return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
anthroposophists and holocaust denial again
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: getting down to basics
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: getting down to basics
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: getting down to basics
By robertsmason_99 yahoo.com
Re: getting down to basics
By robertsmason_99 yahoo.com
Re: getting down to basics
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
re: getting down to basics
By boyngan2 hotmail.com
Re: getting down to basics
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: the racial ladder
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Golding from another place.
By pkcompany netzero.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 08:42:25 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: anthroposophists and holocaust denial again
Hello critics,
since we've already subjected ourselves to the topic for a while now, I
thought this might be an appropriate time to point out an anthroposophist
discussion about Adolf Hitler, Rudolf Steiner, true Germanness, and related
matters that was published last year by the Adelaide Institute, an
Australian holocaust denial outfit. The full text can be found here:
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/newsletters/n244.htm
The anthroposophist contributions are in German. Among many other topics
they cover Steiner's racial theories, social threefolding, the work of the
antisemitic anthroposophist conspiracist Karl Heise, the "next German
Reich", and their own understanding attitude toward Hitler. One of their
cheif themes is the genuine Germanness of Steiner and Goethe, which they
relate in various ways to the "redeeming features" of Hitler, as the site
editor puts it. The introductory material is in English and gives a good
sense of what sort of people take an interest in anthroposophist musings
along these lines.
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 08:50:45 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: getting down to basics
Walden wrote:
)OK, I know I shouldn't but I am curious. After that 4,125 word post . . .
)was anyone else taken back a few years to a classic Monty Python sketch?
)I could *see* and *hear* Eric Idle and his rapid fire delivery
Mason's prolix ramblings reminded me of an old Matt Groening cartoon of a
bearded teacher with a crazed look in his eyes raving to his pupils "my
theory defies all reason and logic but I tell you it is TRUE!" I think it's
from School is Hell. I do feel compelled to add, however, that if there are
any anthroposophically inclined list members out there who are not, well,
intellectually disoriented and who would like to discuss Steiner's
epistemology, I'm always game. Greetings to all,
Peter S.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 11:46:34 -0500
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: getting down to basics
Walden wrote:
)OK, I know I shouldn't but I am curious. After that 4,125 word post . . .
)was anyone else taken back a few years to a classic Monty Python sketch?
)I could *see* and *hear* Eric Idle and his rapid fire delivery
Oh, God, and in the version I recall, the travel horror harangue goes on
even longer, and he's running through the studio audience being chased by
Michael Palin, and it took real talent to keep up a rant like that while
stumbling over furniture and substituting b's for c's !!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 11:37:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Robert Mason (robertsmason_99 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: getting down to basics
To Walden, who wrote:
))You asked for some quotes as examples. I
rovided them and can provide more if it helps.((
and:
))Can you explain the Steiner passages I sent to
the list - the ones where he talks about "race?"
Can you explain why you think Steiner was correct
in thinking the "American Indian race" will become
"extinct?"((
Robert writes:
I would just keep ignoring you, but I hate to
be impolite that way. I believe that I have
already answered your questions. I'm not going
to play that same game that this list has been
playing for years.
Robert M
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 11:42:27 -0800 (PST)
From: Robert Mason (robertsmason_99 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: getting down to basics
To Peter Staudenmaier, who wrote:
))Mason's prolix ramblings reminded me of an old Matt Groening
cartoon
of a bearded teacher with a crazed look in his eyes raving to
his pupils
"my theory defies all reason and logic but I tell you it is
TRUE!" I
think it's from School is Hell. I do feel compelled to add,
however, that if
there are any anthroposophically inclined list members out there
who are not,
well, intellectually disoriented and who would like to discuss
Steiner's
epistemology, I'm always game. Greetings to all,((
Robert writes:
I would take it that your offer is not addressed
to me, but just in case it is, would you please
respond to the substance of my post?
Robert M
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 11:56:33 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: getting down to basics
Walden asked Robert:
)Can you explain the Steiner passages I sent to
)the list - the ones where he talks about "race?"
)Can you explain why you think Steiner was correct
)in thinking the "American Indian race" will become
)"extinct?"
Robert responded:
) I would just keep ignoring you, but I hate to
) be impolite that way. I believe that I have
) already answered your questions.
If you believe you have answered the question, it would be a simple matter
to demonstrate when and where it happened.
Let's be very clear and specific. One by one if it is more simple. The last
question (above) is waiting for an answer.
)I'm not going to play that same game that this list has been playing for
years.
Discussion involves sharing experiences, ideas and beliefs. There is often a
need for clarification via questions and answers. Spiritually justified
genocide is not a game, Robert. That is how I see it. I would like to know
why you think Steiner was correct in thinking that the "American Indian
race" will become "extinct?"
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 20:17:44 +0000
From: jacques (boyngan2 hotmail.com)
Subject: re: getting down to basics
-----cut-----
But it has to have a driveshaft, he thinks; how else can the power get
from the engine to the rear wheels to make the car go? He is told that
the car has front-wheel drive; it doesn't need a driveshaft. But the boy
thinks: "Front-wheel drive; what's that? I have never heard of such a
thing, never seen such a thing. It's impossible; everyone knows that a
car has to have a driveshaft."
----snip-----
God bless the boy! He was right!
Those who told him that a front-wheel drive has no driveshaft were
either lying or ignorant. The driveshaft is (or more accurately,
"driveshafts are") simply not connected to the rear wheels, as they boy
would have expected (of course, this boy is a teenager from another age,
as 80% of the cars currently on the road are front-wheel drive!).
After some disillusionment, the boy would eventually see, at least
intuitively, that he had been misled. While recognizing his own
misplaced obsession, the boy will then see, but probably would be too
juvenile to articulate, that those that he had trusted in his moment of
vulnerability had, in effect, left him to the embarrassment of his own
devices. They had pushed their characterization of his obsession with
chrome as some psychological construct rather than intelligently
discussing the boy's own true insight and discomfort with an OBVIOUS
mechanical issue.
I'd say the boy will go far (a lot farther than the analogy that gave
birth to him)!
But then again, who am I?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 17:36:15 -0600
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: getting down to basics
Mason to Walden:
)I would just keep ignoring you, but I hate to
)be impolite that way. I believe that I have
)already answered your questions. I'm not going
)to play that same game that this list has been
)playing for years.
Mason to me:
)I would take it that your offer is not addressed
)to me, but just in case it is, would you please
)respond to the substance of my post?
Hmmmm... which game is it, then, that Mason is inviting us to play? If it
doesn't involve acknowledging Steiner's actual works, what does it involve?
Free association? Creative writing? Imaginary friends? Hidden powers?
I do not have compunctions about politeness toward holocaust deniers, and I
am happy to continue ignoring Mason's gibberish about "spirit beings". But
the offer to discuss anthroposophical epistemology still stands for others
who are more positively disposed toward Steiner, and on reflection, Mason's
admittedly incoherent post might perhaps make a suitable basis for beginning
the discussion (though as always I welcome direct reference to Steiner's
texts themselves).
For those concerned with politeness, the nice way to put it may be to note
that Mason's peroration on the meaning of meaning is a good example of the
internal organizational culture of the anthroposophical movement today: it
makes a limited sort of sense within its own idiosyncratic terms, while
striking everybody outside of anthroposophy as disjointed nonsense. One way
to describe a phenomenon like this is through the category of "irrational
beliefs", particularly as outlined in Alisdair MacIntyre's vintage essay
"Rationality and the Explanation of Action".
The fact that Mason's peculiar version of this approach is virtually
unintelligible does not, however, mean that the whole topic of
anthroposophical perspectives on knowledge and cognition is unworthy of
critical consideration (any more than his befuddled reference to Wilhelm
Reich, or his ill-informed analogy to driveshafts, should scare us away from
Reich's writings or from automobiles). As usual, the confusion of The
Philosophy of Freedom with Steiner's mature anthroposophical works plays an
unfortunate role here, but there are nevertheless real philosophical issues
to be encountered in Steiner's esoteric epistemology. For a previous attempt
to outline these issues here on the list, and a discussion of Steiner's
views on conceptual thought and intuition, those who were not with us four
years ago may look here:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1709605484
I like to think of that message as 'the post that Joel Wendt never replied
to', but that of course is a very large class. Last, in the unlikely event
that Mason himself is genuinely interested in a response to the 'substance'
of his uncomprehending claims, I can only recommend yesterday's theme of the
contrast between veneration and understanding:
http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720063988&sort=d&start=31045
http://lists.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1720063682&sort=d&start=31045
As with Steiner's racial doctrines, anyone who finds Steiner's epistemology
more persuasive than I do is invited to respond. Greetings to all,
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 02:32:34 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: the racial ladder
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
) Hello again critics,
)
) for anybody who has not been following the instructive discussion at
) anthroposophy tomorrow, there is a recent post very much worth reading:
)
) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/23663
)
) The post uses the same metaphor that critics of anthroposophical race
) theory
) have often used before: that Steiner's arrangement of racial groups
) forms a
) ladder from lower races to higher races, one that souls must climb up in
)
) order to progress spiritually. The anthroposophist author of the post
) (who,
) by the way, seems to be saying she is African) does not mean this as a
) critique but as a defense. This unusually candid post immediately
) received
) the hearty endorsement of Frank Smith, who can't figure out why it is
) racist. I think this is a very useful example of the general phenomenon
) so
) often faced on this list as well: even when anthroposophists manage to
) grasp
) what Steiner's racial theory actually says, they cannot recognize its
) patently racist character. Once again, so much for spiritual
) enlightenment.
)
) Peter Staudenmaier
)
)
Yes, I decided to let that one slide while picking my jaw off the floor.
You just can't buy that kind of entertainment.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 02:36:28 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Golding from another place.
Peter Farrell wrote:
)
) Over at AT someone has mentioned that William Golding taught at a
) Waldorf
) School. This appeats to be the case.
) See http://www.william-golding.co.uk/p_friends.html
) It seems like he never accepted anthroposophy.
) See you, Peter
)
)
It seems a little contradictory. It says he was a Christian Community
minister, and a "follower" of Anthroposophy, but later says he never
accepted it. Maybe he outgrew it, like some of us have.
Pete
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 2097
-- Topica Digest --
Waldorf enrollment declining in Switzerland
By dan dandugan.com
Re: getting down to basics
By robertsmason_99 yahoo.com
RE: getting down to basics
By diana.winters verizon.net
Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: "Overcoming One's Blood"
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: "Overcoming One's Blood"
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: "Overcoming One's Blood"
By kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au
RE: Waldorf enrollment declining in Switzerland
By pstaud hotmail.com
RE: "Overcoming One's Blood"
By pstaud hotmail.com
different conceptions of race and racism
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: getting down to basics
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 09:39:42 -0800
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Waldorf enrollment declining in Switzerland
According to this article (in German):
http://www.aktion-bildungsvielfalt.de/
enrollment in Swiss Waldorf schools has declined 25% since 2000 (from
8000 to 6000 students). Peter Staudenmaier says "The article reports
that Swiss Waldorf officials are very concerned about this trend, and
notes that smaller student bodies means higher fees for parents. The
Swiss Waldorfers are organizing a series of public events to raise
their profile."
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 10:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Mason (robertsmason_99 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: getting down to basics
To All:
In my first post in this thread I tried to turn
the discussion here away from futility and
toward an effort to grapple with the realities
that underlie both Anthroposophy in general and
the activity on this list. And I had tried,
perhaps clumsily, to point to the need for a
sense of the sacred.
These attempts have not met with the kind of
serious, direct response for which I had hoped.
So, apparently I am faced with a realistic
prospect only of continued futility in any
further efforts from me to engage in dialogue
on this list.
I might have some faint hope that observing
even such unpromising interchanges could be of
some benefit to some of the lurkers here. But
the lurkers are lurking; none have indicated
even off-list any serious interest in my
attempts. Perhaps some lurkers might be
interested but too shy to speak up. Maybe so;
but I am not inclined to keep spending my
limited time and energy in visible futility, on
the faint hope of some invisible profit for
someone, somehow, somewhere.
So I am unsubscribing from this list. Just in
case some lurkers are seriously interested in
pursuing this thread: I can be reached at
(robertsmason_99[at]yahoo[dot]com). I may be
slow to respond, but I would *try* to respond
to *sincere* questions and comments.
I continue to wish you all well.
Robert Mason
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 13:54:33 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: getting down to basics
Robert Mason:
)In my first post in this thread I tried to turn the discussion here away
)from futility
No, you tried to turn the discussion away from holocaust deniers, which
you're one of.
)These attempts have not met with the kind of serious, direct response for
)which I had hoped.
I'm sure it's not what you'd have hoped for, but I think we've been pretty
direct. Coincidentally however I did start a reply to your lengthy
epistemological musings the other day. It wasn't quite finished but I think
I'll go find it and polish it up. I doubt, however, that it will be what
you're hoping for, either.
)I might have some faint hope that observing even such unpromising
)interchanges could be of some benefit to some of the lurkers here.
I'm sure they have been. It is quite instructive to see that
anthroposophical holocaust denial is alive and well.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 13:56:01 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
Prolix all right, but sad to tell, I *did* read it.
)And so: what is this "something over and above"? If I try to "grasp" it,
)it is maddeningly elusive. I can't see it; I can't feel it; can't smell
)it; can't hear it; etc. I can't even see it or hear it inwardly.
I'm sorry that is painful for you. I've never understood why the difference
between symbols and reality is so endlessly fascinating to anthroposophists,
Perhaps it has to do with late reading, or poor reading, which never becomes
fully automatic and fluent? When a child learns to read, this is really a
pretty interesting experience, an "Aha" thing. It is mind expanding but also
I guess sometimes painful, perhaps for some people it is an epistemological
/ spiritual crisis. Children certainly move to a different cognitive level
in learning to read. Perhaps this is another way of stating Steiner's
concern about reading hindering spirituality.
But once a person has learned to read well, this really doesn't go on being
interesting forever. We *move on* to the content and stop marveling over the
fact that the black squiggles (or pixels) actually mean something.
)More, I really suspect (as Steiner said somewhere; I don't have the quote)
)hat many people, such as the veterans on this list, those who most
)vehemently and energetically reject Anthroposophy, really do know, deep
)down, at some level, that this thing which they fight against so
)relentlessly does speak to the deep longings of their hearts. --
I think you're absolutely right. I'm never sure why this seems to
anthroposophists such a scandalous revelation, or even controversial.
)What is really behind this fascination that you have with Anthroposophy?
)If it doesn't "speak" to you in some way, why are you so obsessed with it?
Of course it speaks to us. What is your point? (Most families who leave
Waldorf actually are bored by anthroposophy and try not to look back, but
you're correct that people who go on talking about it for years are
interested in it. It would be awfully hard for me to keep this up if the
topic weren't interesting. Reads like a truism to me, but maybe you have
some deeper insight?)
)Why doesn't it just bore you?
Anthroposophy? Boring?
)It's hardly as though Anthroposophy were attacking you and your families in
)some horrible way.
Um, um, um . . . um hello? What can I say to this? What do you think
generates the criticism of anthroposophy exactly Mr. Mason? Epistemology?
Read a bit here perhaps? The archives contain the *experiences* of the
people on this list in anthroposophical groups and/or schools.
)deep down, Anthroposophy does "move" your hearts,
Yes. Only speaking for myself, of course.
)and -- for some reason, or perhaps better said, for some *cause* -- this
)"movement" within your souls provokes fear, and then this fear manifests in
)your conscious lives as your obsessive fight against that which "moves"
you.
I don't know why you think this is unconscious. We go many rounds on this
one, we are afraid of anthroposophy or anthroposophists? I sure am, and
there's nothing unconscious about it. You are just taunting us, and the
problem with your guise of kindly wise old teacher is that we've all met
anthroposophists putting on this same show before.
Maybe we wouldn't be afraid of you if you didn't act so creepy?
)-- In down-to-earth terms, this "reaction formation" might be partially
)explained by the concepts of "bio-energetics" (or "orgonomics")
Or in even more down to earth terms, by teachers having hurt our children,
or our having witnessed children and families going through trauma at the
hands of anthroposophists. Yes, I have a "reaction formation" against that.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 18:25:36 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: "Overcoming One's Blood"
Hi Peter,
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
)
) Hi Keith, you wrote to Diana:
)
)
) )And of course a number of people do follow him in this way. But how
) )responsive they are to "Steiner was wrong" or "only human" will vary
) )greatly, and a stock critical argument or reasoning will not work for
) )many anthros. So I wonder how you would make the connections and convey
) )the ideas effectively in this regard. Like they say about writing - know
) )your audience (or try to).
)
)
) There's a difference between knowing your audience and pandering to your
)
) audience. In any public discussion, reasoning and critical argument are
) what
) all parties are obliged to provide, even when their audience is
) oblivious to
) basic norms of rational deliberation. In addition, the proper audience
) for
) many critical commentaries on anthroposophical endeavors is not
) anthroposophists but non-anthroposophists who encounter these endeavors
) and
) are curious about them.
It would seem so.
)
)
) )Well, it's just that indicating Steiner is racist will not be taken
) )universally as a matter-of-fact observation, but rather shall we say be
) )taken as a slur against him.
)
)
) That is a poor reason to stop pointing out that Steiner was in fact
) racist;
) to do so would be pandering to your audience. Some anthroposophists
) think it
) is a slur against Steiner to point out that he had an atheist phase.
) Such
) irrational responses are the responsibility of those anthroposophists,
) not
) of external analysts of anthroposophy, whose job is to provide accurate
) information about Steiner, not placate anthroposophist sensibilities.
)
Seems fair.
)
) )It's like anything where you might
) )criticise a venerated person and then his/her following become offended
) )by the criticism/s.
)
)
) Yep. In this sense, offending anthroposophists is exactly what the rest
) of
) should be doing, not what we should be avoiding, until anthroposophists
) get
) past veneration and start to view Steiner as a real person and
) historical
) figure rather than a religious icon.
)
)
) )You will have noticed how some Muslims objected
) )violently to the recent satirical cartoons regarding the prophet
) )Muhammad - he is seen by Muslims as a man of wisdom and of high moral
) )calibre.
)
)
) Yes indeed. The notion that irreverent pictorial representations of
) historical figures somehow diminishes their wisdom and moral calibre is
) entirely silly; these cartoons cannot travel back in time and have some
) sort
) of effect on the prophet himself. What they can have an effect on is
) current
) public discussion, and for that reason it does matter how critical
) claims
) are presented. In our case, it is sometimes a better idea to say
) "anthroposophy contains racist elements" than to say "Steiner was a
) racist".
) But note that this makes absolutely no difference to folks like Frank,
) Dottie, Tarjei, and numerous other anthroposophists. That circumstance
) has
) to do with their reading abilities, their capacity for reasoned
) analysis,
) and their beliefs about the world, not with our choice of words.
I think your right here too.
)
)
) )So I reckon that once someone is religiously venerated, it
) )becomes very difficult to suggest he/she is other than perfect or their
) )followers for that matter - the "critical project" is finished before it
) )is started in this case, perhaps.
)
)
) Yes, that is a very common pattern in these exchanges. Veneration is an
) insuperable obstacle to understanding; it must be removed, not merely
) diminished or qualified, before comprehension can become possible.
) Many,
) many anthroposophists are vehemently opposed to the critical project
) across
) the board, believing that veneration is the more spiritual attititude
) while
) critique is ahrimanic. This is a frequent characteristic of young
) religious
) worldviews; once they grow out of their esoteric phase and transition
) into
) exoteric forms, it becomes easier to talk about them reasonably.
Yes, they become more complex over time, more reflective and adaptive in
some manner, with beliefs examined and debated.
)
)
) )Well, I suppose if we focus on the *ideas* and *philosophy*, instead of
) )saying, while addressing anthroposophists, about how "Steiner was a
) )racist" or "a twit" or "your founder said this or that", etc. it would
) )be useful.
)
)
) A very large portion of the critical observations about anthroposophy
) explored on this list are about the ideas and philosophy, indeed those
) are
) precisely the elements that most reliably drive our anthroposophist
) interlocutors into unintelligible fury. By the way, pointing out that
) 'your
) founder said this or that' is part of the focus on the ideas and
) philosophy,
) not a diversion from it.
Yes, I would agree. There is resistance to discussion in some cases,
where ideas tend to be codified and closely confirming of doctrines.
)
)
) )Trouble is, Steiner comes into it a lot because his name is
) )simply brought up frequently - in quotes; in about how he influenced or
) )was influenced; what his attitude was, etc. Maybe this is unavoidable
) )because he tends to be the focus in anthroposophy. But really how much
) )debate is really about the words and concepts themselves, and not about
) )the politics surrounding Waldorf and Anthroposophy?
)
)
) I sometimes get the sense that you see these things as unrelated, as
) arbitrarily existing alongside one another with no mutual interaction. I
)
) think that view is ahistorical. Anthroposophical concepts profoundly
) influence the political choices that anthroposophists make in myriad
) contexts, and the political presuppositions of anthroposophists in turn
) influence how these concepts are interpreted. That's how any worldview
) works.
No, I don't dispute that. I meant politics in terms of dogmatic
resistance to open discussion - holding a position on an issue with
little or no reference to a productive dialectical process.
I think we can see resistance from members of all parties regarding the
debate and to an openness to new ideas.
)
)
) )If we look at the
) )history of Anthroposophy, names of people keep coming up: who they were,
) )what they did, and their ideas; and these people include past and
) )present followers of the movement.
) )
) )How do we get away from personalities as the subject, and focus much
) )more on ideas?
)
)
) I think this is similarly ahistorical. The personalities of
) anthroposophists
) like Sigismund von Gleich, or Scaligero or Martinoli or Schure or Uehli
) or
) Karutz or Haverbeck etc etc, are of little interest to critics of
) anthroposophical racism and play no role in evaluating the ideas they
) put
) forth. Their ideas are exactly what we already focus on, and exactly
) what
) anthroposophist desperately want to avoid.
So it would seem.
)
) It is indeed this very focus on ideas that enrages many anthroposophists
) and
) renders them incapable of responding reasonably to the arguments they
) hear
) from critics of anthroposophy's racial and ethnic doctrines. Many
) anthroposophists simply deny that any such doctrines exist, racist or
) otherwise, while others concede that they exist but neglect to acquaint
) themselves with the actual ideas contained therein (and thus remain
) convinced that there is no doctrine of superiority, for example) and
) neglect
) to acquaint themselves with the most basic historical context (and thus
) remain convinced that Steiner's critics, rather than his followers, have
)
) conflated 21st century conceptions of race with 19th century conceptions
) of
) race).
There is a fair amount of disagreement regarding definitions of "race"
among the debaters. There seems no middle ground upon which to agree on
definitions of "race" and some other concepts.
)
) All of this makes it effectively impossible in many instances to engage
) in
) meaningful dialogue with anthroposophists about the ideas in question,
) particularly Steiner's ideas about race and ethnicity and the
) elaboration of
) these ideas by subsequent generations of anthroposophists. Because most
) anthroposophists are unaware of what these ideas were, what the
) historical
) contexts were in which they arose, and what the appropriate methods are
) for
) assessing them today, critics of anthroposophical ideas on race are
) often
) obligated to provide simple remedial lessons along the lines of
) Anthroposophy 101 and Social Threefolding 101 and History 101 and Racial
)
) Concepts 101 and Public Discourse 101 and so forth. This is one reason
) why
) many of Steiner's defenders see critics as arrogant; we are sometimes
) forced
) to condescend to them in order to have any conversation at all.
Indeed.
)
) Since you have several times asked sincerely about possible solutions to
)
) dilemmas like this, I'll offer a possibility that I have raised many
) times
) before, so far without success. I invite any admirer of Steiner or
) anthroposophy who would like to explore the questions noted above to
) participate here or in another forum in a specific discussion of a
) particular Steiner text of their choosing that has something to do with
) race. I am happy to allow my interlocutor to set the parameters of the
) discussion, and I welcome the addiition of supplementary texts,
) especially
) historical studies of racial thought or of German, Austrian or Swiss
) social
) and intellectual contexts, as well as other texts by Steiner or his
) followers. If you think it proper, Keith, feel free to extend this
) invitation to anybody who might be interested.
Thank you for extending this offer, Peter. I have been thinking about an
internet based "solution" to help the discussion. It's a new discussion
elist I have created, which will serve to provide a "neutral" ground for
discussion among the debaters on anthroposophy, as well as a general
discussion list for anyone. It is located at:
http://www.phpbb88.com/investigations/index.php?mforum=investigations
It is a fresh list upon which people can bring their ideas about
anything and choose to be as specific or general as they wish in their
discussions.
I know that this may not change certain fixed ideas in the debate, but
it may provide an opportunity for a "fresh start" - a psychological and
emotional element to the situation. Just an idea, anyway.
)
)
) 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: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 18:36:43 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: "Overcoming One's Blood"
Hi Peter,
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
)
) Hi Keith,
)
) your reply to Diana yesterday brought out lots of interesting questions
) that
) are central to the difficulties non-anthroposophists so often encounter
) when
) trying to talk with anthroposophists. In a moment I will post some
) specific
) replies to a number of your points in that post, but for now I'd like to
)
) make two general observations on the theme of religious veneration and
) the
) related theme of critique and giving offense.
)
) I think you have accurately diagnosed the religious nature of
) anthroposophical attitudes toward Steiner as an object of reverence
) rather
) than an object of understanding. I usually stay out of the perennial
) debate
) over whether anthroposophy constitutes a religion, as I am happy to call
) it
) a worldview or belief system or whatever terminology anthroposophists
) prefer, but it is worth pointing out that in Germany, for example,
) historians of religion consider anthroposophy a form of religion, and
) that
) the same view has existed among American scholars of religion for
) decades.
) One instructive instance is the 1924 article by Carl Clemen,
) “Anthroposophy”, The Journal of Religion vol. 4 no. 3 (1924), pp.
) 281-292.
Interesting.
)
) The trouble is not primarily terminological, however; it is conceptual.
) Anthroposophists insist that their tradition is a science, a spiritual
) science, while nevertheless reacting viscerally to any perceived
) transgression of the properly venerating attitude toward Steiner as a
) person. I think it is this fundamentally confused self-conception that
) makes
) it so hard for anthroposophists to examine their own ideas as ideas and
) their own founder as a historical figure. This is also one reason why
) the
) notion of critique is so foreign to the anthroposophical milieu. Perhaps
) a
) good recent example is Dottie's disquisition on defamation, though it
) isn't
) entirely fair to hold her up as a representative anthroposophist. I do
) think
) she provides a revealing view, however, of the inner workings of an
) anthroposophically inclined mind.
Yes, quite possibly.
)
) Consider her recent reply to you on the anthroposophy tomorrow list
) about
) the conniving Staudenmaier approach to critique and how it gives offense
) not
) just to anthroposophists but to other objects of criticism. In her view,
)
) this means the criticism itself must be somehow suspect, rather than an
) instance of the sadly widespread inability of True Believers to
) countenance
) critique of their belief systems in a calm manner. Taking offense has
) long
) been the preferred response of those who are strongly committed to a
) specific set of ideas, instead of engaging in critical examination
) themselves.
Agreed.
)
) I don't think there is a reasonable way around this problem, in the
) absence
) of well-informed anthroposophists with the capacity for critical
) judgement
) and a willingness to put their own dearly held convictions temporarily
) in
) abeyance. Under the present conditions, non-anthroposophists who take a
) skeptical view of anthroposophical ideas are bound to make
) anthroposophists
) uncomfortable and offend their sense of veneration for Steiner. That is
) the
) price for public discussion of these ideas, one that everybody open to
) critical inquiry is willing to pay.
)
I think the self-examination and reflexation would be worth the effort
of people in the Anthroposophical movement. It could lead to advancement
and creativity.
)
) 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: Mon, 3 Apr 2006 18:57:45 +0000
From: Keith McLean (kmlightseeker yahoo.com.au)
Subject: RE: "Overcoming One's Blood"
Hi Diana,
Diana Winters wrote:
)
)
) Hi Keith. Sorry to drop this. As you saw, I think, I got in a fist fight
) ;)
) and am still tending the bruises.
A showdown at the OK Corral, perhaps? :)))
)
)
) )But how responsive they are to "Steiner was wrong" or "only human" will
) )vary greatly, and a stock critical argument or reasoning will not work
) )for
) )many anthros. So I wonder how you would make the connections and convey
) )the ideas effectively in this regard. Like they say about writing - know
) )
) )your audience (or try to).
)
)
) Yeah. I don't figure the audience here is anthroposophists, I mean, some
) anthroposophists read it of course, but I'm not trying to de-convert
) them or
) expecting a chorus of "Steiner was wrong" any time soon.
)
) I've just read Peter's reply to this and agree, I also feel the urge
) often
) to gently redirect you from "how to get anthros to agree and get
) everyone to
) get along again." Sometimes change has to come some other way. Have you
) been reading Val's posts on A_T?
Some of her posts, yes.
I'm not sure how much of this she
) understands, but her point is interesting that the schools (for
) instance)
) may not change until or unless they don't feel they must. The problem
) continues to be - consider Pete's school - that it isn't bothering them
) one
) bit if 25% of the student body leaves every year as long as it is easy
) enough to replace the discarded families through effective (but
) deceptive)
) recruiting. We aren't trying to convince anthroposophists to change out
) of
) good will, you see.
Right, I see.
)
)
) )A bit of Anthroposophy, but I think I've a natural Yin Yang style
) )outlook -
) )wanting things in balance, in harmony. And actually I also think that
) )the
) )mental issues/diseases such as bi-polar disorder, neurosis and
) )"antisocial
) )personality disorder", inferiority complex, narcissistic personality
) )disorder, etc. represent in a clear way my point about imbalances and
) )the
) )fragility of consciousness - some of these conditions are brought on by
) )human experiences and decisions, whilst others may be biologically
) )inherited or otherwise derived.
)
) I'm not sure I'm following you, how those personality disorders relate
) to
) the above ideas? IMO, the belief that your thoughts are "alive," morally
) equivalent to actions, is a very damaging set-up, and could be connected
) to
) the sort of debilitation represented by those disorders. In particular,
) to
) teach a child that their thoughts are alive is very damaging,
) practically a
) recipe for mental illness. It is terrifying to a child to believe their
) thoughts are just as real as their actions, and they are inclined toward
) magical thinking anyway, being naturally self-centered and believing
) that
) everything that happens relates to them. In simple terms, if you have a
) bad
) thought about someone, it comes true. If this could happen a certain
) person
) on the A_T list would have been swallowed by a crocodile or drowned in
) hot
) oil yesterday afternoon. If this thinking is reinforced, children end up
) believing they're being watched, judged, constantly in danger of making
) a
) damning error or being seen to have terrible flaws, living in fear of
) punishments. Or twisting this into a compulsion to treat others this
) way.
) This isn't unique to anthroposophy, of course, but is a feature of many
) authoritarian religious systems.
)
) But I'm not sure this is the sort of connection you were making or not.
)
I think obsessive thinking is damaging or otherwise problematic too. I
think a meditative state of mind, and developing meditation skills is
essential for maintaining mental health and equilibrium.
)
) )it looks like there might be some good ideas out there as to how racism
) )or
) )discrimination might be countered.
)
) A very simple first step is not to run screaming if someone points out
) racism. (Not you; anthroposophists and anthroposophy, overall.) Not to
) behave like a pack of wolves, either driving out the unwanted one (the
) questioner) or tearing him/her limb from limb. Yes, I'm talking about
) A_T
) again.
Yes, if it's made clear that the criticism is not an attack but an
observation and/or assertive request. Regardless of our civilization,
people seem to identify tribally with each other a great deal and thus
are sensitive to what can be viewed as "incursions" into their
"territory".
Sure, everyone has a responsibility for how they respond to or receive
criticism, but the way can be made smoother using diplomacy and
civility.
)
) )Well, it's just that indicating Steiner is racist will not be taken
) )universally as a matter-of-fact observation, but rather shall we say be
) )taken as a slur against him.
)
) Yup. About an hour after we had this discussion, they started on in you
) on
) A_T on this very point. Dottie urged you explicitly to do what I'm
) urging
) you to do the opposite - I believe she said "The man, Keith, not the
) material. Was he racist?" (If I've misquoted her it's all right, she's
) planning to sue several of us, apparently, or maybe she's just cursed us
) or
) something.)
)
) )It's like anything where you might criticise a venerated person and then
) )his/her following become offended by the criticism/s.
)
) Exactly.
)
) )I reckon that once someone is religiously venerated, it becomes very
) )difficult to suggest he/she is other than perfect or their followers for
) )that matter - the "critical project" is finished before it is started in
) )this case, perhaps.
)
) For them, maybe, but that's their problem.
)
)
) )I reckon we/they could talk about it too, yes.
)
) Well, it's worth a try. They still like you. See if you can get them to
) talk
) about it! (Just don't take Bradford too seriously, he calls all anthros
) other than himself dumb asses etc. anyway. It's usually just an intro.
) to a
) movie review.)
So it would seem. :)
I try to raise points every now and then on the AT elist, and with
differing amounts of success. I guess it depends if there's interest
there in the first place regarding the topic.
)
)
) I'll break this in half as it's getting long. Actually, I'll have to
) come
) back.
) Diana
)
)
)
Thanks, Diana.
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: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 17:21:56 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Waldorf enrollment declining in Switzerland
Dan wrote:
)According to this article (in German):
)
)http://www.aktion-bildungsvielfalt.de/
)
)enrollment in Swiss Waldorf schools has declined 25% since 2000 (from 8000
)to 6000 students). Peter Staudenmaier says "The article reports that Swiss
)Waldorf officials are very concerned about this trend, and notes that
)smaller student bodies means higher fees for parents. The Swiss Waldorfers
)are organizing a series of public events to raise their profile."
The article about Swiss Waldorf schools is actually here (also in German):
http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/dyn/news/zuerich/608750.html
The link that Dan gave above is the website of a German Waldorf initiative
that is trying to get increased public funding for Waldorf schools in
Germany (they say they want "at least 80% of the costs" covered by the
state).
Peter S.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 17:23:07 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: "Overcoming One's Blood"
Hi Keith,
thanks for your replies. I think you raise an important point about
differing conceptions of race, and I'll try to say more about it in a
moment. I will also try to visit your new forum. I will have to go back into
hibernation again fairly soon (I take my prelims next month, and then I'm
off to Germany for a year for research), but I'll do my best to keep up with
discussion. If you think it appropriate, feel free to post my next message
at your new forum.
Peter S.
)There is a fair amount of disagreement regarding definitions of "race"
)among the debaters. There seems no middle ground upon which to agree on
)definitions of "race" and some other concepts.
[...]
)Thank you for extending this offer, Peter. I have been thinking about an
)internet based "solution" to help the discussion. It's a new discussion
)elist I have created, which will serve to provide a "neutral" ground for
)discussion among the debaters on anthroposophy, as well as a general
)discussion list for anyone. It is located at:
)
)http://www.phpbb88.com/investigations/index.php?mforum=investigations
)
)It is a fresh list upon which people can bring their ideas about
)anything and choose to be as specific or general as they wish in their
)discussions.
)
)I know that this may not change certain fixed ideas in the debate, but
)it may provide an opportunity for a "fresh start" - a psychological and
)emotional element to the situation. Just an idea, anyway.
)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 17:44:49 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: different conceptions of race and racism
Hello critics,
Keith wrote:
)There is a fair amount of disagreement regarding definitions of "race"
)among the debaters. There seems no middle ground upon which to agree on
)definitions of "race" and some other concepts.
I think this is a good point, and one that has frequently been central to
the disagreements between admirers and critics of Steiner, anthroposophy,
and Waldorf. To my mind, there are two intertwined issues here: 1. differing
conceptions of race, and 2. differing conceptions of racism. Because these
two things are distinct, and because collapsing them into one
undifferentiated whole obscures more than it reveals, I would like to
address them separately for now.
1. The first issue is fairly common both in North America and in much of
Europe (I don't know how things are in Australia and elsewhere), and is
unavoidable for historical analysis -- different people often hold very
different views about what race is and what it means, especially when they
live in different social and historical contexts. Thus the ways in which
Rudolf Steiner, for example, used racial terminology one hundred years ago
in German-speaking Europe are generally different from typical current
usages in popular discourse, in sociology, in anthropology, in biology, and
so forth.
Anthroposophists sometimes deduce from this basic circumstance that readers
today cannot understand what Steiner meant when he talked about race. This
claim makes no sense from a historian's perspective, or indeed from the
perspective of anybody interested in comprehending historical phenomena.
When confronted with varying usage patterns, the proper response is not to
throw up one's hands and pronounce the whole endeavor futile, but to find
out what standard usages were in the time and place in question, and
particularly within the specific social and intellectual environment. This
means doing one's best to educate oneself about the historical context and,
when possible, about the concrete ideological setting within which past
figures thought and spoke and wrote.
A lot of work has already been done along these lines, and interested
readers have many options to choose from when trying to find out more about
the topic. There are dozens of worthwhile books and articles in English
alone, some of them available on the web. I will give an abridged list at
the end of this post. For those who don't have sufficient time or resources
to spend going through this literature, a good general rule to keep in mind
is that the meaning of racial terminology has always been unsteady and
constantly shifting, and it is rare for two people (even living in the same
place at the same time) to have the exact same thing in mind when they talk
about racial concepts.
All of this is related to but distinct from question 2: differing
conceptions of racism. In order to determine whether a given idea is racist,
it is not necessary to achieve complete agreement on the meaning of specific
racial terms. In many cases, the semantic overlap will be quite slim,
without making it particularly difficult to assess whether racism is
involved. One prime example is the work of Arthur de Gobineau, author of the
seminal work of 19th century racism, Essay on the Inequality of the Human
Races. What Gobineau meant by race is strikingly different from what a
geneticist or demographer or physical anthropologist would understand by the
term today, not to mention social theorists and political analysts and so
forth. Gobineau is nevertheless quite rightly considered the 'father of
racist ideology'.
A workable definition of racist belief might run more or less along these
lines: a way of thinking that sorts human groups into racial categories,
accords essential meaning to these categories, delineates specific
differences between them, associates these differences with significant
cultural, spiritual, or intellectual traits, and ranks the resulting
constellation of categories in some hierarchical order of higher and lower.
Note that these criteria do not depend on one specific conception of what
race is. As with the literature on conceptions of race, a lot of work has
been done to try to untangle and make sense out of the various strands of
racist thinking that have developed over the last several centuries, and
some familiarity with this history is extremely helpful in assessing
Steiner's racial doctrines. I will list a number of these works below as
well.
I encourage others to share their thoughts on both questions at stake here.
Peter Staudenmaier
Useful works on conceptions of race:
Nancy Stepan, The Idea of Race in Science: Great Britain 1800-1960
Sandra Harding, ed., The “Racial” Economy of Science, Bloomington 1993
Robert Bernasconi and Tommy Lee Lott, eds., The Idea of Race, Indianapolis
2000
Stephen Jay Gould, The Mismeasure of Man, New York 1996
Ivan Hannaford, Race: The History of an Idea in the West, Baltimore 1996
Hannah Augstein, Race: The Origins of an Idea 1760-1850, Bristol 1996
Eric Voegelin, The History of the Race Idea: From Ray to Carus, St. Louis
1998
Joseph Graves, The Emperor’s New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the
Millennium, New Brunswick 2001
Waltraud Ernst and Bernard Harris, eds., Race, Science and Medicine,
1700-1960, New York 1999
Nicholas Hudson, “From “Nation” to “Race”: The Origin of Racial
Classification in Eighteenth-Century Thought” Eighteenth-Century Studies 29
(1996) 247-264
Margaret Mead and Theodosius Dobzhansky et al., eds., Science and the
Concept of Race, New York 1968
Ashley Montagu, ed., The Concept of Race, New York 1964
Jonathan Marks, “Science and Race”, American Behavioral Scientist 40 (1996)
Jonathan Marks, Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race, and History, New York 1995
LT Reynolds and L Lieberman, eds., Race and Other Miscalculations,
Misconceptions and Mismeasures: Papers in Honor of Ashley Montagu, 1996
Audrey Smedley, Race in North America: Origin and Evolution of a Worldview,
Boulder 1999
Alan Goodman, “Six Wrongs of Racial Science” in Curtis Stokes, Theresa
Melendez and Genice Rhodes-Reed, eds., Race in 21st Century America, Lansing
2001
Vasant Kaiwar and Sucheta Mazumdar, eds., Antinomies of Modernity: Essays on
Race, Orient, Nation, Durham 2003
Ian Haney Lopez, White By Law: The Legal Construction of Race, New York 1996
Alan Templeton, “Human Races in the Context of Recent Human Evolution: A
Molecular Genetic Perspective” in Alan Goodman, Deborah Heath, and Susan
Lindee, eds., Genetic Nature / Culture: Anthropology and Science Beyond the
Two-Culture Divide, Berkeley 2003
Troy Duster, “Buried Alive: The Concept of Race in Science” in Goodman,
Heath, and Lindee, Genetic Nature / Culture
William Provine, “Geneticists and the Biology of Race, 1900-1924” in Rama
Singh and Marcy Uyenoyama, eds., The Evolution of Population Biology,
Cambridge 2004
Michael Bamshad, Stephen Wooding, Benjamin A. Salisbury & J. Claiborne
Stephens, "Deconstructing the Relationship Between Genetics and Race",
Nature Reviews Genetics 5, 598-609 (2004) August 2004 Vol 5 No 8.
Alain Corcos, The Myth of Human Races, East Lansing 1997
Troy Duster, Backdoor to Eugenics, New York 2003
Franz Boas, Race, Language and Culture
George Stocking, ed., Bones, Bodies, Behavior, Madison 1988
H. Glenn Penny and Matti Bunzl, eds., Worldly Provincialism: German
Anthropology in the Age of Empire, Ann Arbor 2003
Paul Weindling, Health, Race and German Politics 1870-1945, Cambridge 1989
Michael Banton, The Idea of Race, London 1977
Ted Allen, The Invention of the White Race, two volumes, London 1994 and
1997
Ruth Benedict, Race: Science and Politics, New York 1940
Ashley Montagu, Race, Science, and Humanity, Princeton 1963
Jacques Barzun, Race: A Study in Superstition, New York 1965 (originally
1937)
Marek Kohn, The Race Gallery: The Return of Racial Science, London 1995
Christine Bolt, Victorian Attitudes to Race, London 1971
Thomas Gossett, Race: The History of an Idea, New York 1965
Useful works on the history of racist thought:
Neil Macmaster, Racism in Europe 1870-2000, London 2001
George Mosse, Toward the Final Solution: A History of European Racism, New
York 1985
George Fredrickson, The Comparative Imagination: On the History of Racism,
Nationalism, and Social Movements, Berkeley 1997
Leon Poliakov, The Aryan Myth, New York 1974
Maurice Olender, The Languages of Paradise: Race, Religion, and Philology in
the Nineteenth Century, Cambridge 1992
Seymour Drescher, “The Ending of the Slave Trade and the Evolution of
European Scientific Racism” Social Science History 19 (1990) 415-450
Howard Winant, The World is a Ghetto: Race and Democracy since World War II,
New York 2001
Stephen Steinberg, Turning Back: The Retreat from Racial Justice in American
Thought and Policy, Boston 2001
Paul Gilroy, Against Race: Imagining Political Culture Beyond the Color
Line, Cambridge 2000
Jean Finot, Race Prejudice, London and New York 1906
Jean Finot, The Death-Agony of the “Science” of Race, London 1911
Joseph-Antenor Firmin, The Equality of the Human Races, Chicago 2000
(originally published in French in Paris in 1885)
William Babington, Fallacies of Race Theories as Applied to National
Characteristics, London and New York 1895
Friedrich Hertz, Race and Civilization, London and New York 1928 (originally
published in German in Vienna in 1904)
W.E.B. DuBois, The Souls of Black Folks, Chicago 1903
C.V. Roman, American Civilization and the Negro, Philadelphia 1916
Ignaz Zollschan, Racialism Against Civilisation, London 1942 (earlier
version published in German in Vienna in 1925)
John Haller, “The Species Problem: Nineteenth-Century Concepts of Racial
Inferiority in the Origin of Man Controversy” American Anthropologist 72
(1970) 1319-1329
Stefan Arvidsson, “Aryan Mythology As Science and Ideology”, Journal of the
American Academy of Religion, vol. 67 no. 2 (1999), 327-354.
Trautmann, The Aryan Debate (Oxford 2005)
Aaron Gillette, Racial Theories in Fascist Italy, New York 2002
Patrick Brantlinger, Dark Vanishings: Discourse on the Extinction of
Primitive Races 1800-1930, Ithaca 2003
Mike Hawkins, Social Darwinism in European and American Thought 1860-1945,
Cambridge 1997
bell hooks, “Critical Interrogation: Talking Race, Resisting Racism” in
hooks, Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics, Boston 1990
Oliver Cox, Caste, Class, and Race, New York 1948
Robert Bernasconi and Sybil Cook, eds., Race and Racism in Continental
Philosophy, Bloomington 2003
Sven Lindqvist, The Skull Measurer's Mistake: And Other Portraits of Men and
Women Who Spoke Out Against Racism, New York 1997
John Haller, Outcasts from Evolution: Scientific Attitudes of Racial
Inferiority 1859-1900, New York 1971
Nicholas Hudson, “‘Hottentots’ and the evolution of European racism” Journal
of European Studies vol 34 # 4 (December 2004)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2006 23:41:33 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: getting down to basics
Robert wrote:
) In my first post in this thread I tried to turn
) the discussion here away from futility and
) toward an effort to grapple with the realities
) that underlie both Anthroposophy in general and
) the activity on this list.
The "realities" according to Robert. Your versions of those "realities" seem
to differ from those of your fellow Anthroposophists.
And you wonder why people on this list might disagree with them, as well?
Good stuff for a discussion. You might consider such an approach.
)And I had tried, perhaps clumsily, to point to the need for a
) sense of the sacred.
The archives show that you questioned the holocaust and then would not
comment on racist passages from Rudolf Steiner.
What's this about a "sense of the sacred?"
) These attempts have not met with the kind of
) serious, direct response for which I had hoped.
) So, apparently I am faced with a realistic
) prospect only of continued futility in any
) further efforts from me to engage in dialogue
) on this list.
What attempts? Perhaps you were here to seek converts as opposed to
discussing Anthroposophy.
) I might have some faint hope that observing
) even such unpromising interchanges could be of
) some benefit to some of the lurkers here. But
) the lurkers are lurking; none have indicated
) even off-list any serious interest in my
) attempts. Perhaps some lurkers might be
) interested but too shy to speak up.
Or maybe . . . never mind.
)Maybe so;
) but I am not inclined to keep spending my
) limited time and energy in visible futility, on
) the faint hope of some invisible profit for
) someone, somehow, somewhere.
Seems your ego is still intact. All is not lost.
) So I am unsubscribing from this list.
Oh well.
)Just in
) case some lurkers are seriously interested in
) pursuing this thread: I can be reached at
) (robertsmason_99[at]yahoo[dot]com). I may be
) slow to respond, but I would *try* to respond
) to *sincere* questions and comments.
I already asked sincere questions and you refused to deal with them. Or does
"sincere" only mean
in accordance with what you consider to be your "reality?"
) I continue to wish you all well.
Thanks. You too. Try the Cultic Studies site: http://www.csj.org/
-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 2098
-- Topica Digest --
RE: different conceptions of race and racism
By pstaud hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 12:12:13 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: different conceptions of race and racism
Hello again critics,
yesterday I tried to emphasize taking seriously the specific historical and
intellectual contexts within which Steiner's racial doctrines emerged, but I
neglected to offer many reading suggestions along those particular lines.
Below are a number of examinations of theosophical race thinking, including
several that explore this tradition in a German or Austrian setting. I'll
also include a few more general works on related themes. A number of these
are chapter-length or article-length and may be more useful than full-length
books. As always I welcome additional recommendations.
Peter S.
1. On theosophical race thinking:
Gauri Viswanathan, “Conversion, Theosophy, and Race Theory”, chapter six in
Viswanathan, Outside the Fold: Conversion, Modernity, and Belief (Princeton
1998), pp. 177-207.
Carla Risseuw, “Thinking Culture Through Counter-culture: The Case of
Theosophists in India and Ceylon and their Ideas on Race and Hierarchy
(1875-1947)” in Antony Copley, ed., Gurus and Their Followers: New Religious
Reform Movements in Colonial India (Oxford 2000)
George Mosse, “The Occult Origins of National Socialism” in Mosse, The
Fascist Revolution (New York 1999)
Jeffrey Goldstein, “On Racism and Anti-Semitism in Occultism and Nazism” Yad
Vashem Studies 13 (1979)
Jackson Spielvogel and David Redles, “Hitler’s Racial Ideology: Content and
Occult Sources” Simon Wiesenthal Center Annual vol. 3 (1986)
Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, The Occult Roots of Nazism: The Ariosophists of
Austria and Germany 1890-1935 (New York 1992)
2. Further worthwhile studies on the occult milieu:
Herman de Tollenaere, The Politics of Divine Wisdom: Theosophy and Labour,
National, and Women’s Movements in Indonesia and South Asia, 1875-1947
(Nijmegen 1996)
Corinna Treitel, A Science for the Soul: Occultism and the Genesis of the
German Modern (Baltimore 2004).
Wouter Hanegraaff, New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the
Mirror of Secular Thought (Leiden 1996)
Jeffrey Kaplan, “The Postwar Paths of Occult National Socialism” in Jeffrey
Kaplan and Helene Lööw, The Cultic Milieu: Oppositional Subcultures in an
Age of Globalization (Lanham, 2002).
Alex Owen, The Place of Enchantment: British Occultism and the Culture of
the Modern (Chicago, 2004)
David Allen Harvey, Beyond Enlightenment: Occultism and Politics in Modern
France (DeKalb, 2005)
Olav Hammer, Claiming Knowledge: Strategies of Epistemology from Theosophy
to the New Age (Leiden, 2001)
Joscelyn Godwin, Arktos: The polar myth in science, symbolism, and Nazi
survival (London, 1993)
James Webb, The Occult Establishment (Chicago 1976)
Bernice Rosenthal, ed., The Occult in Russian and Soviet Culture (Ithaca,
1997)
Willa Silverman, “Anti-Semitism and Occultism in fin-de-siècle France” in
Barbara Cooper and Mary Donaldson-Evans, eds., Modernity and Revolution in
Late Nineteenth-Century France (Newark, 1992), pp. 155-163.
Susan Gillman, Blood Talk: American Race Melodrama and the Culture of the
Occult (Chicago, 2003)
Goodrick-Clarke, Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism and the Politics of
Identity (New York, 2002).
3. Related fields and the broader contexts of Steiner's work:
George Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the
Third Reich (New York, 1964)
George Kren and Rodler Morris, "Race and Spirituality: Arthur Dinter's
Theosophical Antisemitism", Holocaust and Genocide Studies vol. 6 no. 3
(1991).
Mattias Gardell, Gods of the Blood: The Pagan Revival and White Separatism
(Durham, 2003)
Mikael Rothstein, ed., New Age Religion and Globalization (Aarhus, 2001)
Robert Ellwood, The Politics of Myth: A Study of C. G. Jung, Mircea Eliade,
and Joseph Campbell (Albany 1999).
Christine King, The Nazi State and the New Religions (New York, 1982).
Wouter Hanegraaff, “Forbidden Knowledge: Anti-Esoteric Polemics and Academic
Research”, Aries vol. 5 no. 2 (2005), pp. 225-254.
Anne Harrington, Reenchanted Science: Holism in German Culture from Wilhelm
II to Hitler (Princeton, 1996).
George Stocking, Victorian Anthropology (New York, 1987)
Jonathan Hess, Germans, Jews and the Claims of Modernity (New Haven 2002)
Daniel Gasman, The Scientific Origins of National Socialism: Social
Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the German Monist League (New Brunswick 2004)
Sumathi Ramaswamy, The Lost Land of Lemuria: Fabulous Geographies,
Catastrophic Histories (Berkeley 2004)
Mark Cocker, Rivers of Blood, Rivers of Gold: Europe's Conquest of
Indigenous Peoples (New York 1998)
Keith Nelson, “The ‘Black Horror on the Rhine’: Race as a Factor in
Post-World War I Diplomacy” Journal of Modern History vol. 42 # 4, pp.
606-627.
Jost Hermand, Old Dreams of a New Reich: Volkish Utopias and National
Socialism (Bloomington 1992)
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2099
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
By robertsmason_99 yahoo.com
RE: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
By pkcompany netzero.net
RE: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
By feetapparel hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 10:44:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Mason (robertsmason_99 yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
To Diana Winters:
Robert writes:
I was about to unsubscribe, but I took a look
at the list to make sure that my last post had
been put up. Then I saw your replies. And
this second one actually is a direct response
to the substance (or at least some of it) of my
first post in the thread. So, I decided to
stay subscribed for now, and I will try to
answer your comments, while puzzling over them
for two days.
Robert had written:
)){And so: what is this "something over and
above"? If I try to "grasp" it, it is
maddeningly elusive. I can't see it; I can't
feel it; can't smell it; can't hear it; etc. I
can't even see it or hear it inwardly.}((
Diana Winters wrote:
))I'm sorry that is painful for you. I've never
understood why the difference between symbols
and reality is so endlessly fascinating to
anthroposophists,((
Robert writes now:
*Painful* isn't quite the right word; perhaps
*frustrating*, *amazing*, and *wonderful*, all
together would be closer. I don't understand
exactly what you mean by *the difference
between symbols and reality*, and I don't speak
for "anthroposophists" in general -- but my
fascination is a component of my participation
in the basic, human drive to *understand*
ourselves and the world in which we live, to
*grasp reality*.
Diana Winters wrote:
))Perhaps it has to do with late reading, or
poor reading, which never becomes fully
automatic and fluent? When a child learns to
read, this is really a pretty interesting
experience, an "Aha" thing. It is mind
expanding but also I guess sometimes painful,
perhaps for some people it is an
epistemological / spiritual crisis. Children
certainly move to a different cognitive level
in learning to read. Perhaps this is another
way of stating Steiner's concern about reading
hindering spirituality.((
Robert writes:
I'm guessing that you think that I must have
been educated according to the Waldorf
principle of delaying the teaching of reading
until "late", by the current standards. Or
something like that; am I close? -- Well,
actually, I learned to read relatively early by
current standards. I can remember picking
words out of comic books around the age of
four. When I did get into (public) school, I
was bored by the elementary instruction in
reading, which I already knew how to do. So,
if early reading hinders spirituality, I was
well-hindered long ago. And I suffered through
public schools until I burned out, or spaced
out; never got close to a Waldolf school;
didn't even know such a thing existed. So I've
had hindrances piled upon hindrances. When I
think back on all the crap I learned in high
school, it's a wonder I can think at all . . .
. Maybe I was saved, even a little, because I
was daydreaming, skipping homework, and
pursuing my own interests when I could?
The point, or one of the points, of my "prolix"
prose was to make noticeable something that is
usually all-too "automatic". The less
"automatic" we are, the more human we are --
the less we are "automatons".
Diana Winters wrote:
))But once a person has learned to read well,
this really doesn't go on being interesting
forever. We *move on* to the content and stop
marveling over the fact that the black
squiggles (or pixels) actually mean
something.((
Robert writes:
Aristotle said that philosophy begins in
wonder. Civilization and culture have moved
forward (even as much as they have) only
because (to a large degree) some people have
found the commonplace to be "interesting",
because they have "marveled" over it. I was
trying to evoke some philosophical wonder over
the commonplace fact that the squiggles and
pixels and sound *can* mean something. This
fact really is amazing, and meanings really are
"strange" and marvelous things. -- Can you get
in touch with your inner philosopher?
Robert had written:
)){More, I really suspect (as Steiner said
somewhere; I don't have the quote) [t]hat many
people, such as the veterans on this list,
those who most vehemently and energetically
reject Anthroposophy, really do know, deep
down, at some level, that this thing which they
fight against so relentlessly does speak to the
deep longings of their hearts. --}((
Diana Winters wrote:
))I think you're absolutely right. I'm never
sure why this seems to anthroposophists such a
scandalous revelation, or even controversial.((
Robert writes now:
I have to admit that *scandalous* is almost the
right word for the way your response strikes
me. (No, not really the right word:
*amazing*? *puzzling*? *disheartening*?) The
question that immediately leaps to mind: why
would you want to fight against something which
you *consciously* know speaks to the deep
longings of your heart? I have to suspect that
you can't really mean what you seem to be
saying. There must be some miscommunication
here; the words can't mean the same to you that
they mean to me????
Robert had written:
)){What is really behind this fascination that
you have with Anthroposophy? If it doesn't
"speak" to you in some way, why are you so
obsessed with it?}((
Diana Winters wrote:
))Of course it speaks to us. What is your
point? (Most families who leave Waldorf
actually are bored by anthroposophy and try not
to look back, but you're correct that people
who go on talking about it for years are
interested in it. It would be awfully hard for
me to keep this up if the topic weren't
interesting. Reads like a truism to me, but
maybe you have some deeper insight?)((
Robert writes now:
But *why* are you interested? Why don't you
regard Anthros just as befuddled cranks? Why
do you obsess about some flat-earth society? --
You *seem* to be aware that Anthroposophy does
"speak to the deep longings of your heart",
but, frankly, this professed awareness make no
sense to me in light of the fact that you fight
so relentlessly against Anthroposophy. Why
would you *deliberately* try to deny the deep
longings of your heart? I'm just
flabbergasted.
Robert had written:
)){Why doesn't it just bore you?}((
Diana Winters wrote:
))Anthroposophy? Boring?((
Robert writes now:
Now I have to suspect that you are being
ironic. I might like to believe that you have
been joking with me all along, but . . . No, I
can't quite believe that . . . .
Robert had written:
)){It's hardly as though Anthroposophy were
attacking you and your families in some
horrible way.}((
Diana Winters wrote:
))Um, um, um . . . um hello? What can I say to
this? What do you think generates the criticism
of anthroposophy exactly Mr. Mason?
Epistemology? Read a bit here perhaps? The
archives contain the *experiences* of the
people on this list in anthroposophical groups
and/or schools.((
Robert writes now:
I have already given a good-sized hint as to
what I *think* generates the criticism.
Whatever bumps and bruises you may have
suffered in groups or schools could not explain
this relentless campaign against Anthroposophy
itself. There are plenty of Anthros who have
become dissatisfied and left this or that
Anthro organization, but they don't (always)
turn against Anthroposophy itself. (You might
say that I am one such Anthro-at-large, in a
way.)
I have scanned through this list sometimes and
looked through some of the archives when they
turned up in a search, but I haven't spent much
time on all the excruciating details, and I
don't intend to. I have never even been close
to a Waldorf school, and there are plenty of
Anthros who know far, far more about Waldorf
education than I do. I will leave the defense
of Waldorf and the discussion of the minutiae
to them; some of them have been at it for
years, as they have taken that load upon
themselves. -- I think it should be obvious
that no human institution is perfect; Anthros
are human beings and human beings have human
failings. But from what I know of the
educational methodology and the dedication of
Waldorf people in general, it seems very
unlikely to me that the failings, whatever they
may be, in some Waldorf schools could hardly
even begin to compare with the horrors of the
public schools, in general, especially in the
USA. Just looking at *one* of those horrors, I
would guess that the forced doping of kids with
Ritalin and/or Prozac in public schools does
more harm in one day than all the human errors
in all the (few) Waldorf schools in the USA
have ever done.
The public schools in the US are an ongoing,
huge catastrophe. Everyone who is even semi-
conscious knows this fact, especially the elite
who create the system that forces most children
into the public schools and who send their own
children to private schools. And a growing
number of parents who can't afford private
schools are so desperate to get their children
out of the public schools that they try to
"home school" their children on the kitchen
table. So, along comes a tiny private school
movement that is based on methods that might
give children a fighting chance of developing
their human potential without being maimed in
the process -- and you spend enormous energy
fighting against that tiny movement, and not
only that, but fighting against the world-view
behind those beneficial methods. How much time
and energy do you spend fighting against
Ritalin or the other crimes of public
education? And how much time and energy do you
spend fighting against the other real threats
to you and your children, threats such as the
New World Order which is feverishly working to
turn you into a drugged cyber-zombie slave in
an inhuman global tyranny, if it will let you
live at all?
No, I don't believe that whatever human
mistakes might be made in Anthro groups or
schools generate all the criticism here. The
"punishment" is so far out of proportion to the
"crime", while other very real crimes go
unprosecuted and unpunished. -- All that
"energy" that "generates" comes from somewhere
else.
Robert had written:
)){deep down, Anthroposophy does "move" your
hearts,}((
Diana Winters wrote:
))Yes. Only speaking for myself, of course.((
Robert writes now:
There it is again: So why would you even want
to fight against it? This makes no sense at
all to me.
Robert had written:
)){and -- for some reason, or perhaps better
said, for some *cause* -- this "movement"
within your souls provokes fear, and then this
fear manifests in your conscious lives as your
obsessive fight against that which "moves"
you.}((
Diana Winters wrote:
))I don't know why you think this is
unconscious. We go many rounds on this one, we
are afraid of anthroposophy or
anthroposophists? I sure am, and there's
nothing unconscious about it.((
Robert writes now:
Once again: I would assume that you would not
fight against that which you *consciously* know
to be healthy for you.
Diana Winters wrote:
))You are just taunting us, and the problem
with your guise of kindly wise old teacher is
that we've all met anthroposophists putting on
this same show before.
))Maybe we wouldn't be afraid of you if you
didn't act so creepy?((
Robert writes now:
No, I am surely not taunting you, and I am not
putting on a show. You misjudge me, as I have
to suspect that you misjudged the people you
bumped up against in the Waldorf school. I
have to wonder about the source of your evident
cynicism, and, frankly, I have to suspect that
this source is, as it is or your fear, more
internal than external.
Robert had written:
)){-- In down-to-earth terms, this "reaction
formation" might be partially explained by the
concepts of "bio-energetics" (or
"orgonomics")}((
Diana Winters wrote:
))Or in even more down to earth terms, by
teachers having hurt our children, or our
having witnessed children and families going
through trauma at the hands of
anthroposophists. Yes, I have a "reaction
formation" against that.((
Robert writes now:
On the one hand, you seem almost to grant the
validity my bio-energetics parable, but on the
other hand, you seem to miss the point that the
"energy" for your "reaction" against
Anthroposophy comes from misplaced, displaced
internal pain, fear, and hatred rather from a
real alertness to a real external danger. You
grant that Anthroposophy addresses the deep
longings of you heart, but apparently you don't
see anything strange about the fact that you
battle consciously against those deep longings.
-- Can you at all see why such contradictions
might be "scandalous" to an outside observer?
-- So, is there any way forward from here? I
would not have stayed and answered you if I did
not have some hope that there might be such a
way. The gulf between us is wide, but at least
you did somehow, somewhat respond to my long
post. And you do allow that Anthroposophy
moves your heart, deep down. But the
understanding between us is so miniscule that I
am almost at a loss as to what to do next. And
so I'll try once more to reach toward that deep
longing in your heart. I'll go back to a
question that you ignored: Have you ever
tried, for instance, to *do* the "living
thinking" such as is taught in *PoF*? Or have
you ever tried to order your life according to
the principles taught in *KoHW* and in the
"initiation" chapter of *Occult Science*? I
would guess that you have read enough Anthro
literature to have some idea of what I am
talking about. Do you have any interest in
even trying to *do* that which you seem to know
answers to the deep longings of your heart?
If you do have this interest, then I would be
willing to try to work with you, such as I can.
Robert Mason
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 23:49:08 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos (pkcompany netzero.net)
Subject: RE: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
O oh.... Dead Man Walking...
Robert Mason wrote:
)
) To Diana Winters:
)
) Robert writes:
)
) I was about to unsubscribe, but I took a look
) at the list to make sure that my last post had
) been put up. Then I saw your replies. And
) this second one actually is a direct response
) to the substance (or at least some of it) of my
) first post in the thread. So, I decided to
) stay subscribed for now, and I will try to
) answer your comments, while puzzling over them
) for two days.
)
) Robert had written:
)
) )){And so: what is this "something over and
) above"? If I try to "grasp" it, it is
) maddeningly elusive. I can't see it; I can't
) feel it; can't smell it; can't hear it; etc. I
) can't even see it or hear it inwardly.}((
)
) Diana Winters wrote:
)
) ))I'm sorry that is painful for you. I've never
) understood why the difference between symbols
) and reality is so endlessly fascinating to
) anthroposophists,((
)
) Robert writes now:
)
) *Painful* isn't quite the right word; perhaps
) *frustrating*, *amazing*, and *wonderful*, all
) together would be closer. I don't understand
) exactly what you mean by *the difference
) between symbols and reality*, and I don't speak
) for "anthroposophists" in general -- but my
) fascination is a component of my participation
) in the basic, human drive to *understand*
) ourselves and the world in which we live, to
) *grasp reality*.
)
) Diana Winters wrote:
)
) ))Perhaps it has to do with late reading, or
) poor reading, which never becomes fully
) automatic and fluent? When a child learns to
) read, this is really a pretty interesting
) experience, an "Aha" thing. It is mind
) expanding but also I guess sometimes painful,
) perhaps for some people it is an
) epistemological / spiritual crisis. Children
) certainly move to a different cognitive level
) in learning to read. Perhaps this is another
) way of stating Steiner's concern about reading
) hindering spirituality.((
)
) Robert writes:
)
) I'm guessing that you think that I must have
) been educated according to the Waldorf
) principle of delaying the teaching of reading
) until "late", by the current standards. Or
) something like that; am I close? -- Well,
) actually, I learned to read relatively early by
) current standards. I can remember picking
) words out of comic books around the age of
) four. When I did get into (public) school, I
) was bored by the elementary instruction in
) reading, which I already knew how to do. So,
) if early reading hinders spirituality, I was
) well-hindered long ago. And I suffered through
) public schools until I burned out, or spaced
) out; never got close to a Waldolf school;
) didn't even know such a thing existed. So I've
) had hindrances piled upon hindrances. When I
) think back on all the crap I learned in high
) school, it's a wonder I can think at all . . .
) . Maybe I was saved, even a little, because I
) was daydreaming, skipping homework, and
) pursuing my own interests when I could?
)
) The point, or one of the points, of my "prolix"
) prose was to make noticeable something that is
) usually all-too "automatic". The less
) "automatic" we are, the more human we are --
) the less we are "automatons".
)
) Diana Winters wrote:
)
) ))But once a person has learned to read well,
) this really doesn't go on being interesting
) forever. We *move on* to the content and stop
) marveling over the fact that the black
) squiggles (or pixels) actually mean
) something.((
)
) Robert writes:
)
) Aristotle said that philosophy begins in
) wonder. Civilization and culture have moved
) forward (even as much as they have) only
) because (to a large degree) some people have
) found the commonplace to be "interesting",
) because they have "marveled" over it. I was
) trying to evoke some philosophical wonder over
) the commonplace fact that the squiggles and
) pixels and sound *can* mean something. This
) fact really is amazing, and meanings really are
) "strange" and marvelous things. -- Can you get
) in touch with your inner philosopher?
)
) Robert had written:
)
) )){More, I really suspect (as Steiner said
) somewhere; I don't have the quote) [t]hat many
) people, such as the veterans on this list,
) those who most vehemently and energetically
) reject Anthroposophy, really do know, deep
) down, at some level, that this thing which they
) fight against so relentlessly does speak to the
) deep longings of their hearts. --}((
)
) Diana Winters wrote:
)
) ))I think you're absolutely right. I'm never
) sure why this seems to anthroposophists such a
) scandalous revelation, or even controversial.((
)
) Robert writes now:
)
) I have to admit that *scandalous* is almost the
) right word for the way your response strikes
) me. (No, not really the right word:
) *amazing*? *puzzling*? *disheartening*?) The
) question that immediately leaps to mind: why
) would you want to fight against something which
) you *consciously* know speaks to the deep
) longings of your heart? I have to suspect that
) you can't really mean what you seem to be
) saying. There must be some miscommunication
) here; the words can't mean the same to you that
) they mean to me????
)
) Robert had written:
)
) )){What is really behind this fascination that
) you have with Anthroposophy? If it doesn't
) "speak" to you in some way, why are you so
) obsessed with it?}((
)
) Diana Winters wrote:
)
) ))Of course it speaks to us. What is your
) point? (Most families who leave Waldorf
) actually are bored by anthroposophy and try not
) to look back, but you're correct that people
) who go on talking about it for years are
) interested in it. It would be awfully hard for
) me to keep this up if the topic weren't
) interesting. Reads like a truism to me, but
) maybe you have some deeper insight?)((
)
) Robert writes now:
)
) But *why* are you interested? Why don't you
) regard Anthros just as befuddled cranks? Why
) do you obsess about some flat-earth society? --
) You *seem* to be aware that Anthroposophy does
) "speak to the deep longings of your heart",
) but, frankly, this professed awareness make no
) sense to me in light of the fact that you fight
) so relentlessly against Anthroposophy. Why
) would you *deliberately* try to deny the deep
) longings of your heart? I'm just
) flabbergasted.
)
) Robert had written:
)
) )){Why doesn't it just bore you?}((
)
) Diana Winters wrote:
)
) ))Anthroposophy? Boring?((
)
) Robert writes now:
)
) Now I have to suspect that you are being
) ironic. I might like to believe that you have
) been joking with me all along, but . . . No, I
) can't quite believe that . . . .
)
) Robert had written:
)
) )){It's hardly as though Anthroposophy were
) attacking you and your families in some
) horrible way.}((
)
) Diana Winters wrote:
)
) ))Um, um, um . . . um hello? What can I say to
) this? What do you think generates the criticism
) of anthroposophy exactly Mr. Mason?
) Epistemology? Read a bit here perhaps? The
) archives contain the *experiences* of the
) people on this list in anthroposophical groups
) and/or schools.((
)
) Robert writes now:
)
) I have already given a good-sized hint as to
) what I *think* generates the criticism.
) Whatever bumps and bruises you may have
) suffered in groups or schools could not explain
) this relentless campaign against Anthroposophy
) itself. There are plenty of Anthros who have
) become dissatisfied and left this or that
) Anthro organization, but they don't (always)
) turn against Anthroposophy itself. (You might
) say that I am one such Anthro-at-large, in a
) way.)
)
) I have scanned through this list sometimes and
) looked through some of the archives when they
) turned up in a search, but I haven't spent much
) time on all the excruciating details, and I
) don't intend to. I have never even been close
) to a Waldorf school, and there are plenty of
) Anthros who know far, far more about Waldorf
) education than I do. I will leave the defense
) of Waldorf and the discussion of the minutiae
) to them; some of them have been at it for
) years, as they have taken that load upon
) themselves. -- I think it should be obvious
) that no human institution is perfect; Anthros
) are human beings and human beings have human
) failings. But from what I know of the
) educational methodology and the dedication of
) Waldorf people in general, it seems very
) unlikely to me that the failings, whatever they
) may be, in some Waldorf schools could hardly
) even begin to compare with the horrors of the
) public schools, in general, especially in the
) USA. Just looking at *one* of those horrors, I
) would guess that the forced doping of kids with
) Ritalin and/or Prozac in public schools does
) more harm in one day than all the human errors
) in all the (few) Waldorf schools in the USA
) have ever done.
)
) The public schools in the US are an ongoing,
) huge catastrophe. Everyone who is even semi-
) conscious knows this fact, especially the elite
) who create the system that forces most children
) into the public schools and who send their own
) children to private schools. And a growing
) number of parents who can't afford private
) schools are so desperate to get their children
) out of the public schools that they try to
) "home school" their children on the kitchen
) table. So, along comes a tiny private school
) movement that is based on methods that might
) give children a fighting chance of developing
) their human potential without being maimed in
) the process -- and you spend enormous energy
) fighting against that tiny movement, and not
) only that, but fighting against the world-view
) behind those beneficial methods. How much time
) and energy do you spend fighting against
) Ritalin or the other crimes of public
) education? And how much time and energy do you
) spend fighting against the other real threats
) to you and your children, threats such as the
) New World Order which is feverishly working to
) turn you into a drugged cyber-zombie slave in
) an inhuman global tyranny, if it will let you
) live at all?
)
) No, I don't believe that whatever human
) mistakes might be made in Anthro groups or
) schools generate all the criticism here. The
) "punishment" is so far out of proportion to the
) "crime", while other very real crimes go
) unprosecuted and unpunished. -- All that
) "energy" that "generates" comes from somewhere
) else.
)
) Robert had written:
)
) )){deep down, Anthroposophy does "move" your
) hearts,}((
)
) Diana Winters wrote:
)
) ))Yes. Only speaking for myself, of course.((
)
) Robert writes now:
)
) There it is again: So why would you even want
) to fight against it? This makes no sense at
) all to me.
)
) Robert had written:
)
) )){and -- for some reason, or perhaps better
) said, for some *cause* -- this "movement"
) within your souls provokes fear, and then this
) fear manifests in your conscious lives as your
) obsessive fight against that which "moves"
) you.}((
)
) Diana Winters wrote:
)
) ))I don't know why you think this is
) unconscious. We go many rounds on this one, we
) are afraid of anthroposophy or
) anthroposophists? I sure am, and there's
) nothing unconscious about it.((
)
) Robert writes now:
)
) Once again: I would assume that you would not
) fight against that which you *consciously* know
) to be healthy for you.
)
) Diana Winters wrote:
)
) ))You are just taunting us, and the problem
) with your guise of kindly wise old teacher is
) that we've all met anthroposophists putting on
) this same show before.
)
) ))Maybe we wouldn't be afraid of you if you
) didn't act so creepy?((
)
) Robert writes now:
)
) No, I am surely not taunting you, and I am not
) putting on a show. You misjudge me, as I have
) to suspect that you misjudged the people you
) bumped up against in the Waldorf school. I
) have to wonder about the source of your evident
) cynicism, and, frankly, I have to suspect that
) this source is, as it is or your fear, more
) internal than external.
)
) Robert had written:
)
) )){-- In down-to-earth terms, this "reaction
) formation" might be partially explained by the
) concepts of "bio-energetics" (or
) "orgonomics")}((
)
) Diana Winters wrote:
)
) ))Or in even more down to earth terms, by
) teachers having hurt our children, or our
) having witnessed children and families going
) through trauma at the hands of
) anthroposophists. Yes, I have a "reaction
) formation" against that.((
)
) Robert writes now:
)
) On the one hand, you seem almost to grant the
) validity my bio-energetics parable, but on the
) other hand, you seem to miss the point that the
) "energy" for your "reaction" against
) Anthroposophy comes from misplaced, displaced
) internal pain, fear, and hatred rather from a
) real alertness to a real external danger. You
) grant that Anthroposophy addresses the deep
) longings of you heart, but apparently you don't
) see anything strange about the fact that you
) battle consciously against those deep longings.
) -- Can you at all see why such contradictions
) might be "scandalous" to an outside observer?
)
) -- So, is there any way forward from here? I
) would not have stayed and answered you if I did
) not have some hope that there might be such a
) way. The gulf between us is wide, but at least
) you did somehow, somewhat respond to my long
) post. And you do allow that Anthroposophy
) moves your heart, deep down. But the
) understanding between us is so miniscule that I
) am almost at a loss as to what to do next. And
) so I'll try once more to reach toward that deep
) longing in your heart. I'll go back to a
) question that you ignored: Have you ever
) tried, for instance, to *do* the "living
) thinking" such as is taught in *PoF*? Or have
) you ever tried to order your life according to
) the principles taught in *KoHW* and in the
) "initiation" chapter of *Occult Science*? I
) would guess that you have read enough Anthro
) literature to have some idea of what I am
) talking about. Do you have any interest in
) even trying to *do* that which you seem to know
) answers to the deep longings of your heart?
)
) If you do have this interest, then I would be
) willing to try to work with you, such as I can.
)
) Robert Mason
)
)
) __________________________________________________
) Do You Yahoo!?
) Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
) http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 23:53:52 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
Robert Mason posted
)
)Robert had written:
)
) )){And so: what is this "something over and
)above"? If I try to "grasp" it, it is
)maddeningly elusive. I can't see it; I can't
)feel it; can't smell it; can't hear it; etc. I
)can't even see it or hear it inwardly.}((
)
)Diana Winters wrote:
)
) ))I'm sorry that is painful for you. I've never
)understood why the difference between symbols
)and reality is so endlessly fascinating to
)anthroposophists,((
)
)Robert writes now:
)
)*Painful* isn't quite the right word; perhaps
)*frustrating*, *amazing*, and *wonderful*, all
)together would be closer. I don't understand
)exactly what you mean by *the difference
)between symbols and reality*, and I don't speak
)for "anthroposophists" in general -- but my
)fascination is a component of my participation
)in the basic, human drive to *understand*
)ourselves and the world in which we live, to
)*grasp reality*.
In my view philosophers have written a bunch of water muddying crap about
this. Engineers have done much better. I recommend Claude Shannon's 1948
paper on how you transmit inormation (that is meaning) independent of the
mechanism. It is available at
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/paper.html
It is not for the mathematically faint hearted. The wikipedia article on him
is also worth a read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Shannon
The ideas presented in his paper apply equally well to speech transmitted as
sound through the atmosphere as they do to digital communication systems.
See you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 23:59:08 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
Robert Mason posted:
)Robert had written:
)
) )){More, I really suspect (as Steiner said
)somewhere; I don't have the quote) [t]hat many
)people, such as the veterans on this list,
)those who most vehemently and energetically
)reject Anthroposophy, really do know, deep
)down, at some level, that this thing which they
)fight against so relentlessly does speak to the
)deep longings of their hearts. --}((
)
)Diana Winters wrote:
)
) ))I think you're absolutely right. I'm never
)sure why this seems to anthroposophists such a
)scandalous revelation, or even controversial.((
)
)Robert writes now:
)
)I have to admit that *scandalous* is almost the
)right word for the way your response strikes
)me. (No, not really the right word:
)*amazing*? *puzzling*? *disheartening*?) The
)question that immediately leaps to mind: why
)would you want to fight against something which
)you *consciously* know speaks to the deep
)longings of your heart? I have to suspect that
)you can't really mean what you seem to be
)saying. There must be some miscommunication
)here; the words can't mean the same to you that
)they mean to me????
)
)Robert had written:
)
) )){What is really behind this fascination that
)you have with Anthroposophy? If it doesn't
)"speak" to you in some way, why are you so
)obsessed with it?}((
)
)Diana Winters wrote:
)
) ))Of course it speaks to us. What is your
)point? (Most families who leave Waldorf
)actually are bored by anthroposophy and try not
)to look back, but you're correct that people
)who go on talking about it for years are
)interested in it. It would be awfully hard for
)me to keep this up if the topic weren't
)interesting. Reads like a truism to me, but
)maybe you have some deeper insight?)((
)
)Robert writes now:
)
)But *why* are you interested? Why don't you
)regard Anthros just as befuddled cranks? Why
)do you obsess about some flat-earth society? --
)You *seem* to be aware that Anthroposophy does
)"speak to the deep longings of your heart",
)but, frankly, this professed awareness make no
)sense to me in light of the fact that you fight
)so relentlessly against Anthroposophy. Why
)would you *deliberately* try to deny the deep
)longings of your heart? I'm just
)flabbergasted.
)
I don't agree with Diana. I think that Anthroposophy is poisonous nonsense.
It is worth arguing against because it propogates via its public face in
Waldorf schools and Anthroposophical medicine and Biodynamic agriculture. I
think the proponents of these things should be exposed as the cranks they
are.
See you, Peter
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2100
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: holocaust denial on anthroposophy tomorrow list
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Golding from another place.
By diana.winters verizon.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 14:15:00 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
Pour a little sugar on it, honey . . .
Oh dear. I was going to reply over lunch, but I don't think I can digest
both *this* and my lunch at the same time. I will reply, Robert Mason, and
I'm sorry to have caused you two days of puzzlement, but I hope you aren't
hanging around here hoping I'll do anthroposophic exercises with you. The
short answer is no.
Diana
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Mason [mailto:robertsmason_99 yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 12:45 PM
To: WC list
Subject: RE: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to
basics)
To Diana Winters:
Robert writes:
I was about to unsubscribe, but I took a look
at the list to make sure that my last post had
been put up. Then I saw your replies. And
this second one actually is a direct response
to the substance (or at least some of it) of my
first post in the thread. So, I decided to
stay subscribed for now, and I will try to
answer your comments, while puzzling over them
for two days.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 14:18:30 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: holocaust denial on anthroposophy tomorrow list
Peter S. wrote, a few days ago:
)what it's worth, I don't think Dottie is lying.
I know, I know. (hanging my head) I turn as bad as the rest of them and
start hissing WHY YOU LITTLE . . . when there is nothing stopping me, like
civilization :) thinking of a Seinfeld line, Jerry to George (in response to
some piece of uncouthness): George, we're trying to have a civilization here
. . .
Will come back to the rest including Robert Mason (the content LOL; what's
that? Were we having a discussion here?)
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 14:21:21 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Golding from another place.
Peter Farrell wrote:
)Over at AT someone has mentioned that William Golding taught at a Waldorf
)School. This appeats to be the case.
)See http://www.william-golding.co.uk/p_friends.html
)It seems like he never accepted anthroposophy.
)See you, Peter
Pete K.:
)It seems a little contradictory. It says he was a Christian Community
)minister, and a "follower" of Anthroposophy, but later says he never
)accepted it. Maybe he outgrew it, like some of us have.
I think it was his friend who was an anthroposophist and CC minister. That
page was all about a friend of his, and it was a little confusing to tell
what was about Golding versus this other guy. It doesn't sound like Golding
was ever more than tolerant and mildly skeptical of anthroposophy.
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 2101
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
By diana.winters verizon.net
Re: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 09:21:23 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
I started a point-by-point reply but it makes me very sad, so I just trashed
it. In a way, it was impossible to carry on the conversation without being
cruel.
Sorry to confuse everyone including Peter Farrell. When anthroposophists
announce triumphantly, every so often, that the critics really love
anthroposophy, hoping they are sticking a pin in a great big balloon, I
usually reply that they are totally correct in order to 1) shut them up (and
it usually works better than it did this time) and 2) respond to the kernel
of truth in what they are saying.
The kernel of truth is that anthroposophy does "speak" to me, and all those
deep longings in my heart, in the way I think most religions "speak" to
people, offering answers to life's big questions, meaning and purpose to
life, but when I get up closer to hear what it is actually saying, it turns
out to be not "human potential" affirming as Robert Mason says but denying,
actually something primitive, some ugly thing quivering at the heart of it,
masquerading as progressive and spiritual. It has a way of appearing to be
what people want it to be, or what anthroposophists want it to appear as, so
that to some people it's "a lot like humanism" as another clueless newbie
parent said here recently; to pagans it looks pagan because of all the
nature worship elements, to Christians there is the familiar framework of
Christian holidays and rituals, etc. What it really *is* only those who get
up very close figure out, and those people often end up feeling very
strongly about it, either good or bad, thus (what I would call) the "Oh yes
really we all love anthroposophy" phenomenon here.
The late reading and symbols/reality conversation wasn't going to get any
further on the track it was on, either (thanks Peter F for the links which I
haven't gotten to).
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 00:01:18 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
A very thoughtful post, Diana. Got me thinking about various religions and
belief systems and how free I usually feel to ask questions of those
associated with their chosen path. I heard a long radio interview with a
religious scholar yesterday and found it so very refreshing to enjoy the
fruits of her research and insight. So what's the deal with Anthroposophy?
Why do Anthro inspired people seem to avoid the history of their chosen path
or interest? Is it because the movement is still quite young? But how can it
mature when, to those who follow, it has no *real* history? Without
foundation, the house will surely crumble. What's that Orwell quote - ah
yes: "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present
controls the past."
-Walden
Diana wrote:
"I started a point-by-point reply but it makes me very sad, so I just
trashed
it. In a way, it was impossible to carry on the conversation without being
cruel.
Sorry to confuse everyone including Peter Farrell. When anthroposophists
announce triumphantly, every so often, that the critics really love
anthroposophy, hoping they are sticking a pin in a great big balloon, I
usually reply that they are totally correct in order to 1) shut them up (and
it usually works better than it did this time) and 2) respond to the kernel
of truth in what they are saying.
The kernel of truth is that anthroposophy does "speak" to me, and all those
deep longings in my heart, in the way I think most religions "speak" to
people, offering answers to life's big questions, meaning and purpose to
life, but when I get up closer to hear what it is actually saying, it turns
out to be not "human potential" affirming as Robert Mason says but denying,
actually something primitive, some ugly thing quivering at the heart of it,
masquerading as progressive and spiritual. It has a way of appearing to be
what people want it to be, or what anthroposophists want it to appear as, so
that to some people it's "a lot like humanism" as another clueless newbie
parent said here recently; to pagans it looks pagan because of all the
nature worship elements, to Christians there is the familiar framework of
Christian holidays and rituals, etc. What it really *is* only those who get
up very close figure out, and those people often end up feeling very
strongly about it, either good or bad, thus (what I would call) the "Oh yes
really we all love anthroposophy" phenomenon here.
The late reading and symbols/reality conversation wasn't going to get any
further on the track it was on, either (thanks Peter F for the links which I
haven't gotten to)."
------------------------------
==^================================================================
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 2102
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia
By pstaud hotmail.com
Re: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
By robertsmason_99 yahoo.com
Re: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
RE: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
By diana.winters verizon.net
RE: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
By diana.winters verizon.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 14:47:09 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
G'day Walden,
buried in your post is an accusation of hypocrisy against some
anthroposophists. They are of course not the only hypocrites about. The
comparison of scientoplogy with anthroposophy is always revealing. See
http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusgen/reuters03-20-163756.asp?t=REENT
See you, Peter
)
)A very thoughtful post, Diana. Got me thinking about various religions and
)belief systems and how free I usually feel to ask questions of those
)associated with their chosen path. I heard a long radio interview with a
)religious scholar yesterday and found it so very refreshing to enjoy the
)fruits of her research and insight. So what's the deal with Anthroposophy?
)Why do Anthro inspired people seem to avoid the history of their chosen
)path
)or interest? Is it because the movement is still quite young? But how can
)it
)mature when, to those who follow, it has no *real* history? Without
)foundation, the house will surely crumble. What's that Orwell quote - ah
)yes: "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present
)controls the past."
)
)-Walden
)
)Diana wrote:
)"I started a point-by-point reply but it makes me very sad, so I just
)trashed
)it. In a way, it was impossible to carry on the conversation without being
)cruel.
)
)Sorry to confuse everyone including Peter Farrell. When anthroposophists
)announce triumphantly, every so often, that the critics really love
)anthroposophy, hoping they are sticking a pin in a great big balloon, I
)usually reply that they are totally correct in order to 1) shut them up
)(and
)it usually works better than it did this time) and 2) respond to the kernel
)of truth in what they are saying.
)
)The kernel of truth is that anthroposophy does "speak" to me, and all those
)deep longings in my heart, in the way I think most religions "speak" to
)people, offering answers to life's big questions, meaning and purpose to
)life, but when I get up closer to hear what it is actually saying, it turns
)out to be not "human potential" affirming as Robert Mason says but denying,
)actually something primitive, some ugly thing quivering at the heart of it,
)masquerading as progressive and spiritual. It has a way of appearing to be
)what people want it to be, or what anthroposophists want it to appear as,
)so
)that to some people it's "a lot like humanism" as another clueless newbie
)parent said here recently; to pagans it looks pagan because of all the
)nature worship elements, to Christians there is the familiar framework of
)Christian holidays and rituals, etc. What it really *is* only those who get
)up very close figure out, and those people often end up feeling very
)strongly about it, either good or bad, thus (what I would call) the "Oh yes
)really we all love anthroposophy" phenomenon here.
)
)The late reading and symbols/reality conversation wasn't going to get any
)further on the track it was on, either (thanks Peter F for the links which
)I
)haven't gotten to)."
)
)Your free subscription is supported by today's sponsor:
)-------------------------------------------------------------------
)First Month Free! Save up to 50% on your phone bill.
)Free Activation, Free Equipment! Packet8
)30-day money back guarantee. 1-877-868-1135
)http://click.topica.com/caaeE3ub1dkiGb2Quwif/ TMONE
)-------------------------------------------------------------------
)
)==^================================================================
)You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
)New threads are always welcome.
)
)
)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 11:14:23 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia
I think Diana is right that there is no meaningful way to respond to Mason's
flabbergasted reply. Critique confuses him, and patient explanation of the
grounds for critique confuses him more. I don't know if others have been
following the yahoo groups Anthroposophy email list (larger membership than
Anthroposophy Tomorrow but much less traffic); Mason's recent musings on
"spiritual research" and related matters over the past three months can be
found there:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy/messages
I also think that Peter Farrell's point about anthroposophist hypocrisy is
important, although I am inclined to see it in a larger context that gives
equal weight to sincere but erroneous anthroposophist belief, as well as
widespread naivete and general intellectual disarray within the
anthroposophist milieu. I think this combination of factors is likely one
reason why holocaust denial, for example, has so little trouble making
inroads among anthroposophists (although the longstanding anthroposophist
predilection for conspiracy theory also plays a significant role). In that
sort of context, people like Mason can sound relatively rational. Not an
encouraging sign. Greetings to all,
Peter Staudenmaier
)I started a point-by-point reply but it makes me very sad, so I just
)trashed
)it. In a way, it was impossible to carry on the conversation without being
)cruel.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 11:34:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Mason (robertsmason_99 yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
To all:
I don't see any point in my continuing here.
I do have a little more to say, but that might
be deemed to violate the rules of this list,
so I am saying it in a post to the Anthroposophy
Tomorrow list. Since that list, like this
one, is open to public view, I don't think
I am violating any privacy etiquette this way.
You can read my post at:
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/24095)
Farewell,
Robert Mason
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 12:15:22 -0700
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
Robert wrote:) To all:
) I don't see any point in my continuing here.
) I do have a little more to say, but that might
) be deemed to violate the rules of this list,
) so I am saying it in a post to the Anthroposophy
) Tomorrow list. Since that list, like this
) one, is open to public view, I don't think
) I am violating any privacy etiquette this way.
) You can read my post at:
) (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/24095)
To Robert:
This is a "discussion" list, a place where people discuss issues related to
Anthroposophy and Waldorf. Your participation in the "discussion" was one of
preaching
*your* message and avoiding real discussion. You avoid questions and
continue to preach. This latest astounding post (at the other list) - about
some of us being poisonous snakes - is another example of how NOT to
participate in a discussion. Frankly, such disconnected holier-than-thou
patronizing of fellow human beings only demonstrates the need - IMO - for
you to learn how to communicate clearly with those who might not follow your
own spiritual/religious path. As one who has done the work, I encourage you
to look at the history of Anthroposophy and the reasons you might have been
attracted to it in the first place. Freedom comes to those who are willing
to do the work. Not always easy. For starters, try the Cultic Studies site:
http://www.csj.org/
Good luck.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 15:56:35 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia
Peter S. mentioned:
)the longstanding anthroposophist predilection for conspiracy theory also
)plays a significant role). In that sort of context, people like Mason can
)sound relatively rational. Not an encouraging sign. Greetings to all,
Here's an example from a few days ago from the A_T list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/23962
This is Bradford Riley on the supposed conspiracies behind 9/11:
"And three buildings, THREE BUILDINGS, brought straight down, without
fully harming precious Wall Street. For if the building fell like a
tree, precious Wall STreet and the Market place of the Dollar and
the world would have been wounded and a whole lot of Jewish bankers
upset...but straight down demolition style without enough jet fuel
to melt girders...."
Bradford refers us to the following blog where this sort of conspiracy is
elaborated upon:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/04/911-7-man-job.html
Clicking on this link one finds not far down the page entries such as these:
"I'm ashamed,not a word about them Jews.These folks have a comman goal and
stick together like glue. rarely do they rat on each other-unless theirs
profit. The man with the keys toWTC was Marvin Bush and all security at each
4 airports.
why would anyone blab/ notice the all Jewish media--is mum and our
politicians are Jewish lackies and surround themselves with only Jews need
only apply.
The dancing Mossad jews,were shipped out fast back to Israel. what better
way to plant bombs when your on a office moving assignment and free access
to all the buidings.
Even the CIA is infested with Jews,take George Tenent, A greek Jew and a
Isreal supporter,what chance would there been he would allow any
investigation ?--ZERO and the guy gets a Bushite medal!
There was thousands envolved in the 911 WTC downings and not one was an
Arab.
Nixon tape after 3 days in WH--"I'm surrounded by so many fucking Jews".
Just imagine what Bush would say--we are all Jews now,goodie."
I inquired if anyone else had actually read Bradford's post, or had a
comment on the reference to Jewish bankers. The sole reply was from Frank
Smith, who rejected it as conspiracy theory, but had no comment on the
antisemitic remarks. I don't know whether anyone else read the antisemitic
blog but I consider it safe to assume others on the A_T list read Bradford's
own antisemitic remarks. There were no further comments.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 17:03:05 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
)To all:
)I don't see any point in my continuing here.
)I do have a little more to say, but that might
)be deemed to violate the rules of this list,
)so I am saying it in a post to the Anthroposophy
)Tomorrow list. Since that list, like this
)one, is open to public view, I don't think
)I am violating any privacy etiquette this way.
)You can read my post at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/24095
)Farewell,
)Robert Mason
Diana replied at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/24097
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 17:08:25 -0400
From: "Diana Winters" (diana.winters verizon.net)
Subject: RE: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to basics)
Robert Mason wrote:
)To all:
)I don't see any point in my continuing here.
)I do have a little more to say, but that might
)be deemed to violate the rules of this list,
LOL, what he means, for those who don't have time for the long-winded
version: I and other critics are really doing the bidding of "snake-beings"
- he had a vision of this - and that explains everything.
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 2103
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to
basics)
By dan dandugan.com
"Jewish bankers"
By pstaud hotmail.com
bad advice on immunizations
By dan dandugan.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2006 21:54:12 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: RE: Large-scale anthroposophic dyslexia (was: getting down to
basics)
)Robert Mason wrote:
)
))To all:
)
))I don't see any point in my continuing here.
))I do have a little more to say, but that might
))be deemed to violate the rules of this list,
Thanks for respecting the list, Robert, sort of...
-Dan Dugan
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 18:42:19 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier" (pstaud hotmail.com)
Subject: "Jewish bankers"
Thanks to Diana for bringing this to our attention:
)Here's an example from a few days ago from the A_T list:
)
)
)http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/23962
)
)
)This is Bradford Riley on the supposed conspiracies behind 9/11:
)
)"And three buildings, THREE BUILDINGS, brought straight down, without
)fully harming precious Wall Street. For if the building fell like a
)tree, precious Wall STreet and the Market place of the Dollar and
)the world would have been wounded and a whole lot of Jewish bankers
)upset...but straight down demolition style without enough jet fuel
)to melt girders...."
I cannot help noting the curious notion that buildings normally fall like
trees.
)
)Bradford refers us to the following blog where this sort of conspiracy is
)elaborated upon:
)
)http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/04/911-7-man-job.html
)
)
)Clicking on this link one finds not far down the page entries such as
)these:
)
)"I'm ashamed,not a word about them Jews.These folks have a comman goal and
)stick together like glue. rarely do they rat on each other-unless theirs
)profit. The man with the keys toWTC was Marvin Bush and all security at
)each
)4 airports.
)why would anyone blab/ notice the all Jewish media--is mum and our
)politicians are Jewish lackies and surround themselves with only Jews need
)only apply.
)The dancing Mossad jews,were shipped out fast back to Israel. what better
)way to plant bombs when your on a office moving assignment and free access
)to all the buidings.
)Even the CIA is infested with Jews,take George Tenent, A greek Jew and a
)Isreal supporter,what chance would there been he would allow any
)investigation ?--ZERO and the guy gets a Bushite medal!
)There was thousands envolved in the 911 WTC downings and not one was an
)Arab.
)Nixon tape after 3 days in WH--"I'm surrounded by so many fucking Jews".
)Just imagine what Bush would say--we are all Jews now,goodie."
)
)
)I inquired if anyone else had actually read Bradford's post, or had a
)comment on the reference to Jewish bankers. The sole reply was from Frank
)Smith, who rejected it as conspiracy theory, but had no comment on the
)antisemitic remarks. I don't know whether anyone else read the antisemitic
)blog but I consider it safe to assume others on the A_T list read
)Bradford's
)own antisemitic remarks. There were no further comments.
Negative evidence is always tricky, but in light of prior discussions on
that list, a reasonable hypothesis is that other list members either shared
the expressed antisemitic sentiments or were unperturbed by them. During my
sojourn on the AT list two years ago, Bradford had lots of other opinions to
share about Jews. At one point he appeared to say that the neocons who in
his view pull the Bush administration's strings from behind the scenes (and
who in his view are Jews) had achieved this position because of "the history
of Austrian and German philosemitism." He also complained about the "awful
stigma attached to labels such as Antisemitism." He had lots to say about
Ahasver, too. In one post about how certain souls "retard the group etheric
body of the race they are attracted to," Bradford claimed that Jews "in most
cases, have refused to break free of the binding factors of dogma, race and
blood, tied to religion." The same post combined rabbis, Freud, and Woody
Allen as representatives of Jewishness, and declared:
"religious binding dogmas and marriage mandates of the blood and loyalties,
lock many unsuspecting or karmically disposed souls to attract themselves
towards weaker etheric bodies because they must needs have the support of
the group ego that such a closed system supports."
Bradford then continued:
"Why the Jews racial etheric body was attacked by Ahrimanic and Nazi
elements was due to an antipathy to the imprint that the Christ had on this
particular group through his I Am implosion into that racial group."
All told, this stuff struck me at the time as fairly mild compared to
Bradford's claims about "primitve" peoples and "etheric racial groups" and
so forth. But as we've recently seen with the Russian anthroposophist
Bondarew, specifically antisemitic conspiracy theories continue to play a
role within Waldorf and anthroposophical circles today.
This is a lengthy tradition among Steiner's followers. While Robert Mason
was gracing us with his presence, I mentioned a 1919 book by anthroposophist
Karl Heise (another point that Mason never got around to answering). Heise's
book, a smorgasbord of conspiracist nonsense about the plot of the Western
powers against Germany, carried a preface by Rudolf Steiner endorsing the
work. Nearly every second page of the book identifies somebody involved in
the evil occult machinations against Germany as a Jew, from bankers to
Bolsheviks; it is a constant theme throughout the text. Here are some
tidbits from this founding document of anthro-conspiracism, published with
Steiner's imprimatur:
Karl Heise, Entente-Freimaurerei und Weltkrieg, third edition, Basel, 1920.
Heise rants about "Jewish capitalists" (e.g. 286), says that the Roosevelts
are Jewish and that their real name is Rosenfeld (285), that Woodrow
Wilson's wife is Jewish (296), that the news agencies are controlled by Jews
(306), and insists over and over again that Jews are responsible for the
World War (32-33, 84, 262, 295, etc.). According to Heise, the Jews control
Britain and the Empire is a plaything of the Zionists (122-127). Bolshevism,
meanwhile, is a Jewish-Anglo invention (253). Heise invokes Steiner and
anthroposophy throughout the book, at one point praising Steiner as the
alternative to "Jewish thinking" (297).
There is an extensive discussion of Heise and other early Anthroposophists
who disseminated antisemitic conspiracy theories during the interwar period
in Armin Pfahl-Traughber's valuable study Der
Antisemitisch-Antifreimaurerische Verschwörungsmythos in der Weimarer
Republik und im NS-Staat, Vienna 1993.
Peter Staudenmaier
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2006 17:43:20 -0700
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: bad advice on immunizations
The current issue of the Anthroposophical medicine propaganda
magazine "LILIPOH" (Spring, 2006, p. 19) has a column "The Doctor
Speaks" by Dr. Philip Incao. Incao now practices in Colorado after
having been run out of New York State by medical authorities.
I'll quote the concluding paragraph of the article, with my comments.
)Making rational decisions whether or not to vaccinate is very
)difficult today because there simply is no transparent evidence on
)how vaccines affect children in the long run. It is just this lack
)of transparency that leads the questioning mind to suspect that
)vaccinations may have serious hidden problems. The most egregious
)problem is that vaccinations have become a sacred cow in medicine,
)and therefore remain unscrutinized scientifically.
It's true that the practice of vaccination started long before the
middle of the 20th century when medicine started adhering to strict
clinical science guidelines. Many traditional medical practices have
never been examined with the rigor that is now required for approval
of new drugs. But if Dr. Incao were to reject medical practices that
haven't been subjected to double-blind clinical trials, he would have
to reject the whole body o