return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Admin: Upcoming Topica Downtime 3/4 and 3/5
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 16:16:17 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: Upcoming Topica Downtime 3/4 and 3/5
)To: dan dandugan.com
)From: "Topica Inc." (topicaalerts app.topica.com)
)Subject: Upcoming Topica Downtime 3/4 and 3/5
)Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 14:15:00 -0800
)
)Dear Topica Customer,
)
)This weekend will be the final phase of our SAN migration
)and the merging of our databases. This upgrade is scheduled
)to occur from 8:00 pm PDT Saturday, March 4, 2006 to 2:00 pm
)PDT Sunday, March 5, 2006. During this period, you will not
)be able to access your account. All previously scheduled email
)messages will be queued and delivered shortly after service is
)restored. We request you schedule your use of the application
)accordingly.
)
)Maintenance Schedule:
)Start - Saturday March 4th 8:00 pm PDT
)End - Sunday March 5th 2:00 pm PDT
)
)We apologize for any inconvenience and thank you for your
)continued patience. As always we value your feedback, if you
)have any questions or concerns, please send us an email at:
)tepsupport get.topica.com.
)
)
)Sincerely,
)Topica Customer Success Team
)tepsupport Topica.com
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2068
-- Topica Digest --
Re: www.waldorfcritics.org feedback
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 15:42:45 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Cc: "R.GUERREIRO" (guerreiro t-online.de)
Subject: Re: www.waldorfcritics.org feedback
2/27/06, R.GUERREIRO wrote:
)
)Dear Dan,
)
)(This is a personal and spontaneous message, i.e. no part of any PR
)action or collective initiative. Excuse me for my English, it is my
)fifth language, not my mother language).
I'm impressed. I'm posting my reply on the Waldorf critics discussion
list. I encourage you to subscribe to it if you want to continue a
dialogue.
)I am a member of the German Federal Council of Waldorf Schools
)and just discovered your site during a research on the so-called
)"indigo children" (an abominous spiritist-mediunistic development
)now affecting many well-intentioned parents all over the world).
I agree with your attitude about that; but I believe there is a
parallel fad in the Waldorf movement, "star children," promoted by
Georg Kuhlewind. What do you think of that?
)Please don't be affraid to read "German Federal Council of Waldorf
)Schools" nor to hear that I study among other things the so-called
)"scientific-spiritual concept of the world and man" and that I was
)previously active as "Waldorf" teacher.
No fear. I'm pleased to communicate with you.
)I carry no badges, visible or invisible, and I'm not engaged in
)intellectual fighting against, or defending, anything. My name is
)Raul Guerreiro and that's all. If ever needed, I can tell you
)plainly what I objectively do in the world.
)
)Freedom of opinion at any cultural level is the backbone of
)civilization today and in the future, and I perfectly accept that
)you -- out of your absolutely individual biographical route and
)obvious personal suffering -- help to maintain this self-satisfying
)edifice of vengeance baptized with five letters. The size and
)spectrum of it, as I can see, amounts to founding a Church of Blind
)Rational Criticism, already depending on a series of mental cults
)and devotions, as well as a mass of followers and respective
)material and ideal support. I accept it, it's your way of life.
Thanks for sharing. PLANS is far from my way of life; I try to give
it one day a week because I think the work is necessary. But if it's
a church of blind rationality, why are so many people of faith among
its supporters? I think you should look at us more deeply.
)I did not have the chance to read the whole of your internet
)presence, but I'm astonished at the unfair massive use
)of manipulative excerpts of every kind and short-sentenced emotional
)comments.
I see. Publishing Steiner quotes that say what you want publicized is
good; publishing what he said that you don't want publicized is
"unfair" and "manipulative." Isn't that statement by you an
"emotional comment"?
)I understand that such a construction may form a good army arsenal
)to find growing acceptance among people that tend to sensationalize
)things instead of studying them in detail.
We encourage people who are attracted to Waldorf by its appearance
and its promises--the sensational--to study the philosophy that's
hidden behind it--the detail.
)The reproduction, for example, of a message by a certain "Mike T."
)-- an obviously fanatic personality, almost a mental patient --
)demonstrates a bad taste and a disappointing unwillingness to
)discuss things objectively, according to an appreciation of our
)general search for truth, human dialogue and cooperation.
I agree with your impression of "Mike T." I quoted his message
(Anthroposophy Tomorrow, #15617) on the PLANS front page as an
example of nutty Anthroposophical writing, and how Anthroposophists
so often attack people who criticize instead of dealing with the
issues they raise. Look for other goodies to replace it in that space.
)I exercise a lot of criticism against every kind of fanatism and
)blind mental fossilization, both in the so-called "anthroposophical"
)circles as in the growing amorphous technocratical civilization that
)surrounds us.
Good for you.
)I thank you therefore for the opportunity to learn what a
)militarized intellectual bastion in America can be. Other forms of
)military presence in the world are well known.
You've lost me there. I don't see anything in the principles or
tactics of PLANS that would fit the description "militarized." Could
you explain what you mean? Perhaps you're just looking for something
nasty to say about what you perceive to be an American effort,
overlooking our international membership.
)With cordial greetings,
)Raul
Sincerely yours, Dan Dugan
Secretary, PLANS, Inc.
)PS:
)I hope you do not manipulate my message for other purposes. )From my
)part, it will not be delivered to third parties.
You give me no reason why our dialogue shouldn't be conducted in
public, where, in my opinion, it belongs.
-dD-
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2069
-- Topica Digest --
RE: early reading opinions
By esmyth pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 05:26:30 +0000
From: (esmyth pobox.com)
Subject: RE: early reading opinions
Speaking as a former English teacher, I must say I have never been in
favor of pushing any child to read before he/she is ready. Back when I
was a kid, and mainstream schools had children really knuckling down to
learn reading somewhere in the first half of first grade, things went
pretty well because most kids of average or above intelligence are ready
by that age.
However, it is not unusual in today's American public schools for a
child to come home after the first day of kindergarten with
reading/writing homework. Many of these kids have just turned five and
are simply not cognitively prepared for this sort of work. Of course,
frustration ensues for both pupil and parents.
Given a choice, I'd prefer to have a child in a school where reading
isn't expected until 2nd grade rather than one where it's pushed the
first day of kindergarten.
And now speaking as a Waldorf parent, I have never in my years of
experience with Waldorf schools heard anything negative said about
children reading earlier than 2nd grade SO LONG AS the desire comes from
the child. I've never heard of a teacher discouraging a parent from
reading to their young children, getting them library cards or any of
those things.
My own child showed a keen interest in reading at 20 months, knew both
the upper and lower case alphabets and was able to recognize many three-
and four-letter words. When we joined a Waldorf parent-child program, we
informed the school of this situation and they had no problem with this
or with our supporting our daughter in her desire to read. They simply
advised us not to push her past her own level of interest.
This wasn't easy to do when her interest dropped off about six months
later. It felt like something very special about her was evaporating.
But we lived with that discomfort and did not "remind" her about
reciting the alphabet or how you spell DOG.
At three, she had to re-learn her letters from scratch and could grasp
nothing of phonics. She did learn to spell her full name but again she
lost interest after a while and again her teacher warned us to let it
go. We did.
At four, she was really ready. She once again re-learned the alphabet,
deeply wanting to know all the sounds each letter could make. We
supported her by answering her questions as they came up yet refrained
from introducing material she hadn't yet asked about. She couldn't get
enough, and quickly honed her skills. She was reading before her fifth
birthday. It was such a joy for her and she revelled in every hurdle
overcome.
Looking back, I can't help but wonder how things would have played out
if we hadn't been in Waldorf. If we'd been in an atmosphere that valued
academic competition in young children, would our precocious girl have
been pushed until her love of reading had been bled out of her?
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2070
-- Topica Digest --
RE: early reading opinions
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: early reading opinions
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: early reading opinions
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: early reading opinions
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: www.waldorfcritics.org feedback
By diana.winters verizon.net
Roy Wilkinson on karma: "moral retribution"
By diana.winters verizon.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:42:57 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: early reading opinions
I wrote, about the Waldorf rhetoric about not "pushing" children to read:
)the true meaning is "They shouldn't read before age 7" (or in
)anthroposophic terms, before the birth of the etheric body).
The basic difference is this - and this is what must be SPELLED OUT to
prospective parents:
Many people agree that "pushing" children academically is bad. Stress is
bad. Long periods of sedentary activity are bad for elementary-age children,
because they need to move a lot. Making academics competitive or
performance-driven is bad (at least in the early years). Urging a child to
perform something they aren't yet capable of, or developmentally ready for,
is bad. A sense that your parents or teachers are comparing you with other
children, and that you come up lacking, is very painful, and can cause a
child to quit trying (or to try too hard and later "burn out"). Also, using
materials that are age-inappropriate, too advanced, boring, poorly written,
composed by textbook committee, ugly, unrelated to the child's interests,
etc., will at least discourage the child and possibly even destroy the
desire to learn. Mean teachers, who yell, punish, or disparage a child who
is having trouble, are a nightmare. (I learned to read very easily and I
*still* recall vividly how traumatized I was hearing the teacher berate and
humiliate other children, in first grade.) A child is far better off
"waiting" to read than going through anything like this.
But none of this is the concern in anthroposophy!
In anthroposophy, it is READING that is bad for young children. That's it -
reading. Full stop.
This is a *huge* difference.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:50:58 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: early reading opinions
Dear Esmyth,
(Please don't feel you have to answer my three treatises on this subject; I
can get rather excited talking about this.)
Here's another idea, though. The thread you are replying to started when Dan
posted two announcements, one from a Waldorf school advertising a talk on
the harmful effecs of "early formal instruction" and one for a lecture at
(if I recall) a public library, called (smthg like) "Born to Read 0-24
months." I then speculated about what the "0-24 months" advice probably
consisted of.
How about this? Look at the list below (which was admittedly just my
educated guess as to the content of the talk, though I've attended as well
as given numerous such talks), and tell us if any of these things are
recommended at your Waldorf school. And I do mean "recommended" - actively
recommended. Not just they won't actually try to make you feel bad if you
admit to doing them, and you don't find yourself downplaying it when you
talk to the teacher about it - but do the teachers *explicitly* recommend
these things? Advise parents to do them? Hold workshops giving this sort of
suggestion? Send home lists of suggestions like this? Print "Reading tips"
in the school newsletter and post them on the bulletin board? - The kind of
thing a school is SUPPOSED to do to encourage literacy. Or do they
communicate to you that this stuff is "okay" as long as you, sort of, limit
it?
And tell us if any of these things are, in your opinion, detrimental to
children 0-24 months, or if you would consider them "pushing." I'd be
interested.
In fact, find me a Waldorf school in the world that *actively and explicitly
recommends* the things on this list. Birth to 24 months. Anyone?
Diana
(list below)
* Read to your baby from the earliest months of his or her life
* Create warm, positive emotional associations around "storytime" - make it
a time of closeness, cuddling at bedtime
* Make regular library trips a fun family time
* Make age-appropriate books always available to your child, even for babies
who are mainly interested in chewing on them
* Let them see that their parents read frequently; books and a wide variety
of printed matter are for fun and pleasure as well as totally necessary for
business, information, etc.; books are a staple, like groceries (when you
run out you've got to go get more, right away)
* Involve your child in "everyday" literacy: for instance, when you are
making a grocery list, let your child make a "list" too (just scribbling);
let them "sign" their name on birthday cards etc.
* Make pencils and paper readily available, just like other toys and art
supplies, and always say "Great!" when they show you their "writing" (i.e.,
scribbling)
* Tell them what signs on the street, in the store, etc., say when they ask,
or even if they don't, just because it's interesting, and you want them to
make the connection that printed words correspond to spoken words
* Finally, no age is "too early" to learn to read if your child is
interested, and you keep it stress-free (this is even true for 0-24 months)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:51:54 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: early reading opinions
Oh, shoot, posts out of order again. I should know better than to write a
follow-up, 5 minutes after a longer post, 'cus the shorter one always shows
up first.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 11:58:46 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: early reading opinions
Dear Esmyth,
Thanks for the post. It is good to hear, and we have heard before, that not
all Waldorf schools or all Waldorf teachers discourage the children who are
interested in reading earlier than age 7 (though none will teach it, or
actively encourage it). They vary considerably in how dogmatically they
apply Steiner. Waldorf teachers who have nonanthroposophical training as
well tend not to agree with dogmatically enforcing the 7-year stages and
don't believe that reading, or even exposure to print, will "harm the
etheric body."
Unfortunately, we've heard many stories to the contrary, and in my personal
experience, the things your teachers at least remained permissive of would
never have been countenanced by our teachers.
To address a couple of your points more specifically:
)Speaking as a former English teacher, I must say I have never been in
)favor of pushing any child to read before he/she is ready.
Nor am I, nor do I recall any critic here suggesting that they want
children, their own or anyone else's, to read "before they're ready." That
would be silly, and clearly can be harmful. However, in Waldorf that's often
just rhetoric - the true meaning is "They shouldn't read before age 7" (or
in anthroposophic terms, before the birth of the etheric body).
They need to explain clearly to prospective parents that anthroposophically
speaking, NO child under 7 is "ready" to read.
)Back when I was a kid, and mainstream schools had children really knuckling
)down to learn reading somewhere in the first half of first grade, things
)went pretty well because most kids of average or above intelligence are
)ready by that age.
That's not what happens in Waldorf schools though, is it? If most kids are
"ready" by that age, what is up in Waldorf, not teaching it then?
)However, it is not unusual in today's American public schools for a child
)to come home after the first day of kindergarten with reading/writing
)homework.
This varies widely also, though I agree that it is commoner now than it used
to be. The elite, academically competitive private schools where I live -
the ones Waldorf sets themselves against in theory, warns you about - the
ones full of stereotypically pushy doctor/lawyer parents who are scheming
from preschool onward to get their kid into Harvard - to the surprise of
many of us post-Waldorf, these schools do not assign homework in
kindergarten, or in the case of the MOST elite schools here, do not assign
homework until third grade.
The Quaker school my son attended assigns homework from first grade on, but
it is never more than about 5 or 10 minutes' work per evening, until about
fourth grade. None of the local public or private schools assign homework to
kindergarteners.
So it's a bit exaggerated, all these stories about the poor suffering
kindergarteners.
And when homework *is* assigned for kindergarteners, what does this consist
of? In first grade, my son's (public school) homework consisted of things
like, find 3 things in your house that start with the letter "S," and with
your mommy or daddy's help, write these words and bring them in tomorrow.
The child is writing "my dog Sam" and then drawing a picture of Sam, and
that sort of thing, with parental help. I really cannot agree this is
causing suffering to children, or bleeding love of learning out of them.
If we are talking about more extensive homework than this, I'd be interested
to hear what it is; I think this is, overall, a lot of handwringing (not
necessarily you personally, but the rhetoric about "early academics" we are
hearing a lot of places). (I turn more and more curmudgeonly about the
abysmal state of education in general and frankly think most schools should
probably be doing much MORE to encourage early literacy, in a much more
encompassing way than they do. It is a question of how it is done. There are
some very UN-talented teachers doing a depressingly bad job of it, using bad
programs, required to teach "by the book" per some scripted syllabus, and
not exactly highly literate themselves. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be
done, if it is done right. Nothing in this suggests the answer is to wait a
few years, and do the same wrong things later that are now being done
earlier.)
)Many of these kids have just turned five and are simply not cognitively
)prepared for this sort of work. Of course, frustration ensues for both
)pupil and parents.
Frankly, this may be true sometime, but I think it's often a lot of scare
mongering. We'd have to have a more explicit discussion of what exactly it
is you think 5 year olds are not cognitively prepared for. Many if not most
are certainly cognitively prepared to learn the alphabet and to learn a few
simple words.
Others are "not ready" and will be ready given another year or two. Many
developmental factors come into play. For them a delay in reading
instruction is no problem. Some, however, have deficits, for instance in
phonological processing, that will not ever get better by "waiting," but
need to be addressed, and the longer you wait to address them, the less
chance the child has of ever catching up in school. They are literally
doomed to failure by the "Let's wait till they're ready" mentality,
especially if there is not a high level of literacy at home. It is not a
kindness to these children to allow them to "wait" just because they,
understandably, act much happier when they are playing ball or flying a kite
than when someone sits them down with a phonics worksheet.
)Given a choice, I'd prefer to have a child in a school where reading isn't
)expected until 2nd grade rather than one where it's pushed the first day of
)kindergarten.
I agree if it's stated so baldly; however, we'd have to see what this
"pushing" actually consisted of. If "pushing" means writing letters on the
chalkboard, and asking 5 year olds to copy them, I think that's appropriate,
and the first day of kindergarten is a good time to start.
)And now speaking as a Waldorf parent, I have never in my years of
)experience with Waldorf schools heard anything negative said about children
)reading earlier than 2nd grade SO LONG AS the desire comes from the child.
)I've never heard of a teacher discouraging a parent from reading to their
)young children, getting them library cards or any of those things.
That is great. I'm very happy to hear this is how it is handled in your
school.
As for your own child's story:
)My own child showed a keen interest in reading at 20 months, knew both
)the upper and lower case alphabets and was able to recognize many three-
)and four-letter words. When we joined a Waldorf parent-child program, we
)informed the school of this situation and they had no problem with this
)or with our supporting our daughter in her desire to read. They simply
)advised us not to push her past her own level of interest.
I'd agree with that advice. It sounds like they were very reasonable.
)This wasn't easy to do when her interest dropped off about six months
)later. It felt like something very special about her was evaporating.
)But we lived with that discomfort and did not "remind" her about
)reciting the alphabet or how you spell DOG.
Again I think that's the right approach. The key is not to panic and remove
all print from her view, believing it will damage her spiritually. That is
what some of our teachers advised. Put all the books away! I was told to put
pencils on a high shelf to discourage writing. (Other teachers took a more
relaxed approach.)
Kids' interests do wax and wane - I totally agree with not pushing her to
learn more and more at 20 months.
)At three, she had to re-learn her letters from scratch and could grasp
)nothing of phonics.
Well, who in the world was trying to get her to learn phonics at THREE???
You??
)She did learn to spell her full name but again she lost interest after a
)while and again her teacher warned us to let it go. We did.
That's good. I'd have (well, then I wouldn't have, but now I would) perhaps
put her name on things where she could see it, to keep it in her memory, but
I wouldn't have pressed her about it.
)At four, she was really ready. She once again re-learned the alphabet,
)deeply wanting to know all the sounds each letter could make. We supported
)her by answering her questions as they came up yet refrained from
)introducing material she hadn't yet asked about. She couldn't get enough,
)and quickly honed her skills. She was reading before her fifth birthday. It
)was such a joy for her and she revelled in every hurdle overcome.
That's wonderful. Our teachers would have considered a child who was reading
before her 5th birthday to be damaged for life. There was constant
tsk-tsking over these misguided parents in faculty meeting, and a lot of
talk about how to "remediate" these childern.
)Looking back, I can't help but wonder how things would have played out
)if we hadn't been in Waldorf.
It would depend on the school. Most schools I suspect would have handled it
just the way your Waldorf school did - admirably. Respond to her interests
but don't rush her, at the age of 3 or 4.
)If we'd been in an atmosphere that valued academic competition in young
)children, would our precocious girl have been pushed until her love of
)reading had been bled out of her?
Maybe. Or maybe she'd have learned to read earlier, and enjoyed it. I think
your view is pretty colored by the Waldorf negativity about early reading,
in spite of yourself.
Incidentally, the schools I'm familiar with certainly don't encourage
"competition" regarding reading in young children.
That's interestingly a new angle Linda Clemens (a sometime pro-Waldorf
contributor here) has picked up on lately, as I'm reading her elsewhere: the
only reason little kids might want to learn to read earlier than first or
second grade is "competition," or they feel bad if kids in other schools can
read and they can't. Which is possible, of course, but it's perfectly
natural, and in education and parenting we take advantage of that natural
desire to imitate older children all the time.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 18:18:48 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: www.waldorfcritics.org feedback
Dan's correspondent (whose name I have lost - Ralph? sorry) wrote:
)I understand that such a construction may form a good army arsenal
)to find growing acceptance among people that tend to sensationalize
)things instead of studying them in detail.
Dan:
)We encourage people who are attracted to Waldorf by its appearance
)and its promises--the sensational--to study the philosophy that's
)hidden behind it--the detail.
It's really far of the mark to say we "sensationalize" anthroposophy here or
aren't interested in the details. That struck me funny, since we are more
often accused here of the opposite, of being nerdishly interested in obscure
details, or willing to really explore metaphysical fine points, which most
people who come here to hear about the schools don't want to know from. The
people who've kept this up the longest are intensely interested in details
of anthroposophy that are of little interest to most people.
Now admittedly, some of the details that catch and hold people's interest
are, in themselves, sensational. That's the same reason anthroposophists are
interested in them.
)The reproduction, for example, of a message by a certain "Mike T." -- an
)obviously fanatic personality, almost a mental patient -- demonstrates a
)bad taste and a disappointing unwillingness to discuss things objectively,
)according to an appreciation of our general search for truth, human
)dialogue and cooperation.
Dan:
)I agree with your impression of "Mike T." I quoted his message
)(Anthroposophy Tomorrow, #15617) on the PLANS front page as an example of
)nutty Anthroposophical writing,
The origin of that was me. I mean, I quoted it over here, from the
anthroposophy_tomorrow list awhile back, and Dan decided to put it on the
web site. It is not at all extreme for that list, it is very representative
of a certain segment of anthroposophy. He does certainly come off "almost a
mental patient." I might quibble with the "almost." He's a scary guy - I
would not like to meet him in person. And that fellow is far from the only
one. As to what the anthroposophy_tomorrow list represents in the wider
world of anthroposophy, it is hard to say. It's apparent that the Goetheanum
is embarrassed by them. Yet there they are. Some big wigs read it, at least
according to the subscription list, even if they don't all post. And some of
them are indeed trying to spread their influence. Take Dottie, for instance,
it is certain that Dottie does not intersect with reality in the same way
that most of us do (if I'm not misunderstanding her message, she announced
recently, for instance, that Sonny and Cher are playing at her clubhouse).
Dottie is presently organizing anthroposophy conferences.
That list is - there is no point trying to say it euphemistically -
dominated by outright lunatics, including a few really, truly, repellent
personalities. Unfortunately, they are also very active, practicing
anthroposophists, a number of them involved in Waldorf schools, present and
former teachers and parents. I knew people quite like some of them at our
Waldorf school. Hard core, humorless anthroposophists believe that the next
spiritual epoch is upon us, as prophesied by Rudolf Steiner, and that they -
personally - are karmically destined to play a role in bringing it to be.
Many believe themselves to be the reincarnations of the first generation of
anthroposophists, and some apparently believe they are the reincarnation of
people around Jesus Christ, or have been other important personages in
religious history. They consider themselves a small band of spiritual elite,
and they are, very definitely, potentially dangerous. There is no doubt
about it.
If anyone thinks this is an exaggeration, I'd suggest reading that list
really regularly, like every day for a month or two. When I do so, it all
starts to haunt my mind like a waking nightmare.
)I thank you therefore for the opportunity to learn what a militarized
)intellectual bastion in America can be. Other forms of military presence in
)the world are well known.
Dan:
)Perhaps you're just looking for something nasty to say about what you
)perceive to be an American effort,
I think you're right that's why he said that. Unfortunately, I also think
Americans have to take these jabs nowdays - we *did* elect the fellow who's
given America this deserved reputation.
Diana
(still trying to think in a muddled way about, and planning to come back to,
the karma discussions)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 18:25:06 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: Roy Wilkinson on karma: "moral retribution"
Here is a page from Roy Wilkinson's book - an anthroposophical basic primer
- posted in total at the web site of the Anthroposophical Society in
England, Scotland and Wales. Bradford Riley on A_T just suggested people
read it and it is indeed a useful, straightforward and simply written
introduction to karma in anthroposophy.
Read and discuss! (G)
http://www.anthroposophy.org.uk/book/chapter2.html#karma
I note a number of things pertaining to the discussion Peter and I were
having about the Western angles on karma. Wilkinson explicitly calls it a
system of "moral retribution" and phrases like "payment on an account"
abound. (In regard to how things like illnesses and accidents are literal
payback for immorality in previous lives).
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2071
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Solutions [- typo corrections]
By dan dandugan.com
RE: www.waldorfcritics.org feedback
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Roy Wilkinson on karma: "moral retribution"
By pstaud hotmail.com
Admin: PLANS web site sessions top 1000/day
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 11:44:45 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Solutions [- typo corrections]
KEITH:
) ) I've decided there is no more point in being negative or merely
)) argumentative in relation to Waldorf and Anthrosophical issues. I wish
) ) to start afresh in the discussion.
))(snip)
) ) Secondly, some questions regarding how a productive dialogue can be
)) conducted between those who wish to raise issues about Waldorf, etc. and
))
)) those who practise anthropsophically inspired work or are otherwise
)) engaged in such an inspired community:
) )
) ) 1. Given that criticism of beliefs nearly always invites controversy and
) ) resistance to it from those who hold the beliefs, how do we make
) ) criticism acceptable?
OSHU:
)The criticism will stand a better chance of being acceptible if it does
)not mock the ideas of a philosophy, religion, or belief system. Though
)not the case of all participants on this list, I have found the behavior
)of some--on both sides of the argument--to be snide, jeering and
)downright disrespectful. Fruitful inquiry is severly hampered in such
)an atmosphere.
DAN DUGAN:
I'm one of the offenders you're referring to, I'm sure. Some of
Anthroposophy's doctrines are so absurd it's hard not to be snide,
jeering, and downright disrespectful.
It's helpful to divide Anthroposophical doctrines (I refer to
anything that the "spiritual investigator" said as a doctrine) into
two classes: spiritual and scientific. Spiritual doctrines are
matters of faith. There is no way that anyone can offer evidence pro
or con a belief like Michael being the regent of the earth in the
present age.
Just about every religion has absurd beliefs. You wouldn't need faith
if it didn't. In the group I was raised in, we ate our god every
Sunday. In the atheist and secular humanist groups I hang out with
now, we enjoy bashing religious beliefs. But that's bad taste in
public--there's no value in offending people unnecessarily. I slip
sometimes here on this list, but I -try- to be objective when I talk
about Anthroposophy's spiritual beliefs.
It's different when you get into science. Scientific theories are, by
definition, testable and falsifiable. When "Spiritual Science" starts
talking about things like "the heart is not a pump" or "Newton was
wrong," it exposes itself to merciless criticism. In my opinion, a
respectful attitude is inappropriate when it comes to pseudoscience.
) ) 2. How do we reconcile the disppointment of many parents who intially
)) approached Waldorf with idealistic ideas about promising alternative
)) schooling (but subsequently were let down by their family's experience
)) with Waldorf schools as being distinctly the opposite of these
)) expectations) with the claimed mission of Waldorf as being an effective
)) alternative school philosophy and option?
)
)No reconciliation is possible. There have been successes and failures.
)The people in the Waldorf movement will grow only if they learn from the
)failures.
Thinking positively, how do you think that might be encouraged? The
system seems to avoid self-criticism relentlessly; or rather, the
internal criticism seems always to revolve around how true it is to
Steiner and/or interpretations of what Steiner meant. It's a closed
loop.
)Those who have been wounded and failed might look to move on,
)not dwell in negativity, and contribute to the future of education in
)some way. Sitting in chat rooms and fighting with adherents might not be
)a good strategy.
I wasn't "wounded," I was bilked, and the consumer fraud continues.
Speaking up about it for years has had some effect, tho so far it's
been more in warning people off than in spurring reforms.
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 19:55:55 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: www.waldorfcritics.org feedback
Dan and Diana discussed a post to the anthroposophy tomorrow list by "Mike
T", which Raul Guerreiro took to be unrepresentative of anthroposophical
discourse in general. In one important respect, at least, Guerreiro's claim
is wide of the mark. The post in question describes Rudolf Steiner as "the
greatest initiate of the modern era", echoing the standard anthroposophist
line, firmly established for decades now. All of the German and Italian
anthroposophists whose work I have quoted here over the past several months,
for example, held this view of Steiner, and it is frequently repeated in
current anthroposophical forums both online and in print media. Much of the
anthroposophical conception of "Initiates" -- something of a preoccupation
on the anthroposophy tomorrow list, as well as for the occasional
anthroposophical True Believer on this list, such as our recent
correspondent Gabriel -- comes from other sources, particularly English,
French, and North American esotericists. Some of this material is harmless
enough, but quite a bit of it is tied into the same kind of racial and
ethnic thinking that mars so much of contemporary anthroposophy. I will try
to follow up with a brief overview of some of this "Initiate" talk soon.
Peter S.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 20:13:29 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Roy Wilkinson on karma: "moral retribution"
Thanks to Diana for bringing the online version of Wilkinson's book to our
attention. It's worth noting that this edition is listed as a 1998
publication; the text appears to be identical to the print version published
in London in 1993. I agree that the chapter Diana pointed to is a very good
guide to anthroposophical thinking on karma and reincarnation; Wilkinson
describes karma as a vehicle of "moral progress" through "a succession of
incarnations" directed toward an "ultimate goal." This is the classically
theosophical/anthroposophical view of karma as spiritual evolution. Even in
Wilkinson's bland presentation, the theme is repeatedly linked to racial and
ethnic difference. His account is not substantially different from Steiner's
own; Wilkinson writes for example: "Whether a person has been good or evil,
moral or immoral, shows itself physically." And his section on "Heredity"
includes the following passage:
"When the human being wishes to incarnate, he needs a physical body and this
is prepared by the stream of inheritance. It is a model which is then
fashioned by what man brings from the spiritual worlds. The qualities of
personality which he brings are his own. He can only incarnate where there
is a more-or-less fitting vehicle for his needs and hence from the spiritual
world he will seek out an appropriate line of descent."
Wilkinson's chapter on "Evolution", meanwhile, discusses how "the most
advanced people" in a given epoch migrate to the appropriate location and
continue evolving into the next epoch, and the chapter ends with a reference
to "the most advanced race" and its divinely ordained role. Wilkinson also
recapitulates the anthroposophical account of racial dispersion at the
sinking of Atlantis in the chapter on "The Development of Human
Consciousness" (here we learn that the place where "the new civilization"
was destined to develop was Europe, and that the carriers of this new
civilization were "the Teutons, a vigorous race", the leaders of the current
evolutionary epoch). And in the book's final chapter, on "The Mission of
Christ", we read: "The mission of the Jewish people was to provide a
suitable physical vehicle for the Christ spirit to enter." (For anyone who
has the print version, this passage appears on p. 71 in volume 3. James
Hindes' 1995 book Renewing Christianity: Rudolf Steiner's Ideas in Practice
makes the same claim on p. 52. These notions have by no means fallen by the
wayside in current anthroposophical discourse.)
I have one more worthwhile and concise source to recommend from our earlier
general discussion of 'western' and 'eastern' conceptions of karma: Ronald
Neufeldt, "Karma and Rebirth in the Theosophical Movement" in Neufeldt, ed.,
Karma and Rebirth: Post Classical Developments (State University of New York
Press, 1986, pp. 233-255). This is a sympathetic overview of Blavatsky's
notion of karma. Neufeldt begins by emphasizing the fundamentally western
orientation of Blavatsky's thought, with Hindu and Buddhist vocabulary as
basically a handy vehicle. His major point is that *progress* and
*evolution* are the center of her version of karma and reincarnation. There
is no mention of race in this article.
Peter S.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 17:33:38 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: PLANS web site sessions top 1000/day
I just downloaded the February statistics for the PLANS web site. The
average number of sessions per day just topped 1000. Most of those
are search engine robots, however. Excluding sessions lasting less
than one minute, my estimated number of human visitors per day is 130.
-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 2072
-- Topica Digest --
Initiates part I
By pstaud hotmail.com
Initiates part II
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: www.waldorfcritics.org feedback
By diana.winters verizon.net
misdirected post
By diana.winters verizon.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 18:20:00 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Initiates part I
Hello critics,
Here as promised is some background information on the notion of Rudolf
Steiner as "the greatest initiate of the modern era", a firmly held belief
among anthroposophists today. While reserving a specially elevated status
for Steiner, many anthroposophists are happy to designate various other
modern esoteric authors as "initiates". They thereby grant their own dubious
spirtitual imprimatur to the deeply problematic racial and ethnic doctrines
espoused by these authors. I would like to examine two examples of this
phenomenon: the early 20th century French occultist Edouard Schure, and the
mid 20th century North American occultist Manly Hall.
Schure is the more important of the two for anthroposophists, as he was
himself a prominent anthroposophist for a time; this message will
concentrate on his work. A recent and readable scholarly study of French
occultism gives considerable attention to Schure's race doctrines: David
Allen Harvey, Beyond Enlightenment: Occultism and Politics in Modern France
(Northern Illinois University Press, 2005); see pp. 167-170 on Schure's
racist teachings; Harvey also notes that Schure was an anthroposophist (p.
170). His discussion of Schure forms the transition from a section on "Race
and Ethnicity in Esoteric Thought" (pp. 158-170) to a section on
"Anti-Semitism in Occult Thought" (pp. 170-174), the former somewhat more
perspicacious than the latter, but both generally good, if a bit too easy on
his subjects. I recommend this book for those looking for a comparative
framework for the primarily German phenomenon of anthroposophy. Schure's own
works, however, are not hard to find, and they are well worth perusing.
The original source for most of the current Initiate talk among
anthroposophists and other esotericists is Schure's book The Great Initiates
(English translation London 1913). Until the First World War, Schure and
Steiner were very close; Schure's book was translated into German by Marie
Steiner, with Rudolf Steiner contributing the Preface. The Great Initiates
is now published in English by the Anthroposophic Press and distributed by
Steinerbooks.
The very first chapter in the book (in the first section, on "The Aryan
Cycle") carries the title "The Human Races and the Origins of Religion";
here we read lots about "the Aryan race" and Atlantis and Hyperboreans and
so forth, as well as "the genius of the white race." (p. 24) Schure says
that there are four chief races, each arising separately on its own
continent. According to him, "the American Indians" are "the offspring of
Troglodytes" and "merely the remnant" of "the primitive red race" that once
peopled a lost southern continent (p. 5); "The souls of these poor laggards
are weighed down with the incurable melancholy of a dying race devoid of all
hope." (p. 7) Schure also tells us about "the degenerate negro", and offers
a remarkable explanation for the divergence between the "Semitic and Aryan
nations" after the exodus from Atlantis: "Wherever the white colonists
submitted to the black nations, accepting their rule and receiving religious
initiation from their priests, there, in all probability, appeared the
Semitic nations"; while "The Aryan civilisations, on the other hand, were
formed where the whites must have ruled over the blacks either by war or by
conquest" (p. 18).
Schure's sequel to The Great Initiates is his second major book, From Sphinx
to Christ: An Occult History (Rudolf Steiner Publications, 1970), which
today is also published by the Anthroposophic Press and distributed by
Steinerbooks. In a section on the "Development of the White Race" (pp.
68-71), Schure quotes extensively from Steiner's Cosmic Memory and
enthusiastically endorses Gobineau's seminal racist work The Inequality of
the Human Races, the founding text of modern racism, calling it "an
admirable study of the white race, compared to the yellow and black races"
(p. 68). Schure declares that "the Aryan has had the courage to seek the
Eternal through Freedom", and concludes this section in rapturous tones:
"The sunward journey with fire stolen from heaven -- is not this typical of
the Aryan race, at the dawn as at the noonday of its histroy, in its first
eastward migration as in its later return towards the west? The rising sun,
or earthly future -- the settting sun, or heavenly future; the aim of this
race shall ever be Divinity and Truth." (p. 71)
These are the claims that anthroposophists today take as evidence of
superior spiritual wisdom, and continue to promote and endorse. I will
follow this message with a second one about another celebrated Initiate,
Manly P. Hall.
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 08:14:31 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Initiates part II
Hello again critics,
I pointed out in my previous post that many of today's anthroposophists,
while reserving a special status for Rudolf Steiner as "the greatest
initiate of the modern era", are happy to designate various other modern
esoteric writers as "initiates". These anthroposophists thus give
legitimation to the racial and ethnic doctrines espoused by such writers. A
second example, one of many: In a recent post to the anthroposophy tomorrow
email list, Dottie Zold discussed the 20th century Canadian occultist author
Manly P. Hall and declared: "Hall is an Initiate." Her post can be found
here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/22227
Hall was a central figure in the mid-century esoteric scene in California,
and is perhaps best known as the author of the occult compendium The Secret
Teachings of All Ages, available today in a variety of editions. Hall was
also the publisher of an important early New Age journal, Horizon. The
premier issue of this Los Angeles journal, from August 1941, carried a
substantial article by Hall under the title "The Jew Does Not Fit In" (pp.
9-11). Here Hall spells out an esoteric perspective on Jewishness that is in
several respects nicely compatible with the perspective of Dottie Zold
herself and other latter-day anthroposophists. Just as they believe that
their own views in 2006 are enlightened and tolerant, so did Hall consider
his views in 1941 enlightened and tolerant.
Beginning from the assumption that Jewish existence is based on a "principle
of segregation", Hall declares that "Karma is breaking down" this supposedly
unique separateness of the Jews so that "one human family" can emerge. Hall
recognizes the unfortunate role that persecution of Jews has played in this
process -- keep in mind the date of the article -- but insists that this is
the Jews' fault: "It is the ego in Judaism which causes the Jew to say, "I
am a Jew," and it has been his destroyer." Summing up, Hall writes:
"I firmly believe that the karma of the Jew holds a gradual dying out of
racial persecution of Jews as a class in the degree and with the rapidity
that the Jew forgets he is a Jew and remembers that he is a human being."
(p. 11)
This stance is very similar to the one adopted by a number of
anthroposophists today: if Jews just stop being Jews, the 'problem' will be
solved. It is worthwhile, then, to see what other claims about Jews appear
in this early programmtic article by the "Initiate" Hall. The article begins
by categorizing Jews as "Asiatics" who have a fundamentally different
character from "us"; Hall pays particular attention to the supposed peculiar
business practices of "the Jew": "He does not view business the way we do;
of his Asiatic viewpoint we have no practical appreciation, little grasp."
(p. 9) Hall continues:
"Jews exist within our midst as a group of people who are essentially
Oriental. They do not look particularly Asiatic, and since they do not speak
an Oriental language or something of the kind, we do not recognize for them
a series of motivations expressing a fundamental psychological difference."
(p. 10)
These claims serve as a Hall's version of spiritual insight, and are
directly contrasted to the argument that antisemitic persecution is
responsible for the present Jewish predicament in 1941; Hall instead says
emphatically that Jews themselves are "at fault" for their plight, because
of their basic ethnic character. Here is a representative passage from the
first page of the article:
"Persecution of the Jews has been largely charged up as retribution for the
Jew's economic attitude, and many have been the rebuttal explanations that
the Jewish attitude is the outgrowth and result of his persecution in
Europe. In my belief, this has little to do with the way a Jew does
business. I believe rather that he is governed by an Oriental psychology of
living; it is important to recognize that he does not view business the way
we view business. This fundamental psychological difference is one of the
subtle problems of human life, and one not taken sufficiently into
consideration by either Jew or Gentile. For, essentially the Jew is an
Oriental, and as such he has the Oriental consciousness, Oriental
viewpoint." (p. 9)
These sentiments bear comparison with Steiner's own statements about
"Oriental consciousness", not to mention his statements about the
fundamental character of Jews. On that score, another text published in 1941
is directly relevant here: Rudolf Steiner's book The Challenge of the Times
(New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1941; originally published in German in
1921), which includes a number of antisemitic passages. The especially
pertinent chapters are number 1, "East and West from a Spiritual Point of
View" and number 5, "Specters of the Old Testament in the Nationalism of the
Present", though several others merit examination as well, e.g. "The
Mechanistic, Eugenic, and Hygienic Aspects of the Future" and "The Innate
Capacities of the Nations of the World". In a telling instance from this
list in 2001, anthroposophist Tarjei Straume posted a lengthy passage from
"Specters of the Old Testament in the Nationalism of the Present", on Jews
as representatives of Ahriman, as evidence *against* the notion that
Steiner's work contains antisemitic elements (wc list June 9, 2001).
This same Steiner book was recently recommended by another participant on
the anthroposophy tomorrow list, Joel Wendt, alongside a link to his own
essay on Native Americans as "a dying race", yet another anthroposophical
variation on karmic genocide. His post can be found here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/22796
These invocations suggest that anthroposophists are not troubled in any way
by the teachings I have just surveyed; they remain convinced of the
Initiated status of these doctrines and their authors.
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:00:52 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: www.waldorfcritics.org feedback
As long as we are commenting on the fine piece of writing (sarcasm) provided
by Mike T., I took the chance to re-read it and would like to note that it
is really *all* representative of anthroposophy today, even if the delivery
is a little foamier around the mouth than usual.
It would be interesting to know whether Raul disagrees with anything Mike T.
said, or is just embarrassed by the failure of decorum.
"You Karma is a serious business and hence be warned - each time you slang
off at the spiritual world - as yea sew, so shall ye reap."
Okay, that one's simple but I can't help pointing it out: they can tell us
we "misunderstand karma," but on that list of people who supposedly
understand it all so well, nobody corrected Mike T. on this, no one denied
that in anthroposophy, karma is, as Wilkinson says, simple moral
retribution. The only difference from biblical fundamentalism is that
anthroposophists believe the tit-for-tat, "Now take that," that is
accomplished by the workings of karma may occur over repeated earth lives,
rather than awaiting you after this life, in heaven or hell.
"The spiritual world is not interested in your petty intellect - "
The dismissal of the intellect is basic to anthroposophy.
"what matters more than anything is truth, absolute truth;"
The certainty that the writer possesses "absolute truth" - as a result of
studying Rudolf Steiner - is shared by many anthroposophists. Many
anthroposophists have made such statements here.
"not even what you think is truth - but truth. So when one has a thought -
it must be scientifically examined and contemplated until the truth of that
is known."
The pretense to "science" is also fundamental. The synonym for anthroposophy
is "spiritual science." The unscientific notion that one discovers that
something is true by contemplating it, until it is simply "known," is noted
almost daily on the anthroposophy_tomorrow list. They don't seem to notice
that this procedure doesn't stop them disputing each others' "truths"
constantly. The only way you have to resolve disputes, using a method like
this, is to constantly contest who is more spiritually advanced, who is an
"initiate" and who is not, or accuse each other of working for dark beings
like "Sorath." As I said, this sort of discussion is *daily* over there -
Mike T. is nastier than some but his views are those of many ordinary
anthroposophists.
"That is why Steiner would wait 20 years plus before he spoke of an issue -
where this was warranted."
My eye. Steiner didn't wait 20 *seconds* to speak on most topics; if someone
asked him a question, he popped out an esoteric answer. Somebody show me
somewhere, anywhere, that Steiner said "I don't know" or "It will be a few
years before I can answer that" to any question. It seems unlikely to me he
even had much time to meditate, given his output of books and lectures, and
his busy travel schedule. It is obvious he often spoke off the top of his
head. Remember, there was never time to review transcripts of anything,
never time to rewrite, the books are full of apologies and disclaimers that
he didn't have time to properly edit this or that (and no one else
apparently dared edit him, while he was alive). He was a busy and gregarious
person, not a recluse in a quiet room studying and thinking. But this image
of their guru as a reflective and contemplative person, however inaccurate,
is cherished by anthroposophists.
"His 'Occult Science and Outline' has a gestatin period of such a time span;
he had to be sure of every statement before he could give it to the world.
Such weighty matters as spiritual truth cannot be light heartedly entered
into.
Because you are so flippent with the truth, because you besmirch in a
mocking condecending shallow pitiful manner, the greates initiate of the
modern era; whilst I was contemplating your hideous remarks, I had the image
arise which is that which I first wrote of in my first post to you - an
observation. Because it is the legends of evangelical so called Christians
(fundamentalists) who will be the most ardent followers of the anti christ."
I think "legends" is supposed to be "legions." He was jumping to the
conclusion that Pete K., whom he was addressing, was a fundamentalist
Christian. Another typical confusion anthroposophists have - anyone
criticizing them must be a fundamentalist Christian. Or an atheist.
"Dugan PS [Peter Staudenmaier], Diana and yourself [Pete Karaiskos] - on
this attempted unholy crusade to destroy Arch Angel (Archai) MichaELs work"
Believe it or not, among the thicket of typos and other errors, "MichaEL"
isn't one of them. This is the esoterically correct way to write the
archangel Michael's name, and it is pronounced with 3 syllables, accent on
the third. (I don't suppose the missing apostrophe is meaningful - but the
superfluous capitals are.)
"here on earth as a precursor to the coming of the anti christ (and this is
what you are in fact doing whether you are conscious of it or not), will
when you cross the threshold have no more excuse that you did not know what
you were doing- as you have been told.
See, PK, once you are told, you have no excuse - the spiritual world will
judge accordingly. You can hide behind your mockery, your self dillusion,
your emnity and hatred towards the spiritual world;"
Another assumption shared by many anthroposophists - their critics "hate the
spiritual world." Pete K. has explained some of his spiritual views on that
list as well as elsewhere and nobody who read it could make that mistake.
(I've also been informed on that list that, whether I know it or not, I am a
Christian.)
"but you cant hide FROM the spriritual world. And whether you deny it or
not, seeds of doubt are already within your soul. Stand back man, remain
silent for a while, listen to your innermost being and contemplate; for
things are getting worse for you by the day."
That, to me, is the most telling comment. Sooner or later, they always get
around to threatening you.
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:22:46 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: misdirected post
Oops - sorry - ignore recent post that looks like it will be about karma
but doesn't make any sense. Wasn't ready to send. (More notes/vague
questions on karma, to try Peter's patience . . . now you're forewarned!)
Sorry!
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2073
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Initiates part II
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: The Club of Anthroposophists
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Initiates part II
By barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com
Re: Initiates part II
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:05:57 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Initiates part II
Thank you Peter. I'd glanced at Manly Hall before, thought "Looks like
another lunatic," but had no idea that his teachings were so repugnant.
Diana
)The premier issue of this Los Angeles journal, from August 1941, carried a
)substantial article by Hall under the title "The Jew Does Not Fit In" (pp.
(snip)
)"It is the ego in Judaism which causes the Jew to say, "I am a Jew," and it
)has been his destroyer." Summing up, Hall writes:
)"I firmly believe that the karma of the Jew holds a gradual dying out of
)racial persecution of Jews as a class in the degree and with the rapidity
)that the Jew forgets he is a Jew and remembers that he is a human being."
(p. 11)
)"Jews exist within our midst as a group of people who are essentially
)Oriental. They do not look particularly Asiatic, and since they do not
)speak an Oriental language or something of the kind, we do not recognize
)for them a series of motivations expressing a fundamental psychological
)difference."
(p. 10)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:15:15 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: The Club of Anthroposophists
What happens in the physical is a reflection of the spiritual.
Dec 2003
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Staudenmaier [mailto:pstaud hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:24 PM
To: waldorf-critics topica.com
Subject: RE: The Club of Anthroposophists
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/caaerelb1dkiGb3FC3aa/PC Powerscan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Diana,
)Yes, you've tried before to sort this out for me and it doesn't seem to
)take
):) Thanks for the book recommendations especially. If I can figure out what
)the heck I'm trying to say or ask I'll be back later . . .
)Is the biggest difference this "framework of spiritual progress" thing?
)Other versions of karma aren't tied to a sort of "we're getting better all
)the time" (at least lifetime by lifetime)? But why bother if there is no
)idea of "progress" involved? Is the south Asian version more cyclical, a
)wheel of life sort of thing? (gotta try everything once?) I recall that
)this
)sort of bounced off me without sticking the last time you tried to explain
)it to me too.
There is strong cyclical component to many South Asian varieties of karma
(and of reincarnation as well), but not all of them, and it isn't
necessarily the central aspect in any case. What the idea signifies in many
forms of Hinduism, for example, is a basic principle of causation: the
choices people make have consequences for themselves and for others. In this
sense it does often provide a kind of moral framework for human action, but
in very different ways from the versions of karma that are popular in
western societies through esoteric and New Age sources: Indian conceptions
of karma are decidedly not deterministic, for one thing, that it, they do
not represent a kind of destiny or fate; and a number of Hindu scholars and
spiritual leaders deny that merit has anything to do with karma. In sharp
contrast, western versions are centrally focused on merit and on destiny or
fate.
But I think you are right that the biggest difference is over the notion of
progress, which in the context of anthroposophy is the crucial structural
role that karma plays. For Blavatsky, Besant, Steiner, and others in this
tradition, the progress theme was borrowed from the evolutionary paradigms
of 19th century natural science, and the theosophists and anthroposophists
and ariosophists etc merged this evolutionary framework with the karma
terminology they had selectively appropriated from ostensibly Indian
sources. (A similar process lead to the myth of an "Aryan race".) To
complicate matters further, even those theosophists who did have some direct
contact with South Asian sources took a somewhat skewed view by focusing on
a fairly narrow band of caste-specific and region-specific branches of
Indian intellectual life (mostly Brahmins and mostly Bengalis and Punjabis),
and moreover by drawing on Sanskrit texts rather than the actual practices
of contemporary Hindus.
)Another quick question, did Steiner ever address these differences -
)explain
)why his particular take on karma was right, or was an improvement over the
)Asian ideas he was coopting?
That's complicated. During his breaking off from Annie Besant and mainstream
theosophy, he did have quite a bit to say in general about the superiority
of western traditions over eastern ones, much of it phrased in racial terms;
and even before that he sometimes distanced his own teachings from the
cyclical emphasis that runs through theosophical literature on karma and
reincarnation, alongside the progress strand. But Steiner's own knowledge of
what he took to be eastern conceptions appears to have come primarily (and
possibly solely) via theosophical authors, all of them European or North
American. Thus what he thought he was rejecting when he partially rejected
"Asiatic" approaches was often several steps removed from their Asian
origins. A somewhat simplified way to put it would be that theosophy first
distorted its preferred version of karma by seeing it through an orientalist
and westernizing lens, and anthroposophy then took the process a step
further by emphasizing the western elements even more emphatically and
denigrating their supposedly eastern appendages. That's how we get Steiner
by 1915 denouncing "oriental" methods as harmful to healthy soul life and so
forth.
Peter S.
Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shopping for a new car?
Pay 2-3% below invoice on a new car of your choice.
Save thousands with our free car discount finder service!
http://click.topica.com/caaerMmb1dkiGb3FC3af/Dealix
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 22:44:17 +0000
From: Barnaby McEwan (barnaby_mcewan hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Initiates part II
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
) Hall was a central figure in the mid-century esoteric scene in
) California...
Holy sychronicity!
http://mysticbourgeoisie.blogspot.com/2006/03/manly-spirituality.html
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:00:54 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Initiates part II
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
(snip)
)On that score, another text published in 1941
)is directly relevant here: Rudolf Steiner's book The Challenge of the Times
)(New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1941; originally published in German in
)1921), which includes a number of antisemitic passages. The especially
)pertinent chapters are number 1, "East and West from a Spiritual Point of
)View" and number 5, "Specters of the Old Testament in the Nationalism of
the
)Present", though several others merit examination as well, e.g. "The
)Mechanistic, Eugenic, and Hygienic Aspects of the Future" and "The Innate
)Capacities of the Nations of the World". In a telling instance from this
)list in 2001, anthroposophist Tarjei Straume posted a lengthy passage from
)"Specters of the Old Testament in the Nationalism of the Present", on Jews
)as representatives of Ahriman, as evidence *against* the notion that
)Steiner's work contains antisemitic elements (wc list June 9, 2001).
)This same Steiner book was recently recommended by another participant on
)the anthroposophy tomorrow list, Joel Wendt, alongside a link to his own
)essay on Native Americans as "a dying race", yet another anthroposophical
)variation on karmic genocide. His post can be found here:
)http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/22796
Ya but isn't Joel the guy who believes he's in the Hopi corner helping them
understand karmic necessity? He has preached such crap on this very list in
the past.
Seems his mission continues at your link (above):
"In my essay Waking the Sleeping Giant: the mission of Anthroposophy
in America, I write about this problem in more depth.
http://ipwebdev.com/hermit/wkslg.html
But in this essay, I can't say all this kind of stuff, because the
language has to speak to where people are, instead of teaching them
anthroposophy first."
Lucky for us commoners, he is able to speak to where we are. Or maybe we
will one day be blessed and Joel can teach us anthroposophy. Perhaps then we
can learn about the need for genocide. Etc.
-Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2074
-- Topica Digest --
RE: www.waldorfcritics.org feedback
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Initiates part II
By pkcompany netzero.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 14:41:29 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: www.waldorfcritics.org feedback
Actually I've been thinking about visiting my friends on AT again. They
love it when I drop by - a the thought that my mere presence on that
list gets Mike T frothing like a vente cappuccino is rather comical.
Maybe I'll find some time over the weekend...
Thanks for the memories, Diana...
Pete (My first name is properly pronounced with at least three
syllables)
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) As long as we are commenting on the fine piece of writing (sarcasm)
) provided
) by Mike T., I took the chance to re-read it and would like to note that
) it
) is really *all* representative of anthroposophy today, even if the
) delivery
) is a little foamier around the mouth than usual.
)
) It would be interesting to know whether Raul disagrees with anything
) Mike T.
) said, or is just embarrassed by the failure of decorum.
)
) "You Karma is a serious business and hence be warned - each time you
) slang
) off at the spiritual world - as yea sew, so shall ye reap."
)
) Okay, that one's simple but I can't help pointing it out: they can tell
) us
) we "misunderstand karma," but on that list of people who supposedly
) understand it all so well, nobody corrected Mike T. on this, no one
) denied
) that in anthroposophy, karma is, as Wilkinson says, simple moral
) retribution. The only difference from biblical fundamentalism is that
) anthroposophists believe the tit-for-tat, "Now take that," that is
) accomplished by the workings of karma may occur over repeated earth
) lives,
) rather than awaiting you after this life, in heaven or hell.
)
) "The spiritual world is not interested in your petty intellect - "
)
) The dismissal of the intellect is basic to anthroposophy.
)
) "what matters more than anything is truth, absolute truth;"
)
) The certainty that the writer possesses "absolute truth" - as a result
) of
) studying Rudolf Steiner - is shared by many anthroposophists. Many
) anthroposophists have made such statements here.
)
) "not even what you think is truth - but truth. So when one has a thought
) -
) it must be scientifically examined and contemplated until the truth of
) that
) is known."
)
) The pretense to "science" is also fundamental. The synonym for
) anthroposophy
) is "spiritual science." The unscientific notion that one discovers that
) something is true by contemplating it, until it is simply "known," is
) noted
) almost daily on the anthroposophy_tomorrow list. They don't seem to
) notice
) that this procedure doesn't stop them disputing each others' "truths"
) constantly. The only way you have to resolve disputes, using a method
) like
) this, is to constantly contest who is more spiritually advanced, who is
) an
) "initiate" and who is not, or accuse each other of working for dark
) beings
) like "Sorath." As I said, this sort of discussion is *daily* over there
) -
) Mike T. is nastier than some but his views are those of many ordinary
) anthroposophists.
)
) "That is why Steiner would wait 20 years plus before he spoke of an
) issue -
) where this was warranted."
)
)
)
) My eye. Steiner didn't wait 20 *seconds* to speak on most topics; if
) someone
) asked him a question, he popped out an esoteric answer. Somebody show me
) somewhere, anywhere, that Steiner said "I don't know" or "It will be a
) few
) years before I can answer that" to any question. It seems unlikely to me
) he
) even had much time to meditate, given his output of books and lectures,
) and
) his busy travel schedule. It is obvious he often spoke off the top of
) his
) head. Remember, there was never time to review transcripts of anything,
) never time to rewrite, the books are full of apologies and disclaimers
) that
) he didn't have time to properly edit this or that (and no one else
) apparently dared edit him, while he was alive). He was a busy and
) gregarious
) person, not a recluse in a quiet room studying and thinking. But this
) image
) of their guru as a reflective and contemplative person, however
) inaccurate,
) is cherished by anthroposophists.
)
) "His 'Occult Science and Outline' has a gestatin period of such a time
) span;
) he had to be sure of every statement before he could give it to the
) world.
) Such weighty matters as spiritual truth cannot be light heartedly
) entered
) into.
)
) Because you are so flippent with the truth, because you besmirch in a
) mocking condecending shallow pitiful manner, the greates initiate of the
) modern era; whilst I was contemplating your hideous remarks, I had the
) image
) arise which is that which I first wrote of in my first post to you - an
) observation. Because it is the legends of evangelical so called
) Christians
) (fundamentalists) who will be the most ardent followers of the anti
) christ."
)
) I think "legends" is supposed to be "legions." He was jumping to the
) conclusion that Pete K., whom he was addressing, was a fundamentalist
) Christian. Another typical confusion anthroposophists have - anyone
) criticizing them must be a fundamentalist Christian. Or an atheist.
)
) "Dugan PS [Peter Staudenmaier], Diana and yourself [Pete Karaiskos] - on
) this attempted unholy crusade to destroy Arch Angel (Archai) MichaELs
) work"
)
) Believe it or not, among the thicket of typos and other errors,
) "MichaEL"
) isn't one of them. This is the esoterically correct way to write the
) archangel Michael's name, and it is pronounced with 3 syllables, accent
) on
) the third. (I don't suppose the missing apostrophe is meaningful - but
) the
) superfluous capitals are.)
)
) "here on earth as a precursor to the coming of the anti christ (and this
) is
) what you are in fact doing whether you are conscious of it or not), will
) when you cross the threshold have no more excuse that you did not know
) what
) you were doing- as you have been told.
)
) See, PK, once you are told, you have no excuse - the spiritual world
) will
) judge accordingly. You can hide behind your mockery, your self
) dillusion,
) your emnity and hatred towards the spiritual world;"
)
) Another assumption shared by many anthroposophists - their critics "hate
) the
) spiritual world." Pete K. has explained some of his spiritual views on
) that
) list as well as elsewhere and nobody who read it could make that
) mistake.
) (I've also been informed on that list that, whether I know it or not, I
) am a
) Christian.)
)
) "but you cant hide FROM the spriritual world. And whether you deny it or
) not, seeds of doubt are already within your soul. Stand back man, remain
) silent for a while, listen to your innermost being and contemplate; for
) things are getting worse for you by the day."
)
)
)
) That, to me, is the most telling comment. Sooner or later, they always
) get
) around to threatening you.
)
) Diana
)
)
)
)
)
)
) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 14:42:18 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Initiates part II
LOL! I did the same thing.
Pete
Diana Winters wrote:
)
) Thank you Peter. I'd glanced at Manly Hall before, thought "Looks like
) another lunatic," but had no idea that his teachings were so repugnant.
) Diana
)
)
)
)
)
) )The premier issue of this Los Angeles journal, from August 1941, carried
) )a
) )substantial article by Hall under the title "The Jew Does Not Fit In"
) )(pp.
) (snip)
)
) )"It is the ego in Judaism which causes the Jew to say, "I am a Jew," and
) )it
) )has been his destroyer." Summing up, Hall writes:
)
) )"I firmly believe that the karma of the Jew holds a gradual dying out of
) )
) )racial persecution of Jews as a class in the degree and with the
) )rapidity
) )that the Jew forgets he is a Jew and remembers that he is a human
) )being."
) (p. 11)
)
) )"Jews exist within our midst as a group of people who are essentially
) )Oriental. They do not look particularly Asiatic, and since they do not
) )speak an Oriental language or something of the kind, we do not recognize
) )for them a series of motivations expressing a fundamental psychological
) )difference."
) (p. 10)
)
)
)
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2075
-- Topica Digest --
RE: www.waldorfcritics.org feedback
By diana.winters verizon.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 10:10:56 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: www.waldorfcritics.org feedback
Pete wrote (excuse me, EL Pete K.? - getting three syllables out of that
isn't easy) -
)my mere presence on that list gets Mike T frothing like a vente cappuccino
True, he didn't seem to like you :) On the other hand, it isn't hard to get
him frothing.
Another frother has just joined, writing the same kind of breathless,
baiting posts "Don't you know how direly it affects your karma if you
disagree with me on any anthroposophic topic?" Mike T. warmly welcomed her,
recognizing a kindred soul. Tempting to post more of the froth here, but I
suppose we've made our point.
Diana
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2076
-- Topica Digest --
Amin: Dan's annual open house Sunday
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 15:11:11 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Amin: Dan's annual open house Sunday
Just a reminder to anyone in the Bay Area (or willing to travel
there) that my annual open house is tomorrow, Sunday, noon to 10:00
PM. Food, friends, conversation, the PLANS library, nature
recordings, and a prototype of a new Dugan product shown for the
first time.
Directions: http://www.dandugan.com/Directions_to_DDSD.html
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2077
-- Topica Digest --
holocaust denial on anthroposophy tomorrow list
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 21:50:53 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: holocaust denial on anthroposophy tomorrow list
Hello critics,
in the welter of recent posts at the anthroposophy tomorrow list, scattered
among those warning against the insidious Lords of Finance and the Man
Behind the Curtain, are a series of more or less pointless speculations
about the genuinely unpleasant anthroposophist Sergei O. Prokofieff and his
various detractors. One of those posts, by Robert Mason (author of "The
Advent of Ahriman"), can be found here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/22973
Mason urges his readers to visit the website of the Lochmann Verlag, a
far-right Swiss/German anthroposophist publisher, and then recommends the
work of Russian anthroposophist Gennadij Bondarew, whose books are available
through the Lochmann Verlag.
Both Lochmann and Bondarew are holocaust deniers. Indeed the very same book
that Mason recommends has been severely criticized by German
anthroposophists for its antisemitic content and its denial of the holocaust
(Bondarew claims, among many other things, that Jews invented the gas
chambers). I have a copy of the German edition of the book (from Lochmann),
the same edition Mason recommends, and it includes dozens of marked
ellipses, passages that were removed from the German edition to avoid legal
repercussions -- it is illegal in Switzerland and Germany to deny the
holocaust -- but its message is nevertheless unmistakable.
Willy Lochmann, for his part, sees it as his duty to break down the
unfortunate taboos against questioning the reality of the holocaust. From
time to time Lochmann sends around emails to his customers and associates;
one of the more recent of these (from August 2005) is a lengthy piece about
Swiss holocaust denier Jürgen Graf, currently in Russian 'exile' in order to
evade prosecution in Switzerland.
With this background in mind, a look at Mason's post should be worthwhile
for those who think that criticism of anthroposophical antisemitism is
antiquated or exaggerated.
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2078
-- Topica Digest --
RE: holocaust denial on anthroposophy tomorrow list
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: holocaust denial on anthroposophy tomorrow list
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: holocaust denial on anthroposophy tomorrow list
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:46:23 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: holocaust denial on anthroposophy tomorrow list
Peter, do you happen to know anything about this controversy about the death
of Irina Gordienko? If I'm reading them right over there - and it isn't easy
- it sounds like Joel floated a theory, apparently not his own idea, that
she was murdered by either Prokofieff or his followers, because she was
critical of Prokofieff. (enemy of anthroposophy etcetera etcetera) (She died
in a car accident in 1999 at age 35.) Is there anything of interest there,
in either Gordienko's work or her death, or is it just another anthro soap
opera?
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:38:33 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: holocaust denial on anthroposophy tomorrow list
)Both Lochmann and Bondarew are holocaust deniers.
Wow, thanks Peter, now this is something to take in. No kidding! I was
bogged down in the question, debated heatedly there for many kilobytes, of
whether Joel Wendt spend 5 minutes or 20 minutes talking to Sergei
Prokofieff at a recent conference.
Don't hold your breath anyone there is going to take up this point. Quite
possibly none of them know, though it's hard to imagine Robert Mason doesn't
know.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:50:24 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: holocaust denial on anthroposophy tomorrow list
Hi Diana,
)Peter, do you happen to know anything about this controversy about the
)death
)of Irina Gordienko? If I'm reading them right over there - and it isn't
)easy
)- it sounds like Joel floated a theory, apparently not his own idea, that
)she was murdered by either Prokofieff or his followers, because she was
)critical of Prokofieff. (enemy of anthroposophy etcetera etcetera) (She
)died
)in a car accident in 1999 at age 35.) Is there anything of interest there,
)in either Gordienko's work or her death, or is it just another anthro soap
)opera?
For some reason Russian anthroposophists in general seem to get anglophone
anthroposophists very exercised; nothing is more sure to start a controversy
than mentioning the names Tomberg or Prokofieff. As far as I can tell, the
furor over Gordienko is primarily part of the English-speaking anthro scene
(I don't speak Russian and have no idea what those internal discussions
might be like); in German-speaking Europe, the core of the movement, it
doesn't get much attention. I don't know what Joel's position is, but there
are definitely anthroposophists who think Gordienko was murdered, and there
are also anthroposophists who insist that she disavowed her critical book on
Prokofieff before she died. Nobody has produced any evidence for either of
these claims, and both of them strike me as fanciful. Even Lochmann, the
wacky publisher, Gordienko's most fervent supporter who is generally
susceptible to conspiracy theories of all kinds, does not say that she was
murdered. (She was hit by a truck; every source I've looked at terms it an
accident.) Then again, lots of anthroposophists think she wrote the book
under the sway of evil beings or was influenced by black magic, so we can
take our pick of far-fetched speculations about the topic.
Her work itself is interesting (and full of anthroposophist fundamentalism);
the criticism she levels against Prokofieff is not just the standard fare of
anthro infighting; if some of what she says is true (I'd need to know
Russian to tell), Prokofieff has been playing fast and loose with his
textual sources -- including Tomberg's writings -- for some time. Prokofieff
is a very established figure in the anthro movement, a member of the highest
body of the Anthroposophical Society in Dornach, and he has no shortage of
both defenders and detractors. His own work is godawful (though not as
egregious as, say, Bondarew's); in English there's The Spiritual Origins of
Eastern Europe and the Future Mysteries of the Holy Grail, for example. One
thing worth keeping in mind about Gordienko is that she was on friendly
terms with Bondarew (he helped her with her critique of Prokofieff), and of
course with Lochmann, though most of her fans on anthroposophy tomorrow are
presumably unaware of this, and most likely indifferent in any case.
Peter S.
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2079
-- Topica Digest --
RE: holocaust denial on anthroposophy tomorrow list
By diana.winters verizon.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:27:36 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: holocaust denial on anthroposophy tomorrow list
Thanks for that summary. I'd only been able to get a bare-bones notion from
A_T that Prokofieff is (as depicted by his detractors) a sort of
organization man, loyal to Dornach all the way - Gordienko is critical of
Prokofieff - therefore if you are a fan of the Anthroposophical Society
Gordienko is an enemy (many on that list of course consider themselves
renegades or free spirits who won't work within institutions). I've gleaned
the details of this supposed plot against Gordienko mostly from Dottie and
her various interlocutors - she lashes out at anyone who criticizes the
society, or even suggests that not all anthroposophists need to work within
it. I don't think I've heard Dottie explain why she is personally so fond of
the Anthroposophical Society. But it's a debate that seems to cause people
to line up on either side and hurl accusations, the wilder the better.
Dottie claims that you can tell from Gordienko's picture that she is under
some kind of evil influence. In addition to the theory that she renounced
her criticisms of Prokofieff before she died, some apparently also believe
Prokofieff may have written her book himself.
Diana
)For some reason Russian anthroposophists in general seem to get anglophone
)anthroposophists very exercised; nothing is more sure to start a
)controversy than mentioning the names Tomberg or Prokofieff. As far as I
)can tell, the furor over Gordienko is primarily part of the
English-)speaking anthro scene (I don't speak Russian and have no idea what
those )internal discussions might be like); in German-speaking Europe, the
core of )the movement, it doesn't get much attention. I don't know what
Joel's )position is, but there are definitely anthroposophists who think
Gordienko )was murdered,
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2080
-- Topica Digest --
Linda Cl reports on a Waldorf in the home conference
By diana.winters verizon.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:15:32 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: Linda Cl reports on a Waldorf in the home conference
Over on Mothering.com, Linda Clemens reports back on a Waldorf home
education workshop she recently attended:
http://mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=422181
She reports happily that she is now able to debunk many "rumors" the critics
spread about Waldorf. Unfortunately she's either misunderstood or
misrepresents what she's heard from critics.
Does anyone have Linda's private address so that I can cc her? I thought I
did but can't find it.
"Rumor one-Waldorf forbids black crayons. Black crayons were right there for
sale in the set with all kinds of other colors."
There has never been a rumor that Waldorf forbids black crayons. They are
often omitted from kindergarten and sometimes from first grade classrooms.
This is not a rumor but a well-documented fact. Our school store sold the
sets complete with black crayon, too, but if you had young kids, it was
suggested you remove the black crayon. That's what the kindergarten teachers
did. Kids are "ready" for black by the time they're 6 or 7, apparently.
Before that, I was told, black damages the etheric body, because it is an
"image of the lifeless." We were also strongly discouraged from dressing
either our children or ourselves in black, for the same reason.
"Rumor two-Waldorf requires angels have blond hair."
There has never been a rumor that Waldorf requires angels have blond hair.
That Waldorf performances and stories often do feature the fair-skinned and
fair-haired as representatives of "the light," morally opposed to darkness,
is hard to miss if you're a Waldorf parent. (Well, let me amend that - it's
hard to miss if you're a Waldorf *student*. Since most Waldorf *parents* are
not in the classrooms very often, perhaps many do miss this.)
"Rumor three-Waldorf dolls are always caucasian."
There has never been a rumor that Waldorf dolls are always caucasian. I've
reported on this list before that our kindergartens had dolls of various
skin tones. There may have been other posters who reported only
caucasian-featured dolls in their schools, but I think this is becoming less
common.
Interesting to note, though, the Waldorf doll, in an advertisement, who many
days leers over the main education page at the Mothering.com forums. (I'd
post the link but she's not there every day, the ads rotate.) She is almost
unnaturally white, alabaster or perhaps albino, with flaxen golden hair, a
dot of pink in each cheek and the bluest of blue eyes. She's kind of creepy.
I always got a sad chuckle looking at that doll at the top of the page,
while the debates raged about whether Waldorf might be in some peculiar way
biased toward Aryans. I've wondered if any of the posters in the forum ever
noted this irony. I'm sure the entrepreneur - "Joy's Dolls" I think - must
make dolls with other skin colors, but she uses the (extremely) white doll
to advertise.
"Rumor four-There's no ethnic or racial diversity in Waldorf. Judging by
appearances only, the keynote speaker wasn't white. He looked to be African
American to me."
There has never been a rumor that there's no ethnic or racial diversity in
Waldorf.
But are you honestly holding up the presence of a black speaker at a
conference to tell us this education is diverse? I am embarrassed for you. I
can't imagine a better indication of the problem here.
And unless I'm misunderstanding, this was a "Waldorf in the home"
conference. There's no indication any information was provided regarding
ethnic or racial diversity in Waldorf schools.
"Rumor five-Waldorf educators are deaf and blind to any pedagogical
influence except Steiner. A second keynote speaker talked almost exclusively
complimenting four independent philosophies of education, none of them
directly influenced by or from Rudolf Steiner."
That one's at least closer to an actual Waldorf critics "rumor," though of
course you've exaggerated it because exaggerated or absolute claims are
easier to debunk. (Painless, actually, since they obviously can't be true.)
I'd say an unfortunate percentage of Waldorf educators are unreceptive to
pedagogical influences outside Steiner, or Steiner's many commentators.
(Though they're happy to quote other educators or authorities who say things
they believe Steiner "predicted," like TV is bad. It's also easy to find
authors who warn vaguely that childhood is under threat, arguing for
instance against computers in the classroom, high-stakes testing, or arguing
that kids today do too much homework or too many extracurricular activities,
and quote these people as if they supported Waldorf education.)
However, many Waldorf educators have *other* training in addition to
training at the anthroposophical teacher training centers, and they may be
very good teachers. These people are a great influence in Waldorf today.
I'd be very interested to hear what these four independent philosophies were
if Linda will share. I'll be very happy to agree if they are not Steiner
derivative.
However, Linda has often demonstrated in the past to have little direct
knowledge of the influences in Waldorf education, and has sometimes proved
not to even know who is an anthroposophic author.
We often see people referred to the "Alliance for Childhood" organization,
for instance, by people who apparently have no idea that this is an
anthroposophical initiative.
http://www.allianceforchildhood.net/index.htm
So please tell us who this speaker was and who or what non-Steiner
pedagogies he or she recommended.
"Rumor six-Waldorf educators are gravely serious all the time and don't have
senses of humor. All the speakers I saw used a lot of humor, including the
conference presenter, Rahima Baldwin Dancy who was very down-to-earth and
self-deprecatingly funny."
I guess anthro "humor" is subjective. I've attended workshops with Rahima
Baldwin Dancy and recall the atmosphere as the usual solemn and "reverent."
Perhaps she is funnier when she lectures.
"Rumor seven-in Waldorf education, all the women are required to wear these
'odd' long dresses. I only saw one woman presenter in a long dress, and even
that one didn't strike me as 'odd'."
There has never been a rumor that in Waldorf "all the women are required to
wear" anything. Teachers in the kindergartens and early grades are often
expected to wear dresses (and yes, appropriate styles and colors are quite
restricted). This has nothing to do with conference participants, i.e.,
adults interacting with adults.
(I wonder if child care was provided for conference participants. Did you
peek in that room, Linda, to see what the child care person was wearing?)
"Rumor eight-Waldorf teaches that 'the heart doesn't pump blood'. Actually,
one of the keynote speakers may have bolstered those rumors by discussing
his own conclusions about the role the heart plays in blood circulation"
LOL. Funny how easy it is to "bolster" those rumors when keynote speakers at
conferences repeat them. Your rhetorical style is as always very amusing, as
if sort of "giving this point away" will make you appear so reasonable that
your overall argument is strengthened.
"He didn't talk about how this issue should or shouldn't be taught to
children,"
What do you think, Linda? If the heart doesn't pump blood, should this be
taught to children, or not? If it is true, why not teach it to
schoolchildren?
"(my children haven't been taught the heart doesn't pump blood), but instead
more or less directed his comments to parents themselves, focusing on the
role diet would play in proper blood circulation if the 'exchange' chemistry
taking place in the capillaries, rather than pure power of pumping heart
muscle, were more responsible for generating the coursing of blood through
the body."
That's "pseudoscience, Linda, but if it impresses you, you're their target
audience.
"This question about whether the heart is really pumping blood, as opposed
to regulating and 'pulsing' the blood flow, has given some of the waldorf
critics conniption fits for years,"
I don't think there are any critics who "question" whether the heart is
"really pumping blood," Linda. This is not exactly a scientific controversy.
Maybe you figure it's like evolution, and "just a theory"?
"so I'm sure they'll froth at the mouth hearing this. However their position
has been (as I've heard it anyway) that in Waldorf, students are taught
"beings" living inside us cause the blood to circulate, which wasn't even
remotely close to the scenario I heard described in this talk."
You're confusing things that are told to very young children with things
taught in high school biology. Young children in Waldorf are certainly often
told that "beings" direct virtually everything going on around them, I heard
it every day. It's possible a kindergarten teacher might tell a child that
"beings" cause the blood to circulate - fairies make the sun come up and go
to sleep, gnomes make the bread rise and the plants grow, and there's no
reason elemental beings couldn't be responsible for various aspects of human
physiology as well, though the closest to this I can remember hearing
directly is that fairies frolic in your hair while you sleep, that's why you
need to brush the tangles out of your hair in the morning.
But I can't recall anyone reporting here that Waldorf high school students
are told that "beings" cause the blood to circulate. (Not saying this hasn't
happened, but I'm sure it hasn't been reported here often enough to rise to
the status of "rumor" or I think I'd remember it.)
It sounds to me like the talk was about dietary advice and no mention was
made of whether *students should be taught that the heart pumps blood* or
not. I hope if the speaker actually addressed this point Linda will clarify.
Diana
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2081
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Linda Cl reports on a Waldorf in the home conference
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: Solutions
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: Solutions [- typo corrections]
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: Solutions
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Solutions [- typo corrections]
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: Linda Cl reports on a Waldorf in the home conference
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: Linda Cl reports on a Waldorf in the home conference
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: Linda Cl reports on a Waldorf in the home conference
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Linda Cl reports on a Waldorf in the home conference
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Linda Cl reports on a Waldorf in the home conference
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Linda Cl reports on a Waldorf in the home conference
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Linda Cl reports on a Waldorf in the home conference
By pkcompany netzero.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 14:27:40 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: Linda Cl reports on a Waldorf in the home conference
Hi Diana,
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Over on Mothering.com, Linda Clemens reports back on a Waldorf home
) education workshop she recently attended:
)
)
)
) http://mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=422181
)
)
)
) She reports happily that she is now able to debunk many "rumors" the
) critics
) spread about Waldorf. Unfortunately she's either misunderstood or
) misrepresents what she's heard from critics.
)
)
)
) Does anyone have Linda's private address so that I can cc her? I thought
) I
) did but can't find it.
)
)
)
) "Rumor one-Waldorf forbids black crayons. Black crayons were right there
) for
) sale in the set with all kinds of other colors."
)
)
)
) There has never been a rumor that Waldorf forbids black crayons. They
) are
) often omitted from kindergarten and sometimes from first grade
) classrooms.
) This is not a rumor but a well-documented fact. Our school store sold
) the
) sets complete with black crayon, too, but if you had young kids, it was
) suggested you remove the black crayon. That's what the kindergarten
) teachers
) did. Kids are "ready" for black by the time they're 6 or 7, apparently.
) Before that, I was told, black damages the etheric body, because it is
) an
) "image of the lifeless." We were also strongly discouraged from dressing
) either our children or ourselves in black, for the same reason.
)
It's strange to exclude the colour black from activities when it is
patently unavoidable in life, eg. night sky (dark, if not black); lead
pencils; black print on a page; eyes shut - black; dark shadows; dark
rooms; black business wear/formal wear, etc.
And then there is the black portion of the Yin Yang symbol; and the
shades and line work of sketched and drawn artwork using pencils,
charcoal and similar materials which create black lines.
)
)
) "Rumor two-Waldorf requires angels have blond hair."
)
)
)
) There has never been a rumor that Waldorf requires angels have blond
) hair.
) That Waldorf performances and stories often do feature the fair-skinned
) and
) fair-haired as representatives of "the light," morally opposed to
) darkness,
) is hard to miss if you're a Waldorf parent. (Well, let me amend that -
) it's
) hard to miss if you're a Waldorf *student*. Since most Waldorf *parents*
) are
) not in the classrooms very often, perhaps many do miss this.)
)
)
) "Rumor three-Waldorf dolls are always caucasian."
)
)
)
) There has never been a rumor that Waldorf dolls are always caucasian.
) I've
) reported on this list before that our kindergartens had dolls of various
) skin tones. There may have been other posters who reported only
) caucasian-featured dolls in their schools, but I think this is becoming
) less
) common.
)
)
)
) Interesting to note, though, the Waldorf doll, in an advertisement, who
) many
) days leers over the main education page at the Mothering.com forums.
) (I'd
) post the link but she's not there every day, the ads rotate.) She is
) almost
) unnaturally white, alabaster or perhaps albino, with flaxen golden hair,
) a
) dot of pink in each cheek and the bluest of blue eyes. She's kind of
) creepy.
Is this the one? -
http://www.joyswaldorfdolls.com/images/dolls/custom/form_images/floral_dress_en.jpg
) I always got a sad chuckle looking at that doll at the top of the page,
) while the debates raged about whether Waldorf might be in some peculiar
) way
) biased toward Aryans. I've wondered if any of the posters in the forum
) ever
) noted this irony. I'm sure the entrepreneur - "Joy's Dolls" I think -
) must
) make dolls with other skin colors, but she uses the (extremely) white
) doll
) to advertise.
)
There seem to be different options and a somewhat varied doll range:
http://www.joyswaldorfdolls.com/index.htm
(snip)
) "Rumor five-Waldorf educators are deaf and blind to any pedagogical
) influence except Steiner. A second keynote speaker talked almost
) exclusively
) complimenting four independent philosophies of education, none of them
) directly influenced by or from Rudolf Steiner."
)
)
)
) That one's at least closer to an actual Waldorf critics "rumor," though
) of
) course you've exaggerated it because exaggerated or absolute claims are
) easier to debunk. (Painless, actually, since they obviously can't be
) true.)
) I'd say an unfortunate percentage of Waldorf educators are unreceptive
) to
) pedagogical influences outside Steiner, or Steiner's many commentators.
) (Though they're happy to quote other educators or authorities who say
) things
) they believe Steiner "predicted," like TV is bad. It's also easy to find
) authors who warn vaguely that childhood is under threat, arguing for
) instance against computers in the classroom, high-stakes testing, or
) arguing
) that kids today do too much homework or too many extracurricular
) activities,
) and quote these people as if they supported Waldorf education.)
)
)
)
) However, many Waldorf educators have *other* training in addition to
) training at the anthroposophical teacher training centers, and they may
) be
) very good teachers. These people are a great influence in Waldorf today.
)
)
)
)
) I'd be very interested to hear what these four independent philosophies
) were
) if Linda will share. I'll be very happy to agree if they are not Steiner
) derivative.
)
)
)
) However, Linda has often demonstrated in the past to have little direct
) knowledge of the influences in Waldorf education, and has sometimes
) proved
) not to even know who is an anthroposophic author.
)
)
)
) We often see people referred to the "Alliance for Childhood"
) organization,
) for instance, by people who apparently have no idea that this is an
) anthroposophical initiative.
)
) http://www.allianceforchildhood.net/index.htm
)
Had a look at the site and didn't find any obvious signs that it was an
anthroposophical initiative. On the "Partners" page (
http://www.allianceforchildhood.net/partners.htm ) there are eight
persons connected to Waldorf, and fifty who are from other organisations
and consist of 17 Ph.D. holders, 8 M.D.'s, and persons working in the
professional categories of doctors, educators and mental health experts.
The influence of other ideas outside of Waldorf doctrine seems
significant from this information, if indeed the "Alliance" organisation
is based on these partnerships.
Regards,
Keith
Tyranny begets tyranny.
- K Mclean
------
Our knowledge has made us cynical,
our cleverness hard and unkind.
We think too much and feel too little:
More than machinery we need humanity;
More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.
Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
- Charlie Chaplin ("The Great Dictator" [1940])
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:53:03 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: Solutions
Hi Peter,
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
)
) Hi Keith,
)
) thanks for your thoughtful post. A couple of my thoughts in reply:
)
)
) )To Waldorf critics AND Anthroposophists and Waldorf advocates on the
) )list,
) )
) )
) )So what is the solution or way to resolve the problems raised above? How
) )will a dialogue be started and maintained between anthroposphists,
) )"Waldorfists" and critical agents in opposition to these
) )philosophies/movements?
) )
) )
) )Secondly, some questions regarding how a productive dialogue can be
) )conducted between those who wish to raise issues about Waldorf, etc. and
) )those who practise anthropsophically inspired work or are otherwise
) )engaged in such an inspired community:
) )
) )
) )1. Given that criticism of beliefs nearly always invites controversy and
) )resistance to it from those who hold the beliefs, how do we make
) )criticism acceptable?
)
) [Peter:]
) That is usually up to the person whose beliefs are being criticized.
) Resistance of the sort you describe is indeed a common psychological
) phenomenon, and it isn't particularly difficult to counteract or
) overcome.
) If you mean to ask, how can critics make their critique more palatable,
) I'd
) say that's a bad idea in general. The critic's task is to make critique
) understandable and relevant, to provide grounds according to which the
) critical arguments can be assessed, not to make these arguments more
) comfortable.
)
Yes. A factual and accurate presentation of information needs to be in
some manner absorbed, understood and appreciated by the recipients of
the criticisms.
)
) )3. Is the entreaty by critics of Waldorf and/or Anthroposophy that
) )followers receptive to the issues should push the issues vigourously
) )within the movement realistic, given the past record of general
) )nonresponsiveness (and in same cases firm resistance) within Waldorf
) )and/or Anthroposophy to concerns?
)
) [Peter:]
) Perhaps not. Though reality constantly surprises us. In any event, the
) likelihood of this happening tells us nothing about its desirability.
) One
) very helpful role that critics can sometimes play is to show that
) defensive
) reactions are untenable, that they cannot be sustained under scrutiny.
)
Yes.
)
) )4. Is there an political/scientific ideological basis to the
) )contemporary 21st century debate over the nature of Anthroposophy and
) )it's influence in society? If so, what is the nature of this basis?
)
) [Peter:]
) That question doesn't have an answer, except in the vaguest terms. There
) are
) lots of bases of this sort, because lots of different people disagree
) with
) various aspects of anthroposophy for lots of different reasons. Some for
)
) religious reasons, some for philosophical reasons, some for scientific
) or
) political or pedagogical reasons, and many more besides.
)
So it would seem.
)
) )5. Is it possible that part of the problem in creating a dialogue
) )between interested parties is that the information presented as critique
) )is not clearly understandable and/or readable and/or accessible to those
) )outside of academic practise? If the ifnormation was presented in
) )another format would it engender a more enthusiastic response, reaching
) )those inclined to receive the information with an open mind?
)
) [Peter:]
) I doubt it. Most of the critiques of anthroposophy circulating today are
)
) already far outside of academic practice. In fact there are few
) academics
) who take anthroposophy seriously as a subject in the first place. Even
) those
) of us who do have an academic perspective are sometimes exceptions to
) your
) description. Take me as an example: My first articles about
) anthroposophy
) were not academic, they were written for general audiences and popular
) periodicals, and when I wrote them I was committed to staying outside of
) the
) academy myself. That hardly made them more welcome among
) anthroposophists.
)
It would seem though there is a lack of familiarity with the literature
and historical influences surrounding Steiner and his movement. Few seem
to pursue the level of reading and research which reveals this
background information. If the sources were presented in some kind of
unified manner such that it was easier for the unfamiliar reader to
follow the course of research and the ideas within, then those upon to
new perspectives may have an improved opportunity of absorbing the data.
This may not help in some cases, but as a qualified librarian I would
say that (tailored) packaging of information can aid research and guide
the knowledge appropriation process.
I'll expand on this idea in my response to Walden on this thread.
)
) )I hope that both critics and Waldorf people will respond to these
) )questions. Maybe it will help to resolve the issues at hand.
)
) [Peter:]
) I would be interested in more of your own thoughts on how critics can
) present their case in a way that might make it more likely to be
) considered
) by anthroposophists.
)
It's tricky I would say, but I think some strategies might work. Again,
I want to detail these in my response to Walden on this topic of
communication.
)
) Peter Staudenmaier
)
)
Regards,
Keith
Tyranny begets tyranny.
- K Mclean
------
Our knowledge has made us cynical,
our cleverness hard and unkind.
We think too much and feel too little:
More than machinery we need humanity;
More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.
Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
- Charlie Chaplin ("The Great Dictator" [1940])
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:30:56 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: Solutions [- typo corrections]
Hi Osho,
Oshu wrote:
)
) Dear Keith,
)
) Keith McLean wrote:
) )
) ) To Waldorf critics AND Anthroposophists and Waldorf advocates on the
) ) list,
) )
) ) (snip)
)
) ) First off:
) )
) ) I've decided there is no more point in being negative or merely
) ) argumentative in relation to Waldorf and Anthrosophical issues. I wish
) ) to start afresh in the discussion.
) )
) (snip)
) ) Secondly, some questions regarding how a productive dialogue can be
) ) conducted between those who wish to raise issues about Waldorf, etc. and
) )
) )
) ) those who practise anthropsophically inspired work or are otherwise
) ) engaged in such an inspired community:
) )
) )
) ) 1. Given that criticism of beliefs nearly always invites controversy and
) )
) )
) ) resistance to it from those who hold the beliefs, how do we make
) ) criticism acceptable?
) [Osho:]
) The criticism will stand a better chance of being acceptible if it does
) not mock the ideas of a philosophy, religion, or belief system. Though
) not the case of all participants on this list, I have found the behavior
)
) of some--on both sides of the argument--to be snide, jeering and
) downright disrespectful. Fruitful inquiry is severly hampered in such
) an atmosphere.
)
I would agree with you. It is difficult to have a discussion when there
is a sense of acrimony overpowering the discussion - at the very least,
it can be a distraction from the task at hand. From my point of view, a
dispassionate (meaning considered, objective, thoughtful) approach is a
desirable behaviour or baseline or foundation requirement for an
objective and useful discussion. This doesn't mean that emotions or
objections have no part to play, but that should be restrained for the
sake of progess and clarity in the discussion.
This entails that both parties are open to considering the point of
view, evidence and argument of the other party. So anthros and critics
must both be willing to treat other with respect, respect accorded a
fellow human being and in the spirit of ethics.
) ) 2. How do we reconcile the disppointment of many parents who intially
) ) approached Waldorf with idealistic ideas about promising alternative
) ) schooling (but subsequently were let down by their family's experience
) ) with Waldorf schools as being distinctly the opposite of these
) ) expectations) with the claimed mission of Waldorf as being an effective
) ) alternative school philosophy and option?
) [Osho:]
) No reconciliation is possible. There have been successes and failures.
)
) The people in the Waldorf movement will grow only if they learn from the
)
) failures. Those who have been wounded and failed might look to move on,
) not dwell in negativity, and contribute to the future of education in
) some way. Sitting in chat rooms and fighting with adherents might not be
)
) a good strategy.
)
Reconcilation appears impossible because we have the situation that
*future* families might become disenchanted with Waldorf and create a
problem for some Waldorf schools due to their feelings of betrayal and
otherwise shabby treatment from Waldorf. It's not the case that these
are one-of instances, but rather an ongoing process and cycle of
disappointment - it's not simply remedied by people "moving on" and
getting on with their lives. Improving education means removing
obstacles and doing away with outmoded or illogical ideas, and critics
feel that Waldorf education contains considerable problems in this
regard.
Waldorf should be open to scrutiny to ensure they are doing the best
possible for the children in their care. Examination of educational
possibilities and critical examination of and comparision with Waldorf
practices is at least part of the process in improving (or ensuring) the
quality of education and of relations with parents. It makes sense.
) )
) ) 3. Is the entreaty by critics of Waldorf and/or Anthroposophy that
) ) followers receptive to the issues should push the issues vigourously
) ) within the movement realistic, given the past record of general
) ) nonresponsiveness (and in same cases firm resistance) within Waldorf
) ) and/or Anthroposophy to concerns?
) Of course this should happen. What is revealing is that those on this
) list think that it is not. If your reality is who you meet on this
) list, then it is questionable as to whether you can form an accurate
) view of what is really happening.
) (snip)
)
) ) I hope that both critics and Waldorf people will respond to these
) ) questions. Maybe it will help to resolve the issues at hand.
) [Osho:]
) I have done my best.
)
) Oshu
Thanks for your input.
Regards,
Keith
Tyranny begets tyranny.
- K Mclean
------
Our knowledge has made us cynical,
our cleverness hard and unkind.
We think too much and feel too little:
More than machinery we need humanity;
More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.
Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
- Charlie Chaplin ("The Great Dictator" [1940])
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:29:05 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Solutions
Hi Keith,
)It would seem though there is a lack of familiarity with the literature
)and historical influences surrounding Steiner and his movement. Few seem
)to pursue the level of reading and research which reveals this
)background information.
That has been the case with most of the anthroposophists and Steiner fans
I've conversed with on this list and elsewhere. I think this fact is telling
in itself. I've mentioned before the possibility of a self-selecting dynamic
operating in the anthroposophical milieu: perhaps those who are generally
disinclined to learn about historical context, who are not drawn to do extra
reading and research, are precisely those who find anthroposophical projects
appealing.
But the more fundamental point is that the level of research and reading
required simply isn't that high. To find out basic information on Steiner's
career requires cracking open a biography, not spending weeks in an archive.
To find out what the founding secretary of the Italian Anthroposophical
Society did during the Fascist era requires checking the index of a couple
of history books, not pursuing a doctorate.
Here's one example: During my first sojourn on this list, several very
prominent anthroposophists (one of them the public relations spokesperson
for a major German Waldorf federation) angrily insisted that Steiner was
never involved in pan-German politics during his Vienna period. I pointed
out to them that they could simply read his pan-German articles in volumes
31 and 32 of the collected works (providing page numbers etc.), and further
pointed out that as these anthroposophists had themselves repeatedly cited
these very same volumes, they must have access to them. None of them took
the trouble to look up the articles in question (hundreds of pages worth),
or if they did, they never acknowledged their earlier error. This is a
striking instance of willful ignorance, and in my experience it is very
common in anthroposophical circles.
)If the sources were presented in some kind of
)unified manner such that it was easier for the unfamiliar reader to
)follow the course of research and the ideas within, then those upon to
)new perspectives may have an improved opportunity of absorbing the data.
)This may not help in some cases, but as a qualified librarian I would
)say that (tailored) packaging of information can aid research and guide
)the knowledge appropriation process.
That might be, though my examples above suggest that this is definitely not
where the problem lies. In any case, the task of the critic is not to do the
believers' work for them. Even still: when I have done exactly this --
providing lengthy and detailed lists of books and articles on, say, the
history of antisemitic thinking in Austrian and German culture -- it has had
no evident effect whatsoever on anthroposophists, even those who do have
academic training. What this indicates is that historical context is of no
interest to those who considers themselves the custodians of Steiner's
legacy, indeed that they view historical context as a hindrance to true
understanding of his teachings.
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:01:21 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: Solutions [- typo corrections]
Hi Walden,
walden wrote:
)
) Hi Keith,
)
) You wrote:
)
) )I've decided there is no more point in being negative or merely
) )argumentative in relation to Waldorf and Anthrosophical issues. I wish
) )to start afresh in the discussion.
) [Walden:]
) Fresh starts are often a good thing. But . . . one person's "negative"
) might
) be another's "positive." Example: psychologists often deal with
) "negativity"
) yet they work with "positive" intentions and goals. They also (often)
) work
) with people in denial.
)
Yeah, perspective and experience has a role.
) )So, firstly, I wish to make some points in regards to the relationship
) )between Anthroposophy and/or Waldorf and myself:
)
) )1. I was not introduced to Anthroposophy or Waldorf via a membership in
) )any organization. I was introduced to the material in the course of my
) )own personal investigation in occult subject matter, whereupon I was
) )encouraged to read the material by an occult researcher.
) [Walden:]
) Thanks for sharing your personal story. It would only seem natural to me
) that an interest in occult subject matter would (at some point) take you
) into Anthroposophy/Steiner/Waldorf. It does NOT seem natural to me that
) a
) parents' interest in an educational movement founded by a "scientist,
) artist, educator" would lead down that same path. See?
Yes. But as we know also, Steiner appropriated lots of ideas from
different areas and disciplines, so his discussions and writings
attempted to draw from the fields of science, art, and education. See we
have two strands of thinking here: the imaginative treatment of these
fields, and the technical occupational treatment. On one hand you have
Steiner attempting to create philosophy and practise which claimed an
interest in these fields and their activities, and on the other you have
those who are involved in these fields as their primary focus and
occupation. You have the alternative Steiner view, and then you have the
mainstream, specialised, compartmentalised, technical and occupational
treatments of fields of endeavour developed in certain ways over a
period of time, *in service to societal and institutional expectations
and goals*. What if scientists, artists, educators chose not to form
committees, institutes and other organisations? Would there be chaos,
would they be unable to or less effectively advance knowledge and skills
if they did not adhere to the conditions we accept as normal today?
We are brought up to accept the standards of society and its
institutions, and expect those who come after us to benefit from these
arrangements. But does it have to be just one way? How many
possibilities exist or could exist for the development of society and
the advancement of knowledge? I think we assume that our society is
basically free and free thinking - that we can operate rationally as we
now have institutions which regulate knowledge and decide what is
factual and what is reality, but everything we know and do depends to
some extent on what was created before, including the arrangements,
assumptions and conventions we accept as natural but are created by
decisions, impressions and assumptions by someone else.
So parents expect the educational system to deliver knowledge in
recognizable packages - something reliable and that conforms with
societal expectations and patterns. And if we're to make society as it
is now work, it would be necessary to have and adhere to these standards
of conformity. Science is thus is predetermined science, art is
predetermined art, and education conforms with the predetermined
standards set by it's instutional requirements. So in this light, nopne
of these fields have anything to do with the occult or its theories, and
yes parents should expect a clear division and seperation between the
occult and these fields. But let's not forget that these fields did not
arise out of the Big Bang, but rather they have been created by us and
are based on theories, assumptions, impressions, choices, and
preferences - they are created by humans in response to their world, as
is the occult field. The distinctions between fields of knowledge are
based on assumptions about reality.
A long response to your question, but this is my view as to what is at
play here.
[Walden:]
If you can find
) information about "occult subject matter" describing
) Anthroposophy/Waldorf
) at Waldorf web sites/pamphlets, feel free to share that information with
) the
) list.
)
) )2. I have by no means read the enter corpus of Steiner material, having
) )read only two or three books and a number of the lectures and articles.
) )My perception of the material is based on this reading, my own
) )perception/interpretation of occult subjects, and my discussions with
) )those interested in Anthroposophy (whether they are in critique or
) )belief, or both).
) [Walden:]
) Yes, there is more to it than a few books and online discussions. You
) might
) want to join a "study group" around a Waldorf school or go through
) Waldorf
) teacher training.
)
) )1. Given that criticism of beliefs nearly always invites controversy and
) )resistance to it from those who hold the beliefs, how do we make
) )criticism acceptable?
)
) Interesting question. I think you point to some of the important
) elements of
) this list. There are often two main streams here:
)
) a) critics criticize nondisclosure - the disingenuous, misleading
) Waldorf PR
) is simply wrong and results in confusion and pain for many people. Of
) this I
) am certain.
)
) b) critics criticize "beliefs" and this seems to be painful for many
) Anthroposophists - perhaps to the point of blocking the flow of
) communication about "a" (above).
)
I agree.
) )2. How do we reconcile the disppointment of many parents who intially
) )approached Waldorf with idealistic ideas about promising alternative
) )schooling (but subsequently were let down by their family's experience
) )with Waldorf schools as being distinctly the opposite of these
) )expectations) with the claimed mission of Waldorf as being an effective
) )alternative school philosophy and option?
)
) I think many aspects of what happens in Waldorf schools are GOOD. The
) deeper
) parts of what happens, however, are also very important for parents. How
) to
) solve this problem? Easy: The Waldorf movement simply tells the truth
) about
) the movement. Leadership listens to people in their own camp