the other side. A dogma is a closed door.
Reply: You may well be thinking/expecting/hoping that but it has NOT been our experience and that was our second attempt at a new Waldorf school. We previously believed that what Waldorf schools offered was superior because it included the "whole child". Now I believe it sacrifices the "whole child" to their vision of the "whole". Our experience was that the teachers do not even answer direct questions about their beliefs, for example I asked our class teacher did she hold with ideas of reincarnation and her answer was "I'm open to the possibility" when later pushed she admitted she was an Anthroposophist which of necessity includes reincarnation.
Any environment that expects to be able to have children behind closed doors and not be open to reasonable observation by their parents (paying parents too!) is not to be trusted, and certainly not with the impressionable minds of children who can't necessarily even understand or articulate what is going on and what the implications of it are.
Proceed with caution! Your wife may well be doing the training but if she is not joining in the Anthroposophy study group she will not know all there is to know about the agenda of the schools/movement, as many parents do not either.
Anne
---------------------------------
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 22:40:57 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Clarification
H. Wayne, you wrote,
)It may not be apparent, because we are trying to explore this without
)getting entangled in arguments about the text, but we are actually
)discussing the issues of Steiner's Warmth Course. Do you mind if we continue
)to do so, even if we don't always identify it as such? (We could always
)continue off-site if it is tedious or irrelevant to the rest of the folks
)here.)
I understand, and I'm urging everybody to get back to it!
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 01:07:46 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: cult v religion
Hi Abd and welcome to the list.
You wrote:
)The whole point of Waldorf education, as I understand it, is attention paid
)to what might be called "extra-ordinary sensitivities."
Please explain where you come to this conclusion - the "whole point...."
) Still, I'd expect some benefit
)from following Steiner's indications without understanding, on average. It
)is a step above paying no attention whatever to these things, but far
)inferior to intelligent awareness.
I'll vote for the "far inferior" part and opt out of the "following
Steiner's indications without understanding." Following Steiner's
indications can be a painfully weird experience for the individual and
her/his family and friends. I speak from experience.
) She did choose this
)day care, and it has turned out, so far, to be quite good.
)("Waldorf-oriented," by the way.)
Then you understand that your daughter is viewed as an incarnating soul and
all that *that* entails.
Many people in your shoes do not understand this reality of a Waldorf
preschool.
)The original day-care that we used was with a woman who basically provides
)the anthropop care in the community. We could drop in any time. It was
)pretty impressive: home-made bread, organic applesauce, made from local
)apples. But then there were the rough edges, not so visible at first. Our
)daughter is Chinese, so, naturally, she has black hair. She has an Asian
)doll, it's a Waldorf doll, but it was made for her with black hair. The
)woman commented that the doll should have blonde hair, because dolls
)represent the angelic.... We also found that the woman was at least
)borderline abusive to the kids, when no one was looking. Except the kids,
)of course.
The Asian/black hair problem is a problem I have known before in Waldorf
schools. Same with the black crayons. I trust you understand Steiner's
views on "black" - be it the color itself or color of skin. He has
something to say about blonde hair, as well. More importantly:
What kind of abuse goes on and what have you done about it?
)Our experience with the first day care has been a wedge for us into the
)darker side of the anthroposophical community, both in terms of the
)provider herself and in terms of how some community members reacted to
)hearing about what is going on.
I am not trying to appear intrusive or rude here but as you are sharing this
with us you must anticipate a response. Please elaborate on what you
have mentioned here. It's important. These are children and their well
being and safety is being discussed.
)I find the rituals attractive. I don't want my daughter to "have a very
)busy day filled with" the three Rs. I want there to be attention to inner
)states, which is what ritual is generally about (when it's healthy).
Anthroposophy is classified as a religion. I did not want to believe this
many years ago. Now I understand. If you are
fine with anthroposophic ritual for your daughter, then Waldorf might be a
good fit.
)By the way, we went to California for a few weeks earlier this year. I have
)a granddaughter in a Waldorf school there. Since we were going to be in the
)area, and since my wife was assigned the task of observing a Eurythmy
)teacher, she spent a few days in the Eurythmy classes at the school, and
)she wrote a paper about her observations. It was an excellent paper, in my
)opinion. Her teacher at the Eurythmy school disliked it, however, because
)it was allegedly "critical." (In fact,