return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Waldorf and reporting abuse
By Yarngal webtv.net
To Pindar (and All) Public schools and "snitching" on parents
By Yarngal webtv.net
RE: drifter hippies and real homeless people (related to Waldorf)
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Waldorf and reporting abuse
By dcann2 cox.net
RE:reporting abuse
By yarngal webtv.net
RE: reporting abuse
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: reporting abuse
By yarngal webtv.net
RE: drifter hippies and real homeless people (related to Waldorf)
By pbarfield hotmail.com
RE: To Pindar (and All) Public schools and "snitching" on parents
By pbarfield hotmail.com
RE: Waldorf and reporting abuse
By pbarfield hotmail.com
re: reporting abuse
By pbarfield hotmail.com
RE: Waldorf and reporting abuse
By diana.winters verizon.net
"Wanting" someone to suffer?
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: drifter hippies and real homeless people (related to Waldorf)
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: reporting abuse
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
By pbarfield hotmail.com
Re: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: drifter hippies and real homeless people (related to Waldorf)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: drifter hippies and real homeless people (related to Waldorf)
By pbarfield hotmail.com
Admin: ad hominem warning [Re: "Wanting" someone to suffer?]
By dan dandugan.com
Re: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 07:28:34 -0600
From: Yarngal webtv.net (Yarngal)
Subject: Waldorf and reporting abuse
HI Pindar and All,
Now I am VERY confused from what I read on this list . You say
differently. You say that Waldorf schools DO report suspected child
abuse. So I am VERY CONFUSED right now.
I wish my friend would post something about this. You also tell me that
Waldorf has anti-drug education.
I never sent my kids to Waldorf. I am not totally familiar with Waldorf,
except form knowing many who are part of it. When they found out I
cannot pay the tuition or volunteer, they stopped trying to get me to
enroll my kids (who are now grown up adults) into the local Waldorf
school.
When they found out I am severely traumatized from my own being severely
abused (from my own childhood) with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and
Major Depression, and that I was "too needy", they (except for a few)
socially DISTANCED themselves from me (one woman, the Waldorf teacher,
told a friend of mine that I am a good, kind person, but I am in "too
much pain" for her to be around me) except for saying "hi" on the street
and talking about the weather, the war, and other non-personal topics.
I was hurt at first, until another friend (who is not anti-Waldorf) with
similar issues as I (poor,abused, chronically ill, and traumatized)
told me that she experienced the same treatment from the local Waldorf
folks and she likens it to "snobbery" on their part. That is as someone
is too poor, to UNABLE to contribute money and time to their school and
causes, and a "second class citizen" due to certain inabilities (being
chronically ill for example) that they are just not interested in
friendship with those of us in the greater community (who are not
involved with Waldorf education) who are "too needy" and too chronically
ill for them.
I agree with my friend 100 percent.
She also told me recently that she and I have nothing in common with
the local Waldorf people:
She said we don't have kids in their school and we are not involved in
their political/social and environmental activism.
She has a valid point: perhaps since I "don't fit in" to the local
Waldorf people's lifestyle and I am NOT middle class like most of them
are, and I am not "healthy and fit" like they are, so
I have NO RIGHT to expect friendship and personal care from them. I
have a lot of chronic illnesses and they just don't want to deal with
people like me (in a social way).
They don't mind it when I am their "client" or patient in the health
care systems where they work. But NOT as a friend!
So I choose to mostly avoid telling them about my personal problems,
pain, and struggles to stay alive.
I will talk with some of them on the street about handicrafts, the
weather, and the war (being against Bush's policies) which I CAN talk
about with them. But I cannot RELY on them or DEPEND on them. I gave
up on most social scenes, Waldorf or not, and I am more reclusive (due
to being HURT and let down by groups of people over the years) and
prefer to not get involved in any group activities. I gave up on the
"community" idea.
It makes sense since I am not involved with Waldorf Education, and since
I am not into the hippie lifestyle like they are , that I should not
expect them to personally care about me. We have nothing much in
common.
I am also not a conservative Christian and don't go to church either,
meaning it is not just the Waldorf people who I have nothing in common
with.
By the way, I don't own a personal computer. A friend gave me this webtv
and I go to the public library computer for other Internet stuff.
I don't want to hate anyone and I mostly take the "live and let live"
attitude in life .So you say that Waldorf does indeed report child sex
abuse and other child abuse? I wish the people who told me differently
would post here.
Child abuse destroys people's lives and MINDS! I was VERY hurt and upset
that most (not all) of the Waldorf people I knew didn't want to even
discuss the child abuse issue because they said it was "too negative to
dwell on". A few did discuss it with me privately.
But most I have known are more interested in the environment,
protesting the war, organic farming, and bashing public schools and
bashing tv.
Best Wishes, Yarngal
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 07:43:47 -0600
From: Yarngal webtv.net (Yarngal)
Subject: To Pindar (and All) Public schools and "snitching" on parents
I meant that the DARE program in public schools tells children that if
they know anyone on drugs, that the children should tell authorities or
school counselors about it. Some people I knew over the years, who were
into the hippie lifestyle and kept their children out of public schools
told me that was one more reason they preferred to either send their
children to alternative schools or to homeschool. They told me that in
effect, the DARE programs want "children to snitch on their parents"!
So that is what I meant in my post here.
So you say that Waldorf schools don't tell children if their parents or
anyone uses drugs, to tell it to the authorities or school counselors
like DARE does? I didn't know that.
BEst Wishes, Yarngal
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:50:43 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: drifter hippies and real homeless people (related to Waldorf)
pindar wrote:
)
) Dear Pete,
)
) Actually, I was talking to Yarngal. Most of your remarks are not
) pertinent to her post
No but they are pertinent to YOURS. Misinformation is so common from
Waldorf schools, it is a full time job just getting the story straight.
If you think you are going to slip by saying Waldorf schools are
required to report abuse and then leave it at that - as if they actually
report abuse - then you may be mistaken.
Pete
) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) )
) )
) ) pindar wrote:
) )
) ) ) All people who work with children whether it be as a private or public
) ) ) school worker or a medical/psychological worker are required by law to
) ) ) report suspected abuse.
) )
) ) Yes, they are, but they don't always do this.
) )
) ) )
) ) ) ) Private, alternative schools are good at hiding certain things.
) ) )
) ) ) How do you know this?
) ) )
) )
) ) In my Waldorf community, they pressured parents and children to be
) ) quiet. Furthermore, they isolated parents so that parents believed they
) )
) )
) ) were the only ones with complaints. This is still going on now.
) )
) ) ) ) I don't know if Waldorf schools are required to report sex abuse, for
) ) ) ) example? Are they?
) ) )
) ) ) Of course they are
) ) )
) )
) ) Again, they are required to but some don't.
) )
) ) ) ) Public schools are "too nosy" for these hippie parents,
) ) ) ) and public government schools want to know too much about the parent's
) ) ) ) alternative lifestyles and how their lifestyles affect their children.
) ) )
) )
) ) ) The Waldorf School that I am familiar with had a drug education program.
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) )
) ) Not the one I am familiar with. They talk about it in the high school -
) )
) )
) ) way too late IMO.
) )
) ) Pete
)
)
)
) accessing truth requires unbiased thinking
Also it wouldn't hurt to actually TELL the truth.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:42:45 +0000
From: David Cann (dcann2 cox.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf and reporting abuse
I can only speak for the Waldorf school I'm associated with. As a
"mandatory reporter", our school is required to report not just abuse we
suspect, but any reported / purported abuse known to us, even if the
source of the allegation is not particularly credible. I know of at
least three times we've made report over the past several years, and I
also know that we invited social workers to our August "faculty work
week" a couple of years ago to train our faculty and staff on abuse
recognition and on their responsibility under the law.
David
Yarngal wrote:
)
) HI Pindar and All,
) Now I am VERY confused from what I read on this list . You say
) differently. You say that Waldorf schools DO report suspected child
) abuse.
rest snipped...
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:37:42 +0000
From: yarngal yarngal (yarngal webtv.net)
Subject: RE:reporting abuse
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
)
) pindar wrote:
) )
) ) Dear Pete,
) )
) ) Actually, I was talking to Yarngal. Most of your remarks are not
) ) pertinent to her post
)
) No but they are pertinent to YOURS. Misinformation is so common from
) Waldorf schools, it is a full time job just getting the story straight.
)
) If you think you are going to slip by saying Waldorf schools are
) required to report abuse and then leave it at that - as if they actually
)
) report abuse - then you may be mistaken.
)
) Pete
)
)
)
) ) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) pindar wrote:
) ) )
) ) ) ) All people who work with children whether it be as a private or public
) ) ) ) school worker or a medical/psychological worker are required by law to
) ) ) ) report suspected abuse.
) ) )
) ) ) Yes, they are, but they don't always do this.
) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) Private, alternative schools are good at hiding certain things.
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) How do you know this?
) ) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) In my Waldorf community, they pressured parents and children to be
) ) ) quiet. Furthermore, they isolated parents so that parents believed they
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) were the only ones with complaints. This is still going on now.
) ) )
) ) ) ) ) I don't know if Waldorf schools are required to report sex abuse, for
) ) ) ) ) example? Are they?
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Of course they are
) ) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Again, they are required to but some don't.
) ) )
) ) ) ) ) Public schools are "too nosy" for these hippie parents,
) ) ) ) ) and public government schools want to know too much about the parent's
) ) ) ) ) alternative lifestyles and how their lifestyles affect their children.
) ) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) ) The Waldorf School that I am familiar with had a drug education program.
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) Not the one I am familiar with. They talk about it in the high school -
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) way too late IMO.
) ) )
) ) ) Pete
) )
) )
) )
) ) accessing truth requires unbiased thinking
)
) Also it wouldn't hurt to actually TELL the truth.
THANKS, Pete.
I hope others who have direct experience with this issue can post here
about any abuse. I never had kids in Waldorf schools, so I am not
qualified to judge this, but I know others on this list have said there
is unreported abuse in Waldorf schools (and they are therefore
qualified to judge), and I HOPE those people will post here about this.
What about Akua? Akua posted here that she was severely abused in a
Waldorf school. I believe Akua 100%.
Plus others here wrote about how their children experienced abuse in
Waldorf education. I tend to believe those members of this list who say
their children experienced pain and abuse.
If all abuse is reported to authorities, then WHY was Akua abused? Why
would the others here claim that their children experienced abusive
treatment,if it "doesn't happen"?
Does unreported abuse happen in Waldorf schools and institutions or not?
Can someone whose children or themselves please answer this (better than
I can)?
Perhaps some things are not considered to be "abuse" in Waldorf
Education and are therefore not reported, even though mainstream society
and those who actually suffered such treatment would label those things
as "abuse"?
Does this make sense?
Best Wishes, Yarngal
Does anyone else here want to post on this topic? Please do so: I cannot
word it well, and I know others here are able to put into words what I
am trying to say.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:58:39 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: reporting abuse
Hi Yarngal,
What Akua described did not take place at a Waldorf school. It was, as
I recall, at an institution of some sort run by Anthroposophists -
something like a Camphill. It is important not to misrepresent what has
been related here.
At my kid's school, however, reports of abuse were routinely covered up
and at one point in time, I have recently found out, two separate cases
of reported abuse were being covered up concurrently - and the separate
incidents were kept from the parent body - i.e. one group of parents was
unaware that the other group of parents was experiencing the same thing.
In reports of abuse, the school would perform its own investigation and
state mandated reporting often took a back seat to the school's
investigation. This is how incidents were "handled." In some cases,
the children who reported the abuse were further abused (bullied) by the
investigators who were taking their testimony. Often, the school didn't
comply with its mandatory reporting obligation.
I must also say that I agree with David Cann that there are certainly
going to be Waldorf schools that behave responsibly with regard to
mandatory reporting and those that take quick and decisive action when
reports of abuse come in should be commended.
Pete
yarngal yarngal wrote:
)
)
)
) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) )
) )
) ) pindar wrote:
) ) )
) ) ) Dear Pete,
) ) )
) ) ) Actually, I was talking to Yarngal. Most of your remarks are not
) ) ) pertinent to her post
) )
) ) No but they are pertinent to YOURS. Misinformation is so common from
) ) Waldorf schools, it is a full time job just getting the story straight.
) )
) )
) ) If you think you are going to slip by saying Waldorf schools are
) ) required to report abuse and then leave it at that - as if they actually
) )
) )
) ) report abuse - then you may be mistaken.
) )
) ) Pete
) )
) )
) )
) ) ) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) pindar wrote:
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) All people who work with children whether it be as a private or public
) ) ) ) ) school worker or a medical/psychological worker are required by law to
) ) ) ) ) report suspected abuse.
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Yes, they are, but they don't always do this.
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) Private, alternative schools are good at hiding certain things.
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) How do you know this?
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) In my Waldorf community, they pressured parents and children to be
) ) ) ) quiet. Furthermore, they isolated parents so that parents believed they
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) were the only ones with complaints. This is still going on now.
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) I don't know if Waldorf schools are required to report sex abuse, for
) ) ) ) ) ) example? Are they?
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) Of course they are
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Again, they are required to but some don't.
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) ) Public schools are "too nosy" for these hippie parents,
) ) ) ) ) ) and public government schools want to know too much about the parent's
) ) ) ) ) ) alternative lifestyles and how their lifestyles affect their children.
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) The Waldorf School that I am familiar with had a drug education program.
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Not the one I am familiar with. They talk about it in the high school -
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) way too late IMO.
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Pete
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )
) ) ) accessing truth requires unbiased thinking
) )
) ) Also it wouldn't hurt to actually TELL the truth.
)
)
)
) THANKS, Pete.
) I hope others who have direct experience with this issue can post here
) about any abuse. I never had kids in Waldorf schools, so I am not
) qualified to judge this, but I know others on this list have said there
) is unreported abuse in Waldorf schools (and they are therefore
) qualified to judge), and I HOPE those people will post here about this.
) What about Akua? Akua posted here that she was severely abused in a
) Waldorf school. I believe Akua 100%.
) Plus others here wrote about how their children experienced abuse in
) Waldorf education. I tend to believe those members of this list who say
) their children experienced pain and abuse.
) If all abuse is reported to authorities, then WHY was Akua abused? Why
) would the others here claim that their children experienced abusive
) treatment,if it "doesn't happen"?
) Does unreported abuse happen in Waldorf schools and institutions or not?
)
) Can someone whose children or themselves please answer this (better than
)
) I can)?
) Perhaps some things are not considered to be "abuse" in Waldorf
) Education and are therefore not reported, even though mainstream society
)
) and those who actually suffered such treatment would label those things
) as "abuse"?
) Does this make sense?
) Best Wishes, Yarngal
) Does anyone else here want to post on this topic? Please do so: I cannot
)
) word it well, and I know others here are able to put into words what I
) am trying to say.
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 00:34:33 +0000
From: yarngal yarngal (yarngal webtv.net)
Subject: RE: reporting abuse
Yarngal: My answers are under your's:
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
)
) Hi Yarngal,
)
) What Akua described did not take place at a Waldorf school. It was, as
) I recall, at an institution of some sort run by Anthroposophists -
) something like a Camphill. It is important not to misrepresent what has
)
) been related here.
) YARNGAL: Thanks, Pete for making that clear, where Akua was, which was
) not a Waldorf school.
) At my kid's school, however, reports of abuse were routinely covered up
) and at one point in time, I have recently found out, two separate cases
) of reported abuse were being covered up concurrently - and the separate
) incidents were kept from the parent body - i.e. one group of parents was
)
) unaware that the other group of parents was experiencing the same thing.
)
) In reports of abuse, the school would perform its own investigation and
) state mandated reporting often took a back seat to the school's
) investigation. This is how incidents were "handled." In some cases,
) the children who reported the abuse were further abused (bullied) by the
)
) investigators who were taking their testimony. Often, the school didn't
)
) comply with its mandatory reporting obligation.
)
) I must also say that I agree with David Cann that there are certainly
) going to be Waldorf schools that behave responsibly with regard to
) mandatory reporting and those that take quick and decisive action when
) reports of abuse come in should be commended.
)
) Pete
)
Yarngal: Thanks again, Pete. What you wrote about above is what I
suspected because I have read and heard about similar sitiuations to
your's that you write about above. It is not just an "isolated"
incident.
Some groups prefer to keep allegations of abuse "within the family" as
much as they can.
It reminds me of the Catholic Church and other groups who "keep it
(abuse) in the family". I guess people are the same everywhere. IF that
is the case, people should not portray their group or school as "better"
than others. Waldorf is no "better" than the Catholic church schools.
Thanks, Yarngal
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 02:15:43 +0000
From: pindar (pbarfield hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: drifter hippies and real homeless people (related to Waldorf)
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
) If you think you are going to slip by saying Waldorf schools are
) required to report abuse and then leave it at that - as if they actually
)
) report abuse - then you may be mistaken.
Dear Pete,
Why would I want to "slip by?" Your words indicate that you think you
know me or my motives. Chill out--let's just have a conversation. I
spoke to her questions. Now I'll speak to yours. In the Waldorf School
I was associated with, on four occasions suspected child abuse or
neglect cases were reported over the 16 years I was associated with the
school. We also had a drug education program modeled after the the
"Dare" program. Several teachers were trained by outside experts.
The program reached down into the lower school
) ) accessing truth requires unbiased thinking
)
) Also it wouldn't hurt to actually TELL the truth.
So, Pete, where did I not tell the truth. Please answer.
Pindar
accessing truth requires unbiased thinking
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 02:17:52 +0000
From: pindar (pbarfield hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: To Pindar (and All) Public schools and "snitching" on parents
Yarngal wrote:
)
) I meant that the DARE program in public schools tells children that if
) they know anyone on drugs, that the children should tell authorities or
) school counselors about it. Some people I knew over the years, who were
) into the hippie lifestyle and kept their children out of public schools
) told me that was one more reason they preferred to either send their
) children to alternative schools or to homeschool. They told me that in
) effect, the DARE programs want "children to snitch on their parents"!
) So that is what I meant in my post here.
)
) So you say that Waldorf schools don't tell children if their parents or
) anyone uses drugs, to tell it to the authorities or school counselors
) like DARE does? I didn't know that.
) BEst Wishes, Yarngal
)
Thank you for clarifying. As I said in a recent post to Pete, the
Waldorf School I was associated with had a "DARE" program.
Pindar
accessing truth requires unbiased thinking
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 02:23:43 +0000
From: pindar (pbarfield hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf and reporting abuse
Dear Pindar,
I am very sorry that you have not felt supported by the Waldorf
community nearby. I hope someone reaches out to you. It might not be
snobbery. Sometimes people just don't feel up to it. I'm not sure I
would know how to help if I knew you. Still, I think I would try.
Pindar
Yarngal wrote:
)
) HI Pindar and All,
) Now I am VERY confused from what I read on this list . You say
) differently. You say that Waldorf schools DO report suspected child
) abuse. So I am VERY CONFUSED right now.
) I wish my friend would post something about this. You also tell me that
) Waldorf has anti-drug education.
) I never sent my kids to Waldorf. I am not totally familiar with Waldorf,
) except form knowing many who are part of it. When they found out I
) cannot pay the tuition or volunteer, they stopped trying to get me to
) enroll my kids (who are now grown up adults) into the local Waldorf
) school.
) When they found out I am severely traumatized from my own being severely
) abused (from my own childhood) with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and
) Major Depression, and that I was "too needy", they (except for a few)
) socially DISTANCED themselves from me (one woman, the Waldorf teacher,
) told a friend of mine that I am a good, kind person, but I am in "too
) much pain" for her to be around me) except for saying "hi" on the street
) and talking about the weather, the war, and other non-personal topics.
) I was hurt at first, until another friend (who is not anti-Waldorf) with
) similar issues as I (poor,abused, chronically ill, and traumatized)
) told me that she experienced the same treatment from the local Waldorf
) folks and she likens it to "snobbery" on their part. That is as someone
) is too poor, to UNABLE to contribute money and time to their school and
) causes, and a "second class citizen" due to certain inabilities (being
) chronically ill for example) that they are just not interested in
) friendship with those of us in the greater community (who are not
) involved with Waldorf education) who are "too needy" and too chronically
) ill for them.
) I agree with my friend 100 percent.
) She also told me recently that she and I have nothing in common with
) the local Waldorf people:
) She said we don't have kids in their school and we are not involved in
) their political/social and environmental activism.
) She has a valid point: perhaps since I "don't fit in" to the local
) Waldorf people's lifestyle and I am NOT middle class like most of them
) are, and I am not "healthy and fit" like they are, so
) I have NO RIGHT to expect friendship and personal care from them. I
) have a lot of chronic illnesses and they just don't want to deal with
) people like me (in a social way).
) They don't mind it when I am their "client" or patient in the health
) care systems where they work. But NOT as a friend!
) So I choose to mostly avoid telling them about my personal problems,
) pain, and struggles to stay alive.
) I will talk with some of them on the street about handicrafts, the
) weather, and the war (being against Bush's policies) which I CAN talk
) about with them. But I cannot RELY on them or DEPEND on them. I gave
) up on most social scenes, Waldorf or not, and I am more reclusive (due
) to being HURT and let down by groups of people over the years) and
) prefer to not get involved in any group activities. I gave up on the
) "community" idea.
) It makes sense since I am not involved with Waldorf Education, and since
) I am not into the hippie lifestyle like they are , that I should not
) expect them to personally care about me. We have nothing much in
) common.
) I am also not a conservative Christian and don't go to church either,
) meaning it is not just the Waldorf people who I have nothing in common
) with.
) By the way, I don't own a personal computer. A friend gave me this webtv
) and I go to the public library computer for other Internet stuff.
)
) I don't want to hate anyone and I mostly take the "live and let live"
) attitude in life .So you say that Waldorf does indeed report child sex
) abuse and other child abuse? I wish the people who told me differently
) would post here.
) Child abuse destroys people's lives and MINDS! I was VERY hurt and upset
) that most (not all) of the Waldorf people I knew didn't want to even
) discuss the child abuse issue because they said it was "too negative to
) dwell on". A few did discuss it with me privately.
) But most I have known are more interested in the environment,
) protesting the war, organic farming, and bashing public schools and
) bashing tv.
) Best Wishes, Yarngal
)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 03:03:22 +0000
From: pindar (pbarfield hotmail.com)
Subject: re: reporting abuse
Pete wrote:
)At my kid's school, however, reports of abuse were routinely covered )up
)and at one point in time, I have recently found out, two separate )cases
)of reported abuse were being covered up concurrently - and the )separate
)incidents were kept from the parent body - i.e. one group of parents
))was
)unaware that the other group of parents was experiencing the same
))thing.
My understanding is that it is improper, even illegal to give parents
who are not directly involved information about an ongoing investigation
by the authorities. Is this what was happening?
)In reports of abuse, the school would perform its own investigation )and
)state mandated reporting often took a back seat to the school's
)investigation. This is how incidents were "handled."
What do you mean "took a back seat?" If it was reported and the
authorities think it is warranted, the investigation occurs, no matter
what the school does or doesn't do.
)Often, the school didn't
comply with its mandatory reporting obligation.
What do you mean by "often". Do you know of other cases? If the school
did not comply, then their inactivity is shameful.
)I must also say that I agree with David Cann that there are certainly
)going to be Waldorf schools that behave responsibly with regard to
)mandatory reporting and those that take quick and decisive action )when
)reports of abuse come in should be commended.
There may be more schools than you think that comply.
Pindar
accessing truth requires unbiased thinking
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:29:23 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Waldorf and reporting abuse
Pindar wrote to yarngal,
)Dear Pindar,
)I am very sorry that you have not felt supported by the Waldorf community
)nearby. I hope someone reaches out to you. It might not be snobbery.
)Sometimes people just don't feel up to it. I'm not sure I would know how to
)help if I knew you. Still, I think I would try.
)Pindar
Boy, that's a great Freudian slip.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:37:23 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
Pindar wrote:
)I agree with you that it is sadistic to "want" someone to suffer and
struggle. This is different than recognizing that )"out of suffering comes
inner growth.
I responded to Serena's specific wording, which was sarcastic but implied
that only if a person didn't believe in karma, would they not want people to
suffer and struggle for spiritual growth. Now, I doubt she meant "wanting"
in the purest sense of actively wishing misfortune on others or taking
explicit pleasure in seeing other people suffer.
But the language is telling, because these concepts kind of fuzz together,
and it seems to me it gets mixed up, thinking about what we "want" for
people we care for, like our children. If it is *good* for people to suffer,
as the karma defenders here are eager to explain, then I can understand how
we might slip into actually *wanting* them to suffer. As we want the best
for our children, for instance, don't we in some sense "want" certain
unpleasant things to happen to them? If they need a tooth drilled, we "want"
them to go through it, even if there may be some pain. If they need to pass
math class, we "want" them to study, even if studying is not fun. (Not all
here would agree with this example, but I'm in favor of studying for math
tests (G))
When you spiritualize all this: big trouble. Then really where is the
boundary for what sort of bad thing you should *not* want to happen to them,
and try to protect them from? We are in the curious situation where we
should, logically, want more suffering for our loved ones than we would want
for complete strangers!
I think parental responsibility is more basic than this: protecting our
children.
When you honestly believe that for someone to suffer or struggle is
desirable because it's good for them, this puts the wisher in a very
ambiguous and, to me, troubling position morally. I don't believe it is
right. I believe it is very simply right to *not* want people to suffer.
When it is applied to people you have *power* over like your children, it is
very dangerous.
I take as a much more fundamental principle that we do *not* wish our fellow
humans to suffer. I'm unashamed to say that this is a better spiritual view
than karma. If "karma" doesn't work in view of that, or if karma complicates
our actions or confuses us into thinking other people "want" or "need" their
suffering, then that means something is wrong with the idea of karma.
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 03:41:23 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: drifter hippies and real homeless people (related to Waldorf)
pindar wrote:
)
)
) Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
) ) If you think you are going to slip by saying Waldorf schools are
) ) required to report abuse and then leave it at that - as if they actually
) )
) )
) ) report abuse - then you may be mistaken.
)
) Dear Pete,
)
) Why would I want to "slip by?" Your words indicate that you think you
) know me or my motives.
No, I don't know if I know you or your motives.
)Chill out--let's just have a conversation.
Sure. I'd like that.
)I
) spoke to her questions. Now I'll speak to yours. In the Waldorf School
)
) I was associated with, on four occasions suspected child abuse or
) neglect cases were reported over the 16 years I was associated with the
) school.
So, in 16 years, only four complaints of sexual misconduct were ever
made by children, parents, teachers or staff - whether true or not? It
doesn't matter how many were actually reported. What matters is how
many complaints were made. If reports were filed for each and every
complaint, whether founded or unfounded, then the school did their job.
If not, then the school did not do their job.
)We also had a drug education program modeled after the the
) "Dare" program. Several teachers were trained by outside experts.
) The program reached down into the lower school
)
This is commendable.
) ) ) accessing truth requires unbiased thinking
) )
) ) Also it wouldn't hurt to actually TELL the truth.
)
) So, Pete, where did I not tell the truth. Please answer.
I don't think I said you didn't tell the truth any more than your
comment suggests that my thinking is biased. But I will say that what
you said was misleading - a half-truth. Simply saying Waldorf schools
are required by law to report does not address the question of whether
or not cases actually *do* get reported. In my experience, they do not.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 04:07:12 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: reporting abuse
pindar wrote:
)
) Pete wrote:
)
) )At my kid's school, however, reports of abuse were routinely covered )up
) )and at one point in time, I have recently found out, two separate )cases
) )of reported abuse were being covered up concurrently - and the )separate
) )incidents were kept from the parent body - i.e. one group of parents
) ))was
) )unaware that the other group of parents was experiencing the same
) ))thing.
)
) My understanding is that it is improper, even illegal to give parents
) who are not directly involved information about an ongoing investigation
)
) by the authorities. Is this what was happening?
No, it is my understanding that the authorities were not in the loop
while this was going on. Again, there were two cases and I was involved
in only one of them. On my side, the authorities were not called in -
no mandatory reporting took place - until repeated incidents occurred.
)
) )In reports of abuse, the school would perform its own investigation )and
) )state mandated reporting often took a back seat to the school's
) )investigation. This is how incidents were "handled."
)
) What do you mean "took a back seat?" If it was reported and the
) authorities think it is warranted, the investigation occurs, no matter
) what the school does or doesn't do.
)
Again, no reporting took place until late in the process. The school
conducted it's *own* investigation, took it's *own* steps toward
silencing/solving the problem long before the mandatory reporting
occurred.
) )Often, the school didn't
) comply with its mandatory reporting obligation.
)
) What do you mean by "often". Do you know of other cases? If the school
)
) did not comply, then their inactivity is shameful.
)
Yes, as I said, two cases were happening concurrently. In the first
case, two incidents, about a month apart, happened before the mandatory
reporting took place - and only after parents got involved. In the
second case, I believe no mandatory reporting was done at all.
Margaret, another list member here, may be able to confirm or correct
this.
) )I must also say that I agree with David Cann that there are certainly
) )going to be Waldorf schools that behave responsibly with regard to
) )mandatory reporting and those that take quick and decisive action )when
) )reports of abuse come in should be commended.
)
) There may be more schools than you think that comply.
)
Or less schools than you think that comply. The dynamics of Waldorf
schools make it difficult for anyone to actually know everything that is
going on. There is no doubt that there is secrecy and loyalty and fear
and financial security working among the faculty of some of the more
dogmatic schools. Truth is not readily available. That's why
conflicting views, even of the same school, are sometimes voiced here
and elsewhere. How does one know that what they didn't notice didn't
happen? Four complaints in 16 years either means an uncommonly
excellent school, or a school where a good mechanism in place for
keeping things quiet.
Accessing the truth sometimes requires doing a little digging.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 04:15:12 +0000
From: pindar (pbarfield hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
Dear Diana,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I agree that we should protect our
children. And we should help those who are suffering. I believe that
another's destiny, karma, whatever you want to call it is not in my
hands. Whatever the spiritual truth behind an event in another's life,
it is the affair of the creator. My task is to help the one who
suffers, if I can. As for my children I believe I should protect them
from harmful occurrences. I do not believe, however that I should keep
them away from life's normal difficulties, like math tests. If I
continually take them out of stressful situations, I run the risk of
taking away that which could strengthen them. This, of course, requires
common sense. Yes,it is possible to have fuzzy ideas about things. It
does not follow, however, that a concept of Karma is necessarily fuzzy.
You may not agree with it, but it may be true. In my opinion, if it is
true, it is the province of the divine. I who am not divine must
support, protect, and use my common sense.
By the way, I did not understand what you meant by a Freudian slip. I
was just being honest. Please explain what you mean.
Pindar
) I responded to Serena's specific wording, which was sarcastic but
) implied
) that only if a person didn't believe in karma, would they not want
) people to
) suffer and struggle for spiritual growth. Now, I doubt she meant
) "wanting"
) in the purest sense of actively wishing misfortune on others or taking
) explicit pleasure in seeing other people suffer.
)
)
)
) But the language is telling, because these concepts kind of fuzz
) together,
) and it seems to me it gets mixed up, thinking about what we "want" for
) people we care for, like our children. If it is *good* for people to
) suffer,
) as the karma defenders here are eager to explain, then I can understand
) how
) we might slip into actually *wanting* them to suffer. As we want the
) best
) for our children, for instance, don't we in some sense "want" certain
) unpleasant things to happen to them? If they need a tooth drilled, we
) "want"
) them to go through it, even if there may be some pain. If they need to
) pass
) math class, we "want" them to study, even if studying is not fun. (Not
) all
) here would agree with this example, but I'm in favor of studying for
) math
) tests (G))
)
)
)
)
)
) When you spiritualize all this: big trouble. Then really where is the
) boundary for what sort of bad thing you should *not* want to happen to
) them,
) and try to protect them from? We are in the curious situation where we
) should, logically, want more suffering for our loved ones than we would
) want
) for complete strangers!
)
)
)
) I think parental responsibility is more basic than this: protecting our
) children.
)
)
)
) When you honestly believe that for someone to suffer or struggle is
) desirable because it's good for them, this puts the wisher in a very
) ambiguous and, to me, troubling position morally. I don't believe it is
) right. I believe it is very simply right to *not* want people to suffer.
) When it is applied to people you have *power* over like your children,
) it is
) very dangerous.
)
)
)
) I take as a much more fundamental principle that we do *not* wish our
) fellow
) humans to suffer. I'm unashamed to say that this is a better spiritual
) view
) than karma. If "karma" doesn't work in view of that, or if karma
) complicates
) our actions or confuses us into thinking other people "want" or "need"
) their
) suffering, then that means something is wrong with the idea of karma.
)
)
)
) Diana
)
)
) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
)
accessing truth requires unbiased thinking
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:29:31 -0800 (PST)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
Diana:
) But the language is telling, because these concepts
) kind of fuzz together,
Hey Diana, I think it fuzzes together for you because
you do not have a good understanding of the karma
concept. Truly. It is beyond belief that one would tie
together the idea that out of suffering comes growth
and then use the 'what we would want for our children
is growth therefore we must want them to
suffer'...messed up and a very telling
misunderstanding on yours and the rest of PLANS part
here at the WC's list. Very telling indeed. And not a
misunderstanding that would bypass people who
contemplate on the deeper aspects of our human lives.
Diana:
) and it seems to me it gets mixed up, thinking about
) what we "want" for
) people we care for, like our children.
Right, that is because you have a messed up view of
what karma is. It's that plain and simple. I mean I
can get you might understand but after a while it
becomes a little redundant to have to express this
concept over and over to a very smart person such as
yourself. Truly. It's beyond comprehension in a way to
me because it seems like you don't want to understand
the concept of karma the way it is meant by
contemplative people which also includes the Doctors
students. I just don't get it how this keeps coming up
over and over for years now. It's almost like PLANS
refuses to understand that karma is not what you have
deemed it to be 'wanting others to suffer for
spiritual growth'. Incomprehensible.
Diana:
If it is
) *good* for people to suffer,
) as the karma defenders here are eager to explain,
) then I can understand how
) we might slip into actually *wanting* them to
) suffer.
BALONEY! And not only baloney but a great stretch of
the imagination and a foray into the 'mind police'
mentality expressed by Mr. Dugan over and over again.
Diana:
As we want the best
) for our children, for instance, don't we in some
) sense "want" certain
) unpleasant things to happen to them? If they need a
) tooth drilled, we "want"
) them to go through it, even if there may be some
) pain. If they need to pass
) math class, we "want" them to study, even if
) studying is not fun. (Not all
) here would agree with this example, but I'm in favor
) of studying for math
) tests (G))
It's funny because one can make light of this if so
much wasn't on the line, but unfortunately that is not
the case with the witch hunt I experience from the
PLANS group. To explain it again that it is not that
anyone is interested in children suffering rather
looking at what is learned when suffering does come
about' is just ridiculous. I mean how many years has
this been a subject here and you want me to believe
that y'all still do not get the concept. As I said to
Lisa, I really wish it goes much deeper than gunning
for Dr. Steiner, but I have to say I am afraid I would
be hoping to much.
Diana:
) When you spiritualize all this: big trouble.
Baloney again. You don't want to spiritualize
anything. I get that. And that is all good. But to
deny others and to put this freaky 'fuzzing together'
into a 'want your child to suffer so he can grown'
mentallity is just ignorance plain and simple. It's
funny because the first reaction is to explain the
concept as I understand it but then realizing how many
times it has been explained is mindboggling.
Diana:
Then
) really where is the
) boundary for what sort of bad thing you should *not*
) want to happen to them,
) and try to protect them from?
Diana, seriously, revist Pindars point of
'contemplating on what is learnt from this suffering
versus the buttbackwards inuendos of 'its good for
your child to suffer' due to your unwillingness to see
it through.
Diana:
) I think parental responsibility is more basic than
) this: protecting our
) children.
And that differs how or just because another parent
contemplates the idea of what we learn from the
suffering? Such as putting your hand on the stove fire
and then being burnt: the child learns not to put the
hands on the fire. Now, does a parent want the child
to learn it this way? Seriously Diana, this whole
PLANS trying to reinvent or reinterpret the concept of
karma is really what they have done with all of Dr.
Steiners work over and over and over again. People who
look in here get to be aware that as bad as PLANS
interprets the concept karma is as bad as their
interpretation of Dr. Steiner. And I guess that is a
good thing in how y'all continue for years on this
same ignorant interpretation all in the name of trying
to make Dr. Steiner look bad. It doesn't work, it just
shows the ignorance.
Diana:
) When you honestly believe that for someone to suffer
) or struggle is
) desirable because it's good for them, this puts the
) wisher in a very
) ambiguous and, to me, troubling position morally.
Right, and praytell Diana, who is it that thinks the
above? Or are you going to copp to this being your own
personal interpretation versus what Dr. Steiner or the
many spiritual streams contemplate? Again, who is
being honest here with this kind of propoganda?
Best,
Dottie
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:35:46 -0800 (PST)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: drifter hippies and real homeless people (related to Waldorf)
Yarngal:
No I didn't know about Steiner's
) "homeless soul" theory,
) ) but I am wondering if those who follow Steiner do
) believe that homeless
) ) people "choose" to be homeless.
I follow Christ and I believe it is the homeless
people who teach me to be human. I believe they are my
teachers and I do believe we all have chosen along
with God our destiny. I don't believe in any mistakes
as I believe it is all in according to the plan. In
helping one another we find our heroes and looking for
a reason in this big wide world for homelessness I
treat them as saints who have chosen to help others
see a higher way of being: a Christ way.
Best,
Dottie
p.s. Don't know what Dr. Steiner thinks on this but I
do know what I think on this.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 05:19:17 +0000
From: pindar (pbarfield hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: drifter hippies and real homeless people (related to Waldorf)
)
) So, in 16 years, only four complaints of sexual misconduct were ever
) made by children, parents, teachers or staff - whether true or not?
I am only aware of four. All were actual reportings
) ) ) ) accessing truth requires unbiased thinking
) ) )
) ) ) Also it wouldn't hurt to actually TELL the truth.
) )
) ) So, Pete, where did I not tell the truth. Please answer.
)
) I don't think I said you didn't tell the truth any more than your
) comment suggests that my thinking is biased.
"accessing truth requires unbiased thinking" is the motto at the end of
my posts. It was not aimed at you.
)But I will say that what
) you said was misleading - a half-truth. Simply saying Waldorf schools
) are required by law to report does not address the question of whether
) or not cases actually *do* get reported.
If you will go back and re-read Yarngal's post, you will understand my
response. It was not a half truth. She was questioning whether or not
private schools and Waldorf schools were required to report. I was
giving her information she did not apparently have.
Pindar
accessing truth requires unbiased thinking
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 23:45:22 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: ad hominem warning [Re: "Wanting" someone to suffer?]
Dottie Zold, you wrote,
)BALONEY! And not only baloney but a great stretch of
)the imagination and a foray into the 'mind police'
)mentality expressed by Mr. Dugan over and over again.
If you disagree with something I've said, then this is the place to
quote it accurately and present your rebuttal concisely.
Characterizing my "mentality" (or anyone else's) is an ad hominem
argument and is not allowed.
-Dan Dugan, Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 00:57:38 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
Dottie wrote:
"Hey Diana, I think it fuzzes together for you because
you do not have a good understanding of the karma
concept. Truly. It is beyond belief that one would tie
together the idea that out of suffering comes growth
and then use the 'what we would want for our children
is growth therefore we must want them to
suffer'...messed up and a very telling
misunderstanding on yours and the rest of PLANS part
here at the WC's list. Very telling indeed. And not a
misunderstanding that would bypass people who
contemplate on the deeper aspects of our human lives."
Walden jumps in: Dottie, I now remember why I was fascinated whilst reading
your posts many months ago and then stopped reading them.
I don't think you realize how you come across to us mere mortals. Is it
really that hard to believe that many people actually DO "contemplate on the
deeper aspects of our HUMAN lives" but do not need Steiner's occultism on
the way to those deeper aspects? For example, I can find them in human
interaction and study... and I don't mean on Mars, Jupiter or Vulcan.
-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 1671
-- Topica Digest --
RE: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: drifter hippies and real homeless people (related to Waldorf)
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: drifter hippies and real homeless people (related to Waldorf)
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: drifter hippies and real homeless people (related to Waldorf)
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: drifter hippies and real homeless people (related to Waldorf)
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: reporting abuse
By powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com
RE: reporting abuse
By powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com
RE: reporting abuse
By powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com
RE: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: drifter hippies and real homeless people (related to Waldorf)
By pbarfield hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 07:33:30 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
Pindar:
)Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Thank you for yours, too.
)I agree that we should protect our children. And we should help those who
)are suffering. I believe that another's destiny, karma, whatever you want
)to call it is not in my hands.
I'm glad to hear it. And Steiner also said we should help those who are
suffering. This is admirable on Steiner's part; IMO it is undercut by, and
contradicted by, the karma notion, however. The anthroposophic skepticism
about vaccines would be a very good example, and it's where this discussion
started. If childhood diseases are "good for you spiritually" despite
(except it's not "despite," is it, it's "because of") the suffering
involved, then to vaccinate to prevent them simply does not make sense. It
is, unfortunately, a good example of where the belief in karma *does* work
against preventing suffering.
Of course, above, you do not actually say we should prevent suffering.
Merely that we should help those suffering.
)Whatever the spiritual truth behind an event in another's life, it is the
)affair of the creator. My task is to help the one who suffers, if I can.
)As for my children I believe I should protect them from harmful
)occurrences. I do not believe, however that I should keep them away from
)life's normal difficulties, like math tests. If I continually take them
)out of stressful situations, I run the risk of taking away that which could
)strengthen them. This, of course, requires common sense. Yes,it is possible
)to have fuzzy ideas about things. It does not follow, however, that a
)concept of Karma is necessarily fuzzy. You may not agree with it, but it
)may be true.
Indeed it may, and I agree, whether I believe it or not has no relevance to
whether it is true. (Which is why Dottie's aspersions against me are so
silly. Karma is true if it's true, and little old me railing against it is
hardly going to stop the mechanism of the universe from working on!)
But I guess I am a pragmatist. I find personally the notion of karma gives
me nothing much to work with. If what happens either to me or to other
people is the result of karma, so what? What good principles or action come
from believing this? I can believe in helping the suffering without caring a
fig for whether it's someone's "karma" or not.
Perhaps my error is in imagining karma is a moral principle, or a notion
from which we can derive moral principles. I think there is no way for a
principle which states that justice will only happen *in another lifetime*
to be a basis for good works in the world. (You may do good works anyway, of
course, and even believe it's your karma to do them. But by then the whole
thing has become so circular it's comically meaningless.)
If karma is not a moral basis for action, then I've never understood how it
means anything, other than maybe "Shit happens."
)In my opinion, if it is true, it is the province of the divine. I who am
)not divine must support, protect, and use my common sense.
)By the way, I did not understand what you meant by a Freudian slip. I
)was just being honest. Please explain what you mean.
You replied to Yarngal, but wrote "Dear Pindar." You expressed sympathy to
yourself (G)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:15:44 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
Dottie wrote:
)It is beyond belief that one would tie together the idea that out of
)suffering comes growth and then use the 'what we would want for our
)children is growth therefore we must want them to suffer'...
I agree it is strange, but it wasn't me who tied them together.
In fact you keep asking me, does believing in karma make you sadistic, and I
keep saying no.
)you want me to believe that y'all still do not get the concept.
You must have misunderstood. I don't want you to believe I don't get the
concept.
)People who look in here get to be aware that as bad as PLANS interprets the
)concept karma is as bad as their interpretation of Dr. Steiner.
Exactly, Dottie. That's just what the discussion is for. People who look in
here and agree with yours and Dr. Steiner's understanding of karma will
realize that they like anthroposophy, and perhaps if they're interested in
Waldorf education, this notion, and the trouble folks like you and Serena
and Pindar have gone to to explain it, will help draw in customers.
)And I guess that is a good thing in how y'all continue for years on this
)same ignorant interpretation all in the name of trying to make Dr. Steiner
)look bad. It doesn't work, it just shows the ignorance.
You're right, if our interpretation is wrong, it will make us look bad and
make Dr. Steiner look good. People who look in here will see that the
critics are ignorant and anthroposophy a source of wisdom. If this is true,
this is how it should be. Don't you agree? In fact, isn't that karma?
)Right, and praytell Diana, who is it that thinks the above?
I don't know, unless they speak up to say so. I comment on what I can read
in Steiner, what I can observe in Waldorf schools, and, occasionally, what
anthroposophists here say. I have no idea how many anthroposophists agree
with Steiner on karma. The ones I've talked to here, and elsewhere, clearly
share the basic notion. Not very many parents in a typical Waldorf school
give karma much thought, I don't believe. But many of the teachers surely
do.
)Or are you going to copp to this being your own personal interpretation
)versus what Dr. Steiner or the many spiritual streams contemplate?
Yes, of course it's my personal interpretation. You may of course interpret
Steiner differently, and we could discuss that. But now I'm starting to feel
like this is a re-run of a conversation you had about a thousand times with
Peter Staudenmaier, wherein he begs you to discuss the material and drop the
childish taunting of correspondents here.
)Again, who is being honest here with this kind of propoganda?
I am 100% honest in my interpretations of Steiner. They may be wrong, of
course, and you're free to argue so.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:24:32 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: drifter hippies and real homeless people (related to Waldorf)
I've been sort of unconsciously turning that phrase "accessing truth" over
in my mind, trying to figure out why it bothers me.
Perhaps going off topic for this list . . . or perhaps not, as it seems
related to Steiner's notion that thoughts themselves have a living reality.
(And a zealous Steiner-definer over on Openwaldorf is posting copious
Steiner blather in this vein; lies having independent reality and being
equivalent to "murder" on the astral plane.)
I just can't get comfortable with the idea that truth is something we
"access." I suppose this is why I'm not religious. I think people can try to
*be honest* but that is a different thing from assuming truth is *out there*
somewhere, sitting there, waiting for us to access it, or that particular
techniques will help us "access" it. Telling the truth is something one
*does* to the best of one's ability, truth is not a thing one goes out in
search of or tries to possess.
Diana
Pindar:
)"accessing truth requires unbiased thinking" is the motto at the end of
)my posts.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:58:13 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: drifter hippies and real homeless people (related to Waldorf)
pindar wrote:
) ) So, in 16 years, only four complaints of sexual misconduct were ever
) ) made by children, parents, teachers or staff - whether true or not?
) I am only aware of four. All were actual reportings
So, again, I have to ask, how can you possibly know how many incidents
you were not aware of during those 16 years? Assuming you were aware of
everything is a little silly, IMO. I admit mine is the easier task - to
demonstrate that there is abuse that was not reported, I only have to
point out those cases. For you to demonstrate that there was no abuse
that was not reported, you have to demonstrate that you are omnipotent.
-) ) ) ) ) accessing truth requires unbiased thinking
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) Also it wouldn't hurt to actually TELL the truth.
) ) )
) ) ) So, Pete, where did I not tell the truth. Please answer.
) )
) ) I don't think I said you didn't tell the truth any more than your
) ) comment suggests that my thinking is biased.
)
) "accessing truth requires unbiased thinking" is the motto at the end of
) my posts. It was not aimed at you.
)
Actually, I was hoping it WAS aimed at me - because I know it applies to
me - unbiased as I am. But I was just trying to help you with your
motto - just as I was trying to do when I said something like "accessing
the truth sometimes requires a little digging." Both sides of the
Waldorf argument believe they are accessing the truth through unbiased
thinking - and both sides believe the other side to be biased.
) )But I will say that what
) ) you said was misleading - a half-truth. Simply saying Waldorf schools
) ) are required by law to report does not address the question of whether
) ) or not cases actually *do* get reported.
)
) If you will go back and re-read Yarngal's post, you will understand my
) response. It was not a half truth. She was questioning whether or not
) private schools and Waldorf schools were required to report. I was
) giving her information she did not apparently have.
)
Yes, I understand. One can say "the sky is blue" or "the sky appears
blue due to atmospheric conditions - the sky is not actually blue."
Technically, both statements are true, but one is more true than the
other. It's quaint to say Waldorf schools are required by law to report
- but that doesn't really tell the whole story, does it? Hey, I
understand - some people will accept "Steiner is difficult" and that's
the end of the conversation. Others dig deeper to get at the truth.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 08:52:06 -0800 (PST)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
Diana:
And Steiner also said we should
) help those who are
) suffering. This is admirable on Steiner's part; IMO
) it is undercut by, and
) contradicted by, the karma notion, however.
Hey Diana,
That's because you do not get the concept of Karma.
Diana:
The
) anthroposophic skepticism
) about vaccines would be a very good example, and
) it's where this discussion
) started.
Not really because you are using your bad
interpretation of what karma is and then putting it on
top of 'well don't vaccinate your children because
they will get what they deserve' silliness.
And it is not only Anthroposophists who are skeptics
as you can see by the many reports going on across the
states and the world on this very subject. I get PLANS
would like to keep it on Anthroposophy but it does not
rest there. Anthroposophists may have been ahead of
the game on that issue and it will be shown to be
correct in the future. When we have companies that
care for the well being of people and not their
pocketbooks then maybe we can trust what is coming out
of the medicine world. But to see time and time again
all the coverups being noted about the mercury in
shots and not take a stand against vaccinations is to
ignore the problem as far as I can tell. I get Lisa
covers it up with 'it's irresponsible of other parents
to not vaccinate their children' due to her own
feelings on it but that does not make the issue go
away nor right to vaccinate your children so other
chidlren do not get sick. The state is at fault with
its coverups in the medical field. These reporst are
not new to them but are to us.
Diana:
If childhood diseases are "good for you
) spiritually" despite
) (except it's not "despite," is it, it's "because
) of") the suffering
) involved, then to vaccinate to prevent them simply
) does not make sense.
God, I just can't believe you are still here at the
same point of its good for children to suffer. I mean
really Diana. And then if you want to look at doctors
who are happier that children get the measles at a
young age because it is almost inevitable to have them
is not such a bad thing. Its not about the misinformed
idea that disease is good for you. No matter how you
write or rewrite on this issue it is messed up because
you don't get the concept of karma.
Diana:
) Of course, above, you do not actually say we should
) prevent suffering.
) Merely that we should help those suffering.
Merely. Wow. Implying that one would not prevent a
suffering if it came about. As if a parent,
specifically an Anthro parent, would be at the stove,
watch their child lift their hand and touch the fire,
without making a move to stop it. Whew. It gets more
ridiculous as this misunderstanding of karma goes
forward.
Diana:
) Indeed it may, and I agree, whether I believe it or
) not has no relevance to
) whether it is true. (Which is why Dottie's
) aspersions against me are so
) silly. Karma is true if it's true, and little old me
) railing against it is
) hardly going to stop the mechanism of the universe
) from working on!)
And I am not saying that your being against the belief
of karma is going to stop anything. That is hardly a
possibility. My issue is the way you use the term to
try and prove your point: Anthros want their children
to suffer, and others as well, and that is part of the
reason why they do not vaccinate their children, as
its all apart of karma and nothing to do with the hair
raising issues of incompetence and negligence and
outright culpability towards Autism in our very
lives.
Diana:
) But I guess I am a pragmatist. I find personally the
) notion of karma gives
) me nothing much to work with. If what happens either
) to me or to other
) people is the result of karma, so what? What good
) principles or action come
) from believing this? I can believe in helping the
) suffering without caring a
) fig for whether it's someone's "karma" or not.
But Diana it doesn't matter whether you believe in
karma or not. I could give a figs seed about it. It is
the way you constantly misconstrue the concept of
karma that is at issue and then turn around to show
something sinister in Waldorf education because of it.
You are stubbornly looking at it from a very poor
understanding and sticking to your guns that it means
'let your children get sick and die as it is part of
their karma'. I mean that is outragious for normal
thinking people. But then again you don't seem to hold
Anthros as normal thinking people which is a big part
of the boogie word karma for you and PLANS.
Diana:
) Perhaps my error is in imagining karma is a moral
) principle, or a notion
) from which we can derive moral principles.
I don't think we can derive moral principles from
karma. What we can do, if one is so interested, is
look at how and why things work the way they do and to
maybe notice an underlying synchrinicity in the world
around us towards what happens to us in our lives. You
can say well that might be an excuse to use for why
things are the way they are and so forth. But that
would not be the point. The point is that there are
people who contemplate the whys and the hows of our
lives and one of the ways they contemplate it is to
look at what we learn from our suffering. That is all.
Its not what you and Lisa have made it to be. You have
a false view of the concept of karma. And no matter
how you express it as long as you have the notion that
people who believe in karma want their children to
suffer you are at a loss and it can be seen by all
those who contemplate such a thing. It doesn't matter
if you believe in karma but it does matter if you
speak on the issue and have it all mixed up with
misunderstandings.
Diana:
I think
) there is no way for a
) principle which states that justice will only happen
) *in another lifetime*
) to be a basis for good works in the world.
But that is not what karma says. And I think karma can
be applied in this lifetime. I am watching this happen
with my Pop. And so in the suffering I can only love
him through it as I have no power to change the
choices he has made in his life. And these choices are
haunting him a bit today and I can do nothing but love
him and try here and there to make it easier. I
believe we can handle things in this life time. But I
think your idea of 'justice' is not what spiritually
minded people contemplate. And why should they?
If they are on a path of spiritual enlightment
hopefully what they come to is that the justice is
that who ever has had a misdeed put upon them will
choose in the next lifetime to not mete out justice
but will rise to a higher understanding and stop the
bad karma in its track. Bam! And then move onto a
higher level of understanding. I've been raped as a
child and I hope in the next life, because I happen to
believe in reincarnation, I do not mete out 'justice'
to this man rather I hope I meet the situation head on
and choose a different road versus the same ol eye for
an eye method. And to me this is how we get closer to
God, by being Godlike.
Diana:
(You may
) do good works anyway, of
) course, and even believe it's your karma to do them.
) But by then the whole
) thing has become so circular it's comically
) meaningless.)
That's because you do not understand the concept of
karma.
Diana:
) If karma is not a moral basis for action, then I've
) never understood how it
) means anything, other than maybe "Shit happens."
I don't understand how you call karma a moral basis
for action. It seems you have it more as a 'reaction'
than a cause and effect concept. ITs not about payment
Diana or payback Diana, and it definitely has nothing
to do with letting your children suffer. The idea of
payment is a mind mess versus a heart rendering.
Thanks be to God that I am out of that snow,
Dottie
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 17:32:19 +0000
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
Diana:
) In fact you keep asking me, does believing in karma make you sadistic,
) and I
) keep saying no.
Well I can't recall that I keep asking this question of you however I do
recall one time asking as it was implied from the words in your post or
possibily Lisas.
Diana:
) Exactly, Dottie. That's just what the discussion is for. People who look
) in
) here and agree with yours and Dr. Steiner's understanding of karma will
) realize that they like anthroposophy, and perhaps if they're interested
) in
) Waldorf education, this notion, and the trouble folks like you and
) Serena
) and Pindar have gone to to explain it, will help draw in customers.
Not really Diana. First of all it is not Dr. Steiner's concept, it is a
world concept for those who believe or contemplate karma. Dr. Steiner
did not come up with the concept nor does he own it. It was around long
before he and will be around a long time after.
Pindar and I are not explaining it really rather we are pointing out
that y'all have a terrible understanding of the word that belies any
kind of real thinking on the subject. I mean to just 'talk' it as you
are doing is fine for those who do not want to think on it but that does
not mean others looking in will fall for such a thing. I mean it is not
a Steiner concept rather a world concept. And of course here long before
he.
Diana:
) You're right, if our interpretation is wrong, it will make us look bad
) and
) make Dr. Steiner look good.
It doesn't make you look bad Diana rather it makes y'all look ignorant
when time and time again you keep saying karma is about letting your
children suffer and then possibly die. Which is just ridiculous.
Diana:
People who look in here will see that the
) critics are ignorant and anthroposophy a source of wisdom.
Nope, didn't say that. Karma does not belong to Anthroposophy and can
easily be found in Jesus' words in the bible and also in the Old
Testament. And many people may not find wisdom in anthroposophy so what.
That does not excuse the misunderstanding that keeps perpetuating itself
here at PLANS.
Diana:
If this is true,
) this is how it should be. Don't you agree? In fact, isn't that karma?
You seem to think on karma from a mental position. Karma is not a mental
position it is a contemplative position, which is best if thought from a
thinking and heart position not just the mind position. Its not this or
that it is a contemplation of sorts. It's not black and white Diana.
Diana:
) I don't know, unless they speak up to say so. I comment on what I can
) read
) in Steiner, what I can observe in Waldorf schools, and, occasionally,
) what
) anthroposophists here say.
Well I have to say if I had to take your constant stick to your guns on
this karma position and then look to your Waldorf position I would be
one that would have to defintely think again before giving your
interpretations any credibility. I don't mean that as an insult rather
as one who takes people at their word. And if I had to keep seeing this
stubborness to believe it is what you think it is versus what others who
contemplate this concept understand it to be, than I have to consider
this is something you do across the board when dealing with Waldorf
education.
As far as you observing the concept of karma at Waldorf I would have to
ask you how it can be a good observation if you refuse to budge on your
own personal interpretation of the word karma which has been shown to be
completely misunderstood on your part?
Diana:
I have no idea how many anthroposophists agree
) with Steiner on karma.
Again, Dr. Steiner does not own the concept of karma and it was here
long before he. So, it is a concept that many spiritual thinking people
contemplate, and Dr. Steiner has nothing to do with that.
Diana:
The ones I've talked to here, and elsewhere, clearly
) share the basic notion.
Okay, Diana, what is the basic notion that they share on the concept of
karma? And does it include that they share that you should let your
child suffer because its part of his karma and be happy also that your
child suffers because then he can grow spiritually strong? Now, think
carefully in order to answer honestly and not have it be subjective but
objective. And please take in what you have heard from Pindar and myself
just recently on this subject. And I have to ask you if you are aware
that this is not a concept that Dr. Steiner invented rather it is a
concept that has been around for thousands and thousands of years as can
be shown in many spiritual streams including Christianity.
Diana:
Not very many parents in a typical Waldorf school
) give karma much thought, I don't believe. But many of the teachers
) surely
) do.
And you know that how Diana? PLANS is a very small group that is not
representative of the Waldorf experience as a whole as can be seen by
the many parents who have come across this site and shared their
wonderful stories of the Waldorf education their children recieved.
There were just as many of them as there are members of PLANS.
Diana:
) Yes, of course it's my personal interpretation. You may of course
) interpret
) Steiner differently, and we could discuss that.
Nope, Dr. Steiner is not the inventor of the karma concept. It is not
about understnading Dr. Steiner rather it is about understanding the
concept of karma. And your own personal interpretation of it is not a
good one and if anything is a very bad one to say the least. This has
nothing to do with Dr. Steiner.
Diana:
But now I'm starting to feel
) like this is a re-run of a conversation you had about a thousand times
) with
) Peter Staudenmaier, wherein he begs you to discuss the material and drop
) the
) childish taunting of correspondents here.
Oh give me a break Diana. Bothered by the fact that your interpretation
is way off the mark as in fact is Mr. Staudenmaier's. Come to think of
it there is a similar way y'all handle your own opions of things that
differ drastically from people who have studied these things for years
now. Your only excuse time and time again is that 'oh their suspect'
because they have studied for years, versus looking at the possibility
that these people are knowledable about what they are studying.
Diana:
) I am 100% honest in my interpretations of Steiner. They may be wrong, of
) course, and you're free to argue so.
Again, do you want to check out other understandings of karma versus
sticking this misunderstood one on Dr. STeiners doorstep. And it is
really really hard to find this to be an honest interpretation versus a
stubborn one that has been shown time and time again to be completely
misinformed.
Best,
Dottie
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 09:42:40 -0800 (PST)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: drifter hippies and real homeless people (related to Waldorf)
Diana:
Telling the
) truth is something one
) *does* to the best of one's ability, truth is not a
) thing one goes out in
) search of or tries to possess.
It's not about possessing it Diana. And searching for
the truth of our Universe and our selves is a path
many spiritual seekers are looking for.
Best,
Dottie
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:53:51 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
Dottie . . .
)Not really Diana. First of all it is not Dr. Steiner's concept, it is a
)world concept for those who believe or contemplate karma.
Okay, Dottie. I'm not sure why you are keen to explain to me that Steiner
didn't invent the idea of karma; I'm quite aware of that.
)You seem to think on karma from a mental position.
Perhaps so. I'm sorry, I have this brain I just can't seem to turn off
during spiritual discussions (G)
)Karma is not a mental position it is a contemplative position,
That's interesting. I do think that's a useful contribution, Dottie. I don't
mind anyone contemplating karma, I've been known to contemplate karma
myself. (Shock! Horrors! She thinks "beyond the physical"!) But if you don't
step back and think rationally about what it is you're contemplating, this
just amounts to, you'll believe anything.
"Contemplating" something, repeatedly over the long term with critical
faculties turned off, can be a way of talking yourself into believing
something, or feeling comfortable with things that make no sense. Human
beings can get used to lots of crazy things, and can convince themselves to
believe almost anything.
Diana:
)The ones I've talked to here [this referred to anthroposophists], and
)elsewhere, clearly share the basic notion.
)Okay, Diana, what is the basic notion that they share on the concept of
)karma?
The basic notion of karma, as I understand from reading Rudolf Steiner, is
that we choose, on a higher spiritual level, everything that happens to us.
Everything happens for a reason, even if we must wait till a future lifetime
to understand it or for causes and effects to balance out. We choose even
misfortune (in fact, Steiner says karma does *not* apply to good things that
happen to us, but mainly to bad things; good things we should simply ascribe
to "grace"). We choose the things that happen to us to learn spiritual
lessons or progress spiritually. We meet the same people in successive
lifetimes, in different relationships, in order to work out our issues with
them. A Waldorf class, for instance, is considered a karmic group. It will
have been together in some sense for many lifetimes in the past and many
lifetimes to come. The teacher may have once been the student of one of her
present students, for instance. Parents and children, likewise, will often
have been in the reverse relationship, either in a past or a future life.
This is the "basic notion" I referred to. I don't think I've met an
anthroposophist who would disagree with this little primer on karma.
Okay? Scoff away, tell me I "don't understand."
)And does it include that they share that you should let your child suffer
)because its part of his karma
It includes that if anyone, certainly including your child, is suffering, it
may indeed be attributable to karma. This does, in my view, induce at least
a hesitation as to whether one should intervene. Who would want to impede a
loved one's spiritual growth?
)and be happy also that your child suffers because then he can grow
)spiritually strong?
I think, yes, that to be happy that one's child is growing spiritually
strong, even if this is achieved through suffering, would make sense if you
believe in the above aspects of karma.
)Now, think carefully in order to answer honestly and not have it be
)subjective but objective.
Would you prefer I just quote straight from Steiner? Would that seem more
objective to you?
Here: from "Facing Karma," Vienna, February 8, 1912 (in "Anthroposophy in
Everyday Life," Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press; 1995):
" . . . . all pain that hits us . . . all suffering that comes our way, are
of such a nature that they are being sought by our shortcomings. By far the
greater part of our pain and suffering is sought by imperfections that we
have brought over from previous incarnations . . . there is a wiser being in
us who chooses the road to pain and suffering . . . the wiser being in us .
. . turns our gaze away from easy enjoyment and kindles in us a magic power
that seeks the road of pain without our really knowing it . . . The wiser
being always acts in such a way that our shortcomings are guided to our
pains." (pp. 53, 54)
)From "Rosicrucian Wisdom" (Forest Row, East Sussex, UK: Rudolf Steiner
Press; 1000):
" . . . a person who enjoys good health, and has great powers of endurance,
unfolded good qualities in the previous life. A person who is continually
prone to illness has worked bad impulses into himself. Thus we have it in
our power to create for ourselves health or illness . . . [Steiner then
gives a for-instance:] . . . a passion for acquisition, an urge that makes a
person hoard possessions . . . produces, in the next life, a tendency to
infectious diseases in the physical body . . . Many people complain about
pain and suffereing, but from a higher point of view this is quite
unjustified, for if they can be overcome, then, when the person is ready for
a new incarnation, suffering and pain are the sources of wisdom, prudence
and comprehensiveness of vision." (pp. 59, 60)
)And I have to ask you if you are aware that this is not a concept that Dr.
)Steiner invented rather it is a concept that has been around for thousands
)and thousands of years
Of course I'm aware of that. So what?
)Not very many parents in a typical Waldorf school give karma much thought,
)I don't believe. But many of the teachers surely
)And you know that how Diana?
Which part? I suppose I don't know for sure about "most parents," but in our
Waldorf school, few knew even the basic tenets of anthroposophy, other than
that perhaps, anthroposophists seem to believe in gnomes, and Steiner said
to encourage children's imaginations, and this is apparently common, I can
deduce from my conversations with Waldorf parents from other schools.
For the teachers? I know this from talking to some of them, and hearing
similar reports from other schools, and reading the texts such as the above
that Waldorf teachers read in their teacher training and their ongoing study
groups.
)Nope, Dr. Steiner is not the inventor of the karma concept
I truly don't know why you believe I think Steiner invented karma, or even
if I did think that, what it has to do with anything.
)that your interpretation is way off the mark as in fact is Mr.
)Staudenmaier's. Come to think of it there is a similar way y'all handle
)your own opions of things
LOL, could be. When talking to you I admit your exchanges with Peter often
come to mind, and to some extent I try openly to emulate the way he talked
with you. It was sometimes unbelievable that he took some of your notions
seriously, and I admired the way he kept trying to get you to take your
*own* notions seriously.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 15:13:53 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: drifter hippies and real homeless people (related to Waldorf)
First - hello and welcome to Pindar.
Diana wrote:
"I just can't get comfortable with the idea that truth is something we
"access." I suppose this is why I'm not religious. I think people can try to
*be honest* but that is a different thing from assuming truth is *out there*
somewhere, sitting there, waiting for us to access it, or that particular
techniques will help us "access" it. Telling the truth is something one
*does* to the best of one's ability, truth is not a thing one goes out in
search of or tries to possess."
Pindar previously wrote:
)"accessing truth requires unbiased thinking" is the motto at the end of
)my posts.
Walden adds:
Good discussion and I think it is on topic. Miscommunication happens all
too often here, imo. The concept of "truth" is relevant.
Here: I wonder if we confuse "feelings" with "truth?"
If I say or write something I believe to be "true" and someone demonstrates
how I was mistaken (Steiner actually *did* say this or that), the evidence
might very well hurt my "feelings" - especially if what I had believed to be
"true" was something on which I based my values. But that does not negate
the fact that I had been mistaken in my previous belief. I was not being
dishonest but I was mistaken.
Now, if I express a "feeling" that reflects my values, that "feeling" is
absolutely "true." Someone might vehemently disagree with how I feel and
might supply evidence to contradict that which he/she believes is at the
root of my feelings, but my feelings might not change and are, to me: true.
Which brings us back to Waldorf/Anthroposophy (surprise! (g)) and
miscommunication and I think Diana's comments (above) reflect a big problem
we see on this very list. When I read Pindar's motto I open a dictionary to
see a few definitions of the word "truth" which could even lead me to think
that Pindar's motto is not "truthful!" I do understand what Pindar is saying
but it is so very easy to approach subjects and words without unbiased
thinking - whatever that really means.
I find specifics helpful. For example, I can point to some Steiner quotes
and ideas and honestly say: "yes, I can relate to that and think it has
value." I can point to other Steiner quotes and ideas and honestly say:
"no - I cannot relate to that think it is nonsense and potentially
dangerous - especially the racist stuff." If my feelings about Steiner upset
another person, I am not a liar and am very truthful and will be pleased to
supply those Steiner quotes and ideas I find disturbing. Another person
might not find the quotes and ideas disturbing and I would welcome their
comment to help me process their feelings. No problem - we just need to
communicate.
What I have seen on this list (using my example above) is that some people
(specifically Serena, of late) confuse my distaste for what Steiner said and
wrote with *HERSELF* and her feelings about Steiner and
Anthroposophy/Waldorf - herself - as a person as opposed to her
thoughts/feelings. This is simply not the case as my critique of Steiner
should not be taken as a personal attack on a list member here. This place
is where we are able to share feelings, experiences and ideas.
And that's the truth... as it poured from the mind of unbiased thought. Or
so I think.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:16:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Margaret Sachs (powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: reporting abuse
--- Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net) wrote:
) At my kid's school, however, reports of abuse were
) routinely covered up
) and at one point in time, I have recently found out,
) two separate cases
) of reported abuse were being covered up concurrently
) - and the separate
) incidents were kept from the parent body - i.e. one
) group of parents was
) unaware that the other group of parents was
) experiencing the same thing.
) In reports of abuse, the school would perform its
) own investigation and
) state mandated reporting often took a back seat to
) the school's
) investigation. This is how incidents were
) "handled." In some cases,
) the children who reported the abuse were further
) abused (bullied) by the
) investigators who were taking their testimony.
) Often, the school didn't
) comply with its mandatory reporting obligation.
I am too crazed with a looming work deadline to retell
our awful Waldorf experience in this post (I've
described it at length in previous posts in 2004) but
it involves Waldorf teachers (mandated reporters)
committing three misdemeanors in connection with
failure to report suspected sexual abuse, intimidating
witnesses, and failing to maintain confidentiality. I
believe the incident in which we were involved is one
of the two Pete mentions above.
Margaret
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:20:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Margaret Sachs (powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: reporting abuse
--- yarngal yarngal (yarngal webtv.net) wrote:
) Some groups prefer to keep allegations of abuse
) "within the family" as
) much as they can.
) It reminds me of the Catholic Church and other
) groups who "keep it
) (abuse) in the family". I guess people are the same
) everywhere. IF that
) is the case, people should not portray their group
) or school as "better"
) than others. Waldorf is no "better" than the
) Catholic church schools.
Well said, Yarngal. That's exactly the conclusion we
came to when we had our unhappy Waldorf experience.
Best,
Margaret
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:40:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Margaret Sachs (powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: reporting abuse
--- Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net) wrote:
(snip)
) In the
) second case, I believe no mandatory reporting was
) done at all.
) Margaret, another list member here, may be able to
) confirm or correct
) this.
At least three teachers (one of whom was the high
school administrator) knew of three girls' claims of
inappropriate, unwanted touching by a part-time male
teacher. They had conversations with groups of
students and even convened a meeting with a large
group of students in which they intimidated the
victims by discussing the potential negative
consequences of their sticking to their claims. They
set up a compulsory parent meeting to discuss this and
other matters that occurred on the same field trip.
All this took place over a period of several days.
Hence, there was failure to report (legally required
to be done immediately), failure to comply with
confidentiality laws, and interference with what was
supposed to be a legal investigation. I then reported
the matter to the college chair, who at that point
reported the abuse claims to law enforcement and
canceled the parent meeting. Unfortunately, this did
not end the inappropriate behavior by some faculty
members.
Margaret
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 23:26:49 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
Dottie:
)That's because you do not get the concept of Karma.
Dottie, I do hope we have many lives to get to the bottom of this (G) You've
been telling me for years I don't understand, but you just get very feisty
with me when I ask you to explain what it is I don't understand.
)Anthroposophists may have been ahead of the game on that issue
[vaccination]
No, anthroposophists are one in a long line of many who, since vaccination
was introduced, have opposed it on religious grounds.
)to see time and time again all the coverups being noted about the mercury
)in shots and not take a stand against vaccinations is to ignore the problem
)as far as I can tell.
It would make no sense to "take a stand against vaccinations" if there is an
unacceptable level of mercury in the MMR vaccine, I'm sure I really don't
need to belabor the logic here with you! It would probably make sense to
find out more about this, lobby the vaccine manufacturers for full
disclosure, investigate any possible cover-ups, etc.; I'm behind you there.
This has nothing to do with the anthroposophic view on vaccines.
)God, I just can't believe you are still here at the same point of its good
)for children to suffer.
Yes, I'm still at that point, 'cus that's precisely what the doctrine says,
Dottie: Spiritual growth results from illness and adversity.
)It is the way you constantly misconstrue the concept of karma that is at
)issue and then turn around to show something sinister in Waldorf education
)because of it.
)You are stubbornly looking at it from a very poor understanding
I am stubbornly looking at it from the POV of someone who spent mornings in
a Waldorf kindergarten with my heart in my throat over and over again,
watching sharp knives being handled inexpertly by 4- and 5-year-olds without
the teacher's supervision, and the children climbing on wobbly tables and
chairs stacked in unstable configurations and the teacher told me *I* was
causing a problem by worrying about these things.
One day she told me she had never in 30 years had a child cut herself on a
knife. Thirty minutes later, a little girl cut herself with one of the
knives. I am not making this up. (Maybe my thoughts - like "Shit! She's
going to cut herself with that" - were becoming "living reality.")
)I think karma can be applied in this lifetime. I am watching this happen
)with my Pop. And so in the suffering I can only love him through it
I'm sorry to hear he's not doing well. I can see that you apply this idea of
karma lovingly in your own family.
)I've been raped as a child and I hope in the next life, because I happen to
)believe in reincarnation, I do not mete out 'justice' to this man
Dottie, I have also been a rape victim, not as a child but as a 23-year-old.
It never occurred to me then and please do not tell me now that I will meet
the rapist again in another life. I am not interested in forgiving him and I
certainly hope that "meting out justice" to the man who held a knife to my
throat is not left in my hands in some future situation. What a disgusting
thought. Perhaps you view that as my misunderstanding but I can tell you
definitely I have no karma with this individual.(I sincerely hope he is
dead, and not coming back.)
Bad things happen that are NOT for a reason. I did NOT grow spiritually from
being raped, all it did for me was rip up my life for several years.
)I don't understand how you call karma a moral basis for action.
I don't. I guess I have a kind of requirement that a theory about the
universe either explain something or offer wisdom for living, in some way,
and karma does neither.
)It seems you have it more as a 'reaction' than a cause and effect concept.
Not everything in the universe is cause and effect. I didn't do anything to
"cause" a man to rape me and neither did you.
)Thanks be to God that I am out of that snow,
Yes it is a royal pain in the you-know-what, I have had enough for this life
time (GG) but the kids love it.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 04:27:26 +0000
From: pindar (pbarfield hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: drifter hippies and real homeless people (related to Waldorf)
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
)
)
) pindar wrote:
)
) ) ) So, in 16 years, only four complaints of sexual misconduct were ever
) ) ) made by children, parents, teachers or staff - whether true or not?
) ) I am only aware of four. All were actual reportings
)
) So, again, I have to ask, how can you possibly know how many incidents
) you were not aware of during those 16 years? Assuming you were aware of
)
) everything is a little silly, IMO. I admit mine is the easier task - to
)
) demonstrate that there is abuse that was not reported, I only have to
) point out those cases. For you to demonstrate that there was no abuse
) that was not reported, you have to demonstrate that you are omnipotent.
I am finding this conversation very surprising. It seems to me that you
are talking to yourself sometimes, or rather that you are speaking to an
interpretation of my words that I don't recognize. For example, I was
not making the point "Look at how great my Waldorf School is, we only
had 4 cases of reportable offenses!" Quite the contrary, I was saying
that, as a parent, I only knew or heard of four. Please follow the
thread. Yarngal stated that she questioned whether or not Waldorf or
private schools had to report. I stated they did. You came in and
spoke about your experiences but with an "edge" as if we were on
opposite sides. How about this: you shared an experience in your
school; I shared my experience. I didn't counter what you said. I
added my experience. And what is this about omnipotent. Where is your
mind going? I wasn't claiming there were no other cases. I said what I
said, I only knew of four. You totally missed my point. It is my
opinion that you are trying to debate me. Sorry, not interested. I
will offer my views, that's all. I acknowledge that your situation as
you represent it was not a good one. My school was not perfect but my
experience was a good one.
) ) ) ) )
) ) ) ) ) Also it wouldn't hurt to actually TELL the truth.
) ) ) )
) ) ) ) So, Pete, where did I not tell the truth. Please answer.
) ) )
) ) ) I don't think I said you didn't tell the truth any more than your
) ) ) comment suggests that my thinking is biased.
) )
) ) "accessing truth requires unbiased thinking" is the motto at the end of
) ) my posts. It was not aimed at you.
) )
)
) Actually, I was hoping it WAS aimed at me - because I know it applies to
)
) me - unbiased as I am. But I was just trying to help you with your
) motto - just as I was trying to do when I said something like "accessing
)
) the truth sometimes requires a little digging." Both sides of the
) Waldorf argument believe they are accessing the truth through unbiased
) thinking - and both sides believe the other side to be biased.
)
) ) )But I will say that what
) ) ) you said was misleading - a half-truth. Simply saying Waldorf schools
) ) ) are required by law to report does not address the question of whether
) ) ) or not cases actually *do* get reported.
) )
) ) If you will go back and re-read Yarngal's post, you will understand my
) ) response. It was not a half truth. She was questioning whether or not
) ) private schools and Waldorf schools were required to report. I was
) ) giving her information she did not apparently have.
) )
)
) Yes, I understand. One can say "the sky is blue" or "the sky appears
) blue due to atmospheric conditions - the sky is not actually blue."
) Technically, both statements are true, but one is more true than the
) other. It's quaint to say Waldorf schools are required by law to report
) - but that doesn't really tell the whole story, does it? Hey, I
) understand - some people will accept "Steiner is difficult" and that's
) the end of the conversation. Others dig deeper to get at the truth.
)
) Pete
What can I say, "quaint?" You still are arguing a point that has no
target. I merely answered her question. Dig past your own
interpretation of my words.
Pindar
accessing truth requires unbiased thinking
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1672
-- Topica Digest --
RE: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: drifter hippies and real homeless people (related to Waldorf)
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
By pkcompany netzero.net
Re: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Admin: Fwd: Upcoming Topica downtime
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 07:04:20 -0800 (PST)
From: dottie zold (dottie_z yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
Diana:
) Perhaps so. I'm sorry, I have this brain I just
) can't seem to turn off
) during spiritual discussions (G)
The brain is required for spiritual discussions Diana.
I get that PLANS and its members think that spiritual
stuff is all woo woo but for most of the nation and
the world it is not.
Diana:
) That's interesting. I do think that's a useful
) contribution, Dottie. I don't
) mind anyone contemplating karma, I've been known to
) contemplate karma
) myself. (Shock! Horrors! She thinks "beyond the
) physical"!) But if you don't
) step back and think rationally about what it is
) you're contemplating, this
) just amounts to, you'll believe anything.
Oh of course Diana, Dr. Steiner's students don't step
back and think rationally about what they are
studying. His whole work is based on knowledge Diana,
which of course requires thinking, not feeling and
reacting. But I get that PLANS holds that the
spiritual things aren't rational. What's a girl to do
ey? I mean the students of these schools go to some of
the top colleges around the country it is said over
and over again. And still PLANS is holding onto a no
thinking involved in the schools. All because they are
irate that there is more to it than the brain. Whew.
Diana:
) "Contemplating" something, repeatedly over the long
) term with critical
) faculties turned off, can be a way of talking
) yourself into believing
) something, or feeling comfortable with things that
) make no sense.
Right we all know that. And that kind of thinking and
contemplating has nothing to do with Dr. Steiner's
work in the least. Dr. Steiner's work requires that
the critical faculties are fully engaged. And again it
gets back to that spiritual conversation as to how do
we know a thing. PLANS shuts it off at the gate so
there is no way to even have the conversation without
the comments that 'critical faculties are shut off'
and 'rational thinking involved' as you share above.
Diana:
Human
) beings can get used to lots of crazy things, and can
) convince themselves to
) believe almost anything.
Abosolutely again, and then how do you know a thing to
be true or not. If you read Dr. Steiner's work on
Philosophy of Freedom you would begin to see his
approach which by the way is a total thinking one.
There is no woo woo in there to freak any PLANS people
out and if anything speaks to those who seriously seek
to know how they can know a thing to be true. And what
it requires is self consciousness and not a fuzzy
feeling of 'oh this is so and that is so and this
isn't so and that isn't so because 'I feel this to be
true'. No, it is a hard core thinking path and one of
the reasons that Mr. Staudenmaier holds that Dr.
Steiner was an atheist at one point. Which of course
is quite ridiculous but he knows that.
Diana:
) The basic notion of karma, as I understand from
) reading Rudolf Steiner, is
) that we choose, on a higher spiritual level,
) everything that happens to us.
Right. But your basic notion seems to have left out
that you also view it to be a 'all suffering allowed
for spiritual growth'. Which of course is not true.
Diana:
We choose even
) misfortune (in fact, Steiner says karma does *not*
) apply to good things that
) happen to us, but mainly to bad things; good things
) we should simply ascribe
) to "grace").
Do you have a quote on that one? I like that you are
expressing how you see Dr. Steiner's concept of karma.
Diana:
) This is the "basic notion" I referred to. I don't
) think I've met an
) anthroposophist who would disagree with this little
) primer on karma.
My point, and I believe Pindar and anyone else who
contemplates karma, where you bring the concept that
one would want one to suffer. This is the whole issue
of where you go astray in a nutshell. So, you didn't
bring that part in regarding the 'basic notion' and
really that is all one is truly debating at this
point. And if you leave that part out you do in fact
have a little primer that with Dr. Steiners work gets
to be taken deeper into how we know a thing. How can
one know what is karma and what is not? And of course
that is supposing one wants to know a thing in the
first place.
Diana:
) Okay? Scoff away, tell me I "don't understand."
The issue is where you and Lisa and PLANS brings in
the idea that Waldorf wants others to suffer and
specifically their children even to the point that if
they die so what its a part of karma. And that is way
off and if included in your 'basic notion', although I
have not seen you mention that tidbit yet, it would be
wrong. It would be like baking a cake and forgetting
to put the flour in.
Diana:
) It includes that if anyone, certainly including your
) child, is suffering, it
) may indeed be attributable to karma.
Ah, but that does not mean one would want ones child
to suffer or anyone else for that matter. What it
means is that one contemplates the things that have
happened and what one can learn from them. But never
ever that it is okay that your child is raped because
it is a part of karma. Do you see the difference?
Diana:
This does, in
) my view, induce at least
) a hesitation as to whether one should intervene.
Right, in your view, but in truth nothing to do with
Dr. Steiner's words on karma nor any other spiritual
leaders words on this that I have ever read. And
definitely not on anyones views that I know who
contemplate karma. Never ever a hesitation. I work
with homeless people. If I believe in karma the way
you view it I would just let them live their lives and
never intervene to help. Dr. Steiner's students
wouldn't be in the prison system helping people to
overcome their destructive thoughts, nor would they
have a CampHill nor would they be so involved in
helping our planet to not be destroyed by finding
other methods of farming that do not require that the
animals are giving growth hormones and so forth. Your
view is not correct Diana on this concept of karma
because you bring this messed up point that you think
it might mean someone might not want to intervene.
Diana:
Who
) would want to impede a
) loved one's spiritual growth?
Yeah that's messed up: your view of karma. Your
thinking went one way versus the other and probably
due to looking for all the negative t hings you could
to support your point that Dr. Steiner is wacked. But
it doesnt' hold up because of the very point of 'who
would want to impede a love'd one's spiritual growth'.
Yup its right in there.
Spiritual growth is a two way street for all involved.
Diana:
) I think, yes, that to be happy that one's child is
) growing spiritually
) strong, even if this is achieved through suffering,
) would make sense if you
) believe in the above aspects of karma.
No. See, your thinking went down the wrong street due
to your bias on Dr. Steiner. And that is all good but
its wrong and its subjective. Take the boogie man, Dr.
Steiner, out of the picture Diana, and look at the
issue again. Your view is skewed because of your bias.
And again that is all good but it is not the truth.
It's funny because it all hinges on that one point:
letting one suffer because it is a part of karma.
Pindar has now shared it with you and I have that it
is the contemplation of the suffering in life that
helps one to grow, not technically the suffering
itself. If one does not contemplate the suffering and
what one has learned it means nothing but suffering.
The suffering comes about naturally and no matter how
we try to stop it from happening it is going to
happen. We just try to do the best we can and make
sense of what is going on around us.
Diana:
) Would you prefer I just quote straight from Steiner?
) Would that seem more
) objective to you?
Why would you think that quoting Dr. Steiner would be
objective? It wouldn't be your objective view it would
be his. If you can put Dr. Steiner to the side for a
second and look to see what is being said here by me
and by Pindar. and I am sure many others at various
times, you will see we are saying over and over that
karma is not about letting your child suffer and it is
not about 'not interfering with the suffering for
spiritual growth'. Can you take in that we have
studied the concept of karma, and not only with Dr.
Steiner, as again he is not the owner of the concept,
and we are aware that karma does not include allowing
your child to suffer? Or do you want to stubbornly
stick to your guns and be wrong and subjective versus
objective. There are too many books out there on karma
Diana for you to keep holding this messed up view.
And with that said I really admire that you have laid
it on the line with how you see it. It's just took a
wrong turn and I think it is because of your bias
against Dr. Steiner.
) Here: from "Facing Karma," Vienna, February 8, 1912
) (in "Anthroposophy in
) Everyday Life," Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press;
) 1995):
)
) " . . . . all pain that hits us . . . all suffering
) that comes our way, are
) of such a nature that they are being sought by our
) shortcomings. By far the
) greater part of our pain and suffering is sought by
) imperfections that we
) have brought over from previous incarnations . . .
) there is a wiser being in
) us who chooses the road to pain and suffering . . .
) the wiser being in us .
) . . turns our gaze away from easy enjoyment and
) kindles in us a magic power
) that seeks the road of pain without our really
) knowing it . . . The wiser
) being always acts in such a way that our
) shortcomings are guided to our
) pains." (pp. 53, 54)
)
) From "Rosicrucian Wisdom" (Forest Row, East Sussex,
) UK: Rudolf Steiner
) Press; 1000):
)
) " . . . a person who enjoys good health, and has
) great powers of endurance,
) unfolded good qualities in the previous life. A
) person who is continually
) prone to illness has worked bad impulses into
) himself. Thus we have it in
) our power to create for ourselves health or illness
) . . . [Steiner then
) gives a for-instance:] . . . a passion for
) acquisition, an urge that makes a
) person hoard possessions . . . produces, in the next
) life, a tendency to
) infectious diseases in the physical body . . . Many
) people complain about
) pain and suffereing, but from a higher point of view
) this is quite
) unjustified, for if they can be overcome, then, when
) the person is ready for
) a new incarnation, suffering and pain are the
) sources of wisdom, prudence
) and comprehensiveness of vision." (pp. 59, 60)
Wow, great quotes, thank you. I have not seen these
that I can recall. But it gets off to a bad start for
you and PLANS because the 'higher being within us' is
something y'all don't think is true. So it is real
hard of course if what you understand is that your
mental mind and who you are today would choose some of
the hardships that have occurred. I get that. And
unless you look to understand or know if there is a
'higher being' within you than it really is kind of
null and void in a way. Because our minds would never
choose anything that was outside of its comfort zone.
We wouldn't. And that is where the concept of karma
comes in. If I have been raped can I look to see how
this might have come about. I mean it happened. Now
what. I can just leave it at that and alls good. But
somehow I found my self on a spiritual path like
millions of other people around the world, and also a
Christic one to boot, that speaks to a higher
understanding. From a Christic point of view I am told
that God has every hair on my head counted. Now, what
does that mean to me? Well, it means that I can look
to see that there is something else going on because
that teaching of Christ resonates within me. Now, does
that mean that Christ and God or whatever want me to
suffer? No. It means that I get to comtemplate what
has happened and if I can find any rhyme or reason.
And that is not to excuse it rather I am a thinking
person and these thoughts cross my mind. So, in truth
I can find no higher reason. Although I can
contemplate on where this act has taken me in my life.
I can see what it produced within me. I can see my
reactions to certain things and where my teachings
have taken me to take understanding on those who have
walked a similar path of abuse. There are so many ways
of seeing it but not ever from teh stand point of 'not
intervening because it is a part of karma'. It is what
it is and I get to contemplate it.
Dottie:
) )And I have to ask you if you are aware that this is
) not a concept that Dr.
) )Steiner invented rather it is a concept that has
) been around for thousands
) )and thousands of years
Diana:
) Of course I'm aware of that. So what?
Well, because it comes off like you think this is a
concept brought by Dr. Steiner soley. But I think I
get a better picture of why you keep holding onto the
view that karma says let your child suffer. It's a
wrong view but I get it now.
Diana:
) )Not very many parents in a typical Waldorf school
) give karma much thought,
) )I don't believe. But many of the teachers surely
Dottie:
) )And you know that how Diana?
Diana:
) Which part? I suppose I don't know for sure about
) "most parents," but in our
) Waldorf school, few knew even the basic tenets of
) anthroposophy, other than
) that perhaps, anthroposophists seem to believe in
) gnomes, and Steiner said
But we are not talking about the 'tenents' of
Anthroposophy, we are speaking on the concept of
karma. And again its not Steiner owned.
The message cut off here and I do not know if I can
get back to it today.
Thanks Diana,
Dottie
__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:18:53 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: drifter hippies and real homeless people (related to Waldorf)
pindar wrote:
)
) I am finding this conversation very surprising. It seems to me that you
)
) are talking to yourself sometimes, or rather that you are speaking to an
)
) interpretation of my words that I don't recognize.
No, frankly, I'm talking to everyone who would read this list when I
reply to your messages. If we were intending to engage in a private
conversation, there are better ways to accomplish this. You seem to
have trouble understanding this as you seemed surprised that I would
answer a comment you directed at Yarngal.
)For example, I was
) not making the point "Look at how great my Waldorf School is, we only
) had 4 cases of reportable offenses!" Quite the contrary, I was saying
) that, as a parent, I only knew or heard of four.
The problem with Waldorf schools, generally, is that parents are kept
out of the loop - as Steiner suggested they should be. In my kid's
Waldorf school, the faculty go to great lengths to ensure that parents
are uninformed. Many others have expressed similar experiences.
Parents working on the assumption that because reporting is mandatory
that all incidents are actually reported are not only naive, they are
mis-informed.
)Please follow the
) thread. Yarngal stated that she questioned whether or not Waldorf or
) private schools had to report. I stated they did. You came in and
) spoke about your experiences but with an "edge" as if we were on
) opposite sides. How about this: you shared an experience in your
) school; I shared my experience. I didn't counter what you said. I
) added my experience. And what is this about omnipotent. Where is your
) mind going? I wasn't claiming there were no other cases. I said what I
)
) said, I only knew of four. You totally missed my point.
Well, you could be right here. Perhaps you were making the point about
how uninformed the parent body at your Waldorf school actually is. I
doubt it, but I am willing to accept that.
)It is my
) opinion that you are trying to debate me. Sorry, not interested. I
) will offer my views, that's all. I acknowledge that your situation as
) you represent it was not a good one. My school was not perfect but my
) experience was a good one.
That's fine with me. I have no intention to debate you. My intention
was to set the record straight - lest people take from the conversation
something that isn't accurate. For the record, Waldorf schools are
required to report sexual misconduct. Some do and some don't.
) What can I say, "quaint?" You still are arguing a point that has no
) target. I merely answered her question. Dig past your own
) interpretation of my words.
Your words speak for themselves.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 17:57:39 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
dottie zold wrote:
) The brain is required for spiritual discussions Diana.
) I get that PLANS and its members think that spiritual
) stuff is all woo woo but for most of the nation and
) the world it is not.
Dottie,
Thank you for your thoughtful post (I really mean it).
I can't speak for PLANS, but the problem as I see it is not that they
believe spiritual stuff is woo woo, but that it belongs under the
heading of religion. I happen to agree with this.
What I find problematic with Steiner's interpretation of karma, and this
is somewhat unique to Steiner's interpretation, is the karmic
relationship between the races. You have already demonstrated your
acceptance of Steiner's ideas about "overcoming one's blood" so I think
you might be the right person to address this. To accept Steiner's
ideas about karma as *wisdom*, one would have to accept the notion that
one race is above the other and that by addressing one's karma, one can
"overcome one's blood" and progress to a "higher" race. Don't you find
this troublesome?
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 13:30:01 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
Here is a perfect example, imo, of communication breakdown happening because
one
person is not acknowledging the specifics of what the other person is
actually writing. Dottie, in this case, has drawn conclusions which have
nothing to do with what Diana has actually written. I'm not simply trying to
dump on Dottie here - but I do think it is helpful to point to specific
examples of where communication breaks down. Here:
Diana wrote:
) That's interesting. I do think that's a useful
) contribution, Dottie. I don't
) mind anyone contemplating karma, I've been known to
) contemplate karma
) myself. (Shock! Horrors! She thinks "beyond the
) physical"!) But if you don't
) step back and think rationally about what it is
) you're contemplating, this
) just amounts to, you'll believe anything.
Dottie replied:
"Oh of course Diana, Dr. Steiner's students don't step
back and think rationally about what they are
studying. His whole work is based on knowledge Diana,
which of course requires thinking, not feeling and
reacting."
Walden: Dottie's definition of "knowledge" differs from mine (and my
dictionary). It is much more accurate to say that "Dr. Steiner's whole work
is based on occultism."
Dottie wrote:
"But I get that PLANS holds that the spiritual things aren't rational."
Walden: Diana did not mention PLANS or that group's thoughts about spiritual
things not being rational. Btw, has the board of PLANS issued a statement to
this effect?
Dottie wrote: "What's a girl to do ey? I mean the students of these schools
go to some of
the top colleges around the country it is said over
and over again.And still PLANS is holding onto a no
thinking involved in the schools. All because they are
irate that there is more to it than the brain. Whew."
Walden: Diana did not state that no Waldorf grads attend college. I have no
doubt many
Waldorf grads attend college as do grads from Catholic schools, etc. I also
think, however,
a study of Waldorf including enrollment/retention would be interesting.
Is the board of PLANS irate? Do they believe there is only the brain? What
does
this have to do with the conversation?
Diana wrote:
) "Contemplating" something, repeatedly over the long
) term with critical
) faculties turned off, can be a way of talking
) yourself into believing
) something, or feeling comfortable with things that
) make no sense.
Dottie wrote:
"Right we all know that. And that kind of thinking and
contemplating has nothing to do with Dr. Steiner's
work in the least. Dr. Steiner's work requires that
the critical faculties are fully engaged. And again it
gets back to that spiritual conversation as to how do
we know a thing."
Walden: Stop right there. This *does* have to do with the conversation. Yes,
indeed: "how do we know a thing?"
It gets back to the concept of KNOWledge. Think...think...think: Did Steiner
"know" about Lemuria, Atlantis, that blue eyes and blondeness bestow
intelligence, that blacks should not have been allowed in Europe, that
indigenous peoples should fade away, that humankind awaits a terrible racial
war, etc? And did Steiner ensure that his own critical faculties were
engaged during the times he worked from knowledge about these ideas?
Dottie wrote:
"PLANS shuts it off at the gate so
there is no way to even have the conversation without
the comments that 'critical faculties are shut off'
and 'rational thinking involved' as you share above."
Walden: Then back to bashing PLANS.
Diana wrote:
)Human beings can get used to lots of crazy things, and can
) convince themselves to believe almost anything.
Dottie replied:
"Abosolutely again, and then how do you know a thing to
be true or not. If you read Dr. Steiner's work on
Philosophy of Freedom you would begin to see his
approach which by the way is a total thinking one.
There is no woo woo in there to freak any PLANS people
out and if anything speaks to those who seriously seek
to know how they can know a thing to be true."
Walden: PoF was written before Steiner became immersed in occultism. This is
no secret. Again, Dottie brings up PLANS people - I really need to know what
PLANS people are? Who are these people and why are they constantly referred
to during this conversation with Diana?
Dottie wrote:
"And what it requires is self consciousness and not a fuzzy
feeling of 'oh this is so and that is so and this
isn't so and that isn't so because 'I feel this to be
true'. No, it is a hard core thinking path and one of
the reasons that Mr. Staudenmaier holds that Dr.
Steiner was an atheist at one point. Which of course
is quite ridiculous but he knows that."
Walden: Away from the discussion and brings in Peter Staudenmaier, tells of
his thoughts, calls them ridiculous and says that he knows his own ideas are
ridiculous. Communication breakdown....
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:42:07 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: Fwd: Upcoming Topica downtime
)To: dan dandugan.com
)From: Topica Customer Support (topicanotification app.topica.com)
)Subject: Upcoming Topica downtime
)Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 14:37:55 -0800
)
)Dear Topica Customer,
)
)Please note that we have scheduled a system downtime for the weekend
)of March 4th thru the 6th to perform routine database maintenance.
)We are sending you this notice to give you appropriate lead time for
)scheduling your campaigns accordingly, so you will not experience
)any delays.
)
)System maintenance will begin on Friday, March 4th at 9 PM PST with
)systems coming back online, Sunday, March 6th at 9 AM PST. Campaigns
)scheduled for delivery on March 4th, 5th and 6th will be queued for
)delivery immediately after the update is complete.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1673
-- Topica Digest --
RE: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
By dottie_z yahoo.com
Anthroposophia - Big Sister is watching
By pkcompany netzero.net
re: vaccinations and autism
By Ldenike aol.com
Re: Anthroposophia - Big Sister is watching
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: Admin: ad hominem warning [Re: "Wanting" someone to suffer?]
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: Anthroposophia - Big Sister is watching
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Anthroposophia - Big Sister is watching
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: Anthroposophia - Big Sister is watching
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Anthroposophia - Big Sister is watching
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: Anthroposophia - Big Sister is watching
By dottie_z yahoo.com
RE: "Wanting" someone to suffer?
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Anthroposophia - Big Sister is watching
By realwaldorf hotmail.com
RE: Anthroposophia - Big Sister is watching
By do