return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Waldorf and cows
By yarngal webtv.net
RE: Exit Data
By bkmartin6 hotmail.com
Re: Exit Data
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Exit Data
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Exit Data
By sbcglobal.net
RE: Exit Data
By pkcompany netzero.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:51:02 +0000
From: yarngal yarngal (yarngal webtv.net)
Subject: Waldorf and cows
I read that Waldorf/Anthroposophy reveres cows. I wonder if that is why
they also live in Wisconsin? Haha, the "Sacred cow" belief is absurd!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:44:30 +0000
From: Brad Martin (bkmartin6 hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Exit Data
) A friend pointed out to me a site that has some examples of main lesson
) books: http://www.live-education.com/
) Perhaps we can discuss those.
)
) Alex
Good thinking, Alex. These folks, the WC Activists, are not to be
trusted. They are only interested in carrying out their personal
vendettas based on their narrow view of it all.
Brad
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:44:52 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Exit Data
Good Grief. Fear of discussion and different points of view leads to
paranoia (see below) imo.
Here's to a Healthy, Happy New Year to everyone - including those whose
views are not synonymous with my own.
-Walden
)Good thinking, Alex. These folks, the WC Activists, are not to be
)trusted. They are only interested in carrying out their personal
)vendettas based on their narrow view of it all.
Brad
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:54:35 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Exit Data
Alex Sull wrote:
)
) My Concerns:
) 1) You will use my books as evidence in the PLANS lawsuit.
) 2) Someone I know will find my books connected to a website that is
) anti-Waldorf and recognize them and think that those are my views. (I
) know: easily remedied, but I'd rather not have anyone I know find my
) books online anyways)
) 3) Some arbitrary person will find my books and think that my personal
) faults or views are representative of Waldorf students in general.
)
)
) A friend pointed out to me a site that has some examples of main lesson
) books: http://www.live-education.com/
) Perhaps we can discuss those.
)
) Alex
Hi Alex, Happy Holidays to you.
Suffice to say your books are your work and are private to you. If you
have the slightest apprehension about posting them here, please don't.
And thank you for pointing out the other site - I'll check it out.
Also, please remember Dan suggested other more neutral sites where they
might be posted without any implication or connection to this or any
other site. Nobody here is setting traps for you. If I thought that
was what Waldorf Critics do, I'd be outta here in a flash.
To be fair, however, I don't think Dan was looking for evidence for the
PLANS case. I think it's that you've stated some things that might be
best debated by examining your own work if possible - if indeed you are
interested in exploring your individual Waldorf experience - and maybe
you're not. Obviously, if you say, there's no religious stuff (or
racist stuff as an example) in Waldorf schools, and we find someone
else's book that has religious stuff (or racist stuff), it's relatively
meaningless. If religious or racist stuff appears in your own books and
you just haven't noticed it or recognized it, that would be quite
different and, I'm sure you would agree, significant *to you* in
re-evaluating your own experience. It's like if you and I took a test,
I would get more meaning from reviewing *my* answers than I would from
reviewing yours. We aren't sinister people here - Brad's comment
notwithstanding.
Warm regards,
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 00:16:28 +0000
From: Alex Sull ( sbcglobal.net)
Subject: RE: Exit Data
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) Hi Alex, Happy Holidays to you.
)
) Suffice to say your books are your work and are private to you. If you
) have the slightest apprehension about posting them here, please don't.
) And thank you for pointing out the other site - I'll check it out.
) Also, please remember Dan suggested other more neutral sites where they
) might be posted without any implication or connection to this or any
) other site. Nobody here is setting traps for you. If I thought that
) was what Waldorf Critics do, I'd be outta here in a flash.
)
) To be fair, however, I don't think Dan was looking for evidence for the
) PLANS case. I think it's that you've stated some things that might be
) best debated by examining your own work if possible - if indeed you are
) interested in exploring your individual Waldorf experience - and maybe
) you're not. Obviously, if you say, there's no religious stuff (or
) racist stuff as an example) in Waldorf schools, and we find someone
) else's book that has religious stuff (or racist stuff), it's relatively
) meaningless. If religious or racist stuff appears in your own books and
)
) you just haven't noticed it or recognized it, that would be quite
) different and, I'm sure you would agree, significant *to you* in
) re-evaluating your own experience. It's like if you and I took a test,
) I would get more meaning from reviewing *my* answers than I would from
) reviewing yours. We aren't sinister people here - Brad's comment
) notwithstanding.
)
) Warm regards,
)
) Pete
Happy Holidays, Pete and everyone, and good wishes for the new year.
I am not trying to suggest that I think you're sinister people. But I
distrust good intensions as well as bad. If religious or racist stuff
appeared in my books, it would most likely be something I put in myself
by accident so it would really be meaningless.
Alex
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 02:06:26 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Exit Data
Alex wrote:
)If religious or racist stuff
) appeared in my books, it would most likely be something I put in myself
) by accident so it would really be meaningless.
)
Hi Alex,
Yes, except that YOU would be able to identify it as an accident. Let's
say I went to the site you mentioned and found something racist in one
of the lesson books. One person could say "Ah Ha - see, there it is"
another person could say, "No, it must have been an accident". Nothing
would be accomplished because nobody can confirm the contents of the
book or the conditions under which those contents were provided. That's
all I'm saying. I'm not at all trying to convince you to supply your
books, I'm just saying that there would be some additional value in
being able to talk/discuss directly with the author of the books.
Have a great evening.
Pete
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1588
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Waldorf and cows
By sbcglobal.net
"the heart is not a pump"
By sbcglobal.net
RE: Exit Data
By sbcglobal.net
Re: Waldorf and cows
By antigonabaires hotmail.com
RE: Waldorf and cows
By sbcglobal.net
Re: Waldorf and cows
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 18:35:33 +0000
From: Alex Sull ( sbcglobal.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf and cows
yarngal yarngal wrote:
)
) I read that Waldorf/Anthroposophy reveres cows. I wonder if that is why
) they also live in Wisconsin? Haha, the "Sacred cow" belief is absurd!
This post doesn't really deserve a response, but at my school I have
never heard anything about cows being sacred except in my study of
India. Can't we try to respect everyone's beliefs here, yarngal yarngal?
Alex
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 18:55:48 +0000
From: Alex Sull ( sbcglobal.net)
Subject: "the heart is not a pump"
Is the heart a pump?
In out study of anatomy in 9th grade we were taught to not think of the
heart as a pump. This caused a few days of discussion with me
indignantly arguing that the heart was indeed a pump. Finally, I
understood the idea and agreed with it completely.
Reasons:
1) (The main reason, for me) The heart does not "pull" blood into itself
like a pump. This is done by osmosis and muscle contractions of the
veins. There is no muscle in the heart to let blood flow into it. It
simply relaxes. In it's relaxed state there is actually pressure of the
body to keep blood from coming in. A pump pulls fluid into itself and
then pushes it back out. The heart merely aids in pushing the blood out
into the body.
2) Scientific studies show that many recipients of heart transplants,
without any knowledge of their donor's lives, will aquire some of their
donor's traits or even have dreams from their donor's lives. There are
many books on this issue.
I don't take much stock in the second one, but the first seems
completely reasonable.
Alex
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 19:00:22 +0000
From: Alex Sull ( sbcglobal.net)
Subject: RE: Exit Data
Abd, I can't respond to your question without a solid definition of
pseudoscience is. My dictionary gives a pretty (lame) / (wishy-washy)
definition.
Alex
Dec 19 : Alex Sull wrote:
)
) Can anyone define pseudoscience?
)
) Alex
)
)
) Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
) )
) ) At 04:02 PM 12/16/2004, Alex Sull wrote:
) ) )I have many excellent science teachers in my Waldorf school, much better
) ) )than any public school science teachers that I have ever heard of and
) ) )better than most other private school teachers. Waldorf does not have
) ) )"an institutionalized system of bad science teaching." You are *very*
) ) )mistaken to think this.
) )
) ) Alex, there have been a number of examples of what might be called
) ) pseudoscience, ostensibly being taught in Waldorf schools. Are you aware
) )
) ) of
) ) these allegations? If so, are these things being taught at your school?
) )
) )
) )
)
)
)
) Alex Sull
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 00:11:23 -0300
From: "antigonabaires" (antigonabaires hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and cows
When my daughter started kindergarten at the only Waldorf school in the city
of Buenos Aires, I asked the sort of principal there not to give milk to my
daughter, not because of any allergies or anything of the kind but just
because I think milk and diary are not good foods. She then lectured me on
the importance of cows and their milk. She said (and here I'll translate
word by word) that cows where the only animals with their full weight on the
ground (whatever that means) but their eyes to the sky (!?!?!); that they
have the highly significant number of seven stomachs (aren't they four?).
Feeding children to cows' milk was the only way to make them "assume" the
earth (?), and this was especially necessary to "very spiritual" children
such as my own who, if not properly fed, could become a religious
fundamentalist, a Bin Laden.
Although it may sound ridiculous, all this is true, word by word.
This woman was asked to leave the school (she was not really fired) a year
later because she had been beating up children on a regular basis and some
parents had gotten to know about it. This fact was never reportet to any
public authority.
Best regards,
Agustina
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Sull" ( sbcglobal.net)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 3:35 PM
Subject: RE: Waldorf and cows
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
** Get Your Own Support-a-Cure Yellow Bracelet for $1.99 **
Show your support for finding cures for both AIDS & Cancer.
Get yours for just $1.99. This bracelet makes a difference.
http://click.topica.com/caacYkkb1dkiGb3n6AFa/Penn Media
-------------------------------------------------------------------
yarngal yarngal wrote:
)
) I read that Waldorf/Anthroposophy reveres cows. I wonder if that is why
) they also live in Wisconsin? Haha, the "Sacred cow" belief is absurd!
This post doesn't really deserve a response, but at my school I have
never heard anything about cows being sacred except in my study of
India. Can't we try to respect everyone's beliefs here, yarngal yarngal?
Alex
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
We can reduce your unsecured credit card debt by 40-60%.
Don't file bankruptcy. Be Debt Free in as little as 1 year. Take
control of your situation. 100% FREE Consultation.
http://click.topica.com/caacYksb1dkiGb3n6AFf/KnockOutDebt
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 06:13:18 +0000
From: Alex Sull ( sbcglobal.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf and cows
antigonabaires wrote:
)
) When my daughter started kindergarten at the only Waldorf school in the
) city
) of Buenos Aires, I asked the sort of principal there not to give milk to
) my
) daughter, not because of any allergies or anything of the kind but just
) because I think milk and diary are not good foods. She then lectured me
) on
) the importance of cows and their milk. She said (and here I'll translate
)
) word by word) that cows where the only animals with their full weight on
) the
) ground (whatever that means) but their eyes to the sky (!?!?!); that
) they
) have the highly significant number of seven stomachs (aren't they
) four?).
) Feeding children to cows' milk was the only way to make them "assume"
) the
) earth (?), and this was especially necessary to "very spiritual"
) children
) such as my own who, if not properly fed, could become a religious
) fundamentalist, a Bin Laden.
) Although it may sound ridiculous, all this is true, word by word.
) This woman was asked to leave the school (she was not really fired) a
) year
) later because she had been beating up children on a regular basis and
) some
) parents had gotten to know about it. This fact was never reportet to any
)
) public authority.
)
) Best regards,
) Agustina
Agustina, this sounds more like an issue specific to the teacher and
school of which you speak. It cannot be generalized to represent all of
Waldorf teachers or schools. I would be *very* suprised if I found that
a teacher was beating students at my school and even more so if my
school did not immediately report this teacher to authorities.
Alex
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 22:42:26 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and cows
I try to be respectful of various beliefs while respecting my own need for
clarification and honesty. I'm still miffed that my own child spent time on
a biodynamic farm during his Waldorf years participating in magic rituals
(involving parts of a sacrificed cow) without my knowledge. I was told the
place was basically an organic garden. Not quite.
"Thus the cow, lying in the meadow, is in actual fact spiritual substance,
which earth-matter takes up, absorbs, makes similar to itself.
When the cow dies, this spiritual substance which the cow bears within
herself can be taken up by the earth, together with the earthly matter, for
the well-being of the life of the whole earth. And man is right when he
feels in regard to the cow: You are the true beast of sacrifice, for you
continually give to the earth what it needs, without which it could not
continue to exist, without which it would harden and dry up. You continually
give spiritual substance to the earth, and renew the inner mobility, the
inner living activity of the earth."
-Rudolph Steiner, Man as Symphony of the Creative Word, LECTURE III 21st
October, 1923 http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/19231021p01.html
yarngal yarngal wrote:
)
) I read that Waldorf/Anthroposophy reveres cows. I wonder if that is why
) they also live in Wisconsin? Haha, the "Sacred cow" belief is absurd!
Alex wrote:
)This post doesn't really deserve a response, but at my school I have
)never heard anything about cows being sacred except in my study of
)India. Can't we try to respect everyone's beliefs here, yarngal yarngal?
Alex
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1589
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Waldorf and cows
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Waldorf and cows
By sbcglobal.net
RE: Waldorf and cows
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: Waldorf and cows
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Waldorf and cows
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: Waldorf and cows
By dcann2 cox.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 17:28:22 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf and cows
Of course, there is the biodynamic compost "starter" which is made by
putting cow dung in a cow's horn and burying it in the ground for some
period of time (the winter months I think). This creates the bacteria
that are mixed with water (stirred for an hour in figure 8's or in
alternating directions) and spread over the new compost pile. So, yes,
I would say the cow is extremely important - absolutely essential - to
biodynamic farming.
Pete
walden wrote:
)
) I try to be respectful of various beliefs while respecting my own need
) for
) clarification and honesty. I'm still miffed that my own child spent time
) on
) a biodynamic farm during his Waldorf years participating in magic
) rituals
) (involving parts of a sacrificed cow) without my knowledge. I was told
) the
) place was basically an organic garden. Not quite.
)
) "Thus the cow, lying in the meadow, is in actual fact spiritual
) substance,
) which earth-matter takes up, absorbs, makes similar to itself.
)
) When the cow dies, this spiritual substance which the cow bears within
) herself can be taken up by the earth, together with the earthly matter,
) for
) the well-being of the life of the whole earth. And man is right when he
) feels in regard to the cow: You are the true beast of sacrifice, for you
) continually give to the earth what it needs, without which it could not
) continue to exist, without which it would harden and dry up. You
) continually
) give spiritual substance to the earth, and renew the inner mobility, the
) inner living activity of the earth."
) -Rudolph Steiner, Man as Symphony of the Creative Word, LECTURE III 21st
) October, 1923 http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/19231021p01.html
)
) yarngal yarngal wrote:
) )
) ) I read that Waldorf/Anthroposophy reveres cows. I wonder if that is why
) ) they also live in Wisconsin? Haha, the "Sacred cow" belief is absurd!
)
) Alex wrote:
) )This post doesn't really deserve a response, but at my school I have
) )never heard anything about cows being sacred except in my study of
) )India. Can't we try to respect everyone's beliefs here, yarngal yarngal?
)
) Alex
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 17:37:26 +0000
From: Alex Sull ( sbcglobal.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf and cows
I thought we were talking about Waldorf education, not biodynamic
farming. In 9th grade our class went to a biodynamic farm for a week and
did not participate in any rituals. I don't know what they did to the
food there but we prepared meals with only food from their farm and it
tasted far beyond anything I've ever eaten in a resterant or at home.
Perhaps some schools take the biodynamic farming experience further than
others.
Alex
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
) Of course, there is the biodynamic compost "starter" which is made by
) putting cow dung in a cow's horn and burying it in the ground for some
) period of time (the winter months I think). This creates the bacteria
) that are mixed with water (stirred for an hour in figure 8's or in
) alternating directions) and spread over the new compost pile. So, yes,
) I would say the cow is extremely important - absolutely essential - to
) biodynamic farming.
)
)
) Pete
)
)
) walden wrote:
) )
) ) I try to be respectful of various beliefs while respecting my own need
) ) for
) ) clarification and honesty. I'm still miffed that my own child spent time
) )
) ) on
) ) a biodynamic farm during his Waldorf years participating in magic
) ) rituals
) ) (involving parts of a sacrificed cow) without my knowledge. I was told
) ) the
) ) place was basically an organic garden. Not quite.
) )
) ) "Thus the cow, lying in the meadow, is in actual fact spiritual
) ) substance,
) ) which earth-matter takes up, absorbs, makes similar to itself.
) )
) ) When the cow dies, this spiritual substance which the cow bears within
) ) herself can be taken up by the earth, together with the earthly matter,
) ) for
) ) the well-being of the life of the whole earth. And man is right when he
) ) feels in regard to the cow: You are the true beast of sacrifice, for you
) ) continually give to the earth what it needs, without which it could not
) ) continue to exist, without which it would harden and dry up. You
) ) continually
) ) give spiritual substance to the earth, and renew the inner mobility, the
) ) inner living activity of the earth."
) ) -Rudolph Steiner, Man as Symphony of the Creative Word, LECTURE III 21st
) ) October, 1923 http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/19231021p01.html
) )
) ) yarngal yarngal wrote:
) ) )
) ) ) I read that Waldorf/Anthroposophy reveres cows. I wonder if that is why
) ) ) they also live in Wisconsin? Haha, the "Sacred cow" belief is absurd!
) )
) ) Alex wrote:
) ) )This post doesn't really deserve a response, but at my school I have
) ) )never heard anything about cows being sacred except in my study of
) ) )India. Can't we try to respect everyone's beliefs here, yarngal yarngal?
) )
) ) Alex
) )
) )
Alex Sull
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 18:49:22 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf and cows
Hi Alex,
I agree, biodynamic food tastes good. I used to buy vegetables from a
biodynamic co-op. Potatoes tasted like potatoes, and the eggs were
orange, not the washed-out yellow we are accustomed to. No complaints
about the food here. Just mentioning the connection to cows as I
thought that's what the topic was. And the question was about
"Anthroposophy/Waldorf", not just Waldorf.
Pete
Alex Sull wrote:
)
) I thought we were talking about Waldorf education, not biodynamic
) farming. In 9th grade our class went to a biodynamic farm for a week and
)
) did not participate in any rituals. I don't know what they did to the
) food there but we prepared meals with only food from their farm and it
) tasted far beyond anything I've ever eaten in a resterant or at home.
) Perhaps some schools take the biodynamic farming experience further than
)
) others.
)
) Alex
)
)
) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) )
) ) Of course, there is the biodynamic compost "starter" which is made by
) ) putting cow dung in a cow's horn and burying it in the ground for some
) ) period of time (the winter months I think). This creates the bacteria
) ) that are mixed with water (stirred for an hour in figure 8's or in
) ) alternating directions) and spread over the new compost pile. So, yes,
) ) I would say the cow is extremely important - absolutely essential - to
) ) biodynamic farming.
) )
) )
) ) Pete
) )
) )
) ) walden wrote:
) ) )
) ) ) I try to be respectful of various beliefs while respecting my own need
) ) ) for
) ) ) clarification and honesty. I'm still miffed that my own child spent time
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) on
) ) ) a biodynamic farm during his Waldorf years participating in magic
) ) ) rituals
) ) ) (involving parts of a sacrificed cow) without my knowledge. I was told
) ) ) the
) ) ) place was basically an organic garden. Not quite.
) ) )
) ) ) "Thus the cow, lying in the meadow, is in actual fact spiritual
) ) ) substance,
) ) ) which earth-matter takes up, absorbs, makes similar to itself.
) ) )
) ) ) When the cow dies, this spiritual substance which the cow bears within
) ) ) herself can be taken up by the earth, together with the earthly matter,
) ) ) for
) ) ) the well-being of the life of the whole earth. And man is right when he
) ) ) feels in regard to the cow: You are the true beast of sacrifice, for you
) ) ) continually give to the earth what it needs, without which it could not
) ) ) continue to exist, without which it would harden and dry up. You
) ) ) continually
) ) ) give spiritual substance to the earth, and renew the inner mobility, the
) ) ) inner living activity of the earth."
) ) ) -Rudolph Steiner, Man as Symphony of the Creative Word, LECTURE III 21st
) ) ) October, 1923 http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/19231021p01.html
) ) )
) ) ) yarngal yarngal wrote:
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) I read that Waldorf/Anthroposophy reveres cows. I wonder if that is why
) ) ) ) they also live in Wisconsin? Haha, the "Sacred cow" belief is absurd!
) ) )
) ) ) Alex wrote:
) ) ) )This post doesn't really deserve a response, but at my school I have
) ) ) )never heard anything about cows being sacred except in my study of
) ) ) )India. Can't we try to respect everyone's beliefs here, yarngal yarngal?
) ) )
) ) ) Alex
) ) )
) ) )
)
)
)
) Alex Sull
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 11:17:46 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and cows
Hi Alex,
Yes, we are talking about Waldorf education and as you just connected the
dots (with your own experience), there is obviously a link between
biodynamic farming and Waldorf education. That was the point of my post as
someone else brought up the topic of "cows." We could also talk about Anthro
medicine as many Waldorf schools have an Anthro doctor on board. It's all
connected. It should not seem surprising as this is a spiritual movement.
What is disturbing to me is the disingenuous marketing techniques used by
the movement to attract customers. THAT is the main reason, imo, for this
list, the Waldorf survivors list and the bulk of the controversy.
As for your bio-prepared meal tasting better than any other meal - I don't
doubt it but then again, your experience is anecdotal. there is no proof
anywhere (that I know of) that bio prepared food tastes better or is more
nutritious than regular organically grown food. Add to that the fact that
serious vegetarians are not at all pleased to learn (after they have eaten
their "vegetarian" meal) that cow body parts had been buried in the bio
garden at various times during the lunar cycle and perhaps you can
understand more of the controversy.
-Walden
alex wrote:
)I thought we were talking about Waldorf education, not biodynamic
)farming. In 9th grade our class went to a biodynamic farm for a week and
)did not participate in any rituals. I don't know what they did to the
)food there but we prepared meals with only food from their farm and it
)tasted far beyond anything I've ever eaten in a resterant or at home.
)Perhaps some schools take the biodynamic farming experience further than
)others.
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
) Of course, there is the biodynamic compost "starter" which is made by
) putting cow dung in a cow's horn and burying it in the ground for some
) period of time (the winter months I think). This creates the bacteria
) that are mixed with water (stirred for an hour in figure 8's or in
) alternating directions) and spread over the new compost pile. So, yes,
) I would say the cow is extremely important - absolutely essential - to
) biodynamic farming.
)
)
) Pete
)
)
) walden wrote:
) )
) ) I try to be respectful of various beliefs while respecting my own need
) ) for
) ) clarification and honesty. I'm still miffed that my own child spent time
) )
) ) on
) ) a biodynamic farm during his Waldorf years participating in magic
) ) rituals
) ) (involving parts of a sacrificed cow) without my knowledge. I was told
) ) the
) ) place was basically an organic garden. Not quite.
) )
) ) "Thus the cow, lying in the meadow, is in actual fact spiritual
) ) substance,
) ) which earth-matter takes up, absorbs, makes similar to itself.
) )
) ) When the cow dies, this spiritual substance which the cow bears within
) ) herself can be taken up by the earth, together with the earthly matter,
) ) for
) ) the well-being of the life of the whole earth. And man is right when he
) ) feels in regard to the cow: You are the true beast of sacrifice, for you
) ) continually give to the earth what it needs, without which it could not
) ) continue to exist, without which it would harden and dry up. You
) ) continually
) ) give spiritual substance to the earth, and renew the inner mobility, the
) ) inner living activity of the earth."
) ) -Rudolph Steiner, Man as Symphony of the Creative Word, LECTURE III 21st
) ) October, 1923 http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/19231021p01.html
) )
) ) yarngal yarngal wrote:
) ) )
) ) ) I read that Waldorf/Anthroposophy reveres cows. I wonder if that is
why
) ) ) they also live in Wisconsin? Haha, the "Sacred cow" belief is absurd!
) )
) ) Alex wrote:
) ) )This post doesn't really deserve a response, but at my school I have
) ) )never heard anything about cows being sacred except in my study of
) ) )India. Can't we try to respect everyone's beliefs here, yarngal
yarngal?
) )
) ) Alex
) )
) )
Alex Sull
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
We can reduce your unsecured credit card debt by 40-60%.
Don't file bankruptcy. Be Debt Free in as little as 1 year. Take
control of your situation. 100% FREE Consultation.
http://click.topica.com/caacYksb1dkiGb2QZUTf/KnockOutDebt
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 15:35:57 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
From: momof2gals mindspring.com
Subject: Re: Waldorf and cows
Alex, you are correct that people ought to respect one another's beliefs, within reason. (I say "within reason" because if, say, a few people were to believe that it was right to kill anyone who did not agree with them, then I would not say those killers' beliefs were worthy of respect.)
The problem here is that many Waldorf schools (and by this, I mean the folks who run them) do NOT respect the beliefs of the families who are enrolling their children. They show this disrespect and flagrant disregard by NOT telling the families who are putting their children in a Waldorf school that Waldorf schools are Anthroposophical schools. Why don't they do this? A couple of reasons. One is that they are worried that if they advertise the fact that Waldorf schools offer what amounts to an Anthroposophical education (by that, I mean an education administered -- method and content -- according to the tenets of Anthroposophy), people will not enroll their children. (Not true, of course, but let us move on.) Two, one of the tenets of Anthroposophy is NOT to proselytize; Anthros. like to wait for people to "seek" them out. To some people's way of thinking, that means telling families "Your child will get an Anthroposophical education" is tantamount to proseltyizing. It is enough for those Anthro true believers that we parents showed up with our kids. They are convinced that that means our children have karma with the school, and are meant to be there. (Hogwash in the extreme, but once again, let us move on.) Lastly, I truly believe that the main reason Waldorf school people do not tell parents about the role Anthro. plays in their institutions is because they don't care if they are forcing their religion and way of thinking, feeling, and being down the children's throats. They think karma gives them a mandate to do it. They think their way is the right way.
Not very respectful, Alex.
By the way, many of our children (all in different Waldorf schools all around the world) had that same cow lesson. You didn't have it, because you apparently were not in Waldorf for the earlier grades. You missed much of the Anthro "grounding" that our children experienced.
I mean no disrespect to you, Alex, because you seem like a very intelligent, curious and informed young man. But it is clear that many of us parents are more informed and knowledgeable about Waldorf than you are, at least as to the early grades. I daresay many of us have read more Steiner than you and have had children who were in Waldorf from the ground up. You ought not dismiss what we say.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Sent: Jan 2, 2005 1:42 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: Waldorf and cows
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
** Get Your Own Support-a-Cure Yellow Bracelet for $1.99 **
Show your support for finding cures for both AIDS & Cancer.
Get yours for just $1.99. This bracelet makes a difference.
http://click.topica.com/caacYkkb1dkiGb1IpcOa/Penn Media
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be respectful of various beliefs while respecting my own need for
clarification and honesty. I'm still miffed that my own child spent time on
a biodynamic farm during his Waldorf years participating in magic rituals
(involving parts of a sacrificed cow) without my knowledge. I was told the
place was basically an organic garden. Not quite.
"Thus the cow, lying in the meadow, is in actual fact spiritual substance,
which earth-matter takes up, absorbs, makes similar to itself.
When the cow dies, this spiritual substance which the cow bears within
herself can be taken up by the earth, together with the earthly matter, for
the well-being of the life of the whole earth. And man is right when he
feels in regard to the cow: You are the true beast of sacrifice, for you
continually give to the earth what it needs, without which it could not
continue to exist, without which it would harden and dry up. You continually
give spiritual substance to the earth, and renew the inner mobility, the
inner living activity of the earth."
-Rudolph Steiner, Man as Symphony of the Creative Word, LECTURE III 21st
October, 1923 http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/19231021p01.html
yarngal yarngal wrote:
)
) I read that Waldorf/Anthroposophy reveres cows. I wonder if that is why
) they also live in Wisconsin? Haha, the "Sacred cow" belief is absurd!
Alex wrote:
)This post doesn't really deserve a response, but at my school I have
)never heard anything about cows being sacred except in my study of
)India. Can't we try to respect everyone's beliefs here, yarngal yarngal?
Alex
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a Holy Bible for FREE!
http://click.topica.com/caacYkCb1dkiGb1IpcOf/PermissionData
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 16:32:28 -0500
From: "David Cann" (dcann2 cox.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf and cows
Lisa:
By the way, many of our children (all in different Waldorf schools all
around the world) had that same cow lesson. You didn't have it, because you
apparently were not in Waldorf for the earlier grades. You missed much of
the Anthro "grounding" that our children experienced.
David: What cow lesson?
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1590
-- Topica Digest --
i am tolerant and i like cows
By yarngal webtv.net
email from Steiner Books re: Earth Changes
By dan dandugan.com
critical thinking (was RE: To Believe)
By dan dandugan.com
Re: "the heart is not a pump"
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Exit Data
By dan dandugan.com
Admin: Ad hominem warning [RE: Exit Data]
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 16:23:58 +0000
From: yarngal yarngal (yarngal webtv.net)
Subject: i am tolerant and i like cows
Hi. First, I am tolerant of different religious beliefs as long as
NOBODY gets hurt.
Second, I like cows but I read someplace that Waldorf/Anthroposophy
reveres cows and birds above other animals, for spiritual reasons, but
it didn't get into more detail about why. So I was curious about that
and posted about it here. I like birds too. Yes, in my last post, I did
give my personal opinion about "scared cows", but you don't have to
agree with me. Just no personal attacks, please.
I don't like to "spiritualize" normal everyday stuff like knitting (I
like knitting too), animals, birds, and other things. WHY
"spiriutalize" everyday, normal things and activities?
There is a problem in many diferent religions to spiritualize the
meanings of everyday things. That is to change the original meaning. I
am against changing the original meanings of words, activities, and
objects which only serves to cause confusion and error.
Best Wishes, yarngal
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 00:53:17 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: email from Steiner Books re: Earth Changes
A recent message from Steiner Books, where they
think they can "look more deeply into what lies
behind today's events":
-Dan Dugan
***
http://www.steinerbooks.org/
Dear Friend,
As the holiday season comes to a close and a new
year begins, we are all saddened and dismayed by
the recent disaster in South Asia. In the comfort
and relative security of our own daily lives,
events of such magnitude half a world away are
difficult to grasp unless we are able to dig more
deeply into the active forces and trends that
exist behind the outer appearances of world
events.
In this special newsletter, we wish to bring to
your attention two books that can help us
understand both the global changes taking place
and what it means for ourselves and the future of
our Earth.
"After a major earthquake, the whole world
resonates like a bell that has been struck. It
lasts for several hours after the main shock. But
what's more intriguing [in this case] is that a
big piece of the planet's mass has been moved
around. This actually altered the axis of the
earth's rotation." -Gianluca Valensise of the
Italian Institute of Geophysics and Vulcanology
http://www.steinerbooks.org/detail.html?id=1584200251
Turned Upside Down: A Workbook on Earth Changes and Personal Transformation
by Marko Pogacnik http://www.steinerbooks.org/author.html?au=1502
"Since February 1998, the Earth has accelerated
her cycles of change. We are also urged to
accelerate our own processes of change.... This
book is concerned with the fact ... that for the
past several years our planet has been undergoing
an intensive inner transformation. Up till now,
the transformation process appears to have had no
serious effect on our everyday life. This is
deceptive, because the future of our common
earthly living space will be completely redefined
by the Earth changes that are even now drawing to
completion. The Earth will no longer be as it
once was, even a few years ago." -Marko Pogacnik
Here, Pogacnik describes what we can expect and
how to prepare ourselves to deal with it. He
presents simple exercises and meditations that
will not only help us survive and adapt, but will
also-and more important-help the Earth herself
bring forth her true Self.
Also, see Marko's book
http://www.steinerbooks.org/detail.html?id=1-899171-53-3
Earth Changes, Human Destiny: Coping and Attuning
with the Revelations of St. John.
***
http://www.steinerbooks.org/detail.html?id=088010399x
A Western Approach to Reincarnation and Karma
by Rudolf Steiner http://www.steinerbooks.org/author.html?au=1164
Edited and Introduced by René Querido
In this collection of lectures, Steiner explains
some of our karmic connections and
interconnections with the Earth and with our
neighbors around the world. Of particular
interest at this time is the lecture titled
"Elemental Events, Volcanic Eruptions,
Earthquakes, and Epidemics in Relation to Karma"
(May 1910):
"Today the older forces come storming in to
correct what luciferic influence would otherwise
bring about. And if the ordered course of
existence nevertheless continues, these forces
come storming in all the more strongly in order
to bring about an even greater degree of
correction. Everything that leads to regular,
progressive development belongs to the forces of
Earth itself. When a volcano erupts lava, the
forces that are at work in it are Old Moon forces
that had been held back, but have been carried
over from Old Moon in order to exert a corrective
influence on our life on Earth. It is the same
with earthquakes and all other natural disasters.
We can realize that in the course of development
as a whole, there actually is a rational basis
for much of what comes from outside. It still
remains for us to see what this has to do with
human I-consciousness." -Rudolf Steiner
See also Rudolf Steiner's
(http://www.steinerbooks.org/detail.html?id=1855840987)
Harmony of the Creative Word: The Human Being &
the Elemental, Animal, Plant, and Mineral Kingdoms
These are serious issues, and it is only by
looking more deeply into what lies behind today's
events that we will begin to understand them in
the larger context of earthly and human evolution.
You will find these and other books on the
(http://www.steinerbooks.org/)SteinerBooks
website.
Warm wishes for the happiest of new years,
From the staff at SteinerBooks!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 01:23:06 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: critical thinking (was RE: To Believe)
Dan and Linda had a dialogue:
) ) DAN DUGAN:
)) ) ) First, perhaps we have different definitions of "critical thinking."
)) )) To, me, it means analyzing and questioning.
))
)) LINDA CLEMENS:
)) )I think it is more than that, but I'm not sure it matters to this
)) )argument.
)) )
)) )) Waldorf strongly discourages this kind of thinking before the age of
)) )) fourteen.
)) )
)) )That's oversimplified. But for the purposes of argument--analyzing and
)) )questioning are delayed until adolescence, yes.
))
)) What kind of "critical thinking" do you get when you discourage
)) analyzing and questioning?
))
)) )Analytical thinking
)) )follows after the powers of imaginative thinking, observation,
)) )experimentation, and other sensory experience are established.
))
)) That's ridiculous. It's going to take a lot more than Steiner's
) ) say-so to justify such a radical position.
And Alex Sull added:
)Science and mathematics require imagination, observation, and
)experimentation in preliminary work. It is only after these steps that
)one can advance to connecting ideas and observations with analytical
)thinking.
You're both repeating Steiner's dogma. Why "only after these steps"?
Why shouldn't analytical thinking be taught from the beginning? Why
should young children be deprived of thoughtful conversation when
they are overflowing with curiosity?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 02:03:22 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: "the heart is not a pump"
Alex Sull, you wrote:
)Is the heart a pump?
)
)In out study of anatomy in 9th grade we were taught to not think of the
)heart as a pump. This caused a few days of discussion with me
)indignantly arguing that the heart was indeed a pump.
This is a dogma of Anthroposophy, and you were quite right to object
to it. Steiner said that blood was a spiritual fluid and moved
itself, and the heart's only mechanical function was to regulate the
flow. According to him the heart had higher purposes, "etherizing"
the blood, for example.
)Finally, I
)understood the idea and agreed with it completely.
A student is required to submit to authority. They wore you down.
)Reasons:
)
)1) (The main reason, for me) The heart does not "pull" blood into itself
)like a pump. This is done by osmosis and muscle contractions of the
)veins. There is no muscle in the heart to let blood flow into it. It
)simply relaxes. In it's relaxed state there is actually pressure of the
)body to keep blood from coming in. A pump pulls fluid into itself and
)then pushes it back out. The heart merely aids in pushing the blood out
)into the body.
Wrong. The heart pumps the blood forcefully. That is its function.
)2) Scientific studies show that many recipients of heart transplants,
)without any knowledge of their donor's lives, will aquire some of their
)donor's traits or even have dreams from their donor's lives. There are
)many books on this issue.
There are many books filled with nonsense, Alex, and those are among
them. I assure you that there are no studies meeting the standards of
science that come to that conclusion.
)I don't take much stock in the second one, but the first seems
)completely reasonable.
The first sounds to me like a labored rationalization of Steiner's
doctrine. It should simply be thrown out.
Now, Alex, you've revealed that your school taught you Anthroposophy
pretending to be science. No surprise for those of us familiar with
Waldorf pedagogy, but the expectation was raised that your school
might be an exception to the norm.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 01:42:12 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Exit Data
I'm trying to convince Alex Sull to show us the evidence for his
claim that Anthroposophy isn't taught in his school:
) ) Waldorf schools often put lesson books out for visitors to peruse.
)) This is the same thing, but with a wider audience, and the consent of
)) the student.
))
) ) What are your concerns?
)My Concerns:
)1) You will use my books as evidence in the PLANS lawsuit.
We turned in our evidence long ago. I don't think your books would be
relevant to the case anyway, unless you attend one of the two schools
we are suing.
)2) Someone I know will find my books connected to a website that is
)anti-Waldorf and recognize them and think that those are my views. (I
)know: easily remedied, but I'd rather not have anyone I know find my
)books online anyways)
)3) Some arbitrary person will find my books and think that my personal
)faults or views are representative of Waldorf students in general.
If you're shy about showing your own work, perhaps you could ask
teachers to select exemplary lesson books from blocks of interest.
They often do that for open houses. If we can't examine the evidence
together we can't find the truth.
)A friend pointed out to me a site that has some examples of main lesson
)books: http://www.live-education.com/
)Perhaps we can discuss those.
Sure we can. I'm not going to hold your feet to the fire about
backing up your assertions with evidence because you're under age.
You have a status privilege.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 01:48:03 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: Ad hominem warning [RE: Exit Data]
ALEX SULL:
) ) A friend pointed out to me a site that has some examples of main lesson
)) books: http://www.live-education.com/
) ) Perhaps we can discuss those.
BRAD MARTIN:
)Good thinking, Alex. These folks, the WC Activists, are not to be
)trusted. They are only interested in carrying out their personal
)vendettas based on their narrow view of it all.
)Brad
Personal insults are destructive to productive discussion, Brad, and
they are against the rules of this list. Limit your comments to the
topics being discussed. Do not disparage the personalities of your
fellow subscribers.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1591
-- Topica Digest --
Re: "the heart is not a pump"
By momof2gals mindspring.com
Re: critical thinking (was RE: To Believe)
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: email from Steiner Books re: Earth Changes
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: email from Steiner Books re: Earth Changes
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: Waldorf Education & Anthroposophy
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: critical thinking (was RE: To Believe)
By abd lomaxdesign.com
re: critical thinking skills
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: Waldorf and cows
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: critical thinking (was RE: To Believe)
By sbcglobal.net
RE: "the heart is not a pump"
By sbcglobal.net
RE: Waldorf and cows
By sbcglobal.net
RE: "the heart is not a pump"
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: "the heart is not a pump"
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: "the heart is not a pump"
By sbcglobal.net
RE: "the heart is not a pump"
By sbcglobal.net
RE: "the heart is not a pump"
By sbcglobal.net
Re: critical thinking (was RE: To Believe)
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 08:36:25 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
From: momof2gals mindspring.com
Subject: Re: "the heart is not a pump"
Those of you here who know Anthroposophy more in-depth than do I may be able to answer this question: What is "wrong" with the human heart being a "pump?" Is there something demeaning about the heart functioning (for all intents and purposes) as a pump? Is it because a pump is somewhat "mechanical?"
I do not understand the Anthro objection to the heart being a pump. If the heart was not a pump, then people whose hearts fail would not die. Simple as that.
Also, Alex, I am sorry to tell you that there are NO credible scientific studies that show that people who receive transplanted hearts acquire the tastes, ambitions, dreams, etc. of the original heart's owners. However, there are transplant recipients that say that that has happened to them. They report a new love, for, say, broccoli or an interest in motocross racing that they never had before. But people's individual reports are not supported and proven scientific evidence.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Sent: Jan 4, 2005 5:03 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: Re: "the heart is not a pump"
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing Diet Patch
The fastest - Easiest way to lose weight! Try it now FREE!
http://click.topica.com/caacYkHb1dkiGb1IpcOa/MyDietPatches
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Sull, you wrote:
)Is the heart a pump?
)
)In out study of anatomy in 9th grade we were taught to not think of the
)heart as a pump. This caused a few days of discussion with me
)indignantly arguing that the heart was indeed a pump.
This is a dogma of Anthroposophy, and you were quite right to object
to it. Steiner said that blood was a spiritual fluid and moved
itself, and the heart's only mechanical function was to regulate the
flow. According to him the heart had higher purposes, "etherizing"
the blood, for example.
)Finally, I
)understood the idea and agreed with it completely.
A student is required to submit to authority. They wore you down.
)Reasons:
)
)1) (The main reason, for me) The heart does not "pull" blood into itself
)like a pump. This is done by osmosis and muscle contractions of the
)veins. There is no muscle in the heart to let blood flow into it. It
)simply relaxes. In it's relaxed state there is actually pressure of the
)body to keep blood from coming in. A pump pulls fluid into itself and
)then pushes it back out. The heart merely aids in pushing the blood out
)into the body.
Wrong. The heart pumps the blood forcefully. That is its function.
)2) Scientific studies show that many recipients of heart transplants,
)without any knowledge of their donor's lives, will aquire some of their
)donor's traits or even have dreams from their donor's lives. There are
)many books on this issue.
There are many books filled with nonsense, Alex, and those are among
them. I assure you that there are no studies meeting the standards of
science that come to that conclusion.
)I don't take much stock in the second one, but the first seems
)completely reasonable.
The first sounds to me like a labored rationalization of Steiner's
doctrine. It should simply be thrown out.
Now, Alex, you've revealed that your school taught you Anthroposophy
pretending to be science. No surprise for those of us familiar with
Waldorf pedagogy, but the expectation was raised that your school
might be an exception to the norm.
-Dan Dugan
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a Holy Bible for FREE!
http://click.topica.com/caacYkCb1dkiGb1IpcOf/PermissionData
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 08:40:06 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
From: momof2gals mindspring.com
Subject: Re: critical thinking (was RE: To Believe)
Critical thinking and questioning should NOT be discouraged until adolescence. As Dan said, children possess a wonderful natural curiosity that is hard to replicate at a later age. What possible reason could there be (outside of a spiritual or religious reason) for NOT encouraging children to follow this natural inclination?
Linda, maybe you can explain why it is harmful or negative for children to engage in the kind of critical thinking that Dan and I are referencing before adolescence. What do you think is lost if a child of, say, 7 is allowed to engage in cause and effect reasoning, etc.?
I don't "get" what is wrong with this in a practical sense. I understand Steiner's objection: he says the child's spirituality will be impeded.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Sent: Jan 4, 2005 4:23 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: critical thinking (was RE: To Believe)
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
We can reduce your unsecured credit card debt by 40-60%.
Don’t file bankruptcy. Be Debt Free in as little as 1 year. Take
control of your situation. 100% FREE Consultation.
http://click.topica.com/caacYksb1dkiGb1IpcOa/KnockOutDebt
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan and Linda had a dialogue:
) ) DAN DUGAN:
)) ) ) First, perhaps we have different definitions of "critical thinking."
)) )) To, me, it means analyzing and questioning.
))
)) LINDA CLEMENS:
)) )I think it is more than that, but I'm not sure it matters to this
)) )argument.
)) )
)) )) Waldorf strongly discourages this kind of thinking before the age of
)) )) fourteen.
)) )
)) )That's oversimplified. But for the purposes of argument--analyzing and
)) )questioning are delayed until adolescence, yes.
))
)) What kind of "critical thinking" do you get when you discourage
)) analyzing and questioning?
))
)) )Analytical thinking
)) )follows after the powers of imaginative thinking, observation,
)) )experimentation, and other sensory experience are established.
))
)) That's ridiculous. It's going to take a lot more than Steiner's
) ) say-so to justify such a radical position.
And Alex Sull added:
)Science and mathematics require imagination, observation, and
)experimentation in preliminary work. It is only after these steps that
)one can advance to connecting ideas and observations with analytical
)thinking.
You're both repeating Steiner's dogma. Why "only after these steps"?
Why shouldn't analytical thinking be taught from the beginning? Why
should young children be deprived of thoughtful conversation when
they are overflowing with curiosity?
-Dan Dugan
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
** Get Your Own Support-a-Cure Yellow Bracelet for $1.99 **
Show your support for finding cures for both AIDS & Cancer.
Get yours for just $1.99. This bracelet makes a difference.
http://click.topica.com/caacYkkb1dkiGb1IpcOf/Penn Media
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 15:43:15 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: email from Steiner Books re: Earth Changes
Capitalism at its best. I would think they would also want to push
"Atlantis and Lemuria" as the earthquake was practically centered on
what Steiner described as ancient Lemuria.
Pete
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) A recent message from Steiner Books, where they
) think they can "look more deeply into what lies
) behind today's events":
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
) ***
)
) http://www.steinerbooks.org/
)
) Dear Friend,
) As the holiday season comes to a close and a new
) year begins, we are all saddened and dismayed by
) the recent disaster in South Asia. In the comfort
) and relative security of our own daily lives,
) events of such magnitude half a world away are
) difficult to grasp unless we are able to dig more
) deeply into the active forces and trends that
) exist behind the outer appearances of world
) events.
) In this special newsletter, we wish to bring to
) your attention two books that can help us
) understand both the global changes taking place
) and what it means for ourselves and the future of
) our Earth.
)
) "After a major earthquake, the whole world
) resonates like a bell that has been struck. It
) lasts for several hours after the main shock. But
) what's more intriguing [in this case] is that a
) big piece of the planet's mass has been moved
) around. This actually altered the axis of the
) earth's rotation." -Gianluca Valensise of the
) Italian Institute of Geophysics and Vulcanology
)
) http://www.steinerbooks.org/detail.html?id=1584200251
) Turned Upside Down: A Workbook on Earth Changes and Personal
) Transformation
) by Marko Pogacnik http://www.steinerbooks.org/author.html?au=1502
)
) "Since February 1998, the Earth has accelerated
) her cycles of change. We are also urged to
) accelerate our own processes of change.... This
) book is concerned with the fact ... that for the
) past several years our planet has been undergoing
) an intensive inner transformation. Up till now,
) the transformation process appears to have had no
) serious effect on our everyday life. This is
) deceptive, because the future of our common
) earthly living space will be completely redefined
) by the Earth changes that are even now drawing to
) completion. The Earth will no longer be as it
) once was, even a few years ago." -Marko Pogacnik
)
) Here, Pogacnik describes what we can expect and
) how to prepare ourselves to deal with it. He
) presents simple exercises and meditations that
) will not only help us survive and adapt, but will
) also-and more important-help the Earth herself
) bring forth her true Self.
)
) Also, see Marko's book
) http://www.steinerbooks.org/detail.html?id=1-899171-53-3
) Earth Changes, Human Destiny: Coping and Attuning
) with the Revelations of St. John.
)
) ***
)
) http://www.steinerbooks.org/detail.html?id=088010399x
) A Western Approach to Reincarnation and Karma
) by Rudolf Steiner http://www.steinerbooks.org/author.html?au=1164
)
) Edited and Introduced by René Querido
)
) In this collection of lectures, Steiner explains
) some of our karmic connections and
) interconnections with the Earth and with our
) neighbors around the world. Of particular
) interest at this time is the lecture titled
) "Elemental Events, Volcanic Eruptions,
) Earthquakes, and Epidemics in Relation to Karma"
) (May 1910):
)
) "Today the older forces come storming in to
) correct what luciferic influence would otherwise
) bring about. And if the ordered course of
) existence nevertheless continues, these forces
) come storming in all the more strongly in order
) to bring about an even greater degree of
) correction. Everything that leads to regular,
) progressive development belongs to the forces of
) Earth itself. When a volcano erupts lava, the
) forces that are at work in it are Old Moon forces
) that had been held back, but have been carried
) over from Old Moon in order to exert a corrective
) influence on our life on Earth. It is the same
) with earthquakes and all other natural disasters.
) We can realize that in the course of development
) as a whole, there actually is a rational basis
) for much of what comes from outside. It still
) remains for us to see what this has to do with
) human I-consciousness." -Rudolf Steiner
)
) See also Rudolf Steiner's
) (http://www.steinerbooks.org/detail.html?id=1855840987)
) Harmony of the Creative Word: The Human Being &
) the Elemental, Animal, Plant, and Mineral Kingdoms
)
) These are serious issues, and it is only by
) looking more deeply into what lies behind today's
) events that we will begin to understand them in
) the larger context of earthly and human evolution.
)
) You will find these and other books on the
) (http://www.steinerbooks.org/)SteinerBooks
) website.
) Warm wishes for the happiest of new years,
) From the staff at SteinerBooks!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:47:23 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
From: momof2gals mindspring.com
Subject: RE: email from Steiner Books re: Earth Changes
Not surprising. I recall a discussion that took place on this list some years ago during which a Waldorf teacher trainee's wife (a member of this list) reported that her husband was told that the location of the Alps was in some ways either predictive of or caused (in part) the Holocaust during World War II! I vaguely recall the discussion morphing into a conversation about the school shooting at Columbine, and someone asking whether the position of the Rocky Mountains had something to do with it.
Hey, I'm all for us human beings recognizing that we are not alone on this planet and that the planet is, essentially, a living thing. But this kind of discussion takes that thesis to a new extreme.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Sent: Jan 4, 2005 10:43 AM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: email from Steiner Books re: Earth Changes
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
We can reduce your unsecured credit card debt by 40-60%.
Don’t file bankruptcy. Be Debt Free in as little as 1 year. Take
control of your situation. 100% FREE Consultation.
http://click.topica.com/caacYksb1dkiGb1IpcOa/KnockOutDebt
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitalism at its best. I would think they would also want to push
"Atlantis and Lemuria" as the earthquake was practically centered on
what Steiner described as ancient Lemuria.
Pete
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) A recent message from Steiner Books, where they
) think they can "look more deeply into what lies
) behind today's events":
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
) ***
)
) http://www.steinerbooks.org/
)
) Dear Friend,
) As the holiday season comes to a close and a new
) year begins, we are all saddened and dismayed by
) the recent disaster in South Asia. In the comfort
) and relative security of our own daily lives,
) events of such magnitude half a world away are
) difficult to grasp unless we are able to dig more
) deeply into the active forces and trends that
) exist behind the outer appearances of world
) events.
) In this special newsletter, we wish to bring to
) your attention two books that can help us
) understand both the global changes taking place
) and what it means for ourselves and the future of
) our Earth.
)
) "After a major earthquake, the whole world
) resonates like a bell that has been struck. It
) lasts for several hours after the main shock. But
) what's more intriguing [in this case] is that a
) big piece of the planet's mass has been moved
) around. This actually altered the axis of the
) earth's rotation." -Gianluca Valensise of the
) Italian Institute of Geophysics and Vulcanology
)
) http://www.steinerbooks.org/detail.html?id=1584200251
) Turned Upside Down: A Workbook on Earth Changes and Personal
) Transformation
) by Marko Pogacnik http://www.steinerbooks.org/author.html?au=1502
)
) "Since February 1998, the Earth has accelerated
) her cycles of change. We are also urged to
) accelerate our own processes of change.... This
) book is concerned with the fact ... that for the
) past several years our planet has been undergoing
) an intensive inner transformation. Up till now,
) the transformation process appears to have had no
) serious effect on our everyday life. This is
) deceptive, because the future of our common
) earthly living space will be completely redefined
) by the Earth changes that are even now drawing to
) completion. The Earth will no longer be as it
) once was, even a few years ago." -Marko Pogacnik
)
) Here, Pogacnik describes what we can expect and
) how to prepare ourselves to deal with it. He
) presents simple exercises and meditations that
) will not only help us survive and adapt, but will
) also-and more important-help the Earth herself
) bring forth her true Self.
)
) Also, see Marko's book
) http://www.steinerbooks.org/detail.html?id=1-899171-53-3
) Earth Changes, Human Destiny: Coping and Attuning
) with the Revelations of St. John.
)
) ***
)
) http://www.steinerbooks.org/detail.html?id=088010399x
) A Western Approach to Reincarnation and Karma
) by Rudolf Steiner http://www.steinerbooks.org/author.html?au=1164
)
) Edited and Introduced by René Querido
)
) In this collection of lectures, Steiner explains
) some of our karmic connections and
) interconnections with the Earth and with our
) neighbors around the world. Of particular
) interest at this time is the lecture titled
) "Elemental Events, Volcanic Eruptions,
) Earthquakes, and Epidemics in Relation to Karma"
) (May 1910):
)
) "Today the older forces come storming in to
) correct what luciferic influence would otherwise
) bring about. And if the ordered course of
) existence nevertheless continues, these forces
) come storming in all the more strongly in order
) to bring about an even greater degree of
) correction. Everything that leads to regular,
) progressive development belongs to the forces of
) Earth itself. When a volcano erupts lava, the
) forces that are at work in it are Old Moon forces
) that had been held back, but have been carried
) over from Old Moon in order to exert a corrective
) influence on our life on Earth. It is the same
) with earthquakes and all other natural disasters.
) We can realize that in the course of development
) as a whole, there actually is a rational basis
) for much of what comes from outside. It still
) remains for us to see what this has to do with
) human I-consciousness." -Rudolf Steiner
)
) See also Rudolf Steiner's
) (http://www.steinerbooks.org/detail.html?id=1855840987)
) Harmony of the Creative Word: The Human Being &
) the Elemental, Animal, Plant, and Mineral Kingdoms
)
) These are serious issues, and it is only by
) looking more deeply into what lies behind today's
) events that we will begin to understand them in
) the larger context of earthly and human evolution.
)
) You will find these and other books on the
) (http://www.steinerbooks.org/)SteinerBooks
) website.
) Warm wishes for the happiest of new years,
) From the staff at SteinerBooks!
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
** Get Your Own Support-a-Cure Yellow Bracelet for $1.99 **
Show your support for finding cures for both AIDS & Cancer.
Get yours for just $1.99. This bracelet makes a difference.
http://click.topica.com/caacYkkb1dkiGb1IpcOf/Penn Media
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 10:56:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Education & Anthroposophy
Sorry about the delay in responding to this. I had to do some checking to be certain I was giving correct information. I also went into the WC archives and found that there is quite a bit of material re: Laurel High School and those behind it.
Margaret Sachs (powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com) wrote:
"What a sad story. I'm confused about the chronology.
Did the mother confront the school about their
subterfuge (over what?),"
Over being a covert Waldorf school. The mother brought it up several times during meetings and was told by the public school's Director of Instruction that, "Laurel is a school for the Pleasant Ridge students who don't want to go to the regular high school or the Youth Initiative High School." (That is a direct quote; I wrote it as she said it the first time and the second time she said it, it was basically the same statement if not exactly the same statement.)
"then the teacher told the
daughter that her mother was no longer welcome at the
school, then the mother withdrew her daughter from the
school, then the teacher threatened to delete the
girl's work on the school computer, then the student
went to have an abortion without her mother's
knowledge?"
That is the correct chronology, with the exception that the daughter decided to leave the school when she could not longer tolerate the teacher telling her what a worthless person she is, etc.
"At what point did the teacher give the
girl the name and phone number of a pysician who
performs abortions?"
While the daughter was still a student at Laurel.
"Was this publicized by the news media?"
It's hard to convey this to someone outside of an area such as Viroqua, but this is not something the news media would be interested in. The teacher and the rapist were reported to the authorities - a police report was made and hospital bills were copied by an officer - but nothing was done about it at all. The rapist went to prison for other crimes and the teacher is still at Laurel. Mandatory reporting is just not done around here and anyone who reports, for example, the abuse of a child is vilified. This is an incestuous community (figuratively and literally) and one is just not supposed to talk about such matters.
"Was the
teacher an Anthroposophist?"
No. She is just quite cozy with that community and we have no doubt that when her children come of age, that they will be enrolled at PRWS. This teacher has brought a number of local Waldorf teachers into Laurel for workshops, etc. and the last time I checked nearly all of the students at Laurel were at one time students at PRWS. Hers is an easy and well paid job. She does almost nothing all day besides playing games on the computer and doing personal reading. None of the projects that were set up while the daughter attended Laurel were ever even started, much less completed. When the daughter went in to pick up her belongings at Laurel, she found most of her work that she had turned in to the teacher who never checked it or returned it to her, in the garbage.
"Was the teacher charged
for breaking the law in not reporting the rape? I
would think the liability issues would be serious
considering the potential repercussions of the girl
almost bleeding out and having to have the blood
supply to her uterus shut off."
Not around here. Not only is this family considered troublemakers and outsiders, but they are not white either. That means that anyone can do anything to them and not suffer any repercussions here.
"Do state mandated reporting laws somehow contradict
Steiner's teachings that so many Waldorf teachers seem
to ignore them?"
Well, any closed community believes itself a self-contained one, e.g. they make their own rules and have disdain for the "outside" world. There was recently a local scandal re: an Amish girl who was repeatedly sexually used within her family and community for years. Several of the men were tried, convicted and sentenced. Aside from the primary problem of the sexual assaults was the obvious exacerbation caused by the girl being told (by her mother and others) that "it" was to be kept in the community. That is what lead to the repeating of the sexual assaults. I am in no way slamming Amish people or their beliefs. I am simply trying to point out something that must be endemic to a closed community or to one in which people of disparate backgrounds, but who share some core beliefs (e.g. race-thinking), will close ranks and attempt to keep certain information from outsiders and/or protect one another.
To exand on the closing of ranks, that is what I am witnessing now in Viroqua and by reading the local web bulletin board. Some of the Christians I speak with express concern over the takeover of Viroqua by the Waldorf/anthrops, but others have clearly and intentionally become financially entwined with them so that now (as compared with the recent past) they are the ones who attempt to divert any criticism of the Waldorf/anthrop community into excoriation of the critic or messenger. The Waldorf/anthrop community here doesn't even have to come to its own defense anymore; they have a core of Christians (at least two of whom are born-again Christians) who will now do it for them.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! – Try it today!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 17:01:11 -0500
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: critical thinking (was RE: To Believe)
Well, I thought I had set my subscription to "no-mail," so I would not be
tempted to respond.... However, it seems somehow I am again receiving
active list mail.... so, before going back and resetting my options, I will
make one brief response here.
At 08:40 AM 1/4/2005, momof2gals mindspring.com wrote:
)Critical thinking and questioning should NOT be discouraged until
)adolescence. As Dan said, children possess a wonderful natural curiosity
)that is hard to replicate at a later age. What possible reason could there
)be (outside of a spiritual or religious reason) for NOT encouraging
)children to follow this natural inclination?
There are two issues here. First, there is what could be called critical
thinking, and when the "normal" or "optimum" time would be to begin working
with the child in that area.
)Linda, maybe you can explain why it is harmful or negative for children to
)engage in the kind of critical thinking that Dan and I are referencing
)before adolescence. What do you think is lost if a child of, say, 7 is
)allowed to engage in cause and effect reasoning, etc.?
The second issue is the child's natural curiosity. A child may develop
ahead of "normal" and possibly ahead of "optimum," based on the individual
character of the child and how it unfolds.
)I don't "get" what is wrong with this in a practical sense. I understand
)Steiner's objection: he says the child's spirituality will be impeded.
I think Steiner was, at least, not entirely wrong. I see an example with a
neighbor child, I'll call Laura (not her real name). Laura is at an age
where normal development would involve a lot of imaginative -- and not
particularly rational -- play. But the mother is rather constantly trying
to engage Laura (not quite three) in matters like "What words begin with
the letter L?" Laura seems rather timid with regard to imaginative play. It
is hard to directly observe this, what has been observed is that when our
child, Lucia, who is a few months older, introduces some imaginative
element into a play environment, and Laura begins to join in it, the mother
dampens it. On a walk on Laura's parent's property, Lucia, for example,
picked up a leaf with a stick. Then my wife picked up another leaf with a
stick, and held it out. Lucia then began to have the two leaves talk to
each other, using an improvised language. Laura started to join in the
play, starting to pick up a stick. Laura's mother rushed in, and, before
Laura could actually pick up a stick, picked on for her, picked up a leaf,
and placed it on the end of the stick and gave it to Laura. -- this is
another behavior of the mother, frequently not allowing her child to make
her own discoveries or to do things for herself. However, when the
stick-leaf conversation began, the mother became withdrawn and seemed to be
disapproving. She didn't actually say "leaves don't talk," but it did seem
to be the subtext. Then, when it was time to go back to the house, my wife
said "Lets put the sticks under that tree." And Lucia added, "So the
squirrels can use it."
The mother is actually discouraging the application of imagination and
attempting to mold the child into pre-academic subjects, perhaps thinking
this will give the child some advantage.
I don't think so. I think that child's development -- spiritual and
otherwise -- is being discouraged.
We are not attempting to teach our daughter the alphabet, per se. We do
play counting games with her; one of her favorite is that will be walking
with her, I'm on one side and my wife is on the other, and we are holding
her hands. We ask her to tell us a number. She calls out a number, and then
we step that many steps, calling out the steps, "One, two, etc.," and pick
her up for a big leap on the step of the named count. It's a game, it might
or might not help to teach her the sequence of numbers, and, for us, the
point is that she enjoys it, not that it has some pedagogical effect. She
is not very curious about letters. But she does ask about printed words,
sometimes. "What does that say?" And we tell her. But I would not put a big
effort into trying to explain why those symbols are associated with that
word. Not yet.
She has quite enough to do; her imaginative play is really amazing to
watch, and it is quite sophisticated. She comes up to us with a pencil and
small pad of paper. "What do you want to eat?" If we tell her the name of a
food, she then will say, either, "We don't have any," or she will carefully
make some small marks on the paper -- quite different from scribbles --,
repeating the name of what we have requested. She will then say "What would
you like to drin?." And so it goes. Then she goes over to her play kitchen
and puts together some play food, putting it on her little dishes. Usually
small blocks of wood, though sometimes she does use some wooden vegetables
we got at a Waldorf toy store. She sometimes comes up with various comments
and mannerisms that she has pretty obviously seen in waiters or waitresses
at restaurants. With exactly the right inflections.
She puts on complex performances. Her original "performances" that she
observed were really Eurythmy performances at my wife's Eurythmy school,
which she used to watch with great interest. So she puts on a butterfly
costume (it is flowing and brightly colored, like a Eurythmy veil), and
makes elaborate gliding movements, sometimes singing to accompany it. Then,
in case we have not noticed, she says "the performance is over," and when
we applaud, she bows, with a big smile. She has also learned the bowing
from her Suzuki violin lessons.
Suzuki violin method is somewhat like Waldorf in that music is taught
without the abstractions; rather, a child is exposed to rhythms and
melodies and learns to imitate them with body movements, with singing, and,
ultimately, with a musical instrument. Reading music will come much later.
Now, if some Waldorf teacher, on the theory that a child is not ready for
this or that, actively discourages the child's own investigations and
experiments I'd say that this is inhibiting the child, and could be an
example of misapplication of Waldorf pedagogical theory. I'd be interested
to know if Steiner actually suggesting *inhibiting* a child's natural
impulses, rather than simply suggesting that children be normally guided in
this or that way. Waldorf schools don't actively attempt to teach reading
until later than the standard times; but they are teaching other skills and
activities. Because Waldorf "art" can appear to be quite beautiful and,
perhaps, precocious, some naive parents expect that Waldorf education
encourages free creativity. This may not be true, or, at least, it may be a
misconception. Waldorf, in early art, guides children to produce success,
that is, what will be seen as beautiful by the child and the child's
parents and relatives. This is not free creativity, it is guided, and quite
carefully guided, it seems. Because of this success, I expect Waldorf
children will be, *in general*, more comfortable with art than the general
population, much of which seems to end up, by high school, with an idea
that they can't draw, can't carry a tune, and can't dance.
(My purpose here is not to criticize public education specifically, and
many educators working in the public system seem to do an outstanding job,
but the *system* is not generally set up to encourage the arts. I was
saying to my wife this morning that "No Child Left Behind" might be more
aptly named "No Child Left Free." Forcing an academic focus with specific
standards by specific ages is an idea that seems to me not entirely
inappropriate, but, as they say, the devil is in the details. The
"standards" in public education are going to be those which are effective
in producing worker bees, I'm afraid.)
Now, back to Topica to reset those options.... best wishes to all in the
new year....
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 20:15:11 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
From: momof2gals mindspring.com
Subject: re: critical thinking skills
We were discussing what critical thinking skills are and when it is best to encourage a child in that direction. Some of us whose children attended Waldorf schools and were actively discouraged from engaging in critical thinking (reasoning, working out cause and effect, asking questions and expecting to get answers) believe quite strongly that Steiner's prohibition against a child engaging in critical thinking until adolescence is much too late.
Abd mentioned the importance of imaginative freeplay in a young child's life, and I doubt there is a single person here who would disagree. I sure wouldn't! I strongly believe that one of the best educational experiences a young child (or even an older child) can have is to play freely, both alone and with groups of mult-age kids. Play teaches children tons of things, from how to get along with others to what to do when they're bored to problem-solving. (Three of five kids want to play one game, and the other two, another. What should we do? Not that much different from what an adult has to deal with in an office, or a mom or dad has to deal with with children!) Abd further offered observations about a child he knows whose mother seems to discourage her creative free play at every turn, turning everything into a lesson.
I'm an advocate of taking the middle ground here. I think young children certainly should have tons of time to just playtheir hearts out. But I also think they should, from a quite early age, be encouraged and yes, guided, to ask probing question and to use their power of reasoning (as it develops) to figure things out.
My children did NOT find that middle ground at Waldorf. Instead, they were discouraged and even prohibited from thinking rationally and critically. ONLY imaginative play (in the Waldorf style) was allowed. A good example of this was when my second grade daughter (a Waldorf teacher's dream child -- sweet, compliant, obedient, dreamy, etc.) tried to take a non fiction book about dogs out of the Waldorf school library. She was told she was not allowed to do that. When I talked to the teacher about why this was happening (I was totally perplexed; at that point, I still thought Waldorf was a school that encouraged intellectual development from the get go and I had NEVER heard of a school not wanting a child to read!) I was told that reading true books about animals would discourage my child from being able to "dream into" and believe in the animals in the folk and fairy tales the children would hear.
So when Abd says:
((I'd be interested
to know if Steiner actually suggesting *inhibiting* a child's natural
impulses, rather than simply suggesting that children be normally guided in
this or that way. Waldorf schools don't actively attempt to teach reading
until later than the standard times; but they are teaching other skills and
activities.))
Lisa: I'd say, yes, that the children of a number of us were asked to squelch their natural curiosity because their personal timelines did not fit Steiner's timelines. (I could give more examples ... it is not just the book incident that makes me say this, but that should suffice for now!) I always tell parents who want to talk to me about our family's Waldorf experiences that I knew Waldorf did not push children to learn to read and write, etc. early. But I never in my wildest dreams imagined that the Waldorf way was to actively DISCOURAGE a child who wanted to read early and to l earn and to ask and to grow from doing so. Yet, at almost every turn, my intellectually inclined child was discouraged, and was made to feel (as a result) weird. Furthermore, those of us whose children were more intellectually inclined at a younger age were made to worry about it; many of us were warned that our children were "too much in their heads," and this could cause illness later.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 17:24:09 -0800 (PST)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf and cows
Alex Sull ( sbcglobal.net) wrote:
"Agustina, this sounds more like an issue specific to the teacher and
school of which you speak."
Is the "cow" dogma also an issue specific to that teacher?
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! – Try it today!
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 02:22:49 +0000
From: Alex Sull ( sbcglobal.net)
Subject: RE: critical thinking (was RE: To Believe)
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) Dan and Linda had a dialogue:
)
) ) ) DAN DUGAN:
) )) ) ) First, perhaps we have different definitions of "critical thinking."
) )) )) To, me, it means analyzing and questioning.
) ))
) )) LINDA CLEMENS:
) )) )I think it is more than that, but I'm not sure it matters to this
) )) )argument.
) )) )
) )) )) Waldorf strongly discourages this kind of thinking before the age of
) )) )) fourteen.
) )) )
) )) )That's oversimplified. But for the purposes of argument--analyzing and
) )) )questioning are delayed until adolescence, yes.
) ))
) )) What kind of "critical thinking" do you get when you discourage
) )) analyzing and questioning?
) ))
) )) )Analytical thinking
) )) )follows after the powers of imaginative thinking, observation,
) )) )experimentation, and other sensory experience are established.
) ))
) )) That's ridiculous. It's going to take a lot more than Steiner's
) ) ) say-so to justify such a radical position.
)
) And Alex Sull added:
)
) )Science and mathematics require imagination, observation, and
) )experimentation in preliminary work. It is only after these steps that
) )one can advance to connecting ideas and observations with analytical
) )thinking.
)
) You're both repeating Steiner's dogma. Why "only after these steps"?
) Why shouldn't analytical thinking be taught from the beginning? Why
) should young children be deprived of thoughtful conversation when
) they are overflowing with curiosity?
)
) -Dan Dugan
I did not specify when analytical thinking thought should be taught. I
only specified when analytical thinking can be used. Someone must do
experiments, observe the world, and concept of some kind of an idea
before anything can be analyzed.
Analytical thinking develops fully only after the abilities of
experimentation, observation, and imagination have developed. My
two-year-old brother's experiments of throwing and dropping objects,
jumping into a pool, and touching a hot stove are as valuable (if not
more valuable) to the advance in his experience with cause and effect
principles as experiments done in the most advanced research
laboratories in the world are to the scientists testing the laws of the
universe. My five-year-old brother can point out the top of a crane ten
blocks away when I can't even find it, recites to me every line of his
lame "Bob the Builder" videos, and sees from across the room if you have
moved one of the trucks that he's "playing with" two inches when he
turns his back. My six-year-old cousin, Lydia, and my nine-year-old
cousin, Brenna can get out of anything on the spot if you listen to a
story one of them comes up with, and if you hear one of Brenna's bedtime
stories you'll have nightmares of all the creatures she invents. Let's
say I were to mention to Brenna that if two lines intersect in a point P
that the angles opposite to each other were equal. She would probably
ask me why this is, knowing her. To encourage her analytical thinking I
would give her some basic geometry and proof basics to work with and set
her off on her own. She would work on it, but probably get stuck without
an idea of how to procede. She wouldn't have the experience in
experimentation, imagination, and observation necessary to make the
connections for her proof. Brenna is very bright and loves science and
math classes, but this logic is beyond her abilities and would most
likely discourage her from asking me any further questions. This is a
hypothetical situation and hasn't been tested so it may contain some
flaws.
Alex Sull
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 02:56:36 +0000
From: Alex Sull ( sbcglobal.net)
Subject: RE: "the heart is not a pump"
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) Alex Sull, you wrote:
)
) )Is the heart a pump?
) )
) )In out study of anatomy in 9th grade we were taught to not think of the
) )heart as a pump. This caused a few days of discussion with me
) )indignantly arguing that the heart was indeed a pump.
)
) This is a dogma of Anthroposophy, and you were quite right to object
) to it. Steiner said that blood was a spiritual fluid and moved
) itself, and the heart's only mechanical function was to regulate the
) flow. According to him the heart had higher purposes, "etherizing"
) the blood, for example.
)
) )Finally, I
) )understood the idea and agreed with it completely.
)
) A student is required to submit to authority. They wore you down.
I do not submit to any authority, even my respectable teachers, without
understanding why.
)
) )Reasons:
) )
) )1) (The main reason, for me) The heart does not "pull" blood into itself
) )like a pump. This is done by osmosis and muscle contractions of the
) )veins. There is no muscle in the heart to let blood flow into it. It
) )simply relaxes. In it's relaxed state there is actually pressure of the
) )body to keep blood from coming in. A pump pulls fluid into itself and
) )then pushes it back out. The heart merely aids in pushing the blood out
) )into the body.
)
) Wrong. The heart pumps the blood forcefully. That is its function.
A pump pulls fluid into itself and then pushes it out. The heart does
not pull blood into itself. Blood is pushed by osmosis and vein
contactions back into the heart which expands only because it is pushed
open again. Yes, the heart forcefully pushes blood out into the body,
but osmosis also pulls it very slightly. My apologies for my awful
exageration when I said "the heart merely aids in pushing the blood into
the body." It was unintentional and not really the point of the
arguement.
)
) )2) Scientific studies show that many recipients of heart transplants,
) )without any knowledge of their donor's lives, will aquire some of their
) )donor's traits or even have dreams from their donor's lives. There are
) )many books on this issue.
)
) There are many books filled with nonsense, Alex, and those are among
) them. I assure you that there are no studies meeting the standards of
) science that come to that conclusion.
Okay, for purposes of advancing the discussion let's dismiss the second
reason, even though I'm sure plenty of people would disagree with you.
Have you ever read "The Life of a Cell," by C. S. Lewis? This is a
little unrelated but there's a cool conection in an expansion of the
theories Lewis explores in this book which would verify such studies
slightly.
)
) )I don't take much stock in the second one, but the first seems
) )completely reasonable.
)
) The first sounds to me like a labored rationalization of Steiner's
) doctrine. It should simply be thrown out.
I do not see any reason to throw out good logic and science, whatever it
rationalizes.
)
) Now, Alex, you've revealed that your school taught you Anthroposophy
) pretending to be science. No surprise for those of us familiar with
) Waldorf pedagogy, but the expectation was raised that your school
) might be an exception to the norm.
I did not mean to say that my school is an exception of the norm, but
the idea was an option that I did not want to leave out. There are
scientific aspects of Anthroposophy, if you could keep an open mind. I
said (or maybe meant to say) that my school does not teach Anthroposophy
*as a religion* meaning as inarguable fact. You seem to be taking
anti-Anthroposophy as a religion pretty well, however.
Alex Sull
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 03:17:59 +0000
From: Alex Sull ( sbcglobal.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf and cows
Gideon Mills wrote:
)
)
)
) Alex Sull ( sbcglobal.net) wrote:
) "Agustina, this sounds more like an issue specific to the teacher and
) school of which you speak."
)
) Is the "cow" dogma also an issue specific to that teacher?
)
) Deborah
)
I apologize for my lack of clarity in that statement. I was not refering
to the "cow dogma" if such is a serious issue. I was trying to refer to
the teacher beating the children which does seem specific. I don't know
if the "cow dogma" is specific to that teacher. I have never experienced
it, however.
Alex
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:29:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: "the heart is not a pump"
Alex Sull ( sbcglobal.net) wrote:
"A pump pulls fluid into itself and then pushes it out. The heart does
not pull blood into itself. Blood is pushed by osmosis and vein
contactions back into the heart which expands only because it is pushed
open again."
The muscle of the heart is called cardiac muscle, which has characteristics that differentiate it from smooth and skeletal muscle. Without going into the details of the characteristics of cardiac muscle I will instead offer an anecdote. As a pre-med student I was enrolled in an advanced physiology course. I arrived one day at the lab class, lifted the top from a garbage can and saw dozens of turtle corpses with their hearts still beating. Heart muscle in essence provides its own stimulus in contrast to other muscle types. It indeed does pump even when there is nothing to pump to.
(Not relevant here, but that incident led me to reconsider my life and future choices. It also forced me to consider the meaning of life, which is telling considering how much I am disliked and excoriated by the local anthrops who claim to be so concerned with life and its meaning and spiritual nature.)
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 03:08:08 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: "the heart is not a pump"
Alex Sull wrote:
) ) )1) (The main reason, for me) The heart does not "pull" blood into
)itself
) ) )like a pump. This is done by osmosis and muscle contractions of the
) ) )veins. There is no muscle in the heart to let blood flow into it. It
) ) )simply relaxes. In it's relaxed state there is actually pressure of the
) ) )body to keep blood from coming in. A pump pulls fluid into itself and
) ) )then pushes it back out. The heart merely aids in pushing the blood out
) ) )into the body.
G'day Alex,
I would encourage you to think about how inexpensive bicycle pumps work.
They do not "pull" the air in during the expansion stroke either. Evidently,
bicycle pumps are not pumps either according to your (main) argument for the
non pump nature of the heart.
See you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 04:05:20 +0000
From: Alex Sull ( sbcglobal.net)
Subject: RE: "the heart is not a pump"
momof2gals mindspring.com wrote:
) I do not understand the Anthro objection to the heart being a pump. If
) the )))heart was not a pump, then people whose hearts fail would not
) die. Simple ))as that.
I don't know everything about the Anthro objection to the heart being a
pump. The only objection I have is that this is a false statement, a
common misconception. The problem with falsely labeling the heart as a
pump is that people do not understand that the heart is not a pump. If
the heart were a pump it would pull blood into itself and push blood
out. If the heart were a pump we could hypothetically (if we could
continue it's beating while doing this) attach a tube to where the vena
cava enters the heart, put the other end in a tub of water, attach a
tube to represent the pulmonary artery and vein, and leave the opening
where the aorta meets the heart as a hole. If you held the heart above
the bucket of water you would expect that the water would flow out of
the openning for the aorta, assuming the heart works like a pump and
that it keeps beating. Would it? No. Therefore the *heart* is not a
pump.
)
) Also, Alex, I am sorry to tell you that there are NO credible scientific
) studies )that show that people who receive transplanted hearts acquire
) the tastes, )))ambitions, dreams, etc. of the original heart's owners.
) However, there are )))transplant recipients that say that that has
) happened to them. They report a ))new love, for, say, broccoli or an
) interest in motocross racing that they never )had before. But people's
) individual reports are not supported and proven )))scientific evidence.
That's fine with me. I wasn't very attached to that arguement and it
wouldn't have convinced me either.
Here are some interesting web sites. Take what you will of them. I'm not
sure how much I support the ideas they present.
http://www.waldorfanswers.com/Heartnotes.htm
http://www.waldorfanswers.com/Heart.htm
Alex
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 04:11:24 +0000
From: Alex Sull ( sbcglobal.net)
Subject: RE: "the heart is not a pump"
Peter Farrell wrote:
)
) Alex Sull wrote:
) ) ) )1) (The main reason, for me) The heart does not "pull" blood into
) )itself
) ) ) )like a pump. This is done by osmosis and muscle contractions of the
) ) ) )veins. There is no muscle in the heart to let blood flow into it. It
) ) ) )simply relaxes. In it's relaxed state there is actually pressure of the
) ) ) )body to keep blood from coming in. A pump pulls fluid into itself and
) ) ) )then pushes it back out. The heart merely aids in pushing the blood out
) ) ) )into the body.
)
) G'day Alex,
) I would encourage you to think about how inexpensive bicycle pumps work.
)
) They do not "pull" the air in during the expansion stroke either.
) Evidently,
) bicycle pumps are not pumps either according to your (main) argument for
) the
) non pump nature of the heart.
)
) See you, Peter
)
Can you please explain the mechanisms of this type of pump? I'm not
familiar with it. How/why does air re-enter the pump on the expansion
stroke. There must be some kind of balance of pressure to allow the pump
to gain air on the expansion stroke.
Alex
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 04:18:02 +0000
From: Alex Sull ( sbcglobal.net)
Subject: RE: "the heart is not a pump"
Gideon Mills wrote:
"The muscle of the heart is called cardiac muscle, which has
characteristics that differentiate it from smooth and skeletal muscle.
Without going into the details of the characteristics of cardiac muscle
I will instead offer an anecdote. As a pre-med student I was enrolled
in an advanced physiology course. I arrived one day at the lab class,
lifted the top from a garbage can and saw dozens of turtle corpses with
their hearts still beating. Heart muscle in essence provides its own
stimulus in contrast to other muscle types. It indeed does pump even
when there is nothing to pump to."
Deborah, do the hearts expand leaving a hollow chamber inside? A heart
beat is only the contraction of the muscle but when the muscle relaxes
it does not expand, does it? Muscle contraction and relaxation can be
viewed without the actual openning of the chambers inside the heart.
Alex
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 23:45:00 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: critical thinking (was RE: To Believe)
Abd rarely acknowledges my posts and/or my questions put to him in these
discussions (perhaps not intentional) but I'd like to respond to this post
of his as I think it's important and he might be missing Lisa's point.
Lisa wrote:
)Critical thinking and questioning should NOT be discouraged until
)adolescence. As Dan said, children possess a wonderful natural curiosity
)that is hard to replicate at a later age. What possible reason could there
)be (outside of a spiritual or religious reason) for NOT encouraging
)children to follow this natural inclination?
Abd replied:
"There are two issues here. First, there is what could be called critical
thinking, and when the "normal" or "optimum" time would be to begin working
with the child in that area."
Me: The "normal" or "optimum" time for dealing with a child's very real
question is when the child asks the question. In my experience children are
extremely bright and their innocence enables them to ask brilliant
questions - they are (dare I say) designed to ask questions based on what
*grown-ups* might call "critical thinking skills."
Abd wrote:
"The second issue is the child's natural curiosity. A child may develop
ahead of "normal" and possibly ahead of "optimum," based on the individual
character of the child and how it unfolds."
No No No. There is no "normal" or ahead of "optimum." That natural
curiosity is so pure and real and does not need labels. If the adult does
not know the answer or is not comfortable with the question, it behooves the
adult to tell the truth! I have said - on numerous occasions to children:
"I really have no idea ... where the universe ends, how plants actually grow
by eating light or who will win the Super Bowl this year. But let's try to
find out." I do not, however, try to consciously find wishy washy answers
using a sing song voice whilst trying to deflect the question because the
incarnating child might be "too much in her/his head."
Abd wrote:
I think Steiner was, at least, not entirely wrong. I see an example with a
neighbor child, I'll call Laura (not her real name). Laura is at an age
where normal development would involve a lot of imaginative -- and not
particularly rational -- play. But the mother is rather constantly trying
to engage Laura (not quite three) in matters like "What words begin with
the letter L?" Laura seems rather timid with regard to imaginative play. It
is hard to directly observe this, what has been observed is that when our
child, Lucia, who is a few months older, introduces some imaginative
element into a play environment, and Laura begins to join in it, the mother
dampens it. On a walk on Laura's parent's property, Lucia, for example,
picked up a leaf with a stick. Then my wife picked up another leaf with a
stick, and held it out. Lucia then began to have the two leaves talk to
each other, using an improvised language. Laura started to join in the
play, starting to pick up a stick. Laura's mother rushed in, and, before
Laura could actually pick up a stick, picked on for her, picked up a leaf,
and placed it on the end of the stick and gave it to Laura. -- this is
another behavior of the mother, frequently not allowing her child to make
her own discoveries or to do things for herself. However, when the
stick-leaf conversation began, the mother became withdrawn and seemed to be
disapproving. She didn't actually say "leaves don't talk," but it did seem
to be the subtext. Then, when it was time to go back to the house, my wife
said "Lets put the sticks under that tree." And Lucia added, "So the
squirrels can use it.
The mother is actually discouraging the application of imagination and
attempting to mold the child into pre-academic subjects, perhaps thinking
this will give the child some advantage."
Me: Yes, I would agree that this is what the mother seems to be doing but I
don't think it speaks to Lisa's point.
There is a vast difference between a parent or teacher discouraging
imagination and pushing *gnome culture* (for example) on a child.
Immersing the child into a world of spirits and gnomes is no different than
pushing a program of heavy academics. Acknowledging the child's natural
curiosity and
SUPPORTING the "critical thinking skills" is, IMO, a much more healthy
approach to education. Kids have built in bullshit detectors and will tune
adults out pretty quick when the melodic gobble-dee-goop hits the fan. Not
to mention the fact that it's just plain rude to ignore what a child says or
asks because it does not coincide with our own spirtual view of the child
and/or world.
Abd wrote (about his young daughter) :
" She is not very curious about letters. But she does ask about printed
words,
sometimes. "What does that say?" And we tell her. But I would not put a big
effort into trying to explain why those symbols are associated with that
word. Not yet."
Me: Good plan - if you plan on being a Waldorf dad who is welcomed at the
school.
Abd wrote:
"She has quite enough to do; her imaginative play is really amazing to
watch, and it is quite sophisticated. She comes up to us with a pencil and
small pad of paper. "What do you want to eat?" If we tell her the name of a
food, she then will say, either, "We don't have any," or she will carefully
make some small marks on the paper -- quite different from scribbles --,
repeating the name of what we have requested. She will then say "What would
you like to drin?." And so it goes. Then she goes over to her play kitchen
and puts together some play food, putting it on her little dishes. Usually
small blocks of wood, though sometimes she does use some wooden vegetables
we got at a Waldorf toy store."
Me: You paint a wonderful picture with words. Seems like yesterday my kids
engaged in such activities. Let me guess, however: you did not buy the
pencils at the Waldorf toy store. This type of play will most likely be
discouraged at her Waldorf school. I suspect she will be encouraged to
actually draw the menu items with Stockmeyer block wax crayons. Try it some
time. Small children trying to write and/or use pencils is not acceptable -
keeps them in their heads and is bad for reincarnation.
Abd wrote:
(My purpose here is not to criticize public education specifically, and
many educators working in the public system seem to do an outstanding job,
but the *system* is not generally set up to encourage the arts. I was
saying to my wife this morning that "No Child Left Behind" might be more
aptly named "No Child Left Free." Forcing an academic focus with specific
standards by specific ages is an idea that seems to me not entirely
inappropriate, but, as they say, the devil is in the details. The
"standards" in public education are going to be those which are effective
in producing worker bees, I'm afraid.)
Me: I'll part company with some of my fellow Waldorf critics here by not
disagreeing with Abd. I'm going out on a limb here but I'll bet Abd will be
out of Waldorf in a couple of years and will be found either debating the
concept of democracy with John Taylor Gatto or he'll be busy online
somewhere defending his daughter's new Sudbury Valley type school. Just a
hunch (g)
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1592
-- Topica Digest --
RE: "the heart is not a pump"
By momof2gals mindspring.com
RE: critical thinking (was RE: To Believe)
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: critical thinking (was RE: To Believe)
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: critical thinking (was RE: To Believe)
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: critical thinking (was RE: To Believe)
By sarinamcdonald msn.com
RE: critical thinking (was RE: To Believe)
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: critical thinking (was RE: To Believe)
By momof2gals mindspring.com
everyone is "incredible"/was "critical thinking skills"
By momof2gals mindspring.com
re: critical thinking skills
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: critical thinking (was RE: To Believe)
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: critical thinking (was RE: To Believe)
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: "the heart is not a pump"
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: "the heart is not a pump"
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: critical thinking (was RE: To Believe)
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: "the heart is not a pump"
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: critical thinking skills
By jfk3 sprint.ca
Viroqua backlash
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: "the heart is not a pump"
By sbcglobal.net
RE: "the heart is not a pump"
By sbcglobal.net
Re: "the heart is not a pump"
By Neil.wc1 faiman.org
RE: Viroqua backlash
By sbcglobal.net
RE: "the heart is not a pump"
By sbcglobal.net
Re: "the heart is not a pump"
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: "the heart is not a pump"
By sbcglobal.net
RE: "the heart is not a pump"
By powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com
RE: "the heart is not a pump"
By sbcglobal.net
RE: "the heart is not a pump"
By sbcglobal.net
RE: Viroqua backlash
By gideonmills yahoo.com
RE: "the heart is not a pump"
By powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com
Ethereal forces in weather formation?
By powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 08:29:12 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
From: momof2gals mindspring.com
Subject: RE: "the heart is not a pump"
Alex, I just want to say (for what it's worth) that I am very impressed with you. You actually seem to be considering what other people on this list say in debate to what you said, which is fairly unusual among those who come here to defend Waldorf. I am impressed with your curiosity and willingness to engage with us.
Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Sull ( sbcglobal.net)
Sent: Jan 4, 2005 11:11 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: "the heart is not a pump"
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing Diet Patch
The fastest - Easiest way to lose weight! Try it now FREE!
http://click.topica.com/caacYkHb1dkiGb1IpcOa/MyDietPatches
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Farrell wrote:
)
) Alex Sull wrote:
) ) ) )1) (The main reason, for me) The heart does not "pull" blood into
) )itself
) ) ) )like a pump. This is done by osmosis and muscle contractions of the
) ) ) )veins. There is no muscle in the heart to let blood flow into it. It
) ) ) )simply relaxes. In it's relaxed state there is actually pressure of the
) ) ) )body to keep blood from coming in. A pump pulls fluid into itself and
) ) ) )then pushes it back out. The heart merely aids in pushing the blood out
) ) ) )into the body.
)
) G'day Alex,
) I would encourage you to think about how inexpensive bicycle pumps work.
)
) They do not "pull" the air in during the expansion stroke either.
) Evidently,
) bicycle pumps are not pumps either according to your (main) argument for
) the
) non pump nature of the heart.
)
) See you, Peter
)
Can you please explain the mechanisms of this type of pump? I'm not
familiar with it. How/why does air re-enter the pump on the expansion
stroke. There must be some kind of balance of pressure to allow the pump
to gain air on the expansion stroke.
Alex
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Get a Holy Bible for FREE!
http://click.topica.com/caacYkCb1dkiGb1IpcOf/PermissionData
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:34:25 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: critical thinking (was RE: To Believe)
Ah, Abd has touched on so many topics dear to my heart.
)First, there is what could be called critical thinking, and when the
)"normal" or "optimum" time would be to begin working with the child in that
)area.
There's no need to "work with" the young child on critical thinking, IMO.
Just don't squelch their interests or refuse to answer their questions.
)The second issue is the child's natural curiosity. A child may develop
)ahead of "normal" and possibly ahead of "optimum," based on the individual
)character of the child and how it unfolds.
I agree with what Walden wrote here, strongly. Ain't no "ahead of normal,"
and there's no curiosity that *isn't* natural.
The only real question is the adult response. Just try relating to the
child. I think this is about adults' anxiety. *We* feel stumped or
embarrassed when they ask things we can't deal with.
)I think Steiner was, at least, not entirely wrong. I see an example with a
)neighbor child, I'll call Laura (not her real name). Laura is at an age
)where normal development would involve a lot of imaginative -- and not
)particularly rational -- play.
Nonsense, Abd. Children are people. Some of us are more imaginative than
others. Some people are very rational, and from an early age are interested
in how things work, or in ideas and logic, and other kids are interested in
frogs or fairy princesses. Etc etc. This is personality -individual
differences.
)But the mother is rather constantly trying to engage Laura (not quite
)three) in matters like "What words begin with the letter L?" Laura seems
)rather timid with regard to imaginative play.
You've been reading or hearing lots of Waldorf bullshit. Our teachers were
always moaning that some child "didn't know how to play," which meant they
weren't interested in playing the things the teacher thought they should
play, exactly the way the teacher thought they should play them. (Any child
who didn't care to act out the story the teacher had been telling, for
instance.) I bet you Laura has no problem at all imagining anything her
little heart desires. She's probably shy about showing it to you since she
knows you disapprove. (And I guarantee you she knows.) I can't know whether
her mother is pushing the alphabet thing too hard or not (could it be that
Laura is interested in which words begin with "L"?) Your daughter was
showing the things she is good at and perhaps the mother would like to show
her child's strengths as well.
Ironically, Waldorf teachers are frequently rigid and formulaic in how they
define "imaginative play." Acting out fairy tales is good, playing princess
with your dress-up cape is good. Acting out something from Sponge Bob is
not. One of these is not actually more or less "imaginative" than the other.
It's the *adults* with the problem, and the limited imagination, not the
child.
)It is hard to directly observe this, what has been observed is that when
)our child, Lucia, who is a few months older, introduces some imaginative
)element into a play environment, and Laura begins to join in it, the mother
)dampens it.
Maybe the mother is put off by Waldorf themes. Believe it or not, they don't
appeal to everyone. They're extremely specific, they're from European
folklore and actually quite scripted and unoriginal. They can strike people
as phony and make people unfamiliar with them feel condescended to. I'd be
willing to bet the mother can't put her finger on why, but frequently feels
uncomfortable when Waldorf themes dominate the play. The fact that your
child is older probably also plays into it. It could be she wants her
daughter to be able to take the lead sometimes, and not always play what
Lucia wants to play. Just a guess.
)On a walk on Laura's parent's property, Lucia, for example, picked up a
)leaf with a stick. Then my wife picked up another leaf with a stick, and
)held it out. Lucia then began to have the two leaves talk to each other,
)using an improvised language. Laura started to join in the play, starting
)to pick up a stick. Laura's mother rushed in, and, before Laura could
)actually pick up a stick, picked on for her, picked up a leaf, and placed
)it on the end of the stick and gave it to Laura. -- this is another
)behavior of the mother, frequently not allowing her child to make her own
)discoveries or to do things for herself. However, when the stick-leaf
)conversation began, the mother became withdrawn and seemed to be
)disapproving. She didn't actually say "leaves don't talk," but it did seem
)to be the subtext. Then, when it was time to go back to the house, my wife
)said "Lets put the sticks under that tree." And Lucia added, "So the
)squirrels can use it."
)The mother is actually discouraging the application of imagination and
)attempting to mold the child into pre-academic subjects, perhaps thinking
)this will give the child some advantage.
It sounds like she was trying to imitate what you are doing (she picked up
the leaf and the stick after your wife did), and feeling she probably isn't
getting it right (since you do, in fact, think she's not getting it right);
or she may be put off by the affectedness and artificiality of that little
scene. It may well be you and your wife "pushing" your child to play a
certain way. You think you're "encouraging creativity" when you're following
certain scripts they've written for you. (I also insisted my child play this
way, and showed him that sticks talk to each other, etc.)
Since these two children are simply in different schools, they're getting
different ideas about "what" and "how" to play. Laura's not developing all
wrong, and I really doubt her mother is doing anything wrong either. Your
daughter is playing the way the Waldorf kindergarten teacher models for her
*because she goes to that school*. Your daughter is well aware that this is
the approved way, and that other types of play meet with the teacher's
disapproval. Laura is probably having different experiences.
Meanwhile, your vignette merely tells us that your daughter led in this
example, and it sounds like Laura and her mother were a little uncomfortable
or less than confident about what the script was here. (Don't try to tell me
there wasn't a script (G) You are clear there is a right way and a wrong way
to play with a leaf on a stick, aren't you?) Laura attempted to follow what
Lucia was doing, and it sounds like the mother tried to help, though she may
have been too pushy about it. Maybe she felt that Laura didn't quite get it.
It's a *specific* way of playing. It doesn't show us anything wrong with
Laura or her mother that they don't know the rules of Waldorf kindergarten
where we pretend sticks talk to each other. Maybe when it's *Laura's* turn
to suggest something they could play, she'll seem less timid. But will the
mother and daughter get the subtle message from you that what she wants to
play is wrong?
)I think that child's development -- spiritual and otherwise -- is being
)discouraged.
Wow. That's a heavy judgment, don't you think? Do you really know all that
much about the family and the child, to make such a dire prediction about,
no less, this child's *spirituality*? Holy smokes. This is just the sort of
attitude Waldorf encourages. It's called looking down on the neighbors, Abd.
The neighbors, with their plastic junk in the lawn, and their bad diets and
videos . . .
)We are not attempting to teach our daughter the alphabet, per se. We do
)play counting games with her; (snip) I would not put a big effort into
)trying to explain why those symbols are associated with that word. Not yet.
I agree with you there. I think you said she's three? I wouldn't push it.
)She has quite enough to do; her imaginative play is really amazing to
)watch, (snip) obviously seen in waiters or waitresses at restaurants. With
)exactly the right inflections.
That sounds cool. Just don't let the Waldorf teacher tell you you should
take away that pad of paper and not let her pretend to write things down.
That's what our teachers would have done, with a three-year-old. And God
forbid, they'd say, don't answer her if she asks how do you write
"Hamburger" or whatever.
Our kindergarten teachers would sometimes allow "waitress" or "restaurant"
play but they were more comfortable if it could be redirected to a royal
feast for the king and queen, or a scene from Grimms. If a child wants to
pretend they're going to a real restaurant, that shows the child is not
playing imaginatively and is being "intellectualized" at home. The compliant
children, or the more suggestible children, who are easier to re-direct, and
agree to play "royal feast in the castle" instead of "Saturday night at
Pizza Hut," are slotted as "imaginative" and the others (most of them) are
viewed as impaired.
Waldorf says children this age are largely imitative, but Waldorf doesn't
actually like for them to imitate much of what they see. The teacher is
trying very hard to supplant the child's daily experience as much as
possible with a fantasy world from the Middle Ages, but it's a hard sell. My
child for instance (speaking of Pizza Hut) used to like to pretend he was
speaking into the microphone at a fast food restaurant, placing an order for
a customer. Well the danged microphone of course is Ahrimanic and I was a
bad mom for ever letting him in a place like Pizza Hut. Whatever.
)She puts on complex performances. (snip) she bows, with a big smile.
She does sound like a charmer :)
)I'd be interested to know if Steiner actually suggesting *inhibiting* a
)child's natural impulses, rather than simply suggesting that children be
)normally guided in this or that way.
That's a good question - I think one part of the answer is that children
were a bit different then. It was a very different culture, very much
"children should be seen and not heard." I think Waldorf teachers today are
sometimes taking advice from Steiner that may have made somewhat more sense
in context, than it does today. But that doesn't faze them.
)Because of this success, I expect Waldorf children will be, *in general*,
)more comfortable with art than the general population, much of which seems
)to end up, by high school, with an idea that they can't draw, can't carry a
)tune, and can't dance.
I'm sure you're right there. (Speaking as one of those people who can't
draw, can't carry a tune, and can't dance.) (G)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:54:30 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: critical thinking (was RE: To Believe)
I wrote:
)heaven knows for children's sake it's important to pretend that,
)culturally, time stopped about a hundred years ago.
(Warming to my theme) (G)
IMO this is why it's okay for kids to play trains, in Waldorf. There were
trains in Steiner's day so they are part of the Waldorf world, everyone
feels comfortable with that. Any form of transportation after that, Waldorf
teachers seemed less comfortable. My son's first objection to the Waldorf
kindergarten was that it was utterly incomprehensible that there could be no
trucks or fire engines or planes. The teacher assured him he could make
trucks or other vehicles by stacking chairs together, and for the boys, that
often occupied most of their time in the classroom. They'd have given their
eye teeth for some real trucks, or something with a siren . . .
Perhaps I'm just still pissed there were detailed kitchen sets, greatly
appreciated by the girls, but the boys had to improvise . . . (G)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 09:48:34 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: critical thinking (was RE: To Believe)
)Then she goes over to her play kitchen and puts together some play food,
)putting it on her little dishes. Usually small blocks of wood, though
)sometimes she does use some wooden vegetables we got at a Waldorf toy
)store."
Just a small point that I never understood. It's supposed to be bad to give
a child any ty