return to WCA Archive Index
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:08:04 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Comic Relief
Lisa:
)I heard that American prize winning author Saul Bellow was either an
)Anthroposophist or at least very intrigued by Anthroposophy.
Pete:
)You mean the often quoted nobel lauriate Saul Bellow who said something
)like "If I had a child, and there were no other schools available, I
)would send him to a Waldorf school."?
Yeah, him. It's true that he was an anthroposophist. One of his novels is
supposed to be straightforwardly anthroposophical, but I can never remember
which one. Herzog?
What Peter is asking for is more difficult - a novel *about*
anthroposophists written by a non-anthroposophist. I think the reason this
doesn't exist - far as I know - is that it's very difficult to write about
it from the outside, and expect anyone who has not been an insider, or at
least had significant exposure, to "get it." Anthroposophy is strange and
very difficult to explain to those who haven't been inside it.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 05:24:01 +0000
From: puunjab ahrabhati (puunjabahrabhati yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: new blog at defending steiner
Oh, I see now Dan, so it's okay to say false things about Steiner, as
long as you are just quoting someone else?
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) Sandra Barfield, welcome to waldorf-critics. Are you a descendant of
) Owen Barfield? Perhaps you have just chosen a pseudonym with an
) Anthroposophical heritage.
)
) You pointed us to the defendingsteiner blog:
)
) )http://www.defendingsteiner.com/wc/archives/2005/09/belated_respons.html
) )
) )Deborah finally responded to Dan's "quote"
)
) Thanks for that. I've finally figured out what Deborah has been so
) upset about! The subject of the discussion is the opening paragraph
) of Peter Staudenmaier's 2000 article, "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism,"
) available on the PLANS web site at:
)
) http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Anthroposophy%20and%20Ecofasc.htm
)
)
) This article was the subject of a tedious argument a few years ago,
) when Staudenmaier was available to discuss it here. Presently he's
) sworn off the debate until he's completed another stage of his
) studies. Then, the charge was made that the whole publication
) referenced was a fabrication. This was particularly ludicrous, given
) that the lecture in question was, at that time, published on an
) Anthroposophical web site in full text! It has since been removed.
) That lecture series alone indicts Steiner for racism.
)
) The article begins:
)
) "In June, 1910, Rudolf Steiner, the founder of anthroposophy, began a
) speaking tour of Norway with a lecture to a large and attentive
) audience in Oslo. The lecture series was titled "The Mission of
) National Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology." In the Oslo
) lectures Steiner presented his theory of "national souls"
) (Volksseelen in German, Steiner's native tongue) and paid particular
) attention to the mysterious wonders of the "Nordic spirit." The
) "national souls" of Northern and Central Europe belonged, Steiner
) explained, to the "germanic-nordic" peoples, the world's most
) spiritually advanced ethnic group, which was in turn the vanguard of
) the highest of five historical "root races." This superior fifth root
) race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the "Aryan" race.
) [1]"
)
) Deborah charges that this paragraph is a lie, and offers $100 to
) anyone who can come up with the quote from Steiner that Staudenmaier
) is referencing.
)
) There is no lie or fabrication, Deborah, because there is no
) quotation intended! In this paragraph Staudenmaier is summarizing
) Steiner's racial theory as expressed in the entire lecture series.
) The words in quotation marks are Steiner's -terms- that are being
) -introduced-. If he was quoting Steiner directly, he'd give you the
) page in a footnote.
)
) You can check the Chicago Manual of Style for this usage. From their
) FAQ on the web: "it's conventional to quote or use italics for words
) or phrases being introduced or defined (CMS 7.62)."
)
) -Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 00:49:36 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: new blog at defending steiner
Hi puunjab ahrabhati,
You wrote to Dan:
)Oh, I see now Dan, so it's okay to say false things about Steiner, as long
as you are just quoting someone else?
I know you addressed your concerns to Dan but it relates to what I wrote to
you yesterday. First, how do you feel about Waldorf promoters
saying false things about Steiner - the "educator, scientist," etc. and
neglecting to mention Steiner's actual work and his own term as being an
"occultist?"
More to the point is that you are not being asked for thoughts on someone
else's quote. Again, what is your take on these quotes from Rudolf Steiner?
What do *you* think/feel about what *Steiner" said here:
"No doubt about it, the soul becomes corrupted through using the French
language...It is also possible at the present time that the French will even
ruin their own blood, the very element which has kept their language going
as a corpse. That is a terrible thing the French people are doing to other
people, the frightful cultural brutality of transplanting black people to
Europe. It affects France itself worst of all. This has an incredibly strong
effect on the blood, the race. This will substantially add to French
decadence. The French nation will be weakened as a race." [Steiner, Rudolf.
*Conferences with the Teachers of the Waldorf School in Stuttgart 1922 to
1923: Volume Three: Being the end of the Fourth Year. (1923) Trans. Pauline
Wehrle. Forest Row, U.K.: Steiner Schools Fellowship Publications, 1988, pp.
87-88.]
and . . .
"White humankind is still on the path of absorbing the spirit deeper and
deeper into its own essence. Yellow humankind is on the path of
conserving the era when the spirit will be kept away from the body, when
the spirit will only be sought outside of the human-physical
organization. But the result will have to be that the transition from
the fifth cultural epoch to the sixth cultural epoch cannot happen in
any other way than as a violent battle of white humankind against
colored humankind in myriad areas. And that which precedes these battles
between white and colored humankind will occupy world history until the
completion of the great battles between white and colored humankind.
Future events are frequently reflected in prior events. You see, we
stand before something colossal that - when we understand it through
spiritual science - we will in the future be able to recognize as a
necessary occurrence." (Rudolf Steiner, Die geistigen Hintergründe des
Ersten Weltkrieges. Dornach, 1974 (GA 174b) p. 38).
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 01:22:46 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: law is poison
)From time to time we hear the word "danger" or "potentially dangerous"
associated with Anthroposophy. I'm not simply out to *get* Anthroposophists
but I am concerned when I read Steiner talking about working with children
or mentally challenged people - concerned because today's very well
intentioned, Anthro-inspired teachers and caregivers might actually
*believe* what Steiner wrote. This holier-than-thou attitude can be ignored
on email lists but it is another thing for a child or a mentally challenged
person to try to ignore such stuff when they are forced to face it day in
day out. Again - it seems to come from a place of care and love but what is
*really* happening here in the *real* world of those involved in such
situations?
Here, Steiner goes on about various incarnations and livers, etc. and then:
"In dealing with adult mental patients you will not be able to apply the
guidance in the same way; for something extraneous comes in there - namely,
the law. And the moment you have to reckon with factors other than those
that arise out of the nature of the case, the moment you have to do with
hard and fast laws, the thing becomes unworkable. For what the law lays down
is general; it cannot be individual in its application, it has to be
general. So far as treatment of abnormal human beings is concerned, the law
is a veritable poison. It is there in the world, however, and you have to
reckon with it."
Rudolf Steiner, Curative Education SECOND LECTURE 26th June, 1924
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 12:11:06 +0200
From: "Gabriel o. Linda Pulgar Arcaedius" (g.pulgar kommunicera.umea.se)
Subject: Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1915
Truth in particular and all the rest in general,
I do not have the time to post fifteen messages a day as some people do here
but rather digest this list and reply IF necessary.
Ok I will respond to the "positive and balanced" replies so common to this
list.
BTW, Why have the responses to my post been so negative?
Some (three come to mind) observers describe this list as negative. Do you
honestly believe the tone of this list is the product of the occasional
contributor, or perhaps more likely, the product of the regulars with
fifteen posts a day?
By critical thinking I am sure Truth meant SELF OBSERVATION. When you are
detached from your habitual activity, you can observe the object-
yourselves. This is a very BASIC Steiner thought, yet is completely lacking
in these lists contributions. I am sure that the majority of regulars here
who respond negatively to also this post, have no idea what Steiner said
about inner development, nor have they worked much in that important area.
Or? How can I say that? Ponder that a moment.
It is in fact not a rude observation, simply an accurate one. Anthroposophy
is not about making someone on this list feel better about themselves, but
about everyone on this list trying to be their real selves.
So a better question you aren't asking is why am I here?
It is not to take shots at strangers. That would be foolish and
psychopathic. No AGAIN I came to this list looking for accurate, honest,
willing co workers to build better schools because I am an anthroposophist,
not because I hate Steiner and hate Waldorf and hate hate hate.
Has it never occurred to the regulars that just maybe, just maybe there are
a lot of people who are scared away just *because* they have never tried to
be balanced in the EXACT same way as Steiner suggest instead of the
"balanced" which is subjectively thrown around on this list which is really
nothing more than a tool.
Gabriel
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1917
-- Topica Digest --
RE: The Big Lie from PLANS
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1915
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: The Big Lie from PLANS
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: law is poison
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: new blog at defending steiner
By puunjabahrabhati yahoo.com
RE: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1915
By puunjabahrabhati yahoo.com
Balanced (was: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1915)
By exnyers comcast.net
RE: new blog at defending steiner
By dan dandugan.com
Re: new blog at defending steiner
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Admin: subject lines [RE: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com,
issue 1915]
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Lefties turn into ideal Waldorf students?
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: new blog at defending steiner
By igoodwin mac.com
RE: new blog at defending steiner
By dan dandugan.com
Re: law is poison
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: new blog at defending steiner
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
PLANS is not helping by lying
By puunjabahrabhati yahoo.com
RE: law is poison
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 15:47:39 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: The Big Lie from PLANS
puunjab: “you believe Rudolf Steiner was a racist?”
*
I believe he held the same prejudices towards certain races, that he
held towards older, eastern paths of spiritual development. He judged
everything human and created hierarchical structures. This issue is
mostly about those tendencies, and not necessarily ‘racism’. Personally,
I don’t consider him any more a racist than a couple of narrow-minded
relatives of mine who were born at the beginning or the twentieth
century.
It’s easy to see and understand that Steiner was simply a flawed human
being and a product of his environment and time period, when one let’s
go of the notion he was some sort of spiritual initiate and/or elevated
master. And so I ask (again): Why doesn’t the movement simply
acknowledge all that and distance themselves from the unworthy comments?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 15:55:51 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1915
Gabriel: “By critical thinking I am sure Truth meant SELF OBSERVATION.”
*
That’s really a personal development path, though. This is discussion
forum. I don’t know Gabriel… if you’re not happy with the level of
critical thinking and dialogue, maybe it’s best to simply join other,
more pro-anthroposophy discussion lists…?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 16:01:49 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: The Big Lie from PLANS
puunjab ahrabhati wrote:
)
) baandje,
)
) you believe Rudolf Steiner was a racist?
I know I sure do. Do you believe he wasn't? If so, why? And please
don't say he was just joking...
Pete
) baandje wrote:
) )
) ) puunjab: “If the lecture series you cited includes the material in
) ) question you should be able to offer up confirmation of the quote, claim
) )
) )
) ) the $100, and smear mud all over anthroposophy and anthroposophists.”
) )
) ) *
) )
) ) Interesting and informative post, but it’s a bit like sticking one
) ) finger in a very leaky dike. Steiner made so many racist comments, most
) ) of which cannot be defended and explained away as ‘lies invented by
) ) critics’. I just don’t see the point of attempting to defend one
) ) particular and specific quote and/or lecture. Seems the movement’s time
) ) would be better spent sifting through his writings and distancing
) ) themselves from the obvious racist stuff.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 16:14:08 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: law is poison
Walden quoting Steiner: “In dealing with adult mental patients you will
not be able to apply the guidance in the same way; for something
extraneous comes in there - namely, the law. And the moment you have to
reckon with factors other than those that arise out of the nature of the
case, the moment you have to do with hard and fast laws, the thing
becomes unworkable. For what the law lays down is general; it cannot be
individual in its application, it has to be general. So far as treatment
of abnormal human beings is concerned, the law is a veritable poison. It
is there in the world, however, and you have to reckon with it.”
*
Steiner felt this way about Waldorf education as well, thus the ‘no
public school funding’ sentiments. The quote above is little more than a
‘Render unto Caesar’ observation as I see it. Plus there’s a lot of
truth in there. Laws and the legal system (any dogmatic institution….
er, like most Waldorf associations, actually) are too static and
entrenched to effectively deal with the many unique human issues and
concerns that will arise, in any sort of healthy and holistic way.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 16:19:22 +0000
From: puunjab ahrabhati (puunjabahrabhati yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: new blog at defending steiner
Well, Walden, I will not go so far as to accuse you of making those
statements you have quoted there, but I do feel that it would be a waste
of my time to try and make somme meaning of them for you when I do not
know for sure whether he wrote/said those things (I have not read those
transcriptions before).
I wouldn't attempt to anyways without having read the entire
lecture/book, as the context of what he is saying is very important, the
explanations of various terms before and after.
It is also important to note that the words he used for these concepts
often changed, because he really wanted the listener to get away from
the meaning of the individual words which can carry so much baggage with
them. Examples are words like "aryan, race, occult, black people,
white, colored". Of course if you are reading Steiner with the
pre-conception that he is a racist or a child molester or a terrorist or
a commie or whatever you are scared of in that way, then that is what
you will find....
walden wrote:
)
) Hi puunjab ahrabhati,
)
) You wrote to Dan:
) )Oh, I see now Dan, so it's okay to say false things about Steiner, as
) )long
) as you are just quoting someone else?
)
) I know you addressed your concerns to Dan but it relates to what I wrote
) to
) you yesterday. First, how do you feel about Waldorf promoters
) saying false things about Steiner - the "educator, scientist," etc. and
) neglecting to mention Steiner's actual work and his own term as being an
) "occultist?"
)
) More to the point is that you are not being asked for thoughts on
) someone
) else's quote. Again, what is your take on these quotes from Rudolf
) Steiner?
)
) What do *you* think/feel about what *Steiner" said here:
)
) "No doubt about it, the soul becomes corrupted through using the French
) language...It is also possible at the present time that the French will
) even
) ruin their own blood, the very element which has kept their language
) going
) as a corpse. That is a terrible thing the French people are doing to
) other
) people, the frightful cultural brutality of transplanting black people
) to
) Europe. It affects France itself worst of all. This has an incredibly
) strong
) effect on the blood, the race. This will substantially add to French
) decadence. The French nation will be weakened as a race." [Steiner,
) Rudolf.
) *Conferences with the Teachers of the Waldorf School in Stuttgart 1922
) to
) 1923: Volume Three: Being the end of the Fourth Year. (1923) Trans.
) Pauline
) Wehrle. Forest Row, U.K.: Steiner Schools Fellowship Publications, 1988,
) pp.
) 87-88.]
)
) and . . .
)
) "White humankind is still on the path of absorbing the spirit deeper and
) deeper into its own essence. Yellow humankind is on the path of
) conserving the era when the spirit will be kept away from the body, when
) the spirit will only be sought outside of the human-physical
) organization. But the result will have to be that the transition from
) the fifth cultural epoch to the sixth cultural epoch cannot happen in
) any other way than as a violent battle of white humankind against
) colored humankind in myriad areas. And that which precedes these battles
) between white and colored humankind will occupy world history until the
) completion of the great battles between white and colored humankind.
) Future events are frequently reflected in prior events. You see, we
) stand before something colossal that - when we understand it through
) spiritual science - we will in the future be able to recognize as a
) necessary occurrence." (Rudolf Steiner, Die geistigen Hintergründe des
) Ersten Weltkrieges. Dornach, 1974 (GA 174b) p. 38).
)
) -Walden
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 16:36:54 +0000
From: puunjab ahrabhati (puunjabahrabhati yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1915
Gabriel o. Linda Pulgar Arcaedius wrote:
) Has it never occurred to the regulars that just maybe, just maybe there
) are
) a lot of people who are scared away just *because* they have never tried
) to
) be balanced in the EXACT same way as Steiner suggest instead of the
) "balanced" which is subjectively thrown around on this list which is
) really
) nothing more than a tool.
) I am sure that the majority of regulars here
) who respond negatively to also this post, have no idea what Steiner said
)
) about inner development, nor have they worked much in that important
) area.
) Or? How can I say that? Ponder that a moment.
Well said, You have take the words right out of my mouth!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 12:55:11 -0400
From: "Erick & Kim" (exnyers comcast.net)
Subject: Balanced (was: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1915)
I think 'balanced' is in the eye of the beholder. And I'm sure if you ask
10 different Steiner supporters what Steiner meant by 'balanced', you'll
likely get several different answers. Like many things, it's all about
interpretation. Since he's dead, it's rather difficult to ask for
clarification I would think. How could you, or anyone for that matter, know
EXACTLY what Steiner suggests about anything? Where you there? Did you
hang with him? So trying to come off sounding superior or enlightened on a
topic that is really just your personal take on what another human being
wrote or said is actually rather egotistical, in my opinion.
And actually, the big discussion here really has revolved around the lack of
disclosure of what Waldorf education is all about. These tangents involving
Steiner debates get rather boring after awhile. As far as I can tell, the
lack of disclosure is the central issue that has turned many people off to
Waldorf.
Kim
----- Original Message -----
From: "puunjab ahrabhati" (puunjabahrabhati yahoo.com)
To: (waldorf-critics topica.com)
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 12:36 PM
Subject: RE: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1915
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your computer freezing up or slowing down?
Repair corrupt files and harmful errors - protect your PC
Take a 2-minute PC health check-up at no charge!
http://click.topica.com/caad3p7b1dkiGbP8adoa/PC PowerScan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel o. Linda Pulgar Arcaedius wrote:
) Has it never occurred to the regulars that just maybe, just maybe there
) are
) a lot of people who are scared away just *because* they have never tried
) to
) be balanced in the EXACT same way as Steiner suggest instead of the
) "balanced" which is subjectively thrown around on this list which is
) really
) nothing more than a tool.
) I am sure that the majority of regulars here
) who respond negatively to also this post, have no idea what Steiner said
)
) about inner development, nor have they worked much in that important
) area.
) Or? How can I say that? Ponder that a moment.
Well said, You have take the words right out of my mouth!
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 10:51:55 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: new blog at defending steiner
puunjab ahrabhati, you wrote:
)Oh, I see now Dan, so it's okay to say false things about Steiner, as
)long as you are just quoting someone else?
As far as I can tell, Staudenmaier's article is true. Do you have
evidence to the contrary? Diatribes on web sites don't count.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 11:24:51 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: new blog at defending steiner
puunjab ahrabhati wrote:
)Of course if you are reading Steiner with the pre-conception that he is a
racist or a child molester or a terrorist or
)a commie or whatever you are scared of in that way, then that is what you
will find....
Actually, it was the opposite with me. I went from very pro-Waldorf (like
most critics) and open to Anthroposophy to a more neutral position to where
I am now as a "critic." It was during the neutral period where the real work
happened. Reflection, inner stuff and THINKING as a free individual -
especially with regards to trying to understand what Steiner actually wrote
and said - in context. Nothing wrong with re-thinking a position based on
research and experience. No shame in altering previous positions. That's me.
While Steiner was no doubt a prolific writer/speaker and was a very
dedicated occultist, there is no avoiding the reality that he held racist
beliefs. He did not hide these beliefs and they are not in front of us today
as errors in translation or as the result of faulty stenographers. This was
a hard lesson to learn (for me) but the truth often arrives with more than a
little discomfort. But the truth really can set us free. In my experience.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 11:23:40 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: subject lines [RE: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com,
issue 1915]
puunjab ahrabhati, if you're going to participate in the discussion,
it's better to change your subscription to single messages. That way
you can just reply to a message and the subject is there. You won't
be "breaking the thread" with "Digest" subject lines. Also you won't
have to edit out excess text from other messages when you reply.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 23:03:06 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Lefties turn into ideal Waldorf students?
Diana: “[Cats are] nocturnal animals. Please don’t torment him by waking
him up from his afternoon nap, especially to chant at him (G)”
*
I just pet him softly, and he wakes up and thinks I’m being nice to him.
And if I’m not asleep by 11 or so, I usually can’t get to sleep until
after 1, so: “Here, Kitty...”
-------
Diana: “But “er” isn't part of how anyone pronounces “Michael” - is it?”
“Vowels are very important in eurythmy – they’re more “spiritual” than
consonants.”
*
I just tried the first suffix or what have you that popped into my head.
Lemuria is suggesting certain suffixes have greater religious/spiritual
significance than others... if I’m correcting interpreting what Lemuria
said. My question to Lemuria is: Why is that? I’m guessing the answer
would have to do with views and beliefs related to eurythmy, Steiner
speech exercises, etc.
And yes: the Waldorf belief is that vowels are more “spiritual” than
consonants. Vowels are often introduced in the last weeks leading up to
Christmas, and are pictorially introduced using heavenly/angelic stories
and images. As I said, unless I hear differently I’ll assume Lemuria’s
comment – “The “el” is a suffix that has religious/spiritual
significance” – is an observation based strictly on an anthropop
understanding.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 05:44:35 +0000
From: Ian Goodwin (igoodwin mac.com)
Subject: RE: new blog at defending steiner
Dan, why haven't you directed us to the text in question yourself? The
article itself does not provide proof enough that Staudenmaier's claims
are true.
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) puunjab ahrabhati, you wrote:
)
) )Oh, I see now Dan, so it's okay to say false things about Steiner, as
) )long as you are just quoting someone else?
)
) As far as I can tell, Staudenmaier's article is true. Do you have
) evidence to the contrary? Diatribes on web sites don't count.
)
) -Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 00:08:56 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: new blog at defending steiner
Have you read the article? It's well footnoted. Have you read the
lecture series that Staudenmaier was writing about? It used to be on
the web, but when people started talking about it, Anthroposophists
removed it.
Please read the message from Staudenmaier that I posted on 9/22/05
"Re: new blog at defending steiner [from Peter Staudenmaier]." In
that message Staudenmaier responds to his critics point by point.
-Dan Dugan
)Dan, why haven't you directed us to the text in question yourself? The
)article itself does not provide proof enough that Staudenmaier's claims
)are true.
)
)
)Dan Dugan wrote:
))
)) puunjab ahrabhati, you wrote:
))
)) )Oh, I see now Dan, so it's okay to say false things about Steiner, as
)) )long as you are just quoting someone else?
))
)) As far as I can tell, Staudenmaier's article is true. Do you have
)) evidence to the contrary? Diatribes on web sites don't count.
))
) ) -Dan Dugan
p.s. It's customary on this board to reply below the quotation.
-dD-
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 01:24:58 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: law is poison
I don't disagree with your take on legal systems as being somewhat dogmatic
as institutions. Yes,
unique human issues often need unique human solutions. When I read Steiner,
however, I often hear
a sort of contempt - in this case for "the law" as a "poison." He is also
not fond of "scientists" who
do not agree with his occult beliefs. The point I was trying to make is that
instead of working to
change a law, for example, he will show very little understanding for the
*impulse* of such a thing in the first place. Adults working with children
and/or mentally challenged
individuals are required *by law* to act (or not act) in certain ways. While
there is often flexibility
in certain laws (I often J-Walk in front of cops, etc.), there is often good
sense in the reason
for *the law.* When Steiner guffaws at the law and takes swipes at
pragmatic-yet-non-occultist scientists/doctors, the door is left wide open
for
his followers to act inappropriately in their role as educators or doctors.
They might believe they are working on behalf of the individual in their
care with no need of anything but a few choice Steiner lectures as
indications to salvation, education and health but the disconnect from the
greater community (and it's laws) can lead down a dangerous path. A better
idea would be for Anthroposophists to try to CONNECT with that greater
community and even help to change a few laws or dogmatic institutions along
the way. But that would mean sharing occult beliefs with the greater
community with no means of checking the efficacy or net gain of those
beliefs other than well intentioned offerings of Faith. And for some
inexplicable reason (to me), many Anthroposophists are unwilling to consider
the idea that Anthroposophy is based on nothing more than . . . Faith.
-Walden
baanndje wrote:
)Walden quoting Steiner: "In dealing with adult mental patients you will
)not be able to apply the guidance in the same way; for something
)extraneous comes in there - namely, the law. And the moment you have to
)reckon with factors other than those that arise out of the nature of the
)case, the moment you have to do with hard and fast laws, the thing
(becomes unworkable. For what the law lays down is general; it cannot be
)individual in its application, it has to be general. So far as treatment
)of abnormal human beings is concerned, the law is a veritable poison. It
)is there in the world, however, and you have to reckon with it."
*
)Steiner felt this way about Waldorf education as well, thus the 'no
)public school funding' sentiments. The quote above is little more than a
)'Render unto Caesar' observation as I see it. Plus there's a lot of
)truth in there. Laws and the legal system (any dogmatic institution..
)er, like most Waldorf associations, actually) are too static and
)entrenched to effectively deal with the many unique human issues and
)concerns that will arise, in any sort of healthy and holistic way.
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 08:48:41 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: new blog at defending steiner
Dan: “Please read the message from Staudenmaier that I posted on 9/22/05
“Re: new blog at defending steiner [from Peter Staudenmaier].” In that
message Staudenmaier responds to his critics point by point.”
*
Steiner, from that lecture: “Since all men in their different
incarnations pass through the various races the claim that the European
is superior to the black and yellow races has no real validity. In such
cases the truth is sometimes veiled, but you see that with the help of
Spiritual Science we do after all light upon remarkable truths.”
---
This is the bottom-line racial message Steiner was attempting to
communicate, as I’ve always understood it. It’s why I don’t consider him
a racist, but rather someone who held certain prejudicial beliefs about
the various races. These close-minded beliefs were directly tied
together with his equally narrow views regarding older ‘eastern’
spiritual paths (all paths except anthroposophy, actually). Steiner even
had derogatory things to say about the Rosicrucian (anthroposophy’s
cousin) path of his time, claiming it too was in a state of spiritual
decay.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 09:09:50 +0000
From: puunjab ahrabhati (puunjabahrabhati yahoo.com)
Subject: PLANS is not helping by lying
But the very title of the lecture in question is misrepresented by
Staudenmaier, the words "National Souls" never appears as suggested
there and on the PLANS Website.
If you Dan Dugan and PLANS claim to be trying to help parents by
revealing the truth about Waldorf schools and Rudolf Steiner, then Why
spread misinformation?
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) Have you read the article? It's well footnoted. Have you read the
) lecture series that Staudenmaier was writing about? It used to be on
) the web, but when people started talking about it, Anthroposophists
) removed it.
)
) Please read the message from Staudenmaier that I posted on 9/22/05
) "Re: new blog at defending steiner [from Peter Staudenmaier]." In
) that message Staudenmaier responds to his critics point by point.
)
) -Dan Dugan
)
) )Dan, why haven't you directed us to the text in question yourself? The
) )article itself does not provide proof enough that Staudenmaier's claims
) )are true.
) )
) )
) )Dan Dugan wrote:
) ))
) )) puunjab ahrabhati, you wrote:
) ))
) )) )Oh, I see now Dan, so it's okay to say false things about Steiner, as
) )) )long as you are just quoting someone else?
) ))
) )) As far as I can tell, Staudenmaier's article is true. Do you have
) )) evidence to the contrary? Diatribes on web sites don't count.
) ))
) ) ) -Dan Dugan
)
) p.s. It's customary on this board to reply below the quotation.
)
) -dD-
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 09:25:23 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: law is poison
Walden: “The point I was trying to make is that instead of working to
change a law, for example, he will show very little understanding for
the *impulse* of such a thing in the first place.
“When Steiner guffaws at the law and takes swipes at
pragmatic-yet-non-occultist scientists/doctors, the door is left wide
open for his followers to act inappropriately in their role as educators
or doctors. They might believe they are working on behalf of the
individual in their care with no need of anything but a few choice
Steiner lectures as indications to salvation, education and health but
the disconnect from the greater community (and it's laws) can lead down
a dangerous path.”
*
The points you raise are tied in with attitudes one sees in many Steiner
teachers, definitely. Why would a teacher attempt to switch a
left-handed child to right-handed, without discussing her intentions
with the child’s parents? That’s something that happened in one school I
worked at, and the explanation has everything to do with teachers
“working on behalf of the individual in their care with no need of
anything but a few choice Steiner lectures as indications to salvation,
education and health”. This very same spirit-knowledge elitism is the
main reason for the community development problems in schools as well.
Just change that to “working on behalf of the community…”
-------
Walden: “But that would mean sharing occult beliefs with the greater
community with no means of checking the efficacy or net gain of those
beliefs other than well intentioned offerings of Faith. And for some
inexplicable reason (to me), many Anthroposophists are unwilling to
consider the idea that Anthroposophy is based on nothing more than…
Faith.”
*
Sharing those occult beliefs with the greater community and world would
force the “Isn’t this really just ‘faith’?” question into the open. It’s
human nature to avoid the inner question and self-examination by
continually manipulating and re-directing the external circumstances.
Honestly, when it comes right down to it, that’s the entire psychology
behind why it is anthropops refuse to consider the idea that
anthroposophy is simply based on faith.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1918
-- Topica Digest --
RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: PLANS is not lying
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
By puunjabahrabhati yahoo.com
RE: new blog at defending steiner
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: PLANS is not lying
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: PLANS is not lying
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: new blog at defending steiner
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: new blog at defending steiner
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Re: PLANS is not helping by lying
By dan dandugan.com
Anthroposophical medical school told to shape up
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Dan's Reply
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Dan's Reply
By dan dandugan.com
Re: PLANS, why?
By dan dandugan.com
RE: handedness
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Comic Relief
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Waldorf Education
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Speaking of Camphill...2
By dan dandugan.com
Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1918
By g.pulgar kommunicera.umea.se
Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1913
By dan dandugan.com
RE: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1918
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
Admin: ad hominem warning [RE: PLANS is not helping by lying]
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 14:47:45 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
puunjab ahrabhati wrote:
)
) But the very title of the lecture in question is misrepresented by
) Staudenmaier, the words "National Souls" never appears as suggested
) there and on the PLANS Website.
I wonder why this is so important? The titles of Steiner's lectures and
books seem to be very dynamic. "Knowledge of Higher Worlds and its
Attainment" is also "How to Know Higher Worlds", "Conferences with
Teachers" is also "Faculty Meetings with Rudolf Steiner", "Occult
Science" went by a different name for a while (I don't remember it at
the moment). The more "difficult" the material, the more often, it
seems, the title changes - maybe people continually feel the need to
re-translate it.
Unfortunately, everything Steiner wrote is pretty much open to
interpretation regarding the translation of that material. Some
scholars read the material in German and translate it themselves. Why
is that surprising? Why are they necessarily bound to the English
translations provided by Anthroposophists?
)
) If you Dan Dugan and PLANS claim to be trying to help parents by
) revealing the truth about Waldorf schools and Rudolf Steiner, then Why
) spread misinformation?
That question seems like irony at it's best.
Pete
)
)
) Dan Dugan wrote:
) )
) ) Have you read the article? It's well footnoted. Have you read the
) ) lecture series that Staudenmaier was writing about? It used to be on
) ) the web, but when people started talking about it, Anthroposophists
) ) removed it.
) )
) ) Please read the message from Staudenmaier that I posted on 9/22/05
) ) "Re: new blog at defending steiner [from Peter Staudenmaier]." In
) ) that message Staudenmaier responds to his critics point by point.
) )
) ) -Dan Dugan
) )
) ) )Dan, why haven't you directed us to the text in question yourself? The
) ) )article itself does not provide proof enough that Staudenmaier's claims
) ) )are true.
) ) )
) ) )
) ) )Dan Dugan wrote:
) ) ))
) ) )) puunjab ahrabhati, you wrote:
) ) ))
) ) )) )Oh, I see now Dan, so it's okay to say false things about Steiner, as
) ) )) )long as you are just quoting someone else?
) ) ))
) ) )) As far as I can tell, Staudenmaier's article is true. Do you have
) ) )) evidence to the contrary? Diatribes on web sites don't count.
) ) ))
) ) ) ) -Dan Dugan
) )
) ) p.s. It's customary on this board to reply below the quotation.
) )
) ) -dD-
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 15:21:53 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
puunjab ahrabhati wrote: “But the very title of the lecture in question
is misrepresented by Staudenmaier…”
pete: “I wonder why this is so important?”
*
It might be important, I don’t know: I’m having trouble following this
entire ‘dispute’. What seems to be going on as well though, is the issue
itself seems to be constantly shifting. I’m often puzzled at how the
specifics of the angry accusations shift and change, yet continue on and
on, even when others are attempting to turn things into a dialogue and
exchange of some sort.
I mean, puunjab says something to Dan; then something else to Walden;
then asks me about something. I respond to his question; and the next
thing I read he’s upset about some other thing and accusing someone else
of who knows what. It would be nice to pick one particular problem and
disagreement, and stick with it and see if people can come to some sort
of clarity and understanding, regardless of whether they agree with each
other.
And puunjab: this is exactly the way Waldorf teachers work in faculty
meetings. Everything is a problem that needs to be discussed, yet nobody
is willing to let go of any of the issues, or withhold bringing up
additional personal concerns. And the result is faculty meeting after
faculty meeting with an agenda full of unresolved problems the group has
been ‘working on’ for months! Boy, did that drive me nuts.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 17:29:47 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
baandje wrote:
) It might be important, I don’t know: I’m having trouble following this
) entire ‘dispute’. What seems to be going on as well though, is the issue
)
) itself seems to be constantly shifting. I’m often puzzled at how the
) specifics of the angry accusations shift and change, yet continue on and
)
) on, even when others are attempting to turn things into a dialogue and
) exchange of some sort.
I rather agree. I've been trying to follow this, and apparently so have
you - so let's see if what I've gotten out of this experience agrees
with what you have perceived:
It seems that the Defending Steiner folks have found something on the
PLANS website, a lecture that they have claimed never took place - that
was totally fabricated. They don't seem to know this for sure, however,
because they have offered a reward for anyone who can prove that this
particular lecture with this exact title took place in a particular
place on a particular date. If any of these details are inaccurate,
their whopping $100 is safe and furthermore, PLANS (and by extension
everyone who posts here or supports a critical view of Waldorf) are
nothing but liars.
Now, it seems that indeed the lecture took place and that apparently the
only thing that is in contention is the wording of the title of the
lecture which replaces the word "folk" with "nation" or vice versa (who
cares). I'd be willing to say that the $100 is safe in the hands of
those who offered it as they were very careful to narrow the possibility
of it being handed out to odds akin to someone winning multiple
lotteries in succession. However, the notion that PLANS and critics are
liars over this word difference is hard to reconcile. It seems the
lecture took place - and furthermore, the content is consistent with
multiple other verifiable lectures by Steiner.
Is that what you've gotten out of all this?
Pete
) I mean, puunjab says something to Dan; then something else to Walden;
) then asks me about something. I respond to his question; and the next
) thing I read he’s upset about some other thing and accusing someone else
)
) of who knows what. It would be nice to pick one particular problem and
) disagreement, and stick with it and see if people can come to some sort
) of clarity and understanding, regardless of whether they agree with each
)
) other.
)
) And puunjab: this is exactly the way Waldorf teachers work in faculty
) meetings. Everything is a problem that needs to be discussed, yet nobody
)
) is willing to let go of any of the issues, or withhold bringing up
) additional personal concerns. And the result is faculty meeting after
) faculty meeting with an agenda full of unresolved problems the group has
)
) been ‘working on’ for months! Boy, did that drive me nuts.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 13:42:14 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: PLANS is not lying
Do us a favor "puunjab" - aren't you the same person as "Helene" and
"speaktruth" anyway, who have now slithered away without answering
questions, to be replaced by you? - and don't bother pretending to discuss
this knowledgably if you aren't going to read either the book or the threads
here in which it's been discussed.
You wrote:
)the words "National Souls" never appears as suggested there and on the
)PLANS Website.
That's false. "National souls" and similar phraseology is repeated countless
times throughout the book. Which you would know if you'd peruse a copy of
it. I have it here in front of me.
I quoted the 2005 reprint of this book to you a few days ago. Open to page
31 and see these "Beings" - the "Folk-Souls" of the title - defined as
"inspirers of nations."
Or turn to page 41, where "Folk Spirit or Nation Spirit" are used as
synonyms.
We established a couple of days ago that, in fact, more recently one of the
lectures in this series was re-translated - by ANTHROPOSOPHISTS - with "Folk
Souls" changed to "Spirits of Nations" throughout.
In other words, it's not even a question of "interpretation" or
"translation." This is not EVEN a question of "how Peter Staudenmaier
translates something." It is far simpler than that. According to OFFICIAL
anthroposophy - Rudolf Steiner Press - the terms are synonymous.
The entire point of the Folk-Souls book is that "Beings" direct each race
and nation to specific tasks, in their turn in history, and in accordance
with spiritual necessity. The "missions" of the different races,
historically, are the story told in this book, in detail. Aside from the
fact that most of it is a monumental fabrication, this is racism - the
notion that you are inspired and at the same time limited (and whether it is
only in one incarnation or many others makes no difference at all) to a
"task" appointed spiritually on the basis of your race, or to
characteristics spiritually determined, and slotted BY RACE according to
such characteristics as "childlike" (Africans) or "adolescent" (Asians) etc.
It is on this premise - fundamental to Steiner and easy to derive from the
Folk Spirits book reading even just a lecture or two - that Staudenmaier's
thesis is based. Steiner does not so much argue in this book as ASSUME in
this book that Aryans were the spiritual vanguard among races.
If that's not a textbook example of racism, I don't know what would be. If I
were teaching Racism 101, I would assign this book.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 18:14:32 +0000
From: puunjab ahrabhati (puunjabahrabhati yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
Sorry baandje, but I am not here to work out your problems or the issues
you may have with Steiner or Waldorf. My main concern is informing
those visiting this site that there is another side to this story you
are trying to present, and that much of what you are saying is rooted in
your own personal prejudice and not in reality.
Did you ever consider that those problematic staff meetings at th
Waldorf School might have been partially affectd by your own state of
mind? I mean, you do not sound like the kind that belongs in a Waldorf
School, especially not as a teacher or staff member of any sort.
Lastly, the clarity and understanding you are looking for, you will not
find it here on a discussion board frequented by people who's only
interest is atttacking and defaming the Waldorf system with groundless
accusations
baandje wrote:
)
) puunjab ahrabhati wrote: “But the very title of the lecture in question
) is misrepresented by Staudenmaier…”
)
) pete: “I wonder why this is so important?”
)
) *
)
) It might be important, I don’t know: I’m having trouble following this
) entire ‘dispute’. What seems to be going on as well though, is the issue
)
) itself seems to be constantly shifting. I’m often puzzled at how the
) specifics of the angry accusations shift and change, yet continue on and
)
) on, even when others are attempting to turn things into a dialogue and
) exchange of some sort.
)
) I mean, puunjab says something to Dan; then something else to Walden;
) then asks me about something. I respond to his question; and the next
) thing I read he’s upset about some other thing and accusing someone else
)
) of who knows what. It would be nice to pick one particular problem and
) disagreement, and stick with it and see if people can come to some sort
) of clarity and understanding, regardless of whether they agree with each
)
) other.
)
) And puunjab: this is exactly the way Waldorf teachers work in faculty
) meetings. Everything is a problem that needs to be discussed, yet nobody
)
) is willing to let go of any of the issues, or withhold bringing up
) additional personal concerns. And the result is faculty meeting after
) faculty meeting with an agenda full of unresolved problems the group has
)
) been ‘working on’ for months! Boy, did that drive me nuts.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 13:53:15 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: new blog at defending steiner
Baandje quotes Steiner:
"Since all men in their different incarnations pass through the various
races the claim that the European is superior to the black and yellow races
has no real validity. In such cases the truth is sometimes veiled, but you
see that with the help of Spiritual Science we do after all light upon
remarkable truths."
and comments:
)This is the bottom-line racial message Steiner was attempting to
)communicate, as I've always understood it.
See, I think you're missing it. Turn it around: Steiner's soothing
disclaimers about unity are intended to *excuse* the statements *about race*
that are really his message and that always follow, in very colorful detail.
There'd be no lecture to follow if he didn't then propound theories of
racial differences and "missions."
The "reincarnation excuse" is just that. Stating that we reincarnate in
various races does not negate or somehow deflate the racist commentary, as
anthroposophists seem to think. Anthroposophists will sometimes even assert
that merely believing in reincarnation means you cannot be racist.
This is from the first lecture in the much-disputed series on which
Staudenmaier's article is based:
" . . . at a certain stage of mystic or occult development one is called a
'homeless man'. This is a technical expression . . . the 'homeless man' is
one whose understanding and grasp of the great laws of humanity cannot be
influenced by whatsoever a person acquires through association with his
native country . . . we propose therefore to describe this heritage from
which the 'homeless man' must liberate himself to some extent. Now the
'homeless men' of all times, from primeval ages down to our own day, have
always known that if they were to describe in detail the state of
homelessness they would meet with little understanding. In the first place
the voice of prejudice would reproach them for having severed their
connection with their native soil, for having sacrificed their heritage.
This is not so, however. In reality, homelessness is, or may be, a detour,
so that, once this sanctuary, the state of homelessness, has been reached,
the 'homeless man' may rediscover the quintessence of the folk and achieve a
harmonious relationship with the stable element in the evolution of mankind
. . .
. . . the destiny of mankind in the near future will being men together in
far greater measure than has hitherto been the case in order to fulfil a
mission common to all mankind. But the members of the individual peoples
will only be able to offer their proper, free and positive contributions if
they have, above all, an understanding of their ethnic origin . . . In the
not too distant future the following injunction will be addressed to the
Folk Souls: 'Know yourselves as Folk Souls.' This maxim will have a certain
significance for the activity of mankind in the future."
(Rudolf Steiner: The Mission of the Folk-Souls in relation to Teutonic
Mythology. Eleven lectures given in Christiana [Oslo] between 7 and 17 June,
1910. Forest Row, UK: Rudolf Steiner Press, 2005. pp.22,23)
That passage in itself ought to clear it all up: it's an apologia for the
rest of the book - he's taking a clear position that "Race matters" and "I'm
going to spend the rest of the book telling you why."
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 14:30:00 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: PLANS is not lying
puunjab ahrabhati wrote:
)But the very title of the lecture in question is misrepresented by
)Staudenmaier, the words "National Souls" never appears as suggested
)there and on the PLANS Website.
Pete:
)I wonder why this is so important? The titles of Steiner's lectures and
)books seem to be very dynamic.
And hopefully we've cleared up that it is not even true. The "change in
title" is not a misrepresentation by Staudenmaier. Anthroposophists
themselves translate these terms interchangeably.
The "DefendingSteiner" blog has been silent for days, I see.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 14:43:31 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
Pete:
)It seems that the Defending Steiner folks have found something on the
)PLANS website, a lecture that they have claimed never took place - that
)was totally fabricated.
This was an old tack of Sune's. He later dropped this particular claim. I do
think at one point he believed it. He was simply hysterical. And as you say,
Steiner publications go through continual name changes, and series of
lectures and essays get reprinted in different combinations and editions.
(And in a number of cases, offensive or controversial coments made by
Steiner are simply dropped from later editions.) So I think at one point,
due to a confusion of titles, he probably actually did believe Peter
Staudenmaier was "forging" a lecture. You have to understand, they really do
think Peter is the devil incarnate.
Once Sune realized his mistake, however, he began to speak of a "spiritual
forgery." The lecture series certainly does exist, but to save face he's
accusing Peter of misrepresenting its content.
)Now, it seems that indeed the lecture took place and that apparently the
)only thing that is in contention is the wording of the title of the
)lecture which replaces the word "folk" with "nation" or vice versa (who
)cares).
I think it's not just the title. They want a *specific quote* that says
"Aryans are superior" or something like that. Of course Steiner doesn't say
that - and as Baandje points out, he is careful to say that such judgments
would be wrong, because we all reincarnate, so don't be pointin' fingers at
people of other races and saying they're not as good as you, 'cus you'll
come back as one of 'em next time if you're not careful . . .
In a nutshell - they are asking for a SINGLE QUOTE that says something like
this because they disagree with, or fail to understand - or have deep
internal resistance to understanding, since it would mean their guru had
feet of clay - that Staudenmaier's article is an interpretation of the
overall content of that lecture series (not to mention numerous others). The
ENTIRE ARTICLE expounds on Steiner's thesis built up through the Folk Souls
lecture series. The lecture series as a whole explains the "missions" of the
various races. It is up to readers to decide for themselves whether value
judgments are implied in declaring Africans to be influenced by
"characteristics of childhood" and white Europeans to have "higher
cognition," for instance.
In my view such value judgments are not usually directly stated because they
do not *need* to be - they are assumed. Steiner shared the prejudices of his
audience. I mean, how explicit do we need to get, or would Steiner have
needed to get with his audience? Does somebody really think "higher
cognition" is not superior to lower cognition?
They do not want to address this material. They pin their hopes on somehow
proving critics do dastardly deeds by asking Staudenmaier for one "single"
"specific" quote that "proves" once and for all that somewhere in that
lectures series Steiner in so many words says Aryans are superior or
something like that.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 14:44:28 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
Puunjab to baandje:
)I mean, you do not sound like the kind that belongs in a Waldorf
)School, especially not as a teacher or staff member of any sort.
Whew!!!!!!!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 14:55:20 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: PLANS is not lying
I'd like to also note, for newcomers to this discussion, that the hotly
disputed lecture series in question, "The Mission of the Folk-Souls in
relation to Teutonic Mythology," used to appear on Sune's own web site.
He took it down.
Why?
He's the one claiming Staudenmaier and other critics misinterpret it.
You'd think his interest would be to make it available, for all to judge.
In fact, at one point, that's just what he did. He was quite certain his
understanding of its content would rule the day, once everyone could read
it. I remember him telling us proudly that he had driven for hours through
the rain to obtain a copy and was slaving away scanning in its contents. It
was then on his web site for some period of time, I cannot recall how long -
not the whole series, but the first few lectures, I think.
Why did he later take it down? I once asked him, and received no reply. Did
he realize that most non-anthroposophists found it racist after all?
So it's really quite comical, years later we have Deborah whats-her-name
hoping people may actually even think the lecture series doesn't EXIST. Pete
et al., make no mistake they understand the lecture series exists - they own
copies.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 19:00:44 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
Pete: “Now, it seems that indeed the lecture took place and that
apparently the only thing that is in contention is the wording of the
title of the lecture which replaces the word “folk” with “nation” or
vice versa (who cares). Is that what you've gotten out of all this?”
*
Exactly. And once it’s clear (to those who are still struggling with
this) that the wording of the title is irrelevant, I assume the next
issue will have to do with misstating the actual year the lecture was
given.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 19:04:24 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
puunjab: “Sorry baandje, but I am not here to work out your problems or
the issues you may have with Steiner or Waldorf. My main concern is…”
*
Thanks for the confirmation and completely revealing answer. I
understand: you’re not interested in an actual dialogue. I’ll leave you
to your mission then.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 19:27:53 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
puunjab to baandje: “I mean, you do not sound like the kind that belongs
in a Waldorf School, especially not as a teacher or staff member of any
sort.”
Diana: “Whew!!!!!!!”
*
Yes, “Whew!!!!!!!”… as in the collective sigh of relief from the Steiner
faculty that almost ended up with me as their colleague :-)
I guess it’s too much to expect some people to actually converse without
having to get so personal and judgmental.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 15:12:01 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
Baandje:
)I assume the next issue will have to do with misstating the actual year the
)lecture was given.
You jest - but that already happened, years ago. This is all a re-hash. They
only keep at it because they know new people are listening.
At one point - and I am not joking - honest, hold on, because I am *not*
joking - Sune and Tarjei Straume suggested that Peter had no credibility on
this issue because he describes, in that controversial opening paragraph of
his article, the audience in attendance as "large." No, I am not joking,
that was supposed to be another one of Peter S.'s "lies."
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 19:53:18 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Puunjab to baandje:
)
)
) )I mean, you do not sound like the kind that belongs in a Waldorf
) )School, especially not as a teacher or staff member of any sort.
)
) Whew!!!!!!!
)
I'd be taking that as a compliment if I were baandje. (G)
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 19:58:34 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: new blog at defending steiner
Diana: “See, I think you're missing it. Turn it around: Steiner’s
soothing disclaimers about unity are intended to *excuse* the statements
*about race* that are really his message and that always follow, in very
colorful detail. There'd be no lecture to follow if he didn't then
propound theories of racial differences and “missions.”
“The “reincarnation excuse” is just that. Stating that we reincarnate in
various races does not negate or somehow deflate the racist commentary,
as anthroposophists seem to think. Anthroposophists will sometimes even
assert that merely believing in reincarnation means you cannot be
racist.”
*
I just want to make it clear I don’t agree with and haven’t the
slightest interest in what Steiner is saying about “men in their
different incarnations pass through the various races”, or his using
these anthropop truths as a means of justifying his race and
reincarnation theories. Any interest I have in this issue has to do with
sharing how all the ‘racism arguing’ makes no sense to me.
How in the world do people (the Steiner supporters) justify supporting
what appears to be anti-racial commentary of any sort, regardless of who
said it and what the supposed ‘deeper theory’ is behind it all? That I
find completely baffling, except I know from experience the cult-like
hold Steiner’s philosophy can have on people, and how it hinders –
damages, really – an individual’s ability to think for themselves.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 20:27:25 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: new blog at defending steiner
Me: “How in the world do people (the Steiner supporters) justify
supporting what appears to be anti-racial commentary of any sort…”
*
I suppose that should simply read: “…RACIST commentary of any sort…”
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 09:58:45 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: PLANS is not helping by lying
(Moderator note)
puunjab ahrabhati, you're new here so I need to remind you of a
couple of customs that make communication easier on this list. First,
please try to maintain threads by copying the subject line of the
message you're replying to accurately. This is helpful to people who
may be interested in some discussion threads but don't want to read
everything. If you set your subscription to single messages, your
email program will do this automatically when you reply.
Second, it's the custom here to reply below, not above, the quote
from the message(s) you're replying to. Thanks for your consideration.
(end Moderator note)
You wrote:
)But the very title of the lecture in question is misrepresented by
)Staudenmaier, the words "National Souls" never appears as suggested
)there and on the PLANS Website.
)
)If you Dan Dugan and PLANS claim to be trying to help parents by
)revealing the truth about Waldorf schools and Rudolf Steiner, then Why
)spread misinformation?
I don't read German, so I'm limited to translations of Steiner and
other Anthroposophical authors. Peter Staudenmaier, however, is a
real scholar and reads them in the original. He often makes his own
translations. In my view, that gives his work more credibility.
In my posting of 9/22/05 "Re: new blog at defending steiner [from
Peter Staudenmaier]" you will read Staudenmaier's explanation of the
various translations of "volk-". His position is supported by my own
reading of the Oxford-Duden German-English Dictionary. Compound words
with "volk-" are often translated as "national ..."
This is so trivial. Calling a legitimate translation that you might
disagree with "lying" (see your message subject above) is a
ridiculous position. Please get serious and talk about the substance
of the matter--Steiner's racial theory of history.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 09:32:40 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Anthroposophical medical school told to shape up
A friend in Germany has forwarded this news. "The
German Wissenschaftsrat (scientific council) has
concluded that the medical branch of the German
anthro uni at Witten-Herdecke is in need of
urgent restructuring or should be closed
altogether. In the meantime Witten-Herdecke was
told not to accept new students in its medical
dept."
-Dan Dugan
http://www.handelsblatt.com/pshb/fn/relhbi/sfn/buildhbi/cn/GoArt!200014,200813,928655/index.html
dpa BERLIN. Der Wissenschaftsrat hat ein
vernichtendes Qualitätsurteil über das
Medizin-Studium an der Privatuniversität
Witten-Herdecke gefällt. Das Expertengremium
fordert in einer am Freitag in Berlin
verabschiedenen Erklärung die Hochschule auf, ab
sofort keine Neueinschreibungen von Studenten
vorzunehmen. Der Beschluss liegt der dpa vor.
Angesichts von gravierenden Problemen bei der
Ausbildungsqualität empfiehlt der
Wissenschaftsrat, den Studiengang Humanmedizin
völlig neu zu ordnen oder ganz einzustellen.
Witten-Herdecke ist die einzige Privathochschule
in Deutschland, die auch medizinische
Studiengänge anbietet. Die Anfang der 80er Jahre
gegründete Universität war von Befürwortern als
Einstiegsmodell in eine mehr privatwirtschaftlich
organisierte Hochschullandschaft angesehen worden.
Der Wissenschaftsrat hält es “für nicht länger
verantwortbar, die Medizinerausbildung in ihrer
derzeitigen Form fortzuführen". Während die
Leistungen in Forschung und Lehre in den anderen
Studiengängen der Hochschule “den
wissenschaftlichen Ansprüchen einer Universität
entsprechen", gelte dies für die Humanmedizin
nicht, heißt es in dem Beschluss weiter.
Bemängelt werden “inhaltliche und strukturelle
Schwächen in Lehre und Forschung". Auch besitze
die Hochschule “keine überzeugenden Vorstellungen
zur inhaltlichen wie personellen Bewältigung" der
durch die neue Approbationsordnung gestiegenen
Anforderungen für die Ärzteausbildung. Das Land
Nordrhein-Westfalen hatte den Wissenschaftsrat
gebeten, die Hochschule im Rahmen eines üblichen
Akkreditierungsverfahrens zu begutachten.
Mit einem “Studium fundamentale", einem
aufwändigen Auswahlsystem für Studienbewerber und
hohen Studiengebühren, die nach Abschluss der
Ausbildung einkommensabhängig abzuzahlen sind,
hatte die Hochschule neue Wege beschritten. Von
den knapp 950 Studenten der Hochschule ist ein
Drittel im Studiengang Humanmedizin
eingeschrieben.
Die Privatuniversität hatte bei ihrer Gründung
die Zusage abgegeben, sich ausschließlich mit
Hilfe von Sponsoren oder Forschungserträgen zu
finanzieren und weder Studiengebühren noch
Landeszuschüsse zu beantragen. Wegen geringer
Spendenerträge musste das Land NRW jedoch
zeitweise pro Student mehr Zuschüsse zahlen als
an eine staatliche Hochschule. Inzwischen
verpflichten sich die Studenten in
Witten-Herdecke, nach Abschluss der Ausbildung
über acht Jahre hinweg acht Prozent ihres
Einkommens an die Uni als Gebühren
zurückzuzahlen. Eine Erhöhung ist geplant.
Der Wissenschaftsrat berät als unabhängiges
Expertengremium Bund und Länder in Fragen der
Hochschul- und Forschungspolitik. Zu der
Entscheidung über Witten-Herdecke waren auch
externe Sachverständige hinzugezogen worden.
HANDELSBLATT, Freitag, 15. Juli 2005, 15:20 Uhr
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 10:38:56 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Dan's Reply
DAN DUGAN:
) ) I can't see how I'm impeding those who wish to learn about Rudolf
) ) Steiner in any way.
IAN GOODWIN:
) ) )Yes sure I will admit that there have been children hurt by the waldorf
)) )system, and hurt by camp hill. But isn't hurt an natural part of life
) ) )and of learning what does and does not work for you?
DAN DUGAN:
) ) That is one of the most amoral statements anyone has ever made here.
IAN GOODWIN:
)Why is it amoral to expect that children are going to be hurt in school?
) Do you know a child that has never been hurt by something that has
)happened at their school?
Of course life includes joy and sorrow, and every institution does
some good and some harm. But what people are pointing out here are
specific harms that Anthroposophical institutions do specifically
because of their Anthroposophical principles. Harm that is done out
of ignorance. These are things that can be, and should be, remedied.
) ) )You say you want
) ) )to prevent others from getting hurt by the Waldorf System, but really
)) )what you are doing is hurting those who would otherwise benefit greatly
)) )from being involved with Waldorf. What is the point of that.
))
)) Warning off families who are uncomfortable with occultism in no way
)) impedes those who like that sort of thing.
)
)Spreading mistruth and negative judgements about things you truly do not
)understand is a harmful practice in general, though you are right that
)it has little effect on the Waldorf community in general.
The charge of "speaking mistruth" must be substantiated, here and
now. Otherwise you are libeling me.
Negative judgments are a matter of opinion; in my opinion, they are
necessary. Understanding of Steiner and Anthroposophy is also a
matter of opinion, but I caution you that my opinions are based on a
through reading of Anthropsophy from Steiner through current
periodicals, plus attendance at many lectures and many visits to
Waldorf schools.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 10:55:03 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Dan's Reply
Ian Goodwin, you wrote,
)I would like to say something about the negative attitude that is so
)prevalent here on Waldorf Critics. Obviously there are many people who
)are unhappy with the practices of Waldorf Schools. I would suggest to
)these people that they take from Waldorf Education what they think is
)GOOD and take out that which they think is BAD and start their own
)school. It could be like Waldorf School, but with a different name and
)without all the spiritual stuff that some seem to react to with so much
)FEAR.
)
)I mean there must have been something that you critics saw in Waldorf
)and Steiner that you liked in the first place or else you never would
)have considered going further, right? So I'd like to hear what those
)things are, were, about it that you do (did) like and what you might
)want to take with you in life.
It's ironic. Debra Snell, co-founder of PLANS and its current
president, tried to do just that. She loved so many of the neat
things that Waldorf schools do, but she wanted to get away from the
Anthroposphical nonsense and dysfunctional behavior. So she founded a
Waldorf-inspired charter school, in the sincere belief that they
could take what was good from Waldorf while avoiding entanglement
with Anthroposophy.
It didn't work. Waldorf-trained teachers did their duty as they saw
it, and dominated the school. It wasn't long before a teacher would
say to her that they were all Anthroposophists except for one, and
she was "coming to Anthroposophy." Well, she wasn't. That one teacher
transferred to the arts charter school across the road, and most of
her class followed her!
)It's really easy to just be negative and critical all the time, but
)sooner or later it catches up with you and all that negative energy just
)comes right back around. But maybe that's one of the things the
)skeptics disagree with...
)
)I am not an Anthroposophist, no more than I am a musicologist (even
)though I love music) or a socialist (even though I live in a socialist
)country). I read Steiner and take from his works what I can apply to my
)own life. I do not worship Rudolf Steiner or any man, woman, or God. I
)just see his philosophies as a positive way (one of many) to approach
)life and it's many complexities. I can also find much truth in
)Buddhism, Christianity, Hindu, and other religions (I was raised Quaker)
)but I do not spend my time looking for and pointing out all that is BAD
)about those philosophies. That would only fill me with a lot of
)negative energy and I would learn nothing.
I agree that there are good and bad things in all those religions,
including Anthroposophy. I happen to have been personally burned by
Anthroposophy, so I've chosen to study it and to see if something can
be done to prevent similar disasters from happening to other
families. I think that kind of negativity is socially useful, and it
doesn't obstruct learning for me personally. Indeed, my 17 yeas of
studying Anthroposophy has broadened my interests tremendously. I
have many shelves of philosophy now where once there were only
engineering journals.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 11:01:48 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: PLANS, why?
Ian Goodwin, you wrote,
)And all this work PLANS is doing to protect potential Walforf enrollees
)from being "lied to", is that really what it is?
Yes.
)It seems particularly
)vengeful to try and close two schools with a court case against them,
How do you feel about separation of chuch and state? It's a lively
controversy today, and though I respect both sides, I'm fighting to
maintain it. It's good for both church and state.
)and to make it so much harder for Waldorf Schools to even exist by
)calling them 'sectarian'.
I went to sectarian (Catholic) schools and they were very good. I
don't believe Waldorf will be harmed by being proud of its foundation.
)Who is paying for these lawyers' time?
Two public school districts.
)The people at PLANS don't really seem to know what they are talking
)about in regards to Rudolf Steiner.
You'll find people here who have read more Steiner than many Anthroposophists.
)They can't see the forest through
)the trees.
If that's so, please help us to take a broader view.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 11:19:59 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: handedness
Sorry I've been busy and I'm catching up on some threads from the
past few weeks. Ian Goodwin wrote:
)Diana If you read the Steiner quotes you pointed out for me at bob and
)nancy's web page, you will find that Steiner says that it depends on the
)child whether or not he/she should be switched from left handedness. He
)says ony certain temperaments should be switched.
I'm not finding that very encouraging; there's no justification in
switching anybody.
)And contradictory to
)what you have said here, as far as my Waldorf educated friends and
)teachers are concerned, this is not being done, at least not on a
)regular basis here in European Waldorf Schools. But that like many
)other things about the Waldorf system can vary greatly from region to
)region, school to school. Maybe it's because there are so many ways to
)interpret Steiner's work that there are so many differences between one
)Waldorf School and another.
The same Steiner is revered the world over. The Pedagogical Section
at the Goetheanum leads the international movement. A movement that
is alive can change. Why not just say that Steiner was wrong about
that, and we don't do it any more?
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 12:55:26 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Comic Relief
Lisa, you wrote,
)I heard that American prize winning author Saul Bellow was either an
)Anthroposophist or at least very intrigued by Anthroposophy.
His "Humboldt's Gift" toys with Anthroposophical ideas, the influence
of his mentor Professor Le May, according to Gloria Cronin,
http://www.litencyc.com/php/speople.php?rec=true&UID=350
but I think he got over it.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 12:45:46 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf Education
Lemuria, you wrote,
)I've found that lefties are usually less dominant than righties, and
)it's easier for them to switch.
Please tell me more about how you acquired this knowledge. How many
lefties have you switched? Have you every tried to switch a
right-handed person? I rather doubt the latter.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 12:47:07 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Speaking of Camphill...2
Charlie Morrison, you brought up one of my favorite topics,
epistemology. How is reliable knowledge obtained? This question is
the crux of the "philosophy war" between Anthroposophy-cum-New Age
thinkers and almost everybody else.
)If I make a few statements (see below) can you answer any of them with a
)definite true or false? Or would you have to say that, with the knowledge
)you have at the moment, you may believe them to be true or false as an act
)of faith, but as to whether they are definitely true or false you'd have to
)reserve judgement.
)
)There is a God.
)Humans are descended from some kind of ape.
)Atlantis existed.
)The big bang is a reality.
)Mind is a by-product of matter.
I'd rather discuss the general theory of knowledge, but I can't
resist your challenge on the specifics. God? A matter of faith.
Evolution? Both humans and apes descended from a common ancestor.
Atlantis? A myth from Plato, popularized by Donnelly in 1882. The Big
Bang? Best theory to explain the expanding universe. Mind a
by-product of matter? Mine lives in my brain cells, and I'm pretty
clear on the process of human development by which it got there.
I don't reserve judgment on any of these questions, Charlie. My
knowledge is based on a scientific attitude, which is that the most
reliable knowledge is based on evidence, and furthermore, evidence
that survives challenging tests. Scientific knowledge is positive,
but it's also subject to revision in the light of new evidence.
Can you see the difference? Scientific knowledge isn't "I don't
know," it's "to the best of my knowledge."
Matters of faith are handled quite differently. Truth in matters of
faith comes from authority or personal feeling.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 23:21:33 +0200
From: "Gabriel o. Linda Pulgar Arcaedius" (g.pulgar kommunicera.umea.se)
Subject: Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1918
baandje explains :
That's really a personal development path, though. This is discussion
forum. I don't know Gabriel. if you're not happy with the level of
critical thinking and dialogue, maybe it's best to simply join other,
more pro-anthroposophy discussion lists.?
Ha ha can you hear yourself? Shall I should take my "pro Steiner" attitude
someplace else as inner development has nothing to do with this list?
Talk about a "balance in the eyes of the beholder" attitude.
...OK Very well. I am outta here.
Take it easy friends!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 12:33:42 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1913
Gabriel, you wrote (in part),
)I came here trying to listen to what lives on this list. Often the
)personal impulses for writing to this list are private and certainly
)not shared on the list. I suppose their are many who had brief
)encounters with schools which they didn't understand and now they
)are afraid.
I suggest you get to know us better. I was a Waldorf parent for a
year and a half; you may call that brief, but it was enough! For me
it has more to do with righteous indignation than fear.
)They labour to find more and more info on Steiner and Waldorf to
)superficially support their hypotheses: Steiner is evil.
Not my hypothesis. I view Steiner as being massively self-deluded,
and having found a constituency to support his grandiose delusions. I
think he was honest -most- of the time, though he did occasionally
succumb to the corruption that power can breed.
)People who work for a living and don't have the time to read this
)list asked for my impressions. I am sorry to report that THIS
)particular group is totally closed off to new ideas and experience.
Are you including the Waldorf supporters on the list? I suppose
you're talking about PLANS, and the Waldorf critics on the list not
associated with PLANS. It isn't as simple as your hypothesis.
)This is a hate group, promoting hate and working against positive
)development in the world.
A hate group would be a hell of a lot meaner than we are. We're not
campaigning for Waldorf's destruction. We're campaigning for the
movement to become honest about its nature and its goals.
)I can not find single regular contributor who has *understood* the
)inner work Steiner describes, yet there are many who do not have the
)humility to admit it here. You will find much arrogance though.
Count me as one of the arrogant ones. I've read fifty volumes of
Steiner and I think I understand him quite well. I probably don't
agree with you on the significance and value of what he said,
however. You might equate agreeing with understanding, which would be
a mistake.
)I suggest Steiner's basic exercises for the *regular* contributors
)on this list.
I suspect, from my observations of the results, that Steiner's basic
exercises are detrimental to mental health. You might do some
research to discover which are good and which aren't.
)It is not too surprising that they say you should exit their list as
)the initial impulse for this list is to inflict as much scorn as
)possible on waldorf. I have used the ANALOGY of a witch burning to
)describe this list. Anthroposophy is the witch and the list the wild
)eyed mob. With reckless abandon they boldly go through the same old
)stories. "oh the pain!"
Witch-hunters aren't as nice as we are! Whistle-blowers is a better
description, in my opinion.
)For myself, I laugh at their rudeness to new-comers, the wonderful
)replies from the folks who Have read Steiner, and, my personal
)favourite, the one or two who pretend to be interested in a
)conversation and remind anyone who supports Steiner that they are
)speaking in an unacceptable manner. (Dan Dugan applauds)
No one is chided for supporting Steiner. It's the personal attacks
that aren't allowed. Like this message, for example. Instead of
talking about the issues, you're talking about the people. A weak
argument.
)I am not inspired to respond to them directly as the only response
)one gets could be mildly described as "confrontational".
What did you expect on a list called "critics"?
)Ironically, I am a not a radical sect member who only chants
)Steiner, but a parent who happens to be an anthroposophist
OK, your individuality is acknowledged. Now please stop stereotyping
me as a "hate group" and a "witch hunter."
)and I understand that all schools have problems that need
)constructive help. It is just that type of help which one will never
)find on this list. No one will meet you half way in here, and they
)are proud of it.
Speak for yourself.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 22:12:05 +0000
From: baandje (bangus nb.sympatico.ca)
Subject: RE: Digest for waldorf-critics topica.com, issue 1918
Me: “That's really a personal development path, though. This is
discussion forum. I don't know Gabriel. if you're not happy with the
level of critical thinking and dialogue, maybe it's best to simply join
other, more pro-anthroposophy discussion lists.?”
Gabriel: “Ha ha can you hear yourself? Shall I should take my “pro
Steiner” attitude someplace else as inner development has nothing to do
with this list?”
*
Amazing the animosity towards a couple of simple thoughts relating to
inclusive dialogue. I’m simply suggesting that your telling others how
to think while conversing is hardly the way to inspire constructive
conversation. Just get on with sharing what you have to say, in the way
you choose for yourself, and allow others the same freedom and
privilege.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 16:01:48 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: ad hominem warning [RE: PLANS is not helping by lying]
puunjab ahrabhati wrote:
)Sorry baandje, but I am not here to work out your problems or the issues
)you may have with Steiner or Waldorf. My main concern is informing
)those visiting this site that there is another side to this story you
)are trying to present, and that much of what you are saying is rooted in
)your own personal prejudice and not in reality.
)
)Did you ever consider that those problematic staff meetings at th
)Waldorf School might have been partially affectd by your own state of
)mind? I mean, you do not sound like the kind that belongs in a Waldorf
)School, especially not as a teacher or staff member of any sort.
)
)Lastly, the clarity and understanding you are looking for, you will not
)find it here on a discussion board frequented by people who's only
)interest is atttacking and defaming the Waldorf system with groundless
)accusations
You get an official warning for this, puunjab. Your entire message is
talking about another subscriber. That's an "ad hominem" argument and
against the rules of this mailing list. Keep your discussion to the
topics, not the people, and you can stay as long as you want.
-Dan Dugan
Moderator
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1919
-- Topica Digest --
warning?
By g.pulgar kommunicera.umea.se
Re: warning?
By nmfoss2004 hotmail.com
RE: warning?
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: warning?
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: PLANS is not helping by lying
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: warning?
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: warning?
By puunjabahrabhati yahoo.com
RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
By puunjabahrabhati yahoo.com
RE: Dan's Reply
By igoodwin mac.com
practice
By igoodwin mac.com
practice
By igoodwin mac.com
Waldorf parents- beware of PLANS
By igoodwin mac.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 02:31:43 +0200
From: "Gabriel o. Linda Pulgar Arcaedius" (g.pulgar kommunicera.umea.se)
Subject: warning?
Dear unsuspecting casual reader,
It is not an "ad hominem" argument to point out the fact that Waldorf
schools and anthroposophist in as much as frequently work there have a
broader and deeper understanding of Steiner than the general public. That
difference demands distinction. The comments made by posters of this board
belong to that *general public* more than to a Waldorf faculty of an
anthropop meeting. (Why is this fact meet with hostility here?) Not a single
Wadorf faculty member nor anthroposphist contirbutes to this board, which
creates an Unbalanced hatefilled atmosphere against Wadorf and Steiner.
Therefore it is germane to point out that there is in fact a difference
between understanding and "guesssing", and that those of us who recognize
this can inform readers. This is a service being provided to readers, not an
attack on posters. Clearly a recent "ad hominem warning" is another instance
of subjective so called balance, which Steiner explicitly warns of.A warning
which apparently not many are too interested in.
Then there are those posers here who claim to have been "pro Steiner",
whatever that means, and then later troubled by his "racist attitudes". No
sorry but nothing this person writes sounds "filled with integrity" but
rather I suspect uses Steiner quotes to create a dialogue, rather than
comprehension.
Now that is a real warning to readers.
Gabriel
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 21:25:18 -0400
From: "Nicole Foss" (nmfoss2004 hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: warning?
Gabriel wrote: "It is not an "ad hominem" argument to point out the fact that Waldorf
schools and anthroposophist in as much as frequently work there have a
broader and deeper understanding of Steiner than the general public. That
difference demands distinction. The comments made by posters of this board
belong to that *general public* more than to a Waldorf faculty of an
anthropop meeting. (Why is this fact meet with hostility here?) Not a single
Wadorf faculty member nor anthroposphist contirbutes to this board, which
creates an Unbalanced hatefilled atmosphere against Wadorf and Steiner.
Therefore it is germane to point out that there is in fact a difference
between understanding and "guesssing", and that those of us who recognize
this can inform readers. This is a service being provided to readers, not an
attack on posters. Clearly a recent "ad hominem warning" is another instance
of subjective so called balance, which Steiner explicitly warns of.A warning
which apparently not many are too interested in.
Then there are those posers here who claim to have been "pro Steiner",
whatever that means, and then later troubled by his "racist attitudes". No
sorry but nothing this person writes sounds "filled with integrity" but
rather I suspect uses Steiner quotes to create a dialogue, rather than
comprehension.
Now that is a real warning to readers."
Nicole: Thanks for that oh-so-superior contribution Gabriel. How's the weather up there on your pedestal? I agree what you wrote is a real warning to readers, but not in the manner you intended. Most of us here are quite used to being patronized by anthroposophists - at the Waldorf schools where we worked and/or our children attended, and often here at this list. Many anthroposophists we have met have felt that they were in possession of eternal truths that the rest of us were either too stupid or too 'spiritually backwards' to comprehend, despite years of study in some cases. Potential Waldorf parents can make up their own minds about whether or not they'd like to send their children to a school where they may be treated this way by the faculty - faculty who may feel that their karma with the child should make the teacher-child bond more important than the parent-child bond. Steiner himself wrote that no one who was not an anthroposophist was qualified to judge anthroposophy in any way, and that the opinion of anyone else could be completely disregarded. The above post merely continues in the same vein.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 21:51:59 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: warning?
Mr. Gabriel "Why Not" wrote:
)The comments made by posters of this board belong to that *general public*
)more than to a Waldorf faculty of an anthropop meeting. (Why is this fact
)meet with hostility here?)
Perhaps because it isn't a fact. Many people here have been on Waldorf
faculties or boards and attended many anthropop meetings.
)Not a single Wadorf faculty member nor anthroposphist contirbutes to this
)board,
LOL. Hundreds of Waldorf faculty members and anthroposophists have
contributed here over the years. Let's try a count from just the past couple
of weeks: Baandje, Lemuria, myself, Debra, Nicole, the poster "MQ," Paul
Georghiades, and I'm probably forgetting somebody, have all been on Waldorf
faculties and boards, and Lemuria and Paul G. are certainly
anthroposophists. Baandje I think considered himself one at one time, and I
sure tried like hell. And I think it's safe to assume our latest guest,
Mr./Ms. "puunjab/helene/mayaincazuluvoodoospeaktruth," is an
anthroposophist. (Gee, what clues me in!!!)
)which creates an Unbalanced hatefilled atmosphere against Wadorf and
)Steiner.
If your original ridiculous statement that no Waldorf teachers or
anthroposophists post here were true, this would seem to suggest you believe
that anyone who is not an anthroposophist or not on a Waldorf faculty
"hates" Waldorf and Steiner! This would be quite extraordinary if it were
true.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 21:55:33 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: warning?
Gabriel wrote:
)Then there are those posers here who claim to have been "pro Steiner",
)whatever that means, and then later troubled by his "racist attitudes". No
)sorry but nothing this person writes sounds "filled with integrity" but
)rather I suspect uses Steiner quotes to create a dialogue,
Darn those critics using quotes to try to start dialogue! (G)
Fiendish isn't it?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 23:26:59 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: PLANS is not helping by lying
puunjab ahrabhati wrote (to baandje):
) I mean, you do not sound like the kind that belongs in a Waldorf School,
especially not as a teacher or staff member of any sort.
What a rude comment. You have no idea what type of teacher baandje is or was
in a Waldorf school.
)Lastly, the clarity and understanding you are looking for, you will not
)find it here on a discussion board frequented by people who's only
)interest is atttacking and defaming the Waldorf system with groundless
)accusations
More rudeness - telling someone he is looking for something, then informing
him he will not find it on a discussion board. This is a public discussion
place where ALL experiences, thoughts and feelings are welcome. If my
experiences (or thoughts and feelings) do not match yours . . . let's
discuss them. That's the point! We might end up agreeing to disagree but I
suspect we will learn something along the way. Speaking which, please tell
me about these "groundless accusations."
Please be specific.
It does nothing to help me understand your position when you simply accuse
listmembers of defamation, etc. without demonstrating *where* such things
take place.
Again, specifics help a great deal.
Here's an example of how, imo, communication can work well:
Person A: I have read many Steiner lectures and have seen what I consider to
be more than a few racist passages. I feel upset when I read them and even
more upset when I discover that the Anthroposophical movement and Waldorf
schools do not attempt to distance themselves publicly from such racist
beliefs. For example, Steiner's belief in reincarnation is attached to how
many Waldorf teachers work with students and I have concerns that his
thoughts on "race" could be part of that same work. I wonder if the
Anthro/Waldorf movement would be willing to state publicly that they
understand the controversy and DO NOT AGREE with Steiner when he spoke and
wrote about issues of "race?"
Person B: There is no racist thought in Anthroposophy and Steiner never said
or wrote anything racist.
Person A: Here are 7 or 8 Steiner racist quotes - this is what I referred to
(displays quotes and sources)
Person B: Steiner is sometimes difficult to understand. Steiner was
mistranslated. One must always read the entire lecture while seeking
context.
Person A: The quotes I referred to are from Anthroposophic books and
Anthroposophic translations of lectures. I believe I have not taken them out
of context - some of them are very clearly racist with no ambiguity
whatsoever. While I agree some of what Steiner wrote is difficult to
understand without some knowledge of Christianity and Theosophy, his
thoughts and comments on "race" are quite clear in his writing.
Person B: You're attacking Steiner.
Person A: Actually, I am *quoting* Steiner and expressing how I feel about
those quotes. How do you feel about the quotes?
Person B: You don't get it. You're full of hate.
Person A: I don't understand this personal accusation when we are simply
discussing some actual quotes from Rudolf Steiner? Would you be willing to
share your thoughts or feelings about the quotes?
Person B: OK - I suppose I could read the lectures and get back to you but
keep in mind I find a lot of value in much of what Steiner wrote and said.
Person A: Yes, I understand that. I once valued Waldorf education and tried
to understand (stand - under) it's Anthroposophical foundation. Lots of
reading and plenty of meetings and workshops. Years.
Person B: Anthroposophy is special and important to me.
Person A: I hear you.
Person B (after taking the time to read racist quotes in context): OK - I
understand how one might see those thoughts as being racist but it's not
easy for me because I believe Steiner was clairvoyant and an important
spiritual leader. But - yes, there is a certain element of racist thought in
some of his beliefs and I am not comfortable with that part of it. Bottom
line - I think I understand how you feel.
Person A: Then we have found some common ground. I hope the movement will
publicly state it's disapproval of Steiner's racist beliefs and I also hope
Waldorf schools continue to exist as private schools because they have
demonstrated enough to show that some of their offerings are attractive to
many families. I *still* miss the natural toys and bread baking and working
together as a community for various events (festivals, etc.) was really
quite wonderful.
Person B: Yes, it is a good option for many families. We agree on that!
Person A: Yes - for families who understand the religious nature of the
movement . . . .
Person B: What?! Waldorf is not religious! Anthroposophy is not a religion!
Person A: Well, we might have to discuss this issue now -I'd appreciate
knowing your views. What do you say??!
Person B: You really hate Waldorf, don't you!
Person A: No, not at all. I have already said it has lots to offer,
remember?
Person B: Ya but it sure sounds to me like you -
Person A: Ahh... but please listen to what I *did* say - not what you
imagine me saying.
Person B: You're being negative and I guess I have a hard time with
negativity.
Person A: OK - I can understand that - maybe I need to point to the good
stuff in Waldorf more often?
Person B: That would help me take your words more seriously - I mean come
on - how many hundreds (thousands!) of families are involved in Waldorf?! It
cannot be terrible all the time and everywhere!!
Person A: True.
Etc.
My two cents.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 23:44:28 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: warning?
Gabriel wrote:
)Dear unsuspecting casual reader,
)It is not an "ad hominem" argument to point out the fact that Waldorf
)schools and anthroposophist in as much as frequently work there have a
)broader and deeper understanding of Steiner than the general public.
Are you saying that someone here wrote that it is an "ad hominem" argument
to point out the fact that . . . ???
You are absolutely correct in what you write, imo, as the general public has
never heard
of Steiner.
)That difference demands distinction. The comments made by posters of this
board
)belong to that *general public* more than to a Waldorf faculty of an
)anthropop meeting.
This is demonstrably incorrect. Absolutely wrong. We have ex-Waldorf
teachers and parents who have
lots of experience with Waldorf and Anthroposophy. There are others on the
list who have read
lots of Steiner and worked in various Anthro-inspired facilities. We have
very pro-Steiner members, very
anti-Steiner members and some fence sitters. Me? Almost six years in Waldorf
with lots of experience
with Anthroposophy. Every day at the school, at meetings, involved with
committees, Anthro-inspired workshops, etc.
So, at this list we are fortunate to have interesting people with
fascinating experiences - from every which way. It makes for a good
discussion. I encourage you to give it a whirl.
)(Why is this fact meet with hostility here?)
It's not a fact. What you wrote is obviously incorrect.
)Not a single Wadorf faculty member nor anthroposphist contirbutes to this
board, which
)creates an Unbalanced hatefilled atmosphere against Wadorf and Steiner.
Again - you are clearly mistaken. . If quoting Steiner and inviting comments
is what you consider to be "hatefilled," you might want to consider your
choice of words. I encourage you to read some posts from all sides and join
in the discussion from a healthy place equal to that of other listmembers.
We are all equal here.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 07:12:56 +0000
From: puunjab ahrabhati (puunjabahrabhati yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: warning?
Diana,
I don't understand this part of what you say:
And I think it's safe to assume our latest guest,
) Mr./Ms. "puunjab/helene/mayaincazuluvoodoospeaktruth," is an
) anthroposophist. (Gee, what clues me in!!!)
I am not new here. I have been reading this board for quite some time
and have at one time posted as another user, but I have nothing to do
with those user names you group me with. Haven't I already said that?
You are also wrong in that I am not an anthroposophist, not any more
than you are at least. I believe I have already stated this as well.
I'm starting to wonder if you are actually reading what people say here
or...
So Dan am I being too ad-hominem for your taste? was Diana also being
so when she said this about these members:
Baandje, Lemuria, myself, Debra, Nicole, the poster "MQ," Paul
) Georghiades, and I'm probably forgetting somebody, have all been on
) Waldorf
) faculties and boards, and Lemuria and Paul G. are certainly
) anthroposophists.
How is that not ad hominem?
Isn't it an ad-hominem when Diana tells me that I am pretending to be
someone that I am not? Or is princess Diana above these rules because
she has a point of view that fits with your morality?
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Mr. Gabriel "Why Not" wrote:
)
) )The comments made by posters of this board belong to that *general
) )public*
) )more than to a Waldorf faculty of an anthropop meeting. (Why is this
) )fact
) )meet with hostility here?)
)
) Perhaps because it isn't a fact. Many people here have been on Waldorf
) faculties or boards and attended many anthropop meetings.
)
) )Not a single Wadorf faculty member nor anthroposphist contirbutes to
) )this
) )board,
)
) LOL. Hundreds of Waldorf faculty members and anthroposophists have
) contributed here over the years. Let's try a count from just the past
) couple
) of weeks: Baandje, Lemuria, myself, Debra, Nicole, the poster "MQ," Paul
) Georghiades, and I'm probably forgetting somebody, have all been on
) Waldorf
) faculties and boards, and Lemuria and Paul G. are certainly
) anthroposophists. Baandje I think considered himself one at one time,
) and I
) sure tried like hell. And I think it's safe to assume our latest guest,
) Mr./Ms. "puunjab/helene/mayaincazuluvoodoospeaktruth," is an
) anthroposophist. (Gee, what clues me in!!!)
)
)
) )which creates an Unbalanced hatefilled atmosphere against Wadorf and
) )Steiner.
)
)
) If your original ridiculous statement that no Waldorf teachers or
) anthroposophists post here were true, this would seem to suggest you
) believe
) that anyone who is not an anthroposophist or not on a Waldorf faculty
) "hates" Waldorf and Steiner! This would be quite extraordinary if it
) were
) true.
) Diana
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 07:27:01 +0000
From: puunjab ahrabhati (puunjabahrabhati yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
walden wrote:
)
) puunjab ahrabhati wrote (to baandje):
) ) I mean, you do not sound like the kind that belongs in a Waldorf School,
) especially not as a teacher or staff member of any sort.
)
) What a rude comment. You have no idea what type of teacher baandje is or
) was
) in a Waldorf school.
I do have an idea of what he is like from what he has posted here on
this board. That is, if he is being honest about who he is and what he
thinks.
)
) )Lastly, the clarity and understanding you are looking for, you will not
) )find it here on a discussion board frequented by people who's only
) )interest is atttacking and defaming the Waldorf system with groundless
) )accusations
)
) More rudeness - telling someone he is looking for something, then
) informing
) him he will not find it on a discussion board. This is a public
) discussion
) place where ALL experiences, thoughts and feelings are welcome. If my
) experiences (or thoughts and feelings) do not match yours . . . let's
) discuss them. That's the point! We might end up agreeing to disagree but
) I
) suspect we will learn something along the way. Speaking which, please
) tell
) me about these "groundless accusations."
) Please be specific.
)
He said himself that he would like to have clarity and understanding
through the discussions on this board. I do not fault him for wanting
that, but I would sugggest that he try other venues. try 'The Power of
Now' by Eckhart Tolle. I found this book to helpful in gaining clarity
and understanding.
) It does nothing to help me understand your position when you simply
) accuse
) listmembers of defamation, etc. without demonstrating *where* such
) things
) take place.
) Again, specifics help a great deal.
Sorry if you cannot find examples of defamation and groundless
accusations against Steiner, then you are either not reading the posts
or you are not reading the posts.
)
) Here's an example of how, imo, communication can work well:
)
) Person A: I have read many Steiner lectures and have seen what I
) consider to
) be more than a few racist passages. I feel upset when I read them and
) even
) more upset when I discover that the Anthroposophical movement and
) Waldorf
) schools do not attempt to distance themselves publicly from such racist
) beliefs. For example, Steiner's belief in reincarnation is attached to
) how
) many Waldorf teachers work with students and I have concerns that his
) thoughts on "race" could be part of that same work. I wonder if the
) Anthro/Waldorf movement would be willing to state publicly that they
) understand the controversy and DO NOT AGREE with Steiner when he spoke
) and
) wrote about issues of "race?"
)
) Person B: There is no racist thought in Anthroposophy and Steiner never
) said
) or wrote anything racist.
)
) Person A: Here are 7 or 8 Steiner racist quotes - this is what I
) referred to
) (displays quotes and sources)
)
) Person B: Steiner is sometimes difficult to understand. Steiner was
) mistranslated. One must always read the entire lecture while seeking
) context.
)
) Person A: The quotes I referred to are from Anthroposophic books and
) Anthroposophic translations of lectures. I believe I have not taken them
) out
) of context - some of them are very clearly racist with no ambiguity
) whatsoever. While I agree some of what Steiner wrote is difficult to
) understand without some knowledge of Christianity and Theosophy, his
) thoughts and comments on "race" are quite clear in his writing.
)
) Person B: You're attacking Steiner.
)
) Person A: Actually, I am *quoting* Steiner and expressing how I feel
) about
) those quotes. How do you feel about the quotes?
)
) Person B: You don't get it. You're full of hate.
)
) Person A: I don't understand this personal accusation when we are simply
) discussing some actual quotes from Rudolf Steiner? Would you be willing
) to
) share your thoughts or feelings about the quotes?
)
) Person B: OK - I suppose I could read the lectures and get back to you
) but
) keep in mind I find a lot of value in much of what Steiner wrote and
) said.
)
) Person A: Yes, I understand that. I once valued Waldorf education and
) tried
) to understand (stand - under) it's Anthroposophical foundation. Lots of
) reading and plenty of meetings and workshops. Years.
)
) Person B: Anthroposophy is special and important to me.
)
) Person A: I hear you.
)
) Person B (after taking the time to read racist quotes in context): OK -
) I
) understand how one might see those thoughts as being racist but it's not
) easy for me because I believe Steiner was clairvoyant and an important
) spiritual leader. But - yes, there is a certain element of racist
) thought in
) some of his beliefs and I am not comfortable with that part of it.
) Bottom
) line - I think I understand how you feel.
)
) Person A: Then we have found some common ground. I hope the movement
) will
) publicly state it's disapproval of Steiner's racist beliefs and I also
) hope
) Waldorf schools continue to exist as private schools because they have
) demonstrated enough to show that some of their offerings are attractive
) to
) many families. I *still* miss the natural toys and bread baking and
) working
) together as a community for various events (festivals, etc.) was really
) quite wonderful.
)
) Person B: Yes, it is a good option for many families. We agree on that!
)
) Person A: Yes - for families who understand the religious nature of the
) movement . . . .
)
) Person B: What?! Waldorf is not religious! Anthroposophy is not a
) religion!
)
) Person A: Well, we might have to discuss this issue now -I'd appreciate
) knowing your views. What do you say??!
)
) Person B: You really hate Waldorf, don't you!
)
) Person A: No, not at all. I have already said it has lots to offer,
) remember?
)
) Person B: Ya but it sure sounds to me like you -
)
) Person A: Ahh... but please listen to what I *did* say - not what you
) imagine me saying.
)
) Person B: You're being negative and I guess I have a hard time with
) negativity.
)
) Person A: OK - I can understand that - maybe I need to point to the good
) stuff in Waldorf more often?
)
) Person B: That would help me take your words more seriously - I mean
) come
) on - how many hundreds (thousands!) of families are involved in
) Waldorf?! It
) cannot be terrible all the time and everywhere!!
)
) Person A: True.
)
) Etc.
)
) My two cents.
)
) -Walden
Thanks for that beautiful example of a perfect conversation/discussion.
I will absolutely try to conform to your way from now on.
puunjab
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 08:07:30 +0000
From: Ian Goodwin (igoodwin mac.com)
Subject: RE: Dan's Reply
Dan,
Thanks for coming back to this post with your replies. You clearly have
done much research into the works of Mr. Steiner and for that you
deserve respect.
I do, however, feel that there is something missing in your research,
and that is practice. What I mean is that there can be no real
understanding of Steiner's philosophies without using them in your daily
life.
The website for PLANS which you are a contributor to (at the very least)
- to me it doesn't have any of the spirit of Steiner or Anthroposophy in
it. Despite what seems like a mass of information, hundreds of links
and testimonials, the PLANS website feels empty of content and dead in a
way.
That was how I found this discussion board, through the PLANS website.
So it's not a real surprise to me that the Waldorf Criticisms here are
just as spineless and empty
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) DAN DUGAN:
) ) ) I can't see how I'm impeding those who wish to learn about Rudolf
) ) ) Steiner in any way.
)
) IAN GOODWIN:
) ) ) )Yes sure I will admit that there have been children hurt by the waldorf
) )) )system, and hurt by camp hill. But isn't hurt an natural part of life
) ) ) )and of learning what does and does not work for you?
)
) DAN DUGAN:
) ) ) That is one of the most amoral statements anyone has ever made here.
)
) IAN GOODWIN:
) )Why is it amoral to expect that children are going to be hurt in school?
) ) Do you know a child that has never been hurt by something that has
) )happened at their school?
)
) Of course life includes joy and sorrow, and every institution does
) some good and some harm. But what people are pointing out here are
) specific harms that Anthroposophical institutions do specifically
) because of their Anthroposophical principles. Harm that is done out
) of ignorance. These are things that can be, and should be, remedied.
)
) ) ) )You say you want
) ) ) )to prevent others from getting hurt by the Waldorf System, but really
) )) )what you are doing is hurting those who would otherwise benefit greatly
) )) )from being involved with Waldorf. What is the point of that.
) ))
) )) Warning off families who are uncomfortable with occultism in no way
) )) impedes those who like that sort of thing.
) )
) )Spreading mistruth and negative judgements about things you truly do not
) )understand is a harmful practice in general, though you are right that
) )it has little effect on the Waldorf community in general.
)
) The charge of "speaking mistruth" must be substantiated, here and
) now. Otherwise you are libeling me.
)
) Negative judgments are a matter of opinion; in my opinion, they are
) necessary. Understanding of Steiner and Anthroposophy is also a
) matter of opinion, but I caution you that my opinions are based on a
) through reading of Anthropsophy from Steiner through current
) periodicals, plus attendance at many lectures and many visits to
) Waldorf schools.
)
) -Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 08:09:39 +0000
From: Ian Goodwin (igoodwin mac.com)
Subject: practice
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 08:47:37 +0000
From: Ian Goodwin (igoodwin mac.com)
Subject: practice
(sorry for the last empty post, I hit the enter key on accident)
Something I would just like to add (I think Gabriel may have also
mentioned it) is just that there is nothing to be taken out of the world
of Anthroposophy or the literature of Steiner without the actual
practice of it in your day to day life. Sure, this makes it sound more
like a religion more than most Anthroposophist would like to admit, but
this is only because some people are working very hard to force the
religion out of it. The word religion, lke so many others carries a
stigma with it (often deserved) that many are uncomfortable with. I
have also (still in a way) been scared and angry at religious
institutions because I thought that they were brainwashing people into
believing in things that they couldn't see. Since that time I have
learned that there are things out there that I cannot see, and also that
the word religious doesn't neccessarily need to equate to ignorance or
blindness.
Now I will not go so far as to say you have to be a religious person to
understand Steiner or to accept what he has to say as having some
meaning, but some acceptance of the spirit world and of the soul and
karma and their role in human existence is VERY helpful. If you have
aversions to these ideas then I would suggest waiting a few years until
you have reached a certain level of maturity before diving into the
world of Rudolf Steiner.
Of course I cannot speak for Rudolf Steiner, but in my opinion he would
also agree that one has to be open to many new ideas in order to not be
turned off or scared by what he is saying. I found myself in a mixed
state of excitement and disbelief when I first read Steiner. I was
excited to see that there existed a man who could say the things he said
about subjects that are seen as taboo, and using vocabulary that was
both strange and intriguing (and disgusting at times) and say them with
such certainty, as if he knew what he was saying to be true, even though
there is no tangible evidence for it. His own admission of clairvoyance
is also amazing to hear. I remember thinking that he was either really
very delusioned or just extremely open and honest, and gifted.
I tend to lean towards the idea that he was gifted and also well
intentioned. I do not claim that he never made mistakes or that he
never spoke an untrue word. He was just a man. A very busy man at
that. During the height of his popularity he was giving hundreds of
lectures a year, all over Europe and Asia, plus writing dozens of books.
(to be continued)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 10:49:28 +0000
From: Ian Goodwin (igoodwin mac.com)
Subject: Waldorf parents- beware of PLANS
I would also like to say that I am very happy that my children are going
to be Waldorf Students. That doesn't mean I want them to be Steiner
initiates or anthroposophists or that I want them believeing in Christ
or even spirits for that matter. I will be happy because they will be
in a non-competitive (because there are no grades)) environment, eating
bio-dynamic food, learning arts and languages earlier while
de-emphasizing the hard sciences and mathematics. I will be happy that
they wil develop a special relationship with their classmates who they
will have with them year after year, and then also after, when they come
out of school.
I will not object if I find that the school staff have decided to paint
their walls 'peach blossom' or that they don't say the pledge of
allegiance, or that the teachers want to put on a play about a saint
from the bible. I won't complain when they ask me not to bring my video
camera or wonder why they don't use computers and get suspicious as to
the superstitiosness of it all. I have read enough of Steiner to knowmy
child is being taught about the four principles or bodies in a person --
the physical, the etheric, the astral and the ego. The astral and ego
forces are not inherited. They unite with the physical and etheric
bodies at birth. These four bodies correspond with four temperament in
each person. These concepts form the understanding of children, their
development, how they are to be taught, what they are to be taught, and
how individuals or groups relate to them.
Maybe what PLANS intends is to do is reveal these aspects of Steiner to
the parents at Waldorf Schools. I would hope so. But what they DO do,
and what many on this discussion board tend to do also is something
else much more malicious and deceiptful.
I would suggest that those who wish to continue discussions as to the
personality of Rudolf Steiner, his views politically or otherwise,
please read some biographical information and make judgements if you
will based on what he did in his life. He was not a supporter of the
Nazi parties as some have suggested. He never acted in a way that would
back up any of the claims that he was personally motivated by greed,
racism, or egoism. He never became a wealthy man from his work (at
least not that I have heard).
Judgeing Steiner's personality purely by the words he used in this
quotation or that one is pointless. Think of how many words there are
written from his lectures and books. I don't imagine it would be so
hard to find something controversial in the works of anyone so prolific
as Steiner, especially when taken out of the whole context, time, place
, and language. This is why one must look at his work as a WHOLE, but
not only his works but the PRODUCT of his works, the artwork, dance,
music, food, architecture etcetera, and ENJOY it.
Hey but maybe you don't like that kind of thing which is just fine too.
But at least you tried it, right? Or did you?
I mean would you rather eat a DOLE banana or a BIO-Dynamic banana?
Maybe you'de rather have the DOLE banana because it wasn't grown by a
buch of freaky racist cult liars.
Ian
Ian Goodwin wrote:
)
) (sorry for the last empty post, I hit the enter key on accident)
)
) Something I would just like to add (I think Gabriel may have also
) mentioned it) is just that there is nothing to be taken out of the world
)
) of Anthroposophy or the literature of Steiner without the actual
) practice of it in your day to day life. Sure, this makes it sound more
) like a religion more than most Anthroposophist would like to admit, but
) this is only because some people are working very hard to force the
) religion out of it. The word religion, lke so many others carries a
) stigma with it (often deserved) that many are uncomfortable with. I
) have also (still in a way) been scared and angry at religious
) institutions because I thought that they were brainwashing people into
) believing in things that they couldn't see. Since that time I have
) learned that there are things out there that I cannot see, and also that
)
) the word religious doesn't neccessarily need to equate to ignorance or
) blindness.
)
) Now I will not go so far as to say you have to be a religious person to
) understand Steiner or to accept what he has to say as having some
) meaning, but some acceptance of the spirit world and of the soul and
) karma and their role in human existence is VERY helpful. If you have
) aversions to these ideas then I would suggest waiting a few years until
) you have reached a certain level of maturity before diving into the
) world of Rudolf Steiner.
)
) Of course I cannot speak for Rudolf Steiner, but in my opinion he would
) also agree that one has to be open to many new ideas in order to not be
) turned off or scared by what he is saying. I found myself in a mixed
) state of excitement and disbelief when I first read Steiner. I was
) excited to see that there existed a man who could say the things he said
)
) about subjects that are seen as taboo, and using vocabulary that was
) both strange and intriguing (and disgusting at times) and say them with
) such certainty, as if he knew what he was saying to be true, even though
)
) there is no tangible evidence for it. His own admission of clairvoyance
)
) is also amazing to hear. I remember thinking that he was either really
) very delusioned or just extremely open and honest, and gifted.
)
) I tend to lean towards the idea that he was gifted and also well
) intentioned. I do not claim that he never made mistakes or that he
) never spoke an untrue word. He was just a man. A very busy man at
) that. During the height of his popularity he was giving hundreds of
) lectures a year, all over Europe and Asia, plus writing dozens of books.
)
) (to be continued)
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 1920
-- Topica Digest --
unsubscribe
By Sleighwhitaker aol.com
RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
where is the good will?
By g.pulgar kommunicera.umea.se
RE: warning?
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: warning?
By bangus nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Waldorf parents- beware of PLANS
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: where is the good will?
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: PLANS is not helping by lying
By puunjabah